AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[We vs us]

Originally Posted by brando

I'm guessing you don't follow the city council. Adler had to claw tooth and nail to get up to 720 million which included many long speeches, arguments into the wee hours of the mornings and a passive PR blitz online, newspapers, social media and personal appearances. He took on other city council members and won. The largest mobility bond Austin had passed was in the 200-300 million range. It really was an incredible accomplishment.

Good to know, and I still don't want to minimize the accomplishment. I voted for it gladly, encouraged people I know to do the same, argued a little too strenuously for it in other online forums, you know the drill. I'm happy to roll the council into my critique as well.

This really boomerangs back up to wwmiv's comment originally, which I agree with -- the city's consensus turned out to be strong enough for even more than Adler + council was willing to risk.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by We vs us

, it's easily 7-10 years before we see any sort of rail expansion -- whether new lines or an expanded Red Line. That's at a minimum.

Hmm, I guess I forgot to hit submit on this comment yesterday (I originally wrote it, or approximately it, before my last reply to you).


The Red Line is getting expanded in 2018, though that may not be what you mean. It's getting passing sidings, a new downtown station, and doubled frequency (and slightly later runs in the evening).

I would be very surprised if the red line is ever expanded geographically. Well, perhaps up to Liberty Hill/Burnet, but that wouldn't be anytime soon, and I expect that's not what you're asking for.

There's also the Green line to Manor/Elgin, but again, with the cost they're listing for that, I wouldn't expect it soon. It'll probably also wait until there's more population in the east, and more congestion (toll 290 is still pretty clear, and then they're doing the 973 corridor as well).

With the RoW challenges, I don't think we'll ever see _commuter_ rail where there isn't an existing freight line.


as far is light rail/urban rail, CAMPO has "urban mass transit" slotted in at 2025.

[atxsnail]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Hmm, I guess I forgot to hit submit on this comment yesterday (I originally wrote it, or approximately it, before my last reply to you).


The Red Line is getting expanded in 2018, though that may not be what you mean. It's getting passing sidings, a new downtown station, and doubled frequency (and slightly later runs in the evening).

I would be very surprised if the red line is ever expanded geographically. Well, perhaps up to Liberty Hill/Burnet, but that wouldn't be anytime soon, and I expect that's not what you're asking for.

There's also the Green line to Manor/Elgin, but again, with the cost they're listing for that, I wouldn't expect it soon. It'll probably also wait until there's more population in the east, and more congestion (toll 290 is still pretty clear, and then they're doing the 973 corridor as well).

With the RoW challenges, I don't think we'll ever see _commuter_ rail where there isn't an existing freight line.


as far is light rail/urban rail, CAMPO has "urban mass transit" slotted in at 2025.

at the risk of getting fact-checked by Novacek, I think the ultimate goal for Red Line is to run 15/30 min headways until 12am 7 days a week. I don't know when we would actually get there (certainly not until after the siding and downtown station construction is complete), but that's much later in the evening than current weekday service

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by atxsnail

at the risk of getting fact-checked by Novacek, I think the ultimate goal for Red Line is to run 15/30 min headways until 12am 7 days a week. I don't know when we would actually get there (certainly not until after the siding and downtown station construction is complete), but that's much later in the evening than current weekday service

Not fact checking , just adding on more info


Yes, the Connections 2025 "plan" shows much more service on the red line.

Peak/day frequencies of 15 minutes, and evening frequencies of 30 minutes. 6 AM to midnight. 7 days a week.

http://connections2025.org/wp-conten..._20161107.xlsx


as to when, presumably a lot closer to 2025. At least, what they've said about the 2018 expansion is slightly later service. It doesn't sound like it gives them the capacity (vs. freight) to run that late every day or full day on weekends.

So I'm guessing they need more sidings or even potentially full double tracking for that level of service.


As another datapoint, I believe they've said the new downtown station will permit up to _5_ minute frequencies, between the red line and green line. though I can't find the source on that at the moment.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Peak/day frequencies of 15 minutes, and evening frequencies of 30 minutes. 6 AM to midnight. 7 days a week.

So I'm guessing they need more sidings or even potentially full double tracking for that level of service.

As another datapoint, I believe they've said the new downtown station will permit up to _5_ minute frequencies, between the red line and green line. though I can't find the source on that at the moment.

Full double tracking can allow 5 minute frequencies, possibly even less depending upon the type of signaling used. 15 minute frequencies can be done with single track with more properly placed passing sidings and trains running on time.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by hereinaustin

At the very least, some of these corridors may encourage dense development and make future rail service (and the room for it) practical. Baby steps, I guess.

The most important corridor in this proposition was the smallest, Guadalupe.

If/when there's ever rail service on Guadalupe/Lamar, this section was going to be the chokepoint, and potentially a rallying cry for opposition.

Now, assuming they can get bus lanes on it (not counting chickens, as constructing those may still get pushback, even now that they have the money) that becomes easier. It should be a simpler to change a bus-only lane to a bus/rail shared lane.

I would think it would also (slightly) lower the final bill of such a system. You'd still need to put catenary in. But assuming the bus lanes are actually heavy duty poured concrete, and not just painting the existing asphalt (the cost estimate seems like that would be the case) utility relocation (probably?) will already be done.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by electricron

15 minute frequencies can be done with single track with more properly placed passing sidings and trains running on time.

Right, the 2018 expansion should get them to 15 minute peak during the day with the new sidings.

But for 18 hour service 7 days a week, they'll need some way to still run freight. I'm assuming the sidings from the 2018 expansion won't be sufficient for that (or at least their statements have implied they're still limited in the evenings). The long term plan _may_ (I have no insider knowledge) to fully double-track and use one for off-hours freight and the other for off-hours passenger service at 30 minute frequencies.

[hereinaustin]

Originally Posted by Novacek

The most important corridor in this proposition was the smallest, Guadalupe...Now, assuming they can get bus lanes on it (not counting chickens, as constructing those may still get pushback, even now that they have the money) that becomes easier. It should be a simpler to change a bus-only lane to a bus/rail shared lane.

Yup, that would be my guess as well. Losing a car lane to a bus lane in advance of actually putting in rail would probably be a good idea.

Originally Posted by Novacek

But assuming the bus lanes are actually heavy duty poured concrete, and not just painting the existing asphalt (the cost estimate seems like that would be the case) utility relocation (probably?) will already be done.

Whether or not I'm interpreting it correctly, the corridor plans do allocate a big chunk of money towards re-working the roadway infrastructure-- not entirely sure if that takes it closer to spec for handling rail.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by hereinaustin

Yup, that would be my guess as well. Losing a car lane to a bus lane in advance of actually putting in rail would probably be a good idea.
Whether or not I'm interpreting it correctly, the corridor plans do allocate a big chunk of money towards re-working the roadway infrastructure-- not entirely sure if that takes it closer to spec for handling rail.

I realize that placing bus only lanes onto any street ultimately makes the street large and wide enough for streetcars and light rail trains. But it doesn't make the infrastructure under the street streetcar or light rail friendly. What does is placing very expensive cathodic protection on all the pipes and wires under the street. It's installing the cathodic protection on brand new pipes that causes most of the construction activities under the streets before laying rail in the streets. So whatever that is being done to make the bus only lanes isn't going to prepare the street for rail. It will eventually have to be torn up again to install cathodic protection for any new electric powered rail lines.

[hereinaustin]

Originally Posted by electricron

I realize that placing bus only lanes onto any street ultimately makes the street large and wide enough for streetcars and light rail trains. But it doesn't make the infrastructure under the street streetcar or light rail friendly. What does is placing very expensive cathodic protection on all the pipes and wires under the street. It's installing the cathodic protection on brand new pipes that causes most of the construction activities under the streets before laying rail in the streets. So whatever that is being done to make the bus only lanes isn't going to prepare the street for rail. It will eventually have to be torn up again to install cathodic protection for any new electric powered rail lines.

Got it. Then at least it makes a lane available.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by electricron

I realize that placing bus only lanes onto any street ultimately makes the street large and wide enough for streetcars and light rail trains. But it doesn't make the infrastructure under the street streetcar or light rail friendly. What does is placing very expensive cathodic protection on all the pipes and wires under the street. It's installing the cathodic protection on brand new pipes that causes most of the construction activities under the streets before laying rail in the streets. So whatever that is being done to make the bus only lanes isn't going to prepare the street for rail. It will eventually have to be torn up again to install cathodic protection for any new electric powered rail lines.

I thought the preferred practice was to relocate the utilities entirely away from the tracks?


From the Goode memo, it sounds like the city would be doing utility relocation for BRT lanes. Q3

http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/pio....cfm?id=256650

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Yeah, I don't remember how they arrived at that 720 number. I think originally it was the amount that a 2 cent increase would generate (plus about half of the retired debt), but then at some point it became 2.25?

Ah, found it.

It bumped to 2.25 when they decided to reserve more ($250M) for a potential 2018 bond.

Q2

http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/edims/pio....cfm?id=256843

[Novacek]

The very definition of irony:

West Lake Hills mayor complaining about CapMetro potentially cutting a winding, low performance, circuitous, suburban route.

Then claims West Lake is too suburban and has streets that wind too much to join CapMetro.

http://www.austinmonitor.com/stories...ider-concerns/

[drummer]

It mentions that West Lake Hills and Rollingwood are not paying members of CapMetro (nor is Cedar Park, correct?). My opinion is that if they're not willing to join and pay their portion, they don't get to have an opinion.

[lzppjb]

Can they just go with large vans or much smaller buses for routes like this already? It'd be a lot cheaper than a giant bus clogging up small roads.

[hookem]

Cutting that route would really hurt the Walsh (http://www.walsh360.com/) infill development... it was right by the stop they are cutting. If they hold off on cutting it, ridership would definitely have gone up.

[The ATX]

Somewhat transportation related...

During this morning's rush hour commute I had to slam on my brakes because a deer was freaking out during an attempted I-35 crossing at the Ben White interchange. Several cars including mine just missed him. That's one of the last places I would ever expect to see a deer.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by The ATX

Somewhat transportation related...

During this morning's rush hour commute I had to slam on my brakes because a deer was freaking out during an attempted I-35 crossing at the Ben White interchange. Several cars including mine just missed him. That's one of the last places I would ever expect to see a deer.

I knew someone at work that drives a really old pickup truck. He was all in favor of an earlier start time at work in the mornings so he would have more time in the evenings after work. His commute was over 50 miles, from Whitney to Glen Rose using FM 56. He would place a sticker on the truck every time it hit a deer, and the last time I saw the truck there were 5 stickers on the truck. After the fifth accident, he claimed the truck was a ACE.
Deers are out an about in the mornings before sunrise. Look out for them!

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by hookem

Cutting that route would really hurt the Walsh (http://www.walsh360.com/) infill development... it was right by the stop they are cutting. If they hold off on cutting it, ridership would definitely have gone up.

55 units. I'm not sure that's big enough to make a difference. Especially assuming that luxury units would only be relying on choice riders.



And actually, that corner still seems to have service on the proposed 30 route.

https://communityimpact.com/austin/c...-approval-jan/
https://i2.wp.com/communityimpact.co...0-AM.png?ssl=1

[hookem]

Originally Posted by Novacek

55 units. I'm not sure that's big enough to make a difference. Especially assuming that luxury units would only be relying on choice riders.

The whole development is supposed to include apartments and office space. It used to all be called "Tarleton 360", but now they have a different names for the townhomes and the other stuff. It's on the site plan you can see at the Walsh website -- multifamily and office on the right in blue. So I think it will end up significantly bigger than 55 units.