AUSTIN | Transportation Updates - Page 182

austlar1 · #**3621** Posted **Mar 26, 2014, 11:23 PM**

Interesting that the Austin Business Journal reader's poll shows a slight majority in favor of the most expensive option, a tunnel under river and through downtown with multiple underground stations. I guess I am not the only dreamer in town.

The link to poll results is at the bottom of the article below:
http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/ne...sing-lady.html

Digatisdi · #**3622** Posted **Mar 27, 2014, 4:44 AM**

The tunnel and underground line would be a dream come true to be honest.

Jdawgboy · #**3623** Posted **Mar 27, 2014, 6:26 AM**

There are some things that price takes a back seat especially if it is the best long term option for the health and vitality of the city. I think most people understand that. If you were building a house for example and the choices for windows were either plastic coverings or energy efficient windows, would you really choose the plastic just because it was cheaper? If you are going to do something right, then do it right even if it costs more.

KevinFromTexas · #**3624** Posted **Mar 27, 2014, 6:04 PM**

The American-Statesman article I was reading made the point that if the trains ran above ground that they would be limited to only two cars at best because if they were any longer they'd block intersections while waiting at a traffic light or any of their stations. And as Austin grew and rail transportation became more popular, there would be no way to add cars to expand capacity. Plus they would take up a lane of traffic in downtown. Not to mention there's the possibility of collisions with cars, bicycles and people above ground. Going below ground solves all those problems.

electricron · #**3625** Posted **Mar 27, 2014, 7:22 PM**

I voted for the long tunnel because the choice I would prefer wasn't available. A cheaper solution for any rail in downtown Austin is to go up just like TXDOT had to do with I-35. Going up avoids all mixed traffic issues, and leaves room in the streets for bikes and pedestrians. Honolulu, Vancouver, Chicago, Miami, Las Vegas, and Disney World have elevated transit systems of many different types of trains. Going down isn't the only way to go to have grade separation.

Maybe I'm steering others off course, but it's almost like the less expensive elevated guideway choice wasn't included was so they (the planners) can dismiss all grade separations as being far too expensive for Austin. An additional expense often overlooked with subway lines is heating and air conditioning (ventilation) that can be completely avoided with at grade or elevated lines. It's a shame the planners keep refusing to even consider elevated guideways for Austin. Choosing a subway are planners admitting trains are noisy and unwanted - putting it out of sight hides it. Planners choosing elevated and at grade solution aren't admitting anything bad about the trains, they're proud to place it out front and center so everyone can see.

At grade solutions for light rail involves taking lanes away from all other forms of transportation. Following DART's example of taking an entire street is better than METRO's example taking the center lanes for Austin. The only street in downtown and central Austin wide enough for METRO's example is Congress, as soon as the tracks veer off it you'll be looking at higher traffic congestion because there's not enough lanes to sacrifice to trains without pain.

One way to lower the cost of a subway tunnel under downtown Austin is to plan and build more than one transit line through it, getting twice as many trains than otherwise. South of the lake, they need to plan two or three branches, and likewise north of 15th Street. For Austin, that would mean planning every possible line to use the one and only tunnel or route downtown, concentrating all the trains under one street. Just wanted to point out the same can be done for an aerial guideway, getting more bang for the buck. But with the cheaper aerial guideway, not as many lines are needed on it to get the same savings, which may allow more routes through downtown Austin.

ivanwolf · #**3626** Posted **Mar 27, 2014, 8:49 PM**

I would love for the city to have a tunnel system for trains, but they are very expensive. Though if a few lines like a Lamar line, Georgetown line, Kyle line, Lakeway line and so on would really be nice, but not anytime soon I would think with the thought of cost.

But if they are going to put rail in the city i would prefer a Maglev system as they are just cool.

lzppjb · #**3627** Posted **Mar 27, 2014, 8:54 PM**

They could cut and cap underground rails and it would be cheaper than tunneling.

hereinaustin · #**3628** Posted **Mar 27, 2014, 9:05 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by lzppjb

They could cut and cap underground rails and it would be cheaper than tunneling.

Not under the lake... that would have to be tunneled.

An elevated, grade-separated option isn't included because that is the best balance of lower cost and higher functionality. Subways are all but impossible to ever break-even. Grade-separated rail, while still expensive, is significantly cheaper than a subway with almost all of the same benefits (except noise and aesthetics, maybe).

wwmiv · #**3629** Posted **Mar 27, 2014, 10:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by hereinaustin

Not under the lake... that would have to be tunneled.

An elevated, grade-separated option isn't included because that is the best balance of lower cost and higher functionality. Subways are all but impossible to ever break-even. Grade-separated rail, while still expensive, is significantly cheaper than a subway with almost all of the same benefits (except noise and aesthetics, maybe).

If you cut and cap, you wouldn't have to tunnel under the lake, you could just do a bridge. However, there are other problems with a cut and cap idea for mass transit... the fact that it's impossible first and foremost.

lzppjb · #**3630** Posted **Mar 28, 2014, 12:13 AM**

First, I know you can't cut and cap through the river. I was talking about downtown.

Secondly, how is it impossible?

KevinFromTexas · #**3631** Posted **Mar 28, 2014, 1:25 AM**

^The problem with diesel powered passenger rail underground in a tunnel is deadly gasses from the exhaust. If a train broke down in the tunnel the passengers would suffocate. So of course electric would have to be the way to go.

lzppjb · #**3632** Posted **Mar 28, 2014, 2:33 AM**

True, but I wasn't talking about what kind of fuel to use. And ventilation could be added.

Is there anything that makes it actually impossible? Pain in the ass during construction? Big time. Expensive? Definitely.

wwmiv · #**3633** Posted **Mar 28, 2014, 3:05 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by lzppjb

First, I know you can't cut and cap through the river. I was talking about downtown.

Secondly, how is it impossible?

It's politically impossible because the method of construction requires complete shut down of whatever road is chosen, thus destroying commerce.

austlar1 · #**3634** Posted **Mar 28, 2014, 4:53 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wwmiv

It's politically impossible because the method of construction requires complete shut down of whatever road is chosen, thus destroying commerce.

They used cut and cap to take Muni Metro up Market St in San Francisco. It was built above the deeper Bart tunnel on Market downtown and continued out Market to Castro and the Twin Peaks tunnel just below street level. In LA they used cut and cap for the part of the Red Line under Wilshire to the west of downtown LA and up Vermont and onto Hollywood Blvd. The streets are covered in wood planking after the cut is made, and tunnel construction/station building continues below. It does not have to totally disrupt life on the street above the construction. Is is an ugly mess that produces traffic slowdowns and backups, but it is very viable and probably lots cheaper than boring a deep tunnel (and deep underground stations) all the way through downtown.

austlar1 · #**3635** Posted **Mar 28, 2014, 4:58 AM**

BTW, I am so stoked to see an actual discussion here and in the press about subway tunnel construction concepts for downtown. Who knows? Maybe it might happen sooner rather than too much later. I agree that any tunnel needs to be designed to handle additional rail traffic coming into downtown from other parts of the city on other rail lines both in the immediate and distant future.

KevinFromTexas · #**3636** Posted **Mar 28, 2014, 6:15 AM**

Via the Waller Creek Conservatory

6 Freeway Removals That Changed Their Cities Forever

Novacek · #**3637** Posted **Mar 28, 2014, 12:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wwmiv

It's politically impossible because the method of construction requires complete shut down of whatever road is chosen, thus destroying commerce.

It's not like Austin hasn't had downtown streets narrowed or shut down for months or years for construction or resurfacing or great streets before.

wwmiv · #**3638** Posted **Mar 28, 2014, 2:17 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Novacek

It's not like Austin hasn't had downtown streets narrowed or shut down for months or years for construction or resurfacing or great streets before.

Those were block by block projects. This is entire thoroughfares. Don't get me wrong, I'd be for it if it were feasible. If they can find a way to make it so, fuck yes.

electricron · #**3639** Posted **Apr 3, 2014, 2:50 PM**

Geography of the land doesn't help cut and cover construction either. Downtown Austin lies between a river (lake) and hill north to south, and between two creeks east to west, it'll be difficult to achieve a level grade using the cut and cover method. Trains prefer level grades at every station to prevent train movements during passenger boarding and alighting.

Going down will be easier in the west to east direction than the north to south direction using cut and cover, but will have to return to at grade to cross the two creeks. I believe it would be easier to tunnel in the north to south direction to eliminate grades at station locations.

AusTex · #**3640** Posted **Apr 3, 2014, 5:20 PM**

I have read in a couple of different articles that the limestone under Austin was very easy to tunnel through for the Waller Creek Tunnel. I wonder if the cost estimates for tunneling are for the hard granites of other cities or the softer limestone in Austin. Rail and the interstate need to be underground in the center of Austin.

I am still amazed that Cap Metro has not proposed/published a 30 year plan with possible rail lines extending to ALL areas of the metro area. If the areas outside the taxing district had a possible line running through the area I would think many of the taxpayers would see the benefit of joining Cap Metro. The piecemeal approach continues to be a disaster. I would support a metro wide plan over the single line approach...others would too. Even if the map had a target area for future lines the public could get an idea of how the entire system might work for them in the future. It would also allow for better transportation planning for the entire region.

After 20 years in Austin I have joined the legions who see Cap Metro as a backward and inefficient organization. I have lost hope that they can do their job. Many other organizations have maps/proposals out there that have vision and include the entire region. Cap Metro does not. Why?