AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[KevinFromTexas]

PDF File of the plan.
http://alt.coxnewsweb.com/statesman/...33011_rail.pdf

http://www.statesman.com/news/local/...inglePage=true

Rail plan features 40 stations, new spur to Hancock Center
Conceptual plan now goes to public for comments, and a two-year-long environmental review.

By Ben Wear
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Updated: 10:22 p.m. Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Published: 9:58 p.m. Tuesday, March 29, 2011



The City of Austin's latest version of a proposed light rail line shows more than 40 potential stations, some of them only a few blocks apart downtown, as well as a possible spur extending from the University of Texas up Red River Street to Hancock Center.

And the conceptual map, which will be presented to the public next week at a series of "scoping" meetings for a federal environmental impact study on the project, also narrows river-crossing options to two: Congress Avenue or a new bridge about a quarter mile to the east.

The project retains much of the route and concepts that have been public for some time: 16.5 miles of double-tracked line running electric-powered trains on city streets linking the Mueller neighborhood, the University of Texas, the Capitol complex, downtown and Austin-Bergstrom International Airport. The estimated cost, which has more than doubled since the project gained public traction in 2007, remains at $1.3 billion.

[wwmiv]

M1EK will probably bitch to no end about it, but it looks good.

[ATXboom]

I'm looking forward to M1's response. I'll be looking closely as to whether he criticizes through creation (eg. improve the proposal and take part in the creation process) or just bitches

[electricron]

Originally Posted by ATXboom

I'm looking forward to M1's response. I'll be looking closely as to whether he criticizes through creation (eg. improve the proposal and take part in the creation process) or just bitches

A better link to the plan
http://www.austinstrategicmobility.c...n-rail-project

I think the only part he'll like is the Riverside line, because it can run on dedicated lanes in the median. It appears all the other lines run in shared lanes, at least one track of two parallel tracks. I also think there are far too many one way streets in downtown Austin. If you want to make downtown Austin more pedestrian friendly, that's got to change. And that's the cheapest thing to do.

I'm thinking a brand new bridge across the Colorado near Trinity will be better than repurposing Congress. Once that decision is made, I wouldn't run any trams at all on Congress, a straighter line from Trinity to San Jacinto makes more sense.
The Lavaca-Guadalupe couplet pair also makes sense, although I'm not sure where it should terminate to the north. Tying the two different lines together downtown should be done with one line initially. I wouldn't go to Mueller initially either, I would rather follow San Jacinto further north to tie into the Red line at a new transfer station. A line towards Mueller can be added later.
If a new rail bridge is built, extending Riverside west should be done eventually, if not initially.
I think there's too many 90 degree curves in the plan routes. All trams slow down to 10 mph or less to make these very sharp turns. There will be far less wheel squeaking if the number of these sharp turns can be minimized.
It also appears they want to run the trams in the side lanes. Which is okay for couplet pairs. But I think when both tracks are in the same street it is better to run trains down the middle and have platforms in the middle too.

Detroit fan video advocating tracks in the middle....
• Video Link

[KevinFromTexas]

Well, I'll bitch that there's no rail planned for south of the river (needed). They could put a line on either South Congress or on South Lamar and then let it go down Manchaca Road all the way to Slaughter.

[austlar1]

I agree with Kevin. South Austin would develop so nicely around rail service since the area attracts residents that seem to both work and play in the central Austin area. I'd like to see something on S. Congress and also the Lamar/Manchaca route. It would be a real investment in the future and help determine the kind of development that takes place in that area of town over the next several decades. I think the only way to judge the success of any rail project it to give it years (decades perhaps) to mature and hopefully help determine development patterns for the area being served.

[wwmiv]

After some further reading, it does not appear that the city wishes to use this as a starter plan. Instead, they plan on starting with a small section and building up to this as the built out system.

That being said, I think it is a crying f***ing shame that our city does not envision rail along these corridors:

1) South Congress. Business owners can go throw themselves off the rail bridge if they think that rail will hurt their businesses. If anything, rail will improve it.
2) South Lamar. This is the best corridor available in the core for denser development.
3) Brackenridge. If UT develops this as they have in mind (even with the recent reductions in density that they envision), rail there would still garner decent ridership.
4) Triangle. The plan started off as envisioning rail up the the Triangle eventually? What happened to that in this iteration?
5) Zilker. Barton Springs is a great corridor for added density... Outside of downtown, west campus/the drag, and south congress this is probably the most pedestrian stretch of road in the entire city. What about mobility during ACL? Ridiculous omission.
6) ... I know that this is a stretch, but I'd really love to see rail on Burnet (via the Triangle and 45th) until 2222. There is tremendous potential in that corridor for development a la Broadway in San Antonio/Alamo Heights.

Massive inhibitor for all of this? Nimbyism.

[ATXboom]

Good catch WW...

Totally agree on the Zilker, SoCo and Triangle extensions. They must be part of the master plan. So many students live along the corridor up to the triangle... the parks are always packed... soco is always packed and theres a lack of parking in all those areas.

Nimbys will be a major problem promoting those extensions... seems like they purposely avoided nimby heavy areas with this plan.

I also fear that the voters of Austin will note vote to spend this much on a route that really only serves downtown.

Hopefully they've analyzed the 2000 vote to see where more no's originated from... nimby's or farther flung austinites who think this system will provide them no value.

Now... rather than talk on here..lets get our thoughts to the planners at the city level!

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by austlar1

I agree with Kevin. South Austin would develop so nicely around rail service since the area attracts residents that seem to both work and play in the central Austin area.

My brother and his neighbor both work for the same company. Their office is on East 5th Street (in East Austin). They live right off Manchaca near Slaughter in South Austin, and drool over the idea of a train stopping at Slaughter and Manchaca. The MetroRail line runs right by their office on East 5th, but they can't take it to work or home because it doesn't go into South Austin. So they both drive (separately) to work every day. Also, the UP rail line runs about a thousand feet east of Manchaca. You could hop off the light rail line on Manchaca and switch trains and take the commuter train to San Antonio.

Both South Congress and South Lamar need light rail. Those two streets could support it with their retail and residential.

We also need a line on Barton Springs Road to go to Zilker Park to handle the crowds at ACL and other festivals, and the Christmas festivities.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by ATXboom

I'm looking forward to M1's response. I'll be looking closely as to whether he criticizes through creation (eg. improve the proposal and take part in the creation process) or just bitches

Keep looking. I just got back from a business trip and am about to go camping. I don't have time for the meetingocracy anymore, but have made my case very clear in the past: dedicated lanes are essential if this is going to even be an OK line (the only really good light rail line we could have ever had here is now no longer possible thanks to the Red Line).

If the Manor route is chosen, shared lanes would be tolerable on just that stretch with the understanding that it's not part of the backbone, and if the Red River route is chosen, shared lanes might not be a killer, but shared lanes downtown and on Riverside W of I-35 are going to make this thing no more reliable and no faster than the city bus, which is a killer. The city and more relevantly their paid consultants have already decided they can't do anything but shared lanes in the core of this supposed backbone so at this point, the ONLY thing that can change this is to make it clear that urban rail advocates will oppose the plan if it continues with this fatal flaw. Don't get fooled by the Capital Metro dance - where they make you think they're really interested in input but are just politely listening, and then ignoring.

Hint: I went with the blog all this time because when you're 1 guy out of 200 at a meeting, your voice gets swallowed in the crowd, no matter how right you are. When you can influence 200 people with your writing, you're suddenly 200 people, not just 1, and much more difficult to ignore. Capital Metro spends a lot more time trying to do damage control thanks to yours truly now than they ever did back in 2004. (It of course doesn't hurt that to be that 1 ignored guy at the meeting, you have to give up a few hours of your day each and every time, while to influence others with your writing, you can do it in bits and pieces at your desk).

[djlx2]

Originally Posted by M1EK

The city and more relevantly their paid consultants have already decided they can't do anything but shared lanes in the core of this supposed backbone so at this point, the ONLY thing that can change this is to make it clear that urban rail advocates will oppose the plan if it continues with this fatal flaw. Don't get fooled by the Capital Metro dance - where they make you think they're really interested in input but are just politely listening, and then ignoring.

You seem to be making a strong case here. So how exactly do we make it clear that all of us believe that shared lanes throughout are integral and are willing to make a dedicated case about it? Where are the ways for us to stand up and make this case?

[djlx2]

Originally Posted by djlx2

You seem to be making a strong case here. So how exactly do we make it clear that all of us believe that shared lanes throughout are integral and are willing to make a dedicated case about it? Where are the ways for us to stand up and make this case?

...also, I hear there are surveys online about this and a lot of people are clicking on them, but personally I would like to find a less oblique way (help me out!).

[SecretAgentMan]

Originally Posted by ATXboom

Good catch WW...

Totally agree on the Zilker, SoCo and Triangle extensions. They must be part of the master plan. So many students live along the corridor up to the triangle... the parks are always packed... soco is always packed and theres a lack of parking in all those areas.

Nimbys will be a major problem promoting those extensions... seems like they purposely avoided nimby heavy areas with this plan.

I also fear that the voters of Austin will note vote to spend this much on a route that really only serves downtown.

Hopefully they've analyzed the 2000 vote to see where more no's originated from... nimby's or farther flung austinites who think this system will provide them no value.

Now... rather than talk on here..lets get our thoughts to the planners at the city level!

There is a broader master plan called Imagine Austin. Also, the early planning efforts showed these possible extensions in a broad, vague way. The tricky part is developing a plan that is doable in a reasonable time frame, is extensive enough that people see the potential in the system, but comes with a price tag that does not scare people away. There are already people criticizing the $1.3 B price tag of the current phased proposal. The opposition in 2000 was very successful with the "Costs too much, does too little" campaign for a $2 B system. A successful campaign needs to balance these concerns.

ftp://ftp.ci.austin.tx.us/GIS-Data/p...o_20110209.pdf

The current Imagine Austin Preferred Growth Scenario uses a technology neutral "High Capacity Transit" label, but earlier drafts specifically mentioned light rail.

http://www.austinstrategicmobility.c...24-10_pt2a.pdf

See potential future system growth and expansion on last slide - the broad arrows suggest additional future corridors for expansion.

[TinnitusClock]

Originally Posted by djlx2

...also, I hear there are surveys online about this and a lot of people are clicking on them, but personally I would like to find a less oblique way (help me out!).

...or you can just sit down with your computer, spend a lot of time reading about it, figure it out, and THEN figure out how to put a plan together to express the feasibility to city council members. obviously you have not been doing this so far but at least two people on here want it enough to make it happen. can you do that?

[djlx2]

Originally Posted by SecretAgentMan

There is a broader master plan called Imagine Austin.

I see it. Thank you for the links and all of the information here.

Originally Posted by SecretAgentMan

Also, the early planning efforts showed these possible extensions in a broad, vague way. The tricky part is developing a plan that is doable in a reasonable time frame, is extensive enough that people see the potential in the system, but comes with a price tag that does not scare people away.

Important points, and good to know. I don't think anyone's going to get scared away from the plan, just need to work out budgeting.

Originally Posted by SecretAgentMan

There are already people criticizing the $1.3 B price tag of the current phased proposal. The opposition in 2000 was very successful with the "Costs too much, does too little" campaign for a $2 B system. A successful campaign needs to balance these concerns.

ftp://ftp.ci.austin.tx.us/GIS-Data/p...o_20110209.pdf

The current Imagine Austin Preferred Growth Scenario uses a technology neutral "High Capacity Transit" label, but earlier drafts specifically mentioned light rail."

http://www.austinstrategicmobility.c...24-10_pt2a.pdf

The current draft is the most important one, I'm thinking, though it probably still needs a lot of editing:

Originally Posted by SecretAgentMan

See potential future system growth and expansion on last slide - the broad arrows suggest additional future corridors for expansion.

Will be done, I'm convinced, if the planners now are set doing it.

[wwmiv]

I'm happy/content with the plan.

Portland's streetcar line only garners ~12,000 riders daily, this line will reach 20,000. Portland's streetcar uses shared lanes for the majority of its route, Austin's will as well.
Portland's streetcar is not exactly integrated into the MAX system, which means that transfers are required. Austin's system will therefore be roughly comparable (though the Red Line is infinitely worse than MAX).
Portland's streetcar vehicles are not given traffic priority except at certain locations where the streetcar must turn (and only to give the vehicle time to turn), Austin's will be endowed traffic signal preemption equipment and will be given complete priority over cars.

If it sounds better in theory, it probably is better in reality as well.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

I'm happy/content with the plan.

Portland's streetcar line only garners ~12,000 riders daily, this line will reach 20,000. Portland's streetcar uses shared lanes for the majority of its route, Austin's will as well.

Just wanted to point out that passengers can ride the streetcars in Portland free. There's a no fare zone downtown Portland, and the streetcars never leave downtown.
I wonder how many will ride streetcars in Austin if the city chose to charge fares to help reduce the required subsidy?

As for a public information campaign, I suggest a great video addressing the issues like the Detroit one I posted earlier. But that video was made after the political decision to build the streetcar line, it was just advocating where to build the tracks.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by electricron

Just wanted to point out that passengers can ride the streetcars in Portland free. There's a no fare zone downtown Portland, and the streetcars never leave downtown.
I wonder how many will ride streetcars in Austin if the city chose to charge fares to help reduce the required subsidy?

Yes, I know that they don't charge within the no-fair zone. However, the streetcar does leave that zone in the Pearl District and Northwest Portland sections. http://portlandstreetcar.org/pdf/map_printable2.pdf

[cvalkan]

From Ben Wear's column in the Stateman:

Austin's light rail trains, at least in the city's current plan, would share traffic lanes with cars for about half of the 16.5-mile route.

That approach, while avoiding the politically dicey consequences of reducing car capacity or eliminating parking, would put Austin's system well outside the mainstream of U.S. light rail systems. Electric light rail built over the past three decades, according to University of Pennsylvania transit engineering professor Vukan Vuchic, typically does not share lanes with cars for safety reasons and to avoid the delays associated with car traffic.

This is from: http://www.statesman.com/news/local/...s-1372235.html

[electricron]

I doesn't matter what type of urban rail system you build, you have to have a facility to store and maintain them. It appears the preferred site of the maintenance barn will be at First St. and Barton Springs Rd. This means the first phase of the urban rail project will have to cross the Colorado into south Austin. Yet, the urban rail line to Austin-Bergstrom isn't planned to be the first line constructed?
Whether they decide to refurbish the Congress bridge or build a brand new one, it's not going to be cheap. Seems foolish to spend all that money on the first phase to cross the Colorado for a token presence in south Austin.

Look at Honolulu's light rail plan, they're building it in phases too, from downtown Honolulu to its western suburbs. The first phase to be built is in the western suburbs, because that's where they can find sufficient space for their maintenance yard. Looks like Austin is faced with the same dilemma, having to build their first phase of urban rail beyond downtown Austin.

http://www.honolulutransit.org/

Apparently most of Austin's inner city streets lack sufficient lanes to lose lanes for urban rail, just like Honolulu. Therefore an at-grade alignment sharing of lanes seems likely. But Honolulu solved that problem by elevating their rails above city streets. If that solution is too expensive for Austin, they should look at what DART did in downtown Dallas; having rail, bikes, and pedestrians take over a single city street by building a streetmall. Of course, you wouldn't want to lose Congress to a streetmall, but what about a neighboring city street through the center of the city?

Realize that once the decision is made to share lanes in city streets that your trains will never be faster than existing buses in that corridor. You will not be getting "rapid" transit. You'll have "slow" transit, which is fine for circulators and short distances, but not for further distances reaching far beyond downtown Austin, like to the airport.

I suppose if we look around the country, we can find examples of a mixed rail system where trams share lanes only on downtown streets and run in dedicated lanes or dedicated corridors after leaving downtown. I believe this sort of operation could work in Austin. Even Detroit is considering this type of operation along Woodward. But I would want to keep operations in share lanes as little as practical. 50% in share lanes of a completed system is far too much.