Light Rail Boom

[PopulusRomanus]

Originally Posted by mhays

Seattle's future rail expansions might take a hit if the courts don't save us...12.3% of ST3 funding could be cancelled by a state initiative that passed yesterday. (Without reading more...I think it's 12.3% of 30-something billion in ST3 revenues, but also impacts the overall $57b in ST3 costs with federal funding etc.)

I believe the current contracts will be fine, but projects that haven't started yet could take longer, and might reduce in scope.

I'm optimistic about a court case. The initiative writer seems to like initiatives that will fail in court or at the polls...it's his job. In this case, there's probably yet another case of him putting more than one topic into the measure, which isn't allowed.

(This guy, Tim Eyman, is also a thief and fraudster....he got caught shoplifting recently, and he might soon be prohibited from being involved in elections.)

I pray that it will be tossed out in court. I have no intention of spending the rest of my life sitting in traffic.

I am amazed that he can have the same measure ruled unconstitutional twice and still propose the same thing a third time. Does he expect a different result??

[electricron]

Originally Posted by digitallagasse

Wow that clown is still around.

That clown got the majority of taxpayers to kill a bad tax. Taxing a 10 year old car at a rate based upon 85% the value of a brand new car is an unfair tax. Golly, the value of a brand new car falls more than 15% once it is driven off the new car lot. A 10 year old car may be worth less than 10% of its new car value, basing a tax on it at 85% is easily to show to other taxpayers as being too high.
Hence, the majority of taxpayers voting to kill that tax. Almost all people maintain ownership of their cars more than 1 year, most maintain ownership as far as 5 years, and some more than 10 years. Just about everyone owning a car would feel they were being over taxed.

The transit planners in the Seattle area will just have to find another tax the people will support. There's plenty of taxes to choose from, minus the one the taxpayers just banned.

[mhays]

Seattle and King County voted against the measure....now they're fighting it in court, which can only happen after it passes. Sound Transit will consider doing the same.

The STATE voters voted for it. Only about half are in the Sound Transit area.

[mhays]

We got an injunction...temporary reprieve at least!

[M II A II R II K]

A subway in Austin? City leaders explore massive transit expansion

https://www.kxan.com/news/local/aust...wntown-subway/

.....

- After months of speculation and rumors, officials Tuesday offered a glimpse at a massive transportation plan — which includes a downtown subway — aimed to usher in a new generation of transit for a growing city. At a joint work session of Austin City Council and Capital Metro Board of directors discussed an update to Project Connect, a plan to create high-capacity transit in the Austin area. For the first time publicly, they explained which transit options are on the table — light rail included — and how they might pay for those options. The transit plans these groups are looking at range from $3.2-$10.2 billion, depending on the features they select. CapMetro explained they believe they can pay for 40% of this amount through federal grants.

.....

[38R]

Worth it. Austin is one of the fastest growing cities in the country.

[Busy Bee]

So is Nashville and it was voted down nearly 2-1.

Obviously the culture of Austin will likely be much more open to a transit investment of this scale.

[ardecila]

Wow, I'm glad Austin is considering a downtown tunnel. It's hard to provide decent crosstown service if your trains are crawling through downtown on an at-grade alignment... that's the biggest problem with Portland's system, and why Dallas is now considering a subway as part of DART's next expansion phase.

Looks like a complicated configuration for the tunnel though. Gold Line is BRT, so will it share the tunnel with light rail vehicles or run on the surface along 4th St? Then you've got an underground junction at 4th/Guadalupe where the Blue and Orange Lines diverge.

Also, Guadalupe/Lamar is not a wide street... neither is S. Congress. Both only 80' wide. They're not wide boulevards with median space to spare. You'd probably have to run trains in mixed traffic, I can't see Texans sacrificing travel lanes.

[M II A II R II K]

Southwest light-rail construction work tunnels through tight quarters in Minneapolis

http://www.startribune.com/construct...nel/566978052/

.....

- Construction is often a noisy business, but building a light-rail tunnel in a dense urban area — and near freight-train operations — can be downright challenging. Add to the mix: Some neighbors who are, at best, wary of the $2 billion Southwest light-rail project that will pass through several of Minneapolis' most-desirable neighborhoods. --- The 14.5-mile light-rail line — the most-expensive public works project in state history — will connect downtown Minneapolis to Eden Prairie. The Kenilworth tunnel will run northeast of West Lake Street, pass underneath Cedar Lake Parkway and return above ground just south of the channel connecting Lake of the Isles and Cedar Lake. Light-rail trains will then travel over the channel on a new bridge.

- The construction method being used to build the tunnel involves Japanese equipment pressing (as opposed to pounding or vibrating) vertical steel sheet piles into the ground to create an interlocking wall that will serve as the framework for the concrete tunnel. "This is a pretty specialized piece of equipment," said construction director Brian Runzel at the job site on Monday. As he spoke, an auger loosened a small pile of steaming molasses-colored earth, making way for the 63-foot steel sheet pile to be lowered into the ground. The process was relatively quiet, except for the whir of a crane needed to lift and position the sheet piles. But mistakes occurred early on, infuriating some neighbors. A booming vibrating pile driver was used Nov. 15, causing damage to some property and prompting alarm, according to residents.

.....

[plutonicpanda]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

So is Nashville and it was voted down nearly 2-1.

Obviously the culture of Austin will likely be much more open to a transit investment of this scale.

I hope Nashville revisits that proposal. I always thought it wasn't the people there being anti-transit but rather not wanting to see it funded the way it was proposed to be.

As for Austin I like this plan. I only wish it were more ambitious. Every city in Texas is due for a transit expansion plan, IMO. Houston's latest was less than exciting. I wish San Antonio would get a rail system going there.

[BnaBreaker]

Originally Posted by plutonicpanda

I hope Nashville revisits that proposal. I always thought it wasn't the people there being anti-transit but rather not wanting to see it funded the way it was proposed to be.

As for Austin I like this plan. I only wish it were more ambitious. Every city in Texas is due for a transit expansion plan, IMO. Houston's latest was less than exciting. I wish San Antonio would get a rail system going there.

It actually had majority support city-wide in Nashville until the fucking Koch brothers started their campaign of misinformation. The city, admittedly, did a very poor job countering said misinformation, but still, it was quite infuriating. Austinites shouldn't get too confident, as politically it isn't that much more progressive than Nashville, and is just as susceptible to misinformation campaigns. I hope it goes better for them though!

[plutonicpanda]

Originally Posted by BnaBreaker

It actually had majority support city-wide in Nashville until the fucking Koch brothers started their campaign of misinformation. The city, admittedly, did a very poor job countering said misinformation, but still, it was quite infuriating. Austinites shouldn't get too confident, as politically it isn't that much more progressive than Nashville, and is just as susceptible to misinformation campaigns. I hope it goes better for them though!

I wasn't aware of that. Sad. Phoenix had the Koch brothers trying to interfere and thankfully sanity prevailed.

I bet Nashville comes back with another proposal-- I just hope it isn't something watered down. Their last proposal even though I think you can always be more bold was amazing for a city their size. It is infuriating it was shot down.

[Busy Bee]

I'm by no means an expert on Nashville, I've only been there a few times, but I do know that there was some concern even by those that supported the plan that some of the thoroughfares designated were not especially wide arterials and the possibly of it decreasing auto mobility was exploited by the opposition. I think if/when Nashville pushes for a new plan that issue needs to be addressed honestly, even if it concludes that other r.o.w.'s should be pursued. Outside of the wildly expensive proposition of street widening with required private property acquisition, one possibility that could be studied is pushing tracks to one side of the street instead of median running. It isn't something that you see in the US very much but it does allow some space savings as the outside platform can be narrower since the curb also acts as the other platform. Depending on the specific measurements and how much the width of the existing sidewalks are altered (if they exist at all), this could represent the width of one traffic lane. In the USA where municipalities are overly subservient to the business community/Chamber and often kowtow to them to avoid political difficulties, this would undoubtedly be challenging but I think its possibly a better way to go about it.

Also, due to its hilly topography, ideally tunnels should be pursued where they make most sense, not just downtown, to avoid traffic interaction and increased speed of operation, though I acknowledge that may be cost prohibitive.

[38R]

Originally Posted by Busy Bee

So is Nashville and it was voted down nearly 2-1.

Obviously the culture of Austin will likely be much more open to a transit investment of this scale.

Yeah but one of the Koch bros has died since then

[ssiguy]

A downtown tunnel for Austin?………..what a ridiculous idea and nearly as stupid as the Nashville proposal. Austin does not have even remotely the amount of ridership to justify such a huge expense.

Let Calgary and Edmonton be your guides...………… In 1975 to 85 both cities embarked on LRT projects with Edmonton ahead by a few years. Both cities used the same technology and suppliers but took very different path. Calgary decided to run it's LRT at grade downtown on a new transit mall allowing far more money for a much larger system while Edmonton decided to build a large downtown subway section at a very high price resulting in a very stunted system. The result?...Calgary ridership was a huge success while Edmonton's downtown stations were near empty. Even after the large expansions that both cities have experienced, the Calgary CTrain still carries near triple the daily passengers of Edmonton's LRT with a very respectable 300,000 passengers a day in a metro of just 1.5 million yet Edmonton is the same size. The moral of the story is that you have X amount of dollars to spend on transit so build the system that serves the most people and destinations as possible.

This said, even if it goes the at-grade route, LRT is still a waste of money in a city like Austin with such incredibly low ridership levels.

[exit2lef]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

A downtown tunnel for Austin?………..what a ridiculous idea and nearly as stupid as the Nashville proposal. Austin does not have even remotely the amount of ridership to justify such a huge expense.

Let Calgary and Edmonton be your guides...………… In 1975 to 85 both cities embarked on LRT projects with Edmonton ahead by a few years. Both cities used the same technology and suppliers but took very different path. Calgary decided to run it's LRT at grade downtown on a new transit mall allowing far more money for a much larger system while Edmonton decided to build a large downtown subway section at a very high price resulting in a very stunted system. The result?...Calgary ridership was a huge success while Edmonton's downtown stations were near empty. Even after the large expansions that both cities have experienced, the Calgary CTrain still carries near triple the daily passengers of Edmonton's LRT with a very respectable 300,000 passengers a day in a metro of just 1.5 million yet Edmonton is the same size. The moral of the story is that you have X amount of dollars to spend on transit so build the system that serves the most people and destinations as possible.

This said, even if it goes the at-grade route, LRT is still a waste of money in a city like Austin with such incredibly low ridership levels.

Since Austin currently has no LRT, what is the basis of the claim of low ridership? Are you referring to current ridership on Capital Metro bus routes or Austin's one commuter rail line? Or is this based on forecasted ridership of planned LRT?

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by BnaBreaker

It actually had majority support city-wide in Nashville until the fucking Koch brothers started their campaign of misinformation. The city, admittedly, did a very poor job countering said misinformation, but still, it was quite infuriating. Austinites shouldn't get too confident, as politically it isn't that much more progressive than Nashville, and is just as susceptible to misinformation campaigns. I hope it goes better for them though!

Jesus, can we stop this narrative? Two people(albeit very rich) did not keep transit from Nashville. Also, "misinformation campaigns" go both ways. I don't know how many times I've noticed that the facts were stretched for issues I support. Everyone does it.

There isn't always some boogieman to blame. Sometimes a city just doesn't want to spend money on something the vast majority of people will never use.

[plutonicpanda]

Originally Posted by ssiguy

A downtown tunnel for Austin?………..what a ridiculous idea and nearly as stupid as the Nashville proposal. Austin does not have even remotely the amount of ridership to justify such a huge expense.

Let Calgary and Edmonton be your guides...………… In 1975 to 85 both cities embarked on LRT projects with Edmonton ahead by a few years. Both cities used the same technology and suppliers but took very different path. Calgary decided to run it's LRT at grade downtown on a new transit mall allowing far more money for a much larger system while Edmonton decided to build a large downtown subway section at a very high price resulting in a very stunted system. The result?...Calgary ridership was a huge success while Edmonton's downtown stations were near empty. Even after the large expansions that both cities have experienced, the Calgary CTrain still carries near triple the daily passengers of Edmonton's LRT with a very respectable 300,000 passengers a day in a metro of just 1.5 million yet Edmonton is the same size. The moral of the story is that you have X amount of dollars to spend on transit so build the system that serves the most people and destinations as possible.

This said, even if it goes the at-grade route, LRT is still a waste of money in a city like Austin with such incredibly low ridership levels.

I prefer quality over quantity. I would rather have a slower expansion and go with grade separated rail. I suspect there is more to the picture than the one you are painting.

Austin has the red line and from what I have heard it doesn't run that often and is not reliable. I am not too familiar with Austin, but I have been there a few times and always thought the city could use a nice large quality light rail system. Thankfully for Austin's sake they are in the jurisdiction of TxDOT which is expanding freeways like mad easing traffic so it doesn't end up like Portland. If Austin builds a true alternative it would help the city tremendously.

Grade separated rail lines are safer, allow for cars to travel faster, and don't interfere with other modes of transit.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

There isn't always some boogieman to blame. Sometimes a city just doesn't want to spend money on something the vast majority of people will never use.

Yeah, looking at the current transit ridership in the Nashville area (APTA says <35K unlinked trips per day and declining), I see absolutely no reason why Nashville should even remotely entertain a $5B LRT project. It would far better off spending a fraction of that money on improving bus services and adding BRT to try to create transit corridors that might be worthy of getting rail in 30 years.

[BnaBreaker]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Jesus, can we stop this narrative? Two people(albeit very rich) did not keep transit from Nashville. Also, "misinformation campaigns" go both ways. I don't know how many times I've noticed that the facts were stretched for issues I support. Everyone does it.

There isn't always some boogieman to blame. Sometimes a city just doesn't want to spend money on something the vast majority of people will never use.

Just because you get rattled and uncomfortable when people call out those with whom you align yourself politically doesn't mean there isn't any accuracy to their claims. As I've said before, it is certainly up for debate as to whether or not that was the right transit proposal for the city. So I'm not saying the proposal was perfect, or that there weren't legitimate reasons for opposing it, or that the Koch Brothers were the singular reason the proposal failed. But they were a significant factor. It is a fact that most of the shit spread around by this organization, which greatly benefits financially from the failure of non-fossil fuel dependent transportation methods, was at least exaggerated if not outright made up nonsense. It is also a fact that the proposal had majority support as well, until they started pumping millions into their campaign of lies. Nashville is not their only victim either. This is going to continue happening, however, until folks like you stop providing convenient cover for people like this who could care less about you or your best interest just because they claim the same political team as you.