AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[jgouger]

Just my $0.02. I used to work in Dripping Springs and would sometimes take 360 north to my house in North Austin. I've found that despite the congestion on 360 the drive is more scenic and less congested than going through Oak Hill and Mopac. But I really think that if they upgrade 360 they should include dedicated bike lanes on the shoulder and better signage to alert drivers about the presence of bikers. It is probably the most challenging ride in the city and also the most dangerous. About the only safe time to bike ride there is at 6:00 am on Sunday.

Now if you want to talk about a screwed up road, let's talk about the Y. What were they thinking when they designed that !?!?!?!?!

[SecretAgentMan]

Haven't we been over this before? I recall explaining previously that the most likely construction sequence would be to install the rail in relatively short segments (ie. less than a mile at a time). The innermost lane of traffic next to the rail would be shut down to allow crews and equipment access to the work zone.

Yes, it would cause some traffic disruptions, but when is the last time anybody saw any construction within a ROW that did not require lane closures?

Haven't any of you driven on IH-35 between Dallas and San Antonio for the last ten years?

People who are not familiar with heavy construction techniques should use some caution when expressing their opinions of what is and is not feasible.

[M1EK]

Good luck shutting down a lane on Mopac. Good freakin' luck. When I-95 was upgraded in Florida to 4 lanes each way, 3 lanes were kept open by truly heroic means -- I can't believe we would accept less on Mopac. And in their case, they were just expanding the roadway footprint; not trying to build a new track next to a working freight railroad.

Once again, though, to be clear: in order to double-track the UPRR without shutting it down first, you need enough space for 3, not 2, tracks (plus some margin for safety while building. since, again, this whole thing is happening while trains are running right down the middle on the existing track). Electricron is trying to mislead you by switching back and forth here -- showing you pictures of 2 tracks in a freeway median and claiming that proves it's feasible. Well, yeah, if we could get UPRR to go away for a year or three, it'd be pretty easy to get it done - you wouldn't need to worry about effectively 3.5 tracks worth of space.

Again, as is typical with you, you want to cast misleading aspersions on me while hiding behind the cloak of anonymity. It's weak.

[SecretAgentMan]

MY comments weren't directed at anyone in particular, but my BS meter was going off when multiple people were stating it could not be done. Construction projects are done in much more constrained circumstances in larger cities all the time. I guarantee you will see lane closures when the managed lanes are installed on Mopac. UP also upgraded much this ROW within the last 5 years, including new ballast, concrete ties and rails, while maintaining freight traffic. There is no magic to this. It is done all the time.

[breathesgelatin]

Originally Posted by donclark

I'm not familiar with the MOPAC corridor. But I have seen freeways rebuilt anew with service roads built above new freeway lanes. I have seen subway light rail lines built under freeways. Never say there isn't enough room for both freeway lanes and rail lines. There is one way or another. One only has to look at the freeways built in Houston and Dallas.

The portion of Mopac that is problematic & under discussion is not a raised highway, so your points are not valid. I don't think we'll ever see a raised Mopac. God forbid we see a raised Mopac. That would go over in Austin like a ton of bricks, methinks.

[NormalgeNyus]

no body is misleading anyone and i dont think anyone is saying it is impossible to be done. Anything can be done with the right kind of cash. The problem is no one will ever pay for it to be done. For safety and cash reasons i think that the proposal is not worth its weight in water. i will cost way to much to raise or move the track or mopac. and i really dont want a several ton locomotive coming through my windshield if it derails.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by NormalgeNyus

no body is misleading anyone and i dont think anyone is saying it is impossible to be done. Anything can be done with the right kind of cash. The problem is no one will ever pay for it to be done. For safety and cash reasons i think that the proposal is not worth its weight in water. i will cost way to much to raise or move the track or mopac. and i really dont want a several ton locomotive coming through my windshield if it derails.

Which it would do now if it derails. The concrete barriers on the MoPac Freeway that exist today wouldn't stop a 100 ton freight car.

And I have never written that freeway lanes wouldn't need to be closed to double track the MoPac rail line.
The fact remains that the existing freeway lanes are 12 feet wide, TXDOT plans to change all the lanes, including the 2 new managed lanes, to 11 feet wide. Subtracting the 11 feet, assuming all the 11 feet is coming from the median, still leaves a minimum of 39 feet in the median for rails. A double track rail line only needs 24 feet, 8 inches for clearances.

As for moving the tracks, here's a photo showing the clearances that are needed.
From parallel track:


From same track:




I don't see the need to even close a freeway lane.

[M1EK]

Again, both electricron AND SecretAgentMan are being purposefully misleading here. You don't need 2 tracks worth of space to double-track an active freight line; you need 3 + some safety margin (since you're continuing to use the existing line which is running right down the middle, you're basically picking one side to run 2/3 of a 3-track alignment).

Anytime you hear them talk about how easy it is to fit 2 tracks in, remember this. They're not being honest with you. Fitting 2 tracks in if you can close and remove the old track down the center would be pretty easy. Fitting 2 tracks in if you can at least not run trains on the existing track during the length of the project would be hard. Fitting 2 tracks in with live freight running AND freeway traffic a lot closer than it is today is nigh-impossible; the kind of construction project we likely don't have the will to initiate.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by M1EK

Again, both electricron AND SecretAgentMan are being purposefully misleading here. You don't need 2 tracks worth of space to double-track an active freight line; you need 3 + some safety margin (since you're continuing to use the existing line which is running right down the middle, you're basically picking one side to run 2/3 of a 3-track alignment).

Anytime you hear them talk about how easy it is to fit 2 tracks in, remember this. They're not being honest with you. Fitting 2 tracks in if you can close and remove the old track down the center would be pretty easy. Fitting 2 tracks in if you can at least not run trains on the existing track during the length of the project would be hard. Fitting 2 tracks in with live freight running AND freeway traffic a lot closer than it is today is nigh-impossible; the kind of construction project we likely don't have the will to initiate.

There you go again!

There is such a thing called phase construction. You never need to lay three tracks. What you do is lay the new track next to the existing track maintaining minimum clearances, after opening the new track up, you close and move the existing tracks to maintain the standard 14 feet clearance. Only after moving the existing tracks, will you have two set of tracks open for use.

From TXDOT: http://www.texasfreeway.com/Austin/p...p1/loop1.shtml

This view shows just how narrow the right-of-way is for central Loop 1. The corridor with is only 172 feet (52m) wide, but 60 feet (18m) is used by the railroad, leaving only 112 feet (34m) for the freeway main lanes.

Then view TXDOT's plans for the MoPac Freeway:
From south of 35th Street to south of Windsor Road
ftp://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-...1/s4rdpp01.pdf
From north of 45th Street to south of 35th Street
ftp://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-...1/s3rdpp02.pdf

You can find links for drawings for every section at
http://www.dot.state.tx.us/project_i...1/drawings.htm
You can also read the lastest newsletter at
ftp://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-...s_issue_02.pdf

What I want to point out, is that a minimum of 60 feet is reserved for the UP rail right-of-way in the median throughout the corridor. Double tracks, as I have written so many times before, only requires 28 feet, 8 inches of clearance. There's still a total of 31 feet 4 inches of median left to be used as a buffer.

TXDOT isn't taking land from the median to add lanes to the freeway. They're adding lanes where the right hand shoulder is today, as I suggested several posts ago.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by electricron

There you go again!

Yes, there you go again indeed. Once again, all I said was that you need enough space AS IF you were building 3 tracks, plus some extra margin for safety - you don't actually have to build 2 new ones before you close the middle one, nor did I ever say so. You DO need as much SPACE, for a while, for 3 tracks - because you're building the new track next to the old track (in the center).

Do you ever get tired of trying to mislead people, or what?

And if you really don't know anything about Mopac, why are you sharing your opinion on it with us anyways? TXDOT is expanding mostly toward the inside (using up most of the interior shoulder), getting some space by narrowing lanes, and taking a bit of right shoulder - NOT just by expanding out. At the end of this process, cars/buses will be closer to the train tracks than they are today.

[llamaorama]

It's called closing a lane of freeway while the deviation is being constructed. It's not like they won't be doing this anyways for some of the overpasses.

The problem is cost, but its not "impossible" like everything else is to you. If it was "impossible" then there would no widened freeways, no reconstructed mega interchanges, and no anything when it comes to freeways,rail, and grade seperation.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by M1EK

Y

Do you ever get tired of trying to mislead people, or what?
And if you really don't know anything about Mopac, why are you sharing your opinion on it with us anyways? TXDOT is expanding mostly toward the inside (using up most of the interior shoulder), getting some space by narrowing lanes, and taking a bit of right shoulder - NOT just by expanding out. At the end of this process, cars/buses will be closer to the train tracks than they are today.

Funny, TXDOT's published plans I found don't agree with you. They clearly show 60 feet UP ROW remaining in the median. Do you have newer plans that you can link?

[M1EK]

Do you even read what you respond to?

TXDOT is expanding mostly toward the inside (using up most of the interior shoulder)

This means cars will be closer to the trains than they are today. I said nothing about taking up any of the 60 feet.

60 feet is, however, not enough to maintain an active freight railway, build a track on one side of the freight railway, and not close freeway lane(s) in the process.

And, no, it's not going to be trivial to close the HOT lane (right after it's finally opened) so you can basically waste time building a second track to the right of the one right down the center. You can pooh-pooh this all you want, but again, I-95 in South Florida maintained 3 lanes open during 20 years of construction through heroic measures; closing down to 2 lanes was simply not an option. Closing lanes on Mopac here won't be an option either.

[PartyLine]

He obviously knows nothing about Mopac

[tgbAustinite]

http://www.impactnews.com/central-au...3246?task=view

[SecretAgentMan]

Originally Posted by M1EK

Which can be changed in about 30 seconds, as it was when Mike Krusee decided that Capital Metro (and Capital Metro alone) would have to have an election in November of an even-numbered year to start a rail system, even when no change to taxation was involved. Despite the fact that CM is authorized and regulated by the same ordinances in other respects as are Houston's and Dallas's agencies - which did not have this election requirement placed on them.

The people who could change that state law and write another one accomplishing this capital budget change are heavily represented at CAMPO (and nobody else at the state would mind taking power away from Capital Metro). Additionally, the city of Austin is actually represented pretty well at CAMPO (about as well as we are on Capital Metro's board itself).

If you think the fact that the CAMPO TWG has gotten heavily involved in rail planning, and this is important: without consulting Capital Metro much more than in a lip-service capacity is somehow irrelevant, think again. Our city council has displayed strong evidence over the last 2 years or so that they are extremely displeased with the fact that our city pays 95% of the bills and is getting effectively none of the rail service in the plan, even in the long-term.

http://www.statesman.com/news/conten...3capmetro.html

[SecretAgentMan]

http://www.statesman.com/news/conten.../0223wear.html

If Ben Wear was half a journalist he would have researched the story before posting it.

There are two parallel UP corridors between San Antonio and San Marcos, so the biggest quarries around New Braunfels have no impact on commuter rail. The Austin White Lime plant at McNeil Junction is also served by Cap Metro, and the UP line near the quarry north of Round Rock is not planned to be used by the ASA - they plan on using the MOKAN corridor instead.

ASA projects that after rail relocation, local freight traffic will go down to around 10 trains per day from the current 25-30 trains per day. That's enough freight traffic that the time separation being used by Cap Metro will not work, but not enough to preclude commuter rail if FRA compliant train sets are used.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by SecretAgentMan

http://www.statesman.com/news/conten.../0223wear.html

If Ben Wear was half a journalist he would have researched the story before posting it.

There are two parallel UP corridors between San Antonio and San Marcos, so the biggest quarries around New Braunfels have no impact on commuter rail. The Austin White Lime plant at McNeil Junction is also served by Cap Metro, and the UP line near the quarry north of Round Rock is not planned to be used by the ASA - they plan on using the MOKAN corridor instead.

ASA projects that after rail relocation, local freight traffic will go down to around 10 trains per day from the current 25-30 trains per day. That's enough freight traffic that the time separation being used by Cap Metro will not work, but not enough to preclude commuter rail if FRA compliant train sets are used.

The TRE line between Dallas and Forth Worth has over 50 passenger trains a day, and 20-30 freight trains a day. The line is basically single track with many passing sidings, with more and more double tracks being laid in Dallas County today. They're hoping to get some stimulus money to start double tracking the line more in Tarrant County, so they can increase both passenger and freight service. Even Amtrak is considering using this ROW because it's faster than the existing double track UP line between these cities choked with local and long distance UP freight trains.

I wished ASA reconsidered and use the MoKan ROW all the way into Austin. Then the arguments whether the MoPac line could be double tracked or not, with or without closing lanes in the freeway, will be unnecessary.

[M1EK]

There is no "MoKan ROW 'all the way into Austin'". It runs so far east of Austin that it's a joke even by your joke commuter rail standards. (It'd be like a 20-30 minute bus ride back in to downtown from there).

[electricron]

Originally Posted by M1EK

There is no "MoKan ROW 'all the way into Austin'". It runs so far east of Austin that it's a joke even by your joke commuter rail standards. (It'd be like a 20-30 minute bus ride back in to downtown from there).

Look at the dotted gray colored lines in this drawing.


Doesn't the line heading towards Pluggerville, branching off the line to Manor, read MoKan? If you follow the dotted line to Round Rock, the ROW continues onwards towards Georgetown. That's the very same line ASA plans to use between Round Rock and Georgetown. I'll admit there's no rail in the ROW, but the ROW does exist.

Now that you know where it is, you can follow it on Google Earth or Google Maps.

To add, the MoKan ROW lies no further east of I 35 than the Red Line lies west.