AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[lzppjb]

My dream is to dig a trench from say 290E to Ben White. Bottom of the trench is northbound. Cap it then have southbound on the next level. Cap that and have surface blvd/frontage/rail.

If the frontage lanes could be built atop the highway lanes, that widens the possible footprint. We could probably get 7 lanes each direction even in the narrowest spots. Each level would have to have shoulders and a safety lane. Would also need exit/entrance ramps. I'll leave that to the engineers.

If we really wanted to go all out, you could have subway inside the trench as well, on either side of the roadways.

Anybody have a trillion dollars?

[drummer]

I like it. Where can I sign for my support? haha

That said, I've seen something kind of like that in Shanghai in the Bund area. It's pretty cool what can be accomplished on the surface while still moving massive amounts of vehicles underground - in addition to Shanghai's stellar subway system, of course.

[airwx]

Last night, (well really, around 2:30 this morning), the planning commission approved a conditional use permit to allow Megabus to operate out of the old service station at 1500 San Jacinto. They'll be using the former service station as an air conditioned waiting area with bathrooms. The hours will also be longer, 6AM-midnight, compared to the current site on Whitis, which stopped service around 6PM. However they won't be able to operate between 4 and 6pm on weekdays.

[KevinFromTexas]

http://www.kvue.com/story/news/traff...ment/30152725/

TxDoT proposes $110 million Riverside Bridge replacement
Amber Downing, KVUE 5:47 p.m. CDT July 14, 2015

AUSTIN -- The Texas Department of Transportation is proposing an $110 million plan to improve northbound and southbound traffic along Interstate 35 at Riverside Drive.

The project would replace the Riverside Drive Bridge with a wider one that would better accommodate cyclists and pedestrians. Motorist hoping to make a U-turn from the northbound frontage road to the southbound road will get a separate bridge to speed up the process.

Along the frontage roads, TxDOT is also planning a "collector-distributor lane" on each side, which will bypass the signals at Riverside Drive and lead directly to I-35.

[ahealy]

Question: When do you think we'll actually see mass transit in Austin? Will we ever get a system that works for the whole city? Does anyone else feel as hopeless on the subject as I do? Any encouraging anything?

Yours truly,
Austin Healy

[nixcity]

Austin CDC is doing some good work on this but I think the citizens need to force our inept council on this issue or they will just do what they do best. NOTHING. This new version of council may have been the worst thing to ever happen to the city. If we don't act real soon it will be too late and we all know there is a corridor that would be very successful.

[hereinaustin]

Originally Posted by ahealy

Will we ever get a system that works for the whole city?

That's probably not realistic for a city/metro as sprawled-out as Austin. Could a rail system be put together that connects major parts of the Austin core? Absolutely. I just don't know when.

I'd *personally* like for the major parts of the city core to be connected. I think a big "H" (or a "U") would be cool (6 miles total/$500-800M):
Phase 1a: A line running up Guadalupe from César Chávez to 38th (2.8mi) +
Phase 1b: A line running up Red River from César Chávez to 38th (2.7mi) +
Phase 1c: one or more East-West connection(s) between (0.5+mi)

Then, eventually:
Phase 2+: expand south along S. Lamar and down S. Congress (+/- E. Riverside Dr/ABIA), north to Highland Mall, and East/West along whatever route makes sense.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by hereinaustin

I'd *personally* like for the major parts of the city core to be connected. I think a big "H" (or a "U") would be cool (6 miles total/$500-800M):
Phase 1a: A line running up Guadalupe from César Chávez to 38th (2.8mi) +
Phase 1b: A line running up Red River from César Chávez to 38th (2.7mi) +
Phase 1c: one or more East-West connection(s) between (0.5+mi)

Then, eventually:
Phase 2+: expand south along S. Lamar and down S. Congress (+/- E. Riverside Dr/ABIA), north to Highland Mall, and East/West along whatever route makes sense.

Certainly not a "bad" plan (almost anything is better than nothing in my view), but there's several drawbacks to that as the initial implementation. Some practical, some political.

1. All the improvements are basically concentrated in 1/2 council districts. That makes it a had sell to councilmembers that want to spread it around, and a harder sell to the voters.

2. Similarly, it's all in North Austin, when South Austinites (rightly or wrongly) see themselves as being shortchanged in transit improvements.

3. It's too short. Having two short segments basically just reinforces that. You can get riders from along the segments (if they happen to work downtown) but you can't really draw from a larger watershed of riders, because by the time they get to the rail they're already basically downtown.

4. Similarly, there's no good place for a park and ride station (which could be a problem both practically and politically).

5a. Your cost estimate is low in my opinion. Especially if you're going to try and run it up Guadalupe through the drag.

OR

5b. It means a massive reduction in lanes through the drag.


6. a U at Cesar Chavez probably isn't realistic, as it'd mean taking lanes from that major E/W thoroughfare.

7. Similarly, being so centrally concentrated means that the train storage/maintenance area has to be central, which drives up cost (both monetarily and opportunity cost, basically a wasted central block).

8. The attractiveness of running rail up Guadalupe is overstated. Yes, west campus has a bunch of people, but a large number of them are students, who travel E/W to campus, not N/S to downtown.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Novacek

8. The attractiveness of running rail up Guadalupe is overstated. Yes, west campus has a bunch of people, but a large number of them are students, who travel E/W to campus, not N/S to downtown.

But they would use it nightly for clubs going N/S

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

But they would use it nightly for clubs going N/S

Sure, but this gets to a basic misunderstanding of the purpose of transit investments.

The end-all, be-all of transit improvements isn't to get a high ridership, going for the maximum score like it's a game of donkey kong. Hell, if all you wanted was ridership we could pay the homeless to ride back and forth all day, we'd get great ridership numbers that way.

The purpose of the investment is to improve the overall transportation system. A student rider, going downtown to party in an off-peak time period isn't a great gain. It's not meaningless, but it's certainly not as good as a rush-hour peak period rider. Especially if that student rider was just going to take the existing bus service (which in the off-peak time period has about as good/short a trip) otherwise.

A rush hour commuter that gets induced to move to transit is worth 2x-3x-more an off-peak rider.

[nixcity]

The thing to look at more than that is how many people work in the 1/2 mile radius which is why the G/L alignment is certainly not overstated and why the #1 always far outpaced all other lines. Again, check out the plan that the Central Austin CDC, the only thing that is a drawback is that it doesn't go south of the river. However this saves a ton of money and I believe that is part of the reason the last vote failed. All they would have to do is show that as the 2nd phase of their plan.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by nixcity

and why the #1 always far outpaced all other lines.

The #1 outpaced all other lines because it's like twice as long as any other line. Per-mile productivity isn't amazingly better than some other routes. And again, how many peak vs. off-peak?

Originally Posted by nixcity

Again, check out the plan that the Central Austin CDC, the only thing that is a drawback is that it doesn't go south of the river.

You don't consider taking out a majority of the lanes on Guadalupe a drawback? Or were they going to run that thing in mixed traffic?

Originally Posted by nixcity

However this saves a ton of money

How? It's not appreciably cheaper than the last rail plan. It still requires a hundred million dollar crossing of the red line. The only way it's cheaper is by not crossing the river yet. You recognize that's a need eventually, so all you're doing is putting it off until it'll be even more expensive.

Originally Posted by nixcity

All they would have to do is show that as the 2nd phase of their plan.

And we saw how well that worked out in the last rail vote. They showed later phases, and people voted against it because it didn't serve them first.

[Jdawgboy]

I am one of those in south Austin that will not support the next rail plan if if does not include going south of the river. "Rightly or wrongly" as Novacek pointed out there is a discontent with Capital Metro shafting the southside.

Perfect example which relates to me is the night owl service. I used to be able to take the bus DT and go clubbing then take the 484 home to my hood. Originally it ran down Lamar to Manchaca then down to William Cannon to S First then it went up First back DT. The bus was always filled up with people, many times standing to capacity and when I got off at my stop it was still filled to seating capacity. Then Cap Metro decided to extend the service further north and that meant cutting back the route south only making it to Ben White before turning aroind. That's a shaft if ever I saw one because all the people south of there no longer had that option and I stopped using it because I didn't feel safe walking under the 290/71 bridge at Manchaca and walk another added 3 blocks home at 3 in the morning.

Point is the Southside may not be the center of the population but the growth is indeed shifting south. Hays County is the fastest growing county in the nation, the southside is experiencing rapid growth. Combine the two and the traffic situation is really going down hill.

If there is to be a new rail plan it has to include South Austin in the initial plan or I'm not going to vote for it period.

[nixcity]

I'm on vacation (in a place that understands taking away car lanes is often necessary if you want to change the car culture) so I'd rather not address each point yet. However, Novacek, can you honestly say you believe the failed (by A LOT, unlike the 2000 vote) 2014 ballot measure would have had higher ridership than what CACDC has laid out??

http://centralaustincdc.org/transpor...urban_rail.htm

[nixcity]

And for the record I would vote for their plan, plus tunneling under Guadalupe, and the river crossing with the riverside route as laid out in last years vote,,,,, and I am by no means rich but see the rise in taxes as necessary to further the city along.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

Then Cap Metro decided to extend the service further north and that meant cutting back the route south only making it to Ben White before turning around.

I'm curious, when was this? Because they've cut service to the north as well. 485 used to go as far north as Braker and no longer does.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by nixcity

I'm on vacation (in a place that understands taking away car lanes is often necessary if you want to change the car culture) so I'd rather not address each point yet.

I'm not claiming it is or isn't "necessary". But it's certainly a trade-off/drawback.

As is now requiring a large number (possibly the majority of riders) of your highest ridership route (1) to have to transfer, where before they would have had a single-seat ride.

Originally Posted by nixcity

However, Novacek, can you honestly say you believe the failed (by A LOT, unlike the 2000 vote) 2014 ballot measure would have had higher ridership than what CACDC has laid out??

Running up G/L would be a good route. Both would have been.

Both would probably have had similar ridership. Look at any American system, light rail ridership almost universally clumps at about 2-3k /mile.


Regarding the CACDC specifically, I have serious problems with some of their claims:

1. A 3 mile-long, linear parking lot where you then have to walk miles to a station is basically the stupidest idea in transportation ever.

2. They massively inflate their population estimates by including neighborhood residents 3 miles from their proposed line.

As well as voting down a viable system in preference to something that is completely back of the envelope by amateurs with no actual transportation expertise.

Originally Posted by nixcity

And for the record I would vote for their plan, plus tunneling under Guadalupe, and the river crossing with the riverside route as laid out in last years vote,,,,, and I am by no means rich but see the rise in taxes as necessary to further the city along.

As would I. Even though I wouldn't be served by it. Again, it would be a good route.

But I'm not sure a majority of Austinites would be willing to vote for that even larger cost.

[nixcity]

Both of your 3 mile claims are WAY off..... As well as you saying the numbers would have been the same, and I've riden many US LR systems and rail in numerous countries. Please point us in the direction of any other group that has any viable plan on the table.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by nixcity

Both of your 3 mile claims are WAY off.....

http://centralaustincdc.org/transpor...urban_rail.htm

1). They propose a park and ride under 183.

A 3400 car park and ride. Stretching from I35 to past Fairfield.

So you park up near I35. It's a mile and a half walk to their closest station (Anderson Square)

http://centralaustincdc.org/images/a...n_rail_map.jpg

2)

In their population listing for their proposed route, they list every single neighborhood that even touches their proposed line. In particular, NACA

NACA 28,604

NACA is huge. It stretches up to Kramer. They're including in their population estimate houses by Kramer/Metric, over 3 miles away walk (4 mile drive by google routing).

Originally Posted by nixcity

As well as you saying the numbers would have been the same, and I've riden many US LR systems and rail in numerous countries.

So what ridership do you think it would have had? CACDC is happens to be silent on that particular point (besides deceptively pointing to the 2000 plan ridership for a system twice as large).

Originally Posted by nixcity

Please point us in the direction of any other group that has any viable plan on the table.

That's just it, there's nothing on the table. CACDC (Scott Morris) pulling numbers out of the air with no funding plan isn't any more viable.

[SkyPie]

Originally Posted by Novacek

And we saw how well that worked out in the last rail vote. They showed later phases, and people voted against it because it didn't serve them first.

I don't agree with this statement. In my opinion and in speaking to others at the time, the plan failed because it was a bad plan. Too many people that would have otherwise gotten behind rail opposed the initial route. I voted against the plan for that very reason. Unfortunately, and this isn't to take anything away from people that give their time...often in a voluntary capacity...to work on these plans, there were too many "experts" (real and imagined) that thought they knew best and tried to push a bad plan down voters' throats. Some were downright arrogant. Where's the group of business leaders that spoke up after the vote saying we need to bite the bullet and start thinking big, subway big? I hope they are still out there and working on a strategy. We are not a small city any longer and our leaders (and many citizens) need to stop pretending we are. Give Austin voters a good plan, one that can excite and energize us, and show us a real buildout plan, and I believe we can get it done.