Comments on: Austin Proceeds with Light Rail Project Even as Commuter Line Stalls http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/09/01/austin-proceeds-with-light-rail-project-even-as-commuter-line-stalls/ Sat, 11 Feb 2012 00:43:11 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: M1EK http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/09/01/austin-proceeds-with-light-rail-project-even-as-commuter-line-stalls/#comment-6756 M1EK Wed, 09 Sep 2009 18:06:02 +0000 http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=3751#comment-6756 Sorry, the close paren messes up that link. The category archive is here: http://mdahmus.monkeysystems.com/blog/archives/cat_dont_hurt_us_mr_krusee_well_do_whatever_you_want.html (I was on the Urban Transportation Commission in 2003 and got an early preview of this Austin-screwing light-rail-destroying debacle; that's how I got started blogging in the first place. Don't be fooled; this is not urban rail; it's not light rail; and never will be; it's a disastrous route that eliminates the possibility of running trains on the 2000 proposed route, which more closely matches actual success stories in other regions). Sorry, the close paren messes up that link. The category archive is here:

http://mdahmus.monkeysystems.com/blog/archives/cat_dont_hurt_us_mr_krusee_well_do_whatever_you_want.html

(I was on the Urban Transportation Commission in 2003 and got an early preview of this Austin-screwing light-rail-destroying debacle; that’s how I got started blogging in the first place. Don’t be fooled; this is not urban rail; it’s not light rail; and never will be; it’s a disastrous route that eliminates the possibility of running trains on the 2000 proposed route, which more closely matches actual success stories in other regions).

]]> By: M1EK http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/09/01/austin-proceeds-with-light-rail-project-even-as-commuter-line-stalls/#comment-6754 M1EK Wed, 09 Sep 2009 18:02:24 +0000 http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=3751#comment-6754 Adam, you're really reaching; there's zero chance any significant number of people will be disembarking and being replaced by new passengers in the middle of the route. Folks, I've been covering this debacle since 2003 at my blog (category archive: http://mdahmus.monkeysystems.com/blog/archives/cat_dont_hurt_us_mr_krusee_well_do_whatever_you_want.html) In short, Austin is attempting to ignore the Red Line as much as possible while planning an urban light rail start - which is exactly the right thing to do, as not very many people will be interested in the 3-seat-ride (car, commuter rail, streetcar) from far northwest reaches; and the commuter rail line doesn't actually serve the urban area of the city at all. Adam, you’re really reaching; there’s zero chance any significant number of people will be disembarking and being replaced by new passengers in the middle of the route.

Folks, I’ve been covering this debacle since 2003 at my blog (category archive: http://mdahmus.monkeysystems.com/blog/archives/cat_dont_hurt_us_mr_krusee_well_do_whatever_you_want.html)

In short, Austin is attempting to ignore the Red Line as much as possible while planning an urban light rail start – which is exactly the right thing to do, as not very many people will be interested in the 3-seat-ride (car, commuter rail, streetcar) from far northwest reaches; and the commuter rail line doesn’t actually serve the urban area of the city at all.

]]> By: Yonah Freemark http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/09/01/austin-proceeds-with-light-rail-project-even-as-commuter-line-stalls/#comment-5926 Yonah Freemark Wed, 02 Sep 2009 17:46:17 +0000 http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=3751#comment-5926 Adam - Thanks for your points. The proposed schedule, according to <a href="http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/traffic/entries/2009/08/31/new_problems_crop_up_on_commut.html" rel="nofollow">this article</a>, suggests that there will be 9.5 round trips daily, as you said. Sorry about that mistake. You're very much right also about capacity -- I shouldn't have included that number in the post, as it's inaccurate. Adam -
Thanks for your points. The proposed schedule, according to this article, suggests that there will be 9.5 round trips daily, as you said. Sorry about that mistake.
You’re very much right also about capacity — I shouldn’t have included that number in the post, as it’s inaccurate.

]]> By: Adam http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/09/01/austin-proceeds-with-light-rail-project-even-as-commuter-line-stalls/#comment-5900 Adam Wed, 02 Sep 2009 14:47:39 +0000 http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=3751#comment-5900 Some fact checking is in order here: 1) Voters did not agree to "finance" this rail project. There was not a bond election. Because of a unique legislative requirement, Capital Metro was required to have a referendum simply to build and operate the line. Yes, Capital Metro's main funding source is sales tax, but to suggest that voters approved some sort of financing plan is not accurate. 2) The rail line will not operate "only six round trips per day." The draft schedule includes a total of 19 daily trips (9 southbound and 10 northbound). 3) The rail system does not have a "maximum capacity of 1,200 people." Some people have tried to calculate the maximum capacity by multiplying the maximum number of people who can fit on a train by the number of daily trips. But that's a flawed calculation because it doesn't account for passengers boarding and alighting at various stations along the way. Some fact checking is in order here:
1) Voters did not agree to “finance” this rail project. There was not a bond election. Because of a unique legislative requirement, Capital Metro was required to have a referendum simply to build and operate the line. Yes, Capital Metro’s main funding source is sales tax, but to suggest that voters approved some sort of financing plan is not accurate.
2) The rail line will not operate “only six round trips per day.” The draft schedule includes a total of 19 daily trips (9 southbound and 10 northbound).
3) The rail system does not have a “maximum capacity of 1,200 people.” Some people have tried to calculate the maximum capacity by multiplying the maximum number of people who can fit on a train by the number of daily trips. But that’s a flawed calculation because it doesn’t account for passengers boarding and alighting at various stations along the way.

]]> By: Woody http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/09/01/austin-proceeds-with-light-rail-project-even-as-commuter-line-stalls/#comment-5878 Woody Wed, 02 Sep 2009 03:56:11 +0000 http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=3751#comment-5878 Maybe Austin voters will be more influenced by favorable developments in Texas' bigger cities. Austin and San Antonio voted against light rail at about the same time. Dallas and Houston voters have supported light rail. Now Houston has the nation's single most successful light rail line, through downtown and the museum district out to the medical center and the Astrodome area. Funding is in place for three more light rail routes with some prep work underway. Dallas already has a rail system "bigger than Dallas" with work on-going to double it to total some 90 miles. Next month a line opens to connect the existing system and downtown to the State Fairgrounds and the Deep Elum entertainment district. In a year or two later the line will connect to Southwest's hub at Love Field and later DFW Airport. Now San Antonio is talking streetcars, and Fort Worth too. Funny how Austin, often described as "green" or "blue in a sea of red" or even "pink", is plagued with toll roads and traffic jams, while its bigger and more conventional neighbors are showing how to do rail-based public transit. Maybe Austin voters will be more influenced by favorable developments in Texas’ bigger cities. Austin and San Antonio voted against light rail at about the same time. Dallas and Houston voters have supported light rail.

Now Houston has the nation’s single most successful light rail line, through downtown and the museum district out to the medical center and the Astrodome area. Funding is in place for three more light rail routes with some prep work underway.

Dallas already has a rail system “bigger than Dallas” with work on-going to double it to total some 90 miles. Next month a line opens to connect the existing system and downtown to the State Fairgrounds and the Deep Elum entertainment district. In a year or two later the line will connect to Southwest’s hub at Love Field and later DFW Airport.

Now San Antonio is talking streetcars, and Fort Worth too.

Funny how Austin, often described as “green” or “blue in a sea of red” or even “pink”, is plagued with toll roads and traffic jams, while its bigger and more conventional neighbors are showing how to do rail-based public transit.

]]> By: AlexB http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2009/09/01/austin-proceeds-with-light-rail-project-even-as-commuter-line-stalls/#comment-5819 AlexB Tue, 01 Sep 2009 14:45:40 +0000 http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/?p=3751#comment-5819 Having gone to school at UT, I remember voting for the first light rail line proposal that failed 49 to 51. That line would have been very useful and attracted a lot of riders, but would have cost close to a billion dollars. The commuter rail line was meant to be skimpy because Capital Metro wanted to proceed with something simple and cheap that the voters would approve. The commuter line budget was around 100 million, paltry for such a long line. If it is successful, the capital expenditure per rider would be very low. It has already spurred TOD at a few stations along its route. As much as I would have preferred the original plan, the voters in Austin didn't give Capital Metro much choice and I think they did the best they could with what they were given. This is a link to the original proposal, it was basically a combination of the commuter light rail and the street running light rail described in this post. http://www.lightrail.com/maps/austin/austin_light_rail_map.gif One of the things I never understood about the current proposal is why there are no transfers between the commuter rail and the tramway. It is easy to imagine someone wanting to live in the suburbs and commute to school or anywhere along the tramway route, where there is a lot of activity. Either the tram should run down MLK east of UT or the commuter train should stop at Manor. The proposed bus connection from the train to UT is not nearly as nice or helpful. Also, the commuter train runs on the street into downtown. Why not just continue it along 4th St to stop at Congress, Guadalupe and Seaholm? The (eventual) heavy commuter rail from San Antonio will stop at Seaholm, and the Amtrak station is a block away, so it makes a lot of sense to make that the rail transit hub of the city. Seaholm is a beautiful building and the views of the river there are classic Austin, a great way to enter the city. Even though they are planning for three round trips/day, I am sure if there is demand, they will increase service. The problem is that the train is slower than a car, except during rush hour, and the train does not really go to the heart of downtown Austin. There simply are not that many people that live near the 6 or so stops north of downtown that commute to the Convention Center area. The 6th and Congress area is walkable, but the capital area is not. Like I said earlier, the commuter rail really was the most they could do with what the Austin voters gave the city. Having gone to school at UT, I remember voting for the first light rail line proposal that failed 49 to 51. That line would have been very useful and attracted a lot of riders, but would have cost close to a billion dollars. The commuter rail line was meant to be skimpy because Capital Metro wanted to proceed with something simple and cheap that the voters would approve. The commuter line budget was around 100 million, paltry for such a long line. If it is successful, the capital expenditure per rider would be very low. It has already spurred TOD at a few stations along its route. As much as I would have preferred the original plan, the voters in Austin didn’t give Capital Metro much choice and I think they did the best they could with what they were given. This is a link to the original proposal, it was basically a combination of the commuter light rail and the street running light rail described in this post. http://www.lightrail.com/maps/austin/austin_light_rail_map.gif

One of the things I never understood about the current proposal is why there are no transfers between the commuter rail and the tramway. It is easy to imagine someone wanting to live in the suburbs and commute to school or anywhere along the tramway route, where there is a lot of activity. Either the tram should run down MLK east of UT or the commuter train should stop at Manor. The proposed bus connection from the train to UT is not nearly as nice or helpful. Also, the commuter train runs on the street into downtown. Why not just continue it along 4th St to stop at Congress, Guadalupe and Seaholm? The (eventual) heavy commuter rail from San Antonio will stop at Seaholm, and the Amtrak station is a block away, so it makes a lot of sense to make that the rail transit hub of the city. Seaholm is a beautiful building and the views of the river there are classic Austin, a great way to enter the city.

Even though they are planning for three round trips/day, I am sure if there is demand, they will increase service. The problem is that the train is slower than a car, except during rush hour, and the train does not really go to the heart of downtown Austin. There simply are not that many people that live near the 6 or so stops north of downtown that commute to the Convention Center area. The 6th and Congress area is walkable, but the capital area is not. Like I said earlier, the commuter rail really was the most they could do with what the Austin voters gave the city.

]]>