Light Rail Hate in Austin- please explain (Dallas, Paris: community college, to live in)

[Raskolnikov]

With all the congestion in Austin, can someone explain, in very basic/ elementary terms, why the light rail that currently exists is viewed as a failure?

Personally speaking, I am not a fan of the location, but I want light rail/ an L-train/ subway to be built in Austin to alleviate traffic, and can't believe Dallas (a more fiscally conservative city) has it while Austin doesn't. I personally wish there was a train that went from the four corners of Austin suburbs (northwest, northeast, southwest, southeast) into downtown. If that isn't the plan it seems ridiculous. I hear talk of having it run from the now vacant Highland Mall to Riverside Drive. Is that the plan? Is so that's stupid.

Also - I have to fully admit that I know virtually nothing about it's current route, as I live in southwest Austin and work downtown, and have never even seen the train.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Raskolnikov

With all the congestion in Austin, can someone explain, in very basic/ elementary terms, why the light rail that currently exists is viewed as a failure?

We don't have light rail yet.
We have commuter rail.

[FalconheadWest]

Most people in Dallas don't use the DART rail. I lived there for 25 years and used it once. It's not convenient. We are car people and there will be very little done until people can go without their cars.

[OpenD]

Originally Posted by Raskolnikov

With all the congestion in Austin, can someone explain, in very basic/ elementary terms, why the light rail that currently exists is viewed as a failure?

It's only seen as a failure by some, who have been critics from the outset. Metrorail ridership has exceeded original projections, hours have been expanded due to increased demand, and it gets very heavy use for special events, diverting a large amount of automobile traffic from downtown at those times. It seems pretty successful so far to me. I was a lot better informed on this one when I lived in Austin, but now I'm seeing the same arguments raised around the big Honolulu commuter rail project, and suggestions to use old sugar-train routes for light rail into Hilo, so I try to stay up to date.

Personally speaking, I am not a fan of the location, but I want light rail/ an L-train/ subway to be built in Austin to alleviate traffic, and can't believe Dallas (a more fiscally conservative city) has it while Austin doesn't. I personally wish there was a train that went from the four corners of Austin suburbs (northwest, northeast, southwest, southeast) into downtown. If that isn't the plan it seems ridiculous.

The biggest issue in Austin, as everywhere, is obtaining right of way to run the tracks on, a very expensive and often contentious process. What made the first leg faster and more affordable to implement was gaining daytime use of an existing track that was in use for cargo trains at night. Pro: It saved a lot of money and time to get up and running. Con: It required a less than ideal route for passenger traffic, and limits hours of operation.

Next steps being discussed, various possible routes, etc. are speculative, because they would require a referendum to get built, and that would be a tough sell. But solving Austin's already horrendous traffic issues will require a multi-prong solution, and most of it is already overdue.

I hear talk of having it run from the now vacant Highland Mall to Riverside Drive. Is that the plan? Is so that's stupid.

There is a station across the street from Highland Mall now, called Highland Station, which is almost exactly at Austin's population center. The property was purchased by Austin Community College to covert into their main campus, and when that conversion is complete the ridership through that station is projected to rise substantially. Also the periphery of that property is slated to be developed into new mixed use buildings, with office, retail, and possibly residential properties. And finally, it means that Highland Mall parking lot can be used as a Park-and-Ride facility.

Also - I have to fully admit that I know virtually nothing about it's current route, as I live in southwest Austin and work downtown, and have never even seen the train.

That's because its route is all north of the lake, and the downtown station is 3 or 4 blocks east of Congress... 4th and Trinity IIRC... all of which was dictated by the available right of way.

[Austin97]

Originally Posted by Raskolnikov

With all the congestion in Austin, can someone explain, in very basic/ elementary terms, why the light rail that currently exists is viewed as a failure?

Personally speaking, I am not a fan of the location, but I want light rail/ an L-train/ subway to be built in Austin to alleviate traffic, and can't believe Dallas (a more fiscally conservative city) has it while Austin doesn't. I personally wish there was a train that went from the four corners of Austin suburbs (northwest, northeast, southwest, southeast) into downtown. If that isn't the plan it seems ridiculous. I hear talk of having it run from the now vacant Highland Mall to Riverside Drive. Is that the plan? Is so that's stupid.

Also - I have to fully admit that I know virtually nothing about it's current route, as I live in southwest Austin and work downtown, and have never even seen the train.

rail never alleviates traffic. Please name one city in the entire world where rail has alleviated traffic?


The value of rail is as a way to attract people that want to ride rail to austin. Im not saying that is a bad reason, just that there will be no significant reduction in traffic due to rail. There is a benefit to the people that want to ride rail for convenience/reduced commute time etc.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by FalconheadWest

Most people in Dallas don't use the DART rail. I lived there for 25 years and used it once. It's not convenient. We are car people and there will be very little done until people can go without their cars.

It doesn't take "most" people to use light rail for it to take a tremendous load off the roads. And you "car people" who have chosen to live in sprawlburbs should hope and pray more people us "not car people" opt to use other means of transportation - otherwise your commute to and from sprawl gets worse and worse with each new person who moves to the city of Austin at a rate of 110/day.

[OpenD]

Originally Posted by Austin97

rail never alleviates traffic. Please name one city in the entire world where rail has alleviated traffic?

Ummm... New York City, for starters. More than a million people a day commute into Manhattan a day by public transit, including subway, bus and rail. Only 11% of them travel alone in a car. Shut down rail traffic and the city becomes a brick.

Then there is San Francisco. It can't function on auto traffic alone. And of course London and Paris. And so many more.

The value of rail is as a way to attract people that want to ride rail to austin.

Sweeping generalizations like this confuse thinking... If this were true, then why is Metrorail already exceeding ridership projections, with people who already live there?

Here's what puzzles me about the opposition to light rail... all the experts who can't agree on anything else, do agree that Austin cannot build enough highways to solve its traffic congestion problem.

The only thing that can really help is more high capacity mass transit, to reduce the vehicle count moving to and through the core. Light rail is very efficient at doing that, once the heavy startup costs are handled.

[jwynne2000]

Works out great for me. I live 2 miles from the Howard Station and take it to downtown, east Austin, or Rainey anytime I need to get to those areas on a Friday or Saturday night. 5 bucks round trip. They're nice trains too.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by OpenD

It's only seen as a failure by some, who have been critics from the outset. Metrorail ridership has exceeded original projections, hours have been expanded due to increased demand, and it gets very heavy use for special events, diverting a large amount of automobile traffic from downtown at those times. It seems pretty successful so far to me.

I don't know how successful it is. It carries fewer passengers than commuter buses, at a higher per passenger trip cost. What did it accomplish - meaningfully - that commuter buses couldn't? Sexy, cool, trendy, "keeping up with the joneses"? Yes. Improve mobility at the lowest cost? No.

[winkosmosis]

Originally Posted by scm53

I don't know how successful it is. It carries fewer passengers than commuter buses, at a higher per passenger trip cost. What did it accomplish - meaningfully - that commuter buses couldn't? Sexy, cool, trendy, "keeping up with the joneses"? Yes. Improve mobility at the lowest cost? No.

A bus is limited by traffic speed, a train isn't.

Compared to highways, rail is a bargain... And that's not even including the cost of the cars and fuel.