Light Rail Hate in Austin- please explain (Houston, Dallas: sales, employment)

[verybadgnome]

Originally Posted by winkosmosis

If the train actually takes as long as commuting by bus or by car in rush hour traffic, then it's not fast enough or has too many stops

Our train was built on the cheap on existing ROW and tracks so takes a not-very-direct route to DT. In the future there will not be as many new lane miles of roads to keep up with population so the train should be faster comparatively.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by verybadgnome

In the future there will not be as many new lane miles of roads to keep up with population so the train should be faster comparatively.

Actually, once the Mopac HOT lanes get finished - even w/o the proposed 183 ones - the express bus would be even faster than Metro Rail.

[AguaDulce]

Originally Posted by tfresca

You should note that lots of people would prefer to live in Austin but can't afford the cost. Housing stock is through the roof and super competitive.

I live 3.5 miles from the Capitol. My rent is $995 for a two bedroom apartment in Hyde Park. There are some studio apartments for rent as low as $750. There are nicer places that cost more. But if you don't have the expense of owning and maintaining a car, you can pay more for rent.

I don't have a car anymore. I walk, ride buses, ride my bike, and occasionally use Car2Go for short trips--41 cents a minute covers everything including gas and insurance. You can park them almost anywhere for free. Once a month I rent a car for the weekend for fifty bucks.

[AguaDulce]

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.

We don't have light rail in Austin. It was voted down. I think we need more and better public transportation. Light rail, more commuter rail, better bus service. We also need more bike lanes that are separate from car lanes. We need more options. Austin is the fastest growing city in the country. More roads for more cars? Where? People need to start thinking more creatively. A hundred people a day are bringing a hundred cars a day with them.

[Jimrob1]

Originally Posted by Austin97

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.

I can the Greater Boston area. We may have traffic and lots of it, but if we did not have the rail transit options that we do have. Well I can only imagine the gridlock this place would see. In fact the economy that we do have would be so impacted, the area could not function at all. It would be total collapse for the Boston region, if everyone had to depend on a car. There is just way to much commuting here because of the high COL.

I can only guess but it seems much of the USA, including Austin just seems to wait for that complete gridlock to happen. Knowing there is a very serious problem, yet not taking the situation seriously enough. Oh there are plans about building future transit, but they are so far off in time. Really what good are they, when the traffic problems are suffocating the area right now. Seems to be how its done in this country. Actually its frightening because its the majority of the USA that thinks that way. The car is placed on such a pedestal in this country that its nauseating. Roads can handle only so much, and only so many roads can be built. So there has to be options beside the almighty vehicles. I don't know what part of that populations and politicians do not understand. So Austin is far from being alone on the issue. It's sad to watch it happen, or in my case hear about how serious the traffic congestion has become in Austin. Austin is at the top of fastest growing Metro's in this country. I don't know how city officials/planners and the general population plan to get from Point A to B in the immediate future, with just the one commuter rail line and limited bus service.

[Austin97]

Originally Posted by OpenD

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.



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.

every single one of the cities you mentioned has nightmare traffic. Rail does not alleviate traffic meaning rail does not reduce commute times for people who drive.

[AguaDulce]

Originally Posted by Austin97

every single one of the cities you mentioned has nightmare traffic. Rail does not alleviate traffic meaning rail does not reduce commute times for people who drive.

Take rail away from those cities and see what happens. Nightmare doesn't even begin to describe it.

[verybadgnome]

Originally Posted by scm53

Actually, once the Mopac HOT lanes get finished - even w/o the proposed 183 ones - the express bus would be even faster than Metro Rail.

Maybe. Right now red line is 6 minutes faster to DT, but to different locations Guadalupe/8th for bus and CC for rail.

Even if it does wind up being a few minutes faster it will be over a different route with fewer stops (9 vs. 7) in different locations. The express bus won't take you to Highland Mall, Crestview or anywhere on the east side. In other words the two services don't serve the same purpose.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by verybadgnome

Maybe. Right now red line is 6 minutes faster to DT, but to different locations Guadalupe/8th for bus and CC for rail.

Even if it does wind up being a few minutes faster it will be over a different route with fewer stops (9 vs. 7) in different locations. The express bus won't take you to Highland Mall, Crestview or anywhere on the east side. In other words the two services don't serve the same purpose.

And the reason Metro Express doesn't, is that no one wants to go there. A Metro Express bus can, and will, go where the demand is - like MLK/Red River and Lavaca/W 6th - as the current route does. Not where it has to go, like any fixed guideway system.

If there was a smidgen of demand to go from Lakeline to Crestview, a Metro Express bus could do it just as fast, and cheaper - both in operating AND capital expense. There wasn't before Metro Rail, and there isn't any now.

[verybadgnome]

Originally Posted by scm53

And the reason Metro Express doesn't, is that no one wants to go there. A Metro Express bus can, and will, go where the demand is - like MLK/Red River and Lavaca/W 6th - as the current route does. Not where it has to go, like any fixed guideway system.

If there was a smidgen of demand to go from Lakeline to Crestview, a Metro Express bus could do it just as fast, and cheaper - both in operating AND capital expense. There wasn't before Metro Rail, and there isn't any now.

......or express bus doesn't go to those places because rail has already met the demand. You might be surprised by some of the numbers like the fact that the MLK stop gets more riders (10% of the total) than Leander at 7%. Also the four stops from Lakeline to Highland Mall comprise 45% of boardings and alightings. More than a smidgen.

Rail has less flexibility but that is a good thing too because then developers know the line cannot be changed at any time. This gives them more incentive for developing dense TODs. It will take more time to develop but rail stops have a greater long term potential if planned well and funding is available.

And if an express bus did go to Crestview, Highland Mall and others it would lose the competitive time advantage of managed lanes versus the train since it would have to get off Mopac and 183.

So again buses are better at meeting some types demands over rail and vice versa.