How to fit urban rail into Austin’s Guadalupe and Lamar (Houston: 2013, how much)

[scm53]

Houston’s MetroRail shows the way

[LiveUrban]

Houston's MetroRail is great! DART is Dallas is an ever better rail system and has been very successful. There are several different lines going to the far edge of the cities

[Westerner92]

I was already under the impression that this is what Austin needs to do. Apart from the hills, Austin's layout of dense corridors lends itself well to the streetcar/light-rail model, and you don't even have to take a lane out of commission to do it.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Westerner92

and you don't even have to take a lane out of commission to do it.

That absolutely doesn't match the proposal. Everyone pushing for G/L rail has plans that would require removing lanes (sometimes the majority of lanes).

[scm53]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Everyone pushing for G/L rail has plans that would require removing lanes (sometimes the majority of lanes).

Isn't that true of any configuration N of the river - including San Jacinto/RR, as proposed by Project Connect?

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by scm53

Isn't that true of any configuration N of the river - including San Jacinto/RR, as proposed by Project Connect?

I'm not aware that they've released (or even planned?) how much of the proposed route is shared vs. exclusive, and of the exclusive, how much is lane reductions or narrowing and how much (if any) is property acquisition.

Technically, I think they're still holding onto the fig leaf that "it could be bus".

[scm53]

Originally Posted by Novacek

I'm not aware that they've released (or even planned?) how much of the proposed route is shared vs. exclusive, and of the exclusive, how much is lane reductions or narrowing and how much (if any) is property acquisition.

Technically, I think they're still holding onto the fig leaf that "it could be bus".

My only point is, that I don't see how you put any rail system onto the streets of Austin - G/L, or San Jac/Red River - w/o taking out lanes. It isn't restricted to just one routing. And as far as "exclusive v. shared", then all you have done is put a very expensive mode in the same flow as traffic.

I'd love to see this from the river to the N Lamar transit center, in the "downtown" configuration from UT and south, and dedicated lanes N of there, with limited cross streets (38th, 51st, N Loop, Koenig, Airport, etc). Intermodal center @ Crestview to transfer to UT or the Capitol complex. Great stuff.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by scm53

My only point is, that I don't see how you put any rail system onto the streets of Austin - G/L, or San Jac/Red River - w/o taking out lanes. It isn't restricted to just one routing.

But the conditions on the ground vary between the various routes. Some routes have extra room in segments. Some routes have adjacent land that can be taken through eminent domain, some don't. Some land can't be taken through eminent domain (anything owned by UT/the state), while for others the expense varies.

So no, it's not restricted to one routing, but some routes might (for instance) require taking 3/4 of the lanes of one of the heaviest used arterials, when some might only require taking a single lane somewhere else.

Originally Posted by scm53

And as far as "exclusive v. shared", then all you have done is put a very expensive mode in the same flow as traffic.

But the traffic flow _isn't_ the same everywhere. Some places its gridlocked, some places its fairly free-flowing even during rush hour (compare guadalupe through campus vs. Lamar north of 2222). Why go to the additional expense (either literally or the reduced throughput) of an exclusive lane in those areas where a shared lane (or a shared lane with a queue-jumper at a light) will have similar performance characteristics?

Originally Posted by scm53

I'd love to see this from the river to the N Lamar transit center,

There's arguments for going north on Lamar through 183 to the transit center, but there's also arguments against it (especially if they end up moving the transit center). There's also arguments for instead going NW from crestview through the rail right of way, which lets you serve Pickle/Domain/NorthBurnetGateway and eventually McNeil. (all of which will eventually have density far above Lamar north of 183).

[scm53]

Originally Posted by Novacek

BuBut the traffic flow _isn't_ the same everywhere. Some places its gridlocked, some places its fairly free-flowing even during rush hour (compare guadalupe through campus vs. Lamar north of 2222).

You weren't talking about G/L, you were talking about the PC routing - which will have almost no free flowing segments N of the river - and if it does, it is horribly restricted, twisting (San Jac through campus). It will be nothing but a VERY expensive streetcar.

Also, I'm not married to the Transit Center - just that it is a logical place for transfers from Metro Express off 183, not to mention the acres of parking under the elevated sections. If it becomes the terminus of LR, you will lose all that parking anyway. It is for transfers, not P&R.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by scm53

You weren't talking about G/L, you were talking about the PC routing -

I was using the comparison of those two segments as an _example_ (since, you know, we're in a topic about G/L). I don't know as much about the traffic flows of the PC proposed routes (personally, I drive on Lamar), but I'd be surprised if the routes up near Highland see as much volume as the sections through campus.