Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think what's happening on Mopac is a good example of what to expect. Buses will share the toll lane. Makes sense don't you think? This ties into an important point, which is that buses can share toll or HOV lanes with cars.
I love the MoPac idea, and it will definitely benefit the express bus service that will operate in that corridor. It will make the service more attractive and more reliable. But it's a single corridor, and there are no immediate plans on the horizon to do that anywhere else; a study on doing that on I-35 is in its infancy, which means it's likely decades away. Buses, again, at higher demand, cost more per unit of capacity than rail (that's the "bang for the buck" argument).
Quote:
Originally Posted by kavorka
Dedicated bus lanes are much cheaper to implement and therefore more palatable to taxpayers.
Not when they take away existing travel lanes. Taxpayers couldn't give a tinker's cuss what they cost if it means that their auto commute will be made worse by the loss of single-occupant vehicle capacity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kavorka
You talk about how hard it is to get dedicated bus lanes, but just wait until you see the results of the potential upcoming bond election for rail. Rail will be going down to defeat in a big way because it costs so much to get started. Project Connect's idiocy hasn't helped the odds either
You seem very confident. Are you a transportation planner, political consultant, or engineer? Just asking out of curiosity because you seem very confident; do you know something that others don't? What about Project Connect is "idiocy"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by kavorka
Also, the worse traffic becomes in this town the more attractive buses are going to look.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!! Yes, it'll be much more attractive to climb on a vehicle with 59 other people so you can share your personal space while you sit in the same exact horrible traffic that you used to enjoy the day before, except you were in your own private auto.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kavorka
You miss the fact that the new lanes being built will be shared by toll payers, and/or HOVs and buses. There's something for everyone. Those are the kinds of projects that actually get done. See Mopac.
Oh, I see it. I'm involved in it. Do you know how long it took to get it to the point of the first shovel going in the ground? For large transportation projects, time is measured in reverse dog years. EVERYTHING takes years, even the simplest analyses and designs. Let's superimpose your ambitious plan of doubling service on existing routes, and doubling the routes (in addition to extending express bus service). Where are all those buses going to go? Gonna send 'em all down MoPac?
Quote:
Originally Posted by kavorka
Another advantage of buses over rail is flexibility. They can go where the people are in new developments and existing routes can be altered.
Which is also the reason why regular bus transit will never "pay for itself", one of the chief complaints of transit nay-sayers. It produces no economic development (or redevelopment) because it is viewed as un-permanent and subject to re-route on whim, it does not anchor development, it has low capacity potential (meaning it becomes obsolete quicker), AND it operates on the same terribly congested roadways that cars do, meaning that it is less attractive in general than the mode that people already use - their cars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kavorka
I really didn't want to get into the tired bus versus rail debate.
"Now that I've said what I want to say, shut up", he argued...
Quote:
Originally Posted by kavorka
I like rail, but it's just not going to happen in Austin regardless of what you or I think.
...in your humblest opinion. And tell me, why do you "like" rail?
I love the MoPac idea, and it will definitely benefit the express bus service that will operate in that corridor. It will make the service more attractive and more reliable. But it's a single corridor, and there are no immediate plans on the horizon to do that anywhere else; a study on doing that on I-35 is in its infancy, which means it's likely decades away. Buses, again, at higher demand, cost more per unit of capacity than rail (that's the "bang for the buck" argument).
You make the "but it's a single corridor" argument as if we were closer to multiple rail routes in Austin than we are to another dedicated bus lane? We're not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jb9152
Not when they take away existing travel lanes. Taxpayers couldn't give a tinker's cuss what they cost if it means that their auto commute will be made worse by the loss of single-occupant vehicle capacity.
The proposed rail line to Highland would mean the loss of single-occupant vehicle capacity as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jb9152
You seem very confident. Are you a transportation planner, political consultant, or engineer? Just asking out of curiosity because you seem very confident; do you know something that others don't? What about Project Connect is "idiocy"?
I merely have the same knowledge shared by many long time rail advocates in this town. Just because you are unaware doesn't make it top secret information. Start here.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!! Yes, it'll be much more attractive to climb on a vehicle with 59 other people so you can share your personal space while you sit in the same exact horrible traffic that you used to enjoy the day before, except you were in your own private auto.
Good thing you don't have to share your personal space on a train, right? Also, you don't sit in traffic in dedicated lanes. But you knew that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jb9152
Oh, I see it. I'm involved in it. Do you know how long it took to get it to the point of the first shovel going in the ground?
Do you know how long it's going to take to get to the point of the first shovel in the ground for light rail in Austin? The results of last year's poll by the Downtown Business Alliance should give you a clue. Article (behind pay wall)
The poll result, said longtime Austin political consultant Peck Young, "is a damned disaster." "They're losing to begin with, which for any one running a bond campaign by definition means your tail is fried," Young. Said. "You have to go into a bond campaign at least 10 percent up, or you're toast.
You take from that what you want, jb9152.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jb9152
Which is also the reason why regular bus transit will never "pay for itself"...
Neither will rail, but that's never been the point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jb9152
...in your humblest opinion. And tell me, why do you "like" rail?
I live in Brentwood and ride the Red Line quite often.
Just took a look at your post history, jb9152, and see that you are a major consumer of Project Connect Kool-Aid. Now it makes sense. We aren't going to see eye to eye on this issue, and I'm done contributing to this thread.
You make the "but it's a single corridor" argument as if we were closer to multiple rail routes in Austin than we are to another dedicated bus lane? We're not.
Actually, we are. MetroRail Red Line exists. MetroRail Green Line is in the planning stages. LSTAR is in the planning stages. And finally, Central Corridor is in the planning stages. All are further along than any concept to create dedicated bus lanes anywhere in the region.
But that's not really that important to the greater point I was trying to make, which is that your idea to double service and double routes, in a heavily congested environment with no immediate remedy in sight, is an expensive, unattractive, and poorly thought-out solution. Doesn't matter whether rail is being planned or not. Putting more buses into the same traffic that auto commuters suffer with every day will not help very much, but you'll pay a lot to do it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kavorka
The proposed rail line to Highland would mean the loss of single-occupant vehicle capacity as well.
Hmmm. I didn't think they the alignment had been chosen yet. In fact, I know it hasn't been chosen yet, so I'm wondering on what you base that assumption. Can you provide a recent link?
Quote:
Originally Posted by kavorka
I merely have the same knowledge shared by many long time rail advocates in this town. Just because you are unaware doesn't make it top secret information. Start here.
Criticism from a rail advocate group whose attitude is "do it our way, or we'll take our toys and go home". Very credible. Maybe you could cite a source that doesn't have an axe to grind?
Good thing you don't have to share your personal space on a train, right?
Of course you do, silly. But trains on dedicated right of way (commuter rail, regional rail, and many light rail systems) are congestion-proof. Buses are not. If I can take a train from San Marcos to Austin in 30 minutes (and on time 95%-plus of the time) compared to an hour plus driving (maybe 2 hours if someone has a flat tire on the side of the road), or God forbid sitting on a bus doing 15 mph down I-35, which choice do you think is more attractive?
When it comes to streetcars/urban rail systems, as I've pointed out multiple times, they're a more attractive mode (meaning more people will want to use it), and their capacity potential is much higher than bus, which has a limited capacity to accept additional demand, and in fact would be obsolete before you finished paying the debt you used to buy the buses, infrastructure, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kavorka
Also, you don't sit in traffic in dedicated lanes. But you knew that.
What dedicated lanes? The only ones I know of are MoPac (created by using median space and narrowing existing lanes, so no existing lanes will be taken) and the downtown BRT lanes (created by taking parking spaces, not roadway capacity). You still indulge this fantasy of decision makers suddenly having a come to Jesus moment and taking travel lanes away from auto commuters. That will not happen anytime soon. So your "plan" of doubling routes and doubling service will still operate on the increasingly congested road network. I can confidently say that no one will find that appealing, except for the transit-dependent. You will not get people out of their cars and onto buses to sit in the same traffic that they sit in today. It has never happened, anywhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kavorka
Do you know how long it's going to take to get to the point of the first shovel in the ground for light rail in Austin? The results of last year's poll by the Downtown Business Alliance should give you a clue. Article (behind pay wall)
The poll result, said longtime Austin political consultant Peck Young, "is a damned disaster." "They're losing to begin with, which for any one running a bond campaign by definition means your tail is fried," Young. Said. "You have to go into a bond campaign at least 10 percent up, or you're toast.
It may be a rough road to go for the city and a bond election, but the fact remains that short of investments in real, long-term solutions (which means an "all of the above" approach - roads, transit, freight rail), the Austin region will be stagnating, then slowly dying, as highways grind to a halt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kavorka
Neither will rail, but that's never been the point.
(referring to "paying for itself")
Actually, the assertion that passenger rail doesn't "pay for itself" is only true if you ignore its economic development generating power, ignore its attractiveness, ignore its productive capacity, and ignore its mobility benefits.
Passenger rail makes *tons* of money. Unfortunately for the government agencies that operate it, just not for them. Developers, property owners, retailers, etc. make boatloads of money from proximity to rail stations. Government agencies can't develop property, so they have historically never been able to tap the growth in economic activity, etc., that accompanies the presence of a rail station. But that's changing, with public and private value capture arrangements. You'll see more of that in the future. Bus will never be able to do that. No one is going to bet millions of dollars of development on a bus stop that could move three blocks away next month because a service planner at the local transit authority decided the route was not optimal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kavorka
I live in Brentwood and ride the Red Line quite often.
Hmmm. I didn't think they the alignment had been chosen yet. In fact, I know it hasn't been chosen yet, so I'm wondering on what you base that assumption. Can you provide a recent link?
I don't think things are completely finalized, but it definitely seems like some lane removals will occur.
Page 44. One lane each direction would be removed from Red River north of Dean Keeton.
Again, I think this is a worthwhile removal, but I'm sure some drivers will protest.
Awful idea. Reason enough to vote against the proposal.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Also, you don't sit in traffic in dedicated lanes. But you knew that.
