9.5-mile urban rail route from Highland Mall to Riverside Drive (Austin: zoning, stations)

[dv1033]

This would be one of the handful of times Austin should follow Houston on its starter light rail line and build it where the riders already exist instead of where they might exist. I won't be supporting this current alignment.

[scm53]

Austin's new $1.4 billion transit plan is too small to succeed

Extraordinary problems demand extraordinary answers, and thus far in Austin’s history no one has come forward with a comprehensive transportation plan that will incorporate both light rail and increased highway capacity.

No one wants to be nickel and dimed to death for a mediocre and limited public transit system. Add to that the public perception that the MetroRail from Leander to downtown has been only marginally effective and has been fraught with issues from the get-go. Combine those two factors and this latest plan doesn’t have a chance for ever leaving the station.

Haters gonna hate!

[jb9152]

Originally Posted by scm53

Convoluted mess that could be completely avoided with a L/G alignment. The anthesis of a "system".

Actually, L/G is also part of the plan. Because it's not in the first phase, L/G folks are upset. But it's still there, along with the extension west across downtown.

[jb9152]

Originally Posted by scm53

Which is why the 2013 plan had them coming straight across on 4th, stopping at Republic Square. No turn required.

Not all the way to Seaholm, but close enough.

Not good enough. Without a cross-platform transfer, the utility of these kinds of connections drops significantly. No one wants to walk several blocks on a 100+ day in Austin.

Plus, your point was not the practicality of extending the Red Line across downtown, but to use Stadlers (EMUs?) for the Urban Rail line as a whole, to solve the Hancock grade crossing issue. That's a no-go.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by jb9152

Not good enough. Without a cross-platform transfer, the utility of these kinds of connections drops significantly. No one wants to walk several blocks on a 100+ day in Austin.

Plus, your point was not the practicality of extending the Red Line across downtown, but to use Stadlers (EMUs?) for the Urban Rail line as a whole, to solve the Hancock grade crossing issue. That's a no-go.

No. It was the well known fact that the Red Line DMUs can't turn in city streets - which is why they had it running in a straight line to Republic Square in last year's plan.

[atxcio]

Originally Posted by jb9152

Actually, L/G is also part of the plan. Because it's not in the first phase, L/G folks are upset. But it's still there, along with the extension west across downtown.

Not sure what you mean by "L/G" folks -- pretty much everyone I have talked to has decided to vote against a rail plan with a useless first phase. There is no group of Lamar/Guadalupe proponents, rather it's simply the vast majority of Austin residents.

On another forum, people rightfully identify the current proposal as another case of "urban jewelry" -- a rail line for a the sake of having more rail, similar to the red line, while avoiding the one route everyone knows makes sense. I'm not sure who remains behind the current proposal -- and frankly, I suspect most of these stubborn hold-outs are doing it because their paycheck is somehow involved. I'd like to believe there is still some chance the planners will wake up before it hits the ballot and put rail where everyone knows it belongs -- but I seriously doubt it. I guess the good thing is that November's defeat should finally put the last nail in the coffin as far as making up routes for the sake of putting trains somewhere. The bad thing is that with 10-1, it may be a long time before we see a sensible rail proposal emerge.

[jb9152]

Originally Posted by scm53

No. It was the well known fact that the Red Line DMUs can't turn in city streets - which is why they had it running in a straight line to Republic Square in last year's plan.

I'm completely confused as to what your point is. Of course it's a well known fact that the DMUs are no good for tight city street turns. I was responding to your question as to whether there's an electric version of the Stadler DMU that could be used for the Urban Rail service in order to defuse the issue of the grade crossing/tunnel at Hancock. The answer is that even if there were a Stadler EMU or similar vehicle, it would not be appropriate for use on Urban Rail because of the turns in city streets. So, I don't know what or with whom you're arguing.

The reasons that "they" had it running in a straight line to Republic Square were manifold - the bad turn radius, the perceived need to provide service further into the CBD, the possibility of using the tracks for both commuter rail and streetcar (which was a quick non-starter for all of the reasons I've talked about earlier in the thread concerning operation of light streetcar-type equipment mixed with heavy commuter rail-type equipment). It had zero to do with connecting to Seaholm and LSTAR, which was yet another fatal flaw from a system connectivity perspective.

[jb9152]

Originally Posted by atxcio

Not sure what you mean by "L/G" folks

It's very simple - "L/G" means "Lamar/Guadalupe" and "folks" means "people".

Originally Posted by atxcio

-- pretty much everyone I have talked to has decided to vote against a rail plan with a useless first phase. There is no group of Lamar/Guadalupe proponents, rather it's simply the vast majority of Austin residents.

So your scientific survey of "pretty much everyone I have talked to" has led you to this conclusion?

There is most certainly a large group of Lamar/Guadalupe proponents, who are less than satisfied (to put it mildly) with the first phase of the Central Corridor project. Personally, I don't really have a dog in the hunt - I see the merits of each of the sub-corridors studied, and I don't have any particular specific objections to the prioritization embedded in the plan (which has L/G as a later extension). I do see the L/G folks' point, though; I just worry that it's a symptom of that common planning problem - people who think they're planning for the present are actually planning for the past, and people who think they're planning for the future are actually planning for the present.

Originally Posted by atxcio

On another forum, people rightfully identify the current proposal as another case of "urban jewelry" -- a rail line for a the sake of having more rail, similar to the red line, while avoiding the one route everyone knows makes sense.

"Everyone"? Is that from your scientific survey of "pretty much everyone I have talked to"?

I would argue that all of the routes make sense, not just the one; they all need service at some point at some level. The argument, as I've understood it, is not that there is a single alternative that is "The One", but that there was a priority assigned to each sub-corridor, and L/G didn't come out at the top. The overarching assumption is that pretty much the entire system gets built over time.

Originally Posted by atxcio

I'm not sure who remains behind the current proposal

Well, it's obviously "pretty much everyone I haven't talked to", right?

Originally Posted by atxcio

-- and frankly, I suspect most of these stubborn hold-outs are doing it because their paycheck is somehow involved. I'd like to believe there is still some chance the planners will wake up before it hits the ballot and put rail where everyone knows it belongs

I apologize for poking a little fun at your phrasing. I know what you're trying to say, and I don't necessarily disagree with the point. It's just humorous to me when people base electorate-wide conclusions on conversations they've had with a few like-minded friends and acquaintences.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by jb9152

"Everyone"? Is that from your scientific survey of "pretty much everyone I have talked to"?

I would argue that all of the routes make sense, not just the one; they all need service at some point at some level. The argument, as I've understood it, is not that there is a single alternative that is "The One", but that there was a priority assigned to each sub-corridor, and L/G didn't come out at the top.

Seems the opposition is a little more than anecdotal.

The best thing for CCAG and City Council to do is say that, in light of the new information they have on the costs of the Hancock tunnel, they will forego a vote on the more controversial, risky, poorer-thought-out northern segment of the route, advance the southern segment on its own, and come back to revisit the question of the northern route later.

I don't have time to find all the details, but there is some pretty well founded thought that the numbers were cooked so that Highland came out on top. Not so sure it was an objective ranking of alternatives.

[gpurcell]

One additional thing I suspect to be true is that Hancock tunnel kills any chance of cap-and-cover I-35.