Elevated BRT Lanes to help reduce traffic? (Austin, Georgetown: real estate, 2013)

[SmartGXL]

Originally Posted by cBach

Sounds like a horrible idea. It would be a terrible eyesore. I think the "L" in Chicago is horrific, lots of rusty pillars everywhere and it encourages people to hang out under it. If you have to build something, underground is the way to go, whether for subway or what have you.

The pillars in Austin will be made out of concrete and will be done in a way that is more aesthetic. Although, I do like the El up in Chicago. And actually, no one ever "hung out" under the El in Chicago.

Also, they build elevated expressways in texas that are huge and soaring, and no one hangs out under those.

Subways are way more expensive, and the soil conditions in Austin dont seem good for that.

The Elevated BRT lanes in Austin dont have to be very wide, only wide enough for one bus each way. The lanes will pull into special elevated bus stations, just like the way the elevated trains do. They only need to be high enough to go over existing roadways and they dont have to be a uniform height either.

[SmartGXL]

Originally Posted by scm53

Because it is so cost effective to build transit where there is no density to utilize it.

It was either the alcohol or ideology talking. Because common sense had left the room.

There is density downtown as well as near employment centers.

[SmartGXL]

Originally Posted by thesonofgray

Nothing elevated is cost effective compared to at-grade travel lanes. It can even sometimes be cheaper to acquire adjacent property and tear it down to widen at-grade lanes versus building elevated. A street project I'm working on is 8,000 feet long including a small 400 foot long bridge over a creek. The bridge is only 5% of the length of the project but 25% of the total project cost. And it's a short bridge, too.

Elevated light rail would be awesome, but I doubt I could afford my property tax bill if the gazillion dollar bond to fund it passed.

I'm getting the sense that private business will be funding (and owning) this, with coordination from the City.

That's actually how the El in Chicago was built....it was a private company that built and owned the system and they determined where the lines would run. They built the system partially based on market demand but also based on projections for where neighborhoods and employment centers would be located.

[TexasHorseLady]

Read: But, but, but . . . I LIKE Chicago and think Austin should be just like it!

[ScoPro]

Originally Posted by cBach

Sounds like a horrible idea. It would be a terrible eyesore. I think the "L" in Chicago is horrific, lots of rusty pillars everywhere and it encourages people to hang out under it. If you have to build something, underground is the way to go, whether for subway or what have you.

Well, the Big Dig in Boston dispelled any notions that underground is the way to go these days.
$22 BILLION for 7.5 miles of corridor/tunnel miles helped their downtown look prettier, but it just moved the traffic jam further out..... from what I've read in the Boston Globe.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by SmartGXL

Subways are way more expensive, and the soil conditions in Austin dont seem good for that.

Actually, the soil in Austin is perfect for tunneling (which is why we do it for water tunnels and the Waller flood tunnel).

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by SmartGXL

There is density downtown as well as near employment centers.

And downtown, there's plenty of RoW to run on the surface. Heck, we use miles of it to park cars.

[sojourner77]

Not to dog pile on you GXL, but there is no way that private business will fund public transport in this day and age. The closest a business will ever get to public transport would be shuttles for employees, like Google in SF. Mass transit is HEAVILY subsidized, and private investment is foolish. The only way you should privately invest in public transport, is to buy stock in a company like Siemens, whose profit model depends upon government (taxpayer funded) contracts.

Originally Posted by SmartGXL

I'm getting the sense that private business will be funding (and owning) this, with coordination from the City.

That's actually how the El in Chica
go was built....it was a private company that built and owned the system and they determined where the lines would run. They built the system partially based on market demand but also based on projections for where neighborhoods and employment centers would be located.

You are referring to the failed Chicago Rapid Transit Company (CRT):

Wikipedia: "Following World War II and the continuing financial malaise of the privately owned bus, streetcar and elevated/subway operators, both the city government of Chicago and the Illinois legislature favored consolidating the three separate systems into a single, public-owned authority. The assets and operations of the CRT were assumed by the newly established Chicago Transit Authority on October 1, 1947."

"The CTA is an Illinoisindependent governmental agency that started operations on October 1, 1947 upon the purchase and combination of the transportation assets of the Chicago Rapid Transit Company and the Chicago Surface Lines streetcar system. In 1952"

[scm53]

Originally Posted by SmartGXL

There is density downtown as well as near employment centers.

Which has zero to do with where you think this would be built:

Originally Posted by SmartGXL

It also prevents having to destroy more land that is currently pristine or unused.

[cBach]

Originally Posted by SmartGXL

Also, they build elevated expressways in texas that are huge and soaring, and no one hangs out under those.

Every underpass along Research Blvd, our "premier" high tech corridor, has people sleeping under it at night and taking cover under it during rainstorms.