Mass Transit in Austin (Portland: home, employment, neighborhoods)

[Roadking2003]

$120 million spent (plus $8 million per year operating costs) on a train to carry 400 people per day. That's beyond weird. That's insane.

We could have paid all 400 people $100,000 per year to just stay home and spent the $120 million on new parks.

[nickasarbata]

Originally Posted by Roadking2003

$120 million spent (plus $8 million per year operating costs) on a train to carry 400 people per day. That's beyond weird. That's insane.

We could have paid all 400 people $100,000 per year to just stay home and spent the $120 million on new parks.

Yes please, I'd sign up to be one of those people! I'd even volunteer my time maintaining those new parks!

[mimimomx3]

Absolutely. To say nothing of the fact that there is a bus route that is exactly the same as the train- and cheaper. Most buses I see are practically empty- of course we need mass transit, but before the city throws away more money, should we work on what we already have- expanding bus routes, moving to smaller van type buses, going into more neighborhoods- rather than fancy new trains that no one rides? I love mass transit and would love to ride it as an alternative to driving. Using the transit map, however, shows me that it would take 45 minutes to go 8 miles. Driving takes 10 minutes.

[Roadking2003]

Originally Posted by mimimomx3

Absolutely. To say nothing of the fact that there is a bus route that is exactly the same as the train- and cheaper. Most buses I see are practically empty- of course we need mass transit, but before the city throws away more money, should we work on what we already have- expanding bus routes, moving to smaller van type buses, going into more neighborhoods- rather than fancy new trains that no one rides? I love mass transit and would love to ride it as an alternative to driving. Using the transit map, however, shows me that it would take 45 minutes to go 8 miles. Driving takes 10 minutes.

Trains work quite well where you have high population density like in NY and London. For most cities like Austin, they are just projects to make politicians feel good and appear to be "green".

[eileenkeeney]

Originally Posted by Roadking2003

Trains work quite well where you have high population density like in NY and London. For most cities like Austin, they are just projects to make politicians feel good and appear to be "green".

Is the train cleaner (greener) than the bus?
Is it faster?
Will people ride the train who would not otherwise ride the bus?

If we do not have a high enough population density for a train to make sense, then why is there so much traffic going in the same direction as the train, at the same time?

[ktulu7]

There's plenty of population in Austin for a train. The problem is access to it. The route it is on was made to be cheap, rather than to be as useful as possible, thus it will not be as successful in the long run as it could have been. I'm afraid if the municipality doesn't expand on the rail idea somewhat soon, it could end up being marked as a failure and killed off. That'd be a shame, because rail can be SO awesomely convenient and comfortable if it's done correctly.

[Mdlx]

I think you are being a little short sighted on this. I see the proposed rail network being a great asset to the city in the coming decades. I honestly cant imagine anyone saying 20 years from now "Man, how stupid that rail idea was!"

[eileenkeeney]

Originally Posted by ktulu7

There's plenty of population in Austin for a train. The problem is access to it. The route it is on was made to be cheap, rather than to be as useful as possible, thus it will not be as successful in the long run as it could have been. I'm afraid if the municipality doesn't expand on the rail idea somewhat soon, it could end up being marked as a failure and killed off. That'd be a shame, because rail can be SO awesomely convenient and comfortable if it's done correctly.

Could not some of those vehicles, that are on the very highways that run pretty parallel to the train, park at one of those stations and then take the train?

Or is the problem on the other end, where after getting off the train, getting to their place of employment would be difficult?

In Portland (where I am used to using lightrail). The lightrail trains go the places I want to go (major shopping malls, downtown, transit stations which connect to multiple buses serving the various neighborhoods).
There are plenty of people who ride (although those who are very much against it, seem to have data that contradicts what I see, and claim it is over-subsidized and a waste of money they would rather see used to build more highways).

Here I live in walking distance of a lightrail stop (assuming it is not a blistering hot day). I have not yet used it.
But one of these days, I will take a day off work, and go downtown.

[ktulu7]

I see that the route mainly just is for cars to detour off the interstate and go downtown. Personally, when living in Tokyo, I didn't just take a train to go to a "downtown" area. The big usage comes out of people going shopping and to entertainment via the trains. Something that will happen as a result of rail lines over time, is that you'll have more rail-centered development, so shopping and entertainment will spring up along the rail, just as some things are located near major freeway exits. It's going to take time for the rail to become a success. It JUST started, as it is.

We're DYING to have rail between Baton Rouge and New Orleans, and we'll finally have it once Baton Rouge fixes our horrible bus system. I'll be trying out the MetroRail in Austin as soon as I move there.

[DarkWolf]

Cap Metro , is up there with SEPTA in terms of bad management and planing of there systems. Its a train to no where , it should have been planned through the denser areas. & What's up with Texas using Federal funding to purchase non American made trains or buses?