Austin Urban Light Rail Phase 1 - Why Mueller? (Center: city hall, transferring to)

[tildahat]

Originally Posted by steve78757

I won't support because I don't think that line is worth the money, and I don't think it will lead to other lines in the future. Rail opponents in other cities would use it as a real life example of a LRT boondoggle.

Not being argumentative, but to me if this line isn't worth the money, then how would the G/L line be worth the money? (To be clear I think both will be.) Mueller line doesn't serve the neighborhoods along G/L between UT and Crestview Station. G/L line doesn't server UT Med school, Brack Complex, Nhoods along Red River, Hancock redevelopment, Mueller. G/L has definite advantage over Mueller line for residences, Mueller for employers. (Though over time I think the Mueller line might surpass G/L in terms of residences.)

The argument that it won't lead to more lines reminds me of Houston's starter line. It connected some major destinations downtown and rand through some undeveloped areas, not for the most part neighborhoods. But once in place people rode it when they were downtown, liked it, and started wanting it to connect up to their neighborhoods.

[steve78757]

Originally Posted by tildahat

Not being argumentative, but to me if this line isn't worth the money, then how would the G/L line be worth the money? (To be clear I think both will be.) Mueller line doesn't serve the neighborhoods along G/L between UT and Crestview Station. G/L line doesn't server UT Med school, Brack Complex, Nhoods along Red River, Hancock redevelopment, Mueller. G/L has definite advantage over Mueller line for residences, Mueller for employers. (Though over time I think the Mueller line might surpass G/L in terms of residences.)

The argument that it won't lead to more lines reminds me of Houston's starter line. It connected some major destinations downtown and rand through some undeveloped areas, not for the most part neighborhoods. But once in place people rode it when they were downtown, liked it, and started wanting it to connect up to their neighborhoods.

This link - The Overhead Wire: Austin Route Choice Part 3: The Guadalupe/Lamar Alignment

provided earlier in the thread by Novacek, does a great job of making the case.

Apart from the raw data that clearly show where the need is greatest, this is something that Austinites intuitively understand. It really is that obvious. People in Leander, Cedar Park, Anderson Mill, Round Rock, Pflugerville, Georgetown etc. need to get into our urban core every day. There's a reason that I-35 and Mopac are so "popular", they run North to South. We need to build towards alleviating our largest traffic congestion issues with a North/South alignment, not send Mueller residents to and from downtown.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by tildahat

I guess this is where I don't follow you. I get that G/L is the best starter line and agree. I get that you think that it has the best, and perhaps only, chance of passing. I don't get that you personally will vote against any plan that isn't G/L.

You agree with me about Riverside. The alignment that we think is the likely proposal still serves the Capital complex, UT, the med school, connects up with the Red Line at Hancock center (hopefully spurring a TOD there) and Mueller. I can't see how that's not a decent line, even if it's not the BEST possible line.

It should also be noted when talking about the politics - UT wants the eastern alignment, as I understand it, not the one along the Drag. They are not a bit player in this politically. A route which UT is actively supporting has an advantage over one UT is indifferent toward or even against.

Haven't been here in forever, could barely remember my password.

1. In regards to the reference to me earlier, I never said the ONLY way to do G/L was taking away 3 out of 4 lanes, but that was the way presented from 2000-2003. It's certainly the only practical way to do it. They were scared to death of the eminent domain issue back then. No idea how they view it now.

2. In regards to this post specifically, the current proposal to go only to Mueller (in a phase 1b, actually) relegates the line to a Red Line circulator. Without going out to East Riverside right away, this means it will be doomed to very low ridership (and we won't have the excuse of "well, this isn't light rail!" Capital Metro would use when it suited them against Red Line critics). There aren't enough people within walking distance of this line who would want to ride it to the ass-end of UT, capitol, and downtown to add to the handful who would transfer from the Red Line to make it a success. Remember, BAD light rail lines hit 15,000 boardings/day.

A rail line, to succeed, needs to pick up people from their houses (or, a distant second best, from a park and ride people are willing to drive to), and then deliver them, WITHOUT TRANSFERS, to a major concentration of employment density. This plan fails on that metric. Yes, it goes to Brack, but not close to anywhere where many people who work at Brack actually live! It goes by the ass-end of UT which is less dense; and it serves the medium-density suburban tract homes at Mueller (poorly) rather than the far higher density on G/L (G/L have more residences TODAY than Mueller ever will, and it has more potential for growth in the future). And, no, don't believe the professional misleaders like JMVC who insist Mueller will become super-high-dense with rail because of some stuff written into the plan back in the early 2000s. Not Gonna Happen. Mueller's prospective density tops out somewhere south of the Hyde Park area's current density. Well south of the Triangle.

It's now time to go G/L or bust because the alternative is a Mueller line that, IF it succeeds, gets rail somewhere worth going sometime after 2040 when I'm retired; when the city will have long since ceased to be able to function without good rail anyways. I wrote back in 2007-2008 that we needed to pass Mueller then so we could go to Guadalupe in the 2020s. Now we're facing Guadalupe in the 2020s if we do it FIRST. We're out of time, people.

[mayfair44]

Originally Posted by M1EK

Haven't been here in forever, could barely remember my password.

1. In regards to the reference to me earlier, I never said the ONLY way to do G/L was taking away 3 out of 4 lanes, but that was the way presented from 2000-2003. It's certainly the only practical way to do it. They were scared to death of the eminent domain issue back then. No idea how they view it now.

2. In regards to this post specifically, the current proposal to go only to Mueller (in a phase 1b, actually) relegates the line to a Red Line circulator. Without going out to East Riverside right away, this means it will be doomed to very low ridership (and we won't have the excuse of "well, this isn't light rail!" Capital Metro would use when it suited them against Red Line critics). There aren't enough people within walking distance of this line who would want to ride it to the ass-end of UT, capitol, and downtown to add to the handful who would transfer from the Red Line to make it a success. Remember, BAD light rail lines hit 15,000 boardings/day.

A rail line, to succeed, needs to pick up people from their houses (or, a distant second best, from a park and ride people are willing to drive to), and then deliver them, WITHOUT TRANSFERS, to a major concentration of employment density. This plan fails on that metric. Yes, it goes to Brack, but not close to anywhere where many people who work at Brack actually live! It goes by the ass-end of UT which is less dense; and it serves the medium-density suburban tract homes at Mueller (poorly) rather than the far higher density on G/L (G/L have more residences TODAY than Mueller ever will, and it has more potential for growth in the future). And, no, don't believe the professional misleaders like JMVC who insist Mueller will become super-high-dense with rail because of some stuff written into the plan back in the early 2000s. Not Gonna Happen. Mueller's prospective density tops out somewhere south of the Hyde Park area's current density. Well south of the Triangle.

It's now time to go G/L or bust because the alternative is a Mueller line that, IF it succeeds, gets rail somewhere worth going sometime after 2040 when I'm retired; when the city will have long since ceased to be able to function without good rail anyways. I wrote back in 2007-2008 that we needed to pass Mueller then so we could go to Guadalupe in the 2020s. Now we're facing Guadalupe in the 2020s if we do it FIRST. We're out of time, people.

Welcome back M1EK and thanks for posting!

So with the the new Keahey appointment and council structure, are citizens basically waiting for them to decide btwn G/L or M, and then it goes to vote in 2014? In other words, we the people don't get a choice on which one is chosen up front, but do get to vote on funding for the one line selected after? Hope my ques makes sense.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Oh, undoubtedly the ability to obtain the land, and the justification to do so, are without question. What's left to quibble over, and if I owned the land in question what I'd contest, is the price. After all, what's the worth of property directly adjacent to mass transit, presumably soon to be up zoned to greatly increased allowed density.

These proceedings just aren't that complicated. Government states what it thinks the market value is, property owner states what he thinks its worth. Both sides present market studies/appraisals to support. Then a decisions is made. It doesn't take that long, and a few lots wouldn't even cost that much - noise in the overall cost.

[tildahat]

Originally Posted by M1EK

2. In regards to this post specifically, the current proposal to go only to Mueller (in a phase 1b, actually) relegates the line to a Red Line circulator. Without going out to East Riverside right away,

Don't have time to get the rest of this now, but do we know what the phasing is yet, just as an empirical matter? I also understood that Mueller would be part of 1a. When is riverside?

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by tildahat

Don't have time to get the rest of this now, but do we know what the phasing is yet, just as an empirical matter? I also understood that Mueller would be part of 1a. When is riverside?

I'm not sure that's correct... The service facility would be located in Mueller...I assume this needs to be built with first phase.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by tildahat

Don't have time to get the rest of this now, but do we know what the phasing is yet, just as an empirical matter? I also understood that Mueller would be part of 1a. When is riverside?

Hearing rumblings that the Mueller plan has changed to:

1a - Hancock Center with Red Line station, down Red River as before and into downtown.
1b - extend to Mueller

from very reliable sources. This would make it nothing but a Red Line circulator. Mueller would add a thousand or two potential boardings a day on top of that.

Also, a temporary maintenance facility could (not saying will, but could) operate at Hancock or next to it under I-35.

[mayfair44]

Originally Posted by M1EK

Hearing rumblings that the Mueller plan has changed to:

1a - Hancock Center with Red Line station, down Red River as before and into downtown.

Assuming, the platform off the Redline going up somewhere along Clarkson, btwn 45th and Hancock Center, correct?

[gpurcell]

Originally Posted by M1EK

A rail line, to succeed, needs to pick up people from their houses (or, a distant second best, from a park and ride people are willing to drive to), and then deliver them, WITHOUT TRANSFERS, to a major concentration of employment density.

Sigh.

You always claim this and it is entirely false. There is very little decline in ridership for single-transfer mass transit as long at the wait time between transfers is modest.