Austin Urban Light Rail Phase 1 - Why Mueller? (Kyle, Hamilton: 2014, homes)

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by mayfair44

the idea of folding to Mueller, at the expense of taking a future Guad/Lam line completely off the table sucks.

You've got the cause/effect backwards. Mueller doesn't take G/L off the table. Mueller is on the table because G/L is off the table. There's just not enough room in the corridor.

[mayfair44]

Originally Posted by Novacek

You've got the cause/effect backwards. Mueller doesn't take G/L off the table. Mueller is on the table because G/L is off the table. There's just not enough room in the corridor.

Ok, but if G/L is off the table, what are the implications of last Friday's mtg btwn AURA and the new lead for rail buildout?

Austin Urbanites for Rail Action:

"This afternoon, Austinites for Urban Rail Action delegates are meeting with the new Urban Rail Lead to discuss ways to get this project on the right track. We're all looking to the future, not the past. At this meeting, we want a commitment, in writing, that this rail group will begin acting quickly to provide more data, as well as a more open & transparent public process. We want all relevant past & future urban rail data presented to the public in a corridor-agnostic way; let the data reveal which is best [G/L vs M]. We also want real public engagement. We don't want this new urban rail public process to be directed towards the Austin 'meetingocracy'. Finally, we want to make it clear to you all that we are acting simply as representatives of this much larger group. We refuse to be transit insiders."

They keep saying the G/L idea is based on 2000 data and they want to rework it:

"We don't have the route comparison data we need to select the best initial sequence."

You think the city is simply going through the motions to appease AURA, but in reality, G/L is dead and gone, revised data or not?

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by mayfair44

You think the city is simply going through the motions to appease AURA, but in reality, G/L is dead and gone, revised data or not?

The revised data will say the same thing that the 2000 data said. G/L has a higher theoretical ridership, but there's no room in the corridor. Putting rail there would require taking 3 of the 4 traffic lanes.

There's all sorts of potential rail systems that have higher ridership than what's being proposed. But if they're not feasible (either financially or politically), it's not the best option. That's what AURA is getting wrong, ridership is not the only metric.

[mayfair44]

Originally Posted by Novacek

The revised data will say the same thing that the 2000 data said. G/L has a higher theoretical ridership, but there's no room in the corridor. Putting rail there would require taking 3 of the 4 traffic lanes.

There's all sorts of potential rail systems that have higher ridership than what's being proposed. But if they're not feasible (either financially or politically), it's not the best option. That's what AURA is getting wrong, ridership is not the only metric.

I appreciate the feedback here, bc I really want to understand more. Truth be told, the proposed Mueller line would work out perfect for me, but I want to believe G/L could happen too. How cool would it be to have a station at the drag, underground? Reminds me of the Red Line at Harvard Square in Cambridge,MA. Yeah, I know, keep dreaming....

In the meantime, I'd settle for a new Red Line stop between 45th and Hancock center, while all this gets sorted out.

[JaceDeloney]

Just to follow up on the statement that AURA is wrong, I want to make it clear that we are currently route agnostic. A visit to [url=http://routefacts.org]routefacts.org[/url] will show that, while ridership is important, it is not the only criteria AURA is planning to compare the alignments on. I just wanted to make sure you were aware.

[centralaustinite]

A G/L line is as feasible as adding lanes to I-35 in central Austin! And dreams of an underground line are just as pie-in-sky of burying I-35 through town like the Big Dig.

The money it would take is staggering (tens of billions of dollars) and that wouldn't even start to address what to do and how to compensate all the property owners (schools, hospitals, businesses) who would lose their property. The cake of I-35 and G/L is already baked (and no way, no how is Texas ever going to raise a dime of taxes for it) and we will forever have to live within its parameters.

[mayfair44]

Originally Posted by Novacek

The revised data will say the same thing that the 2000 data said. G/L has a higher theoretical ridership, but there's no room in the corridor. Putting rail there would require taking 3 of the 4 traffic lanes.

There's all sorts of potential rail systems that have higher ridership than what's being proposed. But if they're not feasible (either financially or politically), it's not the best option. That's what AURA is getting wrong, ridership is not the only metric.

Politically feasible? Yes, it happens, but no, that shouldn't define what's best.

What other rail systems, other than what's being proposed, have higher estimated rider/mile vs G/L?

[mayfair44]

Originally Posted by centralaustinite

A G/L line is as feasible as adding lanes to I-35 in central Austin! And dreams of an underground line are just as pie-in-sky of burying I-35 through town like the Big Dig.

The money it would take is staggering (tens of billions of dollars) and that wouldn't even start to address what to do and how to compensate all the property owners (schools, hospitals, businesses) who would lose their property. The cake of I-35 and G/L is already baked (and no way, no how is Texas ever going to raise a dime of taxes for it) and we will forever have to live within its parameters.

Agree...emphasis..."how cool would it be"

just sayin'

As far as adding lanes to I35 in the corridor, the consideration seems legit:

- I35 Virtual Open House

[Melissa78703]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

Interesting how differently we view these things.

My observation over the past 40-odd years as an adult living in Austin has been that the city council puts something out for a vote, the voters turn it down, then the city council puts the same thing up for a vote again, the voters turn it on, rinse, repeat, until the voters are worn down and give the city council (and whoever is pulling their strings) whatever they want in sheer exhaustion. Then whoever it is that thinks whatever it is is just the best think since sliced bread no matter whether it really fits or would work here or not says that the voters overwhelmingly approved something when all they were doing was saying, "OK! Just go away and leave us ALONE!" (Inserted here, that doesn't work real well with two-year-olds who are having a tantrum for not getting their way, because it just teaches them to do the same thing the next time they decide they've just GOT to have X, Y or Z, and it doesn't work real well with city council's, either.)

::Crying with laughter here::

Your post was hilarious, THL. And even though I've not spent 40 years in Austin as an adult, I finally caught onto this tactic, and .... god, just ... SO TRUE.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: the main infrastructure in Austin is already down. It can only be modified/enhanced to a certain degree to support the people who live here now. But it cannot and will not ever be able to sustain the type of population growth (because flooding the town is always a good thing, to the City Council's mind, right?) Austin is facing.

Make these outlying communities a desirable place to live, so desirable that folks won't want to drive downtown. Court major businesses that hire boatloads of people, a la Dell, a big hospital, etc. Throw in some quaint So-Co-like shopping strips, a community theatre, a few art galleries and some chi-chi bars, and make it all beautiful, desirable -- a place that Central Austinites would want to go. That would be my plan, at least.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by Novacek

That's not the issue. Previous federal money spent in the corridor is not one of the objective, published criteria used by the FTA grant ranking process.

And BRT will have been in place for a decade by the time rail can be operating.

You don't know what you are talking about. Rob Spillar has said exactly what I am saying. Exactly. Federal dollars in BRT precludes light rail. Period. The end. There is no debate on this.