Austin Urban Light Rail Phase 1 - Why Mueller? (San Antonio, San Diego: construction, airport)

[steve78757]

Originally Posted by jb9152

I think you'll be pleasantly surprised. New Urban Rail Lead just brought on board, new Interlocal Agreement between the city, Capital Metro, and Lone Star Rail District, and public input planned.

Although it doesn't seem like it, it's relatively early in the planning for Urban Rail. The process started but then was delayed for some time to get the regional vision together. So, it probably seemed to all concerned that there were decisions being made and things going on behind closed doors. As one of the people who would have been behind those theoretical closed doors, I can tell you that that is not the case.

As I said, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

Thanks very much for your input. I hope that's true.

[juliamontgomery]

Originally Posted by mayfair44

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?

Hi Mayfair et al,

I feel it's important to jump into this conversation to clarify AURA's goals here. AURA is NOT an advocacy group for urban rail on Guadalupe/Lamar (at least at this point). AURA IS an advocacy group for transparent and data-driven decisions. Some individuals that support AURA already know they would like to see G/L be the first urban rail route. AURA, however, sees G/L simply as one of perhaps several promising potential first routes that needs a fair and public evaluation. AURA's mission is to induce the relevant decision-makers to generate (a) publicly stated urban rail route evaluation criteria, (b) public access to the route data they use to evaluate routes under consideration, and (c) a meaningful and inclusive public input process into both the evaluation criteria and any applicable qualitative route data used for evaluation.

The implication (intentional or not) that AURA just wants the city to pick Guadalupe/Lamar over Mueller is inaccurate. I'm a steering committee member of AURA, and I can tell you that I personally do not overwhelmingly prefer G/L over the Mueller route at this point. I live in Central East Austin and work at the eastern edge of the UT campus, so a rail route along Red River would be MUCH more useful to me on a day-to-day basis than one along Guadalupe. However, I see urban rail as a community good to be developed with limited public resources; for that reason alone, personal preference -- whether mine, Mayor Leffingwell's, or the new urban rail lead's -- should NOT be the basis of the route decision. Instead, the decision should be made transparently, based on public criteria, public data, and meaningful public input. This is what AURA advocates.

If you agree with these basic principles, please join us! I think you've found our facebook page (Austinites for Urban Rail Action | Facebook), and we're on twitter too (http://twitter.com/AURAatx).

Best,
Julie

[steve78757]

Originally Posted by jb9152

Too late to turn that down at this point - shovels are in the ground, new buses purchased.

Federal dollars would be involved in the Mueller deal, if that alignment were to be chosen as the first investment. The assumption has always been that whatever project turns out to be the first phase, half would be local (bond money), and half would be federal.

There is no "ahead", necessarily. It's a competitive process, not a FIFO.

Then I hope it's not a deal breaker, a nail in the coffin of Guadalupe-Lamar, as some have mentioned. Can you shed any light on that aspect of the debate?

[steve78757]

Originally Posted by juliamontgomery

Hi Mayfair et al,

I feel it's important to jump into this conversation to clarify AURA's goals here. AURA is NOT an advocacy group for urban rail on Guadalupe/Lamar (at least at this point). AURA IS an advocacy group for transparent and data-driven decisions. Some individuals that support AURA already know they would like to see G/L be the first urban rail route. AURA, however, sees G/L simply as one of perhaps several promising potential first routes that needs a fair and public evaluation. AURA's mission is to induce the relevant decision-makers to generate (a) publicly stated urban rail route evaluation criteria, (b) public access to the route data they use to evaluate routes under consideration, and (c) a meaningful and inclusive public input process into both the evaluation criteria and any applicable qualitative route data used for evaluation.

The implication (intentional or not) that AURA just wants the city to pick Guadalupe/Lamar over Mueller is inaccurate. I'm a steering committee member of AURA, and I can tell you that I personally do not overwhelmingly prefer G/L over the Mueller route at this point. I live in Central East Austin and work at the eastern edge of the UT campus, so a rail route along Red River would be MUCH more useful to me on a day-to-day basis than one along Guadalupe. However, I see urban rail as a community good to be developed with limited public resources; for that reason alone, personal preference -- whether mine, Mayor Leffingwell's, or the new urban rail lead's -- should NOT be the basis of the route decision. Instead, the decision should be made transparently, based on public criteria, public data, and meaningful public input. This is what AURA advocates.

If you agree with these basic principles, please join us! I think you've found our facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/pages/Austi...09996232370208), and we're on twitter too (https://twitter.com/AURAatx).

Best,
Julie

Thank you Julie.

[ColdAilment]

Subscribed, interesting read so far.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by steve78757

The Guadalupe line is not out of the picture, despite what you and others claim. It's an alignment that actually has a slim chance to win voter approval. Mueller, on the other hand, is DOA. It has zero chance of passing in a city-wide bond election. That's the main point Mueller proponents (not saying you are one) keep ignoring. In 2014, it's a loser.

I certainly think it's dead. But if it's not, I'll be the first on board cheering for it.

I actually think a Guadalupe/Lamar line AND Mueller is possible:




This line would be fairly incredible start to light rail. It would connect:

2ndStreet/Town/Lake/Seaholm (close)
CBD
Capitol Complex
Travis County Courthouse
West Campus/Drag/University
North Campus
Hyde Park
Triangle
Walking distance to Hancock
Connection with Redline at Airport Blvd.
Mueller
Windsor Park

It would connect all the densest parts of Austin together.
Allow Mueller to grow denser.
Get the servicing station in Mueller as currently proposed.

And really, it's no more circuitous than the current Mueller route and would take more people to more places they would want to go.

[mayfair44]

Originally Posted by steve78757

Thank you Julie.

Cool. Thanks for sharing. Following.

Yeah, I've bookmarked so many sites and feeds on the subject. It's confusing who's doing what. Too many indians, not one chief?? Hopefully this new structure pulls it more together and gives us transparency, in corridor-agnostic language.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by steve78757

Mueller may one day reach 6,000 residents. Even then only they would benefit while the rest of us pay.

Your projections are not close to true. Mueller will have 2-3X that number of people full built out.

Besides which - the Mueller route is a bit of a misnomer, it's Mueller-Hancock-Red River-Medschool-UT-Capitol-CBD route - serves a lot more than just Mueller.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by steve78757

The following is from a very knowledgeable source.

Then provide a link to that source.

Originally Posted by steve78757

"There are actually 5 lanes, including the center "chicken" lane, for much of this arterial.

But not for the center chokepoint section where there is no turn lane, which is where the issue is.

And even where there is a turn lane, removing it will result in an increase in congestion(left-turning drivers will hold up an entire traffic lane) unless the transit results in a net decrease of drivers. So that increases the difficulty of "selling" it to voters.

Originally Posted by steve78757

Also under consideration from 38th St. to 45th St. was acquiring basically vacant State MHMR land along Guadalupe from the state for additional ROW."

Again, this isn't the section where the biggest problem is.

Originally Posted by steve78757

"There have been at least three major...I'd call this rather compelling evidence that the G-L route is feasible."

If you're going to provide "evidence", please link to it. Googling any of the above does not produce any documentation.

Originally Posted by steve78757

What metric does Mueller have over Lamar-Guadalupe? I hope you aren't going to claim that the Mueller alignment is without the same types of ROW issues. Because they exist there as well.

It is, because the proposal for that line was for non-exclusive row running. Due to the significantly less congestion in that corridor, it is more feasible to run in shared lanes and still keep a timetable.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by Novacek

It is, because the proposal for that line was for non-exclusive row running. Due to the significantly less congestion in that corridor, it is more feasible to run in shared lanes and still keep a timetable.

Which is exactly the reason why it's not the best choice. Congestion is where you want to put your high capacity transit. That's where you run to, not run from.