Austin Urban Light Rail Phase 1 - Why Mueller? (Houston, Round Rock: houses, transfer)

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by gpurcell

I've never understood why people obsessing over that section never address the real answer--imminent domain of the Taco Shack and service station in the north and a portion of Dirty's, Whataburger, and the building with Magic Wok on the south.

Because it both increases the cost and slows down the project tremendously (a price is offered, the landowner responds with a price 10X, cue lawsuits, etc.)

[steve78757]

Originally Posted by Novacek

None of which seem to be online (or even mention of them having been done). And with no one even willing to go on record attesting to their contents or existence.

While I have linked to an "expert" (at least referred to as such by the Statesman) who does go on record claiming that removing 3 of the lanes was necessary.

I've emailed Hamilton Associates asking for a copy of the study, and will work on the others.

You specifically noted "the 2000 data" when making your claim about closing 3 of 4 lanes. I have the following:

"I do have with me the Initial Analysis Report — Executive Summary, performed by PB for CMTA, report dated 7 Aug. 2000 (hardcopy only). This is not the full engineering study, but it does provide details of alignment options under consideration for the measure that was presented to voters in Nov. 2000.

The Executive Summary does give some information on what engineers proposed for the alignment segments in question — i.e., railroad ROW at Airport, down Lamar then Guadalupe (and Nueces or San Antonio) to MLK.

• Airport to Koenig — "Because of projected traffic demands, the City of Austin plans to widen Lamar in this section, allowing for the incorporation of the at-grade [LRT] alignment within widening plans."

• Koenig to 29th St. — "property may need to be acquired along the entire line length, most probably along the west side of Guadalupe Street. It may also be possible to remove parking and narrow sidewalks to avoid property acquisition except for areas immediately adjacent to stations."

• 29th St. to MLK — Several options were considered. The one adhering most closely to the Guadalupe alignment proposed placing N-bound track on Guadalupe and S-bound track on Nueces, then San Antonio, presumably at 24th St.

In my view, San Antonio is a poor choice; somehow transitioning to either Guadalupe or into the continuation of Nueces would be preferable. In fact, widening Guadalupe in the stretch from 29th to 24th is not out of the question. OR reducing general traffic to 2 lanes. Or interlaced track (permitting one-directional operation at a time) in this relatively short section.

Lyndon"

Lyndon made the comments above, and the ones I posted earlier.

This is Lyndon - Lyndon Henry | Railway Age

Austin LRT plan criticized ... by rail advocates | Railway Age

Does that count as an expert going "on record attesting to their contents or existence."?

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by steve78757

I've emailed Hamilton Associates asking for a copy of the study, and will work on the others.

You specifically noted "the 2000 data" when making your claim about closing 3 of 4 lanes. I have the following:

"I do have with me the Initial Analysis Report — Executive Summary, performed by PB for CMTA, report dated 7 Aug. 2000 (hardcopy only). This is not the full engineering study, but it does provide details of alignment options under consideration for the measure that was presented to voters in Nov. 2000.

The Executive Summary does give some information on what engineers proposed for the alignment segments in question — i.e., railroad ROW at Airport, down Lamar then Guadalupe (and Nueces or San Antonio) to MLK.

• Airport to Koenig — "Because of projected traffic demands, the City of Austin plans to widen Lamar in this section, allowing for the incorporation of the at-grade [LRT] alignment within widening plans."

• Koenig to 29th St. — "property may need to be acquired along the entire line length, most probably along the west side of Guadalupe Street. It may also be possible to remove parking and narrow sidewalks to avoid property acquisition except for areas immediately adjacent to stations."

• 29th St. to MLK — Several options were considered. The one adhering most closely to the Guadalupe alignment proposed placing N-bound track on Guadalupe and S-bound track on Nueces, then San Antonio, presumably at 24th St.

In my view, San Antonio is a poor choice; somehow transitioning to either Guadalupe or into the continuation of Nueces would be preferable. In fact, widening Guadalupe in the stretch from 29th to 24th is not out of the question. OR reducing general traffic to 2 lanes. Or interlaced track (permitting one-directional operation at a time) in this relatively short section.

Lyndon"

Lyndon made the comments above, and the ones I posted earlier.

This is Lyndon - Lyndon Henry | Railway Age

Austin LRT plan criticized ... by rail advocates | Railway Age

Does that count as an expert going "on record attesting to their contents or existence."?

Thank you.

As I said, I certainly don't claim to have been involved in the design process, but the only person who claims to have been has stated multiple times that the 3/4 reduction was not only the chosen option, but the only option.

I will question, however, if things were really this much in flux and doubt (not knowing the alignment, not knowing if property would need to be acquired or not) at the actual time of the vote in November. It seems that would be something you'd need to know (if you were spending millions to acquire property) before putting a project with a pricetag in front of voters.

I'm also not sure where all the parking that could be removed along Guadalupe/Lamar from 29th to Koenig is.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Because it both increases the cost and slows down the project tremendously (a price is offered, the landowner responds with a price 10X, cue lawsuits, etc.)

If it was three lots it wouldn't slow down anything. They could have them condemned and in a matter of months.

Imagine the process by which Californian has to go through to build HSR from SF to LA - that will take years of efforts.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Komeht

If it was three lots it wouldn't slow down anything. They could have them condemned and in a matter of months.

I think you underestimate the effects of beauracracy. Especially in Texas, which at the state level is very anti-eminent domain (and which recently put even further restrictions on it, House passes eminent domain bill - Austin Business Journal )

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by Novacek

I think you underestimate the effects of beauracracy. Especially in Texas, which at the state level is very anti-eminent domain (and which recently put even further restrictions on it, House passes eminent domain bill - Austin Business Journal )

Dude, I've been involved in many eminent domain proceedings. A handful of lots, even contested, doesn't take that long. Nothing that would hold up construction which will take years to plan, engineer, contract, and implement

[gpurcell]

Exacly, Komeht. There's no real basis to contend on--its virtually a textbook case of why eminent domain exists.

[tildahat]

Originally Posted by steve78757

I agree with what you are saying about Riverside. It's a shame we'll never get to see that. In my opinion starting with Mueller will doom it before it gets off the ground, or doom after only that phase. I believe that for reasons related to public relations, running an effective campaign against the opposition, and building much needed, city-wide, enthusiasm for light rail on par with what we saw in 2000.

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.

[steve78757]

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.

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.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by gpurcell

Exacly, Komeht. There's no real basis to contend on--its virtually a textbook case of why eminent domain exists.

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.