Is it possible to have an honest discussion about Austin's traffic? (Houston: house, purchase)

[EzPeterson]

Why is it so hard to realize that it will take both revised zoning and ordinances that promote increasing density in urban islands, along with some type of transportation improvements between these to create a long-term solution? Building more roads and expanding existing ones will only create temporary relief.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by austin-steve

I've moved on to Acceptance.

I "time shift" and arrange my travels as best I can. I won't make an appointment in Pflugerville at 5PM. Ain't gonna do it. I just can't get there at that time. Even getting from Bee Cave/Mopac to Parmer/Mopac is unpredictable during off-peak times. So I simply leave early and have measures in place to be productive during the extra time when I'm way early.

Steve

I hope you let your clients know that it would be a very good idea to not follow your lead and to make a point of being traveling to Pflugerville at the very worst times of the day several times, before opting to purchase a home there.

[Devout Urbanist]

European cities have some sprawl, sure. But they also have great public transit systems: subways, trams, commuter rails, buses, not to mention bike paths and sidewalks. London and Paris have two of the best public transit systems in the world. Even American cities like D.C. couple relatively extensive highway networks with incredibly robust public transit in the urban core and the inner-ring suburbs. Austin has plenty of sprawl and it has indeed invested in highways over the last few decades (the neighborhoods I grew up in wouldn't exist if it hadn't), but the city's public transit is worse than what you find in cities half its size. The system is absolutely terrible. When is Austin going to do what all these other respectable cities have done and build a functional interurban transit system? Cities like Austin should not even consider expanding roads until they have put a proper public transit network in place, especially since urban planners have long known that expanding highways does not reduce traffic.

[orngkat]

stupid is the problem

Nail on the head - and I agree - embarrassing.

[steve78757]

Just brainstorming here, but how about buses, buses, and more buses everywhere on dedicated lanes. Take away an existing lane on every major road and reserve it for buses. Since Austin will likely never have a "real" rail system our best shot at providing decent public transportation is via buses in dedicated lanes. This is the cheapest solution that could also be implemented the quickest. The stigma of riding the bus will evaporate rather quickly as well, as the buses continue to zoom by every 2 or 3 minutes.

Curitiba's Bus System is Model for Rapid Transit | Urban Habitat

I know it's Brazil, but it works.

"The BRT—A Success Story
The popularity of Curitiba’s BRT has effected a modal shift from automobile travel to bus travel. Based on 1991 traveler survey results, it was estimated that the introduction of the BRT had caused a reduction of about 27 million auto trips per year, saving about 27 million liters of fuel annually. In particular, 28 percent of BRT riders previously traveled by car. Compared to eight other Brazilian cities of its size, Curitiba uses about 30 percent less fuel per capita, resulting in one of the lowest rates of ambient air pollution in the country. Today about 1,100 buses make 12,500 trips every day, serving more than 1.3 million passengers—50 times the number from 20 years ago. Eighty percent of travelers use the express or direct bus services. Best of all, Curitibanos spend only about 10 percent of their income on travel—much below the national average. "

[Eastcoasting]

So we are all in agreement then?

Trains!

All yea in favor...

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by steve78757

Just brainstorming here, but how about buses, buses, and more buses everywhere on dedicated lanes. Take away an existing lane on every major road and reserve it for buses. Since Austin will likely never have a "real" rail system our best shot at providing decent public transportation is via buses in dedicated lanes. This is the cheapest solution that could also be implemented the quickest. The stigma of riding the bus will evaporate rather quickly as well, as the buses continue to zoom by every 2 or 3 minutes.

Curitiba's Bus System is Model for Rapid Transit | Urban Habitat

I know it's Brazil, but it works.

"The BRT—A Success Story
The popularity of Curitiba’s BRT has effected a modal shift from automobile travel to bus travel. Based on 1991 traveler survey results, it was estimated that the introduction of the BRT had caused a reduction of about 27 million auto trips per year, saving about 27 million liters of fuel annually. In particular, 28 percent of BRT riders previously traveled by car. Compared to eight other Brazilian cities of its size, Curitiba uses about 30 percent less fuel per capita, resulting in one of the lowest rates of ambient air pollution in the country. Today about 1,100 buses make 12,500 trips every day, serving more than 1.3 million passengers—50 times the number from 20 years ago. Eighty percent of travelers use the express or direct bus services. Best of all, Curitibanos spend only about 10 percent of their income on travel—much below the national average. "

Good BRT costs as much as rail to build, costs more than rail to maintain and will never attract the same ridership as rail. In otherwords it has all the disadvantages and none of advantages. And BRT lite means fewer stops, more time between rides and is more expensive than regular bus service and its doubtful whether it will attract a single additional rider.

[steve78757]

Originally Posted by Komeht

Good BRT costs as much as rail to build, costs more than rail to maintain and will never attract the same ridership as rail. In otherwords it has all the disadvantages and none of advantages. And BRT lite means fewer stops, more time between rides and is more expensive than regular bus service and its doubtful whether it will attract a single additional rider.

From railwayage.com

Costs per mile to construct, when little to no major civil works (bridges, tunnels, etc.) need to be constructed. Which I think would best describe implementation in Austin.

• LRT—$51.8 million/mile

• BRT—$30.8 million/mile

Regarding ridership I think the acceptance level of riding the bus will only go up as traffic congestion continues to get worse. Especially when side by side with BRT on dedicated lanes. I dis not mention "BRT lite" and agree that's a total waste of time.

[Devout Urbanist]

Originally Posted by steve78757

Just brainstorming here, but how about buses, buses, and more buses everywhere on dedicated lanes. Take away an existing lane on every major road and reserve it for buses. Since Austin will likely never have a "real" rail system our best shot at providing decent public transportation is via buses in dedicated lanes. This is the cheapest solution that could also be implemented the quickest. The stigma of riding the bus will evaporate rather quickly as well, as the buses continue to zoom by every 2 or 3 minutes.

This can work (I now live in a city with an extensive bus network and it's pretty easy to get around), but it really isn't a long-term solution. Once you build a rail system you have to maintain it. It doesn't really make sense to scale it back, in part because it's expensive, but also because people just like rail more than buses. Public transit ridership goes up when you replace buses with rail. You can easily scale back a bus system, even if many people depend on it. It's happening where I live now. A light rail is simply a better guarantee that people who do not want to drive and prefer to live in the urban core have a permanent, reliable way to get around. It can be done in Austin.

[steve78757]

Originally Posted by Devout Urbanist

This can work (I now live in a city with an extensive bus network and it's pretty easy to get around), but it really isn't a long-term solution. Once you build a rail system you have to maintain it. It doesn't really make sense to scale it back, in part because it's expensive, but also because people just like rail more than buses. Public transit ridership goes up when you replace buses with rail. You can easily scale back a bus system, even if many people depend on it. It's happening where I live now. A light rail is simply a better guarantee that people who do not want to drive and prefer to live in the urban core have a permanent, reliable way to get around. It can be done in Austin.

We'll see what happens when they bring their Mueller route idea before the voters. I just don't think it has a chance of passing. In that particular case I hate to say it but it "costs too much, does too little."