9.5-mile urban rail route from Highland Mall to Riverside Drive (Austin: house, transfer)

[scm53]

Originally Posted by jb9152

It's not a "position";

Mea culpa. To me, it is a "position" - at grade wouldn't be permitted. Call it an opinion. Henry's is that it would, and he cites two examples where it is. Like I said, one of you is right.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by scm53

Ecce. Project Connect map showing Metro Rail running all the way west to Republic Square.

Fair enough. A map from 2012 shows that extension, while in 2014, the more recent, more detailed map does not. They're no longer promoting that extension, so there will be no need for a "future Trinity tunnel".

[jb9152]

Originally Posted by scm53

Ecce. Project Connect map showing Metro Rail running all the way west to Republic Square.

That's an old document (I think from mid-2013), when CMTA was thinking that the Red Line would be extended (which I mentioned earlier in the thread). Unfortunately, it's not labeled clearly that it's been superseded (although it does say 2013).

This is the relevant "Vision Map" (which does not show a Red Line extension across town):

Vision | Project Connect

[jb9152]

Originally Posted by scm53

Mea culpa. To me, it is a "position" - at grade wouldn't be permitted. Call it an opinion. Henry's is that it would, and he cites two examples where it is. Like I said, one of you is right.

Thanks.

The two examples Lyndon cites have their own peculiarities - the Philly one (I'm very familiar with that one; worked there for years) is a historical left-over, and was basically "grandfathered". SEPTA, the transit authority, pays a lot for liability insurance there that's required by the freight railroad, CSX.

The Tampa example is pre-Chatsworth (the commuter rail/freight train crash in LA that resulted from the passenger train engineer texting while operating the train); the Chatsworth crash happened in 2008, while the TECO streetcar line opened in 2002. Post-Chatsworth, the feds had their usual heavy-handed reaction, which included clamping down on crashworthiness, and the imposition of an unfunded mandate - Positive Train Control, on the nation's railroads.

Under the current regulatory regime, it is unlikely at best that FRA would even entertain a new at-grade crossing between heavier, mainline passenger railcars (like the DMUs, compliant or not) and much lighter light rail/streetcar equipment, let alone let it happen without a boatload of $ spent in designing failsafes, etc.

Lyndon is absolutely right that it has happened in the past. Past performance is never indicative of future results when you're talking about federal safety regulators.

[mayfair44]

Regarding the Hancock east tunnel, last Friday, Keahey mentioned that now they would also consider an aerial option vs below or at grade. Discussion starts at 40:00 on Item 3 (Part 1 of 2), with specific mention at 43:00.

May 2, 2014 Central Corridor Advisory - The City of Austin, TX

At grade crossing not completely ruled out, but "not preferred" at this time (48:00).

[verybadgnome]

Originally Posted by centralaustinite

And the route will require demolishing and rebuilding the Waller Creek Boathouse which was JUST finished somewhere else!!

I cried when the rail proposal was defeated in 2000, I won't be crying this time.

Where did you read about the demolition of the new boathouse? It might be tight but I was thinking they could have it adjacent to the creek.

[mayfair44]

Originally Posted by verybadgnome

Where did you read about the demolition of the new boathouse? It might be tight but I was thinking they could have it adjacent to the creek.

Item 3(part 2 of 2) 1:50

May 2, 2014 Central Corridor Advisory - The City of Austin, TX

[scm53]

Originally Posted by verybadgnome

Where did you read about the demolition of the new boathouse? It might be tight but I was thinking they could have it adjacent to the creek.

From the AAS:

Lady Bird Lake bridge: The north end likely would return to ground level just south of East Cesar Chavez Street, at Trinity. Building it almost surely would require demolishing the boathouse on the north shore of the lake. It would be rebuilt elsewhere, Keahey said, and the project’s cost estimate includes money to do that. The bridge, he said, likely would include room for sidewalks and bike lanes.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by jb9152

That's an old document (I think from mid-2013), when CMTA was thinking that the Red Line would be extended (which I mentioned earlier in the thread). Unfortunately, it's not labeled clearly that it's been superseded (although it does say 2013).

This is the relevant "Vision Map" (which does not show a Red Line extension across town):

Vision | Project Connect

#1. We've both been around long enough to know that nothing is ever permanent. Things come, go, and come back again.

#2. I've seen great transit systems - lived amongst and used them. There isn't a one that doesn't feature seamless intermodal transfers. Having a a four block gap between commuter rail and urban rail, and regional rail and BRT isn't close to "seamless" - especially in as intemperate a place as Austin. This connector will be back, in some form, because it makes too much sense - as it did as recently as a year ago. If there isn't a way to economically bring it back, then yet another reason to reject the proposed route.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by jb9152

Under the current regulatory regime, it is unlikely at best that FRA would even entertain a new at-grade crossing between heavier, mainline passenger railcars (like the DMUs, compliant or not) and much lighter light rail/streetcar equipment, let alone let it happen without a boatload of $ spent in designing failsafes, etc.

Do the Stadler DMUs we use come in an EMU version? If so, couldn't those be the urban rail vehicles? Certainly more expensive - certainly not $220M more expensive.