A Post-Urban Rail Transit Agenda (Austin, Early: employment, buy, where to live)

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by gpurcell

Nonsense. The cost of the thing was only released a month and a half ago.

True, but its the constraints which drive the cost. And the constraints (the red line and I35) were included in and reflected in the selection process (you claimed they weren't).

Originally Posted by gpurcell

And from your Excel file, Mueller and Highland, the score for "Physical Constraints" was a perfect 1.0.

No, it wasn't a "perfect 1.0". It was a _scaled_ 1.0. Both Mueller and Highland had 4.75 constraints marked against them (basically the same as Lamar which had 5).

Originally Posted by gpurcell

Thanks, BTW, for posting that utterly embarrassing file. It is so full of obviously incorrect nonsense that it perfectly demonstrates what a ridiculous charade the PC planning process was (e.g., "Mueller" received a higher score on "Bus Routes" than Lamar!)

So you disagree with actual objective facts? There are more routes through the Mueller corridor (barely).

Now, Lamar has an advantage on ridership, which is correctly reflected in the data.
Lamar has Bus Ridership of .71, Mueller had .63.

Originally Posted by gpurcell

And check this out--LAMAR was ranked HIGHER on the "Physical Constraints sub-matrix" than Mueller OR Highland--5 compared to 4.75 the LOWEST SCORE of ANY of the sub-corridors!

Which is appropriate. Designed to the same criteria as the proposed route, Lamar would require tunneling under the _entirety_ of the drag.

[gpurcell]

Laugh. Your responses are pathetic. On a scale of 1.0 to 5.0 (note the decimals), which was what was used, the score given to Mueller/Highland was 1.0--that is perfect. And if you can't see that ranking bus routes in Mueller more highly than Lamar your understanding of transit is hopelessly flawed.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by gpurcell

Laugh. Your responses are pathetic. On a scale of 1.0 to 5.0 (note the decimals), which was what was used, the score given to Mueller/Highland was 1.0--that is perfect.

Uh, the physical constraints scores went from 0.0 to 1.0, not 1.0 to 5.0.

7.25 2.25 7 7.25 7.25 1.25 6.25 4 3 1
1.00 0.20 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.04 0.84 0.48 0.32 0.00


and yes, they _scaled_ the numbers. Just like Lamar got a .96 (almost "perfect") even though it would require hundreds of millions in tunnels as well.

[gpurcell]

There is NOTHING about the Lamar route that requires "hundreds of millions in tunnels." It is required for Highland/Mueller because of the Red Line.

Edit: And REMEMBER the Lamar alignment was slanted to not include West Campus!

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by gpurcell

There is NOTHING about the Lamar route that requires "hundreds of millions in tunnels." It is required for Highland/Mueller because of the Red Line.

Edit: And REMEMBER the Lamar alignment was slanted to not include West Campus!

Yes, it would. Unless you remove 3/4 of the lanes on Guadalupe, which is then not designed to the same criteria that the current route is.

Or are you proposing that trains teleport from downtown to Lamar?

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by gpurcell

There is NOTHING about the Lamar route that requires "hundreds of millions in tunnels." It is required for Highland/Mueller because of the Red Line.

Edit: And REMEMBER the Lamar alignment was slanted to not include West Campus!

Actually, You still have to cross the Red Line at Crestview on lamar.

Not too mention a subway on Guadalupe. . .

[gpurcell]

Guadalupe requires losing 2 of four lanes, exactly the same as Red River. So, lie #1.
G/L can terminate at Crestview or (since there is a ton more space and no shopping mall) build a much cheaper flyway over the Red Line to cross it. So, lie #2.
West Campus was explicitly not included in PC's Lamar analysis. So, lie #3.

How many times are you going to state flat out falsehoods, komeht?

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by gpurcell

Guadalupe requires losing 2 of four lanes, exactly the same as Red River. So, lie #1.

The 2000 G/L plan removed 3/4 of the lanes for several blocks (it literally left only a single one-way lane).

Originally Posted by gpurcell

G/L can terminate at Crestview or (since there is a ton more space and no shopping mall) build a much
cheaper flyway over the Red Line to cross it. So, lie #2.

Terminating at Crestview still requires crossing the freight line unless you stop so far away from it that direct transfers are compromised. Remember that the crestview station is at the far side of the line and a bit away from Lamar.

Originally Posted by gpurcell

West Campus was explicitly not included in PC's Lamar analysis. So, lie #3.

Yes, it was. That's the "constrained right of way" included in the constraint analysis.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by Novacek

The 2000 G/L plan removed 3/4 of the lanes for several blocks (it literally left only a single one-way lane).

Where you are talking about - three blocks from 27th to 29th - is the only stretch of the entire route that doesn't have a center turn lane. So yes - Guadalupe traffic was diverted. But never was it one way traffic only.

http://www.dahmus.org/blogimg/201104...ed2000lrt1.jpg

[IC_deLight]

Originally Posted by jb9152

It's actually pretty simple.

The report, which does not go into elaborate detail about transit options and other behavioral changes such as work hour staggering, states clearly that a significant shift to transit use will be necessary to help deal with congestion because (and here's the sobering part) even if we do everything in the CAMPO 2035 long-range transportation plan, we still wind up with a 3 hour commute from Round Rock to downtown Austin.

Sounds like a reason to avoid forced centralization of jobs in downtown Austin and a reason to avoid seeking a job anywhere near downtown Austin.