Austin subway system? (West, Lone Star: rail, gas, rated)

[Austin97]

Originally Posted by centralaustinite

Well supposedly limestone is ideal for tunneling! Guess we will find out.

The problem with above ground rail is that there is no room, buying the right-aways would be costly even if it could be done.

the tunneling costs of waller creek were around 100 million/mile. This is what got people interested in subways.

to compare, highways are about 11 million/mile

[Westerner92]

Originally Posted by Austin97

the tunneling costs of waller creek were around 100 million/mile. This is what got people interested in subways.

to compare, highways are about 11 million/mile

That highway figure is nowhere near realistic for Austin. Real estate alone would push it into the tens of millions per mile, and then you're just shredding apart much of what makes Austin special. Besides, where would you put a new highway in Austin that could help Mopac, 360, 183, or 35?

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Westerner92

It's not cheap, but Austin chose in the mid-20th century, whether they realized it or not, density and vibrancy by being so anti-freeway.

Austin is way _less_ dense than Houston (I don't have figures for Dallas immediately on hand and I'm lazy, but I'm assuming the same).

[Westerner92]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Austin is way _less_ dense than Houston (I don't have figures for Dallas immediately on hand and I'm lazy, but I'm assuming the same).

Using city limits to compare densities is unreliable at best. If you've been to both, you know that much of Austin has developed like Inner West Houston, with similar traffic problems that can't be solved by more freeways. It's interesting to note that the dense "core" of Austin has an incredibly elongated shape, that, IMO, is ideal for a train line.

Austin has built so snugly to its major roadways (think Burnet, Lamar, South Congress) such that even widening roadways involves tearing down tons of local businesses.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Westerner92

Using city limits to compare densities is unreliable at best.

Who said I was? City limit density, metro density, urbanized area density. Austin is incredibly non-dense by all measures.

Originally Posted by Westerner92

If you've been to both, you know that much of Austin has developed like Inner West Houston, with similar traffic problems that can't be solved by more freeways. It's interesting to note that the dense "core" of Austin has an incredibly elongated shape, that, IMO, is ideal for a train line.

Austin has built so snugly to its major roadways (think Burnet, Lamar, South Congress) such that even widening roadways involves tearing down tons of local businesses.

That's just the problem, it's _too_ snug to the major roadways (and hence, non-ideal). You (may)have some amount of density on the roadway, but then a single parcel over it's SFH as far as the eye can see. That's not the sort of density you can easily or efficiently serve by transit.

What Austin needs is nodal density (nodes along a line). Fine, put a line on/above/below Burnet, but then you need to rezone at stations. VMU densities or more at a half mile radius from the station. It will never happen, because it would mean rezoning a quarter of the parcels in Allandale (etc.)

[Westerner92]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Who said I was? City limit density, metro density, urbanized area density. Austin is incredibly non-dense by all measures.




That's just the problem, it's _too_ snug to the major roadways (and hence, non-ideal). You (may)have some amount of density on the roadway, but then a single parcel over it's SFH as far as the eye can see. That's not the sort of density you can easily or efficiently serve by transit.

What Austin needs is nodal density (nodes along a line). Fine, put a line on/above/below Burnet, but then you need to rezone at stations. VMU densities or more at a half mile radius from the station. It will never happen, because it would mean rezoning a quarter of the parcels in Allandale (etc.)

I can definitely get behind that. I believe that between our dense corridors and projected growth, Austin has great potential to be a transit-oriented city. With Austin's growth, something will have to change.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by Austin97

the tunneling costs of waller creek were around 100 million/mile. This is what got people interested in subways.

For a single 26.5' tunnel. By comparison, SF's new 1.6 mi Central Subway - for an existing line - costs $233M for the two 20' tunnels required. So more like $150M/mi, just for the tunneling costs, not including rolling stock, stations, electrical, etc. Which is why the total number touted for the first ten miles is ridiculous.

And just as ridiculous as the dystopian nightmare that expanding road capacity in Austin means "destroying" neighborhoods.

[jb9152]

Originally Posted by Rynldsbr

Better idea, tank the economy, close the doors. Stop letting all those pesky northerners and CA natives move here and ruin the town.

This is like curing cancer by letting the patient die. Yay! No more cancer...umm...

[jb9152]

Originally Posted by hornraider

Commuter rail can work in Austin if it works in much smaller places:
Recently, I found myself broke-down on I-35 near Lake Lewisville going towards Denton, and the part I needed was in South Dallas. I was able to board the A-train (heavy-rail) at Highland Village Station, transfer to DART Greenline in Carrollton and make it to south Dallas within 1hr 20min. Distance 35 miles (same as San Marcos to Round Rock).
Its just surprising to see that Lewisville, TX (pop. 95K) has better rail and public transportation (DCTA) than Austin.

Being worked on right now - www.lonestarrail.com

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by scm53

For a single 26.5' tunnel. By comparison, SF's new 1.6 mi Central Subway - for an existing line - costs $233M for the two 20' tunnels required. So more like $150M/mi, just for the tunneling costs, not including rolling stock, stations, electrical, etc. Which is why the total number touted for the first ten miles is ridiculous.

Good god, I'm actually agreeing with you

Originally Posted by scm53

And just as ridiculous as the dystopian nightmare that expanding road capacity in Austin means "destroying" neighborhoods.

Destroy is perhaps overdone, but _significant_ adverse impact, definitely. Eminent domaining and demolishing hundreds of houses and businesses. How else do you add lanes to 2222 in town? To Burnet and Lamar? To Mopac (above what they're adding now, there aren't even any shoulders left!)?