620 traffic is worst I've ever seen.. (Austin, Temple: how much, subdivision, maintenance)

[CarnivalGal]

I am by no means opposed to public transit or rail. But the problem I see is that Austin is not walkable. I could have a train drop me off at the doorstep of where I work, but I would be stuck there. I can't walk to a store, a restaurant, etc. You have to remember that cities like NY and Chicago were populated long before cars were the norm, so they developed accordingly. Austin is just the opposite.

Also, I live in Steiner. Neither my husband nor myself work anywhere close to downtown or UT. In fact, most people I know out here don't. So a rail to those places wouldn't help us at all. I've lived here for 10 years now. Traffic didn't get really bad until the new high school and middle school were built. I'm not saying that they shouldn't have built them, but they should have built the infrastructure to handle the increased traffic through that intersection as well.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by cBach

Cute. Did you know when the first subway went into NYC many people were complaining it would be underused as well? Look at history of NYC subways. We should plan for the future not the present.

OK. I looked at the history of NYC subways. It says nothing of the sort. Mebbe you've got something different. Would love to see it.

Originally Posted by cBach

A nine mile line downtown to Highland Mall crosses 2222 (Koenig). It would then be easy to have a line from 2222 to 620 from that point. Baby steps

Because both the topography and density along 2222 are so supportive of rail .... Since we are talking about traffic relief in 2015, what's the transit ridership today on 2222?

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by scm53

Because both the topography and density along 2222 are so supportive of rail .... Since we are talking about traffic relief in 2015, what's the transit ridership today on 2222?

I don't think you'd see rail out to 620 in our lifetime. However, a park and ride and bus feeder on 2222 into the rail system could have diverted some riders.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by Novacek

I don't think you'd see rail out to 620 in our lifetime. However, a park and ride and bus feeder on 2222 into the rail system could have diverted some riders.

Exactly. Tumbleweed Hill is a 10% grade and almost two miles long. There isn't a single LR line in the world at that grade, for that long. But hey, all it takes for some rail lusters is a pencil. Easy-peasy. And if you don't agree, you are just a hater with an "old mantra."

As far as a park and ride, you could accomplish the same thing by going down 2222 to Mopac and joining the HOT lanes - either by doubling back to Far West and entering, or by persuading CTRMA to add a transit only break in the demarcation cones just S of 2222. Either way, would be a shorter trip time than all the way to Highland, then LR to town.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by scm53

As far as a park and ride, you could accomplish the same thing by going down 2222 to Mopac and joining the HOT lanes - either by doubling back to Far West and entering, or by persuading CTRMA to add a transit only break in the demarcation cones just S of 2222. Either way, would be a shorter trip time than all the way to Highland, then LR to town.

Slightly shorter on distance to downtown (depending on where in downtown you're going) , ~15 vs. ~16.7

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/30.4...a=!4m2!4m1!3e0

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/30.4...a=!4m2!4m1!3e0


If you were going to campus or the medial school, the transferring to the light rail would probably be shorter.

Time-wise, and reliability-wise, we'll see. You still have to get off of Mopac and into downtown. And I'm still a little concerned about random break-downs and accidents in the sections with no shoulders.

And of course, that's if you had to go all the way to red river for the rail. The light rail had potential extension to 35th and mopac.

Edit: Moot point anyway. The voters have spoken, toll lanes, buses, and potentially transit-only lanes are in our future for the next generation.

[cBach]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Slightly shorter on distance to downtown (depending on where in downtown you're going) , ~15 vs. ~16.7

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/30.4...a=!4m2!4m1!3e0

https://www.google.com/maps/dir/30.4...a=!4m2!4m1!3e0


If you were going to campus or the medial school, the transferring to the light rail would probably be shorter.

Time-wise, and reliability-wise, we'll see. You still have to get off of Mopac and into downtown. And I'm still a little concerned about random break-downs and accidents in the sections with no shoulders.

And of course, that's if you had to go all the way to red river for the rail. The light rail had potential extension to 35th and mopac.

Edit: Moot point anyway. The voters have spoken, toll lanes, buses, and potentially transit-only lanes are in our future for the next generation.

I agree, rail is not going to happen for a very long time. Managed toll lanes is about as good as it will get.

I'm hoping the continuous flow intersections work at the Y, maybe they'll put a few more around town. Right off, I'm thinking 620/2222, 620/AMR, 360/Barton Creek Mall area (which could be combined with a few Michigan Left turns and/or Superstreets),

[Roadking2003]

Originally Posted by cBach

Voters clearly stated that they want nothing to do with rail.

No, they clearly stated they did not want the PROPOSED rail.

The proposal, which not perfect,

True. It was far from perfect.

would have laid the basis for a comprehensive system in Austin, was fully shot down. This, with no other proposal on the line.

Yes, because we have an anti-car city council.

The argument against was "won't help traffic" but there was no proposal to actually help traffic.

That was only one of the arguments. Another was the huge cost as compared to the tiny benefit.

It was mainly the same people that oppose any progress in this so called progressive town.

That's totally false. It's easy to support progress when spending other people's money. When it's your own money you tend to pay a little more attention to the cost/benefit analysis.

Now, as a consequence, everyone in Austin will face the consequences of that action.

True, and one consequence is that they will all have a little extra money in their pockets.

Everyone must now live with increased traffic and no solutions.

That's old news and would not have changed with the costly rail system.

Already, work-life balance is affected and studies are showing that Austin is in the top 5 unhappiest cities to live in. No doubt lack of good transportation was a factor.

This is true. So let's tell the city leaders to support building roads and freeways.

[PrimusPilus]

Originally Posted by Roadking2003

This is true. So let's tell the city leaders to support building roads and freeways.

And roads and bridges won't cost other people's money? With Austin's topography, do you think it's feasible to relieve congestion with roads alone? What if growth quickly outpaces road growth? (I'm sure it already has)

[Aquitaine]

And roads and bridges won't cost other people's money?

It's a question of degree. Nobody is asking for a billion dollars to build one road.

It's become obvious, even if it wasn't already, that roads are a short- or medium-term solution at best, because we've learned that development just catches up to fill up road capacity. That's not a reason to stop building roads; it's just a reason to stop thinking that roads are sufficient by themselves to solve the problem.

With our population growth, rail or some other non-road mass transit option is inevitable. It just has to have the right combination of price tag and appeal.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Aquitaine

It's a question of degree. Nobody is asking for a billion dollars to build one road.

And nobody was asking for a billion dollars to build one rail segment either.