Prop 1 discussion (Houston, Dallas, Austin: rental car, rental, hotel)

[Westerner92]

Originally Posted by Novacek

What accounting is that?


"Based on the analysis conducted for these corridors using Synchro, optimized signal timing, along with
the other recommended improvements, could reduce intersection delay by up to 30 percent on Burnet
road during the PM peak hour and up to 49 percent during the AM peak hour. "

https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/de...c_Analysis.pdf

Many people would rather call the government incompetent in all matters rather than take the time to understand traffic analysis or trust the people who do it for a living. Here's one of the big kickers most people don't get: Adding travel lanes is rarely beneficial. Turn bays, medians, bus turnouts, and other forms of traffic direction are quite effective though. Another one that a lot of people don't get: Making a street more appealing to bikes and pedestrians isn't a detriment to car traffic.

[pop251808]

Originally Posted by Westerner92

...Another one that a lot of people don't get: Making a street more appealing to bikes and pedestrians isn't a detriment to car traffic.

Right. I sat in my pickup in heavy traffic on Airport the other day and watched a bike glide by, faster than everyone but in a skinny little trash strewn gutter-lane. I wouldn't ride on Airport, I'm not brave enough anymore. But I like to ride and as the CoA adds usable, safe bike lanes I'm tempted to get out of my vehicle and use my bike more, especially when I see that it moves roughly as fast (and at times, faster) as the cars do.
I'm convinced that there is NO amount of lanes that would allow cars to go as fast as they want, when they want, everywhere in the city. So it's time to spread the transport load on various modes. We can fight about which we prefer AFTER they have an equal chance to be accessible to many.
Please don't talk to me about costs: I'm not a budget expert and neither are you. Cost discussions by the general public tend to be another way of saying, "I don't need it, I don't like it, I don't want it; so I'm not going to pay for it." Cost is not really the issue and ALL transport infrastructure is expensive, especially when all costs are factored in.

[austin-steve]

Originally Posted by pop251808

OK, great. And meanwhile, we're not doing anything innovative about transportation for ourselves, the people who live here. Great, we can all go to the doctor between 10 and 2 and stay home the rest of the time! Oh, and G__ help you if you ever get to where you can't drive.

Define "innovative" in a term that isn't a synonym for "doesn't pass the cost per rider test".

Originally Posted by Westerner92

... Adding travel lanes is rarely beneficial. Turn bays, medians, bus turnouts, and other forms of traffic direction are quite effective though. Another one that a lot of people don't get: Making a street more appealing to bikes and pedestrians isn't a detriment to car traffic.

Agree about the turnbays, medians, bus cuts, etc, but wholey disagree about bike lanes, when those lanes are retrofitted to reduce your aforementioned things that are in fact helpful.

For example, right turn lanes turn into chaos when eliminated for bikes and/or painted to be "shareable" with bikes that mean to go straight, from the former right turn lane. Same with eliminating center turn lanes to add curbside bike lanes.

I posted a few years ago about how the ridiculously stupid bike lanes on Pinnacle in front of the elementary school clogged the street and made it impassable during school drop and let off. Only an idiot would have designed that. Yesterday I drove down the street (I moved from there two years ago) and 'viola', the center turn lane is back and the "bike lanes" are now painted smack in the middle of the car lanes, I guess to indicate to people that bikes have "equal rights"?

[cBach]

Originally Posted by pop251808

Right. I sat in my pickup in heavy traffic on Airport the other day and watched a bike glide by, faster than everyone but in a skinny little trash strewn gutter-lane. I wouldn't ride on Airport, I'm not brave enough anymore. But I like to ride and as the CoA adds usable, safe bike lanes I'm tempted to get out of my vehicle and use my bike more, especially when I see that it moves roughly as fast (and at times, faster) as the cars do.
I'm convinced that there is NO amount of lanes that would allow cars to go as fast as they want, when they want, everywhere in the city. So it's time to spread the transport load on various modes. We can fight about which we prefer AFTER they have an equal chance to be accessible to many.
Please don't talk to me about costs: I'm not a budget expert and neither are you. Cost discussions by the general public tend to be another way of saying, "I don't need it, I don't like it, I don't want it; so I'm not going to pay for it." Cost is not really the issue and ALL transport infrastructure is expensive, especially when all costs are factored in.

Did you vote for the rail?

[Westerner92]

Originally Posted by austin-steve

Define "innovative" in a term that isn't a synonym for "doesn't pass the cost per rider test".



Agree about the turnbays, medians, bus cuts, etc, but wholey disagree about bike lanes, when those lanes are retrofitted to reduce your aforementioned things that are in fact helpful.

For example, right turn lanes turn into chaos when eliminated for bikes and/or painted to be "shareable" with bikes that mean to go straight, from the former right turn lane. Same with eliminating center turn lanes to add curbside bike lanes.

I posted a few years ago about how the ridiculously stupid bike lanes on Pinnacle in front of the elementary school clogged the street and made it impassable during school drop and let off. Only an idiot would have designed that. Yesterday I drove down the street (I moved from there two years ago) and 'viola', the center turn lane is back and the "bike lanes" are now painted smack in the middle of the car lanes, I guess to indicate to people that bikes have "equal rights"?

Ah, you have a point there. I suppose I should add a "necessarily" in there. When you retrofit bike lanes into an existing road, you run the risk of making it less optimal for both cars and bikes. That said, that doesn't really apply to this bond because it specifically seeks to redo entire corridors within the public right-of-way and reduce conflict between bikes, pedestrians, and cars.

Say you have 80' of ROW. The mid-20th century approach would be to have three lanes in each direction with a chicken lane (11' x 6 travel lanes + 12' turn lane). We've since found out that adding capacity in an already jammed corridor doesn't do much at all for traffic flow, but "reducing friction" in the form of turn bays and signal optimization does. That means that with proper planning and design, two travel lanes in each direction, with optimally placed bus turnouts and turn bays, is not only better for drivers, it allows for alternative forms of transportation by leaving room for sidewalks and bike lanes, and beautifies the neighborhood with green medians (10' x 4 travel lanes + 5' x 2 bike lanes with buffer + 5' x 2 sidewalks + 20' median/turn bay/bus bay/parking flex space). As I see it, adding lanes to roads is the sledgehammer approach to an issue best approached with a hammer and chisel.

This bond is seeking to optimize Lamar, Burnet, MLK, Riverside, and Airport in such a way for most of their lengths, and that's $482 million of $720 million budget. These are corridors and neighborhoods that just about everyone in the metro uses, and redoing them will go a long way toward increasing quality of life in this city. The rest is going toward streamlining and safety measures all over the city.

Civil engineering projects are not cheap. In my humble opinion (as a civil engineer familiar with costs), this is a good package deal well worth taking.

[pop251808]

Originally Posted by austin-steve

Define "innovative" in a term that isn't a synonym for "doesn't pass the cost per rider test"...

In America, innovative is anything other than more lanes for private cars, which have been proven to do nothing more than foster more suburban growth in the vain hope of being able to drive 60 mph everywhere, anytime.
And, as for "cost per rider test;" I thought I said "no said more discussion of costs?" ALL "costs per rider" are enough to make us puke. Can you really put the cost of one seat in one single-rider car, on asphalt during rush hour down as a bargain compared to a bicycle seat or a seat in an 80 seat railcar? Somehow, I doubt it. More importantly, there are million ways to spin that stat to suit yourself and your favored transport mode.

Originally Posted by cBach

Did you vote for the rail?

Oh, I'm sure. I vote for everything, and, I love trains. Who doesn't?

[cBach]

Originally Posted by pop251808

Oh, I'm sure. I vote for everything, and, I love trains. Who doesn't?

Apparently most of the city of Austin...

[pop251808]

Originally Posted by cBach

Apparently most of the city of Austin...

Nah. Everybody likes trains. Just ask them about where they went on their last vacation and how they enjoyed and marvelled at the transit there.

But the issue here has been presented badly and ganged up on by the "costs too much, does too little" crowd. Probably the same people who have red and black billboards all over town calling prop 1 a big lie.

Cost issues are always used as propaganda to defeat innovative transit solutions by wingnuts and others who masquerade as responsible stewards of your money. But, you should watch what their other hand is doing, not what their ads tell you. There's a lot of money being made and being spent on cars and asphalt. I use them both myself, but they're not the ONLY form of transit for a city that wants to thrive in the coming century. We shouldn't be shortsighted or entirely selfish, in my view.

[Longhorn Al]

Can someone post a link to the actual corridor plans? I'd like to see schematics of what they want to do to the streets in question (i.e. Lamar).

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Longhorn Al

Can someone post a link to the actual corridor plans? I'd like to see schematics of what they want to do to the streets in question (i.e. Lamar).

https://www.austintexas.gov/department/corridor-studies


They have street profiles that show what they want to do (in general) through the various sections. It'll diverge from that at intersections. The Burnet/Lamar plans also have a satellite view that gives you more of an idea of that, as well as how much RoW they have to work with. There will also be bus pull outs in some locations (resulting in a narrowing of the sidewalk there).