Open Thread: Austin Light Rail

So let's see. (3.00 / 1)

The light rail can take me (and theoretically do so quickly, cheaply, and actually on a schedule that comes more than once an hour) to work at UT, to downtown, to run at Town Lake, to the airport, and to my favorite taco place on Manor?? As someone who does not own a car, I see only up-sides.

In fact, I've never owned a car. I moved here from New York City, and lived in Chicago before that. Never needed one. Truthfully, it's not too hard to be car-free here in Austin. But given global warming and fuel costs, we need more people to be able to live car-free, or primarily so. The bus, bless its heart, isn't quite getting that job done.

FWIW, you might want to look at a few other new light rails for comparison. Newark's got a great one, connecting two major NJTransit stops with several major downtown destinations. San Jose has one I didn't really like: it seemed under-utilized, and too expensive for short local hops.

---

by: kath25 @ Thu Apr 24, 2008 at 23:58:37 PM UTC

Go Light Rail! and better busses, and better bus stops, and... (0.00 / 0)

better bike lanes, and better carshare,and  parking alternatives that reward smaller vehicles and, and...

this city really needs to catch up on mass-transit, alternative (non-car) transit and urban transportation options. i didnt own a car until i was 30, and i sold it last year and am back to a bicycle and a scooter -- altho my wife has a car and that is useful sometimes i admit.

we should be pursuing ways to help  people move around this city that dont require a car. look at auditorium shores last weekend, where someone f'ed up allowing three BIG events in the same square mile, and not nearly enough parking because there arent nearly enough NON-car options...

please subscribe to my pamphlet ; )

adios
mario

-my comments at BOR are mine, and do not represent anything official from LFT.

---

by: mariochampion @ Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 00:36:01 AM UTC

Hopefully (0.00 / 0)

I don't know if this just me, but it seems like whenever I'm in Austin I always get caught in some almighty traffic. I've been trying to cut down on car use recently, so I know that better public transport provision is massively helpful.

Like Debating Politics?  Then you'll love USGovsim.  Come join the Democratic Party in the original online political simulator.

---

by: Cudicini @ Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:02:48 AM UTC

Hell yeah!! (0.00 / 0)

The path of this thing fixes (for me), the fact that I can't take the train from my house to school. If there is something of a depot where the train transfers to the light rail, this thing will be perfect.

A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy.

- Theodore Roosevelt

---

by: Doug Mayeux @ Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:15:29 AM UTC

I agree with it (0.00 / 0)

In Houston I've always been a supporter of light rail, and the little we have there is very effective.

In Austin it would be great.  My only issue is I would want to ensure that students can get a free/cheaper pass.

"Let us tenderly and kindly cherish therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write."  -  John Adams

---

by: Michael Hurta @ Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:23:30 AM UTC

Students would probably get it free like they do with buses (0.00 / 0)

"I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually."- James A. Baldwin

---

by: Timothy @ Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:15:24 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

If you want/like rail is really not the hard question? (5.00 / 1)

So let's go down this road for a bit.

I have always been and still support a full multi-modal transit system for our great city. To me, that's not the issue at all. The tough part is...

Where do the lines actually go? Looks really nice going across Ann Richards bridge....but that bridge can't hold a train.

So that also leads to another even much more difficult question...

How are we going to pay for it? Saying "no new taxes" is heading down a very slippery sloap. There really is no other way to pay for it. Oh yeah, we can say things like PID (public improvement district) but that's just code word for an additional tax on top of what you already pay. But that "fee" goes to "public improvement". Funny thing about the PID scenario is that folks within the PID would have to agree to be assessed. Not sure a business would actually vote to tax themselves more only to have their store front access shut down for up to two years while its being built.

Then there are also TIF's (tax increment finance) but a TIF on development in and around the stations only robs Peter to pay Paul. If we TIF that means money that would normaly go into the general fund of the city...would go to rail. You already saw the news about our budget this year. We could be looking for $20 to $40 mil this year. Taking more money out of the general fund via a TIF's will deplete the budget and render in bankrupt. We might have the prettiest train in the world running around town, but we wont have parks, libraries, police, fire, EMS. It really is that simple.

Then there are other things like...

Who runs it? Cap Metro? Not much confidence out there with our track record thus far at Cap Metro.

How do we pay for the operation? Somebody has to drive it, work on it, clean it, manage it etc.

Another question would be...

Does the ridership make it sustainable or worthy of the HUNDREDS of millions of dollars that we will pay to build it?

Again, I'm all for rail and I believe we are long past the point of needing it.

But we have to have some real difficult and honest conversations before we do anything. And forcing a vote this November just because "we think it will pass" does not speak well for good policy decision making. IMHO

And then in the end...I think it should be up to the voters before we spend one penny. This community should be the ones to decide if they want to indebt themselves to tune of 4 or $500Mil.

Just some real thoughts going through my little nugget right now.

Mike

---

by: mexmike @ Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 01:47:07 AM UTC

Some quick rebuttals (0.00 / 0)

"Where do the lines actually go? Looks really nice going across Ann Richards bridge....but that bridge can't hold a train."
Different, lighter trains in this plan.

"How are we going to pay for it?"
There are somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 condo developments being built right now along the route. I'm sure there are many more in the plans. Plus, this goes through the densest parts of Austin. If you go look at CapMetro's site and look for the most frequently running routes you'll see that almost all of them hit this route.

I'd like to see more details on the financials, but it's not as though this is not feasible. And at the end of the day having good transportation is not cheap. The gas tax hasn't gone up since the nineties which is why we're resorting to toll roads. You can either be cheap or have good transportation.

"Taking more money out of the general fund via a TIF's will deplete the budget and render in bankrupt. We might have the prettiest train in the world running around town, but we wont have parks, libraries, police, fire, EMS. It really is that simple."
This seems ridiculously alarmist.

"Who runs it? Cap Metro? Not much confidence out there with our track record thus far at Cap Metro."
Everyone always says this, but no one ever elaborates why. It seems to have become a truism that people mutter without knowing why (or ever having stepped foot on a bus).

"How do we pay for the operation? "
Fares.

"Does the ridership make it sustainable or worthy of the HUNDREDS of millions of dollars that we will pay to build it? "
Yes. Please look at density map. This route is probably the only one in Austin that has enough riders and will pay for itself.

"Again, I'm all for rail and I believe we are long past the point of needing it. "
You had me fooled.

"And then in the end...I think it should be up to the voters before we spend one penny. "
That's why we're going to vote on it.

---

by: tthomas48 @ Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:51:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

First instinct -- sounds great! (0.00 / 0)

Second instinct -- need to do the math. How does the cost compare to the expected ridership? Half a billion dollars is pretty reasonable for a system that people actually use, but it's a huge cost for a bunch of empty trains. What disruptions to car traffic will there be along the route? What are the possibilities for adding onto the system if it's successful (and NOT adding onto it if it isn't!)?

The devil is in the details.  Let's learn about them.  

---

by: LSadun @ Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:17:40 AM UTC

Catch 22 (0.00 / 0)

We need the system before we can attract riders. We need the riders before we build the system.

The big mistake I see in the Dallas System is it is being built on the same level as the traffic. Its trains block traffic and hit cars. A mono rail would have been great. The people who build the mono rail system for Disney told Dallas if Dallas would let them build it and run it for 10 years at the end of that time they would give the system to Dallas. Dallas passed on the deal because it was arranged by Max Goldblat, who was a council member who always thought out side the box.

---

by: Ken22640 @ Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 03:38:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

That's not the real reason the Dallas trains are above ground (0.00 / 0)

The millionaires in the Park Cities refused to let tunnels be dug under their property.  Since the Park Cities are smack dab in the middle of Dallas and right next to the downtown area compromises had to be made.

But the Trinity Rail Express connecting Dallas and Fort Worth has been a godsend for the metroplex.  It's diesel and follows a very old established rail line (so folks are used to stopping at the crossings) but it has done wonders for property values in South Irving and is actually stirring up some badly needed redevelopment.

---

by: Michael McPhail @ Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 15:00:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Read some DART (Dallas) studies (0.00 / 0)

I'll allow that it's not easy to access all the studies that have to be done before a rail line gets built.  But once you get to reading one you realize the enormous differences in cost when you have to build an elevated railway, or worse, dig a tunnel.  How expensive is it to have a tunnel?  About double the on-ground cost, give or take around that order of magnitude.

On most of Dallas's LRT system, the train is ground level and does not have to share space with cars the way street cars do.  The train crossings doesn't "block traffic" any more than a red light at an intersection blocks traffic.

The monorail project sounds like a big project of PORK.  Go look up basic specifications of train technology, and see for yourself the speed and people-carrying capacities of monorails vs light rail.  (You can start with Wikipedia.)  Are we building for a city, or an amusement park?

In downtown, the stop-and-go trains are annoying, because the trains have to stop for red lights on street level.  (This is where it behaves more like a streetcar.)  I think this can be easily fixed by adjusting the signaling to give trains priority.

Btw, I live in Dallas and read DART documents for fun.

---

by: latent @ Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 21:31:31 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Empty Trains (0.00 / 0)

People always complain about empty buses and empty trains. If you ride a bus along this route I guarantee no matter which bus you take it will not be empty. The Riverside route hits some of the densest housing in Austin as does Manor. Downtown hits every single route in town practically. There's plenty of riders.

---

by: tthomas48 @ Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 12:53:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I like light rail, but the cost concerns me. (0.00 / 0)

I'm on the fence on this.  I think a light rail route would be awesome.  The 70-460 million it would cost (which would probably end up being more towards the higher figure), is a $100-600 per Austin resident.  Keep in mind there's already a bus that goes from the airport to downtown to campus.  I'd have to hear more pros and cons to make a decision about this.

"I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually."- James A. Baldwin

---

by: Timothy @ Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:11:43 AM UTC

A better route? (0.00 / 0)

Instead of just a train to the capital, how about a north-south train along the lines of what bus #1 runs?  I think that would get a lot more every day use than the proposed route.

"I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually."- James A. Baldwin

---

by: Timothy @ Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 06:13:33 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Neighborhood Associations (0.00 / 0)

Neighborhood Associations and Businesses organized to kill the last plan that basically followed the #1 bus route. Part of the reason this is a good route is that it hits density and avoids Neighborhood Associations.

---

by: tthomas48 @ Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 16:12:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

a note on cost (0.00 / 0)

The cost of this project will be in line with improvements to highways which are in the CAMPO TIP and will likely do less to move Austinites around the city.  For example, the SW290 'Y' project which is intended to relieve congestion on a single interchange was estimated to cost about $420 million.  If it is ever built, construction inflation will probably raise it to the $500-600 million range.

So rail projects, which offer many additional benefits in the environmental and land use arena, are quite in line with road costs.

---

by: Kedron Touvell @ Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 17:24:28 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Looks Great (0.00 / 0)

This actually looks like one of the most sensible routes, and it begins to push more robust transit into the SE where it is desperately needed, while providing the key link between the airport, downtown, and a major new high-density development in the NE.

It's not perfect, but it would provide a keystone to building future infrastructure, and with the airport/downtown/UT/Manor/Mueller link, I think its likely to get heavy usage pretty fast, giving grounds for justifying future development.  It also helps build a transit corridor for future development, and provides a link to the red line that opens soon.

I'm certainly going to vote for it.

---

by: gpotts @ Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 13:18:09 PM UTC

Thanks (0.00 / 0)

Thanks, Karl-Thomas, for the kind words. Some quick points:

1. This is nowhere near as strong as the 2000 LRT proposal was, but the passage and implementation of commuter rail prevents that route from ever happening. 2000 LRT projected 46,000 riders per day - enough to justify taking away a lane from cars on Guadalupe and Lamar. This line won't be able to generate that much traffic - because it can't run out to the suburban park-and-rides.

2. I figure we need 10,000 people/day to make this a success. (BTW, max capacity of commuter rail is 2000 people/day; projections are for 1500).

3. The key differences between this and Cap Metro's awful circulator proposal: dedicated lanes and East Riverside/airport. CM's proposal would have only circulated commuter rail passengers while providing little to no original/additional ridership - and that would have limited it to 1500-2000 people/day.

4. Commuter rail can't be extended into the city (except a bit farther down 4th; it can't make turns sharply enough to work in the urban core, which is why it's such a crock that CM calls it 'urban commuter rail'). This technology, however, can go essentially anywhere.

So if you ever want rail on Guadalupe or South Congress, this is the way to get it - and it needs to pass this year (before commuter rail opens up and the accompanying PR debacle happens when people finally figure out what it means to have to take two shuttle bus rides each and every day to use the thing).

---

by: m1ek @ Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 13:37:31 PM UTC

Would much rather take the same money (0.00 / 0)

And fix the ___ity blank busses.  

They need to run more frequently, in a better laid out grid pattern, so that anyone can cross town more quickly with reduced penalties for missed connecting buses.  Every person I talk to about rail, highway, bus and bike transportations agree, Capital Metro's bus system does not work for Central Texas commuters.

Haphazard light rail plans soak up money away from better transportation options, all in support of having "our very own train."

I'm not anti-train, but commuter rail solutions make a lot more sense to me then these trolley plans.

So after these curmudgeonly comments, I'll add this.   I do like linking the Riverside apartment jungle with downtown and UT campus.  

And the potential for new residents to Mueller Development to rely on the train as their daily transportation is there.   However, I don't think that you're going to get the Mueller participation that you are hoping for.

---

by: mikeconwell @ Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 14:35:29 PM UTC

reserved guideway/dedicated lanes (5.00 / 1)

There are a few problems with the "just improve the bus" argument. One is the huge growth in population we are seeing in the Austin area.  Latest census estimates (and if you've been within 100 yards of Mayor Wynn the last few weeks, you've heard this) say that Austin gained ~60,000 residents in the one year between July of 2006 and July of 2007, plus another 20,000 or so since then.  We're not adding arterial road capacity in this region (and might never add hw capacity either, depending on CAMPO), which means the subjective growth in traffic people have been complaining about the last couple of years is real and is going to get much, much worse.

Now, buses are great, and I personally rely on them for about 50% of my commuting needs.  But they go in the same lanes that cars do, which means as our city's traffic increases, our buses get caught in the same traffic which decreases their utility.  The rail plan that ROMA is proposing here is 90+% reserved guideway, which means the rail cars don't have to deal with the street traffic (they do have to go through the lights, but that can be ameliorated with modern signaling tech).  

Theoretically, we could create reserved guideway for buses as well, but realistically that's not going to happen.  There is a real and measurable benefit for rail in terms of investment: Rail stimulates investment and changes in land use patterns, which is the real story about why the rail goes down Riverside and up Manor rather than more dense corridors (there's a NIMBY factor there as well for S. Congress).  

Regarding TIFs, someone mentioned it elsewhere, but the thinking behind it is that the as the rail increases property values along its path and stimulates investment that would not otherwise occur, a TIF tax acts as a "profit sharing" device where a portion of that added value is captured and returned to the construction and upkeep of the rail.  This is going to be the institutional locus of attack against the rail line as two Council members have already gone on attack against using TIFs, saying it takes away from the General fund (which is nominally true if you take the position that the investment would have happened anyway).

Regarding Mueller, I don't think anyone is excited that the rail goes there, other than Mueller residents.  I see it as a necessary evil that we have to put up with in order to get "phase 1" of hopefully many phases of light rail.

---

by: Kedron Touvell @ Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 17:16:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Buses can only be run so well (0.00 / 0)

As Kedron indicated, buses are stuck in the same traffic as your car - but that's only part of it. A bus accelerates like a dead cat and has to mostly keep right - meaning it'll always be a certain amount worse than cars in the same traffic.

Commuter rail is a dead end - because it relies on telling people who, today, won't ride the best buses we have (the 98x series express buses) straight to their destination that they need to take two slow, jerky, shuttle-bus rides a day in order to use the train.

---

by: m1ek @ Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 20:00:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Great idea - break ground yesterday (0.00 / 0)

I am especially pleased to see the route running through campus.  No rail plan makes sense without involving UT.  Whether that means my increasingly isolated and island fortress-like alma mater is on board may be an open question, however.  If the Forty Acres suits balk, I recommend that the council gently suggest to them that if they want any help from the city in creating/locating a medical school, then they need to play ball on rail.

The following statement is just wrong:
"Then there are also TIF's (tax increment finance) but a TIF on development in and around the stations only robs Peter to pay Paul. If we TIF that means money that would normaly go into the general fund of the city...would go to rail. "

Absent the new development associated with a station, there would be no property value increase, and therefore no new money in GR or anywhere else.  I think the TIF is a great idea.  Also, a PID works if those to be assessed think it the $ will be worth the infrastructre it builds.  Don't rule it out . . .

---

by: JUICE @ Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 14:47:15 PM UTC

Go for it Austin! (0.00 / 0)

Any mass transit idea that gets cars off the roads, decreases pollution, and lessens our reasons to buy oil is a good idea.

Dallas started this idea with the 2 DART lines, tying into Fort Worth's TRE, and have expanded from there. Denton County will get its 1st rail line in 2010 running from Carrollton to Denton, hopefully with more to come (although it is a "regional" rail concept).

Rail transportation is not a new idea. It is just something car happy Texas has not been willing to embrace for too long. We can not continue to rely solely on roads, with TxDOT unwilling to maintain what we have or build new ones without tolls.

Mass transit options are a necessity for a 21st century Texas.

---

by: John McClelland @ Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 15:25:10 PM UTC

I'm all for it (0.00 / 0)

It's time we did something that addresses our air pollution and gives riders a reliable alternative to driving their cars.

---

by: sonia @ Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 16:10:39 PM UTC

Speaking of knee jerk reactions... (0.00 / 0)

the support of Mike Dahmus makes me disinclined to support it.

Just kidding... couldn't help the dig:)

Honestly, for a starter plan this looks pretty decent. Being able to take most (if not all) the UT Shuttles off the roads between Riverside and UT would be great.

Most of the people who complain about this will complain because they don't live in an immediate service area. For them I'd ask only that they look at this as much needed start. Once it proves itself, I have little doubt that the money will be available to build out a more robust system.

The only thing I have issue with is the ground level interference. I'd like to know the cost considerations that go into a purely ground level system vs. and elevated system (whether LR or monorail). Do those considerations take into account delays for drivers as cars sit idle? Do they take into the account the loss of a traffic lane?

I'd really like a mostly elevated system. On it's face it would appear to cheaper and faster to build when analyzed realistically.

Regardless, I'll support it. For one thing, it'll keep Mike and I from fighting about toll roads:)

---

by: McBlogger @ Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 17:06:58 PM UTC

No conflict (0.00 / 0)

There's no loss of through traffic lanes in this plan - only some turn lanes in spots. Elevation raises the cost to astronomical levels and presents problems with stations (grade-level transit can have very elaborate or very simple stations; elevated transit requires very expensive stations including elevators for ADA).

And if you thought the NA's opposed light rail in 2000 (it's not really fair to say they did; most just stayed out of it and as many supported as opposed), wait until you tell them you're going to put pylons in the street.

Light rail like this (more accurately, like we should have built in 2000) has worked everywhere it's been tried. Elevated transit actually has a much worse track record.

---

by: m1ek @ Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 19:31:39 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Here's one of the primary impediments (0.00 / 0)

The lazy local daily, in the name of "balance" runs to the same two people, of the more than 800,000 residents of Travis County, for comment about every rail story . . .

http://www.statesman.com/blogs...

---

by: JUICE @ Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 20:08:22 PM UTC

My secret shame (0.00 / 0)

In 2004, since I was the only pro-rail guy that would stand up and publically, rather than privately, say the commuter rail plan was an Austin-screwing disaster, I had to share the dais with Skaggs once or twice.

I did mention from time to time that I wasn't one of the "Neanderthals" who says "no rail"; I just don't want to waste our time building "bad rail" especially when it precludes building good rail later.

(You guys want to know why this plan won't go up Lamar/Guadalupe? Because commuter rail is squatting like a festering pile of crap on the northwesterly right-of-way such a light rail line needs in order to justify taking away traffic lanes on such major streets - without the suburban AND urban passengers, in other words, the light rail would move fewer people than the existing car lane).

This plan, at least, gives us the hope of going there SOMEDAY; if the opening line proves a success. But for right now, projections would be way too low to make it work (again, 2000 LRT projections 46,000/day; commuter rail MAXIMUM CAPACITY 2000/day; this line ought to be shooting for 10,000/day).

---

by: m1ek @ Fri Apr 25, 2008 at 20:47:49 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Affordable Housing (0.00 / 0)

If this line is built, some thought should be given to the affordable housing units that will be lost in zip code 78741. 78702 is no longer affordable for most working folks as the pace of gentrification quickens there. The rest of the older population that is under 65 is being property taxed out of the area.

I think a lot of condos will be built to help get the density needed to support this line. That means the older stock of houses and apartments will be replace by extensions of downtown residential density, plus 78702 type McMansions.

---

by: ssuits @ Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 03:03:20 AM UTC