BIKE: Re: Rails with Trails

[David Foster]

Here are a few quick thoughts on Patrick's post:

--The Red Line also carries freight and will continue to do so even if 
commuter rails passes. I can't see  the line being removed in any case, so 
we might as well carry people along it as well. It makes sense to 
piggy-back a paved bike trail along the corridor wherever feasible for all 
the reasons mentioned yesterday.
--I don't agree with the characterization of commuter rail as 'crappy'. The 
technology Cap Metro is looking at is an electric hybrid. Some of these 
low-polluting trains (depending in part of course on how the electricity is 
produced) are already in operation in New Jersey and Europe, and newer 
hybrids are in design as well.
--There may indeed be corridors where a monorail would make sense, such as 
the UP spur running from Vinson south of Ben White almost to the new 
airport. West of IH 35, space is an issue (not so much east of IH 35). I 
say this as someone who worked hard for light rail last time--I am open to 
looking at monorail, and Patrick and others are right that this commuter 
rail proposal is not by itself an answer to our mobility needs.
---However, I do see commuter rail as a 'foot in the door' and we can and 
should have serious conversations about how to expand passenger rail, in 
whatever form, once we have made a start here.

All that said, I am a solid supporter of the commuter rail proposal, and 
believe that cyclists should work to pass it partly because it does open up 
tremendous opportunities for Rails-with-Trails.

I hope we have a spirited, well-informed debate on all these issues in the 
weeks and months to come.

At 12:22 AM 8/18/04, Patrick Goetz wrote:

>I recently gave a monorail presentation to a very feisty group of mature 
>democrats.  At the end of the presentation, one woman raised her hand and 
>then commented "your proposal has one major problem:  you don't do 
>anything for Northwest Austin, and WE'RE the ones who vote!"  I responded 
>that Northwest Austin was getting the Red Line, to which she replied 
>"What?! You just spent an hour selling us on this fabulous new technology 
>and then you tell us that all we're getting is a crappy commuter train?  I 
>like your plan, but I'm telling you right now, you've got to have 
>something in it for us -- even if it's way out in the future -- if you 
>want us to vote for it!"  A slew of other questions saved me from having 
>to respond to this immediately, but later that evening an obvious 
>possibility occurred to me.  The current commuter rail plan is nothing 
>short of an unmitigated disaster waiting to happen (see future post); but, 
>combined with a sensible transit system servicing Austin's urban core, it 
>might eventually develop healthy ridership numbers, at which point a 
>monorail could be built alongside the existing track without disrupting 
>the service.  Upon completion, the existing surface rail track (note the 
>singular -- the Red line is single track) could be removed and the entire 
>rail ROW could be turned into a hike & bike greenbelt extending from the 
>Convention Center to Leander and perhaps even beyond.  No need to talk 
>about pinch points; the entire 50-80ft would be devoted to the trail with 
>plenty of room for greenscaping, thousands and thousands of trees, area 
>gardens, etc.  Imagine how cool this would be:  very much like Burnham's 
>grand vision for Chicago or Boston's Fenway, only much grander in scope 
>and size.
>
>This, in essence, illustrates the holistic, 30 second argument for an 
>elevated rail system, st least as far as bicyclists and pedestrians are 
>concerned.  Just ask yourself these questions:
>
>  - Is an adequate amount of street space currently devoted to bicylists 
> and pedestrians?
>  - If not, will adding yet another mechanized mode of transportation to 
> the street improve the situation (for bicyclists and pedestrians)?
>  - Alternatively, are Austinites willing to widen existing urban core 
> roadways 30ft or so to accomodate rail, bicycle lanes, and sidewalks?
>
>We all know that the answer to all three of these questions is no. 
>Consequently, there is one and only one realistic way to implement a rail 
>system in the urban core, and that is grade-separated, hence elevated, as 
>we don't have nearly the population density to support subway.  No amount 
>of wishful thinking or head-in-the-sand pretensions is going to change 
>this.  This argument is over; it's time to move on to figuring out how to 
>implement and finance such a system before it's too late and Roger Baker 
>gets to experience his peak oil civic catastrophe first hand without even 
>having to leave town.
>
>
>
>David Foster wrote:
>>A while back we had a short discussion on this forum around the value of 
>>including RwT in Cap Metro's commuter rail proposal. I continue to 
>>maintain that it is a great opportunity not to be missed. We need to 
>>think of all three rail corridors included in Cap Metro's (evolving) 
>>transit plan as corridors to move people--on foot and by bike as well as 
>>rail. Cap Metro's ROW passes beneath IH 35, 183, MoPac and other major 
>>barriers to continuous bicycle travel, and links several neighborhoods 
>>and key destinations.  Running as it does on a roughly 45 degree angle 
>>from Leander southeast to East Austin before turning west into downtown, 
>>the ROW crosses or comes very near major Austin bike routes such as Ohlen 
>>Road (Rt 18), Woodrow (Rt 41), Guadalupe (Rt 47), Duval (Rt 49) and Red 
>>River (Rt. 51), and a RwT would in effect extend and connect all of them. 
>>And of course east of IH 35, it merges with the Boggy Creek Trail, and 
>>would be easy to connect to the Lance Armstrong Bikeway via Pedernales. A 
>>network of RwT would no doubt increase ridership on the trains and make 
>>bike-train commutes easier on both ends of the trip.
>>The opportunity for RwT this November is even more important because of 
>>the potential to run passenger rail down the Union Pacific ROW and the 
>>old MoKan ROW in the future. As Eric Anderson has argued so well, the 
>>MoKan ROW can connect the Lance Armstrong Bikeway to the Walnut Creek 
>>Trail, parts of which the City of Austin is already building. The UP ROW 
>>passes beneath 183 near the Pickle Center and (future) Domain development 
>>before passing beneath MoPac farther north.
>>Part of our conversation centered around whether commuter rail lines can 
>>be double-tracked and still leave sufficient space for a paved trail. I 
>>believe the answer is 'yes' at least for most of Cap Metro's ROW, which 
>>is never less than 50' and usually more. The MoKan corridor is 100' wide, 
>>and more. However, there are clearly pinch points (such as in the 
>>Wooten-Crestview neighborhood) and I defer to experts like Mia Birk to 
>>offer guidance on feasibility. Along certain sections, we may have to 
>>take the bike route out of the rail corridor and onto nearby streets, 
>>then back to the rail corridor again.