BIKE: Re: New Cap Metro long-range plan

[David Foster]

At first, my reaction to Cap Metro's proposal was similar to Mike's, but I
now have reason to be more hopeful. And I say this as a strong supporter of
light rail who worked very hard for its passage here 4 years ago and also
worked to pass the Houston referendum last November.

First for bikes: the Cap Metro proposal, and all the talk of commuter rail,
gives us an excellent opportunity to incorporate rails-with-trails as part
of the package. Mike rightly complains about the lack of bike facilities in
the 'burbs, and RwT could provide for safe passage beneath barriers such as
183, MOPAC and IH 35, along both the Cap Metro ROW and the UP ROW. As Jeb
says, some of us have been sounding out Cap Metro about this possibility,
and though it is too early to claim success, I believe the door is now wide
open. I understand that RwT cannot by themselves give us the bike-friendly
city we need and deserve--we still need improvements on arterials and
cyclists should never settle for separate facilities alone--but I also
believe that RwT could go far in breaking down the isolation of many Austin
neighborhoods as far as bicycle transportation is concerned. North of 183,
especially west of MOPAC, is walled off from the rest of town--just look at
the city's bike map and its color-coded routes, most of which are 'red'
going in and out of here.  RwT bikeways along Cap Metro's and UP's route
would help immensely. It is true that Cap Metro could and should do RwT even
without this rail package, but we can use this as an opportunity to help
bicycle transportation. We should insist that RwT be rolled into the plan,
and paid for with the same pot of money, so as not to rob other bike
projects of funding.

Now for the rail portion of Cap Metro's proposal: it is true that the
starter line envisioned by Metro does not do much for the central city, as
some of us have been pointing out for quite some time. But it does many good
things. It is not true that there is no opportunity for redevelopment along
this route. Cap Metro's ROW passes through the Robinson Ranch area which
Austin is on the verge of annexing (so does the UP line), close to the
Mueller site, and through the Feather Light tract between 12th and 19th
streets in E. Austin. All of these areas can and should be filled in with
bike-ped friendly transit-oriented development, with RwT connections. This
line is already carrying freight of all kinds, and it would cost only $50
million or so and take about 2 years to carry people along it as well. I
admit that I am not happy that people outside the service area who do not
pay the tax can use it more easily than those of us who do pay the
tax--especially though of us like me in S. Austin. But it has to be viewed a
first step which does have benefits for bike transportation and
transit-oriented development, and something which points the way to
additional rail lines with better service to the rest of the city.

Cap Metro's proposal envisions moving beyond a starter line along its ROW
and adding passenger rail along the UP ROW through central Austin and the
abandoned MOKAN corridor in East Austin. As everyone on this list probably
knows, UP is in negotiation about moving most of its freight trains to a new
alignment in the east, freeing up its current route for passenger rail. This
would also open up the possibility for RwT. Again, the UP route passes near
or through areas ripe for redevelopment. The Domain project, and UT's
property across MOPAC from the Pickle Center come to mind. The UP spur,
which jumps off the main north-south route near Vinson in South Austin, runs
parallel to and south of Ben White all the way to 183. It passes through
much open land, especially east of Montopolis Drive. Again, this area is
well-suited for transit-oriented development. The MOKAN ROW offers perhaps
even more opportunity. Much of the land it runs through is vacant. A
commuter rail on the MOKAN corridor would help pull development east (as
would passenger rail on Cap Metro's ROW), away from the Aquifer, which
Austinites have been asking for decades. Unlike development in the SW, much
of this development could be transit-oriented rather than auto-oriented.

As for rapid bus: I would much rather see rail or street cars of some kind
connecting to UT, the Capitol complex and downtown. I am willing only to
countenance rapid bus as a temporary measure on the way to other, better
connections. How do we get there? The best way, given that we lost the
November 2000 referendum, may be to start with a passenger rail along Cap
Metro's ROW to get something on the ground, and show people that the sky
will not fall if we have trains in Austin. It helps to point out in this
connection that Cap Metro is looking at technologies other than diesel
trains for this corridor, including a hybrid train analogous to hybrid cars
like the Prius. These electric-diesel (or electric-natural gas) hybrids are
already in use in New Jersey and Europe. AND they can and do run on rail
down streets as well as along separate rail ROWs. This means that at some
point, after Cap Metro has proven that people will ride rail, and as people
clamor for more (we can mobilize this clamor), a transition could be made
from rapid bus to hybrid rail on the street. It is at least a possibility.

I am reminded of Voltaire's dictum which someone on this list (I believe)
uses: 'The perfect is the enemy of the good.'

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Dahmus" <mdahmus>
To: <forum-bicycleaustin.info>
Sent: Tuesday, May 11, 2004 2:25 PM
Subject: BIKE: New Cap Metro long-range plan


> I mentioned this offline to Lane, but since then I found that it's
> already on the web:
>
> http://allsystemsgo.capmetro.org/
>
> entails:
>
> commuter rail down the Austin & NW line from Leander to convention
> center (no urban core service for Austin; even if there were stations
> between Mopac and downtown, it's unlikely they'd be big enough for us to
> drive and park at). Provides substantial benefit to the people who
> didn't want to be part of Cap Metro to begin with (it was not easy to
> get it through these peoples' heads that somebody in Cedar Park could
> just drive a mile down the road to the Northwest Park-n-Ride and ride
> the train even though Cedar Park is not in the service area). The Austin
> redevelopment opportunity is completely lost, since the existing rail
> ROW goes through neighborhoods hostile to additional density (and
> there's no way Airport Blvd is ever going to be as attractive for this
> stuff like Guadalupe/Lamar would have been).
>
> The urban core gets 'rapid bus', except that the only thing it provides
> over existing #101 service is the ability to hold a green light for a
> little while. This does nothing for reliability, of course, since if car
> traffic has packed the road as it usually does, the bus can turn lights
> green all day; it's still not going anywhere until the cars in front of
> it clear.
>
> No provision for right-of-way (i.e. bus lanes). No provision for queue
> jumping (they mentioned it as a future option, but this would require
> expansion of roadway at stations which they are now claiming they won't
> be doing).
>
> Additional bike relevance: in many other cities, it's much easier to
> stick your bike on a train than it is to stick it on (or under) a bus. I
> don't expect it to be any different here.
>
> The Statesman covered it today, but no point linking (registration
> required). On the front page.
>
> I talked to the Statesman reporter today and we might see a followup
> soon, in response to Lee Walker's claim that "It's so sensible and
> cost-effective, unless you're an extreme ideologue on the left or the
> right, it's going to be difficult to vote no"
>
> In a one-sentence summary: This is Cap Metro doing what Mike Krusee
> wants it to do, even though most of his constituents are not in the Cap
> Metro service area, and don't pay any Cap Metro taxes.
>
> Regards,
> Mike Dahmus
> _______________________________________________
> Get on or off this list here:
http://lists.bicycleaustin.info/listinfo.cgi/forum-bicycleaustin.info