BIKE: Re: New Cap Metro long-range plan

[Mike Dahmus]

David Foster wrote:

>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.
>  
>

RwT is very unlikely. Cap Metro is going to need to double-track a few 
portions of this route immediately (and in the long-term, all of it); 
and I doubt there is sufficient width in the corridor to put that and a 
10-foot trail in.

>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. 
>
Commuter rail has not, in other cities, ever lead to redevelopment. This 
is wishful thinking. The line only runs during rush hours, and at poor 
frequencies - this is not enough to convince people to move to a 
high-density development.


>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.
>  
>
Again - same set of problems. Nobody is going to move into a 
transit-oriented development located on a transit line which doesn't run 
with very high frequencies throughout the day.

>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. 
>
I have never been wrong on a transportation prediction in this area 
(Patrick still owes me a steak dinner for one of them). Keep that in mind.

Prediction: The line will fail to attract any redevelopment, for the 
reasons stated. It will fail to attract significant ridership because of 
the problems at the downtown end (requiring a shuttle to hit the major 
employment destinations is the kiss-of-death, as Tri-Rail discovered in 
South Florida). It will suck up enough operating cost that within 5 
years, Cap Metro will be forced to scale back bus service in order to 
pay for it.

>I am reminded of Voltaire's dictum which someone on this list (I believe)
>uses: 'The perfect is the enemy of the good.'
>  
>
I've used it in the past myself. It doesn't apply here. LRT down 
Lamar/Guadalupe is far from perfect (Patrick, I think, would say 
monorail better qualifies there).

Regards,
MD