BIKE: Re: New Cap Metro long-range plan

[David Foster]

I only have time to reply quickly before heading off to work, and will
confine my comments to bikes. On Rails with Trails, yes there may be parts
of the ROW where space is insufficient for a 10' RwT. But we do not need RwT
along the entire length of any of these tracks, not do we necessary always
need to have a 10' trail. We DO need it to get us beyond/beneath barriers
such as US 183, I35 and MOPAC. And there IS plenty of room for that in most
cases. To get a sense of what is possible, we need do nothing more than to
look at the 4th Street underpass at I35, part of the LAB, where we already
have on the ground what is essentially a RwT trails connection next to Cap
Metro's tracks.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Dahmus" <mdahmus>
To: "David Foster" <david-k1971-foster>
Cc: <forum-bicycleaustin.info>
Sent: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 8:26 AM
Subject: Re: BIKE: Re: New Cap Metro long-range plan


> 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