BIKE: Re: New Cap Metro long-range plan

[David Foster]

We seem to be nearing agreement on this issue. It is not possible, and may
not even be desirable, to have Rails with Trails accompanying every mile of
track. But there are places where, I think, they can help overcome barriers
as I have said, such as at US 183, MOPAC and IH 35. There are some stretches
where there probably is sufficient ROW to have a trail, perhaps running for
a mile or two, or three  .... The UP tracks north of 183 come to mind,
perhaps also the UP spur east of IH 35 towards the airport. But there are
also stretches where it is impossible--eg, the UP tracks between the travel
lanes of MOPAC--where room is insufficient. And there are stretches where
RwT might be redundant--we already have Shoal Creek Blvd a few blocks to the
east of this stretch, and south of the river we have Emerald Forest. I
believe it is up to the cycling community to explore different stretches to
see where RwT could reasonably fit and where it would serve the needs of
bicycle transportation, and take this message to Cap Metro in the weeks to
come, while the agency is finalizing its plans for November. To be blunt,
the agency needs our support, and using this referendum to improve the lot
of cyclists makes sense. As Jeb says, there is a real opening here.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mike Dahmus" <mdahmus>
To: "Jeb Boyt" <jeboyt>
Cc: <forum-bicycleaustin.info>
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2004 1:34 PM
Subject: Re: BIKE: Re: New Cap Metro long-range plan


> Jeb Boyt wrote:
>
> > ----Original Message Follows----
> > From: Mike Dahmus <mdahmus>
> > Date: Wed, 12 May 2004 08:26:18 -0500
> >
> > 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.
> > --------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > We have had serious and encouraging discussions with Cap Metro
> > regarding having rails with trails.  In many places there is ample
> > width to have double-track AND a trail.  Also, Cap Metro is interested
> > in having the trails as ways to access their stations and as a route
> > for riders to take when they disembark.
>
> "in many places", I agree. If you're selling this as "we'll have a long
> trail", I disagree. There may be short stretches where you can put in a
> trail with the rail.
>
>
> > ----Original Message Follows----
> > 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.
> > -------------------------------------------
> >
> > Redevelopment adjacent to transit is happening in Dallas, Portland,
> > and other cities that have added rail over the last 15 years.
>
> Jeb, if you were honestly confused by my wording, please let me know.
> Otherwise, I have to assume you're being disingenuous here - I'm
> explicitly making a distinction between commuter rail and light rail in
> terms of headways and operating times (i.e. commuter rail often runs
> only during rush hour or at long headways such as once every 30
> minutes). Note that Portland and Dallas experienced redevelopment from
> light rail, not commuter rail. (The commuter rail running between Dallas
> and FW did not lead to any development activity in the private sector;
> while light rail has done so all over the place).
>
> > We are probably at least ten years away from a ballot measure
> > authorizing rail in the Central City.  Bus rapid transit is what we
> > have to work with now, and it is a means of building the ridership and
> > infrastructure to support some form of fixed mass transit in the
> > future.  If Cap Metro's current commuter rail fails, it may well be 20
> > years, if not longer, before we see another rail proposal on a ballot.
>
> This plan ensures that the urban core will not get rail in our
> lifetimes. The operating costs of this ill-planned commuter rail line
> will suck up all of Capital Metro's extra money; and the rapid bus line
> will fail to attract any additional passengers. This will provide
> ammunition for skeptics to claim that (a) we can't afford light rail,
> and (b) nobody would ride it anyways.
>
> - MD
> _______________________________________________
> Get on or off this list here:
http://lists.bicycleaustin.info/listinfo.cgi/forum-bicycleaustin.info