BIKE: Austin Commuter rails

[David Dobbs]

At 19:43 -0500 10/9/04, Joe Moore wrote:
>1.  The population density in the Austin area is way to low to support the
>costs of a typical light rail and it will probably be another 20 to 30 years
>before the population density is high enough!


This is a popular old falsehood circulated by anti-rail critics. 
Overall densities don't count, but transportation corridor densities 
do.  Austin has the highest core density of any city in Texas and 
higher center city density than almost any city of comparable size in 
America.  Center city census tracts around UT and Hyde Park exceed 
17,000 per square mile.  The density for good bus ridership is about 
5000 people (or more) per square mile and Austin has lots of census 
tracts this size.  Successful light rail can start with  8000 to 
10,000 people per square mile and work fine.  There are several 
census tracts in Austin above or near 10,000 people per square mile, 
most of them within a mile of a southwest to northeast axis 
paralleling Congress and Lamar.

These trends need to be encouraged, but automobile access and storage 
and the limited supply of close-in housing will put a brake on 
further densification.  Without urban passenger rail, new competitive 
housing markets, i.e., clustered mixed-use dense transit orientated 
development (TOD) that currently is being bid out of reach for most 
of us in central city, will not occur.  Waiting 20 to 30 years will 
simply see the opportunity to densify along our rail corridor lost as 
past sprawl practices become the future on over 10,000 acres of raw 
land currently under Austin's control.  Higher density means lower 
infrastructure and service delivery costs relative to the taxes 
collected, and thus more money for bike facilities, parks, libraries, 
schools, police, fire, EMS--in short, the amenities of civilization. 
In other words, TOD makes more money for the taxpayers (the citizen 
public investors) than does sprawl.

At 19:43 -0500 10/9/04, Joe Moore wrote:
>3.  Austin's industrial parks are spread out all over the Austin
>metropolitan area such that commuters travel every which way to get to work.
>We don't have any high density industrial plants/factories where over 10
>thousand people work in one location, such that a mass transit system could
>be effective to move large numbers of employees.

Another myth.  Despite the Central Texas crash program to build roads 
and sprawl in all directions, over 50% of the region's employment 
remains concentrated in an area a little over a mile wide and about 7 
miles long, approximately 20 blocks by 70 blocks in the core along 
the NE to SW axis mentioned above.  Although our demographics are 
changing rapidly and our employment has become more diversified, we 
remain a government and university town with a unique alignment of 
UT, the Capitol Complex and the CBD all located in a 30 block 
corridor.  We can serve this with high volume competitive public 
transit or we can watch it go away.

At 19:43 -0500 10/9/04, Joe Moore wrote:
>2.  The route they are trying to sell us on this time doesn't go anywhere
>the majority of commuters can actually use to get to work.

>If Austin was to ever get serious about mass transit, they would open their
>eyes and realize that mass transit has to go from where people live to where
>they work and play, rather than just trying to build a rail commuter system
>so that the city can brag that we have one.

The route proposed is the last opportunity we will have to get rail 
on the ground for at least a decade, perhaps forever.  It has nothing 
to do with bragging rights and everything to do with protecting the 
transit fund from Road Warrior raids as I have explained in previous 
posts.

Above all, getting into the rail business gets us into the 
development game (see above), which is critical to the city's public 
investment strategy.  With light rail levels of service, a train 
every 15 minutes in both directions at peaks over the length of the 
line and 15 to 20 minute service to time-transfer buses to more 
stations in the core, the line would have considerable ridership and 
attract clusters of development.  Past Capital Metro modeling puts 
the numbers in excess of 20,000 riders a day, year 2020, or higher 
daily ridership than the number 1 bus along Congress, Guadalupe and 
North Lamar, today.  The November ballot proposal does not give us 
this level of service, but it does give us the only chance we have to 
get to the desired level of service and a core rail system at a later 
date.

Obviously, connecting the big dots gets far more riders, but that 
plan failed by an eyelash in 2000.  A vote against the commuter rail 
plan in November is a vote for more roads on the fringes to access 
more tax base that will go to other communities who will demand and 
get more utilities and services from Austinites because the suburban 
political clout will grow even faster without a transportation tool 
to direct more growth into Austin's city limits.  A "no" vote in 
November says, "I want more of my money to go to the status quo, to 
the suburbs, more toll roads, and I want my city to have less 
services, less mobility and higher taxes."

At 19:43 -0500 10/9/04, Joe Moore wrote:
>4.  Austin is too hot and humid 6 months out of the year, so hot, that
>commuters don't not want to walk more than about 500 feet in order to get to
>work.  After taking the train, the majority of commuters that would use the
>proposed rail route, will have to wait in the heat another 5 to 10 minutes
>to catch a Cap-Metro bus, then after taking a bus, will have to walk the
>rest of the way to work in the heat.

This doesn't seem to impact the 130,000 rides a day currently aboard 
Capital Metro buses.  Despite the "Empty Bus" claims of the critics, 
Austin's per capita transit ridership is and has been since about 
1989 the highest in the state of Texas and for U.S. cities of similar 
size.  Like our buses, the plan is to have our trains air 
conditioned, too.

Rail cities such as Sacramento, Dallas, and Atlanta in hot and humid 
climates just as unpleasant as ours have had good results from their 
rail systems using closely timed train and bus connections.

At 19:43 -0500 10/9/04, Joe Moore wrote:
>1.  A high speed mass transit line that goes from the Austin-Bergstrom
>Airport heading west to I35. At I35 it would head north through downtown
>Austin, the UT stadium/campus, then continue North up the I35 corridor, with
>stops at the highest density work/living areas.

At great expense in dollars and much political capital, Cap Met 
insured that there will be a place at ABIA's front door for rail if 
and when it is built.  Cities with mature rail transit systems like 
Washington, Atlanta, and Portland are seeing significant airport 
ridership from air passengers, although luggage tends to direct most 
airline passengers to ground transport with rubber tires such as 
cabs, shuttles, and rental cars.  San Francisco's new BART extension 
to the airport has not met its ridership projections.  On the other 
hand, Minneapolis with its new light rail line from the CBD through 
the airport to Mall of America (a huge tourist attraction) may well 
generate healthy ridership from airline passengers.  In fact, come 
December 5th when the final four miles of the Hiawatha Line opens, 
they may be short of light rail vehicles.  In the scheme of things, 
looking for new riders, it may be that more cost-effective rail 
extensions are built in Austin before the airport is connected in.

Freeways are horribly expensive places to retrofit rail to.  Built 
rail into the freeway as was done with the Washington Metro Orange 
Line to Vienna or Eastside Max line, next to and in median of IH 84, 
it can work well, but its land use impacts are likely to be poor due 
to the influence of the highway.  Again, as mentioned above, Austin's 
highest densities and places employment are along the NE to SW axis 
formed by Lamar, Guadalupe and Congress.

At 19:43 -0500 10/9/04, Joe Moore wrote:
>I believe such a system would cost more than tax payers would ever support
>or afford!  We have to low of a population density for an inexpensive system
>to be effective.  On the other hand, an effective system that would serve
>enough residents would cost to much to be supported.

We've spent billions for freeways that were full from the day they 
were completed.  The typical cost of an at-grade freeway is $17 
million a lane mile or $101 million a mile for the six lanes from 
downtown to Leander, IF it were all on flat level undeveloped real 
estate and wasn't on aerial structure (which it is).  Assuming there 
was a flat level undeveloped piece of real estate on which to place 
an at-grade freeway, it would be at least 200 feet wide, cost $3.2 
Billion ($101 X 32 miles) and under ideal conditions carry a maximum 
of 15,000 people an hour.  Since no such space exists, the cost of 
doubling the present roadway capacity is probably out of the question.

The facts are that the area's population is expected to double over 
the next 25 years (CAMPO 2025 Transportation Plan), Austin roads are 
the most congested in the nation among cities of like size according 
to the 2004 Urban Mobility Study by Texas Transportation Institute, 
Williamson County is the seventh fastest growing county in Texas and 
ranks 36th nationally (U.S. Census) and we own a rail line that 
parallels IH 35 and US 183 to Leander upon which we currently haul 
freight.

When I moved here in 1969,  Round Rock at 40,000 today was less than 
3000 people, Cedar Park, now 26,000 was 125, and Leander, today with 
about 15,000 had a population of 300.

Now here are the questions:  If we can begin building a parallel 
transportation facility with 20 to 80 percent greater potential 
capacity than the one that currently exists and do it for less than a 
third of cost, should we proceed?  If we're to proceed, when should 
we begin and how should we stage the implementation?  The operative 
words here are "potential" and "begin building."

At 19:43 -0500 10/9/04, Joe Moore wrote:
>P.S.  I just arrived home from a few days in Las Vegas. The Mono-rail wasn't
>in service.  But I did notice that the system goes from one Hotel/Casino to
>the next, and both of Las Vegas' convention centers.  The monorail can move
>thousands of people from where are staying to where they are working or
>playing!!!  I noticed as well, that the Monorail is a system designed for
>visitors to Las Vegas, not the workers that live and work there.  Where is
>the mass transit system for the residents of Las Vegas?

Monorail for the Las Vegas Gaming Industry is generally agreed by 
most folks, myself included, as the "theme park ride" appropriate for 
the strip and hopefully to downtown if they can only make it work. 
As for mass transit for the masses Las Vegas is planning a 33 mile 
light rail system as the attached editorial from the Las Vegas Sun 
explains.  This piece is also instructive on what it takes to get 
something done in any community.

Dave Dobbs
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Texas Association for Public Transportation
9702 Swansons Ranch Road
Austin, Texas 78748
Ph 512.282.1149

Visit our website at  http://www.lightrailnow.org
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



http://www.lasvegassun.com/opinion/

LAS VEGAS SUN
August 30, 2004

Editorial: Good to see planning for rail system


Almost 10 years of planning was invested in the Las Vegas Beltway
before a single stretch of it was ever opened. That's how long it takes to
plan for major public works projects. This is why we believe the Regional
Transportation Commission was right earlier this year to start planning for
a light rail system that would, possibly by 2014, connect North Las Vegas,
Las Vegas and Henderson.

Imagine today without a beltway, or without the CAT bus system that
came on line in 1993 after years of planning. U.S. 95 and Interstate 15
would be practically impassable and surface streets would be even more
clogged than they are now. With projections showing steady growth for at
least another 20 years in the Las Vegas Valley, we can look ahead 10
years and envision the gridlock if a light rail system is not up and running
by then.

The RTC's Citizen's Advisory Committee last week got a look at
preliminary plans for the light rail system, which were authored by the
consulting firm Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas. Charles
DeWeese, Parsons' chief planner for the system, said building it would
pose no technical problems. But, as with the beltway, gaining rights-of-
way and securing financing for the system -- estimates range from $700
million to $2.1 billion -- would be significant and time-consuming
problems.

This is why planning for the system is beginning now. A project of this
enormity would require federal funds, which generally take years to shake
loose. Even with federal funds, and money from past locally approved
transportation bond issues, there likely would still be a shortage, requiring
perhaps another bond issue that would require voter approval.

And then there are the public hearings, which could be contentious if
people's property would be affected. And the Henderson, North Las
Vegas and Las Vegas city councils would have to give their approvals. On
paper, the plans look simple -- 33 miles of rail linking the valley's cities,
and a possible future phase linking the urban area with a proposed new
airport near Jean, about 30 miles south of Las Vegas. It will be anything
but simple, however. But given obvious need, we can't let that stop us,
anymore than the difficulty of building the beltway and widening the
Spaghetti Bowl stopped planners 10 years ago.



 

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 14105 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.bicycleaustin.info/private.cgi/forum-bicycleaustin.info/attachments/20041010/8abaa4e2/attachment-0001.bin