The Statesman and every other media outlet in town, it seems, have been played for suckers again by Capital Metro - as has the City of Austin, who apparently thinks the answer to the bad intersection at 51st/Airport is just giving out tickets. Not one outlet has responded with even an ounce of critical thinking to the contention that the intersection hasn't changed (I'd say running trains 10 times a day at 60 mph is a change from a 5 mph freight train once a week) or the idea that education can substitute for engineering.

Austin police, beginning with Monday's MetroRail startup and for the following two weeks, will be staking out a worrisome intersection on Airport Boulevard, where the track is just a few car lengths from a traffic light and cars often illegally stop on or near the railroad.

Despite new signal gate technology meant to clear waiting traffic near the tracks, Capital Metro officials are concerned that some drivers might flout posted signs and railroad signal lights and find themselves in the path of a fast-moving train.

Police officers, at Capital Metro's request, will be monitoring 51st Street near Airport Boulevard and will issue citations immediately to motorists who stop on the track or under the four crossing arms that Capital Metro has installed where the track crosses 51st Street.

My response in comments to the Statesman article:

I covered this intersection on my blog a long time ago and have spoken about it on KUT several times since. The idea that we can avoid problems here through education and ticketing is just ludicrous - it only takes one person who missed the media coverage out of the thousands of people driving through here to make it all for naught.

The intersection actively encourages drivers to stop on the tracks, albeit briefly, if they want to ever have a chance to make a light - and this isn't just one direction of travel; it's people trying to turn off Clarkson; people just trying to go across Airport to the east; and people trying to turn left onto Clarkson from the east.

But let's just yell and ticket. That'll work, right? As long as we can make sure that 100.0% of all drivers who ever go through here will comply.

The far better policy, of course, would be to fix the intersection, but it doesn't play into Capital Metro's narrative that this was a cheap and easy rail start on all existing tracks.

It only takes one driver not to get the message, or to try their luck to avoid getting stuck for three more red lights to cause a disaster here. Capital Metro needs to be held accountable for their failure to re-engineer this intersection - and nobody in the media appears willing to do anything but repeat their PR about how silly it is to stop on the tracks. Shameful.

TrackBack (0) | Comments (0)

Comments on this Entry:

There are those who think that any rail is good rail; and there are those who think that any rail is bad rail. Then there are those like me who recognize that some rail systems do a much better job than others in a "new rail city" at delivering new riders - and it's frustrating how few seem to recognize intuitively the difference between a city like Houston, where the trains are packed and voters overwhelmingly approved a massive expansion as a result, and an area like South Florida, where after 20-25 years and a massive investment in double-tracking a very LONG route through a very heavily populated area, no community support for rail has developed despite a much more supportive population when the service started.

The metric I have here is basically "how much of the metro area did they get to ride the train, adjusted for mile of track". Here's why that's a good starting point: You should have the goal of maximizing return on your investment - your investment is basically miles of track; and your return is how many people ride - but to compare metro areas against each other, you should also consider how many people are IN that area to begin with (delivering 20,000 riders per weekday in Portland is a far greater achievement than delivering 20,000 riders per weekday in Manhattan).

Light rail systems are being used everywhere here except South Florida and Austin, obviously. (In both our cases, unlike the other cities here, commuter rail has effectively precluded light rail - and is being sold as a light rail analogue anyways).

After the break, the picture...

Continued reading Teaser graphic...

TrackBack (0) | Comments (2)

Comments on this Entry:

(natrius on Mar 12, 2010 2:23 PM) Is a post on the postponement of the rail bond on the way? It seems like the chances of a rail-only bond passing, especially after the Red Line proves to have no benefit, will be near zero.

(M1EK on Mar 12, 2010 2:38 PM) Well, you pretty much said it. We're left hoping the Red Line will be a smashing success.

Since shuttle-buses are obviously a problem, and since even in the commute to UT (you know, the obvious primary destination for people riding transit in our area, that unimportant little spot) from the furthest out station in Leander, the speed of the train can't make up for the time lost to the shuttle-bus, let's try to assemble one of the few commutes that might not require a shuttle-bus, although that's relatively hard to do.

Frost Tower is just on the edge of the 1/4 mile circle that most transit planners view as the maximum distance people will walk to work from a transit stop. It's also the ONLY major office building within what's commonly considered acceptable walking distance from the 'downtown station'. (Me, I might actually have to take the shuttle even on that trip some days due to my feet, so I'll plan that out too). Let's run there from both Leander (far out park-and-ride) and Crestview (supposed TOD which will supposedly provide the only real walk-up traffic for Austin).

This case also benefits the Red Line disproportionately because both the express bus route from Leander to downtown and the #101 limited first run past UT, and then past the Capitol, then through the rest of downtown; so we're at the very end of the slowest part of that route here. IE, we've picked the destination that makes the bus look its absolute worst.

Continued reading Days of Reckoning, Part Three...

TrackBack (0) | Comments (2)

Comments on this Entry:

(pel on Mar 5, 2010 10:43 PM) I live in Crestview and work downtown. My kids go to school downtown. I've been wracking my brain trying to think of a reason to take the train over the bus. I'm not turning up much. With bikes, it takes us fifteen minutes to get to the Crestview station. Add five to arrive early. The 101 arrives to within one block of school in 22 minutes-ish. The train plus shuttle arrives to within one block of school in 25 minutes. Add in the 20 minutes, and both options are essentially the same amount of time. Respectively, they're 42 and 45 minutes, total. The #5 picks up within one block of our house and thus requires no bikes. But, it's a 42 minute ride, plus the 5 minutes to arrive early. A break down of the different options: #5 - 47 minutes + No bikes to get there (plausible in bad weather situations) + One trip, no connections + Higher trip frequency - Long trek on neighborhood roads makes for a rough ride #101 - 42 minutes + Higher trip frequency + Bus ride is smoother - Requires bike ride to get there (implausible in bad weather) Train - 45 minutes + Excellent ride experience (for those 18 minutes) + Wifi + Take bikes onto train (maybe, depending on how full) - Lower frequency - Requires bike ride to get there (implausible in bad weather) - Requires shuttle to get to final destination, or long walk, or bike ride - 2x more expensive The most depressing thing of all is that I can hop in my car at the door to my house and get to my kid's school, right at their dropoff location, in 20 minutes. Why should I bother with mass transit that takes twice as long as my car, and is twice as annoying?

(M1EK on Mar 8, 2010 8:24 AM) You shouldn't bother - nobody should; the transportation agencies should make sure to provide mass transit options that not only exist (first step most never get past thinking about) but are competitive enough to be attractive. 2000's light rail line would have been more attractive for many more central people - maybe for you, maybe not; but in aggregate MUCH better. Now we can never do it.

Spoiler: Even the local bus beats the Red Line, because of the shuttle-bus trip. Yes, even though that local bus travels through half of the congestion on the Drag.

Continued reading Days of Reckoning, Part Two...

TrackBack (0) | Comments (12)

Comments on this Entry:

(happywaffle on Mar 2, 2010 6:32 PM) Mike, I respect your opinion and look forward to reading your work in the future, but you might cool down the tone of "Oh gee, look how fucking RIGHT I am about the commuter rail." It surely doesn't help you win the sympathy of Cap Metro and others whom you'd like to convince. I'm referring specifically to linking to your own posts from the past, as opposed to simply and succinctly restating your opinion--and to doing so *twice* in two posts, just in case we didn't happen to notice it in the previous entry. The sarcasm ("Nah. Couldn't be.") makes it even more grating. Again, keep it up with the insightful and intelligent transit commentary… tone it down with the masturbatory self-congratulation. If nothing else, it's simply repetitive.

(M1EK on Mar 3, 2010 8:48 AM) Kevin, re: convincing Capital Metro, see this: http://mdahmus.monkeysystems.com/blog/archives/000631.html CM doesn't want your input, or mine; or rather, they want it but only because they want elected officials to think they solicited input - there is no genuine desire to actually ACT on said input, and never was. re: linking to my own posts, the whole point of this blog was to have a record we could point back to when the service opened that it WASN'T the kind of failure that nobody could possibly have anticipated. See this: http://mdahmus.monkeysystems.com/blog/archives/000081.html Ref the general attitude, when you spend 6 years getting vilified for being the only pro-transit guy willing to stand up and defend Austin's interests, let me know how you do, OK? As recently as ONE WEEK ago, a Capital Metro employee was telling people I had no idea what I was talking about in another forum. Linking to 6 years of history here is kind of the point, in that environment.

(Scooter Pete on Mar 3, 2010 12:40 PM) Your post ignores the fact that not everyone who attends or works at UT does so along Guadalupe. The 1L/1M or 101 will get you to the western edge of campus more quickly, but the rail connector bus from the MLK Station has stops along MLK, San Jacinto and Dean Keeton. I've been a graduate student at UT for two years now and have never had a class west of San Jacinto... in fact have only ventured over near Guadalupe to visit the Flamm Center and pick up my ID. I'd rather use wifi on the train and read on the bus for a few extra minutes than have to walk from Guadalupe to East Campus.

(M1EK on Mar 3, 2010 1:11 PM) Ed, actually, if you think about it, my post assumes that the typical person arriving at UT is going to a spot exactly halfway in between San Jac and Guadalupe (since I didn't add walking time from the drop-off for either trip). Or, if you like, that the population of people at UT is evenly split between "close to San Jac" and "close to Guadalupe", which I think eminently fair (if I was to inject my own bias, I'd go towards Guadalupe). So far, every person I've seen feedback from who I can identify has either been a Capital Metro employee defending San Jacinto, or a non-Capital-Metro-employee saying "yes, Guadalupe is better".

(M1EK on Mar 3, 2010 1:14 PM) For instance, from your agency's blog at this post relating to the switch of the #5's route from Guadalupe to San Jacinto: http://capmetroblog.com/2010/02/03/serviceplan2020-2/ Robert wrote: “To improve access to the campus, increase ridership, and operate through a more pedestrian-friendly area, adjust Route 5 to operate via San Jacinto Boulevard instead of Guadalupe Street.” This would be a disaster. Quite a lot of the #5’s ridership–myself included–consists of UT students and staff who are destined for the engineering complex, the communications buildings, the west mall, or the six-pack–all very dense clusters on campus. The proposed changes would drop them off a good deal farther away from their destination, and at the bottom of a hill–not at all pedestrian-friendly. This seems, like the proposed switch from Congress to Guadalupe/Lavaca downtown–to be the general principle: move the bus routes away from the places people need to go, and into areas that are less congested. That is not a plan for increased ridership. and Lee Nichols wrote: As a frequent user of No.5, I too am mystified by the move from Guadalupe to San Jacinto. Although that would benefit me going to UT sports events, it seems like Guadalupe is a more natural destination for most riders.

(M1EK on Mar 3, 2010 1:21 PM) Let's also not forget that other express buses (the 98x series) have wifi - directly relevant to comparing in the Leander case; so the #101 could easily get it, too (but doesn't now, unless I missed something).

(Scooter Pete on Mar 3, 2010 3:05 PM) Er okay Mike well you've lost me here... I am not sure what you mean by "defending" San Jacinto. Defending it from what? I was simply trying to make the point that not everyone at UT is interested in bus (or rail, for that matter) service that runs up and down Guadalupe... it's a big campus with lots and lots of people, many of whom need transit access the eastern side of campus. Your case study doesn't consider that is all I was trying to say.

(Scooter Pete on Mar 3, 2010 3:07 PM) sorry -- meant transit access "TO" the eastern side of campus.

(M1EK on Mar 3, 2010 3:56 PM) Ed, it is difficult to keep straight - 'defending' SJ in this context is more like "yes, we're right to move the #5 to San Jacinto in the 2020 service plan". Again, though, if you think about it, my use case simply presumes that the average UT person is halfway between Guadalupe and San Jacinto (or half of them are on Guadalupe and half as on SJ). I didn't add "walk from bus stop to office" to either trip. But if you wanted to go down that path, google maps estimates about a 9 minute walk from Guadalupe down to San Jacinto(*) - so in this use case, the express bus is still markedly faster for people west of San Jacinto by even a little bit; and no worse than equal for everybody else - even those east of San Jacinto. (* - transit directions no good here; walking directions likewise; I'm estimating based on their 12 minutes for a route that goes up to 24th and then over).

(Scooter Pete on Mar 3, 2010 4:35 PM) Oh I see. No, I wasn't trying to defend any bus routings or re-routings... more than anything I was thinking of my own situation as part-time student at the LBJ School on Red River. (In addition to working at Capital Metro, yes, and being a daily bus rider.) If I lived at Crestview the 1L/1M/101 option would not be appealing to me. Not sure what the walking time is from Guadalupe to Red River but I just know that with my UT ID in hand I would be more likely to ride the train and connector route to get to school. Yes I know I am just one data point out of thousands -- I just thought your post needed to acknowledge that Guadalupe is not "campus." No larger motive intended.

(M1EK on Mar 3, 2010 4:44 PM) My personal bias is that - yes, Guadalupe is the front door of 'campus' and San Jacinto is the back door; not the center as some people argue. If anything, the center is west of Speedway, as you can see from this aerial: http://www.dahmus.org/blogimg/ut-where-is-the-center.png Were I in your employment shoes, I'd ride the train/bus from Crestview too - and, to be honest, even if I wasn't, since I can't walk 1/2 mile on a daily basis. But the fact that the "UT" route stays so far away from the 'front door' is meaningful - it suggests to me that Capital Metro wants us to forget about Guadalupe altogether (gee, I wonder why?)

(M1EK on Mar 3, 2010 4:45 PM) "center" in that sense means "center of density" not geographic center, obviously. short-term construction plans actually keep this going; despite UT claims to the contrary; almost nothing that would attract commuters is being built east of Speedway; and nothing east of San Jacinto.

I wonder if there was anyone who predicted way back when that the Red Line would be slower, thanks to its reliance on shuttle-buses, than existing express bus service? Nah. Couldn't be. Nobody could have predicted this debacle way back in, say, 2004.

July 15, 2004:

The current commuter rail plan, for reference, requires both of these constituencies to transfer to shuttle buses to reach their final destination. This, as I've pointed out before, means that anybody who has a car and can afford parking will never ride this route.The shuttle transfer kills the performance of the transit trip to the point where only people who don't own cars or have difficult parking situations would consider it, as is the case with today's express bus lines.

More references:

• March 2008
• hint: there's a lot more - try the category archive

TrackBack (0) | Comments (0)

Comments on this Entry:

Commented to this post:

SR, it's really simple: Mike Krusee was willing to fight for his interests (kill light rail, allow commuter rail), and our city council members were not (nor was anybody else in Austin, except yours truly, as evidenced by this sad bit of history).

Talking, having charettes, staying connected, keeping in contact, maintaining relationships, giving input - none of this matters if the guy on the other side is willing to exercise his power to get what he wants and you aren't. (This, by the way, is why I don't bother showing up and giving 'input' at things like the 2020 service plan meetings - despite nice invitations and hurt feelings when not taken up on; I'm better off with speaking to hundreds of readers and having a 1% chance of slightly modifying the opinion of somebody with real power than I am giving my one input and having it roundly ignored).

In reality, the message really isn't "don't waste your time by giving input", but rather, it's make sure you're giving your input to people who are willing to listen and are willing to exercise their power to help get what you want. An awful lot of people in the political ecosphere are very, very, very skilled at using the input-gathering process to defuse opposition to things they've already decided they're going to do. Don't allow yourself to be effectively neutered in this fashion - make sure you're only spending your time with people who aren't just listening politely to keep you from talking to somebody else about it.

TrackBack (0) | Comments (0)

Comments on this Entry:

Three special areas of stupidity in the Capital Metro 2020 plan:

Luckily for me, two others already hit two of my three major points. (No, Wells, it wasn't due to secret meetings of the echo chamber; note Shilli wasn't even involved).

1. Covered by Austin Contrarian: Moving major (i.e. the #1) bus routes off Congress, which is walkable and dense, to Guadalupe/Lavaca, which are infested with low density garbage for blocks in certain parts and farther away from the core of downtown, is stupid. Yes, the buses will move quicker. No, this isn't better; the reason the buses will move quicker is that they will be far away from the places people actually want to go downtown. (No, the residential density developing west of Congress isn't relevant here; every one possible reverse transmit commuter from one of those condo buildings is matched by a hundred or more existing work commuters trying to get to an office building - and the office building center of mass is on Congress).

2. Covered by a commenter on Capital MetroBlog; moving certain local routes like the #5 off the Drag is stupid. Most people going to UT are closer to Guadalupe than San Jacinto; this seems like a poorly justified way to pretend like Guadalupe isn't where the action is, to forestall complaints by people like yours truly when the Red Line finally opens.

"Robert"'s comment:

This would be a disaster. Quite a lot of the #5’s ridership–myself included–consists of UT students and staff who are destined for the engineering complex, the communications buildings, the west mall, or the six-pack–all very dense clusters on campus. The proposed changes would drop them off a good deal farther away from their destination, and at the bottom of a hill–not at all pedestrian-friendly. This seems, like the proposed switch from Congress to Guadalupe/Lavaca downtown–to be the general principle: move the bus routes away from the places people need to go, and into areas that are less congested. That is not a plan for increased ridership.

(pre-emptive comeback to inevitable complant from CM insiders: Guadalupe near UT is the best place for UT trips. Guadalupe near downtown is NOT the best place for downtown trips).

3. Covered by nobody else, so it falls to me: Eliminating West Austin routes like the #21/#22 (which my stepson uses) is stupid. Yes, I said eliminate; if you believe that the proposed 'flexible' service being provided in its place will (a) work and (b) last, you're more credulous than Capital Metro deserves at this point in history.

Look, ridership on some of those routes out west IS low. But here's a little hint: Capital Metro isn't at risk for having their sales tax cut because too few people ride the bus in Tarrytown; they're at risk for having their sales tax cut if enough people listen to that Neanderthal pantload Jim Skaggs and VOTE to cut their sales tax. Guess what? Voter turnout in the parts of town served by the #21/#22 is extraordinarily high. Guess what tends to happen to voter support for transit in areas with no visible transit service when you have elections on sustaining taxes to support transit service?

To say nothing of the PR impact of removing one of the primary ways transfer students from less affluent neighborhoods get to schools like O Henry and Austin High (yes, my stepson is among them; but there's kids a lot poorer on the same buses doing the same thing). No, the flexible service, even if it lasts, won't be any help here; nor will service being proposed to replace UT shuttles. And this may even impact students from the west who want to, say, go to the Kealing magnet school.

I've said for years that I give Capital Metro credit for doing the best job possible in the political environment in which they operate at the job of running a city bus service through a built environment that doesn't naturally sustain much choice commuter interest. I've spent a lot of time on the internets defending them against charges of "empty buses" and the like.

But you know what? If CM is stupid enough to commit this kind of suicide, after screwing the city of Austin for a generation on the rail front? I'm not so sure I'm in their corner any more - even on the city bus issue.

References:

• A Boneheaded Proposal From Capital Metro (Austin Contrarian)
• ServicePlan2020 (Capital MetroBlog)
• Service Plan 2020 (the plan itself)
• Community Impact's story today (little analysis)
• Lee Nichols' Chronicle story (surface only)

TrackBack (0) | Comments (0)

Comments on this Entry:

First, on KUT today, you can hear yours truly with the following supporting arguments left out due to time, but brought over here from skyscraperpage:

1. Travel time savings quoted are versus the local (#1), not the existing express (#101). They're still only 20%; pretty lame.

2. The signal-holding doodad won't be much help in the most congested part of the corridor - anybody who spends any time between, say, south of 15th and 30th going northbound on an afternoon knows that the backup you're in is from the next 10 lights, not just the one in front of you that the bus could modify.

Things commonly considered part of BRT which are missing completely from this plan: reserved lanes, queue-jumping lanes, off-board payment. Were it not for the signal-holding doodad (which won't work anyways in most of this corridor), this would just be like normal bus service with new vehicles (they have articulated buses running normal and express routes in cities all over the country; the difference is that we apparently fooled the Feds into buying us new rolling stock on the justification this would be a BRT route instead of just a really marginal case of 'better bus').

Second, on Capital Metro's self-congratulatory post:

Very misleading. The 20% travel time reduction is compared to the existing LOCAL service (#1), not to the existing express service (#101).

Y'all may have fooled the Feds into buying you new rolling stock under the guise of BRT, but some of us aren't buying it. The signal-holding device won't be worth anything in the afternoon congestion on Guadalupe (it's not the light in front of the bus holding it up; it's the light six blocks down and the cars in front).

About all this service WILL do is finally put a nail in the coffin of rail on Guadalupe - where, in any sane city, rail would be delivered first, as it's where all the jobs and all the other activity centers are - not anywhere near the Red Line; not, even, over on San Jacinto.

Continued reading Rapid Bus ain't BRT...

TrackBack (0) | Comments (0)

Comments on this Entry:

I don't have time to do anything but excerpt and link; incredibly busy at work and elsewhere.

Full Statesman article and relevant quote:

The city is due the money, say the two people caught in the middle: Austin City Council Members Chris Riley and Mike Martinez , who also serve on the Capital Metro board — Martinez as chairman.

"Capital Metro's obligations to the city are legally enforceable," Riley said at an board meeting last week. "That does not mean, 'whenever we feel like we're flushed with money.' That language (in the agreement) does not mean we can pay whenever we want.

"You can dismiss this as coming from a city guy. But I believe Cap Metro would be in a weak position if it came to litigation."

Note this proves that CM was lying about their reserves, and their enablers who insisted they'd be paying the 1/4 cent money owe Ben Wear a big fat apology.

Earlier coverage:

• Capital Metro is trying to mislead you

TrackBack (0) | Comments (0)

Comments on this Entry:

Continued reading No, I can't stop beating that horse...

TrackBack (0) | Comments (3)

Comments on this Entry:

(Erica on Jan 19, 2010 4:40 PM) mike, everyone is "moderated" on Capital Metro's blog--no offense, but you're not special. ;) Also, unfortunately some of your comments have ended up in the spam folder in Wordpress and weren't discovered until much later.

(M1EK on Jan 20, 2010 9:59 AM) That's good to know. There's no indication from the user's side whether they alone, or everybody, is in moderation; so it's impossible to tell - but delays in publication can sometimes suggest the former.

(el_longhorn on Jan 20, 2010 11:27 AM) Big projects like this acquire a momentum all their own. Massive effort is required to stop or slow them down. The horse ain't dead.

The prevailing wisdom has been that a project in Smart-Grown Austin, serving major trip generators like UT and the Capitol complex, supported by Cap Met's ample sales tax revenue, would be a slam dunk for a "highly recommended" rating. (Conversely, the original Red Line, which had far lower ridership and -- even though it was on existing rail right of way -- only marginally lower projected costs, was headed, Cap Met insiders say, for a "not recommended" kiss-of-death rating, which is why the transit authority switched tracks at the 11th hour.)

The "original Red Line" they're talking about is, to be clear, a proposal floated around 1998 which would have put down two new tracks and run light rail vehicles on the current Red Line. Note key phrase: far lower ridership.

Now, Jeff Wood picks up the history angle, pointing to his masters' thesis on the 2004 debacle. Note that even today Capital Metro's Doug Allen is claiming that the Red Line should have been done with two tracks from the getgo (although the quoted $300M would pretty much have to be two tracks with those stupid DMU cars, not electric trains), yet, once again, two brand new tracks in the Red Line right-of-way still doesn't go anywhere worth going. Nor would three, or four, or ten tracks. The problem isn't the number of tracks; the problem is where the tracks are.

As Jeff points out,

I don't think this should be hard for everyone to understand. 38,000 riders for LRT in 2000 versus 2,000 riders for Commuter rail in 2004. It's not rocket science. The politics was messy and Capital Metro allowed themselves to get pushed into it. This didn't start with the current contractor, this started back before 2000 with Krusee who was head of the House Transportation Committee.

As I've pointed out on what seems like a billion occasions, Mike Krusee is why this happened back then. Go read Jeff's article for independent confirmation, if for some reason you doubted me.

Again: 38,000 riders for the 2000 light rail plan, 2,000 riders for the 2004 commuter rail plan (with or without second track).

The Feds figured this out before 2000. For one brief moment, Capital Metro knew it too. Why are they being so obtuse now, and more importantly, why are our City Council members on their board allowing them to continue this delusionary path to spending hundreds of millions of dollars MORE on a line that will never be a functioning part of our transportation system? This is how Tri-Rail wasted almost two decades and a couple hundred million dollars in South Florida - adding a second track to the wrong line. Will our elected officials have the courage to make Capital Metro stop before we make the same mistake here?

TrackBack (0) | Comments (0)

Comments on this Entry:

As for the contract stuff with Veolia and the new guys, I'm sorry, folks, but I know my limitations - and I don't know enough about contract law to be able to say anything worthwhile other than it sure seems like Veolia had their act together (specific and detailed rebuttals of many CM charges, while CM kept things vague). I also find it hard to believe you can switch contractors at this point and not push back the start date, as I told KUT, but then again, Allen probably has some experience with the new guys from up in Dallas, so who knows.

I see that over the weekend I also missed a second good KUT story by Mose Buchele on Veolia's response to being thrown under the bus. This is something I've hinted at for a long time - Capital Metro used Veolia as a scapegoat way back in March when the line didn't open, when in retrospect it clearly wasn't their fault. Highly recommended.

TrackBack (0) | Comments (0)

Comments on this Entry:

First, the overheard. Imagine you're headed west on 51st across Airport because you just went to Home Depot and are headed back to Hyde Park or points south. (Hint: Red River starts just south of this image as a turn off of Clarkson; turning on Clarkson is thus by far the best way into or around Hyde Park by car).

Not a lot of room there to queue up for that left turn, huh. Let's zoom in with google's streetview:

Continued reading Red Line Death Watch Part 1...

TrackBack (0) | Comments (11)

Comments on this Entry:

(mlisle on Nov 23, 2009 4:21 PM) I'm interested in hearing what folks' ideas are for this intersection. A couple off the top of my head: - make Clarkson one-way heading north, Caswell one-way heading south - install an extra traffic light at 51st/Clarkson that is synced with light at 51st/Airport. - make 51st a one way street heading west between airport and lamar... north loop a one way street heading east between airport and lamar. Granted, I haven't considered the implications of any of these ideas. Just things I've mulled over as I've navigated that area.

(David Wogan on Nov 23, 2009 11:50 PM) I wonder the same thing all the time. I'm literally right around the corner (on Caswell) and queue up on 51st regularly. There are so many problems with this crossing. What happens if you need to make a right turn, or left turn at the light? You run the risk of sitting through another light change.

(el_longhorn on Nov 24, 2009 1:37 PM) Having lived off both Red River and Cameron Road for most of the last decade, everything you say is correct. This is not the major problem, though. Traffic really backs up going eastbound on 51st and coming off of Red River turning east on 51st. Basically, if you ever want to actually turn, you have to get on the tracks. At least the train has a long headway to stop!

(M1EK on Nov 24, 2009 1:40 PM) I have mentioned the queueing problem in other forums (including in that KUT interview) but I suspect it'll be easier for naysayers to dismiss that one since there's not the "I can't see until I get across Airport" rationale. IE, they'll just claim "you should wait forever". I did say "more later" - I promise I'll get to that one too.

(el_longhorn on Nov 24, 2009 9:15 PM) BTW, I can't tell you how pissed the neighbors around there are with the train. It was blaring its horn at night during test runs, then CapMetro put up the ugliest, cheapest chain link fence they could find along the route to keep people off the tracks. Add possible traffic tie ups with all the intersections in the area. And - on top of all that - the damn train doesn't even stop to service the neighborhood! You get the worst of both worlds - all the problems of a train without even the ability to use it.

(M1EK on Nov 25, 2009 7:49 AM) Of course, they'd have had a stop with LRT. Whoops.

(David Wogan on Nov 25, 2009 1:38 PM) No complaints from us about the horn or the trains that regularly use the tracks. With all said about the queuing problem, it seems the real problem is with the amount of traffic on 51st. The train just exacerbates the problem. But I know we all like to bash the rail line and Capital Metro...It is easy to do so...

(abaajp on Nov 30, 2009 8:57 AM) Elevate the tracks through this area, and this problem is solved.

(Placemaking Institute on Dec 9, 2009 12:23 PM) I lived in this neighborhood for several years and used/still used this intersection quite often and have indeed noticed that we are in for LRT-induced congestion headaches here. One of the things I've learned about Austin is that the UT Tower does not align with the Capitol. It is skewed by 12.5 degrees, and that throws the grid out of whack, with the ramifications of this being most felt in that neighborhood as well as Lamar/Guadalupe by the Triangle.

(Placemaking Institute on Dec 9, 2009 12:24 PM) I lived in this neighborhood for several years and used/still used this intersection quite often and have indeed noticed that we are in for LRT-induced congestion headaches here. One of the things I've learned about Austin is that the UT Tower does not align with the Capitol. It is skewed by 12.5 degrees, and that throws the grid out of whack, with the ramifications of this being most felt in that neighborhood as well as Lamar/Guadalupe by the Triangle.

(M1EK on Dec 9, 2009 12:59 PM) I WISH we were in for LRT headaches here, because that would mean we'd be getting LRT here. We're not; this is a commuter rail line which doesn't run near any activity centers whatsoever.

Also,

While searching for something else, I stumbled on this old Chronicle article with this money quote, which backs up what I was saying for a long time about the failure of Capital Metro to seek federal funds despite it being promised in the run-up to the 2004 commuter rail election:

Continued reading Two quick hits...

TrackBack (0) | Comments (1)

Comments on this Entry:

(breathesgelatin on Nov 24, 2009 10:19 PM) I think I've mentioned this before, but I know Mose. Good guy. I'm really disturbed that the proposal to double/triple track the red line is still out there.

we can always count on our buddy Mike to leave no dead horse unbeaten! Certainly Urban Rail will be great (if we do it right) and we all need to support it, but calling the redline 'useless' is a bit much. Perhaps useless to you, Mike, but so are dozens of bus routes (and roads for that matter) you will never use - that doesn't make them useless to the folks who do (and will) use them.

And my response:

http://mdahmus.monkeysystems.com/blog/archives/000573.html

(done with the old rail timetables, not the new presumably slower ones which aren't up yet).

The Red Line is 'useless' because for most people, it will be a slower commute than the existing express bus service. We spent a lot of capital dollars, in other words, to get lower quality service than what we already had. (And operating costs are likely to be close to express bus with the shuttle-bus costs added in).

And it is most definitely not a dead horse - because your agency continues to seek to spend additional scarce rail dollars on the Red Line (repeating Tri-Rail's mistake of trying to polish a you-know-what instead of building something more useful somewhere else) and on other similarly useless commuter rail lines - meaning those dollars obviously can't be spent on the CoA project.

So tell me, readers, is the argument of the CM guy compelling at all? Before the rebuttal? After? I really mean what I say here - the horse isn't dead, because it keeps getting fed. Those rail dollars (federal and local) could in fact be saved for the City of Austin's urban rail program - but once they're spent on commuter rail they're gone for good, and we aren't exactly swimming in other money to make up the difference. We need to stop further 'investments' in commuter rail, in other words, if the urban rail line is to have a decent shot at getting built in our lifetimes.

TrackBack (0) | Comments (7)

Comments on this Entry:

(Tim on Nov 16, 2009 9:55 AM) Um... as a secondary side effect it's revitalising North Lamar? Of course, they've always had the best bus service in the city (with the #1) so I don't know if it's just speculation or people will actually move there. There are a few parcels in East Austin that are being developed that were blight also. Just trying to find a positive spin. I'm with you, I don't see why people would want to give up those super comfy express buses with free wi-fi that drop them off one block from Congress.

(M1EK on Nov 16, 2009 9:58 AM) One has to pretend that the Triangle doesn't exist (much more dense, far away from the Red Line) to attribute the development at Crestview Station to the rail line. Yes, I know they're using it as a selling point, in other words, but it obviously isn't much of an actual help, or they'd have been able to get at least as dense as the Triangle did.

(breathesgelatin on Nov 16, 2009 2:02 PM) agreed with M1EK here. What revitalization has happened on N. Lamar due to the line, other than Crestview? There are still sketchy hotels, day laborer storefronts, etc., on that stretch of N. Lamar and I haven't seen anywhere that they will be going away any time soon. If anything, I have seen more revitalization along Airport over the last two years. More funky new local businesses, that kind of thing. I attribute that to Mueller, not the rail. I haven't been to see the new development at MLK, but again, while the rail was the immediate spur, that neighborhood has been on the cusp for a while. I lived on the Manor corridor for three years and it is swarming with hipsters and young hipster couples with kids. It was only a matter of time before development/gentrification started to move south from that node.

(el_longhorn on Nov 16, 2009 4:57 PM) Politically speaking, it is very difficult to kill an existing program like this. I can't imagine anyone really moving to kill this unless the ridership numbers are just pathetic. Nothing is going to happen without some ridership numbers in hand. Until then, CM can just say "wait until we open it for service." I think the best that you can hope for is no more investment in this (stations/trains/extension to Congress). You need a political champion, M1EK. Need someone on council or a county commissioner to lead on this issue. hard to get attention unless you have someone that can generate some press helping you out.

(M1EK on Nov 17, 2009 9:09 AM) el_longhorn, Yes, the Red Line is a fact on the ground - I am trying to prevent any further investment (tens of millions of dollars already planned from local, i.e. Cap Metro, funds to build Green Line - similar mistake; and other plans to double-track sections of the Red Line (even a proposal to triple-track part of it)). Mainly looking for feedback on whether this messaging works as a response to people who glibly assert that talking about the Red Line like this is 'beating a dead horse'.

(el_longhorn on Nov 17, 2009 3:55 PM) Ridership numbers will be key. Once we get numbers, the horse ain't dead anymore and we have to decide whether it is worth keeping. That would be a great time to start up the attacks.

(David Wogan on Nov 23, 2009 1:25 AM) Very interesting. As someone who used to live in the "outskirts" of town (i.e., Oak Hill, then Shady Hollow) I always waited for the day when we'd have light rail. I'm not sure what to make of the Red Line, but the commuter rail idea is interesting. The biggest problem I see with the Red Line (besides delays) is what to do once you get in town. In its defense, I do think that the Red Line will reduce some LDV traffic on 183 and Mopac. After all, you don't need a large reduction in traffic to relieve congestion (unless we have the rebound effect). So maybe the direct benefit will be to those in Leander and Cedar Park, but folks living in north and northwest Austin will see an indirect benefit from the Red Line. I think there's a middle ground between putting more money behind the Red Line/Sausage Links/etc and urban rail. But it wouldn't be Austin if we went over schedule and over budget, would it?