I read the report after I read the KXAN article about it. Yes, I read it. I will give you perhaps too much credit and assume you at least read the KXAN story. I read the report's introduction and skimmed the rest, then read all the Segment 3 parts (Segment 3 is my back yard). From the outset, taking the report at face value, I think it is as good an effort as can be expected and maybe even a good starting point for discussions. The goal is admirable and some of the ideas really are outside-the-box. . . and some of them are just plain dumb. It was part of the plan for the Committee to consider ideas based on merit rather than availability of funding, but this is (sigh) unrealistic. Funding must be considered, and we must DO SOMETHING about the fact that your Elected Heroes in Austin keep raiding the gas tax money to pay for General Fund projects!
They also did not consider feasibility, right-of-way, or environmental concerns. Well that's fine, but when you go for the brass ring in this manner you will be 100% guaranteed to have your plans foiled by environmentalist whackos, property owners, and the sheer impracticability of some of your ideas. That lead me to not delete my initial reaction to the KXAN article:
This is stupid as [deleted].
For interstate and international traffic, we will need expanded rail capacity. We will need expanded automobile capacity in the city centers also. These are taken for granted in the following commentary. What I am on about is a few of the ideas specifically proposed for the Central Texas region (Segment 3).
It is also noteworthy that NOBODY will ride passenger rail in the near-to-mid term future. We will fight it the whole way, then a sub-optimal rail line will be used (see the current CapMetro example) and then it will be too late to do anything about it. Rail is a non-starter for passenger transport IN major cities in Texas. Freight rail: viable probably. Passenger rail: DOA, a financial boondogle doomed from the outset to failure.
"The I-35 Corridor Advisory Committee represents the most robust, direct and longestrunning public involvement effort in the history of transportation in Texas and is the first of its kind to be used in the nation"
That's swell, but I listen to the news all day every day at work, and I had no idea most of these public involvement discussions were underway. I did hear about a couple of them . . . they took place during my commute time.
"The focus groups were comprised* of members of the general public that were recruited from the locations listed above. Participants were recruited via flyers, past recruitment lists, online advertising, newspaper advertising and posts to Facebook groups.
Nobody reads the newspaper. Only a freak show reads or joins a Facebook group or follows twitter for a STREET (note: freak shows tend to like light passenger rail for Austin). Nobody reads newspapers. Flyers are instant litter. Past recruitment lists will reflect a very small group indeed.
The Austin metro area has a million or so people. Highest attendance at one of their supposedly well-advertised workshops was 29. That would be in the high 0.002% range. If you can't get a full 0.003% of the public to bother to attend, you need to turn off the lights, hang your head, tuck your tail and go home because you have FAILED to arouse the public's interest.
You
Must
Start
Again!
This time make sure the people know you are doing it and can make it to the meetings! Otherwise, you only have the interest of people whose "thing" is transportation, and the loonie fringe. If you want considered thoughtful input from the rest of the community, spend a few bucks telling people about a website where they can go and submit and comment on ideas. Getting a few activists together at the Town Hall is so last-century.
"Use and improve upon technology, such as electronic signs, use of AM and FM radio frequencies, smart phone applications, and on-board vehicle communications systems to provide updated traffic information, alternate routes and other traffic management solutions to travelers
on I-35."
This is possibly a waste of time and money. Nobody listens for radio traffic alerts on a different station than they are already listening to . . . we sit in traffic and listen to our stations. On-board vehicle systems, really? In my old car? Mandated (paid by whom?) in your new car? And SMART PHONE apps? You want people to use their handhelds MORE in traffic? Signs and breaking in to the public airwaves on the most popular (or all) channels may be the way. Smart phone apps is not the way.
Discounted highway 130 toll fees for trucks? Unless the toll fee is LESS than the cost difference in diesel burned sitting in traffic ($3?) they will take the non-tolled non-$20 route! They are in business to deliver for lowest cost after all.
"Improve incident management and related agency coordination so that accidents and disabled vehicles can be cleared more quickly and delays can be minimized."
This. It is an ongoing mystery why a fatal wreck in Houston is cleared in 10 minutes and a fender-bender in Austin shuts down the highway for two hours.
"Impose left lane restrictions for trucks through downtown areas and congested sections of I-35."
Yes. This can be done immediately and it won't cost a million dollars
"Consider double-tracking rail lines to accommodate more freight and intercity passenger rail, where feasible."
Yes. Good luck with that through the "rich" side of town.
The Lone Star Rail line: We'll alleviate freight rail traffic problems by eliminating a freight rail artery, and replace it with a non-used passenger line on the same track? Huh?
How do you plan on having people go around town to relieve congestion from intracity traffic? Or are you doing this for the tens of thousands of San Antonio-to-Dallas daily commuters?
A managed toll lane? On a highway already fully paid for by the people currently using it, TAKING AWAY a free lane of traffic?! R U Serious!? The people HOWLED when they started talking about taking away lanes of traffic and putting in tolled lanes when CAMPO was at it. Now you want to take away a free lane of traffic from one of the most heavily driven rush-hour highways in the nation? You want to actually make congestion on highway 35 WORSE by reducing free lanes of travel from three to TWO? What IDIOT thought this was a good idea? Now is the time to start writing your Elected Heroes to demand this does not happen.
I'm for taking the toll off 130 and redesignating it as the interstate, but what a stupid, stupid idea to reduce free lanes through the heart of downtown! Almost everyone I know avoids the toll roads because they are tolled, and they will avoid the tolled I-35 lanes also. Intracity truck traffic will pwn joo! I continue in my unenlightened state: How in the world does a managed toll lane on a previous free way reduce traffic?
Then they want to WIDEN the BRAND-SPANKING NEW 130? It's a big, beautiful, EMPTY highway. I-35 congestion is daily commuters in the city. Simply removing the tolls won't help I-35 during the heaviest congestion times, and the rest of the time traffic is very light. Moving interstate traffic to 130 is swell but I have severe doubts about the need to widen that highway in even the mid-term future!
If you want to talk about ADDING A LANE to IH-35 and making THAT a managed-toll or HOV lane, or double-decking IH-35 through Austin with added lanes, NOW you're talking!
Upgrading 183 to a full freeway without all the lights would have a good effect. If it were a limited-access highway with surface streets the whole way through town (like IH-35 currently is) then that would be spiffing. If they have cantilevered elevated traffic lanes all the way through like on the North side of town, that could mean MORE lanes on the same footprint, even!
We currently have NO Southern California-style genuine multi-level highways. Why?
"Our current funding system is unsustainable"
These project ideas are expensive but that is already taken care of! Every gallon of gas and diesel sold is heavily taxed, and the legislature never spends a dime of that gas tax money on anything else but road projects . . . OH WAIT our Elected Heroes in Austin ROUTINELY BLOW ALL THE GAS TAX FUNDS ON NON_TRANSPORTATION B.S.! Pretty soon we'll be out of money to maintain the roads . . . oh, wait! Spending the money we were gas-taxed with the ostensible goal of building and maintaining roads, as if it were regular general funds money, is unsustainable.
If the solutions proposed for Central Texas were any indication, the solutions proposed for the rest of the IH-35 corridor will also prove impracticable at best.
Thanks for trying.
********
* In this report, they repeatedly used "comprised" improperly, where they should have used "composed." It's a quibble, but a pet peeve of mine.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I'd like to point out a few slight inaccuracies in your post, at least the ones I know enough of to be able to comment, anyway.
First: "They also did not consider feasibility, right-of-way, or environmental concerns." Not true with the Lone Star Rail District, which completed its feasibility study in 2004, is currently in the Environmental Impact Statement phase of the project, and will have 30% engineering complete within a year. The road projects? Not so sure about those.
"It is also noteworthy that NOBODY will ride passenger rail in the near-to-mid term future. We will fight it the whole way, then a sub-optimal rail line will be used (see the current CapMetro example)..." The 2004 Feasibility Report includes a first go-round ridership assessment, which pegs annual riders of at least a million, up to 8 million. The ridership study is currently being updated in the Environmental process, and new numbers will be published this year.
"How do you plan on having people go around town to relieve congestion from intracity traffic? Or are you doing this for the tens of thousands of San Antonio-to-Dallas daily commuters?"
The LSTAR service is not just Austin to San Antonio. It also serves Georgetown to Austin, San Marcos to Austin, New Braunfels to San Antonio, etc., etc. There are a total of 16 stations planned, in a 117-mile corridor that goes from Georgetown through Austin (which has 5 stations itself), to South San Antonio (San Antonio also has 5 stations itself).
Check out the website for more info.
Oh, also this one: "The Lone Star Rail line: We'll alleviate freight rail traffic problems by eliminating a freight rail artery, and replace it with a non-used passenger line on the same track? Huh?"
The freight rail line is not being 'eliminated'. Union Pacific through freight trains, upwards of 20 to 30 per day, will be rerouted to a new, higher capacity, fully grade-separated line (no highway crossings) east of the I-35 corridor. That accomplishes two things - first, it frees up space and capacity for the new Lone Star passenger service; and second, and probably just as important, it expands freight rail capacity and speed so more of the freight that currently goes on trucks can then travel on freight trains, reducing the number of through trucks that travel every day between south Texas land ports and Oklahoma City & beyond. That helps to alleviate congestion on I-35.
They, the My35 committee, about whose report this post is commenting, did not consider feasibility, right-of-way, or environmental concerns. It is in their report. Did you not read that part?
Ridership: the trains are running empty through Austin these days. It was expected by the dummies who thought they were a good idea in the first place that they should be running much closer to full by now. Assessments be damned, you have to be faster and more convenient, AND cheaper than a bus, car, or aeroplane to get people on your train.
The new freight rail line also accomplishes two more things: it gets freight out of downtown where current customers may be taking delivery, AND it puts the East side even further, literally, on the "wrong side of the tracks." If you want one more reason this plan won't happen, wait till Nelson Lender hears about putting a rail line in on the East side. Oh and one more thing it will almost certainly do (follow the money): a rail operator is going to get a spanking new line and foist off their old, slow one on the passengers, and probably get tax incentives or outright handouts for their 'sacrifice!'
My company has 4 trucks that run from Leander to various points in Austin to pick up and drop off product. We will never in a million years have a use for rail. The only people who will have a use for cargo rail already use it. It should be obvious that the intention is to use the existing line (from no-where to no-where, stopping enough to slow it below bus speeds) for passenger traffic. I thought that was a given.
@ David -
Let me continue to address your commentary.
"They, the My35 committee, about whose report this post is commenting, did not consider feasibility, right-of-way, or environmental concerns. It is in their report. Did you not read that part?"
No, I did read it. So, the report itself is slightly inaccurate, in that feasibility, right of way, and environmental concerns *are* all being considered, at least as far as the Lone Star Rail project is concerned. Again, I don't know about any of the road projects.
"Ridership: the trains are running empty through Austin these days. It was expected by the dummies who thought they were a good idea in the first place that they should be running much closer to full by now. Assessments be damned, you have to be faster and more convenient, AND cheaper than a bus, car, or aeroplane to get people on your train."
True that Cap Metro's Red Line performance has been underwhelming at best. The principal problems with that line are that it doesn't serve the areas where people want to come from or go to, and the service plan up to this point has only served commuters (and stuck them downtown until the afternoon, due to lack of midday service). Cap Metro is addressing the service plan, but I think that it's going to be very tough to overcome the difficulties brought about by the line's placement and poor comparative travel time.
The Lone Star line will serve town centers up and down the corridor, including the Westside Multimodal Center in San Antonio and an Austin downtown station. It also passes within a mile and a half of just about every major educational institution in the region, potentially serving a market of nearly 300,000 students and staff.
I agree that rail service has to be faster, more convenient, and cost competitive with the auto to be successful. Lone Star, which will feature both local and express train service, is projecting a 75-minute travel time from downtown Austin to downtown San Antonio on an express train. Fares are planned to be comparable to peer services across the country, which will make the service cost competitive with the auto.
More after the break...
More of my reply to your comments, @David -
"The new freight rail line also accomplishes two more things: it gets freight out of downtown where current customers may be taking delivery, AND it puts the East side even further, literally, on the "wrong side of the tracks." If you want one more reason this plan won't happen, wait till Nelson Lender hears about putting a rail line in on the East side. Oh and one more thing it will almost certainly do (follow the money): a rail operator is going to get a spanking new line and foist off their old, slow one on the passengers, and probably get tax incentives or outright handouts for their 'sacrifice!'"
Local freight (which is a much lower proportion of the total freight service) will continue to operate on the Lone Star Rail line to serve all local customers that are served today, with an improved infrastructure (double track with freight sidings) that will support the operation of passenger trains and the small number of local freight trains seamlessly. The new freight line is to be used by the 20 to 30 'through' (non stopping) freight trains per day that currently eat up much of the capacity on the proposed Lone Star Rail alignment. The public gets several benefits: public ownership of the current rail line, improved to support 90 mph passenger train operations on a line that goes right through the heart of the towns and cities up and down the corridor, and the removal of long freight trains from those towns and cities. It's a straight swap, one railroad for another.
As to the economic justice impacts of a line to the east - first of all, I didn't say where the line would be located (that's being studied now), so chances are that Mr. Linder and the NAACP probably won't have a dog in any fight. Additionally, economic justice impacts are studied and mitigated during the environmental clearance process (which includes extensive public involvement), which hasn't started yet for the freight line.
"My company has 4 trucks that run from Leander to various points in Austin to pick up and drop off product. We will never in a million years have a use for rail. The only people who will have a use for cargo rail already use it. It should be obvious that the intention is to use the existing line (from no-where to no-where, stopping enough to slow it below bus speeds) for passenger traffic. I thought that was a given.
Well, that's nice for your company and it's formidable fleet of 4 trucks, I'm sure. But the fact is that there is a huge amount of NAFTA-related freight traffic that runs through the Austin-San Antonio corridor on both trucks (via I-35) and freight trains. That through traffic is expected to grow by 500% over the next 20 years, both in new shippers and existing shippers increasing their output.
As I noted, the Lone Star service will run on improved track (doubled track, and supporting maximum operating speed of 90 mph), in the current right of way of the present freight line. It doesn't go "from nowhere to nowhere". As I've said, it serves city and town centers up and down the corridor, from Georgetown to South San Antonio.
Post a Comment