Proposed urban rail could relieve road congestion

Proposed urban rail could relieve road congestion

By Mark Collins Friday, 20 February 2009

As Austin looks for new transportation options to deal with the increasing number of commuters, the city is set to unveil plans for a proposed transportation system that is Austin’s own blend of rail: urban rail.

“We’re trying to make a distinction, that this is something different, that this is a technology that can have the characteristics of both light rail and street cars,” City of Austin Transportation Director Rob Spillar said. “That’s why we’re calling it urban rail, to really brand it as different from the light rail days.”

The proposed $625 million, 15.3-mile track would originate in the Mueller Development, go down Manor Road, through the University of Texas and past the state capitol to connect with Capital Metro’s Red Line commuter rail that will begin service in March. The rail will then cross the river before running down Riverside Drive to Austin-Bergstrom International Airport.

“This project is two, if not three different routes all in one,” Spillar said.

Ridership forecasts indicate the system could see 32,000 riders per day. Houston’s METRORail, by comparison, has 40,000 riders per day.

The Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization’s transit working group, a team charged with evaluating the potential for rail in Central Texas, approved the City of Austin’s initial plans Jan. 12. The group voted 11-1 in favor, moving the project into the next phase, which involves more detailed funding sources and engineering plans.

“Phase one is very feasible, and I think it is very necessary,” transit working group member Wade Cooper said. “And I think scaled to the right size it is very economically feasible as well.”

Former Travis County Commissioner Gerald Daugherty was the only group member to vote against the project.

“People are convinced that in order to be an urban city we have to have rail,” Daugherty said. “If you don’t build a comprehensive road system first, it doesn’t matter what you do with alternate modes of transportation. Why wouldn’t you let the Red Line get up and going and see what it produces before you move forward?”

Funding

“We need to go back with a funding plan to show that we have a concept for how we’re going to fund this, and that we’re not banking on something that is not realistic,” Spillar said.

The city is looking to identify partners who might benefit from such an
investment, including major employers and large landowners, as well as Travis County, the state and the University of Texas.

“Unlike roads that usually have two or three sources of funding, this may have up to 20 different sources of funding, which is very common for rail.” Spillar said. “Unlike roads there is no single budget that funds rail.”

While federal funding is available, it is becoming increasingly harder to acquire, prompting Spillar’s team to recommend going to a city bond election for the
$290 million required to complete phase one, or the “backbone,” of the project.

Should the bond be approved, that initial investment would then be the first part of a 50/50 match with federal funds, meaning the Federal Transit Authority would fund the remainder of the project.

Once built, the additional challenge is funding the $21-23 million in annual operating costs. Spillar said Capital Metro is a strong option to take on the responsibility.

“It depends on how the city wants to set the system up and how they want it to be run, but I think it would be a good partnership,” Capital Metro Communications Specialist Misty Whited said.

Integration

Urban rail would meet up with the Capital Metro Red Line at two points: at a station on Manor Road and again at the Austin Convention Center terminal downtown. From the convention center, a rail spur would run through downtown to the Seaholm Development at the corner of Lamar Boulevard and Cesar Chavez Street.

On the south side of the river, a rail spur would break off to connect with the Long Center, Palmer Center and all the bus routes connected to them.

“I think it could fit together very well. The two systems go together nicely,” Whited said. “The commuter rail will provide for the people coming in from the suburban areas, and then this new plan could get people who are already in Austin around downtown a lot quicker.”

University of Texas

“Sometimes [bus service] gets pretty slow if the bus has to come across IH 35, and it’s not the most pleasant way of getting young people to campus,” UT Dean of Architecture and transit working group member Fritz Steiner said. “Any way that would be speedier and safer would be very welcome for the students and also cut down congestion around campus.”

Few universities are outfitted with an integrated rail system, giving UT a unique opportunity to do something special, Spillar said.

Steiner cited the UT Alumni Center, Erwin Center and Darryl K. Royal-Memorial Football Stadium as key positions for stops on the rail line, noting the added benefit for non-students who come to campus for special events.

Funding, where the system really needs help, is also a problem for UT. Alternate options such as donating right-of-way easements are being considered.

“UT does contribute significantly to Capital Metro’s budget, so the question is, can that money be shifted from underwriting buses to underwriting rail?” Steiner said. “If it’s a more effective, safe system, then it could make good sense just to shift those funds.”

The next step

Spillar and his team are busy preparing detailed construction and funding plans. The design is roughly 2 percent complete and would need to reach 15-30 percent before it could be turned over to a contractor.

Spillar said he hopes to be able to get the bond proposition on the ballot in either May or November of 2010 and is optimistic that Austinites will get behind the idea as they learn more about it.

“Absolutely there are people that think the opposite, but that’s the debate that has to evolve. That’s a healthy discussion that needs to happen,” Spillar said. “Any time you’re embarking on a major investment, whether it be a road or transit system, there should be public input on that.”

Rail by rail comparison
Urban rail is different from commuter and light rail both in technology and in the reasons for its use. These factors affect cost and usability in a rail and are a major consideration by politicians and transportation experts when authoring bonds or asking for finance.
	Light rail	Commuter rail	Street car	Urban rail
Rails	Light rail runs on rails that are embedded in the street rather than on traditional railroad rails. The rails sink several feet into the street, which means that buried utilities often have to be moved when rail is laid, making light rail more expensive.	These trains are able to run on regular train tracks, so new railway routes can be made or they can just run on existing tracks. This was a factor in the passing of Austin’s MetroRail, because not laying new track kept the price down.	Street cars run on rail embedded in the street in a lane that can be shared with motor vehicles. Street car rails are embedded 18 inches into the roadway, reducing the number of utilities that have to be moved, thereby reducing the cost.	Urban rail combines both street car and light rail technology. Street car technology will be used in the downtown portion of the project to allow more maneuverability for trains, while light rail technology will be used out to the airport to allow for higher speeds.
Power	Light rail uses an overhead catenary wire; these wires are installed at the same time as the track.	Like a train, these cars have their own power source, usually diesel-electric engines.	Street cars use an overhead catenary wire.	The entire urban rail system will use an overhead catenary wire.
Speed	Maximum operating speeds of light rail are slower than commuter rail at 55 to 65 mph. They run slower because they are at street level alongside vehicles.	Maximum operating speed is 79 to 90 mph.	Since street cars are able to share a lane with vehicles, the cars run at much lower speeds, 20-30 mph, for safety’s sake.	Speed is dictated by the right- of-way, with trains traveling slower on Manor Road and through downtown, then picking up speed on Riverside out to the airport.
Platforms	Platforms are usually ½ to 2 miles apart. The light rail works similar to a bus, serving an urban area. Platforms are usually at street level.	Platforms are 3 to 5 miles apart. The goal of commuter rail is to get commuters across town where circulator service will get them to their final destination.	Street car systems have smaller service areas, but make more frequent stops on the line. Stops are 2-3 blocks apart with service every 8-12 minutes.	Stops will be placed closer together in areas like Manor Road, whereas on Riverside Drive stops will be farther apart.
Source: City of Austin

• City contractor
  • Moving utilities is often the most expensive cost associated with building rail. So the fact that the City of Austin owns all the utilities along the route would allow it to decide which utilities to move and which to leave alone, potentially saving millions of dollars.
• Ridership
  • Studies estimate the entire system will see 32,000 riders per day. City of Austin Transportation Director Rob Spillar said there would likely be 13,000 riders on the northern corridor and 19,000 in the south.
• Cost
  • The estimated cost of the system, $625 million, is so high because most of the route is a double track system, so while other rail systems are $18-20 million per mile, urban rail is closer to $40 million per mile.
• Low impact
  • To reduce the impact on mobility and businesses, downtown rail construction will be done on a block-by-block basis. This reduces the amount of construction time spent in front of a business and does not require traffic to be detoured around a long stretch of closed road.
• Who will run it?
  • Should Capital Metro decide to take on the system, it would need to request voter approval first. Another potential operator could be a nonprofit organization charged with running the system, a solution Portland, Ore., uses to operate its streetcar system.
• Riverside Corridor
  • With an estimated 20,000 students living off East Riverside Drive, urban rail has a chance to help sculpt the landscape. Stations will be placed farther apart to encourage transit oriented developments with a combination of commercial and residential space within walking distance of the stops.
• Manor Road Corridor
  • Since this neighborhood is more established and traditional than any other sector, Spillar said the stops will be spaced closer together so residents can walk to the station.
• UT Corridor
  • UT Dean of Architecture and CAMPO transit working group member Fritz Steiner targeted the football stadium and alumni center as key areas for service on campus. Steiner envisions the system equally serving students and visitors for events.
• Downtown Corridor
  • Urban rail will adopt a streetcar likeness when it hits downtown, operating at lower speeds and stopping every one to two blocks. Streetcar technology is necessary downtown so that the rail cars can move around tight corners.
• Transportation integration
  • Urban rail will meet up with Capital Metro’s commuter line at the Austin Convention Center, and also with the Seaholm Development, the proposed Austin connection of the San Antonio/Dallas commuter line.
• Timeline
  • Two construction plans are being considered, a sequential plan requiring 11 years to complete and the condensed plan requiring nine years. Spillar hopes to hold a bond election in 2010, with construction starting in 2011. The backbone of the project could be complete by 2015.

Source: City of Austin

What is CAMPO?

The Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization is the regional transportation planning group responsible for coordinating the efforts of transportation agencies in Williamson, Travis and Hays counties. It provides planning and air quality services and serves as a forum for setting priorities for spending federal transportation dollars. CAMPO has a staff of 15 who report to a 23-member transportation policy board. A technical advisory committee of representatives from the region’s cities and counties, as well as transportation agencies, assists the board in developing and evaluating plans. The transit working group is 15 members strong and is comprised of local elected officials from the state, local municipalities and UT. The group’s approval of the urban rail proposal is the first step toward getting federal funding for the project.

How to become involved in transportation planning

• Establish contacts with representatives on the transit working group
• Visit the CAMPO and City of Austin websites regularly at www.campotexas.org and www.ci.austin.tx.us/transportation
• Contact CAMPO and City of Austin staff with questions/comments: CAMPO 974-2275 or City of Austin 974-1495
• “People, Planning and Preparing for the Future: Your 25 Year Transportation Plan”, CAMPO’s effort to establish a regional framework for local transportation planning decisions, is seeking citizen participation via an online survey, newspaper inserts or by attending a public workshop. The first workshop is Feb. 19 from 6:30-8:45 p.m. at the University of Texas JC Thompson Conference Center. The second is Feb. 23 from 6:30-8:45 p.m. at the Education Service Center Region XIII.

Source: www.campotexas.org