Who Deserves A Bailout? The MTA.

Especially with the gains in ridership they've been having in the last several years...

NYTimes - New York City Grew, but Traffic Didn’t


(c) NY Times

Apparently, in the last "boom" period that NYC's had, transit actually increased its ridership at greater rates than vehicle traffic. Which is pretty awesome; in Lower Manhattan, vehicle traffic actually decreased, as people abandoned taxis and cars for buses and the subway.

Of course, now that it's showing such rapid growth, now is when the MTA's under threat of having to reduce service drastically, if not given new life by the folks up in Albany (which they probably will be).

Who needs a better example of the communalistic relationship between quality of life and transit service than New York? Especially Manhattan; it's the place that everyone wants to live (making generalizations of course)! As crime went down, many more people wanted to ride the subway, as well as the implementation of the MetroCard, allowing for smoother transfers.

At the same time, it might be hard to find direct lessons to learn from NYC, as the average density is much higher than anywhere in the rest of the nation, and many people might not want their city to become the same. But this density and level of transit service will definitely give New York an edge in the looming world of Peak Oil.

Some of the Coolest Light Rail Stations...

I've been flipping through this book, looking especially at the rail architecture. And I just marveled at the tram stations for Hannover's light rail extension that they featured.


(Flickr)

I mean, they're just amazing design. And I wish everyone had the opportunity to see them.

Random Thought on Density and Water Runoff

I just randomly had a thought a couple of days ago: couldn't, potentially, urbanization allow for a decrease in the amount of water wasted as runoff?

Yes, urban buildings, especially as built currently, greatly reduce the amount of water allowed to recharge into underground aquifers; this water instead ends up on rooftops to evaporate, or runs off pavement, directly into streams and watercourses, maybe even causing preventable erosion. Suburban environments, those that emphasize the automobile, with large streets, and parking lots everywhere, are very bad, too.

But what if all urban buildings, or even just a majority of them, were built with "green roofs"? This could enhance the position of the urban, denser environment in respect to the suburban, as all building roofs could potentially replace at least part of the water collection role that the ground those buildings cover played, whereas suburban "sprawl" seems doomed to waste water away. I cannot see any way for parking lots to be "greened up" like roofs can, as cars still need to drive across them; is there any way to do so?

Just a thought.

San Antonio: the Next Light Rail System in Texas?

Interesting op-ed on mySA, about the need for light rail in San Antone. Will they be next Texas city to realize the attractiveness of light rail?

That'd mean that the 3 largest cities in Texas would all have LRT lines; Dallas with the soon to be even more amazing DART system, Houston, with it's one line, and now San Antonio? There's no doubt that LRT can work in sprawling cities (San Antone is definitely one), since the first LRT systems of the light rail renaissance were in the very un-dense cities of Edmonton and Calgary, then add to the fact that LA and Dallas both have great and/or improving systems, then there's no way that this isn't possible in the Alamo City.

And think if the LRT system connected at least the Alamo, and maybe some of the other missions, with the eventual ASA Rail, and even Fiesta Texas? Talk about potential traffic! Besides, LRT's ability to allow for densification and the renewal of downtowns could ease some of the pressure on the Hill Country west of SA, that's being ravaged by overzealous development of ugly box houses.

How Will MetroRail's Viability Be Affected By ASA Rail?

I went looking around at information about the Austin-San Antonio Commuter Rail District, and after finding this (PDF) presentation on their website, I started thinking about how the construction of a rail line between Georgetown and San Antonio, that connected with the MetroRail Red Line at McNeil, would affect usage of the CapMetro commuter rail line.

Due to the range, and having, at least initially, to run on a moderately-heavy traffic, single-track freight railroad, the ASA line would probably use the established method of separate engine and cars. Maybe something like the MPXpress and those Bombardier double-decker cars? A definite contrast to the Stadler DMUs used by CapMetro!

But how would the establishment of the ASA rail line affect usage of the Red Line? Any commuters from Leander and Cedar Park could now travel direct to San Antonio and San Marcos, etc, as well as Round Rock and Georgetown (though rail might not show a significant advantage over car travel in the Leander-Georgetown trip, due to a much longer distance via rail). This could increase the viability of the commuter rail on the northern end of the rail line, but also eliminate part of the need for the Red Line south of McNeil, maybe, as the ASA stop at downtown Austin would actually be closer to the core office area, not the convention center, like the Red Line.

But at the same time, if you look at the people that rail is sold at attracting, the "choice commuter", who doesn't oft like to transfer (and how hard would it be to transfer at McNeil?), then this might not be relevant at all, at least for Leander?Cedar Park-Austin travel. And I have no idea how many people actually commute from Northwest Austin to San Antonio...

But if ASA RAil removed the demand for the Red Line south of McNeil, could the A&NW right of way be used as planned in the 2000 light rail plan, at least in the best possible outcome?

What Now for Austin Rail?

Now that the Capital Metro Red Line is coming closer to completion and the initiation of operations, what is rail in Austin's future? I see several very distinct possibilities.

• We do as Austin transit-man M1EK proposes, and get rid of the DMU commuter rail system while we can, and replace it with (maybe) a scaled down version of the 2000 light rail plan, which would've hit more densely populated areas.


• Keep the commuter rail, and add a light rail/streetcar line which could possibly connect up to the Mueller redevelopment, down along San Jacinto, through Riverside, and all the way to Bergstrom, as recommended by Brewster McCracken and ROMA (here)


• Do nothing, and keep the commuter rail and the requisite shuttle-buses.

I for one, think that either the first or second are the best options, and that the second and third are the most likely; following my logic, I'd say that the second option, if the line was truly light rail, in separate right-of-way, would be the best possible option. Just cross your fingers on this one Austin...

Something MUCH Easier Than LRT...

Why can't there be a national fund for pedestrian transit?

How hard is it to have sidewalks along all the major thoroughfares of a city. I mean, I go to school in Leander, a town of almost 35,000 now, and walking from the high school to the library, there's no sidewalks! What's up with that?

This is walking down the side of a 4 lane, with turn lanes road, with very steep embankments! Our world is not only car-centric, it's pedestrian-hostile, at least in the suburbs!

Installing sidewalks should not be anywhere near the expense of building a new LRT system from the ground up, shouldn't it? I'm not asking for a complete transit system, just a safer way to walk!