A letter I just wrote to the three councilmembers on the CAMPO TWG (I think Mike Martinez is among them, at least):
Councilmembers and Mayor,
After returning from a long vacation, I finally read the report from city staff to the CAMPO TWG about the rail proposal and am alarmed at some apparent backsliding on the issue of reserved guideway, and some indications that previous understanding of how important this would be has diminished. For instance, it now appears that the city will not seek reserved guideway on Congress in addition to the Manor segment.
Comments by city staff in this report make two seemingly contradictory claims:
1. That the downtown ‘core’ segment is critical, and must support frequent headways
2. That this same segment will be operating in ‘circulator’ mode (as opposed to some ‘express’ mode label for the Riverside segment), so reserved guideway is less important because stops will be more frequent.
Allow me to vigorously disagree. Reserved guideway is actually most critical on Congress. If you spend any significant time on buses running through downtown in this corridor (#1 or #5, say), you will see that simple signal pre-emption as proposed would be nearly useless during periods of heavy congestion – holding the light green doesn’t help you when traffic is backed up from the next 5 intersections ahead. In other words, I would trade reserved guideway on Riverside for Congress in a heartbeat – the signal-holding device would actually do some good on Riverside.
This smacks a bit of the same kind of pennywise/poundfoolish thinking that brought us the impending underwhelming disaster of the Red Line (just because we own this track means we should keep the train running on it the whole way instead of running to where people actually want to go). While I understand the logic behind running in shared space on Manor, the bullet must be bit on Congress if this plan is to succeed (and it is nearly impossible to switch from shared-running to reserved-guideway later on, by the way).
The Urban Rail project is proposed to include both independent rail right-of-way, and mixed flow
operations. Streetcar vehicles would operate in mixed traffic (with automobiles) in areas where it is
essentially serving as a circulator mode (collecting and distributing passengers frequently). In the northern part of the corridors
(University of Texas and Manor Road corridor) there are limited locations where the system could operate
in a dedicated right-of-way (see description of alignment in following section). In the Riverside Corridor,
where street rights-of-way are typically wider, there is generally sufficient room to create a dedicated
right-of-way by widening the overall street to the outside to provide new auto capacity and then converting
inside lanes for transit use. In the central downtown and Capitol Complex, options exist for providing
either a dedicated right-of-way or shared use track way. The preferred method for operation in these two
latter districts requires detailed planning and engineering that will be completed during the early design
phase of the program.
This, folks, is dangerous – it’s basically hedging previous claims that the service would be mostly reserved guideway, and now, effectively, saying “well, we’ll give it a shot”. And “circulator mode” is the most important part of the route. The transit spine, if you will. You don’t run your transit spine in “mixed flow”.
Note that the report later says “Options are also being examined for providing dedicated running ways for
the rail along Congress Avenue and other Downtown streets.” (page 45). However, the groundwork is clearly being laid for shared running on Congress, with the nonsense about “circulator mode” and other silliness in section 2D-2 (hint: the streetcar needs to be delivering people to work, not worrying about how they get to lunch; and if you give them a shared-lane running streetcar that’s bogged down on Congress just like the buses are, you’re not going to get many converts. City staff must have been instructed to come up with some real fancy footwork to explain how “time-certain” wasn’t torpedoed by shared-lane operations here; I can’t believe they really believe this stuff about how circling for parking at lunch makes shared-lane operations sufficiently time-certain).
Additional support for this position would be really helpful from my readers, assuming you agree.