Browsing by Subject "Mass transit"
Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
- Results Per Page
- Sort Options
Item The feasibility of transit-oriented development at the bus rapid transit stations in Austin(2013-12) Kniejski, Lauren Katharine; Kahn, Terry D.The population of Austin, Texas is projected to reach 1.6 million people by the year 2040, which doubles the city’s current population. The populations of cities in neighboring counties, Hays and Williamson, are projected to experience even more growth within the same time frame. For the first time in history, over half of the world’s population lives in urban areas, so sustainable development is currently relevant for urban planning. Until 2010, Austin lacked a mass public transportation system. Currently, Capital Metro, Austin’s main public transportation operator, operates the Red Line of the MetroRail, a commuter rail system. The Red Line only serves a specific subset of the population in Austin and its northern neighbors, running from the city of Leander, through northern Austin, before its final stop in downtown Austin. Because of this, Capital Metro will begin operations on a new method of rapid mass transit: a bus rapid transit system called MetroRapid. With two lines opening in 2014, MetroRapid will function as a mass rapid public transit option for two of the busiest north-south corridors in the city. The opening of MetroRapid will provide opportunities to stimulate growth in areas focused around this transit system. Transit-oriented development can be a method of guiding Austin’s future growth that will theoretically facilitate and encourage public transit use. The benefits to such growth would be reduced congestion, less dependency on automobiles and fostering communities that are vibrant and self-sustaining. This paper defines Transit-Oriented Developments (TODs), Bus Rapid Transit (BRT), and analyzes the MetroRapid stations themselves as Austin moves toward becoming a sustainable city.Item Power moves : Houston, Texas and the politics of mobility, 1950-1985(2014-05) Shelton, Kyle Krumdieck; Green, Laurie B. (Laurie Beth); Jones, Jacqueline; Bsumek, Erika M.; Hoelscher, Steven D.; Melosi, Martin V.This dissertation argues that between 1950 and 1985 a diverse collection of residents from the Houston, Texas metropolitan area used debates about the planning, construction, and meaning of transportation structures—primarily highways and mass transit systems—as opportunities to claim political power and to influence the future of their neighborhoods and city. As they contested these systems, Houstonians articulated competing notions of the politics of mobility. In addition to concrete political decisions about transportation, this term also encompasses the daily transportation decisions of Houstonians and the meanings those residents ascribed to the infrastructure that carried them across the city. The politics of mobility uniquely illuminates the intersection of politics, culture, and urban development in Houston. Who wielded the power to make choices about Houston’s transportation networks and how the balance of that power changed over time are central questions of this dissertation. Until the late 1950s and early 1960s, a collection of nearly all white and male elected officials, professional planners, and private developers held immense power over the city’s decision-making process, but never completely controlled it. The actions of citizens outside that group forced leaders to acknowledge, if rarely embrace, the perspectives that citizens held about transportation and the politics of mobility. By the mid-1970s, aided by changes in federal oversight and citizen participation regulations, as well as by their own assertions of political power, an increasingly diverse set of Houstonians—African American, ethnic Mexican, and white, urban and suburban, rich and poor—possessed more influence over the city’s transportation choices. By engaging in these debates, Houstonians challenged the city’s racial, economic, and decision-making status quo. The choices made in Houston’s struggle over the placement of highways and the creation of a public transit authority sheds light onto the foundations of Houston’s unique built environment and offers a model for understanding similar forces at work in other auto-centric southern and western, “Sunbelt” cities, such as Los Angeles and Atlanta. Further, these conflicts illuminate why older cities in the Northeast and Midwest and younger ones in the West and the South developed such divergent urbanization patterns and transportation practices.Item Transit deserts in urbanized areas : challenges and opportunities in Texas(2015-08) Cardenas, James Paul; Zhang, Ming, 1963 April 22-; Bricka, Stacey G.This report focuses on urbanized areas that have limited or no transit service in the Austin metropolitan urbanized area. Commonly called urban gaps or more broadly, transit deserts, these areas are typically not serviced by the rural or urban transit provider. The jurisdictional entity such as a municipality or county must coordinate with the rural or urban transit provider to service the urbanized areas. This process can occur in a number of different ways, which this report focuses on. Urbanized areas are classified during each decennial census. As such, growing communities may become urbanized or become classified as part of a nearby urbanized region. This seemingly minor designation has a major impact in terms of transit funding. Communities that acquire an urban area designation can no longer be serviced by the rural transit provider using the Federal Transit Administration’s 5311 Rural Area Formula Grants. Other funding sources, such as FTA Section 5307 Urbanized Area Formula Funding can be used but require a matching contribution. This creates a dilemma for newly urbanized communities both in terms of funding and transit service levels. One example includes Georgetown, TX, which became part of the Austin metropolitan urbanized area in the 2010 census. Communities like Georgetown have three main avenues of obtaining public transit. If applicable, the community can join the nearest metropolitan transit agency, create a regional transit district or limited eligibility transit agency or contract with a transit provider for local service. Many important financial and social challenges exist for communities experiencing a lack of transit access. Vulnerable populations, such as the elderly and transit dependent residents are further affected by the sudden loss of transit service. This report will look at some of the ways communities are addressing these issues and what progress has been made in the five years (2010-2015) that newly urbanized communities have been affected. There are different solutions and strategies to address these changes, and with proper planning and coordination, these transitions can yield smooth and effective results into the next phase of urban transit service.