"Austin, we have a problem" (Lakeway, Impact: rail, association)

[scm53]

Originally Posted by Westerner92

Cool, thanks. It has nothing to do with laziness and it was all about making you back up your claims, though I'm still not seeing anything in the $1.5 billion range in the article. Still, gotta better solution? Throw something out there for the sake of discussion.

Go back and read it. $1B for the line and the bridge they don't want. $300M more for the tunnel they do want. Now we are to $1.3B, right? Add on the $230-290M for this week's revelation and we are to $1.53B at a minimum.

I've see enough big projects like this to know there's another 10-15% of unforeseens left to come.

[kavorka]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Where's the evidence of that? They just voted in 500 million for a school district which is losing students, 65 million for affordable housing caused in part by city policies, etc. etc.

You're confusing taxpayer with voter. There are typically enough voters to pass every bond that comes down the pike. And if they aren't passed, the city just brings it right back until they get the answer they want.

With the proposed rail bond, however, we'll be seeing the straw that broke the camel's back. As I mentioned before, polling has shown that it's an uphill battle for supporters of the highland alignment. I believe Austin taxpayers have had enough.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by scm53

Go back and read it. $1B for the line and the bridge they don't want.

_less than 1B_ for the line and bridge (approaching means not equal).

Originally Posted by scm53

$300M more for the tunnel they do want.

What they _want_ is the "signature bridge", because it looks impressive and also serves bikes and pedestrians.

But they're doing what any _competent_ planner would do, look at other options and their pros and cons, before making the decision.

Originally Posted by scm53

Add on the $230-290M for this week's revelation and we are to $1.53B at a minimum.

Again, you're double-counting, as that 230-290 is _instead_ of part of that previous (less than) 1 Billion. Having that tunnel is _instead_ of some amount of surface-running distance.

[kavorka]

"Rail transit projects are notorious for cost overruns. In a 2002 study, Danish planning professor Bent Flyvbjerg found that, after adjusting for inflation, the average North American rail project cost more than 40 percent more than the original approved cost, while highway projects were 8 percent over-budget, on average.(14) Two studies of more recent rail projects found that their costs were also 40 percent over-budget, on average. (15)"

14 Bent Flyvbjerg, Mette Skamris Holm, and Søren Buhl, "Underestimating Costs in Public Works Projects: Error or Lie?" Journal of the American Planning Association 68, no. 3 (2002): 285.

15 Nasiru A. Dantata, Ali Touran, and Donald C. Schneck, Trends in U.S. Rail Transit Project Cost Overrun, Presented to the Transportation Research Board, 2006 Annual Meeting, Table 2. And see The Predicted and Actual Impacts of New Starts Projects—2007 (Washington: Federal Transit Administration, 2008), p. 11.

Novacek, do you think we should factor that in?

[scm53]

Originally Posted by kavorka

You keep demanding a solution. So what's yours? The Highland to Downtown route? You should really stop using the word solution.

The truth is, there is no real solution to the congestion problems we're facing, only a slight alleviation. It's a numbers game we can never win. Even a 25% solution is not achievable here. For example, Chicago has a transit ridership of 26%. Do you think we're ever getting near that number in central Texas.

The bigger problem is, the rail transit religionists are trying to apply a monocentric solution to a polycentric Austin. We have a unique situation here, in that our deliberate refusal to build a ring road has resulted in our two main travel routes force almost everyone into the CBD - even if they are not destinating there. We have a 9 million office sq. ft. CBD - and most say you need at least 25M to make rail work. But the traffic makes it look worse than it is because a significant number are just "passing through". And as we grow employment outside the CBD - Tech Ridge, Apple Parmer campus, etc - it will only get worse, while rail into the CDB will suck down the capital dollars, and not change a thing.

The only practical near term solution is to take all the capital dollars and dedicate them to HOT lanes on Mopac, 35, 183 and 290 past the Y. Austin's ideological approach to planning has resulted in low density in the city limits (only 11.8% of the city is MF, and only 1.5% is high density MF), and market driven development outside. Neither are good, but neither are likely to change. So we have to have low density solutions like P&Rs with express busses departing for multiple locations. One to the CBD, one to Tech Ridge, one to Parmer - from every P&R.

Sorry - would like to satisfy the rail religionists, as well as those that think "real cities" have rail. Our development patterns don't support that, and just building it anyway won't change the underlying conditions.

[kavorka]

Originally Posted by scm53

while rail into the CDB will suck down the capital dollars, and not change a thing.

Yep. Sometimes not spending that first billion is the wisest decision. The best solution is often holding back from making a huge mistake and looking for alternatives.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by scm53

The bigger problem is, the rail transit religionists are trying to apply a monocentric solution to a polycentric Austin.

Austin is more monocentric than average due to downtown/capital/UT.

Austin is king city of downtown jobs - Downtown Austin Blog

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by scm53

Sorry - would like to satisfy the rail religionists, as well as those that think "real cities" have rail.

I could give a flying crap what "real cities" have. Rail (or similarly exclusive guideway transit) is the only way we won't grind to a halt. Adding more highway lanes won't help (plus there's absolutely no room for them anyway), the TTI report showed that.

Originally Posted by scm53

Our development patterns don't support that,

Again, _completely_ false. Austin's development pattern is basically perfect for rail. It's very monocentric, and is mostly laid out linearly (due to geographic and historical factors).

[scm53]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Austin is more monocentric than average due to downtown/capital/UT.

Austin is king city of downtown jobs - Downtown Austin Blog

I guess you ignored the part of that report that said from 2000 to 2010 the Austin metro share of CDB jobs declined, while the share from 10-35 miles was up by 25%.

Since we ranked third in the nation in growth of these "outer ring" jobs, what does that make us? The prince?

So much for the "kingdom".

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by scm53

I guess you ignored the part of that report that said from 2000 to 2010 the Austin metro share of CDB jobs declined, while the share from 10-35 miles was up by 25%.

Since we ranked third in the nation in growth of these "outer ring" jobs, what does that make us? The prince?

So much for the "kingdom".

Slightly declined. It still leaves 25% of the jobs in the center, and directly disproves your assertion.