"Austin, we have a problem" (West, Cool: pros and cons, cost)

[Westerner92]

Originally Posted by Novacek

I admit I'm a little confused as to what you mean by this. The current proposal _is_ for rail from downtown through campus/hancock and to Highland (and also from downtown to down riverside). Final details for this aren't set, including the final price (but certainly won't be 1.5 billion in local money).

See, I'm under the impression that this is the current proposal, with rail going to Mueller instead of Highland. I will gladly eat crow if I'm completely off base though.

http://i.imgur.com/fGmPbeZ.png

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Westerner92

See, I'm under the impression that this is the current proposal, with rail going to Mueller instead of Highland. I will gladly eat crow if I'm completely off base though.

That was the "vision" slide they had when the started the planning process. They knew they wanted to end up with something like that, but didn't commit to those exact routes.

The currently proposed urban rail route now looks like this:

Austin

(though on the upper end I think the option along 35 has been killed).

And the stuff further out on the north corridor now looks like this

http://media.bizj.us/view/img/247589...-map-final.pdf

[Westerner92]

Originally Posted by Novacek

That was the "vision" slide they had when the started the planning process. They knew they wanted to end up with something like that, but didn't commit to those exact routes.

The currently proposed urban rail route now looks like this:

Austin

(though on the upper end I think the option along 35 has been killed).

And the stuff further out on the north corridor now looks like this

http://media.bizj.us/view/img/247589...-map-final.pdf

Crow gladly eaten. That alignment is far from redundant in my opinion. Luckily we live in a place where we can vote on it.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by Westerner92

Yeah, that last post was honestly one of the most pathetic rebuttals I've ever seen. I point out how he talks about how a fake urban rail route with a made up pricetag for pages, then all the sudden he's talking about the commuter train? And since when is public transit not designed to carry people to/from important nodes? I wasn't aware the only purpose of public transit was to create TOD. This really is too funny.

1. Just because you are uninformed as to the proposed route, and the price tag - doesn't make it "fake". With the latest additional $230 to $290 million added cost, it is now north of $1.5B, if you were paying attention instead of opining.

2. I guess it will be a long wait for you to inform us how a rail line from Highland to downtown - already served by rail, as hard as it is for you to admit it - will be a "solution" to anything.

3. You may not consider TOD as a benefit from transit. Every expert in the field does.

[Westerner92]

Originally Posted by scm53

1. Just because you are uninformed as to the proposed route, and the price tag - doesn't make it "fake". It is now north of $1.5B, if you were paying attention instead of opining.

2. I guess it will be a long wait for you to inform us how a rail line from Highland to downtown - already served by rail, as hard as it is for you to admit it - will be a "solution" to anything.

3. You may not consider TOD as a benefit from transit. Every expert in the field does.

1. I'll admit I was unaware of the change of destination from Mueller to Highland (both endpoints are good starting points for proposals). Still, you can't produce a source where the $1.5 billion came from. The burden of proof is on your hands.

2. Downtown isn't the only destination in central Austin. As I'm sure you're aware, not just the roads, but the buses between Highland and Downtown are busting at the seams. The current line bypasses some of the most important destinations in the entire metro that would be greatly served by a line connecting them. Do you not see that? Just because I think this is a good start doesn't mean I think it's the only solution. Again, do you have a better idea? Because all you're doing is picking semantic arguments with me. Just like you saw me admit my fault with the northern destination, I'm very open to other possibilities.

3. You're completely twisting my words. Where did I say TOD wasn't a benefit? I said it wasn't the ONLY benefit. And the reason I said that was because you acted like non-taxable TOD was reason enough to scrap the idea.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by Westerner92

1. I'll admit I was unaware of the change of destination from Mueller to Highland (both endpoints are good starting points for proposals). Still, you can't produce a source where the $1.5 billion came from. The burden of proof is on your hands.

Since you are too lazy to find it yourself:

But the new details about the crossing at Lady Bird Lake, along with earlier estimates, indicate that the cost could easily approach $1 billion if the final recommendation includes all nine miles and a bridge. If instead the project includes a tunnel at the river, the cost would be $65 million to $300 million higher.

Plus this week's revelation - additional $230-290M - puts it north of $1.5 B, with no indication the last shoe has dropped.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by scm53

Since you are too lazy to find it yourself:


Plus this week's revelation - additional $230-290M - put it north of $1.5 B, with no indication the last shoe has dropped.

You're double-counting. Part of that approaching 1 Billion (approaching, as in less than) number was the cost for the segment which now would be a tunnel.

Plus it's unlikely they'll propose two tunnels.

[Westerner92]

Originally Posted by scm53

Since you are too lazy to find it yourself:


Plus this week's revelation - additional $230-290M - put it north of $1.5 B, with no indication the last shoe has dropped.

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.

[kavorka]

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.

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.

But for the sake of argument how much would 25% ridership in the region be worth to you? To answer the that question we must consider the cost of the complete vision of the Lone Star Rail District. How much would that cost?

I doubt that entire vision will be realized, though. It would cost a ridiculous amount of money that government officials and transit planners are probably afraid to even hint at. When asked where the money will come from public officials usually say "federal grants and federal loans", but there's absolutely no proof that money will be available. It simply can't be counted on.

Another issue is that Austin taxpayers are tapped out. That should be part of this discussion.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by kavorka

Another issue is that Austin taxpayers are tapped out. That should be part of this discussion.

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.