Prop 1 Open Thread (Houston, Austin, Riverside: insurance, maintenance, property tax)

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by scm53

through acres of state owned land,

This is a feature, not a bug. State land isn't subject to the extremely low-density development restrictions of Austin.

Originally Posted by scm53

Not to mention the added $200M for an absolutely unneeded tunnel

Okay, how successful will a transit system be that randomly gets stuck at a crossing for 10 minutes waiting on a freight train be?

Originally Posted by scm53

for a line that is planned to never go north of Highland Mall.

This is false. In as much as any expansion is "planned" (just lines on a map) extending north from Highland is one of the listed alternatives.

[gpurcell]

Originally Posted by petro

Data shows consistently that more roads do not alleviate congestion. As soon as capacity is added, it is filled with more cars.

"Data" shows absolutely no such thing.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Because those corridors were designated years ago. Before the medical school. Before ACC highland.

Things change. Austin isn't the same as it was 15 years ago, why would you assume the rail plan would be.

Let me help you with math. Fourteen minus seven is seven - not fifteen.

And the rest is just as much BS. The med school isn't the trip generator - 175 students. Brackenridge or its replacement teaching hospital is - and they are/will be right where they are now. ACC Highland? Meh. Already served by rail - why duplicate with a $200M cherry on top? Because we all know Highland isn't the goal, is it?

The urban jewelry lust is strong - obviously strong enough to cause the loss of math skills AND objectivity.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by Novacek

This is false. In as much as any expansion is "planned" (just lines on a map) extending north from Highland is one of the listed alternatives.

No, you are the one spreading falsehoods. The Austin 2014 Strategic Mobility Plan (p. 7) shows all "future phases of urban rail". Highland has nothing past it.

More lust based mendacity.

[petro]

Originally Posted by petro
Data shows consistently that more roads do not alleviate congestion. As soon as capacity is added, it is filled with more cars.

Originally Posted by gpurcell
"Data" shows absolutely no such thing.

It certainly does.

Professors Gilles Duranton and Matthew Turner (PERC Julian Simon FEllow 2011) analyzed travel data from hundreds of metro areas in the U.S., resulting in what they call the most comprehensive dataset ever assembled on the traffic impacts of road construction. They write:

For interstate highways in metropolitan areas we find that VKT [vehicle kilometers traveled] increases one for one with interstate highways, confirming the “fundamental law of highway congestion” suggested by Anthony Downs (1962; 1992). We also uncover suggestive evidence that this law may extend beyond interstate highways to a broad class of major urban roads, a “fundamental law of road congestion”. These results suggest that increased provision of interstate highways and major urban roads is unlikely to relieve congestion of these roads.

The Fundamental Law of Highway Congestion: Evidence from the US

The Fundamental Law of Road Congestion: Evidence from the US

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by scm53

Let me help you with math. Fourteen minus seven is seven - not fifteen.

Let _me_ help you with _your_ math.
2014 - 2000 (the last rail plan) is 14. Though austin isn't the same as it was in 1999 either.

Originally Posted by scm53

Because we all know Highland isn't the goal, is it?

Okay, what, pray tell, is the goal?

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by scm53

No, you are the one spreading falsehoods. The Austin 2014 Strategic Mobility Plan (p. 7) shows all "future phases of urban rail". Highland has nothing past it.

Those are _potential_ future expansions, yes. But they aren't "planned", they're just possible lines on the map.

Just like this line on a map north of highland


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vurv...ature=youtu.be

(linked from Central Corridor - Urban Rail | Project Connect)

[gpurcell]

Originally Posted by petro

It certainly does.

Elasticities of new construction are certainly not 1.0. Yes, there is some creation of new travel, but it does not account for all of the existing capacity.

In any event, Austin itself provides an amazing example of just what happens when the "don't build it" side prevails--Truly astonishing levels of traffic demand mediated through an utterly inadequate transportation system.

[gpurcell]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Okay, what, pray tell, is the goal?

Well it certainly isn't commuting. It looks like it is basically serving UT Austin/ACC, the Downtown hotel and convention business, and the Mueller community.

This plan does absolutely nothing for anyone not already living or staying downtown.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by gpurcell

Well it certainly isn't commuting. It looks like it is basically serving UT Austin/ACC, the Downtown hotel and convention business, and the Mueller community.

This plan does absolutely nothing for anyone not already living or staying downtown.

yes, who commutes on I35 anyway?