Prop 1 Open Thread (Austin, Howe, Riverside: to live, price, move)

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by df175

I'm strongly against the light rail proposal.

Just a fraction of that money could build multiple BRT lines and make a much more significant dent in traffic. Even with Austin's choked roads and the inability to have dedicated lanes in most areas, our limited version of BRT is still the way to go.

More broadly, improvement of the bus system in terms of frequency and cleanliness and technology (real time GPS on all buses) would help tremendously. Many people don't use the buses because of these issues and it creates a chicken and egg scenario regarding ridership levels.

For people with options, one only has to have only a few bad experiences to shy away from using the system:

Waiting at bus stops 20 minutes for a late bus (would be helped by more frequency and real time arrival info on smartphones)

Stinky / dirty buses

Overly full buses during peak hours, due to inadequate service on some routes


Such people go back to their cars, understandably.

We need to do both. The full project connect plan has this line, extensions of the line. More extensions to the BRT lines. More BRT lines. More bus lines. etc. We need to do all of the above if we have any hope of traffic not becoming more of a nightmare than it already is (multi-hour commutes).



I'm all for more rapid lines, but those won't give us two very important advantages of this proposal.

1. More capacity crossing the chokepoint of the river.

2. A congestion-proof bypass of I35. Which will be critical when we need to start shutting down portions of it for _years_ at a time to try and add capacity to it.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by scm53

For somebody who has spouted a laugher a minute today, this may be your best one. Everybody (who just happens to be also on the payroll) is on the side of the angels with me. Got it, too.

The Feds too? Are they on the take?

Everybody who claims there's some "conspiracy" of Austin-elites to try and put one over on the voters and construct a useless line refuses to address this fact.

The line won't happen unless the feds sign off on it. Even more importantly, the line won't happen _unless_ it's ranked above _many_ other competing proposals from other cities.

[IC_deLight]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Since half the line runs basically parallel to I35, it's a good bet many of the riders were previously taking I35.
(plus the two park and rides just off 35)

For $1.4 billion you could build a few more lanes on I-35
You are seeking a large liability to be imposed on other people and their property in pursuit of your purely speculative claim - mostly people that will receive absolutely no benefit from this.

Originally Posted by Novacek

And if they weren't, they were taking some other Austin roads. My mentioning I35 was an example of a benefit to non-riders, not the exclusive list.

Again you are making assumptions with little to no support.
...and what happens when the ridership consists predominately of people riding buses today?

Originally Posted by Novacek

Using that logic, we should never build anything, ever, as it will always be eventually overtaken by growth.

Fair enough, however it is folly to assume that the ridership will consist solely or even mostly of people previously driving cars or that there will be significant improvement regarding congestion on I-35 or other Austin roads. Others tout rail as an alternative to congestion not a solution/cure. In other words, the congestion would still be there but the folks riding the train just wouldn't drive through it. If that's true then the whole "relieves congestion" and "save Austin roads" argument you make vaporizes.

At any rate, I guess we'll find out in November whether a majority of those who vote are blind zealots willing to burden their own property and the property of their neighbors with a big tax liability for a very expensive project of dubious utility for the vast majority of Austin commuters.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by IC_deLight

For $1.4 billion you could build a few more lanes on I-35

Except we _don't have_ 1.4 billion. We're spending _$600M_ on the rail. That'll probably get you the study on how to expand 35.

And then _how_ do you expand it? Tear down the upper lanes for a couple _years_ to rebuild them? tear out _all_ of 35 for years while you sink it? With no good alternative route?

In my opinion that's one of the greatest benefits of this rail proposal, it provides a direct bypass of I35 that provides capacity in that corridor that can be used during any expansion of 35.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by Novacek

The Feds too? Are they on the take?

Everybody who claims there's some "conspiracy" of Austin-elites to try and put one over on the voters and construct a useless line refuses to address this fact.

The line won't happen unless the feds sign off on it. Even more importantly, the line won't happen _unless_ it's ranked above _many_ other competing proposals from other cities.

1. More distraction. The "Feds" haven't issued an opinion - by your own admission. Yet somehow, they are among your "real transportation experts" who unanimously support this alignment?

2. There will be hundreds of millions from this bond issue that will be spent before this is ever submitted. Sunk cost - so don't act like this is cost free w/o FTA approval.

3. Math question. $600M in Austin bonds. Max 50% share from the FTA on a $1.4B project. Where does the other $200M come from?

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by scm53

1. More distraction. The "Feds" haven't issued an opinion - by your own admission. Yet somehow, they are among your "real transportation experts" who unanimously support this alignment?

The Feds haven't formally ranked the proposal, no. But they have indicated it should be ranked highly. They certainly don't think it's a worthless route. The "dumbest" rail system ever.

Originally Posted by scm53

2. There will be hundreds of millions from this bond issue that will be spent before this is ever submitted. Sunk cost - so don't act like this is cost free w/o FTA approval.

Absolutely, completely false. We can't even sell the bonds until we get the FTA match. Read the damn ballot proposal.

provided that the City may not issue the bonds or notes to pay costs of the fixed rail transit system (other than expenditures for planning, designing and engineering necessary to obtain grant and/or match funding) unless (i) the City obtains grant or match funding for the cost of the fixed rail transit system from the Federal Transit Administration or one or more other federal or state sources


"expenditures for planning, designing and engineering necessary to obtain grant and/or match funding" _aren't_ going to be hundreds of millions.
That's not even the whole of design work, just the portion necessary to get the match funding.

Come on, think! Your "experts" claim that this plan is too expensive, and that other routes could be done for half the price. How could that be possible if it takes "hundreds of millions" just to get a design to the point of a matching grant?

[IC_deLight]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Except we _don't have_ 1.4 billion. We're spending _$600M_ on the rail. That'll probably get you the study on how to expand 35.

Only so long as they also spend $400 million on roads, right? So now you're at $1 billion. Could better all be spent on roads and it doesn't all have to be spent on I-35.

Originally Posted by Novacek

And then _how_ do you expand it? Tear down the upper lanes for a couple _years_ to rebuild them? tear out _all_ of 35 for years while you sink it? With no good alternative route?

Well paraphrasing your own earlier comment, if that's the way everyone thought then nothing would ever get built, right? Your solutions present a false dichotomy since other options are possible.

Originally Posted by Novacek

In my opinion that's one of the greatest benefits of this rail proposal, it provides a direct bypass of I35 that provides capacity in that corridor that can be used during any expansion of 35.

Capacity that is utterly useless except perhaps for a very small fraction of the traffic on I-35. I wouldn't try using that as a selling point.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Absolutely, completely false. We can't even sell the bonds until we get the FTA match. Read the damn ballot proposal.

provided that the City may not issue the bonds or notes to pay costs of the fixed rail transit system (other than expenditures for planning, designing and engineering necessary to obtain grant and/or match funding) unless (i) the City obtains grant or match funding for the cost of the fixed rail transit system from the Federal Transit Administration or one or more other federal or state sources


"expenditures for planning, designing and engineering necessary to obtain grant and/or match funding" _aren't_ going to be hundreds of millions.
That's not even the whole of design work, just the portion necessary to get the match funding.

Come on, think! Your "experts" claim that this plan is too expensive, and that other routes could be done for half the price. How could that be possible if it takes "hundreds of millions" just to get a design to the point of a matching grant?

Since we are on the subject of "completely false," nice job contradicting yourself. You say:

We can't even sell the bonds until we get the FTA match. Read the damn ballot proposal.

And, without taking a breath, you quote the ballot proposal:

(other than expenditures for planning, designing and engineering necessary to obtain grant and/or match funding)

So, obviously, we WILL sell the bonds before the FTA match - which will be a sunk cost if it isn't approved. Because all of you proponents are people of your word, and there won't be any attempt to locally fund this. Right?

As far as the sunk cost - $239M in professional services. Sure looks like hundreds of millions to me, but, hey, what do I know?

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by IC_deLight

Well paraphrasing your own earlier comment, if that's the way everyone thought then nothing would ever get built, right? Your solutions present a false dichotomy since other options are possible.

please explain how you're going to add capacity to I35 (which has no width to expand) without tearing out the existing lanes (which take the full existing RoW)?

It's nothing like my earlier comment. It's not like I35 missing a mile in the middle is 90% as useful as the full length of 35.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by scm53

Since we are on the subject of "completely false," nice job contradicting yourself. You say:



And, without taking a breath, you quote the ballot proposal:

Exactly. Only the design necessary to get the matching. Which is _far_ short of the entirety of the design.

Originally Posted by scm53

So, obviously, we WILL sell the bonds before the FTA match - which will be a sunk cost if it isn't approved. Because all of you proponents are people of your word, and there won't be any attempt to locally fund this. Right?

We absolutely, 100%, will not sell 600M of bonds before approval. That's absolutely 100% prohibited by the ballot.


Uh, you do realize we can sell $10M of bonds for design work as a separate issue from another $590M after approval, right?

Originally Posted by scm53

As far as the sunk cost - $239M in professional services. Sure looks like hundreds of millions to me, but, hey, what do I know?

That completely _disproves_ your claim. That all the non-construction costs for the _entire_ (7 year) project are only 239, but somehow _just_ that preliminary design work for the grant (in the first couple years) will be "hundreds of millions".