Prop 1 Open Thread (Dallas, Austin, Converse: calculator, moving to, authority)

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by scm53

The king of "fictitious content" strikes again. Somehow, a single word of criticism of your pet rock transmogrified into:



Absolutely amazing. How you can twist criticism into "try(ing) to create a proposal that would tank?" is beyond belief. Because to say that, I'd have to believe that. And I don't.

You've outdone yourself with this fantasy.

True or False?

Do you agree with the statement of the individual you quoted? That the proposed plan is the "dumbest"?

Do you stand by your earlier statement (among others) that the rail is in the wrong place/wrong route/etc.?

Yes or no?

If so, it inevitably follows that you believe the rail plan, even if it succeeds in november, would ultimately get shot down by the feds. With the understanding of how very competitive the process is, it would be the only possible outcome. Agree or disagree?

[scm53]

Originally Posted by Novacek

If so, it inevitably follows that you believe the rail plan, even if it succeeds in november, would ultimately get shot down by the feds.

Please stop with the "fictitious content" of what I believe or don't believe about what the FTA will or won't do. That is a construct only of your making.

And as far as your complete faith that the FTA can save us from our stupidity, one only has to point to Metro Rail to see how misplaced that confidence is.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by scm53

Please stop with the "fictitious content" of what I believe or don't believe about what the FTA will or won't do. That is a construct only of your making.

Agree or Disagree? It's a simple question.

You posted (and then supported) a claim that they are intentionally and fraudulently inflating ridership estimates by 50%. If that were true, there would be only one _possible_ outcome when such a system went to the FTA.

Originally Posted by scm53

And as far as your complete faith that the FTA can save us from our stupidity, one only has to point to Metro Rail to see how misplaced that confidence is.

You mean the very successful system that the FTA has not yet paid one penny for or been involved with whatsoever?

[scm53]

Originally Posted by Novacek

You mean the very successful system that the FTA has not yet paid one penny for or been involved with whatsoever?

If you mean the system that a) wasn't submitted to the FTA for funding after it became apparent that the ridership would be too low to qualify, and b) which is so horribly located that it has one of the highest per rider operational subsidies in the nation (over $16/one way trip) - yea, that one. The one that was originally going to cost $2M/yr to operate and now costs over $14M/yr. If that is your definition of "very successful", then you define that term differently from how about 99% of the voting public does.

We can't afford any more "success" like that.

[scm53]

And while we are on the subject of success, ponder these figures:

1990 Austin Metro population - 846,000
1990 Cap Metro ridership - 31,200,000

2008 Austin Metro population - 1,250,000
2008 Cap Metro ridership - 35,400,000
2008 Cap Metro budget - $202,000,000

2014 Austin Metro population - 1,900,000
2014 Cap Metro ridership - 33,200,000
2014 Cap Metro budget - $283,000,000

So, since 1990, area population has more than doubled, yet ridership is up less than 10%. Since 2008, population has grown by over 50%. But ridership has actually declined, and the budget is up by 40%.

Let's reward that with more money?

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by scm53

And while we are on the subject of success, ponder these figures:

1990 Austin Metro population - 846,000
1990 Cap Metro ridership - 31,200,000

2008 Austin Metro population - 1,250,000
2008 Cap Metro ridership - 35,400,000
2008 Cap Metro budget - $202,000,000

2014 Austin Metro population - 1,900,000
2014 Cap Metro ridership - 33,200,000
2014 Cap Metro budget - $283,000,000

So, since 1990, area population has more than doubled, yet ridership is up less than 10%. Since 2008, population has grown by over 50%. But ridership has actually declined, and the budget is up by 40%.

Let's reward that with more money?

Why in the world would you compare against the _metro_ population? The only appropriate compare would be the _service area_ population (or failing that, the Austin city population as a reasonable proxy).

And why 2008, that seems on odd year? It wouldn't happen to be right before cap metro raised ticket prices for the first time in 20 years, would it? Sure, it's easy to increase ridership when you're spending your reserves down to nothing and continually dropping ticket prices (in real dollars).

Those number tell me that CapMetro has maintained ridership levels, despite Austin's continued sprawl and loss of density and inner-neighborhood population. Pretty good job.

>>and the budget is up by 40%.
What's the inflation-adjusted budget up by?

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by scm53

If you mean the system that a) wasn't submitted to the FTA for funding after it became apparent that the ridership would be too low to qualify, and

I don't know why it wasn't submitted to the FTA. My personal guess, it somehow ran afoul of buy-American provisions or the fact that the FRA wouldn't give them the waiver to work with the FTA (or the administration at the time being anti-rail?).
The fact that the FTA (finally) is about to give Austin some money for the line seems to indicate they're okay with the ridership and location. Same thing with traditionally all-roads TxDot.

But anyway, you're contradicting yourself. You say "point to Metro Rail to see how misplaced that confidence is", and then claim that they wouldn't fund it due to ridership.

So agree or disagree? If a system were to go to the FTA with intentionally fraudulent ridership models, there's no way it would be funded.

Originally Posted by scm53

b) which is so horribly located that it has one of the highest per rider operational subsidies in the nation (over $16/one way trip) - yea, that one.

The per-rider subsidy is in-line with the commuter buses and with all other commuter rail.

It's lower than Minneapolis, which is $20.00 /rider.
Ridership grows but subsidies stay high on Northstar commuter line | Star Tribune

The Seattle Sounder was $35 per rider in 2004 ( I couldn't find a more recent value in quick googling, I'm assuming its dropped and is now in about the same range as CapMetro's)
The Seattle Times: Local News: Sounder train is low on riders, high on cost

[scm53]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Why in the world would you compare against the _metro_ population? The only appropriate compare would be the _service area_ population (or failing that, the Austin city population as a reasonable proxy).

Because, as one regular poster here will attest, there are a significant number of Cap Metro riders that live outside the service area. There isn't an ID check, is there?

Originally Posted by Novacek

And why 2008, that seems on odd year? It wouldn't happen to be right before cap metro raised ticket prices for the first time in 20 years, would it? Sure, it's easy to increase ridership when you're spending your reserves down to nothing and continually dropping ticket prices (in real dollars).

Despite your Alex Jones/InfoWars quality conspiracy theory, there is a really simple answer: Those are the oldest budget numbers available.

Originally Posted by Novacek

>>and the budget is up by 40%. What's the inflation-adjusted budget up by?

I dunno. Since you are the one making the argument, you tell us. Pretty sure it isn't 40% in the last six years of low inflation, but you can look it up since it is your point.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by scm53

Because, as one regular poster here will attest, there are a significant number of Cap Metro riders that live outside the service area. There isn't an ID check, is there?

A significant number of Capmetro riders in, for instance, San Marcos (who's population you're including)?

[paul6835]

Originally Posted by scm53

2008 Austin Metro population - 1,250,000
2008 Cap Metro ridership - 35,400,000
2008 Cap Metro budget - $202,000,000

2014 Austin Metro population - 1,900,000
2014 Cap Metro ridership - 33,200,000
2014 Cap Metro budget - $283,000,000

10% total inflation 2008-2014 so about $222M vs $283M in 2014 dollar. Rail is costing us $60M/yr as a city and delivering zero results. That's an expensive failure by any measure. Assuming 2.5 residents per household, thats $80/household per year for nothing. Treating that a perpetuity because we have to pay it now every year (at %5) that mistake took $1600 of value from every household in Austin.... for nothing. Zero increase in ridership - in fact a negative change. That is the definition of irresponsible governance. There's no reason to double down on this.