Prop 1 Open Thread (Austin, West, Hart: gated, subsidized, cost)

[scm53]

Originally Posted by jb9152

I am continually fascinated by the way that the bomb-throwers steadfastly refuse to present a competing vision for transportation in Austin. Everything is simply bad, expensive, not worth doing, etc. I have yet to hear one of them actually present a compelling vision for how we are to handle the huge influx of new residents that we'll be facing.

Perhaps if what was being sold - at a not insignificant price tag - actually stood a chance of handling that influx, there wouldn't be such a "steadfast refusal". It won't make a dent. And the deceit being used to sell it should embarrass the supporters. "With roads and rail we cannot fail"? Seriously? When over half the "road" spending is actually rail infrastructure? A fly over to ABIA is a way to "bite back" at traffic? Shameful.

It really isn't any different than from the other crowd: A single mile of new highway is out of the question. If you don't support the PC plan, you want to pave downtown Austin over. Screw the suburbanites. Everybody should want to live like me, and on and on and on.

Everything isn't "simply bad". The PC plan is. Until there is a cogent plan that actually improves mobility - throughout the region - expect the same response.

[cBach]

Originally Posted by scm53

Would you feel the same way if you knew that a $1.4B line - that will raise the average Austin taxpayer's taxes over $200/yr - will only take 1,800 cars a day off the roads?

Yes, because I am planning for 100 - 200 years into the future of Austin, when Prop 1 may be seen as visionary for the time looking back.

When New Orleans built their St. Charles Streetcar line back in the early 1800's, people wondered why they needed it to go all the way out to Carrollton, which was a small town surrounded by plantations. Now that area is the heart of Uptown New Orleans and the St. Charles Streetcar is a historic tourist attraction and still providing mass transit for drunk Tulane and Loyola students who party it up in the FQ at night and need reliable transportation to get back to campus when they've had enough.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by lndigo

furthermore, it has a greater carrying capacity than light rail.

That's just not true. Both of the features that quote mentions (passing and express) can be implemented for rail as well.

Buses will always have lower max capacity, due to shorter maximum vehicle length (lower maximum passenger capacity).

[jb9152]

Originally Posted by scm53

It really isn't any different than from the other crowd: A single mile of new highway is out of the question. If you don't support the PC plan, you want to pave downtown Austin over. Screw the suburbanites. Everybody should want to live like me, and on and on and on.

I've never heard a transportation planner, once, say that "a single mile of new highway is out of the question." The same planners, you know, that came up with the PC vision, which includes much more than just Urban Rail.

Originally Posted by scm53

Everything isn't "simply bad". The PC plan is. Until there is a cogent plan that actually improves mobility - throughout the region - expect the same response.

Care to offer an opinion on what would constitute a "cogent plan", bomb-thrower?

[scm53]

Originally Posted by cBach

Yes, because I am planning for 100 - 200 years into the future of Austin, when Prop 1 may be seen as visionary for the time looking back.

Hope is not a strategy. And definitely not enough to get into the pocketbook of this Austin taxpayer.

How much will your taxes go up? Think it is worth it?

[jb9152]

Originally Posted by scm53

Hope is not a strategy. And definitely not enough to get into the pocketbook of this Austin taxpayer.

How much will your taxes go up? Think it is worth it?

So, again - we're waiting on your tax-neutral ideas on how to solve the capacity deficit problem we face in the Austin region.

<crickets>

[Austin97]

Originally Posted by jb9152

I've never heard a transportation planner, once, say that "a single mile of new highway is out of the question." The same planners, you know, that came up with the PC vision, which includes much more than just Urban Rail.



Care to offer an opinion on what would constitute a "cogent plan", bomb-thrower?

620 = highway toll road
360 = highway toll road
183 highway toll road connecting with a flyover to 71
mopac = toll lanes + expanded
Flyovers from 620/360 to 71 on the south, 183 on the north.
2222 should be highway and should have flyovers to 620, 360 and mopac
2244 should be a highway and should have flyovers

That will give us multiple loops around town plus east west corridors to mopac.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by jb9152

I've never heard a transportation planner, once, say that "a single mile of new highway is out of the question."

Planners don't get to make decisions. Elected officials do.

Originally Posted by jb9152

Care to offer an opinion on what would constitute a "cogent plan", bomb-thrower?

1. I'm not the one asking for money. When the bank tells you that your loan is disapproved, it isn't their responsibility to solve your problem.

2. Ignoring your uncalled for ad hominem, let me answer you. I'd start with the city's 2014 Strategic Mobility Plan, which calls for both increasing vehicle moving capacity around the core, while moving capacity into the core. I'd make the Bergstrom Expressway and upgrading 360 to a freeway/parkway an urgent priority. I'd tell the environmental extremists to go color and upgrade 620 - including the Lakeway/Bee Cave Bypass. One of the main reasons for Mopac and 35 congestion isn't folks destinating downtown. It is the lack of alternatives from N to S, and vice versa.

I'd increase capacity into the core from outside the congestion zone - which the PC plan doesn't do. I'd make the extension of managed lanes on 183 N, Mopac S, and 35 N and S an urgent priority. That would enable Express Buses to a full range of employment locations. It would also enable van pools to have a measurable advantage. After those alternatives were in place, I'd work with the state to start charging for parking in the state garages - which encourages SOVs (which are the root of our problem). I'd see if there was a way to tax daily parking inside the CBD.

I'd look at dedicated guideway BRT where it makes sense - like the ERC. Maybe the PC plan route works as BRT (I doubt it even does then, but hey ...). And as soon as I could, I'd get Guadalupe/Lamar LR back on the ballot as part of a total package - a comprehensive plan. And I sure wouldn't deceive people by selling rail infrastructure as "roads".

[jb9152]

Originally Posted by Austin97

620 = highway toll road
360 = highway toll road
183 highway toll road connecting with a flyover to 71
mopac = toll lanes + expanded
Flyovers from 620/360 to 71 on the south, 183 on the north.
2222 should be highway and should have flyovers to 620, 360 and mopac
2244 should be a highway and should have flyovers

That will give us multiple loops around town plus east west corridors to mopac.

I like it. Thanks! How about managed lanes on I-35?

[scm53]

Originally Posted by jb9152

You complain, ad infinitum, that the PC plan is too expensive. In fact, I think at one point you actually said that "no one can afford" it.

Nothing that actually fixes a problem is too expensive. For what it does, the PC plan is too expensive.