Prop 1 Open Thread (Austin, Anthony, Post: hotel, new construction, living)

[Roadking2003]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Yes, I did. There's only one transportation plan on the table, and that plan is multi-modal, and includes a lot more than rail.

""Project Connect is a regional high capacity transportation plan for all of Central Texas that includes, express buses on managed lanes, bus rapid transit and rail," said John Langmore, Board Member of Capital Metro."

But that's not what the mayor said. He's talking about the rail bond. He said there is NO OTHER PLAN.

BTW, do you work for the mayor?

[scm53]

From tonight's mayoral debate:

"bus rapid transit has a tremendous future in Austin, Texas, and that's what i'll go back to should (prop1) not pass" M Martinez

As long as it is REAL BRT, which MetroRapid isn't. Enhanced bus at best.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Roadking2003

But that's not what the mayor said. He's talking about the rail bond. He said there is NO OTHER PLAN.

BTW, do you work for the mayor?

No, do you work for a car dealership? (see how that works)

[Aquitaine]

Hi. I'm on the fence here. Help me out.

We moved here two and a half years ago (with help from numerous people on this forum) and are glad we did, but traffic is definitely the #1 problem.

We live in South Circle C (south of SH 45) so this plan obviously would have no benefit to us. That's OK with me, at least theoretically: I appreciate that these sorts of things do have to start somewhere.

But it does seem like 9,000 people is a tremendously small slice of the population to be served with such an expensive project. It's going to take us 15 years and over a billion dollars to get 1% of our population off the road?

I'm no transit expert but that seems pretty low. I think about things that have had major impacts just in the short time I've been here - like the flyover from Mopac to 290. What a huge impact that had! Or the expansion of 290 near the airport - I don't know why we need a flyover to ABIA; it's the easiest thing in the world to get there now.

I'm a fairly centrist voter much of the time and I'm comfortable with rail being a money-losing proposition so long as the intangibles make up the difference. Is the argument in favor here really 'something is better than nothing?'

[petro]

I hate to sound dogmatic, but traffic congestion is here to stay. Unless Austin suddenly turns into Detroit, which it won't, congestion is just a fact of life. Data shows consistently that more roads do not alleviate congestion. As soon as capacity is added, it is filled with more cars.

What's great about rail is that it provides a reliable alternative to congestion. As Austin continues to grow and congestion increases, more people will choose rail over sitting in traffic for hours each day. Rail will expand service area over time, employment and university districts will build residential density, and ridership will continue to grow exponentially. It's an investment in the future of Austin.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by petro

Rail will expand service area over time, employment and university districts will build residential density, and ridership will continue to grow exponentially.

Then why isn't this line being built in one of the city's designated core transit corridors?

Wrong place. Rail MIGHT make sense - but for many reasons, not this configuration.

[petro]

Honestly, I can see pros and cons in all the options, including this one. I will say though, that those transit corridors were determined back in 2007/2008 (correct me if I'm wrong) and Austin has changed quite a bit since then. There is likely to be more development opportunity along this line, than the old transit corridors, due to substantial growth in East Riverside, the new medical school, and ACC's acquisition/conversion of Highland Mall. But, ultimately it'll be up to voters to decide.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by petro

There is likely to be more development opportunity along this line, than the old transit corridors, due to substantial growth in East Riverside, the new medical school, and ACC's acquisition/conversion of Highland Mall. But, ultimately it'll be up to voters to decide.

The ERC part isn't the problem. It is the tortuous path up Red River, and campus, through acres of state owned land, then into a neighborhood that will point to that 2007 plan every time the subject of density is brought up. Not to mention the added $200M for an absolutely unneeded tunnel for a line that is planned to never go north of Highland Mall.

Wrong plan. We can do better.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by scm53

Then why isn't this line being built in one of the city's designated core transit corridors?

Wrong place. Rail MIGHT make sense - but for many reasons, not this configuration.

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.

(oh, and yes, Riverside _is_ a designed core transit corridor)

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Aquitaine

But it does seem like 9,000 people is a tremendously small slice of the population to be served with such an expensive project. It's going to take us 15 years and over a billion dollars to get 1% of our population off the road?

1. I think the 9,000 (18k trips) is an intentionally pessimistic number myself.

2. Dividing by the whole population of Austin to get 1% isn't the appropriate compare. The better number in my opinion would be the number of jobs in the central city area, which is like 180k. In that case, it's more like 5%, which is significant. 5% can be the difference between free-flowing traffic and gridlock.