From his twitter last night:
JMVC on twitter, 1/15/2013
Huh. Interesting this survey has not been published. Meanwhile, I refer again back to my three posts on the specific issue of who’s riding from where:
First, in Who Is Riding The Red Line, Part One?, I showed that the overwhelming majority of Red Line passengers are boarding at the three park and rides on the northern end of the line; NOT from the stations most people would think of as “in Austin”.
In Who Is Riding The Red Line, Part Two?, I showed that it was expected that most riders at the Lakeline and Howard stations would not be from the City of Austin due to simple geography (i.e. of the people for whom it would make sense to drive a reasonable distance in the correct direction to the station, the overwhelming majority would be outside the Capital Metro service area and the city of Austin).
In Who Is Riding The Red Line, Part Three?, a rider from up north verified that most passengers getting on board at the Lakeline Station (within Austin city limits, but just barely) are actually from Cedar Park, and pay zero Capital Metro taxes when in their home jurisdictions (no, the one or two lunches a week they might do in Austin don’t amount to a hill of beans).
So, back to today: If JMVC is asserting that most riders are from Austin, he has a duty to share his survey methodology and results with the public. If legitimate, I’ll cheerfully append them to each and every post above. Let’s see what he’s got.
Posted in Don't Hurt Us Mr. Krusee, We'll Do Whatever You Want, I Told You So, PS: I am not a crackpot, Red Line Myths, Transit in Austin, Transportation
Tagged asshats, Austin, Capital Metro, Fact Check, jmvc, proving the obvious, Red Line, spin, subsidizing suburbanites, subsidizing the suburbanites, subsidy, suburban freeloaders
In today’s Letters, allowed to be published uncritically and without challenge:
Bicycle lanes are dangerous on Austin roads for both drivers and bikers. Burleson Road is a classic example of where the car lanes were narrowed to accommodate bikers. Bikers should have to purchase an annual permit that has toll tag technology.
Since they pay no gas tax, this fee should pay for their road use. These tags should be able to be read by police to identify if their tag is current, and they could also identify the bikers, should they be involved in an accident.
My response on the way to them via various intertubes:
Anne Clark, in her letter on 10/27/2011, is woefully misinformed. Most roads in our area, even most major arterials, receive no funding from the gasoline tax, as the state prohibits its portion of the gas tax from being used outside the state highway system, and most federal gas taxes are similarly directed only to roads with a route shield on them. In fact, since some local (general) funds are also used for state and federal highways, it is likely cyclists who are subsidizing motorists in Austin, not the other way around.
City of Austin Urban Transportation Commission 2000-2005
Following up on a short twitter conversation (not really; just more of the same from the usual suspects) last night. From folks who have been attending the JMVC school of leading questions, disappointingly. Here you go.
The city’s urban rail plan will never be built out without some participation from Capital Metro, and by participation, I mean money. We need some of their local dollars to get this done, in other words. McCracken knew this back in 2008. Don’t know why the city’s pretending it’s not true now, but you can see they don’t really believe it, given the undertones in Ben Wear’s latest Statesman article where the plan has basically retreated into a Red Line circulator (awesome – circulate the same 1500 boardings/day we have now – hooray – the same people who, remember, have turned up their noses at transfers so much that Capital Metro is cancelling almost all of their rail shuttles).
How much “urban rail” can you buy for $200 million ?
Not very much, according to City of Austin figures, and certainly not enough to make a success of what might be the area’s sophomore foray into rail transit. With that and other considerations in mind, Austin Mayor Lee Leffingwell and city transportation officials now say substantial federal transit funding almost surely will be needed for urban rail’s first segment.
That would be a change from what city officials had said over the past couple of years: Austin would probably build a first piece of rail with roughly $200 million from voter-approved bonds and whatever else it could raise through other local means, and then use primarily federal funds years later for outlying sections of the proposed 16.5-mile , double-tracked system. But local money alone would pay for little more than a downtown circuit comparable to the Dillo bus lines that stopped running two years ago for lack of riders.
“Of course, it would be helpful if it went some place initially, but we may not have the money to do that,” Leffingwell said. “That someplace may be where the Red Line is going right now.”
So it’s clear the city doesn’t REALLY believe they have enough money to get this done. And if they think the Feds are going to kick in the rest, we are presented with the next problem: Capital Metro is also going to seek Federal funding to buy more cars and/or double-track more sections of the Red Line.
The chance the Feds would fund two major rail projects in an area with our characteristics (population, transit patronage, ridership potential)?
So in direct response to this question from @jacedeloney:
@mdahmus @MPTMike @downtownatx Do you have information that shows that Urban Rail funding depends on current MetroRail dollars?
Yes. The fact is that the city doesn’t have enough money; Capital Metro is the only other possible local source; and they’re already spending more on the Red Line than originally planned (first, on higher operating subsidies, then on even higher operating costs to run all-day service; note that even this weekend’s spectacular performance was still a net money-loser for the agency!). So some of their ‘current’ spending is absolutely essential. I don’t know how far back we can pare the Red Line from what it is right now, but it clearly would have to be pared back some if CM was to contribute ANYTHING to urban rail.
So there you have it, tweeters. No, it’s not ‘data’. It’s just the opinion of the only guy who was willing to go out on a limb way back in 2004 and has been right all along up to this point. Take it or leave it, but no more homework assignments, please.
In case anybody cares.
Chris Riley is still the best choice in Place One. I have been disappointed in Chris’ unwillingness to push harder on many issues we share a similar position on but his votes are almost always what I would prefer for the urbanist/pro-transit agenda. (My disappointments also stem from him being unwilling to stop the Red Line from its inexorable process down the “kill the urban rail line in its cradle” track). His challengers are so unworthy of consideration that I don’t even think it’s worth discussing this race, and won’t.
Randi Shade is the clear choice in Place 3, for a variety of reasons – she’s fundamentally serious, as you can tell in her answers to Austinist questions (compare her one credible challenger here) and she’s pro-density for the most part. I wrote this piece on the questionable way this race has been framed yesterday. Don’t fall for the typical ANC tripe that they represent the average citizen. The average citizen is exactly who the landed gentry are keeping out of central Austin by fighting density.
I’d vote for anybody short of Jim Skaggs over Laura Morrison in Place 4. I’ve settled on K. Toby Ryan Hill largely because I suspect he has the best, although slim, chance. He’s dead wrong on parking, though – but I’ll yield on this issue to get the automatic ANC rubber-stamp off the Council if that’s what it takes.
In yesterday’s Chron article, you appear to have the wrong idea of what those of us who demand reserved guideway are concerned about.
This (somebody ‘messing up the track’):
is a minor concern. It happens rarely.
is a major concern. It will happen every single day, and will make the train slower and less reliable than the existing city buses on Congress.
Just left at this address. No time for more on this yet. In short, Red River is a wash compared to Manor unless dedicated lane – both don’t have a ton of traffic today but might down the road. Shared lane sucks whereever you run it, but it sucks more on Congress where traffic would already kill the thing if it existed today.
IF this thing gets dedicated lanes in the core, it can eventually grow into the kind of system we should have had in 2000 and 2004. But that’s a big IF. Without dedicated lanes on Congress, this thing will be a ridership-losing disaster. You need to spend more time talking to folks who understand how to get drivers out of their cars, not new urbanists who gave up their cars a long time ago.
Thinking “because it’s rail people will automatically ride” is what got the Red Line such a black-eye for rail in our region. Don’t make the same stupid mistake yet again.
- Mike Dahmus
Urban Transportation Commission (2000-2005)
Only Pro-Rail Guy Who Was Right On The Red Line
A quick cut/paste job, maximizing the bang for the minimal buck. Enjoy.
In response to my jibe about the urban rail advocates cheering the Red Line, a well-meaning comment was placed asking why I care about what the Red Line did and is doing, given that everybody knows it’s just a spur. Here’s what I just posted in reply:
I will endeavor to be as brief as possible, but it’s frustrating how often I hear talk about beating a dead horse and then hear comments that make it clear I haven’t beaten it enough.
1. Although the part of the Red Line from Lamar to the CC was envisioned as an eventual spur in the 2000 line, and you and I and everybody with a brain knows it SHOULD be just a spur, Capital Metro does not agree – and is not treating it as such – and neither, now, is the city. Both Capital Metro and our city council members on the board are championing increased amounts of money spent on the Red Line as what they consider the backbone for rail service in the region. You’re engaged in wishful thinking on this one.
2. There’s only one strong backbone for rail possible in this city – and the Red Line is squatting on half of it. The city’s plan isn’t a backbone either – it envisions too low speeds; way too much shared guideway; and is unambitious even in the long-range about going far enough out to make much difference. The city’s plan is worth supporting because it’s better than nothing – but it will never be capable of being the backbone that the 2000 plan was (which is why it’s important to point out what the Red Line lost us).
3. The Red Line isn’t just a done deal either – it’s getting bigger and worse. Our city council members on Capital Metro’s board just approved the mid-day expansion in service which is going to increase the operating subsidy on this route from its already monstrously high $30+/ride – and this will result in more cuts to bus service that more Capital Metro taxpayers actually use in favor of serving a few more people from Round Rock and Cedar Park that don’t actually pay taxes.
4. If we’re going to get the city’s urban rail plan done, if it can even get passed, we need some of Capital Metro’s money to do it – and they’re going down a path where they’re spending all of it on the Red Line. (This is why it’s important to point out what the Red Line is currently losing us).
5. Even Dave Dobbs finally figured it out – in the middle of this very long piece on Light Rail Now: http://www.lightrailnow.org/news/n_aus_2010-04a.htm
“• In terms of fulfilling the long-range hope of inner-city rail transit supporters that the rail project could eventually develop into a reincarnation of the 2000 LRT concept, this became increasingly less likely, as CMTA’s management and rail planning team seemed more and more to perceive “urban commuter rail” and “Rapid Bus” as ends in themselves, while any plans for LRT to serve the Lamar-Guadalupe corridor and the Core Area receded further and further from consideration.”
(Dave took me to lunch in 2004 to try to get me not to oppose the Red Line, by the way – it’ll take him a while longer to admit that I was right – that this killed light rail here – but he’s clearly moving in that direction).
A response to a former friend on facebook:
Being ‘civil’, at least the definition used by some in response to yours truly, is how we got rolled by Mike Krusee in 2000 and 2004 and ended up with the Red Line, an 845 boardings/day disaster which has set back the cause of transportation in Austin for a generation. The hundred other strong rail advocates in this city put together have accomplished precisely nothing in getting Capital Metro to change by being nice (and maintaining access above all else).
Capital Metro is going to spend even more money starting in January, increasing the monstrous operating subsidy on this thing from its current figure of roughly $30/trip (huge compared to light rail around the country; doubly huge compared to buses), in the process eliminating far more useful bus routes, and spending money we will desperately need for urban rail (which, although nowhere near as good as the 2000 line would have been, would likely rack up around 20,000 boardings per day – a number the Red Line wouldn’t reach running a train every minute all day long).
It may be time to rethink that definition of ‘civil’. It may be more important to do the right thing than to remain friends with people who are doing the wrong thing.