This morning, M1EK jr rode the 335 2.75 miles west from the closest stop to our house, to GRID TRANSFER!!!1 to the 20, to get to his new high school. The 20 was pretty heavily ridden with fellow students.
The 335 was a personal limo, in which the driver drove just one person, my son, for 2.75 miles.
(Previously, a friend of ye olde crackplog has pointed out similar results on his own ride; and the actual ridership statistics are pretty dismal. Go look them up yourself if you need to).
Here’s the last line of that post from May of 2018:
(I had this ready to post to #atxfreedomurbanists, Austin’s only urbanist group that doesn’t suck, but facebook has been down all day and I’m tired of waiting).
In 2015, I wrote a series of posts about pushing for honesty in our transportation agencies. I promoted this effort in atxurbanists and internally at AURA, and was mocked and belittled by the leadership of AURA for my trouble. Today, it appears that Project Connect is now repeating history so convincingly that even Julio has had enough. Too bad he didn’t think so in 2015. Follow the two links for details.
From vast experience in this community, the engagement method you suggest (one-on-one private conversations) affords executive staff & policymakers unnacountable discretion. My – apparently ignored – request was for a public explanation of changes & formal public version control.â€” Julio Gonzalez Altamirano (@juliogatx) March 13, 2019
Tweet by Julio Gonzalez Altamirano, just earlier today
AURA, run by grifters and con-artists, bought in heavily to the grid redesign fairy dust theory. It didn’t hurt that their 2 chief transit gurus live on the northern part of the 5 route and hated the jog through Hyde Park and NUNA (that was responsible for a lot of riders, but not the 2 most important ones, obviously).
First few months look good. Single digit fixed ridership increases. Huge increases in rapid (but this is comparing to a year ago when frequency wasn’t good, especially weekend).
Now we’ve got our first comparison that matters: Sep 18 to Sep 17. UT is back in session; AISD kids are back in school and not able to joyride even though they’re still being offered free rides.
Fixed-route1 ridership is significantly down – even though one would expect the impact of Cap Remap in a flat ridership scenario to show more rides, because the redesign forces more people to take 2 rides instead of 1 to get to their destination.
And my “capmetroatx” column in tweetdeck suddenly became full of complaints about UT students being miserable for not having the RR and the 5 (both the 10 and the IF are now full to overcrowding, leaving many people at stops, and they’re pissed about it, in addition to the normal “where’s my supposedly frequent bus” complaint you’ll see represented to the right). This volume of complaints is huge compared to what I saw in spring of 18.
And a friend of the crackplog forwarded me this image showing how well one of the new frequent cross-town routes is doing:
Man, if only somebody had told Cap Metro ahead of time that this was a dumb idea.
So we have at the very least some very convincing circumstantial evidence that the lower ridership probably isn’t due to weather2; it’s probably due to the fact that they took some buses away from places that were using them very well (the 5 through HP and NUNA; the RR); and put them on routes where they are not being used very well (i.e. the 335).
I’ll fill in this post with more details later. But suffice to say – the Pollyannas were wrong again; not that they’ll ever learn.
normal buses, basically; remember that the Rapid changes weren’t part of the Remap – they preceded it ↩
should have been no surprise. If you follow me on twitter, and why wouldn’t you,1 you’ve been hearing about this ever since my meeting with Clarke at the end of May. If you missed the news, try Caleb’s run-down.
The angle nobody is covering so far is that while a bond election is probably required to pay for the infrastructure bills involved, no technical “rail referendum” is necessary. So Cap Metro buys themselves a lot of wiggle room here – asking the city to hold a bond election in a low turnout time if they choose to, for instance.
As for the rest of it: it’s over. AURA, FAN, #atxrail – they were all warned; and they all stayed silent in a stupid naive attempt to fix things with the back-channel communications that never meant anything, and as a result, we’re never getting light rail in Austin.
Today’s “worst person in Austin” award goes to Randy Clarke, who is just a more effective liar than the old leadership. Nobody in the community asked for robot buses as a fig leaf for BRT, but that’s what he’s claiming the community wants and needs. That’s enough for ten awards, but one will have to suffice. But honorable mention “worst person in Austin” awards go to the credulous nitwits in those groups above, who were all warned back when there was time to make enough fuss to possibly change this2, and chose yet again to disregard my warnings.
In the Route 801 corridor, the primary impacts of the BRT project were to (1) replace an existing limited stop service “Route 101” with limited-stop service upgraded to BRT standards and new evening service hours, (2) reduce the frequency of the existing local service “Route 1” by half, and (3) add a feeder route at each of the two new terminal stations to provide connections to Route 801 from a wider area.
In summary, the BRT project had impacts on transit service that were very different between the two corridors in two important ways:
BRT MetroRapid Route 801 was essentially a modest upgrade of an existing limited-stop route; in contrast, MetroRapid Route 803 introduced a BRT-standard limited-stop service into a corridor where no limited-stop service had existed; and
Service frequencies on the principal local route in the Route 801 corridor were significantly lower “half their former levels” after project opening; in contrast, service frequencies on the principal local route in the Route 803 corridor were only moderately lower after project opening.
In 2016, two years after project opening, ridership on MetroRapid Route 801 was 5,800 boardings per average weekday. Ridership on the reduced-frequency local Route 1 was 5,700 for a total of 11,500 boardings on the principal services in the North Lamar/South Congress corridor. Feeder Routes 201 and 275 added a total of 1,700 weekday boardings in the corridor, some of which were transfers to/from Routes 801 and 1. The combined ridership on all four corridor routes was 2,400 fewer weekday boardings than the combined ridership of 15,600 weekday boardings on corridor routes before project opening. This ridership loss is attributable to three factors:
The significantly reduced frequency “by half” of the Route 1 local service which meant that riders who found the new MetroRapid stop locations to be inconvenient for their trips faced longer wait times for Route 1 buses at local stops;
The presence of limited-stop service on Route 101 before the introduction of MetroRapid which meant that MetroRapid was only a modest improvement over existing service; and
The higher fare for MetroRapid service compared to the fare charged on all other services both before and after the introduction of the MetroRapid routes.
The result was that MetroRapid attracted only a modest number of new transit riders to the corridor while the reduced local service caused a somewhat larger number of existing riders to abandon transit in the North Lamar/South Congress corridor.
tldr version: The 801 changes caused ridership to DROP in this corridor. The FTA concluded so based on Capital Metro’s own numbers. It’s time for the water-carriers like “Novacek” to abandon their attempts to spin the unspinnable.
WHEREAS the City of Austin does not receive adequate mobility benefits from the currently proposed Long Range Transit Plan due to its reliance on “rapid bus” transit without separate right-of-way
WHEREAS a “rapid bus” line does not and cannot provide the necessary permanent infrastructure to encourage mixed-use pedestrian-oriented densification along its corridor
WHEREAS the vast majority of Capital Metro funds come from residents of the City of Austin
WHEREAS the commuter rail plan proposed as the centerpiece of this plan delivers most of its benefits to residents of areas which are not within the Capital Metro service area while ignoring the urban core which provides most Capital Metro monies
THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Urban Transportation Commission recommends that the City Council immediately reject Capital Metro’s Long-Range Transit Plan and begin working towards a plan which:
A. delivers more reliable and high-performance transit into and through the urban core, including but not limited to the University of Texas, Capitol Complex, and downtown
B. requires additional user fees from passengers using Capital Metro rail services who reside in areas which are not part of the Capital Metro service area
C. provides permanent infrastructure to provide impetus for pedestrian-oriented mixed-use redevelopment of the Lamar/Guadalupe corridor
IF CAPITAL METRO will not work with the City of Austin on all items above, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the UTC advises the City Council to begin preparations to withdraw from the Capital Metro service area and provide its own transit system in order to provide true mobility benefits to the taxpayers of Austin.
Last fall, I made this post in which I attended a Friends Of Hyde Park briefing on Project Connect in which I took major issue with Javier Arguello defending a supposed I-35 BRT project in Minneapolis as a successful high-capacity-transit investment (it wasn’t and still isn’t actually running yet, and will suck if it ever gets built), and then using a bad sort-ofBRT project and a bad mixed-traffic streetcar project as the other two pictures, cooking the books against people considering light-rail transit in the center of an arterial roadway. Hey, here’s a picture of what I wrote last fall!
A friend of the crackplog reports that the picture below was just used yesterday, May 3, 2017, to brief City Council about the progress, showing examples of successful high-capacity transit investments.
That’s OK, though. Let’s check with our local urbanist org, Austinites For Urban Rail Action:
Oh good, they’re on the MCAG and have been since last fall! Let’s check to see how they have reacted. I’m sure there’s lots of stuff they’ve written since last fall, using this board seat to good ends. I’m sure they have spoken truth to power; afflicted the comfortable; etc etc. Here, I’ve loaded up everything they have said in public about Project Connect 2.0 for your persual:
I’ve been describing it as “activist flypaper” for years – and am sad to state that may have been overly optimistic. My quick reading of the code makes it lookÂ even worse than what we have today. I don’t think many, so far, disagree at a high level, too. It basically zones the entire city outside downtown and corridors to a maximum of 2 stories (even the parts where the new transect code applies, much less the huge swaths of the city which still get essentially the old code) and adds additional restrictions on ADUs compared to current code. It adds code obstacles for even downtown redevelopment by promulgating stupid ideas about minimum lot width and floor plates. The plan, folks, is a bad plan. Even if you like planning, it’s a bad plan. For a freedom urbanist, it’s horrible.
This is not a step forward; it’s a step back. My strategic take is going to be to try to support those making individual recommendations for change1 but to also urge everybody to look at the plan as a whole and remember “worse than nothing”, which this thing is. Rather, it’s worse thanÂ doing nothing. Current code, as suburban as it is, is still better than this piece of garbage.
register on the site linked above, then wade through hundreds of pages of code through a bad internal scroll window to make comments that will doubtlessly be used as evidence of a public input process but not be taken seriously ↩
An awful lot of people parroted the same talking points supported by your cards (i.e. the large print) in your ‘explainer’ article and ignored statements from uber and lyft to the contrary (only stated as “The companies say they cannot operate […]” in the small text).
What do I mean?
Here’s one example of your explanation of what a yes/no vote would mean:
Note that both side of the card start with Uber and lyft will.
Huh. Here we are immediately after the election, and what happened?
But wait. That can’t be right! Let’s look at KUT’s card again. Maybe we read it wrong.
Wait, it still seems to say that if we voted NO, Uber and lyft drivers would be forced to do the things that we want.
Note: In 2017, when this came up again, and I had to repair this page from the Great Pharma Hack Of 16, I noticed that card 2 and card 3 weren’t actually the same card. Sorry. I think it’s still clear enough what the issue was with each).