AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Dcbrickley

any data you have could not show causation either way. too many variables.

^this^

This is observational research, and inherently cannot show causal processes except in some pretty rigorous and specific circumstances. Lesson for those reading to learn: causal inference is hard y'all and you shouldn't do it improperly on a message board online.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Which economic downturn? 2008?

Or the one that's been hitting us in the last half of 2015 and onward? Using that theory, we'd be expecting DUIs to be going _down_ now.

2008. There is no economic downturn. There may be a relative lull in buildings going up, but jobs are going very well and jobs are what drive dispensable income.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Guess what industries are most affected by economic downturns? Those that rely on dispensable income, such as nightlife and recreation.

I'm also not sure I buy your basic thesis, especially since alcohol is one of those "sin stocks" which is considered recession-proof or even a contra-investment (people drowning their sorrows).

There may be an observable decrease in bar _profits_ during a recession, but you've also got to account for how much of that is bars cutting their margins (more happy hours, dollar beer nights, etc.) to keep business in hard times. Which would result in less money for the industry but potentially no decrease in consumption.
Then you'd also have to account for potentially increasing incidences of "pre-partying".

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

2008. There is no economic downturn. There may be a relative lull in buildings going up, but jobs are going very well and jobs are what drive dispensable income.

Not directly. Disposable income is income - living expenses. Okay, I know you know that and I'm probably just being a pedantic asshole.


But the very real state of Austin right now is that expenses are going up faster than median incomes for many/most. So even if job growth stays steady, you're seeing a per-capita decrease of disposable income. It's been that way for a while now.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Novacek

I'm also not sure I buy your basic thesis, especially since alcohol is one of those "sin stocks" which is considered recession-proof or even a contra-investment (people drowning their sorrows).

There may be an observable decrease in bar _profits_ during a recession, but you've also got to account for how much of that is bars cutting their margins (more happy hours, dollar beer nights, etc.) to keep business in hard times. Which would result in less money for the industry but potentially no decrease in consumption.
Then you'd also have to account for potentially increasing incidences of "pre-partying".

It's not my research area, as you probably well know from interacting with me over the years here. The substantive nature of what I was saying was absolutely immaterial to my point, which was actually methodological in nature (because you asked for a methodological reply).

But, I'd argue (again, from a reading of this lit on google scholar) it is the other way around, where companies do better overall because more people are drinking but they're each drinking less overall - even if un sum they're drinking more - because they can't afford it. Thus, drunk [i]driving][\i] goes gown during recessions because people are only tipsy not drunk and goes up during booms. We all know from sociological research that people's drinking behavior actually changes during economic hardship. So, if people's behavior changes but the overall business cycle remains flat rather than fluctuating with the overall economy, that suggests that whatever behavioural changes that are occurring is interactive given some relevant variable that impacts drunk driving prevalence in a way that fluctuates with the overall economy (because drunk driving [i]does[\i] fluctuate with the overall economy). I.E. for some people drinking increases while for others it doesn't during a recession and for others it may decrease given some relevant variable. It would be the only way to explain the inconsistencies in the numbers, given the theoretical constructs I've been reading over the last thirty minutes on google scholar. That's why I suggested an interactive model earlier. But, of course, you wouldn't pick up on that at all.

[urbancore]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

It's not my research area, as you probably well know from interacting with me over the years here. The substantive nature of what I was saying was absolutely immaterial to my point, which was actually methodological in nature (because you asked for a methodological reply).

But, I'd argue (again, from a reading of this lit on google scholar) it is the other way around, where companies do better overall because more people are drinking but they're each drinking less overall - even if un sum they're drinking more - because they can't afford it. Thus, drunk [i]driving][\i] goes gown during recessions because people are only tipsy not drunk and goes up during booms. We all know from sociological research that people's drinking behavior actually changes during economic hardship. So, if people's behavior changes but the overall business cycle remains flat rather than fluctuating with the overall economy, that suggests that whatever behavioural changes that are occurring is interactive given some relevant variable that impacts drunk driving prevalence in a way that fluctuates with the overall economy (because drunk driving [i]does[\i] fluctuate with the overall economy). I.E. for some people drinking increases while for others it doesn't during a recession and for others it may decrease given some relevant variable. It would be the only way to explain the inconsistencies in the numbers, given the theoretical constructs I've been reading over the last thirty minutes on google scholar. That's why I suggested an interactive model earlier. But, of course, you wouldn't pick up on that at all.

When I was broke.....I just drank at home. Probably even more than I did going out, but who knows. In a recession, the bars downtown absolutely suffer. No question. I'm sure you can pull the records from the TABC website, but just from my own living/drinking here through 3 recessions....bars slow/shut down.

[The ATX]

TxDot filed for a permit today related to utilities for the rebuild of I-35 from Runberg to the Lady Bird Lake. The project is scheduled to begin in November 2020!

https://www.austintexas.gov/devrevie...erRSN=11530681

[the Genral]

Originally Posted by The ATX

TxDot filed for a permit today related to utilities for the rebuild of I-35 from Runberg to the Lady Bird Lake. The project is scheduled to begin in November 2020!

https://www.austintexas.gov/devrevie...erRSN=11530681

And take just 3 years to complete

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by the Genral

And take just 3 years to complete

Relocating the utilities? yeah, I could believe that could be done in 3 years. Then the real work would begin.

[urbancore]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Relocating the utilities? yeah, I could believe that could be done in 3 years. Then the real work would begin.

when will we know what exactly the "real work" is? do we know when they will choose the design?

I'm guessing they will go with the most boring.

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by Dcbrickley

when will we know what exactly the "real work" is? do we know when they will choose the design?

I'm guessing they will go with the most boring.

Despite the talk/videos/whatever about the design I think it's largely been decided. The road layout drawings attached to the permit have been on TxDot's website for a while.

[Tech House]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

...causal inference is hard y'all and you shouldn't do it improperly on a message board online.

You win my first-ever "epic internet comment one-liner of the month" award. It wins for being Truth and for being phrased in a way that can best be described as verbal umami. But now I have a craving for sushi.

[drummer]

I'm so glad that I don't live in Austin with that I-35 re-build happening in the near future. Wow, that's gonna be awful for anyone within 200 miles.

I am coming back for a brief visit before too long...so I would like to formally request that all road construction stop and unnecessary cars stay off the roads so I can enjoy my time. Thank you.

[lzppjb]

I hope Uber and Lyft leave. I want the city to realize how stupid they've been. I can't believe the voters fell for the "big corporate bullying" BS. Taxi lobby gets what they wanted. Have fun with that.

[paul78701]

Originally Posted by Novacek

How did they make you safer?

They may have made it more convenient or cheaper (saving you from driving and having to pay for parking).

How? Because the public transportation system here isn't up to snuff. Because, sometimes, you find yourself not being able to get a damn taxi like you thought you'd be able to. In that situation, one is left with little choice but to drive after a few drinks or ride with one of your friends who have had a few drinks. Riding in a Lyft/Uber with someone who hasn't had a drink at all is measurably safer than riding with someone who has been drinking. And, until now, it was always possible to find a Lyft/Uber (even if you had to pay more for surge pricing).

As far as safety goes, everyone keeps concentrating on the numbers relating to drunk driving. Nobody seems to be thinking about how it helps individuals themselves avoid semi-dangerous/dangerous situations.

The number of drunk drivers being busted is never going to really change. I believe that the number of DWIs depends on the number of cops on the road looking for drunk drivers. I'm certain that Lyft/Uber reduced the number of drunk drivers on the road. There's no way they didn't. But if there used to be 5000 on any given night before, and then 2500 on any given night with Lyft/Uber operating, there are still more than enough to be pulled over by the police. The number of DWIs simply does not reflect the actual number of drunk drivers. It just reflects the number of people that got busted. That number should be fairly constant and in line with the number of police patrolling the roads on any given night.

(I have no idea how many drunk drivers there may be on any given night. I pulled those numbers out of my ass just as an example.)

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by paul78701

How? Because the public transportation system here isn't up to snuff. Because, sometimes, you find yourself not being able to get a damn taxi like you thought you'd be able to. In that situation, one is left with little choice but to drive after a few drinks or ride with one of your friends who have had a few drinks.

You've always had the choice.


If you find cabs that unreliable (personally I've never had a problem getting one the admittedly few times I've tried), then you should have

DDed
Had one of your friends DD
Not waited until closing time to leave.

And if you're in that situation, you can
Night owl and then shank's mare it further than is comfortable.
Wait the extra 45-hour minutes it takes for cabs to become available.
Call and wake up a sober friend.

Uber and Lyft undoubtedly make it more convenient, I'm certainly not arguing that.

But you were always as safe as you chose to be.

Originally Posted by paul78701

I'm certain that Lyft/Uber reduced the number of drunk drivers on the road. There's no way they didn't.

Again, we just don't know that.

Maybe it induced more people to go downtown, a smaller percentage of which were irresponsible, but the total number of irresponsible stayed the same.
Some given % of which decided not to pay surge pricing.
Maybe those pouring into an uber now were those who's friends stopped them before, when the ones you always needed to look out for (then and now) are the ones that swear they're "still safe to drive" when they've had just 1 too many.


We just don't have the evidence to be making these claims, especially based purely on anecdotes.

[We vs us]

The question really isn't "is ridesharing a good thing," because of course it is.

The question is, "should Uber and Lyft be subject to local regulation." The answer to that is, of course they should.

[drummer]

^ I agree. Aren't there a handful of other cities looking to enforce, or at least consider, local regulations? I thought I read that somewhere amidst the news articles about this. If that is the case, it could be a significant enough impact on Lyft and Uber down the road to where they will work more to meet local regulations...or else lose more money than just that from Austin's market.

[We vs us]

Originally Posted by drummer

^ I agree. Aren't there a handful of other cities looking to enforce, or at least consider, local regulations? I thought I read that somewhere amidst the news articles about this. If that is the case, it could be a significant enough impact on Lyft and Uber down the road to where they will work more to meet local regulations...or else lose more money than just that from Austin's market.

Yep, all kinds of metros across the country are taking these actions. Houston has similar issues to ours, for instance. And NYC just agreed to a form of unionization for U/L drivers. That's one of the things we either forget or don't know, IMO -- Austin isn't outside the norm in attempting this. Regulatory issues are cropping up all over.

To me, U/L's reaction to Prop 1's was waaaay over the top but also something of a tell: 1) something about our Prop gets to the heart of their business model; 2) they are maximalist, winner-take-all negotiators and 3) decided to make Austin an example of sorts.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by The ATX

Despite the talk/videos/whatever about the design I think it's largely been decided. The road layout drawings attached to the permit have been on TxDot's website for a while.

Is it the cap-able version?