AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[freerover]

Originally Posted by enragedcamel

I want public transport, but as someone who owns a house in the suburbs, I'm vehemently opposed to paying for it using a property tax increase.

Our property taxes are already insanely high. It is simply ludicrous that the city views property taxes as some sort of pinata whenever they need to raise money for a project.

Property taxes are just taxation on the middle class.

How about we pay for things by taxing those who can actually afford it? I'm talking about big businesses and the ultra-wealthy.

(I'm also against a sales tax increase, as sales taxes are regressive.)

The tax mechanisms you’re describing aren’t possible for a city.

[papertowelroll]

Originally Posted by urbancore

Clearly I struck a nerve with my use of term “slave labor”. For that I apologize. It was stupid and regrettable.

My point was not that “slaves” built those systems. More that very very very cheap labor was used. Were the Chinese immigrants who helped build out our nationwide rail system....slaves? probably not. I flippantly called those laborer “slaves”, but I ask you what you would call them? You don’t have to be a slave to be horribly exploited for your labor. Our nation has a long history of slavery and exploitation wages. I would argue that the current NCAA does much the same, shameful tactics. Work is done for woefully unequal pay.

My pot joke about the subway was a joke. Clearly. I know Austin will never have a subway or a “tunnel” in my lifetime. We will have autonomous cars or personal flying drones before then.....again another joke. Or not.

We have much better technology today than back in the era of the "slave labor" you are referring to. Do you seriously think it was easier to build something back then than today? You think the empire State building was an easier project in 1930 or today?

The real difference is political. Back then the country acted in a much more socialist fashion and was willing to spend huge amounts of money for collective good. (Much like they continue to do in Asia and Europe).

Also, the suburban lifestyle is extremely subsidized by the massive road system that we offer for free. It's rather comical hearing those who rely on single occupancy vehicles being against public transit for financial reasons.

[H2O]

Originally Posted by Austin1971

Talk about anti-rail! That guy was a real thorn in the side of LRT. I think in the past the city assumed the rail vote(s) would pass without putting much effort into them. This time the city needs to launch a serious campaign and really get the message out to the masses. If they do that it might have a shot. Taxpayers will be very skeptical about a $10+ billion plan which will inevitably balloon during construction. Just think if everything goes right we could see LRT around 2030!

Technically, if by 'the city' you mean the corporate government body and it's staff, they cannot advocate on a bond election. If anybody is going to launch a campaign, it has to be a grassroots effort from the citizens. Elected officials can personally advocate, but no government money or staff time by anybody employed by the City Manager, unless it is personal, after-hours effort and even then there are restrictions because many city staff are salaried and expected to work in public engagement after regular hours.

[We vs us]

It's still MUCH more expensive to build transportation systems today than it was back when many of the legacy systems we like to think of (NYC, Boston, Philly, Chicago) were built. Industrial Age labor was much cheaper, safety precautions much laxer, I'd even wager land acquisition costs were lower. And in both cities, deeply corrupt political machines made these things happen in ways that would be much less easy today.

Even versus our more efficient modern methods, as a bundle I'd bet the earlier systems were cheaper.

[papertowelroll]

Originally Posted by We vs us

It's still MUCH more expensive to build transportation systems today than it was back when many of the legacy systems we like to think of (NYC, Boston, Philly, Chicago) were built. Industrial Age labor was much cheaper, safety precautions much laxer, I'd even wager land acquisition costs were lower. And in both cities, deeply corrupt political machines made these things happen in ways that would be much less easy today.

Even versus our more efficient modern methods, as a bundle I'd bet the earlier systems were cheaper.

I'm not saying that you are wrong, but do you have sources for that? I'd be curious to see the numbers relative to GDP.

All I know is that all around the world ambitious projects like this get built, in countries that are both rich and poor. Even in the USA, Seattle has managed to get it done in the last decade.

I contend that what it really takes is a collectivist mentality that empowers the government to get things done for society, which is the opposite of what we have in the USA and especially Texas. For me this difference was very striking visiting Singapore; they will spend more on art projects than Austin spends on critical infrastructure.

[urbancore]

Originally Posted by papertowelroll

We have much better technology today than back in the era of the "slave labor" you are referring to. Do you seriously think it was easier to build something back then than today? You think the empire State building was an easier project in 1930 or today?

The real difference is political. Back then the country acted in a much more socialist fashion and was willing to spend huge amounts of money for collective good. (Much like they continue to do in Asia and Europe).

Also, the suburban lifestyle is extremely subsidized by the massive road system that we offer for free. It's rather comical hearing those who rely on single occupancy vehicles being against public transit for financial reasons.

1. No, I don't think it was "easier" to build then....I never implied that. I think the labor costs of building much of the infrastructure of the US over the last 150 years was much cheaper than it would be now. I think that is indisputable. I think the Empire State Building could not be built today as it was then with the same % labor costs.....the labor costs would change the entire project...which is one of the reasons why you see boring glass buildings now. Manual laborers were paid next to nothing....and disposable. The laborers who built my house in 2016 were paid a min of $30/hr, they worked 8 hour days, the odd Saturday...and I'm pretty sure most of them were undocumented. Point being, labor is much more expensive now....across the board.

2. I think "back then" it was probably a financial decision....they could afford it....so they did it. They had the density before they built it...the need was clear. I know that land and labor were much cheaper and plentiful....that doesn't mean everything was "easy"...clearly it wasn't. I wouldn't be able to argue if the US was more socialist or not...I have no idea. I know that places like NYC have had the density to support a massive rail system for more than 100 years....Austin doesn't have the density (something I've always argued FOR) and isn't zoned to allow us to ever have the density to support massive infrastructure investments. You need the people most likely to use it, to pay for it.....and you need LOADS of them. If you ask people who are not likely to use it to tax themselves....well good luck with that. Texas is completely unlike Europe or Asia....mainly due to lack of density.

3. I wouldn't characterize our road system as free....we do pay for it through massive taxes....via sales tax, city bonds, state taxes, fed taxes, huge gas taxes, tolls....are used in part to pay for our roads. Not sure how you came up with the idea they are free. That said, I do believe we should spend more on urban solutions....and that starts with massively increasing DENSITY. A system for the few winds up being a perk for the rich who live in town, at the expense of others....that's not fair.

4. The fact is we have a transit system that people don't utilize to its full potential. Most people loathe buses, but have a love affair with rail....my theory is that historically buses were used by the poor and its just not sexy.

Just because people complain they have to sit in traffic doesn't mean society owes them a cheap/easy/commute...by highway, bus, or rail. "Ask not what what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" . I believe that begins with living like people did for centuries....in dense interconnected communities with all the amenities they should need close by. Commuting by car long distances is an American nightmare..... but it doesn't have to be that way. The answer starts with each of us, not asking, or thinking the government is going to solve our commute times. You hate commuting? Do something about it.

[LiveattheOasis]

Love the idea of a city emissions tax. Been incredible to see what that has done to London in a short amount of time.

Just think it has to be it's own line-item and not part of a bond.

It would also be nice to see a few more cents from gas from the state government, but I'm not holding my breath.

On the flip side, always worth checking how much your own 401k and other investments are connected to the very things you're personally against. It's amazing how hedged we are as a society, whether we know it or not.

[urbancore]

Originally Posted by LiveattheOasis

Love the idea of a city emissions tax. Been incredible to see what that has done to London in a short amount of time.

Just think it has to be it's own line-item and not part of a bond.

It would also be nice to see a few more cents from gas from the state government, but I'm not holding my breath.

On the flip side, always worth checking how much your own 401k and other investments are connected to the very things you're personally against. It's amazing how hedged we are as a society, whether we know it or not.

I agree with you. What is the "city emissions tax" London implemented? What have been the effects?

[paul78701]

Originally Posted by urbancore

3. I wouldn't characterize our road system as free....we do pay for it through massive taxes....via sales tax, city bonds, state taxes, fed taxes, huge gas taxes, tolls....are used in part to pay for our roads. Not sure how you came up with the idea they are free. That said, I do believe we should spend more on urban solutions....and that starts with massively increasing DENSITY. A system for the few winds up being a perk for the rich who live in town, at the expense of others....that's not fair.

If it's not fair, as you say, to have those outside of the urban core help pay for a mass transit system which they might not use... How is it fair that those in the urban core help pay for the system of single occupancy roads/highways that those in the urban core might not use?

I'd argue that the trade off is fair. Especially since the latter road systems are far less efficient. Especially when you consider the amount of money that has been put into it.

Public money goes to many things that I might not ever use, but I can see where much of it is for the greater good of the city and surrounding communities. If one can't see the benefits of some of their tax dollars going toward helping their city and their communities, well, they're just selfish.

[nixcity]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_..._United_States

See bottom of the page for the MORE THAN FORTY municipalities that have light rail already. I'd say the 11'th most populous city in the country can do so as well especially since we already have the two most dense neighborhoods in the state and a new code that will increase density greatly.

[urbancore]

Originally Posted by paul78701

If it's not fair, as you say, to have those outside of the urban core help pay for a mass transit system which they might not use... How is it fair that those in the urban core help pay for the system of single occupancy roads/highways that those in the urban core might not use?

I'd argue that the trade off is fair. Especially since the latter road systems are far less efficient. Especially when you consider the amount of money that has been put into it.

Public money goes to many things that I might not ever use, but I can see where much of it is for the greater good of the city and surrounding communities. If one can't see the benefits of some of their tax dollars going toward helping their city and their communities, well, they're just selfish.

I agree with you, in theory, that a trade off is fair. But not ANY trade....the numbers have to work. How much money will be spent and what will it yield, and is that worth it? Here, we know what the money will be $10B, but what will it yield?

The urban core residents do benefit greatly from their tax money paying into roads, even though they may not use them as much....the shipping industry could not exist as it does without our roads.....that is one HUGE thing we all benefit from in almost incalculable ways.

I agree with you we all owe society a tax for services we may never use. Bonds are unique because we get to discuss this specific expenditure unlike
our city budget....where we get little say so in what happens with our tax money.
I think $10B bonds....(and all bonds honestly) should be ROBUSTLY debated and justified with numbers....not emotion. It's a LOT of money. We should encourage debate. Powers on all sides should make their best arguments based on facts, and reasonable people (we hope) will decide.

I haven't heard an argument for $10B that I think has a chance at winning.

[papertowelroll]

Originally Posted by urbancore

3. I wouldn't characterize our road system as free....we do pay for it through massive taxes....via sales tax, city bonds, state taxes, fed taxes, huge gas taxes, tolls....are used in part to pay for our roads. Not sure how you came up with the idea they are free. That said, I do believe we should spend more on urban solutions....and that starts with massively increasing DENSITY. A system for the few winds up being a perk for the rich who live in town, at the expense of others....that's not fair.

4. The fact is we have a transit system that people don't utilize to its full potential. Most people loathe buses, but have a love affair with rail....my theory is that historically buses were used by the poor and its just not sexy.

Just because people complain they have to sit in traffic doesn't mean society owes them a cheap/easy/commute...by highway, bus, or rail. "Ask not what what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country" . I believe that begins with living like people did for centuries....in dense interconnected communities with all the amenities they should need close by. Commuting by car long distances is an American nightmare..... but it doesn't have to be that way. The answer starts with each of us, not asking, or thinking the government is going to solve our commute times. You hate commuting? Do something about it.

You are completely missing the point.. We are already spending an enormous amount supporting the single-occupancy-vehicle based transportation system we currently have. A mass transit system would be much more economical in comparison.

Our "existing transit" system is trash because our roads are clogged with single occupancy vehicles.

[urbancore]

Originally Posted by nixcity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_..._United_States

See bottom of the page for the MORE THAN FORTY municipalities that have light rail already. I'd say the 11'th most populous city in the country can do so as well especially since we already have the two most dense neighborhoods in the state and a new code that will increase density greatly.

Again, I'm not pro or anti rail. I just predict the same for this bond as the last 2....due to the cost.

Our new code will not "increase density greatly", as an urbanist, I'm very sad to say. I'd be surprised if it moved the needle any more that what would happen under current zoning. The corridors are already slowly filling in without Code Cronk, and the transition zones will be gutted by the new "equity overlay", Garza pushed thru. Neighborhood plans, Historic zones, and deed restrictions will protect the rest of Austin's legacy neighborhoods from any REAL density. So basically we are talking about a few major corridors getting possible 10 story apartment buildings instead of the current 5-6 stories. That is the only real change I see....and it won't yield anywhere CLOSE to what we need for housing. What is before the council now is watered down, and will most likely get even wetter...once the NIMBY's come out.

West Campus (78705 = 33k) and Downtown (78701 = <15k) represent very few residents compared to the rest of the city....I truly wish the most of the entire city was zoned like WC....if that was the case....I think we would then have the density to justify the money for this bond.

[freerover]

Originally Posted by nixcity

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_..._United_States

See bottom of the page for the MORE THAN FORTY municipalities that have light rail already. I'd say the 11'th most populous city in the country can do so as well especially since we already have the two most dense neighborhoods in the state and a new code that will increase density greatly.

Yes, Austin is number 11t in total population and about 180 in population density which tells you why it doesn't have light rail.

[paul78701]

Originally Posted by freerover

Yes, Austin is number 11t in total population and about 180 in population density which tells you why it doesn't have light rail.

At least partially, the lower population density numbers are due to the fact that Austin has annexed a fair amount of undeveloped, uninhabited land over the aquifers for preservation. I don't believe most older cities don't have so much uninhabited land within their city limits. It would be nice to see population density numbers with such uninhabited parcels excluded. Or density numbers that just include the core of the city. We might find that Austin's overall density isn't as bad as some make it out to be. As has been mentioned before, downtown and the surrounding neighborhoods are among the densest in the state.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by paul78701

At least partially, the lower population density numbers are due to the fact that Austin has annexed a fair amount of undeveloped, uninhabited land over the aquifers for preservation. I don't believe most older cities don't have so much uninhabited land within their city limits. It would be nice to see population density numbers with such uninhabited parcels excluded. Or density numbers that just include the core of the city. We might find that Austin's overall density isn't as bad as some make it out to be. As has been mentioned before, downtown and the surrounding neighborhoods are among the densest in the state.

Yeah, ranking cities by population density, Round Rock is denser than Austin.


It's just not a useful measure comparing between cities of vastly different size.

A ranking by population-weighted density could be interesting, but I'm not sure anyone has made one.

[urbancore]

Originally Posted by papertowelroll

You are completely missing the point.. We are already spending an enormous amount supporting the single-occupancy-vehicle based transportation system we currently have. A mass transit system would be much more economical in comparison.

Our "existing transit" system is trash because our roads are clogged with single occupancy vehicles.

I get the point. But just because we spend money on roadways (which don’t have to be single occ trips, that is a personal choice by commuters), doesn’t mean we should wastefully spend money in the future. That is not a good argument.

I disagree that by any measurable metric, mass transit is “more economical by comparison”. The redline is subsidized to the tune of $30k per year per rider, if memory serves. The redline reduces traffic and commute times between Leander and Austin by a negligent amount, if at all. So if it doesn’t reduce traffic or commute times, who does it benefit? And is it worth that cost for a few thousand people?

Precisely how will this $10b change our trashy system and unclog our roads?

[papertowelroll]

Originally Posted by urbancore

I get the point. But just because we spend money on roadways (which don’t have to be single occ trips, that is a personal choice by commuters), doesn’t mean we should wastefully spend money in the future. That is not a good argument.

I disagree that by any measurable metric, mass transit is “more economical by comparison”. The redline is subsidized to the tune of $30k per year per rider, if memory serves. The redline reduces traffic and commute times between Leander and Austin by a negligent amount, if at all. So if it doesn’t reduce traffic or commute times, who does it benefit? And is it worth that cost for a few thousand people?

Precisely how will this $10b change our trashy system and unclog our roads?

Where did I say this solution would unclog our roads? The only solution for unclogging Austin's roads is to substantially reduce the population.

The point is, currently our roads are clogged full of single occupancy vehicles, and our transit system--with the sole exception of the Red line--has to share those same roads. That makes the existing transit system very undesirable, because it by definition is always slower than simply driving yourself.

We could of course allocate portions of roads for transit only, and that would "cost" very little, but we all know suburbanites would never go along with that plan. Hence the need for a plan like this that creates additional ROW for transit.

What this plan does is it gives us a transit system that isn't trash. A system that can actually move people independent of the speed of vehicle traffic.

The red line is a straw man. This system that is being proposed is completely different. The red line has a terrible route, it was designed without regard to where people live and want to go, and it also has extremely low capacity, frequency, and availability. I actually think that red line, even with the questionable route, would carry many more daily commuters if it simply ran more frequently for longer hours. As is it is very inconvenient to rely on. At least with the addition of the blue and yellow lines the red line will gain some more convenient and useful connections.

Plus, how much do we spend per driver in this city? These cost comparisons are always done from the perspective that roads are free and only mass transit costs money.

[Texnochracy]

If the City and CapMetro put a $10b light rail transit system on the ballot with 40 percent federal funding – so a $6b system, it will pass.

The proposed system has the crucial elements to function effectively, be financed transparently, and be politically popular

• It’s the right route. The 2000 rail vote only failed by 1,500 votes. Less that 1%. That same light rail line will be on the ballot 20 years later when the area surrounding the route has become even denser. UNO wasn’t even enacted till 2004 (West Campus population density is now > 22,000 per sq. mi.). That corridor through downtown with a spur through the second densest neighborhood in Austin (Riverside population > 10,000 per sq. mi.) that also provides utility to travelers with airport access is intuitive, and efficient with guaranteed high ridership by both residents and visitors.
• It’s not just two rail lines, it’s a system investment. Utility of the rail lines is not limited to people who live along the lines. By investing in a system network of high frequency bus routes that naturally feed the rail system, and also serve local mobility, all residents will see benefits.
• The financing method is politically compelling. By forming a Local Government Corporation with a Tax Rate Election, dedicated in perpetuity to transit operation, people know what they’re spending money on. It’s not a bond, a one-time infusion of funds as a stop gap to fix potholes or add a lane; it’s an investment that will continue improving and providing utility for generations.
• The funding will not be that controversial. Ask anyone if taxes are too high and they’ll say yes. Yes, a TRE may “hurt” some highly property wealthy folks but the majority of Austinites are not. Austin has more renters than homeowners (52%), and despite perceptions, renters do vote. Also, property taxes are a gripe for everyone, myself included but people understand big investments. I do believe that going big is an advantage here, not a disadvantage. Ie: you can be part of a “historic” investment in combating climate change and providing a high-quality alternative to driving in the city.
• This election. Whoever wins at the top of the ticket I don’t know, but turnout in cities is going to be bananas, whoever the nominee is. In 2018, a midterm, there was 62 percent turnout. That’s 404,000 of 657,000 registered voters. For context, in the 2016 presidential, there was 65 percent turnout, but in that election there were only 366,000 of 566,000 registered voters. In 2014 there was only 40 percent turnout. That’s 209,000 of 517,000 registered voters. That’s a huge question. What do those 400,000 people who’ve voted since the last rail election think about transit? I’m betting on a “for” rather than against.
• Transit success in cities. Houston passed a $3.5 billion transit election. Houston. Also, it passed overwhelmingly.
• Women vote for transit. I don’t care about stereotypical views of suburban moms with SUVs. The data says differently. There is extensive polling that shows women vote for transit at a higher rate than men, especially if the messaging is relevant.
• Current ridership trends. CapMetro ridership is up the past 15 months. Numbers don’t lie. Austinites are taking transit and want more of it.

Anyways, I hope to whatever infallible being this passes, otherwise this city heads in a much worse direction.

[kingkirbythe....]

Love the first post Texnochracy.