AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[freerover]

Originally Posted by urbancore

I'm sorry to hear that. Rail without density (like 10k+ per sq mile) serves too few people for too much $. Code Cronk will no little to nothing to fix this, I'm sad to say. Our corridors are filled with 1 story strip malls and new 3-5 story apartment complexes....when they should be 10-12 stories. Proposed transition zones are only a couple of blocks deep and do little to add real density. If you could snap your fingers tomorrow and have the entire city built out to it's highest density, we still would not come close to Portland, Or. Our downtown LOOKS impressive, but really there are less than 25k people living downtown....even if that doubles in 10 years (it won't), that is still a drop in the bucket compared to the 1million plus on our streets.

Austin is too spread out....+ Texan's love their cars + rail cost way too much + rail does too little to reduce cars on the road + conservative voters won't vote for it = bond failure.

What has changed since the voters turned this down twice? Nothing...the burbs have outgrown the urban core, and the burbs will not vote themselves a huge tax increase (most of them are conservative compared to the urban core).

Show me the money....

The electorate has changed considerably. The people that are more likely to be pro transit are registered and committed to vote.

[Austin1971]

Originally Posted by freerover

the electorate has changed considerably. The people that are more likely to be pro transit are registered and committed to vote.

c

[freerover]

Originally Posted by Austin1971

City better have a great campaign pushing this thing.

Is jim skaggs still alive?

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by urbancore

What has changed since the voters turned this down twice? Nothing...the burbs have outgrown the urban core, and the burbs will not vote themselves a huge tax increase (most of them are conservative compared to the urban core).

Show me the money....

Define "burbs"

Do you mean the actual suburban municipalities or the further suburban stretches in Austin city limits?

In the case of the former, they don't really matter. They won't be part of a city tax vote.

That's a change from the 2000 vote, which passed (barely) in city limits but not outside.


In the case of the later, yes the outer reaches of Austin are fairly suburban-like. But that was the case in 2000 as well, and again the vote was quite close. Between Austin significantly slowing (and now the legislature nearly stopping) annexation and infill, it's looking likely that the next census will actually show an increase in density in Austin limits, reversing the trend of the last ~50 years.

So yes, quite a lot of change since 2000.


Compared to 2014, we've got (probably) a slight increase in density and a pretty significant increase in congestion.

In addition, the type of system we'd be voting on is vastly different from then. Between a larger LTR component and packing in other lines (commuter, bus) it's covering (or at least near) a lot larger portion of the electorate.

Now, it cuts both ways. The price tag is significantly higher than 2014.

And as mentioned, it's a Presidential election year instead of being an off-year election.

So yes, quite changed from 2014 (some good, some bad) as well.

[urbancore]

Originally Posted by freerover

The electorate has changed considerably.

Exactly how so?

The urban core is still liberal and the burbs are still fiscally conservative. What exactly has changed, besides more people?

Banking on renters, students, minorities, and the working class to show up and vote this year is a big gamble. The voters you CAN count on are burb voters.....there are more of them than ever.

Numbers don't lie....2018 swing voters were dominated by suburban soccer moms..I imagine the same thing will happen in 2020. It is predicted they will show up again in force to vote down the current admin.....These are the gals who drive the kids to school in SUV's...they don't take the train.....and they are fiscally conservative. $400/yr (it will be WAY more than that when it's all said and done, let's be real) for a train they will never use, won't fly.

https://www.census.gov/library/stori...n-turnout.html

Also, can we get real about the gov and their "projected" numbers? When has the gov ever tackled something like this without HUGE cost overruns? This could easily cost double or triple....meaning....the money will get used for 1/3 of what is proposed....they all blame each other, time goes by, cost escalate and the electorate bitch. No city in the world has "figured out" traffic.....and no amount of rail will fix it without density.

I don't deserve a short/cheap/easy commute at the expense of my fellow taxpayers from 20 miles away. I owe it to my community to choose to live closer to my work/recreation spots. We all make choices and then we love to bitch about it incessantly at the water cooler.....it's boring. I've heard about the awful traffic in the town since '83. How much longer does it take me to get around.....not longer at all. Zero.....but I don't choose to drive to stores 15 miles away, I shop/eat/work locally (within a couple of miles of my home)....and don't tell me "you're lucky", or " well, that doesn't work for everyone"....no kidding. But, damn near all of us can work towards reducing our civic footprint (so to speak).....or don't....it's your life....but I don't want to subsidize a commuter from Leander so they can live in a 4000 sqft house for $300k.

[nixcity]

Aside from what others have said we do have at least one poll after the last vote that looks positive. https://www.austinmonitor.com/storie...rt-light-rail/
Aside from that our density across the more than 300 square miles is arond 60% of the density of portland. Portland doesn't have anywhere with the density of WC and downtown. https://www.google.com/search?safe=s...4dUDCAo&uact=5
This will not be easy, we will have to fight and a lot will be determined by the wording, buildup to the election, voter turnout, and how they split the money in terms of bond vs. tax increases. Remember even Phoenix passes a multi billion dollar transit bond a few years ago.

[freerover]

Originally Posted by urbancore

Exactly how so?

The urban core is still liberal and the burbs are still fiscally conservative. What exactly has changed, besides more people?

The last rail vote was a mid term in 2014 where only %40 of registered Austin voters, voted. Before 2016, the voters that typically sat out mid terms tended to be less affluent, more liberal and more likely to support mass transit and be less affected by the tax cost.

There are also 150,000 more registered voters in Austin now than in 2014. The combined likely better participation than 2018 (let's assume %70) and increased registered voters, you're looking at about an extra 250,000 voters to the 2014 rail bond when that one lost by 27,000 votes.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by urbancore

Also, can we get real about the gov and their "projected" numbers? When has the gov ever tackled something like this without HUGE cost overruns? This could easily cost double or triple

No, it won't.

These preliminary numbers are vastly, possibly way overconservative.

Meaning they're much higher than other systems built in American have ended up being.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by urbancore

https://www.census.gov/library/stori...n-turnout.html

The word "suburb" doesn't appear anywhere at that link. What are we supposed to learn from that story?


Plus as mentioned, that was midterms. Historically the electorates for midterm and Presidential elections are different.

[urbancore]

Originally Posted by Novacek

1. Define "burbs"


2. That's a change from the 2000 vote, which passed (barely) in city limits but not outside.


3. In the case of the later, yes the outer reaches of Austin are fairly suburban-like. But that was the case in 2000 as well, and again the vote was quite close. Between Austin significantly slowing (and now the legislature nearly stopping) annexation and infill, it's looking likely that the next census will actually show an increase in density in Austin limits, reversing the trend of the last ~50 years.


4. So yes, quite a lot of change since 2000.


5. Compared to 2014, we've got (probably) a slight increase in density and a pretty significant increase in congestion.


6. In addition, the type of system we'd be voting on is vastly different from then. Between a larger LTR component and packing in other lines (commuter, bus) it's covering (or at least near) a lot larger portion of the electorate.


7. Now, it cuts both ways. The price tag is significantly higher than 2014.

And as mentioned, it's a Presidential election year instead of being an off-year election.


8. So yes, quite changed from 2014 (some good, some bad) as well.

1. for our case I would define them as the SF voters....


2. The 2000 bond vote, as I recall, was $1b. For light rail that would take away existing lanes from cars, would travel at 25mph in town, stop along with traffic lights. The financial burden on the average homeowner wasn't anywhere near what it would be now...and it still was voted down.

3. Again, when the final number is fleshed out....and "infill" voters are asked to vote themselves a huge tax increase (most "dirt" value for infill homes (Ill define as 183/I-35/Ben White/Mopac)is more than $400k....so they will be looking at closer to $600-1k per year)
Tovo's district, much of Kitchen's district, Flannigan, Ellis, Alter and Pool's districts are all really more like $600k-1m plus homes) I don't see those people paying nearly $100/mo increase. Alter's Rosedale house is easily $900-1M herself. Kitchen probably $600-700k. These are real numbers, and this will come down to numbers. All these CM's constituents are done paying more in taxes........they complain constantly at the ZNA meetings I attend. They sound very conservative quite honestly compared their traditional "progressive" appearance. This phenomenon should be talked about more....aging progressives acting more like the fiscal conservatives they've railed against their entire lives. (look at nimbys)

4. I agree. But in the end, people will vote their pocketbooks and without more renters than homeowners voting (IMO, you need a huge renter turnout to get this passed), it's DOA.

5. I can assume that, but I would like to know the actual numbers. How much are commute times from point to point in Austin? How have they changed...precisely? How much are we willing to spend to lower those times and how low can we get them....and should we, or will that just induce demand when commute times are lower and we are back to square one....but with a $10B bill to pay? Kinda like the Katy freeway. They reduced the commute times for 2 years by adding lanes, now it is worse than it was.

6. I'm all for buses over fixed rail. Bring them on...give em dedicated lanes and cut outs for pick up/drop off....I'm all for it.

7. Yes, more voters will come out on all sides. History doesn't favor the renters (the most likely users of an expensive fixed rail) showing up.

8. I agree.


Lastly, I think it is important to have these conversations....not just blindly support a HUGE expense (the largest in Austin's history BY FAR). How much is too much? How can we serve the most number of people, in the most efficient way possible? What do we owe commuters...what should be a commuter's expectations? And if we are not willing to make meaningful changes to our code to allow for areas of massive increased density, then how can we justify the expense paid by all for the benefit of so few?

[Austin1971]

Originally Posted by freerover

is jim skaggs still alive?

t

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by urbancore

1. for our case I would define them as the SF voters....


2. The 2000 bond vote, as I recall, was $1b. For light rail that would take away existing lanes from cars, would travel at 25mph in town, stop along with traffic lights. The financial burden on the average homeowner wasn't anywhere near what it would be now...and it still was voted down.

3. Again, when the final number is fleshed out....and "infill" voters are asked to vote themselves a huge tax increase (most "dirt" value for infill homes (Ill define as 183/I-35/Ben White/Mopac)is more than $400k....so they will be looking at closer to $600-1k per year)
Tovo's district, much of Kitchen's district, Flannigan, Ellis, Alter and Pool's districts are all really more like $600k-1m plus homes) I don't see those people paying nearly $100/mo increase. Alter's Rosedale house is easily $900-1M herself. Kitchen probably $600-700k. These are real numbers, and this will come down to numbers. All these CM's constituents are done paying more in taxes........they complain constantly at the ZNA meetings I attend. They sound very conservative quite honestly compared their traditional "progressive" appearance. This phenomenon should be talked about more....aging progressives acting more like the fiscal conservatives they've railed against their entire lives. (look at nimbys)

4. I agree. But in the end, people will vote their pocketbooks and without more renters than homeowners voting (IMO, you need a huge renter turnout to get this passed), it's DOA.

5. I can assume that, but I would like to know the actual numbers. How much are commute times from point to point in Austin? How have they changed...precisely? How much are we willing to spend to lower those times and how low can we get them....and should we, or will that just induce demand when commute times are lower and we are back to square one....but with a $10B bill to pay? Kinda like the Katy freeway. They reduced the commute times for 2 years by adding lanes, now it is worse than it was.

6. I'm all for buses over fixed rail. Bring them on...give em dedicated lanes and cut outs for pick up/drop off....I'm all for it.

7. Yes, more voters will come out on all sides. History doesn't favor the renters (the most likely users of an expensive fixed rail) showing up.

8. I agree.


Lastly, I think it is important to have these conversations....not just blindly support a HUGE expense (the largest in Austin's history BY FAR). How much is too much? How can we serve the most number of people, in the most efficient way possible? What do we owe commuters...what should be a commuter's expectations? And if we are not willing to make meaningful changes to our code to allow for areas of massive increased density, then how can we justify the expense paid by all for the benefit of so few?

2. But in the actual city, it passed.


3. You can’t compute a yearly tax burden without knowing the rate. If everyone’s houses are valued that high, consequently the rate will be lower.

5. I’d almost sell my soul to induce demand on rail.
Because then you add a few more cars (cheap).

[urbancore]

Originally Posted by Novacek

The word "suburb" doesn't appear anywhere at that link. What are we supposed to learn from that story?


Plus as mentioned, that was midterms. Historically the electorates for midterm and Presidential elections are different.

I should clarify....when I said suburb....I mean single family home owners...non renters.

Women will determine this vote as they have for decades......soccer moms.
http://cawp.rutgers.edu/sites/defaul...genderdiff.pdf

Yes, the midterms is always a lower turnout. But the 2018 was historic due to the larger than expected turnout.....and who turned out the most...per that link? Women. If we can extrapolate that women are far more likely live in single family situations...and if I can deduce that they will vote their pocket books and suv's.....they will turn their noses up to $10b.

I also deduce from that link that younger voters (renters) will increase in total but they NOT turn up in the numbers to overcome the expected stampede of soccer moms ready to vote out Trump.

[paul78701]

Originally Posted by urbancore

5. I can assume that, but I would like to know the actual numbers. How much are commute times from point to point in Austin? How have they changed...precisely? How much are we willing to spend to lower those times and how low can we get them....and should we, or will that just induce demand when commute times are lower and we are back to square one....but with a $10B bill to pay? Kinda like the Katy freeway. They reduced the commute times for 2 years by adding lanes, now it is worse than it was.

Mass transit isn't about reducing congestion or commute times on roads/highways. There will always be people who won't leave their car. (Fixing bad roads is helpful, but adding lanes to roads/highways only provides a temporary reprieve.) Mass transit is about giving commuters an alternative to driving on roads/highways. People who complain that light rail or whatnot do not help with traffic don't seem to understand that mass transit isn't really about helping/fixing traffic. It's about providing alternatives.

Also, it wouldn't cost $10B. The federal government will end up covering about 40% of the bill.

[urbancore]

Originally Posted by paul78701

Mass transit isn't about reducing congestion or commute times on roads/highways. There will always be people who won't leave their car. (Fixing bad roads is helpful, but adding lanes to roads/highways only provides a temporary reprieve.) Mass transit is about giving commuters an alternative to driving on roads/highways. People who complain that light rail or whatnot do not help with traffic don't seem to understand that mass transit isn't really about helping/fixing traffic. It's about providing alternatives.

Also, it wouldn't cost $10B. The federal government will end up covering about 40% of the bill.

I agree with your first statement completely. But you and I both know, this will sold as a “solution” to traffic/congestion/commute times, which will be completely dishonest.

I’m all for alternatives, but the numbers have to work. Even at $6B (and are we 100% certain the feds will poney up $4b, then who funds daily ops, and how much is that?) this isn’t emotion, it’s real tax increases....that need to yield real, measurable benefits to the taxpayers. Show taxpayers exactly how much we all spend per person, and what exactly we get for it, and what exactly we as a community stand to gain....all things to be measured.

How many cars will this system remove from the road?
How many minutes will be shaved off the average commute time?
Who and how many benefit?
Who and how many don’t benefit? surely this isn’t a win-win.
What is the cost per rider per year?
Is it ethical for me to ask my neighbor to subsidize my cheap/quick/easy commute? I would argue no, it is my moral obligation to the community to reduce my need for extensive commutes to where I work/shop/visit. I live my life like this, selfishly of course, cuz I hate sitting in traffic. If others choose to move far out and commute in, good for them....but what do we owe them? I say nothing, giving them a cheap/easy/commute only worsens suburban sprawl....something I’m totally against.

Again, give me density to support it financially and it makes sense. Without serious density increases (well beyond Code Cronk), it doesn’t pencil out and never will.

Btw, asking for this deal to pencil should not be controversial. Taxpayers are reasonable. Sell the numbers and not the emotion.....

Lastly. We need to stop comparing Austin to cities that were built on the back of slave labor (NYC/Chicago/San Fran/Dubai/Paris/London) These towns transit systems were built with labor was an afterthought. Austin will never have the density to support a real rail system (as an urbanist-I wish it did), and even if magically we had density overnight to support robust rail, (as a realist) we couldn’t afford it due to labor/land acquisition costs. Let’s get real y’all.

Buses are the only thing we can afford. Subway....... y’all must be high!

[freerover]

Originally Posted by urbancore

I agree with your first statement completely. But you and I both know, this will sold as a “solution” to traffic/congestion/commute times, which will be completely dishonest.

I’m all for alternatives, but the numbers have to work. Even at $6B (and are we 100% certain the feds will poney up $4b, then who funds daily ops, and how much is that?) this isn’t emotion, it’s real tax increases....that need to yield real, measurable benefits to the taxpayers. Show taxpayers exactly how much we all spend per person, and what exactly we get for it, and what exactly we as a community stand to gain....all things to be measured.

How many cars will this system remove from the road?
How many minutes will be shaved off the average commute time?
Who and how many benefit?
Who and how many don’t benefit? surely this isn’t a win-win.
What is the cost per rider per year?
Is it ethical for me to ask my neighbor to subsidize my cheap/quick/easy commute? I would argue no, it is my moral obligation to the community to reduce my need for extensive commutes to where I work/shop/visit. I live my life like this, selfishly of course, cuz I hate sitting in traffic. If others choose to move far out and commute in, good for them....but what do we owe them? I say nothing, giving them a cheap/easy/commute only worsens suburban sprawl....something I’m totally against.

Again, give me density to support it financially and it makes sense. Without serious density increases (well beyond Code Cronk), it doesn’t pencil out and never will.

Btw, asking for this deal to pencil should not be controversial. Taxpayers are reasonable. Sell the numbers and not the emotion.....

Lastly. We need to stop comparing Austin to cities that were built on the back of slave labor (NYC/Chicago/San Fran/Dubai/Paris/London) These towns transit systems were built with labor was an afterthought. Austin will never have the density to support a real rail system (as an urbanist-I wish it did), and even if magically we had density overnight to support robust rail, (as a realist) we couldn’t afford it due to labor/land acquisition costs. Let’s get real y’all.

Buses are the only thing we can afford. Subway....... y’all must be high!

Most of what you are asking for is here: https://assets.adobe.com/public/a3b4...sis%20(2019-20)

[plutonicpanda]

Originally Posted by urbancore

Again. I want it to pass.

But it won’t. I’m taking all bets, I’ll put money where my mouth is.

This is a pipe dream.

Austin is also seeing a huge increase in freeway expansion, something I support. Much to the dismay of many here, I hope the most ambitious proposal for the I-35 expansion is chosen. The reason I bring this is up is car drivers are seeing improvements and could be more open to supporting a transit bill. This entire is less than 10 billion and if a city like Austin won't even support that what hope is there?

Ideally there would be several more LRT transit lines but this is a great start. I just hope most of the proposed BRT and LRT lines are grade separated at major intersections.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by urbancore

Lastly. We need to stop comparing Austin to cities that were built on the back of slave labor (NYC/Chicago/San Fran/Dubai/Paris/London) These towns transit systems were built with labor was an afterthought. Austin will never have the density to support a real rail system (as an urbanist-I wish it did), and even if magically we had density overnight to support robust rail, (as a realist) we couldn’t afford it due to labor/land acquisition costs. Let’s get real y’all.

Of all the stupid excuses for Austin not having transit, "Austin Doesn't Have Slaves" has got to be the stupidest ever.

San Francisco Population 1860: 57k

Present day SF wasn't built on slave labor.

There's also the little problem of California, Illinois, NY... being free states.


And you think Austin can't have rail because of labor costs, but instead you want us to use buses, which are way more labor intensive?

Originally Posted by urbancore

Buses are the only thing we can afford.

Originally Posted by urbancore

Subway....... y’all must be high!

Good thing no one is proposing a subway then. Transit in a short tunnel does not a subway make (some media reports to the contrary).

Just like Seattle hasn't had a "subway" since 1990, just because they had a transit tunnel. *

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downto...Transit_Tunnel

If Austin does some tunneling (which is still just an option, not committed) it will be used by light rail (or brt, still not committed). It won't be subway weight vehicles, or width, or length (it won't be 6-8 train sets). The capacity in passengers/hour/line will be about an order of magnitude less than a subway.

Because yes, Austin isn't yet in the position to need that capacity.

*Seattle population 1860: 188. Not 188 thousand, one hundred and eighty eight people. And yeah, they never had slaves either.

https://population.us/wa/seattle/

[urbancore]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Of all the stupid excuses for Austin not having transit, "Austin Doesn't Have Slaves" has got to be the stupidest ever.

San Francisco Population 1860: 57k

Present day SF wasn't built on slave labor.

There's also the little problem of California, Illinois, NY... being free states.


And you think Austin can't have rail because of labor costs, but instead you want us to use buses, which are way more labor intensive?







Good thing no one is proposing a subway then. Transit in a short tunnel does not a subway make (some media reports to the contrary).

Just like Seattle hasn't had a "subway" since 1990, just because they had a transit tunnel. *

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Downto...Transit_Tunnel

If Austin does some tunneling (which is still just an option, not committed) it will be used by light rail (or brt, still not committed). It won't be subway weight vehicles, or width, or length (it won't be 6-8 train sets). The capacity in passengers/hour/line will be about an order of magnitude less than a subway.

Because yes, Austin isn't yet in the position to need that capacity.

*Seattle population 1860: 188. Not 188 thousand, one hundred and eighty eight people. And yeah, they never had slaves either.

https://population.us/wa/seattle/

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.

[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.)