HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Texas & Southcentral > Austin


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted Feb 8, 2010, 4:11 PM
M1EK's Avatar
M1EK M1EK is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by SecretAgentMan View Post
Whenever I am interviewed by the media, I use my real name. On this forum I use a pseudonym because it allows me to express my personal opinion, and occasionally share information that I wouldn't be able to otherwise. The only difference is that you can't connect my real name with my pseudonym. You've made some valiant efforts to guess, but you have been way off base. I know it is driving you crazy, but you will probably never figure it out; and even if you do, I will never confirm.
And of course the danger in this is that there are a lot of insiders who have direct (working for Capital Metro or contracting there) or indirect financial interests at stake - who might, let's say, have a financial interest in making it look like CM could continue down their path of further investment in commuter rail without endangering the city's urban rail project because their bread is buttered at CM, not at the city. Even though they are fundamentally incompatible - to the point where one of Brewster McCracken's proposals during the urban rail run-up was to wrest control of Capital Metro's capital budget from them.

(Note that planning for the urban rail project is being done partially under the auspices of the 1/4 cent program - money that CM has already announced they will now not be paying the CoA as promised. I think the city's urban rail plan will be impossible to achieve without some capital participation from Capital Metro).

Again, anonymity is fine - but not when used to undermine those who have the courage to be non-anonymous, and certainly not when done with some kind of presumption of insider status.
__________________
Crackplog: M1EK's Bake-Sale of Bile
Twitter: @mdahmus
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2010, 1:09 AM
SecretAgentMan's Avatar
SecretAgentMan SecretAgentMan is offline
CIA since 2003
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by M1EK View Post
And of course the danger in this is that there are a lot of insiders who have direct (working for Capital Metro or contracting there) or indirect financial interests at stake - who might, let's say, have a financial interest in making it look like CM could continue down their path of further investment in commuter rail without endangering the city's urban rail project because their bread is buttered at CM, not at the city. Even though they are fundamentally incompatible - to the point where one of Brewster McCracken's proposals during the urban rail run-up was to wrest control of Capital Metro's capital budget from them.

(Note that planning for the urban rail project is being done partially under the auspices of the 1/4 cent program - money that CM has already announced they will now not be paying the CoA as promised. I think the city's urban rail plan will be impossible to achieve without some capital participation from Capital Metro).

Again, anonymity is fine - but not when used to undermine those who have the courage to be non-anonymous, and certainly not when done with some kind of presumption of insider status.
I hope you're not talking about me. You don't know where I work (or even if I do). If you're going to impugn someone's integrity (even if they wish to remain anonymous) you should just come out and make direct accusations rather than hinting at it.

Cap Metro is likely going to operate urban rail. The City (Spillar and Leffingwell at least) have made it clear they do not intend to. The other options are Lone Star Rail, TxDOT or CTRMA, all pretty unlikely, I think. The only other option is to set up a separate non-profit funded by the various interested entities. That non-profit would likely contract with Cap Metro, or at least directly with their rail contractor, for operations so that it is coordinated well with Cap Metro.

Cap Metro does not reserve 1/4 of their operating revenue for the capital budget. At this point, any budget surplus is going to rebuild their operating reserve. That is why it will take 2 or 3 years before Rapid Bus will be operating. If 1/4 of their revenue was devoted to capital projects, they would have to cut services by 1/4, rather than improving and expanding services to support a rapidly growing city.

If you really think that is a good idea, then I would go as far as to say you really aren't the transit advocate you claim to be.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted Feb 12, 2010, 5:51 PM
M1EK's Avatar
M1EK M1EK is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by SecretAgentMan View Post
I hope you're not talking about me. You don't know where I work (or even if I do). If you're going to impugn someone's integrity (even if they wish to remain anonymous) you should just come out and make direct accusations rather than hinting at it.
Yes, I absolutely am talking about you. We have no way of knowing where you work; JMVC, for instance, has a strong incentive to make it look like investments in commuter rail expansion and Rapid Bus won't prevent the city's urban rail project from going forward, even though he knows full well they will not. There are others whose bread is buttered very thoroughly on Capital Metro's side who would have similar incentives to mislead, anonymously.

You've been impugning MY credibility this whole time, even though I do NOT post anonymously. And when I said, directly, that there's not enough rail dollars to go around (and that Rapid Bus investments will preclude urban rail on Guadalupe), you got curiously silent.

This isn't a personal attack; this is an effort to expose somebody who may not be contributing on the level. If you don't like it, contribute without impugning; contribute without trying to assert insider status; or let us know some details that can relieve our suspicion. There's really not a lot of valid reasons you shouldn't be able to identify yourself unless you DO have one of these conflicts of interest I mention above.
__________________
Crackplog: M1EK's Bake-Sale of Bile
Twitter: @mdahmus
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted Feb 13, 2010, 2:29 PM
SecretAgentMan's Avatar
SecretAgentMan SecretAgentMan is offline
CIA since 2003
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by M1EK View Post
Yes, I absolutely am talking about you. We have no way of knowing where you work; JMVC, for instance, has a strong incentive to make it look like investments in commuter rail expansion and Rapid Bus won't prevent the city's urban rail project from going forward, even though he knows full well they will not. There are others whose bread is buttered very thoroughly on Capital Metro's side who would have similar incentives to mislead, anonymously.

You've been impugning MY credibility this whole time, even though I do NOT post anonymously. And when I said, directly, that there's not enough rail dollars to go around (and that Rapid Bus investments will preclude urban rail on Guadalupe), you got curiously silent.

This isn't a personal attack; this is an effort to expose somebody who may not be contributing on the level. If you don't like it, contribute without impugning; contribute without trying to assert insider status; or let us know some details that can relieve our suspicion. There's really not a lot of valid reasons you shouldn't be able to identify yourself unless you DO have one of these conflicts of interest I mention above.
Does JMVC = John Michael Cortez? What does the V stand for?

Sorry, dude, I already told you that you were way off base. There really isn't any point to your guessing - you aren't ever going to guess my identity.

I don't have any ulterior motives other than as a transit advocate. As imperfect as Cap Metro is, I tend to stand up or them because they are OUR transit agency, and nobody else ever seems willing to do so. Cap Metro was birthed and exists in an extremely hostile anti-transit climate. The old boy road warrior network, and their hacks like Ben Wear, have had a heyday with Cap Metro from day one. It really irks me to see supposed transit advocates piling on at every opportunity.

So, yesterday I got through the Drag in under 5 minutes. If it weren't for catching a red light at Dean Keeton, I wouldn't have had to stop at all.

I really do think it would be ideal (from a transit perspective) to have dedicated lanes on the Drag - I'm just having a very difficult time imagining it. I mean, look at the hysteria over the Nueces Bike Bouevard! Can you imagine the uproar if Guadalupe was reduced to a single travel lane in each direction? It is already one of the most congested segments of roadway in the city.

Even with a comprehensive urban rail network, there will probably always be a need for local buses on the Drag. The total number of buses might be reduced somewhat, but there will still be a need to serve stops between the limited stops on the corridor, and some routes like the 5 will probably never be converted to rail.

If an exclusive center median trackway was introduced, cars and buses would have to share a single lane, and cars would get stuck behind bus stops. That doesn't seem very viable. South of 24th, the roadway section could be widened by eliminating bike lanes, parking and narrowing the already too narrow sidewalks. Not a very multi-modal approach. North of 24th, road widening would require demolition of historic, semi-historic and recently constructed buildings.

The most viable short term solution would be to have urban rail and buses share a lane. That would have to be the right lane, since buses only have doors on the right side. It would, in effect, be a shared lane, because cars would have to be allowed to enter the lane to make right turns. Fortunately, there are relatively few right turns into campus. Unless the local bus stops were reduced in number, the urban rail would get stuck behind every stopped bus, limiting speed. It seems like fairly limited transit benefit for a lot of automobile pain. I'd get behind it, but how many typical car driving citizens would?

That's why I think the only viable long term solution is a tunnel section under the Drag. Many older streetcar cities, like Boston, Toronto, and San Francisco, have tunnel segments for their streetcar systems. San Francisco is particularly interesting if you haven't experienced it. The MUNI LRVs are somewhat shorter than standard LRVs, and somewhat longer than typical streetcars. They operate mostly in two car consists, and in outer residential areas operate mostly in streetcar mode (and very slowly I might add). Once they enter the Market Street Tunnel (above the BART subway) they fly through Downtown at remarkable speed. On the surface of Market, there are more streetcars, buses, bike lanes, taxi stands and connections to historic cable cars for more local travel. It is a triple decker, multi-modal, transit extravaganza!

I'd like to think that Austin might one day have the multi-modal system it deserves. After all, Austin is on the verge of surpassing San Francisco in population (within City limits, not MSA). That will require citizens to stop fighting Cap Metro at every turn, and get behind whatever modest transit improvements can be made, instead of fighting tooth and nail for their own private visions of the perfect transit system.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2010, 6:06 PM
M1EK's Avatar
M1EK M1EK is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by SecretAgentMan View Post
So, yesterday I got through the Drag in under 5 minutes. If it weren't for catching a red light at Dean Keeton, I wouldn't have had to stop at all.
School was out yesterday. As it was on Friday. I drove the Drag both days too, and, yep, it was pretty nice.

Here's what it's like riding a bus north from downtown after 5:00 on a typical day.
__________________
Crackplog: M1EK's Bake-Sale of Bile
Twitter: @mdahmus
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted Feb 14, 2010, 8:24 PM
JMVC JMVC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 2
[QUOTE=M1EK;4696259]Yes, I absolutely am talking about you. We have no way of knowing where you work; JMVC, for instance, has a strong incentive to make it look like investments in commuter rail expansion and Rapid Bus won't prevent the city's urban rail project from going forward, even though he knows full well they will not. There are others whose bread is buttered very thoroughly on Capital Metro's side who would have similar incentives to mislead, anonymously.

Careful there, MIEK. Sounds a lot like you are calling me a liar. You do not know anything about me or my interests, nor what I know and do not know. My interest is the same as yours - a better transit system. Although I am indeed a Cap Metro employee, they do not pay me to mislead people. Just because I disagree with you does not mean I am misleading anyone. I imagine the real difference between our positions on things is that you read about things that are happening in Wear's column and on a few blogs, jump to conclusions and then go rant about it....and I am actually involved in many of the things you read about and privy to the discussions and context that Wear does not write about, I ask questions of the people involved to ensure I understand why decisions are made and their implications, AND THEN I go talk about it...that is my job.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted Feb 15, 2010, 10:12 PM
Jdawgboy's Avatar
Jdawgboy Jdawgboy is offline
Representing the ATX!!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin
Posts: 5,838
All I know is it has taken way too long for Capital Metro to get this commuter rail running. More than a year over schedule and way over budget. I would love to see light rail throughout the central core but I don't think Capital Metro is a good canidate for that.
__________________
"GOOD TIMES!!!" Jerri Blank (Strangers With Candy)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted Feb 15, 2010, 11:24 PM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 3,611
Lightbulb

Reading recent comments that there isn't room for rapid buses lanes on N. Guadeloupe and N. Lamar south of Airport Blvd., I wonder where the proposed 2000 light rail tracks would have fitted?

You just can't have room at grade for one and not the other.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted Feb 16, 2010, 6:00 PM
M1EK's Avatar
M1EK M1EK is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 2,194
Quote:
Originally Posted by JMVC View Post
Careful there, MIEK. Sounds a lot like you are calling me a liar. You do not know anything about me or my interests, nor what I know and do not know. My interest is the same as yours - a better transit system. Although I am indeed a Cap Metro employee, they do not pay me to mislead people. Just because I disagree with you does not mean I am misleading anyone. I imagine the real difference between our positions on things is that you read about things that are happening in Wear's column and on a few blogs, jump to conclusions and then go rant about it....and I am actually involved in many of the things you read about and privy to the discussions and context that Wear does not write about, I ask questions of the people involved to ensure I understand why decisions are made and their implications, AND THEN I go talk about it...that is my job.
JMVC's job, for those who don't know here, is basically PR for Capital Metro. Thus, obviously, his incentive is quite often going to be to take their pronouncements somewhat less critically and more optimistically than the average observer might consider warranted. It's his job. My job is to write software; the only reason I write so much about transit is that there's nobody else out there who knows anything about it who is willing to do it who isn't a completely anti-transit Neanderthal like Skaggs and company (a crackplog on this subject forthcoming) or completely in CM's pocket. Back to this issue, though:

For instance, in this specific case being discussed, we have a Rapid Bus plan that the Feds just funded that will make urban rail virtually impossible on Guadalupe while doing almost nothing to improve bus operations, and we have more spending on commuter rail being planned which will make funding urban rail anywhere else virtually impossible (very limited local rail dollars; somewhat limited federal rail dollars; funding NOT from completely separate places).

Because of JMVC's job, he can't say this, whether or not he believes it. He has to, in fact, say that CM's efforts don't affect the city's urban rail plans at all, and don't create any non-trivial obstacles to getting rail where we all know it needs to go (Guadalupe, as even he has said in the past).

Now, is he lying? No. He's a PR guy. He can rest on the small difference between "virtually impossible" and "completely impossible". That's his job. He can reply to the proverbial "one in a million" with, as a wise man once said, "so you're telling me there's a chance".
__________________
Crackplog: M1EK's Bake-Sale of Bile
Twitter: @mdahmus
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted Feb 18, 2010, 12:31 AM
SecretAgentMan's Avatar
SecretAgentMan SecretAgentMan is offline
CIA since 2003
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 346
Quote:
Originally Posted by M1EK View Post
For instance, in this specific case being discussed, we have a Rapid Bus plan that the Feds just funded that will make urban rail virtually impossible on Guadalupe while doing almost nothing to improve bus operations...

Because of JMVC's job, he can't say this, whether or not he believes it. He has to, in fact, say that CM's efforts don't affect the city's urban rail plans at all, and don't create any non-trivial obstacles to getting rail where we all know it needs to go (Guadalupe, as even he has said in the past).
There is absolutely no reason why Rapid Bus would have any impact on development of Urban Rail. The funding for Rapid Bus is included in this years proposed Federal budget. Cap Metro's local share is less than $10 million, which is less than 5% of the cost of the First Investment Segment (FIS) of Urban Rail. That is the equivelant of maybe three LRVs, or 1/4 mile of trackway. Cap Metro will spend that money in 2012 and 2013. The City intends to locally fund the FIS and it is not anticipated to be operable before 2017. Only the subsequent extensions to complete the 15 mile system envisioned in the Downtown Austin Plan would require Federal funding, and that is not anticipated to be complete until 2025. Following that, Urban Rail could be extended into the corridors to be served by Rapid Bus. By that time, the buses originally purchased for operation in 2012 and 2013 would be nearing the end of their operational lifespan. And even if there are new buses operating in those corridors, there is nothing to stop them from being used on different streets.

Rapid Bus and Urban Rail are physically compatible and complimentary. For the most part, they will serve different areas and functions, at least initially. The Rapid Transit Project, Future Connections Study and the Downtown Austin Plan Transportation Framework all recommended an alignment on San Jacinto transitioning to Brazos or Congress. The City is now also examining the Guadalupe/Lavaca corridor in recognition that more than one north-south alignment will likely be needed as the system expands, and to provide for greater flexibility in choosing a Lady Bird Lake crossing. Even if the FIS uses the Guadalupe/Lavaca corridor rather than the San Jacinto corridor, the rail and buses can co-exist. On a one-way street, buses can operate in the right hand lane, while rail can operate in the left hand lane, since rail vehicles have doors on both sides. Alternatively, both bus and rail can share a single dedicated lane on the right side. Since the Downtown segment of Urban Rail will likely operate more like a circulator, with frequent stops providing better access and coverage Downtown, it would compliment Rapid Bus by providing access to stops that the limited stop Rapid Bus would skip over. Urban Rail outside of Downtown will likely operate more like Rapid Bus, with fewer stops and higher average speeds on the longer corridors. In this way, Urban Rail could replace initial Rapid Bus corridors as the system expands. Even if the two vehicles share a lane, it easy for a bus to pull out of the lane to pass a rail vehicle at a stop that the bus skips.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Texas & Southcentral > Austin
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:48 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.