AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by M1EK

Your second argument was that growth in the non-Austin portions of the service area had overwhelmed growth in Austin. I showed THIS not to be true.

But it is true. Look at the freaking numbers.

Austin 2000 population: 656,562
Leander 2000 population: 7,596
Manor 2000 population: 1,204
Lago Vista 2000 population: 4,507

Percentage of the service area in Austin proper (roughly, ignoring some of the other small surburbs, which only helps you):
656,562/669869 = 98% (but that 2% is very important, as it turned rail passing into rail failing).

Austin 2010 population: 790,390
Leander 2010 population: 26,521
Manor 2010 population: 5,037
Lago Vista 2010 population: 6,041

percentage of the service area in Austin proper:
790390/827989 = 95.5%

Austin makes up _less_ of the population of the service area than it used to.

Originally Posted by M1EK

The overall argument, that a light rail election in 2014 would be easier to win than the election was in 2000, is fucking obvious.

No, it's not. There's no reason to think it would be easier, given the increasing demographic headwinds.

Originally Posted by M1EK

And you repeatedly demanding citations on everything is an effort to confuse and delay, not enlighten.

No, I'm doing it because you repeatedly claim things that factually aren't true (see above).

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Again, I'm not very familiar with this system, but from what I can tell from googling, that "passing siding" won't actually be used for passing. It's a place to park a train if it goes out of service.

http://www.nctcog.org/trans/spd/streetcar.asp
http://www.nctcog.org/trans/spd/Re-EvalUnionStationtoOakCliffDallasSC02-23-12NoFTALetter.pdf

True, if you limit the line to the original 1.8 or so miles. Not true,when the line is extended over a mile to 3+ miles. Dallas will be buying two more streetcars, making a total of 4 for the line. There's no way they can have 3 streetcars in service with one in standby somewhere without using that existing siding as a passing siding, plus adding another passing siding.

[The ATX]

This thread has a history of a lot of good discussion. But my god, it's always M1EK and an occasional ally against everyone else. It has become nothing more than one upmanship.

[kingkirbythe....]

M1EK has a long history of being right.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by kingkirbythe....

M1EK has a long history of being right.

He also has a long history of being wrong. Like in this particular instance on the math of population growth.

[H2O]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

He also has a long history of being wrong. Like in this particular instance on the math of population growth.

M1EK mostly has a long history of being insulting.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by H2O

M1EK mostly has a long history of being insulting.

He is passionate and blunt and has been right on the money a LOT more than he is wrong. I'm not 100% in agreement, but I'm 95% on most of the truly important issues. Is he impolitic? Sure, he may be a jerk but he's a jerk for the right reasons. Too often good people lay down in this city against bad ideas and we end up with crap like metrorapid, the redline and mcmansion and many other issues keeping Austin from living up to its potential. M1ek has been on the right side of these and many more issues and fighting for and advocating a truly urban Austin for nearly a decade. He has been uncompromising when so much crap has been brought in the name of compromise.

I appreciate his being loud when others have been meek. While he is not the only voice in Austin against the forces of sprawl that have predominated, he has been one of the most consistent. Even when I find myself in disagreement, I find him to be informed and informative and he seems to be willing to seriously engaged with serious people. It's the go-along, aw shucks, maybe it won't suck that bad crowd that worries me more than folks like M1ek who are willing to take a stand on the issues critical to the city.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by Novacek

But it is true. Look at the freaking numbers.

Austin 2000 population: 656,562
Leander 2000 population: 7,596
Manor 2000 population: 1,204
Lago Vista 2000 population: 4,507

Percentage of the service area in Austin proper (roughly, ignoring some of the other small surburbs, which only helps you):
656,562/669869 = 98% (but that 2% is very important, as it turned rail passing into rail failing).

Austin 2010 population: 790,390
Leander 2010 population: 26,521
Manor 2010 population: 5,037
Lago Vista 2010 population: 6,041

percentage of the service area in Austin proper:
790390/827989 = 95.5%

Austin makes up _less_ of the population of the service area than it used to.

That's spin. I said the growth in Austin in absolute numbers was higher than in the non-Austin parts of the service area, which is absolutely true. You've moved the goalposts; and I am not surprised.

This is not "demographic headwinds" either. This lack of the overwhelming suburban growth you claimed PLUS the lack of a strong reason for suburban anti-transit people to turn out (no W on the ballot) means a 2014 light rail election would be easier, not harder, than 2000. The claim that you've made that Austin's city-limits growth has made it more suburban is also ludicrous given the large amount of downtown and VMU development in the same period. The growth from 2000-2010 was likely MORE urban than baseline conditions, not less.

There's other reasons, too, but those two are plenty sufficient.

And you're doing this because you want to mislead and confuse. I have a track record, experience, and a name. I was involved in the 2000 campaign; I was on the UTC from 2000-2005; and I've been consistently public the whole time. What I don't have is unlimited time and patience to play your games - unlike most of the consultantocracy behind groups like the A4PT, I have a day job which has nothing to do with transit which limits my time.

What have you got?

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Komeht

Too often good people lay down in this city against bad ideas and we end up with crap like metrorapid,

That's just it, metrorapid _isn't_ crap. It should actually be a nice little system, and I'm looking forward to using it.

Originally Posted by Komeht

the redline

Again, the redline has been very succesful, at being what it was designed to be. In fact, the biggest complaint most people have had is that there's not enough of it (_more_ frequency, _more_ cars).

If there's ever going to be a chance for urban rail in Austin, the red line is going to be one of the factors that makes it happen. The 2000 vote failed because suburbanites were _massively_ against it. Even M1EK admits this. Basically, their tax money (small percentage as it was) was going to a system that they saw no value in. The red line helps to make an urban rail system valuable to the suburbanites. Transit systems gain value as they connect or other transit systems (network effect). The best transit systems in the world (New York, etc.) have commuter train components.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by H2O

M1EK mostly has a long history of being insulting.

Try walking in these shoes for this long - with an unending parade of newly minted anonymous attackers from Capital Metro and the A4PT who somehow never take into account the past. My own fellow travellers gave up on Austin a long time ago.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by M1EK

That's spin. I said the growth in Austin in absolute numbers was higher than in the non-Austin parts of the service area, which is absolutely true. You've moved the goalposts; and I am not surprised.

_I_ was the one who made the first statement about population. My post on Feb 6, 2013, 1:42 PM

"In the years since, Austin has grown by X%, and the outer suburbs have grown by ~2X%."

(Though actually its more like 20% vs. 200%. )

The discussion has _always_ been about the percentages. The word "absolute" was first used by you on the 19th. You're the one attempting to "move the goalposts".

Originally Posted by M1EK

The claim that you've made that Austin's city-limits growth has made it more suburban is also ludicrous given the large amount of downtown and VMU development in the same period. The growth from 2000-2010 was likely MORE urban than baseline conditions, not less.

"likely" isn't true. That's the problem with assumptions.

Again, I've already _proved_ this, with sources. To repeat:
http://www.austincontrarian.com/austincontrarian/2012/09/austins-weighted-density-2000-2010.html

Austin has _decreased_ in density. Sure, there's been some downtown and VMU development, but that's been overwhelmed by more people moving into Avery Ranch, etc.

This is another case where you're trying to claim two mutually exclusive things. You rail against McMansion for preventing increasing density in Austin, then turn around and claim that Austin has greatly increased in density.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by Novacek

That's just it, metrorapid _isn't_ crap. It should actually be a nice little system, and I'm looking forward to using it.




Again, the redline has been very succesful, at being what it was designed to be. In fact, the biggest complaint most people have had is that there's not enough of it (_more_ frequency, _more_ cars).

If there's ever going to be a chance for urban rail in Austin, the red line is going to be one of the factors that makes it happen. The 2000 vote failed because suburbanites were _massively_ against it. Even M1EK admits this. Basically, their tax money (small percentage as it was) was going to a system that they saw no value in. The red line helps to make an urban rail system valuable to the suburbanites. Transit systems gain value as they connect or other transit systems (network effect). The best transit systems in the world (New York, etc.) have commuter train components.

I fail to see any evidence that the millions upon millions investment into commuter rail has had any positive impact on suburban voters for light rail. What could have been accomplished by dumping $5Million into an ad campaign and the rest on a substantial down payment on quality urban rail?

If and when light rail passes it won't be the suburban vote bringing it in. For all the demographic batting back and forth, you fail to acknowledge that there has been a fundamental evolution towards the urban and a generational shift towards a populace pre-disposed to favor rail over previous generations. Unfortunately, the very best route - the only route that makes sense (though I maintain you can still work in Mueller as I propose above) - up CBD-Capitol-WC-NC-HP-Triangle - is out of the running thanks to redline/metrorapid for how many decades?

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Komeht

If and when light rail passes it won't be the suburban vote bringing it in. For all the demographic batting back and forth, you fail to acknowledge that there has been a fundamental evolution towards the urban and a generational shift towards a populace pre-disposed to favor rail over previous generations.

Yes, yes. I read the atlantic too. It's a lot of nice talk, and now some inner cities are no longer completely dieing, but for all the people moving urban, there's _more_ people still moving into the suburban. Again, linked above, Austin has become _more_ suburban, and less urban since 2000.

Originally Posted by Komeht

Unfortunately, the very best route - the only route that makes sense (though I maintain you can still work in Mueller as I propose above) - up CBD-Capitol-WC-NC-HP-Triangle - is out of the running thanks to redline/metrorapid for how many decades?

It's not out of the running because of redline/metrorapid. Neither of those systems adversely affects rail, in fact, they enhance it (network and connectivity). It's (probably) out of the running because of the very issues we've been discussing. It's going to be really hard to squeeze exclusive-running rail into that corridor because of the constrained space, the removal of lanes, the eminent domain. Even where possible, it's a lot harder sell politically.

[KevinFromTexas]

The article includes a rendering and map.

http://impactnews.com/articles/txdot-announces-plans-to-build-toll-lanes-on-hwy.-71-near-airport/

TxDOT announces plans to build toll lanes on Hwy. 71 near airport

by Amy Denney
February 28, 2013

The Texas Department of Transportation is planning to alleviate congestion near the Austin Bergstrom International Airport by adding toll lanes on Hwy. 71 between US 183 and SH 130.

“Now what we're doing is opening up SH 130 in a way that is very meaningful,” Watson said. “People coming from the north—Waco, Georgetown—people coming from the south—Seguin—they'll be able to get off SH 130 and go to Austin Bergstrom International Airport or on into Austin uninterrupted by traffic.”

TxDOT's $141 million plan calls for adding two lanes of a tolled freeway from Spirit of Texas Drive and Presidential Boulevard, which is the main entrance of the airport, to east of SH 130. The nontolled frontage roads will be three lanes in each direction.
Construction is expected to start by the end of 2014 and be completed in late 2016.

The project also calls for reconstructing and realigning the intersection of Hwy. 71 and FM 973 and constructing a new bridge over SH 130. The portion of Hwy. 71 from US 183 to Spirit of Texas Drive would not include toll lanes. Adding the tolled lanes on Hwy. 71 will be subject to the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization board of directors amending its 2035 Regional Transportation Improvement Plan.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Yes, yes. I read the atlantic too. It's a lot of nice talk, and now some inner cities are no longer completely dieing, but for all the people moving urban, there's _more_ people still moving into the suburban. Again, linked above, Austin has become _more_ suburban, and less urban since 2000.



It's not out of the running because of redline/metrorapid. Neither of those systems adversely affects rail, in fact, they enhance it (network and connectivity). It's (probably) out of the running because of the very issues we've been discussing. It's going to be really hard to squeeze exclusive-running rail into that corridor because of the constrained space, the removal of lanes, the eminent domain. Even where possible, it's a lot harder sell politically.

Your guess that the marginal increase in percentage of suburban voters would mean defeat for a 2000 like plan is no more valid than my observation that there has been a fundamental shift towards urbanism and away from sprawl that could result in strong support for such a plan. We don't live in the same world as we did in 2000, which was pretty close to the high water mark for suburbanism.

Regardless, we just won't know how voters would react to a good rail plan because we won't get one to choose now that the redline and metrorapid have sucked all the oxygen out of the Guadalupe corridor routes. We may not even get a "next best" starter route because even long time advocates of rail see the east campus to Mueller route as being a terrible option. How is that route going to pass with an enormous price tag and low ridership predictions when you have both opponents of rail and supports of rail united against it? In 2014 is Leffingwell et al going to be able to persuade all those suburbanites you speak of to vote for 600M dollars in bonds to a route that isn't supported by rail advocates, doesnt go throught the most obviously needed route and and ends in Mueller? Will the urbanists who desire a good route hold their nose again after being sold a bill of goods in 2004 when even hardcore rail advocates will be opposed?

Finally, the success of metrorapid won't be measured in whether it gives marginally better experience to people who opt to ride the bus already, but 1. whether it is able to convert large numbers of car commuters to transit and 2. much more importantly whether it generates TOD. I highly doubt there will be much of a bump in ridership and TOD around bus routes that can change easily seems extremely unlikely to me.

So yes. I agree with M1ek on this that redline and metrorapid have effectively killed the best shot we had a good light rail and may very well have killed any shot at even a mediocre second best line.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Komeht

Your guess that the marginal increase in percentage of suburban voters would mean defeat for a 2000 like plan is no more valid than my observation that there has been a fundamental shift towards urbanism and away from sprawl that could result in strong support for such a plan. We don't live in the same world as we did in 2000, which was pretty close to the high water mark for suburbanism.

That's just it.
There _hasn't_ been such a shift. At least not in Austin.
The numbers prove it. Austin has become _less_ dense. For every one person who has moved into a condo downtown, 2 or more have moved out into the boonies.
Whether it's because of McMansion (preventing density and forcing people to buy in the suburbs), or because of annexation, or just because people really don't change that fast, or some other reason. It's a fact, claiming that things have changed doesn't make it so.

Originally Posted by Komeht

Regardless, we just won't know how voters would react to a good rail plan

via polling and focus groups, it's actually pretty easy to gauge the response of the electorate. That focus has shifted from Guadalupe to the Mueller route, I can only assume such polling has been ongoing, and the Guadalupe route is seen as a losing issue (whether becuase of sticker shock, or the lane reductions, or some other reason).

Originally Posted by Komeht

because we won't get one to choose now that the redline and metrorapid have sucked all the oxygen out of the Guadalupe corridor routes.

Again, they haven't. How have they "sucked all the oxygen", they've only _improved_ the viability of such a route, by improving it's connnectivity.

Originally Posted by Komeht

We may not even get a "next best" starter route because even long time advocates of rail see the east campus to Mueller route as being a terrible option.
.

I haven't seen "advocates" (plural), just M1EK.

Originally Posted by Komeht

How is that route going to pass with an enormous price tag and low ridership predictions when you have both opponents of rail and supports of rail united against it?

What low ridership predictions? Ridership hasn't been estimated yet.

And again, "supporters(sp)" plural, or just M1EK?

Originally Posted by Komeht

In 2014 is Leffingwell et al going to be able to persuade all those suburbanites you speak of to vote for 600M dollars in bonds to a route that isn't supported by rail advocates, doesnt go throught the most obviously needed route and and ends in Mueller?

Again, advocates plural?

Increased suburbanite support is possible for a few reasons:
1. They got theirs first. People are greedy, sad but true. The fact that money was spent on suburban connectivity first helps to basically "buy their votes".
2. Now becuase of the existence of metrorail, the proposed system is actually useful to them. There is connectivity between metrorail and the new system.
3. The "cost" to the non-user is less. Not the material cost, but the immaterial (losing lanes in the Guadalupe corridor).

Originally Posted by Komeht

Will the urbanists who desire a good route hold their nose again after being sold a bill of goods in 2004 when even hardcore rail advocates will be opposed?

What "bill of goods"? The metrorail is exactly what it was promised in 2004. The ridership is at the projections.

Originally Posted by Komeht

Finally, the success of metrorapid won't be measured in whether it gives marginally better experience to people who opt to ride the bus already, but 1. whether it is able to convert large numbers of car commuters to transit and 2. much more importantly whether it generates TOD.

The measure of success of metrorapid is different than a rail transit system. It's a different type of system. It also costs like 1/100th.
The projections are of increased ridership/converted ridership. Whether that's the case, we'll find out, but given it's significantly upgraded features and increased frequency, it's certainly possible.

Originally Posted by Komeht

I highly doubt there will be much of a bump in ridership and TOD around bus routes that can change easily seems extremely unlikely to me.

It's not so easy as you claim to change these routes. There's significant construction involved.
And there's no _reason_ for them to change (other than the one specific inner corridor, if exclusive running transit were to go in, which is then an order of magnitude bigger project already). Burnet, North Lamar, South Lamar, South Congress. These are the main arteries of the city. There's _no_ other place you'd move these routes to.

Originally Posted by Komeht

So yes. I agree with M1ek on this that redline and metrorapid have effectively killed the best shot we had a good light rail and may very well have killed any shot at even a mediocre second best line.

Again, claiming it doesn't make it so. What are the reasons for this to be the case? M1EK being for or against the project isn't the only (or even a) determiner of it's final viability.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by Novacek

That's just it.
There _hasn't_ been such a shift. At least not in Austin.
The numbers prove it. Austin has become _less_ dense. For every one person who has moved into a condo downtown, 2 or more have moved out into the boonies.
Whether it's because of McMansion (preventing density and forcing people to buy in the suburbs), or because of annexation, or just because people really don't change that fast, or some other reason. It's a fact, claiming that things have changed doesn't make it so.


via polling and focus groups, it's actually pretty easy to gauge the response of the electorate. That focus has shifted from Guadalupe to the Mueller route, I can only assume such polling has been ongoing, and the Guadalupe route is seen as a losing issue (whether becuase of sticker shock, or the lane reductions, or some other reason).



Again, they haven't. How have they "sucked all the oxygen", they've only _improved_ the viability of such a route, by improving it's connnectivity.



I haven't seen "advocates" (plural), just M1EK.



What low ridership predictions? Ridership hasn't been estimated yet.

And again, "supporters(sp)" plural, or just M1EK?



Again, advocates plural?

Increased suburbanite support is possible for a few reasons:
1. They got theirs first. People are greedy, sad but true. The fact that money was spent on suburban connectivity first helps to basically "buy their votes".
2. Now becuase of the existence of metrorail, the proposed system is actually useful to them. There is connectivity between metrorail and the new system.
3. The "cost" to the non-user is less. Not the material cost, but the immaterial (losing lanes in the Guadalupe corridor).


What "bill of goods"? The metrorail is exactly what it was promised in 2004. The ridership is at the projections.



The measure of success of metrorapid is different than a rail transit system. It's a different type of system. It also costs like 1/100th.
The projections are of increased ridership/converted ridership. Whether that's the case, we'll find out, but given it's significantly upgraded features and increased frequency, it's certainly possible.





It's not so easy as you claim to change these routes. There's significant construction involved.
And there's no _reason_ for them to change (other than the one specific inner corridor, if exclusive running transit were to go in, which is then an order of magnitude bigger project already). Burnet, North Lamar, South Lamar, South Congress. These are the main arteries of the city. There's _no_ other place you'd move these routes to.


Again, claiming it doesn't make it so. What are the reasons for this to be the case? M1EK being for or against the project isn't the only (or even a) determiner of it's final viability.

M1ek may be the loudest on this subject, but he's far from the only rail advocate opposed this alignment. I won't link to everything I've been reading on this but here:

http://theoverheadwire.blogspot.com/2012/04/austin-guadalupelamar-alignment.html

and here:

http://kutnews.org/post/cap-metro-talks-residents-about-urban-rail

are a couple of examples...not to mention a lot of twitter chatter. Will the volume of discussion and negative feedback rise as we go into 2014? Idk, it depends on how good a case the city makes for the proposed alignment. Not a bang-up job so far though.

To deny that there hasn't been a tremendous push for urbanism in Austin in last decade and a half is a bit bizarre actually. Flashback to the 1990s when you could walk up and down Congress avenue and see boarded up store front after boarded up storefront, when there were still vacant car dealerships on 6th and Lamar, when there were not many warehouses in the warehouse district but there were a lot of surface parking lots, where no one bothered to give SoCo a trendy moniker because no one went there (unless you wanted to visit the rent-by-the-hour San Jose Motel), when venturing out to East 6th was something you did in daylight hours only for the occasional breakfast taco, and when you couldn't get the worlds best BBQ on east 11th but you could get crack or a hooker just about anytime of the day... And yes, some of that had begun to change by 2000, but the pace of change since 2000 has been in hyperdrive mode.

The single metric of "most people move to the suburbs" completely misses the larger picture. I'll point you to another metric, look at land values in the CBD compared to land values in the hinterlands and tell me where people really want to be.

I haven't seen any polling or focus groups on a Guadalupe route vs the proposed alignment, if you can link to some that would be helpful.

I said metrorapid sucks the oxygen out of the best corridor, not out of all corridors. Your point about not being able to easily move metrorapid (and why would you) underscores the point that Guadalupe corridor will never have light rail in our lifetimes.

I find scant evidence to suggest that people who don't ride current bus system will suddenly become enomaored of buses with metrorapid.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Komeht

To deny that there hasn't been a tremendous push for urbanism in Austin in last decade and a half is a bit bizarre actually. Flashback to the 1990s when you could walk up and down Congress avenue and see boarded up store front after boarded up storefront, when there were still vacant car dealerships on 6th and Lamar, when there were not many warehouses in the warehouse district but there were a lot of surface parking lots, where no one bothered to give SoCo a trendy moniker because no one went there (unless you wanted to visit the rent-by-the-hour San Jose Motel), when venturing out to East 6th was something you did in daylight hours only for the occasional breakfast taco, and when you couldn't get the worlds best BBQ on east 11th but you could get crack or a hooker just about anytime of the day... And yes, some of that had begun to change by 2000, but the pace of change since 2000 has been in hyperdrive mode.

Why are you going back to the 90s? We're comparing between the 2000 vote and now.
And no, I didn't claim that no one had moved downtown. The problem is, again repeating, is that the increases downtown and central have been outweighed by continued suburban development. Look at the objective numbers, rather than going by "gut feel".

Originally Posted by Komeht

The single metric of "most people move to the suburbs" completely misses the larger picture. I'll point you to another metric, look at land values in the CBD compared to land values in the hinterlands and tell me where people really want to be.

Land in the CBD is always more expensive than in the burbs. That's why people move (and continue to move) into the suburbs.

Originally Posted by Komeht

I haven't seen any polling or focus groups on a Guadalupe route vs the proposed alignment, if you can link to some that would be helpful.

I was referring to internal polling that is conducted by planning organizations. Such data is typically not made public. As I said, my assumption (and it is an assumption) is that such polling is ongoing. These people are professionals. They don't flip a coin one day, and decide "we tried Guadalupe last time, I guess it's Mueller this time".

Originally Posted by Komeht

I said metrorapid sucks the oxygen out of the best corridor, not out of all corridors. Your point about not being able to easily move metrorapid (and why would you) underscores the point that Guadalupe corridor will never have light rail in our lifetimes.

Way to _completely_ ignore what I wrote.

1. I said moving the stations isn't easy, unless of course you're completely rebuilding the corridor and putting in exclusive running rail, in which case moving the stations is trivial (and orders of magnitude less expensive) compared to that project. That's assuming the stations move, and don't just become feeder "Vs" into this hypothetical rail system.

2. Outside the corridor in question (Guadalupe) there's no impetus to move the stations (making them encouraging to development, in as much development that a system 1/100th the price encourages).

a. There's no push for rail any time soon in those corridors (burnet, etc.)

b. Unlike in the Guadalupe corridor (where the metrorapid, and all the other bus lines, which will also have to move) can be shifted over a block or two, there's no equivalent proximal north-south arterials to Burnet, south Lamar, etc.

Originally Posted by Komeht

I find scant evidence to suggest that people who don't ride current bus system will suddenly become enomaored of buses with metrorapid.

The ridership projections say that there will. Whether that turns out, we'll see. Again, a lot more analysis went into that than your "gut feel".

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Land in the CBD is always more expensive than in the burbs. That's why people move (and continue to move) into the suburbs.

There's a lot to disagree with in your post - but I can't disagree with this statement. Everyone says they don't like sprawl and yet everything we do seems to require more of it: the NIMBY's say they hate it, and then make development in the city so difficult that it forces exactly that kind of development. The transit people say they hate it and then build commuter rail out to the furthest reaches and service people who don't even pay city taxes or capital metro taxes. The city planners say they hate it and then implement land-use policies that mandate it. Even the people who live in it hate it - but everything we do forces them to choose it and then makes the decision to sprawl slightly less awful for them.

And despite all of these forces - the pace of urbanism since 2000 is simply unmatched at any time in recent history in Austin. If you are counting condo units sold in the CBD downtown vs suburban tracts you have completely missed the larger and more important picture.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Why are you going back to the 90s? We're comparing between the 2000 vote and now.
And no, I didn't claim that no one had moved downtown. The problem is, again repeating, is that the increases downtown and central have been outweighed by continued suburban development. Look at the objective numbers, rather than going by "gut feel".


Land in the CBD is always more expensive than in the burbs. That's why people move (and continue to move) into the suburbs.



I was referring to internal polling that is conducted by planning organizations. Such data is typically not made public. As I said, my assumption (and it is an assumption) is that such polling is ongoing. These people are professionals. They don't flip a coin one day, and decide "we tried Guadalupe last time, I guess it's Mueller this time".



Way to _completely_ ignore what I wrote.

1. I said moving the stations isn't easy, unless of course you're completely rebuilding the corridor and putting in exclusive running rail, in which case moving the stations is trivial (and orders of magnitude less expensive) compared to that project. That's assuming the stations move, and don't just become feeder "Vs" into this hypothetical rail system.

2. Outside the corridor in question (Guadalupe) there's no impetus to move the stations (making them encouraging to development, in as much development that a system 1/100th the price encourages).

a. There's no push for rail any time soon in those corridors (burnet, etc.)

b. Unlike in the Guadalupe corridor (where the metrorapid, and all the other bus lines, which will also have to move) can be shifted over a block or two, there's no equivalent proximal north-south arterials to Burnet, south Lamar, etc.



The ridership projections say that there will. Whether that turns out, we'll see. Again, a lot more analysis went into that than your "gut feel".

BTW - you have completely missed the BEST argument for the proposed alignment. I will make it for you. The best argument is that while the proposed corridor does not have nearly the same ridership potential today (no one can honestly dispute this fact) - that it connects a number of areas that are currently under developed but could develop one day into a corridor worthy of transit

1. the east side of the Capitol Complex is largely parking garages - there has been a move by the TFC to redevelop those garages into a vibrant mixed use sector - unfortunately, politics are in play here and this may be on quite a hold.

2. With the passage of the bonds for the med school there is a good chance it will be located along the proposed route.

3. East campus is relatively under developed in relation to west campus, UT could grow the best along the proposed rail corridor.

4. Red River has long been underdeveloped, particularly given its proximity to UT Campus and the Capitol Complex just beyond - with transit + a VMU overlay it could one day be a great area between north Campus and Hancock.

5. Building rail to Mueller allows it to develop at a higher density than is currently allowed under the plan w/o transit.

None of the above is particularly urgent with the exception of Mueller which is developing currently and will need to know relatively quickly how dense it can be. That's why I suggest that Mueller should be part of any proposed route, even if that route heads up the Guadalupe corridor (which by all accounts is a dead possibility because of redline/metrorapid one-two punch).

The proposed route could one day be a pretty decent stretch if city, state and university policies are in alignment. Those are some very big "ifs". I should probably let M1ek speak for himself on this, but I think the advocates for a Guadalupe corridor see quite correctly there is a need today along the Guadalupe corridor, not in a hypothetical future, and that since we can't build the system out fully, we should start with the best route first, the one that will command the highest ridership in year 1, not in a theoretical year 20. By building the best route for today first, we have a reasonably good shot at a fully integrated rail system someday down the line. But if the first line lays an egg, good luck with that.