AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by drummer

Leander voters will decide whether to keep Capital Metro



https://www.kxan.com/news/local/williams...ll-decide-whether-to-keep-capital-metro/


With the insane growth in the area and the dense development right around the station (partly if not mostly because of the station), this is such backwards thinking. I sure hope voters have more sense than the outgoing mayor and certain members of the council.

I hope that new Northline development has somewhere buried in their agreement with the city a way to clawback their losses.

[drummer]

Originally Posted by Novacek

I hope that new Northline development has somewhere buried in their agreement with the city a way to clawback their losses.

Agreed - one would think there's something in there. The lagoon development immediately to the south as well. Not to mention the thousands of folks moving to the area...some of whom may want to commute on the train. Granted, there are always folks who say, "I never use it so why do we pay for it?", but I'm hoping common sense prevails in the vote...

[atxsnail]

Originally Posted by drummer

Agreed - one would think there's something in there. The lagoon development immediately to the south as well. Not to mention the thousands of folks moving to the area...some of whom may want to commute on the train. Granted, there are always folks who say, "I never use it so why do we pay for it?", but I'm hoping common sense prevails in the vote...

The return of Saturday Red Line service on May 29 should help to repair the image of transit in Leander. There also seem to be a sizable number of Austin FC fans out that way who plan on riding the train to matches.

While I hope the town stays in, I think the exclusion of Leander Station from Red Line service would go a long way to improving all day service intervals for the rest of the system. It's a 17 minute trip each way from Leander to Lakeline. The region is better off as a whole if Leander remains, but at least Austin would probably stand to benefit with better service as consolation.

If they do leave, I wonder if there's any way to sue Leander for the cost of any major improvements like double tracking if they've been done on that part of the line.

[drummer]

Originally Posted by atxsnail

The return of Saturday Red Line service on May 29 should help to repair the image of transit in Leander. There also seem to be a sizable number of Austin FC fans out that way who plan on riding the train to matches.

While I hope the town stays in, I think the exclusion of Leander Station from Red Line service would go a long way to improving all day service intervals for the rest of the system. It's a 17 minute trip each way from Leander to Lakeline. The region is better off as a whole if Leander remains, but at least Austin would probably stand to benefit with better service as consolation.

If they do leave, I wonder if there's any way to sue Leander for the cost of any major improvements like double tracking if they've been done on that part of the line.

The article mentions expenses which would still be owed by Leander even if they vote to leave. All in all, they need to stay.

[atxsnail]

Originally Posted by drummer

The article mentions expenses which would still be owed by Leander even if they vote to leave. All in all, they need to stay.

The article wasn't clear so I assumed those required payments were only related to the sales tax contributions. I wonder if there is a contract somewhere that outlines what happens with major capital projects if the city chooses to leave either immediately after they are completed or during their construction.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by atxsnail

The article wasn't clear so I assumed those required payments were only related to the sales tax contributions. I wonder if there is a contract somewhere that outlines what happens with major capital projects if the city chooses to leave either immediately after they are completed or during their construction.

State Law requires cities dropping out of a transit agency to pay "their share" of whatever debt the transit agency has.
Per the article linked, Leander's share of CapMetro's debt is around $39 million.
They collect $5 million of sales tax revenues for CapMetro every year. So in 8 years the city will be free to use that $5 million of sales taxes on other things.
Who knows what a separate contract with CapMetro would total up to be?

None of the new lines CapMetro is proposing with their new debt reaches Leander. If Leander is going to choose to opt out, now is the time to do so before CapMetro issues $8 billion more of new debt. Leander's share of that new $8 Billion of debt, assuming a low 5% share, would be $400 Million. It would take Leander 80 years to pay CapMetro off in the future after the bonds were sold if they decided to opt out later.

I'll admit I do not know what Leander's percentage of CapMetro's debt is, or how much more debt CapMetro will have to issue for their new proposed transit projects. Never the less, it is going to relatively far more than their existing debt - which means far longer for Leander to pay off if they ever decide to opt out later.

Additionally, the latest ridership data provided by CapMetro suggests only 82 riders ride the train to and from Leander every day. Two buses could carry as many passengers. That's just 41 per round trip.
Some math follows, $5 million / (41 round trips/day x 365days/year) =
$334 per passenger round trip.
Even at 500 passenger or 250 round trips per day per pandemic, the math would be, $5 million / (250 round trips/day x 365 days/year) = $55 per passenger round trip.

Subsidizing $300+ or $55+ per round trip commuter every day is fairly high, considering the commuter fare CapMetro charges is $7 per day.

[freerover]

Originally Posted by electricron

State Law requires cities dropping out of a transit agency to pay "their share" of whatever debt the transit agency has.
Per the article linked, Leander's share of CapMetro's debt s around $39 million.
They collect $5 million of sales tax revenues for CapMetro every year. So in 8 years the city will be free to use that $5 million of sales taxes on other things.
Who knows what a separate contract with CapMetro would total up to be?

None of the new lines CapMetro is proposing with their new debt reaches Leander. If Leander is going to choose to opt out, now is the time to do so before CapMetro issues $8 billion more of new debt. Leander's share of that new $8 Billion of debt, assuming a low 5% share, would be $400 Million. It would take Leander 80 years to pay CapMetro off in the future after the bonds were sold if they decided to opt out later.

Additionally, the latest ridership data provided by CapMetro suggests only 82 riders ride the train to and from Leander every day. Two buses could carry as many passengers. That's just 41 round trips.
Some math follows, $5 million / (41 round trips/day x 365days/year) =
$334 per passenger round trip.
Even at 500 passenger or 250 round trips per day per pandemic, the math would be, $5 million / (250 round trips/day x 365 days/year) = $55 per passenger round trip.

Cap metro isn’t issuing 8 billion in debt. ATP is.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by freerover

Cap metro isn’t issuing 8 billion in debt. ATP is.

You're correct, ATP is the big dog in town now. For how long? What happens when delays and cost overruns occur, can ATP generate more debt than planned? Or will they look at what CapMetro could contribute? Today, CapMetro is debt free, but that does not mean it will be in the future. Far easier to get that short $1 Billion from CapMetro than have another election to give ATP more money.
Even afterwards, who is going to be expected to fund all the operations and maintenance costs in the future, you know the non capital expense budget items? The idea that CapMetro will get through this excpansion without additional debt seems foolish. Maybe not $8 Billion, but maybe $800 million, or $80 million?

If you wish to opt out, now is the time to do so.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by electricron

You're correct, ATP is the big dog in town now. For how long? What happens when delays and cost overruns occur, can ATP generate more debt than planned? Or will they look at what CapMetro could contribute? Today, CapMetro is debt free, but that does not mean it will be in the future. Far easier to get that short $1 Billion from CapMetro than have another election to give ATP more money.
Even afterwards, who is going to be expected to fund all the operations and maintenance costs in the future, you know the non capital expense budget items? The idea that CapMetro will get through this excpansion without additional debt seems foolish. Maybe not $8 Billion, but maybe $800 million, or $80 million?

If you wish to opt out, now is the time to do so.

Prop A (I.e. Austin’s prop A) funds operations and maintenance. That’s always been the plan.

There’s 0 advantage to having CapMetro borrow money instead of ATP. They’re both in the same position of being completely revenue fixed. Neither is like the city where they can raise tax rates to cover additional debt.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Prop A (I.e. Austin’s prop A) funds operations and maintenance. That’s always been the plan.

There’s 0 advantage to having CapMetro borrow money instead of ATP. They’re both in the same position of being completely revenue fixed. Neither is like the city where they can raise tax rates to cover additional debt.

Great, but CapMetro can borrow up to twice its income, which was around $500 million per pandemic - or borrow up to nearly $1 Billion.
Not saying they will, just saying that they could.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by electricron

Great, but CapMetro can borrow up to twice its income, which was around $500 million per pandemic - or borrow up to nearly $1 Billion.
Not saying they will, just saying that they could.

But to do so, it would have to slash current service levels to pay for the bond. Again, their revenue is fixed.

(And their budget was ~400M pre pandemic, with a big chunk of that specific grants, not general revenue. Sales tax “income” was ~250)

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Novacek

But to do so, it would have to slash current service levels to pay for the bond. Again, their revenue is fixed.

(And their budget was ~400M pre pandemic, with a big chunk of that specific grants, not general revenue. Sales tax “income” was ~250)

Yes. Yes. Yes.
So, according to you, when the cost overuns arise 10 years from now, ATP will start cutting lines and services because they have ran out of money. Do you really believe that? No, they are going to be begging for more cash from somebody. Hopefully you guys and gals did not give them an open checkbook with the ability to raise your property taxes as they feel fit - because that will be the first place they will look for more cash. Next in line will be their partners in providing the service, the City of Austin and CapMetro.

Lets remind everyone the tale of cost overruns in Honolulu.
The original cost to build it was $4 Billion in 2006 before the referendum that passed with 52% of the vote. The cost was $5.2 Billion in January 2010 prior to processing the first bids. By December 2010 the cost was projected to be $6.9 Billion after processing the first bids. Worse yet, the State review of the tax passed to fund the rail project would collect 30% less than estimated. In April 2017 the costs rose to $9 Billion. In March 2021 the cost has risen to $12.4 Billion.
Taxes had to be raised to pay the new higher costs. The Feds initial grant of $1.7 Billion has remained the same throughout. The local city GET tax that was increased .5% until 2020 was extended 10 years to 2030. The rest of the State's GET tax was increase .5% as well in 2017 to help fund the cost overruns.
But the taxes raise so far is Billions short of completing the project. There are serious discussions of not finishing the rail line through downtown Honolulu. More funding and taxes will be needed to build that last section....
Meanwhile, there is a problem with the new rail cars that derail running over points that will cost more money to fix. When it rain, it pours - even in Hawaii.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by electricron

Yes. Yes. Yes.
So, according to you, when the cost overuns arise 10 years from now, ATP will start cutting lines and services because they have ran out of money. Do you really believe that? No, they are going to be begging for more cash from somebody.

It is very, very unlikely ATP will have to cut projects. For two very important reasons.

1) the cost estimates they're using are already very, very generous, with quite a bit of contingency room allocated. They're allocating hundreds of millions per mile, for a majority surface running standard light rail line.

2) The perpetual funding model. If costs rise above the contingencies, ATP will always have the option to stretch out timelines and delay the opening of lines/segments/stations.
Unlike with a project with a fixed lump sum funding (where delays increase costs, but come with no additional funding) every additional year is $X additional property tax revenue without operations expenses.
Now, that wouldn't be my preference. I'd prefer for costs to come in under estimates and for the federal share to be above the estimate. But being able to do so to control costs puts ATP in a pretty good position.

Originally Posted by electricron

Hopefully you guys and gals did not give them an open checkbook with the ability to raise your property taxes as they feel fit - because that will be the first place they will look for more cash. Next in line will be their partners in providing the service, the City of Austin and CapMetro.

So you're admitting you have no clue how ATP is set up, or funded, or the plans for Project Connect?

And apparently you don't even live in Austin?

Originally Posted by electricron

Lets remind everyone the tale of cost overruns in Honolulu.
The original cost to build it was $4 Billion in 2006 before the referendum that passed with 52% of the vote. The cost was $5.2 Billion in January 2010 prior to processing the first bids. By December 2010 the cost was projected to be $6.9 Billion after processing the first bids. Worse yet, the State review of the tax passed to fund the rail project would collect 30% less than estimated. In April 2017 the costs rose to $9 Billion. In March 2021 the cost has risen to $12.4 Billion.
Taxes had to be raised to pay the new higher costs. The Feds initial grant of $1.7 Billion has remained the same throughout. The local city GET tax that was increased .5% until 2020 was extended 10 years to 2030. The rest of the State's GET tax was increase .5% as well in 2017 to help fund the cost overruns.
But the taxes raise so far is Billions short of completing the project. There are serious discussions of not finishing the rail line through downtown Honolulu. More funding and taxes will be needed to build that last section....
Meanwhile, there is a problem with the new rail cars that derail running over points that will cost more money to fix. When it rain, it pours - even in Hawaii.

Honolulu is perhaps the worst possible comparison to Austin's plans.

Austin is planning a standard, mostly off the shelf, mostly surface running light rail with drivers.

Honolulu chose a unique system. A completely access controlled, >90% elevated, completely automated and driverless system. Even the stations are super expensive, as they're all elevated (requiring elevators for accessibility) and the first time in the US they're doing stations completely screened from the track.

Then their funding model. And their current usage of (effectively) HOT taxes. Oops, COVID.

Then you have the issue with native Hawaiin remains, which added years of delay. When's the last time you heard of a building or road in Austin delayed for human remains?

Plus the fact that literally everything costs more in Hawaii, because duh, island. Even the diesel the construction vehicles are using is super expensive.

Almost everything that's gone wrong for Hawaii can't possibly go wrong for Austin, as Austin (smartly) didn't choose that system/funding structure/etc.

The fact that Honolulu is even this close to finishing up their system with all of that (especially the elevated construction) at a cost that close to Austin's estimates is a pretty good indication that Austin's estimates are very, very generous.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Novacek

It is very, very unlikely ATP will have to cut projects. For two very important reasons.

1) the cost estimates they're using are already very, very generous, with quite a bit of contingency room allocated. They're allocating hundreds of millions per mile, for a majority surface running standard light rail line.

2) The perpetual funding model. If costs rise above the contingencies, ATP will always have the option to stretch out timelines and delay the opening of lines/segments/stations.
Unlike with a project with a fixed lump sum funding (where delays increase costs, but come with no additional funding) every additional year is $X additional property tax revenue without operations expenses.
Now, that wouldn't be my preference. I'd prefer for costs to come in under estimates and for the federal share to be above the estimate. But being able to do so to control costs puts ATP in a pretty good position.

Yes, Honolulu and Austin are using different taxes and are building different types of rail transportation. But the one thing they have in common is a revenue stream not controlled by the people running or building the train system. Let's use DART or Metro as examples where the people contracting out the construction project also control their funding and run the system.

Meanwhile, Austin's formula is a hodgepodge of three different organizations trying to split up the duties. ATP is funding everything, CapMetro will be running everything, and the City has political sway with both deciding where everything will be built, and what will be built. The City will not have to pay, so they are going to demand longer tunnels and less impact to other traffic, CapMetro is going to demand larger stations and maintenance facilities and longer trains than what is needed because they also will not have to pay to build it. And poor ATP with limited resources who will have to pay for everything will be squeezed from both ends. There's no real accounting with the people demanding services with those funding it. That's a formula for cost overruns and prolonger building programs.

But Austin can't copy what Houston and Dallas has done, placing all the responsibility to fund, build, maintain, and operate the system under one house. Both of them have a fairly good record finishing their rail projects on time and under budget. Alas, Austin believes it will be better splitting all the responsibilities between different parties. good luck with that.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by electricron

But the one thing they have in common is a revenue stream not controlled by the people running or building the train system.

Congratulations, you've literally just described DART and Metro.

DART doesn't control its revenue stream. It's completely at the mercy of the membership of municipalities (which has been shown to its detriment in the past) and the economy.

It has no independent taxing authority. It can't raise taxes or increase its revenue (ignoring fares for the moment, as they're a rounding error).

Originally Posted by electricron

and the City has political sway with both deciding where everything will be built, and what will be built. The City will not have to pay, so they are going to demand longer tunnels and less impact to other traffic,

Again, exactly like DART. Dart didn't own its own RoW or control permitting.

Originally Posted by electricron

But Austin can't copy what Houston and Dallas has done, placing all the responsibility to fund, build, maintain, and operate the system under one house.

Neither Houston nor Dallas did that.

I'm fucking tired of all the FUD you're throwing around when you've proven you have no clue how Austin (or any of these systems) is set up. You FUDed that ATP was going to raise our taxes (no, it's not, it doesn't have that power). You FUDed that Austin was going to experience what Honolulu did (even though we're building a completely different system with a completely different funding structure).

[The ATX]

To everyone and some more than others:

Post facts as you see them along with counterpoints; then agree to disagree. Stop being personal.

[freerover]

Has the senate voted on the below ground clearance for Cap Metro? Starting to get worried.

[freerover]

delete

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by freerover

Personal like deleting user's posts that don't violate any rules but you find, "annoying"?

And then deleting references to it like this post?

That’s a moderator’s job, don’t make it personal.

[freerover]

delete