AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[ATX2030]

From Nathan Bernier
@KUTnathan

In a statement, Rep. Troxclair says her bill "ensures that local government corporations cannot circumvent the taxpayers, or the intentions of existing state law, when it comes to financial accountability.” Press release:

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...t-connect-bill

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by ATX2030

From Nathan Bernier
@KUTnathan

In a statement, Rep. Troxclair says her bill "ensures that local government corporations cannot circumvent the taxpayers, or the intentions of existing state law, when it comes to financial accountability.” Press release:

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...t-connect-bill

"To make up the difference, ATP plans to issue non-voter approved debt, like certificates of obligation, without the city ever going back to voters to ask if that is okay"

This is a flat out, 100%, pure lie. Seems even libelous to me.

ATP has been very clear that they're cutting features and timelines. They're not issuing unplanned billions of debt.

[Novacek]

As you might expect, Troxclair is completely intellectually (and ethically) bankrupt, and the claims are completely self-contradictory.

So you want ATP to follow the rules of cities/counties? Since they _can_ issue (not voter approved) CoO?

Or do you want to remove the ability of cities/counties to issue CoO?

Because this third way is just standard Austin-bashing.

[drummer]

There was a point made in an article that I read from some professor (sorry for not having the link handy) regarding whether or not other Republicans would go for this anyway. It adds significant time to needed projects and could have ripple effects in areas of the state which desperately need infrastructure and other projects to provide for constituents. Some may try to slow this down or kill it altogether from that angle because it adds unnecessary bureaucracy to an already complicated system.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by drummer

There was a point made in an article that I read from some professor (sorry for not having the link handy) regarding whether or not other Republicans would go for this anyway. It adds significant time to needed projects and could have ripple effects in areas of the state which desperately need infrastructure and other projects to provide for constituents. Some may try to slow this down or kill it altogether from that angle because it adds unnecessary bureaucracy to an already complicated system.

The problem is that (as usual) it's a donut law that's specifically written to (right now) only apply to Austin/ATP. A city can still issue CoO. A couty can still issue CoO. Even some other LGCs can. The only thing that can't is a LGC that gets tax transfers from the city (maybe there's another one out there, but I'd be a bit surprised).

[freerover]

Originally Posted by drummer

There was a point made in an article that I read from some professor (sorry for not having the link handy) regarding whether or not other Republicans would go for this anyway. It adds significant time to needed projects and could have ripple effects in areas of the state which desperately need infrastructure and other projects to provide for constituents. Some may try to slow this down or kill it altogether from that angle because it adds unnecessary bureaucracy to an already complicated system.

The issue with that is they have a way to make sure the law doesn't negatively affect them. They can set it to apply to entities only in big cities or counties above a certain population. Still, hopefully it doesn't get much traction but it seems like a fuck you to Austin and climate efforts that it would get enough GOP dicks hard to pass.

[ATX2030]

Originally Posted by drummer

There was a point made in an article that I read from some professor (sorry for not having the link handy) regarding whether or not other Republicans would go for this anyway. It adds significant time to needed projects and could have ripple effects in areas of the state which desperately need infrastructure and other projects to provide for constituents. Some may try to slow this down or kill it altogether from that angle because it adds unnecessary bureaucracy to an already complicated system.

Here you go...

KXAN

https://www.kxan.com/news/texas-poli...xas-lawmakers/

[drummer]

^^ Thanks for posting the link!

[freerover]

Check Jack Craver's mailing list for the 5 proposals for the 1st phase of LRT construction.

[Novacek]

https://www.austinpolitics.net/a-loo...ics-newsletter

Some interesting details.
Seems like with the paring down of the track, that also (as expected) reduced the number of trains we need for now, which then opened up more options for the maintenance yard. But what does that mean for later expansion? Two yards? Relocating?

An advantage for the option that keeps the maintenance yard location with room for expansion.


So where would the yard go on the NLTC option? On the existing lot? And lose the park and ride, or go with structured parking? Or would they try to put it across 183 to the SW (even though it isn't really drawn that way)?

[Novacek]

This all just continues to reiterate that not passing the 2014 rail plan was a _huge_ mistake. We could have already had trains running, and be expanding that to larger than this.

[freerover]

Maybe the maintenance facility could go in the public storage facility across from the transit center? Real estate cost of that is going to be high.

[papertowelroll]

Wow that is rough. Seems likely to be above ground and *still* much smaller than originally planned.

[papertowelroll]

Originally Posted by Novacek

This all just continues to reiterate that not passing the 2014 rail plan was a _huge_ mistake. We could have already had trains running, and be expanding that to larger than this.

On a similar note, I almost wonder if we should invest more of the money into the red line. The red line for all its worts is up and running. Can we increase the hours, frequency, and station density? Perhaps add a second downtown stop? Then again, CapMetro needs $40M for redline stations so maybe something is just broken here.

[We vs us]

I hate it, but we definitely still need to build something, even if drastically reduced. To Novacek's point, the original sin is not actually having already started. If we had, we'd be talking about expansions (like Dallas), rather than how to get it all going.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by papertowelroll

On a similar note, I almost wonder if we should invest more of the money into the red line. The red line for all its worts is up and running. Can we increase the hours, frequency, and station density? Perhaps add a second downtown stop? Then again, CapMetro needs $40M for redline stations so maybe something is just broken here.

We're sort of already doing that. The PC work included double tracking here and there (leander to lakeline) and by the two new stations.
The grade separation at Lamar study is at least still ongoing as well.

The full double tracking was scoped out of PC in favor of gold line light rail. Which was itself scoped out. So knowing all we do, would we have done anything differently? Probably not, we still need as much as we can for the LRT.

In hindsight, should we have gone for the full 10B plan, and therefore have more headroom to scope down? That's the question. Though who knows what that would have done for the final election numbers.

[ATX2030]

That is a big haircut. Unfortunately I don't think this will be last one. Will be interesting to see when dirt turns and construction actually begins.

[enthurzan]

Shout-out to local government, for being completely unable to build any transit projects whatsoever.

Allow me to get on my soapbox for a moment.

https://www.austinmonitor.com/storie...ch-open-house/

Mayor Pro Tem Paige Ellis said increasing real estate costs throughout the city removes pausing the project as an option for dealing with the rising costs. She said equity needs to be considered along with commercial and residential density when deciding on the possible revisions to the system.

Instead of worrying about buzzwords like "equity" Ellis & the rest of the bureaucracy needs to be worried about delivering what they promised to taxpayers - aka, a comprehensive light rail network. Anything that gets in the way of meeting that goal should be put aside.

Here is the leaked draft of "5 new scenarios" in light of "rising costs" that make the original plan a "non-starter."

https://www.austinpolitics.net/a-loo...ics-newsletter

I highly doubt that CapMetro can even pull that off. What we will end up with is a transit boondoggle that wastes taxpayer funds, goes almost nowhere, has low ridership, and does not accomplish the objectives laid down in the original project connect.

The most important issue is getting the most transit for the least cost. "Rising costs" seem to be killing transit projects all around the country, but no one can give me a good explanation of what is causing these "rising costs." American government, from local to national, seem unable to build anything anymore. Then only thing we can build is not enough for too much. Check out California HSR, Amtrak, NYC's 2nd Ave Subway, Atlanta's MoreMARTA. We need to take a good hard look at how transit projects are done and fix whatever the hell is going on that makes it nearly impossible to build anything in this country.

We desperately need a new Robert Moses. At least he could get stuff built.

A few ways to do this would be reducing red tape and regulations, reducing community meetings to a minimum or preferably zero, reducing the length planning phase, getting rid of most "studies," reducing the engineering team to a minimum, using in-house engineers instead of expensive contractors, and get shovels in the ground as soon as possible. As Moses said, it's better to have a half-constructed project and demand more money (because the politicians will always give it to you), than no transit project.

[enthurzan]

Originally Posted by Novacek

They aren't subways, which is why they're so cheap


It's not just the station, it's the track. I believe both McKalla and Broadmoor are double-tracking at the same time as station construction. There's also the requirement to keep the existing train service (passenger and freight) running the (almost) whole time. And of course, everything new has to be brought up to modern standards, unlike the existing track which was originally laid down over a hundred years ago.

Plus I believe that listed 35M cost would also include the structured parking they're doing for the broadmoor station, and bus infrastructure as well (one reason this would be more expensive than McKalla).
"Construction of new rail station for Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority, to include additional track, infrastructure requirements, bus stop area, parking and platform."

Edit/add: turns out the stite plan for the broadmoor station is online at the city's ABC site. As mentioned in the story it's still making it's way through the process.

Up to 178 pages. Submitted more than a year ago. The issue is that our development regulations and planning department are out of control.

Okay, but the station was "just" $24M 1 year ago. Inflation has not been 45%, so explain to me why construction costs for a basic station platform and a parking lot, very simple things to construct, have ballooned 45%. We need answers. There is no justifiable reason. It is literally a concrete platform, a steel roof, and a parking lot. Not rocket science, not even close.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by enthurzan

Okay, but the station was "just" $24M 1 year ago. Inflation has not been 45%, so explain to me why construction costs for a basic station platform and a parking lot, very simple things to construct, have ballooned 45%. We need answers. There is no justifiable reason.

Again, you’re likely comparing apples to oranges. You’re comparing the cost of a station to the cost of a station/parking/bus infrastructure

Originally Posted by enthurzan

It is literally a concrete platform, a steel roof, and a parking lot. Not rocket science, not even close.

And adding a bunch of new double tracking, while simultaneously running trains through there continually. And drainage issues. And pedestrian crossing infrastructure. And probably structured parking, not a lot…