AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by rhoby13

So what's your solution to this problem?

Stop throwing good money after bad; force Capital Metro to stop plans to buy more idiotic DMU trains for the Red Line; stop the Green Line (Elgin commuter rail); wrest control of Capital Metro's capital budget from them and put it under the control of CAMPO; and get to work full speed on the CAMPO TWG streetcar plan (second-best approach which may SOMEDAY get us rail on Guadalupe, although unlikely).

There is no way to fix or expand the Red Line into something that works. Get that through your head before you spend any more energy.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by M1EK

As for financing, the 1% sales tax was expected to be able to handle the starter segment, and perhaps the entire line, without additional funding. At the time, the bus system was using about 2/3 of a cent, and Capital Metro was sitting on some large reserves. All of that is history, now, of course, since Cap Metro had to blow $120M of Austin's money running commuter trains that only benefit Leander (and barely, at that). Again, read the articles - unlike most other transit starts that required voter approval, we were not proposing a plan that would have required additional funding via taxes or other means - the money was there, and the plan was sound.

CapMetro, according to you, wasted $120 million for today's Red Line, and doesn't have $200 million for another Line. It''s been eight years since the failed 2000 vote to spend $970 million. The $120 million

Some math:
$970 million - $120 million = $850 million.

So where was that remaining $850 million spent?

Remember, CapMetro reports they can even raise $200 million for a new rail line, streetcar line, bus rapid line, nor anything! That $120 million CapMetro spent on the Red Line is chump change in comparison to 2000's $970 million.

I ask again, how could CapMetro afford $970 million light rail project in 2000? Where was the money coming from? Please don't reply again they could then, because the real truth is they say they can't now? Are they lying today, or were they lying back then?

[M1EK]

electricon, you have no idea what you're talking about. How many times do you have to be proven wrong before you stop asserting things about this project?

CM returned 1/4 of their sales tax revenue to their local governments for many years after the 2000 election, and counted on 50% from the Feds, among other things. This is not the first time I've mentioned the 50% federal contribution (as opposed to squat for commuter rail).

[electricron]

Originally Posted by M1EK

electricon, you have no idea what you're talking about. How many times do you have to be proven wrong before you stop asserting things about this project?

CM returned 1/4 of their sales tax revenue to their local governments for many years after the 2000 election, and counted on 50% from the Feds, among other things. This is not the first time I've mentioned the 50% federal contribution (as opposed to squat for commuter rail).

50% contribution from the Feds? I don't think that's happen since the last Bush took office, over 8 years ago. Around 40% is what the Feds provide today. For almost a $Billion project, CapMetro would have received around $400 million, not the $500 million they wiished.
Here's the Federal New Starts funding that was set in 2006.

AZ, Phoenix, Central Phoenix / East Valley Light Rail - 41.5%
The total project cost under the FFGA is $1,412.12 million. The Section 5309 New Starts funding share is $587.20 million.

CA, Los Angeles, Metro Gold Line Eastside Extension - 54.5%
The total project cost under the Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) is $898.81 million. The Section 5309 New Starts funding share is $490.70 million.

CO, Denver, Southeast Corridor LRT - 59.7%
The total project cost under the Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) for this project is $879.27 million. The Section 5309 New Starts funding share is $525.00 million.

D.C. Washington Area, Largo Metrorail Extension - 60%
Total amended capital costs of the project are $607.20 million. The Section 5309 New Starts funding share for the project is $364.30 million.

IL, Chicago, Ravenswood Line Extension - 46.3%
The total project cost under the Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) is $529.91 million. The Section 5309 New Starts funding share is $245.52 million.

NJ, Northern New Jersey, Hudson-Bergen MOS-2 - 41.1%
The total cost of MOS-2 under the Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) is $1,215.40 million. The Section 5309 New Starts funding share for the project is $500.00 million.

NY, New York, Long Island Rail Road East Side Access - 35.6%
The total project cost under the Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) is $7,386.00 million. The Section 5309 New Starts funding share is $2,632.10 million.

PA, Pittsburgh, North Shore LRT Connector - 54.1%
The total project cost under the FFGA for the North Shore LRT Connector is $435.00 million. The Section 5309 New Starts funding share is $235.70 million.

TX, Dallas, Northwest/Southeast LRT MOS - 49.7%
The total project cost under the Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) for the NW/SE LRT is $1,406.22 million. The Section 5309 New Starts funding share is $700.00 million.

UT, Salt Lake City, Weber County to Salt Lake City Commuter Rail - 80%
The total project cost under the Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) is $611.68 million. The Section 5309 New Starts funding share is $489.35 million.

WA, Seattle, Central Link Initial Segment - 20.5%
The total project cost under the Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) is $2,436.90 million. The Section 5309 New Starts funding share is $500.00 million.

Looks like a wide % range in individual projects. Only one project in each Metro Statistical Areas is allowed. For example, Salt Lake's 80% Federal funding for commuter rail looks awesome, but the light rail project being built at the same time got nothing. Dart's Green Line got nearly a 50% share, but Dart's Orange Line got nothing.

What was the Feds percentage for all projects? Note, some of these projects have been completed, and some are still under construction. Also note, most of these cities are much larger than Austin. Here's the math: 7269.8 / 16919.7 = 42.9%

[SecretAgentMan]

During the Clinton Administration, the FTA allowed up to 80% Federal funding for New Starts. Cap Metro was hoping the local match for the starter line would only be $200 M.

During the Bush Administration the maximum was reduced to 50%, and the cost effectiveness criteria for light rail was tightened up to push bus rapid transit. The list of projects above with greater than 50% Federal funding probably used other projects for local match, so the overall % of Federal funding was actually less than 50%.

Between 2000 and 2004, Cap Metro had to return 1/4 cent of sales tax to member jurisdictions due to the failed vote in 2000. With rising costs and falling revenue, the 1/4 cent refund began to eat into reserves for light rail match. Cap Metro had to win an election in 2004 or risk losing all future ability to fund light rail. Commuter rail at $90 M for 32 miles was much easier to sell to suburban voters (whose population is growing faster than urban voters) than 8 miles of light rail entirely within the City of Austin that they could afford in 2004.

City of Austin / Cap Metro have requested over $300 M for rail transit in the economic stimulus package. If the Obama Administration changes FTA criteria to be more like it was during the Clinton Administration, there is a better chance that Austin will have a more extensive streetcar / light rail network in its future.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by SecretAgentMan

During the Clinton Administration, the FTA allowed up to 80% Federal funding for New Starts. Cap Metro was hoping the local match for the starter line would only be $200 M.

During the Bush Administration the maximum was reduced to 50%, and the cost effectiveness criteria for light rail was tightened up to push bus rapid transit. The list of projects above with greater than 50% Federal funding probably used other projects for local match, so the overall % of Federal funding was actually less than 50%.

Between 2000 and 2004, Cap Metro had to return 1/4 cent of sales tax to member jurisdictions due to the failed vote in 2000. With rising costs and falling revenue, the 1/4 cent refund began to eat into reserves for light rail match. Cap Metro had to win an election in 2004 or risk losing all future ability to fund light rail. Commuter rail at $90 M for 32 miles was much easier to sell to suburban voters (whose population is growing faster than urban voters) than 8 miles of light rail entirely within the City of Austin that they could afford in 2004.

City of Austin / Cap Metro have requested over $300 M for rail transit in the economic stimulus package. If the Obama Administration changes FTA criteria to be more like it was during the Clinton Administration, there is a better chance that Austin will have a more extensive streetcar / light rail network in its future.

True! We'll just have to wait and see. From what I've read, Obama's more worried about repairing the existing infrastructure than building brand new projects.

As you can see from the 2006 stats I presented earlier, Bush's administration spent $6 billion each year on mass transit.
Obama's budget for next year is $6 Billion for mass transit. Not much of an increase. But Obama's stimulus plan includes another one time expenditure of $3 billion for ready to go projects using existing formulas, ie 40-50%. I wouldn't expect much more, unless we have another stimulus plan again next year.

Math: $16,919,000 million/ 4 years = 4,228,750 millon/year for new starts. Bus transit systems consumed the rest.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by SecretAgentMan

Cap Metro had to win an election in 2004 or risk losing all future ability to fund light rail.

Which, of course, we have now completely lost anyways - since the lie that Capital Metro was going to provide rail service to Central Austin was exposed after the election. We will now never have rail on Guadalupe by UT and are unlikely to ever have rail even on San Jacinto, because Capital Metro is seeking money for further commuter rail projects rather than light rail. If we ever get any light rail at all here, even the CAMPO TWG plan which doesn't really serve central Austin as most people understood it, it will be despite Capital Metro and commuter rail.

You know this to be true, and yet you continue to mislead people into thinking that commuter rail somehow leads us down a path where we can actually get light rail. For one thing, commuter rail means we can never have a direct train ride that goes by UT and the Capitol and then continues to the suburbs - this is NOT a political or financing problem, but a problem of infrastructure; the decision to invest in this useless DMU line has precluded us from running LRT on that corridor, essentially forever.

Electricon, don't pat yourself on the back too much here - you were wrong on every point you argued; as SAM has confirmed by omission here.

The drop from 80% to 50% match after 2000 would have been harder, but not impossible, to deal with - Seattle managed to do so with an LRT plan and a set of financials much like ours. Our cost-effectiveness result here would have been just fine - as it did in Seattle - the Feds gave our 2000 plan about as high a rating as was possible given the lack of specifics on a couple of route sections and the absence of the Triangle and new development in West Campus at the time.

[rhoby13]

Does anyone have a link to the 2000 Vote and the 2004 vote?

[M1EK]

Some of the links I provided upstream deal with the 2000 vote. You can also try my blog - read this category link:

http://mdahmus.monkeysystems.com/blo..._you_want.html

Goes back to 2003, but covers the 2000 election after the fact (many links to stories from the Chron for that).

[electricron]

Originally Posted by rhoby13

Does anyone have a link to the 2000 Vote and the 2004 vote?

Try the Light Rail website.

Here's an interesting news story about the 2000 loss:

http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrob...?oid=oid:79916

Excerpts:
This giving-away-money stuff should sound familiar to old hands who remember Capital Metro's long service as the ATM of local politics: the place everyone went to get extra cash. While the agency opened its doors in 1986 with a future rail transit system on its to-do list, it wasn't until 1992 that Cap Met advanced an actual proposal. Then the agency backed off, changed the plan substantially, and launched another for-real effort in 1997. In response, the Legislature fired the entire Cap Met board and "enabled" (that is, required) light rail to be approved at the ballot box. Capital Metro spent a year reworking its light rail plan, then began formal planning as required by federal law and went to the polls November 7, where rail lost by 0.7% of the vote.
In those long intervals when rail was off-again and not on-again, Capital Metro had more money than it knew what to do with, and revenue slipped away, often funding the strangest projects. This is how Cap Met got such a bad reputation, which made it easy for local Republican legislators such as Terry Keel, R-Austin (in 1997), and Mike Krusee, R-Round Rock (in 1999), to file bills that would separate the agency from its money.
That regional plan, prepared by the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (of which all our local legislators, including Keel and Krusee, are board members) has presumed we will have at least a 54-mile rail system. Rail was a part of CAMPO planning before there was a Capital Metro, and rail ain't going anywhere -- vote or no vote. "We have a huge problem on IH-35 and on Loop 1," says CAMPO executive director Mike Aulick, who warns that a no-rail alternative may force those two highways to grow to 12 or even 16 lanes. "We have four solutions to that problem -- rebuilding IH-35 and MoPac, building State Highway 130, and building light rail. You don't get a lot of impact from any one project; you need them all."
So a temporary rebate of some of Cap Metro's funds is the most politically palatable move. A three-year rebate would total about $109 million, on top of the $91 million (out of the agency's reserves) that Cap Met has already pledged to the Texas Dept. of Transportation for high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes and incident management systems.

Therefore, CapMetro lost in theory $109 million during the rebate years.
Some math, 109 (lost) + 120 (red line) = 229.
$229 Million and another $200 million (green line) comes no where near the $900 million for the 2000 light rail costs. Yet, CapMetro suggest today it doesn't have $200 million to pay the costs for building the Green Line today.

I still seriously doubt it ever had the money to afford the 2000 light rail plan. Maybe, if CapMetro had not given away so much money prior to 2000 it could.

[M1EK]

Once again, electricon, you have no idea what you're talking about.

1. The 2000 proposal, as SAM indicated, projected up to 80% federal participation. That knocks the $900M down to $180M local funding required.

2. CM had 20-25 years to get the money (bond based on their own future sales tax revenues).

3. Even at 50%, they probably could have bonded that much based on the 1% tax - since they already had a hefty down payment available in reserves.

4. The money they 'gave away' was AFTER 2000 - between 2000 and 2004.

If you don't know what you're talking about, allow me to once again respectfully suggest you stay away from these threads, or at least, contribute based on areas you DO know something about.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by M1EK

Once again, electricon, you have no idea what you're talking about.
4. The money they 'gave away' was AFTER 2000 - between 2000 and 2004.
If you don't know what you're talking about, allow me to once again respectfully suggest you stay away from these threads, or at least, contribute based on areas you DO know something about.

Of course I don't know the complete history, that's why I post links to every post. Are you suggesting that Austin American-Statesman and the Austin Chronicle don't know the history? That Light Rail.com and Light Rail Now.com don't?

You're great at remembering facts from 10 years ago, but you provide few links to back your story up? Whom am I to believe, you or the Austin newspaper?

By the way, my last link from the Chronicle was published December 22, 2000. I can't believe all the give-a-ways you suggest occurred after 2000 election caused the Chronicle to complain about that very topic in a news article dated December 22, 2000.

"This giving-away-money stuff should sound familiar to old hands who remember Capital Metro's long service as the ATM of local politics: the place everyone went to get extra cash. While the agency opened its doors in 1986 with a future rail transit system on its to-do list, it wasn't until 1992 that Cap Met advanced an actual proposal. Then the agency backed off, changed the plan substantially, and launched another for-real effort in 1997. In response, the Legislature fired the entire Cap Met board and "enabled" (that is, required) light rail to be approved at the ballot box. Capital Metro spent a year reworking its light rail plan, then began formal planning as required by federal law and went to the polls November 7, where rail lost by 0.7% of the vote."

Since you know this history from memory, Why the State Legislature stepped in and fired the entire CapMetro board of directors in 1997?

[M1EK]

electricron, I have backed up every single thing I've posted - and I was here, on the UTC, and waving a sign on election night in 2000. You have provided vague links and numbers that theoretically back up an argument about general financials - except they are completely contradicted by actual, you know, REAL facts from the time period in question, all provided by me and verified by the Chronicle.

At this point, you should probably be apologizing for the ten or twenty times you've argued that I couldn't possibly be right - you were coming from a position of complete ignorance, yet you were blithely self-assured that somehow you knew what you were talking about.

You're 0-fer. You have absolutely no right to argue any of this history with me at this point.

(0-for-11 update: the 2000 Chronicle story you mention is talking about the PROSPECT of being forced to give back some of the sales tax money IN THE FUTURE, which CM forestalled by voluntarily returning 1/4 cent for the next few years AFTER that).

1997 is a bit too early for me - I only moved here in January 1996.

[PartyLine]

Originally Posted by M1EK

electricron, I have backed up every single thing I've posted - and I was here, on the UTC, and waving a sign on election night in 2000. You have provided vague links and numbers that theoretically back up an argument about general financials - except they are completely contradicted by actual, you know, REAL facts from the time period in question, all provided by me and verified by the Chronicle.

At this point, you should probably be apologizing for the ten or twenty times you've argued that I couldn't possibly be right - you were coming from a position of complete ignorance, yet you were blithely self-assured that somehow you knew what you were talking about.

You're 0-fer. You have absolutely no right to argue any of this history with me at this point.

(0-for-11 update: the 2000 Chronicle story you mention is talking about the PROSPECT of being forced to give back some of the sales tax money IN THE FUTURE, which CM forestalled by voluntarily returning 1/4 cent for the next few years AFTER that).

1997 is a bit too early for me - I only moved here in January 1996.

Atleast his link is from one of the newspapers your link is just a blog website that you have. You only moved here in 1996? I've been in Austin since 1982

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by PartyLine

Atleast his link is from one of the newspapers your link is just a blog website that you have. You only moved here in 1996? I've been in Austin since 1982

My links were from the Chronicle -> I referred him and other readers to the blog to indicate how long I've been writing about the issue, and to provide a single place to get a whole bunch of citations from the Chronicle (who, unlike the Statesman, keeps their archives free).

[PartyLine]

Oh sorry I didnt see the Chronicle link just the blog one

[rhoby13]

Stop throwing good money after bad; force Capital Metro to stop plans to buy more idiotic DMU trains for the Red Line; stop the Green Line (Elgin commuter rail); wrest control of Capital Metro's capital budget from them and put it under the control of CAMPO; and get to work full speed on the CAMPO TWG streetcar plan (second-best approach which may SOMEDAY get us rail on Guadalupe, although unlikely).

There is no way to fix or expand the Red Line into something that works. Get that through your head before you spend any more energy.

Is it even possible without some kind of election or city council vote to wrest control of Capital Metro's budget and put it in the hands of CAMPO?

[M1EK]

CAMPO could accomplish it, because they basically represent a large chunk of CM's board, essentially all of CM's money, and a good chunk of the guys who oversee CM at the state. Additionally, a non-neglible part of CM's funding goes through CAMPO already.

In an ideal world, CAMPO would just take over CM's capital project planning entirely, and force freeriding jerks like Round Rock and Leander to start paying in.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by M1EK

CAMPO could accomplish it, because they basically represent a large chunk of CM's board, essentially all of CM's money, and a good chunk of the guys who oversee CM at the state. Additionally, a non-neglible part of CM's funding goes through CAMPO already.

In an ideal world, CAMPO would just take over CM's capital project planning entirely, and force freeriding jerks like Round Rock and Leander to start paying in.

Dart has the same problems with free-loading cities. NCTCOG and CAMPO don't have any authority to tax anything. The State Legislature does, and has authorized several different variations for transit agencies.

It's in the Texas Transportation Code.
http://tlo2.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/tn.toc.htm

CHAPTER 451. METROPOLITAN RAPID TRANSIT AUTHORITIES
CHAPTER 452. REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITIES
CHAPTER 453. MUNICIPAL TRANSIT DEPARTMENTS
CHAPTER 454. MUNICIPAL MASS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
CHAPTER 455. GENERAL POWERS AND DUTIES OF DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION REGARDING MASS TRANSPORTATION
CHAPTER 456. STATE FINANCING OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION
CHAPTER 457. COUNTY MASS TRANSIT AUTHORITY
CHAPTER 458. RURAL AND URBAN TRANSIT DISTRICTS
CHAPTER 460. COORDINATED COUNTY TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITIES

Dallas' DART was formed under Chapter 452. Fort Worth's T was formed under Chapter 451. Denton County's DCTA was formed under Chapter 460.
What chapter was CapMetro formed under?

All require Cities to vote to pay taxes for transit and rail projects, not Counties nor Metropolitan Planning Organizations.

What you advocate has no standing under State Law.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by electricron

What you advocate has no standing under State Law.

Which can be changed in about 30 seconds, as it was when Mike Krusee decided that Capital Metro (and Capital Metro alone) would have to have an election in November of an even-numbered year to start a rail system, even when no change to taxation was involved. Despite the fact that CM is authorized and regulated by the same ordinances in other respects as are Houston's and Dallas's agencies - which did not have this election requirement placed on them.

The people who could change that state law and write another one accomplishing this capital budget change are heavily represented at CAMPO (and nobody else at the state would mind taking power away from Capital Metro). Additionally, the city of Austin is actually represented pretty well at CAMPO (about as well as we are on Capital Metro's board itself).

If you think the fact that the CAMPO TWG has gotten heavily involved in rail planning, and this is important: without consulting Capital Metro much more than in a lip-service capacity is somehow irrelevant, think again. Our city council has displayed strong evidence over the last 2 years or so that they are extremely displeased with the fact that our city pays 95% of the bills and is getting effectively none of the rail service in the plan, even in the long-term.