Quote:
Originally Posted by M1EK
Thanks, A4PT sycophant.
|
Maybe you could limit yourself to facts instead of immature name-calling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by M1EK
1. It passed in the city limits in 2000.
|
And since 2000, the city of Austin has become _more_ suburban (density has decreased). Source:
http://www.austincontrarian.com/aust...2000-2010.html
The overall electorate has become _more_ like the portions of the electorate that rejected the 2000 plan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by M1EK
It passed overwhelmingly in the area where 75% of traffic lanes were going to be lost.
|
By this I assume you mean the neighborhoods immediately adjacent? But they aren't the only users of those lanes, and every voter in Austin who uses those lanes, and believes (rightly or wrongly) that their removal will adversely affect their travels, is a potential vote against the project.
Quote:
Originally Posted by M1EK
2. Assuming this election would NOT be rigged by Krusee, and knowing that the last election lost by 1500 votes or so, it is most definitely a lie for you to pretend that it's "not possible" for a new election to succeed.
|
It isn't likely, given changes in the electorate. You said they should put the "best possible" plan up for a vote, even if it was failure with the voters. That's counterproductive. A good plan that is actually implemented is better than a pie in the sky plan that is immediately dead with the electorate (which a simple repeat of the 2000 plan probably would have been, due to the increasingly hostile electorate).
Quote:
Originally Posted by M1EK
3. Capital Metro counted on a 50% Federal match, which they would have easily gotten. Bonding would have been required.
|
Sure, 50% federal match (not guaranteed, but pretty good odds). But the total cost of the project was way more than double what they spent on the red line (not including the inevitable cost overruns). And the red line basically bankrupted Cap Metro. They wouldn't have been able to spend 5 times as much (after federal matching).
Quote:
Originally Posted by M1EK
They would, in fact, have been able to pull it off - and when done, it wouldn't have required $35/ride operating subsidies like the Red Line did at opening (it's down to something like $25/ride now!)
|
The per-person subsidy is meaningless in this context, it's the total operating expenses that matter. The red line is small enough and infrequent enough that the money spent on it doesn't endanger Cap Metro's financial viability. The total operating expenses for a larger and more-frequent rail line, like the 2000 plan, would have been more than what CapMetro is spending on the red line.
Quote:
Originally Posted by M1EK
4. The only suburb that matters for the next rail election is Leander, because the other ones aren't going to get to vote on it. The # of people who moved into Austin since 2000 is, I bet, equal or more than the # that moved into Leander.
|
I think you're confused. If it's a CapMetro rail plan, then all the CapMetro suburbs get to vote on it (because it's their money). If it's a city of Austin-only plan, then only Austin gets to vote on it.
In the former case, you take the electorate of the failing vote, and make it even more suburban. In the later case, the electorate (where it passed) has gotten more suburban in the meantime, but it still has a chance. If, I repeat, if the plan is carefully crafted to receive acceptance from the voters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by M1EK
The number of riders who live in Austin or Leander compared to those who live outside the taxing area (i.e. Cedar Park, Round Rock, Pflugerville, Liberty Hill, etc.) is small. I never claimed it to be absolutely zero (although sometimes a 140 character limit makes a paraphrase necessary); but I believe the evidence shows that most of the riders are not from Austin itself. I've written about it on the blog and had it confirmed by a rider, most recently here:
http://m1ek.dahmus.org/?p=761
|
So by an informal raising of hands, in one car, at one station, on one morning, you have drawn a scientific conclusion? And you ignore Howard station on down, which from your _own_ figures are 40% of the boardings (of your one data point).
Quote:
Originally Posted by M1EK
I've backed up my claims. Time for you to back up yours.
|
Done.