AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[wwmiv]

God for once it isn't me in the prolonged argument...

[Novacek]

Okay, this is a different dead horse, since it isn't about rail

Originally Posted by nixcity

Doesn't prove a causal relationship and also doesn't show whether or not other cities have done the same.

Okay, your claim is that, unlike any other good or service known to economists, CapMetro's transit demand is completely price-inelastic, and there is no decrease in demand in response to raising prices?

Of course raising prices has had a causal effect on ridership numbers. It's undeniable. We'd have to do more research to find the magnitude of the effect, but it's there.

And we're not talking minor price increases either. Since 2008, standard bus riders have seen a 150% increase in ticket prices(50 cents to a buck 25). In seven years.
Those that have switched from the 1 to the metrorapid have seen a 250% increase in prices.

That explains a big part of their flat-line since 2008. And the slightly lowered total ridership numbers post-metrorapid.

You falsely claimed I worked for CapMetro. I don't, and I'll damn them when they deserve it. Their pricing model is short-sighted and self-defeating. Transit doesn't pay for itself, and getting caught up on a FRR of 10% vs. 20% is short-sighted.

Though as I said, I understand why they do it. They're legally required to, by the legislature. Total system ridership isn't the metric they're judged on.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Of course raising prices has had a causal effect on ridership numbers. It's undeniable. We'd have to do more research to find the magnitude of the effect, but it's there.

You falsely claimed I worked for CapMetro. I don't, and I'll damn them when they deserve it. Their pricing model is short-sighted and self-defeating. Transit doesn't pay for itself, and getting caught up on a FRR of 10% vs. 20% is short-sighted.

Though as I said, I understand why they do it. They're legally required to, by the legislature. Total system ridership isn't the metric they're judged on.

Every bus system in Texas has experienced higher fares over the last 10 years. I believed I pointed out years ago that CapMetro had very low fares compared to other cities in Texas.

To be fair, here's a few other basic bus fare examples:
DART $2.50 (2 Hour Pass)
FWTA $1.75
Metro $1.25
VIA $1.30
SunMetro $1.50
CapMetro $1.25

Even with the recent fare increases, CapMetro is still the lowest.
I would also like to point out that there are different lower fares programs available at all the transit agencies. The fares shown above are full fares without the various available discounts.

When transit agencies look for outside funding, either federal or state, for operations, maintenance, and capital projects, local funding sources are needed to provide the local match. The more local money that can be applied to the project, the more likely you will get federal and state matching funds. Sales taxes and fares are the two largest sources of local funds. In many cases, like CapMetro, sales tax rates are already maxed out, therefore the easiest way available for local transit agencies to increase local funds is via fares. Their other alternative is by reducing costs, i.e. providing less service, which is counter to their overall mission.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by electricron

Every bus system in Texas has experienced higher fares over the last 10 years. I believed I pointed out years ago that CapMetro had very low fares compared to other cities in Texas.

To be fair, here's a few other basic bus fare examples:
DART $2.50 (2 Hour Pass)
FWTA $1.75
Metro $1.25
VIA $1.30
SunMetro $1.50
CapMetro $1.25

Even with the recent fare increases, CapMetro is still the lowest.

Certainly. But if you're going to ding CapMetro on decreasing or flat ridership, that means the original endpoint was "inflated" by lower fares. Change that to $.50 in that list and it's even more of an outlier.

Originally Posted by electricron

I would also like to point out that there are different lower fares programs available at all the transit agencies. The fares shown above are full fares without the various available discounts.

Yep, though those have also seen price increases (if not quite to the same magnitude). For the rider transitioned from the 1 to the 801, the monthly pass rate increase has still been pretty substantial.

Originally Posted by electricron

When transit agencies look for outside funding, either federal or state, for operations, maintenance, and capital projects, local funding sources are needed to provide the local match. The more local money that can be applied to the project, the more likely you will get federal and state matching funds. Sales taxes and fares are the two largest sources of local funds. In many cases, like CapMetro, sales tax rates are already maxed out, therefore the easiest way available for local transit agencies to increase local funds is via fares. Their other alternative is by reducing costs, i.e. providing less service, which is counter to their overall mission.

Which gets to the heart of the matter. How do you measure how well they're fulfilling their "overall mission"?

By how much service they're running? By boardings? By rider miles (ridership numbers treat someone traveling 2 blocks and someone commuting 30 miles the same)? All ridership? just peak hours?

If CapMetro cuts one or two lower-performing routes, and then reduces ticket prices back to $1, goosing up ridership on all other routes, is that "counter to their overall mission"?

It's a hard problem, and really should demand an "all of the above" measure. Which is where I think the sunset commission's directives are shortsighted. As is just looking at boardings.

[Jdawgboy]

Part of it may also have to do with the shifting demographics. As I was trying to explain before about my good friend. She used to live in my neighborhood with easy access to the #5, #10, #3 Manchaca?.. and whatever bus # that runs down Stassney. The house they were renting was suddenly put up for sale just after the owner passed away. Being low income, they couldn't afford anything in this area and ultimately ended up off East Slaughter where there is no route. She has to walk with her 3 year old daughter over a mile to get to the Southpark Meadows bus stop. That stretch of Slaughter is pretty unsafe with limited sidewalks and is even more dangerous trying to walk at night. Capital Metro had some officials out there asking people what changes they would like to see. The overwhelming response was for a bus route to run down Slaughter east of I-35. That was nearly 2 years ago and so far no bus route east of 35. My friend used to rely heavily on Cap Metro but she tries to find other ways of getting around and only takes the bus if she can't get a ride or doesn't have enough for a taxi or ride share.

Her story isn't unique, you can hear similar situations with lower income people across the city who have had to move farther out from the central core. Many of these people are having to move out into the suburbs with no access to bus service at all.

It may not be the only reason why Cap Metro's ridership is down but I garantee it's part of it. Capital Metro isn't changing fast enough to meet the demands of a shifting demographic and sure, it's not just lower income people who use the bus, but they are the ones that rely on mass transit the most and capital Metro hasn't changed or added routes into the areas where many of the lower income populations are moving into.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

Being low income, they couldn't afford anything in this area and ultimately ended up off East Slaughter where there is no route. She has to walk with her 3 year old daughter over a mile to get to the Southpark Meadows bus stop. That stretch of Slaughter is pretty unsafe with limited sidewalks and is even more dangerous trying to walk at night. Capital Metro had some officials out there asking people what changes they would like to see. The overwhelming response was for a bus route to run down Slaughter east of I-35. That was nearly 2 years ago and so far no bus route east of 35.

Where on Slaughter?

I imagine a lot of the issue is that lots of "Slaughter east of I-35" isn't in the CapMetro service area, because it's not actually in CoA city limits.

https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/de..._completed.pdf

And that which is in CoA isn't enough to sustain a route by itself.

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

Her story isn't unique, you can hear similar situations with lower income people across the city who have had to move farther out from the central core. Many of these people are having to move out into the suburbs with no access to bus service at all.

It may not be the only reason why Cap Metro's ridership is down but I garantee it's part of it. Capital Metro isn't changing fast enough to meet the demands of a shifting demographic and sure, it's not just lower income people who use the bus, but they are the ones that rely on mass transit the most and capital Metro hasn't changed or added routes into the areas where many of the lower income populations are moving into.

I agree, and why I listed gentrification as one of the factors affecting ridership.

But the problem is that CapMetro _can't_ adapt. If someone who relies on transit moves to pflugerville or unincorporated areas, CapMetro can't serve them.

[Jdawgboy]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Where on Slaughter?

I imagine a lot of the issue is that lots of "Slaughter east of I-35" isn't in the CapMetro service area, because it's not actually in CoA city limits.

https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/de..._completed.pdf

And that which is in CoA isn't enough to sustain a route by itself.



I agree, and why I listed gentrification as one of the factors affecting ridership.

But the problem is that CapMetro _can't_ adapt. If someone who relies on transit moves to pflugerville or unincorporated areas, CapMetro can't serve them.

That entire stretch of Slaughter is developing with more neighborhoods and apartments. As far as the city limits goes, I'm surprised they haven't already annexed that area. Secondly it's not my friend's nor other low income families faults for having to move into those areas if those are the only areas that they can afford to live. If Cap Metro wants to be called Cap METRO. They need to consider areas bordering the city limits. I'm not including the suburbs unless they pitch in and pay taxes I'm talking about areas immediately adjacent to Austin. Areas that will be incorporated eventually.

I just don't see any improvement in mass transportation at this rate. I give up even bothering to continue to contribute to this conversation because nothing will change. I'm over it, just continue on and don't bother to reply to this post because I'm not going to check this thread anymore.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

That entire stretch of Slaughter is developing with more neighborhoods and apartments. As far as the city limits goes, I'm surprised they haven't already annexed that area. Secondly it's not my friend's nor other low income families faults for having to move into those areas if those are the only areas that they can afford to live. If Cap Metro wants to be called Cap METRO. They need to consider areas bordering the city limits. I'm not including the suburbs unless they pitch in and pay taxes I'm talking about areas immediately adjacent to Austin. Areas that will be incorporated eventually.

I just don't see any improvement in mass transportation at this rate. I give up even bothering to continue to contribute to this conversation because nothing will change. I'm over it, just continue on and don't bother to reply to this post because I'm not going to check this thread anymore.

There's reasons why living in the boondocks is cheaper than living in the city. No city taxes is one major reason! Are you aware that the city has a finite time limitation of providing city services to areas they annex? Like providing water and sewage, which is fairly expensive to provide to whole neighborhoods at a time.
Transit dependent people should not buy or rent property that's not served by transit, then complain about the lack of service. Bus routes are published by CapMetro, it is something a wise person should check before moving. I have more symphony for people moving to a home on a bus route and have the bus route changed and moved away from them. But bus routes aren't permanent, never have been and never will be. It's too easy to change them.

No doubt, sometime in the future, the city utilities will have a bond refrendrum passed, bonds sold, and with available funds the city will be able to annex more neighborhoods. Expect the richer more affluent neighborhood to be annexed first, because they will contribute more in tax revenues than expenses. Expect the poorer neighborhoods to be annexed last because expenses will be larger than tax revenues collected. That's the way it has always been. .

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by electricron

There's reasons why living in the boondocks is cheaper than living in the city. No city taxes is one major reason! Are you aware that the city has a finite time limitation of providing city services to areas they annex? Like providing water and sewage, which is fairly expensive to provide to whole neighborhoods at a time.
Transit dependent people should not buy or rent property that's not served by transit, then complain about the lack of service. Bus routes are published by CapMetro, it is something a wise person should check before moving. I have more symphony for people moving to a home on a bus route and have the bus route changed and moved away from them. But bus routes aren't permanent, never have been and never will be. It's too easy to change them.

No doubt, sometime in the future, the city utilities will have a bond refrendrum passed, bonds sold, and with available funds the city will be able to annex more neighborhoods. Expect the richer more affluent neighborhood to be annexed first, because they will contribute more in tax revenues than expenses. Expect the poorer neighborhoods to be annexed last because expenses will be larger than tax revenues collected. That's the way it has always been. .

And it is the way that it will always be, regardless of the normative nature of the practice.

[Flatiron]

City council stepped in something when they messed with ride sharing:

http://kxan.com/2016/02/02/rideshare...o-public-vote/

[KevinFromTexas]

http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/ne...-least-30.html

Austin's high-capacity transit plan at least 30 months away

Feb 4, 2016, 2:53pm CST

A new rail or other high-capacity transit plan for Austin is at the very least 30 months away, according to a senior Capital Metro official who spoke Wednesday before the Austin City Council Mobility Committee.

The 30-month timeline comes from Capital Metro's schedule to complete its Central Corridor Comprehensive Transit Analysis, otherwise known as the Central Corridor Study. That study's primary goal is to develop effective proposals for multi-modal transit for downtown Austin and the surrounding area, and it's open to all manner of solutions from rail to buses and beyond.

The discussion comes weeks after the city's Urban Transportation Commission recommended City Council take action to develop a high-capacity transit plan within the year. Mayor Steve Adler has also recently raised the idea of developing a new rail plan for Austin, but emphasized that such a plan is likely years off.

[KevinFromTexas]

http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/ne...rovements.html

Austin faces $4 billion dilemma on road improvements

Feb 4, 2016, 7:26am CST Updated Feb 4, 2016, 10:22am CST

As part of Mayor Steve Adler's "Year of Mobility" initiative, Wednesday’s meeting of the Austin Mobility Committee saw every member of City Council in attendance. Terry McCoy, Austin district engineer for the Texas Department of Transportation, and Assistant City Manager Robert Goode outlined a host of “shovel-ready” transportation projects throughout the city and the region that could be considered, vetted and put on the ballot for this coming November. Those projects include roadway, freeway, sidewalk and bicycle infrastructure projects as well as corridor studies.

McCoy’s presentation zipped through a string of proposed corridor infrastructure projects along a 65-mile stretch of I-35 in Williamson, Travis and Hays counties that could be partially funded by cities. The price tag for those proposed projects is an estimated $4.3 billion to $4.6 billion, including about $2 billion in Travis County alone. Of the whole, only $300 million has been funded so far.

“We’re adopting an 'everything and the kitchen sink' approach to I-35,” McCoy said.
That includes either modifying the downtown section of I-35 along its current double-decker form or depressing all of the lanes, which would drop them below ground level. If city leaders and state transportation officials agree to lowering I-35, McCoy noted local funds could be used to then cover it up and put the new real estate to use in some way.

[hereinaustin]

Looks like UP is backing out of the commuter rail negotiations.

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news...c-ends-/nqNxF/

[wwmiv]

Yeah, I am not surprised by that. Saddened immensely, but I never expected it to come to fruition. And, frankly, we have better options down the line and this will simply - hopefully - increase pressure on the city to get rail done right and in a /cohesive/ fashion.

[drummer]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Yeah, I am not surprised by that. Saddened immensely, but I never expected it to come to fruition. And, frankly, we have better options down the line and this will simply - hopefully - increase pressure on the city to get rail done right and in a /cohesive/ fashion.

I second the saddened part. I'm (sometimes painfully) an optimist and hoped it would happen. This seems fatal to me. I don't see that alignment happening at all with UP pulling out...and there wasn't really another option on the table so far as I know.

Hopefully better things will happen through this one not happening.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by drummer

I second the saddened part. I'm (sometimes painfully) an optimist and hoped it would happen. This seems fatal to me. I don't see that alignment happening at all with UP pulling out...and there wasn't really another option on the table so far as I know.

Hopefully better things will happen through this one not happening.

Lone Star Rail never found a source of funding to build anything, so I am not surprised UP got tired of waiting on them to lay new tracks.

FWTA is buying land and building dedicated passenger rail tracks on new right-of-way immediately parallel to an UP rail corridor. I suggest Lone Star Rail proceeding following the same course, it seems to be the only way to work with the UPRR.
Or follow UTA's lead, and buying half the width of the existing UP corridor and laying new dedicated passenger rail tracks parallel to the freight tracks. UTA was lucky that there weren't many freight trains on their corridor of choice, unlike what occurs on the UP corridor between Austin and San Antonio.

I have never seen how building a new bypass freight rail corridor, then refurbishing the existing freight corridor for commuter rail, was cheaper than building an entirely new passenger rail corridor? Maybe this will force Lone Star Rail to look at their implementation plans again.

The first thing they need to address is finding their own dedicated sources for funding. While their existing funding sources may underwrite operations and maintenance of the trains, it didn't find any money for building the train service....

[SecretAgentMan]

We haven't heard from Novacek in a while. I hope he is OK.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by SecretAgentMan

We haven't heard from Novacek in a while. I hope he is OK.

You left this comment simply to be an obnoxious sarcastic twit and that's exactly why nobody likes you here.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by SecretAgentMan

We haven't heard from Novacek in a while. I hope he is OK.

Very, very disappointed, but I'll be okay.

About to leave for my 10 minute commute, but saddened by all my fellow Austinites who will continue to have good transit options denied them.

[_Matt]

There are some comments about building a new line, but I think we might be missing the point. The UP line goes through the center of Austin without extra right-of-way width in many sections. Is there another way to run a line through the heart of downtown through our hubs of density like that? I'm curious to hear the proposal from those advocating for this.