AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by TexasCreed

Ok yes but astroturfing for Who and What? For there to be a conspiracy as is being suggested there should be motivation. For what you suggest there needs to be more than negligence and incompetence. Someone's interest are being represented behind the scenes.

A lot of people want rail somewhere and don't have the guts to put it where it needs to go, so they're trying to make the place they DO have the guts to go look a lot better in comparison.

A lot of people have a lot of political capital tied up in not making Rapid Bus look like the useless shit sandwich it is.

A lot of people have a lot tied up in rail campaigns not being cut off now.

There's a lot of different reasons for astroturfing. But I have encountered it, and even directly from Project Connect. I was quoted in the Statesman last week as one of the people who got the purposefully misleading flier, for instance.

[M1EK]

Attention Novacek:

Refer to this post and a bit further back in which you kept making claims like

That's what the article says. It says it's within 11% of where it was, which is within the margin of error since they're not measuring all the routes (any 275 riders, any 201 increase, etc.).

The 11% drop included the Route 275 ridership. Oops.

From Today's Chronicle

Ridership Numbers
Comparing the spring-quarter figures of the past two years on the Lamar corridor, where the MetroRapid 801 replaced the old 101 Express, and the local Route 1 replaced the old 1L/1M.
Route 2013 2014
1L/1M > 1 13,634 7,960
101 > 801 3,284 5,929
275 – 1,144
Total 16,918 15,033

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by M1EK

Attention Novacek:

Refer to this post and a bit further back in which you kept making claims like



The 11% drop included the Route 275 ridership. Oops.

From Today's Chronicle

Just for everyone else who isn't following this conversation in both places. yes, I'll cheerfully admit my statement was in error, based on the original erroneous article (which explicitly said the comparison was against only the metrorapid route (singular)).

http://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/201...-a-slow-start/

[Jdawgboy]

All I know is I'm voting for it. I've already said before that we are out of time and if we don't do something now, we're screwed.

I'm glad they added the I-35 improvements like fixing the 183 interchange which if they had done it right the first time, it wouldn't be huge huge mess that it is. With the road improvements attached, that will help a great deal.

There is one issue I have with Project Connect and that is it's secondary focus south of the river long term. The majority of their focus goes towards the northern part of the city and the suburbs. I guess they didn't see the articles about San Marcos being the fastest growing city under 100,000 in the nation. Or that Kyle is projected to grow larger than San Marcos and Buda is expected to swell to over 80,000 within 20 years. Looks to me like the fastest growth is starting to shift south. Yea Williamson will continue to be the biggest suburban county but, I would hope that they will expand the rail a bit more than whats currently proposed including an east west corridor from Oak Hill east past I35.

[LoneStarMike]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

All I know is I'm voting for it. I've already said before that we are out of time and if we don't do something now, we're screwed.

We were "out of time" 5 years ago. Even if we do something "now" it will still take (at a minimum) 7 years to complete. We don't have 7 years to fix our traffic problems.

I don't understand what a 9.5 mile train route can do that more buses running more frequently cannot do.

All I know is that I'm voting against it,

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by LoneStarMike

I don't understand what a 9.5 mile train route can do that more buses running more frequently cannot do.

Well for one thing, it actually adds capacity. A large part of the expense is that through most of the route, the track is being laid in addition to roads, not instead of. This includes the new bridge.

There's going to be a limit on how frequently you can run buses in existing shared lanes without making the traffic worse (assuming not everyone switches over to transit, which realistically they won't).

(for purposes of this advantage, mode is irrelevant. A dedicated busway in new lanes/new bridge would have the same effect. that would also be pretty expensive).

There's also the effect that rail will attract additional riders that buses won't. I like the new BRT vehicles, and those attract a certain segment in addition to normal buses, but there are those that will hold out for rail. For a variety of reasons (viewed as more high-class, more comfort, better performance characteristics/faster trip).

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

There is one issue I have with Project Connect and that is it's secondary focus south of the river long term. The majority of their focus goes towards the northern part of the city and the suburbs.

I think it's that by total population, the north is still growing more. Even if the south has a faster rate, a slightly lower rate (and it is really only slightly) of a larger base means more total people and more total traffic/congestion.

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

Or that Kyle is projected to grow larger than San Marcos and Buda is expected to swell to over 80,000 within 20 years.

Do you have a link to this article. I googled and couldn't seem to find it. The population projections I was able to find had San Marcos still well ahead of Kyle.
http://www.twdb.state.tx.us/waterpla...Population.pdf

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

Looks to me like the fastest growth is starting to shift south. Yea Williamson will continue to be the biggest suburban county but, I would hope that they will expand the rail a bit more than whats currently proposed including an east west corridor from Oak Hill east past I35.

Don't forget, there's still the lone star rail, which would help to serve these suburban cities. Also, project connect started with the northern corridor (again, due to it's larger population now and in the near-term future), but I would definitely expect them to start a southern corridor study as well.

[M1EK]

There's no limit to capacity on the Highland or Riverside route today. Plenty of room. That's really why the corridor was chosen, if you dig deep enough; Grampa Lee told Project Connect a long time ago that he didn't want to take lanes on any road where there was significant traffic.

As for "we have to do SOMEthing!", remember 2004?

We don't have enough money or political will to suffer a second rail line with very high operating subsidies. We run out of money when Highland is built; we never get to build any other lines anywhere.

Even if I and the other guys who have been right since 2004 are wrong this time and Highland goes gangbusters, we still can't build rail on Guadalupe next (despite what they're trying to convince you of now) since it's too close to Red River for both the FTA and for local politicians to risk going there again so quickly.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by M1EK

There's no limit to capacity on the Highland or Riverside route today. Plenty of room. That's really why the corridor was chosen, if you dig deep enough; Grampa Lee told Project Connect a long time ago that he didn't want to take lanes on any road where there was significant traffic.

We don't have enough money or political will to suffer a second rail line with very high operating subsidies. We run out of money when Highland is built; we never get to build any other lines anywhere.

Even if I and the other guys who have been right since 2004 are wrong this time and Highland goes gangbusters, we still can't build rail on Guadalupe next (despite what they're trying to convince you of now) since it's too close to Red River for both the FTA and for local politicians to risk going there again so quickly.

It's nice to see some acknowledgment that Guadalupe and Lamar don't have room for "two" transit only lanes within the existing right-of-way without eliminating traffic lanes from other types of traffic. Which is why I keep suggesting the more expensive aerial guideway above the streets on that corridor.
There's many rail proposals for the Austin area, it's going to be difficult to find funding for every one, it'll be more difficult to fund all if the most expensive solution is chosen for one of them.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by M1EK

As for "we have to do SOMEthing!", remember 2004?

I do. We passed and constructed an incredibly popular and successful rail line, that is operating at max capacity and well positioned for expansions and further ridership increases.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by Novacek

I do. We passed and constructed an incredibly popular and successful rail line, that is operating at max capacity and well positioned for expansions and further ridership increases.

Capital Metro promised 1700-2000 riders within months. I predicted 500-1000 riders. It delivered somewhere around 800 a few months in.

Then, Capital Metro cancelled the most popular express bus competition and started running trains all day. After those modifications, ridership eventually rose to what was promised without those modifications.

Capital Metro never sought Federal funding for the line, despite campaign promises to do so, drawing down capital by at least another $30 million beyond the tens of millions spent due to typical overruns (typical for any rail project).

The project vastly exceeded original promises for operating subsidies and even now requires taxpayers kick in around $20/ride, mostly for the benefit of people riding from jurisdictions who don't actually pay Capital Metro taxes. Later budgets simply increased the amount of expected subsidy, which had to be made up for somewhere else - and was, as bus service was actually cut in Austin during a period of population growth and sales tax recovery. Our best bus corridor has seen a marked DECLINE in ridership as Capital Metro screwed their actual taxpayers by creating an incompatible service and cutting half the locals on the same line.

If you call that a success, I'd be curious how you would define a failure.

Capital Metro already has media people to do this kind of stuff. Why are you doing it, too?

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by M1EK

Capital Metro promised 1700-2000 riders within months. I predicted 500-1000 riders. It delivered somewhere around 800 a few months in.

Then, Capital Metro cancelled the most popular express bus competition and started running trains all day. After those modifications, ridership eventually rose to what was promised without those modifications.

Why would you keep around a duplicative service? You complain about operating subsidies and then want to run completely redundant services?

Originally Posted by M1EK

Capital Metro never sought Federal funding for the line, despite campaign promises to do so, drawing down capital by at least another $30 million beyond the tens of millions spent due to typical overruns (typical for any rail project).

I agree, I've never seen a satisfactory answer as to why they didn't apply for federal funds. My guess is that they ran afoul of buy-american or something.

Originally Posted by M1EK

The project vastly exceeded original promises for operating subsidies

What's your source for this? Because...

Originally Posted by M1EK

and even now requires taxpayers kick in around $20/ride,

Which is about the same for what they were kicking in for each rider of the commuter _bus_ you were such a fan of. Or that they kick in for each rider of all the remaining commuter buses. Commuter service _always_ has a higher operating subsidy. It's a factor of distance.

Originally Posted by M1EK

mostly for the benefit of people riding from jurisdictions who don't actually pay Capital Metro taxes.

You keep making this claim with no support.

Originally Posted by M1EK

as bus service was actually cut in Austin during a period of population growth and sales tax recovery.

And of rising gas prices and rising health care costs.

Originally Posted by M1EK

Our best bus corridor has seen a marked DECLINE in ridership

10% after a couple of months (when the system is only half-finished), is hardly a "marked decline".

Originally Posted by M1EK

as Capital Metro screwed their actual taxpayers by creating an incompatible service

So you can't transfer from the rapid to a local bus? Oh right, you can.

Originally Posted by M1EK

and cutting half the locals on the same line.

They didn't cut half the locals. More like 40%.

Originally Posted by M1EK

If you call that a success, I'd be curious how you would define a failure.

Something that isn't performing after a few years. These are systems which are going to operating for decades. Making snap judgments after a few months (or even worse, after a few _days_ like you were doing with MR) is completely worthless.

[Meagan0803]

not sure if this has been posted

http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/ne...=image_gallery

[M1EK]

I make the claims I make as somebody with experience with our transportation system as a UTC commissioner from 2000-2005 and a citizen covering it ever since. Your adversarial, pick-to-pieces, approach belongs in a courtroom, not here. I'll hit a COUPLE of your points, just to show that if I was being paid to do this, like you appear to be, I could cover all of them.

Originally Posted by Novacek

Why would you keep around a duplicative service? You complain about operating subsidies and then want to run completely redundant services?

That's not relevant. Capital Metro promised no cuts to express buses, peak-hour service only (with one mid-day trip), and 1700-2000 boardings/day. You said they met their projections and succeeded; I pointed out they only did so by cheating, in a sense.

This is important in that you should be skeptical of their ridership projections for the Highland service given their past history.

I agree, I've never seen a satisfactory answer as to why they didn't apply for federal funds. My guess is that they ran afoul of buy-american or something.

They didn't apply for Federal funds because they would have been rejected on ridership grounds (low cost-effectiveness).

Evaluate for yourselves, readers, why Novacek prefers to believe himself a prosecutor in court. Or how you would respond when your truthful points based on years of experience are attacked bit by bit as if he was trying to defend a client by throwing everything he can and asking for every single claim to be proven.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by M1EK

I'll hit a COUPLE of your points, just to show that if I was being paid to do this, like you appear to be, I could cover all of them.

I've told you again and again. I have no financial interest with CapMetro or anyone else involved in transportation. Furthermore, I have no financial interest in any of the proposed urban rail routes.

Originally Posted by M1EK

That's not relevant. Capital Metro promised no cuts to express buses, peak-hour service only (with one mid-day trip), and 1700-2000 boardings/day. You said they met their projections and succeeded; I pointed out they only did so by cheating, in a sense.

And you'll be able to provide quotes of them promising to keep a completely redundant and useless express bus running from Leander to Downtown?

Optimizing their runs and providing the service that people want is "cheating"?

Originally Posted by M1EK

They didn't apply for Federal funds because they would have been rejected on ridership grounds (low cost-effectiveness).

You mean the same federal government that just gave them a grant to expand the system? The system that has (as you claim) horrible ridership that won't improve?

Or the same federal government that provided _$265 Million_ for the Norfolk light rail that had projected ridership of 2900.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tide_Light_Rail

So CapMetro didn't even apply for $30 Million with a projected ridership of 2000, but 50% more riders gets you _9 times_ the money no problem.

Originally Posted by M1EK

Or how you would respond when your truthful points based on years of experience are attacked bit by bit as if he was trying to defend a client by throwing everything he can and asking for every single claim to be proven.

Why shouldn't you have to prove the claims you make?

[AusTxDevelopment]

In case you haven't seen this yet, here's Project Connect's June 13, 2014 video overview of their Central Corridor plan.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mk6ySb_mIAY

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by M1EK

That's not relevant. Capital Metro promised no cuts to express buses, peak-hour service only (with one mid-day trip), and 1700-2000 boardings/day. You said they met their projections and succeeded; I pointed out they only did so by cheating, in a sense.

Let's look at this claim in more detail. The DMUs hold 200 people. Initial service was 19 runs a day, but only 12 of them were in the "flow" (the others were contraflow).
http://www.statesman.com/news/news/l...arch-22/nRq4h/

As this is a commuter service, ridership is expected to be asymetrical, so most riders will come from those 12 runs. That gives puts the _maximum_ ridership at ~2400. And that includes an absolutely full, standing room only, car at 5:25 AM.

It seems quite obvious that a 2000 riders/day, within a year, estimate was based off of the expectation of adding some more runs to those initial 19. There's just not physically room for all those riders otherwise.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Let's look at this claim in more detail. The DMUs hold 200 people. Initial service was 19 runs a day, but only 12 of them were in the "flow" (the others were contraflow).
http://www.statesman.com/news/news/l...arch-22/nRq4h/

As this is a commuter service, ridership is expected to be asymetrical, so most riders will come from those 12 runs. That gives puts the _maximum_ ridership at ~2400. And that includes an absolutely full, standing room only, car at 5:25 AM.

It seems quite obvious that a 2000 riders/day, within a year, estimate was based off of the expectation of adding some more runs to those initial 19. There's just not physically room for all those riders otherwise.

Here's an old post of mine which contains the proof. Look under "Key Takeaways". Excuse formatting; I haven't cleaned this one up since the move to wordpress; I'll try to do so right now.

At this point I'm just going to start responding to every one of your posts with similar demands that you prove you're not being paid or somehow compensated in kind by Capital Metro, until you stop your aggressive, lawyer-in-a-courtroom, tactics.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by M1EK

Here's an old post of mine which contains the proof. Look under "Key Takeaways". Excuse formatting; I haven't cleaned this one up since the move to wordpress; I'll try to do so right now.

At this point I'm just going to start responding to every one of your posts with similar demands that you prove you're not being paid or somehow compensated in kind by Capital Metro, until you stop your aggressive, lawyer-in-a-courtroom, tactics.

Trying to prove something affirmatively and trying to prove something does not exist are two completely different propositions. The former is routinely used in many disciplines, whereas the latter is almost exclusively used in conspiracy theory circles, which I've become convinced you travel in.

As a counterpoint: would you mind proving that you aren't paid by some interest that is always opposed to CapMetro?

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by M1EK

Here's an old post of mine which contains the proof.

Seems like they hit their projection right on the dot, then. In the first month, daily ridership averaged just over 2000 /day.