Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas > Austin
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-28-2014, 10:15 AM
 
Location: The People's Republic of Austin
5,184 posts, read 7,238,081 times
Reputation: 2575

Advertisements

According to long time Austin political consultant Peck Young:

Quote:
They’re losing to begin with, which for anyone running a bond campaign by definition means your tail is fried,” Young said. “You have to go into a bond campaign at least 10 percent up, or you’re toast. Anyone with any money can create at least 5 percentage points of confusion even if you’re trying to finance the Second Coming. And Capital Metro isn’t the Second Coming.”
Article says the proposed route will add about $120/yr to the average Austin homeowner's taxes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-28-2014, 10:44 AM
 
2,602 posts, read 2,959,492 times
Reputation: 997
Quote:
Originally Posted by scm53 View Post
Article says the proposed route will add about $120/yr to the average Austin homeowner's taxes.
That's funny, since they haven't even decided on a final route, vehicles, stops, how much is exclusive running and how much is shared, technically even if they're going with rail.

I also question how they computed the $120/year number, since $385 Million in bonds apparently leads to about $38 in taxes on average.
http://www.politifact.com/texas/stat...ve-bond-propo/

Is that article claiming that we're planning ~1.2 Billion bond for rail (which with a %50 fed match would be a _2.4 Billion_ system to start)?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2014, 10:55 AM
 
269 posts, read 426,402 times
Reputation: 272
With the route they choose (Highland to Riverside) combined with the cost. I'm not surprised that the Public isn't in favor of rail.

Project Connect has been a failure thus far and they will have to go back to the drawing board.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2014, 10:55 AM
 
1,430 posts, read 2,361,978 times
Reputation: 832
"Advocates don't even know if is a $80/year, $120/year, or even MORE!"

I predict this goes pear-shaped so quickly and so badly it isn't even put on the ballot.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2014, 11:20 AM
 
Location: The People's Republic of Austin
5,184 posts, read 7,238,081 times
Reputation: 2575
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novacek View Post
I also question how they computed the $120/year number, since $385 Million in bonds apparently leads to about $38 in taxes on average.
Lee Leffingwell says voters can approve bond propositions without raising taxes | PolitiFact Texas

Quote:
That in turn would carry a property tax increase of about 1 cent per $100 million of bonds, Greg Canally, the city’s deputy chief financial officer, said Thursday.

If the city borrowed as much as $500 million for rail — a 9-mile line with a river crossing could cost close to $1 billion, and the city hopes federal grants will cover half — that eventually would equate to a tax increase of about $120 a year on a home at the average Austin price of $237,000. That is a third less than the tax figure in the Baselice poll.
$120 a year, and no impact on congestion? This thing is DOA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2014, 11:23 AM
 
547 posts, read 1,429,279 times
Reputation: 440
Can anybody explain to me why we cannot block the same lanes, get a bucket of paint, paint tracks on the road, and then use buses that look like train cars? That saves most of $1 billion and has the same effect. Why does it need to be an actual train?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2014, 11:48 AM
 
2,602 posts, read 2,959,492 times
Reputation: 997
Quote:
Originally Posted by gpurcell View Post
"Advocates don't even know if is a $80/year, $120/year, or even MORE!"
And anti-rail critics don't even know if it is 120/year, 80/year, or even LESS!

Because they haven't finished the design yet.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2014, 11:55 AM
 
2,602 posts, read 2,959,492 times
Reputation: 997
Quote:
Originally Posted by buffettjr View Post
Can anybody explain to me why we cannot block the same lanes, get a bucket of paint, paint tracks on the road, and then use buses that look like train cars? That saves most of $1 billion and has the same effect. Why does it need to be an actual train?

I'm a fan of the metrorapid bus system (unlike some on this board) and there are a lot of advantages to it. But even I don't claim it has the exact same effect.

1. Quite a bit of that $1 Billion would be the new bridge. Running more buses over the same bridges doesn't have nearly the same congestion reduction, conversely adding a new bridge for a bus sytem would still cost a bunch.

2. Rail has higher capitol costs, but lower operating costs. That helps you to be able to run it more frequently, which leads to higher ridership, which lets you run it more frequently....

3. Some of the $1Billion will _probably_ (though again, the route isnt even finished planning yet) go to some amount of land acquisition for the route (at least at some chokepoints/turns). That will cost money.

4. Stations, ticketing infrastructure, etc. costs

5. There's the supposed preference for rail by "choice" riders, even given the exact same routes, exclusivity, frequency, etc. (though newer BRT routes are testing that assumption).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2014, 11:56 AM
 
2,602 posts, read 2,959,492 times
Reputation: 997
Quote:
Originally Posted by scm53 View Post
$120 a year, and no impact on congestion?
What's your backup for "no impact on congestion"? If nothing else, getting buses serving riverside off the chokepoint of the bridges will help congestion.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-28-2014, 12:01 PM
 
Location: The People's Republic of Austin
5,184 posts, read 7,238,081 times
Reputation: 2575
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novacek View Post
What's your backup for "no impact on congestion"? If nothing else, getting buses serving riverside off the chokepoint of the bridges will help congestion.
Because even the staunchest advocates recognize that the beginning and end are inside the "zone of congestion" - roughly 183 to Ben White.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas > Austin

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top