SXSW 2014: Opening Dialogue on Austin’s Drinking Problem (Turkey: felony, income)

[scm53]

Originally Posted by Atxroads

My proposal is to not take seriously the bull**** tomes of Ayn Rand. That is my proposal.

So you have no solution other than for Cap Metro to provide you with a ride home when you decide to get drunk? Because you don't want to pay for a taxi some other service has to be reduced?

[Atxroads]

Originally Posted by scm53

So you have no solution other than for Cap Metro to provide you with a ride home when you decide to get drunk? Because you don't want to pay for a taxi some other service has to be reduced?

1) why a reduction elsewhere? Because you want government to be run like a for-profit business? Sorry my fey European thinking doesn't jive with that.

2) I'm incredibly selfish and besides, I probably subsidize something you like that I particularly don't. Thems the breaks.

3) those late-night trains would be packed with paying customers. How much does it cost to incarcerate a drunk driver?

The hostility to solutions in this regard is remarkable.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by Atxroads

1) why a reduction elsewhere? Because you want government to be run like a for-profit business? Sorry my fey European thinking doesn't jive with that.

Because Cap Metro has a fixed source of operating funds, there has to be a reduction elsewhere. Operating subsidies - despite your optimism about being "packed" at 2 AM, every minute rail runs it has to be subsidized - will have to come from service reductions somewhere. And you obviously don't have a clue where that is - or even want to consider the possibility that is correct.

So who's the one with the "hostility"?

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by scm53

Because Cap Metro has a fixed source of operating funds, there has to be a reduction elsewhere.

Not true at all, the CoA could pay for it, as they do for the late-night trains.

(whether they should or not is a separate question. Certainly the argument could be made that they should, at least on nights of big events, like Sx, where the city is making money on the deal).

[scm53]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Not true at all, the CoA could pay for it, as they do for the late-night trains.

(whether they should or not is a separate question. Certainly the argument could be made that they should, at least on nights of big events, like Sx, where the city is making money on the deal).

OK. What is the city going to reduce spending on to cover this?

This is all a zero sum game. Every dollar is spoken for, by parties absolutely convinced their need is THE most compelling need on the planet.

OBTW - it is a dubious claim that the city is "making money on the deal" when it comes to SXSW. The only thing that anyone ever points to is a study paid for by SXSW - which is kinda like an AGW study paid for by Exxon. The trade show part, with all the hotel tax nights? Probably yes, but that isn't what is generating the need to haul drunks home along the tiny sliver of Austin within walking distance of a Metro Rail stop.

Because I sincerely hope no one is saying hauling drunks to a P&R where they THEN drive home is a solution to anything.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by scm53

The trade show part, with all the hotel tax nights? Probably yes, but that isn't what is generating the need to haul drunks home along the tiny sliver of Austin within walking distance of a Metro Rail stop.

Nope, it's all the other drunks, from which the city is making major bucks in alcohol sales taxes, property tax valuations of downtown bars, etc.

Austin financially benefits big-time from having the cultural attraction which is 6th street, Rainey, and all the other downtown bars. If it has to spend some more money to offset the bad effects from that, thats perfectly equitable.

Originally Posted by scm53

Because I sincerely hope no one is saying hauling drunks to a P&R where they THEN drive home is a solution to anything.

It would have saved a few lives this past Sx (maybe). Perfect solution, certainly not, but an extra 45 minutes without drinking certainly could provide marginal improvement. If nothing else, it removes/lessens the drunk-driver/downtown-pedestrian interface.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Austin financially benefits big-time from having the cultural attraction which is 6th street, Rainey, and all the other downtown bars. If it has to spend some more money to offset the bad effects from that, thats perfectly equitable.

Let's say, for the sake of argument, I accept this premise - that the "cultural attraction" of Sixth Street (there's an oxymoron if there ever was one) is worth spending tax dollars on to pay for 2AM Metro Rail runs. What about the other 99.9% of potential drunk drivers that don't live within walking distance of the Red Line? How much do we spend so they don't have to pay for a cab ride home?


And OBTW, this wouldn't have saved a single life last SX and you know it. The perp lived in Killeen.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by scm53

What about the other 99.9% of potential drunk drivers that don't live within walking distance of the Red Line?

More and more frequent and later Night Owls.

Originally Posted by scm53

And OBTW, this wouldn't have saved a single life last SX and you know it. The perp lived in Killeen.

That's why I said maybe. I'm not sure where he was staying or was planning on staying here in town, and if more transit was available maybe he would have stashed/abandoned his stolen car and taken that instead.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by Novacek

More and more frequent and later Night Owls.

Paid for by a "cultural attraction district" tax of $3/drink? Sounds good to me.

[oldtoiletsmkgdflrpots]

I'm sure it isn't just Austin's drinking problem. The problem is when people get behind the wheel after they have been drinking something that affects their judgement and decision making process. That is pretty much anywhere U.S.A.


What is different about other countries where they do not have such a problem with drunk drivers? What is their solution?