"Austin, we have a problem" (how much, costs)

[scm53]

Originally Posted by kavorka

For starters, double the number of cap metro routes, and double the number of buses on those routes.

Since Cap Metro has no ability to increase their operating budget, interested in how they would pay for that.

[HappyTexan]

So much for Austin's "live and let live" attitude.
Even that seems to have been tossed now.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by HappyTexan

So much for Austin's "live and let live" attitude.
Even that seems to have been tossed now.

Oh, that's doing just fine. But I don't know anyone, anywhere, that likes people making a choice to move someplace, then start telling everyone already there, how they are screwing up. How they should do it in the place they just decided to leave.

I'm sure New Yorkers would live to hear how they should drop their gun control laws, how Massachusetts should loosen business regulations, how California should toss their steeply progressive income tax ...

Now excuse me - I have to watch and see yet another Texan can add his name to a list we already dominate with six - Masters champions.

[kavorka]

Originally Posted by scm53

Since Cap Metro has no ability to increase their operating budget, interested in how they would pay for that.

Just use all of the money they were planning to use for the rail line to Highland Mall. But seriously, someone asked for solutions and I replied. I'm a guy on the internet.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by kavorka

Just use all of the money they were planning to use for the rail line to Highland Mall. But seriously, someone asked for solutions and I replied. I'm a guy on the internet.

Understood. Thanks for thinking.

Now, if they were to use the current $9,000,000 Metro Rail operating subsidy, you might have a way to see your idea realized fairly quickly. Right now, Metro Rail consumes funding equivalent to 12% of the main bus service contract, but serves the equivalent of 3% of its ridership.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by kavorka

Just use all of the money they were planning to use for the rail line to Highland Mall. But seriously, someone asked for solutions and I replied. I'm a guy on the internet.

Okay, that lets you run double the buses and double the routes for, umm, approximately 6 months. Now what?


(CapMetro spends about 100 million a year on buses. Double the buses and double the routes brings that to about 400 million a year. Rail to Highland will probably be in about that range, but we expect the Feds to pay for half of that. Oh, and that requires all the additional _buses_ we would need to magically appear, no new capital spending).

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by scm53

Understood. Thanks for thinking.

Now, if they were to use the current $9,000,000 Metro Rail operating subsidy, you might have a way to see your idea realized fairly quickly. Right now, Metro Rail consumes funding equivalent to 12% of the main bus service contract, but serves the equivalent of 3% of its ridership.

You're comparing apples to oranges. You're comparing _all_ buses (including the high ridership/short distance/high turnover intra-city ones) to commuter service. If you compare against _commuter_ buses, it's a lot closer.

(and that's ignoring the fact that if the metro rail didn't exist, CapMetro may/probably would still be losing a quarter of its sales taxes).

[scm53]

Originally Posted by Novacek

You're comparing apples to oranges.

I'm not comparing anything to anything - just pointing out where the operating budget goes, and where the money is to expand bus, as kavorka desires.

[jb9152]

Originally Posted by scm53

Understood. Thanks for thinking.

Now, if they were to use the current $9,000,000 Metro Rail operating subsidy, you might have a way to see your idea realized fairly quickly.

No, not true. You'd still face the capital cost (and perhaps debt) of acquiring the new vehicles, constructing and/or improving park and ride facilities, and expanding maintenance and storage facilities (including, possibly, property acquisition). And, as I noted previously, assuming this new service is wildly successful while operating in the same traffic jams as cars (that's a stretch...), you get increasing marginal costs (i.e. they're higher each time) every time demand exceeds capacity. Every time you add a bus, you add an operator. Every time you add several buses, you add a mechanic, a cleaner, etc.

If the answer to buses in traffic is to construct new managed lanes (they have to be new; it's just not politically palatable to take existing lanes and turn them into toll facilities), then also add some proportion of the capital cost and debt necessary to do the planning, design, property acquisition (if needed), and construction.

Originally Posted by scm53

Right now, Metro Rail consumes funding equivalent to 12% of the main bus service contract, but serves the equivalent of 3% of its ridership.

The Red Line is currently standing room in the AM leaving the second station, Lakeline. The demand is there; the issue now is that the supply is inadequate (and that Cap Metro doesn't really price its premium services like premium services). Cap Metro received an $11 million TIGER grant this year to expand capacity on the line, so there may be some relief in sight.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by scm53

I'm not comparing anything to anything - just pointing out where the operating budget goes, and where the money is to expand bus, as kavorka desires.

You're not comparing anything??

Originally Posted by scm53

Metro Rail consumes funding equivalent to 12% of the main bus service contract, but serves the equivalent of 3% of its ridership.

Seems like a comparison to me.

Originally Posted by scm53

where the money is to expand bus, as kavorka desires.

Again, expanding as kavorka desires (double the buses and double the routes) would require something like an additional 300 million dollars (per year). The cost of metro rail isn't even noise in that figure.