Why are light rail and new roads combined in bond proposal? (Austin: 2013, community college)

[CptnRn]

Originally Posted by centralaustinite

But there isn't a line to the airport!! The proposed line ends at Grove! SOMEDAY there might be line to the airport and this bond issue is a precondition to that . . . but there are still many steps, lots of $$$, and at least a decade of time, before an airport line is a reality.

Exactly!

[atxcio]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Highland is _far_ from just a "community college campus". The redevelopment there is planned to include a lot more jobs and homes, in an entire planned development. Already you've got rackspace moving in there.

It's a community college campus. Barely. Plans are great -- Intel planned a building downtown, Tom Stacy planned the tallest building in Austin, and Mueller has planned a town center for over a decade. If the developers want rail at Highland, let them pay for it. If you are going to ask the voters to pay for it, put it somewhere that addresses existing traffic or density.

The insistence on extending to Highland ACC is a huge red flag IMO. It should have been removed from the plan long ago based on community input.

[CptnRn]

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

The school bonds got defeated for the same bundling issues, though, so the road money could be in trouble....

Honestly, I am in favor of a rail system of some sort. I am not expert, I don't know the best place to start or the parameters that might be critical or just minor. And not to insult anyone, but I don't trust many of the opinions on here to be much (if any) better than my own - too many agendas or arguments based on a predetermined result. I know the longer it waits, the more it will cost and more difficult it will be. OTOH, it pisses me off that they bundle it with something else instead of making it stand on its own merits. I would be MORE like to pass the same dollar amount of bonds if they were clearly delineated into two different proposals than I am with them bundled together.

I agree completely.

Give us a light rail bond election item that deals with just that.

And

Give us a road project that actually makes some badly needed improvements for roads, not stealth light rail infrastructure improvements.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by atxcio

I don't believe this, sorry. You can try to prove it if you want, but keep in mind we've all heard this talking point before. FTA has not made a definitive statement, even the current route isn't guaranteed any FTA money. When the bonds are passed, the official pitch can be made to the FTA, and some level of funding will likely be granted on the merits of the proposal and the availability of the money.


Your opinion is noted.


Your position on the issue, which you've repeated far more often than me, is noted.


Oh, and BTW - I don't put much value in your opinion, in case you have not already noticed.

Luckily, the city doesn't hire people who have beliefs but no real knowledge. A lot of really really bright people are looking at this and fully appreciate the appeal to voters for an airport line - yet - are fully knowledgeable about FTA funding practices.

[atxcio]

Originally Posted by Komeht

Luckily, the city doesn't hire people who have beliefs but no real knowledge. A lot of really really bright people are looking at this and fully appreciate the appeal to voters for an airport line - yet - are fully knowledgeable about FTA funding practices.

Sounds good. We can evaluate their performance in November.

[IC_deLight]

Originally Posted by Komeht

Luckily, the city doesn't hire people who have beliefs but no real knowledge. A lot of really really bright people are looking at this and fully appreciate the appeal to voters for an airport line - yet - are fully knowledgeable about FTA funding practices.

Probably the same "really really bright people" that are trying to use off balance sheet accounting principles to deceive voters as to the amount actually proposed for rail and the amount actual proposed for roads.

The ends is misrepresented and certainly doesn't justify the "means" of government use of unconstitutional ballots and deceptive/fraudulent accounting in pursuit of a rail agenda.

[rangergrit]

As the OP, I'm pleased to see a lively but cordial debate here.

I don't know of any elections until Nov, but the city council 10-1 candidate forums begin in mid Sept.

Does anybody think those races will impact the vote on the "connect bond" plan? No candidate in my district has come out with a position on the issue other than one candidate saying they didn't like the combining of rail/road issues. But not saying "for or against". All the other candidates are just "for the good things" and "against the bad things". But no specifics.

[CarnivalGal]

There's already a bus that goes from downtown to the airport. Hasn't relieved any traffic that I can tell. Why would a train be any different?

For the record, I am from the Northeast (Philadelphia). I took a train just about every day of my life - and I lived in the 'burbs for most of that time. I love trains. I think it is awesome to not have to deal with driving. But the fact of the matter is that until Austin becomes denser and more walkable, trains (and public transit in general) are just not going to be a feasible alternative to driving for most people.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by rangergrit

No candidate in my district has come out with a position on the issue other than one candidate saying they didn't like the combining of rail/road issues. But not saying "for or against". All the other candidates are just "for the good things" and "against the bad things". But no specifics.

District 6 candidate Jay Wiley is opposed.

[petro]

Originally Posted by scm53

District 6 candidate Jay Wiley is opposed.

Wiley has zero chance of winning, but yeah, he's against rail. He also wants to repeal the bag ban, get rid of Austin's bike sharing program, cut programs for the homeless, and remove environmental reviews for new road construction.