Prop 1 Open Thread (Austin, San Marcos: vs, rail, budget)

[IC_deLight]

Originally Posted by Novacek

My statement was completely true. Except for the small amount for the grant proposal, bonds cannot be sold before the grant. FULL STOP.

Come on, think McFly! _No One_ spends $239 MILLION DOLLARS designing a system if there's even a 1% chance the grant will then fall through. These are actual professional transportation engineers (you know, ones that can do math). This is not only their job, but their professional reputation on the line.

Sure they would. $239 million pays for a lot of engineering work. The anonymous transportation engineers would love such a project and it's no skin off their nose if the project gets tanked - although the opportunity for even more money might influence the professional judgment of a few of them....

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by IC_deLight

Sure they would. $239 million pays for a lot of engineering work. The anonymous transportation engineers would love such a project and it's no skin off their nose if the project gets tanked - although the opportunity for even more money might influence the professional judgment of a few of them....

Again, they'd get that same design money (though again, that's not $239M) for an actual successful proposal.

So why would they intentionally try to create a proposal that would tank?

[IC_deLight]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Again, they'd get that same design money (though again, that's not $239M) for an actual successful proposal.

So why would they intentionally try to create a proposal that would tank?

Who said they would try to create a proposal that would tank?
Your claim was that no one "spends $239 million dollars designing a system if there's even a 1% chance the grant will then fall through". First the engineers being paid the money aren't the ones having to put it up. Second, my point was that the possibility that a grant would "fall through" is hardly a deterrent to the vendors that would be getting $239 million.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by IC_deLight

Who said they would try to create a proposal that would tank?

Scm53

he's claiming that the proposal is so bad, the worst ever, that no transportation export could ever support it.

And yet the transportation experts that are crafting the Austin proposal are advancing it. If so, they must be doing so _knowing_ it will fail. That even if it passes in the fall, it couldn't possibly make it by the FTA.


If that were really the case, who benefits? As you yourself observe, the designers are getting the same money in each case. They'd get the same to design in G/L as they are to design Highland.


There is no one that benefits from a Highland proposal that is so inferior that it fails at the FTA. Yet we're supposed to believe that's what's being proposed.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Scm53

Nope. Never said that.

More "fictious content" from the acknowledged master.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by scm53

Nope. Never said that.

More "fictious content" from the acknowledged master.

Uhm,

Originally Posted by scm53

Guess this guy isn't a "real transportation expert": Christof Speiler, Rice University:

Quote:
It's amazing: Austin, the self-proclaimed progressive city, could have had the best rail system in Texas but has the dumbest.

Originally Posted by scm53

And the topper, from Jeff Wood, Reconnecting America:
I'm going to use this as a bad transit planning example forever

Or are you quoting "experts" to support your position that are actually the exact opposite of your position?

Or

Originally Posted by scm53

Kinda wonkish, but pretty detailed on why the Project Connect route is a bad idea.

Or

Originally Posted by scm53

Then why isn't this line being built in one of the city's designated core transit corridors?

Wrong place. Rail MIGHT make sense - but for many reasons, not this configuration.

Or

Originally Posted by scm53

Yet another reason this is the wrong route.

[Aquitaine]

Originally Posted by Novacek

It's not sabotage, it's standard professional engineering and planning principals. The same reason the total number given is 1.4 billion (even though it's the pessimistic number, and includes a big cushion for possible overruns). The same reason the number for the effect on property taxes is given as if _no_ additional property goes on the tax rolls (which will never, ever happen).

In other words, they don't account for population growth. OK, fair enough. But the percentage of commuters would presumably remain the same.

Except we're not. Austin is well under it's numbers for total debt.

Whose numbers are those? Austin had more dept-per-capita than any city in Texas at the end of 2012 - in absolute terms, it was behind Dallas and Houston, but given how much larger those two cities are, nowhere near far enough behind them.

That's like me calling my credit card company and telling them 'no problem, guys, I'm way under my own personal credit limit.'

The only thing Austin is under when it comes to its debt load is apparently the illusion that such high debt levels are sustainable!

This is the flaw in your reasoning. The assumption that it won't have an impact on non-riders. Every commuter that rides the system will be a commuter getting out of the way of _drivers_ on I35. It will be a commuter not causing damage to the Austin roads that needs repaired. it will be a commuter not putting Austin over the top for ozone non-attainment (which has big economic repercussions).

I understand that removing 1% of the population (or 5% of commuters) from the roads will impact the other 99% or 95%. Even if we could get Houston-level ridership rates on our transit lines, those rates just aren't very high at all, and Houston has a much larger population base to eat the cost.

Um, neither Rochester or Milwaukee are in that list?

The link in my last post was the wrong one. This is what I was referring to:

List of U.S. cities with high transit ridership - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I came into this thread entirely on the fence. I accept that there won't be a rail stop anywhere near my house within the next 20 years; further, I am happy to pay my fair share so that we can start somewhere.

I think you (Novacek) ultimately persuaded me not to support it: the bulk of your arsenal appears to be attacking critics rather than the criticisms. I'm happy to spend a billion dollars (or $600m, or whatever) - but not on this plan.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Aquitaine

Whose numbers are those? Austin had more dept-per-capita than any city in Texas at the end of 2012 - in absolute terms, it was behind Dallas and Houston, but given how much larger those two cities are, nowhere near far enough behind them.

I'll try to find the link in a bit, but Austin is well under the 2% number(I think that's the number, link forthcoming) which is standard and prudent. And also under the debt it's taken on in the past. Heck, much of what is currently outstanding will be paid off by the time we issue anything for this project.

Originally Posted by Aquitaine

I understand that removing 1% of the population (or 5% of commuters) from the roads will impact the other 99% or 95%. Even if we could get Houston-level ridership rates on our transit lines, those rates just aren't very high at all, and Houston has a much larger population base to eat the cost.

I'm not understanding what you're saying here. You say you understand that removing 5% can have an effect, but "those rates just aren't very high at all"?

Originally Posted by Aquitaine

I think you (Novacek) ultimately persuaded me not to support it: the bulk of your arsenal appears to be attacking critics rather than the criticisms. I'm happy to spend a billion dollars (or $600m, or whatever) - but not on this plan.

Huh? I'm not the one calling others "dense" or claiming they're making up "fictitious content".

I'm directly trying to factually address criticisms of others (though if they point to an article that literally misunderstands mathematics, I'll call a spade a spade). What factual criticism am I not addressing?

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Aquitaine

The link in my last post was the wrong one. This is what I was referring to:

List of U.S. cities with high transit ridership - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's the numbers of total transit ridership. You're comparing apples to oranges. If Austin got 5% commuters riding on just this rail (*), it's total transit ridership would be a lot higher than 5%, as you'd have to add on everyone who continues to ride all the other buses.

(*Note, I'm not claiming this will happen, as I was only addressing central city commuters, not city-wide)

[scm53]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Uhm,

Or are you quoting "experts" to support your position that are actually the exact opposite of your position?

The king of "fictitious content" strikes again. Somehow, a single word of criticism of your pet rock transmogrified into:

Who said they would try to create a proposal that would tank?

Absolutely amazing. How you can twist criticism into "try(ing) to create a proposal that would tank?" is beyond belief. Because to say that, I'd have to believe that. And I don't.

You've outdone yourself with this fantasy.