Prop 1 Open Thread (San Antonio, Austin, Orange: airport, trains, commuting)

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by scm53

Funny how you gloss right over the fact that those cheaper systems are all hauled train sets. There is no way Metro Rail's DMUs will ever get the efficiencies of those other commuter rail systems - however long you want to wait. It isn't about the time.

What are you claiming here?

You do realize the DMUs can be expanded to like 4 times their current size?

[tom331]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Uh, how do you think bond money gets paid off? By money in the budget.

People paying the water bill will eventually pay for the cost of building the water treatment facility not the tax dollars collected by city of AUSTIN.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Yes. Since the CapMetro Red Line commuter rail wasn't a city project.

This is the unsourced assertion guy (Mike Dahmus).

Novacek likes to claim that anything that doesn't have a citation is untrue. Even when it means, basically, calling somebody a liar. I'm here to tell the truth, like I always do, which is why I have a reputation as such an obnoxious ass.

I was in the freaking room for many briefings on the Red Line in 2004. I was one of the first 3 people outside Capital Metro to actually be briefed on the project (they let 4 UTC members down to Cap Metro offices to see the All Systems Go plan before it became public knowledge. 4, because 5 would have been a quorum. Myself, Patrick Goetz, Andrew Clements, and another guy I can't remember. Note that the 3 of us are now officially against the Project Connect plan, for more grins).

Here is a contemporaneous blog post excerpt:

Short entry: I went down to Cap Metro at 11 for a briefing on the new different long-range transit plan (they’re not ready for open-records stuff yet so they were only willing to talk to 4 people from our commission at a time) and yes, the urban core of Austin is getting screwed. Rail for people in the densest parts of town is now gone; replaced with “rapid bus” lines, which do not include plans for any knd of prioritization beyond the “keep the green light a few seconds longer”.

Capital Metro came before the UTC every 2 or 3 months. Yes, we were a city commission. But we were tightly coupled to Capital Metro for obvious reasons.

Trust me: they did not seek Federal funds because they knew they wouldn't get any, and it would be embarassing. The official reason they used at the time was that they didn't want to go through the bureaucracy, which is a lie. They promised voters they would seek Federal funds, but they never had any intention of doing so, because they knew they'd never get any.

I rarely participate on city-data because I'm so overbooked in the rest of my life but this one popped up on a google alert. Sorry, guys. I can't keep up with Novacek in one place much less three. You ought to ask yourself why he keeps pulling this act everywhere though.

Also, the DMUs cannot be "expanded to 4 times their current size". Well, they can, but the stations aren't long enough and many can never be long enough. The Red Line is a dead-end that was not planned to support larger vehicles. The reason is that the ceiling for this line is very very very very very low compared to a real urban rail line.

And I see as I scroll back and read some of the thread that this character is now asserting that Julio at Keep Austin Wonky is also in complete error. I'm laughing my ass off. If I wasn't Julio's second least favorite guy right now, I'd share it with him so he could have a good laugh too. For the record, you can comment in response to his blog on the facebook page; there's a link at the bottom, but then you couldn't be quite as anonymous.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by M1EK

Trust me: they did not seek Federal funds because they knew they wouldn't get any, and it would be embarassing. The official reason they used at the time was that they didn't want to go through the bureaucracy, which is a lie. They promised voters they would seek Federal funds, but they never had any intention of doing so, because they knew they'd never get any.

So they didn't go to the FTA to get funds, because the ridership was too low, which is the same ridership for which the FTA is now giving them funds? oookay....

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by Novacek

So they didn't go to the FTA to get funds, because the ridership was too low, which is the same ridership for which the FTA is now giving them funds? oookay....

Why don't you roll back and address the rest of your lies and misrepresentations first?

I'll give you one free response though: The FTA would not have funded them under New Starts for a much more significant capital outlay. The FTA funds they got recently were from a different program (TIGER, if I remember correctly), which had more of a focus on job-creation and stimulus than actual transit productivity.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by M1EK

Why don't you roll back and address the rest of your lies and misrepresentations first?

Which lies and misrepresentations?

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by M1EK

Here is a contemporaneous blog post excerpt:

I notice the contemporaneous blog post doesn't mention being privy to privileged communications between CapMetro and the FTA. I also notice that you don't have a contemporaneous blog post breaking the story that CapMetro "wasn't actually planning on seeking FTA funds". One would have thought that would have been a huge story at the time, especially pre-election.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by Novacek

I notice the contemporaneous blog post doesn't mention being privy to privileged communications between CapMetro and the FTA. I also notice that you don't have a contemporaneous blog post breaking the story that CapMetro "wasn't actually planning on seeking FTA funds". One would have thought that would have been a huge story at the time, especially pre-election.

Go back and retract your lies and misrepresentations, and then I will give you contemperaneous reports on this one too. Hint, they aren't from 2004; they claimed they were seeking Federal funding until well after the election actually passed.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by M1EK

Go back and retract your lies and misrepresentations,

You first.

Originally Posted by M1EK

and then I will give you contemperaneous reports on this one too. Hint, they aren't from 2004; they claimed they were seeking Federal funding until well after the election actually passed.

But I thought you were so involved in the process. Isn't that what you were claiming, and why you have this knowledge of their internal plans?

Let me get this straight. Your claim:

1. From the very beginning they never planned to seek FTA funding, even though they said they would. Because it would be "embarrassing" (but somehow cost overruns aren't embarrassing?).

2. Even thought the FTA has funded similar ridership lines (like Norfolk's Tide Light Rail - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

3. Even thought the FTA has finally committed to help fund the red line (which has the ridership level you say was "too embarrassing").

4. This fact (that they had never ever planned to seek funding) was at some point (post-election) communicated to you in a secret meeting.

5. But was never mentioned by anyone in any of the similar secret meetings you were attending pre-election.

6. And the kicker, your own article _2 years_ after the election
M1EK's Bake-Sale of Bile: Clearly I Am A Shrinking Violet
At which point you were off the UTC (and presumably any pipeline of secret information had stopped) doesn't mention this claim.

"Capital Metro did not seek Federal money because they knew they'd not get much."

Sometime _after_ 2006 "did not seek" became "had never planned to seek and was lying" and "much" became "none".

[Jimrob1]

Isn't the Dallas area the only area of Texas, that has built a fairly extensive rail system? One that continues to grow. I know Houston has a smaller version. Sounds like Austin will be years in the making on this issue.