Prop 1 Open Thread (Austin: to move, transportation, suburban)

[gpurcell]

Originally Posted by Novacek

We. All of us. All city of austin taxpayers have no idea where a replacement venue will be located. They simply aren't that far enough along in the process.

Yeah, that's certainly not the case. UT Austin knows darn well where they want it and that desire may be reasonably inferred from their actions.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by gpurcell

Yeah, that's certainly not the case. UT Austin knows darn well where they want it and that desire may be reasonably inferred from their actions.

What actions?

The location isn't nearly narrowed down, as far as the general public/taxpayer knows.

Lady Bird Lake area among possible sites for Erwin Center replacement - Austin Business Journal

Looking ahead: What will become of the Erwin Center? - Austin Business Journal


The closest to an "official" statement is

"Some UT officials have pointed out that the university owns land in East Austin near Disch-Falk Field, and that could be a possible site."


Which, by the way, _wouldn't_ be on the proposed rail line.

[mayfair44]

KUT

[hound 109]

Originally Posted by mayfair44

KUT

That plan (& that route) sounds reasonable to me. (Unlike the current proposed route which is much more expensive, will have 1/3rd the riders & doesn't have the North/South bang for buck that the 2000 plan might have delivered.)

I'd still probably vote against it, but at least the proposed route and the economics (from the 2000 plan) would have made more sense than this turkey that they're trying to push thru now. If the 2000 rail version (along with funds for road improvements all over the city...instead of only along 71) was voted on today, I bet it would pass.
.

[centralaustinite]

It rained on election day in 2000. Rained hard. And I remember thinking, oh god, everyone who rides public transport won't get to the polls today. And the 2000 plan failed by just a few hundred votes. How different it might have been if only it had been a bright warm day. I cried then and I still think that was a better plan.

I think Project Connect took the wrong lessons from the 2000 failure. And in doing so, created a plan that won't pass this fall.

[IC_deLight]

Originally Posted by Novacek

But a large portion of Travis County taxpayers _aren't_ in the City of Austin.

Like 30%.

All Travis county property owners will pay the increased Travis county taxes regardless of whether they are in the city of Austin or not.

If they are in the city of Austin they would also have to pay any rail tax.

Originally Posted by Novacek

You're adding two different numbers that are two different pools of residents. The "typical" travis county homeowner isn't the same as the "typical" Austin homeowner.

Of course I'm adding two different numbers because there are two different taxes:
i) the increase in county taxes for a typical Travis County taxpayer; and
ii) your rail tax which is applicable to folks in the city of Austin.

A taxpayer in the city of Austin who is also in Travis County will be paying BOTH.

$291 was the expected increase on a "typical" Travis County home per the article.
$217 was the expected rail tax on a "typical" city of Austin $200,000 home.

Given that everything is an ad valorem tax based upon the value of the homes, the only issue is what is defined as the value of a "typical" Travis county home. If your argument is that a "typical" Travis county home is less than $200,000, the "typical county tax" would then be higher for a $200,000 home. At best the rail tax would be a lesser percentage of the total additional taxes. Keep in mind though that $217 was an estimate provided by city of Austin and the number could go higher or lower anyway. If your argument is that a "typical" Travis county home is more than $200,000 then the "rail tax" would also be higher than the $217.

The $200,000 "typical" home used by rail proponents is a myth to begin with given the average and median prices for Austin are well above $200,000. I'm perfectly comfortable with adding the two tax increase numbers together as-is because the $200,000 "typical" is a floor not a ceiling for purposes of this experiment.

Folks in Travis County including those in the city of Austin will all pay the higher county taxes.
In addition to that the city of Austin house will get hit with increases from the city including your rail tax. The rail tax would be a significant percentage (on the order of 75%) of the tax increase for folks living in the city of Austin within Travis County. Just one more reason to vote against the rail tax which is not going to benefit 99.5+% or more of the people paying for it.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by mayfair44

KUT

Boy, that's a fail of an article.

"The 15-mile line would have gone from Ben White and South Congress through downtown on Guadalupe and Lamar, all the way up past Parmer Lane. "

No, the initial 15 miles (14.6) phase didn't go south of the river at all.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by IC_deLight

The $200,000 "typical" home used by rail proponents is a myth to begin with given the average and median prices for Austin are well above $200,000.

Listing prices have very little to do with appraisal values, which is what the taxes are based on.

[IC_deLight]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Listing prices have very little to do with appraisal values, which is what the taxes are based on.

That is a valid point, however, it does not alter the outcome. I'll take that as a tacit admission that the rail tax would represent about 75% of the tax increase on a "typical" home in Travis county located in the city of Austin. We'll find out November 4, 2014 just how many folks voted against a rail tax.

[eileenkeeney]

Originally Posted by passionatearts

From the article:

"MetroRail, which is a different kind of transit than light rail, opened in 2010, a couple of years late and something like $50 million over budget. Ridership, while it has tripled since the opening months, is still relatively modest at less than 3,000 boardings a day."
.

MetroRail is packed full during rush hour, the time when most people transport themselves from home to work or from work to home.

Perhaps if MetroRail went to more useful places it might get more ridership during the day.
Medical facilities? I need to transfer to a bus.
Shopping? I need to transfer to a bus.
DownTown, it works well for Downtown, but would work better if it stopped somewhere else Downtown.

If Metrorail took me to more places I need to go (like maybe a major medical complex, or shopping complex), I would use it far more often, mid-day.


One of the first things I noticed, trying to get around in Austin, is just how car centric the whole design is.
Neighborhoods with no sidewalks. Nieghborhoods with sidewalks that are built more for looks than as a method of getting around (the way they are done in curves, that increase the distance one has to walk to get places). Cul-de-sac neighborhoods, that force one to walk close to where the heavy traffic is, to get anywhere (instead of being able to walk a route further from the heavy traffic).
Even bicycle lanes are mostly right alongside heavy traffic, making them much less safe, and less healthy (as one must breath the fumes of the cars).