Austin's urban rail route looks great! (Center, Cesar Chavez: how much, community college, subsidized)

[scm53]

Originally Posted by ranjit_mathews

"I think it would be better if it was on [San Jacinto Boulevard] just because Guadalupe is already pretty crowded, and you don't need to crowd it any more than it already is," said UT junior Rachel Hattemer.''

Kinda like the old Yogi Berra line - it's so crowded, no one goes there any more.

Crowds = demand = ridership. Ms Hattemer just made a compelling argument exactly for Guadalupe, and exactly why the PC plan is an operational subsidy nightmare.

[ranjit_mathews]

Originally Posted by scm53

Kinda like the old Yogi Berra line - it's so crowded, no one goes there any more.

Crowds = demand = ridership. Ms Hattemer just made a compelling argument exactly for Guadalupe, and exactly why the PC plan is an operational subsidy nightmare.

If north south rail were below grade (underground), Lamar-183 transit center to Guadalupe to S 1st st, to beyond Ben White and at grade from there eastward to Bergstrom mostly along a now defunct railroad right of way would be a great route, with possible expansion northward to Parmer or even till Howard east of IH35. That would, however, cost so much that it wouldn't even be put to vote.

At grade, Guadalupe is too good a driving route to take lanes out of service for purposes other than driving - including bicycle lanes, not just urban rail. Aggregate passenger carrying capacity of Guadalupe (road + rail) would rise little after part of Guadalupe has been dedicated to rail. With rail on a route that's currently lightly traveled, Guadalupe's capacity for carrying road traffic would remain undiminished and would even get enhanced as more and more passengers choose the alternate route.

IMHO, the best way to connect other places to the Guadalupe/ MLK corner with at grade rail is to run rail along the center of MLK from Lamar to Airport Blvd or so, with MLK east of Red River being widened as necessary to support at least one road lane on either side of the rails plus islands in the middle for stations. Having driven both north-south and east-west from the Guadalupe-MLK intersection, this is the only route along which I as a driver could tolerate lanes taken out of service for a worthwhile purpose.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by ranjit_mathews

Why is it not $9 for a 3 person household living in an average house?

Because the bonds aren't 30 year notes. They're usually 5-7 year.

On the plus side, that means they're paid off pretty quick. So those that claim that Austin will tie up it's bond capacity for "decades" are completely off (again).

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Because the bonds aren't 30 year notes. They're usually 5-7 year.

On the plus side, that means they're paid off pretty quick. So those that claim that Austin will tie up it's bond capacity for "decades" are completely off (again).

It's also flat out wrong in that it doesn't tie up existing bond capacity at all. This is a complete falsehood repeated endlessly without any basis in fact. The City of Austin has plenty of bond capacity under legal caps.

[ranjit_mathews]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Because the bonds aren't 30 year notes. They're usually 5-7 year.

On the plus side, that means they're paid off pretty quick. So those that claim that Austin will tie up it's bond capacity for "decades" are completely off (again).

Then, Austin's estimated population during the repayment period would have to be lowered. $600 million to be repaid by 5/6 million people would be $720 per capita. That's $10 per month for 72 months (6 years) not counting interest or at most $12 including interest, which would work out to $36 a month for an average 3 person household. That's still not $200 per month.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by ranjit_mathews

That's still not $200 per month.

I don't think anyone claimed $200 /month. The estimate was ~150-200 /year (depending on if you're talking about just the $600M or if you add on ~$400 for roads).

[RoadWarrior12]

Originally Posted by ranjit_mathews

Then, Austin's estimated population during the repayment period would have to be lowered. $600 million to be repaid by 5/6 million people would be $720 per capita. That's $10 per month for 72 months (6 years) not counting interest or at most $12 including interest, which would work out to $36 a month for an average 3 person household. That's still not $200 per month.

Here's another point you don't understand.

It's not taxed per capita. It's taxed as a percentage of property value. It's also not alone. Between this stupid boondoggle and the med center, I'm looking at another $850~ on my personal property - haven't even started doing the math on the business properties. This is before I factor in assessed values jumping 10% per year and you have a model that has already begun to price out the working class - heck, I've already had 33% of my employees move out of the city.

The bottom line is that rampant spending on things that "look cool" but don't actually do much to improve capacity is foolish. Connecting a bus depot with an airport only serves an extremely, extremely, small minority.

[ranjit_mathews]

Originally Posted by Novacek

I don't think anyone claimed $200 /month. The estimate was ~150-200 /year (depending on if you're talking about just the $600M or if you add on ~$400 for roads).

That looks right and come to think of it, that would be a lot for those with modest incomes and no slack in their budget.

OTOH, doing nothing would mean that there'll be even more gridlock than there is now. In the 1960s, 1/3 of federal spending was on building new roads. How can 1/3 of budgets at a local level be reserved for transportation, perhaps making bond funding unnecessary for sub-billion projects?

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by RoadWarrior12

This is before I factor in assessed values jumping 10% per year

It's the dollar amount that matters. The assessed values rising don't really affect the amount you pay (assuming almost everyone's assessed values are rising generally similarly), as that then leads to the corresponding _rate_ that is needed being lower.

Originally Posted by RoadWarrior12

The bottom line is that rampant spending on things that "look cool" but don't actually do much to improve capacity is foolish. Connecting a bus depot with an airport only serves an extremely, extremely, small minority.

Good thing that's not what's being proposed, then.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by ranjit_mathews

That looks right and come to think of it, that would be a lot for those with modest incomes and no slack in their budget.

that's the median. If by "modest" you mean below(or significantly below) median, then they'd see lower (or significantly lower) increases.