Austin Urban Light Rail Phase 1 - Why Mueller? (Spring, Center: neighborhood, live)

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by mayfair44

COA says more like $4b for Project Connect, with funding half way there...

Transit group weighs Project Connect funding options - Community Impact Newspaper

49% already funded. Does that 49% include Fed resources? Interesting proposals to get the 51%. Mobility use tax should go over well.

"Using just the vehicle registration option, Piascik said about 59 percent of the plan would be funded."

edit: oops, missed jb9152's previous quote re the 49% "All being talked about in the current TWG discussions. Access them on the city's web site video archive. Latest "envelope of affordability" analysis by Project Connect shows that up to 49% of the vision is achievable using revenue sources already available (i.e. don't require legislative action)."

So, to confirm, are these "available" sources Federal funds earmarked for transit?

A few things - 4B is an estimate of course - actual costs will likely be close to 1.5 - 2.0x that amount.

The article says 2B is funded but it's entirely unclear to me from where. We would have to pass a bond to pay for 500M it would take for the Mueller route - so where is this pot of money from?

That still leaves $2B unfunded. I can't think of a single central Texas project that has cost this much. This is hugely ambitious.

It would necessarily involve both commitments and cooperation of the following municipalities and entities:

Travis County
Williamson County
Hays County
Capitol Metro
City of Austin
Cedar Park
Leander
Pfluegerville
Georgetown
Manor
Elgin
Hutto
Taylor
Buda
Kyle
San Marcos
ACC
UT

That's at a minimum. Each would have to commit millions and millions years, maybe decades in advance of receiving any actual transit because a plan of this scale will take decades to complete.

I'm not saying it's not doable. . .but when was the last time Travis County and Williamson Country agreed on ANYTHING - let alone ALL those different entities agreeing to a unified plan - and willing to commit dollars to it. It would almost certainly entail referendum in each municipality to approve the necessary tax increases.

I'm not saying it can't be done
I'm not saying it shouldn't be done

I am saying nothing on this scale has been attempted here and what has been attempted, not nearly 1/10th as ambitious, has not succeeded even when only one city was involved.

This is a moonshot. A moonshot can be done when everything is aligned perfectly. I just can't believe there is the political support at the moment for a moonshot.

Austin should for right now concentrate on building basic backbone for a future system. The big ambitious stuff can come at a later time, right now we should just get a single light rail line passed.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Komeht

The article says 2B is funded but it's entirely unclear to me from where. We would have to pass a bond to pay for 500M it would take for the Mueller route - so where is this pot of money from?

My understanding is that 2B isn't currently "funded", but "could be" funded without state legislative action (just with local decisions and committments). Additional funding sources would require state action, either direct state funding or state permission for new funding sources (new taxes currently not allowed or increases to sales taxes, as Austin and others are at the current limit).

Originally Posted by Komeht

That still leaves $2B unfunded. I can't think of a single central Texas project that has cost this much. This is hugely ambitious.

SH 130.

Originally Posted by Komeht

It would necessarily involve both commitments and cooperation of the following municipalities and entities:
...

The plan as presented is at least partially scalable. Though it certainly works better as the full system, if certain parties don't participate, they can be dropped relatively easily. For instance, Elgin isn't on board, just don't run that commuter rail out to Elgin (stop at Manor, or don't even run that whole line yet).

[mayfair44]

Imagine rail following these BRT routes.

http://www.capmetro.org/metrorapid2.aspx

[mayfair44]

City ponders leasing airport to raise rail cash

City ponders leasing airport to raise rail cash | www.statesman.com

Privatize ABIA for LRT funds?

[jb9152]

Originally Posted by mayfair44

So, to confirm, are these "available" sources Federal funds earmarked for transit?

25% federal grant funding assumed. The remainder is bond revenues, federal TIFIA and/or RRIF loans, private monies, and possibly some state funds.

[jb9152]

Originally Posted by tildahat

So would the other red line coming from manor or wherever be doing a little extra jog over to Crestview station?

I'm actually not quite sure how that would work just yet...I think that piece of the vision might need a correction. Seems odd to have that little stub hanging out there.

[steve78757]

Originally Posted by mayfair44

City ponders leasing airport to raise rail cash

City ponders leasing airport to raise rail cash | www.statesman.com

Privatize ABIA for LRT funds?

Kind of like with their ignoring the voters on affordable housing and endorsing proposed state legislation that would let the Council amend the city charter without voter approval. They will do what they want, whether we like it or not. Like I said in my initial post, good riddance. 10-1 can't get here fast enough.

[CptnRn]

Originally Posted by mayfair44

City ponders leasing airport to raise rail cash

City ponders leasing airport to raise rail cash | www.statesman.com

Privatize ABIA for LRT funds?

I hate this idea. If the airport is so profitable that we think a private entity could lease it, operate it at a profit and pay us funds to pay for LRT. Why can't we, the City simply use those funds to pay for LRT our selves, instead of turning over part of the profit to a private operator? This is nothing more then a way for the current council to by-pass voter approval for the LRT expansion plans they want to implement.

It seems the current council is in a rush to implement everything they can that will benefit primarily the inner-city before they are removed from office.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by CptnRn

I hate this idea. If the airport is so profitable that we think a private entity could lease it, operate it at a profit and pay us funds to pay for LRT. Why can't we, the City simply use those funds to pay for LRT our selves, instead of turning over part of the profit to a private operator? This is nothing more then a way for the current council to by-pass voter approval for the LRT expansion plans they want to implement.

It seems the current council is in a rush to implement everything they can that will benefit primarily the inner-city before they are removed from office.

Because due to some regulations profits from the airport are trapped and can only be used for airport related projects. OTOH, lease payment received upfront would be directly to the city and the city could use the money in any way it sees fit.

This is just a way to liberate money and use it for what the city wants. I'm not opposed to this kind of arrangement so long as the money is put to a good purpose - but that is entirely a different issue than whether or not the airport should be leased.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by CptnRn

This is nothing more then a way for the current council to by-pass voter approval for the LRT expansion plans they want to implement.

As that story states, voter approval would still be required.


"But he said state law would still require a referendum authorizing a rail system"