If You Hate CapMetro so much. . . (Austin, Spur: 2013, rent, car insurance)

[LiveUrban]

Originally Posted by scm53

"Urbanist" myth. City and county streets and roads are funded by local taxes (except those that are state highways and are funded from the state highway fund). Those are the same roads 95% of Cap Metro travels on, your mail is delivered on, and every package or repairman travels over to get to your home. The idea that only passenger vehicles gain a benefit from city streets is patently false. 100% of city and county tax payers gain a direct benefit from our street and road network. Less than 100% of Cap Metro sales tax payers gain a direct benefit from Cap Metro.

And if 25% of state gas taxes weren't diverted to non-transportation uses, your observation might have a little more validity.

I was talking from a solely passenger transportation point of view. People complain about funding going towards mass transit when the roads system is supported by everyone as well.

Playing the game of "who gets the most direct benefit" from necessary public resources is counterproductive. Like I said, I don't get any direct benefits from the public school system, public library system, interstate highways... yet I understand the necessity to fund them.

"Why even fund mass transit if I'm never going to use it?" Well.. get rid of Cap Metro (which is the lifeblood of a large segment of the low-income population in Austin) and the city would collapse. Many riders fill the service and labor jobs of places you frequent. Cap Metro's daily ridership is over 140,000 and has been rising steadily year by year. Imagine all the extra traffic if all those trips were being made by car.

Now that traffic is perpetually horrendous, the population is ever increasing, and the city is densifying.. the city is trying to appeal mass transit to a more diverse demographic and a larger number of people by planning for more extensive system. It'll be a central part of the solution to our traffic issues and will give people more options of getting around. Plus it'll help keep Austin within federal air quality regulations

[scm53]

Originally Posted by LiveUrban

I was talking from a solely passenger transportation point of view. People complain about funding going towards mass transit when the roads system is supported by everyone as well.

Playing the game of "who gets the most direct benefit" from necessary public resources is counterproductive. Like I said, I don't get any direct benefits from the public school system, public library system, interstate highways... yet I understand the necessity to fund them.

Did you get mail this week? If you did, you got a direct benefit from the interstate highway system.

The issue isn't, as you correctly stated, who gets the most direct benefit. Even those of us that never step foot on a Cap Metro vehicle get benefit - just as those that don't own a passenger car get benefit from our streets, roads and highways. But the OP's position - which I questioned - was that if you don't ride Cap Metro, you should sit quietly and keep paying for it.

[hound 109]

Originally Posted by PrimusPilus

Then don't complain about the traffic.

To the OP: I might not use it but still, I want it improved. That's why I gripe. As you know things don't improve unless a lot of people gripe!

I don't. (I'm rarely in traffic).

In fact I encourage folks to live near where they work so I don't have to hear complaints.

[hound 109]

Originally Posted by ericsami

That may be the current operating world.

but in reality government should sit down every 5-10 years. And see what is at a high level that government should fund and then if that is something that needs to be funded.

then go ahead and see what sort of budget we need for it and how it may be raised.


currently though most of our budgets are simply baseline related. That way politicians don't care what they spend money on or what they cut.

They can just claim they slashed the budget by 5% or the increase funding by 5% to law enforcement.

I agree.

But I never hear about any funding mechanisms mentioned. Only the wants / needs.

[AguaDulce]

Originally Posted by scm53

Did you get mail this week? If you did, you got a direct benefit from the interstate highway system.

The issue isn't, as you correctly stated, who gets the most direct benefit. Even those of us that never step foot on a Cap Metro vehicle get benefit - just as those that don't own a passenger car get benefit from our streets, roads and highways. But the OP's position - which I questioned - was that if you don't ride Cap Metro, you should sit quietly and keep paying for it.

My position is not "if you don't ride Cap Metro, you should sit quietly and keep paying for it". I just want to know how it could be improved. I mean, we obviously need public transportation and other options like bicycle lanes that are separate from automobile traffic--can we agree on that? Or would you rather everybody drive?

[scm53]

Originally Posted by AguaDulce

I mean, we obviously need public transportation and other options like bicycle lanes that are separate from automobile traffic--can we agree on that? Or would you rather everybody drive?

Why make it manichean? Dramatic effect? Look, bike lanes don't do JS for our congestion problem, so everyone should stop acting like they do. What WILL do something is to increase the "cost" of SOVs commuting into the "congestion zone". Incentivize the behavior you want, and disincentivize the behavior you don't want. Let me ask you a question - would you be OK if everyone drove, if they were all in cars that had three occupants?

[LiveUrban]

Originally Posted by scm53

Why make it manichean? Dramatic effect? Look, bike lanes don't do JS for our congestion problem, so everyone should stop acting like they do. What WILL do something is to increase the "cost" of SOVs commuting into the "congestion zone". Incentivize the behavior you want, and disincentivize the behavior you don't want. Let me ask you a question - would you be OK if everyone drove, if they were all in cars that had three occupants?

Bike lanes added in places where there were already a lot of bicyclists riding decreases congestion. Guadalupe St. between 29th and 45th has always had a lot of people riding bikes on it. After they installed the bike lanes a couple years ago, you don't see the back ups that used to occur when the cars/bikes had to share the lane. (none of the car lanes were taken away, just narrowed a bit)

If the city really wants to see larger amounts of people biking, they need to put a curb between cars and bikes like they do in The Netherlands. A strip of paint is only going to entice a small percentage of the population that is fearless enough to ride. It's no wonder you only see a small demographic biking around here (mainly male and physically fit). The majority of people still do not feel safe biking around for transportation needs

[scm53]

Originally Posted by LiveUrban

Bike lanes added in places where there were already a lot of bicyclists riding decreases congestion.

You are talking about a transportation mode that has 1% of the trips. Even if it quadrupled (which would be miraculous), it wouldn't make a pimple on an elephants butt. And even if individual streets get less congested by segregating the traffic, it still won't get people out of their cars. I'm not driven by any ideology other than one - do what works. This doesn't. Never will, and to idealistically hope that people change distracts from doing what works.

[AguaDulce]

Originally Posted by scm53

Why make it manichean? Dramatic effect? Look, bike lanes don't do JS for our congestion problem, so everyone should stop acting like they do. What WILL do something is to increase the "cost" of SOVs commuting into the "congestion zone". Incentivize the behavior you want, and disincentivize the behavior you don't want. Let me ask you a question - would you be OK if everyone drove, if they were all in cars that had three occupants?

I looked up the word "manichean". Still not sure what you mean by that.

I think separate bike lanes are good because if I can ride my bike and not feel like I'm going to be mowed down from behind I'm much more likely to do so. Incentivizing bicycle commuting is good. It does relieve congestion! How can you say it doesn't?

To answer your question--I don't care how many people drive, because I generally don't drive. Congestion doesn't affect me as much as it does people who drive cars every day. I walk, ride my bike, or take public transportation. I live within three miles of my job. I stopped maintaining a vehicle after 15 years of doing so because I did the math and it just wasn't worth it anymore.

[AguaDulce]

Originally Posted by scm53

You are talking about a transportation mode that has 1% of the trips. Even if it quadrupled (which would be miraculous), it wouldn't make a pimple on an elephants butt. And even if individual streets get less congested by segregating the traffic, it still won't get people out of their cars. I'm not driven by any ideology other than one - do what works. This doesn't. Never will, and to idealistically hope that people change distracts from doing what works.

"...to idealistically hope that people change distracts from doing what works."

What works?