Project Connect’s Austin urban rail would be 3rd-most-pricey LRT starter line in U.S. history (Detroit: 2014, unemployment)

[scm53]

Shhhhh. Don't tell anybody.

Thus, Project Connect’s proposed line, in cost per mile among modern systems, would rank as the third most expensive light rail transit starter line in U.S. history.

[jb9152]

Originally Posted by scm53

Shhhhh. Don't tell anybody.

Amazing! Things get more expensive with time...who woulda thought??? And water is wet, etc., etc....

[MiaMia411]

3rd-most-pricey LRT starter line in U.S. history- What gets me about this is that can Austin support such a hefty price tag? I can understand it be NYC but Austin has nowhere near the populations and businesses to pick up the bill.

[hound 109]

Originally Posted by jb9152

Amazing! Things get more expensive with time...who woulda thought??? And water is wet, etc., etc....

& children (& fiscal liberals) like to spend other people's money and at the end of the day neither have much to show for it.

From the article: The 9.5-mile project comes with a pricetag of $1.13 billion in current dollars, escalating to $1.38 billion in Year of Expenditure (YOE) dollars by 2020, for a projected ridership in the range of 16,000-20,000 per day.

A billion dollar toy train that will only serve 20K in an urban area of 1.5 million ?? It's beyond laughable.

Heck, I'd rather pick out a city data poster living in each zip code of greater Austin (20 -25?) & give each of them $10 million to improve roads in their own zip. (They can build/widen roads, put in left turn & right turn lanes, put in medians, bike lanes or fund gondolas...or whatever). We'd get 10 times more bang for buck & for 1/4th of the cost.

[jb9152]

Originally Posted by MiaMia411

3rd-most-pricey LRT starter line in U.S. history- What gets me about this is that can Austin support such a hefty price tag? I can understand it be NYC but Austin has nowhere near the populations and businesses to pick up the bill.

Actually, now is the time to start doing these things, because they all take anywhere from years to decades to complete. NYC's, Chicago's, Philadelphia's, etc. extensive high-capacity transit systems and road networks didn't happen a few years back. They were built while those cities were still growing, before NYC became *NYC*.

Whether or not you agree with the Urban Rail proposal or not, the question of can we afford it is the wrong one. The question for me is - can we afford to not make serious investments in our transportation infrastructure? In my opinion, we can't afford that if we expect to keep enjoying the benefits of a dynamic, lower-unemployment, attractive region for people and companies to move into.

We could solve our transportation problems easily by the Detroit method - shedding population like ants leaving a nest. But that's akin to curing a patient's cancer by killing them.

[jb9152]

Originally Posted by hound 109

& children (& fiscal liberals) like to spend other people's money and at the end of the day neither have much to show for it.

Yeah, because highways, schools, airports, water infrastructure, etc. cost nothing...

Originally Posted by hound 109

A billion dollar toy train that will only serve 20K in an urban area of 1.5 million ?? It's beyond laughable.

That's in a vacuum, as a single system. Add in the other high-capacity transit projects and roadway improvements and tie those together as a single system, and you get a lot more bang for the buck. 86% of our traffic during peaks is local - that is, it's mostly people driving from outer Austin neighborhoods and suburbs to or through central Austin. *That* is the market we should be addressing, because that will give people the most viable options and choices.

Originally Posted by hound 109

Heck, I'd rather pick out a city data poster living in each zip code of greater Austin (20 -25?) & give each of them 10 million to improve roads in their own zip. (They can build/widen roads, put in left turn & right turn lanes, put in medians, bike lanes or fund gondolas...or whatever). We'd get 10 times more bang for buck & for 1/4th of the cost.

Your obviously formidable transportation planning skills notwithstanding, do you really believe that $250 million would make any perceivable dent in traffic? Got a bridge I'd like to sell ya...

[scm53]

Originally Posted by jb9152

Amazing! Things get more expensive with time...who woulda thought??? And water is wet, etc., etc....

They are all converted to 2014 dollars. Which you would have known if you had read before snarking ...

[scm53]

Originally Posted by jb9152

AThe question for me is - can we afford to not make serious investments in our transportation infrastructure? In my opinion, we can't afford that if we expect to keep enjoying the benefits of a dynamic, lower-unemployment, attractive region for people and companies to move into.

Nice job wrapping youself in the flag, and summoning motherhood and apple pie while you are at it. The question raised by this revelation isn't affordability - it is the wisdom of THIS investment.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by hound 109

A billion dollar toy train that will only serve 20K in an urban area of 1.5 million ??

1.5 million is the absolutely wrong number to use. It's the city of Austin doing it, not the whole metro (or even the subset which is the CapMetro service area).

Then if you look at the subset of Austin's population which is in the main commuting cohorts (say 400k), then you see it's actually a significant single-digit percentage of commuters (which is about the most you'll ever serve with a single project).

Originally Posted by hound 109

Heck, I'd rather pick out a city data poster living in each zip code of greater Austin (20 -25?) & give each of them $10 million to improve roads in their own zip. (They can build/widen roads, put in left turn & right turn lanes, put in medians, bike lanes or fund gondolas...or whatever). We'd get 10 times more bang for buck & for 1/4th of the cost.

Which would do precisely bupkis. Putting in a few right/left turn lanes is going to do nothing for adding capacity to 35 or anywhere else which is capacity and ROW constrained.

Also, that wouldn't be 1/4 the cost, it'd be 1/2, as those projects wouldn't get the federal match.

[petro]

This is an investment in the future of Austin, which I will gladly pay my part for. Bring it on.