The big lesson from Austin’s City Council elections (Clarksville: rentals, neighborhoods)

[scm53]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Uh, no. It's currently being ridden as much as it can be (it's at a capacity).

Uh, yes. It was sold to the voters on initial ridership projections of 1,700 to 2,000 trips/day, within six months. Never got over 800 for almost the first year. So, NO. It DID NOT meet the promised ridership projections told to the voters.

And the fact it is "full" today is just another example of Cap Metro undercharging in order to boost ridership - a practice identified by the Sunset Commission in 2011. National average for peer systems for fare box recovery is 18% - 30% was promised in the first service plan. Today? 10%, proving if you give it away, you can sell anything.

More clown car antics, from the clown in chief, Mr. Martinez.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by scm53

Uh, yes. It was sold to the voters on initial ridership projections of 1,700 to 2,000 trips/day, within six months. Never got over 800 for almost the first year. So, NO. It DID NOT meet the promised ridership projections told to the voters.

Completely false.

And it's well over those numbers now.

Originally Posted by scm53

And the fact it is "full" today is just another example of Cap Metro undercharging in order to boost ridership - a practice identified by the Sunset Commission in 2011. National average for peer systems for fare box recovery is 18% - 30% was promised in the first service plan. Today? 10%, proving if you give it away, you can sell anything.

What does that have to do with the FRR of commuter rail systems (since that's what we're discussing)? Why are you looking at the FRR of the bus system?

[scm53]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Completely false.

Go tell that to the Chronicle:

Ridership on the previous schedule had been stuck around 850 trips per day. During the first nine days of the new schedule, that figure jumped up about 40%, to 1,191, with a high of 1,390 on Wednesday, Jan. 26. But even that doesn't come close to the 1,700 to 2,000 trips per day that Cap Met planners forecast back in 2009.

As far as your other obfuscation, the issue is the pricing behaviors of CMTA - not any particular mode, but an overall philosophy of giving service away to boost ridership. Besides, most peer systems run multiple modes, so not sure what your point is - other than distraction.

[Rock Climber]

Originally Posted by gpurcell

Good article, although the new Urbanist types who are reading this as a vote against change--like the old SOS days--are deluding themselves. It is a vote against THEIR VERSION of change.

I think that's a good summary. I think its a matter of too much, too soon. People love(d) Austin, and when people love something, they don't want to see wholesale changes made so quickly.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by scm53

Go tell that to the Chronicle:

They hit their projected numbers the first week of opening.

Your statement: false


Your own link gives a ridership number (after raising prices) of over 800.
So your statement, that they never got over 800 in the first year, is completely false.

[austin-steve]

Originally Posted by Novacek

They hit their projected numbers the first week of opening.

Your statement: false


Your own link gives a ridership number (after raising prices) of over 800.
So your statement, that they never got over 800 in the first year, is completely false.

Regardless of the back and forth about ridership, cost, etc., I look at the current rail as follows:

If it were to cease operation next week, what bad thing would happen?

Would traffic increase in any measurable way?
How many people would actually be affected?
Of those affected, how many would simply switch to a bus?
What transportation efforts could the cost savings be redirected to, and would that cause any measurable improvement in traffic?

In other words, what are Austin taxpayers, on the whole, getting from the rail line and does it hold up to scrutiny of the opportunity costs of other choices?

On the most recent vote, I think voters were simply saying the numbers don't work, not necessarily that every vote against was against rail per say. I'm not "against" rail per se, but I am against wastefull spending of tax dollars.

And, as with the recent "stupid taxpayer" comments by one of the architects of ObamaCare, we know that it's common practice in politics for the proponents of big idealistic ideas to highlight and exaggerate to supposed benefits, and obfuscate and downplay the true costs and downsides. That didn't work this time with the rail vote. It did last time, but I don't even think the current line would have passed in 2014.

Steve

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by austin-steve

Regardless of the back and forth about ridership, cost, etc., I look at the current rail as follows:

If it were to cease operation next week, what bad thing would happen?

Would traffic increase in any measurable way?
How many people would actually be affected?
Of those affected, how many would simply switch to a bus?
What transportation efforts could the cost savings be redirected to, and would that cause any measurable improvement in traffic?

In other words, what are Austin taxpayers, on the whole, getting from the rail line and does it hold up to scrutiny of the opportunity costs of other choices?

On the most recent vote, I think voters were simply saying the numbers don't work, not necessarily that every vote against was against rail per say. I'm not "against" rail per se, but I am against wastefull spending of tax dollars.

And, as with the recent "stupid taxpayer" comments by one of the architects of ObamaCare, we know that it's common practice in politics for the proponents of big idealistic ideas to highlight and exaggerate to supposed benefits, and obfuscate and downplay the true costs and downsides. That didn't work this time with the rail vote. It did last time, but I don't even think the current line would have passed in 2014.

Steve

I'm not against rail per se, just any rail that has ever existed or will exist in the history of transit.

No system that Austin was ever going to build as a first stage, or ever could build or ever will build will ever initially serve more than a small single digit percentage of commuters. That's just how it works out when building out a system. Austin wasn't going to (and taxpayers wouldn't support) dropping 4-5 Billion all at once for multiple lines hitting every part of the city. So a first system was always going to exclude 90% of Austin from it's watershed (not counting park and riders, for which this system was ideally situated).

Seriously, you say you're not against rail. What rail _would_ you support?

[gpurcell]

I don't hate the Red Line. At least it is using a different and unused corridor to bring people into the central city. The basic problem with it is that it wasn't built to be easy to expand--it needs a bunch of double tracking, longer cars, longer platforms, etc. Indeed the Red Line is one of the reasons the G/L alignment makes so much sense due to the great transfer potential of Crestview Station.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by Novacek

So your statement, that they never got over 800 in the first year, is completely false.

Nice job bending the truth, yet again.

Originally Posted by scm53

Uh, yes. It was sold to the voters on initial ridership projections of 1,700 to 2,000 trips/day, within six months. Never got over 800 for almost the first year. So, NO. It DID NOT meet the promised ridership projections told to the voters.

The 800 number was for the first nine months - almost the first year - and definitely not within the six months promised in 2009, as the Chronicle reported. I don't know how that is so hard to simply read and comprehend - unless you don't want to. More obfuscation to avoid the hard truth that, as the Sunset Commission reported:

The Authority also has a long history of subsidizing fares at levels far in excess of its transit peers.

Including the Red Line.

[austin-steve]

Originally Posted by Novacek

I'm not against rail per se, just any rail that has ever existed or will exist in the history of transit.

No system that Austin was ever going to build as a first stage, or ever could build or ever will build will ever initially serve more than a small single digit percentage of commuters. That's just how it works out when building out a system. Austin wasn't going to (and taxpayers wouldn't support) dropping 4-5 Billion all at once for multiple lines hitting every part of the city. So a first system was always going to exclude 90% of Austin from it's watershed (not counting park and riders, for which this system was ideally situated).

Seriously, you say you're not against rail. What rail _would_ you support?

I would support a rail system that can solve a definable problem, for a definable population, in a measurable way at a cost that makes sense and for which there is built in cost accountability of some kind.

What exactly was I going to get for my $500/yr tax increase on my personal home, plus the extra property tax costs on the rentals I own? I don't think it should be funded by property tax. It should be funded some other way, even if a sales tax, so that the people, including foreigners in town for F1 weekend, can contribute to the operating costs through their spending while in town. Otherwise, you just have a bunch of home owners paying for something with no clear benefit in an environment which is already putting affordability pressure on housing.

Steve