CapMetro trying to prop up declining ridership (Austin, Burnet: headhunters, employment)

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Roadking2003

But they aren't free. Somebody (the taxpayers) pays.

So are roads. And parking.

And air quality mitigation.

[Roadking2003]

Originally Posted by riaelise

It's because there are so many people who want to see mass transit fail and are wedded to their cars.

I've never met anybody who felt that way. I love my cars, but also support cost effective mass transit.

Who wants mass transit to fail?

[Roadking2003]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Okay, now compare that against all the capital costs of the roads the Uber drivers (and all the regular drivers) are using. Those aren't free you know.

Billions of dollars in transit or billions of dollars in highway expansions. "Neither" isn't an option.

Silly comparison. People travel thousands of times as many miles on roads as rails. And pay billions more in gas taxes than rail fees.

The two choices are not comparable due to the miniscule number of miles traveled on rail in Austin.

[Roadking2003]

Originally Posted by cBach

The government gives their "product" away when they build non-tolled roads.

No, not true. Governments collect more than $50 billion every year in gas taxes. You can't use the roads without paying gas taxes unless you have an electric vehicle or bicycle.

The only "give away" is for electric cars which pay no gas taxes.

[Roadking2003]

Originally Posted by riaelise

I have no say as to location. In addition since I work in litigation it’s better to be situated near the courthouses. I don’t work for a small firm btw. Almost all big law firms are located downtown so I don’t know how I could have selected anywhere else. My experience is 99% big law.

True, and that fact exposes another major government planning problem. Courts should be dispersed around the area, not in the most expensive and most congested acreage in the metro area.

[Roadking2003]

Originally Posted by Bp25

Cities subsidize and provide service for some of its citizens that can't otherwise afford that. Property tax exemptions for senior citizens come to mind.
Do you want transportation unsubsidized? Then at least some minimum wage workers will not afford to come to work and we know they can't afford to live in the city core. Whom will that help?

Why would anybody work for minimum wage in downtown Austin? And who pays minimum wages in downtown Austin? Nobody?

[Roadking2003]

Originally Posted by cBach

They have greatly improved the linear footage of sidewalks in many parts of town with some of the new ordinances that require businesses on at least one side of the road to construct a sidewalk.
So even in the last 2 years there has been a great improvement in sidewalks. Maybe try again?

You really think we have sidewalks in a large part of the metro area? My guess is that it's closer to 10 - 20%.

Maybe try again.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Roadking2003

You really think we have sidewalks in a large part of the metro area? My guess is that it's closer to 10 - 20%.

Maybe try again.

Luckily we don't have to guess.

" As of November 2015, the citywide sidewalk network
includes 2,580 miles of absent (missing) and 2,400 miles of existing sidewalk."


https://austintexas.gov/sites/defaul...16_reduced.pdf


That was two and a half years ago, so it's improved (slightly) since then.


Now, there's a lot missing. But it's getting much better in the central core. A lot of the missing miles are in the periphery and are (rightfully) lower priority.

[IC_deLight]

Originally Posted by Roadking2003

No, not true. Governments collect more than $50 billion every year in gas taxes. You can't use the roads without paying gas taxes unless you have an electric vehicle or bicycle.

The only "give away" is for electric cars which pay no gas taxes.

Not to mention there is a pretty good alignment between beneficiaries and who pays for roads, unlike rail.
If you're driving a car you're probably paying federal income taxes too. Similarly all the businesses using roads are susceptible to income taxes. The number of households with cars is very high. Whereas mass transit such as rail serves a relatively small number of people who have to find someway (car? some other form of mass transit?) to get to a terminal/station to begin with. Gas/diesel buses run by governmental bodies end up being exempt from state and federal taxes. Buses are at least more flexible, less expensive, and more robust for planning, routing, and financials than trains, train routes, etc.

[IC_deLight]

Originally Posted by riaelise

I have no say as to location. In addition since I work in litigation it’s better to be situated near the courthouses. I don’t work for a small firm btw. Almost all big law firms are located downtown so I don’t know how I could have selected anywhere else. My experience is 99% big law.

Sure you do. You chose to be employed downtown.
As far as litigation is concerned, if your firm is a big firm then litigation is only one component of its business and even then "downtown Austin" is at best convenient only for cases in Austin and only on days individual attorneys from that office have to go to court. It's certainly not convenient when representing clients in litigation in other courts nor on any other days of the year. It's also not convenient for the clients. It's solely for "status".