Where do you stand on the Capital Metro Fare Hikes? (Dallas: home, taxes)

[Nomadic9460678748]

And also . . . for those of you who feel inclined to answer, assuming you aren't already a frequent user of public transportation, what would it take for you to feel encouraged to use public transportation in Austin (and surrounding areas, if you're in the CapMet loop)?

Here's where I stand:

For the level and quality of service that Capital Metro provides, a fare hike (so soon after a very recent fare hike) is arguably unconscionable. I keep reading how $28 or $75 is nothing compared to what X person paid in (insert your other location here). That may be true, but Austin's transit infrastructure pales in comparison to most regions which currently charge comparable fares. And since we know that budgetary concerns preclude the possibility of service extensions and expansions in the near future, why not trim some of that excess fat we all know exists? The $605,000 Capital Metro thinks it will save on the backs of the community's disabled and elderly is probably very possibly found in other fat-trimming measures if Capital Metro were so inclined to make those efforts. But they are not. I'm very, very opposed to these fare hikes (the buses here are my only method of transport as I don't own a vehicle) without some other indication that Capital Metro is committed to long-term fiscal and administrative belt-tightening. As it stands Capital Metro is a textbook example of how NOT to run your transit authority in the midst of an extraordinary urban metropolitan growth period. They are without the kind of leadership and credibility required for them to make worthwhile decisions affecting critical planning. Ultimately, I feel the people who ride Capital Metro will settle for whatever decisions are handed down to them because they've either failed to make their voices heard with respect to these issues.

Lastly, why isn't there a place on the Capital Metro Board for a citizen who actually RIDES the buses. Kirk Watson put all of this emphasis on executives, financial backgrounds, and such, for the Board members, but do any of them even spend time suffering our abysmal mass transit? I'm asking . . . maybe they do, but if so, I haven't read any articles referencing as much.

[Nomadic9460678748]

No opinions, huh? That's too bad. Congrats to all of you for having auto transport . . . or for owning the means which permit you to eschew mass transportation!

[twange]

Originally Posted by Nomadic9460678748

No opinions, huh? That's too bad. Congrats to all of you for having auto transport . . . or for owning the means which permit you to eschew mass transportation!

Hey man, give the thread a little more time before assuming everyone here "eschews mass transportation". It's friggin' Saturday night AND Halloween! I'm checking in because I'm at home crunching through a music deadline....

Anyway, as for opinions on the fare: If I felt that the fare hike was going to go strictly to improving operations - i.e. higher frequency on popular lines, maybe some new routes etc... - I would be in favor of raising fares to $1. Yes, just about every other city of Austin's size has higher fares. But if all it's going to do make it more expensive for the SAME service, then I would be against it.

I don't have an answer as to how CM can improve the overall system without raising fares except for improving leadership from the top down and proving to the public that it means business. I haven't gotten any real indication of this yet, unless the VP who is currently the interim CEO, is just that: the interim. I want CM to recruit someone nationally of high expertise to turn this crappy operation into something useful that Austin can be proud of.

[chickenfry]

Ok, i've tried to remain silent but........i would love to ride the light rail. but as usual, the government finds a way to take my tax money for years and not produce anything other than an empty expensive promise.
as for the rate increase, cap metro was awash in money, when "called on it", they hurriedly spent it, then the downturn in the economy, and now they need more money. and so it goes, "nothing certain but death and taxes"

[tibbar]

I would ride the bus if it came anywhere near my home. My husband rode the Oak Hill Flyer when he worked down town and it was great. Now they are taking the stops he used away. I guess the town has to have some sort of transportation but what they have in our area (78749 Westcreek) is none existent.

[Nomadic9460678748]

Originally Posted by twange

Hey man, give the thread a little more time before assuming everyone here "eschews mass transportation". It's friggin' Saturday night AND Halloween! I'm checking in because I'm at home crunching through a music deadline....

Anyway, as for opinions on the fare: If I felt that the fare hike was going to go strictly to improving operations - i.e. higher frequency on popular lines, maybe some new routes etc... - I would be in favor of raising fares to $1. Yes, just about every other city of Austin's size has higher fares. But if all it's going to do make it more expensive for the SAME service, then I would be against it.

I don't have an answer as to how CM can improve the overall system without raising fares except for improving leadership from the top down and proving to the public that it means business. I haven't gotten any real indication of this yet, unless the VP who is currently the interim CEO, is just that: the interim. I want CM to recruit someone nationally of high expertise to turn this crappy operation into something useful that Austin can be proud of.

Not exactly true . . . the threads about Austin diversity, Austin's green identity . . . pretty well trafficked. And if you'll notice the responses have remained somewhat tepid in comparison to many others. What can I say? I'm not nearly so salacious. Nevertheless, I am grateful for your response.


With reference to the second portion of your post I bolded: There was a recent article in The Statesman where Kirk Watson recommended that the individual charged with leading Capital Metro shouldn't necessarily be someone with a transportation background. That perhaps all that's required is a "seasoned" executive or manager. What say you to that? I saw a comment on The Statesman which recommended that perhaps it might be of use to bring in a European consultant more familiar with mass transit as something culturally endemic to the population, but I don't think that's exactly the right path, either. Surely there are transportation managers residing in The States with the requisite experience who can identify with Austin's current planning challenges.

[Nomadic9460678748]

Originally Posted by chickenfry

Ok, i've tried to remain silent but........i would love to ride the light rail. but as usual, the government finds a way to take my tax money for years and not produce anything other than an empty expensive promise.

This is precisely why you shouldn't remain silent! I'm very interested to hear where people stand. What's more, you won't ever see results if you aren't willing to articulate your grievances. Be mad as H*ll . . . and don't take it any more.

as for the rate increase, cap metro was awash in money, when "called on it", they hurriedly spent it, then the downturn in the economy, and now they need more money. and so it goes, "nothing certain but death and taxes"

Do you ride the buses? If so, which? If not, why not? Other than the cessation of gross mismanagement, what would bring you into the public transportation fold? Or do you think it's any importance?

Similarly, thank you for answering as well.

.

[Nomadic9460678748]

Originally Posted by tibbar

I would ride the bus if it came anywhere near my home. My husband rode the Oak Hill Flyer when he worked down town and it was great. Now they are taking the stops he used away. I guess the town has to have some sort of transportation but what they have in our area (78749 Westcreek) is none existent.

Will there be any other stops nearby? I'm quite sure that Capital Metro cannot possibly be so dense as to completely elide Oak Hill from its transportation map. There are many people (and ACC students!) who stand to benefit from worthwhile Oak Hill feeders and circulators.

[twange]

Originally Posted by Nomadic9460678748

With reference to the second portion of your post I bolded: There was a recent article in The Statesman where Kirk Watson recommended that the individual charged with leading Capital Metro shouldn't necessarily be someone with a transportation background. That perhaps all that's required is a "seasoned" executive or manager. What say you to that? I saw a comment on The Statesman which recommended that perhaps it might be of use to bring in a European consultant more familiar with mass transit as something culturally endemic to the population, but I don't think that's exactly the right path, either. Surely there are transportation managers residing in The States with the requisite experience who can identify with Austin's current planning challenges.

Wow. if that's the way they're looking at this, then I'm already feeling cynical. It's like a football team hiring a President of Operations with no football background.

I'm not sure that the European consultant is relevant as the density and land-use patterns are too different from the States. But I think hiring someone experienced from say, Portland, Boston, SF, even Toronto - cities with decent, successful PT systems would be a really good idea. Hell, Dallas' DART is developing nicely. Who's running their system?

[Nomadic9460678748]

It's funny that you should mention DART . . . from The Statesman article:

"Doug Allen, who had been with Dallas Area Rapid Transit for almost 25 years before coming to Capital Metro last year, is serving as the agency's interim president and chief executive officer and could be a candidate for the permanent job."

The article itself.

Should Cap Metro look outside for a leader? (http://www.statesman.com/news/content/news/stories/local/2009/11/01/1101capmetro.html - broken link)

I agree with you entirely with regard to having a new head familiar with the differences in density in land-use patterns as they arise in Austin as opposed to other already densely zoned areas. It would serve no purpose to graft such solutions onto Austin's transit woes.