What do we call the new rail line? (Austin: power lines, condos)

[SeaToby]

Originally Posted by austin-steve

Gosh, I hope you're not an investor. I have some "cheap" stuff I could sell you based on your evaluation method.

I view expenditures in terms of the value returned. I could care less how much other cities spent on their rail systems.

If the rail is supposed to solve a problem, what problem is it solving?
And specifically how is the effectiveness of the solution measured? How is Austin now better?
And what would have been the cost and effectiveness of alternative solutions, or uses of the funds expended?

Finally, my favorite question - the best questions, really, to hold up against any idea, no matter how good or bad it seems:

What bad thing would happen if Austin didn't have rail? What bad eventuality does the rail rescue us from?

Steve

Frankly, if you are against any tax increase, for any purpose, when the city consumes all of its water supply, YOU WOULD RATHER GO THIRSTY THAN SPEND ANY TAX DOLLARS FOR A NEW LAKE AND PIPELINE... Its the same with every other item we spend on taxes. No more hospitals, no more schools, no more jails, no more universities, no more libraries, no more highways....

Already, I noticed new apartments, condos have been built near the Crestview rail station providing tax dollars to the city. I doubt they would have been built there if there weren't for CapMetro rail....There are more vacant real estate near other rail stations as well which WILL be developed. What may be lost operating commuter rail in every city I know of have seen development near their rail stations which more than cover the cost of building and operating the rail lines with new property and sales taxes from these developments....

In retail stores terms, I consider commuter rail as loss leaders. Sooner or later new development grows around their stations which otherwise would never have been developed as well.... Just like schools, libraries, and hospitals.... pipelines, power lines, highways, convention centers, etc....

As I said before, I thumbed those motorists in cars waiting for my train to pass.... The best feeling in the world for those against gas guzzlers.....

Consider this. Last year the price of gasoline where I fill my car up went up to $4.90 a gallon, easily $2 more a gallon than what I am paying today. Isn't it interesting the state of Texas refuses to increase their highway gas tax ten cents a gallon? We know we will pay $2 more because we had to... Even though the expected traffic volume will double within the next 20 years, with the current highway gas tax the state has zero NEW interstate highways or freeways planned.... Any built will be a toll road.... If you think traffic is bad now, like I do, traffic will be twice as bad in twenty years.... Plan on it....

[Austin97]

Originally Posted by austin-steve

Gosh, I hope you're not an investor. I have some "cheap" stuff I could sell you based on your evaluation method.

I view expenditures in terms of the value returned. I could care less how much other cities spent on their rail systems.

If the rail is supposed to solve a problem, what problem is it solving?
And specifically how is the effectiveness of the solution measured? How is Austin now better?
And what would have been the cost and effectiveness of alternative solutions, or uses of the funds expended?

Finally, my favorite question - the best questions, really, to hold up against any idea, no matter how good or bad it seems:

What bad thing would happen if Austin didn't have rail? What bad eventuality does the rail rescue us from?

Steve

What bad thing would happen if austin didnt have morris williams golf course or zilker park or libraries? That's not the standard by which we use city services.

Im not a fan of rail, but rail creates value for those who use it. On a dollar/use basis it is on par with other types of city expenditures like libraries.

[twange]

Originally Posted by SeaToby

As I said before, I thumbed those motorists in cars waiting for my train to pass.... The best feeling in the world for those against gas guzzlers.....

Look, I'm a huge PT fan, but that comment is smug and juvenile, sorry. So now you're characterizing everyone who drives a car or can't take the train because it doesn't take them where they need to go...a "gas guzzler"? Consider yourself fortunate that this commuter line can benefit you and show a little grace.

Frankly, that kind of attitude is what will turn other Austinites AWAY from supporting future rail projects. Stop creating an "us vs them" scenario. All of us are in the same city, trying to figure out the best way to move our city forward into the 21st century.

[mimimomx3]

So....when will this boondoogle help my commute? Mopark is as packed as ever. What a waste of money so a few hundred people can feel smug as they 'watch the cars drive by'.

[Austin97]

Originally Posted by mimimomx3

So....when will this boondoogle help my commute? Mopark is as packed as ever. What a waste of money so a few hundred people can feel smug as they 'watch the cars drive by'.

what would be a good alternative?

[mimimomx3]

Light rail and buses are great alternatives- until you start looking at the cost.
Guess what? We're in the middle of a recession/depression. We CANT AFFORD IT.
Until we can, we sit in traffic or telecommute and save our money.

[austin-steve]

Originally Posted by Austin97

What bad thing would happen if austin didnt have morris williams golf course or zilker park or libraries? That's not the standard by which we use city services.

Im not a fan of rail, but rail creates value for those who use it. On a dollar/use basis it is on par with other types of city expenditures like libraries.

I disagree. Libraries, parks, police, fire, hospitals, schools, etc. are in a different category. They serve basic cultural and social "must have" purposes that form the fabric that binds a community whether everyone utilizes the services or not.

The same cannot be said of the commuter rail. It is instead a solution searching for a problem. It's a political "feel good", aspirational jewel to be placed in the crown of some, but something that provides no benefit or utility to the Austin community as a whole.

Let's see how the numbers pan out as ridership settles into a more long-term pattern. I think of it more as an amusement ride at this point. It is a mathematical impossibility that the numbers will justify the expense. And it's not going to get cars off the road or create less pollution.

So what does it accomplish and is it worth it?

Steve

[oldtoiletsmkgdflrpots]

I wish someone that rides it would describe in more detail their experience with it.

[austin-steve]

Originally Posted by oldtoiletsmkgdflrpots

I wish someone that rides it would describe in more detail their experience with it.

What is there to experience? You're sitting in a travel compartment for an hour, perhaps using the free WiFi, waiting to get to your destination, which presumably is downtown, but not close to any major employers so you'd be walking 4 to 10 blocks to work (or biking) after drop off.

What sort of things are you expecting to hear from people who ride the train, and how would it be different than the sharing one might hear from a bus rider?

Steve

[Austin97]

Originally Posted by austin-steve

I disagree. Libraries, parks, police, fire, hospitals, schools, etc. are in a different category. They serve basic cultural and social "must have" purposes that form the fabric that binds a community whether everyone utilizes the services or not.

The same cannot be said of the commuter rail. It is instead a solution searching for a problem. It's a political "feel good", aspirational jewel to be placed in the crown of some, but something that provides no benefit or utility to the Austin community as a whole.

Let's see how the numbers pan out as ridership settles into a more long-term pattern. I think of it more as an amusement ride at this point. It is a mathematical impossibility that the numbers will justify the expense. And it's not going to get cars off the road or create less pollution.

So what does it accomplish and is it worth it?

Steve

This is a pretty weak argument. "I think libraries and parks are intrinsically important, but rail isnt".

The only thing that determines value is what people voted for, so according to the rest of the community steve, you are wrong. (I did vote against rail by the way)

I dont think parks and especially libraries are that important. I think they should shut down all the libraries and focus on ebooks and internet and save a ton of money.

What tangible value do libraries produce? What tangible value do parks produce? I think that rail produces the same kind of intangible value that parks, pools, golf courses and libraries produce. As long as the cost per visit is comparable Im fine with it.