What do we call the new rail line? (Dallas, Austin: construction, living in)

[jobert]

Originally Posted by Austin97

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.

So I will be forever condemned to bi-weekly trips to B&N if I want to read physical books with my kids. I have a Kindle, and they are convenient, but are in no way a substitute for actual books. Same for newspapers - there is no substitute.

[Cowboys fan in Houston]

Terds of Transit. I like that one!

[bgrn198]

Originally Posted by SeaToby

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....

City of Austin - City of Austin - Urban Design

[passionatearts]

Originally Posted by bgrn198

City of Austin - City of Austin - Urban Design

I'd like to see them do the same sort of thing with the section of Airport Blvd from I-35 to Lamar. With the new metrorail in place at the Highland and Crestview stops, maybe that possibility is more likely.

[austin-steve]

Originally Posted by Austin97

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 think rail, properly conceived and implemented can have value under the right circumstances. Austin's metro rail was was ill-conceived and incompetently implemented. Thus, taxpayer money has been wasted. I'm not against rail on the whole. Just this particular boondoggled effort, which doesn't stand up against financial or operational scrutiny.

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.

We're so far apart philosophically on this, I'm not going to bother trying to persuade you. I understand what you're saying and I disagree 100%.

Take Care,

Steve

[bgrn198]

Originally Posted by passionatearts

I'd like to see them do the same sort of thing with the section of Airport Blvd from I-35 to Lamar. With the new metrorail in place at the Highland and Crestview stops, maybe that possibility is more likely.

Yeah that would be nice

[passionatearts]

Originally Posted by bgrn198

Yeah that would be nice

I live in the area, and from what I've learned, my neighborhood association is really in favor of redevelopment. This may be one of those rare instances in which a neighborhood association actually wants the City of Austin to redevelop the neighborhood.

[twange]

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.

Just to play devil's advocate, it could also be said that quality PT can be a "basic social purpose" for people who cannot afford to own cars - or even those who choose to live a car-free lifestyle (which I think is a great thing, especially in the city). Many people count on it for transport to their jobs. In that sense, it gives them access to a better quality of life that would not be possible if they had to walk or ride a bike. Not that walking or biking are bad, but let's be honest- it isn't always feasible. I think having more choices - "whether everyone utilizes the service or not" - creates more accessibility to more citizens. I would say the same thing about quality sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian bridges, bike lanes and better all-around ADA compliance. Just because one individual may not walk or ride their bike, doesn't mean that those amenities aren't important to the city as a whole. More access to the city's offerings for more people equals a better balanced community, IMHO.

I think the criticism in this thread has splintered into two distinct paths: one group that is very skeptical of rail because of its up front cost and another group that is critical of this specific project but wants the city to keep pursuing a quality plan. That's where I'm at.

Then there's poor oldtoiletsmakeplanters that just wants to hear someone's opinion of riding the train...

[austin-steve]

I think the criticism in this thread has splintered into two distinct paths: one group that is very skeptical of rail because of its up front cost and another group that is critical of this specific project but wants the city to keep pursuing a quality plan. That's where I'm at.

I agree. I'd be in the latter camp, though it might not have been obvious from prior posts.

I think Austin will benefit much more from light rail than this commuter rail. And rail should be part of a comprehensive master plan that encompasses the use of all modes of transportation, including bikes, pedestrian, auto, rail, telecommuting, etc.

If I could play devils advocate with myself, the argument I would listen to if I was arguing with myself would be this:

(Quoting my alter ego)

Sometimes in life, it's more important to just get started than it is to get started perfectly. Yes, the commuter rail (as the best solution to current transportation needs) fails the sanity test against any rational accountability measure. But now we have it, and from this, better things will come that we may never have seen had we waited until it all "made sense" or the "numbers worked". That's just how government and politics works. Sometimes you just gotta "start ugly", build on it, and make it better down the road.

That argument I could buy. And I think in 20 years we might see that outcome. But right now, today, it's a stupid idea measured against cost/benefit template of current needs and priorities.

Steve

[twange]

Originally Posted by austin-steve

I agree. I'd be in the latter camp, though it might not have been obvious from prior posts.

I think Austin will benefit much more from light rail than this commuter rail. And rail should be part of a comprehensive master plan that encompasses the use of all modes of transportation, including bikes, pedestrian, auto, rail, telecommuting, etc.

If I could play devils advocate with myself, the argument I would listen to if I was arguing with myself would be this:

(Quoting my alter ego)


That argument I could buy. And I think in 20 years we might see that outcome. But right now, today, it's a stupid idea measured against cost/benefit template of current needs and priorities.

Steve

Totally agree. And btw, that comprehensive plan is exactly what the city is planning to do, hence the delay from putting on the ballot this November: they want to get it right!