My friend Baba has done me a great service by hosting this blog here for years - but since I decided to move away from Movable Type and start up the sports crackplog there a few weeks ago, I thought it was time to start doing new content over there as well. I will keep this site up as a pointer as long as Baba doesn't mind it.

Set your bookmarks:

http://m1ek.dahmus.org/

Thanks.

TrackBack (0) | Comments (0)

Comments on this Entry:

Oh, really?

Here's the original graphic from the first few months of service (click for larger shot):

Here's the figures from a few months ago when service was expanded and boardings were up to 1700-2000 (even higher during the SXSW period). Click the image for the full shot. Ridership since SXSW has settled down back to around 1700 boardings/day, it looks like, so the most current subsidy (until the connector buses were cancelled) is likely somewhere in this range below.

Draw your own conclusions. Dramatically lower? Looks like about the same to me.

TrackBack (0) | Comments (1)

Comments on this Entry:

(Seanbrown8 on Aug 19, 2011 4:33 PM) Mr. Cortez asked me to adjust Metrorail for the relatively low capital outlay. Well, here is a comparison of data with the Hiawatha (now Blue) Line in Minneapolis - this is relevant to me as I visit the Twin Cities fairly often. To me - both as a user and as an amateur analyst - the winner here is obvious. Blue Line Capital cost to state/local: $291m (1) Boardings/day: 31,400 in 2010 (peak was 35,500 in Summer 2008) (1, 2) Operating loss/rider: $1.45 (3) MetroRail Capital cost to state/local: "$120-200m" according to Ben Wear (4) Boardings/day: 1700-1800 (4) Operating loss/rider: $33.25 (5) Sources: 1. http://www.startribune.com/local/west/123722719.html 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiawatha_Line 3. http://hizeph400.blogspot.com/2011/07/lets-eliminate-transfers-or-1-fare-plan.html 4. http://www.austin360.com/this-is-austin/traffic-may-be-bad-but-austin-increasing-other-1632896.html?printArticle=y 5. http://www.dahmus.org/blogimg/2011redlineopsubsidies1.png

As you may now, Cap Metro is cancelling most rail shuttles. Their mouthpiece JMVC and various hanger-on cheerleaders are claiming this is because "nobody needs them" (paraphrasing). Set the wayback machine to 2004-2008, when I was telling you that choice commuters would, mostly, not use a service that required them to transfer to shuttle buses. I've written so much about shuttle buses over the years that I should have made a category for it a long time ago, but here's a search that should get you started.

Anyways, I was attacked repeatedly and from multiple fronts for this claim that shuttlebuses would drive away most potential non-currently-bus-riding passengers and the ridership would mostly be limited to the (few) people within walking distance - it would never and could never be a light rail-like-line with light-rail-like ridership.

Fast forward again to 2011. The shuttles are, mostly, empty. Why? Because some of (the few) people within walking distance are using the Red Line, and people outside of walking distance are, mostly, not. Why not? Cap Metro won't tell you - but it's because I was right back then, and deserve a fucking apology now. Won't hold my breath.

And don't hold your breath for more blogging - I'm too busy to waste much time and energy on a populace, and especially, intelligentsia that seems hell-bent on making the same mistake over again - except, this time, JMVC and crew have convinced decision-makers not to listen to the guy who was right before. Notice this stupid rail debate last night - not invited; turned into another typical Cheerleaders Vs. Neanderthals useless exercise like the last 100 times.

Y'all are about to get precisely what you deserve.

TrackBack (0) | Comments (0)

Comments on this Entry:

Continued reading A Stark Choice Begins Today...

TrackBack (0) | Comments (0)

Comments on this Entry:

Note for emphasis versus existing Route 101. As I said way back in 2005 and several other times since, Rapid Bus is just a way for Cap Metro to get the Feds to pay for new rolling stock - it provides practically zero time savings over existing limited-stop #101 service. It's not rapid; it's not anything like what light rail would have been. The cars of all the people stuck from the next light up will still be in your way even if you can hold the light directly in front of the bus green a bit longer.

Cap Metro is attempting to market their way around this by posting two much less relevant trips around the one that really matters - the vast majority of #101 ridership comes from the north, not the south, i.e. trip #1 is not that big a deal, and trip #3 is ESPECIALLY not a big deal as nearly zero people ride the length of the route - almost everybody gets off at downtown or UT in the morning, in other words. Trip #2 is the one that matters, and what you see here is that Cap Metro expects 0 time savings compared to the existing 101 bus.

Rapid [sic] Bus. Still sic, five years later. And remember, thanks to those who voted for the Red Line, this steaming pile of crap is all the best rail corridor in the city will ever have for transportation options.

TrackBack (0) | Comments (1)

Comments on this Entry:

(natrius on May 13, 2011 10:51 AM) Source for the slide: http://www.capmetro.org/docs/MetroRapid_Board_Cmte_Update_May_2011.pdf

The city's urban rail plan will never be built out without some participation from Capital Metro, and by participation, I mean money. We need some of their local dollars to get this done, in other words. McCracken knew this back in 2008. Don't know why the city's pretending it's not true now, but you can see they don't really believe it, given the undertones in Ben Wear's latest Statesman article where the plan has basically retreated into a Red Line circulator (awesome - circulate the same 1500 boardings/day we have now - hooray - the same people who, remember, have turned up their noses at transfers so much that Capital Metro is cancelling almost all of their rail shuttles).

How much "urban rail" can you buy for $200 million ?

Not very much, according to City of Austin figures, and certainly not enough to make a success of what might be the area's sophomore foray into rail transit. With that and other considerations in mind, Austin Mayor Lee Leffingwell and city transportation officials now say substantial federal transit funding almost surely will be needed for urban rail's first segment.

That would be a change from what city officials had said over the past couple of years: Austin would probably build a first piece of rail with roughly $200 million from voter-approved bonds and whatever else it could raise through other local means, and then use primarily federal funds years later for outlying sections of the proposed 16.5-mile , double-tracked system. But local money alone would pay for little more than a downtown circuit comparable to the Dillo bus lines that stopped running two years ago for lack of riders.

[...]

"Of course, it would be helpful if it went some place initially, but we may not have the money to do that," Leffingwell said. "That someplace may be where the Red Line is going right now."

So it's clear the city doesn't REALLY believe they have enough money to get this done. And if they think the Feds are going to kick in the rest, we are presented with the next problem: Capital Metro is also going to seek Federal funding to buy more cars and/or double-track more sections of the Red Line.

The chance the Feds would fund two major rail projects in an area with our characteristics (population, transit patronage, ridership potential)?

Zero.

So in direct response to this question from @jacedeloney:

@mdahmus @MPTMike @downtownatx Do you have information that shows that Urban Rail funding depends on current MetroRail dollars?

Yes. The fact is that the city doesn't have enough money; Capital Metro is the only other possible local source; and they're already spending more on the Red Line than originally planned (first, on higher operating subsidies, then on even higher operating costs to run all-day service; note that even this weekend's spectacular performance was still a net money-loser for the agency!). So some of their 'current' spending is absolutely essential. I don't know how far back we can pare the Red Line from what it is right now, but it clearly would have to be pared back some if CM was to contribute ANYTHING to urban rail.

So there you have it, tweeters. No, it's not 'data'. It's just the opinion of the only guy who was willing to go out on a limb way back in 2004 and has been right all along up to this point. Take it or leave it, but no more homework assignments, please.

TrackBack (0) | Comments (0)

Comments on this Entry:

Hence, Chron guys, horribly biased. As I said on twitter, I may be biased, and I'm not even media by the most generous definition, but even I would disclose a conflict of interest of this nature - and not buried in the accompanying news article, but right at the front of the endorsement. And I wouldn't feel comfortable writing about a race in which I donated money to one of the candidates.

It so happens I don't need to worry about it because I have never met (or even received e-mail from) two of the three candidates I endorsed (I have corresponded with Chris Riley a few times and have met him in person a couple of times over the years).

At least the subsequent news coverage was thankfully fact-based and fair. It is left to the reader to decide whether the editorial board, which split in favor of Tovo, is more disingenuous or naive.

TrackBack (0) | Comments (1)

Comments on this Entry:

(Chris on May 9, 2011 3:39 PM) There's nothing wrong with you (or me) writing about a race in which we've donated money to a candidate. But we should disclose it if we do, and Barbaro certainly should have.

Chris Riley is still the best choice in Place One. I have been disappointed in Chris' unwillingness to push harder on many issues we share a similar position on but his votes are almost always what I would prefer for the urbanist/pro-transit agenda. (My disappointments also stem from him being unwilling to stop the Red Line from its inexorable process down the "kill the urban rail line in its cradle" track). His challengers are so unworthy of consideration that I don't even think it's worth discussing this race, and won't.

Randi Shade is the clear choice in Place 3, for a variety of reasons - she's fundamentally serious, as you can tell in her answers to Austinist questions (compare her one credible challenger here) and she's pro-density for the most part. I wrote this piece on the questionable way this race has been framed yesterday. Don't fall for the typical ANC tripe that they represent the average citizen. The average citizen is exactly who the landed gentry are keeping out of central Austin by fighting density.

I'd vote for anybody short of Jim Skaggs over Laura Morrison in Place 4. I've settled on K. Toby Ryan Hill largely because I suspect he has the best, although slim, chance. He's dead wrong on parking, though - but I'll yield on this issue to get the automatic ANC rubber-stamp off the Council if that's what it takes.

TrackBack (0) | Comments (3)

Comments on this Entry:

(Dan Keshet on May 5, 2011 2:11 PM) I appreciate you making your endorsements and laying out the reasoning and I've sent a few friends to your blog. I find city politics (here or anywhere) far more intimidating to get up to speed with than national politics, so very basic posts describing the framework of the issues in contention are always useful.

(Seanbrown8 on May 6, 2011 9:34 PM) Mike, hate to quibble with you - and I completely agree with the "anyone but Morrison" sentiment - but what about Eric Rangel for Place 4? http://www.austinpost.org/content/city-council-candidate-qa-place-4-eric-rangel For one thing, he's the accounts-receivable manager of an auto parts business (real job). Also - "Anybody who knows about urban planning and city building, you start from the inside and work your way out. The line from Leander to downtown was a bad decision, because there’s no need for it. College students and young professionals downtown, there’s a need for it. They want to be able to walk two blocks, get on a subway or a rail and go to a football game." He clearly has the right idea here more than the other Place 4 candidates. He is wrong on extending paid-parking hours downtown but he brings up the historic-homes designation as an important abuse. Well, anyway not a realistic candidate to win (is anyone but LM?) but I will vote for him.

(Seanbrown8 on May 6, 2011 9:35 PM) Sorry, meant to type "as an important abuse of fair taxation principles."

(Candidate B) appears to be gaining ground. She raised $44,885 in the past few weeks, loaned her campaign another $40,000[...] (Candidate A) has raised nearly $170,000 since the fall — nearly $100,000 of it from early January to early April, the period reflected in Thursday’s finance reports.

which one of those candidates do you think the media could, responsibly and rationally, call the "little guy" or the "establishment candidate"? Which one do you think would be painted as the rich one in bed with the old money in Austin, and which one do you think would be painted as the voice of the masses?

Continued reading Poor Little Rich Girl...

TrackBack (0) | Comments (0)

Comments on this Entry:

This (somebody 'messing up the track'):

is a minor concern. It happens rarely.

This:

is a major concern. It will happen every single day, and will make the train slower and less reliable than the existing city buses on Congress.

Any questions?

TrackBack (0) | Comments (3)

Comments on this Entry:

(Chris on Apr 8, 2011 2:43 PM) Punchier than mine. I should have done a better job highlighting this point.

(Ben boral on Apr 10, 2011 11:28 AM) I went to an urban rail scoping meeting last week and ask a City of Ausitn person what other cities have comparable systems to the proposed one in Austin. They replied Portland, Seattle, and Philly. Thoughts on those?

(txphotographyblog on Apr 23, 2011 1:12 AM) Not cool - the rail should be CLEAR. How is it even possible to consider blocking it an option - doesn't that totally defeat the whole point?

IF this thing gets dedicated lanes in the core, it can eventually grow into the kind of system we should have had in 2000 and 2004. But that's a big IF. Without dedicated lanes on Congress, this thing will be a ridership-losing disaster. You need to spend more time talking to folks who understand how to get drivers out of their cars, not new urbanists who gave up their cars a long time ago.

Thinking "because it's rail people will automatically ride" is what got the Red Line such a black-eye for rail in our region. Don't make the same stupid mistake yet again.

- Mike Dahmus
Urban Transportation Commission (2000-2005)
Only Pro-Rail Guy Who Was Right On The Red Line

TrackBack (0) | Comments (2)

Comments on this Entry:

(babsalom on Apr 6, 2011 2:45 PM) I'm frustrated that they won't commit to dedicate lanes at least on Congress from 11th to 1st street. It would even better if they would have them on the Guadalupe/Lavaca and San Jacinto/Trinity sections as well. It seems like it wouldn’t be that hard. Most of these areas have street parking. If they were willing to remove the spots they could have dedicate lanes with losing a lane to traffic. I also don’t understand why San Antonio is even involved, I guess they’re reserving the Guadalupe section near UT for the BRT.

(mlisle on May 5, 2011 10:04 AM) re: "Red River is a wash compared to Manor unless dedicated lane" Commenting very late on this, but I wanted to type my thoughts out on Red River vs. Manor and couldn't think of a better place to do it... Originally, I was an opponent of switching the route from Manor to Red River. However, the more I think about it... the more sense it makes. 1) Red River would be less disruptive to cyclists. Fewer people bike on Red River (north of Dean Keeton) than Manor. Adding rail to Manor would not likely replace bike lanes, but it would make for a slightly more dangerous ride... since you'd have to cross rail lines when the bike lane is blocked (a daily occurrence on Manor). 2) I know the Red Line is crap... and the urban rail project shouldn't concern itself with making connections to the Red Line... but, all else being equal, a Red Line station at Hancock Center makes more sense than a transfer-only station at Manor, given its proximity to the MLK Station. 3) I also understand that there's a possibility for park and ride at the Hancock Center. That could generate some riders for urban rail, particularly on nights and weekends (if it runs nights and weekends). 4) Red River would pass St Davids and come somewhat close to Concordia... though, maybe not close enough. Manor doesn't have comparable employers/destinations. All that said, I think I'd tip back to Manor if I discovered that the Red River route would never reach Mueller. For now they're saying it would... eventually.

Click on each picture for a double-size version.

Continued reading Approximately 3100 words for today about TOD...

TrackBack (0) | Comments (0)

Comments on this Entry:

Continued reading Demoralized...

TrackBack (0) | Comments (3)

Comments on this Entry:

(Alex Wolfe on Mar 28, 2011 9:58 PM) I read your blog. I care about real urban rail in Austin. I want to see a viable urban transit solution in our city. As someone who knows nothing about the planning processes behind urban rail, it seems to me like the decision to press forward with streetcars in non-reserved guideway is a foregone conclusion. If we're already investing in environmental impact studies, it would seem that we have already decided on the mayor's plan. It's either street cars or nothing. You "should bother" because the current plan is dog shit. Why would anyone ride a train that's going to be as slow or slower than a bus? And why would the city want to pay for a rail line that no one wants to ride? And why should the city's constituents be asked to consider a plan that reallocates Austin tax dollars to the suburbs in the form of commuter rail service? But what else really can be done? Afterall, the wheels are in motion. And unfortunately, it seems like your usual rash of bile isn't going to change any minds that it hasn't already. Maybe it really is time to say "fuck it."

(Ben boral on Mar 31, 2011 1:03 PM) Ditto on most of Alex's comment. What do private citizens like myself and other readers do to affect the process? Perhaps a post describing the process leading up to these projects is in order? I am going to the Urban Rail meeting next Thursday at the Carver Library, and I went to an Urban Transportation Committee meeting a couple years ago about the Nueces Bike Boulevard. Pretty superficial stuff, so what is the next step to a deeper involvement?

(el_longhorn on Mar 31, 2011 4:58 PM) What about converting the redline to regional transit, sending it out to the little cities along its line - all the way to Llano! Maybe have it stop at the Airport/Lamar station and bring back the 200 LRT plan in some form or fashion?

If you want more, let me know.

TrackBack (0) | Comments (2)

Comments on this Entry:

(Tim on Mar 21, 2011 1:03 PM) Shouldn't the far right branch have a 'Yes' attached to it?

(breathesgelatin on Mar 22, 2011 8:35 PM) More! More! More!

1. At 1300 boardings/day and overflowing on the weekend, this line would be the most failingest light rail line ever in the country. Ever. That's of any rail line with all-day service that purports to serve an urban area (remember, Capital Metro's been trying to claim this is just light rail with diesel engines for quite a while now - especially Lyndon Henry). For reference, Tri-Rail, a huge failure, racks up about 15,000 boardings/day. The worst light rail starts in the country easily hit low 5 figures (i.e. past 10,000)* in boardings - 15,000 is viewed as a failure for a reserved-guideway all-day service serving supposedly urban areas.

2. This line has (essentially forever) precluded the one slam-dunk light rail line we could have built here - the 2000 route - which would have easily surpassed 40,000 boardings/day within the first year (like Phoenix). We can now never have a starter line as good as Dallas, Phoenix, Denver, Portland, Salt Lake, Minneapolis, or Seattle. We've wasted that existing rail corridor on the Red Line. We needed it for the first 2/3 of the 2000 light rail route - you cannot get a train in its own lane on Lamar and Guadalupe if it's not part of a non-stop trip up to the suburbs; there is zero chance of it ever happening now because the Red Line has crapped all over the remainder and those Red Line trains can never run into the urban core. Suburbanites don't like transfers - so the ridership of a light rail spur hitting the last 1/3 of the 2000 route would not be high enough to justify taking its own lane on the constrained parts of the Drag, meaning it will now never happen. No, JMVC, not ever, ever, ever. You killed it.

3. This line is in the process of killing the urban rail proposal in its cradle. While nowhere near as good as the 2000 route, the city's urban rail proposal, if given its own lane throughout downtown, could surpass 20,000 boardings/day fairly quickly. It could be a smaller, moderately successful version of the Houston plan (run in-street the whole way and try to hit as much density as you can). But it's going to be fighting the Red Line for money and political will; which leads us to:

4. Other local rail advocates have thrown in the towel and are now enthusiastically cheerleading the modest improvements in the Red Line's ridership since all-day service started. Remember, Capital Metro projected 1700-2000 boardings/day on day one on this thing with its original schedule so they're still only 2/3 of the way there, and only after cancelling the best express bus competition it had and expanding the hours of operation. Also worth noting that the operating subsidy (which was previously a monstrously high $36 per ride) has likely gone even higher given the added number of runs compared to the added number of riders. I will ask Capital Metro for the new figure and will post it when I get it.

5. Those other local rail advocates should consider that every dollar spent on the Red Line; and every bit of political will spent on it; is a dollar or push that's not available to make the city's urban rail line a success. And the Red Line's ceiling is very limited - perhaps 2000 boardings/day in 5 years given population growth, assuming another major employer or two can be coaxed downtown. You guys are giving up the shot at a truly transformative rail service - one which will turn the suburbanites into supporters - for this POS which will never be more than a tiny drop in the bucket. You are ensuring that the city's urban rail proposal will be fighting harder for fewer dollars, and will be running in shared lanes where even if it somehow gets passsed and built, it will suck ass.

That's all I have time for now. I may fill in a few more links to back-story later if I get a minute. We'll see. Watch this week's or next week's Chronicle for more from me.

* - note - I corrected a typo in this on 3/21/2011 - meant "low 5 figures", had originally written this as "high 4 figures" and then changed the number but forgot to change "high" to "low". "high 5 figures" would be a success anywhere.

TrackBack (0) | Comments (1)

Comments on this Entry:

(heyzeus on Mar 21, 2011 12:27 PM) You will be delighted to learn that the red line's biggest problem is that it apparently has too many riders. Simply amazing. http://www.statesman.com/news/local/newly-packed-trains-a-mixed-blessing-for-metrorail-1336164.html