Well, we relented. Just in time; I got my wife to agree on a color and we now own a second Prius - this one obtained right as the waiting list shot up from zero to many months (ours was ordered; but there was no wait beyond that so it took about 2 weeks - arriving right as the house exploded so ironically I ended up working exlusively from home for a few weeks longer anyways). Do not argue with the M1EK on the futurism/economics predictions is the lesson you should be taking away from this.

So that's the intro. Here's the microeconomics lesson.

Assuming $4 gas, the trip to work in the car costs $1.56 according to my handy depreciation-free commute calculator. The morning drive takes 20 minutes. The afternoon drive more like 30.

The transit trip costs $1 (although soon to go up to at least $1.50). That means I save $0.56, at least before the fare increase, right? Not much, but every bit helps, right?

Well, the transit trip takes an hour and a half in the morning; an hour and 45 minutes in the afternoon; and I can't afford that much extra time anyways, but even if I could, it would be placing an effective value of 23.1 cents per hour on my time, which seems a bit, uh, low.

So it's gonna take a lot more than $4/gallon gas, sad to say. You might be seeing some marginal increases in ridership around here, but only in areas where transit service is very good and where people should have been considering taking the bus all along. And there's no prospect for improvement - the reason bus service is so bad out here is because Rollingwood and Westlake don't want to pay Capital Metro taxes, although they sure as heck enjoy taking my urban gas tax dollars to build them some nice roads to drive on. In the long-term Cap Metro plan, there may be a bus route on 360 which would at least lessen the 30 minute walk/wait involved, but that could be a decade or more - by then we'll probably be getting chauffered through the blasted alkali flats in monkey-driven jet boats. Not gonna help me.

Also, those who think telecommuting and staggered work schedules are more important than pushing for higher-quality transit and urban density can bite it, hard. If even people in my business often get pressure to come into the physical office, there's no way the typical workaday joe is going to be able to pull it off in large enough numbers to make any difference.

TrackBack (0) | Comments (4)

Comments on this Entry:

(AC on Jun 15, 2008 2:11 PM) Why don't you get a real job downtown? ;)

(mdahmus on Jun 16, 2008 7:23 AM) Believe me, I ask myself the same question. Too little of the good kind of high-tech downtown, still (had Intel moved downtown as planned, I'd be set; google hasn't yet gone through the transition Microsoft had to with industry recruiting; everything else is application stuff with 8 frameworks-du-jour; strictly bush-league).

(bravelion on Jun 25, 2008 10:51 PM) > it would be placing an effective value of 23.1 cents per hour on my time. I don't know how you'd quantify it, but don't you have to add value for the 30 minute walks and the health benefits those walks provide? Many people pay $75/mo. to belong to a gym, drive there, spend 30 minutes on a treadmill, drive home, change, go to work, etc. By walking, you receive the value of the exercise. Also, since you are confined to the bus/walk route, you are less prone to random spending or side trips. Steve

(mdahmus on Jun 26, 2008 7:54 AM) Steve, in my case it's the opposite - were I not troubled by reactive arthritis, I'd be riding my bike to this office every day (it's a real good bike commute). The walk actually hurts me. But even for a normal person, the return on investment on this trip is still way too low - you're investing an extra hour of time to get that half-hour walk - as much or more time than it would take to drive to/from the gym. Compare/contrast to the bike commute case versus driving, where you might invest a half hour extra time but get an hour of exercise (more strenuous than the walk, too). That's a 'free' half-hour of exercise, so the point holds up a lot better there.

TrackBack (0) | Comments (4)

Comments on this Entry:

(snowed in on Jun 13, 2008 10:35 AM) Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if comment moderation started about a week before commuter rail did. BTW, the Austin Business Journal (austin.bizjournals.com) is having an online poll this week regarding the success of the commuter rail. Apparently you and I are in the minority...

(mdahmus on Jun 13, 2008 11:23 AM) Stay tuned for an update to the Leander use case. Unlike my own awful commute, $4 gas may make enough of a difference to get 2000 riders per day rather than the 1500 they originally projected.

(el_longhorn on Jun 16, 2008 3:11 PM) $4/gallon gas sure seems to strengthen the case for a Manor/Elgin commuter line, too.

(mdahmus on Jun 16, 2008 3:23 PM) Same kind of story - but again it'll also make the bus more compelling for those folks (although Manor/Elgin don't have as good a bus option). The biggest fallacy though is that most people can suddenly ride the bus and save a lot of money - it's a LITTLE money. If you're lucky and have a very good bus option, it's only a little time to save a little money; but if you're like me, you have to spend an extra 2 hours a day to save a buck.

Somehow, I missed this.

Laura Morrison chaired this task force - and lives in a home which, according to TravisCAD, is worth $1.4 million and has 8,537 square feet. Pretty big, but I had previously assumed it fit well within the 0.4 FAR required by McMansion. Yes, this is a big old historic house, but that's not the metric of the ordinance (it doesn't say "big houses are OK if they are stunners", after all). Also pretty expensive for somebody whose negative campaign ads try to paint Galindo as the rich candidate.

A few days ago, though, I was alerted by a reader that Morrison's lot is actually too small -- but she's not subject to the ordinance anyways, because according to said reader, her lot is zoned MF-4 (the McMansion ordinance only applies to single-family zoning). A little history here: the Old West Austin neighborhood plan (which I worked on in a transportation capacity) allowed landowners to choose to downzone their lots from multi-family (most of the area was zoned that way after WWII even though existing uses were houses) to single-family (SF-3) if the property was still being used that way. Apparently Morrison passed on this opportunity (many others took it up; I remember seeing dozens of zoning cases come up before City Council on the matter).

So let's check it out. Unfortunately, TravisCAD doesn't have the lot size, but Zillow does.

Home size: 8537 square feet
Lot size: 20,305 square feet
FAR (before loopholes): 0.42

Caveats: I do not know if Morrison is using the property in ways which would be comforming with SF-3, but I found it very interesting that her ads are attacking Galindo for building duplexes which actually comply with her ordinance yet the home she herself lives in would be non-compliant in a similar scenario, or require loopholes to comply. It's often referred to as a "converted four-plex", and the owners' address is "Apt 9", which may suggest continuing multi-family use, which would also be evidence of hypocrisy given her stand against any and all multi-family development in the area except for a few cases where that plan mentioned above quite effectively tied her hands. Either way, Morrison clearly broke the spirit of her own ordinance and her own activism against multi-family housing, and anyways when you write the ordinance, as she did, it's really easy to make sure your own property is just barely compliant. You notice that you're right over the edge; so you exempt attached carports, for instance, which, oops, you just happen to have!

Again, I can't believe I missed her the first time around - her hypocrisy on this ordinance is more odious than that of McGraw and Maxwell combined. I apologize for my lack of diligence on this matter.

(Hey, BATPAC: yes, your latest cowardly anonymous attack on me did indeed motivate me to finally take the time to write this! Good show! And I feel very confident that my readers find your accusation that I "like Republicans" to be one of the funniest things they've read in quite some time!)

TrackBack (0) | Comments (5)

Comments on this Entry:

(mangler on Jun 10, 2008 3:37 PM) great job. This really should be commended to the crappy/aka only daily paper in town.

(mdahmus on Jun 10, 2008 3:57 PM) I can't take credit - it was brought to my attention by a reader - I actually had commented on Morrison's house before as being 'huge' and 'expensive' but had never followed through with the MF-4 zoning and the FAR.

(bravelion on Jun 10, 2008 10:07 PM) There is a lease listing in the MLS from 2004 for the top portion of this home. Listing comments say: "APPR.1800 SQFT 2/2 LOFT OVER LOOKING DT SKYLINE, TOPFLOOR, OWNERS LIVE ON FIRST" There is a sales listing from 1998 that lists the entire property as: 10 bdrm, 7 .5 bath, 0 garage, 6,538 sqft total. It seems to have gained 2000 sqft since 1998. Looks like the attic was finished out into the appx 1800 sqft 2/2 loft that is a separate unit. Here is a link with photos: Steve

(bravelion on Jun 10, 2008 10:10 PM) There is a lease listing in the MLS from 2004 for the top portion of this home. Listing comments say: "APPR.1800 SQFT 2/2 LOFT OVER LOOKING DT SKYLINE, TOPFLOOR, OWNERS LIVE ON FIRST" There is a sales listing from 1998 that lists the entire property as: 10 bdrm, 7 .5 bath, 0 garage, 6,538 sqft total. It seems to have gained 2000 sqft since 1998. Looks like the attic was finished out into the appx 1800 sqft 2/2 loft that is a separate unit. Here is a link with photos: http://actris.mlxchange.com/Pub/EmailView.asp?r=999672741&s=AUS&t=AUS Steve

(AC on Jun 10, 2008 11:44 PM) Good research. As a large lot/large home owner, she will be one of the "winners" financially from the McMansion ordinance.

The Austinist covered this race in more depth and asked smarter questions than did anybody else (thanks, Shilli). Here's Cid Galindo's answers. Laura Morrison gave answers to their questions which sound sustainable, too but here's why Galindo ought to be your choice if you care at all about sustainability and affordability (not to mention environmentalism and transit):

1. Laura Morrison has opposed essentially all density anywhere in the city. Cid Galindo supports urban development which is not only sustainable for its residents, but will lower tax bills for everyone else in the long-run. The few projects Morrison lists as not opposing were cases where her hands were tied by the Old West Austin Neighborhood Plan (which I worked on), which called for mid-rise mixed-use development along those corridors (before the VMU ordinance existed). This plan was written before she obtained a position of power in the NA; and had been enacted by the City Council before she had a chance to do anything about it. She can't claim credit for these, because she couldn't have stopped them if she had tried. She did, however, try to stop Spring, 7Rio, and supposedly was even responsible for the suburban front design of the Whole Foods, burning all the hard-earned political capital of OWANA in the process. The City Council now, in my observation, rightly views my old neighborhood association as a no-to-everything joke that can be safely ignored.

2. Laura Morrison was the leader of the task force that developed the McMansion Ordinance. This ordinance's primary effect is to discourage secondary dwelling units like garage apartments and duplexes - the only true affordable housing left in central Austin. Although the Planning Commission acted on input from me and others to try to remedy this effect, the City Council was fooled by Morrison's group into ignoring the thoughtful Planning Commission recommendation. Galindo, according to press from the other side, voted against the McMansion Ordinance - which is absolutely the right position on this matter if you care at all about density and urbanism.

3. Laura Morrison is supported financially (maximum donations) by Jim Skaggs. Yes, that Jim Skaggs - he and his wife have donated the max to both Morrison and BATPAC (which in turn supports Morrison). Her base of support among the old ANC crowd is full of folks who claim to be pro-transit, but if you scratch them a bit, you find a lot of Skaggs poking through. People who will tell you they want improved bus service before building rail, which, of course, is the same thing as letting Skaggs take half of Capital Metro's budget for more freeways, since the buses are already being run as well as they can given current roadway design and population density. These folks don't care, of course; they don't bike or walk or use transit - they drive. Galindo's positions on transportation aren't much better defined than are Morrison's, but density supports rail in a virtuous circle, unlike the negative feedback loop the Skaggs/Morrison crowd prefers with lower density and highways.

4. Those policies will encourage more sprawl over the aquifer than the current state of affairs; while Galindo has a reasonable plan to lessen already-allowed development there (transferring development rights to new 'town centers' that can use the height and density in a sustainable fashion).

That ought to be enough - but keep in mind when you hear negatives about Galindo that many of the same things apply equally to Morrison. For instance, it's hard to think of a more traditionally Republican stance than her take on density and transportation - which is, of course, why people like Skaggs like her. And it's hard to credit attacks on Galindo for supposed family wealth when she hasn't had to hold a real job in quite some time despite living in a huge house on a big lot in Old West Austin.

Vote Galindo in the runoff. Tell your friends. It's critically important.

TrackBack (0) | Comments (0)

Comments on this Entry:

TrackBack (0) | Comments (0)

Comments on this Entry:

You're wrong.

One media outlet did their homework. Don't let the apologists tell you nobody knew better.

Even a few of our senators exercised their constitutional responsibilities at the time. Like my old governor, then senator, Bob Graham, who, despite being weird, was consistently right on this issue from day one - and the media never has any time for him on it. Like Barack Obama, who was right from day one, and right for the right reasons (not like the Kucinich idiots who wouldn't have even attacked Afghanistan).

It was possible to avoid this stain on our national honor. Some (Clinton, McCain) should not be allowed to get away with abrogating their responsibilities back when it could have made some difference.

TrackBack (0) | Comments (2)

Comments on this Entry:

(hope on May 30, 2008 1:51 PM) Hey, look - an issue on which we are largely in agreement. And not a single pig flying outside my window. If only I weren't supporting Laura, we'd practically be two peas in a pod.

(DSK on Jun 1, 2008 5:57 AM) Just so I have this straight Hope: Politicians lying to Congress not ok. You lying to neighbors, blowing taxpayer and neighbor money, and then colluding in illegal campaigning: that's ok?

This is stupid. Most jaywalking occurs in high-pedestrian-traffic areas where crossings aren't sufficiently present (like South Congress or west 6th) or where pedestrian traffic is just overwhelming compared to car traffic (like South Congress or 6th anywhere downtown). However, most of the injuries and deaths occur in other places so the enforcement here isn't doing anything other than PR for the department among motorists. Strictly bush-league nonsense.

The only burgs that have the right to prosecute jaywalking to this degree, in M1EK's informed opinion, are those like New York, where you don't have to go many blocks to get to a crosswalk.

How do we fix this? The City Council has to direct transportation staff to create additional protected crossings on Congress and 6th and a few other spots. My first attempt on the UTC to do something, way back in 2001, was to get more traffic signals put up on blocks downtown which had 2-way or 4-way stops on the theory that we know the pedestrian traffic is there; the streets are in a grid pattern anyways; and it's probably more efficient to just have lights on every block instead of a gap of 2 or 3 blocks on W 6th which forced many N/S motorists to abandon the most direct routes and head over to Guadalupe/Lavaca, for instance. Made precisely zero headway, since absent official direction at the council level, they aren't going to put up signals that don't meet warrants - and the pedestrian warrant in Texas is just about impossible to meet.

But if there's enough jaywalkers to make it worth the cops' time; it's now worth the council's time to add some legal places to cross.

Austin Contrarian has covered this issue (insufficient crossings) in the past in more detail. Please check it out.

TrackBack (0) | Comments (10)

Comments on this Entry:

(Tim on May 29, 2008 10:41 AM) Don't most of the traffic fatalities occur on East 7th and Riverside drive areas? Like the one that happened this week? Yeah, let's go after those downtown jaywalkers... I'd also love to figure out what the rules are for those traffic islands on South Congress.

(shilli on May 29, 2008 10:57 AM) Good point about the traffic islands, Tim. Isn't the point precisely to give jaywalkers a safe zone as they frogger through the traffic? Can the neighborhoods do something about this as part of the neighborhood plan process? I'm hoping to get some more crossings on Lake Austin Blvd as part of mine - dodging Westlake pickups when I take the kid for a swim at Deep Eddy is terrifying.

(mdahmus on May 29, 2008 12:05 PM) Shilli, in my experience with the OWANA plan, you will not be able to get the city staff to do anything not warranted by the, uh, warrants. Meaning nothing but a crosswalk here and there; nothing signalized for sure. (To me, given the law in Texas and driver behavior, a crosswalk which doesn't have a red light attached to it is worse than nothing).

(Mr. Walt on May 29, 2008 1:52 PM) Two streets needing additional protected crossings that I would add to your list are Lavaca between 15th and MLK, and N. Lamar next to the Triangle.

(mdahmus on May 29, 2008 1:59 PM) Lavaca for sure (we had people request this at the UTC more than once back in my day). Lamar, as a design issue, sure; but that ship has sailed - the neighborhoods successfully obstructed serious adult efforts to do things like connect to the existing street grid which in the long run are far more important than which tenants end up there at the beginning. Hard to justify a signalized crossing for low numbers of pedestrians when roads like 46th don't even line up, in other words. The same mistakes are about to be made up at Crestview Station - pandering to NIMBY nitwits leading to a staggered/disconnected street grid.

(bittergradstudent on May 29, 2008 2:57 PM) Hard to justify a signalized crossing for low numbers of pedestrians when roads like 46th don't even line up, in other words. The same mistakes are about to be made up at Crestview Station - pandering to NIMBY nitwits leading to a staggered/disconnected street grid. This is what drives me bonkers every time that I hear austinites complaining about traffic, when the traffic problems are caused by horrible grid connectivity that drives all traffic onto a couple of heavily used through corridors, especially in South Austin and Hyde Park. And it seems like every time that some sort of compromise on connectivity needs to be reached, it's the pedestrians and bicyclists, who reduce traffic density the most, that are screwed the most. People don't seem to understand that if there were a low density road that ran uninterrupted and parallel to say Oltorf, then that bicyclist wouldn't be in your lane annoying you.

(heyzeus on May 30, 2008 10:01 AM) This may just be anecdotal, but aren't a huge number of the pedestrian fatalities on North Lamar (say, 183 on north), where stoplights are spaced very infrequently and the road gets super wide?

(mdahmus on May 30, 2008 10:03 AM) A lot are. A lot are also on highways (people attempting to cross the mainlanes of I-35, for instance). A large number are drunk people or the homeless (also probably drunk). Hardly any in my recollection are on 6th or Congress.

(Mr. Walt on May 30, 2008 11:25 AM) Syncing the Triangle with the existing grid would certainly have helped those of us who walk and/or bike. I work in one of the State buildings across from the Triangle and every day at lunch there is a significant number of folks scampering across Lamar trying to avoid the speeding SUVs. A co-worker lives in the Triangle and drives to work(one block!)because crossing Lamar is so hostile to pedestrians. There are also a large number of visually-impaired folks here who have to walk down to 45th and back up to the Triangle if they want to lunch at one of the many restaurants. What is the best avenue for pursuing the installation of mid-block crosswalks?

(mdahmus on May 30, 2008 11:32 AM) One of those online forms - and then when they reject, the UTC. Which will probably end up going nowhere, too, but you can console yourself with the thought that the midblock crosswalks with no actual traffic signals are, IMO, worse than nothing at all.

FIUHENOWIFOBEWIFPOEINWPDOINEOWIUGBPOFBIUEPWOVCNPWEOMIPDEWOINDPOEIPRO#IPROINPFWDOINPFOEWI

TrackBack (0) | Comments (2)

Comments on this Entry:

(DSK on May 22, 2008 11:07 AM) I really envision this to be less like a voodoo doll and more like the console Ming the Merciless had in the 70s-era Flash Gordon movie. Buttons saying "HAIL" "TORN TENDON" "SEWER LINE TRENCH" etc. I suggest launching yourself and several unwitting bystandards on a rocket into space to find the source. I saw a rocket sitting unused yesterday.

(mdahmus on May 22, 2008 11:10 AM) I prefer the aircraft linked to the military-industrial-complex site I most recently visited. I actually spent a few minutes yesterday reading about MODERN Zeppelins, and I'm pretty much sold on them replacing airlines at this point. Wooo!

TrackBack (0) | Comments (1)

Comments on this Entry:

(timothy on Jun 22, 2008 2:28 PM) Quit making false statements non CAPITAL METRO blog. You will be held criminally responsible and will face a judge. I am anot bluffing. Just ask the last guy who put false statement on a site. He is sitting in federal prison for another eight months of a two year term.

City elections: Vote for Leffingwell (too willing to roll over for reactionaries, but far superior to that idiot Meeker); Shade (Kim is making it very obvious lately why she lost her original group of supporters, and it had nothing to do with policy); and either Galindo or Cravey (the top 2 candidates in all 3 races). If you vote for Laura Morrison, I'm afraid we can't be friends - she's a disaster in the making.

TrackBack (0) | Comments (2)

Comments on this Entry:

(happywaffle on May 6, 2008 10:00 AM) Yikes - best wishes for your wife. My wife busted her lip on the laundry cart yesterday. Wives are clumsy, I guess. Looking forward to your light rail thoughts and your snarky jokes about Krusee's DWI. :)

(snowed in on May 6, 2008 11:47 AM) Thoughts and prayers from me as well.

At 4:30 PM yesterday, I left my lovely suburban office and walked through lovely suburban Westlake to the awful bus stop at Walsh Tarlton and Pinnacle. After broiling in the hot sun for a few minutes, I decided to walk up to the next stop at Walsh Tarlton and Pinnacle; where there was also no shade. This did not bode well; but things got better.

The bus arrived on time (5:08ish) and was thankfully very well air conditioned. I read a book until I was dropped off quite a long walk from Texas Center (I should have taken the earlier stop). Went inside; saw Jonathan Horak and Kedron Touvell; introduced myself to both (how creepy is it that I knew what they looked like even though we'd never met; but they didn't recognize me? Pretty creepy, I think). Just on time.

Will Wynn gave a speech which emphasized how much he wants rail downtown. He got in the weeds a bit, first talking about how we were growing faster than everybody else in the world, then talking about how this decade's growth is actually slower than all previous decades back to the 1880s (huh?), but then eventually came back on track and handed the reins over to Brewster McCracken.

McCracken introduced ROMA; ROMA gave a nice presentation which I'll summarize in bullet points below. No surprises, really, if you read Ben Wear or the print article beforehand. My quick comments in italics. I will go into more depth on many of these in the upcoming several weeks.

• Terminology: The system is going to be called "ultra-light rail". ROMA mentions that streetcars usually run in shared lanes (where I got the sinking feeling ROMA believes a bit much in the magic fairy dust theory of streetcars).
• Technology: As mentioned, most likely streetcar vehicles. Possibility of more of a standard light rail vehicle if a decision point goes a certain way (see: Routes: doubling-back-to-the-east).
• Runningway: Usually the center of the street; almost always dedicated lanes. This is a big win over Capital Metro's previous plans, and everybody who cares about rail transit should be grateful that McCracken and Wynn understand how critical this is to success.
• Routes: Defined as three or four subroutes even though the service may not operate that way. They didn't actually say "downtown to" on all of these; some were Seaholm or something else; but realistically they'd all converge on Congress.
  1. Downtown to airport: Using Congress, East Riverside; reserved guideway (dedicated lanes, center of road). Alternative presented is a very unlikely extension of commuter rail to the airport. I'm very pleased we didn't try to run on the right side of Riverside. Big win here for business travellers to the airport, and we can pull in a lot of residential out there to hopefully fill trains.
  2. Downtown to Mueller: using Congress (possibility of San Jac or Brazos as fallback), 9th/10th/11th transition to San Jacinto, north to/through UT, Dean Keeton/Manor out to Mueller. Slight possibility of still going out there via MLK. It's not Guadalupe, and we probably won't get reserved guideway through UT without a lot of arm-twisting, but I think Guadalupe's a lost cause for right now. With this technology and route, though, we can eventually get there; whereas commuter rail is a complete dead end. The Manor vs. MLK issue is, I feel, largely settled for Manor unless UT makes going through campus prohibitively difficult - the only pro to MLK is the commuter rail TOD, which I obviously don't believe in anyways; and cons are many - have to deal with TXDOT; don't get even the half-assed acccess to UT that San Jac provides; etc.
  3. Downtown to Long Center and Zilker area: less likely at first, using West Riverside past Lamar, cutting over to Toomey after that. Alternative using Barton Springs would get you all the way to Zilker but no reserved lanes. I think these are unlikely to make it for the first cut anyways but it would be nice to be able to tell tourists they could take the train to Barton Springs Pool, wouldn't it?
• Financing - ROMA didn't talk about this but McCracken did - combination of TIFs and some other mechanisms (including requiring that some portion of Cap Metro's budget be under the control of the city or CAMPO for capital spending, which I heartily endorse
• Future - wide arrows going north and south. Again, this system can be expanded - although it'll never become anything as good as 2000's LRT line; it at least can grow into something better - whereas commuter rail is a dead end.
• Bone-throwing - Elgin commuter rail spur thrown in to try to get some suburban votes (even though we really ought to be doing better for the urban folks who provide most of Capital Metro's funds and essentially all of their support; we apparently still need to pander to the burbs - disappointing).

That's all for right now. Expect expanded analysis of all of the above coming soon. But here's the kicker:

You MUST support this plan if you ever want any urban rail in Austin. Unlike how 2004's commuter rail election was incorrectly framed, this truly is our last best chance for rail so although I obviously would prefer rail running up Guadalupe, I'm going to be supporting this plan whole-heartedly and urge every reader of this post to do the same.

Humorous snippets: I introduced myself to Ben Wear, and even though he wrote an article with my name in it a year or two ago, and I've emailed back/forth with him 5 or 6 times, I don't think he had any idea who the hell I was. Also, Jeff Jack (future Worst Person In Austin nominee? told me I should cut out the blogging until I know what I'm talking about.

TrackBack (0) | Comments (33)

Comments on this Entry:

(DSK on Apr 23, 2008 7:28 PM) So do you think this will make the November ballot? And if so, do you think it *should* be on the November ballot (enough time to educate people), or be a year from now (May 2009)?

(ghettoimp on Apr 23, 2008 8:24 PM) Sorry if this is an obvious question, but what would you suggest we do to support this? Is it going to be something we can vote for directly, or should we be calling city council members or the mayor or whatever? (I have no clue how Austin politics work.)

(snowed in on Apr 23, 2008 8:31 PM) I don't believe this has adequately been explained: who will run this line? Cap Metro had the old ideas, of course, but are they going to be given the reins on this particular one? (Obviously, I'd prefer anyone but them, but I'll take what I get in this case.) In any case, my thought is that for this to have the best chance of passing, it should not be on the November ballot. It seems to be that it would be better paired with the mayoral election in May.

(snowed in on Apr 23, 2008 8:32 PM) I'm working too many hours these days...it seems to *me*.

(mangler on Apr 23, 2008 9:11 PM) Do you think that rail has to emulate existing heavily traveled commuter paths in order to be successful? By that I'm thinking about the hordes of people that are on I35 and MoPac, Lamar, 290, 2244, etc. This plan does nothing for any of those existing commuters, to say nothing of the student ghetto at Far West. Perhaps I'm wrong. But this idea seems like the quintessential, "if we build it, they will come" think-process, as opposed to scooping off riders from an existing commute pattern. I guess that's it...I look at the rail map and wonder about who this thing would serve. It seems to me it would be just a really small handful. An airport extension always sounds great but would probably be the least "profitable," route they could come up with, to use the term extremely loosely. Especially the portion between Riverside apartments and the airport...

(DSK on Apr 23, 2008 10:06 PM) I think the Riverside leg will be heavily used, and not just by airport travellers. There are quite a few people in that area who are likely to benefit from taking the train in to downtown, either as their final stop or as a transfer.

(AC on Apr 23, 2008 10:47 PM) Went to the DANA forum tonight. All the candidates who showed up were asked whether they supported putting it on the November ballot. (Leffingwell wasn't there, but all the other majors were there; Kim showed up late but just in time to answer this question). Enthusiastic supporter of November ballot: Really, just Galindo. When asked if he supported putting it on the Nov. ballot he said "Yes. What do I do with the rest of my time?" He did acknowledge he consequences of losing -- no chance of light rail for a long time. Morrison: extremely skeptical of November ballot, unclear whether she even supports light rail. Shade: skeptical of November ballot, but sounds like she supports light rail. (Although, if I remember right, she said it was a good thing it wasn't going down South Congress. My apologies to Randi if I've gotten this wrong). Kim: noncommittal about November ballot, sounds like she supports light rail, though. (She said that to get it on November ballot, businesses affected by construction must be placated or else they'll organize opposition). Cravey: (again, spotty memory here, so sorry Robin if I'm not getting this quite right) noncommittal about November ballot, supportive of light rail in general terms, made a plea for better bus service. Jennifer Gale opposes light rail! So does Ken Weiss. The candidates have a fair amount of room to equivocate, given the suddenness of this proposal. I think they're still feeling it out, which they're entitled to do. The only one I saw with Wynn/Brewster levels of enthusiasm was Galindo.

(Kedron Touvell on Apr 23, 2008 11:53 PM) Mike, I didn't recognize you because your hair wasn't blue. :) That's funny that you tussled with Jeff Jack. He yelled at me as well for some pro-Galindo comments I made on BOR. I like Jeff a lot, though, even if I disagree with him on some development items. And it seems like I get hammered by every Democratic activist in town who reads the blogs for something I posted way back when. Can't please everyone. Regarding this plan, I agree we have to get behind it. Daugherty's going to oppose it on the CAMPO TWG, I wonder if Krusee's deathbed conversion will hold?

(Kedron Touvell on Apr 24, 2008 12:05 AM) Mangler, actually "profit" is one of the main reasons they decided to go down Riverside. In order to fund this with "no new taxes" as Brewster says, they need to do heavy TIF financing. Riverside has the largest potential of redevelopable properties, so it's the best candidate for the TIF. That's strictly a money play. Going up Guadalupe or North Lamar is better for moving people but worse for funding the line without new taxes (yes, the tif is a tax but it is more like profit-sharing than a straight tax). Operational fares will almost certainly never cover the initial investment cost. Snowed in, CapMetro will run the line but with "adult supervision" from the city and surrounding jurisdictions. As Brewster said, "no-one else knows how to do that." Of course, CapMetro isn't that good at it, either. The important thing, though, is the work in planning, financing, and constructing which is out of CapMetro's hands. ghettoimp, you don't need to call the Mayor's office, you need to vote for the proposal and convince all your friends and family to vote for it. Most of the pols seem to be on board, although we'll get a better picture of that when this gets in front of CAMPO and other jurisdictions. I'm optimistic, that with gas prices so high and "green fever" at such a pitch that this will succeed. Oh, and I think the Mayor chose a November election because he didn't want this be the dominant campaign issue, plus that gives him some time to work on it before he leaves office next May. I have no solid evidence for this opinion, but he delayed the 2006 bond to November for similar reasons.

(The Overhead Wire on Apr 24, 2008 1:32 AM) I don't really know what to think of this. San Jac is such an awful route. I might be convinced, but the starter needs to have killer ridership. The Riverside section fits the bill, but going through downtown and up Manor doesn't really do that. Now I know that Manor needs to happen at some point, and Mueller has been trying to get rail forever, but I think you need to destroy any argument against the line at the start of operations. As for the election, there are a few things that need to be done though to push this. First folks need to get tough with Jim Skaggs. They are going to bring back the "Costs too much, does too little" Meme they used in 2000. Someone needs to get out front of that by using it against them before they start using it again. Start framing this as VMT reduction, energy savings, affordability issue, larger long term system etc. Gotta start soon, get ahead of the game if you're behind this line.

(mangler on Apr 24, 2008 4:53 AM) I guess I wasn't clear. Yes, Riverside to downtown is an acceptable route, but not all the way out to the airport. From the end of the apartments on Riverside out to the airport would be incredibly underutilized and a huge waste of money.

(mdahmus on Apr 24, 2008 8:18 AM) Thanks for all the comments, folks. 1. In addition to telling your friends and family to vote for it, tell your city council members and especially your state representatives and county commissioners. 2. Reasons for November election: a) don't piss off the lege by violating Krusee's law (although we theoretically could hold it some other time since Cap Metro won't be building the line, that's a bit of a loophole) b) pick up energized local pro-rail voters (electioneering - opposite of the 2000 problem; we may actually get more young progressives at the box in November this year than May next.) 3. San Jac route is required by the fact that we've got to get good ridership BUT we can't take away street lanes on major roads (yes, I agree this sucks - but it's commuter rail that put us in this pickle - we now can't possibly get enough prospective travellers to justify taking a lane on Guadalupe). More later from me - I'll probably just start expanding each bullet point into its own point. Thanks again all for your comments.

(mdahmus on Apr 24, 2008 8:20 AM) Morrison being skeptical pretty much shows that the old-school ANC crowd are more enemies than friends on this stuff. She, like many of them, are rich enough (or got their big central house/lot early enough) that they just drive downtown and are rich/connected enough not to have to worry about where to park, and of course, underemployed enough to not have to worry about the time it takes.

(predm on Apr 24, 2008 10:06 AM) M1ek, I had heard something previously about this line continuing over to the Triangle from Mueller. Any word on what happened to that?

(mdahmus on Apr 24, 2008 10:08 AM) predm, not gonna happen now. There's a vague arrow pointing north from the Dean Keaton/San Jac corner, and a vague arrow pointing south from the South Congress / Riverside corner; but not a vague arrow heading west from Mueller - but they are vague. Definitely nothing happening in initial phase.

(el_longhorn on Apr 24, 2008 10:52 AM) San Jacinto is not that bad. That is where all the state parking garages are and provides good connectivity to virtually all the state office buildings, the Capitol, and UT - the east side of campus is ripe for redevelopment anyway. One question - how does the light rail cross the commuter tracks on manor? I thought I read here that crossing tracks was not possible or prohibitively expensive? If we can cross the tracks there, why not at Lamar and Airport?

(mdahmus on Apr 24, 2008 11:10 AM) el, addressing both in order: 1. Running next to state parking garages is a bug, not a feature. Nobody's going to be able to park in those garages and then ride the train - the state doesn't open them up to general use, and state workers themselves will just continue to walk. It does, however, prevent there being any future increases in ridership on that section due to redevelopment, because the state simply won't, most of the time (no tax incentive to do so). 2. My claim that we wouldn't want to have LRT crossing CR at Airport/Lamar is based on both LRT being heavier than streetcar (requiring more signal interaction) and much higher traffic load there. The CR/ULR crossing at Manor wouldn't be at another major intersection (i.e. not right on Airport Blvd), so it's already way ahead there, and Manor even when Mueller is built out won't carry the load that Lamar does.

(kirbo on Apr 24, 2008 3:13 PM) To support the light rail: Another thing that could be done (and probably will be done) is the establishment of a Political Action Commitee (PAC) to raise money to support the light rail initiative through advertising etc. I say anyone who wants to/plans to do that needs to let folks know on this site and others and get some good- and early support out there.

(kirbo on Apr 24, 2008 3:13 PM) To support the light rail: Another thing that could be done (and probably will be done) is the establishment of a Political Action Commitee (PAC) to raise money to support the light rail initiative through advertising etc. I say anyone who wants to/plans to do that needs to let folks know on this site and others and get some good- and early- support out there.

(mdahmus on Apr 24, 2008 4:05 PM) I realized I never answered a question here: Riverside apartments to airport helps in 2 ways: 1. They can get some money from the airport (the airport has a lot of money and a lot of financial weight to bring to bear) 2. It sounds good to people who won't want to ride daily but might want to take it to the airport Remember that for transit, the primary obstacle (one that roads never ever face) is the tendency of those who won't use it every day to vote against it. Nobody ever votes down Mopac because they commute regularly on I-35, in other words, because they can see they might use Mopac someday. A line to the airport can do the same thing for a guy who drives into work downtown but might say "I could leave my car in my company's garage and take the train to the airport on a business trip".

(Kedron Touvell on Apr 24, 2008 4:46 PM) oops, so much for Council consensus. Martinez and Leffingwell both came out against using TIF to finance the rail today on Infact.

(el_longhorn on Apr 24, 2008 8:46 PM) One more question - why not clip the line at the north end of UT? Just run it from the airport through downtown to UT. If you clip the rest of the line you reduce the cost of the project and make it easier to fund. How much could the city take from airport funds to finance this thing? Could the whole thing be financed through airport fees and/or a surcharge?

(mangler on Apr 24, 2008 10:48 PM) Re. Riverside apartments to the airport...the airport's funding is dedicated by federal law and there is no way that it will be of any use to a light rail plan. No way. The FAA, airlines and airports everywhere are fiercely determined to protect the solitary dedication of Passenger Facility Charges to airports. It's pure folly for the city to think otherwise.

(mlisle on Apr 27, 2008 9:57 AM) One problem is the fact that a major source of ridership on the northern end, Windsor Park, is cut off from walking/biking to Mueller from any route except Berkman. Therefore, seems like it'd make more sense to either: a) set the northern terminus of the starter line at Berkman/51st rather than Mueller Blvd/51st... or b) set the northern terminus at Berkman/290, which might make park n ride easier for northern austinites. (I hope I'm not too late in this conversation to get some feedback on those ideas)

(AC on Apr 27, 2008 3:51 PM) What is the difference in carrying capacity between ultra-light rail (or streetcars) and regular light rail? Can ultra-light rail be upgraded to light rail?

(mdahmus on Apr 27, 2008 6:07 PM) Sadly, no; can't upgrade (the difference is in the depth of the trackbed - "ultra-light" is shallower and able to be put right on top of some existing utilities). Streetcar is 100-ish per car if I remember correctly; LRT can be a couple to many hundreds depending on how many cars in a train.

(The Overhead Wire on Apr 28, 2008 2:25 PM) 60 foot articulated bus is 100 per vehicle. Streetcar is 150. Streetcars can be coupled like light rail vehicles meaning a two car train could carry 300. So three 60 foot buses for every two streetcars. Also, streetcar designs are modular. You can have longer streetcars than the ones that Portland has. I know its a bad picture but check out the link I put in here for modular tram sizes.

(The Overhead Wire on Apr 28, 2008 2:33 PM) Here are three examples: Combino http://www.flickr.com/photos/trolleyfan/2406524018/ Combino Ultra http://www.flickr.com/photos/89246112@N00/345278702/ Combino Supra http://www.flickr.com/photos/tschaut/276295050/

(The Overhead Wire on Apr 28, 2008 2:35 PM) Hey M1ek, I just tried to post some links and got your spam page warning. Check your spam box :)

(AC on Apr 28, 2008 3:39 PM) if you can scale up ultra-light rail by adding more cars, what's the disadvantage compared to light rail?

(mdahmus on Apr 28, 2008 4:00 PM) You can't scale up as well - and nobody in the US couples streetcars like Jeff is describing anyways. I, personally, think it's a red herring.

(The Overhead Wire on Apr 28, 2008 10:46 PM) There are three modern streetcars recently built in the United States. That is hardly enough of a sample to say its the norm not to couple cars. The reason Portland doesn't have couplers is because they wanted to keep one car trains between blocks. Two car trains would have taken up their small 200 foot blocks. Muni in San Francisco couples cars, MBTA in Boston couples cars. SFs LRVs just a little longer than Portland's. Streetcars are just smaller LRVs. I don't understand why that wouldn't work.

(DSK on Apr 29, 2008 2:42 AM) Just chiming in to double-confirm that the T (Green line) couples cars, although they do only a maximum of two. To increase capacity beyond that they just run more trains, which has to do with the branching tree of Green line routes.

The right place to measure ridership is along the whole route - but if you have to pick just one spot, pick somewhere in the middle and you will invariably find a very different story than the typical suburban idiot narrative of "the buses are always empty". Try standing-room-only, at least in the morning rush. (I took the 2-bus trip to my awful new office twice in a row in late March and on both mornings, I had to stand on the #5; I never wrote up the TFT because I was too busy, but maybe I ought to).

And, dear disabled friends, media coverage of our very low FRR ratio thanks in large part to your gold-plated taxi-limo service is eventually going to kill the rest of the system - which will also kill your golden goose. Think long and hard about what you do next.

Also, dear bus-riding friends, if you keep opposing modest, long-overdue fare increases, sooner or later the majority of voters (who, sad to say, don't ride the bus) will cut the sales tax support, one way or another. You may think people like you are the majority - but there's 5 people who drive and never take the bus, not even once a year, for every one of you. Seriously.

TrackBack (0) | Comments (9)

Comments on this Entry:

(Tim on Apr 6, 2008 8:17 PM) Man, they should publish those half-empty routes so we know which buses to take!

(snowed in on Apr 10, 2008 8:35 AM) Dear Capital Metro, if you continue to ignore the fact that the Austin area's expansion is not all to the north, and if you continue to put all of your efforts into a boondoggle of a commuter rail program rather than to expand bus lines out to people who would like to use them (like, for example, me), you will squander what little public support you have left. Try and get a fare increase passed after that happens.

(mdahmus on Apr 10, 2008 1:49 PM) I think I've said this before, but if not, please listen: if Capital Metro runs buses out past a certain level of density, the buses actually WILL be empty (like the libertarian wankers always accuse them of being). That's an incredible cost to bear for those who chose a life of low-density sprawl; and many of those areas they'd be driving by aren't even in the service area (i.e. aren't paying taxes).

(snowed in on Apr 10, 2008 2:39 PM) Absolutely, Mike, you have said that before. That doesn't change the fact that Capital Metro is putting all its eggs in the commuter rail basket, and they seem not to care about making even little changes to facilitate riding. For example: you know I'm just out of range of reasonability of riding the #3 (because I've said that before as well). The #3 begins near a mostly empty parking lot (former Albertsons). Why couldn't Capital Metro make some sort of arrangement to use part of that lot as a mini-Park-n-Ride? This is not asked rhetorically, so if there's a good reason why this is not feasible, I'd love to know, since that's more feedback than Cap Metro gives me. (Given your previous comment, I won't even ask why they don't develop a Slaughter Lane crosstown route...)

(mdahmus on Apr 10, 2008 2:47 PM) They have deals with lots of parking lots for use as park-and-rides; I would actually recommend you call them and try to get through to them on this one. They can't do this overnight; there's substantial negotiations required; but they've done it before. (They even got a semi-permanent park-and-ride at the Triangle, for instance). Of course, the owner of the strip mall can just say "no", and many apparently do. There's not a lot of upside for them if you think about it (unless Cap Metro pays them rent, at which point it's probably a non-starter). As for Slaughter, yep, you guessed it. There's no future in running a bus which might have one person on it, on average (not the one person at the very very end of a downtown-centered route most suburbanites complain about which actually averages a load of 10-15 people, but one person on _average_).

(mdahmus on Apr 10, 2008 2:50 PM) As for rail, BTW, the problem isn't too many eggs in that basket; it's actually too few eggs (or too small a basket). For instance, the 2000 light rail plan would have provided service with capacity and performance that would justify redirecting some bus routes to train stations out northwest and eliminating some others, allowing those buses to be used elsewhere in the city. Commuter rail is so awful that it's requiring additional buses to service, and the existing semi-parallel service must continue. The performance is bad enough, but the capacity is even worse (2000 per day, maximum). LRT in 2000 projected 46,000 riders per day, for comparison's sake. So rail isn't the problem. Shitty serve-the-suburbs-but-not-the-urbs-commuter-rail is the problem.

(snowed in on Apr 10, 2008 3:05 PM) Well, yeah, that's what I meant. (hence my saying "commuter rail") And I know they're estimating only 1000 riders per day when they start, but my instinct tells me they'll get a lot of curious riders the first week (along with Ben Wear, Bettie Cross, Kate Weidaw, and Quita Culpepper), and then ridership will plummet to about 400 a day, tops. And the calls to remove the ¼-cent sales tax they get will start four months after the commuter rail begins its operation.

(mdahmus on Apr 10, 2008 4:02 PM) No disagreements with any of that - I just wanted to applaud the effort to actually get the one-fourth character in there ;+)

(atrayn on Apr 24, 2008 4:58 PM) I was sent this link simply because it references my organization, the Bus Riders Union of Austin, Texas. I haven't read all of the post and comments, but I'd like to talk about our recent proposal for free and faster buses vis-a-vis your post. The common fallacy is that higher fares = better service. That's not the case since at least half (if not all) of the money collected in fares goes to just pay people and maintain fareboxes that count the money. In addition, other departments, like marketing, could be easily cut since their goal is to increase ridership. However, fare-free policy is proven to be the most effective policy to increase ridership, bar none. If you read our plan at www.busatx.org/farefreeproposal, you'll see that the plan provides for a net *gain* in hard money, and it could also provide such other huge benefits like avoiding non-attainment status (meaning cleaner air) and increased productivity. It's a pretty solid plan that we spent several months on. I have one gigantic favor to ask: before any bile is spewed at us, JUST READ THE PROPOSAL. More often than not, we've had responses from baseless assumptions about fares and ridership, etc. Just read it, then say whatever you want.

In June 2007, at the request of the City without any help the City staff, NUNA and the rest of the Neighborhood Planning area (CANPAC, the official planning team for the whole area) which includes Eastwoods, Hancock, Heritage, NUNA, Shoal Crest Caswell Heights, and UAP (University Area Partners) submitted the mandated application for VMU (Vertical Mixed Use). Vertical Mixed Use is applied to commercial zoning (CS) only; it must have a commercial and residential component on the ground floor and subsequent floors, respectively. Vertical MIxed Use does NOT affect height or height limits imposed on a neighborhood/area. VMU was based on the UNO overlay in the West Campus area, except it seems to be a watered down version of this overlay. In a sense, our planning area, CANPAC, was ahead of the “curve” here. VMU is something which not all areas of the City had, so this concept/zoning tool was intended to be applied widespread. The VMU ordinance was conceived by Council Member Brewster McCracken.

The determining factor for VMU was the location of properties primarily along major, transportation corridors. VMU is a fine concept which would help eliminate urban sprawl and make neighborhoods more “user friendly” with amenities such as restaurants and shops within walking distance of a neighborhood. VMU combines two uses on a property- retail or office usually on the ground floor and a residential component on the other floors. There are other benefits for VMU such as a percentage of affordable housing units, a reduction in parking requirements, setbacks, FAR and site area requirements. In NUNA, Guadalupe Street was the only major transportation corridor (determined by bus routes).

The NUNA Planning Team, which is separate from the officially recognized planning team for our area, CANPAC, carefully reviewed the maps and properties foisted on us by the City for VMU consideration. Then, the CANPAC Planning Team held many subcommittee meetings and submitted a completed application for the whole planning area to the City by the mandatory, designated deadline in June 2007.

Fortunately, NUNA has an NCCD (Neighborhood Conservation Combining District) which is a zoning ordinance that has more flexible tools for redevelopment and is more compatible to this older (unofficially historic) area of town. The other benefit of the NCCD, in the particular case concerning VMU, is that the zoning tools in an NCCD (which are more detailed than an regular neighborhood plan) trump any VMU. NUNA’s NCCD will protect the careful planning we did during the neighborhood planning process in 2004. Nonetheless, we were required by the City to submit a VMU application.

The question arose within our planning area (CANPAC) and also with Hyde Park, our adjoining neighbor, which also has an NCCD, how does one determine fairly what might constitute VMU? The NUNA Planning Team along with the Heritage Neighborhood, our neighbor across Guadalupe, figured out that no property which abuts a residential use (single family or multifamily) would be considered from VMU. Also, NUNA decided that none of the bonuses such as a reduction in parking requirements, etc. would be granted to any property which we would designate for VMU. We were also advised by ANC and the City that we must opt in some properties in our application, otherwise we would be punished and forced to have properties considered for VMU. With that kind of threat looming over our planning team’s shoulder, we very carefully included some properties for VMU status in our application.

NUNA already had on the ground ( already built) some VMU projects. For example, the “controversial” Villas of Guadalupe have a commercial component- Blockbuster Video on the ground floor, and then have a residential component on the other floors. The Venue at 2815 Guadalupe has a similar makeup with commercial uses on the bottom floor and residential suites/condos above. The best part about the Venue is the underground parking arrangement which includes a parking spot per bed- more parking than the City requirement!

NUNA was requested by the City to file an application to opt in or out properties primarily along Guadalupe Street for VMU status which could also grant additional dimensional standards, reduction in parking requirements, and additional ground floor uses in office districts. NUNA opted in properties from 27th to the north side of 30th Street along the east side of Guadalupe since these properties for the most part were built as “VMU” - a commercial use on the ground floor and a residential component on the upper floors, but we did not opt for the additional bonuses such as reduction in parking requirements, etc. for any properties. Our application will be considered in a public hearing in front of the Planning Commission February 12 along with the other neighborhoods in CANPAC (Eastwoods, Hancock, Heritage, NUNA, Shoal Crest, Caswell Heights, and UAP-University Area Partners). There will be no staff recommendation for this application.

In accordance with Hyde Park, another NCCD, we decided that we would prefer to consider individual, commercial project proposals on a case by case basis. In short, NUNA has given nothing away to the City in our application for VMU; we would like first to evaluate each project to see if it is compliant and compatible with our NCCD regulations.

Here's the response I sent to the neighborhood list; which is currently stuck in moderation:

I see in the most recent newsletter a fair amount of sour grapes about VMU which may lead people to become misinformed. For instance:

"Also, NUNA decided that none of the bonuses such as a reduction in parking requirements, etc. would be granted to any property which we would designate for VMU."

The entire point of VMU is to put density where the highest frequency transit service already exists, so that it might attract residents without cars; households with fewer cars than typical; shoppers who take the bus; etc.

"We were also advised by ANC and the City that we must opt in some properties in our application, otherwise we would be punished and forced to have properties considered for VMU. With that kind of threat looming over our planning team’s shoulder, we very carefully included some properties for VMU status in our application."

The purpose of "opt-out" and "opt-in" is being misrepresented here as well. The operating assumption was that because you folks got McMansion, which will result in less density on the interior (fewer housing units, since it so severely penalizes duplexes and garage apartments), that you would support more density on the transit corridors. This wasn't you being FORCED to accept this density - it was part of the bargain you accepted in return for lowering density on the interior, and now you (and Hyde Park) are trying to back out of your end of the deal.

There is no transit corridor in the city more heavily used than Guadalupe on the edge of our neighborhood. There is no place in the city better suited for VMU than this one. It's irresponsible to continue to pretend that the city's asking for something unreasonable here, since you got what you wanted on McMansion.

And, by the way, there was a guy here on this list telling you that the VMU application you were submitting was a big mistake quite some time ago. Ahem.

- MD

And my follow-up:

Argh. As is often the case, I see when reading my own post that I left out something important; I said that the point of opt-in and opt-out was either missed or misrepresented, but I never said what the point was supposed to be.

Opt-out was supposed to be for extraordinary circumstances that the neighborhood was aware of that the city might not be - not generalized "opt out everywhere because we think we've already done enough". For one instance, a difficult alley access (like behind Chango's) might be something that would justify an opt-out.

If you opt out more than a few properties, you're doing it wrong.

Opt-in was supposed to be for additional properties outside the main corridor - NOT for "here's the only places we'll let you do VMU". IE, my old neighborhood of OWANA might decide to opt-in for VMU on West Lynn at 12th, even though it's not a major transit corridor (the bus only runs once an hour there).

If you think "opt-in" is for the few places you pick to allow VMU on the major transit corridor, you're doing it wrong.

Regards,
MD

TrackBack (0) | Comments (7)

Comments on this Entry:

(shilli on Apr 4, 2008 9:27 AM) So they opted out on everything that was not already built as VMU? Redonkeykong. That, to me, is the biggest problem with "zoning" in Austin - every property (down to the individual lot) is "zoned" as whatever is already built there, so you have go get a variance to build anything different. It isn't "zoning" at all - it's just power-grabbing and bureaucratic hurdles to inhibit development. This is something that a lot of people at CNU are talking about: http://www.formbasedcodes.org/ I haven't looked at it much yet, but my initial impression is that it would be an improvement over the mess we have now.

(mdahmus on Apr 4, 2008 9:29 AM) Not just my neighborhood, but Hyde Park too - tried this same gambit. (Oh, they claim they've already planned for most of the good stuff in VMU, but when you get down to the details it's clear they haven't). As for form-based zoning, the primary opposition from my neighborhood and Hyde Park would still remain - they don't want anything large built here; whether residential or commercial or a mix.

(mdahmus on Apr 4, 2008 9:32 AM) PS: You're very lucky the city didn't include Exposition in this round - because judging from the hubbub over a few townhouses up near 35th, your folks would make Karen McGraw and company look like skyscraper-lovers. I think it might have been nice to include Exposition even though 30-minute headways on each of the #21/#22 aren't quite good enough, if you consider both as a system, you're really dealing with 15s. (for downtown, for instance, you could take either one and end up there in a roughly similar amount of time). Not quite the same thing as southbound vs. northbound on a normal route.

(shilli on Apr 4, 2008 11:09 AM) Yeah, it'll be interesting to see if anything ever goes through in my neighborhood, considering that the city isn't even trying to include any VMU. Some people were trying to get some included in the neighborhood plan - we will see how that goes.

(AC on Apr 4, 2008 11:32 AM) I haven't checked -- what's the status of NUNA's application?

(mdahmus on Apr 4, 2008 11:50 AM) I THINK it was sent back for rethinking along with Hyde Park's, but I am not positive. I slacked off for a bit on looking through the closed caption transcripts.

(hope on Apr 4, 2008 8:48 PM) My neighborhood didnt do anything on VMU - no opt-outs, no special opt-ins. The guy who stood up to explain it didn't know much about it, sort of painted it as "not sure this is something that requires us to really do anything." I was hoping we would opt-in some places (none in particular, just generally) and explained it as i understand it - which is to say, not in any detail. But no one seemed that interested. It was sort of funny, actually. This huge city-wide issue and my neighborhood association spent about five minutes deciding we didn't need to take any action.

This would be a good time for you to write your state rep and ask them to support the CAMPO TWG if and only if their rail proposal includes substantial portions of reserved guideway since Capital Metro will never do this; the CAMPO group is our only hope of doing it halfway right.

From Seattle, just yesterday:

The red South Lake Union streetcar has been taken out of service after a midday fender bender.

The train hit a parked pickup that protruded into the streetcar's path, near Terry Avenue North and Harrison Street, said Rick Sheridan, spokesman for the Seattle Department of Transportation. No one was hurt.

The streetcar's left bumper is dented near the driver's seat on one end, and a white scrape runs about six feet down the side. The right-rear corner of the pickup was damaged.

For now, only the purple streetcar is serving the 1.3-mile route, instead of the usual two trains. Crews were doing routine maintenance on the orange train and are trying to put it into service this afternoon, Sheridan said.

Streetcars have been in three minor collisions since the line opened in mid-December.

Note that this is quite different from the Houston scenario with their light-rail teething pains - there's no technological solution which will allow this service to continue on this corridor (Houston basically solved their idiot driver problem with a combination of traffic signal changes and gates). Can't put a gate between a shared traffic lane and on-street parking.

From Seattle Transit Blog, in response, some quotes:

This is now the third accident in the short 4 months the line has been open. This clearly shows that the future additions to the line need to be away from traffic preferably in its own lane with space to clear all objects. That last part is most important. I don't get how people still park their vehicles incorrectly, however, clearly there needs to be better information out about this. I have had to get off twice due to illegal parkers and the streetcar not being able to get around it. Perhaps banning parking on the line? That would eliminate that problem.

When we have a desperate need in Seattle for real mass transit, and for fast and reliable service, it's depressing to see the city promoting streetcar service that is even slower than buses. Transit can be an amenity, but it will be a more effective amenity if it also provides a transportation function. We can't afford to put all of our money into making yuppies feel more cosmopolitan, and making their condos more upscale. If we're going to put money into rail, please put it into something fast in a reserved right of way, not into an inflexible and slow amenity that serves only a secondary transportation purpose.

Rather than banning parking along the line to accommodate a poor choice in transit options, how about ditching the streetcar and just using busses -- a transit solution which can, AMAZINGLY, maneuver around a parked car.

For whatever it is worth I agree with Quasimodal... We've been kinda bad a picking the right transportation technology to fit the application. We use buses where we should be using light rail (or real-BRT) and street cars where we should be using buses.

TrackBack (0) | Comments (5)

Comments on this Entry:

(Ed on Apr 3, 2008 11:29 AM) Mike I'm curious about the comment that Capital Metro will "never do this" with regard to reserved guideway. Why would Capital Metro be against any plan having substantial portions on reserved guideway? Speedier service; less chance of a disruptive accident; lower operating costs -- if it was offered I would think Capital Metro prefer it.

(Ed on Apr 3, 2008 11:31 AM) Sorry meant to say -- if it was offered I would think Capital Metro *would* prefer it.

(mdahmus on Apr 3, 2008 11:33 AM) Capital Metro doesn't have the money or the political will to go back to street rail after announcing how much better the 2004 commuter rail plan was because it never went in the street. They very quickly eliminated any form of reserved guideway in the "Future Connections" circulator study.

(Ed on Apr 3, 2008 11:53 AM) Cap Metro recognizing that they don't have the money or political will to get reserved guideway built is not the same as not supporting it if TWG and CAMPO found the political will and money and could make it happen.

(mdahmus on Apr 3, 2008 11:58 AM) The fact that they never gave it serious consideration in ASG-FC is what was telling for me, but then again I'm kind of bruised from 2003-2004 on that account. I don't believe the leadership, even if they DO now believe me when I said that commuter rail will be a disaster if it relies on shuttle buses, can afford to say that street rail in reserved guideway is a good way to go after all the energy spent in 2004 convincing us that commuter rail on freight tracks was so much better than light rail. It's very easy to say "we'll run it if you pay for it and build it" - especially when the degree of choice allowed is questionable.

BAD KXAN, BAD!! Particularly disappointing given you got it right in 2004 when nobody else on TV did.

Austin's commuter rail has attracted attention from other major cities because of budget. Other rail systems can run about $100 million a mile. Capital Metro's rail system runs for about $4 million a mile.

Yeah, because we're not building any new track, geniuses.

"The kind of DMU units that the agency here is using are becoming basically the product of choice for this kind of application," said Marvin Snow of Bay Area Rail Transit.

Yes, for shitty rail service which has to run on existing tracks and operate with time-separation from freight use and that will never be able to run where it needs to go, DMU fits the bill! - BART is indeed thinking about DMU, on some existing tracks, by the way. They, unlike us, would be able to transfer from the DMU to a good rail system for the final leg - i.e. DMUBart running up/down the east bay to RegularBart running into San Francisco.

And the headline, saved for last:

Other cities say Austin commuter rail is cutting edge

The inside of the vehicles are, sure. The service? NOT SO MUCH. Tri-Rail showed in 1989 that shuttle buses aren't cutting edge.

Shuttle buses. Capital Metro's idea of "cutting-edge".

TrackBack (0) | Comments (0)

Comments on this Entry: