# Austin urban rail plan attacked by rail advocates prior to vote



## beautifulplanet (Oct 12, 2014)

Proponents for and opponents against a proposal for a new streetcar/light-rail line and road improvements in Austin, Texas, are presenting their views, less four weeks prior to November 4 with a combined rail and road plan on the local ballot called "Proposition 1".

One thing that might be surprising to many, is how rail advocates like the group Light Rail Now (basically Lyndon Henry, a former Capital Metro board member, and Dave Dobbs), who have been advocating for urban rail in Austin for so many years, after a urban rail proposal was narrowly defeated at the polls in 2000, are actively advocating against the urban rail proposal now, only because it does not serve the route they want it to (Guadalupe/North Lamar).

The current proposition includes $600 million for urban rail and $400 million for road projects. For some rail advocates, the criticism starts right there, and to some it might seem understandable that rail proponents could be unhappy with those $400 million for roads. To some it may seem like roads were included to get the support of the Greater Austin Chamber of Commerce. The Chamber represents the businesses in the greater Austin area, and the Chamber demands a comprehensive, multi-modal approach to alleviating traffic, including both high-capacity transit (Urban Rail) as well as road improvements. The Greater Austin Chamber of Commerce stated that "transportation is our number one concern".

The road improvements that are part of this current plan do not to lead to any completely new roads being built. According to the Central Texas transportation agencies working together on the "Project Connect" plan, the improvements include reducing traffic jams on existing roads, by putting in new, intelligent traffic management systems, or by building road improvements and new interchanges on existing roads for better access. Even some environmental groups support the proposition 1 including road improvements, like the local Sierra Club, despite the roads component. Roy Waley, conservation chair with the Sierra Club, said: "But we did vote to support the plan. It's been 14 years (since the light rail vote). If we don't move forward with rail now, when will we be able to do it?"

The current urban rail plan as presented within the proposition 1 plan features an initial 9.5 mile route from East Riverside on the south side of Colorado River through downtown passing by the convention center and along the eastern end of University of Texas at Austin towards the north to Highland Mall, a shopping mall bought by Austin Community College as a future campus with up to 10,000 students as well as office space for companies collaborating with ACC, in addition to any continuing retail activity. As Project Connect documents state, the proposed 9.5 mile East Riverside-Highland route is estimated to carry an average of 18,000 weekday riders by 2030, eight years after a planned 2022 opening.

While supporters of the Guadalupe corridor made their own calculations about projected future riderships using census data, Project Connect states that "CAMPO 2010 demographics (as approved for use in modeling and development for the 2040 Plan), [...] are more accurate than raw Census data" and that "Census employment data, in particular, is commonly recognized by planning professionals all over the country as an imprecise source for local-level analysis". Project Connect continues by saying that in December 2013, a study process was finished that showed how the "East Riverside to Highland route consistently outscored Lamar and the other sub-corridors that were being evaluated". For a long time, it seemed to many as a the initial route would be selected in order to include the Mueller redevelopment area, still that the outcome that this route was not selected to some might indicate that there was no pre-set outcome to the study process, but actually the route with highest ridership projections were chosen. As the city of Austin and in the involved agencies are also looking for federal funding for urban rail, choosing the route with highest ridership could possibly increase the chances to receive this funding, especially as the former Guadalupe proposal already received a "Low-Medium Finance Rating" from the Federal Transportation Administration in the past.

Project Connect also published a system map, that include all plan regarding future transportation in the Austin area. Project Connect makes clear that the Guadalupe route as well as to alignments to Mueller, to East Austin and to the airport would be strong candidates for rail expansion, so that in conjunction with current CapMetro Rail's Red Line and future Lone Star Rail, many parts of the Austin metro area would be able to be served by rail. To some it might seem, that this is something that's missing from many of the Guadalupe supporters who oppose the current rail proposal; some of them still speak of Guadalupe being the corridor for an initial segment, still if and how all kinds of other places should be served by rail does not seem to be answered by them. To some it might seem like for many of them, rail Guadalupe to Crestview/North-Lamar TC is what matters, if and how other parts of the city get rail as well doesn't matter, and this logic might be another factor to lead to this peculiar sight of rail advocates making the case against rail (against the current proposal).

Here is the system map of planned rail services in the Austin metro area, according to Let's Go Austin, a PAC supporting proposition 1:







And in comparison, the alternative urban rail plan by the Texas Association for Public Transportation (TAFT), consisting only of urban rail from downtown via Guadalupe to Crestview, then using current Red Line right-of-way to just north of MLK Jr., where a new segment would connect to Mueller, no further rail is proposed for the rest of the city:






And another similar one, by the Central Austin Community Development Corporation (CACDC), offering urban rail from downtown via Guadalupe to Crestview and North Lamar TC - all other parts of the city are not included to have urban rail in this plan:






The detailed response to the idea of Guadalupe-Lamar urban rail as the initial segment (while endorsing it as a strong candidate for one of the segments to follow) can be found here:

Responding to Questions about the Guadalupe-Lamar Corridor
Thursday, June 26, 2014 - 1:00pm
Project Connect: Central Corridor Project Management Team
http://projectconnect.com/blog/responding-questions-about-guadalupe-lamar-corridor

To some it might be baffling, how Light Rail Now and other similar groups really seem to think, that by helping to vote this down, they are getting light rail in Guadalupe, which is what they want. To some it might be more likely, that by helping to vote this down, rail will get voted down again in Austin, and so for the next 10 or 20 years afterwards, there will probably not be another rail proposal, so the chances of ever getting rail in Guadalupe will be even lower then. Still of course it is legit for Light Rail Now and other similar groups to do whatever they want to do.

Another group called "Austinites for Urban Rail Action" also publishes public statements against the current proposal, like a few days ago by an UT student called Clad Smalley, called "Proposition 1 rail is expensive white elephant".

While meanwhile some in the Austin area by now might already be used to seeing rail advocates at public events sitting side-by-side in harmony with anti-tax folks opposing any new public spending, collectively opposing the current rail proposal, this new piece might be especially disturbing to some, as it seems not only to advocate against the current plan and for putting their own on the ballot as soon as possible (which everyone might see as something legit to do), still at the same time it seems to omit and/or misrepresent facts and use some of the exact language of the people rail advocates normally argue against.

Here is the link:

Proposition 1 rail is expensive white elephant
Published on October 8, 2014 at 10:28 pm
By Clay Smalley
http://www.dailytexanonline.com/2014/10/08/proposition-1-rail-is-expensive-white-elephant


Here is how "Austinites for Urban Rail Action" describes the Phase 1 route of the current proposal, as "starting at the Austin Convention Center downtown, running north [...] to [...] Highland Mall":



> Fast forward to now — Project Connect, a partnership between the City of Austin, Cap Metro and other transit agencies, will be putting a questionable light rail plan to the vote in November. Phase One of the construction would consist of light rail starting at the Austin Convention Center downtown, running north along San Jacinto Boulevard and Trinity Street to pass by the east side of UT, then jogging over to Red River to the Hancock Center, crossing the existing Red Line with an expensive bridge or tunnel and following Airport Boulevard to the derelict Highland Mall.
> 
> This line would carry half the passengers per day that the 2000 proposal would. At a hefty price tag of $1.4 billion in taxpayer dollars, though, it’s not much more than a shiny, expensive version of the bus route 10[...]


While many might think it might be legit to oppose any policy or ballot measure, many might still think it is questionable to misrepresent the facts, as Phase 1 of Urban Rail will not only start at the Convention Center going north to Highland Mall, it will start on East Riverside Dr, and cross Texas' Columbia River's reservoir called Lady Bird Lake towards the Convention Center. The proposals by many Guadalupe supporters do not feature a rail crossing over Lady Bird Lake, neither did the MOS of the 2000 plan, which of course also helps to explain a different in cost. So the current proposal will serve the south side of the city as well and provide additional utility by offering another river crossing, but describing the route "Austinites for Urban Rail Action" omitted that half of it, while at the same time mentioning the cost for the full Phase 1 route.

It also may seem questionable to call Highland Mall "derelict" when the author probably knows that Austin Community College purchased it and the property is under redevelopment to become a major ACC campus with additional corporate locations (and even possibly still some retail) in the near future.

Some might think while misrepresenting the route of the current proposal, in the following the article is talking up the 2000 urban rail plan as a current alternative to look multiple times better in comparison, tweaking some numbers, like increasing the ridership number, and decreasing the cost:



> In 2000, there was a ballot proposition for a light rail line in Austin. If the measure had passed the vote, Austin would have a robust light rail system running from downtown all the way out to 183 along the Drag and North Lamar Boulevard. It was, and still is, the most heavily traveled bus corridor in Austin, at the time carrying the 1L, 1M, 101 and bits and pieces of other routes that happened to pass by UT and downtown. And with good reason: The corridor has the highest population density and job density of any in the city. If built, the line would carry 40,000 passengers each day and cost $300 million [...]


As the FTA document shows here,

http://www.fta.dot.gov/12304_2915.html

even the "14.6 mile Minimum Operable Segment (MOS)" of the 2000 proposal was supposed to cost $739.0 million, and that is including nearly half of the line operating along existing tracks that are used by the Red Line today, and no river crossing, no part south of downtown. So giving the impression that the total amount for a current alternative proposal would be $300 million, even with a shorter route than the former MOS might seem questionable to some figuring in both general inflation and additionally the cost increases in construction within the last 14 years. So the per-mile cost of the part of the 2000 urban rail plan just encompassing the completely new year urban rail right-of-way segment from approximately Crestview to downtown, the part not going along existing tracks, would probably be similar to the current proposal when figuring in the lower cost of the part of the route going along existing tracks. At the same time, while the FTA mentions that the 2000 MOS was to serve 37,400 average weekday boardings by the year 2025, that included the part north of Crestview, so the article mentioning only the part of the route "out to 183", and only some estimated lower price of a segment only, but then the full former ridership projection (while slightly increasing that as well) for the full route, to some might seem like a questionable way to deal with facts. Some might think, one can't have it both ways, instead either mention the lower cost of a segment of the former route in conjunction with the lower ridership of a segment of the former route, or the higher ridership of the former full MOS together with the higher full cost of the former full MOS.

While many may think that it is legit to advocate for or against any proposal, some might be surprised by the language used here by rail advocates. The headline calls the current rail proposal an "expensive white elephant". Then it goes into a lengthy explanation of why light rail in San Jose, California supposedly is so bad. The article then continues to advocate for buses and against rail by making an example out of Austin's existing Red Line commuter rail: "CapMetro’s Red Line commuter rail is running at full capacity, but still needs a whopping $18 subsidy for every boarding, or in other words, CapMetro loses $18 every time someone rides the Red Line. The commuter buses it replaced only needed a $3 subsidy for every boarding" Some readers might not only come away with the impression that San Jose light rail and Red Line commuter rail is bad, but that usually rail is a bad idea, as the only positive example of rail mentioned is Houston's light rail, and some readers might think that rail would be an especially bad idea in general because it takes a subsidy 6 times as big as buses do - so why not just let buses do the job? The article does not make any mention of how the public also subsidizes roads, or of the terrible external costs and effects of road traffic. While the authors might want to express their opposition to the current rail proposal, and advocate for their own (Guadaloupe-Lamar), the end effect might be that it just advocated against rail in general. It concludes saying "At least Austin will get a shiny choo-choo." To some, that might sound like an excerpt of any anti-rail textbook. And some might ask themselves: deriding urban rail as a choo-choo, still while at the same time, the author of the article wants to advocate for their own urban rail proposal?!?

Some might wonder: Even if things go like "Austinites for Urban Rail Action" or similar groups wants to, and in 4 years there is another vote on a urban rail plan along Guadalupe-Lamar, why wouldn't people say then "I won't vote for your proposal, you said yourself that urban rail is just a shiny choo-choo"? Why wouldn't people say "You said it yourself, rail was such a disaster in San Jose and rail needs so much of a higher subsidy compared to buses, why should we vote for rail now?" People in four years might say "We don't want this kind of rail that's an 'expensive white elephant'!" To some, it seems surprising, that "Austinites for Urban Rail Action" and those other groups don't criticize the current proposal in a more matter-of-fact way, saying "Current rail proposition includes wrong route, Guadalupe-Lamar needed" or something like that. Many might think, it might have been more effective also just working towards their own goal, to get it across that rail in general is a good idea, just it needs to be along a different alignment, and to not work for those anti-rail people who now they appear together on stage with, but who will fight them tooth and nail if their dream of having their own Guadalupe-Lamar vote ever comes true, while ironically now in 2014 the future advocates of their own rail proposal still seem to use their future opponents' anti-rail rhetorics.

Many - like the Austin Sierra Club and others - might think that Guadalupe-Lamar needs rail just as other parts of the city do, and so some might hope that a sufficient number of people agree to support proposition 1 and help make Phase 1 Riverside-Highland rail a reality, to then help with their continuing support to expand the system - just as indicated in the system map - to include Guadalupe and possibly other extensions like the last 4 miles from Grove St out to the airport, or to Mueller, as well as to other parts of the city.


----------



## SanAntonioClyde (Oct 12, 2014)

Here in San Antonio we have the CAVE people, Citizens Against Virtually Everything. Austin appears you have a case of my route or no route.


----------



## jis (Oct 12, 2014)

It is not very unusual for rail advocates to be so narrowly focused on one small detail that in the bigger picture they become seemingly their own worst enemy, unfortunately.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## Mary Rudig (Oct 13, 2014)

Actually the problem is a math problem. Even if we toss out the arguments about which route is best, we still have the problem with the price per mile.

Nawdry Henry did his homework here:

austinrailnow.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/4_arn_chart_us-lrt-starter-lines-cost-per-mi_rev2.jpg

If you look at rail starter lines, adjusted for 2014 numbers, the cost used to be $40-65 million a mile. These days, a starter rail line is now $65-75 million a mile in the US, and more like $80 million a mile in Texas.

Project Connect's proposed rail line? $119 million a mile.

At 9.5 miles, taxpayers are paying at least $370 million dollars too much for this route--more if we looked at what the cost of rail is outside of Texas.

That's assuming Cap Metro can keep the cost down, which is dubious considering the extra costs they have racked up with the Red Line:

www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2014/apr/24/bob-cole/austin-rail-lines-costs-more-double-2004-estimate-/

The City should not have proposed a rail line that is going to cost 50% per mile at a time when Austin has a serious problem with affordability. And no, this is not just about homeowners and taxes. The City has admitted it will roll 100 million dollars of the cost into more utility fees, which is going to hurt renters, many of whom are already struggling to make ends meet.

-Mary Rudig

editor, North Austin Community Newsletter

www.lovenorthaustin.com


----------



## beautifulplanet (Oct 13, 2014)

Thank you very much for your post.

As already stated above, many might think that of course it is legit to support or oppose any public policy. So opposing the current urban rail proposal in Austin, Texas certainly is legit.



Mary Rudig said:


> Actually the problem is a math problem. Even if we toss out the arguments about which route is best, we still have the problem with the price per mile.


While it is certainly legit to say make this point, many might disagree and say that there is no problem, also no math problem in particular, because it might be obvious to many that there is no fixed cost for one mile of light rail, it may be likely to always be different, depending on the concrete project and its specifics. So many might think it is no problem even if the per-mile cost of the currently proposed urban rail concept was higher than the per-mile cost of other light rail systems, as those systems might all be different, and probably for a system with a higher per-mile cost, there might be reason for the higher cost. For example a bridge over Lady Bird Lake might probably add to the cost significantly in comparison to other proposals not involving that bridge, still at the same time the proposal including the bridge might also be able to serve the part of town south of Lady Bird Lake which those other proposals wouldn't.



Mary Rudig said:


> If you look at rail starter lines, adjusted for 2014 numbers, the cost used to be $40-65 million a mile. These days, a starter rail line is now $65-75 million a mile in the US, and more like $80 million a mile in Texas.
> 
> Project Connect's proposed rail line? $119 million a mile.


Some might think that it is logical, and not a problem, that the per-mile cost of other systems might be different, because after all, they might be just that, other systems. Quite the opposite, to many it might seem not logical to even assume that the per mile cost of all systems would be the same, when they include different specifications and take place in different localities.

According to this kind of what some might describe as alogic, then some might think Sydney in Australia would have to be strongly critized, for they are about to built the new "CBD and South East Light Rail", and it's only 7.5 miles, still estimated to cost AU$1.6 billion, which would end up to be roughly AU$213 per mile, so about US$186 million per mile. Still the people in the respective locality don't seem to perceive this as a "problem" in general or a "math problem" in particular. Some might think, the project might be different, so there is a different cost. In Los Angeles, California, the Metro Rail regional connector under downtown, only has a length of 1.9 miles, still is projected to cost $1.42 billion, so about $747 million per-mile. Still many might come to the conclusion that this does not constitute a "problem" or "math problem" as the project is different.



Mary Rudig said:


> At 9.5 miles, taxpayers are paying at least $370 million dollars too much for this route--more if we looked at what the cost of rail is outside of Texas.


Many might think: No, the cost is not $370 million too much in Austin, as those other systems in other cities, inside of Texas or outside of Texas are different projects. Following this methodology of the per-mile cost that some might consider not only naive but also misleading, the cost in Sydney would be US$750 million "too much", not to speak of the Regional Connector light rail project in Los Angeles or many other possible examples. To many it might be obvious, that there is no standard one-mile of a light rail line, that one can buy for a certain standard cost. So to some it might be obvious, that the cost of Austin urban rail is what the cost of Austin urban rail is, and not the cost of some other system.



Mary Rudig said:


> That's assuming Cap Metro can keep the cost down, which is dubious [...]


Many might think, quite the contrary, it is no automatism that there has to be a higher cost than currently estimated once Phase 1 is finished, as there are many rail projects that did not only end up being finished on budget, but still even under budget, like the Salt Lake City Frontlines 2015 rail project ($300 million under budget), the East Side expansion of Los Angeles Metro Rail, the first phase of the Thameslink rail project in London, United Kingdom, or the South West Rail Link currently under construction in Australia. Specifically about Austin's current urban rail proposal, an article was reposted on the North Austin Community Newsletter website about the cost details and it stated that "Finally, he [Project Connect rail lead Kyle Keahey] noted that the $1.4 billion estimate includes $330 million in contingency money, which at 23.5 percent is a pretty hefty set-aside for the unexpected."


----------



## neroden (Oct 15, 2014)

I am not sure why Austin has had a history of bad design choices when it comes to rail and public transportation. But it does.

In fact, refusing to run the line along the natural route (Guadalupe) is one of the things which will raise costs and lower revenues. I can see why advocates are frustrated; they compromised once and got the Red Line, which is frankly a disaster as as starter line because it doesn't go to the right places. They don't want a *second* starter line which doesn't go to the right places.


----------



## beautifulplanet (Nov 1, 2014)

Also in Austin, it's three days to go, and of course the outcome can be the one or can be the other.

Here are some more links to some publications of the last two weeks (only the anti-rail website is older).

For example here is a newspaper endorsement of the current urban rail proposal:

Our endorsement for Local Prop. 1

Oct 17, 2014

By The Chronicle Editorial Board

http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2014-10-17/proposition-1/

No matter if one likes it or not, proposition 1 also includes improvements to local roads - even if anti-rail groups say otherwise:

Anti-rail group incorrect that city proposition envisions no money for lanes on congested roads

October 23rd, 2014

By W. Gardner Selby

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2014/oct/23/citizens-against-rail-taxes/anti-rail-group-incorrect-city-proposition-envisio/

Also it could be confusing to voters that there actually will be two different "proposition 1" items on the ballot, both about transportation. Still the state's proposition 1 has nothing to do with rail, and will take some money from oil and gas taxes that normally would go into the rainy day fund, and divert it to road maintenance and construction.

Prop. 1 vs. Prop. 1: Breaking down the transportation issues

October 17, 2014

By KXAN News
http://kxan.com/2014/10/17/prop-1-vs-prop-1-breaking-down-the-transportation-issues/



Some might think, candidate for Travis County Judge, Sarah Eckhardt, made a valuable contribution to the conversation about transportation by pointing out specific road projects and how much they cost, countering the common perception that rail is a big investment while roads build themselves and at virtually no cost:



> Buy rail today or pay more tomorrow. Yes, $600 million is a big number. But, moving people in our region doesn’t come cheap whether its rail or roads (e.g. the Y at Oak Hill — $675 million; MoPac managed lanes north and south — $542 million; improvements to Interstate 35 — far more than $500 million).
> 
> Spend some of the multiple billions of transportation dollars on rail and give more people the choice to live closer together and reduce their dependence on cars. Not everyone will make that choice. But everyone stands to benefit. Add the Green Line to Elgin and the Lone Star Rail Line to San Antonio and the benefits multiply to a broader region and to more households.


source:

Any transportation solutions are costly

featured in: letters to the editor

October 21, 2014

http://www.statesman.com/news/news/letters-to-the-editor-102214/nhn9R/

Finally, coming back to the original topic of "Austin urban rail plan attacked by rail advocates prior to vote":

A member of the civic group AURA (formerly known as Austinites for Urban Rail Action) created a website called "Worse than nothing" at worsethannothing.org.

As AURA supports urban rail along the Guadaloupe-Lamar corridor, many might wonder if they don't notice that at the same time, the way the current urban rail proposal is talked about on the "worsethannothing.org" website is the exact blueprint of how their beloved Guadaloupe-Lamar rail will be attacked in the future, in case Austin's proposition 1 fails now and their dream comes true and a future referendum on Guadaloupe-Lamar might be held.

The website states:



> Why are pro-rail advocates against this plan?
> 
> Rail advocates don’t support trains at any cost; we want to use our tax dollars wisely. [...] 20,000 boardings per day sounds impressive, but since most will be two-way trips, it would actually serve between 8,000 and 10,000 Austinites. [...] It would very simply be much more expensive to build and operate than it would be to use buses to move the same people to the same places.


Some might think, these might be the exact phrases that anti-rail campaigns of the future would use against AURA's Guadaloupe-Lamar rail: Even if AURA claimed, Guadaloupe-Lamar would have 30,000 boardings (which it may possibly not), then future rail opponents will say "30,000 boardings per day sounds impressive, but since most will be two-way trips, it would actually serve between 8,000 and 15,000 Austinites" and "It would very simply be much more expensive to build and operate than it would be to use buses to move the same people to the same places". Some might think that of course the future rail opponents will also say to AURA's members about Guadaloupe-Lamar rail, that building Guadaloupe-Lamar urban rail is "worse than nothing", as AURA members themselves stated in the past that urban rail is "worse than nothing".

The most surprising statement on this website might be the following:



> However it’s important to note that Project Connect is a poor investment compared to any successful light rail, not just this one. Our opposition to Prop 1 is unrelated to our preference for Guad-Lamar.


This might sound not credible at all for many. Like "Sure - you do have a preference for rail in your preferred corridor, you vehemently oppose rail that is not in your preferred corridor (some might think went over the top with your opposition), and at the same time the opposition to rail that's not in your preferred corridor is completely unrelated to your preference for rail in your preferred corridor - hmmm...".

source:

http://worsethannothing.org/

Still to some it may be important to emphasize that of course it is as legit to oppose any policy as it is to support it, and of course it's up to voters on November 4 to make the decision in one way or the other. Just three more days, and everybody will be able to know the outcome.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Nov 1, 2014)

I voted for Austin's Prop 1 because even though I dislike parts of the plan, it gives us a base to expand the system and half a loaf is better than none!

If I was tortured @ Gitmo I'd be forced to say it will probably fail because the NIMBYs and the T- Party Morons ( Just say No! to anything by the Government) along with the huge number of new suburban voters that are addicted to cars will vote No! and then cry about Traffic Gridlock in Austin!


----------



## Swadian Hardcore (Nov 1, 2014)

Gosh, I don't need to read that wall of text, but I say any transport improvements are good improvements. So if I were living in Austin, I'd say Yes to the proposal. I don't see the problem. This debate is a waste of time! Build the rail, build the roads, ride it, enjoy it, be done!

I swear, these debates are going to lower IQ and make you 10 years older. I'd rather be debating commercial vehicle speed governor proposals with the USDOT.


----------



## jis (Nov 2, 2014)

Unfortunately there also are enough cases of completely silly, impractical and wasteful ideas pushed by some advocates, to make the case for or against not so cut and dried in all cases. But of course it is each individual's choice as to which debate they wish to join or not and which long drawn out unstructured flows of consciousness they choose to put in the circular file or not.


----------



## beautifulplanet (Nov 3, 2014)

Just 1 day to go.  Here are the most recent poll results of Austin Business Journal (only on online poll though, so might not be very representative):



> According to 1,476 ABJ readers who took our recent online poll: 51 percent will vote against the plan, 38 percent will vote in support, and 11 percent are undecided.


source:

Urban rail in Austin: Both sides make their case one last time
Nov 3, 2014

By Colin Pope

http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/blog/at-the-watercooler/2014/11/urban-rail-in-austin-both-sides-make-their-case.html

The ABJ article also contains links to both Mayor Lee Leffingwell making the case for, and Real estate professional John Lewis the case against the Austin urban rail proposal.


----------



## beautifulplanet (Nov 5, 2014)

It was already posted in a different thread, still here in this newspaper report there is some more info about how yesterday Austin voters rejected the Project Connect urban rail and roads proposal, about 43% for to 57% against:

Austin voters derail $1 billion rail, road bond

November 4, 2014

by Amy Denney

http://impactnews.com/vote-2014/vote-central-texas/city-of-austin-1-billion-rail-road-bond/

It might seem to many like now some rail advocates that attacked the Project Connect urban rail and roads proposal seem happy:



> Scott Morris from the Our Rail political action committee, which opposed the bond, is encouraged by the results. The PAC issued a news release shortly before 10 p.m. about the defeat of the bond.
> 
> Morris said the bond’s failure gives the community a chance to work with the newly elected City Council and mayor to bring back a new plan.
> 
> ...


Members of the "Our Rail" PAC feel "encouraged" by rail being voted down.

Some might think now, that they wish that all the Austin rail advocates who made statements like quoted here, hopefully at least they will be able to deliver what they said here "a successful referendum in 2016".

So with them "explor[ing rail] options, including Guadalupe/Lamar", that while those options with Guadalupe/Lamar probably mean, that for the forseeable future there won't be rail to the southern part of the city, there won't be a line that already as close as 4 miles to the airport, and could be easily expanded to it, that there won't be a rail connection to the new ACC Highland Mall campus with its up to 10,000 students and thousands of employees that are expected to work there, that then at least they will get urban rail along Guadalupe/Lamar initiated in 2016 like they feel that "can be provided".

Because otherwise, in case they are not, at least some might feel pretty sad that then the only thing those rail advocates will have achieved is helping to vote rail down in 2014, as then if their Guadalupe/Lamar rail does not become a reality, instead of Austin having the rail line they think it is right, Austin might just not have any urban rail line at all. Of course many might hope that it will not go that way, and that urban rail will become a part of the city in the future, still in case it doesn't work out those rail advocates attacking rail in 2014 in this community will join other generally rail-supporting groups in other communities whose questionable accomplishment is to have helped prevent rail from happening, by advocating against it at the one point of time over a longer period of time that there was an actual chance to get it.


----------



## jis (Nov 5, 2014)

I don't know enough about the particular case of Austin, but sometimes there are very good reasons for derailing a proposed rail project because of its sheer insanity. The ARC project in NY-NJ comes to mind. A very significant part of the otherwise strong rail advocacy community opposed it very vocally, after it became a railroad to the basement of Macy's with no hope of any further expansion, connectivity or Amtrak usability. Of course then Governor Christie killed it for very dubious reasons of his own. And that is what finally gave birth to the much saner and more desirable Gateway Project being developed by Amtrak. Of course it delayed everything by something like 7 to 10 years.


----------



## Tokkyu40 (Nov 5, 2014)

Governor Christie killed the ARC tunnel because of potential cost overruns; the exact same reason he killed highway projects.
He has killed highway projects, hasn't he? They're really bad about cost overruns.
I'll predict that Austin won't get a new proposal in 2016. The antis will trumpet the fact that Austin voted down rail, so rail projects will be hard to start for a while. Come back in 2020 and try again. After another 6 years of inflation.


----------



## jis (Nov 6, 2014)

Can you name one highway project that Christie has killed?

The answer to your specific question regarding highways is "No. Christie has not killed any significant highway project".

He actually took the ARC money and spent most of it on a highway project Pulaski Skyway Rehab), some claim marginally illegally too. In addition he funded several other high cost highway projects, while starving NJT of funds. So please don't kid yourself about Christie. Heck, Rick Scott has funded more new passenger rail construction projects in Florida than Chris Christie has in NJ!  All the rail passenger upgrades that are going on in NJ are in spite of Christie, or completely out of his control, e.g. the NEC work, not due to him. He could have funded Portal with the money he saved from canceling ARC, but he chose not to.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## Tokkyu40 (Nov 7, 2014)

jis said:


> Can you name one highway project that Christie has killed?
> 
> The answer to your specific question regarding highways is "No. Christie has not killed any significant highway project".


You can probably imagine my surprise.

The Republicans need more Pawlentys and fewer Kashkaris.


----------



## beautifulplanet (Nov 7, 2014)

Moving away from the Project Connect rail plan being attacked by rail advocates, to Austin rail in general and any "So, what should be done now?" after the defeat of the Project Connect urban rail and roads proposal - the Austin Business Journal featured an interesting article about this:

ABJ editor: Rail failed, here's Plan B for traffic-choked Austin (and your role)

November 5, 2014

By Colin Pope

http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/blog/at-the-watercooler/2014/11/abj-editor-rail-failed-heres-plan-b-for-traffic.html?page=all

After praising companies giving out transportation passes for free and offering tele-commutes, and encouraging more companies to do so, possible future rail in Austin is mentioned in the segment on what TxDOT should do now:



> TxDOT: Ensure the I-35 improvements on the horizon move as many cars and buses as possible. That road is critical to the region, not to mention the country, and we must maximize mobility on it and think big: Really big, because the problem is enormous. Also, think out of the box and court private-sector solutions that break the mold. Consider tossing a BART-like train system along I-35, MoPac Expressway, U.S. 183 and Loop 360. You don't need to be the "evil road empire" some say you are. If rail works, and I think BART does in the San Francisco Bay Area, help bring Austin an affordable plan that actually gets cars off our most congested roads. Finally, lobby state and federal lawmakers like junkyard dogs for your fair share of funding.


To some, it surely will be encouraging to read the words of an ABJ editor advocating for rail in Austin, here in the shape of proposing a "BART-like train" to come to Austin. Many might think a heavy rail, rapid transit system along I-35, MoPac, 183 and 360 might be multiple times more expensive than even building out the complete network of urban rail of the Project Connect plan would have been - not just the initial South Austin to Highland Mall initial route, but all legs of the network including urban rail along Guadalupe up to Crestview, connecting the East and the West, extending from Grove to the very southeast to the airport, featuring connectivity at Seaholm and including a 2nd Lady Bird Lake crossing to the South (see partial detail out of the Project Connect vision's future system map below - the green lines all would have been urban rail lines):






image source:

We Endorse a Vote FOR City of Austin Proposition 1
October 19, 2014
By Burnt Orange Report

http://www.burntorangereport.com/diary/20392/endorse-vote-city-austin-proposition-1

So some might think those BART-like trains along I-35, MoPac, 183 and 360 could possibly require multiple times the funding that even the whole proposed urban rail network might have needed. Still many might think, in case the ABJ editor is successful in building a coalition and getting decision makers including TxDOT to approve the funding, then they'll be thrilled.



> Austin City Hall: Keep these grand plans coming. Rail proponents kept blaring that if we vote down urban rail it'll be 10 years before a new plan emerges — just like the last light rail cycle. To Austin's next mayor and HNTB, the engineering firm that masterminded Mayor Lee Leffingwell's failed rail plan: What else ya got? City planners, Leffingwell and HNTB's urban rail chief Kyle Keahey told me repeatedly that they studied many urban rail routes, bigger buses and more bus lines and even gondolas on their quest that ended with what failed at the polls Tuesday. Certainly something can be salvaged from that research. Austin City Council can bring plans to voters twice a year — so bring them on. And next time, get Roy Spence to craft your message to voters — pro bono, of course because it's the public's nickel. Last but not least, City Hall: Hurry up and get Code Next done and clean up the rest of our permitting processes so Austin developers can build out this region in a manner that reduces — or eliminates — commutes.


Many might be happy to hear the ABJ editor effectively push for more rail when saying "What else ya got?" and "bring em on" (the transportation plans to the ballot). At the same time, some might hope that by called Project Connect's rail a "failed rail plan" that at least the ABJ editor f.e. supports urban rail along the Guadalupe corridor so that at least that way Austin finally could get urban rail even if it won't go to Highland Mall, won't stop at the front doors of the convention center, won't cross Lady Bird Lake and won't be easily expandable to serve the airport. At least some might think, some urban rail would be better that no rail urban at all.



> Capital Metro: The bendy buses and line refinements are working and your system is getting better — keep it up. The upcoming upgrades and expansion to the MetroRail Red Line are good but the trains need to run later.


To some, this is nice to hear, some praise given to Capital Metro for the good things that actually are happening. And many might think, that in the future, the Red Line will be running every 15 minutes during rush hour (instead of every 34 minutes currently), will be a big improvement. In addition, the trip times will be shortened with the current double-tracking projects by up to 20 minutes. And when all this will be fully implemented and the new trains arrived, then in 2016 there is also supposed to be another train after 7pm. While of course more evening service might be desirable than just one extra train after 7pm, still many might think all the progress on the Red Line is important and should not be forgotten while Austin hopefully keeps working on getting more rail running in the state capital soon.


----------

