BIKE: Commuter Rails with Trails, UTC proposal for a rail referendum

[Patrick Goetz]

David Foster wrote:
> All I want to add here is that I doubt seriously that Patrick's 
> idea of removing the rail along the red line is viable. This line is 
> used to carry freight now, and we could ask Cap Metro how many freight 
> trucks are being removed from the roads as a result. I am not even sure 
> that federal rules would allow for this line, a 'common carrier', to be 
> removed, nor can I understand why we would want to part with a piece of 
> transportation infrastructure that is already in place.


Currently the Red Line is only going to make about 10 passenger runs a 
day - 5 in the morning from Leander to the Convention Center and 5 again 
in the evening from around 5pm to 7:30pm in the other direction.  It 
should be completely clear to everyone that this is not going to take 
much traffic off the road or result in *any* TOD.  My understanding is 
that Cap Metro has plans to eventually turn the Red Line into a more 
fully functional system by double tracking the route and providing 
extended service hours.  In order to do this, they will have to move the 
freight off this corridor.  My proposal is that when it gets to this 
point, instead of double tracking, install a monorail line instead and 
then *remove* the existing track, resulting in the longest urban green 
belt in the country, possibly the world.  If they don't or can't move 
the freight to another corridor, than the entire Red Line plan is 
somewhat of a joke unless they plan to upgrade it to monorail eventually 
anyway and leave the single track in place for freight.  Either way, 
monorail is the next step.  The only question is can we get the most 
fabulous urban green belt in the world out of it as an added bonus.

But in any case I promise not to turn the meeting this evening into a 
forum about monorail, since this currently has nothing to do with the 
subject at hand.  For the record, I strongly support the rails with 
trails proposal, although I agree with Mike that, if ASG is implemented 
as currently envisioned, the Red Line will be such a failure that there 
is a strong possibility the trails will never actually be implemented. 
David Foster, who works tirelessly on these issues, knows as well as 
anyone how many times bicyclists and pedestrians have gotten the shaft 
after copious promises/insinuations were made.  Recall how much of the 
2000 rail money was actually spent on bicycling infrastructure, David.


Perhaps my biggest complaint about the All Systems Go proposal is that 
this is yet another transportation plan which was formulated without any 
public input.  The taxpayers who provide 94% of Cap Metro's revenue are 
getting next to nothing out of this plan (well, I guess we're getting 
"rapid bus", which by Cap Metro's own admission, is at best 40% faster 
than the existing bus service), and these same taxpayers had no say in 
the formulation of ASG; it was sprung on us mostly fully formed as a 
"done deal".  Of course Cap Metro spent the usual 1.7 million dollars on 
public forums which allowed citizens to use red sticky dots to indicate 
where they thought stations should go on the Red Line.  When people 
suggested that the Red Line wasn't necessarily the right solution to 
Austin's transportation problems, they were politely informed that "this 
isn't the place for this discussion".  Of course not, this is the place 
to put red sticky dots on the Red Line forum - who cares what Austin 
needs to solve its transporation problems when we have red sticky dots 
to play with?

To this end, with the help of Mike Dahmus, I drafted a resolution last 
Monday which was unanimously adopted by the Urban Tranportation 
Commission.  Basically it asks Cap Metro to use the November 2004 rail 
election as a nonbinding referendum asking the citizens of Austin what 
kind a rail system they'd really like to see.  I can't think of any 
reason Cap Metro would not agree to do this.  For one thing, it will get 
a lot more rail supporters out to vote, since there is some hope that 
we'll actually get something reasonable based on the results of the 
referendum.  Further, how can it possibly hurt to find out what people 
really want?  If the Cap Metro board does not agree to add this 
referendum then it's time to activate the boondoggle-ometer and send the 
hooligans packing.  The text of the resolution appears below.

Mike Clark Madison has already picked up on this in this week's Chronicle:

http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/dispatch/2004-08-20/pols_feature7.html

I might also add in passing that Ben Wear, the Statesman's 
extraordinarily excellent transportation writer, has expressed concerns 
similar to those that Mike Dahmus, I, and probably tens of thousands of 
other Ausinites have, namely that the ASG plan is far too timid, and 
that Cap Metro has erred badly on the side of ineffectuality:

http://www.statesman.com/news/content/auto/epaper/editions/sunday/news_1451fcfca592b03d0095.html


RESOLUTION REQUESTING A NONBINDING PUBLIC REFERENDUM ON RAIL ALTERNATIVES

Whereas there are legitimate concerns about Capital Metro's All Systems
Go rail proposal as pertaining to long term viability and quality of
service for urban core residents, and
Whereas the success or failure of the starter system frequently 
determines the long-term viability of the entire transit system, and
Whereas the development of a high quality transit system is perhaps the
single most critical factor determining quality of life in the Austin
Area in the next 25 years,

The Urban Transportation Commission encourages Capital Metro to use the
November 2004 rail election as a referendum on mass transit options,
and to include, at the very least, the following options:

1. All Systems Go as proposed.

2. The Red Line and a North/South monorail providing service to the
urban core along Lamar Boulevard, Guadalupe Street, South 1st Street,
and Congress Avenue from Howard Lane at IH-35 to Slaughter Lane at IH-35.

3. The Red Line extended to Seaholm, rapid bus as proposed, and a 
downtown trolley system following a to-be determined route.

4. None of the above.