BIKE: Matters arising

[Mike Dahmus]

rcbaker wrote:

>The fact is that no matter who pays for $2.2 billion in new and expanded roads, 
>suburbanites or whomever, to let the real estate scam artists and special interests 
>successfully promote these roads (that is who is overwhelmingly behind them) is 
>an enormous planning mistake of the first order. Mike used to deny that we are 
>rapidly approaching a peak in world oil production, and his support of billions in toll 
>roads backed with local debt indicates to me that he still believes that stuff. 
>  
>
If you had bothered to pay attention to the meeting we had (or the 
minutes you acquired access to), you would have seen that I supported 
the toll roads as the best of a set of realistic options (no, not 
building the roads at all is not a realistic option given the political 
climate). Those realistic options included:

1. We build all the roads through massive increases in sales/property 
taxes (or through raiding Cap Metro's funds)
2. We build all the roads through tolls

If you think that saying we simply won't build these roads is a viable 
political option at this time, you're a lunatic. 99% of drivers in this 
town think we need more, not less, roads. I don't agree, but at a bare 
minimum, paying for them via tolls is a hell of a lot better than the 
other possible means of payment (yes, even better than a gas tax increase).

"Mike used to deny that we are 
rapidly approaching a peak in world oil production, and his support of billions in toll 
roads backed with local debt indicates to me that he still believes that stuff"

If you're going to cast aspersions on my name in this public forum, I think it is a basic courtesy for you to post examples of me claiming that I "believe that stuff" in order to back up this claim you've made. I'm personally offended by your monumental gall in equating pragmatism with evil here.

"On the related matter of regional rail, it seems to be trendy to think 
that the red line

>would be an inefficient link that would benefit the suburbs. There is at least some 
>truth to this line not being a good first choice for a good system, but at the this 
>point this line is the only possibility. The line is dirt cheap at $60 million, and 
>probably would be popular -- and would have the great advantage of preserving 
>Capital Metro's funds from a total raid by the road hogs like Mike Krusee. 
>According to Peter Calthorpe, this red line has a good potential for upgrading to a 
>more frequent service level approximating the characteristics of light rail. "
>  
>
The Red Line will never go anywhere near the densest residential areas 
of Austin, nor will it ever go anywhere near the University of Texas or 
Capitol Complex. Opportunities for infill along the line are limited by 
the fact that it travels through residential backyards for 2/3 of its 
route, and then along scenic Airport Blvd., separated from the urban 
core of Austin by a nearly insurmountable wall of strip malls and other 
such poor-quality development. Lamar/Guadalupe this ain't, folks. Only a 
tiny number of people will be able to walk to any stations which are 
built in north-central Austin, if any are in fact built.

"upgrading to a more frequent service level" - not likely without 
double-tracking the whole route, and even then, that's only one 
characteristic of light rail. Doubling the frequency of rail trips down 
a corridor where there's no pedestrian activity is not likely to have 
any positive impact on ridership.

"probably would be popular" - not likely. Look at peer cities - rail 
lines which (as this one will) require a transfer to a shuttle bus at 
the destination end are universally incompetent at attracting new 
transit ridership.

- MD