BIKE: Rails with Trails, Again

[Mike Dahmus]

David Foster wrote:

> Bike Friends,
>
> I have been out of town for a few days and am catching up on lots of 
> email on commuter rail and rails-with-trails. Rather than responding 
> to al of them, I just want to point out a few reasons why RwT is more 
> likely to happen with than without commuter rail. I will be out of 
> town again starting tomorrow and not back till Wednesday but I look 
> forward to the post-election analysis on this forum, and I hope 
> discussion of how to make rails-with-trails work should the referendum 
> pass, as I hope it will
>
> 1). Cap Metro will have more money if the referendum passes, and may 
> well not be able to withstand the attack to roll back its sales tax 
> and put the money into roads if it loses.  This means we could lose 
> funding for RwT and the All Systems Go improvements to the bus system 
> as well, and cripple the agency's chance to do any kind of rail 
> system. This is of course what Skaggs and Levy want.
>
> 2) Cap Metro will have an incentive to do RwT if the referendum 
> passes, namely to increase ridership by providing an easier and safer 
> way for cyclists to access the stations and trains. Cap Metro has also 
> agreed to providing bike access on the trains and lockers and/or bike 
> racks at the stations, which will serve the same purpose of increasing 
> ridership. A cyclist will be able to ride to the station, leave the 
> bike there or take it along and ride to his/her final destination.
>
> 3) I do not believe that Cap Metro would commit the political blunder 
> of backing out on this promise. Many of us worked to get Cap Metro to 
> agree to RwT, including the bicycle advocacy organizations who issued 
> the joint press release supporting the referendum (ACA, AMTG, TBC, and 
> now too Trans Texas Alliance). Cap Metro gives every indication of 
> wanting to go forward, including helping bring Mia Birk of Alta 
> Planning in from Portland Oregon to give a presentation on Rails with 
> Trails while back. 

My statement that "you won't get rails-with-trails if commuter rail 
fails to deliver passengers" is based on political pragmatism, not what 
Capital Metro happens to be saying right now.

1. There is no legal requirement that they provide RwT if the election 
passes. I don't think David disputes this. Nothing but the initial 
commuter line is really up for a vote here. I believe Capital Metro 
intends to build RwT. I also believe that if the commuter rail line 
meets my expectations (performs similar to South Florida's Tri-Rail 
line, the only other new start of the last 20-30 years which relies on 
shuttle buses for distribution), the political pressure to give back 1/4 
cent (at least) of Capital Metro's money will be as strong as it ever 
has been. So I don't buy the argument that the money's only going back 
if the election fails. I think the money's also going back if the 
election succeeds but the starter line fails.

2. I don't think RwT provides much boost to ridership. This isn't going 
to be providing cycling access to stations, for the most part; it will 
be providing cycling routes ALONG the rail line, not TO the rail line. 
The neighborhoods in Leander will continue to have no bicycling access 
to stations whatsoever - RwT will not change this. Nor will RwT improve 
access for central Austinites since the part of the line they call 
"central Austin" (really north Austin - Crestview/Wooten) is the least 
likely to have space for the trail due to narrower RoW. Also, cycling 
access to stations in this part of Austin is already pretty good - 
roughly ten million times better than in Leander or far northwest Austin.

3. If Capital Metro wants to keep running the commuter rail line after 
this point (attempting to fix it with streetcars or by going to 
Seaholm), they're going to need to fight a POLITICAL battle to keep that 
money. Guess what the likely casualty would be in that case? In other 
words, the "political blunder of backing out" may end up being one 
necessary part of Capital Metro's strategy to make the rail service 
survive long enough for an attempted rescue by streetcars (or Seaholm).

In conclusion: I respect David and, unlike many on the 
pro-commuter-rail-side, he has been an honorable and informed opponent. 
I think he's kept that standard up here. I don't disagree that 
rails-with-trails would be really nice if they happen; and my prediction 
that they will not occur is based on my informed guess of what will 
happen politically when the rail line fails to deliver passenger load. I 
think he honestly believes the line will deliver enough passengers to 
survive long enough for RwT to happen; and obviously I don't.

- MD