BIKE: Road Warriors want your NO vote

[David Dobbs]

At 08:25 -0600 11/1/04, Mike Dahmus wrote:
>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.

Well, clearly we can be virtually certain that, save for a half-cent 
bus system, Capital Metro's funding will be gone if commuter rail 
doesn't pass tomorrow.

Without commuter rail, the high profile supporters will either go 
away or become advocates for "give away."

As I explained in a previous post, the board can lower the tax by a 
majority vote and that portion of the tax is then up for grabs just 
as it is in San Antonio tomorrow.  Also, as noted, four of the seven 
CMTA board members are gone as of September 2005.  If CR goes down 
they will be defeated and they will likely drop out of the game.  If 
CR passes, they will remain in the background as active advocates for 
policies that support and promote public transit.  Remember two of 
these people, Darryl Slusher and Margaret Gomez, are elected 
officials.  New board members will come (a) from the county (b) from 
the city and (c) two members from CAMPO.

Think about it.  If CR goes down, then Gerald Daugherty is most 
likely the county's choice for the Cap Met board.  Whoever the city 
sends is going to be looking to their next election, first, and 
transit second (if at all).  CAMPO will choose two people who will 
help them with their toll road mess, and all of the new CMTA 
appointees will face a steep learning curve to understand the issues.

Then, of course, there's always the Ledge who created this ridiculous 
situation in 1997 (HB 883 and HB 2445) and the Road Warriors own the 
Ledge.

Just suppose that everything Mike Dahmus says about this plan 
shortcomings and the likely outcome is true, it is still not better 
to vote for commuter rail, retain our allies, and gain time to get 
the other components of a good public transit plan in place?  If CR 
goes down, transit funding will be cut back and the most valuable 
public sector ally cyclists have will be hard pressed keep the buses 
operating at current levels.  Forget about bike paths and bike 
facilities without this source of money which will now go to new 
roadways.

Now, if you think my "failure" scenario above is idle speculation, 
here is what Gerald Daugherty, Travis County Commissioner Precinct 
Three has to say about it.



At 14:15 -0600 11/1/04, Gerald Daugherty wrote:
>Alternative Way to Help Fund Roadway Projects Other Than Tolling as 
>the Major Source of Funding
>
>I think there is finally a real movement to look at reconsidering 
>the tolling of the Loop 1 South/Wm. Cannon bridge exchange. 
>According to last weeks Austin American-Statesman Metro/State 
>(Thurs., 10/28/04) article there seems to be a glimmer of hope for 
>removing this particular piece from the toll plan IF*an alternative 
>revenue source could be identified and accepted.  So, here's my 
>pitch - instead of allowing Cap Metro to go forward with spending 
>tens of millions of dollars on a Commuter Rail System (that by the 
>way, if you live anywhere other than on or very near this Leander to 
>the Convention Center downtown rail line you will probably never get 
>to use it) this community should demand that we use those millions 
>to help fund not just the Loop 1 South exchange but any other toll 
>road that has a great amount of pubic controversy.
>
>When you hear that transit dollars cannot be used for building roads 
>it is absolutely not true.  Cap Metro has been doing it for almost 
>10 years through the Build Greater Austin program.  If Commuter Rail 
>is passed that will almost guarantee a stop to that program.
>
>In my opinion, if the Cap Metro Commuter Rail system is passed, this 
>community will never again have the ability to effectively use sales 
>tax money to offset the need for tolling every time we need 
>additional roadways.
>
>PLEASE VOTE AGAINST THE COMMUTER RAIL REFERENDUM
>
>If you agree with my assessment, please forward this to anyone you 
>think would consider doing the same.
>
>Thank you.
>Gerald Daugherty
>Travis County Commissioner
>Precinct 3

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.


At 08:25 -0600 11/1/04, Mike Dahmus wrote:
>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

==================
Dave Dobbs
ddobbs
Austin, Texas
==================