BIKE: Mike Dahmus' Final Pre-Election Word On This Rail Debacle

[Mike Dahmus]

David Dobbs wrote:

> 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. 


No, clearly we can't be virtually certain of that.

I expect the 1/4 cent diversion to local governments to continue if 
Capital Metro were to lose the election. This diversion is easily 
rectified, unlike the permanent diversion that would happen if they win 
the election and build the virtually guaranteed failure of a commuter 
rail stub.

The fact that the ROAD guys aren't fighting this very hard should tell 
you all you need to know about their feeling on the matter. But if you 
don't believe THAT, consider the fact that this plan comes from Mike 
Krusee, no friend of Austin and definitely no friend of public 
transportation. He and Fred Gilliam have come up with the cheapest 
possible way to show once and for all that rail "doesn't work in Austin" 
- at which point I'm sure their common cause evaporates as Krusee seeks 
road funds and Gilliam seeks bus rapid transit. Either way, central 
Austin in particular gets nothing but the back of the hand.

There is no way I can see in which urban rail can be salvaged if this 
election passes. David is parroting the dubious party line that this 
commuter rail line can be turned into "light rail" by running the trains 
more often and through TOD - ignoring the fact that TOD won't occur if 
nobody is riding the line when it opens (real estate developers will shy 
away from such development if the line looks like a failure AS HAPPENED 
IN SOUTH FLORIDA). And NOBODY has explained how Austin is going to be SO 
DIFFERENT from South Florida that the shuttle-bus liability won't be a 
huge problem here for building choice commuter ridership. High-frequency 
shuttle buses waiting for you when you get off the train? Check. Speedy 
rail portion of commute? Check. Cheap because they used existing track? 
Check. Now planning on shifting emphasis over the next decade to a much 
better rail corridor after 15 wasted years? One down, one to go.

Let's recap:

- This line delivers rail + shuttle-bus commutes to Leander and far 
northwest Austin. It does not deliver ANYTHING to central Austin. It 
does not deliver rail service to ANY OF THE THREE major attractors 
(downtown*, UT, Capitol). It will be relying on far-out suburbanites to 
form the bulk of the daily ridership - and those are PRECISELY the 
people who are LEAST likely to accept a shuttle-bus as part of their 
daily commute. The progressive parts of town where residential density 
is at its highest get nothing but bus service under the LONG-RANGE plan 
(NOT just being skipped by the starter line, but SKIPPED ENTIRELY).

- The idea that the plan can then be saved by streetcar is also naive 
and foolish. While streetcars are more attractive than buses for a 
single transit trip:

1. The transfer penalty still applies. A three-leg trip (car, train, 
shuttle-bus) is much much worse than a two-leg trip (car, light rail) or 
a one-leg trip, as a Hyde Park resident could have had with 2000 LRT.
2. Unlike light rail (and the rail portion of the ASG commute), 
streetcars are stuck in traffic just like shuttle buses. You lose so 
much speed and reliability that the private car becomes competitive again.
3. Streetcars (and any other rail extensions or expansions) must be 
voted on under the same rules - only in November, only an even-numbered 
year, and they won't be ready to take it to a vote in 2006 since they've 
committed to a long study process. November 2008 would be the first 
chance to VOTE on these saviours, at which point the daily ridership 
numbers of the initial line WITH SHUTTLE BUSES will be public knowledge.

- The reason we're not getting to vote on light rail this time around 
has NOTHING to do with light rail's viability. EVERY CITY THAT HAS 
SUCCEEDED WITH RAIL IN THE LAST 20 YEARS HAS DONE SO WITH A LIGHT RAIL 
STARTER LINE, NOT COMMUTER RAIL. Light rail in 2000 was forced to the 
polls early by Mike Krusee, and still only narrowly lost in an election 
where suburban turnout was disproportionately high. The idea that we 
couldn't have taken out some of the objectionable parts of the 2000 LRT 
proposal and gotten a winning result is just a COMPLETE AND UTTER LIE.

I can't believe so many intelligent people fell for this snow-job pulled 
on you by Krusee, who hates Austin with a passion, and Fred Gilliam, who 
wants bus rapid transit and is pushing commuter rail as a way to get it. 
If I'm still living here in Austin in 2008, I expect to see many more 
comments a la Shoal Creek of:

" I am dismayed that Mike Dahmus was so damned right about this whole 
debacle from the very beginning."

- MD

* - by the 1/4 mile rule, no major downtown office buildings are within 
walking distance of the "downtown station". Nearly every major office 
building downtown, as well as the Capitol, UT, West Campus, most of 
North University and Hyde Park, and 38th/Guadalupe would have been 
within 1/4 mile of a light-rail station in 2000.