BIKE: Oil prices, toll roads & commuter rail in Mudville

[Mike Dahmus]

David Dobbs wrote:

> At 11:25 -0500 10/7/04, Mike Dahmus wrote:
>
>     1. There STILL is no oil production crisis.
>
>
> On the contrary, there is a crisis [...]
>
> Now you choose any word you like, but in reality the world is addicted 
> to a substance in very short supply from which there is no quick and 
> easy withdrawal without enormous pain for everyone. Is this a crisis 
> and if it is, when should we acknowledge it?


Clearly oil is getting more expensive, but adjusted for inflation we 
have a long ways to go to even reach the oil shocks of the 1970s. When 
Roger throws around the words "crisis", the assumption is that we'll be 
at LEAST that badly off.

In today's dollars, that's about 80 bucks a barrel.

Like I say: not there yet.

This doesn't mean you shouldn't build anticipating expensive oil. You 
should. But it also doesn't mean that it's time to Chicken Little this 
thing to death; because all that you do is look like an idiot among the 
people who were possible to sway.

> At 11:25 -0500 10/7/04, Mike Dahmus wrote:
>
>     2. I supported the toll roads because I'm not a complete moron
>     like yourself who thinks that the other alternative was "no
>     roads". The choice in the REAL world was between toll roads and
>     more free roads IN THE SAME PLACES. NONE of these toll roads
>     weren't ALREADY in the CAMPO plan.
>
>
> "The choice in the REAL world was (NOT) between toll roads and more 
> free roads,"


Yes, at CAMPO, it was. Sorry to be the voice of reason here.

> At 11:25 -0500 10/7/04, Mike Dahmus wrote:
>
>     The ONLY DIFFERENCE is that suburbanites will have to pay direct
>     user fees when they use these roads instead of (more of) the cost
>     being pawned off on drivers and non-drivers in the center-city as
>     is the practice with free roads.
>
>
> The implication here is that Austinites will somehow see some tax 
> relief and/or transportation improvements [...]

No, that wasn't my implication.

Two effects are likely:

1. Austin won't get hit up MORE for property and sales tax donations for 
highway right-of-way (things will probably stay as they have been)

AND

2. Suburban sprawl developers in the future will have to change their 
assumption from "if I build way out here, TXDOT will build me a free 
highway" to "if I build way out here, TXDOT will build me a toll highway".

If you don't think #2 is important in the long-run, you're 
underestimating the power of tolls.

A far smaller effect is the possibility of increased demand for transit 
or carpooling in already built-up areas, generated by tolls.

> At 11:25 -0500 10/7/04, Mike Dahmus wrote:
>
>     3. I HEARTILY SUPPORT passenger rail. My experience IN THE REAL
>     WORLD with a system JUST LIKE the one being proposed by Capital
>     Metro now (South Florida's Tri-Rail) is that it's the stupidest
>     possible way to start a rail network, one that will likely destroy
>     momentum for REAL URBAN RAIL after its construction for 15 years
>     as it did in South Florida.
>
>
>
> It is no more real to claim that the current Leander to CBD commuter 
> line is "just like" the one in South Florida than it is for Jim Skaggs 
> to compare Austin to Seattle. 

I disagree, and I'm the only one to have backed up my opinion why (here 
and elsewhere). I'd be thrilled for you to explain the key differences 
between Tri-Rail (which doesn't take people to existing attractors and 
instead transfers them to high-frequency circulators which meet the 
train at every stop) and this starter line.

Rails with trails are one difference, I suppose. Even though I'd 
probably use that trail on my commute to work, I'm afraid that's a 
pretty pitiful benefit for Austin considering what we're paying Mike Krusee.

- MD