BIKE: Commuter Rail In General

[Patrick Goetz]

Phil Hallmark wrote:
> I think one reason you are not getting much traction here is that 
> there's not a clear vision for what happens if the ASG proposal fails at 
> the polls next month. I did a quick perusal of your blog section on 
> transit in austin, and I did not find any info on what happens next. So, 
> let's hear it: What happens next if you get your way and ASG does not 
> pass Nov 2? When will the next rail referendum take place, and what will 
> the system look like?
> 
> You make very sound arguments against ASG, but "just say no" isn't 
> enough.

Dang, do I post do this list just to keep the skin on my fingertips worn 
down to a healthy hamburger red?  There is nothing stopping us from 
proposing a system which actually makes sense (i.e. provides a real 
transportation alternative to the private automobile) and proceed to 
bring this to fruition in 2006.

STEP #1:  Convince ourselves that what we really need is a Metro system.

Actually, my experience suggests that a majority of Austinites don't 
need any convincing, they already "get it".  The people who don't get it 
are the politicians, Cap Metro, CAMPO, and local rail "experts".  For 
some reason, the mass transit systems which move the majority of people 
in the majority of larger cities in the world are "too expensive", "too 
exotic" or "not worthy of consideration" as far as these individuals are 
concerned.  I'll leave it to the reader to delve into the psycopathology 
of this extraordinary level of corn pone parochialism, I'm just here to 
suggest a solution.  From 1998 to the present, Capital Metro has never 
once proposed the implementation of a Metro, which is why they continue 
to enjoy a lack of public support, if not outright derision from people 
whose brains aren't on autopilot.  LRT sounds like it might be a good 
idea until one goes to Chicago or New York or Berlin or Tokyo or Vienna 
or {insert 100 other cities here} and experiences the advantages of a 
real public transit system, at which point it begins to look like an 
extremely ridiculous, rather dangerous, slow, and inconvenient toy; 
something a science fiction writer would come up with as the 
pedestrian's weapon of choice against the automobile in the war between 
pedestrians and motorists.

STEP #2:  Identify the Metro technology which will be most effective for 
Austin.

Alan Drake suggests that a subway is really the way to go, and points to 
the Copenhagen Metro as a extremely high tech system being built for 
less than $38M/mile.  I still think monorail is the most cost effective 
solution.  Lyndon Henry and David Dobbs assure us that -- despite being 
a dumb idea because what we really want is slow, dangerous 185 ton LRT 
vehicles taking up space on the street in order to show those cars a 
thing or two -- elevated rail is cheaper to build than monorail; the 
engineers who build these systems beg to differ.  It doesn't matter what 
we think; this is an engineering question which should be resolved as 
such.  If nothing else, we can pick a system based on vendor proposals. 
  I don't really care -- hopefully the most cost effective solution will 
come out on top.

STEP #3:  Proceed with an EIS immediately in anticipation of a 2006 
election.

Earth to Capital Metro:  It's quite simple, really:  Propose a plan that 
actually provides a transportation alternative to the private 
automobile, one which doesn't totally mess up the status quo, one which 
provides service to real destinations, one which actually makes sense to 
the thinking person, and there won't be any problem getting the voters 
to sign off on it, regardless of whether it costs $60M or $6B dollars. 
Heck, we just read in last week's Chronicle that the proposed roadway 
plan is going to cost $14B, and none of these roads are going to do 
squat for Austin.  On the contrary, they're going to make Austin a worse 
place to live with more urban sprawl, more pollution, and considerably 
diminished economic viability.  Why not divert 40% of this money to 
build 3 cross-town monorail/subway/elevated rail lines which will serve 
to divert most of the anticipated population growth back into urban core 
rail corridors?  This is not nearly as much of a hard sell to the public 
as the ROAD/CAMPO/Cap Metro/commuter rail bobblehead crowd would lead us 
to believe.  It's not about the money, dammit, it's about proposing 
something which makes sense to someone who has a brain -- that hasn't 
happened yet.

A friend recently told me that her 75-year old mother, who's never even 
been on a bus in her entire life, was in Vegas while the monorail was 
still running.  As soon as she got back, she called the daughter and 
excitedly announced "A monorail is what Austin needs -- I'd vote for 
this in a minute!"  Why it is that a little old lady with no experience 
with public transportation "gets it" and Lyndon Henry and Capital Metro 
don't is simply beyond me, but then there are still millions of folks 
out there that think the Iraq war has been a great success, which is 
almost as absurd and clearly demonstrates that anything is possible.