BIKE: Cap Met's Vehicle Choice is No Choice, Yet

[Phil Hallmark]

I used "TOD" incorrectly I think. The point I was trying to make is: if 
there is a commuter rail station anywhere "downtown", then future 
high-rise office buildings (not necessarily residences) will likely be 
built in the vicinity. Any high-rise within 5 blocks (or 3 as pointed 
out by Mike D) will be full of potential commuter rail riders who live 
out in the NW 'burbs and work in said high-rise. I was just trying to 
point out that a shuttle bus transfer will not be required of every 
commuter rail user, and there may be enough cubicle farms within an easy 
walk to attract choice suburban dwellers who work in those cubes. 5 
blocks seems very reasonable to me for the 10 months out of the year 
when it's pleasant. I think combining a 1/2 mile morning and evening 
walk with someone's commute would sell very well here.

Regards,
Phil Hallmark



Patrick Goetz wrote:

> Phil Hallmark wrote:
>
>> I think the most compelling part of your argument is the shuttle bus 
>> component. And I have been nodding in agreement with it. But, I'm not 
>> sure it is totally accurate to claim that every single rider must 
>> transfer to a shuttle. How many high-rise offices are within a 
>> 5-block radius of the stop downtown? Aren't there quite a few? Yes, 
>> the Capitol and UT people will need to use shuttles. That could be a 
>> disaster as you predict. But there are possibly thousands of people 
>> who could walk from the stop to their office. TOD may not happen out 
>> in Leander, but it sure might downtown. If you were going to build a 
>> high-rise office and there was a commuter rail stop down there, where 
>> would you build it? I would build it as close to the stop as possible.
>>
>
> Phil, in principle this is a good point, but where would those 
> thousands of people be coming from?  Which inner city stop is within 
> walking distance of a sizeable residential area?  Yes, TOD could solve 
> all these problems, but as I explained to someone on this list, in 
> order to get TOD, you must have at least some critical mass of riders 
> to get the ball rolling.  TOD and mass transit ridership are a chicken 
> and egg circle of mutual reinforcement.  However, if you have neither 
> chicken nor egg, don't expect poultry products to just magically 
> appear, it doesn't work that way.  From this perspective, the commuter 
> rail plan violates bullet item #4 in the definition of a Metro:
>
>     4. Stops at or near major and core urban destinations
>
> A deal killer, as other communities implementing such systems have 
> already discovered.
>
> Alas, the Red line plan is long on wishful thinking, short on 
> rationality, common sense, or appeal to prior experience.  In short, 
> it's a complete piece of crap and I too will have to hold my nose and 
> beg forgiveness from the God of Righteous Behavior when I vote for it 
> on Saturday.  The best case scenario right now is that we pass the 
> commuter rail plan now and then quickly repeal it with a better plan 
> in 2006.  I agree that there is some merit in sending the message to 
> politicians that Austin voters support rail in principle.
>
> If it loses, and it will if the majority of voters base their vote on 
> the merits of the system their voting on rather than principle, then 
> we must be strident in protecting this money from being misused on 
> ill-conceived road projects.
>