BIKE: Getting There: A Reality Check

[David Dobbs]

At 22:35 -0500 10/26/04, Patrick Goetz wrote:
>A good Metro system for Austin is going to cost 2-4 billion dollars. 
>Who cares?  The estimated costs for new roadway construction in the 
>Austin metropolitan area is 14 billion dollars.

Well, the public cares and they pay the bills and mostly they see 
mobility as another lane for their car and public transit for the 
other guy so he will get out of the way.  Two to four billion dollars 
is beyond the financial capability of the transit authority unless 
you are planning to build five mile subway segments every 30 years or 
so while the city sprawls outward in all directions.  But let's 
dispense with dualing long range scenarios, because crystal balls get 
very cloudy beyond five years and what you are suggesting is not 
political reality.  Besides ignoring the legal and financial 
constrains on transit borrowing and spending, you seem to suggest 
that because we spend or plan to spend so much on roads ($14 
billion), that a mere 2 to 4 billion dollars is inconsequential.  Try 
that one on the road lobby, the Chamber of Commerce or the Texas 
Bankers Association.  You might be surprised at who cares.

For the cost of that short subway, the "crappy commuter train to 
nowhere" could be built into a 32 mile electric LRT metrorail with 
grade separations at all major streets and secure crossing gates at 
the remaining road intersections, and thus be capable of handling 
30,000 people an hour or twice the theoretical capacity of existing 
roadway from the CBD to Leander.  And, yes, it does go someplace, as 
I have pointed out in another posting, to one of the fasted growing 
areas in the country with thousands of raw acres about to be 
developed within our own ETJ. paralleling IH 35 MoPac and 183 all the 
way.  Additionally, this rail line goes through some of the Austin's 
most populated neighborhoods and through warehouse industrial real 
estate ripe for redevelopment.

Mike Dahmus's protestations to the contrary, this line has enormous 
potential if it is properly designed, augmented, upgraded and 
integrated with buses and future rail connections.  Not only does 
previous Capital Metro modeling show this, but two consultant friends 
of mine, both former general managers of large transit authorities, 
who have been to Austin many times and studied this line 
specifically, agree that this railroad is a major asset from the 
beginning if done right.  Time-transfer the buses to the train and 
time connecting buses to the train buses for a seamless ride and 
provide high frequency service and it will work well.  Will it be 
done right?  Who knows, but it's the only chance we're going to get, 
so I hope you'll become part of the solution rather than part of the 
problem.

At 11:44 -0500 10/26/04, Patrick Goetz wrote:
>And Cap Metro CEO Fred Gilliam has already announced that he'll hand 
>every penny over to road building if ASG doesn't pass (see next 
>referenced article).  I was wrong in a previous post: unfortunately, 
>he can legally do this.  No matter what happens, a primary focus 
>after the election for anyone who cares about Austin and 
>consequently transportation in Austin should be getting rid of 
>Gilliam and most of the Cap Metro board, including the absentee 
>Aggie.

Like so many things you say, Patrick, you are wrong here, too, 
because between our extremely dedicated board members and CEO Fred 
Gilliam, Capital Metro has redeemed its good name and can now get on 
with the task we set it upon 20 years ago.

The decision to "hand over" a portion of the transit fund is in fact 
a board decision to rebate one quarter cent of the sales tax to 
member cities.  Mr. Gilliam has nothing to say about it except to 
carry out the board's policy.  As a consequence of losing the light 
rail election, the board has given up over $100 million to road 
projects since 2000.  Again, I must remind monorail folks and other 
"transit advocates but LRT haters" that they bear some responsibility 
for this loss.

Unfortunately, most of the Cap Met board goes away automatically in 
2005 because their they are term-limited to eight years.  Lee Walker, 
Councilman Slusher, Mayor Pro-tem Trevino, and County Commissioner 
Gomez are all gone come September next.  Capital Metro's worst 
problem in its first 12 years was stability.  A new city council 
every two years changed the board about every two years, and hence, 
we have had seven GMs/CEO's in less than 20 years.  Until "absentee 
Aggie" aka respected 
environmentalist/businessman/neighborhood-advocate and Harvard 
Business School graduate took charge there was really no one in 
charge for long and really no long-term direction.

The fact that there will be a massive change in board members 
underscores again the reason to vote for commuter rail.  If CR goes 
down, CAMPO, the city and the county can simply appoint people to 
Capital Metro who will lower the tax and then it is up for grabs. 
There will be not be another chance for rail in Austin for a very 
long time, if ever, once the transit tax is locked into paying road 
bonds, as could well happen.  More on this anon.


At 11:44 -0500 10/26/04, Patrick Goetz wrote:
>Now, a couple of quick items which have come up recently:
>
>David Dobbs assured us that Fred "BRT" Gilliam is, in fact, a strong 
>rail supporter.  Gilliam begs to differ:

Job one for Fred Gilliam was and is make the bus system work.  That 
was his charge from the board and that is what he is going to say 
publicly. Capital Metro can have no credibility without a well run 
bus system.   Our buses not only now work, the system is now moving 
toward several things that those of us who have really been involved 
have sought to accomplish, like on-time performance, better signage, 
more direct routing, proper maintenance, improved communications, 
greater security, and sometime in the next three years, AVLS 
(automatic vehicle location system).  Before you run you have to 
walk.   Of course, if commuter rail goes down then the money to do 
better buses will probably go away, too.


At 23:09 -0500 10/27/04, Patrick Goetz wrote:
> LRT is stupid technology

And that is why there is so much of it throughout the world, compared 
to say "monorail" which predates light rail and streetcars?  And in 
America, what rail technology has been thriving in American 
cities--14 brand new LRT systems since 1981 with many extensions to 
these planned or under construction?  And what rail technology do 
other American cites (about fifty of them) seek?  Not monorail. 
Stupid Americans!  Facts are so inconvenient.

(Tell us again, about the light rail/road lobby conspiracy that keeps 
us from having good transit like monorail.)

At 23:09 -0500 10/27/04, Patrick Goetz wrote:
>particularly given the pain and expense involved in building the 
>thing?  (And I have the construction pictures to prove it.)

Talking about sounding like a political ad!  Right out of the Jim 
Skaggs playbook.  Does anyone remember the picture of the Dallas 
street torn up to install DART rail?

What your picture proves is that the street is being rebuilt, 
something that is not necessary to install street railway track  When 
cities install light rail or even streetcars, it is common to combine 
several projects and do it all at once.  In Dallas, as in Houston, 
streets that had been repeatedly patched and utilities that were in 
need of repair, were fixed all together.  On the other hand, European 
cities cut a six foot wide, 12 to 18 inch deep excavation in the 
street (well above utilities), frame the insulated track in rebar and 
fill the cut with concrete.  Done block by block, shallow trench rail 
installation reduces (but does not close) a street's capacity, and 
the job is finished in two to three weeks so that no one goes 
bankrupt. Portland put streetcar double track in at less than half 
the cost per mile projected for Austin's light rail, largely because 
Capital Metro would have been billed for a full street rebuild and 
then had to take the political heat for the mess, as well.

At 00:55 -0500 10/28/04, Patrick Goetz wrote:
>I can't speak to every city for which Lyndon claims "LRT systems ARE 
>the core rail transit systems", but based on the example of 
>Frankfurt, I suggest the reader take his examples with a grain of 
>salt.

Lyndon has traveled extensively in Europe and especially in Germany 
and has many photographs of European urban rail systems.  More 
importantly, our web site is fed by nearly one hundred extremely 
knowledgeable transit professionals and transit advocates from around 
the world on a list serve; some of these people are in Europe.


>At 18:51 -0500 10/28/04, Patrick Goetz wrote:
>Reading what other people say more carefully, thinking about it, 
>perhaps a careful examination of your motives?  Lengthy discussions 
>with LRT proponents who basically are vehemently opposed to any 
>other kind of rail system (subway, monorail, elevated rail, you name 
>it) suggest that your primary motive is not really the establishment 
>of a mass transit system which can provide an alternative to the 
>automobile but rather reducing the vehicle lanes available to cars 
>in some kind of misguided attempt to "kill" cars by squeezing them 
>out of the picture.


Once again, you don't know what you are talking about, Patrick.

Lyndon's first major study on rail transit for Austin, titled 
CARTRANS:  Capital Area Regional Transportation System:  Rapid Rail 
for the Capital City of Texas published by the Rail Foundation in 
1973 proposed a full blown MetroRail system in Central Texas with 
Austin at the hub.  After a great deal of feed back from community 
leaders, Lyndon put forth another study in 1976, called The South 
Austin Light Rail Proposal (SAL Rail) which proposed surface LRT 
initially followed by a subway when needed under the CBD, Capitol 
Complex and UT.

What Henry realized was that Austin was not yet big enough for a full 
metro, but that at some point in the future grade separation would be 
necessary.  First, however, there had to be an incremental plan to 
realize that end.  As a citizen participant in the Austin Tomorrow 
Plan, begun in 1972, for which the number one city-wide goal was to 
"Develop a public transportation system...to provide a level of 
service which will give people an alternative to the private 
automobile," Lyndon meticulously and extensively researched the best 
means to reach that goal. Far ahead of anyone else in this city, he 
articulated detailed, in depth, clear and specific transportation 
steps toward implementing the only city master plan Austin has ever 
officially adopted.

>At 18:51 -0500 10/28/04, Patrick Goetz wrote:
>Your approach to the problem is just wrong.  A far better solution 
>is to provide a system which can coexist peacefully with other modes 
>of transportation and let people choose the superior alternative; 
>always rail when rail runs in its own grade-separated guideway.

Indeed, Dr. Pangloss!  And what fairy gold approach do you have in 
mind?  Yes, I remember now; magical monorail everywhere because it's 
so cheap to build and so easy to put up, that like nuclear power, we 
won't even have to charge for it. (Remember, too cheap to meter?) 
Why, I have even heard it said that private enterprise would do this 
for us if only our leaders had the political foresight and gumption 
to "just do it!"

>At 18:51 -0500 10/28/04, Patrick Goetz wrote:
>Well, we're already at population 1,000,000 and probably will grow 
>some more.  As far as I can tell, cities with populations as low as 
>370,000 implement Metro systems.  See, for example
>(And then you go on to site with a URL the Val automated people 
>mover in Rennes, France)

Well, Patrick, you missed the Morgantown, West Virginia AGT.  That's 
an even smaller city and they've got a lot more "Metro" (3.6 miles) 
for the money in their community of 54,000 people.  Why that's a mile 
of "Metro" for every 15,000 people!  Poor Rennes with 5.4 miles of 
VAL, only 1 mile for every 68,500 people.  And is any of this 
relevant?  San Antonio at 1.6 million people (MSA) has far less bus 
service, lower per capita ridership, and only a half-cent transit 
tax.  They are also voting Tuesday to devote the other half cent to 
roads, which is entirely possible here if we don't pass commuter rail 
next week.  So much for trashing rail this time in the hope they'll 
be something better next time.

(For the benefit of other readers,  "VAL is a driverless, 
rubber-tyred metro system, invented by the French firm Matra and 
already in operation in Lille, Orly airport in Paris, Toulouse, 
Chicago and Taipei."   VAL in Rennes carries 100,000 passenger daily 
using headways of 1 minute.  Morgantown has an automated group rapid 
transit (AGT) system that connects West Virginia University and 
downtown Morgantown and carries about 16,000 passengers daily. 
Photos at: http://faculty.washington.edu/jbs/itrans/morg1.htm)


>At 23:09 -0500 10/27/04, Patrick Goetz wrote:
>I simply can't fathom why Lyndon can't bring himself to admit that a 
>fully grade-separated solution would be better:  safer and faster, 
>consequently encouraging additional ridership across greater 
>distances which in turn would result in more TOD and even greater 
>ridership while getting people out of their cars because it's 
>actually faster and more convenient than driving.

Well, clearly for a very long time, Lyndon has been thinking about 
fully grade-separated solutions as his past writings reveal.  The 
bottom line is the bottom line--both the French VAL, and the 
Morgantown AGT cost over $125 million a mile, which, although less 
than the Las Vegas Monorail ($166 million a mile), is much more than 
the $45 million a mile Austin's failed central core LRT was projected 
to cost in 2000.  You can only build what the public will approve and 
what the projected cash flow will support.

At 00:55 -0500 10/28/04, Patrick Goetz wrote:
>We need a Metro first, though.

Yes, and after I became a grandfather I understood the bumper sticker 
that says "If we'd known how much fun grand children are, we'd have 
had them first!"

For more than 30 years Lyndon has been articulating Austin's only 
valid transportation future that would be a viable alternative to 
automobiles. Dozens of papers, studies, articles, and public 
presentations locally, nationally, and abroad discussing 
opportunities, costs, technologies, linkages, TOD, grade separated 
rail for Austin when and where appropriate, and strategies for 
accomplishing these goals have all been covered by Henry at one time 
or another.  He was also one of the people who helped establish 
special transit in the 1970's long before there was a Capital Metro 
and long before any other city in Texas had such service, so far as I 
know.

In 1982-83 I was Vice-Chair of the City/County MTA task force that 
met for a period of nine months, sometimes twice week, to ascertain 
better transit for Austin's future.  In those days, the city ran 
about 10 weekday bus routes on hour headways with about 15,000 
riders.  The only thing that the city urban transportation staff 
wanted was to rid themselves of the bus company, and they tried very 
hard, sometimes in very underhanded ways (particularly one 
individual), to get a quarter-cent transit authority.  Lyndon Henry, 
Roger Baker and I were not having any of that and the other task 
force members agreed with us.  The three of us wrote much of the 
final report and all but one of the ten members concurred on the 
primary points, the full tax, the board composition, and the regional 
nature of the MTA.  The Austin City Council accepted the task force's 
report unanimously in February of 1983, an interim board was formed 
in March, and the voters approved Capital Metro and its long-range 
transit plan (2 to 1) in January 1985.  More than any other single 
individual, Lyndon Henry is responsible for the creation of Capital 
Metro with its one cent sales tax capable of actually building 
something that could one day be a viable alternative to the 
automobile.  It was his hard work, research, writing and vision 
through the MTA Task Force and the interim transportation authority 
that carried the day.

No, Patrick, while you been presenting a flawed idea unsupported by 
the facts, often by impugning the good names of people like Fred 
Gilliam and Lyndon Henry because they don't agree with your 
fantasies, Lyndon has actually done something about a more livable 
city and we all owe him for it.  Unfortunately, you don't seem to 
appreciate this fact.

Dave Dobbs

==================
Dave Dobbs
ddobbs
Austin, Texas
==================
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text/enriched
Size: 16821 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.bicycleaustin.info/private.cgi/forum-bicycleaustin.info/attachments/20041029/61fefc9b/attachment-0001.bin