BIKE: Getting There: A Reality Check

[Mike Dahmus]

David Dobbs wrote:

> 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.

South Florida begs to differ. In fact, they're the only post-WWII-design 
metropolitan area I can find which attempted to start rail service with 
a line that required shuttle transfers for nearly all passengers rather 
than going with the light-rail approach, and they're one of only a 
couple of rail starts of the last two decades which even transit 
supporters call failures (Buffalo, for instance). Putting wires up and 
running the trains more often does NOT MAKE THIS LIGHT RAIL. Light rail 
means that you run in the street where it makes sense, so that your 
passengers can WALK TO THEIR DESTINATION.

"Time-transfer the buses to the train" is EXACTLY what South Florida's 
Tri-Rail does. EXACTLY. The buses are sitting there waiting for the 
train to arrive. I know you know this, and I'm very disappointed that 
you would attempt to mislead people into thinking Capital Metro has come 
up with the magic bullet here to overcome the transfer problem.

And before you try to call Tri-Rail a success, be warned that I'm 
prepared to fire back with wonderful quotes from leaders who are calling 
Tri-Rail's decision to build on the CSX line a huge mistake as they 
prepare to shift emphasis to the other rail corridor in the region.

Those shuttle buses don't get their own lane, remember. So the shuttle 
trip from the MLK station to UT, for example, places you completely at 
the mercy of the hundreds of cars that are going the same way at the 
same time. You took the train to "get out of traffic" only to find 
yourself dumped back IN traffic at the worst possible time - trying to 
cross I-35 at one of the most congested spots in the corridor. That's 
going to make the overall trip for the transit user slow AND unreliable 
compared to the car. "Fast but unreliable" is OK (that's what we accept 
in our cars today), "competitive and reliable" is even better (that's 
what LRT can get you); but "slower and unreliable" is why most choice 
commuters don't ride the bus today, and that's what commuter rail is 
going to get you.

As for the idea that this line can make up for the unwillingness of 
suburbanites to transfer to those slow, unreliable shuttle buses by 
invoking the power of transit-oriented development; Patrick is 
absolutely right. You don't get TOD if nobody's riding the train. TOD 
grows from existing ridership, and then generates more ridership with a 
positive feedback loop. But trying to make your line a success by 
running it where it happens to be convenient for you (rather than where 
riders existing on day one could use it) is like trying to run before 
you learn how to crawl.

- MD