AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[M1EK]

That's because they are in the middle of nowhere. Even the Saltillo station is, when you get right down to it (try going on the back patio of Nuevo Leon up on the hill and looking down at the station - the area isn't exactly 'urban' - not even by Austin standards).

Compare/contrast to areas around what would have been likely non-downtown light rail stations like 24th/Guadalupe, 30th/Guadalupe, Guadalupe in front of the Triangle; heck, even 38th/Guadalupe is urban in comparison.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by M1EK

I will begin answering you substantively again when you acknowledge publicly that you were wrong before, on many occasions. I've already indicated that until you have the courage to admit when you didn't know what you were talking about, you're not worth the additional effort.

Many can add just like I can. None of us are worth the extra effort???????????????????????

Let's redo the math. $1.9 Billion in half is $950 million, what CapMetro would have needed to build ALL of the 2000 light rail plan assuming the FTA provided half. What CapMetro has spent and given away to Austin adds up to only $400 million, per the news article YOU linked. CapMetro has ZERO capital left, keeping the 1% transit sales tax throughout. Where do YOU think CapMetro was going to get the last $450 million.

When YOU can answer that question, you've proven your point. But since YOU can't, I've proven MY point!

You're not worth it anymore either!
Shucks, YOU can't even do SIMPLE arithmetic.

[M1EK]

I believe I made this really clear, electricron: until you actually acknowledge all the prior times you were wrong (talking about Austin, of which you know precisely nothing), I give you nothing but an updated score: 0-for-23.

[PartyLine]

I guess maby they put them in the places they did so it would maby spur TOD.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by PartyLine

I guess maby they put them in the places they did so it would maby spur TOD.

Precisely! But they're going to need more than 5 trains each morning and afternoon to spur many TODs.
The good news is that they can increase the number of trains by buying more of them, and adding a few more passing sidings.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by M1EK

I believe I made this really clear, electricron: until you actually acknowledge all the prior times you were wrong (talking about Austin, of which you know precisely nothing), I give you nothing but an updated score: 0-for-23.

You still haven't answered my question?

How was CapMetro going to find the other $450 million?

The way you have answered, I'll assume by printing it!

[M1EK]

Electricron, I'll be happy to answer your questions substantively when I get some kind of acknowledgement that the many previous times I showed that you were wrong actually sunk in.

0-for-24.

[hookem]

Metro rail postponed INDEFINITELY

From http://www.590klbj.com/News/Story.aspx?ID=1073970

Breaking News: Cap Metro postpones launch celebrations
Newsroom
3/20/2009

It has been less than two weeks since Capital Metro announced it would postpone the opening of the new commuter rail line between downtown and Leander. Now the transit agency says due to additional safety violations by a transit contractor, Veolia Transportation, it plans to postpone its grand opening celebrations, originally planned for March 28.

Below is a written statement from Capital Metro CEO Fred Gilliam.

News Radio 590 KLBJ is working to secure additional information from board members. A call to Capital Metro headquarters has not yet been returned. We are standing by for any more word to come from the transit agency and will pass it along as we get it.

Gilliam's statement:

“Capital Metro received notification today from the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) of additional alleged violations against rail contractor Veolia Transportation. This is an addition to the previous violations we learned about last Friday.

At this time, I am not satisfied with the progress Veolia has made with safety and training. Capital Metro is absolutely committed to safety. Following extensive discussions with Veolia, the FRA, TxDOT as well as Capital MetroRail staff, I have just notified our Board of Directors that I am taking the following steps:

The MetroRail celebration event planned for Saturday, March 28 is cancelled.

Capital Metro has called for Veolia to replace its safety director.

Capital Metro is bringing in rail experts from Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) to assist with startup operations and safety implementation. They have experience with thirteen previous rail launches.

Capital MetroRail staff will continue testing enhancements to the signal system.

By May 15, Capital Metro will report back to the community with the status of the project and an action plan.

Capital Metro is deeply disappointed over this delay, but under no circumstances will we jeopardize safety by rushing this process.”

[alexjon]

Oooh, this thread is about to get epic.

[M1EK]

I just re-vivified the links contained in this old crackplog and dug up this resolution I floated in May of 2004:

WHEREAS the City of Austin does not receive adequate mobility benefits from the currently proposed Long Range Transit Plan due to its reliance on "rapid bus" transit without separate right-of-way

and

WHEREAS a "rapid bus" line does not and cannot provide the necessary permanent infrastructure to encourage mixed-use pedestrian-oriented densification along its corridor

and

WHEREAS the vast majority of Capital Metro funds come from residents of the City of Austin

and

WHEREAS the commuter rail plan proposed as the centerpiece of this plan delivers most of its benefits to residents of areas which are not within the Capital Metro service area while ignoring the urban core which provides most Capital Metro monies

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Urban Transportation Commission recommends that the City Council immediately reject Capital Metro's Long-Range Transit Plan and begin working towards a plan which:

A. delivers more reliable and high-performance transit into and through the urban core, including but not limited to the University of Texas, Capitol Complex, and downtown
B. requires additional user fees from passengers using Capital Metro rail services who reside in areas which are not part of the Capital Metro service area
C. provides permanent infrastructure to provide impetus for pedestrian-oriented mixed-use redevelopment of the Lamar/Guadalupe corridor

IF CAPITAL METRO will not work with the City of Austin on all items above, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the UTC advises the City Council to begin preparations to withdraw from the Capital Metro service area and provide its own transit system in order to provide true mobility benefits to the taxpayers of Austin.

Anybody disagree with any of that, now?

Reaction to the latest news from the crackplog. I was actually reacting to the PREVIOUS delay when news of this latest one crossed my desk. Sigh.

[electricron]

From http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/st...6/daily60.html

Martinez said the FRA issued three new violation citations Friday regarding MetroRail contractor Veolia Transportation. The citations were prompted by a discovery from the FRA that some Veolia employees haven’t completed mandatory visual and hearing tests, he said.

I don't see how CapMetro's Board was responsible for that? Sight and Sound are important for the safe operations of any train system, whether commuter or light rail, based upon signals and audible alarms. This is an administrative oversight resting completely upon Veolia Transportation shoulders.

[hookem]

From the same article referenced above:

The FRA and the Texas Department of Transportation also gave Capital Metro a notification last week, saying that the FRA would begin an investigation of rail contractor Veolia Transportation. According to a press release from Capital Metro, the investigation concerns two separate incidents on consecutive days in February in which operators “entered a section of track without prior authorization during system testing.”

and

Martinez’s statement calls for the demonstration rides to be put on hold as well.

“We must also seek answers to the many questions surrounding Capitol Metro and judgment errors that have plagued the agency for some time now,” he said.

Seems like a bit more than a small administrative oversight by Veolia Transportation; something like that wouldn't merit them getting fired, nor the indefinite postponement. I get the impression the problems with the FRA are deep and borderline deal-killers. What is the resale market like on those trains? Perhaps this & the recent money scandal will finally be the end of Capital Metro.

AART, anyone? (Austin Area Rapid Transit)

[electricron]

Originally Posted by hookem

Seems like a bit more than a small administrative oversight by Veolia Transportation; something like that wouldn't merit them getting fired, nor the indefinite postponement. I get the impression the problems with the FRA are deep and borderline deal-killers. What is the resale market like on those trains? Perhaps this & the recent money scandal will finally be the end of Capital Metro.
AART, anyone? (Austin Area Rapid Transit)

(1) Initial safety violations occurred when the train operators entered a new block of track only after receiving permission over the radio from just one dispatcher vs two that's required.
One would think that automatic track signals would be enough, but I guess they weren't operating with track signals on those days during testing.
(2) The financial scandal is very confusing from an outsiders perspective. CapMetro has either done wrong spending money on trains, park & ride lots, and buses, OR done wrong giving the City money so it can spend money on day care clinics, bike paths, and street intersections.

Considering all have been passed by CapMetro's board, where's the scandal? The fact that transit agencies save money and borrow money over several years to spend on expensive capital projects isn't new or surprising. The scandal in question is just a political ruse caused by one candidate for mayor this election, who believes spending any money on transit is a waste. Surprisingly, I would think the candidate should learn that the mayor and the city have no administrative control over what CapMetro's Board decides to do. It is an independent agency.

[M1EK]

No, electicron, as usual, you shouldn't comment on things you have no clue on.

Austin programmed things with the rebate that CM committed to giving them. CM has since spent the money, mostly on this debacle of a commuter rail line (extra money required since the Feds wouldn't have kicked in anything for something this lame; and then some overruns). They didn't tell Austin they spent the money and had no plans on how to come up with it, and now that Austin is asking for the money, it's gone.

0-for-24 on Austin transit issues now. When will you just be quiet anyways?

[KevinFromTexas]

Guys, if you can't stop bickering and bashing each other over the head for your opinions, then I don't really see the point in this thread. Notice that none of the other Austin forumers ever post here? This thread does nothing to promote transportation involvement or to discuss the issues since there's just the two of you arguing.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by M1EK

No, electicron, as usual, you shouldn't comment on things you have no clue on.
0-for-24 on Austin transit issues now. When will you just be quiet anyways?

Neither shall you. I'll admit I don't know the actual details of who owes what to whom, but I can read press articles, which apparently you can't do.
Per the news article you posted originally by Ben Wear;

Austin was promised half what CapMetro had reserved up to the failed election in 2000 (approximately $91 million) plus four years of 1/4 cent sales tax (approximately $113.5 million), a total of $204.5 million.
Of that $91 million, $47 million was to go to the City of Austin over the next 12 years ($4 million per year average), and $20 million was to go to the existing Build Greater Austin program (which would also go to the city).
CapMetro owes Austin and other governments in the agency's jurisdiction between $85 million and $110 million, most of it the remaining balance on a $200+ million promise. Cap Metro has honored approximately half of their promise to date (slightly more than or less than half depending upon what's the real amount owed).

By the way, per http://www.statesman.com/opinion/con...etro_edit.html

CapMetro hasn't spent all its reserves, their funds have dipped to less than $44 million. About $38 million must be kept on hand as a cushion for operations and self-insurance.

CapMetro projects ~$160 million in sales tax revenues this year, a total ~$220 million from all sources, with an expense budget ~$215 million. They also plan to use ~2 million of the reserves left and give Austin another ~7 million of promised funds this year.
Source: http://www.capmetro.org/docs/FY2009Budget.pdf

Does Austin really expect CapMetro to give them all the funds promised at once? Do you really expect CapMetro to reserve the entire $200 million promised in an untouched account somewhere?

No one does that, not even you! You promise the bank so much per month in payments to buy/lease your home and car. Do you keep the entire amount owed in an account somewhere?

[M1EK]

Kevin, I'm trying to get people to realize that he's contributing nothing but noise - it's a common internet tactic - keep flitting around asking leading questions or making claims based on incorrect knowledge, but never actually being taken to task when wrong.

The entire point of the Wear article is that there is no way Capital Metro is going to be able to pay the City of Austin what they owe them in any reasonable timeframe. They were supposed to be setting aside money the last few years equivalent to 1/4 cent, and have instead spent it on this commuter rail debacle (which doesn't help Austin at all!)

[electricron]

Originally Posted by M1EK

Kevin, I'm trying to get people to realize that he's contributing nothing but noise - it's a common internet tactic - keep flitting around asking leading questions or making claims based on incorrect knowledge, but never actually being taken to task when wrong.

The entire point of the Wear article is that there is no way Capital Metro is going to be able to pay the City of Austin what they owe them in any reasonable timeframe. They were supposed to be setting aside money the last few years equivalent to 1/4 cent, and have instead spent it on this commuter rail debacle (which doesn't help Austin at all!)

Per the news article you posted originally, CapMetro only promised 1/4 cent of the 1 cent sales tax for four years, between 2001 to 2005. After the 2004 election in favor of commuter rail, CapMetro no longer felt obliged to continue that policy. If instead of commuter rail, CapMetro spent their reserves on light rail, I doubt you would object prolonging paying the amount owed to Austin. You would have preferred they proceeded building the light rail first before paying Austin off completely. That's what they have been doing, except it's commuter rail.

These are my opinions based upon the facts presented, mostly by you, and from public accessible press reports. At least I'm consistent with the facts before me.

I still wonder where CapMetro could find the funds to build the entire $1.9 Billion 2000 light rail plan.

[SecretAgentMan]

Originally Posted by electricron

I still wonder where CapMetro could find the funds to build the entire $1.9 Billion 2000 light rail plan.

I've been avoiding answering this because it was adressed to M1EK, and I attempted to answer it previously. M1EK has a tendency to jump all over anyone who challenges him in any way, and has refused to answer you. In the interest of trying to keep this thread alive and civil, I will offer this. It might not answer every question because I don't have time to do all the research and math - but here goes.

Cap Metro never had sufficient resources to fund the entire 52 mile / 1.9 B plan, and never represented as much as far as I know. The 2000 election was simply to authorize Cap Metro to build and operate light rail, it was not an election on bonding as is typical in most cities. Since Cap Metro is unique in Texas in having to seek this authorization from the electorate, they decided to ask for permission to build their entire long range plan, not just the Locally Preferred Alternative / Minimum Operable Segment (LPA/MOS) as is typical.

I don't believe M1EK ever suggested otherwise. In fact, he posted information about the LPA/MOS that was still under development at the time of the election.

In 2000, Cap Metro had sufficient reserves to build an LPA/MOS from Howard Lane to Downtown provided they could receive 80% Federal Match, without needing a bond election. This lead many people to believe Cap Metro was rich and sitting on funds to build light rail that the electorate officially rejected (even if it was by less than 1%).

After the election, Cap Metro created the 1/4 cent program to ward off rumors that the Legislature would strip them of 1/2 cent or more, which would not even allow them to operate their current bus system.

This, combined with the FTA maximum match being reduced to 50%, meant there wasn't even sufficient money to build all the way to Howard Lane. When the PE/EIS resumed, the MOS was shortened first to Braker & MOPAC, and eventually to Anderson / Lamar, with the introduction of commuter rail to Leander to make up for the shortcomings.

The light rail MOS died on the vine prior to the 2004 election. At the time, just uttering the term light rail caused huge controversy, which is why Cap Metro rebranded the Red Line Urban Commuter Rail. (Yes, M1EK in most respects it will be more like traditional commuter rail when it opens, but has the potential to function more like light rail as it is upgraded - truly a hybrid. It's not perfect, and not as good as the 2000 MOS, but it is what we have to work with at the moment - so why not make the best of it?)

In reality, had Cap Metro kept the reduced MOS as part of All Systems Go! LRP, which was a risk going into the 2004 election, they could not have afforded to build it - as should be obvious to everyone by now.

I sincerely doubt an 8 mile, 100% in street light rail line would have received any Federal funding under the revised FTA funding formulas, and Cap Metro could not self finance like Houston did. It would have cost about 5 times the amount of the Leander line. Houston's corridor has significantly higher density along most of its length, and they could not muster enough political support against some very hostile political opponents, so I'm not sure how Austin would have.

I hope that helps, and doesn't fan the flames too much.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by SecretAgentMan

M1EK has a tendency to jump all over anyone who challenges him in any way, and has refused to answer you.

That's absolutely untrue.

I won't accept attacks from behind the cloak of anonymity, though (you), and I have little patience for those who don't admit when they were wrong and learn from the experience (electricron). This is a hobby, not a job; I don't have time to spend on electricron's continuing education project without first seeing some benefits from past investment.

(Yes, M1EK in most respects it will be more like traditional commuter rail when it opens, but has the potential to function more like light rail as it is upgraded - truly a hybrid. It's not perfect, and not as good as the 2000 MOS, but it is what we have to work with at the moment - so why not make the best of it?)

It will never, ever, ever be anything like light rail - this is a misrepresentation. The DMUs will never be able to travel to UT or the Capitol or downtown; and the area up and down Airport Boulevard will never densify into anything like the Drag. You don't get new density on a line that doesn't hit any existing density, or Tri-Rail would now be filled with TOD up and down its length. (And, no, extending to 4th/Brazos isn't enough either - that lets you hit the southern half of precisely ONE of the four or five major employment centers missed by this plan compared to 2000 LRT).

In reality, had Cap Metro kept the reduced MOS as part of All Systems Go! LRP, which was a risk going into the 2004 election, they could not have afforded to build it - as should be obvious to everyone by now.

This is another misrepresentation. CM would have had to bond the thing just like they would have had to bond their share of the 2000 LRT plan.

I sincerely doubt an 8 mile, 100% in street light rail line would have received any Federal funding under the revised FTA funding formulas

Another misrepresentation - the MOS you're referring to was a brief change to an all-in-street line floated internally for a couple of months before commuter rail took over - it was never a serious candidate (it would have had LRT continuing up Lamar to Anderson instead of entering the existing rail ROW at Lamar/Airport, under the ridiculous theory that it was Crestview/Wooten that lost us the 2000 election. I never said that this was the line CM should have started with - I found it to be a ridiculous trial balloon that correctly died very quickly.

I've said on numerous occasions that my MOS would have been a shortened version of the 2000 plan - which would necessitate continuing onto the existing rail ROW rather than running further north on Lamar. I purposefully never said exactly how short I would make it, which should make it really obvious that you're trying to misrepresent my position here.

I'd go to the existing rail crossing of 183 for my MOS if I had to do it today, by the way. Just enough use of existing rail ROW to test the premise; and plenty of underutilized land in the area for an additional park-and-ride and bus transfer center.

I hope that helps, and doesn't fan the flames too much.

If you don't want to fan flames, don't attack somebody else's credibility while remaining anonymous.