Below are the 9 most recent journal entries recorded in doinky's LiveJournal:

Friday, February 8th, 2008
12:36 pm	Austinist     I was just published at the Austinist in what I hope doesn't ruin the feature for everybody else. Here it is. (Comment on this)
Wednesday, November 22nd, 2006
3:45 pm	Reminder My real blog is here; I maintain this account mainly to comment on other blogs. (Comment on this)
Monday, November 1st, 2004
8:55 am	Best Of The Bile This entry is good for people seeking back-story; the linked articles form a "best of" collection from this blog explaining various supporting arguments for the Pro-Transit But No vote on Capital Metro this time around. Today kicks off with another Chronicle mention in which they say: Opponents like Mike Dahmus, a member of the city Urban Transportation Commission, say the current commuter rail plan does not go far enough. The real problem here, as I've covered again and again and again, is that this line (unlike light rail) will require shuttle-buses for all commuters every single day and will thus fail miserably at attracting passengers from the suburban (non-bus-riding) population. Since this line, unlike light rail in 2000, doesn't run anywhere near the areas of central Austin where transit enjoys high use and overwhelming popularity, it can't make up the difference with progressives either. Simply not going "far enough" could be fixed with some hard work. But this plan not only goes the wrong way, it precludes light rail from being built to "fix" it. Additionally, it's SO INCREDBLY CRAPPY that it's going to "show" pretty conclusively that Austinites "don't want rail". Which, I think, is what Mike Krusee and Fred Gilliam had in mind the whole time.... (Comment on this)
Tuesday, October 5th, 2004
1:36 pm	Reminder Content is at this offsite blog which is updated, on average, daily! I may continue to mirror what turn out to be good posts here, but the best way to keep up is to go there. (Comment on this)
Tuesday, September 28th, 2004
3:32 pm	First pro-rail lie of the campaign I had hoped the pro-rail guys wouldn't sink to the depths of the ROAD wingnuts from the '00 election, but am rapidly being disabused of that notion. From the news page of New Ways To Connect, the pro-commuter-rail PAC: Q. What does the Urban Commuter Rail Line do for the Central City? Transit supports pedestrian-friendly communities. Eight of the nine stops are in the City of Austin ; five of these are in the Central City. It provides the backbone of a system that includes nine stations where commuters can connect to fast shuttle service to get to popular destinations around Austin . In addition, Capital Metro's All System's Go proposal calls for more bus and express bus routes, as well as the introduction of 133 miles of new rapid bus technology to help get people to popular destinations quickly. There are advantages for the entire community. Rebuttal: NONE of the stops are near high-density residential areas commonly referred to as the central city (NO, AIRPORT BOULEVARD IS NOT CENTER-CITY AUSTIN). NONE of the stops are in pedestrian-oriented areas. NONE of the stops are in areas which have indicated through neighborhood planning that they are willing to accept additional infill (in fact, the stations in what passes for dense areas in this plan are in neighborhoods which are vigorously fighting infill). NONE of the stops are within walking distance of the biggest pockets of transit-oriented development in this city both present and future (Mueller, West Campus, Triangle, Hyde Park, 38th corridor). Rapid Bus is nothing more than modest improvements to existing Limited service on the true urban corridor (Guadalupe/Congress). It's not what ANYBODY asked for. Shuttles aren't "quick"; they're stuck in traffic just like existing buses. And requiring people to transfer in order to get anywhere useful (which this system does) does not attract people who can choose whether or not to drive. This is almost, but not quite, as bad as the '00 ads run by Skaggs and Company which misled voters into thinking that Capital Metro was still under a cloud with the Feds (by putting up old Statesman articles while not making it clear how old they were). (Comment on this)
3:06 pm	Clarifying future of rail A lot of the people who, like me, are disgusted with the pitiful attempt at a rail network being foisted on us by Capital Metro have decided, tactically, that their best course of action is to hold their nose, vote yes, and then work to extend and improve the plan after the starter line is built. This basically sums up the positions of the two guys who presented on the panel with me last Wednesday at the Austin Neighborhoods' Council meeting. They believe that if this package is supported, that we can then go back and get real urban rail service down the real urban rail corridor - that being Lamar/Guadalupe. And of course we'll get rail to Mueller (which is being touted as a transit-oriented development). And probably to Seaholm and the Capitol while we're at it. I'm going to demolish that idea right now, as if you couldn't guess. 1. Capital Metro is no longer even pretending that light-rail will ever happen on that corridor. Early versions of the All Systems Go press included comments that Rapid Bus could be a "placeholder for future rail service". This is no longer being said, not even off the record. I've mentioned before that there are practical obstacles to implementing light-rail in this corridor if commuter rail is built, even up the Lamar corridor to northeast Austin, and that's nowhere near as good a line as the initial 2000 path would have been (and of course THAT path is absolutely precluded by commuter rail). 2. Building the entire ASG network does nothing for urban Austin that the starter line doesn't already do (that being nearly nothing). The additional commuter line down Mopac won't have any stations near any walkable residential areas - in fact, it's even worse than the starter line in that regard. 3. Other proposed improvements such as downtown streetcars will only make a minor dent in the transfer problem. Keep in mind that streetcars don't get their own lane - so if a lane is full of cars, the streetcar is going to be going just as slowly as your shuttle bus. Some naive pro-transit people think they can solve the "three attractors" problem with streetcar as well as '00 light rail would have - but you're still stuck with a 3 (or even 4, if you need to go to the Capitol or UT) seat ride; and it's still stuck in traffic. 4. None of the proposed expansions or improvements bring rail to any of the high-density residential areas in town. Not to Mueller. Not to West Campus. Not to South Congress. Not to Hyde Park. Folks, I can't make this any clearer: if you vote for this plan, you are voting AGAINST rail for Hyde Park, for North University, for West Campus, for South Congress. You are voting AGAINST rail to the University of Texas, to the State Capitol, and to the center of downtown. What you're voting FOR is rail from Leander to the Convention Center. If that seems like a good idea to you in isolation, go for it. But don't hang your hat on winks and nods; the fact is that even if Capital Metro WANTED to help you, they're not going to be able to do it. (Comment on this)
3:04 pm	Two more comments from David Nunez' site: (in response to the typical "we have to pass this now, it's our only hope for light rail in the future" argument): Commuter rail PRECLUDES light rail. It's a nice fantasy that if we get commuter rail passed, we can go back and get light rail down Lamar/Guadalupe. The problem is that even CM isn't hinting at that anymore because they know it's not practical. 1. You couldn't put LRT on its original '00 alignment (up Guadalupe/Lamar to Airport and then following existing track to the northwest) because commuter rail is ALREADY THERE. 2. You couldn't CROSS these tracks without turning Lamar/Airport into a nightmare. Thus, you aren't going to be able to run light rail further up Lamar. 3. If you run LRT from JUST Lamar/Airport to the downtown area, you're losing 1/2 of the residential component of the '00 line (FOLKS, LISTEN TO ME: MOST CAR DRIVERS WILL _NOT_ ACCEPT A TRANSIT TRIP IF IT INVOLVES TRANSFERS - NOT EVEN TO OTHER RAIL LINES). You also lose the connection between the two UT campuses which would have provided an automatic hundreds-of-passengers-per-day. I can't be any more clear here: Vote on ASG. Don't vote on phantom light-rail which Capital Metro won't even hint at anymore - they originally called Rapid Bus a "placeholder" for rail, but they have since removed ths language. ALL you will get with this vote is the starter line - running from Leander to the Convention Center. NO STREETCARS. NO RAIL DOWN MOPAC. This is IT. (now, in response to a section which talked about Dallas' combination of commuter rail from Fort Worth, DART light rail, and a heritage streetcar): Your example, Dallas: 1. They built DART _FIRST_. It ran from suburbs into downtown and stopped within walking distance of most riders' final destinations. 2. They had a streetcar running for other purposes; and only AFTER building DART did anybody use the streetcar for anything other than tourism; even then it's an extension to a part of town which isn't traditionally office-oriented. 3. Commuter rail was added AFTER the light-rail urban spine. Compare and contrast to Austin. We're contemplating building the commuter line first, and requiring that people get on shuttle buses to get to their offices. Not to go to bars, or football games, as with the Dallas lines. Dallas commuters get on light-rail to go to work; very few daily workers use commuter rail there. The same will be true here - people who can drive will be willing to hop on a shuttle bus if it's to a UT game or to 6th St., but if you have to do that as part of your DAILY WORK COMMUTE, it's a deal-killer. This is not conjecture, folks. This is what happened in South Florida with a system that couldn't be any more identical to Capital Metro's proposal. (Comment on this)
3:03 pm	ANC Meeting Notes outline from Austin Neighborhoods Council panel, which included myself (in opposition), Sam Archer from Cap Metro, David Foster and Jim Walker on the pro-plan side, and ROAD guy Jim Skaggs also in opposition (but presenting the Neanderthal anti-rail-yes-even-light-rail opposition): 1. Didn't get to use half-bridge analogy. Time was my enemy. 2. Pro-transit people continue to swallow the "if we don't pass this we'll never get another chance" kool-aid - mention 2000 failed and we're here in '04, so obviously a different rail plan could be put up in '06 or '08 3. Despite that, preparing for loss and documenting historical record (ala Shoal Creek) to try to slightly reduce rail's forthcoming dark ages in Austin 4. Feeling very very dirty at sharing a podium with Jim Skaggs and getting occasional nods from Gerald Daugherty, whose bald-faced lies contributed to light rail's 00 defeat. Their ability to good-ole-boy it up with the pro-transit guys reminds me of why I'll never succeed at a higher-level in politics. More to come when I eat lunch at desk. (Comment on this)
Thursday, September 16th, 2004
3:24 pm	test first mirrored post David Nunez started talking about transit, and I wrote a few comments there which might have general utility. Here they are, with some additional context provided where necessary. Doesn't have to be complicated. I can sum up the entire thing in one sentence: If your starter line for a rail network is really bad, you will never get a chance to build your full network, so you'd better make sure your starter line is attractive to a lot of people. All of the rest of the talk is just explaining WHY this system doesn't qualify (and the 2000 light rail line DID). (For instance, transfers to shuttle buses to get to downtown, UT, capitol = unattractive). Regards, MD Transfers and whatnot Experience in other cities has shown that requiring a bus transfer at the end of a rail trip drastically reduces the number of "choice" commuters who will take the transit trip. This is something that's well-enough known in transit circles that arguing with it is akin to asking a geographer to prove that the Earth isn't flat. (In other words, it's common-enough knowledge that people don't even bother to prove it anymore). The current express buses are, to me, a bit BETTER than the ASG plan. Yes, they're stuck in traffic on both Mopac AND the city streets; but they allow two-seat travel (car, then bus). The ASG plan is a three-seat trip (car, then train, then bus) *AND* the last portion is stuck in traffic. It's important to emphasize again that your transit "spine" (i.e. the highest-capacity route) must deliver a bunch of passengers to within walking distance of their destination to be successful. Once you have a few of these, you can start talking transfers, but even then, the transfers to shuttle-bus will always do much worse than transfers to light-rail (for instance, Dallas' commuter rail line from Fort Worth ties into the DART light-rail system. Since DART's been on the ground for a long time now attracting its own choice commuters, people are more willing to transfer to it than they would have been to shuttle-buses or even a brand-new rail line). The "incented somehow" talk is basically the point of using rail - get around the traffic rather than being stuck in it in a bus. That's why the 2000 light-rail plan was such a good starter line (and note: the citizens of Austin passed it; which is something that almost never happens the first time in a rail election) - it used existing separate rail ROW up to Lamar/Airport; then travelled in-street for the last 4 miles or so in order to drop people off where they actually want to go. In this political climate, the only "incentive" you can promise with transit is reliability/speed - and the ASG plan craps all over this with the shuttle transfer. (David asks for clarification on three points - #1 being that I support building the light-rail spine first and then commuter rail to the 'burbs; #2 being that Cap Metro is operating on a "build as much as we can afford and hope they will come" philosophy; and #3 being that my point is that if the first line is bad, that ends everything) I'd say you're right on the f I'd say you're right on the first and right on the third. On the first I'd also add that it's incredibly stupid to provide rail to the people who hated the idea of rail in 2000 while providing buses to the people who loved the idea of rail in 2000. (This plan, even if it ever makes it to its completed state with all of the expansions and whatnot, delivers nothing more than slightly enhanced BUS SERVICE to the densest parts of town - you know, where in most cities you'd be delivering the RAIL service). Capital Metro's real reason for doing the second is political - and it's spelled Mike Krusee. I think I have some backstory on this in my blog; let me know if you want a condensed version. They also suffer from the typical disease here of overreliance on macroanalysis and underreliance on microanalysis. By this I mean that, like with air quality initiatives, they think you can "encourage" people to do something; but they never look at individual choices and the existing structures of incentives/taxes/whatever that lead to the behavior we observe today. Like how they do press releases touting the fact that Motorola or IBM are going to encourage carpooling - this doesn't do anything in the real world since the individual's incentive to carpool is still negligible. (Comment on this)