by

May 22, 2012

Do you like this?

With its sights on a November vote, the Austin Transportation Department recommended to City Council on May 22 what part of a proposed 17.5-mile urban rail network should be built first and presented long-awaited details about how that leg could be funded.

The initial path—identified as Phase 1—would be about 5.5 miles long and would connect to the Capital Metro Red Line at Fourth Street, provide service on Guadalupe and Lavaca streets, and end at the Mueller development in Northeast Austin.

A second phase would add about 4 miles with a route on San Jacinto Boulevard and Congress Avenue as well as one crossing Lady Bird Lake, ending at the intersection of East Riverside and Pleasant Valley drives.

Officials said the cost to design, engineer and construct Phase 1 would be about $550 million—up to half of which may be paid for by the Federal Transit Authority.

Of the $275 million or so that would need to be raised locally, about $250 million would likely have to come from bonds. The rest could be raised from parking meter revenue, sales tax money owed to the city by Capital Metro as well as in-kind right of way donations, among other smaller sources.

Annual operating costs would start at $16 million and would increase by 3 percent each year. The approximations assume service would begin in 2021.

Unlike capital costs, maintenance and operations fall almost entirely on the shoulders of the local government. About $2.4 million per year could come from passes to ride the line and a smaller amount from parking meter revenue. However, that would still leave a large gap that  Some options include contributions from the city’s general fund or from Capital Metro’s quarter-cent sales tax. 

City Council has until mid-August to decide whether to ask voters in November to devote bond money to get the line up and running. But with planning about five months behind schedule and increasing competition for resources from other city projects, a vote this year is looking less and less likely, city officials have hinted.

Debating the route

In the meantime, the topic of urban rail has been a frequent—and often the only—agenda item for the weekly meetings of the Transit Working Group, which is chaired by Mayor Lee Leffingwell and counts among its 17 members Tom Stacy of the Downtown Austin Alliance and Alan McGraw, mayor of Round Rock.

The purpose of urban rail is not only to spur development, but also to get people from where they live to where they work. So for some of the group’s members, as well as several outsiders, the proposed trajectory has begged the question: Why not start with a line going to Northwest Austin, home to nearly 20,000 people who work in Central Austin? Or to Southwest Austin, where there are almost 25,000 people commuting for work?

Austin Transportation Department director Robert Spillar said that because the FTA approved a $38 million grant in April to fund the majority of a new rapid-bus transit system that would run on North Lamar as well as on Guadalupe Street to the west of the The University of Texas campus, or what is known as “the Drag,” he did not think the agency would be inclined to provide another grant for transit along the same streets for several years.

“A second corridor, a new corridor, a different corridor, would stand a much better chance to get federal funding,” Spillar said.

A path to Mueller

Until at least December 2001, various maps of a proposed light rail line, the technological precursor to urban rail, had service from Northwest Austin to downtown via North Lamar.

In 2004, however, Capital Metro’s All Systems Go long-range plan identified rapid buses as the preferred mode of transit on North Lamar, and plans to put buses that could supposedly travel with more ease in traffic by keeping lights green longer—buses that just received federal funding—began.

But urban rail was by no means dead. A 2010 transit analysis conducted by the city recommended urban rail to connect the Capitol, east UT campus, Mueller and Austin-Bergstrom International Airport.

However, some, such as Lyndon Henry, an independent transportation consultant, contest the methodology used to reach that conclusion. The study ranked 13 key corridors—for instance, from lower downtown to UT via the Capitol complex—based on how well each met a list of six criteria, such as maximizing environmental benefits and improving transit connectivity.

Providing service from the Capitol complex to west Central Austin and from UT to Hyde Park, potentially creating a Northwest alignment, ranked lower than connecting UT with Mueller.

“How can anyone really think Mueller needs urban rail more than west campus?” Henry asked.

Leffingwell and Councilman Bill Spelman, another member of the working group, have also taken issue with the methodology, saying that certain criteria, such as maximizing economic benefits, are more important than others, and this higher value was not reflected in the scoring.

Even so, the route as it is proposed has its supporters—among them John Langmore, a member of the working group and the Capital Metro board. Langmore said he thinks a line out to Mueller makes sense given expected growth.

“If this goes on the ballot in November, you aren’t going to break ground probably for four years, and you probably won’t have anything running for six [years],” he said. “Mueller is a longer-term play, but there will be the day, in my opinion, when people look at Mueller when it’s fully built out and say, ‘Thank God we serve that with rail.’”

Mueller, right now about one-third of the way developed, is home to approximately 1,400 households and 3,300 jobs, according to master planner Catellus. When Mueller is fully built out, Catellus is expecting 5,700 households and 10,000 jobs.

Spillar said daily boardings would be in excess of 7,000 people, but the department would have more concrete ridership expectations this summer.

“We’re talking about service on the order of every 10 minutes going to the heart of our employment center,” he said.

Neighborhood support

The path to Mueller is also the one of least resistance. Neighborhood associations around Mueller have generally been supportive of an urban rail line, and access to urban rail has been one of the major selling points to residents.

“I think they want [urban rail], and I think they are frustrated that it hasn’t already happened,” said Rick Krivoniak, who sits on the city’s Robert Mueller Municipal Airport Plan Implementation Advisory Commission.

On the other hand, in 2001, when a light rail route along North Lamar was still on the table, residents of North Austin’s Crestview neighborhood, which bordered the proposed line, were outspoken in their opposition, according to reports.

Timing it right

The city’s rank and file are not sure if voters in November would approve urban rail if it would lead to a higher property tax rate.

Budget talks for fiscal year 2013 are just beginning, and several taxing entities in Austin, including Austin ISD and Central Health, have not officially ruled out tax increases. In addition, City Council will consider a recommendation June 5 from a citizen task force to issue $575 million in bonds to fund capital improvements citywide.

According to the city’s Capital Planning Office, Austin has the capacity to take on up to $725 million of debt; however, a bond issuance of that size would result in an additional $105 per year in property taxes by 2016 for the typical homeowner. A $625 million bond issuance would lead to an additional $83 per year over the same time period, and a $500 million issuance would mean a $60 increase.

“We are paying very close attention to [what the other bodies are doing], and that will be an important factor in deciding when and how to go forward [with urban rail],” Leffingwell said.

by

May 22, 2012

Comments (4)

Comment Feed

Why is urban rail better than buses???

$275 million could buy a HUGE fleet of buses, which would have flexibility when routes need to be adjusted. Rail costs $100M per mile, and if the route has few riders, well, too bad! We'll just spend another $100 million to move the route....

Using bonds to pay for it is selling our children into slavery, and taxation without representation, because no one represents the wishes of children too young to vote on how their future taxes will be spent. The will be burdened with paying for the trains or any other expensive toys that we buy with bonds.

Recommendation: Vote against rail and call for buying more buses.

Mark O. Hammontree more than 1 years ago

light rail not going to where the majority of people commute from???

aside from the costs involved, it looks as if the progressive folks at city council will pass the next step in the light rail plan so lets see if their routes make sense. according to the numbers above, only 5265 people live in the mueller area and work downtown. now the train will of course pick up a few more people along the way. the soutwest side of town has 24,686 commuters to downtown. look at the map of future rail lines and you see nothing planned for the southwest side of austin. is it just me or does that not make a lot of sense? if the city is going forward with it's future plan of shiny trains running through this town, lets lay the tracks where the majority of people are going to use them to commute back and forth to work and hopefully reduce the number of cars on the roads during rush hour.

Brock more than 1 years ago

More trains

It's pretty rough to talk about a very limited rail system for sooo much money, just because someone sees some Fed money available to grab (which they can't really afford either right now). I would ask why we are still looking at the antiquated rail system when Shanghai, China is working hard with GM to put in the urban, all electric 'slot car' system in their city, which will end up more versatile, and handle more people on their own independent schedules. And why rail?- if the train is like the current one in use- very, very limited in capacity and destinations. I'd rather see an asphalt, two lane, medium and large bus sized, bus-only track that has more capacity and more flexibility, and could be driven by electricity, or natural gas. it would be more similar to a medium shuttle bus service, as one sees in cities like Las Vegas, but on their own, traffic free, roads for the long treks into, or through, Austin, then the shuttles can split off into regular traffic and drop folks off closer to desired destinations once in Austin. Once upon a time, the car-pool vans were said, by Cap-Metro, to be the only profit generating operation. Why are the big buses not used like a school bus for large companies like Motorola, Applied Materials, Apple, etc? Again, even starting that would take no construction revenue to get things started and see immediate results vs 2021 for a very high cost, very limited train system. I think the 'band wagon' needs to be closely looked at before jumping on and spending money. An idiot can do anything when given enough money, but the smart fellow is the one who does more for less. Return on Investment (ROI) should be a primary thread in any project- even when 'funded by the government' because in the end, it's being funded by the People, and I think the true majority wants a decent ROI. And I'm not sure, but, for the funding example mentioned, I figure by 2021, all the parking meter money would have already been allocated to other things by then- people in charge don't usually let revenue go un-used for very long, which means another cut to find elsewhere when the time comes. The object of this affection had better be able to pay it's own way- that should be a first level priority. When money flows, like in the dot-com days, care-free projects can exist, but when things get tight, some level of logic should prevail. And regardless of cash-flow, government should always work the tighter side of the line, and try to keep things as stable as possible in the ups and downs. Of course, some just see the immediate result of the construction that takes a long time creating jobs- but the real jobs will come if Austin does things that honestly produce, and not just give the look of doing good.
Instead of status quo, and consultants, why not throw out a One Million dollar prize challenge to the engineering/economics team that can find a solution to the problem that meets the requirements of low cost, easy to maintain, etc?

Small Business Guy more than 1 years ago

Urban Rail Too Expensive

At $100M per mile this rail system is ridiculous. Expanding our bus system and adding express busses would serve more people and provide flexibility that rail cannot at a much lower cost. The annual operating costs are expected to be $16M but they anticipateticket sales to contribute only $2.5M or about 15%. How will this ever make sense?

Richard more than 1 years ago

NWA Impacts

August

October

November

December

NWA Recent Comments
At the Capitol
Impact Deals
Like us!
Poll header
PDF Archives for NWA
Now Hiring