Jim Skaggs

This message is not and has never been about roads versus rails or transit.  It is about:

• Effectively using transportation dollars to provide mobility which improves our standard of living, promotes social equity, and induces economic vitality.
• Addressing our growing mobility crises in an integrated, cost beneficial manner by optimizing the planned road structure to enhance private and public transit.
• Demanding performance accountability from those spending tax dollars made more precious by mounting tax and fee burdens on all citizens.

• CapMetro studied light rail for some 10 years, spending more than $10 million in tax funds and rejected it in favor of the proposed commuter which they studied only a few months.
• This proposed commuter is the same one CapMetro rejected in 1999 based on extensive analysis showing it was not a cost beneficial rail line—light rail was selected in 1999.
• Accountability is the only way to assure taxpayer funds are spent responsibly because commuter rail has a very high probability of failure.  CapMetro has refused to accept accountability by not establishing reasonable performance goals to measure performance and a plan to adjust the system and restrict future rail lines until performance is acceptable.
• CapMetro's operating costs are growing much faster than wages, inflation and riders.  This is not sustainable and the commuter rail's high cost will make it worse.
• CapMetro has again asked for a blank check to spend tax dollars on a superficial plan which is flawed, incomplete and misleading in many ways.  It will not be a cost effective element of Austin's integrated transportation system.  The tax money would be much more effective in completing a comprehensive road structure to serve public and private transportation and reduce the need for as many toll roads.

• No cities similar to the Austin of today or the Austin projected fifty years from now have successful commuter rail.  CapMetro has offered no model cities or comparisons.
• The train's low ridership will have no measurable impact on congestion and may increase it by stopping traffic at 60-70 crossings and limiting freight rail which replaces trucks.
• Street crossings (225,000/year) and track through an Austin park create major safety hazards.
• CapMetro does not present one shred of evidence to support their very weak assertions of commuter benefits.  They claim no benefits to congestion, pollution or travel time.
• Commuter rail will likely increase pollution per passenger mile due to low ridership and the extensive passenger bus system needed to support it which will also have low ridership.
• It will likely cost taxpayers $10,000 or more per year for every commuter rider.
• Express buses and car pools on planned roadways and toll roads will be far more cost effective and preferred by many due to flexibility, cost and speed.
• It will likely degrade social equity by shifting funding that serves transit dependent populations to systems and locations aimed primarily at attracting auto users.
• We have already seen the future because most trains, trolleys and rails were removed from cities in the early to mid 1900s because they were not competitive with cars and still aren't.

• Rail, like other modes, should be considered primarily on its transportation effectiveness.
• CapMetro should not be in the speculative land development business with tax dollars.
• Development near commuter stations is not a net increase to the region, but relocation from other parts of the region.  This will not increase the region's tax base.
• Rail systems are not a necessary ingredient for mixed use development success and these developments will not make a rail system successful without other market fundamentals.
• There is no evidence in cities like Austin that commuter trains are a major attraction for development but highways are mandatory for development.
• Transit oriented development (TOD) is limited to walking distance from stations and real estate values along the track are generally depressed.  Roadways generally enhance the value of all areas to which they provide greater access.

Comparison:  Seattle is a city which many in Austin would like to emulate in numerous ways:

• Seattle MSA has 3+ million people or more than 2 times the Austin MSA.
• Seattle City has 6,500 people per square mile or 2.5 times Austin's density.
• Seattle's central business district has 25,000 residents or 7 times Austin's.
• Seattle's year round weather is more moderate and transit supportive.
• Seattle's North-South I-5 freeway is more congested than Austin's I-35.

Seattle's characteristics promote a much higher commuter ridership than Austin's. Austin will not likely achieve Seattle's or Dallas' major demographic characteristics for at least 50 years.

1. Based on actual commuter rail performance, commuter rail will not even be close to the most cost beneficial transit alternative and will fail to serve Austin's mobility needs.

2. The region cannot afford to fund a system requiring tax subsidies many times that of alternatives especially if it has no measurable congestion or pollution impact.

3. Subsidizing economic development should not be a major consideration for the commuter rail.

4. Commuter rail will not be the advanced technology to serve our grandchildren.  It will mortgage their future and limit their opportunities.  It will not be competitive to the car.

5. CapMetro should accept accountability by developing performance criteria, monitoring performance and not proceeding until performance is acceptable.

6. If the commuter rail is defeated or performance fails to be acceptable, CapMetro should constructively participate in solving Austin's mobility crises and enhance transit by allocating at least one-quarter of its one penny sales tax to the Regional Mobility Authority to accelerate a comprehensive road structure and/or reduce the need for as many toll roads.

Vote NO to CapMetro's Commuter Rail

It still:  COSTS TOO MUCH and DOES TOO LITTLE

Sincerely,

Jim Skaggs