Capital Metro's commuter rail line between Leander and Austin is a good deal or bad deal depending on whether one sees it from a passenger's perspective or a taxpayer's perspective.
The Good Deal: Commuting on the train is more comfortable than the express buses that provide parallel rush hour as well as solo non-rush hour service. And Quicker! A morning trip from Leander to central Austin takes 1 hour 2 minutes on the train compared to 1 hour 19 minutes on a comparably scheduled express bus. Moreover, the train is not subject to the weather delays that can wreck the bus schedules. However, if one has to use a connector bus once they get downtown Austin, another 10 minutes may be tacked onto the train trip; thereby reducing the train advantage to seven minutes. Recent random fare verifications have shown that 97 per cent of the passengers are paying (honor system) the required fare.
The Bad Deal: Capital Metro's 2010 budget included $6,615,938 for commuter rail operations or an average of $66.16 per day per passenger, based on an average of 400 daily passengers. This does not include the cost of the connector buses at the MLK, Kramer, and downtown stations, or the cost of quarantining the freight trains during commuter operations. Although the line has been running just over nine months, I annualized the data to reflect the significant start-up costs incurred during the first quarter of 2010.
The estimated cost to upgrade the Austin and Western, as well as buy the Stadler rail vehicles, was $105 million. Assuming the capital costs are being funded with 30 year municipal bonds yielding 4.16%, which is the average current yield for 30 year central Texas tax free bonds, the total cost to upgrade the Austin and Western will be approximately $236 million or an average daily capital subsidy per rider of $78.68, bringing the total subsidy to $144.84.
Passengers pay $6.00 for a round trip to Austin from Leander, with lesser amounts to and from intermediate stations. Using the $6.00 fare as a base line, the taxpayers are on the hook for a subsidy of at least $138.84 per passenger per day. Even if the trains operate at full capacity, which is unlikely in the near future, an average subsidy of $24.49 would be required daily per passenger.
Beginning this month, as part of an attempt to increase the number of train passengers, the average round trip fare will be reduced to $5.50. Also, mid-day trains, as well as limited Saturday service, will begin operating from Lakeline to downtown and back. Hopefully, these improvements will draw more passengers, but the service will still require a very steep taxpayer subsidy.
Six bucks for a round trip ride, three one way! Peak hours!!! That would be about 30 miles, give or take, one way. In Chicago and the East, a 6 buck one way, 30 mile ride would be a steal any time, round trip would be considered a free ride!
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
henry6 Six bucks for a round trip ride, three one way! Peak hours!!! That would be about 30 miles, give or take, one way. In Chicago and the East, a 6 buck one way, 30 mile ride would be a steal any time, round trip would be considered a free ride!
If your are a senior citizen or qualify for any of the numerous discounts offered by Capital Metro, the fare can be as low as $1.50. Moreover, although the decision has not been posted, Capital Metro is planning to reduce the maximum daily fare to $5.50 to attract more riders. This means that the average subsidy per passenger will increase unless Cap Metro is successful in attracting more passengers.
Sam1 Capital Metro's commuter rail line between Leander and Austin is a good deal or bad deal depending on whether one sees it from a passenger's perspective or a taxpayer's perspective. The Good Deal: Commuting on the train is more comfortable than the express buses that provide parallel rush hour as well as solo non-rush hour service. And Quicker! A morning trip from Leander to central Austin takes 1 hour 2 minutes on the train compared to 1 hour 19 minutes on a comparably scheduled express bus. Moreover, the train is not subject to the weather delays that can wreck the bus schedules. However, if one has to use a connector bus once they get downtown Austin, another 10 minutes may be tacked onto the train trip; thereby reducing the train advantage to seven minutes. Recent random fare verifications have shown that 97 per cent of the passengers are paying (honor system) the required fare. The Bad Deal: Capital Metro's 2010 budget included $6,615,938 for commuter rail operations or an average of $66.16 per day per passenger, based on an average of 400 daily passengers. This does not include the cost of the connector buses at the MLK, Kramer, and downtown stations, or the cost of quarantining the freight trains during commuter operations. Although the line has been running just over nine months, I annualized the data to reflect the significant start-up costs incurred during the first quarter of 2010. The estimated cost to upgrade the Austin and Western, as well as buy the Stadler rail vehicles, was $105 million. Assuming the capital costs are being funded with 30 year municipal bonds yielding 4.16%, which is the average current yield for 30 year central Texas tax free bonds, the total cost to upgrade the Austin and Western will be approximately $236 million or an average daily capital subsidy per rider of $78.68, bringing the total subsidy to $144.84. Passengers pay $6.00 for a round trip to Austin from Leander, with lesser amounts to and from intermediate stations. Using the $6.00 fare as a base line, the taxpayers are on the hook for a subsidy of at least $138.84 per passenger per day. Even if the trains operate at full capacity, which is unlikely in the near future, an average subsidy of $24.49 would be required daily per passenger. Beginning this month, as part of an attempt to increase the number of train passengers, the average round trip fare will be reduced to $5.50. Also, mid-day trains, as well as limited Saturday service, will begin operating from Lakeline to downtown and back. Hopefully, these improvements will draw more passengers, but the service will still require a very steep taxpayer subsidy.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Yep, approximately 400 people (passengers) per day ride the Capital Metro Red Line. Actually, the number has inched up a bit since I prepared my posting. The number of passengers per day who use the train is now approximately 425. That's roughly 425 trips in the morning and 425 trips in the afternoon, i.e. most of the passengers ride the train twice a day; to town or the university in the morning and back home in the evening. However, in my case, I use the train in the morning to get to the University of Texas, but I return home in the early afternoon on an express bus because the train only runs during the morning and evening rush hours. Even if Capital Metro implements mid-day service between Lakeland and Austin, I will still have to use a bus to get back to Leander in the afternoon.
This appears to be the case of a mid-size city opting for commuter rail because it was the in thing to do. A better option for Austin would have been Rapid Bus Technology, which is planned for the heaviest traveled routes in the community.
The city leaders are looking at a proposal to build a light rail line from the airport to the central city and from the city to the University of Texas campus. The estimated cost as of last year was approximately $47 million per mile. The attitude appears to be that we have to have light rail irrespective of the costs or whether it is the best option for this community.
This was a line that didn't meet the FTA's requirements for federal funding if I remember right. Guess the Feds were right, on this one. This is just more fodder for the "anti" gang. Sigh.
I suppose when Austin gets tired of the subsidy, they can always sell the equipment to NJT for the RiveLine expansion.
Sam1 The attitude appears to be that we have to have light rail irrespective of the costs or whether it is the best option for this community.
The attitude appears to be that we have to have light rail irrespective of the costs or whether it is the best option for this community.
Why not Madison?
One of the arguments in favor of such projects is that "They have that fine light rail and streetcar lines in Portland, OR. Why not in Madison, WI?"
The suggestion is that we have regressive political factions in Greater Dane County holding the thing back, but if people were as enlightened as in Portland, we would have the thing already.
Yeah, yeah, Austin is the Texas Portland. But I have a great advocacy slogan for the pending RTA fight here in Dane County, WI. "If those Bible thumpin' gun tottin' Texans can waste that much money on commuter rail, why can't we?"
OK, more seriously now, from small acorns might oaks grow. The 425 riders has to be put in context of the long term, of growth in the service over the next 10, 20, 30 years and with continued high gas prices whether we can continue to rely on autos exclusively. On the other hand, the 425 riders and the high rates of subsidy points to what can happen if you put something in for the sake of having it.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
sam1:
"This appears to be the case of a mid-size city opting for commuter rail because it was the in thing to do."
I think you hit the nail on the head: Instead of thinking in terms of rail transit or bus transit, we need to think of public transit. The only way rail can be justified is by high volumes. We need to start with good, frequent bus service and let the ridership dictate which lines are used heavily enough to justify conversion to rail. Also, once the rail lines are established, outlying bus routes can be re-directed to feed the rail lines. Even with the transfer, this would likely give the out-lying riders a faster trip.
One problem with my idea is attitude. I think I recognize in many people a disdain for buses.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
There are some difference in the cities, including population (city only) and maybe more importantly, density:
Austin = 786,386; density = 3,126.6/sq mi. Daily ridership = 950
Madison = 235,626; density = 3,029.8/sq mi.
Contrast with:
Portland, OR = 582,130; density = 4,288.38/sq mi; daily ridership = 121,300 + 12,464 on the Portland trolley.
San Diego = 1,306,300; density = 4,174.8/sq mi; daily ridership = 118,400.
Light rail seems pretty successful in both cities. Perhaps there is some "magic" number for density (at least 4,000/sq. mi.) to make light rail operations viable?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Sam1 This appears to be the case of a mid-size city opting for commuter rail because it was the in thing to do. A better option for Austin would have been Rapid Bus Technology, which is planned for the heaviest traveled routes in the community.
After what happened to bus service this past week in Atlanta and the metro area 2nd thoughts have to be given to BRT.
Atlanta's MARTA rail operated on a reduced service level due to lack of riders but it operated mainly on schedule. All local and express bus service was not able to operate because of the ice build up over snow.
blue streak 1 Sam1: This appears to be the case of a mid-size city opting for commuter rail because it was the in thing to do. A better option for Austin would have been Rapid Bus Technology, which is planned for the heaviest traveled routes in the community. After what happened to bus service this past week in Atlanta and the metro area 2nd thoughts have to be given to BRT. Atlanta's MARTA rail operated on a reduced service level due to lack of riders but it operated mainly on schedule. All local and express bus service was not able to operate because of the ice build up over snow.
Sam1: This appears to be the case of a mid-size city opting for commuter rail because it was the in thing to do. A better option for Austin would have been Rapid Bus Technology, which is planned for the heaviest traveled routes in the community.
The regional commuter buses didn't run for 3 days, not so much because the interstates were impassible but mostly because the city streets were so bad and P&R lots not cleared.
Absolutely nothing is going to be done in Atlanta over the next two years. It isn't until 2012 that we even get to vote on a tax to fund transportation improvements. Figure two years after that until a wheel turns.
The Federal money for Griffin commuter rail line has gone back, I understand and nobody is progressing anything (except studying maglev to Chattanooga. Really. They are spending money on that.)
It'll be a small miracle if the GRTA Xpress buses survive until then. I fear we have a governor who will do even less than the last guy.
oltmannd This was a line that didn't meet the FTA's requirements for federal funding if I remember right. Guess the Feds were right, on this one. This is just more fodder for the "anti" gang. Sigh. I suppose when Austin gets tired of the subsidy, they can always sell the equipment to NJT for the RiveLine expansion.
I don't believe that Capital Metro took any federal dollars. I don't know whether they applied for any. The did, however, have dealings with the Federal Government. They had to get ten exemptions from the Federal Railroad Administration for the Stadler cars.
As another poster pointed out, when gasoline returns to north of $4.00 per gallon, as it surely will, more people are likely to opt for the train. But as I point out in my post, even if the Stadler cars run at capacity, the system will still require a hefty subsidy.
The problem with Austin's new rail line is it just wasn't thought through enough. The line doesn't go where people need to go. There are only three main destinations that the line can serve, the University of Texas, the hospital district and the Capitol. It serves none of them directly. One has to transfer to a bus. Had they spent the extra dollars to bring the rail down the main street to these most desired destinations then the system could have worked. As it is, it's doomed to failure.
The ridership in Portland and San Diego is far higher because there are several routes and a much higher percentage of the population served than in Austin, plus there has been time to build up ridership . The comparison should have been made with those two cities in their first year of operation, not current operations. But the point about reaching destinations that peope want to reach is well-taken.
Sorry, but I was not able to find much data back that far. I stand by my contention, however, that a certain level of density of population is essential to even initiate a light rail or trolley system that will be successful.
I did find this. In the first year, the San Diego Trolley had only one line, and carried 4 million passengers. Five years later, a line one extended a short distance to the east and it carried 7 million.
Using sam1's figure of 425 people using the Austin line each way/day, that would be about 850/day or about 310,000 per year, less than 8% of the San Diego first year ridership. That is, to say the least, not a ringing endorsement of the wisdom in building the Austin line, at least so far.
Population density is one criterion, I agree, but multiple markets can exist. Austin has a major educational institution, and live-at home students served by light rail can forgoe the need to buy and operate an auto. Provided the light rail really serves them. Does it?
daveklepper Population density is one criterion, I agree, but multiple markets can exist. Austin has a major educational institution, and live-at home students served by light rail can forgoe the need to buy and operate an auto. Provided the light rail really serves them. Does it?
Capital Metro's Red Line, which uses Stadler diesel powered rail cars, runs in a heavy rail environment. I am not sure whether calling it light rail is proper. I think that it was originally called a heavy commuter rail system. However, because of the problems getting the FRA's permission for the Stadler rail cars, they may have changed the classification.
Approximately 50,000 students attend the University of Texas. A significant percentage of them have access to a car. Of the folks on the morning train with me (I take the last train in the morning from Leander), the largest group of riders appear to be students. There also a sizeable group of government workers. Most of them get on the train at Lakeline, which is the first station south of Leander, and get off at the MLK station, where they catch a transfer bus to the university or to the government center.
The train runs on a line that does not necessarily go from where the people are to where they want to go. It follows a rail line that was laid down nearly a century ago. It meanders from the northwest of Austin to the east side of the city before turning west again to enter close to downtown. But not in the center of downtown!
If one closed his or her eyes as the train departed from Leander and kept them closed until arriving downtown, he or she could imagine easily being on a naval ship that has set a zig-zag course to avoid an enemy submarine.
Go to Google Maps. Type in Leander, TX. You will see a rail line that runs south from Leander. Trace it to downtown Austin. I think you will agree with me that it is anything but a straight shot. Or anywhere near being one. Or even a reasonable route.
Long before I moved to the area, the leadership appears to have bought into the notion that Austin needed a commuter rail service to relieve its growing traffic problems - it has the worst traffic of any mid-size American city or so saith those who are supposedly in the know. They spent a heap of money on it. What they got is anything but ideal. Although it is too early to tell for sure, I suspect the smart thing to do eventually will be to shut the thing down, sell off the equipment and admit defeat. Of course, given that it is a political animal, it will never happen. Oh well, it is better than riding a bus. I'll admit that.
Access to a car isn't everything for a student. The student can do homework on the train. Giving more time for recreation, sports, dates, whatever.
Recent Newswire relates ridership is up 40%. 40% or next to nothing is still pretty close to nothing. But, at least it's headed in a positive direction.
oltmannd Recent Newswire relates ridership is up 40%. 40% or next to nothing is still pretty close to nothing. But, at least it's headed in a positive direction.
Your right! It is headed in a positive direction. However, the 40 per cent increase in riders is probably attributable to a 66 per cent increase in capacity, i.e. the operator is running trains hourly during the day, with more frequent departures during the morning and evening rush hours, as well as a cut in the fares for full fare customers. The cut in general fares will be off-set in part by requiring certain discount riders, e.g. seniors, handicapped, etc. to pay a discounted fare as opposed to riding for free.
Whether the incremental increase in riders and change in fares will out weigh the incremental run-up costs is a question that will take time to sort out. Many of the riders on the mid-day trains are UT students who ride at a significant discount. Off setting the incremental revenues will be a significant increase in the operating costs for the trains and the connecting buses.
One thing you haven't mentioned is whether city planning in Austin is using the LRT as a reason to allow/encourage/rezone for higher density near LRT stops. Part of the success of San Diego and Portland, I understand, is that development in the areas near the transit stops was encouraged - and with it, ridership grew. Transit and land use planning can't operate in isolation - they need a symbiotic relationship.
I know it is hard to understand how a large modern city could waste so much money building such a boondoggle as this rail line, but I was in Austin a couple of weeks ago so I went downtown to see it. As I stated above, there are maybe three main destinations for public transit, the University of Texas, the hospital district and the Capitol. This thing serves none of them. Downtown it comes in on fourth street but stops three blocks short of the main drag that serves the Capitol which is Congress. It stops in front of the convention center. To get to the Capitol just seven blocks away takes two transfers to two different bus routes as the rail stop is only served by the 21 bus. Amazing short sightedness. To get to UT from there requires the same and it's only 9 or 10 blocks away(which is why UT students get off at MLK and transfer - but even then they probably have to do two transfers taking the 18 bus to UT and then a UT circulator bus to their destination). It doesn't get anywhere near the Amtrak depot which is on the other side of town. It doesn't serve the airport which is southeast of downtown and It doesn't serve the Long Center or other entertainment centers or Town Lake or anything anyone would want to come downtown for. Had they just extended it a few more blocks into town it would at least have accomplished that. It's just amazing that they just stopped it three or four blocks too soon. What were they thinking? Had they spent just a little more and left the freight rail line north of town near the Crestview stop and continued in the street down Lamar, Guadalupe and Congress streets they could have served all three of the most important destinations easily. As I see it they have two choices. Shut it down and sell off the equipment or spend even more millions to do it right. If you want to see this boondoggle go to the capmetro.org web site and look at the map.
Maybe what you suggest will be the next route.
For the life of me I cant understand why the folks in Austin are still complaining about the MetroRail ! Folks,I dont know what you were exspecting from this one line but,if you give it time more people will ride it,and the fares may come down,but if I lived in Leander or anywhere in between and worked anywhere in between there and Austin I would ride it every day both ways ! Its cheaper than buying gas which is going up everyday and paying for parking downtown,you can put that to a pencil and see what you get...!
BUILD MORE TRACKS,NOT ROADS !
Well Danny perhaps they were expecting a system that went 'somewhere' rather than a joy ride around Austin that dumps you off many blocks short of any reasonable destination. To get anywhere important requires at least and sometimes two bus transfers. They spent a lot of taxpayers money on something that is basically useless. It's a toy train for rail buffs.
As an advocate I see the round-about routing as a big waste. Any type of service needs to be generally a straight line. Some examples of a fairly straight line systems are:
Portland Oregon
Seattle
Salt lake City
Atlanta
Charlotte
Tri-Rail
St. Louis
VRE
olarmy49,
Are you saying that the voters didnt know the proposed route when they voted for it,did CapitalMetro pull the wool over the voters eyes? From everything thats been said on this forum since day one has had the underlying messesge that once it was build everyone was surprised it didnt go anywhere..If thats the case why did they vote for it in the first place,surely CM had to have route maps and the like available to the public for input on which route they wanted and which route would be built...
Danny, not being from the Austin area I really can't say what happenned. I know Austin debated putting in a rail system for many years. The first proposal was to use the old T&NO tracks out east toward Manor where the new airport was going to be built. But then Austin got the option to buy Bergstrom AFB and turn it into their new airport so that was scrapped. So then someone dreamed up this scheme that was finally built. I know Austin Metro had some avid rail people(fans?) that clamored for this line that worked for Metro. Basically they just wanted a rail line somewhere. I guess they just sweet talked the voters into approving it. It's really a shame as it will go down as a negative for rail transit and eventually hurt the industry as every anti-rail nut will zero in on this project while ignoring all the ones that are a success. This project was a disaster from the getgo as it was delayed for over two years I believe while they argued about mixing these trains with freight trains and trying to fix signalling problems and other fiascos. Hey, Austin is the Capitol and full of politics, politicians and other do nothings, so what can you expect.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.