THE PROPOSITION:EXPANDING RAIL TRANSIT IN AUSTIN

Against the Proposition:Thomas A. Rubin, CPA, CMA,

CMC, CIA, CGFM, CFM

American Dream ConferenceAustin, Texas

November 7, 2015

What Urban Rail Transit Now Exists inAustin and What is Proposed?

• “Urban Rail” is primarily Heavy Rail, Light Rail, and Streetcar – excludes Commuter Rail, Hybrid Rail, and Intercity Rail

• Urban/Commuter Rail now in existence:– “MetroRail,” Hybrid Rail, operated by Capital Metro

• Proposed Urban/Commuter Rail:– MetroRail expansion– Light Rail– Streetcar– Variations on Light Rail/Streetcar

What I Will Not Cover in Detail• Amtrak (Texas Eagle, Chicago-LA, one train a day in

each direction)• Texas High Speed Rail – various proposals which

could include Austin, but unlikely as part of first phase

• Lone Star Rail District – inter-city rail between Austin and San Antonio, up to 32 trains/day– Capital costs up to several hundred million dollars– Proposed for Real Estate Tax Incremental Financing– Would require moving major Union Pacific freight line– Not all jurisdictions on board with concept– Proposal does not appear to be progressing very quickly

History of Urban Rail in Austin• Private streetcar system – as in most of U.S. replaced by

bus; final line stopped service in 1940• Capital Metro established by State statute and vote of

electorate in 1985 with 1% sales• Capital Metro had major problems during late 1990’s;

Legislature mandated public vote before it could proceed with already-funded rail plan

• Light Rail plan narrowly defeated in 2000 after very hard-fought election

• What is now known as “hybrid rail” (“railbus” commuter rail) authorized in 2004 election; first service 2010

• 11.6% farebox recovery ratio one of lowest in nation

History of Urban Rail in Austin II• City of Austin election in 2014 for $1 billion transit/

roads bond, mainly for light rail, defeated 57%:43%• Non-governmental passenger rail proponents very

active in Austin, including:– Light Rail Now, a national group with an Austin location

and major presence– Austin Urban Rail

• Rail proponents in Austin far from unified; such as Light Rail Now not supporting Austin Urban Rail’s proposal for less ambitious – and likely far less utilized – light rail line

Austin Is Difficult for All Transportation• Like most Southern cities, real growth only began

after air conditioning became widespread• So, when the planning was done for what became

the Interstate Highway, Austin wasn’t a high priority• What it did get was I-35, straight through the heart

of the city – which has become by far the most important NAFTA route, bringing huge amounts of freight traffic that make local surface transportation planning that much more difficult

• Relatively little, and late, moves for other freeways – and costs very high, much toll financed

Austin Road/Highway Network Very Difficult to Work with for Auto and Transit

Austin Is Difficult for All Transportation II

• As both the State capital and the home of the largest public university, Austin is in the common situation of being a bright Blue patch in the middle of a deep Red state – which has had major impact on transportation and land use decisions

• Historical urban land use in core is mainly small blocks – which means more intersections – and narrow streets with few lanes and narrow sidewalks

• Has had a lot of one-way street pairs downtown, which are generally good for all purposes, particularly with narrow streets – but these are being phased out

Austin Is Difficult for All Transportation III

• Grid system streets patterns are generally, by far the easiest for transit to serve (and for driving):– Austin not only has a grid system, it has several – which,

unfortunately, don’t always touch and, when they do, have different orientations and don’t line up well

– It also has many areas with a road network following the “if it was good enough for the cows to get home, than it is fine for humans” design pattern

– It is difficult to travel two miles, even a mile, on most major arterials in Austin without hitting twists in the road and weird intersection – and most are not very wide

Austin Is Difficult for All Transportation IV

• As a generally very Red state, there really isn’t much of a State transit program – until very recently, not much funding

• The Legislature has, however, supported local option transit sales taxes for transit/transportation

• Austin has been hit by radical real estate development cycles – cranes everywhere followed by “see-through” skyscrapers – which has driven planners, particularly real estate planners, nuts

• There is still a bit of the good-’ole-boy small city way of doing things in Austin, such as decades of the LBJ family controlling the local TV station which was the local ABC, CBS, and NBC affiliate

Austin Is Difficult for All Transportation V

• These combine to make the Austin Core a very difficult place to put any kind of urban guideway transit, be it Light Rail, Bus Rapid Transit-Heavy, or Streetcar

• Don’t want to wind up the Houston Main Street Toy Trolley/Wham-Bam-Tram:– Slow speed – 13 mph– Major interference with rubber tire traffic– Incredible record of collisions– Attempts to improve safety even including 15-second

“all-red”

Let’s Look at the Historyof Transit in Austin

• Like most U.S. communities, Austin’s streetcar system gave way – fortunately – to bus long ago

• As is common in medium- and medium-large cities with large college campuses, student/employee transit is a huge part (>25%) of total transit usage:– Unlike some other college towns, the public transit

agency, Capital Metro, has operated the UT transit system for decades – but not always without issues

– The student ID is a transit pass, paid for by mandatory registration fees – and the pass is good on non-UT Capital Metro transit service

Transit Usage in Suburbs is Very Poor in Austin• American Community Survey, percentage of residents that use transit for home-work

commute, selected large and medium-large urban areas

Urbanized Area Core City/Cities Suburbs

Atlanta 12.9% 3.2%

Austin 4.9% .8%

Boston 32.5% 9.1%

Dallas/Forth Worth 2.8% 1.3%

El Paso 2.3% .2%

Houston 5.1% 1.6%

Los Angeles 10.5% 3.7%

New York City/Newark 53.7% 12.5%

Portland 12.5% 4.9%

San Antonio 3.3% 1.6%

U.S.A. 15.7% 4.6%

Transit Use in Suburban Austin AWOL• Austin only beats El Paso – and, in El Paso, transit is a City

of El Paso operation, not a regional one like the main transit agencies in every other city on the exhibit

• The numbers speak for themselves. In medium-large U.S. urban areas, such as Austin, even central city transit home-work usage is pretty small, and that in the suburbs gets down to lost in the rounding

• But, it is in the suburbs that the vast majority of growth is occurring; in many urbanized areas, ALL of the growth of populations and growth, even despite all the efforts being made by governments at all levels to attempt to focus all growth as “smart growth” – in the urban core

• The real people out there are just not very interested

What is “Hybrid Rail?”• In the U.S., transit modes are defined by the U.S.

DOT/Federal Transit Administration (FTA) through its National Transit Database (NTD), which requires annual reports from each transit agency

• A few yeas back, FTA decided to add modes:– Divided “Motor Bus” by adding “Commuter Bus” and

“Bus Rapid Transit”– Added “Streetcar,” which had previously been reported

with “Light Rail”– Added “Hybrid Rail,” which had previously been reported

with “Commuter Rail” – aka “Diesel Multiple Units” and “Railbus;” Hybrid Rail is operated with self-powered rail cars, mainly diesel, most commonly in single-car consists

Any Alternatives to “Hybrid Rail?”• Commuter – and Hybrid – Rail generally runs long-

distance peak hour commute service from distance suburbs to a commuter rail hub in or near the central city operated primarily on freight rail lines

• Riders generally have to access Commuter – and Hybrid – Rail stations by other modes at both ends; some can walk, particularly at the downtown end, but others will park-and-ride, kiss-and-ride, take a feeder bus, or bicycle for access at the suburban end, and bus or urban rail at the destination end in the morning

Long-Haul Commuter Express Bus Service – Instead of Commuter Rail

• Long-Haul Commuter Bus operates on mostly on freeways, but, more often in recent years, it is operating on HOV and/or HOT lanes

• It can serve as its own feeder and distributor service– At the suburban end, it can operate on surface streets to

collect riders near their homes before it hits the freeway– In the CBD, it can run on city streets through downtown

letting off the riders near their destinations• The major capital expense is the buses; which can

be contracted for, along with the operating yard(s)

Comparisons of Data• The speed of Capital Metro Commuter Bus is slightly more than half

way between “regular” bus and Hybrid Rail in Austin. Part of this speed difference is because Commuter Bus operates on city streets at both ends of the trip, vs. Hybrid Rail, which doesn’t. For the total trip origin-destination time span, Commuter Bus is more competitive after the time required for walking, driving, cycling, or taking other modes of transit to and from the stations is considered.

• The average trip length of Commuter Bus and Hybrid Rail appear similar – and both are almost four times that of “regular” bus – but this does not factor in the distance traveled to get to and from Hybrid Rail stations, which is generally more than that of Commuter Bus.

• Because Hybrid Rail vehicles are much larger, and have far more seats, than Commuter Buses, it should be expected that the average passenger loads should be much larger; however, taking this into account, Hybrid Rail is doing very well on this statistic compared to Commuter Bus in Austin.

AUSTIN TRANSIT STATISTICSFare, Subsidy, and Cost per Passenger Mile

$0.13$0.07

$0.25

$0.71$0.72

$0.78

$0.84$0.79

$1.03

$0.00

$0.10

$0.20

$0.30

$0.40

$0.50

$0.60

$0.70

$0.80

$0.90

$1.00

$1.10

"Regular" Bus Commuter Bus Hybrid Rail

Fare/Passenger Mile Subsidy/Passenger Mile Cost/Passenger Mile

Comparisons• In 2013, there were:– 834,699 Hybrid Rail passengers– 641,492 Commuter Bus passengers

• When MetroRail service began, the former Commuter Bus service from along the line was cancelled – and there were some of the best, and fastest, Commuter Bus lines

• Commuter Bus service was operated with 34 peak buses. With spare ratio and other capital costs the total is ~$22 million (a deliberate high estimate) – and 2013 operating costs were $7.7 million

Comparisons• Hybrid Rail capital expenditures were $140 million, plus $8

million loan interest costs to buy cars – and 2013 Operating Costs were $13.7 million

• Two years late in beginning revenue service• Hard to compare to original projections:– Original op costs of $5 million – but included $3 million for lease-

purchase of rail vehicles (which became $4.4 million annual loan repayment), but didn’t include costs of fuel; track, bridge, signal, communications system, and signal crossing maintenance, inspections, and administrative costs

– Original capital cost projection was $60 million – but didn’t include the costs of the original vehicles, or $50 million to buy four new railcars to relieve overcrowding – and half the $60 million was to come from a Federal grant which never happened

– 2013 service hours more than double original projection

How Do These Match Up Elsewhere?• One very long-standing “matched pair” is the

Commuter Rail service, mostly into Manhattan, operated by the New Jersey Transit Corporation, and the Long-Haul Commuter Express Bus Service operated under contract to NJTransit by several private sector bus operators – most of whom have been operating their lines for decades

• How do they compare? I’ve been following this for many years and, although there are minor changes in absolute values over time, the ratios have been very constant.

Long-Haul Commuter Express Bus Service Compared to Commuter Rail • Bus has a significant advantage on every indicator• Starting at the right, note that the bus operating speed is a

little lower and the trip length a little longer than commuter rail – this is due, in part, to the buses operating on local streets to pick up passengers near their homes and at designated park and rides. Considering this, the operating speeds and trip lengths are very comparable – these two services are offering the same types of service to the same types of riders.

• Bus averages 22.3 passengers in ~51-seat buses; commuter rail is averaging 36.1 passengers in ~110-seat passenger cars – on a percentage of seats basis, advantage, bus, 44% to 33%

Overall Hybrid Rail Conclusions• MetroRail Costs much higher than original projections –

but, so is ridership• Work on improving and providing more Commuter Bus

service• If there is ever consideration of expanding MetroRail

service in a different corridor, give Commuter Bus a good, long look-see

• If you want to know how the Dallas Cowboys are going to do against the spread next week, your best source is not necessarily the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders

• … and if you are doing an analysis of passenger rail, and particularly passenger rail against other transportation options, don’t rely solely on passenger rail cheerleaders

WHAT IS THE DEVELOPMENT VALUE OF A STREETCAR PASSENGER?

• According to the Streetcar literature, very high• Let’s use data from Streetcars’ Economic Impact in

the United States, equilibrium capital, May 26, 2010• Ridership: National Transit Database 2012

30

City Kenosha Little Rock Memphis Portland Tampa

Development Investment

$150 million $400 million $2,000 million $3,500 million >$1,000 million

Daily Passengers

62 168 1,889 5,006 418

31

TRANSIT IS NOT MORE FUEL-EFFICIENT THAN AUTOMOBILES – AND WILL FALL FURTHER AND FURTHER

BEHIND OVER TIME

Transit is “Green” – Just Not “Bright Green”

• While there are cases in the U.S. where transit is both very energy-efficient and reduces greenhouse gas emissions, these are in places like NYC that grew up around transit and have very high load factors

• Energy efficiency and GHG savings are driven very much by vehicle occupancy – and the absolute worst transit vehicle occupancy is from new services added in suburbs

• When a major share of electricity is generated from burning coal – as in Texas – reductions are … ?????

BRT-Lite Instead of BRT-Heavyand/or Light Rail

• BRT-Heavy– Dedicated Guideway; may be new or converted lanes on

streets or repurposed rail lines– Long distances between stops compared to normal

urban bus; one mile is common– Dedicated stations, generally with prepaid boarding area– Usually some type of traffic signal priority or preference

• BRT-Lite– Similar to BRT-Heavy, but not dedicated guideways and

generally without stations with prepaid boarding area

BRT-Lite Instead of BRT-Heavyand/or Light Rail II

• BRT-Heavy generally (but not always) faster, but BRT-Lite often provides over 80% of the LRT/BRT-Heavy speed advantage over regular bus

• BRT-Lite will have greater schedule variance because it operates in general traffic

• BRT-Lite guideway generally costs under 5% of BRT-Heavy, which now run tens of millions/mile; BRT-Lite costs are mainly for traffic signal work and stations

• BRT-Lite needs no environmental clearance and needs, at most, only minor outside funding – so, it can be up and running in one to two years, instead of a decade

• Due to lower cost, you can do several BRT-Lite lines for the capital cost of one BRT-Heavy line

Considerations Unique to Austin• Austin street system is very difficult to work with• Taking traffic lines for Light rail, or BRT-Heavy, in

Austin would likely provide less “transportation work” than general purpose lanes and make crossing tracks difficult

• Adding streetcar would definitely significant reduce “transportation work” of streets it operates on and increase cross-traffic issues

• Austin has relatively little in the way of alternative streets if streets or lanes are dedicated to the any of the above

Circulator Bus Instead of Streetcar• Circulator Bus generally operated with smaller

buses, 25-30 feet, on short, often loop, routes• Often multiple routes through a downtown area• Generally, slightly faster than Streetcar• Very easy to change, or add, or delete, routes (you

don’t want to have to try these with Streetcar lines)• Don’t need environmental clearance, can be up and

operating as soon as you can get the buses and the drivers

Circulator Bus Instead of Streetcar II• Circulator Bus is very low risk – at most, the route

turns out to not work very well, the fixes didn’t help much, so you stop the service. You can even hire a contractor to operate the service and have them provide the vehicles, operating site, and personnel.

• While rail advocates claim that more people will ride rail than bus, even if this is accepted, the increase is relatively minor – and the cost difference is huge

• You can get several times the coverage area, per dollar, with Circulator Bus than with Streetcar

Circulator Bus Instead of Streetcar III• So, good idea: If someone wants to do Streetcar, try

Circulator Bus first to see if the route works – low cost, low risk, much value in the trial

• If the ridership is good, then, who needs Streetcar?• If the ridership is not good, then, should we do

Streetcar?– Maybe the route isn’t right – let’s try changing it (think

about trying that after you build a Streetcar line and the ridership, to use the transit technical term, sucketh)

– If we can’t get good ridership with a Circulator Bus, why do we believe we will get double, triple, or whatever the ridership with Streetcar?

Overall Recommendations• Transit is really only much good for travel to and from

major trip generators, mainly central business districts; perhaps major universities and medical centers

• Transit in Austin is little used now, mode split is going down, and the taxpayer cost of transit is going up, with very little to show for it except a lot of dollars spent

• Austin’s street network and other considerations make it exceedingly difficult to increase transit utilization to downtown – and increasing development and density will generate far more auto transit usage

• Time to give up on trying to emphasize transit – and particularly in densifying Austin so that “transit can work”

Overall Recommendations II• Instead, go with what works:– Give the people what they want, not what eletist

planners think that they should have (a planner is someone who knows what a wonderful world this would be if only all those stupid people out there would only do what [s]he knows they should)

– Give up on trying to force more things downtown– Shift development emphasis to the suburbs– Work on improving roads – which includes a lot of

measures that do not require adding lanes– Start planning for automated vehicles – there are many

difficult issues that need solving, but, they are coming