CapMetro out of Cedar Park
Richard Aleksander
calling on Cedar Park residents to ante up for their use of Austin's
amenities, parks, roads etc.
Mike: I liked your letter to the Statesman.
Funny and odd isn't it, though, that under our new improved board of
directors, that the company is actually finding less public acceptance?
It's beyond time to take some radically different rapid transit approaches,
including trains from the hinterlands to the center and particularly to the
new airport.
Richard
r.alek...@worldnet.att.net
Rajat Datta
>Thanks to Mike Dahmus for his letter published in the American Statesman
>calling on Cedar Park residents to ante up for their use of Austin's
>amenities, parks, roads etc.
>
>Mike: I liked your letter to the Statesman.
>
Wonder why after being a part of Cap Metro for so long now, the Cedar
Park residents felt compelled to withdraw? Couldn't have been because
they didn't see what they were getting for their money, could it? Or
maybe, they did see what they were getting for their money...
>Funny and odd isn't it, though, that under our new improved board of
>directors, that the company is actually finding less public acceptance?
>
>It's beyond time to take some radically different rapid transit approaches,
>including trains from the hinterlands to the center and particularly to the
>new airport.
It isn't just Austin's Cap Metro which has it's own unique problems,
but mass transit in general continues to decline despite more and more
money and effort being poured into various approaches. Despite the
billions spent on light rail for example, they have basically failed
to attract more than minimal ridership.
So, what are they doing wrong? What are some possible new approaches
to making mass transit more acceptable? The only solutions being
proposed nowadays is compulsion--that is, force people out of their
cars. Compulsion isn't a particularly credible solution, since any
real effort to force people is likely to have rather significant
political repercussions. Politicians still like to point to new
and better roads as what the taxpayers are getting for their money.
Mass transit is losing riders in significant numbers in Europe too,
so the problem isn't just here.
In some urban areas, jitney services seem to be quite successful. But
a similar service out of Austin's airport failed recently. With the
new airport, though, there are apparently several companies
contemplating offering such services. I know when I was flying a lot,
I found the limo service convenient and better than taking my car.
Buses, particularly express buses, also seem to be more successful,
but are first on the casualty list when light rail is implemented (for
example, LA).
rajat
Terry Moore
r.alek...@worldnet.att.net says...
>
>Thanks to Mike Dahmus for his letter published in the American Statesman
>calling on Cedar Park residents to ante up for their use of Austin's
>amenities, parks, roads etc.
>r.alek...@worldnet.att.net
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I saw Mike's letter in AA-S too.
Today, I was in Austin. I bought some stuff at Home Depot. I bought
some more stuff at Office Max. Chris and I ate at an Austin Restaurant.
They charged me a sales TAX on each one of those expenditures.
I sorta thought that the sales tax offset the wear and tear I inflicted
on Austin's streets.
Where do I need to mail my road tax to Mike?
By the way, I think Bastrop County oughta set up toll booths on all
roads and highways leading into the county to compensate us for
the wear and tear caused by people who patronize Bastrop County's
businesses.
Terry at Lake Bastrop
*--*--*--*--*--*-|-*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*-|-*--*--*--
:-:Visit Terry's `Another True Story' web page at:
:-:http://www.io.com/~jvaughn/tmoore1.htm
*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--
:-:A resourceful boss always finds a kind and gentle
:-:way to tell minorities and handicapped folks:
:-: `Sorry, the job is already taken'
*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--
Copyright (c) 1998 by Terry Moore
Terry Moore
r.alek...@worldnet.att.net says...
>
>Thanks to Mike Dahmus for his letter published in the American Statesman
>calling on Cedar Park residents to ante up for their use of Austin's
>amenities, parks, roads etc.
>
>
>
>r.alek...@worldnet.att.net
>
>
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mike’s letter to the editor said:
(Quote)
Awaiting a payment
Now that the city of Cedar Park has decided to act on a policy of
‘fairness’ instead of regionalism with Capitol Metro, the taxpayers
of Austin eagerly await their first payment for their citizens’ use
of our roads and parks. No personal checks please.
Mike Dahmus
(Unquote)
As far as I know, the Capitol Metro tax has absolutely NOTHING
to do with parks.
When Capitol Metro was organized, the voters authorized Capitol
Metro to add up to 1 penny to the sales tax for operation of the
Capitol Metro system.
Part of that money could and can be dedicated to maintaining the
streets and roads that the Capitol Metro busses operate on.
Capitol Metro has levied the full penny at times and 3/4 of a penny
at other times. They can vary the levy without any action on the
part of the City of Austin or on the part of the voters as long as
the levy does not exceed one penny.
Capitol Metro has also went beyond their obligation to simply
repair the damage the busses do to the streets and roads. One
example is the bridge over Harris Branch Creek adjacent to the
Dessau Dance Hall.
I guess that people who pass through Austin without stopping
are getting free use of the streets and roads in Austin.
But that is true of any city in the USA. Look at all the cars that pass
through Giddings or LaGrange or Smithville or Bastrop without
stopping.
On the other hand, a resident of Lubbock who travels to Austin,
stays in a hotel/motel, eats in restaurants, patronizes Austin
merchants, etc., pays a sales tax and THAT tax DOES have to
do with the parks. Visitors who stop over in Austin tote their own
end of the pole.
Now, folks who live in Bastrop but work in Austin, might be getting
a bit of a free ride. Odds are, though, that - - like myself - - I have
to drive to Austin on shopping trips pretty regularly. I don’t feel like
I am free-loading.
(Of course, I’m retired now. But I did work at UT in Austin until
this past March.)
Unless my memory about Capitol Metro’s birth is seriously flawed,
you were a mite off on that one Mike.
Sorry ‘bout that.
Richard Aleksander
Rajat Datta wrote in message ...
>The only solutions being
>proposed nowadays is compulsion--that is, force people out of their
>cars.
I think the congestion is going to be the factor. Since it now takes 45
minutes during rush hour to traverse the 6 miles from downtown to Southwest
Parkway, the commuters I listened to would gladly use another form of
travel.
>With the
>new airport, though, there are apparently several companies
>contemplating offering such services.
>Buses, particularly express buses, also seem to be more successful,
>but are first on the casualty list when light rail is implemented (for
>example, LA).
As another writer to the Statesman subsequently pointed out, the old airport
was easy to get to, but lacking in parking. The new airport, conversely,
has plenty of parking but no easy way to get there.
(who says we need light rail?)
We need something that takes the transport of the masses off of the
congested roads. Riders will arrive faster, and maybe save the money spent
of parking. That's what will compel people out of their cars.
If some want to keep using their cars, that's fine. But alternatives should
be available.
Richard
r.alek...@att.net
Richard Aleksander
Terry Moore wrote in message <72llrb$1qv$3...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>...
>I sorta thought that the sales tax offset the wear and tear I inflicted
>on Austin's streets.
CapMetro is a major contributor of funds for Austin road repair.
Any way it's cut, hinterlanders and sprawl are contributors to the
unworkability of the transport system.
CapMetro was conceived as the solution.
Richard
r.alek...@att.net
Albert Nurick
>If some want to keep using their cars, that's fine. But alternatives should
>be available.
Agreed, as long as those who prefer to use their cars don't end up subsidizing
the alternatives.
--
Albert Nurick
alb...@data.net - ICQ #4403737
Babberney
use their cars." Why not the other way around?
(I refer to cleanup and reduction of atmospheric emissions, upkeep of
roads, lost hours due to overcrowding of roads, higher insurance due to
more wrecks caused by traffic/road rage, etc.)
Just because cars are the status quo, that doesn't make them an innate
right.
Mike Dahmus
wrote:
>On 15 Nov 1998 02:56:10 GMT,
>Richard Aleksander <r.alek...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>Thanks to Mike Dahmus for his letter published in the American Statesman
>>calling on Cedar Park residents to ante up for their use of Austin's
>>amenities, parks, roads etc.
>>
>>Mike: I liked your letter to the Statesman.
>>
>
>Wonder why after being a part of Cap Metro for so long now, the Cedar
>Park residents felt compelled to withdraw? Couldn't have been because
>they didn't see what they were getting for their money, could it? Or
>maybe, they did see what they were getting for their money...
Did you read my letter? I wish Austin could stop providing free
transportation and recreation for suburbanites too.
>It isn't just Austin's Cap Metro which has it's own unique problems,
>but mass transit in general continues to decline despite more and more
>money and effort being poured into various approaches. Despite the
>billions spent on light rail for example, they have basically failed
>to attract more than minimal ridership.
It's simple: highways are subsidized far more than transit (even toll
roads!). How much did you pay the last time you pumped gas for:
- police/EMS (1/3 to 1/2 of all expenses are due directly to
automobiles)
- local or county roads
- state roads
?
Mike Dahmus mdahmus AT I O DOT COM
http://www.io.com/~mdahmus/
Mike Dahmus
wrote:
>Richard Aleksander wrote in message <72n6er$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
>>If some want to keep using their cars, that's fine. But alternatives should
>>be available.
>
>Agreed, as long as those who prefer to use their cars don't end up subsidizing
>the alternatives.
Too bad that, today, people who don't use cars are providing enormous
subsidies to those who do.
Mike Dahmus
Moore) wrote:
>I saw Mike's letter in AA-S too.
>
>Today, I was in Austin. I bought some stuff at Home Depot. I bought
>some more stuff at Office Max. Chris and I ate at an Austin Restaurant.
>
>They charged me a sales TAX on each one of those expenditures.
1%.
>I sorta thought that the sales tax offset the wear and tear I inflicted
>on Austin's streets.
I pay that 1% too.
>Where do I need to mail my road tax to Mike?
I asked for no personal checks ;+)
>By the way, I think Bastrop County oughta set up toll booths on all
>roads and highways leading into the county to compensate us for
>the wear and tear caused by people who patronize Bastrop County's
>businesses.
If you really get a lot of wear and tear from non-residents, go ahead.
Hwy 71 is funded 100% by the state though, so I doubt very much
whether many people outside your taxing jurisdiction use your
services.
Mike Dahmus
Moore) wrote:
>Mike’s letter to the editor said:
>
>(Quote)
>Awaiting a payment
>
>Now that the city of Cedar Park has decided to act on a policy of
>‘fairness’ instead of regionalism with Capitol Metro, the taxpayers
>of Austin eagerly await their first payment for their citizens’ use
>of our roads and parks. No personal checks please.
>
>Mike Dahmus
>(Unquote)
>
>As far as I know, the Capitol Metro tax has absolutely NOTHING
>to do with parks.
True. But people in Cedar Park seem to have no problem using the roads
and parks that I and the other Austin taxpayers pay for, right?
Why then should they be moaning about 1 cent on the dollar for Capital
Metro?
To be fair, ought they also be offering to pay money to the City of
Austin for their citizens who use 15th St., or Burnet Rd., or go to
Zilker Park or use the greenbelts?
All your whining about Cap Metro's ineffectiveness is irrelevant. They
used the "fairness" argument, and they need to apply it consistently.
Albert Nurick
>On Sun, 15 Nov 1998 14:39:05 -0600, "Albert Nurick" <alb...@data.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Richard Aleksander wrote in message <72n6er$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
>>>If some want to keep using their cars, that's fine. But alternatives should
>>>be available.
>>
>>Agreed, as long as those who prefer to use their cars don't end up subsidizing
>>the alternatives.
>
>Too bad that, today, people who don't use cars are providing enormous
>subsidies to those who do.
Some of us don't buy these arguments. Of course, some of us don't think we should
put up toll plazas and barbed wire around Austin, either. ;-)
Terry Moore
>True. But people in Cedar Park seem to have no problem using the roads
and parks that I and the other Austin taxpayers pay for, right?
>
Why then should they be moaning about 1 cent on the dollar for Capital
>Metro?
>To be fair, ought they also be offering to pay money to the City of
Austin for their citizens who use 15th St., or Burnet Rd., or go to
>Zilker Park or use the greenbelts?
>All your whining about Cap Metro's ineffectiveness is irrelevant. They
>used the "fairness" argument, and they need to apply it consistently.
>Mike Dahmus mdahmus AT I O DOT COM
http://www.io.com/~mdahmus/
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What did I say that constitutes 'whining about Capitol Metro'?????
I have no criticism of Capitol Metro at all. I own property in the
Capitol Metro transit area but Capitol Metro doesn't impact me
in any way shape or form - - - except when I purchase things in
Austin - - - which I do regularly.
As for out-of-towners using Austin parks - - - - well, Bastrop has
a beautiful park and river walk. Please visit it and enjoy it as
our guests.
San Antonio also has a river walk and a fabulous Brackenridge Park.
San Antonio has welcomed me to it for more than 50 years now.
How can out-of-towners patronize Austin's merchants without
using Austin's highways and by-ways? Visit only by helicopter?
Mike Dahmus
wrote:
>Mike Dahmus wrote in message <3651533...@news.io.com>...
>>On Sun, 15 Nov 1998 14:39:05 -0600, "Albert Nurick" <alb...@data.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Richard Aleksander wrote in message <72n6er$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
>>>>If some want to keep using their cars, that's fine. But alternatives should
>>>>be available.
>>>
>>>Agreed, as long as those who prefer to use their cars don't end up subsidizing
>>>the alternatives.
>>
>>Too bad that, today, people who don't use cars are providing enormous
>>subsidies to those who do.
>
>
>Some of us don't buy these arguments.
You've never provided a credible defense either, for the obvious
points like:
1. Police/EMS coverage, paid for out of property taxes, 1/3 to 1/2 of
which goes to pay for automobile users' accidents and enforcement
2. Property and sales taxes used for road and highway construction
3. pollution and other subsidiary costs
(sorry for short answers today. carpal tunnel hurts after helping to
put up sauna ;+)
> Of course, some of us don't think we should
>put up toll plazas and barbed wire around Austin, either. ;-)
"a modest proposal" really didn't advocate eating children either. It
DOES beg the point about whether or not Cedar Park wants to be fair or
not, though, don't it?
Mike Dahmus
Moore) wrote:
>
>How can out-of-towners patronize Austin's merchants without
>using Austin's highways and by-ways? Visit only by helicopter?
Not talking about shoppers. I was thinking more of people who work in
Austin. (and don't say their employers pay for their use of the roads
through *their* property taxes, because they certainly do not in any
significant fashion - if they DID, we wouldn't need as much money from
Austin residential taxpayers to pay for the roads!)
Albert Nurick
>
>You've never provided a credible defense either, for the obvious
>points like:
We've been through this before, and I suppose it's best to agree
to disagree.
>(sorry for short answers today. carpal tunnel hurts after helping to
>put up sauna ;+)
Now that's a productive use of time. NNO at Mike's! ;-)
>> Of course, some of us don't think we should
>>put up toll plazas and barbed wire around Austin, either. ;-)
>
>"a modest proposal" really didn't advocate eating children either. It
>DOES beg the point about whether or not Cedar Park wants to be fair or
>not, though, don't it?
IMO, if a city can't figure out how to make money with lots of consumers
driving into it (or through it) on a daily basis, something's really wrong.
Albert Nurick
>
>Albert Nurick wrote in message ...
>>Richard Aleksander wrote in message
><72n6er$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
>>>If some want to keep using their cars, that's fine. But alternatives
>should
>>>be available.
>>
>>Agreed, as long as those who prefer to use their cars don't end up
>subsidizing
>>the alternatives.
>
>congestion from previously innavigable highways and streets.
That's a huge "if". From what I've observed, it's not going to have much
success in a city as geographically large as Austin.
>On The Other Hand, a vote by drivers against subsidizing transit
>alternatives is a vote for the status quo, including highway delay.
Or a vote for reality. IMO, throwing money at mass transit is a good way
to waste money.
Richard Aleksander
Albert Nurick wrote in message ...
>Richard Aleksander wrote in message
<72n6er$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
>>If some want to keep using their cars, that's fine. But alternatives
should
>>be available.
>
>Agreed, as long as those who prefer to use their cars don't end up
subsidizing
>the alternatives.
Drivers ought to feel good about subsidizing transit if it removes
congestion from previously innavigable highways and streets.
On The Other Hand, a vote by drivers against subsidizing transit
alternatives is a vote for the status quo, including highway delay.
Richard
r.alek...@att.net
Rajat Datta
>On Sun, 15 Nov 1998 14:39:05 -0600, "Albert Nurick" <alb...@data.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Richard Aleksander wrote in message <72n6er$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
>>>If some want to keep using their cars, that's fine. But alternatives should
>>>be available.
>>
>>Agreed, as long as those who prefer to use their cars don't end up subsidizing
>>the alternatives.
>
>subsidies to those who do.
Yeah, all those property owners who don't have a car in their
driveway. If there really were any significant numbers of these, we
would actually see greater ridership on mass transit (unless these are
all home-bound folks). Drivers are basically paying for all roads and
other services because they're the ones paying property taxes. I pay
property taxes for the local roads in front of my house (highways are
paid from auto fees) because I don't want to live on a dirt road, not
just because I, and all my other neighbors, drive.
The libertarians are, in fact, for paying for services as you use
them. They do argue for highway fees and would probably argue for EMS
and other fees also. Of course, they would end mass transit subsidies
also (75% of bus fares, 95% of cost of light rail lines, etc).
It would be an interesting experiment to have true fees for both cars
and mass transit. I suspect that given today's choices in mass
transit, they would die from non-use. Despite pretty low fares, too
many of these mass transit systems have simply not attracted any
significant ridership. Even in Europe, where support for mass transit
has historically been higher, mass transit ridership is dropping
drastically. So why isn't mass transit attracting more riders? Until
better solutions are offered, I just don't see people giving up their
cars.
rajat
Terry Moore
>Or a vote for reality. IMO, throwing money at mass transit is a good way
to waste money.
--
>Albert Nurick
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That Augustine feller that kept drawing those big paychecks from
Capitol Metro long after his last day of duty in his Capitol Metro
office probably doesn't agree that the money was wasted.
Terry Moore
>True. But people in Cedar Park seem to have no problem using the roads
>and parks that I and the other Austin taxpayers pay for, right?
>Mike Dahmus mdahmus AT I O DOT COM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What makes Cedar Park different from - say - Liberty Hill or Bertram?
Marc Wiz
Mike Dahmus <mdahNO...@io.com> wrote:
>On 15 Nov 1998 07:17:42 GMT, terry...@xmail.utexas.nospam.net (Terry
>Moore) wrote:
>
>>Mike’s letter to the editor said:
>>
>>(Quote)
>>Awaiting a payment
>>
>>Now that the city of Cedar Park has decided to act on a policy of
>>‘fairness’ instead of regionalism with Capitol Metro, the taxpayers
>>of Austin eagerly await their first payment for their citizens’ use
>>of our roads and parks. No personal checks please.
>>
>>Mike Dahmus
>>(Unquote)
>>
>>As far as I know, the Capitol Metro tax has absolutely NOTHING
>>to do with parks.
>
>and parks that I and the other Austin taxpayers pay for, right?
>
>Metro?
One point that has not been brought up and which to me and my wife
as residents of Cedar Park have as the reason for us voting to
withdraw was Capitol Metro's plan for light rail but to NOT include
Cedar Park.
Talk about being unfair.
If you take this use of facilities to it's logical conclusion then
we should be paying taxes to other cities and states for using
their roads and facilties.
I never had a problem paying for Cap Metro even though I have never
used it and probably never will. I do have a problem when something
like the light rail will not be provided to Cedar Park or any other
member of Cap Metro and that particular member of Cap Metro has
been paying Cap Metro.
Marc
--
Marc
ma...@wiz.com
Yes, that really is my last name.
Albert Nurick
>and mass transit. I suspect that given today's choices in mass
>transit, they would die from non-use. Despite pretty low fares, too
>many of these mass transit systems have simply not attracted any
>significant ridership. Even in Europe, where support for mass transit
>has historically been higher, mass transit ridership is dropping
>drastically. So why isn't mass transit attracting more riders? Until
>better solutions are offered, I just don't see people giving up their
>cars.
IMO, it's all about convenience. If there was a transit stop within 1/2
block of my home, and one within 1/2 block of my destination, and I could
make the trip in the same or less time than my drive, and if the weather
doesn't make walking 1/2 block too unpleasant, I'd take mass transit.
But what's the chance of this actually happening? IMO, the only way that
mass transit works is if we put up artificial barriers that make private
automobiles less convenient than they actually are.
Mass transit is like communism: Looks pretty good on paper, but it doesn't
work in the real world unless the alternative is artificially crippled.
Mike Dahmus
hired an infinite number of monkeys to write:
>>> Of course, some of us don't think we should
>>>put up toll plazas and barbed wire around Austin, either. ;-)
>>
>>"a modest proposal" really didn't advocate eating children either. It
>>DOES beg the point about whether or not Cedar Park wants to be fair or
>>not, though, don't it?
>
>IMO, if a city can't figure out how to make money with lots of consumers
>driving into it (or through it) on a daily basis, something's really wrong.
I HAVE a way - tollbooths on the offramps. The state won't allow it.
What's your suggestion?
How would you make money from somebody who lives in Cedar Park,
commutes downtown, and brings their lunch every day?
Or even if they eat out - is that 8 cents a day really enough to pay
for their impact on our infrastructure?
Mike Dahmus mdahmus at I O DOT COM
http://www.io.com/~mdahmus/
"No one likes a pedantic smartarse..."
Mike Dahmus
hired an infinite number of monkeys to write:
>On Sun, 15 Nov 1998 22:18:47 GMT, Mike Dahmus <mdahNO...@io.com> wrote:
>>On Sun, 15 Nov 1998 14:39:05 -0600, "Albert Nurick" <alb...@data.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Richard Aleksander wrote in message <72n6er$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
>>>>If some want to keep using their cars, that's fine. But alternatives should
>>>>be available.
>>>
>>>Agreed, as long as those who prefer to use their cars don't end up subsidizing
>>>the alternatives.
>>
>>Too bad that, today, people who don't use cars are providing enormous
>>subsidies to those who do.
>
>Yeah, all those property owners who don't have a car in their
>driveway. If there really were any significant numbers of these, we
>would actually see greater ridership on mass transit (unless these are
>all home-bound folks).
You need to spend some more time in central Austin. Anyway, the point
works to a lesser degree with people who own a car but simply don't
drive very much.
>Drivers are basically paying for all roads and
>other services because they're the ones paying property taxes.
Not true. In my area, perhaps 70% of the residents have cars, but a
smaller percentage use them every day (some are students who use the
UT shuttle). All of them pay property taxes either directly or
indirectly through rent.
Even if I grant you this point, it's still relevant to figure out what
the amount is which is paid for from "user fees" and what the amount
is paid from other sources, for both cars and transit, because that's
the only way to do a fair accounting between the two modes.
>It would be an interesting experiment to have true fees for both cars
>and mass transit. I suspect that given today's choices in mass
>transit, they would die from non-use.
Yes, but because current development has been shaped by the
availability of subsidized automobile transportation. If you pay for
X, you shouldn't act surprised when people set up their lives to use
X.
Terry Moore
>One point that has not been brought up and which to me and my wife
>as residents of Cedar Park have as the reason for us voting to
>withdraw was Capitol Metro's plan for light rail but to NOT include
>Cedar Park.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
That's a good point Marc.
What other outlying cities are in that same boat?
Seems to me that Pflugerville would be one.
How far would the north end of the proposed light-rail line
be from Cedar Park?
Mike Dahmus
Moore) hired an infinite number of monkeys to write:
>In article <365653a...@news.io.com>, mdahNO...@io.com says...
>
>>True. But people in Cedar Park seem to have no problem using the roads
>>and parks that I and the other Austin taxpayers pay for, right?
>
>
>>Mike Dahmus mdahmus AT I O DOT COM
>
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>What makes Cedar Park different from - say - Liberty Hill or Bertram?
Cedar Park has far more residents who work in Austin.
Mike Dahmus
hired an infinite number of monkeys to write:
>In article <365653a...@news.io.com>,
>Mike Dahmus <mdahNO...@io.com> wrote:
>>On 15 Nov 1998 07:17:42 GMT, terry...@xmail.utexas.nospam.net (Terry
>>Moore) wrote:
>>
>>>Mike’s letter to the editor said:
>>>
>>>(Quote)
>>>Awaiting a payment
>>>
>>>Now that the city of Cedar Park has decided to act on a policy of
>>>‘fairness’ instead of regionalism with Capitol Metro, the taxpayers
>>>of Austin eagerly await their first payment for their citizens’ use
>>>of our roads and parks. No personal checks please.
>>>
>>>Mike Dahmus
>>>(Unquote)
>>>
>>>As far as I know, the Capitol Metro tax has absolutely NOTHING
>>>to do with parks.
>>
>>True. But people in Cedar Park seem to have no problem using the roads
>>and parks that I and the other Austin taxpayers pay for, right?
>>
>>Why then should they be moaning about 1 cent on the dollar for Capital
>>Metro?
>
>One point that has not been brought up and which to me and my wife
>as residents of Cedar Park have as the reason for us voting to
>withdraw was Capitol Metro's plan for light rail but to NOT include
>Cedar Park.
Which was not set in stone. They have to pick one line to start with,
after all, so it's likely that somebody had to be left out.
As it stood, though, you had an express bus (which, ironically enough,
is the one that I use when I do the bike/bus commute to work) which a
lot of your citizens used.
The point is that you wanted fairness. I'm simply asking that you
provide the same fairness to Austin by paying us for your use of our
roads and parks.
Mike Dahmus mdahmus at I O DOT COM
Terry Moore
says...
>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>>What makes Cedar Park different from - say - Liberty Hill or Bertram?
>
>Cedar Park has far more residents who work in Austin.
>
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Then we should give the few who live in Liberty Hill but work at
Texas Instrument, IBM, etc., a free ride but carp about the multitudes
who do the same thing from Cedar Park?
Seems a bit inconsistent to me.
A LOT of people commute from Smithville, Bastrop, and Garfield into
Austin and San Marcos. Why not pressure them into paying the Capitol
Metro tax?
Albert Nurick
>>driving into it (or through it) on a daily basis, something's really wrong.
>
>I HAVE a way - tollbooths on the offramps. The state won't allow it.
>What's your suggestion?
Businesses that sell stuff to the commuters, taxes being paid by their
places of employment, etc.
>How would you make money from somebody who lives in Cedar Park,
>commutes downtown, and brings their lunch every day?
I'd tax their employer. If a city has a high ratio of commuters, the
tax rates should be adjusted to lower residential property taxes, and
raise commercial ones.
Of course, businesses will then move to the suburbs, and your problem
will be solved. None of those nasty suburbanites will be driving into
your pristine ghost town. ;-)
>Or even if they eat out - is that 8 cents a day really enough to pay
>for their impact on our infrastructure?
If that were the only contribution, it wouldn't be.
jst...@texas.net
terry...@xmail.utexas.nospam.net (Terry Moore) wrote:
> How far would the north end of the proposed light-rail line
> be from Cedar Park?
Hmm, it's not just "how far would it be? it was "what did Cap Metro promise?"
The latest starter rail proposal to exclude Cedar Park from Cap Metro's
original promise would have put it far enough from Cedar Park that it would
be as bad a commute from Cedar Park to the terminus as from Cedar Park
to downtown. (If you've commuted, you know that "bad" is not defined
solely in terms of distance, but also in terms of traffic, inconvenience,
and danger.)
I can't understand why Cap Metro didn't team up with Longhorn Railroad and
with the steam train concern to provide light rail from the Park and Ride
lot in Cedar Park. The capital expenses would have basically amounted
to buying a train (necessary for ANY starter line) and painting a few signs.
Oh, and printing schedules. For a terminus anywhere else, there will be
significant land acquisition expenses and significant development expenses.
I suspect a hidden agenda involving political payola, but try proving THAT.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
the wharf rat
Mike Dahmus <mdahNO_%_SPAMmus@iNO_%_SPAMo.com> wrote:
>How would you make money from somebody who lives in Cedar Park,
>commutes downtown, and brings their lunch every day?
I'd charge the business they work for taxes. Sales taxes
on their products, business license fees, taxes on their phones and
electricity, property taxes on their offices.
Too bad Austin doesn't do stuff like that. They're too damned
soft on those selfish commuters!
Robert Schroeder
Doesn't the Longhorn Railroad lease the line from Cap Metro? And in
turn, the Austin Steam Train Assoc. leases its rails from either Cap
Metro or the City of Austin.
I know that several of the proposals for light rail include using the
Longhorn lines. I think the big hang-up was around getting the Union
Pacific lines that run down Mo-Pac.
Robert
Terry Moore
> Too bad Austin doesn't do stuff like that. They're too damned
>soft on those selfish commuters!
>
>
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yeah!!!
And they oughta sock it to those out-of-town folks who come from
all corners of the world to do business with IBM, Dell, AMD,
UT, etc., etc., etc..
They just hain't no excuse for letting visitors to Austin having
a free ride.
Terry Moore
>The latest starter rail proposal to exclude Cedar Park from Cap Metro's
>original promise would have put it far enough from Cedar Park that it would
>be as bad a commute from Cedar Park to the terminus as from Cedar Park
>to downtown.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You've made some valid points.
Any line at all would be a start if it is planned so that it can
be expanded.
I would love to see light rail from Austin's center out to places
like Garfield, Bastrop, Smithville, Elgin, etc..
When I lived in England, it was quite common for us to drive to the
train station and take the train into central London. Once we reached
London, we could switch to the tubes (subway) and busses. We enjoyed
many a night in London that way. If light rail was available, I would
use it to go to Austin for shopping rather than driving the full distance.
And - yes - I would be willing to pay a tax to provide that service but
not in the way that Capitol Metro is structured. Those upper echelon
folks are living way too high on the hog without producing the results
expected from those high-level salaries.
Anthony Sloan
>
> Richard Aleksander wrote in message <72n6er$1...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
> >If some want to keep using their cars, that's fine. But alternatives should
> >be available.
>
> Agreed, as long as those who prefer to use their cars don't end up subsidizing
> the alternatives.
>
But cars are themselves highlly subsidized. Gas alone is under
fictituous pricing.
A
--
"Things that upset a terrier may pass virtually unnoticed by a Great
Dane."
Smiley Blanton
James Lahue
>
> In article <72pn09$647$1...@geraldo.cc.utexas.edu>,
> terry...@xmail.utexas.nospam.net (Terry Moore) wrote:
>
> > How far would the north end of the proposed light-rail line
> > be from Cedar Park?
>
> Hmm, it's not just "how far would it be? it was "what did Cap Metro promise?"
>
> original promise would have put it far enough from Cedar Park that it would
> be as bad a commute from Cedar Park to the terminus as from Cedar Park
> solely in terms of distance, but also in terms of traffic, inconvenience,
> and danger.)
>
> I can't understand why Cap Metro didn't team up with Longhorn Railroad and
> with the steam train concern to provide light rail from the Park and Ride
> lot in Cedar Park. The capital expenses would have basically amounted
> to buying a train (necessary for ANY starter line) and painting a few signs.
> Oh, and printing schedules. For a terminus anywhere else, there will be
> significant land acquisition expenses and significant development expenses.
>
> I suspect a hidden agenda involving political payola, but try proving THAT.
Another major expense that you didn't mention was that the tracks
required work -- they are not rated to handle passenger trains. This
was the killer expense in starting up the line.
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Jim Lahue | Disclaimer: All expressed
jml...@us.ibm.com | views are mine alone and not
RS/6000 Division, IBM Corp | necessarily shared by IBM
jst...@texas.net
1) See where the railroad tracks are.
2) See where the population centers are.
3) Where 1) and 2) intersect significantly, run a passenger train.
Nowadays it's no big trick for freight trains and passenger trains to
share tracks. It's called "computerized scheduling" (duh) and has been
in use by the railroads for 30+ years.
Scheduling track-sharing on MoPac is a total non-issue because much of
the run through Austin is double track. And the run from Cedar Park
is the old MKT line, not MoPac (now controlled by Union Pacific.)
The problems in getting light rail working in Austin are poliical, not
logistical. I only wonder _WHY_ Cap metro saw fit to spend three
quarters of a million dollars to "test" the light rail concept with
the Siemens Regio Sprinter train last spring if they had no intention
of implementing it.
But Cap Metro has a rich tradition of wasting money in a wide variety of ways.
Problem is, most of its tax base is wise to that trick, and is starting
to reject Cap Metro. Too bad we in Cedar Park continue to pour our
tax dollars down the Cap Metro rathole.
Betcha didn't know we CP-ers are still paying Cap Metro, and will continue
to do so until well into next year when we hold an election to deauthorize
Cap Metro's 3/4 cent sales tax -- and only then will we get the final bill
for the services Cap Metro's been providing us.
I hope the bill includes a line item for vaseline.
Mike Dahmus
wrote:
>Mike Dahmus wrote in message <36565eb2...@news.io.com>...
>>On Sun, 15 Nov 1998 18:16:06 -0600, "Albert Nurick" <alb...@data.net>
>>>IMO, if a city can't figure out how to make money with lots of consumers
>>>driving into it (or through it) on a daily basis, something's really wrong.
>>
>>I HAVE a way - tollbooths on the offramps. The state won't allow it.
>>What's your suggestion?
>
>Businesses that sell stuff to the commuters,
Not likely for a commuter. Unless you're talking about the powerful
economic effects of gas stations here...
> taxes being paid by their
>places of employment, etc.
Great. What happens when we raise the corporate property tax rate to
make up for their employees' use of our facilities?
Dell moves to Round Rock.
Next idea please.
>>How would you make money from somebody who lives in Cedar Park,
>>commutes downtown, and brings their lunch every day?
>
>I'd tax their employer. If a city has a high ratio of commuters, the
>tax rates should be adjusted to lower residential property taxes, and
>raise commercial ones.
>
>Of course, businesses will then move to the suburbs, and your problem
>will be solved. None of those nasty suburbanites will be driving into
>your pristine ghost town. ;-)
Right. Then they'll have the problem of Austinites driving into their
town to work. This happened in South Florida umpteen times, BTW. The
reason it concerns me is that when this happens, it's bad for the
whole region.
If you're willing to hop from one bedroom suburb to another like a
locust, it won't affect you (much).
I notice you didn't address the parks at all, BTW. I have lots of
friends with dogs who like to take them to Pease Park or Barton
Springs. Shouldn't we be asking them to pay *something* for the use of
the roads to get to the parks, and the use of the parks themselves, if
we want to be "fair" like Cedar Park?
Mike Dahmus mdahmus AT I O DOT COM
http://www.io.com/~mdahmus/
Mike Dahmus
>In article <36565eb2...@news.io.com>,
>Mike Dahmus <mdahNO_%_SPAMmus@iNO_%_SPAMo.com> wrote:
>>How would you make money from somebody who lives in Cedar Park,
>>commutes downtown, and brings their lunch every day?
>
> I'd charge the business they work for taxes. Sales taxes
>on their products, business license fees, taxes on their phones and
>electricity, property taxes on their offices.
All nominal, because if those taxes get too high, the businesses move
to somewhere willing to bend over and give them an abatement (D*ll
comes to mind).
The sales tax allotted to the city is a whopping 1%, by the way. And a
company like IBM doesn't make any "sales" from Austin.
Mike Dahmus
Moore) wrote:
>In article <36585fbf...@news.io.com>, mdahNO_%_SPAMmus@iNO_%_SPAMo.com
>says...
>
>>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>>
>>>What makes Cedar Park different from - say - Liberty Hill or Bertram?
>>
>>Cedar Park has far more residents who work in Austin.
>>
>>Mike Dahmus mdahmus at I O DOT COM
>>
>
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Then we should give the few who live in Liberty Hill but work at
>Texas Instrument, IBM, etc., a free ride but carp about the multitudes
>who do the same thing from Cedar Park?
Those towns didn't just raise a huge stink about sending a hundred
grand or so into Austin every year for bus service, and how "unfair"
it was that they had to do that.
Mike Dahmus
>I suspect a hidden agenda involving political payola, but try proving THAT.
Seriously (I swear), the problem is the agency has to try to clean up
its act at the same time they are going to try to push a large new
transportation infrastructure. There's no way they can do the first
and go full-speed on the second, so instead of saying "no rail until
2020", they said "we'll do a small line first".
Now I have tons of complaints with Cap Metro. It's freakin' ridiculous
that it's taken this long, and their web site brags about how it will
"only" take 3 years or something like that AFTER THE ELECTION before
they can START construction!
But they are cleaning it up, slowly, mainly due the help of the
suburbanites' favorite punching bag (Slusher).
To pull out because the first line doesn't stop in your neck of the
woods is Cedar Park's prerogative, but it ought to be Austin's
prerogative to stop being neighborly in return and demand money for
their residents' use of our roads and parks.
It's amazing that so many suburbanites abandon the principle of
fairness when it hits their wallet!
Albert Nurick
>On Mon, 16 Nov 1998 11:58:10 -0600, "Albert Nurick" <alb...@data.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Mike Dahmus wrote in message <36565eb2...@news.io.com>...
>>>What's your suggestion?
>>
>>Businesses that sell stuff to the commuters,
>
>Not likely for a commuter. Unless you're talking about the powerful
>economic effects of gas stations here...
Gas is one example; a daily commuter uses quite a bit.
>> taxes being paid by their
>>places of employment, etc.
>
>Great. What happens when we raise the corporate property tax rate to
>make up for their employees' use of our facilities?
>
>Dell moves to Round Rock.
>
>Next idea please.
Not so fast, Mike. This causes the Dell employees to avoid commuting
into Austin, and reduces the uncompensated wear on our infrastructure
that you feel is so significant.
>>>How would you make money from somebody who lives in Cedar Park,
>>>commutes downtown, and brings their lunch every day?
>>
>>I'd tax their employer. If a city has a high ratio of commuters, the
>>tax rates should be adjusted to lower residential property taxes, and
>>raise commercial ones.
>>
>>Of course, businesses will then move to the suburbs, and your problem
>>will be solved. None of those nasty suburbanites will be driving into
>>your pristine ghost town. ;-)
>
>Right. Then they'll have the problem of Austinites driving into their
>town to work. This happened in South Florida umpteen times, BTW. The
>reason it concerns me is that when this happens, it's bad for the
>whole region.
I tend to agree. I've come to the conclusion that the hyperlibertarian
attitude of pay-per-use roads misses the entire point; you decide where
to live, and you pay the taxes there. If it's too high, you can move to
a spot where the taxes are lower.
>If you're willing to hop from one bedroom suburb to another like a
>locust, it won't affect you (much).
>
>I notice you didn't address the parks at all, BTW. I have lots of
>friends with dogs who like to take them to Pease Park or Barton
>Springs. Shouldn't we be asking them to pay *something* for the use of
>the roads to get to the parks, and the use of the parks themselves, if
>we want to be "fair" like Cedar Park?
I see nothing wrong with Cedar Park's plan: I wish the City of Austin
would pull out of Cap Metro, too. It's a poorly run boondoggle.
As far as parks go, we could institute usage fees, which would do a good
job of keeping the poor out of parks. Is that your goal?
Albert Nurick
>To pull out because the first line doesn't stop in your neck of the
>woods is Cedar Park's prerogative, but it ought to be Austin's
>prerogative to stop being neighborly in return and demand money for
>their residents' use of our roads and parks.
IMO, pulling out of a nonperforming organization that plans not to give
your community the level of support that other communities are getting is
just fiscal responsibility. Perhaps Cedar Park wisely realizes how few
people actually ride Cap Metro, and have decided to stop subsidizing it.
Cindy and Mike Perez
bus, the leander express, and $70,000 in build greater austin money. The
leander express takes about 2-3 times as long for someone to get from CP to
downtown then if they took their car. When Capital Metro reps came out to
Cedar Park to give a talk. NOT ONE of them took the bus ? Why, because it
was not convient. It took too long and was not reliable. NOT ONE took the
bus. That should explan alot.
Cedar Park has been a leader in regionalism for water and wastewater. We
worked very closely with Austin and Round Rock on a wastewater regional
plan and are currently working on one for water. Unlike Leander, Cedar Park
did not have water problems because they planned ahead. They also attempted
to be leaders in regionalism for transportation; however, Austin has been
very anti-growth in the SW corner of the metro. They did everything they
could do delay the lakeline development area by discouraging transportation
improvements. Thanks to our local state rep, for looking out for the
region. No wonder no one in the NW corner wants to be annexed by Austin.
Cedar Park has been promised a great number of things from Capital Metro,
and CM keeps ignoring CP. If CP did not get out when they did, then they
would be responsible for part of the debt the light rail would bring. This
would basicly, make it impossible to escape in the future.
It does makes sense to use rail to move people from the outskirts to the
city and then use buses in the city and then you dillos in the downtown
area. It also makes sense to have a rail from a central dillo location
downtown to the airport. Unfortunately, to appeal to polititics, the first
rail was no longer going to be from the suburbs but instead was going to be
in the inner city at a much greater cost per mile.
What is that old saying, fool me once shame on you. Fool me twice shame on
me. It comes down to trust and accountability. CP lost trust in CM. CP
would love to be part of a transit system that it trusted. Wouldn't you ?
For 2,000,000 CP can get alot more out of the citizens money then one empty
bus line and 70,000 in street repairs. Oh yeah, we had a few of those super
subsidized vans that a couple of families were using. As far as
transporting our senior citizens and handicapped, Capital Metro had already
agreed to cancel that practice in our area regardless of the vote.
It boils down to trust. CM is a major failure. They need to focus on the
bus system first. If their members do not use it to get to meetings, then
do you thing the rest of us will ????
As far as parks and streets are concerned. Capital Metro does not pay for
parks or streets. So you can not make that comparison. Its job is to
provide alternate transportation for the metro area. It failed greatly in
CP and the citizens said enough is enough.
Thanks,
Mike
Terry Moore
>As far as parks go, we could institute usage fees, which would do a good
job of keeping the poor out of parks. Is that your goal?
--
>Albert Nurick
>alb...@data.net - ICQ #4403737
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Fisherman's Park is on the Colorado River near the historic business
district in Bastrop. There's a beautiful, half-mile-long riverwalk.
If any of you folks out there want to visit the park - - its free.
If you'll let me know ahead of time, I'll even meet you there and
stroll the riverwalk with you. Afterwards, we can have an ice cream
soda in the old authentic soda fountain in Lock's Drug Store.
If visitors just happen to patronize some of the businesses near the
park and riverwalk, that will be appreciated but no one is under
any obligation.
Terry Moore
>I notice you didn't address the parks at all, BTW. I have lots of
>friends with dogs who like to take them to Pease Park or Barton
>Springs. Shouldn't we be asking them to pay *something* for the use of
>the roads to get to the parks, and the use of the parks themselves, if
>we want to be "fair" like Cedar Park?
>
>
>http://www.io.com/~mdahmus/
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For the life of me, I can't figure out what Capitol Metro has to do
with the parks.
Mike Dahmus
wrote:
>Mike Dahmus wrote in message <36509831...@news.io.com>...
>>Right. Then they'll have the problem of Austinites driving into their
>>town to work. This happened in South Florida umpteen times, BTW. The
>>reason it concerns me is that when this happens, it's bad for the
>>whole region.
>
>I tend to agree. I've come to the conclusion that the hyperlibertarian
>attitude of pay-per-use roads misses the entire point; you decide where
>to live, and you pay the taxes there. If it's too high, you can move to
>a spot where the taxes are lower.
Sounds like you don't agree with me at all though - because I just
told you I've seen what happens when people hop from place to place to
avoid taxes. And I don't like the results, and I don't think you would
either.
>>If you're willing to hop from one bedroom suburb to another like a
>>locust, it won't affect you (much).
>>
>>I notice you didn't address the parks at all, BTW. I have lots of
>>friends with dogs who like to take them to Pease Park or Barton
>>Springs. Shouldn't we be asking them to pay *something* for the use of
>>the roads to get to the parks, and the use of the parks themselves, if
>>we want to be "fair" like Cedar Park?
>
>I see nothing wrong with Cedar Park's plan: I wish the City of Austin
>would pull out of Cap Metro, too. It's a poorly run boondoggle.
>
>As far as parks go, we could institute usage fees, which would do a good
>job of keeping the poor out of parks. Is that your goal?
My goal is for those who use the parks paid for by another group of
taxpayers to either pay their fair share, or stop whining about
"fairness" when they want to get out of a 1-cent sales tax for mass
transit.
My "fair" idea would be to charge $2 every time somebody without a
city address uses a local park. We did it in Boca Raton with the beach
park (although it was more like $8 to park if you didn't have the city
sticker).
Mike Dahmus
wrote:
>Mike Dahmus wrote in message <36539981...@news.io.com>...
>>To pull out because the first line doesn't stop in your neck of the
>>woods is Cedar Park's prerogative, but it ought to be Austin's
>>prerogative to stop being neighborly in return and demand money for
>>their residents' use of our roads and parks.
>
>IMO, pulling out of a nonperforming organization that plans not to give
>your community the level of support that other communities are getting is
>just fiscal responsibility.
First, other communities aren't "getting" anything for a long time.
And unless EVERY town is served by the FIRST rail line, ANY of them
can use this bogus argument.
> Perhaps Cedar Park wisely realizes how few
>people actually ride Cap Metro, and have decided to stop subsidizing it.
Great. Putting tollbooths on the off-ramps of US 183 and Mopac to hit
the Cedar Park commuters up for money should also be advocated by you,
as it is only fiscal responsibility.
Austin has tremendous problems handling its own needs without also
paying for (usually wealthy) suburbanites who absolutely can't stand
spending one more penny than they absolutely must. Surely you don't
begrudge us our fiscal responsibility?
Mike Dahmus
Moore) wrote:
>For the life of me, I can't figure out what Capitol Metro has to do
>with the parks.
Cedar Parkites paying for Capital Metro: "not fair", according to
them.
Austinites paying for Cedar Parkites to use Austin roads and parks: ??
Mike Dahmus
>Betcha didn't know we CP-ers are still paying Cap Metro, and will continue
>to do so until well into next year when we hold an election to deauthorize
>Cap Metro's 3/4 cent sales tax -- and only then will we get the final bill
>for the services Cap Metro's been providing us.
I hope you'll be urging your fellow citizens to also support my
initiative requiring Cedar Parkers who work and/or play in Austin to
pay their fair share. Doing otherwise would be hypocritical, it seems
to me.
the wharf rat
Mike Dahmus <mdahNO...@io.com> wrote:
>I hope you'll be urging your fellow citizens to also support my
>initiative requiring Cedar Parkers who work and/or play in Austin to
>pay their fair share.
I'd like to propose Boycott Austin day. On Friday, all us selfish
commuters wait until we get home to buy gas. Bring your lunch or drive over to
Pflugerville to buy it. Don't stop for groceries at Whole Foods or Central
Market, and don't come back to town that night for a show.
In fact, I think we should all walk into the businesses we'd
normally patronize and announce "I'm doing this for Mike Dahmus".
If one person does it they'll think he's crazy. If two people do it
they'll think they're gay. But if three people do it, why, it'll be a movement!
"You can not get anything that you want, at Alice's Austin restaurant..."
By the way, I'm tired of paying for all those poor people in Austin.
We don't have poor people in Round Rock and I don't see why I should have to
pay for Austin's poor people. Let them eat cake!
the wharf rat
Mike Dahmus <mdahNO...@io.com> wrote:
>Great. Putting tollbooths on the off-ramps of US 183 and Mopac to hit
I *already* pay tax dollars for UNITED STATES ROUTE 183 and
STATE ROUTE 1.
Great Ghu....
Terry Moore
Those towns didn't just raise a huge stink about sending a hundred
>grand or so into Austin every year for bus service, and how "unfair"
it was that they had to do that.
>
>Mike Dahmus mdahmus AT I O DOT COM
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Really, your beef isn't about Capitol Metro. You are saying that the
surrounding communities are availing themselves of the advantages of
a big city while dodging the taxes that go with those advantages.
I don't know how old you are, but Austin hasn't been a 'nice guy'
in the past.
There's an area that is roughly bordered by US183/IH35/Lamar/Braker.
That area was annexed into Austin probably before you were born. They
were promised a lot of things - among them, city sewer service. To
this very day, much of that area is still using septic tanks. The
northeast corner of that section is called 'Rat Flats' - - and for
good reason.
Not long ago, Austin promised Circle C a lot of things if they
wouldn't protest annexation. A group of folks in East Austin
(South of Airport, North of the River and East of IH35) demanded
the same things - - things that they had not been provided although
they have been part of Austin since before I was born - - and that
was a LONG time ago.
What I'm getting at is, you shouldn't blame Cedar Park or any other
community for not trusting Austin with their tax dollars.
H Gilmer
: On Sun, 15 Nov 1998 18:16:06 -0600, "Albert Nurick" <alb...@data.net>
: hired an infinite number of monkeys to write:
: >IMO, if a city can't figure out how to make money with lots of consumers
: >driving into it (or through it) on a daily basis, something's really wrong.
: I HAVE a way - tollbooths on the offramps. The state won't allow it.
How serious are you about this?
Do you see this as a way to tax suburbanites, outsiders? How are you
defining "surbarbanite" vs. "Austinite"? I live near Parmer, *in*
Austin, and I use the highways all the time.
Or do you feel that only those who live between Ben White & 45th
really pull their weight around here, and moreover shouldn't visit
each other? And maybe should refrain from working up in the northern
reaches of the city, like at IBM and the UT research facility?
Plus, on a practical level, even if the state allowed it, do you
really think it would work? Consider how traffic slows down at
popular exits now, and then add the delay of a toll booth.
Hg
Rajat Datta
>
>But cars are themselves highlly subsidized. Gas alone is under
>fictituous pricing.
>
Elaborate. Everything I've seen indicates that the price of gas is
higher because of taxes.
rajat
Richard Aleksander
the wharf rat wrote in message <72qt1u$2h$1...@news.jump.net>...
>In article <3654bd87...@news.io.com>,
>Mike Dahmus <mdahNO...@io.com> wrote:
>>I hope you'll be urging your fellow citizens to also support my
>>initiative requiring Cedar Parkers who work and/or play in Austin to
>>pay their fair share.
>
> I'd like to propose Boycott Austin day. On Friday, all us selfish
>commuters wait until we get home to buy gas. Bring your lunch or drive
over to
>Pflugerville to buy it. Don't stop for groceries at Whole Foods or Central
>Market, and don't come back to town that night for a show.
Friday and at all times in the future, shop and work near your home, and get
your culture, education and entertainment there as well. Build your own
Austin out in the boondocks. Then I'll discover your place and commute
there and you can tell me to stay the hello away ;-)
>
> In fact, I think we should all walk into the businesses we'd
>normally patronize and announce "I'm doing this for Mike Dahmus".
Again, do this near your residence, and Mike Dahmus will be hero in not just
Austin, but also in bum f**k Egypt.
>
> If one person does it they'll think he's crazy. If two people do it
>they'll think they're gay. But if three people do it, why, it'll be a
movement!
>"You can not get anything that you want, at Alice's Austin restaurant..."
>
>
> By the way, I'm tired of paying for all those poor people in Austin.
>We don't have poor people in Round Rock and I don't see why I should have
to
>pay for Austin's poor people. Let them eat cake!
By the way, y'all are welcome to our downtown and give quarters to the
resident drug addicts, then charge them 7% to change them into the dollar
bills the drug dealers will accept. A new growth industry!
You don't have to thank me.
Rajat Datta
Mike Dahmus <mdahNO_%_SPAMmus@iNO_%_SPAMo.com> wrote:
>
>Yes, but because current development has been shaped by the
>availability of subsidized automobile transportation. If you pay for
>X, you shouldn't act surprised when people set up their lives to use
>X.
>
But, this is where we are. How do we get people to use mass
transportation now? Either we offer competitive solutions, or the
only option is compulsion, and I don't see success in that.
And, the example of Western Europe shows that it isn't just how we
built our cities and suburbs. Despite government actions to prevent
the kind of growth we've seen (incredibly high gas prices for example),
the automobile-ization of those countries continue at high rates. And
Beijing just prohibited bicycles in certain city streets.
The point remains that not enough people are willing to ride the mass
transportation solutions we provide today. Polls have indicated, for
example, that people will support subsidizing trains and buses in the
hope that everyone else will ride them and reduce traffic on the roads,
but will not ride them themselves.
Perhaps the focus on commuters is wrong. By the time we're adults our
habits are set, and we're not going to consider using a bus. But,
mass transit can offer younger people mobility and freedom. I grew up
in New York City, and the subway offered me a way to get around that
would have been impossible in the suburbs without my mother driving me
around everywhere. To get the young hooked on buses would mean
scheduling more buses to 6th Street, Barton Creek, etc. at the
appropriate hours, rather than just concentrating on commuting hours.
rajat
Terry Moore
says...
To get the young hooked on buses would mean
>scheduling more buses to 6th Street, Barton Creek, etc. at the
>appropriate hours, rather than just concentrating on commuting hours.
>
>rajat
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Years ago, I lived in North Austin - near North Loop/Burnet Road.
My gal pal lived in East Austin - 3 blocks north of the river
and about 12 blocks east of what is now IH35.
The city busses in those days were pretty rickety - when they were
in GOOD shape.
My car broke down and I didn't have the money to fix it for a couple
of weeks. So, I rode the bus to East Austin every afternoon and caught
the last bus north at night.
One night, we were on Burnet Road and we heckled the bus driver into
putting the pedal to the metal. The driver began reading off the
mph on the speedometer - - 50, 51, 52 - - - finally, he shouted,
'Hey guys!!! We are doing 63 miles per hour!!!' One of the guys
yawned and said, 'Oh, so what?'. The bus driver said, 'Man alive!!
This ain't nuttin' but an old city bus!!!' A passenger in the back
said, 'Yeah!! And that ain't nuttin' but an old city cop behind you!!!'
the wharf rat
Terry Moore <terry...@xmail.utexas.nospam.net> wrote:
>northeast corner of that section is called 'Rat Flats' - - and for
>good reason.
Why? Can't the rats afford heels?
the wharf rat
Richard Aleksander <r.alek...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>Friday and at all times in the future, shop and work near your home, and get
>your culture, education and entertainment there as well. Build your own
Well, as if it matters to anyone but you, shit-for-brains, I work
4 miles from home, the first 3 miles of which are on Williamson County
roads. So take your selfish self-righteousness and shove it.
"Austin for the Austinites!" What a crock. Can't make up your minds
whether you want to annex every freehold within a hundred miles or build walls
around them to keep Bubba from tracking mud onto your golden sidewalks.
Anthony Sloan
It is my understanding that the gas companies get a boost from the
government in many ways (Not jut financially). And we all know how
excited they are about alternative fuel sources.
A
--
"Things that upset a terrier may pass virtually unnoticed by a Great
Dane."
Smiley Blanton
Terry Moore
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
High Heels??? In Rat Flats??? That'll be the day!!!
Now, 'pumps' would come in handy in dealing with those overflowing
septic systems.
Mike Dahmus
<mur...@ibm.net> wrote:
>As far as parks and streets are concerned. Capital Metro does not pay for
>parks or streets. So you can not make that comparison. Its job is to
>provide alternate transportation for the metro area. It failed greatly in
>CP and the citizens said enough is enough.
Once again:
Cedar Park residents paying "more than their fair share" for Austin
buses: NOT FAIR.
Austin residents paying "more than their fair share" for parks and
roads used extensively by non-residents: ??
Please answer concisely.
Thanks,
Mike Dahmus mdahmus AT I O DOT COM
Mike Dahmus
wrote:
>Mike Dahmus (mdahNO_%_SPAMmus@iNO_%_SPAMo.com) wrote:
>: On Sun, 15 Nov 1998 18:16:06 -0600, "Albert Nurick" <alb...@data.net>
>: hired an infinite number of monkeys to write:
>
>: >IMO, if a city can't figure out how to make money with lots of consumers
>: >driving into it (or through it) on a daily basis, something's really wrong.
>
>: I HAVE a way - tollbooths on the offramps. The state won't allow it.
>
>How serious are you about this?
>
>Do you see this as a way to tax suburbanites, outsiders? How are you
>defining "surbarbanite" vs. "Austinite"? I live near Parmer, *in*
>Austin, and I use the highways all the time.
Well, come up with a better idea then. A city income tax would work,
it seems to me.
Or perhaps the answer is for Cedar Park to stop whining about
"fairness" and get back on board with Cap Metro?
Mike Dahmus
wrote:
>On Mon, 16 Nov 1998 17:23:47 GMT,
>Mike Dahmus <mdahNO_%_SPAMmus@iNO_%_SPAMo.com> wrote:
>>
>>Yes, but because current development has been shaped by the
>>availability of subsidized automobile transportation. If you pay for
>>X, you shouldn't act surprised when people set up their lives to use
>>X.
>>
>
>But, this is where we are. How do we get people to use mass
>transportation now? Either we offer competitive solutions, or the
>only option is compulsion, and I don't see success in that.
If we subsidized transit to the extent which automobiles are
subsidized today, no "compulsion" would be necessary.
Mike Dahmus
Mike Dahmus
>In article <3654bd87...@news.io.com>,
>Mike Dahmus <mdahNO...@io.com> wrote:
>>I hope you'll be urging your fellow citizens to also support my
>>initiative requiring Cedar Parkers who work and/or play in Austin to
>>pay their fair share.
>
> I'd like to propose Boycott Austin day. On Friday, all us selfish
>commuters wait until we get home to buy gas. Bring your lunch or drive over to
>Pflugerville to buy it. Don't stop for groceries at Whole Foods or Central
>Market, and don't come back to town that night for a show.
And don't go to work either.
> By the way, I'm tired of paying for all those poor people in Austin.
>We don't have poor people in Round Rock and I don't see why I should have to
>pay for Austin's poor people. Let them eat cake!
How exactly do you pay for "poor people in Austin"? 60 Minutes did a
study of an area very similar to this one in Minnesota, and found that
"poor people in the city" (Minneapolis in this case) were subsidizing
suburbanites through their state and federal taxes which paid far more
for suburban highways than ANYTHING in the city.
Mike Dahmus
>In article <72r2i6$d...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
>Richard Aleksander <r.alek...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>Friday and at all times in the future, shop and work near your home, and get
>>your culture, education and entertainment there as well. Build your own
>
> Well, as if it matters to anyone but you, shit-for-brains, I work
>4 miles from home, the first 3 miles of which are on Williamson County
>roads. So take your selfish self-righteousness and shove it.
Great. So pay us for the last mile, please. Toll roads usually
function at about a quarter a mile in my experience - I think that
would be a good guideline. Assuming you use the same road to go home,
we'll expect your check for $2.50 / week to be arriving shortly.
Thanks,
Mike Dahmus
>In article <3651b31f...@news.io.com>,
>Mike Dahmus <mdahNO...@io.com> wrote:
>>Great. Putting tollbooths on the off-ramps of US 183 and Mopac to hit
>
> I *already* pay tax dollars for UNITED STATES ROUTE 183 and
>STATE ROUTE 1.
That's why the toll-booths are on the off-ramps. If you just want to
drive on 183 and Mopac, do so to your heart's content. Heck, I'd like
to invite you to go THROUGH Austin on those roads any time you like
for FREE!
Rachel Duke
Mike Dahmus wrote:
Ok, I know I'm just a lurker, but as a Cedar Park resident, I want to know
why we're supposed to all be "whining" about "fairness". Maybe I don't have
the whole picture since I just moved here from out of state. But, how is
this any different than this senario.
You're the owner of Company X. You have an annual conference in which you
invite all your customers. Company Z is a catering company that comes to you
with a proposal for serving your customers lunch. You accept the proposal
for that year, and Company Z does a horrible job. Now, it's the following
year and your company is gearing up for the next conference. There's Company
Z knocking on your door wanting your business. Should you, in "fairness"
give them your business? Or, should you hire someone else? AND, let's say
that Company Z also has a restaurant. Should the employees of your company
stop going there to eat just because you no longer use their catering
service? Should Company Z start charging your employees higher prices
because they're miffed at you, the owner?
How is the above senario any different than the Cedar Park/Cap Metro issue?
We, as a city, tried out a service that we were paying for. We found that
service lacking, therefore we're taking our business elsewhere.
Oh, just for the record, we're not "getting out of" a 1% sales tax. The
residents are still paying it. Now, it's supposed to be going to
improvements in Cedar Park. And as someone else mentioned earlier, Austin
isn't the only city with parks. We have several nice parks as well as
swimming pools. Come visit us some time.
Rachel (Yeah, now I've done it) Duke
P.S. Since the city of Cedar Park doesn't use Cap Metro any longer, can
anyone tell me why I saw a Cap Metro bus at the intersection of 183 and 1431
yesterday?
>
>
> My "fair" idea would be to charge $2 every time somebody without a
> city address uses a local park. We did it in Boca Raton with the beach
> park (although it was more like $8 to park if you didn't have the city
> sticker).
>
Albert Nurick
>On 16 Nov 1998 23:27:37 GMT, terry...@xmail.utexas.nospam.net (Terry
>Moore) wrote:
>
>>For the life of me, I can't figure out what Capitol Metro has to do
>>with the parks.
>
>Cedar Parkites paying for Capital Metro: "not fair", according to
>them.
>
>Austinites paying for Cedar Parkites to use Austin roads and parks: ??
Mike, you've got to draw the line somewhere. You don't pay to use public
parks in Houston or Dallas when you visit, either. Nor do you pay for
the ones in Bastrop.
If you're going to have a public park, you're just going to have to deal
with the fact that some carpetbaggers are going to sneak past the blockade
and use your facilities.
The Cap Metro situation is 100% different, IMO. They plan to spend lots
of tax money with their "improvements", and Cedar Park wasn't included in
the new plan. Cedar Park looked at what they were paying, and what they
where getting, and (wisely, IMO) said "thanks, but no thanks".
As far as I know, you're still welcome in the public parks, and on the
public roads in Cedar Park, Mike, as are the Cedar Park residents here in
Austin.
--
Albert Nurick
alb...@data.net - ICQ #4403737
Albert Nurick
>>would pull out of Cap Metro, too. It's a poorly run boondoggle.
>>
>>As far as parks go, we could institute usage fees, which would do a good
>>job of keeping the poor out of parks. Is that your goal?
>
>My goal is for those who use the parks paid for by another group of
>taxpayers to either pay their fair share, or stop whining about
>"fairness" when they want to get out of a 1-cent sales tax for mass
>transit.
If you're concerned about "fairness", why should I pay for a transit
system I will never use? Let the riders cough up the entire cost of
the system. (Of course, it would quickly go bankrupt.)
>My "fair" idea would be to charge $2 every time somebody without a
>city address uses a local park. We did it in Boca Raton with the beach
>park (although it was more like $8 to park if you didn't have the city
>sticker).
I'd rather attract out-of-towners to Austin, personally.
Albert Nurick
>On Mon, 16 Nov 1998 16:53:30 -0600, "Albert Nurick" <alb...@data.net>
>wrote:
>>IMO, pulling out of a nonperforming organization that plans not to give
>>your community the level of support that other communities are getting is
>>just fiscal responsibility.
>
>First, other communities aren't "getting" anything for a long time.
>And unless EVERY town is served by the FIRST rail line, ANY of them
>can use this bogus argument.
Bogus? I expect my elected representatives to make sure that I'm getting
good return on my tax dollars. If I were a Cedar Park resident, I'd be
writing letters of support right now.
>> Perhaps Cedar Park wisely realizes how few
>>people actually ride Cap Metro, and have decided to stop subsidizing it.
>
>Great. Putting tollbooths on the off-ramps of US 183 and Mopac to hit
>the Cedar Park commuters up for money should also be advocated by you,
>as it is only fiscal responsibility.
You just don't get it, do you? Just because a region has a poorly-run
community service (i.e. Cap Metro) that one community wisely decides has
poor ROI doesn't mean that we've got to turn Central Texas into something
out of Mad Max.
Face it, Mike. Cap Metro is a joke, and the fools are looking to spend
more money for a light rail system that won't even break even. I wish I
had the option to opt out.
>Austin has tremendous problems handling its own needs without also
>paying for (usually wealthy) suburbanites who absolutely can't stand
>spending one more penny than they absolutely must. Surely you don't
>begrudge us our fiscal responsibility?
The humor of mentioning Cap Metro and fiscal responsibility in the same
message is lost on you, I'd be willing to bet. ;-)
Albert Nurick
>How exactly do you pay for "poor people in Austin"? 60 Minutes did a
>study of an area very similar to this one in Minnesota, and found that
>"poor people in the city" (Minneapolis in this case) were subsidizing
>suburbanites through their state and federal taxes which paid far more
>for suburban highways than ANYTHING in the city.
"60 Minutes did a study"? You've got to be kidding. That show is not
known for anything other than sensationalism. It's a half step above the
tabloids.
Albert Nurick
>Or perhaps the answer is for Cedar Park to stop whining about
>"fairness" and get back on board with Cap Metro?
The truth comes out... you're looking for others to subsidize your
mass transit dream. <ROF,L>
Albert Nurick
>But, this is where we are. How do we get people to use mass
>transportation now? Either we offer competitive solutions, or the
Agreed. It's a cultural issue, not a logistic one. Even if Cap Metro
weren't totally inept, mass transit would still be a money-losing
proposition in Austin.
>Perhaps the focus on commuters is wrong. By the time we're adults our
>habits are set, and we're not going to consider using a bus. But,
>mass transit can offer younger people mobility and freedom. I grew up
>in New York City, and the subway offered me a way to get around that
>would have been impossible in the suburbs without my mother driving me
>around everywhere. To get the young hooked on buses would mean
>scheduling more buses to 6th Street, Barton Creek, etc. at the
>appropriate hours, rather than just concentrating on commuting hours.
IMO, that's the only possible solution. Train the adults of the future
that the personal freedom of a private automobile is less important than
the efficiency of mass transit.
Of course, there's a bit of popular culture to overcome... ;-)
Albert Nurick
>I live in Cedar Park. Be honest, would you pay 2,000,000 in 1999 for one
>bus, the leander express, and $70,000 in build greater austin money. The
>leander express takes about 2-3 times as long for someone to get from CP to
>downtown then if they took their car. When Capital Metro reps came out to
>Cedar Park to give a talk. NOT ONE of them took the bus ? Why, because it
>was not convient. It took too long and was not reliable. NOT ONE took the
>bus. That should explan alot.
This points out the absurdity of Cap Metro. If they can't convince their own
staff to use their services, they're an utter failure.
Could you imagine a Dell executive demanding a Macintosh? Or a Ford manager
driving a Honda?
Albert Nurick
>Once again:
>
>Cedar Park residents paying "more than their fair share" for Austin
>buses: NOT FAIR.
Cedar Park residents refusing to pay for an overpriced, substandard
bus system, and paying for a light rail line that doesn't serve their
community: Fiscal Responsibility
>Austin residents paying "more than their fair share" for parks and
>roads used extensively by non-residents: ??
Promoting tourism. Or does the Austin Visitors and Convention Bureau
have no idea of the value of the dollars spent by non-Austinites?
Rajat Datta
>Rajat Datta wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 16 Nov 1998 14:42:34 -0600, Anthony Sloan <ant...@eden.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >But cars are themselves highlly subsidized. Gas alone is under
>> >fictituous pricing.
>> >
>>
>> Elaborate. Everything I've seen indicates that the price of gas is
>> higher because of taxes.
>>
>> rajat
>
>
>It is my understanding that the gas companies get a boost from the
>government in many ways (Not jut financially). And we all know how
>excited they are about alternative fuel sources.
Ah! Like the banana companies, high tech companies, etc?
The price of oil reflects the fact that the oil business is being
transformed into a high tech industry. Other natural resource-based
businesses are travelling the same path, but oil is furthest along.
This is one reason why the price of natural resources have fallen
so much, destroying the economies of several countries that depend
on that price (ie. Russia).
As for alternative fuels, there are enough alternatives already
available that are feasible except for the price that when (and if)
we do run out of oil, the transition will be pretty painless. But,
the real key is price. Oil is cheap, cheaper than it was before
the crisis of '74, and it's cheap because supply greatly exceeds
demand.
rajat
Rajat Datta
>On 17 Nov 1998 05:53:43 GMT, ra...@goteborg.netcom.com (Rajat Datta)
>
>>On Mon, 16 Nov 1998 17:23:47 GMT,
>>Mike Dahmus <mdahNO_%_SPAMmus@iNO_%_SPAMo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Yes, but because current development has been shaped by the
>>>availability of subsidized automobile transportation. If you pay for
>>>X, you shouldn't act surprised when people set up their lives to use
>>>X.
>>>
>>
>>transportation now? Either we offer competitive solutions, or the
>>only option is compulsion, and I don't see success in that.
>
>subsidized today, no "compulsion" would be necessary.
75+% of bus fares, 95+% of light rail are subsidized. Auto subsidies,
even when calculated with the cost of our military thrown in (all our
wars are apparently over oil), is nowhere near as high.
rajat
Mike Dahmus
<rache...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>How is the above senario any different than the Cedar Park/Cap Metro issue?
>We, as a city, tried out a service that we were paying for. We found that
>service lacking, therefore we're taking our business elsewhere.
Great! Kudos for your business sense. I am sure you will be supporting
any effort from Austin to get a better deal than the one we're paying
for now - where we pay nearly 100% of the cost every time one of your
citizens uses our roads or our parks.
>Oh, just for the record, we're not "getting out of" a 1% sales tax. The
>residents are still paying it. Now, it's supposed to be going to
>improvements in Cedar Park. And as someone else mentioned earlier, Austin
>isn't the only city with parks. We have several nice parks as well as
>swimming pools. Come visit us some time.
No interest, thanks.
>P.S. Since the city of Cedar Park doesn't use Cap Metro any longer, can
>anyone tell me why I saw a Cap Metro bus at the intersection of 183 and 1431
>yesterday?
The Leander Express still stops in Leander, which means it has to go
through Cedar Park to get to Austin. It doesn't stop any more though,
AFAIK.
Mike Dahmus
wrote:
>Mike Dahmus wrote in message <3650b240...@news.io.com>...
>>On Mon, 16 Nov 1998 16:49:48 -0600, "Albert Nurick" <alb...@data.net>
>>wrote:
>>>I see nothing wrong with Cedar Park's plan: I wish the City of Austin
>>>would pull out of Cap Metro, too. It's a poorly run boondoggle.
>>>
>>>As far as parks go, we could institute usage fees, which would do a good
>>>job of keeping the poor out of parks. Is that your goal?
>>
>>My goal is for those who use the parks paid for by another group of
>>taxpayers to either pay their fair share, or stop whining about
>>"fairness" when they want to get out of a 1-cent sales tax for mass
>>transit.
>
>
>If you're concerned about "fairness", why should I pay for a transit
>system I will never use? Let the riders cough up the entire cost of
>the system. (Of course, it would quickly go bankrupt.)
As soon as you start paying the entire cost of the road system. BTW,
the Sierra Club has a variety of estimates on their web page detailing
the amount of money which would have to be paid in gas taxes to make
automobile users pay for all of the costs their "choice" incurs -
ranging from an extra $3 to $11 per gallon!
>>My "fair" idea would be to charge $2 every time somebody without a
>>city address uses a local park. We did it in Boca Raton with the beach
>>park (although it was more like $8 to park if you didn't have the city
>>sticker).
>
>I'd rather attract out-of-towners to Austin, personally.
There's a big difference between tourists (who pay more than their
fair share by a long shot due to the rental and hotel taxes!) and
commuters (who pay virtually nothing).
Rajat Datta
Rachel Duke <rache...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>How is the above senario any different than the Cedar Park/Cap Metro issue?
>We, as a city, tried out a service that we were paying for. We found that
>service lacking, therefore we're taking our business elsewhere.
You just don't get the Dahmus point. Essentially, supporting Cap Metro
is a tax you should pay for the priviledge of living near Austin. Since
better regional cooperation can only be done by Austin in charge, just
shut up and keep paying. Never mind that for years your money has been
wasted by Cap Metro, just keep paying because Austin knows best.
rajat
Joe D
> Cedar Park residents paying "more than their fair share" for Austin
> buses: NOT FAIR.
> Austin residents paying "more than their fair share" for parks and
> roads used extensively by non-residents: ??
Mike, this seems to be a real hot button issue for you. But in all your
ranting, I have yet to see one thing:
Do you have any hard numbers to back this up? I haven't heard anything
originating from the various highway departments about this 'issue'. In
fact, the only person who seems to have a problem with it is you.
If this really bothers you that much, you're free to move back up north to
the land of the toll road.
Joe D
--
Cogito ergo spud: I think therefore I yam.
Mike Dahmus
wrote:
>Mike Dahmus wrote in message <3653bd4b...@news.io.com>...
>>On 16 Nov 1998 23:27:37 GMT, terry...@xmail.utexas.nospam.net (Terry
>>Moore) wrote:
>>
>>>For the life of me, I can't figure out what Capitol Metro has to do
>>>with the parks.
>>
>>Cedar Parkites paying for Capital Metro: "not fair", according to
>>them.
>>
>>Austinites paying for Cedar Parkites to use Austin roads and parks: ??
>
>
>Mike, you've got to draw the line somewhere. You don't pay to use public
>parks in Houston or Dallas when you visit, either. Nor do you pay for
>the ones in Bastrop.
>
>If you're going to have a public park, you're just going to have to deal
>with the fact that some carpetbaggers are going to sneak past the blockade
>and use your facilities.
I think you're missing the point. Yes, it may not be feasible to
charge for parks, but it certainly is relevant to the "fairness"
issue.
>The Cap Metro situation is 100% different, IMO. They plan to spend lots
>of tax money with their "improvements", and Cedar Park wasn't included in
>the new plan. Cedar Park looked at what they were paying, and what they
>where getting, and (wisely, IMO) said "thanks, but no thanks".
They were "getting" slightly less than they "paid", but then again so
is everyone if your only metric is farebox recovery, since transit
does not enjoy the hidden subsidies of automobile travel (i.e. transit
subsidies are open and well-known).
If you mean the rail plans are to blame; well, they aren't set in
stone yet, and it's unreasonable to expect the very first line to stop
in every single part of the metropolitan area - if the first line WAS
to go along 183, it might be Pflugerville or Wells Branch trying to
get out of the Cap Metro tax now.
>As far as I know, you're still welcome in the public parks, and on the
>public roads in Cedar Park, Mike, as are the Cedar Park residents here in
>Austin.
Unfortunately their amenities are not even remotely interesting to me;
and I have no need to travel there for my job.
Mike Dahmus
wrote:
>Mike Dahmus wrote in message <3651931...@news.io.com>...
>>Or perhaps the answer is for Cedar Park to stop whining about
>>"fairness" and get back on board with Cap Metro?
>
>The truth comes out... you're looking for others to subsidize your
>mass transit dream. <ROF,L>
As soon as you are ready to eliminate the huge subsidies currently
paid for the benefit of automobile users, I will be ready to push for
100% farebox recovery on the bus system.
Until that time, we have a lot of catching up to do.
Mike Dahmus
wrote:
>Mike Dahmus wrote in message <3658958a...@news.io.com>...
Yeah, that's it, Albert; they're just another tool of the liberal
socialist media.
60 Minutes is quite obviously the most fair and even-handed news show
on TV today. This doesn't make it infallible, but I trust it a lot
more than I would trust you (or me, if I were you).
Mike Dahmus
wrote:
>Mike Dahmus wrote in message <3651b31f...@news.io.com>...
>>On Mon, 16 Nov 1998 16:53:30 -0600, "Albert Nurick" <alb...@data.net>
>>wrote:
>>>IMO, pulling out of a nonperforming organization that plans not to give
>>>your community the level of support that other communities are getting is
>>>just fiscal responsibility.
>>
>>First, other communities aren't "getting" anything for a long time.
>>And unless EVERY town is served by the FIRST rail line, ANY of them
>>can use this bogus argument.
>
>
>Bogus? I expect my elected representatives to make sure that I'm getting
>good return on my tax dollars. If I were a Cedar Park resident, I'd be
>writing letters of support right now.
Great! So you will be urging our state representatives to allow Austin
to start charging commuters for their use of our infrastructure, then!
Because we're just trying to get a good return on our tax dollars!
>The humor of mentioning Cap Metro and fiscal responsibility in the same
>message is lost on you, I'd be willing to bet. ;-)
The humor of seeing you squirm to avoid recognizing the fact that an
environmentalist is the one turning Cap Metro around (instead of a
traditional fiscal conservative) is lost on you, I'd be willing to
bet.
Mike Dahmus
wrote:
>Mike Dahmus wrote in message <3656949...@news.io.com>...
>>Once again:
>>
>>Cedar Park residents paying "more than their fair share" for Austin
>>buses: NOT FAIR.
>
>Cedar Park residents refusing to pay for an overpriced, substandard
>bus system, and paying for a light rail line that doesn't serve their
>community: Fiscal Responsibility
Austin residents refusing to pay for an overpriced road network which
mostly serves suburban commuters: ??
>>Austin residents paying "more than their fair share" for parks and
>>roads used extensively by non-residents: ??
>
>Promoting tourism. Or does the Austin Visitors and Convention Bureau
>have no idea of the value of the dollars spent by non-Austinites?
Depends if you mean commuters or true tourists. My acquaintances in
Cedar Park and Round Rock rarely spend any money in Austin except for
a lunch or two a week, of which 1 cent on the dollar goes to the city.
Mike Dahmus
wrote:
>Cindy and Mike Perez wrote in message <365110BC...@ibm.net>...
Could you imagine someone expecting a bus to beat a car when both have
to use the same roads; the bus can't speed (much); and the bus has to
make stops?
This is why we need rail, yesterday.
Terry Moore
says...
Maybe I don't have
>the whole picture since I just moved here from out of state.
P.S. Since the city of Cedar Park doesn't use Cap Metro any longer, can
>anyone tell me why I saw a Cap Metro bus at the intersection of 183 and 1431
>yesterday?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Welcome to Texas Rachel.
I snipped most of your message. The parts I left intact tell quite a
story:
You are INDEED new to Cedar Park because you have to ask what that
Capitol Metro bus was doing in Cedar Park territory.
Laz-a-mercy gal!!! Them Cedar Choppers in Cedar Park will steal ANYTHING
that ain't nailed down!!!
Terry at Lake Bastrop
*--*--*--*--*--*-|-*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*-|-*--*--*--
:-:Visit Terry's `Another True Story' web page at:
:-:http://www.io.com/~jvaughn/tmoore1.htm
*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--
:-:A resourceful boss always finds a kind and gentle
:-:way to tell minorities and handicapped folks:
:-: `Sorry, the job is already taken'
*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--*--
Copyright (c) 1998 by Terry Moore
Mike Dahmus
wrote:
>On Tue, 17 Nov 1998 10:19:48 -0600,
No, I'm asking for the same consideration that Cedar Park taxpayers
want! Since Austin residents do not use Cedar Park roads and/or parks
to any significant extent, the only way they have to "pay us back" for
our maintenance of the roads they use to get to work, and the parks
they use to entertain themselves and their dogs is to continue to be a
good neighbor wrt Cap Metro.
Mike Dahmus
wrote:
>On Tue, 17 Nov 1998 15:25:40 GMT, Mike Dahmus <mdahNO...@io.com> wrote:
>>On 17 Nov 1998 05:53:43 GMT, ra...@goteborg.netcom.com (Rajat Datta)
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 16 Nov 1998 17:23:47 GMT,
>>>Mike Dahmus <mdahNO_%_SPAMmus@iNO_%_SPAMo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Yes, but because current development has been shaped by the
>>>>availability of subsidized automobile transportation. If you pay for
>>>>X, you shouldn't act surprised when people set up their lives to use
>>>>X.
>>>>
>>>
>>>But, this is where we are. How do we get people to use mass
>>>transportation now? Either we offer competitive solutions, or the
>>>only option is compulsion, and I don't see success in that.
>>
>>If we subsidized transit to the extent which automobiles are
>>subsidized today, no "compulsion" would be necessary.
>
>75+% of bus fares, 95+% of light rail are subsidized. Auto subsidies,
>even when calculated with the cost of our military thrown in (all our
>wars are apparently over oil), is nowhere near as high.
Absolutely not true. I suggest you check out some less biased figures.
Car costs which are not directly paid by their users include obvious
things like:
- County and local property and sales taxes used to build roads and
freeways
- State sales taxes used to build roads and freeways
- Police and EMS costs (about 1/2 of which are due directly to
automobiles)
Put those up against the gas taxes you pay, and the car doesn't look
like such a "free" choice any more. This doesn't even get into the
more subjective costs like pollution.
Mike Dahmus
>Mike Dahmus <mdahNO...@io.com> wrote:
>> Cedar Park residents paying "more than their fair share" for Austin
>> buses: NOT FAIR.
>
>> Austin residents paying "more than their fair share" for parks and
>> roads used extensively by non-residents: ??
>
>Mike, this seems to be a real hot button issue for you. But in all your
>ranting, I have yet to see one thing:
>
>Do you have any hard numbers to back this up?
To back what up? That suburban commuters do not pay to use Austin
roads? I would think this would be obvious. The only sources of
revenue which can "get" them right now are the 1c sales tax and
whatever property tax their employers pay.
>If this really bothers you that much, you're free to move back up north to
>the land of the toll road.
Ah, yes, the well known "love it or leave it". Which quite nicely
precludes any possibility for improvement anywhere in the world.
Terry Moore
>Or perhaps the answer is for Cedar Park to stop whining about
>"fairness" and get back on board with Cap Metro?
>
>
>http://www.io.com/~mdahmus/
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What you need to do, Mike, is put out a bunch of those beggar jars
on the counters of the convenience stores, restauarants, fast-food
places, etc., begging for donations to support Capitol Metro.
Begging is how they are staying business now. They are just using a
different approach.
Terry Moore
>Austin residents paying "more than their fair share" for parks and
>roads used extensively by non-residents: ??
>Mike Dahmus mdahmus AT I O DOT COM
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
All those many years I lived in Austin - I never used the parks.
I hereby donate my paid-up entitlement to Auatin's parks to a deserving
citizen of Cedar Park.
Albert Nurick
Who's talking about "beat"? Cap Metro spends millions of our dollars,
and doesn't even provide service that its own staff will use. Cedar
Park did the right thing by yanking their funding from this boondoggle.
>This is why we need rail, yesterday.
Give more responsibility to the inept. Great plan.
Albert Nurick
>On Tue, 17 Nov 1998 11:17:54 -0600, "Albert Nurick" <alb...@data.net>
>wrote:
>>If you're concerned about "fairness", why should I pay for a transit
>>system I will never use? Let the riders cough up the entire cost of
>>the system. (Of course, it would quickly go bankrupt.)
>
>As soon as you start paying the entire cost of the road system.
We've been through this repeatedly. *Everyone* benefits from roads;
they enable our economy.
>BTW,
>the Sierra Club has a variety of estimates on their web page detailing
>the amount of money which would have to be paid in gas taxes to make
>automobile users pay for all of the costs their "choice" incurs -
>ranging from an extra $3 to $11 per gallon!
And they don't have an agenda, do they? ;-) Each vehicle needs to pay
up to $0.50 per *mile*. The sanity filter tosses this out as absurd.
>>>My "fair" idea would be to charge $2 every time somebody without a
>>>city address uses a local park. We did it in Boca Raton with the beach
>>>park (although it was more like $8 to park if you didn't have the city
>>>sticker).
>>
>>I'd rather attract out-of-towners to Austin, personally.
>
>There's a big difference between tourists (who pay more than their
>fair share by a long shot due to the rental and hotel taxes!) and
>commuters (who pay virtually nothing).
Other than buying gas, food, clothes, etc., etc., etc....