Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

CapMetro out of Cedar Park

3 views
Skip to first unread message

Richard Aleksander

unread,
Nov 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/15/98
to
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.

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

unread,
Nov 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/15/98
to
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...

>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

unread,
Nov 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/15/98
to
In article <72lfsa$r...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
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.

>Richard
>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

unread,
Nov 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/15/98
to
In article <72lfsa$r...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>,
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.
>
>Mike: I liked your letter to the Statesman.
>

>
>Richard
>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

unread,
Nov 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/15/98
to

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

unread,
Nov 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/15/98
to

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

unread,
Nov 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/15/98
to
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.

--
Albert Nurick
alb...@data.net - ICQ #4403737


Babberney

unread,
Nov 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/15/98
to
Those who choose the alternative end up subsidizing those who "prefer to
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

unread,
Nov 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/15/98
to
On 15 Nov 1998 04:08:30 GMT, ra...@goteborg.netcom.com (Rajat Datta)
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

unread,
Nov 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/15/98
to
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.

Mike Dahmus

unread,
Nov 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/15/98
to
On 15 Nov 1998 04:38:03 GMT, terry...@xmail.utexas.nospam.net (Terry
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

unread,
Nov 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/15/98
to
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?

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

unread,
Nov 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/15/98
to
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. Of course, some of us don't think we should
put up toll plazas and barbed wire around Austin, either. ;-)

Terry Moore

unread,
Nov 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/15/98
to
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?
>
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

unread,
Nov 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/15/98
to
On Sun, 15 Nov 1998 16:54:33 -0600, "Albert Nurick" <alb...@data.net>
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

unread,
Nov 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/15/98
to
On 15 Nov 1998 23:05:25 GMT, terry...@xmail.utexas.nospam.net (Terry
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

unread,
Nov 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/15/98
to
Mike Dahmus wrote in message <364f687...@news.io.com>...

>On Sun, 15 Nov 1998 16:54:33 -0600, "Albert Nurick" <alb...@data.net>
>wrote:
>>Some of us don't buy these arguments.
>
>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

unread,
Nov 15, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/15/98
to
Richard Aleksander wrote in message <72nqku$p...@bgtnsc01.worldnet.att.net>...
>
>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.


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

unread,
Nov 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/16/98
to

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

unread,
Nov 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/16/98
to
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). 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

unread,
Nov 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/16/98
to
In article <5iK32.2625$Y77....@news12.ispnews.com>, alb...@data.net says...


>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

unread,
Nov 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/16/98
to
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?

Marc Wiz

unread,
Nov 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/16/98
to
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.

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

unread,
Nov 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/16/98
to
Rajat Datta wrote in message ...
>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.


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

unread,
Nov 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/16/98
to
On Sun, 15 Nov 1998 18:16:06 -0600, "Albert Nurick" <alb...@data.net>
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

unread,
Nov 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/16/98
to
On 16 Nov 1998 03:53:38 GMT, ra...@goteborg.netcom.com (Rajat Datta)

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

unread,
Nov 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/16/98
to
In article <F2Iv4...@frshaire.wiz.com>, ma...@frshaire.wiz.com says...


>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.

>Marc

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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

unread,
Nov 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/16/98
to
On 16 Nov 1998 04:25:23 GMT, terry...@xmail.utexas.nospam.net (Terry

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

unread,
Nov 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/16/98
to
On Mon, 16 Nov 1998 16:00:23 GMT, ma...@frshaire.wiz.com (Marc Wiz)

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

unread,
Nov 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/16/98
to
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?

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

unread,
Nov 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/16/98
to
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, 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

unread,
Nov 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/16/98
to
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?"

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

unread,
Nov 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/16/98
to
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.

Too bad Austin doesn't do stuff like that. They're too damned
soft on those selfish commuters!

Robert Schroeder

unread,
Nov 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/16/98
to

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

unread,
Nov 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/16/98
to
In article <72pukm$lr8$1...@news.jump.net>, wr...@jump.net says...


> 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

unread,
Nov 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/16/98
to
In article <72q01v$t5$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, jst...@texas.net says...


>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

unread,
Nov 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/16/98
to
Albert Nurick 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.
>
> --
> Albert Nurick
> alb...@data.net - ICQ #4403737


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

unread,
Nov 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/16/98
to
jst...@texas.net wrote:
>
> 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?"
>
> 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.

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

unread,
Nov 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/16/98
to
Light rail is real simple.

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

unread,
Nov 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/16/98
to
On Mon, 16 Nov 1998 11:58:10 -0600, "Albert Nurick" <alb...@data.net>
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

unread,
Nov 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/16/98
to
On 16 Nov 1998 19:32:38 GMT, wr...@jump.net (the wharf rat) wrote:

>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

unread,
Nov 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/16/98
to
On 16 Nov 1998 17:47:02 GMT, terry...@xmail.utexas.nospam.net (Terry
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

unread,
Nov 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/16/98
to
On Mon, 16 Nov 1998 19:56:48 GMT, jst...@texas.net wrote:

>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

unread,
Nov 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/16/98
to
Mike Dahmus wrote in message <36509831...@news.io.com>...

>On Mon, 16 Nov 1998 11:58:10 -0600, "Albert Nurick" <alb...@data.net>
>wrote:
>
>>Mike Dahmus wrote in message <36565eb2...@news.io.com>...
>>>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...


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

unread,
Nov 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/16/98
to
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. Perhaps Cedar Park wisely realizes how few
people actually ride Cap Metro, and have decided to stop subsidizing it.

Cindy and Mike Perez

unread,
Nov 16, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/16/98
to
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.

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