In an op-ed piece that appeared in yesterday’s Austin American-Statesman, Dr. Victor Frankenstein … er, Sid Covington, chairman of the board of the Lone Star Rail District, tried to resuscitate some life in that dying monster by pronouncing to the world that his board endorsed the completion of an environmental impact study for a possible rail line connecting San Antonio to Georgetown.
You don’t need to get out your maps to realize the fastest route between these two destinations is right smack dab through our fair city.
Granted, I’m seeing this vote by the board not as a statement that they actually plan on creating this dang thing. I think it’s nothing more than a desperate grab for some much needed moolah. Recently, Hays County opted out of the district and with it took its hefty annual dues that, as I recall, amounted to almost a half million smackeroos. That had to hurt. Now, the only way the district can qualify for federal transportation funds is to complete the environmental impact study and I think that’s the only reason the board voted for this charade. What they plan to do with these federal funds, if indeed they ever receive them, remains a mystery. But then it would take Sherlock Holmes teaming up with Harry Bosch to find out what happened to all the dough this outfit has already extorted.
For those who have been following this debacle, the original plan was to run this commuter line on the Union Pacific tracks which currently cuts through the eastern edge of downtown Kyle just west of I-35. But, lo and behold, UP finally came to its senses, decided it wanted nothing more to do with these masters of the transportation shell game and took its offer to use those tracks off the table.
Those living on the planet who still maintain their sanity thought, surely, this act by UP killed the beast, But just like director James Whale and Universal Studios resurrected Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley’s beast in the early 1930s with Bride of Frankenstein, Covington claims Lone Star Rail "is alive! It’s alive!" and actually has five other alternatives on the back burner to replace using the UP tracks.
The first of these alternatives listed by Covington is "an alignment adjacent to the railroad’s current freight line." Reading that made me want to grab my torches and pitchforks and put a stop to this madness immediately, if not sooner. In my opinion, one rail line running through the heart of downtown Kyle is one too many, but I doubt if there’s anything anyone can do about that. It was here first. But a second one? Hell, no!!!
Look, I’m as big a fan of mass transportation as anyone. When I lived in Dallas I used the DART light rail network just about every day. I grew up in New York City and, contrary to popular belief, the NYC subway system actually predates me. If you ever go to Paris, don’t bother renting a car. The superb Metro system will take you anywhere in the city you want to go quickly and easily.
But the key word in the above paragraph is "network" and one north-south rail line does not a mass transportation "network" make. You know what else? We already have that north-south passenger rail service. It’s called Amtrak. I see that passenger train whizzing along outside my window just about every evening. Of course, you may argue, Amtrak doesn’t serve Kyle. And that’s true. But the reason it doesn’t serve Kyle is that there is no demand for the service here. Mineola, east of Dallas, has a population of 4,500, give or take, and the Amtrak train stops there on daily basis. Amtrak has scheduled service to both Austin and San Marcos. If there was a demand for Amtrak service here, I guarantee you Amtrak would stop here just like it does in much tinier Mineola. But there isn’t that demand and although I hear a few local residents wax wistfully about the possibility of north-south transportation services, I don’t see a sufficient number of people out their pushing it enough to make such a service viable. Besides, when push comes to shove, and we’re told how much the property tax would have to be raised to pay for Lone Star Rail or any similar rail alternative, I’m convinced even those few local residents will quickly clean the wax out of their ears.
Anyway, I voiced my concerns about all this to Mayor Todd Webster, posing about a half-dozen questions about the possibility of another rail line through Kyle. What follows is a transcript of that interchange:
Is there sufficient land through downtown Kyle for another line adjacent to the current UP line?
Mayor Webster: Attempting to run an additional line outside of existing UP right-of-way would be problematic and would necessarily require the exercise of eminent domain powers to accomplish. While much of that property may go through green field areas within the city, I think there would be homeowners and some businesses that may be negatively impacted by such an approach. So, the land is there but the financial and political cost would very high. Again, this assumes that they aren't talking about an adjacent line with existing right of way. If the latter is the case, it would certainly be easier but unlikely given what has been published regarding UP's recent stance on Lone Star Rail.
What role would the Kyle City Council play in approving such an alignment through downtown Kyle?
Mayor Webster: Lone Star's approach has been to entice municipal/taxpayer investment into the project by offering the opportunity to influence the planning of the line and the location of stops on the route. Unless the city agreed to their terms, I do not believe that we would have the ability to participate in those alignment discussions with Lone Star Rail in an impactful manner. Outside of participating, we would need to engage the legislature and other entities that may have oversight, similar to what we would do with a state highway project, to address any issues that would arise from the creation of the line.
If it did have a role, what do you think are the chances the city council would approve such a line (which, granted, is a tough one because no one knows what the makeup of the council will be if and when this ever comes up for a vote, but I'm wondering given the current mood of this council)?
Mayor Webster: I can only really speak for myself. I don't think that the financial arrangement that was original proposed by Lone Star Rail was feasible for Kyle. They were asking for too much and too far in advance of any concrete proposal. Their approach was inconsistent from community to community and generated a lot of ill-will toward commuter rail within our community. I think future city councils will have a tough time approving such a long-term and costly financial commitment if Lone Star Rail continues with the same approach and sales pitch. Long-term, rail transportation could be viable in central Texas but I am not convinced this group is the one that can pull it off.
Could the city insist on the district constructing an elevated track system through the downtown area and do you think that would be a viable alternative?
Mayor Webster: Anything is possible. The benefit of an elevated track system would be the opportunity to use existing right of way. I personally believe that an elevated track system should be considered, particularly if it is possible to utilize existing right of way. For example, if it was possible to run an elevated system above and in the center of IH-35, it could be more cost-effective and less time-consuming to accomplish because the state already owns most of the property that would be necessary to construct. With this type of project, eminent domain should be used as sparingly as possible and I think elevated track may help, regardless of where it is located.
Is Kyle a member of the Lone Star Rail District and, if so, how much does the city pay the district per year? If it is not. do you see any desire to become a member? If it isn't a member and doesn't wish to become one, doesn't that preclude the city from having a Lone Star Rail station in Kyle?
Mayor Webster: Before I was elected, the city council voted to keep talking to Lone Star Rail but chose not to commit resources. Lone Star expected an annual fee to be part of the organization, which they attempted to collect early on in my term. We do not pay that fee ($60,000 per year or about a ½ cent of our ad valorem tax rate) and therefore, I do not consider us to be a member. I have not participated in any discussions with them since I have been elected, though I have often spoken with those who are involved as members about my lack of confidence in their overall approach while clearly expressing my views generally supporting the long-term need for a rail transportation system within the IH-35 corridor. I do not plan to advocate that the city join Lone Star Rail and there simply isn't anything close to enough community support to commit the annual resources and to the very substantial redirection of future tax revenue that this organization was demanding of the city. As for a future station, market-based economics and functionality of the rail line are what should drive the location of stations. Stations should go where the most people will be able to access and easily use the line. In a properly conceived system, up front political maneuvering and "buy in early to get a station" tactics should not be the approach. Maybe that sentiment is naïve on my part but this type of behavior is what initially led to my skepticism regarding this project.
If such a rail system is ever realized and Kyle is a stop on that route, where do you think the station should be located? I've heard arguments for a depot near the 1626 overpass and, if that is the location, should Lone Star rail be required to pay for and install the necessary infrastructure necessary to access and park at that depot? What do you think of the argument that a depot at that location would only serve commuters, but a depot downtown could possibly bring out of town visitors to Kyle?
Mayor Webster: The location of stops is a difficult question. I do believe that wherever a stop may be located would see some level of economic benefit. The city had previously identified an area near FM 1626 and Kohler's Crossing as a suitable location and made plans for it to be there. I do think that a stop in Old Town would boost the economic outlook for that area of town. The problem is that there cannot be too many stops on the line. Otherwise, the train would take too long to be an effective option for commuters. Another consideration is the need for parking and what it would take in a particular area to provide for adequate parking. In Old Town, I think we would need to consider a parking garage. Other areas of town may not require having to build a vertical structure to accommodate parking.
No comments:
Post a Comment