Author: AURA

Over the last two years, AURA members have advocated a bold, visionary overhaul of Austin’s land use rules that would create a more environmentally friendly, livable, and affordable city.

The release of the CodeNEXT Draft 2 last weekend made clear that consultants and staff are unwilling to rise to the task of making meaningful strides toward AURA’s goals. Both drafts leave in place most of the barriers to abundant housing that have been driving up rents and accelerating displacement. Continuing this broken status quo is not acceptable.

AURA demands a CodeNEXT that provides the following measurable improvements in affordability, alternative transportation use, and environmental quality:

• We need a code that makes Austin more affordable by encouraging the construction of new housing stock in the central city where people want to live. In particular, we need a code that will create the conditions to actually add at least 150,000 new homes on the ground in Austin’s city council District 9 within ten years, in addition to new housing elsewhere in the city. Actual construction is different from “zoning capacity”—building 150,000 new units will require entitlements for half a million.
• We need a code that makes Austin more affordable by adding a significant amount of “missing middle” housing—triplexes, fourplexes, sixplexes, and row homes—the cheapest housing to build: at least 40% of the new units added under the new code must be missing middle housing, not counting ADUs.
• We need a code that makes Austin more affordable by affirmatively furthering Fair Housing: at least 75% of the land area in every urban core neighborhood must be eligible for a realistic affordable housing density bonus, as called for in the 2016 fair housing resolution.
• We need a code that gets people out of their cars and into alternative modes of transportation that alleviate Austin’s gridlock and reduce carbon emissions: the number of Austinites getting to work some other way than driving alone must double from 25% to 50% within ten years as a result of land use reform under the new code according to realistic, credible forecasts. We need zoning that takes the share of solo trips by car below 50%.
• We need a code that minimizes impervious cover at the metro area level: CodeNEXT should minimize our geographic footprint by encouraging housing in places and forms that use less impervious cover per person in order to mitigate flood risk and improve water quality.

CodeNEXT Draft 2.0 makes some incremental progress toward these goals:

• It allows construction of ADUs in more places
• It allows residential uses in commercial zones

Despite these improvements, the draft still falls short on the AURA goals enumerated above. To wit:

• By City consultant firm Fregonese’s own admission, the new drafts adds only 19,481 new housing units in District 9— and that’s capacity, not a true forecast.
• That District 9 number is far less than the 32,231 projected net new units in District 1. This allocation of housing capacity continues pushing development out of Central Austin into the East Side.
• Only 18% of the projected new units under Draft 2—again by Fregonese’s own admission—are in missing middle housing. For the most part, missing middle will still be missing if nothing changes from here. That’s a small improvement over the status quo, but it is not the bold reform we need.
• From the Affordable Housing Bonus Program maps we’ve seen, it appears essentially zero neighborhoods will be even 50% density bonus eligible. Even with improvements that extend the density bonus program to more places, eligible land is still a tiny portion of most neighborhoods and completely unavailable in our most common zones.
• We have not seen numbers on mode shift, but it strains credulity to believe that the draft’s mere tinkering around the edges of the status quo will produce the car-independence we need.
• The broken system of lot-level impervious cover percentages, which has resulted in the paving of tens of thousands of acres of hill country, forest, and prairie in and around Austin, remains in place. This approach has long been recognized as counterproductive by the EPA. We need smarter, more holistic approaches.

Cities are growing, dynamic entities.  If we do it right, CodeNEXT can give Austin the tools it desperately needs to allow our neighborhoods to provide enough homes for the next generation. Providing enough homes will require change—a meaningful departure from the broken status quo that has created the housing shortage that is devastating our community with high rents and rapid displacement all over Austin. AURA calls on our City staff, consultants, and leaders at the Planning Commission and City Council to show courageous leadership and use CodeNEXT to create an Austin for Everyone.

One year ago this week, AURA released its Transit Vision for the city of Austin. It recommended a set of small, incremental improvements that collectively would have a greater effect than a multibillion rail line or set of rail lines. For transit, we recommended frequent bus routes and transit priority rather than a single magic bullet. We recommended disincentivizing parking and driving to work by reducing parking minimums across the city, enacting parking maximums in downtown, and creating cash-out programs at major employers instead of free parking. Other steps like finishing the sidewalk and bike network, increasing connectivity, and allowing more housing near transit corridors set up an urban space where walking, biking, and using transit is encouraged rather than discouraged. AURA still believes that these steps are critical to enabling a more multimodal transportation system. The rest of this post steps back from the day-to-day grind of transportation planning in Austin to evaluate how the major transportation agents have achieved or not achieved these goals.

CAPMETRO: GRADE: A-

Capital Metro, for all its problems, has been the most successful at implementing the transit vision.

STEP: IMPLEMENT A FREQUENT NETWORK:

Most critically, In March 2017, the CapMetro board approved the framework for Connections 2025, a long-range plan that will create a network of frequent routes across the city. This is a very encouraging step that will go a long way to providing improved bus service for CapMetro’s customers. Although there were concerns that some riders would lose access to their current jobs, a joint analysis by AURA and Farm & City showed that the new network would provide frequent access to transit and, with it, greater economic opportunity to 10,000 low-income households. AURA urges CapMetro to implement Connections 2025 as quickly as possible.

STEP: FARE PARITY BETWEEN METRORAPID AND LOCAL ROUTES:

In January, Capital Metro eliminated the fare differential between the MetroRapid routes and its local routes. The higher fare for MetroRapid had long created a two-tier system where wealthier riders could choose a better service. This step has already caused ridership to increase on the MetroRapid corridors. Some riders are switching from the locals to the MetroRapid, but the change has likely attracted new bus riders as well.

STEP: IMPROVE BUS SHELTERS

Currently, far too many bus shelters in Austin are totally bare bones with no shade or even no bench. This makes them practically unusable in the hot summer months, as well as unwelcoming to those with mobility challenges who cannot stand for long periods of time. Capital Metro has a new, cheaper design for bus shelters, which will enable the agency to deploy them at many more stops. Unfortunately, these new shelters still do not consistently provide shade or protection for the elements. AURA calls for CapMetro to find a shelter design that can be widely implemented and actually provide basic shelter.

FOR 2017-2018

Going forward, Capital Metro’s major initiative right now is Project Connect 2.0, which is concluding its first phase in June.  The first phase recommended 16 different corridors for future study, including 3 commuter routes, 10 “connectors” on major arteries through the city, and 2 downtown circulators. AURA is concerned that the process may end up committing too many limited transit dollars to low-value suburban commuter projects, but we are also encouraged by the inclusion and high scores of many high ridership bus corridors, especially the strong result for the Lamar-Guadalupe connector corridor.

CITY OF AUSTIN: GRADE C-

The city of Austin has made halting steps towards a more multimodal city, but they let themselves be hamstrung by forces that would maintain a suburban status quo.

STEP: FULLY FUND THE BICYCLE MASTER PLAN AND HIGH PRIORITY SIDEWALKS

The city of Austin half-accomplished this step with the Go Big Mobility Bond, passed by voters in November 2016. That bond commits $137 of its $720 million to local mobility projects, mostly sidewalks, urban trails and bike lanes. It is true, as the mayor says, that this is the largest investment the city has ever made in active transportation. Unfortunately, it is still woefully inadequate, since it allocates only a quarter of the estimated $400 million to implement the bike plan and high priority sidewalks. It is also peanuts compared to regional highway funding: the US 183-A expansion will cost $650 million; the cost overrun alone on the MoPAC express lanes was $200 million.  

The largest part of the mobility bond is reserved for the corridor plans: seven existing plans for major roads in the Austin area. The city is still determining which projects identified in the corridor plans it will fund, and those decisions will determine whether this effort is a success for transit or not. Projects range from excellent—like the transit priority lanes on Guadalupe, to the misguided—like bus pullouts on major corridors, to the disastrous—like the $110 million plan to widen and speed up FM 969 east of 183, creating yet another sprawl accelerator to the periphery of the city. The ultimate success of the mobility bond will depend on the city choosing projects wisely.

STEP: ALLOW AND PROMOTE ABUNDANT HOUSING NEAR EXISTING TRANSIT.

The major driver here is Austin’s land development code, currently being rewritten as CodeNEXT. The goal of CodeNEXT was to enact the Imagine Austin plan and “promote a more compact and connected city” by enabling more missing middle housing in the urban core and upzoning the corridors identified for future density. At these tasks, it has thus far failed completely. The new code is more complex than the current code, does not enable abundant housing, and may in fact make it more difficult to build small-scale infill housing. Inexplicably, the new zoning map largely replicates our existing housing map rather than supporting Imagine Austin’s mandate and goals.

Absent substantial changes between the current draft and the final product, the timidity of the CodeNEXT result ensures that Austin’s most desirable, most transit-friendly neighborhoods will fail to provide housing sufficient to meet demand and will persist as low density enclaves for the wealthy. Scarce and unaffordable housing in the central city will also continue to drive young families to the suburbs, where transit options are limited and driving is required for almost every trip.

STEP: TRANSIT PRIORITY

Transit priority is arguably the single most important thing Austin can do to help Capital Metro provide effective bus service.  The city has made some strides here, with some signals getting transit priority treatments, but there are many lost opportunities and very little political will to enact change.

Center for Transportation Research study table showing Scenario 1 – with a transit lane in each direction on Guadalupe – reducing travel times

The Guadalupe corridor is illustrative. The city started a study of the Guadalupe Corridor, i.e. the Drag, in 2014. Almost all of Austin’s major bus routes use this corridor, where they get caught in significant traffic going past the University. An AURA study showed that at rush hour there are nearly as many travellers riding buses as in cars, despite the buses taking up a tenth of the space. In Spring 2015, modeling from the Center for Transportation Research at the University of Texas showed that implementing transit priority lanes on Guadalupe would accelerate buses and cars (see table above). In 2016, the City’s draft corridor report recommended transit lanes.

The case could not be clearer. And yet, at a recent urban transportation committee (UTC) meeting, Austin Transportation Department’s director for strategic planning refused to commit to transit priority on Guadalupe, awaiting the results of the Austin Strategic Mobility Plan (ASMP). While it is good to have a strategic mobility plan, and AURA has provided feedback on transit priority in the ASMP, transit priority lanes, especially in a corridor where they are as badly needed as they are on Guadalupe, should not have to wait four years and multiple planning cycles for implementation.

OTHER STEPS: CONNECTIVITY, CASH-OUTS, PARKING REQUIREMENTS

AURA recommended several other steps to reduce car dependency and promote alternative modes of transportation, like increasing grid connectivity, giving an option for employees to take cash instead of a free parking spot, and reducing requirements for parking at new developments across the city. The city of Austin has made halting progress in these areas. Connectivity is a part of the Mobility Strategic Plan. The city does not have a cash-out for parking program yet, but it has started offering paid time off for employees who don’t drive every day. Unfortunately, parking minimums have not been reduced. The minimum number of parking spots required has been slightly decreased for some uses in the draft version of CodeNEXT, but they remain untouched or even increased in other areas of the proposed code. In particular, AURA is concerned about the persistent high levels of parking required for bars and cocktail lounges, which is just an invitation for people to drive to alcohol, and then to drive home drunk. The city needs to seriously consider the effect requiring so much parking has on our city, and the behavior of its citizens.

FOR 2017-2018:

In the next year Austin will finish its strategic mobility plan and its new land use development code. These major projects must make serious commitments to transit priority on our streets and more housing in our neighborhoods. It may be unpopular with some, but it is the only step forward to make a multimodal city.

OTHER REGIONAL PARTNERS: GRADE F

TxDOT, CTRMA, and CAMPO continue to pay lip service to alternative modes of transportation while greenlighting and building major highway projects all over the city, spending billions of dollars to swallow more land for cars.

Even these organizations’ meager efforts towards multimodality are undone by the harm their highways do. CTRMA is committing to build park-n-rides connected to the city of Austin by express bus lines. But park-n-rides are not an effective way to get people out of their cars. To move even 100 commuters a day requires a parking lot an acre in size. To make a substantial dent in the percentage of single occupant vehicle commuters, then, would require paving over 10 or 20 square miles, or building expensive multi-story garages, neither of which is cost-effective.

These organizations aren’t even succeeding at providing decent car mobility because of induced demand, the phenomenon by which new highway capacity is rapidly absorbed by new highway drivers, resulting in even more congestion than before the capacity was built. An example in Austin is 183-A, a toll road built to the rapidly growing suburbs of Cedar Park and Leander. 183-A was one of CTRMA’s first highway projects; it opened as an empty, brand new road in 2007. Less than ten years later CTRMA has proposed building two express lanes at a cost of $650 million, equivalent to funding both Austin’s bicycle plan and the high priority sidewalks. CAMPO, the agency in charge of responsible transportation in the Austin area, was not consulted.  

183-A also directly competes against CapMetro’s Red Line to Leander, crippling its effectiveness.

FOR 2017-2018:

As they look to the future, these agencies must admit that geometry is against them. They cannot provide enough highway capacity to satisfy the demand their highways will generate, nor can they build enough parking lots to accommodate meaningful transit commuters. Instead of paying lip service to transit, they must make meaningful commitments. For instance, rather than build highways that compete with commuter transit, CTRMA could fund the operating costs of Express Buses or the Red Line.  

CONCLUSION

A year after its publication AURA’s transit vision still charts necessary and important steps to creating a city where alternatives to a car dependent lifestyle are more widely accessible. Some of these steps will require hard choices that disrupt Austin’s status quo of a city built for cars. But they are desperately needed as we seek to become a more sustainable city. The region and the planet simply cannot keep up with a vicious cycle of suburban housing leading to highways, feeding even more suburban sprawl, leading to more highways. Some progress has been made in the last year, but the focus for 2017-2018 for the city and its regional partners must be to really commit to a future where transit is viable.

For Immediate Release

CodeNEXT Mapping Reveals Near-Fatal Flaws

April 19, 2017

Austin, Texas

Mayor Adler was right: the maps are wrong.  “The CodeNEXT maps revealed yesterday are so deeply flawed that further tinkering block by block around the edges of a few neighborhoods and corridors will not be enough to enable CodeNext to meaningfully address Austin’s worsening affordability, mobility, environmental, and segregation problems,” said Josiah Stevenson, a member of AURA’s Working Group on CodeNEXT.

AURA members, along with many other community advocates and Austin taxpayers, are in disbelief that the City of Austin spent $6 million and over two years only to maintain the status quo. The nominal differences between current and future land maps are a slap in the face to the Austinites who have spent hundreds of volunteer hours in the hopes of improving our city.  

The draft maps fall far short of AURA’s CodeNEXT and Mapping Expectations. AURA believes that we need at least urban neighborhood zoning (T4) throughout the entire urban core, and for that zoning to unequivocally allow missing middle housing types. Among the biggest problems with the maps: 

• There is not enough increased housing capacity in Central and West Austin to offset the inequitable housing pressures on East Austin. We must recognize that our current land use code has been a major catalyst for gentrification and displacement. Failing to address this inequity will only further segregation.
• Allowable density is actually decreased in some areas of the central city compared to what is allowed under today’s regulations! For example, some homeowners who were previously allowed to construct ADUs now cannot. Some apartments have been mapped out of compliance. Heights and zoning capacity in many single family zoned areas are even further restricted. We should not be moving backwards.
• Missing middle housing is still missing from most central city neighborhoods. Rowhouses in particular are only allowed right along major arteries. We must remove barriers to constructing the new missing middle building types in the draft code text and zone more areas with the transect zones that allow them. A moderate density zone that would include rowhouses and other medium density building types was added to the toolbox on Tuesday—put it on the map!
• There are too many missed opportunities to allow living space to be built along major corridors (Airport, South 1st, etc), where density is needed to increase public transit ridership and reduce sprawl. Consultants, staff and Austin’s political leadership must optimize CodeNEXT for more and better transportation options, paying special attention to potential transit ridership and transit corridors of opportunity.
• The maps also lack useful “transition zones” between major corridors and single-family areas. Rather than transitioning density over several blocks, corridors like South Lamar are mapped with a very narrow ribbon of high density directly next to single-family zoning. Instead, we should widen the high density corridors and transition gradually to the medium densities appropriate for the interiors of urban core neighborhoods.
• Finally, CodeNEXT fails to make Austin’s code simpler and clearer—instead, it makes matters worse. CodeNEXT would effectively give the city three separate zoning paradigms: transect, non-transect, and unmodified legacy zones. The result is more than sixty zoning categories and very few increases in by-right entitlements.

AURA members are very concerned with the direction of CodeNEXT; a recent internal survey asked AURA members to rate their level of concern with the current CodeNext draft on a scale of 1-5 (with 5 being very concerned.) 42% believe the code “needs a large number of edits”  and rated their concern at a 4; 58% are “very concerned” about the direction of CodeNEXT at 5. Zero members expressed a 1 through 3. 

There are a few bright spots that AURA applauds. The map of downtown comes a lot closer to implementing the Downtown Neighborhood Plan than the current code. Some areas along major corridors that are currently zoned “commercial” have been replaced with zones that permit mixed and residential uses, allowing more housing to be built in those areas. However, limited improvements in only a few areas will ensure the continuation of Austin’s current development patterns leading to even more sprawl, congestion, gentrification and segregation. 
 
Replacing the old code with nearly the same one at such a high price tag is an insult to all Austinites, but especially to middle and working class homeowners  and renters who are being squeezed out of Austin by the quickly-rising cost of living in their homes. This displacement epidemic is the result of an acute housing shortage that is directly caused by our land use regulations.

Mayor Adler has the opportunity to lead Austin past the decades of segregation and poor land use choices in our past. We hope that he and our City Council will take Austin into a future where everyone can afford to live in Austin, and CodeNEXT is the first real opportunity in years to accomplish that.

“We are in the midst of a housing shortage, and our leaders are not doing enough to fix it.  This is not a time for Austin to ‘chill out.’  It’s a time for all Austinites who truly care about addressing our affordability and mobility challenges to demand the positive changes we need,” said Stephanie Trinh on behalf of AURA.

AURA is a grassroots urbanist organization focused on building an Austin for everyone by improving land use and transportation through policy analysis, public involvement, and political engagement.

Press Contact:

• Josiah Stevenson, AURA CodeNEXT Working Group, josiahstevenson@gmail.com, 832-466-2785

In August 2016, AURA released its CodeNEXT Expectations. Although these expectations lay out broad policy priorities for CodeNEXT, a well-written code with a feeble on-the-ground implementation could still spell disaster.  Austinites need a zoning map that’s designed to solve for Central Texas’ critical challenges. A broad rezoning of the urban core is critical to ensuring affordability, fair housing, efficient transit, sustainable growth, and an Austin for Everyone. Here are our expectations for the CodeNEXT maps that will be released on April 18:

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHER FAIR HOUSING AND CREATE AN INCLUSIVE CITY

AURA calls for equitable zoning throughout the city. Austin has a long history rife with racist and exclusionary zoning, the vestiges of which we still see as a racially and socioeconomically segregated city. Austin’s first Latino Council Member, John Trevino, noted in 1983, “Low density development eliminates most minorities… Are we building an elitist community? Yes, we want to enjoy the environment. But none of my folks will be able to move in.” Thirty-four years later, this sentiment still rings true. Our lower-income neighborhoods have smaller homes, smaller lots, and denser developments; but as Austin has grown, our overly restrictive code has pushed our housing pressures disproportionately into East Austin and pushed our low-income residents out. Unfortunately, there are little to no opportunities for those residents to move into other central areas, as wealthier neighborhoods continue to resist higher density infill and lower-cost housing options. CodeNEXT is the opportunity to allow housing throughout the urban core at all income levels and ensure that all urban core areas adjust for population growth. More housing in high opportunity areas will allow more people at varying income levels to live centrally, near amenities and transit, and help alleviate the inequitable housing pressures on our low-income areas.

ALLOW MISSING MIDDLE THROUGHOUT THE URBAN CORE

Our land use code gives few options between single family homes and large apartment complexes. Medium-density buildings, such as multiplexes, row homes, cottage courts, and small apartment complexes, are great small-scale infill options that are more affordable than detached, single-family homes. Austin’s central neighborhoods are desirable areas to live — they have easy access to Austin’s (slowly) improving transit, central city amenities, and the best that Austin’s culture has to offer — yet living there is not accessible to most working families today. Missing middle housing allows families to live closer together and create walkable neighborhoods that are safer and more conducive to transit. Missing middle housing should be allowed throughout the urban core, and not just near corridors, so that more people can access the heart of our neighborhoods. Allowing attractive housing options in only a few limited areas will not improve Austin’s affordability, but will ensure only high end development.

ENSURE ABUNDANT HOUSING CAPACITY

The CodeNEXT maps must ensure Austin has enough housing for however many people want to live here. When 100 people move to Austin every day, and we don’t build enough housing units to accommodate them, low-income residents will be displaced as the wealthy will always be able to outbid the poor. This economic displacement lies at the heart of Austin’s gentrification challenge. An inclusive zoning map would substantially grow our zoned capacity and allow Austin to adapt to its needs rather than set arbitrary caps on our neighborhoods’ populations.

DISINCENTIVIZE SPRAWL

CodeNEXT should emphasize compact, connected urban infill rather than suburban sprawl to meet our housing demand. Despite its reputation as a city that cares about the environment, in actuality, a substantial portion of Austin’s growth is greenfield growth on the edges of the city. This development pattern is problematic for the environment, city resources, traffic, and household affordability. Development on undeveloped land increases runoff and destroys natural green spaces, wildlife habitat, and farmland. Growth of single family development also strains the City’s resources and infrastructure. Single-family neighborhoods consume substantially more water and sprawled areas are harder for city services such as police, fire, and public transportation to reach. Additionally, suburban residents often drive long distances to work in the urban core, straining our roads, adding to our traffic, and hastening the progress of climate change through vehicle emissions. Families living in these edge developments spend staggering amounts of money and time on transportation to access to Austin’s job centers, straining their budgets and reducing their quality of life. While some households may still choose a suburban lifestyle, the land development code should provide options for those who want a more walkable, sustainable urban lifestyle.

MAXIMIZE FORM-BASED ZONING

AURA would like to see Austin zoned substantially, if not entirely, under form-based code; we argued in favor of doing so when City Council selected the “code approach” back in 2014. A good form-based code, one that is aligned with our other expectations, helps create “complete communities” (as referenced by the Imagine Austin Comprehensive Plan) where residents can access their daily needs without using a car. At its best, a form-based code creates more diverse areas where you may find jobs, restaurants, schools, and grocery stores near where people live. Non-transect zones are supposedly intended for areas that are car-dependent, but we implore the city to allow Austinites throughout the city to live, work, and play in their neighborhoods and reduce their dependency on single occupancy vehicles. Having two parallel codes limits transparency and community engagement, increases costs of development, and further complicates the zoning and rezoning process. Non-transect zones should be used sparingly.

March 14, 2017

Mayor Adler:

AURA is an all-volunteer grassroots urbanist organization focused on building an Austin for everyone by improving land use and transportation through policy analysis, public involvement, and political engagement.

While our members are still dissecting the initial CodeNEXT draft, we applaud City of Austin staff and consultants for a thorough community-engagement schedule. A robust city dialogue is imperative to realize the sustainable, compact, and connected city the Imagine Austin Comprehensive Plan envisions. “Change isn’t easy,” Imagine Austin reminds us, “however, the potential rewards will outweigh the discomforts.” To reaffirm the priorities vetted by Imagine Austin’s 30,000 hours of community engagement, an open dialogue around the benefits of Imagine Austin’s bold vision is critical.

Since its release, our membership and many community advocates have come together to vet the initial CodeNEXT draft against Imagine Austin and AURA’s CodeNEXT expectations. Yet, despite the hard work of City staff, AURA is unsure if anyone is listening.

On February 19th, the Austin American-Statesman quoted your estimate of how much of the city’s zoning will stay the same under the new code—“97%”—despite mapping not yet being released.

We’re eager to work with City staff, your office, and all of City Council to align the CodeNEXT process with established community priorities for compact and connected growth, but if we’re going to succeed in getting the code Austin needs, Austinites must have confidence that your office, and all of Austin’s leaders, are listening. Is the CodeNEXT outcome a foregone conclusion inside your office—an outcome that will change nothing and help no one? Or do we want a city that prioritizes household affordability and remedying Austin’s staggering walkability, connectivity and traffic problems?

There are many exciting plans and projects underway in Austin. The Neighborhood Housing and Community Development Department has developed a comprehensive Housing Plan that calls for more subsidized and market-rate housing solutions, including more missing middle housing. CapMetro just passed its Connections 2025 service plan which will drastically improve bus frequency and efficiency. The Austin Transportation Department is developing the Austin Strategic Mobility Plan, which will carry the goals of Imagine Austin into our transportation policy to ensure we prioritize a multi-modal city. And Project Connect is working with stakeholders and the community to envision high-capacity transit solutions. These efforts have engaged thousands of Austinites and the success of these endeavors depends on the success of CodeNEXT. We will not achieve our ambitious goals in housing and transit if we do not have a land use code that allows us to welcome more people into our neighborhoods and create transit-supportive density.

CodeNEXT is once-in-a-generation opportunity to solve Austin’s deep challenges and create exciting opportunities for the future. Austin is the most economically segregated city in the country, but a successful CodeNEXT could bring a sustainable, affordable and integrated future for Austin—an Austin for Everyone. Austin’s current land use code has left the city dramatically unaffordable. Economic segregation lacerates our city, leaving a deep wound dividing haves and have-nots. Austin needs a concerted effort to remedy the segregative land use policy underpinning our city, and we’re worried this may be impossible if you refuse to embrace reform. You were willing to Go Big in the “Year of Mobility”—Austin needs you to Go Bigger in the “Year of Affordability.”

Mayor Adler, do you think community input on CodeNEXT is a waste of time, since 97% of the city will be exactly the same?

Sincerely,

AURA

For Immediate Release

AURA Statement on CodeNEXT Draft

January 18, 2017

Austin, TX

On Tuesday AURA became aware of a leaked draft of CodeNEXT which was posted to Twitter over the holiday weekend. The document, weighing in at 327 pages, is massive, and yet also astonishingly incomplete (i.e. no sections on site plans, subdivision, drainage, etc). This is perhaps explained by the fact that it is largely dated June 2016. As such, we are hesitant to dig into the details. Limiting ourselves to a broad view, the draft is disappointing. We cannot stress enough that Austin is in the midst of an (un)affordable housing crisis; in conjunction with this crisis, the City’s own Planning and Development Review Department came under intense criticism in March of 2015. The City and its residents are in urgent need of significant policy change to reverse this trend. Unfortunately, it would appear that in this draft the staff and consultants have largely come up short in meeting the modest goals they set out for themselves in the Code Diagnosis back in May 2014.

The complexity of this draft is overwhelming. Not only would it not simplify our byzantine land use regulations, it would, in many cases, make them more convoluted. The transect zones regulate in extremely fine detail all manner of design in a way that is new to Austin. Given the difficulty the Development Services Department (DSD) has with our modest current design standards (e.g. Subchapters E & F), we can’t help but wonder what scale of additional resources will be required for DSD to review applications under the form-based code in a timely manner. The Code Diagnosis also specifically called out Austin’s layers upon layers of zoning as a problem, yet this draft contains dozens of pages on overlay zones, lifted almost verbatim from the existing code. The same goes for small area plans, a problem identified by AURA in our CodeNEXT expectations. The existing small area plans are essentially duplicated in this draft, instead of simply remapping them to the appropriate new transect zones.

Additionally, despite the problem of an auto-centric code being highlighted in the Code Diagnosis, this draft appears only marginally less auto-centric than our existing code. While the document lacks a full section on transportation, each transect zone defines parking minimums, and there is a parking section which appears largely identical to the existing code. That a draft produced as recently as June 2016 would even consider continuing our (ludicrous) current practice of requiring parking for bars is surely an error that will be corrected in the final code.

AURA is well aware that this document is an incomplete draft. We remain hopeful that there will be significant improvement when the final draft is released on January 30. However, we fear that in the nine months since this draft was issued, staff and their consultants have made the complexity problem worse, not better. For example, this draft contains 18 transect zones, but the staff and consultant presentation to the CAG on December 7th contains 21 transect zones. When it comes to land use regulation, less is more. Austin had no zoning ordinance for almost a century, and the first ordinance, in 1931, was just 20 pages long. That light hand produced great places like South Congress, Hyde Park and The Drag, and beloved institutions like Nau’s Enfield Drug. All are places that have been essentially illegal to build in their current form for decades now thanks the complexity of our land development codes since the 50s. On January 30 we hope to find that this draft has been dramatically pared back, both in scale and complexity. Less code will make Austin a happier, healthier, and more affordable city.

AURA is an all-volunteer grassroots urbanist organization focused on building an Austin for everyone by improving land use and transportation through policy analysis, public involvement, and political engagement.

Press contacts:

Steven Yarak, steven@yarak.org
Tommy Ates, tommyates@hotmail.com

In June, the City of Austin Neighborhood Housing and Community Development Office (NHCD) released a draft of the Austin Strategic Housing Plan. A representative from NHCD attend AURA’s November board meeting and presented on the plan and received feedback from AURA members. We are encouraged that the Department recognizes certain fair housing and land use barriers that AURA has named in its CodeNEXT expectations. Subsequently, on November 21, AURA sent the letter below to NHCD as our official response to the draft plan. Since that time, NHCD has released an updated December draft of the plan, which we encourage everyone to review.

---

This letter is to provide our formal feedback regarding the draft housing plan, both that which is posted on the city website as well as items discussed in a public presentation given to AURA on November 9th, 2016. We appreciate the time spent with our group, and we appreciate the opportunity to provide our feedback.

AURA stands for an Austin for Everyone, and nowhere is this more important than in building a city that provides enough housing for all residents who want to live here. Currently there are many invisible walls built around some neighborhoods and we feel strongly that these walls must come down.

We applaud the city’s efforts to create a housing plan that will address the needs for both market rate and affordable units. This is key to addressing housing for all levels of income. While we advocate for more density overall, we recognize that simple supply can never meet the need for “deeply affordable” units. Likewise, we recognize that subsidizing all units for up to 80% MFI is an enormous cost that cannot be borne by the city, either politically or fiscally.

In reviewing the housing plan, we found there were some areas that needed more clarity as well as more bold options. For example, the draft plan provided an extensive list of options that could be explored, but without realistic estimates for the cost, the value, and the actual ability to accomplish, it leaves the reader untethered. We need more clarity around each proposed tool, what its costs are, what its benefits are, and how achievable it is. This could be provided as a matrix where the X-axis is ease/cost of implementation and the Y-axis is number of units/public benefit. When this matrix is divided into quadrants, it will become very clear which of the tools provides the most good for the least cost (sometimes free, such as allowing smaller houses and smaller lots) and should be implemented immediately. It will also identify areas where less funding should be allocated based on the limited pool of dollars we have to affect the most number of households.

There were items suggested that have little chance of achievability, and we need to recognize that. In particular, suggestions to work with the Texas state legislature to allow rent control are basically non-starters in our current political climate, and we need to be realistic that this will likely not happen (at least not in the next 10 years).

Other areas where we found issue are the overall definitions of affordability. As is clear from speaking with NHCD staff, everyone knows that transportation costs in the Austin area are higher than the national average, costing households upwards of $11,983 per year due the increased miles driven (see data here). This is a huge burden on families and contributes to the struggle many face. “Affordable” needs to recognize that building housing near Decker lake may be “cheap” but the transportation costs will be astronomical, erasing the benefit to living in an affordable unit. Housing advocates generally recommend that no more than 45% of a household’s income be spent on housing and transportation.

An area of great concern to us is the desire to put a number on the percent of new housing that will be on Imagine Austin corridors and centers. In particular, the number we heard was 75%. This is unacceptable, as we feel that ADUs, townhouses, duplexes, fourplexes, and other “missing middle” housing types should be allowed everywhere, not just in transition zones 1⁄4 mile from a corridor or activity center. We recommend removal of this target completely. If it must exist, it should be 50% or below, or should say within 1⁄2 mile of centers and corridors.

We also recommend that the housing plan include options for pre-approved plans for missing middle housing types, such as duplexes, ADUs, and fourplexes. This decreases the soft costs for small investors and homeowners looking to maximize their property. Many cannot afford to hire an architect or wade through the complex development approval process. Simplifying this
will decrease costs.

Thank you very much for your hard work in service to the city and we look forward to the final housing plan.

Following a vote of its members last week, AURA takes no position on the Proposition 1 transportation bonds.

AURA submitted a questionnaire to all Democratic Party candidates running for Texas House District 49. Long time representative Elliott Naishtat has announced he will not seek another term; the Democratic Party primary is expected to serve as a de facto election. Since HD-49 is the only Texas House seat entirely within the city limits of Austin, AURA asked candidates for their views on state issues that affect Austin’s land use, transit, and urban living. We received responses from three candidates: Huey Fischer, Gina Hinojosa, and Heather Way. We present their responses below. We have not received answers from Aspen Dunaway, Kenton Johnson, Blake Rocap, and Matthew Shrum. We will publish them if they answer later. UPDATE, 2/9/2016: We have received responses from Aspen Dunaway and have posted them below.

GENERAL

Q1:  For urban and transportation issues, how do you plan to establish common ground with Texas House Republicans, without whose votes legislation cannot be approved?

Aspen Dunaway: In order for succeeding in passing legislation, we have to reach across the aisle and work together and collectively. In my Formula for HD 49, I have laid out my legislative priorities and I strongly believe there will be bi-partisan support on several of these key ideas.

Huey Fischer: Tying priorities to long-term costs is key. We have seen some Republicans dare to begin the conversation on raising the gas tax for the first time since before I was born. We have seen some Republicans open up to supporting regional rail. When it comes to fights over water, lines are usually drawn between urban and rural interests. Two things to note about the Texas House are that there are 150 unique agendas, but those interests are not always mutually exclusive. If I can stand up for dairy farmers in El Paso County or community college support in Brazos County, than I can leverage that to be an effective advocate for urban Austin.

Gina Hinojosa: I believe that, in my service to the community including my time on the Austin Independent School District (AISD) Board of Trustees, I have established a reputation for collaboration and building relationships.  I was involved in an effort last session in building a non-partisan statewide coalition to address our school funding crisis.  The ability to build trust and relationships will be key to establishing common ground.

Heather Way: For the past ten years I have worked with legislators from Austin and others across the state to write and pass numerous pieces of legislation in a Republican-dominated Legislature, such as the law creating Texas’s Homestead Preservation Districts and laws providing property tax relief for vulnerable homeowners. While the partisan divide is difficult, our state’s demographic shift and continuing urbanization is creating common ground and opportunities for collaboration among Republicans and Democrats on urban and transportation issues. We may be seeing the first signs of these changes in Dallas and Houston transportation planning.

CAPITOL VIEW CORRIDORS

Q2:  Travis County recently lost a bond election for creating a new civil court facility. Judge Eckhardt has suggested the county’s next move will be to seek relief from Capitol View Corridor legislation to build a new courthouse on other land the county owns downtown. If she were to request your support on this issue, what would you tell her?

Aspen Dunaway: I would need to take a closer look at her exact plan. I am in favor of a comprehensive review of all the sites. I will always strive for what is best for the city and county.

Huey Fischer: Frankly, it is a matter of preserving the CVC in question or meeting the growing needs of our civil and family courts. If Travis County comes to me requesting legislation to enable this, then I will follow its lead. I appreciate Judge Eckhardt’s leadership on finding a solution to our court deficiencies.

Gina Hinojosa: I would tell Judge Eckhardt that there have been at least three instances in the past where the Legislature has granted relief from Capitol View Corridors for major public projects, all occurring after significant public engagement and dialogue. I would strongly encourage the County to embark upon engaging the public in such a manner, seeking a broad consensus regarding relief.

Heather Way: Though I don’t have the details of Judge Eckhart’s proposal, I would discuss with her how I believe that communicating early and often is the key to addressing complex public issues that have existing significant public questions. I would also suggest that an inclusive public process begun with ample time before any final decision is reached is crucial to address questions, hear people’s comments, and improve the project.

Q3:  More broadly, what do you see as the pros and cons of maintaining the State’s Capitol View Corridors in Austin? Would you support eliminating corridors that are obstructed or obsolete (e.g., views obstructed by heritage trees or a corridor terminating on the upper deck of I-35 if the upper deck is removed)?

Aspen Dunaway: The Capitol building is definitely an asset. As I previously mentioned, I am open and in favor of a comprehensive review of the sites. I would ask for transparency and an open process for the public. I am open for change and will support projects on an individual basis.

Huey Fischer: I strongly support preserving the CVCs that make our community beautiful and unique — such as the one running down Congress Avenue and the other going along the University of Texas’ Main Mall. I cherish these because they help keep Austin beautiful and special. I would be open to removing specific corridors that no longer preserve the integrity of the Capitol’s view after substantial community input. I’m not confident that the CVCs on the upper deck of I-35 should be our utmost priority for preservation. There are safety issues that also come into play.

Gina Hinojosa: The Capitol View Corridors were established both by the City and the State as a mechanism to allow for robust development in downtown and the urban core while respecting something that is unique and special to Austin. I would strongly support maintaining existing view corridors, absent a compelling reason for eliminating them. A more prudent approach, which the Legislature has embraced previously, is providing relief based upon the merits of an individual project (see response above), after significant public engagement and discussion.

Heather Way: What makes cities special are the natural and built places people love. The State’s Capital View Corridors were designed with that goal in mind. As the area around the corridors change over time, it is appropriate to consider the goals and opportunities that result from the evolving land uses. But I don’t support a wholesale approach to eliminating corridors and believe that the limited changes being considered need to have clear public benefits.

CAPITAL COMPLEX MASTER PLAN

Q4:  Please offer your perspective on the Capitol Complex Master Plan, which aims to move more state workers downtown through the construction of additional office space. Please discuss the plan in contexts such as (but not limited to) urban form, public space, safety, walkability, parking, and commutes and cost of living for state employees.

Aspen Dunaway: I favor the plan. There are currently over 5000 state employees in over 20 leased properties scattered throughout Austin. The Capitol Complex has millions of square feet to build on and will even have enough space to perhaps even lease to private organizations. Centralizing agencies and employees and actually owning the buildings they work in will be financially beneficial for the state. I, for one, am excited for the Texas Mall. I am in favor of a state funded lite rail to transport state employees downtown and back.

Huey Fischer: HD49’s core has two very vibrant and fast-paced spaces, downtown and the University of Texas. In between these dynamic areas is the stagnant Capitol and state office complex. We need to make sure it becomes a flourishing space that is walkable and well-connected with a better quality of life for the state employees who will be commuting there daily. The conversation must include multi-modal transit options, access to local eateries, and more.

Gina Hinojosa: I am not familiar with the specifics of the Capitol Complex Master Plan, but I strongly support the retention and expansion of state employees in the Capitol Complex and downtown area, coupled with expanded mass transit options. The Capitol Complex today is poorly planned and over reliant upon automotive commuters, who are encouraged by an overabundance of parking, both surface and structured. These parking facilities make the periphery of the Capitol Complex a very uninviting area for pedestrians and they stifle what should be welcoming public space.

Heather Way: The new Capitol Complex Master Plan is an exciting opportunity to create a greener, more walk able environment for state employees and visitors to our State Capital. Through my work with the Opportunity Forum at the University of Texas, we sponsor regular discussions to focus thinking on issues such as equity, walkability, TOD’s, housing, transit, and other topics related to changing urban places. I think the new Master Plan offers tremendous benefits for Austin, and I encourage a continued role for the public participation as the project moves forward. I also want to see an emphasis on affordable housing for state workers incorporated into the plan, which would relieve pressure on our transportation infrastructure by housing workers near their jobs.

Q5:  In the next few years, several major tracts of state land, including the Austin State Hospital and portions of the Texas School for the Deaf, could potentially come up for sale. What is your perspective on the proper disposition, development, and zoning for such tracts?

Aspen Dunaway: I would ask for a transparent process and for the public to be aware and able to provide insight. Any development would need to be a good fit for the neighborhood.

Huey Fischer: The community’s interests must come first, and their voices need to be solicited before any huge changes. We must ensure that their needs are served to determine the best use of these properties. Any redevelopment of these properties must have clear community benefits and cannot be unaccountable giveaways to developers.

Gina Hinojosa: These tracts, generally, are unzoned and would need approvals from either the State Land Board or the City of Austin for redevelopment. As public property, I believe we have an opportunity to ensure that their ultimate development be consistent with our values as a community; they should be redeveloped with a significant percentage (and number) of housing units that are affordable to all segments of the population, with pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly uses, welcoming public spaces, and appropriate scale and massing.

Heather Way: Whenever state land is sold, I support the city having a right of first refusal to purchase the property, with adequate time to acquire the funding for the purchase, so that the city can ensure that any redevelopment of the site is truly reflective of community needs. Any sale of state land should be coupled with a community planning process, to fully understand the impact of the sale—including the impact on the surrounding communities—and to think long term about future needs. I believe no one size fits all set of rules should determine the development of state land, but believe that any redevelopment that does occur should comply with the city’s zoning rules and incorporate community benefits that reflect the needs of the community, such as affordable housing, green space, proximity to transportation, and other benefits. The Mueller development is an excellent example of this on City land.

HOUSING

Q6:  Would you support giving county governments in urban areas greater land use authority designed to mitigate the impact of sprawl (such as through urban growth boundaries or suburban development standards and impact fees) and to provide better regulations for mobile home communities and other colonia-style subdivisions?

Aspen Dunaway: Yes. Urban growth boundaries similar to what Oregon has utilized can be a powerful tool to control sprawl. I favor a transparent review every 5 years to determine the boundaries based on growth, affordability and needs of residents.

Huey Fischer: While I do not support a blanket embrace of home-rule powers for counties, I will be generally supportive if Travis County comes to the legislature asking for additional rulemaking authority. Growth and development out in the county should pay for itself. Yes, I support better regulations for mobile home communities. The conversation would need to include stakeholders such as homeowners, renters, real estate interests, and other local officials.

Gina Hinojosa: Yes, as I have answered on other surveys, I do support granting counties limited land use authority, especially in fast-growth areas such as Central Texas. The current legal framework encourages sprawl development beyond the limits of the city’s zoning jurisdiction. I also am aware of and sensitive to the predatory conditions faced by residents of some mobile home parks, even those within the zoning jurisdiction of the City of Austin.

Heather Way: I absolutely support giving county governments greater land use authority. This has been an ongoing goal for decades and is needed more than ever as our state becomes more urban and the need for adequate transportation, access to healthcare, housing and other issues becomes more acute with the suburbanization of poverty.

Q7:  In general, what are the most meaningful ways to meet the demand for housing?

Aspen Dunaway: I favor more housing in the urban core combined with better use of public transportation and safe roads and sidewalks for walking and riding.

Huey Fischer: Local governments are at the frontline of finding a solution to the lack of affordable housing in our community, and it is the Legislature’s job to give them the tools to be successful. We need to address the rising cost of living and begin a conversation that truly engages the community. Housing guarantees, the increase of supply, affordable rentals, and property tax relief must all be part of the equation.

Gina Hinojosa: In general, the most meaningful way to meet demand is by increasing the supply of affordable housing. We need to find innovative ways to increase affordable housing options. During my tenure at AISD, we began discussions with various stakeholders about making underutilized district-owned land available, under long term lease, for housing, especially targeting public sector employees.

Heather Way: Meeting the demand for housing requires an evaluation of financial tools and policies depending on place, resources, existing conditions, and types of housing needed and other factors. Depending on the location and context, the preservation of existing housing, providing for a range of housing types, and creative use of surplus public land can all help meet the demand. There is also a great need for state policies to support the creation of affordable housing at affordability levels that the market is not going to provide. I have helped write and pass numerous pieces of state legislation related to expanding access to affordable housing, including establishing Homestead Preservation Districts, supporting community land trusts, and much more. There are many other tools we can supporting at a state level to help meet the demand for affordable housing.

TRANSIT

Q8:  Do you feel that car use is too heavily subsidized? Should road-users pay more for their road use?

Aspen Dunaway: There are a lot of cars on the road but I also feel if we could better our public transportation, have more dedicated bike lanes, we could reduce the number. Until we have other safe and viable options, I wouldn’t consider road users to pay more. Travis County needs the state to provide us with fair and adequate transportation funding.

Huey Fischer: The State needs to seriously ramp up its investment in multi-modal transportation options — especially in HD49 — Austin’s central core. I support increasing the gas tax. Additional revenues from the gas tax could support local and regional transit agencies like CapMetro.

Gina Hinojosa: Yes, I feel that car use is too heavily subsidized, both directly and indirectly. Directly, the gas tax has not been increased or indexed since 1993, so we are relying upon an outdated formula. Highway funding also appears to be skewed toward easing suburban auto commuters as opposed to necessary urban, multimodal improvements.

Heather Way: Changing our postwar automobile dependent transportation system into a modern multi-modal system will take decades. Pricing our transportation system correctly will be a key component of making the change. I would like to see a better funding balance between roadway expansion and other modes including bike/ped, transit, and transportation demand management. I also support raising the gas tax.

Q9:  What is the best way forward for I-35 improvements? Please react to this article from Strong Towns: http://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2016/1/20/better-i35

Aspen Dunaway: No doubt something needs to be done with I-35. I think the article brought up a lot of good points by looking beyond adding lanes. To really solve the Austin issue/urban core of the interstate, there’s going to need to be a combination of actions.

Huey Fischer: I want to see bold long-term solutions that get I-35 right, and I do not think more lanes are the solution. I am open to depressing highway lanes below grade and building up east-west connections that are bike and pedestrian friendly while building up convenient and fast access points to the highway.

Gina Hinojosa:  I believe the most realistic way forward on I-35 is to find ways to encourage through traffic (non-local users) to utilize SH 130, either by significantly decreasing tolls or by buying out the operator and converting it to a free road. I also believe we need to revisit legislation that encouraged telecommuting by state employees. As stated above and below, I agree with the premise Ms. Walker offers that adding additional capacity to I-35 will only induce more demand.

Heather Way: IH-35 is the major artery for Central Texas and one of the most congested roadways in the United States. I believe it is important to develop a long-range view as to the role of the roadway and how we maintain and develop its capacity into the future. I am interested in the environmental mitigation affects and conductivity of capping a portion of IH-35 through Downtown, but I need more information about the cost and impact on capacity and congestion.

Q10:  Beyond I-35, what TxDOT projects for the Austin area do you support? Which will you oppose? What standards do you use to evaluate highway construction and expansion proposals? Current proposals in the planning stages include Mo-Pac expressway extensions and added toll lanes, SH 45 SW, and reconstruction of the Y at Oak Hill.

Aspen Dunaway: I support a transparent review process to identify which projects are needed and which would be the most effective.

Huey Fischer: I am opposed to the expansion of SH 45 SW due to its proximity to environmentally sensitive lands. I am skeptical that adding lanes to MoPac will alleviate traffic and am open to alternative solutions. I do not see tolled lanes as an answer that the community wants.

Gina Hinojosa:  As stated above, I am concerned that too much emphasis is given to funding projects aimed at easing suburban commutes. This simply subsidizes and encourages more sprawl. I would strongly support funding for urban, multimodal projects, including rail and mass transit. Consistent with that, I do not favor SH 45 SW, as I believe it merely encourages more development in areas that are environmentally sensitive and are auto-commute dependent.

Heather Way: There are a large number of TXDOT projects currently underway or in various stages of planning. I do not support double decking MoPac over Lady Bird Lake or unnecessary projects like the proposed 45 SW toll way that will run through watershed protection lands, risk polluting Barton Springs, and add thousands of extra cars and trucks a day to MoPac traffic. A wiser use of state dollars would be to convert SH-130 from a toll road to a freeway, which could ease congestion on I-35. I do think that improving intersections and overpasses on IH- 35 could help improve traffic flow and that our region would greatly benefit from funding transit and emphasizing transportation demand management.

Q11:  How should the Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO) plan for Austin’s transportation needs? How should Austin?

Aspen Dunaway: I think it’s safe to say that we’re not going to experience a decline in growth anytime soon. Transportation projects, Interstate construction are not done overnight. This is going to be an on-going process. Both CAMPO and the City need to consider these things. Perhaps a focus on getting fewer cars on the road for now is a good approach. Utilize and better public transportation and provide for safe pedestrian and biking commutes.

Huey Fischer: Regional planning should help Austinites. It should ensure that there is a cohesive plan amidst the various overlapping organizations. We need to develop a unified regional vision that is led by the city.

Gina Hinojosa:  As stated above, both CAMPO and the City should prioritize urban, multimodal projects, including rail and mass transit. I was recently encouraged by Mayor Turner’s recognition in Houston that his city has traditionally placed too much emphasis on suburban freeway expansion. I believe the same is true for many urban areas, including Austin.

Heather Way: There has been considerable criticism of the CAMPO 2040 Plan as being financially unrealistic and more a list of projects than a plan. It’s time for our region to create a comprehensive transportation plan for the future, one that takes into account greater mode share and a strong focus on transit, advances in technology, and transportation demand management. Austin is in the early stages of developing a new transportation plan, and I look forward to participating in its development.

Q12:  What is your vision for transit funding for Texas cities? Will you support significant increases in state spending on urban transit?

Aspen Dunaway: Together the city, county and state officials need to rally and aggressively call for fair and adequate funding for the Austin area. I support increases in state spending on urban transit, especially for Austin where we are home to the state agencies and Capitol Complex. As previously mentioned, I’m in favor of a state funded lite rail for downtown and Capitol Complex commutes. If elected, I would seek a seat on Transportation.

Huey Fischer: I want to see a raise in the gas tax for the first time since the early 90s. Yes, I will support significant increases in state spending on urban transit.

Gina Hinojosa:  See above, yes. But I would focus the funding on less auto-centric outcomes, including rail and mass transit, and alternative forms of transportation, including pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure.

Heather Way: Yes, I will work to increase funding for transit and strongly believe that this is key for Austin to remain competitive into the 21st century. This can be achieved by balancing existing funding between new roadways and maintenance with a much greater emphasis on transit and the broad range of strategies that comprise transportation demand management. Additionally, we must expand funding strategies to jump start build out of our system.

Q13:  What will you do to grow funding for bicycle and pedestrian safety infrastructure in Central Texas?

Aspen Dunaway: I will show my support and work with my fellow Central Texas colleagues to demonstrate the need and benefits of additional funding.

Huey Fischer: I will author budget riders and other key legislation to improve infrastructure. Assuming that a Democratic freshman is likely to not get appointed to Appropriations, I will work with members of that committee to bring these priorities to the forefront. All efforts will be coordinated with the specific legislative agenda put forward by BikeTexas and other stakeholders.

Gina Hinojosa:   This needs to be a priority. AISD has established programs to encourage students and parents to bike to school, with positive results. The number of bicyclists and pedestrians killed or injured annually in the region is unacceptable.

Heather Way: As an avid bike rider, runner, and walker (usually with my school-age children), I have already been actively involved in advocating for improved pedestrian and cycling infrastructure in Austin. I served on the Citizens Advisory group for the City’s Urban Trails Master Plan, championed funding for pedestrian and cycling infrastructure on the City’s 2012 Bond Election Advisory Task Force, and was a lead advocate for securing funding for the South Lamar corridor plan, which includes a heavy emphasis on developing safe bike/ped infrastructure all along the corridor. At the Legislature, I will continue to a champion for bike/ped infrastructure. I will work closely with bike/ped advocacy organizations and also assist with the building of broad-based coalitions, with groups like PTA organizations and the AARP, to advocate for this critical infrastructure, including expanded funding.

Q14:  To what to degree and how would you oppose any attempts by state legislators to weaken legal protections for bicyclists and pedestrians?

Aspen Dunaway: I will oppose any legislation that weakens the legal protections for bicyclists and pedestrians. State wide there are so many cities and areas that are not deemed biking and pedestrian friendly. It is a real issue and even here in Austin, where we are a bit more friendly, we still have problems. Encouraging and protecting riding and walking will help reduce cars on the road, which in turn, helps environmentally and of course traffic congestion.

Huey Fischer: As an Austin cyclist myself, I would be on the frontline of any such opposition.

Gina Hinojosa:  I would strongly oppose efforts to weaken legal protections for bicyclists and pedestrians, and I would actively work to expand them. Bicyclists have the rights and duties of other vehicle operators, and I would be an advocate for safe-passage laws to protect vulnerable road users.

Heather Way: Working with bike/ped and public safety advocates, I will fight against weakening legal protections for bicyclists and pedestrians. I will meet regularly with bicycle, pedestrian, and public safety stakeholders to collaborate wherever possible. My legal and legislative experience, along with my experience building coalitions, will be helpful in beating back these anti-public safety bills.