Austin City Council Candidate Questionnaire 2024

AURA submitted five questions on Austin housing and transportation issues to candidates in the City Council races for Districts 6, 7, and 10.


District 6

Mackenzie Kelly

Did not answer.


Krista Laine

Click here to expand answers

To allow for the building of more attainable homes, Austin’s HOME initiative legalized three homes per single-family lot and reduced the minimum lot size needed for one home. Would you have voted for HOME as passed? What new reforms would you champion during your term to build upon HOME and to further expand the types of homes available to Austinites?

Yes, I would have voted for HOME as passed. I also support City Council’s efforts to make land development in Austin less expensive and more predictable by:

  • streamlining the land development code
  • removing barriers to more variety of residential development
  • reducing parking minimums
  • actively seeking ways to improve efficiency and reduce approval timelines for Development Services and Permitting

Austin City Council recently passed the first phase of equitable transit-oriented development (ETOD) to allow for more homes and a walkable, transit-supportive environment near our planned light rail line. The future of high-quality rail and bus transit in Austin depends on successful ETOD. What is your vision for further ETOD initiatives, and how would you ensure our current efforts produce abundant housing near transit?

I support the recently passed phase of ETOD, and implementation with fidelity will be key to reaping the full benefits. Additional areas where I think city investment of resources has been and will continue to be critical include:

  • multimodal transportation, safer streets, and programs that promote both density and affordability of housing near employment centers, public transportation hubs, and transportation corridors.
  • parks, pools, libraries, and other programs that make public spaces more accessible to our neighborhoods for community use, like the Living Streets Program.

Without improved multimodal linkages between the suburbs and the central city, car traffic into central Austin will continue to grow unabated, and we will miss an untapped opportunity to increase Red Line and express bus ridership from the suburbs, while improving quality of life for suburban Austinites and central city dwellers alike.

Austin has set goals to provide affordable alternatives to driving, reduce vehicle pollution, and create safer streets. To what extent do you support reducing car-dependency in Austin by using space currently dedicated to cars for new sidewalks, bike lanes, and bus lanes on arterial roads and neighborhood streets? Could you give examples of streets you’d like to see changed or pedestrianized?

While I absolutely support express bus service and safer options for people biking or walking, in District 6, we need to add transportation options before reducing car lanes. For example:

  • Add express bus service from existing Park & Rides on 183 to downtown, the Domain, Kramer Red Line Station, so there is an option to escape 183 traffic other than driving on Jollyville Road, before considering eliminating a car lane on Jollyville Road.
  • Add bus service between Lakeline Station and the new Children’s Hospital. – Add bus service to connect the swaths of multi-family near Lakeline Station and the new Children’s Hospital with retail services near HMart, Lakeline Mall, and the Alamo Draft House.
  • Connect the apartments along the train track near Lakeline Station with each other and Lakeline Station via a hike/bike path at the backs of the complexes, so that the route is shorter and more pleasant than walking out the front of the complex and along 620.
  • Improve connections between existing sidewalks and trails, so that people can walk and bike safely farther than they can now, whether that is from home to school, the library, the pool, neighborhood shopping, or transportation into the city.

It is also worth noting that District 6 has many roads that could accommodate improvements for the safety of people walking or biking without eliminating an entire lane of traffic, and by reducing the width of lanes, we would also positively impact speeding issues.

One of Austin’s key infrastructure projects over the next few decades is the construction of a light rail line as part of Project Connect. Project Connect is intimately tied to our sustainability, environmental, transportation, and housing goals. However, Project Connect and its funding have been threatened at the state legislature and by legal action from AG Ken Paxton, Bill Aleshire, and others. Do you support moving forward with Project Connect as planned? What steps would you have the city take to safeguard and streamline the construction of light rail?

Yes, we should use the bond money that voters have already approved for Project Connect as soon as possible, albeit at a reduced scale that takes into account increased costs in the Austin area during the pandemic. I actively support streamlining construction and safeguarding against additional delay but am not expert in these areas. Therefore, I would consider input from both city staff and outside professionals to identify specific steps.

Most residential land in Austin is zoned to disallow commercial uses. What changes would you champion to give Austinites places to shop, play, and work in their neighborhoods, within walking or biking distance of home?

In some areas of D6, connecting existing hike/bike trails across neighborhoods would have a positive impact, as would connecting these neighborhood hike/bike trails with Austin’s and Cedar Park’s more extensive network of hike/bike trails. I think we should consider ways to allow lower intensity mixed uses that support each other, so that a neighborhood with a park or a pool might also have an ice cream shop and a pizza place next to the park, and there are safe routes to walk or bike from the neighborhood to these community gathering places. We should also consider greater provision for live/work options, whether it’s a small business owner with a single employee or a solo yoga instructor, hair stylist, or dog groomer working from home. I also support allowing neighborhoods to more easily use streets for block parties or neighborhood events, especially in parts of the city where community gathering spaces are more limited.


District 7

Edwin Bautista

Click here to expand answers

To allow for the building of more attainable homes, Austin’s HOME initiative legalized three homes per single-family lot and reduced the minimum lot size needed for one home. Would you have voted for HOME as passed? What new reforms would you champion during your term to build upon HOME and to further expand the types of homes available to Austinites?

First and foremost, I have never (ever) voiced opposition to HOME. I’ve always made clear that I support this land use reform in theory, but it’s a whole another story in practice. I’ve been a cautious supporter of HOME because, as a certified urban planner, I know that upzoning land can contribute to displacement pressures, which must be mitigated to ensure equity.

If I was truly against HOME, I would be unabashed in taking that stance. Let me reiterate a portion of my public testimony I shared at the joint Planning Commission and Council meeting on October 26, 2024 – “I superficially support this initiative not because I think it will solve the affordable housing crisis our city is experiencing, but because I believe it could be a step in the right direction IF it is coupled with effective local policy – and I firmly believe we as Austinites are fully capable of crafting and enacting effective local policy.”

Fast forward to post-passage of HOME today and it’s clear to me that the City Council missed an opportunity to work with the community to relieve legitimate concerns about gentrification, which is most likely why there is not unanimous community support for HOME.

Nonetheless, I would have been inclined to vote for the final version of the HOME Initiative as passed, but with some important caveats. While the initiative’s intent to increase housing supply by allowing three homes per single-family lot and reducing the minimum lot size is a step in the right direction, my support hinges on the inclusion of robust anti-displacement measures. I believe these measures are crucial to ensure that the initiative does not inadvertently harm the very communities it aims to help, particularly low-income residents and historically marginalized neighborhoods.

If elected, I will champion the reforms below:

  1. Strengthening anti-displacement measures – I will push for the city-wide implementation of anti-displacement policies to accompany the increased density allowed by HOME. The latter includes one-for-one replacement requirements for affordable housing units, tenant protections and right-to-return policies for displaced residents. The city needs to ensure that as more homes are built, the Austinites who are most at risk of being pushed out are proactively being protected.
  2. Expanding deeply affordable housing requirements – I will advocate for stronger requirements for deeply affordable housing in new developments. The latter means ensuring that a significant portion of the new homes built in Austin are accessible to households earning at or below 50% of the median family income. I believe it’s crucial for deeply affordable housing to remain affordable through long-term mechanisms like deed restrictions.
  3. Promoting non-market housing – I will champion the continued expansion of the city’s community land trust and support cooperative housing models to further diversify the types of homes available. I believe both approaches can provide long-term affordable housing options and give residents a stake in their communities while helping to prevent speculative price increases and displacement.
  4. Enhancing zoning flexibility with inclusionary zoning – I will work to implement inclusionary zoning policies that require new developments to include a mix of housing types and affordability levels. I believe this would help ensure that the benefits of increased density are shared across income levels and that new developments contribute to the creation of inclusive, mixed-income neighborhoods.
  5. Prioritizing equity and community engagement – I will push for ongoing community engagement to ensure that the voices of those most affected by these reforms are heard and integrated into the planning process. The latter includes establishing an Office of Community Engagement and implementing an Equity/Anti-Displacement Overlay to protect neighborhoods most at risk of displacement and ensure that any new zoning changes are designed to promote equitable and inclusive development.

Austin City Council recently passed the first phase of equitable transit-oriented development (ETOD) to allow for more homes and a walkable, transit-supportive environment near our planned light rail line. The future of high-quality rail and bus transit in Austin depends on successful ETOD. What is your vision for further ETOD initiatives, and how would you ensure our current efforts produce abundant housing near transit?

Equity is at the heart of my approach as an urban planning professional. I will always work to ensure that underserved communities are prioritized in transportation planning and that their voices are central to the decision-making process. The latter is evident in my service on the Community Review Panel that helps guide the dispersal of millions of dollars of Community Initiated Solutions funding related to Project Connect’s Anti-Displacement initiative. As a former low-income and first generation college student, securing affordable housing was always on my mind, especially after I experienced indirect displacement while living in West Campus. Since 2018, I’ve relied on local policy (S.M.A.R.T. Housing) to remain in Austin.

I believe the future of high-quality rail and bus transit in Austin depends on how effectively the city implements equitable transit-oriented development (eTOD). My vision for eTODs is to create inclusive and walkable neighborhoods where affordable housing is abundant near the planned light rail lines. The latter means increasing density but also ensuring that the benefits of transit-oriented growth reach all Austinites, especially those most reliant on public transportation.

It’s unfortunate that the city’s own data (page 10 of the City of Austin’s March 2023 post-mortem) on the Plaza Saltillo and MLK Station TODs paints a concerning picture of the impact these developments have had on historically BIPOC communities. The significant increase in white, high-income populations and the corresponding decrease in BIPOC presence highlight the displacement these communities face. This demographic shift not only exacerbates racial disparities but also undermines the very purpose of equitable transit-oriented developments (eTODs), which is meant to provide equitable and inclusive transit options for all residents.

Below is my approach to ensuring current efforts produce abundant (and affordable housing) near transit:

  1. Comprehensive anti-Displacement measures – I will advocate for the inclusion and implementation of comprehensive anti-displacement policies such as rent stabilization, property tax relief for long-term residents and right-to-return provisions for displaced residents.
  2. Increased deeply affordable/affordable housing requirements – I will support increasing the deeply affordable/affordable housing requirements for new developments within eTODs and will work to ensure that a significant portion of new units are deeply affordable and generally accessible to low-income families.
  3. Community Benefit Agreements – I believe eTOD development projects should include community benefit agreements that are negotiated with local residents and stakeholders. I think CBAs can ensure that developments provide tangible benefits to existing communities, such as affordable housing, community spaces and job opportunities.
  4. Ongoing monitoring and accountability – I believe that establishing mechanisms for ongoing monitoring and accountability of eTODs impacts is important. The latter can include regularly assessing demographic changes, displacement risks and the effectiveness of anti-displacement measures.

Austin has set goals to provide affordable alternatives to driving, reduce vehicle pollution, and create safer streets. To what extent do you support reducing car-dependency in Austin by using space currently dedicated to cars for new sidewalks, bike lanes, and bus lanes on arterial roads and neighborhood streets? Could you give examples of streets you’d like to see changed or pedestrianized?

I strongly support reducing car dependency in Austin by reallocating space currently dedicated to cars for new sidewalks, bike lanes and bus lanes. This shift is absolutely crucial for creating a more sustainable, accessible and safer city. I believe the city can make significant progress toward our goals of reducing vehicle pollution, enhancing street safety and providing affordable transportation options by prioritizing alternative modes of transportation.

A few key areas for transformation are Burnet Road, South Congress Avenue and South Lamar Boulevard – all are vibrant corridors that could greatly benefit from expanded bike lanes and improved pedestrian infrastructure. I believe doing so would not only enhance safety but also support local businesses by making it easier for people to access them without needing to drive. Also, I think it can help foster a vibrant street life that reflects the unique character of Austin.

Similarly, Guadalupe Street (specifically The Drag portion) near UT is ripe for redevelopment that prioritizes buses, cyclists and pedestrians. I believe this change would not only improve transit access for students and residents, but also encourage a shift away from single-occupancy vehicle use in one of Austin’s busiest corridors.

I think Rainey Street is an obvious example of a neighborhood street that could be pedestrianized. Considering its popularity as a nightlife destination, pedestrianizing Rainey Street would enhance safety, reduce traffic congestion and create a more enjoyable environment for residents and visitors alike.

Lastly, I would like to see more targeted improvements on East Riverside Drive, where dedicated bus lanes could significantly improve transit efficiency and reduce car reliance in a rapidly developing area. The city should prioritizes people over cars by reallocating road space in these and other key areas, which I believe will make Austin more livable, sustainable and inclusive for everyone.

One of Austin’s key infrastructure projects over the next few decades is the construction of a light rail line as part of Project Connect. Project Connect is intimately tied to our sustainability, environmental, transportation, and housing goals. However, Project Connect and its funding have been threatened at the state legislature and by legal action from AG Ken Paxton, Bill Aleshire, and others. Do you support moving forward with Project Connect as planned? What steps would you have the city take to safeguard and streamline the construction of light rail?

I strongly support moving forward with Project Connect as planned. I believe light rail is vital for Austin’s future as it will help address the city’s critical transportation, environmental and housing goals. The opposition from the state legislature and legal challenges from figures like AG Ken Paxton threaten not just the project, but the future of our city’s infrastructure.

Below are several key steps I think the the city/Austin Transit Partnership/CapMetro should take to safeguard and streamline Project Connect:

  1. Robust legal defense and advocacy – vigorously defend Project Connect in court and continue advocating for it publicly, perhaps at the state level as well. I think building strategic alliances can strengthen our position against state interference.
  2. Secure and diversify funding – explore alternative funding options, such as federal grants and public-private partnerships, to help ensure financial stability and reduce the risk posed by state-level opposition. I believe this approach can also shield the project from political volatility.
  3. Engage the community – strong public support is paramount, therefore all entities should ramp up community engagement efforts and ensure that Austinites understand the benefits of Project Connect, such as reduced traffic congestion and increased housing accessibility. I strongly believe transparent communication will help build a broad coalition in favor of the project.

Most residential land in Austin is zoned to disallow commercial uses. What changes would you champion to give Austinites places to shop, play, and work in their neighborhoods, within walking or biking distance of home?

As someone deeply invested in urban planning and community development, I understand the critical role that vibrant, mixed-use neighborhoods play in fostering a connected, sustainable city. My lived experience with zoning policies in Austin, my advocacy work with the local nonprofit Texas Housers and my academic background in urban studies/planning inform my approach to creating more livable communities.

I support designating specific corridors within neighborhoods as commercial hubs and transforming them into vibrant centers of activity. These hubs would be informed by the Imagine Austin Plan and ideally support local businesses, create jobs while offering Austinites more opportunities to shop, work and socialize close to their home. Some sections of South Lamar or Burnet Road, for example, could benefit from more mixed-use development to help make these areas more dynamic and accessible.

I will work to tirelessly to promote pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods across District 7 and the city more broadly. I believe the latter would not only improve accessibility but also strengthens the sense of community.

I will also work to streamline the permitting process for small businesses and make it easier for local entrepreneurs to establish themselves within neighborhoods. To further support this vision, I will work to local craft policies like Site Plan Lite, which seek to reduce bureaucratic barriers and encourage the growth of vibrant and resilient neighborhoods.

These changes are about more than convenience – they’re about creating a more connected, sustainable and community-focused Austin. I believe empowering Austinites to actively participate in the planning and decision-making process is crucial for creating equitable and sustainable city. That’s why campaign slogan is “Empower Progress | Fuel Austin’s Future”


Gary Bledsoe

Did not answer.


Pierre Nguyễn

Did not answer.


Adam Powell

Click here to expand answers

To allow for the building of more attainable homes, Austin’s HOME initiative legalized three homes per single-family lot and reduced the minimum lot size needed for one home. Would you have voted for HOME as passed? What new reforms would you champion during your term to build upon HOME and to further expand the types of homes available to Austinites?

I testified alongside fellow AURA members in support of HOME Phase 1 on three separate occasions and in support of HOME Phase 2 once. I absolutely would have voted in favor of both, as I believe they are very long overdue changes that can have a notable positive impact on our housing crisis.

I also personally believe in the value of “missing middle” housing as someone who has rented a townhouse that’s part of a triplex for the past five years. It was an affordable and attainable option for my Wife and I, and if we hadn’t found this particular unit we very likely couldn’t have lived in District 7 in the first place. It’s not just me either, District 7 is a majority renter district (53% according to HousingWorks Austin’s last scorecard).

Now that both phases of HOME are in implementation, we must ensure that HOME is truly useful and actionable for property owners. Here are some of the following ways that I intend to address this on the dais:

Urgently simplifying and streamlining the subdivision process: To actually subdivide a lot requires a process that can take 1-2 years and tens of thousands of dollars, even if you begin with the specialized knowledge to do so. City staff is thankfully already paying attention to this, but we need to move very urgently to ensure that homeowners and small infill developers can actually create these smaller lots. Simply put, we should not subject smaller lots to the same process as large/neighborhood-sized subdivisions.

Education and awareness: We need to do more to educate property owners of how they can best utilize HOME. This isn’t just so that they know their property rights, but also so we can actively encourage the best practices that we know are most likely to result in more affordable and attainable housing units.

Monitor the effectiveness of the new setbacks and minimum lot sizes: When HOME Phase 2 was being considered at the Planning Commission and through City Council Amendments, the exact numbers for the new setback requirements and minimum lot sizes were very heavily debated. We should be open to exploring smaller lots and smaller setbacks if we’re seeing unintended limitations from the current numbers.

Finally, another reform that I strongly support outside of the HOME Initiative conversation is single stair reform. Many, many other areas of the world (and some other areas of the US) have successfully had single stair apartment buildings for generations without major issues. It’s a common sense reform that adds more units to our housing market without increasing the footprint of the land, and it’s also long overdue.

Austin City Council recently passed the first phase of equitable transit-oriented development (ETOD) to allow for more homes and a walkable, transit-supportive environment near our planned light rail line. The future of high-quality rail and bus transit in Austin depends on successful ETOD. What is your vision for further ETOD initiatives, and how would you ensure our current efforts produce abundant housing near transit?

I fully agree that we cannot successfully build the rail and bus transit systems that we intend to without success Equitable Transit-Oriented Development (ETOD). It’s also clear to me that while the latest round of ETOD policy was a meaningful step forward, there’s a lot more work left to do.

A great example of this is the continued conversation around density bonuses that allow increased height for including a specific number of affordable housing units. The constant problem with this approach is that no policy is ever perfectly aligned to evolving market forces, oftentimes leading to low utilization of the density bonus (aka, less affordable housing units created).

I will pursue policy that is less focused on fixed numbers, and instead responsive to the changing year-to-year market forces with specific metrics that recalibrate the bonuses over time. The goal of this is to ensure a higher utilization of density bonuses, ultimately creating more affordable units (especially close to current and future transit lines within the ETOD framework). Our current “all or nothing” status quo of density bonus utilization is missing the mark.

Finally, I believe we need to tightly monitor compatibility standards to unlock as many housing units as possible near future Project Connect transit lines. It’s staggering to see the estimated tens of thousands of housing units that can now be created from the latest compatibility reforms, and I believe that we should keep pushing to unlock more housing opportunities through compatibility reform both within the ETOD framework and beyond.

Austin has set goals to provide affordable alternatives to driving, reduce vehicle pollution, and create safer streets. To what extent do you support reducing car-dependency in Austin by using space currently dedicated to cars for new sidewalks, bike lanes, and bus lanes on arterial roads and neighborhood streets? Could you give examples of streets you’d like to see changed or pedestrianized?

I strongly support the creation of truly safe sidewalks, bike lanes, and bus lanes. In many instances where we need to create these options within our streets, we must also invest in traffic calming measures to ensure that those who are navigating an area outside of a car are truly protected from high-speed car traffic.

In District 7, we have many streets that consistently show up on the High Injury Network statistics for serious/fatal pedestrian and bike incidents, and even more that are in desperate need of pedestrian and bike infrastructure investments. I’m particularly focused on Burnet Road, Parmer Lane, North Lamar Blvd, Anderson Lane, Koenig Lane, and Metric Blvd as high priority “stroads” (street-road hybrids that accomplish neither task well) that must be urgently made safer to navigate. A constant difficulty on this front is that TxDOT has right of way control in many of these instances, meaning we have less locus of control as a city. That said, I’m committed to getting in the weeds and making improvements wherever possible.

I would also love to see many of the streets within the Domain permanently pedestrianized, especially streets like Rock Rose Avenue that experience a high level of foot traffic as a bar/entertainment area. Continuing with the Rock Rose example, this is a street that is already closed to pedestrian traffic only in some instances/timeframes with positive results, so we’ve seen that pedestrianization in the Domain can be very effective.

One of Austin’s key infrastructure projects over the next few decades is the construction of a light rail line as part of Project Connect. Project Connect is intimately tied to our sustainability, environmental, transportation, and housing goals. However, Project Connect and its funding have been threatened at the state legislature and by legal action from AG Ken Paxton, Bill Aleshire, and others. Do you support moving forward with Project Connect as planned? What steps would you have the city take to safeguard and streamline the construction of light rail?

I’m absolutely in favor of moving forward with Project Connect as planned. Our City has a long and complex history with rail; ranging from our streetcar system that existed from 1875-1940 all the way to the failed rail vote in 2000. Every time that we’ve decided against continuing or expanding rail in Austin, the price tag of building rail has gone up exponentially. I don’t even want to know how much Project Connect would cost if we have to vote again on it in 2030 or 2040.

To be frank, the current attacks on Project Connect represent an undemocratic attempt by a small number of people to override the will of Austin voters. I intend to defend the will of Austinites in two main ways:

  1. Representing District 7 at the legislative level by building relationships with allies to Project Connect, and publicly advocating against those who seek to destroy it. We saw this approach succeed in the last legislative session, and I intend to be an active part of it during the next one.
  2. Supporting the timely and effective construction of Project Connect itself as an ally to the Austin Transit Partnership and CapMetro. This includes standing against I-35 expansion, a useless mega-project that is being forced on our city that will put a drain on the workforce we need to mobilize for Project Connect, if it moves forward. This also includes supporting the effective implementation of the newly created Austin Infrastructure Academy, which will be critical to providing a well-trained workforce that will build a wonderful rail system through Project Connect.

Most residential land in Austin is zoned to disallow commercial uses. What changes would you champion to give Austinites places to shop, play, and work in their neighborhoods, within walking or biking distance of home?

We need to urgently provide more commercial opportunities within residential areas, and residential opportunities within commercial areas. There are so many neighborhoods in District 7 that have solid sidewalk infrastructure, but aren’t useful for anything other than movement within the neighborhood because there simply isn’t anything exciting to walk to.

To get into specific policy, I intend to pursue expanded opportunities for “corner store lots” within neighborhoods and “Accessory Commercial Units” that provide small business owners more flexibility to utilize their property for their work. Allowing this type of commercial flexibility within residential areas can create so many truly walkable and bike-able third spaces throughout District 7.

We also need to redefine what “mixed use” looks like, as the current model of large storefronts on the bottom floor of apartments is not accessible to many small businesses, and frequently results in vacant storefronts that are useful to no one. I support policy that encourages smaller footprint areas for new small businesses to call home, which can greatly reduce the cost to lease for those small business owners and provide a much-needed stimulation to our struggling local business economy.

Finally, now that we’ve ended parking minimums city-wide (which I testified in support of alongside fellow AURA members) we need to be proactive about how to best maximize the massive amount of land used for strip mall parking lots. This includes adding flexibility for the creation of residential units on those previously unused, already paved-over land that is currently dedicated to perpetually empty parking spots.


Todd Shaw

Click here to expand answers

To allow for the building of more attainable homes, Austin’s HOME initiative legalized three homes per single-family lot and reduced the minimum lot size needed for one home. Would you have voted for HOME as passed? What new reforms would you champion during your term to build upon HOME and to further expand the types of homes available to Austinites?

I was the Chair of the Planning Commission during the process of passing HOME Phase 1. Under my leadership, the Planning Commission worked together to craft a series of amendments that vastly improved the draft code and approved the amended code with a supermajority of 11-2 votes. We formed a working group that vastly improved the draft code to ensure it incentivized smaller homes closer in size. We included amendments that addressed commissioners’ concerns with short-term rentals, infrastructure, gentrification, and preservation. I supported HOME 1 and 2 as passed, which included directions to staff to address the concerns expressed during public hearings. My first priority to expand housing availability will be championing a new comprehensive land development code. Our comprehensive plan and later amendments, Strategic Housing Blueprint and Strategic Mobility Plan, cited replacing our 1984 land code as key to meeting our housing and transit goals. As chair of the Planning Commission, I have observed firsthand the toll that incrementally changing our land codes has on the public, city staff, volunteer boards, and commissions. I would also work to ensure measures to make residential subdivisions and site plans easier and less expensive, especially for missing middle housing surrounding major transit routes and centers. After reviewing the Harris/Walz plan for reducing housing costs, I will support taking full advantage of available federal funds to increase housing if their plans become law.

Austin City Council recently passed the first phase of equitable transit-oriented development (ETOD) to allow for more homes and a walkable, transit-supportive environment near our planned light rail line. The future of high-quality rail and bus transit in Austin depends on successful ETOD. What is your vision for further ETOD initiatives, and how would you ensure our current efforts produce abundant housing near transit?

First and most apparent, I will consistently support expanding the map of the ETOD overlay wherever we add light rail and metro rapid bus lines as well as similar type density within the Imagine Austin Transit Corridors and Growth Centers. To ensure Austin is addressing equity within the overlay, I would consider incorporating the equity measures found into the Project Connect Equity Tool within the ETOD overlay rules to prevent displacement in areas experiencing gentrification as we expand its use. This could also include deeper levels of affordability for the density bonus for rent and for sale requirements. I am also a proponent of building the density bonus affordable units on-site and further dis-incentivizing the use of in-lieu-of provisions.

As stated in previous surveys, I support comprehensive land code changes instead of the current incremental approach. I would like to see additional design standards to ensure our ETODs include incentives for sustainability measures, such as multi-use trails, open spaces, and parks, water quality and drainage improvements, and energy and water conservation. These will be increasingly important as we build infrastructure that will be here for the next 25-50 years as climate events become more frequent.

Austin has set goals to provide affordable alternatives to driving, reduce vehicle pollution, and create safer streets. To what extent do you support reducing car-dependency in Austin by using space currently dedicated to cars for new sidewalks, bike lanes, and bus lanes on arterial roads and neighborhood streets? Could you give examples of streets you’d like to see changed or pedestrianized?

I support these measures to reduce car dependency with appropriate planning and prioritization. Austin has limited funds for these improvements, which means we need to prioritize projects that have the greatest opportunities to increase Austinite’s use of alternative modes of mobility and, thus, remove the most cars from our roads. The evolution of our roads and streets must align with our comprehensive plan priorities for increasing housing density along transit corridors and growth centers. When thinking of streets to be changed or pedestrianized, I prefer to reference areas along a street that are ready. For example, Guadalupe St. along the UT campus is a sure candidate. There are also segments of Lamar Blvd. and Burnet Rd. that are ready or will be prepared in the near future based on the planned mixed-use development.

One of Austin’s key infrastructure projects over the next few decades is the construction of a light rail line as part of Project Connect. Project Connect is intimately tied to our sustainability, environmental, transportation, and housing goals. However, Project Connect and its funding have been threatened at the state legislature and by legal action from AG Ken Paxton, Bill Aleshire, and others. Do you support moving forward with Project Connect as planned? What steps would you have the city take to safeguard and streamline the construction of light rail?

I support moving forward with Project Connect as planned and seeking funding for the Priority Extensions as soon as possible. Austin has seen so many of its initiatives to grow housing and improve mobility options end up in the courts. I do not think that the Project Connect lawsuits have any merit, but it isn’t easy to know, given recent court decisions. For future steps, and since the recent lawsuits seem to be politically motivated, I would engage with state leaders who approve our bonds and identify leaders who will champion our goals for expanded rail and rapid bus lines. Other steps would include ensuring the City obtains sound legal advice when seeking bond funding and providing the flexibility to address cost escalation.

Most residential land in Austin is zoned to disallow commercial uses. What changes would you champion to give Austinites places to shop, play, and work in their neighborhoods, within walking or biking distance of home?

My campaign platform for comprehensive land code changes would support the transition to these complete communities. These changes are also the most significant opportunity for public involvement and neighborhood planning, where community members identify the gaps and follow up with mapping these new commercial zones. One of my top priorities is working with our communities to transform our 50-year-old subdivisions into what is needed now in our urban core.


Mike Siegel

Click here to expand answers

To allow for the building of more attainable homes, Austin’s HOME initiative legalized three homes per single-family lot and reduced the minimum lot size needed for one home. Would you have voted for HOME as passed? What new reforms would you champion during your term to build upon HOME and to further expand the types of homes available to Austinites?

Yes, I would have voted for HOME as passed.

To expand housing options, I will move forward on two tracks: (1) regulatory reform to decrease the cost of building infill housing; (2) financial measures to incentivize infill housing production, with a special focus on producing housing for working class and middle income residents.

  1. To fulfill the promise of HOME, additional measures are needed on the policy and implementation side to reduce the time and expense of permitting, and to reduce the cost of subdivision. More broadly, we need regulatory reform that allows City staff to focus on advancing high priority goals including increased housing production, protecting and expanding the tree canopy, and protecting the watershed, while maintaining flexibility on a project-by-project basis. The City needs to internalize that projects that go unbuilt are a loss, including loss of housing opportunity, loss of density opportunity, and loss of new tax revenue.
  2. I support ongoing efforts to use bond capacity, City land, state and federal incentives, public-private partnerships, and other finance strategies to build housing that is permanently affordable, housing that is designed to address homelessness (i.e., permanent supportive housing), and housing that is designed for key sectors of the workforce (i.e., teacher housing, workforce housing).

Austin City Council recently passed the first phase of equitable transit-oriented development (ETOD) to allow for more homes and a walkable, transit-supportive environment near our planned light rail line. The future of high-quality rail and bus transit in Austin depends on successful ETOD. What is your vision for further ETOD initiatives, and how would you ensure our current efforts produce abundant housing near transit?

I support the goal of ETOD and would advocate for additional ETOD overlays as our transit system develops.

The goal in the present is to protect and implement Project Connect in the face of right-wing attacks. The City must make the strongest legal arguments available to defeat the lawsuit filed by local anti-growth activists, and ensure that the TX AG is not able to block the bond financing mechanism within Project Connect. We must also organize at the Texas Legislature to defeat any 2025 attempts to overturn the will of Austin voters.

Once Project Connect is assured (even, potentially, by winning a second election if legal or legislative decisions require that action), the goal should be to expand the rail and bus footprint and set in motion a truly transit-oriented City. Within District 7, that means we need a planned extension to Crestview Station, as well as extensions to the North Lamar bus depot and the Rundberg area.

Austin has set goals to provide affordable alternatives to driving, reduce vehicle pollution, and create safer streets. To what extent do you support reducing car-dependency in Austin by using space currently dedicated to cars for new sidewalks, bike lanes, and bus lanes on arterial roads and neighborhood streets? Could you give examples of streets you’d like to see changed or pedestrianized?

I absolutely support the goal of reducing car-dependency in Austin through a wide variety of tactics, including expansion of mass transit, encouraging telework, designing walkable and amenity-rich neighborhoods, and converting current car lanes for bus, bike, and pedestrian uses. We need more ‘complete streets’ that offer a variety of transportation modes aside from just cars.

Burnet Road is an easy example for me, as I’ve lived close to this street since I moved to Austin in 2013. My daughter’s middle school is on Burnet; my son’s elementary school is a few blocks off Burnet; my wife’s veterinary practice is on Burnet; and our home is just a few blocks into the Crestview neighborhood. Burnet is a fast-evolving part of District 7, that connects the older Allandale neighborhood at 45th with Q2 Stadium and the Domain to the north. And Burnet is a state highway, bringing cars barreling through increasingly dense neighborhoods. We need to slow down Burnet to get the safe, interconnected, vibrant community we deserve.

As it stands right now, my daughter bikes to school but has to risk her life when speeding cars ignore pedestrian crossings. And if I’m at Taco Deli in Crestview, I can’t cross the street to Black Pearl Books without considerable risk (or a long walk to a protected crossing). I’m in favor of a holistic re-imagining of this street that looks at the wide five lanes of traffic (including the middle turn lane), and balances the needs of children and families, seniors and shoppers, buses and bikes, as well as car commuters.

One of Austin’s key infrastructure projects over the next few decades is the construction of a light rail line as part of Project Connect. Project Connect is intimately tied to our sustainability, environmental, transportation, and housing goals. However, Project Connect and its funding have been threatened at the state legislature and by legal action from AG Ken Paxton, Bill Aleshire, and others. Do you support moving forward with Project Connect as planned? What steps would you have the city take to safeguard and streamline the construction of light rail?

Yes. As discussed above, we must move forward with Project Connect, not only its currently funded goals but with the expansions needed to develop the ridership and interconnectivity we need as a city. We need to be ready to conduct and win a second election if the legal challenge succeeds or the Texas Legislature intervenes through new legislation. Austin voters are counting on us to fulfill the promise of Project Connect.

Most residential land in Austin is zoned to disallow commercial uses. What changes would you champion to give Austinites places to shop, play, and work in their neighborhoods, within walking or biking distance of home?

I live in a residential neighborhood that has an internally-located shopping center that is extremely popular. In the Crestview neighborhood on Woodrow Ave we have a grocery store, cafe, popular restaurant (Little Deli), auto repair and more. This kind of small scale commercial, off the major corridors, should be an essential part of the urban landscape.

As we develop new infill neighborhoods (ideally, we’d be building one, two, three, many Muellers), we should build these types of amenities in, instead of the major corridor strip mall and suburban mall approaches to commercial uses.

In terms of adjusting the layout of existing neighborhoods, I would support planning processes that allow for new uses of currently-zoned residential land. The goal should be to facilitate development of “five minute neighborhoods” where residents don’t have to leave the area to meet their core needs.


District 10

Marc Duchen

Click here to expand answers

To allow for the building of more attainable homes, Austin’s HOME initiative legalized three homes per single-family lot and reduced the minimum lot size needed for one home. Would you have voted for HOME as passed? What new reforms would you champion during your term to build upon HOME and to further expand the types of homes available to Austinites?

I would not have voted for HOME in the current format, however now that HOME is the law I will work to better the current format. For example, the city’s permitting process is in an incredibly perilous situation. The surge in fees for permitting, along with the onerous length of the permitting and inspection process, is going to dramatically hinder home building in our city which I fear in unison with this year’s decrease in home values may lead to a hammer and anvil hit to our developers. We’re already seeing some developers abandoning projects which is a huge cost to both the neighbors around developments and the city. We must work to allocate a different funding source for our permitting department.

Lastly, our city like many has a serious issue with Short Term Rentals (STRs). The once quant idea of being able to rent a home for a vacation has turned into an industry where corporations are buying up as many STRs as possible and running them for as much profit as possible. I have deep concerns regarding the very lax enforcement of fees that these corporations are finding ways to easily circumnavigate and safety concerns for the individuals that rent out STRs. The City of Austin’s reputation to visitors is being tarnished by terrible mangers of STRs and Austin needs to directly confront problem. This is also a particular burden for the local STR operators that follow the rules and pay into the HOT tax.

Austin City Council recently passed the first phase of equitable transit-oriented development (ETOD) to allow for more homes and a walkable, transit-supportive environment near our planned light rail line. The future of high-quality rail and bus transit in Austin depends on successful ETOD. What is your vision for further ETOD initiatives, and how would you ensure our current efforts produce abundant housing near transit?

The current red line is a good example of why, if we are going to move forward with development of our light rail, we need to actually build a process that will allow for success. The red line started at a $35M project that grew into a $70M project that then expanded into a $140M+ project that has faced numerous issues, including ridership. None other than Mayor Watson (as a State Senator) passed a law that commissioned a review of CapMetro and our rail efforts back then: “From the beginning,” the report says, “Capital Metro rushed into commuter rail,” bringing voters a project “without sufficient planning, or contingency funding.” I have concerns that history has repeated with Project Connect and ETODs and instead of the Mayor being a watchdog, we have no one ensuring the project is set for success – from a mobility, housing, spending, and other perspectives. The challenge is that right now we have no one requesting the same level of due-diligence and accountability of CapMetro, the ATP, or Project Connect, aside from one or two people that sit on the ATP Board and actually ask tough questions about budgets and timelines. Regarding future initiatives, I would place emphasis on improving our permitting fees or building in incentives along these currently planned light rail lines, as well as analyzing the performance and development opportunities surrounding the BRT lines supposed to launch in 2025.

Austin has set goals to provide affordable alternatives to driving, reduce vehicle pollution, and create safer streets. To what extent do you support reducing car-dependency in Austin by using space currently dedicated to cars for new sidewalks, bike lanes, and bus lanes on arterial roads and neighborhood streets? Could you give examples of streets you’d like to see changed or pedestrianized?

Seeing as the goals are in place, developing systems that’ll reduce vehicle pollution and safer streets is absolutely a goal I can support. Specifically, I believe developing the West Campus for our UT students a highly pedestrian and transit-oriented community with vehicles directed to 24th, 29th and E. MLK as much as possible will reduce both noise and car pollution for the residents of said neighborhood, while also reducing the risk of vehicle / pedestrian incidents – which still happen too frequently.

Although there are grandiose visions for changing streets like Congress to a pedestrian oriented street, my experience in state politics leads me to believe that this would only bring the ire of Greg Abbott down upon the City of Austin. However, I do feel like we have missed some easy opportunities, like the Dillo bus that used to regularly serve the downtown area and if properly planned with more modern amenities could likely have solid ridership. And, again, monitoring the performance of the upcoming BRT may also give us insight into how to have a mix of pedestrian and transit options in the densest areas of Austin.

One of Austin’s key infrastructure projects over the next few decades is the construction of a light rail line as part of Project Connect. Project Connect is intimately tied to our sustainability, environmental, transportation, and housing goals. However, Project Connect and its funding have been threatened at the state legislature and by legal action from AG Ken Paxton, Bill Aleshire, and others. Do you support moving forward with Project Connect as planned? What steps would you have the city take to safeguard and streamline the construction of light rail?

My main focus as a member of the City Council will be to support the will of the voters and with that being said, I will work with my team to diligently protect the taxpayers’ dollars. Project Connect has gone significantly over cost and scaled back its original voter-approved vision, and I have concerns that pouring more money in the project will not lead to the results that have been promised. I will work with the plan in place to find cost saving ways to give the voters what they voted for. The BRT portion of Project Connect looks far more appealing from a cost, timeline, and disruption to local businesses and neighborhoods perspective – it is largely funded by the Federal government and will be deployed as soon as next year (unlike our first line which is scheduled to arrive in 2033 – if there are no delays).

Most residential land in Austin is zoned to disallow commercial uses. What changes would you champion to give Austinites places to shop, play, and work in their neighborhoods, within walking or biking distance of home?

Although most residential land in Austin is zoned to disallow commercial uses, there are places where we can adjust this model such as the Mueller neighborhood. These developments are wonderful for the people who desire to live in them and are a great tax base for the City. There are plenty of places along major arteries in this city where communities like these can be developed with the input of the people who live in or around the planned developments. In fact, the Imagine Austin plan calls for Regional Centers (like the Domain), Town Centers, and Neighborhood Centers as part of its Growth Concept Map. If we truly want a connected city that also has a mix of housing types and options, including mixed use, these types of centers connected by transit seem far more appealing and effective than upzoning the entire city with no plan or coordination.


Ashika Ganguly

Click here to expand answers

To allow for the building of more attainable homes, Austin’s HOME initiative legalized three homes per single-family lot and reduced the minimum lot size needed for one home. Would you have voted for HOME as passed? What new reforms would you champion during your term to build upon HOME and to further expand the types of homes available to Austinites?

I would have gladly voted for HOME and when elected will continue to fight for the HOME initiative. I will always champion diverse housing options at every rung of the socioeconomic ladder. More mixed use development that will draw folks from other areas of the city and even new people coming to Austin.

Austin City Council recently passed the first phase of equitable transit-oriented development (ETOD) to allow for more homes and a walkable, transit-supportive environment near our planned light rail line. The future of high-quality rail and bus transit in Austin depends on successful ETOD. What is your vision for further ETOD initiatives, and how would you ensure our current efforts produce abundant housing near transit?

I strongly support transit oriented development and ensuring that it is equitably distributed not just demographically but also geographically across Austin. When I was a teacher at Mathews Elementary, in close proximity to the urban core but serving downtown, West Austin, and transient residents alike, I saw many families in my classroom struggle with transportation to and from school. I hope we can look at not only expanding transit options but ensuring that development opportunities are prioritized in proximity to increased multi-modal transportation options and also that we increase public awareness, communication, and incentivization of the opportunities that already exist.

Austin has set goals to provide affordable alternatives to driving, reduce vehicle pollution, and create safer streets. To what extent do you support reducing car-dependency in Austin by using space currently dedicated to cars for new sidewalks, bike lanes, and bus lanes on arterial roads and neighborhood streets? Could you give examples of streets you’d like to see changed or pedestrianized?

I support the initiatives that Austin has put in place, such as ATX Walk Bike Roll, and as we move away from a car centric culture in Austin, we know that fatalities and accidents will naturally decline, but we must match these efforts with equal efforts to build up alternative modes of transportation. We must encourage protected bus/bike lanes, urban pedestrian trails and other areas where citizens can move about without fear of vehicles.

One of Austin’s key infrastructure projects over the next few decades is the construction of a light rail line as part of Project Connect. Project Connect is intimately tied to our sustainability, environmental, transportation, and housing goals. However, Project Connect and its funding have been threatened at the state legislature and by legal action from AG Ken Paxton, Bill Aleshire, and others. Do you support moving forward with Project Connect as planned? What steps would you have the city take to safeguard and streamline the construction of light rail?

I support moving forward with Project Connect as planned and seeking funding for the Priority Extensions as soon as possible. Austin has seen so many of its initiatives to grow housing and improve mobility options end up in the courts. I do not think that the Project Connect lawsuits have any merit, but it isn’t easy to know, given recent court decisions. For future steps, and since the recent lawsuits seem to be politically motivated, I would engage with state leaders who approve our bonds and identify leaders who will champion our goals for expanded rail and rapid bus lines. Other steps would include ensuring the City obtains sound legal advice when seeking bond funding and providing the flexibility to address cost escalation.

Most residential land in Austin is zoned to disallow commercial uses. What changes would you champion to give Austinites places to shop, play, and work in their neighborhoods, within walking or biking distance of home?

My campaign platform for comprehensive land code changes would support the transition to these complete communities. These changes are also the most significant opportunity for public involvement and neighborhood planning, where community members identify the gaps and follow up with mapping these new commercial zones. One of my top priorities is working with our communities to transform our 50-year-old subdivisions into what is needed now in our urban core.

Council wants you to weigh in on allowing more homes near transit and small lot homes

On May 16, Austin City Council will take public input and vote on housing reforms aimed at making Austin more walkable, transit-friendly, affordable, and sustainable. These changes are:

Council is billing these as “transit-supportive” changes because these changes are partly meant to support access to transit, increase ridership, and strengthen Project Connect’s application for federal funding, which will be submitted this summer.

What exactly is being proposed?

Equitable transit-oriented development (ETOD)

The ETOD zoning overlay applies within ½ mile of the Project Connect light rail corridor. It will restrict non-transit-supportive land uses (e.g. gas stations, storage units, car washes), and allow an extra 60 ft. of height (~5 stories) on non-single-family lots, up to 120 ft. tall (~10 stories), if certain affordability and tenant protection requirements are met. Those requirements include:

  • providing 12-15% income-restricted units to those making below 50-60% of the median family income (MFI) or contributing to the city’s affordable housing funding
  • for existing properties with housing currently affordable to 60% MFI or under:
    • providing units of similar cost and size to existing tenants
    • providing support with moving costs

HOME Phase 2

The main focus of HOME Phase 2 is the reduction of Austin’s minimum lot size, which is how much land we require for a home to be built as a standalone property (as opposed to part of a condo regime). Austin’s current minimum lot size is 5,750 sq. ft. Staff has proposed a reduction to 2,000 sq. ft. and Austin’s Planning Commission has recommended a 1,500 sq. ft. minimum lot size. The level of density allowed at the proposed lot sizes is similar to that allowed under HOME Phase 1 (three units on a 5,750 sq. ft. lot), which passed last December.

Here is an example comparing a relatively large 12,000 sq ft corner lot and the possible development allowed under the current code and the proposed changes:

Compatibility Reform

Compatibility refers to a set of height restrictions that project a 540 ft. “force field” around single-family properties that severely limits the height of multi-family, commercial, and mixed-use buildings. These compatibility standards work to keep multi-family homes and renters far from single-family homes. As a result, multi-family homes and their residents are pushed to the outskirts of residential neighborhoods, often beside major roads and highways.

Current compatibility restrictions extend 540 ft. (1.5 football fields), and the proposed changes reduce the compatibility distance to 75 ft. City staff estimates this change will create zoning capacity for up to 63,000 homes, mostly located near transit.

Endorsements

Some of the groups who have endorsed HOME and these land use changes include:

  • AARP Texas
  • Austin EMS Association
  • Austin Central Labor Council (AFL-CIO Austin)
  • Austin Habitat for Humanity
  • CapMetro
  • Environment Texas
  • International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 520
  • HousingWorks Austin
  • Laborers’ International Union of North America (LIUNA)
  • Transit Forward
  • University Democrats

How you can weigh in

Registering for the May 16 meeting

You can use this link to register your position for or against these changes. There are three ways you can fill out the form:

  • Sign up to speak in-person at City Hall on May 16
  • Sign up to speak over the phone on May 16
  • Just register your support (i.e. answer “no” to “Do you wish to speak?”)

Note: it’s no problem to register to speak in-person even if there’s a chance you can’t make it. In fact, registering to speak in-person likely has the largest impact even if you ultimately can’t make it to the meeting.

The above link to register for the May 16 meeting closes May 15 at noon. The meeting agenda is detailed here, but here are the agenda items to select:

  • Item 4 (compatibility)
  • Item 5 (ETOD)
  • Item 6 (HOME Phase 2)

Public comments are expected to start around 10 a.m. on Thursday, and AURA will have volunteers onsite to support anyone registered to speak. If you plan to attend Thursday, please email us so we can add you to our list of speakers to help.

Speaking at the meeting can sound daunting, but speaking can be as simple as stating your name, your neighborhood or Council District, and your position on the proposed items. For extra effect, you can add your personal perspective or story, but it’s completely optional!

Email

You can email all City Council using this form or use our automated form.

Speak Up for HOME at City Hall

On Thursday, October 26th, the Austin City Council and Planning Commission will be holding a joint public hearing at City Hall relating to the HOME (Home Options for Middle-income Empowerment) initiative. Below are some quick tips for how to sign up and how to deliver effective public comment.

How to Sign Up to Speak

To speak at the public hearing either in-person or virtually, you must register in advance. Online registration closes on Wednesday, October 25th at noon. You can sign up HERE.

Public comments are expected to start around 2:30 p.m. on Thursday, and AURA will have volunteers onsite to support anyone registered to speak. If you plan to attend Thursday, please text us at 210-264-1093 so we can add you to the list.

How to Give Public Comment

Giving public comment to City Council for the first time can definitely feel daunting. At the end of the day, most people who participate are normal people just like you, and after your first or second time it will start to feel more natural. You have as much of a right to make your thoughts known as anyone, don’t be afraid to have your say!

Here is some general advice:

  • Write down what you want to say ahead of time, either your exact testimony or bullet points. This also helps to ease nerves!
  • Don’t feel bad about feeling or sounding nervous! Being nervous makes you look more like a genuine, regular person.
  • Be straightforward and sincere. You don’t need to use gimmicks, just say what you want to say.
  • Be aware of the time limits. Each speaker will have two minutes to speak. That’s around 250-300 words. Don’t feel obligated to use the whole time.
  • Be positive. Painting a positive vision for what you want is more effective than just complaining. Signal that if they take positive steps, you’ll support them.
  • Use your personal story!

How to Structure Your Testimony:

  1. “My name is X and I am a resident of Austin in District X.” Find your district here.
  2. Start with: “I’m speaking today to urge the Commission and Council to support the HOME initiative.”
  3. Finally, share how Austin’s housing crisis has impacted you personally!

If you need a little inspiration, we have a lot of information about HOME on our webpage here. And if you don’t have a personal story, it’s still important for city officials to hear that you support these important reforms. At the end of the day, a brief sincere message of support is more important than long oratory. There will be a lot of speakers on Thursday, so a short and sweet message of support is more than enough!

Say “YES” to Protected Bike Lanes and Better Train Service on East 5th Street!

Shared use path on Congress & Ramble, featuring a cyclist, as well as pedestrians walking a dog
Photo from TPW. Congress & Ramble pictured.

The Austin Transportation and Public Works Department (TPW) is proposing safety and mobility improvements that will:

  • Enhance E 5th St by repaving the road and adding protected bike and walking paths, more outdoor spaces, and connections to major trails like the Southern Walnut Creek Trail.
  • Set up for improved train service by double tracking the Red Line tracks between Navasota & E 7th St.

Most importantly, you can help support these improvements by answering the survey linked below. We’ve provided some suggestions, but please feel free to use your own language and draw on your own experience traversing these streets.

Two train tracks
Two tracks are better than one. Photo from Wikipedia. CC-BY-SA-3.0 License. No changes made.
  • What do you like about the proposed changes?
    • Double-tracking that can increase train frequency
    • Improvements and repaving will improve comfort and safety for all modes of travel
    • Connections to the nearby trail networks which greatly open up where people can get to by walking, biking, or rolling
    • Separated and protected biking and walking paths
    • More outdoor space for people and local businesses
  • What do you dislike about the proposed changes?
    • Shared street with traffic calming and less physical protection over a small section due to space constraints
    • On-street parking which blocks the view and impairs safety for pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers
  • Please let us know your level of support for the proposed changes.
    • These are generally very good improvements over existing conditions and we would recommend you “Strongly Support” these proposed changes.

The East 5th survey is open until August 15th, 2023. Take the survey here. You can also view TPW’s full plan here.

Let’s Legalize Middle Income Housing

Small lot homes

On July 20th, Austin City Council will consider the Home Options for Middle-income Empowerment (HOME) resolution brought forward by Council Member Leslie Pool. The HOME resolution seeks to diversify Austin housing by adjusting zoning laws to support the development of missing middle housing (e.g. townhomes, triplexes, and cottage courts). This resolution will increase housing affordability, enhance our neighborhoods, and support middle-income Austinites.

How you can help

Speaking in front of City Council at the July 20th meeting is the most impactful way to help, but calls and emails are also a great way to let Council Members know how you feel. Let them know how the high cost of housing has affected you or people you know, and why you believe more diverse and affordable housing is essential for Austin’s future. You don’t need to be a policy expert—what matters most is your personal story.

Your message can start as simply as this: 

“I support more affordable and diverse housing options in Austin. This is vital to foster a more inclusive, vibrant, and equitable city. The current high housing costs are unsustainable and affect our community adversely.”

Speaking at the Council Meeting

City Council will take public comments on the HOME resolution on July 20th at Austin City Hall at 10:00 AM. These are the relevant housing resolutions on the agenda:

  • Item 126: The HOME resolution (minimum lot size reduction and 3 units per lot) by CM Pool
  • Item 124: Resolution to lower notification requirements for rezonings by CM R. Alter
  • Item 158: Ordinance to remove site plan requirements for 3 or 4 units by CM Ellis

Sign up to speak using this form:

  1. Select “July 20, 2023 – Regular Council Meeting”
  2. Respond “No” to “Are you a zoning applicant or zoning applicant’s representative?”
  3. Under “Regular Meeting Agenda Item Number” select 126, 124, and 158
  4. Stance: For
  5. Respond “Yes” to “Do you wish to speak?”
  6. Select “in-person” or “remote” (which is via phone call)
  7. Fill in your name and contact info
  8. Filling in the topic is optional
  9. Submit form

Calling or Emailing Council

You can get a lot of impact by directly reaching out to your own City Council member (look up your Council District).

DistrictNamePhoneEmail
1Natasha Harper-Madison512-978-2101natasha.madison@austintexas.gov
2Vanessa Fuentes512-978-2102vanessa.fuentes@austintexas.gov
3José Velásquez512-978-2103jose.velasquez@austintexas.gov
4José “Chito” Vela512-978-2104chito.vela@austintexas.gov
5Ryan Alter512-978-2105ryan.alter@austintexas.gov
6Mackenzie Kelly512-978-2106mackenzie.kelly@austintexas.gov
7Leslie Pool512-978-2107leslie.pool@austintexas.gov
8Paige Ellis512-978-2108paige.ellis@austintexas.gov
9Zohaib “Zo” Qadri512-978-2109zo.qadri@austintexas.gov
10Alison Alter512-978-2110alison.alter@austintexas.gov
MayorKirk Watson512-978-2100kirk.watson@austintexas.gov

You can also send an email to all of City Council at once using this form.

Together, let’s build an Austin for everyone!

Say “YES” to Protected Bike Lanes on Barton Springs Road & East 12th Street

The Austin Transportation and Public Works Department (TPW) is proposing safety and mobility improvements to two major streets within the city and is soliciting public feedback on both projects.

As a general principle, we believe more space in Austin should be allocated to sidewalks, bike lanes, and transit-priority lanes, and this guide reflects that point of view.

Barton Springs Road Safety Pilot Survey Guide

TPW is proposing mobility and safety improvements on a dangerous stretch of Barton Springs Road between Stratford Drive and South Lamar Boulevard. The changes include installing wider protected bike lanes by removing one lane of traffic, creating shorter and safer pedestrian crossings, relocating bus stops to those safer pedestrian locations, and installing sidewalks on the north side of Barton Springs Road through Zilker Park.

The survey has two open-ended questions asking for feedback about the design. We have suggestions for comments below:

  • What do you like about the proposed pilot design?
    • Like the protected bike lanes
    • Like the reduction to a single lane of traffic
    • Like the pedestrian enhancements
    • Love the inclusion of a pedestrian route through Zilker Park
    • Like the overall effort to make meaningful multimodal and accessibility improvements to an important city street
  • What do you not like about the proposed pilot design?
    • Dislike widening the single lane of traffic, which will encourage faster driving and counteract the recent lowering of the speed limit to 30mph
    • Dislike flexible posts along the bike lanes – prefer stronger protection such as curbs or bollards

The Barton Springs Road Safety Pilot survey is open until June 30, 2023.

East 12th St Survey Guide

Proposed Changes to Intersection of 12th & Chicon Streets

TPW is proposing significant connectivity, mobility, and safety upgrades along a 2.5-mile stretch of East 12th Street between Navasota Street and Webberville Road. The upgrades include the installation of pedestrian crossing islands, protected bike lanes, and widened sidewalks. It would remove certain left-turn only lanes and on-street parking at intersections, and optimize bus stop locations along the route.

The survey is pretty straightforward and only allows for comments on the entirety of the project, not its individual components. Below are some examples of possible responses to the open-ended questions.

  • 3. What do you like about the proposed changes?
    • Like protected bike lanes in both directions
    • Like the removal of on-street parking at intersections
    • Like floating bus stops to protect bike lanes
    • Like installation of pedestrian island crossings
    • Like widening sidewalks – prefer wider than existing conditions
  • 4. What do you dislike about the proposed changes?
    • Dislike the preservation of on-street parking along the route
    • Dislike flexible posts along the bike lanes – prefer stronger protection such as curbs or bollards
  • 5. Please let us know your level of support for the proposed changes.
    • These are generally very good improvements over existing conditions on East 12th Street and we would recommend you “Strongly Support” these proposed changes.

The East 12th Street survey is open until July 5th, 2023.

AURA Endorses On-Street 38th to Oltorf to Yellow Jacket Light Rail Option

AURA’s membership has taken a vote on which options they prefer out of the proposed Project Connect light rail options. Our members voted in favor of the On-Street 38th to Oltorf to Yellow Jacket option, with On-Street: North Lamar to Pleasant Valley coming in a close second. The remaining light rail plans still had strong support among AURA members, especially compared to a “No Build” option which received little to no support. This demonstrates AURA’s continued support of Project Connect and moving forward with building light rail.

As part of Project Connect’s public input process, we wrote a letter to Austin Transit Partnership (ATP) Executive Director Greg Cannally reflecting the endorsements of the Project Connect Working Group and AURA as a whole. Here is the full text of the letter:

Mr. Canally,

On behalf of the membership of AURA, Austin’s largest grassroots, pro-transit organization, we wanted to share our feedback regarding the current ATP Project Connect options.

First, we want to express our appreciation for ATP staff and engineers for their availability and helpfulness during the public input process. Throughout our discussion process, ATP provided detailed information and answered numerous questions. This was crucial for the success of the AURA Project Connect Working Group and allowed us to conduct a comprehensive and holistic evaluation of each Project Connect option. We appreciate their support and engagement.

To analyze all light rail options and the future of transit in Austin, the all-volunteer AURA Project Connect Working Group built a robust evaluation framework. Our goal was to equip Austinites with the necessary information to understand and contextualize each option’s impact on the city. Additionally, we aimed to provide a formal recommendation to inform an official endorsement vote of the AURA membership. After extensive research and investigation, the AURA Project Connect Working Group confidently settled on a specific recommendation: On-Street 38th to Oltorf to Yellow Jacket with the South 1st river crossing.

While all options are undoubtedly better than the current lack of any light rail, the working group has recommended the 38th to Oltorf to Yellow Jacket option because it lays the best foundation for the city overall. It balances every key criterion while providing a foundation that enables us to quickly and iteratively expand the system, achieve our mode shift goals, and connect every part of Austin. Although the lack of grade separation and connections to valuable destinations such as the airport are valid concerns, the working group believes that these issues can be mitigated or resolved while retaining the strengths of this initial build option. You can see the full output of the working group (recommendation, evaluation matrix, and reports) at https://aura-atx.org/project-connect-working-group-recommends-on-street-38th-to-oltorf-to-yellow-jacket-light-rail-option/

The AURA membership also chose to endorse the On-Street 38th to Oltorf to Yellow Jacket rail option, but to also support all of the rail options.This choice shows continued, strong support for Project Connect, and that any of the light rail plans would be vastly preferred to Austin’s current lack of light rail. It’s worth noting that the vote was narrowly won, the On-Street North Lamar to Pleasant Valley option was a very close runner-up. We believe this shows the membership greatly values high ridership and believes that the significant compromises necessary for full grade separation through downtown are not worth it. In making this decision, we recognize that without grade separation our shared responsibility as transit planners and advocates will be even greater to ensure that private vehicles are given as few opportunities as possible to interfere with our more efficient and higher capacity transit options. AURA members also voted with a strong preference for the South 1st crossing and that the Austin Airport connections should not be a high priority for Project Connect’s initial phase.

Thank you for carefully considering our input  and we are excited to collaborate with Austin Transit Partnership, Austin City Council, and CapMetro to make Project Connect an historic success.

Sincerely,
AURA

Cc: Members of the Austin Transit Partnership Board

Project Connect Working Group Recommends On-Street 38th to Oltorf to Yellow Jacket Light Rail Option

The AURA Project Connect Working Group has diligently built an evaluation framework over the past few weeks to analyze all light rail options and the future of transit in Austin. Our goal was to equip Austinites with the necessary information to understand and contextualize each option’s impact on the city. Additionally, we aimed to provide a formal recommendation to inform the AURA membership’s endorsement vote. After extensive research, investigation, and evaluation, the AURA Project Connect Working Group has confidently settled on a recommendation: On-Street 38th to Oltorf to Yellow Jacket. AURA members will consider this recommendation and vote on which option to endorse as an organization.

While all options are undoubtedly better than the current lack of any light rail, the working group has recommended the 38th to Oltorf to Yellow Jacket option because it lays the best foundation for the city overall. It balances every key criterion while providing a foundation that enables us to quickly and iteratively expand the system, achieve our mode shift goals, and connect every part of Austin. Although the lack of grade separation and connections to valuable destinations such as the airport are valid concerns, we believe that these issues can be mitigated or resolved while retaining the strengths of this initial build option.

Before delving further, we want to express our appreciation for ATP’s leadership and engineers for their availability and helpfulness throughout the public input process. Throughout our internal process, ATP provided invaluable information and answered every question we had. This was crucial for the Project Connect Working Group to conduct a comprehensive and holistic evaluation of each option from every key angle. We are excited to collaborate with ATP, City Council, and CapMetro to make Project Connect a massive success.

How Did Each Option Do?

The following infographic presents the grades that each of the proposed light rail options received based on the rubric developed by the Project Connect Working Group. The evaluated options are On-Street 38th to Oltorf to Yellow Jacket, North Lamar Transit Center to Pleasant Valley, Partial Elevated 29th to Oltorf to Yellow Jacket, Partial Underground UT to Yellow Jacket and On-Street 29th to Airport.

The rubric used to grade all proposals (link to the full report of each option below)

While there is significant variability among all the options, each one holds immense potential for Austin’s future as a transit-oriented and sustainable city. The only alternative that receives a failing grade in this assessment is not building anything at all.

Our Reports & Evaluation of Each Option

On-Street 38th to Oltorf to Yellow Jacket

The proposed On-Street 38th to Oltorf to Yellow Jacket rail option is a light rail system that would run through the Guadalupe, East Riverside, and South Congress corridors, connecting major population centers and destinations in Downtown Austin. This option has the potential to significantly improve Austin’s transit infrastructure, with an estimated daily ridership of 30,000 and frequent service. Compared to other non-forked options, this option has double the frequency, which can increase ridership and add value to any potential expansion of the system to the north.

While the rider experience is generally positive with fast and convenient hop-on times, the at-grade operation may result in interruptions and reliability issues. Nonetheless, the route provides excellent connectivity, including access to grocery stores, the University of Texas, and a short bus connection to St. Edward’s University. Furthermore, the rail line is expandable from all ends and covers significant parts of Downtown Austin and the University of Texas. While concerns about grade separation and coverage in certain northern neighborhoods exist, the long-term benefits in terms of ridership, rider experience, expandability, community reach, equity, and pedestrianization potential led us to select this option as our recommendation.

We are currently working on a full list of implementation and policy recommendations that will address any downsides of the system to ensure its success. Some of these recommendations will be applicable to all options, but others may be specific to the On-Street 38th to Oltorf to Yellow Jacket rail option.

View the full report & our evaluation of this option here

Partial Elevated 29th to Oltorf to Yellow Jacket

This option connects Guadalupe, East Riverside, and South Congress corridors, branching out to major destinations like Downtown Austin and the University of Texas. The system offers great connectivity, expandability, and the best rider experience out of all options, with potential for future growth and development. However, due to the high estimated cost of investing in elevated grade separation, it has fewer stations and serves fewer affordable-income households compared to the longest surface options. The option provides decent community reach and equity but needs improvements in pedestrianization potential and ridership to become a comprehensive transit system for the city.

View the full report & our evaluation of this option here

North Lamar Transit Center to Pleasant Valley

This option was incredibly promising as a vision for light rail as it offers high initial ridership figures and excellent connectivity, but is significantly constrained in terms of expandability and rider experience. While the route has excellent connectivity and pedestrianization potential, it faces challenges in rider experience, expandability, and community reach & equity due to limited frequency, expansion constraints, and gaps in serving certain neighborhoods.

View the full report & our evaluation of this option here

Partial Underground UT to Yellow Jacket

This proposed option is a light rail system that is intended to serve the East Riverside and Guadalupe corridors in Austin. It offers the highest level of service to the most densely populated areas of the city, connecting Downtown, the Texas Capitol Complex, and the University of Texas with major parks located south of the river, as well as new developments and student housing along Riverside. However, it does not offer service to North or South Austin. High costs associated with underground grade separation in downtown result in fewer stations and cause the system to miss several dense jobs and population centers further north. Initially, this option is expected to serve 20,000 daily riders, which is the lowest ridership of all the presented alternatives. Although the grade separation significantly improves the rider experience, the system’s 10-minute frequencies hold it back from truly excelling.

View the full report & our evaluation of this option here

On-Street 29th to Airport

As Austin has grown into a hub of business and tourism, hosting major conferences and events like SXSW and ACL, people from all over the world travel to the city regularly. The Project Connect Working Group took concerns about the lack of a direct airport connection seriously. However, we ultimately decided against prioritizing a direct airport connection in the initial build due to the negative impact it would have on ridership, rider experience, and connectivity. Instead, we believe that connecting the Yellow Jacket station to the airport via a shuttle or AirTrain, which is funded separately from Project Connect, is a better option. The initial build of Project Connect’s light rail will serve as the backbone of Austin’s future as a more transit-oriented and sustainable city, and prioritizing a direct airport connection would not align with this vision.

View the full report & our evaluation of this option here

Conclusion

The AURA Project Connect Working Group has worked diligently to produce these findings and recommendations. We’re confident that On-Street 38th to Oltorf to Yellow Jacket will provide the best backbone to Austin’s future as a transit-oriented and sustainable city. Still, AURA’s endorsement ultimately belongs to its membership, and we’re looking forward to seeing what they vote for. The other evaluated options are still promising, and each holds great potential for Austin’s future as a transit-oriented and sustainable city. The only alternative that receives a failing grade in this assessment is not building anything at all.

Special thanks to Christian Tschoepe, Chloe Wilkinson, Edgar Handal, Hunter Holder, Jimmy Daly, Parker Welch, Luis Osta Lugo, Zach Faddis, and everyone else involved in helping make the vision of the Project Connect Working Group a reality.

Project Connect Working Group Evaluation Rubric

AURA’s Project Connect Working Group has created a Graded Rubric for the 5 Project Proposals released by Austin Transit Partnership based on the following criteria listed below. The goal of the rubric is to help discern the pros and cons of each proposal. As AURA works towards making an endorsement of one of the proposals, our organization wants to give members the information so that they can make an informed vote.

Evaluation Criteria

These six criteria are focused on as they are an indicator of many successful systems both nationally and globally. These are also criteria that transit experts point to as key marks when building a new rail system. While all options are fundamentally better than the current setup, it is always important to compare and contrast proposals.

Details

Ridership

Ridership is a quite straightforward criteria: the number of riders the system expects to serve on a daily basis indicates the level of demand for and success of the system. This is possibly the best starting point we have in evaluating a successful transit system.

Relevant Indicators:

Connectivity

Access to a wide variety of local or regional activity centers is one of the main goals of any transit system. Connectivity is the criteria which measures the degree to which the system facilitates this, whether the access is through a connection directly to a key destination (or within walking/rolling distance), or through additional modes of transportation, such as a bus, bike, or car. 

Relevant indicators:

  • Connections to essential and daily needs, such as jobs, affordable housing, and grocery stores.
  • Connections to services, such as medical services, gyms, and parks
  • Connections to places of personal enrichment such as schools, universities, and libraries
  • Connections to personal and group entertainment, such as museums, movie theaters, bars, and clubs
  • Connections to forms of transportation that fill in the gaps (BRT, bike or vehicle shares, pedestrianized areas)

Rider Experience

A key factor in the continued success of a light rail system is the rider experience. Even if a route is connected well and can handle high ridership, if the rider experience is consistently negative, people are much less likely to use it. Major factors in rider experience can be measurable, such as frequency and speed, or more qualitative, such as accessibility and comfort.

In order to achieve our mobility goals our light rail system will need to be attractive and useful to both transit dependent and all purpose riders. So Rider Experience is of critical importance to the success of both Project Connect and Austin mobility as a whole.

Relevant indicators:

  • Route Frequency
  • Average speed
  • Reliability
  • Accessibility 
  • Comfort

It’s also important to note that certain indicators, like Route Frequency, are ridership multipliers. So we would get significantly more bang for our buck out of any expansions (or in the initial build) for a system with higher frequencies and similar indicators.

Expandability

Expandability is how easy the system will be to expand from the completion of the first phase of the system. It’s a measure of the potential for the rail system to grow to accommodate more riders and lay track to complete the original vision of Project Connect in the future. Or better yet, become even bigger and better than the original Project Connect vision. 

More critically, the initial rail options that have a line “forking” to Oltorf visiting South Congress will be easily expanded in the same way onto South Congress. These two options are:

ON-STREET: 38TH TO OLTORF TO YELLOW JACKET
PARTIAL ELEVATED: 29TH TO OLTORF TO YELLOW JACKET

Relevant indicators:

  • Disruptiveness and flexibility of future expansions
  • Political feasibility of expanding in each direction after phase 1 is built

Pedestrianization Potential

Good transit systems have priority for multiple modes of getting around, which includes pedestrianization. Pedestrianization is a priority for urbanists in its own right.

Since there are very few areas that are fully pedestrianized downtown currently, there’s a lot that can be gained by prioritizing good pedestrian spaces next to transit. This not only improves accessibility of transit, but creates great, memorable, public spaces.

In all of the options, the Drag has been mentioned as a candidate for pedestrianization.

Relevant indicators:

  • Potential pedestrianized blocks for each scenario

Community Reach & Equity

A comprehensive transit system can connect people from all backgrounds to opportunities. Community Reach is a criterion for evaluating a light rail system based on the extent to which it serves different neighborhoods or districts within the city. Equity ensures that regions and people of all backgrounds have access to opportunities.

Relevant indicators:

  • Number of districts covered
  • Low-income & minority neighborhoods covered

Ratings will reflect ATP’s metrics on the number of affordable housing units within a ½ mile of each stop, detailed at https://www.atptx.org/about/light-rail.

What’s Not Covered

  • Grade Separation
    • Partially covered as part of Rider Experience but does not have its own criteria
  • Airport Connection
    • Partially covered as part of Connectivity but does not have its own criteria

If you’re interested in reading the full evaluation you can read our comprehensive evaluation rubric document.

University Democrats & AURA Call on Council to Expand Student Housing

An aerial view of the University of Texas at Austin

AURA has partnered with the University Democrats at UT Austin to send a joint letter to the Mayor and City Council calling for addressing student housing costs by expanding the University Neighborhood Overlay (UNO) and increasing the supply of student housing. If your organization would like to sign onto this call to action, please email us at info@aura-atx.org.

Here’s the full text of the letter sent to Council:

Mayor Watson, Mayor Pro Tem Ellis, and City of Austin Council Members:

Students, like most Austinites, are adversely affected by our city’s lack of housing. Smart, young people across our state move to Austin to pursue higher education and participate in our vibrant culture. Once they arrive, many find that they spend an exorbitant amount of their income on housing, often having to maintain jobs on top of their academic responsibilities. Some must live far away from the campus at which they study. Housing costs are quickly becoming a huge barrier to getting an education in Austin. We pride ourselves on educating much of our state, yet our housing costs are turning away many working class students from seeking higher education, or forcing them to take on higher levels of debt. We can and should do better by this city’s college students.

In recognition of this problem, the City of Austin has created the University Neighborhood Overlay (UNO) District in the West Campus area near the University of Texas. Within UNO, developers are allowed to build more student housing as long as they also provide high-quality pedestrian infrastructure and dedicate a percentage of the units as subsidized, or Affordable.

UNO has been a great success. It has allowed tens of thousands of students to live near the UT Campus. Rents in the overlay area have increased at a slower rate than in surrounding neighborhoods. It has created one of the most walkable, bikeable, and transit supportive areas in the entire city. UNO residents have lower car ownership and use alternative transportation more than most anywhere else in the city, helping Austin reach our climate and mode share goals. It has also produced a staggering percentage of the city’s affordable housing units, despite covering such a tiny area of the city.

Despite its success, the small amount of land we have designated as being within UNO is not enough to meet the housing demands of the University of Texas population, to say nothing of the growing student populations attending other colleges throughout our city. We must extend the benefits of UNO to more of the city’s students. 

We request that the Austin City Council expand UNO to more areas that are appropriate for student housing. In particular, we suggest areas close to universities or community colleges, especially where there is already a concentration of students living but without the benefits of UNO. Examples of areas that we believe are ready for expansion of UNO include:

  • – Expanding Outer West Campus district westward to Leon Street
  • – Expanding Outer West Campus district westward to Salado below 29th and to San Pedro below that
  • – A new district bordered by Guadalupe to the West, 27th to the south, 31st to the north, and Duval to the East
  • – A new district around Red River, east of I-35, and north of Dean Keaton

Maps for the current and proposed UNO districts can be found at https://bit.ly/UNO-expansion. These zones are only meant as a starting point for discussion.

In addition, we would like the city council to look into ways to improve the existing districts to allow more students to have the advantages of UNO. An example of this might be raising height limits. 

Finally, we would urge the City Council to initiate consideration of the expansion of UNO to other areas of Austin with existing college campuses, including but not limited to St. Edward’s University, Huston-Tillotson University, and all Austin Community College campuses. This will allow us to better serve the housing needs of all higher education students in Austin and retain our excellent reputation with younger Austinites as a place to live, learn and stay.

We appreciate your prompt attention to these requests and look forward to discussing these proposals in greater detail at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely,

UDems
AURA