Blog

On the fourth anniversary of the adoption of Austin’s comprehensive plan, Imagine Austin, let’s take amoment to review what the plan is, how it came to be, how it relates to the CodeNEXTeffort to revise the land development code, and how we measure success in implementing it.

What Is a Comprehensive Plan?

A comprehensive plan is a long-term vision for a city that guides all policy decisions. Comprehensive plans are high level; they don’t prescribe policies or land use on a parcel-by-parcel or neighborhood-by-neighborhood basis.

How Did We Create Ours?

Starting in 2009, I was one of about 40 Austinites who oversaw the development of the Imagine Austin as members of the Citizens Advisory Task Force (CATF) for the comprehensive plan. Our role was to engage the community to understand its needs, promote public participation, and shape a vision for Austin’s future.

Growth scenarios were a key part of the development of Imagine Austin. Under the premise that Austin and its extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) would grow by 750,000 residents and 300,000 jobs by the year 2035, the community engaged in a process to determine how that growth would occur in the most sustainable fashion.

City staff and CATF members invited the community to participate in “chip exercises”, wherein members of the public placed chips on maps of Austin to indicate where growth should go. City staff grouped and combined the growth maps into four growth scenarios. A fifth “trend” growth scenario, depicting how Austin would grow without changing its policies, accompanied the four community-inspired growth scenarios.

To determine the community’s preferred growth scenario, staff posted each of the growth scenario maps at workshops throughout the city. A set of “sustainability indicators” accompanied each map. For each growth scenario, the city quantified the outcomes that would occur on such indicators as vehicle miles traveled (VMTs), transit ridership, cost of public infrastructure, and water consumption.

By quantifying the impact of the growth scenarios, the indicators informed the public conversation and decision about which scenario was the most desirable. The public ultimately voted in the largest numbers for scenario D, which directed most of the jobs and people into the central city. Imagine Austin includes a “growth concept map” based on scenario D, while incorporating elements of scenario C and minor adjustments to reflect certain land use constraints.

Beyond the selection of a growth scenario, through a series of workshops, community forums and conversations, and other outreach efforts, city staff, consultants, and CATF members solicited 18,000 public inputs and meticulously categorized and considered each input during the process of drafting the plan. Austin’s City Council unanimously approved the plan on June 15, 2012.

What’s In Imagine Austin?

The Imagine Austin plan contains several key concepts that can be confusing, including:

1. Complete Communities and Goals

2. Core Principles for Action

3. Policy Areas and Building Blocks

4. Priority Programs

Imagine Austin’s vision is for complete communities throughout the city. A complete community is:

1. Natural and sustainable

2. Prosperous

3. Livable

4. Mobile and interconnected

5. Educated

6. Creative

7. Values and respects people.

These attributes of complete communities are the goals of Imagine Austin.

To achieve these goals, the plan outlines six core principles for action:

1. Grow as a compact, connected city.

2. Integrate nature into the city.

3. Provide paths to prosperity to all.

4. Develop as an affordable and healthy community.

5. Sustainably manage water, energy, and environmental resources.

6. Think creatively and work together.

Ultimately, policies in the following policy areas must work in concert to apply these principles and achieve plan goals:

1. Land Use and Transportation

2. Housing and Transportation

3. Economy

4. Conservation and Environment

5. City Facilities and Services

6. Society

7. Creativity

To facilitate implementation and match the departmental structure of the City of Austin, the plan enumerates eight priority programs:

1. Invest in a compact and connected Austin

2. Sustainably manage our water resources

3. Continue to grow Austin’s economy by investing in our workforce, education systems, entrepreneurs, and local businesses

4. Use green infrastructure to protect environmentally sensitive areas and integrate nature into the city

5. Grow and invest in Austin’s creative economy

6. Develop and maintain household affordability throughout Austin

7. Create a Healthy Austin Program

8. Revise Austin’s development regulations and processes to promote a compact and connected city.

It’s important to recognize that Imagine Austin’s core principles for action and priority programs are principles and programs intended to achieve plan goals, but they are not, in and of themselves, the goals.

Compact and Connected

The first and last of Imagine Austin’s priority programs are “bookends” and reflect the plan’s emphasis on moving towards the denser development patterns the public chose in growth scenario D. Priority program #8 gave birth to the CodeNEXT process, which is the city’s effort to revise the land development code to achieve the goals of Imagine Austin.

Indeed, Imagine Austin links compact and connected development patterns to many of the plan’s goals:

● “More compact growth . . . enhances human connections, innovation, and urban vibrancy.” – Page 10

● “The per unit costs associated with serving low-density, sprawling development with water and wastewater services are generally greater than those associated with denser, more compact development.” – Page 61

● “By promoting a compact and connected city, Austin seeks to direct development away from sensitive environmental resources, protect existing open space and natural resources, and improve air and water quality.” – Page 97

● “A compact community is one in which housing, services, retail, jobs, entertainment, health care, schools, parks, and other daily needs are within a convenient walk or bicycle ride of one another. A compact community is supported by a complete transportation system, encourages healthier lifestyles and community interaction, and allows for more efficient delivery of public services” – Page 129

● “Well-designed compact areas with plenty of people, workplaces, and multifamily homes make transit work; they’re needed to make frequent, convenient bus and rail service viable . . . . Per person, compact urban areas have a lower carbon footprint than suburban areas. More compact development patterns [also] lower taxpayer costs for public services, if fewer roads, water and sewer lines, power lines, and other infrastructure are needed to serve far-flung places. Encouraging compact infill projects also reduces development pressures on open space around Austin, helping to support land conservation and environmental protection.” – Page 129

Compact and connected development patterns impact the concept of “household affordability”, mentioned in priority program #6 and a component of the “livable” attribute of complete communities. The Imagine Austin task force deliberately chose the “household affordability” term to refer, not just to the cost of housing, but to the combination of housing, transportation, and utility costs.

The cost of land – and, therefore, housing costs – in outlying areas tend to be lower than in high-demand areas in the central city. But people who live the outlying areas often experience much higher transportation costs. The appendix of the 2014 Austin Comprehensive Housing Market Analysis shows that, in some Austin zip codes, households’ transportation costs are nearly as high as their housing costs. Policies that might yield greater housing affordability, in isolation, differ from those that yield greater household affordability.

Thus “compact and connected” is not one of many goals but is key among the core principles and priority programs designed to achieve Imagine Austin goals.

Complete Communities Indicators

As the city implements Imagine Austin and continues the CodeNEXT process to revise the land development code, how can we know we’re headed in the right direction?

Imagine Austin answers this question with a set of “complete communities indicators”. Page 224 of the plan states that these indicators “measure success in achieving plan goals”. The 58 indicators, listed on pages 225-226 of the plan, are organized by the attributes of complete communities. They include such indicators as:

● Cost burdened households (housing, transportation, and utility costs)

● Vehicle miles traveled (total and per capita)

● Water consumption (total water use and per capita residential)

● Households within ½ mile distance of park or accessible open space (percent)

Policy and land development code changes that move the complete communities indicators in the wrong direction fail to achieve, or undermine achievement of, Imagine Austin goals.

To measure progress, the plan calls for the city to monitor and update these indicators, and that “measures and reporting should be highly visible to promote accountability”.

Yet the indicators also can provide guidance, in advance, on which policies the cities should adopt to achieve plan goals. Much as “sustainability indicators” guided the selection of a preferred growth scenario during the development of the Imagine Austin plan, the complete communities indicators can guide CodeNEXT decisions and Imagine Austin implementation.

The city has a license for, and access to, a software tool, Envision Tomorrow, that enables staff to input various factors and determine their effects on the indicators. As the CodeNEXT team proposes revised land development regulations and maps them to neighborhoods across the city, they can explore several different scenarios and use Envision Tomorrow and other tools to estimate and quantify the impact on the complete communities indicators.

Summary

The Imagine Austin plan provides the long-term vision and goals for our city: a city of complete communities that are natural and sustainable, prosperous, livable, mobile and interconnected, educated, creative, and that value and respect people. We measure success in achieving these goals using 58 complete communities indicators listed in the plan. Core principles and priority programs are intended to address these goals as our city implements Imagine Austin, with growing as a compact and connected city being a key principle and program. Imagine Austin gave birth to the CodeNEXT effort, currently underway, to determine land development code changes to promote a compact and connected city.

In the coming blog posts, we’ll dive a bit deeper into each of the priority programs to discuss what has been done in the last four years as well as what more could be done to achieve the goals of Imagine Austin.Imagine Austin priority programs series

The most significant transportation news of the last two weeks has been Mayor Steve Adler’s $720 million dollar bond proposal, as well as the June 1^st staff presentation on bond possibilities. Both the mayor and the staff are very focused on funding “smart corridors” that will mostly benefit car mobility with limited provisions for bikes, pedestrians, and transit.

Possibly overshadowed by this, was, two weeks ago, the dedication of a much smaller amount of money, which also signified a strike in favor of continued car dependence. At the May 23, 2016 Capital Metro Board Meeting, the board gave final approval to the expansion of the parking lot at the Lakeline Park and Ride. The $1.8 million dollar expansion will add an additional 460 spaces at the suburban P&R, which is also the site of one of the red line train stations. 

The P&R expansion is troubling for a number of reasons, not least of which is the perversity of a planner for a mass transit agency declaring himself “excited to have a 1,000 car parking lot.” Some other concerns:

1) Transit works best when it helps people get out of their cars, but at a P&R, every trip still starts in a car. In some cities, both congestion and transportation emissions are actually increased by park and rides.

2) As demonstrated on page 20 of the AURA transit vision, park and rides are incredibly inefficient: it takes more than 30 parking spaces to fill a commuter bus. Depending on the size of the parking spaces, that could be as big as 1/3^rd of an acre.  

3) Even when they are successful, commuter routes are far less efficient than local routes. With every parking space filled, Lakeline station’s routes carry half as many riders per hour of service as the local routes.

4) CapMetro cited South by Southwest and other festivals as times when the Lakeline P&R exceeded capacity. These seem like the kind of times – when lots of alcohol is involved – when it’s most advantageous to force people out of their cars. What good is it to use CapMetro as a “safe ride home” if that ride is only to a parking lot?

5) Although technically in North Austin, the Lakeline P&R is very close to Cedar Park, a city which pulled out of the CapMetro service area in 1998. So this P&R will not only subsidize the driving habits of suburbanites, it subsidizes the driving habits of suburbanites who don’t even contribute to the sales tax base.

But the largest issue may be the huge opportunity cost for other necessary capital projects. CapMetro is dedicating a huge amount of money to improve the comfort of suburban riders while its local bus facilities remain inadequate. Not every CapMetro bus stop has a shelter, but even the ones that do are lacking. Whereas most cities have 3-walled bus shelters, Austin shelters only have a roof. Accordingly, they only provide shelter when the sun is directly overhead or when rain is falling straight down. As the examples below show, shelters frequently fail at basic protections.

Drenched commuters at an Austin MetroRapid stop.

Source: Seth Goodman

Indeed, Capital Metro has blamed many of its ridership woes recently on “weather events” reducing ridership. And yet, cities all over North America have successful transit systems in places with far worse weather than mostly sunny Austin. Cities like Chicago have made strong shelters for local routes.

A local bus shelter in Chicago both protects from the elements and displays bus arrival times.
Source: Seth Goodman

Coincidentally, a basic 3 wall and roof shelter costs $4,200, slightly more than a parking space at the Lakeline P&R expansion. And there are slightly fewer major stops – stops with more than 50 riders/day – in the system than there will be new parking spaces. Thus, providing every major stop with a basic shelter would cost the same as the P&R expansion. Although CapMetro’s 5-year capital budget calls for nearly $6 million in bus stop improvements, these are legally required ADA improvements, not efforts to provide better shade. Even at the busiest bus stop in the city, Republic Square, upgrades to the bus facilities will not include additional shades or weather protections.

An Austin bus stop at 5:30 in the afternoon on a 95 degree day: a typical roof-only bus shelter no longer provides shade to any part of the bench.

Source: John Laycock

This indifference is particularly galling given that some stops actually do have good facilities – the ones at Park and Rides. According to Capital Metro’s service guidelines,

“Amenities [for large Park and Rides] consist of an enclosed climate-controlled facility from 1,250 square feet to 1,800 square feet in size, security personnel or facility attendants, water fountains, vending equipment, information kiosks, single use restroom for attendant and operators, extensive lighting, landscaping to enhanced surroundings, signage and graphics, and additional seating areas with shelters/canopies at bus positions.” (Emphasis mine.)

Nothing about this makes sense except for a restroom for the operators. Why do park and rides, which presumably serve commuters who wait for the bus in the morning when the weather is coolest, need air-conditioned shelters? Presumably, if air conditioning were really that necessary, park and riders could stay in their cars. And if there is an air-conditioned shelter, why are there “additional seating areas with shelters?” And, why, if this is the kind of shelter Capital Metro is willing to build, why won’t they build them for local stops in the city, which are used all day long, by thousands of people, who do not have cars they can wait in?

For the price of the Lakeline parking lot, Capital Metro could put a 3-wall shelter on every stop with more than 50 people. Or it could build 45 top of the line air-conditioned shelters. Or look into putting real-time bus arrival information at every single stop. Or something in between. It’s about priorities: the Lakeline P&R prioritizes the well-being of cars, not people. Capital Metro should invest in their existing riders in the core of the city rather than trying to lure suburban riders who already own a car anyway. 

his is the first in a series of posts showing real life examples of how the proposals in AURA’s Transit City report can benefit Austinites.

I advocate for better transit and mobility options so that all Austinites have choices to go “car lite” and reap the benefits of a healthier, greener, and more affordable lifestyle. This is my family’s story of how we have saved money, gotten healthier, and had less impact on the environment through our transportation choices.

I didn’t own a bicycle 7 years ago. I didn’t really think about it, honestly. But my husband did, and he kept nudging me to get one so we could go out and ride together on some of the beautiful trails in Chicago (where we lived at the time). I relented at some point, “letting” him get me one for my birthday about 6 years ago. Once I got back on, I had this sense of “wow, this is FUN!” I had somehow forgotten that cycling is actually really fun (and way faster than walking).

I rode throughout my first pregnancy and only really stopped when it got too cold in Chicago. When my daughter got old enough, she went in the bike trailer and we flew past all the traffic and parking messes of Chicago to hang out lakeside. It was freedom, and saved us money and headache too!

My husband got a job as a professor at UT in 2013 and we moved to Austin. My daughter was very confused about the lack of sidewalks and why she had to walk in the street. For the first time, she also regularly had to be in a car (we did not own a car in Chicago). She was not too happy about this change, and made it known to us, as preschoolers do. We chose a living situation that meant we could get by with one car; we had already had to purchase one and didn’t really have the money to buy a second. My husband was able to take the UT Shuttle, the 1 or 101 bus, or ride his bike to work so that I could have the car during the day.

We moved after about a year when we bought a house but again, we didn’t want to buy another car, so we chose a place that would be near a frequent bus line and close enough to still bicycle to work.

Now, we have two girls and we take them to school and daycare every day on the bicycle (except for thunderstorms of course). The little one *loves* the bike and has been known to cry when told that we need to take the car. If the girls are cold, they wear sweaters/jackets. If it’s hot, we just go slow so as to not overheat ourselves. My husband can also put his bike on the bus on those particularly hot summer days. Thankfully we have still not needed to buy a second car and we hardly use the car we have. The car gets about 150 miles/month while we get exercise, time with our family, and cost savings from having one car instead of two.

An added (and unexpected) benefit of all our cycling is the relationships and community that come from going a bit slower. We often see the same families biking to school. We chat and wave. We’ve added another child in our neighborhood to our “bike train” and gotten to know our neighbors better. I was riding my bike last week and someone called out to me and asked if I was Mary. I said yes and they said they recognized me from AURA. These sorts of interactions are hard to quantify, and definitely wouldn’t have happened if I were in a car.

With more options for walking, cycling, and transit, we can make Austin a more friendly, healthy, green, and affordable place.

Members of AURA have voted overwhelmingly to endorse Austin City Council member Gregorio Casar, who represents District 4, for re-election in November.

AURA may endorse candidates in the other four City Council races later in the year. Casar is the only Council incumbent who received support from a supermajority of AURA members for an early endorsement.

Council Member Casar has been a staunch supporter of AURA’s vision of an Austin for Everyone. He has advanced the cause of abundant housing with a variety of practical policy solutions such as fair housing legislation, accessory dwelling units liberalization, and funding for affordable housing. AURA is looking forward to working further with Casar on housing, transit reform, and more in the years to come.

For Immediate Release

AURA calls on Austin City Council and Capital Metro to Transform Austin for Transit

May 16, 2016

Austin, Texas

AURA today calls on Austin City Council and Capital Metro to enact the critical next steps needed to make Austin a transit-oriented city. If adopted, these steps would move us well toward a key AURA goal: that Austinites will take over half their trips via public transportation, walking, or bicycling by 2040.

AURA’s new report “Transit City: A Vision for a Multimodal Austin” argues for implementation of a high-frequency bus network, permitting of abundant housing near existing transit, full funding of the city’s Bicycle Master Plan, construction of missing sidewalks already identified by the city as High Priority needs, liberalization of parking requirements throughout the city, and more.

Transit City co-author Carrie Gammell says: “There’s always a lot of emphasis on rail in Austin. Our report discusses all the necessary prerequisites for a comprehensive transit system, such as efficient bus operations, abundant housing near our existing and future transit lines, and healthy networks of sidewalks and bike infrastructure.”

“Our report calls for immediate action including extension of our transit priority lanes, improved shelters and payment facilities at our busiest bus stops, and creating a connectivity master plan for the city,” says Transit City co-author John Laycock. “The transit lanes and bus shelters will make it more comfortable and convenient to take transit, and enhanced street connectivity will make what car trips remain more efficient without spending millions on additional highway lanes.”

“Transit City shows why Austin City Council must move towards a bond proposition this fall to fully fund the sidewalk and bicycle master plans. We need to move past discussions of technology gimmicks and talk about real, proven solutions for Austinites to get around,” says AURA Board member Mary Pustejovsky.

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

Press contacts:

• Robert Prentiss, AURA Transit Vision committee, robertprentiss@gmail.com, 512-415-0786
• John Laycock, AURA Transit Vision committee, jlaycock10@gmail.com, 512-970-4706

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

GENERAL

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

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

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

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

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

CAPITOL VIEW CORRIDORS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CAPITAL COMPLEX MASTER PLAN

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

HOUSING

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TRANSIT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As Austin’s housing market tightens, our low-income renters continue to be the most impacted. Austin has lost thousands of market-rate affordable housing and continues to see affordability disappear. Many Austinites have abruptly lost their homes and are subsequently pushed out of the city altogether. AURA recognizes the need to help displaced families find homes in Austin, which is why it endorses a Tenant Relocation Assistance ordinance.

The city’s lack of abundant housing has created a “seller’s market.” Property owners who lease cheaper, older units are not incentivized to maintain safe and healthy places to live or provide tenants with services beyond what is legally required (if that). In a seller’s market, landlords are able to milk properties and provide minimal upkeep. Eventually, they may kick tenants out and shut down their revenue-generating property to make way for Class-A units rented or sold at high market rates.

This disproportionately affects low-income and marginalized families. Tenants lose their homes, are caused undue stress, and have few to no options in Austin for affordable housing. Moving is stressful for anyone, but even harder for families with children in school and limited flexible income, the elderly, and persons with disabilities. This is happening at a rapid rate, especially in our gentrifying neighborhoods. City Council must act quickly to put in place guidelines to ensure that residents are given ample time and resources to find new homes.

AURA believes unsafe housing, tenant displacement, and the overall lack of affordable housing throughout Austin are just symptoms of greater issues at hand. If Austin does not promote measures for abundant housing in all neighborhoods, our affordable housing stock will continue to fall apart and be replaced with homes too expensive for middle and low-income classes. While a tenant relocation assistance program would not address the greater housing market issues, it is a much needed intermediate measure to ensure that Austin’s most vulnerable communities are treated humanely and provided assistance so they can stay in our city and at our schools.

For Immediate Release

AURA commends City Council for allowing more backyard cottages in Austin

November 19, 2015

Austin, Texas

AURA, an urbanist grassroots non-profit that works toward an Austin for Everyone, commends City Council for taking action to allow more Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) – known colloquially as granny flats, garage apartments, or backyard cottages – to be built in Austin.

These changes were originally sponsored by former Austin Councilmembers Chris Riley and Mike Martinez, in June 2014. We thank Mr. Riley, Mr. Martinez along with Mayor Steve Adler and current Councilmembers Gregorio Casar, Sheri Gallo, Delia Garza, Sabino “Pio” Renteria, Ellen Troxclair and Don Zimmerman for their leadership on this issue.

AURA supports these changes, because our platform prioritizes abundant housing of all types, from smaller apartment buildings and garage apartments in established neighborhoods to downtown skyscrapers to single-family housing. We want an Austin where everybody is welcome and everybody’s interests matter: young and old, rich and poor, renter and homeowner, healthy and sick, citizen and immigrant, lifelong resident and new arrival.

The greatest asset our city has is its people, and our city is at its best when it facilitates connections between those people: cultural, economic, and social.

“This is an important step toward allowing more abundant housing in the city of Austin,” says Cory Brown, AURA member. “I’m hopeful that by allowing more housing options within reach of people with modest incomes, we can begin the process of making Austin neighborhoods more integrated and diverse.”

In addition to the substantial public comment in favor of the changes, more than 1,000 Austinites signed AURA’s petition urging Austin’s City Council to allow granny flats and other small houses everywhere in Austin.

“This is a victory for the future of our city. It’s a hard won victory over a handful of incumbent homeowners in establishment neighborhoods who are opposed to addressing our housing crisis,” adds Steven Yarak.

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

Contacts:
Eric Goff, AURA Board Member, eric.goff@gmail.com, 512-632-7013
Cory Brown, AURA Missing Middle Working Group, tcory.brown@gmail.com, 512-850-8467

The Austin Convention Center has recommended a long range master plan laying out their case for expansion west, taking the blocks bounded by 2nd on the South, 4th on the North, Trinity on the East, and San Jacinto on the West.  AURA opposes this on a variety of grounds, ranging from the tax revenue for the city to the viability of convention center-driven economic development to impacts on the downtown streetscape.  The economic development case against convention center expansion:

• The convention center industry nationally has been shrinking since the ’90s.  Meanwhile, city after city has been chasing this business, building ever more elaborate, newer, and larger convention center spaces.  Competing for convention center business is not a smart use of resources – its going after a shrinking pool just as many peer cities have entered the competition. 
• Jobs created by conventions are by their nature transitory, part-time, and generally low-wage. This is a business of peaks – generally weekends when a large convention is booked. The caterers, Uber/Lyft/cab drivers, extra hotel staff, and contractors working booths see spikes in business, but it is not enough to sustain week-in, week-out full employment. While there is a place in the economy for these kinds of jobs, spending limited city resources to subsidize them seems unwise given better alternatives. 

The city revenue case against convention center expansion:

• Convention Center expansion is often sold as a free lunch.  The cost of construction could be financed by the increased hotel taxes brought in by hotel goers.  But this turns out to be an almost circular argument.  Hotel taxes have extremely limited uses by state law – they can be used for tourist-related public improvements and for historic preservation. Currently much of our hotel tax revenue already goes to support the Convention Center.  By investing in a bigger convention center, we may indeed be able to capture more hotel tax revenue, but their limited nature makes them much less useful to the city as a whole.  Bringing in more hotel taxes does little for the general welfare of most Austinites. Meanwhile, the city should consider whether it is making the best uses of its hotel taxes – instead of subsidizing an otherwise mediocre convention center, could they be used to support the live music or arts scene?  Could there be a role for hotel taxes in subsidizing the downtown “Drunk Tank” under consideration?  
• Meanwhile, the expansion would take a valuable piece of downtown property off the tax rolls.  Property taxes, unlike hotel taxes, go to the general fund, and are much more useful to the city budget.  There is no fiscal impact analysis taking this into account in the current Convention Center Master Plan. Hotel tax revenue are estimated, but these kinds of large impacts are not projected.  

Finally, the urbanist and streetlife argument against convention center expansion. 

• Convention centers are seldom well activated on the street level.  Austin has invested, with much success, in a Great Streets program, and we are beginning to reap the dividends of a vibrant downtown. Several aspects of the proposed design of the Convention Center Expansion run contrary to the tenets of the Great Streets concept, especially the elevated pedestrian walkways to connect the old and the new Convention Center areas. These kinds of walkways hurt the street life below, and take pedestrians out of contact with each other.  
• The preferred scenario in the Master Plan would also take a chunk of 2nd and 3rd Streets between Trinity and San Jacinto, degrading the downtown grid and taking streetscapes out of play.

In short, the Austin Convention Center Master Plan as currently envisioned should not be endorsed by city council.  The business and economic development case has not been made for such a large capital investment, the opportunity costs in terms of property tax revenue are high, and it be a step back from for Austin’s steadily improving downtown experience. AURA calls on city council to vote this down.

Following a vote of our members, AURA is proud to announce our support of the Travis County Courthouse Bond Proposition.  The new Courthouse will replace aging infrastructure; the Courthouse will be centrally-located and transit accessible.  

AURA member and co-founder Julio Gonzalez Altamirano says “This is a great deal. For a few bucks a month, we solve our Courtroom space needs for a century. If you want to save money, this is the time to build the basics – loan rates are unlikely to stay low forever. Building now is the fiscally sensible choice.”

AURA board member Susan Somers adds  ““Everyone agrees on the need. We can either build modern, compact, and near transit…or we can build a facility that contributes to sprawl. AURA chose the former.”

The Courthouse is necessary.  The current facility is old, aging, and doesn’t provide the necessary physical resources to operate a modern courthouse.  It lacks the space to separate opponents in lawsuits or civil matters – including victims of domestic violence from their abusers.  It has been planned for years, and last-minute attacks haven’t shown any reason to delay the inevitable building of additional court capacity.  

The Courthouse will be transit-accessible.  Located just south of Republic Square on Guadalupe – one of the best transit corridors in Austin, the site will make it easy for Austinites to arrive on public transit.  

Travis County’s Courthouse needs to be downtown.  In Texas, County Courthouses are downtown, and Travis County should be no different.  Being downtown allows visitors to be part of a vibrant downtown – with all the benefits of a compact and connected space.  It allows nearby access for County workers, and eliminates a significantly underutilized parking lot.  In addition, a dense private development on the parcel will benefit the project and the future of Austin.

Some opponents have suggested moving the courthouse out of downtown.  Others express concern about using a parcel that is unencumbered by Capitol View Corridors.  Capitol View Corridors limit the height in some parts of the city so that the State Capitol can be seen from a number of angles.  There are ways to mitigate this problem. One approach is state legislative action. A second approach is for the Austin City Council to expand the number of blocks in downtown or near downtown entitled for central business district-style development.  

AURA encourages Travis County to make the courthouse an integrated, and integral, addition to the fabric of Downtown Austin. This includes sticking with the commitment to have ground floor retail that keeps the block active and vibrant and committing the new private development being built with downtown in mind – not just the needs of the Courthouse.  “The County is going tall with the building to get the best of both worlds on their parcel: much-needed new Courtroom space near transit on one half and dense private development on the other,” adds says AURA member and co-founder Julio Gonzalez Altamirano.

Travis County shouldn’t wait to move forward on the Courthouse, though.  “To win games, you can’t just punt. At some point, you’ve got to get into the end zone,” says Julio Gonzalez Altamirano.

Susan Somers adds “We’ve heard much about the costs but we can’t forget about the value created by the project. Low borrowing costs make this a great time to build basic court infrastructure that even opponents acknowledge we need. And highrise in the central business district next to a transit hub is the best approach to meet the need.”

Travis County voters should vote to approve our new Courthouse on November 3rd.