AURA will be holding board elections at the end of February to fill five of our eleven board seats. Board members are elected by a membership vote, and any member of AURA may run for the board. To be considered for a board seat, please fill out this form by February 20, 2019.  Voting will take place from Feb 21-Feb 28, 2019. If you have any questions about what serving as a board member entails please feel free to email the current board at board@lists.aura-atx.org

“How can cities, including Austin, use mobility justice to guide future investment in transportation systems? What is Austin doing right now to offer more affordable mobility options for vulnerable populations and communities?”  These important questions were discussed at an Imagine Austin Speaker Series on Mobility Justice on Saturday, January 12th at the Asian American Resource Center Ballroom.  Dr. Adonia E. Lugo presented “Mobility Justice: People Power and the Future of Transportation” and shared her work on “mobility justice, the practice of accounting for the diverse vulnerabilities that individuals carry with them as they travel through shared public spaces.”  

Dr. Adonia E. Lugo PhD. (Affiliate Faculty in Urban Sustainability, Antioch University Los Angeles) is an urban anthropologist, bicyclist, activist, and college professor living in Los Angeles. She’s spent the last decade researching racial inclusion in active transportation. Her book, Bicycle/Race: Transportation, Culture, & Resistance, was published in 2018. Dr. Lugo serves as an advisory board co-chair for Los Angeles-based community-based organization People for Mobility Justice and is a core organizer of The Untokening, a national collective.

AURA had the opportunity to ask Dr. Lugo a few questions on Principles of Mobility Justice and how it pertains to Austin.

1.  How would you briefly describe Principles of Mobility Justice in a nutshell for folks who are not familiar with this practice?

The Untokening 1.0 Principles of Mobility Justice was a collective effort to distill some shared values around the concept. In a nutshell, “mobility justice” refers to the efforts to shed light on the vulnerabilities that different individuals face as they travel. Keeping our communities safe takes more than good design; we also have to grapple with racial discrimination in policing, the persecution of immigrants, sexual harassment, and many other ways that folks might experience un-safety in our streets and public spaces.

2.  What inspired you to incorporate Principles of Mobility Justice into your practice?

I had been active in defining equity in the bike movement since 2013, and within a few years it was clear that we needed to go further; looking at one mode of transportation wasn’t sufficient to address the root causes of street un-safety. I also felt constrained by bike advocacy’s emphasis on using public funding for infrastructure projects, when that kind of funding doesn’t necessarily lead to benefits for folks in disadvantaged communities. With the broader focus on mobility justice, the groups I’m part of now are working to innovate alternative ways of investing in local community safety.

3.  Austin passed a Mobility Bond in 2014 and has several transportation efforts on the ground, such as our newly released, city-wide Austin Strategic Mobility Plan (ASMP) and CapMetro’s Project Connect – a regional high-capacity transit plan, including light rail and buses in various corridors around Austin. How do you think Austin could benefit from implementing principles of Mobility Justice as we move forward with our transportation plans?

In the transportation sector, there tends to be a big emphasis on spending public dollars on brick and mortar projects and rolling stock. The mobility justice approach puts the focus on people: what are their customer service needs, what jobs can they access, what cultures are cultivated in transit spaces? In order to keep our cities equitable and diverse, we need to put people and community at the heart of the work.

4.  What are some of the challenges practitioners may face while implementing Principles of Mobility Justice?

It can be pretty difficult to get transportation folks on board with the idea that “street safety” includes other kinds of vulnerability besides avoiding vehicular violence. In LA, we’ve been developing partnerships with groups that work on other aspects of community safety in order to create an authentic intersectional approach.

5.  What top recommendations do you have for Austin for holding space for mobility justice in the face of new pressures in the transportation industry?

– Consider that “shared use” will only be equitable if it’s a step toward shared ownership. What is the city doing to support worker-owned cooperatives that serve mobility needs?

– Undertake historical research to highlight the parallel tracks of transportation development as a market-driven project versus mobility systems funded by public dollars as a public good. I think we have a long way to go before we can see that the idea of transportation spending going toward disadvantaged community needs is relatively new, given how long we’ve been building those systems in this country. Transportation is big business, which means it’s not going to shift toward social justice overnight.

~

Interested in learning more?  Check out Dr. Adonia Lugo talk about Mobility Justice: People, Power & the Future of Urban Transportation at the Imagine Austin Speaker Series.  Feel free to contribute to the discussion with comments below.

AURA sent the letter below to the Austin Transportation Department and members of Austin City Council on January 13, 2019. 

AURA, a grassroots organization that believes in an Austin for Everyone, began its existence as a transit advocacy organization. Since then, we have released multiple reports and engaged in continual advocacy around transportation and transit issues. The Austin Strategic Mobility Plan (ASMP) will be a key document in shaping the future of Austin. As it stands, our current mobility policies have largely led to unaffordable, disconnected, unhealthy, unsafe, and environmentally destructive sprawl.  With the ASMP, especially in combination with land use reforms, we can begin charting a new course—one that includes environmental justice and greenhouse gas reductions, economic vitality, effective transit, and safer, more walkable communities everywhere.

The draft ASMP needs significant work to get to that point. There are nods to many good, if vague, policies throughout the written document, but it nowhere lays out the overarching vision and clear policy priorities that we need to get to a brighter future.  There are tradeoffs in many of the decisions that must be made about mobility: “prioritizing multimodal solutions” and a “culture of safety” are not necessarily compatible with “increasing highway person-carrying capacity,” since highways are the locus of a large percentage of our automotive-related deaths and serious injuries.  

Policies that do not aim to set clear, measurable goals, with baselines and projected improvements, are incredibly hard to evaluate. Without that guidance, and a clear hierarchy of priorities, and when there are too many general policy pronouncements, virtually any decision can point to whichever policy best justifies it. These policies will guide technical documents including new Street Design Guide and the Transportation Criteria Manual. These are critical documents that will determine street safety, development patterns, and Austin’s environmental footprint, potentially for decades. But these manuals get very little concrete direction from the policies enumerated. By contrast the Strategic Housing Blueprint identified clear goals for the production of different types of housing, and the Watershed Master Plan shows specifics of the types of watershed projects that need to occur and where. The ASMP needs to follow a similar track and provide much more clarity.

To deliver the kind of city that is mandated in Imagine Austin and countless resolutions since, the goals of the ASMP should include:

• Clear mandates on reducing Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) and greenhouse gases
• Policies that prioritize safety, including clear targets of when and how Austin will accomplish its VisionZero goals.  
• Prioritizing transit, cycling, and other low-environmental impact mobility solutions over single occupancy vehicles, including targets on improving modeshare for those alternatives.  
• Efficiently managing parking in line with current best practices.
• Remove all ‘crash gates’. The city must reject a handful of vocal residents to disconnect a neighborhood.
• Initiate a Streets Master plan to identify and reconnect the traditional streets grid in addition to mapping street grids for future subdivisions.
• Disallow subdivision approval without full connectivity.
• The city should plan major protected bike/scooter highways that connect Downtown/UT to other parts of the city.
• Moratorium on new traffic signals, explore small scale roundabouts instead.
• Specific direction to reduce/eliminate parking minimums, and ideally enact parking maximums
• Identify more east-west streets for 4->3 road diets and protected bike lanes.
• Remove road widenings in the Barton Springs Zone. In particular, the Oak Hill parkway must be carefully planned to minimize environment impacts in this sensitive area.

With clear, ambitious, but achievable goals, the ASMP can help us on the path to a much brighter future for Austin, but that vision is currently lacking in the draft.  We hope that future drafts will begin to address these issues.

Contact:

• Brennan Griffin, brennan.griffin@gmail.com.

AURA, a grassroots organization that believes in an Austin for Everyone, got our start doing transit advocacy. In 2014, we worked to improve the previous Project Connect plan. Unfortunately, our data-driven input wasn’t accepted, which led us to oppose the overall 2014 bond because it would unsustainably increase the per-rider cost and would lead to an overall reduction in ridership. We’ve hoped that this round of Project Connect goes better, and so far it is. We appreciate the data and analysis that went into the corridor selection, that there has been more transparency in general, and particularly that the Orange Line seems like it could be a transformative high-capacity transit line.

Our approach to Project Connect this go-around is to call for strong corridor selection, careful selection of mode, and a focus on more sustainable future for Capital Metro by limiting unproductive and inequitable expenses while increasing the transit agency’s income. A key way to do this is by focusing on reducing the per-rider cost for new investments, which frees up funds to accommodate more riders. A focus on a high-quality transit network for Capital Metro will increase equity, focus the fight on climate change, and improve the daily lives of hundreds of thousands of people.

PROJECT CONNECT CORRIDORS

In general, we support the draft corridor map released as a part of Project Connect. We’re particularly pleased at the inclusion of the Pleasant Valley corridor and that the Orange Line goes from Tech Ridge to Slaughter. A true BRT on Pleasant Valley would serve parts of Austin that are not well-served today and contribute to the overall equity of the system. The extensive Orange Line under study would provide a clear benefit to most of Austin — and we hope to see significant investment to have an Orange Line spine that serves as much of Austin as possible. If studies suggest that extending the Orange Line north of 183 would be beneficial to transit, we hope to work with Capital Metro and others to secure right-of-way from TxDOT to build such an extension as early as possible.

The major concern with the corridor map that continues to worry us as transit activists is the Green Line. We believe the Green Line has very poor performance in any fair scoring — primarily because the potential ridership is very low, making the cost per rider very high — in the range of $40+ per ride when annualized capital costs and operating costs are considered. For comparison, the cost per rider for our poorly performing Red Line is “only” $24. By contrast, the Guadalupe-Lamar corridor was estimated to cost on the order of $4-5 per rider. Because one of the most important metrics in transit planning is cost per rider, the proposed Green Line’s combination of low ridership and high operating costs is simply unsustainable. Perhaps it can be included in a future, built out system, where walkable urban communities have been developed along the proposed route, but that would require further study. Alternately, if sources of funds outside of Capital Metro’s limited revenue sources were available, it might be possible to develop a Green Line along this corridor in a way that would benefit transit riders. But any such alternative source of funds would have to include ongoing operating costs, since the Green Line has among the highest operating costs of any of the investments under consideration.

We also are concerned about the seemingly-last minute addition of several new lines, particularly Parmer and Cameron/Dessau. Added less than two weeks before the CapMetro board will vote on the plan, transit advocates have been scrambling to process this new information. A few of the lines are simply restorations of corridors that were highlighted on the early draft map and seem to be positive additions. The reconnection of Pleasant Valley is a particularly exciting prospect. However, Parmer and Cameron/Dessau are areas of great concern. Although these roads are heavily trafficked, the land use is fragmented and low-density. The roads themselves are high-speed and wide, and will be a hazard to transit users. Their highway-like nature makes them a poor choice for a major mass transit investment. Furthermore, they do not not seem to have been subjected to the same data-oriented analysis that the other corridors were. We hope that data will be provided to justify a final decision on building these lines. If there is a need for a northern east-west corridor, and it is not too late to add new corridors, we strongly suggest CapMetro consider Rundberg and/or Braker as a BRT Light corridor instead of Parmer.

POSSIBLE MAP AMENDMENTS

It would be helpful to hear detailed public consideration of the “wishbone alignment” proposed by Dan Keshet, where the blue and orange lines intersect and cross the same bridge and haves “six golden miles” of overlap from Crestview to Auditorium Shores between the Orange and rerouted Blue Lines. As discussed on Keshet’s blog (refer to link above), this stretch would have very high frequency and would greatly simplify transfers. In this map, the northern segment of the proposed Blue Line would be the Keshet Gold Line instead and have only a medium priority. We hope that this configuration will get more careful study. However, even without this specific proposal, we need early planning on how connections between the proposed Blue and Orange Lines will happen across downtown. We are glad that the late-breaking “Central Austin V3” map seems to give consideration to these ideas. Transit advocates have been confused by the U-shaped Gold Line on the V3 map and we need clarification about what the V3 map shows. Will we have the option to run a service from East Riverside to North Lamar Transit Center? For now, we need to preserve all our options and make sure that we are able to minimize transfers and create the most flexible services possible. Downtown is such an essential part of Austin — we need to make sure we get transit right.

In regards to the connecting to the airport, It may also be worth considering using airport and/or Hotel Tax revenue to connect from the last eastern stop on the Blue Line to ABIA — many people see themselves as taking the train to the airport, and often look for this feature in the map. While ridership alone may not justify the connection, if revenue outside CapMetro’s core budget were available, it would probably increase the public support for the level of transit investments being considered.

TRADEOFFS IN TRANSIT MODES

We support a mode-neutral study of the various corridors — but we hope close scrutiny is applied to the newly proposed mode called autonomous rapid transit (ART). ART is an unproven technology deployed in only a few circumstances. It promises to have “robot buses” that can queue behind a lead bus and act like a train without the need for investing in installing rail or a train maintenance facility. ART could be very cheap and effective compared to other modes. It might let us get many more miles of “train like” service than we could with other investments. But we have questions that we’d like to see answered before we go “all in” on a bet on ART. Those questions include data about the cost per mile, operating costs, successful deployments, and any risk analyses that have been performed on the technology. Even information like the length of ART vehicles, which is crucial to a federally-required environmental study, is not yet available. If Capital Metro can’t answer these questions effectively, we will be skeptical of a large deployment of ART. Rail has been an effective investment for hundreds of years. When it comes to big investments that we know can help hundreds of thousands of people, fight climate change, and deliver on past-due changes to help mitigate traffic, we need to be sure it will work.

For corridors where our transit need is the greatest, even gold standard Bus Rapid Transit, (BRT), which dedicates lanes and stations to buses, may not be enough. High capacity transit is a way to accommodate more riders on the most productive and important routes in a city. For these lines, such as the 1/801, even the gold-standard BRT may not be sufficient for ridership. Dwell times for buses will still cause backup and “traffic” in dedicated right-of-way after several years of use, and BRT vehicles generally carry fewer riders than LRT vehicles. This makes the decision around ART or trains especially important. If ART looks high risk or infeasible in the timeframe proposed, then the default for our best transit corridors should be rail, not BRT, and any preliminary design and engineering needs to be able to be quickly repurposed for rail.

A good mix of corridors will inevitably have different preferred modes for different corridors. We hope that this network of corridors will have well-planned transfers and be designed from the beginning with the rider experience in mind. Off board fare collection, well-sheltered stops, and a safe network of dedicated lanes for transit, bike lanes and sidewalks will all be essential to effective transit options. As we called for in our Transit Vision report, amenity-filled stops at Republic Square and West Mall will benefit many riders — today.

The most important transit mode consideration is that regardless of mode, our transit must be in dedicated right-of-way and be generally center-running. Dedicated right-of-way will simplify transit massively and AURA calls for the dedication of the largest-possible amount of right-of-way for buses and trains. We must be a city that fights climate change, so this isn’t a choice — it’s an imperative. Center-running, dedicated right-of-way will also make every transit decision easier for each person in Austin for decades to come.

FUNDING

Besides funding a network that is a mix of high-capacity modes, we also believe it’s essential to work on the experience getting to and from the transit stop. For AURA, that means significant new spending for sidewalks, bicycle lanes, and affordable housing, most of which will have to be City of Austin investments. Sidewalks and bicycle lanes will help thousands of Austinites get to and from the station without a car and affordable housing in transit-rich areas will allow people of all incomes to live a short distance from the station. Fully funding the Bicycle Master Plan and all high priority sidewalks is an imperative. From an equity perspective, it’s important to use the recommendations in the Sidewalk Master Plan, which specifically considers equity. Spending “equally” in each district sounds fair but ignores the reality of equitable investment needs that staff and the council have recognized are important when writing and approving the plan. If Austin wants a “transit future” where a car is a option instead of a necessity, we must make it easy for hundreds of thousands of people to easily access our transit network without one.

Intentionally allowing growth near existing and future potential high capacity transit areas will make every transit decision easier in the future. More people seeing direct benefits from investments in transit will build support for future transit investments in a virtuous circle. More people using transit will reduce our community’s carbon footprint. A higher tax base inside of Austin instead of in the sprawling suburbs will make bonds for future transit investments much easier. Market rate and affordable housing co-located a short walk from our transit system must be a part of Austin’s plans for transit — the tax base benefits alone will pay dividends for our transit bonds.

The long-term financial viability of Capital Metro is essential in this vision. That’s why all funding options should be on the table for Capital Metro’s financial future. The City and Capital Metro should explore whether Capital Metro has options for additional tax authority and whether operating and maintenance cost could be reduced for Capital Metro if the City owns the lines and equipment instead of the agency. The City could also invest annually in ongoing expenses, or pay for specific projects, like bus stops or placemaking around train stations. There has also been talk of asking the state legislature to authorize a local option tax to fund transit. While AURA would be supportive of a local option, we recognize the inherent challenges with relying on the Texas legislature to support transit. If a local option is not forthcoming, we should be laser-focused with allocating our bonding capacity on transportation options that fight climate change: transit, sidewalks, and bike infrastructure.

The 2020 transit bonds have the opportunity to alter our trajectory as a city, address our traffic problems, fight climate change, and improve the lives of hundreds of thousands of people. Or, the bonds could go down in ignominy or have only mild improvements in transit for just a few more people, stalling future investment while we figure out “what went wrong.” Let’s get this right and resolve the technical details quickly, so we can all unify in our call for the best future for Austin — together.

AURA believes in an Austin for Everyone, and one of the main ways our city can do that is by finally desegregating our neighborhoods. That will mean that everyone can afford to live in the neighborhood they want to live in, and that the place is designed so that they can. A big part of a place being “your” neighborhood is that it feels like home. That’s why we’re in favor of implementing an Office of Police Oversight in Austin as quickly as possible. The Office should ensure that information about critical incidents or policy violations be released to the public so that public confidence in the police and police safety can be improved. 

There are many good reasons to support effective police oversight. But AURA, as an organization focused on safer streets and better transit, can speak directly to traffic enforcement. One of the major points of stress in police and community relations is traffic enforcement. Racial bias in police traffic stops has been evident in Austin for years, if not decades. In 2017, 66% of searches resulting from traffic stops were for Hispanic or black drivers, despite making up a relatively smaller proportion of the city overall. AURA also calls for Council to try to reduce the number of traffic stops in Austin by designing our streets to be safe. Narrower lanes, multimodal uses, and streets designed for low speeds means that the police will need to spend less time enforcing traffic violations that can lead to critical incidents.

When streets are designed for safety and for people, rather than automobile convenience, traffic enforcement can be reduced, and police can focus on violent crimes. Stronger police and community relations achieved through a truly independent Office of Police Oversight will allow the city to focus on safety for people, and reduce and eventually eliminate implicit bias in traffic enforcement, among other police issues. Regular, consistent oversight with randomized checks of police activity will build confidence, improve policing, and hopefully be a tool to reduce the impact of implicit bias.

We also support the work of the Untokening, and their Principles of Mobility Justice. In particular, “Mobility Justice demands that ‘safety’ and equitable mobility address not only the construction of our streets but the socioeconomic, cultural, and discriminatory barriers to access and comfort different communities experience within public spaces. We must shift focus from the modes of transit people use to the bodies and identities of the people using those modes by centering the experiences of marginalized individuals and the most vulnerable communities. It acknowledges that safety is different for different people, and should be defined by those most economically and legally vulnerable.” We also particularly agree that “Until many past wrongs and inequities are addressed, pursuit of mobility justice for marginalized communities may involve looking beyond individual choices about transportation modes to deeply related issues like housing instability, job options and over policing.” To tie it all together, “Mobility Justice demands an understanding of the relationship between policing and public space, and rejects law enforcement – increased ticketing, beat cops on bikes, etc – as a solution for street safety.”

Austin must reduce vehicle violence and reduce the number of interactions with police that can potentially lead to escalated incidents with the police. We should plan for and pay for streets designed for safety and equity using tools provided by NACTO and Vision Zero, and the Principles of Mobility Justice. Creating an independent Office of Police Oversight is a critical step in making sure that Austin is for Everyone.

AURA has joined with Bike Austin, CNU Central Texas, Environment Texas, Vision Zero ATX, Walk Austin, and TexPIRG to send the following letter to the Austin City Council urging the city to increase protected bike/scooter lanes to meet the high demand, and decrease conflicts between street users:

Mayor and Council,

We are pleased to praise your efforts and those of the Austin Transportation Department to manage the introduction of dockless vehicles to Austin’s transportation landscape. A recent survey by Populus found a 76% approval rating for scooters in Austin, the second-highest rating of any of the surveyed cities. More than 128,000 rides were taken using dockless vehicles in July, the equivalent of adding a brand-new top ten bus route to the Capital Metro system. This popularity and ridership success is a testament to your approach and the nimbleness with which Austin has adapted our rules to new events and new experiences. As time passes by and even more information is gathered, we have confidence that these vehicles can provide even greater benefits to the city.

Small, electric-powered, emissions-free vehicles such as e-bikes and scooters are part of Austin’s path forward to a more climate-friendly transportation system and can dramatically extend the range where car-free trips are an attractive and realistic option. In light of the IPCC’s recent special report Global Warming of 1.5°C on the dire need and difficult path forward to achieving the climate goals agreed to at the Paris convention, the time for solutions like this is now.

We are aware that the introduction of these vehicles has also introduced new challenges in Right of Way management, including blocked sidewalks as well as challenges in navigating the interaction between dockless users and other users of the streets and sidewalks. We are heartened at the efforts that ATD has taken to address these problems but more must be done, especially in the realm of adopting safer street designs. We urge you to:

1) Encourage the Transportation Department to focus their resources on increasing protected bike/scooter lanes to meet the high demand, and decrease conflicts between street users.

2) Empower the transportation department to add another tool to their toolbox: the power to make innovative, low-cost interventions in street design to improve safety and comfort for all. Examples of these kinds of street interventions could include new, low-cost protected bike lanes, on-street parking boxes, parklets with room for scooter parking and more.

Thank you for your continued efforts,

AURA

Bike Austin

CNU Central Texas

Environment Texas

Vision Zero ATX

Walk Austin

TexPIRG

AURA has completed endorsements for Austin Mayoral candidates, City Council candidates, and ballot propositions. Endorsement is determined by AURA member vote. We held two candidate forums in May and August and asked candidates to fill out a questionnaire—responses available here. For Mayor and City Council, AURA’s members endorse:

• Steve Adler, for Mayor
• Natasha Harper-Madison, for District 1
• Pio Renteria, for District 3
• Rich DePalma, for District 8
• Danielle Skidmore, for District 9

AURA’s members offer no endorsement in District 5.

AURA’s members support the following ballot propositions:

• Proposition A (affordable housing)
• Proposition B (libraries, museums, cultural centers)
• Proposition C (parks and recreation)
• Proposition D (flood mitigation, open space, water quality)
• Proposition E (Dove Springs Health Center)
• Proposition F (fire and emergency stations)
• Proposition G (transportation, including streets, sidewallks, Vision Zero)
• Proposition H (amending City Charter regarding appointment and removal of Planning Commissioners)

AURA’s members oppose the following ballot propositions:

• Proposition J (citizen referendum on comprehensive land development code reform)
• Proposition K (efficiency audit)

AURA’s members took no action on Proposition I (typographical corrections of the City Charter).

AURA is a grassroots, all-volunteer organization that advocates for an Austin that is inclusive, open to change, and welcoming to everyone. Our members worked hard for candidates and ballot propositions in the City of Austin that share this vision.

• We hosted two candidate forums
• We knocked on thousands of doors, including three days of action for endorsed candidates
• We handed out thousands of fliers at the polls
• We participated in advocating for a huge affordable housing investment from the very beginning, including letter writing with Habitat Young Professionals.

This hard work paid off, and we are very pleased about the results of this election. More than 60% of voters in Austin endorsed a pro-housing mayor.  Prop J, which would have tied our city’s hands in addressing everything from our housing crisis to climate change to gentrification, failed despite its proponents’ fearmongering and dishonesty. And last but very much not least, Austin’s largest affordable housing bond ever just passed. Austin is for everyone.

AURA also endorsed the other bonds, and we are excited that the city will be able to move forward with much needed investments in safer transportation systems, improvements in health infrastructure, flood prevention, and more.

Several other AURA-endorsed candidates made it to the runoffs in their city council elections.

Natasha Harper-Madison’s strong showing in District 1 is a credit to her vision of an affordable and accessible Austin. AURA members stand ready to support her in the runoff, and we’re ready to work with her after she wins to address the transit needs and housing crisis facing all of Austin and District 1 residents in particular.  

Councilmember Pio Renteria has been an advocate for the inclusive Austin that we believe in.  

We believe his accomplishments in fighting for affordable housing and transit are incredibly important, and AURA members are ready to support him in his runoff so he can continue those fights for the city and for the residents of District 3.   

In District 8, we’re disappointed that our endorsed candidate, Rich DePalma, did not make the runoff. However, we are excited by the possibilities of new leadership, and we stand ready to support the eventual winner in working for an Austin for Everyone.

In District 9, we congratulate our endorsed candidate Danielle Skidmore for her hard work during her historic candidacy, and we also congratulate Mayor Pro Tem Kathie Tovo on her re-election. We hope to continue to work with the Mayor Pro Tem where we find common ground.  

“The success of AURA’s elections efforts demonstrates a real desire for change in Austin. No matter who shows up to Thursday afternoon council meetings, residents and voters want an Austin that’s more walkable, bikeable, and busable with affordable and diverse types of housing everywhere. AURA is proud to have endorsed and worked for these candidates and the passage of these propositions, and to demonstrate that urbanism is an electoral force that is here to stay”

Contact:

Kevin McLaughlin, Board Member of AURA, kevin.mclaughlin70@gmail.com, 817-312-6800

AURA is pleased with the CapMetro’s announcement of a renewed focus on the user experience of the bus system. The staff presentation at the June 25, 2018 CapMetro board meeting mentioned an array of improvements, including stop upgrades, schedule optimization, and service reliability. We are especially excited for shelters that actually shelter: shade screens at bus stops are essential in a Texas summer. (Or a Texas Fall, or a Texas Spring, for that matter.) But, after years of a focus on suburban and “choice riders” it is refreshing to see commitment to the city’s humblest, most important transit mode.

Buses are the workhorses of public transit in America, where in every city except New York and Atlanta buses carry more passengers annually than rail. This is certainly true in Austin, where there are 31 trips by bus for every trip by rail. Even if Project Connect proposes and implements a region-wide light rail system, buses will continue to carry more passengers in Austin than rail for decades to come. Thus, investment in buses is investment in the future of transit.

Cap Remap is another aspect of that investment. While there are tradeoffs in service, AURA’s position is that frequent routes work substantially better than the system of infrequent, more indirect routes they replaced. CapMetro’s recent adjustment to Route 350 shows that they are taking seriously the need to fine tune the system to address problems.

The City of Austin must step up and also commit to investment in Austin’s principal mode of transit. AURA again calls on Austin transportation department to dedicate right of way to transit, starting with extending transit priority lanes from downtown past UT as envisioned in the Guadalupe corridor plan. Going forward, we would like to see the Strategic Mobility Plan contain a robust policy of transit priority across the city. In addition, because every transit trip starts and ends with walking, the city must invest in safer streets, safer crossings, and a full sidewalk network.

We also call on CTRMA and TXDOT to use their vast resources to meaningfully improve transit in the region. CTRMA has built shared use paths alongside their toll roads, and allows CapMetro buses on their express lanes on MoPAC and this is good, but small in the grand scheme of their capabilities. For the cost overrun on the MoPAC express lanes alone, CTRMA could have funded the entire city of Austin bike master plan. Similarly, for the cost of rebuilding one overpass over I-35, TXDOT could build 80 miles of sidewalk.

CapMetro’s announcement is important and encouraging, but it is just the start. It will require ongoing cooperation and dedication from the city and the regional mobility agencies to create a modern bus system and a truly multimodal city.

Austin began its pilot program allowing dockless bikes and scooters in May, 2018. Despite the limits placed on deployment during this period, the pilot has powerfully demonstrated the potential of tiny vehicles to give Austinites greater mobility, augment the reach of the Capital Metro transit system by solving “last mile” problems, and take a giant leap toward achieving Austin’s Big Jump goals. If Austin is to be as innovative, progressive, and forward-thinking as our reputation and own self-image, we must “go big” on this innovative new low-carbon, low-cost, zero-pollution mobility option. There are two major fixes to the pilot program necessary for it to achieve its full potential as a learning tool:

ELIMINATE AUGUST 1 “LOCK-TO” REQUIREMENT

One major self-imposed obstacle looms as a barrier to continued pilot success: the August 1 deadline for dockless vehicle companies to add locks capable of being tied to a bike rack. This rule would have severe negative consequences for the pilot program:

• Many companies would not be able to continue to operate because they lack vehicles with this particular locking technology.
• Due to Austin’s low number of fixed bike racks, if all dockless vehicles made use of these, there would not be enough room on racks for all of dockless vehicles, let alone room for private bicycles.
• Dockless users prompted to use a lock may lock vehicles to things other than bike racks.

Chicago, one of the only other cities to impose a “lock-to” requirement in its dockless pilot, has recently reversed its decision, allowing dockless vehicles to continue without lock-to requirements.

The small percentage of poorly parked dockless vehicles are a real issue but this is not the solution. The solution that two of the dockless companies have implemented — requiring users to take pictures of their parked vehicle at the end of the ride — has already impressively cut back on poorly parked vehicles. Similar efforts at user nudges may be possible while retaining the core notion of dockless vehicles.

REFORM AND EXPAND VEHICLE CAPS

The initial cap of five hundred permitted vehicles in the DAPCZ has allowed the city and its residents to get familiar with this mode of vehicles. This experience has shown that these vehicles are a major benefit to Austinites, but  five hundred vehicles is not nearly enough for dockless vehicles to be a reliable mode of transportation. At the present level, many pollution-free, low-carbon dockless trips go untaken because the nearest dockless vehicle is too far away to be useful. Individuals hoping to rely on this as a true mode of transportation have found that the pilot rules result in spotty and uneven dockless availability.

• Raise or eliminate the limit. 500 vehicles was an arbitrary starting point. Now that we have learned more as a city, it is time to update the rules.
• Change cap from permitted vehicles to simultaneously deployed vehicles. Originally, the rules were conceived for dockless bikes. A much greater percentage of a dockless bike fleet tend to be deployed at once than a dockless scooter fleet, which need to be recharged. As a result, electric vehicles become less and less available through the day, as vehicle batteries wear down. Allowing permits to be easily transferred to new vehicles would encourage dockless operators to remove non-functioning vehicles and replace them with functioning ones.
• Apply separate to each vehicle mode For those companies with multiple vehicle modes, this would allow experimenting with different modes, giving more information to Austin about the potential needs different vehicle types create.
• Rethink rules outside the DAPCZ Two months into the start of the dockless pilot, ATD has yet to issue incremental permits for vehicles outside the DAPCZ. This represents a great loss to all Austinites who live, work, or spend time outside the DAPCZ. When zero companies have received permits, it is time to evaluate whether part of the permitting process is too onerous. The point of the pilot is to learn about this exciting mobility option, not to restrict.

REORIENT AUSTIN TOWARD THE BIG JUMP

Transportation innovations are announced all the time but opportunities like dockless vehicles — adopted spontaneously by users, without need for cumbersome education campaigns, are few and far between. When an innovation perfectly aligns with our city’s vision for reducing our city’s expensive and polluting addiction to single-occupancy automobile transportation, we must take advantage.

In light of these new developments, it is time to redouble every step that the city was already taking toward making the city a more bicycle-friendly place — from bike racks to bike lanes to two-way streets to traffic calming. We have been presented with a golden opportunity and now is the time to seize it!

Contact: Dan Keshet