Blog

AURA Board Member and Multimodal Citizen Advisory Committee member Susan Somers offers her suggestions on responding to the latest Project Connect survey.

In April, Capital Metro released a survey about potential high-capacity transit corridors under study as part of their Project Connect planning process. The survey allows community members to help “choose the corridors” that will move to Phase 2 of the project as finalists. During Phase 1, Cap Metro has gathered together transit proposals from the past 20 years and assigned quantitative metrics to rank each project. Community feedback on the various corridors is the qualitative aspect of Phase 1 and the survey is a vital aspect of that feedback. As a member of Project Connect’s Multimodal Citizen Advisory Committee, I have heard that some urbanists have been unsure how to respond to the survey. So I thought I’d provide a handy guide on how to respond.

First off, let’s review some of the basics about Project Connect:

• This Project Connect study is a new process; the failed 2014 road-rail bond is no more.
• Project Connect is studying both new high-capacity transit investment corridors and enhancements to current high-capacity transit; this survey and blog post address only the investment corridors portion of Project Connect
• “High capacity transit” can mean rail, bus rapid transit, or other modes (gondola, anyone?). Project Connect Phase 1 is mode neutral; mode options for the corridors that advance will be studied in Phase 2.
• We’ve been told that the ultimate goal is to identify multiple projects and create a system master plan for high capacity transit—potentially in the multi-billion dollar range. (Of course, once you create a master plan, then phasing becomes an important concern for urbanists. We want to make sure the most cost-effective, high-ridership lines get built first.)
• The investment corridors are divided into three categories. “Commuter” corridors connect suburban areas outside Austin with central Austin. “Connector” corridors are within Austin and correspond with major city streets. “Circulator” corridors move people around within a specific, concentrated business district—usually downtown. Some urbanists and transit advocates have criticized this tripartite breakdown, since it seems to ensure that high-subsidy “Commuter” corridors will make their way into the final package.
• Cap Metro has already released the Phase 1 quantitative analysis and proposed finalists for Phase 2 (see image below). However, there is still the opportunity to lobby for additional routes through the survey tool, with adjustments likely to happen before the final list of corridors goes before the Cap Metro board at their June meeting.

Now on to the survey!

Question 1:  Which of these commuter corridors would you support to meet community needs? Select up to three corridors.

I can’t recommend investment in any commuter corridors at this juncture. Austin taxpayers should not utilize precious resources to subsidize transit lines that will only serve those outside the city and Cap Metro service area, create safety issues for pedestrians attempting to access stations, and incentivize sprawl. Additionally, some of the proposed lines (in particular I-35 Bus Rapid Transit) will require the support and collaboration of TxDOT, a dubious partner that has historically shown little interest in transit. Also note that the Union Pacific line was effectively ruled out when UP backed out of their agreement with the Lone Star Rail district in early 2016. The bottom line: bear in mind that our current commuter rail service, the Red Line, already posts a staggeringly high per-rider subsidy. When Cap Metro implemented the Red Line, they had to cut bus routes and frequency elsewhere. Like the Red Line, these commuter corridors are likely to require riders to drive to a park and ride from their home, board the line, and upon arriving downtown, undertake either a long walk or board a circulator route. Evidence shows us that the more transfers like that, the less likely an individual is to choose the commuter service over their car. Thus my doubts that any of these lines will generate high ridership. Although I expect that in the coming months we’ll hear that innovative partnerships may emerge to cover construction costs for some of these lines, I’m concerned that the operational costs will kill Cap Metro’s bottom line and kill our chances for true urban light rail in the future. If you feel compelled to choose a commuter corridor, choose the Airport line. Rail to airports, although often a popular concept with the public, has been a losing financial proposition for many cities. However, this particular iteration of airport rail may at least merit further study.

Question 2: Which of these connector corridors would you support to meet community needs? Select up to 5 corridors.

AURA recommends selecting “connector corridors” based on bus lines with high ridership. Keeping in mind that we’re still mode-neutral until Phase 2, high ridership rail lines save CapMetro money on operational costs since more people fit on light rail vehicles than on buses. Cities that build rail that has high ridership on day 1 can reallocate operational dollars back into the bus network, and will have the finances and political buy-in to build additional rail lines in the future. Cities that build low-ridership rail will struggle to build future lines, and may have to cut bus service (as Cap Metro did after the Red Line). The data at hand shows us that the 801 and 803 corridors are our highest-ridership bus lines: that’s why they were selected for MetroRapid service. Riverside is also a high-ridership line surrounded by residential density; that’s why it’s proposed as the next MetroRapid expansion. So that would give us: North Lamar/Guadalupe, 45th/Burnet, S. Lamar, Riverside and Congress. That’s all five choices. The good news is that all five of these routes are currently slated to advance to Phase 2. (As seen in the image above, right now, the finalists, based on the quantitative analysis alone, would be N. Lamar/Guadalupe, Highland/Red River/Trinity, Congress, Riverside, 7th/Lake Austin, Manor/Dean Keeton, 45th/Burnet, and S. Lamar.) However, there are two other corridors at risk of being cut out of Phase 2 that deserve a chance to advance. Those two corridors are Pleasant Valley and Oltorf. Why? Both are fairly high ridership corridors. Pleasant Valley in particular serves low income families. And both of these routes provide coverage of areas of the city not served in the projected finalist group. By swapping in Pleasant Valley and/or Oltorf when you vote, you help bolster the argument a number of MCAC members have made for these corridors to be analyzed in Phase 2. Ultimately, any of the seven corridors I’ve discussed here are very valid options for your vote.

Question 3: Which of these circulator corridors would you support to meet community needs? Select up to two corridors.

I recommend the Downtown Circulator. Ever since the ‘Dillo service was canceled, Austin has lacked a downtown circulator to help distribute commuters and visitors around the Central Business District. With most lines running along a central corridor, circulator routes could be a boon for potential riders who need to get to the far ends of downtown. They could also prove an excellent resource for people who need to make short trips during the day. I recommend the circulator be free of charge. Collecting fares on a short route will bog down the boarding process and slow the circulators to the point of uselessness. The beginning of fare collection on the ‘Dillo was widely—and accurately—regarded as the death knell for the service. Capital Metro should not make the same mistake twice.Do you like this post?

For Immediate Release

CodeNEXT Mapping Reveals Near-Fatal Flaws

April 19, 2017

Austin, Texas

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Press Contact:

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

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

AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHER FAIR HOUSING AND CREATE AN INCLUSIVE CITY

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

ALLOW MISSING MIDDLE THROUGHOUT THE URBAN CORE

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

ENSURE ABUNDANT HOUSING CAPACITY

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

DISINCENTIVIZE SPRAWL

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

MAXIMIZE FORM-BASED ZONING

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

March 14, 2017

Mayor Adler:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

AURA

For Immediate Release

AURA Statement on CodeNEXT Draft

January 18, 2017

Austin, TX

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

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

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

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

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

Press contacts:

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

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

INTRODUCTION

Earlier this year, AURA released Transit City: A Vision for a Multimodal Austin wherein we outlined a number of critical steps for increasing ridership on public transportation. Our recommendations focused on ways to increase the usefulness of transit in order to make riding a better option for more people. AURA is pleased that a number of these recommendations are reflected in the draft of Capital Metro’s Connections 2025 plan. We view the core of the plan as a network of frequent bus routes across the city, which was one of AURA’s highest priorities. It will be key to implement truly frequent service with appropriate stop spacing, generally no more than ¼ mile spacing between stops along all the frequent routes, whether they are officially dubbed “MetroRapid” or local. There are a few parts of the plan, including the perplexing proposal to put high capacity bus service on I-35 and continued large investments in the high cost Red Line, that seem highly questionable.  The actual plan as written so far, though, would be a huge improvement over current service.  More detailed suggestions follow. 

FREQUENT AND DIRECT TRANSIT LINES

The draft of Connections 2025 indicates a strong shift to the kind of direct, high-frequency transit network that 1) is easy for new riders to understand, 2) reduces wait times, 3) moves people efficiently, and 4) ultimately makes transit more useful to more people. We applaud Capital Metro and their consultant, TMD, for proposing a bold network redesign that will bring frequent service to a large portion of Austinites. There will undoubtedly be calls to dilute this vision in favor of more low-frequency routes to places where few people currently choose to use the service; we urge Capital Metro to remain focused on providing high-quality service where it will have the greatest benefit for the most people. In doing so, it is critical that Capital Metro follow a data-driven assessment of current conditions rather than speculative claims of where people might ride based on little evidence.

STOP SPACING

Limited stops on MetroRapid (sometimes in excess of a mile apart) were billed as a way to speed up service, but without exclusive right-of-way and off-board fare payment, infrequent stops have done little to make MetroRapid any faster than parallel local routes. Furthermore, in the hostile pedestrian environment along most of Austin’s major thoroughfares, stops in excess of a quarter mile apart don’t make as much sense as they might in a more walkable city. Therefore AURA was pleased that the need for additional stops has been acknowledged in the Connections 2025 draft. The final draft should clarify a commitment to standard stop spacing of every quarter mile and outline a specific short-term plan to address the problem. Riders should not have to wait on construction of expensive “branded” stations to remedy this. Using existing local stops can provide an interim solution until new stations arrive.

FARES

Capital Metro’s consultant was spot-on in its recommendation to lower premium fares to match the rest of the local system, and we applaud the board’s swift action to equalize fares. Premium fares on MetroRapid have negatively affected the transit system’s ability to perform as a coherent network.

DOWNTOWN CIRCULATORS

Ever since the ‘Dillo service was canceled, Austin has lacked a downtown circulator to help distribute commuters around the Central Business District. With most lines running along a central corridor, circulator routes could be a boon for potential riders who need to get to the far ends of downtown. They could also prove an excellent resource for people who need to make short trips during the day. AURA is concerned that the plan to collect fares on these short routes will bog down the boarding process and slow the circulators to the point of uselessness. The beginning of fare collection on the ‘Dillo was widely—and accurately—regarded as the death knell for the service. Capital Metro should not make the same mistake twice.

I-35 BUS RAPID TRANSIT

AURA was perplexed by a proposal to build Bus Rapid Transit along I-35. As the arterial’s grim history attests, highways and people on foot are incompatible, so we are worried that riders might not be able to safely access stations in the middle. The route seems like it could become a glorified commuter line to park-and-rides on either end instead of contributing to an interconnected high-frequency network. While cities like Chicago and Bogotá have implemented well-ridden transit down the center of highways, the excessive noise, air pollution, and all-around stressful environment is far from ideal. AURA is also concerned that precious time and resources will be spent planning a project that will ultimately require the support and collaboration of TxDOT, a dubious partner that has historically shown little interest in transit.

FUTURE INVESTMENTS

From lavishing millions of dollars on expanded park-and-rides, to a seemingly endless list of high-dollar improvements to the Red Line, Capital Metro has prioritized investments for the auto-oriented suburbs while investing little in basic amenities for its core riders. AURA is concerned that Connections 2025 will continue the pattern of expanding commuter service and shifting resources away from more urban parts of the city. Chasing so-called “choice riders” in distant, sprawling neighborhoods costs more and serves fewer people. If Austin is to become a truly transit-oriented city, Capital Metro must prioritize service and infrastructure improvements in the dense urban places where public transportation naturally does best and where the large majority of its riders currently live.

DEDICATED TRANSIT LANES AND OFF-BOARD FARE PAYMENT

With the shift to a high-frequency network, dedicated transit lanes and off-board fare payment will have an even bigger potential to speed up transit and make it an attractive alternative to sitting in traffic. These, along with better stop shelters, require cooperation from city departments and other entities outside of Capital Metro’s control. Nevertheless, it is up to Capital Metro to take the first step and publicly commit to the rollout of these improvements. Given the ambition of the I-35 BRT, we were disappointed to not see any stated ambition for more and better transit lanes on local streets or off-board fare payment systems in the draft of Connections 2025. Transit advocates like AURA stand ready to pressure non-cooperative entities that resist collaboration on these vital improvements. The Austin City Council (which has a significant presence on the Board) has the power to ensure cooperation in most cases. We need Capital Metro to lead Austin toward its transit-oriented future. An expanded network of transit lanes and the ability to pay the fare before boarding—instead of one by one while the bus idles—are essential to that vision.

ALIGNMENT OF THE 820

The proposed MetroRapid 820 is a strong choice of route that will provide an upgrade in service to southeast and northeast Austin. However, we think that it is a grave mistake to align the route on the southern edge of Mueller instead of going through Mueller directly. Mueller is a walkable neighborhood with a mix of restaurants, retail, park space, a grocery store, and major employers. It is worth the few extra minutes of route time for the bus to reach these destinations.

PRIORITIZATION

By its name, Connections 2025 sets a 9 year horizon for implementation, although we understand there will be different phasing and most of the plan will be implemented well before 2025. AURA feels that the best parts of the plan should be implemented first. Streamlining the fares, implementing the core network, and building infill stops on the MetroRapid lines should all take precedence over the other parts of the plan.

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

Prior to the AURA membership vote for our Austin City Council endorsements, the AURA board shared with members its set of recommendations and reflections on each Council race being contested this November. Since the endorsements line up with the board’s original recommendations, we thought we would release the recommendations to a wider audience.

In DISTRICT 2, the AURA board recommends endorsing DELIA GARZA.

Garza has a record of voting for liberalizing land use, including ADUs (where she defeated neighborhood opt-out), the Fair Housing Initiative, and seeking new transit corridors in her district. Garza has consistently spoken out for the benefits of connectivity, and she has been a capable leader on the Capital Metro board, where she has pushed for significant enhancements to frequency. Her opponent Wesley Faulkner states his support for missing-middle housing, but he doesn’t have a full understanding of land-use issues in the city, which is critical for a council member in the Year of CodeNEXT. He has called for more public housing, which is wonderful, but illegal under federal law. He has a lot to learn, but we’re encouraged by his desire to help and hope he serves in some other capacity.

In DISTRICT 4, AURA members have already endorsed GREG CASAR.

In DISTRICT 6, the AURA board recommends NO ENDORSEMENT.

Don Zimmerman has taken his conservative property-rights perspective to the city’s land development code, and in many zoning cases and code amendments, he’s fought against a code that he rightly recognizes as burdensome red tape that costs everyone—developers and residents alike—more than is necessary. He was a helpful ally on the poorly designed parkland dedication ordinance.  However, Zimmerman is no urbanist. He has voted poorly on transit issues, going so far as to make a motion (which didn’t get a second) to have this year’s bond be exclusively road spending. Zimmerman has also unfortunately spoken out against subsidized affordable housing at every opportunity, which AURA recognizes is a piece of the puzzle to solving our housing crisis. His views on social issues and the environment are offensive, and his prominent seat on the dais to voice those opinions is problematic. We cannot recommend an endorsement of Zimmerman, regardless of the occasional convenient vote. His opponent, Jimmy Flannigan, would be supportive of transit and some density on corridors, but has stated opposition to a diversity of housing in single-family neighborhoods in the city core, an important issue in CodeNEXT and fair housing. Specifically, he’s stated that neighborhoods shouldn’t have to worry about four-plexes, that CodeNEXT transition zones (where missing-middle housing will be most prominent) should be as small as possible, that neighborhoods should avoid change for 20 years, and that a home that is torn down should be replaced with a home of a similar style. These views run counter to stances and initiatives that AURA has taken on in the past year and to what we hope to accomplish in CodeNEXT. As such, we cannot recommend Flannigan either.

In DISTRICT 7, the AURA board recommends endorsing NATALIE GAULDIN.

Natalie Gauldin is an up-and-coming candidate who couldn’t be a starker contrast to Leslie Pool. Pool has voted against diversity of housing options at nearly every opportunity, including our primary advocacy goal, ADUs, last year. She has voted against subsidized affordable housing on corridors. She has undermined the development review process, created false narratives around missing-middle housing, and ultimately seems to have her head in the sand as to a solution for Austin’s growth. Perhaps Pool’s view is that “if we pretend it isn’t happening, maybe it will stop.” Meanwhile, Gauldin embraces a rational approach to housing supply as a primary mechanism for addressing Austin’s affordable housing crisis. She is also a routine cyclist who will support transit and mode shift. She has a deep desire to help fix the city she grew up in and where she’s raising her family, and she knows that Council will have to make some hard decisions to fix our housing crisis. We support Gauldin wholeheartedly.  

In DISTRICT 10, the AURA board recommends endorsing SHERI GALLO.

Sheri Gallo has been a consistent vote for AURA’s land-use platform, and we recommend her endorsement. Despite her occasional disagreements with our policies (most notably on bike lanes and on sidewalk spending in the bond), Gallo has shown herself to be one who can solve problems, find middle ground (not just for compromise’s sake), and create better outcomes. When AURA brought to her attention the terribly written parkland dedication ordinance, Gallo listened attentively and convinced her colleagues to fix the problems, creating a new ordinance that dramatically increased parks funding while balancing it with the critical need for more housing supply. She was a critical vote on the Planning and Neighborhoods Committee of the Council, where she provided a consistent counterweight on land use against Council Member Kathie Tovo, allowing items related to ADUs and Fair Housing to pass to a full Council with a committee recommendation. While Gallo has too much of a focus on cars and parking requirements, we can easily recommend her over her principal opponent, Alison Alter, whose focus on parks, “neighborhoods,” and the Grove PUD is akin to Council Member Pool. While Alter attempts to position herself between “NIMBYism” and “density at all cost,” her position of preserving single-family zoning gives us very little hope.

The members of AURA offer the following endorsements in Austin’s City Council elections:

• Delia Garza, for District 2
• Greg Casar, for District 4
• Natalie Gauldin, for District 7
• Sheri Gallo, for District 10

AURA’s members encourage Austin residents to learn more about these candidates. Please give them your support and your vote if you agree that they are the best candidates to lead Austin’s city government.

AURA’s members endorsed Casar in May, when voting on early endorsements. Members voted this past week to endorse Garza, Gauldin, and Gallo.

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.