Disqus - Friends of rcauvin

Re: How Do You Get From Here ... to Here?

DU — Thu, 31 Oct 2013 14:21:20 -0000

A lot of misconceptions about Mueller being thrown about in the comments here - so let me throw in a few facts:

1. Mueller will be largely complete by the time the first rail line is built. It is not a "pie-in-the-sky-build-it-and-they-will-come-gamble". It will be the densest residential neighborhood in Austin by a long shot when complete - so no, it does not have a "suburb-in-the-city-style-lack-of-density" that is not remotely correct. More importantly, it will also be a 24/7 activity center with multiple theaters, museum, parks, retail, live entertainment, cafes and bars and have an impressively large employment base of 13,000 - 15,000. Also, per the PUD, Mueller will be able to go even 20% denser if transit is built without any further city approval necessary at all. No other neighborhood in Austin can claim this.

2. A northeast alignment is not just about Mueller. It will connect: the CBD, the Capitol Complex, the UT Med School, the UT Campus (including the very large dorms, DKR Stadium and much of the projected growth of UT Campus over the next quarter century is expected along that line), North Campus, Hyde Park, University Park, Hancock, Mueller and serve surrounding neighborhoods as well such as Windsor Park, Delwood and Cherrywood.

3. Building rail to Mueller is not a another "Red Line mistake" because it resembles the Red Line in no way, shape, or form. It connects highly dense residential areas of the city to the central core and goes through many of the most import sectors of the city along the way.

Also, I wish to echo what Nick Barbaro wrote with this - in 2050 it does not matter which line is built first. If you support rail on the northeast line and the Guadalupe/Lamar line is chose, then you should support it because building that line will be the fastest way to get a northeast line built.

Conversely if you want a line on Guadalupe/Lamar corridor and the northeast line is selected first, you should support it because that is the fast and surest way to ensure a line gets built on Guadalupe/Lamar.

We should think about how these projects will shape our city over the next half century and not get tied to any one destination as the only one possible.

The surest way to never having rail at all is for the pro-transit community in Austin to get bogged down in a bitter dispute filled with slinging bile and mud and inaccuracies dividing would be supporters.

Finally, I hope that the City Council foresees this and whichever route they choose, they make it clear that a second route will follow close on its heals - a rail line, after all, is only as good as the system it is tied into.

Re: How Do You Get From Here ... to Here?

DU — Fri, 01 Nov 2013 00:26:12 -0000

The comparison with the Triangle is, quite frankly, nonsense. Triangle is a fraction of the size of Mueller. Does not have a major Children's Hospital serving 140K patients annually, does not have a Children's Museum with an estimated 300K visitors annually, will not and is not home to theaters such as the AISD performing arts theater with 70K visitors annually, does not have 140 acres of heavily use public parks, will have but a fraction of the number of other attractions such as cafes, restaurants, retail, movie theater, etc. This is not to dismiss the Triangle, which is a fine development, but rather counter this steady campaign of mis-information about Mueller.

Mueller will have not only about the same number of people living in it as West Campus at completion, it will also be home to 15,000 estimated jobs - so yes, it will indeed be one of the densest neighborhoods in Austin outside of downtown. And whether you buy that argument or not, the blatantly false statements about having a suburban type of density is silliness that even you would have to acknowledge (but obviously will not).

The ability to get 20% denser was negotiated in 2008, is based on TIAs and does not have to go back and be approved by the neighborhoods because it is granted now as a matter of right. It is not "mythical" and no further approval from any neighborhood group is necessary. This is the advantage of a PUD - the entitlements exist already. What kind of process would say Hyde Park have to go through to get 20% denser?

No matter which line is selected, if a large portion of the pro-transit people are so poisoned by purposefully spread disinformation due to infighting between transit geeks over which line should come first then Gerald Daugherty's and Jim Skagg's jobs next year will have been made exceptionally easy in defeating rail again and pushing the clock back on rail in Austin for several more decades.

So again, I think Nick Barbaro makes an excellent point, in 2050, will anyone really care which line came first? I maintain that the obvious answer to this question is "no." Build them both. But we need to start now with one or the other. Which ever one is select, I hope everyone in favor of rail will put aside the bile and support it together. If not, there won't be decent urban rail in Austin in mine or your lifetime.

Re: How Do You Get From Here ... to Here?

DU — Fri, 01 Nov 2013 11:12:41 -0000

More misinformation and misdirection in M1ek's proxy war on Mueller over rail:

1. I was clearly comparing the town center of Mueller with the Triangle as everything I listed in that paragraph is in fact in or immediately next to the town center (aka the "core of Mueller").

2. The size and population of WC and Mueller are roughly equivalent and with roughly equivalent populations, yet Mueller will also have 15,000 employees. Regardless, the accusation I was responding to was the charge that Mueller has, and I see l have to quote this exactly (again) since you seem to have a problem with understanding it: "suburbs-in-the-city-style lack of density". That is so clearly off the mark it deserved to be responded to. Whether Mueller is the most dense or one of the two densest neighborhoods in Austin outside of downtown is well beyond the point that I was making.

3. The buildings in Town Center are entitled to go 100 ft (what they will be will depend on the market). No building in Triangle is this high.

4. The closest apartments being built right now (the AMLI) is not a few blocks away from homes, it's directly across the street from SF row homes, and MF condos, which share the same block as SF detached homes. And within a two block radius you will have MF VMU apartments, SF row homes, MF condos, SF detached homes and live/work shop homes AND town center. How is that not mixed use?

5. An HOA is neither an urban nor a suburban thing. Every condo in downtown Austin has an HOA. For that matter, every condo in Manhattan has an HOA. Having a master planned community is what allows Mueller to be built as a dense, vibrant, mixed use community. If there was no PUD then the existing land-use code would be in effect and Mueller would've ended up looking a lot more like Allandale at best (if it could have been built at all given it's location).

Obviously no one is going to dissuade you from posting as much bile, misdirection and disinformation as you seem to want to. I hope the rail community will move past these rants, lies and cheap shots and get together to get both lines built as quickly as possible, regardless of which line is selected first.

Re: How Do You Get From Here ... to Here?

DU — Fri, 01 Nov 2013 14:25:53 -0000

We can go round and round if you like but I'll just respond to a few more blatantly and quite easily observable falsities and leave it at that:

1. You're quite right that the Triangle is no urban paradise (you brought up the comparison, not I). But since you mentioned it, its stores, shops and restaurants are almost all internally oriented onto parking lots turning their backs to the street. In this way Mueller town center will be much better urbanism as it is street oriented.

2. A PUD was the only way to free Mueller from the current ridiculous COA land-use code that certainly would have condemned the Mueller tract to be low density suburban or semi-suburban at best.

3. Mueller most certainly will be mixed use. The AMLI being built right now is directly across the street from SF housing. That building is VMU. There are plans to have VMU buildings on the same block as SF housing. There will be many more MF units in and around the town center as the plan is developed out. Not to mention shop homes (not currently permitted anywhere else in Austin). That is, in fact, mixed use by any definition.

4. You fault Mueller for surface parking in the retail district and then when Catellus builds structure parking garage in the town center you ding it again. What do you want, no parking whatsoever? What retailer in Texas (we're not in NYC) would locate itself in a place with no parking at all. What kind of urbanism can you get without retailers? You hold Mueller to a standard that does not exist anywhere in Texas at all, let alone Austin. I'll also point out that perhaps the best urbanism in Austin right now is in and around the planned 2nd street district - which has ample public structured parking available. The Triangle is no different (well, actually it offers a bunch of surface parking as well).

5. All the parks and pools (maintained and paid for by the HOA) are free and available and very well used by the public at large. There are some after hours at night and in the winter for the pool only available to residents. Otherwise, everyone is welcome to use all the parks, trails, pools, etc. in Mueller - free of charge.

Anyway, I'm none of this will dissuade you from your propaganda campaign against Mueller when the real issue should be on rail.

I am hopeful that the more rational rail advocates in town will ultimately be able to come together to support rail to whichever line is selected first. The bigger picture is what is important here - what will Austin will look like and function 25 or 30 years after rail goes is the critical issue.

Re: How Do You Get From Here ... to Here?

DU — Fri, 01 Nov 2013 15:36:08 -0000

1. The 700 + acre Mueller tract in central east Austin was never going to get and could never to get CBD or DMU zoning - and you know this.

2. Mueller is inchoate. Can't get around that. Rome was not built in a day either. What matters isn't what happens in the first 5 or 10 years but the next 50 and 100 years.

3. Hyde Park is a pre-war development built under pre-war codes. Wish we had those today. We don't. You can't build Hyde Park in Austin anymore - especially in Hyde Park.

4. Nothing I said about the parks is spin. You attempted to leave the impression that the parks aren't entirely open to the public - that was the spin. That's not the case, all the parks and pool are open to the public other than a few restricted hours for residents when virtually all other public pools are closed as well.

Finally, as much as you would like the rail discussion to be about Mueller, Mueller is but one stop on a possible northeast rail alignment that includes: CBD, Capitol Complex, Med School, East Campus (with all the dorms, projected growth of UT + Stadium, concert hall, LBJ School/Library, Law School, etc. etc.) North Campus, St. Davids, University Park, Hancock, not to mention helping to connect historically underserved east Austin to the rest of the city.

Re: How Do You Get From Here ... to Here?

DU — Fri, 01 Nov 2013 16:15:07 -0000

Show me the precedence for 700 + acres of DMU in the middle of an almost exclusively residential section of Austin. If you believe that was an actual possibility, in Austin Texas, fighting the ANC at every steep of the way, you're more delusional that I thought.

The pools are closed for a long portion of the year to Mueller residents also. And the pool is open to the public in dates and times that are entirely consistent with most other public pools in Austin (the exceptions being Barton Springs, Deep Eddy and Big Stacy).

I merely point out that that alignment does connect very important and significant areas of town.

I will say this and then I'm done, if you manage to divide rail support with this scorched earth policy and rail is defeated next year because of this type of constant propaganda campaign of mis-direction and mis-information then we really won't get rail built in Austin, probably for a lot longer than 20 years.

Re: Project Connect Draws a Line

DU — Fri, 22 Nov 2013 13:21:36 -0000

The center of Austin's gravity has been shifting east and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. The critics ignore how fast and how radical the highland corridor will change over the coming years. An eastern alignment offers a lot that gets dismissed in a knee-jerk reaction without real thought. The connection of the major medical facilities alone (Med School, Brackenridge, School of Nursing, Dell Children's Medical Center, St. David's and UT Health Research Campus, the Seton administration offices, etc.) is a unique and interesting opportunity (similar to Houston's successful first line). Add to that all the potential for re-development along Waller Creek, the Capitol Complex, UT's plans to develop out East Campus, the University Park, the vast potential to re-develop Hancock, and the opportunity to redevelop Airport Blvd. from IH35 to Crestview with new form-based codes, the definitive plans to redevelop Highland Mall, and the already underway way Mueller -- a picture begins to emerge of a tremendously exciting dense, mixed-use corridor, much of which is already underway, and that will soon be very much much different than portrayed by the critics.

An investment in transit is a long term project that takes decades to reach full potential. We should not measure the success of a rail line by it's ridership on day 1 but rather look to how the city evolves and develops over the next 25 or 30 years after that. One of the advantages of the eastern alignment is that most of the projects listed above are planned, have the entitlements, are financed, and have development teams in place.

However, if a rail line goes in, and the city fails to allow for this type of development to occur in the name of "protecting neighborhoods" then rail will be a failure no matter where it goes. Wherever the line is put, and wherever the stations go, Austin should align it's land use policy to allow for dense mixed-use development and each stop should be thought of as a mini-town center allowing for this development to occur within a 5 minute walk or bike ride of the station.

Re: Project Connect Draws a Line

DU — Fri, 22 Nov 2013 16:59:51 -0000

I don't think anyone is arguing that Guadalupe/Lamar isn't a good route for transit. My comments point to the fact that cities in general are not static and Austin in particular is changing rapidly. Much of the focus and energy of that change is east - along the Highland corridor. While an easy target today, things looks a LOT when all the planned development is taken into account many of which have dense residential development in addition to commercial, retail and civic institutions attached to them.

Re: Project Connect Draws a Line

DU — Sun, 24 Nov 2013 13:38:12 -0000

No equivalency - false or otherwise. Two different routes with different justifications. One looks at existing needs, the other looks to where development is and will be occurring in the coming decades. Mueller is but one project in a string of new dense, transit oriented development running from downtown to Highland Mall. These aren't pie-in-the-sky, but funded projects with entitlements in place and development teams on the ground. With enlightened land-use policy there can (and most definitely should) be many more projects in the coming years along this corridor. Rail, wherever it goes, should be coupled with a commitment by the city to allow and foster dense urban mixed use development along the route and to not kowtow to neighborhood pleas for preservation of their 'hoods.

The initial line is just that - the initial line. It will eventually be part of a system, but that's going to take 30 or 40 years to get there. We should have started in 2000 - we'd have two or perhaps three lines operational today if we had. But that route was rejected. So now, with 10-1 looming we truly do have the last best chance for rail in our lifetimes. If it doesn't pass in November there is no realistic scenario it's even brought up again seriously for decades.

Re: Project Connect Draws a Line

DU — Mon, 25 Nov 2013 10:54:29 -0000

I'm more concerned with year 25 than day 1. The highland corridor certainly has an incredible potential to grow seeded by the numerous projects listed above. Again, if rail goes in Highland the city must commit to support it with land-use policies that allow for and foster much more transit orient mixed use growth. That's true wherever rail goes.

You dismiss the "political reasons" of going forward with rail now - yet political calculations are extremely important. The 2000 election of light rail was held in a presidential election year brining in a ton of suburban voters and narrowly defeating rail that year. Here we are 14 years later - no urban rail.

After 10-1 we'll go from a city council largely elected by central Austin to one mostly representative of the suburbs. The significance of this change in political power cannot be underestimated. When I look at the election of 2000 - almost all of light rail support is concentrated in district 9 and district 3. How are we ever going to get rail as an option again with 8 districts opposed?

ERC has it's merits as well, and if that is the final selected route, I will support that as well. But we all know the bridge is a major impediment as is a line that doesn't connect to the Capitol Complex, UT, etc.

Re: Project Connect Draws a Line

DU — Mon, 25 Nov 2013 11:56:05 -0000

I'm not conflating anything - I'm merely pointing out at day 1 ridership metric seems like the wrong approach in a rapidly changing area. I'd be more wary of projections if there wasn't the string of dense transit oriented development in that area already taking place. And the "ceiling" on Highland is a function of land-use policies. As I've repeatedly stated - these policies should be revised to allow for dense mixed use development within a 5 minute walk/bike ride of every station.

I'd like to see rail on Guadalupe/Lamar as well. And by year 25 I would hope we'd have rail on Highland AND Guadalupe/Lamar. There's no reason both can't or should not happen. If politically, we have to move forward with one over the other, then that is what I am for. I will support rail next fall whether it ends up being in Highland, ERC or G/L.

Re: Project Connect Draws a Line

DU — Tue, 26 Nov 2013 14:26:38 -0000

If we don't start now we won't have urban rail anywhere in 25 years. Despite your dire predictions, there is substantial reason to believe that an east alignment that connects the CBD to the Capitol Complex, Brackenridge, Med School, UT, St. Davids, North University, Hancock, Hyde Park, Highland, etc. will indeed be quite successful. We can hand wring all we want to about which should go first, but at the end of the day we need to start now. Both will be built eventually, but if we don't get on with it before 10-1 then neither will - ever.

Re: Urban Rail: Which Way to Connect?

DU — Thu, 12 Dec 2013 04:18:41 -0000

It is quite clear that due to the substantial investments made by the FTA into the MetroRapid bus line that the G/L option is simply off the table for now. Funds from the FTA must be used in the project they were allocated to and failure to do so will put not only any investment in MetroRapid at risk, but also future federal funding of other transit in Austin, including funding necessary for a rail line, would certainly be at risk as well.

It is time to focus on what is possible instead of dwelling on what is not. The transit activists who are vocal on this would have you believe that there is only one possible route for a first line of rail. That is simply not the case. An eastern alignment connects the Central Business District, the Capitol complex, UT Med School, UT Campus (including the Stadium, LBJ, Bass Concert Hall, not to mention one of the largest dorms on the planet), St. Davids, University Park, Hancock, Hyde Park and the rather massive ACC redevelopment of Highland Mall, and could one day also serve as entry into the transit ready and booming Mueller redevelopment.

It is important that we get started on rail now because it may be decades after we switch to 10-1 districts that we will ever have a city council so favorably disposed to high capacity transit in the core again. If we get started on rail now, then in a few years we can look at expanding the line into the G/L corridor. If we do not get started now, it may very well be decades before we even discuss rail at all in Austin.

Re: Urban Rail: Which Way to Connect?

DU — Thu, 12 Dec 2013 09:59:03 -0000

Well, I can see you've alerted the hive so I'm sure there will be many comments on this. Nevertheless I must point out that I sincerely doubt the FTA would agree with your characterization that 38 Million is a minor investment by them and I'm quite certain that they would rather that CM and COA not treat such as trivial.

Whether the MetroRapid service turns out to be the same, better of worse is besides the point right now. The crux of the issue is that because we have taken that investment we have obligations to live up to live up to the commitments. Failure to do so will result in the FTA demanding immediate repayment of funds spent, canceling future allocations to be received, instituting debt collection actions if necessary and, in all likelihood, shuffling future applications for transit funding by the City of Austin to the bottom of a long list of competing proposals, maybe just above Cincinnati's.

Re: Urban Rail: Which Way to Connect?

DU — Thu, 12 Dec 2013 10:13:34 -0000

Council Member Spelman's direct conversation with an FTA official who made a "not no but hell no" allusion doesn't count? You gloss over "replacing the middle stretch of one of two lines" as if that is somehow insignificant - it's the core of the city, where everyone is going on the line.

As was made clear in the meeting - to get going on rail on G/L you would have to start preparing now. And that means having to significantly shorten the life of the investment in MetroRapid and going back to the FTA to ask for more money in a route that we just significantly altered their previous investment in. This seems like a non-starter I just don't see the usefulness in continuing to debate this same point.

Re: Urban Rail: Which Way to Connect?

DU — Thu, 12 Dec 2013 10:27:40 -0000

Ups and down in the economy over the life of the rail line are a given. It's true that 2008 took a lot of projects off the market that were planned. That was indeed a major disruption and lasted quite a bit longer than most recessions. However, the build out of this system will take 40 years and have a life many decades beyond that.

It seems pointless to me to continue to evaluate a route at this very late state in the game that doesn't have a chance due to the prior investment in MetroRapid - a service that has yet to begin. Instead we should look at the viable alternatives that are before us.

Re: Urban Rail: Which Way to Connect?

DU — Thu, 12 Dec 2013 10:40:56 -0000

I can't speak for why PC did things in the order that they did them. I agree that this information would probably have been better put on the table 6 months ago. However, I think it's a bit disingenuous to suggest that this is a surprise as it's been blogged about, speculated on, tweeted and discussed in at least one of the webinars. You'll have to ask PC as to why they evaluated the sub corridor without making the FTA issue clear.

Nevertheless, no matter how we got here, we are here. I'd rather we spend the rest of this year hammering out the best proposal we can get given the routes that are feasible rather than continue debate moot points.

Re: Urban Rail: Which Way to Connect?

DU — Thu, 12 Dec 2013 10:59:47 -0000

I'm not sure that all of your fellow travelers would agree with the implication of this argument that there is a wide conspiracy among public appointed and elected officials, necessarily including CM Spelman, the Mayor, John Langmore and several other members of CCAG and Capitol Metro in addition to numerous people involved in Project Connect to mislead the public on such critical issues facing the city. I have seen no reason to believe this is the case.

Re: Urban Rail: Which Way to Connect?

DU — Thu, 12 Dec 2013 11:06:21 -0000

It comes down to 2 points here:

1. G/L is not viable at this time due.
2. I disagree with the characterization that suggested ERC and Highland corridors fall into the category of "any-ol-route".

Re: Urban Rail: Which Way to Connect?

DU — Thu, 12 Dec 2013 15:58:14 -0000

Wait, Mike Dahmus has been publicly accusing elected and appointed officials of lying and misleading the public without any sound basis for do so or solid evidence of intent and I'm the one making specious accusations?

Um. . .ok, I don't even know how to respond to this.

Re: Reconnect Austin: Part One

DU — Thu, 16 Jan 2014 12:01:21 -0000

I am certain that sometime in the 21st Century something like the Reconnect Austin proposal will happen. Whether it happens in the first half or the second half is up to TxDOT. TxDOT can be on the wrong side of history and double down on the disastrous policies that made IH-35 the divisive congested mess it is today (and will continue to be tomorrow), or they can take a serious look at what the great cities around the world are doing today and be a leader in reshaping our City for the better.

As for the objections by neighborhood groups over "gentrification" - it's beyond belief that the solution to affordability offered is to depress value by keeping the things that make our city a worse place to be.

Re: Reconnect Austin: Part Two

DU — Thu, 30 Jan 2014 13:50:51 -0000

TxDOT's arguments here are specious. They have presented technical problems - each of which has one or more engineering solutions. There is no new technology, all this has beed done time and time again. The only thing that is is needed is the political will to do so.

It should be noted that billions will be spent on I-35 in Austin regardless of which plan is selected. The question the community needs to answer is whether to take this opportunity to move this city forward and right some of the wrongs, or to double-down on the mistakes of the past.

The TxDOT proposal does nothing to address the long-term growth issues (it in fact, exacerbates them). Reconnect Austin, on the other hand, not only opens up valuable downtown parcels for development, but creates a viable east side where much of Austin's future growth can occur, much closer to the center of Austin, rather than to continue to direct it outwards towards Georgetown and Kyle.

Re: Will Occupancy Limits Aimed at 'Stealth Dorms' Hurt Austin Affordability?

DU — Sat, 01 Feb 2014 16:56:11 -0000

There are many housing options that could increase density into SF3 neighborhoods that would not make it anything like a downtown district. One example would be to allow attached SF homes (row homes) throughout the neighborhood. Some of the most desired neighborhoods in the entire country a filled with nothing but block after block of the most beautiful row homes - punctuated every now and then by a little mixed use area, a corner store here, a neighborhood bistro there, the local pub next to it.

These are little ways to make big changes and still maintain neighborhoods as neighborhoods - are you down for this?

Re: Reconnect Austin: Part Two

DU — Sat, 01 Feb 2014 17:29:11 -0000

Because. . .Houston is a great model of how to do things?

It's absolutely bizarre that someone can look at what Houston once was, and what it has become and think "now there is a city I would like to emulate."

You dismiss walkability and bikability as "a fiction" without any support for such whatsoever. We absolutely can be a walkable city - but not if we do things like Houston did them. If we do that - then your fiction is merely a self-fulfilling prophecy.

We absolutely can make Austin to be the city we want it to be - it isn't out of our control. It just takes the leadership and political will to get there.

Re: Who Benefits From a Reconnected Austin?

DU — Sun, 02 Feb 2014 13:15:41 -0000

Who benefits from having a better city? We all do.