Rail isn’t about Congestion

It's not going to fix congestion.
It’s not going to fix congestion.

Prop.1 on the Austin November ballot is an attempt to fund the largest single bond in Austin history, almost half the $1 billion going to the light rail proposal.

Finally people seem to be getting the fact that the light rail, if funded, won’t help with the existing traffic. KUT had a good review of this yesterday, the comments also some useful links. You can listen to the segment here:¬†Is a Light Rail Line Going to Solve Austin’s Traffic Problems?

Jace Deloney, makes some good points, what no one is saying though, and what I believe is the real reason behind the current proposal. There is a real opportunity to develop a corridor of key central Austin and, some unused and many underused land, West of I35, and from Airport all the down to Riverside Dr.

This is hugely valuable land, but encouraging development would be a massive risk, purely because of existing congestion. Getting more people to/from buildings in that corridor, by car, or even bus, into more dense residential accommodation, a medical school, UT Expansion or re-site, more office, whatever, will be untenable in terms of both west/east and south/north congestion. So the only way this could really work, is to make a rail corridor, with stations adjacent the buildings.

The Guadalupe/Lamar route favored by myself and other rail advocates wouldn’t add almost any value to that new corridor. It’s debatable that it would eliminate congestion on the west side of town either. But with a rail transit priority system, the new toll lanes on Mopac, the ability to get around at peak times, and the elimination of a significant number of cars in the central west, and downtown areas would make it worth the investment.

Voters need to remember this when considering which way to vote in November. If the city, UT, and developers want to develop that corridor, they should find some way of funding rail from those that will directly benefit. City wide economic impact; new tax revenues, new jobs is a slight of hand, a misdirection.

It’s not acceptable to load the cost onto existing residents for little benefit, just so you can developers can have their way.

Austin, divided by roads

Austin Business Journal Editor Colin Pope published an op-ed on the future of I35 through downtown Austin. In the op-ed he was basically saying that any attempt to sink and cover I35 was a waste of money, and they should just add lanes.

I added a biting comment pretty quickly on the dependency on cars, the division of the downtown area. Later in the morning, ABJ added a poll to the article, and in the process, my comment disappeared. I re-wrote a comment and posted it last night. Just in case it vanishes again…

You want growth in downtown, but don’t appear to care how that growth occurs, or what the cost is in terms of noise, dirt or visual impact. You’ve suggested the socioeconomic barrier is being addressed by the private sector, but it really isn’t. Where are the big impact developments, east/west transportation initiatives?

There no real towers on the east side of I35?¬†They are all small scale developments because, I would suggest, developers know [they can’t] there is a real future risk because of the separation I35 creates.

While it wouldn’t be my choice, cut-and-cover would allow buildings to be built right over the Interstate, thats one kind of growth. You though seem to prefer to just add lanes, if your objective is just to move traffic through downtown Austin, then lets stop people exiting from I35 between say Oltorf and maybe Airport. Most of the delays are created by people trying to get on/off I35, and people shortcutting driving through the city by getting on and jumping off. Seem draconian ? Not if your objective is just to move traffic through downtown Austin?

Is the downtown future really linked to cars? A 10-lane highway/frontage makes a pretty formidable barrier for anything except cars/buses. IF you live on East-anything except Riverside, you can forget rail, walking and or biking under a 10-lane highway?

How do you see the two cities of Austin developing? Again your passionate plea to just build lanes offers no view on how the increasingly segregated city would develop?

That’s the difference, the cut-n-cover advocates actually have a view of re-uniting the city, instead you are proposing that in 2020 we are still slaves to the car.


I must admit, 24-hours on, I’m left wondering if Colin was just acting as a troll to get opinions for follow-up articles; or worse still, a shill for the Texas roads, car and gas companies.