AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[ATX2030]

Austin Light Rail
Frequently Asked Questions:
Plan of Finance

May 3, 2023

https://www.atptx.org/docs/libraries...rsn=ec5b152c_1

[freerover]

Originally Posted by paul78701

I haven't read it. I never doubted that they're trying to model airport growth. I'm just wondering if they're able to really do so accurately (maybe a better word than "properly"). It seems that past estimates of future ABIA traffic have been way off.

I wasn't trying to compare the ABIA proposed route to the others. I was more wondering how it could affect future line extension decisions (assuming the ABIA route isn't initially chosen).

Pre-pandemic the airport had a more aggressive schedule for building out the new northern terminal extension over where the existing short term garage is. That project is now coming much later as the airport focuses available capital on gate expansion via the new center concourse.

It really makes the most sense to time the airport LRT extension with the construction of the new terminal building. I'm not sure how great it's going to be to get to AUS on a train and then have to walk around what will be a massive construction site between the LRT station and the current airport entrance once that short term garage is demoed.

[ATX2030]

When will Project Connect announce light rail design selection?

by: Kelsey Thompson

Posted: May 8, 2023 / 04:27 PM CDT

Updated: May 8, 2023 / 04:46 PM CDT

https://www.kxan.com/news/local/aust...ign-selection/

...Officials are expected to present a final proposal at Austin Transit Partnership’s May 24 board meeting, with an official decision made between ATP, the City of Austin and CapMetro on June 6.

[freerover]

Originally Posted by ATX2030

When will Project Connect announce light rail design selection?

by: Kelsey Thompson

Posted: May 8, 2023 / 04:27 PM CDT

Updated: May 8, 2023 / 04:46 PM CDT

https://www.kxan.com/news/local/aust...ign-selection/

...Officials are expected to present a final proposal at Austin Transit Partnership’s May 24 board meeting, with an official decision made between ATP, the City of Austin and CapMetro on June 6.

So maybe we hit %15 design by the start of next year? Not sure how much of the previous work can be salvaged.

[ATX2030]

1M already use Austin toll roads daily, and it could double by 2040

by: Christopher Adams, Erica Brennes, Eric Henrikson

Posted: May 9, 2023 / 04:30 AM CDT

Updated: May 9, 2023 / 09:18 AM CDT

https://www.kxan.com/investigations/...ouble-by-2040/

[ATX2030]

How expensive are Austin’s new light rail design options?

by: Kelsey Thompson

Posted: May 10, 2023 / 02:44 PM CDT

Updated: May 10, 2023 / 02:44 PM CDT

https://www.kxan.com/traffic/traffic...esign-options/

[freerover]

txdot sucks so much. that's the post.

[ATX2030]

Downtown Austin Alliance makes official recommendation for light rail in Austin

by: Erica Brennes

Posted: May 18, 2023 / 01:44 PM CDT

Updated: May 18, 2023 / 01:44 PM CDT

https://www.kxan.com/traffic/traffic...ail-in-austin/

[H2O]

ATP has released a report of all of the feedback they received during the comment period. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KMI...LJ9Ydq0e4/view

[atxsnail]

Originally Posted by H2O

ATP has released a report of all of the feedback they received during the comment period. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KMI...LJ9Ydq0e4/view

While it's not necessarily determinative, a plurality of the interested organizations seemed to prefer (wrongly, I might add) the 38th to Oltorf/Yellow Jacket alignment. Personally I believe recommending any initial investment that does not include North Lamar Transit Center at a minimum is basically malpractice. North Lamar Station ridership absolutely destroys Hyde Park Station in pre-pandemic numbers and I bet it's even more lopsided today.

The North Lamar to Pleasant Valley alignment was a very close second among those interested organizations and several noted their dual preference for the 38th-Oltorf/YJ and NLTC-PV options. Their letters were all at the end of the document.

ATP's summary of other community input was so vague that it's virtually useless. You can take the summary info ATP put out on the community engagement and basically justify any narrative you want. To be fair to ATP, community input from earnest but uninformed community members is going to be generally vague and useless. "Make it affordable, make it world-class architecture, run it to the airport no matter what, put a stop in front of my house, don't put a stop in front of my house, needs more parking lots, etc."

I hope they were being ultra conservative on purpose with the initial designs and end up with a combo NLTC to Yellow Jacket arrangement. I'm so disillusioned with this process and I'm one of the biggest transit supporters anyone can imagine. I understand the interest environment we find ourselves in but I am still disappointed in our leadership. Instead of putting out the data and following that, we're largely going on vibes. If activists hadn't made a big deal about the lack of transparency I doubt we would have gotten any data from ATP at all.

[papertowelroll]

Originally Posted by atxsnail

While it's not necessarily determinative, a plurality of the interested organizations seemed to prefer (wrongly, I might add) the 38th to Oltorf/Yellow Jacket alignment. Personally I believe recommending any initial investment that does not include North Lamar Transit Center at a minimum is basically malpractice. North Lamar Station ridership absolutely destroys Hyde Park Station in pre-pandemic numbers and I bet it's even more lopsided today.

The North Lamar to Pleasant Valley alignment was a very close second among those interested organizations and several noted their dual preference for the 38th-Oltorf/YJ and NLTC-PV options. Their letters were all at the end of the document.

ATP's summary of other community input was so vague that it's virtually useless. You can take the summary info ATP put out on the community engagement and basically justify any narrative you want. To be fair to ATP, community input from earnest but uninformed community members is going to be generally vague and useless. "Make it affordable, make it world-class architecture, run it to the airport no matter what, put a stop in front of my house, don't put a stop in front of my house, needs more parking lots, etc."

I hope they were being ultra conservative on purpose with the initial designs and end up with a combo NLTC to Yellow Jacket arrangement. I'm so disillusioned with this process and I'm one of the biggest transit supporters anyone can imagine. I understand the interest environment we find ourselves in but I am still disappointed in our leadership. Instead of putting out the data and following that, we're largely going on vibes. If activists hadn't made a big deal about the lack of transparency I doubt we would have gotten any data from ATP at all.

My problem with the 38th plan is that it has no red line connection.. I feel like they should at least go to Crestview for that. We should aim to get network effects between the two rail lines IMO.

[freerover]

Originally Posted by atxsnail

While it's not necessarily determinative, a plurality of the interested organizations seemed to prefer (wrongly, I might add) the 38th to Oltorf/Yellow Jacket alignment. Personally I believe recommending any initial investment that does not include North Lamar Transit Center at a minimum is basically malpractice. North Lamar Station ridership absolutely destroys Hyde Park Station in pre-pandemic numbers and I bet it's even more lopsided today.

The North Lamar to Pleasant Valley alignment was a very close second among those interested organizations and several noted their dual preference for the 38th-Oltorf/YJ and NLTC-PV options. Their letters were all at the end of the document.

ATP's summary of other community input was so vague that it's virtually useless. You can take the summary info ATP put out on the community engagement and basically justify any narrative you want. To be fair to ATP, community input from earnest but uninformed community members is going to be generally vague and useless. "Make it affordable, make it world-class architecture, run it to the airport no matter what, put a stop in front of my house, don't put a stop in front of my house, needs more parking lots, etc."

I hope they were being ultra conservative on purpose with the initial designs and end up with a combo NLTC to Yellow Jacket arrangement. I'm so disillusioned with this process and I'm one of the biggest transit supporters anyone can imagine. I understand the interest environment we find ourselves in but I am still disappointed in our leadership. Instead of putting out the data and following that, we're largely going on vibes. If activists hadn't made a big deal about the lack of transparency I doubt we would have gotten any data from ATP at all.

NLTC puts TxDot in a critical position due to the maintenance facility. I wouldn't mind the Yellow Jacket maintenance facility plans but it would be really really nice if we could at least get to up to Lamar/ Crestview.

[atxsnail]

Originally Posted by freerover

NLTC puts TxDot in a critical position due to the maintenance facility. I wouldn't mind the Yellow Jacket maintenance facility plans but it would be really really nice if we could at least get to up to Lamar/ Crestview.

Session will be over soon and much of the performative anger towards Austin will be forgotten when the part-timers go home. We were always going to have to negotiate with TxDOT on North Lamar even before we thought we might need to put the yard there. State Government doesn't look like it will get any less adversarial in the next few decades (it's gotten worse if anything) so it really doesn't benefit us to wait it out.

It's basically less than 2 miles to get from PV to Yellow Jacket. Assuming we did the bare minimum at the PV/Riverside intersection, surely we could dig out enough loose change to get to Yellow Jacket and build the yard there.

Alternatively I guess you could end the line just south of the Red Line crossing and make Crestview the new NLTC. That avoids the two costly headaches of grade separation and TxDOT, assuming it was possible to get to Yellow Jacket for the rail yard.

[freerover]

Originally Posted by atxsnail

Session will be over soon and much of the performative anger towards Austin will be forgotten when the part-timers go home. We were always going to have to negotiate with TxDOT on North Lamar even before we thought we might need to put the yard there. State Government doesn't look like it will get any less adversarial in the next few decades (it's gotten worse if anything) so it really doesn't benefit us to wait it out.

It's basically less than 2 miles to get from PV to Yellow Jacket. Assuming we did the bare minimum at the PV/Riverside intersection, surely we could dig out enough loose change to get to Yellow Jacket and build the yard there.

Alternatively I guess you could end the line just south of the Red Line crossing and make Crestview the new NLTC. That avoids the two costly headaches of grade separation and TxDOT, assuming it was possible to get to Yellow Jacket for the rail yard.

Session doesn't really matter. TxDot halted the South Lamar corridor work outside of a session. I think it would be a lot easier to expand and existing system onto TxDot ROW than HAVE to have txdot as such a pivotal partner in phase 1.

If session DOES matter well there will be another one in 2 years before anything breaks ground.

[ATX2030]

Texas AG opinion questions Project Connect funding

by: Chrissy Mazzone

Posted: May 20, 2023 / 01:41 PM CDT

Updated: May 20, 2023 / 01:41 PM CDT

https://www.kxan.com/news/local/aust...nnect-funding/

AUSTIN (KXAN) — Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton issued an opinion Saturday morning related to Project Connect, Austin’s multi-billion dollar plan to expand public transportation. The opinion comes after an inquiry from Texas Senator Paul Bettencourt.

The opinion highlights two potential issues. One relates debt and tax structure. It points to the city’s intention to use the maintenance and operation tax to pay down debt. The attorney general concluded that the Texas tax code “does not authorize a municipality to “earmark” use of a voter-approved increase in its maintenance and operation property tax revenue for debt service.”

Another issue the legal opinion raises is related to how the Austin Transit Partnership, the agency set up to implement Project Connect, is funded by the tax. The opinion found, if brought to a court, a court would likely conclude that since the tax structure is not subject to an annual appropriation, it is prohibited by Article XI, Section 5 of the Texas Constitution.

It’s not clear yet what this means for the future of the project. It’s worth noting, this is an opinion, which is an interpretation and non-binding.

This is not the only challenge to Project Connect. A Senate committee Friday moved to advance House Bill 3899. Dubbed the “No Blank Checks Act,” it would require voters to sign off on all the following components related to a project:

What the debt would be used for
How much debt product leaders need to issue
The tax rate needed to pay back the debt

The bill is authored by State Rep. Ellen Troxclair. The former Austin City council member is one of five representatives to co-author the bill in the Texas House, while Sen. Paul Bettencourt filed an accompanying version in the Texas Senate.

Meanwhile, the public will find out within the next week which scaled-down version of Project Connect will move forward. Project Connect leaders are expected to deliver a final design recommendation at the Austin Transit Partnership’s May 24 meeting, with an official vote and decision expected June 6.

[freerover]

What a waste.

[Speculator]

Does this mean no more underground along 4th?

[Echostatic]

Originally Posted by Speculator

Does this mean no more underground along 4th?

That's been gone for months publicly, and years behind the scenes.

[Sigaven]

Ken Paxton the guy whose been under indictment for eight years now, and whose entire staff resigned and accuses him of bribery and corruption? That guy?

[drummer]

^^ Yep, that's the one.

I'm not opposed to oversight of project spending of public dollars (I think that is generally a good thing) but I don't like it when people are just out to get a particular city.