AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

There is a reason why we feel ripped off by Cap metro and how it serves the southside.

Why?

South gets local bus service, just like the north.

South gets metrorapid, just like the north.

South gets Night owl service, just like the north.


The only real difference is the red line, and sorry, but there just wasn't a rail corridor south.

[nixcity]

The 2014 plan was 1.4 Billion. Three times that would be 4.2 Billion. I didn't claim that.

Math!

But the 2014 plan was 1.4 Billion for ~10 miles. Not everything scales linearly, but as a first order approximation, your proposal is at least 50% longer, which brings it up to ~2 Billion.

The plan was for 1.38 billion. Minus 400 million for roads, minus 175 million for a signature bridge, minus 220 million for a tunnel to go under 6 blocks.
Roughly 600 million for the rail times ~50% + inflation will still be nowhere near 2 billion as you claimed. It should (even at such a large length, which helps bring in a lot more potential voters) be LESS than the bond they floated in 14'.

That's exactly bass-ackwards. You plan first, figure out where you really need to put the system, then pass the bonds

We have more than enough data to make the decision that has been there for around 2 decades. We have wasted enough time with studies, this system should have been up and running already. BTW, the city has chosen the firm to do the next corridor study, and what a surprise....it wasn't Project Connect!!! So even if nothing happens this year the G/L alignment will be chosen, we may just have to wait a few more years to get there, which is too bad since it is already probably too late.

Quit it with this nonsense.

1) The 1 corridor saw a large _increase_ of service with the introduction of the metrorapid.

2) It doesn't pay for the red line. Rather the reverse, the (existence of) the rail subsidizes bus service.

Every year, CapMetro takes in ~$50M for the quarter cent sales tax originally intended for rail service. Spends a fraction of it on the red line, then uses the rest for the bus service in the general budget.

Everything I can find has ridership DOWN, 3.6% for the overall system during 2014. It has been stagnating for around a decade while spending more all the time.
Here is an old link that mentions that quarter sent they stopped paying years ago. If they are spending the rest on bus service (some was supposed to go to a future LR line also, where is that money?) then why is the service dipping in ridership?? Maybe, just maybe now that they improved frequencies a few months ago they will get it back up. If it is true that the old #1's numbers have actually increased I can't find anything to back that up but if so then that is yet another indicator that is the best alignment for rail.

Which is a big problem with your proposal. If the buses are almost full at Kramer and Lamar, then people are boarding even further north. Presumably a lot at the Tech Ridge Park and Ride.

So you're proposing people drive the park and ride, park, wait for a bus, ride it 4 miles to Lamar and Rundberg, get off, wait for the train, board, and then ride it to their final destination?

First of all that is a presumption, many people get on right off of Lamar. But even in your scenario (which would be some people), yes, that sounds a lot better than being stuck in traffic on a bus the whole way.

Sure, rail. A small "demonstration" system. Not a multi-billion $ system (unfortunately).

He has said both that and the need for a comprehensive system. One thing we know for sure about our mayor after a year is that he has not been an effective communicator. Either way it shows he is hearing the the message that rail is needed.

1) But the question is so open-ended, the definition of "rail" is completely subjective. For some people, that may mean they support a commuter rail (only). For some, that may mean they support an urban light rail (only). For some, it may mean just a downtown streetcar.

2) Again, as the proposal moves from the abstract to the concrete, the route gets nailed down. It can't and won't serve everyone, so _some_ support will inevitably drop as people discover they're not in the first few stages of service, or will never receive service.

3) And as it becomes nailed down, the price increases. People may support cheap rail in the abstract, and drop support for a system in the $Billions.

If you try and offer more of 1) to more people, or more of 2), then the price drastically increases, and you lose support via 3). It's going to be a tough balancing act.

And then, with that latest poll, it was corrected for Austin's demographics as a whole. Not the demographics of the expected voters.
Support drops a bit for those >35 years old, and pretty significantly for those who have been in Austin the longest. And the turnout for a bond election will tend to have over-representation from those groups.


A lot of voter education is necessary, and you need to convince people that they're better off with a rail system, even one that doesn't serve them directly.

None of this shows that it can't be done. We have a clear vision of what not to do from Project Connect.

Look at your own freaking map.

http://centralaustincdc.org/transpor...light_rail.htm


The dark purple cluster is East of guadalupe.

West of Guadalupe it's a light purple. And presumably many/most of those jobs are commercial/restaurant jobs filled by local students.

and no, it's not 178k jobs in the northern portion. It's 171k jobs for the _entire_ route.

As you have stated, it is not about having one dense cluster, it is about connecting the dense clusters of work/population. The G/L alignment does that better than anywhere else in the city. Just because one part of the density is east of the line (yet still walkable) means nothing. With the 2014 plan it would have hit that cluster but it didn't connect them to the right places. OR THEIR PROJECTIONS WOULD HAVE BEEN MUCH HIGHER, LIKE THOSE WE WILL SEE FOR A G/L ALIGNMENT. The 178,000 are along the northern section of their plan.
http://centralaustincdc.org/images/A...nt_Centers.jpg
Again, no other part of the city can do this.

[Jdawgboy]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Why?

South gets local bus service, just like the north.

South gets metrorapid, just like the north.

South gets Night owl service, just like the north.


The only real difference is the red line, and sorry, but there just wasn't a rail corridor south.

They cut back the length of the nightowl 484 service just so they could extended a route further north. That is shafting and it's not right or fair. I used to be able to take the bus to go out on the weekends, now it's not worth it. And don't tell me that they did it because there wasn't enough demand because that bus was packed when I got off my stop just south of 290/71 on its way to William Cannon. It screwed a lot of people who rode that bus further south and it wasn't just partygoers. People who worked DT used it to get home.

Also tell that to my best friend who has to walk 3/4 of a mile to the nearest bus stop and she lives in a low income apartment complex where most of the residents don't have cars.

No.. the southside needs better service. Quit acting like you know everything because you don't!

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

They cut back the length of the nightowl 484 service just so they could extended a route further north. That is shafting and it's not right or fair. I used to be able to take the bus to go out on the weekends, now it's not worth it. And don't tell me that they did it because there wasn't enough demand because that bus was packed when I got off my stop just south of 290/71 on its way to William Cannon. It screwed a lot of people who rode that bus further south and it wasn't just partygoers. People who worked DT used it to get home.

Also tell that to my best friend who has to walk 3/4 of a mile to the nearest bus stop and she lives in a low income apartment complex where most of the residents don't have cars.

No.. the southside needs better service. Quit acting like you know everything because you don't!

The southside's overall share of service is disproportionate to its share of the population.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by nixcity

The plan was for 1.38 billion. Minus 400 million for roads,

ARRGH.

Not Minus 400 Million.

The proposed rail system. Just the rail system. WAS 1.38 BILLION DOLLARS in YOE dollars. The roads were _on top of_ the cost of the light rail.

Originally Posted by nixcity

minus 175 million for a signature bridge,

Your proposed system still has to cross the river.

and it wasn't 175 Million. it was 100 Million.

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news...for-400/ngRHb/

Originally Posted by nixcity

minus 220 million for a tunnel to go under 6 blocks.

Your proposed system still has to cross the red line.

Originally Posted by nixcity

Roughly 600 million for the rail times ~50% + inflation will still be nowhere near 2 billion as you claimed. It should (even at such a large length, which helps bring in a lot more potential voters) be LESS than the bond they floated in 14'.

MATH DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY!

Originally Posted by nixcity

We have more than enough data to make the decision that has been there for around 2 decades.

2 decade old data is worthless.

You know what has changed in 2 decades?

The city's growth has started moving east.
UT has grown east.
McMansion limited redevelopment in the central core.
UNO moved a bunch of the students to walking/biking distance from UT.
Gentrification has displaced a lot of the transit-dependent population.

Originally Posted by nixcity

BTW, the city has chosen the firm to do the next corridor study, and what a surprise....it wasn't Project Connect!!!

Project Connect wasn't a firm.

Originally Posted by nixcity

Everything I can find has ridership DOWN, 3.6% for the overall system during 2014.

That's what happens when the legislature directs you to raise prices at the cost of ridership.

Originally Posted by nixcity

First of all that is a presumption, many people get on right off of Lamar. But even in your scenario (which would be some people), yes, that sounds a lot better than being stuck in traffic on a bus the whole way.

Or you could have dedicated lanes for the buses at 1/3 the cost, and have a 1 seat ride the whole way.

Originally Posted by nixcity

The 178,000 are along the northern section of their plan.
http://centralaustincdc.org/images/A...nt_Centers.jpg

That's no longer their plan.

Their updated route now claims 171k _for the entire route_

Your own link:
http://centralaustincdc.org/transpor...light_rail.htm

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

They cut back the length of the nightowl 484 service just so they could extended a route further north.

No, they cut the length of a northern route as well.


Night Owl Cameron used to run as far north as Braker Lane.

https://nlct.wordpress.com/2012/04/0...mar-night-owl/

In fact, they technically cut an entire line north of the river.

http://capmetroblog.com/2012/08/15/i...rvice-changes/

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

That is shafting and it's not right or fair.

The South didn't get shafted any more than the North.

All 3 of the south Night Owl's saw a doubling of frequency. The south has 3/5 of the night owls. More than half!

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

No.. the southside needs better service. Quit acting like you know everything because you don't!

Then quit making claims that are blatantly false and easily disproved.

[nixcity]

ARRGH.

Not Minus 400 Million.

The proposed rail system. Just the rail system. WAS 1.38 BILLION DOLLARS in YOE dollars. The roads were _on top of_ the cost of the light rail.

Everywhere I look it says what I say, please post a link showing otherwise. Here are a few. And btw they link you posted says the same.....
http://www.statesman.com/s/news/tran...plete-coverage
http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/...ail-and-roads/

Your proposed system still has to cross the river.

and it wasn't 175 Million. it was 100 Million.

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news...for-400/ngRHb/

I don't see where it says 100 million for the bridge. And crossing the river on Congress or first street would be waaaaaay cheaper.
http://kut.org/post/project-connects...tin-urban-rail

Your proposed system still has to cross the red line.

We have an existing study going on with this crossing in Minneapolis which has a very similar alignment like we have at Airport and Lamar. There is no way in hell it will cost anywhere near the 200 million+ that their tunnel idea would. Although for phase 1 I would have no problem stopping at Crestview to be honest.

MATH DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY!

Please tell me, oh wise one, how does math work then??
The full proposal calls for 1.5 times the length of 2014 plan, minus the bridge, minus the tunnel, minus the roads.
600 million for the rail portion (per your link and mine as well)
600x1.5=900. Bridge crossing and meeting up with red line will be marginal. So if this were put to the voters this year (which it wont in its entirety) then it would be right around 1 billion, which is LESS than Project Connect's plan.

[nixcity]

Project Connect wasn't a firm.

Many of their people were involved in the bid for the newest corridor study, they lost, the city went away from their ideas for obvious reasons.

2 decade old data is worthless.

You know what has changed in 2 decades?

The city's growth has started moving east.
UT has grown east.
McMansion limited redevelopment in the central core.
UNO moved a bunch of the students to walking/biking distance from UT.
Gentrification has displaced a lot of the transit-dependent population.

Idk where you get that the city is moving east. There is just as much development (if not more) on north and south Lamar, Burnet, and the Domain then the east side. Development downtown has also been shifted to the west, maybe that will change when they finally finish Waller Creek but we have yet to see the Proper break ground as well. 3 building east of Congress u/c compared to 8 on the west end. West Campus has had more development than the east, with 4 new highrises (again students dont only go to school) and many midrises and the business school U/c compared to the east side which is just now seeing construction. McMansion ordinance has little to no bearing in this. We have the density necessary. Yes, UNO, among other things has helped put students closer to school. Yay, more people to fill the buses or trains. Standing room only right now. Where on the east side do you see that?? The gentrification you speak of has happened mostly on the east end, oops. You think it is displacing those poor souls that live around the Central Market on N. Lamar, or those living around the Triangle?? And there are plenty of transit dependent people further north on Lamar and also using their south terminus, guess you are making the argument for extending the line just like they propose.
Dedicated bus lanes would be okay, definitely better than what we have now but I think the capacity is there for rail to move much more people and get some people out of their cars.

That's no longer their plan.

Their updated route now claims 171k _for the entire route_

Right, I am just advocating for whatever plan has the Guadalamar alignment as the back bone, there are a few good versions. That said, that 171k ALREADY EXISTING (IN 2013) is still way above the 132k that Project Connect envisioned for their route in 2030!!! (just found that in one of the links I listed above from the Chronicle). All arrows point to G/L, all the data, that will not change, it will just cost us precious time to get to that conclusion..........again. I suggest everybody writes their council members and let them know we don't want to wait and that we don't want to spend our tax money fixing roads in a new bond!!!! You said it yourself Novacek, you would vote for it, and you have yet to provide a better option. With that said, I will no longer waste my time answering since you seem to have time in abundance to keep on nay saying, enjoy.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by nixcity

Everywhere I look it says what I say, please post a link showing otherwise. Here are a few. And btw they link you posted says the same.....

No it doesn't. Read, for god's sake.

"Officials with Project Connect, the joint city and Capital Metro rail planning effort, had said building the entire line would cost $1.38 billion"

That's building the line. Roads were added later to the bond, not the building of the line.

Originally Posted by nixcity

I don't see where it says 100 million for the bridge.

Come on, at least read. Hell, at least search in your browser for "100"

"And he said that a $100 million "signature bridge" over Lady Bird Lake..."

Or here:

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news...-add-up/ng4RD/

or here:

http://communityimpact.com/austin/ne...1-4-billion-2/




Your $175 million number apparently comes from here:

http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/ne...sing-lady.html

175 is the cost of the bridge AND the cost for rail downtown. "bridge option" =/= "bridge"

"They estimated the structure itself would cost about $75 million,"

Originally Posted by nixcity

And crossing the river on Congress or first street would be waaaaaay cheaper.

And take lanes of traffic away from one of the very few river crossings we have, and which are already chokepoints and congestion generators. Not a good option.

Originally Posted by nixcity

We have an existing study going on with this crossing in Minneapolis which has a very similar alignment like we have at Airport and Lamar.

Link?

Originally Posted by nixcity

Please tell me, oh wise one, how does math work then??
The full proposal calls for 1.5 times the length of 2014 plan, minus the bridge, minus the tunnel, minus the roads.

The roads aren't part of the project. They never were. They were part of the bond, but they're not part of the project and were never included in the 1.4 Billion.

Originally Posted by nixcity

600 million for the rail portion (per your link and mine as well)

Come on. Read for god's sake. $600 Million was the bond. The cost of building the rail is $1.38

http://communityimpact.com/austin/ne...1-4-billion-2/

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by nixcity

That said, that 171k ALREADY EXISTING (IN 2013) is still way above the 132k that Project Connect envisioned for their route in 2030!!! (just found that in one of the links I listed above from the Chronicle).

Of course it hits more jobs, it's 50% longer.

[nixcity]

^Which is still a disproportionately low amount
Look, the two main contributors to high ridership are job density and population density. So in comparing the 2014 line with the 2016 CDC proposal. Going off of the projected job and population growth that Project Connect used there would be 42,000 jobs added by 2030 along their route (using half mile captures) to make a total of 132,000. Adding the same amount to their proposal (although of course it would be more, since as you pointed out,it is 50% longer) brings the total jobs along the line to 213,000. Using a 9.5 and 14.5 mile length respectively gives the 2014 plan a job density of 13,894 jobs per mile and the 2016 plan 14,689 (although it will most likely be around 16,000 once you add in the 50%). Doing the same for population using Project Connect numbers. It goes up 44,000 to a total of 90,000. If the 2016 route also only grows by 44,000 (of course it will be more) that is total of 180,000 people. DOUBLE for a system only 50% longer.

Job Density Adjusting for a 50% Longer Line
2014: 132,000 jobs divided by 9.5 miles= 13,894 jobs per mile
2016: 234,000 jobs divided by 14.5 miles= 16,137 jobs per mile

Population Density Adjusting for a 50% Longer Line
2014: 90,000 people divided by 9.5 miles= 9,473 people per mile
2016: 202,000 people divided by 14.5 miles= 13,931 people per mile

It's plain to see which option is best for us taxpayers. Just admit it and join the momentum that is building in this city, we could use all of your help.

[Jdawgboy]

Originally Posted by Novacek

No, they cut the length of a northern route as well.


Night Owl Cameron used to run as far north as Braker Lane.

https://nlct.wordpress.com/2012/04/0...mar-night-owl/

In fact, they technically cut an entire line north of the river.

http://capmetroblog.com/2012/08/15/i...rvice-changes/




The South didn't get shafted any more than the North.

All 3 of the south Night Owl's saw a doubling of frequency. The south has 3/5 of the night owls. More than half!



Then quit making claims that are blatantly false and easily disproved.

I know what the hell I am taking about so quit acting like an ass! Get over yourself!!

I am specifically taking about the 484 southbound. As far as the northbound goes if it was a busy route then it shouldn't have been shortened or removed either. That only proves that Cap Metro is not doing a very good job providing mass transit options.

It's pretty crappy to ignore the needs of people who don't have cars and are forced to walk 3/4s of a mile like my best friend and her 3 year old daughter.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

I know what the hell I am taking about so quit acting like an ass! Get over yourself!!

I am specifically taking about the 484 southbound. As far as the northbound goes if it was a busy route then it shouldn't have been shortened or removed either. That only proves that Cap Metro is not doing a very good job providing mass transit options.

It's pretty crappy to ignore the needs of people who don't have cars and are forced to walk 3/4s of a mile like my best friend and her 3 year old daughter.

You get over it.

Just man up, you're wrong. Your entire claim:

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

They cut back the length of the nightowl 484 service just so they could extended a route further north

is False. There was no extension of northern Night Owls. In fact, they saw greater cuts.

The south, despite having a minority of the population, has a majority of the Night Owl routes.

There is no

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

shafting

of the south. In this, or in other transit decisions.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by nixcity

^Which is still a disproportionately low amount
Look, the two main contributors to high ridership are job density and population density.

But it has to be the _right_ population and the _right_ jobs. It's not as simple as just connecting the dots of density.

Originally Posted by nixcity

If the 2016 route also only grows by 44,000 (of course it will be more)

Why in the world would you think your proposed route has the same growth potential as the 2014 proposal?

The 2014 route had more growth potential in part because it is slightly less developed now.

It had growth based on the redevelopment of the state parking garages on Red River. On the growth of UT's east campus. On Highland.

There is no similar large-plot development along the western route. Sure, you might see a bit more VMU. But even that is pre-existing for many of the possible plots.

Then on your southern route, a lot of it goes through greenbelts, and then ends in a floodplain surrounded by parkland.

Originally Posted by nixcity

Job Density Adjusting for a 50% Longer Line
2014: 132,000 jobs divided by 9.5 miles= 13,894 jobs per mile
2016: 234,000 jobs divided by 14.5 miles= 16,137 jobs per mile

Population Density Adjusting for a 50% Longer Line
2014: 90,000 people divided by 9.5 miles= 9,473 people per mile
2016: 202,000 people divided by 14.5 miles= 13,931 people per mile

So as a first order approximation, pretty similar. Definitely same order of magnitude. Just looking at populations is only the grossest of estimates. Next, you would need to look at actual commuting patterns and patterns of development.

You're gone to great length (and _great_ expense) to connect Rundberg/Lamar to Downtown and UT.

But how much of the population at Rundberg/Lamar works as UT professors or startup programmers downtown? And how quickly is that going to change? And if it gentrifies, how much does the population density drop?

Planning is hard. That's why you need to do it _before_ you commit billions of dollars on a specific route.

[nixcity]

If it was closer I might agree with you, but its not even close and yes there is PLENTY of space for redevelopment along Lamar, both north and south (you know, like has already been happening). There is also plenty of room to the south, especially around the terminus, just like Easton which will have more than 20,000 people within a short ride to a park and ride. The numbers are there, NOWHERE ELSE IN THE CITY WILL YOU GET THAT DENSITY, unless you stop short of crossing the river. We also have plenty of traffic pattern studies. I guess you are so stubborn you won't admit its better until it destroys the 20,000 ridership projection for 2025 on day one. It's okay, we don't need you to make this happen, and it will, hopefully sooner rather than later.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by nixcity

If it was closer I might agree with you, but its not even close and yes there is PLENTY of space for redevelopment along Lamar, both north and south (you know, like has already been happening).

Exactly, it's already happened in many places. Those numbers are already baked in.

But that redevelopment is very very narrow. It's VMU along the corridor, but in most places no depth (because there's a single commercial parcel and then SF neighborhoods, and those neighborhoods are fighting density).

There's very few large parcel development opportunities (ones that would actually bring significant additional jobs). Certainly nothing like Highland. Or Ut's development.

Originally Posted by nixcity

There is also plenty of room to the south, especially around the terminus, just like Easton which will have more than 20,000 people within a short ride to a park and ride.

Again, that terminus is in a flood plain, surrounded by parks, and actively _losing_ population in the immediate vicinity.

3-5 miles away isn't in the 1/2 mile radius we were looking at.

If you want to add park and ride population from much further out, then you need to do it for other routes as well. You can't add it for just yours, but not others.

Originally Posted by nixcity

We also have plenty of traffic pattern studies.

None of which went into that "plan". It's a childish connect-the-dots, and didn't use any actual commuting data.

[nixcity]

Exactly, it's already happened in many places. Those numbers are already baked in.

But that redevelopment is very very narrow. It's VMU along the corridor, but in most places no depth (because there's a single commercial parcel and then SF neighborhoods, and those neighborhoods are fighting density).

There's very few large parcel development opportunities (ones that would actually bring significant additional jobs). Certainly nothing like Highland. Or Ut's development.

The numbers are nowhere near being "baked in." There is a ton of opportunity along Lamar and with upzoning we will see those 4 story VMU's become 8-10 stories. The state is also building 2 new buildings on their land. There is still space at Crestview as well as at the Triangle and a lot of space along Ben White and south from there. What will happen at Highland mall pales in comparison OR THEIR OWN NUMBERS WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE THAN 132,000, THAT IS THEIR NUMBERS, NOT MINE. And UT's med school, even at full buildout will NEVER match what is already (with much more on the way) at West Campus.

Again, that terminus is in a flood plain, surrounded by parks, and actively _losing_ population in the immediate vicinity.

FALSE: I already told you there is more already under construction there than has been or will be displaced. And having parks there will also help draw people to use the train.

If you want to add park and ride population from much further out, then you need to do it for other routes as well. You can't add it for just yours, but not others.

If I would have used that information the numbers would have been even higher.

None of which went into that "plan". It's a childish connect-the-dots, and didn't use any actual commuting data.

oops, they did, and it was the same data Project Connect used.....

Again, please offer up a better plan or stop trying to confuse people. Those on this forum will vote for a G/L plan and many of us voted NO on the PC debacle.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by nixcity

oops, they did,

NO THEY DIDN'T


Good god, they even explicitly said so. The only thing that went into laying out that route was connecting population density clusters. They didn't even look at employment (they computed that afterwards). Commuting data wasn't even an input to the process.


https://mobilityatx.com/reports/findings.pdf
page 27

http://communityimpact.com/2015/12/0...rail-planning/

"Civic Analytics worked with the CACDC to create a new light rail route using 2010 Census blocks. The groups plotted the densest areas and connected the dots using major arterials."

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by nixcity

There is a ton of opportunity along Lamar and with upzoning we will see those 4 story VMU's become 8-10 stories.

There is no chance in heaven or in hell that brand new, 4 story VMU buildings will be torn down and "become 8-10 stories". So any existing VMU building is "baked in", it's already counting to population and employment numbers and it won't be changing.

Neither will the neighborhoods allow 10 story buildings along those corridors. They don't want anything "looming over them" or "staring into their backyards".

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by nixcity

FALSE: I already told you there is more already under construction there than has been or will be displaced. And having parks there will also help draw people to use the train.

Why do you persist in making these claims that are completely contrary to actual facts?

In the critical 1/2 mile radius around the PV/WC intersection, over 50% of the land is the Williamson Creek Greenbelt, the Kizer Golf Course, the Onion Creek Soccer fields, or Onion Creek Park.

Most of the rest is existing single family housing. Or a church. There's almost no commercial. There's no place for any additional construction to go.

That construction you keep pointing to is 3-5 miles away.


Where are you going to put a park and ride? You can't put it in the floodplain.

http://austintexas.gov/page/floodpro