For more information, contact:
Carole Keeton Strayhorn
AustinitesForAction
(512) 415-3939

Bond package fundamentally fails to address critical community needs

AUSTIN, Texas–Today, three citizen organizations joined forces to urge Austinites to Vote No on Proposition 1, the City of Austin bond package to be voted on during the November 2 election. The West Austin Downtown Alliance, Austinites for Downtown Mobility and Austinites for Action announced that they will work aggressively to educate Austin voters about Proposition 1, which they unanimously described as a failed attempt to address traffic congestion in Austin.

“To suggest this bond package will get Austin moving is the kind of empty, disingenuous political rhetoric that is fueling distrust in city leadership,” said Dominic Chavez, member of Austinites for Action. “Commuters stuck on MoPac or IH 35 during rush hour are not clamoring for more trails or landscaping subsidies for downtown development–they want congestion relief and want it now.”

“Every recent survey of Austin citizens identifies vehicular traffic congestion relief as the number one priority,” explains Susan Harris, spokesperson for Austinites for Downtown Mobility. “At a time the city is cutting services and raising taxes, we need to focus our limited resources on projects that will immediately reduce congestion–Prop.1 fails on all accounts and should be defeated.”

Scott Sayers, President of the West Austin Downtown Alliance, says that Austin voters have not been given a fair shake by allowing them to choose which projects they want to fund. “Unfortunately, our City Council has said, ‘take it or leave it’ and intentionally lumped all of the projects from roads to bike lanes to jogging and hiking trails into one bond proposal, so that the public doesn’t have the choice to vote yes on the most important ways to spend our dollars and to vote no on frivolous non-critical items,” explained Sayers.

The coalition points to the proposed Lady Bird Lake trail project, which will cost the city at least $14 million of the proposed $90 million Prop. 1 package, as the most outlandish example of city leaders missing the mark on addressing critical community needs. The coalition is urging a NO vote on Prop. 1 and asking that the city council instead develop a comprehensive congestion relief bond program that includes both short and long term projects targeting traffic on major highways and arterials in Austin. The coalition is also asking the city to end the practice of project bundling for bond elections-the strategy of combining dissimilar projects into a single bond proposition forcing an all or nothing vote by citizens.

The coalition believes this practice compromises the integrity of the bond process and is the cynical attempt by special interests to ensure unpopular projects are not scrutinized by voters.

“The message this bond package sends is simple and clear: the city council’s number one priority is to relieve congestion for joggers rather than commuters,” said Chavez. “By any objective measure, this package is completely out of touch with the community’s real needs and we encourage a NO vote on November 2.”

SEVEN REASONS to VOTE NO/PROPOSITION 1

#7: Prop. 1 intentionally hides controversial projects from voter scrutiny.
Prop.1 bundles everything from roads, sidewalks, bike lanes, hiking trails, and the completion of the Town Lake jogging trail, into a single bond package. Most of the projects won’t relieve congestion, but voters must accept all of them or none of them–“Take it or leave it!”

#6 Prop. 1 costs $1 million per word, but not a penny’s worth of transparency.
Voters will need decoder rings to translate the 99-word ballot language written by city lawyers. The ballot language for Prop. 1 does not explain how much or where taxpayer dollars will be spent. Prop. 1 not only flunks middle school grammar standards, but gets an “F” for transparency.

#5 Prop. 1 is a blank check with no accountability.
Because the bond language is intentionally vague, the city council can effectively spend the money on any project they want. Think it impossible? Earlier this year local leaders tried to eliminate a major highway project-SH 45 Southwest-approved by voters via a bond election more than a decade ago.

#4 Prop. 1 is the result of cooked books.
Common sense suggests that a “mobility” bond package would have been graded based on the amount of commuter capacity added. But no one has ever accused the city of common sense. It is then no wonder that the city used a skewed process to identify the Lady Bird Lake jogging trail as the 12th most important transportation project in Austin, or the redesign of 3rd street downtown as the 5th most important transportation project in Austin. Only the city council could make us believe that improving a trail for joggers and eliminating lanes of traffic and parking on downtown streets is an answer to Austin’s traffic problems.

#3 Prop. 1 is the result of the City Council’s frivolous budget priorities.
One-third of the funding in the $90 million bond package is paying for road reconstruction-the result of deferred and unfunded maintenance. For years, the City Council has shortchanged maintenance on infrastructure around the city, to include waterlines, roads, and facilities in favor of frivolous spending on non-critical priorities. Because of their negligence we are now asked to spend 30% of the bond package on maintenance of old roads and less than 3% on new roads.

#2 Prop. 1 was manipulated by special interests
All forms and types of special interests directly influenced what projects were included in this bond package. No interests were more prevalent than the downtown boosters and developers who successfully steered significant resources from this package to enhance investment interests and the lifestyles of a few thousand downtown residents. Even under the rosiest of scenarios, downtown Austin only has 9,500 residents. The short math shows that this package will result in $3,500/downtown resident and only $71/resident for the rest of us.

And the #1 reason to vote NO on Prop. 1….
Prop. 1 ignores the community’s needs and priorities.
In April 2010, the city of Austin commissioned a comprehensive, citywide survey to ask citizens to identify their priorities. No surprises-citizens overwhelmingly identified car traffic as the single most important transportation problem. The findings:

• Only 33% of respondents were “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the “ease of travel by car on freeways”.
• Conversely, 51% of respondents were “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the “walking and hiking” system in Austin.
• When asked what issues the city should focus on in the next two years, the top five responses require improvements in road capacity, including desired improvements in bus service (priority #3).

Yet, six months later the city council has proposed a package that would spend $24 million on the area the community is most satisfied with (trails) and only $2 million on that which they are least satisfied (new roads). It defies common sense that the city would absolutely ignore the community’s stated priorities.

For more information:

Austinites for Action www.austinitesforaction.org
Austinites for Downtown Mobility www.keepaustinmoving.org
West Austin Downtown Alliance www.westdowntownalliance.com

AUSTIN, TX, April 8, 2010 - By now everyone knows that the city has released its recommendations for the Nueces Bicycle Boulevard, now called the Downtown Bicycle Boulevard.  The Tuesday release was the first chance any opponent to the plan got to review it. In contrast the proponents were briefed on the plan well before there was any outreach to the business owners along Nueces or Rio Grande.
There are two items that are most notable in the released plan.  1) The number of affected roads has doubled.  One of our major concerns has always been the negative impact on the area if you divert traffic from one street to another.  So in ‘compromise’ the city has decided to make traffic worse on two streets.  2) The cost has nearly doubled.  We have always stated that the city needs to be more financially responsible, and now in ‘compromise’ they have increased the cost to over $600,000.00.

Since the release of the plan the League of Bicycling Voters (LOBV) has made some serious accusations to the media about the manner in which this debate has developed.  Specifically they have accused those opposed to the plan of intimidation and harassment.  They have stated that “Threats to a city official”, nasty letters, misinformation printed and spread throughout the area, and threat of lawsuits all have taken their toll.”  These allegations are patently false and have no merit.  There has been nothing put forth to back up these claims.  It seems that they are upset because the business owners and stakeholders on Nueces and Rio Grande actually questioned their project and reasoning, and used their own numbers and statistics to interject some common sense to the process.

If there has been any negative behavior during this process it has come from the cyclists themselves.  We have received hateful emails, personal attacks, and the sign vandalism has escalated to property damage.  We have posted videos and pictures of some of the vandalism on our website keepaustimoving.org.

Now that the plan has been released we are in the process of reviewing the tools put forth and will reserve opinion until we are confident that what is being published is actually what will happen.  The plan is very vague as to what traffic calming devices will be used.  There is also concern that the Bicycle Master Plan states a benchmark as “Resolve parking in all bicycle lanes by 2020.”  Since part of the Nueces/Rio Grande plan is to add bike lanes this is an issue that needs to be addressed.  We will continue to attend the meetings to make sure that our concerns are heard and that we are fully educated on the process and plan as it moves forward.

The following article is dated Monday April 5, 2010 and, as stated by Rob D’Amico himself, the city vetted the project with his group before releasing it to the public. Mr. D’Amico also states that they have been involved in ‘negotiations’ all along. It is clear from this interview done before the plan has even been released that the cyclists have been afforded way more information than the business owners and other stakeholders.

The Austin Chronicle
Bike Boulevard: Dead or Great?
Lee Nichols, Mon April 5, 5:40pm

Tomorrow around 5pm, the city’s Public Works Department is scheduled to announce its recommendation on the proposed Nueces Street Bike Boulevard Project. But one person involved in the project’s negotiations may have killed the suspense: Rob D’Amico of the League of Bicycling Voters says the project is essentially dead.

But the city’s bicycle program coordinator, Annick Beaudet, strongly rejects D’Amico’s characterization and defends what she says will be a great project.

“Tomorrow there’s a staff recommendation coming out on what used to be the Bike Boulevard Project,” D’Amico ruefully told Newsdesk about an hour ago. “First they removed ‘Nueces’ from the name, and now they’ve removed ‘bike.’

“They’ve essentially abandoned the bike boulevard project and they’re going to come out with a staff recommendation that overall is pathetic, but has some good things, too,” D’Amico said.

“That couldn’t be further from the truth,” countered Beaudet. “This staff recommendation is responsive to stakeholder input while still creating an amazing bicycle boulevard, an amazing bicycle facility, to preserve and enhance bicycle mobility. … I am so proud of this recommendation.”

According to D’Amico, most of the traffic calming devices contemplated in the project will be installed on Rio Grande Street instead of Nueces, which Beaudet confirmed. Rio Grande was raised both by some cyclists and bike boulevard opponents as a better option than Nueces, but Nueces was the first choice of city staff and the Rio Grande option was vociferously opposed by LOBV.

As for his preferred Nueces, D’Amico said the staff recommendation will only add colored bike lanes from MLK Boulevard to 13th Street, “sharrows” (lanes that cars and bikes must share) from 13th to Seventh, and then more bike lanes from Seventh to Third.

Beaudet said “enhanced” bike lanes would be a better description, with coloring as a possible means of the enhancement. She also noted that in tomorrow’s press release, the city will highlight receiving an “international engineering award” for its sharrows.

“We’ve been negotiating with them all along and saying this is not acceptable,” D’Amico said. “They vetted it with us and the reaction was not positive. I haven’t met anyone in my circle that likes the idea.”

“I told [Beaudet] … ‘You’re essentially caving in to the argument that we need to preserve auto capacity for development and redevelopment, and by moving to Rio Grande and giving nothing significant on Nueces.’

“They’re coming out with language tomorrow that says, while Nueces was identified as a bike priority street and a bike boulevard, new dynamics looking at redevelopment in the future with Seaholm and all that would not make it compatible, that level of traffic volume would not make it compatible with a bike boulevard, which we disagree with, even without [traffic] diverters, which are not as dead as you might think.’”

Beaudet confirmed that language, but viewed it as a positive, not “caving.” (Many business owners along Nueces, while expressing support for bicycle mobility, worried that discouraging auto traffic would also discourage economic activity and redevelopment.)

“We started with a concept, and we went through this process, and we came out the other end with a better project,” Beaudet said. “I stand behind it.

“We’ve done our job as a bike program to provide good bicycle facilities in this area and we’ve also done our job as planners to serve the public interest in listening to all the other stakeholder issues and concerns and other things going on in that area related to development, related to economic growth, related to a lot of things,” Beaudet said.

“I hate to use this analogy, but there’s a lot of spokes in this wheel,” she added. “What I ask everybody, whatever side you’re on, that you read our report.

“With all due respect, I asked Mr. D’Amico to please reserve any comment until he read the full report, because what it does is it takes all of the issues and things we had to balance and puts them in context to each other.”

We’ll update here and in the print edition after the plan is released to the public.

Thank you to everyone for your increased interest in the Nueces Bicycle Boulevard issue.  As you all know, the businesses along Nueces were not notified of the plans to ‘calm’ traffic until late last year so we are certainly playing catch-up.  Since we first launched the website and petition we have received incredible support vocally and financially, so we thought it was time to give an update to the hundreds of Austinites that have joined out list.

Since the last open house in February we have been researching as much as we can to find out the details and history of this project and how it got started without the approval of the businesses it will directly affect.  Through the open records laws we have requested and reviewed the City’s documents regarding this project.  What we have seen so far is very interesting.  We have found what we believe to be some possible ethics violations, and are researching this further.  It is also very clear that we did not receive all the City’s records, which is a violation of the law.

We have had an independent traffic engineering firm provide an objective review of the Traffic Impact Analysis who identified obvious omissions and holes that would be unacceptable to City Staff if submitted by a private developer and tell us the conclusion, “no appreciable change”, would be rejected as too general in nature and have to be specifically quantified.  Particularly when it impacts a street grid 5 blocks wide and a mile and a quarter long.

We have also received the proposal from the group hired to do the economic impact review and it is unfortunate that the City has again given the consultant a narrow scope of work, and has specifically asked how the bicycle plan will potentially benefit the city, and not how a bicycle boulevard might adversely affect local business access.  Their proposal states that “These analyses will describe the potential benefits and costs associated with excluding a historically vehicular corridor to pedestrian and bicycle traffic.”  Their proposal also states “These types of studies are useful to support public policy, build awareness and community buy-in/goodwill, improve public relations, and provide content for executive speaking.”

The City has also updated their website with the following:

The staff recommendation for this project will come from all of these sources and will be posted on our website on April 6, 2010.

Also, in response to stakeholder input the City of Austin has decided to hire Angelo Economics to perform an economic impact study for the project.

The study will speak directly to this specific project and also to the overall economic effect of a complete bicycle network on the City of Austin. The study is expected to be complete by April 20, 2010.

City staff will present the final staff recommendation and the results of the 2nd Phase Traffic Study and Economic Study at Boards and Commissions and City Council at the following dates:

April 13 – Urban Transportation Commission, Briefing of Staff Recommendation

April 21 – Downtown Commission, Briefing and Possible Action on Staff Recommendation and Economic Study

April 26 – Design Commission, Briefing and Possible Action on Staff Recommendation and Economic Study

April 27 – Planning Commission, Briefing and Possible Action on Staff Recommendation and Economic Study

May 11 – Urban Transportation Commission, Briefing and Possible Action on Staff Recommendation and Economic Study

May 13 – City Council Briefing

Lastly, the vandalism has continued and has escalated to destruction of public property.  This behavior has been caught on tape and turned over to APD and they are investigating.  If this happens to your property, please make sure to contact APD and report it. If you need more signs, please email info@keepaustinmoving.org and we will get more signs to you.

As we know more we will update, but please mark those dates on your calendar as it is very important that the City know how many of you are still opposed to this plan

This recently received memo written in 1994 by City planner Katie Larsen (Ms. Larsen has confirmed validity and accuracy) has raised extreme concerns about the City of Austin’s plans to social engineer us out of our cars.  In fact it is clear that, for over a decade, the City’s plan has been to make it more difficult and more frustrating to drive downtown instead of fixing the problems we encounter on a daily basis.

“Perhaps we do not require surface parking and wait for people to decide to change their driving habits, but instead end the wait and begin actively changing those habits. There are many programs implemented in other cities that are known to impede the natural inclination to just “hop in the car and go”. These programs complement transit service and a reduction in required on-site parking.

On-street parking management programs discourage people to drive to the business and park in the neighborhood. Examples:

Parking Benefit Districts- In the district, metered parking or pay stations are located in the neighborhood and those who want to park on the street must pay (except those visiting residents). On-street parking is discouraged because people will not want to pay. For those that are willing to pay, the income from the meters/pay stations is used only within the neighborhood for sidewalk repair, water/wastewater improvements, drainage improvements, street trees, etc. Thus, the neighborhood controls the on-street parking, and benefits from it.

Residential Permit Programs (which City of Austin does offer)- only cars with resident or visitor permits may park on the street.

Car-sharing (go to www.carsharing.org for more info) is a program that allows an individual to reserve a vehicle for hourly use. The vehicles are stationed in neighborhoods so that residents can just walk to the vehicle and use it when they need to. They are charged for the miles and time in the car. Car-sharing is a program intended to “wean” people off the car- in other words, get used to not walking to the driveway and jumping into their car. Both City of Austin staff and the Planning Commission recognize the importance of car-sharing in beginning this transition away from auto-dependency.

So, we do not have to sit and wait. A combination of programs, like the ones above, and code changes (reduced and maximum parking) will begin the transition and help change people’s decisions about what mode of transportation to take. Capital Metro is doing its part to create an efficient, user-friendly transit system and is doing a great job considering the land use patterns it must function in. I ride it everyday.”

Katie Larsen

If you agree with the editorial written by Susan Harris in today’s Austin American-Statesman please let City Council know by visiting our How to Help page.  You can also contact the Statesman with your support by email to letters@statesman.com, by fax to (512) 912-5927 or by mail to Letters to the Editor, PO Box 670, Austin, Texas  78767.

I cycle for exercise, to enjoy Austin trails and to socialize with like-minded friends. I’m no Lance Armstrong, but I do have some “cycling cred.” I respect cyclists at all level of experience and support the promotion of bicycle safety and commuting in Austin.

The Austin City Council feels the same way, as evidenced by its adoption of the Austin 2009 Bicycle Plan Update in June 2009. The 540-page plan became an ordinance that’s being implemented by city staff; it details proposed actions to transform Austin into a world-class bicycling city. Full implementation of the plan over the next 10 years is estimated to cost $254 million.

Embedded in the plan is the proposed conversion of Nueces Street, from Third Street to MLK Boulevard, into a “bicycle boulevard.” The concept of a bicycle boulevard is to severely limit vehicular traffic capacity to create a calm streetscape where cyclists have priority on and unrestricted use of the road. That type of conversion project is termed a road diet. In the case of Nueces, city staff members have proposed a 70 percent to 90 percent reduction in vehicular traffic capacity.

As a city taxpayer, property owner and business owner, I oppose the proposed conversion because:

• As Austin’s motoring public is demanding relief to traffic congestion, it’s bad public policy to reduce any road’s vehicular carrying capacities.

• Bicycle boulevards are appropriate in primarily residential neighborhoods. To justify the Nueces conversion, the city erroneously characterizes the western sector of downtown as residential in nature, ignoring the fact that 100 percent of the parcels on Nueces, and neighboring streets, have been zoned for commercial use and occupied by commercial businesses for 40 years.

• That area is the next most likely sector of downtown to be transformed to meet Austinite’s desire for a dense mixed-use urban core; reducing vehicular capacity would be is counterproductive and could have a chilling effect on business growth, future redevelopment densities, property values and tax revenues.

• The city did not conduct an economic impact study to determine the effect that a reduction in vehicle capacity would have on the budget or the financial viability of the roughly 130 small businesses located along Nueces.

• The traffic flow works fine, judging by the number of cyclists who successfully share Nueces with vehicles with an exemplary safety record. Why spend tax dollars to fix something that is not broken?

It should not surprise you that a cyclist advocacy group is actively promoting the implementation of the bicycle boulevard. It maintains that the project is about creating a safe place for new and inexperienced riders, families with children, and everyday commuters.

Nueces is a commercial collector street lined with businesses, the county jail and criminal justice complex, and is only accessible by way of downtown’s busiest thoroughfares — Cesar Chavez, West 15th and Guadalupe streets. And no evidence has been presented that new or young riders abound here or desire to cycle downtown.

Advocates of a bicycle boulevard claim it would have symbolic significance, provide a solid foundation for future projects and encourage people to commute by bike. Yet, according to the plan, cyclists comprise less than 1 percent of all citywide commuters. And the city has presented no data that citywide bike commuting has significantly increased after spending roughly $40 million on bicycle infrastructure since 1998.

I am joined in my opposition by thousands of others who believe the city has lost sight of its budgeting priorities, shown complete disrespect for area business and property owners, and disregarded the important role that Nueces plays in downtown mobility. We have united as Austinites for Downtown Mobility and launched www.keepaustinmoving.org to voice our concerns about the ill-conceived project.

Our opposition to and public exposure of this boondoggle has had the absurd effect of causing city staff to seriously consider Rio Grande as an alternative for the bicycle boulevard, as if putting an adjacent street on a road diet and reducing vehicular traffic capacity one block over is somehow the solution.

Mayor Lee Leffingwell and the Austin City Council must realize that reducing vehicular capacity on any commercial collector street in downtown Austin is a bad move. They should back up, reconsider the plan, amend it to remove the bicycle boulevard component on commercial streets and find an alternative solution for cyclists to share the road.

Harris is president of Site Solutions Inc., a commercial real estate brokerage company at West 18th Street and Nueces.

Richard Runde, a supporter of KeepAustinMoving.org, was given an opportunity to speak to the Austin Downtown Lions Club at their weekly luncheon.  During his presentation Mr. Runde brought to light that “Without our knowledge or consent the city of Austin had determined that it was necessary to make major negative changes to the street network serving our business and those of dozens of businesses around us in favor of bicyclists.”  He also mentioned that “The proper role of city government is to create and administer services for its citizens…” and that “Fire, ambulance, police, garbage removal, utilities and a transportation grid are administered by the city and supported through taxation and are meant to serve the people.”  Mr. Runde described in detail how the City of Austin is paying for programs such as the bicycle infrastructure.   He very clearly stated that “our total indebtedness on a per capita basis is greater than the state of California, which is broke, the state of New York, which is broke and the state of Illinois, which is broke.”

The speech given by Mr. Runde did well to let the members of the Lions Club know that, what is happening on Nueces is not just a problem for the businesses on Nueces, but that all taxpayers and voters are “stakeholders” and we should all be concerned with what our city is spending our money on and exactly how much they are spending.

On March 8, 2010 Don Pryor, of KLBJ’s Todd and Don Show, gave his opinion of the city’s plan to spend over $250,000,000 on bicycle infrastructure in Austin and how cyclists use existing bike lanes.

Visit Don Pryor’s blog at 590 KLBJ and let him know if you agree.

Audio file: 590 KLBJ AM’s Don Pryor on Bike Lanes in Austin

Don Pryor, 590 KLBJ AM, on cyclists and bike lanes

The Downtown Bicycle Boulevard’s Final Staff Recommendation has been made. Although this is the final staff recommendation, the document will remain in draft form until the staff receives input through City Boards and Commissions and City Council.

Recommended layout for Downtown Bicycle Boulevard

Click to Enlarge: Downtown Bicycle Blvd Staff Recommendation

Memo to Council to state and explain the final staff recommendation for the Nueces Bicycle Boulevard Capital Improvement Project (CIP)

The purpose of this memorandum is to state and explain the final staff recommendation for the Nueces Bicycle Boulevard Capital Improvement Project (CIP). This staff recommendation represents a solution which is responsive to a wide array of public input and variables; and which maintains the goal of the project. The goal of the project is to preserve and enhance bicycle mobility into, from, and within the downtown area.

Click to Download 6 Page Memo to Council

City of Austin’s Staff documents below include the recommendation and supporting information.

• View the Memo to Council
• View the final report
• View the recommended layout
• View the Steering Committee Report

By: Ben Wear, Austin American Statesman
Updated: Monday, February 22, 2010, 11:49 AM

The simmering dispute over turning Nueces Street or Rio Grande Street into a “bicycle boulevard” downtown has an official new player, Austinites for Downtown Mobility. The group is “circulating” an electronic petition on keepaustinmoving.org.

The formation of the group comes just before the City of Austin’s third and presumably final public forum on the boulevard concept. The forum will be at 6 p.m. Wednesday at Pease Elementary School. The city had said previously that the forum will include results from a traffic analysis of Nueces.

The idea of making Nueces something of a bicycle haven was included in a citywide bicycle master plan approved by the Austin City Council. However, that plan did not include details of what sort of changes might be made on Nueces to slow down or reduce traffic and thus make it more commodius for cyclists.

Business owners along Nueces, who says they were not notified last year before the council vote that such a change was in the works, have grown increasing restive over the past three months at what they say would hurt their businesses. In addition, property owners are concerned that cutting vehicle traffic and/or parking would lower their property values in the long term.

Cycling enthusiasts argue that having a bike boulevard could instead increase property values.

City officials, meanwhile, have guaranteed that southbound traffic will not be restricted, and say that a recommended set of changes won’t be unveiled until at least April. And they have offered Rio Grande, one block to the west, as an alternative. However, Rob D’Amico with the League of Bicycling Voters, which supports the boulevard concept, has said Rio Grande would not be an acceptable alternative because it is much hillier than Nueces.

This article can be found at the American Statesman: ‘Bike boulevard foes form opposition group’