Ray La Hood (@RayLaHood) and Social Media. A Secretary of Transportation that is with the changes in media and has quite the following. What do you think?

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood is charging ahead in his political career

By Ashley Halsey III
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, June 30, 2010

There is a pause to ponder in almost every interview, a hiccup in the stream of words, a groping for just the right phrase, and then it emerges: "With Ray, what you see is what you get."

Photo Courtesy of the New York Times - by Christian Oth

He has worked for three decades in Washington, capital of spin, of parsing, of nuance, of cunning, of backstabbing intrigue, where half-truths are too common to refute and many a flat-out lie goes without rebuke.

Amid all of that, Ray LaHood, the most out-there secretary of transportation in history, is that rare mammal in modern Washington: a regular guy. He says what he thinks, does what he says and clearly loves what he's doing.

Were he 34 instead of 64, he'd be pegged as an overachiever bubbling with ambition to catapult himself onto the national ticket. But these days he has more grandchildren than political ambition, and his politics -- conservative but pragmatic, savvy but civil -- aren't fashionable in the polarized savagery of the national debate.

So how did LaHood transform what Jon Stewart on "The Daily Show" called the "least glamorous" Cabinet position into hobnobbing with Jordin Sparks and Oprah Winfrey?

"Lookit," he says with a shrug, "the president asked me to do a job, so I'm doing it."

Doing the job has meant globe-trotting to check out trains in China and Toyotas in Japan and to have meetings in Moscow. At home there are just two kinds of states: those where he's been to spread his gospel of safety and to inspect transportation systems, and those states that he plans to visit soon.

But his public face plays most frequently against a backdrop of Washington: The Potomac is his setting to denounce drunken driving; there he is outside a D.C. police station to plead for safe holiday-season driving; he's surrounded by local cops while pushing the "click-it-or-ticket" campaign; he's joining high school students in Union Station who pledge not to text behind the wheel; and he's standing on a table at a Capitol Hill gathering of cyclists to emphasize that federal transportation policy now includes pedal pushers.

Full Story

Follow Ray LaHood:
http://twitter.com/RayLaHood
http://www.facebook.com/sec.lahood?ref=ts

Questions and answers from the New York Times with La Hood here.

The Gallop Poll answers the question "Who do you trust?": The Executive Branch of Gov't. is #1. What do you think?

This week we want to highlight Austin’s most trusted sources of information. Each day we will ask about different possible sources of information and delve deeper into the topic of social media + info/news reporting.


GALLOP: Who Do You Trust?

In search of the most trusted person in America: Walter Cronkite, Fox News, & Jon Stewart

Walter Cronkite was called “The most trusted man in America” during his 2009 Eulogy.


Fox News claims to be “The most trusted name in News.”


A Time Magazine 2009 poll claims, “Jon Stewart has emerged as America’s most trusted news anchor.”

Who do you trust? #snappatx


FRIDAY, 24 JULY 2009 14:38
BY RICHARD A. LEE
THE HALL INSTITUTE - COMMENTARY

AP Photo

After Walter Cronkite passed away last week, I started wondering who would succeed the former CBS Evening News anchor as the most trusted man in America – a label that evolved from a 1980 magazine poll and stuck with him until his death.

In today's environment, it is hard to imagine that any journalist would be regarded as the most trusted person in America. We live in a polarized nation: The left criticizes the right, the right criticizes the left, and both sides blame the press as often as possible.

***

"The public retained a deep skepticism about what they see, hear and read in the media. No major news outlet – broadcast or cable, print or online – stood out as particularly credible. There was no indication that Americans altered their fundamental judgment that the news media are politically biased, that stories are often inaccurate and that journalists do not care about the people they report on."

If the PEW study's assessment of public opinion about the media is accurate, then the most trusted person in America today is not likely to be found in the world of journalism. Where then will we find him or her?

Full Story

The Next Steps for Urban Rail : Alignment Options. What's your take?

From the new Central Austin Transit Study, Chapter 6 - The Locally Preferred Alternative
 
East CBD – Congress Avenue vs. Brazos Street
One issue involves the designation of a core alignment through the east side of downtown. This study
recommends that Congress Avenue, rather than Brazos Street, be used for the primary Urban Rail
alignment on the east side of downtown.

Lady Bird Lake Crossing – Existing Bridge vs. New Bridge
A key issue is where should the crossing of Lady Bird Lake (LBL) take place – should Urban Rail cross on one of the existing bridges, Congress Avenue or South 1st Street, or on a new bridge within this vicinity. This study has looked at one option for a new structure and recommends additional study of both the ability of the existing bridges to accommodate Urban Rail and additional new alignments across LBL. This issue will be evaluated in detail through a NEPA environmental process planned for 2010‐2011.

Maintenance Facility Options
Given the likelihood that an initial investment segment for Urban Rail will center around the downtown area, property is being sought to accommodate a maintenance facility in the immediate vicinity. Acquiring or developing any property in the CBD can be costly; therefore the City of Austin is reviewing existing city‐owned properties to redevelop with a maintenance facility. A possible option for a near‐downtown city –owned property is One Texas Center, on Barton Springs Rd. It is advised that additional study be conducted to provide a final recommendation.

The Next Steps Toward Urban Rail System Implementation
The next step in the program development process is for the City Council to adopt a Locally Preferred
Alternative (LPA) recommendation. This step will also designate the LPA as a project for a more detailed environmental study to begin in the Fall 2010.. As part of the environmental study, the City will identify a lead federal agency, publish a notice of intent (NOI), and begin additional public outreach and project development, including capital and operations funding plans, operations and governance strategies, and system phasing; as well as resolution of the design issues noted above for further consideration. Ultimately, it is anticipated that voters will decide in a bond election whether to fund an initial phase of the Urban Rail system.

Austin Transportation Department presented their Urban Rail Alternatives Evaluation to the Austin City Council. This is the first phase of an ongoing planning effort to explore Austin's options for a rail system serving key urban destinations and adding connections to the regional transit and mobility network. All week we will be exploring and want to hear your thoughts about this study. Be heard!

The Recommended Locally Preferred Alternative: Length, Cost, Ridership, Plan. What do you think?

From the new Central Austin Transit Study, Chapter 6 - The Locally Preferred Alternative

As a result of the conceptual and detailed evaluations, the recommended Locally Preferred Alternative
(LPA) is Urban Rail, serving the Austin core (CBD, Capitol Complex, University of Texas,) Mueller
Neighborhood, East Riverside Corridor, and Austin Bergstrom International Airport (ABIA).

Length: 33.8 track miles, 16.5 route miles

Capital Cost: $955 million in first quarter 2010 dollars or $1.3 billion in year‐of expenditure (YoE) dollars* at $37.2 million YoE per track mile.

Operations Cost: Approximately $25 million YoE per year.

Ridership: Average weekday ridership projected to be approximately 27,600 by 2030.

Operations Plan: Two crossing routes (6.5 and 10 route miles each), with 10‐minute peak/off‐peak headways, using 27 vehicles (plus 2 spares), with service 16 hours a day/5 days a week and reduced service on weekends and holidays.

Travel Time: Approximately 32 – 33 minutes from end‐to‐end for both routes.

Austin Transportation Department presented their Urban Rail Alternatives Evaluation to the Austin City Council. This is the first phase of an ongoing planning effort to explore Austin's options for a rail system serving key urban destinations and adding connections to the regional transit and mobility network. All week we will be exploring and want to hear your thoughts about this study. Be heard!

What about the option not to build a streetcar or Better Bus? How will the streets be maintained? "The 'no-build' alternative". What do you think?

The "No Build Alternative":

All elements of the No‐Build alternative are part of each of the other alternatives, except where an alternative replaces existing services or facilities in the study area. Under the No‐Build alternative, existing transit services in the Manor Road, University Area, Capitol Complex, Downtown, and East Riverside corridors are assumed to remain much as they are today. For instance, UT shuttles now serving the student housing along East Riverside would continue to operate and expand in order to keep pace with growth in student populations.

No‐Build assumes Capital Metro’s current investments in Rapid Bus and other emerging express transit routes would be implemented, with MetroRapid in the North Lamar/South Congress corridor coming online in mid‐2012. Under the Capital Metro ServicePlan2020, existing bus services will continue and will be adjusted to match rider demand and changing travel patterns, in addition to integration with other new transit modes to be introduced as part of the plan. Another planned transit service within the study area is the Lone Star Rail District's LSTAR regional rail service along the Union Pacific Railroad/MoPac corridor. Inclusion of this transit investment is consistent with the CAMPO 2035 Plan.


Existing Services

Nearly every type of transit service currently offered by Capital Metro operates within the study area boundaries:

•  Local Service Routes: These buses provide multiple stop service to and from downtown, serving specific neighborhoods and areas of the community with frequent stops.
•  Limited and Flyer Routes: These routes provide limited‐stop service to and from neighborhoods and downtown. Limited Routes, as the name suggests, stop less frequently than local routes to move people with less delays between key origins and destinations. Flyer Routes offer direct service between residential neighborhoods and the UT Main Campus or Downtown Austin and ABIA (through the Airport Flyer).
•  UT Shuttle Routes: The shuttles provide limited‐stop service from student living centers and the UT Main Campus, with a comprehensive schedule of service between several Austin neighborhoods and the campus. The UT Shuttle System is the largest university shuttle system in the United States, with 16 routes and over 7.5 million passengers annually and has been in service for more than 40 years. This service provided by Capital Metro is subsidized by UT.
•  Express Routes: Express buses provide limited‐stop service to and from UT, Downtown, and nine park‐and‐ride facilities located in outlying portions of the CMTA Service Area (none are located in the study area).
•  Cross‐Town Routes: Cross‐town bus routes provide direct, multiple‐stop services in all directions that do not directly access downtown.
•  AISD Magnet Route: Capital Metro provides service to Austin Independent School District (AISD) students enrolled in the Magnet Arts and Sciences Program at Kealing Middle School (located in the study area) and LBJ High School.
•  MetroRail Red Line Service: MetroRail Red Line service opened in March 2010. Operating on Capital Metro’s existing freight tracks, this line from Leander to downtown provides commuter rail service to both suburban and downtown passengers. The system includes nine stations, eight within the City of Austin. The passenger rail vehicles are diesel multiple units (DMU).

Planned Services

The planned improvements in Capital Metro service are assumed for all three investment alternatives and include elements of the 2004 All Systems Go Long‐Range Transit Plan, the recently adopted ServicePlan2020, and LSTAR regional rail service, as noted above. Planned Capital Metro transit improvements in the study area include.

•  MetroRapid Bus Service: New, technologically advanced buses will use a traffic signal priority system to move buses with less delay throughout Austin. This service will significantly improve bus commutes between major residential and employment origins and destinations. These vehicles will also provide real‐time arrival information. The system will include a starter line from North Lamar Boulevard to South Congress Avenue, scheduled for initial operations in 2012. A second line is planned for Burnet Road to South Lamar Boulevard. Extensions may include but are not limited to: Riverside Drive, East 7th Street/Austin‐Bergstrom International Airport, Oltorf Street, Pleasant Valley Road, 51st Street, Northeast Austin, Mueller redevelopment site, Rundberg Lane, Research Boulevard, Parmer Lane, Ben White Boulevard, and Oak Hill. Inclusion of these service lines is consistent with the CAMPO 2035 Plan.
•  Commuter/Express and Local Service1
•  Frequent Service Corridors: Implement a network of frequent bus routes throughout the urbanized area. Frequent Service Corridors can either be MetroRapid routes, or regular fixed routes.
•  Downtown Austin: Improve speed and reliability and customer amenities; consolidate routes on main corridors and reduce the number of bus stops.
•  East Austin: Improve frequency on several routes; improve route directness; use flexible service in low‐density areas; provide direct service from East Austin to the South Congress Transit Center; improve connectivity to Cross Park and Rutherford areas.
• West Austin: Consolidate UT and regular fixed routes into two full‐time routes; the Lake Austin route should operate as a “Frequent Service Route” year‐round; replace fixed‐route bus service with flexible service in several lower density neighborhoods.
•  North Central Austin: Improve directness and frequency of trips to the Cameron and St. John’s areas and Rutherford shopping; improve directness to East Austin.
•  North Austin: Consolidate several feeder routes into a cross‐town route; delete service to low ridership areas; adjust commuter services commensurate with demand once the Red Line begins.
•  South Central Austin: Delete service from underperforming neighborhood routes; improve connectivity and frequency from South Congress Transit Center to East Austin and Barton Creek Square Mall.
•  South Austin: Shift the focal point of service in South Austin from Bluff Springs to Southpark Meadows and extend South Austin routes to more destinations.
•  Southeast: Improve frequency and directness between downtown, Riverside and ABIA. Provide a direct connection to Ben White Boulevard and the South Congress Transit Center.
•  Southwest Austin: Increase park‐and‐ride service in the SH 71 West and South Loop 1 (Mopac) corridors; reduce the level of local bus service in some neighborhoods; extend service further south to serve new development.
•  University of Texas: Utilize existing regular service routes to supplement or replace UT Shuttles; adjust frequencies by day based on demand.
•  Mueller Redevelopment Area: In the short‐term, connect the high density residential areas along Mueller and Aldrich directly to downtown and UT; in the next ten years, connect Mueller with downtown and UT via a MetroRapid corridor.
• New Commuter Service: Add commuter service from the east, south, and southwest; add regional park‐and‐rides in Manor, the I‐35 South corridor, south Mopac, and in the SH 71 West corridors.
• New Flexible Service: A Tarrytown Flexible Service route should replace three existing fixed‐ routes; a Decker – Springdale route should serve areas of East Austin; and a Riata – Millwood – Domain route should connect residential and commercial areas of Northwest Austin with the Domain and Kramer Station.
• Rails with Trails: Capital Metro is working with local biking organizations to provide access to right‐of‐way along existing Capital Metro tracks to build safe and accessible hike‐and‐bike trails. Funding sources to construct the trails have not been determined but could be provided by federal grants and other existing local agency programs.
• MetroRail Green Line Service: The Green Line is proposed as the first expansion of Capital Metro's MetroRail system. This 28‐mile system would operate from downtown Austin east to Manor and Elgin. Any future extensions would require detailed analysis and a referendum, under current state law. Inclusion of the MetroRail Green Line Service is consistent with the CAMPO 2035 Plan.
• LSTAR Regional Rail Service: The Lone Star Rail District (LSRD) is planning regional rail service between Georgetown, TX (to the north of Austin) and San Antonio, TX (to the south of Austin). The proposed 120‐mile route will utilize existing Union Pacific right‐of‐way and run up to 12 trains a day through up to 16 stations, with five slated for Austin, including one at Seaholm on the proposed transit investment alignment. Inclusion of this rail service is consistent with the CAMPO 2035 Plan.

Exploring 2 alternatives: "Better Bus" vs. Urban Rail - Which do you think suits Austin's needs better?

From the new Central Austin Transit Study - Chapter 5: Investment Definition and Evaluation


Defintion of "Better Bus":

Better Bus technology offers enhanced convenience to passengers by incorporating a variety of features distinguishing it from conventional bus, including, for example, employment of intelligent transportation system (ITS) technologies and other
priority measures to minimize travel delay, use of special stops or stations to distinguish the service and add visibility (prominence) to the route, and the use of special, distinctive vehicles, possibly with added passenger amenities.

Better Bus vehicles may be technologically advanced buses using a traffic signal priority (TSP) system to move with less delay through traffic. This modal alternative would also employ other ITS technologies, such as off‐board fare collection, also known as 'honor system', and would stop curbside approximately every three blocks. The Better Bus alternative may use rapid loading features incorporated into the vehicle design. Unlike Urban Rail, Better Bus does not include a dedicated right‐of‐way, though like Urban Rail it could include a transit‐only lane for portions of the alignment.

Because this alternative still uses the bus as the basic mode of transportation, improving the level of service by the introduction of new operating scenarios and/or enhancement technologies, this alternative is considered the FTA Transportation Systems Management (TSM) alternative. Under FTA's New Starts program, a TSM alternative is used for a baseline for comparison against the proposed guideway alternative at the preliminary engineering phase. The TSM alternative is characterized as the "best that can be done" to improve transit service in the corridor via operational modifications and lower‐cost capital improvements, without constructing a new transit guideway.


The Urban Rail Alternative:

Urban Rail is the City of Austin’s term for an overhead‐electric‐ powered fixed‐guideway service that blends the technological and operational characteristics of modern streetcar and light rail transit (LRT). Urban Rail can operate in both mixed‐traffic and within a dedicated right‐of‐way. When operating in a mixed‐flow environment, Urban Rail vehicles typically operate at speeds comparable to surrounding traffic. However, within a dense urban environment and when provided with dedicated right‐of‐way, Urban Rail vehicles can provide operational characteristics comparable to that of light rail. Urban Rail vehicles range from the “modern streetcar” currently used in Seattle, Portland, and Tacoma (approximately 66 feet long with a total passenger capacity up to 120, with a top speed of approximately 45 miles per hour) to new cross‐over vehicles such as the S70 Ultra Short proposed for use in Salt Lake City.

that is approximately 79 feet long with a total passenger capacity of 160 and a top speed approaching 60 miles per hour. Urban Rail vehicles can be designed to operate in multi‐vehicle trains, if needed. In addition, alternative power modes such as batteries are under development by some manufacturers and warrant further investigation as an alternative to a system powered completely by overhead electric wires.

The Urban Rail alternative is proposed to include both exclusive right‐of‐way and mixed flow operations. Urban Rail vehicles would operate in mixed traffic (with automobiles) in more congested urban areas such as downtown where extra ROW for independent guide way is scarce. In the Riverside Corridor, where street rights‐of‐way are typically wider, there is generally sufficient room to create a semi‐exclusive or dedicated right‐of‐way by widening the overall street to the outside to provide replacement auto capacity for those lanes converted for transit use.

The Urban Rail alternative generally consists of two sets of tracks – one set in each direction. In many areas, where streetcar‐like mixed‐flow operations are proposed, curbside tracks would be employed and stops would use existing or expanded sidewalks. In areas where LRT‐like dedicated or semi‐exclusive rights‐of‐way are proposed, a center‐running system could be used. Placement of tracks in the center of streets would entail use of narrow side‐platform or center‐platform stops, which could reduce the street width available for traffic in some locations. Under streetcar‐like operations, Urban Rail stops would be spaced approximately every two to four blocks; whereas under LRT‐like service, stops would be placed generally every 1⁄4 to 1⁄2 mile. These rapid service stops would be strategically located and consistent with neighborhood plans to maximize ridership generation, connection to cross transit routes, and efficiency of the system. Urban Rail would incorporate similar features and amenities to the Better Bus alternative, like off‐board fare collection and ITS technologies, such as signal priority (TSP) and queue jump3, as well as additional enhancements, like level boarding.

Austin Transportation Department presented their Urban Rail Alternatives Evaluation to the Austin City Council. This is the first phase of an ongoing planning effort to explore Austin's options for a rail system serving key urban destinations and adding connections to the regional transit and mobility network. All week we will be exploring and want to hear your thoughts about this study. Be heard!

The City believes that an "in-street" non-reserved guideway for urban rail is the best placement option. What do you think?

From the new Central Austin Transit Study, Chapter 4 - Technology Definition and Information

There are four basic transit guideway types, as shown in the above graphic:

• Elevated Reserved
• In‐Street Non‐Reserved
• In‐Street Reserved
• Tunnel Reserved

From a strictly mobility perspective, the ideal guideway is entirely separated from other traffic, physical obstructions, and the weather, providing the most reliable, safe, fast, and efficient transit service.

Tunnel reserved right‐of‐way meets these criteria and can offer significant mobility benefits beyond those of other guideway types. However, the extremely high cost for such exclusivity makes this option nearly prohibitive to deploy in most cases.
To a lesser degree, elevated reserved guideway provides many of the same mobility benefits, but is subject to physical obstructions, like buildings and trees, and
the weather, and is still very expensive.

The costs for grade‐separated, reserved guideway are about two‐ to three‐times more expensive for elevated than surface transit. Tunnels are typically two‐ to three‐times more expensive than are elevated. Both grade‐separated options would encounter major design hurdles along the recommended alignment at the two crossings of I‐35, where the multi‐level highway presents physical obstructions that would likely require costly work‐arounds. Tunnel guideway would have to contend with crossing under both the depressed Dean Keeton Street at I‐35 and the depressed I‐35 main lanes at East Riverside Street, along with Lady Bird Lake.

On the other hand, elevated guideway would have to go over the current aerial section of I‐35 at Dean Keeton Street. Elevated guideway would also present a considerable visual obstruction and may not even be attainable within Capitol View Corridors. At‐grade guideways, both reserved and non‐reserved, offer much lower costs and improved access (no stairs, escalators, or elevators) over grade‐separated types. While reserved right‐of‐way can offer better reliability, options for obtaining it within the identified corridor exist only excess right‐of‐way exists or where parking can reasonably be removed.

Acquiring entirely new right‐of‐way corridors, or expanding existing ones within Central Austin, would be prohibitively expensive in terms of property costs, legal proceedings, and social costs associated with the necessary displacements. However, where reserved right‐of‐way is available within the study area (along East Riverside Street and around ABIA property), it is recommended that the proposed vehicle be able to take advantage of it.

Another hybrid guideway type is semi‐exclusive, or semi‐reserved, in which the guideway takes the form of a designated travel lane without a physical barrier or separation. Semi‐exclusive guideway offers reliability benefits because the transit service is in its 'own' lane and is less disruptive to the right‐of‐way since it fits within it. But, semi‐exclusive reduces the auto capacity of the roadway, which may not be desirable along some segments. Therefore, in‐street non‐reserved guideway is the most appropriate option for Central Austin because it is least expensive and least disruptive.


Austin Transportation Department presented their Urban Rail Alternatives Evaluation to the Austin City Council. This is the first phase of an ongoing planning effort to explore Austin's options for a rail system serving key urban destinations and adding connections to the regional transit and mobility network. All week we will be exploring and want to hear your thoughts about this study. Be heard!

10 Reasons to Love a Streetcar. The 'streetcar effect' – offering Austinites far more than a free ride. Do you agree?

BY KATHERINE GREGOR
Austin Chronicle
JULY 20, 2007


1.  Streetcar systems shape a city – positively.

Well-conceived streetcars do much more for a city besides move people from point A to point B. As fixed-rail transit, they uniquely shape urban land-use, development, and growth patterns. The "streetcar effect" serves to stimulate desirable development along the line. In fact, streetcar lines shaped how most American cities (including Austin) developed in the early 1900s.

A streetcar system's power to affect land-use patterns will never be shared by buses; the public investment in streetcar rails along a fixed route is an assurance of permanence. Developers and investors need to mitigate risk; they get no help from a bus route, which could move or disappear overnight. Emerging data from numerous U.S. cities show that developers will vigorously invest in compact, high-density development along a streetcar line, almost from the moment that it's confirmed.




2.  Streetcars are tools that promote compact, walkable, people-friendly places.
 
Streetcars help create the kinds of streetscapes where people want to walk, bike, shop, and hang out in a neighborhood. With their frequent stops and supportive effect on storefront shops and cafes, they excel at shaping lively and appealing "people places."

Streetcars also are proving themselves as popular image-makers for rising neighborhoods: As an amenity, a streetcar makes a neighborhood more desirable to live, shop, and get around in. Known as a "pedestrian accelerator," the streetcar encourages outings that are part walking, part streetcar ride. Streetcars shaped the older neighborhoods (like Austin's Hyde Park) that we now celebrate for being handsome, walkable, mixed-use, and human-scaled. These central-city neighborhoods remain popular because people are drawn to diverse, interesting areas where they can walk to destinations.

New transit-oriented development can be required to include livable-city amenities such as affordable housing, public open space, desired redevelopment, high-quality urban design, and public art. (TOD planning is ongoing in Austin for MetroRail stops and would occur around the streetcar line as well.) When backed by intelligent planning and policy, a positive place-making effect becomes a positive tool for shaping the kind of city we all want.

3.  People like to ride streetcars.

Mass transit will only work if people choose to use it. Getting people out of their cars requires enticing "choice riders" – people who own a car but choose to use transit instead. Everyone knows it, so let's say it: Buses lack sex appeal and yuppie appeal. In our image-conscious culture, who wants to ride the bus? Yet in cities around the world, people love taking the streetcar. Maybe it's our happy association with the choo-choo trains of childhood – whatever, it works.

Both affluent and working-class folks are attracted to the streetcar's image of comfort, convenience, and charm. The ride is smoother, quieter, more comfortable – and somehow more upscale. Recruiting white-collar transit users is tough in Texas; a streetcar is the "breakthrough" ride that can change attitudes. (Of course, downtowns also want to attract the disposable-income set – as consumers of entertainment and shopping.) Plus, like developers, we're all reassured by the permanence of rails in the ground. People don't mind standing at a trackside stop for 10 minutes, because they feel confident that the streetcar will come – even without seeing a schedule or route map. Other American cities recently have replaced bus lines with streetcar lines on the same route, then documented their power to attract many more riders.

4.  A streetcar entices people to ride regional rail.

As circulator transit, a streetcar system typically serves just a few miles in the central city. (Cap Metro's current recommended alignment for Austin, at 6.7 miles, is fairly long.) An interfacing streetcar system provides the critical "last mile" connection for riders on regional commuter rail (such as the 32-mile MetroRail Red Line from Leander that opens in Austin in late 2008).

Commuters will only switch to transit if they are delivered to their final destination – within a couple of blocks. Failing to provide that "last mile" transport can doom an entire regional rail system. If far-flung suburbanites hate the bus, and their offices are too far to walk from the last rail or rapid-bus stop, then they'll just keep driving, however long their commutes.

In Austin, the new MetroRail Red Line currently plans to deposit its suburban commuters at the Convention Center. Then what? (ROMA urban designer Jim Adams has suggested – only half-joking – that Cap Metro should meet the first year of commuters at the MetroRail station with hired limos, to take them to work and keep them using the train.) The proposed streetcar line would scoop up those commuters, carry them across Downtown and at least up Congress Avenue. If the entire proposed route up through the UT campus and out to Mueller is built, it effectively will link regional rail into much of Central Austin.

Folks who have good experiences taking the streetcar become open to using other transit. In this way, streetcars can help build ridership (and voter support) for expanded regional rail and rapid-bus systems.




5.  Streetcars are green transportation.

All the enviro-reasons that mass transit is preferable to cars – for clean air quality, for environmental sustainability, for climate protection – apply equally to streetcars. Because streetcars promote 1) high-density, compact development instead of sprawl and 2) regional transit use, they pack a far stronger sustainability punch than their short routes suggest. As an incentive for patterns of sustainable growth, a streetcar fits neatly within the Envision Central Texas goals being increasingly embraced by regional governments and organizations.

Every transit user is one less car on the road, which helps reduce traffic congestion and emissions. Streetcars run on electricity, not gasoline and emit no exhaust. In fact, some cities have tapped federal programs for reducing traffic congestion and emissions to help fund new streetcar systems.

6.  Streetcars attract tourists, conventioneers, and visiting grandchildren as fun "transportainment."

7.  Where streetcars go, private development follows.


8.  By generating new value and revenues, a streetcar system can pay for itself.


9.  Streetcars are much less expensive than light-rail.


10.  Streetcars can be historic and charming – or sleek and modern. 

Full Story

Austin Transportation Department presented their Urban Rail Alternatives Evaluation to the Austin City Council. This is the first phase of an ongoing planning effort to explore Austin's options for a rail system serving key urban destinations and adding connections to the regional transit and mobility network. All week we will be exploring and want to hear your thoughts about this study. Be heard!

Expanded 'urban rail' would run through downtown on both sides of Capitol Route across the river not yet determined in revised plan being presented to City Council. What do you think?

By Ben Wear
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Wednesday, Feb. 24, 2010

Downtown Austin would have two north-south passenger rail corridors, a more expansive network than previously envisioned, under a recommendation that City of Austin staff will present today to the Austin City Council.

The proposed rail system — which would be in addition to Capital Metro's commuter rail line scheduled to open next month — would link the Mueller development in East Austin to the University of Texas to downtown to the airport.

One route would run north on Lavaca Street and south on Guadalupe Street and another north and south along Congress Avenue and San Jacinto Boulevard. The two corridors would be linked at Fourth, 17th and 18th streets.

A single rail line would cross Lady Bird Lake between South First Street and a point several blocks east of Congress Avenue, but the city is not ready to recommend a specific crossing route.

The rail plan includes about 40 more blocks of streetcar or light rail tracks than versions of the plan circulated over the past several years — including a line on San Antonio Street west of the UT campus.
A related bond issue could go to voters as early as November, but city Transportation Director Robert Spillar said a new — and likely much higher — cost estimate is not yet ready.

Spillar said the city wants to avoid downtown rail gridlock of the sort Dallas is now experiencing, with several rail routes converging on a single line. Spillar said it is easy to envision a future rail system with legs going north on North Lamar Boulevard, northeast toward Hancock Center, south on South Congress Avenue and southwest along South Lamar Boulevard, each with several trains an hour arriving in the central business district.

"That was the real ah-ha moment we had," Spillar said. "We need to make sure we have the capacity downtown to handle all of a future system."


Full Story

Austin Transportation Department presented their Urban Rail Alternatives Evaluation to the Austin City Council. This is the first phase of an ongoing planning effort to explore Austin's options for a rail system serving key urban destinations and adding connections to the regional transit and mobility network. All week we will be exploring and want to hear your thoughts about this study. Be heard!

The Purpose for a Transit Investment according to the Urban Rail Alternatives Evaluation. Do you agree?

Austin Transportation Department presented their Urban Rail Alternatives Evaluation to the Austin City Council. This is the first phase of an ongoing planning effort to explore Austin's options for a rail system serving key urban destinations and adding connections to the regional transit and mobility network. All week we will be exploring and want to hear your thoughts about this study. Be heard!

The Purpose for a Transit Investment :

•  Improve connections between key existing and emerging destinations
•  Improve the regional transportation network by providing connections among transit modes
•  Increase the person‐moving capacity of the transportation network with a new higher‐capacity option.
•  Provide benefits to the community by supporting sustainable land use planning, adding public amenities, and improving access to destinations.
•  Invest in transit improvements with the greatest benefits to the built and natural environments
•  Invest in transit improvements that support existing economies, catalyze economic growth, and provide economic benefits for users

Making Transportation Smarter – Introduction

Day 2 of our Urban Rail Alternatives Evaluation series: The Need for a Transit Investment

Austin is at the heart of the rapidly growing Central Texas Region. Central Austin’s existing transportation network is at capacity during peak hours and there are few opportunities to expand roadways, yet Austin’s continued social, environmental, and economic vitality depend on mobility. Doing nothing threatens our quality of life.


Ann Richards - Growth is an Expensive Proposition




Austin Transportation Department presented their Urban Rail Alternatives Evaluation to the Austin City Council. This is the first phase of an ongoing planning effort to explore Austin's options for a rail system serving key urban destinations and adding connections to the regional transit and mobility network. All week we will be exploring and want to hear your thoughts about this study. Be heard!

This week's topic: The new Urban Rail Alternatives Evaluation: 1st phase of exploring options for an urban rail system

Austin Transportation Department presented their Urban Rail Alternatives Evaluation to the Austin City Council. This is the first phase of an ongoing planning effort to explore Austin's options for a rail system serving key urban destinations and adding connections to the regional transit and mobility network.

The evaluation looks at:
• Need and Purpose
• Routes
• Transit Options (bus, rapid bus, and rail)
• Return on Investment
• Preferred Alternative
• Other Implementation Issues

The purpose of a new transit investment is to improve mobility, connectivity, and the sustainability of Central Austin.

New higher‐capacity transit service can offer a safe, reliable, and efficient alternative to existing traffic congestion; to relieve roadways with little room for expansion. By connecting Downtown, the Capitol Complex, and the University of Texas to each other via the emerging regional rail network, new added transit can improve mobility and help manage Austin's inevitable growth.

Read More: All 6 topics and their respective studies. #snappatx will be breaking down the Urban Rail Alternatives Evaluation study all week and asking you questions about the outcomes. Be heard. Tell us what you think on Facebook and Twitter.

A 4-minute taste of Portland, Oregon with some peppy music!

Everyone is going on summer vacations and #SNAPPatx wants in on the fun. We are embarking on our own virtual travels this week. Join us! You can read more about our travels at http://snappatx.org/learn.html

Houston Mayor, Anise Parker on Metro: Riders come first - Ending fares, reshaping role to improve agency are on the table. What do you think?

Everyone is going on summer vacations and #SNAPPatx wants in on the fun. We are embarking on our own virtual travels this week. Join us! You can read more about our travels at http://snappatx.org/learn.html

By MIKE SNYDER
HOUSTON CHRONICLE
Feb. 8, 2010

As Mayor Annise Parker awaits reports from transition committees studying the Metropolitan Transit Authority, fundamental questions loom about how the agency should deliver and pay for services and its role in shaping regional growth and development.

Parker has signaled that she is not wedded to conventional wisdom about Metro, even suggesting eliminating fares to increase lagging ridership. While acknowledging that Metro would have to cope with the loss of fare revenues — $66 million in 2009, about 20 percent of its expenses — she said it is a discussion the agency needs to have.

The mayor, who appoints five of the nine members of Metro's board, said she envisions a seamless network of transportation services that move people efficiently throughout the eight-county Houston region.

“The goal should be, wherever you get on our ultimate mass transit system, from commuter rail, to light rail, to bus, you get one ticket, you go anywhere in the region,” Parker said.

***

Those who depend on public transportation should receive priority in Metro's planning, Parker said.

“I've been concerned that Metro has been drawing the line in the wrong place,” Parker said. “They're too concerned with the bottom line and not concerned enough that their job is to provide transit to people who really don't have any other option.”

Metro says its operating ratio — the share of its costs covered by fare collections — has increased from 17 percent in 2005 to an estimated 21 percent this year, still well below the national average of 33 percent. 

Eliminating fares, of course, would make cost-benefit analysis meaningless, since every route would be fully subsidized. But allowing passengers to ride for free might attract enough riders to reduce congestion for drivers and produce other benefits, Parker said.

“I don't really care so much what they collect at the fare box,” the mayor said. “I'm not going to tell them to do this, but I am personally interested in exploring — unless we're leveraging those dollars in some ways for other kinds of matches — dropping the fares to get more people on board.”

Metro spokesman George Smalley said the agency offered free rides on its downtown trolley service from 1998 to 2004, but use of the service never exceeded more than about 11,000 daily boardings. Metro later discontinued the service.

Metro has opened its books to members of Parker's transition committees, to ensure that she has the information she needs to decide whether dropping fares is a good idea.

Full Article

Going Green with Houston Tomorrow - A look into Houston's future. What do you think?

Everyone is going on summer vacations and #SNAPPatx wants in on the fun. We are embarking on our own virtual travels this week. Join us! You can read more about our travels at http://snappatx.org/learn.html

A travel video for Houston. Is it really a vacation spot?

Everyone is going on summer vacations and #SNAPPatx wants in on the fun. We are embarking on our own virtual travels this week. Join us! You can read more about our travels at http://snappatx.org/learn.html

Arlington and Smart Growth - Dive right into its planning history and into its future.

Everyone is going on summer vacations and #SNAPPatx wants in on the fun. We are embarking on our own virtual travels this week. Join us! You can read more about our travels at http://snappatx.org/learn.html

How did smart growth start in Arington, Virginia?

Making transit a tool for transition. Neighborhood activists make planning better to end up with revitalized neighborhoods, vibrant retail/commercial centers, and improved mobility that have received international acclaim.

Did you know LA used to have street cars? So did ATX. Los Angeles Street Cars - The final years

Everyone is going on summer vacations and #SNAPPatx wants in on the fun. We are embarking on our own virtual travels this week. Join us! You can read more about our travels at http://snappatx.org/learn.html

"Los Angeles commuters of the 1950s and earlier fondly referred to their unique narrow-gauge streetcars as 'yellow cars.' By the mid-fifties, there were six of these yellow car lines being operated by the Los Angeles Transit Lines.

Come along for a trip back in time, to a city that has now faded from all buy memory and film. We'll take you on a complete, end-to-end tour of the W and S lines, which were the last car lines using H Series standard-type streetcars. You'll also catch a glimpse of the two trolley coach lines that graced the city in 1956."

Current News- Metro Motion: the Transportation update for LA Summer 2010. What do you think of their plans?

Everyone is going on summer vacations and #SNAPPatx wants in on the fun. We are embarking on our own virtual travels this week. Join us! You can read more about our travels at http://snappatx.org/learn.html

This week's theme is Summer Vacations. Have you been to LA? Here is a glimpse of its future.

Everyone is going on summer vacations and #SNAPPatx wants in on the fun. We are embarking on our own virtual travels this week. Join us! You can read more about our travels at http://snappatx.org/learn.html

Final thoughts about Arlington, Virginia and their smart growth. What do you think?

Everyone is going on summer vacations and #SNAPPatx wants in on the fun. We are embarking on our own virtual travels this week. Join us! You can read more about our travels at http://snappatx.org/learn.html

From Smart Growth around America
By Stephanie Lee Davis on 5/8/2009

Today, Arlington is a shining example of what citizen engagement, visionary planning, and wise use of scarce resources can do for the livability of a community.

Arlington is the bit of Virginia just across the Potomac River from the monumental core of Washington, D.C. that leveraged the arrival of two Metro rail lines in the 60’s and 70’s to renew and revitalize their county into a prosperous, enjoyable and livable community that is a sought-after destination for employers, businesses, residents and visitors.
…

Arlington’s leaders — supported later by their citizens — saw a great opportunity to turn the addition of Metro’s rail system through their county into a magnet for growth and economic development — but in a very specific way.

The leaders at the time engaged their citizens in a long planning process to make sure that they got the kind of growth that they wanted in Arlington, preserving most of the county as it was, but leveraging the investment of Metro into specific areas that would change.
 …

One would think that growing from 160,000 people in 1960 to about 206,000 today would bring a huge spike in traffic.

Yet Arlington managed to add thousands of new people, shops, offices, and other destinations into this corridor, and actually reduced traffic on Wilson Boulevard at the same time. The average daily traffic on Wilson Boulevard shrank, from 19,785 in 1980, to 18,873 in the year 2000. 73% of the trips to Metro in this corridor are on foot, and almost half of the residents in the corridor take Metro to work each day.

If there were a few specific keys to their success, among them would certainly be fighting to have the rail line put underground through their county, pushing for a route through the area they wanted revitalized, and making a clear plan and vision for what they wanted to happen as a result.

But the involvement of the community was the most important component.

An Arlington resident would probably tell you that the real key is what they call “the Arlington Way,” which refers to how the County places great emphasis on citizen input and participation. All the stakeholders are brought to the table, and Arlington residents are very active in the public process and making their voices heard.

Not only did their residents and leaders choose a future for their city, but if you want to live in Arlington, you truly have a range of options. You can live in a suburban house with a two-car garage and a yard, a townhouse, a small apartment building, or a tall condo building on top of the Metro. And when you want to get around, you can drive, walk, bike, or take a train or bus.
And choice is really what smart growth is all about: Providing people with the ability to choose the type of growth they want in their community, and then having a choice for where and how to live.
Because only having one option is no choice at all.

Full Article

More Resources: Northern Virginia Transportation Commission "Completed Research"

Picture: Arlington (and Rosslyn) Virginia pre-1962, looking across the Key Bridge into DC. Source unknown.

Budget cuts are pending in Austin and so is a tax increase. What do you think?

From the KLBJ Newsroom
on 7/12/10

There is not a lot of support for the City of Austin offering incentives for a proposed F1 race track, according to some survey results on the City's website. Those numbers are part of an a survey on what the city should cut and what it needs to add as city officials look to put together next year’s spending plan. There is also a call for the city to eliminate free co-sponsorships of community special events as a way to save money…and cutting the number of city officials who make over 100 thousand dollars a year….priorities for the over two thousand people who participated in the survey, adding new police officers and maintaining the city’s parks and pools are top priorities.

The Austin community has spoken up about their budget priorities, but are city leaders listening? News Radio 590 KLBJ’s Ryan Poppe has a KLBJ exclusive with city manager Marc Ott regarding the city’s budget.

Overwhelming those participating in the city’s online poll felt public safety was the greatest underfunded area that should not be cut from the 2010-2011 city budget, stressing that Austin needs to hire more police officers. City manager Marc Ott says because his list of recommendations includes more areas of the city budget that will not be cut this year, a property tax rate increase may be inevitable.

Transporation in Paris: How to get around.

Everyone is going on summer vacations and #SNAPPatx wants in on the fun. We are embarking on our own virtual travels this week. Join us! You can read more about our travels at http://snappatx.org/learn.html

Watch more Paris videos at tripfilms.com

Today we are focusing on Paris. New Video: Experiencing the city in 3 minutes.

Everyone is going on summer vacations and #SNAPPatx wants in on the fun. We are embarking on our own virtual travels this week. Join us! You can read more about our travels at http://snappatx.org/learn.html

Cited cyclists have a new ticket dismissal option: Defensive Cycling. What do you think?

From The Austin American Statesman
By Naureen Khan
Friday, July 9, 2010

Defensive cycling program first in Texas and among the first of its kind in the nation, organizers say.

How to play nicely with others on the road. How to avoid crashes and collisions. How to safely get a little r-e-s-p-e-c-t from motorists.

These are the lessons Allan Dunlop taught his students Wednesday night , like any other defensive driving instructor worth his salt.

But most of the pupils in this classroom prefer two wheels to four and handlebars to your standard steering wheel.

The defensive bicycling class, launched by the Austin Cycling Association in partnership with Austin Municipal Court, is the first program offered in Texas that will allow ticket dismissal for bicyclists and is among a handful of such programs across the country, said Wes Robinson , the association's education director.

Portland, Ore., in 2007 began offering a similar three-hour safety course called "Share the Road" that enables bicyclists to have their tickets dismissed for eligible violations. The class is offered twice a month and has become a hit in the cycling community. Enrollment is frequently upward of 100 people, said Timo Forsberg , who does education and outreach for Portland's Bureau of Transportation.

Ticketed Austin cyclists can pay $25 to take the course and then have their fines waived and the offenses erased from their driving records. The course will be offered six times this year, and offenders can take it once every 12 months.

"A lot of people think that this is about cyclists trying to get out of tickets," Robinson said. "It's not about that. It's about how to educate cyclists about sharing the roadway with vehicles safely."

In Austin, cyclists have the same rights and responsibilities as motorists and are subject to all the same traffic laws, association officials said.

"There's a whole lot more to cycling in traffic than how not to fall over," Robinson said.
During class Wednesday, Dunlop , the director of the Center for Cycling Education in San Marcos and a certified cycling safety instructor with the League of American Bicyclists , lectured on a range on topics, including proper cycling equipment and how attitudes and emotions can affect safety.

All seven of his students passed a 10-question quiz at the end of the three-hour class — held in the East Austin offices of BikeTexas , a statewide, nonprofit bicycling advocacy group — and received certificates they can take to court to have their tickets dismissed.
Student Irene Garnett, 32 , earned a traffic ticket after running a red light on her bike. She said the officer offered to let her off with a warning — before she admitted to him that she would probably run red lights again. Garnett, however, didn't anticipate the fine of more than $200.

"That was a big wake-up call," Garnett said . "This is as serious as a car offense. I haven't run a red light since then."

A.J. Greig, 34 , said he had a different reaction when he was busted in early June for rolling through a red light on South Congress Avenue at Elizabeth Street on his unicycle. Greig said he was ecstatic to be treated the same as his two-wheeled compatriots. Still, he signed up for the course to get his fine waived.

Full Story

London Underground Virtual Train Simulator. Kinda neat

Everyone is going on summer vacations and #SNAPPatx wants in on the fun. We are embarking on our own virtual travels this week. Join us! You can read more about our travels at http://snappatx.org/learn.html

City transportation bond proposal grows to $90 million. Revised list includes increased spending for road projects. What do you think?

  From The Austin American Statesman
By Ben Wear
Friday, July 9, 2010

The City of Austin transportation bond election this fall would grow $5 million to a total of $90 million under a revised proposal released Friday, and more of that money would go to road projects than previously contemplated.

The updated proposal for a November referendum is scheduled to be reviewed by a citizens task force next week, and the Austin City Council could vote as soon as July 29 to call the election.

The bond proposal now includes $2.3 million to reconfigure entrance and exit ramps at the junction of Interstate 35 and East 51st Street . And it includes a $1 million city contribution to the Texas Department of Transportation's traffic analysis of I-35, which in time likely would result in further proposals to decrease congestion on the interstate.

In all, the new proposal would have $51.3 million for road, highway and intersection improvements (although some of that money is for design and engineering only, not construction) and $38.7 million for bicycle, pedestrian and transit projects. The earlier $84.8 million bond proposal, with $42.6 million in road and highway spending, was split almost evenly between road projects and nonroad projects.

The pedestrian projects would include $14.4 million of city money and $3 million of private contributions for the proposed "boardwalk" extension of the hike-and-bike trail east of Congress Avenue on the south side of Lady Bird Lake. That $17.4 million total is actually a $1.4 million increase from the $16 million estimate released a few weeks ago. But that is likely to be an increase on paper only.

As envisioned earlier, the boardwalk — a concrete walkway suspended over the water for much of 1.1 miles from east of the Austin American-Statesman property to well east of I-35 — presumed a single construction phase. That is likely still the case.

But the new proposal, to put the onus on the Trails Foundation to raise $3 million it has promised for the project, presumes that it will occur in two separate phases.

The second, $7.9 million phase would be contingent on receiving the full $3 million from the Trails Foundation. Robert Spillar, the city's transportation director, said the extra cost would come from having to shut down the project after the first phase and then begin the second phase much later.

If the two phases occur one right after the other, Spillar said, then the original $16 million cost estimate would stand, and the remaining $1.4 million would be used on other city projects.

Full Story

New Green Double-Decker Bus Design for London. What do you think of the design?

Everyone is going on summer vacations and #SNAPPatx wants in on the fun. We are embarking on our own virtual travels this week. Join us! You can read more about our travels at http://snappatx.org/learn.html

Why Grand Central Works - the smart design and mixed use of Grand Central’s revitalization. What do you think?

Everyone is going on summer vacations and #SNAPPatx wants in on the fun. We are embarking on our own virtual travels this week. Join us! You can read more about our travels at http://snappatx.org/learn.html

The Case for Separated Bike Lanes in NYC. What do you think?

Everyone is going on summer vacations and #SNAPPatx wants in on the fun. We are embarking on our own virtual travels this week. Join us! You can read more about our travels at http://snappatx.org/learn.html

Improv Everywhere creates the "Tourist" Sidewalk Lane. Pretty funny, but hmm.. maybe they have a point?

Everyone is going on summer vacations and #SNAPPatx wants in on the fun. We are embarking on our own virtual travels this week. Join us! You can read more about our travels at http://snappatx.org/learn.html

A look at Denver's Mobility Plan. How do you think it compares with Austin?

Moving People - Denver’s Strategic Transportation Plan

View Full Plan

Why Austin is Moving to a New Approach with the Strategic Mobility Plan:

Developing Stories:

'Every Day It's Getting Worse' Strategic Mobility Plan marks a way out of permanent gridlock
Austin Chronicle
MARCH 12, 2010
BY KATHERINE GREGOR

Crawling toward Downtown last week in 8:30am bumper-to-bumper traffic backed up for blocks on South Lamar, I had plenty of leisure time to reflect on transportation planning in Austin (and to wish I were traveling by bicycle, streetcar, or helicopter). The city is poised to plunge into the rail-transit business – with its central-city circulator Austin Urban Rail project – yet has barely dipped a toe into the transit-oriented development business. Transit-successful cities (e.g., Portland, Ore.) fund streetcars with tax-increment financing – bonds gradually paid off from the stream of increased property taxes that streetcar lines help create. Property values rise along the rail line, new mixed-use developments appear and desirable "place-making" occurs around rail stops, and the resulting increments of increased property tax base are captured to pay off the investment in rail.

But it doesn't all happen magically; it's got to be done just right . . .

One Step at a Time

A Feb. 25 briefing to City Council on the city's emerging Strategic Mobility Plan – recently showcased at community-input forums all around town – was cause for optimism. The city isn't just doing a planning exercise; it has reorganized, staffed up, budgeted, and marshaled the moxie to implement the plan's recommendations beginning in April. Launched just last year, the city's Trans­por­ta­tion Department is beginning to tackle Austin's now-big-city mobility woes in a comprehensive fashion. All modes for getting from place A to place B – walking, bicycling, taking rail and bus transit, and driving – are being woven into one citywide mobility-solutions tapestry. We've talked about getting multimodal forever yet stayed stuck in traffic. Things are finally moving.

Mayor Lee Leffingwell, recognizing that a plan is only as strong as the dollars that sustain it, continues to advocate for a November 2010 transportation bond referendum. He said from the dais Feb. 25 that city demographic data indicates 1,500* people a day are now moving into Central Texas (50 of them within city limits) and adding their cars to already choked roads, so "every day it's getting worse." Transportation Department Director Robert Spillar cited recent data showing that central city roads are now at 100% capacity. Asserted the mayor, "Doing nothing is not an option."

Full Story

What is the Controversy With the Bond Package? Watch interest groups providing comment. What do you think?

The 2010 bond package is the first test of the Strategic Mobility Plan.





Watch interest groups providing comment (first item) to the Bond Taskforce - Video

Next Bond Taskforce meeting is today, July 7th 3:00 – 5:00 and will not be televised.

The 2010 Transportation Bond is the first opportunity to see the Strategic Mobility Plan in action. What do you think about the first step toward demonstrable change?

The 2010 Transportation Bond is the first opportunity to see the Strategic Mobility Plan in action.

What's most notable isn't any one project, or even the 50-50 spending split between roads and other transportation modes – it's the rigor and transparency of the process. Two years ago, the city established a Transportation Department, which embarked on a strategic mobility plan (with a regional scope), engaged national transportation consulting expertise, and gathered community and professional input.

As Janes and Leffingwell both noted, that process has yielded a list of projects that jibe with larger community values – not just getting drivers from point A to point B. The preliminary recommended 2010 Transportation Bond Package scoring matrix (online, with a wealth of other information, at www.austinstrategicmobility.com) assigned points to proposed projects according to eight values: mobility choices, efficiency, sustainable growth, regional integration, environmental stewardship, investment and economic development, neighborhood coordination and connectivity, and safety.

See this article for more details. JUNE 25, 2010, City Announces 'Multimodal' Bond Package, BY KATHERINE GREGOR
Full Article

A New Strategic Plan With an Emphasis on “Livability”. See whats happing on the FEDERAL level. What do you think?

U.S. DOT/HUD/EPA Created a New Strategic Plan With an Emphasis on “Livability”

This year alone US DOT, HUD, and EPA have already announced $175 million in competitive grants based on the new Livability Partnership and the US House of Representatives just approved $524 million more for this program next year.

This emphasis on Livability requires local applicants to:

• Use investments to do more. No longer can a transportation project be considered just a transportation project. The investment must truly improve people’s access to places they want to go, while minimizing cost, environmental and neighborhood impacts, etc.
• Bust program and funding silos. Transportation, housing, and environment dollars can all be braided to accomplish better community outcomes.

“Livability,” US DOT Secretary Ray LaHood said, ”means being able to take your kids to school, go to work, see a doctor, drop by the grocery or post office, go out to dinner and a movie, and play with your kids in a park, all without having to get in your car.” In other words, “livability” in the Secretary’s mind means giving more people the option to live in a more urban environment where walking, biking and transit are realistic travel alternatives to using a car.

Full Article

So What Does “Strategic” Really Mean?

So What Does “Strategic” Really Mean?

Austin didn’t just decide out of Central Texas’ blue sky to become more “strategic.”  Federal, state, and regional policies have been headed in this direct for years.  Even so, any significant step toward “strategic” decision making seems transformative and predictably will be controversial for those invested in the traditional approach to transportation.  “Strategic” really just means deciding on real world outcomes people want and THEN deciding how to invest resources to accomplish those outcomes.  For example, people care about sitting in traffic/congestion; but they also care about paying taxes, air quality, etc.  So “strategic” requires an understanding of all the values people care about and then trying to maximize all of them, not just any one value.

Envision Central Texas, 2000 – 2004.

12,000 Central Texas residents agreed to a scenario with real world implications compared to present growth projected into the future:

·       Protection of environmentally sensitive areas and the natural beauty of Central Texas by:

o      Using fewer acres of land for urban (and suburban) development

o      Reducing the loss of agricultural and ranch land

o      Reducing acres of new impervious surface

o      Reducing acres of development in the Edwards Aquifer recharge and contributing zones

·       Increasing the efficiency of investments by focusing growth in urban areas by

o      Accommodating more new households and employees through redevelopment

o      Encouraging job growth in low-income areas

o      Reducing public cost of infrastructure

o      Reducing Acres of Urban Parks per capita

o      Spreading employment through the region

o      Reducing the tax burden for residents

CAMPO 2035 – Central Texas’ Regional Transportation Plan, 2008 - 2010

Approved shifting 50% of the region’s flexible funding to support ECT’s “focused urban growth” framework.

o      Focus on 25 Activity Centers – areas where local jurisdictions really want to grow new jobs and households.

o      Manage infrastructure costs by prioritizing less costly options for transportation over entirely new construction of roads.

o      Focusing new “capacity” on connections between activity centers, rather than continuing to chase sprawl type development through the 5 counties.

This Week's Topic: So Why Care About Austin’s Strategic Mobility Plan?

This Week: So Why Care About Austin’s Strategic Mobility Plan?
Some criteria from the ASMP Website. We want to know why you care. #snappatx


So what are the problems?

• Transportation is Austin’s biggest problem. It’s what people and businesses consistently rank No. 1 among their concerns in study after study.

• Traffic congestion is only going to get worse if we don’t act now. The gap between our needs and our resources is growing wider. We can't afford to build enough roads, even if we could build them fast enough, to keep up with demand.

• Central Austin is facing gridlock. Downtown, the Capitol Complex, the UT campus area, and the adjoining neighborhoods are running out of room for the cars of all the people who want to be there — and the thousands who now or will soon live there.

So what is different about the Strategic Mobility Plan?

The Strategic Mobility Plan is creating a lot more transparency in the decision process. It is also about getting experts together with citizens to decide how we should make smart investments that offer a full range of real, practical mobility choices that suit their lifestyles and improve their lives. This is the beginning of huge shift the approach to transportation planning.

It’s about more than “congestion” relief. People move around to work, live, learn and enjoy life. The lack of transportation choices in Austin does real damage to the city’s treasured quality of life, its economic competitiveness, its environmental stewardship, and its ability to grow responsibly in the future.

We need to implement new solutions — including transit, pedestrian/bicycle projects, car and ride sharing, and travel demand management — to increase capacity and better manage this trend.

Video: What is SMART Transportation? Do you believe it is truely efficient?