Are we going to see a plan from Austin soon? The Austin Chronicle has this cool little schematic but it doesn't tell us very much. At the bottom is a dream map I created a while ago. Perhaps this is the first step...I'm not holding my breath.
I haven't made my report yet (too busy with work) but I did meet with Brewster's group on Monday after sitting through the Campo TWG. My initial optimism is gone; they appear to be yielding on the route and will probably not be going up Guadalupe - which means no West Campus/Hyde Park/Triangle; and utterly no chance of success.
I don't think everybody hates it; I think most of them have no idea it's not going to work. McCracken seems to get it (he lives in the Triangle now) but is resigned to it anyways because he needs to get something on the ground as part of this effort.
(In other words; I doubt Wynn gets it; I'm sure Watson doesn't).
Although I should say that a route from Mueller with dedicated lanes would be a sufficient proof-of-concept for rapid streetcar. It wouldn't suck as much as running in traffic through downtown, the ass-end of UT, and on Manor Road.
Problem is that Mueller in 2012, let's say, still has far fewer people than does the Guadalupe corridor. Not enough to pack the trains, in other words.
I don't mind the Mueller alignment either. But its kind of a catch 22. The development agreement says they can increase the density of Mueller if they get better transit but they won't have enough homes to provide ridership to that transit at the outset...it has something to do with the trips generated from the site. If the trips from the homes decrease because of transit application, Mueller can build more density to fill up to the total trip number by car or something like that.
That supposed agreement is a red herring - Mueller's development is already fully planned out. I hear it from time to time but never from anybody who can actually point to something in code that would actually kick in; nor to any reliable indication that they would go back and redo those parts of the plan.
I posted the question to the Mueller Yahoo Group. Perhaps we'll get an answer from Jim on that one. I wrote a post and made some maps about the issue. Are you going to post on it soon? I don't think this is something that should get away. If we have to, I think full court press with petitions and everything needs to be in order.
9 comments:
I haven't made my report yet (too busy with work) but I did meet with Brewster's group on Monday after sitting through the Campo TWG. My initial optimism is gone; they appear to be yielding on the route and will probably not be going up Guadalupe - which means no West Campus/Hyde Park/Triangle; and utterly no chance of success.
Where will they be going? That's the best route in the whole city! Sounds like you need to start a blogolution.
Rehash of Cap Metro's shitty route (out east on either MLK or Manor).
Ah that route is awful. Everyone hates it. It's a Krusee backroom deal special.
I don't think everybody hates it; I think most of them have no idea it's not going to work. McCracken seems to get it (he lives in the Triangle now) but is resigned to it anyways because he needs to get something on the ground as part of this effort.
(In other words; I doubt Wynn gets it; I'm sure Watson doesn't).
Although I should say that a route from Mueller with dedicated lanes would be a sufficient proof-of-concept for rapid streetcar. It wouldn't suck as much as running in traffic through downtown, the ass-end of UT, and on Manor Road.
Problem is that Mueller in 2012, let's say, still has far fewer people than does the Guadalupe corridor. Not enough to pack the trains, in other words.
I don't mind the Mueller alignment either. But its kind of a catch 22. The development agreement says they can increase the density of Mueller if they get better transit but they won't have enough homes to provide ridership to that transit at the outset...it has something to do with the trips generated from the site. If the trips from the homes decrease because of transit application, Mueller can build more density to fill up to the total trip number by car or something like that.
That supposed agreement is a red herring - Mueller's development is already fully planned out. I hear it from time to time but never from anybody who can actually point to something in code that would actually kick in; nor to any reliable indication that they would go back and redo those parts of the plan.
I posted the question to the Mueller Yahoo Group. Perhaps we'll get an answer from Jim on that one. I wrote a post and made some maps about the issue. Are you going to post on it soon? I don't think this is something that should get away. If we have to, I think full court press with petitions and everything needs to be in order.
Post a Comment