Opinion: Can Project Connect Actually Meet Our Needs?
The question remains if Project Connect will produce a public transit system that people will choose over their own cars
By Barbara Epstein, Fri., Aug. 12, 2022
Amid soaring temperatures and gas prices, we need to ask, will Project Connect's $7+ billion tax plan give us a public transit system that car drivers will use?
Historically, urban planners (such as Jane Jacobs) argued that a diverse downtown is more important than monolithic dense housing. For several years, Austin rail advocates supported densifying central Austin, saying that would protect the environment and reduce pollution. For a while, Austin encouraged porches to be built on new houses to promote walkable, friendly neighborhoods but that stopped when developers realized they could maximize profits just building condominiums. Then there was a period of encouraging mixed-use buildings – stores on the ground floor, housing above – until businesses failed, between rising rents and insufficient parking and public transit, to sustain store traffic.
Former Council Member Greg Casar was quoted as saying in February of 2021 that a $23 million fund from the transit tax meant "tenants [can] actually buy out their landlords and [form] a cooperative so that people who might get pushed out by rising rents become the owners of their own apartment communities." (Austin's displacement prevention officer wrote me that Austin has no such program.)* Although a rail stop may sell a condo, there's no guarantee that newcomers will use public transit if it still takes less time to drive. Arguably, since people are fleeing Austin for less expensive suburbs, Cap Metro's plan is actually promoting more cars driving around Austin.
Cap Metro primarily "plans" straight line routes, bus and rail, that don't take riders anywhere in particular (e.g., the No. 335 crosstown bus bypassed Hancock Center) and ignores safety issues riders submit (e.g., Hancock Center). (The city says the safety issue at Hancock Center won't become a "priority" until someone is killed.) Cap Metro doesn't budget for and create transit for what is called "the last mile," transit that takes riders to their actual destinations using circulators, like the UT shuttles and the old (popular) Dillos.
The proposed plan also has a significant flaw. Fixed rail lines can't be endlessly modified to respond to changing urban needs. An advanced rapid bus system can, and was developed in Curitiba, Brazil, where some routes now run as frequently as every 90 seconds. A Cap Metro Board chairman traveled to Curitiba a couple of decades ago to observe the bus system, but apparently nothing came of his trip.
Austinites may be unaware that our area is the fastest-growing region in the country for seniors. In 2021, there were reportedly 90,262 people over 65 here. Local senior services tell me they don't even have sufficient transit to take seniors to dialysis appointments. The only senior bus service Cap Metro provides right now (though it's not identified as a senior service online) is neighborhood pickup vans in 10 outlying areas and Tarrytown that can't be used for anything outside an immediate neighborhood, such as a doctor's appointment across town.
In fact, Project Connect is proposing a transit system that can't meet current transit needs, much less those of the future. Project Connect planners aren't asking people where they need to go, they're asking whether people like the look of a stop. That's why we're expanding I-35 to 20 lanes in some places and why the Capitol will soon have 3,800 parking spaces. Those numbers starkly confirm that our community hasn't agreed to to give up its cars to use a bus or a train – many voters expect someone else to use them.
Cap Metro's system doesn't target essential destinations for anyone and Project Connect is not being held accountable by the public or city leaders.
Perhaps we should step back to ask whether these straight-line routes can give us efficient public transit, or merely permanent rail stops at new condominiums? Could our $7+ billion tax be better used for citywide transit planning, capable of endless modification as conditions change? Perhaps most importantly for Austin's future, are we addressing pollution and climate change with this plan if a majority of residents still choose to drive their cars, not take slower buses and trains?
Barbara Epstein is an elder law attorney and serves on the board of Austin’s aging-in-place group, Capital City Village. She has lived in Austin and depended on its bus system since 1974. As a legally blind senior herself, she advocates for better public transit because she knows firsthand that transit is a necessity for seniors and those who cannot, or should not, drive.
Got something to say? The Chronicle welcomes opinion pieces on any topic from the community. Submit yours now at austinchronicle.com/opinion.
