 illustration by Jason Stout |
times of prosperity, the politics of the day can seem misleadingly trivial. Take, for example, the
recent tumult over the expansion of the 54-year-old Lamar Bridge, a proposal
that has area neighborhood reps up in arms. While the issue has dominated the
council’s time and agenda the past two weeks, the battle has barely registered
with the public at large.
But symbolically at least, the contentious overpass that connects the city’s
most burgeoning commercial corridors takes on greater significance. Its
central-city location makes it a perfect case study of Austin’s big-city
inclinations conflicting with its hope for a compact-city ambience. Should it
be widened from four to six lanes to ease traffic during one of the city’s
greatest growth spurts, or should small-town ideals win out in the name of
preserving the relative tranquility of the neighborhoods abutting Lamar’s
commercial corridor?
If you’re a traffic engineer, there is only one way to alleviate the stiff
gridlock that has whitened the knuckles of many a Lamar commuter from Fifth
Street to Riverside. Traffic will increase by 48%, they say, necessitating
added lanes. Heed their dire prophecies, and envision cars veiled in smog,
stretching to the horizons amid a virtual block party of merchants and
panhandlers, giving new meaning to the phrase “traffic jam.”
Now, this is not the international bridge in Nuevo Laredo on a Sunday
afternoon, but everyone who has waited for 10 or 15 minutes to cross the Lamar
Bridge knows that something isn’t right. Things are so bad, you can almost
compare the daily gridlock there to a council meeting — backed-up almost to
absolute inertia and frustrating as hell. And when the immense traffic is
making accidents commonplace, you know something needs to change.
Yet, according to the dozens of speakers who turned out to protest the
expansion at public hearings called by Jackie Goodman over the last two council
meetings, the only change should be a safer pedestrian walkway. They say
additional vehicle lanes will, both in terms of speed and traffic, turn Lamar
into another I-35, bisecting Austin with yet another East-West division, while
the area neighborhoods deteriorate into urban wasteland.
While their position may seem extreme, the fact that the city has for so long
brushed pedestrians’ and bicyclists’ concerns under the rug may explain their
stance against expanding traffic lanes. They know that given a choice, the city
will always choose cars first, and feet last, if at all. As one speaker noted:
“Pedestrians have always been little more than a bad afterthought.” Indeed,
since 1984, the city has received at least $1million in federal grants to make
the bridge safer for peds and bikes, but nothing has happened — even after a
bicyclist was hit and killed by a motorist in the mid-Eighties.
A $340,000 study first presented in September by HRD Engineering Inc.
suggested a separate foot bridge, or a walkway attached to the outside of the
Lamar Bridge, � la the South First Bridge. But that proposal is
now in limbo. Since 1984, $9 million has also been approved for the widening of
the bridge for vehicular traffic. The council directed HRD to study lane
additions, but also requested that they look at using alternative routes to
Lamar in order to eliminate the need for new lanes. While the consultant did
recommend expanding the bridge from four to six lanes, the Council never
received information on alternate routes. Peter Rieck, director of Public
Works, claimed that in January, 1995, city staffers informed the consultant of
the need to consider that option. But in a memo written by a Public Works
contract assistant that month detailing the professional services agreement
with the consultant, no such notification exists.
Because of the lack of integrity in the process, the council is not lending
an ear to the consultants’ results, and have pretty much thrown out the
study altogether. They did, however, attend to the concerns of the neighborhood
residents with extreme reverence at last week’s council meeting. Still,
councilmembers aren’t quite ready to abandon the idea of additional lanes yet.
What they did do is follow the lead of Councilmember Goodman, who led the
charge to start the whole process over again by commissioning a new study. That
proposed contract — with the words `alternate routes’ highlighted, bolded, and
italicized — will be ready for the bidding process within 90 days.
After reassurances that the proposal did not eliminate the option for
expansion, Bruce Todd and Ronney Reynolds joined their colleagues in supporting
the move. Only Eric Mitchell refused to sit in traffic for another three months
with the rest of the council, and is demanding that lanes be expanded
immediately. Mitchell, who has been a staunch defender of the historically
disenfranchised east Austin, was apparently miffed that west Austinites were
capitalizing on the segregation argument.
Standing behind his chair, he began, “Over the years, because of lack of
political courage, we did not take care of our east-west thoroughfares.” He
added, “I think [what needs to happen to] the Lamar Bridge is exactly the same
thing that’s happened to the Congress and South First Bridges (lane
expansions). With existing technologies it could be done to not create a
problem for the neighborhoods. That’s common sense, everyone knows it, but it’s
not politically palatable. Leadership is taking people where they haven’t been
before, where they’re afraid to go but, hey…”
Clearly, whether it’s the Lamar Bridge or some alternate route, lanes will
have to be added somewhere, and some neighborhoods will inevitably see more
traffic. And Mitchell is right — sooner or later, the council is going to have
to make some kind of move, and stop putting off the inevitable. Let’s just hope
it doesn’t take another pedestrian death.
A.P.D. Still Blue
The council still didn’t know how to handle Goodman’s resolution to fullyreinstate the city’s menagerie of community policing programs (D.A.R.E. and
COPS collectively lost five officers during the recent budget session).
Goodman’s proposal also sought to augment police presence by increasing
department efficiency, and would explore such options as allowing officers to
take their cars home. Todd originally planned to vote against it because it
amended the budget and meddled excessively in the city manager’s affairs, or so
he said. Reynolds explained that Goodman’s resolution would not affect this
budget, and that it simply asks the city manager to study possibilities. Still,
Garcia, Slusher, and Griffith voted against it, citing the same reasons
expressed by Todd. And while the mayor later became amenable to considering the
proposal, requesting a three-week delay to study it, the other three held fast.
Why they won’t support a simple study, a free one at that, is a head-scratcher.
They all strongly differ from Reynolds politically, though, and speculation
that they’re trying to prevent him from sticking another feather in the cap he
plans to wear in his bid for mayor may not be too far-fetched.
This article appears in November 8 • 1996 and November 8 • 1996 (Cover).