Update from Eugene

Decided to update the blog; been a bit of a long hiatus recently due to moving to Eugene, Oregon to attend the University of Oregon and major in Architecture, with architecture studio being a lot of the reason for having so little time to blog. Spending multiple all-nighters working on models is not a conducive environment to write in.

So for most of the year, I'll be changing my focus from Austin to Eugene, concentrating on the city's evolving urbanism and the role that the University plays within the city, as well as the community's conflict between varying ideals of "green-ness".


Eugene Public Library

What I like so much about Eugene is that even at only around 150,000 people, it still has a better existing urban fabric than Austin does. Especially infrastructure-wise. Mainly from the fact that it's been a substantial-sized city for longer. Downtown has wide sidewalks with at least 20 blocks of 2-3 story mid-rise buildings. And several of the surrounding city neighborhoods were obviously built pre-zoning, with their nice mix of apartments, offices, single-family homes, and offices. For the size, it also has a great transit network, with BRT, and several other lines that run every 10 minutes during the main part of the day, as well as a circulator linking campus and downtown, and nice rural routes that connect the city with parks and small towns.

There are some drawbacks, though, sometimes Downtown can seem a bit dead: so many offices and city buildings, and not enough entertainment or working public spaces, and some of the big avenues like 11th and 6th and 7th seem to break up downtown into spaces that don't interact with each other because they're just large car sewers. Also, especially the Police, and sometimes the University as well, don't seem to appreciate the urban parts of the city for the gem they are, and can get quite high-handed.

I'll be trying to update more frequently with posts about some of the urban developments, transit changes and architecture studios that are happening around town recently.

Thoughts On Portland

What always seems to get lost in the discussion about Portland's streetcar system is that not all of it runs through dense, urban, massively successful redevelopment like South Waterfront or Pearl District, or already existing dense neighborhoods such as Downtown and Portland State; some of it runs through leafy, almost suburban neighborhoods (now note, these aren't Sunbelt-suburban, more like dense suburbs that developed around turn of the century transit lines).


View Larger Map

Like here, at NW Northrup & 21st Ave:





It seems to fit in rather well with the streetscape, too. And whenever I rode it, the streetcar never had problems with car traffic, other than a lack of signal pre-emption, which could be fixed. Every time I rode, too, the cars were all 60-90% full, no matter whether it was 11AM or 9PM.

Now, noted, this was close to Nob hill, which is one of the trendier neighborhoods, so that could've accounted for some of the traffic, but ridership seemed a mix of young and old, tourist and natives.

I think neighborhoods like this could be something to aim for in Austin, which has lots more leafy suburbs with slightly built up commercial areas, than old industrial districts to totally renovate with art galleries and trendy lofts. In fact, the area reminds me most of Austin's Hyde Park, which was at one time a streetcar suburb, and it seems would benefit from reestablishment of a transit line.

What Austin Could Look Like? Part I

Dense, walkable development in Austin, outside of Downtown, UT, and SoCo, is a rare bird indeed. Unlike cities such as Portland, Oregon, and even Dallas, Austin hasn't had a rail transit infrastructure extant to provide a stimuli to densify or create greenfield New Urbanist developments. However, it new walkable developments exist, and in some of the oddest places, too.

Streetcar Lofts, Pearl District, Portland, Oregon:



(SP8254 on Flickr)

The Triangle is one of the most obvious dense developments in North Austin, and one of the best, is purposely designed to be pedestrian-focused, located in the triangle formed by the confluence of Guadalupe and Lamar, two of the main corridors in North Austin. Guadalupe-Lamar is also the main transit corridor in Austin, being the route of both the local 1 and the limited 101 bus lines, which provide approximately 7 minute headways at the Triangle. (bus schedule Triangle P&R)


View Larger Map

Along with this fact, the Triangle is only about 10 minutes travel time from UT-Austin and 20 minutes from downtown Austin via bus, at almost any time of day. Easy access such as this, makes it highly attractive to those seeking an urban lifestyle.

The Triangle, Lamar and Guadalupe:


(pfrench99 on Flickr)

So even though it's not along a light-rail corridor, The Triangle is the closest Austin has to anything resembling transit-oriented development, with a focus on residential space, and small, local stores and restaurants. Due to its high levels of transit service, as well as its proximity to Central Market, a large organic grocer, it's an easy sell to people wanting to lessen their reliance on the auto.

Part of the reason that the Triangle was able to develop as an entire pedestrian-oriented community, rather than one building, is due to it being a combination of greenfield and infill development, being built on land that where previously, the Austin State Hospital stood.

(Next post... Midtown Commons at Crestview)

"Urban Rail" in Austin?

Community Impact: Proposed urban rail could relieve road congestion



© Community Impact 2009

Latest news that I've seen about the Austin/CAMPO Urban Rail project recently was a page-long article in the Leander/Cedar Park edition of the Community Impact newspaper. Gives some nice definitions of what the heck they're meaning by "urban rail", and where they plan to route the train, ans well as some dates.

According to Austin's Transportation Director, Rob Spillar, they're branding it as "urban rail" because

"We're trying to make a distinction, that this is something different, a technology that can have the characteristics of both light rail and streetcars..."

Interesting idea, but I think I've seen most systems with grade-separation and street-running still called "light rail, but maybe this is an issue of semantics that still needs to be resolved?

Community Impact also laid down a supposed route for the "urban rail" system, which sounds much more promising than the route of the commuter rail Red Line:

"...15.3-mile track would originate in Mueller, go down Manor, through UT and past the Capitol to connect with CapMetro's Red Line... then crossing the river, before running down Riverside, and out to ABIA."

Here's a possibility of actually building a rail system that would serve a much higher ridership/percentage of Austinites, hitting the two major governmental complexes in town (accessibility of course depending exactly where the line is routed), through a busy part of downtown, and the urbanized Riverside corridor. Thus why the ridership calculations are for:

"...32,000 riders a year."

Apparently the CAMPO Transit Working Group even voted to approve further action upon the Urban Rail plan by 11-1, with former Travis County County Commissioner Gerald Daugherty being the only "ney" vote. Ray Spillar sees putting the bond proposition of $290 millon (to match 50/50 with FTA funds) on the May or November 2010 ballot. Too bad I'll be gone to college then.

There might yet be hope for Austin and REAL rail transit...

EDIT 3/7/09: Link and Map

Who Deserves A Bailout? The MTA.

Especially with the gains in ridership they've been having in the last several years...

NYTimes - New York City Grew, but Traffic Didn’t


(c) NY Times

Apparently, in the last "boom" period that NYC's had, transit actually increased its ridership at greater rates than vehicle traffic. Which is pretty awesome; in Lower Manhattan, vehicle traffic actually decreased, as people abandoned taxis and cars for buses and the subway.

Of course, now that it's showing such rapid growth, now is when the MTA's under threat of having to reduce service drastically, if not given new life by the folks up in Albany (which they probably will be).

Who needs a better example of the communalistic relationship between quality of life and transit service than New York? Especially Manhattan; it's the place that everyone wants to live (making generalizations of course)! As crime went down, many more people wanted to ride the subway, as well as the implementation of the MetroCard, allowing for smoother transfers.

At the same time, it might be hard to find direct lessons to learn from NYC, as the average density is much higher than anywhere in the rest of the nation, and many people might not want their city to become the same. But this density and level of transit service will definitely give New York an edge in the looming world of Peak Oil.

What Now for Austin Rail?

Now that the Capital Metro Red Line is coming closer to completion and the initiation of operations, what is rail in Austin's future? I see several very distinct possibilities.

• We do as Austin transit-man M1EK proposes, and get rid of the DMU commuter rail system while we can, and replace it with (maybe) a scaled down version of the 2000 light rail plan, which would've hit more densely populated areas.


• Keep the commuter rail, and add a light rail/streetcar line which could possibly connect up to the Mueller redevelopment, down along San Jacinto, through Riverside, and all the way to Bergstrom, as recommended by Brewster McCracken and ROMA (here)


• Do nothing, and keep the commuter rail and the requisite shuttle-buses.

I for one, think that either the first or second are the best options, and that the second and third are the most likely; following my logic, I'd say that the second option, if the line was truly light rail, in separate right-of-way, would be the best possible option. Just cross your fingers on this one Austin...

Something MUCH Easier Than LRT...

Why can't there be a national fund for pedestrian transit?

How hard is it to have sidewalks along all the major thoroughfares of a city. I mean, I go to school in Leander, a town of almost 35,000 now, and walking from the high school to the library, there's no sidewalks! What's up with that?

This is walking down the side of a 4 lane, with turn lanes road, with very steep embankments! Our world is not only car-centric, it's pedestrian-hostile, at least in the suburbs!

Installing sidewalks should not be anywhere near the expense of building a new LRT system from the ground up, shouldn't it? I'm not asking for a complete transit system, just a safer way to walk!

Quality of Life and Light Rail

Trying to find a relationship between "quality of life" and light rail transit development, one must first define the term "quality of life" in respect to transit. The Economist's Quality-of-life Index measures Health, Family Life, Community Life, Material Well-being, Political Stability, Climate, Job Security, Political Freedom, and Gender Equality, most of which are not aspects that one would expect to be affected by the advent of a light rail transit system.

Instead, for my uses, "quality of life" is more importantly determined by more definitively "transit-oriented" factors. Factors such as affected mobility, real estate values, change in transit times, and attracting development. These factors, given quantitative value, can be entered into a "quality of life" matrix, which, factoring in the relative values of each, could give one a "quality of life" score for several different light rail systems, along with comparative bus transit systems, and freeway-only systems.