« Nobody talks about Austin rail like this... | Main | Commuter rail ridership projection: pathetic »

Dear Jennifer Kim

I understand your retreat into pandering given the difficulties you're currently facing, and I even sympathize a bit, but let's be clear: big retail and employment destinations do NOT NOT NOT NOT belong on frontage roads.

Here's why.

This talking point works well with people who drive everywhere - like most folks in Allandale. It doesn't work so well with people who actually have some experience with alternate modes of transportation, like yours truly. I used to occasionally ride the bus in the morning and get off at the stop on one side of 183 between Oak Knoll and Duval and have to go to exactly the other side - and the presence of frontage roads (destroyed an old road which used to cross) made a 2-minute walk into a 10-minute bike ride (30-minute walk). No wonder nobody else does it.

This entry was posted in the following categories: Austin , Bicycling in Austin , Driving in Austin , Republicans Hate Poor People , Republicans Hate Public Transportation , Transit in Austin , Transportation , Urban Design , Walking in Austin (Pedestrian Issues)


The most disappointing part of this whole business is how the scores of neighborhood citizens are being led by the nose by the NIMBY activists. My own Crestview neighbors (lived here since mid-80's) joked that people would be driving up and down our street "looking for the Wal-Mart" once it shows up. These are the same people who remember Northcross at its peak of activity and yet somehow have been convinced to think that the replacement project will result in neighborhood gridlock.

I mean, this is the kind of deception we're dealing with here. Did I mention the Crestview NA's article which equated the traffic situation to being "an unmitigated traffic disaster" ?

In other news, I find it interesting how so many have made a huge stink about the "faulty" traffic assessment and how such a "huge" retail center will overwhelm every intersection "within a mile", but the sample alternate plan (http://www.rg4n.org/about/vision) proposed on RG4N's own site shows an almost equal amount of retail square footage (~361k sq ft) as the proposed Lincoln redevelopment (http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/news/2006/downloads/attach3_tia_memo.pdf) (~369k sq ft). That is not even mentioning the additional traffic generated by the residential, office, and miscellaneous areas proposed in their sample "vision."

I somehow doubt that the anti-traffic types mentioned this curious property of the sample "alternative" plan during the 01/31 NIMBY love-in.

Post a comment