Transportation & Mobility

Posted by dan.keshet Oct 04th 10:28 PM

Drive-Through, Retail, or Service Facility

It is very good that drive-throughs are banned in DC and CC. There are still very current attempts to build these but they are bad for downtown environments.


Posted by lwimberley Oct 05th 10:39 PM

Page 633 - 3

Within commercial need to separate retail/restaurant and office bike requirements. Retail/restaurant should have significantly more bike parking to accommodate those who work at the establishment and the patrons (Boulder requires 1 space per 750 sq.ft)

Posted by lwimberley Oct 05th 10:33 PM

Page 633 - 2

Bike parking requirements for multi-unit developments are WAY TOO LOW!!! We can do much better: Portland, Seattle, Boulder are requiring 1-2 bike parking spaces per unit.

Posted by lwimberley Oct 05th 10:24 PM

Page 633 - 1

Bike parking should be required for all multi-family developments, no exceptions.


Posted by info Oct 05th 10:50 PM

Fifteen Percent Urban Core Cap

Per Council’s policy direction, code revisions should include: “For parcels within activity centers and on activity corridors, application of non-zoning regulations should be prioritized in a manner that allows for greater potential housing unit yields than would otherwise be achieved without prioritization.”

Even with the urban core cap, parkland dedication requirements may still negatively impact unit yields on key corridor and center properties. For properties that are located on an Imagine Austin Corridor or ASMP Transit Priority Network Roadway, the city should consider providing the applicant the authority to decide whether to dedicate or pay fee in lieu. Many of these properties are complicated infill projects for which parkland dedication could mean a significant reduction of units in areas where Council has explicitly prioritized unit yields in specific areas (on corridors) over non-zoning regulations such as this.


Posted by ewise23 Oct 05th 10:20 AM

Page 1101 - 1

This is excellent for future CapMetro uses, way to go staff working within the ASMP

Posted by ewise23 Oct 05th 10:00 AM

Increasing housing affordability and community health through a robust and accessible transportation network;

“Equitable” is a stronger and more encompassing word than “accessible”

Posted by ewise23 Oct 05th 10:57 AM

Purpose. The purpose of this chapter is to implement the Transportation Plan by:

It would be more powerful to name the “Transportation Plan” - the ASMP was passed last spring and should be named in the code.


Posted by ewise23 Oct 05th 10:12 PM

Adjacent and Abutting Streets. For a street required adjacent to or abutting a proposed development, the City may require that up to the entire right-of-way be dedicated and improved to city design standards depending on

More good transportation code text, it is great that landowners must improve the entire right-of-way. This will help complete the sidewalk system.


Posted by ewise23 Oct 05th 10:20 PM

The director shall require an initial demonstration that a proposed development will be adequately served by transportation infrastructure when the first application depicting a specific plan for development is submitted. Depending on the nature of the proposed development and the adequacy of existing transportation infrastructure, an evaluation of right-of-way needs under this section may be required for:

Language is too complex and vague, consider simplifying.

Posted by ewise23 Oct 05th 10:15 PM

Frontage Roads. If a frontage road or service street is required for state or federally designated highways, the entire abutting right-of-way shall be dedicated and improved to applicable design standards and specifications.

This is amazing, converting frontage roads into city streets. However, this could be severely dangerous if speed limits along frontage roads are not reduced and “vision zero” or “safe streets” initiatives are not implemented to reduce auto-pedestrian conflicts, but this is addressed in the ASMP.


Posted by ewise23 Oct 05th 10:27 PM

Technical Requirements. The director shall base right-of-way alignment on engineering criteria related to the safe use and maintenance of public right-of-way, including grade, sight distance, turning radii, curvature, existing green infrastructure, and the existence of flood plain or wildfire hazards. These criteria are primary considerations to be used in determining right-of-way alignment and are controlling over other criteria in the event of conflict.

Studies show that basing safety criteria on engineering standards favor auto uses, which creates unsafe situations for pedestrians and nonmotorized uses. Consider referring to the ASMP and Vision Zero instead of traditional engineering standards.


Posted by ewise23 Oct 05th 10:31 PM

The purpose of reserving right-of-way is to avoid conflicts between new development and future transportation improvements for which acquisition of right-of-way may be required by the City or another governmental entity.

Good, conforms with the ASMP.


Posted by ewise23 Oct 05th 10:52 PM

To determine a street’s existing trip count, the director shall rely on most recent data or establish a current trip count based on generally accepted guidelines.

The “most recent data” does not accurately predict transit and nonmotorized uses because of historic trends where the automobile dominates transportation in Austin. Relying on old standards will not lead to a 5050 mode split in 20 years.

Posted by ewise23 Oct 05th 10:49 PM

To determine the vehicle trips associated with a land use or mix of uses, the director shall base the calculation on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual and standards adopted in the Transportation Criteria Manual.

This WILL NOT help achieve a 5050 mode split by 2039 as called for by the May Council directives and the ASMP. The ITE favors automobile travel and bases its models on past trends, which neglects the growth of transit and nonmotorized uses. This has to be reconsidered or else this code with not work in accordance to the ASMP.


Posted by ewise23 Oct 05th 10:06 PM

A TDM plan is required for a development application that is subject to comprehensive transportation review under this division or as otherwise provided by this Title. If an application is not required to include a TDM plan under this Title, an applicant may submit a TDM plan voluntarily, but may not rely on TDM measures to satisfy requirements of this Title unless specifically authorized by this Title.

Good, fits with ASMP and May council direction

Posted by ewise23 Oct 05th 10:02 PM

Projected multi-modal traffic generated by a proposed development

Using the ITE models will not give an accurate depiction of multi-modal traffic generation, this contradicts with earlier code text.


Posted by ewise23 Oct 05th 10:07 PM

Active Modes Analysis. An analysis that identifies existing and potential opportunities for pedestrian and bicycle connections between a proposed development and adjoining transportation facilities suitable for pedestrian and bicycle travel.

Contradictions earlier call for using ITE trip prediction models


Posted by ewise23 Oct 05th 10:25 PM

Evaluate the existing and projected operating multi-modal level of service of identified residential streets;

Evaluations based on level of service detract from measuring accessibility, which is stressed in the ASMP and May council directive.


Posted by ewise23 Oct 05th 10:33 PM

Reducing the density or intensity of the development, to the extent necessary to ensure that the capacity of the street network can safely accommodate vehicle trips generated by the proposed development.

This wholeheartedly does not fit with the ASMP. It is a false assumption that increasing density will negatively impact the street network. This goes back to ITE trip calculators, which neglect transit and nonmotorized uses. The street network, when expanded to include pedestrians, cyclists, and transit users, can more than accommodate increased intensities. And increased density and mixed use, which this code generally calls for, will reduce the need for transportation thus reducing the stress on the street network. This needs serious reconsideration.


Posted by ewise23 Oct 05th 10:23 PM

Transit facility improvements.

Highlight the need for bus shelters at bus stops.


Posted by ewise23 Oct 05th 10:45 PM

A stand-alone driveway not associated with a land use.

Good, consistent with ASMP


Posted by ewise23 Oct 05th 10:50 PM

A permittee shall pay the cost of relocating a public utility’s storm water drainage improvement, water and waste water mains and facilities, electrical equipment, traffic signal equipment, communications equipment, or trees required by the permittee’s proposed construction.

There should be a timeline associated with the reinstallation of transportation facilities. Ex. the protected bike lane along Rio Grande through West Campus has been removed for construction, and after construction has been completed is still missing.


Posted by ewise23 Oct 05th 10:52 PM

The director may require partial or complete closure of an existing driveway, consistent with the Transportation Criteria Manual, if the director determines that impacts of the driveway on the adjoining street network pose a threat to public safety.

Excellent, improves safety and works with the ASMP.


Posted by ewise23 Oct 05th 10:24 PM

Except as provided in Subsection (B)(2), a subdivision plat or a site plan may not provide for direct access from a lot to a major street unless the lot contains 330 feet or more of frontage on the major street and alternative access is not available.

Access for automobiles or pedestrians?


Posted by ewise23 Oct 05th 10:27 PM

The arrangement of streets shall provide for the alignment and continuation of existing or proposed streets into adjoining lands that are:

Directly from ASMP, beautiful.


Posted by ewise23 Oct 05th 10:48 PM

A subdivision or site plan may have only one point of access if the director determines that:

For pedestrians or automobiles? This transportation section is highly auto-centric and the language of the whole chapter should be reconsidered to include nonmotorized uses.


Posted by ewise23 Oct 05th 10:08 PM

If the road utility district is in the city’s two mile extraterritorial jurisdiction at the time of application, agree to petition for annexation at the time the road utility district becomes contiguous to the city boundary.

This is great for future planning and extending the city’s control over the road network.