A not-all-that-wise Whisenant

There are times when statements from locally elected officials really knock me for a loop. For instance, there is one credited to Hays County Precinct 4 Commissioner Ray Whisenant that’s contained in a story in this week’s Hays Free Press in which reporter Samantha Smith quotes Whisenant talking about the proposed FM 150 realignment between Arroyo Ranch Road and the intersection of I-35 and Yarrington Road.

"The purpose of this project is to relieve traffic congestion on I-35," Smith quoted Whisenant as saying.

Now, perhaps Smith misquoted him, but something tells me that’s not the case. Something tells me this Whisenant fellow is simply clueless, unless, that is, he can explain how a new and improved road, designed to handle additional traffic, will relieve traffic congestion on the highway it feeds into.

Not only that, if everything goes according to plan, this FM 150 realignment will, in the long run, be part of a transportation redesign that will have the affect of greatly increasing traffic on I-35 through our city.

The short-term goal of the FM 150 realignment, of course, has absolutely nothing to do with relieving congestion in I-35 and everything to do with giving those motorists traveling from the Dripping Springs area, especially those who want to go south on I-35, an alternate to getting to the interstate via a two-lane road that goes through downtown Kyle and is often backed up by Southern Pacific freight trains. Once that realignment is complete, that stretch of 150 between Arroyo Ranch Road and I-35 that now goes through downtown Kyle will be re-branded as "Business FM 150," which I still think will be the preferred route for those wishing to go north on I-35 toward Austin.

The long-term goal of the realignment is to provide those motorists traveling east on U.S. 290 a faster route to Houston that completely bypasses Austin as well as all those bergs on 290 (or State Highway 71, my preferred route) because eventually another controlled access highway is going to be constructed on the east side of I-35 connecting the realigned FM 150 to Interstate 10.

And that’s what will result in the increased traffic between Austin and Kyle on I-35. That will be the preferred Austin-to-Houston route, especially for those living west of I-35. Incidentally, this was also the reason why developers wanted to put a truck stop right there at the corner of I-35 and Yarrington, to take advantage of all that increased traffic that will be exiting I-35 at that point to go east to Houston and points further east on I-10. That’s also the primary reason the City of Kyle was so anxious to complete its recent voluntary annexation so that it could take advantage of the commercial development that should naturally sprout up along the realigned FM 150, once it becomes part of the Houston bypass. With the annexation, the realigned FM 150 will be within Kyle’s city limits.

If this was Politifact, it would have labeled Whisenant’s statement "The purpose of this project is to relieve traffic congestion on I-35" as "Liar, liar, pants on fire." But this is not Politifact, so I’ll just say "Wise up, Whisenant."

Lane closings on FM 2770 to begin tomorrow

According to an alert received today from the kind folks in Mountain City, one lane of FM 2770 will be closed overnight for five days for repaving between FM 150 and FM 1626 beginning at 8 p.m. tomorrow. The one lane closure will be from 8 p.m. to 5 a.m. each night, ending at 5 a.m. Friday, thus it should not interfere too much with commuter travel to and from Mountain City, business traffic to the Hays County Tax Office or school traffic to Hays High School or Barton Middle School. I wish I could tell you which lane will be closed each evening, but I don’t have that information and, in the overall scheme of things, it really doesn’t matter — one lane is one lane, regardless of which one it is.

For once, a valuable transportation plan contribution

Faithful readers will know that I have been harshly critical about proposed transportation plans that are nothing more than road plans. And as long as transportation plans are based on the assumption that the private automobile is the only viable mode of transportation for Kyle residents, we will continue to have to deal with such issues as burdensome road construction and maintenance costs, traffic congestion, air quality issues, mass transportation demands impossible to satisfy and sustainable neighborhoods. It’s literally getting to the point where a family’s overall costs for driving and maintaining their automobiles rival their housing costs.

Finally, however, the folks at Lockwood, Andrews and Newman have made a valuable contribution to the city’s transportation planning efforts even though it appears it is buried in this Tuesday’s City Council consent agenda. I’m really hoping someone on the council will pull this item because it needs further discussion.

Although the item in question reads adoption of LAN’s Transportation Plan, the accompanying materials reveal that the subject is, in actuality, an inventory of the city’s sidewalk network. And what that inventory reveals is … well, rather revealing.

For example, if I read the map correctly, it appears that one of the areas of Kyle that should promote walkability more than any other, namely the area downtown on either side of Center Street, is an area that appears to be completely devoid of sidewalks. That’s criminal. If there is one area of any community that needs to promote walkability, it’s the downtown area. Not just the one street through the heart of downtown, but those streets surrounding it.

Kyle needs to prioritize its downtown area as one for commercial redevelopment as well as new business development, but that development is never going to happen, i.e. Kyle is going to have problems extending its commercial tax base with new small businesses, if it doesn’t make its downtown area completely walkable.

Not only that, walking is easy, convenient and a healthy exercise, especially for old fogeys like myself. My dog and I try to walk at least four miles a day and those walks are far easier and safer in places where there are sidewalks.

I am hoping the City Council will use this valuable piece of information — for once, an addition, addendum, whatever you want to call it to a transportation plan that actually deals with issues other than automobility — as an outline for planning the much needed transportation alternatives our city needs to make us more sustainable, more liveable, healthier and more of a target for business development, especially in our downtown area.

I say this knowing that if this item is pulled from the Consent Agenda it will make what appears to be potentially one of the lengthiest City Council meetings in the 18 months I’ve lived here even longer. I’m tempted to show up to City Hall Tuesday not only with my pen, pad and recorder, but also with a sleeping bag.

First of all, there’s going to be the second public hearing on the involuntary annexation and I’m expecting the same cast of citizens who spoke at the first public hearing to come back and make exactly the same complaints again. This is not to question the validity of those complaints. Far from it. But you have to admit hearing the same complaint voiced over and over again can get tiresome, especially if you don’t have a dog in that fight, and you realize this repetition is going to result in a meeting that could last until the wee hours of Wednesday morning.

The agenda lists three presentations that will take place even before the public hearings begin which means it could be close to 8:30 - 9 p.m. before the council even begins to consider any action items. And toward the end of the meeting, there is another conversation that’s scheduled to take place on whether to adopt a storm water utility; whether the city should enter into an agreement with the county on road/guardrail/drainage repairs (This discussion could involve the level of quality between the city and country’s repairs, although that seems to be addressed in the agreement.); replacing the current Verizon phone system the city uses with a cloud-based system that is too complicated to explain in detail in this space but you can learn more about here and one that will cost significantly less than the Verizon system; along those same lines, moving the city’s servers to a cloud-based hosting system even though the company providing this service has experienced troubling volatility in the performance of its stock;  and a quick glance at the Executive Session listing doesn’t fill me with much hope it will be brief.

Now, having said all that, there is one other item I would like to see pulled from the consent agenda and that’s the one that has the city paying Texas State University no more than $2,750 to "conduct a citizen’s (sic) satisfaction survey for the City of Kyle." Sure, I could be smug and wonder what the criteria is going to be to select the citizen for the survey, but I am assuming that’s the City’s grammatical error and not a statement of fact. (Hope. Hope.) But what I would really like to know is what exactly are respondents going to be quizzed about. Is this a survey to measure the satisfaction of residents with City services. Or is it a survey to see how satisfied we are by the number of restaurants we have in town, or the condition of the roads, or how satisfied citizens were with the UIL realignment or the Academy Awards?

It does appear that this will be another one of those surveys what will be sent out with water bills which means that this will be another survey of homeowners only and not all residents of Kyle. What a lost opportunity.

I have the feeling, however, this is more of a Texas State-driven student project than it is a city-driven survey, especially when you consider the price tag. According to the accompanying materials, the students are supposed to present to the city no later than Aug. 31 (1) a bi-lingual survey instrument on citizen satisfaction (of what, I have no idea); (2) Statistical analysis of survey results; (3) A report on aggregated regional results; (4) A report on City specific results; (4) An executive summary of results; (5) Content description and summaries of each survey topic; (5) A comparison of results based upon benchmarks of participating cities; (6) Profile of each city surveyed; (7) Profile of survey respondents; (8) Overview of survey research method; and (10) Copy of survey instrument. That’s an awful lot of ask for $2,750, but I still would like to know what it’s about. What specific information does the city hope to obtain from this survey? I think that’s an important question to have answered and that’s why I’m hoping this item will also be pulled from the consent agenda.

Like I said, I may be bringing my sleeping bag anyway.

Transportation Plan meeting a travesty, a complete waste of time

Here’s a shout-out to the majority of folks who live in Kyle — you didn’t fall for the bait-and-switch debacle of what was billed as a Transportation Plan presentation, but was actually nothing more than a plea to build more roads by a company who profits tremendously when new roads are built — you folks were smart enough to stay away. Hopefully, far, far away. This was a joke.

It wasn’t even a presentation. No one stood up and said "Here’s what the plan entails." Instead, about a half dozen colorful presentation boards were propped on easels in a semicircle in what I guess is the cafeteria of Fuentes Elementary School. And these boards screamed out: "It’s going to cost billions in taxpayer money to build these unnecessary soon-to-be congested roads that will, more quickly than you probably expect, cost even more billions to maintain and reconstruct as they age. This is a plan that solves absolutely nothing but will put you incredibly in debt, (although it make those of us who are advocating it a whole lot of money)."

Yes, it was not a Transportation Plan, as it was labeled to be. It was simply a roads plan. Worst fears realized.

Someone needs to step forward and proclaim "This type of antiquated, outmoded, World War II-era approach to solving transportation issues needs to be abolished immediately so we can concentrate on developing strong, sustainable neighborhoods."

When are we going to learn that the city’s goal should not be "How do we get people through and around Kyle," but, instead, "How do we get people to come and stay in Kyle, work in Kyle, play in Kyle, shop in Kyle? In short, how do we make it as convenient as possible for people — young, old and in-between, the healthy and the affirmed, ALL people — to actually live in Kyle, not simply reside here?"

Council goes in wrong direction to solve transportation complaints

(Updated to include Mountain City Mayor Tiffany Carnutt’s reaction to last night’s action by the city council to rescind the Anthem related ILA)

The Kyle City Council, in response to about a half-dozen mostly elderly residents who have serious transportation needs, turned to the city staff last night and instructed it to come up with a financially feasible solution.

It was the wrong action to take, the wrong direction in which to turn.

For one thing, the city’s transportation issues are not the responsibility of municipal government and I’ll explain why in a minute. Before that, however, the issue remains how to deal with the specific problem facing council members last night. Yes, there are people in this community, however small a percentage of the total population that group might comprise, who have real transportation needs. If the government of the city in which they have chosen to reside can’t and shouldn’t provide the solution, who can?

I can only speak for myself, but if I sat on the Kyle City Council and I felt passionately about dealing with this issue, I would be out in the community right this minute banging on the door of every church in town, seeking to meet with every religious leader and any other faith-based organizations that existed around here. It is a mission, perhaps a primary mission, of church groups and other faith-based organizations to reach out to those in need and I’m convinced with the assistance of Kyle’s religious leaders a network of volunteers could be created to provide for the transportation needs of this small group of citizens. Not only that, these churches might be able to find additional members among this group or at least a few who would like to not only attend church services but become aware of other programs the churches might offer as part of their outreach to the elderly. At the very least, these volunteers have another charitable deduction to include on their income tax filings. If the city wants to take an additional role in this, it could, once a year, stage a small ceremony before a City Council meeting in which these volunteers along with the religious institution they represent, are recognized and publicly thanked for their contributions to making Kyle a more liveable community for all its residents.

Now to return to the overarching question of meeting the transportation needs of the many instead of just a select few. Mayor Todd Webster was correct last night when he said a regional solutioon, not a local municipal approach was needed. But here’s an important question that must be answered: Is Kyle really at a place where there is even a viable regional approach that could be inclusive of Kyle? I am not sure the city is at that point. Not yet, anyway.

Here’s why: Effective transportation, like effective communications, has to be two-way. Talking is not the same thing as effectively communicating, which requires there be one or more persons on the other end to both hear and understand what you’re saying and then even acting upon it. Before Kyle can be a viable participant in any regional transportation plan it must become a city not just where residents want a transportation alternative to get somewhere else, but where there is also that same need and desire to come to Kyle. Or, in the words of City Manager Scott Sellers, Kyle needs to become a destination city.

The best way to achieve this, of course, is to make the city more of an employment destination, to convert Kyle into a city where the daytime population is significantly higher than its nighttime census. That could create a demand from outside of Kyle to include our city in a regional transportation network. And then these businesses must be encouraged to find ways to convince their employees to seek alternative forms of transportation. Part of the employment package at the City of Dallas, where I worked for a number of years, is an annual DART (Dallas Area Rapid Transit) pass. One quickly learns, when you add in the wear-and-tear on your private vehicle, parking expenses, fuel expenses, etc., that these passes are worth far more than simply the train/bus fare the pass pays for. At the same time, the city should investigate any and all ways to place unique retail/dining options in the city. If the word gets out in Central Texas "The only place you’re going to find that is in Kyle," the greater the demand becomes to get to Kyle, if only for a couple of hours. I’m also convinced, by studying the trends popping up all over the place, more and more people would like to turn away from their SOVs to other transportation options if those options were reliable. And a single municipal government — not Kyle’s, not even Austin’s — can provide that.

What is required is a far-reaching, all-inclusive self-governing regional transportation authority to design, fund and implement an integrated transportation network. And what I mean by integrated is simply this: Any such network which services Kyle should provide for transportation options to take Kyle residents to Austin Bergstrom International Airport, to the Greyhound or the Amtrak terminals in Austin and San Marcos. And when I say far-reaching, all-inclusive I’m talking about a network that will give me a transportation alternative to attend a home game of the San Antonio Spurs, an event at the Alamodome and even treat my granddaughter to a day at Schlitterbahn or an evening at Wurstfest, a dinner at a restaurant located on South or North Lamar in Austin, a day at the Bullock Museum, a game at Dell Diamond without having to face the obstacles of dealing with traffic or trying to find a convenient place to park.

Kyle city government’s role in all of this is not to provide those transportation networks, but to find ways to reduce the need for those networks on a local basis. Kyle planning is basically founded on the principles of municipal planning developed immediately after World War II and, now here we are, 70 years later, still following those same outdated models. To put it bluntly, Kyle is little more than a collection of slightly upgraded Levittowns.

Let me quote a section from The Smart Growth Manual by Andres Duany and Jeff Beck, both respected municipal planning experts: "With the exception of regional-scale corridors and special-use districts, growth should be organized as neighborhoods. The term neighborhood has the specific technical meaning of being compact, walkable, diverse, and connected. It is compact — as dense as the market will allow — in order not to waste land, and it is typically no larger than a half-mile across. It is walkable in that this size corresponds to a five-minute walk from edge to the center and that all its streets are pedestrian-friendly. It is diverse in that it can provide the full range of daily needs, including shopping, workplace, and housing for all ages, incomes, and living arrangements. Finally, it is connected in that it is seamlessly integrated into transit, roadway and bicycle networks."

City planning that incorporates this thinking makes sense on so many levels. Ask most of Kyle citizens what they feel is the most pressing problem facing the city, and they’ll reply the condition of the city’s streets. That’s because that Levittown planning concept puts too much burden on those streets and the cost of maintaining and repairing them consumes too high a percentage of the city’s budget. And the city’s current growth model simply compounds the problem. Kyle is accumulating a debt for future generations that could become insurmountable and that borders on the criminal.

Again, as recommended by The Smart Growth Manual, Kyle’s No. 1 growth priority should be urban revitalization, which, of course, here should be concentrated in an around the downtown area. Priority No. 2 is urban infill, 3 is urban extension and the fourth priority should be suburban retrofit. Its least important priority, which is exactly opposite of Kyle’s current mode of operation, is new neighborhoods that require new infrastructure. These priorities reduce the tax burden on future residents and frees up municipal funds to be used for other needs such as participating in a regional transportation network.

Many municipalities, including San Antonio and El Paso to name just two in the state of Texas, are seeing the wisdom in this and are already implementing form-based growth codes. For anyone interested, a guide called The SmartCode may be downloaded at www.smartcodecentral.org.


In other action last night, the council:

• Approved the appointment of former police officer Aaron Townsend to the Civil Service Commission.
• After watching a self-policing stormwater video, approved on first reading an ordinance adding much needed teeth to the city’s storm water regulations including providing criminal penalties for violators of the ordinance.
• Asked the city’s staff to prepare a report summarizing what other cities (I presume cities comparable to Kyle in one way or another) are doing regarding ordinances to limit or permit the use of tobacco and tobacco-related products in public areas.
• Rescinded its approval of an ILA with Mountain City and Hays County that would have resulted in Kyle annexing the planned Anthem subdivision, currently situated in Mountain City’s ETJ, and the city providing utility services to Anthem and, to a lesser extent, Mountain City itself. The council replaced the proposed ILA with a letter of intent to sell water and wastewater services directly to Anthem, with Anthem providing the necessary infrastructure and also contributing to the costs of expanding Kyle’s wastewater treatment facility. "I think it's a great way to move forward," Mountain City Mayor Tiffany Carnutt said. "We discussed this as an option initially with Clark Wilson and the city of Kyle and it wasn't an option for the city of Kyle at that time. So it's great that it's worked out. We appreciate the time put into the research and discovery behind this project from all parties including the city of Kyle, the city of Dripping Springs, Clark Wilson and our staff and council members as well. It's been a really long road getting to this point and it's kind of funny how we came full circle back to one of the initial ideas. At least we can also be comfortable in the fact that we reviewed and discussed every avenue possible to move forward with the idea."
• Was informed by City Manager Scott Sellers that the lawsuit filed by Louisiana anesthesiologist Glen Hurlston against the cities of Kyle and Princeton, Texas, alleging a series of "unlawful police actions" in connection with Hurlston’s arrest on charges he physically abused his then wife after he learned of her affair with Kyle Police Chief Jeff Barnett, had been dismissed with prejudice, which means Hurlston cannot appeal the decision.

Kyle doesn’t consider Blanco Vista an ‘established, stable’ neighborhood

Kyle says it's OK to build a truck stop across the street from here because this is not an established stable neighborhood
 

As expected, Tuesday’s Planning and Zoning Commission agenda includes an item seeking approval to change the zoning on property at I-35 and Yarrington Road so that the owners can locate "a truck/travel center" (i.e., a Godzilla truck stop) on the property that the city of Kyle claims is in a "remote location from established stable neighborhoods."

The city’s staff does not seem to be opposed to the zoning change, but I do expect a host of citizens from the neighboring Blanco Vista residential district to fill the chambers and protest the proposal. The problem is those well-meaning citizens live in an established stable neighborhood on the south side of Yarrington, which is in San Marcos, so their objections will carry only moral, but absolutely no political, weight with the commission or the city of Kyle. The San Marcos City Council, incidentally, has gone on the record in opposition to a truck stop being located on the property.

In a letter accompanying the zoning request from the owners’ attorneys, Terrence L. Irion of Austin writes "Transportation related services, such as a truck/travel center and warehouse facilities are ideal uses for this property located … in close proximity to the railroad tracts to the west." The letter makes no reference to the residences in Blanco Vista to the south.

In his letter, Irion tries to appeal to the sensibilities of the five "whatever a developer wants, a developer gets" members of the City Council by writing: "As has often been said by Kyle Officials (sic) in recent years, business growth is key to stabilizing the tax base and taking the burden of paying for growth off the shoulders of the homeowners in the community." What remains to be decided, perhaps, is whether that means any kind of business growth.

The staff analysis accompanying the request states "…at some point in the near future the site will have utility services available (no wastewater line currently serves the site, but that has not stopped P&Z or the City Council from approving zoning changes identical to this one in the past) and, once that occurs, the property — with its proximity to interstate and rail, and it’s remote location from established stable neighborhoods — will be well-suited to those uses permissible in the warehouse district."

Those residents of the nearby Blanco Vista subdivision may not think too highly of the comment that the property is in a "remote location from established stable neighborhoods."

The complete P&Z agenda for Tuesday's 6:30 p.m. meeting can be found here.

Where Kyle stands with bus service options

Last week I wrote about the dissatisfaction certain Kyle City Council members had with CARTS service. It seems — horror of horrors — that some Kyle residents were using CARTS to shop in San Marcos and not in Kyle. Funny thing about that. The mission statement of CARTS is to provide transportation from one rural community to another rural community or to San Marcos. It is not designed to provide in-town service. Second funny thing about that. Kyle is no longer considered a rural community anyway so the city no longer has any direct service with CARTS. Instead, like Georgetown, Kyle has had a contract with Austin’s transit provider, Capital Metro, which dispatches a CARTS vehicle for Kyle residents on an as-requested basis. Following this so far?

So I went to Capital Metro and asked officials there if any other cities were upset with this service or was Kyle the only one. According to Michelle Meaux, Capital Metro’s Regional Coordination Planner, Georgetown is the only other city with this type of service and not only is Georgetown not considering ending the service, it is so happy with it it is extending its contract with Capital Metro. So there’s that. But then Georgetown is a lot more developed with a far more diverse economy than Kyle and its government thinks more like a metropolitan community than a small town. So there’s that as well. Here is the complete statement I received from Ms. Meaux:

"The 2010 Census designated the city of Kyle as part of the Austin Urbanized Area. Since Kyle is in the urbanized area, the city cannot get service directly from CARTS, as CARTS is a provider of transit in the rural area. However, since January 2015, the city of Kyle has received transit service from CARTS through an agreement between the city, Capital Metro, and CARTS.

"CARTS provides a type of transit service called demand response service in Kyle. Customers call ahead to the CARTS customers service center and reserve trips. CARTS also provides this service (also through formal agreements with the city and Capital Metro) in Georgetown. The city of Georgetown recently extended their agreement for service for another year. Capital Metro and the city of Georgetown also just completed a Transit Development Plan that recommends transitioning from demand response service to fixed-route service and we are working with Georgetown's city council on approval of that plan. Capital Metro is also currently working with the cities of Buda and Hutto on Transit Development Plans. Both cities currently do not have Capital Metro service, but the plans will provide a pathway for obtaining service.

"Based on average ridership and hours of service from January 2015 through July 2015, I calculate that the city paid approximately $16.61 per trip. In some cases, you may find that some citizens use the Kyle transit service to access shopping, medical and nutrition centers in San Marcos. Under the Fiscal Year 2015 agreement, there were no restrictions on where customers could go. Now that Kyle has a Walmart and more shopping choices, we were working with city staff to include language to better define their service area in the Fiscal Year 2016 agreement. Over the summer, Capital Metro worked with city staff on an agreement for service and to begin a Transit Development Plan. This plan would have analyzed the current service and made adjustments to the service if needed, along with making recommendations for future service. However, the city of Kyle notified Capital Metro that city council voted on September 1 to end transit service and asked for the current contract to be extended to December 31, 2015. The extension was approved by the Capital Metro Board on September 28, 2015.

"The option to work with Capital Metro on a Transit Plan is still available to the city and we hope to work with the city of Kyle again on future projects."

So that’s it. The city has decided to restrict transit options for its residents.

Mayor pro tem wants to eliminate shoppers’ freedom of choice

Mayor Pro Tem David Wilson threw a hissy-fit last night over the fact that someone in Kyle has the temerity to shop at the H-E-B and the Wal-Mart in San Marcos instead of the ones here. Now there’s good reasons to encourage people to spend sales tax money here and not in another city. I remember when I was shopping for new furniture while I lived in Dallas and I absolutely rejected my then-girlfriend’s pleas to check out furniture stores in the suburbs. I wasn’t about to send sales tax revenue to another city, especially when I was an employee of the City of Dallas. But that was my choice.

Wilson, on the other hand, wants to actually deny freedom of choice to this particular unnamed Kyle resident by stripping this person of the transportation he or she uses to shop in San Marcos. Wilson is siding with council member Damon Fogley (who had the audacity, during the discussion of this subject, to call himself a "fiscal conservative" even though he voted to subject Kyle property owners to the highest taxes in Hays County. "Just pay to attention to what I say," he seemed to say, "and ignore everything I do.") on the notion to end the city’s subsidy to the Demand Response transportation service provided by Capital Area Rural Transportation Service (CARTS).

At Fogley’s behest, Kyle Chief of Staff Jerry Hendrix gave a presentation to the City Council last night that suggests the city isn’t getting the return on its investment when it comes to CARTS. I would guess every city in the nine-county area served by CARTS would say the same thing, but Kyle is the only one of them preparing to take the service away. The problem with Hendrix’s presentation was that it was strictly about numbers and had nothing to do with humanity. I guess to Kyle city officials, the people who live here are simply another commodity to be considered collectively: "Here in Kyle we have stores and houses and sewers and people and roads and manholes and apartments and a whole lot of other things," without ever stopping to contemplate the individuality of those "people."

To put it bluntly, this action last night displayed a total lack of empathy on the part of Kyle government officials towards the citizens it is supposed to be serving as well as an ignorance of the responsibilities of government. Let me explain: As far as I know, no one sought this shopper’s input into why he or she prefers to shop at the stores in San Marcos. If they did, they certainly didn’t share it last night. But personal reasons don’t matter to Wilson or Fogley: "You either voluntarily do all your shopping in Kyle or we will take steps to force you to shop within the city limits. We are the dictatorial leaders of Kyle and we can do that." Unfortunately this type of George Orwellian thinking is running rampant these days, which is why we are seeing governments denying voting rights to those who don’t agree with them or eliminating health care options for poor women and minorities.

One of my two closest living friends, someone who was a principle at my wedding and who was my son’s godfather, died last week and Friday I, together with my son and granddaughter, drove to Dallas to participate in his funeral services. The day before I decided to purchase a new solid black tie to wear so I hopped in the car and drove over to Kohl’s on Kyle Parkway. I can’t recall when I ever been subjected to as terrible customer service as I received at that store. I finally left without ever purchasing the tie, promising myself I would never shop in that store again. I walked down the way to the Ross store where I received satisfactory customer service and actually purchased the tie at one-third the price than I would have paid at Kohl’s.

There may be times in the future when I might want to shop at Kohl’s, but I promise you when that time comes I will be going to a Kohl’s in Austin or San Marcos and not the one here in Kyle and I don’t think big, bad government has any right to tell me otherwise. Unfortunately, Wilson and Fogley don’t agree with this idea of freedom of choice and I’m afraid a majority of the council may agree with them as well.

I've heard rumors that H-E-B intends to build a Central Market at or near the intersection of highways 1626 and 967 in Buda. I love me some Central Market. If these rumors are true, there's an excellent chance the bakery there will provide Challah, something the Kyle H-E-B has no intention of selling. And anyone who knows anything about proper food preparation knows that Challah is a necessary ingredient in the preparation of quality French Toast. Regardless, if a Central Market does wind up there, I'll be spending more of my grocery dollars in Buda and less in Kyle. It's my choice and regardless of how Wilson and Fogley want to deny me my freedoms, I'm going to exercise my freedom of choice.

I only hope that other nameless shopper is afforded the same rights.

Kyle becomes stronger if we address traffic the way we address flooding

I understand there’s another one of those CAMPO meetings coming up to look at "long-range" solutions to the area’s transportation issues, which, of course, means building more roads, a 20^th century solution to a 21^st century problem. I wish I could take credit for this line, but I can’t (still, that’s not going to keep me from appropriating it): "Solving traffic problems by adding more roads is like solving obesity by buying a larger pair of pants."

There’s going to be a conference this week in Austin on streets and one of the speakers at that conference is Charles Marohn, a professional engineer and a member of the American Institute of Certified Planners. He is the author of an insightful book Thoughts on Building Strong Towns (Vol. 1), which should be must-reading for any municipal development/planning official. By the time I learned of his appearance in Austin, tickets to his presentation were sold out. Kyle’s Community Development Director Howard J. Koontz is attending the conference and I’m hoping he secured a ticket to see and hear Marohn.

I ran across this article today authored by Marohn that echoes my feelings about transportation plans in general and road construction in particular. It suggests a blueprint I wish our city leaders would follow:

"Between our places — on our roads — congestion signals many things but, for me anyway, it primarily indicates America's cultural — and the engineering profession's technical — misunderstanding of the systems we have built.

Consider the hierarchical road network. It's so commonplace today that we rarely stop to question it. Small, local streets empty into collector streets. Those collectors empty into arterials. The arterials empty into major arterials which eventually end up pouring into our highway systems. Small to big; it's the way things are done

Stop a moment to examine a watershed. There you have ditches that flow into small creeks. Those creeks flow into larger brooks and streams. In turn these flow into larger rivers and, ultimately, these systems come together to form some of the world's major waterways.

We all intuitively understand that, when we experience rain or snow melt on the edges of a watershed, there is a compounding effect that occurs. We've become fairly competent at realizing that, by the time all this rain comes together, it very often produces a flood.

We've so grasped this concept that we've taken steps to address the problem at the source. We don't allow people to fill their wetlands. We require developers to retain their runoff on site. We build retention systems to hold back runoff and feed stormwater into the natural systems more slowly so flooding does not occur. We take these steps and others at the source to mitigate the cumulative, negative impacts of stormwater runoff. Namely: flooding.

Instead of a river network, examine a similar system of roadways during a typical commute. Here we have rain of a different sort: the automobiles that emanate forth from the development we induce, subsidize and cheer for out on the periphery of our cities.

Why are we so shocked when this produces a flood?

WE. CREATE. THE. FLOOD.

If we were going to design a system to generate the maximum amount of congestion each day, this is exactly how it would be done. This is why all American cities — big, small and in between — experience some level of congestion during commutes. We take whatever cars we have and funnel them into the same place at the same time. We manufacture a flood.

I've written a short eBook describing the ways I would go about using price signals to make some rational choices about our transportation investments, but I'm going to simplify by sticking with the river analogy. When we want to decrease flooding in a watershed, we go to the source. We try to retain that water, to absorb it as near to where it originates as possible. We understand this is way cheaper and vastly more effective than building massive infrastructure systems to handle the runoff once it is sent downstream.

For automobile flooding (congestion), the only way to deal with it and still have a successful economy is to address it at the source. We need to absorb those trips locally before they become a flood. Instead of building lanes, we need to be building corner stores. We need local economic ecosystems that create jobs, opportunity and destinations for people as an alternative to those they can only get to by driving.

For nearly seven decades, our national transportation obsession has been about maximizing the amount that you can drive. We now need to focus on minimizing the amount you are forced to drive. If we develop a system that responds to congestion by creating local options, we will not only waste less money on transportation projects that accomplish little, but we will be strengthening the finances of our cities. We can spend way less and get back way more."

It makes sense. Now all we need here in Kyle are officials with that same kind of forward thinking.

The corridor to nowhere

The City Council approved Tuesday night a resolution recommending the development of a corridor — not a road, mind you, but a very wide swath of land somewhere in which a road might be constructed — between Arroyo Ranch Road, located off Ranch Road 150 2½ miles northwest of where 150 meets 2770. and the intersection Yarrington and I-35.

The plan is that sometime in the next five, ten, 25, 50, 100 years or thereabouts, Ranch Road 150 would be diverted at Arroyo and placed somewhere within that corridor? Why? Because the transportation "experts" around these parts believe transportation only has to do with infrastructure and has nothing to do with mobility and as a result they want to convert 150 into, at least, a four-lane expressway to accommodate all those thousands and thousands of folks who want a faster way to get from Dripping Springs to San Marcos and points south. Right now, 150 runs right through the center of downtown Kyle and a four-lane highway could not be accommodated there without knocking down some historic buildings (and probably city hall itself) and building a bridge over the railroad tracks, which is also impractical for too many reasons to list here.

But, the council was told Tuesday night, a form of 150 will still run down Center Street. Only that stretch will be called Business 150 after the new highway is complete.

Council members asked a lot of questions about the proposed corridor including relevant ones such as how it will impact Jim Miller’s certified organic farm located in that area (council members were assured that road will be constructed nowhere near Miller’s farm) and a lot of irrelevant ones. They also seemed concerned about the long lines of traffic that develop at certain times on Center Street in downtown Kyle — especially when a train blocks the crossing at the eastern edge of downtown — and how this new alignment might alleviate that traffic. (The answer is probably that it won’t alleviate that because much of that traffic is generated by the schools in the downtown area or the parents of children in places like Hometown Kyle taking their children to Lehman High School.)

I had some questions I thought were obvious ones to ask, but never were. The main question was what percentage of the traffic traveling east through downtown on RR 150 wants to go north on I-35? I have a sneaking suspicion that percentage is fairly significant and those motorists are not going to want to be diverted way to the south in order to go north, so they will continue to follow the Business 150 or whatever it will be called through downtown.

Second, the corridor, as outlined Tuesday night to the council, stops at Yarrington and I-35. But RR 150 doesn’t stop at I-35. It connects with State Highway 21 and offers many Kyle residents, especially those living near 150, arguably the best route between Kyle and Bastrop and then on to Houston and points east. Is Business RR 150 going to reconnect with regular RR 150 somewhere that doesn’t take the motorists using this route to get to Bastrop too far out of their way?. Or is 150 really going to stop at I-35? If so, what happens to what is now RR 150 between I-35 and State Highway 21? (I have heard nasty, unsubstantiated rumors, that highway officials eventually want to extend super-highway 150 to Interstate 10 west of Flatonia and have that serve as the principle truck route between Austin and Houston, which, then, becomes the rationale for locating that Godzilla truck stop at I-35 and Yarrington.)

I also can’t conceive of RR150 ever being seriously considered by any conscientious motorist to be a logical alternative connector between Dripping Springs and Houston. That’s ridiculous. That’s why I am calling ths the corridor to nowhere. (OK, I’ll grant you, it may provide a faster access between Dripping Springs and San Marcos and then points south, but is that really a major need that has to be addressed at this time?)

In all the talk about this road, I would have liked to have had someone on the council address these issues. But, as I’ve said so many times before, the fix was in.

Why I won't be attending Tuesday's transportation plan meeting

There's some kind of grandiose Transportation Plan meeting taking place here Tuesday evening at the same time the Planning and Zoning Commission is hashing out its final recommendations for the city's landscaping ordinance. I will opt to attend the latter because what happens in the P&Z workshop will have a more direct and immediate impact on the city while the transportation plan will, without doubt, concern itself only with how we can get more cars on more roads creating more bad air and will have no sensible recommendations such as these "Road Diets," and, of course, will contain absolutely no information about how to make Kyle more walkable. (You really owe it to yourself to watch this 16-minute video.)

Some additional observations on this transportation business

Last night I wrote about a transportation confab that had everything to do with roads and nothing whatsoever to do with transportation. And that thought may have come across to some as a criticism so I want to assure you it wasn’t meant to be. If it wasn’t for the fact that Kyle would not be eligible for any outside government moneys without an integrated long-range transportation "master plan," I would argue that the city, in its current state of development and even in its projected development decades hence, doesn’t even need a "transportation plan." In fact, all it really does need is a road plan that extends 5-10 years forward.

But, in order to develop those corridors, the city’s coffers need to be augmented by state and perhaps even federal dollars and a city is not eligible for those dollars without an integrated long-range transportation plan on the shelf. But let’s net fool ourselves: that is the only reason the city needs to invest the money required to get this plan drafted.

Complete streets? Get real. Does anyone actually know what complete streets mean. I gather from listening at last night’s meeting the local definition of a complete street is one with a bike lane and at least one sidewalk. Here is the definition of a complete street as defined by the National Complete Streets Coalition: "They are designed and operated to enable safe access for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, motorists and transit riders of all ages and abilities. Complete Streets make it easy to cross the street, walk to shops, and bicycle to work. They allow buses to run on time and make it safe for people to walk to and from train stations."

Think about it. How many Kyle residents you know desperately want to bicycle to work? Many here bicycle for recreation, but you don’t need complete streets for that. You needed dedicated hike and bike trails and I don’t know if the city has that kind of money to spend on those of even if they have the desire to spend that money on them. How many of them even want to walk to work, walk to where they will go shopping or walk between their places of residence to a train station? I can’t even envision anyone in Kyle even desiring to drive to an area train station, let alone walk to one. But that whole Lone Star Rail District boondoggle is a completely different issue. Anybody see the need for buses to be able to run on time in Kyle?

Hey, here’s my input for the transportation plan: Replace the four-way stop sign at Kohlers Crossing and Kyle Parkway with a roundabout and make it impressive as all get-out by sticking something like this right in the middle of it. Here’s my input for a long-range transportation plan: Make Kyle the "Roundabout Capital of the United States," replacing every single traffic light not on an I-35 frontage road with a roundabout and inserting one at every single intersection where a stop sign is now in place and make them all as aesthetically impressive as this.

Now let’s be realistic about the subject of congestion. Adding new roads to a community’s inventory does not relieve congestion. It simply adds additional roads that are very likely to become congested themselves. And there is not a single shred of evidence to be found anywhere that the addition of rail transit in any shape or form relieves highway congestion. It never has and it never will.

I moved to this area five months ago from Dallas, a city with a comparatively extensive rail component that was conceived and implemented while I was a resident. And the highways are more jammed today than they have ever been and next year at this time they will be congested even worse. In fact, at the same time the regional transportation authority began construction on its very first rail line — a north-south line that on the northern side of downtown ran parallel to the horribly congested North Central Expressway — TxDot began work on widening North Central Expressway. What was the result? Instead of a two-lane in each direction freeway that was stop-and-go (mostly stop) throughout both the morning and evening rush hours, the city now had a four-lane in each direction freeway that was stop-and-go (mostly stop) throughout both rush hours. Did people ride the train? Yes they did and at times during the rush-hour period it was standing-room-only on those trains. But it had absolutely no discernable effect on the horrid freeway traffic.

New York City, where I was born and raised, has arguably the most extensive, sophisticated rail system in the United States, but, still try to navigate the jammed FDR, West Side Highway, the Major Deegan or the Long Island Expressway, especially during rush hours, and all those expressways were constructed decades after the New York City subways went into operation.

There is only one way to solve the problem of expressway/freeway congestion problem and that is to eliminate the offending expressways/freeways. If you build them, they will come.

Look at Portland, Ore. If there’s anything clogging the streets of urban Portland, it’s bicycles. Portland is also the home of possibly the most impressive computer rail operation in the United States. It’s secret? There are no freeways in Portland. The same is true in the Canadian cities of Vancouver and Calgary for exactly the same reason. I used to spend a lot of time in Paris, France, and the traffic throughout the interior of Paris moves effortlessly for exactly the same reasons: a super-efficient Metro rail system that will get you within a few blocks of anywhere you want to go in Paris and absolutely no freeways inside the city.

For most American cities, rail transportation is simply a transportation option. And give human beings an option, they are invariably going to choose the most convenient one. They are, after all, human beings. And there’s no more convenient transportation option that getting into your personal vehicle when you want to (not when some schedule over which you have no control dictates you must) and heading right for the destination you want to get to (not a few blocks or a few miles away from that destination).

Why does anyone think so many people attending the Kyle transportation meeting last night voiced a desire for more ways to access I-35? Because they want to get to a rail station there? Give me a break.

The problem of I-35 congestion through Austin is never going to be solved as long as there is an I-35 through Austin. Where that impacts Kyle is the very real possibility that with the growth this area is experiencing, I-35 through Kyle could someday resemble a parking lot at certain hours as well. And that is never going to be solved either, as long as there is an I-35 slicing through Kyle. So, please, don’t expect the answer to come by any attempt at a rail alternative and pretty please don’t expect salvation from any form of a Transportation Plan.