In the comments on the last post, Mike says
"As anyone in Austin knows, Wal-Mart has planned an unusually big box on the edge of a residential neighborhood,"Hmmm....looking at your photo, it looks to me as though the properties next to Northcross Mall on the south and southwest side are residences. Perhaps you and I have different definitions of the term "residential," but, for me, it's a place with residences (and I don't think it matters if people are renting or owning).
Nope.
http://mdahmus.monkeysystems.com/blog/archives/000373.html
So, wrestle with a different pig on that one.
Quoting from Mike again:
"The current plan is inadequate in regard to public transportation (for which, I have heard anecdotally, Wal-Mart is notorious)."
Hard to support. Other Wal-Mart sites (on frontage roads) supported by your neighbors are far worse for public transportation access.
Ah, one of my favorite fallacies: "the fallacy of moral equivalence."
Although lavender has more blue in it than pink does, it still isn't blue. Although California is closer to Mexico than is Oregon, it's still in the US. Although X might be worse than Y, that doesn't make it good.
So, although there are plans that could be worse in terms of public transportation, that doesn't make this one adequate.
You can go on and on and on about frontage road plans, but that's fundamentally irrelevant to the question of whether this plan has adequate public transportation. So, just let it drop--you ain't fooling me.
What you need to show to counter my point is:
1) that the plan submitted to the city (not the current situation at Northcross) has sites for public transit that
2) will not worsen the situation in regard to the surface streets.
In other words, that Wal-Mart proposes a substantial area well off the street dedicated to public transit. (That was what I couldn't see when I was trying to find out just what they propose.)
As Hugh says in the comments, the intersection is currently overutilized. It doesn't matter if other areas are even worse, or if a frontage road plan is worse (that's called "shifting the stasis"--another fallacy), what matters is that this plan proposes to make a bad situation significantly worse. Nothing you have said counters that.
5 comments:
This comment about metrics baffles me. The consensus of the neighborhoods around this plan seems to be that building a 225,000 sf Wal-Mart in the middle of an already congested area "will make traffic so much worse we shouldn't approve it". Where is there compelling evidence otherwise? Where is the slam dunk? Bus routes in the area don't do it for me. While I would love for people to finally start taking the bus instead of driving everywhere, I don't think Wal-Mart is going to be the reason.
What's a funny aside is the last time I remember reading "slam dunk" so often outside of M1ek's blogging was when reading about Tenet telling George Bush that Iraq still had Weapons of Mass Destruction.
I sure hope that irony doesn't follow through on this disaster as well....
Anyway, if you are an Austin traffic and transit expert I would love you hear your credentials and some facts about this. Some sort of compelling statistical analysis about why other Wal-Marts generate 20,000+ "trips per area" and this one only 7100 would be an excellent start.
These aren't *MY* neighborhood standards for congested intersections, Mike, they are the Cities.
http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/news/2006/downloads/attach3_tia_memo.pdf
For all the extensive research you have done, it would be good if you addressed the numbers provided By Lincoln and the City, not make generalizations about the area's mindset on traffic.
What I would *LIKE* to see from an expert like you, is an explanation about how this Wal-Mart will only generate 8065 daily trips to the area when other Wal-Marts, Cabella's, etc generate more along the lines of 20,000 trips a day. And why you think Lincoln properties should be exempt from paying for improving the roads and intersections in the area, which they would have if their TIA had only ONE more second of delay on the Burnet/Anderson Intersection. I would also like to know why you think the other roads in the area shouldn't be addressed by the TIA, and why you think it's OK that we as city Tax Payers should pay for all these improvements. Real numbers, and comparisons, Mike. You are the expert.
Mike, if a neighbor built a house 50 feet tall in my 'hood I would complain. I think it fair that the neighbor that is about to send an extra 20,000 cars down our roads be stopped too. My understanding is that they have an obligation to the city to correct the problems they create with this new development. We shouldn't have to dump millions into rebuilding Anderson and Burnet, along with Shoal creek, foster, etc., because they build this thing and then say "ooops, looks like we were wrong about the TIA after all". That is an unfair burden on our infrastructure. Those tax dollars should be going to our police, libraries, etc., not to make sure people get to Wal-Mart easily.
Hugh
Mike
The city didn't do the traffic analysis in question. Lincoln did.
And I'm not trying to be difficult, but it seems if you are an expert on this issue you should know that.
I believe the city DID provide the criteria that allowed the burnet/anderson intersection to be currently rated as "d" (one grade away from a failed intersection).
So am I to understand that by trusting the city (as you do) the intersection you have stated to be underutilized is actually overutilized? And, that since the TIA was submitted by Lincoln properties that it does not meet your criteria as "trustable", at least in regards to your last statement?
And I'm sorry if you don't feel welcome here. Speaking for myself, I feel like you skirt the issues I bring up and dismiss the questions I find pivotal in this debate. You call yourself an expert, so why would this be "unpaid homework"?
First, thank you Mike. The best way to engage in dialogue is to do it, not just say "nope" and then list links to sights that, to those who disagree with you, don't address the questions they have.
As far as Whole Foods, we already talked about that once. I believe they paid for the improvements to those intersections, and that probably cost quite a bit.
As of yet Wal-Mart and Lincoln have assumed NO obligation to repair street around their site.
You argue things are worse on 6th now. I have driven that route many times, and while the # of cars is more, the traffic still flows at the same rate (IMHO).
This is an example of responsible growth vs. obligation ignoring growth.
Also, you said
"any argument resting on the premise that city staff were dishonest about a traffic analysis is one I'm likely to reject out-of-hand."
I have never said the city was dishonest. So "any argument resting" on that premise is once again painting a foe and knocking it down. My and anyones instinct is to react by saying you are putting words in my mouth and to get upset about your tactics. That doesn't prompt dialogue.
Other points:
You said the city backed their approval of this site plan... City council members have drawn into question the process used to approve this site plan. The city staff has admitted errors in procedures in this process.
Blah Blah Blah
Ad infinitum......
Look I feel like the big issue here is that a very unpopular site plan was approved, that the neighborhoods around the development are upset and doing what they can to stop it, and with any luck Lincoln and Wal-Mart will sit down at the table and offer a revised plan that will make a lot more people happy. Richard Suttle has stated that a revised plan would include a Wal-Mart that would be among the smaller ones in the city.
This is a start. I think we have a lot of activist residents to thank for these potential changes.
I also think it might in the long run save the city AND Lincoln/Wal-Mart a lot of money. They may have been unaware of just how unpopular this plan would be before the activists got involved. To make changes now might save us from having a 225,000 sf empty building 6 years from now. It might also save the city from having to make radical changes and spending millions on streets in the area only in the end to find that people have given up on trying to get there and have chosen Wal-Marts closer to home.
Lets see what happens Wednesday.
P.S.
Chester,
Thanks for your work on this blog. It is much more encompassing than I could ever manage, and provides excellent data on an issue that too often turns into a tit for tat exchange (as I have fallen into here.)
Post a Comment