Austin | Q2 Stadium (Austin FC) | Complete

[Syndic]

Originally Posted by Novacek

As promised, the updated schematics and such for the mobility bond improvements to Burnet are now online.

https://data.austintexas.gov/stories...dor/dghh-sspr/

It's not stated online, but in the meeting they mentioned they were going to try to get the Braker/Burnet intersection out as one of the "early out" projects. In part so that it might be ready for McKalla's opening. Though that wasn't guaranteed yet.

Huh. Interesting. No turn-in into McKalla headed southbound on Burnet. Solid median there. Probably a smart move. Make people go around.

[atxsnail]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

Speaking of Metrorail, what is the latest on having a stop right by the stadium? I haven't really been following this thread much but noticed it was getting active so out of curiosity jumped on in.

There hasn't been any announcement of funding sources beyond the money from the team, but I've seen CapMetro quoted in multiple media outlets as still planning for McKalla/Braker and Broadmoor stations.

Here's one article, but I know there are others.

“We would like to have the McKalla station in place on [Austin FC’s] opening day. That’s probably aggressive, but it is a goal. Broadmoor [station]is the same time frame,” Hemingson said. “There’s still a lot of work to be done.”

The most recent public statements seem pretty positive compared to CapMetro's early comments which were more along the lines of "that would be nice, we'll see."

Given that the downtown station and passing sidings are going to double capacity for the Red Line it would be pretty unfortunate if Cap Metro missed out on this opportunity. This sort of thing could be one of their signature events that really stands out in ridership numbers, like SXSW, ACL, July 4, etc. I hope they can find funding. The 803/Yellow Line will be rocking either way.

On a side note, the Burnet plans look like good improvements overall though there are some odd things like 10 ft stretches of bike path that merge off and on the sidewalk. I was also really hoping they would be able to find space for a bus lane north of 183. That feels like a big missed opportunity.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by atxsnail

On a side note, the Burnet plans look like good improvements overall though there are some odd things like 10 ft stretches of bike path that merge off and on the sidewalk. I was also really hoping they would be able to find space for a bus lane north of 183. That feels like a big missed opportunity.

They posted the link for the "funded improvements" schematic. They didn't post the one for the "unfunded" one (maybe just to avoid confusing people). Those are the "enhanced multimodal improvements".

https://austintexas.gov/sites/defaul...ish_BURNET.pdf

That included widening part from 4 lanes to 6 lanes. At least currently it seemed to be presented as 6 main lanes (which would be a mistake IMO). It seems to be an issue of funding, not of RoW.

It may be that they're waiting for the 2020 mobility bond. Hopefully that includes transit lanes on at least the northern section of Burnet.

[myBrain]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

I don't have an issue with creating nodes but I do not agree that the city should focus those areas over Downtown which is the heart and soul of this city. We just hosted a family reunion on my dad's side, they came in from all across the country. They all stayed in the Downtown area and were amazed and impressed with the vitality of Downtown Austin. Austin's future will and should continue to be Downtown for continued health of the overall city. That is the whole point of building up the urban core.
.

It's not an either/or. I don't mean that downtown should be neglected. But I do think it is a smart move for the city to start considering major projects like these out in our emerging nodes.

What I mean about DT is, it's largely a grown-up now and, with some management of course, can take care of itself. In fact we're approaching the point where we have to think about how to prevent the wave of development from wiping out the things that make DT interesting. But at the same time I just don't see what radical changes we can expect in DT's future. There won't be another Rainey, or another East Side, not without unrealistic zoning changes. With the Statesman site project, even if they knock it out of the park, what are we going to get? More condos and office buildings with ground-floor retail. Which is great, I'm all for it, but it just seems like it will be more of the same from here on out. Large developers and mega projects. Little room for the small, organic, local businesses to emerge, the kind of black-swan changes that took sleepy, neglected neighborhoods like Rainey and E6th and made them into places that redefined what Austin is.

The fact that the stadium is plopped down amidst warehouses should be viewed as an opportunity - especially because many of those warehouses have already converted to interesting small businesses. Add in the fact that there's a major office and retail district emerging next door, and we have the ingredients for something special.

Maybe you won't make the drive all the way up there -- but the population center of the Austin metro is just south of there, on Burnet road. https://www.austintexas.gov/sites/de...ean_center.pdf In my experience going to MLS games, the people who fill the seats are suburbanites who bring their kids, youth soccer teams, etc.

[KevinFromTexas]

I saw this clip pop up on Facebook of the Amsterdam soccer stadium talking about its green building design.

https://www.facebook.com/climatereal...1982613467180/

[freerover]

Originally Posted by atxsnail

On a side note, the Burnet plans look like good improvements overall though there are some odd things like 10 ft stretches of bike path that merge off and on the sidewalk. I was also really hoping they would be able to find space for a bus lane north of 183. That feels like a big missed opportunity.

The new sidewalks will be 9 feet wide though so I don't think bikes using them with pedestrians will be that annoying.

[atxsnail]

Originally Posted by freerover

The new sidewalks will be 9 feet wide though so I don't think bikes using them with pedestrians will be that annoying.

I'm actually probably in the minority of regular bike commuters that doesn't mind using shared paths and sidewalks. Having cyclists jump on and off the shared path is even worse than just having the shared path by itself. I think I understand the general intent, but it's harder to predict the behavior of both pedestrians and cyclists/scooter riders this way. Motorists will also have to work harder to avoid hitting people along the many curb cuts on Burnet.

We need protected bike lanes across the city. But if this is how things are going to look, with random isolated sections of bike path for a few feet at a time, I'd much rather see them take the money spent and put it towards filling sidewalk gaps.

[freerover]

Originally Posted by atxsnail

I'm actually probably in the minority of regular bike commuters that doesn't mind using shared paths and sidewalks. Having cyclists jump on and off the shared path is even worse than just having the shared path by itself. I think I understand the general intent, but it's harder to predict the behavior of both pedestrians and cyclists/scooter riders this way. Motorists will also have to work harder to avoid hitting people along the many curb cuts on Burnet.

We need protected bike lanes across the city. But if this is how things are going to look, with random isolated sections of bike path for a few feet at a time, I'd much rather see them take the money spent and put it towards filling sidewalk gaps.

The bikelanes going on Burnet are going to be protected.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by atxsnail

I'm actually probably in the minority of regular bike commuters that doesn't mind using shared paths and sidewalks. Having cyclists jump on and off the shared path is even worse than just having the shared path by itself. I think I understand the general intent, but it's harder to predict the behavior of both pedestrians and cyclists/scooter riders this way. Motorists will also have to work harder to avoid hitting people along the many curb cuts on Burnet.

We need protected bike lanes across the city. But if this is how things are going to look, with random isolated sections of bike path for a few feet at a time, I'd much rather see them take the money spent and put it towards filling sidewalk gaps.

A few feet at a time?

From 183 to Mopac, a distance of two and half _miles_ , it transitions from SUP to bike lane back to SUP a grand total (by my count) of 4 times. Same going southbound. The longest stretch seems to be in front of Pickle, over _two thousand feet_.

Even where you have both, the bike lane is separated and thus in the same relative location to the curb cut as the SUP is. Just think of it as an extra wide SUP.

What's so unpredictable?

[atxsnail]

Originally Posted by Novacek

A few feet at a time?

From 183 to Mopac, a distance of two and half _miles_ , it transitions from SUP to bike lane back to SUP a grand total (by my count) of 4 times. Same going southbound. The longest stretch seems to be in front of Pickle, over _two thousand feet_.

Even where you have both, the bike lane is separated and thus in the same relative location to the curb cut as the SUP is. Just think of it as an extra wide SUP.

What's so unpredictable?

I probably sound saltier about this than I actually am - I basically support all of the changes. My only real gripe was the lack transit lanes north of 183, though I guess the limited bond funds were the big limitation there. But I'll give the roughly 200 feet of separated bike lane just to the north of Northcross Dr as an example of a section we probably didn't need to keep separated given the SUP. Two hundred is admittedly a lot more than "a few feet."

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by atxsnail

I probably sound saltier about this than I actually am - I basically support all of the changes. My only real gripe was the lack transit lanes north of 183, though I guess the limited bond funds were the big limitation there. But I'll give the roughly 200 feet of separated bike lane just to the north of Northcross Dr as an example of a section we probably didn't need to keep separated given the SUP. Two hundred is admittedly a lot more than "a few feet."

I think you may have it backwards. The long term plan and desire is to have the separated bike facilities the whole way (again, I wish they would have posted both the paid for schematic and the unpaid schematic).

So the sections that have both a sidewalk and a bike lane are where there was already a sidewalk so it didn't make sense to go to the SUP half-way point (and there wasn't a RoW or other constraint* so that they _had_ to go SUP for now).

So it's less a matter of " a section we probably didn't need to keep separated given the SUP". It's that there _isn't_ a SUP in that section now. And to put in a SUP, they'd have to rip out the existing sidewalk and add one which I imagine would be _more_ expensive than just adding the lane.

Some places it seems like they have to pay that extra cost. For instance, that same area just north of Northcross. Closer to the intersection where it squeezes down between the turn lane and the property line.

[freerover]

Originally Posted by Novacek

I think you may have it backwards. The long term plan and desire is to have the separated bike facilities the whole way (again, I wish they would have posted both the paid for schematic and the unpaid schematic).

Well there isn't an unpaid schematic since there is no money for it. They are doing design work for segments of the long term improvements to Airport Blvd, N. Lamar, Slaughter and William Cannon.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by freerover

Well there isn't an unpaid schematic since there is no money for it. They are doing design work for segments of the long term improvements to Airport Blvd, N. Lamar, Slaughter and William Cannon.

There is. They had it in hardcopy form at the last meeting.

They ended up doing (or will be doing) additional design work for Burnet (beyond what they have committed construction funds for).


"Enhanced Multimodal
Improvements"
"Design is underway on the following projects using
2016 Mobility Bond funding. The Corridor Program
Office is seeking other funding sources and
partnerships for possible future construction."


Page 4
https://austintexas.gov/sites/defaul...ish_BURNET.pdf

[freerover]

Originally Posted by Novacek

There is. They had it in hardcopy form at the last meeting.

They ended up doing (or will be doing) additional design work for Burnet (beyond what they have committed construction funds for).


"Enhanced Multimodal
Improvements"
"Design is underway on the following projects using
2016 Mobility Bond funding. The Corridor Program
Office is seeking other funding sources and
partnerships for possible future construction."


Page 4
https://austintexas.gov/sites/defaul...ish_BURNET.pdf

Good to know!

[mostly_afk]

can't wait until the first match for Austin FC. It is even sweeter given that no public funds were spent to make it happen. Contrast that with Columbus. There is reported that a total of $140m of public funds are being spent to create the new Columbus stadium.

https://soccerstadiumdigest.com/2019...adium-project/

[freerover]

Originally Posted by mostly_afk

can't wait until the first match for Austin FC. It is even sweeter given that no public funds were spent to make it happen. Contrast that with Columbus. There is reported that a total of $140m of public funds are being spent to create the new Columbus stadium.

https://soccerstadiumdigest.com/2019...adium-project/

In addition to the city’s $50 million, it has been expected that the overall public contribution to the project will include $45 million from Franklin County, $20 million from Ohio, and $25 million in bonding from a newly created authority backed by tax revenue from development surrounding the upcoming stadium.

Also, I believe the new sports authority is going to own the venue and rent it to the crew for free and it'll also be exempt from paying taxes. I believe it's going to be how they did all the stadiums in Houston.

[lonewolf]

with real estate tax exemptions they are getting public money

[freerover]

Originally Posted by lonewolf

with real estate tax exemptions they are getting public money

They'll be paying $385,000 every year in rent and providing Austin with a much closer alternative for concerts than COTA at their own dime. I'm sorry Travis county isn't getting tax money to finance rural road projects and AISD isn't shipping off most of it to the state for recapture.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by lonewolf

with real estate tax exemptions they are getting public money

They not paying real estate taxes because they don't own the real estate. That's not an "exemption", that's a fundamental principle of property taxes.

Do you similarly claim that ACL gets "tax exemptions"? That the Butler Pitch and Putt has gotten 70 years of "tax exemptions"?

[urbancore]

Originally Posted by Novacek

They not paying real estate taxes because they don't own the real estate. That's not an "exemption", that's a fundamental principle of property taxes.

Do you similarly claim that ACL gets "tax exemptions"? That the Butler Pitch and Putt has gotten 70 years of "tax exemptions"?

Yep, all the commercial leases I've signed, and its been quite a few, I didn't pay the taxes. The property owner did.

If the lease was set up as NNN lease, which I guess it could be reworked as such, Precourt would be responsible for it. But then he would expect an equal discount on the "rent" to cover the NNN costs.