You have reached your limit of free articles this month.

Enjoy unlimited access to

Starting at just 99¢ for 8 weeks.


  • ePAPER

You have read of premium articles.

Get unlimited access to all of our breaking news, in-depth coverage and bonus content- exclusively for subscribers. Starting at just 99¢ for 8 weeks


Welcome to

This subscriber-only site gives you exclusive access to breaking news, in-depth coverage, exclusive interactives and bonus content.

You can read free articles of your choice a month that are only available on

Cassidy: Prop. 1 is a chance to finally do something about mobility

Austin has a bad habit of putting things off until it’s nearly too late. It can take decades to come to a consensus on how to respond to the city’s most pressing challenges, because for too many people, doing nothing is always going to be more comfortable than doing something. We have allowed policy paralysis to keep us from meeting the demands of a growing region, and we are paying the price through a transportation and affordability crisis.

Doing nothing is what we at the Real Estate Council of Austin (RECA) believe will happen if voters reject the Mobility Bond on the November ballot. Yes, it’s a big proposal — the largest bond, by far, ever proposed to tackle Austin’s enormous transportation challenges. But it’s about time we realize that if we’re ever going to relieve congestion and gridlock, which Austinites have long said is their number one policy priority, we need to make big investments in new approaches to meeting our mobility needs.

Opponents of the bond have put forth a number of complaints about the proposal, some of them contradictory. For example, we hear the package is too big for taxpayers to afford, yet at the same time not big enough to fully implement the corridor and active transportation plans on which the mobility bond is based. That type of conflicting analysis embodies the hallmarks of the “do nothing” approach – too big for some, not big enough for others, so let’s do nothing. But this time we cannot let that mindset stifle progress on our most critical issue. We need to move forward without delay, and get as many of the Mobility Bond projects done as soon as possible, rather than waiting until some day in the future when these improvements will be even more expensive and we will have paid even a steeper price in lost jobs and more time spent sitting in traffic.

Those who are concerned about the size and fiscal impact of the bond package cannot also honestly complain that the proposal does not fund enough new capacity. New roads and lane miles are costly not just to build, but to maintain for years to come, and adding lanes on Austin’s urban corridors would mean acquiring significant amounts of expensive right-of-way and displacing many homes and businesses. There are more cost-effective ways to improve congestion in those corridors, allowing property to be preserved and utilized to build out the new housing that Austin desperately needs, or commercial projects that can help expand the local tax base.

At RECA, we pay close attention to the cost of government and its impact on affordability. We would not support a proposal like the mobility bond if we did not believe it would really deliver the congestion relief that Austin needs to retain its economic prosperity and quality of life. These are the kinds of investments of tax dollars we should support as a community, because they will deliver results now and produce dividends in the future.

In addition to the size of the package, detractors point to the “rushed” process by which it came together to make it onto this year’s ballot. To us this merely reflects the urgency of our mobility crisis, the Mayor and those council members supporting the proposals should be commended for seizing the opportunity to make a real difference. This approach and timeframe shows that we can break free from policy paralysis and it should serve as a model for other decision-making processes at City Hall.

Even though the mobility bond came together relatively quickly, the various transportation plans that underlie the proposal — including multiple corridor studies and the city’s bicycle and sidewalk master plans — were developed over several years, in full view of the public, with extensive stakeholder input. They reflect both what Austinites say they want and the best practices in the mobility field, which are informed by the expertise of some of the nation’s leading planners and engineers. They include innovative approaches to allow more people, including more cars, to get to where they need to go, and they call for improvements that will have a positive impact on travelers across the entire city.

Finally, the mobility bond is structured to ensure that it can deliver on its promises and achieve the mobility outcomes we need. The bond resolution calls for corridor improvements that prioritize reduction in congestion and delays at intersections, and requires that those proposed expenditures be supported by metrics demonstrating that they will have a positive impact. The resolution also establishes a unique, legally enforceable “contract with the voters” that guarantees the bond funds won’t be redirected to other projects or turn into an ill-managed slush fund. Again, this measure of accountability — which City Hall has traditionally worked hard to avoid, including in past bond measures — should be a model for how Austin does business in the future.

The time for a serious, substantial response to Austin’s mobility crisis is now. It’s up to us as voters to take advantage of the opportunity presented by the mobility bond to change the game in Austin and keep our beloved community moving forward. It’s time to quit doing nothing.

Cassidy is board chair for the Real Estate Council of Austin.

Reader Comments ...

Next Up in Opinion

John Young: ‘Deep Throats’ lined up for a city block
John Young: ‘Deep Throats’ lined up for a city block

Newly elevated, helium-inflated, a president for a bare blink of an eye, Donald Trump chose as one of his first presidential acts a declaration of war on the press. So, how’s that going? Trump called reporters “the enemies of the people.” Henchman Steve Bannon called the media “the opposition party.” Interesting claim...
Letters to the editor: May 23, 2017
Letters to the editor: May 23, 2017

Re: May 17 article, “How to store spices and herbs in a hot Texas summer.” I’m compelled to comment on the article by Shefaly Ravula, which perpetuates misconceptions and stereotypes. No. All Indians do not keep their homes at 79 degrees. No, we do not lower the temp only when the “American” friends come over. No, we aren&rsquo...
Commentary: Texas should follow New Mexico’s plan to end ‘lunch shaming’
Commentary: Texas should follow New Mexico’s plan to end ‘lunch shaming’

The lunchroom is an aspect of school that some remember fondly — a place for friendships to be formed, dates to be asked or potential food fights to be averted. For many others, the lunchroom experience is one of shame, humiliation and — at best — a cold cheese sandwich. When a child can’t pay a school lunch bill, the school...
Herman: Separate but equal has its day in Texas House
Herman: Separate but equal has its day in Texas House

The caption — that language at the top of a bill that says what it’s about — says Senate Bill 2078 is “relating to the duties of (school officials) regarding multihazard emergency operations plans and other school safety measures.” When the bill came up in the Texas House, there was talk about various kinds of school emergencies...
Hunter: How Donald Trump’s supporters are just like Hillary Clinton’s
Hunter: How Donald Trump’s supporters are just like Hillary Clinton’s

Last year I wrote, “There is one of two ways we can look at our elected officials, particularly those occupying or vying for the highest office in the land: That they are somehow above the law, as President Richard Nixon famously once said—‘If the president does it, that means it’s not illegal,’ or we can expect that all...
More Stories