What happened?
Initial findings dubbed the Austin light rail project “unique,” adding that the city’s holistic approach is something other local leaders across the nation could follow for similar, large-scale projects.
A nod toward ATP’s desire for transparency, the Project Connect living case study will continue to monitor the agency’s progress throughout the life of the light rail project in an effort to build the project “on time and on budget,” the report states.
Transit Forward Executive Director Bill McCamley commended the transit agency for “pulling the curtain aside,” and allowing Accelerator for America to complete a deep dive on the organization.
The study compared progress on Project Connect to global best practices in light rail implementation.
“Research reports of this type are usually done at the end of a project, so to see area agencies and Accelerator engage in a good faith effort to measure progress during development gives Austinites a clear view into how their tax dollars are used,” McCamley said in a statement. “Thankfully, ATP, city and CapMetro staff have taken best practices research to heart and are using them intentionally to set up their organization, engage the community and procure services.”
The study details six specific areas of best practice:
- Creation of ATP, a special delivery agency
- Community engagement
- Project delivery
- Procurement
- Permitting
- Land use
The creation of ATP was noted as a crucial step toward the success of such a large-scale project. Local transit agencies, though very involved in the process, may become overburdened should they have led the initiative, according to the report.
ATP is a special delivery vehicle, created under Texas state code, to focus exclusively on the planning and construction of the Project Connect light rail.
The agency’s staff and board includes transportation experts solely dedicated to the Austin rail system, ATP Executive Director Greg Canally told Community Impact.
“I think we are another element of how Austin is showing the country that we can get big things done in a unique way, and are very focused on that," Canally said. "That's really when we get to be, as a special corporation, highly focused on delivering [the project] but also highly focused on engagement with our community."
What else?
The study defined several other steps and initiatives that the city of Austin has undertaken that align with best practices for implementation, similar to the quick, European-style delivery of rail lines.
Though it is recommended ATP have a separate permitting authority for the construction of light rail to expedite the process, the city of Austin is presently in charge of permitting for Project Connect.
However, Austin leaders have collaborated with city staff and the partner agency to help streamline this process while still keeping permitting within the city’s domain.
According to the report, Austin Mayor Kirk Watson has prioritized reforming the development review process for both large infrastructure projects and housing projects. The following measures have been taken:
- The city’s Project Connect office shares space with ATP to encourage communication and teamwork between the two agencies.
- In 2022, the city adopted two new ordinances to make permitting more efficient for public transportation projects: one ordinance added rails and trails to the definition of public mobility; the other created a “fast track” for Project Connect by providing greater flexibility in site plan approval as well as keeping the sections of the rail under one manager to oversee the project start to finish, similar to the city’s approach to the Austin Bergstrom International Airport expansion project.
- The city’s Public Projects team has created a special process for handling big infrastructure projects, like the Project Connect light rail. Though the projects will not be regulated differently, the speed of permitting will be increased but having all necessary departments review the project concurrently rather than successively.
One more thing
ATP has been “intentional and consistent” with its community outreach efforts, the report states. The agency employs full-time staff with the sole responsibility of community engagement, and all ATP staff, including leadership, are expected to participate in community activities.
McCamley said that communication and community engagement is extremely important for the progress of a large-scale transit project like the light rail.
"The engagement does need to be constant. Because if you don't engage, then you get lawsuits," he said alluding the the current lawsuit against Project Connect, which he says is a delay tactic.
ATP has employed extensive public outreach efforts and open houses for the project, the study shows, including the most recent National Environmental Policy Act process—a federal environmental review process. The agency held six public meetings between January and February of this year.
A community advisory committee, created by the city and overseen by ATP, is also held once a month to provide opportunities for public input.
Find agendas, meeting schedules, and more information on public engagement here.
Put in perspective
Though the preliminary findings indicate that the light rail is headed in the right direction, the project continues to face controversy.
At present, ATP is wrapped up in a lawsuit with the state's attorney general, which insinuates the entity has mishandled taxpayer dollars.
The ATP filed a bond validation petition, which allows for an expedited review of its bond funding process without direct approval from the attorney general. In Texas, all government bonds must typically pass attorney general review.
In a previous opinion, Attorney General Ken Paxton identified issues with ATP using city maintenance and operations taxes for issuing debt and building the rail.
The opinion also argued ATP's funding structure, which allows it to receive a stream of cash from the Project Connect tax rate hike approved by voters in 2020 without annual oversight, violates the state constitution.
The current lawsuit argues ATP pulled a “bait and switch” on Austin voters after the scope of the light rail network was significantly scaled back last year.
“This plan has 10.4 less miles of light rail, no investment in the Green Line—6.8 mile commuter rail—no downtown transit tunnel, 11 less rail stations, 64% less projected ridership, 257% increase in cost per rider, no sequence plan or timeline for completion, and the inferior rail portion will cost taxpayers more,” the plaintiff’s lead attorney on the case, Bill Aleshire, said in a press release.
This lawsuit is currently still awaiting an opinion. Those interested can check the status here.
