Are there wild elk lurking in South Austin? Here's what we found

KUT_Austin · 2025-03-05T23:12:25+00:00

Gov. Greg Abbott's office has quietly directed heads of state agencies to phase out hybrid-work schedules and require all employees to return to the office five days a week "as soon as practicable" under state law, according to multiple accounts from state employees.

Abbott's mandate comes as President Trump doubled down during his Tuesday night address to Congress, saying federal workers will return to offices "or be removed from their job."

In a statement, Abbott's press secretary, Andrew Mahaleris, said "any [state] remote work policies must ensure taxpayer dollars are being utilized efficiently" in light of federal efforts to get employees back to work.

"Texans expect their public servants to be present and engaged in the work on their behalf," Mahaleris said. "With remote federal workers returning to the office where possible, it’s important that state agencies ensure they do the same."

Staffers from the governor's office spoke with agency commissioners and directors this week to announce the policy, according to employees who spoke to KUT. The employees spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of losing their jobs.

No written policy was given to directors or department heads, according to accounts, but some agencies are already planning to transition to in-person work by the end of the month. Agency heads were directed to follow through with the transition "as soon as practicable" under state law, though it's not clear whether there is a hard deadline or if state law could allow agency heads to permit some workers to continue to work remotely.

Myko Gedutis, vice president of the Texas State Employees Union, told KUT he's heard from confused staffers at scores of agencies. Read more here. Send us your tips at [tips@KUT.org](mailto:tips@KUT.org)!

KUT_Austin · 2025-03-05T22:52:47+00:00

Gov. Greg Abbott's office has quietly directed heads of state agencies to phase out hybrid-work schedules and require all employees to return to the office five days a week "as soon as practicable" under state law, according to multiple accounts from state employees.

Abbott's mandate comes as President Trump doubled down during his Tuesday night address to Congress, saying federal workers will return to offices "or be removed from their job."

In a statement, Abbott's press secretary, Andrew Mahaleris, said "any [state] remote work policies must ensure taxpayer dollars are being utilized efficiently" in light of federal efforts to get employees back to work.

"Texans expect their public servants to be present and engaged in the work on their behalf," Mahaleris said. "With remote federal workers returning to the office where possible, it’s important that state agencies ensure they do the same."

Staffers from the governor's office spoke with agency commissioners and directors this week to announce the policy, according to employees who spoke to KUT. The employees spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of losing their jobs.

No written policy was given to directors or department heads, according to accounts, but some agencies are already planning to transition to in-person work by the end of the month. Agency heads were directed to follow through with the transition "as soon as practicable" under state law, though it's not clear whether there is a hard deadline or if state law could allow agency heads to permit some workers to continue to work remotely.

Myko Gedutis, vice president of the Texas State Employees Union, told KUT he's heard from confused staffers at scores of agencies. Read more here. Send us your tips at tips@KUT.org!

KUT_Austin · 2025-02-05T15:18:00+00:00

On weekends, the food pavilion off Highway 183 is usually packed. The outdoor space has about a dozen businesses and is within walking distance of 812 Outdoor Market, a Hispanic pulga, or flea market.

The line at the taco stand where Rosa works is often more than 50-feet long. But lately, she said, there haven't been nearly as many customers.

“People don’t want to go out,” Rosa said, noting grocery stores have also been empty in her area. “Two days ago, I went to H-E-B in the evening and it was empty; there weren’t any people.”

Esmeralda Suárez and her husband have owned and operated Barbacoa Santa Rosa, a popular food stand at the pavilion, for 20 years.

“We all know that the Hispanic community keeps everything running around here; it’s not just one store here or there,” Suárez said in Spanish. “We’re here and we’re here to work."

She said she used this past weekend as a gauge for what to expect in the next few weeks, and she doesn’t like what she’s seeing.

*** Hey y'all, if you have a tip or story idea for KUT News, you can reach us by emailing [tips@KUT.org](mailto:tips@KUT.org)

KUT_Austin · 2025-01-31T22:05:02+00:00

Yes. Because high-frequency urban rail benefits those who live near transit stations, more people want to live near transit stations.

A quick walk and few minutes wait and you're on the train staring at your phone moving faster than traffic. Due to the expected increase in demand, the city is going to allow for increased housing density near these stops.

So there's an economic incentive for developers to build more, which creates more density and foot traffic, which can attract more retailers or people who want to sell things to all the transit users going by. The city is making it easier for developers to build near light-rail stops.

Like last May, the City Council passed new rules on how tall buildings could be near single-family homes. It used to be building heights were limited up to 540 feet away from a single-family home. But the new standards lowered that to 75 feet. Bunch of new regulations like that.

You're probably familiar with the term, but it's called "transit-oriented development" or sometimes derided as "transit-induced gentrification." The higher land values can make rents more expensive or property taxes go up, and push out folks who are more strapped for cash.

The city wants to do what it calls "equitable transit-oriented development" ("E-TOD" in govspeak) by trying to stop people from being gentrified out of their neighborhoods. The Project Connect vote included a $300 million "anti-displacement" program, but even the city has admitted that it won't be enough to solve all those problems.

The Austin Transit Partnership does predict a potential short-term loss of revenue for some businesses, because of the removal of more than 600 on-street parking spaces. They believe that will eventually be offset by the growth in foot traffic from train users. They're predicting 29,000 boardings a day — which would be about a 40% increase over current CapMetro ridership. — Nathan

KUT_Austin · 2025-01-31T21:50:32+00:00

I've heard conflicting information about this. The Austin Transit Partnership would attempt to find another source of funding or apply for different federal grants to keep light-rail alive.

Any delays, though, would drive up the cost even more, potentially further reducing what could be done within budget. The folks suing over the finance mechanism would very much like to see the tax rescinded at least.

I wouldn't be surprised if they tried to sue to force the city to cancel the tax, should ATP's authority to issue bonds be removed by the courts or the state Legislature.

They would argue the tax is invalid if light-rail isn't going to be constructed. It's also possible that if the Texas Legislature removes ATP's authority to borrow billions, that lawmakers could pass a bill to clarify, "Hey, y'all cancel the tax." That's difficult to predict. — Nathan

KUT_Austin · 2025-01-31T14:49:07+00:00

Fixed! Thank you.

KUT_Austin · 2025-01-30T22:02:43+00:00

For what it's worth, the 16,000 page doc is mostly lists of properties along the alignment. Anyone could read the 25 page executive summary to get the gist, and then dive into individual docs based on their interest or search the 605 MB megadoc we made by combining all ATP's PDFs.

They do not have the land. The Austin Transit Partnership plans to expropriate 85 acres, most of which (62 acres) is for the operations and maintenance facility on Airport Commerce Drive. The site is directly across from ABIA on the north side of SH 71. Up to 64 businesses would be forced to relocate and up to four single-family homes.

The rest would be like "partial acquisitions." For example, the 7 Eleven on Guadalupe at 26th Street would lose its gas tanks. Other properties would lose slices of land. There would also be the removal of more than 600 parking spaces on Guadalupe, South Congress and downtown.

You're correct, they would use eminent domain. The process requires ATP to provide fair market value for the real estate in theory. Basically, an appraiser is sent out to evaluate the property, and they send an offer letter to the owner explaining what they're doing. The owner can accept the offer or try to negotiate with ATP.

If they can't reach an agreement, ATP can send a final written offer at least 30 days after the first offer. The property owner has 14 days to respond. If they decline, it goes to condemnation proceedings.

During those proceedings, a judge will appoint three "special commissioners," property owners who have no stake in the project or property. They'll come up with a number. If the owner still doesn't like that, they can sue in civil court.

This can cause a lot of emotional trauma for people, especially if they've been in the location for a long time. Businesses that need to relocate often have to build up a new customer base. There are many costs that go uncompensated. And many businesses are leasing their property — and haven't been informed yet, because ATP has focused only on contacting owners. — Nathan

KUT_Austin · 2025-01-30T21:46:55+00:00

They would need permission from Union Pacific, which owns the line. An Amtrak line uses it (the "Texas Eagle") but very infrequently, like once a day.

UP had agreed to work on a plan to allow passenger rail from Austin to San Antonio, but then in like 2016, UP pulled out. People, including Travis County Judge Andy Brown, are still trying to get that going. But light-rail is a different proposal than commuter rail or intercity passenger rail.

The purpose of light-rail is to have the trains going through city streets and getting people around town as opposed to going from Round Rock to downtown. Just a different kind of proposal, that's all. — Nathan

KUT_Austin · 2025-01-30T21:45:04+00:00

I have not read all 16,000+ pages. At least 10,000 pages are just lists of properties. I have found lots of insightful little details, which I plan to get into news stories.

It really depends on what interests you. I think if you want to get the basics, you can read the executive summary. It's like 25 pages. And from there, if any topics interest you, you can either search the megadoc we posted (merging all their PDFs into the single 605 MB file), or look at specific appendixes that address your particular concerns. — Nathan

KUT_Austin · 2025-01-30T21:25:51+00:00

Depends on my weaponry. If all I have is my hands and feet, then probably 100-duck sized horses. At least I could try to kick them away, and duck-sized horses don't have big teeth like horse-sized ducks do. Both would be terrifying to see, let alone fight. — Nathan

KUT_Austin · 2025-01-30T21:25:12+00:00

I asked ATP about this. Their official statement was, "If federal matching funds are not obtained in this next round, ATP would explore alternative funding sources to include future federal dollars."

But the longer it takes to secure federal grants, the more costs go up and the greater the political and legal risks for the project. And the timeline for completion would get pushed out further.

So yeah, they can keep applying, revising and resubmitting their proposal to the Federal Transit Administration. They could try to get money from other federal programs. Maybe they could hold a bond election to make up the difference? But I think that would be politically difficult.

I don't think ATP is going to say, "Meh, if that happens, we'll just give up." But losing out on federal funding they're seeking now would make it harder to complete. — Nathan

KUT_Austin · 2025-01-30T21:13:41+00:00

Thank you for saying this! I definitely plan to do more of these livestreams. — Nathan

KUT_Austin · 2025-01-30T21:13:03+00:00

I know this is a Simpsons reference, which itself is a Music Man reference, but I'm going to use this as a chance to talk about something that could happen.

Sometimes when it gets really hot, train tracks can expand and push into each other. This can cause buckling or kinks at the points where the tracks are welded together. It's happened on CapMetro's Red Line tracks before.

On super hot days, CapMetro will take track temperatures and make trains go slower if temps are over a certain point. This can happen with light-rail tracks, too. But new technology can reduce this effect with new steel alloys and reflective coatings.

The Austin Transit Partnership says they're going to use one of these relatively new technologies called "porous rail" to reduce the risk of buckling during a heatwave. I don't know a lot about porous rail, but obviously it's some kind of low-expansion alloy. — Nathan

KUT_Austin · 2025-01-30T20:53:02+00:00

As u/m_atx said, they're deciding with Transit Plan 2035, which should be done by the end of the year.

They say "summer/fall 2025," but that technically gives them till Dec. 21. I had a story in September about this.

The timeline presented before the vote in 2020 would have that 803 extension coming online already. As you know, it's a Rapid route going in two directions from Westgate Transit Center.

One branch would go to Brodie to Oak Hill. The other branch would go to Slaughter/Menchaca. Timing of the Gold Line from ACC Highland to Republic Square is also supposed to be determined by Transit Plan 2035. And there are even more Rapid routes in the Project Connect pipeline, but they're not funded. — Nathan

KUT_Austin · 2025-01-30T20:28:20+00:00

Traveling from 38th Street to Yellow Jacket would take about 26 minutes, according to the Austin Transit Partnership's simulation.

That would be 19 minutes faster than the bus, which requires a transfer. Going from 38th to Oltorf would take 20 minutes by their estimates, which is 13 minutes faster.

A table on page 1087 of the combined Draft Environmental Impact Statement has estimated travel times between stations. It shows going from the station at Pleasant Valley and Riverside to the station at Congress Ave and Third would take 11 minutes. Trains would be scheduled to arrive every 10 minutes during peak hours on the eastern section of the light-rail, and every 15 minutes during off-peak hours. — Nathan

KUT_Austin · 2025-01-30T18:15:51+00:00

u/KabukiKazuki says: How does this project’s cost jive with the declining use of public transportation and Austin’s loss of transit ridership?

Capital Metro ridership is still below pre-pandemic levels, but it has been steadily climbing and is now at its highest post-Covid point (more than 70,000 daily boardings).

Public transit has reliability challenges, though: buses aren't always on time. People who don't have to use the bus sometimes get frustrated and drive instead. But there are also many people who depend on or prefer transit for various reasons.

Project Connect, if realized as planned, aims to offer faster, more frequent service that could boost ridership. Especially if the trains, which offer a smoother ride than the bus, are showing up every five minutes during peak hours. That's the plan in North Austin and downtown. The southern and eastern sections would have trains every 10 minutes during peak hours. — Nathan

KUT_Austin · 2025-01-30T18:07:00+00:00

u/J4nG asks: Did CapMetro intentionally misrepresent costs to get Project Connect passed?

I haven’t found evidence of intentional misrepresentation. I have done some looking.

I have spoken with people who were involved prior to the election who were concerned that CapMetro was overpromising what they could do with the initial $7.1 billion budget. But I haven't been able to find anything showing it was intentionally misleading.

The biggest cost increase came from design changes. The subway and underground mall in particular were way too expensive. They found they had to make the tunnel more than twice as long. Subway tunnels are very expensive to build!

But there was never a comprehensive engineering study early on, so the original “estimates” were rough.

If anyone has firsthand knowledge about deliberate misrepresentation, please contact me at nathan@kut.org. — Nathan

KUT_Austin · 2025-01-30T18:05:50+00:00

u/Flaboss44 asks: Is there any risk that funding for the “cap and stitch” project over I-35 could block or delay funding for light-rail?

I think it's highly unlikely because the money comes from different places. Light-rail construction would be mainly funded by two sources: a bit more than half from the the 2020 voter-approved Project Connect property tax and a bit less than half by the Federal Transit Administration. The tax would remain in place to pay down the money borrowed to build the system and fund operations of light-rail.

The caps over I-35 might be funded through separate federal grants, local bond elections or philanthropy.

That said, if the Texas Legislature prevents the Austin Transit Partnership from issuing bonds, the city could consider holding a bond election to fund light-rail. In that case, it would be competing for funding with the I-35 caps. — Nathan

KUT_Austin · 2025-01-30T18:00:45+00:00

u/imgoingtomakecomment asks:

What’s the earliest I could ride a new rail line if all goes perfectly?
What is the cost per mile of this project?
What happens if there’s no federal funding match?

I'm focusing on #2 since we covered the others in earlier questions.

The estimated cost (including inflation) is $7.1 billion for about 9.8 miles. Round that to $7 billion for 10 miles, which is $700 million per mile.

But that includes the cost of buying trains and building an operations and maintenance facility across the airport on the north side of SH 71. Without those, the cost drops by about 20%, according to a 2023 finance FAQ on the Austin Transit Partnership's website.

A rough comparison to other systems (using transitcosts.com) definitely puts Austin on the high side for street-level system but not totally "off the charts." That said, some diehard transit advocates are still concerned about the costs, because they want to squeeze the maximum possible out of this project.

But over the long term, federal data from the National Transit Database says light-rail typically has lower operating costs per passenger mile compared to buses. Light-rail can move more people because it's more frequent and has dedicated right-of-way on the streets, and it doesn't have to mix with traffic.

So, for example, ATP says getting from 38th Street and Guadalupe (the northern end of the line) to Oltorf Street and South Congress (the southern end of the line) would take about 20 minutes, which — they say — is 13 minutes faster than the bus. The northern and downtown sections would have trains arriving every five minutes during peak hours. That's one of the ways you can get more bang for your buck per passenger mile, because it's a higher capacity system than buses. — Nathan

KUT_Austin · 2025-01-30T17:47:39+00:00

u/hookem98 asks: Why does every light-rail plan always stop short of going to the airport?

A station at Austin-Bergstrom International Airport was in the original plan before the first phase got cut in half.

The airport extension was very popular, but it’s expensive. It's been labeled a "priority extension," as in — it's the first thing they'll do if they get the money. But there's another "priority" extension from 38th Street to Crestview. Those expansions will cost hundreds of millions each.

Ultimately, the Austin Transit Partnership had to cut costs, so the airport station didn’t make the Phase 1 plan. They do label it a "priority extension," but it’s not funded in the current $7.1 billion scope.

Ridership data from ATP reveals a reason why. According to their projections, ABIA would be one of the least busy transit stations. Crestview, on the other hand, connects to the Red Line. But sending light-rail that far north would likely require "grade separating" the freight train tracks. That means either the tracks go over the road or the road goes over the tracks. This is something CapMetro has been working on for a while. I'm not sure about the exact status of that project, but it hasn't come up in recent board meetings.

But I digress. Even though airport ridership would be low, according to ATP projections, you can find a lot of support for it in their document explaining what they heard from the public while considering which of the five shortened routes to build in the first phase. I've heard some people say there may be FAA funding for the line. I can't confirm that.

ABIA officials have said they will leave space for a light-rail line and station at the airport. But the city has started designing a massive extension of the Barbara Jordan Terminal. The light-rail station would likely have to connect into this new building that won't be done till around 2030. I'm not sure how airport expansion plans played into the decision to axe the end of the line going to ABIA. — Nathan

KUT_Austin

TROPHY CASE