Council nixes Craddock Extension for now

The San Marcos City Council has delayed its vote on the new Transportation Master Plan, but when the vote does occur, it appears the controversial Craddock Avenue Extension will not be part of it.

At its meeting Tuesday, council held a public hearing before a scheduled vote on the transportation plan, and not a single person spoke in favor of the Craddock Extension. Some speakers even objected to the plan as a whole, saying it is too vehicle-centric and does not include enough sustainable measures and factors to encourage alternative transportation.

Resident James Baker asked the council to remove the Craddock Extension, which would run through an environmentally sensitive area and very close to the springs that feed the San Marcos River. He noted that the Planning and Zoning Commission had recommended removing the extension from the city’s plan.

“I think that the vast majority of the comments have been to ask you to remove the Craddock Street Extension,” he said. “... Our quality of life is very important, and the river is very important.”

Dianne Wassenich, representing the San Marcos River Foundation, also spoke against the extension.

“We are hoping that you will take the recommendation of your Planning and Zoning Commission on the Craddock Street Extension and remove it from your Transportation Master Plan,” she said. “As your comprehensive and master plans done by your citizens have asked, we need to protect the recharge zone and the area immediately above our springs.”

Criticisms of the plan itself

Resident Carina Boston Pinales said the Transportation Master Plan does not reflect sustainable measures and needs to focus on alternative means of transportation that will not only alleviate congestion and pollution but economic displacement.

Developer John David Carson said that he and Sarah Simpson had sent council members 10 sustainable transportation recommendations to consider. He praised some aspects of the plan, such as its inclusion of travel modes other than vehicles, but said it did not adequately consider safety.

“Unfortunately, the majority of the detailed analysis … still focuses on driver convenience to a harm,” he said. “There is effectively no analysis of safety on San Marcos streets. … There is not even a summary of incapacitating injuries and deaths.”

He said that nationally, injuries and deaths among pedestrians and cyclists has risen.

“America’s roads are dangerous by design, as engineers have been trained to prioritize vehicles,” he said.

Carson mentioned Vision Zero, a road safety project adopted by some cities, including Austin, that acknowledges deaths as preventable and attempts to create a road system where there are no deaths caused by vehicular traffic.

“There is no such policy in this draft,” he said.

Simpson noted that the new roads proposed in the transportation plan seem to be “at odds with both state and master plan goals to shift people toward walking, biking and transit.”

Building new roads, she said, will only generate more traffic and create an “expensive future of car dependence for all.”

The council’s decisions

After the public hearing closed, Mayor John Thomaides made a motion to amend the Transportation Master Plan. He proposed removing the Craddock extension and adding text stating the council’s commitment to protecting the environment and its acknowledgment that eventually, there will need to be a road connecting Ranch Road 12 to Interstate 35.

“It is the desire of this council to balance the needs for future mobility with the protection of these sensitive environmental features and areas,” the text reads in part.

The added text also states that the council supports the idea that the cost of any future roadway addressing traffic that originates outside of San Marcos be paid for with funds that also come from outside San Marcos. The text also includes the council’s wish to be part of any discussions with any entity planning any roadway within the city’s jurisdiction.

“The goal is to protect the San Marcos River, our unique environmental land, enhance air quality in the city and region while addressing mobility challenges we face in the future.”

The amendment received support from the council and passed 5-0 (council member Saul Gonzales was absent, and council member Jane Hughson had recused herself from portions of the discussion that had to do with the Craddock Extension).

Though the amendment to the Transportation Master Plan passed, Mayor Pro Tem Lisa Prewitt said that she would like more time to consider new information and get more input from the public.

“I don’t know if we’re quite ready to vote on this tonight,” she said. “I’d like to postpone this for a good four weeks. … I think that it’s time that we could be a little more sustainable with the Transportation Master Plan and add some features to that.”

Prewitt said she would like to have a workshop meeting and allow the public to attend and speak to the council. She also said she would like to have time to look over the sustainability and safety suggestions that Carson and Simpson had sent.

“We’ve received a lot of information in the past three to four days,” she said.

Council voted to postpone the decision until after such a meeting can be held.