Demonstration of why it's dishonest to group UT and West Campus with "Core" in the Project Connect planning process

1. West Campus
UT
This was the original “subcorridor” or
“sector” layout for these areas. Core
is already likely too big to serve by
any one line.
Core (“Downtown”)

2. West Campus
UT
However, you can serve most
important parts of all three zones
with a line that looks somewhat like
this:
Core (“Downtown”)

3. West Campus
UT
A quarter-mile (very conservative)
catchment radius might look like this
(more stations in reality); a half-mile
radius would catch almost everything
of importance.
Core (“Downtown”)

4. West Campus
UT
According to a very indignant person
at Project Connect, though, “some
people” thought having these zones
separate was a bad thing...
Core (“Downtown”)

5. West Campus
UT
They claimed it might lead to the UT
zone not being served by, say, an East
Riverside alignment (conceptual
image below)
Core (“Downtown”)

6. West Campus
UT
So rather than pointing out that we
could easily make sure that the
minimum requirement for the initial
line was that it touch a set of
required ‘subcorridors’ or sectors…
here showing UT and Core as
‘required’;
Core (“Downtown”)

7. Core (“Downtown”)
This was Project Connect’s “solution”.
One made based on a handful of
complaints without checking
whether the rest of the interested
parties had any objections, mind you.

8. Core (“Downtown”)
Look! Now UT is “served” by that
problematic alignment from earlier!
(Pay no mind to the fact that it’s 2
miles away from the terminus; it’s in
the same subcorridor; so it’s
“served”).

9. Core (“Downtown”)
Why would Project Connect do
something like this? Why would they
degrade the already insufficiently
granular analysis in this fashion?
Their initial explanation was the last
two slides. Anybody buying that?

10. Core (“Downtown”)
Here’s what their preferred route
looks like, conceptually, on the new
‘mega-core’ map. Looks like it serves
big chunks of ‘Core’ now, huh?

11. West Campus
UT
And here’s what that route would
look like with the initial subcorridor
definitions.
Core (“Downtown”)

12. West Campus
UT
San Jacinto is far too far away for
West Campus residents to want to
walk to it to ride it either downtown
or to the hopping Mueller
entertainment district. It’s
fundamentally not being served at all
by this alignment.
Core (“Downtown”)

13. Core (“Downtown”)
Yet this is the map Project Connect is
choosing to evaluate with. I wonder
why that is?

14. Core (“Downtown”)
As Steven Yarak pointed out on
twitter (@syarak); this “Core”
definition is the same size as all of
Manhattan south of 14th St.

16. Core (“Downtown”)
Such a curious planning choice is not
made by professionals such as these
in an attempt to educate or inform.

17. Core (“Downtown”)
Had Project Connect taken their
mission seriously, they’d have not
made this change without seeking
public input from those who might
disagree.

18. Core (“Downtown”)
Technically, deniability can be
maintained by saying that they did
this in response to “many requests”.

19. Core (“Downtown”)
But it doesn’t get you off the hook
with the UAP (and now, me). You
knew what this change would do,
you knew it would serve as a
dishonest promotion of your
predesired route, and you did it
anyways.

20. Core (“Downtown”)