Traffic Congestion - largely our own fault (Austin, Round Rock: employment, live)

[JayBrown80]

Originally Posted by atxcio

Could also be that the rural/flyover parts of the country have no resources for the homeless/unemployed. If people can't find a job, they HAVE to move somewhere else (like a big city).

Also, the "unemployment rate" only means "the number of people currently recieveing unemployment benefits".

If you aren't receiving benefits, then you are not considered unemployed. Considering that most rural areas dont have the resources that large cities do, comparing their unemployment rates is like comparing apples to oranges.

[inthecut]

Originally Posted by atxcio

Could also be that the rural/flyover parts of the country have no resources for the homeless/unemployed. If people can't find a job, they HAVE to move somewhere else (like a big city).

You can also commit crimes more readily in big cities, per transiency...hard to do that in a mid or small city...if only because the web of relationships is tighter...just a degree of separation for most people, and far fewer new people always streaming in....

If you HAVE to work in a large metro in Texas per jobs, I suppose you only have 4 choices then..DFW, SA, Hous, and Austin....doesn't sound right....perhaps we would not have anywhere near the traffic snarls and crime if we had far more mid-sized cities here...again, I always thought that the post-industrial world allowed you to relocate anywhere....again, looks like we are still in the industrial age, per being tied to those same large cities, maybe even more so than before....actually very much more so....years ago, even small cities had local factories that would allow residents to make a living wage..now, with the outsourcing, our same largest metros just get wider and more crowded....

Question...most of us largely provide our own entertainment, per advances in electronics, the web, big-screen TV's and entertainment centers with theater sound(now even 3-D), and so on...you can order anything you need or want on the web, shy of groceries(and even that in larger metros).....so, if you could live in a beautiful, bucolic place on the Ocean, inland on a lake in a beautiful rural area, in the mountains, or just a very peaceful, smaller area, would you, if you could make a good living?
Or would you not be able to leave the "stimuli" of a large city like Austin(with all the traffic and congestion)? And stimuli in what sense? How often do we really go to museums, bars, and such? Is it really worth sacrificing peace of mind just so you can attend a few festivals, or check out some live music 24/7?

How about a happy medium, living in a small city with a smaller university, like, Ithica, NY, or Ann Arbor Mich per a slighty larger city, if you need that stimuli, yet want that peace and quiet only a city 100,000 and less affords(including students).....?

I think traffic will just get worse in Austin, until the meme of having to move to a huge metro passes.....again, with today's technology, there is little to nothing you can't get in a small college town that IS in the Austin metro....but the masses will herd and clog traffic more each year till that happens..

[JayBrown80]

Originally Posted by inthecut

You can also commit crimes more readily in big cities, per transiency...hard to do that in a mid or small city...if only because the web of relationships is tighter...just a degree of separation for most people, and far fewer new people always streaming in....

If you HAVE to work in a large metro in Texas per jobs, I suppose you only have 4 choices then..DFW, SA, Hous, and Austin....doesn't sound right....perhaps we would not have anywhere near the traffic snarls and crime if we had far more mid-sized cities here...again, I always thought that the post-industrial world allowed you to relocate anywhere....again, looks like we are still in the industrial age, per being tied to those same large cities, maybe even more so than before....actually very much more so....years ago, even small cities had local factories that would allow residents to make a living wage..now, with the outsourcing, our same largest metros just get wider and more crowded....

Question...most of us largely provide our own entertainment, per advances in electronics, the web, big-screen TV's and entertainment centers with theater sound(now even 3-D), and so on...you can order anything you need or want on the web, shy of groceries(and even that in larger metros).....so, if you could live in a beautiful, bucolic place on the Ocean, inland on a lake in a beautiful rural area, in the mountains, or just a very peaceful, smaller area, would you, if you could make a good living?
Or would you not be able to leave the "stimuli" of a large city like Austin(with all the traffic and congestion)? And stimuli in what sense? How often do we really go to museums, bars, and such? Is it really worth sacrificing peace of mind just so you can attend a few festivals, or check out some live music 24/7?

How about a happy medium, living in a small city with a smaller university, like, Ithica, NY, or Ann Arbor Mich per a slighty larger city, if you need that stimuli, yet want that peace and quiet only a city 100,000 and less affords(including students).....?

I think traffic will just get worse in Austin, until the meme of having to move to a huge metro passes.....again, with today's technology, there is little to nothing you can't get in a small college town that IS in the Austin metro....but the masses will herd and clog traffic more each year till that happens..

I suppose, but even If I could work in a rural area, I probably wouldn't want too. Being in a metro area affords me a lifestyle I can't have in the country. I am not just talking about restaurants and theaters. I am also talking about being able to hold hands with my boyfriend and not have "******" spray painted across my garage door.

[10scoachrick]

Originally Posted by JayBrown80

Also, the "unemployment rate" only means "the number of people currently recieveing unemployment benefits".

If you aren't receiving benefits, then you are not considered unemployed. Considering that most rural areas dont have the resources that large cities do, comparing their unemployment rates is like comparing apples to oranges.

Insert Yoda voice here:
"With this I must disagree."

Checking over a half-dozen sites under "How is the US unemployment rate determined?, this was the gist :

<<<<<In tough economic times, the unemployment rate is a topic that comes up often in discussion. Most people probably think they know what this means, but it may be a surprise to learn how it is actually determined. I would

imagine that most people think that it is the percentage of people who want to work that cannot find work. Many people believe that it is the percentage people who desire work who are receiving unemployment benefits. Actually, neither one of these is quite true.

The unemployment rate is calculated from data obtained from a monthly phone survey of 60,000 households. The survey is conducted on behalf of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which is part of the Department of Labor. This survey is called the Current Population Survey or the Household Survey for short. When each household is contacted, questions are asked about each member of the household. Based on the answers, each person is assigned to one of three categories: they are either employed, unemployed, or not in the labor force. From this sample, an estimate for the entire country is obtained for these three categories. The number in the labor force is the sum of those employed and those unemployed. The unemployment rate is the percentage of those in the labor force who are unemployed.>>>>>>

Me again...I'm sure some folks would like to spin the 'unemployment rate' to include ONLY those receiving benefits; but, that number would certainly be unrealistic given the number of independent contractors, laborers, and tennis pros who don't qualify for benefits when out of work.

[inthecut]

Originally Posted by JayBrown80

I suppose, but even If I could work in a rural area, I probably wouldn't want too. Being in a metro area affords me a lifestyle I can't have in the country. I am not just talking about restaurants and theaters. I am also talking about being able to hold hands with my boyfriend and not have "******" spray painted across my garage door.

I don't mean that there are only two choices, large city or small town..I'm talking a smaller city/metro...with say 100,000 pop or so and less as an option too....I think many people that are here because of the activity, BUT would like far less traffic, could easily be just as happy in a smaller metro with a university base, but most of us today seem to just gravitate towards the largest metros....How large does an areas population have to be to be diverse and afford plenty of activities? Wouldn't most college/university based towns do? If you are establishing your own company, that would be the environment you would want to be in, a young, dynamic environment that is forward thinking, regardless if it has a pop of 70K or 700K..

and surely you can get !@###^* spray-painted on your garage door in Austin....I certainly don't think Austin has any less vandalism than a rural area....and prob far more gang problems, which is where the tagging/graffiti comes from, along with wannabe kids doing the same here....and i'm pretty sure you can hold hands while hiking the rockies or walking on a quiet beach at night....you can do that anywhere for that matter!

[veloman777]

What an astute observation, this topic is, and it's 2.5yrs old.

[ScoPro]

Well, the AAS story today said about 90,000 Wilco residents commute to work in Austin, and 35,000 Travis County residents commute the other way to work up here.

If we could just get those 35,000 Travis Co. residents to trade jobs with a like number of Wilco workers, then that would certainly help relieve congestion between the two locales.

[10scoachrick]

Originally Posted by ScoPro

Well, the AAS story today said about 90,000 Wilco residents commute to work in Austin, and 35,000 Travis County residents commute the other way to work up here.

If we could just get those 35,000 Travis Co. residents to trade jobs with a like number of Wilco workers, then that would certainly help relieve congestion between the two locales.

Ain't that the truth!

BUT...as others have said...what if the company moves? For better or worse, FreeScale looks to be shutting down the Parmer campus and moving everybody south. The folks who run the complex on Parmer say they have others interested in the space; but I'd hate to be the FreeScale employee who just purchased a house in Milwood or Davis Spring or Avery Ranch to have an easy commute.

Of course, those AAS numbers could be all sorts of misleading. Somebody could live in Ranch at Brushy Creek and drive all of a mile to work at one of the four banks at the intersection of Avery Ranch Blvd and Parmer(IN the city of Austin).

[verybadgnome]

I ran the numbers yesterday by county and I think both Williamson and Hays Counties have about 3.2-3.3 population per job, whereas Travis has 1.8. The higher the ratio equates to going outside of the county more for employment, which means longer commutes, which means there needs to be more infrastructure.

Since those homes in the outlying counties are not going away I say the leadership in those communities should start seriously trying to have a job base beyond basic retail and services. Dell is a start but there needs to be even more in Wilco, especially given the predictions of some that they will pass Travis in population by 204x.

[tildahat]

One thing to take into account is that central will still see a concentration of jobs, and many of them will be good middle class jobs, but NOT pay enough for people to live centrally. UT, the city, the state, ACC, Seton, plus the new med school, etc. The answer is 1) better transit into Austin so fewer people drive, 2) more supply in central Austin to ideally reduce prices, but more realistically keep the unaffordable area from pushing out farther, and 2b) build more dense development in close in areas East Austin, 78745, etc to expand "urban Austin".