Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Most highway construction is funded though taxes on gasoline which haven't risen in years (possibly a decade).
At least 1/3 of the state's gas tax revenue is diverted away from it's intended purpose (road building & maintenance) to the general fund and is spent on gawd knows what. Same goes for the federal gas tax.
That disingenuous robbery has been going on for decades.
And the ignorant citizens wonder why our road infrastructure is failing.
Austin's core is pretty tiny compared to Dallas and especially Houston. Not seeing any evidence of urban.living being an easier sell in Austin considering the other two cities have more aoartments being built in their cores. Not seeing any evidence of urban.living being an easier sell in Austin considering the other two cities have more aoartments being built in their cores.
If you don't see the evidence, it's because you are not looking. Have you seen the # of 40 and 50 story residential buildings built within the past few years or planned for Austin? How many of those have gone up in Dallas or Houston? I'm serious -- the answer to the question is pretty easy to find. When you learn the answer, tell me again how Austin isn't the "easier sell" for downtown urban living?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trae713
Downtown didnt lose population and neither did Montrose.
In order to not make this a city-vs-city thread... I'll just point out, the vibrant core of Austin is continuous in every direction. North, south, east, west. You could draw a circle a couple of miles out in each direction, and EVERYTHING in that circle would be a vibrant, good area that you might want to live. And then surrounding that circle, instead of a nasty highway loop, we've got a ring of nice neighborhoods in most directions (NE and SE perhaps the exception, for now). Central Houston or Dallas just aren't like that, and won't be anytime soon.
Although if they could magically make I45 and half of 610 disappear, I'd bet they'd have a better chance at getting those urban core numbers up .
If you don't see the evidence, it's because you are not looking. Have you seen the # of 40 and 50 story residential buildings built within the past few years or planned for Austin? How many of those have gone up in Dallas or Houston? I'm serious -- the answer to the question is pretty easy to find. When you learn the answer, tell me again how Austin isn't the "easier sell" for downtown urban living?
In order to not make this a city-vs-city thread... I'll just point out, the vibrant core of Austin is continuous in every direction. North, south, east, west. You could draw a circle a couple of miles out in each direction, and EVERYTHING in that circle would be a vibrant, good area that you might want to live. And then surrounding that circle, instead of a nasty highway loop, we've got a ring of nice neighborhoods in most directions (NE and SE perhaps the exception, for now). Central Houston or Dallas just aren't like that, and won't be anytime soon.
Although if they could magically make I45 and half of 610 disappear, I'd bet they'd have a better chance at getting those urban core numbers up .
And like I said in the rest of my post, those areas also saw increases in income. So the lower income moved to some of the inner ring and outer ring suburbs, while being replaced by young singles and couples.
They are two completely different types of cities, but to say that Austin's core is the only one growing is wrong. Austin never had the higher levels of low income housing close to its core like Houston and Dallas had. You're replacing families with singles, so it will lose population, but if you compare photos, income levels, etc., today versus in 2000, there is no comparison. Austin is not unique at all. What Austin has over the two is a more concentrated night life scene. It's still a sprawling, traffic clogged metro area no matter how you look at it. I don't see the problem with demolishing the upper level of I-35, and then making a four to ten lane freeway (under-grade), through Austin. That at least needs to happen. Make it like the N. Central Expressway in Dallas.
I don't see the problem with demolishing the upper level of I-35, and then making a four to ten lane freeway (under-grade), through Austin.
I can spot at least four problems with that:
1. TxDOT is broke right now, and will remain so for a very, very long time. Barely enough money to continue planning studies and maintain what is already there, let alone build new. See the discussion above on gas tax revenues dropping, gas tax revenue diversion, etc. for at least one reason why that's so.
2. Construction and staging issues. What you've proposed is amazingly disruptive, including the demolition of the upper level of 35. For the years that it would take to get this thing built (see the Big Dig in Boston as a point of reference...and getting it built assumes that you can get it through the Federal environmental process - see problem 3), you'd actually be significantly cutting capacity at a time when there are 100+ people per day moving to Central Texas. That's a disaster, economically and quality of life wise. These things don't just simply appear. They take a long time to build. And with a tunnel? Adds exponentially to the complexity and time.
3. Environmental issues. Austin, love it or not, is not a metro area that is comfortable with large disruptions of the natural or human environment. If it weren't so, there would have been ring highways constructed through the Hill Country decades ago. I just can't imagine a scenario in my head where this humongous tunnel wouldn't be fought tooth and nail by every neighborhood group, enviro organization, and anti-development cadre in Central Texas.
4. Expansion capability. Recent studies (2012) undertaken by the city, Cap Metro, Lone Star Rail, and CAMPO have determined that we need 12 additional lanes from north of the city, and 14 from the south by 2035. Unless you oversize the project, you're building in obsolescence. Expansion is hard enough with a surface or aerial roadway. When it's a tunnel...whoa nelly. Did I mention that tunneling is expensive, disruptive, and complex?
So, while I agree that we need to do something and fast, I also think we need to get the most bang for the buck for our transportation dollar. To me, that seems to be high capacity transit modes that use existing rights of way (active railroads, former railroads, and even in some cases city streets), where you can re-purpose for transit. Some of those ideas (which, in total, could yield the equivalent of 12 lanes of capacity from the north and 10 lanes of capacity from the south) are detailed on the Project Connect web site:
They are two completely different types of cities, but to say that Austin's core is the only one growing is wrong. Austin never had the higher levels of low income housing close to its core like Houston and Dallas had.
Exactly my point. One reason, IMO, is lack of comparable highway loops/road access to the suburbs has prevented people over the years from leaving the central core of Austin; the neighborhoods stay desirable, and are only getting more so. You've not provided any evidence to the contrary. That's why it's such an easy sell to get people to live in the central part of the city, and the congested roads will just make that value proposition look better. The market bears this out; hence the residential towers of 40+ and 50+ stories in Austin, with so many more proposed. Again, how many of these were built in Houston? In Dallas?
But you might say the height of the buildings mean nothing, that Houston's inner city is building more apartments overall... well, that certainly isn't the case downtown:
77002 (Houston DT, 2.1 sq miles)
Housing built 2005 or later: 325
Housing built 2000 to 2004: 777
78701 (Austin DT, 1.7 mi area):
Housing built 2005 or later: 3,634
Housing built 2000 to 2004: 1,926
In fact, if we look closer at the numbers for Houston, it only gets worse. There is a long way to go before the sprawling tendencies are reversed or even slow down there (although Dallas is worse):
Houston downtown (77002) population change last decade: -24%
Austin downtown (78701) population change last decade: +256%
This is despite efforts by Houston to make downtown more livable. Light rail, Bayou improvements, Discovery Green, etc.
Quote:
I don't see the problem with demolishing the upper level of I-35, and then making a four to ten lane freeway (under-grade), through Austin. That at least needs to happen. Make it like the N. Central Expressway in Dallas.
Thinking like that is exactly why central urban living is such a comparably hard sell in Houston and Dallas. People in those cities LOVE their highways, the bigger the better! But honestly, there is no way on earth something like you propose will ever happen in Austin. I-35 through central Austin will never be allowed to mow down vast swaths of land like the Katy freeway expansion in Houston. The land close to I-35 in central Austin is just too valuable, too desirable to pave over -- and the city planners and residents are all too aware of this.
Instead, the likely scenario now involves moving the I-35 designation over to the new highway 130, which has plenty of land to expand, and not destroy the core of the city. The current I-35 would then become a toll road, used mainly to go to-from central Austin, and not through it. Honestly, this is a far more intelligent and forward-thinking plan IMO.
Curious, how do you see that as capturing the "zeitgeist" of Austin? It flies in the face of everything I've known about Austin for 40 years and more.
I didn't say what it was, just that it IS different from Dallas' and Houston's. I think that most people that have lived in all three - including me - can agree on that.
That said, if I were to define the difference, I would start with the sense of community we all feel here - that we aren't as Balkanized as DFW or Houston. That also contributes to our sense of putting community, and what is best for it, at least on the scorecard with our own selfish needs. I would add that there is more of a sense of the necessity of interacting with the environment in a sensitive way that isn't as widely felt in DFW or Houston. As a good friend once said, you can't live here without being an environmentalist - only some of us are nut jobs about it.
Many of the current mobility problems here can be assigned to the "if we don't build it, they won't come" infrastructure approach that has ruled this city for three decades, if not longer. Guess what? They came any way. Now what's the plan?
I didn't say what it was, just that it IS different from Dallas' and Houston's. I think that most people that have lived in all three - including me - can agree on that.
That said, if I were to define the difference, I would start with the sense of community we all feel here - that we aren't as Balkanized as DFW or Houston. That also contributes to our sense of putting community, and what is best for it, at least on the scorecard with our own selfish needs. I would add that there is more of a sense of the necessity of interacting with the environment in a sensitive way that isn't as widely felt in DFW or Houston. As a good friend once said, you can't live here without being an environmentalist - only some of us are nut jobs about it.
Many of the current mobility problems here can be assigned to the "if we don't build it, they won't come" infrastructure approach that has ruled this city for three decades, if not longer. Guess what? They came any way. Now what's the plan?
The "no growther" crowd has really caused a lot of Austin's current problems...including the air pollution. Very short-sighted emotions are not conducive to long term smart growth.
Exactly my point. One reason, IMO, is lack of comparable highway loops/road access to the suburbs has prevented people over the years from leaving the central core of Austin; the neighborhoods stay desirable, and are only getting more so. You've not provided any evidence to the contrary. That's why it's such an easy sell to get people to live in the central part of the city, and the congested roads will just make that value proposition look better. The market bears this out; hence the residential towers of 40+ and 50+ stories in Austin, with so many more proposed. Again, how many of these were built in Houston? In Dallas?
But you might say the height of the buildings mean nothing, that Houston's inner city is building more apartments overall... well, that certainly isn't the case downtown:
77002 (Houston DT, 2.1 sq miles)
Housing built 2005 or later: 325
Housing built 2000 to 2004: 777
78701 (Austin DT, 1.7 mi area):
Housing built 2005 or later: 3,634
Housing built 2000 to 2004: 1,926
That's DOWNTOWN HOUSTON. Downtown Houston is only 2.1 square miles out of the entire 96 square mile inner loop area. Remember, we are comparing a metro of 1.8 million to a metro area of 6.1 million. Immediately outside of the downtown loop, you have East Downtown, Washington Avenue, Midtown, etc.
In fact, if we look closer at the numbers for Houston, it only gets worse. There is a long way to go before the sprawling tendencies are reversed or even slow down there (although Dallas is worse):
Houston downtown (77002) population change last decade: -24%
Austin downtown (78701) population change last decade: +256%
This is despite efforts by Houston to make downtown more livable. Light rail, Bayou improvements, Discovery Green, etc.
Your links don't work. You also didn't show the zip codes around Downtown Austin that lost population (here, here, etc). You should have done that...
You do know that the vast majority of growth in Austin is still happening in the suburbs right? If you think Austin is any different, then you are seriously kidding yourself. I have no idea why having lower income housing close to its core proves your point at all. It all goes to how each city first starting growing, and Houston and Dallas grew with more manufacturing and industry and have a larger working class. A lot of that working class have either made more money, or can't afford to live in the inner city areas anymore (land values have risen dramatically) and have moved to the suburbs. Austin never had that problem because it didn't have much of that near its core.
I really like how you then use percentages for Downtown Austin population growth, to make the numbers appear a little better in your favor. The Inner Loop in Houston has a few zip codes that grew by more people than Austin's Downtown. Large city vs. midsize city. All you have to do is look at the zip code just outside of the downtown loop, and your point becomes invalid (already was, but...):
Thinking like that is exactly why central urban living is such a comparably hard sell in Houston and Dallas. People in those cities LOVE their highways, the bigger the better! But honestly, there is no way on earth something like you propose will ever happen in Austin. I-35 through central Austin will never be allowed to mow down vast swaths of land like the Katy freeway expansion in Houston. The land close to I-35 in central Austin is just too valuable, too desirable to pave over -- and the city planners and residents are all too aware of this.
Instead, the likely scenario now involves moving the I-35 designation over to the new highway 130, which has plenty of land to expand, and not destroy the core of the city. The current I-35 would then become a toll road, used mainly to go to-from central Austin, and not through it. Honestly, this is a far more intelligent and forward-thinking plan IMO.
I have no idea why you continue to harp this because it is so false. Austin is NOT unique in Downtown population change. Yeah, the numbers don't back up what you're making up here. Have you ever seen Austin highways and how crowded they are? Take off those burnt orange glasses and see Austin for what it really is....another sprawling metro area with a very good Downtown core. Expanding a freeway is not going to make Austin's Downtown core less desirable. They sure didn't care when they built the double-deck, which is an eyesore. The Katy Freeway expansion in Houston has risen values along the route outside of 610 (wasn't expanded inside the loop). The 59 rebuild has made that part of the loop better as well (depressed section of freeway with signature bridges and greenery). Dallas just built a deck park over one of its freeways. That could happen to I-35 in Austin. As it stands now I-35 is just one traffic clogged mess. If SH 130 gets a redesignation as I-35, then you are doing nothing but creating sprawl out there, too. Making it easier since it's accessible by a freeway. I don't know of any new freeways being built in Houston and Dallas' core, and the two that have been proposed in both (TMC Tollway in Houston and Trinity River Tollroad in Dallas) have reached heavy opposition by the citizens. Both metro areas are currently under going light rail expansion. Both currently have huge park redevelopments in their core, yet your basis to say that urban living in both is a hard sell compared to Austin is what? Absolutely nothing....
Quote:
Originally Posted by jb9152
I can spot at least four problems with that:
1. TxDOT is broke right now, and will remain so for a very, very long time. Barely enough money to continue planning studies and maintain what is already there, let alone build new. See the discussion above on gas tax revenues dropping, gas tax revenue diversion, etc. for at least one reason why that's so.
2. Construction and staging issues. What you've proposed is amazingly disruptive, including the demolition of the upper level of 35. For the years that it would take to get this thing built (see the Big Dig in Boston as a point of reference...and getting it built assumes that you can get it through the Federal environmental process - see problem 3), you'd actually be significantly cutting capacity at a time when there are 100+ people per day moving to Central Texas. That's a disaster, economically and quality of life wise. These things don't just simply appear. They take a long time to build. And with a tunnel? Adds exponentially to the complexity and time.
3. Environmental issues. Austin, love it or not, is not a metro area that is comfortable with large disruptions of the natural or human environment. If it weren't so, there would have been ring highways constructed through the Hill Country decades ago. I just can't imagine a scenario in my head where this humongous tunnel wouldn't be fought tooth and nail by every neighborhood group, enviro organization, and anti-development cadre in Central Texas.
4. Expansion capability. Recent studies (2012) undertaken by the city, Cap Metro, Lone Star Rail, and CAMPO have determined that we need 12 additional lanes from north of the city, and 14 from the south by 2035. Unless you oversize the project, you're building in obsolescence. Expansion is hard enough with a surface or aerial roadway. When it's a tunnel...whoa nelly. Did I mention that tunneling is expensive, disruptive, and complex?
So, while I agree that we need to do something and fast, I also think we need to get the most bang for the buck for our transportation dollar. To me, that seems to be high capacity transit modes that use existing rights of way (active railroads, former railroads, and even in some cases city streets), where you can re-purpose for transit. Some of those ideas (which, in total, could yield the equivalent of 12 lanes of capacity from the north and 10 lanes of capacity from the south) are detailed on the Project Connect web site:
I didn't say put it in a tunnel, but under-grade...depressed, whatever. Adding a park or something over part of the freeway would be something extra (and really expensive). But you can't just leave the freeway the way it is, and I'm sure the City of Austin does want to demolish the upper deck lanes sometime. They are not nice to look at (unless you want views of the skyline). You can expand a freeway, while adding in other modes of transit along with it...
And it's fine to point out Austin zips that lost population, like 78704. I never said that some Austin zips haven't lost population; I'm saying downtown Austin has positively boomed, WAY more than Houston or Dallas have. +256%. Because it's just a much easier sell for people to live downtown in this city. The 78704 (south Austin) and 78702 (East Austin) zips you reference really weren't even considered "central" Austin until just recently. Some might still say those areas aren't central. Even you said the "vibrant urban core" of Austin was "tiny"... well, it isn't any more, but it was. And 78702 and 78704 were considered outside of that. Those zips would be more comparable to the Heights in Houston.
Quote:
You do know that the vast majority of growth in Austin is still happening in the suburbs right? If you think Austin is any different, then you are seriously kidding yourself. I have no idea why having lower income housing close to its core proves your point at all.
The numbers show clearly enough that Austin is different. I've shown that much more growth has happened downtown, many more housing units were built downtown (despite Austin being smaller), and much more ambitious residential projects have gone up in downtown Austin, etc. vs. Dallas or Houston. And you've shown nothing to dispute that. So, I guess it is indeed different. I guess the only question is how different -- and I'm not saying that Austin is immune to sprawl. it has it's fair share and no one is denying that. But to say that it's on a scale like Houston or Dallas? Ridiculous.
Quote:
It all goes to how each city first starting growing, and Houston and Dallas grew with more manufacturing and industry and have a larger working class. A lot of that working class have either made more money, or can't afford to live in the inner city areas anymore (land values have risen dramatically) and have moved to the suburbs. Austin never had that problem because it didn't have much of that near its core.
I understand the history of the different cities. But you should realize that people didn't leave the inner core of Houston because they couldn't afford it anymore -- it's because the highways and automobiles made living farther away so much more convenient. The suburbs were attractive, and there is nothing like a big highway loop to help folks in those days mark which part of town was good or bad. I'm not saying Houston or Dallas are unique in any way with this, flight to the suburbs happened in many large cities.
Austin largely skipped that effect. Despite growing quite quickly, and doubling in population every 20 years, central Austin was always more desirable. Part of it was luck, the fact that things like UT, the Capitol, and state government was there... but part of it was also the lack of highway system. And that continues to affect growth patterns here. It's not the only factor, but I guarantee it's one of them.
Quote:
I really like how you then use percentages for Downtown Austin population growth, to make the numbers appear a little better in your favor. The Inner Loop in Houston has a few zip codes that grew by more people than Austin's Downtown. Large city vs. midsize city.
Thanks, I feel like when comparing a larger city to a smaller one, percentages are more accurate. However, when the percentage AND the raw numbers favor the smaller city, I think it's worth noting because it just shows how extreme the differences are. Like with DT Austin vs. DT Houston or Dallas.
Quote:
All you have to do is look at the zip code just outside of the downtown loop, and your point becomes invalid (already was, but...):
Wait, thought we were talking about "vibrant urban cores"? And you want to bring up outer loop areas of Houston? I mean, that kind of proves the point again, doesn't it? That with Houston, it's just way to easy to live outside the core (again, at least partially due to the 10 lane freeways everywhere), so they have the bigger challenge getting people to live downtown. Austin is just set up better for living in the city center.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
.
