Austin is slowly dying from heart disease (Houston: credit card, transfer)

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by gpurcell

"We" don't "insist" anything. That form of housing is what the vast majority of Americans want.

That's exactly what zoning nearly everything SF3 does - it INSISTS on one form of housing, one very low level of density.

[IC_deLight]

Originally Posted by Novacek

What the hell are you talking about? You can't "ask" to have your property included in the ETJ. The ETJ is the area within 2/5 miles of the city limits. Full stop. You can ask to be annexed.

The ETJ of Dripping Springs is larger than you claim. The ETJ is as big as it is because of property owners' reactions in response to a landgrab made by Austin about 30 years ago now. Austin annexed strips along county roads leading to Dripping Springs and claimed several miles on both sides of the strips. Austin councilmembers were trying to control development in Hays County. The property owners petitioned to be in the ETJ of Dripping Springs to prevent direct future annexation or being brought into the ETJ of Austin through future annexation by Austin. Dripping Springs has an ETJ that stretches nearly to Buda. Austin cannot annex Dripping Spring ETJ property nor can Austin's ETJ extend into Dripping Springs ETJ property.

Now instead of whimsical and capricious actions to regulate by fiat, Austin has to pay fair market value when it wants to control property in Hays County - at least property outside of Austin's ETJ. Austin inexplicably spent several million to protect a rundown Hays county subdivision (Goldenwood) by purchasing development easements (i.e., "no development" easements) adjacent the subdivision. The property in that easement is now limited to no more than 15 homes on 1500 acres (i.e., 100 acres/home), yet "environmentalists" in Goldenwood whined about that. More recently Austin inked a deal to spend another $17 million or so purchasing the remainder of Rutherford Ranch subdivision (to prevent development) which is in the same general area.

Originally Posted by Komeht

That's exactly what zoning nearly everything SF3 does - it INSISTS on one form of housing, one very low level of density.

Well, Hays County does not have authority to zone and you'll find the developments in the unincorporated areas to be all over the map in "lot size" although the county does try to extort concessions using its control over the platting process. Unless there is access to utility for wastewater, most of the lots will be minimum of 1-2 acres. In the example above, it was Austin that paid to prevent development well outside its ETJ. These are not areas that taxpayers get to "visit" as some sort of park. There are lots and lots of people living outside of downtown Austin. They generally share one thing in common - a complete lack of any desire to live in downtown Austin or anything remotely like it.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by IC_deLight

The ETJ of Dripping Springs is larger than you claim.

My "claim" is the ETJ map from _the city of Dripping Springs_. Are you claiming _their_ map is in error?

Originally Posted by IC_deLight

Austin cannot annex Dripping Spring ETJ property nor can Austin's ETJ extend into Dripping Springs ETJ property.

You say that like it's something special. Austin cannot annex Flugerville ETJ property nor can Austin's ETJ extend into Plugerville's ETJ Property. Austin cannot annex Round Rock ETJ property, nor can Austin's ETJ extend into Round Rocks's ETJ Property. Dripping Springs cannot annex Austin ETJ property nor can Dripping Spring's ETJ extend into Austin's ETJ property.

That's the _definition_ of ETJ.

[Roadking2003]

Originally Posted by Uberguber

Including the swapping of I-35 and SH130. The highway through Austin should be free for HOV's and buses. Others should pay a fine high enough to make it impractical to not utilize these two options.

For anyone who claims this is a bad idea, please have the courtesy to offer YOUR solution as it must be better than the one I proposed.

I would like to see two I-35 lanes from 183 to 71 with NO entrances or exits for the entire 9 miles. Make it fast to get from North Austin to South Austin.

Then do the same thing on MoPac.

[Roadking2003]

Originally Posted by Novacek

_All_ transportation systems are a failure from a financial viewpoint. How many _trillions_ have been spent on roads?

No, they are not. Transportation is a necessity and makes life much better. Yes, we spend a lot on roads but we also drive 3 trillion miles per year as a nation so we make very good use of those roads.

Most new rail is a financial failure because it costs much more than the solution it replaces.

[Roadking2003]

Originally Posted by Uberguber

I think they would try to move closer into town, be more likely to live in an apartment/condo and not use a car. The tollroad would only punish the suburban commuters from places like RR and Buda. Those people might actually start using a bus or carpooling. Imagine that!

A huge percent of the people cannot carpool or use a bus.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by Roadking2003

I would like to see two I-35 lanes from 183 to 71 with NO entrances or exits for the entire 9 miles. Make it fast to get from North Austin to South.

They are basically planning for it right now with the managed toll lanes from Round Rock to almost Buda. Price tag? $1.1B

Bergstrom Expressway will also be a 35 reliever from 183 to 71. Pay to play.

[Roadking2003]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Not really "much more". Local roads, for instance, are basically not payed for by "user fees" (gas taxes) at all, its all property taxes. .

But 40% of federal gas taxes don't go to pay for roads. They pay for other stuff like museums, bike trails and lighthouses. This is really unfortunate and contributes to some of the financial confusion. I would prefer to see 100% of our roads funded by a gas tax and that 100% of the gas tax go toward roads.

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by Roadking2003

But 40% of federal gas taxes don't go to pay for roads. They pay for other stuff like museums, bike trails and lighthouses. This is really unfortunate and contributes to some of the financial confusion. I would prefer to see 100% of our roads funded by a gas tax and that 100% of the gas tax go toward roads.

Isn't that how it was sold to us in the first place?

[Roadking2003]

Originally Posted by Novacek

CapMetro is somewhat of an outlier, I think the average is about 20%. So now you're comparing 20% vs what about 30%? (part of highways and mostly not local roads). Again ignoring externalities.

Where did you get 30%?