Austin, what's the deal? (Houston, San Antonio: neighborhood, bankrupt, living)

[AK123]

Originally Posted by G Grasshopper

If a town wants to limit growth, they need to be honest about it, take the topic head-on, and just pass ordinances or zoning laws prohibiting various types of building, or limit water hook-ups. Discouraging growth by not keeping up with infrastructure needs doesn't slow growth, it just makes the place unpleasant to live in. The people will still come, they will just be frustrated and angry about the poor transportation, etc.

This is precisely what I was trying to say in another thread it was mentioned. +1 for you.

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

Second, Austin has always been the capital of Texas (well, almost always- technically, Waterloo used to be the capital, but since it was in the same location, one could say always).

I thought Houston was at one point...

edit: found this
Austin was called Waterloo until 1839, when then-Texas president Mirabeau Lamar established it the capital of the Republic of Texas. The next president, Sam Houston, didn't like Austin. When elected in 1841, he moved the capital to Houston and later Washington-on-the-Brazos. When Texas was annexed by the United States in 1846, Austin was again declared the capital of Texas. The University of Texas opened in 1883. The state capital building was completed in 1888, establishing Austin as the permanent capital of Texas once and for all.

Sounds like it went from "Waterloo" Austin, to Houston, to an area near Brenham, then back to Austin. Interesting!

[mimimomx3]

Originally Posted by jdevelop2

Austin metro is 1.7 million people. That is in NO WAY a small town.

Maybe it's just me- I live in Austin proper, and I never seem to go past 183, Mopac, 290 and 360- that's keeps it pretty small.

Does that 1.7 count Round Rock, Pflugerville, Dripping Springs, etc?

[ILikeSmartHippies]

There are a lot of miles where people drive LESS than 55mph on mopac in the LEFT LANE. This is because austin highways and freeways are very messed up. In California, left-lane-exits and entrances are unheard of; the rare ones that exist are the first to be torn down & rebuilt into clover leafs or over/underpasses as soon as budgets allow. Here in austin however, there are dozens and dozens of Left-Lane-Exits. Such as the Mopac exit on the left to 360 (exit only lane). People in the LEFT lane slow down for over 1/2 mile, slower than 55 mph in some cases. There are many left lane exits on Mopac in other spots too. These all slow down the freeway.

There are also left-lane-entrances onto Mopac and every other freeway. These are horrible. They don't exist in California except in rare cases, because California engineers seem to already know that they are dangerous and cause traffic to back up. In Austin, there seems to be a different priority on designing roads and freeways, so left-lane-entrances are everywhere. Especially dangerous, slow, and backup-creating are the U-turn-lanes that yield into Left-lanes which within 300 feet allow for Left-lane entrances, all within 100 feet of right-lane-turning traffic. So there's a huge bottleneck between people turning right and merging quickly across 3 lanes to use the left-entrance-lane to the freeway, and U-turn-traffic attempting to merge right, and the other yielding traffic merging either left or right as well. Austin freeway entrances & exits & U-turn lanes ("turnabouts") are messed up.

In fact on Mopac going South where the Left Lane is Exit Only to 360, the fastest lane turns out to be the Right Lane! This is because the left lane is exit only and slows down (sometimes to 40mph), while the left-lane-traffic-merging-right goes into the center lane and slows down in a crowd (very often to 55mph) while the fast drivers see "clear" space in the right lane, and the Brodie-exiting traffic (like me) gets a NEW lane on the right in another 1/2 mi. All of these slowdowns can happen at any time of day, rush hour or mid-day or even 9pm at night.

Also, Mopac frequently goes from 3 lanes to 2 lanes with very short exit only's, so even the slightest traffic does indeed slow down to 50-55 mph, even at 11am. Regularly this happens when I drive downtown.

[TexasHorseLady]

ILikeSmartHippies? Got a hint for you. Texas is not California, and "that's the way they do it in
California" is not necessarily a recommendation (especially right now).

And left lane exits does not automatically mean that highways are "messed up" any more than "not what I'm used to" means "messed up".

There's a reason for the old saying, "When in Rome". That reason is that there have been people at least as far back as the Roman Empire who couldn't adjust to the fact that the entire world didn't do things their way and that their way wasn't the perfect way.

The reasons you are giving, by the way, fall into the category of all traffic slowing down for a traffic-related reason, rather than "people in Austin are bad drivers because they drive 55 in the left hand lane". One would think that those kinds of situations would be obvious to a relatively experienced driver and taken into account when complaining.

[eepstein]

Oh where to begin about the Austin "horse and buggy" roadsystem? For those who are not aware of the situation here, the roadsystem in Austin really hasn't changed much since the 1940's and for that matter, back in the 1800's when there was no vehicles, just horses on the trails. And for the record, California is a LEADER when it comes to freeway safety and overall design. TxDOT couldn't hold a candle to CalTrans in any respect.

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

ILikeSmartHippies? Got a hint for you. Texas is not California, and "that's the way they do it in
California" is not necessarily a recommendation (especially right now).

And left lane exits does not automatically mean that highways are "messed up" any more than "not what I'm used to" means "messed up".

There's a reason for the old saying, "When in Rome". That reason is that there have been people at least as far back as the Roman Empire who couldn't adjust to the fact that the entire world didn't do things their way and that their way wasn't the perfect way.

The reasons you are giving, by the way, fall into the category of all traffic slowing down for a traffic-related reason, rather than "people in Austin are bad drivers because they drive 55 in the left hand lane". One would think that those kinds of situations would be obvious to a relatively experienced driver and taken into account when complaining.

[love roses]

Well, in defense of Austin, California is not a very wide state. How hard can it be to make a straight up and down freeway?

[G Grasshopper]

Originally Posted by love roses

Well, in defense of Austin, California is not a very wide state. How hard can it be to make a straight up and down freeway?

This is a strange comment, considering how mountainous California is. But I don't think it's productive to compare the features of states as though it is a competition. Every state has it's own history and reasons why things are the way they are. We should use good ideas, where ever they come from, and not get too deep in to judging each other.

[jobert]

Originally Posted by eepstein

California is a LEADER when it comes to freeway safety and overall design. TxDOT couldn't hold a candle to CalTrans in any respect.

We will improve the roads when absolutely necessary. Until then, how about we keep our tax dollars in our pockets and choose where we live responsibly? You may say we're backwards, or have poor planning, but that's okay - it's not that we are incapable, but rather choose not to. I don't understand the criticism. Don't people move here for the slower pace of life anyways? If we pave Austin until it looks like LA, then the point is lost and so are the reasons people moved here - to get away from that model. Should we pave everything 6 lanes each way, tear down freeways and replacing them with expressways with 15 ft wide lanes for our Hummers, so that we won't feel the pain of choosing to commute 80 miles a day to work? If the inadequate freeway system makes just one person reconsider moving here, then it has already worked.

[atxcio]

TxDot, the folks who design highways in Texas, don't seem to subscribe to the method of road building used in CA and a lot of other states. IMO, they are very behind the times, building large cheap highways that encourage sprawl and cause neighborhood decline.

With that in mind, I'm kind of glad Austin never got any real highway infrastructure... because it would have been the TxDot sprawly, crappy expressways. It would have ruined many of the central neighborhoods (Austin is unique in the sense that practically everything central has always remained good neighborhoods). Hopefully in the future TxDot will learn to build real, modern highways... and then they can upgrade the system here.

[inthecut]

Personally, I think that freeway infrastructure has ruined the ambience of ALL US metros, in a greater or lessor degree...in some cities, like LA, it COMPLETELY changed the ethos of the region, causing it to decline......no metro gets better with more roads, cars, and people.....and I think Austin is a textbook case....the more people, roads, and cars, the less ambience Austin retains...
and that is regardless of HOW they build out......no slight of hand can change it....and there is no perfect design, though there are many awful ones..