Austin growth will absolutely overwhelm roads and highways starting in 2011 - new study (Houston: neighborhoods, buy)

[calien]

It's still a free country. I live where I like. Deal with it.

[thesonofgray]

Someone convince TxDOT to get rid of highway feeder roads. That one step would help our traffic issues enormously and help control growth.

Go ahead and blame California for what you will, but they build their freeways right (most of them, anyways) - unlike our inefficient system here in Texas.

[love roses]

I don't think feeder roads are so bad. I lived in a City that didn't have them and it really didn't make a difference in the traffic, it was just harder to turn around if you missed your exit. Both systems have their pros and cons though.

[TexasHorseLady]

Explain, please. You're saying get rid of access roads?

[Trainwreck20]

TxDOT is no longer building access roads for new construction; however, it was a cost issue. Access roads were found to be only marginally more efficient than non-access road designs and not worth the added cost.

[CarnivalGal]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

Explain, please. You're saying get rid of access roads?

Yes! I had no idea what an access/frontage/feeder road was until I moved down here. And then I started scratching my head wondering why in the Sam Hill they were there. In many cities, when you exit on say Main Street, you actually get on a ramp that takes you to, of all places, Main Street! How crazy it that?! You don't have to sit through any lights, causing a back-up onto the ramp and subsequent freeway or reeking havoc with the cars that need to cross three lanes of traffic to sit behind all the cars in line at the light to turn right. They're called flyovers, and they work. Thankfully, it appears that someone has FINALLY figured that out here, as they are now constructing them at intersections such as Ben White and I-35.

There is nothing more maddening than getting off at the ABC Road Exit only to have to sit through lights at XYZ Street, 123 Drive, and OMFG Boulevard, before FINALLY actually getting to ABC Road (which will, inevitably have another light).

[kingugly]

Originally Posted by thesonofgray

Someone convince TxDOT to get rid of highway feeder roads. That one step would help our traffic issues enormously and help control growth.

Go ahead and blame California for what you will, but they build their freeways right (most of them, anyways) - unlike our inefficient system here in Texas.

That is laughable. I don't know what part of California you are talking about, but if it's southern California, the system is a hallmark of inefficiency. Sign on to google traffic maps any time between 7 am and 10 am or 4 pm and 7 pm PST and look at your efficiency in action. Be sure to zoom in and look at the side roads as well. A sea of red.

If you're whole argument is that feeder roads take up what could be valuable freeway space, why not point out that, in Los Angeles, there is no room for feeder roads, so the argument is a moot point. Most of the freeways have been expanded so wide that the only thing separating the freeway from someone's backyard is a concrete barrier. In most cases, people's backyards or apartments are 20 feet or less from the freeway.

Here's one example: On the 110 freeway going north from downtown, the only north-south freeway that will get you to Pasadena (a huge city/commuter town), they've expanded the freeway to 3 lanes on each side, the max it can handle because of homes and/or the LA river (the LA river - another joke, don't get me started). But because they didn't plan for growth, they've had to eliminate the shoulder roads on both sides. Imagine driving on a freeway with no shoulder. It's like you're stuck on some rickety, old roller coaster that you can't get off of. Every 1/4 mile or so you have a small inlet that you could hope to make it to in case you had a flat tire. Also, the exits and entrance ramps are -- get this -- 5 mph! So they want you to go from 65 mph to 5 mph at what is practically a right turn off of the freeway!

[kingugly]

Here's another gem: Los Angeles doesn't have timed lights. TIMED LIGHTS! I visited my Dad in Birmingham, AL and most of their lights were timed. In LA, you go through one light, drive 1/8 mile, sit at a red light. Light turns green, drive 1/8 mile, sit at a red light. The whole city is like this! It's maddening!

[AK123]

Originally Posted by twange

As it pertains to my point, size is irrelevant. And relative. L.A. and Houston are cities that developed in every direction, mostly unchecked without any real sense of city core. No feeling of "downtown". In this way, L.A. is like a typical auto-era suburb, just on a giant scale.

I guess I'm just confused here.
Austin already seems this way, just on a much smaller scale than Houston. But same kind of overall layout. (I've lived in both cities.) Houston cannot expand east... there's water.
And Houston definitely has a downtown; it's where a large number companies, the main entertainment district, and several of the sports stadiums are located. Now, if what you meant was multiple business districts (downtown, Medical Center, Uptown, Energy Corridor, etc.) then I see what you're saying.

[TexasHorseLady]

I don't like that idea. I can usually get to the street that I'm exiting to either right away or through one light - and it doesn't kill me to sit through a light. I LOVE our looparounds (that apparently don't exist in California, from comments made on here and elsewhere by people from there coming here) where you can get off and loop around and head back the way you came from on the other access road thus avoiding the light entirely.

Yes, Texas does have more room, and changing our ways to fit those that work in places that don't have the same space would seem to be giving up one of our advantages so that folks from elsewhere don't have to figure out how to drive here.