We Need More Freeways! (Austin, Round Rock: apartments, insurance, condominiums)

[ScoPro]

Of course that was a joke.

However, eliminating the expansion of the road system in the Austin area is certainly not the answer - that's been tried and is an utter failure. We aare now paying for the short-sighted "no growth" mentality of the 70s.

As has been stated, more & better road infrastructure coupled with efficient & cost effective public transport is preferable.....but not the end all.

Or else start a nationwide publicity campaign that "Austin sucks and is terrible to do business in". That might discourage further immigration here.

Since I was a part of the problem, I moved to Wilco and rarely use Austin streets.

[AmberAzeneth]

THL, I am not saying Austin is Houston. You can keep in mind that Austin is Austin and Houston is Houston, but that does not change the fact that some more infrastructure is needed. There could be some more freeways but that is not going to completely solve it either. I am just saying from my years of driving in and around Austin that could help alot. Austin is growing tremendously and before you know the quaint jewel of a capital city next to the hill country we have is going to be a metroplolis to be reckoned with. I say build some more freeways and retain the beauty that is Austin. That doesn't mean keep austin weird, that can stay on the drag.

[TexasHorseLady]

First, Austin weird hasn't been on the drag since long before the phrase was coined (and I know the person who coined it and when he did, so I can say that). It's all over the city; you just have to be able to see it.

Second, building some more freeways is not the answer. There ARE answers, and they do involve some change, but "build more freeways!" is a lazy way of looking at it and, as pointed out earlier in the discussion, is a short-sighted, short-term "fix" that isn't really a fix at all.

Complete the interchanges to the sky that have never been finished, by all means. That right there would go a long way towards improving some of the problems. But don't just build new roads; THINK about the problem first.

As I said a while back, "build more freeways" is the "throw money at the problem and it'll go away" kind of thinking that never works long-term, and is the kind of thinking that gets us into these situations in the first place. Doing the same kind of thing because of the same kind of thinking and imagining that it'll come up with a different result is just, well, dumb.

[cBach]

My comments:

First, I agree with the suggestions to complete the flyovers. I can't understand why when they put in SH45 at the 183 intersection there is no 620E to 183S connection, nor is there a 183S to 620W connection. Same thing for 183S to I-35S interchange and the 71E to I-35S and 71W to I-35S flyover, although that is finally being addressed (yay!). These are common sense things.

One thing I can't understand is why TxDot believe that you either have a highway with red lights or a freeway with a 6 lane service road, why isn't there any in-between. For instance, on 360, if they converted that to a freeway with 6 lane freeway (2x3) and a 2x3 service road, that would require a lot of rock blasting to get done. However, if they simply put a ramp over some of the intersections, kind of like how they did over 2244, just do it over the other roads too, that would make traffic go much smoother. You don't need full service roads there, you just need an overpass with exits. But TxDot has this all or none philosophy.

The toll roads have been a mixed bag. I think the MoPac north to 45E to I-35 road is well worth it and probably the only road that would have been needed. SH130 is really a colossal failure, hardly anyone uses it and it didn't solve any traffic problems. Only people going from Georgetown, Round Rock, and Pflugerville to the airport benefit from that road.

I think when 45SW gets built, that will help tremendously so a lot of people in S. Austin that need to go to I-35S will ease the pressure off 71E. They will also have a direct route to the airport as well. So I highly support that route. But overall the toll roads haven't done squat to help us.

I think the highest priority project should be the "Y" at Oak Hill, that is such a poorly designed area, where 71 ends and it's a traffic jam most of the day. That and completing the last overpass on 71E going to the airport should be highest priority, as well as converting 183 from 290 to 71 into a freeway. Again, no need for service roads and all that, just put intersections over all red lights, I think there's like 3 or so?

If we did what I just mentioned, it wouldn't cost a lot (except for the "Y"), but you'd see great improvements.

[AmberAzeneth]

cBach, I believe that you are on to something. Now let us see what TxDot thinks. I am sure TxDot could screw up these solutions in a heartbeat. You are right S.H. 130 as a tolled facility has truly been a colossal failure. The "Y" at Oak Hill should have been put to extinction 10 years ago.

[TexasHorseLady]

Funny thing is, I went through the Y at Oak Hill twice a day taking my daughter to and from school, for years, without a serious problem. Yes, it was one of the more congested parts of town, but I was never slowed down for more than five minutes. (I do realize that five minutes is an eternity to some folks, but, really, it's five minutes. Even if it's 10 minutes, in the overall scheme of things? Really?)

It only turned into a colossal problem, in my experience, once they decided to "fix" everything by extending the freeway out that far and then just . . . stopping.

[orbius]

I dont see what the total adverse reaction to roads is? If the city doesnt like roads it shouldnt let big box retailers deposit giant stores wherever they want, they shouldnt let developers plonk down giant subdivisions wherever they want.
When the city does that they have a responsibility to provide adequate and realistic transportation infrastructure so these people can live their lives.
The odds of Austin getting its act together and building a realistic train system or bus system(currently cutting funding of this) is nil.

So that means roads. If they dont bite the bullet and live up to their responsibility to their citizens then many in Austin may very well get their wish. Developers will leave, and along with them will go new businesses, jobs will leave Austin.

I'm sure that will make many of the stodgy old guard in Austin happy. But when a certain amount leaves and it starts hurting their real estate and their investments they will cry 'wait, wait enough has left now come back!'.

No one will listen.

[verybadgnome]

Originally Posted by orbius

I dont see what the total adverse reaction to roads is? If the city doesnt like roads it shouldnt let big box retailers deposit giant stores wherever they want, they shouldnt let developers plonk down giant subdivisions wherever they want.
When the city does that they have a responsibility to provide adequate and realistic transportation infrastructure so these people can live their lives.
The odds of Austin getting its act together and building a realistic train system or bus system(currently cutting funding of this) is nil.

So that means roads. If they dont bite the bullet and live up to their responsibility to their citizens then many in Austin may very well get their wish. Developers will leave, and along with them will go new businesses, jobs will leave Austin.

I'm sure that will make many of the stodgy old guard in Austin happy. But when a certain amount leaves and it starts hurting their real estate and their investments they will cry 'wait, wait enough has left now come back!'.

No one will listen.

The problem is that the assumptions in your assertion are wrong. The city of Austin has ZERO control over growth that happens in Hutto, Manor, Kyle, Cedar Park, Dripping Springs, etc. Since most of the new demand for infrastructure has come from these outlying communities whose resident mostly work in Austin that is the real source of the problem.

The other side issue is that in Texas there are no limitations, aside from things like septic, on growth in unincorporated areas of the county. It's laissez-faire out there and Austin can do little about it.

As far as retail is concerned it follow rooftops (subdivisions) and not the other way around.

Back to the original topic. There are other solutions that folks can take it upon themselves to make their commutes easier. Carpooling, commuting before or after the peaks, living as close to work as possible (instead of the community with the nicest oak trees), working from home, or mass transit.

[orbius]

Originally Posted by verybadgnome

The problem is that the assumptions in your assertion are wrong. The city of Austin has ZERO control over growth that happens in Hutto, Manor, Kyle, Cedar Park, Dripping Springs, etc. Since most of the new demand for infrastructure has come from these outlying communities whose resident mostly work in Austin that is the real source of the problem.

The other side issue is that in Texas there are no limitations, aside from things like septic, on growth in unincorporated areas of the county. It's laissez-faire out there and Austin can do little about it.

As far as retail is concerned it follow rooftops (subdivisions) and not the other way around.

Back to the original topic. There are other solutions that folks can take it upon themselves to make their commutes easier. Carpooling, commuting before or after the peaks, living as close to work as possible (instead of the community with the nicest oak trees), working from home, or mass transit.

Where in what I wrote did I mention the outlying areas? I'm talking about Austin. Round Rock is an outlying area and it does a much better job of matching roads to the amount of traffic they have anyway so your argument is simply not correct.
Take 620 right in dear old Austin for example. The traffic was bad on this road years ago. So what do they do? Obviously they let Walmart put in a giant super-center, oh and Home Depot come on in! HEB build another store. Oh a giant University wants to build here also! Great slap it in there.
More roads for all this extra traffic? Ha! This is Austin we hate those god forsaken things. If you dont want to sit in three hours of traffic a day obviously you should move 12 micrometers away from where you work its your fault. Oh Beau of the Oasis we feel terrible about your restaurant burning down we're going to let you build a gigantic terrible parking garage and assorted other building and build no extra roads! HA! We must protect the god forsaken hills and their scrub brush and cedar trees. The misery of the commuters is of no consequence! I think most of the people making these decisions on the Austin city council now live in Fredricksburg and are having a laugh at our expense thats about the only thing that makes sense at this point.

[jobert]

I think that the city of Austin intentionally creates bottlenecks like the "Y" at Oak Hill and other places to prevent the tax base from fleeing, as well as to prevent overdevelopment of our environmentally sensitive areas. Maybe if the traffic gets bad enough, those who tell people they "live in Austin" will actually live in Austin, but they would have to be willing to live next to a higher proportion of minorities. God forbid.