Are new highways in the Plans for Austin or the upgrading of existing ones? (Houston: low income, 2014)

[txgolfer130]

Originally Posted by Newbe10

After several visits to the Austin area and looking at the highway system, I think that Austin could stand for the upgrading and expansion of a few highways. I think that this could be done without the need to build brand new freeways.

For instance, upgrading U.S. Highway 183 a full freeway to and past Austin-Birkstrom Int'l Airport; expanding the freeway section of 290 W through the rest of the southwestern part of the city; Upgrading 290 E to freeway past the 130 tollway; and finally, upgrading state highway 360 to full freeway standards.

IMHO, if this could be done, it would make traveling around Austin much easier. The only new freeway, that I think that Austin could use is a "loop." Most cities and towns in Texas have a loop; heck even the tiny city of Crockett has a loop. This loop around Austin could involve using some of the existing highways like highway 360.

Anyway, I know that some particular posters on here (from looking at past threads) are against the idea of new highways or expanding existing ones in Austin, but the cold hard truth is that it needs to be done, because rapid growth in Austin isn't going to stop anytime soon and I don't think that the current highway system can handle such continued growth.

Also, does anyone know when, if at all, when the tollroads (i.e. SH 45 and SH 130) will become free?

ROTFLMAO! Expecting Austin or Central Texas to do something about their traffic and crappy roads/infrastructure and actually give up revenue they've already spent 5 years into the future?!!!



I needed a good 'ol barrel laugh. Thanks.

[Trae713]

Originally Posted by atxcio

Highways are old technology. Most cities (Houston and Dallas are examples) are trying very hard to revive their urban core, yet are at a significant disadvantage as they've designed their cities for people to drive to the outskirts to live. By comparison, Austin's lack of highways and traffic snarls make building density in the core easy. So why not just go with it?

Besides, I think we need some HOV lanes installed and connectors finished before we even think about new highways... or maybe just spend the money to remove the lights off highways like 360. Basically the existing roads could be made a lot better than they are right now.

LOL, yet Houston and Dallas are both denser than Austin, especially in their cores and both of them have a ton more apartments going up in the core areas. Let's not get carried away. Austin is sprawling with or without expanding the freeways...

[centralaustinite]

Most highway construction is funded though taxes on gasoline which haven't risen in years (possibly a decade).

[atxcio]

Originally Posted by Trae713

LOL, yet Houston and Dallas are both denser than Austin, especially in their cores and both of them have a ton more apartments going up in the core areas. Let's not get carried away. Austin is sprawling with or without expanding the freeways...

Yeah, I don't think the denser areas of Houston or Dallas are exactly the "vibrant urban cores" they are trying so hard to develop. You and I know what they are... and it's not somewhere most people would live if they had a choice.

[Trae713]

Originally Posted by atxcio

Yeah, I don't think the denser areas of Houston or Dallas are exactly the "vibrant urban cores" they are trying so hard to develop. You and I know what they are... and it's not somewhere most people would live if they had a choice.

The night life in Houston is concentrated throughout the western inner loop and Downtown. Dallas' nightlife is around Uptown. Now, their nightlife isn't concentrated in one area like Austin, but thats only one component... Austin vibrant area is tiny compared to Houston. You're out of the vibrancy pretty quick. Again, lets not get carried away. Austin not expanding its freeways is doing nothing but continuing to raise Austin up traffic lists. People are going to move there regardless. A better planned freeway system would not hurt Austin's core.

[atxcio]

Originally Posted by Trae713

The night life in Houston is concentrated throughout the western inner loop and Downtown. Dallas' nightlife is around Uptown. Now, their nightlife isn't concentrated in one area like Austin, but thats only one component... Austin vibrant area is tiny compared to Houston. You're out of the vibrancy pretty quick. Again, lets not get carried away. Austin not expanding its freeways is doing nothing but continuing to raise Austin up traffic lists. People are going to move there regardless. A better planned freeway system would not hurt Austin's core.

Austin's vibrant area isn't exactly tiny, and the fact that it's contiguous vibrancy in every direction downtown, for at least a few or more miles, helps make the urban core living a much easier sell here. And unless you have some evidence to the contrary, the relative lack of road access to the 'burbs and congestion also make it an easy sell. That's why it's rising so fast.

By comparison, didn't several zip codes in Houston actually lose population between the 2000 and 2010 census? Like downtown itself (77002), much of Montrose, etc? Despite them building more amenities?

I just think Houston is going to have a much harder time bringing people back to the central neighborhoods from the burbs. It's just too easy to commute. But Dallas has that problem tenfold. And all Texas cities have the problem to some extent.

[Trae713]

Originally Posted by atxcio

Austin's vibrant area isn't exactly tiny, and the fact that it's contiguous vibrancy in every direction downtown, for at least a few or more miles, helps make the urban core living a much easier sell here. And unless you have some evidence to the contrary, the relative lack of road access to the 'burbs and congestion also make it an easy sell. That's why it's rising so fast.

By comparison, didn't several zip codes in Houston actually lose population between the 2000 and 2010 census? Like downtown itself (77002), much of Montrose, etc? Despite them building more amenities?

I just think Houston is going to have a much harder time bringing people back to the central neighborhoods from the burbs. It's just too easy to commute. But Dallas has that problem tenfold. And all Texas cities have the problem to some extent.

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. Downtown didnt lose population and neither did Montrose. Now, some.other areas, like the Fourth Ward did, but keep in mind, the inner loop areas that lost population also gained more wealth/income. Shotgun homes filled with families were replaced with townhomes and apartments where only a single or couple live.

Expanding freeways has not hurt growth in the core, so Austin ignoring it is just being short sighted. All the shouts about not wanting to be Dallas or Houston, yet Austin is already those metro areas sprawl and traffic wise.

[jb9152]

Originally Posted by centralaustinite

Most highway construction is funded though taxes on gasoline which haven't risen in years (possibly a decade).

Very true. Taxes have not kept up with inflation (not making a political judgment there, just a statement of fact). That, combined with the fact that autos have gotten much more fuel efficient, has reduced the funds available for highway construction and maintenance despite the price more than doubling in the last few years.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by centralaustinite

Most highway construction is funded though taxes on gasoline which haven't risen in years (possibly a decade).

Two decades actually. This presentation does a nice job of illustrating the decline In purchasing power in the Texas Highway Fund. And hybrids, CNG powered, and electric plug ins will only make it worse.

But there is an increasing use of the gas tax by the legislature to fund General Fund activities such as border security, TEA, Commission on the Arts, TTI, etc. No one will support increases in the gas tax if it is seen as just another source of state funding for things not highway related.

And besides, back to the original question - more pavement isn't the answer to Austin's mobility issues. The solution needs to capture the zeitgeist of Austin - which I think we can agree, isn't Dallas' or Houston's. I have to think that solution has a large mass transit component. The challenge is what does that look like, and how is it paid for.

[TexasHorseLady]

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.