Are new highways in the Plans for Austin or the upgrading of existing ones? (Houston: apartment, townhomes)

[Newbe10]

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.

I agree. That is the whole point of my post. The only new freeway that I see that is needed for Austin is a loop. Other than that, the upgrading of existing highways would be sufficient, IMHO.

[Newbe10]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

Newbie10, I'll just say one thing on this hot topic.

You're in Dallas. Austin isn't Dallas, and hopefully never will be. (Nothing against Dallas, just that we don't need to make Austin a Dallas clone, there already is a Dallas that does that better than any other city can, and Austin has its own priorities and goals that differ from those of Dallas.)

And then there's the money. You want to pitch in to pay for it?

I don't blame you for not wanting Austin to become another Dallas, but with the continued growth, I just don't see Austin's current infrastructure being able to handle it. Also, I would be willing to pitch in to pay for it, if the money was indeed going to TX-DOT to help improve the roads in the Austin area.

[Lije Baley]

Just going by what I read here on C-D - especially concerning the huge influx of people the last decade and the "Keep Austin Weird" issues - anyone else get the feeling many of those running Austin, especially those that have lived there a long time, possibly don't WANT to fix the traffic situation?

[Westerner92]

There's really not much that can be done to alleviate Austin's rush hour traffic simply because its population distribution is so bizarre. Many of the suburbs seem to be built specifically because of their convenience to 183 and 35, and if you take a look at a map of the Austin metro, it's strung out for over 30 miles north/south yet only 5 or 10 miles east/west, not counting places like Steiner Ranch and Lakeway. (They made their own bed by living in a place that, topographically speaking, supports just enough population to make traffic miserable, and luckily not enough to warrant bulldozing the hills for a freeway.) The result is that 1.7 million people, in addition to the transport trucks, try to squeeze onto the same three narrow north/south freeways, which really can't be feasibly widened because of population density and astronomical costs as has been previously stated.

Building new highways wouldn't work either. One only has to look to 130 for proof. It's only a few miles east of 35, yet it's barely used because most consider it out in the boonies...and it is. Unless the new freeway parallels Mopac, 35, or 183, a new highway won't help, and even then that's more expensive and logistically challenging than widening the dang roads. It's a result of the bizarre population distribution which the market controls rather than a governmental entity.

What's the solution? I'm not exactly sure. But in my opinion, Austin's rather unusual in that it seems the market seems to be just as, if not more, responsible for the problem than lack of foresight, and no amount of whining is going to do anything about it.

Even then, 35 is the only road with problems outside the normal rush hour (at least in my experience).

[scm53]

First, a disclaimer: I have NO dog in this fight. All I need to do is get to and from "Birk-strom" (love that Birkenstock insertion!) once a week. And occasional work week trips to SA and I'm done. No commute for me.

That said, the issue comes down to the fact that our roadway infrastructure is sufficient, but not if 95% of the traffic is single occupancy vehicles. So I think we can all accept that reducing SOVs is a good thing. The question is how? Like all things, from potty training on, it is by incentivizing the behaviors you desire, and penalizing the behaviors you don't want. In an ideal world, you could fund the one with the penalties of the others. At one level, that is the idea behind the Mopac toll lanes - take the tolls to improve the infrastructure so you can now deliver high speed, delay free express busses. There are several ways to accomplish this. You could go to a peak hour "congestion charge" for every vehicle that enters a certain zone - all done tag less as Mopac is today. Another way is to renumber 130 as I35, then toll the new highway between, say, 183 and Ben White with toll free HOV lanes. Then, dedicate the tolls to the repayment of the 130 bonds. That would move the through I35 traffic out of the center core, and incentivize car and van pooling.

Another solution would be to create a monthly $10 "congestion tax" on every daily parking place in the downtown core, including state and UT lots. Reality is, UT and the state have to take some ownership of the problem. Their commuters work in spaces that are off the tax rolls, yet must have infrastructure to commute over. It is unfair to the rest of the Austin metro to demand a solution that doesn't have a contribution.

These monies could be used by Cap Metro to expand transit options. Lone Star Rail is something that needs to happen sooner than later. I personally believe that bus rapid transit, with dedicated transit ways, raised platforms and wideload doors - is a far better option than light rail - at a fraction of the capital cost and all of the benefits. We can argue about the routings later - but we need an integrated system between regional rail and a "last 1/2 mile" solution to have a serious effect. If regional rail only gets you to within 2 miles on either end, and there isn't a convenient link, you won't use it. I've lived in a place with such a system, and recognize what a behavior re-shaper it is. But only if it works together.

So, solution and funding. My work is done here.

[sxrckr]

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?

Thing is, this doesn't stop developers from getting large swaths of land out yonder and building large communities on them. The bigger problem is when they start building lots of apartments on the land (because it's very profitable for them) and add all of those cars to the existing roads.

If counties and/or MUDs were given some amount of zoning powers like cities have, this wouldn't be as much of a problem. Usually residents out yonder prefer very low-density development, but developers do what's most profitable for developers. But more high-density is needed in the city and central, not out yonder.

[ScoPro]

Originally Posted by sxrckr

Thing is, this doesn't stop developers from getting large swaths of land out yonder and building large communities on them. The bigger problem is when they start building lots of apartments on the land (because it's very profitable for them) and add all of those cars to the existing roads.

If counties and/or MUDs were given some amount of zoning powers like cities have, this wouldn't be as much of a problem. Usually residents out yonder prefer very low-density development, but developers do what's most profitable for developers. But more high-density is needed in the city and central, not out yonder.

Yet few can afford to live downtown.

[atxcio]

Originally Posted by sxrckr

Thing is, this doesn't stop developers from getting large swaths of land out yonder and building large communities on them. The bigger problem is when they start building lots of apartments on the land (because it's very profitable for them) and add all of those cars to the existing roads.

Well, eventually it reduces the desirability of their communities. If the commute is impossibly horrible, no one will want to live there (except the folks who want a rural lifestyle and would normally be living there)... so if demand falls because of traffic, they will eventually give up and just try to develop more in-town.

[imaterry78259]

Just look south, San Antonio for my money has one of the best freeway systems in the USA

[BevoLJ]

Originally Posted by scm53

First, a disclaimer: I have NO dog in this fight. All I need to do is get to and from "Birk-strom" (love that Birkenstock insertion!) once a week. And occasional work week trips to SA and I'm done. No commute for me.

That said, the issue comes down to the fact that our roadway infrastructure is sufficient, but not if 95% of the traffic is single occupancy vehicles. So I think we can all accept that reducing SOVs is a good thing. The question is how? Like all things, from potty training on, it is by incentivizing the behaviors you desire, and penalizing the behaviors you don't want. In an ideal world, you could fund the one with the penalties of the others. At one level, that is the idea behind the Mopac toll lanes - take the tolls to improve the infrastructure so you can now deliver high speed, delay free express busses. There are several ways to accomplish this. You could go to a peak hour "congestion charge" for every vehicle that enters a certain zone - all done tag less as Mopac is today. Another way is to renumber 130 as I35, then toll the new highway between, say, 183 and Ben White with toll free HOV lanes. Then, dedicate the tolls to the repayment of the 130 bonds. That would move the through I35 traffic out of the center core, and incentivize car and van pooling.

Another solution would be to create a monthly $10 "congestion tax" on every daily parking place in the downtown core, including state and UT lots. Reality is, UT and the state have to take some ownership of the problem. Their commuters work in spaces that are off the tax rolls, yet must have infrastructure to commute over. It is unfair to the rest of the Austin metro to demand a solution that doesn't have a contribution.

These monies could be used by Cap Metro to expand transit options. Lone Star Rail is something that needs to happen sooner than later. I personally believe that bus rapid transit, with dedicated transit ways, raised platforms and wideload doors - is a far better option than light rail - at a fraction of the capital cost and all of the benefits. We can argue about the routings later - but we need an integrated system between regional rail and a "last 1/2 mile" solution to have a serious effect. If regional rail only gets you to within 2 miles on either end, and there isn't a convenient link, you won't use it. I've lived in a place with such a system, and recognize what a behavior re-shaper it is. But only if it works together.

So, solution and funding. My work is done here.

Must spread some reputation around before giving it to scm53 again.