Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Austin has a tiny fraction of the city that is densifying (the CBD, a few transit cooridors). The vast majority of Austin is museumed under restrictive zoning and regulations that make it impossible to densify. And don't tell me we can't. Austin is one of the least dense cities in America.
Sorry, Komeht, zoning is not the culprit here. Otherwise we'd all be talking about how great Houston is because it doesn't sprawl. Most places where density can and should occur (CBD, close-in East and South Austin, West Campus, etc) it is already allowed and happening. It doesn't so much matter what the size of the land area densifying is, it matters where it is. The city of Austin is annexed out so big that things like "least dense city in America" or "tiny fraction of Austin" are meaningless.
If you want to support your point that City of Austin policies are causing sprawl you will need to provide at least a few examples of city policies that encourage sprawl. And for every one that you can -- I can probably cite 3 that encourage things like density and alternative transportation.
No, the culprit here is not the city of Austin. It's the force of the state and private developers that overwhelm any attempt by a city to control it's growth.
I took mopac south for two years. and I can tell you that as is really as bad as it gets.
in my mind, long term. there is no answer but remove union pacific track from mopac (some how give them money so they disappear and re route). that is gone cost billions.
then build an elevated train on top of mopac with stops at 35th, 45th,enfield,6th street, anderson mill,braker lane,parmer lane.
and we need to the same for I-35.
Project already underway, with a combined freight/passenger EIS effort about to kick off early next year:
I think buses could be much fully developed as a transit system because they can go where trains can't.
They also, though, unlike trains, get stuck in the same traffic that cars do, making them significantly less attractive. And they're therefore ignored, for the most part, by people with cars who would rather sit in bumper to bumper traffic in their private auto than aboard a bus with other people.
Bus transit also costs more to add incremental capacity to the system; at low demand, low capacity conditions, bus can meet the demand relatively cost effectively compared to rail. As demand grows, bus becomes more expensive at a quicker and quicker rate, because for every new 60-odd people that want to ride, you need to add another vehicle and another (expensive) bus driver. Not so with rail, which is more scalable to demand at higher demand conditions.
Finally, bus transit doesn't create places, and generates little to no economic development to support its subsidy requirement. Rail naturally does that, as long as the appropriate zoning support is provided by cities.
I'm not anti-bus in any way. It's one of the most useful, flexible transit modes in the planners' toolbox. But you have to understand that the flexibility that you tout is mostly outweighed by regular bus transit's drawbacks. It generally doesn't attract "choice" riders (people who have a car, but make a conscious choice to use transit instead) for a number of reasons - perception that it's a lower class of service than private auto or rail, the unfortunate social stigma that says 'only poor people ride buses', and the fact that it's for the most part stuck in the same traffic that cars are.
At this point, we have to do everything we can - making those improvements we can to the highway system (including managed and express lanes that can be utilized by transit so we focus more on moving people and less on moving vehicles), investing now in congestion-proof high capacity transit modes like bus rapid transit and rail, and looking at other measures like staggered work hours, freight rail capacity improvements (to move truck freight off the highways and onto trains), and downtown transit circulator systems like the city's Urban Rail proposal.
The current trend of spending on things bicycle lanes, pedestrian bridges, boardwalks, etc in primarily the central city area -- that's all going to go away.
Are you sure this is the case? My 'suburban' neighbors (although technically in the CL of Austin) are dying to get some good bike lanes that cross the river or even traverse some of the other major thoroughfares. Several are 'activists' for this cause, and many, many bike locally (where there are nice bike lanes) but rightfully fear trying to bike from their home to downtown. Maybe if some of the bikers were able to access downtown via bike, then the improvements would see more use.
As for keeping your driving distance 'short', I meant telecommuting, not living close to work. It does not work for all jobs, but it could work a for a lot more than currently use it.
Downtown, central east and south Austin, campus area. It's already appealing. Yes. No. Yes. Yes. Renting is not a bad thing -- the idea that everyone has to own the building they live in is silly.
Density means less impervious cover per person.
True, and I agree on all these final points.
Renting is not a bad thing for lots of people. But lots of people want to own. I think the desire to own is very powerful for many people, especially families. Until the mortgage deduction goes away, the federal government is saying "ownership is good for America." (I happen to believe almost all deductions are government driven behavior modification and should go away).
New development in the watershed, dense or not, is MORE impervious cover and may be a problem.
They also, though, unlike trains, get stuck in the same traffic that cars do, making them significantly less attractive. And they're therefore ignored, for the most part, by people with cars who would rather sit in bumper to bumper traffic in their private auto than aboard a bus with other people.
Bus transit also costs more to add incremental capacity to the system; at low demand, low capacity conditions, bus can meet the demand relatively cost effectively compared to rail. As demand grows, bus becomes more expensive at a quicker and quicker rate, because for every new 60-odd people that want to ride, you need to add another vehicle and another (expensive) bus driver. Not so with rail, which is more scalable to demand at higher demand conditions.
Finally, bus transit doesn't create places, and generates little to no economic development to support its subsidy requirement. Rail naturally does that, as long as the appropriate zoning support is provided by cities.
I'm not anti-bus in any way. It's one of the most useful, flexible transit modes in the planners' toolbox. But you have to understand that the flexibility that you tout is mostly outweighed by regular bus transit's drawbacks. It generally doesn't attract "choice" riders (people who have a car, but make a conscious choice to use transit instead) for a number of reasons - perception that it's a lower class of service than private auto or rail, the unfortunate social stigma that says 'only poor people ride buses', and the fact that it's for the most part stuck in the same traffic that cars are.
At this point, we have to do everything we can - making those improvements we can to the highway system (including managed and express lanes that can be utilized by transit so we focus more on moving people and less on moving vehicles), investing now in congestion-proof high capacity transit modes like bus rapid transit and rail, and looking at other measures like staggered work hours, freight rail capacity improvements (to move truck freight off the highways and onto trains), and downtown transit circulator systems like the city's Urban Rail proposal.
Rail capacity is easy to add only where there is track. And therein lies the big big problem.
Bus attractiveness can be improved, and is being done so in some places. Wifi on all buses would appeal to many. Being stuck in traffic is often not as much a problem as some say - urban rail is SLOW from door to door. That's why cars are so attractive. They get you some place faster, even in traffic, than almost all mass transit systems.
Rail capacity is easy to add only where there is track. And therein lies the big big problem.
Well, yes and no. Track can be added where you need it (understandably for some expense, especially when property has to be acquired), but in general the track (or banked right of way) is located pretty close to where you want it already. The reason is historical - towns (some of which later grew into cities) grew in the west mainly along rail corridors (there are other reasons, I know - seaports, etc., but especially in our area, the primary reason for a particular town's location, or more accurately a town center's location was the presence of a railroad).
The "permanence" of rail, while you obviously see it as a negative, is a positive when you start looking at things like system identity and economic development potential, both of which are light years better with rail.
Bus has little or no permanence, unless it's a bus rapid transit installation. Routes can (and do) change, sometimes pretty often, so the very thing that you find most useful about it (route flexibility) is also its biggest problem. Developers, business owners, etc. aren't attracted to bus transit as much as rail because their investment to leverage a transit service to deliver employees, customers, residents, etc., can go away with the stroke of a service planner's pen.
Rail can actually be used to attract development, medium- to long-term, into more sustainable corridors and helps to anchor downtowns. Bus couldn't dream of doing that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffdano
Bus attractiveness can be improved, and is being done so in some places. Wifi on all buses would appeal to many.
Not really. At a time when most people have at least 3G connectivity on their phones, and many have mobile broadband cards in laptops, transit agency-provided Wifi is not the attractor you might think. And it never really was, actually. It's touted, but it was poorly rolled out in general to the transit industry, and it's not really used all that much, especially since connections are generally better on the cellular networks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffdano
Being stuck in traffic is often not as much a problem as some say
In your opinion. Many people think being stuck in traffic sucks on ice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffdano
- urban rail is SLOW from door to door. That's why cars are so attractive. They get you some place faster, even in traffic, than almost all mass transit systems.
Urban Rail is meant as both a downtown mobility system and a connector from nearside neighborhoods and activity centers to the downtown business district, employment center, etc. It's not intended as an automobile replacement, but as an alternative to the auto. For the regional, high speed transit systems like commuter and regional rail, Urban Rail is an excellent complement, as it provides the last mile connectivity for those larger systems. In fact, I'd argue that those larger, faster systems are vastly improved by having a connection in downtown to a frequent connecting Urban Rail service.
And - while Urban Rail is planned to run in mixed traffic over portions of its route (e.g. downtown), the entire route is *not* in mixed traffic; there are also sections of dedicated right of way (in medians, etc.) where trains could run as fast as 60 mph.
If the best you can offer to make bus more attractive is to install Wifi, I think maybe you're grabbing at straws a little.
Large highway expansion is off the table at this point, for a variety of fiscal, environmental, and legal reasons. So we need to do all we can to make improvements to the highways (like the MoPac managed lanes project), but also acknowledge that we have to diversify our transportation system. We will never be able to pour enough concrete to stay ahead of the growth we're already seeing. Wise investments across the modal spectrum will offer people viable, good quality choices so that their housing choices are not limited by where they work, and economic growth isn't choked off by congestion.
As for keeping your driving distance 'short', I meant telecommuting, not living close to work. It does not work for all jobs, but it could work a for a lot more than currently use it.
Telecommuting represents about 2% of the work "trips" nationally, and I don't see it growing very much. Even if it were double that, it'd be a tiny drop in the bucket compared to the need we have now, and the needs we'll have soon with the huge growth in population we're experiencing.
So, it's part of the mix, certainly, but it's only one small part. We have a lot more work to do, and not a very long time to do it.
Really, it was in response to "there is no answer but remove union pacific track from mopac ". Yea, there are a lot of answers, some more feasible than others.
You are assuming that everyone has that option. Or that jobs and workplaces never change. That's not the case. Most people I know don't have the option to work from home. And it's not really feasible for everybody who has ever lost their job or had their office move to just pack up, sell their house, and move the kids. And if more than one person works, that usually means more than one work location.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
