Is it possible to have an honest discussion about Austin's traffic? (live, shop)

[tildahat]

Originally Posted by hoffdano

I don't think most of the people here expect everyone to want detached homes. No one is per se against tall buildings downtown. But building a few hundred "attached" homes that sell for $750K (like they are doing now) really doesn't solve any problems.

I think people should be able to live in a lifestyle they want and can afford. You have $750K and like tall buildings? Go for it. But unlike a few here, there are completely legitimate reasons lots and lots of people are happy with the suburbs. It serves no purpose to ridicule people because they live in "soul less" suburbs when that meets their needs.

You're missing the point - the reason they are so expensive (and there have been downtown condos with units in the 200s also) is that there isn't enough to meet demand. They'll always be pricey because of location, but why restrict supply and force those people to bid up other properties, in turn pricing other people further out? And to be clear, we should build more Muellers, more VMU, replace dead strip malls with town centers, etc. It's not just towers vs. burbs. Everyone should have the option of a walkable neighborhood.

And yes, this will solve problems - good for the environment, good for public health, good for traffic, good for the tax base.


P.S. Fair point on the 'culture war' side of things. Doesn't move the debate forward.

[tildahat]

Originally Posted by Austin97

You arent trying hard enough then.

If it costs $1B to enable 5K/year to get off the road vs. paying $1B to enable an additional 30K drivers to drive on the road at the same current speed, which is better?

There is a limited amount of money and people generally want it spent on the things that benefit the most people at the least cost.

These are just made up numbers, I dont actually know the stats.

As you say, those are made up numbers, so they don't prove much. Rather than make up numbers, I'll just make several points.

1) The difference between gridlock and busy but flowing traffic can be a relatively small percentage. (That's why leaving 5 minutes later can sometimes cost you a lot more than 5 minutes at certain times of the day.) Rail doesn't have to get huge numbers of people of the roads to have a huge impact relative to not having rail.

2) Highways often bring about induced traffic, i.e. the capacity is taken up by new development and we're back to square one.

3) Rail is much more scalable once it's there. Add trips, add cars to trips. Highways you have to start over to expand again, that is if there's even room to expand.

4) The induced development from rail is often transit oriented or at least park and ride oriented.

5) There are all sorts of other benefits not directly related to traffic from rail: environmental, quality of life, public health, etc.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by tildahat

I readily admit to being an environmentalist and thinking it's a moral imperative to reduce car-dependency and CO2 emissions.

While I certainly respect your moral stance, injecting morality into public policy debates rarely turns out well. When the American people demand the changes you advocate, they will happen - as they already are. Might not be as fast as you'd like, but people get to make choices. Even if you wouldn't make the same ones.

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by scm53

While I certainly respect your moral stance, injecting morality into public policy debates rarely turns out well. When the American people demand the changes you advocate, they will happen - as they already are. Might not be as fast as you'd like, but people get to make choices. Even if you wouldn't make the same ones.

Bingo. It's with the opposite kind of thinking (I know what's best for everyone and everyone should make the same choices that I do, "for their own good" being the self-serving excuse usually used) that we end up with the wide array of nanny laws that have become the bane of our society, designed to make sure that everyone makes the same "choice".

[ScoPro]

Cramming everybody into little boxes downtown reminded me of this song from decades ago (when it applied to the 'burbs):

Little boxes on the hillside,
Little boxes made of ticky tacky,[SIZE=2]1[/SIZE]
Little boxes on the hillside,
Little boxes all the same.
There's a green one and a pink one
And a blue one and a yellow one,
And they're all made out of ticky tacky
And they all look just the same.
And the people in the houses
All went to the university,
Where they were put in boxes
And they came out all the same,
And there's doctors and lawyers,
And business executives,
And they're all made out of ticky tacky
And they all look just the same.
And they all play on the golf course
And drink their martinis dry,
And they all have pretty children
And the children go to school,
And the children go to summer camp
And then to the university,
Where they are put in boxes
And they come out all the same.
And the boys go into business
And marry and raise a family
In boxes made of ticky tacky
And they all look just the same.
There's a green one and a pink one
And a blue one and a yellow one,
And they're all made out of ticky tacky
And they all look just the same.

[steve78757]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

Bingo. It's with the opposite kind of thinking (I know what's best for everyone and everyone should make the same choices that I do, "for their own good" being the self-serving excuse usually used) that we end up with the wide array of nanny laws that have become the bane of our society, designed to make sure that everyone makes the same "choice".

You get to make your own choices, as long as your choices don't harm other people. For example, it's with good reason that smoking has been banned in public places.

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by ScoPro

Cramming everybody into little boxes downtown reminded me of this song from decades ago (when it applied to the 'burbs):

That song is a critique on suburban sprawl.

Little Boxes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[tildahat]

Originally Posted by scm53

While I certainly respect your moral stance, injecting morality into public policy debates rarely turns out well. When the American people demand the changes you advocate, they will happen - as they already are. Might not be as fast as you'd like, but people get to make choices. Even if you wouldn't make the same ones.

"Moral" was probably not the right term to use here. I was just trying to be upfront with my biases.

However I'd argue that my arguments could be backed up with more practical arguments about cost of infrastructure, tax base, public health, economic development, etc.

And the political scientist in me feels the need to point out that pretty much all policy choices at some level have a values element to them. But that's a different thread....

[tildahat]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

Bingo. It's with the opposite kind of thinking (I know what's best for everyone and everyone should make the same choices that I do, "for their own good" being the self-serving excuse usually used) that we end up with the wide array of nanny laws that have become the bane of our society, designed to make sure that everyone makes the same "choice".

And of course, as has been pointed out, it's the proponents of car-centric sprawl that are trying to impose that vision on others. Public policy isn't even close to being balanced between the two. I assume then that you have joined me in favoring evening the playing field for denser development to let the market and people make their own choices...

[ScoPro]

Originally Posted by Komeht

That song is a critique on suburban sprawl.

Little Boxes - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I pointed that out, just in case you missed it.....

Cramming everybody into little boxes downtown reminded me of this song from decades ago (when it applied to the 'burbs):

But now, IMO, it applies to the downtown crowd in their insatiable desire to pack everybody in little Ikea "living boxes", stacked one on top of the other.

http://www.ikea.com/ms/en_US/rooms_ideas/small_spaces/

Many of the newer 'burbs aren't as nasty as some of you like to stereotype them. Certainly not like the high rise boxes being pushed downtown now. I've lived in dense developments before - no thanks, they are too stifling for my tastes.