How to solve the I-35 problem (Austin, Georgetown: 2013, bankruptcy, taxes)

[eileenkeeney]

We could offer incentives for people to relocate, move away from (and seek employment outside of) Austin?
This seems more reasonable, at this point, than giving companies tax breaks for moving their employees to Austin.

[austin-steve]

Originally Posted by eileenkeeney

We could offer incentives for people to relocate, move away from (and seek employment outside of) Austin?
This seems more reasonable, at this point, than giving companies tax breaks for moving their employees to Austin.

In a way, a perverse incentive is emerging. It happened in California back in 2004. I was flying to Hawaii and saw in the Los Angelas newspaper in the airport a big writeup about people cashing out on homes and relocating to the midwest and ... Austin. A typical quote was to the effective of (wife speaking) "we'll be able to pay cash for a house, live off my husband's salary, have the kids in good public schools instead of private, and I'll be able to be a stay at home mom".

Now Austin just becomes a departure point instead of a destination, and it only took 12 years.

Steve

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by austin-steve

Now Austin just becomes a departure point instead of a destination, and it only took 12 years.

Uh, except that it isn't. Net migration is still positive.


Unless you're referring to some people leaving (even though they're more than replaced). Which has always been the case, even 12 years ago.

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by austin-steve

In a way, a perverse incentive is emerging. It happened in California back in 2004. I was flying to Hawaii and saw in the Los Angelas newspaper in the airport a big writeup about people cashing out on homes and relocating to the midwest and ... Austin. A typical quote was to the effective of (wife speaking) "we'll be able to pay cash for a house, live off my husband's salary, have the kids in good public schools instead of private, and I'll be able to be a stay at home mom".

Now Austin just becomes a departure point instead of a destination, and it only took 12 years.

Steve

I've been predicting this for some time, watching short-sighted greed for money overlooking the fact that they're killing the goose that laid the golden egg. Once Austin is destroyed beyond redemption, they'll move on to the next "in place to move" leaving us to clean up the mess.

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by sojourner77

Big Yellow Taxi - a tired Joni Mitchell reference, but okay..




So THL, you agree with swapping I-35 and SH130?


After all, the alternate would be to add road capacity (and "pave paradise") right?

Such references become "tired" to some because they are apropos and thus are used frequently. And because truth hurts.


I think that switching the two highways would not solve the problem but would only reroute it from north/south to east/west for those going into Austin, and wouldn't solve it at all for those using I35 as a way to get around Austin. So, no, I don't support it because it's a solution that doesn't work for the problem it claims to solve.

[pop251808]

Originally Posted by austin-steve

In a way, a perverse incentive is emerging. It happened in California back in 2004. I was flying to Hawaii and saw in the Los Angelas newspaper in the airport a big writeup about people cashing out on homes and relocating to the midwest and ... Austin. A typical quote was to the effective of (wife speaking) "we'll be able to pay cash for a house, live off my husband's salary, have the kids in good public schools instead of private, and I'll be able to be a stay at home mom".

Now Austin just becomes a departure point instead of a destination, and it only took 12 years.

Steve

If Californians who live in any part of California that is a desirable place to live in (and many parts of California are not and never were) decide to sell their expensive, desirable location, buy a house in the middle west or south somewhere, and pocket a goodly difference, they can and usually could have in the past as well. That's not new.
But to pretend that that has happened to the point where it is no longer true, or to pretend that they have inflated cost of living values in their new homes to what it was in where they moved from, is ridiculous. Have you looked at current selling prices in desirable areas of California?
The fact that the same thing is happening in Austin vis-a-vis much of the rest of Texas doesn't prove anything, except that people vote with their feet, and the voters approving of Austin outweigh those approving of much of the rest of the (non-urban) parts of the state.

[sojourner77]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

wouldn't solve it at all for those using I35 as a way to get around Austin..

Yes it would. The toll would create an incentive to reroute through-traffic to SH130 and would cause people to carpool on I-35.


You have to understand that the population of Austin is going to double whether you want it to or not, and increasingly the size of I-35 to be 3X or 4X what it is now is NOT an option.



We now have to MANAGE existing capacity.

[10scoachrick]

Originally Posted by sojourner77

Yes it would. The toll would create an incentive to reroute through-traffic to SH130 and would cause people to carpool on I-35.

.

Yeah...I don't think those six people will make a big difference.

[sojourner77]

Originally Posted by 10scoachrick

Yeah...I don't think those six people will make a big difference.

I-35 would see more benefit from tolling than any other highway in Austin because of the demographics of the commuters that use it. The type of people who clog up I-35 would respond very acutely to any kind of toll.


A toll on 360 or Mopac would just be an annoyance, and would need to reach $10 (from 45-to-45) before you see any noticeable behavioral change. I-35 would only need a $5 toll, and you'd already start see a significant amount of carpooling and reduction of traffic.

[Westerner92]

Originally Posted by sojourner77

I-35 would see more benefit from tolling than any other highway in Austin because of the demographics of the commuters that use it. The type of people who clog up I-35 would respond very acutely to any kind of toll.


A toll on 360 or Mopac would just be an annoyance, and would need to reach $10 (from 45-to-45) before you see any noticeable behavioral change. I-35 would only need a $5 toll, and you'd already start see a significant amount of carpooling and reduction of traffic.

You'll likely get your wish. There are plans to put HOV/managed toll lanes down the middle like what they're "improving" Mopac with.