Steiner Ranch... would you do it again? (Austin, West: apartment complexes, how much)

[sojourner77]

It's so sad that traffic is a continual topic of conversation in this town. People need to perform some true introspection about what they want. Stop complaining about traffic and do something about it. No one is FORCED to live off of 620.

[blakely]

Originally Posted by clarksvillemom

same here - I would not leave NW Hills!

Agreed!

I'd think really hard about giving up NW Hills for Steiner. Traffic just keeps getting worse, and from Steiner, your commute options become more limited, unless you want to spend a lot of time in the car.

[CarnivalGal]

Originally Posted by Novacek

What would the city cite to not "approve" the development?

You act like the city has the power to prevent private development of private land. They can _slightly_ influence the development, but the state doesn't give them that much power. The only way it could not be developed would be for the city to buy it entirely.

I agree that they can't prevent private development, but they consistently grant variances to the zoning these areas were originally approved for. There's a reason they were zoned that way in the first place.

[CarnivalGal]

Originally Posted by Novacek

You act like the schools are the big driver of traffic in the area.

Vandergriff has 1700 students.
Four points has 650.

Even if _every single_ student drove/was driven to/from the school (no buses) and even if _every single_ student came from the west of the school and even if _every single_ student came from the north on 620 southbound.


(none of those are true)

you're talking about ~5k daily trips. On a road that has a daily volume of 35k.


More realistically, you're talking about something like 5% or less of the traffic on 2222 (of current volumes).

The schools definitely contribute. But it's not just the schools. Adding the extension of Four Points will allow everyone to bypass the 620/2222 and 620/River Place intersection, whether they are going to the school or not. It would also allow another option for all the new development going in.

[CarnivalGal]

Originally Posted by sojourner77

It's so sad that traffic is a continual topic of conversation in this town. People need to perform some true introspection about what they want. Stop complaining about traffic and do something about it. No one is FORCED to live off of 620.

True, but when I moved here 11 years ago, there was no traffic at all. My neighbors built their house. At the time, there was basically nothing at 2222 and 620. They moved here because it was so far away from all of that.

I can't afford to live any closer to work (78746). I also don't want to uproot my kids from the only home, schools, and friends they've ever known. And even if I did, we could only afford to live even further out, which hardly solves the problem. It's not as though the traffic issue is limited to 620; that just happens to be the one I deal with every day.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by CarnivalGal

The schools definitely contribute. But it's not just the schools. Adding the extension of Four Points will allow everyone to bypass the 620/2222 and 620/River Place intersection, whether they are going to the school or not. It would also allow another option for all the new development going in.

Exactly.

So now, the story has gone from

Oh, the schools need an emergency exit in case of a wildfire (search the forums, it's been claimed) to
Oh, we just need a single lane road for school traffic to
Oh, we need a bypass for "everyone" going from 620 to 2222.

Soon enough and you'll end up with a freaking 6 lane highway through the middle of the nature preserve.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by CarnivalGal

I agree that they can't prevent private development, but they consistently grant variances to the zoning these areas were originally approved for. There's a reason they were zoned that way in the first place.

Where's this "consistent granting of variances"?

[CarnivalGal]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Exactly.

So now, the story has gone from

Oh, the schools need an emergency exit in case of a wildfire (search the forums, it's been claimed) to
Oh, we just need a single lane road for school traffic to
Oh, we need a bypass for "everyone" going from 620 to 2222.

Soon enough and you'll end up with a freaking 6 lane highway through the middle of the nature preserve.

No one ever came close to suggesting a 6 lane highway. The fact that it creates additional evacuation routes from the school is a bonus. During prime school times, it would be stupid for anyone else to use it because it wouldn't be any faster for them. But at least it would take some traffic out of the intersection for everyone else.

But it's a moot point. The city refuses to do it. So LISD is moving forward for plans to build it themselves. And they probably will make it a private road. So when John Q. Citizen needs to use it, they will be out of luck.

[CarnivalGal]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Where's this "consistent granting of variances"?

https://www.change.org/p/austin-city...in-river-place

ZAP backs Steiner Ranch project variance over staff objections - Austin MonitorAustin Monitor

Steiner Ranch Variance Approved - Apartments & Storage Unit to Follow? - Craig Smyser

First three I found. There are more, but I am on my way out the door. I'm sure you can find them online.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by CarnivalGal

https://www.change.org/p/austin-city...in-river-place

ZAP backs Steiner Ranch project variance over staff objections - Austin MonitorAustin Monitor

Steiner Ranch Variance Approved - Apartments & Storage Unit to Follow? - Craig Smyser

First three I found. There are more, but I am on my way out the door. I'm sure you can find them online.

Did you even read your own links?

The later two are both dealing with Steiner Ranch (which again, means that cutting through the preserve north of 2222 does nothing for them). They're 2.2 and 3 miles away from 620/2222.

Also, they didn't involve _any_ rezoning or additional height or density.



The first never passed and is indefinitely postponed.


Hardly a history of "consistently granting variances to the zoning" as you claimed.