Austin traffic update: we're scr*wed (Houston, Cleveland: moving, relocating to, retired)

[KerrTown]

Originally Posted by Nacho_Friend

Americans should never be prevented from interstate or instrate migration. Nor should population restrictions ever be put on any American. Freedom of internal movement and reproduction is an absolute.

But a Yankee carpetbagger has the same effect as an illegal immigrant. Why should Texans tolerate them just because they are American?

Xenophobia has it's price and eventually fractures nations (e.g. Yugoslavia). The upcoming secession between blue states and red states--dissolution of the United States--is the eventual result of corrosive political discourse, such as the illegal immigrant issue coming up in popularity within the past 10-12 years. Social issues, such as abortion/birth control, also result from the corrosive national discourse.

[Roadking2003]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Except for all those people for whom it doesn't work.


All the low hanging fruit with working at home is already picked. In fact, many employers are pushing back on it, because in many cases it doesn't work.

It's not a realistic 100% solution for Austin. It can be part of it, but claiming it's going to solve everything and make transit not needed is laughable.

Yes, that would be laughable if anybody made that claim. But nobody did.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Roadking2003

Yes, that would be laughable if anybody made that claim. But nobody did.

Originally Posted by Roadking2003

Flex schedules and work at home plans are much more cost effective than rail.

So you do think we should do rail, even though it's less "cost effective"?

Or you don't think we should do rail, but think we should only do "Flex schedules and work at home plans", and you think that's enough?


You're the one who originally presented it as a dichotomy.

The real professionals know we need to do _both_. And despite your claim, are both interested and advocating for them.

[Roadking2003]

Originally Posted by Novacek

So you do think we should do rail, even though it's less "cost effective"?

Or you don't think we should do rail, but think we should only do "Flex schedules and work at home plans", and you think that's enough?
.

I oppose new rail construction for all but very dense population centers. It's proven over and over again to be very expensive and useless for addressing traffic congestion. Austin is not nor ever will be a dense population center. Rail is a last century solution and new rail will never be cost effective and will never reduce our traffic problems.

I support efforts (the link you posted was a useless "effort" by the mayor for one day) to increase work at home and flex schedules and busses and bicycles (electric commuter bikes could have a huge impact) in addition to building more freeways. Also, driverless cars will be a huge help someday without spending billions.

[hound 109]

Originally Posted by Roadking2003

I oppose new rail construction for all but very dense population centers. It's proven over and over again to be very expensive and useless for addressing traffic congestion. Austin is not nor ever will be a dense population center. Rail is a last century solution and new rail will never be cost effective and will never reduce our traffic problems.

I support efforts (the link you posted was a useless "effort" by the mayor for one day) to increase work at home and flex schedules and busses and bicycles (electric commuter bikes could have a huge impact) in addition to building more freeways. Also, driverless cars will be a huge help someday without spending billions.

I agree that rail doesn't deliver bang for buck. & I agree with Roadking's comments, but FIRST the city and county should start with fixing existing roads.

- putting in medians or middle turning lanes where there are none.
- adding an extra lane on roadways & highways that should have had them years ago. (note: if through streets had fewer bottlenecks than fewer people would be on the freeways during rush hour.)
- putting in "2 left" or "2 right" turning lanes where it makes sense. (They've done this at a few key intersections, but it should be expanded to dozens (or hundreds) more.
- Fix all freeway "stupid" bottlenecks (roads that go from 4 lanes to 3 lanes to 4 lanes etc.)

The Bond election recently approved is a start, but much more needs to be done.

[Nacho_Friend]

Originally Posted by KerrTown

But a Yankee carpetbagger has the same effect as an illegal immigrant. Why should Texans tolerate them just because they are American?

Xenophobia has it's price and eventually fractures nations (e.g. Yugoslavia). The upcoming secession between blue states and red states--dissolution of the United States--is the eventual result of corrosive political discourse, such as the illegal immigrant issue coming up in popularity within the past 10-12 years. Social issues, such as abortion/birth control, also result from the corrosive national discourse.

Because we fought a civil war to preserve a NATION. Borders exist for a reason. "Illegal immigration" is popular as an issue because it's a massive problem that's only gotten worse because the establishment demanded more immigrants.

[Nacho_Friend]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Let's repeat your "calculation" for Austin.

That database lists 5500 certified for Austin. Using that same multiplier (suburbs and dependents) and it would be 11k per year.


So you're claiming that of the 19k population growth of Austin last year, 11k was H1B/H4? Almost no natural population growth/internal migration?

Not my claim at all. We're importing 100s of thousands of people each year. To ignore those people when you're trying to figure out why roads are crowded is to choose to deny reality.

[Nacho_Friend]

Originally Posted by Nacho_Friend

Not my claim at all. We're importing 100s of thousands of people each year. To ignore those people when you're trying to figure out why roads are crowded is to choose to deny reality.

Here's fun article : http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/11/wo...-columbia.html

"This remote mountain town in British Columbia has recently welcomed a new wave of settlers: urban refugees, increasingly priced out of cities like Vancouver and yearning for a simpler life."

Unmentioned is why Vancouver is so expensive. I'll give you a hint -

"Canadians are also increasingly aware of the negative impact of large-scale immigration on the quality of their lives — particularly in large cities such as Vancouver and Toronto. It is difficult if not impossible for most younger people in Vancouver, for example, to buy a house because of extremely high prices. Research carried out at UBC found that immigration is seriously affecting housing affordability at both the high and low ends of the market."

Opinion: Increased immigration doesn’t help most Canadians | Vancouver Sun

Substitute California for Vancouver and Nelson for Austin and there you have it.

[cBach]

Originally Posted by KerrTown

But a Yankee carpetbagger has the same effect as an illegal immigrant. Why should Texans tolerate them just because they are American?

Xenophobia has it's price and eventually fractures nations (e.g. Yugoslavia). The upcoming secession between blue states and red states--dissolution of the United States--is the eventual result of corrosive political discourse, such as the illegal immigrant issue coming up in popularity within the past 10-12 years. Social issues, such as abortion/birth control, also result from the corrosive national discourse.

Sad but true.

[Nacho_Friend]