Austin growth will absolutely overwhelm roads and highways starting in 2011 - new study (Houston: leasing, movers)

[twange]

Originally Posted by centralaustinite

Open roads encourage driving. Texas 130 hasn't done a thing for I-35 congestion, all it is has done is given a boost to development on the far east side. More roads aren't a perfect solution either.

I agree with this.

Firstly, finish connecting the roads that have already been built. There are SEVERAL incomplete overpasses killing the flow between 35-183-Ben White -71/293, MoPac-360 etc. I think that alone could really help. As for 130, encouraging thru-traffic (SA to Dallas for ex.) by reducing rates, could make a difference. What about requiring thru-trucking to circumvent Austin using 130?

As for rail, Austin needs much better central options in addition to Cap Metro's buses, and some quality commuter rail to some of the outer areas that folks have chosen to live and/or work (RR and Dell for example). Of course those communities need to kick in some money for that as well. Sorry, Leander doesn't cut it when it comes to priorities. You don't build expensive starter rail projects based on potential: you build them on need and demand.

Unfortunately I think this is how it's going to go:

Cap Metro has made such a clusterf*ck out of this "Metro Rail" project - poor vision, overspending, under-budgeting, safety issues - that rail-haters will spew the "see rail doesn't work" and vote down any future referendums, even if they are smartly planned. The City of Austin/CAMPO should and needs to seize control over the next rail plan. At this time, Cap Metro seems incapable of executing this properly. They sold this commuter rail project as a budget token fix. And now they're floundering (cutting operations before the line has opened, several embarrassing delays). They've mismanaged the tax payer's money AND good will which might ultimately cost Austin a chance at quality rail for DECADES.

As for those who say they don't need rail, or infrastructure improvements and that everything is fine for them: Congrats! You've made all of the right choices. The world ends at your eyelids. The rest of us are foolish and deserve second-rate options, even as the city sprawls like metastatic cancer

FWIW, I live very South Central, have more options than most and STILL find Austin's infrastructure sorely lacking. And please, do not confuse this with me not liking Austin or trying "to make it like where I'm from"...NO. I simply think Austin has outgrown her onesy.

[Cowboys fan in Houston]

I always get the impression that Austin wasnt ready for the amount of growth it started to get about 15-20 years ago. They need more roads and they need light rail in order for it to continue on the road its on.

[twange]

Originally Posted by LAnative10

I always get the impression that Austin wasnt ready for the amount of growth it started to get about 15-20 years ago. They need more roads and they need light rail in order for it to continue on the road its on.

Well, many people in Austin are not happy with the "road it's on" and wish the city would make a quick U-turn. Unfortunately, that would bring about an economic drop that would really hurt the region. All those over-priced houses in the Central core would drop back down to what they are actually worth and the folks counting on cashing in for their retirement would be screwed. Ever been to Detroit? That's what a major city's mass exodus looks like

The problem as I see it, is that people will come here regardless of whether the city improves the roads/transportation. And if the city doesn't adjust - and there are plenty enough smart people here to figure things out - then Austin will be like L.A. or Houston And I don't think too many people want that to happen.

[jacksonian]

Austin is lucky it is just now facing this dilemma, as many cities across the country are neck deep in it, with some making good choices for the overall health of the core while others have regretted moving everything out to the burbs. As nice as the new burbs seem to people at first, they are way more expensive to maintain due to all the new infrastructure that is required and the amount of area that has to be maintained. Incentives do not last forever, and that is what is becoming reality in many suburban areas - so what do they do then? Move out further of course! It's a never ending cycle and will lead to even worse traffic congestion, unless a dramatic change occurs where people stick to the core or nearby (nearby is less than 10 miles).

NYC has a population density of 27,575 people per square mile. Austin has just 3,012 people per square mile. If more people lived within the city proper, fewer roads would need to be maintained and even fewer new roads would have to be built, thus more money could go towards fewer projects which is always good. Looking at NYC's density, I don't think it's unrealistic for Austin to achieve 10-15,000 people per square mile. Like others have said, efficient public transit is essential for this to work, but with the money saved from not constructing new highways/freeways, there is money available. You will find that it is much cheaper to move a 175 person than it is to move a 3500 lb vehicle. Who would have thought?

[G Grasshopper]

I have always thought that limiting transportation is not a way to slow growth. The growth will come, and people will just resign themselves to the long drive and the problems that follow that. If the people of Austin and surrounding towns want to slow growth, the cities must honestly state that and take measures to limit building. They can make a "sprawl line" beyond which home building is not allowed, they can limit the granting of water hook-ups, they could probably make incentives for higher density. And there are probably lots of other options. But people tend to shy away from that kind of measure because cities are supported by growth and because some people feel it is too heavy handed for government to do that. The developers certainly are not interested in slowing down maintain quality of life. They are all about making money and care not at all about the problems brought about by sprawl. So if they are not limited by government, they will continue to eat up the landscape, and will be trying to convince everyone that this is good for them. There is no substitute for forward thinking, and unfortunately, city councils and County boards are very bad at that. They are short sighted. This is an American problem, not a Californian problem. The only places that are spared this problem are places like San Francisco, which only has ocean around it, so there is no place to sprawl. The population of this country is growing at an unprecidented rate, so this problem will continue to press on all cities unless they actively do something to deal with it, and just failing to build roads will not do it.

[austinite45]

Originally Posted by G Grasshopper

I have always thought that limiting transportation is not a way to slow growth. The growth will come, and people will just resign themselves to the long drive and the problems that follow that. If the people of Austin and surrounding towns want to slow growth, the cities must honestly state that and take measures to limit building. They can make a "sprawl line" beyond which home building is not allowed, they can limit the granting of water hook-ups, they could probably make incentives for higher density. And there are probably lots of other options. But people tend to shy away from that kind of measure because cities are supported by growth and because some people feel it is too heavy handed for government to do that. The developers certainly are not interested in slowing down maintain quality of life. They are all about making money and care not at all about the problems brought about by sprawl. So if they are not limited by government, they will continue to eat up the landscape, and will be trying to convince everyone that this is good for them. There is no substitute for forward thinking, and unfortunately, city councils and County boards are very bad at that. They are short sighted. This is an American problem, not a Californian problem. The only places that are spared this problem are places like San Francisco, which only has ocean around it, so there is no place to sprawl. The population of this country is growing at an unprecidented rate, so this problem will continue to press on all cities unless they actively do something to deal with it, and just failing to build roads will not do it.

well said. but don't expect it to change ... America is going down IMO precisely because of this so-called "American democracy" (more precisely, adulterated democracy or pseudo-democracy) at work.

[BentBow]

I'd say that article is way behind times.

We have not been able to keep up, since the mid to late 80's.
Always a day late and a dollar short.
This misdesigned the upper deck of I-35 in the 70's and it has been a cluster ever since and will always be a parking lot at rush hour.

[capcat]

Originally Posted by centralaustinite

I live central, can walk to work and my spouse usually telecommutes, so I guess we are set!

Congestion will force people to take other routes, telecommute, move, etc.

Encouraging more companies to take advantage of technology that can change the way we work would help.

Cap Metro may have screwed up on their attempt, but developing efficient public transportation should be an important goal. Building more roads is important now, but it doesn't completely address the problem of moving people in the future. I don't see how we can hope to keep up with growth and maintain quality of life if that is our primary answer to it.

[hoffdano]

Land is still cheap in Texas. As long as that is true - some percentage of the population will choose to live in non urban environments. Higher density does help with transportation problems - but many people have no desire whatsoever to share walls, floors, or buildings with their neighbors.

So this isn't a problem that can simply be solved by a new city ordinance or two (or 200).

[AK123]

Originally Posted by twange

The problem as I see it, is that people will come here regardless of whether the city improves the roads/transportation. And if the city doesn't adjust - and there are plenty enough smart people here to figure things out - then Austin will be like L.A. or Houston And I don't think too many people want that to happen.

In what way would it be like L.A. or Houston... metros that are much, much larger?

Originally Posted by G Grasshopper

I have always thought that limiting transportation is not a way to slow growth. The growth will come, and people will just resign themselves to the long drive and the problems that follow that.

That seems to be what's happened elsewhere. And maybe even in Austin. More so in the case of families with children probably (take a longer commute in order to get better choice of schools, larger house, larger yard, subdivision amenities, etc.)

Originally Posted by hoffdano

Land is still cheap in Texas. As long as that is true - some percentage of the population will choose to live in non urban environments. Higher density does help with transportation problems - but many people have no desire whatsoever to share walls, floors, or buildings with their neighbors.

Good point.