Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas > San Antonio
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-10-2009, 07:40 PM
 
Location: Kallison Ranch, San Antonio,TX.
1,671 posts, read 3,822,668 times
Reputation: 726

Advertisements

Good Evening dvlpr- About 9 1/2 years ago when it was time to move we selected The Villages of Westcreek due to the quality homes and the HOA. Well we had a nice home built but the HOA is another story. As you know traffic was much less back then and it has gradually increased.

Our Son always attended Catholic Scools although NISD is a great District. He attended St. John Bosco and Holy Cross High School. As you know both are on the near Westside of San Antonio. He more than likely would have attended both of these schools no matter where we moved to in 1999 since my Stepson went to both schools.

Although I will moan and groan about the traffic in a couple of weeks (when school starts) we will continue to live out here. My wife retired a year ago last May from SAWS. I who am 7 years younger (Please don't let her know I said that) will more than likely work for another 8-10 years. Our home is paid for and I would hate to start over. It's nice that we can now travel about 4 miles to the N and have a nice Mall, Home Improvement Stores, etc. I'm really excited about the new Christus Hospital and all the Medical Facilities /Offices going in.

The drive to our building is 22-23 miles each way. I usually travel South on 1604 to 90E to 37 /281 N to the office.

Sorry for all that yapping but I know that as the area grows I will have to leave earlier. To be very honest with you my drive begins to slow way down at 90E @ 151 and pretty much stays heavy until I reach 37/ 281N and Commerce. My average daily commute is 35-45 minutes if I leave at 7.

I do agree with you about building more sustainable neighborhoods.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-10-2009, 08:29 PM
 
824 posts, read 1,807,811 times
Reputation: 604
Quote:
Originally Posted by nrlatsha View Post
How is "most-versed" vs "authority" hard to understand?

Let me google that for you
Let me google that for you

Your quote actually was:


I'm merely stating that TXDot is the authority. When presented with information given to me by TXDot, TXhighwayman disagreed with that information and continued to post his dated information. I'll leave it at that.

How bout we just put this under, "hear what you want to" and "opinions are like $$$$$".

On another note, I hear the city is considering spend some money cleaning up downtown.

Why? I don't use it, why should I have to pay for it? People can move out of there, they chose to live downtown.

Is that along the same lines as this argument?
I should have been more clear that I consider TexHwyMan the authority on this board (and I believe this is still the case, despite your contentions to the contrary). My apologies for a lack of clarity.

With respect to your argument about the city spending money on "cleaning up downtown" (I'm assuming this is a theoretical example?), here's some key differences between that example and building new highways, overpasses, and other traffic infrastructure out along the western stretch of 1604:

1. Surely you can acknowledge an obvious difference - one cost (downtown) is to maintain & beautify existing infrastructure. The other cost (1604) is to build new infrastructure.

2. First, the money for "cleaning up downtown" comes almost entirely from the city and county. Money for overpasses & highways would need to come from TXDOT (it shouldn't come from the city, since many of the people outside 1604 in this part of town don't pay CoSA property taxes). And TXDOT simply doesn't have enough money to satisfy the appetite for more-and-more highway infrastructure.

3. The city and county should spend more money on downtown, as it is more densely and heavily developed, and contributes a disproportionate share of income, both from property & sales taxes. You surely wouldn't advocate that a rural agricultural area in Bexar County receive the same amount of money as a developed area, would you?

4. We just doubled the length of the Riverwalk for $72mm (and $6.5mm of that came from private sources). This is what I mean by "sustainable" development - the "old" section of the Riverwalk was constructed in 1939, and cost $430,000. Today, the Riverwalk contributes $800 million (annually) to our economy. Do you really think that, 70 years from now, highway overpasses on 1604 will be making that sort of contribution to our economy?

It's foolish for any person who lives in a large city to assert that they shouldn't have to pay for something simply because "they don't use it". And that's not my point. My point is that, collectively, we just don't have the resources to fund the very expensive highways & roads that suburbia requires to work.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2009, 10:29 PM
 
Location: Wiesbaden, Germany
13,815 posts, read 29,267,235 times
Reputation: 4025
I just thought of this today.. How is downtown traffic any better than the suburban traffic? Surely nobody thinks that all of us are going downtown when we leave our cookie cutter houses do they? I know a large chunk of my neighborhood goes to Lackland and there are also large clusters of Ft. Sam and even some Bullis and Randolph peeps. I don't see how having everyone living downtown would remedy that situation and I'm fairly certain it would make the situation a lot worse. and there is no way in hell I'm living near where I work. That would be suicide, almost literally.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2009, 10:52 PM
 
Location: Earth
226 posts, read 922,580 times
Reputation: 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by wc2005 View Post
Must be about the stupidest comment yet. First off, we already have plenty of taxes on gas but it doesn't go to the projects that it is supposed to go to. Second, $5-$8 a gallon would only further line the pockets of oil companies. Toll roads tend to be operated by private companies who line their own pockets.
Let me clarify....

"ALL REVENUE from additional gas revenue and toll roads would go to maintaining and building more roads and public transportation"....what don't you understand ALL Revenue? To clarify it for you... includes current revenue which isn't being all spend on roads.

How does $5-$8 gas prices line the pocket of the oil companies? It doesn't when 70% of it is tax. It pays for roads, and public transportation. Not to mention we might all walk more and ride a bicycle. We spend billions each year on healthcare because we are so fat.

Yes toll roads line the pockets of commercial companies. Nothing wrong with that if they are paying to build the roads = less traffic congestion.

High gas taxes equates to ....

Lots and lots of carpools = surburban sprawl comes to a screaching halt = less road congestion because we would all live closer to work in more densely packed neighborhoods = better public transportation = city planning that designs sidewalks and bike paths = we could actually walk to the store = we would be in better shape = billions saved on healthcare = we wouldn't be so darn dependent on middle east oil so we wouldn't have to spend trillions to protect those oil resources = we wouldn't have lost thousands of troops to protect oil resources.

What don't you understand?


For example:

If gas was $8 a gallon, I would be riding my bicycle 6 miles to work everday. I would lose weight = be in better shape. The city would actually build bike paths, because I wouldn't be the only one riding a bicycle. Not to mention that there would also be less pollution. You would also see auto manufacturers building cars on a large scale that get 50 miles per gallon. Which would cut our dependence on Middle East Oil and this would significantly hurt the oil companies because we wouldn't be so dependent on gas.

Last edited by joe123456; 08-10-2009 at 11:01 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2009, 10:57 PM
 
Location: Wiesbaden, Germany
13,815 posts, read 29,267,235 times
Reputation: 4025
First off, the government does not use money for its intended purpose. Look at Social Security, the lottery, toll roads etc..
and what are we supposed to do with the houses in the sprawl area? board them up and move everyone into a crappy apartment downtown? I don't think so.. Watch a couple of House Hunter episodes where a couple is moving into the city. They pay huge prices for a tiny little craphole where they have to readjust their entire life just so they can "be where all the action is". Screw that! That's what cars and parking lots are for. Live in a nice house, drive downtown for a show or the museum, and then go back home to a place you can actually enjoy.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2009, 11:05 PM
 
Location: Earth
226 posts, read 922,580 times
Reputation: 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by rd2007 View Post
First off, the government does not use money for its intended purpose. Look at Social Security, the lottery, toll roads etc..
and what are we supposed to do with the houses in the sprawl area? board them up and move everyone into a crappy apartment downtown? I don't think so.. Watch a couple of House Hunter episodes where a couple is moving into the city. They pay huge prices for a tiny little craphole where they have to readjust their entire life just so they can "be where all the action is". Screw that! That's what cars and parking lots are for. Live in a nice house, drive downtown for a show or the museum, and then go back home to a place you can actually enjoy.
Totally agree the government doesn't use the money for its intended purposes. However, we are the ones that put these people in office. Yes drive downtown and then go back to the suburbs....that is what this topic is about...too much traffic and the infrastructure that can't support it....and we don't have the money to fix it...we keep asking the Chinese to buy our bonds.

Last edited by joe123456; 08-10-2009 at 11:30 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2009, 11:36 PM
 
Location: Wiesbaden, Germany
13,815 posts, read 29,267,235 times
Reputation: 4025
but what is downtown going to do when it more than doubles its population? I've seen 10 and 35 around there at the not so pleasant times and would not want to imagine them with at least double the cars. The reasons a city expands is because the city is growing. Nobody should expect everyone to want to live downtown. The only places that sorta works are the very old cities like Paris, but even they have sprawl. I was just there and was in the 12th arrondisement (Chateau Vincennes), which is the last/first stop on Metro line 1. However, the city did not end there. You can only pile everything up so high before you need to move out. Granted, there is more room downtown, but that whole scene does not apply to all of us and luckily we have the right to not live there. One of the many reasons I love this country
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2009, 11:39 PM
 
Location: SoCal-So Proud!
4,263 posts, read 10,778,346 times
Reputation: 1558
Quote:
Originally Posted by rd2007 View Post
but what is downtown going to do when it more than doubles its population? I've seen 10 and 35 around there at the not so pleasant times and would not want to imagine them with at least double the cars. The reasons a city expands is because the city is growing. Nobody should expect everyone to want to live downtown. The only places that sorta works are the very old cities like Paris, but even they have sprawl. I was just there and was in the 12th arrondisement (Chateau Vincennes), which is the last/first stop on Metro line 1. However, the city did not end there. You can only pile everything up so high before you need to move out. Granted, there is more room downtown, but that whole scene does not apply to all of us and luckily we have the right to not live there. One of the many reasons I love this country
You can put me in the "urban living sux" grouping as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2009, 11:45 PM
 
824 posts, read 1,807,811 times
Reputation: 604
Quote:
Originally Posted by rd2007 View Post
I just thought of this today.. How is downtown traffic any better than the suburban traffic? Surely nobody thinks that all of us are going downtown when we leave our cookie cutter houses do they? I know a large chunk of my neighborhood goes to Lackland and there are also large clusters of Ft. Sam and even some Bullis and Randolph peeps. I don't see how having everyone living downtown would remedy that situation and I'm fairly certain it would make the situation a lot worse. and there is no way in hell I'm living near where I work. That would be suicide, almost literally.
rd:

We're diving into urban-planning minutia a bit here....but I'll provide a (relatively) brief explanation from my perspective:

What you've called "downtown traffic" is actually based on urbanism. Urbanism has several features with respect to transportation infrastructure: they are compact, they are mixed use, they allow for multi-modal transportation options, and they feature a high level of connectivity (a grid with streets that almost always intersect with one another). That last example is really important in the context of this debate, as it's the primary failure of suburban planning. And connectivity produces multiple options (routes) to get from place to place. Most people who live and work in the "old" neighborhoods within a 5-mile radius of downtown really don't need to use the highway to get where they're going. Rather, they use local streets, many of which are fairly small two-lane roads. And, of course, downtown is much more compact/dense than suburbia.

"Suburban traffic" is based on suburban patterns, which features lower density, no other transportation options, and little connectivity (which is an intentional design feature, by the way). Said differently, little connectivity eliminates choices for drivers, and forces all drivers onto the same route, which causes major traffic issues.

For instance, if you live in Westcreek and want to drive to the HEB at Potranco & 1604, you have to go through the intersection at Potranco & 1604 (I mean, you could take Military to Ellison and come back down Potranco, but that'd be just as traffic-filled because of all the older subdivisions on that side of 1604).

But to get out of Westcreek, you either have to take Military or Grosenbacher or Talley, right? So, out of the 1,000+ homes in Westcreek, if you want to buy groceries, there are basically three ways in and three ways out of your neighborhood. And all your neighbors have to take the same exact route for all their trips. And this isn't an accident - these subdivisions are designed to function precisely this way. And if you live in Westcreek, you know exactly what happens when 1,000+ people all leave their house at the same hour to go to work in the morning.

The typical suburban sprawl problem is this: when people buy their house, traffic usually isn't a problem. Of course, when 200 of their closest friends decide to buy in the same subdivision the next year, it becomes a big, big problem. So the solution is generally to widen Potranco to six lanes with a divided median. And, given the log-jam at the 1604 intersection, we should definitely add more stacking lanes.

But now, since Potranco & the 1604 intersection have just been expanded, the next 4 subdivisions down Potranco (Monticello, Sundance, Redbird, Bella Vista) have started selling houses (because the houses are relatively inexpensive, and Potranco is nice & new & not-too-trafficky). But those subdivisions are adding a collective 800 homes a year, so we need to add a $15mm overpass to the Potranco/1604 intersection, because the stacking lanes just aren't getting the job done......and it's really about time to think about adding another lane to 1604......which will temporarily relieve the problem.......but will also enable the future residents of the next 6 subdivisions out Potranco to make their 25-mile commute....

This worked for a while, when land was cheap(er), construction was cheap(er), and when traffic infrastructure needs were simply less intensive. Things are much different now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2009, 11:47 PM
 
Location: Earth
226 posts, read 922,580 times
Reputation: 94
Quote:
Originally Posted by rd2007 View Post
but what is downtown going to do when it more than doubles its population? I've seen 10 and 35 around there at the not so pleasant times and would not want to imagine them with at least double the cars. The reasons a city expands is because the city is growing. Nobody should expect everyone to want to live downtown. The only places that sorta works are the very old cities like Paris, but even they have sprawl. I was just there and was in the 12th arrondisement (Chateau Vincennes), which is the last/first stop on Metro line 1. However, the city did not end there. You can only pile everything up so high before you need to move out. Granted, there is more room downtown, but that whole scene does not apply to all of us and luckily we have the right to not live there. One of the many reasons I love this country
$8 gas and we will see drastic changes for the better, but it will be very painful at first. By no means am I saying that everyone should live downtown. For those that still want to commute from the suburbs you will probably be car pooling. Car pool lanes would be developed and you would see less cars on the road = you will have a better commute to work in the morning.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas > San Antonio

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top