Oy! I don't think the area needs more people.

[Need4Camaro]

Originally Posted by creepy

I disagree, the "hell" of its boom has only been for 4 years or so. It has to slow-we have to slow it.

I overall disagree, Austin has been on a steady growth trajectory for some time now, growth in the region is nothing new. What was met more recently in the past 4 pandemic years was a surge met with low housing inventory and the lack of sellers or foreclosures, which has recently substantially relaxed.

[Trainwreck20]

Originally Posted by creepy

I disagree, the "hell" of its boom has only been for 4 years or so. It has to slow-we have to slow it.

Here is the absolute growth and percent growth since 1950 of the Austin metro.

You can disagree with it if you want, but it is what it is. I have been here for over half that chart. Austin has been growing and people trying to slow it the entire time.

[Trainwreck20]

Originally Posted by Austin97

people who say that usually have been here just a little longer than that.

Water is not an issue. Instead it is an energy issue. At any time the COA can recycle all sewer water back into drinking water, water can be desalinated and pumped, or water downstream can be pumped back upstream.

Limits can be placed on agriculture and landscape watering. Water used inside of homes is under 30% of the total water usage.

Water is a bit more complicated than that although with 'unlimited' energy most of the water could be pumped from the coast and desalinated. That would be a massive, massive project though.

The ecosystems need to be maintained, which is why water is released daily from lake Travis even in drought. In the summer, over half the water losses are evaporation. Something like 30% of water is lost in leaks in the distribution system, as well.

[Ivory Lee Spurlock]

Originally Posted by Need4Camaro

Speaking of region growth, here you go ashbeeigh, the one thing you've always wanted... ...a $20 billion rail between Austin and San Antonio....

https://www.sacurrent.com/news/new-a...efore-32153360

TBH if it could be down for a fraction of the cost I'd be down for it but $20 Billion could pretty much triple the capacity of I-35 all the way to SATX... not like either idea is going to happen in either of our lifetimes, but its fun to speculate.

Eventually, a high speed rail line will most likely be built between Austin and San Antonio in the not too distant future. Seems to me it would probably be cheaper to spend 20 billion now than 40 billion 20 years from now.

[Need4Camaro]

Originally Posted by Ivory Lee Spurlock

Eventually, a high speed rail line will most likely be built between Austin and San Antonio in the not too distant future. Seems to me it would probably be cheaper to spend 20 billion now than 40 billion 20 years from now.

Inflation is a thing but the overall affect of a HSR between SATX & AUS will be very minimal compared to the costs to deploy it. No private entity would be able to maintain it financially as ridership would not be strong enough to overcome the costs without it becoming another govt subsidy. Would be better to do the unthinkable and make 281 into a freeway with development restrictions as to prevent it becoming another I-35 and make 71 into a super street much like it is between AUS and I-10 east (toward Houston) ... ooooof course ashbeeigh would probably approve of neither project but it would be much lighter on the budget and have a much bigger impact on traffic. 71 could use to be a super arterial to I-10 west anyway as to make a more feasible E/W route from I-10 to Austin coming from out west.

[DCtoTejas]

I had hoped that the Lone Star Rail proposal would go through, if it had the work was scheduled to be completed around 2025 if I recall. If this is similar to that proposal (I haven't fully read it) I don't see what has changed since then that will convince the freight lines to give up their ownership of the track. Insurance costs going up due to all the vagrants on the line and in the ROW in Austin?