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.
Oh, one other blind spot that a lot seem to have - a whole lot of the Austin populace never, ever goes downtown for ANY reason, work OR recreation. So it should not be the sole focus of the solution.
Round Rock pre-Dell to today has required huge investments in everything.
And with companies like Dell when they moved to RR aren't ideal examples for office. They were still making computers at the time. Austin-RR Metro has a huge manufacturing economy. Manufacturing is the largest industry in Austin's economy. Even more so than financial services, government, education, health care and all that. Additionally R&D is another large component of Austin-RR's economy. Manufacturing and R&D must be out in the burbs. They aren't like offices. Austin will never be like many cities because such a large part of its economy is based on things that already require them to be out in the burbs. The city has to consider that in its planning. But offices can be built anywhere, if they were allowed. So they are different.
Edit: And as far as manufacturing I'm not just talking GDP, but also personal income. Computer and electronic equipment and parts manufacturing in Austin alone exceed all other industries as far as personal incomes except state or local government pays. And even then state and local government personal incomes aren't that far off. And that was two years ago. I would bet my house that today computer and electronic parts manufacturing personal incomes exceed local or state government incomes today. That sort of industry must be out in the burbs.
So, all of the residences that are already in those areas do not require fire, police, sanitary, etc. I see.
Of course they do. But you're going to take more people and spread them throughout the area. So rather than having a concentration of people and businesses, you have them flung all over. You'll need more resources to cover the same number of people because now they're not concentrated geographically; unless you want an ambulance or fire truck to take 10+ minutes on average to reach you, you need to add more resources to compensate for the distances. You'll also need more sewage and water services, electricity, and yes - roads. I don't see what is so difficult to understand about that.
But on the other side, you're dispersing development and dispersing the tax base (goodbye agglomeration and concentration of capital), so while you *have* to extend services and increase your costs, your incremental tax revenues go down over time. Costs up, revenue down. Don't see as how that's a good thing under any circumstance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady
Think of it this way. If the businesses go where the people live (or where people already live - Dell's a good example of a business that is not downtown that moved to an existing community - yes, there's been a lot of houses built, but there were existing housing and services already there when they got there), their employees, especially those that are moving here from elsewhere to work for them, are going to be more likely to move closer to them (to existing resale housing stock, for example).
How again do you propose to put businesses "where the people live"? I feel like I'm arguing the same point over and over again. People live downtown, people live in Round Rock, people live in Dripping Springs. How do you first of all determine where to locate the business so that it minimizes all of the commute times and distances of all employees (good luck with multiple breadwinner families, by the way - how do you locate employers so that *both* breadwinners' commutes are substantially shortened)? You cannot. It is simply impossible. Unless you're going to force families to move, force companies to only hire people who live within X miles of their facility, or fire existing workforces and hire all new ones from the neighborhood, you *cannot* do it. People are going to need to travel to get to work.
Let's look at your Dell example, because it is somewhat illustrative. We already know from CAPCOG demographic data from 2010 that 50% of residents in Central Texas cross a county line to get to work. For Round Rock zip codes, there are a total of 35,028 workers. Of those, 4,627, or 13%, stay in Round Rock to work. Now, while Dell is the largest employer in Round Rock, it's certainly not accounting for all of those 4,627. If you dig a little deeper, you find that of the 35,028 workers in Round Rock, just 1,913, or 5% of them, stay in the same zip code to work. A whopping 23,109, or 66%, leave Round Rock for Austin every day to work.
Now, what you're suggesting, just for one town, is moving tens of thousands of families, and probably several hundred companies, to joint areas where everyone can live and work a short distance away. I'll ask again - do you understand why this is an absurdity?
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady
There will always be some people who live across town from where they work
Yeah...66% of the people in Round Rock, for a start. And 50% of all the people who live in Central Texas. I'd say that's more than just "some", THL.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady
..., as there are now, but if we can reduce that substantially, and I think we can, using plain old human nature of congregating around the watering hold (place of employment), we can deal with a big chunk of the traffic problems we have without building new roads.
This "big chunk" you're talking about...how big is it? Is it 50% of all the workers in Central Texas? Because unless it is, or close to it, you're solving absolutely nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady
Then, once that's done (and absolutely none of the solutions that are being come up with here are instantaneous)
Well, glad you at least realize that forcing hundreds of thousands of families and thousands of businesses to relocate won't be an "instantaneous" thing. Bravo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady
..., there will be fewer new roads that need to be built AND we'd have an idea of the best kind of mass transit to serve the area as a whole. Whatever the solution is, it is highly unlikely to be just one thing that is the magic bullet that fixes it all; it's much more likely to be a combination of solutions that all work together on the same problem.
First thing you've said that I can honestly say "amen" to. I just don't think that your social engineering and coercion plan are going to be a part of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady
Is this a completely thought out, every detail in place plan? Nope, just an observation of a couple of things that could put a dent in the problem, but I doubt any plan put forth on an internet forum is going to be that. Internet forums serve a different function, and are for brainstorming and coming up with ideas from a lot of different brains with a lot of different blind spots and experiences.
Well, as I said mere lines ago, unless your scheme is going to result in upwards of 50% of the workers in Central Texas being relocated closer to their employer, it's not going to put anything close to a "dent" in anything.
Oh, one other blind spot that a lot seem to have - a whole lot of the Austin populace never, ever goes downtown for ANY reason, work OR recreation. So it should not be the sole focus of the solution.
Non sequitir. The people who don't go downtown aren't the problem.
But the focus for mass transit seems to think they do.
I find it interesting that you think that encouraging businesses to locate closer to their employee bases constitutes "social engineering", and yet putting in mass transit between major cities and encouraging people to use that rather than the cars they prefer to use now somehow doesn't. Remember that blind spot I was talking about earlier?
But the focus for mass transit seems to think they do.
I find it interesting that you think that encouraging businesses to locate closer to their employee bases constitutes "social engineering", and yet putting in mass transit between major cities and encouraging people to use that rather than the cars they prefer to use now somehow doesn't. Remember that blind spot I was talking about earlier?
Forcing people or companies to move by some form of coercion is social engineering. That's the only way you're going to accomplish what you intend to achieve - forcing people to move, forcing companies to move, and enforcing some draconian regulations to ensure that people don't live outside a certain "employment zone" of their work locations. There's no other way for your plan to make a measurable difference. If you allow companies to locate where they wish and people to live where they wish, your plan will never be viable.
Offering people a viable transportation choice is clearly not social engineering, on the other hand. There is no coercion, and if someone prefers to use their car, there is nothing preventing it.
So a lot more people are using telecommuting than are using mass transit between San Antonio and Austin, is what you're saying.
Nobody is saying anything about "forcing" people or companies to move, that's your fear raising its head. What has been said is that businesses could be encouraged (and where you get "force" from I don't know, I suspect you'd have to look inside your own head to know that) to, if they are moving to town or looking to move in town for more space, locate someplace other than right downtown, someplace closer to the communities that are their employee base. That's no more social engineering than pushing mass transit between cities to people who are very happy with using their cars to do so.
By the way, I've used mass transit in other cities and countries, for the most part, quite like it - I have nothing against it, just don't see it as the ultimate solution for cities in Texas which are very different from the ones where it works so very well, both geographically and culturally. I also have no problem with mass transit being available between cities like Austin and San Antonio, think it's a great idea, but, again, don't see it as an ultimate solution and suspect that a lot of people are going to continue to use their cars for reasons that are quite reasonable. By the way, who's going to pay for it? Or, rather, who's paying for it right now (10 years of studies, plus everything that would go into making it viable)?
So a lot more people are using telecommuting than are using mass transit between San Antonio and Austin, is what you're saying.
I'm saying nothing of the kind. There are plenty of people driving between San Antonio and Austin, but there is no mass transit.
The latest ridership modeling for LSTAR indicates that by the year 2035, a total of over 190,000 people will be commuting between the two cities by some method.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady
Nobody is saying anything about "forcing" people or companies to move, that's your fear raising its head. What has been said is that businesses could be encouraged (and where you get "force" from I don't know, I suspect you'd have to look inside your own head to know that) to, if they are moving to town or looking to move in town for more space, locate someplace other than right downtown, someplace closer to the communities that are their employee base. That's no more social engineering than pushing mass transit between cities to people who are very happy with using their cars to do so.
Unless you force families and companies to move, your plan is silly. If it made sense for them to do it, they'd have already done it, or it would be happening in much greater proportion than it does. But the numbers don't lie - 50% of people in Central Texas cross a county line to get to work. For your Dell example, 66% of people who live in Round Rock go to some area of Austin to work. Over 70% of people who live in Round Rock leave it every day to go to work. And you believe, apparently that some "encouragement" will change these numbers in any measurable way. Not going to happen. It doesn't happen anywhere else in the world, and it's not going to happen here. Unless you use coercion. Your plan requires it if you intend for it to, you know, actually work.
As for mass transit as "social engineering" - there is no coercion involved. If people are "very happy with using their cars", there is absolutely nothing that prevents them from doing so. Good, high quality mass transit merely offers them a choice - a safer, more reliable, time competitive and cost competitive ride where they can actually use their time productively, nap, or just enjoy the scenery. If they don't want to use it, there is nothing that forces them to do so. The success of a good mass transit system depends on its ability to attract customers, not force people to ride.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady
By the way, I've used mass transit in other cities and countries, for the most part, quite like it - I have nothing against it, just don't see it as the ultimate solution for cities in Texas which are very different from the ones where it works so very well, both geographically and culturally.
I can't tell you how many times I've heard that in so many different places during a debate about investing in some form of high capacity transit. Everyone believes that *their* city is so unique, their culture so different. But in the end, Texans are smart people. They will use a good quality mass transit system because it makes good financial, time, and convenience sense for them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady
I also have no problem with mass transit being available between cities like Austin and San Antonio, think it's a great idea, but, again, don't see it as an ultimate solution and suspect that a lot of people are going to continue to use their cars for reasons that are quite reasonable. By the way, who's going to pay for it? Or, rather, who's paying for it right now (10 years of studies, plus everything that would go into making it viable)?
As I-35 becomes more congested, not only with new residents (150 per day relocating here) but with more truck traffic every year (NAFTA trade grows at 5% to 15% every year), having a time competitive, reliable choice in the corridor will attract a lot of people. Some will stay in their cars, of course! Not every trip is compatible with rail (you don't go grocery shopping on the train, for example). But even the people who never set foot on an LSTAR train will benefit from the project's ability to remove cars and trucks from the roadway.
On the funding mix for the LSTAR project - it's a combination of federal, state, very little local, and private funding and financing that will in the end pay the bill. The local component is to fund the ongoing operations and maintenance of the line; the other sources will be used for final design and construction.
The planning studies up to this point have been paid for through a combination of federal and state grant monies awarded usually through competitive processes (in other words, an application had to be made, and the project was chosen to receive the funding out of a group of sometimes hundreds of others).
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.
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.
