Austin - 10 years behind on roads? (Round Rock, Riverside: quality of life, places to live, price)

[Trainwreck20]

"well, why would anyone ever want to go south of the river anyway?"

That is very true . When MoPac was built, there was little in the way of development south of the river (as least compared to north) and the extent that it developed was not forseen.

[car957]

Just for the purpose of accuracy, that appears to be South bound MoPac at Parmer, which would mean that is the morning rush hour. I'm pretty sure the Domain and the IBM buildings are on the left side, meaning East of MoPac.

[Trainwreck20]

Just for a memory from the past....MoPac used to END at 183, and you turned right onto 183. If you wanted to go north again, you took 183 (which was not a freeway at the time) to Burnet and turned left at the light . Of course, there wasn't anything to call traffic compared to what there is now....we just thought it was traffic.

[Driftwood1]

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

That is very true . When MoPac was built, there was little in the way of development south of the river (as least compared to north) and the extent that it developed was not forseen.

Exactly when WAS Mopac built? (1901? )

Anyone who could not forsee the growth to the south surely was blind... the californians did

Hindsight is 20:20 huh
Cheers

[southwest1230]

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

MoPac was built as a marvel of 'accomodation'. Most of the neighborhoods did not want a freeway running through their neighborhood. MoPac was built while trying to minimize the impact to the surrounding area - no frontage roads, some convoluted exits/on ramps, and limited width. It actually worked very well for many, many years and was one of the better designed roads in the city as far as minimizing impact goes. It actually has been a victim of its success....the city has developed due to the functionality of MoPac. If it had not been built, or was a road with stoplights, the whole character of NW, W, and SW Austin would be different. There just were not that many people out that way 'back in teh day'.

On the flip side, they could have used iminent domain to take more houses and build a wider road and set aside land for expansion...but hindsight is 20/20 .

Trainwreck, I'm very glad you are contributing to this post. Its a pleasure to read your replies, and they contain reams of wisdom that anyone trying to get to know Austin better would be well advised to heed. That being said, I think what we can infer by your statement is that there was no expectation in the mid-80's, and much of the current transportation corridor was already either being built or in the planning stages, that the city would grow by 400,000 in just 15 years. The design flaws wouldn't be as noticable or vexing if the growth was what was expected. AS we all know, it wasn't. Small examples: I sat in the car in the Walgreens parking lot at the Mcneil 183 exits. I saw so many cars just miss hitting each other as they made turns coming off the exit into traffic. Not nearly enough road for the traffic and turns.....the poor signage and on/off ramp access bodes badly big time when you have the assault of vehicles trying to wend their way through them that exists now.......I really think half the reason for all this confusion is that Austin after all is said and done really didn't WANT that growth after all, and the design is a subconscious collective effort to discourage it. It was almost as if, by collective choice, they decided to make it as confusing as possible to navigate, hoping everyone would eventually go back home or something! LOL! So, any ideas from you folks out there on improving the roads? Can we? Is the money there? The effort by all parties concerned to make it happen, viable blueprint or not? Well?

[southwest1230]

Originally Posted by achtungpv

Actually part of the traffic problems are caused by the frontage roads. Any transportation planner will cite this as a major cause since they provide too many access points to the major highways. Frontage roads are pretty unique to TX since TX law required all land owners to be given access to state highways that fronted their property. To keep from having driveways on major highways, the frontage road system was developed. This in turn caused development to occur almost exclusively on the major transportation corridors instead of arterials off of the main roads. This adds even more traffic.

TxDOT funding usually gets siphoned away from Austin because of the State Legislature's dislike for Austin not being a lapdog like every other city in the state.

Answers to both your statements...first, the latter.....Austin needs an overarching metro planning agency with balls to get things done. Right now that isn't the case. Austin is a very good thing for Texas tourism. It gives it a chance to say it's sexy, somewhat open-minded and hip, and eclectic, all in the guise of Austin. A much easier sell than, say, Houston tourism. Austin is also very esteemed in the state as a tech and entrepreneurial mecca. These all are great reasons to fund Austin's transport grids to the maximum possible, as a showpiece of the state itself, and a proud repository of the state's gov't and main University. We just need people strong enough, Ann Richards types, to present Austin's case. I would think they have a head start, already being the seat of state government. I mean, I would think they have gov't lobbies all over the city as it is. What an opportunity to present the case that Austin needs a state-of-the-art transportation grid...Now the former.....the frontage road situation indeed is singular in Texas. Ingress and Egress indeed must be permitted for all landowners and businesses. It gets worse when the access is right next to the main on-ramps....reminding one of rome or paris in the confusion in all directions....no turnabouts, just a hodgepodge of random movement towards the exits. That being said, there has to be a better way of complying with the mandates, and making traffic flow. I'm sure they still have cow ordinances on the books per egress too, but they found a way around that.......maybe the state can change that law, or modify it. Thats what state legislatures are for, amending and changing statues as time goes on and situations change.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

[southwest1230]

Originally Posted by jclAustin

Had me a little confused (granted it's not hard to do.) Up north around the arboretum, 183 crosses over Mopac and becomes the western vein.
However, the traffic still sucks, but it's not as bad as many cities. Not yet at any rate.

http://atangledweb.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/scarecrow_oz.gif (broken link)
LOL....funny how you can't even categorize our highways as east or west, isn't it? Reminds one of ray bolger as the scarecrow...."well, you can go that way, or you can go this way, or you can do like most folks, and go both ways!"

[southwest1230]

Originally Posted by car957

Just for the purpose of accuracy, that appears to be South bound MoPac at Parmer, which would mean that is the morning rush hour. I'm pretty sure the Domain and the IBM buildings are on the left side, meaning East of MoPac.

I think you are right, Car..I stand corrected.....

[southwest1230]

Originally Posted by Driftwood1

Exactly when WAS Mopac built? (1901? )

Anyone who could not forsee the growth to the south surely was blind... the californians did

Hindsight is 20:20 huh
Cheers

Funny! Yes, we had a consortium of folks on horses in 1901 that, with the aide of clairvoyance and a few nips of irish whisky, were able to forsee Mopac's needed extension past the river way back when......They wrote down their plans, sealed it in a time capsule for 80 years, after which it was dug up and used as the basis for the very road structure you see today. So you can blame the whole thing on a bunch of drunken cowboys way back when......Hey, someone has to take the blame for this! LOL!

[mimimomx3]

It's not a popular sentiment, with so much pro-growth and $$$ at stake, but I don't see any reason to shell out more money to 'improve' existing highways such as mopac, 360, 35. So what if you sit in traffic for 3 hours? People make choices to live far from where they work, and there are consequences to those choices. If you make the choice to live in Round Rock and work in Oak Hill, you ARE going to sit in traffic. That's your choice. If it gets that bad, people will either: force employers to offer flextime, work from home, carpool, or move close to where they work. Why should I subsidize a shorter commute time for someone? New roads are great, but I see no reason to spend money to 'upsize' what we already have. People who move to Austin should realize that traffic in the inner city core stinks and changing that is impractical and expensive.