Austin growth will absolutely overwhelm roads and highways starting in 2011 - new study (Houston: purchase, good schools)

[mimimomx3]

Originally Posted by twange

Who's whining? That's pretty accusatory.

I am accusing those who complain about how long it takes to get from here to there, about feeder roads, about MOPAC having a bottleneck, etc. of whining.

[mimimomx3]

Originally Posted by kingugly

Excellent contribution, minimomx3! Can we call that, whining about whining?

Sure....but are you whining about my whining about whining????
Hmmm.

[jacksonian]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

So, if you live in the city, in a condo with a courtyard, because you prefer the bells and whistles that the city has to offer, whereas someone else lives in the suburbs, and has a garden and grows their own vegetables (maybe they do the "edible landscape" thing) and has a couple/three chickens for eggs, maybe does rainwater harvesting, etc., you're the one that's unselfish and living the "sustainable" lifestyle?

I'd say that that analysis says a heck of a lot more about you than it does about someone who makes a different lifestyle choice than you do. It's entirely possible to live sustainably elsewhere than downtown (especially if you don't work downtown, and, after all, how many of the population of Austin work downtown? There's a heck of a lot of businesses outside of downtown, in the little towns that newcomers think of as suburbs of Austin not knowing their history, and the people that work there live somewhere.

Woah, woah... I wasn't attacking any lifestyle choice, and there are ways to make any lifestyle more sustainable (ex. changing incandescents to fluorescents), but that does not mean than every lifestyle can be as sustainable as the next. The most sustainable lifestyle is one that uses minimal energy and impacts the local environment the least - plain and simple, right?

Let's take a look at an example. Given, most jobs in metro areas are in the major city itself, agreed? Which of the following has the least impact on the environment? A brand new 2000 s.f. house on a .25 acre lot in a new neighborhood (which requires new infrastructure = more strain on the system) that is 20-30 miles away from the city center or a 1000 s.f. condo (less volume = less energy to heat/cool) in an existing building in downtown Austin that utilizes existing infrastructure and requires little to no driving? Think about it for a bit.

I'm not here to tell anyone how to live their life, and there are people who live and work in the suburbs, which makes sense for those who do. I don't expect farmers to live in downtown Austin either. But apparently there are plenty of people who live outside of Austin that work in Austin, otherwise there would not be all these people on here talking about how bad the traffic is on the interstates.

[austin-steve]

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?

I drove to Dallas and back earlier this week. Returning, it was curious to see that the signage for 130 in Georgetown stupidly just said "Austin", as did the signage for continuing forward on IH35.

Simply changing the signage to say "Austin Bypass" or "Tollway to San Antonio", or something more descriptive might encourage people to try it out, though they might get angry at the ultimate total costs.

Frankly, I think they should open toll 130 up for free passage to 18 wheelers and that would take a lot of the traffic off IH35 through Austin. That would be a better use of the excess, unused capacity than letting the road sit unused for long stretches.

Steve

[10scoachrick]

Originally Posted by austin-steve

I drove to Dallas and back earlier this week. Returning, it was curious to see that the signage for 130 in Georgetown stupidly just said "Austin", as did the signage for continuing forward on IH35.

Simply changing the signage to say "Austin Bypass" or "Tollway to San Antonio", or something more descriptive might encourage people to try it out, though they might get angry at the ultimate total costs.

Frankly, I think they should open toll 130 up for free passage to 18 wheelers and that would take a lot of the traffic off IH35 through Austin. That would be a better use of the excess, unused capacity than letting the road sit unused for long stretches.

Steve

I've noticed the lack of signage as well. That's not a good stretch of 35 to be 'looking' for a newish road that might not be on the GPS. Certainly, it would be reasonable for thru-trucks to be required to take the toll-way but I believe the tolls should be reduced. I think it's false economy to waste time sitting still on 35(especially in the summer) in order to save a few bucks but that complete trip on the toll-way is way spendy for many folks.

Something will need to be done if the idea is to get mainly 18-wheel traffic to use the toll-way...I wouldn't vote for a free pass but rather some amount that might convince drivers to 'spend a little to save a lot', as they say.

[thesonofgray]

Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady

So, if you live in the city, in a condo with a courtyard, because you prefer the bells and whistles that the city has to offer, whereas someone else lives in the suburbs, and has a garden and grows their own vegetables (maybe they do the "edible landscape" thing) and has a couple/three chickens for eggs, maybe does rainwater harvesting, etc., you're the one that's unselfish and living the "sustainable" lifestyle?

I'm not going to say people should live in a certain area - every situation is different and people have varying needs and wants. But I think it's fairly safe to say that living in some master planned community 3,000 sf 2 story house, built with mostly cheap materials on land that was entirely cleared of its natural habitat, with newly built roads and utilities to connect it to the nearest highway which is probably over a mile away can hardly be considered as "sustainable living". And you know what? The large majority of the people who live where I just described probably couldn't care less about sustainable living - that's their prerogative.

Unfortunately, the situation you described is very much the minority, and you know that. The most obvious, convenient, and accessible way to live with a small footprint is in a developed urban environment. I hope the suburbs become more sustainable...or at least as sustainable they can be...but that just isn't the reality at this point in time.

Originally Posted by mimimomx3

I am accusing those who complain about how long it takes to get from here to there, about feeder roads, about MOPAC having a bottleneck, etc. of whining.

Do you have anything of value to say here? Or are you just going to complain about those who do?

[mimimomx3]

Originally Posted by thesonofgray

Do you have anything of value to say here? Or are you just going to complain about those who do?

I must be reading the wrong thread. I haven't seen anything of value here other than just whining about why we have feeder roads when California doesn't, suburbs being more self sustaining (BFO) and expanding MOPAC because of the 'bottleneck'.

I gave my .02. We don't have the money for new roads. If you choose to live on the other end of town from where you work, you will sit in traffic. Deal with it and stop whining.

[thesonofgray]

Originally Posted by mimimomx3

I must be reading the wrong thread. I haven't seen anything of value here other than just whining about why we have feeder roads when California doesn't, suburbs being more self sustaining (BFO) and expanding MOPAC because of the 'bottleneck'.

So...you don't see any link between Austin's traffic and the efficiency of our roadways?

If you can't comprehend the most basic principles of "cause and effect", then you're beyond helpless.

Originally Posted by mimimomx3

We don't have the money for new roads.

Ok? That's great mimimom, but I think the majority of this thread's discussion has centered on improving our existing roads. New roads are rarely the solution to traffic problems.

[Driftwood1]

I'd sooner be a whiner than bury my head in the ground and ignore the facts.
Austin has grown and will continue to grow, ask anyone who was here 40 yrs ago..
No place stays the same forever.
If Austin wants to deliberatly keep its infrastructure weak in an effort to stave off
sprawl or "stay weird" , it wont work, the people will keep comin anyway, often from places where
traffic is much worse.

[oldtoiletsmkgdflrpots]

Perhaps if AFFORDABLE housing was available downtown for a family of 5 near downtown some of us would have made the choice to live there. However, I refuse to purchase a DUMP for over 200K when we get a bigger bang for the buck somewhere else. At this point in time a "fixer upper" was out of the question. Some of you might like living next to a crack house but it isn't my idea of a good time.

That's my two cents and it's worth every penny.


Also, telling someone to "choose" where they live is out of touch.