Toll Roads Open

Face it. Central Texas is doomed.

Due to growth.It'll be wall to wall people from San Antonio to Georgetown.

More air pollution, more water pollution, less cropland, more traffic.

Sudo, I don't debate toll roads v. other highways because the difference doesn't matter to me. I think they both create the same problems. As you point out, the toll road is a huge wealth transfer from taxpayers to construction companies, but "free" highways transfer tax dollars to the same companies directly by paying them to build the roads.

Jooley, I think I misunderstood you - I thought you thought I wanted everyone to live downtown. I don't, I just think people should live near where they work and I think retail should be integrated into the same neighborhood. Also, I still think suburbs are stupid, but I think of "suburbs" as areas with nothing but single family houses, generally with only one way in and out (which may have a gate), where it is impossible to get anywhere else except by driving. What you are describing doesn't sound like that - it sounds similar to the neighborhood where I live.

Walton, I realize that turning MoPac and I-35 into regular roads would cost a lot and probably won't happen. I don't think it would cost any more than building new highways of a similar scale and I think the money would be better spent. I think the overall economic impact would be positive, not negative.

I can't walk everywhere I go from where I live. Even the places I could walk or bike to, I usually drive. I don't take the highways regularly, but I do take them on occasion, especially if I'm taking a trip somewhere. To me, that is the appropriate usage for a highway. I'm not opposed to roads or cars, just highways inside cities. I believe a grid of small, two-way roads works better to allow people to drive where they want with less traffic than a system of feeder roads and highways.

I recognize that Austin is growing. I'm not trying to stop it. My goal is to point development in what I consider to be a positive direction. That means integrating residential, commercial and retail uses. Mueller (www.muelleraustin.com) is a good example of this being done, in Austin, and the new city design regulations also promote this kind of growth. It's not as if I'm the only person who thinks this way - there is a lot of support in Austin for integrated development.

I love Austin and I think it is doing a lot of things right. I worry because I think the surrounding cities and certain state agencies are doing a lot of things wrong. I don't really care what they do to the extent that it doesn't affect Austin, but building these highways is going to make traffic on I-35 and MoPac much worse than it is now. I am scared that when that happens, they are going to add lanes to those highways, which would be a real travesty for Austin.

Shilli/Jooley

So what you 2 are really saying is -

"This is MY Austin and anyone else that wants to move here better forget about it because we dont want you."

No you say? Then what is the point of your position? Don't build highways? Don't build office parks? Don't build anything that is intended to support the growing population?

Ok..so we don't want Dell to be in the Austin area...or Samsung..or Whole Foods...or any other company that may provide many jobs for many people that pay far less than what is required to purchase one of the $400K 1 bedroom "lofts" that you say we need instead of the "suburbs".

I don't think you'll find many people that would not prefer to live closer to their jobs or closer to downtown Austin, but its an economic issue and nothing more.

So i'm curious Shilli, if you became "enlightened" in New York, why don't you live there now? Based on your comments in the posts above, you pretty much hate every medium to large city in the US except NY. It is insane to think that your proposals would be possible given the existing infrastructure. Does the cost or economic impact of "turning Mopac and I-35 into normal streets" mean anything?

Do you live in an area where you can walk everywhere? Do you ever travel to those places where the new roads lead?

If you answered "yes" and "no" to the above, then why do you really care at all about these roads or the people that will be using them? If you are already in paradise, what's the point?

And by the way, please find me a city in the developed world where "sprawl" doesnt exist and traffic is not a problem. London...nope, NYC...nope, Tokyo...nope. Sorry, that just doesn't exist.....

Yeah, when I worked up there, the route on Jollyville meant walking in a four-foot deep ditch. But I can't emphasize this enough - even if it had had a real nice sidewalk, that just takes you to Shilli's objection. And, also, the other 9999 people in your suburb who live more than 1/4 mile away form the nearest strip mall...

M1EK, I checked out your photo essay (nice work), but as you pointed out, you could've gone down Jollyville...though truth be told it's got portions that are just as unfriendly. My husband & I have to dodge cars and walk along a very slopey, grassy path to get to our local (a trip we make appx. weekly), and it always pisses me off. Pregnant lady lumbers down Jollyville at night because there's NO SIDEWALK. Nice. BTW, I'm also a pedestrian zealot.

Shilli, I don't think I misunderstood you -- I even agree with you for the most part. That one sentence just got a little under my skin. But yesss, having retail in my office park would be heavenly!

Sudo, you have some excellent questions. I think that for most readers *any* kind of highway (toll or not) is a sad sign that the city isn't doing much of anything to reduce the *need* for said highways in the first place....

Try the link in my sig in this posting for an example of how bad it can get even BEFORE you start dodging the parking Expeditions. This is a walk from my last office to the strip mall 1/4 mile away; and puts the lie to the idea that you can live la vida pedestriana in the 'burbs.

I'm curious to find out why the debate is building toll roads vs. traffic congestion. Why not building toll roads vs. building free, public highways? I looked at some of the figures published by the Dallas Morning News (concerning specifically the trans-texas corridor) and noticed that the state will pay an estimated $8.8 billion dollars to build it. The giant private construction companies that get this $8.8 billion will return $2 billion back to the state and in return will receive all tolls collected for 50 years. These companies will be able to set the toll amounts without government interference (called "market force pricing"), and WILL BE GUARENTEED A PROFIT by the state. No risk with billions of potential profit. Why can't the state build these roads and return any profits to the general revenue fund? After all, if the estimated profits don't materialize, the contract guarantees that state will be paying anyway.

Click on my sig in this post for a photo essay which goes even further than what Shilli's talking about - this is a short (1/4 mile or less) walk from my last office to the strip mall for lunch. Note how lovely it is just to get to the point where you have to start dodging the parking cars.

I RIDE A 10 SPEED, DO I NEED A TAG?

Jooley Ann, I think you have misunderstood me - the problem with most suburbs, especially the newer ones, is that you have to drive to get anywhere you might want to go. The fact that you live somewhere that is close to where you work and walkable to the necesities of life is exactly what I am advocating when I say "Combining residential, retail and business uses into mixed developments is the only way to eliminate the need to get in your car every time you leave the house." They don't have to be in the same building, just close enough to each other to walk between them. I am certainly not saying that everyone has to live downtown, especially if they don't work downtown. Live where you want, and get a job nearby. Or find a place to live near where you want to work. My problem is with the segregation of uses, not the location.

My problem with strip malls and office parks is that they are designed to be accessed primarily by cars. Wouldn't you prefer the various retail that you mention to have doors that front the sidewalk so that you didn't have to walk through the parking lot dodging Expeditions every time you hike over there? Wouldn't you prefer to have some of that retail mixed into the same development with your office so that you could get something decent for lunch without having to drive and could perhaps run a few errands while you were out?

Jooley,

For every suburbanite like you, there's 9999 who drive to each one of those places. Sorry, there _is_ a qualitative AND quantitative difference between suburban sprawl and urban development.

"Suburbs and strip malls and office parks are stupid."

While I agree with the sentiment of this post, I have to quarrel with the blanket statement that everything outside of a major urban area is *stupid*.

I live in the suburbs, in a house that's about 25 years old. Distance to work (at an office park): 3 miles. Distance to grocery and locally-owned hardware store (in a strip mall): 0.3 miles. Pub, liquor store, nail salon, breakfast joint, several restaurants -- *all* of them locally owned businesses (& also all in a strip mall): 0.2 miles. I frequently walk the shorter distances. To get to work, I'd ride my bike were I not in a condition a tad too precarious for such activities.

If I lived downtown, those distances would all be much greater. My commute to work would be 15-20 miles. Most central neighborhoods do not have a major grocery store nearby. Other conveniences tend to be scattered around central Austin in a way that almost requires travel by car.

Point is, people should try to choose a home with a location that works best for their lifestyle. It *is* a shame (and to me downright disgusting) that it's considered normal (even smart) to buy a house way the hell out of town just to get something bigger, fancier, newer...and then drive 20 miles every damn day through stop&go traffic to get to work.

Nevertheless, there are those of us who live, work, and play quite happily in the suburbs, all while doing our best to minimize our impact on the environment, address local traffic problems, fight city sprawl, and all that other good stuff.

I am waiting for my $250,000 credit so that I can afford a place to live in the "downtown" area. I am sure it is in the mail. Right?!

"Building more lanes to cure congestion is like loosening your belt to cure obesity."

Highways are fine for connecting cities to each other, but don't work as a means of transportation within a city. Removing highways from within cities has been shown to reduce surrounding traffic:

http://www.merriam-park.org/POST/mar99/remove.htm

http://www.1hope.org/cantpave.htm

Additionally, turning MoPac and I-35 into normal streets would:

1. Free up a substantial amount of space for additional dense developent fronting those new streets.

2. Allow for pedestrians to walk between downtown and the east side.

3. Allow for the creation of a pedestrian rail line along the current rail line in MoPac (pedestrian stops could be built if it were a normal road, while is impossible as long as it is a highway).

The main reason I-35 was built in the first place was to allow for travel through Austin - these new toll roads and the trans-texas highway will eliminate that reason. That traffic should go around Austin, not through the middle of it.

Living closer to where you work is obviously not an option for everyone, but it is an option for many people. Building more highways is not going to reduce traffic in the long term, because more people who have the choice will choose to live far from where they work. The people who do not have the option suffer worst of all because they are forced onto the highway with a bunch of other people who could have lived closer to work, but bought houses far from their jobs based on the fact that the current commute was only 30 minutes, and now that a million like-minded suburbanites are all out there the commute is double or triple that.

It's not a matter of "If that happens, we get more sprawl and more traffic." Regardless of what the "that" may be, regardless of whether "that" in particular happens or not?

We're going to get more sprawl and more traffic.

No, we are.

I mean, it's great that you care, and that a lot of people care, okay? And it's even greater that some people who care actually go out and make a fuss and fight the good fight and so on. Hurray for that, I say, with no sarcasm at all.

But, seriously? It's not going to make a fuck of a bit of difference.

There's going to be more sprawl and more traffic.

Nothing short of global nuclear self-destruction or asteroid impact or 12 Monkeys-like Plague is ever going to change that fact.

Hey.

I'm just sayin'.

dquack,

Your experience is grounds to argue for a smaller area of development overall, and maybe even preventing office zoning away from heavy-duty (high-quality) transit lines (or potential future ones). There's simply no way suburban development can scale - Houston and suburban Virginia can show the endpoint of that path. You end up with the worst of all worlds - two spouses with jobs in two different suburbs on opposite sides of the city center.

Hmm.. I had that that first paragraph blockquoted, looked ok in the preview..

Driving north on I-35 yesterday, I was just south of Riverside at 6 p.m. It was after 7 p.m. before I was at Palmer. I can't wait until the tolls open all the way to SE45.

Sure, the toll roads will be a nice quick-fix, but eventually they will lead to more sprawl, which will lead to more traffic, which will make that trip take over 2 hours, instead.

The point is that an urban area that is more dense is more efficient. A well-planned city can encourage healthy density and help to avoid unnecessary traffic.

turn I35 and Mopac into normal streets? what does that accomplish?

I love the folks who argue that folks should live close to where they work. This might be okay if there was: 1. tons of jobs out there that lasted forever; 2. more affordable housing; 3. an easier to sell/buy a house every couple of years without losing money; or 4. I was happy being a nomad slacker working service jobs.

Since this isn't the case, I commute. So does my husband. Since his dotcom went under in 2001, he has had contracts at 5 different companies, none of which had opportunities for permanent jobs and all of which were at different parts of town.

Driving north on I-35 yesterday, I was just south of Riverside at 6 p.m. It was after 7 p.m. before I was at Palmer. I can't wait until the tolls open all the way to SE45.