Quote:
Originally Posted by StoOgE
Look, its not that highway infrastructure never matters but the Katy freeway did not improve traffic from Katy to Houston it just made suburban sprawl worse.
America does not have a problem building highways or making existing city lanes dangerous for anyone not in a giant SUV. It has a problem with everything else. |
Just teasing: Username tracks.
The key to fixing traffic on I-35 is to provide useful bypasses and alternative ingress, egress routes. 130 is a very useful piece of the puzzle, but think more systemically (its a network, things don’t function in isolation):
• 21 would make 130 even more useful and help take load off of 35 by creating a more time effective bypass.
• a complete inner and outer loop would allow people multiple options to bypass central 35. Currently, the most efficient route from San Marcos to Cedar Park takes you through downtown Austin on either MoPac or 35 to get to 183. 360 and a completed 45 should be viable routes as well. That’d take significant load off of 35.
This is a long one:
• east/west interstates would also significantly unburden 35 (and 10) as they would allow shipping from additional points of entry from the east (via 79 to I-14 and 71 to I-10, and points beyond on those interstates once I-14 is completed) and from the west (via 290 to I-10 and 183 to I-14, and points beyond on those interstates). Currently, freight traffic generally travels north or south on 35 into San Antonio or Dallas before switching to another interstate. This is one of the biggest drivers of traffic on 35 and having interstate billed east west alternative ingress routes. Going further, having TWO east west connections makes it even better: one on the north side and one on the south, means that inbound traffic will generally never pass through central Austin at all. A long hauler traveling from Atlanta to the north burbs, for instance, will take I-20 to Meridien and then switch to I-14 for the rest of the way, whereas to south Austin they’d take 85/65 to Mobile and 10/I-10N all the way into south Austin. Currently, they take I-20 into Dallas and then get on 35 going south. People make fun of Pennsylvania for having SO MANY rural interstates, but when was the last time you heard about anyone in Pennsylvania complaining about traffic? They have well dispersed traffic. With many bypasses and reliever routes in a completely thought out system. We have I-10, I-20, I-35, I-37, and I-45. That’s a system built for a state of 10 million. To really relieve traffic on our existing interstates, we need a more fleshed out rural interstate system, starting with the systems currently in development:
• I-14: Midland through San Angelo to Killeen to College Station to rural east Texas
• I-69: Texarkana to Houston to Victoria, Corpus, Laredo, and the RGV
• I-27 extension from Lubbock south to Midland/Odessa to San Angelo to Sonora and Del
Rio/Laredo and north to Texline
• I-37 extension from San Antonio via US-281 to Hico and US-67 into Fort Worth
• an I-32 from Fort Worth to Wichita Falls and Amarillo
• an I-47 from Houston through College Station, Waco, and Stephenville, to I-20
• an I-2 completely paralleling the border from the RGV to Laredo and Del Rio, although national security and immigration issues may trump this
• an I-6 from San Antonio to Del Rio
• I-44 extended from Wichita Falls through Abilene to San Angelo
Currently anything going north travels through Austin on 35. If we had a bunch of other interstates connecting to points north, Austin’s traffic nightmare would be A LOT LESS. When I-69 is completed to Houston, traffic in San Antonio will be significantly eased. When it is completed to Texarkana and Louisiana and Arkansas finish their portions, I-69 will likely carry as much traffic as I-35 and Austin’s traffic burden will be significantly reduced. Anything going from Mexico to Ontario or anywhere in the US Northeast can now take I-69, rather than I-35. Furthermore, the Ports to Plains corridor (I-27) will likely have the same effect for shipping to Alberta and British Columbia. That would leave 35 as the main route for goods going to… only the cities on the I-35 and I-29 corridors and Winnipeg. Like I said, it’s a system. The state hasn’t just been thinking about local inputs of traffic. There are significant external inputs as well, and many projects they’re working on statewide will have massive local effects here in Austin.
https://www.cato.org/blog/debunking-induced-demand-myth
https://www.washingtonpolicy.org/pub...hing-for-roads
https://cleantechnica.com/2019/12/31...-it-means/amp/
https://www.bensouthwood.co.uk/p/why...demand-is-fake
https://www.reddit.com/r/urbanplanni...nduced_demand/
Not directed at you, but: people need to stop this straw man argument that everyone who (rationally) sees the need for more road and freeway infrastructure is either stupid or anti-transit. We aren’t. We are the majority. And we are actually quite well informed.
Continuing from my point about a fully fleshed out interstate system in Texas relates to induced demand. Induced demand only works if one (or both) of the following two things are true:
1. There was latent demand from people who wanted to take vehicular trips but for some reason (traffic, time, money, etc) would have chosen not to if it were not for the new infrastructure;
2. The new infrastructure results in rerouted trips from other corridors.
Either way, you’re resulting in a net positive for society:
1. More people are more able to do the things they want to do, even though the system eventually reach a new equilibrium there are still more people being serviced by the transportation system than before.
2. This results in theoretically less traffic on the other corridors which were trips were rerouted away from, which would be a good thing except this results in induced demand’s other tenet: which is that now more people will choose to take those local routes to do local things that they couldn’t do before because those routes were clogged with thru-commuters. Except just like in point 1: you eventually reach a new equilibrium where MORE PEOPLE are able to choose to go and do the things they need and want to do, which is necessary for society to thrive and flourish.
In the case of interstates, those new interstate corridors are going to induce demand away from I-35, which will allow Austinites to go out and do things. Yeah, they might still complain about the awful traffic (because there will still be awful traffic), but instead of being awful traffic with relatively few Austinites able to go do things (e.g. they’re all sitting at home complaining about how they wish they could go out except for the traffic), it’ll be Austinites complaining about the drive there to their friends at the restaurant they’re sitting down at to have an alcohol-free dinner. Which scenario seems better to you? People enjoying their lives or people sitting at home miserable because of traffic clogged with big rigs and other thru-travelers? Let Houston and San Angelo have that through-traffic.
All of this would be a HUGE economic boon to rural Texas, giving lifeblood to cities which have been starved by their larger brethren, breeding resentment and fueling hatred toward those large cities. Hence the rise of MAGA. We need to start spreading the pie away from our large cities and toward poor smaller ones, it’ll be good for both: take the pressure off of larger cities and renew growth and prosperity in the smaller ones. Imagine if liberals realized that they can have their pie and eat it, too, if they share. Instead of continuing to pump money only into infrastructure in cities, we may get more bang for our buck by creating additional capacity in new corridors to ease the burden on our existing infrastructure rather than have to reconstruct it all.
Prev
Linear Mode
