Quote:
Originally Posted by OcotilloTea
This is such an insane take. It sounds to me that you do not understand the concept of rail being an investment in city infrastructure rather than just a use of it. Rail is fundamentally different than roads in many ways, but one of the ways it is different is in the way that having a station placed somewhere in a city will spur great amounts of dense development/changes in travel patterns and lifestyle. These changes happen over decades and have made this fact (apparently) difficult for some to understand.
You mention that Austin will never have density near those of NYC/SF/Chicago, but that will only be true if Austin does not build the infrastructure necessary to achieve such densities! The classic chicken or the egg discussion about density/public transit use is always a debate, but to say that a city could put in rail and then conclude that would not fundamentally change the way people are able to live and work in that place is just bad (or nonexistent) logic.
|
I would agree with you if the price tag wasn't 10's of billions of dollars. You mentioned it would be an investment. True. But not all investments are wise. Governments have a long storied history of overpaying for "investments" that yielded a poor return on OUR tax money, from our bloated Defense Department to the mired California rail from LA to SF.
Austin will never have the density of NYC or similarly dense cities for the following reasons;
1) zoning laws would have to be RADICALLY changed RIGHT now. IF that happened, say goodbye to the beloved Central Austin neighborhoods....think Hyde Park, Clarksville, Rosedale, Zilker, Travis Heights, many more, not too mention our beloved tree canopy and parks.
2) political will. Very few people who live in Austin want to morph into a city with 20k sq mi. density. Politicians will not vote to increase zoning for 10k+ density for ANY area beyond downtown.
3) Suburban HOA rules for condos and communities surrounding Austin will never allow for increased density.
4) Most deed restrictions beyond downtown will not allow increased density.
5) Building rail infrastructure does not magically increase density. Why? See 3 and 4. 3 story apartment complexes close to train depots will not move the density needle.
6) Austin's parks, greenbelts, creeks, preserves, aquafer recharge zones, endangered species, prevent a HUGE area in and around the city to be developed AT ALL!
7) Tree ordinances
8) Building setbacks
9) above ground power lines would need to be relocated to support increased density as they would be too close to residents.
10) COA assurance that parcels would be allowed to be subdivided. As it stands now, if you have a home that sits in the middle of a "double lot", the city forces you to tear the house down first, then apply for subdivision with zero certainty that the COA will approve it. This will cost you min $50-100K just to possible hear, no we will not allow you to subdivide your property.
Separately, in NYC. Rail use peaked in 1920-40's and is barely 1/2 of those numbers in 2023. Why are the citizens of America's most populous, most dense city using the most extensive subway system FAR less than they once did.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Histor...rk_City_Subway
Instead of paying for rail to be built and hoping on hope that density will increase 500%, only to then subsidize it to the tune of $30k/yr per rider (if memory serves). I propose we subsidize the working poor to take AI cars when they roll out in the near future.
Please argue in good faith. Lay out your vision of where the density would/could go, and how to get us there....politically and financially. That and point to where exactly my DETAILS are wrong, should be easy since my take is "insane".
Prev
Linear Mode
