What Austin Needs!!!

[Austinite]

I should've stated what I think Austin needs.

I think Austin needs competently-provided essential-services: police, fire, EMS, roads, and utilities.

[austin242]

Austin needs A good urban park downtown Like Union Square In New york or one of many in portland.

[garlandwscott]

I agree, the fresh water aquarium would be a great thing for Austin to have. I think it would bring in a lot of people from all over.

[ATXboom]

A great central austin mobility plan with a major component of urban rail to:

1. increase central austin property values and city revenue to provide better core services (fire, police, etc)

2. increase throughput throughout central austin

3. increase density in targeted central austin areas

4. create a the opportunty for austinites to live healther (more active) lifestyle

5. realize a sense of communty where people physically interact and exchange

6. allow city visitors to attend major functions without the need for a vehicle

7. to prepare for an eventual future without oil based trasnportation infrastructure (before its either too painful or too costly)

Plan and incentive for targeted density zones to:

1. Attract the go getter entrepreneurs that demand to live in SF, NY, Chicago

2. Offer an alternative to sprawl

3. Reduce travel distances required to move between live, work and play... hence reducing traffic.

Protect and incentivize the attributes that make Austin unique:

1. Springs/water

2. Music acts/industry

3. Entertainment districts

4. Film industry

Create a focal an all day cultural focal point (IE... better city museum, aqaurium, etc) to:

1. drive demand for visitors and conventions

2. ...which in turn drives demand for hotels and other service industries

Finish the Great Streets program throughout all major corridors downtown

Better beautification of the medians and berms along all roads... looks like shite compared to Dallas and Houston

Finish all highways (non stop) and interchanges leading from our Airport into major sections of the city - THIS IS THE GATEWAY FIRST IMPRESSION FOR VISITORS... and its pathetic. (183, 71, etc)

Build a 1000 rm convention center hotel to get more conferences and thus people/customers downtown

Attract a Fortune 100 company to relocate HQ to Austin... finally transitioning the town from an outpost to destination for business

[hookem]

I think Austin needs:

* Better bicycle infrastructure (more dedicated lanes & the bridge over Barton Creek, especially)

* Completion of the Ladybird Lake Hike & Bike trail (Boardwalk project or SOMETHING. It's a travesty such a gem like that sits basically uncompleted)

* Completion of all unfinished highway interchanges.

* Beautification of the highway/street medians -- they look so unkempt compared to the scenic reputation of the city. The wildflowers are nice, but they really need to keep them better manicured during the rest of the year. I also would like to see more projects like the trees which line the newer part of Ben White/71 right around (and underneath) I-35. Those trees are growing quite nicely, giving a little Portland or Seattle style to the otherwise typical highway.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by Austinite

So you completely agree with me. Cool.

No, Rush. Building rail allows for more people to get into the core - you said it was just a vanity project.

[nixcity]

@hookem---I thought that money was bonded for the completion of the boardwalk a few years ago which would mean it should be seeing some work done soon???

[kingkirbythe....]

A shoal creek flood control tunnel like Waller creek will be getting for nice development on the west side of downtown.

[hookem]

Originally Posted by nixcity

@hookem---I thought that money was bonded for the completion of the boardwalk a few years ago which would mean it should be seeing some work done soon???

I was under the impression that it was part of the bond proposal for this Nov election which included bike infrastructure, the boardwalk, and some road things. Unfortunately I think that bond package is doomed if they put it up in November. Too many anti-tax, anti-government spending conservatives will be turning out all excited about their tea parties nationwide and voting for their Republican representatives (even though they'd win in Texas anyway).

Hey, but if it's already passed in a previous proposal, great!

[Austinite]

Originally Posted by M1EK

No, Rush. Building rail allows for more people to get into the core - you said it was just a vanity project.

I agree that it would allow more people to get into the core.

[SecretAgentMan]

Originally Posted by Austinite

Serious question for you and the people who made similar posts before you:

Why?

I think I understand why someone would want urban rail in Austin, but I don't understand why someone would think Austin needs urban rail.

At least as I've understood the rail debates in Austin over the past 10 or 15 years, neither side thinks that rail would lower congestion and pollution. Instead, the pro-rail side thinks--reasonably enough--that rail is an important quality-of-life feature and a symbol of what the city aspires to be, while the anti-rail side thinks--again, quite reasonably--that those quality-of-life projects and civic-status-symbols don't justify the cost.

Isn't that right? Isn't rail something that's nice if you can afford it, but unnecessary in any event?

Fire away.

No transportation investment will permanently reduce congestion (and resulting pollution) in a fast growing metro like Austin. As M1EK replied earlier, any expansion of roads (if that was even feasible), would quickly fill up again with new drivers. Since expansion is largely infeasible (especially in the urban core), we have to find ways to move more PEOPLE in the same amount of space. The recently released Central Austin Transit Study explains it well: (http://www.austinstrategicmobility.c...n-rail-project)

"Central Austin’s existing transportation network is at capacity during peak hours and there are few opportunities to expand roadways, yet Austin's continued vitality – social, environmental, and economic – depend on mobility. Central Austin needs improved mobility – person‐moving capacity – in the form of new and expanded modal options to meet the demands of continued economic and population growth.

Investing in transit is one of the most effective ways for Austin to meet its mobility needs given the significant obstacles to expanding its roadway network serving Central Austin."

Transit investments in Austin might not reduce congestion from existing levels, but they will slow the growth of congestion that would otherwise occur with the rapid population growth we are experiencing. Since existing levels of congestion are already bad, we need to do everything we can do to not make them worse.

[Austinite]

Originally Posted by SecretAgentMan

No transportation investment will permanently reduce congestion (and resulting pollution) in a fast growing metro like Austin. As M1EK replied earlier, any expansion of roads (if that was even feasible), would quickly fill up again with new drivers. Since expansion is largely infeasible (especially in the urban core), we have to find ways to move more PEOPLE in the same amount of space. The recently released Central Austin Transit Study explains it well: (http://www.austinstrategicmobility.c...n-rail-project)

"Central Austin’s existing transportation network is at capacity during peak hours and there are few opportunities to expand roadways, yet Austin's continued vitality – social, environmental, and economic – depend on mobility. Central Austin needs improved mobility – person‐moving capacity – in the form of new and expanded modal options to meet the demands of continued economic and population growth.

Investing in transit is one of the most effective ways for Austin to meet its mobility needs given the significant obstacles to expanding its roadway network serving Central Austin."

Transit investments in Austin might not reduce congestion from existing levels, but they will slow the growth of congestion that would otherwise occur with the rapid population growth we are experiencing. Since existing levels of congestion are already bad, we need to do everything we can do to not make them worse.

I'd agree with you if bus ridership weren't falling, but it is. I suppose someone might object to my using that argument by saying that some people who might not ride a bus might ride a train, but I think that objection is premised on the idea that people would want to ride a train downtown because they like riding trains, rather than the idea that people would want to ride a train downtown because they need to get downtown. In other words, if demand for getting into the core were a pressing issue--if, in fact, it looked like it might one day in the sort-of-near future might be an issue--I'd be willing to consider supporting a decision to impose the staggering financial burdens on the city that investing in urban rail would require. However, because inability to get into the core isn't a pressing issue, I see no reason--other than vanity or a hatred of cars, of course--to build an urban rail system here. If that changes--or if someone demonstrates that I'm wrong--I'll change my position.

[JAM]

Originally Posted by Austinite

I'd agree with you if bus ridership weren't falling, but it is. I suppose someone might object to my using that argument by saying that some people who might not ride a bus might ride a train, but I think that objection is premised on the idea that people would want to ride a train downtown because they like riding trains, rather than the idea that people would want to ride a train downtown because they need to get downtown. In other words, if demand for getting into the core were a pressing issue--if, in fact, it looked like it might one day in the sort-of-near future might be an issue--I'd be willing to consider supporting a decision to impose the staggering financial burdens on the city that investing in urban rail would require. However, because inability to get into the core isn't a pressing issue, I see no reason--other than vanity or a hatred of cars, of course--to build an urban rail system here. If that changes--or if someone demonstrates that I'm wrong--I'll change my position.

I think there is an overwhelming demand to get into downtown. Not only for work, but for events that seem to occur every week, especially during the summer. Its really the only entertainment district in the metro area. If CONVENIENT rail SCHEDULES were available to move people in/out of DT for these events, more people would come and the city could hold them more often, and possibly raise more revenue.

[JAM]

Originally Posted by austin242

Austin needs A good urban park downtown Like Union Square In New york or one of many in portland.

I think Austin already has that, you just need to be willing to walk to the lake to enjoy it.

[ATXboom]

A good rail system would pull a heck of a lot of drunks off the roads.

No doubt for all the events and masses of entertainment a good system would be used in the evenings

Clearly students need to get around. I never had a car in school... what if we return to that?

Events draw a lot of people in from out of town... elliminating the need for tourists to get a car and navigate is a great economic advantage for the area.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by Austinite

In other words, if demand for getting into the core were a pressing issue--if, in fact, it looked like it might one day in the sort-of-near future might be an issue--I'd be willing to consider supporting a decision to impose the staggering financial burdens on the city that investing in urban rail would require. However, because inability to get into the core isn't a pressing issue, I see no reason--other than vanity or a hatred of cars, of course--to build an urban rail system here. If that changes--or if someone demonstrates that I'm wrong--I'll change my position.

Demand getting into the core is a huge issue right now - if you bother to read the reports on downtown, you'd already know this - and it's getting worse, not better - even downtown employment growth is headed back up after stagnating for a long time.

The reason Mopac and I-35 are parking lots in the middle of the city during rush hour is because of demand to get into/out of the core. More buses doesn't do anything to solve this unless you can convince people to ride the bus - they are stuck in the same traffic as peoples' cars are. The Red Line can't do jack squat because people have to transfer to shuttlebuses that are stuck in the same traffic the cars are. Only the city's urban rail plan, IFF they get enough reserved guideway, can really increase person-carrying capacity into and out of the core.

[tgbAustinite]

Originally Posted by M1EK

Demand getting into the core is a huge issue right now - if you bother to read the reports on downtown, you'd already know this - and it's getting worse, not better - even downtown employment growth is headed back up after stagnating for a long time.

The reason Mopac and I-35 are parking lots in the middle of the city during rush hour is because of demand to get into/out of the core. More buses doesn't do anything to solve this unless you can convince people to ride the bus - they are stuck in the same traffic as peoples' cars are. The Red Line can't do jack squat because people have to transfer to shuttlebuses that are stuck in the same traffic the cars are. Only the city's urban rail plan, IFF they get enough reserved guideway, can really increase person-carrying capacity into and out of the core.

Amen to that!

[Austinite]

Originally Posted by M1EK

Demand getting into the core is a huge issue right now - if you bother to read the reports on downtown, you'd already know this - and it's getting worse, not better - even downtown employment growth is headed back up after stagnating for a long time.

The reason Mopac and I-35 are parking lots in the middle of the city during rush hour is because of demand to get into/out of the core. More buses doesn't do anything to solve this unless you can convince people to ride the bus - they are stuck in the same traffic as peoples' cars are. The Red Line can't do jack squat because people have to transfer to shuttlebuses that are stuck in the same traffic the cars are. Only the city's urban rail plan, IFF they get enough reserved guideway, can really increase person-carrying capacity into and out of the core.

I'm not talking about traffic jams on Mopac and I35, which wouldn't be affected at all, even a little bit, in any way, by the proposed, expanded, urban-rail system. Those problems would be addressed, as I suggested near the beginning of this thread, by a non-horrible commuter-rail system rather than the urban-rail one.

Right, so, as I said, I'm talking about doing what the urban-rail system would do: allow more people to get into the core from the edges of the central city and help them move around once they get there.

And, like I said, that isn't a problem here.

[SecretAgentMan]

Originally Posted by Austinite

I'm not talking about traffic jams on Mopac and I35, which wouldn't be affected at all, even a little bit, in any way, by the proposed, expanded, urban-rail system. Those problems would be addressed, as I suggested near the beginning of this thread, by a non-horrible commuter-rail system rather than the urban-rail one.

Right, so, as I said, I'm talking about doing what the urban-rail system would do: allow more people to get into the core from the edges of the central city and help them move around once they get there.

And, like I said, that isn't a problem here.

The link below has a very good discussion about transit and congestion. The point is, it isn't about congestion at all.
http://www.humantransit.org/2010/07/...ongestion.html

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by Austinite

I'm not talking about traffic jams on Mopac and I35, which wouldn't be affected at all, even a little bit, in any way, by the proposed, expanded, urban-rail system. Those problems would be addressed, as I suggested near the beginning of this thread, by a non-horrible commuter-rail system rather than the urban-rail one.

Right, so, as I said, I'm talking about doing what the urban-rail system would do: allow more people to get into the core from the edges of the central city and help them move around once they get there.

And, like I said, that isn't a problem here.

Wrong. Mopac and I-35 back up partially due to the fact that the roads from them into/out of downtown are well above capacity during rush hours. To say nothing of the fact that a driver coming from E Riverside, for instance, might well use I-35 (directly) to get to UT.

They certainly are also a limiting factor - right now no more people can get into the core per hour during rush hour until we build urban rail - which will allow more people to get into the core (may not affect I-35/Mopac at all; but more people will get into the core from places like Mueller or East Riverside than is currently possible on the surface streets or freeways they use). IE, Joe ThinksHesUrban stops driving from Mueller; opening up a space on 51st/Lamar/Guadalupe for Ron RoundRock to get off I-35; opening up a space on I-35 for George Georgetown.