AUSTIN | Misc. Discussions - No Politics

[the Genral]

Thanks for the post jdawgboy.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

Per moving the discussion about long term climate in Austin from the update thread to this one, here is the PDF link that I found. I've not come across this before since it was released in 2014 but I'm really glad the city has already addressed this.


https://austintexas.gov/sites/defaul...s_research.pdf


I've studied meteorology and long term climate over the years and based on my own thoughts plus close observation, the city hit the hammer right on the nail. I'm about to get into some heavy technical meteorology stuff so bare with me, I'll try to explain as simply as I can but I won't go into tangents on specifics unless someone has a question. I'll also do my best to keep it moderately short.

One of my big talking points explaining to people why despite 2015 being the wettest year on record across the board not just locally but statewide, we still saw wildfires. 20-30 years ago we wouldn't have seen that. Well simply put, we are seeing too much rain falling in a month's time or over a couple of months then we have extremely dry stretches for a month or longer in between. Add to that an increase in evaporation and we end up with a situation where the soil moisture doesn't last as long as it once did.

Look at what is happening right now with this extended dry spell despite being in an El Niño winter which typically (however not always) is wet to very wet and typically cooler mainly due to extended cloud cover rather than arctic intrusions. Due to unusual planetary patterns occurring in seasons they don't normally occur or during certain climate cycles such as El Niño we are experiencing abnormal weather here as well as throughout the world. A good example is the MJO which normally becomes non existent during El Niños especially moderate to strong ones yet there's been a well developed MJO with this El Niño, a monster of a niño at that. Rather than experiencing winter el niño weather patterns we are seeing weather more in line with what we see during La Niña.

Now there are some other factors which come into play that we have seen occure with past powerful niños which look to be typical with really poweful ones. One analog which has been mentioned being similar to this niño is the 57-58 niño in which we started with an very wet spring followed by a very dry summer and early autumn then a wet period from the last half of October through the first week of January then drying out through most of Febuary before the rains returned at the end of February with a cooler wetter spring following. Sure there are times when patterns align with past patterns. The difference now as opposed to then is the overall temperature is higher now and we experienced more extreme conditions as opposed to 57-58. Now will we continue to align with that analog going into spring this year? It's quite possible and there are indications that we will finally see a pattern shift by next weekend. Having said that, we can't just assume historical analogs will continue to be used in helping to forecast future patterns. They will become less useful.

So at least according to those projections, it seems that the water supply won't be a constraint on Austin's further growth.

More work might be necessary to store a more intermittent supply, but the total volume necessary will be there. Add on all the re-use scenarios currently not used in Austin, as well as the potential for less per-capita usage, and the water will be there as long as we're willing to pay for it.

[Jdawgboy]

Originally Posted by Novacek

So at least according to those projections, it seems that the water supply won't be a constraint on Austin's further growth.

More work might be necessary to store a more intermittent supply, but the total volume necessary will be there. Add on all the re-use scenarios currently not used in Austin, as well as the potential for less per-capita usage, and the water will be there as long as we're willing to pay for it.

One thing to keep in mind though is despite rainfall expected to generally stay in the same ballpark for Austin itself, that won't necessarily be the case 100-200 miles west of us. Our location is what's saving us, in this case being right on the Balcones Escarpment and reasonable distance from the gulf coast, which will move inland closer to us over time. The problem for us is obvious. Look at where the Highland Lake Chain is.

As annual rainfall across west Texas icluding the western half of the hill county begins to decrease, the result will be less water running off into the Upper Colorado River basin. We've seen several instances of what is becoming the norm where we have massive amounts of rainfall right along the Balcones Uplift dumping 5-10+ inches flooding Austin and areas east but go 10-20 miles to the west of the Balcones and very little rainfall. Doesn't help filling the lakes. The highland lakes are useful in controlling flooding upstream from coming into Austin, however had the state and LCRA considered long term water sustainability at the time, they should have built a couple of dams to the east of Austin to catch the rainfall over this area. Now when it floods, all of that water washes away down the river until it reaches the gulf. They are making a new lake but I'm not sure if any of that water will be used by Austin.

Also take into account the number of days over 100 degrees is increasing, that will suck out soil moisture very quickly. Add that rainfall will no longer be distributed evenly throughout the year and you come to realize we will need more years with above or way above average just to sustain what we have now.

Then there's the aquifer to consider. Right now it's doing well and you can see the results of that by going to the Greenbelt and seeing Barton Creek flowing. Other creeks and hill country rivers are flowing despite this prolonged dry spell. But if we see more frequent low aquifer levels, these vital waterways across the hill country will dry out more often.

When it comes down to it none of the scenarios are that great for us. They could be worse but what would be better is if annual rainfall increases along with the temperatures.

[drummer]

Nation Comes To Halt To Watch Crane Move Massive Concrete Tube

NEW YORK—Stopping dead in their tracks and pausing to take in the scene unfolding above them, the entire country reportedly came to a halt Thursday morning to watch an industrial crane move a massive concrete tube across a construction site.

http://http://www.theonion.com/article/nation-comes-halt-watch-crane-move-massive-concret-52624

[the Genral]

Originally Posted by drummer

http://http://www.theonion.com/article/nation-comes-halt-watch-crane-move-massive-concret-52624

Dang drummer, made me look...2 minutes of my life I'll never get back.

[drummer]

Originally Posted by the Genral

Dang drummer, made me look...2 minutes of my life I'll never get back.

I just thought it was appropriate for this thread.

[drummer]

So, here is an article talking about whether or not city centers should be car-free, or perhaps partially so. What would you guys think of this in downtown Austin? Obviously it is entirely impractical currently, but in the future? Okay, distant future? Dream with me here.

Here's the article:
http://www.bbc.com/autos/story/20160...ities-ban-cars

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by drummer

So, here is an article talking about whether or not city centers should be car-free, or perhaps partially so. What would you guys think of this in downtown Austin? Obviously it is entirely impractical currently, but in the future? Okay, distant future? Dream with me here.

Here's the article:
http://www.bbc.com/autos/story/20160...ities-ban-cars

I'm not sure I'd want an outright ban. I'd rather the government help the market to capture the externalities with a tax/fee (like the London congestion charge). Then that revenue could be used to mitigate the effects (transit and environmental improvements).

[wwmiv]

What we could do is institute TX-Tag style electronic tolling on all major roads leading into and out of downtown that can be utilized during peak hours and use that revenue to fund transportation improvements throughout the core. I'd exempt uber/lyft/ride-sharing service registered cars (maybe this gives us the leverage that we can use to convince them to cave on background checks?) and have a registration system for workers and residents downtown so that they wouldn't have to pay either, or pay less. What you'd essentially be doing is removing incidental traffic from downtown during peak hours, thus reducing congestion and improving the flow of traffic into downtown for workers and businesses and improving the quality of life for downtown residents as well. By only tolling during peak hours, you'd also incentivize people to shift when they might go to work if you only exempt workers who ride share, thus anyone who doesn't want to pay but also doesn't want to ride share would shift their commute time to earlier or later to avoid missing tolled hours. Thus resulting in a more equitable temporal distribution of traffic. You'd also, if you had light rail or some other rail or bus component that is cheaper to use than the toll, heavily incentivize shifting commutes onto those systems. Thus also reducing traffic. If you also exempt certain residents geographically (see the black overlay) you incentivize denser development within the core, as you would increase demand to live in non-tolled areas.

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?m...NU&usp=sharing

[drummer]

I agree on a lot of points from Novacek and wwmiv. An outright ban for Austin wouldn't be the answer. Of course, anything that points to folks not being able to drive downtown at any time would be seen in a poor light in Texas. They'd claim their public roads that were paid for with public funds are being stollen from them, etc. (same argument against tolling Mopac, for instance, even though the toll lanes are new additions). I also agree that some of the major roads during peak hours could be beneficial - and this is not a unique idea. Studies showing how other cities have done it might be helpful in communicating this.

Regarding quality of life and pollution, I think it would be good to consider something of this nature. It could be customized to Austin's needs of course - no need to copy Paris, London, or Mexico City...or even Beijing's every other day method (which, I can speak from experience, doesn't make all that much of a difference).

I don't know much about the Uber/Lyft stuff since I'm not in the U.S. much, but I've seen headlines. I do think that a combination of personal cars, ride sharing, mass transit (regular buses, BRT, light rail, *subway?*) would be the answer.

If gas isn't $24/gallon, I'm not sure what other than tolls or additional traffic rules would change lifestyles of driving in Austin.

[Tech House]

wwmiv's outline of a zonal fee, with its necessary and absurdly complex set of exemptions, had me gasping as I read it. But if I just take it in the spirit of "brainstorming" where there's no such thing as a bad idea, then I can calmly say "wwmiv, have you lost your mind?!?" This would be a nightmare to implement and enforce.

We've always had a very simple solution for transportation funding, externalities, and incentives ---- excise taxes. Texas has an insanely low gas tax. If we'd been taxing at the levels that are commonplace in Europe, we'd have been able to afford adequate freeways and public transit. But our miserable political class looks upon the word "tax" with the same nuanced affection they have for mass murder.

We drive too much because we don't pay directly for negative externalities. Gas is too cheap, cars are too cheap, roads are too cheap. Buses are too expensive, rail is too expensive. In order to fix this, we have to internalized externalities and we've known for at least a century, at least implicitly, that the best way to do this is to increase the price of transactions that generate negative externalities by taxing them, and then subsidizing transactions that generate positive externalities.

Of course the establishing of taxes and subsidies is a nightmarishly complicated and politicized process as well, so I guess my final conclusion to this gloomy comment is that life is nightmarishly complex, and we're all going to die imminently. Enjoy!

[hereinaustin]

The simple solution is to have managed toll lanes, which are effectively similar to wwmiv's suggestion: pay more during rush hour, pay a lot less during off-peak times. Managed toll lanes are the only sustainable way to build freeway lanes because they pay for themselves. Buses and carpools should obviously be free to use these lanes.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Tech House

This would be a nightmare to implement and enforce.

But it's already been done, in London.

Originally Posted by Tech House

We've always had a very simple solution for transportation funding, externalities, and incentives ---- excise taxes. Texas has an insanely low gas tax. If we'd been taxing at the levels that are commonplace in Europe, we'd have been able to afford adequate freeways and public transit. But our miserable political class looks upon the word "tax" with the same nuanced affection they have for mass murder.

We drive too much because we don't pay directly for negative externalities. Gas is too cheap, cars are too cheap, roads are too cheap. Buses are too expensive, rail is too expensive. In order to fix this, we have to internalized externalities and we've known for at least a century, at least implicitly, that the best way to do this is to increase the price of transactions that generate negative externalities by taxing them, and then subsidizing transactions that generate positive externalities.

Of course the establishing of taxes and subsidies is a nightmarishly complicated and politicized process as well, so I guess my final conclusion to this gloomy comment is that life is nightmarishly complex, and we're all going to die imminently. Enjoy!

Raising gas taxes would be better than nothing, but it's never been better than a gross adjustment, and doesn't really capture fine grained distinctions.

1. You pay the same gas tax, even though the damage caused to roads doesn't scale the same way as efficiency (semis and heavy trucks use only like 4 times as much gas as a economy car, but do orders of magnitude more damage).
2. You pay the same gas tax (basically, city vs. highway mileage) to drive a cheap to build country road and an expensive tunneled highway (which had to be tunneled because there was no more room).
3. You pay the same gas tax to drive in ozone non-attainment zones and elsewhere.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Novacek

But it's already been done, in London.

Some more info:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_congestion_charge

https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/congestion-charge

Now, whether Texans/Austinites would support all the license plate readers is of course a question, but the actual implementation and enforcement is relatively easy on a technical level.

[Jdawgboy]

I actually think it would penalize Downtown and discourage people who may not live or work DT but want to go shopping or simply sight see from going. It could also shift growth out of the desirable areas like DT to the outer areas of the city which would ultimately reverse what we are trying to acheive in terms of a dense centralized population.

The argument to my point is that many people already avoid DT because of the ever increasing congestion.

Your idea is not a bad one wwmiv, I think it just needs to cover other aspects besides singling out DT alone. Why not incentivize alternate forms of transportation for people who live in the suburbs while making it less cost effective in personal car use? It's the people who live farther out that create the congestion within the core. I don't see our central city population by itself causing problems since a reasonable percentage take mass transit, use car to go, Uber or taxi, bicycle and walk.

Of course in order to do that, there needs to be more alternative transit options for the suburbs to begin with. We don't want to simply toll those people without providing those who are low income and would normally live within Austin but have been priced out of the city. It may sound harsh but for people who prefer suburban life, they should have to pay more not less. It's not just about transportation, it's also about the environment. That money could then be used for mass transportation projects and extensions.

Anywho I'm just throwing things out there. I'm sure there's issues with my idea that I haven't considered but this is a good discussion to have and hey, any idea can have aspects that could be used even if the overall idea may not be the best.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

I actually think it would penalize Downtown and discourage people who may not live or work DT but want to go shopping or simply sight see from going.

How many people shop or sight-see 9-5 M-F ?

You just do the tolls/congestion charges then (and during football games).

[lzppjb]

Originally Posted by Tech House

wwmiv's outline of a zonal fee, with its necessary and absurdly complex set of exemptions, had me gasping as I read it. But if I just take it in the spirit of "brainstorming" where there's no such thing as a bad idea, then I can calmly say "wwmiv, have you lost your mind?!?" This would be a nightmare to implement and enforce.

We've always had a very simple solution for transportation funding, externalities, and incentives ---- excise taxes. Texas has an insanely low gas tax. If we'd been taxing at the levels that are commonplace in Europe, we'd have been able to afford adequate freeways and public transit. But our miserable political class looks upon the word "tax" with the same nuanced affection they have for mass murder.

We drive too much because we don't pay directly for negative externalities. Gas is too cheap, cars are too cheap, roads are too cheap. Buses are too expensive, rail is too expensive. In order to fix this, we have to internalized externalities and we've known for at least a century, at least implicitly, that the best way to do this is to increase the price of transactions that generate negative externalities by taxing them, and then subsidizing transactions that generate positive externalities.

Of course the establishing of taxes and subsidies is a nightmarishly complicated and politicized process as well, so I guess my final conclusion to this gloomy comment is that life is nightmarishly complex, and we're all going to die imminently. Enjoy!

I'm totally against your main point.

But I do think we could raise the gas tax some. Keeping all that money in the fund was a good start.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Tech House

wwmiv's outline of a zonal fee, with its necessary and absurdly complex set of exemptions, had me gasping as I read it. But if I just take it in the spirit of "brainstorming" where there's no such thing as a bad idea, then I can calmly say "wwmiv, have you lost your mind?!?" This would be a nightmare to implement and enforce.

We've always had a very simple solution for transportation funding, externalities, and incentives ---- excise taxes. Texas has an insanely low gas tax. If we'd been taxing at the levels that are commonplace in Europe, we'd have been able to afford adequate freeways and public transit. But our miserable political class looks upon the word "tax" with the same nuanced affection they have for mass murder.

We drive too much because we don't pay directly for negative externalities. Gas is too cheap, cars are too cheap, roads are too cheap. Buses are too expensive, rail is too expensive. In order to fix this, we have to internalized externalities and we've known for at least a century, at least implicitly, that the best way to do this is to increase the price of transactions that generate negative externalities by taxing them, and then subsidizing transactions that generate positive externalities.

Of course the establishing of taxes and subsidies is a nightmarishly complicated and politicized process as well, so I guess my final conclusion to this gloomy comment is that life is nightmarishly complex, and we're all going to die imminently. Enjoy!

Except things like this have been done and worked. Thank you very much. Get over yourself.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

I actually think it would penalize Downtown and discourage people who may not live or work DT but want to go shopping or simply sight see from going. It could also shift growth out of the desirable areas like DT to the outer areas of the city which would ultimately reverse what we are trying to acheive in terms of a dense centralized population.

The argument to my point is that many people already avoid DT because of the ever increasing congestion.

Your idea is not a bad one wwmiv, I think it just needs to cover other aspects besides singling out DT alone. Why not incentivize alternate forms of transportation for people who live in the suburbs while making it less cost effective in personal car use? It's the people who live farther out that create the congestion within the core. I don't see our central city population by itself causing problems since a reasonable percentage take mass transit, use car to go, Uber or taxi, bicycle and walk.

Of course in order to do that, there needs to be more alternative transit options for the suburbs to begin with. We don't want to simply toll those people without providing those who are low income and would normally live within Austin but have been priced out of the city. It may sound harsh but for people who prefer suburban life, they should have to pay more not less. It's not just about transportation, it's also about the environment. That money could then be used for mass transportation projects and extensions.

Anywho I'm just throwing things out there. I'm sure there's issues with my idea that I haven't considered but this is a good discussion to have and hey, any idea can have aspects that could be used even if the overall idea may not be the best.

I think my point was that it would only work when paired with an aggressive public transportation system, so that people could get into the core without taxation.

[Tech House]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Except things like this have been done and worked. Thank you very much. Get over yourself.

I read your proposal again to see if I could grasp it on second reading. Nope. That doesn't mean anything more than what it says --- that i can't personally wrap my head around it. I can't follow most of Novacek's rail discussions either. Next time there's a transportation bond measure, I'll just have to guess the right answer because the pro and con arguments are too much for me. I'm a little dense, but I thought you guys were pro-density so that shouldn't be an issue.