Reply With Quote
And what good exactly are strict (which is argueable, speak to any geologist about how strict and how effective they actually are) regulations that aren't enforceable?
I'm talking about in general.
And what good exactly are strict (which is argueable, speak to any geologist about how strict and how effective they actually are) regulations that aren't enforceable?
Yeah dude, havne't made fun of your ideas in quite some time. I made fun of you when you made fun of Tpark, but if you throw stones don't be suprised to have them come back.
Toll roads, when effectively utilized, have a tremendous effect of reducing traffic congestion.
I'm gonna have to agree with this having witnessed this first hand with Orange County, CA traffic.
The only toll road on that map that gets bumper to bumper traffic is the 91 freeway going out towards Riverside and that's because only one lane is toll. The rest is just regular freeway. The toll land eventually turns into a carpool lane.
I've never been in bumper to bumper traffic on the other ones and in that area it's always bumper to bumper.
Okay... I'll hit these briefly; I need to get up early tomorrow.
First, anybody with half a brain can look at hill country (recharge zone) land or flat treeless land in other areas of the city and realize that the hill country land is more desireable; and that all things being equal, individuals and companies will both prefer the recharge zone land. Let's assume for a moment that your supposition that city staff and politicians didn't think that there would be growth in that area. (Despite the fact that major major growth drivers were already set up prior to the late nineties explosion: UTSA; USAA; the medical center; LaCantera and Fiesta Texas. These aren't infill projects; they are the economic engines that drive growth at a city, a regional level.) Assuming you are right and the City just didn't think any growth would happen just proves my original point - that the city did nothing to help steer growth away from the most sensitive areas, despite the fact that the evidence was clear as day that there would be growth there.
Second, as a proponent of planning/development, terms which it seems to me you often use interchangeably, I would think that you would be familiar with the concept of planned growth and desired development zones. The "it's not the city's fault people want to live there" argument doesn't hold a drop of water. In fact, that is the kind of trite, insipid rhetoric that comes out of the mouths of state Legislators at the same time they are trying every legislative session to weaken or dismantle the most effective tools cities have to control growth. Your arguement is akin to people saying "It's not our fault kids want to eat junk food all the time and stay up late - we might as well just let them do it." That statement would be called out by most responsible parents as a complete abdication of parental responsibilities. Sometimes you have to make your kids eat their vegatables and go to bed. Sometimes the kids throw a fit about it. That doesn't mean you give up, because you know that children need to eat right and get enough sleep to develop into healthy adults. There are plenty of ways the City can get growth and development forces to "eat their vegatables" - try to funnel growth away from the recharge zone or limt it. Will it work all of the time? No. But it would work a whole lot better than none of the time, which is what the City had been doing untill recently.
1. A stated policy of discouraging major employers locating on or near recharge zone land, coupled with an identified desired development zone where development is welcomed and encouraged with incentives for major employers like waivers of permit and impact fees, and most importantly, reduced taxes.
2. The science has been around for at least fifteen years that reductions in impervious cover limits are the only 100% effective ways to limit development's effects on the Edwards. The City should have acted fifteen years ago to limit impervious cover in all watersheds that drain to the recharge zone. The City should also have established that sedimentation/filtration water quality ponds be built to catch and treat the stormwater runoff from parking lots prior to the runoff leaving a site and filtering down and recharging the aquifer.
3. The city should ban the use and sale of certain types of fertilizers in the recharge zone and in a five mile buffer around it. Excess fertilizer and pesticied runoff from neighborhoods contribute as much or more to aquifer pollution that your HEB or Wal-Mart parking lot runoff.
Third, with respect to the new strict restrictions: last I heard, there hasn't been a single significant project built that has complied with the new ordinances. And it was San Antonio's city staff playing fast and loose with the ordinance that made such a mess in the legislature this session with expanding grandfathering bills. For instance, San Antonio's very own Jeff Wentworth sponsored legislation that was passed and signed into law that made it much easier to grandfather out of tree preservation ordinances. The staff needs to be able to go by the letter of the ordinance, not the individual review's interpretation of what the ordinance intended. Plus, the San Antonio's new ordinances, while stricter on issues of design standards, walkability, etc. are actually not strict enough in certain key environmental areas, and are also lacking in certain common sense areas as well. For instance, right now you don't get credit towards trees you are required to plant for preservation of existing trees on a site.
Last edited by Mark in Austin; 07-06-2005 at 03:41 AM.
Of course they reduce congestion, everyone AVOIDS them because they don't want to pay the toll! I never said they didn't. The negatives, which are enhanced greatly do to the charateristics of San Antonio, far out weigh the positives.
Many more poeple who live in SA wil avoid the tolls than is average. That leads to alternate roads and pathways being influxed with traffic. These roads won't be able to handle that traffic. I'm talking about short cuts though neighborhoods and commercial streets that will be severally damaged. Who will pay for those repairs? Who wants their area to be cut through by everyone avoiding the tolls?
Why do we not have enough funding for road improvements? Are taxes not high enough? Could we pass bonds or raise taxes to pay for such improvements? How about another "VIA" tax?
Is there not enough construction in San Antonio right now? Instead of having just the roads that actually need repairs stifled with construction clogs, miles of perfectly good roads will be sufficated with toll road construction for the next 15 years. I know that nothing's better for the enviroment than tons of traffic slowed to a halt at a construction zone. There is also nothing better than people slowing down and speeding up to stop at toll booths.
I don't like this toll proposal one bit.
Why do you think more people on average in San Antonio are going to avoid the Toll Roads?
The same reason why more people in SA don't have car insurance. We have more people living below the poverty line. I doubt that someone that doesn't get their vehicle inspection sticker is going to want to have to start paying tolls. SA is a big city in small city clothing.
Well sure, But I wonder what the demographics are north of IH10, the same place they are putting most of these toll roads. I don't see many hoopties using 1604 on the northside.
I doubt that many people would mind paying tolls until the project is paid for, but it almost never works out that way. Once a government finds a flow of $$, they don't let it go.
I think that there were some tollways in Dallas that were funded by tolls and became public roads once paid for.
I thought it was Texas law that once a Toll Road has it's construction costs paid for it is made into a regular public road?
All I can say is that there had better be an EZPass system for all this .
I don't think so... shouldn't Sam Houston Tollway/Loop 8 around Houston already be paid for? I think that they are planning on putting the income into a construction slush fund (probably that they can raid for other purposes).
Even so, the people who don't want to pay will clog up the non-toll lanes and then what? We have lanes that are clogged causing smog, and other new lanes that have few cars on them being used inefficiently. Sounds great?
No kidding - Sam Houston tollway is a joke - I've watched the tolls get more and more expensive as the years go on - and now it's up to $1.50 if I remember correctly. I know it's at least $1.25.
How so? They are adding new lanes to the highways and making them toll. So the existing highways will still be there.
There will be an increase of traffic in other areas, but what you can expect is a better distrobution of it.
Either Capitalism works or it doesn't. You people can't champion it when you want and then ignore it when you don't want it. Value is being assigned to these routes for a reason.
I have the feeling that in the end some existing lanes will be used as toll lanes. Obstructions such as overpasses, proximity of existing lanes, etc. will make addition of extra lanes not cost effective. Of course, they won't say this up front, and may do everything to avoid it, but the $'s they hear calling their name will cause them to do it.
And having the government involved in capitalist enterprizes for profit is similar to "national socialism". Exhibit A : GBRA (Guadalupe & Blanco River Authority), who runs Canyon Lake, s everyone downstream, and is taking steps to be in the private water business.
They are adding new lanes that will only be barely used. Toll lanes that aren't bridges or tunnels are hardly ever used at an efficient capacity. So now we will have over crowding on the existing lanes, with toll lanes right next to them that are hardly used. Get the picture? And by the time that the toll lanes are ready to be used, traffic will be even worse!
I doubt traffic will be distributed better. How will people forcing their way through side streets and alternate routes be better for traffic? How does slowing down the flow for all, just so a few can ride unimpeeded on a toll lane help? The rich will the ones with their own private highways, while poor will be shoved onto the older existing roads. Sounds even better.
You forgot to include the cheap bas s.The rich will the ones with their own private highways, while poor will be shoved onto the older existing roads.
rich and poor.
Sorry man, it's not black and white like that.
It's not just rich and poor. There's classes inbteween.
North of 410, where these tolls are going up, you have a avg. income of about 60,000. That's middle class. Then you get further north past 1604 and that's upper class with Stone Oak, Sonterra Park, The Dominion, Shavano Park (although south of 1604), and all the little upper-class subdivions.
This isn't I-35 by Burbank. That place gets gridlock with cars at rush hour, but TXDOT doesn't even have plans to widen that freeway, let alone add tolls. Wonder why?
I know your cynical, and you think the toll is bad. But for the northside, it's a damn good thing next to lightrail.
You're right Chris. I have no clue why Toll Roads are successfull in other places. Must be just luck.
I dunno, Chris. It's working in Orange County where the traffic is a gazillon times worse than it will ever be here. If it can work there, it can work anywhere.
i'm already poor!!!
and i love this little guy
The 410/281 Fourstack Interchange is finally under construction.
-------------------------------------
Patrick Driscoll
Express-News Staff Writer
Work began today on a four-level interchange at Loop 410 and U.S. 281 on the North Side, an infamous crossing that has fueled tales of boneheaded road planning for almost three decades because it never had an interchange.
The $155 million project is expected to take three years.
“The congestion at this intersection is legendary and has been a barrier to economic development," said John Montford, chairman of the Greater San Antonio Chamber of Commerce.
"This will be a vital project for improving mobility," said Mayor Phil Hardberger.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions