Page Two
By Louis Black, Fri., April 9, 1999
Get in your car around 5:15pm. Drive out to I-35. Sit in your car as you crawl along in stop-and-go traffic. This is the future.
There is nothing on any drawing board that I know of that will improve this situation. If they started building light rail, the outer loop, and expanding I-35 tomorrow, I doubt it would make a noticeable impact on current traffic levels. The build-out time on all these projects would probably move slower than the rate of traffic growth. Light rail alone is predicted to take 20 years to have much impact, and that's after it's finished. And the reality is that none of these projects are even close to beginning. By the time they actually begin, there is little chance they will have much impact on current traffic levels, though they'll probably slow future growth.
You plan transportation for tomorrow and those in charge yesterday did not do enough to prepare for today. Our current transportation problem -- the inner city literally choking on traffic -- is probably with us forever. Traffic is bad for the environment, but otherwise it is an issue of convenience rather than necessity. Alleviating downtown congestion would require an expansive cross-Austin expressway and a massive expansion of MoPac and I-35. Short of that, this traffic is with us. Even significant development of alternative transportation will probably not help.
The thing is, transportation planning should not be looked at as a Band-Aid for current problems, but as a way of imagining the city's future. What is your vision? Endless roads sprawling deeper and deeper into the Hill Country? Paving over the center of Austin for a cross-town expressway? Growing more like Houston, a concrete web of freeways? Much of this is unavoidable, but is it really what we want?
The issues are difficult and there are no easy answers. It is a process of give and take, of moving your city forward by thoughtful legislation. A town like Portland has a strict urban growth limit. Yes, this has made existing housing ever more expensive, driving out the economically marginal population. This sounds terrible. The alternative is to allow sprawling suburban growth that would forever change the nature of the city. These suburbs would attract both upper- and middle-income families, impacting on the character of Portland's inner city, which bursts with vitality and life. The urban growth boundary will, I think, help preserve the integrity and character of Portland long into the future, but at a cost. Is it worth it? I think so.
It is that vision thing. We need city planning that accommodates pedestrian walkways and useable bike paths (the self-righteous posturing of bicyclists is hard to take, but their basic point is right). We need to think about light rail built out in areas where there's sufficient density, and where the city would like to encourage development, and we need commuter rail to San Antonio.
Light rail is always a gamble. We don't build it for its effect in 2000 or 2010 but in 2040. Then it may be effectively servicing new suburban areas and encouraging downtown residential development, or the line may be closed and the cars covered in graffiti, another expensive civic investment failure like the Nuke.
It seems to me that as downtown congestion intensifies over the next half century, alternative means of transportation will gain in viability. Bike paths all over Austin, bike- and pedestrian-friendly development, commuter rail, and a downtown that includes more than cars hardly seems utopian in light of the constant congestion.