14-Lane Superhighway Planned for Oak Hill Main Street
Richard Aleksander
officials (chaired by Sen. Barrientos), considers a plan to build a
superhighway over U.S. 290 (extension of Austin, Texas' S. Lamar
Boulevard). The road as planned more than quadruples the current width
of pavement. It adds grade-elevated roadway more than thirty feet into
the air. Some of the existing real estate in Oak Hill includes
historically designated buildings and lots of local, small businesses.
The plan has drawn the intense interest of at least a handful of groups.
The Texas Department of Transportation deeply wants to see this road
built and has even pushed forward its scheduled consideration and execution.
Local residents and business people have expressed reservations over what
the road could do to their community. See letter from a community leader
which follows.
Alternate Transportation activists of which the poster is a member, want
to see a scaled down plan accommodating arterial/through traffic in center
lanes at grade level, with access to slower lanes to the outside. Kind
of a parkway plan a la the Champs Elyse in Paris. The current road is
five lanes including a center turn lane.
The new road would have an environmental impact as the
area is directly over the Edwards Aquifer Recharge zone, which feeds
Barton Springs and (ultimately), Austin's water supply. The planned
road lays a concrete ribbon 350 feet wide and miles long. The current
road is about 70 feet wide. The last time TexDOT did a project in this
area, limestone and soil eroded into Barton Creek.
This huge road also potentially feeds the current tendency for more
single passenger car trips traversing longer distance and resulting in
more pollution and congestion. Urban sprawl, the net outmigration
of inner city residents to the outskirts, taking with them the city tax
base, may be one side-effect of this road.
I believe this topic is relevant to the newsgroups to which I am posting
this and welcome any discussion about solving a highly contentious problem.
Here's the history of the project as told by a community leader:
On Fri,
25 Aug 1995, Mary K Isaacs wrote:
>
> Hello, Richard,
>
>
> Some history: This monstro project was first dreamed up over ten years
> ago by TxDoT, and met with considerable opposition in the community. It
> kept being brought up over the years, and kept not being funded.
> Finally, a few years ago, the rest of the 290 project being funded,
> coupled with the explosive population growth in Oak Hill and the expected
> move of the airport to Bergstrom, prompted them to begin the process of
> funding and condemnations.
>
> The eminent domain process was vigorously fought by the Oak Hill business
> community, and was disastrous in its results. Even though most of the
> properties were taken to court for reconsideration, which almost in every
> case resulted in increased awards, none of the businesses I know of could
> afford to buy property to relocate here. Some rented in someone else's
> building, some chopped off the front half of their businesses and are
> trying to operate with what they have left, some left altogether. The
> combination of big legal fees to fight the process and the SOS ordinance
> being in effect at that time left them without adequate resources to buy
> the very large pieces of land which would have been necessary to rebuild.
>
> As it stands now, only the first section of right-of-way acquisition is
> completed, and has laid waste to that part of Oak Hill. Farther down,
> the process has begun, and is having the same blighting effect. Rocky
> Hernandez, owner of the Acapulco Restaurante at William Cannon, is
> extremely concerned that he will lose almost all of the 30% of his business
> that results from impulse stops when there's a bypass 30 feet above grade
> running by his property. I tend to think he's right.
>
> So, the short answer is that it's been hurry-up-and-wait for a long time;
> now it's hurry-up-and-get-out-of-the-way. Once they decided to get on
> with it, it's been greased.
>
> As far as Oak Hill is concerned, when the project moved to a front
> burner, we got involved to try to modify it to allow SOME access and
> egress for the community. After very intensive lobbying from a diverse,
> wide-ranging and vocal group (including, in the end, some negative press),
> TxDoT agreed to add one exit ramp, westbound, so as not to strangle ALL
> the remaining business, and one entrance ramp, eastbound, so as not to
> incarcerate half of Oak Hill on the "access" roads.
>
> And the feeling after those successes is currently pretty much that we've
> taken our bitter pill, so let's get on with it. There was an encouraging
> shift in that attitude at the meeting this week, and I'm pretty hopeful
> it can shift more with more information about what else we could do that
> would help move the enormous influx of people we expect over the next 2-5
> years.
>
> Later, Mary K.
Again, any suggestions or comments appreciated.
Richard Aleksander
artd...@eden.com
512 Rio Grande St.
Austin, Texas 78701
512/478-5146
fax/478-2274
>
>
>
>
Gene Crick
Richard Aleksander <artd...@eden.com> wrote:
>Sept. 11, the Austin Transportation Study, composed of local elected
>officials (chaired by Sen. Barrientos), considers a plan to build a
>superhighway over U.S. 290 (extension of Austin, Texas' S. Lamar
>Boulevard). The road as planned more than quadruples the current width
>of pavement.
>
>
>This huge road also potentially feeds the current tendency for more
>single passenger car trips traversing longer distance and resulting in
>more pollution and congestion.
.....
>Again, any suggestions or comments appreciated.
>
>Richard Aleksander
Richard,
You might be interested to know that at the same meeting, we (a report
team sponsored by the Austin Software Council and invited by the ATS)
will also be presenting a preliminary report to recommend inclusion of
telecommuting as a part of the transportation planning for the next 25
years. We consider it simply inconceivable that transportation leaders
will pursue the 7.5 billion dollar AMATP without encouraging telecommuting
as one partial answer to the congestion demand and traffic crisis we face.
As an all-volunteer group working with no budget we won't be attempting to
tell the Policy Advisory Committee what the ultimate answer should be. But
we will be urging them to consider telecommuting as one valuable tool for
managing growing transportation demands in a manner best for Austin.
[And we can use all the ideas and support people out there can offer.]
I urge you not to sell the PAC short - while the many members have different
views and biases, people like Senator Barrientos make me feel they are truly
willing to listen and consider every viewpoint as they try to find answers.
(I will admit the notion of Oak Hill becoming like Houston's Loop 610 is not
a pleasant prospect to consider. I understand your concern.)
Gene Crick
leader, Austin Software Council Telecommuting Report Committee
gcr...@sqi.utexas.edu
Richard Aleksander
On 3 Sep 1995, Gene Crick wrote:
> In article <Pine.BSD/.3.91.9509021959...@matrix.eden.com>,
> Richard Aleksander <artd...@eden.com> wrote:
> >Sept. 11, the Austin Transportation Study, composed of local elected
> >officials (chaired by Sen. Barrientos), considers a plan to build a
> >superhighway over U.S.290 (extension of Austin, Texas' S. Lamar
> >Boulevard). The road asplanned more than quadruples the current width
> >of pavement.
> >This huge road also potentially feeds the current tendency for more
> >single passenger car tripstraversing longer distance and resulting in
> >more pollution and congestion.
> ..... >
(Gene responded):>
> Richard, >
> You might be interested to know that at the same meeting, we (a report
> team sponsored by the Austin Software Council and invited by the ATS)
> will also bepresenting a preliminary report to recommend inclusion of
> telecommuting as a part of the transportation planning for the next 25
> years. We consider it simply inconceivable that transportation leaders
> will pursuethe 7.5 billion dollar AMATP without encouraging telecommuting
> as one partial answer to the congestion demand and traffic crisis we face.
>
> We will be urging them to consider telecommuting as one valuable tool for
> managing growing transportation demands in a manner best for Austin.
>
[And we can use all the ideas and support people out there can offer.]
>
>
<snip, snip>
> (I will admit the notion of Oak Hill becoming like Houston's Loop 610 is
not > a pleasant prospect to consider. I understand your concern.) > >
Gene Crick > leader, Austin Software Council Telecommuting Report
Committee > gcr...@sqi.utexas.edu >
Gene, it is my understanding that telecommuting can cause people to move
further from work, so that those who build big roads will suggest new
roads are necessary to serve people living in outlying areas. Sort of
reversing the mechanism and coming up with the same result.
Then the telecommuters come back into town in their automobiles for
shopping, culture, etc, adding to congestion and pollution... If only we
could locate stores and culture next to where people (including
telecommuters) live.
But that would take planning on the part of regional government to
overcome the NIMBY choruses of neighborhood groups operating against their
own interest. And of course, since, here in Texas, we have market-based,
spot planning, the closest we come to planning is paternalistic highway
engineers making all the decisions and planning land gobbling road
construction.
Gene Crick
Richard Aleksander <artd...@eden.com> wrote:
>
>
>On 3 Sep 1995, Gene Crick wrote:
>Gene, it is my understanding that telecommuting can cause people to move
>further from work, so that those who build big roads will suggest new
>roads are necessary to serve people living in outlying areas. Sort of
>reversing the mechanism and coming up with the same result.
>
Hi Richard,
My hope is that telecommuting can be used to move people CLOSER to work,
right at their modems. This might reduce the traffic counts which are
the basic unit of measure for highway planners.
>Then the telecommuters come back into town in their automobiles for
>shopping, culture, etc, adding to congestion and pollution... If only we
>could locate stores and culture next to where people (including
>telecommuters) live.
>
Well, I'm hip deep in this research right this minute and found a surprise
about that. Yes, in some studies increased telecommuting did NOT reduce
the number of trips, as in to Austin from outlying areas. But it DID cut
down on congestion and pollution! Paradox? The trips were no longer in
rush hour jams: less waiting, quicker travel time, less congestion and
pollution.
As for locating services and attractions out closer to residents, to some
extent that will happen and to some extent it will never happen. Basic
services will always follow markets as residential areas grow. But magnet
attractions like football stadia and major libraries, etc. will remain in
a central location. ANd I don't entirely oppose that. Suburbs are great,
but I don't want the city of Austin surrounded entirely by non-taxable
rings of suburbs to the extent the core city starts dying. And that is a
major concern (if not loudly voiced) of many urban planners. I don't know
enough to give a complete answer. But I have started to learn enough that
I recognize how important this question is.
So I think telecommuting is a modest but worthy step in a good direction.
I hope the ATS leaders, after hearing the considerations, will agree!
See you at ATS Monday!
gene
Richard Aleksander
emissions and pollution?
Gene Crick
In article <Pine.BSD/.3.91.9509041003...@matrix.eden.com>,
Richard Aleksander <artd...@eden.com> wrote:
>(Not wanting to nitpick, but) How do off-peak trips cut down on the
>emissions and pollution?
"Aha!" (he cries, tripping over a stack of research his wife told him to
to damn well get out of her living room)... "the difference is DURATION."
Off-peak trips don't take nearly as long.
Going 20 miles down MoPac during an off-peak time might take 25 minutes?
at full legal speed. (Or 6 minutes is you're a UT student in a Miata.)
BUT going the same 20 mile downs MoPark (the rush hour freeway) at snail
pace takes MUCH, much longer. So even though the total miles driven are
equal, the amount of engine-running, gas-belching, smog-making emission
produced is much greater.
later,
gene
ref
My God. This, coupled with the proposed bridge across Lake
Travis (Lago Vista to Pace Bend Park), would turn the entire
Highway 71 corridor into another US183.
I've been in Austin since 1971, and I've watched it slowly die, as
these corporate maggots eat away at its very soul.
Ron Morgan
r...@bga.com
l
King Neptune
Could you elaborate on Corporate Maggots eating away at its
very soul......
Change can not be stopped. It can be slowed down, but never
stopped....Good luck..
/NEP ;-)
Amy Rupp
>
>
>On 3 Sep 1995, Gene Crick wrote:
>
>
>> Richard Aleksander <artd...@eden.com> wrote:
>
> > >This huge road also potentially feeds the current tendency for more
> > >more pollution and congestion.
>
>Gene, it is my understanding that telecommuting can cause people to move
>further from work, so that those who build big roads will suggest new
>roads are necessary to serve people living in outlying areas. Sort of
>reversing the mechanism and coming up with the same result.
I live near Oak Hill. Both my husband and I used to work in Oak Hill; our
commute was less than 5 minutes and it took longer to walk into the buliding
than to drive to the plant.
However, our jobs changed, and now we work at the opposite end of town.
Just after moving into our new house, my entire department was eliminated.
So I've *joined* my husband in the commute, but having to accomodate child
care needs means hitting the traffic when everyone else does, thus adding
to wasted gas and time. If we drive to cars, we have more flexibility to split
pick-up and drop-off, but we double the gas and mileage.
I've *never* seen the fact that people don't or can't stay at the same physical
job location for years. Either they could choose to leave, be laid off, or perhaps
the business could relocate. Should someone have to sell their house every
time they change jobs, in order to be closer to work? And in Austin, for
example, the high-tech industry is concentrated in one relatively small
geographic area; if all the workers lived in that area, the traffic congestion
would be unreal.
If everything were closer together, then that would not be an issue; but you cannot
have everything close together without high, high density (and impervious cover,
etc.) and all the problems that go with that.
I don't believe that telecommuting would encourage people to live way out.
People *already do* live way out; I've got coworkers as far away as San
Antonio and Marble Falls!
>Then the telecommuters come back into town in their automobiles for
>shopping, culture, etc, adding to congestion and pollution... If only we
>could locate stores and culture next to where people (including
>telecommuters) live.
Well, here's the sticky part: the niche stores that we all love require
a fairly good sized population to support, which is why you are not
going to find Central Market in Bastrop (for example). Same goes for
the arts (can every city afford a quality opera?) and places like Barton
Springs. Every major city has some beloved qualities that would be
impossible or financially unfeasible to replicate in every community.
Can we put a McDonald's in every subdivision? Almost certainly. But
could we put, say, a Fonda San Miguel, or Zoot, or Chez Nous, or ...
if you look at the truly distinctive stores and restaurants, they are
centrally located because they *have* to be.
I'd certainly like more infrastructure near my home so I wouldn't have
to drive. I already do plan my trips and weekends around making the
most of my time, gas, and miles. But I have to face reality: that the
central city is going to have more "unusual" amenities, and that living
there is really quite expensive, much more so than living in the 'burbs.
I went to our highly touted, long awaited new Randall's store Friday night.
Though certainly huge, it was a major disappointment in terms of product
selection, with only a few token gourmet items (sushi, for example,
incongruously housed next to not-too-gourmet sub sandwiches). I
looked for some harder-to-find items, like the Republic of Tea brews,
to no avail. I went to Central Market the next day and cried with relief at
the selection, the quality, the gourmet pre-packaged foods, and the
beautiful flowers and lack of huge collections of mass-produced goods
towering over you.
I've put serious thoughts into the "urban sprawl" debate since I started
living here over ten years ago, and I've yet to find "one true solution."
Reality is constantly conflicting with our dreams of what urban life should
be. We all want to live in that small slice of Austin which is centrally
located, with trees, yet not in the aquifer, that's convenient to shopping
and work so that we don't have to drive so much. BUT WE ALL CAN'T
FIT, which translates into we can't all afford it.
--
Amy Moseley Rupp
am...@mpd.tandem.com
(512) 432-7144
Steve Lacker
>
>Going 20 miles down MoPac during an off-peak time might take 25 minutes?
>at full legal speed. (Or 6 minutes is you're a UT student in a Miata.)
>
>BUT going the same 20 mile downs MoPark (the rush hour freeway) at snail
>pace takes MUCH, much longer. So even though the total miles driven are
>equal, the amount of engine-running, gas-belching, smog-making emission
>produced is much greater.
Well, if MoPac were big and adequate enough for the demand, then the trip
wouldn't take any longer at peak times than off-peak would it?
PS- Miatas aren't that fast. ;-)
--
Steve Lacker / Applied Research Laboratories, The University of Texas
512-835-3286 / PO Box 8029, Austin TX 78713-8029
sla...@arlut.utexas.edu
<- .edu does not imply 'student'
Colin R. Leech
>>(Not wanting to nitpick, but) How do off-peak trips cut down on the
>>emissions and pollution?
Stop-and-go traffic conditions are not only hard on engines, but also
generate more pollution than smooth traffic flow.
However, the main benefit of offpeak trips is that no new physical
infrastructure is required to accommodate them. OTOH, it may be more
difficult to serve these trips by transit, creating a net increase in
pollution levels relative to a peak period trip.
--
Colin R. Leech |-> Civil engineer by training, transportation
ag...@freenet.carleton.ca |-> planner by choice, trombonist by hobby.
Nepean, Ontario, Canada |-> "I'd like a penny." - Tom Downs, Amtrak.
My opinions are my own, not my employer's. You may consider them shareware.
Big Don
> I've put serious thoughts into the "urban sprawl" debate since I started
> living here over ten years ago, and I've yet to find "one true solution."
***** Population control ******
> Reality is constantly conflicting with our dreams of what urban life should
> be. We all want to live in that small slice of Austin which is centrally
> located, with trees, yet not in the aquifer, that's convenient to shopping
> and work so that we don't have to drive so much. BUT WE ALL CAN'T
> FIT,
***** Read: OVERPOPULATION *******
Silas Warner
>Well, if MoPac were big and adequate enough for the demand, then the trip
>wouldn't take any longer at peak times than off-peak would it?
>
California. We have 12-lane freeways all over the city, and they back
up just as fast and just as thoroughly as 4-lane freeways. Fact is,
if MoPac were big and adequate enough for the demand, then the demand
would just rise to clog it up again.
Silas Warner
Amy Rupp
>> [...]
>> I've put serious thoughts into the "urban sprawl" debate since I started
>> living here over ten years ago, and I've yet to find "one true solution."
>
>
>> Reality is constantly conflicting with our dreams of what urban life should
>> be. We all want to live in that small slice of Austin which is centrally
>> located, with trees, yet not in the aquifer, that's convenient to shopping
>> and work so that we don't have to drive so much. BUT WE ALL CAN'T
>> FIT,
>
Even with a stable population within a nation (and not counting immigration,
America has near 0 population growth), there are *bound* to be big shifts
in population from region to region and city to city as jobs move all over
the country, and industries wax and wane. Right now Austin's waxing,
but that *doesn't* mean that we're all reproducing: people are migrating
here from elsewhere, and diminishing the population where they came from.
However, I would rather be Austin than a dying Pennsylvania steel city
or a dying Michigan automobile town.
Scott Tyson
big...@eskimo.com says...
>
>> [...]
>> I've put serious thoughts into the "urban sprawl" debate since I started
>> living here over ten years ago, and I've yet to find "one true solution."
>
>
[snip]
>
> ***** Read: OVERPOPULATION *******
>
>> which translates into we can't all afford it.
>>
>> --
>> Amy Moseley Rupp
>> am...@mpd.tandem.com
>> (512) 432-7144
>>
>>
I have a good idea! Let's not let anyone move to Austin. Better yet, let's
just make the people in every other house leave! No, let's just make everyone
with last names starting with A, C, F, L, R, S, and X move out!
Come on. Population control is neither possible or feasible. How will you
accomplish it? How can you guarantee that there won't be discrimination? And
what about babies? If a family has eight kids, will six of them be forcibly
aborted before birth?
I'm really sick of all of these utopians who believe that Austin will again be
a little town where everyone has a lot of room. We need to face up to reality:
Austin is a big city now. We really need to build more freeways, and we will
have to make Capital Metro more prominent. Maybe a tax deduction for monthly
bus passes?
I know Austin is having real growing pains, but we do have to actually face
reality and get into the frame of mind that Austin is a big city now. Since
Austinites care about their city much more that others, we really just need
community participation in traffic and pollution control.
______________________
Scott Tyson
AOL: Rebel100
Internet:Rebe...@megaweb.com
Colin R. Leech
In a previous message, King Neptune <dmo...@globalx.net> wrote:
>Change can not be stopped. It can be slowed down, but never
>stopped....Good luck..
It would be nice to think that _destructive_ change could either be stopped,
or at least slowed down and redirected in more positive directions. Changes
will always occur, but they don't have to be Bad Things (tm).
James Monro
on the Way to the Abyss":
"How come progress looks like destruction?"
Just a thought
James Monro -- mo...@io.com -- Austin, TX
Howard Johnson
>> living here over ten years ago, and I've yet to find "one true solution."
>> We all want to live in that small slice of Austin which is centrally
>> located, with trees, yet not in the aquifer, that's convenient to shopping
>> and work so that we don't have to drive so much. BUT WE ALL CAN'T FIT,
>
Amy Rupp <am...@devnull.mpd.tandem.com> replied:
> Even with a stable population within a nation (and not counting immigration,
> America has near 0 population growth),
NOT TRUE! Here are the facts about U.S., Texas, and Austin population
growth from the 1980 and 1990 census:
Total persons 1980 1990 diff %change aprox. doubling time
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. 226545805 248709872 2.216E7 9.8 70 years
Texas 14229191 16986496 2757305 19.4 35 years
Austin 345,544 465,577 120,033 34.7 20 years
(Doubling time is computed via the compounding effects of expotential growth.)
Sources:
gopher://coins0.coin.missouri.edu/00/reference/census/us/trend/states/USTOTS
gopher://coins0.coin.missouri.edu/00/reference/census/us/trend/states/S48TX
gopher://coins0.coin.missouri.edu/00/reference/census/us/trend/places/S48TX/P480210
--
Howard Johnson <How...@iti.com> (-; C'mon! Make love, not more. ;-)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current population information is available at http://www.iti.com/iti/kzpg/
or from several email lists: US-Front page news, action alerts, humor, etc.
Alan Heimlich
Distribution: world
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
I'm just want to get the facts straight about this. It's not true that
the U.S. is at a near zero population growth even if we ignore
immigration! It's a myth. Here's some context and the facts:
Somebody wrote:
> I've put serious thoughts into the "urban sprawl" debate since I started
> living here over ten years ago, and I've yet to find "one true solution."
Somebody replied:
> ***** Read: OVERPOPULATION *******
Somebody else replied:
> Even with a stable population within a nation (and not counting
> immigration, America has near 0 population growth),
Howard Johnson <How...@iti.com> (me) said:
>NOT TRUE! Here are the facts about U.S., Texas, and Austin population
>growth from the 1980 and 1990 census:
> Total persons 1980 1990 diff %change aprox. doubling time
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> U.S. 226545805 248709872 2.216E7 9.8 70 years
> Texas 14229191 16986496 2757305 19.4 35 years
> Austin 345,544 465,577 120,033 34.7 20 years
Brendan B Boerner <bboe...@btrvtech.com> then replied to hj by email:
>She said not counting immigration. Austin is not going to double in
>size in 20 years because everyone's having babies, it will double
>because people who live elsewhere want to live here and thus move.
Well, let's see what the facts say about immigration.
---
First let's look at the U.S. immigration facts. FAIR, the Federation for
American Immigration Reform cites:
"Legal and illegal immigration now add around 1.2 million people to our
[U.S.] population a year" -- http://www.fairus.org/issues/popgrow.html
Using a straight line approximation this is about 12,000,000 per decade,
but we know from the U.S. census data that U.S. population grew by 22.1
million in the last decade. So we must assume that U.S. population growth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
is about half caused by immigration, and half caused by fertility. (Also
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~!!!
the U.S. fertility rates haven't changed by much in that decade.)
---
Next let's look a the Texas facts. Dr. Donald Huddle of Rice University
in Houston estimates says "Texas is the third-largest immigrant-receiving
state", and estimates that "1.96 million legal and illegal aliens settled
in Texas from 1970 to 1992" -- http://www.fairus.org/issues/states/tx.html
Again using a straight line approximation this is about 89,000 per year,
(probably more in recent years), or 890,000 per decade. But we know from
U.S. census data that Texas's population increased by 2.75 million in the
1980-90 decade. So you figure it out. Where are the aprox 2 million
comming from? Some are coming from other states, and some are coming from
births in Texas, a topic for another discussion.
---
This is not to say that we shouldn't do something about high levels of
immigration, I think we should. But we must also do something about high
birth rates in the U.S.
These are the facts as I see them. If anyone can provide other facts
which can dispute these, I'd love to see them. I'll keep an open mind,
but just not open on both ends. <grin>
Howard Johnson <How...@iti.com>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current population information is available at http://www.iti.com/iti/kzpg/
or from several email lists: US-Front page news, action alerts, humor, etc.
--
Alan Heimlich <heim...@iti.com>
Brendan B. Boerner
>Brendan B Boerner <bboe...@btrvtech.com> then replied to hj by email:
> >She said not counting immigration. Austin is not going to double in
> >size in 20 years because everyone's having babies, it will double
> >because people who live elsewhere want to live here and thus move.
Uhh, I responded by e-mail because I didn't want to get involved in an
austin.general discussion. I consider it polite to first ask someone
before posting their e-mail on a newsgroup.
Still, I will make one comment. When I said Austin/TX/US population is
increasing due to immigration, except in the case of the US population
I was not defining immigrants as those settling in Austin/TX/US from
other countries. I was referring to my dictionarie's definition "To
enter or settle in a country or region to which one is not native."
When I moved to Austin from South Texas, Austin's population went up by
one due to my immigration. Will I leave Austin and go back to South
Texas? Not if I can help it. Why? Because compared to South Texas, I
think Austin is a more desireable place to live. I think this is the
point that Amy Moseley-Rupp was trying to make.
Brendan
--
Brendan B. Boerner Btrieve Technologies, Inc. Phone: 512/794-1576
Internet: bboe...@BtrvTech.Com \ Please use either if replying
or Brendan...@BtrvTech.Com / by mail exterior to BTI.
Disclaimer: My views are my own, not BTI's. They pay me to write
code, not speak for them.
Howard Johnson
> Come on. Population control is neither possible or feasible. How will you
> accomplish it? How can you guarantee that there won't be discrimination? And
> what about babies? If a family has eight kids, will six of them be forcibly
> aborted before birth?
This is not really an appropriate category for this subject, but since
someone else raised it:
It's not only feasible to ask people to have less children, but it works.
(There are numerous examples from around the world where populations have
been slowed or stopped, e.g. Mexico, China, Japan, Singapore, and the U.S.
-just look at what happened to U.S. birth rates soon after Ehrlich's book
came out in the early 70's: they took a big dive.)
If advertising can get people to smoke cigarettes, then advertising get
people to make responsible family size decisions.
The way to slow population growth is to simply TALK TO PEOPLE ABOUT THE
PROBLEM. First re-affirm that it *IS*, and should be, a family's right to
have as many children as they want, BUT at the same time remind them that
it's in everybodies best interest to reduce population.
Explain how overpopulation relates to future prosperity.
Explain how average family size affects community population growth.
Explain how times have changed: it used to be good to have 3, 4, 5, or more
children, but now it's hurting us.
Once people know fact like:
* Children of larger families get lower grades (a recent study in Ohio), and
* Because there is a fixed supply of global resources more people means less
resources per person. (Consider real estate. What do you think will happen
to "real" prosperity when your children will only be able to afford a
small fraction of the land that you were able to afford because of
increased scarcity. This is a REAL decline in prosperity.)
In the end, remember that the average community family size decision WILL
impact the average child's quality of life.
So support population education for the little ones sake!
--
Howard Johnson <How...@iti.com> (-; C'mon! Make love, not more. ;-)
Scott Tyson
>Scott Tyson <Rebe...@megaweb.com> wrote:
>> Come on. Population control is neither possible or feasible. How will you
>> accomplish it? How can you guarantee that there won't be discrimination? And
>> what about babies? If a family has eight kids, will six of them be forcibly
>> aborted before birth?
>This is not really an appropriate category for this subject, but since
>someone else raised it:
>It's not only feasible to ask people to have less children, but it works.
>(There are numerous examples from around the world where populations have
>been slowed or stopped, e.g. Mexico, China, Japan, Singapore, and the U.S.
>-just look at what happened to U.S. birth rates soon after Ehrlich's book
>came out in the early 70's: they took a big dive.)
Interesting how you picked China as an example. Do you think that forcing
women to get abortions is an ethical method of birth control? Aside from
scaring women from having babies, it is a clear violation of basic human
rights.
I really don't think that one book can be credited with the decline in birth
rates; there were many factors which contributed to the decline.
>If advertising can get people to smoke cigarettes, then advertising get
>people to make responsible family size decisions.
>The way to slow population growth is to simply TALK TO PEOPLE ABOUT THE
>PROBLEM. First re-affirm that it *IS*, and should be, a family's right to
>have as many children as they want, BUT at the same time remind them that
>it's in everybodies best interest to reduce population.
That isn't population control, though. That's just encouragement to have fewer
children, and it can make sense. Real population CONTROL is unethical since it
requires an invasion of a woman's body or a family.
What you're saying makes sense. Families want to do what['s best for their
kids. Actually forcing them to only have one or two children, though, is a
violation of human rights and is deplored in almost every country in the world.
>Howard Johnson <How...@iti.com> (-; C'mon! Make love, not more. ;-)
______________________________
Ted Samsel
: NOT TRUE! Here are the facts about U.S., Texas, and Austin population
: growth from the 1980 and 1990 census:
: Total persons 1980 1990 diff %change aprox. doubling time
: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
: U.S. 226545805 248709872 2.216E7 9.8 70 years
: Texas 14229191 16986496 2757305 19.4 35 years
: Austin 345,544 465,577 120,033 34.7 20 years
: (Doubling time is computed via the compounding effects of expotential growth.)
: Sources:
: gopher://coins0.coin.missouri.edu/00/reference/census/us/trend/states/USTOTS
: gopher://coins0.coin.missouri.edu/00/reference/census/us/trend/states/S48TX
: gopher://coins0.coin.missouri.edu/00/reference/census/us/trend/places/S48TX/P480210
And back in '68, Austin was only around 130K. Back when Fritz's and the
Plantation were still there.
Where is El MAT & El TORO????
--
Ted Samsel....tejas@infi.net
"In a dying culture, snobs are a vital natural race horse"
"El pobre Canonero, se va a matar"
Sam Boskey
people to make responsible family size decisions."
encourage people to have more children. The birth rate has been dropping since WW2 and
the population has been maintained by immigration.
Dave McKallip
;-) wrote:
>Explain how overpopulation relates to future prosperity.
>Explain how average family size affects community population growth.
>Explain how times have changed: it used to be good to have 3, 4, 5, or more
>children, but now it's hurting us.
>Once people know fact like:
>* Because there is a fixed supply of global resources more people means less
> resources per person. (Consider real estate. What do you think will happen
> to "real" prosperity when your children will only be able to afford a
> small fraction of the land that you were able to afford because of
> increased scarcity. This is a REAL decline in prosperity.)
So thats why Japan's in such bad shape. NOT!
Amy Moseley Rupp
>In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.950906...@eskimo.com>, Big Don <big...@eskimo.com> writes:
>>> [...]
>>> living here over ten years ago, and I've yet to find "one true solution."
>>> We all want to live in that small slice of Austin which is centrally
>>> located, with trees, yet not in the aquifer, that's convenient to shopping
>>> and work so that we don't have to drive so much. BUT WE ALL CAN'T FIT,
>>
>
>Amy Rupp <am...@devnull.mpd.tandem.com> replied:
>> Even with a stable population within a nation (and not counting immigration,
>> America has near 0 population growth),
>
>growth from the 1980 and 1990 census:
>
>Total persons 1980 1990 diff %change aprox. doubling time
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> U.S. 226545805 248709872 2.216E7 9.8 70 years
> Texas 14229191 16986496 2757305 19.4 35 years
> Austin 345,544 465,577 120,033 34.7 20 years
Ah, do you notice the trend? Texas is growing faster than the US by a factor
of two, and Austin is growing faster than the rest of Texas by nearly another
factor of two, if you can believe the "doubling time" numbers.
So either population within the US is shifting *away* from somewhere else,
or Texas and especially Austin is reproducing at an awesome rate. If you
assume that the average US couple has approximately 2.0 children (and I
believe the figure has fallen to slightly less than 2.0 on average), then are
you saying that Austin families average eight children each???
I have the Texas almanac, with births / deaths / population by counties.
(1994-5 edition) Travis County had 10,394 births and 3,090 deaths. The
birth rate was 1.7% or roughly two per 100 people or 4 per 100 women.
Subtracting deaths gives a rough population growth of 1.218% for 1991.
I used this figure extrapolated over ten years. Starting with a population
of 345,544 in 1980, the 1990 population based on a constant 1991 population
growth over ten years would be projected to be 390,014. However, the actual
1990 population was 465,577 -- 75563 people *over* the projection!
Immigration accounted for nearly 63% of the growth, natural increase 37%,
or roughly one third of the growth, and those youngsters ain't driving to
work yet, either.
In addition, Texas is a younger state on average and thus will have more
natural increase than other states; but still, the great majority of its increase
is coming from immigration from other parts of the US and the world, and
*NOT* natural increase.
That's not to say that overpopulation isn't a serious problem, because it is,
in many parts of the world. But limiting Austin's natural increase is not
going to make a significant dent in the amount of rush hour traffic, which is
what this thread is supposed to be about. We'd be better off building a moat
around the city than banning births.
(All that stuff about numbers and lies ... )
Amy Rupp
>In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.950906...@eskimo.com>, big...@eskimo.com says...
>>
>> ***** Read: OVERPOPULATION *******
>>> which translates into we can't all afford it.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Amy Moseley Rupp
>
Please watch the attributions; the arrows are correct, but my name underneath
the "OVERPOPULATION" statement implies that I said that, and I did not.
Howard Johnson
> Howard Johnson <How...@iti.com> (-; C'mon! Make love, not more.
You can always find an anicdotal case to disprove any generalization, but
the more important question is what is happening on the average? On the
average, what I say is true. Also here is some new information for you:
Contact: KZPG population news service For immediate release
Howard Johnson, 408-255-2422 Please distribute
--- OVERPOPULATION LINKED TO U.S. PROSPERITY DECLINE ---
CUPERTINO Sept 13, 1995 -- The American dream is fading due to U.S.
population growth. That's what a new analysis of census data shows which
compares human density and housing affordability.
At first glance there's no apparent correlation between the 10% population
density increase and the 22% home affordability decline which occurred
during the 80's. But when compared on a state by state basis, a trend
emerges: higher population densities strongly correlate with bigger
housing affordability gaps.
"What this means is that people are finding it much harder to afford homes
because of population growth," says Howard Johnson, editor of KZPG (an
internet based population news and discussion service). He asks, "Could
this link between population and declining real prosperity be the smoking
gun of the overpopulation issue, and will it be the salient fact that will
finally drive the population issue into the main stream of public debate?"
Owning a home has been held as one of the cornerstones of the American
Dream, and has generally been the single best investment a family could
make. But home ownership in high density communities has long been known
to be less affordable than in low density communities. From Johnson's
analysis, it's clear that this widening affordability gap is occurring not
just in high density communities, but all across the U.S.
Professor Julian Simon and others have argued that as demand increases,
markets will respond with sufficient increase in supply. But although
there was clearly increased supply, it did not keep pace with increased
demand. Rather, it appears the standard principle of scarcity prevailed:
in a free market with limited resources and increasing demand, prices
increased. Johnson says, "No other reasonable principle has been found to
explain this correlation."
But many say there's nothing that can be done about population growth.
When asked if U.S. population control was possible or even feasible
without discrimination or forced abortion, Johnson said, "It used to be
good to have 3, 4, 5, or more children, but now it's hurting us. U.S.
population growth is about half from large families and half from
immigration. The way to lower family size is to simply talk to people
about overpopulation. We must reaffirm that it is, and should be, every
family's right to have as many children as they want, but at the same time
we must explain that it's in everybody's best interest to help curb human
populations by making responsible family size decisions." Johnson says he
calls this "population education", rather than population control, because
it's voluntary and based on people making informed decisions.
Johnson also believes we need to ask our government for less immigration,
both legal and illegal, "Otherwise," he says, "our small family gains will
be in vain."
--- Notes --------------------------------------------------------------
The data used was from the 1980 and 1990 U.S. Census data obtained from
the Missouri State Census Data gopher, at world wide web address:
gopher://gopher.coin.missouri.edu/11/reference/census/us/
The correlation factor found was .75 (on a scale of 0 to 1, with 1 being
perfect correlation, and 0 being no correlation).
Because this correlation relies on relative values which are averaged over
many years it's independent of inflation and many other economic factors.
-0-
______________________________________________________________________
*** This is "KZPG", broadcasting population related news and views ***
Send news, commentary and subscription requests to KZ...@iti.com. Views
broadcast don't necessarily represent the views of KZPG or its staff.
Not affiliated with ZPG Inc. Equal time given for controversial issues.
Voice: 408-255-2422 Fax: 408-255-2436 Web: http://www.iti.com/iti/kzpg/
Feedback appreciated. Editor: Howard Johnson -SJ CA <How...@iti.com>
--
Howard Johnson <How...@iti.com> (-; C'mon! Make love, not more. ;-)