Quote:
Originally Posted by Novacek
It's my least favorite corridor, but I think I understand why it's in there.
I think Austin has recognized that it can't stop all sprawl. But to a certain extent, it feels it can steer growth/sprawl to the east and away from the environmentally sensitive regions in the west.
So this seems like an attempt to do that.
Between this, 183S toll, 290 Toll, 71 toll, and 130, the east region of the city has been getting a massive road increase.
|
Somewhat related to this, I ran across this blog post.
https://pedestrianobservations.wordp...cars/#comments
Basically, the claim is that by attempting to completely eliminate sprawl, you just push the sprawl into the exurban region where it can only be served by cars (not by transit).
Potentially, with this 969 expansion you can put the sprawl into this region where it can eventually reach a critical mass and be served by, for instance, the Green Line rail.