Bridges to Downtown

[wwmiv]

I agree with Kevin. I think those types of bridges in downtown distract from downtown. However, I do agree that maybe we need a thread for bridges in the core area generally, as that's an actual topic of discussion in the upcoming years, I think.

I would personally be fine with I-35 being redesigned and expanded as an arch bridge, and same with MoPac, but neither of those things is going to happen any time soon.

I do generally think we need more bridge access into and out of downtown, as I've stated previously. Rather than completely redesigning and expanding old bridges, repairing them and creating greater connectivity by adding other bridges would be ideal.

For instance, there are many things the city could do to improve mobility into and out of downtown:

Build a bridge at Nueces and having its main lanes of traffic connect directly to Riverside. That goes into the heart of honest most intensely newly developed section of downtown, the market district, and connects all the way north and serves as the western spine of downtown. It is a logical location for an additional bridge.

A bridge that extends Barton Springs over the river and connects to Trinity. I think designing any bridge here as transit only is misguided. Additionally, I have previously spoken of building a bridge that connects Cummings Street and the Statesman site and an only slightly expanded direct road to I-35 and the RBJ development.

[Digatisdi]

I'd maybe support a Nueces Street bridge, though I have concerns about division of the park, and I'm sure that would be a big sticking point for others, especially after the uproar over the division of the park into on- and offleash areas. Theoretically you could probably have a bridge that then goes into a cut-and-cap under the park to the roundabout but I'm not sure if the pricetag would be worth it.

As for a Cummings bridge or a Trinity bridge, absolutely. I've mentioned before that I hate the pontoon bridge The Trail Foundation is planning and it still holds true. I'd much rather support a bridge designed with motor vehicle traffic allowed but with a primary focus on pedestrians and cyclist use.

[drummer]

Originally Posted by Digatisdi

I'd maybe support a Nueces Street bridge, though I have concerns about division of the park, and I'm sure that would be a big sticking point for others, especially after the uproar over the division of the park into on- and offleash areas. Theoretically you could probably have a bridge that then goes into a cut-and-cap under the park to the roundabout but I'm not sure if the pricetag would be worth it.

As for a Cummings bridge or a Trinity bridge, absolutely. I've mentioned before that I hate the pontoon bridge The Trail Foundation is planning and it still holds true. I'd much rather support a bridge designed with motor vehicle traffic allowed but with a primary focus on pedestrians and cyclist use.

I don't like the pontoon bridge either. It looks cheap and seems unreliable for the long-term. I would prefer a regular bridge - either for pedestrian/bicycle only or with an emphasis on pedestrian/bicycle while allowing *some* vehicular traffic, as you suggested...and/or perhaps a future streetcar.

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by Digatisdi

I'd maybe support a Nueces Street bridge, though I have concerns about division of the park, and I'm sure that would be a big sticking point for others, especially after the uproar over the division of the park into on- and offleash areas. Theoretically you could probably have a bridge that then goes into a cut-and-cap under the park to the roundabout but I'm not sure if the pricetag would be worth it.

As for a Cummings bridge or a Trinity bridge, absolutely. I've mentioned before that I hate the pontoon bridge The Trail Foundation is planning and it still holds true. I'd much rather support a bridge designed with motor vehicle traffic allowed but with a primary focus on pedestrians and cyclist use.

Yep. A street/bridge bisecting Auditorium Shores would be pretty awful. I've always thought of it as Austin's front yard. The idea has been proposed before of cutting and capping Riverside, so I guess they could do it and have it be part of a bigger project.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Yep. A street/bridge bisecting Auditorium Shores would be pretty awful. I've always thought of it as Austin's front yard. The idea has been proposed before of cutting and capping Riverside, so I guess they could do it and have it be part of a bigger project.

This.

[KevinFromTexas]

To be clear, I meant tunneling under the river and park and having it connect with a cut and capped Riverside Drive. That way we'd have the extra infrastructure and a less interrupted park.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

To be clear, I meant tunneling under the river and park and having it connect with a cut and capped Riverside Drive. That way we'd have the extra infrastructure and a less interrupted park.

Oh God, but that'd be so much more and devastating interruption on the north side of the river where Nueces has to descend into a tunnel. If you tunnel the rest of Riverside and then have an actual bridge, where it comes back to surface level just before the river, you've actually ended up gaining a bunch of net usable land because of the newly buried portions outweighing the small portion that's exposed by necessity next to the river. You're also providing for full connection of the entire collection of park space here in even that scenario. The hike and bike trail simply has to be routed underneath the bridge on either side of the river, and that's it.

I would design the intersection itself between Riverside and Nueces to be part of the buried portion (which should for Riverside be between, approximately, the eastern end of the parking lot running parallel to the southern edge of Riverside just east of West Bouldin Creek and just west of the intersection with the road to the entrance of the Long Center parking garage which is itself just west of the intersection with S. 1st) as a signalized triple lane roundabout. Riverside between Lamar and Nueces would be a single lane in each direction, Riverside between Nueces and S. 1st would be three lanes in each direction, and the Nueces bridge would ideally be three lanes in each direction. Of course, no city in America is building this type of infrastructure outside of the very largest core cities, so its a pipe dream. And even then, how many major cities have build bridges into and out of their downtown areas over the last 20 years? Dallas and Portland are the only two I can think of off the top of my head.

[drummer]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Oh God, but that'd be so much more and devastating interruption on the north side of the river where Nueces has to descend into a tunnel. If you tunnel the rest of Riverside and then have an actual bridge, where it comes back to surface level just before the river, you've actually ended up gaining a bunch of net usable land because of the newly buried portions outweighing the small portion that's exposed by necessity next to the river. You're also providing for full connection of the entire collection of park space here in even that scenario. The hike and bike trail simply has to be routed underneath the bridge on either side of the river, and that's it.

I would design the intersection itself between Riverside and Nueces to be part of the buried portion (which should for Riverside be between, approximately, the eastern end of the parking lot running parallel to the southern edge of Riverside just east of West Bouldin Creek and just west of the intersection with the road to the entrance of the Long Center parking garage which is itself just west of the intersection with S. 1st) as a signalized triple lane roundabout. Riverside between Lamar and Nueces would be a single lane in each direction, Riverside between Nueces and S. 1st would be three lanes in each direction, and the Nueces bridge would ideally be three lanes in each direction. Of course, no city in America is building this type of infrastructure outside of the very largest core cities, so its a pipe dream. And even then, how many major cities have build bridges into and out of their downtown areas over the last 20 years? Dallas and Portland are the only two I can think of off the top of my head.

And Dallas has gotten some flack for their new bridges, even though I think they're great and necessary. Trinity Groves is the only area getting a new bridge that wasn't there before - and it's going to develop nicely because of it.

Back to Austin, I don't mind the tunnel under the river, but that'd be even more costly and therefore wouldn't be a approved. The bridge itself, if integrated well into a tunneled Riverside, could work, but again, costs might affect the likelihood of it ever happening (though I agree with wwmiv's point on the Nueces area quickly becoming the most dense and that connection making sense, especially as a reliever for the Lamar bridge).

The bridges (one or all), other than the Nueces idea, that I'd like to see are:

1. Trinity
2. Cummings
3. Brazos

My thought on Brazos is merely as a reliever for Congress, and it'd go into an eventually (hopefully) dense South Shore area. Trinity would serve the same purpose, but the Waller Creek tunnel output and/or the Austin Rowing Club might prevent that from happening. Trinity would be better than Brazos, of course, as it's a more major connector through downtown and really connects through campus (where it merges with San Jacinto). If Cummings could be integrated into a thoroughfare (with East Ave) to go under and around I-35, that could work exceptionally well.

Of course, all of these are pipe dreams.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by drummer

3. Brazos

My thought on Brazos is merely as a reliever for Congress, and it'd go into an eventually (hopefully) dense South Shore area.

We've all discussed Trinity and Cummings before (I think I was the progenitor of the Cummings discussion, actually), but I've never considered Brazos before. I actually see this as a very smart idea.

Those really are the only possible bridge locations left in downtown, and I want them all. I'm all for public infrastructure projects, as they're economically beneficial and actually pay for themselves in the long run.

There's nowhere in between 360 and Lamar where it would be appropriate to build a new bridge (and really nowhere west of 360, either, even though there is that one proposal for a new viaduct style freeway bypass that would include another bridge in between 360 and 620, which I actually support in theory.

Now, here's a road by road synopsis going east of Lamar:

1. Walter Seaholm Drive: this could theoretically be connected as a small two lane bridge and road through to Dawson Road / South 5th. This would require moving the Gazebo and trailhead on the south side of the river and would result in thru traffic on South 5th through Bouldin and is therefore, for these reasons, politically unfeasible. Will never happen. That's unfortunate, as South 5th could actually be upgraded as more of an arterial roadway in the vein of South 1st. South 5th is, after all, seeing more dense development in that corridor, such as The Denizen. However, although useful south of the river, north of the river there is little additional connectivity. Thus, this is overall not an ideal placement.

2. West Avenue: can't happen because of the intake facility.

3. Nueces Street: an ideal location for an additional crossing for reasons discussed above. Essentially creates a new viable east/west to north/south direct entry into downtown via Riverside.

4. San Antonio Street: a non ideal location given the limited connectivity benefit north of the river (shut down at Republic Square and no thru traffic at 7th) and same landing point as Nueces Street south of the river, therefore this bridge would be too duplicative.

5. Colorado Street: this would be a meaningless bridge.

6. Brazos Street: this is where I simply echo what you said above.

7. Trinity Street: we've all made the same arguments about this bridge.

8. Cummings Street: same here.

There are no possible new bridge sites east of Cummings.

[drummer]

Yeah, and Brazos might have the least opposition of all of the above options. The only reason I could see anyone opposing Brazos would be for the bats under Congress...though, if you stood on Brazos, you'd get a really up-close-and-personal experience with the bats.

The other disadvantage to Brazos that I just though of is that, while it may relieve traffic from the Congress Ave. Bridge, it would still run right into Riverside...and Riverside would still be overly congested. Trinity, I guess, would have the same issue running south, as would even the Nueces option farther west. The real issue is connectivity south of the river when considering new bridges. The only through streets already cross the river (Lamar, 1st, Congress). Creating more of a grid beyond Riverside/Barton Springs simply isn't going to happen with neighborhood opposition as well as topography. Early city planners simply never thought of downtown extending south of the river based on the way the streets were laid out.

All of this is considering vehicular transportation, of course, as opposed to pedestrians, bicycles, other mass transit options, etc.

[KevinFromTexas]

I don't know, I still really hate the idea of a bridge bisecting Auditorium Shores. I know we'll need another bridge at some point between Lamar and Congress, but I really don't want to see the parkland disrupted for something so negative to downtown anyway as more cars. There has to be a better option.

[drummer]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

I don't know, I still really hate the idea of a bridge bisecting Auditorium Shores. I know we'll need another bridge at some point between Lamar and Congress, but I really don't want to see the parkland disrupted for something so negative to downtown anyway as more cars. There has to be a better option.

What about another bicycle/pedestrian route? I'm not sure how much that would get traction though, since the Plfluger Bridge is already there and there's a decent pedestrian connection on the S. 1st Bridge. It would be more preferable (to me at least) than a vehicular bridge in that location.

I just don't see another one between Lamar and Congress happening simply because of the park. I agree that anything bisecting it (even if done ideally with the cut/cap mindset of Riverside, etc.) would be detrimental to the quality and beauty of the park. Not to mention that any bridge that would go and connect to Riverside would still send its traffic to either Lamar or S. 1st./Congress.

The only options I really see as at all feasible are between Congress and I-35.

[lzppjb]

Thoughts on another East Austin bridge connecting Tinnin Ford to Robert Martinez Jr?

[drummer]

Originally Posted by lzppjb

Thoughts on another East Austin bridge connecting Tinnin Ford to Robert Martinez Jr?

If the Riverside area and the East Austin area continue to develop at a good pace, I could see that proving helpful. The problem is similar, however, in that it would dissect a public park, likely taking away public parking and a softball field in the process.

That said, it could have some indirect advantages in giving another cross-street for folks without forcing them to go either through DT, on I-35 or its access roads, or all the way east to Pleasant Valley Rd. It could prove helpful as the core continues to develop, though I'm not sure how much of a direct impact it would have on DT.

[wwmiv]

It'd be a great placement, and I do agree it'd be useful to have another bridge or two here. Another logical placements are the two most important north/south arterials on the east side north of the river: Chicon or Comal. I'd argue Chicon is more intuitive and provides the greatest connectivity boost if you don't also have the bridge you suggest, but Comal if you do.

[lzppjb]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

It'd be a great placement, and I do agree it'd be useful to have another bridge or two here. Another logical placements are the two most important north/south arterials on the east side north of the river: Chicon or Comal. I'd argue Chicon is more intuitive and provides the greatest connectivity boost if you don't also have the bridge you suggest, but Comal if you do.

Chicon was my first thought, but I thought it would have a more difficult time connecting to something south of the river. If a road was built south from the bridge, it would basically dump everyone onto Riverside. Tinnin Ford goes a few blocks farther south, and traffic would have the choice of going east on Elmont before they got to Riverside.

But as was mentioned, an extension of Robert Martinez would eliminate the parking lot for the softball/baseball fields.

[drummer]

I like Chicon for its connectivity up north - it goes all the way to Manor Rd. However, I agree that it would basically just stop at Riverside south of the river.

The advantage to Tinnin Ford is it continues essentially down to Oltorf, another good E/W thoroughfare (after Riverside, Tinnin Ford changes names to Burton Dr., but the road continues nonetheless). I like the connectivity to both South Lakeshore and Elmont, as mentioned. If it were to connect to Robert Martinez, it's northernmost connection would be East 7th, which would take it through a good chunk of East Austin.

Another cool connection point for folks traveling farther south on the Robert Martinez/Tinnin Ford option would be Shore District Dr., which becomes Parker Ln. south of Riverside and continues essentially all the way to Ben White (via Woodward St., which would be another connection East toward Congress and S. 1st, going right by St. Edwards University). The only issue is that Parker Ln. is essentially a slightly more robust residential road, two lanes with a center line...but at least it extends the "grid" into that area of town.

Originally Posted by lzppjb

But as was mentioned, an extension of Robert Martinez would eliminate the parking lot for the softball/baseball fields.

I was thinking more about this also. Isn't some public use of the land where the power plant is coming? Such as an extension of the park, etc.? I thought I heard about this a while back. Could the one softball field that would be lost and the entirety of the parking lot be relocated over there? The thing is that this parking lot serves not only the soft ball fields, but the whole park. You'd still have the issue of the park being dissected by the road, but perhaps the bridge could be elevated enough for the hike and bike trail to go under it (on both sides of the river) or elevate the hike and bike trail (on both sides of the river) over the road. A crosswalk for the hike and bike trail just wouldn't be right, in my opinion.

[lzppjb]

Originally Posted by drummer

I like Chicon for its connectivity up north - it goes all the way to Manor Rd. However, I agree that it would basically just stop at Riverside south of the river.

The advantage to Tinnin Ford is it continues essentially down to Oltorf, another good E/W thoroughfare (after Riverside, Tinnin Ford changes names to Burton Dr., but the road continues nonetheless). I like the connectivity to both South Lakeshore and Elmont, as mentioned. If it were to connect to Robert Martinez, it's northernmost connection would be East 7th, which would take it through a good chunk of East Austin.

Another cool connection point for folks traveling farther south on the Robert Martinez/Tinnin Ford option would be Shore District Dr., which becomes Parker Ln. south of Riverside and continues essentially all the way to Ben White (via Woodward St., which would be another connection East toward Congress and S. 1st, going right by St. Edwards University). The only issue is that Parker Ln. is essentially a slightly more robust residential road, two lanes with a center line...but at least it extends the "grid" into that area of town.




I was thinking more about this also. Isn't some public use of the land where the power plant is coming? Such as an extension of the park, etc.? I thought I heard about this a while back. Could the one softball field that would be lost and the entirety of the parking lot be relocated over there? The thing is that this parking lot serves not only the soft ball fields, but the whole park. You'd still have the issue of the park being dissected by the road, but perhaps the bridge could be elevated enough for the hike and bike trail to go under it (on both sides of the river) or elevate the hike and bike trail (on both sides of the river) over the road. A crosswalk for the hike and bike trail just wouldn't be right, in my opinion.

We're on the same wavelength. When I made my previous post, I was also thinking about Parker Lane, and the Holly Street power plant.

Here's a master plan for Holly Shores from 2 years ago: http://assets.austintexas.gov/austin...ne-viewing.pdf

Doesn't look like a bridge will be going anywhere near that park.