AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by brando

I'm pretty sure that it's the other way around. The whole process is held up because they can't issue recommendations of which projects to do until the studies for William Cannon and Slaughter are done.

Uh, that's what I said. The other corridors (ie the whole process) was held up waiting on this.

Originally Posted by brando

They only have around 400 million dollars to spend on about 2.5 billion dollars of projects spread out on 9 corridors. It could be 10 if they also consider a current study of Guadalupe from MLK to 29th.

It's 482, and no, by the bond and by council resolution resolution, that money can only be spent on the small drag section of Guadalupe.

https://data.austintexas.gov/stories...ram/gukj-e8fh/

And I'm pretty sure it's not 2.5B. Do you have a source? The last number (during the election) was ~1.5B, and I'm pretty damn sure the small things they've proposed for S/WC aren't $1B.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by brando

Cap Metro plan up for a vote today

https://www.austinmonitor.com/storie...an-vote-today/

Approved 6-2. One of the NOs was Travillion, who doesn't even live in the service area.

https://twitter.com/search?q=ben%20wear

[brando]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Uh, that's what I said. The other corridors (ie the whole process) was held up waiting on this.

My mistake.

Originally Posted by Novacek

It's 482, and no, by the bond and by council resolution resolution, that money can only be spent on the small drag section of Guadalupe.

https://data.austintexas.gov/stories...ram/gukj-e8fh/

And I'm pretty sure it's not 2.5B. Do you have a source? The last number (during the election) was ~1.5B, and I'm pretty damn sure the small things they've proposed for S/WC aren't $1B.

Looks like it was " just short of $2 billion" https://www.austinmonitor.com/storie...oved-roadwork/

However, that number was just for the existing studies (not Slaughter and William Cannon) so you have to add the cost of completing both those projects.

that number also wasn't for everything outlined for the 480 million from the corridor part of the bond vote. You also have to factor in the cost to cover improvements to Slaughter and/or William Cannon corridors, preliminary engineering and design of improvements for the following additional critical arterials and corridors: William Cannon Drive, Slaughter Lane, North Lamar/Guadalupe Street, Rundberg West, Rundberg East, East Colony Park Loop Road, East Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard/FM 969, South Congress Avenue, Manchaca, and South Pleasant Valley.

Maybe a half billion is too much for improvements to William Cannon and/or slaughter and all of those engineering reports but I don't think it's an insane estimate.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by brando

preliminary engineering and design of improvements for the following additional critical arterials and corridors: William Cannon Drive, Slaughter Lane, North Lamar/Guadalupe Street, Rundberg West, Rundberg East, East Colony Park Loop Road, East Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard/FM 969, South Congress Avenue, Manchaca, and South Pleasant Valley.

Fair enough. That's $5M of the 482.

http://www.austintexas.gov/sites/def...NAL_5.1.17.ppt

Originally Posted by brando

Maybe a half billion is too much for improvements to William Cannon and/or slaughter and all of those engineering reports but I don't think it's an insane estimate.

Seems excessively high to me. Sure, on first glance, 2 more added to the 7 is 28% more.

But then you look at the fact that they're mostly just proposing new sidewalks for S/WC.

It's Burnet/Riverside/Airport that get huge new transit investments (in the hypothetical future of fully completing all projects in the plans), including $400M for light rail on Riverside.


edit: FWIW, this is the $1.5B source.

http://kxan.com/2016/09/28/austin-ma...mobility-bond/

Austin Monitor doesn't quote, so I'm not sure how "just short" they meant.

edit2: also FWIW, summer 2016 the estimate was ~2.8B for _all_ corridors long term.

http://www.austintexas.gov/departmen...60614-mobc.htm

http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=256232

[Novacek]

Something else to remember about that $482M (or $477) is that it's not the _only_ source for funding.

Burnet/Lamar got something like $15m in the 2012 mobility bond as well. If any transit improvements are done, there's the chance for FTA money, etc.

[OU812]

Originally Posted by nixcity

Agree, however Austin does not have the density that cities around the world have to justify that kind of investment (unless it is in the G/L corridor). American cities (except a few) can't compare to the density levels as found in Europe and Asia.

The other day I spoke to a well traveled woman currently living in Germany who insisted that Los Angeles was "quiet" and "small". She has traveled a lot but mainly in Europe. I kept trying to explain to her that cities in the US are built OUT rather than inward and compact (with the exception of NYC and Chicago). To her, I guess things can seem quiet when everyone is in their car, jammed on the freeway all the time.

[drummer]

delete

[nixcity]

I don't know if I agree about G/N.L. I think you have to look at density within 1/4 mile of a transit line and I don't think you see it. Sadly, there is only so far people will walk and Cap Metro is having a hard time telling people that they need to make density adjustments that will cause them to walk 1/2 mile to a bus stop. I think S. Lamar is the densest corridor with respect to people who really live on the corridor. However, I'm not an expert.

West Campus is the densest neighborhood in all of Texas already and currently has 4 residential highrises under construction. The rest of the corridor north from there would compare around the same as S. Lamar but if you continue further north beyond 183 then you get a whole lot of transit dependent people living right there. There is good reason that Project Connect has selected this corridor and has already placed "station" placeholders. The MCAC advisory body has even opened the phase 3 process with a public meeting on the corridor tonight. Add Watson's IH 35 plan and things are actually looking up for our transportation woes.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by nixcity

West Campus is the densest neighborhood in all of Texas already and currently has 4 residential highrises under construction.

Yes. The problem with West Campus (or the benefit, depending on how you look at it) is

1) travel to "work" (class) is east/west, not north/south along Guadalupe. And it's in walking/biking distance.

2) West Campus was designed from the get go as a dense mixed use environment, so many trips (for meals, shopping, etc.) can be done on foot/bike.

Originally Posted by nixcity

There is good reason that Project Connect has selected this corridor and has already placed "station" placeholders.

Except they haven't. They've been incredibly insistent that they haven't selected a single corridor yet. They explicitly stated this in the UTC meeting 2 days ago.

"Review Options / No Decisions Have
Been Made "

http://austintexas.gov/cityclerk/boa...tings/50_1.htm

Originally Posted by nixcity

The MCAC advisory body has even opened the phase 3 process with a public meeting on the corridor tonight.

Phase 2 continues until May 2018.

[nixcity]

Yes. The problem with West Campus (or the benefit, depending on how you look at it) is

1) travel to "work" (class) is east/west, not north/south along Guadalupe. And it's in walking/biking distance.

2) West Campus was designed from the get go as a dense mixed use environment, so many trips (for meals, shopping, etc.) can be done on foot/bike.

Certainly a good thing to have a mixed use neighborhood. We do know that work commute accounts for around 15% of total drive time. As I have stated before here students don't just go to class, many of them also have a good amount of free time. If dense, mixed use neighborhoods are bad spots for rail (stations) then why are they so full in Manhattan, Tokyo, Chicago, Mexico City, etc....?

Except they haven't. They've been incredibly insistent that they haven't selected a single corridor yet. They explicitly stated this in the UTC meeting 2 days ago.

"Review Options / No Decisions Have
Been Made "

However, they have identified the old loop 343 as their original case study and have already even placed stations. As they move into the preferred strategy phase they will be working to determine the feasibility of light rail and what to do with specific trouble areas (ie. go above grade or below). Also, the fact they are hosting an event tonight open to the public where they reached out to the local rail community. If they were not serious about it they would not have done that.
"This Thursday evening, November 16th, we are hosting the first of a few workshops with CapMetro planners where they want to hear how our community view the options they are presenting to reconfigure N. Lamar and Guadalupe to allow for light rail." The MCAC advisory committee called the meeting so that they could work with PC2 and CapMetro to get the corridor rail ready.

Phase 2 continues until May 2018.

Correct, not technically phase 3 yet, but many in the community feel a sense of urgency from them this time to get it right.

[nixcity]

Edit: Having trouble uploading the image from PC2 with their case study map....

[IluvATX]

All this is hard for me to follow. Is there a link or plans for the final design of I35? Also what is going on with Mopac? Sorry if I sound uninformed.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by nixcity

If dense, mixed use neighborhoods are bad spots for rail (stations) then why are they so full in Manhattan, Tokyo, Chicago, Mexico City, etc....?

It's not so much that they're "bad" as that West Campus is a special case so that it's not as "good" as the straight population density would make it appear.

It's a very homogonous population. It's almost (or all?) students. Those students (by definition) are going to UT. Some may have other jobs, but many don't, and those that do are likely to have them in off-hours. Students are usually (though not universally) young and healthy, and be more willing than the general population to bike/walk.

A more general pocket of density/mixed use development will have the employment of that population more distributed and disbursed(unless it's some kind of company town next to a factory).

And again, it's not bad. The bus stops on the drag are still the best in the system. It's just oversold with the whole "highest density tract in Texas" thing.


The other "bad" thing about West Campus is that there's less room for ridership growth. Again, homogonous population. Students are generally (though not universally) poorer. They're more likely to be without cars. That factor helps the current bus usage, but also means that putting a rail system is less likely to attract new/additional riders from that population. Fewer "choice riders".

Originally Posted by nixcity

As they move into the preferred strategy phase they will be working to determine the feasibility of light rail

They've also been equally explicit that they haven't chosen a mode yet (and many indications are they're leaning to BRT).

Originally Posted by nixcity

This Thursday evening, November 16th, we are hosting the first of a few workshops with CapMetro planners where they want to hear how our community view the options they are presenting to reconfigure N. Lamar and Guadalupe to allow for light rail."

That's very much not how Project Connect is describing it.
How about a quote from them, not Scott Morris?

[freerover]

Originally Posted by IluvATX

All this is hard for me to follow. Is there a link or plans for the final design of I35? Also what is going on with Mopac? Sorry if I sound uninformed.

The only final designs are frontage road / intersection based which also requires changes to on/ramps and merge lanes. William Cannon, Stassney and Oltorf are all under construction. The 51st work is almost done. The 183 interchange / St Johns Overpass is suppose to start in the next year. Riverside is suppose to start in less than 2 years but I don't know if the proposed 35 announcement might affect that. I highly doubt the Riverside bridge work is postponed. However, the work to re-align the mainlanes at riverside so you don't have a slowdown due to the curve might be cut from this project due to uncertainty with how they are going to be doing the mainlanes. EDIT: It looks like the previous plans have been thrown completely out the window and all references to it have been deleted. Huge bummer to anyone who is hopeful for light rail in south austin because this project HAS to happen for rail in that area. Even the 2014 rail vote was contingent on the Riverside overpass being re-built. TXDOT made a ton of changes so give me a little bit to fix all the links. I took them from a post I made a few weeks ago.

By the way, they are going to be closing the 35NB to 183NB ramp for at least a couple months since they are demoing and rebuilding half of it. I don't know if they have decided how they are going to do the detour. They could build the 35SB to 183NB ramp first and then direct people to continue past the intersection exit Runberg, U-Turn and then put in a temporary asphalt entrance ramp to the direct connector from the frontage road. It sounds like a nightmare but it should keep cars in motion and you wouldn't have cars blocking the 35 entrance ramp before the ramp starts.

Slaughter Overpass
Still under study. I would not be surprised to see a major overhaul. A Diamond interchange would be ideal but I don't think they can do that unless they convert the overpass into an underpass which is possible. The Diamond Interchange at Slaughter and Mopac is going to be amazing if it's not derailed again by Save Our Springs and that Arizona company that sues highway projects all over the country. Did anyone see what they pulled at the last council meeting? I digress...


William Cannon / Stassney Area (Under Construction)
-Reconstruct frontage road bridges over Williamson Creek
-Reconstruct bridge structures at Stassney Lane and William Cannon Drive
-Construct new U-turns at Stassney Lane and William Cannon Drive
-Widen mainlanes to incorporate shoulders and extended entrance/exit lanes
-Reconfigure ramps
-Improve bicycle and pedestrian accommodations
-Add new safety and high mast lighting
-Fact Sheet: http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot...fact-sheet.pdf
-Project Layout: http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot...ect-layout.pdf
-Schematic: http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot.../schematic.pdf
-Meet the Contractor Open House Presentation: http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot...esentation.pdf
-Construction Info: http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot...nstruction.pdf



Oltorf Area (Under Construction)
-Reconstruct Oltorf Street bridge structure
-Improve entrance and exit ramps and frontage roads
-Construct new auxiliary lanes, or extended entrance/exit lanes, for mainlanes and ramps
-Add U-turns in both north and southbound directions at I-35 and Oltorf Street
-Improve bicycle and pedestrian accommodations along the I-35 frontage roads in each direction within the project limits
-Schematic: http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot.../schematic.pdf
-Construction Info: http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot...nstruction.pdf

Riverside Area (Construction 2018/19)
PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED CONSTRUCTION SCHEDULE AND SCHEMATICS CANCELLED


I-35 at 51st (Under Construction)
-Realign southbound frontage road
-New southbound intersection bypass lane
-New roundabout at the southbound frontage road of I-35 and 51st Street
-Reconfigure ramps
-Improve bicycle and pedestrian accommodations
-Schematic: http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot.../schematic.pdf
-Construction Info: http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot...nstruction.pdf
-Roundabout Visualization https://youtu.be/T83ogwpkfLk
-Fact Sheet http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot...fact-sheet.pdf


I-35 from Rundberg Lane to US 290 East and 183+35 Interchange Direct Ramps (Construction start: early 2018)
-Add three flyovers at the I-35/US 183 interchange from: I-35 southbound to US 183 southbound, US 183 northbound to I-35 northbound, I-35 southbound to US 183 northbound
-Improve the existing I-35 northbound to US 183 northbound flyover (Improve my ass. They are Demoing and Rebuilding Half of it)
-Rebuild St. Johns Avenue bridge (Includes sweet bypass lanes)
-Construct new frontage road U-turn in both directions
-Construct new intersection bypass lane under the St. Johns bridge in both directions
-Add extended entrance/exit ramps
-Reconfigure and improve ramps and shoulders
-Improve bicycle and pedestrian accommodations
-Fact Sheet: http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot...fact-sheet.pdf
-Project Layout: http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot...ect-layout.pdf
-Schematic: http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot.../schematic.pdf (Includes a Schematic of 183 before and after interchange)


I-35 at Parmer Lane (Construction Winter 2018/2019 if funding available)
-Replace the traditional intersection with a diverging diamond intersection
-Add a southbound collector-distributor road, or intersection bypass lane
-Reconstruct two entrance and exit ramps south of Parmer Lane
-Construct right-turn lanes at the intersection of Lamar Boulevard and Parmer Lane
-Construct dual left-turn lanes from Parmer Lane to Lamar Boulevard
-Improve bicycle and pedestrian accommodations
-Schematic: http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot.../schematic.pdf
-Fact Sheet: http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot...fact-sheet.pdf


I-35 at Wells Branch Parkway (Construction anticipated summer 2020 if funding there)
-Replace the traditional intersection at Wells Branch Parkway and the I-35 frontage roads with an SPUI
-Add intersection bypass lanes along I-35 frontage roads
-Improve the traditional intersection at Wells Branch Parkway and FM 1825 with additional turn lanes and traffic signal timing
-Reconstruct the I-35 mainlane bridge over Wells Branch Parkway
-Reconstruct four entrance and exit ramps on I-35 north and south of Wells Branch Parkway
-Improve bicycle and pedestrian accommodations
-Single Point Urban Interchange Fact Sheet: http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot...-factsheet.pdf


I-35 from SH 45N to Grand Avenue Parkway (Construction anticipated winter 2018/2019 if funding there)
-Reconfigure the northbound entrance and exit ramps
-Construct an auxiliary lane, or extended entrance/exit lane, on the northbound I-35 mainlanes under SH 45N
-Construct an extended entrance/exit lane on the northbound frontage road
-Fact Sheet: http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot...fact-sheet.pdf
-Schematic: http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot.../schematic.pdf





The entrance/exit/merge lane work is going to make a much bigger difference than people think. This is especially true in areas where they are eliminating entrances/exits and putting in bypass lanes at certain interchanges.

For Example, on 35SB there is only going to be 1 exit for 51st and Airport. However, there will be a lane that you can use to bypass the 51st interchange (now a roundabout) so you aren't waiting at the light. Basically, there is a new focus on keeping cars on the frontage roads more but decreasing the number of stops and increasing the intended use for U-turns.

This is going to be especially evident on the current 183 south project. They are eliminating the intersections at 51st, Techni Center and Bolm road. Instead, you travel further to the next intersection and take a U Turn where you almost always have your own acceleration lane. In the case of 183, they are adding a U-Turn only intersection halfway between Bolm and Techicenter. Unfortunately, work on the Lavender Loop intersections going to Cesar,Airport and 7th aren't a part of the study. People will be happy to learn that there is a COMPLETE rebuild of the ramps from Cesar,Airport and 7th to 183 southbound. The current drive that they use is becoming pedestrian only.

Sorry...I could go on and on about 183 east and highways in general. Not that many people care.


(formally brando)

[IluvATX]

Thanks freerover. Very informative first posts. I think you're now my favorite forumer.
P.S. I can't get the links to work.

[freerover]

Originally Posted by IluvATX

Thanks freerover. Very informative first posts. I think you're now my favorite forumer.
P.S. I can't get the links to work.

Holy Crap. They did an overhaul to the website. It looks like the Riverside plans are completely out the window and have been put into the new 35 plan.

I'll update the links to the stuff that is still unchanged

[freerover]

Links fixed and I added the far north sections of I-35 I don't really care about.

[nixcity]

Novacek, to make it short and easy for all to understand. Yes, for the most part those things you say are true, although all you have to do is look at the numbers. That corridor has waaaay outpaced any other corridor in Austin for a reason, and for the most part who gives a damn why. Everybody knows that is the best place for rail, and the needed growth (which I think is enough to justify going underground all the way through dt and the drag) will come from yet more students (thousands with tons of free time and money to burn) moving into the area, the continued growth of N. Lamar where the state is increasing their employment, and mostly by connecting to good ol' IH 35 and FINALLY giving all those suburban and nearby Austinites an alternative to driving to get to a more central or southern location.
Haha, funny, the invite was from a city official of which will help lead the meeting tonight with other city employees.
freerover, thanks for the information. We have such a great chance to truly transform our city. We could reunite our east and west sides with this. Rail will still be able to happen for the south sides, there are still a few alternatives.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by nixcity

Novacek, to make it short and easy for all to understand. Yes, for the most part those things you say are true, although all you have to do is look at the numbers. That corridor has waaaay outpaced any other corridor in Austin for a reason,

Riverside can definitely give it a run for its money, which is why you actually have to model everything.

Originally Posted by nixcity

and for the most part who gives a damn why. Everybody knows that is the best place for rail,

Oh certainly, very likely.

I'ts also likely the "best place for " BRT as well. Both are still options.

Originally Posted by nixcity

Haha, funny, the invite was from a city official of which will help lead the meeting tonight with other city employees.

Uh, no.

I got that invite in my email feed as well (via my NA).



"This Thursday evening, November 16th, we are hosting the first of a few workshops with CapMetro planners where they want to hear how our community view the options they are presenting to reconfigure N. Lamar and Guadalupe to allow for light rail.""

Is a direct quote from Steven Knapp (I mistated, it was Steven forwarded to my NA email via Scot Morris). Steven Knapp doesn't work for the city, he's part of the wacko CACDC org (the ones claiming rail on G/L would get 100k boardings per day).

[lzppjb]

Why the name change, brando?