AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[lzppjb]

Have any of you ever heard of the theory about using smaller vans/buses to pick people up and take them to nodes where they can then get on the larger buses? I can't remember the exact terminology...cellular transportation? It's cellular something. A co-worker of mine went to a meet-up in Austin where a guy was talking about his idea. He's talked to the city as well. The smaller vehicles would provide more coverage, and make the excuse of having to walk a mile to a bus stop a moot point. The larger buses would be dedicated to the main arteries throughout town.

Also, my dad always says that if we were San Antonio, S. 1st would already be a highway similar to I-37 through town. It'd take pressure off I-35 during rush hour. For us to do that, we'd have to buy a lot of land, but it can be done. Not a highway with frontage roads, but a 6-lane thoroughfare from Ben White to north of the river. Tear down the S. 1st bridge and replace it with 2 bridges that align with Lavaca & Guadalupe.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by pscajunguy

North America's most congested metros
See how U.S. and Canadian cities stack up in terms of traffic congestion.
4. Austin – 41.2 hours wasted in congestionRank in 2013: No. 5

According to a study released by Kirkland, Wash.-based data firm INRIX
http://scorecard.inrix.com/scorecard/default.asp

© 2014 INRIX, Inc. All Rights Reserved. INRIX is a registered trademark of INRIX, Inc.

FYI, New York City is #5! Of course, LA is #1.

I'm still not sure how Austin (~40 hours) is ahead of NYC (~50 hours).

[Global]

Well thank God, South First will never become a six lane highway! You almost make it sound like a good thing when you say it.

[hereinaustin]

Originally Posted by Global

Well thank God, South First will never become a six lane highway! You almost make it sound like a good thing when you say it.

I'm not opposed to money being spent on transportation, but I do agree that roadways designed only for cars have overstayed their welcome. We keep subsidizing transportation by car and thus discouraging a more multi-modal transportation system.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Novacek

I'm still not sure how Austin (~40 hours) is ahead of NYC (~50 hours).

I'll admit that it's surprising to see Austin placed so high on that list. Just about all the other metros on that list are larger in population. Some of them have large transit systems as well. Some of them are squeezed between mountains and the sea. Some of them are on islands. Austin can't blame spending a huge fortune on transit systems, nor on geographic obstacles, nor a very high density central core. So why is Austin so high on this list?
The reason I see isn't a lack of freeways or tollways either. What I see is it's linear layout, with the downtown core, state government, and universities all lined up in a line, one after another. The arterial street grid just doesn't have the capacity to move the traffic without backups at signal lights. Short of widening every arterial street, I really don't see a simple solution to the congestion.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by electricron

I'll admit that it's surprising to see Austin placed so high on that list. Just about all the other metros on that list are larger in population. Some of them have large transit systems as well. Some of them are squeezed between mountains and the sea. Some of them are on islands. Austin can't blame spending a huge fortune on transit systems, nor on geographic obstacles, nor a very high density central core. So why is Austin so high on this list?
The reason I see isn't a lack of freeways or tollways either. What I see is it's linear layout, with the downtown core, state government, and universities all lined up in a line, one after another. The arterial street grid just doesn't have the capacity to move the traffic without backups at signal lights. Short of widening every arterial street, I really don't see a simple solution to the congestion.

Bingo. I also think, from experience looking for an apartment last summer, this hurts prices of residential units. In a place like San Antonio one can live any direction from downtown. Here in Austin, unless your very wealthy, living in the western areas is not going to happen. And there is little development in the east(when are they gonna develop it?). So your choice is north or south. Problem is, cheaper the further out you go. So we went far. More traffic.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

Bingo. I also think, from experience looking for an apartment last summer, this hurts prices of residential units. In a place like San Antonio one can live any direction from downtown. Here in Austin, unless your very wealthy, living in the western areas is not going to happen. And there is little development in the east(when are they gonna develop it?). So your choice is north or south. Problem is, cheaper the further out you go. So we went far. More traffic.

To the east Austin was cut off by airports, both civilian and military. No one likes to live under runway approaches, and few arterial streets run all the way through airports. That sort of explains why Austin didn't grow much to the east. I suppose the lake more than anything else limited growth to the west, there aren't that many bridges crossing it in that direction. There are certainly more bridges north-south than east-west.
An east-west freeway crossing the lake might have helped some for east and west directional growth. Surprisingly, neither freeway nor rail corridors are proposed for the east and west directions anytime soon. Only north and south directions proposals are on the table, so we should stand by for even more congestion in the future as future transportation projects north and south will encourage more growth north and south. It's an endless circle.

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by electricron

To the east Austin was cut off by airports, both civilian and military. No one likes to live under runway approaches, and few arterial streets run all the way through airports. That sort of explains why Austin didn't grow much to the east. I suppose the lake more than anything else limited growth to the west, there aren't that many bridges crossing it in that direction. There are certainly more bridges north-south than east-west.
An east-west freeway crossing the lake might have helped some for east and west directional growth. Surprisingly, neither freeway nor rail corridors are proposed for the east and west directions anytime soon. Only north and south directions proposals are on the table, so we should stand by for even more congestion in the future as future transportation projects north and south will encourage more growth north and south. It's an endless circle.

What's with this "we" stuff, Electricron. I thought you lived in the DFW area.

[cvalkan]

I've always thought Austin's linear layout made it more suitable than other cities for rail.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by cvalkan

I've always thought Austin's linear layout made it more suitable than other cities for rail.

Yes, it does. But linear layouts make congestion on highways and roads worse.

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by electricron

Yes, it does. But linear layouts make congestion on highways and roads worse.

Yeah, we should get rid of them. Really, though, a central rail corridor for a narrow metro is a no brainer. Let people commute to the rail stops up and down the corridor and then travel said corridor to where ever they need to go. I like lzppjb's comment about the "cellular rides". It's kind of like a vanpool that comes to you instead of you having to go to it.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Yeah, we should get rid of them. Really, though, a central rail corridor for a narrow metro is a no brainer.

I 'll agree. Austin already has a central rail corridor that too many frown upon. So apparently it makes a difference where the tracks are laid, or Austin needs two or three central rail corridors.

[ILUVSAT]

I think the forthcoming bond referendum is doomed to fail due to the route north out of downtown Austin. It is ludicrous to have the rail run up Red River/IH-35 to ACC's Highland Campus instead of the more dense areas of Guadalupe or Lamar!

The routes through downtown and southeast, along Riverside, were forgone conclusions. And rightfully so...

[Jdawgboy]

I think Austin ranks 4th because of the fact that our current road infrastructure is just overwhelmed. It is also possible they took into account the rate of growing time that we are stuck in traffic. I can see a definite change in how long it takes me to get from home to ACC Northridge or vice versa just in the last 2 years. When I started going to Northridge for classes it would take on average 45 minutes during peak traffic times. Now it is on average an hour to an hour and 15 min. Rarely is it ever less than an hour now. I can see the higher amount of cars on the roads now compared to 2 years ago.

Austin didn't grow much to the west because of two reasons. The city's push to protect as much of that area as they could and the terrain. Lake Travis is too far to the west to be a barrier. Its only been in the last 10 to 15 years that the city limits have been extended that far and its only a small part. The section of the Hill Country that is within Austin is really hilly, with lots of shear cliffs and deep valleys were Bull Creek meanders through as well as other creeks. Even without the environmental protections, it wouldn't be easy to build a large east west route in that direction. Just look at roads like 2222 and Beecaves. Even roads like 290 and 71 come in from the southwest rather than due west to avoid the very hilly terrain as well as the lakes. 71 still goes through some pretty steep sections.

The fact that Downtown, Capitol Complex and UT are placed the way they are is a benefit to the city. They were placed that way long before I-35 existed. A large part of the congestion through Downtown is due to all the street reconstruction going on. Multiple streets (east/west and north/south) have one or more lanes closed in several sections. They are not only rebuilding the sidewalks and streetscaping for the Great Streets Program, but upgrading the pipes and power lines under the streets. The downside is the current traffic nightmare, however once they finish, I think the traffic gridlock will lighten up. They could do one street at a time but it would take forever to rebuild them all.

Austin grew linear because we only have one interstate freeway. its no surprise the city grew along I-35 rather than to the east or west because for a time, it was the only freeway we had until Mopac was built. Add to that a limited number of crossings over the Colorado River and you end up with the mess we are in now.

I wasn't surprised that Austin was ranked on that list. What surprised me was Bridgeport, Connecticut which is why I think they factored in other things besides just how many hours spent sitting in traffic.

[Jdawgboy]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

The logic of the nimbies and old school Austinites (I'm old school myself, too, by the way) who believe that if people just stop moving here that it'll all be ok just completely baffles me. They vote against any proposal to help the situation, badmouth the city, the growth, the development, Capital Metro, etc. Meanwhile traffic is getting worse. The American-Statesman comments section and some of the Facebook groups like "South Austin Memories" and "Do you remember when? Austin, Texas Version" give me the willies. Sometimes I think nothing will ever get done. There was a big argument about Dan's Hamburgers complaining about their slow progress in the permitting process. And of course everyone blamed the city for it. Nevermind the fact that there was a long list of reasons why the process was slow some that didn't have a thing to do with the city.

Thank you! Couldn't have said it better myself and I have made this argument several times to my local Neighborhood Association. Another thing to add about Dans Hamburgers is many of the things they had to deal with regarding city coding, which has made it a complicated process on its own is due in large part because of the ANC and NIMBY's constant meddling in city development ordinances. The very reason why the owner has stated its the last time, they will build anything in Austin.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. These people don't even think logically because they support things that ultimately make things worse rather than better for them. I really don't get how these people think. I don't like to say harsh things like this but seriously these people don't seem to have much of a brain. Ive gotten to the point when I hear somebody talk about how they don't like what Austin is becoming and that they miss the old Austin, I have no problem at all telling them straight up, that they can find some other place to live. Im fed up with them, they are not doing anything but taking up space in this city they constantly complain about living in. The audacity of it all is the majority of these people moved here from other areas themselves and are not native Austinites, yet they seem to think they know how Austin should be. Most of the people I know who are from here born and raised like myself feel the same as I do. They have no problem with the growth other than the typical side effects like traffic and property values. We have things now that we didn't have 10, 20, 30 years ago. Lots more to do than "the good ol' days" as well.

[KevinFromTexas]

This was my reply on Facebook on the Dan's Hamburgers "problem".

Some people have gotten it wrong about the reason Dan's is having problems. The fact is there are many reasons they ran into trouble. Austin never really slowed down during the national economic downturn. Occupancy rates and demand for rental units here remained high even though banks weren't lending for new projects. Since those projects couldn't get funding, there was a huge backlog of projects just waiting for funding, with the bulk of these projects being residential. Meanwhile the market demand for construction continued and even increased as more jobs and new residents came to Texas. Once the national economy picked up again and banks started lending again for construction projects, the city became overwhelmed with permit requests. That was one reason. Another is that the City of Austin had to layoff staff because of budget cuts. I read that at one point they had fewer than 8 people handling the incoming permit requests. So it was taking weeks for projects to get through the process. Another reason I've heard is that a lot of the anti-growth folks pushed for tougher rules about code changes and other variances a business might need. We have two very big anti-growth city council members in particular who shoot down just about every new project in some last ditch effort to hang onto the old Austin. That position is actually hurting the development process in the long run, even for our beloved locally owned burger joints. And lastly, it's really no surprise that a 40+ year old burger joint would have a shock at the process of remodeling when they've done so little of it in the last 4 decades.

-

It's not that they're stupid. Now days because of the internet everyone has a way to get their opinion out there. The local news stations take online polls on Facebook and suddenly everyone is an expert in every matter they address. There are other reasons, too, why they say what they do. Besides ignorance of the situation and a lack of knowledge of the subject, it can also be for different political views and an emotional reaction to the change they're seeing and being too afraid to invite anymore of it, even if it really will be a benefit to fixing the problems. I-35 can't really be expanded, and SH-130 is pretty useless when it comes to actually alleviating traffic in Austin. And I can't believe anyone actually believes the answer is to tear down central neighborhoods for even more highways that will eventually be congested just like the ones we have. And I doubt any of these residents who resist everything would ever in a million years agree to that anyway. We need better cooperation and participation from the community and better education and understanding of the problems and how to solve them. Obviously rail and good public transportation is the way to go so that you can actually increase capacities along our corridors.

In another comment to the issue of rail and public transportation, I said that I almost wish that the voters could be taken out of the equation. We are the biggest obstacle to our own success. We have to discuss, debate, study, vote and give our opinions on everything while the problem keeps getting worse. Just imagine 100+ years ago if they had gone to the voters and asked them if they wanted water lines installed in cities, water treatment plants, sewage treatment plants and an electrical grid. Can you imagine anyone actually debating if those things would be good? I think for issues on infrastructure that the public really shouldn't have an opinion on it. What I wish is our public leaders and governments would just ask us if we think there is a problem and would we like to see the problem solved. Then that department could go off and come up with a solution to the problem (if there is one) and vote about it among themselves without any further public input.

[H2O]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

In another comment to the issue of rail and public transportation, I said that I almost wish that the voters could be taken out of the equation. We are the biggest obstacle to our own success. We have to discuss, debate, study, vote and give our opinions on everything while the problem keeps getting worse. Just imagine 100+ years ago if they had gone to the voters and asked them if they wanted water lines installed in cities, water treatment plants, sewage treatment plants and an electrical grid. Can you imagine anyone actually debating if those things would be good?

I read that when the moonlight towers were being installed, people opposed them believing their vegetables would grow too fast, and their roosters would crow all night!

[electricron]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

In another comment to the issue of rail and public transportation, I said that I almost wish that the voters could be taken out of the equation. We are the biggest obstacle to our own success. We have to discuss, debate, study, vote and give our opinions on everything while the problem keeps getting worse. Just imagine 100+ years ago if they had gone to the voters and asked them if they wanted water lines installed in cities, water treatment plants, sewage treatment plants and an electrical grid. Can you imagine anyone actually debating if those things would be good? I think for issues on infrastructure that the public really shouldn't have an opinion on it. What I wish is our public leaders and governments would just ask us if we think there is a problem and would we like to see the problem solved. Then that department could go off and come up with a solution to the problem (if there is one) and vote about it among themselves without any further public input.

Do you really believe voters should be taken out of the equation or not? We live in a democracy, I believe voters should participate in important, billion dollars decisions.
Transit boards, county hospital boards, and highway commissioners are not elected to their positions, they are appointed. Citizens in a democracy should have the right of representation by the power of their vote on every tax and appropriation our government makes. With county commissioners, school board members, and city council members we get to vote upon them periodically, it isn't absolutely necessary to have a refrendum upon every tax or appropriation they make. But the people have no direct power or representation over decisions made by independent commissions and agencies.
Might as well eliminate all referendums if taxation and appropriations issues are taken off the board. Maybe we should change how CapMetro board members are selected, from appointed positions to elected positions, then they would have more representation powers to set taxes and expenditures.

[lzppjb]

We are a republic, not a democracy.

But local govt/CapMet is so corrupt/inept, it's hard to trust their decisions.

[KevinFromTexas]

Yes, I do. At least with the fervent debating on issues by the general public and the mixed message it sends. We all agree there is a problem with our transportation system and the traffic, but there's no consensus from anyone on a solution. And yes, those appointed members should be elected instead. Appointed board members leads to cronyism and a lack of accountability. My idea is about making the process absolute as a voting process. Leaders approach the voting public posing a question about a problem asking voters if it's something they'd like to see solved. Then those departments go off to come up with a plan that our elected board members would vote on based on their expertise in the subject, not armchair engineers. The next election cycle would decide if their decision was the right one and if they get to keep their job.