AUSTIN | Seaholm Pedestrian Passageway

[Syndic]

So, I figured I'd just go ahead and start a thread for this project.

I just signed up for a Statesman subscription. It's gotten way cheaper. Right now, you only have to pay $19.99 for a whole year. Then, after that, it's only $8.99 per month, which is comparable to Netflix or Spotify or Rivals. To me, it seems reasonable. So, I'll pay it because it's worth it to me namely because I want access to articles such as this:

Tab for Austin’s bike, pedestrian passageway under railroad now cheaper

By Ben Wear - American-Statesman Staff

The idea of cutting a bike-and-pedestrian passageway under Union Pacific’s rail tracks downtown has been on the city’s drawing boards and hard drives since at least 2003, when the cost was estimated at $1 million.

By 2012, that figure had ballooned to $6.8 million because, given the difficulty of punching a sizable hole through the embankment beneath a working freight railroad, Union Pacific officials said the city first needed to pay for the company to construct a parallel track nearby.

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news..._post-purchase

Summary of the article, for those who can't read it:

The project has gone from $6.8 million to $4.4 million and it will be split into two phases that will cost $2.2 million each. The change in cost is because, instead of building a new track parallel to the existing track and then switching over to that track, they're just going to build a bridge where the pedestrian underpass will go which will involve shutting down this rail segment for 48 hours. In exchange for this, Union Pacific will replace the part of the track that crosses 2nd Street "that has had a tendency to throw rocks onto West Second Street beneath it." Hence, that weird thing that covers 2nd Street under that rail bridge.

This Union Pacific project for this bridge over 2nd Street is expected to happen this year whereas the city's part is supposed to happen next year. It should all be completed by the end of 2016.

It's being paid for by borrowing money from expected tax revenue created by property taxes generated by the developments in the Seaholm district.

[aqibtalib]

FYI, you can access the Statesman online for for FREE with a Austin Library card number: Press Display

[Flatiron]

Is this project going anywhere?

[paul78701]

Originally Posted by Flatiron

Is this project going anywhere?

I believe that they are supposed to start on it in 2016. I'm unsure of the completion date.

[Flatiron]

Plans from the city ftp site:

ftp://ftp.ci.austin.tx.us/ATD_AULCC/...sing_PLANS.pdf

[atxdweller]

Originally Posted by Flatiron

Plans from the city ftp site:

ftp://ftp.ci.austin.tx.us/ATD_AULCC/...sing_PLANS.pdf

These aren't plans for the underpass at Bowie, but for a gated pedestrian crossing at 3rd and the railroad bridge over Lamar, close to the Amtrak station.

Now that Walter Seaholm Drive is open and one can easily cross under the railroad at Seaholm and 2nd, I really wonder if the underpass at Bowie and 3rd is worth the money.

[Flatiron]

Originally Posted by atxdweller

These aren't plans for the underpass at Bowie, but for a gated pedestrian crossing at 3rd and the railroad bridge over Lamar, close to the Amtrak station.

Now that Walter Seaholm Drive is open and one can easily cross under the railroad at Seaholm and 2nd, I really wonder if the underpass at Bowie and 3rd is worth the money.

Thanks for catching that! This is what I actually found:

http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=155194

From a pedestrian/walkability standpoint, if you are at the Gables the proposed underpass is safer than walking on Lamar and quicker than using Seaholm drive if your destination is Bowie Street.

[atxdweller]

Originally Posted by Flatiron

From a pedestrian/walkability standpoint, if you are at the Gables the proposed underpass is safer than walking on Lamar and quicker than using Seaholm drive if your destination is Bowie Street.

Sure, I get it; I live a stone's throw from here and have walked all these routes. But before Seaholm was opened, getting across the tracks was a problem for a lot more folks on the north side of them. Now, the problem has narrowed substantially to mostly folks at the Gables (and maybe Spring), and I'm wondering if that's a large enough set of users to justify a capital-intensive project. It's a pretty deep hole they're going to have to dig and reinforce for train traffic.

Then again, I can't remember who was going to pay for it. If UP, then sure, let 'em.

[_Matt]

If you're in the area, then you're experienced how poor of a pedestrian route it is walking up Seaholm drive. Blind curves, narrow sidewalk, no separation from cars, active loading dock and busy Seaholm garage exit. It's more of a back alley than a built-for-purpose pedestrian route.

[atxdweller]

Originally Posted by _Matt

If you're in the area, then you're experienced how poor of a pedestrian route it is walking up Seaholm drive. Blind curves, narrow sidewalk, no separation from cars, active loading dock and busy Seaholm garage exit. It's more of a back alley than a built-for-purpose pedestrian route.

The west side of the street is perfectly serviceable, IMO, and is a damned sight better than cutting under the fence like we used to do. I remain unconvinced that a purpose-built crossing a few hundred feet farther west significantly benefits anyone except the particular set of folks at the Gables.

[_Matt]

So, despite evidence to the contrary, you remain unconvinced, and that is your prerogative. Fortunately these issues are public and overarching public policy can direct the decision.

The sidewalk on the left is the one you referenced.

https://www.google.com/maps/@30.2666...7i13312!8i6656

With that "doesn't benefit me" attitude, we would never get the great streets initiative or other facilities that encourage walkability in Austin. Shame on you.

[atxdweller]

Originally Posted by _Matt

So, despite evidence to the contrary, you remain unconvinced, and that is your prerogative. Fortunately these issues are public and overarching public policy can direct the decision.

The sidewalk on the left is the one you referenced.

https://www.google.com/maps/@30.2666...7i13312!8i6656

With that "doesn't benefit me" attitude, we would never get the great streets initiative or other facilities that encourage walkability in Austin. Shame on you.

Oh, please, reserve your sanctimony until you improve your logical reasoning skills. There is a difference between asserting that "I don't support a project because it doesn't benefit me personally" and "I don't support a project that does not serve a reasonable number of people relative to its cost."

As for your "evidence," I'll take my direct experience as a member of the neighborhood who frequents all these streets.

Public improvements are not free. If questioning the justification merits conclusory shaming--well, the shame lies with thee, not me. I accept your apology in advance.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by atxdweller

Oh, please, reserve your sanctimony until you improve your logical reasoning skills. There is a difference between asserting that "I don't support a project because it doesn't benefit me personally" and "I don't support a project that does not serve a reasonable number of people relative to its cost."

As for your "evidence," I'll take my direct experience as a member of the neighborhood who frequents all these streets.

Public improvements are not free. If questioning the justification merits conclusory shaming--well, the shame lies with thee, not me. I accept your apology in advance.

He's not shaming questioning.

He's shaming your positive assertion that "The west side of the street is perfectly serviceable".

As am I.

I doubt it meets modern design guidelines. In fact, it probably isn't even a "sidewalk" officially (like the "no longer a sidewalk" on the Lamar bridge).

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by _Matt

So, despite evidence to the contrary, you remain unconvinced, and that is your prerogative. Fortunately these issues are public and overarching public policy can direct the decision.

The sidewalk on the left is the one you referenced.

https://www.google.com/maps/@30.2666...7i13312!8i6656

With that "doesn't benefit me" attitude, we would never get the great streets initiative or other facilities that encourage walkability in Austin. Shame on you.

Originally Posted by atxdweller

Oh, please, reserve your sanctimony until you improve your logical reasoning skills. There is a difference between asserting that "I don't support a project because it doesn't benefit me personally" and "I don't support a project that does not serve a reasonable number of people relative to its cost."

As for your "evidence," I'll take my direct experience as a member of the neighborhood who frequents all these streets.

Public improvements are not free. If questioning the justification merits conclusory shaming--well, the shame lies with thee, not me. I accept your apology in advance.

Play nice. Or else.

[_Matt]

As a member of the surrounding community I have walked it countless times. It's not sound. People can't pass one another without going on the street. I wonder if it is even possible for people in wheelchairs to take that route. Ban me if you want Kevin, but to me, it's shameful to focus on one's own personal abilities rather than consider everybody's needs. I'm not apologizing or stepping down from that assertion.

[KevinFromTexas]

I agree with you.

And don't worry. I'm not a hard ass.

Really, though, that is a pretty wimpy sidewalk, and comes off seeming like an afterthought. And that street can be a bit iffy what with the hill and relatively sharp blind curve. I don't know why they didn't just make the sidewalk on the other side of the street wider by eliminating this one altogether. It really is useless as is. There isn't even anything on that side of the street that you'd really need to access anyway.

[SkyPie]

Having lived in the area before and after Seaholm Drive opened, I think it really depends on whether you live east or west of Seaholm Drive. If you live at Spring or Bowie, you will continue to cross the tracks instead of going out of your way. Also, if you live at one of the Gables apartments, you're certainly going to cross the tracks when heading to the gym, Whole Foods, etc. I think this passageway is absolutely needed and will be heavily used.

[drummer]

The pedestrian passageway would serve more than just Gables folks. People who use the Pfluger pedestrian bridge would likely use it as well, say, going to and from Whole Foods, Trader Joe's, and so many other things in that area, not to mention offices. It's a far more natural and effective route. I think it would encourage even more pedestrian activity.

[H2O]

Originally Posted by drummer

The pedestrian passageway would serve more than just Gables folks. People who use the Pfluger pedestrian bridge would likely use it as well, say, going to and from Whole Foods, Trader Joe's, and so many other things in that area, not to mention offices. It's a far more natural and effective route. I think it would encourage even more pedestrian activity.

That is, in fact, the whole reason for it. It was originally planned in conjunction with the Pfluger Bridge extension as a later phase. It has just turned out to be much later.

[Flatiron]

Any news on this project, especially with all the talk about transportation bonds lately?