AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[TXLove]

Nice pics Kevinb....liked the 4th pic with the skyline in the train...creative!!!!

[MichaelB]

Originally Posted by JGFrisco

It wasn't the city fathers' fault. It was the city residents. Time after time, roadway and other improvement projects were shot down.

FAR too many people had the idea that if you don't build it, they won't come. Well...they came anyway, and the roads weren't built to cover them. Now it's a mess.

Would rather have some of the mess now than the hideous inner city expressways that had been planned in central austin that we have seen posted here soooo many times.

[Scottolini]

Not all of those had to be built...but some would have been nice. Or how about at least some arterials having been upgraded.

But if not, could we at least have gone the mass transit route? Obviously not, so now we have neither.

[SecretAgentMan]

Originally Posted by M1EK

You have to be smoking crack if you think there is sufficient width in all of the existing CM right-of-way between Leander and Saltillo for THREE TRACKS, PLUS all the existing commitments like "rails with trails".

Cap Metro ROW varies from 50 feet to 100 feet. Three tracks fit into 50 feet ROW. Where the ROW is only 50 feet, the trail is outside of the rail ROW, on street or in an acquired easement.

http://allsystemsgo.capmetro.org/dow...ndix%20B-E.pdf

I know you are going to say this study is disingenuous on the part of CMTA because they pledged to include the trail in the 2004 election, but they never said it would all be within their ROW. They did the study that indicated the trail didn't fit into the ROW in all places after the election, and now they have included it in their Stimulus Package list, so they have not abandoned the commitment.

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by MichaelB

Would rather have some of the mess now than the hideous inner city expressways that had been planned in central austin that we have seen posted here soooo many times.

I agree big time. Traffic sucks, but it's what happens when you build out there. If you want to live there then you should be ready for traffic. It's just like noise and blocked views in downtown. It comes with the territory. The idea of turning 360 into a freeway is nasty. Bridges and overpasses? Eww!

And I'm not siding with the "If you don't build it they won't come" motto either. Of course the city will grow (in population) whether we prepare for it or not. My gripe and argument though is that places like 360 and West Austin are not the best places for density and urban sprawl. I'm not advocating low-density, suburban sprawl there either, just saying that any development out there should be discouraged as best as possible. Focus it elsewhere. There is so much land in Central Austin that should be developed densely, and I'm not just talking about downtown either.

[Scottolini]

I believe that this will be a great success with 2 tracks dedicated for the commuter trains. All Capital Metro needs to do is buy/lease more trains, increase frequency of service, let the areas around the stations develop, let gas prices go back up, the commute down 183 and Mopac get worse, extend the line a touch further into downtown, and this will be a great success, especially for the money spent.

Over time the line to Manor/Elgin will open, the Georgetown-San Antonio line down the UP line, and an inner city streetcar with some dedicated ROW. Add in improved bus service, including BRT, and Austin may have a respectable mass transit system in a decade or less.

Then again, I'm sure I am all wrong about that; right M1EK?

[Scottolini]

You do realize you sound much like the people opposing tall buildings when you oppose those nasty bridges, right?

[KevinFromTexas]

Those bridges would encourage and help feed the sprawl. They would only justify it. Why does the city have to grow to the west? Why not eastward? Development would be easier there since the topography is more level.

[Scottolini]

Well, at least you do have some valid points. I just don't have such a strong, negative reaction to freeways. They actually are quite interesting IMO, particularly the interchanges. It's similar to the way I find skyscrapers interesting. But there is a place for everything, and I agree west of Mopac isn't ideal for any growth. Unfortunately much has already occurred, and much more will likely follow. So, should we not accept the reality and just refuse to make the necessary infrastructure upgrades?

[PartyLine]

Originally Posted by M1EK

Yes, I know. SAM was trying to mislead you by conflating my claims about how easy it would be to double-track the UPRR with the Red Line.

Yeah there can't be enough room for three tracks down the middle of Mopac

[NormalgeNyus]

There are many reasons for the bad traffic. one of the reasons that people would either overlook or combine with suburban sprawl is the sub divisions. If you had more of a block set up you would have more choices to drive. I understand the point of subdivisions were there is only like one or 2 exits to make it safer for kids to play, but this is one of the causes of the bad traffic. when you only have a few roads to choose from you get alot of people on one route.

[MichaelB]

I would not build a house on a remote island and then expect everyone else to foot the bill for a bridge for me to get to my remote island.

[shanny]

the west side its still a legitimate part of the city that is growing just as much as the rest....do you think having a mountain in the way kept them from connecting east and western colorado via I-70.....ummmm no

360 and 2222 west of 360 could easily be expanded...maybe not freeway but at least one more lane in each direction...the presence of hills is no excuse

[Scottolini]

So what about water/wastewater lines, schools, parks, etc.? Everyone is supposed to live in already built up area? Where? Should we bulldoze existing neighborhoods in the city, and rebuild the area with mid/highrises? That's what it would take, and that's not going to happen.

[JGFrisco]

Kevin, with all due respect,your attitude is what caused traffic to be problematic in Austin in the first place. If you don't provide good road access to the west side, will that stop them from building there? No.

People WANT to live there. And if we are going to build freeways north, east, and south, why not west?

Back when, the city put together a growth plan to go north and south, as if west didn't exist. But people want to live there.

I got really tired of the whole anti-growth argument when I lived in Austin (nearly 20 years). We can't build stuff because it might mess up something...then lo and behold the people came anyway, and things are messed up far worse than they would have been had we planned for it in the first place.

[MichaelB]

one word on the west: Aquifer

Hate that this discussion has not mentioned the environment. Just roads and roads and peoples "desires" with no consideration of impact on the environment that happened to have made the area desirable in the first place.

Perhaps the natural lack accessibility will "naturally" limit the amount of population. Not a bad idea to me. If you build it they will come. If you make it easier to get there, more will come. Perhaps we should not make it easier.

[electricron]

Originally Posted by PartyLine

Yeah there can't be enough room for three tracks down the middle of Mopac

Look at these New Mexico Railrunner photos.




14 feet displacement from the centerline of each track is all that's needed.
Whereas these photos show only one track, you can easily see the subgrade for the second track is in place.

Checking Google Earth for width of the medians:
New Mexico's I 25 at photo locations ~90 feet
Austin's MoPac at W 35th Street ~91 feet, although for most of the route, it's ~ 60 feet. But that's only a loss of 15 feet in both directions, and as you can easily see in these photos, there's easily 15 feet to spare.
There is plenty of room on the MoPac if you want to put double tracks in its median.
They might have to reconfigure some highway bridges, storm gutters, install concrete barriers, etc, but there is room for more tracks!
Even ASA plans include double tracking the MoPac, so they obviously believe it is possible.
http://asarail.org/resources/ASA_Rai...lity_Study.pdf

[hookem]

Originally Posted by MichaelB

Perhaps the natural lack accessibility will "naturally" limit the amount of population. Not a bad idea to me. If you build it they will come. If you make it easier to get there, more will come. Perhaps we should not make it easier.

I agree with that. Over time, I've come to find traffic in West Austin is actually my friend. The congestion along roads like 360, 2222, 2244, and 71 makes traveling short distances so time consuming (at least during rush hour) -- so if a 6-8 mile drive takes 45 minutes, you can bet there won't be as much demand for places 10-15 miles out. Look at any map of Austin, and the pattern is clear. Where the highways look like they do in Dallas or Houston (i.e., to the north and now east of Austin) the sprawl looks like it too. You can't help that; this is Texas, after all. If you build it, they will indeed come -- and what will come is cul-de-sac culture and low rise sprawl.

Along those lines, I am OK with development right along 360. They blasted though those hills in the late 70s/early 80s, the damage is already done. 360, if considered like a partial loop, is (by radius) closer to downtown than 610 in Houston or 635 in Dallas. Why shouldn't it be urban?

It's better to build along 360 than sprawl further out west.. why? Well, first off, there ARE restrictions. Why do you think we're seeing developments in the 6-10 story range, with parking garages? Impervious cover restriction. If these projects were built off 183, they'd be 2-4 story with huge surface lots. Secondly, highway 360 is an extremely rare, if not singular sight in Texas -- an urbanized(well, slightly) hilly area very close to downtown. Let's encourage that. There are hundreds of hills to the west of 360 which are still in their pristine, oak, mesquite, and cedar covered glory... let's keep them that way. I say, build along 360 until it's total gridlock and the hills are covered with development (except wild basin and the greenbelt, which will be "urban" greenspaces). It'll be safer for the cyclists, too -- if traffic is moving 5mph, more fatal cyclist-motorist collisions will be avoided. I do think at least a bus should run along 360, and maybe the gridlock will encourage that too.

[M1EK]

The problem with Mopac isn't that there isn't enough room for 2 tracks; the problem is that there isn't enough room for 2 tracks plus other programmed changes without first tearing up the existing track. As discussed before.

Scottolini, the problem with your grand theory is that most choice commuters will not accept transfers as part of their daily commute. Even in a place like Manhattan, this is a serious enough impediment to ridership that it becomes necessary to spend a few billion dollars bringing the LIRR a bit closer in; and they're not transferring to a shuttle-bus, either.

The grand plan you espouse is one that has never worked; not ever; not one single time in this country. It's not remotely similar to the successful path Dallas and Houston are already headed down, to say nothing of Portland, Salt Lake, Denver, Minneapolis, etc.

The only model for what we're trying to do is South Florida, and once Tri-Rail opened, they destroyed all momentum for further transit investment for 25 years ("nobody's riding! I guess rail doesn't work!").

[Mopacs]

For all those who voluntarily move into an area with limited road/highway infrastructure and then complain about the traffic, I dedicate this memorable quote from the movie Airplane:

"Shana, they bought their tickets, they knew what they were getting into. I say, let 'em crash!"