HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Texas & Southcentral > Austin


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1081  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2008, 5:32 AM
alexjon's Avatar
alexjon alexjon is offline
Bears of antiquity
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Downtown/First Hill, Seattle, WA
Posts: 8,340
And Taglo trains are pretty

And very comfortable!

Oh, that's another neat thing the PacNW has! Talgo trains!
__________________
"The United States is in no way founded upon the Christian religion." -- George Washington & John Adams in a diplomatic message to Malta
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1082  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2008, 10:02 AM
arbeiter's Avatar
arbeiter arbeiter is offline
passion for patterns
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 10,336
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexjon View Post
And Taglo trains are pretty

And very comfortable!

Oh, that's another neat thing the PacNW has! Talgo trains!
Which means that they ride a bit smoother and feel a bit more expensive but generally go the same speed as anything else, i.e. hemmed in by the limits of the track speed.
__________________
you should know that I'm womanly wise
my website/blog. or, my flickr site.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1083  
Old Posted Dec 18, 2008, 4:05 PM
alexjon's Avatar
alexjon alexjon is offline
Bears of antiquity
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Downtown/First Hill, Seattle, WA
Posts: 8,340
Quote:
Originally Posted by arbeiter View Post
Which means that they ride a bit smoother and feel a bit more expensive but generally go the same speed as anything else, i.e. hemmed in by the limits of the track speed.
The distances covered are pretty unremarkable, so I'm fine with the speed. If you are really itching to go to PDX, you can fly.
__________________
"The United States is in no way founded upon the Christian religion." -- George Washington & John Adams in a diplomatic message to Malta
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1084  
Old Posted Dec 19, 2008, 1:57 AM
llamaorama llamaorama is offline
Unicorn Wizard!
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 4,211
And aren't there some projects going on with those tracks though, that will significantly cut travel times?

I read a while back they are building a bypass line around Tacoma or something like that?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1085  
Old Posted Dec 19, 2008, 3:30 AM
alexjon's Avatar
alexjon alexjon is offline
Bears of antiquity
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Downtown/First Hill, Seattle, WA
Posts: 8,340
Quote:
Originally Posted by llamaorama View Post
And aren't there some projects going on with those tracks though, that will significantly cut travel times?

I read a while back they are building a bypass line around Tacoma or something like that?
Yep!

And you can have a beer or 3 on your way down. Can't do that in a car!
__________________
"The United States is in no way founded upon the Christian religion." -- George Washington & John Adams in a diplomatic message to Malta
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1086  
Old Posted Dec 21, 2008, 2:49 AM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 3,523
Lightbulb

The major problem with the San Antonio to Austin (as far as Georgetown really), is that there is too much freight traffic on the UP (old MP) line.
Here's the ASA Commuter Rail website:
http://asarail.org/
The proposed freight bypass line cost estimation is over $2 Billion, not including the costs of making the existing line viable for passenger commuter rail, which could be another $Billion.
The reason why TXDOT is rethinking the Texas T-Bone HSR may be simply getting the best value for costs. Why go through the trouble to build a new freight bypass railroad line AND upgrade the existing freight tracks when it's just as expensive as building a brand new HSR corridor from scratch, at least the same between San Antonio and Georgetown. Especially when the UP is asking for the MOON for any additional passenger service on their ROW. $3 Billion along this corridor at $50 to $100 Million per mile could build 30 to 60 miles of track. The HSR ROW could parallel 1-35, SH 130, or possibly reuse the other parallel UP (Old MKT) line between San Antonio and San Marcus.

ASA presently is hoping Amtrak might provide local regional services, because Amtrak doesn't have to pay the UP any money. The FRA will probably ante up additional federal funds for signals and a few milage of passing tracks, but that's about all it will require if Amtrak decides to do this, of course with some State funds for operations.

If the State of Texas is going to put funds into Amtrak's ASA operations forever, it should reconsider the HSR option. Many predict the HSR can pay for operations, and most of the construction costs, over time.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1087  
Old Posted Dec 23, 2008, 6:25 AM
NormalgeNyus NormalgeNyus is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 174
http://www.statesman.com/news/conten...tollroads.html

Toll roads
Central Texas tollway traffic slows to near-idle
Summer gas-price spike, economic downtown raise long-term revenue questions.

By Ben Wear
AMERICAN-STATESMAN STAFF
Saturday, December 20, 2008

The combination of sky-high gas prices this summer and then a plunging economy this fall has caused toll road use in Central Texas to stagnate, tollway officials say, and many tollways across the country have seen falling traffic. The sluggish traffic raises questions about whether some roads will be able to pay the decades of debt remaining without tapping tax money.

In the Austin area, although traffic on all four tollways (three run by the state, one by a local authority) is at or above levels of a year ago, two of the toll roads are bringing in less revenue than was projected when money was borrowed to build them. Revenue on Loop 1 for September through November was about 2 percent less than for the same period of 2007.

The overall performance of the three Texas Department of Transportation tollways — traffic has been essentially flat since May — and the lagging development picture in Central Texas suggest that the system of roads could struggle to meet projections of revenue increasing more than 60 percent over the next two years.

"It's going to be very difficult for (TxDOT) to reach their projections if the region's population doesn't grow the way they projected," said Peter Samuel , who edits Tollroads

news.com and has followed the turnpike industry for 15 years. "I think (Texas) 130 is obviously the most vulnerable of those roads to a downturn because it's more in a developing area."

Mark Tomlinson , director of TxDOT's turnpike division, said Texas 130 traffic could see a boost next year when the Texas 45 Southeast tollway is opened and allows drivers to get back to Interstate 35 without stopping.

And he said he took comfort in the continuing revenue growth of what is called the Central Texas Turnpike System, made up of Texas 130, Loop 1 and Texas 45 North. For the September through November period, the three roads brought in $14.1 million , 13 percent above projections.

"Just looking at the trend, the system looks good for the year," Tomlinson said.

However, the numbers indicate that all of the heavy lifting financially is being done by Texas 45 North, an east-west tollway that connects to Loop 1, Texas 130 and 183-A (operated by the Central Texas Regional Mobility Authority).

That road's quarterly revenue was 45 percent above projections and 7 percent above the same period last year, but monthly income has been more or less unchanged since April.

\• Loop 1, which lies at the north end of free-to-drive MoPac Boulevard, was 10 percent below projections and 2 percent under the same period in 2007 .

\• The 49-mile-long Texas 130 tollway had 65 percent more revenue than last year, when one 11.5-mile section had just opened and another 8.7-mile piece was not yet open. But its September-November revenue of $5.8 million is 9 percent below projections.

\• Traffic and revenue projections, first made in 2002 when TxDOT borrowed $2.2 billion to build the three roads and later updated, show rapidly increasing revenue in the early years. For instance, revenue in 2008 was expected to be about $42.4 million , going to $79.4 million by 2010 and almost $101 million by 2012 .

\• Actual revenue for the year that ended Sept. 1 was $48.9 million , meaning it will have to grow 61 percent in two years and more than double over the next four years to hit the target marks.

And even if revenue reaches these rapidly growing projections, TxDOT will still have to pump tax money into the system: Those original estimates show "commission support" — money from TxDOT's tax-and-fee-fed general fund — of $7.2 million in 2010 , and continuing subsidy of the system through 2025 .

Traffic has fallen on many toll roads beyond Texas borders, Samuel said.

"Around the country, you've many of them 4 percent to 5 percent below last year," Samuel said. "California is the worst of all, 10 to 15 percent. And (tolled) border crossings into Canada are the worst of all.

"There's no doubt the toll roads have suffered more than the free roads," Samuel said, saying toll roads have lost about twice as much traffic in general.

Officials with the North Texas Tollway Authority, which operates three toll roads in the Dallas area, this month lowered their revenue projections for 2009 by 7 percent . And traffic on the President George Bush Turnpike was 8 percent lower in November than in November 2007.

"When the high gas prices hit, some people began using alternative forms of transportation," tollway authority spokeswoman Susan Slupecki said Friday, "and we just haven't seen that ridership return."

Aside from any financial troubles existing roads might experience, does this tepid revenue mean that toll authorities in Austin might have trouble securing loans for the five other roads approved last year?

"I don't think so," said Michael Walton , who holds the Ernest H. Cockrell chair in engineering at the University of Texas and is a transportation consultant. "I don't believe it's a significant long-term problem because we're in the early stages of development on those roads. As they become more of the economic fabric, then utilization will continue to grow."



i hope that this downturn in the use of toll roads continues as so we can send a message for them to find other ways to build roads like most other cities in america
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1088  
Old Posted Dec 23, 2008, 2:13 PM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 3,523
Lightbulb

Interesting report. That's why I support regional rail projects.

Why pay tolls, parking fees, and gas when you can ride a train paying just the fare?

Sure, the train will not go everywhere you wish to go, but you'll be surprised at how many places it does.

But, let's not forget, the SH 130 wasn't just built to accomodiate just today's traffic, but projected traffic 20 years hence. I 35 can only accomodiate so much traffic before congestion causes gridlock, and NAFTA truck traffic is going to increase in the future.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1089  
Old Posted Jan 3, 2009, 9:55 PM
Scottolini Scottolini is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,481
Southern leg of TX Tollway 130 to I-10 in Seguin to begin construction this summer.



http://www.statesman.com/news/conten...03tollway.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1090  
Old Posted Jan 4, 2009, 12:16 AM
Jdawgboy's Avatar
Jdawgboy Jdawgboy is offline
Representing the ATX!!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin
Posts: 5,738
More of a waste of time and destruction of the environment.
__________________
"GOOD TIMES!!!" Jerri Blank (Strangers With Candy)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1091  
Old Posted Jan 4, 2009, 1:04 AM
Scottolini Scottolini is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,481
Or maybe it's actually planning for the future. Would you prefer upgrading I-35 to 18+ lanes through Austin?

Of course I would like to see the high-speed rail network built as well. And of course an urban rail system in the city itself.

IMHO your type of thinking is what has gotten Austin in the traffic situation we see today. If Austin wants to remain an attractive place we need to embrace a multi-modal transportation solution. No single form of transport is sufficient.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1092  
Old Posted Jan 4, 2009, 5:35 AM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 3,523
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottolini View Post
Or maybe it's actually planning for the future. Would you prefer upgrading I-35 to 18+ lanes through Austin?

Of course I would like to see the high-speed rail network built as well. And of course an urban rail system in the city itself.

IMHO your type of thinking is what has gotten Austin in the traffic situation we see today. If Austin wants to remain an attractive place we need to embrace a multi-modal transportation solution. No single form of transport is sufficient.
No, 18+ lanes is too many for one freeway, especially when there's plenty of room and relatively empty ranch lands to Austin's east.

I'm for all three types of rail for Austin, all types of buses, and all types of highways. How much more multi-modal can one get?
I'm a big fan of commuter-regional rail only because it's cheaper to implement along an existing freight corridors than running light rail or bus transit lanes through them. If there's little freight traffic, all that's needed is a station every 3 to 5 miles, a few train sets, and refurbishing the tracks as needed. More freight traffic means adding tracks to the mainline, increasing the expense.
I like light rail too, especially if it has it's own dedicated right of way. But it's much more expensive than commuter-regional rail for both capital and maintenace & operations.
I like streetcars too, especially when the entire route uses city streets.

I believe in using the appropriate technology per corridor. Austin is in the startup phase of building rail transit systems. The cheapest solution per corridor means building more miles of rail transit faster. A regional rail line can be refurbished into a light rail line later. A dedicated bus rapid line can too. It's not a complete waste of money not building what will ultimately exist in each corridor initially. Whatever is initially built will have a life around 30 years, before rebuilding is required. At that time, it will be appropriate to look at using a different type of transit on that corridor.

Last edited by electricron; Jan 4, 2009 at 5:47 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1093  
Old Posted Jan 4, 2009, 7:28 PM
Jdawgboy's Avatar
Jdawgboy Jdawgboy is offline
Representing the ATX!!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin
Posts: 5,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottolini View Post
Or maybe it's actually planning for the future. Would you prefer upgrading I-35 to 18+ lanes through Austin?

Of course I would like to see the high-speed rail network built as well. And of course an urban rail system in the city itself.

IMHO your type of thinking is what has gotten Austin in the traffic situation we see today. If Austin wants to remain an attractive place we need to embrace a multi-modal transportation solution. No single form of transport is sufficient.
Actually I want I-35 expanded but not to 18 lanes. And no it was not my thinking that got Austin in the mess we are in today, It was the city planners for the past 30+ years. I am angry that the state has not done enough to build up I-35 and supposedly they say they do not have anymore money?. BULL because they are expanding parts of I-35 in SA. Tell me where that money came from? Also even if it was in the works for the past several years they could have done the same for Austin. I am angry that we are building roads way out in the middle of nowhere when they need to keep our inner city infrastructure up to date. If Austin wants to remain an attracive place to live, we don't need roadways spread out promoting sprawl and uncontrolled growth either. Austin needs to not only fix what we have but continue to push for more rail, as well as continue to push alternative forms of transportation, such as riding bikes and more pedestrian friendly walkways. Oh believe me I studied environmental science and honestly this tollway system spread out in the middle of nowhere does no help for Austin.
__________________
"GOOD TIMES!!!" Jerri Blank (Strangers With Candy)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1094  
Old Posted Jan 6, 2009, 12:44 AM
JAM's Avatar
JAM JAM is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 2,628
If memory serves me correctly, I-35 thru Austin has been expanded very recently. Mostly north near Round Rock. I-35 just south of Austin looks pretty fresh too.

Its just the lanes in the immediate D.T. / Campus area that have not received attention - with what appears to be good reason - it doesn't look like there room for expansion w/o major renovation.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1095  
Old Posted Jan 6, 2009, 3:21 PM
Scottolini Scottolini is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,481
They have done lots of work on I-35 over the last 5 to 10 years through Austin, and it's surroundings.

I-35 already is 12 lanes through Austin, even 14 lanes through parts. It would be pointless to spend the amount of money, not to mention the years of construction delays, to not add at least 4 or 6 lanes to make it 18 lanes.

Also, say what you will, but 130 is not "out in the middle of nowhere". From 290 E. north all the way to Georgetown, you are right on the edge of the urbanized area. Northeast Austin, Manor, Pflugerville, Round Rock, Hutto, etc. are all high growth areas, and the road is going through the heart of this part of the metro. Then on the south end you go right by the airport, and with the soon to open 45 SE you are right next to Buda, another high growth area that is far from being "out in the middle of nowhere".

Also, this highway does not have continuous frontage roads, so you will not see sprawl like you do on most Texas highways. Development will cluster at the interchanges.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1096  
Old Posted Jan 6, 2009, 8:04 PM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
Meh
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Austin <------------> Birmingham?
Posts: 57,327
__________________
Conform or be cast out.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1097  
Old Posted Jan 6, 2009, 8:39 PM
Jdawgboy's Avatar
Jdawgboy Jdawgboy is offline
Representing the ATX!!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin
Posts: 5,738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scottolini View Post
They have done lots of work on I-35 over the last 5 to 10 years through Austin, and it's surroundings.

I-35 already is 12 lanes through Austin, even 14 lanes through parts. It would be pointless to spend the amount of money, not to mention the years of construction delays, to not add at least 4 or 6 lanes to make it 18 lanes.

Also, say what you will, but 130 is not "out in the middle of nowhere". From 290 E. north all the way to Georgetown, you are right on the edge of the urbanized area. Northeast Austin, Manor, Pflugerville, Round Rock, Hutto, etc. are all high growth areas, and the road is going through the heart of this part of the metro. Then on the south end you go right by the airport, and with the soon to open 45 SE you are right next to Buda, another high growth area that is far from being "out in the middle of nowhere".

Also, this highway does not have continuous frontage roads, so you will not see sprawl like you do on most Texas highways. Development will cluster at the interchanges.

Again I-35 has not had much upgrades save for small sections. What counts is I-35 through the heart of the city from 290/71 Ben white through north to where it Opens to 8 lanes. What is the point of a freeway that may have upgrades on either ends of the city and then leaves the downtown core a bottle neck? TxDot has been working on possible routs they can go to expand that part of I-35 but it may be a few more years before we know what will happen.

Also SH-130 may go through the metro and as you say its not in the middle of nowhere but do you honestly want to see miles and miles of sprawl to the east of Austin? Because that is what will likely happen over the next several years. The city of Austin has no control on how growth will be managed out there. Your talking about a huge impact on the environment. Granted, its not the Hill Country but it will put more air pollution in our region, there will continue to be less open ground for water to soak in naturally. It definatly does not help with smart and responsible growth that the city of Austin is trying get going and it will affect our air quality by spreading it out further to the east. Whats done is done, its built, but I never thought it was worth it to begin with and I still don't think it is to this day and that will not change.
__________________
"GOOD TIMES!!!" Jerri Blank (Strangers With Candy)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1098  
Old Posted Jan 6, 2009, 9:58 PM
paulsjv paulsjv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 520
Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas View Post
YAY!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1099  
Old Posted Jan 6, 2009, 10:55 PM
NormalgeNyus NormalgeNyus is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 174
woo hoo. rick perry's evil land grab is history. nanana na nanana na hey hey hey good bye
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #1100  
Old Posted Jan 7, 2009, 1:05 AM
Saddle Man Saddle Man is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 1,149
You do realize that it is 'dead' only as the Trans-Texas Corridors?
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Texas & Southcentral > Austin
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:17 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.