HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #221  
Old Posted Nov 6, 2015, 8:00 PM
_Matt _Matt is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 343
Blocking the intake grates seems like it would definitely reduce the effectiveness. We can speculate about it and create drama, but unless you're the engineer with the actual numbers, I wouldn't worry too much about it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #222  
Old Posted Nov 7, 2015, 2:39 PM
priller's Avatar
priller priller is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,984
Interesting. My friends in our building (Sabine at 5th) were talking about how the tunnel worked like a champ during the recent flood. The creek rose some but not nearly as much as it has in the past during similar heavy rain. I'm sure the tunnel has some issues but overall it's doing its job.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #223  
Old Posted Nov 7, 2015, 3:43 PM
Tech House Tech House is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 749
Quote:
Originally Posted by lzppjb View Post
Morons. How do they get away with this BS? The view is already obstructed! There is no protected view! They could just add some deck on top and it would improve the so-called protected view.

Stupid SOBs wasting our money because they don't give a shit. It's not their money, why should they care?
That was a tasty rant and I agree wholeheartedly. I'll never understand the tendency for most humans to unquestioningly adhere to rules that don't make any sense. Maybe it's driven by a desire not to face the kind of consequences I've experienced in my many run-ins with rules I didn't like. People, and systems, don't like disruption.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #224  
Old Posted Feb 1, 2017, 8:16 PM
Syndic's Avatar
Syndic Syndic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 1,255
I asked the Watershed Protection Department for an update on the state of the Waller Creek Tunnel project and they game through.

Check out these pics: https://www.flickr.com/photos/828351...57656784869385

Oops, never mind, these are super old! I've been sold a fake bill of goods!
__________________
Anti-Leslie Pool. Death to I-35!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #225  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2017, 1:49 PM
ahealy's Avatar
ahealy ahealy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Austin | Puglia, Italia
Posts: 1,437
ugh, and Austin can't build a subway .......because
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #226  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2017, 3:02 PM
jbssfelix jbssfelix is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 281
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahealy View Post
ugh, and Austin can't build a subway .......because
Lack of density to warrant the expense. Ridership would likely be too low.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #227  
Old Posted Feb 2, 2017, 4:09 PM
Novacek Novacek is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by ahealy View Post
ugh, and Austin can't build a subway .......because
They're massively expensive and it would bankrupt us for decades?


So the Waller creek flood tunnel is $163M for ~ 1 mile in length. Any viable subway system would need to be, what, at least 5-6 miles.


That's just a tunnel, not including track, electrification, stations (a _biggy_), emergency access and egress, ventilation (water doesn't need to breath), and vehicles. Oh, and some sort of vehicle storage and maintenance facility presumably above ground.

And the construction of _just_ the tunnel started in 2011. So you figure at least inflation out to 2025 or so (planning + voter approval + construction).



At least initially, any Austin transit system will be mostly above ground, with potentially underground sections in the very limited areas it's necessary or makes sense. Remember, the 2014 plan was (or at least considered, it's been long enough that I can't quite recall) an underground section through downtown up to about 12th street or so.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #228  
Old Posted Feb 5, 2017, 8:02 PM
The ATX's Avatar
The ATX The ATX is offline
I'm here for no one.
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: My side of the fence
Posts: 6,674
As soon as the tunnel is finished Waterloo Park will get a $15 million dollar makeover.

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/loca...ef=cbTopWidget
__________________
Austin on Urban Planet:
http://www.urbanplanet.org/forums/forum/215-austin/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #229  
Old Posted Feb 5, 2017, 9:36 PM
JoninATX JoninATX is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
Posts: 2,803
Also more logical move would to expand Capital Metro rail.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #230  
Old Posted Feb 6, 2017, 12:25 AM
wwmiv wwmiv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio
Posts: 3,555
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoninATX View Post
Also more logical move would to expand Capital Metro rail.
A multi-prongred approach

(1) an extension of the red-line all the way down 4th with stop just east of each of Congress, Guadalupe, and Rio Grande.

(2) the construction of a new north-south line in towntown using the same technology as the Red Line on Red River, Manor, and Airport (this is the quickest, most direct route, with the least amount of traffic and/or the highest amount of available ROW, with stops at Airport & Mueller, at Manor & Chestnut, and at Red River & MLK (for UT), 15th (for UT medical & Cap Complex), 12th (for Cap Complex & State Capitol), 8th, 6th, 4th, Cesar Chavez, ) and connecting into the red line at 45th and Airport with the same northern terminus... unless we could get the rail line to work with us in the limited area between McNeil Junction and the Dell Diamond, in which case a terminus at the Dell Diamond would be ideal and extremely cheap, relatively. Instant rider boost and visibility for the system.

(3) double track way way way more of the current red line for added frequency.

(4) a rebranding of the entire system with a more catchy name and advertising campaign. Here's an idea: The BATrail: The Beat Austin Traffic Rail.

(5) the yellow line

(6) the beginning planning stages of two southern lines, which would most likely have to be a purpose built segments, one would hope along with a new bridge from Red River and then into the median of...

(A) South Congress with grade separation at Oltorf, 290, Stassney, William Cannon, and a terminus at Slaughter and stops at those intersections with additional stations at the river, Riverside, SoCo, St. Edwards, and St. Elmo.

(B) East Riverside, the route that they've planned all along to the airport that's not exactly shovel ready, but its as close as given the state of our transportation planning.

Really, that's all we need for a complete system here in Austin, except for the eventual necessary piecemeal extensions of this main system (see the bullet below, for instance). Sure, there are way better alternatives, but this is something that would be truly workable and something off of which we could build.
  • To be honest, I'd be totally down to destroy Republic Square and create a huge public plaza around a new station so that we could shift the line onto 5th and keep going all the way down 5th and Lake Austin eventually, but that's not what an initial expansion should do. Just extend into the employment core a bit more so that you actually capture choice riders without the need for transfers.

That's probably $800 million total?

Last edited by wwmiv; Feb 6, 2017 at 12:35 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #231  
Old Posted Feb 6, 2017, 2:54 PM
Novacek Novacek is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by wwmiv View Post
That's probably $800 million total?
Probably at least an order of magnitude higher (more like $8B). Don't get me wrong, I'd love to be wrong, but a lot of what you describe seems infeasible (either politically or financially) or has already been shot down by the powers that be.


I'm guessing this should be moved onto the transportation thread. I'll make more comments there.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #232  
Old Posted Feb 6, 2017, 4:58 PM
jbssfelix jbssfelix is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 281
That still leaves out one of the highest potential riderships, which is along the Lamar/Guad corridor. Build a light rail line from the Midtown red line stop to 4th St, extend Red Line to same terminus on 4th/Guad or 4th/Lamar, and now you're covering a huge population network for a lot less money. That can actually be done well within your $800m figure and reach a much higher ridership right off the bat.

http://centralaustincdc.org/transpor...%20Council.pdf
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #233  
Old Posted Feb 6, 2017, 6:11 PM
Novacek Novacek is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbssfelix View Post
That still leaves out one of the highest potential riderships, which is along the Lamar/Guad corridor. Build a light rail line from the Midtown red line stop to 4th St, extend Red Line to same terminus on 4th/Guad or 4th/Lamar, and now you're covering a huge population network for a lot less money. That can actually be done well within your $800m figure and reach a much higher ridership right off the bat.

http://centralaustincdc.org/transpor...%20Council.pdf
Again, transportation thread.


But the CACDC numbers (ridership and cost) are completely debunked BS.

They literally copied the ridership number from the 2000 light rail plan, a system 3 times the length.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #234  
Old Posted Feb 6, 2017, 6:55 PM
nixcity's Avatar
nixcity nixcity is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Austin, TX.
Posts: 704
Quote:
But the CACDC numbers (ridership and cost) are completely debunked BS.

They literally copied the ridership number from the 2000 light rail plan, a system 3 times the length.
Their plan was for 14.7 miles of track compared to 2000's 14.6. Not sure where you get 3 times.
Their ridership model was not based on STOPS but rather a Transportation Research Board model drawing. Regardless of whether or not it was even within 10,000 it would be a big success. Red line has yet to achieve 3,000 lousy boarding. Case in point, while at Blackstar (Crestview Station), not a sole was waiting for the trains. The 2 that passed while we were there were maybe 1/10 full while during the same time 27 people boarded the bus there (where the first line should be, not wasted on yet another commuter line). It would be easy to then envision a spur going right over to Burnet and heading all the way to its end where it turns into Duval.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #235  
Old Posted Feb 6, 2017, 7:10 PM
wwmiv wwmiv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio
Posts: 3,555
Quote:
Originally Posted by nixcity View Post
Their plan was for 14.7 miles of track compared to 2000's 14.6. Not sure where you get 3 times.
Their ridership model was not based on STOPS but rather a Transportation Research Board model drawing. Regardless of whether or not it was even within 10,000 it would be a big success. Red line has yet to achieve 3,000 lousy boarding. Case in point, while at Blackstar (Crestview Station), not a sole was waiting for the trains. The 2 that passed while we were there were maybe 1/10 full while during the same time 27 people boarded the bus there (where the first line should be, not wasted on yet another commuter line). It would be easy to then envision a spur going right over to Burnet and heading all the way to its end where it turns into Duval.
We could accomplish the same ridership with shorter tracks, though, in the way that I describe in more detail in the transportation thread. I.E. it'd be cheaper because it'd be shorter. If we can accomplish the same thing (because it'd hit all the major nodes of employment and residential density as the line you're wanting) for cheaper, then why wouldn't we?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #236  
Old Posted Feb 6, 2017, 8:34 PM
Novacek Novacek is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,375
Quote:
Originally Posted by nixcity View Post
Their plan was for 14.7 miles of track compared to 2000's 14.6. Not sure where you get 3 times.
No, that's the claimed "ridership" number from their MOS, 5.3 miles in length.

Literally the very first non-cover page of jbssfelix's link. Page 2


Quote:
Originally Posted by nixcity View Post
Their ridership model was not based on STOPS but rather a Transportation Research Board model drawing.
and they just happen to get the _exact_ same number (down to 3 figures) as the completely different 2000 plan?

Quote:
Originally Posted by nixcity View Post
Regardless of whether or not it was even within 10,000 it would be a big success.
Red line has yet to achieve 3,000 lousy boarding.
Success is also measured in the capital costs required to get there.
A half a billion dollar system that got ridership "within 10,000" (most simply converted over from bus riders) would not be considered a success.
Especially not in comparison to a commuter rail 1/4 the cost, and potentially greater passenger-miles.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #237  
Old Posted Feb 7, 2017, 1:06 AM
JoninATX JoninATX is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Las Vegas, Nevada
Posts: 2,803
That would cost alot less than a subway line running through the city, than for the rundown wwmiv. For me I'm all for mass transit, more options in choosing different transportation methods, the better! I hoping soon there will be an expansion line to the airport, as well as new rail stops arcoss the Austin area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #238  
Old Posted Mar 7, 2017, 6:57 PM
Jdawgboy's Avatar
Jdawgboy Jdawgboy is offline
Representing the ATX!!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin
Posts: 4,498
I ran across some renderings that I don't believe I've seen before. Here's the link.

http://archinect.com/people/project/...pment/61097307

Not sure if this is recent or old or if these people are no longer in the running. They apparently collaborated with Lake Flato.
__________________
"GOOD TIMES!!!" Jerri Blank (Strangers With Candy)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #239  
Old Posted Mar 7, 2017, 7:18 PM
GoldenBoot's Avatar
GoldenBoot GoldenBoot is offline
Member since 2001
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Terra Firma
Posts: 2,220
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jdawgboy View Post
I ran across some renderings that I don't believe I've seen before. Here's the link.

http://archinect.com/people/project/...pment/61097307

Not sure if this is recent or old or if these people are no longer in the running. They apparently collaborated with Lake Flato.
Old.
__________________
Austin (City): 950,715 +20.28% - '10-'17 | Austin MSA (5 counties): 2,115,827 +23.28% - '10-'17
San Antonio (City): 1,511,946 +13.90% - '10-'17 | San Antonio MSA (8 counties): 2,473,974 +15.47% - '10-'17
AUS-SAT "CSA" (13 counties): 4,589,801 +18.94% - '10-'17 | *SRC: US Census*
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #240  
Old Posted Mar 7, 2017, 8:39 PM
Jdawgboy's Avatar
Jdawgboy Jdawgboy is offline
Representing the ATX!!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin
Posts: 4,498
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenBoot View Post
Old.
Okay, just checking.

Has there been a timeline set for when Waterloo Park will open? Is there also any word on when work is expected to begin along the stretch between Waterloo Park and the river? Seeing as how the intake facility is nearly completed (again). I would think that the conservancy could move forward with some restoration projects, at least with areas that are farther from the creek until the tunnel is fully operational.

This whole ordeal has taken so much longer than expected for the obvious reason of the intake facility. Just curious if there is some sort of timeline that we can go by? This will be a great addition once completed but would like to see it within my lifetime lol.
__________________
"GOOD TIMES!!!" Jerri Blank (Strangers With Candy)
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


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:49 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.