HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #7341  
Old Posted Jan 7, 2021, 5:31 PM
freerover freerover is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 1,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by drummer View Post
I think North Burnet up to the Domain area and South Lamar.

I do like the idea of an East/West line a la 5th/6th/7th, but I agree that it would need to be west of Mopac. I'm unsure of how far east of 35 would be needed.
It would only make sense to go all the way to 183 to connect to the new CARTS facility.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7342  
Old Posted Jan 7, 2021, 7:49 PM
drummer drummer is online now
World Traveler
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Austin metro area
Posts: 3,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by freerover View Post
It would only make sense to go all the way to 183 to connect to the new CARTS facility.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there already a plan for something to go up North Lamar to that facility?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7343  
Old Posted Jan 7, 2021, 8:17 PM
freerover freerover is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 1,620
Quote:
Originally Posted by drummer View Post
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't there already a plan for something to go up North Lamar to that facility?
The facility is on E 7th and 183 in East Austin. Not sure how N. Lamar would factor into it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7344  
Old Posted Jan 7, 2021, 8:45 PM
drummer drummer is online now
World Traveler
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Austin metro area
Posts: 3,143
Quote:
Originally Posted by freerover View Post
The facility is on E 7th and 183 in East Austin. Not sure how N. Lamar would factor into it.
Because I'm dumb. I'm at work and read it too quickly between meetings - I was thinking of the transit center on North Lamar. We can move along now, haha.

But yes, it makes perfect sense to connect to the CARTS facility.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7345  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2021, 9:54 PM
StoOgE StoOgE is offline
Resident Moron
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 1,699
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2021/01/...-removal-bill/

Lets snag some of this money to cut and cap 35. Also, what a boon to urbanization if we could stop ringing our downtowns with highways.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7346  
Old Posted Jan 11, 2021, 11:13 PM
chinchaaa chinchaaa is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 250
Quote:
Originally Posted by StoOgE View Post
https://usa.streetsblog.org/2021/01/...-removal-bill/

Lets snag some of this money to cut and cap 35. Also, what a boon to urbanization if we could stop ringing our downtowns with highways.
Cut and cap? Let's just cut it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7347  
Old Posted Jan 14, 2021, 9:11 PM
Novacek Novacek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,913
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novacek View Post
I think you're seriously discounting the topography difference of downtown from the lake. I'd expect (and what seems to be the proposal) is a bridge crossing of the lake, and then entering the tunnel south of Cesar Chavez.

The nominal elevation of Town Lake is 428 ft. The elevation of CC/Trinity seems to be ~488 ft.

https://en-us.topographic-map.com/maps/ndx/Austin/

It's a little hard to find a specific flood elevation for town lake. The document linked here
https://stateimpact.npr.org/texas/20...dam-in-austin/

Seems to suggest a rise to 439 feet at Longhorn dam during a 100 year event.

That's quite a bit of elevation to work with.

Honestly, if improving or replacing Longhorn dam is needed to avoid a tunnel crossing of the lake, I'd expect that to be on the table for Prop A funds (and an appropriate use).

At your 6% grade, then the 1000 feet from CC to 4th is enough to be 60 ft deeper, enough for a mezzanine level (under the park?) above the tracks.
Definitely seems to confirm bridges, not tunnels (for crossing the lake)

https://twitter.com/CapMetroATX/stat...24903067947008
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7348  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2021, 10:50 PM
Maximusx1 Maximusx1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 145
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novacek View Post
Definitely seems to confirm bridges, not tunnels (for crossing the lake)

https://twitter.com/CapMetroATX/stat...24903067947008
I'm going to predict this here and now: both the blue and orange lines will cross the lake on a single bridge from about the end of Trinity to about East Riverside, then blue will go east down Riverside and orange will work west through the southshore development back over to south Congress.

The only thing lost will be the photogenic orange line stop at the Long Center. What will be saved is the money and effort of bringing the orange line up from whatever depth from Republic Square all the way up to street level to make the crossing on the south First street bridge. That is just way too much effort for one photogenic stop at the Long Center.

It makes way more sense to overlap the blue and orange lines from Republic Square to Convention Center to Rainey and then across on one common, probably double tracked bridge with a pedestrian path on one (probably western view facing) side of the bridge. The city can negotiate with the southshore developers for right of way by giving them a station. Orange line can work west through southshore back over to South Congress and Riverside and then continue its way down south along Congress as planned.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7349  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2021, 11:27 PM
Novacek Novacek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,913
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maximusx1 View Post
I'm going to predict this here and now: both the blue and orange lines will cross the lake on a single bridge from about the end of Trinity to about East Riverside, then blue will go east down Riverside and orange will work west through the southshore development back over to south Congress.

The only thing lost will be the photogenic orange line stop at the Long Center. What will be saved is the money and effort of bringing the orange line up from whatever depth from Republic Square all the way up to street level to make the crossing on the south First street bridge. That is just way too much effort for one photogenic stop at the Long Center.

It makes way more sense to overlap the blue and orange lines from Republic Square to Convention Center to Rainey and then across on one common, probably double tracked bridge with a pedestrian path on one (probably western view facing) side of the bridge. The city can negotiate with the southshore developers for right of way by giving them a station. Orange line can work west through southshore back over to South Congress and Riverside and then continue its way down south along Congress as planned.
You also lose directness on the Orange line, which is your main transit spine, slowing down most of the passengers riding it across the river (south Austin to capital trips, south Austin to UT trips, etc.)

They already examined a one bridge option, and it was with the more secondary Blue line doubling back. And they still decided against it.

Edit/Add: Very likely bringing the orange "all the way up to street level" is "trivial" due to the significant topographic difference. Republic Square at ~504 feet above sea level. South 1st and Riverside at ~442 feet.

https://en-us.topographic-map.com/maps/ndx/Austin/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7350  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2021, 12:05 PM
Novacek Novacek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,913
CapMetro spokesperson seems to confirm Blue and Orange will cross separately. Sounds like they haven’t yet ruled out tunneling for the Orange line crossing (though I’m still betting on a separate bridge)

https://www.kvue.com/article/news/po...d-4a33b2c3acea
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7351  
Old Posted Jan 22, 2021, 2:47 AM
ahealy's Avatar
ahealy ahealy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Austin | San Antonio | Panni, Italia
Posts: 1,983
They should tunnel under town lake tbh.... Really hoping blue line bridge is s t u n n i n g
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7352  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2021, 4:12 PM
We vs us We vs us is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 2,316
This was an interesting read, re: the widening of I-35. Looks like city stakeholders are rapidly starting to unify around 1) not widening it at all) and 2) cut and cap. Earlier reporting made me skeptical about C+C -- there didn't seem to be a sense that it enough Austin folks were serious about pushing for it. It was more in the category of "wouldn't it be cool if."

Looks like that's starting to change pretty quickly . . . whcih is cool to see.

https://www.austinmonitor.com/storie...to-widen-i-35/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7353  
Old Posted Jan 25, 2021, 4:57 PM
atxsnail atxsnail is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 377
CapMetro board meeting today. The documents include a pretty hefty quadrennial perfomance audit. It's complicated a bit due to the fact that it spans the remap process. Fare increases were among the recommendations.

https://www.capmetro.org/docs/defaul...rsn=25f7a3a6_2
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7354  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2021, 1:50 AM
Echostatic's Avatar
Echostatic Echostatic is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Austin
Posts: 886










__________________
Advocating for a wider I-35, Project Connect (passed!), and a denser Austin

Last edited by Echostatic; Jan 26, 2021 at 2:01 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7355  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2021, 2:22 AM
ahealy's Avatar
ahealy ahealy is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Austin | San Antonio | Panni, Italia
Posts: 1,983
Wow. Total transit porn. Those times for the yellow line are so so amazing for Austin under normal bullshit traffic circumstances!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7356  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2021, 2:30 PM
Novacek Novacek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,913
Quote:
Originally Posted by atxsnail View Post
CapMetro board meeting today. The documents include a pretty hefty quadrennial perfomance audit. It's complicated a bit due to the fact that it spans the remap process. Fare increases were among the recommendations.

https://www.capmetro.org/docs/defaul...rsn=25f7a3a6_2
Yeah, though I wouldn't read too much into that. The legislature requires that Fare Recovery Ratio (FRR) be one of the audited measures.

https://texas.public.law/statutes/te...ection_451.454

So the recommendation is _always_ going to be "raise fares to increase FRR". And capmetro will usually (like this time) push back against the counterproductive nature of raising fares

"Management's Response:
While Management makes
recommendations with regards to
fares, fares policy is under the purview
of the Board of Directors. Fare
revenues are regularly evaluated as
one of the agency's funding sources
and in terms of the long term financial
sustainability of the agency. The
impacts of fare increases on the
community and customer
demographics are also important
factors to be considered."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7357  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2021, 2:33 PM
Novacek Novacek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,913
Quote:
Originally Posted by Echostatic View Post
removed pictures
FYI you can get to the whole presentations at https://www.capmetroengage.org/en/pa...nities/current
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7358  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2021, 3:13 PM
Novacek Novacek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,913
Interim transit priority lanes on Riverside.

I think this definitely points to using this space for the blue line long term (instead of widening the road profile to have 6 car lanes AND light rail tracks).

Now they need to do north Burnet as well.

https://mailchi.mp/austintexas/east-...priority-lanes
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7359  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2021, 4:00 PM
We vs us We vs us is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 2,316
Re: the Orange line . . . is there still a sense that they'll focus on building out the central infrastructure first and then add extensions (like the Lamar Transit Center to Tech Ridge leg) later? Or are they going to build out the whole thing at one pop?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7360  
Old Posted Jan 26, 2021, 4:01 PM
sentinel1588 sentinel1588 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 4
I know it probably won't happen, but it would be a dream come true if they could extend the underground portion up to UT.
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 1:10 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.