AUSTIN | Transportation Updates - Page 312

Echostatic · #**6221** Posted **Jun 10, 2019, 12:02 AM**

So we could actually see some form of subway out of the Orange Line? That would get great usage.

freerover · #**6222** Posted **Jun 10, 2019, 10:26 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Novacek

I wonder how the true believer transit zealots will take that.

Novacek · #**6223** Posted **Jun 10, 2019, 2:03 PM**

FYI, it looks like these same slides are in the latest CapMetro meeting packet

https://www.capmetro.org/uploadedFil...nda-Packet.pdf

smith_atx · #**6224** Posted **Jun 18, 2019, 4:43 PM**

FYI, some exit changes for 183 northbound from the airport coming soon.

https://www.183south.com/constructio...major-activity

Quote:

Beginning as early as June 29,* all northbound US 183 traffic will shift onto a new bridge over the Colorado River to accommodate demolition and reconstruction of the existing northbound bridge. The work will require a long-term closure of the northbound exit to Airport Boulevard, 7th Street, 5th Street, and East Cesar Chavez Street. Northbound US 183 drivers wishing to reach those roads will continue north on US 183 to a U-turn located near Bolm Road. After taking the U-turn and entering southbound US 183, they will exit at Levander Loop to access Airport Boulevard and the other downtown routes. In addition to this detour, a number of other travel routes will be impacted.

lonewolf · #**6225** Posted **Jun 18, 2019, 7:38 PM**

anybody have a good link for possible 620 expansion starting in 2022?

lakeway will be holding a city council meeting on it.

$100million project

drummer · #**6226** Posted **Jun 19, 2019, 1:08 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by lonewolf

anybody have a good link for possible 620 expansion starting in 2022?

lakeway will be holding a city council meeting on it.

$100million project

Only link I found has the same info you briefly mentioned.
https://communityimpact.com/austin/l...nsion-project/

KevinFromTexas · #**6227** Posted **Jun 20, 2019, 10:30 PM**

I couldn't remember if this was posted or not, but Towers has the initial proposals for the Longhorn Dam pedestrian bridge bypass.

For my taste, whatever one they go with should be upstream from the dam so that you have a nice unobstructed view across the lake with the sunsets and the skyline.

My favorite of those three is the Plan A. That one has a nice long south span that would have nice views across the lake, as well as the dam. It's also respectful of the Roy Montelongo scenic overlook, which if they were to go with the other two plans, the bridge spans would either cut it off from the lake, or the bridge would be almost so close to it that there would be no point in even keeping it there. Plan A also has its northern span of the bridge terminating at the north shore, and the trail would be routed so that it would run right by the overlook, and they're showing some improvements being made to it. Plan B cuts the overlook off from the rest of the lake, which would ruin it. Plan C doesn't do that, but the bridge does run close to the overlook. Plan C also routes the bridge span so that it meets at the north shore, rather than connecting to the peninsula the way Plan A and B do.

https://austin.towers.net/weve-got-o...strian-bridge/

StoOgE · #**6228** Posted **Jun 21, 2019, 4:54 PM**

I strongly prefer the triangle shape since it will allow for faster movement on bike.

freerover · #**6229** Posted **Jun 21, 2019, 8:36 PM**

I actually like the downstream option more. Makes me less nervous to put the bridge behind the dam.

KevinFromTexas · #**6230** Posted **Jun 21, 2019, 10:24 PM**

Why? All the white caps would be on the downstream side as the dam released water. So far, the boardwalk has faired well, and I suspect a pedestrian bridge, which is a larger structure with better clearance, would do even better in a flood event.

StoOgE · #**6231** Posted **Jun 21, 2019, 10:51 PM**

Yeah, there are already plenty of destroyed bridges downstream of longhorn dam.

freerover · #**6232** Posted **Jun 22, 2019, 1:59 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Why? All the white caps would be on the downstream side as the dam released water. So far, the boardwalk has faired well, and I suspect a pedestrian bridge, which is a larger structure with better clearance, would do even better in a flood event.

The boardwalk is nowhere near the dam. The proposed bridges are right in front of the intake where all the pressure of the lake bottlenecks to. It just seems like a difficult engineering job and an overall bad idea. I'm not sure how many dams have bridges right upstream. Most seem on the downstream side.

drummer · #**6233** Posted **Jun 22, 2019, 6:30 PM**

Assuming the downstream option would be structurally sufficient (and I suppose they would work toward that end, of course), I kind of prefer that one as well. I think giving the folks north of the river more direct access to Guerrero Park (though the other ones make that happen nicely as well). Additionally, if there were a desire to continue the trail on either side of the river downstream of Longhorn Dam at some point in the future, there would be a seamless way to expand in that way from that scenario.

cvillehorn · #**6234** Posted **Jun 24, 2019, 4:25 PM**

I favor the Wishbone design; looks the most like an "Austin A" and adds some nice character to the area

Echostatic · #**6235** Posted **Jun 26, 2019, 1:47 AM**

183 South construction update from CTRMA:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BsHjeT2JsU

SkyscraperPage doesn't like youtube links, so you have to go to youtube manually.

KevinFromTexas · #**6236** Posted **Jun 26, 2019, 4:12 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Echostatic

183 South construction update from CTRMA:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BsHjeT2JsU

SkyscraperPage doesn't like youtube links, so you have to go to youtube manually.

There's a BBCode you have to do to embed Youtube videos on the forum.

The code is: [youtube] [youtube ]

Within both of those, you need to copy and paste the numbers and letters that appear after the = sign in your Youtube video link. I've bolded the section in your link that you need.

So, it should look like this [youtube]0BsHjeT2JsU[/youtube ]

Now, just bring in that last bracket after the last e, and you get an active embedded video.

• Video Link

Echostatic · #**6237** Posted **Jun 26, 2019, 4:45 AM**

I didn't realize you only had to post the video ID... that would explain why the [youtube] brackets never worked for me.

KevinFromTexas · #**6238** Posted **Jun 26, 2019, 7:35 AM**

Yeah, it works the same for Vimeo.com videos, you just have to replace the [youtube] code with [vimeo] instead, and you only need the letters after the forward slash in the link.

freerover · #**6239** Posted **Jun 26, 2019, 1:27 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Echostatic

183 South construction update from CTRMA:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0BsHjeT2JsU

SkyscraperPage doesn't like youtube links, so you have to go to youtube manually.

The north section is going to open in August from 290 to Techni Center but tolling doesn't start until Loyola and you can bypass the MLK traffic light without paying the toll.

The entire project pacing looks ok except for 71 which looks way behind but none of the 71 work is going to be tolled except for the direct ramp to/from 183. They might be able to open the southern section of 183 south by August 2020 but I doubt 71 will be done until 2021. They still have to build a massive bridge across the drainage reservoir and demo/rebuild the WB bridge over 183.

lonewolf · #**6240** Posted **Jun 26, 2019, 1:34 PM**

why don't we just bury pleasant valley