AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[OU812]

Originally Posted by Echostatic

So glad TXDOT is finally making 360 a freeway. Taken long enough really.

Seriously. I remember when all the kerfuffle about new toll roads was going on in the mid 2000s, lots of people were questioning why 360 wasn't a part of any of the plans. It was ridiculous to drive on back then....I mean rush hour traffic was so frustrating with all the stop lights. Just needed overpasses. 183 East could have been built this way as well. Now we have more tolls there. Funny how on the west side where's it's full of millionaires who can easily afford daily tolling, there aren't going to be new tollways.

[OU812]

Originally Posted by zrx299

Why can't Texas build normal interstates without the giant waste-of-space parallel feeder roads, like they do in 49 other states?

What an enormous waste of money, land, and materials, made worse by tolls.

One of the many things that makes Texas unique. I recall commercials a couple decades ago that ended with something like- "Texas, it's like a whole 'nother country". We're so independent we could probably pull it off. Did you know about our electrical grid? Highly likely that we'll be better off if/when a SHTF scenario ever happens.
https://www.bryantelectricservice.co...wn-power-grid/
https://www.vox.com/ad/16682890/texa...grid-explained
https://www.texastribune.org/2011/02...wn-power-grid/

[OU812]

Originally Posted by zrx299

Why can't Texas build normal interstates without the giant waste-of-space parallel feeder roads, like they do in 49 other states?

What an enormous waste of money, land, and materials, made worse by tolls.

There are certainly pros and cons. Many exits are very difficult to merge onto the road in which signage states the exit name. For example, exiting to Airport Blvd off of southbound i35. Extremely difficult in heavy traffic because of the existing access (feeder) road traffic. You have to cross 2-3 lanes, that's assuming drivers let you over. Same with getting into westbound Duval off southbound Mopac. On the pro side, sure makes getting back on the freeway easy if you miss an exit. I briefly lived in CA and noticed they had no access roads, so when I would miss my turn, I had to take the next one.....then navigate around a neighborhood I was deep into (before the days of GPS). Sometimes it took me an extra 1/2hr to find my way back on the freeway. Or "THE 5", "THE 110", "THE 405" ..... like they say out there....

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by OU812

Seriously. I remember when all the kerfuffle about new toll roads was going on in the mid 2000s, lots of people were questioning why 360 wasn't a part of any of the plans. It was ridiculous to drive on back then....I mean rush hour traffic was so frustrating with all the stop lights. Just needed overpasses. 183 East could have been built this way as well. Now we have more tolls there. Funny how on the west side where's it's full of millionaires who can easily afford daily tolling, there aren't going to be new tollways.

There's also not going to be additional lanes (free and tolled) either.

Or ramps to the connecting highways (there'll still be stoplights at Mopac on both ends).

[lzppjb]

• Video Link

[freerover]

These are the targeted early out projects for the corridor project in 2020:

• Burnet Road intersections (Koenig, Braker)
• South Lamar enhanced multimodal improvements (Riverside to Barton Springs IIRC)
• North Lamar Boulevard and East Riverside Drive (Critical Safety and Mobility Improvements)
• CAMPO-funded projects
-William Cannon (SW Prky to McKinney Falls Prky)
-Slaughter Lane (FM 1826 to Vertex Blvd.)

[lzppjb]

Stassney bridge over I35 has been demolished.

[freerover]

Originally Posted by lzppjb

Stassney bridge over I35 has been demolished.

[lzppjb]

It's funny because my parents waited YEARS for that stupid bridge to get built. They lived east of 35 on Wagon Bend. In the mid-80s, we built a house off Slaughter/Manchaca. Then the Stassney bridge was built.

Now it's gone.

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by lzppjb

Stassney bridge over I35 has been demolished.

Yep. We needed to use it today. Imagine our surprise when we discovered it wasn't there.

Originally Posted by lzppjb

It's funny because my parents waited YEARS for that stupid bridge to get built. They lived east of 35 on Wagon Bend. In the mid-80s, we built a house off Slaughter/Manchaca. Then the Stassney bridge was built.

Now it's gone.

I can remember before Stassney was built between Congress & I-35. We had to take Congress all the way down to Ben White to get out to some land my parents had in Cedar Creek. We rarely took the William Cannon bridge even then unless we were heading south on I-35.

[freerover]

Cool article about the future challenges of electric buses

https://www.austinmonitor.com/storie...-bus-contract/
by Ryan Thornton

The Capital Metropolitan Transportation Authority is pressing on with its fleet electrification plan despite a number of kinks yet to be fully ironed out.

After the agency’s board of directors approved a contract with New Flyer of America on Monday for purchase of six electric buses, Dottie Watkins, vice president of bus operations and maintenance, said that, for a few reasons, it may be a number of years before the new buses are fully up to speed.

With range being a top consideration for transit vehicles, Watkins said the agency is “not quite there on battery-electric buses.”

While the six New Flyer buses have a range of 120-150 miles per charge – sufficient for about 40 percent of the agency’s routes – the agency’s longest routes currently span around 275 miles over the course of a day. Watkins said electric buses with larger batteries coming out in the next couple of years should have a range closer to 200 miles, but that would still only cover up to 75 percent of the routes.

“If the technology doesn’t advance beyond what we know is coming in the next couple of years, we’re going to have range limitation issues,” Watkins said.

The agency is looking at a few possibilities to solve that problem, from costly on-route charging infrastructure commonly used in Europe and Asia to buses equipped with innovative hydrogen fuel cells that provide extra energy, also relatively expensive.

If those technologies and costs are not within reach in the next 10 years, another option would be to use two electric buses for the longer routes now served by a single diesel bus. However, with maintenance and operations facilities already near capacity, that option brings its own challenges.

“We are a rapidly growing community … and we can handle 25 more buses,” said CEO Randy Clarke. Even if Project Connect doesn’t happen, he said, “not only will we not meet the needs of our community, (but) we have no facility space to barely do any incremental growth either.”

Capital Metro began construction earlier this year on an electric bus yard and charging facility adjacent to its North Ops facility. When it’s finished, the yard will have room to accommodate up to 214 electric buses.

Even so, Watkins said there is reason to be optimistic: “Battery technology itself is increasing and improving by leaps and bounds and we’ve seen a drastic improvement in the ability to have more dense, better battery storage on battery electric buses as the consumer vehicle market continues to evolve.”

The $8.2 million contract includes four 40-foot buses and two 60-foot articulated, or “accordion” buses like those of the MetroRapid fleet. Together with the four Proterra buses purchased in April, the buses will complete the agency’s initial phase of fleet electrification.

Watkins said the agency chose New Flyer for this contract mostly because of the 60-foot bus option, which Proterra doesn’t offer. Additionally, she said, the ability to test both the Proterra and the New Flyer vehicles over the next couple of years will help inform decisions on larger contracts in the future.

The first two electric Proterra buses will arrive in December followed by the other two in June or July 2020. The six New Flyer buses are expected to arrive sometime in summer 2020.

The contract is partially funded by a $2.6 million federal “Low-No” (low or no emission) electric bus grant as well as $1.5 million in Clean Fleet Grants from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.

The board unanimously approved the contract 7-0 with Chair Wade Cooper absent.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by freerover

Cool article about the future challenges of electric buses

http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/show...37150&page=254
by Ryan Thornton

I think you meant https://www.austinmonitor.com/storie...-bus-contract/


It's an interesting discussion, especially in regards to what it means for mode decisions on Project Connect.

I'm very confident battery technology and ranges will continue to improve. But with a mode decision coming up in just a few months, will CM commit to electric buses for the main orange/blue trunks when it's not (quite) yet commercially available now for the long term range needs?
Or will they be willing to choose it, with the understanding that the system won't be running for years, with further years until the maximum range needs (when orange line is extended up to Tech Ridge, etc.).

At least I'm assuming the long-term Orange Line is one of the extreme lengths they're talking about.

Similarly, what does that mean for the yellow line (which is another long one, and possibly longer than Orange to start)?

[freerover]

Originally Posted by Novacek

I think you meant https://www.austinmonitor.com/storie...-bus-contract/


It's an interesting discussion, especially in regards to what it means for mode decisions on Project Connect.

I'm very confident battery technology and ranges will continue to improve. But with a mode decision coming up in just a few months, will CM commit to electric buses for the main orange/blue trunks when it's not (quite) yet commercially available now for the long term range needs?
Or will they be willing to choose it, with the understanding that the system won't be running for years, with further years until the maximum range needs (when orange line is extended up to Tech Ridge, etc.).

At least I'm assuming the long-term Orange Line is one of the extreme lengths they're talking about.

Similarly, what does that mean for the yellow line (which is another long one, and possibly longer than Orange to start)?

Thanks for correcting the link. That's an interesting point about mode. I think they are suppose to finally pick one in December. I would still be shocked to see LRT given how much they want to build in phase 1 and the ROW constraints that will necessitate expensive grade separation. How much bond capacity does the city have?






The open house for the new BRT lines is sept 24th 5:30-7:30 p.m at the downtown library.

The prospective lines won't have their own lanes (with the possible exception of the Expo Center line down Berkman in Muller) but will have priority at intersections and will run as fast as possible as oppose to stopping periodically to stay on schedule.

The lines are:
Expo Center (Downtown, UT East, Muller, Loyola rd)
Burnet/S Lamar / Manchaca (Domain to Oak Hill and Ford Oaks)
Crosstown 7th St (Red Bud to Shady Ln)
Pleasant Valley (Muller to McKinney Falls)
Parmer (Lakeline to Manor)
ACC (Highland to Tech Ridge)
MLK (UT to Springdale)

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by freerover

The prospective lines won't have their own lanes (with the possible exception of the Expo Center line down Berkman in Muller)

Is this documented somewhere, or a guess on your part?


Another place that (theoretically) has RoW for exclusive lanes is part of the Burnet line (basically the section from the Domain down to Anderson Lane). It's also unclear to me what happens where the Orange and Yellow lines overlap (it would be a shame to force the yellow BRT to wait through traffic in those sections).

[freerover]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Is this documented somewhere, or a guess on your part?


Another place that (theoretically) has RoW for exclusive lanes is part of the Burnet line (basically the section from the Domain down to Anderson Lane). It's also unclear to me what happens where the Orange and Yellow lines overlap (it would be a shame to force the yellow BRT to wait through traffic in those sections).

The only documented part is that they've identified that Beckman median for transit. From the Manor Dean Keaten flip book,

"Option B - Berkman
Option B would use the median of Berkman
- which has been explicitly reserved for
future transit use - to serve the heart of the development. This option would include stations along Berkman at both Manor and Philomena, providing excellent accessibility to the entire Mueller development. A major concern is
the turn from Berkman to 51st, which may
be infeasible for a HCT vehicle to navigate at street level. HCT could potentially travel east on Philomena and pass near the Texas Film Society to meet 51st St."

I'm guess guessing that even the lower investment for these corridors could include re-doing the Beckman median since it will be relatively inexpensive.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by freerover

The only documented part is that they've identified that Beckman median for transit. From the Manor Dean Keaten flip book,


I'm guess guessing that even the lower investment for these corridors could include re-doing the Beckman median since it will be relatively inexpensive.

Fair enough, but then I'd claim that the Domain area of Burnet is in about the same boat. At the time, it was part of the North Lamar flip book.

https://www.capmetro.org/uploadedFil...ook_032818.pdf

"US 183/Rundberg/Burnet
Potential to partner with TxDOT to use
extensive ROW along US 183 from Lamar
to Burnet to connect to Northgate Blvd
and Rundberg Ln, where a station could be
built to connect existing apartments to the
multiple job opportunities found along the
rest of the corridor. High capacity transit
(HCT) could join Burnet Road to reach the
Domain, taking advantage of dedicated lanes
envisioned by the City of Austin’s N Burnet
corridor plan, which is eligible for 2016
mobility bond construction funding.
Anderson Ln/Burnet
The other most likely option would be to
deviate from N Lamar at Anderson Lane.
This would provide an opportunity to
add a station near the Anderson/Burnet
intersection, which could transform into
a transit supportive node of mixed-use
development. Although the City of Austin’s
N Burnet Corridor Plan does not envision
dedicated transit facilities south of US 183,
ample ROW exists to construct HCT and
maintain existing travel and bicycle lanes
and improve pedestrian amenities."

For both Berkman and Burnet, there's documented previous ideas to have transit-only lanes.
Whether the initial 2020 plan will include them is still unknown.

[freerover]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Fair enough, but then I'd claim that the Domain area of Burnet is in about the same boat. At the time, it was part of the North Lamar flip book.

https://www.capmetro.org/uploadedFil...ook_032818.pdf

"US 183/Rundberg/Burnet
Potential to partner with TxDOT to use
extensive ROW along US 183 from Lamar
to Burnet to connect to Northgate Blvd
and Rundberg Ln, where a station could be
built to connect existing apartments to the
multiple job opportunities found along the
rest of the corridor. High capacity transit
(HCT) could join Burnet Road to reach the
Domain, taking advantage of dedicated lanes
envisioned by the City of Austin’s N Burnet
corridor plan, which is eligible for 2016
mobility bond construction funding.
Anderson Ln/Burnet
The other most likely option would be to
deviate from N Lamar at Anderson Lane.
This would provide an opportunity to
add a station near the Anderson/Burnet
intersection, which could transform into
a transit supportive node of mixed-use
development. Although the City of Austin’s
N Burnet Corridor Plan does not envision
dedicated transit facilities south of US 183,
ample ROW exists to construct HCT and
maintain existing travel and bicycle lanes
and improve pedestrian amenities."

For both Berkman and Burnet, there's documented previous ideas to have transit-only lanes.
Whether the initial 2020 plan will include them is still unknown.

ehhhhh, they aren't really in the same boat. Berkman was designed for future transit down the median which is why nothing is there. Burnet would require much more extensive work requiring shifting auto lanes and moving power lines according to the old corridor study. That doesn't mean I don't think it's worth it but I don't think it would be in the same "gimme" category that I think Berkman is in.

[freerover]

Rehab work is going to start on the old Monopolis bridge next month. It'll remain open to pedestrians during the day.

Next month marks the beginning of the rehabilitation process, starting with a lead paint abatement technique called encapsulation. This approach works by first removing and properly disposing of any loose or flaking paint and then creating a barrier between the original lead-based paint on the historic steel structure and the environment. The end result will include a brand-new coat of paint. Work will begin at the north end of the bridge and move southward as sections are completed. During this work, the truss bridge will remain open to pedestrians and bicyclists with the exception of a few, temporary nightly closures. The contractor will be working on one truss at a time, and pedestrians will be directed to the middle of the bridge to a short, temporary covered walkway, as necessary for safety.

Rehabilitation and renovation of the truss bridge represents a milestone for the community and the project. Besides the lead paint abatement and a new coat of paint, bridge enhancements include small trailheads at each end with signage and kiosks, as well as a new bridge deck, safety lighting and seating for the community to relax and enjoy the outdoors.

The Mobility Authority takes great pride in this bridge, and we look forward to turning the new and improved bridge back over to the east Austin community. It is our hope that this community asset will remain an Austin icon where the community gathers for generations to come.

[KevinFromTexas]

http://austin.culturemap.com/news/ci...mAyI803xcd5Puo

TxDOT green lights new lanes on I-35 through downtown Austin

By Sammy Turner, Rebeca Trejo, KVUE News
Aug 30, 2019, 1:42 pm

The North project intends to add one non-tolled lane in each direction along I-35 from Highway 45 North to U.S. 290. The South project looks to add two non-tolled lanes in each direction of I-35 from Highway 71/Ben White Boulevard to Highway 45 Southeast.

Meanwhile, the Central project would add two non-tolled lanes in each direction along I-35 from U.S. 290 to Highway 71/Ben White Boulevard.

[Echostatic]

Took long enough.

Reminder that I-35's design and ramp layouts haven't changed since the 1960s, with the exception of the upper deck. No new lanes have been added downtown since 1975. Since then, the region has grown by over 1.5 million people and nationwide truck traffic has massively increased. Widening I-35 should have happened ages ago, it'll be much more painful now but worth it in the long run. I like the proposed non-tolled managed lanes. HOV or truck applications stick out to me.