AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[Jdawgboy]

Originally Posted by lzppjb

From mopacexpress.com

Funny how no other roadway in Central Texas is painted in the same fashion because it doesn't fit with the natural surroundings. Isn't the company doing the construction from out of state?

I'll take a look at that website to see if there's an email address to send questions or comments. Thanks for posting it.

[Novacek]

http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot...nal-report.pdf

Loop 360 final report

[drummer]

It'll be interesting to see which option they go with. Thanks for posting the link.

[Jdawgboy]

Here's a question that hopefully someone can answer. Have there been any traffic studies since S. Lamar has been built up to its current density?

You hear from people who oppose adding density that it creates worse traffic. I drive Lamar on a regular basis and have for years but I honestly don't see the traffic as any worse than before the first VMU was built, (not including temporary lane closures due to construction).

There used to be nasty gridlock on S. Lamar back in the 90s and 2000s. Sure during morning and evening rush hour it's packed, but at least to my perspective, the overall traffic flow is better now than say 10+ years ago. Some of that can be attributed to better timed signaling and probably more people using alternatives in getting around.

I'm just curious if there is data that backs up my perception that adding density along S. Lamar has not significantly added cars or increased congestion.

[urbancore]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

Here's a question that hopefully someone can answer. Have there been any traffic studies since S. Lamar has been built up to its current density?

You hear from people who oppose adding density that it creates worse traffic. I drive Lamar on a regular basis and have for years but I honestly don't see the traffic as any worse than before the first VMU was built, (not including temporary lane closures due to construction).

There used to be nasty gridlock on S. Lamar back in the 90s and 2000s. Sure during morning and evening rush hour it's packed, but at least to my perspective, the overall traffic flow is better now than say 10+ years ago. Some of that can be attributed to better timed signaling and probably more people using alternatives in getting around.

I'm just curious if there is data that backs up my perception that adding density along S. Lamar has not significantly added cars or increased congestion.

From our "Znews Letter" last month. Good info. The editor is on top of her shit, I bet it is correct. Much to the chagrin of the Nimby's in our neighborhood, who love the narrative that everything is getting worse on Lamar by the minute.

I too have taken Lamar for the last 30 years, and noticed the exact same thing you have. I have been shouted down anytime I've made this observation.


"Traffic Is Falling and
It Can’t Get Up
In Appendix C (Travel Demand
Forecast) of the corridor plan, HDR
compares 2001 traffic counts with
2013 counts and concludes that
traffic volumes along S. Lamar
“have not significantly increased
over time.” In fact, the counts have
dropped significantly. For example,
vehicles per day north of Riverside
Drive dropped from 47,954 in 2001
to 39,900 in 2013. The study’s
count from September 2014 is even
less, 38,500 vpd, a decrease of 20%
from 2001 and 27% from the peak
in 1992 (52,980 vpd). Counts between
Oltorf and Manchaca peaked
at 43,700 vpd in 1992; by 2014 it
was down 18% to 35,807.
Instead of asking why traffic
counts on South Lamar dropped
back to 1980 levels, HDR instead
uses old TxDOT and CAMPO forecasts
to predict “an overall 23 percent
growth” in automobile traffic
by 2035, reversing the demographic
and travel
-pattern trends of the
last 25 years.
Someday Austin planners will
consider the possibility of growth
without cars. Meanwhile, the best
we can do is keep driving less."



http://zilkerneighborhood.org/wp-con...ews2016Oct.pdf

[The ATX]

Major SH130 expansion coming. This project will be moving forward relatively quickly because it's needed before IH-35 is torn up for expansion.

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news...on-as-2/ns5G3/

[We vs us]

Welp, the transportation bond passed.

http://www.statesman.com/news/local/...cent-the-vote/

[wwmiv]

It could have been probably 300k-500k larger, given the margin by which it passed.

I.E. more money often means lower vote share, and it had plenty of votes to give away and still get a majority.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

It could have been probably 300k-500k larger, given the margin by which it passed.

I.E. more money often means lower vote share, and it had plenty of votes to give away and still get a majority.

Yeah, I don't remember how they arrived at that 720 number. I think originally it was the amount that a 2 cent increase would generate (plus about half of the retired debt), but then at some point it became 2.25?

[Novacek]

Some post mortem on prop 1

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news...p-on-wa/ns6BD/

[We vs us]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Some post mortem on prop 1

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news...p-on-wa/ns6BD/

So a question from a new Austinite -- when the Red Line was built/funded, where did the money come from? Was it a referendum, was there state/fed help, how did we get that part done?

While I'm really happy that we'll have $$ to spend towards better roads, the lack of rail in the bond issue was glaring. I'm curious now what the path forward for more rail could possibly be, now that we've committed so much already to roads. Am I wrong in thinking we can't go back to the same well for more transit unless a good chunk of time elapses?

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by We vs us

So a question from a new Austinite -- when the Red Line was built/funded, where did the money come from? Was it a referendum, was there state/fed help, how did we get that part done?

The Red Line was built entirely from CapMetro's local money. The 2004 referendum was needed to authorize them to spend it (even though they had it), basically a road block put in by anti-rail politicians.

They had the money on hand (mostly, it went over budget) from what they had stockpiled over a decade or so from the 1/4 cent "rail tax" ( the quarter cent sales tax, out of their cent, authorized for them by Austin with the understanding that it would be used for rail).

CapMetro at least claimed that they'd get/apply for some amount of matching funds from the feds. This didn't happen, and the reasons for that have never been fully disclosed.

Certain people claim that it's because they knew they'd never get it based on poor ridership projections (though I don't really buy this based on Norfolk getting their matching).

My theory is that they decided against it so that they wouldn't have to comply with "buy American" provisions and could get the Stadler DMUs.

Originally Posted by We vs us

While I'm really happy that we'll have $$ to spend towards better roads, the lack of rail in the bond issue was glaring. I'm curious now what the path forward for more rail could possibly be, now that we've committed so much already to roads. Am I wrong in thinking we can't go back to the same well for more transit unless a good chunk of time elapses?

I think it depends on what you mean by "good chunk". Old debt is getting retired all the time, and Austin's tax base keeps expanding. I wouldn't be surprised to see another mobility/transportation bond in 4-6 years. Of course, they'll still be plenty of corridors to fund then, and the rest of the $1.5B in sidewalks, and ....

as a datapoint, rail (or "Future high capacity transit") is still listed in Campo's 2040 plan. For year 2025 (note, it was here even before Prop 1)

http://www.campotexas.org/wp-content...0PlanFinal.pdf
Table 33


So, potential sources of funding

1. CapMetro somehow funds it, but they seem to be spending most of their budget on buses.

2. Austin funds it with a bond.

3. Austin funds it with TIF, probably not enough.

Wackier ideas

4. Austin sells/leases out ABIA

5. Austin sells off Austin Energy.

Probably wackiest

6. Texas legislature lets Austin/CapMetro raise sales tax rates above 8.25.

7. Texas legislature funds directly.

[ATXboom]

Can we not increase hotel room rate taxes locally to get outsiders to pay for rail??

[We vs us]

Thanks, great response.

This:

Originally Posted by Novacek

I think it depends on what you mean by "good chunk". Old debt is getting retired all the time, and Austin's tax base keeps expanding. I wouldn't be surprised to see another mobility/transportation bond in 4-6 years. Of course, they'll still be plenty of corridors to fund then, and the rest of the $1.5B in sidewalks, and ....

. . . is what I was getting at. Using your funding estimate plus construction, it's easily 7-10 years before we see any sort of rail expansion -- whether new lines or an expanded Red Line. That's at a minimum.

I guess I'm disappointed that Adler was cheap and not very visionary with his proposal.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by We vs us

I guess I'm disappointed that Adler was cheap and not very visionary with his proposal.

Looking at it another way, if you're of the opinion that this bond was "cheap", then nothing stops another bond next year, only the political will to put it to the voters and their willingness to accept it.

Personally, I don't think voters would accept a $500M bond next year any more than would have accepted a combined 1.2B bond this year.

Though I'd be ecstatic to be proven wrong.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by ATXboom

Can we not increase hotel room rate taxes locally to get outsiders to pay for rail??

My understanding is that

1) we're already at/near the state-imposed limit for hotel taxes.

2) there's are limits as to what taxes raised that way could be used for.

[We vs us]

Originally Posted by Novacek

My understanding is that

1) we're already at/near the state-imposed limit for hotel taxes.

2) there's are limits as to what taxes raised that way could be used for.

I can't speak to the tax limit, but know that use is definitely limited. It has to directly effect and impact guests. Extending the red line -- as awesome as it would be -- wouldn't really do that.

[We vs us]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Looking at it another way, if you're of the opinion that this bond was "cheap", then nothing stops another bond next year, only the political will to put it to the voters and their willingness to accept it.

Personally, I don't think voters would accept a $500M bond next year any more than would have accepted a combined 1.2B bond this year.

Though I'd be ecstatic to be proven wrong.

Part of my thinking is that Austin has one transportation bill in it every X number of years, and the dollar amount -- within a range -- doesn't have a huge amount of bearing. Maybe $1.2B isn't doable but maybe $900M is . . .?

But no, I also agree that no one's going to vote for another transpo bond next year, even if it only "tops off" the 2016 bond amount.

Also: 2017 is for the ACC expansion

[brando]

Originally Posted by We vs us

Thanks, great response.

This:


. . . is what I was getting at. Using your funding estimate plus construction, it's easily 7-10 years before we see any sort of rail expansion -- whether new lines or an expanded Red Line. That's at a minimum.

I guess I'm disappointed that Adler was cheap and not very visionary with his proposal.

I'm guessing you don't follow the city council. Adler had to claw tooth and nail to get up to 720 million which included many long speeches, arguments into the wee hours of the mornings and a passive PR blitz online, newspapers, social media and personal appearances. He took on other city council members and won. The largest mobility bond Austin had passed was in the 200-300 million range. It really was an incredible accomplishment.

Originally Posted by ATXboom

Can we not increase hotel room rate taxes locally to get outsiders to pay for rail??

This is earmarked for an Erwin Center Replacement and/or convention center expansion. Both would positively affect hotel occupancy. The city council seems to be against a convention center expansion but warm to a partnership with UT to replace the Erwin Center.

[hereinaustin]

Originally Posted by We vs us

I guess I'm disappointed that Adler was cheap and not very visionary with his proposal.

At the very least, some of these corridors may encourage dense development and make future rail service (and the room for it) practical. Baby steps, I guess.