TLDR; Blue Line crosses the river on a bridge that leads to a tunnel entrance on the north side of the river.

Looks like the Austin Rowing Club may be going away, in this case.

Or at least relocated.

This came up before with the 2014 light rail proposal, since it had a similar route.

https://www.statesman.com/article/20...NEWS/309189568



The "Stations" public/virtual meeting says this about it.

"This tunnel portal and bridge will impact the Waller Creek Boathouse and the project teams have been coordinating with the Austin Parks and Recreation Department"

https://www.capmetroengage.org/sites...8_04272021.pdf


If it has to move, it has to move. A bit annoying, but a 3.5M boathouse shouldn't drive the route selection of billion dollar light rail.

Interesting! I really wish the presentation included the next map north so we could see the length of the tunnel portal. A vertical profile would also be really useful to understand the intentions and trade-offs.

By my calculation, the elevation of the rails at the tunnel portal would need to be at least 10 feet below the elevation of Cesar Chavez to be able to pass under Cesar Chavez. That makes the bridge clearance over the new section of trail along the shoreline pretty low.

To do the same the same at Guadalupe, the tunnel portal would need to start about mid-span of the Drake Bridge, (or center line of the Colorado River channel). That would presumably require a peninsula be built out into the channel and a very long trail boardwalk between the Shoal Creek peninsula and the boardwalk under the Congress Avenue bridge.

Alternatively, if the rails cross Cesar Chavez at grade, the tunnel portal would block 2nd Street and probably 3rd Street as well.

That is why I predict the Guadalupe crossing will be a tunnel under the LBL, with the Riverside station underground.

I also would not be surprised if they determine they cannot afford two crossings in the initial phase of construction. I initially thought they might eliminate the Trinity crossing, but I now think it would make more sense to eliminate the Guadalupe crossing since it will be more expensive, and both the Blue and Orange Lines would serve MACC / Rainey and the entire 4th Street tunnel. The Orange Line would have a slight detour back to South Congress, but in the scheme of things, it would not be that significant.

The turn from S. Congress to E. Riverside is way way way too sharp. It's like a U-turn. I don't think it will possible for the orange line to get over to the blue line easement.

Also, remember the tunnel portal already starts 15 feet below Cesar due to elevation changes as you approach the lake. Also, the area where they want to make a passing trail is already 15 feet lower than the portal. You have to go down a shit ton of stairs to get from DT street level to the front of the boat house.

You are right, the turn is too sharp within the existing ROW. But the cost of acquiring property is much less than the cost of a tunnel crossing. Maybe in the end there will be enough money, especially with federal support. But the whole process of evaluating alternatives, cost effectiveness and value engineering often results in the end product being different than the original proposals.

You may also be right that there is plenty of clearance with the slope of the bank, but if the portal elevation is 15 feet above the trail, you have to take into account the depth of the bridge structure as well, which is why I think the clearance above the trail cold be pretty low. It's really hard to evaluate when they don't provide vertical profiles in their presentations.

You are asking too much of a 15% design drawing, at 30% there might be some better understanding how the verticals will appear.
Streetcars can navigate at slow speed 50 feet radius curves at a minimum. light rail vehicles can navigate 82 feet radius curves at a minimum. Light rail lines all across the USA frequently cut through the inside of corners. Or they switch from center of the street running to the outer side of a street running. There are design tricks than can be done, including running through an existing building without necessarily tearing the building down. Making tight corners underground should be somewhat easier because they aren't restricted to the existing street's easement.

What might look too tight today may not be after the designers use every trick in the book. :cheers:

They also want to upgrade 183 from 29 to the northern county border to freeway.

https://www.wilco.org/corridorf

That would extend the controlled access portion of 183 out to Mahomet.

They also want to build a freeway from this extension wrapped around Liberty Hill back to 29 at the Burnet County border.

https://www.wilco.org/Departments/In...2/Corridor-I-2

And extends to Ronald Reagan / Parmer:

https://www.wilco.org/corridorI-1

This map is much more useful:

https://www.wilco.org/Portals/0/Depa...-09-090430-673

From:

https://www.wilco.org/lrtp

I didn't realize the 183 plan was to go that far north. I assumed just past 29 for now. What is the timeline on that?

There are vertical profiles shown in the presentation, just not of this particular location. It is not that they have not plotted them at 15%, they just chose not to include them in the presentation.

The current plans by TXDOT and CAMPO are a toll road to just past 29, yes.

WilCo wants to later extend the limited access facility as a freeway past that. Timeline: who knows? Maybe 10-15 years.

Two spans were blown up this morning:

• Video Link

RIP that guys voice lol

Dang are there really no cars at this time of day? Or maybe they're being held back temporarily?

Oh yeah I see the long line at 183. Ouch.

Surprised they were going to demolish that much more of the bridge. I thought they were going to just reconnect the old with the new less-steep ramp.

I saw a map somewhere showing 183 going all the way up to a completed I-14, making the connection near Lampasas. I would have assumed that was decades out, but with this growth? Who knows! People are buying near Copperas Cove and Killeen to find homes they can afford. If we begin seeing more commutes to the Austin metro from that area, it could happen sooner.

Per a capmetro email posted to the #atxtransit listserv, the station is envisioned as a temporary station for limited Green Line service but only up to (and not crossing) Pleasant Valley Rd. Apparently this portion of track was already upgraded so that it could be used as a staging area for extra Red Line trains during rush hour. This would allow for transfers from the 300/672/future Pleasant Valley MetroRapid to get downtown service. They also say the retired downtown station could be repurposed for this.

I guess if trains are already going to be in those areas they might as well pick up some passengers on the way to the downtown station before they become Red Line runs? I can't imagine there are many people who would want to transfer from there right now bc of the fare difference. I guess it would at least put CapMetro HQ on a rail line.

It also makes the Red Line more of an option for people who live south and work NW so we might get some more opposite rush hour ridership.

Leander voters will decide whether to keep Capital Metro

https://www.kxan.com/news/local/will...capital-metro/


With the insane growth in the area and the dense development right around the station (partly if not mostly because of the station), this is such backwards thinking. I sure hope voters have more sense than the outgoing mayor and certain members of the council.