AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[cvillehorn]

Originally Posted by electricron

Before toll roads are built, they sell enough bonds the build the entire proposed tollway. The entire project is built at once. They start building free roads as the tax revenues are collected. Therefore, new free highways are built piecemeal. That's why toll roads seem to be built faster.

I appreciate the nimble play on what I assume is a sarcastic question (i.e. public vs private) into a legit and informing explanation. Well done.

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by cvillehorn

I appreciate the nimble play on what I assume is a sarcastic question (i.e. public vs private) into a legit and informing explanation. Well done.

You read too much into the question. I have my own theory, but I was interested in hearing what others had to say.

[MightyYoda]

If the tax revenue estimates are that much higher than the cost to construct. Couldn't they also sell the bonds do it all at once?

Considering that it is an interstate, couldn't they also get federal funding so that the city ends up making quite a bit of "profit"? Such as creating a fund that would take all tax revenue generated by sinking I35 to continue sinking more portions to finish all of downtown and pay for future expansion.

[ivanwolf]

It would be nice if they could take this all the way up to 51st some day, as the upper/lower deck area should go too, and hey look they have cut half the ground away already.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by ivanwolf

It would be nice if they could take this all the way up to 51st some day, as the upper/lower deck area should go too, and hey look they have cut half the ground away already.

There's no need to take it that far. They can't bury it through the decked section because of property limits and the small ROW already existing because of UT and the cemetery. Above the decked section, there's no need. The area grew up with and matured while having the barrier already existing, so there's no benefit to removing the barrier.

[lzppjb]

The need arises when you have 5 or 6 lanes coming out of the tunnel and merging back into 4 lanes, both north and south. We could have 10 lanes each way from the river to 15th, and it would still bottleneck on each end.

[lzppjb]

Looking at Google maps, I think there's plenty of ROW for the same width tunnel as further south. There wouldn't be any ROW left over for development, but it'd be wide enough to continue the same 10 lanes to 51st.

The ROW is roughly 200 feet. Sinclair is showing the tunnel ROW to be around 160 feet. I would love to have it done and be able to walk from Disch-Falk to DKR Stadium easier.

[FREKI]

Originally Posted by audiomuse

Copenhagen has on average 251 rainy days per year

Just want to point out the real number is 113 days and an average of 613mm a year..

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by lzppjb

The need arises when you have 5 or 6 lanes coming out of the tunnel and merging back into 4 lanes, both north and south. We could have 10 lanes each way from the river to 15th, and it would still bottleneck on each end.

No. The idea is to keep the same three free lanes and add two new tolled lanes OR add an additional fourth free lane and add a single tolled lane. The reason there will be no new bottleneck here is because TxDOT is planning on putting one or two new tolled lanes suspended between the upper deck level in the center, which increases capacity throughout the corridor, ergo no bottleneck at the north end.

The bottleneck is entirely at the south end by the river, BUT that can be solved by removing traffic that will exit downtown by forcing them off further north (eliminates weaving and the congestion caused by it) AND by removing even some thru traffic by getting them to take the 130 bypass.

Neither of these is inconsistent with the proposal of burying the interstate in this section.

Furthermore, managed lanes could easily be extended past the river on their own custom built bridge, but even then the state is currently looking at building an entirely new bridge (which, again, neither of these is inconsistent with the idea of sinking and capping 35).

[lzppjb]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

TxDOT is planning on putting one or two new tolled lanes suspended between the upper deck level in the center

Do you have a link to a picture or description of this?

Edit: Found a KVUE video of it. I totally missed this about adding those 2 lanes.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by lzppjb

Do you have a link to a picture or description of this?

Scroll back a few pages and there was a huge discussion about it...

http://mobility35openhouse.com/Locat...n.aspx?locid=9

Either way they're adding capacity to this section. My expectation would be that they choose the new deck option because it is vastly superior from a mobility perspective with only minimal tradeoff w/r/t cost.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

The bottleneck is entirely at the south end by the river, BUT that can be solved by removing traffic that will exit downtown by forcing them off further north (eliminates weaving and the congestion caused by it) AND by removing even some thru traffic by getting them to take the 130 bypass.

Then why would you need 5 lanes in this section? Either you have 5 fully utilizied lanes going down to 4 (in which case it bottlenecks) or you have 5 never-fully utilized lanes (because downtown traffic already exited).

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Then why would you need 5 lanes in this section? Either you have 5 fully utilizied lanes going down to 4 (in which case it bottlenecks) or you have 5 never-fully utilized lanes (because downtown traffic already exited).

Because this is a long-term strategy that needs to be in place for population growth and the increase of use that comes along with it. Eventually the section south of the river would have to be expanded as well to keep pace with traffic growth.

[ivanwolf]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Scroll back a few pages and there was a huge discussion about it...

http://mobility35openhouse.com/Locat...n.aspx?locid=9

Either way they're adding capacity to this section. My expectation would be that they choose the new deck option because it is vastly superior from a mobility perspective with only minimal tradeoff w/r/t cost.

I think that third upper deck is a stupid idea. Get rid of the over land ugly concrete decks and put them under ground like the proposed section near the lake. There might not be as much above ground park area as the ROW narrows but I think linking the center of town from Cesar Chavez to 51st would make a better looking city and connect the two half's better.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by ivanwolf

I think that third upper deck is a stupid idea. Get rid of the over land ugly concrete decks and put them under ground like the proposed section near the lake. There might not be as much above ground park area as the ROW narrows but I think linking the center of town from Cesar Chavez to 51st would make a better looking city and connect the two half's better.

This isn't possible because of the cemetery. For bette or worse we're stuck with what we have there.

Also, "halves" not "half's". There's no possession involved.

[lzppjb]

I just don' t think the cemetery is in the way. We can't widen 35 there, but there is plenty of room to sink it.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by lzppjb

I just don' t think the cemetery is in the way. We can't widen 35 there, but there is plenty of room to sink it.

The cemetery is the exact reason why there has not been major efforts at re-doing 35 through this corridor.

There were efforts by the city and state to convince some relatives to allow them to move people's remains, even, so that the state could purchase the slice of land that is VERY much in the way that descended into basically a screaming match that pissed everyone involved off.

Sinking it isn't feasible here either because in order to do so (assuming you could get that slice of ROW, which would still be needed), you have to divert traffic somewhere. Because the existing infrastructure would have to be dismantled (this includes not just the upper deck, but also the existing access roads) in order to sink through this section, it would mean completely removing 35 for 20+ blocks for years with absolutely no thru-traffic, which would completely kill commerce throughout the core of Austin.

It is emphatically not doable through this corridor.

It is, however, doable between the river and 15th because the preexisting access roads would not be in the way and allow for some capacity to continue throughout construction.

[jngreenlee]

Originally Posted by FREKI

Just want to point out the real number is 113 days and an average of 613mm a year..

Those are metric days, equal to 251 Imperial days.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by FREKI

Just want to point out the real number is 113 days and an average of 613mm a year..

Hmm, I wonder if there's a little bit of apples to oranges of a comparison.
Looking at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin,_texas

It's counted as a rainy day in Austin if there's .01 inches of precipitation. It's not counted as a rainy day in Copenhagen until there's 1 mm of precipitation, 4 times as much.

Austin is 70% sunnier though.

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Hmm, I wonder if there's a little bit of apples to oranges of a comparison.
Looking at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin,_texas

It's counted as a rainy day in Austin if there's .01 inches of precipitation. It's not counted as a rainy day in Copenhagen until there's 1 mm of precipitation, 4 times as much.

Austin is 70% sunnier though.

FREKI is the CEO of the World Wide Copenhagen Chamber of Commerce. I find it amusing that he was reading the Austin thread of all places in the world and found a need to comment about the weather.