AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[hereinaustin]

Originally Posted by jtown,man

I am for taking tolls away from *all* roads in Austin. Rather convert the left lane on all these interstates to "express tolled lanes." And reroute I35 to 130 like you said.

I think making 130 the new I35 would do wonders for this city, and for relatively little cost.

The logic behind the tolls would be to discourage excessive use. Incentivize using alternative transit methods: walking, biking, bus, metro, etc.

[jtown,man]

Originally Posted by hereinaustin

The logic behind the tolls would be to discourage excessive use. Incentivize using alternative transit methods: walking, biking, bus, metro, etc.

Sorry, ain't gonna happen. The toll roads aren't in central Austin. People are gonna continue to drive. Our environment out here(im near 45/183) ain't made to be pleasant for non-car users. Until that changes, all incentives, no matter if there is a toll or not, is for people to use cars.

It seems we tend to want to get ahead of ourselves. We want a "European style" transit share while living in an American landscape.

Edit- I am not arguing that is not the goal of toll roads here, but I am simply saying they will never work under current circumstances.

[Jdawgboy]

Moving I-35 is not an option and no it would not do wonders for the city. People were pissed when that suggestion came out (which since has been ruled as very unlikely anyways). The difference between Austin and the cities that removed freeways is they have other freeways that run through. Austin only has 35. The idea to toll 35 and shift 35 east would not only anger the majority of the population that uses 35 daily. Many are on a tight budget as it is and they are not going to pay to use it. Driving miles east is not an option especially if you live and work along the 35 corridor. It will also cause wide apread suburban sprawl through miles of farm, ranch and wooded land.

This may sound harsh and I apolgize now because ive had a rough night but ill try to be as respectable as I can. To be honest why should the city of Austin pay the price just so people who live way out in the burbs wont have to spend an hour+ in traffic? Granted a lot of people that live in places like RR live there because they can't afford a place in the city when they would prefer to be in the city. However a majority choose to live in suburbia for whatever reason and they seem to think that Austin should toll all its freeways whether new or not. Several of these suburbs could join Capital Metro to get mass transit but they don't other than a couple.

I was considering to say more but I think for now I will leave it at that.

[IluvATX]

An interstate highway can't be tolled.

[Mikey711MN]

Originally Posted by IluvATX

An interstate highway can't be tolled.

This isn't accurate as the majority of Chicagoland's tollways are interstates as well as major NE turnpikes, e.g. MA, PA, etc. but I think what you probably meant was that existing interstate lanes (that were once "free") can not have tolls applied to them after the fact.

Even this has some wiggle room. If a state or local authority pays the Fed agency back its portion of the initial construction (tends to be 50% to 80% of total development costs), then it may apply tolling equipment at its discretion. An example of this is I-394 in the Twin Cities, which had two underperforming HOV lanes converted to HOT lanes nearly 20 years after they were initially constructed. In that case, the State had to break out the checkbook to cover FHWA's share of initially constructing those lanes, and only then were they free to add tolling equipment since there was no longer any Federal investment applicable.

Hope that helps.

[IluvATX]

Originally Posted by Mikey711MN

This isn't accurate as the majority of Chicagoland's tollways are interstates as well as major NE turnpikes, e.g. MA, PA, etc. but I think what you probably meant was that existing interstate lanes (that were once "free") can not have tolls applied to them after the fact.

Even this has some wiggle room. If a state or local authority pays the Fed agency back its portion of the initial construction (tends to be 50% to 80% of total development costs), then it may apply tolling equipment at its discretion. An example of this is I-394 in the Twin Cities, which had two underperforming HOV lanes converted to HOT lanes nearly 20 years after they were initially constructed. In that case, the State had to break out the checkbook to cover FHWA's share of initially constructing those lanes, and only then were they free to add tolling equipment since there was no longer any Federal investment applicable.

Hope that helps.

I wasn't referring to the 3 digit spur or loop freeways and the tolled turnpikes of the Northeast are that way because they were grandfathered in. A new one cannot be converted or built for tolling.

[Slappy]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

To be honest why should the city of Austin pay the price just so people who live way out in the burbs wont have to spend an hour+ in traffic?

Amen to that.

[hereinaustin]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

Moving I-35 is not an option and no it would not do wonders for the city. People were pissed when that suggestion came out (which since has been ruled as very unlikely anyways). The difference between Austin and the cities that removed freeways is they have other freeways that run through. Austin only has 35. The idea to toll 35 and shift 35 east would not only anger the majority of the population that uses 35 daily. Many are on a tight budget as it is and they are not going to pay to use it. Driving miles east is not an option especially if you live and work along the 35 corridor. It will also cause wide apread suburban sprawl through miles of farm, ranch and wooded land.

This may sound harsh and I apolgize now because ive had a rough night but ill try to be as respectable as I can. To be honest why should the city of Austin pay the price just so people who live way out in the burbs wont have to spend an hour+ in traffic? Granted a lot of people that live in places like RR live there because they can't afford a place in the city when they would prefer to be in the city. However a majority choose to live in suburbia for whatever reason and they seem to think that Austin should toll all its freeways whether new or not. Several of these suburbs could join Capital Metro to get mass transit but they don't other than a couple.

I was considering to say more but I think for now I will leave it at that.

I'm not sure how the city of Austin is "having to pay for people in the burbs"?? A congested I-35 isn't a good thing for Austinites whether they live in downtown or live on the outskirts of town.

I-35 needs to change. As long as we keep it "free," regardless of how much an individual uses it, it will remain congested. I apologize if this seems insensitive, but like almost everything else in this world, if you use something, then YOU (not your neighbor), should pay to use it.

One of the reasons our city doesn't have a decent rail system yet is at least partially because of all the "free" roads we have that make driving a car seem like a smarter economic decision. If every individual bore the full cost of driving their private cars (cost of their car + cost of maintenance of their car + cost of roads + cost of maintaining roads + cost of alternative land uses +??), they would be more inclined to consider alternative transportation modes.

By the way, I live in south central Austin and I bike to work.

[brando]

Originally Posted by IluvATX

An interstate highway can't be tolled.

You can install toll lanes in order to help pay for construction.

[lzppjb]

Originally Posted by hereinaustin

I'm not sure how the city of Austin is "having to pay for people in the burbs"?? A congested I-35 isn't a good thing for Austinites whether they live in downtown or live on the outskirts of town.

I-35 needs to change. As long as we keep it "free," regardless of how much an individual uses it, it will remain congested. I apologize if this seems insensitive, but like almost everything else in this world, if you use something, then YOU (not your neighbor), should pay to use it.

One of the reasons our city doesn't have a decent rail system yet is at least partially because of all the "free" roads we have that make driving a car seem like a smarter economic decision. If every individual bore the full cost of driving their private cars (cost of their car + cost of maintenance of their car + cost of roads + cost of maintaining roads + cost of alternative land uses +??), they would be more inclined to consider alternative transportation modes.

By the way, I live in south central Austin and I bike to work.

We paid taxes to have these roads built. I would not support tolling existing roads that were built with tax money.

[IluvATX]

Ok I35 will Never have any tolls on it. Research federal regulations if you must.

[ATXboom]

Originally Posted by IluvATX

Ok I35 will Never have any tolls on it. Research federal regulations if you must.

Why does I10 through Houston have tolled lanes?

[electricron]

Originally Posted by ATXboom

Why does I10 through Houston have tolled lanes?

The tolled lanes on I-10 weren't financed by Federal revenues. The free lanes on I-10 were.

[IluvATX]

Originally Posted by ATXboom

Why does I10 through Houston have tolled lanes?

The toll lanes aren't actually on the interstate itself, but you have a good point.

[Syndic]

I don't spend much time in the transportation thread. Has the debate over northern urban rail routes been beaten to death already? Because it seems to be picking up steam elsewhere. Some people are saying we should vote against an urban rail line that goes up to ACC Highland but I feel like if this is our only chance go get urban rail going before 2025 or so then we have to vote yes. Because we shouldn't let just one stretch of it overpower the benefit of the rest of it (i.e. the line going from UT, past the medical school, past the convention center, alongside Waller Creek, across the lake, and down Riverside most of the way to the airport. People who are hellbent on the Guadalupe/Lamar line (and I understand why) seem short-sighted in that they overlook all of the features I just mentioned.

If this is the only option we're given on the ballot, I'm still gonna vote for it.

[LoneStarMike]

^^That graphic says it could be urban rail, but it could also just be another rapid bus line.

And there was another article in the Statesman a couple of days ago that said the southern portion (crossing the lake and running down Riverside) wouldn't be completed for at least 15 years.

Austin officials attempt to defuse flap over urban rail plan

Urban rail plan or bureaucratic placeholder?

Local transportation officials scrambled to defuse concerns Wednesday after a document surfaced indicating that the first segment of a 9-mile rail route would be built from downtown Austin to Hancock Center and that a connection south of Lady Bird Lake would not be complete for another 15 years.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Syndic

I don't spend much time in the transportation thread. Has the debate over northern urban rail routes been beaten to death already? Because it seems to be picking up steam elsewhere. Some people are saying we should vote against an urban rail line that goes up to ACC Highland but I feel like if this is our only chance go get urban rail going before 2025 or so then we have to vote yes. Because we shouldn't let just one stretch of it overpower the benefit of the rest of it (i.e. the line going from UT, past the medical school, past the convention center, alongside Waller Creek, across the lake, and down Riverside most of the way to the airport. People who are hellbent on the Guadalupe/Lamar line (and I understand why) seem short-sighted in that they overlook all of the features I just mentioned.

If this is the only option we're given on the ballot, I'm still gonna vote for it.

How old is that map? I thought TxDot had already shot down the I35 frontage road idea.

[Syndic]

It's about 2 months old. I couldn't find a good more recent one.

[nixcity]

The November election is not too far off and I think we need as much time as possible for advertising and campaigning for urban rail. Transportation is the issue that will make or break us over the coming decade, the mayor was right when he said as much. After trying as much as possible to buy into a line to Highland mall as being better than nothing I just can't. I'm afraid it will preclude any real chance for rail where it is already needed on Guadalupe/Lamar for the foreseeable future.
So what I have come to conclude is that we should start with a shorter line and leave anywhere north of the Capitol for future extensions. This would save money this making it more likely to gain voter approval for the costly tunnel under the river ALL THE WAY to the Capitol. This is the only real answer, sorry Electricon I don't want any ugly above grade through our beautiful downtown. We can use that in other places where appropriate in the future. As for now I see a line from Pleasant Valley or Grove with its on ROW at grade until the river where it goes underground until it reaches the Capitol. This gives us time to choose the best option for north of there and demonstrate the value of going underground and maintaining the capacity of our already choked roadways. We should be taking advantage of the fact it is so easy to tunnel here and maybe by the time this first phase is done there would be enough momentum to continue underground all the way from the Capitol to around 24th and Guadalupe where it could come above ground and stay at grade until it reaches the Crestview stop thus basically getting you to Highland mall anyway and connecting us to the northwest part of the city, Cedar Park and Leander via the red line.

It all starts with going under the river all the way to the Capitol. This would also keep the unsightly above ground cables light rail needs from being there. We have yet to hear much from our resident experts on tunneling under the river. Novacek, SAM, M1ek, what do you all think? This is in essence a permanent decision and we really need to get it right this time!

[DoubleC]

Hey look, another toll!

Toll lanes proposed along SH 71 near ABIA

http://kxan.com/2014/04/01/toll-lanes-proposed-along-sh-71-near-abia/

Even the tiniest stretches of roads can't be built free anymore (well, except Ben White at 71, thank heavens that's going to be free).

This was published on April the 1st. Hopefully the toll part was an April fools joke lol.