HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Texas & Southcentral > Austin


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #4501  
Old Posted Oct 8, 2015, 12:27 AM
Tech House Tech House is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 726
Quote:
Originally Posted by Digatisdi View Post
...what exists now is just a vortex of stupidity. I'd rather a glancing blow to my car than the constant risk of getting T-boned.
That's some mighty tasty writing, Digatisdi. I just wanted to make sure everyone appreciated your choice of words.

And you're right, that intersection and traffic circles were made for each other.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4502  
Old Posted Oct 8, 2015, 12:44 AM
AusTxDevelopment AusTxDevelopment is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 808
Admittedly this was caused by a checkpoint malfunction, but next time you are stuck and cursing Austin's traffic, just be glad we are not China.

Also: so many white cars.

Video Link


https://youtu.be/O3kL6nMap2s
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4503  
Old Posted Oct 8, 2015, 2:50 AM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 3,611
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by Novacek View Post
All of that is true, though the subject under discussion was the (failed) urban rail plan, which had planned frequencies of (I think)every 10 minutes.

But as I said, whatever rail frequency or system you're talking about, its capacity is higher than the additional roads that simply can't be built, as we're out of room.
The latest urban rail plan added two tracks within the corridor by removing two traffic lanes from the corridor.
Some surprising math:
2 lanes x 1600 vehicles per hour per lane = 3200 vehicles per hour = 76,800 vehicles per day.
I suggest 76,800 vehicles for two additional traffic lanes, which can have up to 50 passengers per vehicle (average sized bus) is much more than 30,000 to 50,000 projected passengers per day on urban rail.

It's not fair to compare apples to oranges using different data frequencies, like passengers on a train "per day" to vehicles in a traffic lane "per hour". It's even a worse comparison when you forget to subtract the capacity of the traffic lanes being displaced by rail.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4504  
Old Posted Oct 8, 2015, 2:32 PM
Novacek Novacek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,571
Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron View Post
The latest urban rail plan added two tracks within the corridor by removing two traffic lanes from the corridor.
For most of its length, no it didn't remove lanes.
Not along riverside or airport. Mostly just downtown, where it's grided, there's extra capacity, and a lot of it was removed parking.

Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron View Post
Some surprising math:
2 lanes x 1600 vehicles per hour per lane = 3200 vehicles per hour = 76,800 vehicles per day.
I suggest 76,800 vehicles for two additional traffic lanes, which can have up to 50 passengers per vehicle (average sized bus) is much more than 30,000 to 50,000 projected passengers per day on urban rail.
Well, if you want to compare MAX capacities, then rail still wins.

I was comparing the expected rush hour usage of the new lanes (most of which certainly aren't going to be buses. Come on, there is no plane of existence in which CapMetro would run a bus every 2 seconds 24/7.

Rush hour is the problem. How many people will be in the new lanes (during rush hour, most of which is one direction) vs. potential rail systems (of which the daily ridership is overwhelmingly occurring during rush hour).

Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron View Post
It's not fair to compare apples to oranges using different data frequencies, like passengers on a train "per day" to vehicles in a traffic lane "per hour".
Since I wasn't doing that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron View Post
It's even a worse comparison when you forget to subtract the capacity of the traffic lanes being displaced by rail.
And since I didn't.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4505  
Old Posted Oct 8, 2015, 8:11 PM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
Meh
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Austin,TX<-->Dripping Springs,TX<-->Birmingham, AL<-->Warm Springs,GA
Posts: 57,125
http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/ne...rity-list.html
Quote:
Bicycles should top Austin transit priority list, group says
Oct 8, 2015, 2:39pm CDT Updated Oct 8, 2015, 2:52pm CDT

Topping the list of priorities is to fully fund the city's bicycle master plan. Originally adopted in 2009, voters have approved $20.7 million in funds dedicated for bicycle and trail funding. The most-recent version of the plan calls for 247 miles of bicycle infrastructure, but needs about $151 million – from bonds – to be built out. Getting that money requires City Council to approve a bond measure that then has to be approved by voters.

No. 2 on the list of transportation priorities backs Reconnect Austin's proposal to bury I-35 through downtown, between Holly Street and 15th Street, and re-linking the downtown street grid with its East Austin counterpart. Of all the proposals in the report, this one likely has the longest odds. As of right now, the Texas Department of Transportation, which has the final say on interstate highway projects in the state, has passed over this plan in favor of a plan to add capacity to the corridor by adding another travel lane in each direction to the upper deck of the two-level highway.
__________________
My girlfriend has a poodle named Kevin.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4506  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2015, 12:02 AM
lzppjb's Avatar
lzppjb lzppjb is offline
7th Gen Central Texan
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 3,150
So, I read that cyclist registration programs usually fail because the systems cost more than what would be collected.

What about something akin to the gas tax, but for bikes? Add a little something to bike purchases, including the bikes themselves, as well as parts/accessories like tires.

That money would help to offset some of the bike trail projects. Obviously, not enough to cover $150 million, but could help with upkeep and whatnot.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4507  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2015, 12:23 AM
Tech House Tech House is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 726
"...the Texas Department of Transportation, which has the final say on interstate highway projects in the state, has passed over this plan in favor of a plan to add capacity to the corridor by adding another travel lane in each direction to the upper deck of the two-level highway."

This is a strange statement, given that the proposal to bury 35 has nothing to do with the current double-deck segment of the freeway. Is the TXDOT plan to add a lane that extends all the way through downtown, or only to the upper deck? Imagine the bottleneck if 35 went from 5 lanes to 3, it wouldn't do a thing to help with inbound traffic other than to provide extra parking space on the upper deck for your morning commute view of downtown. Maybe they could open a Starbucks up there while they're at it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4508  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2015, 12:27 AM
Tech House Tech House is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 726
Quote:
Originally Posted by lzppjb View Post
So, I read that cyclist registration programs usually fail because the systems cost more than what would be collected.

What about something akin to the gas tax, but for bikes? Add a little something to bike purchases, including the bikes themselves, as well as parts/accessories like tires.

That money would help to offset some of the bike trail projects. Obviously, not enough to cover $150 million, but could help with upkeep and whatnot.
The problem with a proposal like this is that there are numerous social and environmental benefits to getting people out of their cars and onto bikes, so it's more economically sensible to subsidize bikes and penalize driving. Currently, society bears an enormous cost in externalities due to the low price of driving. It helps to get some background in external costs to understand the reasoning here --- but it requires divesting oneself of evangelical faith in the perfection of unregulated "free markets." Ain't no such thing in the real world.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4509  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2015, 12:33 AM
lzppjb's Avatar
lzppjb lzppjb is offline
7th Gen Central Texan
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 3,150
Is there a mandatory "driver's ed" for cyclists?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4510  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2015, 12:46 AM
Tech House Tech House is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 726
Quote:
Originally Posted by lzppjb View Post
Is there a mandatory "driver's ed" for cyclists?
I like that idea, especially if it includes an hour of etiquette titled "We're glad you chose to ride a bike, now don't act like a smug entitled douchenozzle."
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4511  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2015, 1:28 AM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
Meh
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Austin,TX<-->Dripping Springs,TX<-->Birmingham, AL<-->Warm Springs,GA
Posts: 57,125
It's really kind of pointless to add a cyclist tax of any kind for road improvements for bicycles since all road improvements are covered by all taxpayers. Using that logic would cyclists be given the clear to not pay taxes that pay for road improvements that are specifically car related? The ridiculousness of either of those views is that owners and drivers of cars do ride bicycles on the street, and cyclists also drive cars.

As for park upgrades, it's another instance where those costs are already covered by everyone who uses them. In a lot of cases the main use of a park is bicycle trails, such as the hike & bike trail or the Barton Creek greenbelt.

As for placing a tax on bicycle purchases, that's all well and fine for new ones, but Austin is a college town and most people here by one used off of Craigslist that looks like a POS to avoid having it stolen. In the last 9 years since I started riding a bicycle again, I've only bought a new bike once. The rest have been either from Craigslist, or in the case of my favorite one, from someone in the neighborhood. In that case it would be nearly impossible to collect the tax since most of those purchases are between two private individuals, and there's no other practical way to pay other than with cash. Besides, commute percentages by bike in Austin (and much of America) are still so low that requiring the taxes to be covered by only bicycle purchases would require the tax to be considerably high to cover the cost.

I think people are missing the point, which is that increasing bicycle infrastructure actually helps reduce traffic and other infrastructure needs/costs. I've been to countless concerts at Zilker Park and Auditorium Shores, and I've never gotten there by any other means other than my bicycle. I cut down on traffic that way, never mind bypassing the parking problem.

As for a "driver's ed" for bikes, some cyclists can be dumb when they ride, but I always like to remember that whatever they do it's in their best interest to not ride like an idiot since if they do do something stupid, it might mean their demise. Of course being courteous goes a long way. I'm sure I surprise drivers each time when I let them go first while I'm sitting at a stop sign. Anyway, I do see some really dumb ones sometimes that do need it. I actually saw a guy once riding on the wrong side of the street, talking on his cell phone with no lights on his bike. I was on my mine at the time on my way to the grocery store. Luckily I spotted him and steered clear of him. And then there the ones who run red lights. I've actually had a few of them come around me in the bike lane while I was waiting for the light so they could run it.
__________________
My girlfriend has a poodle named Kevin.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4512  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2015, 3:55 AM
lzppjb's Avatar
lzppjb lzppjb is offline
7th Gen Central Texan
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 3,150
I'm just saying, bikes are on the road and are supposed to abide by the same laws. But we assume they've all taken real driver's education, so they must know the laws they are required to follow.

Yesterday, I came across 2 cyclists on a road that has a somewhat new, large bike lane. Plenty of room for my truck and their bikes. But instead of riding single file so they fit in their lane, they want to be able to gab, so they ride beside each other. That puts the inside bike into my lane. They wanted a lane and got it. Stop using mine and then demanding I give you 3 feet in order to pass.

Obviously, not talking to Kevin. He seems to be a responsible and courteous cyclist. But there are a ton of dumb ones that make it harder on guys like Kevin.

My tax idea was only brought up because I was trying to think of alternative ways to get the $150 million. I can see a lot of people balking at that kind of money, so maybe it could be helped along by figuring out alternative ways to fund it.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4513  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2015, 5:04 AM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
Meh
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Austin,TX<-->Dripping Springs,TX<-->Birmingham, AL<-->Warm Springs,GA
Posts: 57,125
Really the rules for riding a bike are mostly the same as for a car, but with a few differences.

Obey all traffic laws, stopping at stop signs and lights, yielding, obeying no left turns, only turning from designated turn lanes. And yes, obeying the speed limit. I've actually been close to breaking it, even on major streets, so it really is something you have to watch if you get on a good hill and start flying. lol I'm fuzzy on the rules about minimum speed limits since there isn't much clarity on that issue, but honestly if you're being passed by cars then you should move over or take to the sidewalks if you're going real slow. Otherwise if there's a bike lane, or if there's enough room on the street, you can crawl along as slow as you want. And do not ride the wrong way down a one way street or even riding the wrong way in the bike lane.

Bikes in Austin are supposed to have two lights (front and back). I have three.

Ride in the bike lane when there is one except for when passing - I'm not slow, so I really do have to pass other bikes sometimes. And of course there are the parked vehicles you need to get around. And you're not supposed to ride on the sidewalk since it's dangerous for pedestrians. And really, it's no fun riding on the sidewalk. They're narrow and uneven and sometimes have poles in the middle of them that make them dangerous to navigate, plus the odd tree branch that is too low. I sprained my ankle one night walking home from my brother's house because one of the manhole covers was raised about 3 inches above the rest of the sidewalk. It was dark and I had a stiff beer buzz going, and I totally caught my foot and went down. haha Anyway, I was walking, but hitting that on your bike would probably send you over the handlebars depending on how fast you were going, plus it would damage your rim.

It's illegal to ride a bike drunk or under the influence of anything else, though, I think technically it's a public intoxication charge since it's technically not a motor vehicle.

No riding a bike while on your cell phone. I can't believe that one even needs to be said. lol

I honestly think people forget sometimes. They hop on a bike and ride in the street to get somewhere simply because there's no place else to use to get to where they're going, and some forget that when they're riding in the street they need to get into the mindset of obeying the laws and treating the situation no differently than they would if they were driving a car. That's what I do. You also have to watch like a hawk. I am always scanning ahead of me to keep watch. I'm looking at taillights, blinkers, wheels, doors, faces and looking for other bicycles, people and the odd stray dog or cat even. And I look over my shoulder periodically to know if there are any cars behind me even if I'm not in the middle of the street or about to turn/change lanes.

One thing, though, I do not believe in using hand signals. I'm not even sure if Austin has a law about it, and honestly I can't remember the last time I saw someone do that on a bike, not even bike cops in downtown. I just don't like the idea of taking my hands off the handlebar while I'm turning or stopping. It's one thing to ride with one hand or switch hands when you're going straight, but you really should have both hands on the handlebar when you're turning or stopping. Besides, if you're stopping while at speed you'll probably need both your front and back brakes anyway.

Anyway, this is my trusty old Raleigh. I have a headlight up there also, plus my taillight, and this other light that I found at Walmart that does a good job of lighting up my bike and the pavement around me.

__________________
My girlfriend has a poodle named Kevin.

Last edited by KevinFromTexas; Oct 9, 2015 at 5:19 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4514  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2015, 2:03 PM
Novacek Novacek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tech House View Post
"...the Texas Department of Transportation, which has the final say on interstate highway projects in the state, has passed over this plan in favor of a plan to add capacity to the corridor by adding another travel lane in each direction to the upper deck of the two-level highway."

This is a strange statement, given that the proposal to bury 35 has nothing to do with the current double-deck segment of the freeway. Is the TXDOT plan to add a lane that extends all the way through downtown, or only to the upper deck? Imagine the bottleneck if 35 went from 5 lanes to 3, it wouldn't do a thing to help with inbound traffic other than to provide extra parking space on the upper deck for your morning commute view of downtown. Maybe they could open a Starbucks up there while they're at it.
The quote refers to the TxDot plan, but doesn't describe all details of it. As mentioned, it's additional lanes on the upper decks, but also depressing the lanes south of 12th and adding an additional lane each way there.

As it mentions, this is different from the Sinclair plan, which included depressing and caping it all the way up to north of 15th.

http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/pr...to-fix-it.html
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4515  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2015, 2:13 PM
Novacek Novacek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,571
Quote:
Originally Posted by lzppjb View Post
I'm just saying, bikes are on the road and are supposed to abide by the same laws. But we assume they've all taken real driver's education, so they must know the laws they are required to follow.
Probably most have. Ideally it would be covered in schools as well, so cover kids that are too young for drivers ed.


Though we make the same assumptions about drivers as well. We assume the Austin transplant decided (on their own) to study up on the differences in Texas laws when they traded in their drivers license (at least when I did it, there was no test covering the differences). We assume the 65 year old driver remembers what they learned in drivers ed 50 years ago.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4516  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2015, 2:16 PM
Novacek Novacek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tech House View Post
but it requires divesting oneself of evangelical faith in the perfection of unregulated "free markets." Ain't no such thing in the real world.
There's plenty of them, or really close.

It's just that transportation, where governments build roads, require parking minimums, has a strategic petroleum reserve, and intervenes politically and militarily to stabilize gas prices is about as far as you can get from one.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4517  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2015, 5:09 PM
Tech House Tech House is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 726
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novacek View Post
The quote refers to the TxDot plan, but doesn't describe all details of it. As mentioned, it's additional lanes on the upper decks, but also depressing the lanes south of 12th and adding an additional lane each way there.

As it mentions, this is different from the Sinclair plan, which included depressing and caping it all the way up to north of 15th.

http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/pr...to-fix-it.html
Thanks for the clarification. I didn't realize that even TXDOT was embracing the idea of eliminating the current elevated fwy downtown. That's very encouraging to me. Although i prefer the Sinclair plan, either way it would be a tremendous boon to that whole area not to have the Great Wall dividing the city and broadcasting the noise of the freeway to nearby blocks.

One problem that comes to mind with not capping a depressed fwy is that the area around Sixth and 35 is going to be full of drunks who will be tempted to throw things, puke, and urinate on the lanes below. I reckon this would be taken into consideration and some sort of significant barrier would dissuade pedestrians from acting upon miscreant juvenile inclinations.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4518  
Old Posted Oct 9, 2015, 5:47 PM
Novacek Novacek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,571
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tech House View Post
One problem that comes to mind with not capping a depressed fwy is that the area around Sixth and 35 is going to be full of drunks who will be tempted to throw things, puke, and urinate on the lanes below. I reckon this would be taken into consideration and some sort of significant barrier would dissuade pedestrians from acting upon miscreant juvenile inclinations.
It doesn't seem significantly different from the existing overpass bridges with sidewalks (Cesar Chavez west side and 11th).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4519  
Old Posted Oct 10, 2015, 2:01 AM
drummer drummer is offline
World Traveler
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Austin metro area
Posts: 4,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by AusTxDevelopment View Post
Admittedly this was caused by a checkpoint malfunction, but next time you are stuck and cursing Austin's traffic, just be glad we are not China.

Also: so many white cars.

Video Link


https://youtu.be/O3kL6nMap2s

I'm grateful I don't live in Beijing or Tianjin where that kind of crap happens. Where I live, you just have to watch out for fancy cars, dump trucks, cows, goats, bicycles, pedestrians, and tractors...in no particular order, but on the same road at the same time.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4520  
Old Posted Oct 10, 2015, 3:49 AM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
Meh
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Austin,TX<-->Dripping Springs,TX<-->Birmingham, AL<-->Warm Springs,GA
Posts: 57,125
Whenever I see something like that my first thought is 'bicycle'.
__________________
My girlfriend has a poodle named Kevin.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Texas & Southcentral > Austin
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 4:13 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.