AUSTIN | Project Updates Thread Part II - Page 156

Novacek · #**3101** Posted **May 19, 2016, 3:41 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbssfelix

I mean, it's 7 LANES wide north of Airport. Seven! Why?!

Presumably because of Airport dead-ending there. It's basically channeling both Lamar and Airport traffic up to 183.

Looking at
http://www.austintexas.gov/GIS/CAMPOInteractiveMap/

Lamar south of Airport has a daily count of 32k. Airport at Lamar has 19k. Lamar at Morrow has 42k (where the other 9 k went I'm not sure).

I'm not sure what the standard is and if a lane would be approved.

wwmiv · #**3102** Posted **May 19, 2016, 5:21 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Novacek

Presumably because of Airport dead-ending there. It's basically channeling both Lamar and Airport traffic up to 183.

Looking at
http://www.austintexas.gov/GIS/CAMPOInteractiveMap/

Lamar south of Airport has a daily count of 32k. Airport at Lamar has 19k. Lamar at Morrow has 42k (where the other 9 k went I'm not sure).

I'm not sure what the standard is and if a lane would be approved.

Some of the Lamar traffic south of Airport comes from Airport and some of the Airport traffic comes from Lamar south of Airport. That's where that missing 9K got distributed around to.

Novacek · #**3103** Posted **May 19, 2016, 6:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Some of the Lamar traffic south of Airport comes from Airport and some of the Airport traffic comes from Lamar south of Airport. That's where that missing 9K got distributed around to.

Right, it's gotta be. In my head I was thinking "why drive north on Lamar to go south on airport and vice versa", but it must be faster than the "shortcut".

The critical question is what does traffic engineering say for a count of 42k, and does the "standard" preclude 5 lanes for that. That's significantly above the 5 lane section of Burnet, for instance (of course there's induced demand and such, but many pretend that doesn't exist).

jbssfelix · #**3104** Posted **May 19, 2016, 6:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Novacek

Presumably because of Airport dead-ending there. It's basically channeling both Lamar and Airport traffic up to 183.

Which still doesn't make sense, since only the far right lane (going NB) actually connects to 183. That's 2.5 other NB lanes that get much less traffic. And while that one lane does back up some during rush hour (and could use a redesign to help flow traffic appropriately, but then again so could that whole Anderson/Research/Lamar/183 disaster of an intersection), traffic flows pretty smoothly through there (assuming the Red Line false alarms aren't too frequent)

Novacek · #**3105** Posted **May 19, 2016, 6:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbssfelix

Which still doesn't make sense, since only the far right lane (going NB) actually connects to 183. That's 2.5 other NB lanes that get much less traffic. And while that one lane does back up some during rush hour (and could use a redesign to help flow traffic appropriately, but then again so could that whole Anderson/Research/Lamar/183 disaster of an intersection), traffic flows pretty smoothly through there (assuming the Red Line false alarms aren't too frequent)

I wouldn't say "much less traffic". Lamar immediately north of 183 is back down to 32k, which seems pretty standard for the 5 lane profile (Lamar south of Airport, Burnet road, etc.)

It flows smoothly now, but might not flow smoothly if reduced to 5 lanes.

To be clear, I'm all for reducing lanes (and allocating it to transit, sidewalks, what have you) but I recognize that not everyone agrees (especially outdated traffic engineering practices designed to increase/maintain Level of Service at all costs).

urbancore · #**3106** Posted **May 19, 2016, 6:49 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Novacek

To be clear, I'm all for reducing lanes (and allocating it to transit, sidewalks, what have you) but I recognize that not everyone agrees (especially outdated traffic engineering practices designed to increase/maintain Level of Service at all costs).

werd

lzppjb · #**3107** Posted **May 19, 2016, 11:16 PM**

It feels like this is turning into the Transportation thread. There's a reason I try to stay out of there for the most part.

the Genral · #**3108** Posted **May 19, 2016, 11:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by lzppjb

It feels like this is turning into the Transportation thread. There's a reason I try to stay out of there for the most part.

Hehe, I thought I was routed to the Transportation thread by mistake until I scrolled back to the top and saw I was on the Austin update thread. I've driven (npi) many a thread off course, so no right to complain by me, but, I tend to avoid the trans. page because I usually don't have the intelligence to keep up with the posts.

We vs us · #**3109** Posted **May 20, 2016, 12:16 AM**

Transportation's pretty much just for wonks.

the Genral · #**3110** Posted **May 20, 2016, 12:56 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by We vs us

Transportation's pretty much just for wonks.

See, that's my point, I had to look up wonks.

drummer · #**3111** Posted **May 20, 2016, 4:47 AM**

I'd like to make a motion: Can the back and forth between any particular two members of the forum at any particular time be done in messaging rather than on the forum itself? I get that some discussions will happen (and they should), but if you're essentially chatting with someone in real time, it's a bit much at times for others to sift through it all to get to any real content or news. This is especially true when it becomes more of an argument than a discussion.

I'd say this wouldn't need to be a rule as much as a common courtesy to other folks. Just my two cents.

Novacek · #**3112** Posted **May 20, 2016, 1:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by drummer

I'd like to make a motion: Can the back and forth between any particular two members of the forum at any particular time be done in messaging rather than on the forum itself? I get that some discussions will happen (and they should), but if you're essentially chatting with someone in real time, it's a bit much at times for others to sift through it all to get to any real content or news. This is especially true when it becomes more of an argument than a discussion.

I'd say this wouldn't need to be a rule as much as a common courtesy to other folks. Just my two cents.

I wouldn't get into arguments if people would stop posting blatantly false statements

Okay, I'll try. But it's a fine line of when a discussion reaches that point.

the Genral · #**3113** Posted **May 20, 2016, 1:39 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by drummer

I'd like to make a motion: Can the back and forth between any particular two members of the forum at any particular time be done in messaging rather than on the forum itself? I get that some discussions will happen (and they should), but if you're essentially chatting with someone in real time, it's a bit much at times for others to sift through it all to get to any real content or news. This is especially true when it becomes more of an argument than a discussion.

I'd say this wouldn't need to be a rule as much as a common courtesy to other folks. Just my two cents.

You mean what I just did?

MichaelB · #**3114** Posted **May 20, 2016, 5:26 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by drummer

I'd like to make a motion: Can the back and forth between any particular two members of the forum at any particular time be done in messaging rather than on the forum itself? I get that some discussions will happen (and they should), but if you're essentially chatting with someone in real time, it's a bit much at times for others to sift through it all to get to any real content or news. This is especially true when it becomes more of an argument than a discussion.

I'd say this wouldn't need to be a rule as much as a common courtesy to other folks. Just my two cents.

OMG... yes please!

Jdawgboy · #**3115** Posted **May 20, 2016, 8:32 PM**

I don't have a problem when debates start up as long as they stay debates. Anyone can chime in if they so choose but I agree once it becomes 1 on 1 then either continue in private messaging or just agree to disagree. Usually if I feel something I say will pull me into a long drawn out — for tat then I just don't respond and move on to something else.

Regarding VMUs on South Lamar and specifically pedestrian walkways, I have noticed that it's become a patchwork. Each VMU has nice wide sidewalks but some have shade trees planted and others do not. Also once your done walking in front of a VMU the sidewalk either shrinks back to the typical small neighborhood sized slabs or disappears all together. It would be nice if the city could expand the great streets program though on a less grand scale to what they are doing DT and bring more cohesive sidewalks along the major thoroughfares, at the very least make sure the sidewalks connect rather than one stretch of sidewalk and the next grass.

This particular subject may be more suited to the transportation thread so feel free to respond there if anyone wants to.

KevinFromTexas · #**3116** Posted **May 21, 2016, 1:03 AM**

Site plan for the Music Lane hotel at 1011-1123 South Congress.

ftp://ftp.ci.austin.tx.us/ATD_AULCC/AULC...South%20Congress%20Mixed%20Use_PLANS.pdf

Tech House · #**3117** Posted **May 21, 2016, 2:11 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jbssfelix

He's not wrong about this one. It is ripe for development, but also it's a huge honker of a road and needs a serious diet asap. I mean, it's 7 LANES wide north of Airport. Seven! Why?!

Because it needs to be. I drive that section of road quite frequently and have never thought it suffered from a glut of lanes. Bear in mind that 3 of those lanes are mostly devoted to traffic going to and from other major roads, such as Airport, Anderson, and 183.

Mopacs · #**3118** Posted **May 21, 2016, 5:06 AM**

Preliminary designs for upcoming office building developments at the Domain. Domain 10, 11 and 12 look to be around 13-14 floors.

http://domainofficesaustin.com/
http://domainofficesaustin.com/assets/fi...nder-Construction-Oblique-Rendering1.pdf

drummer · #**3119** Posted **May 21, 2016, 7:12 AM**

^ Looks great! That's a lot of office development. Thanks for sharing the rendering.

Now if we can just get that development to cross Burnet and build over IBM's massive parking lots...

Also, what are the plans (if there are any) for the surface lots around the older IBM building at Domain Dr. and Braker?

jbssfelix · #**3120** Posted **May 21, 2016, 5:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by drummer

^ Looks great! That's a lot of office development. Thanks for sharing the rendering.

Now if we can just get that development to cross Burnet and build over IBM's massive parking lots...

Also, what are the plans (if there are any) for the surface lots around the older IBM building at Domain Dr. and Braker?

If you look closely, it looks like Domain 8 is already trying to cross Burnet.