AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[drummer]

Nice to see that happening finally.

[StoOgE]

The traffic jam at that light is *extreme* and not just on race-days.

[StoOgE]

Do we have a general timeline on the light-rail plans? I'm assuming we're a decade out from a fully functioning system?

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by StoOgE

Do we have a general timeline on the light-rail plans? I'm assuming we're a decade out from a fully functioning system?

The current sequencing timeline had both light rail lines in 9 years and 13 for the green line.

https://www.kxan.com/traffic/when-ca...t-rail-system/

Subject to change, of course.

[freerover]

Originally Posted by StoOgE

Do we have a general timeline on the light-rail plans? I'm assuming we're a decade out from a fully functioning system?

[StoOgE]

Awesome, thanks y'all!

[J78704]

Originally Posted by StoOgE

Do we have a general timeline on the light-rail plans? I'm assuming we're a decade out from a fully functioning system?

I wish they had started ten years ago after the first proposal though I’m glad we’re now going underground and that probably wouldn’t be happening from those earlier props. It’s just EXTREMELY disappointing to think we’ll have to wait LONGER than these timelines for additional service lines, like south Lamar or other congested routes.

[freerover]

Originally Posted by J78704

I wish they had started ten years ago after the first proposal though I’m glad we’re now going underground and that probably wouldn’t be happening from those earlier props. It’s just EXTREMELY disappointing to think we’ll have to wait LONGER than these timelines for additional service lines, like south Lamar or other congested routes.

Hopefully by the time we are looking to expand high capacity transit, some of the technologies that Clark was really interested in will be more viable like the ART buses that can bunch together as you need them. A S. Lamar line would be great but also Lake Austin Blvd to 7th to Cesar/5th/7th/183 at that new regional CARTS bus depot. An eastern N/S route line Pleasvent Valley to Springdale would be dope too.

[Echostatic]

Eminent domain finally approved for Oak Hill Parkway, construction of which is planned to begin this summer. A much needed improvement for the Y.

https://www.austinmonitor.com/storie...290-expansion/

[freerover]

Originally Posted by Echostatic

Eminent domain finally approved for Oak Hill Parkway, construction of which is planned to begin this summer. A much needed improvement for the Y.

https://www.austinmonitor.com/storie...290-expansion/

Why did Kelly vote against it? She is so bonkers.

[drummer]

I'm glad this is finally approved. It was needed in the early 90s.

[StoOgE]

Originally Posted by freerover

Why did Kelly vote against it? She is so bonkers.

We added a Q-Anon internet troll to the ranks of our 3 resident NIMBYs. A real win for the city

In all honestly, I'm not a big "roads" person but the Y has needed an overhaul for 30 years. Its been a traffic nightmare longer than I can possibly remember and its becoming dangerous with people running lights to avoid sitting through another cycle.

[H2O]

Originally Posted by StoOgE

We added a Q-Anon internet troll to the ranks of our 3 resident NIMBYs. A real win for the city

In all honestly, I'm not a big "roads" person but the Y has needed an overhaul for 30 years. Its been a traffic nightmare longer than I can possibly remember and its becoming dangerous with people running lights to avoid sitting through another cycle.

It is going to have a major impact on the environment / livability of that area though. A lot of beautiful old heritage trees and Williamson Creek will be sacrificed for the sake of a few minutes convenience of people passing through.

[freerover]

Originally Posted by StoOgE

We added a Q-Anon internet troll to the ranks of our 3 resident NIMBYs. A real win for the city

In all honestly, I'm not a big "roads" person but the Y has needed an overhaul for 30 years. Its been a traffic nightmare longer than I can possibly remember and its becoming dangerous with people running lights to avoid sitting through another cycle.

Agreed but it should have been tolled. It's really annoying that it's going to be free and mostly service people outside the city. We had to cut hundreds of millions of dollars worth of projects including in and around Austin to pay for 35.

[slippi]

Originally Posted by H2O

It is going to have a major impact on the environment / livability of that area though. A lot of beautiful old heritage trees and Williamson Creek will be sacrificed for the sake of a few minutes convenience of people passing through.

In addition to the impacts on the area the global impact on the climate this project will have will be great too.

If you make it easier to live in low density car-centric suburbs with projects like this, you're going to get more low density car-centric suburbs.

[drummer]

While I generally agree with fewer expressways and more trees, I still believe this is a needed project for the region. Cars are not going away in the near term. Dependency can/should be reduced over time, but in the meantime, having them idle at stop lights for multiple cycles also isn't the answer. We have to pick our battles and compromise, and I, for one, think this interchange is necessary given that it's improving an existing road on which there is already significant development and traffic.

I agree with the hesitancy to support and/or encourage more sprawl, but as we've seen in many areas of Austin, the sprawl will happen with or without infrastructure needed to support it and then we play catch-up. We have to figure out how to plan for the future while addressing the current reality. In this case, what is the better solution? I'm genuinely asking.

[slippi]

Originally Posted by drummer

While I generally agree with fewer expressways and more trees, I still believe this is a needed project for the region. Cars are not going away in the near term. Dependency can/should be reduced over time, but in the meantime, having them idle at stop lights for multiple cycles also isn't the answer. We have to pick our battles and compromise, and I, for one, think this interchange is necessary given that it's improving an existing road on which there is already significant development and traffic.

I agree with the hesitancy to support and/or encourage more sprawl, but as we've seen in many areas of Austin, the sprawl will happen with or without infrastructure needed to support it and then we play catch-up. We have to figure out how to plan for the future while addressing the current reality. In this case, what is the better solution? I'm genuinely asking.

Projects like this ensure that cars will not go away in the near term, and they further solidify car dependency in the region. Having the cars idle at stop lights and make living in the suburbs less appealing is a far better outcome for emissions than making it easier with a frictionless intersection. Also, the demand this project will induce means this intersection will be anything but frictionless soon after it opens.

As far as alternatives, I would say spending the money on literally anything else would be better. Spending the money on project connect or on housing near transit immediately comes to mind. We can't solve traffic with more roads and bigger intersections.

[drummer]

Originally Posted by slippi

Projects like this ensure that cars will not go away in the near term, and they further solidify car dependency in the region. Having the cars idle at stop lights and make living in the suburbs less appealing is a far better outcome for emissions than making it easier with a frictionless intersection. Also, the demand this project will induce means this intersection will be anything but frictionless soon after it opens.

As far as alternatives, I would say spending the money on literally anything else would be better. Spending the money on project connect or on housing near transit immediately comes to mind. We can't solve traffic with more roads and bigger intersections.

I certainly agree with you in principle. I just wonder what the mitigation is if there's not enough demand for mass transit in this case. Future developments can and should be done better, of course, and density is the key to success in mass transit. I preaching to the choir here, of course.

I just wonder sometimes where compromise is needed and where hard lines should be drawn. A lot of us have strong opinions on the subject which is why we frequent this site...yet we also have to be pragmatic. Just externally processing here.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by J78704

I wish they had started ten years ago after the first proposal though I’m glad we’re now going underground and that probably wouldn’t be happening from those earlier props. It’s just EXTREMELY disappointing to think we’ll have to wait LONGER than these timelines for additional service lines, like south Lamar or other congested routes.

S Lamar is probably quite a bit out there.

First we have finishing up the rest of the existing Project Connect (Gold Line light rail, Orange Line north of 183/South of Stassney). I believe that ended up being a requirement of the Prop A "contract with the voters" if any additional funds became available.

Potentially next in line might be a light rail spur through North Burnet Gateway/Domain. By then, this area will be our densest, most populous area without light rail. Since they ended up terminating the blue line at NLTC, this could be functionally an extension of that line. This option actually made it into some of the initial Project Connect planning documents, but was scoped out.

I think only then would we (at least IMO only then) look at converting the existing lines. Probably we'd be adding new BRT-light/metrorapids before this point as well.

[H2O]

Originally Posted by drummer

While I generally agree with fewer expressways and more trees, I still believe this is a needed project for the region. Cars are not going away in the near term. Dependency can/should be reduced over time, but in the meantime, having them idle at stop lights for multiple cycles also isn't the answer. We have to pick our battles and compromise, and I, for one, think this interchange is necessary given that it's improving an existing road on which there is already significant development and traffic.

I agree with the hesitancy to support and/or encourage more sprawl, but as we've seen in many areas of Austin, the sprawl will happen with or without infrastructure needed to support it and then we play catch-up. We have to figure out how to plan for the future while addressing the current reality. In this case, what is the better solution? I'm genuinely asking.

I thought the Livable Oak Hill Parkway vision was a better solution. Incidentally, it was the original Oak Hill Parkway before TxDOT co-opted the name for their highway expansion. It is not a parkway!

http://www.saveoakhill.org/livable-oak-hill/