AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[Echostatic]

1. NIMBYism and especially strong neighborhood groups in Austin compared to other Texan cities.

2. Hills in the west make for especially difficult freeway construction, and lower population/traffic density, so it's generally not worth building non-direct routings on that side of town.

3. Austin's urban buildup is significantly less round than the other big-3 Texan cities. We're very north-south stretched. It makes a loop less useful for through traffic and less useful for locals.

[sjk]

I also anticipate even more of an increase in traffic on 360 if it becomes more of a freeway due to the fact that it could be a faster alternative to Mopac in some instances/times of day. Some of that overflow traffic looking to bypass downtown may end up taking 360 instead of Mopac.

[JollyvilleJ-Rad]

Originally Posted by sjk

I also anticipate even more of an increase in traffic on 360 if it becomes more of a freeway due to the fact that it could be a faster alternative to Mopac in some instances/times of day. Some of that overflow traffic looking to bypass downtown may end up taking 360 instead of Mopac.

I've got to admit that one of my reasons for favoring the 360 project is for exactly that reason: to provide a scenic alternative to Mopac. But honestly since the express lanes and with the anticipated improvements in the Barton Skyway area (https://www.mobilityauthority.com/up..._FactSheet.pdf) and Mopac South project it might not be as necessary for my personal need. Mopac today usually gets me to South Austin about 10-15 minutes faster in traffic.

I'm also concerned about induced demand (since I can't think of a single highway expansion project off the top of my head that didn't induce worse traffic). The Katy Freeway is obviously the prime case-study, but that is so different in scope and scale that I have a hard time imagining what it will be like on 360. My guess is that it will just speed the traffic towards the next bottleneck, eventually at the northern and southern terminus. But when you look at traffic patterns and where the major slowdowns occur, it's nearly always thru traffic at the intersections and would benefit tremendously from the grade separation. In theory it should also speed cross-traffic. I don't know - I generally don't like to see major expansions of highways, but this area will never be dense enough for transit and the roadway needs improvement. The proposal will help a lot and the geography of the area should prohibit any future expansion. In that sense I feel like it's completing the highway rather than expanding.

[freerover]

Originally Posted by JollyvilleJ-Rad

In that sense I feel like it's completing the highway rather than expanding.

[sjk]

Yes - I agree it could be an induced demand sort of thing.

In other news, I think that we kind of hinted at this before, but here is an article regarding Blue Line construction:

Community Impact
June 9th
Waller Creek Boathouse event, cafe space will have to move from current location to make way for light rail

https://communityimpact.com/austin/c...niz1cpgwgxdnkc

[freerover]

So, just so we are all on the same page. Just because something is called a "highway" does not mean it's intended final form is I35. N. Lamar is a highway. Airpor Blvd is a highway. Burnet Rd Is a highway. S. Lamar is a highway. Konig is a highway. Cesar is a highway.

All of these have state highway signs that you've likely ignored because they aren't really relevant. So, just becuase 360 is a "highway" does not mean that we are "finishing" anything. This is new construction and it will create induced demand however that's not really a problem right now because we can't build any fucking housing in Austin anyway. So, Build oak hill. Build 360. Let is Sprawl becuase people need a place to live and Austin boomers (white AND black) are not going to let that happen here.

[JollyvilleJ-Rad]

Originally Posted by freerover

So, just so we are all on the same page. Just because something is called a "highway" does not mean it's intended final form is I35. N. Lamar is a highway. Airpor Blvd is a highway. Burnet Rd Is a highway. S. Lamar is a highway. Konig is a highway. Cesar is a highway.

All of these have state highway signs that you've likely ignored because they aren't really relevant. So, just becuase 360 is a "highway" does not mean that we are "finishing" anything. This is new construction and it will create induced demand however that's not really a problem right now because we can't build any fucking housing in Austin anyway. So, Build oak hill. Build 360. Let is Sprawl becuase people need a place to live and Austin boomers (white AND black) are not going to let that happen here.

I'm very sympathetic to your points - I HATE the sprawl that highways support and do not think they are a viable longterm solution to our congestion issues. The growth of the suburbs are supported by new freeways and tolls that deepen our existing issues. While I want them to be successful communities, the booms in Cedar Park and Leander only mean more traffic on my local highway (183) as they build up the road network in Wilco without thought of the Travis/Austin transportation priorities. I would much rather see a Chicago-style Blue Line development in the median of 183, but that will only be a dream.

Meantime, I don't see 360 becoming far more dense with a freeway expansion. Perhaps I'm completely wrong in my thinking, but as others have pointed out it's pretty-well developed and the geography of the area doesn't support much denser development than what already exists. I'm far more concerned about sprawl induced by the Oak Hill Parkway/Y project, but people are moving out to the hill country in droves in spite of the transit issues. This pains me to say, but the sprawl is already here and only getting worse. I'm not going to support any new free/tollway expansion in the west on a non-existent roadway, but upgrading 290 seems reasonable. 360 seems reasonable. I wish we were all sitting in self-driving and flying cars but we aren't there yet.

Also, yes, when I say highway I'm being technical and just mean a broad, lengthy roadway, not a freeway or tollroad monstrosity necessarily. I understand the difference between a state designated route and a giant controlled-access roadway, haha! I don't support converting CC into a freeway, to be ridiculously clear lol

[JollyvilleJ-Rad]

Originally Posted by freerover

All of these have state highway signs that you've likely ignored because they aren't really relevant. So, just becuase 360 is a "highway" does not mean that we are "finishing" anything....Let is Sprawl becuase people need a place to live and Austin boomers (white AND black) are not going to let that happen here.

Nope, I've never ignored them - I've been fascinated by the state highway system for good part of my life. I worked off Loop 111 for 4 years, visited historical figures on SH 165, volunteered regularly off Loop 275, and live off FM 734 (which I deeply fear will be converted into a controlled-access highway). No, I never called them by their official designation, but I knew them before I ever drove those roads. But thanks for reminding me!

Also have no idea why exactly skin-color is relevant to this discussion.

[hookem]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Well, since that is the billionaire neighborhood of Austin, maybe?

It’s easier to spend millions opposing, than billions building.

Originally Posted by Dariusb

Question: Is there a reason freeway loops haven't been built there unlike other Texas cities?

Personally I call it luck. But in reality it’s the Texas state government always punishing Austin.

[DoubleC]

Originally Posted by hookem

It’s easier to spend millions opposing, than billions building.




Personally I call it luck. But in reality it’s the Texas state government always punishing Austin.

Yup. 1604 in San Antonio is getting expanded and there's not a single toll on it or any of their highways. We've got ABIA, they've got decent infrastructure.

While some people here are clearly fond of tolls as they "tax the suburbs", they can be a bit annoying in the city (like freaking 183... why? Would've been a good alternate route to 35 but now it's tolled). SH71 toll makes no sense as it is literally if I'm not mistaken two miles of road. They couldn't not toll that much? They're tolling bridges too now, even if you already paid the initial toll on top of that.

So much for "no more toll roads using taxpayer money".

[freerover]

If you outlaw using tax money on toll roads then all you do is insure the tolls are higher because more money had to be borrowed. Tolls pay for roads. Nothing is free.

[DoubleC]

Originally Posted by freerover

If you outlaw using tax money on toll roads then all you do is insure the tolls are higher because more money had to be borrowed. Tolls pay for roads. Nothing is free.

True, but we've paid for roads even before we had the idea to toll them. I don't mean to be snarky, but then how does SA have so many free roads than we do ? Why not just accept the higher tolls then? Why not pay more taxpayer money into the toll roads so that the tolls become zero?

It's complex, I know. I would argue not to build these behemoths in the first place in areas they aren't really needed and build cheaper and smarter. There's so much space that the Manor Expressway takes up when all that was really needed was some overpasses (let's make them 3-lanes each way with a slip-lane or two) to keep traffic moving. Same with 183. Now to be fair I can accept making them big (and thus expensive) if it means future planning and really no more commuter traffic anymore on those corridors.

The access routes are free and I can say the traffic I had to deal with 10 years ago is now gone. Gone are those long lines.

[freerover]

Toll roads have existed as long as roads have existed. Tolling is not new.

[Novacek]

Packet is up for next week's ATP board meeting.

It includes the Orange line maps we've already seen (thanks The ATX). A few more notes on a few of them. Seems possible that the Stassney station goes off the roadway to avoid TxDot RoW? Though they're not doing that at NLTC.

A bit of discussion on mode options on the drag.

https://www.capmetro.org/docs/defaul...genda-1863.pdf

[H2O]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Packet is up for next week's ATP board meeting.

It includes the Orange line maps we've already seen (thanks The ATX). A few more notes on a few of them. Seems possible that the Stassney station goes off the roadway to avoid TxDot RoW? Though they're not doing that at NLTC.

A bit of discussion on mode options on the drag.

https://www.capmetro.org/docs/defaul...genda-1863.pdf

I think the off roadway section at Stassney is to avoid the Williamson Creek floodplain and only have to build a new (higher) bridge for LRT instead of rebuilding the existing Congress Avenue bridge. I think it is just a coincidence that the boundary between TxDOT and CoA maintained sections is nearby. Other stations (including William Cannon) are in the roadway of TxDOT maintained sections.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by H2O

I think the off roadway section at Stassney is to avoid the Williamson Creek floodplain and only have to build a new (higher) bridge for LRT instead of rebuilding the existing Congress Avenue bridge. I think it is just a coincidence that the boundary between TxDOT and CoA maintained sections is nearby. Other stations (including William Cannon) are in the roadway of TxDOT maintained sections.

Right, but those further south stations aren't in the initial segment, ATP/CM/CoA has years to coordinate with TxDot on those and work out a deal.

With this current design (and that Stassney location) they only have to coordinate with TxDot on NLTC for the initial segment. And given budgetary realities, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if the NLTC section shifts a few years (delaying endpoints will be a way to adapt the budget).

Or as you said, it could be entirely a coincidence. I just found it interesting though.

[freerover]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Right, but those further south stations aren't in the initial segment, ATP/CM/CoA has years to coordinate with TxDot on those and work out a deal.

With this current design (and that Stassney location) they only have to coordinate with TxDot on NLTC for the initial segment. And given budgetary realities, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if the NLTC section shifts a few years (delaying endpoints will be a way to adapt the budget).

Or as you said, it could be entirely a coincidence. I just found it interesting though.

That’s interesting. So ending the line at the elevated crest view station. I think they might even be putting that swap track in the plans but I think that might have been the gold line ended there.

[H2O]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Right, but those further south stations aren't in the initial segment, ATP/CM/CoA has years to coordinate with TxDot on those and work out a deal.

With this current design (and that Stassney location) they only have to coordinate with TxDot on NLTC for the initial segment. And given budgetary realities, I wouldn't be entirely surprised if the NLTC section shifts a few years (delaying endpoints will be a way to adapt the budget).

Or as you said, it could be entirely a coincidence. I just found it interesting though.

OK, I see your point. I suppose that may play some role in deciding the boundaries of the MOS vs. extensions. It's hard to imagine a north terminus not being at NLTC. As poorly located as it is, it does serve an important connection point for multiple routes, and until the extensions happen, the north and south rapid bus lines need to terminate, transfer and turn around at logical end points of the LRT. NLTC makes a lot more sense for that than Crestview, I think. Maybe that is why they make as exception at the north end?

That is also kind of inconsistent with the south terminus. If ATP was trying to avoid dealing with TxDOT, why not just terminate at the SCTC? For that matter, I'm not sure why they are going to Stassney in the MOS. I always thought they were terminating at the SCTC in the first phase, but maybe I wasn't paying close enough attention to the diagrams.

Maybe they intend to develop a park and ride at Stassney on the auto salvage property (in the flood plain?) that cannot be accommodated at SCTC?

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by H2O

OK, I see your point. I suppose that may play some role in deciding the boundaries of the MOS vs. extensions. It's hard to imagine a north terminus not being at NLTC. As poorly located as it is, it does serve an important connection point for multiple routes, and until the extensions happen, the north and south rapid bus lines need to terminate, transfer and turn around at logical end points of the LRT. NLTC makes a lot more sense for that than Crestview, I think. Maybe that is why they make as exception at the north end?

There's a lot of benefit to making it at least to NLTC, don't get me wrong. For one thing, it gets you outside the highway loop and the more congested area that represents, it better serves District 4, more connecting routes (though not all that many, since CM has been gradually reducing the routes that use NLTC).

But it also has a lot of challenges, both jurisdictionally and with the current build environment (elevated 183 lanes, depressed Lamar lanes, plus frontage roads, terrible bike and pedestrian access, hard to get those connecting buses in and out, etc.).

As far as terminating the 801 and turning around, Crestview station may actually be easier. South bound 801s just need to turn right into Midtown commons and the station, while northbound ones at least can turn a left turn at the light (unlike at NLTC, where going back north involves some pretty serious detouring). At this point, CM may have more daily buses doing this than pulling in at NLTC (as the 7 and 300 are both frequent service).

Originally Posted by H2O

That is also kind of inconsistent with the south terminus. If ATP was trying to avoid dealing with TxDOT, why not just terminate at the SCTC? For that matter, I'm not sure why they are going to Stassney in the MOS. I always thought they were terminating at the SCTC in the first phase, but maybe I wasn't paying close enough attention to the diagrams.

Maybe they intend to develop a park and ride at Stassney on the auto salvage property (in the flood plain?) that cannot be accommodated at SCTC?

My suspicion is that there was some pressure to go a bit further south to avoid all the "South Austin is getting shortchanged" yells we always hear, based purely on looking at track-miles north of the river vs. south of the river.

There may also be technical reasons to avoid terminating at the SCTC and resuming the 801 there, for the same kind of access issues as at NLTC (since sctc is actually off-route on Radam). But that's just me guessing.

[H2O]

Originally Posted by Novacek

There's a lot of benefit to making it at least to NLTC, don't get me wrong. For one thing, it gets you outside the highway loop and the more congested area that represents, it better serves District 4, more connecting routes (though not all that many, since CM has been gradually reducing the routes that use NLTC).

But it also has a lot of challenges, both jurisdictionally and with the current build environment (elevated 183 lanes, depressed Lamar lanes, plus frontage roads, terrible bike and pedestrian access, hard to get those connecting buses in and out, etc.).

As far as terminating the 801 and turning around, Crestview station may actually be easier. South bound 801s just need to turn right into Midtown commons and the station, while northbound ones at least can turn a left turn at the light (unlike at NLTC, where going back north involves some pretty serious detouring). At this point, CM may have more daily buses doing this than pulling in at NLTC (as the 7 and 300 are both frequent service).


My suspicion is that there was some pressure to go a bit further south to avoid all the "South Austin is getting shortchanged" yells we always hear, based purely on looking at track-miles north of the river vs. south of the river.

There may also be technical reasons to avoid terminating at the SCTC and resuming the 801 there, for the same kind of access issues as at NLTC (since sctc is actually off-route on Radam). But that's just me guessing.

All good points. I find the south terminus 'Slaughter Station' even more perplexing because it is actually at Ralph Albanedo. At least there is an explicit intention to build a Park and Ride there, unlike at Stassney. Maybe they think that property will be easier to acquire than further south on Slaughter? Not that Slaughter is a great terminus either, but it seems more logical than Ralph Albanedo. South Park Meadows is a significant destination (as the slide implies), but currently not very transit supportive. I do think at least the northern portion closest to Slaughter has a lot of redevelopment potential, particularly by the time this extension would get built. Thoughts?