AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by Lobotomizer

Great, I can see where this is heading. With billions of dollars earmarked for I-35 to finally be modernized, something many thought essentially impossible, a vocal minority will do everything imaginable to derail the needed project because it is not exactly what they want.

The funding will be reallocated to other regions of the state, and Austin will be stuck with a narrow, ugly, and unsafe I-35 built for a city 1/4 the size it is today.

"Progressives" will disagree, but it will be a decision regretted and mocked for the next half century.

Yaaaaaay!

[valhalla]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Neither of the options (significantly) widens downtown. This whole argument is immaterial to the feasibility of capping.

The widening is happening further north, north of Dean Keaton. Where there was never going to be any capping.


The downtown section (especially where capping was on the table, CC to ~15th) is almost entirely within the existing RoW. Look for the cyan lines on the schematic.

You're right. I overreacted a little bit. The schematics don't do a very good job of indicating which pictures apply to which parts of the highway. It looks like the CC to 15th portion will still allow for capping and is below grade.

The part of the proposal next to UT is disappointing. That part looks to be the widest and not below grade. I was really hoping for some kind of cap or large land bridge that could better connect the main campus to the east campus across the highway.

[Echostatic]

Originally Posted by Lobotomizer

Great, I can see where this is heading. With billions of dollars earmarked for I-35 to finally be modernized, something many thought essentially impossible, a vocal minority will do everything imaginable to derail the needed project because it is not exactly what they want.

The funding will be reallocated to other regions of the state, and Austin will be stuck with a narrow, ugly, and unsafe I-35 built for a city 1/4 the size it is today.

"Progressives" will disagree, but it will be a decision regretted and mocked for the next half century.

Yaaaaaay!

Austin repeating its own history, again. And again. And again. and again. and again.

[Riverranchdrone]

Originally Posted by Lobotomizer

Great, I can see where this is heading. With billions of dollars earmarked for I-35 to finally be modernized, something many thought essentially impossible, a vocal minority will do everything imaginable to derail the needed project because it is not exactly what they want.

The funding will be reallocated to other regions of the state, and Austin will be stuck with a narrow, ugly, and unsafe I-35 built for a city 1/4 the size it is today.

"Progressives" will disagree, but it will be a decision regretted and mocked for the next half century.

Yaaaaaay!

It will be "Save Austin Now"'s latest attack on Austin. After they are done lying about homeless, crime, and the police being under funded, they will go after fixing IH-35 and call it a tax scam.

[H2O]

Originally Posted by JAM

ya, good point on the RR. I cross over Mopac all the time via bike, or even foot. It certainly feels more civilized, my wife will even do it. Crossing over I-35 tho, she's out - certainly not thru the immediate downtown area anyway.

The difference is primarily due to frontage roads (and the fact that Mopac does not have any). My number one goal in improving the i-35 plan is to civilize the frontage roads so they are indistinguishable from any other Downtown street.

[paul78701]

Originally Posted by valhalla

The part of the proposal next to UT is disappointing. That part looks to be the widest and not below grade. I was really hoping for some kind of cap or large land bridge that could better connect the main campus to the east campus across the highway.

The primary issue I see with it is that the below grade portion doesn't go far enough north. It would be nice to see the below grade portion go at least through campus (and ideally past Airport Blvd). We're talking about a piece of infrastructure that we'll likely be living with for at least a generation. We should be willing to pay more if that's what it takes to do it right.

[drummer]

Originally Posted by Armybrat

I-35 was built on the existing expanse of the old East Avenue. I know, because I watched it being built, and had traveled over the original street many times.

I knew that it was built over East Ave, but did the ROW change at all? When I talked about an existing grid, by the way, I was referring to cross streets. I confess some ignorance here, but I'm working under the assumption that there are fewer cross streets over/under I-35 than there were over East Ave. Is that accurate?

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by drummer

I knew that it was built over East Ave, but did the ROW change at all? When I talked about an existing grid, by the way, I was referring to cross streets. I confess some ignorance here, but I'm working under the assumption that there are fewer cross streets over/under I-35 than there were over East Ave. Is that accurate?

For the most part, no. Yes, some businesses on the east side of East Avenue were demolished, but only a handful and the avenue never functioned as a cohesive corridor. All the commercial corridors were E-W and the major loss was severing many of those in half.

[sjk]

On a side note I rode the Red Line for the first time since moving to Austin 4 years ago this morning - round trip from Howard station to Downtown. I had the opportunity while my vehicle was in the shop and I was pleasantly surprised by the condition of the trains and how nice they are. I just wish it ran longer hours and had better circulators to the neighborhoods around the stations because I would take that more often. I spoke with the attendant and he was saying that they often get overcrowded for their Austin FC transportation and have to leave people behind. It seems they are having that issue with inconsistent ridership so it can easily overwhelm the capacity when there are spikes, despite having specific trips and planning for the Austin FC games. However, I'm excited for the time when we'll have full light rail!

[Armybrat]

Originally Posted by drummer

I knew that it was built over East Ave, but did the ROW change at all? When I talked about an existing grid, by the way, I was referring to cross streets. I confess some ignorance here, but I'm working under the assumption that there are fewer cross streets over/under I-35 than there were over East Ave. Is that accurate?

I don’t really recall what businesses were affected, but wwmiv might be correct about the east side of the Avenue.
On the west side I know most all those buildings fronting on the Avenue were not messed with. Ferris Drug Store on the south side of E.6th was not affected (It faced 6th, but the side of the building was on East Avenue) and neither was the old Bickler Building on E.8th (I applied there for a job in 1967 when it still housed the AISD administration).

[H2O]

Originally Posted by paul78701

The primary issue I see with it is that the below grade portion doesn't go far enough north. It would be nice to see the below grade portion go at least through campus (and ideally past Airport Blvd). We're talking about a piece of infrastructure that we'll likely be living with for at least a generation. We should be willing to pay more if that's what it takes to do it right.

The below grade portion extends almost all the way from 71 in the south to 290 in the north with the exception of the LBL crossing in Alternative 2. Alternative 3 has flyovers at Airport and Woodland. The limits on capping are due to ramps connecting from the managed and main lanes to the frontage roads. The ramps are necessary to get people in and out of Downtown, which is the bottleneck. The added bypass lanes that make the section wider are useful in providing connections to the frontage roads without over reliance on the frontage roads themselves, which should help keep the frontage roads civilized if they are designed correctly.

My biggest concern is the excess width in areas. They could drop a managed lane through the central section instead of carrying two in each direction all the way through. Mopac has only one and seems to work just fine. They could also limit bypass lanes to a single lane (instead of two at at least one location). Finally, they could cantilever frontage roads over the main lanes adjacent to the North Loop, Cherrywood and Hancock neighborhoods like they did at UT instead of impacting adjacent properties to widen the ROW. At the beginning of the process they pledged to go "no wider, no higher", but have retreated from that commitment.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by H2O

The below grade portion extends almost all the way from 71 in the south to 290 in the north with the exception of the LBL crossing in Alternative 2. Alternative 3 has flyovers at Airport and Woodland. The limits on capping are due to ramps connecting from the managed and main lanes to the frontage roads. The ramps are necessary to get people in and out of Downtown, which is the bottleneck. The added bypass lanes that make the section wider are useful in providing connections to the frontage roads without over reliance on the frontage roads themselves, which should help keep the frontage roads civilized if they are designed correctly.

My biggest concern is the excess width in areas. They could drop a managed lane through the central section instead of carrying two in each direction all the way through. Mopac has only one and seems to work just fine. They could also limit bypass lanes to a single lane (instead of two at at least one location). Finally, they could cantilever frontage roads over the main lanes adjacent to the North Loop, Cherrywood and Hancock neighborhoods like they did at UT instead of impacting adjacent properties to widen the ROW. At the beginning of the process they pledged to go "no wider, no higher", but have retreated from that commitment.

You need at least two lanes in each category in each direction to keep traffic fully moving (to allow for merging and passing): 1. Access, 2. Bypass, 3. Main, 4. Express. Ideally, for best functioning, inbound bypass lanes should not connect with outbound bypass lanes and main lanes should be 3 or 4 lanes each direction. From an aesthetic standpoint, avoiding elevated ramps and overpasses would be preferable. Cost is of course a consideration.

Build Alternative 2.

[H2O]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

You need at least two lanes in each category in each direction to keep traffic fully moving (to allow for merging and passing): 1. Access, 2. Bypass, 3. Main, 4. Express. Ideally, for best functioning, inbound bypass lanes should not connect with outbound bypass lanes and main lanes should be 3 or 4 lanes each direction. From an aesthetic standpoint, avoiding elevated ramps and overpasses would be preferable. Cost is of course a consideration.

Build Alternative 2.

You only need at least two lanes in each category around entrances and exits. Managed lanes and bypass lanes can be single continuous lanes if the entrance and exit ramps are sufficiently far apart since the ramps themselves are only one lane. Main lanes can operate quite efficiently with three lanes. The wider the main lane sections get, the more it promotes weaving among lanes which is dangerous and actually slows the rest of the traffic down.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by H2O

You only need at least two lanes in each category around entrances and exits. Managed lanes and bypass lanes can be single continuous lanes if the entrance and exit ramps are sufficiently far apart since the ramps themselves are only one lane. Main lanes can operate quite efficiently with three lanes. The wider the main lane sections get, the more it promotes weaving among lanes which is dangerous and actually slows the rest of the traffic down.

I figured my "3 or 4" would indicate that I meant 4 immediately after entrances, with 3 consistent lanes of traffic. Perhaps I should have instead said 3 consistent, with adequate merging and departure lanes. I do, however, believe that these bypass lanes and express lanes need to be the width that they have them designed in Alternative 2 for the following reasons:

1. As Austin densifies and Mueller, the Domain, and Round Rock become larger business hubs with in-commuters, these express lanes are going to become instrumental commuter corridors in their own right altogether, bypassing downtown (which is instead serviced by the main-lanes of traffic) and if we don't build them large enough now, we will have to rebuild them later. That needs two lanes of traffic, which is future-proofing the infrastructure.

2. With bypass lanes designed the way they have them designed, I think it is smart to have each "exit" be a consistent lane all the way back to the initial feeder point. There are two exits from the bypass lanes, therefore you need two initial consistent lanes. Otherwise, any potential traffic back-up from one of the exits blocks traffic flow to the subsequent exit.

To be honest, I actually prefer Alternative 2 to Alternative 1 through downtown. I preferred Alternative 1's approach to the current double decker section. Alternative 3 is a mess and need to hit the ditch.

[H2O]

Katy Freeway was supposed to be future proofed with 26 lanes. Now they are adding more. You can't build your way out of congestion. It only induces demand. Traffic by-passing the central core doesn't need to use I-35. It can use 183 or Mopac. Continuous managed lanes that do not exit Downtown, like in Alternative 1, discourage that. We also don't need to encourage more automobile trips when we are massively investing in rail transit.

[drummer]

Originally Posted by H2O

Katy Freeway was supposed to be future proofed with 26 lanes. Now they are adding more. You can't build your way out of congestion. It only induces demand. Traffic by-passing the central core doesn't need to use I-35. It can use 183 or Mopac. Continuous managed lanes that do not exit Downtown, like in Alternative 1, discourage that. We also don't need to encourage more automobile trips when we are massively investing in rail transit.

I say we build two Katy Freways, one on top of the other, right through the middle of Austin. That way we'll be good for a hundred years.

[chinchaaa]

Originally Posted by H2O

Katy Freeway was supposed to be future proofed with 26 lanes. Now they are adding more. You can't build your way out of congestion. It only induces demand. Traffic by-passing the central core doesn't need to use I-35. It can use 183 or Mopac. Continuous managed lanes that do not exit Downtown, like in Alternative 1, discourage that. We also don't need to encourage more automobile trips when we are massively investing in rail transit.

This. I don't know why people are acting like just adding 20 lanes will magically fix the issues we're facing here. It's been proven many times within this state that doesn't work.

Not saying 35 doesn't need to be re-worked, but we need a more holistic approach to our traffic and housing issues. Come on, y'all.

[JollyvilleJ-Rad]

Originally Posted by chinchaaa

This. I don't know why people are acting like just adding 20 lanes will magically fix the issues we're facing here. It's been proven many times within this state that doesn't work.

Not saying 35 doesn't need to be re-worked, but we need a more holistic approach to our traffic and housing issues. Come on, y'all.

I'll go back to cite this - I recall seeing in one of the early studies (perhaps a year ago) that the A&M Transportation estimates for the percentage reduction in trip-length, even with the increased capacity/better traffic-flow and with 20+ lanes, is immediately STILL going to be in the top 20 most congested roadways in Texas. Induced demand is something they continue to actually promote about this project; that it will reduce traffic on local streets like Congress and put more cars immediately on the highway.

Highway building and expansion is what got me lurking on this forum 10 years ago and I continue to be fascinated, awe-inspired and sometimes sickened by it. Personal feelings about this project aside, this will not reduce travel times even in the short-term but will allow for a higher volume of vehicles to pass through and get into downtown. It should vastly improve safety when entering and exiting the highway. And while it's only a prediction, all of history of highway expansion informs us that traffic will be much worse than it is today within a couple years of completion of the project. Years of construction headaches aren't going to alleviate the pains of I-35. But if our only goal is to allow a higher volume of cars to move through and maybe eventually put a bandaid over a few blocks downtown with caps, then this project is a banger.

Originally Posted by H2O

At the beginning of the process they pledged to go "no wider, no higher", but have retreated from that commitment.

Yeah... the current proposal for the UT area is utterly appalling to me. What a bait and switch.

I think we all agree the road needs a massive overhaul, but we have to try to predict outcomes realistically. This is no permanent solution in my amateur keyboard-warrior opinion. By the way, I'm writing this immediately after a remarkably fast and smooth trip along the LBJ TEXpress and stunning drive over the High-Five - I marvel at the scale and human ingenuity that went into it and how well it operates and love the experience. And I personally hope to never see anything remotely like it back home. I have to believe we can be better than that.

[drummer]

I drove straight through Houston for the first time in years recently. Came up from Galveston, all the way through downtown and up 290 to Austin. Most of my trips there are just in and out, not all the way across. As much as I despise what highways do to a a city, they're a necessary evil right now because of the way things have developed in many cities. That said, the engineering of many of the creative solutions (?) to so many vehicles is pretty outstanding, I'll admit. So I gawk at a lot of that while coughing on the vehicle emissions. Maybe I just need to change my cabin air filter...

In any case, we'll see cars around for a long time, but we need alternative means as well. Everyone on this forum knows this. But the problem with highways that stretch 1,402,302,503 ft across 100,000 lanes in each direction is that they're huge scars in the landscape and urban designs. We have to get more creative in our solutions in ways that benefit the cities and individuals who live there, as well as those who are traveling. This will take time and significant shifts in mindset.

[H2O]

Locals Brendan Wittstruck of NCINC and CNU-CTX Vice President Heyden Walker to join Strong Towns Podcast for a discussion about I-35 in Austin


LOCATION: Online Zoom Event

DATE: August 25, 2021

TIME: 11:00 p.m. Central

Time and again, we hear the same thing from city and state leaders: “The roads are congested. We have to build more lanes.” Not only do lane additions cost billions in taxpayer dollars, they also rarely solve the problem they’re claiming to address. In fact, most road expansion actually induces more drivers to get on the road, making it even more congested than before.

This pattern is on full display in Austin, Texas, where the state Department of Transportation wants to add a whopping four new lanes to major highway I-35. But local leaders aren’t standing by and letting this mistake happen. They’re fighting back and proposing an alternative that would lower and cap the highway, while opening up dozens of acres of land for new homes and businesses in the city.

In this webcast, you’ll hear from local advocates and planners Norm Marshall, Heyden Walker, and Brendan Wittstruck, in a discussion hosted by Strong Towns president Charles Marohn. These panelists will share the data that proves this highway project is a mistake, talk about their alternative plan, and offer advice for anyone who wants to see fewer road expansions and more people-centered neighborhoods in their city.

Registration Open Now!

The TxDOT Open House materials are viewable online here. They are taking public comments on the proposals through September the 8th. We encourage all followers of CNU-CTX to submit your comments for the record. Comments can be posted here.

Recent news coverage and commentary on the proposed highway widening and plans to condemn serveral central austin businesses and properties can be found here:

https://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2021-08-20/austin-at-large-aint-no-highway-wide-enough/

https://www.kut.org/transportation/2021-...es-on-proposals-to-shrink-i-35-footprint

https://www.kut.org/2021-08-19/txdots-pr...e-dozens-of-properties-in-central-austin