AUSTIN | Transportation Updates - Page 406

OfficialPBreton · #**8101** Posted **Oct 6, 2021, 2:40 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lobotomizer

I think it's been the plan for sometime to elevate the Red Line over Lamar.

I have never heard of any timeline, however. Doing it simultaneously with the Orange Line construction makes sense.

From what I heard, they were thinking of elevating the Orange Line over the Red Line at the Lamar crossing, possibly. Or making Lamar go over the Red Line. I also might've misheard these things, and they haven't posted the recording yet for me to go back over.

Novacek · #**8102** Posted **Oct 6, 2021, 1:08 PM**

Yes, in part due to concern over interpretations of FRA rules, they've been leaning to grade separating Red from Orange this whole time. Here, that would mean elevating the Orange. This is shown in the 15% designs several pages back in this thread.

Grade separating Lamar from Red was intended to be studied, but then that funding got stolen to give to I35 (back when it was supposed to be a $8B project).

If I recall, pre-planning had them looking at a couple options. One was to depress the red line below the grade of Lamar, the other was to have the red line (commuter only) go over Lamar (freight rail at night would presumably still block Lamar).

atxsnail · #**8103** Posted **Oct 6, 2021, 2:03 PM**

During the Orange Line breakaway session for North Lamar, they said their current plans were to have the Red Line travel below the street level. The Red Line station would also be below grade. Freight traffic would still travel on the surface. I don't think they discussed an elevated Red Line alternative, though I remember hearing about that idea before Project Connect.

The idea that the Orange/Blue would be elevated at Crestview Station seemed pretty much set in stone, though I guess anything can still change. That would probably preclude any Red Line elevation talk.

freerover · #**8104** Posted **Oct 6, 2021, 2:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by atxsnail

During the Orange Line breakaway session for North Lamar, they said their current plans were to have the Red Line travel below the street level. The Red Line station would also be below grade. Freight traffic would still travel on the surface. I don't think they discussed an elevated Red Line alternative, though I remember hearing about that idea before Project Connect.

The idea that the Orange/Blue would be elevated at Crestview Station seemed pretty much set in stone, though I guess anything can still change. That would probably preclude any Red Line elevation talk.

IIRC, the red line was planned to go below N. Lamar before PC. CAMPO put some money in it before taking it out to spend on 35 reconstruction. So nothing new but cool they are still going to do it even without the campo money.

Urbannizer · #**8105** Posted **Oct 10, 2021, 11:25 PM**

About time!

The ATX · #**8106** Posted **Oct 10, 2021, 11:31 PM**

I like it! It looks very festive. I would like to see artistic crosswalks expanded to the rest of downtown.

drummer · #**8107** Posted **Oct 11, 2021, 7:08 PM**

Not really anything new, but KXAN has a piece on I-35 and cap/stitch discussions.

https://www.kxan.com/traffic/whats-a-cap...ffic-technique-to-improve-i-35-mobility/

DoubleC · #**8108** Posted **Oct 13, 2021, 3:14 AM**

Seattle and Boston both did away with freeways running through their cities. It wasn't cheap, but it's a one-time build and if done right, will serve Austin adequately (and more) forever.

atxsnail · #**8109** Posted **Oct 13, 2021, 1:49 PM**

Was anyone able to participate in the CapMetro Blue Line bridge design discussion last night?

Novacek · #**8110** Posted **Oct 13, 2021, 2:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by atxsnail

Was anyone able to participate in the CapMetro Blue Line bridge design discussion last night?

I tuned in for a bit, but couldn't stay for the whole thing. It was mostly focused on the new bridge. They showed off some additional renderings, talked about accessibility to/from Rainey and the MACC. Talked about it needing to be about 22 feet over the nominal water surface (for flood and safety) but then the rail needing to transition underground quickly on the north.

The discussion group I got assigned to got somewhat derailed by a bunch of rowing people. They're _really_ not happy about their rowing center having to be moved. Several of them wanted the existing building to be "incorporated into the bridge" or something like that.

Edit/Add: looks like it's available on twitter

https://twitter.com/CapMetroATX/status/1448054108083015683

drummer · #**8111** Posted **Oct 13, 2021, 2:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Novacek

I tuned in for a bit, but couldn't stay for the whole thing. It was mostly focused on the new bridge. They showed off some additional renderings, talked about accessibility to/from Rainey and the MACC. Talked about it needing to be about 22 feet over the nominal water surface (for flood and safety) but then the rail needing to transition underground quickly on the north.

The discussion group I got assigned to got somewhat derailed by a bunch of rowing people. They're _really_ not happy about their rowing center having to be moved. Several of them wanted the existing building to be "incorporated into the bridge" or something like that.

Edit/Add: looks like it's available on twitter

https://twitter.com/CapMetroATX/status/1448054108083015683

Thanks for the link! I skipped around to watch bits and pieces but mainly wanted to see schematics. Pretty fascinating.

I wonder about the rowing center - not a rower personally, but I have friends who are active in the sport. Is there a way to feasibly incorporate it into the bridge? That could be kinda cool. If not, and perhaps that is more likely, is there another location in mind?

I think the design is pretty interesting as they presented it and certainly complex in a lot of ways. However, I love the fact that they're aiming to do it right from the start to the best of their abilities.

sjk · #**8112** Posted **Oct 13, 2021, 5:03 PM**

I also skimmed through this. Some of the things I found interesting were that they are planning to do a design competition (I believe they said 2022), and are going to rely on that to get some ideas for design. They really are thinking of how to best incorporate the bridge into the fabric of Austin and making it benefit the community in every way possible. I'm excited and hope that they do some type of signature bridge here. I like the examples they showed featuring other successful and unique bridge designs around the world. It shows they are thinking big.

drummer · #**8113** Posted **Oct 13, 2021, 5:38 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by sjk

I also skimmed through this. Some of the things I found interesting were that they are planning to do a design competition (I believe they said 2022), and are going to rely on that to get some ideas for design. They really are thinking of how to best incorporate the bridge into the fabric of Austin and making it benefit the community in every way possible. I'm excited and hope that they do some type of signature bridge here. I like the examples they showed featuring other successful and unique bridge designs around the world. It shows they are thinking big.

Yeah I heard that part also in my quick listening. Pretty excited to see what comes from it.

kingkirbythe.... · #**8114** Posted **Oct 13, 2021, 10:45 PM**

Austin’s Red Line Parkway Initiative Kicks Off 32-Mile Urban Trail Campaign

https://austin.towers.net/austins-red-li...-kicks-off-32-mile-urban-trail-campaign/

A longtime effort to construct an approximately 32-mile urban trail following the path of the Capital MetroRail Red Line from downtown Austin to Leander finally hopes to hit its stride this year, as the nonprofit Red Line Parkway Initiative launches its “Project Parkway” capital campaign seeking $250,000 in initial funds to develop new segments of the trail — several small stretches of the corridor are already built, but the project hopes to fully connect the path by the end of the decade.

Novacek · #**8115** Posted **Oct 14, 2021, 2:00 PM**

Packet is up for the next ATP board meeting
https://atptx.org/docs/default-source/at...october-2021_atp-board-agenda-packet.pdf

~Page 40 there's some interesting discussion on the Riverside/Pleasant Valley station. One option would have PV no longer crossing riverside directly, but creating a large transit station/park here in the median.

drummer · #**8116** Posted **Oct 14, 2021, 2:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Novacek

Packet is up for the next ATP board meeting
https://atptx.org/docs/default-source/at...october-2021_atp-board-agenda-packet.pdf

~Page 40 there's some interesting discussion on the Riverside/Pleasant Valley station. One option would have PV no longer crossing riverside directly, but creating a large transit station/park here in the median.

Interesting! I'm torn between Option 1 and 2. Initially I was leaning toward Option 1 because it allowed Pleasant Valley to continue straight through, but now I'm kind of leaning toward Option 2. The opportunities/challenges (pg.45) lists out some decent points. I think the integration of a transit center with buses and rail as well as the opportunity for a park in the quasi-round-about could be pretty awesome for the area. It was mentioned that it could slow traffic with the two at-grade crossings, but I don't think that's the end of the world, personally, unless the arrival times to get to ~5-10 minutes.

Echostatic · #**8117** Posted **Oct 14, 2021, 2:17 PM**

I don't know. I definitely prefer Option 1 here for the grade separation alone. Keeping this system to as few major road crossings as possible is key for operating efficiency, and dropping the line below Pleasant Valley allows for improved traffic flow on PV and Riverside. The pedestrian trails in both options look great but personally I think Option 1's are better. However the transit plaza in Option 2 would be a bigger asset for the surrounding area, and it probably wouldn't hurt the traffic flow too much with proper light timing.

The big thing is cost. Option 2 will be much cheaper. If they can break down how Option 1 will be paid for, given that the original draft design was much closer to Option 2, I'd feel more confident in it.

drummer · #**8118** Posted **Oct 14, 2021, 2:23 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Echostatic

I don't know. I definitely prefer Option 1 here for the grade separation alone. Keeping this system to as few major road crossings as possible is key for operating efficiency, and dropping the line below Pleasant Valley allows for improved traffic flow on PV and Riverside. The pedestrian trails in both options look great but personally I think Option 1's are better. However the transit plaza in Option 2 would be a bigger asset for the surrounding area, and it probably wouldn't hurt the traffic flow too much with proper light timing.

The big thing is cost. Option 2 will be much cheaper. If they can break down how Option 1 will be paid for, given that the original draft design was much closer to Option 2, I'd feel more confident in it.

Yeah, in general I liked the grade separation as well, which was my initial reason for picking that one. I wish there were a way to combine some of the pros of both into an Option 3.

KevinFromTexas · #**8119** Posted **Oct 14, 2021, 11:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by The ATX

I like it! It looks very festive. I would like to see artistic crosswalks expanded to the rest of downtown.

Yeah, it looks good. I could see a Texas flag crosswalk looking pretty cool in spots, maybe along Congress. They could also paint some handcuff ones on 6th Street.

JollyvilleJ-Rad · #**8120** Posted **Oct 25, 2021, 11:10 PM**

"Why are we still widening highways in US cities?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcUx5r_ksk8

Interesting video from YouTube channel CityBeautiful about the I-35 expansion - great channel for urbanist planning content. Not extremely comprehensive about the city, but a nice look into the working of DOTs and local planning. Have been wondering when he would finally do a video about Austin.