AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[Geckos_Rule]

Now that I've read through things a bit more, I thought I'd at least summarize my general thoughts on the different options moving forward -- understanding that this is the first phase of Project Connect, and wouldn't necessarily preclude a larger expansion and inclusion of all (or similar) lines as the original proposal down the road.

1. While I (and surely many others) would prefer that any initial phase extend all the way to the Airport, the one saving grace is that demand for an airport rail line will stay strong over time, and it will surely be in the eventual plans. At least with options 1-2 and 4-5, it seems like a clear next step for expansion (though I can't say I understand the fascination these options have with extending to Yellow Jacket Lane...). I'm also curious why there seems to be no attempt to instead connect the red/green lines to the Airport via rail going along 183. It seems like what that route would lack in connecting riverside/South Congress residents to the airport, it would make up for in: (1) reduced cost of building along a far less developed area; and (2) still providing easy connectivity to the airport from UT/Capital/Downtown/East Austin.

2. I'm curious why there was a shift from going up 4th Street in the original plans to now going up 3rd Street -- perhaps this is with the understanding that a below-grade line could eventually be built underneath 4th?

3. None of these options do much of anything with respect to downtown connectivity. The "best" of them will only take people from 3rd and Congress to the Convention Center, which isn't a useful route save that they will be popular stations for riders going elsewhere. Likewise, I think downtown lines and rail should absolutely be underground. If not now, then expanded to be underground in the future. The elevated rail is neat, but I can't think of any examples (save for where geographically required) where I think elevated rail is the better option, even understanding the cost difference.

4. Options one and two seem as though they'll serve just two main purposes: shuttling UT students from campus towards West 6th/Downtown and back, and then commuting for Riverside/Pleasant Valley/Montopolis residents. Beyond those, where would these options really be taking a downtown/south 1st/South Congress resident, or really any tourists?

5. Running a line up South Lamar rather than South Congress is starting to seem like a more attractive option, save that: (1) it isn't nearly as straight as South Congress; and (2) it is a functional dead end at 290/Ben White. That said, Brodie Oaks will be the densest and most active piece of Austin south of the river by the time any initial phase of construction is completed, and I think it would end up serving more Austin residents. Given the likely demand to have some of a South Congress line underground, I'd be fine with putting that off provided that there are definite plans for it in the future.

[ATX2030]

Looking forward to riding one of these proposals in the early 2030's. And people are talking about the next phase!

Nathan Bernier
@KUTnathan

When could one of these reduced Project Connect light-rail options be up and running? ATP director Greg Canally told KUT they would look at opening it up "early 2030s."

https://twitter.com/KUTnathan/status/1638287917373173773

[H2O]

I have a theory on the 3rd Street alignment. It is merely speculation at this point because I haven't yet spoken to anybody at ATP, Cap Metro or their consultants (but I intend to). It might be that they are wanting to preserve 4th Street for a future tunnel, but that makes little sense to me because they are not doing so on Guadalupe, where a tunnel would be a lot more useful. I think they might be preserving 4th Street for the transit mall for buses, rather than trying to mix buses and rail in a limited ROW. They are considering that on the Drag, but the ROW there is 16 feet wider, leaving a lot more room for pedestrian and bike facilities.

[freerover]

Originally Posted by ATX2030

Looking forward to riding one of these proposals in the early 2030's. And people are talking about the next phase!

Nathan Bernier
@KUTnathan

When could one of these reduced Project Connect light-rail options be up and running? ATP director Greg Canally told KUT they would look at opening it up "early 2030s."

https://twitter.com/KUTnathan/status/1638287917373173773

Which is sooner than it would open if we gave up and cancelled everything. The Red Line also dealt with delays and no one gives a shit about that now that uses it. Most people don't even know it took place. The sooner we start, the sooner it will open.

[ATX2030]

How many light rail riders does Project Connect anticipate under each new option?
by: Kelsey Thompson

Posted: Mar 22, 2023 / 01:17 PM CDT

Updated: Mar 22, 2023 / 01:17 PM CDT

https://www.kxan.com/traffic/traffic-pro...onnect-anticipate-under-each-new-option/

[austin242]

Plan A. The original plan. I say that they should just start buying row now and ask for more money to get it done right. Who builds an above ground pool then decides 5 years later they need to tear it up so they can put it below ground. Cap metro that's who. Get it done right the first time. Plan for the future. It's always going to be cheaper now. It's a waste of money to do it wrong. If there is any way possible to have a vote just ask for it. I think there are quite a bit of voters who would pay the extra to get it done right and at a faster pace. If not this is already a colossal failure no matter how you put it. Just like an above ground pool I guess it will be better than nothing but also just like an above ground pool we will quickly want something better.

[lzppjb]

Originally Posted by Enghum

If you build out to the Lamar Transit center you're removing a lot of motivations for North Austin to vote for phase 2 of the project connect. There's additional extensions up there that could be included but nothing like what's being left off the blue and south orange lines in these plans. A phase 2 that needs votes but doesn't have any major North Austin investments could lead to a failure of phase 2 initiative to pass.

This is a great point. Makes me think they should just start Downtown and grow outward in order to assure the North and South both vote for it. Start with Downtown to ABIA. Then the other parts of town will want to have their link to the airport.

As for coming down South Lamar and it terminating at 290, is it at all possible to bring the line down Westgate or Brodie?

[freerover]

Originally Posted by lzppjb

This is a great point. Makes me think they should just start Downtown and grow outward in order to assure the North and South both vote for it. Start with Downtown to ABIA. Then the other parts of town will want to have their link to the airport.

As for coming down South Lamar and it terminating at 290, is it at all possible to bring the line down Westgate or Brodie?

The difference between the airport plan and NLTC is 12.5k daily riders. I think you go for the highest projected ridership line. Do what serves the most amount of people.

[lzppjb]

But like Enghum said, would that cause the NL folks to vote no on a South Austin extension in the future?

[freerover]

Originally Posted by lzppjb

But like Enghum said, would that cause the NL folks to vote no on a South Austin extension in the future?

We would only need to go back to voters if we were asking for more money. LRT is voter approved from Tech ridge to slaughter.

[mercury6]

1. Phase 1 will shrink again
2. Phase 1 will be massively over-budget
3. Phase 1 won't complete until mid-2030s
4. Phase 2 won't be built in our lifetimes
5. Property tax will continue to rise

[ahealy]

I jut need to be evil for a second.

In the spirit of yelling at the sky..... I think I've officially given up on Austin... so much so, I may stop going by Austin and use my middle name.

I love y'all and the cool buildings we see and talk about, but this is just another messy proposal that turns out nothing like the initial vision. I get why this is happening (I think), but I can't help but feel a bunch of overpaid planners knew this was a boondoggle or just flat out lied. I legit would take back my vote if I could--this city is already massively expensive.

I'm tired of getting excited for big bold things here, only to see them scaled back into some unrecognizable product.

If we're going to do this, do it as originally planned, tunnels and all.

[ATX2030]

Originally Posted by ahealy

I jut need to be evil for a second.

In the spirit of yelling at the sky..... I think I've officially given up on Austin... so much so, I may stop going by Austin and use my middle name.

I love y'all and the cool buildings we see and talk about, but this is just another messy proposal that turns out nothing like the initial vision. I get why this is happening (I think), but I can't help but feel a bunch of overpaid planners knew this was a boondoggle or just flat out lied. I legit would take back my vote if I could--this city is already massively expensive.

I'm tired of getting excited for big bold things here, only to see them scaled back into some unrecognizable product.

If we're going to do this, do it as originally planned, tunnels and all.

I'd like to have my vote back as well!

[ohhey]

^^^All very likely

I'd really like to have more specific info on how the change to at-grade or elevated rail will effect traffic patterns for cars (and pedestrians and bikes). This "initial" line only serves a small fraction of Austin residents, so driving will remain unavoidable for a lot of people. I can definitely see this creating new traffic bottlenecks that will probably piss a lot of people off.

[We vs us]

Originally Posted by ahealy

I just need to be evil for a second.

I feel all of this. I keep voting for Big Projects, because the alternative is to not even encourage the city to try . . . but the constant downscaling of ambitions is a morale killer. Hard to know where to lay the blame, too. Is it the city bureaucracy? Old money pulling strings? City council cowardice? Death by a thousand legal cuts via our favorite local NIMBY orgs?

The really distressing conclusion is that it's all of the above, which means that it's a culture, it's our environment. A habit of half measures, across the board, in every corner of our governance structure. How do you solve it? Is it solvable? Blah.

[ahealy]

Originally Posted by We vs us

I feel all of this. I keep voting for Big Projects, because the alternative is to not even encourage the city to try . . . but the constant downscaling of ambitions is a morale killer. Hard to know where to lay the blame, too. Is it the city bureaucracy? Old money pulling strings? City council cowardice? Death by a thousand legal cuts via our favorite local NIMBY orgs?

The really distressing conclusion is that it's all of the above, which means that it's a culture, it's our environment. A habit of half measures, across the board, in every corner of our governance structure. How do you solve it? Is it solvable? Blah.

I would hug you if I could! Perfectly sums up my feelings on the matter.

On the upside, this mess should turn up the heat on city council and city hall in general. This marks Austin as the college town that can't quite hold the weight of a big city outside of tall buildings.

I suppose I'll be voting very differently next election cycle! lol

[dilliam]

It all comes down to inflation and the interest rate hikes that followed. We just can afford to service the same amount of debt as we originally planned for.

Depressing as hell, but honestly, I'd vote to raise more funds again if it meant we could get the original plan.

[ATX2030]

Hwy 183 in Southeast Austin back on the radar for improvements
by: Erica Brennes

Posted: Mar 23, 2023 / 12:18 PM CDT

Updated: Mar 23, 2023 / 12:18 PM CDT

https://www.kxan.com/weather-traffic-qas...stin-back-on-the-radar-for-improvements/

[Echostatic]

Originally Posted by ATX2030

Hwy 183 in Southeast Austin back on the radar for improvements
by: Erica Brennes

Posted: Mar 23, 2023 / 12:18 PM CDT

Updated: Mar 23, 2023 / 12:18 PM CDT

https://www.kxan.com/weather-traffic-qas...stin-back-on-the-radar-for-improvements/

This article feels like it was written by ChatGPT. But that stretch of 183 does seem to back up pretty horribly in the afternoons, and I'm glad to see some work proposed there. The 183 expansion north of 71 has all but eliminated congestion on the corridor between 71 and 290.

[H2O]

Originally Posted by Echostatic

The 183 expansion north of 71 has all but eliminated congestion on the corridor between 71 and 290.

But for how long? Even the TxDOT spokesman said "We know we can't build our way out of congestion". And yet they keep trying.