AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[H2O]

The 2nd Street extension near the New Central Library and Seaholm will be built with shared streets concepts like no curbs so that it can be used for festivals.

[wwmiv]

Really? I hadn't heard that, but that's great! Very awesome.

[KevinFromTexas]

http://www.statesman.com/news/news/l...onghorn/nX2Yn/

Posted: 6:19 p.m. Thursday, May 23, 2013
City may swap car lanes for bike lanes at Longhorn Dam

By Ben Wear
American-Statesman Staff

Drivers in East Austin wanting to cross the Colorado River have just a few choices: the famously congested Interstate 35, heavily traveled U.S. 183, or, halfway between those two, the four lanes of Pleasant Valley Road sitting on top of Longhorn Dam.

Each day more than 21,000 drivers traverse the 53-year-old dam, down from 28,000 in 2005 before a number of apartment complexes south of the river were demolished.

[alwaysmiling]

I don't understand why the peds don't just keep using the sidewalk and the cyclists bike in the right lane. I understand that They are trying to provide more of a barrier between cars and bikes but what's the difference between riding a bike and riding a motorcycle? Bikes aren't supposed to ride on the sidewalk and must obey the same traffic laws as cars anyway. I think this is definitely overkill, to reduce the car lanes by 50% whenever traffic is such a large issue in this town. I enjoy driving to Roy g park around 4-5 in the afternoon and for them to reduce the car lanes to 2 when the bikes can just ride in the right lane as usual seems asinine... Lets spend a bunch of money to reduce our transportation infrastructure. I can't bike all the way to that park and back and I never will but I drive 2-3 times a week. Cyclists have plenty of room in the right lane. That's the way our infrastructure was developed and this seems bass ackwards and a waste of money to me. As there is more developement on e riverside and towards the airport the car traffic will rise and in the future they will spend the same amount of money to widen it back to 4 lanes when it's bumper to bumper. This is the most prime example of the city going to far with dedicated bike lanes.

[MightyYoda]

Originally Posted by alwaysmiling

I don't understand why the peds don't just keep using the sidewalk and the cyclists bike in the right lane. I understand that They are trying to provide more of a barrier between cars and bikes but what's the difference between riding a bike and riding a motorcycle? Bikes aren't supposed to ride on the sidewalk and must obey the same traffic laws as cars anyway. I think this is definitely overkill, to reduce the car lanes by 50% whenever traffic is such a large issue in this town. I enjoy driving to Roy g park around 4-5 in the afternoon and for them to reduce the car lanes to 2 when the bikes can just ride in the right lane as usual seems asinine... Lets spend a bunch of money to reduce our transportation infrastructure. I can't bike all the way to that park and back and I never will but I drive 2-3 times a week. Cyclists have plenty of room in the right lane. That's the way our infrastructure was developed and this seems bass ackwards and a waste of money to me. As there is more developement on e riverside and towards the airport the car traffic will rise and in the future they will spend the same amount of money to widen it back to 4 lanes when it's bumper to bumper. This is the most prime example of the city going to far with dedicated bike lanes.

With how East riverside is going to become a light rail corridor and all of the South Lamar-eque redvelopment, I wonder if taking light rail north over the bridge and connecting it back with the metro rail or where ever the light rail goes in East Austin would be possible? If there are 4 current lanes, you should be able to change that to 2 bike, 2 car and light rail.

[alwaysmiling]

It might be "possible" at some point in the far off distant future, and I can certainly appreciate the positive forthought and approach, but then there is the cold, hard, stubborn reality... Argh... Stupid Reality.... Why can't we just have flying cars or jet packs?! Then we could put this whole transportation thread to bed.

[ummgood]

Originally Posted by alwaysmiling

I don't understand why the peds don't just keep using the sidewalk and the cyclists bike in the right lane. I understand that They are trying to provide more of a barrier between cars and bikes but what's the difference between riding a bike and riding a motorcycle? Bikes aren't supposed to ride on the sidewalk and must obey the same traffic laws as cars anyway. I think this is definitely overkill, to reduce the car lanes by 50% whenever traffic is such a large issue in this town. I enjoy driving to Roy g park around 4-5 in the afternoon and for them to reduce the car lanes to 2 when the bikes can just ride in the right lane as usual seems asinine... Lets spend a bunch of money to reduce our transportation infrastructure. I can't bike all the way to that park and back and I never will but I drive 2-3 times a week. Cyclists have plenty of room in the right lane. That's the way our infrastructure was developed and this seems bass ackwards and a waste of money to me. As there is more developement on e riverside and towards the airport the car traffic will rise and in the future they will spend the same amount of money to widen it back to 4 lanes when it's bumper to bumper. This is the most prime example of the city going to far with dedicated bike lanes.

I am new to the board but I read it all the time because I love watching the buildings being built downtown and then seeing everyone's posts about what is going on. I originally started reading this thread when they dug the hole for the W hotel and would come here and see photos from other vantage points. I have an office that overlooks that part of town and really enjoyed watching the progress.

I don't comment much but I wanted to comment on the statement above. At lunch most days I ride my bike around the hike and bike trail from my work near Lavaca and Cesar Chavez counter clockwise to Pleasant Valley then back to Mopac and back. I ride across this bridge about 4 to 5 days per week. I don't regularly ride on the street because it scares me frankly. The hike and bike trail on that side of the lake when going counter clockwise drops you off onto that sidewalk right before the bridge. The issue is I would have to cross Pleasant Valley to ride on the correct side of the street. The hike and bike trail doesn't let off anywhere near an intersection to cross safely. In order to do it legal I would have to leave the trail WAY back before riding parallel with Pleasant Valley. Since I ride around the trail as a safe place to ride not on the street I am unwilling to get off onto roads a mile in advance so I can cross in traffic to cross that bridge.

Plus I don't know the east side well enough to know the streets to get onto Pleasant Valley until it is too late to do it legally. So if I had to choose between riding for a mile in traffic on a major road and riding a short time illegally on a sidewalk when there is no safe place to cross I will choose the sidewalk.

I can see where people enjoying the trail to ride their bike on some random weekend would not begin to know how to safely cross that road if they are going counter clockwise around the lake and since the trail dumps them right onto that sidewalk they just cross the bridge on the sidewalk and get back on the trail.

With that said that bridge is scary. The concrete divider for the sidewalk has a chain link fence that is mounted to the inside about 4 inches into the sidewalk. This reduces the usability of the narrow sidewalk as it is. Plus the other side of the sidewalk is a low divider that if you accidentally lost your balance on a bike you could end up falling over the side down to your death. It is a huge problem and it needs to be fixed somehow.

Another option is to remove the sidewalk from the other side of the bridge (which I have never seen used by a pedestrian or bike), double the width of the sidewalk on the west side and keep all 4 lanes of traffic. You could put in a protected cross walk to cross to the other side if you want to use the sidewalk and are on the east side of the street.

[MightyYoda]

Also, who do I have to sleep with to get this underground i35 expansion to gain traction? *chop chop*

[Syndic]

Saw this story being reported on KVUE today.



http://impactnews.com/austin-metro/c...-cap-proposal/

Civic groups back I-35 cut-and-cap proposal

by Gene Davis

May 23, 2013

I-35 Cut and Cap
Project organizer solicits community support for project

Civic planner and architect Sinclair Black said he is relying on community support to turn an ambitious plan to radically transform I-35 through downtown into a reality.

Instead of only concentrating on the Texas Department of Transportation, Black said he is presenting his cut-and-cap proposal to civic and neighborhood groups and City Council members.

[alwaysmiling]

Yo ummgood, welcome and good first person analysis of the issue here. Perhaps a good compromise would be something like 3 lanes and then splitting the fourth lane into a 2 way bike lane . We could have 2 driving lanes north or south, doesn't matter which, and that way it's plenty of room on the bridge for bikes and drivers don't have such a drastic reduction of lanes. A proper compromise that should work for both parties. Deal?

[ummgood]

Originally Posted by alwaysmiling

Yo ummgood, welcome and good first person analysis of the issue here. Perhaps a good compromise would be something like 3 lanes and then splitting the fourth lane into a 2 way bike lane . We could have 2 driving lanes north or south, doesn't matter which, and that way it's plenty of room on the bridge for bikes and drivers don't have such a drastic reduction of lanes. A proper compromise that should work for both parties. Deal?

That would also be a reasonable compromise. I wonder what direction gets more car traffic? Plus depending on morning/evening rush hour it could cause a bottle neck. Do you think removing the east sidewalk would work? That would allow you to keep all 4 lanes and double the size of the sidewalk.

Plus if the railings weren't so wide and the fence was mounted on top of the railing that would be a huge help. The side of the sidewalk with the fall to the water could be raised slightly as well.

EDIT: I actually just looked at the bridge again in street view and it looks like the dividers they have in place are a afterthought. It looks like temporary dividers sat directly on the sidewalk reducing the width by at least a foot. Plus add the chainlink fence and that just compounds it. I don't even get why they have the chainlink on there to begin with. You can access the other side of it so it isn't like it is blocking people from jumping. You can't even walk two people side by side on that sidewalk it is so narrow.

[alwaysmiling]

Perhaps there could be an ingenious system by which the middle lane could flow north before noon and then switch to south flow to allow traffic to flow better outbound in the afternoon. A small scale system that is used to help ease traffic at optimal times. A smarter approach, a little more labor intensive but if done right would probably be the best solution. Maybe that's just to complex for our city to execute and maybe it's not realistic, but worth a thought....

[ummgood]

Originally Posted by alwaysmiling

Perhaps there could be an ingenious system by which the middle lane could flow north before noon and then switch to south flow to allow traffic to flow better outbound in the afternoon. A small scale system that is used to help ease traffic at optimal times. A smarter approach, a little more labor intensive but if done right would probably be the best solution. Maybe that's just to complex for our city to execute and maybe it's not realistic, but worth a thought....

That could work. They have something similar for the toll road on I-15 near San Diego on a much larger scale. I don't think the problem is with the city executing it. The problem would be drivers getting confused and driving in the lane in the wrong direction.

[ummgood]

Originally Posted by Syndic

Saw this story being reported on KVUE today.

I love the cut and cap idea. I don't know if it would ever get passed.

I moved here 8 years ago and I can't believe how bad traffic has gotten in that short of time.

[alwaysmiling]

Yeah I thought about that too. But if done correctly you'd think it would be preventable, but who knows..

[hereinaustin]

Originally Posted by Syndic

Saw this story being reported on KVUE today.



http://impactnews.com/austin-metro/c...-cap-proposal/

Wasn't his original proposal for 5 lanes in each direction? Considering all the time and financial investment needed, I would be A-ok with 3 lanes in each direction PLUS 2 tolled/managed lanes in each direction. All of this in addition to the boulevard they would have above ground for slower moving traffic, bikes, and pedestrians and we might actually have something pretty epic.

If the tolled lanes could continue on north and south beyond the underground section I'd love this. I know most people hate toll roads, but the reality is that you are going to be paying for roads either directly through a toll or indirectly through taxes. Tolls will often allow for something to be built rather than nothing.

[Jdawgboy]

Originally Posted by hereinaustin

Wasn't his original proposal for 5 lanes in each direction? Considering all the time and financial investment needed, I would be A-ok with 3 lanes in each direction PLUS 2 tolled/managed lanes in each direction. All of this in addition to the boulevard they would have above ground for slower moving traffic, bikes, and pedestrians and we might actually have something pretty epic.

If the tolled lanes could continue on north and south beyond the underground section I'd love this. I know most people hate toll roads, but the reality is that you are going to be paying for roads either directly through a toll or indirectly through taxes. Tolls will often allow for something to be built rather than nothing.

I'd rather pay through taxes than tolls and I've already made my case on here before. If they actually raised the gas tax just a little, that alone would add a lot of money for transportation. Better yet let's dip into the rainy day fund. Today is a rainy day after all though I would rather see that money used for education or healthcare both of which this state is severely lacking in.

[Austin_Expert]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

I'd rather pay through taxes than tolls and I've already made my case on here before.

The users of the road should pay for it's construction through tolls. If you don't want to pay for it, than use the the "free" alternatives which are subsidized by the the rest of us.

[hereinaustin]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

I'd rather pay through taxes than tolls and I've already made my case on here before. If they actually raised the gas tax just a little, that alone would add a lot of money for transportation. Better yet let's dip into the rainy day fund. Today is a rainy day after all though I would rather see that money used for education or healthcare both of which this state is severely lacking in.

The problem with paying through most taxes is that they disproportionately affect us. I wouldn't ask my neighbor to pay for me to drive on I-35 if he never ever uses it. Maybe you're OK with that. The benefit of a toll is that it is paid directly by its users rather than by those who don't use it.

As far as adding more to our gasoline taxes, it only goes so far. Cars are increasingly fuel efficient and gasoline taxes don't produce as much revenue. Ideally, we would be taxing by MILES-DRIVEN (and thus we're accounting for the actual use/damage done by a user on the road). Too bad it's a lot harder to enforce-- thus, tolls remain our best bet to provide funding in an equitable way.

[AusTex]

[QUOTE=hereinaustin;6140502]Wasn't his original proposal for 5 lanes in each direction? Considering all the time and financial investment needed, I would be A-ok with 3 lanes in each direction PLUS 2 tolled/managed lanes in each direction. QUOTE]

[SIZE="4"]5 lanes in each direction is not enough either![/SIZE]

The space is there to have a full 12 lane road with shoulders. We have no idea if the added width for future rail/lanes...something else...will be needed. If the underground width is not at least, left available for future excavation, then we are again short changing the future generations with a short term fix. If the underground cannot be widened in the future then we are being short term "American Capitalists". To Hell with the future...!

Three lanes in each direction need to be freeway...as they are now. Any added lanes need to be tollway if "free" money is not available. Get this done. Connect the city road grid. Add green space. Add buildings...especially public/cultural buildings. A planetarium, an art museum, a sculpture garden, a replacement arena for the Erwin Center are all civically and socially positive possibilities for the ROW. After all, the ROW is PUBLIC PROPERTY and needs to serve the public in the future.