HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Texas & Southcentral > Austin


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #5521  
Old Posted Dec 13, 2016, 9:15 AM
wwmiv wwmiv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio -> Chicago -> Austin -> Denver -> Austin
Posts: 5,389
Quote:
Originally Posted by drummer View Post
I think I can fairly confidently say I did not know that. My thought was that I-14 was supposed to cut through B/CS on its way to Killeen and then 79 would connect to that (didn't know it would be designated I-12, if that's the case). My mention of I-12 was my own dreaming that would be along the 290 corridor from Austin to Houston...and that would be the full length of it.
Oh no you're right, it's 14, not 12. My bad. 12 already exists in Louisiana.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5522  
Old Posted Dec 14, 2016, 4:04 AM
drummer drummer is offline
World Traveler
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Austin metro area
Posts: 4,520
Quote:
Originally Posted by wwmiv View Post
Oh no you're right, it's 14, not 12. My bad. 12 already exists in Louisiana.
Maybe 12 would make sense along 290 then...it'd just be another split off of I-10 to the north. If 71 were to become an interstate, I-10N would make much more sense.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5523  
Old Posted Dec 14, 2016, 4:44 AM
wwmiv wwmiv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio -> Chicago -> Austin -> Denver -> Austin
Posts: 5,389
Quote:
Originally Posted by drummer View Post
Maybe 12 would make sense along 290 then...it'd just be another split off of I-10 to the north. If 71 were to become an interstate, I-10N would make much more sense.
I'm a big proponent of the massive expansion of the interstate system, fwiw, so I won't disagree with you.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5524  
Old Posted Dec 14, 2016, 11:41 PM
drummer drummer is offline
World Traveler
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Austin metro area
Posts: 4,520
Quote:
Originally Posted by wwmiv View Post
I'm a big proponent of the massive expansion of the interstate system, fwiw, so I won't disagree with you.
Great! Now let's make it happen, haha.

So, it seems to me that Hwy 71 and Hwy 290 are both in a good position to be upgraded to an expressway (a la interstate highway) from Austin all the way to Houston or I-10 respectively. Which do you guys think is more likely to happen? If both are headed in that direction with the growth in Texas, which would happen first?

My personal opinion is that Hwy 71 is in a better position to happen first, even though Hwy 290 would connect Austin directly to I-610 in Houston. My thoughts are that there are several overpasses and freeway sections along Hwy 71 already, along with miles and miles of divided highway (easier to transition to expressway from there) whereas Hwy 290 would have a lot of extra work in some sections (narrow 4-lane highway with no shoulders in some areas).

That said, in addition to this highway being an east-west connector between two large metros, it would also likely have through traffic that would continue west out of Austin, and Hwy 71 is clearly the better choice for that. Hwy 290's downfall for this idea is that it essentially dead ends at I-35, which is already horrible (and don't tell me it'll get better someday, haha).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5525  
Old Posted Dec 15, 2016, 4:29 AM
hereinaustin hereinaustin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by wwmiv View Post
I'm a big proponent of the massive expansion of the interstate system, fwiw, so I won't disagree with you.
Well, while we're at it, I'd also like to see US-281/IH-37 expanded from 1604 in San Antonio to at least Lampasas where it can connect to US-190/I-14 that you guys are talking about.

And maybe one day it might extend all the way up to the DFW metroplex via US-281 + US-67. Basically, it would be nice having multiple connections to San Antonio from Austin and a route west of I-35 makes sense. It doesn't need to be crazy, just a 4 lane divided freeway with a grassy median.

Last edited by hereinaustin; Dec 15, 2016 at 5:14 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5526  
Old Posted Dec 15, 2016, 5:46 AM
lzppjb's Avatar
lzppjb lzppjb is offline
7th Gen Central Texan
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 3,144
Quote:
Originally Posted by hereinaustin View Post
Well, while we're at it, I'd also like to see US-281/IH-37 expanded from 1604 in San Antonio to at least Lampasas where it can connect to US-190/I-14 that you guys are talking about.

And maybe one day it might extend all the way up to the DFW metroplex via US-281 + US-67. Basically, it would be nice having multiple connections to San Antonio from Austin and a route west of I-35 makes sense. It doesn't need to be crazy, just a 4 lane divided freeway with a grassy median.
I've wanted the 281/67 route for awhile now. I'd even continue it up to Wichita Falls and connect with I-44. It's a great idea, and has to be on the horizon.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5527  
Old Posted Dec 15, 2016, 8:25 AM
drummer drummer is offline
World Traveler
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Austin metro area
Posts: 4,520
281 to 67 would be great, especially with the new Chisholm Trail Parkway from Fort Worth to Cleburne...then from there onto Dallas proper.

I do think that a parallel road to I-35 will eventually be needed, but I'd love to see the massive number of folks travel via rail instead...but this is Texas.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5528  
Old Posted Dec 15, 2016, 6:44 PM
Mopacs's Avatar
Mopacs Mopacs is offline
Austinite
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Austin.TX.USA
Posts: 4,587
Quote:
Originally Posted by lzppjb View Post
I've wanted the 281/67 route for awhile now. I'd even continue it up to Wichita Falls and connect with I-44. It's a great idea, and has to be on the horizon.
Couldn't agree more. We returned to Austin from an Oklahoma trip on the day before Thanksgiving. Took the I-44/281/183 route home and it was very relaxing. Most likely saved us at least an hour instead of going I-35, if not more. This given the insane amount of traffic on the interstate that day (if Waze was any indication at the time). Normally it's about a half hour longer on 281. An upgrade to a 4 lane highway throughout, with one or two small town bypasses, would be perfect.
__________________
Austin.Texas.USA
Home of the 2005 National Champion Texas Longhorns
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5529  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2016, 3:04 AM
drummer drummer is offline
World Traveler
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Austin metro area
Posts: 4,520
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mopacs View Post
Couldn't agree more. We returned to Austin from an Oklahoma trip on the day before Thanksgiving. Took the I-44/281/183 route home and it was very relaxing. Most likely saved us at least an hour instead of going I-35, if not more. This given the insane amount of traffic on the interstate that day (if Waze was any indication at the time). Normally it's about a half hour longer on 281. An upgrade to a 4 lane highway throughout, with one or two small town bypasses, would be perfect.
Agreed - that route is especially good during the holidays as I-35 becomes a parking lot.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5530  
Old Posted Dec 16, 2016, 1:06 PM
hereinaustin hereinaustin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by drummer View Post
I'd love to see the massive number of folks travel via rail instead...but this is Texas.
Unfortunately, the new funding mechanisms TxDOT has in place provide a lot of money that is earmarked for only roads. That being said, I'm rooting for the Dallas-Houston high speed rail which is privately funded.

Last edited by hereinaustin; Dec 16, 2016 at 1:11 PM. Reason: Grammar police
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5531  
Old Posted Dec 17, 2016, 12:37 AM
drummer drummer is offline
World Traveler
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Austin metro area
Posts: 4,520
Quote:
Originally Posted by hereinaustin View Post
Unfortunately, the new funding mechanisms TxDOT has in place provide a lot of money that is earmarked for only roads. That being said, I'm rooting for the Dallas-Houston high speed rail which is privately funded.
Oh yes, well aware of TxDOT's preferential treatment towards highways rather than pretty much every other alternative mode of transportation - you're right. I have high hopes for Texas Central Railway becoming a reality. I think many of the naysayers will be surprised at its success. I hope that this line would spur other development by TCR or other *private* companies to continue HSR development down the I-35 corridor as well.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5532  
Old Posted Dec 19, 2016, 7:33 PM
brando brando is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 298
Edit: Please feel free to correct any factual errors and I'll adjust. I'm fairly sure of the information below. I remember reading that 290 use to be continuous through central Austin but then that would mean that Hwy 2222 didn't exist at that time which is possible. I just can't find any links that would corroborate that. Maybe I'm not remembering that correctly and 290 just kept traveling eastword and first hit austin at the 71 junction and then went through austin, I-10 and to Houston.

Quote:
Originally Posted by drummer View Post
Maybe 12 would make sense along 290 then...it'd just be another split off of I-10 to the north. If 71 were to become an interstate, I-10N would make much more sense.
It would be very confusing to have a I-10 north especially since the light free portion of "I-10 north" ends in Austin (well after the current work to eliminate lights on 71 between Austin and Columbus.) HWY terminates on the other end nowhere near I-10. You would take I-10 North and end up stranded in some random town in central western texas after going through an endless amount of lights. I-35E and I-35 west very clearly split between two twin cities (Dallas and Ft Worth) that are relatively close and they merge again once you pass those cities. It is a very simple concept. 71 and I-10 don't merge back together.


Quote:
Originally Posted by drummer View Post
So, it seems to me that Hwy 71 and Hwy 290 are both in a good position to be upgraded to an expressway (a la interstate highway) from Austin all the way to Houston or I-10 respectively. Which do you guys think is more likely to happen? If both are headed in that direction with the growth in Texas, which would happen first?
It's virtually impossible for 290 to be widened and have all lights eliminated unless a toll road was built that would bypass all of the cities. You would then have a "290 Business" that went through all the small towns but I don't think the time it takes to go through those towns and lights would justify the massive expense of building a whole new highway. You don't have the use that you have along 183 west of Austin.

Quote:
Originally Posted by drummer View Post
Hwy 290's downfall for this idea is that it essentially dead ends at I-35, which is already horrible (and don't tell me it'll get better someday, haha).
Highway 290 does not basically dead end at I-35 at all. It has aways passed through Austin. It used to be continuous but it was moved along I-35 to share road with 71 at some point after 35 was made into a highway. It then resumes it's old path just west of Austin. It eventually dead ends at I-10 in central western texas.

Quote:
Originally Posted by drummer View Post
281 to 67 would be great, especially with the new Chisholm Trail Parkway from Fort Worth to Cleburne...then from there onto Dallas proper. I do think that a parallel road to I-35 will eventually be needed, but I'd love to see the massive number of folks travel via rail instead...but this is Texas.
I-35 is getting massively redone once you get past the Austin Metroplex. You really won't need a parallel route from Georgetown to the Metroplex. The drive from Austin to Waco is crazy with construction. That kind of expansion is not possible in Austin which is why a small part of 183 are being turned into an expressway since it runs North-South in Austin and it's why SH 130 and SH45 exists which is a 2nd I-35 option in central texas. It's light free from I-35 south of Austin all the way to Round Rock. It's also being developed into a I-35 alternative from San Antonio to Austin though I-10 and 130 but that is also a mess of a route.


The shame is that all parts of Texas receive equal funding from the last two highway referendums but places like Austin need so much more funding because of the complexity than all the rural areas.



It's going to be quite an accomplishment when all of the lights are off 71. When I started at UT, you had 4 lights in Bastrop and Ben White Blvd which was a parking lot on holiday weekends. The recently completed Riverside underpass which has made an amazing difference finally gave you a light free path from Downtown to the Airport was hugely significant and the work they are doing now east of the Airport is something people should be happy about as well.

Last edited by brando; Dec 19, 2016 at 7:47 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5533  
Old Posted Dec 19, 2016, 8:16 PM
Jdawgboy's Avatar
Jdawgboy Jdawgboy is offline
Representing the ATX!!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin
Posts: 5,759
If you take 290 west past Fredricksburg, it merges with I-10 east of Junction so could make a north spur from 71 at Columbus, just follow it through the the existing 290/71 expressway through the city and then on to the Y following 290 back to I-10.
__________________
"GOOD TIMES!!!" Jerri Blank (Strangers With Candy)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5534  
Old Posted Dec 19, 2016, 8:41 PM
wwmiv wwmiv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio -> Chicago -> Austin -> Denver -> Austin
Posts: 5,389
I agree about your points regarding any parallel interstate to 35 along the 281 corridor and have rebuffed those suggestions whenever they are made as well, but I also think you're misunderstanding the I-10-N argument by not assuming that the interstate wouldn't continue west along 290 and reconnect back to I-10. Furthermore, that designation would never be more than ~25% further away from what would then be I-10-S than the maximum distance between I-35-W and I-35-E. It only seems that it is significantly further because there is a lateral shift when moving from Austin to San Antonio, across the shape of the parallelogram (where the cities are the that would be created by I-10-N and I-10-S designations.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5535  
Old Posted Dec 19, 2016, 10:26 PM
brando brando is offline
Closed account
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 298
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jdawgboy View Post
If you take 290 west past Fredricksburg, it merges with I-10 east of Junction so could make a north spur from 71 at Columbus, just follow it through the the existing 290/71 expressway through the city and then on to the Y following 290 back to I-10.

You're right. I stand corrected. The short of it then is that I-10 North takes you to Austin,Houston and I-10 South takes you to San Antonio, Houston. That makes more sense.

The issue then is the amount of time and money it would take to go around towns along the 290 corridor between Austin and the I-10 west connection to get rid of traffic lights and 35mph traffic signs. Right now that route is 40 miles less than staying on I-10 and transferring to 35 in San Antonio but it only saves you 25 minutes according to Google. That's a LOT of lights. You would be building whole new sections of the highway in rural areas outside towns which is still overpasses, concrete and eminent domain.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5536  
Old Posted Dec 19, 2016, 10:57 PM
hereinaustin hereinaustin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 249
Quote:
Originally Posted by brando View Post
You're right. I stand corrected. The short of it then is that I-10 North takes you to Austin,Houston and I-10 South takes you to San Antonio, Houston. That makes more sense.

The issue then is the amount of time and money it would take to go around towns along the 290 corridor between Austin and the I-10 west connection to get rid of traffic lights and 35mph traffic signs. Right now that route is 40 miles less than staying on I-10 and transferring to 35 in San Antonio but it only saves you 25 minutes according to Google. That's a LOT of lights. You would be building whole new sections of the highway in rural areas outside towns which is still overpasses, concrete and eminent domain.
It doesn't have to happen all at once.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5537  
Old Posted Dec 22, 2016, 1:21 PM
hereinaustin hereinaustin is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 249
Another thought: How about extending Mopac further south to somewhere west of Buda/Kyle/San Marcos? I think it would need to be done as a pure variable-priced toll road for funding reasons, to avoid encouraging a bunch of 18 wheelers onto Mopac, and to limit overuse.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5538  
Old Posted Dec 23, 2016, 12:41 AM
drummer drummer is offline
World Traveler
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Austin metro area
Posts: 4,520
I personally wouldn't be opposed to that, but I think there would be serious outcry. If folks are loosing their minds at the idea of connecting Mopac to I-35 via 45 South, think of what they would say if Mopac were to be extended south? First to Kyle and Buda, then they would assume to San Marcos, New Braunfels, and eventually 1604 in San Antonio. Of course, not all of that has to happen, but people tend to go crazy at the mere mention of changing anything on Mopac.

I personally don't think it's a horrible idea.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5539  
Old Posted Dec 25, 2016, 7:39 AM
wwmiv wwmiv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio -> Chicago -> Austin -> Denver -> Austin
Posts: 5,389
Quote:
Originally Posted by hereinaustin View Post
Another thought: How about extending Mopac further south to somewhere west of Buda/Kyle/San Marcos? I think it would need to be done as a pure variable-priced toll road for funding reasons, to avoid encouraging a bunch of 18 wheelers onto Mopac, and to limit overuse.
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer...3309999998&z=8

The least served areas in Central Texas are those between Austin and San Antonio. The area has significant population, in San Marcos, Buda, Kyle, New Braunfels, Seguin, Lockhart, Canyon Lake, Wimberley, Selma, and Schertz. We need to build freeway expansions to foster economic interdependence between Austin and San Antonio in these areas between us, which will be good for both of our economies long-term. Creating better commuter networks into both Austin and San Antonio from these mid-communities would allow us to draw upon mutual bases of talent. Ergo, create a system that simply fully connects the mid-communities to the broader network.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5540  
Old Posted Dec 25, 2016, 8:00 AM
lzppjb's Avatar
lzppjb lzppjb is offline
7th Gen Central Texan
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Austin TX
Posts: 3,144
Agreed.

I just requested access to view your map.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Texas & Southcentral > Austin
Forum Jump



Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:23 PM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.