AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

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.

Maybe some chalk outlines and red puddles...

[freerover]

Mopac South project public engagement picks back up next month after a 3 year hiatus. Unclear if the toll lanes are a still part of the project or not. It seems to being led by CAMPO instead of CTRMA.

[Echostatic]

Finally. I always liked the 2-lane tolled option, as a continuation of the express lanes down to Slaughter. Although honestly, it might not be needed. I think a few targeted projects at certain intersections would have more value for the cost than a full modernization project. For example the stupid chokepoint at William Cannon heading northbound, and the unnecessary merging in the same area heading south. I think they should work on the smaller projects first, see how traffic improves, then move on with Mopac South if necessary.

[sjk]

Nonprofit Transit Forward launches to support $7.1B Project Connect transit plan

A nonprofit is forming to monitor the implementation of Austin's future transit system approved by voters last year.

Project Connect, a $7.1 billion transit plan, will massively transform Austin over the next 13 years by ushering in a new era train lines and bus hubs. Transit Forward, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit that will officially launch Oct. 27, will be focused on ensuring the plan is implemented as promised to voters and that the transit system plan is equitable, sustainable and accessible, according to an announcement.

The new group will also focus on promoting and advancing transit-supportive policies in Austin, as well as educating the community throughout Project Connect's duration.

https://www.bizjournals.com/austin/news/...0AwPHZpGV0E1YjTKviETcjtiJsi-4GhOXP-ulRsc

[sjk]

Not Austin related, but I thought this was interesting. I wonder if we'll get something like this between Austin and San Antonio + linking cities like San Marcos and New Braunfels. Also, Hyperloop is on the table?


Plans for high-speed rail between Dallas and Fort Worth, with a stop in Arlington, move forward

In 15 to 20 years, you might be able to hop on a train in Dallas and arrive in downtown Fort Worth 10 minutes later.

Plans to develop high-speed transportation linking the two cities are moving forward. This weekend, the North Central Texas Council of Governments will host a public meeting in Arlington to provide the latest details and gather feedback.

Transportation planners have studied more than 40 possible routes and numerous technologies to bring high-speed transportation to the region, said Dan Lamers, the agency’s senior program manager.

They have narrowed the list of technologies to two possibilities: traditional high-speed rail and hyperloop.

Traditional high-speed trains, already used in Europe and Asia, travel roughly 200 mph.

Hyperloop, an emerging technology popularized by Elon Musk, sends a pod hurtling through a low-friction tube at speeds up to 600 mph.

“Our plan allows us to carry forward one tried-and-true technology and one emerging technology,” Lamers said. “We want to keep both options on the table.”


https://www.dallasnews.com/news/2021/10/...h-with-a-stop-in-arlington-move-forward/

[StoOgE]

I mean, I don't know how serious a proposal that is 20+ years in the future and might be surface level rail or sub-grade unproven technology.

[Novacek]

The Austin Transit Partnership joint powers agreement wasn't quite approved last friday in the big joint meeting between council and capmetro.

However, it looks like Council member Ellis is taking the opportunity to push for more multimodal and land use planning as part of it.

https://austincouncilforum.org/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1519

overall, that seems like a good thing.

[freerover]

Originally Posted by Novacek

The Austin Transit Partnership joint powers agreement wasn't quite approved last friday in the big joint meeting between council and capmetro.

However, it looks like Council member Ellis is taking the opportunity to push for more multimodal and land use planning as part of it.

https://austincouncilforum.org/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1519

overall, that seems like a good thing.

Save Austin Now is transitioning to going after the 7 open council seats next year. That should be our focus if we want land use reform because if those elections go poorly then we can kiss a lot of progress goodbye.

[StoOgE]

West Anderson lane is being renamed Wes Anderson lane.

[kingkirbythe....]

Originally Posted by StoOgE

West Anderson lane is being renamed Wes Anderson lane.

[austin242]

I don't know if this has been posted yet, but I didn't know they were thinking about having the Riverside/Pleasant Valley station underground. It'd be nice.

https://communityimpact.com/austin/centr...sant-valley-transit-center/#&gid=2&pid=1

[H2O]

Originally Posted by austin242

I don't know if this has been posted yet, but I didn't know they were thinking about having the Riverside/Pleasant Valley station underground. It'd be nice.

https://communityimpact.com/austin/centr...sant-valley-transit-center/#&gid=2&pid=1

I prefer the bus connectivity of the above ground option.

[freerover]

Originally Posted by H2O

I prefer the bus connectivity of the above ground option.

Same.

[Novacek]

Ditto.


Also, looks like they finally have that presentation (and others they've done, including the bridge) up online.

https://publicinput.com/library


Third, the meeting for the North Lamar Transit Center station was last night (not yet online).

Disappointing. They're not proposing anything nearly as radical as here at pleasant valley. Probably because of TxDot.

Also two options for reaching the station (which would be in the median of the depressed Lamar lanes, quite a distance from the transit center). One would be a pedestrian bridge up and over the frontage roads (quite a lot of ramps to get there) then elevators/stairs down. The second would be a gentler bridge/ramp from a new bridge at approximately the 183 frontage roads. Again, I prefer the second approach (it avoids stairs/elevators for those with bikes like me, the mobility impaired, etc.)

[Echostatic]

Some low-res screencaps from the zoom meeting















I think I support Option 1 here. Having a pedestrian access ramp directly in front of the North Lamar Transit Center will make it feel much more connected to the Orange Line than having to walk down to 183 and back, even if the actual walking distance is similar. The goal here should be to encourage connections between modes.

[dilliam]

I like option 1. Would be way better than option 2 for any future development along either side of N Lamar.

[H2O]

Why not both? Do the less expensive cross walk in Phase I (which provides better access from Lamar south of 183), and add the mid point bridge directly from the transit center if warranted by ridership. Although, it might be less valuable once the rail is extended further north.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by dilliam

I like option 1. Would be way better than option 2 for any future development along either side of N Lamar.

Either side of Lamar north of 183. Option 2 is better for any future development either side of Lamar across 183.

Which may actually happen sooner. The SE quadrant is purely commercial, while the West is mostly a huge parking lot.

option 1 better serves stuff directly across, but then as you start to get closer to Powell that becomes the better option anyway. The wider geographic spread of 2 (powell to 183) seems to better serve the wider walk/bike shed.

Originally Posted by H2O

Why not both? Do the less expensive cross walk in Phase I (which provides better access from Lamar south of 183), and add the mid point bridge directly from the transit center if warranted by ridership. Although, it might be less valuable once the rail is extended further north.

I asked them that, they handwaved something about it not being possible. Not very convincing. The station seems to be in the exact same spot either way, with the Option 2 connection coming in from the west completely outside the footprint of option 1.

[drummer]

I like both options, but my preference would be Option 1 only because I like that there is a more direct connection to the transit center. However, I certainly see Novacek's point on the connectivity to development south of 183 with Option 2.

If there would be any combination or staggered plan in mind, I would support Option 2 followed by a version of Option 1 where the bridge goes directly from the transit center to the rail station. If I were to cut costs, I wouldn't have it go to the east side of Lamar only because the Option 2 crossings would already serve that side. If the transit center sees higher numbers from more buses, having a direct connection could help to get everyone across without worrying about vehicular traffic.

[freerover]

What kind of maintenance costs do random ass elevators like that have a year?