AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[breathesgelatin]

I'll chime in and say that light rail down the interstate would be a very bad idea. You want light rail that easily accesses places people want to walk to. I-35 isn't really super close to anything people would want to walk to except DKR, possibly Manor Rd corridor/Disch Falk field... I think it would be an awful route for a light rail line.

[JAM]

Originally Posted by priller

I don't think I-35 will ever be expanded through downtown Austin. Too enormously expensive. It would probably be cheaper to build high-speed rail connecting Dallas-Austin-SA and a complete light-rail system in Austin combined than it would be to expand I-35 in any substantial way.

It does seem unlikely doesn't it? (Especially with 130 sitting off to the east.) That is what the Dallas Central Freeway project seemed like in the 1990's too. It's hard to remember what it was like, I was there for part of it and it seemed like expansion was impossible thru there as well. I'd love to see some before/after photo's for comparison to what is in Austin now... hunted around but didn't find anything right off.

http://www.texasfreeway.com/Dallas/p...s75/us75.shtml

[Myomi]

When I mentioned light rail down the interstate, I was not talking about downtown. As I mentioned in my earlier post, the light rail line down the interstate would feed into the downtown network. Isn't that how light rail has been built around the country? Denver did it that way. Dallas and Houston also. Now that I think about it, that is thinking way too into the future. Definitely I should be happy to even see a downtown network happening. But after a downtown network happens, spurs out of downtown with light rail going down the major highways is pretty much the norm around the country. Really, when I posed my question, I was thinking 5-10 years into the future.

Also, expanding I35 will be expensive. But so are lots of other highway expansions around the country. JAM brought up a perfect example. And really, I don't see how it won't be necessary to do that at sometime in the future. It is already at capacity and Austin is growing bigger. Light rail and commuter rail will help lessen the issue, but eventually the issue will have to addressed. The upper deck is a joke. I think we can all agree on that. It certainly will be expensive, but that is really what I was trying to get at with this development at the Concordia site. The more large buildings that are built that close to the interstate, the more expansive this inevitable project will be.

TxDot has already done some of the preliminary study for for expanding I-35 as part of the Trans-Texas Corridor studies. Here is a link:http://www.dot.state.tx.us/public_in...own_austin.htm. Maps 33-41 are through central Austin. Now, I am not saying this is what will happen, but as a growing city, we have to recognize the increased need of transportation infustructure in this city.

[austlar1]

Remodeling IH35 and incorporating rail in a redesign is an awesome concept and reallly the only way to effectively tie the region together with smart transit solutions. The cost will be horrendous, but these things just cost money.

By the way, I seem to remember North Central Expressway work actually starting in the mid 1980's. What an ordeal that must have been for the every day commuter, but it got done finally and is pretty good for what it is. We can do better here by insisting that rail become a major part of the overall design, rail that extends out to different areas and links these areas together. Rail is a tiny feature in the Dallas redo, mainly running adjacent or tunneled next to Hwy 75 for the last mile or two into downtown.

Every time this topic comes up around here, our resident self apponted transportation guru dismisses the concept as ill conceived and unaffordable, which usually shuts down any meaningful discussion of the topic. I would love to see this topic pursued here because I think in the long run it is conversations like this that are going to have a big influence in shaping opinion in the years ahead. This concept is a many-years-out project that ought to become inevitable.

[M1EK]

Myomi, neither Dallas nor Houston actually ran light rail in their freeway medians as you insist they did. Denver is doing that, but they're feeding into an already existing light rail network. If we already had the 2000 LRT plan (3 or 4 lines) up and running, would it be reasonable, then, to run light rail down I-35 from Round Rock? Sure. But as a starter approach, or even a second or third line, it's not a great idea for the same reason commuter rail sucks.

austlar, the problem with running rail in freeway alignments is precisely as breathesgelatin put it: the destinations aren't right on the freeway, so you end up with a requirement to transfer (or you end up with a route that only hits one activity center at the very end, when it leaves the freeway corridor, instead of hitting a whole string of activity centers along an urban street as most successful light rail starts accomplish). Cities that succeed with rail down freeway alignments already have mature urban rail networks (think Chicago or NY) and parking prices massively higher than ours that already encourage people to accept transfers as part of a transit trip.

There's also another very strong reason I-35 will never be expanded horizontally - there are properties along the interstate in one or two spots that actually trump TXDOT's power of eminent domain. So it's all academic unless that changes.

[arbeiter]

I don't think 35 will be ever expanded in terms of its width through the MLK-Airport corridor. Like M1EK mentioned, there are several plots of land that can't simply be bought out - there's a cemetery, UT land, St. David's Hospital, among other things. It would turn into a legal fight, especially in tort-happy Austin.

Furthermore, the only way they could expand would be on the east side of the corridor, bringing up the old race card. Other than the cemetery around Manor, that entire corridor is full of less-than-historic properties (Star Seeds being the closest thing to a landmark), but once those were to be removed, you'd have the freeway up against houses. And by then, all of those houses (if they're not already) will be owned by middle and upper class people who will make a compelling NIMBY argument (literally not in my backyard).

It would furthermore wipe out most of the businesses on that stretch, which means it would become a freeway right up against housing - at least right now, you have a one block buffer which helps keep French Place relatiely nice.

I think one of three things will happen - it will probably end up like a less dangerous version of Seattle's Alaskan Way rebuild controversy.

There will be an option to rebuild or reinforce the existing setup, with little or no actual change in the footprint.

There will be an option to tunnel the freeway with a complicated and costly design (maybe 2 tunnels stacked on top of each other with 4 lanes each). If this can be paid for without breaking the bank, I would argue for a tunnel that reduces the amount of exits to just 2 (MLK and Airport), forcing thoroughfares to shoulder the burden of 38th and Dean Keeton. Then, East Avenue can be rebuilt on top with light rail or something and by 2040 you have the Karl-Marx-Allee of central Austin.

The third option would be to turn it into a parkway, reverting it to East Avenue, and moving IH-35 over to 183. it sounds crazy but it's not a terrible idea, if it were connected with a new parkway/road system. We all forget that 183 is only about 3 miles east of downtown or even less at its narrowest point.

[M1EK]

As I recall, there's at least one eminent-domain-proof plot on each side of the freeway (this was a long time ago, though; one of them might have been Concordia; not quite sure). They did, however, plan to take land from UT, ironically enough (looked like the big practice bubble would have been history).

The cemetary that's the big stumbling block is on the east side of the road.

Those who doubt what arbeiter and I have said here should go look at the last set of plans for the I-35 rebuild in this corridor if you can find them (the website is long since kaput); they tried REALLY HARD to stay within a very constrained space. The rebuild proposal in this stretch didn't actually increase capacity much at all - it was more of a reworking inside existing right-of-way (with collector-distributor roadways and elevated HOV to provide more efficiency in essentially a similar footprint).

[Myomi]

Hey, I was actually looking forward to you chiming in M1EK, since you do probably know a lot more about this then any of us do. But, looking back over my posts, I never mentioned medians, much less insisted. Denver only has it along the median in short segments. All I was trying to say was the possibility of light rail going along the same route as the highway. But I know that a successful light rail network downtown is necessary for this to work. Like I said, I was prematurely looking ahead.

Really though, I like some of arbiter's suggestions. The one about moving I-35 to 183 is interesting. So I'm guessing you would use the new (or i guess reborn) East avenue parkway to feed traffic downtown? That could be really nice. One question: where would you feed I-35 back onto the old highway? Would you use SH-71?

I really appreciate you guys discussing this. To me it seems so obvious that something needs to be done about I-35 (besides obviously adding much more mass transit). It seemed ridiculous to me when I first came to Austin, and my opinion has only gotten worse as I've lived here. I don't know if you guys saw this article in the statesmen, but it pretty much sums up the situation and why I feel this way: http://www.statesman.com/blogs/conte...ks_make_n.html. It basically states that according to one source, Austin has 4 of Top 100 bottlenecks in the country. All of which are along I-35. I have to deal with the one on Riverside almost daily. That one has some level of congestion almost 10-12 hours a day. And the back up is not just on the ramp, but usually also effects traffic miles to the south (Because of that stupid weave lane). Now if the city really is looking to revitalize E. Riverside, then there is no way that this area can stay the same. And really, I feel that is the case with most of I-35. Something really needs to be done.

Oh, and sorry Kevin for starting this discussion in the wrong place. It was really the Concordia development that started me thinking about this so that's why I put it there. My mistake, sorry.

[NThomas]

I seriously believe that we'll see I-35 reconstruction start before 2030 (so it should be done around 2045 if we're lucky). With SH 130 & SH 45SE now forming the first interchanged limited access highway around DT & Central Austin (and for that matter, up to Georgetown), any traffic passing through the Austin metro has a relief route. All truck traffic has a way to divert Greater Austin, and those that want to avoid the tumultuous headaches of one of the state's largest highway construction projects, can. The tolls alone of those passing by during construction could pay for the construction costs leaving the state with just the eminent domain bill left. It's possible and with the metro DOUBLING in the next couple decades (by means of smart, or poor planning) this is needed for just metro traffic alone, SH 130 (seg. 1-6) can handle pass through traffic when this is done.

The land is already there, just plop some elevated HOT lanes into the mix, and the funding is half way decent for a construction project of this size.


^This needs to be done in Central Austin.

[SecretAgentMan]

Is it safe to come out of lurking to discuss highways?

My OPINION (nothing more) is that we might see a reconstruction of IH35 that includes depressed main lanes with collector/distributers and HOV lanes as was studied by TxDOT 5 years or so ago. Part of the reason that MIS was canned was that Bob Daigh felt the HOV lanes needed to be bi-directional and continuous through downtown, not just a single reversible in and out of downtown. That would require the HOV lanes to be elevated the whole way and largely negate the value of depressing the whole thing.

I don't think the idea of reducing capacity substantially by relying on 183 is very realistic, or politically tenable. SH130 was supposed to be a reliever for IH35, and that has not worked, so I don't see how 183 would. Much of the traffic on 35 is local to the MSA, so a bypass has limited applicability. The through traffic is mostly trucks which are not using 130 because the tolls are set quite high for trucks and the time savings are not so great to justify the expense.

Don't get me wrong - I would love to see a return to East Avenue of old, but the only likely scenario for that would be to depress the main lanes and cap the areas between cross streets with green roofs. This would probably only be applicable to about 4 blocks of downtown, and HOV lanes would have to enter and exit well outside of downtown. I recall a study done along these lines as part of the TxDOT MIS. Maybe someone can dig it up?

[KevinFromTexas]

We were downtown tonight driving on the access road around 7th Street and heard a train. It sort of took me by surprise at first (a train?) but then of course I realized right away it was the commuter train crossing the access road behind us. I looked in the side mirror and saw it rolling by into downtown.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by SecretAgentMan

I don't think the idea of reducing capacity substantially by relying on 183 is very realistic, or politically tenable. SH130 was supposed to be a reliever for IH35, and that has not worked, so I don't see how 183 would. Much of the traffic on 35 is local to the MSA, so a bypass has limited applicability. The through traffic is mostly trucks which are not using 130 because the tolls are set quite high for trucks and the time savings are not so great to justify the expense.

The (naive) assumption being made is that the 183 route wouldn't have heavy tolls like SH-130. Doesn't seem politically tenable to me, but in a world without a hostile state legislature and a better DOT, it would work.

[PartyLine]

I heard that 183 they were going to build it as a freeway without tolls (the eastern loop part of 183 that is).

[M1EK]

183 would need more capacity than currently under plan or construction if it were to really handle mainline I-35 traffic.

[Myomi]

Well I' have to assume that if they actually would to the plan like austlar said, there would have to be a major expansion of 183. Of course the stop lights would have to go and you'd have to make it all controlled access with frontage roads. I personally would love to not have the frontage roads, but they seem like tradition down here. But again, this is all hypothetical.

[austlar1]

I have just a couple of thoughts that I'd like to add with regards to an IH35 rebuild. Eminent domain issues can be overcome with enough political will. I am sure that North Central expressway did not get rebuilt without overcoming similar issues. No doubt some of the rebuilds in the Houston area also faced similar challenges. By the time Austin adds another 1/2 million or more residents, and everybody trying to get anywhere is truly stewing in traffic juices, the political will to do something dramatic will be in place. The missing ingredient will be the money needed, which will no doubt run into a couple or three billion to get it done right. Who knows what the future holds on that score. I suspect the long term prospects for the funding of mass transit projects will prove to be fairly bright simply because the need for alternative transportation modes is inevitable. Think 10 or 15 years out for this to be happening, either as economic stimulus and/or geopolitical necessity.

As to the need to do away with the businesses on the east side of IH35 between downtown and Airport Blvd. I don't see the problem, not in the long term. There is simply a better public use for the land. Similarly, a below surface roadway abutting the rear of existing housing east of 35 would be a necessary sacrifice for a greater good. I know that this is not currently politically feasible in Austin. Give it a few years, maybe close to a decade, and public perception about the need for something drastic will make it all possible. Whatever goes through that portion of the highway needs to be highway and transit without any service road element iin order to best utilize the limited space.

As far as running rail down freeways is concerned. A freeway right of way is simply the best and most practical way to connect important business and employment centers, That does not mean that a light rail (or heavy rail for that matter) can't deviate from the freeway right of way alignment in order to serve individual locales with one or more stops. Try to imagine a system that might provide regular high speed rail service between the airport, downtown, UT on the IH35 side, St. Davids/ East Ave developments, Mueller, Highland Mall (redeveloped, of course) before spllitting into three parts. One line would continue to a more densely developed Cross Park, Manor, and Elgin via a combination of freeway (290) alignment and the old rail line to Elgin. A second line could continue up IH35 to Round Rock or even to Georgetown. I suspect all sorts of development would materialize along this route. The tricky route, the one that is the hardest to configure would leave IH 35 around Highland and manage to hit all the major employment "sweet spots" in the NW part of the metro. Of course, the system I dream about would cost a zillion bucks, and right now that is not going to happen.

Keep in mind that other cities have dreamed big and gotten something worth keeping in the bargain. Atlanta started building MARTA when it was about the size that Austin is today. While MARTA certainly did not prevent the sprawl that characterizes Atlanta today, it has proven to be the single most important element in determining development inside of the Perimeter Highway. MARTA, a heavy rail system, utilizes tunnels and freeway right of way and, in some places, a conventional rail right of way. The new light rail line in the San Gabriel Valley out in LA links points east of Pasadena with downtown LA using mostly freeway allignment. It is a great looking system that is shaping new development in a big way and proving quite popular with commuters.

There are a lot of ways to skin this cat. The point is that Austin will never really be in the big leagues unless it gets behind big league development of transit projects. EVERYTHING that has been proposed, including the legenday 2000 or thereabouts light rail initiative, has been taking a bandaid approach to a problem that requires a major reconstructive surgery. It is the only way to get Austin and the suburbs of Ausin unglued. It is important to keep in mind that linking the suburbs into a transit system is the key to its success and political viability.

[M1EK]

Your general point sounds good, but when you get down to specifics, it falls apart - like, how, precisely, do you use freeway rights-of-way, yet still serve UT, the Capitol, and downtown?

The cities that have succeeded with rail transit since the 1950s in this country have, with two exceptions, followed the model of the 2000 light rail line. The exceptions were DC and Atlanta - both of whom built heavy rail - and Atlanta was arguably a failure until fairly recently when the choice commuter populace finally bought into the system in larger numbers (DC would have succeeded with almost anything given their special conditions). Other cities built heavy rail and failed (Miami) or built bad light rail that ran in the wrong places (San Jose, Buffalo).

All of: Dallas, Houston, Portland, Salt Lake, Denver, Seattle, Minneapolis, Charlotte, [...] used the Austin 2000 model - run in existing RAIL (not freeway) right-of-way where available in the suburban areas to get faster service from park-and-rides; transition to the street closer in and serve existing activity centers while providing a lot of good incentive for more development on that corridor.

I can't point to a single system built in the age of the automobile that followed freeway right-of-way as a starter line; and again, there's very good reason for that - you can hit one, or a couple, destinations that way, but then you just have a slightly better commuter rail line (pickups along the way; essentially only one or two drop-offs) - the whole point of urban rail is that every stop becomes a focus for development (or serves existing development); which obviously can't happen if the 'stops' are in the middle of the freeway (like the outer Metro stops in DC).

[Jdawgboy]

I was in San Antonio this past Sunday at Sea World and we took loop 410 back to I-35 on the way home and I was astonished at the size Loop 410 has been built up from the last time I was through that area. Why is Austin continuing to be left out of Federal Highway money or for that matter state highway money? You hear that TxDot does not have any more money yet you go to some of the other Texas cities and see freeway construction and expansion. This is what irritates me when when we have incomplete freeway interchanges and small freeways that have been the same for 20 plus years.

[M1EK]

The 410 project in San Antonio was funded a decade ago, I'd guess, given how long these things typically take. At that time, we were getting funding for some of the now-completed 183 freeway upgrades in NW Austin, among other things.

[Scottolini]

There is something wrong with the current state of affairs in Austin transportation. For as long as i can remember, until just the last couple of years there was always work being done on Austin's major highways. There is absolutely no work being done on 183, 290, 71, Mopac, I-35, or any other highway in the city at the moment. Even earlier this decade work was simultaneously being done on 183 on the North (not 183-A) and South ends, Mopac south of 290, and on 71 east of I-35. It's quite absurd, really.