AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by M1EK

Notice, folks, what I said a long time ago about the city doing this without Capital Metro is now verified. The next time an anonymous poster here attacks my credibility and past service without being willing to identify themselves in turn, keep this in mind.

More from today's Chronicle (no, unlike McCracken, Leffingwell/Nathan have not asked me to give feedback):

Second, every transit advocate in town wants to be sure you know the project is no longer in the hands of can't-get-the-Red-Line-running Capital Metro. It's now a totally separate city of Austin project, managed by the Transportation Department. So from now on, we're to speak only of the "Austin Urban Rail Project."

SAM still curiously silent after being proven wrong. Huh.

[SecretAgentMan]

Originally Posted by M1EK

More from today's Chronicle (no, unlike McCracken, Leffingwell/Nathan have not asked me to give feedback):



SAM still curiously silent after being proven wrong. Huh.

I never said that the City was not in the driver's seat of Urban Rail, I merely stated that Cap Metro was on board for the preliminary phase. In particular, before Rob Spillar became the City's Transportation Director (towards the end of the study), he was the lead consultant to Cap Metro for the Future Connections Study. In that capacity, he contributed significantly to technical aspects of the Downtown Plan Urban Rail Study. The Chronicle article actually confirms this.

Frankly, I can't blame the City for wanting to put as much distance as possible between themselves and the Cap Metro caboose, given the embarassment they have become lately. I think it is a shame it has come to this, though. If we are to develop a transit network made up of systems planned and operated independently (including ASA Commuter Rail, and maybe even French operated High Speed Rail), coordination between the components is critical to the sucess of the network.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by SecretAgentMan

I never said that the City was not in the driver's seat of Urban Rail, I merely stated that Cap Metro was on board for the preliminary phase. In particular, before Rob Spillar became the City's Transportation Director (towards the end of the study), he was the lead consultant to Cap Metro for the Future Connections Study. In that capacity, he contributed significantly to technical aspects of the Downtown Plan Urban Rail Study. The Chronicle article actually confirms this.

This means nothing - the same consultant was employed by both - big whoop; does this mean every city council candidate who employs a given electioneering consultant are allies? Your claim was that Capital Metro itself was intimately involved, and this is obviously false - they haven't been remotely involved; they only did the FCS study itself under duress, and then only studied streetcar under even more duress.

Say it like Fonzie if you must. "I was w w w w "...

[SecretAgentMan]

Originally Posted by M1EK

This means nothing - the same consultant was employed by both - big whoop; does this mean every city council candidate who employs a given electioneering consultant are allies? Your claim was that Capital Metro itself was intimately involved, and this is obviously false - they haven't been remotely involved; they only did the FCS study itself under duress, and then only studied streetcar under even more duress.

Say it like Fonzie if you must. "I was w w w w "...

I suggest you carefully read the following webpage

http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/downtown/dap_urban_rail.htm

which contains the following:

"Staff should work with Capital Metro to prepare a submittal for the CAMPO Transit Working Group (TWG) Decision Tree evaluation."

"Subsequent to these public meetings City of Austin and Capital Metro staff developed a detailed analysis of the proposed urban rail project that addressed a series of questions developed by the TWG."

"After CAMPO staff conducted a technical review of the document City and Capital Metro staff presented the proposed project to the CAMPO Transit Working Group on January 5, 2009."

"Pursuant to discussions with the Austin City Council and the CAMPO Transit Working Group city staff, in coordination with Capital Metro and other local and regional partners, will initiate preliminary engineering and environmental studies, and begin to develop potential financing strategies for the proposed Austin Urban Rail Corridors project over the next few months."

[M1EK]

I suggest you pay particular attention to the original claim I made, which you took issue with:

Capital Metro is NOT INVOLVED in the current discussions. The city has, to a degree, adopted a more sensible position that if Capital Metro refuses to provide rail service to the Austinites who pay essentially all of their bills, we'll do it ourselves, and establish more control over the money we send them in the process.

Here's the kicker: I was in a couple of 'focus-group'-like meetings Brewster McCracken threw together as the plan was coming together. There was no Capital Metro involvement. As I've said both here and in other places, the city had to pretend they were involved -- but they weren't in any meaningful fashion, as should have become abundantly clear by now. CM's original streetcar proposal was elicited from them under duress; and even in that sulky proposal they were still pushing shared-lane operations, as a circulator for commuter rail, NOT as a primary transit spine. Their 'involvement' in the city proposal was limited to the fact that the city had to answer a bunch of questions about the plan, and SOME of the answers referred to the original CM study (where applicable).

Again, how do you get from the intimate involvement you imply above to:

Second, every transit advocate in town wants to be sure you know the project is no longer in the hands of can't-get-the-Red-Line-running Capital Metro. It's now a totally separate city of Austin project, managed by the Transportation Department. So from now on, we're to speak only of the "Austin Urban Rail Project."

The answer is, of course, you don't.

You were w-w-w-w-w-w-w...

[KevinFromTexas]

TxDOT: I-35 toll twin officially dead

By Ben Wear | Tuesday, October 6, 2009, 02:17 PM

The tollroad twin to Interstate 35, once the centerpiece of Gov. Rick Perry’s Trans-Texas Corridor plan, is officially dead, the Texas Department of Transportation announced today.

The department, which has spent years on a huge environmental study of the corridor from Dallas to San Antonio, will officially recommend to the Federal Highway Administration that no action be taken on the road.

“I don’t think I have ever seen a no-build recommendation in a TxDOT environmental impact study,” state Sen. John Carona, R-Dallas, chairman of the Senate Transportation Committee, said in a statement. “It says a lot about today’s Transportation Commission and their responsiveness to the public.”

The environmental study had been in limbo for more than three years after TxDOT had unveiled a 4,000-page draft version with great fanfare at Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport.

Read more

[Jdawgboy]

hmm its dead exept for SH 130 which is already built. Im pretty sure 130 is part of the Trans Texas Corridor.

[SecretAgentMan]

ROMA presents recommendations for downtown transportation
InFact Daily (Oct 19, 2009)



ROMA Design Group’s Jana McCann presented transportation recommendations at a town hall meeting on the downtown master plan recently, providing some idea of where urban rail stops might go as well as how streets could be reconfigured to accommodate rail, bicycles, and pedestrians.

The recommendations are the result of 18 months of work that started with a charette and continued with stakeholder input from city staff, Capital Metro, the Texas Department of Transportation, and CAMPO. Some aspects of the plan have been put in place in recent months, including the citywide bike plan update.

The concept of an urban rail line into downtown, first presented in July 2008, was back on the table at the town hall meeting. The line, which would connect with the commuter rail system and the potential Austin-San Antonio rail line, would have 15 proposed stops along its route: a line down North Lamar to downtown; a spine through the University of Texas, Capitol complex, and Central Business District area; spurs for the Long Center and Mueller; and a preferred route along East Riverside Drive out to Austin-Bergstrom International Airport.

Rail is only one component of a larger downtown transportation framework, McCann said. During the planning process, ROMA looked at each street downtown and determined what configuration worked best. Not every mode of transportation can be on every street, she noted.

Various streets are given a priority under the transportation master plan. Pedestrian-priority streets include South Congress up to the Capitol, the full length of 2nd Street across downtown, Cesar Chavez west of Congress Avenue, and East 6th Street.

North-south bus-priority streets would be Lamar Boulevard, Guadalupe Street, South 1st Street, the southern end of South Congress Avenue, and Red River Street. East Riverside, 7th Street, W 15th Street, and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard have been designated the priority east-west arteries.

Bicycle-priority streets would be Bowie Street/Henderson Street, the full length of Nueces Street, East 3rd Street, the full length of Trinity Street, and Red River Street.

As for urban rail, that would connect upon South Congress and move across East Riverside, East 10th Street, and West 3rd Street, jogging up to W. Fourth Street in order to connect with Capital Metro’s Red Line, she said.

McCann presented three different options for Congress Avenue. In the first option, the existing 17-foot angled parking lane with street trees along each side of the avenue would continue. In each direction, the lane alongside the parking lane would be a 13-foot automobile lane next to a 12-foot shared rail/auto lane. In the middle of the street would be one 13-foot lane for left turns and rail platforms.

A second configuration would shift the rail lines to the curb in order to provide two lanes in each direction and a continuous left-turn lane down the middle.

And in a third scenario, in which rail, bicycles, and cars would use the street, an 18-foot sidewalk with street trees would exist in either direction. There would be no parking. Alongside the sidewalk would be two 11-foot lanes, with one offering a shared option for cars and bikes. A 12-foot lane would be dedicated exclusively to rail in each direction, with an 18-foot wide platform in the middle.

East 6th Street is intended for pedestrian traffic. Under the proposed scenario, East 6th, between Brazos Street and Interstate 35, would have a 23-foot sidewalk on each side of the street and three lanes down the middle for cars, buses, and bikes. These streets, too, would remove curbside parking.

Sabine Street is intended to be a bicycle- and pedestrian-priority street. The street would have wide sidewalks and be two-way, with two lanes. One of the two lanes would be shared with bikes. The street would have no parking.

The Red Line would come into town on East 4th Street. ROMA has proposed that the stretch alongside the Convention Center would have two lanes dedicated to the trains, either departing or arriving. One west-bound lane would be dedicated to cars. A lane could also be used for bicycle traffic.

Nueces Street, intended as a bicycle-friendly street from 7th Street to Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, would retain existing parking and have a bicycle boulevard down the middle. Colorado Street, also a bicycle-priority street, would have no parking. It would be two-way, with a bike lane closest to the curb in both directions. The center lane would be a dedicated left-turn lane.

Trinity and Red River Streets, between 7th Street and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard, would also be two-way with side bike lanes, but the east side of the streets also would maintain parking.

One option for 7th Street, between Guadalupe Street and Interstate 35, would be to have five lanes, with a central left-turn lane and no street-side parking. Guadalupe and Lavaca streets, where bus and transit are the priorities, would also have no parking. The streets would consist of four lanes. One would be a bus-only lane.

East 5th Street, between Brazos Street and Interstate 35, would be an automobile-priority street. Parking would remain on the west side. Two automobile lanes would be created, one that shared the lane with cyclists. A third lane could either be reserved for parking or a managed lane.

[M1EK]

Originally Posted by SecretAgentMan

The recommendations are the result of 18 months of work that started with a charette and continued with stakeholder input from city staff, Capital Metro, the Texas Department of Transportation, and CAMPO. Some aspects of the plan have been put in place in recent months, including the citywide bike plan update.

Yes, I'm willing to admit that Capital Metro is providing as least as much input to this plan as TXDOT is. Meaning, virtually none of any consequence; but they had to at least be consulted because the line will theoretically connect to their commuter rail disaster. Likewise, because the rail line has to go under I-35, TXDOT has to be at least at the table.

Are you ready to admit that you were w-w-w-w-wrong, Fonzie, about the first-class involvement of Capital Metro in the planning of this thing?

[wwmiv]

Hey! Can we all please stop fighting with eachother!? PLEASE!?! STOP THE INSANITY!

Besides, with all honesty, commuter rail in Austin is GOING to be a failure simply due to the placement. We would have all been better off with a light rail proposal good enough to have passed in 2000.

On to what I'd like responses on: would it be feasible to create two elevated downtown freeways with partial roads beneath them in certain heavily traveled sections of the original roadway and only a limited amount of exits, each which operate one direction only (and in opposite directions of each other) to maximize usage of space. Underneath these roads in the sections no longer used as an at-grade signaled roadway would be parking.

[breathesgelatin]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

On to what I'd like responses on: would it be feasible to create two elevated downtown freeways with partial roads beneath them in certain heavily traveled sections of the original roadway and only a limited amount of exits, each which operate one direction only (and in opposite directions of each other) to maximize usage of space. Underneath these roads in the sections no longer used as an at-grade signaled roadway would be parking.

Feasible? Doubtful. I can't imagine that going over well in Austin. I'm a bit unclear on your meaning, but you're talking about converting downtown streets? Or just changing Mopac and I-35?

From a larger perspective, more cities are removing elevated highways than building them these days. What you're describing sounds (to me, anyway) ghastly.

[wwmiv]

There may be more cities removing elevated freeways than putting them in for a variety of reasons. Should this matter to us here in Austin unless those same pressures exist here as well? No.

[breathesgelatin]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

There may be more cities removing elevated freeways than putting them in for a variety of reasons. Should this matter to us here in Austin unless those same pressures exist here as well? No.

Still think it sounds ghastly. Why would we want to bring the blight of elevated freeways to our downtown area?

Which streets do you propose elevating?

[wwmiv]

Look. I currently live in San Antonio as a college student majoring in political science. I hope after my undergrad to get my master's in urban planning and/or public policy and then to go to law school. I'm not going to claim that I am some wonderful genius on some small time forum where current issues are not truly debated and solutions are not actually devised and implemented. What is/should be talked about on forums like this are ideas that we have and our individual and collective gripes with the cities we either used to live in and do live in.

I have been politically active since I was young at the urge of my parents. I knew issues back then and I understood what they were talking about because they explained things to me. Of course they explained it through their own ideological bias (I have ended up on the opposite side of the political spectrum from them - so their bias did not influence me). What sticks out in my mind is the horrible job that has been done in Austin city planning. Why can't we have it all? Those old freeway plans from the sixties had good nuggets in them that would have been USEFUL in today's Austin. The Riverside Freeway east of 35 going out towards the airport was a WONDERFUL idea. The light rail proposal in 2000 was a WONDERFUL idea. 360 as a freeway was a WONDERFUL idea.

Unfortunately, Austin either cannot or will not solve their own problems. The environmentalists and yuppies in the town see to it that any viable transportation system is shut down without any real debate on behalf of those that NEED these systems. As a result, we have ended up with tollways. Does anyone see that connection? If the city had gotten its act together a long time ago we could have ended up with a decent system, but instead, because we ran out of funds (those old freeway proposals were NOT canceled due to lack of funds, but because of pressure from myriad small groups), we not have had to construct a network of tollways that, last time a checked, hardly anyone was happy about.

I hear all the time about how Austin proper has gotten the short end of the shaft when it comes to gas tax money. San Antonio is an example of a Texas city who just happens to prove that assumption wrong. There is NO traffic here. Why? Because San Antonio doesn't bother waiting for the totality of the funding to be found before starting on construction of major projects. They get a head start and find the funding later because it actually speeds up the process because it is easier to find funding for an ongoing project than it is for one that hasn't started yet. Austin just sits there and twiddles it thumbs while the other large cities in Texas get a move on with their projects.

What about alternative transportation? Well, to be quite honest, it doesn't actually work very well. The only two cities in which it has worked in the U.S. are D.C. and NYC. Every single other city that has light rail or subway, or el, or commuter rail, or anything of that sort hasn't inspired a mass movement away from car culture. I support mass transport not because it is actually a viable alternative (apart from the two cities mentioned daily ridership on these systems is only a sliver of the total transportation need), but because it can be useful for certain people who would prefer to use it. I won't use it, but I expect that because I support what someone else wants and needs that they will also support what I, and frankly a majority, want and need - more freeway infrastructure.

Since you obviously didn't understand what I meant in my original post, here it is in Leman's terms:

There should be two centrally located crosstown freeways. Each of these freeways would hold traffic that traveled in a single direction. Each freeway would be elevated in sections and in a ditch in others. Each freeway would only have a small number of exits. Each would only have two or three lanes. Each would only exist in between 35 and MoPac. The most viable roads would be Cesar Chavez as the west bound freeway and Riverside/Barton Springs as the east bound freeway. Cesar Chavez's east bound lanes would remain in the stretch from MoPac to Lamar.

[arbeiter]

Loop 360 as a freeway was a terrible idea, it would have ruined the natural character of the area entirely. It would have been unreasonably expensive too, since there would have been a number of places that more stone and ground would have to be blasted in order to create exit ramps.

The Riverside Freeway was a relic of the 1960's (the Pleasant Valley median is the only visible evidence of it.) It has not been seriously proposed since. Why would we need a Riverside Freeway when a few miles to the south, Ben White Boulevard is effectively the same thing, a freeway to the airport? I'm not sure you understand our geography.

And twin Cesar Chavez/Barton Springs freeways? A ridiculous and stupid idea. I could maybe see Cesar Chavez becoming more of a parkway or upgraded to 6 lanes, but Barton Springs will NEVER become anything more than it is, because it is right next to, well, Barton Springs, an environmentally sensitive feature of the city and one of our most popular attractions. Would we raze all of those popular restaurants for a tiny bit of freeway access? It would never pass. It would ruin the character of the city.

And you are quite wrong about NY and DC being the only cities with viable mass transit. Have you been to Chicago, San Francisco, Boston, or even Philadelphia?

I am not a yuppie nor an environmentalist, but your ideas are quite ignorant and speak from the viewpoint of someone who doesn't understand three things:

a. the reality of federal funding
b. the geography of Austin
c. the center of gravity of public sentiment in cities other than San Antonio.

San Antonio and Austin are not particularly similar to each other- both are relatively economically stable in this recession, but they both went their own ways in a number of aspects related to urban planning. One thing you can't say is that Austin has twiddled its thumbs, in this decade - from the 1980's through the 1990's probably, but let's not forget that we have, what, 70 miles of toll roads now? Your response sounds like something Robert Moses would have dreamed up, i.e. damaging and sinister.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by arbeiter

Loop 360 as a freeway was a terrible idea, it would have ruined the natural character of the area entirely. It would have been unreasonably expensive too, since there would have been a number of places that more stone and ground would have to be blasted in order to create exit ramps.

I think this statement is fundamentally hypocritical. Ruin the natural character of the area entirely? The natural character of the area - from the standpoint of an environmentalist - is already ruined because the roadway has been built. Taking it one step further and just eliminating the lights and creating an exit for each road would not seriously deteriorate any of the surrounding area considering that the city has preserved right of way at each intersection substantial enough for exactly these future upgrades (that have been put off time and time again).

Originally Posted by arbeiter

The Riverside Freeway was a relic of the 1960's (the Pleasant Valley median is the only visible evidence of it.) It has not been seriously proposed since. Why would we need a Riverside Freeway when a few miles to the south, Ben White Boulevard is effectively the same thing, a freeway to the airport? I'm not sure you understand our geography.

Just as you believe me to not understand our geography, I don't think you understand our major transportation issues - or, for that matter, what I said. I said that it should have been built, not that it should still be built - two fundamentally different things. I'm also not quite sure what geography has to do with this to be honest... The geography in that area poses no substantial setback to any freeway, but still notice that I am not saying - nor did I say - that they should be built at this time.

Originally Posted by arbeiter

And twin Cesar Chavez/Barton Springs freeways? A ridiculous and stupid idea. I could maybe see Cesar Chavez becoming more of a parkway or upgraded to 6 lanes, but Barton Springs will NEVER become anything more than it is, because it is right next to, well, Barton Springs, an environmentally sensitive feature of the city and one of our most popular attractions. Would we raze all of those popular restaurants for a tiny bit of freeway access? It would never pass. It would ruin the character of the city.

I give you that they are bad ideas in that the roads I chose were horrible... But seriously? WE NEED A DOWNTOWN CROSSTOWN FREEWAY! BADLY! HORRIBLY! SERIOUSLY!

Originally Posted by arbeiter

And you are quite wrong about NY and DC being the only cities with viable mass transit. Have you been to Chicago, San Francisco, Boston, or even Philadelphia?

San Francisco's Muni is widely considered to be a failure in that the placement is horrible (mostly suburban in nature) and they seemingly made a conscious effort in planning to NOT route it in relation to the population spread. Boston, Chicago, and Philadelphia all have useful alternative transport, ofcourse, but here's the rub: they don't actually make any dent in the number of cars on the roads. What I said in my post was that alternative transport is a good thing to do, but that we shouldn't simultaneously neglect expansions of infrastructure elsewhere - I.E. roads. What I said was that in terms of overall transportation needs, the only two alternative transportation systems that actually create a completely viable alternative are the Metrorail in D.C. (averaging around 800,000 trips per weekday, or in other words, around 15% of that metros population daily) and NYC's subway (averaging around 5 million weekdays and 2 million weekends - it makes up a majority of transport on Manhattan and a sizable chunk of transport from the other Burroughs onto Manhattan). No other rail system anywhere in the U.S. can claim even averaging around 5 percent of total daily trips. NONE - Boston comes to closest averaging around 200,000 rides a day (out of HOW many people in that metro? 7.4 million).

Originally Posted by arbeiter

I am not a yuppie nor an environmentalist, but your ideas are quite ignorant and speak from the viewpoint of someone who doesn't understand three things:

a. the reality of federal funding
b. the geography of Austin
c. the center of gravity of public sentiment in cities other than San Antonio.

Don't talk down to me. On A: we are wasting federal stimulus dollars to build a frivolous five stack interchange at 183 and 290 in NW Austin. That money could have been used to finish our other interchanges. On B: get real, building a freeway doesn't actually pose any actual geological risks if it is done correctly. On C: I think you hang around people like yourself too much and that too often it becomes an echo chamber of ideas. There are plenty of people in Austin who would prefer that our current freeways be expanded and that we solve our issues that way as well as with light rail - there are also plenty who would like to see some viable way to get across town centrally without having to stop and waste gas and time at at-grade signaled intersections. Also, I'm FROM AUSTIN if you didn't catch that. Please don't treat me as some San Antonian outsider, because, frankly, I'll take it as an insult.

Originally Posted by arbeiter

San Antonio and Austin are not particularly similar to each other- both are relatively economically stable in this recession, but they both went their own ways in a number of aspects related to urban planning. One thing you can't say is that Austin has twiddled its thumbs, in this decade - from the 1980's through the 1990's probably, but let's not forget that we have, what, 70 miles of toll roads now? Your response sounds like something Robert Moses would have dreamed up, i.e. damaging and sinister.

Did you not catch my insistence that toll roads are a problem? They don't fix anything. They are a side-effect of twiddling thumbs. They were built because Austin didn't take the initiative to solve transportation issues until too late. In fact, you have it opposite to reality: the nineties were the only decade where Austin DIDN'T twiddle thumbs and got 183 built and began work on 290/71.

I actually take the Moses comment as a positive because he saw reality and worked to find a way to fix reality's problems instead of letting some idealized or nostalgic vision get in the way - which is exactly what Austin does. We still like to think of ourselves as a mid-size Texas town... the problem is that we outgrew that distinction a decade ago, and it would be mature of us to realize it and start working to achieve a total system that works.

[PartyLine]

San Antonio has no traffic? LOL you must not get out much i've been in traffic on I35 at Loop 410 several times when i've been down to San Antonio it's always stop and go during the weekday and especailly during rush hour so there is traffic in San Antonio 1604 has heavy traffic as well as loop 410. I agree that they should have built some of the freeways here in Austin back in the 80's like the SH45 loop but loop 360 as a freeway would look stupid.

[Scott Wood]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

I give you that they are bad ideas in that the roads I chose were horrible... But seriously? WE NEED A DOWNTOWN CROSSTOWN FREEWAY! BADLY! HORRIBLY! SERIOUSLY!

That's your opinion. Some others might think it would be SERIOUSLY BAD! HORRIBLE! :-)

How much of the east-west traffic in downtown do you really think wants to bypass downtown, rather than go to or from somewhere in downtown? I can see some utility to a crosstown freeway somewhere in central Austin, but I don't think it would be worth the cost (financial and otherwise).

And if somehow such an elevated freeway were to be done, I can think of much better things to do with the lower level than parking. There's plenty of parking downtown already. How about dedicated bus and bike lanes?

Originally Posted by wwmiv

What I said in my post was that alternative transport is a good thing to do, but that we shouldn't simultaneously neglect expansions of infrastructure elsewhere - I.E. roads.

If we're going to build extra transportation capacity with public money, let it be of the form that is more efficient, less environmentally damaging, and better serves a dense area such as downtown. If people want to drive anyway, let them pay tolls (including congestion charges), and/or a higher gas tax that represents all of the costs of such a choice. You may find that a larger percentage of travelers decide to take transit under such circumstances, and that there will be more demand for land use patterns that are more transportation-efficient.

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Don't talk down to me. On A: we are wasting federal stimulus dollars to build a frivolous five stack interchange at 183 and 290 in NW Austin. That money could have been used to finish our other interchanges.

Perhaps there was more of a traffic problem there, relative to the cost of fixing it, than on the non-flyover movements of those other intersections? But even if it is a wasteful project, that doesn't excuse more of them.

And that's NE Austin, not NW.

Originally Posted by wwmiv

On C: I think you hang around people like yourself too much and that too often it becomes an echo chamber of ideas. There are plenty of people in Austin who would prefer that our current freeways be expanded and that we solve our issues that way as well as with light rail - there are also plenty who would like to see some viable way to get across town centrally without having to stop and waste gas and time at at-grade signaled intersections.

Sure, there are plenty of people who would want more freeways. I think they're outnumbered on forums like this, though.

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Did you not catch my insistence that toll roads are a problem? They don't fix anything.

They better allocate costs to those making the decision to consume highway capacity. The gas tax doesn't work well in addressing specific stretches of highway that are congested or are more expensive to construct than the average stretch of roadway.

Originally Posted by wwmiv

I actually take the Moses comment as a positive because he saw reality and worked to find a way to fix reality's problems instead of letting some idealized or nostalgic vision get in the way - which is exactly what Austin does. We still like to think of ourselves as a mid-size Texas town... the problem is that we outgrew that distinction a decade ago, and it would be mature of us to realize it and start working to achieve a total system that works.

Again, there are lots of people in Austin who fit that nostalgia-driven description, but they seem to be in the minority on this forum. I welcome change here, but not of the type Robert Moses would have brought. We should be building a city, not a sprawl engine -- and the costs of being automobile-centric are going to get much worse once we get serious about limiting greenhouse gas emissions, and oil production stops keeping up with demand.

[arbeiter]

We do not need a downtown freeway. I cross from one side to the other several times a week and it's never more than 10 minutes. If I really wanted to get all the way from West to East, I would take 183 or Ben White. Downtown freeways along the waterfront are relics that are often being considered for demolition (Portland and San Francisco come to mind.)

And I wasn't talking down to you - you come on here riding a horse of arrogance, and I simply matched your tenor. This conversation is fairly useless, because your ideas are simply feckless as it relates to the current attitudes of most Austinites. Our city is doing just fine without a bunch of new freeways. While it's nowhere near as urban as I want, there is more evidence that a surplus of freeways taking traffic out of downtown does nothing but harm. I could name 15 or 20 cities that have had their CBD ruined because of overzealous suburbanites with attitudes much like yours that prevailed in the 1960's and 1970's.

As far as I'm concerned, anyone who calls a layman a "Leman" and spells borough "Burrough" doesn't have my attention for long. I am considered one of the most critical people of Austin among those on the forum, and yet I find your pie in the sky ideas the product of a teenage construction fetish, or at worst, a right-winger falsely assuming they have a quorum on this, well, forum.

Oh, and having lived in New York for 3 years, Robert Moses would have ruined the city had he not been stopped. He had some amazing projects (Triborough and Verrazano and lovely Jones Beach), but if the Lomax had been built, it would have completely obliterated SoHo and Chinatown. How would that have looked? Simply horrible, enough to make me shudder.

[Scottolini]

360 as a freeway isn't as big of a deal as some make it. It already is grade separated at Bee Caves and 2222. I would fully support doing the same at the other stop lights.