*Austin* This is Spring (so far)

[Urbannizer]

Mostly cloudy days with decent temps. Pics from many parts of the city, but mostly downtown.

[destroycreate]

Awesome set. I really love all those cool modern townhomes.

If I got offered a job there, I'd leave SF in a heartbeat. Way cheaper cost of living and equally cool vibe. And omg...insanely good looking people, everywhere.

[destroycreate]

Looking at that last photo, I assume that's South Congress right? My main complaint about that stretch of road is that just seemed so unnecessarily wide. Has there been any talk or plans to run a streetcar through it, or at least plant a tree/vegetation median? It would look a lot better.

[Jeff]

awesome! cant wait to see it in person next month

[subterranean]

Austin is looking good.

[Danny]

Very pleasant tour! Thanks for sharing, Urbannizer.

Austin looks very nice and modern. And I can see much ambient on the streets, something I like.

Congrats and greetings from Madrid, Spain.

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by destroycreate

Looking at that last photo, I assume that's South Congress right? My main complaint about that stretch of road is that just seemed so unnecessarily wide. Has there been any talk or plans to run a streetcar through it, or at least plant a tree/vegetation median? It would look a lot better.

Yeah, that's S. Congress. It is extremely wide, and there are no plans for a median or a streetcar line. There won't be a streetcar or light rail system in Austin any time soon. The voters have made sure of that.

[KevinFromTexas]

It is possible at least. South Congress used to have streetcars before the 1940s. I think the reason for the width of the street had to do with cattle drives, but maybe I'm wrong about that.

Cool pics.

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by destroycreate

Looking at that last photo, I assume that's South Congress right? My main complaint about that stretch of road is that just seemed so unnecessarily wide. Has there been any talk or plans to run a streetcar through it, or at least plant a tree/vegetation median? It would look a lot better.

There was a light rail proposal about 15 years ago that included rail down South Congress. It was very narrowly defeated by voters, and some of the most vocal opposition came from South Congress merchants who feared that they would lose business during construction. Most of those businesses are now toast and have been replaced by trendier and more posh stores and restaurants that can afford the much higher rents and represent the new hip and happening Austin. South Congress is increasingly a zone for tourists although many locals will probably disagree with my assessment. BTW, the width of South Congress is actually kind of appealing when viewed in person. It provides an impressive entry into downtown.

https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...16.FtjVL0rd2WM

[lzppjb]

I like the width of South Congress.

Great set, Urbannizer!

[destroycreate]

Originally Posted by lzppjb

I like the width of South Congress.

Great set, Urbannizer!

Why though?
http://www.cyburbia.org/gallery/data...ongress_01.jpg

It's as wide as an LA highway but such a low-density area. I think they could keep as is though and just plant some beautiful trees in the middle.

[KevinFromTexas]

I'd rather they widen the bike lanes before they plant trees in the middle. There's a portion of the street through there where the bike lanes go away due to the reverse parking on the street. Of course it's on the downhill section and you're allowed to "take the lane" and haul ass with the car traffic.

[lzppjb]

Originally Posted by destroycreate

Why though?
http://www.cyburbia.org/gallery/data...ongress_01.jpg

It's as wide as an LA highway but such a low-density area. I think they could keep as is though and just plant some beautiful trees in the middle.

I like the aesthetics of a wide swath leading to our capitol building.

And I'd be pissed if they completely replaced the middle turn lane for trees. I could be ok with intermittent islands with trees if they did not totally do away with the turn lanes, but I'd have to see the design first.

[KevinFromTexas]

Yeah, doing away with the turn lane could cause some bottlenecks with cars sitting in the traffic lane waiting to turn. If the turn lane had to be done away with, the only way I'd be ok with that is by adding something that helped ease traffic - like rail. Beautification efforts should come after the traffic issues have been addressed and solved. Traffic on South Congress can be a PIA in the afternoon.

[destroycreate]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Yeah, doing away with the turn lane could cause some bottlenecks with cars sitting in the traffic lane waiting to turn. If the turn lane had to be done away with, the only way I'd be ok with that is by adding something that helped ease traffic - like rail. Beautification efforts should come after the traffic issues have been addressed and solved. Traffic on South Congress can be a PIA in the afternoon.

It's amazing how much I hear Austinites complain about traffic, which is amazing because upon visiting it seemed very low density and spread. Is there a lack of highway infrastructure which is causing this supposed traffic congestion?

[KevinFromTexas]

Originally Posted by destroycreate

It's amazing how much I hear Austinites complain about traffic, which is amazing because upon visiting it seemed very low density and spread. Is there a lack of highway infrastructure which is causing this supposed traffic congestion?

I'm against highways on principal, but yeah, we don't have many. I think we're the biggest city with only one interstate. Our major north/south highways are Mopac and I-35, but Mopac isn't an inter-regional highway like I-35 is. We do have SH-130 which is only a few years old. It's about 7 miles east of downtown, but it's out in the middle of nowhere. It's more of a bypass of Austin, which every other non-Austinite Texan doesn't seem to know about. There's also US-183, but it isn't a true highway since it has traffic lights at several places. And we also have "Loop 360" - Capital of Texas Highway 5 miles west of downtown, but again, it has traffic lights along it. And there is heavy opposition to making it into a concrete highway because of the environmental sensitivity in the area. Plus, it would ruin the scenery out there and would encourage more sprawl. This is after all Texas.

East to west we have SH-45 south, which also completes a loop on the north side of the metro. Then there's SH-71 and US-290.

And I actually don't think our traffic is that bad. I mean, it's not good either, but Austin is considerably smaller and more compact than some of the other Texas cities so it works out to be slightly better probably time-wise. One big problem with Austin traffic is through traffic on I-35, particularly the 18-wheelers. We're treating a major national interstate artery as something to get city traffic flowing. One of the Austin forumers suggested they should toll I-35 north and south of SH-45, and make SH-130 free. For anyone who wants to drive through Austin and contribute to our traffic, they should pay a toll. Let them have SH-130 with no tolls. Let that money from the tolls on I-35 go to make improvements to it.

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by destroycreate

It's amazing how much I hear Austinites complain about traffic, which is amazing because upon visiting it seemed very low density and spread. Is there a lack of highway infrastructure which is causing this supposed traffic congestion?

That's it. Austin was too small during the building of the interstate highway system, and didn't get anything other than I-35 splitting it in half. Add two decades of anti-highway/no growth politics (which ended in the '90s) into the mix along with rapid population growth and you get a giant cluster F.

[drummer]

I'd support the loop (45-620-45 south), if it's done right. I'd also support finishing out 183 from 290 to Ben White. I wouldn't mind seeing 35 revamped so long as it doesn't get a wider footprint - just re-do, you know, all of the on/off ramps and...burry the dang thing by downtown as they've discussed here and there. That'd be pretty cool if it actually happened, and does make some sense from a traffic flow standpoint. Anything else in the city proper should be down with mass transit, though. People are slowly (and painfully so) realizing that highways aren't always the answer.

I love the wide South Congress, too. I don't think streetcars would ruin the view, but trees might conflict with the CVC, wouldn't they? I'm normally in favor of more green, but I'm not sure if that's the right place.

[destroycreate]

Originally Posted by drummer

I'd support the loop (45-620-45 south), if it's done right. I'd also support finishing out 183 from 290 to Ben White. I wouldn't mind seeing 35 revamped so long as it doesn't get a wider footprint - just re-do, you know, all of the on/off ramps and...burry the dang thing by downtown as they've discussed here and there. That'd be pretty cool if it actually happened, and does make some sense from a traffic flow standpoint. Anything else in the city proper should be down with mass transit, though. People are slowly (and painfully so) realizing that highways aren't always the answer.

I love the wide South Congress, too. I don't think streetcars would ruin the view, but trees might conflict with the CVC, wouldn't they? I'm normally in favor of more green, but I'm not sure if that's the right place.

Is Austin really dense enough or big enough to warrant that kind of transit though? Don't get me wrong, I love the place, but when I visited it seemed very spread out and pretty unwalkable outside of the few core areas.

[mSeattle]

Austin is growing up really nicely.