HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #7481  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2021, 4:19 PM
drummer drummer is online now
World Traveler
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Austin metro area
Posts: 3,233
Nice to see that happening finally.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7482  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2021, 6:43 PM
StoOgE StoOgE is offline
Resident Moron
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 1,757
The traffic jam at that light is *extreme* and not just on race-days.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7483  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2021, 6:43 PM
StoOgE StoOgE is offline
Resident Moron
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 1,757
Do we have a general timeline on the light-rail plans? I'm assuming we're a decade out from a fully functioning system?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7484  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2021, 7:00 PM
Novacek Novacek is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by StoOgE View Post
Do we have a general timeline on the light-rail plans? I'm assuming we're a decade out from a fully functioning system?
The current sequencing timeline had both light rail lines in 9 years and 13 for the green line.

https://www.kxan.com/traffic/when-ca...t-rail-system/

Subject to change, of course.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7485  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2021, 7:52 PM
freerover freerover is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 1,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by StoOgE View Post
Do we have a general timeline on the light-rail plans? I'm assuming we're a decade out from a fully functioning system?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7486  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2021, 7:58 PM
StoOgE StoOgE is offline
Resident Moron
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 1,757
Awesome, thanks y'all!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7487  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2021, 7:58 PM
J78704 J78704 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2020
Posts: 4
Too long

Quote:
Originally Posted by StoOgE View Post
Do we have a general timeline on the light-rail plans? I'm assuming we're a decade out from a fully functioning system?
I wish they had started ten years ago after the first proposal though I’m glad we’re now going underground and that probably wouldn’t be happening from those earlier props. It’s just EXTREMELY disappointing to think we’ll have to wait LONGER than these timelines for additional service lines, like south Lamar or other congested routes.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7488  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2021, 8:03 PM
freerover freerover is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 1,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by J78704 View Post
I wish they had started ten years ago after the first proposal though I’m glad we’re now going underground and that probably wouldn’t be happening from those earlier props. It’s just EXTREMELY disappointing to think we’ll have to wait LONGER than these timelines for additional service lines, like south Lamar or other congested routes.
Hopefully by the time we are looking to expand high capacity transit, some of the technologies that Clark was really interested in will be more viable like the ART buses that can bunch together as you need them. A S. Lamar line would be great but also Lake Austin Blvd to 7th to Cesar/5th/7th/183 at that new regional CARTS bus depot. An eastern N/S route line Pleasvent Valley to Springdale would be dope too.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7489  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2021, 9:38 PM
Echostatic's Avatar
Echostatic Echostatic is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2018
Location: Austin
Posts: 901
Eminent domain finally approved for Oak Hill Parkway, construction of which is planned to begin this summer. A much needed improvement for the Y.

https://www.austinmonitor.com/storie...290-expansion/
__________________
Advocating for a wider I-35, Project Connect (passed!), and a denser Austin
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7490  
Old Posted Apr 12, 2021, 10:07 PM
freerover freerover is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 1,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by Echostatic View Post
Eminent domain finally approved for Oak Hill Parkway, construction of which is planned to begin this summer. A much needed improvement for the Y.

https://www.austinmonitor.com/storie...290-expansion/
Why did Kelly vote against it? She is so bonkers.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7491  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2021, 1:44 PM
drummer drummer is online now
World Traveler
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Austin metro area
Posts: 3,233
I'm glad this is finally approved. It was needed in the early 90s.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7492  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2021, 3:02 PM
StoOgE StoOgE is offline
Resident Moron
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 1,757
Quote:
Originally Posted by freerover View Post
Why did Kelly vote against it? She is so bonkers.
We added a Q-Anon internet troll to the ranks of our 3 resident NIMBYs. A real win for the city

In all honestly, I'm not a big "roads" person but the Y has needed an overhaul for 30 years. Its been a traffic nightmare longer than I can possibly remember and its becoming dangerous with people running lights to avoid sitting through another cycle.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7493  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2021, 4:10 PM
H2O H2O is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 938
Quote:
Originally Posted by StoOgE View Post
We added a Q-Anon internet troll to the ranks of our 3 resident NIMBYs. A real win for the city

In all honestly, I'm not a big "roads" person but the Y has needed an overhaul for 30 years. Its been a traffic nightmare longer than I can possibly remember and its becoming dangerous with people running lights to avoid sitting through another cycle.
It is going to have a major impact on the environment / livability of that area though. A lot of beautiful old heritage trees and Williamson Creek will be sacrificed for the sake of a few minutes convenience of people passing through.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7494  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2021, 5:08 PM
freerover freerover is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 1,662
Quote:
Originally Posted by StoOgE View Post
We added a Q-Anon internet troll to the ranks of our 3 resident NIMBYs. A real win for the city

In all honestly, I'm not a big "roads" person but the Y has needed an overhaul for 30 years. Its been a traffic nightmare longer than I can possibly remember and its becoming dangerous with people running lights to avoid sitting through another cycle.
Agreed but it should have been tolled. It's really annoying that it's going to be free and mostly service people outside the city. We had to cut hundreds of millions of dollars worth of projects including in and around Austin to pay for 35.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7495  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2021, 5:15 PM
slippi slippi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by H2O View Post
It is going to have a major impact on the environment / livability of that area though. A lot of beautiful old heritage trees and Williamson Creek will be sacrificed for the sake of a few minutes convenience of people passing through.
In addition to the impacts on the area the global impact on the climate this project will have will be great too.

If you make it easier to live in low density car-centric suburbs with projects like this, you're going to get more low density car-centric suburbs.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7496  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2021, 5:55 PM
drummer drummer is online now
World Traveler
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Austin metro area
Posts: 3,233
While I generally agree with fewer expressways and more trees, I still believe this is a needed project for the region. Cars are not going away in the near term. Dependency can/should be reduced over time, but in the meantime, having them idle at stop lights for multiple cycles also isn't the answer. We have to pick our battles and compromise, and I, for one, think this interchange is necessary given that it's improving an existing road on which there is already significant development and traffic.

I agree with the hesitancy to support and/or encourage more sprawl, but as we've seen in many areas of Austin, the sprawl will happen with or without infrastructure needed to support it and then we play catch-up. We have to figure out how to plan for the future while addressing the current reality. In this case, what is the better solution? I'm genuinely asking.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7497  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2021, 6:03 PM
slippi slippi is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2020
Posts: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by drummer View Post
While I generally agree with fewer expressways and more trees, I still believe this is a needed project for the region. Cars are not going away in the near term. Dependency can/should be reduced over time, but in the meantime, having them idle at stop lights for multiple cycles also isn't the answer. We have to pick our battles and compromise, and I, for one, think this interchange is necessary given that it's improving an existing road on which there is already significant development and traffic.

I agree with the hesitancy to support and/or encourage more sprawl, but as we've seen in many areas of Austin, the sprawl will happen with or without infrastructure needed to support it and then we play catch-up. We have to figure out how to plan for the future while addressing the current reality. In this case, what is the better solution? I'm genuinely asking.
Projects like this ensure that cars will not go away in the near term, and they further solidify car dependency in the region. Having the cars idle at stop lights and make living in the suburbs less appealing is a far better outcome for emissions than making it easier with a frictionless intersection. Also, the demand this project will induce means this intersection will be anything but frictionless soon after it opens.

As far as alternatives, I would say spending the money on literally anything else would be better. Spending the money on project connect or on housing near transit immediately comes to mind. We can't solve traffic with more roads and bigger intersections.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7498  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2021, 6:55 PM
drummer drummer is online now
World Traveler
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Austin metro area
Posts: 3,233
Quote:
Originally Posted by slippi View Post
Projects like this ensure that cars will not go away in the near term, and they further solidify car dependency in the region. Having the cars idle at stop lights and make living in the suburbs less appealing is a far better outcome for emissions than making it easier with a frictionless intersection. Also, the demand this project will induce means this intersection will be anything but frictionless soon after it opens.

As far as alternatives, I would say spending the money on literally anything else would be better. Spending the money on project connect or on housing near transit immediately comes to mind. We can't solve traffic with more roads and bigger intersections.
I certainly agree with you in principle. I just wonder what the mitigation is if there's not enough demand for mass transit in this case. Future developments can and should be done better, of course, and density is the key to success in mass transit. I preaching to the choir here, of course.

I just wonder sometimes where compromise is needed and where hard lines should be drawn. A lot of us have strong opinions on the subject which is why we frequent this site...yet we also have to be pragmatic. Just externally processing here.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7499  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2021, 7:04 PM
Novacek Novacek is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 1,952
Quote:
Originally Posted by J78704 View Post
I wish they had started ten years ago after the first proposal though I’m glad we’re now going underground and that probably wouldn’t be happening from those earlier props. It’s just EXTREMELY disappointing to think we’ll have to wait LONGER than these timelines for additional service lines, like south Lamar or other congested routes.
S Lamar is probably quite a bit out there.

First we have finishing up the rest of the existing Project Connect (Gold Line light rail, Orange Line north of 183/South of Stassney). I believe that ended up being a requirement of the Prop A "contract with the voters" if any additional funds became available.

Potentially next in line might be a light rail spur through North Burnet Gateway/Domain. By then, this area will be our densest, most populous area without light rail. Since they ended up terminating the blue line at NLTC, this could be functionally an extension of that line. This option actually made it into some of the initial Project Connect planning documents, but was scoped out.

I think only then would we (at least IMO only then) look at converting the existing lines. Probably we'd be adding new BRT-light/metrorapids before this point as well.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7500  
Old Posted Apr 13, 2021, 9:04 PM
H2O H2O is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 938
Quote:
Originally Posted by drummer View Post
While I generally agree with fewer expressways and more trees, I still believe this is a needed project for the region. Cars are not going away in the near term. Dependency can/should be reduced over time, but in the meantime, having them idle at stop lights for multiple cycles also isn't the answer. We have to pick our battles and compromise, and I, for one, think this interchange is necessary given that it's improving an existing road on which there is already significant development and traffic.

I agree with the hesitancy to support and/or encourage more sprawl, but as we've seen in many areas of Austin, the sprawl will happen with or without infrastructure needed to support it and then we play catch-up. We have to figure out how to plan for the future while addressing the current reality. In this case, what is the better solution? I'm genuinely asking.
I thought the Livable Oak Hill Parkway vision was a better solution. Incidentally, it was the original Oak Hill Parkway before TxDOT co-opted the name for their highway expansion. It is not a parkway!

http://www.saveoakhill.org/livable-oak-hill/
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


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 6:49 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.