AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[DoubleC]

A lot of the traffic could be reduced if some of those dam exits and entrances downtown were barricated and shut for good. I can go a half mile without getting on the interstate. It's like they want every street to get its own ramp to 35...

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by DoubleC

A lot of the traffic could be reduced if some of those dam exits and entrances downtown were barricated and shut for good. I can go a half mile without getting on the interstate. It's like they want every street to get its own ramp to 35...

I agree. A lot and probably most of the people merging onto northbound I-35 by Oltorf exit on Woodland- 1/4 mile away just to bypass the light. This causes the right lane on I-35 to constantly backup and become stop and go.

[hereinaustin]

Originally Posted by Novacek

So double or quadruple the price, for no extra capacity. When we don't even have the money yet for any of the improvements.

Reconnecting the grid to Great Streets specs isn't completely worthless. However, I do admit that it's difficult to quantify all the benefits of increased E-W mobility, property value improvements, socioeconomic improvements, etc.

Originally Posted by Novacek

So say we only end up with 600M total. Should we blow it all on those 20 blocks, adding 2 extra lanes for that short distance (basically useless) and nothing else. Or should we spend the money along the entire corridor and actually improve it?

I agree that from a purely utilitarian perspective it would be wasteful to spend so much money on such a small area, but these changes would make the quality of life near the heart of the city much better.

By the way, depressed lanes would make expansion of I-35 in the future even less likely (there's not much room either way), forcing funds to be spent on other areas: i.e. rail.

[wwmiv]

Here's a map I've made of the Austin CVCs. It's color-coded by city defined (black), state defined (red), and state defined alterations of the city defined CVCs (yellow).

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?m...s.kFyc1SOGTRGA

I've also subdivided the layers such that you can click on and off those Interstate 35 layers which would be inevitably removed by sinking Interstate 35, thus opening up significant swaths of land to high rise development.

I would imagine that if UT-Medical School leaders are thinking strategically, they might want to consider the long term impacts of having these CVCs de facto destroyed by advocating the pseudo-removal of the reason they exist in the first place: Interstate 35.

The removal of those CVCs opens up significant nearby land for private medical school related development, as well as bolstering the city's state goals of increasing our tax-base along Waller Creek. Unfortunately, one of the biggest problems along Waller is that this set of CVCs completely remove the possibility of intense creek focused development.

[ivanwolf]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Here's a map I've made of the Austin CVCs. It's color-coded by city defined (black), state defined (red), and state defined alterations of the city defined CVCs (yellow).

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?m...s.kFyc1SOGTRGA

I've also subdivided the layers such that you can click on and off those Interstate 35 layers which would be inevitably removed by sinking Interstate 35, thus opening up significant swaths of land to high rise development.

I would imagine that if UT-Medical School leaders are thinking strategically, they might want to consider the long term impacts of having these CVCs de facto destroyed by advocating the pseudo-removal of the reason they exist in the first place: Interstate 35.

The removal of those CVCs opens up significant nearby land for private medical school related development, as well as bolstering the city's state goals of increasing our tax-base along Waller Creek. Unfortunately, one of the biggest problems along Waller is that this set of CVCs completely remove the possibility of intense creek focused development.

Nice work with the CVCs, That's much less hassle to look at then the COA GIS website. Thanks for getting it together.

[Tech House]

Yes, WWMIV, that is a very nice piece of work on your part. I'm impressed. I'm also surprised that the city-defined CVCs are more numerous, as I was under the impression that the state was the dominant force behind them. Would the city be able to renege on any of theirs? It would be nice, in certain instances, as there is just too much of the city that is under this rather arbitrary restriction, IMO. But I'm not a native Texan so I have no sentimental attachment to seeing the place where some of the nation's most embarrassingly regressive delusions are promulgated as statutory precepts.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Tech House

Yes, WWMIV, that is a very nice piece of work on your part. I'm impressed. I'm also surprised that the city-defined CVCs are more numerous, as I was under the impression that the state was the dominant force behind them. Would the city be able to renege on any of theirs? It would be nice, in certain instances, as there is just too much of the city that is under this rather arbitrary restriction, IMO. But I'm not a native Texan so I have no sentimental attachment to seeing the place where some of the nation's most embarrassingly regressive delusions are promulgated as statutory precepts.

Thanks. I've been continually updating it, as you all hopefully can tell with project information for both private development and public and transportation improvements.

[LoneStarMike]

Let me throw in my thanks as well, wwmiv. I don't have the smarts to be able to do something this extensive.

I noticed on the map where you are showing all the proposed and planned developments, you're showing "General Development" at the site of the current Brackenridge Hospital. There's one specific project that has it's own thread for that area which is the Waterloo Park Tower at 1201 Red River at the northeast corner of 12th & Red River. I'm not sure if you could overlay it onto the map in that general area, but I thought I'd mention it.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by LoneStarMike

Let me throw in my thanks as well, wwmiv. I don't have the smarts to be able to do something this extensive.

I noticed on the map where you are showing all the proposed and planned developments, you're showing "General Development" at the site of the current Brackenridge Hospital. There's one specific project that has it's own thread for that area which is the Waterloo Park Tower at 1201 Red River at the northeast corner of 12th & Red River. I'm not sure if you could overlay it onto the map in that general area, but I thought I'd mention it.

Although I don't consider that a serious project at all, it should be included on the map. I had totally forgotten about it (because, well, I don't tend to remember non-serious stuff that isn't entirely outlandish).

Do you see any other projects that I'm missing? I'm particularly interested in projects in the South Lamar, North Burnet, North Lamar corridors, West Campus, and Domain stuff.

Do we have a general thread for the Domain or West Campus?

Also: E. Riverside stuff? S. Congress stuff? S. 1st?

[LoneStarMike]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Although I don't consider that a serious project at all, it should be included on the map. I had totally forgotten about it (because, well, I don't tend to remember non-serious stuff that isn't entirely outlandish).

I figured that's why it wasn't listed. You might want to hold off on that one anyway, because it looks like their application expires 06/24/2015.

https://www.austintexas.gov/devrevie...erRSN=11258180

Maybe if they apply for an extension you could add it later.

Do you see any other projects that I'm missing? I'm particularly interested in projects in the South Lamar, North Burnet, North Lamar corridors, West Campus, and Domain stuff.

I hardly ever go north, so I'm not up on those developments. The only one on S. Lamar that I see missing is Lamar Flats by Ardent Residential with an address is 3607 S. Lamar (where the Golden Corral is now). It's directly across the street from the Green View Condominiums.

https://www.austintexas.gov/devrevie...erRSN=11285501

The Domain has been sort of lumped in with other developments on the North Burnet Gateway thread.

I don't know about the other three - S. Congress, S. First, E. Riverside, but if I happen to come across any I'll either post them here or send you a PM.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by LoneStarMike

I figured that's why it wasn't listed. You might want to hold off on that one anyway, because it looks like their application expires 06/24/2015.

https://www.austintexas.gov/devrevie...erRSN=11258180

Maybe if they apply for an extension you could add it later.



I hardly ever go north, so I'm not up on those developments. The only one on S. Lamar that I see missing is Lamar Flats by Ardent Residential with an address is 3607 S. Lamar (where the Golden Corral is now). It's directly across the street from the Green View Condominiums.

https://www.austintexas.gov/devrevie...erRSN=11285501

The Domain has been sort of lumped in with other developments on the North Burnet Gateway thread.

I don't know about the other three - S. Congress, S. First, E. Riverside, but if I happen to come across any I'll either post them here or send you a PM.

Is that under construction or is that planned?

[lzppjb]

Originally Posted by Tech House

Yes, WWMIV, that is a very nice piece of work on your part. I'm impressed. I'm also surprised that the city-defined CVCs are more numerous, as I was under the impression that the state was the dominant force behind them. Would the city be able to renege on any of theirs? It would be nice, in certain instances, as there is just too much of the city that is under this rather arbitrary restriction, IMO. But I'm not a native Texan so I have no sentimental attachment to seeing the place where some of the nation's most embarrassingly regressive delusions are promulgated as statutory precepts.

Opinions are like assholes...

[urbancore]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Here's a map I've made of the Austin CVCs. It's color-coded by city defined (black), state defined (red), and state defined alterations of the city defined CVCs (yellow).

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?m...s.kFyc1SOGTRGA

I've also subdivided the layers such that you can click on and off those Interstate 35 layers which would be inevitably removed by sinking Interstate 35, thus opening up significant swaths of land to high rise development.

I would imagine that if UT-Medical School leaders are thinking strategically, they might want to consider the long term impacts of having these CVCs de facto destroyed by advocating the pseudo-removal of the reason they exist in the first place: Interstate 35.

The removal of those CVCs opens up significant nearby land for private medical school related development, as well as bolstering the city's state goals of increasing our tax-base along Waller Creek. Unfortunately, one of the biggest problems along Waller is that this set of CVCs completely remove the possibility of intense creek focused development.

WOW, nice work!

quick question, I just noticed, thanks to you, that the house I just built 2 years ago in Zilker, is in the La Casa CVC......what does that mean for homeowners? How does that hurt/help me? Sorry to make it so personal, but it seems relevant. Thanks in advance.

[Digatisdi]

wwmiv, this is interesting to me because I was under the impression that the vast majority of CVCs were state-defined. I do feel that the current number is excessive but I do like several of the city-defined ones.

Also what I was thinking about is that horrible bridge on West over Shoal Creek. I'd really like to see that and the trail bridge removed and consolidated into a bridge with pedestrian accommodations because honestly I feel like I'm one of the only people who uses the pedestrian bridge. Most everybody else I see tend to prefer walking out in front of traffic.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Dcbrickley

WOW, nice work!

quick question, I just noticed, thanks to you, that the house I just built 2 years ago in Zilker, is in the La Casa CVC......what does that mean for homeowners? How does that hurt/help me? Sorry to make it so personal, but it seems relevant. Thanks in advance.

It means probably nothing for you.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Digatisdi

wwmiv, this is interesting to me because I was under the impression that the vast majority of CVCs were state-defined. I do feel that the current number is excessive but I do like several of the city-defined ones.

Also what I was thinking about is that horrible bridge on West over Shoal Creek. I'd really like to see that and the trail bridge removed and consolidated into a bridge with pedestrian accommodations because honestly I feel like I'm one of the only people who uses the pedestrian bridge. Most everybody else I see tend to prefer walking out in front of traffic.

No. Most are city.

Also, just leave the current set-up as is and if people get hit it's their own damned fault.

[Digatisdi]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Also, just leave the current set-up as is and if people get hit it's their own damned fault.

But I drive that road sometimes and I don't want to be the one who hits them.

I feel like maybe more people will use the pedestrian bridge once the street becomes more busy because of the Independent and the thru connection to Cesar Chavez, so that might mitigated it. Also I think the bridge is sad and ugly, but I figure the pedestrian thing is a real issue compared to my "I don't like it"

[Geographer]

There is construction at the intersection of Loop 360 and Mopac. Workers are building a road along the slope facing the on-ramp to get on North Mopac from 360, and a column in the grassy median of 360 just south of the intersection.

Does anyone have any information on this project? It would great if it's a flyover to connect 71 West with Mopac North but that is a long flyover, at least one kilometer.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Geographer

There is construction at the intersection of Loop 360 and Mopac. Workers are building a road along the slope facing the on-ramp to get on North Mopac from 360, and a column in the grassy median of 360 just south of the intersection.

Does anyone have any information on this project? It would great if it's a flyover to connect 71 West with Mopac North but that is a long flyover, at least one kilometer.

http://www.txdot.gov/apps-cq/project...57&dist=Austin

[AusTxDevelopment]

Originally Posted by Geographer

There is construction at the intersection of Loop 360 and Mopac. Workers are building a road along the slope facing the on-ramp to get on North Mopac from 360, and a column in the grassy median of 360 just south of the intersection.

Does anyone have any information on this project? It would great if it's a flyover to connect 71 West with Mopac North but that is a long flyover, at least one kilometer.

It's the bike lane project that will connect to the under-construction bike bridge over Barton Creek at South MoPac.

Austin American Statesman
Toll project, bike bridges causing MoPac lane and exit closures
http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news...e-and-e/nk2nG/



MoPac Bicycle & Pedestrian Bridge Project
https://austintexas.gov/mopac-bicycl...estrian-bridge