AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[the Genral]

Originally Posted by Dcbrickley

Like the stupid gondola, this will not solve anything.

My feelings exactly. I even cited the gondola proposal...in my head.
There are many other ways to spend money, like fixing I35. Obviously there's money to be gained by the developers of this project but nothing to be gained by the throngs who will never be able to afford to use it. Interesting concept, but unnecessary. Investors beware...

[brando]

Originally Posted by Novacek

If so, why not 290?

Though I'm not sure if that's even the case, I forget if this "hyperloop" proposal has the same issue as HSR where it needs larger curve radii than highways.

The big deal is that H-SA is 20% longer than H-A. Which means 20% more expensive construction cost, RoW cost, etc.
It gives it the appearance of not even doing the bare minimum of analysis and optimization. Which again, just makes me doubt the expertise and competency and reality of the proposal.

Now, it's possible there's factors I'm unaware of. I'm just saying every factor I'm aware of (travel demand, growth trajectories, geometry, etc.) favors a Houston to Austin route, which makes it smell funny to me.

290 turns into a street at times with traffic lights. It's not a practical solution at all. 71 to I-10 is the closest (but not completely) continuous path from Austin to Houston. At that point, you might as well continue down the same I-10 corridor ESPECIALLY considering I-10 is MUCH straighter than 71 or 290. You do not want to have something like this doing much winding since you'll have to have it slow down to decrease g-forces on a shift of direction. Just look on google maps. 290 and 71 have many turns along the way.

Also, getting to downtown Houston from 290 is very problematic because 290 dead ends at 610. You need straight corridors and not 90 degree turns.

The big deal is that H-SA is 20% longer than H-A. Which means 20% more expensive construction cost, RoW cost, etc.
It gives it the appearance of not even doing the bare minimum of analysis and optimization. Which again, just makes me doubt the expertise and competency and reality of the proposal.

This is an incredibly superficial way to evaluate a cost. Is it cheaper to build a road that goes around a hill or one that requires you to TNT the hill and dig it out?. Same thing but on a much bigger scale here. There are other factors that increase cost more than increased track line. No offense dude but you're not smarter than the engineers who did the calculations to put it together.

[paul78701]

Originally Posted by electricron

How much are you willing to pay for a one-way fare to ride the Hyperloop?
I read somewhere recently they are proposing $300, $600 for a round trip.
In an eight hour day, you would have to have a salary of $75 hour just to pay the fare. Sorry, I don't think any commuters will pay that much....
Math. $600 / 8 hours = $75/hour.
Link to source about $300 one-way fares
https://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/n...ush-texas.html
"The Texas Triangle route, a 640-mile system that will, if it becomes a reality, ... such as working in one city and living in another 300 miles away, Earle said. ... Cost — Roughly $330 one-way from DFW to San Antonio......"

You're missing where I'm coming from. No, daily commuters won't pay it. I doubt many will see this as an option for a daily commute.

Companies already pay for their employees' travel for business purposes. This is a huge source of revenue for the airlines already. My company pays for me to fly to Dallas on a semi-regular basis. Unless the cost is prohibitive, I see no reason they wouldn't pay for me to travel there via Hyperloop instead. There are many other companies with employees that travel like I do or even far more than I do. Those morning flights from Austin to Dallas (and probably Houston) have more business travelers than not.

[paul78701]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

In that case it's cheaper to fly and the time is not much more than 27 to 30 min depending on conditions.

That is misleading. You don't just walk into an airport, directly jump on the plane, and go. It's a much bigger time suck and pain in the ass than that. I'd say most people arrive at the airport about an hour before their flight to go through security, go through the boarding process, and whatnot.

When I travel to Dallas for work, it takes 25-30 minutes to get to the airport. I generally arrive about an hour before flight takeoff. The flight is a little less than 30 minutes. It takes another 30 minutes to deplane and go grab a Lyft/Uber (unfortunately, Dallas doesn't have the alternatives Austin now does) or whatever. Then it's 30 minutes to get to where I'm going in Dallas. It's about 3+ hours door-to-door. (And that's if the flight isn't delayed due to weather or whatnot.)

I would say that's a little less time than is typical. You can compare it to other modes of transport as you will, but I'm willing to bet that there could be a much shorter/better door-to-door experience with a Hyperloop "commute".

Presumably, the Hyperloop would be more like riding a train. i.e. It would take away much of the overhead.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by brando

290 turns into a street at times with traffic lights. It's not a practical solution at all.

If the hyperloop is going to be elevated/grade separated/30 feet up _anyway_, how is it not practical at all?

Originally Posted by brando

71 to I-10 is the closest (but not completely) continuous path from Austin to Houston.

They're literally exactly the same (center to center). 162 miles.

If you actually are using new RoW (again, which I suspect will really be the case) then 290 is even more direct.

Originally Posted by brando

At that point, you might as well continue down the same I-10 corridor ESPECIALLY considering I-10 is MUCH straighter than 71 or 290. You do not want to have something like this doing much winding since you'll have to have it slow down to decrease g-forces on a shift of direction. Just look on google maps. 290 and 71 have many turns along the way.

I thought the whole point of the hyperloop is that it wouldn't have to slow down for (sufficiently large radius) curves , as it could cant up into the curve.

On the micro-scale, I10 and 71/290 have similar radius curves, especially around cities in the way.

Originally Posted by brando

Also, getting to downtown Houston from 290 is very problematic because 290 dead ends at 610. You need straight corridors and not 90 degree turns.

That curve doesn't appear to have any worse radius than several spots along I10. Especially if you (for instance) follow Hempstead/rail RoW.

Originally Posted by brando

This is an incredibly superficial way to evaluate a cost.

Gross distance is an _incredibly_ important design consideration, and in no way superficial.

Originally Posted by brando

Is it cheaper to build a road that goes around a hill or one that requires you to TNT the hill and dig it out?.

If you're going above the hill regardless, then neither.

Originally Posted by brando

Same thing but on a much bigger scale here. There are other factors that increase cost more than increased track line. No offense dude but you're not smarter than the engineers who did the calculations to put it together.

Then let's see the calculations. What are the projected construction costs? RoW costs? Operating costs? What are the projected boardings? Where's the signed agreement with TxDot for usage of the I10 RoW. Where are the station locations? What are the ticket costs? Their site seems to stress cargo even more than passengers. How much cargo demand do they project which is so incredibly speed-sensitive?


The fact that the team can't even put together a proper website (duplicated paragraphs).
http://www.hyperloop-tx.com/why-texas-1/

doesn't fill me with confidence.

[smt1]

https://communityimpact.com/austin/c...ing-next-june/

Capital Metro proposes changes to more than half its bus routes starting next June

[brando]

Construction on MoPac is about to begin.
Wait … what? Isn’t it finally about to end?

Calm down, North Austin. What I’m talking about is unlikely to affect you unless you’re headed to the Salt Lick or house hunting in Circle C.

As I recently reported, the Texas Department of Transportation has awarded a $53.5 million contract to build what it calls the “MoPac Intersections” project. The contractor will cut underpasses at Slaughter Lane and La Crosse Avenue, removing from the freeway the last two remaining traffic lights on MoPac Boulevard’s 24 miles of heaven between Round Rock and southwestern Travis County.

The work, which had been delayed about a year by litigation, should start in January and take until mid-2020.

RELATED: With wit and taunts, @EvilMopacATX taps Austin commuters’ pain

Notice I said “should.” I qualify that kickoff projection mostly because of 1:16-CV-00876, better known as the Center for Biological Diversity et al. v. the Texas Department of Transportation et al. That federal lawsuit, filed in July 2016 by the Arizona-based environmental group and Austin’s own Save Our Springs Alliance, contends that building the underpass project will harm the endangered Barton Springs salamander, Austin blind salamander and golden-cheeked warbler.

The plaintiffs in their original filing scoffed at an environmental review of the project that TxDOT had done — before TxDOT itself approved the project in late 2015. Funny system, isn’t it? An agency that clearly wants to build a road is deputized by the federal government to review its own handiwork and then pronounce it exemplary. Seems to put a whole lot of faith in human nature.

Anyway, that’s what occurred. The Center for Biological Diversity and SOS, suing on the last day legally possible under federal law, argued that TxDOT in its environmental due diligence had failed to do a legally required consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Their lawsuit originally asked that this consult occur, presumably under the assumption that the federal regulators would find deficient TxDOT’s conclusions about the endangered species. Not a crazy idea, by the way, given that “Fish,” as insiders call it, had emailed TxDOT in March 2015 taking issue with TxDOT’s assertion that the project would have no effect on the listed amphibians and the bird.

The project will remove almost 700,000 yards of soil from that area near Circle C and add about 16 acres of paved surfaces, which tend to speed up the pace of rainwater runoff into the Edwards Aquifer, where those salamanders hang out.

But time passed, a national election happened, and things didn’t go as the plaintiffs had hoped. In June, Adam Zerrenner, the supervisor of Fish’s Austin office, issued an 11-page ruling that said the effects on the species would be at “an insignificant or discountable level” given how TxDOT intends to build the project. Furthermore, Zerrenner wrote, only one warbler had been spotted within a mile and a half of this part of MoPac within the past 25 years.

IN THEIR WORDS: Read the June letter from U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Save Our Springs Executive Director Bill Bunch scoffed at all this when I talked to him last week, calling it “junk science,” implying that the regency of the Trump administration had more to do with the decision than conscientious study. But it is, of course, the job of advocates to advocate. In Bunch’s case, literally his job.

Bunch, by the way, was surprised to hear that construction of the underpass project is set to begin in January. I asked if, as was the case with an earlier federal lawsuit involving SOS, 11 fellow plaintiffs and Texas 45 Southwest, he might seek an injunction to block the start of construction on the underpasses. Bunch, assessing all of this on the fly, allowed as how that was a possibility.

I guess we’ll find out in the next couple of months on that. That similar attempt with Texas 45 Southwest was a swing and a miss, and the Fish opinion certainly doesn’t help the current Save Our Springs case. And all of this is well-trod ground for U.S. District Judge Lee Yeakel.

Assuming all this goes as is currently guesstimated by the road-builders, we could see an interesting situation on far South MoPac in a couple of years.

The Texas 45 Southwest tollway and its four new lanes connecting to FM 1626 figure to bring a few thousand new cars a day to the part of South MoPac between Slaughter and another piece of Texas 45 that juts to the west. Those people from Hays County, if they want to go to work in Austin or other points north, currently have to use Interstate 35 or take a suburban shortcut along Brodie Lane and Slaughter, then head north on MoPac.

NORTH ON MOPAC: What you need to know about MoPac’s new northbound toll lane

But because of the two lawsuits, the timing on the two projects has been reversed from the original intention. It appears now that the tollway will finish something like six months before the underpass project, assuming the latter isn’t further delayed in the courts. The traffic that Texas 45 Southwest will feed into MoPac could create a fairly epic stackup at La Crosse in the morning and Slaughter homeward bound in the afternoon, at least for a few months.

Or maybe more than a few months, depending on how the lawsuit goes. And, given what happened on North MoPac over the past four years, the construction.

These are all really great projects. It'll be annoying if they are delayed any further.

[Jdawgboy]

Originally Posted by brando

Construction on MoPac is about to begin.
Wait … what? Isn’t it finally about to end?



These are all really great projects. It'll be annoying if they are delayed any further.

There is something to be said about protecting what little that there is left along Barton Creek. Texas has a less than mediocre track record of taking care of the environment. We are already seeing Barton Creek dry for most of the year. Back in the 80s and 90s, you could go down to the Greenbelt in mid summer and water would be flowing. The more impervious cover the more rapid water runoff goes into the creek scraping it clear of its capabilities in holding water year around.

The issue is how little TxDot does to protect the environment. They don't spend the money or go that extra step to help reduce water runoff. In all honesty, this could be a great opportunity for them to work with the Ladybird Johnson National Wildflower Center which is right there in creating ways to move and store water runoff where it can be filtered slowly into the ground by native species rain garden ponds, but of course they won't. TxDot doesn't even care.

Reality is they could just as easily build MoPac overpasses at Slaughter and the other intersection which would negate the need to dig under and paving over the ground but they won't because they can't take the effort to spend just a little extra money to do it. I would even say that it would actually be cheaper than to dig under.

[brando]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

There is something to be said about protecting what little that there is left along Barton Creek. Texas has a less than mediocre track record of taking care of the environment. We are already seeing Barton Creek dry for most of the year. Back in the 80s and 90s, you could go down to the Greenbelt in mid summer and water would be flowing. The more impervious cover the more rapid water runoff goes into the creek scraping it clear of its capabilities in holding water year around.

The issue is how little TxDot does to protect the environment. They don't spend the money or go that extra step to help reduce water runoff. In all honesty, this could be a great opportunity for them to work with the Ladybird Johnson National Wildflower Center which is right there in creating ways to move and store water runoff where it can be filtered slowly into the ground by native species rain garden ponds, but of course they won't. TxDot doesn't even care.

Do you believe these proposed projects will make the situation worse? There are certain realities that you have to find a solution for. The congestion in the area is rising and steps have to be taken in order to limit what will continue to transit problems for the area. We have to find ways in order to prevent cars from getting stuck and allowing people to be able to access parts of the city that we spend money on serving.

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

Reality is they could just as easily build MoPac overpasses at Slaughter and the other intersection which would negate the need to dig under and paving over the ground but they won't because they can't take the effort to spend just a little extra money to do it. I would even say that it would actually be cheaper than to dig under.

This is not the issue. Both an overpass and underpass requires the construction of mainlanes where you now find greenspace. Also, they are not saving money doing an underpass. It's a serous engineering undertaking and there is no way it's cheaper than just building a highway overpass over slaughter. It's not about doing it the cheapest way possible. It's about doing it that best prepares for future congestion.


The push in southwest Austin is to connect 45 from I-35 south of Slaughter to west Austin. You'll be removing cars from the south Austin cross streets, I-35, 71 and South Mopac by building that avenue so people coming from south of Austin can go west before getting to the city. Loops work and there has to be a way to build these projects in a way that can satisfy environmental concerns.

The current project will connect south mopac to just west of I-35. It's unfortunate that it won't connect perfectly to the existing southeast 45 segment but there are other environmental concerns that couldn't be addressed with this segment.

The goal is to continue 45 though B-Cave to connect it to its northwest section.

[We vs us]

Originally Posted by brando

The current project will connect south mopac to just west of I-35. It's unfortunate that it won't connect perfectly to the existing southeast 45 segment but there are other environmental concerns that couldn't be addressed with this segment.

The goal is to continue 45 though B-Cave to connect it to its northwest section.

Those were the two biggest questions I had about the project . . . why no connection outright to I-35, and what the end goal is. I like it already if it finds a way to connect the south end of Mopac back into the highway network, even better if it's a first step towards bringing a southern cross town option to Dripping, Bee Caves, Lakeway, etc.

[drummer]

Originally Posted by We vs us

Those were the two biggest questions I had about the project . . . why no connection outright to I-35, and what the end goal is. I like it already if it finds a way to connect the south end of Mopac back into the highway network, even better if it's a first step towards bringing a southern cross town option to Dripping, Bee Caves, Lakeway, etc.

The was a loop proposal by Lakeway, if I remember correctly. You can find an image online showing the route. It would have connected 45N to 45S via connections with 71, 290, Mopac, and I-35, using 45 and 130 to make a continuous loop around the metro area.

[lzppjb]

I like that idea Lakeway was pushing a couple years ago where they connect 620 to 45 making an outer loop around Austin.

[brando]

Originally Posted by We vs us

Those were the two biggest questions I had about the project . . . why no connection outright to I-35, and what the end goal is. I like it already if it finds a way to connect the south end of Mopac back into the highway network, even better if it's a first step towards bringing a southern cross town option to Dripping, Bee Caves, Lakeway, etc.

I think they knew connecting the current 45SW to I-35 was going to be a challenge financially and with the environmental groups so they split it in 2 parts. I think the priority was to get a connection from the current Texas 45 segment to 35 which is why it only goes until it hits FM 1626 which is accessible from 35.

Campo has the design of the missing segment in their plans but not the actual highway. I'm sure they just want to get this segment done before doing or saying anything that might another court case thrown at it.

[Novacek]

There's a lot of noise on twitter this morning about new (potential) Project Connect maps.

I haven't seen them posted anywhere official yet, but fwiw

https://twitter.com/steboknapp/statu...54409682931712

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DMYcZHZUMAAUAb7.jpg:large

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Novacek

There's a lot of noise on twitter this morning about new (potential) Project Connect maps.

I haven't seen them posted anywhere official yet, but fwiw

https://twitter.com/steboknapp/statu...54409682931712

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DMYcZHZUMAAUAb7.jpg:large

The presentation is now online

https://www.documentcloud.org/docume...pt-Oct-17.html

[atxsnail]

CAMPO going to spend $500k to study the MoKan corridor. I'm always confused about the relationship between CAMPO, CapMetro, Austin, and other localities. Phase 1 of Project Connect already passed over MoKan for consideration for the next phase. If this CAMPO study comes back favorably for some kind of investment, what happens then? Does this compete for the same pot of money as Project Connect? Would there be competing bond elections?

CAMPO greenlights MoKan study

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by atxsnail

CAMPO going to spend $500k to study the MoKan corridor. I'm always confused about the relationship between CAMPO, CapMetro, Austin, and other localities. Phase 1 of Project Connect already passed over MoKan for consideration for the next phase. If this CAMPO study comes back favorably for some kind of investment, what happens then? Does this compete for the same pot of money as Project Connect? Would there be competing bond elections?

CAMPO greenlights MoKan study

Most likely the Campo study is going to greenlight it for a road, not transit.

That seemed to be TxDot's claimed requirement.

http://www.mystatesman.com/news/tran...dfMihyYqQ0KeJ/

[masonh2479]

Is the metro rail green line dead? IIFC it would link downtown to the airport, which is obviously needed. Every cool transit idea seems to always get rejected by the officials. The city officials need to step up their game, what are they waiting for? Ground transportation is and will always be our Achilles heel until something drastic is done. I found this link to the green line from 2016, makes me think the plans were scrapped... http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=245019

[brando]

Originally Posted by masonh2479

Is the metro rail green line dead? IIFC it would link downtown to the airport, which is obviously needed. Every cool transit idea seems to always get rejected by the officials. The city officials need to step up their game, what are they waiting for? Ground transportation is and will always be our Achilles heel until something drastic is done. I found this link to the green line from 2016, makes me think the plans were scrapped... http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=245019

The Green line is very much alive. It's 1 of 3 "commuter" corridors that are currently being researched. I believe possible action could come next spring after the current study is finished.

The Green line does not go the the airport. It starts at the downtown station, shares the same line/stops as the red line but keeps going east when the red line goes north. It passes 183 and then cuts north past MLK, Loyola and heads east to Manor and Eldgin before it gets to 290. Austin state democrats tried to get the line funded in the Texas Ledge but the house and senate bills didn't move out of committee.

They do have a plan for an airport line that shares the same path/rail as the Green Line but it heads to the airport when the green line goes North. I think it currently cuts through rural private property.


Light rail is no longer the "official" option for getting to the airport however that can easily change since the current airport line is not in the next phase of development. We don't need a connection to the airport until we have a 2nd terminal which would require a dramatic increase in airport employees.

I think what could change this is if Amazon moves to Riverside. That could reignite the light rail line down that corridor and maybe push the 1st phase of rail to connect to the Airport. It might make a connection via that rail line to make more sense since you would know that a portion of air passengers would actually be using that line if Amazon has some kind of guarantee on the number of flights they would be utilizing daily.


Phase 1:




All identified corridors (includes hard rail Airport line)

[masonh2479]

Originally Posted by brando

The Green line is very much alive. It's 1 of 3 "commuter" corridors that are currently being researched. I believe possible action could come next spring after the current study is finished.

The Green line does not go the the airport. It starts at the downtown station, shares the same line/stops as the red line but keeps going east when the red line goes north. It passes 183 and then cuts north past MLK, Loyola and heads east to Manor and Eldgin before it gets to 290. Austin state democrats tried to get the line funded in the Texas Ledge but the house and senate bills didn't move out of committee.

They do have a plan for an airport line that shares the same path/rail as the Green Line but it heads to the airport when the green line goes North. I think it currently cuts through rural private property.


Light rail is no longer the "official" option for getting to the airport however that can easily change since the current airport line is not in the next phase of development. We don't need a connection to the airport until we have a 2nd terminal which would require a dramatic increase in airport employees.

I think what could change this is if Amazon moves to Riverside. That could reignite the light rail line down that corridor and maybe push the 1st phase of rail to connect to the Airport. It might make a connection via that rail line to make more sense since you would know that a portion of air passengers would actually be using that line if Amazon has some kind of guarantee on the number of flights they would be utilizing daily.

It would be nice ti eventually have a light rail connection from downtown to the airport. The new transportation method of the future is getting picked up and carried to your destination by an Amazon drone!