AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by nixcity

Again, around 25 stops would be north of the river and around 15 to the south. Don't make stuff up that you know is not true. JDAWG is just pointing out that a plan that does not include the south (and their plan did a good job of that) will miss a lot of important voters on the south side. Full build out has around 2/3 of infrastructure being in the north not the south as you insist.

What are you talking about?

That proposed system had the initial light rail line fairly evenly split.

Then it had _two_ expansion light rail lines in the south. And none in the north.

That's ~2/3 in the SOUTH

And what are you talking about 25 stations? You're not going to have 25 light rail stations over the 8 miles of route that map has north of the river.

Originally Posted by nixcity

Also, the WC and PV terminus makes much more sense now that I have seen the huge PUD plan the city has for Pilot Knob.

Compare that against the 4-5 PUDs already planned for the north.

Pilot Knob is low density.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Pilot Knob is low density.

The only high density part (the town center) is about as far away from WC/PV as you can get in the tract (it's way on the other side by 183). It's about a 5 mile drive away from that proposed terminus.

http://www.virtualbx.com/constructio...-planning.html

[nixcity]

That's ~2/3 in the SOUTH

They put extra attention for the south side specifically because all that is planned for now basically doesn't serve the south, 3 stops for Lonestar is not enough. So 2/3 of the stops (yes around 25 in the north, when LR and commuter rail stops are combined) would STILL be north of the river. Thanks to the recent contributions of the blue and purple lines the south side would end up having around 15 stops (LR and CR together).

The only high density part (the town center) is about as far away from WC/PV as you can get in the tract (it's way on the other side by 183). It's about a 5 mile drive away from that proposed terminus.

http://www.virtualbx.com/constructio...-planning.html

As the link you provided shows this area will have more than 14,000 residential units. More than 20,000 new people would be within 2-3 miles (not 5) of a park and ride.
I can think of 3 PUDs for the north side off the top of my head. The Grove at Shoal Creek is a great project in which I'd really like to live, but as far as I can see adds 1,700 residential units. Austin Oaks I think is only like 600 residential units. Both of those will be much denser which makes sense seeing as how close they are into the center. They will also both be served by at lease one rail line and the other PUD way farther north that I am aware of will be served by Lonestar. I believe that one is more along the scale of Pilot Knob.

[Jdawgboy]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Who's saying ignore? Any system definitely should cross the river. That was one of the good points of the last proposal.

But the infrastructure investment should be somewhat proportional to population and need. Again, don't put 2/3 of the infrastructure where a minority (and shrinking) of the population is.



And that massive growth is still _less_ than the growth that the north is experiencing.

Williamson is projected to possibly overtake Travis's population within a few decades. Hays isn't projected anywhere close anytime soon.



Again, no problem including the south in the rail system. Just don't put a disproportionate part of the system there, when the population and need are overwhelmingly to the north.


Again, I'm not proposing that.


Not all that growth in Hays you were pointing to. There's almost no Austin city limits in Hays. And dripping springs stole much of Austin's ETJ.

If you look at the map of Austin's taxpayers, the majority is north of the river. So any city-developed system _should_ weigh northward (while still serving the south).
Any possible CapMetro developed system would be _even more_ proportionately northward. All of the CapMetro paying suburbs are north (or at least NE like Manor).

Hold up, not sure where you get the idea that the population south of the river is shrinking it is most certainly not.

The growth of the metro has shifted south of the river. It is clearly evident when looking at how fast Hays County is growing. Williamson is still growing but not at the rate Hays is. I would not say proportionally that the population is shrinking. It won't be as high as north but I'd say it's percentage of the overall metropolitan area is holding it's own.

The only reason why Williamson will be bigger is because it is already bigger but Hays is the fastest growing in the region and and unless you have been in South Austin the last few months to see the kind of construction going on then I suggest you come check it out. Even my neighborhood which has been around for over 50 years is filled with new construction. Soon the property right next door to my house will probably be a multi-housing development. There is one currently under construction one block over.

Believe me the population on this side is booming and it's booming like I have never seen it boom before and I've lived in the same neighborhood my whole life.

Instead of treating the south like some sort of stepsister, they need to focus effort in building a good mass transit system on this side as well as north.

As far as Williamson County is concerned, unless those suburbs start pitching in taxes to Cap Metro then they are on their own. I know a couple do but I don't think RR does.

[wwmiv]

All of what y'all are bringing to the table is conjecture and personal observation (whose use is rife with logical fallacies). Why don't we step back and look at the bigger picture and bring some actual data to the table?

There are three ways we can do this. We can look at the whole five county area, the three core counties, or directly compare Hays and Williamson. I'll go through each of these in turn and explain what they're telling us and what drawbacks to analysis we have in each group for the question being posed (e.g. which side of the river is growing faster?).

First, let's look at the whole MSA from 1980 forward:

Travis has gone from being 72% of the MSA to 59% of the MSA in 2014. That's a massive fall, but is broadly in line with what has happened in development patterns for most cities since the 1980s: a major increase suburbanization. Williamson, on the other hand, has gone from being 13% of the MSA to 25% on account of more than 200% growth. Hays, otoh, even though it's had significantly faster percentage growth between 1980 and 2014, has not kept pace: it was 7% of the metro and is now 10%. That's nice, but nowhere near as impressive as Williamson overall. In fact, even over the last four years, Williamson increased its percent of the entire metro area at a faster rate than did Hays (Williamson is .55% more of the metro area in 2014 than in 2010, whereas Hays is .37% more 2014 over 2010). Bastrop has remained steady at between 4% and 5% of the MSA at each census and the current estimate, whereas Caldwell has relatively shrunk from 4% to 2% even while growing at a 200% rate over the last 34 years.

What does this tell us? It tells us that both Hays and Williamson have grown remarkably in relative power while the rest of the metro has stagnated. That's probably simply a function of geography: there was more easily developable land (terrain, transportation, and cost) in Williamson than in every other country in the metro area combined. In fact, there's /still/ more easily developable land in Williamson than the rest of the metro area combined. Half of Hays and Travis counties are development unfriendly because of terrain (think of terrain not only as inhibiting development directly, but also indirectly through its negative effect on transportation infrastructure since a lack of transportation infrastructure also negative affects development), which doesn't bode well for the future in relative terms (in absolute terms it'll still grow amazingly, of course).

Because Caldwell and Bastrop are relatively disconnected from the rest of the metro area and are likely to stay that way for the foreseeable future, let's strip them out of the equation and focus on the three core counties now. Travis in 1980 was 78% of the population but is currently 63%. Yet again, indicative of shifts to the suburban area. The greatest rate of decline actually occurred between 2000 to 2010, a period we think of rightly as having massive densification in the core, when the % shifted from 70% to 64%. Williamson, yet again, outshines Hays in every metric except percentage growth over the last four years (and even then Hays only grew 2.01% faster than Williamson, which doesn't make up for the historic growth rate disparity between the two counties). Even despite the faster marginal growth rate, over the last four years, Hays went from being 10% of the core county population to... 10% of the core county population... whereas Williamson went from 26% to 27% because its absolute growth rate was more impressive and essentially swamped Hays's.

And if we just limit it to Hays and Williamson, Williamson has gone from being 65% of that population to 73% of that population. Williamson's growth is way more impressive and is likely to continue to more impressive in the future as well even though Hays is catching up.

[drummer]

When I last lived in Austin, it was pretty clear to me that Williamson County was growing much faster than Hays - not to say at all that Hays' growth is insignificant. It just seems (to my unprofessional eye with regard to these things) that the metro is growing to the north more than to the south - but it's still growing to the south. It seems to me that it's growing in every direction.

Concerning Caldwell County - has the population shrunk or did its percentage of the metro alone shrink because it wasn't growing as rapidly as everywhere else? Does anyone know which direction San Marcos is growing? Is it N/S or is it going East at all? It seems to me that Caldwell County's growth may come with future growth around the airport as we've discussed previously, but I suspect it wouldn't extend much south of Lockhart.

Another thought - I read an article a while back talking of the potential growth up the 71 corridor (Bee Cave, Lake Travis, Spicewood, and up to Marble Falls). I can't recall where it was and I couldn't find it in a quick search, but it was one of the local papers. They were saying Spicewood would grow like crazy over the next few decades. It may (will) be less significant than the growth connecting the Austin area down to San Marcos or up to the Temple/Killeen area, but it's still interesting to consider as it will impact other areas due to commuters.

Since a lot of folks on here are speculating anyway, would it be wise to bring at least the southern portion of Burnet County into the discussion on future transportation needs? It's a part of CAMPO now anyway. The northern parts of Burnet County aren't going to see much growth probably, unless the growth in Williamson County continues west (I see it going more north and east over time largely for the terrain reasons the wwmiv mentioned, personally, but I could be wrong). My main concern is that, should this growth occur in southern Burnet County, how would 71 into the Y handle the incoming traffic? They don't seem to have any plans of upgrading 71 in the future beyond the Y intersection with 290 so far as I've seen (or 290 out to Dripping Springs for that matter). Just externally processing.

[lzppjb]

My GGGG-Grandfather and GGG-Grandfather signed the petition to create Caldwell County. Just a tidbit of trivia for y'all.

As for Burnet County speculation, what if Texas finally gets US 281 switched to a much needed N-S Interstate. We were discussing that a page or two back. An interstate straight through the heart of Burnet County, connecting Burnet and Marble Falls to Johnson City and Blanco near US 290.

Get that speculated I-10N through South Austin, and maybe that'd be enough to pull Blanco County into the MSA.

And think about Lampasas. They will eventually have Interstate 69, which is replacing US 190. And they also have US 281 (which hypothetically could be an interstate). US 183 also connects Lampasas to Austin.

The Hill Country west of Austin could really start growing if the interstates come.

[lzppjb]

As an aside, what are considered our MSA's central counties when calculating the employment interchange measure (workforce commuting)?

Is it just Travis? Is it Travis and Williamson? Or something else?

Definition from census.gov:

Metropolitan Statistical Areas are CBSAs associated with at least one urbanized area that has a population of at least 50,000. The metropolitan statistical area comprises the central county or counties or equivalent entities containing the core, plus adjacent outlying counties having a high degree of social and economic integration with the central county or counties as measured through commuting.

EDIT

Ok. I found it listed here: https://www.census.gov/population/me...2013/List1.xls

It's Travis, Williamson and Hays. Bastrop and Caldwell are outlying counties.

[drummer]

Originally Posted by lzppjb

My GGGG-Grandfather and GGG-Grandfather signed the petition to create Caldwell County. Just a tidbit of trivia for y'all.

As for Burnet County speculation, what if Texas finally gets US 281 switched to a much needed N-S Interstate. We were discussing that a page or two back. An interstate straight through the heart of Burnet County, connecting Burnet and Marble Falls to Johnson City and Blanco near US 290.

Get that speculated I-10N through South Austin, and maybe that'd be enough to pull Blanco County into the MSA.

And think about Lampasas. They will eventually have Interstate 69, which is replacing US 190. And they also have US 281 (which hypothetically could be an interstate). US 183 also connects Lampasas to Austin.

The Hill Country west of Austin could really start growing if the interstates come.

I'm not sure how much of a fan I am of an interstate going through there, but it might happen - years and years down the road. I wouldn't be opposed to connected areas that are already developing to the city cores, but another interstate would just encourage more sprawl in my opinion - and over some beautiful areas that do better to be left natural and untouched (or less touched than they are already).

Lampasas isn't getting I-69; they're getting the proposed I-14 through Killeen, College Station, etc. I-69 will eventually go from Texarkana down through East Texas (through Nacogdoches and Lufkin, etc.) to Houston and then down to Victoria, where it will split into I-69E and I-69W. I-69E will travel down US77 to Harlingen and Brownsville (meeting up with I-2), while I-69W will travel to Laredo with a split somewhere near I-37 to travel down to McAllen down the US281 corridor. I'm confusing myself, haha.

When I consider an interstate along the US281 corridor outside of San Antonio, I could see some benefit for it, but again it might not be necessary if trains are better implemented for both passengers and freight in the future. It could travel up from San Antonio, paralleling I-35 and go straight up to Wichita Falls, where would connect with I-44 from Oklahoma City. It would connect to I-14 in Lampasas and I-20 just west of Fort Worth. If there were ever an I-10N traveling along the US290 corridor west of Austin, it'd connect there as well. I know there have been rumors of an interstate from Fort Worth to Wichita Falls, onto Amarillo and then to I-25 on the New Mexico/Colorado border, but I don't think it's anything beyond rumor at this time.

All of that just sounds like it would be detrimental to greater urban development and less sprawl throughout the state. I don't think these are merited right now, but even if they were, I'd have to wonder if it'd be helpful or harmful in the long run.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by lzppjb

And think about Lampasas. They will eventually have Interstate 69, which is replacing US 190. And they also have US 281 (which hypothetically could be an interstate). US 183 also connects Lampasas to Austin.

Interstate 69 is not going to go anywhere near Lampasas dude. It's a route from Houston to the RGV via Victoria with an E/W section between Victoria and the two major MSAs of the valley (McAllen-Edinburg and Brownsville-Harlingen) via US-59 and then US-281 and US-77 corridors once south of I-37.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_69_in_Texas

[wwmiv]

US-281 will never be upgraded to interstate. There's no economic connective benefit of such an interstate. Where does 281 go that you can't already get to via I-35? Traffic relief is not a reason to build an entirely new parallel interstate within reasonable distance, it's a reason to expand the existing interstate. And they're going that route.

The only* interstate expansion in Texas that I really think is an eventuality is I-29 from Lubbock to Houston via Austin and Abilene (which also has the benefit of essentially connecting Lubbock to Dallas). I also wouldn't be surprised to eventually see a northerly extension of I-29 from Amarillo to Raton in New Mexico to provide a direct route from the all of the major Texas cities to Denver. The economic benefit that would come with that would be significant in a huge swath of the country because of those direct trucking connections taking /days/ off of trucker commutes and would go right thru areas of the country that are /huge/ croplands and heavy energy extraction area thus easing the transportation burdens from these area to heavily energy dependent large city economies like Houston and San Antonio.

*other than the already in planning or execution stages of both I-69 from Texarkana to the RGV and I-14 (perhaps with spurs to Beaumont, Austin/Corpus) from Jasper to Fort Stockton via Fort Hood/Killeen and College Station.

http://www.interstate-guide.com/i-014.html

[lzppjb]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Interstate 69 is not going to go anywhere near Lampasas dude. It's a route from Houston to the RGV via Victoria with an E/W section between Victoria and the two major MSAs of the valley (McAllen-Edinburg and Brownsville-Harlingen) via US-59 and then US-281 and US-77 corridors once south of I-37.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_69_in_Texas

It was a mistake that was already pointed out. I got the numbers (69 and 14) mixed up. 14 is replacing 190 through that area. That's what I was getting at.

I know about I-69. I posted maps to both of these projects a week or two ago.

[drummer]

I-29 from Lubbock to Abilene and then Austin could work. That would add a lot of connectivity to a bunch of smaller towns in West Texas as well.

[drummer]

By the way, lzppjb, as a history buff, that's awesome about your GGGG-great(?) grandpa and Caldwell County. Very cool.

[wwmiv]

Sorry I-27, not I-29.

[_Matt]

Was this article on Lone Star Rail posted? Potentially in the works is a spur to ABIA (and Hutto and Taylor).

http://www.virtualbx.com/constructio...star-swap.html

[GoldenBoot]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Sorry I-27, not I-29.

Where do you see "Austin" in the I-27 plan?

As far as I can decipher, the southern expansion plan is to run south from Lubbock (via US-87), past I-20 (east of Midland-Odessa), through San Angelo, and south again via (US-277) to a termination point at I-10 near Sonora.

Thus, with a northern extension terminating at I-25 near Raton, one could use I-10 to I-27 to I-25 to get from Houston to Denver.

[drummer]

For me, I didn't see anything - just a pipe dream. Can't speak for wwmiv, but I don't think it'd be a terrible idea. Of course, if Austin had an interstate branch going west that connected with I-10, it would by default connect to an I-27 connection going that way anyway.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by GoldenBoot

Where do you see "Austin" in the I-27 plan?

As far as I can decipher, the southern expansion plan is to run south from Lubbock (via US-87), past I-20 (east of Midland-Odessa), through San Angelo, and south again via (US-277) to a termination point at I-10 near Sonora.

Thus, with a northern extension terminating at I-25 near Raton, one could use I-10 to I-27 to I-25 to get from Houston to Denver.

There aren't any actual current extension plans for I-27. It was just me noting how useful it would be if it were expanded hypothetical in this way.

[smt1]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

Hold up, not sure where you get the idea that the population south of the river is shrinking it is most certainly not.

The growth of the metro has shifted south of the river. It is clearly evident when looking at how fast Hays County is growing. Williamson is still growing but not at the rate Hays is. I would not say proportionally that the population is shrinking. It won't be as high as north but I'd say it's percentage of the overall metropolitan area is holding it's own.

The only reason why Williamson will be bigger is because it is already bigger but Hays is the fastest growing in the region and and unless you have been in South Austin the last few months to see the kind of construction going on then I suggest you come check it out. Even my neighborhood which has been around for over 50 years is filled with new construction. Soon the property right next door to my house will probably be a multi-housing development. There is one currently under construction one block over.

Believe me the population on this side is booming and it's booming like I have never seen it boom before and I've lived in the same neighborhood my whole life.

Instead of treating the south like some sort of stepsister, they need to focus effort in building a good mass transit system on this side as well as north.

As far as Williamson County is concerned, unless those suburbs start pitching in taxes to Cap Metro then they are on their own. I know a couple do but I don't think RR does.

Williamson County is only growing a smidgeon slower than Hays County. And it has a LOT more population. It's a much larger contributor to the growth of the Austin MSA than Hays County is, and unless existing trends change significantly, Williamson County will have a larger population than Travis County... eventually. It wasn't that long ago that Williamson County topped the fastest growing list of counties list as well: http://www.forbes.com/pictures/edgl4...-county-texas/


Doubt this trend is going to slow down anytime soon:
http://urbanscale.com/wp-content/upl...Region-Map.png


I think Cedar Park is more likely to rejoin Cap Metro than Round Rock is. Both places have had a influx of priced out Austinites who might be more friendly to public transport, but Cedar Park was significantly smaller/more rural than RR was 20 years ago, so they've probably absorbed more transplants. There's also a lot of CP residents who use the red line to commute into Austin via the Lakeline station, so more might see the utility of Cap Metro. They also border Leander, which not only is served by Cap Metro, but also (I'm guessing) will inevitably grow larger than Cedar Park because of space to spawl alone (hopefully the TOD-zoned land there will be developed in a more dense way).