HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #4801  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2016, 9:02 PM
nixcity's Avatar
nixcity nixcity is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Austin, TX.
Posts: 768
Quote:
NO THEY DIDN'T


Good god, they even explicitly said so. The only thing that went into laying out that route was connecting population density clusters. They didn't even look at employment (they computed that afterwards). Commuting data wasn't even an input to the process.


https://mobilityatx.com/reports/findings.pdf
page 27

http://communityimpact.com/2015/12/0...rail-planning/

"Civic Analytics worked with the CACDC to create a new light rail route using 2010 Census blocks. The groups plotted the densest areas and connected the dots using major arterials."
Idk why you continue to argue after saying you would vote for a G/L alignment, you have serious insecurity issues and free time to boot. Yes, that was how they started but at least the CDC (its in the link I posted) used the Travel Demand Model Origin Destination Trips which just confirmed that by "childishly" (as you put it) connecting major density areas it also correlated to heavily used routes.

Quote:
There is no chance in heaven or in hell that brand new, 4 story VMU buildings will be torn down and "become 8-10 stories". So any existing VMU building is "baked in", it's already counting to population and employment numbers and it won't be changing.

Neither will the neighborhoods allow 10 story buildings along those corridors. They don't want anything "looming over them" or "staring into their backyards".
The areas will be upzoned and those buildings that would have been ~4 stories will now be 7-10 stories rather than maxing out at 6 as currently is happening. They are starting 2 new ones on Lamar now, and they will CONTINUE to demo the low density rubbish that is there now to even higher than before densities with less parking.

Quote:
Why do you persist in making these claims that are completely contrary to actual facts?

In the critical 1/2 mile radius around the PV/WC intersection, over 50% of the land is the Williamson Creek Greenbelt, the Kizer Golf Course, the Onion Creek Soccer fields, or Onion Creek Park.

Most of the rest is existing single family housing. Or a church. There's almost no commercial. There's no place for any additional construction to go.

That construction you keep pointing to is 3-5 miles away.


Where are you going to put a park and ride? You can't put it in the floodplain.

http://austintexas.gov/page/floodpro
I actually go there and I don't care if it is within the half mile or not, all those people would have access and there is plenty of room for a park and ride.
Your arguing there was more space on the 2014 route is laughable, yeah, the state is going to allow us to demo all those beautiful parking garages. So that leaves you with just 2 spots. Just admit that the best hope for quality rail is G/L.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4802  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2016, 10:15 PM
Novacek Novacek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by nixcity View Post
Yes, that was how they started but at least the CDC (its in the link I posted) used the Travel Demand Model Origin Destination Trips which just confirmed that by "childishly" (as you put it) connecting major density areas it also correlated to heavily used routes.
Which link?

This one: http://centralaustincdc.org/transpor...light_rail.htm

The one that shows the slide they stole from Project Connect ("Travel Demand Model 2035 Origin Destination Trips Regional") ? The one that shows minimal travel demand from PV/WC? The one that has only a light, very narrow purple line between 35 and 183 sw of the airport?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4803  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2016, 10:24 PM
Novacek Novacek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by nixcity View Post
Your arguing there was more space on the 2014 route is laughable, yeah, the state is going to allow us to demo all those beautiful parking garages.
The redevelopment of land used unproductively by the state for garages has been on the horizon for a long time.

Yes, it's taking a while, but the idea that they're "beautiful" and need to be saved is what's laughable.

(I think I accidentally said Red River before, but they're actually on Trinity).

http://www.statesman.com/business/ne...or-678225.html

http://www.tfc.state.tx.us/divisions...n_PROPOSED.pdf
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4804  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2016, 10:58 PM
nixcity's Avatar
nixcity nixcity is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Austin, TX.
Posts: 768
^The link shows they will be ADDING a net addition of 800 new parking spaces. Although basically all that land is reachable by both the 2014 and 2016 routes....
Since I'm sure everyone has tuned this out anyway I will decide not even to read any more comments; because lets be clear, you are arguing for a plan that had its chance and failed miserably.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4805  
Old Posted Jan 19, 2016, 11:19 PM
Novacek Novacek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by nixcity View Post
^The link shows they will be ADDING a net addition of 800 new parking spaces. Although basically all that land is reachable by both the 2014 and 2016 routes....
Since I'm sure everyone has tuned this out anyway I will decide not even to read any more comments; because lets be clear, you are arguing for a plan that had its chance and failed miserably.
No, I'm arguing for professionals choosing a route based on sound science, not amateurs picking dots off a map.

I'm arguing for doing that investigation _before_ enshrining the route in law and passing a hundred million dollars in bonds.

I'm arguing for examining where transit demand is now, and in the future, not just defaulting to where we thought demand was 20 years ago.


Those sorts of principles lead to the 2014 proposal, but could lead to others. Even (to repeat myself) a G/L routing if soundly based.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4806  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2016, 2:07 PM
Novacek Novacek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,506
To fully finish beating this dead horse, CapMetro agrees with the mayor, there's no chance of a rail vote this year, and trying to pass a bond before doing any planning is ludicrous (my paraphrasing)

http://www.austinmonitor.com/stories/2016/01/29617/


A few other details as well. South Austin continues to get screwed by receiving a new park and ride.

It also mentions some progress towards interlocal agreements with some of the non-CapMetro municipalities, but no real details.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4807  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2016, 11:14 PM
Jdawgboy's Avatar
Jdawgboy Jdawgboy is offline
Representing the ATX!!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin
Posts: 5,732
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novacek View Post
No, they cut the length of a northern route as well.


Night Owl Cameron used to run as far north as Braker Lane.

https://nlct.wordpress.com/2012/04/0...mar-night-owl/

In fact, they technically cut an entire line north of the river.

http://capmetroblog.com/2012/08/15/i...rvice-changes/




The South didn't get shafted any more than the North.

All 3 of the south Night Owl's saw a doubling of frequency. The south has 3/5 of the night owls. More than half!



Then quit making claims that are blatantly false and easily disproved.
Since my last reply was taken off I'll reply again a little more politely.

First off I know what I'm talking about okay. You are coming off as a troll big time. Secondly, whether it's north or south it doesn't matter. If the route is heavily used it shouldn't be cut back period.

I know the southside very well and I know that there are a lot of areas that are either underserved or not served at all. Its not right for people who have no other means of transportation to have to walk 3/4 of a mile or more to get to the nearest bus stop.
__________________
"GOOD TIMES!!!" Jerri Blank (Strangers With Candy)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4808  
Old Posted Jan 20, 2016, 11:19 PM
Jdawgboy's Avatar
Jdawgboy Jdawgboy is offline
Representing the ATX!!!
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Austin
Posts: 5,732
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novacek View Post
A few other details as well. South Austin continues to get screwed by receiving a new park and ride.
And how does that help people who have no cars???
__________________
"GOOD TIMES!!!" Jerri Blank (Strangers With Candy)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4809  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2016, 10:05 AM
drummer drummer is offline
World Traveler
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Austin metro area
Posts: 4,468
Quote:
RR 620 proposal may include elevated roadway from RR 2222 to US 183

Travelers along RR 620—from US 183 to Hwy. 71—may one day get a break from the traffic plaguing Travis County’s western corridor.

The Texas Department of Transportation proposed an elevated roadway above RR 620 from RR 2222 to US 183 as a possible long-term solution to the area's congestion.The Texas Department of Transportation proposed an elevated roadway above RR 620 from RR 2222 to US 183 as a possible long-term solution to the area’s congestion.

The Texas Department of Transportation is proposing various long-term and mid-term improvements on an 18.8-mile stretch of the roadway:

• Adding an elevated 4-lane road above RR 620 from RR 2222 to US 183 (long-term);
• Widening RR 620 to 6 lanes from Quinlan Park Road/Steiner Ranch to US 183 and adding a median (mid-term);
• Adding a median on RR 620 and maintaining 4 traffic lanes from the Colorado River Bridge to Quinlan Park Road (mid-term);
• Adding a median on RR 620 from the Colorado River Bridge to Hwy. 71; and
• Widening RR 620 to 6 lanes from Lakeway Boulevard to Hwy. 71.
http://communityimpact.com/austin/ne...222-to-us-183/
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4810  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2016, 2:01 PM
Novacek Novacek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jdawgboy View Post
Since my last reply was taken off I'll reply again a little more politely.

First off I know what I'm talking about okay. You are coming off as a troll big time. Secondly, whether it's north or south it doesn't matter. If the route is heavily used it shouldn't be cut back period.

I know the southside very well and I know that there are a lot of areas that are either underserved or not served at all. Its not right for people who have no other means of transportation to have to walk 3/4 of a mile or more to get to the nearest bus stop.
That's a _completely_ different subject.

What you were asserting, and I was responding to, is that the south is getting "shafted" in preference to the north.

It's not. In many ways, it gets disproportionately _more_ service than the north.


Are there areas that don't see service. Absolutely. North and South. It's impossible to provide service comprehensively to every single square mile of CapMetro's thousand-some square mile service area. That's true for every transit service in the country.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4811  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2016, 5:42 PM
Tech House Tech House is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 726
Quote:
Originally Posted by drummer View Post
Wow, that's big news but kind of expected at the same time, since the current situation is untenable and destined to continually deteriorate. Of course that stretch of road is technically in the sacred Hill Country, isn't it? And, thus, can we not anticipate an enormous outcry that construction of a freeway will lead to the inevitable collapse of earth's biosphere? Time to get some popcorn.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4812  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2016, 6:28 PM
Novacek Novacek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tech House View Post
Wow, that's big news but kind of expected at the same time, since the current situation is untenable and destined to continually deteriorate. Of course that stretch of road is technically in the sacred Hill Country, isn't it? And, thus, can we not anticipate an enormous outcry that construction of a freeway will lead to the inevitable collapse of earth's biosphere? Time to get some popcorn.
When all they really need to do is keep asking "how is it being paid for"?


For the 9 mile section south of the dam, the estimated cost is $73M (not including any needed RoW).
That's adding 1 lane each way (up to 6) for 4 miles. And adding a median for the rest.

We don't know the price tag for elevating 6 miles. Or the rest of the Austin improvements.

http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot...esentation.pdf



I think for the Austin environmentalists to kill it, all they need to do is _not_ propose hundreds of million$ in bonds for it.



Unless TxDot says they'll pay for the whole thing, but I kind of doubt that.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4813  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2016, 7:50 PM
Tech House Tech House is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 726
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novacek View Post
According to their survey of over 2,000 area residents, fully one percent favor elevating the roadway ---- a veritable mandate!
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4814  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2016, 10:40 PM
DoubleC's Avatar
DoubleC DoubleC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 309
*start rant*

Wow, a freeway upgrade that doesn't involve tolls. Haven't had one of those in a while. Don't you think it's unfair that the West gets a non-rolled project while East Austin with all the working class families gets stuck with tolled 290, 183, and 71?...! My guess is that it's "one of those projects" that gets the money not to be used on tolls.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4815  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2016, 10:57 PM
Novacek Novacek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoubleC View Post
*start rant*

Wow, a freeway upgrade that doesn't involve tolls.

What freeway?

1) It's just a list of possibilities listed by TxDot. They don't even make specific suggestions.

2) They haven't identified funding for _anything_ yet.

3) Even if the section by lakeway gets built, it won't be a freeway. It's a median and maybe 2 more lanes. It'll still have lights, intersections, and driveways.


If additional lanes is your thing, 183 E is getting additional free lanes (with intersections).
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4816  
Old Posted Jan 21, 2016, 11:12 PM
wwmiv wwmiv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio -> Chicago -> Austin -> Denver
Posts: 5,269
The elevated lanes aren't gonna end up happening, you can already kiss that idea goodbye.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4817  
Old Posted Jan 22, 2016, 2:34 AM
smith_atx smith_atx is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Chattanooga
Posts: 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novacek View Post
What freeway?

1) It's just a list of possibilities listed by TxDot. They don't even make specific suggestions.

2) They haven't identified funding for _anything_ yet.

3) Even if the section by lakeway gets built, it won't be a freeway. It's a median and maybe 2 more lanes. It'll still have lights, intersections, and driveways.


If additional lanes is your thing, 183 E is getting additional free lanes (with intersections).
Also, the eventual lane additions on 183 from Mopac to the north will be tolled.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4818  
Old Posted Jan 22, 2016, 4:40 AM
urbancore urbancore is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Zilker
Posts: 1,508
http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news...ustin-m/np82m/

Maybe this will lighten up this thread for a minute......mmmmmm, probably not.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4819  
Old Posted Jan 23, 2016, 4:15 AM
Tech House Tech House is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 726
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dcbrickley View Post
http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news...ustin-m/np82m/

Maybe this will lighten up this thread for a minute......mmmmmm, probably not.
That map is remarkably accurate for the time when it was made. Of course things have moved around a bit, especially north and south Mexico (which have moved much farther north and south to make way for hipsterville), but other zones are spot on. In fact, all the practical gay's I've known live, or lived, in the practical gays zone (north Crestwood), and their division of the various hippie zones is perfect. These types of maps are usually pretty stupid but this one is decent. And the more people it offends, the better.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4820  
Old Posted Jan 23, 2016, 4:16 AM
Tech House Tech House is offline
Honored Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 726
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dcbrickley View Post
http://www.mystatesman.com/news/news...ustin-m/np82m/

Maybe this will lighten up this thread for a minute......mmmmmm, probably not.
That map is remarkably accurate for the time when it was made. Of course things have moved around a bit, especially north and south Mexico (which have moved much farther north and south to make way for hipsterville), but other zones are spot on. Their division of the various hippie zones is perfect. These types of maps are usually pretty stupid but this one is decent. And the more people it offends, the better.
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 8:50 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.