AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[brando]

Originally Posted by KevinFromTexas

Red Bud Trail bridge plans.

ftp://ftp.ci.austin.tx.us/ATD_AULCC/...Lake_PLANS.pdf

Would love to see them build the bridge panned for the east side linking the north-south trails. You have to go to the Pleasent Valley longhorn dam bridge now.

[hereinaustin]

Originally Posted by brando

Would love to see them build the bridge panned for the east side linking the north-south trails. You have to go to the Pleasent Valley longhorn dam bridge now.

I agree a pedestrian bridge would be nice on the east side, but the link you quoted is actually in west Austin. :/

[jbssfelix]

"Mayor puts forth bond proposal"

• Will not fund the Bicycle Master Plan
• Has no impact on lane additions or anything related to 35
• Funds the already-studied corridor plans (Lamar north of 183, Burnet from Koenig to 183, Airport, Guad, MLK, Riverside)
• Improvements include: lane reconfiguration, bus priority (but not BRT-style dedicated lanes), protected bike lanes, new/improved sidewalks
• Cost: 800M (first 500M w/o property tax increase)

Thoughts?

[Speculator]

I think not funding the bike masterplan is moronic.

[H2O]

Originally Posted by jbssfelix

"Mayor puts forth bond proposal"

• Will not fund the Bicycle Master Plan
• Has no impact on lane additions or anything related to 35
• Funds the already-studied corridor plans (Lamar north of 183, Burnet from Koenig to 183, Airport, Guad, MLK, Riverside)
• Improvements include: lane reconfiguration, bus priority (but not BRT-style dedicated lanes), protected bike lanes, new/improved sidewalks
• Cost: 800M (first 500M w/o property tax increase)

Thoughts?

Does not FULLY fund the bike master plan - he is still proposing $20 M, and many of the corridors focused on contain bike master plan elements.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by H2O

Does not FULLY fund the bike master plan - he is still proposing $20 M, and many of the corridors focused on contain bike master plan elements.

$20M for bike lanes, and then some additional for urban trails (the list I saw said $50-100M for sidewalks and urban trails, I'm not sure of the split).

Plus those corridors were probably the most expensive parts of the bike plan (at least the Burnet/N Lamar ones called for separated cycletracks).

Plus the dangerous corridors and "pain point" areas will almost have to include bike elements, with Austin's current design patterns.

As a complete wild ass guess, maybe half the master plan?

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by jbssfelix

bus priority (but not BRT-style dedicated lanes

The Guadalupe corridor plan calls for dedicated bus lanes. As does the northern half of the Burnet plan.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by jbssfelix

Has no impact on lane additions or anything related to 35

Interesting addendum to this.

Watson had a quote indicating that they were somewhat tied, in that the city taking over corridor work might be considered "matching funds" for the state work on I35.

http://www.austinmonitor.com/stories...ong-arterials/

That's actually one of the sticking points on several of those corridors, the city can't actually do all those improvements because they're still state roads (Burnet north of 183 being FM 1325 for instance).

If they can actually pull that off, and get it past TxDot, my opinion of Adler just went up. Very neat two for one, and potential helps with undecided voters in the bond election.

[electricron]

Sorry, somehow a post intended to be placed in another thread ended up here?

[nixcity]

https://keepaustinwonky.com/2016/05/...or-prospectus/

Here is a great link with a breakdown of the current proposal for a bond this November. I am still undecided as to whether it is more good than bad, it is a hefty price tag so we need to be real thorough in discussing it since it eats up most all of our bond capacity.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by nixcity

since it eats up most all of our bond capacity.

No it doesn't, Austin has something like $4B of bond capacity.

This came up during the rail election.

http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=209286

page 16 is I think the most informative. Austin could support a $0.06 rate increase and be basically where our debt ratio was as recently as '07 (1.5%). Much less the $.02 they're discussing.

A _significant_ increase could still keep us under the 1.75%/2%/3% ceilings the rating agencies are looking at.


I'm certainly not proposing such an increase, but it's well within our limit.

[jbssfelix]

Originally Posted by nixcity

https://keepaustinwonky.com/2016/05/...or-prospectus/

Here is a great link with a breakdown of the current proposal for a bond this November. I am still undecided as to whether it is more good than bad, it is a hefty price tag so we need to be real thorough in discussing it since it eats up most all of our bond capacity.

There's some good (Riverside/Burnet), some meh/bad (N. Lamar), and some atrocious (969, wtf).

I still don't understand why we're not treating Lamar as one N-S corridor that runs from Parmer all the way south to 290. Instead, we treat it as separate entities, with no solution for the central corridor that runs from 183 south through downtown. Additionally, this sector could easily have the greatest benefit from a multimodal redesign.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by jbssfelix

I still don't understand why we're not treating Lamar as one N-S corridor that runs from Parmer all the way south to 290. Instead, we treat it as separate entities, with no solution for the central corridor that runs from 183 south through downtown. Additionally, this sector could easily have the greatest benefit from a multimodal redesign.

Because functionally it doesn't act that way.

The "corridor" continues south of the triangle onto Guadalupe. That's where the development and density is. Lamar south of there (especially Shoal Creek adjacent) isn't as much of a transit/development corridor.

That doesn't mean it's not deserving of improvements, but it won't end up the same as other areas of Lamar.

In regards to Lamar north of the Triangle to 183, I think one of Adler's options had the money to start planning there (there's no corridor plan there yet).

[jbssfelix]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Because functionally it doesn't act that way.

The "corridor" continues south of the triangle onto Guadalupe. That's where the development and density is. Lamar south of there (especially Shoal Creek adjacent) isn't as much of a transit/development corridor.

That doesn't mean it's not deserving of improvements, but it won't end up the same as other areas of Lamar.

In regards to Lamar north of the Triangle to 183, I think one of Adler's options had the money to start planning there (there's no corridor plan there yet).

I guess what I'm trying to say is, "what's the point of building the N Lamar corridor if it doesn't connect to anything?". There's no bike lane north or south of this corridor, sidewalks are poor on Lamar s of 183, buses are stuck with other traffic on both sides of this project. So what exactly does this connect people to?

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by jbssfelix

I guess what I'm trying to say is, "what's the point of building the N Lamar corridor if it doesn't connect to anything?". There's no bike lane north or south of this corridor, sidewalks are poor on Lamar s of 183, buses are stuck with other traffic on both sides of this project. So what exactly does this connect people to?

It connects people in the area to their own surroundings. Nobody in this corridor is going to be riding their bike to downtown, so it doesn't need to connect to downtown to be useful. But they can take their bikes to the transit station they'll now be more seamlessly connected to to get downtown or to the rail station to get downtown.

[Novacek]

The city council presentation on the mobility bond is available

http://www.austintexas.gov/departmen...160601-wrk.htm

[urbancore]

Lonestar Rail update

http://www.austinmonitor.com/stories...one-star-rail/

[electricron]

Originally Posted by Dcbrickley

Lodestar update.

I'd asked this before, if they can't find the funds to perform the EIS, how will they ever find the funds to build and operate it?

There are plenty of other transportation needs in Austin, San Antonio, and all the towns in between where the $1 to $2 Billion could be spent for better use.

The regional planning agencies should first settle how to fund these projects before starting to study and plan them. Fort Worth, Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, and Austin have transit agencies collecting sales tax revenues at various rates. It seems Dallas and Houston are large enough to actually collect enough to fund trains with the matching federal financial support.

Once the funding solutions are finalized, then it's okay to start studying, planning, building, and operating transit solutions that fit within that budget.

[urbancore]

Originally Posted by electricron

I'd asked this before, if they can't find the funds to perform the EIS, how will they ever find the funds to build and operate it?

There are plenty of other transportation needs in Austin, San Antonio, and all the towns in between where the $1 to $2 Billion could be spent for better use.

The regional planning agencies should first settle how to fund these projects before starting to study and plan them. Fort Worth, Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, and Austin have transit agencies collecting sales tax revenues at various rates. It seems Dallas and Houston are large enough to actually collect enough to fund trains with the matching federal financial support.

Once the funding solutions are finalized, then it's okay to start studying, planning, building, and operating transit solutions that fit within that budget.

If this was really needed/wanted it would happen.

The biggest takeaway for me, was the that SA won't pay their share. That says a lot.

It still take me 90 minutes to drive to SA....same as it did +/- as when I moved here in the 80's, (accidents, construction notwithstanding). And if you make that drive during rush hour, well I don't know what to say, except I don't go anywhere during rush hour. If I do, I don't bitch, cuz....duh. Let the private sector figure it out, if/when the demand builds, they will fill that space. The TNC's should take the lead on this, not billion dollar trains commuting a few thousand people per day.

Why the obsession with rail?

[Tech House]

Originally Posted by Dcbrickley

Why the obsession with rail?

My uneducated guess is that this is partly an artefact of transportation history. Rail has been the great people-mover for densely populated regions for the past century, but it might be too late to be looking to rail to solve the Austin-SA transportation calamity. If SDVs become the norm and are operated as a service such that urbanites don't need to own cars, it would solve a lot more problems than rail would. And that's worth contemplating since it would take so long and cost so much to develop a truly effective urban rail system. Maybe this is the wrong time and place for that. I don't know --- this is the type of question that people will insist they know they answer to even as they contradict one another, which tells me that nobody knows at this time where we're headed. But that won't stop Novacek from telling us in no uncertain terms exactly what's what!