AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[drummer]

Originally Posted by lzppjb

They didn't want Circle C. We got Circle C.
They didn't want Bowie HS. We got Bowie HS.
They don't want Mopac South. We'll get Mopac South.

I kinda like where you're going with this. Can we add some wishes to the list?

They didn't want urban rail, subway, etc. We'll eventually get it.
They didn't want HSR to SA, DFW, and Houston. We'll eventually get it.
They didn't want a supertall. We'll eventually get it.
etc.

Just dreaming a bit.

[lzppjb]

I was specifically talking about SW Austin, but I like your ideas as well. haha

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by drummer

I wonder how many of these protestors moved to Austin in the 80s and 90s when a lot of that area was building up. A lot of folks who are against Austin's growth contributed to it over the past ten or twenty years...which paved the way for everything that we're seeing now, the good and bad. Anti-growth is only going to clog up the city, not help it "keep it's charm." People need to see the forest through the trees and realize that denser and wiser development complemented with good transportation planning (multi-faceted - which includes *some* freeways when necessary) encourages healthy neighborhoods...especially given that growth has happened and will continue to happen whether they like it or not.

Okay, done preaching to the choir now.

How is increasing capacity on South Mopac and expanding it into Hays County going to increase density here in town?

[drummer]

Originally Posted by austlar1

How is increasing capacity on South Mopac and expanding it into Hays County going to increase density here in town?

I was thinking more in the general idea of anti-growth and the fallacies behind many of their arguments...didn't make that so clear. Sorry bout that - I was basically just complaining.

That said, my view is that increasing capacity of Mopac south is unfortunately a necessity given the method with which Austin has grown in that direction (mostly sprawl). Even if there were other alternatives, it wouldn't meet the desires of the masses, who want to drive themselves. A single rail line cutting through that area wouldn't have the same desired affect, though I'd still be in support of an alternative over further freeway development.

[lzppjb]

I read it as 2 different things done in conjunction: denser/wiser development & smart transportation planning.

Increased highways on the outskirts won't increase density in town, but that wasn't really claimed. It's just that both need to be done. Austin MSA is growing rapidly. Not everyone will live downtown or closeby.

[drummer]

Originally Posted by lzppjb

I read it as 2 different things done in conjunction: denser/wiser development & smart transportation planning.

Increased highways on the outskirts won't increase density in town, but that wasn't really claimed. It's just that both need to be done. Austin MSA is growing rapidly. Not everyone will live downtown or closeby.

Exactly. Thanks for clearing up my rambling.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by lzppjb

Increased highways on the outskirts won't increase density in town, but that wasn't really claimed.

Well, it would.

It's certainly not the most efficient way to do things, but sprawl does _eventually_ lead to (some) increased density.

Evidence: massively sprawling Houston is denser than Austin.

Both overall
http://www.austincontrarian.com/aust...d-density.html

and close in (radius of 0-5 and especially 5-10 miles from center)
http://www.census.gov/population/met...a/pop_pro.html

[Tech House]

Originally Posted by drummer

I wonder how many of these protestors moved to Austin in the 80s and 90s when a lot of that area was building up. A lot of folks who are against Austin's growth contributed to it over the past ten or twenty years...

Yes indeed. I know many anti-growth people who moved here since 1990, but the most distraught Austinites I know are long-time residents or native-born. Everyone has their memory, depending on how long they've been here. It was perfect in the 70s/80s/90s but all went to hell in the 80s/90s/00s. From my perspective, perfection is still a work in progress. I look at what the Waller Creek Conservancy is doing, the boardwalk, the development of downtown residential options --- sure, Liberty Lunch was cool, but everything changes.

Yesterday, after posting the comment about the So. Mopac protest, I thought about the implications of being anti-growth. What it's saying is, "I have found a place I really enjoy and I don't want to share it with any new people." It's just straight-up selfish. On the other hand, I think it's pretty foolish to try to make Austin grow even faster. We may as well try to make Ted Cruz more conservative. The optimal approach is to welcome everyone with open arms, while being very realistic about the city's capacity to provide a quality of life commensurate with the expectations of current and future residents.

I still don't have an opinion on South Mopac. In general, I wish Mopac didn't cross the lake, the Botanical gardens, and the science/nature center. What a horrible location for a freeway overhead! The image of a double-decker over one of the most beautiful parts of the city is depressing. It will screw up the view of the city from the hills, and of the hills from the city. But I have no alternative to offer, so I won't be joining any protests or signing any petitions to stop it. Sometimes reality bites, and we have to bite the bullet.

[austlar1]

How about building only two toll lanes instead of four on South Mopac (which would be exactly the same thing currently happening to Mopac north of the lake) and trying to incorporate them into a widened or expanded version of the existing bridge over the lake without adding a flyover? That would increase capacity enough to help the flow of traffic. Extending Mopac or adding a toll road at the southern end of Mopac is only going to encourage more sprawl out into the Hill Country and Hays County.

[Tech House]

I just spent a couple hours perusing the Mopac South website and after seeing the way the upper deck would be situated, I felt relieved. I had envisioned a stack of equally-wide bridges, which would look pretty bad, but instead the express lanes would be scrunched toward the center, making them much less visible. I like it, I'm for it.

Regarding concerns about Mopac being used as an I-35 alternative, that should be addressed at the far northern and southern ends of Mopac and not in the city where expansion is desperately needed. Locals who use South Mopac shouldn't be penalized for the sake of trying to prevent long-distance travellers from using Mopac, that's just a foolish way to address the issue.

[drummer]

^^ Which is why the approach has to be multi-faceted. Lone Star Rail can't get here quickly enough, and hopefully all of these studies and things that they're working on pan out so we can get dirt moving. Isn't it by 2021 that they hope to have it up and running? I hope sooner, but probably not.

Regarding S. Mopac relieving I-35 traffic, I honestly don't see that happening as much, especially without 45 South connecting to I-35 yet. Even once it does, the people who would utilize it are those who are going somewhere off of Mopac or more toward the western metro areas, not those who are passing through the metro area. Where 45 would connect with S. Mopac is pretty far west from 35 and I think many folks wouldn't want to drive that far out of their way. Even if the outer loop is built from 183, connecting 45 down all the way to I-35 (and thus connecting to Mopac as well), I think that the loop and Mopac would be more local (metro) traffic.

Truth be told, I think it's still a bandaid approach to the greater issue of regional mobility, but I do think they need to do it - just don't have on and off ramps every ten feet like older freeways.

[austlar1]

I don't get it. Everybody on SSP seems to deplore sprawl, yet many of you really seem eager to see Mopac extended and connected to 45. It is obvious that a Mopac extension to the south (tolled lanes or no tolled lanes) is going to encourage lots more sprawl as commuting into Austin from Northwestern Hays County becomes easier and more direct. Right now (and I use Mopac every day entering northbound from either Davis or Wm. Cannon) I can tell you that traffic volume and congestion on Mopac south of the river is considerably less that that which is encountered north of the river. There is usually a 45 minute to hour and a half period in the morning and evening when the road might be considered truly congested. That is going to change considerably over time, if the road is extended to the southwest with a connection to 45. The extra traffic will consist of commuters from Hays County and the area to the east/northeast of Dripping Springs which is rapidly subdividing. If Mopac is ever connected to 35 with another extension of 45 to the east, you have in effect created a loop road that is likely to be as congested as the Sam Houston Tollway in Houston over a fairly short period of time. Sometimes the "don't build it" concept has some merit. I think this is one of those times.

[lzppjb]

I'd rather have those cars on Mopac than clogging up resedential streets like Brodie and Manchaca/Old Manchaca.

I understand the concerns on both sides of this coin. Will it promote more sprawl in Hays? Probably. Not as much in Travis as a lot of that land is parks or city owned and will not be developed. But on the other hand, we just don't have enough capacity for the cars we currently have, let alone what the future will bring.

It's a bit of a Catch 22.

[drummer]

I'm speaking from an opinion and not expertise, I'll grant you. I'm certainly not claiming to have all the answers. Even so, I agree with lzppjb in that the current situation is a catch 22. If we do nothing, it will continue to get worse. If we do something, other things will change (some for the better and some for worse).

I don't like sprawl one bit, but I can't require everyone to live in a dense urban neighborhood as I do over here where I can walk and bike anywhere. For those who choose to live in suburbia and drive a car everywhere, I think freeways are unfortunately a necessity mainly due to volume. I still don't prefer them and don't think they're healthy in many cases for city growth.

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by lzppjb

I'd rather have those cars on Mopac than clogging up resedential streets like Brodie and Manchaca/Old Manchaca.

I understand the concerns on both sides of this coin. Will it promote more sprawl in Hays? Probably. Not as much in Travis as a lot of that land is parks or city owned and will not be developed. But on the other hand, we just don't have enough capacity for the cars we currently have, let alone what the future will bring.

It's a bit of a Catch 22.

Since the flyovers connecting Mopac South to and from Ben White have been completed, the rush hour jam on Brodie has greatly diminished. A lot of that southern Travis and Hays County commuter traffic is already using Mopac. There never has been that much of a traffic hassle on Manchaca, or, if there is one, I have never experienced it. A single toll lane in each direction and ending without connecting to a 45 extension would beef up capacity on S. Mopac without encouraging sprawl. The 45 extension into Hays is going to guarantee a lot of new sprawl in the triangle from far south Austin over to Wimberley and up towards Dripping Springs. It will be filled with the Hill Country version of McMansions in very short order. Meanwhile there is a whole lot of land in SW Austin that could be developed for residential which would increase density in the city and add to the tax base. Development in Hays outside of the city of Austin does NOTHING for Austin.

[lzppjb]

I'm talking about Brodie through Shady Hollow. Is that what you're talking about?

[austlar1]

Originally Posted by lzppjb

I'm talking about Brodie through Shady Hollow. Is that what you're talking about?

No, Brodie from just below Wm. Cannon and up to 290. It used to be a complete mess mornings and evenings for several hours. Conditions are greatly improved with the opening a year ago of the flyovers from 290/71 onto Mopac South. A lot of the Brodie traffic diverted west on Slaughter and up Mopac to the flyovers with return traffic in the evening. If I am not mistaken, Brodie through Shady (Sleepy) Hollow is mostly a two lane road and thus congested for much of the day. How about adding extra lanes on Brodie through Shady Hollow since it becomes a 4 lane road just to the north anyway. That would certainly improve flow through that area. Is Shady Hollow determined to remain untouched by the growth in the region? That hardly seems fair.

[lzppjb]

I agree they need more lanes in Shady Hollow.

[electricron]

http://austinrailnow.com
I believe the editorialist figured it out mostly, only failing to understand why a top-down planning failed at the polls. The last urban rail plan wasn't designed to meet the citizens of Austin needs. It was designed to meet qualifying for the maximum amount of federal matching funds.

Looks like commuter rail expansion and rapid bus transit is the way to go now. Which might be a good thing, 20 years or so from now Austin can plan and build an urban rail system that isn't stuck on the ground in city streets, either soaring above or digging below. Because that's what Austin needs in its rather narrow city streets.

There's no reason why the Stadler GTWs can't be in an elevated guideway over city streets reaching almost all the way west to Seaholm. If Fort Worth can build an elevated guideway north of downtown for commuter rail (possibly GTWs), so can Austin over at least one downtown street. I don't think running diesel powered locomotives in tunnels for a prolong period of time is wise. Cough.

[The ATX]

Project letting for some key I-35 improvements will begin as soon as this August. They are not for additional lanes, but they will be a big help. The link below has a couple of other improvement projects listed. But the three that I think will really help are the reconstruction of the Oltorf, William Cannon and Stassney overpasses along with auxiliary lane improvements. I just wish that the Riverside Dr overpass would have been one of the first ones to get rebuilt. But that will be a huge project and may include flyovers, so I can understand the longer wait.

From the link:
I-35 Oltorf (approx 30% PS&E), project limits: Woodland Ave to Woodward St (CSJ 0015-13-378, URS/AECOM)
Project Description: Reconstruct bridge at Oltorf St, add turnaround bridges, ramp and auxiliary lane improvements, shared use path. No
ROW acquisition. Project letting December 2015.

I-35 William Cannon/ Stassney (approx 95% PS&E), project limits: State highway 71 to North of Slaughter Lane. (CSJ: 0015-13-379,
AECOM)
Project Description: Reconstruct bridge structures at Stasney Ln and William Cannon Blvd, add turnaround bridges, ramp and auxiliary
lane improvements, reconstruct NB and SB Frontage Road bridges at Williamson Creek, shared use path. No ROW acquisition. Project
letting August 2015.

ftp://ftp.ci.austin.tx.us/ATD_AULCC/...416_Agenda.pdf