AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[The ATX]

Originally Posted by hereinaustin

I don't think there are any plans for that specific interchange (NB35 -> NB183). I agree that it's probably inadequate.

That is correct from what I recall. The improvements coming for that interchange are for building a couple flyovers that don't yet exist.

[Mikey711MN]

Originally Posted by Tech House

GTK, I just hope they fix the NB 35 to NB 183 mess that backs up into the main lanes of 35 at all hours.

There's a fair amount of work to the south part of the existing interchange that should improve the current situation...

http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot...hematic-03.pdf

This work is all part of the 183/35 DC's project, which is largely funded by Prop 1 and expected to begin construction in late 2017.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Mikey711MN

There's a fair amount of work to the south part of the existing interchange that should improve the current situation...

http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot...hematic-03.pdf

This work is all part of the 183/35 DC's project, which is largely funded by Prop 1 and expected to begin construction in late 2017.

Right, from the statesman article "the project also includes some reconfiguring of the existing flyover from northbound I-35 to westbound U.S. 183 to make it less steep and thus reduce backups on the bridge."

[Speculator]

Originally Posted by jbssfelix

You're saying when the construction will actually end, right?

Was being a bit sarcastic. I first heard about this project in 1994...

[brando]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Yes, but they need to have a functioning interchange system with 35/183 for that to be an effective bypass route.

Ok so we shouldn't build the highway because the connecting interchange with another segment of the highway hasn't been built? Would you rather them build the interchange first, then build the rest of the highway? Yea, it isn't as good without those connectors but it will still make a HUGE difference for 1000 other reasons. Not everyone who will use that highway will always come from I-35 north or south.

Those flyovers are on the project list. There is no reason to delay a highway that is ready to get underway for another one that is a much more complicated with no start date set.

[drummer]

Originally Posted by brando

Ok so we shouldn't build the highway because the connecting interchange with another segment of the highway hasn't been built? Would you rather them build the interchange first, then build the rest of the highway? Yea, it isn't as good without those connectors but it will still make a HUGE difference for 1000 other reasons. Not everyone who will use that highway will always come from I-35 north or south.

Those flyovers are on the project list. There is no reason to delay a highway that is ready to get underway for another one that is a much more complicated with no start date set.

I agree with this. I think wwmiv's point is simply that as a bypass route for I-35, there's no direct connector to continue north on I-35 from 183. I agree completely the the rest of it is necessary....and was 20 years ago, to agree with the above sarcastic (but accurate) comment.

[brando]

Originally Posted by drummer

I agree with this. I think wwmiv's point is simply that as a bypass route for I-35, there's no direct connector to continue north on I-35 from 183. I agree completely the the rest of it is necessary....and was 20 years ago, to agree with the above sarcastic (but accurate) comment.

It seems that the new flyovers will be finished at the same time that the new 183 expressway is done.

http://www.my35.org/capital/projects...gln-us290e.htm

[drummer]

Originally Posted by brando

It seems that the new flyovers will be finished at the same time that the new 183 expressway is done.

http://www.my35.org/capital/projects...gln-us290e.htm

Even better.

[hereinaustin]

Originally Posted by brando

It seems that the new flyovers will be finished at the same time that the new 183 expressway is done.

http://www.my35.org/capital/projects...gln-us290e.htm

I think all the proposed changes in the schematic will really help improve that intersection, EXCEPT the SB35 -> NB183 interchange looks like it will be an epic fail *as drawn.* It currently shows two lanes (from SB35 -> NB183) + a third lane (from NB35 -> NB183) merging into just 1 lane along NB183.

I think there's enough pavement for them to re-stripe things in such a way that it won't be too terrible. The lanes will need a lot more room to merge than what is shown. This is obviously just an early rendering. But as it looks now, it is kinda reminiscent of what happens along the EB71 -> SB35 during the evenings.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by brando

Ok so we shouldn't build the highway because the connecting interchange with another segment of the highway hasn't been built? Would you rather them build the interchange first, then build the rest of the highway?

I don't know how you got to the conclusion that I don't want the highway to be built now off of this. My point was that the flyovers should be built simultaneously to ensure the best possible effectiveness from this project, and they essentially are so yay.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by brando

It seems that the new flyovers will be finished at the same time that the new 183 expressway is done.

http://www.my35.org/capital/projects...gln-us290e.htm

Good.

[DoubleC]

Too bad the SB183-NB35 connector won't be built until later apparently. There's plans to build it later because procrastination, but I wonder how steep that ramp will have to be in order to cross over the other "crossing" connectors. It looks like it'd be awkward to build.

And I just realized people coming from East of 290 onto 183 won't be able to use the ramp to get to North 35 unless they pay the toll....You can't even do that at the actual 35/290 interchange. If only they enabled frontage road access to or from the ramps like they do at Mopac and 183.

On a positive more, yay ramps! It'll almost not be half-assed like the others we have in the state of Texas, all in Austin :p .

[drummer]

Originally Posted by DoubleC

Too bad the SB183-NB35 connector won't be built until later apparently. There's plans to build it later because procrastination, but I wonder how steep that ramp will have to be in order to cross over the other "crossing" connectors. It looks like it'd be awkward to build.

And I just realized people coming from East of 290 onto 183 won't be able to use the ramp to get to North 35 unless they pay the toll....You can't even do that at the actual 35/290 interchange. If only they enabled frontage road access to or from the ramps like they do at Mopac and 183.

On a positive more, yay ramps! It'll almost not be half-assed like the others we have in the state of Texas, all in Austin :p .

Haha, "almost..."

There are always a lot of folks lined up for the exit...to the frontage road...that goes to the light at the I-35 frontage road...where you can turn left (north) and eventually merge onto I-35. Yeah, not sure why they need a flyover from 183S to I-35N at all.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by DoubleC

If only they enabled frontage road access to or from the ramps like they do at Mopac and 183.

Designs like that slow down traffic because of merging hazard.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by drummer

Haha, "almost..."

There are always a lot of folks lined up for the exit...to the frontage road...that goes to the light at the I-35 frontage road...where you can turn left (north) and eventually merge onto I-35. Yeah, not sure why they need a flyover from 183S to I-35N at all.

Because, ideally, you should have direct connections in every direction at every freeway interchange because that's the most efficient design?

[DoubleC]

Originally Posted by drummer

Haha, "almost..."

There are always a lot of folks lined up for the exit...to the frontage road...that goes to the light at the I-35 frontage road...where you can turn left (north) and eventually merge onto I-35. Yeah, not sure why they need a flyover from 183S to I-35N at all.

Ehh now that I think of it, maybe it doesn't. They do dedicate 2 lanes of S/B 183 traffic under the 35 bridge to turn left onto N/B 35, so they aren't ignorant of traffic that wants to go North.

It's still not as arbitrary as having a Northbound 35 to Southbound 183. That's kinda like a u-turn! Same reason they don't have plans for 290E to 183N. I've had a few times that I've wanted to go North from 183 South.

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Designs like that slow down traffic because of merging hazard.

Yeah that I understand. It can't be as bad as the 183 ramp to 35 atm.

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Because, ideally, you should have direct connections in every direction at every freeway interchange because that's the most efficient design?

Ehh maybe not efficient, but "not worth it". I know you're argument isn't "get rid of all connectors", but we can both agree that some direct connectors are more needed than others, or others as I've said before, are "arbitrary". Imagine if there was no ramp from 290 West to 35 South by Capital Plaza. We don't really need a 290 East to 35 South though, yet that exists.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Because, ideally, you should have direct connections in every direction at every freeway interchange because that's the most efficient design?

I'm assuming they've run the numbers and simply don't have the demand.

_most_ traffic coming in on 183 S, if they want to get to 35 North, is going to cut across earlier anyway. Like on Braker or Parmer or something. Coming down all the way to the 35/183 intersection is really out of the way given the layout of the highways.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Novacek

I'm assuming they've run the numbers and simply don't have the demand.

_most_ traffic coming in on 183 S, if they want to get to 35 North, is going to cut across earlier anyway. Like on Braker or Parmer or something. Coming down all the way to the 35/183 intersection is really out of the way given the layout of the highways.

Meh, I'm all about added connectivity and even if the demand isn't as high as it would otherwise be if the highway grid were different, the added connectivity is beneficial to area (by which I mean in this general vicinity) residents.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Meh, I'm all about added connectivity and even if the demand isn't as high as it would otherwise be if the highway grid were different, the added connectivity is beneficial to area (by which I mean in this general vicinity) residents.

Certainly. I happen to live in Wooten, and we're the exception to the rule as we'd actually benefit.

But I understand why it's not on the list, especially given the Billion$ they still need to find for I35 expansion.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Certainly. I happen to live in Wooten, and we're the exception to the rule as we'd actually benefit.

But I understand why it's not on the list, especially given the Billion$ they still need to find for I35 expansion.

I mean, in a world where we have limited funds, obviously I'd prefer some projects to others. We all have priorities. But I think we need to find ways to fund all of these improvements, not some.