HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum.

Since 1999, SkyscraperPage.com's forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web.  The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics.  SkyscraperPage.com also features unique skyscraper diagrams, a database of construction activity, and publishes popular skyscraper posters.

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

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #3941  
Old Posted Jul 12, 2014, 11:49 AM
SecretAgentMan's Avatar
SecretAgentMan SecretAgentMan is offline
CIA since 2003
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 320
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Matt View Post

I know people are super passionate about this, but we're just talking about lines on a map here.

On the new map there is not a contiguous line along L/G between Seaholm and Crestview.

That route, be it a planned extension or whatever, has been scaled back.
I see. What you are really talking about is the Guadalupe / Lavaca couplet downtown. Previously, the proposal was to have two north-south alignments downtown because of concerns for parades and events closing Congress Avenue. With the north-south spine moving to Trinity, that is not a concern. Also, now that virtually all of the buses have been moved to Guadalupe / Lavaca, it becomes a lot trickier to integrate rail as well.

I haven't seen any discussion on here about the 2014 Strategic Mobility Plan that includes this language:

Lamar Boulevard Development and High Capacity Transit Feasibility Program (Riverside to US 183): Portions of Lamar Boulevard are identified by the state as being among the top 100 most congested roadways in the state. The City of Austin, through the 2010 Mobility Bond, funded a corridor development program for North Lamar (north of US 183). As part of the 2012 Mobility Bond, Austin voters approved a similar corridor development program for South Lamar (south of Riverside drive). The City is also in the process of initiating a Guadalupe Street/West Campus Corridor Program to identify mobility projects that could improve east-west connectivity to the University as well as travel north-south through the district. The proposed Lamar Boulevard Corridor development Program would examine opportunities to improve total mobility on the central portion of the Lamar Corridor, connecting with the recommendations identified in these three other corridor development projects. All modes of transportation will be considered, including high capacity transit options such as both urban rail and bus rapid transit to coordinate and build upon the Urban Rail investment. High capacity transit system elements will be evaluated to their logical destinations beyond the study limits if necessary and both traffic management and new capacity options will be considered for improving vehicle flow through the corridor (The proposed budget for this effort is $5 million).

This is proposed to be included in the November bond election along with urban rail.

http://www.austintexas.gov/sites/def...upalUpload.pdf
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3942  
Old Posted Jul 12, 2014, 2:54 PM
ATXboom ATXboom is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,250
Quote:
Originally Posted by SecretAgentMan View Post
I see. What you are really talking about is the Guadalupe / Lavaca couplet downtown. Previously, the proposal was to have two north-south alignments downtown because of concerns for parades and events closing Congress Avenue. With the north-south spine moving to Trinity, that is not a concern. Also, now that virtually all of the buses have been moved to Guadalupe / Lavaca, it becomes a lot trickier to integrate rail as well.

I haven't seen any discussion on here about the 2014 Strategic Mobility Plan that includes this language:

Lamar Boulevard Development and High Capacity Transit Feasibility Program (Riverside to US 183): Portions of Lamar Boulevard are identified by the state as being among the top 100 most congested roadways in the state. The City of Austin, through the 2010 Mobility Bond, funded a corridor development program for North Lamar (north of US 183). As part of the 2012 Mobility Bond, Austin voters approved a similar corridor development program for South Lamar (south of Riverside drive). The City is also in the process of initiating a Guadalupe Street/West Campus Corridor Program to identify mobility projects that could improve east-west connectivity to the University as well as travel north-south through the district. The proposed Lamar Boulevard Corridor development Program would examine opportunities to improve total mobility on the central portion of the Lamar Corridor, connecting with the recommendations identified in these three other corridor development projects. All modes of transportation will be considered, including high capacity transit options such as both urban rail and bus rapid transit to coordinate and build upon the Urban Rail investment. High capacity transit system elements will be evaluated to their logical destinations beyond the study limits if necessary and both traffic management and new capacity options will be considered for improving vehicle flow through the corridor (The proposed budget for this effort is $5 million).

This is proposed to be included in the November bond election along with urban rail.

http://www.austintexas.gov/sites/def...upalUpload.pdf
Last sentence eliminates rail from consideration. They have framed the challenge as getting more cars through Lamar rather than people.

"beyond the study limits if necessary and both traffic management and new capacity options will be considered for improving vehicle flow through the corridor"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3943  
Old Posted Jul 14, 2014, 2:25 PM
Novacek Novacek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 272
Quote:
Originally Posted by ATXboom View Post
Last sentence eliminates rail from consideration. They have framed the challenge as getting more cars through Lamar rather than people.

"beyond the study limits if necessary and both traffic management and new capacity options will be considered for improving vehicle flow through the corridor"
vehicle != car

Buses and railcars are also vehicles.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3944  
Old Posted Jul 17, 2014, 12:14 AM
airwx airwx is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 4
The pro-rail group seems to be doing much better at fundraising than the Our Rail group.

Pro-rail campaign off to fast fundraising start

Quote:
Pro-rail campaign off to fast fundraising start
By Ben Wear
American-Statesman Staff

A political committee formed to support this fall’s probable $1 billion rail-and-roads bond election in Austin has raised $73,245 , more than half of it coming from downtown Austin interest groups.

That sum dwarfs the $669 raised by Our Rail, a committee founded by Scott Morris, a rail activist who opposes the route chosen for the city’s first electric-powered rail line since streetcars ceased operation about 75 years ago. Another faction led by retired high-tech executive Jim Skaggs that opposes building the rail line, no matter its location, has not yet formed a political action committee and thus did not have to file a report Tuesday.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
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 9:36 PM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.