AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[JollyvilleJ-Rad]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

Can you please stop hyperventilating and engaging in extreme hyperbole? Please. For the love of God.

Go back and check the presentations and documents for years - my facts are accurate. I will never try to mislead and always seek the most realize information I can and as such feel valid sharing my opinion. Like most of us, I've followed this project, presentations, documents and schematics for years and have drawn a different conclusion than you apparently.

This is forum where I hope we all care about the future of our city and even when we disagree can be respectful of that shared interest in seeing a better Austin in the future. Whether you feel the same way or not, my words are not hyperbolic about my feelings towards this project, nor are they directed as insults towards a single member here. I respect you all, even when the tone of the conversation can move slightly away from cordial.

And just to ADD: They literally said "no wider and no higher" and backtracked. We cut hundreds of millions out of CAMPO for near and mid-term projects for something different than what they are presenting us now. I think those are inarguable facts. And the whole thing about removing cross streets was a joke, I try to keep a sense of humor even on an internet forum. I admit that was hyperbole in humorous intent. Sorry to cause a fuss.

[Echostatic]

Both Build Alternatives advancing clearly improve the pedestrian experience and remove the ridiculously short and dangerous existing off and onramps, while still adding crossings over the main lanes. Win-win.

Existing crossings (underpasses in red):

• East Avenue
• River Street/Holly Street
• Cesar Chavez Street
• 4th Street/Red Line (U-turn traffic and pedestrian only)
• 6th Street
• 7th Street
• 8th Street
• 11th Street
• 12th Street
• 15th Street
• Martin King Luther Jr. Boulevard

Alternatives 2/3 Crossings:

• River Street/Holly Street
• Cesar Chavez Street
• Red Line (pedestrian only)
• 5th Street
• 6th Street
• 7th Street
• 8th Street
• 11th Street
• 12th Street
• 15th Street
• MLK Boulevard

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by JollyvilleJ-Rad

Go back and check the presentations and documents for years - my facts are accurate. I will never try to mislead and always seek the most realize information I can and as such feel valid sharing my opinion. Like most of us, I've followed this project, presentations, documents and schematics for years and have drawn a different conclusion than you apparently.

This is forum where I hope we all care about the future of our city and even when we disagree can be respectful of that shared interest in seeing a better Austin in the future. Whether you feel the same way or not, my words are not hyperbolic about my feelings towards this project, nor are they directed as insults towards a single member here. I respect you all, even when the tone of the conversation can move slightly away from cordial.

And just to ADD: They literally said "no wider and no higher" and backtracked. We cut hundreds of millions out of CAMPO for near and mid-term projects for something different than what they are presenting us now. I think those are inarguable facts. And the whole thing about removing cross streets was a joke, I try to keep a sense of humor even on an internet forum. I admit that was hyperbole in humorous intent. Sorry to cause a fuss.

I am not contesting MOST OF the facts you laid out. I am contesting your lack of attention to other key details and context and the reaction you are having to what are some VERY narrow set of details.

I do contest this, though:

“propose to destroy far more of the eastside at the split.”

They aren’t exercising all that much eminent domain, especially not in comparison to what they have historically done in other major Texas cities (they have destroyed whole neighborhoods in San Antonio for a single interchange).

Don’t bite your nose off to spite your face, honey. Alternative 3 is HORRIBLE, work CONSTRUCTIVELY within the official comment and feedback process to get TxDoT to improve Alternative 2 and help defeat any potential for Alternative 3. That is the reality we live in, and so you may as well focus on the many positives and help to make what you don’t like about the project better. I have already submitted my own extensive comments which included my opinion that Alternative 2 was superior to Alternative 1 through downtown due to express lane configuration but that they should reconsider some elements of Alternative 1 through campus (such as cantilevered access roads over one side consistently to avoid exercising eminent domain of historic parcels) and to also allow for UT and the city to finance capped parkland over a handful of those blocks as well.

[JollyvilleJ-Rad]

Originally Posted by wwmiv

I am not contesting MOST OF the facts you laid out. I am contesting your lack of attention to other key details and context and the reaction you are having to what are some VERY narrow set of details.

I do contest this, though:

“propose to destroy far more of the eastside at the split.”

They aren’t exercising all that much eminent domain, especially not in comparison to what they have historically done in other major Texas cities (they have destroyed whole neighborhoods in San Antonio for a single interchange).

Don’t bite your nose off to spite your face, honey. Alternative 3 is HORRIBLE, work CONSTRUCTIVELY within the official comment and feedback process to get TxDoT to improve Alternative 2 and help defeat any potential for Alternative 3. That is the reality we live in, and so you may as well focus on the many positives and help to make what you don’t like about the project better. I have already submitted my own extensive comments which included my opinion that Alternative 2 was superior to Alternative 1 through downtown due to express lane configuration but that they should reconsider some elements of Alternative 1 through campus (such as cantilevered access roads over one side consistently to avoid exercising eminent domain of historic parcels) and to also allow for UT and the city to finance capped parkland over a handful of those blocks as well.

I really appreciate this, honestly. I've been holding off on sending my feedback thus far because of my raw thoughts, which is why I've been putting them out on here before I hit send. This has always been a place where I've learned from constructive conversation and I apologize if my tone and emotion was distracting from it.

I will amend my previous statement from "far more" to "far to much" and go back to "no higher and no wider," but I think we agree. Thanks for helping my clarify my view and how to proceed with commentary

https://capexcentral.mobility35openhouse.com
Comment period ends 9/8, folks.

[wwmiv]

Originally Posted by JollyvilleJ-Rad

I really appreciate this, honestly. I've been holding off on sending my feedback thus far because of my raw thoughts, which is why I've been putting them out on here before I hit send. This has always been a place where I've learned from constructive conversation and I apologize if my tone and emotion was distracting from it.

I will amend my previous statement from "far more" to "far to much" and go back to "no higher and no wider," but I think we agree. Thanks for helping my clarify my view and how to proceed with commentary

https://capexcentral.mobility35openhouse.com
Comment period ends 9/8, folks.

The cost savings in Alternative 2 vis-a-vis Alternative 1 thru downtown should be enough to make enough alterations through the double decker section to more closely reflect what seem to be your major complaints. Focus on making the financial argument to TxDoT and how the state will recuperate any additional investment via increased tax dollars generated NOT JUST by commuters but also by increased value generated in Austin itself in these neighborhoods themselves.

I agree with others above that you need to understand who TxDoT is building this for and that building something now is necessary.

[drummer]

One thought on walkability and distance. I have no idea what the standards are for "walkable" with regard to TOD and other projects. What I do know from my own experience of living in truly urban areas for many years is that it's quite easy to walk a mile or two or three before realizing you've even made it that far. It's all in the atmosphere, if others are walking also, street interaction, shade (important here, obviously), etc. A 1/4 mile radius seems a bit silly to me, personally. My son could sometimes do a couple miles at 1.5 years when we lived in China.

No offense intended here at all, JAM, since you posted that - just my thoughts on that little bit from my own experiences.

[JAM]

Originally Posted by drummer

One thought on walkability and distance. I have no idea what the standards are for "walkable" with regard to TOD and other projects. What I do know from my own experience of living in truly urban areas for many years is that it's quite easy to walk a mile or two or three before realizing you've even made it that far. It's all in the atmosphere, if others are walking also, street interaction, shade (important here, obviously), etc. A 1/4 mile radius seems a bit silly to me, personally. My son could sometimes do a couple miles at 1.5 years when we lived in China.

No offense intended here at all, JAM, since you posted that - just my thoughts on that little bit from my own experiences.

I don't know what it is either - the standard that is. And I agree, if you live in this environment, you're walks do get longer. Hell, I'll walk from Lady Bird Lake to 45th St...... But you also have to think of ladies in heels, men in suits, older people, out of shape, disabilities, not used to it and think its too far and others that fall into the category of a lower walk radius.

[enragedcamel]

This article may be of interest to this thread, and the current conversation:

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2021/08...t-doesnt-help/

You often hear people say that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. I bring this up because of an interesting—if infuriating—thread I read this morning about Texas' plan to widen I-35 as it cuts through the heart of Austin.

Unsurprisingly, the state wants to build more lanes, which it thinks will ease congestion. At some points, this could leave I-35 as much as 20 lanes wide; this will require bulldozing dozens of businesses along the way. An alternative that would have buried 12 lanes of the highway in two levels of underground tunnels was apparently considered too costly.

But it would be wrong to single out this 8-mile proposal as an outlier. In Houston, the state plans to widen I-45 despite plenty of opposition, including from the Federal Highway Administration. And you don't have to look far to see other state governments wanting to build new roads to reduce congestion.

Maryland Governor Larry Hogan wants to add four more lanes to I-270 and I-495 to funnel commuters into the District of Columbia and its surrounding office parks more quickly. In the Chicago suburbs, an eight-year project to add more lanes to a 22-mile stretch of I-294 began in 2018. And Atlanta might soon be entirely paved over, such is the rate that Georgia plans to add new highway lanes, to pick on just three.

The infuriating bit is that the evidence is pretty clear: these are deeply misguided policies. While it seems intuitive that the solution to three lanes of gridlock is to spread the same number of cars over four lanes, it fails because of a phenomenon called induced demand.

Reducing traffic might make sense if the only variable were the number of road lanes. But it isn't—as Ray Kinsella was told in Field of Dreams, "If you build it, they will come." Except this time, "they" refers to more cars. When people know a particular route is congested, some of them will choose not to drive. But once you tell everyone that you've added more lanes to that road, that latent demand has an outlet—at which point the traffic jams return, but now with even more cars in them.

Induced demand is not a particularly novel idea; Robert Caro's The Powerbroker describes exactly this problem showing up in New York following Robert Moses' bridge-building in the 1930s; back then it was called "traffic generation." Researchers started collecting hard data on the problem toward the end of the 20th century, and in the past few years more and more studies have confirmed the fact that when you build more lanes on already-congested roads, traffic simply grows to fill them, too.

The root of the problem probably lies in another frequently misattributed quote—it is indeed difficult to get someone to understand something if their salary depends upon them not understanding it. It just seems a little unfair to the rest of us that the consequence is more cities being choked with traffic.

[JAM]

Originally Posted by enragedcamel

This article may be of interest to this thread, and the current conversation:

https://arstechnica.com/cars/2021/08...t-doesnt-help/

I submit to you, the roads are not the problem. The cheap real-estate is the problem. Houston, prime example, they widen the road FINALLY, to catch up with the people who live there who pay taxes. THEN, everyone sees those nice wide roads, with flowing traffic and says, hey, I can save 100,000 on a house, if I just drive another 15 minutes. 15 years later, it turns into an hour. Roads are not the problem, people are!

Texas is a unique state, we have people migrating here all the time. We need roads to handle the growth. Mobility = Commerce

To those that just want to shut down the roads, move to a small town. You will be much happier!!

[We vs us]

Now you're just being contrary.

[Novacek]

CapMetro's board meeting packet up online for Monday's meeting.

Interesting details:

The metrorapid expansion of the 803 to Manchaca/Oak Hill doesn't rate high enough to qualify for a FTA small start grant. So they'll have to do it with all local money.

Not super surprising since it's an expansion on the edge of the city (especially the oak hill portion).

The oak hill segment wouldn't start until 2026 when TxDot finishes up at the Y anyway.

Perhaps more importantly, the existing 803 segment (S Lamar/Domain) will move to battery buses (as expected) and probably eventually to 5 minute peak frequencies (to enable the split at the south end).

Also buried in the packet are some red line details.
1. They're doing a contract for Lakeline to Leander double tracking, but also included in that contract is an option for a crossover/turnout at McKalla (I guess to come online before the station there?)
2. They're starting the process to make Braker/Kramer/Rundberg/Rutland quite zone crossings. Makes sense with all the new residential going in there.

https://www.capmetro.org/docs/defaul...nda-packet.pdf

[Echostatic]

I think people would feel better about these projects if they didn't try to sell them as "improving traffic" and were honest, saying "it'll improve throughput."

350,000 cars sitting in gridlocked traffic is still moving more people than 150,000 cars sitting in gridlocked traffic. See Katy Freeway, where those numbers are from. Travel times haven't improved, so people aren't happy. But it's still moving more cars and more bodies.

There are obviously more efficient ways to move those bodies - see Project Connect, which is good, obviously. But fact of the matter is, CapMetro is never going to be able to efficiently serve folks in Kyle, Buda, Pflugerville, Hutto, etc... They're going to be taking I-35 into downtown as long as we have a job center downtown. And y'all know the state of this city. There's more jobs downtown than ever before and it's only growing. See the parking garages of 6XG and the Texas Mall.

Not even touching on the just ridiculously antiquated design of I-35 through Downtown. See the wide, grassy embankments and ramps as short as a city block. It's unsafe for cars and bikes, and unsafe for pedestrians. A lot more people will try to cross a freeway on the top of a grassy hill than a below-grade monster with regular at-grade crossings. Crossings with much wider sidewalks than the 60s bridges we have today, mind you. Freeway design in general has come a long way since I-35 downtown first started ROW acquisition in the late 1940s.

[JAM]

Originally Posted by We vs us

Now you're just being contrary.

naaa, just a realist. thats why I moved from Houston to Austin. Damn thing followed me.

[JAM]

Originally Posted by Echostatic

I think people would feel better about these projects if they didn't try to sell them as "improving traffic" and were honest, saying "it'll improve throughput."

350,000 cars sitting in gridlocked traffic is still moving more people than 150,000 cars sitting in gridlocked traffic. See Katy Freeway, where those numbers are from. Travel times haven't improved, so people aren't happy. But it's still moving more cars and more bodies.

Excellent point.

[StoOgE]

Originally Posted by JAM

I submit to you, the roads are not the problem. The cheap real-estate is the problem. Houston, prime example, they widen the road FINALLY, to catch up with the people who live there who pay taxes. THEN, everyone sees those nice wide roads, with flowing traffic and says, hey, I can save 100,000 on a house, if I just drive another 15 minutes. 15 years later, it turns into an hour. Roads are not the problem, people are!

Texas is a unique state, we have people migrating here all the time. We need roads to handle the growth. Mobility = Commerce

To those that just want to shut down the roads, move to a small town. You will be much happier!!

I mean, California tried this in the 70s and 80s and it never worked.

At some point behavioral changes are required. So long as folks want to put 1 person in 1 car and drive point to point you cannot build enough roads to ever keep up unless you are in a negative growth environment like Detroit or Pittsburgh.

You are absolutely moving *more* humans, but you aren't moving individual humans faster - and I think that is all any individual actually cares about. If they didn't they probably wouldn't be 1 person in 1 car moving point to point in the first place. The very nature of this sort of commuting is personal comfort/convenience.

I WFH pretty permanently now so none of this is my problem, but I actually grew to prefer mass transit since I could read/get work done.

[Lobotomizer]

It may be relevant to consider California's growth in the 70s and 80s, and Texas now in regards to this conversation.

I do not believe a negative growth rate is necessary to be able to have highways which are not gridlocked.

However, when a state is adding millions upon millions of people per decade it is essentially impossible to keep up with the growth.

But how much worse would the traffic be had no expansion taken place when there are many more cars?

This is why it is a frequent occurrence to see gridlock on I-35 in Austin 7 days a week at any time of the day.

Would adding lanes allow the highway to flow freely at 5:00pm on a weekday? Assuredly not.

But maybe when I need to get to Round Rock from South Austin on Sunday afternoon I can do so without coming to a complete stop.

And none of this even touches on safety or aesthetics.

Bridges have lifespans.

Short, curvy on ramps that dump cars directly into traffic lanes are dangerous. Off ramps which back up onto the highway are dangerous. Emergency vehicles stuck in traffic is dangerous.

And I-35 is ugly. Call it lipstick on a pig, but the rebuilt highway will look better. TXDot puts money into landscaping and cosmetic touches which will drastically improve it's appearance.

Like it or not, many people's only view of Austin is while passing through on I-35. Sitting in gridlock on an ugly 50s era highway is not very flattering.

[JAM]

Originally Posted by StoOgE

I mean, California tried this in the 70s and 80s and it never worked. At some point behavioral changes are required. So long as folks want to put 1 person in 1 car and drive point to point you cannot build enough roads to ever keep up

Autonomous INTEGRATED cars will solve this problem. My SWAG, its 10-20 years away from reality. Meanwhile, no one will change, they all think they are more important than the next guy. That just pragmatic thinking. So, you gotta solve the immediate problem one way or the other. Or, you could impose utilitarianism rule. Tollways seem to be a happy medium. BTW - CA politics are horrible and everyone there knows it.

Originally Posted by StoOgE

unless you are in a negative growth environment like Detroit or Pittsburgh.

Not sure about Pittsburgh, but that's politicians screwing the place up. Certain on CA. Dont let them do it here.

[enragedcamel]

Originally Posted by JAM

Autonomous INTEGRATED cars will solve this problem. My SWAG, its 10-20 years away from reality.

I happen to be an insider, so take this from me: autonomous cars by themselves are decades away. Autonomous integrated cars will never happen.

Instead of waiting for techno-magical solutions, we should use the solutions we have had available for a century. Buses, trains, bike lanes and paths...

[JAM]

Originally Posted by enragedcamel

I happen to be an insider, so take this from me: autonomous cars by themselves are decades away. Autonomous integrated cars will never happen.

LOL - as an "insider" I wouldn't let your boss hear you say that. Back in my day, there was a saying: never say never, everything is possible.

[JAM]

Austin not even mentioned, but Houston gets some Kudo's for their fabulous freeways.

https://reason.com/2021/08/27/the-nu...tarved-metros/