AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by NYC2ATX

Forgive me going OT a bit, but could you (or anyone) elaborate a little on this area? I wasn't aware of any major plans for that area other than the apartment construction immediately surrounding Lakeline Mall, and now I'm curious

Like I said, eventually

The city annexed the area with the understanding that it would be a dense mixed use development. Long term.

http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2004-05-28/212975/

http://communityimpact.com/2012/09/2...ment-in-limbo/

Basically, it's a huge (6000 acres huge), currently undeveloped, greenfield/brownfield opportunity. With PUD zoning already. And rail service to downtown already via the red-line, with the potential for rail service to the other side of downtown via the lone star rail. And the mopac toll road.

Assuming we (Austin) don't screw it up, it has enormous potential.

[drummer]

That's an interesting point. While I don't know whether or not Austin will screw it up, the potential there is great with the interaction of the two rail lines (should LSR happen, of course) - not only would the area have access to two sides of downtown, but it would have access to the NW suburbs (at least two stops unless they add another in Cedar Park someday...just north of 1431 would be a good spot), access to Round Rock/Georgetown, and then access to everything from south Austin to San Antonio via LSR. Certainly great potential in that area.

[Jdawgboy]

I guess i'm in the minority here but I just think the other stops through Austin are lame. Okay I'll add the Domain area with DT but won't go any farther than that. Just seems unfair that SA's airport has a stop yet ABIA won't especially since it's the busier of the two. Sure connecting the line with other mass transit is fine but it's not a direct stop to the airport or to UT ect... Either way, we get the short end of the stick.

I live next to said track to where I can see the trains from my back yard. The trains themselves really aren't that noisey, not like they used to be back in the 80s and 90s. I remember when you could hear the trains a long way. A loud grinding kinda sound. They would shake and rattle the windows of the house when they pass by. Now, they are hardly noticable when they pass, frequently I don't notice them at all and the walls and windows don't rattle.

I think high speed rail makes more sense now as it would be faster.

We'll see how it goes with LSTAR and how much longer it takes.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

Just seems unfair that SA's airport has a stop yet ABIA won't especially since it's the busier of the two.

Eh, I wouldn't sweat it.

Airports just aren't very big generators of transit ridership.

Even in Washington, with a much larger, full subway system, which has been operating for decades, sees a few thousand per day.

https://www.wmata.com/pdfs/planning/...By_Station.pdf

Most people just prefer driving. They don't want to lug their suitcases through transit, find a space for them while they sit, etc.

Transit needs regular ridership, with daily commuters/students. Not riders who fly a couple times a year.

[urbancore]

What is the proposed funding source of LSR?

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Dcbrickley

What is the proposed funding source of LSR?

For operations, I know they were getting money from Bexar County, and were asking for money from VIA/San Antonio (I'm not sure if they got it. ).

Additionally, Austin setup TIF zones around the proposed stations.

http://www.expressnews.com/news/loca...il-6492199.php
http://www.sacurrent.com/Blogs/archi...-rail-district
http://www.ksat.com/news/via-support...r-rail-project

The big ? is still construction funding, and my understanding is that it depends in large part on federal money, the state freight relocation fund, and possibly $ from UP for the new track.

[urbancore]

Originally Posted by Novacek

For operations, I know they were getting money from Bexar County, and were asking for money from VIA/San Antonio (I'm not sure if they got it. ).

Additionally, Austin setup TIF zones around the proposed stations.

http://www.expressnews.com/news/loca...il-6492199.php
http://www.sacurrent.com/Blogs/archi...-rail-district
http://www.ksat.com/news/via-support...r-rail-project

The big ? is still construction funding, and my understanding is that it depends in large part on federal money, the state freight relocation fund, and possibly $ from UP for the new track.

thanks.

[Flatiron]

Congratulations to Austin for prioritizing bicycling:

Four communities moved into the Gold tier: Austin, TX, San Luis Obispo and Santa Cruz, CA, and Tempe, AZ. There are now 24 Gold Bicycle Friendly Communities.

“Austin joins just a handful of major cities in the entire nation to earn this award for efforts to make this city a bicycle-friendly community. But this distinction isn’t about bicycling, it’s about the benefits that bicycling brings to Austin. It’s good for your health, great for your family’s transportation budget, and may be the quickest way to get around town. Austin’s commitment to bicycling is evident through the implementation of our recently adopted Bicycle Master Plan which will make bicycling safer, more comfortable and convenient for people of all ages and abilities.” -- Austin Transportation Director Rob Spillar

http://bikeleague.org/content/new-pl...ly-communities

[Mopacs]

While this does not impact Austin directly, I thought this is noteworthy for Central Texas transportation in general...

The section of US 190/Central Texas Expressway between Belton and Copperas Cove will soon be designated as Interstate 14, which includes Fort Hood, Killeen and Harker Heights.

http://www.kxxv.com/story/30695293/u...-interstate-14

Long term route through Texas

http://interstate-dots.blogspot.com/...14-update.html

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Mopacs

While this does not impact Austin directly, I thought this is noteworthy for Central Texas transportation in general...

The section of US 190/Central Texas Expressway between Belton and Copperas Cove will soon be designated as Interstate 14, which includes Fort Hood, Killeen and Harker Heights.

http://www.kxxv.com/story/30695293/u...-interstate-14

Long term route through Texas

http://interstate-dots.blogspot.com/...14-update.html

So Austin remains the largest city in the country only served by 1 interstate.

[ATXboom]

I wish 71/290 would redesignate as I10 north...

[electricron]

Originally Posted by ATXboom

I wish 71/290 would redesignate as I10 north...

All even number Interstate Highways are designated east or west directions, all odd numbers are designated north or south directions.

An I-10N would be describing a parallel freeway to the existing I-10, which would have to be renamed !-10S where the two highways co-exist in parallel.

[drummer]

Originally Posted by ATXboom

I wish 71/290 would redesignate as I10 north...

I've often thought the same thing - from Columbus to Austin via 71, integrate Ben White, and at the Y continue on 290 through Fredericksburg until you get back to I-10. They could designate it I-10 North while the original path through San Antonio could become I-10 South.

If not this, then I've thought that 290 from I-35 in Austin to Houston could become I-12 or something like that. It'd be shorter, but it's a heavily traveled route. However, as 290 would be relatively close (by Texas miles, that is) to this I-14 route, I'm leaning more toward the 71/290 route now.

Either one of these are needed, in my opinion, as the Texas Triangle area will only get more developed over the next few decades. I don't like the typical TxDot method of reacting rather than planning. I think this I-14 thing is needed.

Of course, if everyone relied more on rail for transport over the next few decades, we could have a sweet HSR network connecting the big four metros and then more commuter-style rail (the potential LSR, TRE in DFW, etc) connecting smaller cities...but you know...that's still me dreaming.

[lzppjb]

So, would designating it I-10N open up federal funding and the opportunity to widen it in the rural areas? Is that why y'all want the designation? Just want to get on the same page.

[lzppjb]

http://www.i69texasalliance.com/Reso...R.7.8.2014.pdf

[DoubleC]

As much as we'd all like an East-West interstate, it would only make traffic here worse, actually. People driving out West would probably instead go through Austin than San Antonio since it would be the shorter route, therefore adding more thru traffic than before, no?

290 is pretty much a freeway for most of the drive to Houston, minus some stops in small towns, but they've recently added sections of overpasses in some areas.

An interstate originating in Austin and ending in Houston or I-10 would suffice, IMO.

[Mopacs]

Originally Posted by DoubleC

As much as we'd all like an East-West interstate, it would only make traffic here worse, actually. People driving out West would probably instead go through Austin than San Antonio since it would be the shorter route, therefore adding more thru traffic than before, no?

290 is pretty much a freeway for most of the drive to Houston, minus some stops in small towns, but they've recently added sections of overpasses in some areas.

An interstate originating in Austin and ending in Houston or I-10 would suffice, IMO.

Perhaps the alignment could follow a more southerly route, along SH 45 South/Southwest (if completed). Granted, as the city continues to grow in that direction, the local/thru traffic impacts would become much more significant.

[Jdawgboy]

Originally Posted by lzppjb

http://www.i69texasalliance.com/Reso...R.7.8.2014.pdf

So they can find the money to do this yet they can't go ahead and upgrade I-35 through Austin which has been sorely needed for 30 years?

I also don't see why they can't go ahead and put a connection right into Austin. I mean if they are going to split it between Bell and Williamson counties they might as well go ahead and incorporate SH-45 as Mopacs suggested.

It looks similar to Perry's bypass all Texas metros with a network of toll roads but instead of a tollway, it will be a new interstate. It's probably a similar east/west route if not the same route.

Austin really does need an east/west Interstate designation. The problem with the alignment of I-14 is that anyone using that interstate to travel to Austin would have to be funneled into an already clogged I-35 and if not 35 they will still have to funnel in by SH130 down to 290 anyways so go ahead and upgrade 290 to interstate status as well. My concern is that 35 through both Travis and Williamson counties will still be several years off before any real improvement is made. I'm not saying that they shouldn't build I-14, I'm just saying let's have a little more effort put into the Capital city of Texas's expressway/interstate capacity. Having I-14 that close will impact our traffic on 35 here.

Also what's the whole T-bone from SH-130 going down to Corpus? Will that eventually be an Interstate designation? I wouldn't call that a real second interstate connection into Austin even if it was because its just another north south road that only skirts the eastern edges of the city.

[Jdawgboy]

http://www.interstate-guide.com/i-014.html

Oh and get this, just looked it up and found out Austin was the original western terminus for this interstate when it was proposed.

Interstate 14 is the proposed designation for a new freeway corridor between Natchez, Mississippi and Augusta, Georgia. Proposed by U.S. Rep. Max Burns and other legislators in 2004 along with the 3rd Infantry Division Highway (Interstate 3), the 14th Amendment Highway, or Interstate 14, was envisioned to run west to Austin, Texas, and east to Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, thus creating a "Gulf Coast Strategic Highway." Under this scenario, to connect properly with the nearby Interstates, Interstate 14 would continue west from Natchez to Alexandria, Jasper, College Station, and Austin.

So the question is was it Austin leaders that said no to the idea or was it the typical Austin bashing tactics the state government is so famous for? Was this even discussed or reported on in the local news? I don't remember hearing anything about it during that time.

Maybe the idea of an Interstate connection between Austin and College Station was just frightening to think about LOL. I'd rather have one to Houston myself.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Jdawgboy

http://www.interstate-guide.com/i-014.html

Oh and get this, just looked it up and found out Austin was the original western terminus for this interstate when it was proposed.



So the question is was it Austin leaders that said no to the idea or was it the typical Austin bashing tactics the state government is so famous for? Was this even discussed or reported on in the local news? I don't remember hearing anything about it during that time.

Maybe the idea of an Interstate connection between Austin and College Station was just frightening to think about LOL. I'd rather have one to Houston myself.

Never even got that far. Their "source" for that is now a dead link, but archived:

https://web.archive.org/web/20060502...sApproved.html

So just "recent talks in Washington", the actual legislation only covered Georgia/Alabama. Even then, I'm not so sure they didn't mean Killeen the whole time (and simply thought it was part of the Austin metro).