HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

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


Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #7621  
Old Posted May 14, 2021, 3:02 AM
chinchaaa chinchaaa is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 658
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novacek View Post
ATP board meeting agenda has a pretty detailed potential alignment for the blue line

https://capmetro.org/docs/default-so...nda-packet.pdf

At the end
TLDR; Blue Line crosses the river on a bridge that leads to a tunnel entrance on the north side of the river.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7622  
Old Posted May 14, 2021, 3:16 AM
drummer drummer is offline
World Traveler
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Austin metro area
Posts: 4,470
Looks like the Austin Rowing Club may be going away, in this case.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7623  
Old Posted May 14, 2021, 2:04 PM
Novacek Novacek is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 2,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by drummer View Post
Looks like the Austin Rowing Club may be going away, in this case.
Or at least relocated.

This came up before with the 2014 light rail proposal, since it had a similar route.

https://www.statesman.com/article/20...NEWS/309189568



The "Stations" public/virtual meeting says this about it.

"This tunnel portal and bridge will impact the Waller Creek Boathouse and the project teams have been coordinating with the Austin Parks and Recreation Department"

https://www.capmetroengage.org/sites...8_04272021.pdf


If it has to move, it has to move. A bit annoying, but a 3.5M boathouse shouldn't drive the route selection of billion dollar light rail.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7624  
Old Posted May 14, 2021, 2:15 PM
H2O H2O is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novacek View Post
ATP board meeting agenda has a pretty detailed potential alignment for the blue line

https://capmetro.org/docs/default-so...nda-packet.pdf

At the end
Interesting! I really wish the presentation included the next map north so we could see the length of the tunnel portal. A vertical profile would also be really useful to understand the intentions and trade-offs.

By my calculation, the elevation of the rails at the tunnel portal would need to be at least 10 feet below the elevation of Cesar Chavez to be able to pass under Cesar Chavez. That makes the bridge clearance over the new section of trail along the shoreline pretty low.

To do the same the same at Guadalupe, the tunnel portal would need to start about mid-span of the Drake Bridge, (or center line of the Colorado River channel). That would presumably require a peninsula be built out into the channel and a very long trail boardwalk between the Shoal Creek peninsula and the boardwalk under the Congress Avenue bridge.

Alternatively, if the rails cross Cesar Chavez at grade, the tunnel portal would block 2nd Street and probably 3rd Street as well.

That is why I predict the Guadalupe crossing will be a tunnel under the LBL, with the Riverside station underground.

I also would not be surprised if they determine they cannot afford two crossings in the initial phase of construction. I initially thought they might eliminate the Trinity crossing, but I now think it would make more sense to eliminate the Guadalupe crossing since it will be more expensive, and both the Blue and Orange Lines would serve MACC / Rainey and the entire 4th Street tunnel. The Orange Line would have a slight detour back to South Congress, but in the scheme of things, it would not be that significant.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7625  
Old Posted May 14, 2021, 3:21 PM
freerover freerover is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 2,268
Quote:
Originally Posted by H2O View Post
Interesting! I really wish the presentation included the next map north so we could see the length of the tunnel portal. A vertical profile would also be really useful to understand the intentions and trade-offs.

By my calculation, the elevation of the rails at the tunnel portal would need to be at least 10 feet below the elevation of Cesar Chavez to be able to pass under Cesar Chavez. That makes the bridge clearance over the new section of trail along the shoreline pretty low.

To do the same the same at Guadalupe, the tunnel portal would need to start about mid-span of the Drake Bridge, (or center line of the Colorado River channel). That would presumably require a peninsula be built out into the channel and a very long trail boardwalk between the Shoal Creek peninsula and the boardwalk under the Congress Avenue bridge.

Alternatively, if the rails cross Cesar Chavez at grade, the tunnel portal would block 2nd Street and probably 3rd Street as well.

That is why I predict the Guadalupe crossing will be a tunnel under the LBL, with the Riverside station underground.

I also would not be surprised if they determine they cannot afford two crossings in the initial phase of construction. I initially thought they might eliminate the Trinity crossing, but I now think it would make more sense to eliminate the Guadalupe crossing since it will be more expensive, and both the Blue and Orange Lines would serve MACC / Rainey and the entire 4th Street tunnel. The Orange Line would have a slight detour back to South Congress, but in the scheme of things, it would not be that significant.

The turn from S. Congress to E. Riverside is way way way too sharp. It's like a U-turn. I don't think it will possible for the orange line to get over to the blue line easement.

Also, remember the tunnel portal already starts 15 feet below Cesar due to elevation changes as you approach the lake. Also, the area where they want to make a passing trail is already 15 feet lower than the portal. You have to go down a shit ton of stairs to get from DT street level to the front of the boat house.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7626  
Old Posted May 14, 2021, 8:27 PM
H2O H2O is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by freerover View Post
The turn from S. Congress to E. Riverside is way way way too sharp. It's like a U-turn. I don't think it will possible for the orange line to get over to the blue line easement.

Also, remember the tunnel portal already starts 15 feet below Cesar due to elevation changes as you approach the lake. Also, the area where they want to make a passing trail is already 15 feet lower than the portal. You have to go down a shit ton of stairs to get from DT street level to the front of the boat house.
You are right, the turn is too sharp within the existing ROW. But the cost of acquiring property is much less than the cost of a tunnel crossing. Maybe in the end there will be enough money, especially with federal support. But the whole process of evaluating alternatives, cost effectiveness and value engineering often results in the end product being different than the original proposals.

You may also be right that there is plenty of clearance with the slope of the bank, but if the portal elevation is 15 feet above the trail, you have to take into account the depth of the bridge structure as well, which is why I think the clearance above the trail cold be pretty low. It's really hard to evaluate when they don't provide vertical profiles in their presentations.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7627  
Old Posted May 14, 2021, 9:26 PM
electricron's Avatar
electricron electricron is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Granbury, Texas
Posts: 3,523
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by H2O View Post
You are right, the turn is too sharp within the existing ROW. But the cost of acquiring property is much less than the cost of a tunnel crossing. Maybe in the end there will be enough money, especially with federal support. But the whole process of evaluating alternatives, cost effectiveness and value engineering often results in the end product being different than the original proposals.

You may also be right that there is plenty of clearance with the slope of the bank, but if the portal elevation is 15 feet above the trail, you have to take into account the depth of the bridge structure as well, which is why I think the clearance above the trail cold be pretty low. It's really hard to evaluate when they don't provide vertical profiles in their presentations.
You are asking too much of a 15% design drawing, at 30% there might be some better understanding how the verticals will appear.
Streetcars can navigate at slow speed 50 feet radius curves at a minimum. light rail vehicles can navigate 82 feet radius curves at a minimum. Light rail lines all across the USA frequently cut through the inside of corners. Or they switch from center of the street running to the outer side of a street running. There are design tricks than can be done, including running through an existing building without necessarily tearing the building down. Making tight corners underground should be somewhat easier because they aren't restricted to the existing street's easement.

What might look too tight today may not be after the designers use every trick in the book.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7628  
Old Posted May 14, 2021, 10:08 PM
wwmiv wwmiv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio -> Chicago -> Austin -> Denver
Posts: 5,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by drummer View Post
I saw it somewhere but I'd have to spend some time looking around again. Should have saved it. It extends the expressway along SE Inner Loop and then veers a bit south then east again along what is currently Sam Houston Ave., which will continue on to 130 and then past it, connecting with 29 somewhere a bit west of the small community of Jonah.


Edit: I can only find the SE portion now from about SE Inner Loop to 29 with the 130 connection. Click on either "Ultimate Schematic" or "Corridor C Schematic August 2019"
https://www.wilco.org/corridorc
They also want to upgrade 183 from 29 to the northern county border to freeway.

https://www.wilco.org/corridorf

That would extend the controlled access portion of 183 out to Mahomet.

They also want to build a freeway from this extension wrapped around Liberty Hill back to 29 at the Burnet County border.

https://www.wilco.org/Departments/In...2/Corridor-I-2

And extends to Ronald Reagan / Parmer:

https://www.wilco.org/corridorI-1
__________________
HTOWN: 2305k (+10%) + MSA suburbs: 4818k (+26%) + CSA exurbs: 190k (+6%)
BIGD: 1304k (+9%) + MSA div. suburbs: 3826k (+26%) + adj. CSA exurbs: 394k (+8%)
FTW: 919k (+24%) + MSA div. suburbs: 1589k (+14%) + adj. CSA exurbs: 90k (+12%)
SATX: 1435k (+8%) + MSA suburbs: 1124k (+38%) + CSA exurbs: 18k (+11%)
ATX: 962k (+22%) + MSA suburbs: 1322k (+43%)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7629  
Old Posted May 14, 2021, 10:14 PM
wwmiv wwmiv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio -> Chicago -> Austin -> Denver
Posts: 5,271
__________________
HTOWN: 2305k (+10%) + MSA suburbs: 4818k (+26%) + CSA exurbs: 190k (+6%)
BIGD: 1304k (+9%) + MSA div. suburbs: 3826k (+26%) + adj. CSA exurbs: 394k (+8%)
FTW: 919k (+24%) + MSA div. suburbs: 1589k (+14%) + adj. CSA exurbs: 90k (+12%)
SATX: 1435k (+8%) + MSA suburbs: 1124k (+38%) + CSA exurbs: 18k (+11%)
ATX: 962k (+22%) + MSA suburbs: 1322k (+43%)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7630  
Old Posted May 15, 2021, 2:35 AM
drummer drummer is offline
World Traveler
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Austin metro area
Posts: 4,470
Quote:
Originally Posted by wwmiv View Post
They also want to upgrade 183 from 29 to the northern county border to freeway.

https://www.wilco.org/corridorf

That would extend the controlled access portion of 183 out to Mahomet.

They also want to build a freeway from this extension wrapped around Liberty Hill back to 29 at the Burnet County border.

https://www.wilco.org/Departments/In...2/Corridor-I-2

And extends to Ronald Reagan / Parmer:

https://www.wilco.org/corridorI-1
I didn't realize the 183 plan was to go that far north. I assumed just past 29 for now. What is the timeline on that?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7631  
Old Posted May 15, 2021, 12:42 PM
H2O H2O is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 1,592
Quote:
Originally Posted by electricron View Post
You are asking too much of a 15% design drawing, at 30% there might be some better understanding how the verticals will appear.
There are vertical profiles shown in the presentation, just not of this particular location. It is not that they have not plotted them at 15%, they just chose not to include them in the presentation.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7632  
Old Posted May 15, 2021, 4:16 PM
wwmiv wwmiv is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Austin -> San Antonio -> Columbia -> San Antonio -> Chicago -> Austin -> Denver
Posts: 5,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by drummer View Post
I didn't realize the 183 plan was to go that far north. I assumed just past 29 for now. What is the timeline on that?
The current plans by TXDOT and CAMPO are a toll road to just past 29, yes.

WilCo wants to later extend the limited access facility as a freeway past that. Timeline: who knows? Maybe 10-15 years.
__________________
HTOWN: 2305k (+10%) + MSA suburbs: 4818k (+26%) + CSA exurbs: 190k (+6%)
BIGD: 1304k (+9%) + MSA div. suburbs: 3826k (+26%) + adj. CSA exurbs: 394k (+8%)
FTW: 919k (+24%) + MSA div. suburbs: 1589k (+14%) + adj. CSA exurbs: 90k (+12%)
SATX: 1435k (+8%) + MSA suburbs: 1124k (+38%) + CSA exurbs: 18k (+11%)
ATX: 962k (+22%) + MSA suburbs: 1322k (+43%)
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7633  
Old Posted May 15, 2021, 6:23 PM
The ATX's Avatar
The ATX The ATX is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Where the lights are much brighter
Posts: 12,016
Two spans were blown up this morning:

Video Link
__________________
Follow The ATX on X:
https://twitter.com/TheATX1

Things will be great when you're downtown.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7634  
Old Posted May 16, 2021, 5:37 AM
KevinFromTexas's Avatar
KevinFromTexas KevinFromTexas is offline
Meh
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: there and back again
Posts: 57,324
__________________
Donate to Donald Trump's campaign today!

Thou shall not indict
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7635  
Old Posted May 16, 2021, 3:07 PM
gabetx's Avatar
gabetx gabetx is offline
PrimaPix Visuals
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: San Antonio, TX
Posts: 254
RIP that guys voice lol
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7636  
Old Posted May 17, 2021, 2:33 AM
DoubleC's Avatar
DoubleC DoubleC is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Austin, Texas
Posts: 309
Dang are there really no cars at this time of day? Or maybe they're being held back temporarily?

Oh yeah I see the long line at 183. Ouch.

Surprised they were going to demolish that much more of the bridge. I thought they were going to just reconnect the old with the new less-steep ramp.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7637  
Old Posted May 17, 2021, 2:11 PM
drummer drummer is offline
World Traveler
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Austin metro area
Posts: 4,470
Quote:
Originally Posted by wwmiv View Post
The current plans by TXDOT and CAMPO are a toll road to just past 29, yes.

WilCo wants to later extend the limited access facility as a freeway past that. Timeline: who knows? Maybe 10-15 years.
I saw a map somewhere showing 183 going all the way up to a completed I-14, making the connection near Lampasas. I would have assumed that was decades out, but with this growth? Who knows! People are buying near Copperas Cove and Killeen to find homes they can afford. If we begin seeing more commutes to the Austin metro from that area, it could happen sooner.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7638  
Old Posted May 18, 2021, 10:07 PM
atxsnail atxsnail is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 550
Quote:
Originally Posted by Novacek View Post
Not sure at all

But it seems weird to me that:

1) We'd be doing Green Line work more than a decade out from when the line is scheduled to be operating by the current published plan (surely we could find a use for any extra federal money for the Red line or other projects).
2) it would only be a single station
3) that it would specifically be termed a "temporary rail station". If it's early work for Green Line, seems like we'd be working towards those permanent stations.
Per a capmetro email posted to the #atxtransit listserv, the station is envisioned as a temporary station for limited Green Line service but only up to (and not crossing) Pleasant Valley Rd. Apparently this portion of track was already upgraded so that it could be used as a staging area for extra Red Line trains during rush hour. This would allow for transfers from the 300/672/future Pleasant Valley MetroRapid to get downtown service. They also say the retired downtown station could be repurposed for this.

I guess if trains are already going to be in those areas they might as well pick up some passengers on the way to the downtown station before they become Red Line runs? I can't imagine there are many people who would want to transfer from there right now bc of the fare difference. I guess it would at least put CapMetro HQ on a rail line.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7639  
Old Posted May 18, 2021, 10:51 PM
freerover freerover is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Posts: 2,268
Quote:
Originally Posted by atxsnail View Post
Per a capmetro email posted to the #atxtransit listserv, the station is envisioned as a temporary station for limited Green Line service but only up to (and not crossing) Pleasant Valley Rd. Apparently this portion of track was already upgraded so that it could be used as a staging area for extra Red Line trains during rush hour. This would allow for transfers from the 300/672/future Pleasant Valley MetroRapid to get downtown service. They also say the retired downtown station could be repurposed for this.

I guess if trains are already going to be in those areas they might as well pick up some passengers on the way to the downtown station before they become Red Line runs? I can't imagine there are many people who would want to transfer from there right now bc of the fare difference. I guess it would at least put CapMetro HQ on a rail line.

It also makes the Red Line more of an option for people who live south and work NW so we might get some more opposite rush hour ridership.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7640  
Old Posted May 21, 2021, 1:55 PM
drummer drummer is offline
World Traveler
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Austin metro area
Posts: 4,470
Leander voters will decide whether to keep Capital Metro

Quote:
LEANDER (KXAN) — Leander’s decision over whether to keep or ditch Capital Metro is now in the hands of voters. The Leander City Council voted 6-1 Thursday night to put the Capital Metro’s future relationship with Leander on an upcoming ballot.

If voters decide to cut ties with CapMetro, that would end the city’s bus and train service immediately.

This vote took place as one of the last acts of outgoing Leander Mayor Troy Hill. Incoming Mayor Christine Sederquist and Council Member Becki Ross were sworn in right after the CapMetro vote.
https://www.kxan.com/news/local/will...capital-metro/


With the insane growth in the area and the dense development right around the station (partly if not mostly because of the station), this is such backwards thinking. I sure hope voters have more sense than the outgoing mayor and certain members of the council.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
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 4:39 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.