AUSTIN | Transportation Updates

[Mikey711MN]

130 functions just fine as a bypass. As commented above, the 3rd lane addition should be testament to that. The Pflugervilles and Huttos are fine by it as it's become a catalyst to their suburban development goals. Without 130, this development may have just as well developed further up and down the I-35 spine.

The percentage of thru-traffic on I-35 within the Austin core is negligible relative to the local traffic. And as long as Austin continues to grow - and regardless of how - that share of local traffic will only increase.

130 should not have been considered a magic solution to Austin's traffic problems, and neither should the I-35 Capital Express project nor Project Connect now. There are nearly 2M people here now, each of whom generally require mobility on rubber tires for the great majority of their trips. If anything, these projects should be evaluated on what enables Austin to have the "least worst" impact.

[StoOgE]

Originally Posted by Lobotomizer

130 has enough traffic they just added a lane in each direction from 71 to 45 North, or maybe even past.

It may not be successful as a bypass to I35, but anyone saying it is little used is incorrect.

No one is saying it isn't used, we are saying it failed in its goals of diverting through traffic around Austin and led to further suburban sprawl to the East of Austin

[papertowelroll]

Originally Posted by Mikey711MN

130 functions just fine as a bypass. As commented above, the 3rd lane addition should be testament to that. The Pflugervilles and Huttos are fine by it as it's become a catalyst to their suburban development goals. Without 130, this development may have just as well developed further up and down the I-35 spine.

The percentage of thru-traffic on I-35 within the Austin core is negligible relative to the local traffic. And as long as Austin continues to grow - and regardless of how - that share of local traffic will only increase.

130 should not have been considered a magic solution to Austin's traffic problems, and neither should the I-35 Capital Express project nor Project Connect now. There are nearly 2M people here now, each of whom generally require mobility on rubber tires for the great majority of their trips. If anything, these projects should be evaluated on what enables Austin to have the "least worst" impact.

The 3rd lane addition is testament to how effective the road is for enabling suburban development in the Phluggervilles and Huttos.. I don't think any significant amount of 135 thru-traffic take 130 as a bypass. That would be dumb because it is both more expensive and slower than I35.

I don't get why you think I'd expect 130 to be a magic solution to Austin's traffic problems. I am well aware that it is not that. No freeway is a solution to traffic problems. Project connect isn't either, it's a solution to "you must drive on a freeway to get somewhere in Austin". Freeways are a solution to "far-flung place x is too far away to commute to Austin".

[Speculator]

Originally Posted by sammyk

I think most of them sit on a platform over a rail yard.

That's what I thought. Phase II will have even more.

[IrvineNative]

Originally Posted by Novacek

The issue with 130 is that it was built so far east. Frequently, the time necessary to divert over to take it and back exceeds the time to just slog through on 35. So why take it, even if it was free.

Making it free would probably be worse, as that would induce some local trips on it, making the diversion even slightly slower.

You'd need a combo of making it free and tolling all of I35.

I guess, but aren't all bypasses built around the fringes of the city? Maybe that's why bypasses often don't work?
Any examples of successful bypasses anywhere else?

Where should SH130 have been built to serve as a successful bypass?

[IrvineNative]

Originally Posted by Novacek

The issue with 130 is that it was built so far east. Frequently, the time necessary to divert over to take it and back exceeds the time to just slog through on 35. So why take it, even if it was free.

Making it free would probably be worse, as that would induce some local trips on it, making the diversion even slightly slower.

You'd need a combo of making it free and tolling all of I35.

I guess, but aren't all bypasses built around the fringes of the city? Maybe that's why bypasses often don't work?
Any examples of successful bypasses anywhere else?

Where should SH130 have been built to serve as a successful bypass?

What about driving straight from Waco to San Antonio? Would SH130 be quicker than I-35?

[IrvineNative]

Originally Posted by Mikey711MN

The percentage of thru-traffic on I-35 within the Austin core is negligible relative to the local traffic.

Texas Transportation Institute did a study on this. They defined "thru traffic" as only traffic that started at or beyond the sh130/I35 junction north of Georgetown and ended at or beyond the southern terminus of sh130, or vice versa.

They found that at the busiest part of I35, a full 14% of the vehicle count was thru traffic. That's not negligible. And in traffic engineering, it's commonly known that cutting 14% of vehicle count could reduce congestion by 45% or more.

This of course may change in the future. That's why I believe Austin's Project Connect has ridership potential second only to Seattle's Link. On a per capita basis, Austin's high downtown employment share and corporate growth will generate lots more TODs than a slow growing city (like Los Angeles) can ever hope to build.

[drummer]

So this article lands somewhere between Transportation and Misc. Discussions, but I figured since it dealt with road planning I would stick it here. I learned something new today.

Sneckdowns are all over Central Texas this week, here’s why

AUSTIN (KXAN) — They’re rarely spotted in Central Texas and only in the winter. What is a Sneckdown and why do they only show up when it is freezing?

The word Sneckdown is a combination of two words, “Snow” and “Neckdown”. A neckdown is an old-fashioned term for a curb extension.

During the winter months, cars driving on the roads leave tracks in the snow showing where they actually drove. These tracks, traffic experts and city planners say, highlight how much of the road is used by drivers. The tracks show how much of the road is wasted.
…

https://www.kxan.com/weather/weather...eek-heres-why/

[dilliam]

This sounds like a guerilla urbanism opportunity. We should flour all of the streets in town and find the sneckdowns. lol

[Novacek]

Moved from the Mueller thread, as the subject has wandered

Originally Posted by H2O

I suspect double tracking and electrifying all the way to Leander would be less expensive than 4 miles of in street running LRT. No utility adjustments, no repaving, no streetscaping and no traffic signal work. And it would probably be faster, with a dedicated ROW and priority at crossing signals vs operating at street speed limits and governed by traffic signals. Of course, LRT would be closer to where people are and want to be and might get higher ridership by being more accessible. There are trade-offs but I think prioritizing other corridors without any rail might make more sense.

There will of course be tradeoffs in any decision as to where (or if) to expand the system. IMO NBG has a bit of a leg up over many other locations, and it certainly seems like CM does as well, given it's inclusion on the first "vision" map.

Certainly the red line can and will provide connections in the interim, but long term there's going to be disadvantages in relying on that approach.
Beyond the transfer penalty as mentioned, there's also the service interval and duration constraints. Even with full double tracking, I don't expect the red line will have the service frequency and off peak service hours possible with light rail, due to freight interoperability requirements.
I'd also be surprised if the red line has much or any speed advantage over street running. It goes pretty slow in that section of town, and burnet allows 45 mph. In street light rail still allows signal priority as well.

Long term, if/when UT redevelops Pickle to its full potential, connecting the two campuses with one seat light rail ride is very appealing.

In the short term, I think it'll be interesting to see what happens with connecting bus service once the first phase of light rail rolls out. I certainly expect another complete "CapRemap" redesign. Beyond the routes that are being completely replaced, I'd expect more of an emphasis on routes connecting into light rail, rather than running long distance.
For the case of NBG, it'll be interesting to see what happens with the 383. How much they run it, and how much ridership it gets (since it's essentially the feeder from NBG into the light rail at the NLTC). It's not a perfect proxy for a hypothetical LRT extension (because of the transfer penalty) but it could see a jump in ridership.

[freerover]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Moved from the Mueller thread, as the subject has wandered



There will of course be tradeoffs in any decision as to where (or if) to expand the system. IMO NBG has a bit of a leg up over many other locations, and it certainly seems like CM does as well, given it's inclusion on the first "vision" map.

Certainly the red line can and will provide connections in the interim, but long term there's going to be disadvantages in relying on that approach.
Beyond the transfer penalty as mentioned, there's also the service interval and duration constraints. Even with full double tracking, I don't expect the red line will have the service frequency and off peak service hours possible with light rail, due to freight interoperability requirements.
I'd also be surprised if the red line has much or any speed advantage over street running. It goes pretty slow in that section of town, and burnet allows 45 mph. In street light rail still allows signal priority as well.

Long term, if/when UT redevelops Pickle to its full potential, connecting the two campuses with one seat light rail ride is very appealing.

In the short term, I think it'll be interesting to see what happens with connecting bus service once the first phase of light rail rolls out. I certainly expect another complete "CapRemap" redesign. Beyond the routes that are being completely replaced, I'd expect more of an emphasis on routes connecting into light rail, rather than running long distance.
For the case of NBG, it'll be interesting to see what happens with the 383. How much they run it, and how much ridership it gets (since it's essentially the feeder from NBG into the light rail at the NLTC). It's not a perfect proxy for a hypothetical LRT extension (because of the transfer penalty) but it could see a jump in ridership.

East Austin would burn down the cap metro HQ before fucking Leander got light rail from downtown Austin. The light rail prorities post project connect should be East 7th, Manor/Berkman/Loyola and MLK. Two of those lines can go west to mopac too.

Light rail to Leander is the fucking whitest central west Austinite idea ever. Kill it with fire.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by freerover

East Austin would burn down the cap metro HQ before fucking Leander got light rail from downtown Austin. The light rail prorities post project connect should be East 7th, Manor/Berkman/Loyola and MLK. Two of those lines can go west to mopac too.

Light rail to Leander is the fucking whitest central west Austinite idea ever. Kill it with fire.

Who said anything about Leander?

Extend the Blue line from it's current terminus at NLTC to the North Burnet Gateway area. ~3-4 miles. Not 20.

Literally exactly the spur shown in initial planning for the North Lamar corridor.

https://austinrailnow.files.wordpres...sq_projcon.jpg

And the first vision map circa 2018

https://miro.medium.com/max/1400/1*L...4FZZ70M1sw.png

Depending on the exact route, it either serves the Village/Northcross IA center along the way, or provides further coverage in NACA.

[H2O]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Moved from the Mueller thread, as the subject has wandered



There will of course be tradeoffs in any decision as to where (or if) to expand the system. IMO NBG has a bit of a leg up over many other locations, and it certainly seems like CM does as well, given it's inclusion on the first "vision" map.

Certainly the red line can and will provide connections in the interim, but long term there's going to be disadvantages in relying on that approach.
Beyond the transfer penalty as mentioned, there's also the service interval and duration constraints. Even with full double tracking, I don't expect the red line will have the service frequency and off peak service hours possible with light rail, due to freight interoperability requirements.
I'd also be surprised if the red line has much or any speed advantage over street running. It goes pretty slow in that section of town, and burnet allows 45 mph. In street light rail still allows signal priority as well.

Long term, if/when UT redevelops Pickle to its full potential, connecting the two campuses with one seat light rail ride is very appealing.

In the short term, I think it'll be interesting to see what happens with connecting bus service once the first phase of light rail rolls out. I certainly expect another complete "CapRemap" redesign. Beyond the routes that are being completely replaced, I'd expect more of an emphasis on routes connecting into light rail, rather than running long distance.
For the case of NBG, it'll be interesting to see what happens with the 383. How much they run it, and how much ridership it gets (since it's essentially the feeder from NBG into the light rail at the NLTC). It's not a perfect proxy for a hypothetical LRT extension (because of the transfer penalty) but it could see a jump in ridership.

All good points. And to be honest, I was disappointed when Burnet did not get a higher rating for rail in Project Connect. Some of it may have been due to the duplication of the Red Line, but if you look at ridership, the 803 does not even do as well as the 300, 7 and 20! Q2 Stadium events did not seem to have made a meaningful impact either (except maybe July?). Most people I know prefer to take the Red Line to Q2, despite having last and first mile disadvantages and more crowding than the 803.

Not to divert, but can you explain the 300 ridership? It is not a route I think of as having high potential, and yet the ridership numbers are almost the same as the 801!

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by H2O

All good points. And to be honest, I was disappointed when Burnet did not get a higher rating for rail in Project Connect. Some of it may have been due to the duplication of the Red Line, but if you look at ridership, the 803 does not even do as well as the 300, 7 and 20! Q2 Stadium events did not seem to have made a meaningful impact either (except maybe July?). Most people I know prefer to take the Red Line to Q2, despite having last and first mile disadvantages and more crowding than the 803.

Not to divert, but can you explain the 300 ridership? It is not a route I think of as having high potential, and yet the ridership numbers are almost the same as the 801!

The 300 is interesting. It's a surprisingly long route (I think a bit longer than the 803) and serves some important yet distinct arterials along the way.

It's basically the only E/W route on most of Oltorf, the only non UT route on much of PV, the only route on a big chunk of Springdale, only route on E 51st. Mostly the only route on St. Johns.

Compared to the 801 that has multiple routes (1, 803, etc.) for its entire length.

Those areas are also some of the last gentrifying parts of inner Austin and east Austin, so more transit dependence and ridership potential.

Because of that length, and its frequency, it's a pretty expensive route. 216 vehicle hours per weekday in October 2019 (to pick a pre-pandemic timeframe). $770k per month (again Oct 2019) slightly more than the cost of the 803, with a bit more ridership. https://www.capmetro.org/dashboard/route-performance

It possibly won't exist in its current form once PC finishes. Will it continue running along PV even with the metrorapid there, or will the Oltorf segment be broken off and concentrate more on feeding into the orange line? What will the existence of the Orange and Blue lines do for ridership patterns in south Austin, etc.

Edit/Add: as for the 803, IMO it's the long term play. We ain't seen nothing yet as far as ridership there like it could be eventually. We've got the still in progress Domain and a pandemic year of Q2 with minimal extra events. There's a huge amount of underdeveloped land, beyond the stuff already in progress (Uptown, Verde Square, Domain south end, etc.), like the entire quadrant south of Pickle west of Burnet which is all industrial and warehouses so far (one apartment in progress). And then the huge ? of what (if anything) UT ever does with Pickle.

And that's just the section north of 183. The 803 corridor south of that is still going, Village/Northcross is begging for density (IMO), etc.

[atxsnail]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Who said anything about Leander?

FWIW the older rail advocate from whose blog you pulled your map will basically not stop talking about full LRT conversion of the Red Line to Leander. I have to respect everything he's done to advocate for transit in Austin during some very rough times but he's approaching transit oddball status when he keeps pushing it.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by atxsnail

FWIW the older rail advocate from whose blog you pulled your map will basically not stop talking about full LRT conversion of the Red Line to Leander. I have to respect everything he's done to advocate for transit in Austin during some very rough times but he's approaching transit oddball status when he keeps pushing it.

The maps are both authored by CapMetro. But they've a bad habit of continually upgrading the Project Connect site and getting rid of historical documents, so these are both from whatever sites happen to be willing to mirror them.

"full light rail" to leander probably doesn't make sense, at least in our lifetimes, and probably isn't physically possible given the freight sharing (CM will probably always have to drop to half hour frequencies or even longer off peak/nights/some weekends).

That's not necessarily the same thing as full double tracking and potentially even using EMUs instead of DMUs. There's some interesting stuff happening with batteries on EMUs and charging at stations, that might eventually let the red line move to EMUs without having to string catenary the whole way.

[zrx299]

Originally Posted by StoOgE

No one is saying it isn't used, we are saying it failed in its goals of diverting through traffic around Austin and led to further suburban sprawl to the East of Austin

It fails as a bypass because it's an overpriced **toll road**

Why pay $11.45/trip with a TxTag (or $16.28 for the non-local thru traffic without a tag)?

If you're a commercial driver, unless you're up against a hard deadline, why in the world would you want to rack up charges to the tune of $32.84 for the full length?

That is where it failed. Since we missed the boat back in the 60s & 70s when the federal govt was drunk with interstate money, we missed out on a proper federal-funded interstate beltway. IH-535 would've been nice, but instead we're stuck with the greedy cronyist setup we have now.

[AustinYIMBY]

[IMG]https://www.texasfreeway.com/austin/...ing-maps/#1969[/IMG]
This is a pretty cool website I found. Not sure if it has been posted here before. If you scroll all the way to the bottom of the page, there are some links to other interesting site, one has some great historic pictures centered around highways in Austin.

[freerover]

Originally Posted by atxsnail

FWIW the older rail advocate from whose blog you pulled your map will basically not stop talking about full LRT conversion of the Red Line to Leander. I have to respect everything he's done to advocate for transit in Austin during some very rough times but he's approaching transit oddball status when he keeps pushing it.

That's exactly why I thought that's what we were talking about.

[drummer]

Originally Posted by zrx299

It fails as a bypass because it's an overpriced **toll road**

Why pay $11.45/trip with a TxTag (or $16.28 for the non-local thru traffic without a tag)?

If you're a commercial driver, unless you're up against a hard deadline, why in the world would you want to rack up charges to the tune of $32.84 for the full length?

That is where it failed. Since we missed the boat back in the 60s & 70s when the federal govt was drunk with interstate money, we missed out on a proper federal-funded interstate beltway. IH-535 would've been nice, but instead we're stuck with the greedy cronyist setup we have now.

I don't know the percentages for I-35 vs 130, but as someone who lives just next to 130 and does use it a couple times per week, there has been a massive increase in commercial trucking. At times it honestly *seems* like it compares to I-35 anecdotally, but I know it's only a fraction in reality. But the increase is certainly there and seems to be growing.