Are new highways in the Plans for Austin or the upgrading of existing ones?

[BevoLJ]

It seems all they do is planning and more planning. How many years and how much money have they already put into this planning?

I also still don't understand why they can't use the Drag. M1EK has tried to explain to me the little part at the top @ 29th and why they can't work around that, but I still don't get it. I just can't imagine any part of Austin that would provide more riders than West Campus. It is by far the most populated and densest part of Austin, and has the most people who don't have cars and would use it. Having this go to places where people are already driving everywhere rather than an area where very few drive just doesn't make any sense to me.

[mayfair44]

Originally Posted by jb9152

There are good arguments on both sides. I do think that the investment has already been made in MetroRapid (the bus rapid transit - BRT - system that Cap Metro will be building imminently), so we should do all we can to make that successful in the near to medium term.

Yeah I guess what's done is done. BRT does, by design reach out further, in four directions. Ridership will be interesting.

That said, there's nothing that would preclude dual operation of Urban Rail and MetroRapid in the Guadalupe-Lamar corridor (although there are a few technological hurdles to overcome - none insurmountable), or conversion one day of MetroRapid to Urban Rail (in that case, construction staging becomes the issue - how do you continue to operate BRT while constructing Urban Rail?).

On the other hand, Mueller has been designed since day one as a Transit Oriented Development. The provision of high capacity transit (in this case, Urban Rail) will allow the development to support higher densities, both from a practical and regulatory standpoint, which will make the property more valuable, which increases tax revenues. Those increased tax revenues, properly captured using Tax Increment Financing methods, could help fund the ongoing operations of the system.

Right, Mueller is like the city's poster child for smart urban redevelopment. I totally get why some would argue for the Lamar/Guadalupe path as well. True, West and North Campus holds the most density, but think about it, they are, by occupation, mostly students, who aren't commuting daily to CBD. Their main use would be for going out at night I'd think, which would be great considering traffic and parking. For now, they've got their E-bus and daily campus shuttles. Still though, running a line straight down Lamar, thru the drag, into DT on paper makes alot of sense.

So, there are compelling reasons for both options.

Now that capital funding Urban Rail is off the November bond issue and planning money is in, there is time to fully consider all of the alternatives.

With Mueller on the table it seems that the first described "hub" is Hancock Center. Any intel on the described location out there? Maps seem to show the line coming into I35 from the east, at the SE corner of Airport and I35, going under the overpass. I've also heard the Hancock Center is balking on the idea of a transfer station on the property (parking lot).

http://allsystemsgo.capmetro.org/cap...trorapid.shtml

[jb9152]

Originally Posted by BevoLJ

It seems all they do is planning and more planning. How many years and how much money have they already put into this planning?

The onerous planning process is unfortunately required by federal regulations. There is a prescribed process that has to be followed to the letter in order to access and secure any federal funds for projects. It's a sad fact of life for transportation initiatives. This is one of the reasons why the 'stimulus' funding was substantially a flop - there are no truly "shovel ready" projects because the project development process is so long, expensive, and complex.

Originally Posted by BevoLJ

I also still don't understand why they can't use the Drag. M1EK has tried to explain to me the little part at the top @ 29th and why they can't work around that, but I still don't get it. I just can't imagine any part of Austin that would provide more riders than West Campus. It is by far the most populated and densest part of Austin, and has the most people who don't have cars and would use it. Having this go to places where people are already driving everywhere rather than an area where very few drive just doesn't make any sense to me.

Well, in fairness, the final route has not yet been determined, and now that there is more time to consider and reconsider the alternatives, different conclusions might be reached. As I mentioned, though, there are already federal $ committed to the MetroRapid bus rapid transit project in that corridor. Cap Metro projects a 21% average decrease in travel times across the line. Hopefully, that pans out. BRT offers higher capacity, higher speed rides, and is sometimes viewed as a precursor to light rail (although this rarely happens in practice).

[jb9152]

Originally Posted by mayfair44

With Mueller on the table it seems that the first described "hub" is Hancock Center. Any intel on the described location out there? Maps seem to show the line coming into I35 from the east, at the SE corner of Airport and I35, going under the overpass. I've also heard the Hancock Center is balking on the idea of a transfer station on the property (parking lot).

All Systems Go Long-Range Transit Plan - Capital Metro - Austin, TX

No intel beyond "it's being looked at". Hancock is one of the conceptual planned transfer stations being studied as part of Project Connect, between the Urban Rail line and the MetroRail Red Line. I know that one of the concepts advanced was a station *under* I-35, and another was the aforementioned Hancock Center location.

[mayfair44]

Originally Posted by jb9152

No intel beyond "it's being looked at". Hancock is one of the conceptual planned transfer stations being studied as part of Project Connect, between the Urban Rail line and the MetroRail Red Line. I know that one of the concepts advanced was a station *under* I-35, and another was the aforementioned Hancock Center location.

Also, it seems like a nothing new has been announced regarding the I35 corridor:

Corridor Development IH-35 - Austin Mobility
http://www.austin-mobility.com/downl...t_06-14-12.pdf
http://www.austin-mobility.com/downl...020112.ppt.pdf

Other "concerns" around town seem to be further along in conception and/or development. Thoughts?

[jb9152]

Originally Posted by mayfair44

Also, it seems like a nothing new has been announced regarding the I35 corridor:

Corridor Development IH-35 - Austin Mobility
http://www.austin-mobility.com/downl...t_06-14-12.pdf
http://www.austin-mobility.com/downl...020112.ppt.pdf

Other "concerns" around town seem to be further along in conception and/or development. Thoughts?

The I-35 Corridor study is proceeding, as far as I know; I talk to several of the people on the project on a semi-regular basis. The concept would be managed express lanes, along with some traffic management improvements. Cap Metro would presumably operate express buses in the managed lanes, as is being planned on MoPac.

The studies done as part of Project Connect identified the need for 12 lane equivalents of capacity from the north and 14 from the south heading into central Austin by the year 2035, so two sets of managed lanes are not going to do the entire trick. But those highway improvements, coupled with high capacity transit investments like Urban Rail, LSTAR, MetroRapid expansion, and MetroRail expansion will go a long way toward making up that capacity deficit.

[ragdog]

Originally Posted by Newbe10

After several visits to the Austin area and looking at the highway system, I think that Austin could stand for the upgrading and expansion of a few highways. I think that this could be done without the need to build brand new freeways.

For instance, upgrading U.S. Highway 183 a full freeway to and past Austin-Birkstrom Int'l Airport; expanding the freeway section of 290 W through the rest of the southwestern part of the city; Upgrading 290 E to freeway past the 130 tollway; and finally, upgrading state highway 360 to full freeway standards.

IMHO, if this could be done, it would make traveling around Austin much easier. The only new freeway, that I think that Austin could use is a "loop." Most cities and towns in Texas have a loop; heck even the tiny city of Crockett has a loop. This loop around Austin could involve using some of the existing highways like highway 360.

Anyway, I know that some particular posters on here (from looking at past threads) are against the idea of new highways or expanding existing ones in Austin, but the cold hard truth is that it needs to be done, because rapid growth in Austin isn't going to stop anytime soon and I don't think that the current highway system can handle such continued growth.

Also, does anyone know when, if at all, when the tollroads (i.e. SH 45 and SH 130) will become free?

heres a website that has the old highway proposals for the austin area. Obviously these plans were never put into action but it does give a good look at how some were planning to develop the city
TexasFreeway > Austin > Historic Information > Historic Photos > Freeway planning maps

Also i have heard that the new Interstate 14 (if it ever gets built) could have its western terminus in the austin area instead of the proposed Mississippi site but there's limited info on that idea.