Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is like the biggest transportation news in Austin in years and it seems people are just ambivalent at this at best.
There needs to be discussion so that the right thing is done, not just "something".
I'm not sure many of us believe this is "the biggest transportation news in Austin in years", especially given the amount of time spent on much smaller projects. Plenty of time for 'them' to do nothing.
This is like the biggest transportation news in Austin in years and it seems people are just ambivalent at this at best.
There needs to be discussion so that the right thing is done, not just "something".
Well in my opinion unless they really step up with mass transit, which I dont realistically see happening, what else can they do? This place is growing faster than they can keep up with. If we all vote against it and wait another 5-10 years then we wont really have grounds to complain about traffic.
This is like the biggest transportation news in Austin in years and it seems people are just ambivalent at this at best.
There needs to be discussion so that the right thing is done, not just "something".
This is primarily a federal project with state input. The CoA is way down the list of parties involved.
Of course, as an American and Texan, your input still matters, but it isn't like the city is making many (if any) of the decisions.
And I solved I-35 years ago - I drive on it once or twice a year, but only north from where 45 hits it in RR, or south of Slaughter. I cannot actually recall the last time I drove through 'downtown' on I-35. It has to have been years.
This is primarily a federal project with state input. The CoA is way down the list of parties involved.
Of course, as an American and Texan, your input still matters, but it isn't like the city is making many (if any) of the decisions.
And I solved I-35 years ago - I drive on it once or twice a year, but only north from where 45 hits it in RR, or south of Slaughter. I cannot actually recall the last time I drove through 'downtown' on I-35. It has to have been years.
We tend to drive on it a bit when returning from some event downtown at night, but never during the day.
I hope I'm still around to see I-35 routed underground thru Downtown Austin and what becomes of the land that is I-35 is today.
This is the direction it needs to go into.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainwreck20
This is primarily a federal project with state input. The CoA is way down the list of parties involved.
But this is the issue in my eyes. CoA needs to convince bigger, badder parties that we can be a "future city" and disconnect all traffic patterns inside the city and still maintain interstate highways systems to play by their rules.
It does seem (benefit of the doubt) that what's possible is double-decking the interstate and leaving availability to make off-shoots on the lower deck in the future.
I would say, finish the $8 billion dollar project because I imagine some shoulders were rubbed and they'd hate to disappoint, but leave room to be able to bore sideways in the immediate future. Then CoA has a lot more say in altering the existing infrastructure, rather than fully renovating it.
So, CoA alters the highway by boring out sideways and creating just parking structures essentially and letting people parking below downtown and walking. CoA will always have the option to bore more for expansion later on, until the whole of downtown has a subterranean layer.
I live and work downtown, as do many people, and I only use my car for groceries. Other than that, I walk everywhere and everything I need is between Lamar and 35, so that part should have no thru-traffic.
Do I like the idea of a huge $8 billion dollar project, especially knowing it's probably less necessary than necessary, no. However, they do leave us room to finally get rid of cars from downtown through that necessary part, like I've been hearing about for years. So as long as that option is still physically available through the renovation, some of the renovation will work towards my ulterior motives.
What would be the approximate cost difference to run it underground(for say 5 miles) instead of the current plan? Anybody have a ballpark? Its incredibly valuable land. What if they attempted a "value capture" method of funding, wherein developers kick in? How does this compare to the project in Seattle?
I admittedly know next to nothing about this topic, but my instinct is this is a half-measure and only appears ambitious to be a surface solution.
It appears the design allows for a cap and cover like Klyde Warren Park in Dallas and the double decked part that exists now will be double decker underground, so I like that. It's just the main piece of it from the river to around 12th needs to be underground fully from the get go.
I think Klyde Warren Park was planned from the 1970's. That's how long it takes. 40-50 years min.
We'll all be old or dead by then. We need faster action, the time to act is now.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
