Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas > Austin
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-23-2012, 06:50 AM
 
Location: Plano, TX
770 posts, read 1,789,801 times
Reputation: 718

Advertisements

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?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-23-2012, 07:24 AM
 
156 posts, read 368,318 times
Reputation: 218
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newbe10 View Post
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?
Toll roads will never be free. The state ignored citizens in making them toll roads to begin with. As far as I know the City and the state are pretty much ignoring the problem, on top of that all the upgrades you mentioned would be great, but would cost billions. With the massive budget cuts happening I wouldn't expect anything to happen for awhile.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2012, 09:40 AM
 
Location: The Lone Star State
8,030 posts, read 9,014,533 times
Reputation: 5050
Uh oh. This could get bad....

OP, it's a pretty hot-button topic here with strong opinions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2012, 10:02 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,183,047 times
Reputation: 27718
Well, Texas 130 was built specifically to get the trucks off if I-35.
Did it work ?

That's about all I'm going to post on this. Been here since 1996 and, as another poster pointed out, it's a pretty hot-button topic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2012, 10:11 AM
 
Location: Volcano
12,969 posts, read 28,294,976 times
Reputation: 10755
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newbe10 View Post
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.
Before you can talk in any meaningful way about improving the highway system in Austin, you have to figure out how to pay for it.

<crickets>
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2012, 11:08 AM
 
Location: Plano, TX
770 posts, read 1,789,801 times
Reputation: 718
Quote:
Originally Posted by OpenD View Post
Before you can talk in any meaningful way about improving the highway system in Austin, you have to figure out how to pay for it.

<crickets>
I understand. I just thought that the capital city of the state of Texas would be able to pay for such improvements in the highway system.

I also understand that it takes lots of money to improve current highway infrastructure. I just think that traveling through Austin would be so much better for locals and tourist alike if the current infrastructure was improved.

The attention on DFW and Houston highways by TXDOT needs to be re-directed to the Austin area.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2012, 11:16 AM
 
Location: Central Texas
20,958 posts, read 45,220,196 times
Reputation: 24738
Newbie10, I'll just say one thing on this hot topic.

You're in Dallas. Austin isn't Dallas, and hopefully never will be. (Nothing against Dallas, just that we don't need to make Austin a Dallas clone, there already is a Dallas that does that better than any other city can, and Austin has its own priorities and goals that differ from those of Dallas.)

And then there's the money. You want to pitch in to pay for it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2012, 11:24 AM
 
10,130 posts, read 19,806,899 times
Reputation: 5815
Highways are old technology. Most cities (Houston and Dallas are examples) are trying very hard to revive their urban core, yet are at a significant disadvantage as they've designed their cities for people to drive to the outskirts to live. By comparison, Austin's lack of highways and traffic snarls make building density in the core easy. So why not just go with it?

Besides, I think we need some HOV lanes installed and connectors finished before we even think about new highways... or maybe just spend the money to remove the lights off highways like 360. Basically the existing roads could be made a lot better than they are right now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2012, 12:48 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX
522 posts, read 654,801 times
Reputation: 244
I'm going to re-post a previous post of mine with some edits rather than try to re-type and re-explain the whole thing...here goes:

----------------------------------

The only way that highways alone will make any measurable dent in congestion is to do it "all the way". As far back as 1999 TxDOT was predicting that I-35 would have to be widened to 18 lanes to accommodate the passenger and freight transportation demand anticipated through 2035.

The recent studies done by the Project Connect group (City of Austin, Capital Metro, Lone Star Rail District, CAMPO, and others) show that you need 14 additional lanes north of the CBD, and 12 additional lanes south of the CBD to address demand into the region's core through 2035.

Unless you're willing to build out to handle all the anticipated demand (i.e. add those 14 lanes), you're putting a band-aid on a gaping wound at this point. Anything less is an epic and expensive failure.

So, stipulating that we have to do something really bold, the issues, then, with what you're suggesting are manifold. First is cost. The addition of upwards of 12 to 14 lanes is incredibly expensive in right of way acquisition costs (especially through the downtown), construction, life cycle costs of the new highway facility, and the loss of tax base from plowing over economic activities (i.e. businesses, homes) and replacing them with non-taxable concrete. It's multiple billions of dollars at the very least, probably in the $10 to $20 billion range. As a point of reference/comparison, a 10-mile stretch of highway in DFW is being reconstructed, and the total cost is approaching $3 billion.

Second issue is footprint. It's very easy to assume that these things don't get done simply because of lack of vision/money/whatever when you're not really thinking about the magnitude of what you're asking. An 18-lane facility through downtown Austin would necessitate the partial or wholesale destruction of, among many other things - the Erwin Center, Texas Memorial Stadium, the Track and Soccer Stadium, Brackenridge Hospital, St. Davids Hospital, Oakwood Cemetary, Mount Calvary Cemetary, and a wide swath of East Austin.

MoPac - you've got similar issues, amongst them the Domain, the neighborhoods on both sides of the highway, and the huge commercial developments on the north end.

For both highways, you're going to need massive new bridges across the lake.

That's just for starters. I'm going to hazard a guess that these things would not only be unacceptable to the actual owners of those properties that would be bulldozed and concreted over, but also to the region in general. And that's not an unreasonable assumption to make. The environmental process alone, mandated by the federal NEPA law, and with all of the lawsuits you'd face, would tie such a huge project up for decades, and in the end you might still not be able to resolve the issues satisfactorily enough for the EPA to give you permission to proceed to final design and construction.

Third issue is constructability and staging. How would one propose to embark on an infrastructure project that huge, with that wide a scope, while still maintaining an acceptable (or any!) level of service on those two major highways? The MoPac Improvement project currently underway is already going to face a huge hurdle with the relatively minor improvements they're proposing to make. If you were to embark on this huge plan, you could expect literally years, if not over a decade, of lowered highway capacity, delays, and *monster* congestion. Austin is currently the 3rd most congested urban area in the nation, out of 439 studied in the TTI's most recent Urban Mobility Report. It'll jump far out to the lead if we start building 14 additional lanes onto our regional highways.

So, what's the answer? In addition to making those highway improvements that we can (like the MoPac and I-35 managed lanes projects), the only effective way to provide alternatives in a minimally impactful, cost effective way at this point is congestion-proof high capacity transit solutions that use existing rights of way. Those are true alternatives that can address the demand in a shorter time window, and don't require the huge ROW acquisitions that are so onerous and costly.

A good starting point is the Project Connect initiative. The high capacity transit projects in the long-range vision of that effort could provide the equivalent of 12 highway lanes from north of Austin, and 10 from south. It doesn't make up the entire deficit, but combined with high-impact and viable highway projects, it might enable us to keep our heads above water, and unlike 18-lane highway expansions, it has a chance of actually getting done.

Project Connect
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-23-2012, 01:02 PM
 
Location: Austin, TX/London, UK
709 posts, read 1,395,982 times
Reputation: 488
@Newbe10:

Most of those don't really need it. Ok, the Y in Oak Hill sure does, but that is a whole other mess. And very political.

Most of the rest mentioned are just suburban highways that while they have small periods of being busy aren't all that bad for most of the day.

The real trouble for Austin as far as traffic is downtown. Like I just looked on Google Maps at the current traffic right now and the areas that are bad are either downtown Austin or in the middle of Round Rock. Central areas. The outskirts of Austin are fine with the exception of central Round Rock. The problem is finding ways to fix the traffic issues in the central parts of the cities. That is a whole lot harder to do.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas > Austin

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top