AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Mid-South => Topic started by: MaxConcrete on April 25, 2019, 12:03:01 AM

Title: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: MaxConcrete on April 25, 2019, 12:03:01 AM
Meeting page https://www.txdot.gov/business/consultants/architectural-engineering-surveying/meetings/041819.html (https://www.txdot.gov/business/consultants/architectural-engineering-surveying/meetings/041819.html)
Presentation with cross section views  http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/ppd/041819/pre-rfp-presentation.pdf (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/ppd/041819/pre-rfp-presentation.pdf)

The presentation emphasizes that the managed lanes are non-tolled, using the "non-tolled" prefix in virtually all references.

The project is divided into the 3 sections: north, central and south

The north section is modest, adding only two managed lanes in the interior shoulder area of the existing 3x3 freeway. On the plus side, cost is estimated at $400 million and projected contract award is March 2022.

The south section is slightly more ambitious, adding four managed lanes (2x2) in the interior of the existing 3x3 freeway. The cross section view suggests standards will be low (i.e. no shoulders and narrow lanes). Cost is $300 million with a projected contract award in January 2022.

The central section, in contrast, is hugely ambitious and will be hugely expensive and difficult to construct. No cost or timeline is mentioned.
* The current section with elevated lanes is proposed to be a three-level stacked freeway, with two levels below grade.
* The cross section looks like the lower 2x2 managed lanes will barely fit between the existing elevated lane piers. If it doesn't fit, the freeway will need to be entirely closed to build it. If it does fit, the freeway will need to be reduced to only the upper deck lanes while the bottom level is built.
* It looks like the middle deck will be open to the surface (like the LBJ Express lanes in Dallas), but the Express lanes appear to be tunnels
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdallasfreeways.com%2Fdfwfreeways%2FAARoads%2Fcross-section-1.jpg&hash=67f2508def67a7d95f5321cb05e79969be66ec2b)

The downtown section replaces the existing 3x3 mostly elevated freeway with a 4-2M-2M-4 sunk into a trench. This should be able to be built while keeping the existing freeway lanes open. I'm thinking there will be provisions to overdeck the freeway with a park, although locals would have to pay for that.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdallasfreeways.com%2Fdfwfreeways%2FAARoads%2Fdowntown-cross-section.jpg&hash=d7268514d62d727f6382b8deba865fc5c9dae732)

The south section has 2x2 managed lanes in a tunnel underneath the main lanes. I'm assuming this will be a cut and cover tunnel, which may also be difficult to build and still keep 6 lanes open.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdallasfreeways.com%2Fdfwfreeways%2FAARoads%2Fcross-section-south.jpg&hash=6050d12057228d2653bd80d8f04c2a75ecce9f75)

The solicitation also calls for a signature bridge over Lake Lady Bird, which will be costly due to the number of lanes, probably 20 including the frontage road lanes.

The cost and funding are big questions for this section. I suppose we'll see some numbers within a couple years. There have been many plans for IH 35 through Austin during the past 20 years, and none have moved forward. I'm thinking this proposal is definitely not a sure thing.
Title: Re: Austin: TxDOT solicits consultants for IH 35 express lanes
Post by: thisdj78 on April 25, 2019, 09:27:04 AM
Interesting, looks very similar to an idea I posted on the now defunct speakup4mobility site regarding the elevated lanes. My idea was to connect and join the elevated lanes with a structure that would support additional lanes and convert the lower deck into managed lanes.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi65.tinypic.com%2F154gl6g.png&hash=7de14f9458921f6b4a95b291fa4f7b3e66057530)

If they have to shut 35 down for an extended amount of time, they will need to temporarily remove tolls on SH130 and establish that as a construction bypass route.
Title: Re: Austin: TxDOT solicits consultants for IH 35 express lanes
Post by: Plutonic Panda on April 25, 2019, 03:07:34 PM
That would be exciting! Hopefully it happens.

Austin also needs to seriously invest in mass transit preferably rail based. A 10-20 billion dollar package over 10 years would be great.
Title: Re: Austin: TxDOT solicits consultants for IH 35 express lanes
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 25, 2019, 04:10:41 PM
Could the elevated lanes proposal in Austin connect with the elevated lanes proposal in San Antonio? Or would that be overkill?
Title: Re: Austin: TxDOT solicits consultants for IH 35 express lanes
Post by: thisdj78 on April 25, 2019, 05:47:47 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 25, 2019, 04:10:41 PM
Could the elevated lanes proposal in Austin connect with the elevated lanes proposal in San Antonio? Or would that be overkill?

That would be nearly 70 miles of continuously elevated lanes. I couldn't foresee that happening.

On the other hand, I could definitely see "express/HOV"  lanes built along the entire length of 35 between the two cities.
Title: Re: Austin: TxDOT solicits consultants for IH 35 express lanes
Post by: longhorn on April 26, 2019, 04:35:38 PM
Look at the I-35/290 interchange, see how wide 35 is there as an idea of how many lanes wide 35 could be from the lake to the south.
Title: Re: Austin: TxDOT solicits consultants for IH 35 express lanes
Post by: Chris on April 27, 2019, 02:29:23 PM
What are 'managed lanes' if they are not tolled? Just general purpose lanes with a truck ban? The whole idea of 'managed lanes' is that toll rates would manage demand and thereby traffic flow. If there is no tolling involved, how are they managing it?
Title: Re: Austin: TxDOT solicits consultants for IH 35 express lanes
Post by: US 89 on April 27, 2019, 02:34:44 PM
Quote from: Chris on April 27, 2019, 02:29:23 PM
What are 'managed lanes' if they are not tolled? Just general purpose lanes with a truck ban? The whole idea of 'managed lanes' is that toll rates would manage demand and thereby traffic flow. If there is no tolling involved, how are they managing it?

I don't know if this is the case for this example specifically, but they can also manage HOV restrictions. Depending on time of day and/or traffic, they might be able to change the HOV restrictions from 2+ to 3+ or even 4+, or maybe even drop the restriction during light traffic periods.
Title: Re: Austin: TxDOT solicits consultants for IH 35 express lanes
Post by: Plutonic Panda on April 27, 2019, 03:31:05 PM
Quote from: Chris on April 27, 2019, 02:29:23 PM
What are 'managed lanes' if they are not tolled? Just general purpose lanes with a truck ban? The whole idea of 'managed lanes' is that toll rates would manage demand and thereby traffic flow. If there is no tolling involved, how are they managing it?
They are calling them express lanes. Even the term "managed"  could be spun to say they manage the access more so than the "regular"  lanes by having fewer entry and exit points.
Title: Re: Austin: TxDOT solicits consultants for IH 35 express lanes
Post by: Bobby5280 on April 29, 2019, 11:50:58 AM
Apologies for if this was already mentioned and I overlooked it, but those cross section views of the highway give me a bad feeling. Will the finished project feature lane widths more narrow than the 12 foot standard? The cross section drawings sure look like they're shaving off at least one or maybe even two feet from each lane to squeeze the few extra lanes into an already pretty confined space.

I really dislike I-35E going North out of Dallas for the sub-standard narrow lanes on that recently completed widening project. I feel like I could trade paint, touch door handles or take off side view mirrors of other vehicles in the adjacent lanes. That's not so good if you're traveling at "normal" Dallas traffic speeds. A normal 12' wide lane doesn't give off such a dreadful, claustrophobic feeling.
Title: Re: Austin: TxDOT solicits consultants for IH 35 express lanes
Post by: longhorn on April 29, 2019, 03:46:16 PM
The expansion north of 290 to 45 is not much of an expansion.  Just adding an inside HOV lane. The frontage roads are 3 lanes wide in most areas.

The area around I-35 and Yeager needs to be rethought though.

I remember when I-35 was rebuilt from 183 to Round Rock back in the 80s and thinking," they rebuilt a freeway to add one lane?!!!" I see TxDot doing the samething again.
Title: Re: Austin: TxDOT solicits consultants for IH 35 express lanes
Post by: In_Correct on May 01, 2019, 05:00:03 PM
Quote from: thisdj78 on April 25, 2019, 05:47:47 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 25, 2019, 04:10:41 PM
Could the elevated lanes proposal in Austin connect with the elevated lanes proposal in San Antonio? Or would that be overkill?

That would be nearly 70 miles of continuously elevated lanes. I couldn't foresee that happening.

On the other hand, I could definitely see "express/HOV"  lanes built along the entire length of 35 between the two cities.

I could see that happening.

But you are right. It should not be necessary.
Title: Re: Austin: TxDOT solicits consultants for IH 35 express lanes
Post by: longhorn on May 07, 2019, 05:07:25 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=34&v=bdzTpcoR2fk

A video.

https://www.statesman.com/news/20190507/i-35-changes-dramatically-in-txdots-proposed-8-billion-expansion
Title: Re: Austin: TxDOT solicits consultants for IH 35 express lanes
Post by: Plutonic Panda on August 20, 2019, 11:55:16 PM
https://www.kvue.com/mobile/article/traffic/debris-on-i-35-northbound-lower-deck-caused-by-crash-on-upper-deck-hitting-rail-txdot-confirms/269-1afe8b2c-2060-4002-aedb-56f3f98a3a46

Looks like this project might need to be fast tracked! I sure hope they build it as proposed. With those tunnels as such could be one of the most impressive stretches of freeway in the world.
Title: Re: Austin: TxDOT solicits consultants for IH 35 express lanes
Post by: Echostatic on August 21, 2019, 12:31:48 AM
I've seen a lot of typical urbanist / anti-highway folk get alarmed by this wreck. If they bundle some message about safety along with the reconstruction I think TxDot can get a lot more support from the city.
Title: Re: Austin: TxDOT solicits consultants for IH 35 express lanes
Post by: Anthony_JK on August 21, 2019, 01:41:19 AM
Quote from: Echostatic on August 21, 2019, 12:31:48 AM
I've seen a lot of typical urbanist / anti-highway folk get alarmed by this wreck. If they bundle some message about safety along with the reconstruction I think TxDot can get a lot more support from the city.

Nope, won't happen.

The general plan for I-35 in Austin proposed by New Urbanists is to simply keep it at 4 x 4 with no new lane additions, cap the road through downtown, toll it to divert traffic to SH 45 SE and SH 130, and build more light rail to "improve" downtown.

This is a website to their counterproposal: Reconnect Austin (https://www.reconnectaustin.com).

I'm surprised they don't advocate just converting I-35 back into a surface boulevard and divert I-35 onto SH 45 and SH 130.
Title: Re: Austin: TxDOT solicits consultants for IH 35 express lanes
Post by: Plutonic Panda on August 21, 2019, 02:28:03 AM
^^^ geeze...  not surprising. I can see why they want that but I like the widening proposal better. Hopefully their idea is shot down and the widening happens, and soon at that.
Title: Re: Austin: TxDOT solicits consultants for IH 35 express lanes
Post by: thisdj78 on August 21, 2019, 07:44:54 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on August 21, 2019, 01:41:19 AM
Quote from: Echostatic on August 21, 2019, 12:31:48 AM
I've seen a lot of typical urbanist / anti-highway folk get alarmed by this wreck. If they bundle some message about safety along with the reconstruction I think TxDot can get a lot more support from the city.

Nope, won't happen.

The general plan for I-35 in Austin proposed by New Urbanists is to simply keep it at 4 x 4 with no new lane additions, cap the road through downtown, toll it to divert traffic to SH 45 SE and SH 130, and build more light rail to "improve" downtown.

This is a website to their counterproposal: Reconnect Austin (https://www.reconnectaustin.com).

I'm surprised they don't advocate just converting I-35 back into a surface boulevard and divert I-35 onto SH 45 and SH 130.

No matter what, 35 needs to be shifted to 130/45.
Title: Re: Austin: TxDOT solicits consultants for IH 35 express lanes
Post by: Bobby5280 on August 21, 2019, 02:10:14 PM
TX-130 is too crooked. Additionally, If I-35 was shifted to the TX-130 corridor that would give the New Urbanists an even better shot at dismantling segments of the current I-35 freeway.
Title: Re: Austin: TxDOT solicits consultants for IH 35 express lanes
Post by: Plutonic Panda on August 21, 2019, 02:18:54 PM
Yeah I'd prefer keeping 2di's going right past city centres and bypasses available if so. They need to remove the tolls on the 130 and widen it to 6-8 lanes if it isn't already.
Title: Re: Austin: TxDOT solicits consultants for IH 35 express lanes
Post by: thisdj78 on August 21, 2019, 03:32:11 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 21, 2019, 02:18:54 PM
Yeah I'd prefer keeping 2di's going right past city centres and bypasses available if so. They need to remove the tolls on the 130 and widen it to 6-8 lanes if it isn't already.

They are currently in the process of widening 130 to 6 lanes.
Title: Re: Austin: TxDOT solicits consultants for IH 35 express lanes
Post by: thisdj78 on August 21, 2019, 03:35:19 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 21, 2019, 02:10:14 PM
TX-130 is too crooked. Additionally, If I-35 was shifted to the TX-130 corridor that would give the New Urbanists an even better shot at dismantling segments of the current I-35 freeway.

At the very least it should be an interstate I-x35. As far as the existing route, it will still be too important of a thoroughfare to be removed in part or completely.
Title: Re: Austin: TxDOT solicits consultants for IH 35 express lanes
Post by: Plutonic Panda on August 21, 2019, 04:06:30 PM
Quote from: thisdj78 on August 21, 2019, 03:35:19 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 21, 2019, 02:10:14 PM
TX-130 is too crooked. Additionally, If I-35 was shifted to the TX-130 corridor that would give the New Urbanists an even better shot at dismantling segments of the current I-35 freeway.

At the very least it should be an interstate I-x35. As far as the existing route, it will still be too important of a thoroughfare to be removed in part or completely.
Glad they are widening it. I wonder what the impact would be removing tolls and adding a 3di designation. Would 8 lanes even be enough? lol... seriously there would seem to be an uptick in traffic.
Title: Re: Austin: TxDOT solicits consultants for IH 35 express lanes
Post by: longhorn on August 21, 2019, 04:34:13 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 21, 2019, 04:06:30 PM
Quote from: thisdj78 on August 21, 2019, 03:35:19 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 21, 2019, 02:10:14 PM
TX-130 is too crooked. Additionally, If I-35 was shifted to the TX-130 corridor that would give the New Urbanists an even better shot at dismantling segments of the current I-35 freeway.
At the very least it should be an interstate I-x35. As far as the existing route, it will still be too important of a thoroughfare to be removed in part or completely.
Glad they are widening it. I wonder what the impact would be removing tolls and adding a 3di designation. Would 8 lanes even be enough? lol... seriously there would seem to be an uptick in traffic.


Not sure one can legally take a tollway away from the consortium that has a 99 year lease or something like that on it. Don't think they will be in the selling mood, it prints money. And if the tolls did come down in a matter of a few years the whole stretch will have been developed, and kiss small town feel Hutto (its gone now) good bye.
Title: Re: Austin: TxDOT solicits consultants for IH 35 express lanes
Post by: thisdj78 on August 21, 2019, 05:26:44 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 21, 2019, 04:06:30 PM
Quote from: thisdj78 on August 21, 2019, 03:35:19 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 21, 2019, 02:10:14 PM
TX-130 is too crooked. Additionally, If I-35 was shifted to the TX-130 corridor that would give the New Urbanists an even better shot at dismantling segments of the current I-35 freeway.

At the very least it should be an interstate I-x35. As far as the existing route, it will still be too important of a thoroughfare to be removed in part or completely.
Glad they are widening it. I wonder what the impact would be removing tolls and adding a 3di designation. Would 8 lanes even be enough? lol... seriously there would seem to be an uptick in traffic.

I think 6 would be enough. Traffic would probably be similar to 35 between Austin and New Braunfels (which is still pretty heavy but manageable at 6 or 8 lanes).

Title: Re: Austin: TxDOT solicits consultants for IH 35 express lanes
Post by: dfwmapper on August 22, 2019, 05:30:57 AM
6 lanes from Georgetown to Mustang Ridge should be enough, and you'd want it designed to easily go to 8 between US 79 and SH 71 since that's where the heaviest traffic is now and will be in the future. Mustang Ridge to Seguin would probably be fine with just 4 lanes, since a lot of the traffic would continue west on SH 45S to reach I-35 and Buda, Kyle, San Marcos, and New Braunfels.

Getting I-10 to 6 lanes all the way from San Antonio to SH 130 would have to be done though, and that at least is in the works. I-10's AADT is already over 50000 between Loop 1604 and Seguin, with over 25% truck traffic. The south end of SH 130 doesn't even hit 10000 AADT now, but if it was free and the signed route for I-35, I bet it would hit 40k easy.
Title: Re: Austin: TxDOT solicits consultants for IH 35 express lanes
Post by: sprjus4 on August 22, 2019, 10:09:54 AM
As of now, only 22 miles of SH-130 are currently being widened to 6 lanes - between SH-45 North and SH-71.

Out of the entire corridor though, that is indeed the busiest stretch, with AADT on the mainline varying between 40,000 - 45,000.

The remainder of the corridor is below 30,000 AADT, with the exception of the 5 mile stretch between US-79 and SH-45 North which has between 35,000 - 40,000 AADT on the mainline.

In the near future (5-10 years), I could see at least that 5 mile segment expanded to 6 lanes, along with an additional 22 miles (I-35 to US-79 and SH-71 to US-181) being studied for expansion as traffic counts increase.

The segment south of the US-181 / SH-45 South / SH-130 junction has 5,000 - 15,000 AADT, and I don't forsee an expansion being warranted there anytime soon.

I-10 between I-410 and SH-130 at Seguin warrants expansion to 6 lanes, carrying 50,000+ AADT, along with I-410 between I-35 South and I-10 East which carries 40,000 - 60,000 AADT.

If SH-130 was to be untolled, completing the remaining 27 miles on the northern half from SH-45 South northwards to 6 lanes would definitely be warranted, along with widening I-10 between SH-130 and I-410, and I-410 between I-35 South and I-10 East to 6 lanes. The 40 mile southern segment of the toll road has plenty room for growth and would likely only top out at 20,000 - 35,000 AADT if the tolls were eliminated. The segment currently carrying around 45,000 AADT today would likely top out at 75,000 - 80,000 AADT, though if local traffic increases with increased growth, could be higher, and -might- warrant 8 lanes at some point.

I think a long term goal of expanding the entire northern segment, I-10, and I-410 to 6 lanes, and buying out the tolls would definitely help relieve the I-35 corridor.
Title: Re: Austin: TxDOT solicits consultants for IH 35 express lanes
Post by: dfwmapper on August 23, 2019, 02:00:27 AM
The I-10 stuff is happening regardless. I-410 to Loop 1604 is already under construction. Loop 1604 to Graytown Rd was let this month, and Graytown to the Bexar/Guadalupe county line (Cibolo Creek) is scheduled to be let in April 2020. AAMPO's TIP for FY 2021 has US 90 west of Seguin to SH 130 as well as building 3 flyovers at the I-10/I-410 interchange (E->S, N->W, S->W). The MTP has more ramps listed for FY2025, and the remaining 9 miles between the Bexar/Guadalupe county line and US 90 in FY2028. The latter would presumably be advanced if there were serious plans to remove tolls on 130 before then.
Title: Re: Austin: TxDOT solicits consultants for IH 35 express lanes
Post by: Plutonic Panda on February 27, 2020, 06:07:09 PM
It looks like the Central Part of the project through downtown has found funding. I am very excited for the proposed tunnels. This will easily be one of the most impressive stretches of freeway in the world if built as proposed.

https://www.kxan.com/traffic/texas-transportation-commission-unveils-plan-to-fund-i-35-expansion-project/
Title: Re: Austin: TxDOT solicits consultants for IH 35 express lanes
Post by: MaxConcrete on February 27, 2020, 07:04:57 PM
Wow, that's a surprise. It was listed as a "Potential update to the 2020 Unified Transportation Program" in the agenda.

The presentation is now online (but the meeting video is not yet online as of this writing).

http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2020/0227/4-presentation.pdf (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2020/0227/4-presentation.pdf)

The political powers probably realize the importance of Austin to the future of Texas, since Austin is a tech hub and is growing by leaps and bounds. Other sectors of the Texas economy, mainly oil & gas, face an uncertain future and Houston especially is facing a grim future as the fossil fuel sector permanently declines.
Title: Re: Austin: TxDOT solicits consultants for IH 35 express lanes
Post by: MaxConcrete on February 27, 2020, 07:40:47 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 27, 2020, 06:07:09 PM
This will easily be one of the most impressive stretches of freeway in the world if built as proposed.

I think driving through downtown Houston on I-69 and I-45 will be much more impressive if/when the North Houston Highway Improvement project is completed (currently slated to start 2022). It will feature a peak of 33 traffic lanes on the north side of downtown.
Title: Re: Austin: TxDOT solicits consultants for IH 35 express lanes
Post by: sprjus4 on February 27, 2020, 07:53:54 PM
Quote from: MaxConcrete on February 27, 2020, 07:04:57 PM
Wow, that's a surprise. It was listed as a "Potential update to the 2020 Unified Transportation Program" in the agenda.

The presentation is now online (but the meeting video is not yet online as of this writing).

http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2020/0227/4-presentation.pdf (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2020/0227/4-presentation.pdf)

The political powers probably realize the importance of Austin to the future of Texas, since Austin is a tech hub and is growing by leaps and bounds. Other sectors of the Texas economy, mainly oil & gas, face an uncertain future and Houston especially is facing a grim future as the fossil fuel sector permanently declines.
Still missing that link to Houston though...  :hmmm:
Title: Re: Austin: TxDOT solicits consultants for IH 35 express lanes
Post by: Plutonic Panda on February 27, 2020, 08:00:39 PM
33 traffic lanes is awesome. I'm wondering if we will ever see a freeway break 50. My wowing over the Austin proposal has to do with the multi level tunnel. Does such a setup exist currently anywhere?
Title: Re: Austin: TxDOT solicits consultants for IH 35 express lanes
Post by: sprjus4 on February 27, 2020, 08:10:40 PM
Quote from: MaxConcrete on February 27, 2020, 07:40:47 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 27, 2020, 06:07:09 PM
This will easily be one of the most impressive stretches of freeway in the world if built as proposed.

I think driving through downtown Houston on I-69 and I-45 will be much more impressive if/when the North Houston Highway Improvement project is completed (currently slated to start 2022). It will feature a peak of 33 traffic lanes on the north side of downtown.
Looks like the Katy Freeway will be surpassed  :-o
Title: Re: Austin: TxDOT solicits consultants for IH 35 express lanes
Post by: Plutonic Panda on February 27, 2020, 08:16:56 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 27, 2020, 08:10:40 PM
Quote from: MaxConcrete on February 27, 2020, 07:40:47 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 27, 2020, 06:07:09 PM
This will easily be one of the most impressive stretches of freeway in the world if built as proposed.

I think driving through downtown Houston on I-69 and I-45 will be much more impressive if/when the North Houston Highway Improvement project is completed (currently slated to start 2022). It will feature a peak of 33 traffic lanes on the north side of downtown.
Looks like the Katy Freeway will be surpassed  :-o
IIRC there was a freeway to be widened in the IE in SoCal that was going to exceed the number of lanes on the Katy Freeway.
Title: Re: Austin: TxDOT solicits consultants for IH 35 express lanes
Post by: MaxConcrete on February 27, 2020, 10:16:30 PM
Michael Morris, director of NCTCOG, is furious that this funding for IH 35 in Austin will divert $1 billion of funds which would normally be expected to go to North Texas. He's trying to get North Texas political entities to try to force the managed lanes on IH 35 to be tolled.

See item six, starting around 10 minutes in

https://nctcog.swagit.com/play/02272020-674 (https://nctcog.swagit.com/play/02272020-674)
Title: Re: Austin: TxDOT solicits consultants for IH 35 express lanes
Post by: Chris on February 28, 2020, 04:30:03 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 27, 2020, 08:00:39 PM
My wowing over the Austin proposal has to do with the multi level tunnel. Does such a setup exist currently anywhere?

Twin-level tunnels are rare, but they do exist here and there. 3-level roads (frontage roads on top of two freeway levels) are probably much rarer.

Title: Re: Austin: TxDOT solicits consultants for IH 35 express lanes
Post by: Chris on February 28, 2020, 04:35:27 AM
Quote from: MaxConcrete on February 27, 2020, 10:16:30 PMMichael Morris, director of NCTCOG, is furious that this funding for IH 35 in Austin will divert $1 billion of funds which would normally be expected to go to North Texas. He's trying to get North Texas political entities to try to force the managed lanes on IH 35 to be tolled.

To be fair, Austin's problems are significant and so far they have almost exclusively built toll roads to address population growth. And the problems on I-35 cannot be significantly reduced without a high-cost solution.

I wonder how they are going to 'manage' the traffic on the managed lanes without tolls. In a fast-growing area like Austin, the managed lanes will likely be overwhelmed by traffic growth after some time, so there needs to be some kind of tolling to guarantee free-flow conditions. Maybe not to the extreme levels that the I-66 tolls in Northern Virginia have though.
Title: Re: Austin: TxDOT solicits consultants for IH 35 express lanes
Post by: thisdj78 on February 28, 2020, 07:57:30 AM
Quote from: Chris on February 28, 2020, 04:35:27 AM
Quote from: MaxConcrete on February 27, 2020, 10:16:30 PMMichael Morris, director of NCTCOG, is furious that this funding for IH 35 in Austin will divert $1 billion of funds which would normally be expected to go to North Texas. He's trying to get North Texas political entities to try to force the managed lanes on IH 35 to be tolled.

To be fair, Austin's problems are significant and so far they have almost exclusively built toll roads to address population growth. And the problems on I-35 cannot be significantly reduced without a high-cost solution.

I wonder how they are going to 'manage' the traffic on the managed lanes without tolls. In a fast-growing area like Austin, the managed lanes will likely be overwhelmed by traffic growth after some time, so there needs to be some kind of tolling to guarantee free-flow conditions. Maybe not to the extreme levels that the I-66 tolls in Northern Virginia have though.

I imagine they will be managed similar to HOV lanes, with police periodically positioned to hand out tickets (assuming there's enough shoulder width for them to park in)
Title: Re: Austin: TxDOT solicits consultants for IH 35 express lanes
Post by: sprjus4 on February 28, 2020, 08:12:20 AM
^

If the HOV lanes being constructed in the San Antonio area in lieu of previously proposed HO/T lanes are any indication, I'd say they would be.
Title: Re: Austin: TxDOT solicits consultants for IH 35 express lanes
Post by: texaskdog on February 28, 2020, 08:25:34 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 27, 2020, 07:53:54 PM
Quote from: MaxConcrete on February 27, 2020, 07:04:57 PM
Wow, that's a surprise. It was listed as a "Potential update to the 2020 Unified Transportation Program" in the agenda.

The presentation is now online (but the meeting video is not yet online as of this writing).

http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2020/0227/4-presentation.pdf (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2020/0227/4-presentation.pdf)

The political powers probably realize the importance of Austin to the future of Texas, since Austin is a tech hub and is growing by leaps and bounds. Other sectors of the Texas economy, mainly oil & gas, face an uncertain future and Houston especially is facing a grim future as the fossil fuel sector permanently declines.
Still missing that link to Houston though...  :hmmm:

Well we have TWO expressways to get there
Title: Re: Austin: TxDOT solicits consultants for IH 35 express lanes
Post by: thisdj78 on February 28, 2020, 08:29:16 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on February 28, 2020, 08:25:34 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 27, 2020, 07:53:54 PM
Quote from: MaxConcrete on February 27, 2020, 07:04:57 PM
Wow, that's a surprise. It was listed as a "Potential update to the 2020 Unified Transportation Program" in the agenda.

The presentation is now online (but the meeting video is not yet online as of this writing).

http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2020/0227/4-presentation.pdf (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2020/0227/4-presentation.pdf)

The political powers probably realize the importance of Austin to the future of Texas, since Austin is a tech hub and is growing by leaps and bounds. Other sectors of the Texas economy, mainly oil & gas, face an uncertain future and Houston especially is facing a grim future as the fossil fuel sector permanently declines.
Still missing that link to Houston though...  :hmmm:

Well we have TWO expressways to get there

Well, "Express"  is relative....there's still stoplights (several on 290, a few on 71) on both routes.
Title: Re: Austin: TxDOT solicits consultants for IH 35 express lanes
Post by: sprjus4 on February 28, 2020, 02:22:55 PM
^

The eventual goal should be an interstate highway, but at minimum they need to eliminate the final traffic signals and bypass the remaining towns.
Title: Re: Austin: TxDOT solicits consultants for IH 35 express lanes
Post by: Echostatic on November 12, 2020, 11:13:07 AM
Alternative 1:

(https://www.kxan.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/40/2020/11/build-1-pt-1-1.jpg?resize=876,646)

(https://www.kxan.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/40/2020/11/build-1-pt-2.jpg?resize=876,652)

Alternative 2/3:

(https://www.kxan.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/40/2020/11/build-2-and-3.jpg?resize=876,658)
Title: Re: Austin: TxDOT solicits consultants for IH 35 express lanes
Post by: MaxConcrete on November 12, 2020, 08:06:44 PM
Build Alternative 2/3 will require a major right-of-way clearance between Manor Road and Airport Boulevard. To avoid the cemetery, it will need to take the UT-Austin football practice facility. It looks like it will also require ROW clearance in other sections, although not major. That's going to be a tough sell politically.

However, the Alternative 1 tunnel option may be impossible to construct without closing the entire freeway between Manor Rd and Airport Blvd for a significant period of time, maybe a year or more. If they can keep it open, it would be a very minimal number of lanes. I don't see how they can keep the frontage road lanes open and build the new frontage roads as shown. With Alternative 2/3, they can probably keep all existing lanes open by building one side (on the cleared ROW) first.

I prefer to see 2/3 as the recommended option. The final recommendation may be a combination of both to limit the tunnel sections to only areas where they are absolutely necessary. I'm going to suggest that they consider building the football field on a deck above the freeway if the practice facility cannot be relocated. That would be expensive, but probably less expensive than a tunnel.

UPDATE: Here are the comments I submitted
Quote

I support the I-35 improvement project. I support Build Alternatives 2 and 3.

Here are the problems with Build Alternative 1, and why it should be avoided.
1. Construction between MLK and Airport Boulevard will probably require closure of the entire freeway for a long period of time, maybe more than a year. If the freeway can be kept open, it would probably be a minimal number of lanes, and the extra cost could be very high.
2. It looks like it will be impossible or very difficult to keep the frontage roads open during construction, which would be a problem for properties along the frontage roads.
3. Tunnels introduce risks with possible fires inside the tunnels. This requires continuous monitoring and firefighting/rescue units on standby 24 hours a day.
4. Tunnels normally have higher maintenance costs, especially as they age.
5. Tunnels are more expensive than conventional freeways.

Reasons I support Build Alternatives 2/3
1. Between MLK and Airport, the existing freeway can remain open during construction while new lanes are built on new right-of-way.
2. While a right-of-way clearance will be required between MLK and Airport, most of the properties on the east side of the freeway are lower-tier commercial properties and can be acquired with minimal impact to the community.
3. These alternatives provide a consistent freeway design for the entire corridor.


Other Suggestions.
1. It looks like Build Alternatives 2/3 will require land from the UT-Austin football practice facility. If it is not possible to relocate the practice facility, consider building a deck above the freeway to accommodate the football facility. The deck would probably be needed over only the west side (southbound lanes) of the freeway. While this will be expensive, it is probably less expensive than the tunnel option.
2. Right-of-way should be acquired where needed to maintain high design standards. (In other words, don't compromise design standards to save a few buildings.)
3. A hybrid approach may be needed. That would mean using Build Alternatives 2/3 for most of the corridor, and using short tunnels only where absolutely necessary.
4. The downtown bypass and access-controlled frontage roads options mentioned in presentation slide 32 have the potential to be very helpful for ensuring good surface flow through downtown. The bypass could also act as a collector-distributor to minimize merge/weave zones on the main lanes through downtown.

Title: Re: Austin: TxDOT solicits consultants for IH 35 express lanes
Post by: Plutonic Panda on November 12, 2020, 09:36:13 PM
I prefer alternative one. Less ROW in some places and generally a better design although more expensive will allow communities to better reconnect. The only issue I have with it is I wish there were 6 or 7 GP lanes each way instead of 5. But overall I love it.
Title: Re: Austin: TxDOT solicits consultants for IH 35 express lanes
Post by: TXtoNJ on November 14, 2020, 01:39:54 AM
Alternative 1 is the only one that even has a slight political chance of getting built.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: MaxConcrete on August 10, 2021, 05:29:29 PM
There is a public meeting today with the latest information. There's a large amount of info on the meeting web site
https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/austin/081021.html (https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/austin/081021.html)

The big news is that Alternative 1, which has the deep tunnels, is not being carried forward for further study. In other words, it is eliminated. I'm glad to see this, see my earlier post from 12-Nov-2020 for the reasons.


In the upcoming months we will find out if TxDOT can keep the process moving forward, or if opposition is going to mount an effort to kill the project, as is happening on NHHIP in Houston.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Echostatic on August 10, 2021, 06:16:30 PM
Nobody in Austin government positions wants this to happen. Any effort to push this through will need to come from the state, and surrounding cities and counties.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Plutonic Panda on August 10, 2021, 06:34:13 PM
With alternative 1 being axed I'll review the other alternatives but from what I saw alternative 1 was the best design requiring the least amount of ROW. In all likelihood, I'll be sending a comment to TxDOT stating my opposition to this project now. We don't need another massive ribbon of concrete cutting right through downtown. The tunnels would have lessened the ROW impacts.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: kphoger on August 10, 2021, 08:02:00 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 10, 2021, 06:34:13 PM
In all likelihood, I'll be sending a comment to TxDOT ...

Are you even a Texas resident?
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Plutonic Panda on August 10, 2021, 08:54:36 PM
Quote from: kphoger on August 10, 2021, 08:02:00 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 10, 2021, 06:34:13 PM
In all likelihood, I'll be sending a comment to TxDOT ...

Are you even a Texas resident?
Please show me where being a resident of Texas is a requirement to provide feedback for a project in Texas.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: thisdj78 on August 10, 2021, 11:50:48 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 10, 2021, 08:54:36 PM
Quote from: kphoger on August 10, 2021, 08:02:00 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 10, 2021, 06:34:13 PM
In all likelihood, I'll be sending a comment to TxDOT ...

Are you even a Texas resident?
Please show me where being a resident of Texas is a requirement to provide feedback for a project in Texas.

I think it was the "We don't need"  part that raised eyebrows.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Plutonic Panda on August 11, 2021, 12:38:44 AM
Quote from: thisdj78 on August 10, 2021, 11:50:48 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 10, 2021, 08:54:36 PM
Quote from: kphoger on August 10, 2021, 08:02:00 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 10, 2021, 06:34:13 PM
In all likelihood, I'll be sending a comment to TxDOT ...

Are you even a Texas resident?
Please show me where being a resident of Texas is a requirement to provide feedback for a project in Texas.

I think it was the "We don't need"  part that raised eyebrows.
So then why wasn't that quoted? I can easily defend that argument if you want to quote it and debate me over it but be more specific.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Rothman on August 11, 2021, 06:51:55 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 11, 2021, 12:38:44 AM
Quote from: thisdj78 on August 10, 2021, 11:50:48 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 10, 2021, 08:54:36 PM
Quote from: kphoger on August 10, 2021, 08:02:00 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 10, 2021, 06:34:13 PM
In all likelihood, I'll be sending a comment to TxDOT ...

Are you even a Texas resident?
Please show me where being a resident of Texas is a requirement to provide feedback for a project in Texas.

I think it was the "We don't need"  part that raised eyebrows.
So then why wasn't that quoted? I can easily defend that argument if you want to quote it and debate me over it but be more specific.
You don't remember what you yourself said?
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: armadillo speedbump on August 11, 2021, 12:11:11 PM
Well he's a Californian, so there's a 30% chance he'll eventually move to Texas.

Plus it's an interstate.  Plus most of the clowns from the usual anti-road and enviromarxist organizations that always submit comments in opposition are from out of state.  Let him weigh in.

Anyways, if the usual city idiots block this much needed expansion, the legislature needs to remove tolls from the 130 bypass and slap them on the portion of I-35 inside Austin city limits.  Let the city pay for their once again inconveniencing the rest of the metro, region, and state.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: kphoger on August 11, 2021, 12:13:00 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 10, 2021, 08:54:36 PM

Quote from: kphoger on August 10, 2021, 08:02:00 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 10, 2021, 06:34:13 PM
In all likelihood, I'll be sending a comment to TxDOT ...

Are you even a Texas resident?

Please show me where being a resident of Texas is a requirement to provide feedback for a project in Texas.

Well, what I was really wondering is why TxDOT would even care what you or I think about it.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Plutonic Panda on August 11, 2021, 12:14:31 PM
Quote from: kphoger on August 11, 2021, 12:13:00 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 10, 2021, 08:54:36 PM

Quote from: kphoger on August 10, 2021, 08:02:00 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 10, 2021, 06:34:13 PM
In all likelihood, I'll be sending a comment to TxDOT ...

Are you even a Texas resident?

Please show me where being a resident of Texas is a requirement to provide feedback for a project in Texas.

Well, what I was really wondering is why TxDOT would even care what you or I think about it.
Well they do have public input to add comments to the project. My opinion will almost certainly make difference but I'm still going to give it.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Plutonic Panda on August 13, 2021, 03:50:43 PM
And then there's people that think I-35 should be downgraded to a six lane road. It's like a comedy show lol

https://www.kut.org/transportation/2021-08-12/txdot-slams-brakes-on-proposals-to-shrink-i-35-footprint
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Anthony_JK on August 14, 2021, 04:31:38 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 13, 2021, 03:50:43 PM
And then there's people that think I-35 should be downgraded to a six lane road. It's like a comedy show lol

https://www.kut.org/transportation/2021-08-12/txdot-slams-brakes-on-proposals-to-shrink-i-35-footprint

Yeah, right.

Convert a 10-lane freeway and the main traffic generator that carries nearly 130K VPH into...a six-lane surface boulevard.

So, do they also pay the costs of diverting I-35 mainline traffic to SH 45 and Toll 130, or do they call for removing the tolls on 130 and diverting I-35 there?

These freaks have lost their Goddess dang minds.

I'm way Left of center politically, and for more public transport. But, this is MADNESS.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: achilles765 on August 14, 2021, 12:55:51 PM
Quote from: MaxConcrete on February 27, 2020, 07:04:57 PM
Wow, that's a surprise. It was listed as a "Potential update to the 2020 Unified Transportation Program" in the agenda.

The presentation is now online (but the meeting video is not yet online as of this writing).

http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2020/0227/4-presentation.pdf (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2020/0227/4-presentation.pdf)

The political powers probably realize the importance of Austin to the future of Texas, since Austin is a tech hub and is growing by leaps and bounds. Other sectors of the Texas economy, mainly oil & gas, face an uncertain future and Houston especially is facing a grim future as the fossil fuel sector permanently declines.

I don't think we face a grim future here in houston.  Yes, fossil fuels are still a major driver of our economy, but its far from the only one. We also have one of the largest medical research districts in the world, banking and finance, and green energy jobs. 
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: TXtoNJ on August 14, 2021, 02:35:29 PM
Quote from: achilles765 on August 14, 2021, 12:55:51 PM
Quote from: MaxConcrete on February 27, 2020, 07:04:57 PM
Wow, that's a surprise. It was listed as a "Potential update to the 2020 Unified Transportation Program" in the agenda.

The presentation is now online (but the meeting video is not yet online as of this writing).

http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2020/0227/4-presentation.pdf (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2020/0227/4-presentation.pdf)

The political powers probably realize the importance of Austin to the future of Texas, since Austin is a tech hub and is growing by leaps and bounds. Other sectors of the Texas economy, mainly oil & gas, face an uncertain future and Houston especially is facing a grim future as the fossil fuel sector permanently declines.

I don't think we face a grim future here in houston.  Yes, fossil fuels are still a major driver of our economy, but its far from the only one. We also have one of the largest medical research districts in the world, banking and finance, and green energy jobs. 

Houston's problem (saying this as someone who grew up there), is that without oil and gas, it has relatively few geographical advantages that would make it globally prominent. Banking, finance, and corporate headquarters much prefer D/FW to Southeast Texas, mainly for the more amenable climate. Look at Baltimore if you want to see what a port and medicine get you alone. Green energy execs want to live in more environmentally pleasant, or culturally prominent areas (I think Austin/San Antonio are going to be the big winners there).

Houston has a Detroit problem that I think many are in denial about - many people will continue to live there (largely from inertia and international immigration), but I think there's going to be a long-term decline in good-paying jobs.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Scott5114 on August 14, 2021, 02:56:10 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 11, 2021, 12:14:31 PM
Quote from: kphoger on August 11, 2021, 12:13:00 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 10, 2021, 08:54:36 PM

Quote from: kphoger on August 10, 2021, 08:02:00 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 10, 2021, 06:34:13 PM
In all likelihood, I'll be sending a comment to TxDOT ...

Are you even a Texas resident?

Please show me where being a resident of Texas is a requirement to provide feedback for a project in Texas.

Well, what I was really wondering is why TxDOT would even care what you or I think about it.
Well they do have public input to add comments to the project. My opinion will almost certainly make difference but I'm still going to give it.

Given the average Texan's opinions of both places, I wonder which address of yours would cause them to chuck it in the garbage faster, the California one or the Oklahoma one? :-D
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Plutonic Panda on August 14, 2021, 04:09:06 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 14, 2021, 02:56:10 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 11, 2021, 12:14:31 PM
Quote from: kphoger on August 11, 2021, 12:13:00 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 10, 2021, 08:54:36 PM

Quote from: kphoger on August 10, 2021, 08:02:00 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 10, 2021, 06:34:13 PM
In all likelihood, I'll be sending a comment to TxDOT ...

Are you even a Texas resident?

Please show me where being a resident of Texas is a requirement to provide feedback for a project in Texas.

Well, what I was really wondering is why TxDOT would even care what you or I think about it.
Well they do have public input to add comments to the project. My opinion will almost certainly make difference but I'm still going to give it.

Given the average Texan's opinions of both places, I wonder which address of yours would cause them to chuck it in the garbage faster, the California one or the Oklahoma one? :-D
There's plenty of addresses in Austin to choose from lol
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: MaxConcrete on September 15, 2021, 01:33:53 PM
The Austin Business Journal has an article about potential parks built on decks above the planned modernized freeway
https://www.bizjournals.com/austin/news/2021/09/08/i-35-cap-and-stitch-feedback-wanted.html?cx_testId=40&cx_testVariant=cx_21&cx_artPos=8#cxrecs_s (https://www.bizjournals.com/austin/news/2021/09/08/i-35-cap-and-stitch-feedback-wanted.html?cx_testId=40&cx_testVariant=cx_21&cx_artPos=8#cxrecs_s)

Quote
City leaders are gathering community input on a future "cap and stitch" project proposed for I-35 in downtown Austin.

The goal of capping and stitching the interstate is to mend the historic cultural divide between downtown and East Austin. The proposal includes building large decks, or caps, over I-35 to "stitch" the two sides together and improve mobility. Nothing has been finalized yet, and the city has launched surveys to garner community feedback to inform the design processes. Funding would be identified at a later date.

The link to the site is https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.austintexas.gov%2Fatxcapstitch&data=04%7C01%7Ckhardison%40bizjournals.com%7C0f7abd09de9a44b585fd08d972440a9d%7Cc8f302bab2fe4389b720e285f4fe1b2a%7C0%7C1%7C637666458841559248%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=03d5rF3YgqvMVyPzO4fuw%2B4OrW9%2BtfR24zt%2FKPr3cxM%3D&reserved=0 (https://nam11.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.austintexas.gov%2Fatxcapstitch&data=04%7C01%7Ckhardison%40bizjournals.com%7C0f7abd09de9a44b585fd08d972440a9d%7Cc8f302bab2fe4389b720e285f4fe1b2a%7C0%7C1%7C637666458841559248%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C1000&sdata=03d5rF3YgqvMVyPzO4fuw%2B4OrW9%2BtfR24zt%2FKPr3cxM%3D&reserved=0)

This map shows possible deck locations https://app.e-builder.net/public/fileview_fileview_act.aspx?portaltype=7&f={614752ed-2eb1-42ca-a9c3-a11c998125a8} (https://app.e-builder.net/public/fileview_fileview_act.aspx?portaltype=7&f=%7B614752ed-2eb1-42ca-a9c3-a11c998125a8%7D)

Decks are expensive and the overall cost becomes very expensive when a large area is covered. The deck for Klyde Warren park was $44.5 million in 2009, at the depths of the recession when costs were low. It is 1100 feet long. At today's prices, it would probably be around $70 million. The fully-developed Warren park cost $110 million when opened around 2013. The distance from 8th Street to Cesar Chavez is 2500 feet. Using 50% inflation since Warren park was built, the cost would scale to around $375 million.  Creating three single-block parks from 5th to 8th probably would have little benefit. The section from 4th to Chavez is around 1000 feet and could probably be done for $150 million.

The opposition may be more willing to accept the IH-35 project if the some deck parks are included.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Bobby5280 on September 15, 2021, 08:40:40 PM
Deck parks can be nice. But, yeah, they're expensive. One alternative is dressing up the intersections where major streets cross I-35 to kind of hide the highway and make the crossing more friendly to pedestrians.

In Seattle on WA-520 in the Clyde Hill area the exits for 84th Avenue and 92nd Avenue are interesting. The streets cross over WA-520 as mini deck parks. The caps are big enough to hold something like a roundabout and a decent amount of green space. The 520 highway is mostly hidden to anyone walking or biking across the highway at those locations.

The only drawback with that approach is it requires the super highway to be depressed down into a trench. But so does any plan for building big deck parks.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: kernals12 on September 15, 2021, 09:06:53 PM
Austin has 3 north south freeways bypassing downtown (soon to be 4 once Loop 360 loses its signalized intersections). People don't use them simply because they're tolled while 35 is not. How does the cost of this project compare to the cost of de-tolling 130?
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: kernals12 on September 15, 2021, 09:07:33 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on August 14, 2021, 04:31:38 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 13, 2021, 03:50:43 PM
And then there's people that think I-35 should be downgraded to a six lane road. It's like a comedy show lol

https://www.kut.org/transportation/2021-08-12/txdot-slams-brakes-on-proposals-to-shrink-i-35-footprint

Yeah, right.

Convert a 10-lane freeway and the main traffic generator that carries nearly 130K VPH into...a six-lane surface boulevard.

So, do they also pay the costs of diverting I-35 mainline traffic to SH 45 and Toll 130, or do they call for removing the tolls on 130 and diverting I-35 there?

These freaks have lost their Goddess dang minds.

I'm way Left of center politically, and for more public transport. But, this is MADNESS.
Muh Embarcadero Freeway
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: bwana39 on September 15, 2021, 10:23:09 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on September 15, 2021, 09:06:53 PM
Austin has 3 north south freeways bypassing downtown (soon to be 4 once Loop 360 loses its signalized intersections). People don't use them simply because they're tolled while 35 is not. How does the cost of this project compare to the cost of de-tolling 130?

130 is 2 or 3 lanes each direction. There is little possibility that it could replace I-35's volume. It isn't like there is no one out there now.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: DenverBrian on September 15, 2021, 11:22:53 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on September 15, 2021, 10:23:09 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on September 15, 2021, 09:06:53 PM
Austin has 3 north south freeways bypassing downtown (soon to be 4 once Loop 360 loses its signalized intersections). People don't use them simply because they're tolled while 35 is not. How does the cost of this project compare to the cost of de-tolling 130?

130 is 2 or 3 lanes each direction. There is little possibility that it could replace I-35's volume. It isn't like there is no one out there now.
it wouldn't have to replace ALL of IH-35's volume, yes? And it's already at interstate standard. De-toll it and bring it into the Interstate system as IH-235, then sign the heck out of it as "avoid congestion, use the bypass to Dallas/San Antonio" or some such.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: sprjus4 on September 16, 2021, 12:09:54 AM
SH-130 would need to be at least 6 lanes wide throughout to handle being a re-routed I-35, with 8 to 10 lanes in many areas.

Leave it how it is. SH-130 is an effective toll bypass route, a lot of it recently expanded to 6-8 lanes in its busier portion, I-35 remains the existing main, toll free through route.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Anthony_JK on September 16, 2021, 01:23:17 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on September 15, 2021, 09:07:33 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on August 14, 2021, 04:31:38 AM

[redacted]

Yeah, right.

Convert a 10-lane freeway and the main traffic generator that carries nearly 130K VPH into...a six-lane surface boulevard.

So, do they also pay the costs of diverting I-35 mainline traffic to SH 45 and Toll 130, or do they call for removing the tolls on 130 and diverting I-35 there?

These freaks have lost their Goddess dang minds.

I'm way Left of center politically, and for more public transport. But, this is MADNESS.
Muh Embarcadero Freeway

I have no problem - well, maybe a little bit, but not much -- with San Francisco leveling the Embarcadero, because it was proven to not be earthquake proof, and it wasn't a major corridor.

I-35 in Austin, OTOH, is something else altogether. You simply do not undercut a major freeway corridor and reduce it to a six lane boulevard. You just don't.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: thisdj78 on September 16, 2021, 07:59:39 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 16, 2021, 12:09:54 AM
SH-130 would need to be at least 6 lanes wide throughout to handle being a re-routed I-35, with 8 to 10 lanes in many areas.

Leave it how it is. SH-130 is an effective toll bypass route, a lot of it recently expanded to 6-8 lanes in its busier portion, I-35 remains the existing main, toll free through route.

That would only be assuming the original I-35 is no longer viable. The key is directing proper traffic once it was toll-free. All "thru"  traffic including trucks would need to use 130 (aka the newly designated *35) and all local traffic on the original 35. I think 130 can handle it...it only needs to be 6 lanes in the sections where they are already adding lanes. Yes in the future it will need expansion and luckily it is built to easily do that.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: kernals12 on September 16, 2021, 08:32:50 AM
14% of all traffic on I-35 in Austin  (https://tti.tamu.edu/news/researchers-study-traffic-make-up-on-texas-i-35-sh-130/) is just passing through, neither starting or stopping in the Austin region. Diverting just that would make an enormous difference in congestion. And of the remaining 86%, surely a large proportion is not going downtown and could use 183 or the MoPac.

Honestly, this just illustrates why toll roads are stupid. Texas needs to add 10-15 cents to the gas tax and get rid of tolls.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: I-35 on September 16, 2021, 09:43:44 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on September 16, 2021, 08:32:50 AM
14% of all traffic on I-35 in Austin  (https://tti.tamu.edu/news/researchers-study-traffic-make-up-on-texas-i-35-sh-130/) is just passing through, neither starting or stopping in the Austin region. Diverting just that would make an enormous difference in congestion. And of the remaining 86%, surely a large proportion is not going downtown and could use 183 or the MoPac.

Honestly, this just illustrates why toll roads are stupid. Texas needs to add 10-15 cents to the gas tax and get rid of tolls.

Are you under some assumption that rural Texans aren't the ones running the state legislature?  The ones that don't live within 300 miles of a toll road?  We won't see a gas tax hike anytime soon.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: TXtoNJ on September 17, 2021, 11:08:39 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on September 15, 2021, 09:06:53 PM
Austin has 3 north south freeways bypassing downtown (soon to be 4 once Loop 360 loses its signalized intersections). People don't use them simply because they're tolled while 35 is not. How does the cost of this project compare to the cost of de-tolling 130?

What are you even talking about. Mopac between 183 and 290 is free. 183 east of downtown also has free-flowing frontage roads - there are bypasses for every stoplight.

I swear, the funniest thing about this board are the people making grand determinations on why people do something or another in cities they've never visited, much less lived in.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Bobby5280 on September 17, 2021, 01:29:50 PM
The other thing even more funny (or more annoying) is they want to force some kind of ideal on a community, such as ripping out I-35 and reducing it to a mere surface street completely infected with traffic signals. They want to see that happen, but they don't live there to experience the consequences.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: ski-man on September 17, 2021, 01:57:38 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on September 17, 2021, 11:08:39 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on September 15, 2021, 09:06:53 PM
Austin has 3 north south freeways bypassing downtown (soon to be 4 once Loop 360 loses its signalized intersections). People don't use them simply because they're tolled while 35 is not. How does the cost of this project compare to the cost of de-tolling 130?

What are you even talking about. Mopac between 183 and 290 is free. 183 east of downtown also has free-flowing frontage roads - there are bypasses for every stoplight.

I swear, the funniest thing about this board are the people making grand determinations on why people do something or another in cities they've never visited, much less lived in.
BINGO!!
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Plutonic Panda on September 27, 2021, 09:20:22 PM
Article about the proposal in downtown. The expected irrational argument to not widen it because induced demand repeating the same crap. I will beat this horse again and say I'm willing to side with the opposition on this given the fact I was for the tunnel option to reduce the footprint.

https://www.kut.org/transportation/2021-09-24/expanded-i-35-could-induce-demand-and-make-pollution-worse-transportation-experts-say
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: I-35 on September 28, 2021, 10:00:18 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 27, 2021, 09:20:22 PM
Article about the proposal in downtown. The expected irrational argument to not widen it because induced demand repeating the same crap. I will beat this horse again and say I'm willing to side with the opposition on this given the fact I was for the tunnel option to reduce the footprint.

https://www.kut.org/transportation/2021-09-24/expanded-i-35-could-induce-demand-and-make-pollution-worse-transportation-experts-say

I think they've got to tunnel it.  It's a hundred year decision, do it right.  This isn't Waco or Lubbock, it's through some of the highest priced real estate in Texas.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: jadebenn on October 20, 2021, 09:11:15 AM
Another article (https://slate.com/business/2021/10/austin-texas-interstate-35-expansion-20-lanes.html) on this project.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: thisdj78 on October 20, 2021, 04:52:22 PM
Quote from: I-35 on September 28, 2021, 10:00:18 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 27, 2021, 09:20:22 PM
Article about the proposal in downtown. The expected irrational argument to not widen it because induced demand repeating the same crap. I will beat this horse again and say I'm willing to side with the opposition on this given the fact I was for the tunnel option to reduce the footprint.

https://www.kut.org/transportation/2021-09-24/expanded-i-35-could-induce-demand-and-make-pollution-worse-transportation-experts-say

I think they've got to tunnel it.  It's a hundred year decision, do it right.  This isn't Waco or Lubbock, it's through some of the highest priced real estate in Texas.

I think the cost and time it would take to do what would make it nearly impossible to tunnel. I think the best solution is focus on making 130 free and an "I-x35"  route.

If they re-construct (or even remove) some exits from the existing 35, I think that could help. Also maybe even adding a lane to the upper deck could be done.

But it seems that a complete tear down or expansion isn't going to get done.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Plutonic Panda on October 20, 2021, 05:57:02 PM
Quote from: thisdj78 on October 20, 2021, 04:52:22 PM
Quote from: I-35 on September 28, 2021, 10:00:18 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 27, 2021, 09:20:22 PM
Article about the proposal in downtown. The expected irrational argument to not widen it because induced demand repeating the same crap. I will beat this horse again and say I'm willing to side with the opposition on this given the fact I was for the tunnel option to reduce the footprint.

https://www.kut.org/transportation/2021-09-24/expanded-i-35-could-induce-demand-and-make-pollution-worse-transportation-experts-say

I think they've got to tunnel it.  It's a hundred year decision, do it right.  This isn't Waco or Lubbock, it's through some of the highest priced real estate in Texas.

I think the cost and time it would take to do what would make it nearly impossible to tunnel. I think the best solution is focus on making 130 free and an "I-x35"  route.

If they re-construct (or even remove) some exits from the existing 35, I think that could help. Also maybe even adding a lane to the upper deck could be done.

But it seems that a complete tear down or expansion isn't going to get done.
It's not impossible to do it. It's the fact we as a country are unable to build great things mentality is what stops it. It can and should be built. The it costs too much and takes too long argument is malarkey.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: thisdj78 on October 20, 2021, 06:34:23 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 20, 2021, 05:57:02 PM
Quote from: thisdj78 on October 20, 2021, 04:52:22 PM
Quote from: I-35 on September 28, 2021, 10:00:18 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 27, 2021, 09:20:22 PM
Article about the proposal in downtown. The expected irrational argument to not widen it because induced demand repeating the same crap. I will beat this horse again and say I'm willing to side with the opposition on this given the fact I was for the tunnel option to reduce the footprint.

https://www.kut.org/transportation/2021-09-24/expanded-i-35-could-induce-demand-and-make-pollution-worse-transportation-experts-say

I think they've got to tunnel it.  It's a hundred year decision, do it right.  This isn't Waco or Lubbock, it's through some of the highest priced real estate in Texas.

I think the cost and time it would take to do what would make it nearly impossible to tunnel. I think the best solution is focus on making 130 free and an "I-x35"  route.

If they re-construct (or even remove) some exits from the existing 35, I think that could help. Also maybe even adding a lane to the upper deck could be done.

But it seems that a complete tear down or expansion isn't going to get done.
It's not impossible to do it. It's the fact we as a country are unable to build great things mentality is what stops it. It can and should be built. The it costs too much and takes too long argument is malarkey.

Costs and time is a significant barrier (here in the US). Believe me, I know it's possible....I just got back from a vacation in Europe a few months ago and tunnels are numerous and easily built there. Someone pointed out in another thread that the costs to build tunnels here is astronomical compared to Europe.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: DenverBrian on October 20, 2021, 07:46:29 PM
Quote from: thisdj78 on October 20, 2021, 04:52:22 PM
Quote from: I-35 on September 28, 2021, 10:00:18 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 27, 2021, 09:20:22 PM
Article about the proposal in downtown. The expected irrational argument to not widen it because induced demand repeating the same crap. I will beat this horse again and say I'm willing to side with the opposition on this given the fact I was for the tunnel option to reduce the footprint.

https://www.kut.org/transportation/2021-09-24/expanded-i-35-could-induce-demand-and-make-pollution-worse-transportation-experts-say

I think they've got to tunnel it.  It's a hundred year decision, do it right.  This isn't Waco or Lubbock, it's through some of the highest priced real estate in Texas.

I think the cost and time it would take to do what would make it nearly impossible to tunnel. I think the best solution is focus on making 130 free and an "I-x35"  route.

If they re-construct (or even remove) some exits from the existing 35, I think that could help. Also maybe even adding a lane to the upper deck could be done.

But it seems that a complete tear down or expansion isn't going to get done.
Agreed. Make 130 I-835 or some such, or actually sign it as I-35 and re-sign the route through Austin as I-135 or some such. Require all through trucks to use the loop. Solves 75% of the problem for 0% of the cost.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Plutonic Panda on October 21, 2021, 12:12:30 AM
Quote from: thisdj78 on October 20, 2021, 06:34:23 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 20, 2021, 05:57:02 PM
Quote from: thisdj78 on October 20, 2021, 04:52:22 PM
Quote from: I-35 on September 28, 2021, 10:00:18 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 27, 2021, 09:20:22 PM
Article about the proposal in downtown. The expected irrational argument to not widen it because induced demand repeating the same crap. I will beat this horse again and say I'm willing to side with the opposition on this given the fact I was for the tunnel option to reduce the footprint.

https://www.kut.org/transportation/2021-09-24/expanded-i-35-could-induce-demand-and-make-pollution-worse-transportation-experts-say

I think they've got to tunnel it.  It's a hundred year decision, do it right.  This isn't Waco or Lubbock, it's through some of the highest priced real estate in Texas.

I think the cost and time it would take to do what would make it nearly impossible to tunnel. I think the best solution is focus on making 130 free and an "I-x35"  route.

If they re-construct (or even remove) some exits from the existing 35, I think that could help. Also maybe even adding a lane to the upper deck could be done.

But it seems that a complete tear down or expansion isn't going to get done.
It's not impossible to do it. It's the fact we as a country are unable to build great things mentality is what stops it. It can and should be built. The it costs too much and takes too long argument is malarkey.

Costs and time is a significant barrier (here in the US). Believe me, I know it's possible....I just got back from a vacation in Europe a few months ago and tunnels are numerous and easily built there. Someone pointed out in another thread that the costs to build tunnels here is astronomical compared to Europe.
My issue is that we just accept it and move on with not improving our infrastructure while other countries find a way to do it.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Ryctor2018 on October 23, 2021, 02:38:44 PM
Quote from: DenverBrian on October 20, 2021, 07:46:29 PM
Quote from: thisdj78 on October 20, 2021, 04:52:22 PM
Quote from: I-35 on September 28, 2021, 10:00:18 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on September 27, 2021, 09:20:22 PM
Article about the proposal in downtown. The expected irrational argument to not widen it because induced demand repeating the same crap. I will beat this horse again and say I'm willing to side with the opposition on this given the fact I was for the tunnel option to reduce the footprint.

https://www.kut.org/transportation/2021-09-24/expanded-i-35-could-induce-demand-and-make-pollution-worse-transportation-experts-say

I think they've got to tunnel it.  It's a hundred year decision, do it right.  This isn't Waco or Lubbock, it's through some of the highest priced real estate in Texas.

I think the cost and time it would take to do what would make it nearly impossible to tunnel. I think the best solution is focus on making 130 free and an "I-x35"  route.

If they re-construct (or even remove) some exits from the existing 35, I think that could help. Also maybe even adding a lane to the upper deck could be done.

But it seems that a complete tear down or expansion isn't going to get done.
Agreed. Make 130 I-835 or some such, or actually sign it as I-35 and re-sign the route through Austin as I-135 or some such. Require all through trucks to use the loop. Solves 75% of the problem for 0% of the cost.

Is TX-130 Interstate standard, or compatible? If not, then it's cost millions to upgrade it. The same for tying back to I-35 north of Austin near Georgetown, TX. Plus, making this switch would definitely involve the Tex legislature and the Feds since I-35 is so important to the nations infrastructure. Not against this move, just pointing out that it would probably more 0.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: sprjus4 on October 23, 2021, 03:02:48 PM
^ SH-130 is fully interstate standard. It's not a substandard facility, especially given it holds a higher speed limit than I-35.

A more realistic (but still not) bet would be to eliminate the tolls on the TxDOT owned portion of SH-45 (south) and SH-130 (the 80 mph segment), and widen the entire facility to a minimum of 6 lanes. Mandate through trucks use that route.

The southern 85 mph portion that's privately owned would be harder, IMO, to see tolls go since it's privately owned. But it still could help, if it went through too. I-10 would need a minimum of 6 lanes before it did, or it would overload.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Thegeet on October 23, 2021, 06:36:22 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 23, 2021, 03:02:48 PM
^ SH-130 is fully interstate standard. It's not a substandard facility, especially given it holds a higher speed limit than I-35.

A more realistic (but still not) bet would be to eliminate the tolls on the TxDOT owned portion of SH-45 (south) and SH-130 (the 80 mph segment), and widen the entire facility to a minimum of 6 lanes. Mandate through trucks use that route.

The southern 85 mph portion that's privately owned would be harder, IMO, to see tolls go since it's privately owned. But it still could help, if it went through too. I-10 would need a minimum of 6 lanes before it did, or it would overload.
I think it's safe to say SH 130 is higher than interstate standard.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: thisdj78 on October 23, 2021, 08:49:13 PM
Quote from: Thegeet on October 23, 2021, 06:36:22 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 23, 2021, 03:02:48 PM
^ SH-130 is fully interstate standard. It's not a substandard facility, especially given it holds a higher speed limit than I-35.

A more realistic (but still not) bet would be to eliminate the tolls on the TxDOT owned portion of SH-45 (south) and SH-130 (the 80 mph segment), and widen the entire facility to a minimum of 6 lanes. Mandate through trucks use that route.

The southern 85 mph portion that's privately owned would be harder, IMO, to see tolls go since it's privately owned. But it still could help, if it went through too. I-10 would need a minimum of 6 lanes before it did, or it would overload.
I think it's safe to say SH 130 is higher than interstate standard.

Yep, 130 could be made I-X35 tomorrow without any changes needed but the signage.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: cbalducc on October 24, 2021, 08:10:02 PM
Wasn't I-35 through Austin a double decker at one point?
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: MaxConcrete on October 24, 2021, 08:24:53 PM
Quote from: cbalducc on October 24, 2021, 08:10:02 PM
Wasn't I-35 through Austin a double decker at one point?
It still has the upper deck north of downtown. All options still under study for the rebuild will remove the upper deck and place all lanes below grade.

The option for a double deck tunnel has been eliminated, mainly due to extremely high cost and also due to difficult constructability and less access for emergencies.

The remaining two options under study both require right-of-way, which is contributing to controversy.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: thisdj78 on October 25, 2021, 12:39:05 PM
I wonder that the feasibility would be for them to add a lane to the upper decks similar to how they added lanes to the 130 toll bridges when they expended to 6 lanes? And also eliminating exit/entry ramps in multiple spots?

Really there only needs to be exits for Airport, MLK and Cesar Chavez. The others are unnecessary and contribute to the congestion downtown.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Great Lakes Roads on October 25, 2021, 03:49:23 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcUx5r_ksk8

Here's a video of the I-35 in Austin by City Beautiful.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: longhorn on October 26, 2021, 09:21:24 AM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on October 25, 2021, 03:49:23 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcUx5r_ksk8

Here's a video of the I-35 in Austin by City Beautiful.

That was a waste of 8 minutes. The powers that be want I-35 expanded, it will happen. And I will add 130 to that expansion list too.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: ski-man on October 26, 2021, 02:20:02 PM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on October 25, 2021, 03:49:23 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcUx5r_ksk8

Here's a video of the I-35 in Austin by City Beautiful.
Still cannot believe the tree lined boulevard is still in there. Talk about a cluster F***, even if 130 becomes 35 with no tolls. It is not like all the traffic on 35 currently is just passing through. It would make it tough just getting into downtown/Lady Bird Lake from the north or to t.u. from the South.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: triplemultiplex on October 26, 2021, 03:11:36 PM
In a world where a 10 lane I-35 is tunneled beneath it, that parkway option looks great!
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: kernals12 on October 26, 2021, 03:57:06 PM
Quote from: ski-man on October 26, 2021, 02:20:02 PM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on October 25, 2021, 03:49:23 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcUx5r_ksk8

Here's a video of the I-35 in Austin by City Beautiful.
Still cannot believe the tree lined boulevard is still in there. Talk about a cluster F***, even if 130 becomes 35 with no tolls. It is not like all the traffic on 35 currently is just passing through. It would make it tough just getting into downtown/Lady Bird Lake from the north or to t.u. from the South.

By turning i-35 into a Boulevard, driving will become so difficult that you'll just walk or bike downtown.

I am very smart
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Plutonic Panda on October 26, 2021, 04:27:42 PM
Quote from: triplemultiplex on October 26, 2021, 03:11:36 PM
In a world where a 10 lane I-35 is tunneled beneath it, that parkway option looks great!
Well welcome to a world where they proposed that but found it's too expensive so they scrapped it while other countries find a way to build it. You're living in it.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: longhorn on October 27, 2021, 09:59:54 AM
Read a comment on Reddit about this same topic and the person brought up the point 183 from Lakeline to I-35 and 290/71 from I-35 to Mopac used to be Boulevards. How did that work out? I remember both being boulevards with lights, do not think we want to go back to there with today's traffic counts. I think these people must not have cars that come with these brilliant ideas.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Plutonic Panda on October 27, 2021, 10:40:14 AM
Quote from: longhorn on October 27, 2021, 09:59:54 AM
Read a comment on Reddit about this same topic and the person brought up the point 183 from Lakeline to I-35 and 290/71 from I-35 to Mopac used to be Boulevards. How did that work out? I remember both being boulevards with lights, do not think we want to go back to there with today's traffic counts. I think these people must not have cars that come with these brilliant ideas.
I didn't realize how intolerant Reddit was as I just joined a month ago. Lots of great content there but I'm still weeding out the good threads from the bad ones. Infrastructure Porn is a great sub if you don't read the comments. Post a picture of a highway and you'll immediately get comments about how it would better if it were rail or why Kernals(the poster here who they are obsessed with) would love it if he is wasn't the one who posted it. It's comical.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: thisdj78 on October 27, 2021, 12:49:04 PM
Quote from: longhorn on October 27, 2021, 09:59:54 AM
Read a comment on Reddit about this same topic and the person brought up the point 183 from Lakeline to I-35 and 290/71 from I-35 to Mopac used to be Boulevards. How did that work out? I remember both being boulevards with lights, do not think we want to go back to there with today's traffic counts. I think these people must not have cars that come with these brilliant ideas.

I was in college nearby when those roads were still surface streets in the 90s, so I remember it vividly. The Austin area was also half the population it is now.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: ski-man on October 27, 2021, 03:02:33 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on October 26, 2021, 03:57:06 PM
Quote from: ski-man on October 26, 2021, 02:20:02 PM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on October 25, 2021, 03:49:23 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcUx5r_ksk8

Here's a video of the I-35 in Austin by City Beautiful.
Still cannot believe the tree lined boulevard is still in there. Talk about a cluster F***, even if 130 becomes 35 with no tolls. It is not like all the traffic on 35 currently is just passing through. It would make it tough just getting into downtown/Lady Bird Lake from the north or to t.u. from the South.

By turning i-35 into a Boulevard, driving will become so difficult that you'll just walk or bike downtown.

I am very smart

Good one....... :-D
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Plutonic Panda on January 14, 2022, 12:17:12 PM
Here's an update that TxDOT provided for new "improvements"

Removal of upper decks
Cap/stitch accommodations
Reduced speed limits
Lance Armstrong Bikeway crossing
Enhanced bike/pedestrian connections at Lady Bird Lake
Relocation of managed lane ramps in the vicinity of Airport Blvd. to reduce impacts on surrounding properties and improve operations
Expanded opportunity for inclusion of aesthetic treatments, community art, and placemaking

Yet another example of a project that would be widely successful if we could do what ever other modern country does and build tunnels but nooooooo that's to extreme here. Blah blah

https://cbsaustin.com/news/local/txdot-reveals-updated-i-35-expansion-plans-but-congestion-still-a-concern?fbclid=IwAR1qMYCEa9Vj5eFNOK9iM9CKEtt3_BbBmCOc90AzXTIgUx8Q-xRgIjOT4Qg
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: DenverBrian on January 14, 2022, 02:16:45 PM
A bikeway named for Lance Armstrong?!? Seriously?
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Plutonic Panda on January 14, 2022, 02:36:01 PM
Quote from: DenverBrian on January 14, 2022, 02:16:45 PM
A bikeway named for Lance Armstrong?!? Seriously?
More interesting than that there's apparently a guy whose quote in this article is stating that an act grade Boulevard would move traffic faster through downtown then a fully controlled access facility would.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Echostatic on January 14, 2022, 02:50:37 PM
QuoteGreenfield has pushed to stop the expansion of I-35 and get rid of the interstate that runs through the city altogether. He believes creating a boulevard through Austin will get more cars through faster than the interstate does now.

Sure, bud.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Plutonic Panda on January 14, 2022, 02:55:07 PM
Quote from: Echostatic on January 14, 2022, 02:50:37 PM
QuoteGreenfield has pushed to stop the expansion of I-35 and get rid of the interstate that runs through the city altogether. He believes creating a boulevard through Austin will get more cars through faster than the interstate does now.

Sure, bud.
I mean pushing to stop the expansion is somewhat understandable and I say that as someone that generally supports an expansion of the road. Suggesting to remove it and then convert it to a Boulevard claiming that traffic will move faster. How do you even take that seriously?
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: texaskdog on January 14, 2022, 03:26:58 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 14, 2022, 02:55:07 PM
Quote from: Echostatic on January 14, 2022, 02:50:37 PM
QuoteGreenfield has pushed to stop the expansion of I-35 and get rid of the interstate that runs through the city altogether. He believes creating a boulevard through Austin will get more cars through faster than the interstate does now.

Sure, bud.
I mean pushing to stop the expansion is somewhat understandable and I say that as someone that generally supports an expansion of the road. Suggesting to remove it and then convert it to a Boulevard claiming that traffic will move faster. How do you even take that seriously?

Why not extend the upper deck with NO entrance ramps?  You can get off but can't get on. Therefore it would only serve to funnel cars through town. 
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Echostatic on January 14, 2022, 03:48:56 PM
I mean, that's basically the current proposal. They'll be adding two lanes in the center with limited access to downtown and only a select few exits and entrances in the city as a whole. The current upper decks are an enormous eyesore and only carry two lanes each way themselves.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Plutonic Panda on January 14, 2022, 03:52:59 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on January 14, 2022, 03:26:58 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 14, 2022, 02:55:07 PM
Quote from: Echostatic on January 14, 2022, 02:50:37 PM
QuoteGreenfield has pushed to stop the expansion of I-35 and get rid of the interstate that runs through the city altogether. He believes creating a boulevard through Austin will get more cars through faster than the interstate does now.

Sure, bud.
I mean pushing to stop the expansion is somewhat understandable and I say that as someone that generally supports an expansion of the road. Suggesting to remove it and then convert it to a Boulevard claiming that traffic will move faster. How do you even take that seriously?

Why not extend the upper deck with NO entrance ramps?  You can get off but can't get on. Therefore it would only serve to funnel cars through town.
I long wondered why we don't ever see something like this proposed for major cities that are so sprawled out like DFW a bypass would be too long and wouldn't save time. Like build express lanes through Dallas on I-35E that have extremely limited on ramps maybe in downtown but have an abundance of off ramps. Of course such a road would have to be elevated but there doesn't seem to be too much uproar against elevated viaducts in the DFW area.

In the new I-35 central proposal TxDOT eliminated the upper decks and made no mention of more lanes at grade level to substitute for the loss. So it seems to me the new proposal is less lanes, lower speed limits, and instead of having a one way frontage road system on each side of the freeway they moved the frontage road to only one side and it will be two way. Unless I missed something, we're going to spend billions to do that and likely won't improve traffic that much?

If that's all they propose, why not just use that money to buy out SH-130 and make it free? I'm sure that some people would use it. Kick the can down the road regarding I-35 in central Austin.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Plutonic Panda on January 14, 2022, 03:54:16 PM
Quote from: Echostatic on January 14, 2022, 03:48:56 PM
I mean, that's basically the current proposal. They'll be adding two lanes in the center with limited access to downtown and only a select few exits and entrances in the city as a whole. The current upper decks are an enormous eyesore and only carry two lanes each way themselves.
I thought the center four lanes were proposed anyways along with keeping the upper deck?
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Echostatic on January 14, 2022, 04:11:19 PM
The upper deck is not staying in any proposal - there isn't enough room to widen the existing below-grade roadway from 2x2 with the support columns of the upper deck. Any reconstructed freeway through that portion of Central Austin will be solely at-grade or below-grade. This means there will be a minimum of 6 lanes each direction - 4 mainlanes and 2 controlled access lanes, which is why there will be significant land acquisition needed in the area. No mainlanes will be lost on any portion of I-35 as part of reconstruction, lanes will only be added.

The portion of I-35 being discussed will look something like this in any design considered currently.
(https://i.imgur.com/GvtJW0j.png)

The very narrowest portion, between a cemetery and the UT Austin campus, will briefly shift all frontage road traffic to the Northbound side of the freeway. However, 7 lanes of traffic in each direction will be maintained on I-35 and frontage road capacity will not be compromised.
(https://i.imgur.com/IgqJhgz.png)
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Plutonic Panda on January 14, 2022, 05:04:33 PM
Okay that's good to know.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: TXtoNJ on January 17, 2022, 10:00:53 AM
All things considered, it's a fairly decent compromise if tunnels are completely off the table. I know some people are opposed to even this, but they're mostly chasing clout in urbanist circles.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Anthony_JK on January 17, 2022, 10:36:38 AM
Quote from: Echostatic on January 14, 2022, 04:11:19 PM

[...]

The very narrowest portion, between a cemetery and the UT Austin campus, will briefly shift all frontage road traffic to the Northbound side of the freeway. However, 7 lanes of traffic in each direction will be maintained on I-35 and frontage road capacity will not be compromised.
(https://i.imgur.com/IgqJhgz.png)

Ooooh, I like this proposal.

If they would cap this section completely and do a linear park for the covered section, it would be perfect.

Anything better than downgrading to a boulevard.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Bobby5280 on January 17, 2022, 12:28:20 PM
I think the concept looks pretty good. 4-5 freeway main lanes and 2 express lanes in each direction might work reasonably well. Some of that depends on how well traffic can enter or leave the superhighway. I like that the express lanes are 2 lanes in both directions, as opposed to some of these silly single lane configurations popping up in various cities around the state. All you need is one slow poke in a single express lane to ruin the purpose of using it.

It would be nice if they could cap over parts of the highway to improve access for pedestrians and bicyclists. I'm guessing the blue lines on the map fringing the frontage roads and other connecting surface streets are sidewalks.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Plutonic Panda on January 17, 2022, 01:01:19 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on January 17, 2022, 10:00:53 AM
All things considered, it's a fairly decent compromise if tunnels are completely off the table. I know some people are opposed to even this, but they're mostly chasing clout in urbanist circles.
Yeah this is a better proposal than the last ones I saw. I could live with this.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Plutonic Panda on January 17, 2022, 01:04:05 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 17, 2022, 12:28:20 PMI like that the express lanes are 2 lanes in both directions, as opposed to some of these silly single lane configurations popping up in various cities around the state. All you need is one slow poke in a single express lane to ruin the purpose of using it.
CDOT just did this same stupid fucking setup on I-25 on a large section between south Denver and Colorado Springs. I just don't get it. Either just add a damn lane to highway or make it two express lanes each way. Such a waste. But they didn't use concrete dividers like Texas has been, just bollards which I'm not sure if reinforced or not.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Echostatic on January 25, 2022, 10:44:54 PM
Alternative 3, which is the option that the City of Austin is angling for and TXDOT has moved forward, has received substantial changes as part of local workshops. Alternative 2 has received some, but fewer changes; I won't post those here. The new Alternative 3 Modified is posted below in its entirety.
(https://i.imgur.com/Ok4EVOM.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/rPbnkqG.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/tnFNPOl.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/Gdb3W24.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/fEvdtrW.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/wu8ywBO.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/X1mOAUf.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/FL1ygpv.png)

If built as proposed, this will be one of the most impressive highways in the nation.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: MaxConcrete on January 26, 2022, 12:35:55 AM
As Echostatic mentioned, changes to Alternative 2 are minimal and changes to Alternative 3 are substantial. I'm inclined to think Alt 3 will be favored, since it provides more deck opportunities and revives the original East Avenue through downtown with the frontage roads together like a street. Unfortunately the new Alt 3 has more downsizing than Alt 2.

Alternate 2. Minimal changes.
Northbound bypass lanes minimized or eliminated in downtown area

Alternate 3.  Major changes. This option has reduced ROW right of way requirement. Comments go from north to south.
Elevated structures for managed lanes are eliminated and brought to ground level north of 38th. Managed lanes are reduced from 4 to 2 lanes north of Airport blvd.
Two Flyovers for HOV access eliminated at 41st street
MLK: SB frontage road shifted to the east side of corridor, right next to NB frontage road in urban street configuration.
15th street: frontage roads (both directions together) cross over to the west side of corridor
Bypass lanes eliminated through downtown, generally 1-2 less lanes each direction
South of Riverside: Elevated structures for managed lanes eliminated. Bypass lanes eliminated
Woodland Avenue bridge over IH 35 eliminated
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Bobby5280 on January 26, 2022, 01:02:54 AM
Yeah, I'm not a fan at all of those single express lanes in Alt 3. As much as Austin and points North are growing I think it's very short-sighted to downsize managed lanes and other elements North of Airport Road.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Echostatic on January 26, 2022, 10:44:19 AM
I'm fine with the downsizing north of Airport if it gets this thing built. Even if they didn't add a single lane on this stretch, the traffic would be massively improved by just road design alone.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Plutonic Panda on March 17, 2022, 09:57:22 AM
Apparently according to this article TxDOT didn't realize a building existed right next to the central part of this project because they only use Bing and Google:
QuoteThat's because the transportation agency officials said they rely on Travis County Appraisal District maps, Google images and Bing. When reviewing those maps, Aria Grand did not exist. It was just a vacant plot of land. The 70-unit housing complex opened in early 2020

https://www.kxan.com/news/local/austin/concerns-surrounding-future-of-buildings-lining-i-35-as-txdot-moves-forward-with-expansion-plans/

Is this really a thing? A multi billion project is to be built and when planning they don't even send surveyors in person or drones to to see what's nearby?
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: DenverBrian on March 17, 2022, 01:58:08 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 17, 2022, 09:57:22 AM
Apparently according to this article TxDOT didn't realize a building existed right next to the central part of this project because they only use Bing and Google:
QuoteThat's because the transportation agency officials said they rely on Travis County Appraisal District maps, Google images and Bing. When reviewing those maps, Aria Grand did not exist. It was just a vacant plot of land. The 70-unit housing complex opened in early 2020

https://www.kxan.com/news/local/austin/concerns-surrounding-future-of-buildings-lining-i-35-as-txdot-moves-forward-with-expansion-plans/

Is this really a thing? A multi billion project is to be built and when planning they don't even send surveyors in person or drones to to see what's nearby?
In the 2000s, there was a brand new set of townhomes built near I-25 in Denver between Broadway and University. I actually considered one of these to buy.

The T-Rex project demolished these townhomes about three years after they were built.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: bwana39 on March 21, 2022, 12:52:09 AM
Quote from: DenverBrian on March 17, 2022, 01:58:08 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 17, 2022, 09:57:22 AM
Apparently according to this article TxDOT didn't realize a building existed right next to the central part of this project because they only use Bing and Google:
QuoteThat's because the transportation agency officials said they rely on Travis County Appraisal District maps, Google images and Bing. When reviewing those maps, Aria Grand did not exist. It was just a vacant plot of land. The 70-unit housing complex opened in early 2020

https://www.kxan.com/news/local/austin/concerns-surrounding-future-of-buildings-lining-i-35-as-txdot-moves-forward-with-expansion-plans/

Is this really a thing? A multi billion project is to be built and when planning they don't even send surveyors in person or drones to to see what's nearby?
In the 2000s, there was a brand new set of townhomes built near I-25 in Denver between Broadway and University. I actually considered one of these to buy.

The T-Rex project demolished these townhomes about three years after they were built.

Sometimes, developers build solely to be eventually bought out.....https://www.google.com/maps/place/Renaissance+At+Allendale/@32.5006408,-93.7612936,18.25z/data=!4m13!1m7!3m6!1s0x86312a8d1798e91f:0x2ebd2c1687a49cdd!2sShreveport,+LA!3b1!8m2!3d32.5251516!4d-93.7501789!3m4!1s0x8636cd2943a742a1:0x261b1b7647d1e013!8m2!3d32.5011414!4d-93.7603087
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: J N Winkler on April 19, 2022, 04:31:36 PM
TxDOT has advertised what appears to be the south section (SH 71 south to SH 45 SE) for bid opening this May, as CCSJ 0015-13-077 in Travis County.  It is a large plans set, with over 4000 sheets packed into seven downloadable files that aggregate to 3.43 GB.  In areas where the managed lanes are not at the same level as the general-purpose lanes, they are on a viaduct running down the center, similar to the Harbor Transitway along the Harbor Freeway (I-110) just north of SR 91 in south Los Angeles.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: kernals12 on April 19, 2022, 04:48:20 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on April 19, 2022, 04:31:36 PM
TxDOT has advertised what appears to be the south section (SH 71 south to SH 45 SE) for bid opening this May, as CCSJ 0015-13-077 in Travis County.  It is a large plans set, with over 4000 sheets packed into seven downloadable files that aggregate to 3.43 GB.  In areas where the managed lanes are not at the same level as the general-purpose lanes, they are on a viaduct running down the center, similar to the Harbor Transitway along the Harbor Freeway (I-110) just north of SR 91 in south Los Angeles.

Same thing for the planned i-35 widening (heightening?) In San Antonio
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: sprjus4 on April 19, 2022, 05:07:29 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on April 19, 2022, 04:48:20 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on April 19, 2022, 04:31:36 PM
TxDOT has advertised what appears to be the south section (SH 71 south to SH 45 SE) for bid opening this May, as CCSJ 0015-13-077 in Travis County.  It is a large plans set, with over 4000 sheets packed into seven downloadable files that aggregate to 3.43 GB.  In areas where the managed lanes are not at the same level as the general-purpose lanes, they are on a viaduct running down the center, similar to the Harbor Transitway along the Harbor Freeway (I-110) just north of SR 91 in south Los Angeles.

Same thing for the planned i-35 widening (heightening?) In San Antonio
Not exactly... I believe the plans call for elevated lanes on two separate viaducts over the outside portion of the roadway, not the center.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: MaxConcrete on May 05, 2022, 06:59:25 PM
http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/05053202.htm (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/05053202.htm)
Bids were opened today for the work on the south side of Austin between SH71/US 290 and SH 45.

The low bid is $144 million (35.5%) above the estimate. Given the complexity of this project, with the long elevated managed lanes and constricted work zone, I was expecting a big overrun.
The low bid on a job on Loop 375 in El Paso was 34.4% over estimate. http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/05043002.htm (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/05043002.htm)
I'm inclined to think that TxDOT will take the low bid for IH-35 in Austin and press forward, since delaying the project for a rebid will likely result in an even higher price due to inflation. For El Paso, I think it is possible they may reduce scope and rebid.

County:   TRAVIS   Let Date:   05/05/22
Type:   WIDEN ROAD - ADD LANES   Seq No:   3202
Time:   1504 WORKING DAYS   Project ID:   F 2022(340)
Highway:   IH 35   Contract #:   05223202
Length:   22.532   CCSJ:   0015-13-077
Limits:   
From:   US 290W/SH 71   Check:   $100,000
To:   SH 45 SE   Misc Cost:   
Estimate   $404,029,774.77   % Over/Under   Company
Bidder 1   $547,603,209.85   +35.54%   FLUOR HEAVY CIVIL, LLC
Bidder 2   $569,278,526.69   +40.90%   WEBBER, LLC
Bidder 3   $582,684,732.35   +44.22%   PULICE CONSTRUCTION, INC.
Bidder 4   $617,263,345.25   +52.78%   ARCHER WESTERN CONSTRUCTION, LLC
SUNDT CONSTRUCTION, INC.
Bidder 5   $626,751,415.84   +55.13%   WILLIAMS BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Plutonic Panda on May 05, 2022, 07:53:15 PM
^^^^ at this point TxDOT may as well just plan for these overruns in their budget.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: MaxConcrete on May 26, 2022, 11:35:56 PM
TxDOT is soliciting for consultants for 5 miles of new drainage tunnels for the central project. See pages 22 and 23.

https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/ppd/meetings/051922/presentation.pdf (https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/ppd/meetings/051922/presentation.pdf)

Target start of construction is March 2024. No cost estimate is provided but this won't be cheap.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: kernals12 on May 28, 2022, 12:47:59 AM
Why can't TxDOT open up the express lanes to single occupancy vehicles during non-peak hours?
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: bwana39 on June 06, 2022, 10:45:37 AM
Quote from: kernals12 on May 28, 2022, 12:47:59 AM
Why can't TxDOT open up the express lanes to single occupancy vehicles during non-peak hours?

In DFW, the TOLL HO lanes are open for a price at any time.  Getting the HO discount (to as little as free) is  a bigger problem. 
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Henry on June 06, 2022, 12:52:54 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on March 21, 2022, 12:52:09 AM
Quote from: DenverBrian on March 17, 2022, 01:58:08 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on March 17, 2022, 09:57:22 AM
Apparently according to this article TxDOT didn't realize a building existed right next to the central part of this project because they only use Bing and Google:
QuoteThat's because the transportation agency officials said they rely on Travis County Appraisal District maps, Google images and Bing. When reviewing those maps, Aria Grand did not exist. It was just a vacant plot of land. The 70-unit housing complex opened in early 2020

https://www.kxan.com/news/local/austin/concerns-surrounding-future-of-buildings-lining-i-35-as-txdot-moves-forward-with-expansion-plans/

Is this really a thing? A multi billion project is to be built and when planning they don't even send surveyors in person or drones to to see what's nearby?
In the 2000s, there was a brand new set of townhomes built near I-25 in Denver between Broadway and University. I actually considered one of these to buy.

The T-Rex project demolished these townhomes about three years after they were built.

Sometimes, developers build solely to be eventually bought out.....https://www.google.com/maps/place/Renaissance+At+Allendale/@32.5006408,-93.7612936,18.25z/data=!4m13!1m7!3m6!1s0x86312a8d1798e91f:0x2ebd2c1687a49cdd!2sShreveport,+LA!3b1!8m2!3d32.5251516!4d-93.7501789!3m4!1s0x8636cd2943a742a1:0x261b1b7647d1e013!8m2!3d32.5011414!4d-93.7603087

It makes absolutely no sense to build something and then tear it down within a few years. I always thought that those buildings would mean a highway project has been permanently shelved, like I-49 in Allendale as depicted in the link above, although they're still trying to get that project started. I also have mixed feelings on the I-35 plans in Austin, because there is practically no space to expand traditionally, so an elevated level would have to be built (outside of what's already there). Once again, I think building up and tearing down in a short amount of time is a waste of taxpayers' money.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Bobby5280 on June 06, 2022, 05:23:15 PM
Developers pull that crap all the time, build a housing development in a location directly in the path of where a future freeway or toll road is planned.

In Oklahoma City it's really easy to see the dopey path the modest extension of the Kilpatrick Turnpike had to take to dodge around housing properties that were allowed to build in the originally proposed path. In this case the turnpike went around the housing developments.

Over on the East side of Dallas next to I-30 several apartment complexes were built on the path of where the Bush Turnpike will be extended South. Most, if not all, of those apartment buildings will have to be cleared for the turnpike extension and expanded interchange with I-30.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: thisdj78 on June 06, 2022, 06:25:19 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 06, 2022, 05:23:15 PM

Over on the East side of Dallas next to I-30 several apartment complexes were built on the path of where the Bush Turnpike will be extended South. Most, if not all, of those apartment buildings will have to be cleared for the turnpike extension and expanded interchange with I-30.

I believe there were several apartment complexes on the north side of I-30 that had to be torn down for the current intersection. Looks like they've already started tearing down some properties south of I-30 over the last several years in prep for the extension....there's a few fields where apartments used to be with abandoned parking lots still remaining:

https://goo.gl/maps/djufcgyAp7ksHPeY7

EDIT: Nevermind, I just remembered that a Tornado did some of the work for them several years ago:

https://www.weather.gov/images/fwd/dec26outbreak/img/tracks/sgr_tor.png
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Stephane Dumas on June 06, 2022, 06:40:11 PM
Quote from: thisdj78 on June 06, 2022, 06:25:19 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 06, 2022, 05:23:15 PM

Over on the East side of Dallas next to I-30 several apartment complexes were built on the path of where the Bush Turnpike will be extended South. Most, if not all, of those apartment buildings will have to be cleared for the turnpike extension and expanded interchange with I-30.

I believe there were several apartment complexes on the north side of I-30 that had to be torn down for the current intersection. Looks like they've already started tearing down some properties south of I-30 over the last several years in prep for the extension....there's a few fields where apartments used to be with abandoned parking lots still remaining:

https://goo.gl/maps/djufcgyAp7ksHPeY7

Still on I-30 a little bit further east, GSV show some works on ones of the Ray Hubbard Lake bridges. https://goo.gl/maps/EWHDL5gb872mijBs5  Are they already beginned to build the spans for the services roads so I-30 will have continuous service roads between TX-190 and Rockwall?
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: kernals12 on June 06, 2022, 10:34:58 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 06, 2022, 05:23:15 PM
Developers pull that crap all the time, build a housing development in a location directly in the path of where a future freeway or toll road is planned.

In Oklahoma City it's really easy to see the dopey path the modest extension of the Kilpatrick Turnpike had to take to dodge around housing properties that were allowed to build in the originally proposed path. In this case the turnpike went around the housing developments.

Over on the East side of Dallas next to I-30 several apartment complexes were built on the path of where the Bush Turnpike will be extended South. Most, if not all, of those apartment buildings will have to be cleared for the turnpike extension and expanded interchange with I-30.

This was the plot of L.A. Noire
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: bwana39 on June 06, 2022, 10:56:55 PM
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on June 06, 2022, 06:40:11 PM
Quote from: thisdj78 on June 06, 2022, 06:25:19 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 06, 2022, 05:23:15 PM

Over on the East side of Dallas next to I-30 several apartment complexes were built on the path of where the Bush Turnpike will be extended South. Most, if not all, of those apartment buildings will have to be cleared for the turnpike extension and expanded interchange with I-30.

I believe there were several apartment complexes on the north side of I-30 that had to be torn down for the current intersection. Looks like they've already started tearing down some properties south of I-30 over the last several years in prep for the extension....there's a few fields where apartments used to be with abandoned parking lots still remaining:

https://goo.gl/maps/djufcgyAp7ksHPeY7

Still on I-30 a little bit further east, GSV show some works on ones of the Ray Hubbard Lake bridges. https://goo.gl/maps/EWHDL5gb872mijBs5  Are they already beginned to build the spans for the services roads so I-30 will have continuous service roads between TX-190 and Rockwall?

Initially from Bass Pro Drive to the Rockwall county line. (Dalrock Road). As I understand it, the Rockwall county portion is to be bid later this year.

https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot-info/dal/i30-expansion-fact-sheet.pdf
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: bwana39 on June 06, 2022, 11:07:50 PM
Quote from: thisdj78 on June 06, 2022, 06:25:19 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 06, 2022, 05:23:15 PM

Over on the East side of Dallas next to I-30 several apartment complexes were built on the path of where the Bush Turnpike will be extended South. Most, if not all, of those apartment buildings will have to be cleared for the turnpike extension and expanded interchange with I-30.

I believe there were several apartment complexes on the north side of I-30 that had to be torn down for the current intersection. Looks like they've already started tearing down some properties south of I-30 over the last several years in prep for the extension....there's a few fields where apartments used to be with abandoned parking lots still remaining:

https://goo.gl/maps/djufcgyAp7ksHPeY7

EDIT: Nevermind, I just remembered that a Tornado did some of the work for them several years ago:

https://www.weather.gov/images/fwd/dec26outbreak/img/tracks/sgr_tor.png

The Savings and Loan Scandal was based on the initial building on the then unremarkable space directly south of I-30 and where PGBT ends now. Back in the early / mid eighties, this area was covered by moderately high-end townhomes. Some were unfinished. Some were completed before the meltdown. Some others were purchased and finished as apartments. In the past decade or so, they have come in and filled it out in apartments.

There are some gaps where the tornado came through. The thought is that any extension of PGBT will go back toward Beltline as opposed ot going straight.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Bobby5280 on June 07, 2022, 01:54:50 PM
All of the plans I've seen for the PGBT extension keep showing it extending directly south of the current PGBT end at I-30. I think the act of shifting the PGBT alignment farther West, closer to Beltline Road, would be much more disruptive. The neighborhoods by I-30 are much thicker with homes there. Plus the exits for Lyons Road, Rosehill Road and Beltline leave no room to squeeze in ramps for a "Y" interchange.

One thing is certain: the more time the NTTA wastes the harder it will be to build any extension of the PGBT South of I-30. That undeveloped green space next to Lake Ray Hubbard is going to eventually fill in with new homes and apartment buildings.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: MaxConcrete on June 28, 2022, 09:45:44 AM
A lawsuit has been filed against the project.
https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/transportation/article/TxDOT-I35-expansion-lawsuit-Austin-Texas-17269175.php (https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/transportation/article/TxDOT-I35-expansion-lawsuit-Austin-Texas-17269175.php)

QuoteThe Texas Department of Transportation is being sued over the I-35 expansion project in Austin. The lawsuit was filed Sunday, June 26, at a federal court in Travis County by Rethink35, Texas Public Interest Research Group (TexPIRG), and Environment Texas. The suit names both TxDOT and its Executive Director Marc Williams as defendants.

"By splitting its I-35 project into separate parts, TxDOT is clearly violating the law," TexPIRG Environment Campaigns Director Matt Casale said in a press release on Monday, June 27.

The groups allege in the lawsuit that TxDOT has "improperly divided" the I-35 expansion project into three segments and that TxDOT is avoiding "more rigorous, legally required environmental review and public engagement of a single larger project" by dividing it up into "independent utilities."
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: kernals12 on June 28, 2022, 11:52:32 AM
Quote from: MaxConcrete on June 28, 2022, 09:45:44 AM
A lawsuit has been filed against the project.
https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/transportation/article/TxDOT-I35-expansion-lawsuit-Austin-Texas-17269175.php (https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/transportation/article/TxDOT-I35-expansion-lawsuit-Austin-Texas-17269175.php)

QuoteThe Texas Department of Transportation is being sued over the I-35 expansion project in Austin. The lawsuit was filed Sunday, June 26, at a federal court in Travis County by Rethink35, Texas Public Interest Research Group (TexPIRG), and Environment Texas. The suit names both TxDOT and its Executive Director Marc Williams as defendants.

"By splitting its I-35 project into separate parts, TxDOT is clearly violating the law," TexPIRG Environment Campaigns Director Matt Casale said in a press release on Monday, June 27.

The groups allege in the lawsuit that TxDOT has "improperly divided" the I-35 expansion project into three segments and that TxDOT is avoiding "more rigorous, legally required environmental review and public engagement of a single larger project" by dividing it up into "independent utilities."

Do you think it has a shot?

Also, if you didn't know, PIRG is a cult that is notorious for exploiting its workers (https://publicinterestprimer.wordpress.com/the-aspen-vacation/)
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Rothman on June 28, 2022, 12:39:54 PM
Quote from: kernals12 on June 28, 2022, 11:52:32 AM
Quote from: MaxConcrete on June 28, 2022, 09:45:44 AM
A lawsuit has been filed against the project.
https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/transportation/article/TxDOT-I35-expansion-lawsuit-Austin-Texas-17269175.php (https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/transportation/article/TxDOT-I35-expansion-lawsuit-Austin-Texas-17269175.php)

QuoteThe Texas Department of Transportation is being sued over the I-35 expansion project in Austin. The lawsuit was filed Sunday, June 26, at a federal court in Travis County by Rethink35, Texas Public Interest Research Group (TexPIRG), and Environment Texas. The suit names both TxDOT and its Executive Director Marc Williams as defendants.

"By splitting its I-35 project into separate parts, TxDOT is clearly violating the law," TexPIRG Environment Campaigns Director Matt Casale said in a press release on Monday, June 27.

The groups allege in the lawsuit that TxDOT has "improperly divided" the I-35 expansion project into three segments and that TxDOT is avoiding "more rigorous, legally required environmental review and public engagement of a single larger project" by dividing it up into "independent utilities."

Do you think it has a shot?

Also, if you didn't know, PIRG is a cult that is notorious for exploiting its workers (https://publicinterestprimer.wordpress.com/the-aspen-vacation/)
Although I know more than one disgruntled [enter state here]PIRG employee, this post goes too far.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Anthony_JK on June 28, 2022, 04:18:54 PM
Quote from: MaxConcrete on June 28, 2022, 09:45:44 AM
A lawsuit has been filed against the project.
https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/transportation/article/TxDOT-I35-expansion-lawsuit-Austin-Texas-17269175.php (https://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/transportation/article/TxDOT-I35-expansion-lawsuit-Austin-Texas-17269175.php)

QuoteThe Texas Department of Transportation is being sued over the I-35 expansion project in Austin. The lawsuit was filed Sunday, June 26, at a federal court in Travis County by Rethink35, Texas Public Interest Research Group (TexPIRG), and Environment Texas. The suit names both TxDOT and its Executive Director Marc Williams as defendants.

"By splitting its I-35 project into separate parts, TxDOT is clearly violating the law," TexPIRG Environment Campaigns Director Matt Casale said in a press release on Monday, June 27.

The groups allege in the lawsuit that TxDOT has "improperly divided" the I-35 expansion project into three segments and that TxDOT is avoiding "more rigorous, legally required environmental review and public engagement of a single larger project" by dividing it up into "independent utilities."


Would that be the same "Rethink 35" group who wants to convert existing I-35 into a 4-lane surface boulevard? That figures.

Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: bwana39 on June 28, 2022, 07:01:54 PM
Quote from: thisdj78 on June 06, 2022, 06:25:19 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 06, 2022, 05:23:15 PM

Over on the East side of Dallas next to I-30 several apartment complexes were built on the path of where the Bush Turnpike will be extended South. Most, if not all, of those apartment buildings will have to be cleared for the turnpike extension and expanded interchange with I-30.

I believe there were several apartment complexes on the north side of I-30 that had to be torn down for the current intersection. Looks like they've already started tearing down some properties south of I-30 over the last several years in prep for the extension....there's a few fields where apartments used to be with abandoned parking lots still remaining:

https://goo.gl/maps/djufcgyAp7ksHPeY7

EDIT: Nevermind, I just remembered that a Tornado did some of the work for them several years ago:

https://www.weather.gov/images/fwd/dec26outbreak/img/tracks/sgr_tor.png

You better look close. There are NEW apartments being built / rebuilt along the south side of I-30 through here....
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: kernals12 on June 28, 2022, 08:49:23 PM
Reminder: Public transit also requires displacement of homes and businesses
https://www.kut.org/austin/2022-05-02/project-connect-capital-metro-orange-line-guadalupe-street-austin
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 28, 2022, 10:16:38 PM
Although that goes completely against convential wisdom, that is a true statement. Maybe they should have gone with a BRT route along this corridor.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: MaxConcrete on July 20, 2022, 07:43:59 PM
TxDOT held a meeting today for solicitation of consultants.
Useful info starts on page 21. https://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/ppd/meetings/072022/presentation.pdf (https://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/ppd/meetings/072022/presentation.pdf)

Anticipated environmental clearance: August 2023

Section 1
Design-build, contract award: Fall 2024  (This means work would start in 2025)
North of lake to 15th Street
$1.8 billion
Estimated completion: 2030

Section 2
Design-build, contract award: Fall 2025  (This means work would start in 2026)
15th Street to US 290 north
$2.4 billion
Estimated completion: 2032

Section 3
Design-bid-build (traditional)
North of lake southward to SH 71/US 290 south
No date listed

My Observation: Awarding the contract on section 1 in 2024 seems ambitious since the ROD is anticipated in August 2023 and there is a lawsuit against the project. I think a delay is likely. But it's good to be ambitious.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: MaxConcrete on August 03, 2022, 07:07:36 PM
Bids were opened today for work in north Austin. This project mainly adds a managed lane in each direction, and also multiple frontage road intersection bypasses (allowing frontage road traffic to avoid intersections)  and some auxiliary lanes on the main lanes. This is separate from the expensive and controversial central project.

http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/08033057.htm (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/08033057.htm)

This project is expensive. The estimate is $571 million and the low bid is $607 million, but the estimate is vastly higher than what I remember seeing a few weeks ago, which was between three and four hundred million.

County:   TRAVIS   Let Date:   08/03/22
Type:   WIDEN ROAD - ADD LANES   Seq No:   3057
Time:   1791 WORKING DAYS   Project ID:   F 2022(437)
Highway:   IH 35   Contract #:   08223057
Length:   7.600   CCSJ:   0015-10-062
Limits:   
From:   SH 45N   Check:   $100,000
To:   FM 1825   Misc Cost:   
Estimate   $570,810,419.19   % Over/Under   Company
Bidder 1   $606,855,894.98   +6.31%   PULICE CONSTRUCTION, INC.
Bidder 2   $698,272,090.74   +22.33%   WEBBER, LLC
Bidder 3   $789,422,652.19   +38.30%   WILLIAMS BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: thisdj78 on August 04, 2022, 09:57:48 AM
Quote from: MaxConcrete on August 03, 2022, 07:07:36 PM
Bids were opened today for work in north Austin. This project mainly adds a managed lane in each direction, and also multiple frontage road intersection bypasses (allowing frontage road traffic to avoid intersections)  and some auxiliary lanes on the main lanes. This is separate from the expensive and controversial central project.

http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/08033057.htm (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/08033057.htm)

This project is expensive. The estimate is $571 million and the low bid is $607 million, but the estimate is vastly higher than what I remember seeing a few weeks ago, which was between three and four hundred million.

County:   TRAVIS   Let Date:   08/03/22
Type:   WIDEN ROAD - ADD LANES   Seq No:   3057
Time:   1791 WORKING DAYS   Project ID:   F 2022(437)
Highway:   IH 35   Contract #:   08223057
Length:   7.600   CCSJ:   0015-10-062
Limits:   
From:   SH 45N   Check:   $100,000
To:   FM 1825   Misc Cost:   
Estimate   $570,810,419.19   % Over/Under   Company
Bidder 1   $606,855,894.98   +6.31%   PULICE CONSTRUCTION, INC.
Bidder 2   $698,272,090.74   +22.33%   WEBBER, LLC
Bidder 3   $789,422,652.19   +38.30%   WILLIAMS BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.

I wonder if that work will include completing the south end direct connectors from I35 to 45 toll. It would make sense to do that all at the same time.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Duke87 on August 04, 2022, 12:35:53 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 06, 2022, 05:23:15 PM
Developers pull that crap all the time, build a housing development in a location directly in the path of where a future freeway or toll road is planned.

And from a business perspective there is relatively little reason not to. Freeway construction/expansion projects get canceled or indefinitely punted on all the time, so you may well be holding off on building on account of a project that never comes to fruition. And if the project does move forward... well, then the state will have to buy the building from you so you'll recoup your investment either way.

It is for this reason that states used to begin the ROW acquisition process for roads sometimes years before they planned to start actually trying to build them, to stop the land from being built on and becoming more expensive to purchase. But it's not really feasible to do this anymore since the nature of the EIS process now makes it such that the routing is never finalized until the project is about to begin.

Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: MaxConcrete on August 04, 2022, 02:50:37 PM
Quote from: thisdj78 on August 04, 2022, 09:57:48 AM
I wonder if that work will include completing the south end direct connectors from I35 to 45 toll. It would make sense to do that all at the same time.
I have the schematic from March 2021 and it shows no improvements at the SH 45 intersection. I agree, it would be desirable to get the south side of the interchange built, but it's not in this project.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: MaxConcrete on December 14, 2022, 12:55:27 AM
Kirk Watson won the Austin mayoral runoff tonight over Celia Israel with a very thin margin. Watson is a former mayor and former state Senator, and is more like a traditional Democrat. He has been a proponent of the I-35 project. I don't know Israel's position, but she is a progressive Democrat.

So this is good news for the project.

Maybe someone in Austin who knows more about Watson's level of support for the project can comment.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: thisdj78 on December 14, 2022, 07:22:12 AM
Quote from: MaxConcrete on December 14, 2022, 12:55:27 AM
Kirk Watson won the Austin mayoral runoff tonight over Celia Israel with a very thin margin. Watson is a former mayor and former state Senator, and is more like a traditional Democrat. He has been a proponent of the I-35 project. I don't know Israel's position, but she is a progressive Democrat.

So this is good news for the project.

Maybe someone in Austin who knows more about Watson's level of support for the project can comment.

He supports the TXDOT project. I'm not in the city of Austin but I remember him as mayor during my college days and was hoping he would pull off a win:

https://spectrumlocalnews.com/tx/south-texas-el-paso/news/2022/12/08/i35-expansion-mayoral-election
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: MaxConcrete on December 29, 2022, 03:13:35 PM
A public meeting for the DEIS is scheduled Feb 9
https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/austin/i35-capital-express-central-project-02-09-22.html (https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/austin/i35-capital-express-central-project-02-09-22.html)

There were two options still being considered: Alternative 2 and Modified Alternative 3. Modified Alternative 3 has the boulevard-style design downtown and is somewhat smaller in certain locations. MA3 includes a lot of modifications requested by City of Austin, and from that perspective is more politically acceptable.

The recommended alternative is Modified Alternative 3. This is expected, and should enable the project to get full City of Austin support.

The main casualties of Modified Alternative 3 vs Alternative 2 are
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Echostatic on December 29, 2022, 04:54:23 PM
I think you have to compromise somewhat with the city if only to cut down on the number of inevitable lawsuits this project will spawn. MA3 is clearly a massive improvement over the current highway, and it accomplishes almost all of the traffic relief goals.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: longhorn on December 30, 2022, 10:17:37 AM
Where is the additional lanes? The same amount of lanes now, four lanes each way.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: MaxConcrete on December 30, 2022, 04:44:51 PM
Quote from: longhorn on December 30, 2022, 10:17:37 AM
Where is the additional lanes? The same amount of lanes now, four lanes each way.

The new lanes are the managed lanes. Some sections have long auxiliary lanes, making it 5x5 for substantial lengths, for example around Dean Keaton street. There are multiple instances of frontage road bypass lanes, especially downtown, which will relieve the main lanes. But you are correct that the main lanes count remains mostly the same.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 30, 2022, 09:46:00 PM
The configuration reminds me of some of the 2x2x2x2 nonsense along I-820 that ended up being built on the North side of Fort Worth.
:-/
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: sprjus4 on December 30, 2022, 10:00:36 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 30, 2022, 09:46:00 PM
The configuration reminds me of some of the 2x2x2x2 nonsense along I-820 that ended up being built on the North side of Fort Worth.
:-/
How.. exactly?

The schematics for Modified Alternative 3 shows 4 general purpose lanes and 2 express lanes in each direction... for a layout of 4x2x2x4, along with auxiliary lanes and frontage road bypass ramps in areas.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 30, 2022, 10:44:48 PM
I was under the impression they removed more lanes from the scope of the project.

Even if they do manage to maintain a 4x2x2x4 configuration, the 11' wide lanes thing throughout the project stinks. Even in a normal sized sedan like a Nissan Altima skinny lanes will make you feel like you're danger close to trading paint with vehicles in the adjacent lanes. So many of us drive full sized pickup trucks and SUVs, which makes those 11' lanes feel even more cramped.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: sprjus4 on December 31, 2022, 12:02:51 AM
^ That I certainly agree with, the FHWA should not sign off on allowing TxDOT to reduce interstate design standards on virtually every urban widening project nowadays it seems. Especially on a corridor that handles a large amount of truck traffic... it is very dangerous and compromises safety.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: CtrlAltDel on December 31, 2022, 12:45:15 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 30, 2022, 10:44:48 PM
I was under the impression they removed more lanes from the scope of the project.

Even if they do manage to maintain a 4x2x2x4 configuration, the 11' wide lanes thing throughout the project stinks. Even in a normal sized sedan like a Nissan Altima skinny lanes will make you feel like you're danger close to trading paint with vehicles in the adjacent lanes. So many of us drive full sized pickup trucks and SUVs, which makes those 11' lanes feel even more cramped.

I was under the impression that 11-foot lanes do not increase accidents by all that much. Going less than that does, but 11 is essentially good enough. I can't find the cite right now, but I wouldn't be surprised if something like that is what justified it here.

The best I can do for now is from here (https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop16060/ch4.htm), which shows what happens when n 12-foot lanes are replaced with n + 2 11-foot lanes (one more for each direction), the number of collisions often increases but, as a result of the increased throughput, the collision rate often decreases. I'm not sure if something like that is at play here, though.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 31, 2022, 01:14:13 AM
All I know is I really hate driving in 11' wide lanes as opposed to the normal 12' lanes. It's no fun at all in busy traffic. Portions of I-35E going North of Dallas have these skinny lanes. I make it a point to just avoid that route if I can do so when in the DFW metroplex. It can turn into too much of a cramped, white knuckle experience as opposed to other freeways in that area. The TX-114/TX-121 mix-master in Grapevine is pretty huge, but I think it's a breeze to drive through compared to I-35E.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: MaxConcrete on December 31, 2022, 10:20:11 AM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on December 31, 2022, 12:45:15 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 30, 2022, 10:44:48 PM
I was under the impression they removed more lanes from the scope of the project.

Even if they do manage to maintain a 4x2x2x4 configuration, the 11' wide lanes thing throughout the project stinks. Even in a normal sized sedan like a Nissan Altima skinny lanes will make you feel like you're danger close to trading paint with vehicles in the adjacent lanes. So many of us drive full sized pickup trucks and SUVs, which makes those 11' lanes feel even more cramped.

I was under the impression that 11-foot lanes do not increase accidents by all that much. Going less than that does, but 11 is essentially good enough. I can't find the cite right now, but I wouldn't be surprised if something like that is what justified it here.

The best I can do for now is from here (https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop16060/ch4.htm), which shows what happens when n 12-foot lanes are replaced with n + 2 11-foot lanes (one more for each direction), the number of collisions often increases but, as a result of the increased throughput, the collision rate often decreases. I'm not sure if something like that is at play here, though.

I was surprised and disappointed to see the 11-foot-wide lanes for I-35, especially since it is a major truck route.

As CtrlAltDel mentions, I think 11-foot-wide lanes do not increase the accident rate and probably lower the accident rate. I don't know this for a fact and don't have time to investigate this subject right now. My speculation is that the reason is because driving in narrow lanes is more stressful, causing drivers to drive more slowly and attentively.

With TxDOT's push to lower highway deaths, a lower accident rate for 11-foot-wide lanes is a sufficient excuse to use the narrow lanes, even if they don't meet standards.

Unfortunately, every freeway with 11-foot-wide lanes being built will be in service for a very long time, maybe even to year 2100 in cases like I-35.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: J N Winkler on December 31, 2022, 12:16:04 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on December 31, 2022, 12:45:15 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 30, 2022, 10:44:48 PMI was under the impression they removed more lanes from the scope of the project.

Even if they do manage to maintain a 4x2x2x4 configuration, the 11' wide lanes thing throughout the project stinks. Even in a normal sized sedan like a Nissan Altima skinny lanes will make you feel like you're danger close to trading paint with vehicles in the adjacent lanes. So many of us drive full sized pickup trucks and SUVs, which makes those 11' lanes feel even more cramped.

I was under the impression that 11-foot lanes do not increase accidents by all that much. Going less than that does, but 11 is essentially good enough. I can't find the cite right now, but I wouldn't be surprised if something like that is what justified it here.

The best I can do for now is from here (https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop16060/ch4.htm), which shows what happens when n 12-foot lanes are replaced with n + 2 11-foot lanes (one more for each direction), the number of collisions often increases but, as a result of the increased throughput, the collision rate often decreases. I'm not sure if something like that is at play here, though.

I don't know if Ezra Hauer's literature reviews (prepared, I think, as part of the work that ultimately led to the IHSDM (https://highways.dot.gov/research/safety/interactive-highway-safety-design-model/interactive-highway-safety-design-model-ihsdm-overview)) are still online, but one of them summarizes what research has to say about the unit lane width that minimizes injury accidents.  It lies between 11 feet and 12 feet but is actually closer to the former--I think the specific width is around 11.3 feet.

As a driver, though admittedly not of large or high vehicles, I've found 11-foot lanes are pretty hard to tell apart from 12-foot lanes unless one passes through a transition from one to the other that involves abrupt bends in lane stripes (example (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.6745925,-97.3757317,3a,24.8y,74.57h,86.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sA3-glFsP2ddqJMZH_DNoyA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)).  Do we know for a fact that I-35E actually uses 11-foot lanes and not a smaller unit lane width?  (In the case of the example linked to, I have actual construction plans from the 1980's and 1990's that show 11-foot lanes on one segment and 12-foot lanes on the next.)
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: CtrlAltDel on December 31, 2022, 01:29:57 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on December 31, 2022, 12:16:04 PM
Quote from: CtrlAltDel on December 31, 2022, 12:45:15 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 30, 2022, 10:44:48 PMI was under the impression they removed more lanes from the scope of the project.

Even if they do manage to maintain a 4x2x2x4 configuration, the 11' wide lanes thing throughout the project stinks. Even in a normal sized sedan like a Nissan Altima skinny lanes will make you feel like you're danger close to trading paint with vehicles in the adjacent lanes. So many of us drive full sized pickup trucks and SUVs, which makes those 11' lanes feel even more cramped.

I was under the impression that 11-foot lanes do not increase accidents by all that much. Going less than that does, but 11 is essentially good enough. I can't find the cite right now, but I wouldn't be surprised if something like that is what justified it here.

The best I can do for now is from here (https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop16060/ch4.htm), which shows what happens when n 12-foot lanes are replaced with n + 2 11-foot lanes (one more for each direction), the number of collisions often increases but, as a result of the increased throughput, the collision rate often decreases. I'm not sure if something like that is at play here, though.

I don't know if Ezra Hauer's literature reviews (prepared, I think, as part of the work that ultimately led to the IHSDM (https://highways.dot.gov/research/safety/interactive-highway-safety-design-model/interactive-highway-safety-design-model-ihsdm-overview)) are still online, but one of them summarizes what research has to say about the unit lane width that minimizes injury accidents.  It lies between 11 feet and 12 feet but is actually closer to the former--I think the specific width is around 11.3 feet.

As a driver, though admittedly not of large or high vehicles, I've found 11-foot lanes are pretty hard to tell apart from 12-foot lanes unless one passes through a transition from one to the other that involves abrupt bends in lane stripes (example (https://www.google.com/maps/@37.6745925,-97.3757317,3a,24.8y,74.57h,86.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sA3-glFsP2ddqJMZH_DNoyA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)).  Do we know for a fact that I-35E actually uses 11-foot lanes and not a smaller unit lane width?  (In the case of the example linked to, I have actual construction plans from the 1980's and 1990's that show 11-foot lanes on one segment and 12-foot lanes on the next.)

I believe a summary of that research might be the first result here (https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=Ezra+Hauer%27s+literature+reviews+%28prepared%2C+I+think%2C+as+part+of+the+work+that+ultimately+led+to+the+IHSDM%29+are+still+online%2C+but+one+of+them+summarizes+what+research+has+to+say+about+the+unit+lane+width).
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: thisdj78 on February 24, 2023, 03:28:04 PM
"Austin City Council urges TxDOT to change I-35 widening plan" :

https://communityimpact.com/austin/central-austin/transportation/2023/02/23/austin-city-council-urges-txdot-to-change-i-35-widening-plan/
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: sprjus4 on February 24, 2023, 03:39:02 PM
Unless they have a plan to buy out the tolls on SH-130, I don't think re-routing truck traffic is going to be a feasible option. If they officially ban thru truck traffic, and truck traffic desires to avoid the toll road, it's either going to result in truck traffic ignoring the restriction and using I-35 anyways, or using alternative rural routes around the area, causing safety issues on those routes.

They also call for lower frontage road speed limits. While I understand the idea, the problem is with the way frontage roads work in Texas, frontage roads often serve as the final portion of an off-ramp for traffic exiting the freeway, and traffic often spills onto them at highway speeds. Being faced immediately with a 25 mph speed limit after coming off a 60 mph freeway ramp, if the ramp is not long enough to adequately slow down, will cause issues with traffic quickly braking, resulting in a ripple effect that, if traffic is too heavy, will spill back on the freeway.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Plutonic Panda on June 14, 2023, 09:25:35 AM
South section update: https://www.constructionequipmentguide.com/fluor-builds-elevated-lanes-bridges-on-548m-job-in-texas/61402
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: MaxConcrete on June 20, 2023, 08:49:39 PM
The lawsuit against the project has been dropped by the anti-project plaintiffs.

However, this is probably not the end of legal challenges. Anti-project folks are considering different legal approaches.

https://twitter.com/KUTnathan/status/1671178537930313731 (https://twitter.com/KUTnathan/status/1671178537930313731)
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: MaxConcrete on August 21, 2023, 11:32:03 AM
The FEIS and ROD are officially released today. I have not yet studied any of the documents, but I think changes since the DEIS are minimal.

https://my35capex.com/final-environmental-impact-statement-eis-and-record-of-decision-rod/ (https://my35capex.com/final-environmental-impact-statement-eis-and-record-of-decision-rod/)
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: thisdj78 on August 21, 2023, 01:52:10 PM
Quote from: MaxConcrete on August 21, 2023, 11:32:03 AM
The FEIS and ROD are officially released today. I have not yet studied any of the documents, but I think changes since the DEIS are minimal.

https://my35capex.com/final-environmental-impact-statement-eis-and-record-of-decision-rod/ (https://my35capex.com/final-environmental-impact-statement-eis-and-record-of-decision-rod/)

Local news story on the approval:

https://www.kxan.com/traffic/traffic-projects/i-35-expansion-project/new-austins-i-35-expansion-receives-federal-approval/
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: MaxConcrete on August 30, 2023, 04:58:00 PM
Article about UT-Austin's desire for a deck over the freeway from 15th street to Dean Keeton, which is about 1 mile. I think UT-Austin has the financial strength to pay for it, so this may actually happen.
https://www.kut.org/transportation/2023-08-30/ut-austin-wants-to-cover-i-35-from-dean-keeton-to-15th-street (https://www.kut.org/transportation/2023-08-30/ut-austin-wants-to-cover-i-35-from-dean-keeton-to-15th-street)

The FEIS schematic (page 14) shows only part of the section between MLK and 15th as being a potential deck.
https://my35capex.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/APPROVED-FEIS-ROD_Appendix-B-Design-Schematics_2023-08-14-1.pdf (https://my35capex.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/APPROVED-FEIS-ROD_Appendix-B-Design-Schematics_2023-08-14-1.pdf)

QuoteUniversity of Texas officials are hoping to cover I-35 from 15th Street to Dean Keeton once the main lanes of the highway are lowered and upper decks demolished as part of TxDOT's interstate expansion plan.

Covering the sunken highway would create more than 17 acres of new campus space at ground level. UT facilities like UFCU Disch-Falk Field and DKR Texas Memorial Stadium would be separated by a six-lane frontage road instead of the giant highway trench planned through Central Austin.

The so-called capping project "has a lot of support at the highest levels of the university," said Dan Allen, UT Austin's executive director overseeing real estate planning.

Allen wouldn't provide a cost estimate for UT's caps, saying the plan was in the early stages as university officials collaborate on the design with TxDOT engineers.

"We don't feel any stop signs, just a lot of question marks that we're still working through together," Allen said.

But TxDOT estimates the cost of building UT's three caps between 15th and MLK at almost $400 million. That doesn't include more than $10 million in annual maintenance costs.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 30, 2023, 06:35:42 PM
Another smaller location for a deck along Interstate 35 that could be considered is one between E. 11th St. and E. 12th St.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Bobby5280 on August 30, 2023, 08:44:03 PM
How long can a park or other kind of cap over a freeway run before the covered freeway needs the same kinds of ventilation and drainage systems as a tunnel?

The $10 million annual maintenance cost estimate for this proposed cap is a little surprising. I'm not surprised by the $400 million cost estimate of the cap. Materials alone will cost a bunch. I imagine some creative design/engineering work will have to be done to make the cap work with I-35 on/off ramps for Dean Keaton St, MLK and the 15th/12th Street zone.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: J N Winkler on August 30, 2023, 11:28:26 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 30, 2023, 08:44:03 PMHow long can a park or other kind of cap over a freeway run before the covered freeway needs the same kinds of ventilation and drainage systems as a tunnel?

I suspect the need for the former is determined through air quality modelling as part of the design process and varies somewhat due to site-specific factors.  However, as a reality check, the Hance Deck Park tunnel in Phoenix is just half a mile long and does have fans for ventilation.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: TXtoNJ on September 05, 2023, 01:48:34 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 30, 2023, 08:44:03 PM
How long can a park or other kind of cap over a freeway run before the covered freeway needs the same kinds of ventilation and drainage systems as a tunnel?

The $10 million annual maintenance cost estimate for this proposed cap is a little surprising. I'm not surprised by the $400 million cost estimate of the cap. Materials alone will cost a bunch. I imagine some creative design/engineering work will have to be done to make the cap work with I-35 on/off ramps for Dean Keaton St, MLK and the 15th/12th Street zone.

You can also include vent towers as design elements in the park itself.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: rte66man on September 21, 2023, 09:51:20 AM
https://www.fox7austin.com/news/new-details-revealed-on-austins-plan-to-cover-i-35-through-downtown

Quote
New details revealed on Austin's plan to cover I-35 through downtown

By John Krinjak
Published September 19, 2023 10:30PMDowntownFOX 7 Austin

AUSTIN, Texas - Nearly a month after the eight-mile-long Capital Express Central project got federal approval, Austin City Council members were briefed Tuesday on TxDOT's $4.5 billion revamp of I-36 through Austin, as well as the city-funded plan to make the most of it.

"I think we're all very interested in if this highway is moving forward, that we're doing so in a way that helps protect our community," said Austin Mayor Pro-tem Paige Ellis

The "cap-and-stitch" approach would cover lowered sections of the freeway.

"I think it's really important for us to look at opportunities where we can utilize these spaces for low rise construction," said District 5 Council Member Ryan Alter.

What are caps and stitches? A cap is a large deck over a stretch of highway that could be covered by parks or even buildings, while a stitch is essentially a widened bridge with extra landscaping, bike and pedestrian space.

"In terms of the caps, I think they kind of speak for themselves in terms of usefulness," said District 4 Council Member Jose "Chito" Vela. "I just don't see somebody kind of reading a book on the stitch, you know, above I-35 and watching the traffic."

Under the plan, 14 caps and stitches would be paid for by the city, and one covered by the University of Texas. One cap is slated for construction next year, the rest in 2026. The city is hoping a $105 million federal grant will help defray the cost of one of the larger decks between Cesar Chavez and 4th Streets.

"This section also includes the only portion of the caps that create a whole land bridge, so you don't have to step on the asphalt to get from downtown to the East Side," said Austin Interim Director for Transportation & Public Works Richard Mendoza.

"The financing is obviously still a pretty big question," said Ellis.

In total, the caps and stitches are estimated to cost between $600 million and $800 million. In order to build them in coordination with TxDOT, the city would have to pay the state by December of next year.

"I'm really worried that we could be in a really tight position where TXDOT ready to move forward. And, you know, we're not quite ready there," said Ellis.

"I think it'll be much better to get it all done in one shot, both from a cost perspective and from inconvenience to the public perspective," said Vela.

As for that federal grant, the city will vote Thursday, Sept. 21 on whether to apply for it. The larger I-35 overhaul is slated to be done in 2032.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 21, 2023, 11:41:09 AM
The story calls the roadway Interstate 36 in the first paragraph, then correctly calls it Interstate 35 in two subsequent paragraphs. A minor error.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: bwana39 on October 09, 2023, 11:54:18 AM
Anti-highway piece.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/residents-outraged-over-approval-controversial-110000710.html
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: The Ghostbuster on October 09, 2023, 12:07:55 PM
Damn NIMBYS. If they were in charge, nothing would ever be constructed. On the other hand, if I was directly impacted by this project, I might feel differently. I believe the project should go forward, but every precaution should be taken to keep right-of-way impacts to a minimum, as well as to try to lessen the barrier the reconstructed roadway poses on the surrounding communities.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: thisdj78 on October 12, 2023, 06:02:35 AM
Displaced I-35 businesses given 90-day notice to pack up and move

https://www.kxan.com/news/displaced-i-35-businesses-given-90-day-notice-to-pack-up-and-move/

Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Rothman on October 12, 2023, 07:02:38 AM
Quote from: thisdj78 on October 12, 2023, 06:02:35 AM
Displaced I-35 businesses given 90-day notice to pack up and move

https://www.kxan.com/news/displaced-i-35-businesses-given-90-day-notice-to-pack-up-and-move/
Something seems amiss with the article since there's no mention of how the associated monetary compensation for eminent domain takings and relocations works in Texas.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Bobby5280 on October 12, 2023, 10:13:16 AM
It sounds like the property owners are being compensated for the building removals. As for the tenants renting the space? It sounds like they're on their own.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: bwana39 on October 12, 2023, 01:40:59 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 12, 2023, 10:13:16 AM
It sounds like the property owners are being compensated for the building removals. As for the tenants renting the space? It sounds like they're on their own.

These properties may have been bought or optioned by TxDOT before the current tenants even moved in. You have to pay residential tenants to move or move them out on a lease expiration. In most cases, commercial lessees get nothing not directly stipulated in the written lease.

The way renters are dealt with by the lessors is the whole problem in highway construction. upgrades.  The absentee (or commercial) owners take their money and run. There is no equivalent housing available and it is just "TOUGH"
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: bwana39 on November 17, 2023, 02:51:20 PM
More urbanist crap

https://www.msn.com/en-us/weather/topstories/residents-outraged-over-approval-of-controversial-massive-highway-expansion-in-major-city-everyone-needs-to-get-involved/ar-AA1hUUvn?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=b9ae076dae2c4a3b9c162a3e7a8fb515&ei=12
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Bobby5280 on November 17, 2023, 09:36:19 PM
Oh yeah, it's more "freeway expansions don't work" crap. They leave out the very important factor of enormous population growth. That's one reason why traffic jams can still occur in locations such as the gigantic Katy Freeway in Houston. There are more vehicles on the damned road! The Houston metro's population numbers are still surging.

These "experts" also leave out the other little tid bit of what would actually happen if a highway like Katy Freeway was not expanded. The traffic jams would get far worse. The gridlock would become so bad it would negatively affect many businesses nearby. Many people would just avoid that area if they could do so.

Let's not forget about another very important factor: the interface between the freeway and surface streets. In the Houston area many traffic jams can actually start down on the surface street level. Gridlock doesn't just happen on freeways. It's called "gridlock" because the term was coined about surface street traffic jams. Large volumes of vehicles trying to take a certain freeway exit can't get thru the off ramp. Then the traffic backs up onto the main lanes of the freeway.

These New Urbanist types need to fix their gaze on more important issues, such as the extreme crisis of housing affordability. Their wishes for everyone to move to the urban core are flagrantly out of touch due to the housing prices. But that could change. There is also an emerging crisis in commercial real estate. Vacancies are surging due to a rapidly growing number of workers either working remotely online or taking jobs at offices in smaller cities and towns where the living costs aren't so fucking insane. Either way, those douchebag high housing prices are going have more and more people living farther away from urban centers. They'll have to drive to get to those urban centers. That translates to needing to build better roads.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Anthony_JK on November 18, 2023, 11:21:47 AM
ReThink35, who wants to convert I-35 in Austin to a four-lane boulevard. Figures.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Bobby5280 on November 18, 2023, 02:01:47 PM
Not only do they want to turn I-35 into a surface street. But the real scam is repurposing the former highway real estate into property on which to build more luxury housing for the upper class and global investors. That's the real motivation.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: bwana39 on November 18, 2023, 02:30:18 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 18, 2023, 02:01:47 PM
Not only do they want to turn I-35 into a surface street. But the real scam is repurposing the former highway real estate into property on which to build more luxury housing for the upper class and global investors. That's the real motivation.

Yes, this is especially notable with the Pierce Elevated section of I-45 in Houston. WIthin a decade of its removal, there will be a neat line of new high rises on the west side of Pierce.

So get rid of the highway and you create new swaths of land right in the middle of downtown.

I will add one idea. The border that the freeway creates is NOT a border that keeps the development outside the freeway from having worth. The problem is that the building outside the freeway may make the "old" part INSIDE the freeway less valuable. The developers are discouraged from creating something that you can divide somehow or another as the old and new.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Plutonic Panda on December 15, 2023, 12:41:01 PM
Austin approved $15 million for design work on the freeway caps for the central project: https://www.kxan.com/traffic/traffic-projects/i-35-expansion-project/austin-approves-more-than-15m-to-kickstart-i-35-cap-and-stitch-design-work/
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: The Ghostbuster on December 15, 2023, 01:30:51 PM
Capping the rebuilt freeway makes a lot more sense than turning Interstate 35 into a boulevard or leaving the freeway in its existing configuration.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 15, 2023, 07:48:14 PM
I think a busy urban surface boulevard is actually a lot more dangerous to pedestrians and bicyclists than a freeway. That especially goes for our current times where far too many people are driving without keeping their damned eyes on the road. Pedestrian deaths are up significantly. Motorists will blow through a red light while reading their phones. -BOOM- "What was that?"

There is a pretty wide variety of ways how pathways for pedestrians and bicyclists can be built over or under super highways. Deck parks are one of the biggest and most expensive methods. Traditional surface street crossings over or under freeways can be enhanced to include pedestrian/bicycle access and even be dressed up to hide the freeway from the surface street view.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Bobby5280 on January 05, 2024, 09:56:57 AM
Quote from: Some oneYou say this as if feeder roads don't exist.

No, that's your strawman talking.

Only a fraction of a freeway's traffic is on the frontage roads. The thru traffic is staying on the main travel lanes isolated away from any pedestrians or bicyclists.

Quote from: Some oneYeah trying to beautify an overpass/underpass is like putting lipstick on a pig.

Overpasses like these would beg to differ:
https://www.google.com/maps/@47.5895262,-122.2376706,3a,75y,351.45h,89.92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSl-FGMPRTVacRa5rIiR7rA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=0&entry=ttu

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9741927,-83.0029206,3a,75y,184.45h,87t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBLe8H85u38CtACw9-tiFkw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=0&entry=ttu

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.0072604,-94.554855,3a,75y,113.56h,80.01t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sCV3TuOXtRFYbBwkoUDejPA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DCV3TuOXtRFYbBwkoUDejPA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D85.25515%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=0&entry=ttu
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: kphoger on January 05, 2024, 12:54:28 PM
Quote from: Some one on January 05, 2024, 12:36:02 PM
a snarling freeway

I prefer to think of it as a "reverberant throughway" or "sonorous thoroughfare".

Also, I prefer to think of it as "treating a porcine companion to a makeover".
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: sprjus4 on January 05, 2024, 02:46:55 PM
Quote from: Some one on January 05, 2024, 12:36:02 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 05, 2024, 09:56:57 AM
No, that's your strawman talking.

Only a fraction of a freeway's traffic is on the frontage roads. The thru traffic is staying on the main travel lanes isolated away from any pedestrians or bicyclists.
Highways don't have to interact with pedestrians and bicyclists, but the traffic going through the feeder road still does.
"Only a fraction of a freeway's traffic is on the frontage roads"... compared to, if you demolish the freeway and force all the traffic on surface streets, now that highway traffic is also interacting with pedestrians. Not sure what your point here is.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: kphoger on January 05, 2024, 03:10:48 PM
Quote from: Some one on January 05, 2024, 03:05:57 PM
you still have to deal with people barreling down the exit ramp

Who has to deal with them?
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Some one on January 05, 2024, 03:40:16 PM
I deleted my comments because I realized there's no point in me bringing up this boulevard idea again or arguing around the semantics of boulevards and caps and I'm not interested in arguing about it any further. We all have different opinions on it and that's fine. Either way, TXDOT has made it clear that they are not interested in converting I-35 into a boulevard. We may or may not see caps and stitches on I-35 in the future. All we can do now is just wait and see.

ETA: I do not, however, appreciate being made out to be a straw man.
ETA2: Especially when some of the arguments here are straw men of themselves but I'll rest my case.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Bobby5280 on January 05, 2024, 08:32:46 PM
With a bunch of the I-35 Austin expansion project being built in a trench the possibility will remain open for deck parks and enhanced crossovers in various locations.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Henry on January 05, 2024, 10:57:59 PM
Quote from: Some one on January 05, 2024, 03:40:16 PM
I deleted my comments because I realized there's no point in me bringing up this boulevard idea again or arguing around the semantics of boulevards and caps and I'm not interested in arguing about it any further. We all have different opinions on it and that's fine. Either way, TXDOT has made it clear that they are not interested in converting I-35 into a boulevard. We may or may not see caps on I-35 in the future. All we can do now is just wait and see.
I wouldn't move I-35 out of Austin either. And if they want to bury it in a trench, more power to them!
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: MaxConcrete on January 29, 2024, 10:05:27 PM
A new lawsuit (https://www.kxan.com/traffic/traffic-projects/i-35-expansion-project/austin-organizations-file-lawsuit-federal-complaint-over-downtown-i-35-expansion/?utm_source=abj&utm_medium=site&utm_campaign=abj-partner) has been filed against the project.

I think it is very unlikely the plaintiffs will change the plans. It's possible the federal complaint could delay the project and drive up the cost, which was the result of the opposition effort against NHHIP in Houston.

There was a lawsuit and a federal civil rights complaint against NHHIP. The two-year investigation by FHWA found that TxDOT complied with and/or exceeded all NEPA standards. As mentioned by TxDOT's Marc Williams in the article, TxDOT has followed all NEPA rules for I-35 in Austin.

To halt the project, the plaintiffs will need to get an court injunction against the project, or convince FHWA to put the project on hold for review. Otherwise, TxDOT will continue at full speed.

Quote

AUSTIN (KXAN) – Austin grassroots nonprofit Rethink35 joined several other area organizations last week and filed a lawsuit against the Texas Department of Transportation over its I-35 Capital Express Central project. At a Monday press conference, the plaintiffs called the litigation a "bold step forward" for community members opposed to the project.

Rethink35, Save Our Springs Alliance, PODER, Mueller Neighborhood Association, East Town Lake Citizens Neighborhood Association, Austin Justice Coalition, AURA and east Austin resident Bertha Rendon Delgado filed the lawsuit as well as a federal complaint to the U.S. Department of Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg and other federal officials.

That federal complaint alleges that "TxDOT has intentionally engaged in discrimination through its awareness of I-35's racist past and inequitable impacts and its unwillingness to address those impacts," plaintiffs said in a press release.

...

Work on the project is expected to begin in 2024. Concurrent with the project, the City of Austin and Downtown Austin Alliance are working on a supplementary, city-funded cap and stitch program. That initiative would add deck plazas over the sunken portions of the highway, with those plazas poised to hold community amenities, green space and possibly small structures.

TxDOT plans to start construction on the downtown I-35 expansion project later this year. On Saturday, TxDOT's executive director responded to the filings and said they are without "merit," defending the expansion effort.

"This is a project designed with the community and for the community," TxDOT Executive Director Marc Williams said in a Saturday release. "We have carefully followed and even exceeded the environmental and legal requirements to advance this project. We don't believe that the actions of these opponents have merit. TxDOT intends to continue to press forward to deliver the I-35 Capital Express Central project."



Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Bobby5280 on January 30, 2024, 02:17:24 PM
It's pretty hilarious watching these "activists" complain about the impact of highways to worsen conditions of housing inequality and even institutional racism when that crap has already been going on in fashionable big cities like Austin for quite some time. It doesn't take a new highway project to cause gentrification or deliberately sinister plots against people whose demographics are in minority and/or low income categories. The level of hypocrisy on display is pretty staggering.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Anthony_JK on January 31, 2024, 01:36:32 AM
If the Rethink 35 lawsuit is anything like the original suit that was filed by opponents of the I-49 Lafayette Connector project back in 2002, it will be simply laughed out of court.

The legal standard used for cases like this is basically "Did FHWA and the state transportation agency follow all established protocols for the NEPA process and for public outreach in mitigating all impacts from the project?" It's pretty obvious that TXDOT and FHWA did, even to the point of modifying their proposals to address concerns. This attempt to impose their beautiful 4-lane boulevard onto I-35 will fall flat on its face, I predict.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Rothman on January 31, 2024, 07:03:56 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on January 31, 2024, 01:36:32 AM
If the Rethink 35 lawsuit is anything like the original suit that was filed by opponents of the I-49 Lafayette Connector project back in 2002, it will be simply laughed out of court.

The legal standard used for cases like this is basically "Did FHWA and the state transportation agency follow all established protocols for the NEPA process and for public outreach in mitigating all impacts from the project?" It's pretty obvious that TXDOT and FHWA did, even to the point of modifying their proposals to address concerns. This attempt to impose their beautiful 4-lane boulevard onto I-35 will fall flat on its face, I predict.
Some judges have ignored that standard and DOTs have had to go through appealing their decisions, dragging things out.

What a country.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Bobby5280 on January 31, 2024, 04:55:19 PM
Government of the lawyers, by the lawyers and for the lawyers.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: texaskdog on February 13, 2024, 11:50:47 PM
Irony is in order to eliminate the above ground freeway they've evicted anyone within half a block of it.  lol.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Anthony_JK on February 21, 2024, 04:12:13 AM
More of that New Urbanist insanity:


Someone got the bright idea of replacing I-35 through the San Antonio-Austin corridor with HSR, and made a markup of it. Mass orgies by the usual folks ensued in the comments.





There was originally a plan to create an HSR line within the Toll 130 ROW, as well as a plan to create a standalone freight rail ROW within 130 that would free up the existing UP ROW within that I-35 corridor for some form of passenger/commuter rail. Apparently, though, that's not enough for our modern urban designers, who are not stopping until they ban cars and trucks and reduce roads to two-lane gravel so to force people to their beloved trains.


Ridiculous.


(If this is an inappropriate place, mods, please say so and I'll move it to where it's appropriate.)



Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: kphoger on February 21, 2024, 09:47:32 AM
Not watching.  But the title "Taking back the streets" makes me wonder:  did trains run on I-35 at some point in the past?  If not, then what would be taken "back"?
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: triplemultiplex on February 21, 2024, 09:52:28 AM
Why get outraged over someone's fantasy? 
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Echostatic on February 21, 2024, 01:34:35 PM
There's no point in letting urbanist plans get a rise out of you. They have no political power with TxDOT.

KUT's Nathan Bernier has an incredibly thorough article documenting the project and its construction plans that released this morning. Shovels will hit the dirt in just a few months. https://www.kut.org/transportation/2024-02-21/your-ultimate-guide-to-the-i-35-expansion-through-central-austin (https://www.kut.org/transportation/2024-02-21/your-ultimate-guide-to-the-i-35-expansion-through-central-austin)
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: sprjus4 on February 21, 2024, 03:08:52 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on February 21, 2024, 04:12:13 AM
More of that New Urbanist insanity:


Someone got the bright idea of replacing I-35 through the San Antonio-Austin corridor with HSR, and made a markup of it. Mass orgies by the usual folks ensued in the comments.





There was originally a plan to create an HSR line within the Toll 130 ROW, as well as a plan to create a standalone freight rail ROW within 130 that would free up the existing UP ROW within that I-35 corridor for some form of passenger/commuter rail. Apparently, though, that's not enough for our modern urban designers, who are not stopping until they ban cars and trucks and reduce roads to two-lane gravel so to force people to their beloved trains.


Ridiculous.


(If this is an inappropriate place, mods, please say so and I'll move it to where it's appropriate.)
I'd say this easily falls into "Fictional Highways" at the very least. It's not reality, is not proposed, and isn't going to happen.

...and if you would take one second to read the description, it's obvious even the creator sees it as unrealistic and "pie in the sky".
QuoteThe radical idea of replacing freeways with high speed intercity passenger rail investigated more closely.  We're going to rip up Interstate 35 northbound lanes between San Antonio and both Fort Worth and Dallas. Impact of road vehicle traffic? Who cares?! This is a tongue-in-cheek presentation about what seems like a highly impractical and improbable scenario, but we'll keep that between you and me and let the people that don't bother reading descriptions figure it out. Is it pie in the sky? Is it actually not a bad idea? Is it somewhere in between? You decide!
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Some one on February 21, 2024, 06:28:30 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on February 21, 2024, 04:12:13 AM
More of that New Urbanist insanity:


Someone got the bright idea of replacing I-35 through the San Antonio-Austin corridor with HSR, and made a markup of it. Mass orgies by the usual folks ensued in the comments.





There was originally a plan to create an HSR line within the Toll 130 ROW, as well as a plan to create a standalone freight rail ROW within 130 that would free up the existing UP ROW within that I-35 corridor for some form of passenger/commuter rail. Apparently, though, that's not enough for our modern urban designers, who are not stopping until they ban cars and trucks and reduce roads to two-lane gravel so to force people to their beloved trains.


Ridiculous.


(If this is an inappropriate place, mods, please say so and I'll move it to where it's appropriate.)
Yeah, I watched the video and it's obviously a joke. The guy himself said not to take it too seriously. It's supposed to be tongue-in-cheek humor. It's one thing to not like new urbanists but to fearmonger and get worked up over a humorous video and a fictional fantasy is another.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Anthony_JK on February 21, 2024, 11:49:03 PM
Quote from: Some one on February 21, 2024, 06:28:30 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on February 21, 2024, 04:12:13 AM
More of that New Urbanist insanity:


Someone got the bright idea of replacing I-35 through the San Antonio-Austin corridor with HSR, and made a markup of it. Mass orgies by the usual folks ensued in the comments.





There was originally a plan to create an HSR line within the Toll 130 ROW, as well as a plan to create a standalone freight rail ROW within 130 that would free up the existing UP ROW within that I-35 corridor for some form of passenger/commuter rail. Apparently, though, that's not enough for our modern urban designers, who are not stopping until they ban cars and trucks and reduce roads to two-lane gravel so to force people to their beloved trains.


Ridiculous.


(If this is an inappropriate place, mods, please say so and I'll move it to where it's appropriate.)
Yeah, I watched the video and it's obviously a joke. The guy himself said not to take it too seriously. It's supposed to be tongue-in-cheek humor. It's one thing to not like new urbanists but to fearmonger and get worked up over a humorous video and a fictional fantasy is another.
I'm not necessarily saying that the author of that vid was being serious. I do acknowledge that.

One venture of the comments section, however, and it sure seems as some took it as real and desirable. That was my point about New Urbanism's extremism.

Since this is more urban design than highway, maybe the Urban Design sub-forum would be a more appropriate spot for this? I'd have no objection to moving it there.


moto g power (2022)

Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Plutonic Panda on February 22, 2024, 12:29:57 AM
Quote from: Some one on February 21, 2024, 06:28:30 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on February 21, 2024, 04:12:13 AM
More of that New Urbanist insanity:


Someone got the bright idea of replacing I-35 through the San Antonio-Austin corridor with HSR, and made a markup of it. Mass orgies by the usual folks ensued in the comments.





There was originally a plan to create an HSR line within the Toll 130 ROW, as well as a plan to create a standalone freight rail ROW within 130 that would free up the existing UP ROW within that I-35 corridor for some form of passenger/commuter rail. Apparently, though, that's not enough for our modern urban designers, who are not stopping until they ban cars and trucks and reduce roads to two-lane gravel so to force people to their beloved trains.


Ridiculous.


(If this is an inappropriate place, mods, please say so and I'll move it to where it's appropriate.)
Yeah, I watched the video and it's obviously a joke. The guy himself said not to take it too seriously. It's supposed to be tongue-in-cheek humor. It's one thing to not like new urbanists but to fearmonger and get worked up over a humorous video and a fictional fantasy is another.
You know in all fairness Anthony JK has every right to react the way they did because though maybe this author is joking there's a lot of people who take this shit serious and actually think like it. Want an example? I'm arguing with one of these people now on Facebook check it out: https://www.facebook.com/100064468338195/posts/pfbid0xuDGZXo4kT9f9jJPdUYAPqfGZavT1HNHFsC3MoczXWgP8HcSjSvDrfrc3rnBgMFwl/?mibextid=adzO7l

My name is Campbell.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Some one on February 22, 2024, 04:59:41 PM
Again, I believe the people are a vocal minority and it's not getting worked up over it. I think most (urban-like) people just want more options in transportation and don't actually want to get rid of cars or highways... at least outside the urban areas.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Bobby5280 on February 22, 2024, 09:23:48 PM
True high speed rail anywhere within the United States is pretty ridiculous. It's all but impossible to build a city to city high speed rail line that has curve geometry to support speeds over 300 kilometers per hour. Even building HSR lines that go from one outer edge of a metro area to the outer edge of another metro area is going to be damned difficult. And if that's all we can do in the U-S-of-A then why bother. Airports already take passengers from one metro edge to another metro edge. Trains will just do that more slowly.

That I-35 video obviously is a joke. But if there really were serious proposals to build a "high speed rail" line in the median of the TX-130 toll road those proposals should have been laughed out of the room. TX-130 is pretty damned crooked. It's possible to drive a motor vehicle 85mph on it. But those curves won't allow trains to do 150mph. Maybe not even 100mph. Even if the toll road was built straight enough it doesn't cover enough miles to let a train reach true high speeds.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Some one on February 22, 2024, 10:53:32 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 22, 2024, 09:23:48 PM
True high speed rail anywhere within the United States is pretty ridiculous. It's all but impossible to build a city to city high speed rail line that has curve geometry to support speeds over 300 kilometers per hour. Even building HSR lines that go from one outer edge of a metro area to the outer edge of another metro area is going to be damned difficult. And if that's all we can do in the U-S-of-A then why bother. Airports already take passengers from one metro edge to another metro edge. Trains will just do that more slowly.
No offense, but that's a limited type of thinking. I do agree that high-speed rail that runs on highway medians is a just a "higher-speed" rail. It's why Brightline, even though it's sleek isn't high-speed rail. It's just a conventional rail that goes a bit faster. At the same time though, Americans are so unfamiliar with high-speed rail that this rail line's become so popular for going "fast." And with flying, you fail to account for TSA, long lines, boarding, and de-boarding. Whereas with a train you can just get on and board within 10 minutes and unlike an airplane, you can do your work throughout the entire trip. Plus more people on the train means fewer people on the road which means more room to drive. I do believe that high-speed rail is possible. Difficult with the political and geographic climate of our environment, but I think it's doable.

For the record, I don't believe in demolishing rural highways for rail cause that's a ridiculous statement. But I'm in favor of more intercity rail, high-speed, median-running, or regular.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 22, 2024, 09:23:48 PM
That I-35 video obviously is a joke. But if there really were serious proposals to build a "high speed rail" line in the median of the TX-130 toll road those proposals should have been laughed out of the room. TX-130 is pretty damned crooked. It's possible to drive a motor vehicle 85mph on it. But those curves won't allow trains to do 150mph. Maybe not even 100mph. Even if the toll road was built straight enough it doesn't cover enough miles to let a train reach true high speeds.
Yeah if they DO decide to have high-speed rail they should run it near I-35.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: DNAguy on February 23, 2024, 01:43:17 PM
In regards to highspeed rail, connecting San Antonio, Austin, Houston, and Dallas metros makes sense.

Outside of that, I don't see it.

I mean, maybe eventually Laredo and Oklahoma City.... but the investment just isn't there.

If the Houston to Dallas does get made, then any expansion of rail should use that as the backbone.

The 'Texas T-bone' makes sense in that it limits # of miles of track without sacrificing the major stops needed to provide ridership.

A San Antonio to Austin to Shiro line would likely only be 'achievable' if SA had a City center-ish station, the line run east along I10 to either SH130 or to US183 and then jump north to Austin. Austin's stop would need to be at the Airport or Airport adjacent. Then the line would have to run east / northeast along Texas 71 / Texas 21 to College Station / Shiro.

Some pretty straight shots if you follow those corridors.

But with as much difficulty as the Houston-Dallas line has gotten, I just don't know where an additional $10-20 billion is going to come from to fund that portion of the line.

A regular speed commuter rail along the 35 makes more sense.... with stops at all the various mid-size cities / large suburbs along the way. However, this has been a crazy battle with UP for decades now.

Maybe a Downtown SA stop if costs permit (they likely won't), a SA Airport stop, New Braunfels, San Marcos, Buda / Kyle, Downtown Austin, North Austin / RR / Pflugerville, Georgetown, Belton/Temple/Kileen, Waco, potentially Hillsboro, Waxahachie, Desoto / I-20, and Downtown Dallas (likely the same as HSR station)

You'd want an express option every so often ... maybe morning and evening at first... that only hits SA, Austin, Belton/Temple/Kileen, Waco, and Dallas to make it more of a viable intercity option..... but likely not the air traffic replacement that HSR would be.

It would reduce load on 35, however, by taking the more 'regional' trips off the road Dallas to Waco trips, Kileen to Austin, SA to Austin, NB to Austin trips, etc.

One would think we try that out first or try and upgrade that corridor to improve speed along it.

Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: kphoger on February 23, 2024, 01:53:45 PM
Quote from: DNAguy on February 23, 2024, 01:43:17 PM
I mean, maybe eventually Laredo and Oklahoma City.... but the investment just isn't there.

I don't imagine the demand being nearly enough to justify it for those two.

Every time I've driven between OKC and Laredo on I-35, the stretches south of Von Ormy and north of Gainesville have always been the "Ah! finally the traffic is gone!" stretches.

22,071 = 2019 AADT south of Cotulla
77,267 = 2022 AADT south of Eddy
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Bobby5280 on February 24, 2024, 01:42:38 AM
Quote from: Some oneNo offense, but that's a limited type of thinking.

It's NOT "limited thinking." All I'm doing is acknowledging reality of building transportation infrastructure in the United States. This nation's legal and political structure is not the slightest bit friendly at all to development of high speed rail. That is a fact.

There isn't anything "sexy" at all about "faster-speed" rail lines. It's just conventional passenger rail. And us Americans can't even built those kind of rail lines without it breaking the damned bank account.

Quote from: Some oneYeah if they DO decide to have high-speed rail they should run it near I-35.

Way too many existing properties sit in the way of such a thing. China can lay down hundreds or even thousands of miles of new, true high speed rail track in a short amount of time because China is a totalitarian police state. They can secretly place people who don't want to move in front of a firing squad and get away with it. Here in America we're on the other polar extreme. We can't build anything significant anymore without 20 or more years worth of lawsuits and political theater before shovels start turning up any earth. And then the finished product is often underwhelming.

Quote from: DNAguyIn regards to highspeed rail, connecting San Antonio, Austin, Houston, and Dallas metros makes sense. Outside of that, I don't see it.

I'm skeptical about high speed rail lines just connecting the Texas Triangle cities as being something feasible.

Yeah, the cities of Dallas, Houston and San Antonio all have city limits populations over 1 million people. Austin is on the verge of cracking the 1 million mark in city limits population. Fort Worth is nipping at Austin's heels with 935,000 residents (2021 estimate). Nevertheless, all of those cities are very car-oriented. It's not like you're going to take a high speed train to the city center and then be able to take mass transit anywhere else in the metro area like you can in many European cities, or Japan or other parts of the Far East.

Even in places that have multiple layers of mass transit, such as New York City, driving a personal vehicle is still faster and more convenient than commuting via a combo of bus and train travel. I know this from personal experience. It's not cheap to drive a vehicle from a place like Staten Island into Manhattan. But it's often much faster than taking the bus, ferry and subway.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Some one on February 24, 2024, 01:41:51 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 24, 2024, 01:42:38 AM
It's NOT "limited thinking." All I'm doing is acknowledging reality of building transportation infrastructure in the United States. This nation's legal and political structure is not the slightest bit friendly at all to development of high speed rail. That is a fact.
If you reread what I said I never said it was easy to build high-speed rail. Just that I don't think it's entirely impossible.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 24, 2024, 01:42:38 AM
There isn't anything "sexy" at all about "faster-speed" rail lines. It's just conventional passenger rail. And us Americans can't even built those kind of rail lines without it breaking the damned bank account.
I think the idea of boarding a sleek modern train and not having to deal with traffic or TSA is sexy in of itself no? Plus shinkansen trains are very sexy. As for the "damned bank account", infrastructure projects are going to be overpriced and delayed regardless so I don't understand why we suddenly care when it comes to trains.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 24, 2024, 01:42:38 AM
Way too many existing properties sit in the way of such a thing. China can lay down hundreds or even thousands of miles of new, true high speed rail track in a short amount of time because China is a totalitarian police state. They can secretly place people who don't want to move in front of a firing squad and get away with it. Here in America we're on the other polar extreme. We can't build anything significant anymore without 20 or more years worth of lawsuits and political theater before shovels start turning up any earth. And then the finished product is often underwhelming.
Not that I agree with it, but eminent domain is a thing no? But I do agree how hard it is to build infrastructure. Brightline for example, was supposed to be high-speed rail but was watered down to what it is now.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 24, 2024, 01:42:38 AM
Quote from: DNAguyIn regards to highspeed rail, connecting San Antonio, Austin, Houston, and Dallas metros makes sense. Outside of that, I don't see it.

I'm skeptical about high speed rail lines just connecting the Texas Triangle cities as being something feasible.

Yeah, the cities of Dallas, Houston and San Antonio all have city limits populations over 1 million people. Austin is on the verge of cracking the 1 million mark in city limits population. Fort Worth is nipping at Austin's heels with 935,000 residents (2021 estimate). Nevertheless, all of those cities are very car-oriented. It's not like you're going to take a high speed train to the city center and then be able to take mass transit anywhere else in the metro area like you can in many European cities, or Japan or other parts of the Far East.

I always wonder why people say we can't have high-speed or even faster rail line because "you still have to drive at the endpoints." Airports exist. People drive to the airport to board a plane and head to another city, even if it's within the state or an hour away. Park and Ride exist, and those seem to be popular with commuters. Hell Brightline, which is in car-oriented Florida is extremely popular with Floridan travelers. And FWIW, the endpoints of the Texas HSR are in areas with decent or (in the future) expanding transit to get around.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 24, 2024, 01:42:38 AM
Even in places that have multiple layers of mass transit, such as New York City, driving a personal vehicle is still faster and more convenient than commuting via a combo of bus and train travel. I know this from personal experience. It's not cheap to drive a vehicle from a place like Staten Island into Manhattan. But it's often much faster than taking the bus, ferry and subway.
See, that's why its good to have OPTIONS to get around the city. You might prefer to get around NYC using a car but someone else might prefer getting around using public transportation. And I believe the flaws of public transportation comes moreso from it being horribly underfunded and politicians and nimbys doing anything in their power to keep it that way. Also, it may be faster, but traffic in NYC can be HORRENDOUS.

Again, I am not for forcing people to get on the train, but I am FOR giving people the option to drive, fly, or take a train.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Some one on February 24, 2024, 01:53:06 PM
Also, I feel like this should be moved to another topic, cause this has almost nothing to do with the planned I-35 expansion.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: MaxConcrete on March 12, 2024, 08:31:15 PM
This news report (https://www.kxan.com/news/local/austin/austin-eyes-193m-loan-request-for-covered-highway-project/) says that Austin is seeking a loan up to $193 million for an I-35 deck park.

According to the report, Austin has already secured a $105.2 million grant for the work, which is the cap on the south side of downtown from Cesar Chavez to 4th Street. The total cost is estimated at $600 million to $900 million, so more money will be needed. It isn't clear if the cost estimate is for all the caps or just this first cap.


QuoteAustin eyes $193M loan request to 'cap and stitch' I-35
Request comes after city secured millions in federal funds

With I-35 expansion efforts in the works near downtown, Austin City Council is eyeing a $193 million state loan request to support highway coverings through the city's "Cap and Stitch" program.

"Our Future 35" is the city initiative behind the cap and stitch program, which seeks to cover sunken portions of the expanded I-35 with deck plazas. Those caps can house green space, small buildings, art displays and other community amenities.

On March 21, Austin City Council will consider asking the city manager to submit a loan application with the State Infrastructure Bank, which is overseen by the Texas Department of Transportation. The request is not to exceed $193 million, per council documents.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Echostatic on March 13, 2024, 02:33:55 AM
The $600M-ish figure is for all the caps.
Title: Re: Austin: IH 35 rebuild
Post by: Bobby5280 on March 13, 2024, 12:05:32 PM
If the cost gets any higher it won't be much different than just deep boring some tunnels.