AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered at https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=33904.0
Corrected several already and appreciate your patience as we work through the rest.

Author Topic: Texas Wants to Know: When will construction on Interstate 35 be complete?  (Read 18059 times)

GaryV

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3737
  • Location: Southeast Michigan
  • Last Login: Today at 07:00:56 AM

Quote from: Ellie
Oh please. No one loves the current transit experience in most US cities; I'm sure any of these advocates would agree with you that it sucks.

Those advocates of mass transit say absolutely nothing of how the bus/train riding experience sucks. I never hear any of them mention the negative aspects of it in their sales pitch.

That's because most of them don't actually use mass transit.
Logged

LilianaUwU

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1889
  • :3

  • Age: 25
  • Location: Québec
  • Last Login: Today at 03:55:21 AM
    • Flickr

Quote from: Ellie
Oh please. No one loves the current transit experience in most US cities; I'm sure any of these advocates would agree with you that it sucks.

Those advocates of mass transit say absolutely nothing of how the bus/train riding experience sucks. I never hear any of them mention the negative aspects of it in their sales pitch.

That's because most of them don't actually use mass transit.
I would make a horrible sales pitcher for mass transit, because I actively use it most days of my life.
Logged
"Volcano with no fire... Not volcano... Just mountain."
—Mr. Thwomp

My pronouns are she/her. Also, I'm an admin on the AARoads Wiki.

ethanhopkin14

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2175
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Last Login: November 20, 2023, 08:50:23 AM

It will make things worse.  Much worse.  Please trust me on this living and working in Austin.

I'm not necessarily in favor of this. I haven't studied the issue enough and don't live in the area. But I think a lot of the opposition to it here is misguided. If you think the tradeoffs here favor keeping the highway, that's a reasonable position. That doesn't mean that anyone who disagrees with you is a hypocrite, though.

Take a heavily congested, overcrowded pre-existing freeway and instead of adding lanes to it, tear it down in lieu of a road with at grade intersections and endless access. The result will not only be a failure, but it might be the stupidest idea anyone has ever come up with.  We need more freeways in Austin with a population almost a 1 million, not tear down the precious few we have. 
Logged

ZLoth

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2040
  • ImaTech!

  • Age: 54
  • Location: Richardson, TX
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 01:06:54 PM
    • List of links

If you look at a map, you will see that I-35 starts near the Mexico border in Loredo, TX. Going north, it passes through San Antonio, Austin, and Waco before splitting to become I-35E through Dallas and I-35W through Fort Worth. Continuing north, it passes through Oklahoma City, Whicita, Kansas City, and Des Moines before splitting again to become I-35E through St Paul and I-35W through Minneapolis, before ending in Deluth. In Minneapolis, however, you can take I-94 West to I-29 to the Canadian border, but the smarter route is to take I-29 from Kansas City. This makes it a major trucking route.

Maybe the people in Austin don't like through truckers rolling through their city, but as a reminder....
Logged
I'm an Engineer. That means I solve problems. Not problems like "What is beauty?", because that would fall within the purview of your conundrums of philosophy. I solve practical problems and call them "paychecks".

kalvado

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6785
  • Location: upstate NY
  • Last Login: Today at 06:29:32 AM

It will make things worse.  Much worse.  Please trust me on this living and working in Austin.

I'm not necessarily in favor of this. I haven't studied the issue enough and don't live in the area. But I think a lot of the opposition to it here is misguided. If you think the tradeoffs here favor keeping the highway, that's a reasonable position. That doesn't mean that anyone who disagrees with you is a hypocrite, though.

Take a heavily congested, overcrowded pre-existing freeway and instead of adding lanes to it, tear it down in lieu of a road with at grade intersections and endless access. The result will not only be a failure, but it might be the stupidest idea anyone has ever come up with.  We need more freeways in Austin with a population almost a 1 million, not tear down the precious few we have.
Well, adding some rail instead of extra lanes may be an option.  So far, I may agree with transit folks.
  A bunch of  follow up questions to ask, though (I haven't been to Austin, so I know nothing about the city): Is there a concentrated enough business district to warrant commute to the same spot for many people? Is there a corridor to put such rail line? If underground, where is the water table (looks like Austin is pushed by terrain from one side and water from the other, please correct me if I am wrong)? Is I-35 the most efficient commute direction for the rail?  Just as conversation starters, you know...
Logged

Rothman

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15109
  • Last Login: Today at 06:55:38 AM

It will make things worse.  Much worse.  Please trust me on this living and working in Austin.

I'm not necessarily in favor of this. I haven't studied the issue enough and don't live in the area. But I think a lot of the opposition to it here is misguided. If you think the tradeoffs here favor keeping the highway, that's a reasonable position. That doesn't mean that anyone who disagrees with you is a hypocrite, though.

Take a heavily congested, overcrowded pre-existing freeway and instead of adding lanes to it, tear it down in lieu of a road with at grade intersections and endless access. The result will not only be a failure, but it might be the stupidest idea anyone has ever come up with.  We need more freeways in Austin with a population almost a 1 million, not tear down the precious few we have.
It depends on if improvements are made to the overall urban system.  You can't just tear down a highway and just expect things to be okay.  But, if consideration is made on how to deal with the expected traffic on the street system (e.g., adjusting signals, adding turn lanes, reconsidering one-way movements), it can work.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

Rothman

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15109
  • Last Login: Today at 06:55:38 AM



I'm getting beyond tired of new urbanists wanting to demolish freeways. Do they seriously think demolishing freeways will magically tie the separated neighborhoods back together? No, because the construction associated with transforming a freeway into a boulevard will inevitably push low-income inhabitants out thanks to gentrification, thus having the opposite effect of getting a neighborhood back together.

Depends on what form gentrification takes.  Absentee landlords and empty apartments?  Yep, bad.  But if it's just more affluent moving in, the affected streets could become a neighborhood again.  Rich people are people, too.

Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

kalvado

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6785
  • Location: upstate NY
  • Last Login: Today at 06:29:32 AM



I'm getting beyond tired of new urbanists wanting to demolish freeways. Do they seriously think demolishing freeways will magically tie the separated neighborhoods back together? No, because the construction associated with transforming a freeway into a boulevard will inevitably push low-income inhabitants out thanks to gentrification, thus having the opposite effect of getting a neighborhood back together.

Depends on what form gentrification takes.  Absentee landlords and empty apartments?  Yep, bad.  But if it's just more affluent moving in, the affected streets could become a neighborhood again.  Rich people are people, too.
and f&%k those loosers who would have to move out!
Logged

Rothman

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15109
  • Last Login: Today at 06:55:38 AM



I'm getting beyond tired of new urbanists wanting to demolish freeways. Do they seriously think demolishing freeways will magically tie the separated neighborhoods back together? No, because the construction associated with transforming a freeway into a boulevard will inevitably push low-income inhabitants out thanks to gentrification, thus having the opposite effect of getting a neighborhood back together.

Depends on what form gentrification takes.  Absentee landlords and empty apartments?  Yep, bad.  But if it's just more affluent moving in, the affected streets could become a neighborhood again.  Rich people are people, too.
and f&%k those loosers who would have to move out!

Move out from where?  We tore down the freeway; nobody lives on a freeway.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

kalvado

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6785
  • Location: upstate NY
  • Last Login: Today at 06:29:32 AM



I'm getting beyond tired of new urbanists wanting to demolish freeways. Do they seriously think demolishing freeways will magically tie the separated neighborhoods back together? No, because the construction associated with transforming a freeway into a boulevard will inevitably push low-income inhabitants out thanks to gentrification, thus having the opposite effect of getting a neighborhood back together.

Depends on what form gentrification takes.  Absentee landlords and empty apartments?  Yep, bad.  But if it's just more affluent moving in, the affected streets could become a neighborhood again.  Rich people are people, too.
and f&%k those loosers who would have to move out!

Move out from where?  We tore down the freeway; nobody lives on a freeway.
From what would become a  luxury neighborhood. Gentrification is a real thing...
Logged

LilianaUwU

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1889
  • :3

  • Age: 25
  • Location: Québec
  • Last Login: Today at 03:55:21 AM
    • Flickr

I'm getting beyond tired of new urbanists wanting to demolish freeways. Do they seriously think demolishing freeways will magically tie the separated neighborhoods back together? No, because the construction associated with transforming a freeway into a boulevard will inevitably push low-income inhabitants out thanks to gentrification, thus having the opposite effect of getting a neighborhood back together.

Depends on what form gentrification takes.  Absentee landlords and empty apartments?  Yep, bad.  But if it's just more affluent moving in, the affected streets could become a neighborhood again.  Rich people are people, too.
Rich people are people who hate poor people simply for existing.
Logged
"Volcano with no fire... Not volcano... Just mountain."
—Mr. Thwomp

My pronouns are she/her. Also, I'm an admin on the AARoads Wiki.

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4254
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 12:32:45 AM

Quote from: Ellie
There's no way to build an apartment in that part of Austin that you'd consider "affordable", because the demand is so high. Anything larger than a closet would have very high rent. That doesn't mean that those developments do not help with affordability, though! And no, these units would not just be empty.

Land used by freeways is hardly a difference-maker for housing affordability. The Austin region has all kinds of land through and around it where more modest priced housing could have been built. Zoning policies, politics and just plain greed have most real estate development nation-wide very biased toward high income customers. If the developers can't build living spaces for people with deeper pockets they're not going to bother at all. And they're sure not going to put up with anyone building lower cost properties near any of their stuff. These bad practices have been shored up by a great deal of money coming from global investors.

Down-grading I-35 to a city street pigged with traffic signals isn't going to change any of that situation with housing affordability.

Quote from: Ellie
As for getting groceries... you do realize that in a dense area, it wouldn't be a chore? Like this does exist in other cities.

American cities aren't built in a manner where everyone can live right around the corner from a grocery store. Even if all the freeways were torn down this would not change. We live in a very economically segregated society. The New Urbanist downtown utopias where somebody's condo is within a short walk of everything are priced out of reach for most people. Most of us would still need a vehicle to take us to all the places we need to go.

Quote from: ethanhopkin14
We need more freeways in Austin with a population almost a 1 million, not tear down the precious few we have.

The city limits population of Austin is on the verge of passing 1 million (if it hasn't actually done so by now). The metro population of Austin is roughly 2 million. San Antonio is a short drive to the Southwest -all with rapidly growing suburbs (New Braunfels, San Marcos, etc) in between.

Quote from: kalvado
and f&%k those loosers who would have to move out!

That's pretty much the attitude for lower and lower-middle income people who get displaced by gentrification. In the same breath the douchebags complain "nobody wants to work" when they can't staff up a restaurant, grocery store or whatever in that gentrified location with low wage workers. The douches demand those "losers" commute in from a considerable distance to work those low wage jobs. They don't seem to realize low wage jobs can be found anywhere. And the low income from a shit job goes farther when it's away from a major city center.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2023, 07:27:48 PM by Bobby5280 »
Logged

Rothman

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15109
  • Last Login: Today at 06:55:38 AM



I'm getting beyond tired of new urbanists wanting to demolish freeways. Do they seriously think demolishing freeways will magically tie the separated neighborhoods back together? No, because the construction associated with transforming a freeway into a boulevard will inevitably push low-income inhabitants out thanks to gentrification, thus having the opposite effect of getting a neighborhood back together.

Depends on what form gentrification takes.  Absentee landlords and empty apartments?  Yep, bad.  But if it's just more affluent moving in, the affected streets could become a neighborhood again.  Rich people are people, too.
and f&%k those loosers who would have to move out!

Move out from where?  We tore down the freeway; nobody lives on a freeway.
From what would become a  luxury neighborhood. Gentrification is a real thing...
But...it's a freeway.  There is no neighborhood.  That's why it has to be brought back together. 

Are we just saying that any new construction causes values to rise?  If so, isn't rent control of some fashion the answer?
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

Road Hog

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2553
  • Location: Collin County, TX
  • Last Login: Today at 02:15:33 AM

We've been kind of straying on the OP topic. Nobody is claiming that a deck park needs to be built in Troy or Salado.
Logged

thisdj78

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 514
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Texas
  • Last Login: Today at 06:51:37 AM

It will make things worse.  Much worse.  Please trust me on this living and working in Austin.

I'm not necessarily in favor of this. I haven't studied the issue enough and don't live in the area. But I think a lot of the opposition to it here is misguided. If you think the tradeoffs here favor keeping the highway, that's a reasonable position. That doesn't mean that anyone who disagrees with you is a hypocrite, though.

Take a heavily congested, overcrowded pre-existing freeway and instead of adding lanes to it, tear it down in lieu of a road with at grade intersections and endless access. The result will not only be a failure, but it might be the stupidest idea anyone has ever come up with.  We need more freeways in Austin with a population almost a 1 million, not tear down the precious few we have.
Well, adding some rail instead of extra lanes may be an option.  So far, I may agree with transit folks.
  A bunch of  follow up questions to ask, though (I haven't been to Austin, so I know nothing about the city): Is there a concentrated enough business district to warrant commute to the same spot for many people? Is there a corridor to put such rail line? If underground, where is the water table (looks like Austin is pushed by terrain from one side and water from the other, please correct me if I am wrong)? Is I-35 the most efficient commute direction for the rail?  Just as conversation starters, you know...

Short answer: No, there isn’t concentrated enough businesses in a single area. Of course there’s downtown, but then you have the Domain and major tech companies that are spread all over the Austin area.

We already have a commuter rail line that runs from north Austin to downtown and it’s barely used except when there are major events (eg. SXSW or ACL).
Logged

Anthony_JK

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1742
  • Age: 59
  • Location: Lafayette, Louisiana
  • Last Login: Today at 02:22:08 AM

Wasn't there a plan back in the 1990s and 2000's to build a freight/HSR rail line in the median of SH 130, which would have freed up the main rail line through Austin for a through commuter rail line?

That probably would have reduced the traffic volume a bit on I-35 enough to forego radical changes, but it still wouldn't be enough to warrant simply removing the freeway and replacing it with a surface-level boulevard. Even if SH 45S and 130 were made free, they would still have to face not only the through traffic diverted from the former I-35, but their own traffic using those thoroughfares for their own localized orgins and destinations. Therefore, most traffic going through Austin would continue to use the through route as the most direct path, and that would increase both noise and congestion, especially if you downgraded to a 4- or 6-lane boulevard.

The current plan of depressing I-35 with localized caps and a boulevard on top for local traffic is the best and most balanced solution. Combining that with removing tolls on 130 and SH 45 ultimately when the bonds are paid for would be the most ideal plan for balancing out traffic concerns.

I wouldn't mind I-35 being 8 lanes (2x4) continuous from San Antonio to Waco and starting just south of the 35W/35E split, with 6 lanes (2x3) otherwise.
Logged

ethanhopkin14

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2175
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Last Login: November 20, 2023, 08:50:23 AM

Quote from: ethanhopkin14
We need more freeways in Austin with a population almost a(t) (sic) 1 million, not tear down the precious few we have.
The city limits population of Austin is on the verge of passing 1 million (if it hasn't actually done so by now).

I think we said the same thing, albeit my misspelling.
Logged

ethanhopkin14

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2175
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Last Login: November 20, 2023, 08:50:23 AM

It will make things worse.  Much worse.  Please trust me on this living and working in Austin.

I'm not necessarily in favor of this. I haven't studied the issue enough and don't live in the area. But I think a lot of the opposition to it here is misguided. If you think the tradeoffs here favor keeping the highway, that's a reasonable position. That doesn't mean that anyone who disagrees with you is a hypocrite, though.

Take a heavily congested, overcrowded pre-existing freeway and instead of adding lanes to it, tear it down in lieu of a road with at grade intersections and endless access. The result will not only be a failure, but it might be the stupidest idea anyone has ever come up with.  We need more freeways in Austin with a population almost a 1 million, not tear down the precious few we have.
Well, adding some rail instead of extra lanes may be an option.  So far, I may agree with transit folks.
  A bunch of  follow up questions to ask, though (I haven't been to Austin, so I know nothing about the city): Is there a concentrated enough business district to warrant commute to the same spot for many people? Is there a corridor to put such rail line? If underground, where is the water table (looks like Austin is pushed by terrain from one side and water from the other, please correct me if I am wrong)? Is I-35 the most efficient commute direction for the rail?  Just as conversation starters, you know...

No there are office buildings all over Austin in the far reaches of the town.  There are huge office complexes in the suburbs.  I laughed that at one point I used to commute from just south of downtown to the suburbs for work every morning because my office was in the suburbs. Government employees are the only ones with a downtown central business district anymore.  The rest of downtown is condos, overpriced restaurants, yoga studios, more condos, coffee shops and anything else that will make you feel like you are living in Los Angeles or New York.  They want you to live downtown, not work downtown.

We have one commuter rail line.  It is great if you live in Leander and work in east Austin or at the convention center but goes the opposite direction and doesn't service where I live so it does nothing for me.  Even with that, it still is never used.  I would love a subway system in Austin, but that would be so extremely expensive and disruptive to build, not to mention all the truck traffic on Mopac and I-35 won't be suddenly reduce by its presence if it showed up overnight.  The 18 wheelers and delivery trucks can't stop at the commuter station outside of town, put their trailer on the train and then take it downtown.  Besides most of that is through traffic. 

There are very limited things you can go to help Austin's traffic woes outside building more bigger roads.  That means more freeways. They have already taken a lane out of many city streets to include stupid bike lanes and all sorts of random crosswalks that are signal controlled.  Those crosswalks are like someone said "traffic is moving too well and too smoothly through here.  Let's add something to disrupt that."  Basically, the city is doing everything they can to make matters worse. 
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4254
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: Today at 12:32:45 AM

Quote from: Anthony_JK
Wasn't there a plan back in the 1990s and 2000's to build a freight/HSR rail line in the median of SH 130, which would have freed up the main rail line through Austin for a through commuter rail line?

All sorts of concepts (or pipe dreams really) were tossed around in the 1990's for the "Texas TGV" rail system. None of it ever got off the ground.

The median of a freeway can work as a place to hold conventional railroad tracks, be it freight or normal speed commuter rail. Interstate highways and other kinds of super highways do not have the curve geometry at all to support trains running at true high speeds. That's especially true today considering just how crooked some new freeway segments are being built. Any true high speed rail lines have to be built on their own alignments.

Quote from: Anthony_JK
I wouldn't mind I-35 being 8 lanes (2x4) continuous from San Antonio to Waco and starting just south of the 35W/35E split, with 6 lanes (2x3) otherwise.

Even though much of the 3x3 upgrades along I-35 in Central Texas have only been recently completed it does seem like a shame more of it wasn't built 4x4. Quite a bit of the route has room for fourth lanes to be added on the outboard edges, but slip ramps to frontage roads would have to be re-built. Just under the current traffic levels I-35 needs to be 4x4 or more from San Antonio up thru Austin.

Quote from: ethanhopkin14
We have one commuter rail line.  It is great if you live in Leander and work in east Austin or at the convention center but goes the opposite direction and doesn't service where I live so it does nothing for me.

That one light rail line in Austin is very inadequate. It isn't even double-tracked its entire length. In order for Austin to have a functional rail transit network it would need several different lines reaching into various parts of the city. The hilly terrain would make engineering such a rail system a serious challenge. The end result would probably be a combination of tunnels and elevated structures. Not a lot of places in Austin where you can place pairs of rail tracks at grade. Even if there is room the tunnels and elevated structures would be necessary to even out the grades.

Quote from: ethanhopkin14
They have already taken a lane out of many city streets to include stupid bike lanes and all sorts of random crosswalks that are signal controlled.  Those crosswalks are like someone said "traffic is moving too well and too smoothly through here.  Let's add something to disrupt that."  Basically, the city is doing everything they can to make matters worse.

There are places where so-called "traffic calming" measures can be a good thing. But "road diets" can't be applied just anywhere. Planners in Austin don't seem to be paying attention to that.
Logged

Scott5114

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 19829
  • Nit picker of unprecedented pedantry

  • Age: 34
  • Location: Las Vegas, NV
  • Last Login: Today at 02:20:41 AM
    • Denexa 100% Plastic Playing Cards

Loredo...Whicita...Deluth

Sweet, I-35 got some new control cities! :D
Logged
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

Henry

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8478
  • Age: 53
  • Location: Chicago, IL/Seattle, WA
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 10:22:35 PM
    • Henry Watson's Online Freeway

500 miles is a hell of a lot of road to cover, so I'm tempted to say not in any of our lifetimes.
Logged
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

The Ghostbuster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4948
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: March 18, 2024, 11:02:06 PM

How about walking 500 miles?
Logged

Rothman

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15109
  • Last Login: Today at 06:55:38 AM

How about walking 500 miles?
That song is actually about walking 1,000 miles...
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

ethanhopkin14

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2175
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Last Login: November 20, 2023, 08:50:23 AM

Loredo...Whicita...Deluth

Sweet, I-35 got some new control cities! :D

Those are the knock off control cities of I-33, I-35's cheaper brother. 
« Last Edit: July 24, 2023, 10:02:57 AM by ethanhopkin14 »
Logged

Scott5114

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 19829
  • Nit picker of unprecedented pedantry

  • Age: 34
  • Location: Las Vegas, NV
  • Last Login: Today at 02:20:41 AM
    • Denexa 100% Plastic Playing Cards

Loredo...Whicita...Deluth

Sweet, I-35 got some new control cities! :D

Those are the knock off control cities of I-33, I-35 cheaper brother. 

Now that you mention it, they do kinda look like brand names you'd see on Amazon.
Logged
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.