Austin: IH 35 rebuild

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

[thisdj78]

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.

[ski-man]

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.......

[Plutonic Panda]

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

[DenverBrian]

A bikeway named for Lance Armstrong?!? Seriously?

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

[Echostatic]

Greenfield 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.

[Plutonic Panda]

Greenfield 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?

[texaskdog]

Greenfield 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. 

[Echostatic]

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

Greenfield 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.

[Plutonic Panda]

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?

[Echostatic]

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.


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.

[Plutonic Panda]

Okay that's good to know.

[TXtoNJ]

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.

[Anthony_JK]

[...]

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.

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.

[Bobby5280]

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

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.

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.

[Echostatic]

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.









If built as proposed, this will be one of the most impressive highways in the nation.

[MaxConcrete]

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

[Bobby5280]

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.

[Echostatic]

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.

[Plutonic Panda]

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:

That'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?

[DenverBrian]

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:

That'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.