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.

Main Menu

Proposed southern extension of SH 130 to meet at IH 35

Started by FreewayDan, May 26, 2012, 01:03:49 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

FreewayDan

Not by new alignment but by cosigning with other routes via IH 10 to I-410 in San Antonio's east side, then southwest via I-410 to IH 35.
http://www.txdot.gov/about_us/commission/2011_meetings/documents/minute_orders/sep29/20c.pdf
LEFT ON GREEN
ARROW ONLY


Anthony_JK

I'm not sure why they need to extend SH 130 on a needless concurrency when proper signage could do the trick just fine.

Besides, what's to say that upgrading the southern portion of Loop 1604 to freeway or tollway to I-35 wouldn't be better??

thisdj78


kinupanda

We'll file this one in the "TxDOT trying way too hard to get people to use a toll road" folder.

corco

That sign in the background of the last picture is terrible- the exit lane in that case is for both I-10 East and SH 130 north, right? That's not what I get from that at all- looks to me like left lane for 10 west, right for 10 east, exit for 130 north

TheStranger

Quote from: corco on August 10, 2013, 05:42:28 PM
That sign in the background of the last picture is terrible- the exit lane in that case is for both I-10 East and SH 130 north, right? That's not what I get from that at all- looks to me like left lane for 10 west, right for 10 east, exit for 130 north

It seems like using horizontal rather than vertical legend arrangement would do wonders for this sign, i.e. this really quick mockup I came up with:



Chris Sampang

wxfree

The concession company put photos of some of the new signs in its Facebook account.  I remember some people complaining about misleading drivers to get them to follow 130 along I-10 expecting to get to Austin or Waco and being surprised that it suddenly becomes a toll road.

It could be argued that the concurrencies are unneeded and are just marketing for the toll road, but at least the signs shown aren't misleading.  Any time Austin and Waco are mentioned, it shows the toll road sign.  The only destination shown for the regular State Highway 130 sign is Seguin.  I'm sure some people will be confused, but there's only so much you can do to account for inattention.
I'd like to buy a vowel, Alex.  What is E?

msubulldog

At least Waco is mentioned as a control city in San Antonio. I wonder if Dallas/Ft Worth would be next, or maybe in lieu of Waco. :sombrero:
"But the gateway to life is very narrow and the road is difficult, and only a few ever find it."
Matt 7:14, NLT

wxfree

When the speed limits were increased to 75 on the other Texas Interstates, I-35 between Austin and San Antonio was excluded.  When the higher speed limits were approved for the Austin district state and US highways, I-35 was excluded again.  After the new speed law was passed, I read that the plan was to increase the speed limit.  This signing may have been what they were waiting for before increasing the speed limit.

The agreement with the concession company makes an increase on the parallel portion of I-35 a "compensation event," due to its potential to disincentivize use of the toll road.  The PDF file is an image, not text, so I can't copy the text, but it says that the compensation due to the company because of an increased speed limit on I-35 is reduced by the amount of increased revenue attributable to a southern extension of the SH 130.  TxDOT may not still plan to raise the speed limit on I-35 - 70 is the default and 75 is discretionary, so it isn't legally required - but if they do increase the speed limit these signs may be their way of preventing, or counteracting, a compensation event.
I'd like to buy a vowel, Alex.  What is E?

NE2

pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

wxfree

I'd like to buy a vowel, Alex.  What is E?

Anthony_JK

Interesting...if the company does go under, and SH 130 is returned back to the state, would that make it easier for the proposal to re-route I-35 along it and SH 45 SE to gain support?


wxfree

Quote from: Anthony_JK on October 20, 2013, 02:36:35 AM
Interesting...if the company does go under, and SH 130 is returned back to the state, would that make it easier for the proposal to re-route I-35 along it and SH 45 SE to gain support?

I don't expect that would help.  If TxDOT got the south half of the road back, they have no reason to stop the tolls.  They consistently want more tolls, not less.  Even if they wanted to make the big switch with I-35, they still have bond debt on the CTTS, which includes the northern half of 130.  I don't think it's worthwhile to divert long-distance traffic off the less-congested part of I-35 parallel to SH 130 Sections 5 and 6, and then direct it back onto I-35 through Austin.  If the company goes under, I think the best outcome would be to reduce or eliminate the tolls on the south half and make the full bypass cheaper, hopefully drawing more traffic off the whole parallel stretch of I-35.  Even then, I doubt if it makes a big difference (but, of course, I'm guessing and am not an expert in that field).
I'd like to buy a vowel, Alex.  What is E?

lordsutch

Quote from: Anthony_JK on October 20, 2013, 02:36:35 AM
Interesting...if the company does go under, and SH 130 is returned back to the state, would that make it easier for the proposal to re-route I-35 along it and SH 45 SE to gain support?

I'd guess not, since the affected section is the new portion south of SH 45 SE. However, a default would probably allow TxDOT to lower the tolls to cover maintenance alone (and possibly drop them lower if they were to cross-subsidize from SH 45 and SH 130 1-4), which would attract more traffic. Then again a private operator probably could do the same, too.

As far as an I-35 reliever for Austin goes, the 45+130 idea is proposed as a near-term priority but it would require TxDOT to find revenue to cover the bond service, possibly using HOT/express lanes on existing I-35. The whole report is a pretty interesting read. http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/my35/advisory_plan.pdf

english si


wxfree

#15
Quote from: english si on October 24, 2013, 07:56:12 AM
Didn't Texas consider numbering it I-35E?

Yes, as discussed here https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=8981.0

That bill went nowhere.

In short, the bill would have taken up to 1.5 billion dollars from the rainy day fund if the feds put up the first 1.5 billion.  I don't know if there was ever a plan to try to get the federal money.  That presumably would have been used to pay off the TxDOT bonds and buy back the concession, making it a free road and renaming it I-35E
I'd like to buy a vowel, Alex.  What is E?



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.