According to this page: http://www.txtag.org/sh_130.php (http://www.txtag.org/sh_130.php) Sections 5 and 6 of Highway 130 are scheduled to open October 24. They plan to have free trial from then until November 10. I plan to make my way south sometime during the free period to get a feel for the road. I have a TxTag and reluctantly use toll roads when they seem to be a good value (which isn't often), but I'm not eager to support this for-profit road. As far as I can tell, toll rates have yet to be determined.
http://www.mysh130.com/segments-5-6/toll-rates/ (http://www.mysh130.com/segments-5-6/toll-rates/)
When they start charging the toll, it'll cost $6.17 to drive a car the length of the road, which comes to about 15 cents per mile. Without a tag, it'll cost $8.51. This is about the same rate as the northern 4 sections after the increase next year. A regular 18-wheeler will cost $24.58, $28.32 without a tag.
This appears to be just about the maximum rate allowed under the contract, 12.5 cents per mile adjusted for 2006 dollars. I'm surprised they're going for such a high rate right from the start, since this road has no user base. It's almost like they don't want people driving on it.
France has some interesting test cases which make clear that high tolls on rural routes do not attract much traffic, even if it is a time-saver. 15 cents per mile for a rural freeway is quite high compared to the older turnpikes in Oklahoma for example.
Quote from: Chris on October 11, 2012, 02:56:58 PM
France has some interesting test cases which make clear that high tolls on rural routes do not attract much traffic, even if it is a time-saver. 15 cents per mile for a rural freeway is quite high compared to the older turnpikes in Oklahoma for example.
I have no problem stopping on the H. E. Bailey to throw six quarters in the basket on the way to the Wichita Mountains, even though it involves stopping. I find it to be a reasonable cost. I even use some NTTA roads at 15.3 cents per mile, for short distances that add up to low totals, as well as MoPac in Austin.
When the CTTS tolls increase next year, the biggest increase will be on 45N and Loop 1, the short roads. The increase will be 50%. SH 130 tolls will increase only 25%. This is a step in the right direction, with longer sections having lower rates. But 15 cents per mile is too much for 90 miles of rural road with limited short-trip potential.
I tried "pay by mail" and they charged me $24 instead of the $1.25 it should have been so I'm done with toll roads.
Quote from: texaskdog on October 11, 2012, 03:22:17 PM
I tried "pay by mail" and they charged me $24 instead of the $1.25 it should have been so I'm done with toll roads.
Am I understanding you correctly that it was $1.25 for the toll and 22.75 for a "service charge"?
rte66man
Or 22.75 for a late fee.
Quote from: rte66man on October 11, 2012, 03:45:46 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on October 11, 2012, 03:22:17 PM
I tried "pay by mail" and they charged me $24 instead of the $1.25 it should have been so I'm done with toll roads.
Am I understanding you correctly that it was $1.25 for the toll and 22.75 for a "service charge"?
rte66man
Quote from: InterstateNG on October 11, 2012, 04:32:56 PM
Or 22.75 for a late fee.
Either way, it just adds credence to my distrust of pay-by-mail. I go cash whenever possible.
It's for this reason that I still take I-35 straight through Austin.
Quote from: kphoger on October 11, 2012, 04:53:42 PM
Either way, it just adds credence to my distrust of pay-by-mail. I go cash whenever possible.
It's for this reason that I still take I-35 straight through Austin.
I wonder if they'll lose any business by raising rates (which were already too high on 130) and eliminating cash payment. Before I had a TxTag (I'm cheap, and I prefer to save the 15 cents), I paid in cash because I also distrust pay-by-mail. The number of people choosing cash payment is highest on 130, close to 10%, and I think 5 to 7 percent on 45 and MoPac. Some will either get tags or bills, but I wouldn't be surprised if a few percent just stop driving on the roads.
Quote from: kphoger on October 11, 2012, 04:53:42 PM
Either way, it just adds credence to my distrust of pay-by-mail. I go cash whenever possible.
It's for this reason that I still take I-35 straight through Austin.
Let's go with the scenario that it was late, and so late that it caused collections to get involved, thus incurring the large late fee. That's the toll company's fault? And if its a clerical error, it's an easy fix, particularly with a paper trail. How about some effort or responsibility?
Whatever, let whatever conspiracy theories one may have about paying by mail or transponders keep you choked in traffic on 35. You'll be out of my way.
NTTA won't even mess with sending out a bill lower than $10. They'll wait until you build up enough of a charge to make mailing a bill worth it. I drove on the Dallas North Tollway in June, for instance, and I had unbilled tolls from two previous trips on the statement.
Quote from: rte66man on October 11, 2012, 03:45:46 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on October 11, 2012, 03:22:17 PM
I tried "pay by mail" and they charged me $24 instead of the $1.25 it should have been so I'm done with toll roads.
Am I understanding you correctly that it was $1.25 for the toll and 22.75 for a "service charge"?
rte66man
Yes they said if your tag doesn't have money you can pay by mail and I guess I went over. I paid the 25 cents then got another bill for $24. Last toll road I ever drive on.
Should have had auto pay.
Quote from: InterstateNG on October 12, 2012, 08:55:15 AM
Should have had auto pay.
I just didn't have auto reload. If you drop below $10 they take another $20. So if you're at $9.99 they then have $29.99 of your money tied up. I lived on the south end of the toll road that heads north out of town, and then we moved to Central Austin so was going to let it go anyway. Went through the pay by mail lane too. They won't talk to you as they treat you like bill collectors do.
Quote from: InterstateNG on October 11, 2012, 06:49:15 PM
Quote from: kphoger on October 11, 2012, 04:53:42 PM
Either way, it just adds credence to my distrust of pay-by-mail. I go cash whenever possible.
It's for this reason that I still take I-35 straight through Austin.
Let's go with the scenario that it was late, and so late that it caused collections to get involved, thus incurring the large late fee. That's the toll company's fault? And if its a clerical error, it's an easy fix, particularly with a paper trail. How about some effort or responsibility?
Whatever, let whatever conspiracy theories one may have about paying by mail or transponders keep you choked in traffic on 35. You'll be out of my way.
Conspiracy theory? The toll road authority gets your information from the DMV, right? This past year, Kansas' DMV switched computer programs and caused a huge mess. My notice to renew my tags was sent to a house I haven't lived at since 2009; the only reason I even got it is because my parents still live there. If I were to use pay-by-mail, who knows where that bill will end up?
Presumably at your parents house.
Quote from: InterstateNG on October 12, 2012, 03:04:28 PM
Presumably at your parents house.
Well, yeah, for me, but what about for other people?
What if my parents didn't still live there?
What if the DMV had had the address I lived at in between instead of my folks'?
No thanks, I'd rather not leave it to the DMV to have my correct information; I said that before this year's debacle, and it was just all the more reinforced.
What is the expected AADT on SH 130? It's rural, it connects no large cities directly, so I presume it would be used mostly by traffic avoiding I-35 and the occasional thrill-seeker to drive NASCAR speeds - as some media outlets put it. I don't think this part of SH 130 will see a lot of traffic until Austin's suburbs will grow to the southeast.
Quote from: Chris on October 12, 2012, 03:19:40 PM
What is the expected AADT on SH 130? It's rural, it connects no large cities directly, so I presume it would be used mostly by traffic avoiding I-35 and the occasional thrill-seeker to drive NASCAR speeds - as some media outlets put it. I don't think this part of SH 130 will see a lot of traffic until Austin's suburbs will grow to the southeast.
I'd like to know that, too. The section from Lockhart northward has continuous frontage roads on US 183. Unless they intentionally foul the traffic flow, the frontage roads have no stops, so there's no reason to pay for that section of toll road. Of course, eventually the area will develop, but who knows how long that'll take?
From what I understand, this road was intended to connect to the Trans-Texas Corridor, facilitating a connection between I-10 and TTC-35, or possibly becoming part of TTC-35. Since the corridor's been cancelled, it's now just part of a bypass. The southern portion doesn't even bypass Austin, which is where the real traffic problems are.
I've wondered if Cintra wasn't eager to get this deal in order to get their foot in the door developing the TTC. With the cancellation, they're left with this one pointless-looking road out there. I'd rather have the northern section of 130 that bypasses Austin, and even that was funded partially with fuel taxes and requires massive fuel tax subsidies. The projections don't even call for it to ever pay for itself; TxDOT built it because of a dedication to toll roads, even if they waste money.
On a broader scale, I wonder about the sanity of the people who proposed the corridor, with hundreds of miles of toll roads costing 20 cents per mile. The tolls would have to be high to pay for the massive project, but they'd be so high as to be prohibitively expensive. I'd follow the FM roads before paying $40 to go 200 miles. Those tolls would end up being twice what the fuel would cost.
Doesn't bypass Austin? What are you talking about? Coming from the south, using 45SE to 130 to bypass the city only adds 20 miles or so. Don't let the maps fool you, there is jack shit on 130 south of Pflugerville. You wouldn't even know you were anywhere close to a city of 800,000. The idea that this road takes you incredibly far out of the way is preposterous.
I know that when the road is complete, if I'm leaving for a Spurs game from my office in North Austin, I'm using 130. 35 sucks all the way from Downtown Austin to Buda, and then sucks again in Schertz at that time of day. No thanks, the time savings and less stressful drive is totally worth it.
Not to say there isn't some shady shit going on. US 183, which was 65mph with no stop lights will now be 55mph with stop lights and signs. Caldwell County is not at all pleased about it, either.
Quote from: InterstateNG on October 12, 2012, 04:51:40 PM
Doesn't bypass Austin? What are you talking about? Coming from the south, using 45SE to 130 to bypass the city only adds 20 miles or so. Don't let the maps fool you, there is jack shit on 130 south of Pflugerville. You wouldn't even know you were anywhere close to a city of 800,000. The idea that this road takes you incredibly far out of the way is preposterous.
What I mean is that the southern portion, south of 45SE, doesn't bypass Austin. It bypasses 35 between Austin and San Antonio. If I were to build a private toll road, I'd rather have it along the northern portion, which bypasses Austin. The southern portion, or the complete highway, will be worthwhile for some people during limited times, but the southern portion is worthwhile less of the time.
Bypassing Austin outside of rush hour, I get good results on MoPac and 290, paying a small toll for the north end and saving fuel with a shorter distance. If I had to go to the other side of Austin during rush hour, I'd have to pay, either money or time. I don't stress in traffic, so I'd look strictly at time and cost. The southern section is harder to justify paying for.
Quote from: wxfree on October 12, 2012, 05:28:33 PM
Quote from: InterstateNG on October 12, 2012, 04:51:40 PM
Doesn't bypass Austin? What are you talking about? Coming from the south, using 45SE to 130 to bypass the city only adds 20 miles or so. Don't let the maps fool you, there is jack shit on 130 south of Pflugerville. You wouldn't even know you were anywhere close to a city of 800,000. The idea that this road takes you incredibly far out of the way is preposterous.
What I mean is that the southern portion, south of 45SE, doesn't bypass Austin. It bypasses 35 between Austin and San Antonio. If I were to build a private toll road, I'd rather have it along the northern portion, which bypasses Austin. The southern portion, or the complete highway, will be worthwhile for some people during limited times, but the southern portion is worthwhile less of the time.
Bypassing Austin outside of rush hour, I get good results on MoPac and 290, paying a small toll for the north end and saving fuel with a shorter distance. If I had to go to the other side of Austin during rush hour, I'd have to pay, either money or time. I don't stress in traffic, so I'd look strictly at time and cost. The southern section is harder to justify paying for.
To each their own. Again, to not deal with the hellish drive on 35 between the two cities and not sitting in the mess that's 35/1604 on the north side of SA (which is only going to get worse with the construction that's about to start down there) makes 130 an appealing option if I'm in a part of town where I need to use it and spend the 10 bucks. Otherwise, I'll use 290 to 281.
Cintra doesn't make a profit on their operations anyways, so I don't think they care. If sprawl follows that corridor as some predict, they'll be fine.
Quote from: Chris on October 12, 2012, 03:19:40 PM
What is the expected AADT on SH 130? It's rural, it connects no large cities directly, so I presume it would be used mostly by traffic avoiding I-35 and the occasional thrill-seeker to drive NASCAR speeds - as some media outlets put it. I don't think this part of SH 130 will see a lot of traffic until Austin's suburbs will grow to the southeast.
Well, it might get a smidgeon of traffic from the upcoming Formula 1 race (Circuit of the Americas is located just off of TX 130).
http://goo.gl/maps/bB46j
:colorful:
Mike
I just happened to be staying in New Braunfels the past two days so I got to drive a short piece today. As we came across I-10 from Houston yesterday the onramps to TX-130 were still blocked even though VMS along the route said it was open.
After spending some time in San Antonio today, we got on the south end. If the plan is to divert I-35 traffic to it, they had better add a third lane to I-10. I don't know if it is so on the existing segment around Austin and has been reported here, but the road has mileposts and exit numbers that decrease going north. They appear to be based on the typical Texas reference marker system which is mileage relative to the north or west border.
And to prove speed kills, there was a wreck southbound. Maybe that was the first for the new segment. Lots of troopers and an ambulance.
I have photographic evidence that the speed limit is, indeed, 85mph. first of its kind in the nation. second only to 140km/h in Poland and Bulgaria as highest posted speed limit in the world.
(Italy has legal provisions for a speed limit of 150km/h but has not implemented it on any road, as far as I know.)
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on October 25, 2012, 05:47:09 PM
And to prove speed kills, there was a wreck southbound. Maybe that was the first for the new segment. Lots of troopers and an ambulance.
One wreck hardly proves what Europe has been disproving for decades.
Difference in speed, and going too fast for conditions, are the problems.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 25, 2012, 05:59:55 PM
I have photographic evidence that the speed limit is, indeed, 85mph. first of its kind in the nation. second only to 140km/h in Poland and Bulgaria as highest posted speed limit in the world.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on October 25, 2012, 05:59:55 PM
I have photographic evidence that the speed limit is, indeed, 85mph. first of its kind in the nation. second only to 140km/h in Poland and Bulgaria as highest posted speed limit in the world.
Jeff R. drove it yesterday:
(//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/texas/sh-130_85_mph.jpg) (//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/texas/sh-130_85_mph.jpg)
Quote from: deanej on October 25, 2012, 06:28:00 PM
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on October 25, 2012, 05:47:09 PM
And to prove speed kills, there was a wreck southbound. Maybe that was the first for the new segment. Lots of troopers and an ambulance.
One wreck hardly proves what Europe has been disproving for decades. Difference in speed, and going too fast for conditions, are the problems.
The "sardonic" emoticon is hard to type with fat fingers on a Kindle keypad.
Kindle typing... always fun...
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on October 25, 2012, 05:47:09 PM
....
And to prove speed kills, there was a wreck southbound. Maybe that was the first for the new segment. Lots of troopers and an ambulance.
NBC News reported the wreck on last night's 7 PM broadcast. Difference is, they weren't being sardonic. Always amuses me how people in New York City who may not even own cars think they're qualified to say what the speed limit should be on a road over a thousand miles away.
Perhaps they hit a wild hog:
http://www.statesman.com/news/ap/texas/high-speed-drivers-running-into-central-texas-hogs/nSpG4/
Accidents happen on all freeways, with any speed limit. Of course the media is eager to report accidents on this freeway with interstellar speed limits.
I wonder what the accident stats are like from the Oklahoma turnpikes from when they were 55 MPH until they were raised to 75? Does anybody know in what increments it was raised? Were they 65 or 70 at one time before they were raised to 75?
SH 130 CC's Twitter page has a link to a video of someone driving the road, compressed to about 3 minutes. It's a good way to see what the road's like before driving it. I've been trying to see as many of the signs as possible, with some difficulty. If you pause at just the right time, you see one exit is has an advisory speed of 65. The frontage road (US 183 at this point) has a speed limit of 55. I don't think I've ever seen an exit advisory speed higher than the speed limit on the frontage road.
I don't think it's set that way to prevent a severe speed change. Along I-10, where the speed limit is 80, there are exits with advisory speeds as low as 15, so they don't seem to have too much objection to big changes at ramps. I hope to drive this road before too long, and will definitely have an interest in observing the signs.
The video is at: http://vimeo.com/52232726
Quote from: deanej on October 25, 2012, 06:28:00 PM
Quote from: The High Plains Traveler on October 25, 2012, 05:47:09 PM
And to prove speed kills, there was a wreck southbound. Maybe that was the first for the new segment. Lots of troopers and an ambulance.
One wreck hardly proves what Europe has been disproving for decades. Difference in speed, and going too fast for conditions, are the problems.
100% correct. Until the state elects to post minimum speeds on the 80/85 mph tollways, grandma and the feral hogs will be moving much slower the the posted limit creating traffic hazards. The hogs and deer seem to be loosing so far based on the amount of roadkill on the shoulders.
Are speed differences really dangerous? In Germany trucks move at 50 - 55 mph while traffic moves around it at 80 - 90 minimum, sometimes over 120 mph. The German Autobahn is one of the safest road systems in the world.
Quote from: Chris on October 31, 2012, 08:31:46 AM
Are speed differences really dangerous? In Germany trucks move at 50 - 55 mph while traffic moves around it at 80 - 90 minimum, sometimes over 120 mph. The German Autobahn is one of the safest road systems in the world.
imagine one of those trucks getting all amerikanischscheissekopf and moving into the left lane at 50-55.
Quote from: bugo on October 26, 2012, 05:38:13 PM
I wonder what the accident stats are like from the Oklahoma turnpikes from when they were 55 MPH until they were raised to 75? Does anybody know in what increments it was raised? Were they 65 or 70 at one time before they were raised to 75?
IIRC, they went straight back to 70, then to 75. Will ahve to research that.
rte66man
Quote from: Chris on October 31, 2012, 08:31:46 AM
Are speed differences really dangerous? In Germany trucks move at 50 - 55 mph while traffic moves around it at 80 - 90 minimum, sometimes over 120 mph. The German Autobahn is one of the safest road systems in the world.
Please correct me if I'm wrong here, but I understood that trucks are required to stay in the right lane only on the Autobahn.
Also, the lanes are very wide, and curves are very broad with clear sight lines.
There are several places along SH130 in Texas that have very steep hills for a freeway with 80mph speed limits
Quote from: BiggieJohn on October 31, 2012, 03:00:02 PM
Please correct me if I'm wrong here, but I understood that trucks are required to stay in the right lane only on the Autobahn.
Generally yes, but they do pass other trucks in the left lane (so-called elephant races). They are forbidden in the left lane if there are three or more lanes though. It's very common to see traffic brake from 90+ mph to 50 or 55 to wait until the truck completes its pass.
Even eastern U.S. states could to with 80 mph limits if lane discipline was better.
Quote from: Chris on October 31, 2012, 03:15:17 PM
Even eastern U.S. states could to with 80 mph limits if lane discipline was better.
and there is the problem. SUV's and 3/4 ton 7.6L V10 trucks just dont stop like a Ferrari or Porsche do.
Maybe we should allow smaller cars that can stop faster drive faster than SUVs. This would have the beneficial side effect of causing Americans to consider buying other types of vehicles at times when the gas price isn't $10/gallon. Right now there's an "SUV or nothing" mentality that needs to be broken.
Quote from: deanej on November 01, 2012, 09:53:30 AM
Maybe we should allow smaller cars that can stop faster drive faster than SUVs. This would have the beneficial side effect of causing Americans to consider buying other types of vehicles at times when the gas price isn't $10/gallon. Right now there's an "SUV or nothing" mentality that needs to be broken.
that would be a cumbersome, yet excellent sign.
SPEED LIMIT - 85
TRUCKS - 55
VEHICLES FOR WHICH YOU GOT A TAX WRITEOFF AS AN AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT BECAUSE IT'S SUCH A FUCKING BEHEMOTH - 60
Quote from: agentsteel53 on November 01, 2012, 12:56:30 PM
Quote from: deanej on November 01, 2012, 09:53:30 AM
Maybe we should allow smaller cars that can stop faster drive faster than SUVs. This would have the beneficial side effect of causing Americans to consider buying other types of vehicles at times when the gas price isn't $10/gallon. Right now there's an "SUV or nothing" mentality that needs to be broken.
that would be a cumbersome, yet excellent sign.
SPEED LIMIT - 85
TRUCKS - 55
VEHICLES FOR WHICH YOU GOT A TAX WRITEOFF AS AN AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT BECAUSE IT'S SUCH A FUCKING BEHEMOTH - 60
+1
I forgot to add:
BEHEMOTHS NOT PERMITTED IN LEFT LANE.
(add STRICTLY ENFORCED to taste.)
Quote from: agentsteel53 on November 01, 2012, 07:50:40 PM
STRICTLY ... to taste
Nice.
The phrase
to taste, of course, made me think of cookbooks.
Strictly, to taste would be a bit like calling for
one scant, heaping cup.
Back on topic, I wonder how long it will take me to talk myself into getting a TxTag, just so I can bypass Austin and all those other pseudotowns between there and San Antonio.
Quote from: kphoger on November 01, 2012, 08:33:52 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on November 01, 2012, 07:50:40 PM
STRICTLY ... to taste
Nice.
The phrase to taste, of course, made me think of cookbooks. Strictly, to taste would be a bit like calling for one scant, heaping cup.
Back on topic, I wonder how long it will take me to talk myself into getting a TxTag, just so I can bypass Austin and all those other pseudotowns between there and San Antonio.
I, for one, do not want to taste an SUV, based on the smell. But some of the things
inside the SUV, now... say no more.
Quote from: InterstateNG on October 26, 2012, 02:48:58 PM
Perhaps they hit a wild hog:
http://www.statesman.com/news/ap/texas/high-speed-drivers-running-into-central-texas-hogs/nSpG4/
I finally had the chance to drive the new SH130 all the way to Seguin.
Traffic was very light at noon, but the turkey vultures seems to be enjoying the roadkill buffet.
I drove the length of the road today and got some photos. There were a couple of unusual uses of signs. Interstate signs are commonly posted on off-system roads, but along 130 there are junction signs also posted along county roads. I haven't seen junction signs used in that way before.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.patternsandprinciples.com%2Fotherfiles%2Fjct130.jpg&hash=0e2ff9db9b21de74e3c2e2e3644840adc35a5e38)
Another different use of signs is where the county road crossing ends and the county-maintained portion resumes.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.patternsandprinciples.com%2Fotherfiles%2Fyield.jpg&hash=3f5c3be5f8e7252da5d0e35ad10c2fff904dd506)
A sign instructing drivers to yield to oncoming traffic, on a straight road with no intersection. I've never seen that, either. The end of the higher-quality pavement through the crossing is visible at the bottom. Both of these photos were taken along County Road 217 where the frontage road begins.
Among other findings that I found interesting is that the speed limit along the non-US 183 frontage road is 50. There are many exit advisory speeds of 65, even though the frontage road speed limits are lower, which I've never seen anywhere else. Also, there are signs indicating traffic signals ahead at three points along US 183, as well as stop lines but no signals yet. There are currently no signals or stops along that section, and weren't any along the previous alignment. They not only reduced the speed limit but are also installing unneeded signals to discourage people from using the non-toll lanes.
The most outstanding finding I have to report is that this road crosses some really beautiful scenery. I didn't get any photos, since my cheap camera wouldn't do it justice. There are some beautiful wide, green valleys traversed by the road. They could market it as not just a bypass, but a scenic bypass (until development starts ruining the landscapes).
Anyone got any info on exit numbers?
Quote from: yakra on November 06, 2012, 12:37:15 AM
Anyone got any info on exit numbers?
They're visible in the video posted upthread... if you've got the reflexes to pause it at the right time. :D
Quote from: kinupanda on November 06, 2012, 04:24:38 PM
Quote from: yakra on November 06, 2012, 12:37:15 AM
Anyone got any info on exit numbers?
They're visible in the video posted upthread... if you've got the reflexes to pause it at the right time. :D
Southbound, south of 45
exit 460 Old Lockhart rd
exit 461 TX21, Briarpatch Rd, Homannvillle Tr
exit 464 Schuelke Rd
exit 466 FM1185, FM2001
exit 470 US183 south
exit 471 TX121 / TX142 Ceasar Chavez Pkwy
exit 482 TX80 / San Marcos - Luling
exit 484 FM621
exit 491 FM20
exit 496 US90
Northbound from I-10 to SH45
exit 491 FM20
exit 484 FM621
exit 482 TX80
exit 475 Maple St
exit 474 TX142, FM2001
exit 470 US183
exit 469 FM1185
exit 465 Briarpatch Rd / Homannville Tr
exit 463 TX21, Laws Rd
exit 460 US183 north
exit 458 SH45 west
Awesome, thanks for the info!
I've been working on getting the extension added to the Clinched Highway Mapping site, and this helps tremendously with placing and naming the points.
I've made a Google Map (https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msid=202070394627866506905.0004cdfe920752d065ec5&msa=0&ie=UTF8&ll=29.85851,-97.709656&spn=0.664574,0.883026&t=m&z=10&vpsrc=6) to help wrap my head around it, as Texas and its frontage road interchanges are always fun.
Now that I've taken it all in, I've noticed some oddities...
- Exit numbers seem to be based on where the ramp leaves the mainline, rather than the center of the interchange. So TX21 is Exit 461 southbound & 463 northbound, and FM1185 is Exit 466 southbound & 469 northbound.
These two are no big deal; the rule of thumb here is to just label the point with the lower of the two exit numbers that apply.
- Exit 460 leads to different places southbound and northbound, but whatever, this isn't unprecedented. The northern half-diamond, I'll probably just fold into point 458 as part of the Loop 45 interchange.
- But wait, what's this? Any way you slice it, Exit 464 is south of 465. :hmmm: Is this correct?
Quote from: yakra on November 08, 2012, 01:35:12 PM
- Exit numbers seem to be based on where the ramp leaves the mainline, rather than the center of the interchange.
That's my observation on Texas Interstates. Exit numbers are based on the mile number of the mile from which the exit departs the mainlanes in the direction of increasing numbers (going east or north). The westbound or southbound exit ramp may be in a different mile, but will have the same number. There are exceptions, of course, when different ramps access different roads, or when one direction has more exits than the other. I've seen a few situations in which the mile marker is just after the exit ramp starts, and the exit number corresponds to the lower mile number (the mile number before the marker, where the exit ramp starts). I didn't pay attention to this feature on 130.
Quote from: kphoger on November 01, 2012, 08:33:52 PM
I wonder how long it will take me to talk myself into getting a TxTag, just so I can bypass Austin and all those other pseudotowns between there and San Antonio.
Does anyone know the specific process by which the toll authority finds out where to send the bill for Pay-by-Mail? That is to say, if I wanted to verify ahead of time that they would end up with my correct address, whom should I contact?
Quote from: kphoger on December 17, 2012, 04:59:49 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 01, 2012, 08:33:52 PM
I wonder how long it will take me to talk myself into getting a TxTag, just so I can bypass Austin and all those other pseudotowns between there and San Antonio.
Does anyone know the specific process by which the toll authority finds out where to send the bill for Pay-by-Mail? That is to say, if I wanted to verify ahead of time that they would end up with my correct address, whom should I contact?
The bill is sent to the vehicle's registered owner. In Texas, we get a registration renewal notice each year. It's sent to the address TxDMV has on file. I don't know if you get anything like that in Kansas. If you haven't changed addresses since you registered your car, the address should be correct. If you're uncertain, you can check with the DMV (or vehicle registration authority in your state). That's where they get the address to send the bill to.
Quote from: wxfree on December 17, 2012, 05:36:06 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 17, 2012, 04:59:49 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 01, 2012, 08:33:52 PM
I wonder how long it will take me to talk myself into getting a TxTag, just so I can bypass Austin and all those other pseudotowns between there and San Antonio.
Does anyone know the specific process by which the toll authority finds out where to send the bill for Pay-by-Mail? That is to say, if I wanted to verify ahead of time that they would end up with my correct address, whom should I contact?
The bill is sent to the vehicle's registered owner. In Texas, we get a registration renewal notice each year. It's sent to the address TxDMV has on file. I don't know if you get anything like that in Kansas. If you haven't changed addresses since you registered your car, the address should be correct. If you're uncertain, you can check with the DMV (or vehicle registration authority in your state). That's where they get the address to send the bill to.
Thank you. Kansas had a huge mix-up with people's information last year, making me less eager to trust the Pay-by-Mail system. I just wondered if there might be someone in Texas to talk to, or just the DMV here in Kansas.
Quote from: kphoger on December 17, 2012, 05:44:58 PM
Quote from: wxfree on December 17, 2012, 05:36:06 PM
Quote from: kphoger on December 17, 2012, 04:59:49 PM
Quote from: kphoger on November 01, 2012, 08:33:52 PM
I wonder how long it will take me to talk myself into getting a TxTag, just so I can bypass Austin and all those other pseudotowns between there and San Antonio.
Does anyone know the specific process by which the toll authority finds out where to send the bill for Pay-by-Mail? That is to say, if I wanted to verify ahead of time that they would end up with my correct address, whom should I contact?
The bill is sent to the vehicle's registered owner. In Texas, we get a registration renewal notice each year. It's sent to the address TxDMV has on file. I don't know if you get anything like that in Kansas. If you haven't changed addresses since you registered your car, the address should be correct. If you're uncertain, you can check with the DMV (or vehicle registration authority in your state). That's where they get the address to send the bill to.
Thank you. Kansas had a huge mix-up with people's information last year, making me less eager to trust the Pay-by-Mail system. I just wondered if there might be someone in Texas to talk to, or just the DMV here in Kansas.
If there is a problem and you don't get a bill after about a month, you can contact the Texas toll authority directly and make sure you cover the tolls due. http://www.texastollways.com/content/contact-us.php (http://www.texastollways.com/content/contact-us.php)
It would be a good idea to keep records of your toll road use, since they'll probably ask you what roads you used on what days to verify your identity.