US 183 and Texas 130

[bugo]

Let me get this straight: TX 130 is being built in the median of US 183 south of Austin.  Will the toll road be signed US 183 or just TX 130?

[corco]

I was under the impression the frontage roads would be US-183 and the expressway would be Texas 130 north of Lockhart, similar to the Beltway 8/Sam Houston Tollway setup in Houston

[InterstateNG]

Correct.  130 will swing away from 183 just north of Lockhart to run on its own alignment.

[BiggieJohn]

Let me get this straight: TX 130 is being built in the median of US 183 south of Austin.  Will the toll road be signed US 183 or just TX 130?

There are several examples in the Austin area where the frontage road and has it's own name.

The frontage road for 183 north/west of I-35 is Research Blvd
towards the south/east of I-35 the frontage road is named Anderson Ln until 183 crosses 290,
then the frontage road disappears and 183 is co-signed Ed Bluestein Blvd until it reaches hwy 71, then 183 becomes Lockhart Hwy

[roadman65]

I hear that this latest part of SH 130 is 85 mph.  That would be the highest speed limit in North America on any roadway. 

I also here that it will be signed concurrent with I-10 and the SE part of the I-410 Loop so it will be a true alternate to I-35 because of the increase in International Truck traffic along I-35 congesting it from San Antonio to Austin.

[BiggieJohn]

I hear that this latest part of SH 130 is 85 mph.  That would be the highest speed limit in North America on any roadway. 

highest _posted_ on a major roadway.  85 mph has been around for a while in west texas in some very rural areas. 

I also here that it will be signed concurrent with I-10 and the SE part of the I-410 Loop so it will be a true alternate to I-35 because of the increase in International Truck traffic along I-35 congesting it from San Antonio to Austin.

A very expensive alternate, but an alternate yes.  Many large truck drivers are refusing to use the new tollway because of the high tolls, and the significant fuel use at 80-85 mph. 

[wxfree]

highest _posted_ on a major roadway.  85 mph has been around for a while in west texas in some very rural areas.

I've read that in several places, but it's incorrect.  The speed limit on I-10 and I-20 in west Texas is 80.  I've driven nearly every mile of those highways in west Texas and always seen signs that say 80.  It's what statute specifically allows.  I've read that if the 85 mph limit seems to work well on 130 it may be applied in west Texas later.

A very expensive alternate, but an alternate yes.  Many large truck drivers are refusing to use the new tollway because of the high tolls, and the significant fuel use at 80-85 mph.

That bothers a lot of people.  The highway was proposed as a bypass to take traffic, especially trucks, off I-35 in Austin.  Then it was priced so high that people, especially truckers, don't want to use it, so I-35 continues to be jammed up.  A small bit of help is that starting next year, along the TxDOT portion of the road, while toll rates will go up by 25%, the truck tolls will be capped at the 4-axle rate, which will actually reduce the toll for 5-axle 18-wheelers in spite of the base rate increase.  The bad news is that the rates will now go up every year.

[InterstateNG]

A good number of trucks have a governor set at 70 mph as well.

Seen plenty of trucks on 130.  Every little bit helps.

[kphoger]

A good number of trucks have a governor set at 70 mph as well.

Seen plenty of trucks on 130.  Every little bit helps.

Yes, and many truckers still don't go over ____ insert speed.  But, while 62 mph is no 85 mph, it's still better than a traffic jam.

[BiggieJohn]

A good number of trucks have a governor set at 70 mph as well.

Seen plenty of trucks on 130.  Every little bit helps.

Yes, and many truckers still don't go over ____ insert speed.  But, while 62 mph is no 85 mph, it's still better than a traffic jam.

overtaking a slow moving truck moving at 65-70 when traffic is moving at 85+ can be dangerous in traffic. 
I'm not a math wizzerd, but I know I experience this on SH130 during commute traffic, where I come over a hill a suddenly find a very slow moving vehicle in front of me and I have about 1 second to decide can I merge left, or slam on the brakes, and will the guy behind me be able to slow as fast as I can.

[kphoger]

A good number of trucks have a governor set at 70 mph as well.

Seen plenty of trucks on 130.  Every little bit helps.

Yes, and many truckers still don't go over ____ insert speed.  But, while 62 mph is no 85 mph, it's still better than a traffic jam.

overtaking a slow moving truck moving at 65-70 when traffic is moving at 85+ can be dangerous in traffic. 
I'm not a math wizzerd, but I know I experience this on SH130 during commute traffic, where I come over a hill a suddenly find a very slow moving vehicle in front of me and I have about 1 second to decide can I merge left, or slam on the brakes, and will the guy behind me be able to slow as fast as I can.

Come over a hill on a freeway, and have to slam on your brakes in order to reduce your speed by only 20 mph?  Seriously?  That's no different than me driving 80 mph on I-80 in Illinois and coming over a hill to find a trucker going 60–a completely normal situation.

[J N Winkler]

I also hear that it will be signed concurrent with I-10 and the SE part of the I-410 Loop so it will be a true alternate to I-35 because of the increase in International Truck traffic along I-35 congesting it from San Antonio to Austin.

It is indeed to be so signed--TxDOT has just advertised a state-let maintenance contract (under CCSJ Bexar 6240-33-001) for the necessary large guide sign replacements.  In many cases the signs being replaced were erected in 2002-03 (as part of TxDOT's retroreflective sheeting upgrade program) and so are just ten years old.

[The High Plains Traveler]

I also hear that it will be signed concurrent with I-10 and the SE part of the I-410 Loop so it will be a true alternate to I-35 because of the increase in International Truck traffic along I-35 congesting it from San Antonio to Austin.

It is indeed to be so signed--TxDOT has just advertised a state-let maintenance contract (under CCSJ Bexar 6240-33-001) for the necessary large guide sign replacements.  In many cases the signs being replaced were erected in 2002-03 (as part of TxDOT's retroreflective sheeting upgrade program) and so are just ten years old.

I wonder whether, if TX-130 is successful in diverting traffic from I-35, there will be a push to install toll lanes along I-10 (currently two lanes each direction) from San Antonio east to the current south end of 130.

[bugo]

Another useless state highway duplex (IL/MO 110, IA 27, IA 163.) 

[Grzrd]

Many large truck drivers are refusing to use the new tollway because of the high tolls 

This TV video report discusses possible "incentives" to get truckers to use 130.  One comment in the report is that 130 is too expensive and too out-of-the-way.

[InterstateNG]

I also hear that it will be signed concurrent with I-10 and the SE part of the I-410 Loop so it will be a true alternate to I-35 because of the increase in International Truck traffic along I-35 congesting it from San Antonio to Austin.

It is indeed to be so signed--TxDOT has just advertised a state-let maintenance contract (under CCSJ Bexar 6240-33-001) for the necessary large guide sign replacements.  In many cases the signs being replaced were erected in 2002-03 (as part of TxDOT's retroreflective sheeting upgrade program) and so are just ten years old.

I drove all of SH 130 from US 290 down to I-10 and then over to San Antonio last night.  Curiously, the brand-new signage on 130 at the interchange with 10 doesn't even show that the 130 continues westbound down I-10.

130 was fairly busy from 290 down to 45, but the new stretch of road was pretty light, particularly south of Lockhart.  Clearly, most people are jumping on 45 to get back on SB I-35, bypassing downtown Austin, but 35 was an absolute mess last night from Buda all the way down to the south split with 410.  The VMS at the 130/45 junction needs to advise travellers if anything is out of the ordinary on 35.

If traffic ever meets projections, the loop ramp at 10/410 will need to be replaced with a flyover.  I can see that being a problem in the future.

[cpzilliacus]

Wall Street Journal: Texas Toll-Road Operator Files for Bankruptcy - SH 130 Concession Co. and two affiliates file for chapter 11 protection

The operator of a Texas toll road filed for chapter 11 protection Wednesday after failing to restructure some $1.3 billion in debt out of court.

SH 130 Concession Co. and two affiliates filed for chapter 11 protection in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Austin, Texas.

"The debtors commenced these chapter 11 cases with the goal of developing and implementing a comprehensive proposal designed to enable the debtors to restructure their debts and realize the full value of the toll road over time for the benefit of the debtors' creditors and other stakeholders,"  the company said in court papers.

SH 130 Concession said it plans to continue normal operations during the chapter 11 case.

[wxfree]

Wall Street Journal: Texas Toll-Road Operator Files for Bankruptcy - SH 130 Concession Co. and two affiliates file for chapter 11 protection

The operator of a Texas toll road filed for chapter 11 protection Wednesday after failing to restructure some $1.3 billion in debt out of court.

SH 130 Concession Co. and two affiliates filed for chapter 11 protection in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Austin, Texas.

"The debtors commenced these chapter 11 cases with the goal of developing and implementing a comprehensive proposal designed to enable the debtors to restructure their debts and realize the full value of the toll road over time for the benefit of the debtors' creditors and other stakeholders,"  the company said in court papers.

SH 130 Concession said it plans to continue normal operations during the chapter 11 case.

I've been expecting this.  There was an earlier restructuring that, in my non-expert opinion, gave TxDOT the right to cancel the concession and take over management of the road.  They didn't.  Bankruptcy most certainly does.  The concession agreement says that TxDOT can cancel the agreement immediately if the developer is in financial default.  TxDOT owns the land and the road.  Under the agreement the company leases the road and owns the toll revenue.  If the agreement were cancelled, the lease and right to future toll revenue would disappear.  TxDOT has the option to cancel the agreement to protect their rights.  That option is at TxDOT's "sole election."  We'll see what happens.  They could 1. Take back the road and keep the toll money, 2. Take back the road and eliminate tolls, or 3. Not take back the road, not be responsible for maintenance, and (maybe) continue getting a cut of the tolls.  The cut, 4.65%, is supposed to be off the top, but bankruptcy might change that, so there might be a reason to cancel the agreement in order to protect the revenue stream.

[cpzilliacus]

I've been expecting this.  There was an earlier restructuring that, in my non-expert opinion, gave TxDOT the right to cancel the concession and take over management of the road.  They didn't.  Bankruptcy most certainly does.  The concession agreement says that TxDOT can cancel the agreement immediately if the developer is in financial default.  TxDOT owns the land and the road.  Under the agreement the company leases the road and owns the toll revenue.  If the agreement were cancelled, the lease and right to future toll revenue would disappear.  TxDOT has the option to cancel the agreement to protect their rights.  That option is at TxDOT's "sole election."  We'll see what happens.  They could 1. Take back the road and keep the toll money, 2. Take back the road and eliminate tolls, or 3. Not take back the road, not be responsible for maintenance, and (maybe) continue getting a cut of the tolls.  The cut, 4.65%, is supposed to be off the top, but bankruptcy might change that, so there might be a reason to cancel the agreement in order to protect the revenue stream.

Wonder if the holders of the bonds might object to getting wiped-out in bankruptcy?  That would seem to be the result of a cancellation.

[wxfree]

I've been expecting this.  There was an earlier restructuring that, in my non-expert opinion, gave TxDOT the right to cancel the concession and take over management of the road.  They didn't.  Bankruptcy most certainly does.  The concession agreement says that TxDOT can cancel the agreement immediately if the developer is in financial default.  TxDOT owns the land and the road.  Under the agreement the company leases the road and owns the toll revenue.  If the agreement were cancelled, the lease and right to future toll revenue would disappear.  TxDOT has the option to cancel the agreement to protect their rights.  That option is at TxDOT's "sole election."  We'll see what happens.  They could 1. Take back the road and keep the toll money, 2. Take back the road and eliminate tolls, or 3. Not take back the road, not be responsible for maintenance, and (maybe) continue getting a cut of the tolls.  The cut, 4.65%, is supposed to be off the top, but bankruptcy might change that, so there might be a reason to cancel the agreement in order to protect the revenue stream.

Wonder if the holders of the bonds might object to getting wiped-out in bankruptcy?  That would seem to be the result of a cancellation.

That's a likely scenario.  The bonds were downgraded to junk status because they're secured only by toll revenue, which is subject to the agreement staying in force, and not by the road itself.  The agreement explicitly states that the state is not liable for the debt, so the bond terms would have included that.  The bondholders may come up with some creative about legal arguments to try.  Also, a federal loan puts the taxpayers on the hook for a half-billion.

I wonder how likely it is that TxDOT will go that route.  They have a fiduciary responsibility to protect the revenue stream, or to compensate for the loss with a public good, such as removing the tolls.  On the other hand, if they're eager to cancel their agreements at the first opportunity, the companies may be less willing to do business or demand better terms.

Of course, the biggest issue to consider is whether the speed limit will stay at 85.

[The Ghostbuster]

Is the bankruptcy due to too low traffic counts, and not enough toll revenue?