News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

TX 130 to become Interstate 35E?

Started by wxfree, March 12, 2013, 02:02:20 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

wxfree

I'm not sure how this came about or how likely it is to pass, or of any other details, but it's been filed in the Texas house of representatives.
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/83R/billtext/html/HB03682I.htm
I'd like to buy a vowel, Alex.  What is E?


corco

Honestly, that would probably make sense, but I don't know why the AASHTO would go for it

agentsteel53

why not something like I-435?

it would also eliminate the awkwardness of an I-35E/I-10 multiplex into San Antonio.
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

wxfree

It would require a federal appropriation, meaning it may involve specific action by Congress.  Just like with I-69C, Congressional enactments trump AASHTO's rules.  I have many questions, such as why they'd put two I-35Es in the same state.  Maybe I-35SE would be better, but I really think I-x35 makes more sense.  Would the tolls be removed?  If not, what's the point of it?  Have the feds offered the $1.5 billion?  Why?  For what purpose?  With what conditions?  I'm hoping someone here knows something, or can find out.
I'd like to buy a vowel, Alex.  What is E?

InterstateNG

Paul Workman is the sponsor and is a legislator from Central Texas, my district in fact.  130 doesn't run through any part of his district.

The 1.5B is definitely to remove the tolls and to pay off the debt obligation and cancel the Cintra contract.  As pointed out, questions remain.  Is this to remove tolls on the whole stretch of 130, which is operated by two different entities.  What about the tolls on SH 45?

Should also stay out of the numbering business.  X35 is a better choice.
I demand an apology.

kkt

Quote from: wxfree on March 12, 2013, 02:26:51 PM
It would require a federal appropriation, meaning it may involve specific action by Congress.  Just like with I-69C, Congressional enactments trump AASHTO's rules.

Does that have to be so?  AASHTO owns the trademarke to the interstate shield.  If AASHTO says a state can't use their shield on a highway, even Congress shouldn't have the ability to set aside that trademark.  Right?

wxfree

When I read the text, my first thought, which is complete speculation and conjecture, was that the SH130CC was seeing traffic numbers well below projections, and that the projections were already pretty bad, and that they're no longer holding hope of a long-term improvement and profitability due to cancellation of the Trans-Texas Corridor project, which was planned to be built when the contract was signed, and that they now want to be bailed out.  TxDOT doesn't want another money-losing toll road, and doesn't have the money to buy out the lease, anyway.  Maybe the bypass has more potential to alleviate Austin traffic a bit than to make a bunch of money through tolls.

That's just my guess.  It wouldn't make sense to me to remove tolls only on the south end.  People would drive that part, then divert over to 35 through Austin, which is where traffic relief is most needed.
I'd like to buy a vowel, Alex.  What is E?

wxfree

Quote from: kkt on March 12, 2013, 04:07:58 PM
Quote from: wxfree on March 12, 2013, 02:26:51 PM
It would require a federal appropriation, meaning it may involve specific action by Congress.  Just like with I-69C, Congressional enactments trump AASHTO's rules.

Does that have to be so?  AASHTO owns the trademarke to the interstate shield.  If AASHTO says a state can't use their shield on a highway, even Congress shouldn't have the ability to set aside that trademark.  Right?

I don't know the answers to these questions.  The highways are owned by the states, and the states are subject to federal laws.  The highway would be numbered by the Texas Transportation Commission, which has to obey that legislation, if it passes.  I really think AASHTO should be allowed to set the number, since they have rules in place to ensure consistency.  I don't particularly like section 1(2) of the bill, but I can't change it, although the committee might.
I'd like to buy a vowel, Alex.  What is E?

Alps

Wasn't Texas looking to flip the two routes once 130 was paid off, putting 35 on the bypass to avoid sending through traffic through the ever-increasing development of San Antonio-Austin?

kkt

Quote from: Steve on March 12, 2013, 07:21:01 PM
Wasn't Texas looking to flip the two routes once 130 was paid off, putting 35 on the bypass to avoid sending through traffic through the ever-increasing development of San Antonio-Austin?

Ugh.  Unnecessary route changes.  Throws off the mileage and exit numbers.  Confuses the occasional visitor.

Just sign it as a recommended bypass.

wxfree

#10
Quote from: Steve on March 12, 2013, 07:21:01 PM
Wasn't Texas looking to flip the two routes once 130 was paid off, putting 35 on the bypass to avoid sending through traffic through the ever-increasing development of San Antonio-Austin?

There was something like that proposed.  The group that came up with the proposal wasn't considering the cost, which would be monstrous to buy out the lease and remove tolls from the northern portion of 130.  Possibilities included exchanging the designations and imposing tolls on the road through Austin to divert through traffic out of town while dropping tolls on the bypass (which could be redesignated as I-35).  I see no need to redesignate I-35, but giving 130 an Interstate number could make people more likely to recognize it as a bypass.

If the state can get this money, and provide a more useful bypass around Austin, I'm all for it.  But are the feds offering?  Is SH130CC looking to unload this project?  If so, that's a good thing.  Politicians are more likely to do this if it's a form of corporate welfare than if it's just a proposal to give people a less expensive route option

And, of course, the most important question hasn't even been asked yet.  If this road became a regular rural Interstate, what would happen to the speed limit?
I'd like to buy a vowel, Alex.  What is E?

InterstateNG

Quote from: wxfree on March 12, 2013, 04:19:56 PM
TxDOT doesn't want another money-losing toll road, and doesn't have the money to buy out the lease, anyway.  Maybe the bypass has more potential to alleviate Austin traffic a bit than to make a bunch of money through tolls.

Do the portions that TxDOT owns and operates and collects revenues from make money?  I have no idea.

So Cintra's segments don't make any money.  Doesn't cost TxDOT a dime.  That's the deal that was struck.  Outside of not wanting to give political opponents ammunition, I'm not sure why TxDOT would care.

TxDOT's handling of the marketing of this new road has been flawed.  Once the segments of SH45 were completed, it should have had a heavy ad blitz pushing that the bypass was ready.

There's also a fundamental misunderstanding of what's causing congestion on 35.  Through trucks certainly contribute, but any bypass of Austin isn't going to fix:

-35 being woefully antiquated with plenty of short on-ramps and weaving

-I live in South Austin and work North, if that's your commuting pattern (or the opposite) you have three options:  360/MoPac/35.  That's it, Austin lacks surface boulevards (like Metro Detroit) that can ferry traffic north and south.

Unlike what the idiots in the comments section of the Statesman/this bill want to do, those issues aren't going to be fixed by what the freeway through town and the toll road outside of it are designated.  A broader set of solutions are required.
I demand an apology.

wxfree

Quote from: InterstateNG on March 12, 2013, 07:46:16 PM
Do the portions that TxDOT owns and operates and collects revenues from make money?  I have no idea.

The Central Texas Turnpike System, in addition to be partly funded with tax money (SH 45SE entirely with tax money), has also been subsidized with over $100,000,000 for debt payments.  A recent article in the Statesman indicated that the CTTS may be profitable within a few years, partly due to toll increases, and partly due to 45SE being added to the system.  Since it has no debt, the revenue from it is mostly profit.  So we can say the system's been losing money but that is expected to change soon.

It's true (as I understand it) that making this bypass free wouldn't help a lot in Austin, but it would likely help some.  If this happens, it would be one step in the broader set of solutions required.

I could also see the Cintra portion being left alone, while tolls are removed from the north side and the 45 connector.  This still puts a free bypass in place, would cost a lot but much less, and lets Cintra eat their losses while saving TxDOT money maintaining that section of road.
I'd like to buy a vowel, Alex.  What is E?

kphoger

Quote from: wxfree on March 12, 2013, 07:40:45 PM
And, of course, the most important question hasn't even been asked yet.  If this road became a regular rural Interstate, what would happen to the speed limit?

No, but you can bet I was thinking it.




The whole corridor from I-35 to I-10 will be useful to me as a bypass of both Round Rock—Austin and San Antonio.  I already use I-410 to bypass San Antonio whenever I drive through the area, but I've been avoiding TX-130 because I don't have a TxTag and don't want to pay by mail.  I'll obviously be more likely to use TX-130 if they drop the tolls, but I've pretty much given in to the idea of getting a TxTag whenever we get a new car.  I don't care one hoot what the number on the thing is.  If they lower the speed limit, I'll be sad, but it will still be faster than sitting in traffic in Austin and Selma.
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

Rover_0

I hope that TxDOT doesn't get to number this I-35E (TX-II); an I-x35 (something like I-435) is much more reasonable.
Fixing erroneous shields, one at a time...

bugo

Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 12, 2013, 02:22:44 PM
why not something like I-435?

it would also eliminate the awkwardness of an I-35E/I-10 multiplex into San Antonio.

The co-signing is to mark the entire bypass of Austin as one route, making it easy to follow the alternate route.

InterstateNG

Quote from: bugo on March 13, 2013, 10:04:55 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on March 12, 2013, 02:22:44 PM
why not something like I-435?

it would also eliminate the awkwardness of an I-35E/I-10 multiplex into San Antonio.

The co-signing is to mark the entire bypass of Austin as one route, making it easy to follow the alternate route.

TxDOT ordered the 130 designation to be extended via 10/410 to the southern 35/410 junction in September 2011, but as of December 2012 130 signage ends at 10.  I'm sure there are VMS's instructing the way, but since in Texas VMS's rarely display any useful information, it's probably just being ignored.
I demand an apology.

kphoger

There were no VMSes that I saw in June 2012, and we took I-35 and I-410 in both directions.
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

InterstateNG

I know the VMS's in downtown SA alerted travelers to the fact the road was open in December.  I wasn't paying attention to the ones, if there are any, on 37 when I was down there a month ago.
I demand an apology.

kphoger

It could also be that there were VMSes, and I saw them, but promptly ignored and forgot about them since I already knew the highway was open and had decided not to use it.
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

codyg1985

When I was in Austin at the beginning of March, I noticed it was always backed up going into the central business district and the University of Texas campus. I also noticed quite a few trucks that would have fared better on the tolled TX 130 bypass. It seems like a lot of the attractions, from a traffic modeling standpoint, are in those areas.

Speaking of which, TX 130 was quite lightly traveled. It was a very nice road. The 80 and 85 mph speed limits were wonderful. I saw a couple of signs touting TX 45/130 as an alternate route to San Antonio, but IMO what doesn't help is that approaching the split, BOTH routes have a control city of Austin, which makes no sense to me. There is no mention of San Antonio or points beyond on either sign. I don't know about the approach from San Antonio, though.
Cody Goodman
Huntsville, AL, United States

Anthony_JK

Quote from: wxfree on March 12, 2013, 07:40:45 PM
Quote from: Steve on March 12, 2013, 07:21:01 PM
Wasn't Texas looking to flip the two routes once 130 was paid off, putting 35 on the bypass to avoid sending through traffic through the ever-increasing development of San Antonio-Austin?

There was something like that proposed.  The group that came up with the proposal wasn't considering the cost, which would be monstrous to buy out the lease and remove tolls from the northern portion of 130.  Possibilities included exchanging the designations and imposing tolls on the road through Austin to divert through traffic out of town while dropping tolls on the bypass (which could be redesignated as I-35).  I see no need to redesignate I-35, but giving 130 an Interstate number could make people more likely to recognize it as a bypass.

If the state can get this money, and provide a more useful bypass around Austin, I'm all for it.  But are the feds offering?  Is SH130CC looking to unload this project?  If so, that's a good thing.  Politicians are more likely to do this if it's a form of corporate welfare than if it's just a proposal to give people a less expensive route option

And, of course, the most important question hasn't even been asked yet.  If this road became a regular rural Interstate, what would happen to the speed limit?

The original plan was to reroute I-35 along SH 45 SE and then SH 130 North (removing the tolls and widening to 3x3); and redesignate existing I-35 through Austin as Business I-35/US 81 (and converting one general use lane to a tolled managed lane).

I believe that I actually had a thread here on that:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3683.msg81040#msg81040

Personally, I'd prefer I-35 stay as is, and this proposed bypass get an I-x35....but if it's signed correctly, it would be effective even as it currently is. Plus, the Cintra section S to I-10 can remain as a toll for the revenue and the attraction of higher speeds.

wxfree

Here, finally, is a bit more detail about this proposal.  SH130CC claims to have nothing to do with it.  Paul Workman is working with members of Congress to get the federal money.  The purpose is definitely to remove the tolls.  It would be cheaper and still effective to remove the tolls only from the northern portion of 130 and 45SE and giving that bypass a single designation.  It doesn't need to be a rule-breaking duplicate Interstate, or even an Interstate at all.  A free route around Austin would be enough to draw traffic.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Legislator-proposes-removing-tolls-from-Texas-130-4371569.php
I'd like to buy a vowel, Alex.  What is E?

InterstateNG

I demand an apology.

kkt

Do I have this right?  Texas allowed a private contractor to build a tollway with a dubious business case.  It's now open and not taking in enough money to pay for its bonds and maintenance.  Instead of this being the contractor's problem, or Texas' problem, the Texas congressional delegation thinks Uncle Sugar should give them additional transportation money to pay for it, even as maintenance on interstates we already have go unfunded?



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.