Potential I-35 Austin Bypass/I-35 Business/SH 130 Flip??

[US 41]

Because people are dumb and will stay on the mainline 35 route instead of taking a 3di advertised as a bypass. Why do people stay on I-70 through Wheeling, WV?

Because there is not a tunnel on I-470. 

[bugo]

Because people are dumb and will stay on the mainline 35 route instead of taking a 3di advertised as a bypass. Why do people stay on I-70 through Wheeling, WV?

Because they want to see the tunnel and the suspension bridge.

[thisdj78]

I don't think this will fly with the current political atmosphere in Austin. Texas already has a skeletal state budget and doesn't have the money to assume billions in debt by taking on 130.

With more tea party types getting elected this year, there will be even less funding for highways, and a gas tax rise to pay for it? Forget it.

If the plan is to toll lanes of I-35, wouldn't that shore up some of the costs?

[MaxConcrete]

Speaking of I-35, two weeks ago I photographed the construction along the corridor and posted the photos

http://www.houstonfreeways.com/photos/interstate-35-construction-august-2014

The construction zone is north of the section under discussion in this thread, extending from north of Georgetown to south of Hillsboro, about 80 miles.

[Anthony_JK]

I don't think this will fly with the current political atmosphere in Austin. Texas already has a skeletal state budget and doesn't have the money to assume billions in debt by taking on 130.

With more tea party types getting elected this year, there will be even less funding for highways, and a gas tax rise to pay for it? Forget it.

If the plan is to toll lanes of I-35, wouldn't that shore up some of the costs?

According to the plan I originally posted, only one lane in each direction on I-35 would be converted to "managed lanes" (i.e., tolled).  The remaining lanes would remain toll free.

Also, the proposal would only affect the segment of SH 130 from SH 45 northward, as well as the SH 45 connector between I-35 and SH 130. I assume that the remainder of 130 south of 45 to I-10 at Luling would remain a toll road, probably being picked up by a local tolling authority.

[thisdj78]

I don't think this will fly with the current political atmosphere in Austin. Texas already has a skeletal state budget and doesn't have the money to assume billions in debt by taking on 130.

With more tea party types getting elected this year, there will be even less funding for highways, and a gas tax rise to pay for it? Forget it.

If the plan is to toll lanes of I-35, wouldn't that shore up some of the costs?

According to the plan I originally posted, only one lane in each direction on I-35 would be converted to "managed lanes" (i.e., tolled).  The remaining lanes would remain toll free.

Also, the proposal would only affect the segment of SH 130 from SH 45 northward, as well as the SH 45 connector between I-35 and SH 130. I assume that the remainder of 130 south of 45 to I-10 at Luling would remain a toll road, probably being picked up by a local tolling authority.

I would think that managed lanes on I-35 would get more usage and revenue then that segment of 130 is now. I could be wrong though.

This swap proposal is the only thing I see as being feasible for I don't think we will see an expansion of I-35.

Move I-35 out east, expand to 6 or 8 lanes and give businesses incentives to relocate along the new route. The old route will eventually become a manageable urban freeway.

[SquonkHunter]

Speaking of I-35, two weeks ago I photographed the construction along the corridor and posted the photos

http://www.houstonfreeways.com/photos/interstate-35-construction-august-2014

The construction zone is north of the section under discussion in this thread, extending from north of Georgetown to south of Hillsboro, about 80 miles.

Thanks for the pics. I will be traveling Austin to Ft. Worth and back next week and was wondering what the status was on the construction. I can see it's gonna be a LONG day's drive. 

[SquonkHunter]

Made the trip OK. Not as bad as I had feared. I can see that it will be very nice when completed. After all these years, it will be hard to believe when it is done. Seems like 35 has been under continuous construction for many years now.

[codyg1985]

Speaking of I-35, two weeks ago I photographed the construction along the corridor and posted the photos

http://www.houstonfreeways.com/photos/interstate-35-construction-august-2014

The construction zone is north of the section under discussion in this thread, extending from north of Georgetown to south of Hillsboro, about 80 miles.

With all of the new capacity projects in the metro areas being tolled, I am surprised that TxDOT is able to afford not only adding an additional lane in each direction between Georgetown and Hillsboro, but also completely rebuilding the freeway as well. I guess they used bonds to finance all of this? I can't think of any other state that has been doing a major rebuild on this scale on a free interstate.

[dfwmapper]

The rebuild was needed. Many of the segments through cities like Troy, Bruceville-Eddy, Lorena, and West were extremely substandard, with low clearances, insufficient shoulders, nonexistent acceleration/deceleration lanes, limited sight distance because of poor vertical geometry, and two-way frontage roads in the cities, all while seeing ~60000 AADT in the rural areas (about twice as much as I-10 between San Antonio and Houston, or I-45 between Houston and Dallas) and heavy truck traffic.

[longhorn]

The rebuild was needed. Many of the segments through cities like Troy, Bruceville-Eddy, Lorena, and West were extremely substandard, with low clearances, insufficient shoulders, nonexistent acceleration/deceleration lanes, limited sight distance because of poor vertical geometry, and two-way frontage roads in the cities, all while seeing ~60000 AADT in the rural areas (about twice as much as I-10 between San Antonio and Houston, or I-45 between Houston and Dallas) and heavy truck traffic.

Yes, its was needed but the Temple rebuild is going to be a pain in the butt and chokepoint during construction for a couple of years.

[dfwmapper]

Yes, its was needed but the Temple rebuild is going to be a pain in the butt and chokepoint during construction for a couple of years.

Good thing the northwestern quarter of Loop 363 (between I-35 and SH36) is just about done being widened to 4 lanes with grade separations at SH36 and Wendeland. That will make the entire west side 4 lanes. I predict it will see a lot of use for the full year when Temple is still torn up but the rest of I-35 is done. Should have just built it as a full freeway, built a couple ramps, and rerouted I-35 to follow it. Make the old route I-235 or something and leave it as-is.

[thisdj78]

Yes, its was needed but the Temple rebuild is going to be a pain in the butt and chokepoint during construction for a couple of years.

Good thing the northwestern quarter of Loop 363 (between I-35 and SH36) is just about done being widened to 4 lanes with grade separations at SH36 and Wendeland. That will make the entire west side 4 lanes. I predict it will see a lot of use for the full year when Temple is still torn up but the rest of I-35 is done. Should have just built it as a full freeway, built a couple ramps, and rerouted I-35 to follow it. Make the old route I-235 or something and leave it as-is.

It's funny you mention that:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9782.msg229710#msg229710

[SquonkHunter]

The rebuild was needed. Many of the segments through cities like Troy, Bruceville-Eddy, Lorena, and West were extremely substandard, with low clearances, insufficient shoulders, nonexistent acceleration/deceleration lanes, limited sight distance because of poor vertical geometry, and two-way frontage roads in the cities, all while seeing ~60000 AADT in the rural areas (about twice as much as I-10 between San Antonio and Houston, or I-45 between Houston and Dallas) and heavy truck traffic.

The segments you mention were some of the first parts of I-35 built in Texas in the late 50s and early 60s when the state speed limit was 60 mph. Texas was notoriously cheap about ROW acquisition back then. Add to that the fact that absolutely nobody thought the traffic numbers would ever grow to what they are today. Texas only had 9.6 million population in 1960 but is over 26 million today. Hence the problems you listed. It wasn't until later in the 60s when that shortsighted practice began to change. Just look at the newly completed sections now and see the difference in design and general attitudes about highway construction. Nowdays they will bulldoze a strip a quarter mile wide and think nothing of it. At least they are attempting to build for future growth. I'm a geezer and a Texas native so I saw most of this stuff happen over the years. 

[Brian556]

The segments you mention were some of the first parts of I-35 built in Texas in the late 50s and early 60s when the state speed limit was 60 mph. Texas was notoriously cheap about ROW acquisition back then. Add to that the fact that absolutely nobody thought the traffic numbers would ever grow to what they are today. Texas only had 9.6 million population in 1960 but is over 26 million today. Hence the problems you listed. It wasn't until later in the 60s when that shortsighted practice began to change. Just look at the newly completed sections now and see the difference in design and general attitudes about highway construction. Nowdays they will bulldoze a strip a quarter mile wide and think nothing of it. At least they are attempting to build for future growth. I'm a geezer and a Texas native so I saw most of this stuff happen over the years. 

I've noticed that they are far less cheap than they used to be, an it's paying off. Here in Lewisville, they just bulldozed several homes built in 1998or9 in order to adequately widen I-35E.