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

[Anthony_JK]

I was going through the TXDOT website when I came upon their webpage for proposed improvements to Interstate 35 from Laredo to the OK border via San Antonio/Austin/Waco/DFW.

Most of the suggestions for both highway and rail improvements aren't that new and have been discussed here before. But...here is one very interesting proposal that they have for a long-term fix for I-35 through Austin:

//ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/segment3/workshops/projects.pdf (Page 11).

Basically, it involves rerouting I-35 through the SH 45 tollway southeast of Austin and then through SH 130 tollway east of Austin and Georgetown...after both are widened to six lanes and the tolls removed. Existing I-35 through Austin and Georgetown would be converted to Business Route I-35, and would have one of its general purpose lanes in each direction converted to HOV/managed toll use.

The proposal would also improve and widen the remaining segment of SH 130 from I-10 E of San Antonio to SH 45 SE to six lanes and remove the tolls there, too.

The webpage does say that FHWA approval would be needed for the designation switch.

In effect, I-35 would get its own "relief route".

My only Q:  why not simply end the tolls and designate the "relief route" as an I-x35 loop and save the time??


Anthony

I corrected the link for you once I realized it was not going to the proper PDF.  

[Scott5114]

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?

[J N Winkler]

If the tolls are removed, TxDOT would have to liquidate the construction cost of SH 130 some other way and it doesn't have the money.

[Alps]

Tolls ought not to end until after the widening is complete, and the tolls indeed ought to recoup the cost of construction before being removed.  I'm not from TxDOT, so I don't know what timeframe that would require.

[J N Winkler]

I don't have SH 130 toll revenues at my fingertips.  However, it has been and is being built in multiple segments, with the northern segments being a TxDOT turnpike (administered by the Texas Turnpike Authority, which is a division of TxDOT) and the lower segments being designed, built, and financed through a CDA which gives the right to collect tolls for fifty years.  I don't see tolls being abolished on the TxDOT segments before expiry of that CDA, except as part of a deal where TxDOT buys back the CDA before it expires.  I also don't see TxDOT having the money to finance such a deal absent a massive increase in the state gas tax (which probably should be at least three times what it is now).

I vaguely remember a figure of $3 billion for the TxDOT segments.

[Sykotyk]

I've always felt having a toll bypass and a free throughout as the most counterproductive setup you can create for a freeway. Denver's E470 has a similar issue. It's so sparsely used by the traffic that SHOULD be using it (i.e., non-stop non-local through traffic).

Sykotyk

[Anthony_JK]

I am assuming that the tolls would not be lifted and the switch made until the widening was completed and the bonds used to fund the widening and the tolls were fully paid for.


Anthony

[bogdown]

Gas Tax Much?

[Anthony_JK]

Quick update:

TXDOT and the My35 Segment Three Committee has officially endorsed the proposed flip as a short-term project.

A PDF of the proposal can be found at the TXDOT My35 Reports and Plans page: 

http://www.my35.org/about/reports_plans.htm
(click on "Segment Three Recommendation Report" and then scroll to page 16 and 17).

Apparantly, the idea is to buy out the bonds used to pay for construction of Toll 130 and Toll 45SE, then use general highway funds to widen them to six lanes, and then do the switchover.

The existing I-35 through Austin and Georgetown would be transferred to a state route (as Business Route I-35), and would have one of its free lanes in each direction converted to HOT/HOV use. Ultimately, in the long term, it would also be widened to 4 lanes in each direction (3 free + 1 HOT/managed).

Also, the existing Toll 130 south of Toll 45SE to I-10 near Sequin would also be widened  to six lanes and have its tolls removed as well.

Like it?? Or, spike it???


Anthony

[note: edited to correct linkage]

[Sykotyk]

As long as the bypass is free, I'm all for it. If it's a change in name only, nope.

[Henry]

I was going through the TXDOT website when I came upon their webpage for proposed improvements to Interstate 35 from Laredo to the OK border via San Antonio/Austin/Waco/DFW.

Most of the suggestions for both highway and rail improvements aren't that new and have been discussed here before. But...here is one very interesting proposal that they have for a long-term fix for I-35 through Austin:

//ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/segment3/workshops/projects.pdf (Page 11).

Basically, it involves rerouting I-35 through the SH 45 tollway southeast of Austin and then through SH 130 tollway east of Austin and Georgetown...after both are widened to six lanes and the tolls removed. Existing I-35 through Austin and Georgetown would be converted to Business Route I-35, and would have one of its general purpose lanes in each direction converted to HOV/managed toll use.

The proposal would also improve and widen the remaining segment of SH 130 from I-10 E of San Antonio to SH 45 SE to six lanes and remove the tolls there, too.

The webpage does say that FHWA approval would be needed for the designation switch.

In effect, I-35 would get its own "relief route".

My only Q:  why not simply end the tolls and designate the "relief route" as an I-x35 loop and save the time??


Anthony

I corrected the link for you once I realized it was not going to the proper PDF. 

Worst-case scenario: It could become Greensboro West! (Remember when they decided to remove I-40 from the freeway going through town and rerouted it around the bypass, only to put it back through town? IIRC, besides the confusion the reroute caused among motorists familiar with the old route, the re-reroute was done because residents living near the bypass complained about increased noise levels that resulted from higher traffic levels.)

[Anthony_JK]

Thanks for the correction.  I had attempted to link the original pdf, but somehow it didn't take.

I still say they could have kept I-35 as is and made the proposed loop an I-x35 bypass (or just kept is as is as TX 45/TX 130)...but I'm guessing that the plan is to get heavy truck and through traffic out of I-35 through central Austin to use the bypass...and signing I-35 on the bypass would probably help.


Anthony

[Alps]

Worst-case scenario: It could become Greensboro West! (Remember when they decided to remove I-40 from the freeway going through town and rerouted it around the bypass, only to put it back through town? IIRC, besides the confusion the reroute caused among motorists familiar with the old route, the re-reroute was done because residents living near the bypass complained about increased noise levels that resulted from higher traffic levels.)

Wrong. The re-reroute was done to avoid losing Federal funds for the highway through the city that no longer had an Interstate designation. I don't see why it couldn't have been I-640.

[Anthony_JK]

Good point, Steve...and that would come into factor with the I-35 flip because the plan is to make the former route through Austin a state-funded highway (albeit with a Federal designation of Interstate Business 35). It would be no longer, I assume, funded through the Interstate system, but through state funds.


Anthony

[Alps]

Good point, Steve...and that would come into factor with the I-35 flip because the plan is to make the former route through Austin a state-funded highway (albeit with a Federal designation of Interstate Business 35). It would be no longer, I assume, funded through the Interstate system, but through state funds.


Anthony

If it's an original chargeable Interstate, bear in mind new highways aren't added to chargeable mileage. My guess is they'll want to rethink this.

[J N Winkler]

Wrong. The re-reroute was done to avoid losing Federal funds for the highway through the city that no longer had an Interstate designation.

That rationale was cited by Jim Dunlop (of NCDOT) in MTR a few years ago when that story was current, but I don't think that was the real reason.  If NCDOT had wanted to keep I-40 on its new routing but retain IM eligibility for the former length of I-40, it could easily have given the latter a hidden Interstate designation, much as California did with Business 80 (hidden I-305).

I think NCDOT decided to shift I-40 back onto its original routing because the new routing was several miles longer and out of the way.  Reality ultimately bit.

I don't see why it couldn't have been I-640.

It could very well have been, but the original plan was Business 40 rather than a red-white-blue designation and NCDOT stuck with it.  I am not aware that NCDOT ever adequately explained the rationale, but I suspect it was an attempt on their part to egg routing choices in favor of the newer, longer, and more circuitous alternative.

[Henry]

Wrong. The re-reroute was done to avoid losing Federal funds for the highway through the city that no longer had an Interstate designation.

That rationale was cited by Jim Dunlop (of NCDOT) in MTR a few years ago when that story was current, but I don't think that was the real reason.  If NCDOT had wanted to keep I-40 on its new routing but retain IM eligibility for the former length of I-40, it could easily have given the latter a hidden Interstate designation, much as California did with Business 80 (hidden I-305).

I think NCDOT decided to shift I-40 back onto its original routing because the new routing was several miles longer and out of the way.  Reality ultimately bit.

They're getting it anyway with I-73 on the loop.

I don't see why it couldn't have been I-640.

It could very well have been, but the original plan was Business 40 rather than a red-white-blue designation and NCDOT stuck with it.  I am not aware that NCDOT ever adequately explained the rationale, but I suspect it was an attempt on their part to egg routing choices in favor of the newer, longer, and more circuitous alternative.

At one point, they were planning to use I-640 for the new outer beltway around Raleigh, but then decided against it. So there's a gap between I-440 and I-840. If I-40 Business in Winston-Salem is ever upgraded to the current standards, I-640 would be a perfect number to use there.

[Anthony_JK]

Good point, Steve...and that would come into factor with the I-35 flip because the plan is to make the former route through Austin a state-funded highway (albeit with a Federal designation of Interstate Business 35). It would be no longer, I assume, funded through the Interstate system, but through state funds.


Anthony

If it's an original chargeable Interstate, bear in mind new highways aren't added to chargeable mileage. My guess is they'll want to rethink this.

Hmmm...since I-35 was originally an upgrade of US 81 (???), I'm not sure that it was a chargeable Interstate. And even if so, I'm guessing that they could still use a US designation along with the I BUS x35 for cover. I'm assuming that if the flip was made, old I-35 would still be on the Interstate system, even if mostly state funded.


Anthony

[NE2]

U.S. Route designations have no relation to federal funding.

[J N Winkler]

Hmmm...since I-35 was originally an upgrade of US 81 (???), I'm not sure that it was a chargeable Interstate. And even if so, I'm guessing that they could still use a US designation along with the I BUS x35 for cover. I'm assuming that if the flip was made, old I-35 would still be on the Interstate system, even if mostly state funded.

If the flip occurred, TxDOT would still need, at bare minimum, a hidden Interstate designation on present I-35 to maintain eligibility for IM funding.  This could be handled transparently, the way part of US 75 in Dallas is hidden I-345.  NE2 is correct that the US route designation by itself does not attract federal funding.  This is equally true of Interstate business designations.  Business 80 in Sacramento counts as an Interstate because it is part of hidden I-305, not because it is Business 80.

In regard to the "chargeable" designation, that means just that at the time of original construction, the state had the option to bill BPR (or, as it later became, FHWA) for a 90% share of the expenses associated with developing the facility to full Interstate standard.  The extent of development varied; it could consist of widening an existing road or building a brand-new highway on a completely separate location.  A length of Interstate counts as chargeable if it is part of the Interstate network approved as chargeable, regardless of whether Interstate Construction funds were actually used to build it.  There is in fact a significant mileage of chargeable Interstate whose construction was originally funded through the FAP program and other funding channels.

[Brandon]

^^ Not like Texas has a lack of I-35 3dis.  Name it I-235 and be done with it.

[Alps]

The new discussion has been moved to Ohio Valley.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6360.0

[thisdj78]

Looks like the swap idea is still alive and reported on as late as last fall, adding article for update. Thoughts?

http://www.kvue.com/story/news/2014/05/25/2421892/

[longhorn]

All I know the Spanish company is loosing money on the route. Make them a deal they cannot refuse.

[Road Hog]

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.