Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[thisdj78]

There’s a lot of growth going on in the area between San Antonio and Austin, so I figure it deserves it’s own project thread.

First one, which I wasn’t even aware of:

I was traveling through San Marcos last night and on my Waze GPS I though I noticed a set of access roads and a grade separated intersection on the map to the south, sure enough I look it up and there is a limited access bypass they are building around southeastern San Marcos:

https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/TxDOT-Hill-County-project-16974867.php

[Bobby5280]

The FM-110 project has possibilities for being an Interstate quality partial loop for San Marcos. But it is getting started with pretty humble beginnings. And it's going to be hella-tricky for TX DOT (or whoever) to acquire and keep enough ROW preserved for the project to get completed as desired. Otherwise the finished "loop" is going to be a mix of limited access exits and surface streets with traffic signals. The South segment already looks like it's on the way to be reduced to a surface street past the limited access exit with TX-123.

[thisdj78]

The FM-110 project has possibilities for being an Interstate quality partial loop for San Marcos. But it is getting started with pretty humble beginnings. And it's going to be hella-tricky for TX DOT (or whoever) to acquire and keep enough ROW preserved for the project to get completed as desired. Otherwise the finished "loop" is going to be a mix of limited access exits and surface streets with traffic signals. The South segment already looks like it's on the way to be reduced to a surface street past the limited access exit with TX-123.

West of 123, looks like there is one business and a few houses that are in the ROW, so yeah as long as they don’t build more they should be fine. East of 123 it’s fairly clear.

What this region also needs (in addition to fully limited access loops around NB, SM and Kyle) are a few freeway connections between I-35 and the 130 toll.

[sprjus4]

Diving into fictional, but one toll road connecting I-35 and SH-130 intersecting in between San Marcos and New Braunfels would seem sufficient to connect those cities to I-10 East.

[thisdj78]

Diving into fictional, but one toll road connecting I-35 and SH-130 intersecting in between San Marcos and New Braunfels would seem sufficient to connect those cities to I-10 East.

Agreed. Something going from Hunter to the first turn south on 130:

[armadillo speedbump]

What this region also needs (in addition to fully limited access loops around NB, SM and Kyle) 

Not realistic and not necessary, other than an east freeway bypass of San Marcos.  That would be good for San Antonio to 21, Austin to Seguin, Austin to 80 relief.  I don't know if TXDOT and Hays County have that in their long range plans. 

$$$$ doesn't grow on trees and NIMBYism is just going to increase west of I-35.

[thisdj78]

What this region also needs (in addition to fully limited access loops around NB, SM and Kyle) 

Not realistic and not necessary, other than an east freeway bypass of San Marcos.  That would be good for San Antonio to 21, Austin to Seguin, Austin to 80 relief.  I don't know if TXDOT and Hays County have that in their long range plans. 

$$$$ doesn't grow on trees and NIMBYism is just going to increase west of I-35.

New Braunfels already has a loop with ROW it just needs to be fully converted to limited access.

Kyle does have long range plans for a loop, but I didn’t see whether it would be limited access or not:

[Bobby5280]

In the zone between Austin and San Antonio, I think what's more urgently needed are limited access links for New Braunfels and San Marcos down to I-10. Basically the TX-46 corridor from New Braunfels to Seguin needs to be upgraded. Same goes for the TX-80 corridor from San Marcos to Luling. Those projects would provide limited access links from New Braunfels and San Marcos direct to/from Houston.

New Braunfels already has a loop with ROW it just needs to be fully converted to limited access.

Loop-337 in New Braunfels is kind of a mess. They're trying to improve the North half of the loop to limited access, but both ends connecting to I-35 are getting over-grown with development. The North end looks like a particularly difficult problem to solve. Turning that into a full loop is going to be a painful process.

Much of the larger TX-46 corridor from Boerne (I-10) across to Bulverde (US-218) to New Braunfels (I-35) down to Seguin (I-10) is looking more like a missed opportunity. I think it's a regional bypass leg that still needs to be built somehow. The existing road will probably end up being no better than a mix of 4/5-lane undivided streets with limited access exits at some major intersections. That would force any new regional bypass onto mostly new terrain alignments.

[ethanhopkin14]

The FM-110 project has possibilities for being an Interstate quality partial loop for San Marcos. But it is getting started with pretty humble beginnings. And it's going to be hella-tricky for TX DOT (or whoever) to acquire and keep enough ROW preserved for the project to get completed as desired. Otherwise the finished "loop" is going to be a mix of limited access exits and surface streets with traffic signals. The South segment already looks like it's on the way to be reduced to a surface street past the limited access exit with TX-123.

So I worked on the FM-110 project in the mid 00s and there was a land owner on the route that was talking to me for a while and he kept repeating that he liked the road but didn't like the limited access aspect of it.  I was being professional with him and just let him talk.  His understanding of limited access was he couldn't have a driveway on to the road, totally not taking in to consideration Texas loves a frontage road and limited access doesn't mean it is limited to you having highway frontage.  They are two fancy words that mean "freeway". 

[sprjus4]

In the zone between Austin and San Antonio, I think what's more urgently needed are limited access links for New Braunfels and San Marcos down to I-10. Basically the TX-46 corridor from New Braunfels to Seguin needs to be upgraded. Same goes for the TX-80 corridor from San Marcos to Luling. Those projects would provide limited access links from New Braunfels and San Marcos direct to/from Houston.

I don't see a need for two separate limited access highways... as I suggested above, one tollway link located around halfway between the two cities linking I-35 to the final curve in SH-130 would be adequate.

Combined, that new link and the last 8 miles of SH-130 would provide a connection between the two cities and I-10 East.

Around 10 miles of new location highway vs. upgrading 20 miles of existing roadway.

[thisdj78]

In the zone between Austin and San Antonio, I think what's more urgently needed are limited access links for New Braunfels and San Marcos down to I-10. Basically the TX-46 corridor from New Braunfels to Seguin needs to be upgraded. Same goes for the TX-80 corridor from San Marcos to Luling. Those projects would provide limited access links from New Braunfels and San Marcos direct to/from Houston.

I don't see a need for two separate limited access highways... as I suggested above, one tollway link located around halfway between the two cities linking I-35 to the final curve in SH-130 would be adequate.

Combined, that new link and the last 8 miles of SH-130 would provide a connection between the two cities and I-10 East.

Around 10 miles of new location highway vs. upgrading 20 miles of existing roadway.

If it’s ever to be built, they need to acquire the ROW like yesterday/ASAP. That land is pretty open now but I could see it filling up in the next 10 years, especially close to I-35.

[Bobby5280]

I don't see a need for two separate limited access highways... as I suggested above, one tollway link located around halfway between the two cities linking I-35 to the final curve in SH-130 would be adequate.

I don't agree. For one thing, TX-130 serves as an I-35 bypass for Austin-San Antonio traffic. The South end of TX-130 runs very close to San Antonio. It is not pointing toward Houston at all. It points to San Antonio. Next, there is so much rapid growth happening in both New Braunfels and San Marcos, not to mention peripheral growth South of Austin and North of San Antonio. Both New Braunfels and San Marcos will soon be more than large enough to justify their own specific super highway links to I-10.

[sprjus4]

I don't see a need for two separate limited access highways... as I suggested above, one tollway link located around halfway between the two cities linking I-35 to the final curve in SH-130 would be adequate.

I don't agree. For one thing, TX-130 serves as an I-35 bypass for Austin-San Antonio traffic. The South end of TX-130 runs very close to San Antonio. It is not pointing toward Houston at all. It points to San Antonio. Next, there is so much rapid growth happening in both New Braunfels and San Marcos, not to mention peripheral growth South of Austin and North of San Antonio. Both New Braunfels and San Marcos will soon be more than large enough to justify their own specific super highway links to I-10.

25 miles from San Marcos and 10 miles from New Braunfels.

35 miles of new highway construction vs. 10 miles on one new highway.

Unless both highways are going to be carrying 30,000 - 40,000 AADT each, there’s zero need for two.

I-10 to the east carries around 30,000 AADT. The vast majority is coming from San Antonio. A combined highway from both San Marcos and New Braunfels to I-10 carrying maybe up to 20,000 AADT in the long term is more than adequate.

As for the southern end of SH-130, it’s sort of perpendicular to I-10 at that point. You would travel south on SH-130 to I-10 then turn east. You’re not really going west towards San Antonio.

[longhorn]

What needs to happen is a fourth lane to I-35 each way between SAT and AUS. Convert the inside shoulder, or something else, I don't care but that freeway needwd some extra capacity between those two cities 10 years ago.

[thisdj78]

What needs to happen is a fourth lane to I-35 each way between SAT and AUS. Convert the inside shoulder, or something else, I don't care but that freeway needwd some extra capacity between those two cities 10 years ago.

Funny thing is, the 3 lane expansion in that area is only about 15-20 years old. I remember they were working on it when I left San Marcos in ‘99.

With all the bridge replacements being done, looks like they are preparing for future 4th lanes, but with the time, money and disruption it will take to complete that, it would be much easier to make toll 130 free and route semi truck traffic that way. I think even expanding 130 would be much easier than I-35 as well, at least in the near term.

[sprjus4]

What needs to happen is a fourth lane to I-35 each way between SAT and AUS. Convert the inside shoulder, or something else, I don't care but that freeway needwd some extra capacity between those two cities 10 years ago.

Funny thing is, the 3 lane expansion in that area is only about 15-20 years old. I remember they were working on it when I left San Marcos in ‘99.

With all the bridge replacements being done, looks like they are preparing for future 4th lanes, but with the time, money and disruption it will take to complete that, it would be much easier to make toll 130 free and route semi truck traffic that way. I think even expanding 130 would be much easier than I-35 as well, at least in the near term.

I feel regardless of SH-130, I-35 ought to be expanded to 8 lanes anyways. It connects San Antonio and Austin traffic, and even if SH-130 took more traffic, there’s still going to be 100,000+ AADT on I-35.

[longhorn]

What needs to happen is a fourth lane to I-35 each way between SAT and AUS. Convert the inside shoulder, or something else, I don't care but that freeway needwd some extra capacity between those two cities 10 years ago.

Funny thing is, the 3 lane expansion in that area is only about 15-20 years old. I remember they were working on it when I left San Marcos in ‘99.

With all the bridge replacements being done, looks like they are preparing for future 4th lanes, but with the time, money and disruption it will take to complete that, it would be much easier to make toll 130 free and route semi truck traffic that way. I think even expanding 130 would be much easier than I-35 as well, at least in the near term.

Yeah, I remember the I-35 rebuild between SAT and AUS. But other than the overpass at Buda (and I not sure why they replaced it), what other I-35 bridge has been rebuilt?

[ski-man]

I always wondered why they made the freeway 8 lanes only in the New Braunfels area and not also along that whole route, knowing even back in the 90's how much that area was already starting to grow.

[thisdj78]

What needs to happen is a fourth lane to I-35 each way between SAT and AUS. Convert the inside shoulder, or something else, I don't care but that freeway needwd some extra capacity between those two cities 10 years ago.

Funny thing is, the 3 lane expansion in that area is only about 15-20 years old. I remember they were working on it when I left San Marcos in ‘99.

With all the bridge replacements being done, looks like they are preparing for future 4th lanes, but with the time, money and disruption it will take to complete that, it would be much easier to make toll 130 free and route semi truck traffic that way. I think even expanding 130 would be much easier than I-35 as well, at least in the near term.

Yeah, I remember the I-35 rebuild between SAT and AUS. But other than the overpass at Buda (and I not sure why they replaced it), what other I-35 bridge has been rebuilt?

Several of the old two lane bridges over I-35 have been tore down between San Marcos and New Braunfels and replaced with bridges for those roads to go under I-35. This is the most recent example:

https://goo.gl/maps/YKhNbG5XfrySTPqRA

[thisdj78]

I always wondered why they made the freeway 8 lanes only in the New Braunfels area and not also along that whole route, knowing even back in the 90's how much that area was already starting to grow.

I’ve always wondered that too. With the University traffic in and around San Marcos, you’d think it would be the other way around (or both get 4 lanes).

[Bobby5280]

I-10 to the east carries around 30,000 AADT. The vast majority is coming from San Antonio. A combined highway from both San Marcos and New Braunfels to I-10 carrying maybe up to 20,000 AADT in the long term is more than adequate.

You're under-estimating current AADT counts and just plain ignoring the future potential.

According to TX DOT's TCDS database the TX-46 corridor from New Braunfels to Seguin ranges from 37,828 at I-35, drops to 19,908 at I-10. TX-46 is mostly a 5-lane undivided road along that segment. Also, TX-46 doesn't intersect with the TX-130 toll road at all. Anyone in the New Braunfels area heading to Houston would be going out of their way to use TX-130 at all in their road trip.

TX-80 in San Marcos at I-35 has a 32,120 AADT. That number soon drops in half and then well below 10,000 AADT farther South where there is currently little commercial or residential development. Considering all the population growth in that region things can change dramatically.

As for the southern end of SH-130, it’s sort of perpendicular to I-10 at that point.

The overall route, as crooked as it was built, is still a parallel route for I-35. No one in that region driving to Houston is going to stay on TX-130 all the way to its South terminus at I-10. People driving from the San Marcos area are going to use TX-80 & US-183 to get to I-10, not TX-130. US-183 will be the route of choice for people in Lockhart. Farther North they're going to be using TX-71 and US-290 to go to Houston.

[thisdj78]

I-10 to the east carries around 30,000 AADT. The vast majority is coming from San Antonio. A combined highway from both San Marcos and New Braunfels to I-10 carrying maybe up to 20,000 AADT in the long term is more than adequate.

You're under-estimating current AADT counts and just plain ignoring the future potential.

According to TX DOT's TCDS database the TX-46 corridor from New Braunfels to Seguin ranges from 37,828 at I-35, drops to 19,908 at I-10. TX-46 is mostly a 5-lane undivided road along that segment. Also, TX-46 doesn't intersect with the TX-130 toll road at all. Anyone in the New Braunfels area heading to Houston would be going out of their way to use TX-130 at all in their road trip.

TX-80 in San Marcos at I-35 has a 32,120 AADT. That number soon drops in half and then well below 10,000 AADT farther South where there is currently little commercial or residential development. Considering all the population growth in that region things can change dramatically.

As for the southern end of SH-130, it’s sort of perpendicular to I-10 at that point.

The overall route, as crooked as it was built, is still a parallel route for I-35. No one in that region driving to Houston is going to stay on TX-130 all the way to its South terminus at I-10. People driving from the San Marcos area are going to use TX-80 & US-183 to get to I-10, not TX-130. US-183 will be the route of choice for people in Lockhart. Farther North they're going to be using TX-71 and US-290 to go to Houston.

New Braunfels and San Marcos have grown so much that I think it would come down to what side of town folks are on. I could see people on the far eastern ends of NB using a freeway connection from I-35 to 130, same with people on the western end of SM. Especially if the speed limit is 75-80. Less direct but would still save time.

[longhorn]

What needs to happen is a fourth lane to I-35 each way between SAT and AUS. Convert the inside shoulder, or something else, I don't care but that freeway needwd some extra capacity between those two cities 10 years ago.

Funny thing is, the 3 lane expansion in that area is only about 15-20 years old. I remember they were working on it when I left San Marcos in ‘99.

With all the bridge replacements being done, looks like they are preparing for future 4th lanes, but with the time, money and disruption it will take to complete that, it would be much easier to make toll 130 free and route semi truck traffic that way. I think even expanding 130 would be much easier than I-35 as well, at least in the near term.

Yeah, I remember the I-35 rebuild between SAT and AUS. But other than the overpass at Buda (and I not sure why they replaced it), what other I-35 bridge has been rebuilt?

Several of the old two lane bridges over I-35 have been tore down between San Marcos and New Braunfels and replaced with bridges for those roads to go under I-35. This is the most recent example:

https://goo.gl/maps/YKhNbG5XfrySTPqRA

Thanks, I see that now, I always take the 130 tollway to SAT, so I did not notice this last month.

https://www.google.com/maps/@29.7463472,-98.0578536,3a,75y,330.39h,92.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPMR5P1I5Bud_yfJPRUerEA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en-US

[thisdj78]

1,900-acre Texas community breaks ground on 15 year housing project

The 6,000 residential units include single-family homes, duplexes, townhouses, and multi-family units throughout the 1,888-acre development in New Braunfels

Looks like a new overpass is being built to accommodate this project:

https://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Mayfair-New-Braunfels-groundbreaking-17078882.php