A friend of mine in Oklahoma recently took a trip to San Antonio and he said the Dallas to San Antonio section was hell with all the congestion. My question is it really that bad on I-35?
Short answer: yes. Much of this length is only four lanes and has been receiving long overdue upgrades (in Bell and McLennan counties) to six lanes. SH 130 is available to bypass Austin (which has a double-deck segment which is severely congested and cannot be widened) but entails high tolls and a substantial amount of out-of-the-way travel, so it is severely underused.
Quote from: J N Winkler on February 17, 2012, 05:14:54 AM
Short answer: yes. Much of this length is only four lanes and has been receiving long overdue upgrades (in Bell and McLennan counties) to six lanes. SH 130 is available to bypass Austin (which has a double-deck segment which is severely congested and cannot be widened) but entails high tolls and a substantial amount of out-of-the-way travel, so it is severely underused.
Thanks for your reply. Besides widening in Bell and McLennan counties are there plans to widen the freeway the whole way from Dallas to San Antonio?
Quote from: dariusb on February 17, 2012, 02:07:27 PM
Besides widening in Bell and McLennan counties are there plans to widen the freeway the whole way from Dallas to San Antonio?
I have not looked at the I-35 Corridor Advisory Committee Plan (August, 2011) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/my35/advisory_plan.pdf), but it may give you an answer. You also might enjoy just going through it in general. In addition, I think serious consideration is being given (similar to Texarkana I-69 corridor) to possible leasing of air rights for the Freight Shuttle (http://freightshuttleinternational.com/) to help pay for some of the I-35 improvements.
I-35 costs about $18 and is 12 extra miles of driving. Traffic around DT Austin is awful in rush hours, & midday on the weekends for no reason. Passing through here on the weekend take 45 to Loop 1, briefly on 360, then 290 back to 35. Free & much quicker.
45 and 1 are not at all free, unless you are suggesting using the frontage roads.
45&130 costs around 10 bucks, doesn't take you that far out of your way and is signed at 75 mph with light traffic.
Quote from: Grzrd on February 17, 2012, 02:31:57 PM
Quote from: dariusb on February 17, 2012, 02:07:27 PM
Besides widening in Bell and McLennan counties are there plans to widen the freeway the whole way from Dallas to San Antonio?
Thanks for the link Grzrd.
I have not looked at the I-35 Corridor Advisory Committee Plan (August, 2011) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/my35/advisory_plan.pdf), but it may give you an answer. You also might enjoy just going through it in general. In addition, I think serious consideration is being given (similar to Texarkana I-69 corridor) to possible leasing of air rights for the Freight Shuttle (http://freightshuttleinternational.com/) to help pay for some of the I-35 improvements.
Quote from: InterstateNG on February 17, 2012, 04:23:41 PM
45 and 1 are not at all free, unless you are suggesting using the frontage roads.
45&130 costs around 10 bucks, doesn't take you that far out of your way and is signed at 75 mph with light traffic.
45 from 35 to Mopac and down to Scofield is not too spendy, or you can take 35 down to scofield and cut over to mopac, that is free and is a good option. $10 is a lot now that 35 has just been increased in speed. It is 70 MPH instead of 60 near Capital Plaza, and is now 65 MPH downtown.
Quote from: texaskdog on February 18, 2012, 03:26:56 PM
$10 is a lot now
No it isn't. Especially for the traveler who isn't passing through regularly.
Quotethat 35 has just been increased in speed. It is 70 MPH instead of 60 near Capital Plaza, and is now 65 MPH downtown.
Yeah those higher speed limits are nice, except in the times of congestion that you yourself mentioned earlier.
Also depending on the time of day, MoPac isn't a treat either.
Quote from: InterstateNG on February 18, 2012, 05:39:48 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on February 18, 2012, 03:26:56 PM
$10 is a lot now
No it isn't. Especially for the traveler who isn't passing through regularly.
Quotethat 35 has just been increased in speed. It is 70 MPH instead of 60 near Capital Plaza, and is now 65 MPH downtown.
Yeah those higher speed limits are nice, except in the times of congestion that you yourself mentioned earlier.
Also depending on the time of day, MoPac isn't a treat either.
I've taken 130, long way out of the way for a lot of money
It's a 12 mile difference.
Quote from: Grzrd on February 17, 2012, 02:31:57 PM
Quote from: dariusb on February 17, 2012, 02:07:27 PM
Besides widening in Bell and McLennan counties are there plans to widen the freeway the whole way from Dallas to San Antonio?
I have not looked at the I-35 Corridor Advisory Committee Plan (August, 2011) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/my35/advisory_plan.pdf), but it may give you an answer. You also might enjoy just going through it in general. In addition, I think serious consideration is being given (similar to Texarkana I-69 corridor) to possible leasing of air rights for the Freight Shuttle (http://freightshuttleinternational.com/) to help pay for some of the I-35 improvements.
I just had the opportunity to sit down and read the I-35 Corridor Plan and it was quite a lot of info. Thanks again Grzrd!
Quote from: InterstateNG on February 19, 2012, 01:23:43 AM
It's a 12 mile difference.
It's actually 42 miles on I-35 & 61 miles on the tollroad. So would you pay $12 extra to go a fast 61 miles when the 42 may or may not be backed up? and if youre not going the whole route its useless.
Er? Google gives 277 miles from San Antonio to Dallas via I-35 and 288 miles via the toll roads. One would think there'd be changeable message signs approaching the exit on I-35; even if not, you can get traffic on the radio.
Quote from: NE2 on February 20, 2012, 08:59:55 AM
Er? Google gives 277 miles from San Antonio to Dallas via I-35 and 288 miles via the toll roads. One would think there'd be changeable message signs approaching the exit on I-35; even if not, you can get traffic on the radio.
I did it on Google Maps from one end to the other, 42 or 61. when i did what you did it was 278 vs 284. So either 6, 11, 12, or 19 more miles.
Quote from: texaskdog on February 20, 2012, 08:31:56 AM
Quote from: InterstateNG on February 19, 2012, 01:23:43 AM
It's a 12 mile difference.
So would you pay $12 extra to go a fast 61 miles when the 42 may or may not be backed up?
Since the road is backed up more often than not, again, a point that you made earlier in this thread but seem to have forgotten, I easily would pay for the speedier option. Especially when most of that 42 is stop and go, not just a small pocket downtown.
Quoteand if youre not going the whole route its useless.
The whole purpose of 45 Southeast and 130 is to use the whole route. It hardly serves local needs but it isn't supposed to.
Quote from: NE2 on February 20, 2012, 08:59:55 AM
One would think there'd be changeable message signs approaching the exit on I-35
Which there are all the way from south of San Antonio past Austin.
Quote from: dariusb on February 19, 2012, 06:50:06 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on February 17, 2012, 02:31:57 PM
Quote from: dariusb on February 17, 2012, 02:07:27 PM
Besides widening in Bell and McLennan counties are there plans to widen the freeway the whole way from Dallas to San Antonio?
I have not looked at the I-35 Corridor Advisory Committee Plan (August, 2011) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/my35/advisory_plan.pdf), but it may give you an answer. You also might enjoy just going through it in general. In addition, I think serious consideration is being given (similar to Texarkana I-69 corridor) to possible leasing of air rights for the Freight Shuttle (http://freightshuttleinternational.com/) to help pay for some of the I-35 improvements.
I just had the opportunity to sit down and read the I-35 Corridor Plan and it was quite a lot of info. Thanks again Grzrd!
You're welcome dariusb! I just took a brief look at it myself and found the following right-of-way recommendation (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/my35/advisory_plan.pdf) to be interesting (page 26 of document; page 30/122 of pdf):
Quote
Consider common rights of way for rail and highway/multi-modal alignments, where feasible.
That recommendation fits in well with the recent TxDOT RFP (http://www.txdot.gov/business/freight_rfp.htm) regarding modes of freight transportation like the Freight Shuttle. Also, in regard to your initial question about Dallas to San Antonio plans, page 11/21 of this pdf (http://www.elpasotexas.gov/mayor/_documents/2011%2008%2012%20El%20Paso%20Border%20Mayors.pdf) indicates that the Dallas to San Antonio section of I-35 might be the first segment of a Freight Shuttle along the I-35 corridor and down to Mexico.
EDIT
I recently made the following post in the "TxDOT RFP For Leased ROW Freight Transportation" (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6191.0) thread and decided to add it here, as well:
Quote from: Grzrd on February 21, 2012, 11:31:26 AM
TxDOT received a proposal for the I-35 corridor, I assume for Dallas to San Antonio, which is currently under review. Here's part of an email reply I received from Roger Beall at TxDOT:
Quote
Thank you for your inquiry. We received one proposal on October 3, 2011 and their proposal was for leasing the right-of-way within a portion of the IH-35 corridor. The Texas Transportation Commission has not acted on moving forward with lease negotiations. We are in the process of clarifying some items from the proposer. No time frame has been set for Commission action to approve or disapprove moving forward with lease negotiations.
Please let me know if you have any other questions.
Quote from: Grzrd on February 20, 2012, 10:54:34 AM
Quote
Consider common rights of way for rail and highway/multi-modal alignments, where feasible.
That recommendation fits in well with the recent TxDOT RFP (http://www.txdot.gov/business/freight_rfp.htm) regarding modes of freight transportation like the Freight Shuttle. Also, in regard to your initial question about Dallas to San Antonio plans, page 11/21 of this pdf (http://www.elpasotexas.gov/mayor/_documents/2011%2008%2012%20El%20Paso%20Border%20Mayors.pdf) indicates that the Dallas to San Antonio section of I-35 might be the first segment of a Freight Shuttle along the I-35 corridor and down to Mexico.
I don't know how much of an issue it is on I-35, but grades are generally lower on rail rights-of-way than on highways.
Quote from: texaskdog on February 20, 2012, 10:25:15 AM
Quote from: NE2 on February 20, 2012, 08:59:55 AM
Er? Google gives 277 miles from San Antonio to Dallas via I-35 and 288 miles via the toll roads. One would think there'd be changeable message signs approaching the exit on I-35; even if not, you can get traffic on the radio.
I did it on Google Maps from one end to the other, 42 or 61. when i did what you did it was 278 vs 284. So either 6, 11, 12, or 19 more miles.
That's quite a disparity in the mileage.
Quote from: Grzrd on February 20, 2012, 10:54:34 AM
Quote from: dariusb on February 19, 2012, 06:50:06 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on February 17, 2012, 02:31:57 PM
Quote from: dariusb on February 17, 2012, 02:07:27 PM
Besides widening in Bell and McLennan counties are there plans to widen the freeway the whole way from Dallas to San Antonio?
I have not looked at the I-35 Corridor Advisory Committee Plan (August, 2011) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/my35/advisory_plan.pdf), but it may give you an answer. You also might enjoy just going through it in general. In addition, I think serious consideration is being given (similar to Texarkana I-69 corridor) to possible leasing of air rights for the Freight Shuttle (http://freightshuttleinternational.com/) to help pay for some of the I-35 improvements.
I just had the opportunity to sit down and read the I-35 Corridor Plan and it was quite a lot of info. Thanks again Grzrd!
You're welcome dariusb! I just took a brief look at it myself and found the following right-of-way recommendation (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/my35/advisory_plan.pdf) to be interesting (page 26 of document; page 30/122 of pdf):
Quote
Consider common rights of way for rail and highway/multi-modal alignments, where feasible.
That recommendation fits in well with the recent TxDOT RFP (http://www.txdot.gov/business/freight_rfp.htm) regarding modes of freight transportation like the Freight Shuttle. Also, in regard to your initial question about Dallas to San Antonio plans, page 11/21 of this pdf (http://www.elpasotexas.gov/mayor/_documents/2011%2008%2012%20El%20Paso%20Border%20Mayors.pdf) indicates that the Dallas to San Antonio section of I-35 might be the first segment of a Freight Shuttle along the I-35 corridor and down to Mexico.
They have quite a plan set up between now and 2035. Just hoping the funding will be in place for all those projects.
True dat, if the out of towners actually USED it it would help congestion in Austin. Then when those highways weren't congested, they'd come back :P They are actually considering buying it and making 130 into I-35 and making it free so A) there isn't the money penatly and B) the plebians who don't pay attention would just stay on 35.
Quote from: texaskdog on February 20, 2012, 01:18:27 PM
They are actually considering buying it and making 130 into I-35 and making it free so A) there isn't the money penatly and B) the plebians who don't pay attention would just stay on 35.
A scenario which is impossible for a whole host of reasons.
Quote from: InterstateNG on February 20, 2012, 02:13:31 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on February 20, 2012, 01:18:27 PM
They are actually considering buying it and making 130 into I-35 and making it free so A) there isn't the money penatly and B) the plebians who don't pay attention would just stay on 35.
A scenario which is impossible for a whole host of reasons.
Agreed...but we have morons like Perry hiring companies from Spain to build them. Back in 1985 the liberals killed the good plan
Quote from: texaskdog on February 20, 2012, 01:18:27 PM
True dat, if the out of towners actually USED it it would help congestion in Austin. Then when those highways weren't congested, they'd come back :P They are actually considering buying it and making 130 into I-35 and making it free so A) there isn't the money penatly and B) the plebians who don't pay attention would just stay on 35.
If 130 was made into I-35 then what would the old highway be called? 735, 835, 935?
366.
Quote from: dariusb on February 21, 2012, 03:26:19 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on February 20, 2012, 01:18:27 PM
True dat, if the out of towners actually USED it it would help congestion in Austin. Then when those highways weren't congested, they'd come back :P They are actually considering buying it and making 130 into I-35 and making it free so A) there isn't the money penatly and B) the plebians who don't pay attention would just stay on 35.
If 130 was made into I-35 then what would the old highway be called? 735, 835, 935?
238-E
Quote from: texaskdog on February 21, 2012, 10:24:37 AM
Quote from: dariusb on February 21, 2012, 03:26:19 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on February 20, 2012, 01:18:27 PM
True dat, if the out of towners actually USED it it would help congestion in Austin. Then when those highways weren't congested, they'd come back :P They are actually considering buying it and making 130 into I-35 and making it free so A) there isn't the money penatly and B) the plebians who don't pay attention would just stay on 35.
If 130 was made into I-35 then what would the old highway be called? 735, 835, 935?
238-E
Wow. Ok, I didn't expect that. I wonder why they'd use that number?
Quote from: dariusb on February 21, 2012, 03:16:18 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on February 21, 2012, 10:24:37 AM
Quote from: dariusb on February 21, 2012, 03:26:19 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on February 20, 2012, 01:18:27 PM
True dat, if the out of towners actually USED it it would help congestion in Austin. Then when those highways weren't congested, they'd come back :P They are actually considering buying it and making 130 into I-35 and making it free so A) there isn't the money penatly and B) the plebians who don't pay attention would just stay on 35.
If 130 was made into I-35 then what would the old highway be called? 735, 835, 935?
238-E
Wow. Ok, I didn't expect that. I wonder why they'd use that number?
I wonder why you think anyone knows what number they'd pick. Psychohistory doesn't work when applied to individual decisions.
As has already been mentioned on here, Texas plans to make I-35 at least six lanes all the way from San Antonio to DFW. I've driven the entire length from the OK line to within 25 miles of the Mexican border three times round-trip, and I've encountered fairly light traffic......the one time we did it in the middle of the night......like, getting going through Fort Worth sometime around midnight and getting into San Antonio shortly after 5:00 AM. All other times I've driven it, I've encountered slow traffic in Austin, at least one backed-up portion in/near Fort Worth, and heavy but well flowing traffic along the rest of the route.
I do use I-410 South to bypass San Antonio, but do not use any other bypasses along the way. I-820 around Fort Worth is too many miles out of the way, and is often not even where the congestion is. I have done a small bypass of downtown Dallas when we went that way instead of Fort Worth, using Loop 12 and I-20. I have never used the Austin bypass: for me to pay extra in order to drive more miles, it had sure better be worth it; a small segment of slow-moving traffic or a brief traffic jam is not enough to make me fork out the money, especially when I'm travelling with two vehicles (mine and someone else's) and they don't take cash.
I-35 was congested from I-410 to the Anderson Loop on both afternoons I traveled on it.
Quote from: NE2 on February 22, 2012, 05:15:05 AM
Psychohistory doesn't work when applied to individual decisions.
"The Mule" clause.
Quote from: NE2 on February 22, 2012, 05:15:05 AM
Quote from: dariusb on February 21, 2012, 03:16:18 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on February 21, 2012, 10:24:37 AM
Quote from: dariusb on February 21, 2012, 03:26:19 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on February 20, 2012, 01:18:27 PM
True dat, if the out of towners actually USED it it would help congestion in Austin. Then when those highways weren't congested, they'd come back :P They are actually considering buying it and making 130 into I-35 and making it free so A) there isn't the money penatly and B) the plebians who don't pay attention would just stay on 35.
If 130 was made into I-35 then what would the old highway be called? 735, 835, 935?
238-E
Wow. Ok, I didn't expect that. I wonder why they'd use that number?
I wonder why you think anyone knows what number they'd pick. Psychohistory doesn't work when applied to individual decisions.
What's your deal? I was just curious and thought someone might have some info. It ain't that serious is it?
Quote from: dariusb on February 22, 2012, 05:37:57 PM
What's your deal? I was just curious and thought someone might have some info. It ain't that serious is it?
welcome to the enchanted forest of NE2.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 22, 2012, 06:02:43 PM
Quote from: dariusb on February 22, 2012, 05:37:57 PM
What's your deal? I was just curious and thought someone might have some info. It ain't that serious is it?
welcome to the enchanted forest of NE2.
Lol, ok.
To give you an answer without NE2's gratuitous snark: Yes, it would probably be an even x35, unless it was determined that existing 35 was far enough below standard to warrant not retaining it as an Interstate, in which case it would get a Texas highway number of some kind. The possibility is also open for a Business I-35, as happened with old I-40 in Winston-Salem, NC. The 238 remark was a reference to I-238 in California being numbered badly.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on February 22, 2012, 06:02:43 PM
Quote from: dariusb on February 22, 2012, 05:37:57 PM
What's your deal? I was just curious and thought someone might have some info. It ain't that serious is it?
welcome to the enchanted forest of NE2.
He's got some delicious mushrooms
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 23, 2012, 04:50:33 PM
To give you an answer without NE2's gratuitous snark: Yes, it would probably be an even x35, unless it was determined that existing 35 was far enough below standard to warrant not retaining it as an Interstate, in which case it would get a Texas highway number of some kind. The possibility is also open for a Business I-35, as happened with old I-40 in Winston-Salem, NC. The 238 remark was a reference to I-238 in California being numbered badly.
Actually, according to TXDOT, their idea was to remove that portion of I-35 not transferred to the new SH 45 SE/SH 130 routing from the Interstate system and probably make it an Business 35/US 81 route, or perhaps even a state highway (SH 1035???).
Personally, I think they should keep the through section as I-35 and probably designate the "new" loop as an I-x35...but that's only me.
Anthony
Quote from: Anthony_JK on February 24, 2012, 02:35:51 AM
Actually, according to TXDOT, their idea was to remove that portion of I-35 not transferred to the new SH 45 SE/SH 130 routing from the Interstate system and probably make it an Business 35/US 81 route, or perhaps even a state highway (SH 1035???).
Do you have a copy of your correspondence with TxDOT that says that (or any article/announcement to that effect)?
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 23, 2012, 04:50:33 PM
To give you an answer without NE2's gratuitous snark: Yes, it would probably be an even x35, unless it was determined that existing 35 was far enough below standard to warrant not retaining it as an Interstate, in which case it would get a Texas highway number of some kind. The possibility is also open for a Business I-35, as happened with old I-40 in Winston-Salem, NC. The 238 remark was a reference to I-238 in California being numbered badly.
Oh ok cool. As for your comment on I-238, do you know the history of that roadway when it comes to the numbering? Was there supposed to be an I-38 at some point nearby?
Quote from: dariusb on February 24, 2012, 04:22:05 AM
Oh ok cool. As for your comment on I-238, do you know the history of that roadway when it comes to the numbering? Was there supposed to be an I-38 at some point nearby?
Learn to fish: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=As+for+your+comment+on+I-238%2C+do+you+know+the+history+of+that+roadway+when+it+comes+to+the+numbering%3F&l=1
I drove through the backup yesterday, took about 25 minutes to get from Koening to Ben White. I don't know if it's due to the new toll routes or what but the backup isn't as bad as it used to be. Southbound only started to backup around 32nd when it used to be well past Koening.
Expanding 35 (if it could be done given the right of way and contractual constraints) wouldn't do much if they don't fix the substandard ramps from UT down to Ben White. There is simply no room to accelerate onto the freeway.
Quote from: TheStranger on February 24, 2012, 03:39:17 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on February 24, 2012, 02:35:51 AM
Actually, according to TXDOT, their idea was to remove that portion of I-35 not transferred to the new SH 45 SE/SH 130 routing from the Interstate system and probably make it an Business 35/US 81 route, or perhaps even a state highway (SH 1035???).
Do you have a copy of your correspondence with TxDOT that says that (or any article/announcement to that effect)?
Here's a prior thread that Anthony started on the topic (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3683.0).
EDIT
Quote from: Anthony_JK on April 19, 2011, 01:00:31 PM
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).
Anthony
After Anthony made the above April 19 post in the prior thread, the I-35 Corridor Advisory Committee summarized their recommendation for the "flip" on page 78 of the I-35 Corridor Advisory Committee Plan (August 2011) (page 82/122 of pdf) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/my35/advisory_plan.pdf) as follows:
Quote
The I-35 Corridor Advisory Committee's recommendation involves the following actions:
A. Converting one general purpose lane on I-35 in each direction to a dynamically-priced managed lane while maintaining two non-tolled lanes in each direction from US 195 to SH 45SE, and re-designating the existing I-35 facility from an interstate to a non-interstate facility
B. Removing the tolls on SH 130 from US 195 north of Georgetown to SH 45SE in Mustang Ridge, and re-designating this portion of SH 130 as I-35
C. Removing the tolls on SH 45SE from Mustang Ridge northeast of Buda to I-35, and re-designating this roadway as I-35
These projects are classified as the First Priority Segment 3 Near-Term Roadway Project.
Quote from: NE2 on February 24, 2012, 04:52:30 AM
Quote from: dariusb on February 24, 2012, 04:22:05 AM
Oh ok cool. As for your comment on I-238, do you know the history of that roadway when it comes to the numbering? Was there supposed to be an I-38 at some point nearby?
Learn to fish: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=As+for+your+comment+on+I-238%2C+do+you+know+the+history+of+that+roadway+when+it+comes+to+the+numbering%3F&l=1
Using "Let Me Google That For You" is demeaning and rude. So don't.
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 25, 2012, 11:06:09 AM
Using "Let Me Google That For You" is demeaning and rude.
So is asking questions that can be answered with a simple search.
Quote from: NE2 on February 25, 2012, 11:39:36 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 25, 2012, 11:06:09 AM
Using "Let Me Google That For You" is demeaning and rude.
So is asking questions that can be answered with a simple search.
How is my asking a question in a respectful manner rude? Get off my d*** already.
Quote from: NE2 on February 25, 2012, 11:39:36 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 25, 2012, 11:06:09 AM
Using "Let Me Google That For You" is demeaning and rude.
So is asking questions that can be answered with a simple search.
No, it's not. Don't link to LMGTFY again. This isn't negotiable.
Strange moderation around here.
Grzrd....thanks kindly for the backup.
^ No problem. I had just finished reading the I-35 Study and decided to jump in.
Quote from: dariusb on February 17, 2012, 02:07:27 PM
Besides widening in Bell and McLennan counties are there plans to widen the freeway the whole way from Dallas to San Antonio?
In regard to the San Antonio area, I just came across a Feb. 22 video report about community meetings in regard to I-35 congestion in the San Antonio area (http://www.ksat.com/news/Residents-provide-input-on-future-of-I-35-corridor/-/478452/8877086/-/2t0nbtz/-/index.html):
Quote
Residents provided feedback on their vision for the future of the I-35 corridor at the first of two workshops this week hosted by the Alamo Regional Mobility Authority and the Texas Department of Transportation ....
The agencies are considering several options to improve the situation, including adding lanes, adding a second deck of highway, and adding a rail line between San Antonio and Austin ....
TxDOT has some temporary fixes in the works, including adding an extra lane in each direction between Judson Road and FM 3009, but Alloway said a long-term solution is likely years away, with an environment impact statement, alone, likely to take at least three years.
TxDOT and the Alamo RMA have a related IH 35 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study (http://www.alamorma.org/index.cfm/projects/ih-35-planning-and-environmental-linkages-study/) website. The study is in regard to I-35 from FM 1103 into Downtown San Antonio.
Quote from: Grzrd on February 27, 2012, 05:12:01 PM
^ No problem. I had just finished reading the I-35 Study and decided to jump in.
Quote from: dariusb on February 17, 2012, 02:07:27 PM
Besides widening in Bell and McLennan counties are there plans to widen the freeway the whole way from Dallas to San Antonio?
In regard to the San Antonio area, I just came across a Feb. 22 video report about community meetings in regard to I-35 congestion in the San Antonio area (http://www.ksat.com/news/Residents-provide-input-on-future-of-I-35-corridor/-/478452/8877086/-/2t0nbtz/-/index.html):
Quote
Residents provided feedback on their vision for the future of the I-35 corridor at the first of two workshops this week hosted by the Alamo Regional Mobility Authority and the Texas Department of Transportation ....
The agencies are considering several options to improve the situation, including adding lanes, adding a second deck of highway, and adding a rail line between San Antonio and Austin ....
TxDOT has some temporary fixes in the works, including adding an extra lane in each direction between Judson Road and FM 3009, but Alloway said a long-term solution is likely years away, with an environment impact statement, alone, likely to take at least three years.
TxDOT and the Alamo RMA have a related IH 35 Planning and Environmental Linkages Study (http://www.alamorma.org/index.cfm/projects/ih-35-planning-and-environmental-linkages-study/) website. The study is in regard to I-35 from FM 1103 into Downtown San Antonio.
Cool. Thanks for the link.
Some other questions:
1. The congestion around Schertz going SB on 35, what causes it. It's not the interchange with the Anderson Loop, as speeds pick up before that point.
2. This was on KXAN today:
http://www.kxan.com/dpp/news/local/austin/some-traffic-relief-for-sxsw-drivers
QuoteBesides downtown transportation, the city of Austin, along with the Texas Department of Transportation, is exploring the option of putting interchanges in at I-35 and Caesar Chavez Street, and I-35 and Riverside Drive, since that seems to be the biggest bottleneck area on the interstate. The proposals would cost anywhere from $20 million to $100 million and take about three to five years to complete if they're approved.
An express toll lane is also in discussion for installation along I-35 from Caesar Chavez Street to William Cannon Drive.
There already are exits for Chavez and Riverside. In fact, their substandard nature (as well as every exit from the double deck to 290/71) is what causes a lot of the slow down.
crazy driving into DT on the weekends. Locals always use Mopac on the weekends.
When I moved to Texas in 1992, they were still talking and planning about widening I-35 to three lanes thru Bell and McLennan Counties. The third lane ended at exit 253 (Old Settlers / FM3406 in Round Rock), then a third lane through Belton and part of Temple (293 - 200 (US 190 - Route 340/2 lane Bridge), then in Waco from 333 to 340. (Valley Mills to Craven Ave). The third lane in Waco from Route 6 to Loop 340 was under construction from before I moved there in 1992 and finished in 1995 - it averaged 1 year per mile to add a third lane with that project.
Since then, the third lane has been added for the entire length of Williamson County, the main lanes rebuilt (but only with 2 lanes) between Abbott and Hillsboro and the interchange in Hillsboro with I35, I35E and I35W has been completely rebuilt. On my last trip between Dallas and Austin last month, they have begun the prep work to add a third lane between Hillsboro and Waco.
From my experiences dealing with the Waco division of TxDot, they do not work very fast on anything.
Quote from: J N Winkler on February 17, 2012, 05:14:54 AM
Austin (which has a double-deck segment which is severely congested and cannot be widened)
This TV video report (http://www.kvue.com/news/TX-Dot-puts-12-million-towards-examining-I-35-corridor-143397876.html) indicates that TxDOT recently awarded $1.2 million for a study of short-term solutions to Austin's traffic problems. One solution being considered is to re-stripe the upper deck to accomodate more traffic:
Quote
For years there's been plenty of talk about how to keep traffic moving on I-35. That's why two years ago, the City of Austin put $1 million towards an I-35 Corridor Development Program. The Texas Department of Transportation added another $ 1 million in February, focusing on how to improve nearly 30 miles of interstate.
To truly fix the traffic problem that is I-35 would take an investment of billions. In the meantime, the City of Austin is focusing on smaller, more affordable projects drivers could see sooner.
"They have the ability to make some significant difference," said Gary Schatz with Austin's Transportation Department, the office responsible for narrowing down more than 300 submitted ideas for traffic relief.
Top picks start with signs. Notifying travelers of oncoming congestion could let them better use alternate routes. Road fixes start with potential toll lanes from William Cannon to Highway 183. Officials also want to re-stripe I-35's upper deck to hold more cars. Both fixes come without any serious construction.
"You really don't see the improvement in the deep heart of the peak hours," explained Schatz. "You see it on the shoulders of the peak hours, the minutes and hours before, the minutes and hours after."....
The joke in town is that any idiot could have told them what is wrong with I-35 for far less than $1.2 million
Quote from: Grzrd on March 25, 2012, 09:03:52 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on February 17, 2012, 05:14:54 AM
Austin (which has a double-deck segment which is severely congested and cannot be widened)
This TV video report (http://www.kvue.com/news/TX-Dot-puts-12-million-towards-examining-I-35-corridor-143397876.html) indicates that TxDOT recently awarded $1.2 million for a study of short-term solutions to Austin's traffic problems. One solution being considered is to re-stripe the upper deck to accomodate more traffic:
Quote
For years there's been plenty of talk about how to keep traffic moving on I-35. That's why two years ago, the City of Austin put $1 million towards an I-35 Corridor Development Program. The Texas Department of Transportation added another $ 1 million in February, focusing on how to improve nearly 30 miles of interstate.
To truly fix the traffic problem that is I-35 would take an investment of billions. In the meantime, the City of Austin is focusing on smaller, more affordable projects drivers could see sooner.
"They have the ability to make some significant difference," said Gary Schatz with Austin's Transportation Department, the office responsible for narrowing down more than 300 submitted ideas for traffic relief.
Top picks start with signs. Notifying travelers of oncoming congestion could let them better use alternate routes. Road fixes start with potential toll lanes from William Cannon to Highway 183. Officials also want to re-stripe I-35's upper deck to hold more cars. Both fixes come without any serious construction.
"You really don't see the improvement in the deep heart of the peak hours," explained Schatz. "You see it on the shoulders of the peak hours, the minutes and hours before, the minutes and hours after."....
Forgive me for not watching the video: I'm at work. But is it just me, or wouldn't adding a lane to the upper decks of I-35 leave zero room for breakdowns? Here in Wichita, the canal route has nearly zero left shoulder space, but there's enough room on the right for breakdowns and traffic stops. I just don't see that kind of space available on the roadway in Austin; otherwise, wouldn't it already be striped for more traffic?
Quote from: Grzrd on February 24, 2012, 09:27:57 AM
... I-35 Corridor Advisory Committee Plan (August 2011) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/my35/advisory_plan.pdf)
The Texas Transportation Commission has posted a November 20 I-35 Reconstruction Update presentation (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2014/1120/4b-presentation.pdf).