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 (http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/83R/billtext/html/HB03682I.htm)
Honestly, that would probably make sense, but I don't know why the AASHTO would go for it
why not something like I-435?
it would also eliminate the awkwardness of an I-35E/I-10 multiplex into San Antonio.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
There were no VMSes that I saw in June 2012, and we took I-35 and I-410 in both directions.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 (http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Legislator-proposes-removing-tolls-from-Texas-130-4371569.php)
The Austin American Statesman article on the matter:
http://www.statesman.com/news/news/local/3-billion-plan-would-end-tolls-on-texas-130/nWyhj/
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?
Treat it like Amtrak.
Something to keep in mind--the facts on the ground are changing, regardless of what happens to this bill. TxDOT advertised a maintenance contract for the December letting (CCSJ Bexar 6240-33-001 (ftp://planuser:txdotplans@plans.dot.state.tx.us/State-Let-Maintenance/December%2012/12%20Plans/Bexar%206240-33-001.exe); N.B. link will expire within a month!) which essentially co-signs SH 130 along portions of IH 410 and IH 10 in the vicinity of San Antonio in order to make it easier for drivers to use it as an IH 35 bypass. Some, but by no means all, of the signs shown could later be amended to change SH 130 and SH 130T shields to three-digit Interstate shields bearing either an appropriate IH 35 loop or letter-suffix designation. This change would be even easier to make (and involve less complexity in design of overlays) if facility buyback and toll abolition were removed from the bill, thus leaving TxDOT free to use its hideous new "Interstate toll" shields. On the other hand, to accommodate additional green-background legend ("ALT," say, if SH 130 becomes IH 35 Alternate) would entail bottom-up redesign for many panels.
^ At least now they are signing SH 130 control cities as Houston and San Antonio going southbound on IH 35 instead of Austin, which didn't make much sense to me.
Quote from: NE2 on March 21, 2013, 10:21:06 AM
Treat it like Amtrak.
This one proposal would be about 2-3 years of the subsidy to Amtrak's entire system.
Moody's looking at downgrading the debt for the Cintra-owned portion of SH 130:
http://www.statesman.com/news/news/local/light-130-traffic-prompts-credit-review-of-toll-de/nW5B4/
The naming it an interstate may bring more users in addition to other $. Just a thought.
Quote from: InterstateNG on March 27, 2013, 08:57:28 AM
Moody's looking at downgrading the debt for the Cintra-owned portion of SH 130:
http://www.statesman.com/news/news/local/light-130-traffic-prompts-credit-review-of-toll-de/nW5B4/
I suspected they were in trouble. I'm not surprised TxDOT's the first to want to give them a bailout. Using concession payment money to subsidize truck tolls is an interesting way to do that.
Quote from: kkt on March 21, 2013, 09:54:57 AM
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?
It worked for Kentucky for many of the less-traveled parkways (except there the state issued the bonds and built the roads, and probably would have paid off the bonds eventually; I don't think there was any immediate insolvency risk).
Frankly rather than bailing out the toll road they should buy it at auction on the Travis County Courthouse steps, just like TxDOT did with the Camino Colombia when they went bankrupt (and, unlike with that road, without the bond debt, TxDOT could drastically lower the tolls and still be ahead on maintenance and operations).
Quote from: lordsutch on March 27, 2013, 09:54:46 PM
Quote from: kkt on March 21, 2013, 09:54:57 AM
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?
It worked for Kentucky for many of the less-traveled parkways (except there the state issued the bonds and built the roads, and probably would have paid off the bonds eventually; I don't think there was any immediate insolvency risk).
Frankly rather than bailing out the toll road they should buy it at auction on the Travis County Courthouse steps, just like TxDOT did with the Camino Colombia when they went bankrupt (and, unlike with that road, without the bond debt, TxDOT could drastically lower the tolls and still be ahead on maintenance and operations).
The Camino Colombia toll road was privately owned. TxDOT bought it. SH 130 is already owned by TxDOT, and leased to the private company. I don't know what the agreement specifies will happen in the case of default or other severe problems, but TxDOT can't buy the road since they already own it.
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 21, 2013, 11:25:31 AM
thus leaving TxDOT free to use its hideous new "Interstate toll" shields.
New interstate shields?
Can I have a link please? Nevermind, found it on Page 8/26 in Chapter 2F of the TX MUTCD:
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/trf/tmutcd/2011_rev1/2f.pdf (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/trf/tmutcd/2011_rev1/2f.pdf)
Quote from: Revive 755 on March 27, 2013, 10:18:40 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 21, 2013, 11:25:31 AM
thus leaving TxDOT free to use its hideous new "Interstate toll" shields.
New interstate shields? Can I have a link please?
I don't know where it's shown by itself, but if you download the Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, or the relevant chapter (2F), you can see it there.
http://www.txdot.gov/government/enforcement/safety/tmutcd.html (http://www.txdot.gov/government/enforcement/safety/tmutcd.html)
If you download Chapter 2F, it's on page 256 (page 8 of 26 in the PDF). It's M90-3T. It's an Interstate shield on a square with the TOLL banner under it.
Quote from: wxfree on March 27, 2013, 10:27:56 PM
I don't know where it's shown by itself, but if you download the Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, or tt's an Interstate shield on a square with the TOLL banner under it.
Similar to those used on the Katy Tollway?
Quote from: UptownRoadGeek on April 04, 2013, 03:01:59 PM
Quote from: wxfree on March 27, 2013, 10:27:56 PM
I don't know where it's shown by itself, but if you download the Texas Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, or tt's an Interstate shield on a square with the TOLL banner under it.
Similar to those used on the Katy Tollway?
Good example. I should have thought of it. There's a bit of blur, but it can be seen here http://goo.gl/maps/6OSut (http://goo.gl/maps/6OSut)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F7%2F7b%2FToll_Texas_Interstate_Highway_35.svg%2F385px-Toll_Texas_Interstate_Highway_35.svg.png&hash=0d8baaf651377b52b8bb90a0ba0a78e6ec1bba3f)
Quote from: NE2 on April 04, 2013, 03:37:57 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F7%2F7b%2FToll_Texas_Interstate_Highway_35.svg%2F385px-Toll_Texas_Interstate_Highway_35.svg.png&hash=0d8baaf651377b52b8bb90a0ba0a78e6ec1bba3f)
I complained about these hideous monstrosities in the last MUTCD round, obviously to no avail.
Quote from: NE2 on April 04, 2013, 03:37:57 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F7%2F7b%2FToll_Texas_Interstate_Highway_35.svg%2F385px-Toll_Texas_Interstate_Highway_35.svg.png&hash=0d8baaf651377b52b8bb90a0ba0a78e6ec1bba3f)
Thanks for finding that. I'd give this one the Ugly Prize
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2F2%2F26%2FToll_Texas_U.S._Highway_183.svg%2F385px-Toll_Texas_U.S._Highway_183.svg.png&hash=354c58b16ccdcfd4b58d7c652bc435c45a855ce7)