AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules for political content in signatures and user profiles. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: Proposed southern extension of SH 130 to meet at IH 35  (Read 7632 times)

FreewayDan

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 204
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Woodforest, TX
  • Last Login: September 14, 2019, 10:05:19 PM
    • FreewayDan's Flickr Channel
Proposed southern extension of SH 130 to meet at IH 35
« on: May 26, 2012, 01:03:49 PM »

Not by new alignment but by cosigning with other routes via IH 10 to I-410 in San Antonio's east side, then southwest via I-410 to IH 35.
http://www.txdot.gov/about_us/commission/2011_meetings/documents/minute_orders/sep29/20c.pdf
« Last Edit: May 26, 2012, 04:13:57 PM by FreewayDan »
Logged
LEFT ON GREEN
 ARROW ONLY

Anthony_JK

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1328
  • Age: 55
  • Location: Lafayette, Louisiana
  • Last Login: Today at 09:23:17 AM
Re: Proposed southern extension of SH 130 to meet at IH 35
« Reply #1 on: May 27, 2012, 01:19:19 AM »

I'm not sure why they need to extend SH 130 on a needless concurrency when proper signage could do the trick just fine.

Besides, what's to say that upgrading the southern portion of Loop 1604 to freeway or tollway to I-35 wouldn't be better??
Logged

thisdj78

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 126
  • Age: 41
  • Location: Texas
  • Last Login: Today at 11:42:20 AM
Re: Proposed southern extension of SH 130 to meet at IH 35
« Reply #2 on: August 10, 2013, 12:54:50 PM »

Here's pictures of the concurrency:





Logged

kinupanda

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 57
  • Age: 37
  • Location: San Antonio
  • Last Login: July 01, 2019, 06:21:06 PM
    • kinupanda.com
Re: Proposed southern extension of SH 130 to meet at IH 35
« Reply #3 on: August 10, 2013, 05:24:57 PM »

We'll file this one in the "TxDOT trying way too hard to get people to use a toll road" folder.
Logged

corco

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4948
  • Just Livin' the Dream

  • Age: 31
  • Location: Boise, Idaho
  • Last Login: Today at 02:01:17 PM
    • Corcohighways.org
Re: Proposed southern extension of SH 130 to meet at IH 35
« Reply #4 on: August 10, 2013, 05:42:28 PM »

That sign in the background of the last picture is terrible- the exit lane in that case is for both I-10 East and SH 130 north, right? That's not what I get from that at all- looks to me like left lane for 10 west, right for 10 east, exit for 130 north

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3731
  • Last Login: September 14, 2019, 11:44:36 PM
Re: Proposed southern extension of SH 130 to meet at IH 35
« Reply #5 on: August 10, 2013, 06:30:55 PM »

That sign in the background of the last picture is terrible- the exit lane in that case is for both I-10 East and SH 130 north, right? That's not what I get from that at all- looks to me like left lane for 10 west, right for 10 east, exit for 130 north

It seems like using horizontal rather than vertical legend arrangement would do wonders for this sign, i.e. this really quick mockup I came up with:



Logged
Chris Sampang

wxfree

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1076
  • Age: -1
  • Location: Over there
  • Last Login: September 14, 2019, 11:25:34 PM
Re: Proposed southern extension of SH 130 to meet at IH 35
« Reply #6 on: October 11, 2013, 03:36:01 PM »

The concession company put photos of some of the new signs in its Facebook account.  I remember some people complaining about misleading drivers to get them to follow 130 along I-10 expecting to get to Austin or Waco and being surprised that it suddenly becomes a toll road.

It could be argued that the concurrencies are unneeded and are just marketing for the toll road, but at least the signs shown aren't misleading.  Any time Austin and Waco are mentioned, it shows the toll road sign.  The only destination shown for the regular State Highway 130 sign is Seguin.  I'm sure some people will be confused, but there's only so much you can do to account for inattention.
Logged
All of my posts represent my personal opinions and the official views of any governmental agency that has good sense.

msubulldog

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 82
  • Age: 55
  • Location: Grenada,MS
  • Last Login: August 13, 2019, 10:47:05 PM
Re: Proposed southern extension of SH 130 to meet at IH 35
« Reply #7 on: October 11, 2013, 07:41:14 PM »

At least Waco is mentioned as a control city in San Antonio. I wonder if Dallas/Ft Worth would be next, or maybe in lieu of Waco. :sombrero:
Logged
"But the gateway to life is very narrow and the road is difficult, and only a few ever find it."
Matt 7:14, NLT

wxfree

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1076
  • Age: -1
  • Location: Over there
  • Last Login: September 14, 2019, 11:25:34 PM
Re: Proposed southern extension of SH 130 to meet at IH 35
« Reply #8 on: October 17, 2013, 05:32:06 PM »

When the speed limits were increased to 75 on the other Texas Interstates, I-35 between Austin and San Antonio was excluded.  When the higher speed limits were approved for the Austin district state and US highways, I-35 was excluded again.  After the new speed law was passed, I read that the plan was to increase the speed limit.  This signing may have been what they were waiting for before increasing the speed limit.

The agreement with the concession company makes an increase on the parallel portion of I-35 a "compensation event," due to its potential to disincentivize use of the toll road.  The PDF file is an image, not text, so I can't copy the text, but it says that the compensation due to the company because of an increased speed limit on I-35 is reduced by the amount of increased revenue attributable to a southern extension of the SH 130.  TxDOT may not still plan to raise the speed limit on I-35 - 70 is the default and 75 is discretionary, so it isn't legally required - but if they do increase the speed limit these signs may be their way of preventing, or counteracting, a compensation event.
Logged
All of my posts represent my personal opinions and the official views of any governmental agency that has good sense.

NE2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13866
  • fuck

  • Age: 11
  • Location: central Florida
  • Last Login: Today at 01:33:20 PM
Re: Proposed southern extension of SH 130 to meet at IH 35
« Reply #9 on: October 17, 2013, 05:41:12 PM »

Yay privatization.
Logged
Florida route log | pre-1945
I will do my best to not make America hate again.
Global warming denial is barely worse than white privilege denial.

wxfree

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1076
  • Age: -1
  • Location: Over there
  • Last Login: September 14, 2019, 11:25:34 PM
Logged
All of my posts represent my personal opinions and the official views of any governmental agency that has good sense.

Anthony_JK

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1328
  • Age: 55
  • Location: Lafayette, Louisiana
  • Last Login: Today at 09:23:17 AM
Re: Proposed southern extension of SH 130 to meet at IH 35
« Reply #11 on: October 20, 2013, 02:36:35 AM »

Interesting...if the company does go under, and SH 130 is returned back to the state, would that make it easier for the proposal to re-route I-35 along it and SH 45 SE to gain support?

Logged

wxfree

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1076
  • Age: -1
  • Location: Over there
  • Last Login: September 14, 2019, 11:25:34 PM
Re: Proposed southern extension of SH 130 to meet at IH 35
« Reply #12 on: October 23, 2013, 02:49:53 AM »

Interesting...if the company does go under, and SH 130 is returned back to the state, would that make it easier for the proposal to re-route I-35 along it and SH 45 SE to gain support?

I don't expect that would help.  If TxDOT got the south half of the road back, they have no reason to stop the tolls.  They consistently want more tolls, not less.  Even if they wanted to make the big switch with I-35, they still have bond debt on the CTTS, which includes the northern half of 130.  I don't think it's worthwhile to divert long-distance traffic off the less-congested part of I-35 parallel to SH 130 Sections 5 and 6, and then direct it back onto I-35 through Austin.  If the company goes under, I think the best outcome would be to reduce or eliminate the tolls on the south half and make the full bypass cheaper, hopefully drawing more traffic off the whole parallel stretch of I-35.  Even then, I doubt if it makes a big difference (but, of course, I'm guessing and am not an expert in that field).
Logged
All of my posts represent my personal opinions and the official views of any governmental agency that has good sense.

lordsutch

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1054
  • Last Login: March 28, 2019, 10:31:40 AM
Re: Proposed southern extension of SH 130 to meet at IH 35
« Reply #13 on: October 24, 2013, 01:23:24 AM »

Interesting...if the company does go under, and SH 130 is returned back to the state, would that make it easier for the proposal to re-route I-35 along it and SH 45 SE to gain support?

I'd guess not, since the affected section is the new portion south of SH 45 SE. However, a default would probably allow TxDOT to lower the tolls to cover maintenance alone (and possibly drop them lower if they were to cross-subsidize from SH 45 and SH 130 1-4), which would attract more traffic. Then again a private operator probably could do the same, too.

As far as an I-35 reliever for Austin goes, the 45+130 idea is proposed as a near-term priority but it would require TxDOT to find revenue to cover the bond service, possibly using HOT/express lanes on existing I-35. The whole report is a pretty interesting read. http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/my35/advisory_plan.pdf
Logged

english si

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3512
  • Age: 33
  • Location: Buckinghamshire, England
  • Last Login: Today at 01:58:26 PM
Re: Proposed southern extension of SH 130 to meet at IH 35
« Reply #14 on: October 24, 2013, 07:56:12 AM »

Didn't Texas consider numbering it I-35E?
Logged

wxfree

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1076
  • Age: -1
  • Location: Over there
  • Last Login: September 14, 2019, 11:25:34 PM
Re: Proposed southern extension of SH 130 to meet at IH 35
« Reply #15 on: October 24, 2013, 04:15:46 PM »

Didn't Texas consider numbering it I-35E?

Yes, as discussed here http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=8981.0

That bill went nowhere.

In short, the bill would have taken up to 1.5 billion dollars from the rainy day fund if the feds put up the first 1.5 billion.  I don't know if there was ever a plan to try to get the federal money.  That presumably would have been used to pay off the TxDOT bonds and buy back the concession, making it a free road and renaming it I-35E
« Last Edit: October 24, 2013, 04:18:17 PM by wxfree »
Logged
All of my posts represent my personal opinions and the official views of any governmental agency that has good sense.

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.