AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered at https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=33904.0
Corrected several already and appreciate your patience as we work through the rest.

Author Topic: Austin, TX  (Read 75135 times)

MaxConcrete

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1085
  • Location: Houston, TX
  • Last Login: February 20, 2024, 08:58:27 AM
Re: Austin, TX
« Reply #475 on: May 08, 2023, 07:45:50 PM »

That's interesting. The news reports has more charts which are also interesting.

SH 45N (13 miles) is lower than I expected, and SH 45 SE is surprisingly low. 183S looks like it is doing well considering it is relatively new, and 183N appears to have the heaviest traffic since it is only 9 miles long and brings in $71.8 million.

For me, it also highlights the cash cow status of the original three sections of the Sam Houston Tollway in Houston.

This is the most recently reported annual revenue
US 59 (Southwest Freeway) to I-10 Katy Freeway, 8 miles: $120.6 million
I-10 Katy Freeway to US 290 Northwest Freeway, 6 miles: $101.7 million
US 290 Northwest Freeway to I-45 North Freeway, 11 miles: $129.1 million

Those three sections have paid for themselves many times over since they opened in 1988-1990. But these three sections are a cash register for HCTRA, so HCTRA keeps the tolls high, and I feel the pain since I drive them regularly. HCTRA's overall toll revenue was $809 million. The only (somewhat) good news is that a systemwide 10% toll rate decrease is scheduled for later this year. Combined with inflation, tolls are reduced by a meaningful amount. But tolls on these three sections should be at least cut in half, if not removed entirely.



Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4204
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: February 20, 2024, 06:39:50 PM
Re: Austin, TX
« Reply #476 on: May 10, 2023, 12:16:30 AM »

I'm not surprised the Southern segments of TX-45 aren't generating all that much toll revenue. It's not really a thru route. If both of those Southern segments were connected (by the gap being filled between I-35 and FM-1626) the toll road's function as a bypass route would be improved. If the Western end of TX-45 was extended to the US-290 corridor it would be even more valuable to motorists wanting to skirt South around the busiest parts of Austin.
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8785
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:56:07 AM
Re: Austin, TX
« Reply #477 on: May 10, 2023, 12:35:50 AM »

The SH-45 SE portion is a good connection for those along the I-35 corridor wishing to access SH-130 to bypass Austin, not using the 85 mph southern part of SH-130.

However, I do agree, extending all the way to US-290 will definitely increase revenues.
Logged

TXtoNJ

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 915
  • Last Login: February 20, 2024, 08:55:17 PM
Re: Austin, TX
« Reply #478 on: May 11, 2023, 11:38:57 AM »

My guess is that the construction schedule will require a total closure for ~6 months or so, and they'll waive the tolls on 183 while that's going on.

6 months concurrently or separate closures totaling 6 months altogether?

I'd go with concurrently. Sharpen, but shorten the pain, since there are already two viable relief routes. There are plenty of alternative routes for local traffic, and to say that 35 is unloved among Austinites would be an understatement.
Logged

thisdj78

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 506
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Texas
  • Last Login: February 20, 2024, 06:56:28 AM
Re: Austin, TX
« Reply #479 on: June 09, 2023, 08:49:36 PM »

Logged

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 4114
  • Location: Los Angeles/OKC
  • Last Login: Today at 03:12:07 AM
Re: Austin, TX
« Reply #480 on: June 09, 2023, 09:04:51 PM »

Awesome! I hope it gets completed soon.
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4204
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: February 20, 2024, 06:39:50 PM
Re: Austin, TX
« Reply #481 on: June 10, 2023, 12:49:06 AM »

Long overdue project. Although I disagree with this statement in the article, "Hays County, in partnership with the city of Buda, is exploring the feasibility of the Gap Project before the area is substantially developed."

I don't know how they can claim the potential ROW area is substantially developed when, according to Google Earth imagery from April 2023, the actual path is still very much clear. I smell an anti-highway stance coming from the article writer.

The other thing that needs to be done, which will indeed be harder to build, is extending the SW end of TX-45 over to the US-290 corridor. If that leg was built the South portion of TX-45 could function as a Southern bypass for Austin.
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8785
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:56:07 AM
Re: Austin, TX
« Reply #482 on: June 10, 2023, 01:32:58 AM »

Long overdue project. Although I disagree with this statement in the article, "Hays County, in partnership with the city of Buda, is exploring the feasibility of the Gap Project before the area is substantially developed."

I don't know how they can claim the potential ROW area is substantially developed when, according to Google Earth imagery from April 2023, the actual path is still very much clear. I smell an anti-highway stance coming from the article writer.
They never claimed it is substantially developed, and the quote you use doesn’t claim it is either.

Quote
Several large-scale residential and mixed-use developments are currently planned in this area between I-35 and RM 1626.

As more development plans progress, the SH 45 Gap Project becomes more challenging and impactful. Hays County, in partnership with the city of Buda, is exploring the feasibility of the Gap Project before the area is substantially developed.
Bold emphasis is my own.
Logged

kernals12

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2766
  • Love highways and cars. Hate public transit.

  • Location: Suburban Boston
  • Last Login: February 20, 2024, 09:33:03 AM
Re: Austin, TX
« Reply #483 on: June 10, 2023, 11:00:10 AM »

Long overdue project. Although I disagree with this statement in the article, "Hays County, in partnership with the city of Buda, is exploring the feasibility of the Gap Project before the area is substantially developed."

I don't know how they can claim the potential ROW area is substantially developed when, according to Google Earth imagery from April 2023, the actual path is still very much clear. I smell an anti-highway stance coming from the article writer.
They never claimed it is substantially developed, and the quote you use doesn’t claim it is either.

Quote
Several large-scale residential and mixed-use developments are currently planned in this area between I-35 and RM 1626.

As more development plans progress, the SH 45 Gap Project becomes more challenging and impactful. Hays County, in partnership with the city of Buda, is exploring the feasibility of the Gap Project before the area is substantially developed.
Bold emphasis is my own.

Are those developments planned in the path of the highway? If so, it should be a scandal that neither TxDOT nor CTRMA bought the ROW.
Logged

TXtoNJ

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 915
  • Last Login: February 20, 2024, 08:55:17 PM
Re: Austin, TX
« Reply #484 on: June 10, 2023, 11:06:00 AM »

Everyone's misreading this. That area hadn't been built out because of local environmental interests. Now, the developers have enough clout to force them out, and they want SH 45 there.
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8785
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:56:07 AM
Re: Austin, TX
« Reply #485 on: June 11, 2023, 12:08:23 AM »

Long overdue project. Although I disagree with this statement in the article, "Hays County, in partnership with the city of Buda, is exploring the feasibility of the Gap Project before the area is substantially developed."

I don't know how they can claim the potential ROW area is substantially developed when, according to Google Earth imagery from April 2023, the actual path is still very much clear. I smell an anti-highway stance coming from the article writer.
They never claimed it is substantially developed, and the quote you use doesn’t claim it is either.

Quote
Several large-scale residential and mixed-use developments are currently planned in this area between I-35 and RM 1626.

As more development plans progress, the SH 45 Gap Project becomes more challenging and impactful. Hays County, in partnership with the city of Buda, is exploring the feasibility of the Gap Project before the area is substantially developed.
Bold emphasis is my own.

Are those developments planned in the path of the highway? If so, it should be a scandal that neither TxDOT nor CTRMA bought the ROW.
Maybe that’s why they’re doing this study… to develop a corridor and potentially purchase right of way?
Logged

Rothman

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14799
  • Last Login: February 20, 2024, 11:20:52 PM
Re: Austin, TX
« Reply #486 on: June 11, 2023, 07:24:42 AM »



Long overdue project. Although I disagree with this statement in the article, "Hays County, in partnership with the city of Buda, is exploring the feasibility of the Gap Project before the area is substantially developed."

I don't know how they can claim the potential ROW area is substantially developed when, according to Google Earth imagery from April 2023, the actual path is still very much clear. I smell an anti-highway stance coming from the article writer.
They never claimed it is substantially developed, and the quote you use doesn’t claim it is either.

Quote
Several large-scale residential and mixed-use developments are currently planned in this area between I-35 and RM 1626.

As more development plans progress, the SH 45 Gap Project becomes more challenging and impactful. Hays County, in partnership with the city of Buda, is exploring the feasibility of the Gap Project before the area is substantially developed.
Bold emphasis is my own.

Are those developments planned in the path of the highway? If so, it should be a scandal that neither TxDOT nor CTRMA bought the ROW.
Maybe that’s why they’re doing this study… to develop a corridor and potentially purchase right of way?

New ROW acquisition on federal-aid projects happens post-design approval (after preliminary engineering and before detailed design for PS&E), so it depends on where the project actually stands.
Logged
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8785
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:56:07 AM
Re: Austin, TX
« Reply #487 on: June 11, 2023, 09:44:18 AM »

^ It also doesn’t necessarily need to be right of way. It can be simply where to approve rezoning projects, where to preserve a path, etc.
Logged

thisdj78

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 506
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Texas
  • Last Login: February 20, 2024, 06:56:28 AM
Re: Austin, TX
« Reply #488 on: December 16, 2023, 08:26:33 AM »

Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8785
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:56:07 AM
Re: Austin, TX
« Reply #489 on: December 16, 2023, 08:54:36 AM »

Buda, Hays County unveil preliminary routes for SH 45 gap project

https://communityimpact.com/austin/san-marcos-buda-kyle/transportation/2023/12/14/buda-hays-county-unveil-preliminary-routes-for-sh-45-gap-project/
While this isn’t a reason to cancel or not pursue the project, I think this is a valid point worth analyzing.

Quote
Opponents of the project cited it would harm the Edwards Aquifer and reroute an influx of truck traffic on MoPac.

The MoPac is only a recently upgraded 4 lane freeway north of SH-45, and if traffic came in large numbers looking to avoid I-35 traffic or even just heading to those suburbs on the western side, I could quickly see that roadway needing to be widened to 6 lanes.
Logged

 


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.