Future Austin Interstate Highway

[jb9152]

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

Federal infrastructure projects are not (and should not be) designed to pay for themselves directly.

Agreed. But there are plenty of people who will tell you that roads "pay for themselves", and they're the ones who complain most loudly about, say, mass transit subsidies. The real answer is that very few large mass passenger transportation systems pay for themselves in the strictest sense - not roads, not passenger rail. Not even air travel - it's profitable for most of the airlines (and even that's dicey) only because of taxpayer support of the air traffic control system, government ownership of aviation facilities, etc., etc.

More specifically, I was speaking to ScoPro's point that that problem with the gasoline tax is that some portion of it is diverted to non-road uses. It doesn't matter if you had a 100% allocation - roads are underwater. They have a return on investment somewhere in the 50% range or worse. Dedicating all of the gasoline tax to roads alone won't fix the problem, which is that the tax hasn't kept up with either inflation or vehicle efficiency.

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

They are designed so as to save the users of the infrastructure time and money. For the example above (the section of SH99) how much gas and times was saved by the users versus alternatives build options or a no-build option?

Again, agreed. But that's not the point that I'm trying to make; the point is that we subsidize a LOT of transportation with taxes. It's a simple fact that there are roads being built or already built that you and I have paid into which we'll never drive on let alone even see. That puts the lie to the "roads pay for themselves" argument in itself - I've never used the road, yet I've paid for it. There are airports that were built with municipal GO bonds that have been paid back with the taxes of people who will never fly into or out of those airports over their lifetimes...nor their families.

Note, I'm not saying that there's anything inherently wrong with this - I generally agree with your first point.

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

On that same note, if an interstate was built from Austin to Houston (or to I-10), how much time and money would the users save (in aggregate)? That would be a massively expensive undertaking and provide minimal savings, since fairly direct routes already exist and the volume is not nearly as high as would be needed to support the construction.

Agreed.

[Trainwreck20]

OTOH, there are other aspects other than money. TxDOT (or any DOT, for that matter) does environmental studies on large projects to determine air quality impacts (and noise), and when you get down to mass transit, there can be very significant improvements if we were to somehow shift to more mass transit, fewer single passenger cars. Limiting the analysis to gas is not getting a complete picture. I am somewhat in favor of a coherent mass transit plan, in that it can improve air quality, reduce the need for roads (and maintenance), as well a providing jobs in the service area (and even in manufacturing areas that support mass transit). It is very complex, way too complex for my brain, but you do have to plan for more than just the immediate life span. What if Austin were to build a complete mass transit system (however that would happen) and it costs us a pretty penny to do so, but lowers the burden on future residents 50 or 100 years down the road by developing those corridors and concentrations based on the system?

[jb9152]

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

OTOH, there are other aspects other than money. TxDOT (or any DOT, for that matter) does environmental studies on large projects to determine air quality impacts (and noise), and when you get down to mass transit, there can be very significant improvements if we were to somehow shift to more mass transit, fewer single passenger cars. Limiting the analysis to gas is not getting a complete picture. I am somewhat in favor of a coherent mass transit plan, in that it can improve air quality, reduce the need for roads (and maintenance), as well a providing jobs in the service area (and even in manufacturing areas that support mass transit). It is very complex, way too complex for my brain, but you do have to plan for more than just the immediate life span. What if Austin were to build a complete mass transit system (however that would happen) and it costs us a pretty penny to do so, but lowers the burden on future residents 50 or 100 years down the road by developing those corridors and concentrations based on the system?

Project Connect

[bu2]

Originally Posted by joedtx

For those of us who travel directly west or east from Austin you know of the frustration of having to take that long tedious drive thru either through the hill country all the way thru Fredricksburg to reach I-10, or east on 290 or 71 depending on which part of Houston you need to been in to reach the other segment of I-10. Because there is no direct East-West Interstate thru Texas which is a quite shame as well as more dangerous for travelers.

Over the years there have been discussions about bringing a second interstate this particular proposal seems to have stalled are there any other proposals forthcoming?

Interstate-Guide: Interstate 14

This proposal is low priority in an era with limited funds. Its really been pushed by the same people pushing the Texas TBone rail. They are trying to promote Bryan and Temple instead of doing something that makes sense.

There is a lot of traffic to Houston and an interstate in that direction would make sense. Austin is one of the largest metro areas with just one interstate. The thing to do would be to toll or gradually upgrade 290 to around Brenham. Then you either continue on to Houston down 290 and take Grand Parkway over to US 59 or you cut north to College Station/Huntsville/Jasper. The north route has the advantage of being beyond most of the impact of a hurricane and also getting Bryan/College Station connected to the interstate system. And except for the 20 miles or so from Brenham to Hempstead, you would still have interstate quality highway from Austin to Houston. One of the ideas of this I-14 was to bisect I-10 and I-20 and providing an alternative to I-10 which does get impacted by hurricanes.