Loop 1604 Expansion/Toll Lanes Flyover Animation (San Antonio, Nacogdoches: credit, how much, construction)

[Insomniac]

Loop 1604 Flyover Animation

Western Segment: Military Drive to Babcock Road (Far west side to Far northwest side)

YouTube - Proposed Loop 1604 (western segment)

Northern segment: Babcock Road to Nacogdoches Road (Far northwest side to far north side to far northeast side)

YouTube - Proposed Loop 1604 (northern segment)

Eastern segment: Nacogdoches Road to I10 East (Far northeast side to far east side)

YouTube - Proposed Loop 1604 (eastern segment)

Credit goes to Texhwyman.com

[Ajaxab]

These videos are fascinating on many levels. Most interesting to me is the fact that the people with the power to produce this video will somehow be deemed to be more objective about the whole project than those who can't produce similar pictures. A flyover perspective generates a kind of objectivity that can't be matched by the t-shirts and flyers of those who cannot produce something so polished. Let's be honest. Any overhead visual presents itself as objective whether the disclaimer at the beginning of the project tries to sell it as subjective or not. If you can't produce something objective like the DOT did here, then you don't have much of a chance of coming across as objective.

It was interesting to read the gentleman's comments in the other thread about going to the DOT meeting a few nights back. He suggested that the DOT came across as very corporate and logical and that the opposition came across as very emotional and illogical. I wonder what would happen to responses to the project if the DOT could only produce t-shirts and the opposition had the video technology producing a flyover of treeless landscapes and endless concrete. Something tells me we would be suggesting that the opposition had the more logical and objective argument.

So whether you are in favor of the project or not, it seems as though it would be wise to keep one's ears open and eyes shut. No need to be seduced by something that presents itself as objective when it is just as subjective as any other argument.

[rd2007]

These are impressive and I wish whoever designed the CGI for the video would've also designed the loop.. The way it's developed in the video makes SO much more sense than how it was actually built. I've always thought whoever designed the loop by where I live (the Military-Babcock part) was on some serious drugs. It's pretty much the worst design anyone could ever come up with and somehow they got the county to bite off on it...

[bresilhac]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

These videos are fascinating on many levels. Most interesting to me is the fact that the people with the power to produce this video will somehow be deemed to be more objective about the whole project than those who can't produce similar pictures. A flyover perspective generates a kind of objectivity that can't be matched by the t-shirts and flyers of those who cannot produce something so polished. Let's be honest. Any overhead visual presents itself as objective whether the disclaimer at the beginning of the project tries to sell it as subjective or not. If you can't produce something objective like the DOT did here, then you don't have much of a chance of coming across as objective.

It was interesting to read the gentleman's comments in the other thread about going to the DOT meeting a few nights back. He suggested that the DOT came across as very corporate and logical and that the opposition came across as very emotional and illogical. I wonder what would happen to responses to the project if the DOT could only produce t-shirts and the opposition had the video technology producing a flyover of treeless landscapes and endless concrete. Something tells me we would be suggesting that the opposition had the more logical and objective argument.

So whether you are in favor of the project or not, it seems as though it would be wise to keep one's ears open and eyes shut. No need to be seduced by something that presents itself as objective when it is just as subjective as any other argument.

I think you missed the point of the videos entirely. In other words you read way too much into the things. The videos were not made as part of some sinister plot to sway minds either for or against the building of the lanes. These videos were produced to simply give the public an idea of what the lanes will look like when completed. And as far as treeless landscapes etc. Name me a large city in the country that hasn't wiped out huge swaths of trees because of development needs. It's impossible to have tremendous growth, development and prosperity without knocking down some trees.

What's logical about these lanes is that they're being built finally. The entire far northside of San Antonio from one end to the other is growing at a very rapid rate and is already a crowded place to drive. Not building these lanes would be short-sighted and foolhardy given the projected growth of the area mentioned. At least Tx-Dot has a workable solution to the problem of growing traffic volume in our area. This is opposed to the anti toll lane crowd who offer nothing more than a bunch of noise and little else as far as ways to alleviate traffic problems in our area realistically. These traffic woes will not go away no matter how much someone might wish for them to do so. Thankfully the State will make it so that the issue isn't completely untenable in 10 to 20 years.

[Ajaxab]

Originally Posted by bresilhac

I think you missed the point of the videos entirely. In other words you read way too much into the things. The videos were not made as part of some sinister plot to sway minds either for or against the building of the lanes. These videos were produced to simply give the public an idea of what the lanes will look like when completed.

I think you missed my point. I am not saying the videos are part of any sinister plot. However, the videos present the project as objective and rational because that's what overhead perspectives do. Think about maps and blueprints. No one ever called a map or a blueprint an emotional argument. However, they certainly make arguments just as much as a flyover cgi makes an argument.

You make my point in saying that the videos "simply give the public an idea of what the lanes will look like." Unfortunately, this idea presents itself as very powerful because of the way in which it is presented such that you can use the word "simply". There really is nothing simple about it. Images have a lot of power and those who can produce flashy images from an overhead perspective demonstrate this power such that those who have them can be called logical and those who don't illogical.

I am neither for or against the project at this point, but I ask again. What difference would it make to the public's perception of the arguments if the opposition had a highly produced video demonstrating light rail or some other form of mass public transit? Unfortunately, t-shirts do not carry the same persuasive (and again, objective) force of a cgi.

I am only calling for people to not be seduced by means of the presentation, but rather to consider the respective positions on a level playing field (insofar as this is possible).

[SAnative]

I am wondering just how LONG this project would REALLY take. Also, I don't even want to imagine the traffic headaches during construction!

[Paka]

Living in Westcreek I would GLADLY use a toll road option to get up to Bandera Rd and beyond. I feel that my money would be well spent vs waiting 45+ minutes to get from Culebra to Bandera Rd. Maybe because I chould CHOOSE to do so, it would make the traffic lighter for those that did not want to pay as well. Since I don't have to go that way daily, it would be a option that would help out...I can't help but feel if they were to make ONE bridge that bypassed the current traffic...Braun Rd would be the answer for 1604 on this side of town. For some reason, after you get thru that bottle neck, things seem to open up most of the time. For now, it is so bad I try to really avoid most of the time.

[kevcrawford]

You can thank the "friends of the Aquifer" for this.