Official Culebra and 1604 area thread (San Antonio, Alamo: purchase, price, suite)

[TexHwyMan]

Originally Posted by nrlatsha

I've been looking at the parkway too since I drive it everyday, in and out, the key indicator for me was the sidewalks. None in the middle, allowing for expansion/natural trees inside, but some on the outside, nice and curvy, so it took some time to do. With the CVS going in, and the AR town center I posted earlier. There ceases to be room for a "highway" through there. All the other land is commercial next to ARP, you have to ask, where would the access road go?

For anyone that drives on 151 should know, it takes up alot of space for 4 lanes and 4 access road lanes. I don't see them squeezing a proper highway into ARP.

First of all, the existing ARP roadways are not at the edge of the right-of-way, so any commercial development would sit back from the road, leaving additional room to shift the roadways outward (yes, the curvy sidewalks would have to be torn-out.)

The ROW along 151 is wider than that along many freeways (I-35 South comes immediately to mind.) While the 151 ROW is wider than ARP's, there is plenty of ROW along ARP for expansion. In fact, despite my earlier theorizing that they would have to shift one or both of the existing roadways outward to make room for freeway mainlanes, it is actually possible to add a four lane freeway in the existing median. I took the following screenshot from the City of San Antonio's mapping website (http://maps.sanantonio.gov): (broken link)



Using the existing two 2-lane roadways as your guide, you can see there is plenty of room between them for two more 2-lane roads:



I didn't add shoulders, but there's plenty of room left for those as well, and possibly even an extra lane in each direction.

In any case, none of this is happening any time soon.

[TexHwyMan]

And here's the proof that the plan is to extend 151 to 211 (and even beyond):



(Source: http://www.sametroplan.org/pages/Stu...rridorPlan.pdf, p. 36 of the PDF; highlighting is mine)

[Steel Man]

Originally Posted by TexHwyMan

First of all, the existing ARP roadways are not at the edge of the right-of-way, so any commercial development would sit back from the road, leaving additional room to shift the roadways outward (yes, the curvy sidewalks would have to be torn-out.)

The ROW along 151 is wider than that along many freeways (I-35 South comes immediately to mind.) While the 151 ROW is wider than ARP's, there is plenty of ROW along ARP for expansion. In fact, despite my earlier theorizing that they would have to shift one or both of the existing roadways outward to make room for freeway mainlanes, it is actually possible to add a four lane freeway in the existing median. In any case, none of this is happening any time soon.

Do you think they'll build bridges over the current three cross intersections or do it on the cheap with signals like Loop 1604 south of Bandera?

[TexHwyMan]

Originally Posted by Steel Man

Do you think they'll build bridges over the current three cross intersections or do it on the cheap with signals like Loop 1604 south of Bandera?

Apples and oranges. Today, both ARP and Loop 1604 south of Bandera (except at Culebra) are the same classification of roadway-- a surface level, divided arterial (i.e. not a freeway.) So adding traffic signals is not "on the cheap", no more so than adding signals on Bandera or Culebra would be considered "on the cheap". That's what is done on arterials when traffic volumes and safety issues warrant. When traffic volumes get even higher and funding is available, then ARP will be upgraded to a controlled-access highway, e.g. a freeway, expressway, or parkway, either with or without tolls. Controlled-access highways inherently have overpasses, so yes, when that time comes, there will be bridges at those intersections. They may do it piecemeal like they did with 151, or they may do it all at once. In the meantime, those intersections on ARP will get signals when traffic warrants it because it's just another arterial road for the time being.

[Living Near Shamu]

I wouldn't mind waiting on the bridges if the lights on New Gilbeau and Braun at 1604 were synchronized. The traffic there is terrible. you can easily waste 30 mins on the worst days when the traffic backs up all the way to Shaenfield Rd. I for one, wouldn't mind paying a toll to enter a bridge that would go over those 2 previously mentioned doors of hell. I feel sorry for the people that have to drive through those every single day.

[Steel Man]

Originally Posted by TexHwyMan

Apples and oranges. Today, both ARP and Loop 1604 south of Bandera (except at Culebra) are the same classification of roadway-- a surface level, divided arterial (i.e. not a freeway.) So adding traffic signals is not "on the cheap", no more so than adding signals on Bandera or Culebra would be considered "on the cheap". That's what is done on arterials when traffic volumes and safety issues warrant. When traffic volumes get even higher and funding is available, then ARP will be upgraded to a controlled-access highway, e.g. a freeway, expressway, or parkway, either with or without tolls. Controlled-access highways inherently have overpasses, so yes, when that time comes, there will be bridges at those intersections. They may do it piecemeal like they did with 151, or they may do it all at once. In the meantime, those intersections on ARP will get signals when traffic warrants it because it's just another arterial road for the time being.

Thanks for the answer. Your "funding is available" is the same as my "on the cheap." Adding traffic signals, instead of building bridges, is cheaper, although it's better than nothing.

[johnsonkk]

Keeping in the spirit of 'going cheap', why can't a simple modification to the intersections be built to help the flow of traffic until the bridges are built?

I've included a link to show what I've described before.
navarre, fl - Google Maps

The concept is that traffic can continue if they aren't making a turn (Shanefield) and in the case of Shanefield, this link 'mirrors' this by the right lane being unaffected by the turning lanes and merging traffic.

I still thinking merging onto a moving 1604 with a right turn only is the way to go until the bridges are built. Those that need to go the opposite direction can continue until the next 'turn around'. The average driver would only 'turn around' once a day.

[TexHwyMan]

Originally Posted by johnsonkk

Keeping in the spirit of 'going cheap', why can't a simple modification to the intersections be built to help the flow of traffic until the bridges are built?

I've included a link to show what I've described before.
navarre, fl - Google Maps

The concept is that traffic can continue if they aren't making a turn (Shanefield) and in the case of Shanefield, this link 'mirrors' this by the right lane being unaffected by the turning lanes and merging traffic.

I still thinking merging onto a moving 1604 with a right turn only is the way to go until the bridges are built. Those that need to go the opposite direction can continue until the next 'turn around'. The average driver would only 'turn around' once a day.

That's not a bad idea, and there are several places in SA where there are similar setups: Hamilton-Wolfe at Fredericksburg, the entrance to North Star from San Pedro, the entrance to Wilford Hall on Military, the entrance to Rolling Oaks on Nacogdoches, and 1604 at 151. Of course, the people who would then have to go that 2 miles out of their way would raise H-E-double hockey sticks about it, but it certainly would be a good short term fix.

A better option would simply be to remove all left-turn movements, like at 1604 at Meadowland, 1604 at Byrd, and 281 at Redland. Add turnarounds in the median about 1/2 mile downstream in each direction to facilitate that left-turn traffic.

[AlamoRanchAl]

I visited a Lenny's Subs and they where touting the 1604 and Culebra location.

Lenny's #788 - COMING SOON!
2602 N. Loop 1604 West, Bldg. #1
Suite 101
San Antonio, TX 78248
San Antonio Metro Area

The same goes for the locally owned Rome’s Pizza

::: Rome's Pizza :::

[rd2007]

sweet! thanks for the info