Variable Speed Limits on 1604 (San Antonio, Anton: taxes, cost of, to move)

[TexHwyMan]

Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX

A better idea would be to spend that money on increasing capacity, which would reduce congestion.

But that wouldn't generate any additional revenue from speeding fines.

The cost to conduct this study would not have been enough to widen one mile of freeway.

At some point, you can no longer add capacity and you have to manage what you have to make it more efficient. That's what these systems do.

You know, there's already a widely-implemented type of variable speed limit: school zones.

[TexHwyMan]

Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX

If people cannot be trusted to manage their own driving, then how can we trust a a committee of politicians elected by those same people?

Based on your logic, then, we should have no traffic laws whatsoever.

[TexHwyMan]

Originally Posted by Azure110

I don't understand the benefit of this pilot program if there is any at all but I am sure traffic engineers know more about this kind of thing than Mr. Smith who drives up and down that road every day.

Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX

Please tell me you were kidding...

Who says that the traffic engineers aren't some of the people who drive that road every day? People forget that those engineers are regular folks like the rest of us-- they live in our neighborhoods, drive the same roads we do, and deal with the same traffic headaches we do.

I can tell you that most of the engineers I know, when they work on a project, if they're not already familiar with that road, they go a drive it several times while they're working on it because they know they can't know everything about that road based just on the traffic studies and drawings.

[Quattro72]

Originally Posted by TexHwyMan

I can tell you that most of the engineers I know, when they work on a project, if they're not already familiar with that road, they go a drive it several times while they're working on it because they know they can't know everything about that road based just on the traffic studies and drawings.

Then I guess a lot of those engineers need to drive them more often, in different times of the day. The infrastructure in SA is so behind and it takes forever to get anything done around here. And by the time they get it done, it will be outdated.

[Slowpoke_TX]

Originally Posted by TexHwyMan

At some point, you can no longer add capacity and you have to manage what you have to make it more efficient. That's what these systems do.

Loop 1604 is not at that point. There is room to lay additional pavement on either side of, and in between, the existing main lanes (of course, they'd want to toll them...). There is also the possibility of building an upper deck, although I'd argue that is not necessary at this point.

And how does slowing traffic "make it more efficient?"

I also don't understand how decreasing the speed limit makes any sense. If traffic is flowing 55MPH in a 70MPH zone, there is no need to reduce the speed limit to 55 (or less), as traffic is physically unable to move at the posted speed limit.

Originally Posted by TexHwyMan

Based on your logic, then, we should have no traffic laws whatsoever.

Some traffic laws are necessary, such as requiring vehicles to stop at red lights and stop signs when cross traffic is moving. A committee of politicians cannot account for all of the conditions (driver, vehicle, road, weather, etc.) that the driver of a moving vehicle must continually anticipate, perceive, and adapt to when operating said vehicle.

Originally Posted by TexHwyMan

Who says that the traffic engineers aren't some of the people who drive that road every day? People forget that those engineers are regular folks like the rest of us-- they live in our neighborhoods, drive the same roads we do, and deal with the same traffic headaches we do.

I can tell you that most of the engineers I know, when they work on a project, if they're not already familiar with that road, they go a drive it several times while they're working on it because they know they can't know everything about that road based just on the traffic studies and drawings.

I was responding to Azure's posting in which traffic engineers and ordinary drivers were portrayed as mutually exclusive. I am glad that traffic engineers drive the very roads they are tasked with upgrading.

[dastexan]

Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX

Loop 1604 is not at that point. There is room to lay additional pavement on either side of, and in between, the existing main lanes (of course, they'd want to toll them...). There is also the possibility of building an upper deck, although I'd argue that is not necessary at this point.

How is the State of Texas and/or City of San Antonio supposed to pay for this?

Is the gas tax being raised to account for the inflation of the last 25 years?

I'm sure the State would LOVE to expand 1604. The money just fails to exist to do so. Tolls are a last ditch effort largely to do things when funding ceases to exist.

[rynetwo]

Originally Posted by Quattro72

Then I guess a lot of those engineers need to drive them more often, in different times of the day. The infrastructure in SA is so behind and it takes forever to get anything done around here. And by the time they get it done, it will be outdated.

Yet we have have the least amount of traffic of any large Texas metro.

[Azure110]

Originally Posted by Quattro72

Then I guess a lot of those engineers need to drive them more often, in different times of the day. The infrastructure in SA is so behind and it takes forever to get anything done around here. And by the time they get it done, it will be outdated.

Same could be said for other Texas cities, especially Austin which doesn't even have a true loop. At least San Antonio has two.

[prim8]

Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX

Loop 1604 is not at that point. There is room to lay additional pavement on either side of, and in between, the existing main lanes (of course, they'd want to toll them...). There is also the possibility of building an upper deck, although I'd argue that is not necessary at this point.

And how does slowing traffic "make it more efficient?"

I also don't understand how decreasing the speed limit makes any sense. If traffic is flowing 55MPH in a 70MPH zone, there is no need to reduce the speed limit to 55 (or less), as traffic is physically unable to move at the posted speed limit.

Because if there is a slow down, or worse a stop in traffic, if they can get the cars that haven't gotten to that point to slow down before they get there, is lessens the damage. Have you ever gotten to a spot on the road where everyone is slamming on their brakes and there's no clear reason why? Quite often one of the causes of that is someone did something dumb, someone had to slam on their brakes, then the person behind them does, then the person behind that person does and so on. An hour later you've still got people slowing down at that spot. What the VSL signs can help with, if the people actually follow them, is slowing traffic down before they get to that point, so that when they get to that spot, they don't have to slam on their brakes, maybe not slow down at all and that incident disappears altogether.

[Azure110]

Originally Posted by Slowpoke_TX

Please tell me you were kidding...

I was. It is my goal to make you laugh.

All kidding aside, you read too much into my statement. What I was saying is that traffic engineers are "in the know" on why things are done the way they are (in regards to our highways) even if we don't understand it.

Personally there are some highways I feel are poorly engineered to handle the traffic demand in an efficient way, both present and in the future but I am no traffic engineer.