Alamo Ranch Residents - Need Traffic Solution (Roma, Arp: homes, estimated)

[TexHwyMan]

Originally Posted by the_dimwit

Construction has started on the 151 interchange, and once the Culebra widening is completed (later this year, I think) that will also help matters. The 151 interchange will have the biggest impact, though, due to the addition of frontage roads on the AR side of 1604.

TxDOT's latest estimate for completion of the Culebra widening is March 2009. The 151/1604 interchange has not started yet; it is planned as part of the overall 1604 West project, which is tentatively scheduled to start in late 2009. The underpass to connect 151 to Alamo Ranch Parkway is included in that project.

<cynicism>
As for a grassroots effort, I have no idea. I'm new here as well, and from what I have heard TXDot couldn't care less about our problems--all the TX Government wants to do is build toll roads.
</cynicism>

First of all, good job on getting "couldn't care less" correctly. I can't tell you how many people say "could care less" and don't realize that they don't make any sense when they say that.

In any case, yes, TxDOT does care. If you look at the MPO's 5 and 25 year plans, you'll see all sorts of projects in that area and all over town to solve these problems. The hitch is funding, which is why "all (they) want to do is build toll roads." As I explained in a posting in another thread here, the state's gas tax has not been raised since 1991. Inflation, especially construction inflation, has devalued it over 50% since then. The Legislature continues to divert money from the gas tax and the Highway Fund to fund schools and other non-transporation expenditures (the part about schools is actually mandated in the Texas Constitution). Meanwhile, the cost to build roads (and everything else) is spiraling upward, cars are getting better fuel mileage (which means less tax paid per mile), and the federal government is going through the same issues with their own gas tax (static since 1993) and are having to rescind promised funding. Since nobody in the Leg or Congress wants to raise taxes, that essentially leaves two funding sources: bonds, which have to be paid back later (with interest) and therefore are just a band-aid, and user fees, aka tolls.

[the_dimwit]

Great posts, Hwyman.

Thanks for correcting my erroneous dates for construction starts/stops on Culebra and 1604/151. I was going off what I've been seeing in other posts, articles, and with my own eyes. (There is construction equipment clearing land at 151/1604, in the large hill right before 1604, for example.)

I agree in that large-scale projects such as the Woodrow Wilson Bridge and the I-95 / I-495 interchange (aka "The Mixing Bowl") have substantially longer construction lifespans. However, I would guess the size and scope of the two projects are much bigger than just about any project in San Antonio (with the exception of perhaps the 410 and 10 projects).

For example, according to the Woodrow Wilson Bridge's 2006 Financial Plan Annual Update dated February 9, 2007, the total cost of the project is now estimated at almost $2.5 billion. That's a wee bit more than anything I saw on the TXDOT cost sheets. Another thing to remember about the WWB project was that it was a bridge between two states (VA and MD), one of which was a union state. There was a considerable period of environmental study and the associated protests, which further extended the construction delays.

As I have stated in other posts, TXDOT can look "outside the box" for funding. For example, the Route 28 Interchange Project in Loudoun County, VA, uses a mix of public/private funding for building a fairly large number of interchanges along a busy 6-8 lane highway. According to their website, the funding total is a good $200 million.

TXDOT blamed the Texas government not too long ago during a hearing into the causes for the funding shortfall. Basically, the TXDOT spokesperson (not sure of title) stated that, because Texas Gov't wouldn't cover the debt, they would not spend a large surplus (billions of dollars, I believe) in approved bond issues. That, along with poor money management, has led to a funding shortfall. It's not just about gas tax--although that surely has some impact on the situation.

BTW, thanks for catching the "couldn't care less..." statement. It's a pet peave of mine when people use the other.

BTW2, great site!

--Dim

[TexHwyMan]

Originally Posted by the_dimwit

For example, according to the Woodrow Wilson Bridge's 2006 Financial Plan Annual Update dated February 9, 2007, the total cost of the project is now estimated at almost $2.5 billion. That's a wee bit more than anything I saw on the TXDOT cost sheets. Another thing to remember about the WWB project was that it was a bridge between two states (VA and MD), one of which was a union state. There was a considerable period of environmental study and the associated protests, which further extended the construction delays.

A lot of that additional cost is because of the union labor and environmental studies. In any case, I'm not downplaying it, just noting that there are projects even in VA that "take a generation" as you put it. As I mentioned, looking projects such as freeway widenings and arterial improvements, the length of time quoted by VADOT was in-line with what typically happens around here for similar projects, and not the "year or two" as you said.

As I have stated in other posts, TXDOT can look "outside the box" for funding.

They have. SH 151 is a great example. The ROW for 151 was all donated, and the developer of Westover Hills also paid to have the 151 access roads built. IIRC, most of 211 was done the same way. And developers frequently kick-in money for improvements to existing roads next to their developments, such as relocating exit ramps, building turn lanes, or installing signals.

TXDOT blamed the Texas government not too long ago during a hearing into the causes for the funding shortfall. Basically, the TXDOT spokesperson (not sure of title) stated that, because Texas Gov't wouldn't cover the debt, they would not spend a large surplus (billions of dollars, I believe) in approved bond issues. That, along with poor money management, has led to a funding shortfall. It's not just about gas tax--although that surely has some impact on the situation.

As I have said on other posts, yes, it's a very complicated issue. The gas tax is the primary culprit, though. If it had simply been indexed to inflation going forward the last time it was increased, then we wouldn't have the mess we have today, certainly no where near the degree we have it.

Why should TxDOT spend bond bond money if the legislature hasn't committed to funding it? That's actually good fiscal management.

Have there been some bookkeeping errors at TxDOT? Of course. You'll find bookkeeping errors in any agency, especially one that deals with $8 billion a year. Heck, my checking account moves a teeny fraction of that and I still have bookkeeping issues every once in a while.

BTW2, great site!

Thanks! It keeps me busy.

[the_dimwit]

Hwyman,

Thanks for the interesting conversation. You have certainly demonstrated that you know much more than I do with regard to road construction.

I partially retract my statement about a year or two being the norm in VA. Some projects do in fact take much longer (heck, they've been working on I-66 for at least 10 years). However, I have seen many instances where a Culebra-like project takes far less time.

Another point I wanted to make earlier was the use of completely private funding to construct roadways. I know that Gov. Perry tried to push that as a solution to the funding crisis regarding toll roads, and that the idea was largely rejected due to the proposed use of a foreign company to do the construction.

Between the Capitol Beltway and Dulles International Airport lies a toll road. This toll road was paid for and built by VDOT funding, and the process took years to complete.
There is also another toll road that extends FROM the airport to Leesburg, VA, a town approximately 15 or so miles further west. This toll road (also known as the "Dulles Greenway") was privately funded and constructed, a process that took much less time to complete (construction started in 1993 and the road was opened in 1995). Now, the problem with this concept is that the Greenway has yet to turn a real "profit." If we applied this methodology to the SA toll road system, the same thing may happen.

As for the TXDOT money issue, you and I are in agreement. There is not one single cause for this problem, and the solution is no easier to find. Simply raising the gas tax won't make everything better--and no politician in his/her right mind would think of doing such a thing, especially in an election year (which, by the way, is growing into a state of perpetuity).

No, there must be some other way to help solve this area's traffic problem. Slow growth, use of High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, increased ridesharing efforts, and other such ideas should be explored. Simply developing large tracts of land with little to no concern for the impact it will have on the surrounding road infrastructure (at least from the city's point of view) is only asking for trouble. San Antonio prides itself on friendly people--that will quickly change if its residents begin spending hours in traffic (like DC, LA, or NYC).

I can identify with mismanaging money--until I married my wife I had no real concept of keeping books in order. She is the one who straightened the mess out, and she continues to manage our money 7 years later. I would say that my budget is considerably less complicated than TXDOT's. However, if money is improperly spent (borrowing from the road fund for other projects unrelated to transportation), then that's another issue altogether.

I'm sure that, as the years progress, we'll continue to revisit this topic time and again. The locals will always complain (what else is there to do?), and the city/state governments will always blame something else. That's the nature of the game.

--Dim

[TexHwyMan]

Originally Posted by the_dimwit

Hwyman,

Thanks for the interesting conversation.

Ditto!

I partially retract my statement about a year or two being the norm in VA. Some projects do in fact take much longer (heck, they've been working on I-66 for at least 10 years). However, I have seen many instances where a Culebra-like project takes far less time.

True, some projects take longer, and some shorter. The 281/410 interchange is moving along at a blazing pace by any measurement. But it typically costs a premium to get projects done that fast. And projects sometimes drag on because of unintended issues. As anyone who has ever put a shovel into the ground knows, you never know what you'll find once you start turning dirt. That was the primary culprit on the delays on the Tezel Road project.

Another point I wanted to make earlier was the use of completely private funding to construct roadways. I know that Gov. Perry tried to push that as a solution to the funding crisis regarding toll roads, and that the idea was largely rejected due to the proposed use of a foreign company to do the construction.

Indeed, and that has soured the whole process now. People here simply don't like the idea of a private company owning infrastructure or having condemnation rights.

As for the TXDOT money issue, you and I are in agreement. There is not one single cause for this problem, and the solution is no easier to find. Simply raising the gas tax won't make everything better--and no politician in his/her right mind would think of doing such a thing, especially in an election year (which, by the way, is growing into a state of perpetuity).

I agree totally and in fact just posted the same thing over on the toll road thread.

No, there must be some other way to help solve this area's traffic problem. Slow growth, use of High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes, increased ridesharing efforts, and other such ideas should be explored. Simply developing large tracts of land with little to no concern for the impact it will have on the surrounding road infrastructure (at least from the city's point of view) is only asking for trouble.

The problem here is that property rights are a big deal here, so clamping down on development is next to impossible. This is especially true in areas outside municipalities-- the Legislature has consistently denied counties any sort of growth control powers. Even cities can only regulate so much; as long as a developer complies with the platting rules and zoning requirements, they can almost always get a development approved.

However, if money is improperly spent (borrowing from the road fund for other projects unrelated to transportation), then that's another issue altogether.

Indeed. The Legislature took 10% of the Highway Fund this year and funded non-transporation items with it. And the state constitution mandates that 25% of gas tax revenues go to public education. That is the second biggest problem (after the static gas tax), IMO.

I'm sure that, as the years progress, we'll continue to revisit this topic time and again. The locals will always complain (what else is there to do?), and the city/state governments will always blame something else. That's the nature of the game.

Couldn't agree with you more.

[the_dimwit]

Hwyman,

I'm surprised that developers have such an easy time around here, but as long as people come with cash in hand that won't stop. As I can attest to first-hand, runaway development is not always a good thing. Allow me to restate my opinion that true New Urbanism models of development (placing frequently-used amenities in the middle of neighborhoods) would help cut down on the traffic. As dvlpr said, that doesn't seem to be a well-accepted practice in this area.

Road construction--toll roads, in particular--are obviously a sensitive issue in San Antonio. Residents simply don't trust TXDOT or the state government anymore. I can't say that I blame them after some of the shifty things that both parties have done in recent years.

All that said, San Antonio does have one of the best major road systems in any area I have ever seen. One of the biggest things I can compliment the city on is the presence of two "beltways." As anyone who's driven the DC area knows, the Capitol Beltway is a mess mainly because it's the only "easy" way to get from VA to MD or vice-versa. There are simply no other major river crossings (Potomac or Anacostia) that drivers can take.

Now, a question for you regarding toll roads:

I understand the way the toll roads will work on 1604...Part of the road will have existing mainlines pushed out and new toll roads will be built in the median. The mainline roads will be free, as will the existing frontage roads. However, the section of road between 151 and (I-don't-remember-where) will not have this same process take place. So, will there be a continuation of frontage road between Culebra and 151? If not, wouldn't that force people using that stretch of 1604 to pay tolls?

--Dim

[TexHwyMan]

Originally Posted by the_dimwit

Hwyman,

I'm surprised that developers have such an easy time around here, but as long as people come with cash in hand that won't stop. As I can attest to first-hand, runaway development is not always a good thing. Allow me to restate my opinion that true New Urbanism models of development (placing frequently-used amenities in the middle of neighborhoods) would help cut down on the traffic. As dvlpr said, that doesn't seem to be a well-accepted practice in this area.

I love New Urbanism. Having lived in Germany for several years, I certainly am familiar with and appreciate compact, transit-oriented development. There are some New Urbanist projects on the drawing board here-- hopefully they will take-off.

As anyone who's driven the DC area knows, the Capitol Beltway...

Ooo, gonna have to ding you... it's Capital Beltway.

I understand the way the toll roads will work on 1604...Part of the road will have existing mainlines pushed out and new toll roads will be built in the median. The mainline roads will be free, as will the existing frontage roads. However, the section of road between 151 and (I-don't-remember-where) will not have this same process take place. So, will there be a continuation of frontage road between Culebra and 151? If not, wouldn't that force people using that stretch of 1604 to pay tolls?

It's the section from Military to Braun, actually. Yes, there will be toll-free frontage roads along the whole stretch. By law, there has to be since there has to be the same number or more toll-free lanes after toll lanes are added as there were before. Since the existing lanes are at-grade (surface) lanes with a median and signals, frontage roads provide an equivalent toll-free option that satisfies the law. Additionally, there will be toll-free flyovers at Culebra since there are toll-free overpasses there today.

[Steel Man]

Why not send TexHwyMan to China as the San Antonio Road Ambassador? China is sitting on billions of our trade dollars and he can tell them that the road improvements will make it easier to get to all the Walmart's, thus increasing business and their income!

[the_dimwit]

Originally Posted by TexHwyMan

Ooo, gonna have to ding you... it's Capital Beltway.

I definitely know better! Thanks for being kind about it...

Also, much obliged for the information regarding the 1604 toll roads. I thought it would work out that way, but just wanted to make sure. I've been trying to explain to my parents that, according to the current planning, there will still be "free" roads to take.

--Dim

[TexHwyMan]

Originally Posted by TexasTeq

Like the poster suggested how about allowing a left turn onto Alamo Ranch Pkwy...getting rid of the lights on 1604 at Braun and Schainfeld.

So let me get this straight. You think that having traffic lights on 1604 is bad, but then you say there needs to be a left turn onto Alamo Ranch Pkwy, which would almost certainly necessitate yet another new signal??