U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas > San Antonio
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-02-2008, 06:33 AM
 
81 posts, read 204,985 times
Reputation: 40

Advertisements

it seems to me that the majority of 281 drivers want a solution ASAP--and if it has to be tolled, fine. but the vocal minority has dominated over the past few years. i guess those of us in the majority need to start pestering elected officials until something gets done.

i just sent the following e-mail to the list of officials below, and i plan to continue sending letters, faxes, and e-mails until construction starts.

Quote:
It looks like the US 281 North expansion project has hit another snag and construction won’t begin for another couple of years—at a minimum.

This is unacceptable. Something needs to be done immediately. Something needed to be done five years ago. Although neither increased gas taxes nor a toll road is the ideal solution, I’m certainly open to either. The bottom line is that expansion needs to start NOW!

Please explain to me what your office is doing to expedite this project and work through or bypass the logjams as quickly as possible.

Thank you.
Alamo Regional Mobility Authority
E-Mail: Alamo RMA: Alamo Regional Mobility Authority - Moving people faster
Phone: (210) 495-5256
Fax: (210) 495-5403
Mailing Address:
16500 San Pedro, Ste 350
San Antonio, Texas 78232

TxDOT (San Antonio District)
E-Mail: Contact Us
Phone: (210) 615-1110
Fax: (210) 615-6322
Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 29928
San Antonio, Texas 78229-0928

TxDOT (State Offices)
E-Mail: https://www.dot.state.tx.us/contact_us/default.htm
Phone: (800) 558-9368
Fax: (512) 463-9896
Mailing Address:
125 E. 11th Street
Austin, Texas 78701

Louis Rowe (District 9 Councilman)
E-Mail: Iris.DeLaGarza@sanantonio.gov
Phone: (210) 341-2390
Mailing Address:
900 Isom Road, Ste. 102
San Antonio, TX 78216

Phil Hardberger (Mayor)
E-Mail: phardberger@sanantonio.gov
Phone: (210) 207-7060/7107
Fax: (210) 207-4168
Mailing Address:
P.O. Box 839966
San Antonio, TX 78283

Lyle Larson (Bexar County Commissioner, Precinct 3)

E-Mail: llarson@co.bexar.tx.us
Phone: (210)335-2613
Mailing Address:
Bexar County Courthouse
100 Dolorosa, Suite 1.20
San Antonio, Texas 78205

Nelson Wolff (Bexar County Judge)
E-Mail: nwolff@co.bexar.tx.us
Phone: (210) 335-2626
Fax: (210) 335-2926
Mailing Address:
Bexar County Courthouse
100 Dolorosa, Suite 1.20
San Antonio, Texas 78205

Frank Corte, Jr. (State Representative)
E-Mail: Texas House of Representatives
Mailing Address:
2040 Babcock Rd, Ste 402
San Antonio, TX 78229
Phone: (210) 349-0320
Fax: (210) 349-0381

Jeff Wentworth (State Senator)
E-Mail: The Texas State Senate: District 25
Mailing Address:
925 North Frost Center
1250 N.E. Loop 410
San Antonio, Texas 78209
Phone: (210) 826-7800
Fax: (210) 826-0571

Lamar Smith (US Representative)
E-Mail: Congressman Lamar Smith 21st District of Texas -- Contact Lamar
Mailing Address:
2409 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-4236
Fax: (202) 225-8628

Rick Perry (Governor)
E-Mail: Office of the Governor - Rick Perry - Contact
Mailing Address:
Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 12428
Austin, Texas 78711-2428
Phone: (800) 252-9600
Fax: (512) 463-1849

Kay Bailey Hutchison (US Senator)
E-Mail: United States Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison (http://www.senate.gov/~hutchison/contact.cfm - broken link)
Mailing Address:
284 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510-4304
Phone: (202) 224-5922
Fax: (202) 224-0776

John Cornyn (US Senator)
E-Mail: .: United States Senator John Cornyn, Texas :: Contact :. (http://cornyn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.ContactForm - broken link)
Mailing Address:
517 Hart Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: (202) 224-2934
Fax: (202) 228-2856
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-02-2008, 07:30 AM
 
Location: San Antonio
1,893 posts, read 4,862,385 times
Reputation: 1471
Hold on a second while I put on my flame proof suit.............................................. .................................................. ..............
OK. If they would have just done the logical thing like building bridges over the major intersections to begin with. It would have been done already.

Uncontrolled development, especially over a sensitive area like our Aquifer Recharge Zone is, and should be, a real pain. That's why it shouldn't have been done in the first place. Traffic congestion and legal roadblocks are the ramifications being felt now for irresponsible actions in the past by people who have collected their money and moved on. Leaving people sitting in their cars in traffic jams wondering how they got there and how they are going to fix it. It's kind of like the shape the economy is now that I think of it. They keep building more and more facilities that brings more people who need more facilities to an area that should have minimal development. I'm afraid anyone who live in that area is just in a bit of a pickle. I don't see things getting any better any time soon. As a matter of fact, I see them getting worse.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2008, 07:49 AM
Bo Bo won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Tenth Edition (Apr-May 2014). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Ohio
16,814 posts, read 33,121,638 times
Reputation: 13587
Quote:
Originally Posted by ged_782 View Post
I heard Terri Hall on the radio earlier today. She was ecstatic over the news, saying this means the toll project is dead and we can now move forward with the original plan to construct flyover bridges at major intersections.

<snip>

If there are environmental issues with building a toll road, wouldn't there be environmental issues with building flyover bridges?
Overpasses will add much less impervious cover to the area than adding 7 miles of 4-lane highway to the area would have. It would be much more aquifer-friendly solution.

I'm not convinced that the toll road option is gone forever. But I share Terri Hall's hope that this ruling will put other options like overpasses back on the table.

The best solution would be tighter controls on development to prevent so many homes and businesses from going in without highway infrastructure to support them. The people who bankroll candidates in Texas won't ever let that happen.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2008, 12:59 PM
 
2,027 posts, read 6,351,961 times
Reputation: 630
I love when people say we never should have built there in the first place. Guess what. Cities grow out. All of them. There is no perfect urban-only city. Do you just want to tear down the billions worth of houses and businesses just because you don't like suburbs? Without areas like Stone Oak, San Antonio wouldn't get near as much in taxes. It is an attractive area to live in and there are already restrictions regarding construction over the aquifer. It isn't fair to say because somebody chose to live outside 1604 they don't deserve the same infrastructure as those inside 410. Tolling the highway is a great option because it only requires those that use it to pay for it. Why should everybody's taxes go for spending millions for overpasses on a road that many rarely travel on? Overpasses may be a great relief for the next 5 years, but by the time they are finished the population will have doubled and we are in the same situation again. These are the same people that have voted down LRT twice! I'm not sure we will ever seen this anti-progress sentiment leave SA.

On another note, I wonder how this may affect the 1604 toll project.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2008, 03:12 PM
 
58 posts, read 104,640 times
Reputation: 65
My hope is that they'll have learned their lesson from the 281 project, and abandon the toll hopes on 1604. If not, I'm sure Terri Hall and others will go after them there too. Even if they do decide to move forward with 1604, there was probably enough dirt stirred up to stall the 1604 project for a few years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2008, 03:17 PM
Bo Bo won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Tenth Edition (Apr-May 2014). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Ohio
16,814 posts, read 33,121,638 times
Reputation: 13587
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgannaway89 View Post
I love when people say we never should have built there in the first place. Guess what. Cities grow out. All of them. There is no perfect urban-only city.
Growth is OK, but smart growth is better.

In the midwestern state I moved here from, the city and the county put tight controls on development because the laws of the state gave them the power to regulate. Developers had to pay for road improvements and nothing got past the county board and city council without the infrastructure in place to support it. Because the government artificially tightened the housing stock, prices for existing homes went up! No, this wasn't a perfect solution, but it was preferable to unbridled development. You could never do this in Texas because state laws don't allow local government that level of control over development projects.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2008, 04:51 PM
 
Location: Helotes
778 posts, read 2,217,720 times
Reputation: 590
We need to get some FEMA money (since SA seems to be strapped with evacuees everytime there is a hurricane) and have some emergency overpasses installed. If we can just blame all the extra traffic on the evacuees, we'll be in like Flynn.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2008, 05:11 PM
 
418 posts, read 1,111,534 times
Reputation: 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by bresilhac View Post
Well you know who is to blame for all of these senseless delays. The anti-toll crowd and their stupid and frivolous lawsuits. If not for these ridiculous delays the project would be near completion now. When will these egotistical anti-toll morons understand that you cannot force your narrow view of how things should be upon the rest of the citizenry? Meanwhile the traffic situation worsens daily. But you won't hear that from the anti-toll road crowd.
Thats all smoke and mirrors and just a conevient excuse.

Bottom line. The toll authority needed to issue bonds to get the road built. The bond issuance market is currently shattered. The premiums on interest are quite high.

As a result, they needed an excuse to delay the project. Thats all Teri Hall is, an excuse for politicians to delay.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2008, 08:06 PM
 
10 posts, read 26,710 times
Reputation: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgannaway89 View Post
Tolling the highway is a great option because it only requires those that use it to pay for it. Why should everybody's taxes go for spending millions for overpasses on a road that many rarely travel on?
I guess that means that we should also toll the south side of 410, 35 and 37 since I "rarely drive on it". By this arguement why should any state tax money go to any city/county because then my tax dollars would be going to help somebody else. I guess that we should also keep the property taxes paid on those expensive houses on the north side as well as why should that moeny go to anybody but the people using the area. This is such a lame argument. I do hope that I get the opportunity to vote to toll a road where you live (and I do not) so you can see the flip side.

At this point I just want the situation fixed! I don't really care how. I bugs me to no end the thought of already paying for 281 through taxes and now the possibility of having to pay a toll on a road that I have already paid for. However, I just want it done. It's only a few bucks per day and I would gladly spend that amount to get out of the traffic.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-02-2008, 09:35 PM
 
Location: Western Bexar County
3,823 posts, read 13,346,706 times
Reputation: 1905
Quote:
Originally Posted by SilverCreek78250 View Post
We need to get some FEMA money (since SA seems to be strapped with evacuees everytime there is a hurricane) and have some emergency overpasses installed. If we can just blame all the extra traffic on the evacuees, we'll be in like Flynn.
They should use some of that money to widen I10 to 3 lanes each way between San Antonio and Houston. Two lanes just doesn't cut it anymore.

BTW: It is In like Flint
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas > San Antonio
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:50 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top