new idea for relief on 281 ? (San Antonio, Marshall: appointed, 2009, elementary school)

[SAAggiemom]

I think things are looking pretty good for it right now. If people actually hear the presentation they usually have a very positive response. You could always call or email Councilman's Rowe's office. He needs all the feedback he can get. He's the one pushing for the funding. If you don't have that contact info I'll get it for you. I don't have it with me now but will post it later.

[breathe]

Originally Posted by SAAggiemom

If you are interested there is a meeting tonight at 7:00 at the Encino Park community center on Encino Rio at 7:00 PM to explain the superstreet idea. Pape Dawson engineers and Councilmen Rowe will be there to answer questions.

What was the outcome of this? How do folks find out about meetings like this? I would have have attended if I had known.... I would really like to understand it from the engineers perspective.

[SAAggiemom]

Breathe, I'll check with my sources and see what I can find out. Ha! I've always wanted to say that!
Actually I've worked a bit with Councilmen Rowe's office and Pape Dawson on a related issue so I text or email them. (I show up at a lot of meetings too) I'll see if there is another meeting planned and post here if there is. I put together several links and a superstreet explanation in an email I sent out to my HOA. Send me a direct message with your email and I will be happy to forward it to you.

[mmac12]

SAAggiemom, can you also tell us on the forum the superstreet explantion . I missed the meeting but I hope it passes. Thanks

[TexHwyMan]

Wow, sorry I've been away for so long and haven't been able to defend or clarify myself. First of all, I support the super-street proposal. Because it reduces signal phases at each intersection from 5 or 6 phases to just two, it allows for longer green times on 281 without having to lengthen the corresponding red times on the intersecting streets. Furthermore, because the signal cycles on the east and west sides of 281 would be split and not dependent on each other, that allows better synchronization. Lastly, the super-street concept has been proven to reduce congestion in similar situations, including on 281 itself during the freeway construction south of 1604 in the late '80s.

My comments about increased signal cycles was a response to comments by mmac12 and Dopo (posts #22 and #23 in this thread) that said that simply increasing the green time for 281 traffic in its existing configuration (at least, that was my assumption since Dopo specifically has indicated an opposition to the super-street idea) would improve traffic on 281. My argument was that doing so has a corresponding increase in traffic backups on those intersecting streets. The super-street idea fixes that because several phases of the signal cycle at each intersection are dropped, and the time from the dropped phases can be given to 281 traffic without any reduction in the green time for the intersecting roads.

Lastly, the "super-street" concept is a variant of the "Michigan Left" in that both plans use median turnarounds. The differences between the SS and ML are:

• In the SS configuration, traffic can turn left from the primary road to the secondary road, whereas in the ML layout there are no left turns at all.
• In the SS configuration, traffic on the secondary road cannot go straight, whereas in the ML layout it can.

Even the FHWA calls the two plans "similar". (Signalized Intersections: Informational Guide (FHWA-HRT-04-091))

Sorry for the confusion and ensuing battles. I hope this post clears things up.

Originally Posted by breathe

I think the idea is absurd. I can't imagine enough benefit of having mandatory turn-right, fight-your-way-from-right-lane-to-left-to turn-yourself-in-the-direction-you-really-want-to-go traffic flow to outweigh the expense.

Since the majority of traffic on the intersecting roads at those locations is turning and not going straight, it actually does work better. Also, because there will be signals letting traffic out from the intersecting street, they won't have to "fight their ways from the right lane to the left."

[TexHwyMan]

Originally Posted by breathe

How about we hire the company that wants to build toll roads to build a bridge or two? They get the the job if they agree to build the overpass + a little wider to accomodate growth/expansion.

Originally Posted by Dopo

I completely agree with that,
all that is needed is a couple of overpass bridges

No, overpasses alone will not solve the problem, and here's why. Yes, those overpasses would help speed-up traffic. But you would still have driveways and side-streets connecting with the main highway lanes, as well as crossovers for left turns and u-turns. Having a situation with slower vehicles turning onto the highway, having vehicles slowing down to make turns, and having vehicles making left turns across the highway, while increasing the speed of through traffic on that highway using overpasses, which also give drivers the impression that they're driving on a controlled-access expressway, would create a major safety hazard and would also provide a genesis for congestion. The solution is to have those driveways and side streets connect to a frontage road instead. When you have overpasses and frontage roads, you have a full-fledged expressway, which is why TxDOT has proposed an expressway for that area since 2001. The toll road plan is the original expressway plan except that the new expressway lanes would be tolled instead of toll-free. The reason for tolling is to pay for the project faster than could be done through traditional tax funding.

Originally Posted by breathe

...and while I'm at it, why aren't the developers responsible for carrying some of the load for improved infrastructure (roads/schools)? Impact Fees as a practical and valuable tool for financing infrastructure needs are long overdue in Bexar county.

Why do you think they don't already? Developers do pay some impact fees or donations in-kind (such as building arterial roads or donating land for roads, schools or parks). Admittedly, though, they probably don't pay as much as they should.

[mmac12]

TexHwyMan, while I do agree that better synchronization and the idea of a super-street will work alot better at freeing all the traffic congestion than toll roads, why is it when you finally get past Marshall Rd. where the last traffic light is at Overlook Pkwy, the traffic flows so much freely? Why ... no stopping and starting because no lights. therefore longer green lights on 281 will help dramatically. just my thoughts!!

[heimerswt]

Originally Posted by mmac12

TexHwyMan, while I do agree that better synchronization and the idea of a super-street will work alot better at freeing all the traffic congestion than toll roads, why is it when you finally get past Marshall Rd. where the last traffic light is at Overlook Pkwy, the traffic flows so much freely? Why ... no stopping and starting because no lights. therefore longer green lights on 281 will help dramatically. just my thoughts!!

As TexHwyMan stated above, you are correct...it would help traffic flow. But it would come at a huge (BAD) tradeoff, because it would cause significant increases in traffic on the cross-streets of Encino Rio, Evans, and Stone Oak Pkwy.

The roads past Marshall do not have nearly the same amount of cross-traffic. That is why there are shorter light cycles (if any light at all).

[pr57001]

Originally Posted by mmac12

TexHwyMan, while I do agree that better synchronization and the idea of a super-street will work alot better at freeing all the traffic congestion than toll roads, why is it when you finally get past Marshall Rd. where the last traffic light is at Overlook Pkwy, the traffic flows so much freely? Why ... no stopping and starting because no lights. therefore longer green lights on 281 will help dramatically. just my thoughts!!

...because 1/2 of the people are already home and not still driving up 281.

[SAAggiemom]

I was told that 100,000 travel 281 daily. 70,000 reach their destination or turn off 281 on or before they leave Bexar County. BTW over 100 Encino residents showed up for the SS presentation last week and they overwhelmingly supported the plan. I checked and no other public meeting are currently planned. I'll post here if any come up. If they find the funding and everything get approved there will several public meetings held to explain it to the public. (according to Councilmen Rowe)