when is enough enough? 281/1604 interchange and environmental issues (Houston, San Antonio: sales, neighborhood)

[dendox]

I think I have told you this before - but I bought where I did when the toll road was coming. I made that decision because of the toll road - not inspite of it.

While I agree that there are better long term investments - this is one section that I think is necessary - no matter how you slice it.

thinking about how much damage is done environmentally due to the current congestion. Isn't that their beef? Environment?

[dvlpr]

I understand, but there was never any guarantee (and there still isn't) that the toll road would be constructed in a timely fashion. I really do appreciate the fact that you're pro-toll; at least you're willing to pay for the infrastructure that you're going to use. But too many people think these sorts of things should be "free", which is to say "paid for by someone else".

As far as AGUA's motivation, I would guess that whatever damage is currently being done to the environment as result of congestion is insignificant compared to the damage that will result from continued development over the aquifer. This group has a "big picture" perspective about most issues. They're not particularly interested in compromising. And, in this case, I agree that if we invest public funds in making sprawl more convenient, we will create more sprawl.

I understand that there are people who clearly prefer the sprawl arrangement. But for the first time, (as a result of fewer public monies available for highway projects) those folks are having to reconcile that preference with reality.

[Quattro72]

This is just pathetic. Once again someone is trying to screw San Antonio for forward thinking. What’s new.

[Dopo]

I think the whole issue of 281 is funny,
especially when you drive through I-35 that has only 6 lanes in San Antonio even though is a major commerce corridor.

You drive through any other city.... well, even New Braunfels, has 8 lanes.

[spursfan]

Originally Posted by kevcrawford

I'm going to invite this group to my back yard this weekend to watch me seek out and stomp every single beetle I see.

Sounds good...I'd love to do the same thing. These are the same people (If I recall) that stopped PGA village a few years back. It made me angry then, does now too. Just let us have the freaking interchange.

[sa_rushfan]

You've got to love it...

I'm sure whatever new road infrastructure that is being built, regardless of it's location, is endangering some type of insect or salamander or whatever. For some reason the 281 corridor is always being targeted...

It's a shame that the stimulus money is now at risk due to this.

[case44]

I can't even begin to tell you how sick and tired I am of environmentalists protesting this and that for their own causes. It's so silly. In case they have forgotten: US 281 is congested and needs upgrading. Now! The San Antonio region needs many of its roadways improved so mobility will be better for locals and travelers. Let's get the roads and connectors built, folks.

Maybe those same environmentalists would rather have congestion than cooperate with TXDOT. This is the big city, and freeways, direct connects, and tollways are a big part of living in the big city. If these protesters don't like it, then they can move to Luckenbach, for all I care. They don't have interchanges way up there.

[datacity]

Originally Posted by dvlpr

You might not agree with their perspective (there's plenty of AGUA positions/tactics that I disagree with), but it's hard to argue with the statement that this project would "subsidize and exacerbate sprawl". This interchange would absolutely encourage more sprawl development in this area. No doubt about it.

I am sorry, but I do doubt it. The sprawl is already there. 1604 already exists. It is one thing to block/protest extending/widening road arteries north of 1604 (281, Blanco, Stone Oak, Hardy Oak, Bulverde, etc.), expansion of which would make coming/going further out easier and encourages more development. This specific interchange, as will be built with stimulus funds, tries to fix a problem that already exists on moving traffic east and west on 1604 from 281 and vice versa, but only going toward/coming from the city.

In fact, AGUA seems to be okay with the Superstreet as short term solution... well wouldn't any traffic relief on 281 north of 1604 compared to current status quo encourage further development?

The real issue is that development has already been allowed to move forward without infrastructure already in place over the past couple of decades. You want to slow sprawl? Work to insist that any development come with major infrastructure investment (impact fees) by private developers and major mitigation..or try to work to freeze further development over the acquifer... or at least minimize it and make it expensive. That might be an incentive encouraging more vertical solutions closer to the core of the city.

[datacity]

Originally Posted by Dopo

I think the whole issue of 281 is funny,
especially when you drive through I-35 that has only 6 lanes in San Antonio even though is a major commerce corridor.

You drive through any other city.... well, even New Braunfels, has 8 lanes.

That is why:

a) adding new toll lanes to IH-35 in that area is still in the plans, though of course nothing is ever guaranteed.
b) SH130 will likely continue to be extended south from Seguin to IH-35 outside of San Antonio and north to IH-35 past Waco. Trans Texas Corridor isn't completely dead?

[dvlpr]

Originally Posted by datacity

I am sorry, but I do doubt it. The sprawl is already there. 1604 already exists. It is one thing to block/protest extending/widening road arteries north of 1604 (281, Blanco, Stone Oak, Hardy Oak, Bulverde, etc.), expansion of which would make coming/going further out easier and encourages more development. This specific interchange, as will be built with stimulus funds, tries to fix a problem that already exists on moving traffic east and west on 1604 from 281 and vice versa, but only going toward/coming from the city.

In fact, AGUA seems to be okay with the Superstreet as short term solution... well wouldn't any traffic relief on 281 north of 1604 compared to current status quo encourage further development?

The real issue is that development has already been allowed to move forward without infrastructure already in place over the past couple of decades. You want to slow sprawl? Work to insist that any development come with major infrastructure investment (impact fees) by private developers and major mitigation..or try to work to freeze further development over the acquifer... or at least minimize it and make it expensive. That might be an incentive encouraging more vertical solutions closer to the core of the city.

Of course, the sprawl is "already there". But spending more public monies on more traffic infrastructure will make the construction of more sprawl even easier. One of the most powerful disincentives for moving to this area is the horrible traffic, and this interchange is a huge part of that.

I don't believe public monies should be spent on removing that disincentive (especially when you consider how unsustainable and expensive sprawl-based development is). We really can't build our way out of this problem, to paraphrase T. Boone Pickens. And while I dislike sprawl for a number of reasons, what irks me the most is that it requires massive public subsidies (in the form of highway/road infrastructure) to function. People are starting to realize this, which is why new highways in other cities have taken the form of toll roads.

Your proposed to solution to slowing sprawl is a nice idea, but cities in Texas don't have the authority to charge impact fees for highway construction, or to regulate growth (in any meaningful way) outside their municipal boundary. In many cases, properties with vested rights are exempt from ordinances/codes even if they're in the city limits. Cities in TX don't have many tools in their toolbox.