Are new highways in the Plans for Austin or the upgrading of existing ones? (Houston: purchase, luxury)

[JoninATX]

There needs to be alternative routes like urban rail, commuter rail like Austin to San Antonio, widing parts of IH 35 like in Round Rock were the access road suddenly merges with 35 with no room to get over and backs up traffic. I never understood why Txdot did that.

[jb9152]

Originally Posted by JoninATX

There needs to be alternative routes like urban rail, commuter rail like Austin to San Antonio, widing parts of IH 35 like in Round Rock were the access road suddenly merges with 35 with no room to get over and backs up traffic. I never understood why Txdot did that.

Already underway, several of these projects:

Project Connect
Lone Star Rail District | Home
Austin Urban Rail

[robino2001]

Originally Posted by jb9152

When SH130 is connected up to I-10 near Seguin, you may see some significant diversion from I-35 to SH130.

Originally Posted by robino2001

I would agree if the connection were closer to San Antonio, but as it is now, it's ~30 miles east of the city... it really doesn't help much of anyone IMO. Now if they were able to make it hit 10 near 1604/UC/Schertz/Randolph/etc... that could have been a different story.

Originally Posted by jb9152

That doesn't really matter, if you're talking truck diversion. It's an urban bypass highway, and the diversion of trucks from the I-10 to I-35 route to an I-10 to SH130 route doesn't really depend on how close it is to San Antonio. As long as the trucks coming northwest out of Houston go via SH130 rather than I-35, where I-10 and SH130 meeting isn't important.

Originally Posted by robino2001

Apparently I'm a moron then... what trucks are coming out of NW Houston, down 10 and then up 35? Why wouldn't any truck from that area take 45, 290, 36, 71, or 183 to catch 35? The only people/trucks I see taking 130 are MAYBE the distribution centers on the east side of SA (410 out to and past 1604) and then those who live in Seguin, Nixon, Stockdale, Luling, etc down towards the coast... to bypass Austin because 130 is easy to catch. I travel to the Converse/UC/Schertz area double-digit times per year... the only time I will take 130 all the way is when I know 35 is shut down/heavily congested... and I live less than a mile from 130.

Originally Posted by jb9152

Ummm...probably because SH130 isn't finished all the way down to I-10 yet; they don't connect. And note - I didn't say they're coming from NW Houston. The trucks are coming in a westerly direction OUT of Houston. I misspoke.

Oh, and you're not a moron! :-)

I realize they're not connected yet... The big giant overpass w/ the barricades on it at 130 and 183 tells me that monthly - but that's not the point. I don't see why anything at all from the East (Houston area) would ever touch 130 when there are tons of other options before you get near 130. That's what I don't get.

I recognize the extreme cases where it may be worth adding ~40-50 miles onto a trip to jump off 35 near SA, head out to 130 then take it up to bypass Austin, and concede maybe decades down the line congestion may be so severe it's the right decision to constantly do (that's a stretch though by most imaginations), but otherwise, the complete extension of 130 to Seguin seems to be relatively pointless for the masses and only applicable for a few people/companies located in the specific areas I previously mentioned. Again, if it connected closer to SA, I'd assume more trucks/casual travelers would be willing to use it. With that said, maybe it spurs growth in along the highway over time, and that's cool, but that also is a long drawn out thing.

Maybe if 130 is eventually lengthened to wrap around SA as it does Austin and eventually connect directly to 37 and 35, THAT could be a completely different story. Then does stuff from the East (Houston, etc) make sense hitting 130, but only an imaginary Southbound 130 to bypass SA when traveling towards the border.

[jb9152]

Originally Posted by robino2001

I realize they're not connected yet... The big giant overpass w/ the barricades on it at 130 and 183 tells me that monthly - but that's not the point. I don't see why anything at all from the East (Houston area) would ever touch 130 when there are tons of other options before you get near 130. That's what I don't get.

Because of volume; there is not enough highway capacity on the ancillary routes to I-10 to consider many other east-west routes. Then, a connection between SH130 and I-10 somewhere northeast of San Antonio (thereby avoiding congestion issues as you get closer to town), and staying east of the I-35 corridor and especially Austin is a huge benefit for trucking. Currently, to connect to I-35 from I-10, trucks have to come into the congestion zone around San Antonio. Putting the connection outside that zone helps with throughput and also makes SH130 attractive in comparison to I-35 for trucks using I-10.

Originally Posted by robino2001

I recognize the extreme cases where it may be worth adding ~40-50 miles onto a trip to jump off 35 near SA, head out to 130 then take it up to bypass Austin, and concede maybe decades down the line congestion may be so severe it's the right decision to constantly do (that's a stretch though by most imaginations), but otherwise, the complete extension of 130 to Seguin seems to be relatively pointless for the masses and only applicable for a few people/companies located in the specific areas I previously mentioned. Again, if it connected closer to SA, I'd assume more trucks/casual travelers would be willing to use it. With that said, maybe it spurs growth in along the highway over time, and that's cool, but that also is a long drawn out thing.

I'm talking about the I-10 to SH130 route being an alternative for truck diversion specifically. I'm not talking about convenience to "regular" motorists.

Originally Posted by robino2001

Maybe if 130 is eventually lengthened to wrap around SA as it does Austin and eventually connect directly to 37 and 35, THAT could be a completely different story. Then does stuff from the East (Houston, etc) make sense hitting 130, but only an imaginary Southbound 130 to bypass SA when traveling towards the border.

Yep, agreed that'd be great - get the north-south traffic out of Mexico and the south Texas land ports out and around San Antonio.

[mayfair44]

Originally Posted by jb9152

Because of volume; there is not enough highway capacity on the ancillary routes to I-10 to consider many other east-west routes. Then, a connection between SH130 and I-10 somewhere northeast of San Antonio (thereby avoiding congestion issues as you get closer to town), and staying east of the I-35 corridor and especially Austin is a huge benefit for trucking. Currently, to connect to I-35 from I-10, trucks have to come into the congestion zone around San Antonio. Putting the connection outside that zone helps with throughput and also makes SH130 attractive in comparison to I-35 for trucks using

Yep, agreed that'd be great - get the north-south traffic out of Mexico and the south Texas land ports out and around San Antonio.

TXDOT announced in September 2011 that the SH 130 designation will be extended westward, along I-10 to I-410, then southward and westward along I-410 to I-35 in southern San Antonio.

Texas State Highway 130 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[mayfair44]

Originally Posted by jb9152

Because of volume; there is not enough highway capacity on the ancillary routes to I-10 to consider many other east-west routes. Then, a connection between SH130 and I-10 somewhere northeast of San Antonio (thereby avoiding congestion issues as you get closer to town), and staying east of the I-35 corridor and especially Austin is a huge benefit for trucking. Currently, to connect to I-35 from I-10, trucks have to come into the congestion zone around San Antonio. Putting the connection outside that zone helps with throughput and also makes SH130 attractive in comparison to I-35 for trucks using I-10.



I'm talking about the I-10 to SH130 route being an alternative for truck diversion specifically. I'm not talking about convenience to "regular" motorists.

Yep, agreed that'd be great - get the north-south traffic out of Mexico and the south Texas land ports out and around San Antonio.

I'm guessing the bulk of freight coming north out of SA comes from Laredo and the Valley, not out of Houston. For now, it's totally plausible for trucks to at least bypass Austin, via-45/130. Obvious cost is a major deterrent and I thought I read there are oversize restrictions. The false perception that it's WAAY out of the way needs to be better managed by TXDOT.

[die Eichkatze]

I10 and I35 coming out of SA pretty much parallel each other until around Seguin when 10 turns to a more directly west route.
Once 130 is fully completed, here is the approx length from the I-10/I-35 interchange just south of downtown SA to the I-35/130 interchange just north of Georgetown...
I-35 all the way: ~112 miles
35/10 to 130: ~128 miles

A huge majority of the through-truck traffic currently running on 35 is going to or from Mexico, and 16 miles for that long of a distance isn't much...especially when it can be driven congestion free at full speed. It all comes down to economics, if it saves them money to pay the toll and get through quicker, then they will use it. If it costs them more money, then I doubt they will use it.

[mayfair44]

Originally Posted by die Eichkatze

I10 and I35 coming out of SA pretty much parallel each other until around Seguin when 10 turns to a more directly west route.
Once 130 is fully completed, here is the approx length from the I-10/I-35 interchange just south of downtown SA to the I-35/130 interchange just north of Georgetown...
I-35 all the way: ~112 miles
35/10 to 130: ~128 miles

A huge majority of the through-truck traffic currently running on 35 is going to or from Mexico, and 16 miles for that long of a distance isn't much...especially when it can be driven congestion free at full speed. It all comes down to economics, if it saves them money to pay the toll and get through quicker, then they will use it. If it costs them more money, then I doubt they will use it.

Indeed. In the meantime though, can't we make that same argument for the current layout of taking 45 to 130 vs 35 going straight through Austin? My math came out to 13 miles difference. THIS is what needs to be promoted at the Buda/G'town interchanges. Plus, with the proposed increase in speed limits on 130....

Until 130 is complete, I'd like to see greater usage of what we have. The current 45/130 layout needs higher usage and awareness. Of course I'm not just speaking about freight. We need as much passenger traffic to be diverted too.

[die Eichkatze]

Originally Posted by mayfair44

Until 130 is complete, I'd like to see greater usage of what we have. The current 45/130 layout needs higher usage and awareness. Of course I'm not just speaking about freight. We need as much passenger traffic to be diverted too.

Adding electronic signs that post/compare travel times using both routes before Georgetown and Buda would be useful, especially if travel times are +30 minutes quicker using the toll. That might help get non local trough traffic off 35 and onto 130...people who are either unaware of the Austin traffic issues, or don't realize that there may be a quicker alternative albeit it will cost them some money.

[BevoLJ]

I-10 runs East-Northeast out of SA. Austin is Northeast of San Antonio. Taking I-10 to 130 is not going 30 miles out of your way to reach 130.

Taking the I-10 to 130 you are still traveling in the direction of Austin.