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.
I had no idea what the current SH-130/45 speed limits are. I did recently read about the consideration of raising it to 85mph. I also now see that they've already approved the speed limit increase to 80mph back in March (to my surprise):
We do need greater usage of SH130, but remember - SH130 provides 2 lanes. In the end, by the year 2035 (which is not that far off), all indications are that we will need an extra 12 lanes approaching Austin from the north, and an extra 14 lanes approaching Austin from the south.
I won't go into again why it's a fantasy, but if you read back some of my earlier postings in this and other topics on transportation, you'll get my gist.
We do need greater usage of SH130, but remember - SH130 provides 2 lanes. In the end, by the year 2035 (which is not that far off), all indications are that we will need an extra 12 lanes approaching Austin from the north, and an extra 14 lanes approaching Austin from the south.
I won't go into again why it's a fantasy, but if you read back some of my earlier postings in this and other topics on transportation, you'll get my gist.
2035? That's out there! Some cool stuff your talking about on Project Connect, however that entails longer term projects, including additional rail, regional rail, etc.
For some near term projects that deal specifically with I-35 today through the core, check out:
"Unlike past corridor studies which focused on large scale, long-term improvements, this program will pursue short (3 or so years) to mid-term (5-10 years) projects."
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.
That's why the greedy tollway operator needs to lower their sky-high rates.
Cut them in half and they will generate a huge amount of traffic on 130.
Bean counters, however, aren't always the smartest guys in the room.
The inevitable solution is to swap SH130 with I-35. Everyone knows it - TxDOT, CAMPO, CoA, and other players know that's the end game, but they choose to procrastinate while they figure out how to do it in a politically palatable manner. I-35 as a tollway would be a goldmine for Zachry-Cintra.
2035? That's out there! Some cool stuff your talking about on Project Connect, however that entails longer term projects, including additional rail, regional rail, etc.
For some near term projects that deal specifically with I-35 today through the core, check out:
"Unlike past corridor studies which focused on large scale, long-term improvements, this program will pursue short (3 or so years) to mid-term (5-10 years) projects."
Yep - unfortunately with the length of time that it takes to deliver large infrastructure projects these days, 2035 is the appropriate planning horizon.
Well, people aren't going to take 130 if I-35 is flowing, which it is most of the time.
There needs to be a way to get vehicles off 35 right before that rush hour breakdown--that point when throughput drops significantly and the road jams up. Maybe TXdot can fudge the numbers on the 130 exit Travel Time signs before peak hours to get more vehicles to take 130
Good point. Since it's over 100 degrees in the afternoon some days during the summer, nobody will ever want to use a bicycle to get anywhere in this city.
I disagree with your opinions, good sir. I disagree that I-35 is flowing most of the time. I live downtown and hit stand still traffic around 6th street on Sundays at 2pm.
I also disagree with your comment that "nobody will ever want to use a bicycle". I never said that. Please go back and read my post again. I said it won't contribute in any significant way to a city growing as fast as this one which is perched on a three nation interstate.
The problem is not congestion. That's the symptom. The problem is a capacity deficit. We're way behind the curve as is, and it will not get better in the foreseeable future, SH130 or no SH130.
High-capacity transit could leverage existing rail and other rights of way to provide the equivalent of 12 highway lanes of capacity from the north into downtown, and the equivalent of 10 highway lanes of capacity from the south into downtown. There is actually a system planning effort going on as I type this to advance this: Project Connect
Thank you for your helpful post -- great information. However, I'm skeptical that the economics will ever turn in favor of paying $50+ to drive a short distance for a truck, which as I understand it is operated and paid for by the driver. Unless the company ordering the shipment wants to have it rushed and pay higher fees for that, it would be on the driver to pay tolls. And they are stretched as it is having to pay for gas themselves (they big on a job to move a trailer, and then all costs are up to them) so they would prefer to sit in traffic for two hours to save $50 in tolls.
Also, I have no doubt that rail removes some people from the congested road -- my problem is that it doesn't remove many people and the costs seem to be sky high. It isn't worth the dollars per person removed. There is only a special subset of people that can take rail transit -- those that happen to live further than a pickup station, happen to work by one of the drop offs, won't need a car once they get where they're going, and don't mind spending hours to commute in on a route that would take a third of the time to drive in a car.
Thank you for your helpful post -- great information. However, I'm skeptical that the economics will ever turn in favor of paying $50+ to drive a short distance for a truck, which as I understand it is operated and paid for by the driver. Unless the company ordering the shipment wants to have it rushed and pay higher fees for that, it would be on the driver to pay tolls. And they are stretched as it is having to pay for gas themselves (they big on a job to move a trailer, and then all costs are up to them) so they would prefer to sit in traffic for two hours to save $50 in tolls.
That only holds as long as the tolls cost more than the fuel wasted, time wasted (which leads to longer cycle times, meaning the truck can't be used for as many shipments per week/month/year, so there's an opportunity cost to sitting in congestion in the form of lost business), and possible late delivery penalty charges that the driver and/or company bears. Once the connection is made between SH130 and I-10, the utility of the roadway will increase for truckers, and the only hurdle left to widespread adoption will be the tolls. And once the economics reach the tipping point I indicated above, the road will quickly fill with trucks. There are already more there today than there were a year ago, including Walmart trucks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by buffettjr
Also, I have no doubt that rail removes some people from the congested road -- my problem is that it doesn't remove many people and the costs seem to be sky high. It isn't worth the dollars per person removed.
Actually, the $ per trip diverted is lower for rail than for highway lanes, in general. A lane-mile of highway can cost upwards of $17 million per mile, and a single lane transports about 2000 people per hour. A single commuter rail line generally costs in the $5 million to $10 million per mile range, and can deliver the equivalent of upwards of 2 to 3 lanes of highway capacity in each direction (for a total of 4 to 6 new lane equivalents), congestion-free and much more reliably than a saturated facility like I-35.
Highway expansion, especially in a developed and/or quickly developing region like the Austin metro, requires right of way and property purchases that drive the cost up - just for reference, there is a project in the DFW metroplex planned to improve 10 miles of highway. The cost is over $3 billion. Now picture the cost of adding the required 12 lanes from north of town into downtown Austin. Now also picture the things that get paved over to build it - the Erwin Center, baseball stadium, a portion of Memorial Stadium, two hospitals, a few cemeteries, and good portions of East Austin. Assuming that you could get that done without massive lawsuits (ha!) which would tie the project up for decades, you then need to think about the economic activities that will go away because you've turned them into strips of concrete. Some businesses will relocate somewhere in the community, but a significant number will simply go away, or move somewhere else. So, added to the cost of the acquisition are tax base losses.
Passenger rail, on the other hand, as currently conceived in the Austin area, uses existing rail rights of way so there is little need to purchase property beyond that needed for stations. Economic development around stations concentrates capital and results in tax base increases that can help pay for the ongoing operations and maintenance of the system. A community looking to either participate in a passenger rail system or build a highway through town faces a choice, then - a train station that attracts and concentrates economic development as well as providing quality transportation capacity, or a strip of concrete that lets people zoom by your town at 70 mph. In fact, rather than concentrating economic development, highways tend to disperse it and induce "sprawl" development, which is highly inefficient and difficult and more expensive to serve with municipal services.
When the time comes to expand, in general the incremental costs of doing so on a rail line are much less than that required for a highway. To increase capacity on a rail line, it's normally sufficient for some time to simply add some cars to select trains (or all trains), or add a new train or two to the schedule. There are costs associated with that, of course, but in order to do the same thing with a highway, you need to purchase property and construct another lane. That's hugely more expensive than adding cars to a rail line.
Finally, operations and maintenance and ongoing lifecycle costs of highway versus passenger rail are roughly equivalent, so there are no long term cost savings of investing in one versus the other.
The point here is that we need to do *everything*. We're not going to build 12 lanes from the north and 14 from the south (which is the estimate of need by 2035), but we need to do everything we can to improve the roads within the constraints we have to live with. And we also need to invest in high capacity transit, and look into making freight rail more efficient so that some freight shipments can be diverted from the trucks that routinely turn I-35 into a parking lot to freight trains. We don't have the luxury of waiting for a miracle to happen that suddenly takes care of all the problems with building 14 highway lanes into Austin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by buffettjr
There is only a special subset of people that can take rail transit -- those that happen to live further than a pickup station, happen to work by one of the drop offs, won't need a car once they get where they're going, and don't mind spending hours to commute in on a route that would take a third of the time to drive in a car.
The proposed LSTAR system is proposed to take 30 minutes from Georgetown to downtown Austin, and 30 minutes from San Marcos to downtown Austin. You couldn't drive that during rush hour today, let alone in 10 to 20 years.
Passenger rail works just about everywhere it's built. It's convenient, reliable, and done correctly (which is the point of Project Connect) can be a substantially more attractive alternative for people than driving on congested highways. Just about everywhere that it's been built in the last 30 years, there were the usual cries of "people will never get out of their cars". Well, not only is that a straw man (no one expects people to give up their cars; some trips are not appropriate for rail - for example, who's going to pick their kids up from school on a train or go grocery shopping on a train?), but it's proved wrong just about everywhere it's built. Build it, and they come.
Passenger rail loses huge amounts of money, even streetcar systems do (see Old Austin). The only way it can stay running is through massive taxpayer subsidies.
It is worth it to some major cities, but not so much for a place like Austin.
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.
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.
