When are they swapping I-35 and SH-130? (Houston, Dallas: 2015, cost)

[mayfair44]

Originally Posted by Super B

Even completely eliminating all semi-truck thru traffic on I-35 would have very little impact on I-35 in the overall scheme. I am a truck who drives 35 from Irving to Buda everyday and back. I leave around 0700, getting in around 1100 to Buda. I drive a CNG truck, so I HAVE TO fill it up in Austin (off Ben White close to 35). The traffic is not bad in the morning when I get there around 1015. I usually depart Buda by 1130-1200.

If I am delayed coming back for whatever reason and can't leave until after 1400, I usually take 45 to 130. It's about a 9-10 mile difference (longer), but I am absolutely guarenteed there will be light traffic and no delays. People use it, but very few in comparison to I-35. It is amazing! It doesn't make sense for me to use it under good traffic conditions on I-35, but when the traffic is jacked up, I definitely bypass 35!

Other semi-trucks use it besides me, but not that many. I have talked to other truck drivers and they always say, the don't want to pay. Money is the bottom line I think. We (most people) simply do not want to pay for something that is otherwise free even if that means we are delayed half an hour (or whatever).

In every city I can think of, toll roads that are successful, are so because either...

drivers pretty much have no other viable choice
they are long established toll roads that are reasonably priced
they are in convenient locations running parallel to a traffic nightmare existing freeway

No other choice - think mainly up north. I'll used Dallas as an example. Dallas North Tollway have been there for decades and runs parallel to SH-75 (Central Expressway). PGBT runs parallel to 635. Both DNT and PGBT are used heavily. Both are in parts of town where heavy traffic already existed. Both are in affluent areas as well. 130 in Austin, RR, Georgetown runs parallel to 35, but is on the much less traffic busy, much less affluent side of town. If people live West of 35, which most people in the Austin area do, the hassle of drive across town to get to a better less congested freeway, is offset by the hassle of going across town, then coming back across town. If that makes any sense.

If Austin or the state could somehow find a way to encourage most thru traffic, not just semis to use 45/130, that is where the impact would be huge. You have to balance that with the possibility that if too many people started using 45/130, it to would become congested. Then, people would not see the benefit of bypassing 35 if there is going to be traffic jams on the toll roads too. Also, there are only four lanes (two in each direction). There was plenty of room to make six lanes from the get go, at least in Austin, RR and Georgetown, so apparently there was no vision of 130 becoming a viable 35 bypass, despite what they claim.

Great post and insight. You'd think that "time is money" would play out, even if you're coughing up a toll to use it. How much does that 45/130 stretch cost you? What's your avg time vs straight up 35?

In my experience on 130 and SE 45, especially south of Ben White, I can't imagine traffic becoming an issue anytime soon. For most passenger vehicles, 80-85mph makes up for extra few miles.

[Super B]

Originally Posted by Novacek

Exactly, there's plenty of room, enough to expand later when traffic flows increase. Why build extra lanes when even under the most optimistic models they wouldn't be fully utilized yet?

Okay. Either way the current are no where near being fully utilized. Yet they are encouraging people to bypass 35 by taking 130. The Austin Metro sections would need 3 lanes on each side to truly be a viable alternative. It makes no sense to build two lanes on each side, encourage usage, then when traffic flow increases, they will need to add lanes. The thing is brand new and if they divert I-35 to 130 like some are suggesting they will have a multi-year construction project to build new lanes. Otherwise, it will be a huge traffic jam.

[Novacek]

Originally Posted by Super B

The thing is brand new and if they divert I-35 to 130 like some are suggesting they will have a multi-year construction project to build new lanes. Otherwise, it will be a huge traffic jam.

(sections of) 130 has been open for _seven years_. _If_ any project on 35 ever happened, that would be _years_ in the future. You're talking about extra capacity being added from the beginning and then going unused for 15-20 years.

[buffettjr]

I'm still confused as to why people mention I-35 going underground in discussions relating to relieving traffic. As I understand it, that project has absolutely nothing to do with alleviating traffic, it has to do with improving quality of life by removing a giant barrier/scar and gaining new valuable downtown commercial land.

[veloman777]

Cities were never built or laid out for a million vehicles.

Cities can operate with millions of people.

Stop hitting your head against the wall wondering why there is traffic and how it can be resolved.

[hillcountryheart]

veloman, we also have through traffic.

The state has the power to force trucks to take certain highways, but of course, the state loveth not liberal Austin. However, with I-35 a federal highway, I think it beggars belief that it hasn't been designated as a non-hazardous cargo route (HC) which would force some truckers to take the toll road. Short of that I suggest APD ticket every truck driver possible and conduct safety checks - make it as difficult as possible to take I-35. Houston, San Antonio and Dallas *all* force HC traffic out of the interstates at their loops.

[ScoPro]

Just drove Up I-35 to Buda, then took 45 over to 130, and got off on 45 in Round Rock. 4pm - 4:30pm.

LOTS of 18 wheelers on 130, but car traffic was much lighter than 35.

35 was packed all the way from San Antone.

[hillcountryheart]

Originally Posted by ScoPro

Just drove Up I-35 to Buda, then took 45 over to 130, and got off on 45 in Round Rock. 4pm - 4:30pm.

LOTS of 18 wheelers on 130, but car traffic was much lighter than 35.

35 was packed all the way from San Antone.

When we have to switch to the more expensive gasoline due to air pollution, can we tax it and let people take I-130 for free?

This is why toll roads are such a bad idea. Texans hate them even if they are sorely needed. State government is run by monkeys at their typewriters, fed peanuts by the lobbyists.

[ScoPro]

Originally Posted by hillcountryheart

When we have to switch to the more expensive gasoline due to air pollution, can we tax it and let people take I-130 for free?

This is why toll roads are such a bad idea. Texans hate them even if they are sorely needed. State government is run by monkeys at their typewriters, fed peanuts by the lobbyists.

If the criminals who run the state & federal governments would stop diverting 35%-40% of the gasoline tax revenue to their own pet projects instead of using it as the law intended (on roads & highways), then we wouldn't have to go thru the tollway charade.

I am impressed, however, at how quickly & efficiently tollways are built vs the slow as molasses, inept, & corrupt government projects.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by ScoPro

If the criminals who run the state & federal governments would stop diverting 35%-40% of the gasoline tax revenue to their own pet projects instead of using it as the law intended (on roads & highways), then we wouldn't have to go thru the tollway charade.

In 1960, when Texas roads were the envy of the nation, we spent 37% of the state budget on transportation. In 2010, we spent 5%.

Ergo, toll roads.