Can Austin survive without swapping I-35 and SH130? (Dallas, Laredo: construction, calculated)

[cBach]

Originally Posted by CptnRn

How is building out East more sustainable?

I'm sorry, but you don't know much about building foundations if you think the highly expansive clay soil East of Austin is easier to build on. Foundations in that area have to be much deeper and much more heavily reinforced in order to withstand the forces from the clay soil movement. They probably cost at least twice the cost of building a foundation on the limestone ledges in West Austin.

Well, some things are easier. I was talking to a pool developer and he said pools cost him two to three times in the Hill country than in East Austin. Roads are much harder to build, you have to blast rock and then use that as fill for lower areas. They are doing a new development on a hill in Steiner and they have spent the past year grading the land. If this was, say Bastrop, they would have been done in a month.

For homes, what additional reinforcement do you need? I mean, a little extra rebar or you have to dig down a few feet deeper, which is far easier than blasting and then sculpting limestone?

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by Uberguber

Tolls have done a GREAT job of keeping cars off SH130, haven't they?

Location has a great deal more to do with it than the tolls. I drive that road frequently in the course of business or going to San Antonio, and there's not a lot of traffic (though more than there used to be now that they have finished the extension to 10), very few semis which is what we were sold it as a route for, but that has to do with the fact that in order to get from north to south anywhere in Austin proper you have to go way east and then back west. Its main use is for bypassing Austin entirely on the way south or north. Not useful for everyday driving. Note that 45 gets a LOT of usage.

[Uberguber]

The people using the new I-35 can always drive in on 183, 71, 290, 969, and Mopac if they want to go downtown. This way, if people need to be downtown, they can CHOOSE to go downtown, not be FORCED to go downtown like they currently do if they use I-35.

[gpurcell]

Originally Posted by CptnRn

There are very few manufacturing centers located South of Austin so there is very little outward bound manufacturing shipping going North. There is probably more going South to San Antonio to feed it's consumption of goods but there are several other major routes into San Antonio, so probably only a small proportion of the SA bound goods are passing through Austin.

Um, NAFTA?

[scm53]

Originally Posted by gpurcell

Um, NAFTA?

Most of the NAFTA exports from Mexico are vehicles, and they go by rail.

[TexasHorseLady]

Originally Posted by Uberguber

The people using the new I-35 can always drive in on 183, 71, 290, 969, and Mopac if they want to go downtown. This way, if people need to be downtown, they can CHOOSE to go downtown, not be FORCED to go downtown like they currently do if they use I-35.

If they are already east, this is fine. If they are central or west, they have to drive east, then drive in on one of those roads. This is not an improvement, and is not something people are likely to do - go out of their way to get someplace. That, as I said, is one of the reasons that 130 has so little traffic - it is ONLY convenient for people who are already coming from east of I35, or for people who are bypassing Austin traffic from north of Austin to South of Austin or vice versa.

[gpurcell]

Originally Posted by scm53

Most of the NAFTA exports from Mexico are vehicles, and they go by rail.

Laugh. No. Have you ever seen the logistics warehouses on the US side of the border?

[scm53]

Originally Posted by gpurcell

Laugh. No. Have you ever seen the logistics warehouses on the US side of the border?

So what. By dollar volume, #1 is crude oil, #2 is vehicles and parts. You are taking an anecdotal data point that proves nothing - can just as easily be for components going into Mexico to be assembled into final products.

[gpurcell]

ftp://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-...afta_study.pdf

Page 3.

"NAFTA trucks are concentrated on a small number of highways.Seven highway
corridors—which comprise less than two percent of all Texas roadway mileage—carry
almost 83 percent of the NAFTA truck traffic on the Texas highway system. IH-35, the
major north-south corridor, carries 37 percent of all Texas NAFTA traffic; IH-10, the
major east-west corridor, carries 22 percent of all NAFTA trucks; U.S. 59 and U.S. 281
each carry about 6 percent, while IH-20 accommodates about 5 percent, and IH-30 and
U.S. 77 account for an additional 4 percent each of total Texas NAFTA traffic. "

And that's from 10 years ago. US-Mexican trade has expanded a lot since then.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by gpurcell

ftp://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-...afta_study.pdf

Page 3.

"NAFTA trucks are concentrated on a small number of highways.Seven highway
corridors—which comprise less than two percent of all Texas roadway mileage—carry
almost 83 percent of the NAFTA truck traffic on the Texas highway system. IH-35, the
major north-south corridor, carries 37 percent of all Texas NAFTA traffic; IH-10, the
major east-west corridor, carries 22 percent of all NAFTA trucks; U.S. 59 and U.S. 281
each carry about 6 percent, while IH-20 accommodates about 5 percent, and IH-30 and
U.S. 77 account for an additional 4 percent each of total Texas NAFTA traffic. "

And that's from 10 years ago. US-Mexican trade has expanded a lot since then.

Again, so what? Percentages of what volume? And what compared to rail? Your original point was that NAFTA related truck traffic was the major cause of congestion on 35. Data isn't the plural of anecdotes.