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.
dvlpr - I read a lot of your posts and think you present well thought out arguments. Some of which I agree with - others I don't.
What is you solution to the problems facing those who live on 281?
First, thanks for your kind words. Civilized disagreement rules!
Here's my abbreviated idea about this issue: building more highways & streets in an effort to reduce traffic is like giving an alcoholic another drink in an effort to sober him up.
I don't believe that we're responsible for "fixing" suburban traffic issues, when the only true fix is an expensive, short-term solution (more highways/roads). I believe that people who made a choice to live in suburban areas (and be the recipient of its benefits) need to accept one of the major consequences of suburbia: awful traffic.
Our current model for transportation (individual autos) has created an environment (suburbia) where driving is mandatory for almost every daily activity. One of the major reasons that suburbia has become the standard development pattern is that it's substantially cheaper to construct than traditional urbanism. This makes possible one of the principle appeals of living in suburbia: relatively inexpensive new homes (on a per foot basis) in desirable school districts.
But the reason suburbia is cheaper to construct is that it's heavily subsidized by public dollars - mostly in the way of big highway infrastructure.
That worked for a long time, but as cities have continued to grow in this pattern, highway/road infrastructure must become exponentially larger to accommodate additional traffic. New highways must be constructed, and existing highways must be expanded. These are both extremely costly options (especially the latter), and we're finally figuring out that there's simply no way to pay for it. Even if you're a proponent of sprawl/suburbia, it's inarguable that we don't have enough money to build and maintain this system. That money has to come from somewhere, and the answer is either tolls or higher taxes.
As a society (here and in most cities in the US) we've become conditioned to a certain way of life (driving everywhere for everything). But we need to start making other arrangements, and use our limited resources on transportation models that have a future. This includes a combination of walking (crazy, I know), biking, mass-transit, and individual autos. I believe that once walking, biking, and mass-transit are viable options, most of our traffic problems will take care of themselves. But places like 281 & 1604 are going to be very difficult to retrofit.
I meant to be concise, but ended up long-winded. Story of my life.
Location: 281 north of 1604 - otherwise known as traffic hell
450 posts, read 1,599,386 times
Reputation: 181
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvlpr
First, thanks for your kind words. Civilized disagreement rules!
Here's my abbreviated idea about this issue: building more highways & streets in an effort to reduce traffic is like giving an alcoholic another drink in an effort to sober him up.
I don't believe that we're responsible for "fixing" suburban traffic issues, when the only true fix is an expensive, short-term solution (more highways/roads). I believe that people who made a choice to live in suburban areas (and be the recipient of its benefits) need to accept one of the major consequences of suburbia: awful traffic.
Our current model for transportation (individual autos) has created an environment (suburbia) where driving is mandatory for almost every daily activity. One of the major reasons that suburbia has become the standard development pattern is that it's substantially cheaper to construct than traditional urbanism. This makes possible one of the principle appeals of living in suburbia: relatively inexpensive new homes (on a per foot basis) in desirable school districts.
But the reason suburbia is cheaper to construct is that it's heavily subsidized by public dollars - mostly in the way of big highway infrastructure.
That worked for a long time, but as cities have continued to grow in this pattern, highway/road infrastructure must become exponentially larger to accommodate additional traffic. New highways must be constructed, and existing highways must be expanded. These are both extremely costly options (especially the latter), and we're finally figuring out that there's simply no way to pay for it. Even if you're a proponent of sprawl/suburbia, it's inarguable that we don't have enough money to build and maintain this system. That money has to come from somewhere, and the answer is either tolls or higher taxes.
As a society (here and in most cities in the US) we've become conditioned to a certain way of life (driving everywhere for everything). But we need to start making other arrangements, and use our limited resources on transportation models that have a future. This includes a combination of walking (crazy, I know), biking, mass-transit, and individual autos. I believe that once walking, biking, and mass-transit are viable options, most of our traffic problems will take care of themselves. But places like 281 & 1604 are going to be very difficult to retrofit.
I meant to be concise, but ended up long-winded. Story of my life.
I am no proponent of sprawl - though I see why it has taken a strong hold in our society. I agree with you in a lot of respects, but have a few counter points.
Point one - the problems were built into this long ago and to make no efforts to "fix" them seems absurd to me. While I understand that funds should be diverted to a large extent back inside the loops in an effort to discourage sprawl and encourage "better" growth, I cant accept that as a solution for several reasons. One of the problems I have with that is that it ignores the needs of those who pay taxes outside the loops. Basically it says - well your taxes are no good here - we won't address your needs, instead we will encourage better development in the future and leave you to your devises. While this helps you with your desire to have more infill, it is categorically unfair (the world isn't fair, I know).
Just as I would not expect someone who lives in sommerset to pay for road improvements that have no benefit to them (like the road leading to my neighborhood), I wouldn't expect my money to go solely to people other than me and my neighbors. If you want to set up a system that says greater money for the greater good - allocating 90% for the city and 10% for the area in which you live - I can get behind something like that.
I think there are better ways to allocate funding and better ways to generate it - tax increase isn't out of my vocabulary like it is for some.
I have more, but need to run - will check back later and expand on this.
Here's my abbreviated idea about this issue: building more highways & streets in an effort to reduce traffic is like giving an alcoholic another drink in an effort to sober him up.
You make a good point, but in this situation I disagree. Replacing the highways/streets here is necessary because the current setup is broken. There have been nothing but temporary "fixes". There needs to be a well planned replacement.
Basically we are looking to get rid of the bottle of vodka and instead needing a nice cold glass of fat free milk.
Can someone - hopefully you HIGHWAY MAN - chime in on this? I am very fond of the free lanes being there and would prefer this route, but just don't understand how it will work.
It's very simple--- the existing free lanes would be moved outward. The new tolled expressway lanes would be put down the middle between those free lanes.
What a lot of people (including the esteemed Mr. Adkisson) don't realize is that there was never an "overpasses-only" plan. The original plan from 2000 was to extend the existing expressway northward from Sonterra to Stone Oak Pkwy. That would include expressway mainlanes and access roads. The tollway plan is that same plan, just that the new expressway mainlanes would be tolled.
Quote:
Question 1 - Where does he think the money will come from?
Like a good politician, he hasn't thought that far ahead.
Quote:
Question 2 - how will we keep people who are exiting business from getting annihilated as they pull out on to the "free" lanes that are now going to be traveling 50-60 mph (at least)?
Question 3 - how will we keep people who are attempting to get onto 281 from the side streets from getting annihilated much like those in question 2?
That is exactly correct. The Federal Highway Administration has already told TxDOT and the RMA that an overpasses-only solution is not acceptable for just those reasons.
Tommy Adkisson, for all his good intentions and like so many others, is woefully misinformed on the subject of transportation. Hopefully his tenure at the MPO will allow him to get the education he needs. And as things stand now, his term will be over before the 281 and 1604 studies are even done.
Quote:
Question 4 - will we need an access road?
Yes.
Quote:
Question 5 - if we need an access road - where will it go? Seems like there isn't enough room for that given the current configuration without some substantial changes.
Sure, there's plenty of room. The edge of the right-of-way is substantially further out than the current roadway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bowie
Rick Perry stacked the deck against a non-toll solution by draining the highway funding, so there really is no clear alternative as long as he is in office. A new administration might restack the deck to allow alternatives.
That's not accurate. The legislature is the biggest culprit in all of this since they're the ones that decide how these things are funded. It's the legislature, not the governor, who has consistently decided for the past 18 years not to increase the gas tax, and it's the legislature that has allocated money from the Highway Fund for purposes other than roads. It's the fact that the gas tax is no longer sufficient to pay for our highway needs that's lead us to this point (and the same situation is occurring at the federal level.) Rick Perry's only contribution has been to champion using toll roads to fill the funding gap left by the legislature. Admittedly, Perry has threatened to veto a gas tax increase if it ever made it to his desk, but it's never even gotten to a vote in the legislature, even during both Bush's and Richards' time in the mansion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvlpr
Our current model for transportation (individual autos) has created an environment (suburbia) where driving is mandatory for almost every daily activity. One of the major reasons that suburbia has become the standard development pattern is that it's substantially cheaper to construct than traditional urbanism. This makes possible one of the principle appeals of living in suburbia: relatively inexpensive new homes (on a per foot basis) in desirable school districts.
I would agree with you in principle, but the problem is where the rubber meets the road (no pun intended). Until local governments (including counties) are given the tools and are motivated to require higher density, there's not alot that can be done to stop the type of sprawl we see. Texas is a big property rights state, so getting to that point is going to be difficult at best. In the end, it's really a chicken-and-egg problem.
Quote:
That money has to come from somewhere, and the answer is either tolls or higher taxes.
Exactly correct.
Quote:
If you want to set up a system that says greater money for the greater good - allocating 90% for the city and 10% for the area in which you live - I can get behind something like that.
My only question to that would be this: how would you define "the area in which you live" and how would you go about capturing and distributing taxes in that area?
Last edited by TexHwyMan; 07-30-2009 at 02:24 PM..
Reason: Typo
I am no proponent of sprawl - though I see why it has taken a strong hold in our society. I agree with you in a lot of respects, but have a few counter points.
Point one - the problems were built into this long ago and to make no efforts to "fix" them seems absurd to me. While I understand that funds should be diverted to a large extent back inside the loops in an effort to discourage sprawl and encourage "better" growth, I cant accept that as a solution for several reasons. One of the problems I have with that is that it ignores the needs of those who pay taxes outside the loops. Basically it says - well your taxes are no good here - we won't address your needs, instead we will encourage better development in the future and leave you to your devises. While this helps you with your desire to have more infill, it is categorically unfair (the world isn't fair, I know).
Just as I would not expect someone who lives in sommerset to pay for road improvements that have no benefit to them (like the road leading to my neighborhood), I wouldn't expect my money to go solely to people other than me and my neighbors. If you want to set up a system that says greater money for the greater good - allocating 90% for the city and 10% for the area in which you live - I can get behind something like that.
I think there are better ways to allocate funding and better ways to generate it - tax increase isn't out of my vocabulary like it is for some.
I have more, but need to run - will check back later and expand on this.
We probably agree more than we disagree.
1. My basic position is that the "fix" (more highways/roads) will continue to encourage the problem (more sprawl & more traffic). That's the problem we find ourselves in today. I think it's important to acknowledge that the people who've made a choice to live "out there" have chosen a lifestyle that requires a disproportionate amount of highway/road infrastructure (and tax dollars). Most of the residents in that area knew what the traffic situation was like when they moved there (and they all play a role in making it worse). I think it's wrong that they expect the rest of us to fix the problem they created (and by doing so, subsidizing their lifestyle choice, in effect).
I'm not advocating we "ignore" the subdivisions outside 1604; as we have funds for limited improvements to traffic infrastructure, those improvements should be made. But we don't have enough funds/dollars for the massive cost of new highways/roads required to sustain suburban development. And continuing to funnel a disproportionate share of public monies designated to projects with a limited and unsustainable benefit, I believe that's a mistake.
2. I don't totally agree with your statement regarding the use of taxes in different areas. For better or for worse, when you live in a big metropolitan area, we all have to collectively pay for benefits we might not use. I don't get too hung up on that. My problem is that suburban traffic infrastructure requires a disproportionate amount of public dollars relative to other areas, and that those dollars could be more effectively spent on more sustainable transportation solutions. And, of course, by continuing to subsidize sprawl with public monies, we're "keeping the alcoholic drunk", to continue my metaphor.
Last, while I think it's a bad decision in the long run (for lots & lots of reasons), if 281 was converted to a toll road, I'd have little issue with that. At least the people who see the majority of the benefit will be forced bear the majority of the costs. I think the toll-road debate has been fascinating on a number of levels, not the least of which is the revelation that there are lots of folks who, for whatever reason, think that this very expensive infrastructure should be paid for by "someone else".
It's very simple--- the existing free lanes would be moved outward. The new tolled expressway lanes would be put down the middle between those free lanes.
What a lot of people (including the esteemed Mr. Adkisson) don't realize is that there was never an "overpasses-only" plan. The original plan from 2000 was to extended the existing expressway northward from Sonterra to Stone Oak Pkwy. That would include expressway mainlanes and access roads. The tollway plan is that same plan, just that the new expressway mainlanes would be tolled.
Like a good politician, he hasn't thought that far ahead.
That is exactly correct. The Federal Highway Administration has already told TxDOT and the RMA that an overpasses-only solution is not acceptable for just those reasons.
Tommy Adkisson, for all his good intentions and like so many others, is woefully misinformed on the subject of transportation. Hopefully his tenure at the MPO will allow him to get the education he needs. And as things stand now, his term will be over before the 281 and 1604 studies are even done.
Yes.
Sure, there's plenty of room. The edge of the right-of-way is substantially further out than the current roadway.
That's not accurate. The legislature is the biggest culprit in all of this since they're the ones that decide how these things are funded. It's the legislature, not the governor, who has consistently decided for the past 18 years not to increase the gas tax, and it's the legislature that has allocated money from the Highway Fund for purposes other than roads. It's the fact that the gas tax is no longer sufficient to pay for our highway needs that's lead us to this point (and the same situation is occuring at the federal level.) Rick Perry's only contribution has been to champion using toll roads to fill the funding gap left by the legislature. Admittedly, Perry has threatened to veto a gas tax increase if it ever made it to his desk, but it's never even gotten to a vote in the legislature, even during both Bush's and Richards' time in the mansion.
I would agree with you in principle, but the problem is where the rubber meets the road (no pun intended). Until local governments (including counties) are given the tools and are motivated to require higher density, there's not alot that can be done to stop the type of sprawl we see. Texas is a big property rights state, so getting to that point is going to be difficult at best. In the end, it's really a chicken-and-egg problem.
Exactly correct.
My only question to that would be this: how would you define "the area in which you live" and how would you go about capturing and distributing taxes in that area?
As always, an excellent, excellent post from the TexHwyMan!!!
Location: 281 north of 1604 - otherwise known as traffic hell
450 posts, read 1,599,386 times
Reputation: 181
Quote:
We probably agree more than we disagree.
1. My basic position is that the "fix" (more highways/roads) will continue to encourage the problem (more sprawl & more traffic). That's the problem we find ourselves in today. I think it's important to acknowledge that the people who've made a choice to live "out there" have chosen a lifestyle that requires a disproportionate amount of highway/road infrastructure (and tax dollars). Most of the residents in that area knew what the traffic situation was like when they moved there (and they all play a role in making it worse). I think it's wrong that they expect the rest of us to fix the problem they created (and by doing so, subsidizing their lifestyle choice, in effect).
I'm not advocating we "ignore" the subdivisions outside 1604; as we have funds for limited improvements to traffic infrastructure, those improvements should be made. But we don't have enough funds/dollars for the massive cost of new highways/roads required to sustain suburban development. And continuing to funnel a disproportionate share of public monies designated to projects with a limited and unsustainable benefit, I believe that's a mistake.
2. I don't totally agree with your statement regarding the use of taxes in different areas. For better or for worse, when you live in a big metropolitan area, we all have to collectively pay for benefits we might not use. I don't get too hung up on that. My problem is that suburban traffic infrastructure requires a disproportionate amount of public dollars relative to other areas, and that those dollars could be more effectively spent on more sustainable transportation solutions. And, of course, by continuing to subsidize sprawl with public monies, we're "keeping the alcoholic drunk", to continue my metaphor.
Last, while I think it's a bad decision in the long run (for lots & lots of reasons), if 281 was converted to a toll road, I'd have little issue with that. At least the people who see the majority of the benefit will be forced bear the majority of the costs. I think the toll-road debate has been fascinating on a number of levels, not the least of which is the revelation that there are lots of folks who, for whatever reason, think that this very expensive infrastructure should be paid for by "someone else".
I look forward to your thoughts.
I tend to agree with you in some respects. Highway man probably knows where to find the numbers - which roads have the most cars per day? I wanna say 281 north of 1604 is one of the more highly traveled stretches in town - but I can't quote that with certainty. In my eyes - the portions with the most traffic and most pressing needs should get first dibs. I think in large part this works - see i-10/410 and 281/410. I think the next most pressing issue - albeit slightly biased - is 281. However, I don't expect anyone else to have to pay for it. If they want to - then I will gladly accept, but if they don't, I will gladly pay for my share.
This will kind of get to your point and to Highwayman's about how would you partition and/or collect taxes (changing the question slightly).......make it where the local jurisdictions have the ability to levy taxes to help their area. I know - easier said than done. However, you have districts within the city as it currently stands and each has their own councilperson - this would be a good boundary to start with. Maybe a 1/4 cent sales tax increase for those in district X - not really sure how that would work, but hey, just brainstorming here. This also gets in to some issues I have with the city annexing everything in site. If these areas weren't annexed; rather incorporated, they may be able to make some more decision on their own (not real likely but slightly more than the current set up). Although - I, and many others out where I live, are more than willing to pay a toll too. a user fee for those that use it - what could be better than that?
To be sure I am all for more/better mass transit. However, I don't see how this will ever be possible without a significant investment that direction. And, as with roads, there just isn't enough money to do it.
for instance - negating the 20 minutes it would take me to get to the HEB at 1604 and 281 - it would take me 132 minutes or 171 minutes to get to work from my home. Why would I ever chose NOT to make that drive?
Highway man probably knows where to find the numbers - which roads have the most cars per day? I wanna say 281 north of 1604 is one of the more highly traveled stretches in town - but I can't quote that with certainty.
As of 2007 (the latest stats available), here were the top traffic counts in San Antonio:
1. I-10 @ Callaghan Rd. 215,000 vehicles per day
2. I-35 @ Thousand Oaks 210,000
3. I-10 @ DeZavala Rd. 206,000
4. I-35 @ McCullough Ave. 195,000
5. I-35 @ O'Connor Rd. 186,000
6. I-35 S of Rittiman Rd. 185,000
7. I-35 N of Walzem Rd. 184,000 8=. US 281 @ Nakoma Rd. 182,000
8=. I-10 @ Huebner Rd. 182,000
9. I-35 @ S. Laredo St. 180,000
10. I-35 S of Walzem Rd. 179,000 11. US 281 @ Brookhollow Dr. 175,000
12. Loop 410 @ McCullough Ave. 168,000
13. Loop 410 @ Broadway 167,000
14. Loop 410 @ Evers Rd. 166,000
15. Loop 410 @ Vance Jackson Rd. 165,000
16. I-10 @ Frio St. 163,000
17. Loop 410 @ Nacogdoches Rd. 160,000
18. Loop 410 @ Blanco Rd. 159,000
19. I-35 @ N. New Braunfels Ave. 158,000
20=. Loop 410 S of Bandera Rd. 155,000
20=. I-10 S of Loop 1604 155,000
20=. I-35 @ Pat Booker Rd. 155,000
... 40. US 281 @ Sonterra Blvd. 112,000
And by the time you get north of Evans, the traffic on 281 drops off substantially.
When all the work is done on Loop 410, I fully expect to see most of the top 10 spots to be along 410; it was that way back in the '90s before all the cosntruction started.
I have read through all of your posts and live in the Canyon Springs area. While I agree these roads are expensive and the city will need money to pay for this Super Street, I dont want anyone to lose sight of ther fact that if a toll road is added that it will only be a way for the city to collect tolls and revenue. It will NOT help traffic flow because cars will have to slow down and pay these tolls. Even if they institute a easy pass ( where a device is attached to your car and it is scanned as you pass through the toll , as we have in NY) you still have to cross the toll at 20mph so in no way will this help with the flow of traffic!
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.
