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.
Up until mid-2005, one could drive on Potranco from Highway 151 all of the way out past Talley Road with ONLY two functioning stop lights. One intersection was at Potranco just before the new high school and the other was at Loop 1604. In all, if one timed their approaches to these two lights correctly and caught them when they were green, you could drive non-stop that entire distance in less than 5 minutes because the speed limit was 60 mph outside of Loop 1604. Today, it can take up to 30 minutes to drive the same distance with the phalanx of new traffic control devices, lower speed limits in some areas, and lethargic and/or inconsiderate drivers.
If you live in the area, you can look forward to relief ONLY after they triple the number of lights, reduce the speed limits over time by another two-thirds, and the same commute time turns into an hour. I know you think I am crazy, but just wait and see.
For examples of how pathetically slow the traffic engineering and government is in ANY state, one only needs to look at some of the more caustic locations in our delightful city to be reminded -- i.e., Bandera & Loop 410, Culebra & Loop 410, Marbach & Loop 410, Culebra & Loop 1604, Potranco & Loop 1604, Stone Oak Parkway at Loop 1604 or Highway 281, Highway 281 at Loop 1604, etc.
If it gets real bad, many will just sell off to the next poor ******* and let their families deal with it. But I agree with one of the previous posters -- you will NOT see anything done until about 2015 at the earliest. After all, what's the hurry?
Up until mid-2005, one could drive on Potranco from Highway 151 all of the way out past Talley Road with ONLY two functioning stop lights. One intersection was at Potranco just before the new high school and the other was at Loop 1604. In all, if one timed their approaches to these two lights correctly and caught them when they were green, you could drive non-stop that entire distance in less than 5 minutes because the speed limit was 60 mph outside of Loop 1604. Today, it can take up to 30 minutes to drive the same distance with the phalanx of new traffic control devices, lower speed limits in some areas, and lethargic and/or inconsiderate drivers.
If you live in the area, you can look forward to relief ONLY after they triple the number of lights, reduce the speed limits over time by another two-thirds, and the same commute time turns into an hour. I know you think I am crazy, but just wait and see.
For examples of how pathetically slow the traffic engineering and government is in ANY state, one only needs to look at some of the more caustic locations in our delightful city to be reminded -- i.e., Bandera & Loop 410, Culebra & Loop 410, Marbach & Loop 410, Culebra & Loop 1604, Potranco & Loop 1604, Stone Oak Parkway at Loop 1604 or Highway 281, Highway 281 at Loop 1604, etc.
If it gets real bad, many will just sell off to the next poor ******* and let their families deal with it. But I agree with one of the previous posters -- you will NOT see anything done until about 2015 at the earliest. After all, what's the hurry?
You're right on. But I wouldn't be so quick to place blame on "the government". They have a finite amount of resources to deal with explosive (and somewhat unpredictable) growth patterns.
The people that get mad about traffic have no one to blame but themselves. They knew what the area was like when they moved there (or they should have), and they contribute every single day to making it worse.
While fixing everything would indeed be very expensive, making a few improvements (such as those I suggested in the original post) would make a HUGE difference in traffic flow and on a whole would not be very expensive.
Okay, my blowhard opinions aside...
Two highway overpasses would be very, very expensive. My guess is north of $25mm. And I'm not sure what you mean by "extending" the left turn lane for northbound 1604 traffic at the Shaenfeld intersection.
Sometimes, there just aren't any easy or cheap solutions. In order to build the infrastructure to accommodate the existing traffic (to say nothing of the 40,000+ new homes that will be built in this area over the next 10 years), it's going to take massive amounts of public monies. And those monies just aren't available.
you cannot blame everyone out here. It is obvious that mastercone was out here at the same time as me and quite possibly quite a bit earier, because I think there was three lights on Potranco between 151 and Talley when I moved here (BTW, the speed limit still is 55 and 60 on Potranco outside 1604, but nobody ever goes it because they're morons). Would it be too much to charge developers a large impact fee to make up for all the traffic they are bringing to a location and use that money to build larger roads? I'm sure that will raise the price of houses a little bit, but so what?
I do agree that a lot of people do not think when they move somewhere, though. There is plenty of evidence on this board of people buying what is popular instead of what makes sense. stone oak is a great example. How many of the people living there work there? very few probably. I live in Westcreek and that has always had a large Lackland presence, which makes sense. The commute to there is not bad, unless you're one of the suckers that has to leave after 6:30 AM or return around 4:00 PM or later. So yes, I blame a lot of it on people not thinking before they buy, but I also say the developers should have to build up some of the infrastructure if they are going to take advantage of the land. That is only fair.
BTW, people that use inside contacts to get special favors (like the dominion ramp and that new light they are installing just north of Marbach on 1604) seriously suck. Is there a way to raise the BS flag on stuff like that? I know you can complain to a city council person, but what about those of us outside the city that have to suffer with yet another stupid light on a highway? especially one that is installed for no reason other than because someone whines about having to drive a couple hundred feet to make a turnaround. Probably the same type of people who buy a house based on recommendations of strangers in an online forum.. brilliant.
you cannot blame everyone out here. It is obvious that mastercone was out here at the same time as me and quite possibly quite a bit earier, because I think there was three lights on Potranco between 151 and Talley when I moved here (BTW, the speed limit still is 55 and 60 on Potranco outside 1604, but nobody ever goes it because they're morons). Would it be too much to charge developers a large impact fee to make up for all the traffic they are bringing to a location and use that money to build larger roads? I'm sure that will raise the price of houses a little bit, but so what?
I do agree that a lot of people do not think when they move somewhere, though. There is plenty of evidence on this board of people buying what is popular instead of what makes sense. stone oak is a great example. How many of the people living there work there? very few probably. I live in Westcreek and that has always had a large Lackland presence, which makes sense. The commute to there is not bad, unless you're one of the suckers that has to leave after 6:30 AM or return around 4:00 PM or later. So yes, I blame a lot of it on people not thinking before they buy, but I also say the developers should have to build up some of the infrastructure if they are going to take advantage of the land. That is only fair.
The city can charge an impact fee and use the money for regional traffic infrastructure. But a couple of points:
1. Impact fees aren't really "paid for" by developers - they're simply passed along to the people who buy the homes. Also, since developers have to (essentially) finance the cost of those fees (most fees are paid "up front"), market economics dictate that we make a profit on that cost. It's not a very efficient way to pay for public infrastructure.
2. Regional traffic infrastructure is very, very expensive. It's just mind-blowing how much it costs to build this stuff (keep in mind that in addition to building roads, you also have to start dealing with drainage and other utilities). That's why neither developers nor municipalities can expand/improve thoroughfares like Potranco, Culebra, Talley, etc. to accomodate the massive amounts of traffic that new developments generate. If you were to try and add these "regional" transportation costs to new housing subdivisions, the cost would probably be in the neighborhood of $10k-$15k per lot, which would add $40k-$75k to the cost of new homes (housing prices are generally governed by lot costs). And this would defeat the entire purpose of suburbia (inexpensive/affordable new housing). How many people would have purchased a home in Bridgewood/Wildhorse/Redbird/etc. if they were $180k instead of $130k?
Trust me - if you started adding these costs to all new homes in SA, you'd see most development move outside the city limits. And if Bexar County did the same, you'd see development move even more quickly into Guadalupe, Comal, Kendall, and Medina counties (which will make traffic problems even worse).
It's a tough situation we find ourselves in. The people who inhabit suburbia want more & more highways & roads, but there's just no way to pay for all of it (hence the 281/1604 toll road fiasco). And rather than fix the issue (by designing neighborhoods that reduce auto traffic and make other transportation options viable) we continue to try and build our way out of the problem.
Two highway overpasses would be very, very expensive. My guess is north of $25mm. And I'm not sure what you mean by "extending" the left turn lane for northbound 1604 traffic at the Shaenfeld intersection.
Sometimes, there just aren't any easy or cheap solutions. In order to build the infrastructure to accommodate the existing traffic (to say nothing of the 40,000+ new homes that will be built in this area over the next 10 years), it's going to take massive amounts of public monies. And those monies just aren't available.
But somehow they found money for the monster overpass at the Dominion, which only serves an extremely small portion of the population and appears to only saved them the half mile or so they had to drive to get to the other overpass.
Sorry, but that one really is a crock; so I don't buy into the "no money" argument. There is proof right there that the state has about $25M to blow.
The request for the longer turn lane onto Shaenfield isn't that hard to understand, that turn lane only accommodates 6-8 cars if that and when more than that want to turn it blocks the left lane of 1604, causing even more headaches. An extended turn lane would allow more traffic that is going straight to get buy, and wouldn't be that costly to put in.
You don't have to be a certified traffic engineer to figure this stuff out. It kinda reminds me of an interview with the campus engineer at the university I went to. He was asked how he determined where new sidewalks would go, and he said he simply looked for places where the students were constantly walking across the grass!
Obviously those who design and build our roadways never travel on them!
Concur...the extended left turn lane for northbound traffic on 1604 trying to turn left onto Shanefield is elementary to see. As you said, the turn lane accomodates 6-8 cars but will back up into the left thru lane for close to a mile at times. Of course, this makes the NB traffic come to a stop and go for that entire mile of 1604.
We moved out here (Bridgewood @ 1604 & Culebra) in 2004. We knew traffic would eventually worsen but it was close to work and a good priced home. I predicted that in 10 years Bandera & 1604 would be like Bandera & 410 and Culebra & 1604 would be the new Bandera & 1604.
Not quite there yet but this trend is just going to continue. A bit slower now due to the recession, but still widening.
I'm not an engineer or a city planner but I wish there were a way they would build these intersections for what they will inevitably become. I think developers should have to pay towards that but that won't happen.
Hell we almost didn't have a firehouse because KB and such were building so many homes (and the county was allowing this) that Helotes Fire Dept (rightfully) said they couldn't handle covering all of us. You think home builders cared? Nope and they don't care about the future stress on traffic. Neither does the county.
Thankfully enough of us for once got off our lazy asses and voted to build a new firehouse so Helotes would cover us the rest of the year.
The rambling point I'm trying to make is that I think everybody involved should pay towards building intersections, firehouse, schools, etc. that we know are going to be needed. I'll gladly pay! A fee on a purchased house, taxes, becoming part of the city, even tolls. Especially tolls.
After all - my kids go to Ward which is off Shaenfield. And if you think 1604 is bad there now, just wait until school is in session.
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.
