281/1604 back to tolls again...

[MannyIsGod]

Actually, back in 1999, TxDot had plans to spend $99 million to construct three bridges: Encino Rio, Evans & Stone Oak. Then in 2001, they changed the plan and wanted the three bridges and to add one two additional lanes (one north/one south). The the tolling forces jumped in and in 2003-4 it went to $250 million. Recently the toll forces estimate a cool $500 million.

Keep in mind Obama's stimulus money was suppose to pay for those connectors.

The entire tolling road arguement all boils down to money, and a lot of money to be made by all the people and groups at the feed trough. The Terri Brechtel's and Bill Thorton's at the RMA, the ADT, the MPO. Now Henry Munoz and Nelson Wolfes dumb kid are squeezing them all out in a power play. A power play thay will hand out millions to lawyers, enginners, and road contractors, all to be regrouped 100X by the motorist who use the roads.

Those people are going to make millions regardless of whether they build toll roads or not. Expansion has to be done.

[CuckingFunt]

after/ what it looks like today:






I'm still not following why forcing the cars going up to turn right before heading left increases speed. There is still a stop light that halts the left bound traffic so that the up traffic can also go left.

That's what most major intersections are like in New Orleans. The worst thing is watching people try to manage a legal/safe left turn at the few intersections where they're allowed.

[Drachen]

Yup, one of the biggest advantages to living in a much drier place is that you don't really sweat nearly as much. When I worked for a doctor my first year here I would ride 5 miles to work and not even have broken a sweat. Took me 10-15 minutes depending on traffic on the bike trail (another big plus, actually). The way back was significantly uphill (my elevation gain was even more than San Antonio's total elevation above sea level LOL) so I sweat a lot more but coming home thats not a problem.

Albuquerque has a fantastic set of bike trails that allow you to get around that city as well.

You climbed 600 ft on a 5 mile ride?? Holy ! (also, I agree who cares if you sweat on the way home).

Also, to your second part, San Antonio is starting to pay attention to bike trails. It is cool. The greenway project is going to pretty much create a loop for bikes between 1604 and 410. (Yes I realize this is probably nothing compared to what you have, but still nice nonetheless.

[MannyIsGod]

BTW MySA mentioned the toll roads would be free for multi occupant vehicles. I just don't see much of a problem with this situation other than San Antonio voters have had this belief that they can avoid toll roads. Its just not going to happen.

[MannyIsGod]

You climbed 600 ft on a 5 mile ride?? Holy ! (also, I agree who cares if you sweat on the way home).

Also, to your second part, San Antonio is starting to pay attention to bike trails. It is cool. The greenway project is going to pretty much create a loop for bikes between 1604 and 410.

Yeah, Santa Fe is pretty much at the base of the southern tip of the Rockies so you have a lot of elevation change rapidly. The climbs suck, but coming back down is nice as . The elevation change also made for strange weather differences. Sometimes in the Winter I'd have 6-10 inches at my apartment and go to work to see barely 1 inch or so.

[Blake]

Yeah, but that's only one cycle compared to the 3-4 before. You still have the lights but instead of waiting through 5 total cycles before that were described on that page, you now only have 2.

I read the part that said less phases and it still didn't click.

Now it did.

[Das Texan]

I really dont understand having them free for cars with multiple passengers and then pay for single passenger cars.

Its like they are trying to do both at the same time and logically I dont see how the its going to work.

Its one thing to not charge ambulances and buses and what not. That's easy to do. I dont see how they are going to enforce this.

[Drachen]

I really dont understand having them free for cars with multiple passengers and then pay for single passenger cars.

Its like they are trying to do both at the same time and logically I dont see how the its going to work.

Its one thing to not charge ambulances and buses and what not. That's easy to do. I dont see how they are going to enforce this.

The only thing I read was in the OP that said that it had to be pre approved vehicles. I would be completely fine with the idea of all multi passenger vehicles getting to skip the toll, but like you, I can't see how they would enforce it.

[Das Texan]

The only thing I read was in the OP that said that it had to be pre approved vehicles. I would be completely fine with the idea of all multi passenger vehicles getting to skip the toll, but like you, I can't see how they would enforce it.

The way they are pushing it is that any car with more than one person in it will be exempt.

That's just stupid and pointless really.

Pay the got damn tolls, its not the end of the got damn world. If you dont want to, drive on the soon to be feeder roads. Its not a ing difficult concept.

People in this town are ing morons way too often. For way too ing long this city has been ing itself over in terms of progress because of stupid, petty issues.

Build the ing thing and lets move on to the next thing.

[clambake]

don't you guys already have HOV lanes?

[Drachen]

The way they are pushing it is that any car with more than one person in it will be exempt.

That's just stupid and pointless really.

Pay the got damn tolls, its not the end of the got damn world. If you dont want to, drive on the soon to be feeder roads. Its not a ing difficult concept.

People in this town are ing morons way too often. For way too ing long this city has been ing itself over in terms of progress because of stupid, petty issues.

Build the ing thing and lets move on to the next thing.

why is that pointless? it promotes a favored behavior.

[Drachen]

don't you guys already have HOV lanes?

no

[scott]

The way they are pushing it is that any car with more than one person in it will be exempt.

That's just stupid and pointless really.

Pay the got damn tolls, its not the end of the got damn world. If you dont want to, drive on the soon to be feeder roads. Its not a ing difficult concept.

People in this town are ing morons way too often. For way too ing long this city has been ing itself over in terms of progress because of stupid, petty issues.

Build the ing thing and lets move on to the next thing.

It's trying to compromise to the Terri Hall's of the world, but all you do is built a glorified HOV lane that does little. But, isn't this par for the course for San Antonio? Bow to local pressure and then do something half ass (like putting the ATT Center in some industrial park on the East Side, for example)

[Drachen]

It's trying to compromise to the Terri Hall's of the world, but all you do is built a glorified HOV lane that does little. But, isn't this par for the course for San Antonio? Bow to local pressure and then do something half ass (like putting the ATT Center in some industrial park on the East Side, for example)

why is this a problem, you are still aleviating pressure on the existing lanes while promoting a favorable behavior (which ultimately puts money into the pockets of people who can then spend it elsewhere). BTW, I agree with you about the att center.

[Blake]

(like putting the ATT Center in some industrial park on the East Side, for example)

luckily the County stepped in or there's no telling where the thing would have been built, if at all.

[scott]

why is this a problem, you are still aleviating pressure on the existing lanes while promoting a favorable behavior (which ultimately puts money into the pockets of people who can then spend it elsewhere). BTW, I agree with you about the att center.

I don't think HOV lanes are a bad idea, and combining them with a toll lane isn't the worst idea either, though it does undermine the philosophical and fiscal foundations of a toll lane (outlined on page two).

I think having an HOV lane and toll lanes are a smart solution, but not combining the two (otherwise you run the risk of congesting your toll lane with free HOVers, at which point you've not alleviated traffic and now you have a highway you can't pay for).

[Drachen]

I don't think HOV lanes are a bad idea, and combining them with a toll lane isn't the worst idea either, though it does undermine the philosophical and fiscal foundations of a toll lane (outlined on page two).

I think having an HOV lane and toll lanes are a smart solution, but not combining the two (otherwise you run the risk of congesting your toll lane with free HOVers, at which point you've not alleviated traffic and now you have a highway you can't pay for).

I am not sure how you can claim that you haven't alleviated traffic. You have four extra lanes. If the toll lanes are congested with free HOVers, then the free lanes are, well, free.

As to your second point, this does create an issue. You forget though, that we don't normally do things that are good for us. I doubt that you get enough people to change their behavior to clog up these lanes. If by some miracle people act in their own self-interests and carpool, then I am sure that they will change it so that half the lanes are toll and half are hov (which is what I expect to happen anyway).

[scott]

I am not sure how you can claim that you haven't alleviated traffic. You have four extra lanes. If the toll lanes are congested with free HOVers, then the free lanes are, well, free.

Not the case. The free lanes, until you build a 30 lane highway, are always going to be congested during rush hour. Bumper to bumper traffic is the equilibrium of supply and demand of highway usage. Every car you move off a free lane is just creating another spot for someone who has been avoiding the highway for years. This is the problem with the idea that we can just expand the free lanes to fix the problem. The quan y demanded for highway usage at peek times is not static. [see explanation on Page 2].

[Das Texan]

It's trying to compromise to the Terri Hall's of the world, but all you do is built a glorified HOV lane that does little. But, isn't this par for the course for San Antonio? Bow to local pressure and then do something half ass (like putting the ATT Center in some industrial park on the East Side, for example)

Exactly my point.


Its beyond ing re ed just like 75% of the major projects in this city. And I'm probably being very conservative.

[leemajors]

I am getting to the point where I could potentially get to work faster on my MTB than in my car, with one major drawback... No shower at work.

sheeeit, get you a road bike and really haul ass then

[Das Texan]

why is that pointless? it promotes a favored behavior.

Its pointless because its not being billed that way.

If you are pushing an HOV lane (which is essentially what they are yammering on about), then push that.

Don't play this dog and pony show with people, there isnt one HOV lane I've seen that legally allows people on there driving alone.

Aka pointless and stupid.


You cant say you are going to toll lanes and have them essentially be HOV lanes. Re ed bull .


Wolff needs to ing grow a sack and tell the got damn truth.

[Das Texan]

luckily the County stepped in or there's no telling where the thing would have been built, if at all.

The Spurs would be in Oklahoma City or Kansas City is what would be happening at this point.

[MannyIsGod]

sheeeit, get you a road bike and really haul ass then

Yeah I feel bad for everyone I see in a heavy ass MTB when I go past them. Then again I feel like when the guy in the MTB blows past me.

[Drachen]

Not the case. The free lanes, until you build a 30 lane highway, are always going to be congested during rush hour. Bumper to bumper traffic is the equilibrium of supply and demand of highway usage. Every car you move off a free lane is just creating another spot for someone who has been avoiding the highway for years. This is the problem with the idea that we can just expand the free lanes to fix the problem. The quan y demanded for highway usage at peek times is not static. [see explanation on Page 2].

I read your explanation. However, you are not only taking a car off the free lane and putting it on the HOV/toll lane, but you are also taking a second (or third) car off of the free lane.

You are still exacting a "cost" from the person on the highway, you are just not exacting a financial cost. Talk to 10 people at random and ask them if there were an HOV lane if they would find a friend or coworker to carpool with. You would probably get 8 or 9 "no's".

So both ways one has to pay a price. One is in dollars and one is in (I don't know) comfort? Dollars saved?

[Drachen]

Its pointless because its not being billed that way.

If you are pushing an HOV lane (which is essentially what they are yammering on about), then push that.

Don't play this dog and pony show with people, there isnt one HOV lane I've seen that legally allows people on there driving alone.Aka pointless and stupid.


You cant say you are going to toll lanes and have them essentially be HOV lanes. Re ed bull .


Wolff needs to ing grow a sack and tell the got damn truth.

San Diego has a system of HOV/HOT lanes. This also has the added benefit of using that lane space to its full efficiency.