Reply With Quote
man, your midget video gets me every time.
My idea is, all toll roads should have a built in rail line for future rail transit.
The rail line would be built in the median.
man, your midget video gets me every time.
A rail line would be a dream come true. I spend a lot of time in Denver and their rail line has been a freaking god send.
Redid the math because I totally ed up. Forgot about the median.
Anyway, between 1990-2003 the avg. daily traffic count on 1604 between 10 and 35 increased by 65,000 cars.
This city would already have one if it wasn't for some very stupid and misinformed voters.
San Antonio's proposed light rail system:
ing voters!
Much better.
I don't need a survey to tell me that traffic around the 281 and 10 area sucks and is only going to get worse. That takes a toll on me already.
ing voters
Toll Roads are lame. :|
Dissect them however you want.
Great job directing growth away from the aquifer, San Antonio.
Toll roads are stupid. Now perfectly good freeways are going to become construction zones for 10 years just to add roads that make you pay to use them. I definately think there should be a tax payer exemption from this crap.
To with the Toll roads, make some Troll roads.
Yeah, it's the cities fault people decided to move to the northside. It's funny, because the reason there's no interchange at 1604/281 is because planners and the city never thought there'd ever be enough traffic to warrent one. Miragtion they thought, would go south. Well, that was completely wrong.
It's not the cities fault people want rolling hills as their landscape.
It's not the cities fault companie locate there.
The city already has as strict as heck restrictions over the aquifer.
Try again, the reason there isn't a decent interchange there is (if I remember correctly) that to add an interchange would have exceeded the budget for the widening of 281, which was the original project.
No. Money was a reason a interchange at 410/281 was never built. Ironically, construction on a four stack interchange at 281/410 will finally begin tomorrow and take 3 years to complete.
Lack of traffic and thought of no foreseeable traffic growth was the reason a interchange at 281/1604 was never constructed.
Yeah, you go ahead and argue this point with Mark. We'll see who wins.
Go look up the restrictions.
Not to mention the recent vote that added even stricter restrictions to the aquifer.
Can you go get my car Manny?
Wrong.
When planning for the North Expressway (US 281) was going on in the late '50s and early '60s, there were heated debates over the route that the new freeway should take. After evaluating several routes including San Pedro and Broadway, the route skirting Brackenridge Park, slipping between the Zoo and Alamo Stadium, and continuing north over the Olmos Basin was chosen. This route also caused great protest, but construction on the northern and southern thirds of the freeway began anyway. Opponents of the route got a federal court order halting construction on the grounds that the freeway violated a new federal rule disallowing freeways from crossing parklands and saying the freeway would cause great disturbance to the animals at the zoo. Meanwhile, the City, which had been charged with obtaining the right-of-way for the project, was in the midst of condemning land for a planned 410/281 interchange. The injunction stopping the freeway construction caused the City, uncertain as to the future of the project, to stop dead in its tracks as well. The court battle dragged on for several years. Before long, with development booming along the Loop, owners of the condemned property demanded that the City either buy the land or release it from condemnation. At that time, the freeway looked doomed, so the City lifted the condemnation. New buildings sprang-up at the interchange site almost overnight. When the freeway eventually did come through several years later, the cost of the land was prohibitively expensive and the interchange was scrapped. (For more information on the history of 281, see my "US 281 North" page.)
It had more to do with the way 281 was built and the problems that went along with it.
I understand you enjoy seeing the city grow, and thats fine. But a lot of what you propose and suggest is just flat out wrong.
The stuff with the aquifer above is wrong. The restrictions really aren't all that tough to begin with. Secondly, due to whats known as grandfathering those restrictions are easily sidestepped by most developers out there. The only reason the PGA village was ever able to happen was due to grandfathering. Had there been no vested rights for that project, the developer would never have been able to hold the threat of building a subdivision over the the city's head.
You know, the vallet thing is played out, espeically considering I'm not a vallet anymore. But would you like to tell us what you do for a living?
As I just said, the restrictions are pretty damn useless due to vested rights, also known as grandfathering. Would you like to go read up on that? Go look them up.
Don't try to be a smartass with me, Buddy. Not when you're so blatently wrong.
What I have said about the interchanges is correct.
You posted info about the 410/281 interchange which had to do with money and land rights.
1604/281 was about traffic count and TXDOT not foreseeing growth.
And grandfathering has nothing to do with the currect restrictions. Grandfathering is what it is, a clause, a crack in the current rules. Just like KG's contract is grandfathered and doesn't apply to current CBA. Doesn't mean the current CBA isn't a good one.
Take away the grandfathering rights and the current restrictions are pretty damn strict.
P.S. The whole make fun of Buddy for his ideas and plans is way more played out.
The current restrictions mean jack because developers constantly go around them with vested rights! You don't seem to grasp that. You need to go read up on the history of things and how they happen.
To add to that, the TX legislature added more to the vested rights laws this past session so it's only gotten easier for developers.
Don't take my word for it. I've only worked for an engineering firm that handles this kind of thing. Take Mark's word for it, he still works for a firm that does this kind of thing.
Take away a and a man is pretty much a woman.
But the fact is grandfathering is there and getting stronger.
Where did I make fun of your ideas or you?
Vested laws for the owners of the property.
But the restrictions are still strict.
I guess you can't seem to grasp that.
Again, take away the vested rights and the restrictions are still strict.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
