SkyscraperPage Forum

SkyscraperPage Forum (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/index.php)
-   San Antonio (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/forumdisplay.php?f=447)
-   -   Proposed (3) Wurzbach Parkway at 281 Interchanges. (http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=126226)

sirkingwilliam Feb 24, 2007 3:17 AM

Proposed (3) Wurzbach Parkway at 281 Interchanges.
 
Bridge (no interchange)
http://www.alamorma.org/documents/Wu...20US%20281.jpg

Main lane to lane interchange
http://www.alamorma.org/documents/Wu...Connectors.jpg

Elevated roundabout interchange
http://www.alamorma.org/documents/Wu...nterchange.jpg

elmariachi Feb 24, 2007 3:52 AM

number 3 look pretty cool.

KevinFromTexas Feb 24, 2007 5:14 AM

Yeah, 3 is pretty cool. Those other kinds, the first is ugly, and the 2nd isn't exactly great either. Those also give me the creeps. A guy died a few days ago in Austin after he wrecked on one of those on his motorcycle, flew off the bridge and fell 50 feet to the ground. That also happened a few years ago. Horrible.

Texan101 Feb 24, 2007 11:10 PM

Really liking the 3rd one

JAM Feb 25, 2007 5:27 AM

Liking the 3rd one too, but hey we live in TX, not Europe. Practicle sense tells me it will be a traffic nightmare. The huge flyovers seem to be working very well in TX these days as far as traffic conjestion is concerned.

matttwentyeight Feb 25, 2007 6:53 PM

i concurr, jam. it would be the most beneficial with allowing them to design the interchange just like 35 and ben white in austin

21bl0wed Feb 25, 2007 6:58 PM

No one uses wurzbach pkwy I don't understand all the money that keeps getting invested into it. It's pretty much going to be the same for "kelly pkwy" I think the traffic count on wurzbach pkwy was like 30k? thats horrible.

Corinth940 Feb 25, 2007 7:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JAM (Post 2650828)
Liking the 3rd one too, but hey we live in TX, not Europe. Practicle sense tells me it will be a traffic nightmare. The huge flyovers seem to be working very well in TX these days as far as traffic conjestion is concerned.

I agree..I have visions of Chevy Chase in "European Vacation" where he and his family didn't know how to maneuver in the roundabout and ended up going around and around and around....:haha:

jaga185 Feb 25, 2007 7:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 21bl0wed (Post 2651467)
No one uses wurzbach pkwy I don't understand all the money that keeps getting invested into it. It's pretty much going to be the same for "kelly pkwy" I think the traffic count on wurzbach pkwy was like 30k? thats horrible.


And 151 has 40k, it takes time for traffic to grow. I use Wurzbach Parkway all the time, I live around there, and I can't wait until its completed. Do you know how much time it will save me to get to the Huebner/10 area with it? Just wait, once it is completed, traffic will surely grow.

sakyle04 Feb 25, 2007 7:56 PM

Quote:

No one uses wurzbach pkwy I don't understand all the money that keeps getting invested into it. It's pretty much going to be the same for "kelly pkwy" I think the traffic count on wurzbach pkwy was like 30k? thats horrible.
I concur with jaga. i would take wurzbach parkway from blanco to 35 and back every day for work (i used to) but I fight 410 instead because it's faster (even with the added traffic). all of the stoplights and misdirections slow me down.

also, i never drive on wurzbach pkwy when it's wet. like i said, i used to take it everyday. i dodged too many crazy drivers' spin-outs and rollovers near wetmore. that thing is a death-trap in the rain.

21bl0wed Feb 26, 2007 4:45 AM

But I just don't see the point..other than surely they want to make it a toll some time down the road and make money...It's just it seems so distant till its a completed reality...I mean hell theres literally like 4 apartment complexes in the way east of blanco. And i probably save around 5 whole minutes when traving to blanco from lockhill selma on the pkwy. You have the volkner ranch or whatever that takes up a large portion of both sides of the pkwy from LHS to Blanco...So how is traffic supposed to increase? There will be no commercial additions to that portion...Its going to be a park..

jaga185 Feb 26, 2007 8:45 AM

:previous: There will be traffic diverted from 1604 and 410 during rush hour moments, remember, once completed it will go from 10 to 35.

TXlifeguard Feb 26, 2007 9:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 21bl0wed (Post 2652212)
But I just don't see the point..other than surely they want to make it a toll some time down the road and make money...It's just it seems so distant till its a completed reality...I mean hell theres literally like 4 apartment complexes in the way east of blanco. And i probably save around 5 whole minutes when traving to blanco from lockhill selma on the pkwy. You have the volkner ranch or whatever that takes up a large portion of both sides of the pkwy from LHS to Blanco...So how is traffic supposed to increase? There will be no commercial additions to that portion...Its going to be a park..


Man, you are all over the place with the hating on the WP thing, huh? Fortunately for all us, transportation planning isn't left to messageboard posters.

Instead of using completely subjective criteria to determine its value (like the number of apartment complexes in its way, or commercial properties it serves, or process of completion,) one should look at the facts. WP was, and is intended to be a cross-town reliever for 410 and 1604. A careful examination of any map will show you that there is no way to go from anywhere on I-10 between 410 and 1604 and I-35 between 410 and 1604 without having to go all the way up to 1604 or down to 410. 410 can only get so wide, and it doesn't make sense to push traffic towards 1604, so by building a limited-access parkway through the middle section of north-central SA, the thought is that they can take a good enough size chunk of traffic off of 410 and 1604, which would have the same effect of adding extra lanes to those freeways.

Why they chose to start at the ends and work towards the center, I don't know. Probably a funding issue. Usually is. Kinda has the effect of standing on a garden hose to me. But there is precedent for doing it all stupid like that here; they started working on I-10 NW of downtown in the middle-late 80's They then worked on the parts near 1604. All of it is done, except the section from 410 to Hildebrand. The middle. So whatever. Again, probably funding.

I am sure parts will be tolled, but that was never the original intent. Remember, that WP was conceptualized in the late 80's, before the state law changed allowing significant tolling of roads in the state.

And we all had better light a candle of thanks to our lady of the perpetual congested freeway that WP went through the Voeleker property before it was proposed/purchased as a park. Cause it's next to impossible to get to put a road through a park. Anyone over 35 can remember the 281/Brackenridge park legal battles.

If it only saves you a few minutes between LHS and Blanco, great, but that was never the intent anyhow.

sakyle04 Feb 26, 2007 1:28 PM

Quote:

You have the volkner ranch or whatever that takes up a large portion of both sides of the pkwy from LHS to Blanco...So how is traffic supposed to increase? There will be no commercial additions to that portion...Its going to be a park..
That's only somewhat true. Of the 450 acres or so available, the city is getting 300-something. The rest, bordered by Lockhill, NW Military, and WP, was purchased by KB Home and is going to become a huge new housing development.

Christianmx Feb 27, 2007 5:14 AM

all three are ugly :(

coddat Feb 27, 2007 7:37 AM

The first option is a mistake on the level of the 410 and 281 non-interchange. Number 3 looks interesting but a magnet for traffic accidents. Number 2 is the most likely option.

texboy Feb 27, 2007 1:25 PM

btw, how is the 410 281 interchange coming along?

JACKinBeantown Feb 27, 2007 3:19 PM

#2 or 3. Either one will work just fine. #3 would look better.

JeffCoyle Feb 27, 2007 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXlifeguard (Post 2652501)
Instead of using completely subjective criteria to determine its value (like the number of apartment complexes in its way, or commercial properties it serves, or process of completion,) one should look at the facts. WP was, and is intended to be a cross-town reliever for 410 and 1604. A careful examination of any map will show you that there is no way to go from anywhere on I-10 between 410 and 1604 and I-35 between 410 and 1604 without having to go all the way up to 1604 or down to 410. 410 can only get so wide, and it doesn't make sense to push traffic towards 1604, so by building a limited-access parkway through the middle section of north-central SA, the thought is that they can take a good enough size chunk of traffic off of 410 and 1604, which would have the same effect of adding extra lanes to those freeways.

TXlifeguard,

The discussion about Wurzbach has intrigued us here at News 4 WOAI. We are planning to air a story on it tonight (Tuesday, 27th.) You seem to know a lot about it. Any chance we could meet with you for an interview?

Email me at jeffcoyle@woai.com if you're interested. Thanks.

Complex01 Feb 27, 2007 10:40 PM

:previous:

Hmm i am curious, will he or wont he contact???

and will it be on the news???

:shrug:


All times are GMT. The time now is 8:34 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.