Quote:
Originally Posted by Schertz1
First, I know the difference between toll roads and roads with tolled express lanes. Thanks though.
The point is the money to provide overpasses for 281 have been in place for a while. The fact this money has not been used for its intended purpose is a big problem for me. If used, as planned, much of the traffic nightmare on 281 would be alleviated. Who do you think wants to travel on signaled access roads when something better has been provided for? I would have no problem if the 281 project also contained free express lanes.
The IH35 plan is not even factual. Where are these so called medians between 1604 and downtown? You are so caught up in your support for toll roads you will believe anything in print. Newsflash, just because you read it does not make it so.
The truth is the majority of people oppose these projects; that should be enough.
|
See, I really don't think you did. Cause you wouldn't have claimed the they were wanting toll the existing mainlanes if you did - cause it doesn't say that in any literature anywhere. I was just doing my part to call you out on it.
Secondly, do you even READ the threads you respond to? EARLIER I had already quoted from the same source you did about the alleged funding being 'already in place' for the 281 project. But for you, and those not following along at home, here it is, again;
"While public documents on 281 from around 2000 show that the original project to extend the 281 freeway from Sonterra to Stone Oak was "funded", laypeople have to understand that highway funding (and government funding in general) is a very peculiar beast. A "funded" project in transportation parlance means that TxDOT and/or the MPO have identified a time in the future when projected revenues (from all applicable sources) should be available to pay for a specific project, and they budget that expected revenue for that project. But that doesn't mean they actually have the money in-hand and have put it in an account just for that project, only that they expect to have it at a certain point in the future. Lots of things can happen between the time a project is "funded" and when it's actually let for contract. For instance, the expected revenue may not materialize (which is what we're seeing right now with the federal highway funding pull-back), another project may take priority and the funding reallocated to it, the queued project may increase in cost simply because of inflation and, thus, the revenue will be insufficient to fund it, or the project may be sidetracked for a while to allow for engineering changes, which can be caused by any number of things (the world is not static after all.) So the "funded" nomenclature is really just a simple way of saying "we plan to be able to pay for it during this time frame". It's kinda like if I budget to go on a big vacation a year from now. What happens if I have to buy a new car instead, or if I lose my job? Life is dynamic, and sometimes even the best laid plans get changed through outside influences."
This also does not even mention the 20% annual construction inflation all sectors of the US construction industry are experiencing. Had terri hall and the zealots not delayed the inevitable on 281 with a lawsuit causing a 2 year delay, the inflation wouldn't have been as high as it is now and the tolls would be cheaper. So if you don't like the toll rates, feel free to blame yourself and the other anti-toll/anti-progress folx.
As for the IH-35 plan, you are right about one point, its only a plan at this point, so how are you an expert on what its going to be or what it wont be. THe only thing set in stone is that they are examining it as a corridor possible for the insertion of tolled express lanes. Theres absolutely no mention from any government agency or board that has advocated the tolling of IH-35 mainlanes (playing devils advocate here, if they were with the intent of a giant money grab, wouldnt it make sense to toll the existing lanes in areas of town that get more traffic? The IH-10/410 interchange is the busiest in town with approximately 250,000 vehicles per day. If they were doing this as a money grab and planning on tolling existing lanes, wouldnt it make sense to go there first? It would have been even easier to sneak it in now because the area is under construction and they could relate it to that. Or toll the mainlanes of ANY part of 410 on its northern arc across the city; or even IH-10 between 410 and 1604 but there's no mention of that, is there? So if it is some vast right wing conspiracy, then it's not a very good one, is it?)
But to directly answer your charge regarding medians on 35 between 1604 and downtown, it helps if you are an engineer, or at least know how to read construction documents. Hell, even living in SA for any amount of time and having seen all the construction projects going on would tell you how they would insert tolled express lanes. They would build a median where none existed before, and place the express toll lanes there. There's plenty of room available. In essence, they would scoot out the existing lanes onto the empty right of way that in most cases is currently grassy land between the main lanes and frontage road. The I35 stretch in discussion here was built inthe 60's and built with wide grassy areas outside the mainlanes and wide hilly sloping embankments at overpasses. They would make more room for moving out lanes the same way they are currently expanding 410 north - by eliminating the embankments and making the support/retaining walls vertical. An example of where this has already been done in that area is IH-35 at the George C. Beach Avenue underpass. They rebuilt the overpass there about 8 years ago to accommodate the new BAMC and the embankment walls are now vertical where they had been sloped. I don't have the 35 schematics in hand, but I'm sure a call to TxDOT could provide them. Any civil engineer would tell you I am right.
Finally, I dont believe everything I read. Since I'm not anti-toll, I also dont believe everything I hear, either. I tend to rely on and believe facts and statistics that are/could be verified though standard academic/peer review evaluation. All the sources I have used pull their data from official information that has been ruled valid in legal proceedings. That's a good enough threshold for me. When people start disbelieving data from accepted sources, then you've strayed into tin-foil hat terretory.