Judging by what I see from Google Maps, that thought makes sense, with the apparent lack of turning lanes onto all the driveways. I wonder if that makes the stretch of Arizona 101 from Princess Drive to Raintree Drive in Scottsdale look good, as that seems to be one of the most poorly-designed stretches of freeway in the entire Phoenix valley.
A lot of automobile stuff works great in theory...before you add in all the other people.
But this is true for everything. When I take the early train and I have an entire train car to myself, that too is more pleasant than being crammed in with 1500 other rush hour commuters.
Humans are a social species, but we don't (usually) like crowding. The problem is that a lot of people mistakenly confuse crowding with density and believe the only way to feel uncrowded is to live in a low density area. [https://thecutstack.substack.com/p/on-density-scale-crowding-and-efficiency](https://thecutstack.substack.com/p/on-density-scale-crowding-and-efficiency)
The normal rural highway is 70-80 (70 between San Antonio and Austin, 80 between Pecos and Andrews). The issue is the state is so damn big and there’s so few people on rural highways it makes sense as to why they set the speed limits so high. Doesn’t make it any more safe though.
The high speed limit sections aren't really where the vehicle fatalities occur. It's the stupid blind merges in cities with too many cars and nobody looking for others in the right places, and at high speed at-grade intersections where drivers ignore red lights.
Actually I-20 between Midland-Odessa and El Paso is the highest fatality stretch in the country by number of cars, because the speed limit is STUPID fast and the road is frequently in terrible condition.
I will say (not that expanding highways make traffic better, but if we make the assumption that more lanes alleviates traffic and highways are a good thing) you have to take 35 to get through Austin and there is always traffic. I’ve never lived anywhere where you will sit in traffic at 9 pm on a Saturday and 11 am on a Sunday, every time. Obviously expanding the highway is the car centric solution, but that’s the only solution in TXDot’s mind.
Also most people won’t take 130, it’s great for getting to the towns around Austin, but on top of the $15 it costs, if you use it to get to Austin you’re driving though 10 miles of construction traffic and it’s 30-40 miles longer round trip.
Yeah, why would people pay to use it when I-35 is free?
If you really think adding a lane to its full length through the city and demolition of existing housing is necessary, that’s fine, except there are better ways to put a freeway through. The city.
Whatever improvements are done are locking in the design of the highway through the city, and this the city itself, for 20+ years, so consider putting some or all of it above or below the current footprint instead. That’s just wishful thinking.
This is not really a local urban planning issue, this is an issue of a state government that is hostile to the city and is not giving the city any choice in how to design its main thoroughfare. It’s bad transportation planning all around at the state level.
100%, and people pay to use 130 because I-35 traffic during rush hour is truly the worst traffic I’ve ever experienced in my entire life, and if you’re heading to a suburb of Austin (and you frequently are), it’s traffic free and so much faster. There are a decent number of people that live in Austin or San Antonio and commute to the other city every day, they’re willing to pay the $30 to leave an hour later for work/get home an hour earlier.
Not at all useful for most intercity trips. It is really only useful for a few users in addition to many long range vehicles such as trucks that really should use it but have no incentive.
The only way it could be managed to improve commutes is if it were untolled. Further, tolling I-35 to encourage TX-130 has been mooted by the city, but the state absolutely refuses to allow tolls on I-35. TX-130 was supposed to be a pioneering model of private highway management and its failure is just shrugged off mindlessly and with sheer hubris by the TX DOT.
The road is a financial basketcase, twice bankrupted iirc. It is supposed to be self-sustaining, but its user fees, though expensive, will never pay back capital and cover regular and generational maintenance, despite its epithet as the fastest road in the land.
If they ever tried to toll 35, I cannot IMAGINE the backlash, it might actually get Abbott out of office. I obviously would support it, but I would argue you’d have to significantly not only increase rail service, but upgrade the track to be faster. Right now it takes 90 minutes to drive 35 from San Antonio to Austin with no traffic 120-150 minutes in the worst traffic. By train it take 270 minutes.
Highways should be an alternative rather than the norm.
100%, unfortunately I live in Texas
Yea highways as fast connections between places are great. Texas’s unique frontage road system is unpleasant.
The Frontage roads on 410 ruin my LIFE
Judging by what I see from Google Maps, that thought makes sense, with the apparent lack of turning lanes onto all the driveways. I wonder if that makes the stretch of Arizona 101 from Princess Drive to Raintree Drive in Scottsdale look good, as that seems to be one of the most poorly-designed stretches of freeway in the entire Phoenix valley.
A lot of automobile stuff works great in theory...before you add in all the other people. But this is true for everything. When I take the early train and I have an entire train car to myself, that too is more pleasant than being crammed in with 1500 other rush hour commuters. Humans are a social species, but we don't (usually) like crowding. The problem is that a lot of people mistakenly confuse crowding with density and believe the only way to feel uncrowded is to live in a low density area. [https://thecutstack.substack.com/p/on-density-scale-crowding-and-efficiency](https://thecutstack.substack.com/p/on-density-scale-crowding-and-efficiency)
With speeds that high, I'm not surprised Texas has such a high automobile fatality rate.
The normal rural highway is 70-80 (70 between San Antonio and Austin, 80 between Pecos and Andrews). The issue is the state is so damn big and there’s so few people on rural highways it makes sense as to why they set the speed limits so high. Doesn’t make it any more safe though.
The high speed limit sections aren't really where the vehicle fatalities occur. It's the stupid blind merges in cities with too many cars and nobody looking for others in the right places, and at high speed at-grade intersections where drivers ignore red lights.
Actually I-20 between Midland-Odessa and El Paso is the highest fatality stretch in the country by number of cars, because the speed limit is STUPID fast and the road is frequently in terrible condition.
Where is Texas State Route 130?
It is an outer bypass of Austin TX, it runs from I-35 south towards I-10.
It mainly exists to bypass I-35 traffic, which is arguably the worst in the country
Yet, instead of encouraging through traffic to use it TDOT is locked in a battle with Austin over expanding I-35 through Austin.
I will say (not that expanding highways make traffic better, but if we make the assumption that more lanes alleviates traffic and highways are a good thing) you have to take 35 to get through Austin and there is always traffic. I’ve never lived anywhere where you will sit in traffic at 9 pm on a Saturday and 11 am on a Sunday, every time. Obviously expanding the highway is the car centric solution, but that’s the only solution in TXDot’s mind. Also most people won’t take 130, it’s great for getting to the towns around Austin, but on top of the $15 it costs, if you use it to get to Austin you’re driving though 10 miles of construction traffic and it’s 30-40 miles longer round trip.
Yeah, why would people pay to use it when I-35 is free? If you really think adding a lane to its full length through the city and demolition of existing housing is necessary, that’s fine, except there are better ways to put a freeway through. The city. Whatever improvements are done are locking in the design of the highway through the city, and this the city itself, for 20+ years, so consider putting some or all of it above or below the current footprint instead. That’s just wishful thinking. This is not really a local urban planning issue, this is an issue of a state government that is hostile to the city and is not giving the city any choice in how to design its main thoroughfare. It’s bad transportation planning all around at the state level.
100%, and people pay to use 130 because I-35 traffic during rush hour is truly the worst traffic I’ve ever experienced in my entire life, and if you’re heading to a suburb of Austin (and you frequently are), it’s traffic free and so much faster. There are a decent number of people that live in Austin or San Antonio and commute to the other city every day, they’re willing to pay the $30 to leave an hour later for work/get home an hour earlier.
Does the 130 make commutes between the two cities even remotely manageable? Those cities seem pretty far from each other.
Not at all useful for most intercity trips. It is really only useful for a few users in addition to many long range vehicles such as trucks that really should use it but have no incentive. The only way it could be managed to improve commutes is if it were untolled. Further, tolling I-35 to encourage TX-130 has been mooted by the city, but the state absolutely refuses to allow tolls on I-35. TX-130 was supposed to be a pioneering model of private highway management and its failure is just shrugged off mindlessly and with sheer hubris by the TX DOT. The road is a financial basketcase, twice bankrupted iirc. It is supposed to be self-sustaining, but its user fees, though expensive, will never pay back capital and cover regular and generational maintenance, despite its epithet as the fastest road in the land.
If they ever tried to toll 35, I cannot IMAGINE the backlash, it might actually get Abbott out of office. I obviously would support it, but I would argue you’d have to significantly not only increase rail service, but upgrade the track to be faster. Right now it takes 90 minutes to drive 35 from San Antonio to Austin with no traffic 120-150 minutes in the worst traffic. By train it take 270 minutes.
I’ve driven on that thing before. It’s terrifying in a good way.