Let's build a highway and worry about intersections later. 35 years later after they build tons of houses, restaurants etc I guess it's time to fix it.
They have surprisingly been making great progress on this stretch... I drive it every day and am impressed how quickly its coming along.... Now the Culebra expansion between 211 and Galm has been painfully and frustratingly slow. Do you have any updates on that area? Recently had a fatal accident there I believe construction barricades exacerbated the accident...
The Culebra expansion is a joint-bid project with CPS and SAWS. They're replacing most of their underground utilities there, and that's the current work underway. Since it's underground work, you don't see most of it, but it is progressing. However, it's difficult and time-consuming to do that work while (a) maintaining utility service, and (b) maintaining traffic through the area.
@@rt1111zun - Honeycombing can sometimes just be cosmetic and fixed in-place. But even if it is structural and has to be torn-out and replaced, the contractor bears that cost, not the state.
SHOULD WE restart Texas.. Pave it all then add farms and houses and people things ohh And people.. Lets Just put Robot cars on the road and have people Sit and get fat at There house chair Scooter float
That's a very astute observation. Yes, you may notice at the very beginning, the lights at 1604 were green before I arrived, and I had noticed that they had been since well before I arrived. As a result, I felt like I was probably at the tail end of the synchronization, and indeed at Tezel, I noticed the cars a few seconds behind me had to stop. So I did push it for a while to make sure I got into the middle of the green wave. Overall, I averaged 48 mph from 1604 to 410, just a bit over the 45 mph speed limit. That said, one thing I've noticed in my many jaunts down Bandera is that there seems to be quite a few slowpokes for some reason, so I'm sure several of the vehicles I passed were traveling below 45 mph.
@@TexasHighwayMan Sounds like maybe they ought to do a traffic speed study to find out how fast traffic actually moves on that road and coordinate the signals for that speed. Just because the speed limit is 45MPH does NOT mean that is the appropriate speed to use for coordination. Even worse is assuming that most people still drive 10MPH over the speed limit (they don't, anymore, for the most part) and setting the coordination for 55MPH. Seems to me that coordinating for speeds lower than the average speed of traffic will just result in drivers arriving at signals that are about to turn green, vs. coordinating for speeds above the average speed of traffic which results in drivers arriving at signals that have just turned red.
I can tell you they don't set them for more than the speed limit. On some corridors, they do set them for below the speed limit -- on Zarzamora, for example, the speed limit is 30, but the lights are timed for 25. Someone on my Facebook post for this video mentioned they worked for an engineering firm that worked with the city recently to update the timing on Bandera; I'll see if I can get any more info.
I was a kid in Austin in the early 1950s. At that time, traffic signals on Congress Avenue had signs saying that they were synchronized to a speed of 22 1/2 mph. Traffic was light enough then that you could actually maintain that speed most of the time. Now, of course, I avoid driving anywhere near Austin for fear of terminal gridlock.
Other alternative is to slow down the speed dictated by the lights during peak hours. It's better to have a flow slower by 5-10mph than to constantly stop and start. In my city main roads have at least 3 different programs during the day: at rush hours they dictate a slower pace, and at the night you're able to drive at the speed limit without stopping.
I do not think it is possible to synchronize traffic signals on a two way street in more than one direction at a time. One way is easy, but it depends on traffic maintaining a rather constant specific speed. In downtown Memphis, TN in the 1960s through at least the late 1980s the signals on Second Street (South) and Third Street (north) were synced for a 35 mph speed. In light traffic you could drive through all of the intersections without stopping. It also helps if the streets are equally spaced. Different speeds would cause you to catch a red signal. With two way traffic this cannot be done, so the computer has sensors for traffic at all of the major intersections and it provides a longer green signal to the streets that have the heavier traffic, and it is dynamic and can change with the traffic patterns.
Two-way synchronization actually is possible (here is what it looks like on a time-distance-phasing diagram: ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop08024/images/6_1.png ) and it has been implemented locally (here is a video I took of two-way synchronization on Culebra: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-qYAnxytWIws.html ), but it certainly is more difficult. As a result, sometimes it will only be implemented in the peak direction. All synchronization (engineers actually call it "coordination" or "progression") requires traffic to maintain a steady set speed, typically the speed limit or close to it. Most of time, it's done with preconfigured timing plans, but some systems do indeed adjust based on traffic volumes (the Sydney SCATS system is a good example), and I suspect that will grow with increased integration of AI.
Come off of a side street, Old Prue to 410 for instance - not so much. I have to stop at every light. Even when I was working odd hours, I took Prue to Huebner to 10 because I had to stop at every light on Bandera even at 4:00 AM. Living and working off of Bandera Rd, I can tell you your video was a unicorn.
As I mentioned in the video, I drive Bandera regularly and this is not a unicorn, and a couple of other commeters have also confirmed my experience. Coming off a side street, it's to be expected you'll hita red or two until you get into the green band. I seriously doubt you had to stop at every light.
I take most of the route in the video in an Uber to and from work each week. Bandera sucks, especially during rush hour. (And I really hope they build the planned sidewalks on Bandera. There are sections missing them for no good reason.)
What about Bandera Rd outside of 1604? I know the construction adds complexity to it but it doesn’t seem very synchronized. Going south and taking the left turn lanes for 1604, there are times of the day where the green light is only a few seconds.
The signals outside 1604 are not currently coordinated. When the construction there is done, they will be -- that's actually a major component of that project. But, I should note, it's possible (and maybe even likely) that the coordination inside 1604 won't match what's outside 1604 for a variety of technical and practical reasons, and that's not uncommon. As for that left turn, those short green times are generally during a period when the signals are adjusting their timing plans. When that happens, the timings can get wonky for a while until the cycles get synchronized to the new schedule.
Well I10 was there first before loop 1604. And traffic volume was not heavy back in those days. All devolopment north of loop 1604 happens in 90s and 2000. Heck i remember in 1980s US281 and loop 1604 was a boomdock, Until the 90s start rollng in
The vast majority of the problem are drivers in the passing lane driving too slow and won't move. We need to do like Europe and make it a traffic violation. Bad drivers equal traffic!
Exactly. Just like in downtown Austin on I-35. The traffic is not caused by there being too many cars, the traffic is caused by idiots going 30 mph in the left lane for no reason. If people would learn how to drive or stay on the frontage roads if they want to drive Miss Daisy, these freeways would flow much better. Adding 20 lanes is not going to fix bad drivers.
Well, I don't drive these areas a whole lot, but I do use the Valero Trailhead on my bike rides and I like the addition of an extra parking lot for those of us that can't (sometimes) find it full have to park outside the fenced area and/or the Drury Inn Hotel's parking lot.
So I’ve seen they have set of the beams for the connector to eastbound 1604 to west bound I-10. Under all of it, there is a column that has no bent cap and has been there for some time now. The other columns for that connector are yet to be built.
The last 8 years have been really bad for the exchange... when this is finished. I say this will solve about 80% of traffic for about 5 years before it needs more lanes...
Hey, I have a question. Will the entire existing structures of the old interchange and the existing T-column bridges that carry 1604 over I-10 be completely demolished and reconstructed, or will they leave the existing structures in commission, widen the T-column bridges that carry 1604 over I-10, and build the new stack interchange over everything? There is a total of 4 T-column bridges that cross over I-10 at 1604, with the two inner bridges carrying 1604's freeway main lanes and the two outer bridges that act as feeder ramps and auxiliary lanes into the cloverleaf ramps. It seems like they could expand the existing main lanes of 1604 by connecting the inner and outer existing bridges together so that they all support the 8 main lanes of 1604, but I'm thinking they're going to demolish everything that's there currently and reconstruct new bridges to carry 1604 over I-10. I'm curious to see what they do.
All of the structures will be demolished and re-constructed. While it seems like they could connect the mainlane and collector/distributor lane bridges together, they actually can't because the bridge decks don't line-up. Because of the slope of the deck (required for proper drainage), an extension of the inner bridge decks would come in below the outer bridge decks. I put a copy of the cross-section here so you can see: texashighwayman.com/misc/1604-10-existing.png So at a minimum, they would have to tear down and rebuild the outer bridges to the corresponding elevation. At that point, it really is better to go ahead replace it all, and the new 1604 mainlanes will be about four feet higher than the existing ones.
The very thought of overhead HOV & express lanes for 20 miles straight is insane in my honest opinion. If only trying to built commuter rail between SA & Austin was not shot down. Sigh, that's Texas for you where one-dimensional transportation options (roads & only roads) seem to be king.
They are going to regret not taking away the cloverleaf interchange. They didn’t learn there lesson from 10/410 interchange and 10/1604 interchange(Which are changing now)
I can see where you're coming from, but there are a few differences with this one. First, that existing turbine ramp (EB to NB) helps to prevent the same kind of congestion seen in full cloverleafs. Second, quite a bit of traffic will use the new flyovers, which will take it out of the cloverleaf. Maybe eventually they'll need to replace it, but for the foreseeable future, it should not see the same problems as other cloverleafs.
Also, please stop trying to artificially slow down traffic by literally building your roads "wavy" in certain sections. Please bank everything properly. This isn't safe. This isn't helping police catch more criminals. This is dumb.
@zZMaDsKILLsZz - "You people?" First of all, I don't work for TxDOT, but even if I did, it seems like you meant it pejoratively, and there's no need for that. As for your merge comment, take more than two seconds to think it through... if there wasn't a merge, then every entrance ramp would add a new lane, which is obviously something that's not sustainable for more than a few miles. At the specific location you point out, that's an acceleration lane, which is actually a better and safer way to handle an on-ramp merge since it gives that entering traffic more time to get up to speed and find a gap to merge into. There's not an opportunity for an auxiliary lane in this case since there's another subsequent entrance ramp before the next exit ramp.
@@zZMaDsKILLsZz - Where specifically are you talking about "wavy" sections? There are a lot of legitimate reasons why that might be done that have nothing to do with "artificially slowing traffic down" or "helping the police", whatever that means.
I apologize for my tone. Here is a more succinct explanation: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-eNcR2m5gvok.htmlsi=CTelCsgNH_h3lz7W&t=361 Is this type of highway building and structure possible in real life? I believe this is the situation we are all looking for. I'm not an expert in construction or engineering, so you are going to have to describe your ideas at the beginner level. "Lane Mathematics" is a fundamental design feature for keeping lanes complete without merging. Example: Have you ever noticed how Houston's highways don't work despite their great size? This is due to improper merging design, not the amount of lanes of the highway itself. More lanes does NOT equal better highway. Better lane structure = better highway. @@TexasHighwayMan
Theoretically, you can hit 150+ southbound on 281. Try theoretically doing that on the North side. Is it possible by the airport? no. because the lanes are wavy and limit you to 115-120 mph to get through safely. Now, I want to build highways for the future. Maybe we could all travel safely at that speeds in the future. Idk. I just don't think making highways like this right now is helping. See, police want to fly into city to catch criminals, and worry and criminals flying out of city, basically, from my rudimentary understanding.@@TexasHighwayMan
Technically, crossing the buffer on HOV lanes here is not illegal. The lines would have to be double lines for crossing to be prohibited. But for the other issues, you should report your observations to SAPD and VIA so they're aware that increased enforcement is needed.
Very few cars shown traveling in the HOV lanes points out the lack of need for the project. The construction of needless projects IS the problem causing congestion.
This project was not just to construct the HOV lanes; it was to upgrade the previous surface highway-- which was indeed already congested-- to a freeway, not only to alleviate that congestion, but to accommodate the growth that's happening to the north. HOV lanes, by design, should have less traffic than the adjacent general lanes.
I was reading the flyover page on the site. Do you know about how tall this one is? I was on today and seems a pretty good height. WB is GOOD like you said.
I have been waiting for this connector for 15 years... makes getting to and from work super easy. Can you do a video on the Alamo Ranch/151 extension to 211?
We don't have much of an aversion anymore-- roundabouts are becoming much more common in the US. But traffic volumes at this particular intersection are too high for a roundabout to work well, especially in peak periods. BTW, Road Guy Rob did a great video on US roundabouts here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-mVvAopRZmtE.html
