Ribbon-cutting for Loop 410 expansion

For the past 30 years, San Antonians have complained about construction along Loop 410.  But no more.  As Mayor Julian Castro said during today’s Loop 410 ribbon-cutting ceremony, “the headaches are over!”

The last leg of the nearly $1 billion “410 for SA” project to improve Loop 410 across the northside of San Antonio is just about done with just a few final “punch list” items remaining, so TxDOT and other local officials– including the Mayor, County Judge Nelson Wolff, VIA boss Keith Parker, and city councilman John Clamp– took the opportunity today to celebrate the culmination of 30 years of work that widened Loop 410 from six to 10 lanes from Perrin-Beitel to Culebra and built new interchanges at US 281, San Pedro, I-10, and Bandera Rd.  All of these improvements have helped get Loop 410 “ahead of the curve” with regards to traffic and has significantly cut congestion and delays throughout the corridor.  And the completion comes just in time: 2009 traffic counts show that Loop 410 has regained its position as the busiest highway in San Antonio with an average of 215,000 vehicles per day between I-10 and US 281.

Getting here has been an adventure.  TxDOT began working on plans for Loop 410 back in the early ’80s shortly after work to widen the freeway from four to six lanes was completed.  For those of you who were here in the mid ’80s, you may remember front-page newspaper reports about one of the proposals being looked at: double-decking the freeway.  Those plans were later refined to the 10 lane freeway that is now in place and the first “preparatory” projects for the I-10 interchange began ca. 1988 with the widening of the Cherry Ridge and Fredericksburg overpasses.  A public meeting to discuss the plans for Loop 410 held at Aggie Park in 1995 was the first such meeting I ever attended.  Two years later, the first significant widening project expanded the segment from West Ave. to Cherry Ridge.  The section between McCullough and US 281 was widened and prepared for the planned 218/410 interchange in 2001 (remember the “stumps” that were put in place there that became the foundations for the elevated ramps?)  The section from I-10 west to Callaghan was widened in 2003, followed by the section from West Ave. to Blanco in 2005.  On all of those early sections, only eight of the eventual 10 lanes were initially marked to reduce the bottlenecks that remained on each end.

In 2008, the “keystone” section– that being from from Blanco to McCullough– was completed.  This provided a continuous widened stretch (except for the I-10 interchange) from North Star Mall all the way over to TxDOT’s offices at Callaghan.  Jones-Maltsberger to Broadway and the 410/281 interchange were finished the following year.  Work on the I-10 interchange, including widening Loop 410 to eight lanes, was completed in early 2009.  The elevated Bandera connectors and work to widen the section from Callaghan to Ingram was completed in mid 2009.  Finally, the section from Broadway to Perrin-Beitel is now wrapping-up.

Some folks may wonder why it took so long to complete this project.  The answer is simple: funding.  With a $1 billion pricetag, the project had to be broken-up into many phases to stay within funding constraints.  In fact, the eastern segment– the one being completed now– was not even expected to be funded until later this decade, but local voters approved the Advanced Transportation District (ATD) and its sales tax in 2003, part of which was dedicated to that project and enabled it to receive matching funds from the state far sooner than it otherwise would have. 

Another question is what will happen east of Perrin-Beitel.  That will be looked at as part of a major investment study of what to do along I-35 North.  Major improvements to the Fratt Interchange will be included with that, so nothing will be done east of Perrin-Beitel until those plans are finalized.

Sadly, given the current transportation funding situation in both Washington and Austin, the completion of this project essentially marks the end of a highway construction boom in San Antonio.  Over the past seven years or so, over $2 billion worth of highway improvement projects have been completed, largely as a result of the ATD tax, borrowing at the state level, and pass-through agreements with local entities.  The only major projects currently in the works are the Wurzbach Parkway and the first phase of the 281/1604 interchange, which unfortunately is facing a possible legal challenge.  Beyond that, unless and until the state Legislature figures-out how to solve the transpo funding issues that Texas faces, there won’t likely be any other major projects coming to fruition unless they’re tolled.  That’s just the reality of today.  And while some people may be relieved that construction zones and their associated headaches may be taking a hiatus, keep in mind that this also means that there is little relief in sight for the remaining congested areas and bottlenecks.

There’s also a good John Branch cartoon:
http://www.mysanantonio.com/opinion/cartoonists/Latest_cartoons_from_John_Branch.html?c=n#1

What effect do you think this will have, if any?

Whatever. 

If you couldn’t tell, I think this is one of the more ridiculous chapters in the long-running saga of the US 281 story, a tale rife with zaniness.  This interchange project was environmentally-approved by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) using a Categorical Exclusion, which means that in the experience of highway agencies across the country, these types of improvements have not had any significant environmental impacts.  It got that approval for good reason.  Yes, the project location is in the Edwards Aquifer Recharge Zone, but it is wholly within the existing rights-of-way of 281 and 1604 (with the exception of a few small parcels of already-developed land at the corners of the intersection itself.)  Therefore, this project would not cause any additional environmental harm given what’s already there, and actually would help reduce air pollution and runoff pollution caused by oil and other contaminated drippings from vehicles idling at the existing intersection.  But AGUA doesn’t see that part apparently.

Instead, they compared it to the “loophole” that BP used to drill the now-infamous Deepwater Horizon well in the Gulf of Mexico.

Seriously?  They’re obviously drinking some funny Kool-Aid over at the AGUA treehouse.

I had hopes that the anti-toll folks that had partnered with AGUA previously to stop the planned US 281 toll road would pressure them to ease-off of a lawsuit against the interchange.  If (or probably when) AGUA loses this lawsuit, their credibility will be shot, not to mention the enormous public backlash that they are about to incur for this stunt, thus almost certainly crippling any of their future opposition efforts.

Toll opponents have been generally mum on the interchange project.  Initially they made some mild noise about the project’s extent and costs, but as of late, they really haven’t been heard from, probably because it was to be built toll-free and because they read the same tea leaves I did about the public wrath that they would suffer if they opposed this nearly universally popular project.  It’s the old pick-your-battles lesson.

Hopefully this lawsuit will be resolved quickly.  If not, the project could lose its stimulus funding, and then we’re back to square one.

I’m sure I’ll have more on this in the coming days.

San Antonio Express-News (MySanAntonio.com) story

Of course, the response out of southern Comal County was nearly instantaneous.  Terri Hall wrote a verbose response on her blog lambasting Davidson and the E-N, essentially calling them shills for ARMA.  While she spends less than a sentence acknowledging Bruce’s main point about the Legislature, she spends probably 95% of the 1,516 words in her article assailing Bruce, the E-N, and ARMA.  As usual, there was much hyperbole and many inaccuracies in her comments (I’ll get to those in a minute), but the main thing that struck me was that she spent just about the entire piece focusing on Bruce’s defense of ARMA instead of balancing her tirade with a healthy amount of support for his focal point about the gas tax, a point which she actually agrees with (as do I for that matter.)  A more evenhanded response would have demonstrated that she’s not just trying to be antagonistic, an impression she has left on many folks.

It’s always fun to pick-apart Terri’s diatribes, so let’s take a look at some of her more “interesting” remarks:

Whenever we’ve attempted to go to the Editorial Board to dialogue about the toll issue, they flatly ignore us and our concerns (as well as elected officials, attorneys, certified planners, and other experts who have joined us) and print a negative editorial in response to our “visit.”

Maybe that’s because they see through the malarkey you wanted them to believe.

After all, the paper has the establishment to please, never mind the Express-News is bleeding readers. Why? Because of columns, editorials, and stories like this one. Or perhaps it’s because the RMA has paid the Express-News nearly $25,000 in government advertising.

That advertising is required as part of the federal laws regarding public involvement in the planning process, so they would have to spend that with the E-N regardless of whether or not the E-N supported their position.

It is interesting that she asserts that people who don’t like these types of articles would stop reading the paper.  There’s a word for that: close-minded.

This notion that the RMA “doesn’t care where the money comes from, they just want to fix the road” is a farce. They’re a tolling authority! They exist to toll roads!

And yet they’re building the 281/1604 interchange toll-free.

Most importantly, the needed fix to 281 was already paid for with gas taxes until TxDOT made the money disappear sometime in mid-2008. … They had the funds…it’s about tapping a new revenue stream and levying a discriminatory, targeted tax on 281 users in order to fund 1604 (which they don’t have the money for).

Ugh, how many times do we have to go through this?  Yes, funding was promised to the 281 project in the MPO TIP ca. 2000, but when the Transportation Commission (at the behest of the Governor) edicted that all new expressway projects be considered for tolling, the 281 project was required to become a toll project.  Consequently, the funding that was budgeted for it was re-allocated to other toll-free projects.  The money didn’t just “disappear”– it was spent on other roads that we all drive on.

Then, the stimulus money the RMA is using to build HALF of a non-toll interchange (for the price of a WHOLE interchange) is a one time deal. We’ve long objected to the RMA even doing a non-toll project, especially with the pricetag they can’t justify ($143 million for just the four southern ramps of the interchange when the RMA’s published price to build the northern ramps in 2018 dollars is $59 million. If they can build half of the interchange for $59 million, they can surely build the whole thing NOW for $120 million! For comparison, the 410/281 interchange just built cost $155 million.

As I explained in great detail in a previous post, her logic on this allegation is severely flawed.  You can read my previous post for the details, but the upshot is that much more than “half” an interchange is being built: about 75% of the ultimate bridgework for the full interchange would be built in this initial project, along with the bulk of the final ancillary infrastructure (e.g. drainage and such).  This project also includes lots of improvements to the 281 and 1604 approaches.  You can’t compare the 410/281 interchange for a number of reasons, including the fact that a good portion of the prep work for it was built in separate, preceding projects.

(The RMA) hides behind a state law that allows these agencies to keep toll viability studies, the market valuation, and other key financial details SECRET from the public AND even YOUR elected officials.

By her own admission, they’re not doing anything illegal.  If she doesn’t like that, she needs to lobby to get the law changed.  She may not like what they’re doing, but they are allowed to do it.  As they say, hate the game, not the player.

As long as the 281 & 1604 projects are marked “toll” in the MPO’s plans, the RMA has control of the project and a vested interest in ensuring it remains tolled even when new sources of revenue become available.

Not true.  The 281/1604 interchange was listed in the MPO’s plans as a toll project before the stimulus funds became available.

The RMA is conducting its own environmental studies on both the 281 and 1604 toll projects (the fox guarding the hen house)…

She forgot to mention that they’re doing this at the direction of (and with the oversight of) the Federal Highway Administration.

RMA Chair Bill Thornton promised on WOAI radio January 14, 2009 that they’d fix 281 non-toll if they got a new source of funds. When stimulus funds became available, the RMA STILL submitted the project as a toll project (they planned to build it with stimulus money and still charge users a toll to drive on it, a DOUBLE TAX), which is proof-positive that even when they get a new pot of money to do something non-toll, the RMA still pushes its toll agenda…regardless of the opposition to it.

Again, the interchange project is the proof that that’s not true.  And in the case of 281 itself, it’s all moot because no project could/can be built on 281 until the environmental study is done.  Since projects had to be “shovel-ready” to get stimulus funds, 281 was not eligible for those funds!

Also, the FHWA also informed MPO Chairman Commissioner Tommy Adkisson that as long as a project is marked toll in the MPO plans, it will be done as a toll project.

Once again, the interchange project invalidates this claim.

Goes to show, one must do his/her due diligence before believing what you read in the Express-News.

This is even more true when reading Terri Hall’s blog.

That said, she did have some valid points, mainly these:

Second, where is Davidson’s call to end the diversions to the gas tax we ALREADY PAY? Why would any thinking person ask government to raise taxes when they’re misappropriating the taxes we already send them? Third, why isn’t Davidson insisting San Antonio get back the money we already send to Austin and Washington that we’re shorted before he advocates for higher taxes (tolls)? Lastly, ending the vehicle sales tax diversion (that’s being dumped into general revenue instead of going to roads) would nearly triple our region’s road money WITHOUT RAISING TAXES!

And this one in particular about my fellow OnTheMoveBlog contributor:

…since they laid off the excellent, unbiased, and very fair transportation reporter Pat Driscoll

A good summary of my position (and Bruce’s) is this comment I posted on Terri’s blog (which had not yet been approved as of the writing of this blog):

Our state lawmakers are entirely to blame. There would be no ARMA nor need for them if the Legislature had just done their jobs. ARMA and toll roads are just a *symptom* of the root problem, and ARMA (and TxDOT for that matter) just play the hand they are dealt by the Leg and Governor.

In her blog, she first claims that if they (ARMA) would drop the toll prospect for 281, that the northern ramps of the interchange could be built now with stimulus funds.  Now I know she believes that she autocratically controls what will be required for that stretch of road, but she is just plain wrong.  Because of the furor she has created (more on that in a minute), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has indicated in no uncertain terms that a full environmental impact statement (EIS) must be done for the 281 north project.  Whether the project will be tolled or not is irrelevant to them at this point because any project, tolled or not, will likely have similar– if not the same– physical footprints, and so they want to make sure all the i’s have been dotted and t’s crossed before issuing any approvals.  It’s their decision as to what is required, not Ms. Hall’s, and they’ve already said they want an EIS before anything is done.

The environmental process
This might be a good point to take a brief sidebar and explain the environmental study process.  The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 requires all projects on federal-aid roads to undergo environmental review.  There are essentially three levels of possible review: a Categorical Exclusion (CE), where the agency building the road can demonstrate that the proposed improvements will not cause any harm on the basis of previous experience (this is used for most relatively minor improvements to existing roads); an Environmental Assessment (EA), which is a basic study of the possible effects of a project to see if further study is warranted; and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), which is the most intensive and comprehensive study.  Typically, engineers know what types of projects fit into which category of review, but sometimes a CE or EA may find something that then requires the next higher level of study.  (You can read more about this process on Wikipedia.)

Why an EIS for 281?
So how did we get to the point of having to do an EIS for 281?  The finger is squarely pointed at Terri Hall herself.  When she moved here from California, TxDOT already had federally-approved EAs for the “original” toll-free project that would have expanded US 281 from 1604 to Stone Oak to a six-lane expressway with overpasses and frontage roads.  When the edict came from Austin in 2003 to change it to a toll project and work began on the first tollway iteration in 2005, Terri Hall  joined forces with the environmental group Aquifer Guardians in Urban Areas (AGUA) to sue to get those EAs voided.  TxDOT and FHWA agreed that a combined EA for the corridor might be better than the patchwork EAs done previously.  When that combined EA was completed and approved by FHWA, Terri Hall and AGUA sued again demanding that an EIS be done instead.  I’m not sure if she naïvely believed that an EIS might find an issue with tolling the road that would cause the toll option to be dropped or if she was just using an EIS to stall the project in hopes that the political or funding climate might change in the meantime.  In any case, during the discovery process for that lawsuit, TxDOT discovered some irregularities in the new EA and withdrew it.  Regardless of how it played out, it was Terri Hall who wanted– no, demanded– an EIS and now that she’s got it, she’s upset about it.  This is an object lesson in the old adage “be careful what you wish for because you just might get it.”

The interchange project, on the other hand, is being submitted to FHWA as a CE.  Terri believes that a project that adds all those tall ramps and auxiliary lanes certainly demands the same level of scrutiny that the 281 project now requires, that being an EIS.  She asserts that adding the auxiliary lanes is a way to add capacity to both 1604 and 281 while circumventing an EIS.  But, as usual, she doesn’t have full grasp of the facts.  First of all, the 281 project has never qualified for a CE since its inception as a toll-free expressway, so there’s absolutely no way it would qualify for one now.  Regardless of whether it is built tolled or toll-free, it will require adding a lot of new pavement (more than double what’s there today) on a bunch of new right-of-way, relocating lots of utilities, and dramatically changing drainage and traffic patterns.  This is far more invasive than adding elevated connectors above existing controlled-access highways entirely on existing right-of-way.  Even adding the auxiliary lanes is not as invasive because, once again, those lanes are added onto existing controlled-access highways within the existing right-of-way.  Because the impacts of the interchange are trivial relative to what’s there today, it fits the qualifications for a CE.  The 281 project, which is orders of magnitude more invasive, was approved under a two seperate EAs, but because of the previous lawsuits filed by Terri Hall and AGUA and the ensuing controversy, FHWA is now requiring an EIS.  Terri Hall calls this hypocrisy, but the real hypocrisy here is that she made her own bed in this case and now she’s having to lie in it.

Flawed logic
Lastly, I think it’s evident that Ms. Hall is trying to assert logic about the local application of the environmental process that is contradictory to her pronounced convictions.  She seems to think that ARMA and TxDOT are intentionally causing the 281 project to be delayed while fast-tracking other, non-toll projects.  But her stated belief is that TxDOT and ARMA are chomping at the bit to build toll roads as some sort of money-grab.  If that were indeed true, why then would they want to intentionally delay those projects?  And, if delaying projects helps make the case for tolling them, why would they fast-track these toll-free projects, especially ones that were previously determined to be toll-worthy? 

It is deeply disturbing to me that Terri has taken aim at this project.  ARMA and the MPO have done a great job securing funding to get it built toll-free, and the project’s engineers have also done a good job thinking beyond the interchange itself and providing additional improvements to both 281 and 1604.  This is a good project that’s long-overdue and frankly, in my opinion, her histrionics about it only serve to further undermine and discredit her.

So Ms. Hall starts-off her blog by saying that the 410/281 interchange, which went to bid in early 2005, cost $155 million for all eight ramps, while the proposed 281/1604 interchange, which would only build four ramps, will cost $140 million.  She asserts that because only half the connectors will be built and because construction costs have been sagging this year that the price is way too high and must represent “padding” by including several ancillary improvements.

Only one of her assertions is actually true– yes, construction costs have dropped-off dramatically this year, down to about the level they were in late 2005.  But they’re still about 22% higher than they were when the 410/281 interchange was funded, so that alone accounts for a good chunk of the difference.

More than half being built
Although she never says it outright, she does imply that since only half the connectors in the new interchange will be built that the costs should be roughly half those of the 410 interchange.  However, what she doesn’t grasp is that actually about 75% of the new interchange is being built.  Yes, only four connectors out of eight are to be built, but six out of the eight connector “common structures” will be built.  Those are the upramps from the freeway and the elevated road that leads to the ramp split, and the elevated road from where the ramps come back together on the other side and the downramp to the other highway.  I have marked these sections in blue on the diagram below.

The ramps from the north will tie into what will then be the four existing common structures to the left and right on 1604.  Therefore, only two new common structures will need to be built to serve those new ramps, those being along 281 north of 1604.  Because the length of those structures is considerably longer than the actual turning ramps, about 75% of the required elevated structures (measured by linear footage) for the full interchange will be completed in this project.  In addition, much of the drainage infrastructure to support the full interchange will also be built in this project.  The net result is that well more than half of a full interchange is being built, so Ms. Hall can’t try to make an apples-to-apples comparison in that fashion.

So, let’s look at the numbers:

75% of the $155 million for the 410/281 interchange is about $116 million.  Take that and multiply it by the 22% construction inflation rate since early 2005 and you get about $142 million.  ARMA’s projected cost for this project: $140 million.  Sorry Terri, ARMA’s numbers work.

Ancillary improvements to blame
That aside, Ms. Hall wants to assert that several ancillary improvements that will be made to 281 and 1604 in conjunction with this project are what’s driving the costs up.  Again, although she says she wants to compare apples to apples, she’s not.  The 410/281 interchange project also included several supplementary improvements on 281 from Nakoma all the way to Hildebrand, including widening 281, redoing the exits to Jones-Maltsberger both north and south of 410, and adding TransGuide to that stretch of 281, not to mention repaving all of it.  That project also included the widening and improvements to Loop 410 from Jones-Maltsberger to Broadway.  So that project included lots of “padding” as well, in her lingo.

She claims that similar enhancements to be included in the 1604 interchange project have NOTHING to do with the interchange, but again, she’s just dead wrong.  Those improvements, like those made to 281 in conjunction with the 410 interchange, are designed to mitigate the effects that the new connectors will have on traffic upstream and downstream from the interchange.  We all know from experience that when a major bottleneck is removed from a highway, all the traffic that it frees-up can cause other issues further downstream.  Most of the ramp revisions and auxiliary lanes planned as part of this project are intended to address those issues.  In a nutshell, this is good planning.  Additionally, a number of safety improvements (such as illumination and sidewalks) will be included, and repaving both 281 and 1604 is necessary because all the improvements will change the pavement in several locations.  Now I will agree with Ms. Hall that the two proposed pedestrian bridges on each side of 1604 at 281 might cross the line as being a tad excessive, but everything else in the plans makes sense and is not superfluous.

Finally, she claims that the $84 million for those enhancements should be spent to build the roughly $60 million northern ramps.  However, those ramps cannot be built right now because they are included in the scope for the 281 environmental impact statement (EIS), which Ms. Hall herself sued to get and which won’t be completed until sometime around 2012.

We’ll pick up there tomorrow.

Rendering of SPUI on US 75 at Parker Rd. in Plano

Work is underway on the North Central Expressway at Parker Rd. in the Dallas suburb of Plano on what, to my knowledge, will be Texas’ first Single Point Urban Interchange, or SPUI (pronounced “spoo-ee”).  (If anyone knows of an existing one in Texas, please post it!)  Popular in several other states, a SPUI is a type of intersection between a surface street and a freeway’s entrance and exit ramps.

A SPUI’s design allows each set of opposing left turn movements to be conducted simultaneously, thus eliminating extra signal phases typically required to accomodate those movements separately.  Because of the reduced number of signal phases, more traffic can be accommodated (much like the Super Street concept being implemented on US 281 in far north San Antonio.)  However, to accomplish this, a SPUI also eliminates the straight-through movement between the freeway ramps– in other words, if you’re coming off the freeway, you have to either turn left or right onto the cross street; you can’t go straight through the intersection.  It’s because of this gotcha that SPUIs have yet to catch-on in Texas.  Most of Texas’ freeways have frontage roads, and traffic inherently needs to be able to continue through on those frontage roads to either reach businesses further down or to get onto the freeway from a location further upstream.  However, the SPUI in Plano will accommodate frontage roads by having them pass under the cross street.  Several locations in Texas, including here in San Antonio, already have flyovers or underpasses for frontage road through traffic, so using them to accommodate a SPUI is a logical progression. 

Schematic of a typical SPUI

The “single point intersection” of a SPUI is where all four left turns cross.  Typically at a freeway/cross street intersection, you have two separate intersections (one on each side of the freeway) where left turns are made.  With a SPUI, those are collapsed into one single intersection midway between where the two traditional intersections would be.  Drivers turning left pass to each other’s right, just like at a regular intersection, although the angle of the left turns is notably “softer”.

The SPUI at Parker Rd. will replace an outdated four-quadrant jug-handle interchange.  In this case, the old jug-handle ramps will remain and will be modified to serve as the right-turn ramps.  In a typical SPUI, the right turns are accommodated much closer to the central intersection.  The Parker Rd. SPUI will also include another feature not seen in typical SPUIs but quite prominent and necessary in Texas: turnarounds.

Will SPUIs be in San Antonio’s future?  I guess that will depend on how well it does in the Dallas area, but I can already envision a few locations where it would really help with congestion.

• Dallas Morning News transportation blog post about the Parker Rd. SPUI