AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Mid-South => Topic started by: roadman65 on October 03, 2013, 08:59:18 AM

Title: Texas
Post by: roadman65 on October 03, 2013, 08:59:18 AM
I see we have the Lone Star State broken up in to categories but no general page, so I am creating one.
http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8248/8503946982_86eaf222f9_z.jpg

I was often wondering about FM and RM roads throughout the largest 48 state.  I have always see them signed in three and even four digit numbers, but I never saw one like this one in two digits as I assumed they were mainly for primary highway use.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: bassoon1986 on October 03, 2013, 09:33:54 AM
Oh there's definitely 1 and 2 digit FM roads across Texas. Here's one from the AARoads Texas guide. It's I-20 west of Ft. Worth. Also FM 9 crosses I-20 at the TX/LA line in Waskom.

https://www.aaroads.com/texas/texas020/i-020_wb_exit_380_03.jpg


Title: Re: Texas
Post by: agentsteel53 on October 03, 2013, 12:52:32 PM
every classification of road in Texas starts at 1.

loop 1 is the MoPac expressway in Austin.

ranch road 1 is Lyndon B Johnson's ranch.  not sure what it was before (I am quite certain) he, or someone close to him, pulled some strings.

state road 1 was eliminated in bits and pieces due to being replaced by US highways 80 (El Paso to Dallas) and 67 (Dallas to Texarkana).

NASA 1 goes to Johnson Space Center.  there are no other NASA roads.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: wxfree on October 03, 2013, 01:24:18 PM
Numbers of each system are independent, so they run through the same numbers.  FM/RMs go to the highest number, currently 3541.

Farm-to-Market and Ranch-to-Market are a single system and share a number pool (there won't be FM 10 and RM 10).

Loops and spurs, a subcategory of state highways, are a single system and share a number pool, separate from state highways.  Park roads, a subcategory of the loop/spur system, are separate.  Recreational roads are also separate.  There's SH 10, FM 10, PR 10, Rec Road 10, and Spur (SS) 10, but not Loop (SL) 10.

The exception is FM/RM spurs.  Those are numbered the same as the FM or RM they spur from.  They're signed with the regular spur sign, but are designated along with the parent route, not separately.

Ranch Road 1 and NASA Road 1 are the only ones of their type.  As far as I'm aware, Beltway 8 is a custom designation of Loop 8 and is the only one of its kind.

Business routes of state highways, US routes, or Interstate highways are all state highways.  Each is signed and numbered according to its parent route.  I think FM/RM business routes stay on the FM/RM system. 

There's also a mysterious PASS (Principle Arterial State System) category.  They're not of interest to drivers; I've never seen one signed.  I've only seen them on official maps and descriptions.  Most of them follow urban city streets, but a few follow urban on-system roads.  I assume they get some kind of supplementary state funding.  They're numbered differently, based on location, from the 200s in the Fort Worth area to the 2400s in the El Paso area.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: NE2 on October 03, 2013, 02:09:14 PM
There's both FM 1 (the first FM road, designated in 1941) and the special Ranch Road 1 (designated in 1963 along old US 290 and signed as if it were RM 1).
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: agentsteel53 on October 03, 2013, 02:40:39 PM
Quote from: wxfree on October 03, 2013, 01:24:18 PM
There's also a mysterious PASS (Principle Arterial State System) category.  They're not of interest to drivers; I've never seen one signed.  I've only seen them on official maps and descriptions.  Most of them follow urban city streets, but a few follow urban on-system roads.  I assume they get some kind of supplementary state funding.  They're numbered differently, based on location, from the 200s in the Fort Worth area to the 2400s in the El Paso area.

sounds like a state variant of the NHS.
Title: Dallas: Tryout of new plastic sound panels on I-30
Post by: txstateends on October 05, 2013, 12:19:01 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.nbcdfw.com%2Fimages%2F654%2A368%2Fplastic-sound-barrier-01.jpg&hash=920e98f39ddd745d6ff90aeac57b6df48a5e9273)

http://www.nbcdfw.com/traffic/stories/TxDOT-Tests-Plastic-Sound-Barrier-Along-I-30-in-Dallas-226245701.html

This is along I-30 west of downtown, near the Sylvan Ave. exit.  It resembles the barrier used between the ice and the seats at a hockey game.  Nearby residents are hopeful that this arrangement works to reduce highway noise in the area.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: KEVIN_224 on October 05, 2013, 09:25:14 PM
http://www.nbcdfw.com/video/#!/news/local/Denton-County-Votes-to-Remodel-I-35E/220422911

I also noticed this story on the KXAS-TV website, after reading the above article. :)
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: Road Hog on October 07, 2013, 08:41:16 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on October 05, 2013, 09:25:14 PM
http://www.nbcdfw.com/video/#!/news/local/Denton-County-Votes-to-Remodel-I-35E/220422911

I also noticed this story on the KXAS-TV website, after reading the above article. :)

Thereby making I-35E a flipping mess for the next decade. This should've been done 15 years ago.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: brownpelican on October 07, 2013, 01:18:53 PM
Looks like a replacement bridge over the Clear Fork Trinity River in downtown Fort Worth will be ready this week for traffic...West Seventh Street to be exact.

http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/10/06/5225100/west-seventh-street-bridge-likely.html?rh=1 (http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/10/06/5225100/west-seventh-street-bridge-likely.html?rh=1)
Title: Energy boom has been good for TX, but hard on its roads
Post by: txstateends on October 09, 2013, 02:36:52 PM
http://bizbeatblog.dallasnews.com/2013/10/txdot-commissioner-energy-boom-has-been-good-for-texas-hard-on-its-roads.html/

It is estimated that heavy trucks cause enough deterioration to highways in TX, that $1 billion/year more is needed to keep up.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: Scott5114 on October 10, 2013, 01:14:09 AM
Quote from: Road Hog on October 07, 2013, 08:41:16 AM
Quote from: KEVIN_224 on October 05, 2013, 09:25:14 PM
http://www.nbcdfw.com/video/#!/news/local/Denton-County-Votes-to-Remodel-I-35E/220422911

I also noticed this story on the KXAS-TV website, after reading the above article. :)

Thereby making I-35E a flipping mess for the next decade. This should've been done 15 years ago.

I was in Dallas at rush hour recently and this segment of highway was really backed up. It looks way past its sell-by date, so I'm glad that it's being addressed.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: txstateends on October 21, 2013, 08:38:46 PM
http://blogs.dallasobserver.com/unfairpark/2013/10/txdot_falling_chunks_of_concre.php

TxDOT is working on patching up holes that have formed on the I-20 bridge over Houston School Road in southern Dallas.  Chunks of concrete started falling from the bridge onto Houston School Road recently, but TxDOT doesn't seem overly concerned...even though I-20 WB traffic was diverted to the service road during the repairs.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: Big John on October 21, 2013, 08:44:02 PM
^^ The article has an alarming nonchalant view from TxDOT.  That is a hazard and the bridge needs a new deck if concrete chunks are falling below and safety netting underneath until the deck is rebuilt.  The superstructure may still be safe though as TxDOT asserts.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: Brian556 on October 22, 2013, 12:24:07 AM
QuoteOrthopedic Associates

I used to work at TxDot. They probably seem nonchalant because this happens way more frequently than most people realize.
Heck, before it was replaced in the mid-2000's, the I-35 bridges over US 380 (built 1959) required almost weekly repairs of deck holes. On one occasion, concrete broke out he windshields of vehicles driving below it. The bridges were allowed to remain in this condition for years despite the danger.

Once a very large hole opened up on the deck of the US 377 Denton Creek bridge (Roanoke area). The cops had to guard it till we could get there.

Title: Re: Texas
Post by: Grzrd on November 02, 2013, 01:39:54 PM
This article (http://www.valleymorningstar.com/news/local_news/article_7655852a-4370-11e3-ab7a-001a4bcf6878.html) reports that the Texas Transportation Commission recently approved funding to advance the second causeway to South Padre Island and Outer Parkway projects:

Quote
The Texas Transportation Commission Thursday approved two loans for the Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority for the second causeway and outer parkway projects.
The commission approved a $5 million financial assistance request from the CCRMA for pre-development environmental studies, design, legal services and other qualified development costs for the Outer Parkway project, which is a planned toll road beginning at Interstate 69, formerly called Expressway 77, north of Harlingen and stretching east, connecting with the planned second causeway.
Secondly, the commission approved an additional $5.1 million CCRMA request for funds that will be used to continue the study and development of the Second Causeway Project ....
CCRMA coordinator Pete Sepulveda Jr. .... "They are two different projects, but the funds will allow us to review and complete the environmental process in the same timeframe for clearance on the causeway,"  Sepulveda said. "The two different projects go hand in hand."

This map (http://www.cameroncountyrma.org/docs/CCRMA_System_Map.pdf) shows the relationship between the two projects:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fm344IeF.jpg&hash=652db0602f2f2cebaf111fcac62ac5bd61bf8912)
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: kinupanda on November 03, 2013, 10:58:58 PM
Quote from: wxfree on October 03, 2013, 01:24:18 PM
There's also a mysterious PASS (Principle Arterial State System) category.  They're not of interest to drivers; I've never seen one signed.
The only one I've ever seen signed is along I-35: PASS Route 1502 (Wurzbach Pkwy.) is signed at Exit 169. It's shown on the BGSes using the standard white rectangle with "P.A." on top. I'm not sure what the motivation is for this. There's no standalone signage anywhere else. I don't have a pic at the moment, but Google Street View shows the blank space where the shield is now.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: Greybear on November 04, 2013, 01:13:09 PM
Quote from: wxfree on October 03, 2013, 01:24:18 PM
Numbers of each system are independent, so they run through the same numbers.  FM/RMs go to the highest number, currently 3541.

Farm-to-Market and Ranch-to-Market are a single system and share a number pool (there won't be FM 10 and RM 10).

Loops and spurs, a subcategory of state highways, are a single system and share a number pool, separate from state highways.  Park roads, a subcategory of the loop/spur system, are separate.  Recreational roads are also separate.  There's SH 10, FM 10, PR 10, Rec Road 10, and Spur (SS) 10, but not Loop (SL) 10.

The exception is FM/RM spurs.  Those are numbered the same as the FM or RM they spur from.  They're signed with the regular spur sign, but are designated along with the parent route, not separately.

Ranch Road 1 and NASA Road 1 are the only ones of their type.  As far as I'm aware, Beltway 8 is a custom designation of Loop 8 and is the only one of its kind.

Business routes of state highways, US routes, or Interstate highways are all state highways.  Each is signed and numbered according to its parent route.  I think FM/RM business routes stay on the FM/RM system. 

There's also a mysterious PASS (Principle Arterial State System) category.  They're not of interest to drivers; I've never seen one signed.  I've only seen them on official maps and descriptions.  Most of them follow urban city streets, but a few follow urban on-system roads.  I assume they get some kind of supplementary state funding.  They're numbered differently, based on location, from the 200s in the Fort Worth area to the 2400s in the El Paso area.


I have to correct you on the highest FM/RM number.  The current highest is actually FM 3549, which is located in Rockwall County. 
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: NE2 on November 04, 2013, 01:18:05 PM
Quote from: Greybear on November 04, 2013, 01:13:09 PM
I have to correct you on the highest FM/RM number.  The current highest is actually FM 3549, which is located in Rockwall County. 
I don't have to correct you but it makes my loins tingle most pleasantly. There's a FM 3550 and 3551: http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/fm3500/fm3550.htm http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2010/documents/minute_orders/apr29/14e2.pdf
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: Greybear on November 04, 2013, 01:19:23 PM
My apologies, my good man.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: wxfree on November 04, 2013, 09:58:50 PM
Thank you for that corrected information.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: txstateends on November 16, 2013, 10:12:24 PM
Fort Worth: West 7th Street bridge now re-open

http://www.star-telegram.com/2013/11/15/5341302/west-seventh-street-bridges-grand.html

The bridge, west of downtown, has been closed for months for a redo.  Now it returns with these new concrete-framed arches along both sides and a wide sidewalk on the outside edge.  The arches were cast nearby at a staging spot, saving the trouble and expense of having them trucked in from elsewhere.  Inlaid lighting from each arch gives off a new glow at night.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.star-telegram.com%2Fsmedia%2F2013%2F11%2F15%2F21%2F02%2F1t81O2.St.58.jpeg&hash=d4dfec1ce66df368a8d97188a75715008dfc2cf9)

Fireworks capped off the festivities.  The West 7th bridge spans the Clear Fork of the Trinity River.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.star-telegram.com%2Fsmedia%2F2013%2F11%2F15%2F22%2F29%2F1t836L.St.58.jpeg&hash=e83f0a5575c5f0292218415bb16e28412c242300)
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: Scott5114 on November 18, 2013, 02:44:04 AM
Are the arches for any structural reason or just decoration?
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: NE2 on November 18, 2013, 04:18:27 AM
Apparently it's the world's first "pre-cast network arch bridge" (http://www.constructormagazine.com/index.php/2013/06/05/sundt-places-arches-on-worlds-first-pre-cast-network-arch-bridge/), whatever that means.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: yakra on November 19, 2013, 10:57:20 PM
Meh, every bridge is the world's most superlative [insert set of very specific criteria here] bridge.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: Grzrd on January 05, 2014, 10:43:04 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on August 18, 2013, 08:10:29 PM
This article (http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_cec6d090-07ae-11e3-ab34-0019bb30f31a.html)
Quote
After the highway is complete, travel time between Matamoros and the state of Sinaloa, a highly agricultural region often referred to as Mexico's breadbasket, is expected to be reduced from 20 hours to about 12, making Brownsville's port a quicker option for commerce than Phoenix. ....
With a large percentage of the United States' produce coming from Mexico – it's estimated 60 percent of all the nation's lettuce comes from the region surrounding Mazatlan – the port is aiming to have a place for it to go in case companies divert their trucks to the Gulf Coast to reach the East Coast and beyond ....
(above quote from Mazatlan-to-Matamoros Corridor Nearing Completion (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=8785.msg240689#msg240689) thread)
Quote from: Grzrd on November 02, 2013, 01:39:54 PM
This map (http://www.cameroncountyrma.org/docs/CCRMA_System_Map.pdf)

This article (http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_0e1d0326-75ba-11e3-9bc3-0019bb30f31a.html) reports that construction should begin on the East Loop to the port (shown on the above-linked map) at some time during 2015:

Quote
Infrastructure projects this year will continue to put an emphasis on the Port of Brownsville and its freight capabilities as connections to the shipping hub are expected to bring further investment to the area ....
Garcia said there is special focus on connecting the county's ports of entry with the deepwater port, especially due to the jobs growth that a spike in freight could inspire.
The recent completion of a Mexican superhighway connecting Mazatlan and Matamoros has led to talks among county and port officials about enhancing facilities at the port to capitalize on produce trade that will come from the largely agricultural Sinaloa state of Mexico. ....
The county and TxDOT are also expected to begin preparations this year to provide a connector from Interstate 69 near the port of entry to FM 1419, though that project isn't expected to be funded until March of next year.
Still, getting the ball rolling on that project, which Sepulveda described as an "east loop,"  is a major goal for the county this year.
"We're hoping by August of this year we will have clearance on the east loop project,"  he said, adding that that would set up the project for construction beginning next year.
That connector would allow commercial traffic to enter the port from the south side, he said.
TxDOT Regional Spokesman Octavio Saenz said in an email that the project would reduce congestion for trucks and commuters alike.
"The goal behind this project is to get the truck traffic from the Veterans Bridge to the Port of Brownsville and allowing them to circumvent the heavy traffic and the school zones on International Boulevard,"  he said.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: TheOneKEA on January 07, 2014, 12:05:57 AM
http://txdotsanantonio.blogspot.com/2014/01/txdot-leaders-announce-800mm-in-new.html

Big news for San Antonio; it looks like there is hope for improvements to finally get going on 1604 and 281.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: Grzrd on January 21, 2014, 01:42:18 PM
TxDOT has posted an updated version of the Texas Official Travel Map (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/trv/maps/texas.pdf).
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: NE2 on January 21, 2014, 02:36:42 PM
QuoteThank you for your email. Yes, the Beach/SH 180 intersection appears to be an SPUI. It appears to have been constructed in 1962. Wikipedia states that the 1st SPUI was in Florida in 1974 near St. Petersburg (close to Clearwater). In that case, the one in Fort Worth seems to pre-date that one.

Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.

Michael Peters
Public Information Officer
TxDOT's Communications Division
Fort Worth District
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: txstateends on February 08, 2014, 02:32:29 AM
http://starlocalmedia.com/planocourier/news/ceremony-scheduled-to-rename-u-s-for-rep-sam-johnson/article_23ed8e48-8f67-11e3-afec-0019bb2963f4.html

On February 24, the section of US 75 between the Bush Turnpike in Plano and US 380 in McKinney will be named for Sam Johnson, a US Congressman from the area.  The article doesn't say if this is symbolic or if the N. Central Expwy. naming will actually go away in favor of Johnson.

If so, there will be 2 north TX highways with 'Sam' for first names (this one, and the Sam Rayburn Tollway section of TX 121), and 'Johnson' for last names (this one, and I-635 LBJ Freeway).
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: txstateends on February 08, 2014, 02:55:32 AM
http://www.newschannel10.com/story/24255469/city-txdot-plan-to-expand-loop-335
http://amarillo.com/news/local-news/2014-01-12/hollywood-road-project-focuses-safety-mobility

In Amarillo, south Loop 335 between I-27 and before the Washington St. exit, will be getting a redo that's long been needed.  Currently, the road is 4-lane with left turn closer to I-27, while east of that it is just 2-lane.  All of is at-grade, with 3 signals.  When done, it will be 4-lane with service roads and grade separations.  I haven't seen any mockups or schematics yet.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: Road Hog on February 08, 2014, 03:31:32 AM
Quote from: txstateends on February 08, 2014, 02:32:29 AM
http://starlocalmedia.com/planocourier/news/ceremony-scheduled-to-rename-u-s-for-rep-sam-johnson/article_23ed8e48-8f67-11e3-afec-0019bb2963f4.html

On February 24, the section of US 75 between the Bush Turnpike in Plano and US 380 in McKinney will be named for Sam Johnson, a US Congressman from the area.  The article doesn't say if this is symbolic or if the N. Central Expwy. naming will actually go away in favor of Johnson.

If so, there will be 2 north TX highways with 'Sam' for first names (this one, and the Sam Rayburn Tollway section of TX 121), and 'Johnson' for last names (this one, and I-635 LBJ Freeway).

They tried to rename Central for George W. Bush a few years ago. That didn't get far.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: Sykotyk on February 08, 2014, 05:52:17 PM
Quote from: txstateends on February 08, 2014, 02:55:32 AM
http://www.newschannel10.com/story/24255469/city-txdot-plan-to-expand-loop-335
http://amarillo.com/news/local-news/2014-01-12/hollywood-road-project-focuses-safety-mobility

In Amarillo, south Loop 335 between I-27 and before the Washington St. exit, will be getting a redo that's long been needed.  Currently, the road is 4-lane with left turn closer to I-27, while east of that it is just 2-lane.  All of is at-grade, with 3 signals.  When done, it will be 4-lane with service roads and grade separations.  I haven't seen any mockups or schematics yet.

Really wish Amarillo's Loop 335 was built as a ready-made Freeway upgrade around the east side. For US287 travelers, either taking Loop 335 or going through town for a stretch on the multiple one-way streets, it isn't efficient. Wide frontage roads with the ability to add a freeway with overpasses later would've been rather forward thinking. I'm sure one day that will be needed. But, the cost will be a lot higher, especially near the I-40 east interchange with the truck stops and other businesses nearby.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: yakra on February 23, 2014, 02:13:41 PM
https://maps.google.com/?cbp=11,25.34,,0,13.03&cbll=32.470458,-100.012118&layer=c&ie=UTF8&ll=32.470459,-100.012118&spn=0.003132,0.009645&t=m&z=17&vpsrc=0&panoid=boJsNhnzU1I5vbK_M8iu2Q
:bigass:
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: us175 on February 23, 2014, 03:12:33 PM
Quote from: yakra on February 23, 2014, 02:13:41 PM
https://maps.google.com/?cbp=11,25.34,,0,13.03&cbll=32.470458,-100.012118&layer=c&ie=UTF8&ll=32.470459,-100.012118&spn=0.003132,0.009645&t=m&z=17&vpsrc=0&panoid=boJsNhnzU1I5vbK_M8iu2Q
:bigass:
??? ??? ???
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: yakra on February 23, 2014, 05:55:54 PM
That red brick pavement is neato.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: Brian556 on February 23, 2014, 07:21:18 PM
In the area west of Ft Worth, there are some old US Highway alignments that are brick.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: US71 on February 23, 2014, 08:19:49 PM
Quote from: Brian556 on February 23, 2014, 07:21:18 PM
In the area west of Ft Worth, there are some old US Highway alignments that are brick.

If memory serves correct, there's a small section of old US 59 in Marshall that is brick.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: wxfree on February 23, 2014, 09:39:31 PM
A portion of FM 916 in Grandview is brick.  I hate it; it's rough.  I read several years ago that the city and TxDOT were both reluctant to fix it because they're afraid of breaking historic preservation laws.  I think they should preserve that historic road by putting pavement on top of it, keeping the bricks safe and making for a smooth drive.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: US81 on February 24, 2014, 06:24:12 AM
Quote from: Brian556 on February 23, 2014, 07:21:18 PM
In the area west of Ft Worth, there are some old US Highway alignments that are brick.

Camp Bowie - the old Highway 80 alignment? Is that still brick? Or are you referring to something else? 

I loved those old bricks....
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: Road Hog on February 24, 2014, 01:00:25 PM
A one-block segment of FM 455 in downtown Celina is brick. The streets on all sides of the town square are brick, and I don't know if TxDOT maintains the one side that is under state control. It can get kind of nasty in icy weather.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: texaskdog on February 24, 2014, 01:53:39 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on January 21, 2014, 01:42:18 PM
TxDOT has posted an updated version of the Texas Official Travel Map (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/trv/maps/texas.pdf).

Wonder if 87 will ever reopen on the coast
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: Brian556 on February 24, 2014, 09:33:18 PM
QuoteWonder if 87 will ever reopen on the coast

Good question. It's been closed quite a while. It looks like this road met it's demise due to sea level rise. On a similar note, a section of SR A1A if Florida had to be re-routed inland due to it being taken by the sea.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: texaskdog on February 24, 2014, 10:36:11 PM
Quote from: Brian556 on February 24, 2014, 09:33:18 PM
QuoteWonder if 87 will ever reopen on the coast

Good question. It's been closed quite a while. It looks like this road met it's demise due to sea level rise. On a similar note, a section of SR A1A if Florida had to be re-routed inland due to it being taken by the sea.

its been 34 years and it's still a dashed line on the map
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: txstateends on February 25, 2014, 12:16:03 PM
Quote from: US81 on February 24, 2014, 06:24:12 AM
Quote from: Brian556 on February 23, 2014, 07:21:18 PM
In the area west of Ft Worth, there are some old US Highway alignments that are brick.

Camp Bowie - the old Highway 80 alignment? Is that still brick?
I loved those old bricks....

The part of Camp Bowie I've seen lately (west of the Cultural District) is still brick.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: txstateends on February 25, 2014, 05:34:30 PM
Quote from: txstateends on February 08, 2014, 02:32:29 AM
http://starlocalmedia.com/planocourier/news/ceremony-scheduled-to-rename-u-s-for-rep-sam-johnson/article_23ed8e48-8f67-11e3-afec-0019bb2963f4.html

On February 24, the section of US 75 between the Bush Turnpike in Plano and US 380 in McKinney will be named for Sam Johnson, a US Congressman from the area.  The article doesn't say if this is symbolic or if the N. Central Expwy. naming will actually go away in favor of Johnson.

If so, there will be 2 north TX highways with 'Sam' for first names (this one, and the Sam Rayburn Tollway section of TX 121), and 'Johnson' for last names (this one, and I-635 LBJ Freeway).

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2014/02/highway-named-to-honor-rep-sam-johnson.html/?nclick_check=1

The ceremony was held Monday.  Not sure what color this sign is supposed to be, though:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ftrailblazersblog.dallasnews.com%2Ffiles%2F2014%2F02%2Fsam-johnson-higway.jpg&hash=831d1369e267b8bcb249ef7cc77b7fb1f4364f1d)
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: txstateends on February 25, 2014, 05:48:00 PM
The Fort Worth paper ran this article today about how TX 114 has changed and begun to improve in the last several years.

http://www.star-telegram.com/2014/02/24/5597841/texas-114-transformed-into-road.html?rh=1
http://www.star-telegram.com/static/labs/TX114/tx114.html

The photos that come with the main article are many, but only about half have anything to do with TX 114's construction or corridor.  The others show the North Tarrant Express project (north/NE side of I-820 in Fort Worth; TX 121/TX 183 between Hurst and Euless), the Chisholm Trail tollroad project in SW Fort Worth, and the construction around the US 81/US 287 split off I-35W in north Fort Worth.  Some of the photos that have captions have errors (mostly wrong angles, highways, or counties), so while the construction views will have your interest, take some of the text with a grain of salt.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: Stephane Dumas on February 25, 2014, 05:59:02 PM
Interesting to note these 2 piers at the junction of TX-114 with PGBT/TX-161 waiting for a flyover ramp.
http://goo.gl/maps/dHOyh
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: txstateends on February 25, 2014, 06:09:33 PM
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on February 25, 2014, 05:59:02 PM
Interesting to note these 2 piers at the junction of TX-114 with PGBT/TX-161 waiting for a flyover ramp.
http://goo.gl/maps/dHOyh

.....and waiting, and waiting....
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: txstateends on May 10, 2014, 09:01:09 PM
The sad part of a highway project:
http://www.wfaa.com/news/business/Family-business-faces-possible-condemnation-for-refusing-to-settle-with-state-255735291.html

A Lewisville business has been at odds with the state over how much losing their business is really worth, as the   I-35Express project gets going.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: DevalDragon on May 11, 2014, 01:55:48 AM
What about the OSR - Old Spanish Road?
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: wxfree on May 11, 2014, 03:58:35 AM
Quote from: DevalDragon on May 11, 2014, 01:55:48 AM
What about the OSR - Old Spanish Road?

http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/sh/shosr.htm (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/sh/shosr.htm)

Old San Antonio Road, State Highway OSR, the only highway in Texas without a number.  They use a regular state highway sign, but with "OSR" instead of a number.
http://goo.gl/maps/RMqYZ
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: txstateends on May 11, 2014, 05:39:38 AM
Quote from: wxfree on May 11, 2014, 03:58:35 AM
Quote from: DevalDragon on May 11, 2014, 01:55:48 AM
What about the OSR - Old Spanish Road?

http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/sh/shosr.htm (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/sh/shosr.htm)

Old San Antonio Road, State Highway OSR, the only highway in Texas without a number.  They use a regular state highway sign, but with "OSR" instead of a number.
http://goo.gl/maps/RMqYZ

I've never understood why it didn't get numbered, either as part of TX 21 (which is the number labeling the parts of the road east and west of the OSR stretch) or separately numbered.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: txstateends on May 11, 2014, 06:03:51 AM
More ROW acquisition controversy surrounding the I-35Express project....
http://www.dallasnews.com/investigations/20140510-texas-moved-to-acquire-land-in-highway-path-after-owner-cited-development-plans.ece
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: txstateends on May 11, 2014, 09:36:22 AM
http://www.athensreview.com/local/x1535592430/County-opposes-TxDOT-expense

Now TxDOT is trying something else to cut back on expenditures -- turning the manufacture and maintenance of the advance green county road guide signs (like these)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpic60.picturetrail.com%2FVOL1724%2F9497942%2F24536499%2F409399128.jpg&hash=b5637a9cae1391201e22ccfc18c8fa0eb452dfc8)
over to the counties.  If TxDOT comes along and sees a sign not to their specs, they say they'll remove it and bill the county in question with the expense.  And, a county would be liable if damage is caused as a result of the signs' presence.

Commissioners in Henderson County (SE of Dallas) have voted to reject the TxDOT arrangement.

The article doesn't say that this is a potential TxDOT policy, or if it's already been put in place.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: texaskdog on May 11, 2014, 10:57:28 AM
I've never seen a Texas county road.  I assumed that's what RMs & FMs were.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: formulanone on May 11, 2014, 11:55:54 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on May 11, 2014, 10:57:28 AM
I've never seen a Texas county road.  I assumed that's what RMs & FMs were.

There seems to be just a few Texas counties that use the generic MUTCD pentagons.

(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7471/15662247869_26491fa5b4_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/pS27Cn)

(https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7521/15228605303_900c5fb28e_b.jpg) (https://flic.kr/p/pcGzNp)
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: wxfree on May 11, 2014, 02:06:33 PM
Quote from: txstateends on May 11, 2014, 05:39:38 AM
Quote from: wxfree on May 11, 2014, 03:58:35 AM
Quote from: DevalDragon on May 11, 2014, 01:55:48 AM
What about the OSR - Old Spanish Road?

http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/sh/shosr.htm (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/sh/shosr.htm)

Old San Antonio Road, State Highway OSR, the only highway in Texas without a number.  They use a regular state highway sign, but with "OSR" instead of a number.
http://goo.gl/maps/RMqYZ

I've never understood why it didn't get numbered, either as part of TX 21 (which is the number labeling the parts of the road east and west of the OSR stretch) or separately numbered.

Here's something I found.  It gives some historical perspective, but doesn't answer the question.

"In 1929 the Texas legislature designated the Zivley version of the Old San Antonio Road one of the historic trails of Texas. The legislature also directed the highway department to preserve and maintain the road along the route. Save for some temporary deviations and a few locations impractical for a usable road, most of the distance from the Sabine to San Antonio had been opened and paved by 1949. Much of this route is still in use as State Highway 21 and related country roads."

The Zivley route "followed a southeasterly course. It began at Paso de Francia on the Rio Grande, passed near Cotulla and Poteet, and entered San Antonio, from where it passed between Hays and Caldwell counties and through Bastrop, Lee, and Burleson counties, formed the boundary between Robertson and Brazos and Madison and Leon counties, and passed through Houston, Cherokee, Nacogdoches, San Augustine, and Sabine counties, before crossing the Sabine River at Gaines Ferry."

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/exo04 (http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/exo04)

The highway department was directed to maintain the route.  The article doesn't say that the designation was mandated, and only a piece of route got the numerical designation.  The road got special attention, but I still don't know why a portion of it got the OSR designation and the rest didn't.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: nolia_boi504 on May 15, 2014, 05:05:58 PM
I wonder if this will eventually help close the gap for Grand Parkway on the east side...

TxDOT planning new bridge on SH 146
http://www.galvestondailynews.com/news/local_news/article_9df89686-dbd6-11e3-b59f-001a4bcf6878.html

KEMAH – The four-lane bridge between Kemah and Seabrook may be in line for a $150 million expansion.

The Texas Department of Transportation is in the early stages of a plan to not only widen the existing State Highway 146 bridge that runs from Kemah to Seabrook, but to also build a separate elevated express lane.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: Bobby5280 on May 16, 2014, 01:47:28 PM
It wouldn't make much sense to build a separate, elevated express lane without converting the road to a superhighway. Any such conversion will displace a bunch of old businesses built right next to the road. There is a decommissioned railroad line taking up some space that could be used for future highway expansion. However there is a bunch of high capacity power transmission lines running adjacent to it.

It's obvious TX DOT has long term plans of upgrading TX-146 based on how the road is laid out North & South of Kemah & Seabrook. I think they'll be doing any such expansion at a pretty slow pace. I would even go so far as to say the rest of the Grand Parkway will get finished before they start messing with that particular stretch of road (other than this proposed bridge expansion). 
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: txstateends on May 24, 2014, 05:57:43 PM
http://impactnews.com/dfw-metro/grapevine-colleyville-southlake/21st-century-technology-manages-rush-hour-traffic/

This graphic attempts to educate drivers about the 'TExpress' (tolled HOV lanes) system:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimpactnews.com%2Fdownloads%2F27335%2Fdownload%2Fbitblt-620x1103-8457eff0decf826ca5fd52ede4372cc64e50c40a%2FGCS-2014-04-01-2M.jpg&hash=fd979c477081f9bfdc7281ea2f64d4104332744d)

EB on TX 114 coming into Grapevine from Southlake, a gantry shows the pricing for the tolled HOV lanes that are just ahead on the left:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimpactnews.com%2Fdownloads%2F27334%2Fdownload%2Fbitblt-620x445-ccfd3c30ac45ac67b60aca9007ab5cfcc94d0387%2FGCS-2014-04-01-2F.jpg&hash=1ef42bafd6d67bb41564d14435aef8260c96098b)
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: mcdonaat on May 27, 2014, 12:30:04 AM
What on earth is a traffic island, and how is it any different than just a Y-interchange? TX 63 at FM 776 is signed as a traffic island, but TX 63 at US 190 East is not.

Street view of the sign - http://goo.gl/maps/yzahO

Also, what's up with reassurance shields? Good grief, I saw US 190 posted about 20 times between Louisiana and TX 63 East, while there was a TX 63 East shield at the foot of the Burr Ferry Bridge... which is the last land they can post on before the bridge is elevated into Louisiana. Makes NO SENSE!

Also, I like how Louisiana doesn't post a 55 MPH sign for a while on LA 8, meaning if you go by the last posted speed limit, you can legally do 60 MPH on a two lane road in Louisiana. As for the Louisiana side of the bridge, LA 8 is posted as an alternate route for the Myths and Legends trail. Yes, 60 MPH on a two-laned state highway in Louisiana, at a ferry that doesn't exist, by taking an alternate historic trail.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: Grzrd on June 01, 2014, 01:10:36 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on November 02, 2013, 01:39:54 PM
This article (http://www.valleymorningstar.com/news/local_news/article_7655852a-4370-11e3-ab7a-001a4bcf6878.html) reports that the Texas Transportation Commission recently approved funding to advance the second causeway to South Padre Island and Outer Parkway projects ....
This map (http://www.cameroncountyrma.org/docs/CCRMA_System_Map.pdf) shows the relationship between the two projects

This article (http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_370a3290-e86f-11e3-a68a-0017a43b2370.html) reports that the Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority ("CCRMA") is currently conducting a survey to help CCRMA better understand residents' travel patterns and preferences to determine better planning decisions for the second bridge and that environmental clearance for the project is hoped to be received by Fall 2015:

Quote
The Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority is seeking the public's input in a survey meant to determine residents' needs for a second bridge to South Padre Island ....
The project will also include the construction of another tolled road, the outer parkway, which will stretch east from I-69/US 77, just north of Harlingen. This outer parkway will connect to the planned second access, which will be located north of Holly Beach and lead to South Padre Island between Cameron County beach accesses 5 and 6. This location was approved in July 2012.
"(The outer parkway) is a key component so we can get traffic from I-69 directly to the island,"  Sepulveda said.
The tolled parkway and the second access will serve as an alternate access to South Padre Island, in addition to the Queen Isabella Memorial Bridge, which is the only existing route connecting South Padre Island to the mainland ....
An environmental clearance document for the project is anticipated to be completed this fall, and environmental clearance notification should be expected fall 2015.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: txstateends on July 26, 2014, 03:36:54 PM
Quote from: txstateends on May 11, 2014, 09:36:22 AM
http://www.athensreview.com/local/x1535592430/County-opposes-TxDOT-expense

Now TxDOT is trying something else to cut back on expenditures -- turning the manufacture and maintenance of the advance green county road guide signs (like these)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpic60.picturetrail.com%2FVOL1724%2F9497942%2F24536499%2F409399128.jpg&hash=b5637a9cae1391201e22ccfc18c8fa0eb452dfc8)
over to the counties.  If TxDOT comes along and sees a sign not to their specs, they say they'll remove it and bill the county in question with the expense.  And, a county would be liable if damage is caused as a result of the signs' presence.

Commissioners in Henderson County (SE of Dallas) have voted to reject the TxDOT arrangement.

The article doesn't say that this is a potential TxDOT policy, or if it's already been put in place.

http://www.athensreview.com/local/x197370750/TxDOT-signs-at-issue-in-county

TxDOT has backed down, and apparently won't require individual counties to pay for fabricating and maintenance of LGS (like the one in the quote) for county roads.  It's not clear how much grief/blowback they got over this issue.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: Stephane Dumas on July 26, 2014, 08:36:49 PM
I saw this video showing the proposed freeway conversion of Montana Avenue in El Paso. Interesting to note it's a revival in part of the cancelled Trowbridge-Montana freeway.
http://www.texasfreeway.com/ElPaso/elpaso.shtml
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: Grzrd on October 11, 2014, 01:59:29 PM
As previously posted in another thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg2012706#msg2012706), TxDOT has posted a table of the 100 Congested Roadways (http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/100-congested-roadways.html?CFC__target=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dot.state.tx.us%2Fapps-cg%2Ftop_100%2Flist.htm%3Fitem%3D0).  The table has hyperlinks for all of the segments that show TxDOT's planned improvements for them.

Here is a link to a September 30 article about the study:

http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/news/2014/09/30/surprise-i-35-mopac-among-most-congested-texas.html?page=all
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: TheStranger on October 11, 2014, 03:01:54 PM
Quote from: Stephane Dumas on July 26, 2014, 08:36:49 PM
I saw this video showing the proposed freeway conversion of Montana Avenue in El Paso. Interesting to note it's a revival in part of the cancelled Trowbridge-Montana freeway.
http://www.texasfreeway.com/ElPaso/elpaso.shtml


The video doesn't make it clear where the project's west end will be (as before the simulated flyover starts, I already see ramps and frontage roads west of Yarbrough).  Will the freeway segment reach any of the airport access roads or possibly have a direct connection with I-10?

EDIT: Here's an article on what has been proposed.  Included there is a proposed grade separation at Hawkins, west of where this video covers:

http://www.elpasodevnews.com/2013/11/from-avenue-to-freeway.html
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: DJStephens on October 12, 2014, 12:47:54 PM
there was at one time (circa 2000) a TXDOT idea floated to grade separate the intersection of Montana (US 62 / 180 ) and Airway, which is the street grade connection to the El Paso Airport.  That area is too densely developed to accomplish that, without acquiring and leveling a lot of businesses which crowd that intersection.  Chevron, Jack in the Box, etc. 

The entire Montana corridor west of Airway has a lot of auto dealerships and other related ancillary businesses close to the road, so extending a freeway along it and then to I-10 via the Paisano "cut-off" is not possible.  If by some miracle it was extended along the cut-off to I-10, it would be then too close to the existing US-54/I-10/I-110 Spaghetti Bowl, which itself was jammed in forty plus years ago, in between two pre - existing interchanges on I-10.   The original 1963 plan never showed the Montana Freeway ever connecting to I-10, but connecting to the present day "Patriot" Freeway or US - 54 (or logically - I-110).  That would have required knocking down businesses and old brownstone homes along Montana / Trowbridge Ave for its entire stretch to the future US 54 freeway.  Maybe doable then, not today.   

Do believe it might be possible to "depress" the center four lanes of Airway in a trench, all the way from the south entrance of the airport to roughly Viscount, just north of it's interchange with I-10.  Airport access in El Paso has got to be one of the worst in the western world, a street grade approach from I-10 from the south. 

The article states US 62/180/Montana Ave freeway would "begin" just west of the Yarbrough / Global reach intersection (despise the Global Reach designation, it should be Yarbrough, also)  Article then goes on to mention there may be a separate project, a grade separation of Hawkins at Montana.   Which is west of the stated western end of the main project. 

There is clear visibility of preserved ROW, on the sides of Montana, between Hawkins and Yarbrough, (probably from early 60's pre planning)  so this possible project really needs to be extended west to include this area also.   A better begin point on the west end would be the section between Airway and Hawkins, which is semi - freeway with frontage / CD roads already.   
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: txstateends on October 16, 2014, 05:36:53 AM
Amarillo:
TxDOT wants to redo Loop 335
http://amarillo.com/news/latest-news/2014-10-15/txdot-wants-redo-loop

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fama-cdn.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fimagecache%2Fsuperphoto%2F13803497.jpg&hash=31771087e694a3bc3cab26738c126bb16e4c0444)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fama-cdn.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fimagecache%2Fsuperphoto%2F13801387.jpg&hash=cf260a6a86b10e21025aadf0f9232fd63e530f53)

The map shows where a planned reroute of Loop 335 may go.  The green line is the reroute, the blue is where Loop 335 runs now in that portion of it.  The pic is on Soncy Road (the west section of Loop 335) just south of I-40, looking south.  This is one of the most congested parts of the Loop, and wasn't planned well for future traffic patterns.  A few years ago, there was talk of doing this with tolls; the tone of current plans aren't including anything about tolling a reroute of Loop 335.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: DJStephens on October 19, 2014, 12:28:58 AM
Texas seems to persist with the somewhat loopy designations, while some of the metro areas served by "loop" designations could qualify for Interstate designations:
Amarillo (population over 100,000)
Odessa / Midland (population over 200,000 for both)
Lubbock (population over 150,000)
El Paso (population over 600,000)
Houston (population over 3,000,000
San Antonio (population over 1,000,000) 
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: adventurernumber1 on October 19, 2014, 12:46:25 AM
Quote from: DJStephens on October 19, 2014, 12:28:58 AM
Texas seems to persist with the somewhat loopy designations, while some of the metro areas served by "loop" designations could qualify for Interstate designations:
Amarillo (population over 100,000)
Odessa / Midland (population over 200,000 for both)
Lubbock (population over 150,000)
El Paso (population over 600,000)
Houston (population over 3,000,000
San Antonio (population over 1,000,000) 

Houston's Beltway 8 could be an I-810.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: adventurernumber1 on October 20, 2014, 01:16:28 PM
Quote from: McConaughey on October 20, 2014, 12:45:43 PM
Beltway 8 has hundreds of at grade intersections so no.

Oh. It does? I thought it was all limited-access, reason because Google Maps colors the whole thing orange, and I've only seen a portion of it on street view one time, and it looked limited-access to me. If it has plenty of at-grade intersections, they could upgrade the road, then make it I-810  :-P
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: Anthony_JK on October 20, 2014, 01:40:21 PM
Quote from: McConaughey on October 20, 2014, 12:45:43 PM
Beltway 8 has hundreds of at grade intersections so no.

Beltway 8 officially is the frontage/access road portion of the Sam Houston Tollway, plus the free freeway portions (between I-45 and US 59/Future I-69; between US 90/I-10 and the Jesse Jones Bridge across the Houston Ship Channel). The freeway/tollway mainlines are indeed fully access controlled after the completion of the tolled northeast section between US 90 and US 59. That's not the reason why it couldn't be I-810; the fact that it is a tollway not built with Fed funds but mostly by TXDOT and HCTA funds is.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: J N Winkler on October 20, 2014, 03:07:30 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on October 20, 2014, 01:40:21 PMThat's not the reason why it couldn't be I-810; the fact that it is a tollway not built with Fed funds but mostly by TxDOT and HCTRA funds is.

There may be other reasons it can't be I-810, but I don't think that is one of them.  The rule is that if federal Interstate funds are accepted (e.g., for planning or preliminary design) in respect of a road which is later built as a toll road using non-federal resources, then that road cannot be an Interstate unless the federal funds are repaid.  This is why Virginia SR 895 around Richmond cannot be I-895.  On the other hand, if a road is planned, designed, and built entirely from non-federal resources, then it can be both an Interstate and a toll road, Illinois I-355 being a case in point.  There is also no requirement that a state-level entity has to be the owning agency for an Interstate, I-83 in Baltimore City being one example of a city-owned Interstate.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: Grzrd on July 30, 2015, 07:46:29 PM
The Texas Transportation Commission has posted a July 29 TxDOT Interstate Corridor Planning - Prioritization of Corridor Studies presentation (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2015/0729/2b.pdf). Here is a snip from a slide comparing congestion in 2013 to estimated congestion in 2040 (p.5/13 of pdf):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FL9ByINI.jpg&hash=a071544a8874083cf4d14ebb152e80864ed13a54)

The anticipated congestion, combined with possible rebuilding of much of the system that is reaching the end of its expected service life (p. 8/13 of pdf), suggests that Texas will have to spend a lot of money over the next 25 years.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: aboges26 on July 31, 2015, 02:45:19 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on July 30, 2015, 07:46:29 PM
The Texas Transportation Commission has posted a July 29 TxDOT Interstate Corridor Planning - Prioritization of Corridor Studies presentation (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2015/0729/2b.pdf). Here is a snip from a slide comparing congestion in 2013 to estimated congestion in 2040 (p.5/13 of pdf):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FL9ByINI.jpg&hash=a071544a8874083cf4d14ebb152e80864ed13a54)

The anticipated congestion, combined with possible rebuilding of much of the system that is reaching the end of its expected service life (p. 8/13 of pdf), suggests that Texas will have to spend a lot of money over the next 25 years.

I-69C justifies itself solely on the fact that I-69E from Corpus to the Valley would look like I-35 in 2040.  The proposed I-27 southern extension is justifying itself more and more every day, I imagine the southern leg in 2040 being a nice lime green, regular constrained flow, as it certainly is in many locations already along US 87 south of Lubbock (specifically in and around Lamesa, Big Spring, San Angelo).
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: txstateends on September 24, 2017, 05:55:12 PM
http://www.newschannel10.com/story/36437168/i-40-to-i-27-direct-connect-now-officially-open?utm_content=buffer4a6ff&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

For the first time since I-40 came through Amarillo in the late 1960s, the I-27/I-40 interchange ramps all directly connect.  Prior to now, the ramp movement between EB I-40 & SB I-27 was to the SB service road first, then passing the signal/intersection at SE 26th Avenue, then finally getting to the on-ramp to get on I-27 SB.  Now drivers can connect directly between I-40 and I-27 without having to tangle with those exiting I-27 SB getting to SE 26th Avenue.  So far, the local media, TxDOT, nor GSV have the 'after' photos to show off the results.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: Bobby5280 on September 24, 2017, 07:29:22 PM
I drove through Amarillo a couple times recently. It's along the path I take from Oklahoma up to Colorado to visit family. The new ramp from EB I-40 to SB I-27 is finally open. But there is a bunch of other construction work going on along I-40 from the I-27 interchange over to the US-287 split on the East side. I was kind of surprised to see that considering the push to upgrade Loop 335 into a freeway. It looks like a lot of construction work has been underway in the downtown area lately.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: txstateends on September 26, 2017, 07:50:19 AM
Lots of locals there have taken to online comments, including the Amarillo paper's FB page, expressing how displeased they are that the city & TxDOT have seemingly decided to do all needed road work there all at once.  The project that seems to get whacked the most online is a bridge replacement at I-40/Bell.  They should be fortunate--at least they don't have to wait on projects like those in Dallas do.  The potholes there get little if any attention (hopefully an upcoming bond election will pass and things will start to get fixed better there).
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: txstateends on October 11, 2017, 11:47:53 PM
http://amarillo.com/local-news/news/2017-10-11/bushland-bridge-over-i-40-reopens

A damaged bridge on I-40 in Bushland, west of Amarillo, has been replaced and reopened this week.  In late February, a truck driver traveling EB at the RM 2381 exit, ran off the road and down between the 2 I-40 bridge spans.  He ended up down at the RM 2381 undercrossing before crashing into the embankment on the far (east) side.  The resulting fire charred and damaged the WB I-40 bridge span to the point that it needed to be replaced.  I didn't hear definitively, but it was theorized by officials that the driver fell asleep prior to the crash.  The wreck was caught on security cam video at a nearby gas station: https://youtu.be/6FBciaAFsmc
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: txstateends on February 13, 2019, 01:55:07 PM
A local TV station in Amarillo is doing a different spotlighted construction project story each day this week.

This one is work to redo bridges at I-40/Ross and I-40/Arthur:
http://www.newschannel10.com/2019/02/13/txdot-construction-roundup-i-ross-arthur/
...and a closure for underneath the bridge
http://www.newschannel10.com/2019/02/13/txdot-closing-ross-under-i-until-thursday/

They've also looked at this one where the bridge at I-27/26th Ave. is being redone:
http://www.newschannel10.com/2019/02/11/txdot-project-roundup-i-bridge-th-avenue/
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: txstateends on February 14, 2019, 12:37:17 PM
Quote from: txstateends on February 13, 2019, 01:55:07 PM
A local TV station in Amarillo is doing a different spotlighted construction project story each day this week.

This one is work to redo bridges at I-40/Ross and I-40/Arthur:
http://www.newschannel10.com/2019/02/13/txdot-construction-roundup-i-ross-arthur/
...and a closure for underneath the bridge
http://www.newschannel10.com/2019/02/13/txdot-closing-ross-under-i-until-thursday/

They've also looked at this one where the bridge at I-27/26th Ave. is being redone:
http://www.newschannel10.com/2019/02/11/txdot-project-roundup-i-bridge-th-avenue/

The project chosen for this report is replacement of 3 bridges on I-40, all on the east side of Amarillo, at the Whitaker, Lakeside, and Pullman exits.  The Pullman Road bridge is being worked on now, while the Lakeside and Whitaker bridges will start being worked on later this year.  The report says it will be 2021 before work is complete.
http://www.newschannel10.com/2019/02/14/txdot-project-roundup-lakeside-whittaker-pullman-bridges/
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on February 17, 2019, 09:56:16 AM
I uploaded a night video of I-35E starting from I-30 in Dallas.  I tend not to link to all of my videos on here because I don't want to come across as a spammer, but I think this night footage turned out fairly well so I'm sharing it here:

Title: Re: Texas
Post by: J N Winkler on February 17, 2019, 12:09:13 PM
AsphaltPlanet--thanks for sharing this video.  It brings out how awful I-35E is even after the interim widening, with inconsistent but usually inadequate shoulder width, roller-coaster alignment (not just on older late-1950's/early-1960's segments with round-top wood-post guardrail, but also on recently improved lengths with either center reversible lanes or express lanes on structure), and abrupt lateral shifts that make it hard to drive straight without fouling lane lines.  Rain adds to the difficulties since express lane connections at the I-635E/I-35E interchange have been retrofitted so badly there are locations where a vehicle on structure can cause accidents by splashing water onto a vehicle at ground level underneath.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on February 17, 2019, 12:46:19 PM
The alignment of the lanes I-35E, particularly through the I-635 interchange, wander far more than would be ideal in my mind.  It's funny, in some ways I-35E is so impressive, but in other ways, it's also so ghetto.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: rte66man on February 17, 2019, 05:19:43 PM
Quote from: AsphaltPlanet on February 17, 2019, 12:46:19 PM
The alignment of the lanes I-35E, particularly through the I-635 interchange, wander far more than would be ideal in my mind.  It's funny, in some ways I-35E is so impressive, but in other ways, it's also so ghetto.

I keep reading that what currently exists is an interim step to the final product.  Assuming the remaining steps are completed, would those issues be addressed?
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on February 17, 2019, 05:49:49 PM
I don't know the answer, but I don't think it could be easily.

The bridges at both the Sam Rayburn Tollway and George Bush Turnpike don't look wide enough to allow a much larger cross-section to be rammed through without replacing at least some of the overpasses.

The I-635 interchange would create its own problems as well.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: Brian556 on February 17, 2019, 06:41:52 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on February 17, 2019, 12:09:13 PM
AsphaltPlanet--thanks for sharing this video.  It brings out how awful I-35E is even after the interim widening, with inconsistent but usually inadequate shoulder width, roller-coaster alignment (not just on older late-1950's/early-1960's segments with round-top wood-post guardrail, but also on recently improved lengths with either center reversible lanes or express lanes on structure), and abrupt lateral shifts that make it hard to drive straight without fouling lane lines.  Rain adds to the difficulties since express lane connections at the I-635E/I-35E interchange have been retrofitted so badly there are locations where a vehicle on structure can cause accidents by splashing water onto a vehicle at ground level underneath.

The abrupt shifts at express lane entrances/exits are too hard to follow. You are right. They suck
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: sprjus4 on February 17, 2019, 08:12:04 PM
Dang, and that urban highway is 70 MPH? 75 MPH on the Express Lanes? You'd think with the substandard cross-sections, tight turns, etc. it would hold 60 MPH, but I guess it's Texas.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: bassoon1986 on February 18, 2019, 10:15:08 AM
I'm also shocked to see US 77 shields along with the I-35E shields! They have not existed between Denton and Waxahachie for some time


iPhone
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: txstateends on February 18, 2019, 04:15:15 PM
Quote from: bassoon1986 on February 18, 2019, 10:15:08 AM
I'm also shocked to see US 77 shields along with the I-35E shields! They have not existed between Denton and Waxahachie for some time

I'm pleasantly surprised at the US 77 shield return myself.  I haven't heard anything as to whether the placement is a one-off contract goof, or the beginning of a US 77 reawakening in the urban part of DFW.  So far, no such luck with any return of US 67 shields north of southern Dallas, or west of the Rockwall-Hunt county line.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: Great Lakes Roads on February 24, 2019, 11:18:11 PM
http://ktemnews.com/new-bill-would-make-texas-toll-roads-free-once-theyre-paid-off/

What do you guys think about this proposed bill?? I do not like this as it will give TXDOT more mileage to maintain their infrastructure, and most people agree that roads should be free once they are paid off...
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: sprjus4 on February 25, 2019, 04:36:21 PM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on February 24, 2019, 11:18:11 PM
http://ktemnews.com/new-bill-would-make-texas-toll-roads-free-once-theyre-paid-off/

What do you guys think about this proposed bill?? I do not like this as it will give TXDOT more mileage to maintain their infrastructure, and most people agree that roads should be free once they are paid off...
I think it's a great idea. I wish this could be required here in Virginia.

VA-267 in the D.C. area was paid off years ago, but was extended to fund billions of dollars in metro extensions, meaning it will be tolled for a looong time.
Richmond's system of toll roads with the exception of VA-895 have mainly been paid off, but are staying to fund other improvements.
VA-168 in Hampton Roads has been paid off or is close to being paid off, and has been extended to at least 2051 to fund another roadway.

It's ridiculous how tolls don't specifically only pay off that road, but pay for other things as well.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: wxfree on February 25, 2019, 08:16:57 PM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on February 24, 2019, 11:18:11 PM
http://ktemnews.com/new-bill-would-make-texas-toll-roads-free-once-theyre-paid-off/

What do you guys think about this proposed bill?? I do not like this as it will give TXDOT more mileage to maintain their infrastructure, and most people agree that roads should be free once they are paid off...

That bill is introduced in every session.  It never goes anywhere.  I like the idea of it, but I think it's a little too enthusiastic.  I think a more realistic alternative would be to limit the toll rates to what is needed cover the debt and upkeep costs.  Current law allows for excess revenues that can be spent on unrelated transportation projects.  I'd like to see that stop.  If you have to pay extra to drive on a certain road, you shouldn't have to pay even more extra to cover the cost of other roads.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: Brian556 on February 25, 2019, 08:32:44 PM
Quote from: txstateends on February 18, 2019, 04:15:15 PM
Quote from: bassoon1986 on February 18, 2019, 10:15:08 AM
I'm also shocked to see US 77 shields along with the I-35E shields! They have not existed between Denton and Waxahachie for some time

I'm pleasantly surprised at the US 77 shield return myself.  I haven't heard anything as to whether the placement is a one-off contract goof, or the beginning of a US 77 reawakening in the urban part of DFW.  So far, no such luck with any return of US 67 shields north of southern Dallas, or west of the Rockwall-Hunt county line.

See topic: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=17264.0 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=17264.0)
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: Brian556 on February 25, 2019, 10:17:21 PM
Texas state highway route marker on ebay with thin border. Its TxDOT manufactured
https://www.ebay.com/itm/Authentic-Retired-Texas-86-Highway-Sign-Texico-Esteline-Turkey-24-X-24/323701457857?_trkparms=aid%3D111001%26algo%3DREC.SEED%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D20160908105057%26meid%3Dbca37a9af8b44760b50d0949ff34dc5f%26pid%3D100675%26rk%3D2%26rkt%3D14%26sd%3D323701431830%26itm%3D323701457857&_trksid=p2481888.c100675.m4236&_trkparms=pageci%3A8dfb7fef-3974-11e9-baaa-74dbd180804c%7Cparentrq%3A27cb6de01690aa13c5b770dcffebe7ed%7Ciid%3A1 (https://www.ebay.com/itm/Authentic-Retired-Texas-86-Highway-Sign-Texico-Esteline-Turkey-24-X-24/323701457857?_trkparms=aid%3D111001%26algo%3DREC.SEED%26ao%3D1%26asc%3D20160908105057%26meid%3Dbca37a9af8b44760b50d0949ff34dc5f%26pid%3D100675%26rk%3D2%26rkt%3D14%26sd%3D323701431830%26itm%3D323701457857&_trksid=p2481888.c100675.m4236&_trkparms=pageci%3A8dfb7fef-3974-11e9-baaa-74dbd180804c%7Cparentrq%3A27cb6de01690aa13c5b770dcffebe7ed%7Ciid%3A1)
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: roadman65 on June 06, 2019, 10:15:42 PM
Why is Business US 90 signed as Mainline US 90 from the I-610 Loop?  Rand McNally shows US 90 on the freeway that departs from the I-10 and I-610 exchange yet, signs on the 610 show US 90 East where RM shows it as Business US 90.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: kphoger on June 12, 2019, 02:33:13 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 06, 2019, 10:15:42 PM
Why is Business US 90 signed as Mainline US 90 from the I-610 Loop?  Rand McNally shows US 90 on the freeway that departs from the I-10 and I-610 exchange yet, signs on the 610 show US 90 East where RM shows it as Business US 90.

Signage error.  Post-mounted shields at the I-610/US-90(Bus) interchange even show mainline US-90 there, but shields elsewhere along the route (such as here (https://goo.gl/maps/aezRVPShMKgL9Ksv6)) correctly show it as a business route.  Also, interchange signs at I-610/US-90(mainline) also correctly show US-90.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: J N Winkler on June 12, 2019, 03:49:56 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 12, 2019, 02:33:13 PMPost-mounted shields at the I-610/US-90(Bus) interchange even show mainline US-90 there, but shields elsewhere along the route (such as here (https://goo.gl/maps/aezRVPShMKgL9Ksv6)) correctly show it as a business route.

(Cough, cough)  Some issues there (SH instead of US, not supposed to use "Business" inside the shields anymore, no "U").
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: kphoger on June 12, 2019, 06:12:06 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on June 12, 2019, 03:49:56 PM

Quote from: kphoger on June 12, 2019, 02:33:13 PMPost-mounted shields at the I-610/US-90(Bus) interchange even show mainline US-90 there, but shields elsewhere along the route (such as here (https://goo.gl/maps/aezRVPShMKgL9Ksv6)) correctly show it as a business route.

(Cough, cough)  Some issues there (SH instead of US, not supposed to use "Business" inside the shields anymore, no "U").

Yeah, I wasn't sure what Texas' official stance on that was, having seen Spur US Routes signed similarly (https://goo.gl/maps/tEpPiWXDyE1YHvRu6).

Here's a better one (https://goo.gl/maps/gEEdgX6A6W9tktyq9/).
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: J N Winkler on June 13, 2019, 11:27:18 AM
Quote from: kphoger on June 12, 2019, 06:12:06 PMYeah, I wasn't sure what Texas' official stance on that was, having seen Spur US Routes signed similarly (https://goo.gl/maps/tEpPiWXDyE1YHvRu6).

TxDOT appears not to have a highway designation category (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/default.aspx) for spur US routes, although it does for each of mainline US routes (US), business US routes (BU), and alternate US routes (UA).  I suspect the State Loop/Spur (SL/SS) category covers loops and spurs for all flavors of primary state highway.

Quote from: kphoger on June 12, 2019, 06:12:06 PMHere's a better one (https://goo.gl/maps/gEEdgX6A6W9tktyq9/).

Yes--that installation is totally in line with the current (2012) edition of SHSD.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: kphoger on June 13, 2019, 02:01:44 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on June 13, 2019, 11:27:18 AM

Quote from: kphoger on June 12, 2019, 06:12:06 PM
Yeah, I wasn't sure what Texas' official stance on that was, having seen Spur US Routes signed similarly (https://goo.gl/maps/tEpPiWXDyE1YHvRu6).

TxDOT appears not to have a highway designation category (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/default.aspx) for spur US routes, although it does for each of mainline US routes (US), business US routes (BU), and alternate US routes (UA).  I suspect the State Loop/Spur (SL/SS) category covers loops and spurs for all flavors of primary state highway.

In the specific case of US-277 Spur, it is included inside the highway destination file for US-277.

Quote from: Minute Order 029126
... with a spur connection from US 277 to the International Border at Del Rio and a spur connection from US 277 to the International Border at Eagle Pass.  Route extended from Del Rio to a junction with US 83 at Carrizo Springs, with a spur connection from US 277 to the International Border at Eagle Pass.  Old section from US 277 to the International Border at Del Rio to be identified as SS 239 connection.

Quote from: Minute Order 081499
... with a spur connection from US 277 to the International Border at Del Rio.  SS 277, from SL 431 (old US 277) to the International Border at Eagle Pass, to be designated as Eagle Pass SS 240 only.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: J N Winkler on June 14, 2019, 03:05:01 PM
Quote from: kphoger on June 13, 2019, 02:01:44 PMIn the specific case of US-277 Spur, it is included inside the highway destination file for US-277.

Quote from: Minute Order 029126... with a spur connection from US 277 to the International Border at Del Rio and a spur connection from US 277 to the International Border at Eagle Pass.  Route extended from Del Rio to a junction with US 83 at Carrizo Springs, with a spur connection from US 277 to the International Border at Eagle Pass.  Old section from US 277 to the International Border at Del Rio to be identified as SS 239 connection.

Quote from: Minute Order 081499... with a spur connection from US 277 to the International Border at Del Rio.  SS 277, from SL 431 (old US 277) to the International Border at Eagle Pass, to be designated as Eagle Pass SS 240 only.

Yup.  These all look like instances where routes that are functionally spurs of US 277 have SL/SS designations.  There isn't actually an out-of-the-box option in SHSD for explicitly signing spur US routes because there is no "Spur" tab.  AASHTO does list multiple US 277 Spur designations in the vicinity of Eagle Pass and Del Rio, but I will be very surprised if any of them are actually signed as US 277 Spurs and not under their SL/SS designations.

Search by state for AASHTO US route database (will require selection of state and then route to drill down to a particular route)
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: roadman65 on June 15, 2019, 12:53:22 PM
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/48067733582/in/dateposted-public/

Some signs of the east terminus of I-14 at I-35 which has a Breezewood connection to I-35 SB via service roads.  Obviously the connection with I-35 has some work to do to make it a full connection between the two.  If you notice the ramp goes up to an intersection before it goes down to another one to meet the SB I-35 Frontage Road where you make a turn to follow the next freeway before a slip ramp leads you to it.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: Bobby5280 on June 15, 2019, 05:38:19 PM
Quote from: wxfreeThat bill is introduced in every session.  It never goes anywhere.  I like the idea of it, but I think it's a little too enthusiastic.  I think a more realistic alternative would be to limit the toll rates to what is needed cover the debt and upkeep costs.  Current law allows for excess revenues that can be spent on unrelated transportation projects.  I'd like to see that stop.  If you have to pay extra to drive on a certain road, you shouldn't have to pay even more extra to cover the cost of other roads.

This is a popular topic here in Oklahoma, given the 600 or so miles of turnpikes we have here. Lots of Okies have demanded the toll gates be removed over the years. "The roads are paid for already!" Technically, they're not. The OTA is allowed to cross-pledge the debt over to new turnpike segments or major maintenance and expansion projects.

Here is the BIG downside to removing the toll gates here in Oklahoma: 600+ miles of super highways are immediately added to what the state's gasoline taxes are supposed to maintain. Even with the recent, modest 3¢ per gallon rate increase Oklahoma's fuel taxes are among the lowest in the nation. If those 600+ miles of turnpikes were added to the gas tax burden drivers in Oklahoma would see a major increase in gasoline taxes. Gotta pay for those roads one way or the other.

Toll rates in some areas of the country are ridiculous. I think Oklahoma's are a bargain by comparison. An act of removing the toll gates on some of these turnpikes (or toll bridges) along the East coast or other high toll rate zones might result in some hefty fuel tax hikes. The agencies will want to make up that revenue from somewhere.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: In_Correct on June 17, 2019, 03:51:34 AM
While it is unpleasant to drive on Toll Roads, Indeed feels like driving through somebody's property, I am not bothered by the cost. If there were no Toll Roads, gas prices would be even higher. Also, the quality of most gas is getting lower. This also increases my loyalty to toll roads and public transport.

Roads are never free. They can be honest about it and charge up front, or they can sneak the cost into the cost of (generally low quality) fuel. Even if  the roads are "paid for" in other words the main construction is finished, they will wear out and need maintenance.

600 miles is not long enough. There needs to be more toll roads. If people do not like toll roads, they can Shun Pike them with 4 Wheelers.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: roadman65 on June 18, 2019, 10:42:45 PM
I noticed that SH 99 has a weird set up between I-69 and I-10 on the west side.  The tolls are just for through movements through the various diamond interchanges.  Everything between the interchanges is free.  To shunpike the tolls you are just basically exiting the facility and re-entering the facility after waiting for the ramp signals.  Unlike the Sam Houston where SH 8 is the free frontage road and to shunpike you do not have to exit, enter, exit, enter, etc like the Grand Parkway.  Only the Ship Channel is fully tolled with no direct way to bypass it without traveling several miles out of the way.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: TravelingBethelite on May 11, 2020, 12:57:19 PM
Wasn't sure where else to put this.

I was out for a drive on Saturday and was in the general area, and the US 190 bridge over the Neches River is closed and seems to have been for a while. The most recent repair work seems to have been in 2017. The current closure is due to $250,000 worth of damage by a vehicle. I'd like to drive it sometime, seems very historic. As an aside, my detour via RE 255 and Tyler County 3725 was very intriguing. Tyler County 3725 is the longest stretch of paved county road (not including the equivalent (?) - not sure if they're equivalents - Missouri lettered routes) I've ever seen, and it was a one-laner, for its entire length from RE 255 to where it becomes FM 92. Very interesting drive.

https://www.12newsnow.com/article/traffic/190-closed-at-steinhagen-lake-due-to-damage-for-number-of-weeks/502-68619df6-478a-4cbc-90dd-24d529356559
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: davmillar on June 13, 2020, 10:00:59 PM
Very late to the party, but regarding OP's topic of one-digit farm roads: I recently drove FM 4 north from I-20 at the suggestion of a local redditor and it was a very nice little scenic route. I turned off onto FM 3137 to go over the Palo Pinto Creek Reservoir so I'll have to go back and finish the trip up FM 4 into Palo Pinto itself. They're both near TX-16 and US 180, the former of which has a really cool bridge just a bit north of there and the latter of which has several bits of offshoots and old bridges nearby due to its history as part of the Bankhead Highway.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: roadman65 on August 18, 2020, 01:57:08 PM
Why is the new I-69W bridge numbered as International Bridge IV?  There are only three bridges which Number One is the original bridge linking former US 81 to Federal Route 85 between the two downtowns and Number Two connects US 83 with the unnumbered boulevard arterial along the Rio Grande to connect to Federal Route 85 south of Zona Centro where Route 85 is and expressway. 

So is there another bridge not built yet between Laredo and Nuevo Laredo?

Also I see the Mexican department uses Lincoln as a control city for the bridge into Laredo from their side.  Lincoln is a small city in Texas near Houston, so it does not make sense that it should be used over Laredo or even Houston (via US 59) for that matter.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: kphoger on August 18, 2020, 03:18:17 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 18, 2020, 01:57:08 PM
Why is the new I-69W bridge numbered as International Bridge IV?  There are only three bridges which Number One is the original bridge linking former US 81 to Federal Route 85 between the two downtowns and Number Two connects US 83 with the unnumbered boulevard arterial along the Rio Grande to connect to Federal Route 85 south of Zona Centro where Route 85 is and expressway. 

So is there another bridge not built yet between Laredo and Nuevo Laredo?

Also I see the Mexican department uses Lincoln as a control city for the bridge into Laredo from their side.  Lincoln is a small city in Texas near Houston, so it does not make sense that it should be used over Laredo or even Houston (via US 59) for that matter.

Bridge 1 = Gateway to the Americas International Bridge
Bridge 2 = Juárez—Lincoln International Bridge
Bridge 3 = Laredo—Colombia Solidarity International Bridge
Bridge 4 = World Trade Bridge
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: roadman65 on August 18, 2020, 03:28:29 PM
Oh that would explain why the Juarez- Lincoln control city as its the name of the bridge.  Puenta is bridge in Spanish and is used ahead of the name like Rio Grande which translates to River Grand in English as we use adjectives and adverbs post modification of the noun or verb.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: kphoger on August 18, 2020, 03:40:54 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 18, 2020, 03:28:29 PM
Puenta is bridge in Spanish

Rio Grande which translates to River Grand in English

PUENTE = BRIDGE

RÍO GRANDE = GREAT RIVER

So, for example, the translation of this sign (https://goo.gl/maps/kkESTP44kBjT9LwTA) is:

JUÁREZ LINCOLN BRIDGE  ↑

←  INTERNATIONAL BRIDGE
     DOWNTOWN





Also, that river is not called the Río Grande in Mexico.  That's the American name for it.

*  Edited to add:  Here is the official SCT highway map for the state of Chihuahua.  You can see the US name (Río Grande) labeled on the north side of the river and the Mexican name (Río Bravo) labeled on the south side.

(https://i.imgur.com/ffvKwkB.png)
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: J N Winkler on August 18, 2020, 07:16:23 PM
It's worth noting too that Abraham Lincoln's and Benito Juárez's terms as presidents of their respective countries overlapped--Lincoln from 1861 to 1865, Juárez from 1858 to 1872.  This, I think, has much to do with why the bridge received its name.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: kphoger on August 19, 2020, 10:19:03 AM
The road in Ciudad Juárez that leads to the Bridge of the Americas (I-110) is Avenida Abraham Lincoln.

I've personally stayed at the Holiday Inn that used to exist there (https://goo.gl/maps/bordKBERdrCkf5of8), which was called "Holiday Inn Lincoln".  That's a statue of Abraham Lincoln in the median.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: Great Lakes Roads on September 10, 2020, 03:29:10 PM
Here is a proposed animation of the US 96 (not US 69)/TX SH 73 interchange improvement (more like reconstruction) in Port Arthur... Normally, Texas is king at stack interchanges, but they will be replacing this cloverleaf interchange with a turbine interchange which will be the second one in the state... 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnsWMHvqxn8
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: longhorn on September 10, 2020, 04:52:42 PM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on September 10, 2020, 03:29:10 PM
Here is a proposed animation of the US 96 (not US 69)/TX SH 73 interchange improvement (more like reconstruction) in Port Arthur... Normally, Texas is king at stack interchanges, but they will be replacing this cloverleaf interchange with a turbine interchange which will be the second one in the state... 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnsWMHvqxn8

That is so cool, wander why not in use more.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: sparker on September 10, 2020, 09:19:56 PM
Quote from: longhorn on September 10, 2020, 04:52:42 PM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on September 10, 2020, 03:29:10 PM
Here is a proposed animation of the US 96 (not US 69)/TX SH 73 interchange improvement (more like reconstruction) in Port Arthur... Normally, Texas is king at stack interchanges, but they will be replacing this cloverleaf interchange with a turbine interchange which will be the second one in the state... 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnsWMHvqxn8

That is so cool, wander why not in use more.

Noticed that there's a missing movement from NB 69/96/287 to EB 73.  Wonder if the presence of the canal made that an issue, or has TxDOT determined that the need just isn't there. 
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: bassoon1986 on September 10, 2020, 10:15:00 PM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on September 10, 2020, 03:29:10 PM
Here is a proposed animation of the US 96 (not US 69)/TX SH 73 interchange improvement (more like reconstruction) in Port Arthur... Normally, Texas is king at stack interchanges, but they will be replacing this cloverleaf interchange with a turbine interchange which will be the second one in the state... 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnsWMHvqxn8
Is the existing turbine 27/40 in Amarillo?


iPhone
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: sprjus4 on September 10, 2020, 10:17:07 PM
Quote from: sparker on September 10, 2020, 09:19:56 PM
Quote from: longhorn on September 10, 2020, 04:52:42 PM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on September 10, 2020, 03:29:10 PM
Here is a proposed animation of the US 96 (not US 69)/TX SH 73 interchange improvement (more like reconstruction) in Port Arthur... Normally, Texas is king at stack interchanges, but they will be replacing this cloverleaf interchange with a turbine interchange which will be the second one in the state... 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnsWMHvqxn8

That is so cool, wander why not in use more.

Noticed that there's a missing movement from NB 69/96/287 to EB 73.  Wonder if the presence of the canal made that an issue, or has TxDOT determined that the need just isn't there.
Odd, given the opposite movement would exist. Both movements are present with today's full cloverleaf interchange. Seems like there could be traffic generators in that area that would warrant a single lane ramp where they don't have one.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: sparker on September 11, 2020, 05:37:51 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 10, 2020, 10:17:07 PM
Quote from: sparker on September 10, 2020, 09:19:56 PM
Quote from: longhorn on September 10, 2020, 04:52:42 PM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on September 10, 2020, 03:29:10 PM
Here is a proposed animation of the US 96 (not US 69)/TX SH 73 interchange improvement (more like reconstruction) in Port Arthur... Normally, Texas is king at stack interchanges, but they will be replacing this cloverleaf interchange with a turbine interchange which will be the second one in the state... 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnsWMHvqxn8

That is so cool, wander why not in use more.

Noticed that there's a missing movement from NB 69/96/287 to EB 73.  Wonder if the presence of the canal made that an issue, or has TxDOT determined that the need just isn't there.
Odd, given the opposite movement would exist. Both movements are present with today's full cloverleaf interchange. Seems like there could be traffic generators in that area that would warrant a single lane ramp where they don't have one.

It is quite odd; I'd take a guess that the way the canal/waterway shifts alignment more or less where the missing ramp would be is a factor.  Nevertheless, it's one of the best turbine designs I've seen to date; unless overall projected traffic is exceptionally heavy, I would prefer it to most stacks. 
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: -- US 175 -- on September 11, 2020, 07:46:39 AM
Quote from: bassoon1986 on September 10, 2020, 10:15:00 PM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on September 10, 2020, 03:29:10 PM
Here is a proposed animation of the US 96 (not US 69)/TX SH 73 interchange improvement (more like reconstruction) in Port Arthur... Normally, Texas is king at stack interchanges, but they will be replacing this cloverleaf interchange with a turbine interchange which will be the second one in the state... 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hnsWMHvqxn8
Is the existing turbine 27/40 in Amarillo?


iPhone

The I-27/I-40 interchange is the only one I know of.  I don't remember seeing or hearing about others in TX.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: J N Winkler on September 11, 2020, 03:33:29 PM
Quote from: sparker on September 10, 2020, 09:19:56 PMNoticed that there's a missing movement from NB 69/96/287 to EB 73.  Wonder if the presence of the canal made that an issue, or has TxDOT determined that the need just isn't there.

I am not sure that movement is in fact missing.  I watched part of the YouTube clip and about two-thirds of the way through there appeared to be a link ramp serving the northbound-to-eastbound movement.  I'm guessing it is not visible in the cover image because it is further back to accommodate a bend in the canal.

As for why a turban/turbine is being used in this location, I suspect the reason has to do with high organic matter content in the soil.  There are only two levels (ground and overhead) at any point in the interchange complex, and the embankments are vestigial with long runs of deck on low piers, as is typical in the parts of Louisiana where the ground is swampy (roughly speaking, everywhere south of the US 84 corridor).
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: sparker on September 11, 2020, 04:46:30 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 11, 2020, 03:33:29 PM
Quote from: sparker on September 10, 2020, 09:19:56 PMNoticed that there's a missing movement from NB 69/96/287 to EB 73.  Wonder if the presence of the canal made that an issue, or has TxDOT determined that the need just isn't there.

I am not sure that movement is in fact missing.  I watched part of the YouTube clip and about two-thirds of the way through there appeared to be a link ramp serving the northbound-to-eastbound movement.  I'm guessing it is not visible in the cover image because it is further back to accommodate a bend in the canal.

As for why a turban/turbine is being used in this location, I suspect the reason has to do with high organic matter content in the soil.  There are only two levels (ground and overhead) at any point in the interchange complex, and the embankments are vestigial with long runs of deck on low piers, as is typical in the parts of Louisiana where the ground is swampy (roughly speaking, everywhere south of the US 84 corridor).

Looked at the video twice; no sign of a direct NB>EB connector, possibly since if one were to be configured as a "split" from the turbine ramps per the other three direct ramps, it would require either (a) a separate crossing of the canal south of the main SH 73 crossing before merging with that facility or (b) a very sharp set of curves, first left then right, to enable the ramp to merge with EB 73 before the canal bridge.  I'm guessing TxDOT didn't want to do (b) for safety reasons, and (a) would have been a cost overrun for the project.  Since NB traffic is a surface street prior to just before the interchange, making a right at the last signal NB and then "grid-patterning" to the next EB entrance on 73 was considered adequate provision of movement.   

And thanks for the very plausible explanation as to the turbine choice -- swampy areas do, more often than not, require mitigation for their characteristics.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: J N Winkler on September 11, 2020, 05:24:55 PM
Quote from: sparker on September 11, 2020, 04:46:30 PMLooked at the video twice; no sign of a direct NB>EB connector, possibly since if one were to be configured as a "split" from the turbine ramps per the other three direct ramps, it would require either (a) a separate crossing of the canal south of the main SH 73 crossing before merging with that facility or (b) a very sharp set of curves, first left then right, to enable the ramp to merge with EB 73 before the canal bridge.  I'm guessing TxDOT didn't want to do (b) for safety reasons, and (a) would have been a cost overrun for the project.  Since NB traffic is a surface street prior to just before the interchange, making a right at the last signal NB and then "grid-patterning" to the next EB entrance on 73 was considered adequate provision of movement.

Thanks for the elucidation (sorry to make you watch the clip twice!)--I think I must have been looking southbound when I thought I was looking northbound.  I can certainly see motorists being directed to make the missing movement by surface streets if the existing ramp already attracts low demand.  It looks like there is a subdivision and an additional drainage channel (shown as a thin blue line in Google Maps) in the SE quadrant that would be in the way of a fourth link ramp matching the generous geometry of the other three, so the potential for high cost is clearly there.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: sparker on September 12, 2020, 05:33:33 AM
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 11, 2020, 05:24:55 PM
Quote from: sparker on September 11, 2020, 04:46:30 PMLooked at the video twice; no sign of a direct NB>EB connector, possibly since if one were to be configured as a "split" from the turbine ramps per the other three direct ramps, it would require either (a) a separate crossing of the canal south of the main SH 73 crossing before merging with that facility or (b) a very sharp set of curves, first left then right, to enable the ramp to merge with EB 73 before the canal bridge.  I'm guessing TxDOT didn't want to do (b) for safety reasons, and (a) would have been a cost overrun for the project.  Since NB traffic is a surface street prior to just before the interchange, making a right at the last signal NB and then "grid-patterning" to the next EB entrance on 73 was considered adequate provision of movement.

Thanks for the elucidation (sorry to make you watch the clip twice!)--I think I must have been looking southbound when I thought I was looking northbound.  I can certainly see motorists being directed to make the missing movement by surface streets if the existing ramp already attracts low demand.  It looks like there is a subdivision and an additional drainage channel (shown as a thin blue line in Google Maps) in the SE quadrant that would be in the way of a fourth link ramp matching the generous geometry of the other three, so the potential for high cost is clearly there.

Not to worry, it was a pretty decent video in any case.  We're probably both reasonably correct regarding the reason there is a missing movement; sometimes replacing an existing interchange with a higher-speed format runs into problems of potential spillover into existing infrastructure;  a similar thing happened with the I-215/CA 60/CA 91 interchange in Riverside, CA, where the existing direct WB>NB ramp which reduces to a single lane was retained rather than encroach on the adjoining neighborhood -- even though that ramp carries NB I-215 through traffic. 
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: Brian556 on November 08, 2022, 10:02:55 PM
Near Blum, Texas, SH 174 bridge over the Brazos River down to one lane with traffic signals long term. News article from 2020 says that is when it started. Looks like it was done due to inadequate lane width. Bridge was built in 1950. Has to be a massive PITA for drivers. Bridge to be replaced soon.

News Article from 2020: https://www.kxxv.com/one-direction-of-travel-for-sh-174-bridge (https://www.kxxv.com/one-direction-of-travel-for-sh-174-bridge)
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: bwana39 on November 08, 2022, 10:52:11 PM
Quote from: Brian556 on November 08, 2022, 10:02:55 PM
Near Blum, Texas, SH 174 bridge over the Brazos River down to one lane with traffic signals long term. News article from 2020 says that is when it started. Looks like it was done due to inadequate lane width. Bridge was built in 1950. Has to be a massive PITA for drivers. Bridge to be replaced soon.

News Article from 2020: https://www.kxxv.com/one-direction-of-travel-for-sh-174-bridge (https://www.kxxv.com/one-direction-of-travel-for-sh-174-bridge)

They have been doing this all over the Atlanta district.  US67 over White Oak Creek (Sulphur river relief) and Sulphur River. SH 98 over Anderson Creek, and SH43 over BNSF railway. Most of these were both widening and pouring new bridge decks.

My point being that this is not an isolated situation.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: rte66man on December 17, 2022, 12:36:10 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on November 08, 2022, 10:52:11 PM
Quote from: Brian556 on November 08, 2022, 10:02:55 PM
Near Blum, Texas, SH 174 bridge over the Brazos River down to one lane with traffic signals long term. News article from 2020 says that is when it started. Looks like it was done due to inadequate lane width. Bridge was built in 1950. Has to be a massive PITA for drivers. Bridge to be replaced soon.

News Article from 2020: https://www.kxxv.com/one-direction-of-travel-for-sh-174-bridge (https://www.kxxv.com/one-direction-of-travel-for-sh-174-bridge)

They have been doing this all over the Atlanta district.  US67 over White Oak Creek (Sulphur river relief) and Sulphur River. SH 98 over Anderson Creek, and SH43 over BNSF railway. Most of these were both widening and pouring new bridge decks.

My point being that this is not an isolated situation.

On the longer bridges, it isn't feasible from a cost perspective to build a shoofly so the bridge can be redecked all at once. Depending on the location, ODOT will either close the bridge completely (OK48 over the Cimarron River) or go the single lane with traffic signals route. The seem to prefer closing the bridge and suggesting alternate routes.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: Brian556 on January 06, 2023, 10:57:38 AM
Route Markers on BUS SH 78-F in Copeville are made wrong. The "F" is the same size as the numbers
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.0806164,-96.416989,3a,15.8y,296.83h,90.11t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sEXZhxvFJjFJVSDOrfvc6rA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DEXZhxvFJjFJVSDOrfvc6rA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D111.64335%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.0806164,-96.416989,3a,15.8y,296.83h,90.11t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sEXZhxvFJjFJVSDOrfvc6rA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DEXZhxvFJjFJVSDOrfvc6rA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D111.64335%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192)
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: -- US 175 -- on January 08, 2023, 04:49:36 AM
Quote from: Brian556 on January 06, 2023, 10:57:38 AM
Route Markers on BUS SH 78-F in Copeville are made wrong. The "F" is the same size as the numbers
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.0806164,-96.416989,3a,15.8y,296.83h,90.11t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sEXZhxvFJjFJVSDOrfvc6rA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DEXZhxvFJjFJVSDOrfvc6rA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D111.64335%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.0806164,-96.416989,3a,15.8y,296.83h,90.11t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sEXZhxvFJjFJVSDOrfvc6rA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DEXZhxvFJjFJVSDOrfvc6rA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D111.64335%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192)

:paranoid: :crazy: >ugh!< Even the reassurances in both directions also.  They need to hire roadfans to make and put up signs, obviously.  There have been other sign goofs in TX before, but this one has to rank among the top...
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: Brian556 on January 15, 2023, 10:04:29 PM
This one is right up there with the "SH 35" signs in the Houston area
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: bwana39 on February 06, 2023, 09:16:20 PM
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=32829.0
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: kernals12 on February 22, 2023, 10:26:24 PM


Depiction of the completed I-35W North Tarrant Express project. I got stuck in a horrible, horrible traffic jam when I was in Texas caused by this project. I'm glad my suffering was for a good cause
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: Bobby5280 on February 22, 2023, 10:54:09 PM
It kind of sucks the section of I-35W from the US-287 split up to Eagle Parkway will mostly be a 2-2-2-2 lanes configuration. At least the plans appear to be leaving enough space so it can be upgraded to a 3-2-2-3 configuration. That need could arrive rather quickly. It's kind of shocking just how fast residential development is spreading to the North and Northwest of Fort Worth.

I thought there were plans for TX-170 (Alliance Gateway Freeway) to extend West past I-35W and over to US-287. It doesn't look like that's going to happen now. I don't think that new segment of Haslet Road going West of the I-35W/TX-170 interchange is even finished, yet it's already getting totally blocked in by new housing subdivisions. Farther North TX-114 between I-35W and US-287 looks pretty screwed for any future expansion.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: thisdj78 on February 25, 2023, 08:37:08 PM
Texas Department of Transportation proposes $100B road construction plan

https://communityimpact.com/austin/central-austin/transportation/2023/02/23/texas-department-of-transportation-proposes-100b-road-construction-plan/
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: Bobby5280 on February 26, 2023, 11:47:59 PM
I don't think all $100 billion of that money will go into roads. The article itself says $100 billion for "transportation projects across the state." It also includes "investments in public transportation, maritime, aviation, rail, freight and international trade."

It's a good bet the big cities will divert as much of that $100 billion pool as possible into new airport terminals, light rail lines, etc. Oh yeah, the freight rail companies will want their cut too -as if they're not profitable enough as it is operating minimal skeleton crews via Precision Scheduled Railroading.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: roadman65 on February 28, 2023, 05:14:46 AM
Is this normal for SH Business routes to be shielded?
https://goo.gl/maps/WkUkKaFpzwVFSskr5
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: bwana39 on February 28, 2023, 08:26:52 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 28, 2023, 05:14:46 AM
Is this normal for SH Business routes to be shielded?
https://goo.gl/maps/WkUkKaFpzwVFSskr5

Normally, the "business" is a topper like the directional toppers.
https://goo.gl/maps/EjFVUb67US5WWdQo6
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: kphoger on February 28, 2023, 11:35:44 AM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 28, 2023, 05:14:46 AM
Is this normal for SH Business routes to be shielded?
https://goo.gl/maps/WkUkKaFpzwVFSskr5

It isn't ubiquitous, but it's certainly not unheard of:
https://goo.gl/maps/Deq8rCi9tMJWFTXr9
https://goo.gl/maps/C2KRUhcfrdSSAdm78
https://goo.gl/maps/qZy6ed3Pc6TmhiBs5

But hey, how about both:  a Business Business route?   :spin:
https://goo.gl/maps/KJUuTYQFHanMB7wn8
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: J N Winkler on February 28, 2023, 06:00:13 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on February 28, 2023, 05:14:46 AMIs this normal for SH Business routes to be shielded?

https://goo.gl/maps/WkUkKaFpzwVFSskr5

Standard Highway Sign Designs for Texas (TxDOT's baby SHS) used to call for the word "Business" within the shield for US, SH, and FM/RM routes.  It has since been broken out to a separate tab, but at different times for each route type.  This had happened by 2006 for US routes but took place between 2008 and 2012 for SH and FM/RM.

Each business route among these three types continues to be identified by a letter that appears immediately below the route number within the shield.  This letter also appears as a suffix when the designation is spelled out in text on a guide sign--for example, the line "BI 20G 3" on a mileage sign means I-20 business route G in three miles.

So, for sign-spotting purposes, the real anomalies include business route signs without the letter identifier, as in Kphoger's example of BS 21 at US 190 (https://www.google.com/maps/@30.7916785,-96.2573742,3a,28.4y,54.4h,88.79t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1smSaKipBZOMMcs8Wxlee3Vg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DmSaKipBZOMMcs8Wxlee3Vg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D131.02243%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192) (and yes, BS is the actual acronym for State Highway business routes).
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: roadman65 on March 01, 2023, 04:22:58 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/JfspaVUZ3jBruk597
Why is the FM 511 Frontage Road signed as I-169 proper?

This is only one of a few shield assembly that acknowledges the at grade road to be the interstate over the freeway it parallels.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: Bobby5280 on March 01, 2023, 04:35:50 PM
The signing of "I-169" down there is a mess. It's only seen as Toll-550 from I-69E; none of the big green signs mention I-169. On mostly unsigned I-169 any actual I-169 shields are pretty rare. Some of the entry ramps actually have markers for Toll-550 and "Toll-169."
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: kphoger on March 01, 2023, 04:36:38 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 01, 2023, 04:22:58 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/JfspaVUZ3jBruk597
Why is the FM 511 Frontage Road signed as I-169 proper?

This is only one of a few shield assembly that acknowledges the at grade road to be the interstate over the freeway it parallels.

Looks like an error to me.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: roadman65 on March 01, 2023, 05:26:48 PM
Quote from: kphoger on March 01, 2023, 04:36:38 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 01, 2023, 04:22:58 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/JfspaVUZ3jBruk597
Why is the FM 511 Frontage Road signed as I-169 proper?

This is only one of a few shield assembly that acknowledges the at grade road to be the interstate over the freeway it parallels.

Looks like an error to me.

Several errors. Plenty more shields there if you do a virtual GSV tour.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: bwana39 on March 03, 2023, 12:52:56 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on March 01, 2023, 04:22:58 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/JfspaVUZ3jBruk597
Why is the FM 511 Frontage Road signed as I-169 proper?

This is only one of a few shield assembly that acknowledges the at grade road to be the interstate over the freeway it parallels.

Are the main lanes tolled? While the Interstate marker on the frontage roads is not actually correct. Type for US / SH/ and FM is to sign the free frontage roads and NOT the tolled main lanes as the numbered route.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: Bobby5280 on March 03, 2023, 07:29:57 PM
Yeah, the main lanes are tolled.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: Road Hog on March 24, 2023, 03:18:21 AM
TxDOT loves them some one-lane bridges with traffic signals on FM roads.

i remember when there were 3 at one time on FM 455 in Collin County. Right now there are 2 in Denton County on the same road, and at least one on FM 428 in the ETJ of Aubrey.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: rte66man on March 26, 2023, 09:33:45 AM
Quote from: Road Hog on March 24, 2023, 03:18:21 AM
TxDOT loves them some one-lane bridges with traffic signals on FM roads.

i remember when there were 3 at one time on FM 455 in Collin County. Right now there are 2 in Denton County on the same road, and at least one on FM 428 in the ETJ of Aubrey.

How busy is FM455? If it's not too busy, it is WAY cheaper to do one lane at a time with traffic signals than to build a shoofly to maintain traffic in both directions.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: bwana39 on March 26, 2023, 10:39:02 PM
Quote from: rte66man on March 26, 2023, 09:33:45 AM
Quote from: Road Hog on March 24, 2023, 03:18:21 AM
TxDOT loves them some one-lane bridges with traffic signals on FM roads.

i remember when there were 3 at one time on FM 455 in Collin County. Right now there are 2 in Denton County on the same road, and at least one on FM 428 in the ETJ of Aubrey.

How busy is FM455? If it's not too busy, it is WAY cheaper to do one lane at a time with traffic signals than to build a shoofly to maintain traffic in both directions.

Texas has virtually never built shoo-fly detours around non-urban (urban defined Primarily as the 500K + metro areas.) Traditionally they would build the bridge on an immediately adjacent bypass alignment like the one in the link below.

https://goo.gl/maps/9zbTNahN6y8J4aMv8

It created curces and required purchase of additional R.O.W.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: rte66man on March 27, 2023, 10:02:57 AM
Quote from: bwana39 on March 26, 2023, 10:39:02 PM
Quote from: rte66man on March 26, 2023, 09:33:45 AM
Quote from: Road Hog on March 24, 2023, 03:18:21 AM
TxDOT loves them some one-lane bridges with traffic signals on FM roads.

i remember when there were 3 at one time on FM 455 in Collin County. Right now there are 2 in Denton County on the same road, and at least one on FM 428 in the ETJ of Aubrey.

How busy is FM455? If it's not too busy, it is WAY cheaper to do one lane at a time with traffic signals than to build a shoofly to maintain traffic in both directions.

Texas has virtually never built shoo-fly detours around non-urban (urban defined Primarily as the 500K + metro areas.) Traditionally they would build the bridge on an immediately adjacent bypass alignment like the one in the link below.

https://goo.gl/maps/9zbTNahN6y8J4aMv8

It created curves and required purchase of additional R.O.W.

Come to think of it, ODOT seems to make that decision depending on the span of the bridge as well as whether the overall alignment of the roadway can be improved by locating a new bridge on a new alignment.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: Bobby5280 on March 27, 2023, 11:35:29 AM
Yeah, there is quite a few one lane bridges that carry section line roads over Interstates here.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: bwana39 on March 27, 2023, 01:31:15 PM
Quote from: rte66man on March 27, 2023, 10:02:57 AM
Quote from: bwana39 on March 26, 2023, 10:39:02 PM
Quote from: rte66man on March 26, 2023, 09:33:45 AM
Quote from: Road Hog on March 24, 2023, 03:18:21 AM
TxDOT loves them some one-lane bridges with traffic signals on FM roads.

i remember when there were 3 at one time on FM 455 in Collin County. Right now there are 2 in Denton County on the same road, and at least one on FM 428 in the ETJ of Aubrey.

How busy is FM455? If it's not too busy, it is WAY cheaper to do one lane at a time with traffic signals than to build a shoofly to maintain traffic in both directions.

Texas has virtually never built shoo-fly detours around non-urban (urban defined Primarily as the 500K + metro areas.) Traditionally they would build the bridge on an immediately adjacent bypass alignment like the one in the link below.

https://goo.gl/maps/9zbTNahN6y8J4aMv8

It created curves and required purchase of additional R.O.W.

Come to think of it, ODOT seems to make that decision depending on the span of the bridge as well as whether the overall alignment of the roadway can be improved by locating a new bridge on a new alignment.

Generally, the ones Texas has done has had curves on both ends, some more egregious than others. The one-lane thing allows them to keep straighter geometry and does not usually require additional R.O.W.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: roadman65 on April 07, 2023, 12:46:26 PM
Found out this interesting tid bit. The goal post in Texas used for shield assemblies is used for other signs as well.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/54480415@N08/52787226005
Looks like a mileage sign mooring using it.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: wxfree on April 08, 2023, 06:54:23 PM
Quote from: Brian556 on November 08, 2022, 10:02:55 PM
Near Blum, Texas, SH 174 bridge over the Brazos River down to one lane with traffic signals long term. News article from 2020 says that is when it started. Looks like it was done due to inadequate lane width. Bridge was built in 1950. Has to be a massive PITA for drivers. Bridge to be replaced soon.

News Article from 2020: https://www.kxxv.com/one-direction-of-travel-for-sh-174-bridge (https://www.kxxv.com/one-direction-of-travel-for-sh-174-bridge)

The replacement bridge is now being built.  There are some columns up and the approach embankments are being built.  The old bridge was getting beaten up by heavy trucks passing over at high speeds.  The new bridge will have 10 foot shoulders and will be of much more sturdy construction.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: kernals12 on May 18, 2023, 10:39:48 PM
New funding stream for highways just dropped
(https://www.roadsbridges.com/law/news/33005242/new-electric-vehicle-tax-signed-into-law-in-texas)
QuoteTexas Governor Greg Abbott recently signed an electric vehicle tax into law.

The new bill, Senate Bill 505, requires $400 to register an electric vehicle along with other fees. Renewing registration will cost electric vehicle owners $200.

While the new tax will not apply to electric motorcycles, mopeds, or autocycles, the fee intends to ensure electric vehicle owners are paying highway costs that owners of gas-fueled vehicles pay for in a 20 cent-per-gallon gas tax.

Owners of gas-fueled vehicles pay an average of $130 in state gas taxes every year according to a report from the Dallas Morning News. This tax, plus the new electric vehicle tax are dedicated to the state highway fund.

With more than 30,000 new electric vehicles being added to the state roads this year, the new electric vehicle tax will generate approximately $38 million for the state highway fund, with gas and diesel to provide an estimated $3.8 billion in revenue for Texas in 2024.

The new electric vehicle tax goes into effect September 1, 2023.

Title: Re: Texas
Post by: Plutonic Panda on June 14, 2023, 09:28:53 AM
Article discussing a few projects happening around Texas. One of them is the Amarillo loop. It's going to be pretty surreal driving through Amarillo one day and seeing two 4-5 stack interchanges along I-40.

https://www.constructionequipmentguide.com/txdot-awards-webber-264m-for-three-highway-projects/61398
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: Stephane Dumas on June 14, 2023, 12:14:02 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on June 14, 2023, 09:28:53 AM
Article discussing a few projects happening around Texas. One of them is the Amarillo loop. It's going to be pretty surreal driving through Amarillo one day and seeing two 4-5 stack interchanges along I-40.

https://www.constructionequipmentguide.com/txdot-awards-webber-264m-for-three-highway-projects/61398

I wonder if we would see 1 or 2 4-5 stack interchange along I-20 at Midland-Odessa as well?

And Texashighwayman posted some historic photos of US-281 before it was upgraded to freeway north of Loop-1604.
https://www.texashighwayman.com/historical/us281n1604.shtml
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: kphoger on June 14, 2023, 12:23:50 PM
I've driven through Wichita Falls probably ten times, and it still amazes me to see the four-level interchange (https://goo.gl/maps/X6AKceUiRJ46FSuA6) there.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: Bobby5280 on June 14, 2023, 10:40:00 PM
The one in Wichita Falls does seem pretty epic for what is really just a "Y" interchange. I don't know why, but that single lane flyover ramp from EB Kell Freeway to EB I-44 makes me feel a little queasy when driving on it.

As for Amarillo, I have a strong feeling TX DOT will take their time building the two I-40/Loop 335 directional stacks. I figure they'll get the main lanes of Loop 335 built first and then slowly phase in the flyover ramps at the two interchanges. Obviously the stack on the West side of Amarillo will be a greater priority. The one on the East side of town could be stuck for many years as a volleyball interchange.

And it looks like TX DOT or the City of Amarillo really blew it with the I-27/Loop 335 interchange. It looks like new properties are getting built right up into the corners of the existing volleyball interchange.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: kphoger on June 15, 2023, 09:31:00 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 14, 2023, 10:40:00 PM
The one in Wichita Falls does seem pretty epic for what is really just a "Y" interchange. I don't know why, but that single lane flyover ramp from EB Kell Freeway to EB I-44 makes me feel a little queasy when driving on it.

It made me a little queasy the first several times I drove it too, but I've finally gotten used to it.

My favorite fact about that US-277 → I-44 transition is this:  After you come down from that super-high ramp, just STAY IN THAT LANE.  You'll pass by a bunch of on-ramps and off-ramps, added lanes and lane drops.  People will be jockeying for position all around you.  But your lane will eventually just become the right lane of I-44.  No need to move out of it at all.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: Stephane Dumas on June 15, 2023, 03:48:46 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 14, 2023, 10:40:00 PM
The one in Wichita Falls does seem pretty epic for what is really just a "Y" interchange. I don't know why, but that single lane flyover ramp from EB Kell Freeway to EB I-44 makes me feel a little queasy when driving on it.

A "Y" interchange who was once set for more bigger plans from what we see on these satellite shots. https://goo.gl/maps/F2nw7rwiasXBPjrE7 I guess lack of funds or protests have cancelled that project.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: Bobby5280 on June 16, 2023, 11:31:11 AM
Yeah, Spur 447 was planned long ago as a freeway from the Kell Freeway/US-287 interchange out of the NE side of Wichita Falls. The city couldn't get all the ROW needed for the project. Four blocks to the East of the interchange were cleared decades ago the same time as all the other property was cleared for Kell Freeway. A freeway-like bridge was built over the BNSF railroad tracks on the East side of downtown.

Failure to secure the ROW needed near downtown as well as on the other side of the rail line forced them to abandon the Spur 447 freeway project. There appears to be zero hopes of reviving it either. The flyover ramps at the East end of Kell Freeway don't have any stubs for adding flyover ramps to make the interchange a full stack.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: bing101 on June 18, 2023, 12:28:12 PM

Here is a tour of TX-225 Pasadena Freeway in the Houston area.


Title: Re: Texas
Post by: bwana39 on June 18, 2023, 10:33:48 PM
Quote from: bing101 on June 18, 2023, 12:28:12 PM

Here is a tour of TX-225 Pasadena Freeway in the Houston area.




Just being a pain.  The caption says Pasadena Freeway, Houston Texas. There is no such animal. It is the LaPorte Freeway from I-610 to the Pasadena City Limits (The part actually in Houston.) Then after it leaves Pasadena to the east it resumes the Name LaPorte Freeway.
As far as that goes, it is sometimes referred colloquially  as LaPorte in Pasadena as well.  It was ALL  LaPorte road before the freeway was built.

Bing, I will give you you did say" Houston Area"
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: Chris on June 28, 2023, 08:21:45 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 16, 2023, 11:31:11 AM
Yeah, Spur 447 was planned long ago as a freeway from the Kell Freeway/US-287 interchange out of the NE side of Wichita Falls. The city couldn't get all the ROW needed for the project. Four blocks to the East of the interchange were cleared decades ago the same time as all the other property was cleared for Kell Freeway. A freeway-like bridge was built over the BNSF railroad tracks on the East side of downtown.

Failure to secure the ROW needed near downtown as well as on the other side of the rail line forced them to abandon the Spur 447 freeway project. There appears to be zero hopes of reviving it either. The flyover ramps at the East end of Kell Freeway don't have any stubs for adding flyover ramps to make the interchange a full stack.

Spur 447 was designated in 1967. Maybe the overpasses at the railroad opened around that time?

https://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/ss/ss0447.htm

The flyover ramps of the Kell Freeway are much newer though, built around 2006-2008 according to Google Earth.

The low traffic volumes past that interchange probably don't warrant a freeway extension to the Spur 447 bridges over the railroad. The traffic counts on Kell Boulevard are 6,600 - 11,000 vehicles per day.

(https://i.imgur.com/JJvyeq7.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/FfYGEuO.jpg)
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: Bobby5280 on July 02, 2023, 12:35:15 AM
The "Y" interchange flyover ramps connecting Kell Freeway and US-287 were added not long after the US-287 elevated viaducts were built over Holliday and Broad Streets.

Current vehicle counts on Spur 447 don't justify a new freeway at all. But those low counts also reflect Spur 447 being a "failed" freeway corridor. Anyone wanting to drive NE from downtown Wichita Falls to towns like Petrolia or Waurika will drive a little farther East on US-287 to pick up the short TX-79 freeway spur.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: Plutonic Panda on October 05, 2023, 10:09:05 AM
Billions in road upgrades coming to the Permian basin area:

https://www.constructionequipmentguide.com/txdot-devotes-43-billion-to-permian-basin-upgrades/62653
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: Bobby5280 on October 07, 2023, 12:18:06 AM
It's too bad the article doesn't get much into specifics where in the Permian Basin the spending will occur (other than mentions of the I-20 and US-285 corridors). ODOT announced $9 billion in spending for roads across Oklahoma; the agency allowed a more "deep dive" into state projects on its web site. Of course, not much is happening in my part of the state. We'll get a few "safety improvements" on Rogers Lane, but nothing real big. I digress.

$4.3 billion is some serious money. I wonder how much will go into improvements for the Ports to Plains Corridor, aka Future I-27.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: DJStephens on October 08, 2023, 01:26:47 PM
A complete reconstruction of I-20 is sorely needed in the Odessa / Midland immediate city environs for sure.   Antiquated four lane alignment from sixties still largely extant, complete with inadequate capacity (needs six laning) poor shoulders, and "merge or die" on ramps.   
Work done in more recent years on US - 285 heading NNW out of Pecos, TX has been terrible, as was the "chicken scratching" done on FM - 652.    A "three lane poor boy" are you kidding?!  Referring to US 285.  With all the heavy trucking, they desire to continue to have chances of head on collisions continue?!
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: MaxConcrete on November 02, 2023, 08:06:43 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 05, 2023, 10:09:05 AM
Billions in road upgrades coming to the Permian basin area:

https://www.constructionequipmentguide.com/txdot-devotes-43-billion-to-permian-basin-upgrades/62653

Bids were opened today to rebuild and expand a 5 mile section of I-20 between Odessa and Midland to 3x3. The limits are from just west of Loop 338 (east side of Odessa) eastward 5 miles, to a point about 1.5 miles west of FM 1788.

http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/11023201.htm (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/11023201.htm)

County:   ECTOR   Let Date:   11/02/23
Type:   WIDEN ROAD - ADD LANES   Seq No:   3201
Time:   0 X   Project ID:   F 2022(634)
Highway:   IH 20   Contract #:   11233201
Length:   10.402   CCSJ:   0005-13-064
Limits:   
From:   EAST OF JBS PARKWAY   Check:   $100,000
To:   MIDLAND COUNTY LINE   Misc Cost:   
Estimate   $284,174,507.74   % Over/Under   Company
Bidder 1   $260,876,639.92   -8.20%   SUNDT CONSTRUCTION, INC.
Bidder 2   $272,817,245.95   -4.00%   JAMES CONSTRUCTION GROUP, LLC
Bidder 3   $299,992,051.72   +5.57%   WEBBER, LLC
Bidder 4   $338,646,883.57   +19.17%   PULICE CONSTRUCTION, INC.
Bidder 5   $346,826,743.95   +22.05%   FNF CONSTRUCTION, INC.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: Bobby5280 on November 03, 2023, 04:42:53 PM
At least that'll be a start. Hopefully they can eventually give all of I-20 in the Midland-Odessa area the 3x3 treatment. It's too bad not much can be done to beautify the view of Midland-Odessa from I-20. Just a bunch of metal industrial buildings and related stuff the whole way. The nicer parts are on the Northern fringes of the metro.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: TheBox on November 13, 2023, 05:00:34 PM
Interactive maps of I-14 and I-27

I-14 - https://txdot.mysocialpinpoint.com/i14systems#/

I-27 - https://txdot.mysocialpinpoint.com/ports-to-plains/map#/
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: Quillz on December 01, 2023, 09:54:42 PM
I'm spending the weekend in the Ft. Worth/Dallas area.

So were Texas state highways just assigned as they were created? Seems to be zero logic as to how state highways get their numbers. Not based on directionality, doesn't appear to be any pattern. There is obviously duplication (which doesn't bother me), although it seems using the exact same shield for the various types of highways (state, loops, spurs, farm-to-market, all of which can have duplicated numbers) seems like it would create confusion. (I'm referring to how they are on BGS, I know farm-to-market roads have a different shield.)

I also noticed how on BGS, the state highway markers put "TEXAS" above the number, but on the shields, the state name is below the number. Seems this was done to create consistency in how markers are shown on BGS.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 02, 2023, 02:00:42 PM
TX DOT has their own way of doing things. I can't complain too much since, overall, their BGS designs are much better than most states. Here in Oklahoma it's just embarrassing. At least Oklahoma's highway signs don't like patched over and hammered junk like Caltrans' stuff. I really don't care about the Clearview vs Series Gothic issue; Clearview is usually handled pretty well on Texas BGS panels.

Yeah, the route numbering scheme in Texas doesn't appear to follow any kind of system. I imagine that's because the state is so big and has evolved economically in dramatic ways. It would be difficult crafting a route numbering system that could adapt to those shifts over the decades.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: Quillz on December 02, 2023, 02:11:50 PM
I like Clearview. Fine with it being used.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: Quillz on December 02, 2023, 02:46:16 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 02, 2023, 02:00:42 PM
TX DOT has their own way of doing things. I can't complain too much since, overall, their BGS designs are much better than most states. Here in Oklahoma it's just embarrassing. At least Oklahoma's highway signs don't like patched over and hammered junk like Caltrans' stuff. I really don't care about the Clearview vs Series Gothic issue; Clearview is usually handled pretty well on Texas BGS panels.

Yeah, the route numbering scheme in Texas doesn't appear to follow any kind of system. I imagine that's because the state is so big and has evolved economically in dramatic ways. It would be difficult crafting a route numbering system that could adapt to those shifts over the decades.
The BGS are fine, they don't bother me. The one point of confusion, though, is since number duplication is allowed, and all the state-level highways use the exact same design, there could potentially be something like "TEXAS 10" alongside "FM 10." Although I suspect the numbers are chosen in such a way there aren't any real conflicts like that.

Otherwise, I'm noticing the so called "sign salad." I like how everything does appear to be signed, but I also will see things like a farm-to-market road signed alongside with the interstates and state routes. I'm more used to the idea of just the most important route being signed, although with GPS, the navigation around here has been fine.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: J N Winkler on December 02, 2023, 04:40:11 PM
Quote from: Quillz on December 02, 2023, 02:46:16 PMThe BGS are fine, they don't bother me. The one point of confusion, though, is since number duplication is allowed, and all the state-level highways use the exact same design, there could potentially be something like "TEXAS 10" alongside "FM 10." Although I suspect the numbers are chosen in such a way there aren't any real conflicts like that.

Actually, there is one notorious example where such confusion can occur--FM 121 near Van Alstyne, which is easily confused with SH 121/Sam Rayburn Tollway, a freeway-standard route to DFW Airport.  Signing (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.438956,-96.5984995,3a,75y,144.71h,89.55t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smQNC0SNaPCudUlV22J_1oQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) (to designs that have varied over the years) is provided to instruct airport traffic to stay on southbound US 75.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: Quillz on December 02, 2023, 05:02:58 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on December 02, 2023, 04:40:11 PM
Quote from: Quillz on December 02, 2023, 02:46:16 PMThe BGS are fine, they don't bother me. The one point of confusion, though, is since number duplication is allowed, and all the state-level highways use the exact same design, there could potentially be something like "TEXAS 10" alongside "FM 10." Although I suspect the numbers are chosen in such a way there aren't any real conflicts like that.

Actually, there is one notorious example where such confusion can occur--FM 121 near Van Alstyne, which is easily confused with SH 121/Sam Rayburn Tollway, a freeway-standard route to DFW Airport.  Signing (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.438956,-96.5984995,3a,75y,144.71h,89.55t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smQNC0SNaPCudUlV22J_1oQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) (to designs that have varied over the years) is provided to instruct airport traffic to stay on southbound US 75.
Heh, was just there, didn't notice. I was on Loop 97.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: Great Lakes Roads on December 05, 2023, 08:11:55 PM
Speed limits are going to be lowered on some Texas highways...

Speed limits will change on the following highways:
S.H. 87 from west Port Arthur to Sabine Pass will change from 65 to 55 mph.
S.H. 347 from U.S. 69 to the Dupont Plant will change from 70 to 65 mph.
U.S. 69 from the U.S. 69 split to S.H. 73 will change from 75 to 70 mph.
I-10 from 9th Street to the Neches River will change from 65 to 55 mph.
I-10 from the Old U.S. 90 Exit to 450 west of the Rose City City limits will change from 75 mph to 70 mph.
U.S. 90 from West Calder to Dowlen Road will change from 50 to 45 mph.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: Plutonic Panda on December 05, 2023, 09:17:38 PM
It seems like most of these are in the SE part of the state. Is that just one district? Not happy to see lower limits especially in Texas. If anything limits should generally be going up.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: Great Lakes Roads on December 05, 2023, 09:51:31 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 05, 2023, 09:17:38 PM
It seems like most of these are in the SE part of the state. Is that just one district? Not happy to see lower limits especially in Texas. If anything limits should generally be going up.

Yup, mainly in the Beaumont/Port Arthur area.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: bwana39 on December 05, 2023, 11:20:23 PM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on December 05, 2023, 09:51:31 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 05, 2023, 09:17:38 PM
It seems like most of these are in the SE part of the state. Is that just one district? Not happy to see lower limits especially in Texas. If anything limits should generally be going up.

Yup, mainly in the Beaumont/Port Arthur area.

Except for the I-10 part that extends into Orange County, it is all in Jefferson County.  I would assume that the speed limit already dropped 450' from the west CL of Rose City through Vidor.  This probably only feathered the limit so it did not go from 70 to 75 then quickly back to 65. It really only reached into Orange county to facilitate this feathering.

For what it is worth, most of the cities of over 50K in Texas and some even smaller have reduced their freeway speeds to 70 or even 65. The freeways leading into Louisiana (I-10 & I-20) are all at or below 70 MPH for miles back to the west.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: sprjus4 on December 06, 2023, 11:01:52 AM
^ Besides the few miles of work zone from Orange to the Louisiana state line, which I swear has been under construction forever, I recall I-10 mostly being 75 mph between Orange and Beaumont when I last drove through in 2022.

40 miles of I-20 between Longview and the Louisiana state line was posted at 75 mph until 2 years ago, they lowered it to 70 mph for "safety" reasons despite the fact traffic was moving at 80 mph (https://www.news-journal.com/features/answer_line/answer-line-interstate-20-speed-limit-reduced-in-harrison-county/article_732fb28e-e3f5-11eb-951a-8fa94f11d529.html), meaning the reduction was artificial in nature and likely hasn't changed anything. This is the same county where north-south US-59, which is a non-limited-access 4 lane highway, is posted faster (75 mph) than the safer, access controlled interstate highway.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: BurnTheStroads on December 07, 2023, 10:03:30 PM
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on December 05, 2023, 08:11:55 PM
Speed limits are going to be lowered on some Texas highways...

Speed limits will change on the following highways:
S.H. 87 from west Port Arthur to Sabine Pass will change from 65 to 55 mph.
S.H. 347 from U.S. 69 to the Dupont Plant will change from 70 to 65 mph.
U.S. 69 from the U.S. 69 split to S.H. 73 will change from 75 to 70 mph.
I-10 from 9th Street to the Neches River will change from 65 to 55 mph.
I-10 from the Old U.S. 90 Exit to 450 west of the Rose City City limits will change from 75 mph to 70 mph.
U.S. 90 from West Calder to Dowlen Road will change from 50 to 45 mph.


The I-10 Beaumont section makes sense. Although 65 is the posted limit, you will really never get close to it without driving aggressively in a heavily congested area.

In the affected section, exits and lane changes are frequent, cars/semis are in close proximity with little spacing, and that last interchange before the Neches is outright dangerous if your speed is above 60.

I don't typically see eye-to-eye with TXDOT in any context, but, this decision to reduce, at least in this section of I-10, seems sound. 
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: kernals12 on December 19, 2023, 08:55:54 PM
(https://i.imgur.com/vAyK223.png)

I've had a thought. Texas should get rid of its eponymous U-turns and instead use Michigan lefts. This would mean intersections on frontage roads would only need 2-phase signals.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: Plutonic Panda on December 19, 2023, 08:59:33 PM
No thank you. The Texas u turns are by far on of the most convenient designs I've encountered. Not so much with the Michigan lefts. Fuck that.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: Rothman on December 19, 2023, 09:02:32 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 19, 2023, 08:59:33 PM
No thank you. The Texas u turns are by far on of the most convenient designs I've encountered. Not so much with the Michigan lefts. Fuck that.
I'm with the Panda on this one.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: kernals12 on December 19, 2023, 09:02:38 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 19, 2023, 08:59:33 PM
No thank you. The Texas u turns are by far on of the most convenient designs I've encountered. Not so much with the Michigan lefts. Fuck that.

But Michigan lefts would mean you hit fewer red lights as you travel on frontage roads.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: Plutonic Panda on December 19, 2023, 09:15:01 PM
I've experienced both setups and IMO the Texas system works much better more lights or not.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: Rothman on December 19, 2023, 09:31:13 PM


Quote from: Plutonic Panda on December 19, 2023, 09:15:01 PM
I've experienced both setups and IMO the Texas system works much better more lights or not.

^So much this.  I mean, yes, half of Texas seems to be paved over with their huge setups, but traffic flows pretty darned well in a lot of areas comparable to MI.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 19, 2023, 11:40:04 PM
Things like a Michigan Left or a J-turn are best confined to a not so busy 4-lane divided highway without controlled access. Such turns would be very inefficient in a Texas-style freeway flanked by frontage roads. The Texas U-turns work really great in those kinds of freeways since they filter some of the frontage road traffic away from other vehicles on the surface street that is crossing the freeway. The thru traffic on a surface street would be blocked by a Michigan Left or J-Turn arrangement.

I can think of a couple key locations here in Lawton where a J-Turn or Michigan Left would be ideal. Just East of Lawton the at-grade intersection of SE 60th Street and the OK-7 divided highway is kind of dangerous. It's difficult to see Westbound OK-7 traffic from the intersection due to the highway rising to a sort of crest East of the intersection and then dropping down.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: kphoger on December 20, 2023, 09:27:50 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 19, 2023, 11:40:04 PM
Things like a Michigan Left or a J-turn are best confined to a not so busy 4-lane divided highway without controlled access. Such turns would be very inefficient in a Texas-style freeway flanked by frontage roads. The Texas U-turns work really great in those kinds of freeways since they filter some of the frontage road traffic away from other vehicles on the surface street that is crossing the freeway. The thru traffic on a surface street would be blocked by a Michigan Left or J-Turn arrangement.

Yeah, if you were to implement that Michigan Urban Diamond in any decent-sized Texas city, then there would be a large amount of weaving that does not currently exist.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: achilles765 on December 20, 2023, 11:12:07 AM
Quote from: J N Winkler on December 02, 2023, 04:40:11 PM
Quote from: Quillz on December 02, 2023, 02:46:16 PMThe BGS are fine, they don't bother me. The one point of confusion, though, is since number duplication is allowed, and all the state-level highways use the exact same design, there could potentially be something like "TEXAS 10" alongside "FM 10." Although I suspect the numbers are chosen in such a way there aren't any real conflicts like that.

Actually, there is one notorious example where such confusion can occur--FM 121 near Van Alstyne, which is easily confused with SH 121/Sam Rayburn Tollway, a freeway-standard route to DFW Airport.  Signing (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.438956,-96.5984995,3a,75y,144.71h,89.55t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smQNC0SNaPCudUlV22J_1oQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) (to designs that have varied over the years) is provided to instruct airport traffic to stay on southbound US 75.

Another kind of exists in the Beaumont area. There's an FM 105 that leads to Vidor but is not very far from SH 105, which heads east-west to Conroe and onward. So a sign on I-10 directs motorists that SH 105 is farther down the road.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: TheBox on December 30, 2023, 02:00:05 PM
Just how much would Laredo benefit from I-2 extension, I-27, and a complete I-69W?
I see I-2 sooner than the latter two in my lifetime

And which side of the extended I-27 does Lubbock and Amarillo benefit from more? North of Amarillo or South of Lubbock?
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 30, 2023, 06:47:09 PM
Laredo is the busiest inland port of entry in the US. The city has already been growing at a fairly significant pace. The city had 263,000 residents as of the 2020 Census. In 2000 the city's population was 176,000.

By the time I-69W is completed Laredo's population may be much larger. Laredo isn't far from some other major population centers. The Rio Grande Valley cluster of cities has over a million people and is around 130 miles to the South (the Roma/Rio Grande City area is closer and also growing). San Antonio is about 150 miles away. Monterrey is only 125 miles away and has 4 million people.

Anyway, it's perfectly justifiable to extend I-2 to Laredo.

I-27 to Laredo might be a slightly harder sell, but it would hit Del Rio and Eagle Pass along the way. Those two inland port cities can help serve as a "relief valve" for all the traffic currently crossing the border in Laredo. I-27 would help commercial traffic move faster thru that region and up to places like the Front Range cities in Colorado.

Regarding I-27 benefits to Amarillo and Lubbock, the extended Interstate could help spur new development as well as help move the added traffic coming from the new homes and businesses already being built. The West side of Amarillo is growing and growth in Lubbock is spreading South of the 289 loop.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: Rothman on December 30, 2023, 06:59:23 PM
Busiest inland port of entry...makes me wonder how "inland" is defined.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: kphoger on January 03, 2024, 01:38:24 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 30, 2023, 06:47:09 PM
I-27 to Laredo might be a slightly harder sell, but it would hit Del Rio and Eagle Pass along the way. Those two inland port cities can help serve as a "relief valve" for all the traffic currently crossing the border in Laredo. I-27 would help commercial traffic move faster thru that region and up to places like the Front Range cities in Colorado.

I was skeptical about that, but then I checked the map.  Sure enough...

395 miles = a random industrial park near Monterrey → Sonora via Colombia, US-83, and TX-55

379 miles = a random industrial park near Monterrey → Sonora via Piedras Negras and US-277
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: splashflash on January 03, 2024, 10:10:14 PM
Quote from: TheBox on December 30, 2023, 02:00:05 PM

And which side of the extended I-27 does Lubbock and Amarillo benefit from more? North of Amarillo or South of Lubbock?
Traffic counts north of Amarillo are higher than south to Lamisa, and more than double those potential I-27E or 27W branches south of Lamisa to either Midland or Big Spring.  Also, US 84 from Sweetwater to Lubbock, also has double the counts of those branches.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: Bobby5280 on January 04, 2024, 12:20:41 AM
Quote from: splashflashTraffic counts north of Amarillo are higher than south to Lamisa, and more than double those potential I-27E or 27W branches south of Lamisa to either Midland or Big Spring.

Based on the TX DOT TPP District Traffic Web Viewer US-87/287 traffic between Amarillo and Dumas has AADT counts between 10,000 and 12,000. The AADT counts drop considerably both North and West of Dumas.

Traffic counts on US-87 South of Lubbock range from over 20K per day just South of the 289 loop down to less than 10K by the time US-87 reaches Atoka.

Here's an interesting thing. US-287 between Amarillo and Wichita Falls has similar AADT counts to I-27 outside the loops in Lubbock and Amarillo. Between Wichita Falls and Fort Worth the AADT counts on US-287 are considerably higher than I-27 (going above 20K AADT frequently and getting above 30K in places by the time US-287 passes Alvord).

Quote from: splashflashAlso, US 84 from Sweetwater to Lubbock, also has double the counts of those branches.

According to that map the AADT counts on US-84 Southwest of Lubbock range 20,000 to 17,000 to Slaton nearby. Then the counts drop closer to 10,000 per day the rest of the way to I-20.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: lordsutch on January 04, 2024, 04:17:20 PM
Quote from: TheBox on December 30, 2023, 02:00:05 PM
Just how much would Laredo benefit from I-2 extension, I-27, and a complete I-69W?
I see I-2 sooner than the latter two in my lifetime

And which side of the extended I-27 does Lubbock and Amarillo benefit from more? North of Amarillo or South of Lubbock?

Laredo would benefit from extending I-2, but probably less than you'd think; most of the cross-border traffic isn't crossing at Laredo to get to the lower valley and vice-versa. At present the "inland" routes are quicker than dealing with the built-up area on US 83; when I lived in Laredo, unless for some reason you needed/wanted to avoid the CBP garitas, people headed to McAllen or Brownsville typically would take TX 359 to Hebbronville, and from there either TX 285 to US 281/I-69C or FM 1017. Extending I-2 west to Roma would probably nullify the time advantage to going inland. Extending further would be nice but non-essential.

On the other hand the trade advantages of I-27 and I-69W would be greater even though in terms of overall traffic they might not carry as much as an I-2 extension. Eagle Pass and Del Rio would probably also benefit from more direct access to Laredo if I-27 was routed close to the border.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: splashflash on January 06, 2024, 12:21:38 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 04, 2024, 12:20:41 AM
Quote from: splashflashTraffic counts north of Amarillo are higher than south to Lamisa, and more than double those potential I-27E or 27W branches south of Lamisa to either Midland or Big Spring.

QuoteBased on the TX DOT TPP District Traffic Web Viewer US-87/287 traffic between Amarillo and Dumas has AADT counts between 10,000 and 12,000. The AADT counts drop considerably both North and West of Dumas.

Traffic counts on US-87 South of Lubbock range from over 20K per day just South of the 289 loop down to less than 10K by the time US-87 reaches Atoka.

Tahoka?  Around 8,500 there but south of Lamesa US 87 (and potentially future I-27E) counts drop to 5,000.  TX-349 (potentially future I-27W) is slightly lower at 4,800 but picks up just north of Midland.


[
Quoteb]Here's an interesting thing[/b]. US-287 between Amarillo and Wichita Falls has similar AADT counts to I-27 outside the loops in Lubbock and Amarillo. Between Wichita Falls and Fort Worth the AADT counts on US-287 are considerably higher than I-27 (going above 20K AADT frequently and getting above 30K in places by the time US-287 passes Alvord).

The US 287 stretch south of Witchits Falls is crying out for investment.

Quote from: splashflashAlso, US 84 from Sweetwater to Lubbock, also has double the counts of those branches.

According to that map the AADT counts on US-84 Southwest of Lubbock range 20,000 to 17,000 to Slaton nearby. Then the counts drop closer to 10,000 per day the rest of the way to I-20.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: Bobby5280 on January 06, 2024, 09:34:43 PM
I just don't understand why US-287 between Fort Worth and Amarillo hasn't received a lot more in the way of Interstate quality upgrades going clear back to the 1980's. Certainly the segment from Wichita Falls down to Fort Worth is justifiable to fully upgrade. And it's just beyond ridiculous how TX DOT has dragged its feet just on the segment from I-35W up to the TX-114 split. Just past I-35W the US-287 pavement is CRAP. The damned highway should have been Interstate quality from I-35W up to at least Decatur by now.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: In_Correct on January 19, 2024, 10:51:14 PM




My observations about running an Interstate through Decatur:

South of U.S. 380 ( which needs a Stack ) is a long ramp that starts from U.S. 380 East to U.S. 287 South, and ends at Business U.S. 380 where it becomes a regular Frontage Road. This Ramp has several driveways, and many traffic uses it as if it was a Frontage Road, and said traffic does not enter U.S. 287. They simply stay on this lane. It would not be that difficult, nor unreasonable, to expand this ramp to be a Frontage Road by adding an additional lane, and separating it from U.S. 287 with a Jersey Barrier. If that happens, the Frontage Road would need to be accessed by extending it north of U.S. 380 not far from F.M. 2198.

Most buildings and structures would not be in the path of Frontage Roads / Stack Interchange in this area.

Any that ARE in the path, seem to be old, and falling apart any ways.

Converting U.S. 287 / U.S. 380 to be Six Lanes each is another complication that might require more space.

The Car Dealers CAN reconfigure their parking lots and their lighting, even without needing additional property.

There is currently no such ramp configuration on U.S. 287 North to U.S. 380 East. However, it could be constructed via Eminent Domain, with Minimal Obstacles in its path.

Title: Re: Texas
Post by: Bobby5280 on January 21, 2024, 01:33:39 PM
Hardly any of the properties in Decatur hugging close to the US-287 main lanes look good at all, particularly on the North side of town close to the US-380 interchange. They're all commercial properties. No residential homes. I don't think it would be controversial at all for TX DOT to buy out and clear those properties.

On the South side of town the car lots, tractor dealership and other businesses would see their parking lots "get a haircut." A couple or so buildings and billboard structures would have to be removed.

With growth on the Fort Worth side of DFW propelling to the North and Northwest it's obvious TX DOT will have to do some big upgrade work in Decatur. They can't keep kicking the can down the road. Not only does US-287 need to be a freeway thru Decatur, it probably needs to be in a 3x3 configuration and then maybe drop to 2x2 lanes North of town. I've seen some freeway designs drawn up for that area, including a freeway segment for US-287 on the North side of Decatur. If they can get those projects done then further freeway upgrade work going farther Northwest will be comparatively easy.

North of Decatur where Business US-81 merges into US-287 the highway has plenty of ROW space for continuous frontage roads and freeway main lanes all the way up to Alvord. From there, an upgraded freeway would tie into the existing freeway segment bypassing Bowie. 

Really, Decatur is the biggest obstacle in the way of a potential Interstate from Wichita Falls to Fort Worth.

Quote from: In_CorrectThere is currently no such ramp configuration on U.S. 287 North to U.S. 380 East.

Technically, there is a ramp movement for that. There are at-grade intersections allowing left turns across the main lanes of US-380. Definitely NOT an optimal situation.

US-380 crossing thru the Decatur area is its own mess. There is a lot of at-grade intersections and driveways connecting to the main lanes. Over the long term I really believe the US-380 corridor from Decatur to Denton and McKinney to Greenville will have to be turned into an Interstate-class corridor the whole way. It's not just to function as a regional North bypass of the DFW metro, but also as a major East-West corridor to the booming population expanding North of the DFW metro. US-82 will have to be given similar considerations.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: roadman65 on February 03, 2024, 05:41:09 PM
https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid02sZGDgjFCJ1F7dFcoNn51xa4ihGh2czTj4GdyXnS4hFsGnrzPRXUfkbh3jGF8ECGMl&id=100053847847693

Wouldn't this be nice 🤣😂🤣
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: Bobby5280 on February 03, 2024, 06:45:35 PM
People drive that fast in the DFW area already.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: roadwaywiz95 on February 07, 2024, 06:32:09 PM
Our next installment in the "Virtual Tour" series will take place on Saturday (2/10) at 6 PM ET. Come join me and members of the AARoads community as we profile Interstates 410 and 610 that encircle central San Antonio and Houston, TX respectively and discuss the history and features of these highways all while enjoying a real-time video trip along the length of two formidable belt highways in two of the largest metro areas in the state of Texas.

Title: Re: Texas
Post by: Chris on February 27, 2024, 02:57:15 PM
https://www.txdot.gov/projects/projects-studies/austin/us281-sh71-interchange.html

Some sort of 'innovative interchange' is planned to replace the US 281 / SH 71 cloverleaf near Marble Falls (west of Austin).

A public meeting is scheduled for March 28: https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/austin/2024/us281-at-sh71-012524.html

Proposed improvements

* Replacing the current cloverleaf interchange with an innovative interchange
* Adding elevated structures to improve mobility through the interchange
* Adding frontage roads to separate high-speed through traffic from local traffic
* Adding shared-use paths to accommodate bicyclists and pedestrians


The estimated construction cost is $ 203 million, which seems like a large amount of money for a rural interchange. The addition of frontage roads suggest they're going to upgrade it to a freeway-style interchange.

A screenshot of the current interchange:
(https://i.ibb.co/r0y6F4T/Marble.jpg)
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: Bobby5280 on February 27, 2024, 08:44:55 PM
They say "innovative interchange," but what exactly would that mean? A $203 million price tag is indeed pretty high for what could end up being something like a diverging diamond interchange.

I certainly would not expect TX DOT to build a directional stack interchange in such a rural location, and $203 million isn't nearly enough for such a thing. With an estimated 2029 time line for construction to begin $203 million will buy only so much at that time. The TX-71 corridor thru Austin and the hill country West of the metro will see ever higher traffic counts as population growth continues to boom in that region. It would be smart for TX DOT to build a freeway to freeway style interchange at this location. I think a cloverleaf interchange with collector-distributor roads would do just fine. They might be able to get away with building one or two directional fly-over ramps.
Title: Re: Texas
Post by: MaxConcrete on March 08, 2024, 10:06:58 AM
Quote from: MaxConcrete on November 02, 2023, 08:06:43 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 05, 2023, 10:09:05 AM
Billions in road upgrades coming to the Permian basin area:

https://www.constructionequipmentguide.com/txdot-devotes-43-billion-to-permian-basin-upgrades/62653

Bids were opened today to rebuild and expand a 5 mile section of I-20 between Odessa and Midland to 3x3. The limits are from just west of Loop 338 (east side of Odessa) eastward 5 miles, to a point about 1.5 miles west of FM 1788.

http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/11023201.htm (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/11023201.htm)

County:   ECTOR   Let Date:   11/02/23
Type:   WIDEN ROAD - ADD LANES   Seq No:   3201
Time:   0 X   Project ID:   F 2022(634)
Highway:   IH 20   Contract #:   11233201
Length:   10.402   CCSJ:   0005-13-064
Limits:   
From:   EAST OF JBS PARKWAY   Check:   $100,000
To:   MIDLAND COUNTY LINE   Misc Cost:   
Estimate   $284,174,507.74   % Over/Under   Company
Bidder 1   $260,876,639.92   -8.20%   SUNDT CONSTRUCTION, INC.
Bidder 2   $272,817,245.95   -4.00%   JAMES CONSTRUCTION GROUP, LLC
Bidder 3   $299,992,051.72   +5.57%   WEBBER, LLC
Bidder 4   $338,646,883.57   +19.17%   PULICE CONSTRUCTION, INC.
Bidder 5   $346,826,743.95   +22.05%   FNF CONSTRUCTION, INC.

On Wednesday bids were opened for the next section, which is 5.3 miles located south of the Midland airport (from county road 1300 to county road 1250).
http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/03063201.htm (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/03063201.htm)

County:   MIDLAND   Let Date:   03/06/24
Type:   WIDEN ROAD - ADD LANES   Seq No:   3201
Time:   0 X   Project ID:   C 5-14-94
Highway:   IH 20   Contract #:   03243201
Length:   5.372   CCSJ:   0005-14-094
Limits:   
From:   EAST OF CR 1300   Check:   $100,000
To:   EAST OF CR 1250   Misc Cost:   
Estimate   $202,736,699.14   % Over/Under   Company
Bidder 1   $186,258,258.44   -8.13%   SUNDT CONSTRUCTION, INC.
Bidder 2   $193,859,220.00   -4.38%   JAMES CONSTRUCTION GROUP, LLC
Bidder 3   $195,973,810.87   -3.34%   PULICE CONSTRUCTION, INC.