News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

I-69 in TX

Started by Grzrd, October 09, 2010, 01:18:12 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

sparker

Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 26, 2019, 12:40:22 PM
It's an interesting question. I'm sure a significant amount of long distance EB I-40 traffic does turn North at I-55 in West Memphis. Long distance motorists, regardless whether their vehicles are personal or commercial, are drawn to the Interstates due to the consistent higher speeds, no traffic lights, intersections, fewer speed traps, etc.

It's all but guaranteed that a completed I-57 between North Little Rock and Sikeston would pull a good amount of that long distance traffic away from Memphis, even if the mileage savings aren't all that great. Routing I-57 up to Poplar Bluff then across to Sikeston takes away some of the mileage savings. OTOH, vehicles heading for more Northerly destinations would be able to avoid the Memphis area and traffic associated with it. That might result in a good chunk of reduced drive time. And that benefit for using I-57 would relieve some of the traffic load on I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis.

It's probably a safe bet that ADOT has calculated an estimate of the amount of commercial (read heavy truck) traffic that would be diverted from I-40 when the bi-state I-57 project was completed -- with an eye toward perhaps rolling back or postponing I-40 upgrades (except, one would hope, the more egregious/substandard sections).  Perhaps ADOT will do repairs and any necessary bridge replacement to I-40 but simply reduce the amount of 6-laning that might be in the present plans.  At this point, how they intend to prioritize these various projects remains to be seen.  On one hand, the congestion -- not to mention the wear & tear -- on I-40 is an issue that has been in the forefront for decades, OTOH, if it is calculated that a completed I-57 would remove a significant percentage of the most problematic traffic, then the question of which to prioritize might just come down to intra-state political issues & power (and how cooperative MO is on their end).


Bobby5280

It's a toss up over what should be the higher priority, finish I-57 first or do a major upgrade of I-40.

The tough thing about this is it looks like a lot of I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis is just asphalt or asphalt overlaid on top of old concrete. Very little of that road looks new. To me, it looks like ARDOT needs to do like Texas has been doing with I-35 between Austin and Dallas: do a complete tear down and re-build of the road decks (as well as the ramps, bridges, etc). It's going to be expensive as hell, but that is one of the most vital highway links in the entire Interstate system. So the Feds need to show their happy asses up to the table for this one. That stretch of road affects much of the country, not just a little portion of Arkansas.

But! In order to do a major re-build of a highway like that, it would really help if some of the traffic load could be diverted. And that gets us back to the idea of maybe finishing much or all of I-57 first. A complete I-57 might help a major re-build of I-40 to not turn into a nightmare-inducing snarl.

Even with I-57 completed there will still be a heavy (and growing) burden of traffic on that part of I-40. The road needs to be at least 3 lanes in each direction, if not 4 along some stretches. The big metros in Texas are still growing like a damn virus and that's going to pump more commerce along I-30 thru Little Rock to points farther North and East. Some rapid growth is also taking place farther East in places like the Raleigh-Durham area and Nashville. That's more commerce along I-40. I see no way avoiding widening I-40 there.

MikieTimT

Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 26, 2019, 12:40:22 PM
It's an interesting question. I'm sure a significant amount of long distance EB I-40 traffic does turn North at I-55 in West Memphis. Long distance motorists, regardless whether their vehicles are personal or commercial, are drawn to the Interstates due to the consistent higher speeds, no traffic lights, intersections, fewer speed traps, etc.

It's all but guaranteed that a completed I-57 between North Little Rock and Sikeston would pull a good amount of that long distance traffic away from Memphis, even if the mileage savings aren't all that great. Routing I-57 up to Poplar Bluff then across to Sikeston takes away some of the mileage savings. OTOH, vehicles heading for more Northerly destinations would be able to avoid the Memphis area and traffic associated with it. That might result in a good chunk of reduced drive time. And that benefit for using I-57 would relieve some of the traffic load on I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis.

I don't exactly know how to do the figuring on what you're asking, but I think the answer might lie in here somewhere with some maths.

https://www.arkansashighways.com/System_Info_and_Research/traffic_info/TrafficCountyMaps/2018ADT/ADT_Crittenden_18B.pdf

kphoger

Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

yakra

"Officer, I'm always careful to drive the speed limit no matter where I am and that's what I was doin'." Said "No, you weren't," she said, "Yes, I was." He said, "Madam, I just clocked you at 22 MPH," and she said "That's the speed limit," he said "No ma'am, that's the route numbah!"  - Gary Crocker

MikieTimT

Quote from: sparker on July 26, 2019, 12:00:12 PM
Quote from: Echostatic on July 25, 2019, 02:59:11 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 25, 2019, 01:36:24 PM
The I-40 bridge over the Mississippi into Memphis isn't getting any younger either.

The Hernando de Soto bridge is already six lanes, and it's only 46 years old. There's only three/four Lower Mississippi crossings newer than that, depending on how you count it. I don't think it needs replacing any time in the next 30 years unless disaster strikes Memphis.

I-40 absolutely needs to be three lanes from Memphis to Little Rock. I-30 could use with it as well, but it's not quite as important.

The I-57 extension, if it's ever completed, will probably just take more traffic from I-55 than any other highway. I-40 is still going to be a massive corridor heading East into Tennessee and onwards, and I-30's traffic counts probably won't much.
Quote from: Verlanka on July 26, 2019, 05:18:13 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 25, 2019, 01:36:24 PM
Even if both I-57 and I-69 are finished within the not so distant future I-40 is still going to be the first route of choice for a giant amount of traffic moving East-West through the South Central US. It's the most direct route for one. I-30 runs along a fairly straight diagonal path as well.

I totally agree.

Got a question -- has ADOT actually undertaken any sort of count to determine how much of the EB traffic on I-40 between Little Rock and I-55 actually turns north at I-55 (ostensibly en route to Chicago and other Great Lakes destinations) rather than continuing east into Memphis? (and this question, of course, applies to the opposite directional movement as well).   Presumably some sort of data in this vein, even of the rudimentary variety, was available prior to the push for the complete development of the I-57 corridor.   

I just realized I quoted the wrong person with my earlier submission.

This is the latest traffic counts available for the I-40/I-55 junctions, but I confess I can't really make heads or tails of it.

https://www.arkansashighways.com/System_Info_and_Research/traffic_info/TrafficCountyMaps/2018ADT/ADT_Crittenden_18B.pdf

wxfree

Quote from: MikieTimT on July 29, 2019, 12:23:32 PM
Quote from: sparker on July 26, 2019, 12:00:12 PM
Quote from: Echostatic on July 25, 2019, 02:59:11 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 25, 2019, 01:36:24 PM
The I-40 bridge over the Mississippi into Memphis isn't getting any younger either.

The Hernando de Soto bridge is already six lanes, and it's only 46 years old. There's only three/four Lower Mississippi crossings newer than that, depending on how you count it. I don't think it needs replacing any time in the next 30 years unless disaster strikes Memphis.

I-40 absolutely needs to be three lanes from Memphis to Little Rock. I-30 could use with it as well, but it's not quite as important.

The I-57 extension, if it's ever completed, will probably just take more traffic from I-55 than any other highway. I-40 is still going to be a massive corridor heading East into Tennessee and onwards, and I-30's traffic counts probably won't much.
Quote from: Verlanka on July 26, 2019, 05:18:13 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 25, 2019, 01:36:24 PM
Even if both I-57 and I-69 are finished within the not so distant future I-40 is still going to be the first route of choice for a giant amount of traffic moving East-West through the South Central US. It's the most direct route for one. I-30 runs along a fairly straight diagonal path as well.

I totally agree.

Got a question -- has ADOT actually undertaken any sort of count to determine how much of the EB traffic on I-40 between Little Rock and I-55 actually turns north at I-55 (ostensibly en route to Chicago and other Great Lakes destinations) rather than continuing east into Memphis? (and this question, of course, applies to the opposite directional movement as well).   Presumably some sort of data in this vein, even of the rudimentary variety, was available prior to the push for the complete development of the I-57 corridor.   

I just realized I quoted the wrong person with my earlier submission.

This is the latest traffic counts available for the I-40/I-55 junctions, but I confess I can't really make heads or tails of it.

https://www.arkansashighways.com/System_Info_and_Research/traffic_info/TrafficCountyMaps/2018ADT/ADT_Crittenden_18B.pdf

I like the spot where the count on I-55 is 50, and then right beside it is 42,000.  I'm not sure that map has heads or tails to be made.
I'd like to buy a vowel, Alex.  What is E?

kphoger

Quote from: wxfree on July 29, 2019, 05:18:37 PM
Quote from: MikieTimT on July 29, 2019, 12:23:32 PM
Quote from: sparker on July 26, 2019, 12:00:12 PM
Quote from: Echostatic on July 25, 2019, 02:59:11 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 25, 2019, 01:36:24 PM
The I-40 bridge over the Mississippi into Memphis isn't getting any younger either.

The Hernando de Soto bridge is already six lanes, and it's only 46 years old. There's only three/four Lower Mississippi crossings newer than that, depending on how you count it. I don't think it needs replacing any time in the next 30 years unless disaster strikes Memphis.

I-40 absolutely needs to be three lanes from Memphis to Little Rock. I-30 could use with it as well, but it's not quite as important.

The I-57 extension, if it's ever completed, will probably just take more traffic from I-55 than any other highway. I-40 is still going to be a massive corridor heading East into Tennessee and onwards, and I-30's traffic counts probably won't much.
Quote from: Verlanka on July 26, 2019, 05:18:13 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 25, 2019, 01:36:24 PM
Even if both I-57 and I-69 are finished within the not so distant future I-40 is still going to be the first route of choice for a giant amount of traffic moving East-West through the South Central US. It's the most direct route for one. I-30 runs along a fairly straight diagonal path as well.

I totally agree.

Got a question -- has ADOT actually undertaken any sort of count to determine how much of the EB traffic on I-40 between Little Rock and I-55 actually turns north at I-55 (ostensibly en route to Chicago and other Great Lakes destinations) rather than continuing east into Memphis? (and this question, of course, applies to the opposite directional movement as well).   Presumably some sort of data in this vein, even of the rudimentary variety, was available prior to the push for the complete development of the I-57 corridor.   

I just realized I quoted the wrong person with my earlier submission.

This is the latest traffic counts available for the I-40/I-55 junctions, but I confess I can't really make heads or tails of it.

https://www.arkansashighways.com/System_Info_and_Research/traffic_info/TrafficCountyMaps/2018ADT/ADT_Crittenden_18B.pdf

I like the spot where the count on I-55 is 50, and then right beside it is 42,000.  I'm not sure that map has heads or tails to be made.

50 is for the service road next to I-55, a.k.a. Dacus Lake Road.  42,000 is for I-55 itself.  Here is the interactive version.
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

wxfree

I was wondering if there was a significance to the mark being on the side or in the middle.  Just north of the concurrency, I-55 is shown with a count of 6,000 in the middle.  That can't be right.  The interactive map shows the number along the frontage road.  I-40 is shown with a count of 36,000 on the edge, which is obviously a freeway number.  At that point, there isn't a frontage road.  That map needs to be put together better.
I'd like to buy a vowel, Alex.  What is E?

MikieTimT

Actually, the interactive map was quite helpful when zoomed into the proper area.  The theory that an I-57 would reduce the I-40E/I-55N traffic in Arkansas and Missouri by providing a shortcut doesn't look like it would go very far to me to reduce traffic on those segments.  The I-40E -> I-55N ramp has a 2018 AADT count of 6600 and the southbound ramp from I-55 north of I-40 -> I-40 westbound has a 2018 AADT of 6800, which isn't a very large amount of traffic to reduce.  Some probably small subset of those counts would be local traffic as well, so we're probably talking about at most 5000 vehicles a day both ways of through traffic that could be shunted over to a completed I-57.  Alas, it doesn't look like its completion would affect timelines for I-40 expansion between LR and Mem significantly.

sparker

Quote from: MikieTimT on July 30, 2019, 02:26:36 PM
Actually, the interactive map was quite helpful when zoomed into the proper area.  The theory that an I-57 would reduce the I-40E/I-55N traffic in Arkansas and Missouri by providing a shortcut doesn't look like it would go very far to me to reduce traffic on those segments.  The I-40E -> I-55N ramp has a 2018 AADT count of 6600 and the southbound ramp from I-55 north of I-40 -> I-40 westbound has a 2018 AADT of 6800, which isn't a very large amount of traffic to reduce.  Some probably small subset of those counts would be local traffic as well, so we're probably talking about at most 5000 vehicles a day both ways of through traffic that could be shunted over to a completed I-57.  Alas, it doesn't look like its completion would affect timelines for I-40 expansion between LR and Mem significantly.

It would be useful if that 6.6K/6.8K count could be broken out into commercial vs. other traffic (or, even more telling, axle-weight loading figures!).  Since overall volume is only part of the issue on I-40 LR>Memphis -- and high proportions of truck traffic within that aggregate figure provide much of the wear & tear on the facility, a significant diversion of that part via the nascent I-57 would likely be welcomed within ADOT -- OTOH, it may, as surmised earlier, result in a more "leisurely" approach to I-40 upgrades -- which might simply be an act of "kicking the can down the road" in the long run.

kphoger

Quote from: sparker on July 30, 2019, 05:38:24 PM

Quote from: MikieTimT on July 30, 2019, 02:26:36 PM
Actually, the interactive map was quite helpful when zoomed into the proper area.  The theory that an I-57 would reduce the I-40E/I-55N traffic in Arkansas and Missouri by providing a shortcut doesn't look like it would go very far to me to reduce traffic on those segments.  The I-40E -> I-55N ramp has a 2018 AADT count of 6600 and the southbound ramp from I-55 north of I-40 -> I-40 westbound has a 2018 AADT of 6800, which isn't a very large amount of traffic to reduce.  Some probably small subset of those counts would be local traffic as well, so we're probably talking about at most 5000 vehicles a day both ways of through traffic that could be shunted over to a completed I-57.  Alas, it doesn't look like its completion would affect timelines for I-40 expansion between LR and Mem significantly.

It would be useful if that 6.6K/6.8K count could be broken out into commercial vs. other traffic (or, even more telling, axle-weight loading figures!).  Since overall volume is only part of the issue on I-40 LR>Memphis -- and high proportions of truck traffic within that aggregate figure provide much of the wear & tear on the facility, a significant diversion of that part via the nascent I-57 would likely be welcomed within ADOT -- OTOH, it may, as surmised earlier, result in a more "leisurely" approach to I-40 upgrades -- which might simply be an act of "kicking the can down the road" in the long run.

I can't find truck percentages on that ramp specifically, but I can tell you truck percentages on the mainline Interstates on all sides of that interchange (as of 2014), and the numbers are striking.

I-55 north of the interchange = 46% trucks
I-40 west of the interchange = 58% trucks
I-40 east of the interchange = 5% trucks
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

sparker

Quote from: kphoger on July 30, 2019, 05:55:48 PM
Quote from: sparker on July 30, 2019, 05:38:24 PM

Quote from: MikieTimT on July 30, 2019, 02:26:36 PM
Actually, the interactive map was quite helpful when zoomed into the proper area.  The theory that an I-57 would reduce the I-40E/I-55N traffic in Arkansas and Missouri by providing a shortcut doesn't look like it would go very far to me to reduce traffic on those segments.  The I-40E -> I-55N ramp has a 2018 AADT count of 6600 and the southbound ramp from I-55 north of I-40 -> I-40 westbound has a 2018 AADT of 6800, which isn't a very large amount of traffic to reduce.  Some probably small subset of those counts would be local traffic as well, so we're probably talking about at most 5000 vehicles a day both ways of through traffic that could be shunted over to a completed I-57.  Alas, it doesn't look like its completion would affect timelines for I-40 expansion between LR and Mem significantly.

It would be useful if that 6.6K/6.8K count could be broken out into commercial vs. other traffic (or, even more telling, axle-weight loading figures!).  Since overall volume is only part of the issue on I-40 LR>Memphis -- and high proportions of truck traffic within that aggregate figure provide much of the wear & tear on the facility, a significant diversion of that part via the nascent I-57 would likely be welcomed within ADOT -- OTOH, it may, as surmised earlier, result in a more "leisurely" approach to I-40 upgrades -- which might simply be an act of "kicking the can down the road" in the long run.

I can't find truck percentages on that ramp specifically, but I can tell you truck percentages on the mainline Interstates on all sides of that interchange (as of 2014), and the numbers are striking.

I-55 north of the interchange = 46% trucks
I-40 west of the interchange = 58% trucks
I-40 east of the interchange = 5% trucks

Striking?...yes...Weird?....also yes!  The I-40/55 (west) interchange, besides being a traffic distributor/collector, also marks the essential western limits of the Memphis urban area, particularly the spillover into AR.  North and west of there one would normally find the high percentage of truck traffic indicated -- but dropping to only 5% east of the interchange seems highly unlikely; a volume drop of half, to somewhere around 25% (give or take) of the total would be exceptionally significant; 5% seems positively ludicrous (I've been through there several times, and the overall volume on the combined 40/55 segment, while substantial, isn't enough to make a 5% figure feasible).  My question is -- was that 5% figure derived from I-40 east of the EB split with I-55?  Since both the FedEx hub, the RR container terminals, and the airport (with its higher-than-usual freight volume) are nominally accessed via I-55 and the segue onto EB I-240, it would only make sense (and again, bolstered by personal experience) that the Harahan bridge would bear most of the commercial brunt of inbound/outbound commercial traffic crossing the river.  The I-40 crossing would be used primarily by commercial traffic intending to simply continue east from metro Memphis by staying on that route; if a EB drop of 53% would occur anywhere on that local freeway network, it would be along that stretch.     

kphoger

Quote from: sparker on July 30, 2019, 06:45:05 PM
My question is -- was that 5% figure derived from I-40 east of the EB split with I-55? 

Nope.  See for yourself:

Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

kphoger

The 2010 through 2013 maps didn't have a truck percentage for that in-between stretch (I didn't bother looking back further).  East of the eastern split had 28% trucks in 2013, 21% in 2012.
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

sparker

^^^^^^^^^
There don't seem to be any reference points on I-40 between the I-55 split and the river, but some of the numbers farther SE on I-55 are considerably higher than the 5% shown immediately east of the western 40/55 interchange -- looks like the 5% is either a misprint, a misinterpretation of data -- or there's one big honking truck stop at or near that point, and trucks are getting off there and getting back on an exit down the line past the data collection point.  I'd surmise one of the first two for an explanation (I certainly don't remember such a roadside facility -- but then I was hardly looking for one!).  In any case, the numbers do indicate that a significant portion of the EB traffic peels off onto NB I-55; such would be expected by simply looking at the configuration of the Interstate network in the region, considering the fact that Chicagoland and other Great Lakes metro areas are principal destinations and originators of commercial shipments merely supports a conclusion that EB40>NB55 -- and vice-versa -- is a main commercial composite corridor, and that a completed I-57 would likely draw off more than a small bit of that traffic.   

rte66man

Quote from: sparker on July 31, 2019, 12:59:01 AM
^^^^^^^^^
There don't seem to be any reference points on I-40 between the I-55 split and the river, but some of the numbers farther SE on I-55 are considerably higher than the 5% shown immediately east of the western 40/55 interchange -- looks like the 5% is either a misprint, a misinterpretation of data -- or there's one big honking truck stop at or near that point, and trucks are getting off there and getting back on an exit down the line past the data collection point.   

There's a Loves, Flying J, Pilot, and a Petro Stop at the MLK exit:
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.1545671,-90.1355104,1828m/data=!3m1!1e3

The truck traffic there is unreal.  I've learned to get gas at ANY other exit to avoid the snarls.
When you come to a fork in the road... TAKE IT.

                                                               -Yogi Berra

sparker

Quote from: rte66man on August 03, 2019, 09:02:11 AM
Quote from: sparker on July 31, 2019, 12:59:01 AM
^^^^^^^^^
There don't seem to be any reference points on I-40 between the I-55 split and the river, but some of the numbers farther SE on I-55 are considerably higher than the 5% shown immediately east of the western 40/55 interchange -- looks like the 5% is either a misprint, a misinterpretation of data -- or there's one big honking truck stop at or near that point, and trucks are getting off there and getting back on an exit down the line past the data collection point.   

There's a Loves, Flying J, Pilot, and a Petro Stop at the MLK exit:
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.1545671,-90.1355104,1828m/data=!3m1!1e3

The truck traffic there is unreal.  I've learned to get gas at ANY other exit to avoid the snarls.


So -- big old honking truck stop -- or series of such -- is indeed a possible explanation for the low commercial volume at a specific point.  Haven't had the opportunity nor the need to exit there on several trips through the area, so really never paid much notice.  But the location, along a multiplex of a major E-W and corresponding N-S corridor, is an obvious one from a revenue standpoint.  It would be interesting to compare the total number of transactions taking place at this collective location and compare it to the commercial traffic count just to see what portion of that driving segment actually utilizes those facilities -- or to form one of the data points for some regression analyses.   

sprjus4

Took a drive down US-77 / I-69E between I-37 and Kingsville this past weekend...

Most of the routing is now completed as full freeway, between south of Kingsville to north of Bishop, and north of Driscoll to I-37. The remaining gap is between north of Bishop and north of Driscoll, which is currently underway.

The segment between north of Bishop and the southern section of the Driscoll bypass is well under construction, with two new carriageways (one northbound mainline, one northbound frontage road) being built, while the segment between the existing freeway to the north and the northern section of the Driscoll bypass has not been placed under construction yet, though should begin in the next few months.

One interesting thing I noticed is signage along the freeway mainline and frontage roads between I-37 and north of Driscoll is signed as "I-69" as opposed to "I-69E". While I personally agree this should be the only I-69 and the other I-69's should have different numbers (I-4 should replace I-69W, I-x04 should replace the SH-44 spur, and I-39 or something similar for I-69C), it doesn't make sense why "I-69E" signage is not being used assuming the current three I-69's plan is being implemented.

Another thing, no exit numbers exist along any of the freeway segments between Kingsville and I-37, even the half that is signed as I-69. Are there any plans to add them, or will this become the first interstate highway in the country to lack exit numbers?

Also, this isn't directly related to this particular I-69 segment, but has TXDOT lost interest in grassy medians? Many of the new segments of I-69 proposed such as 40 miles of upgrades on US-59 between Rosenburg and Louise, 40 miles of upgrades along US-281 between Falfurrius and the existing I-69C near Edinburg, the recently completed upgrades around Bishop, the proposed Corrigan bypass, and others are being designed to have a 10-12 foot left paved shoulder and a barrier and a significant amount of grassy divider between the mainline and frontage roads, yet no grassy median. Even a 40-46 ft grassy median seen on other recent upgrades is far better than a barrier. I support upgrade to a freeway, but not the current designs being used.

Finally, why is the speed limit only 70 mph on the rural freeway segments between I-37 and Kingsville, yet the at-grade expressway segment is 75 mph? Hopefully this doesn't become a new thing, lowering the speed limit to 70 mph on each new freeway segment completed.

Bobby5280

Quote from: sprjus4Also, this isn't directly related to this particular I-69 segment, but has TXDOT lost interest in grassy medians? Many of the new segments of I-69 proposed such as 40 miles of upgrades on US-59 between Rosenburg and Louise, 40 miles of upgrades along US-281 between Falfurrius and the existing I-69C near Edinburg, the recently completed upgrades around Bishop, the proposed Corrigan bypass, and others are being designed to have a 10-12 foot left paved shoulder and a barrier and a significant amount of grassy divider between the mainline and frontage roads, yet no grassy median. Even a 40-46 ft grassy median seen on other recent upgrades is far better than a barrier. I support upgrade to a freeway, but not the current designs being used.

I'm not a fan of narrow Interstates either, but I think it makes sense why TX DOT is choosing such designs for I-69 system routes in South Texas.

Obviously that kind of design is cheaper to build. The same amount of concrete or asphalt is being laid down for the two carriageways joined together as they would if they were separated by a wide median. However, less work is required for engineering, grading, landscape work, drainage, etc due to the lack of a grassy median. Hopefully TX DOT goes with a substantial concrete Jersey barrier for separating the opposing roadways rather than a dinky cable barrier. I-44 South of Lawton, OK has a cable barrier on it rather than a Jersey barrier. The cable barrier approach looks cheap. Plus at night drivers get to see the full glare of oncoming headlights in the opposing lanes. Jersey barriers hide at least some headlight glare.

A narrow profile Interstate can be less disruptive to property owners along the existing highway. The ROW isn't nearly as wide. TX DOT still has to incorporate limited run frontage roads along US-77 (future I-69E), US-281 (future I-69C) and US-59 (future I-69W) for farm and ranch access. A narrow profile Interstate will make it easier and cheaper to add frontage roads and slip ramps without having to acquire too much in the way of land next to the highway corridor.

sprjus4

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 12, 2019, 06:49:04 PM
Quote from: sprjus4Also, this isn't directly related to this particular I-69 segment, but has TXDOT lost interest in grassy medians? Many of the new segments of I-69 proposed such as 40 miles of upgrades on US-59 between Rosenburg and Louise, 40 miles of upgrades along US-281 between Falfurrius and the existing I-69C near Edinburg, the recently completed upgrades around Bishop, the proposed Corrigan bypass, and others are being designed to have a 10-12 foot left paved shoulder and a barrier and a significant amount of grassy divider between the mainline and frontage roads, yet no grassy median. Even a 40-46 ft grassy median seen on other recent upgrades is far better than a barrier. I support upgrade to a freeway, but not the current designs being used.

I'm not a fan of narrow Interstates either, but I think it makes sense why TX DOT is choosing such designs for I-69 system routes in South Texas.

Obviously that kind of design is cheaper to build. The same amount of concrete or asphalt is being laid down for the two carriageways joined together as they would if they were separated by a wide median. However, less work is required for engineering, grading, landscape work, drainage, etc due to the lack of a grassy median. Hopefully TX DOT goes with a substantial concrete Jersey barrier for separating the opposing roadways rather than a dinky cable barrier. I-44 South of Lawton, OK has a cable barrier on it rather than a Jersey barrier. The cable barrier approach looks cheap. Plus at night drivers get to see the full glare of oncoming headlights in the opposing lanes. Jersey barriers hide at least some headlight glare.

A narrow profile Interstate can be less disruptive to property owners along the existing highway. The ROW isn't nearly as wide. TX DOT still has to incorporate limited run frontage roads along US-77 (future I-69E), US-281 (future I-69C) and US-59 (future I-69W) for farm and ranch access. A narrow profile Interstate will make it easier and cheaper to add frontage roads and slip ramps without having to acquire too much in the way of land next to the highway corridor.
In regards to the type of divider, the segments complete use a full jersey barrier wall, not a guard rail.

As for the right of way, it's still the same. The segments with a narrow, barrier median footprint have more separation between the frontage road and the mainline as opposed to the segments with a grassy median, where the additional space is compensated by shrinking the area between the frontage road and mainline.

Echostatic

When the state doesn't already own the ROW, it's almost always much cheaper and more efficient to build a single carriageway with a concrete or cable barrier. This is especially true for highways without frontage roads. Sometimes rebuilds are done the same way for less disruptive construction. Most of I-35 from Austin to DFW was rebuilt without any median, even though the ROW was already there. Same with the new-built Texas 45 SW and Loop 49.

Maybe it's just a Texas thing, like convenient U-turns and frontage roads.
Travelled in part or in full.

Bobby5280

I like the completed, re-built portions of I-35 between Austin and Dallas. Even though the road is technically one big carriageway it doesn't seem narrow and cramped at all (unlike a lot of older turnpikes in places like Pennsylvania and here in Oklahoma). The re-built segments of I-35 are typically at least 3 lanes in each direction, plus ample left and right shoulders. It feels kind of like driving on a big city freeway, but out in the country.

Part of the Turner Turnpike (I-44) between Oklahoma City and Tulsa was recently improved. Specifically the expansion starts at about mile marker 203 and goes to about mile marker 216. The road goes from two lanes in each direction to three. But the difference you see at MM 203 is pretty huge. It's feels like an entirely different highway. Just like those parts of I-35 in Texas, this portion of I-44 seems like driving on a much more modern big city freeway. I hope the OTA can upgrade all of the Turner Turnpike in this manner. The 3-3 arrangement ends at the split with the Creek Turnpike unfortunately. I-44 goes back to the old 2-2 configuration until the merge with OK-66 at the East end of the Turner Turnpike.

Modern (wider) left and right shoulders can also make a difference. About 6 miles of the H.E. Bailey Turnpike (I-44 again) just South of OKC had its road bed completely re-built. The beefed up shoulders seem to give the main lanes on the road a little more visual breathing room.

sprjus4

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 13, 2019, 01:56:01 PM
I like the completed, re-built portions of I-35 between Austin and Dallas. Even though the road is technically one big carriageway it doesn't seem narrow and cramped at all (unlike a lot of older turnpikes in places like Pennsylvania and here in Oklahoma). The re-built segments of I-35 are typically at least 3 lanes in each direction, plus ample left and right shoulders. It feels kind of like driving on a big city freeway, but out in the country.

Part of the Turner Turnpike (I-44) between Oklahoma City and Tulsa was recently improved. Specifically the expansion starts at about mile marker 203 and goes to about mile marker 216. The road goes from two lanes in each direction to three. But the difference you see at MM 203 is pretty huge. It's feels like an entirely different highway. Just like those parts of I-35 in Texas, this portion of I-44 seems like driving on a much more modern big city freeway. I hope the OTA can upgrade all of the Turner Turnpike in this manner. The 3-3 arrangement ends at the split with the Creek Turnpike unfortunately. I-44 goes back to the old 2-2 configuration until the merge with OK-66 at the East end of the Turner Turnpike.

Modern (wider) left and right shoulders can also make a difference. About 6 miles of the H.E. Bailey Turnpike (I-44 again) just South of OKC had its road bed completely re-built. The beefed up shoulders seem to give the main lanes on the road a little more visual breathing room.
I don't mind median barrier as long as there's at least 3 lanes each way (which there is on I-35). As of my recent drive down I-35, it is at least 3-lanes each way between SH-130 and the I-35W / I-35E split, and a good majority has median barrier. I'm not a big fan of median barrier when only 2 lanes each way exist, though I will agree having a full 12 foot left shoulder is better than a narrow shoulder that is acceptable when a grassy median is present. At least TxDOT is doing that properly.

I had read somewhere the design with the narrow median on I-69 projects is being done to eventually accommodate outside widening to 3 lanes each way, an ultimate design similar to I-35's 6-lane sections. I like the concept, but IMO the highway should be built with 2 lanes each way and a 46 foot grassy median from the start, and then the future widening should occur in the median as opposed to the outside. Less impacts on the ramps too. In the end, both my proposed concept and TxDOT's currently in use concept result in the same ultimate typical section - 3 lanes each way with median barrier & full left / right shoulders.

Bobby5280

Hopefully TX DOT is building up the berm for the I-69 roadway so it will have room to add a third, outboard lane in the future.

The recently completed expansion of I-44 along the Turner Turnpike looks like the roadway berm is wide enough to actually add a fourth lane in both directions. Many of the new bridges along that specific stretch have foot prints to allow 4 lanes in both directions. These new bridges over I-44 seem very heavy and massive compared to the older existing bridges elsewhere along the turnpike. One example is the S 209th W Ave bridge over I-44. It's just a little 2 lane road going over the highway, but the bridge piers and concrete girders supporting the roadway are much fatter looking than the old bridges.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.