I-10 at-grade intersections in west Texas

[DJStephens]

[Split from "I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston", thread. Related thread "The Boulevard" merged in. -S.]

TxDOT has plans to eliminate 10 grade crossings in Hudspeth County.  They aren't high-ranking priorities, but they are on the radar.

http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/tpp/rural_2035/report/0512/trtp_appendix_e_district.pdf.pdf

That's a list.  Here's a map.

http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/tpp/rural_2035/el_paso.pdf

Traveled this corridor last month.  Nothing has changed.  Figure with all the waste in El Paso, proper, some pennies/dollars could have been thrown this direction. 

[sprjus4]

^

I would assume there's greater demand for urban projects in El Paso vs. removing some minor, virtually never used at grade intersections on a lightly traveled highway.

[Avalanchez71]

There is definitely a good number of I-10 segments that could use upgrades from 2 lanes to 3 lanes in both directions. However, I-10 goes through some pretty remote area too. I think it would be strange to have a 3-3 highway setup in West Texas yet still have all those damned at-grade gravel driveways connecting to the highway. With such a sub-standard thing being allowed to fly on an Interstate in West Texas one could make a good argument to sign I-40 all the way to Bakersfield, CA. 

   The ranch access gates and cross-overs are in remote stretches of I-10 both east and west of Van Horn.   Am sure exceptions were granted for those ranchers, to avoid the need to build expensive exits, interchanges, and frontages that could stretch for miles.  If I-10 was built to complete "limited access" there, these facilities would have been used by a handful.   The pre-existing US 80 was completely laid over/eliminated by the interstate for much of those sections. 
    There are also ranch access gates in the ranch property area of I-10 between Tucson, and Benson, AZ.

Regardless of the costs, they need to either build interchanges or collector roads that lead to interchanges no matter how rural the area is. Standards should be followed.

Then are you saying that it should be marked as US 80 in that area?  There are times when waivers and exceptions should be granted when warranted.  There is no need for a continuous super highway in the area.  Money doesn't grow on trees.  If Texans want to spend the money then they will spend it.  They were granted the waiver and it was signed as I-10.  Perhaps they should have signed it as US 80 to I-10 to meet your standard.

[Plutonic Panda]

I'm an unsure what you are saying but IMHO any road designated as an interstate should adhere to standards with zero exceptions. That means no at grade intersections anywhere.

[sprjus4]

I'm an unsure what you are saying but IMHO any road designated as an interstate should adhere to standards with zero exceptions. That means no at grade intersections anywhere.

There's zero reason to not sign I-10 through that area, besides satisfying a few road geeks. It would cause more confusion to long distance travelers when all of a sudden "I-10" is gone for dozens of miles.

[Bobby5280]

Historically, many Interstate highways were not signed for their entire length. The non-interstate quality segments were signed as other highways, sometimes with a "TO" Interstate sign marker to go along with it. That condition existed for decades. As far as I'm concerned I-40 in the Texas Panhandle and I-10 in West Texas are technically un-finished Interstates.

Let's also not forget both I-10 and I-40 are major Interstate routes. They're not more "minor" Interstate routes, such as I-27. Funny thing, I-27 between Lubbock and Amarillo has continuous frontage roads along nearly all its length with one or maybe two exceptions where the frontage roads end just short of a rail line. Yet TX DOT can't manage to build frontage roads along I-40 the last few miles to the New Mexico border.

[ran4sh]

Historically, many Interstate highways were not signed for their entire length. The non-interstate quality segments were signed as other highways, sometimes with a "TO" Interstate sign marker to go along with it. That condition existed for decades. As far as I'm concerned I-40 in the Texas Panhandle and I-10 in West Texas are technically un-finished Interstates.

Let's also not forget both I-10 and I-40 are major Interstate routes. They're not more "minor" Interstate routes, such as I-27. Funny thing, I-27 between Lubbock and Amarillo has continuous frontage roads along nearly all its length with one or maybe two exceptions where the frontage roads end just short of a rail line. Yet TX DOT can't manage to build frontage roads along I-40 the last few miles to the New Mexico border.

That condition only existed because eventually the interstate was built and no longer had disconnected segments.

Going back to how things were back then, would absolutely not be an improvement.

Frontage roads don't exist to help traffic, they exist so that the property owner maintains access (in TX they decided that it costs less to build such roads than to buy out the property owners' access rights). The fact that they often help traffic is a beneficial side effect rather than the actual purpose.

[sprjus4]

So they are rebuilding the roadbed then. I thought this was  simple add an interior lane in the median and add a layer of black top like they did with I-35 between SAT and AUS. But they are doing a full on rebuild ala I-35 Salado to Hillsboro.

This seems to be Texas' approach to widening in the modern day, which IMO is good in the long run.

[sprjus4]

Let's also not forget both I-10 and I-40 are major Interstate routes. They're not more "minor" Interstate routes, such as I-27.

But none of them (I-10, I-27, I-40) carry volumes over 20,000 AADT, let alone barely over 10,000 AADT in most areas. They may be major in the sense of long-haul travel, but they are not carrying high levels of traffic.

A multi-million dollar project (overpass bridges, ramps, frontage roads, etc.) to remove the few private farm/ranch access points that gated up the vast majority of the time and virtually never used is an absolute waste of money and resources, especially when to the state, the highway is already "Interstate Highway 10" and "Interstate Highway 40" and officially designated as such. There's no safety issue posed by them, the interstates in question do not serve high volumes of traffic, etc.

If this was new construction, I'd agree it should be included in such a project. But this is a condition that has existed for decades and not affected anybody.

Again, it's a non-existent issue made into one by a few roadgeeks that would involve a costly remedy when it has virtually zero impact in the public eye. It's a waste of limited tax dollars.

[In_Correct]

If some body says "Waste Of Tax Dollars" be prepared to say every waste of tax dollars or they are hypocrites.

Bandage Solutions need not be applied to Interstates.

Do it right, or go back to U.S. Highway.

[sprjus4]

Bandage Solutions need not be applied to Interstates.

Do it right, or go back to U.S. Highway.

It's been an interstate highway for decades. It's never going to go back.

[sprjus4]

Now, I must admit, something like this... needs to go.

https://www.google.com/maps/@31.1969822,-105.5828985,3a,39.1y,274.42h,86.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skD3sDGrj2ffmZLUlMqmBeQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

To the point where it connects to the frontage road (well, a number of the at-grade intersections seem to do that, but it seems they could merely close the break in the limited access line), and there's a sign saying this is I-10...

And this is the "dead end", it's virtually an off-ramp.

https://www.google.com/maps/@31.182461,-105.6221584,3a,47.4y,94.96h,81.55t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGcrSDv-SwnEtSB-mcfF1ew!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

Here's another beauty that gives the cardinal directions. I don't get this though... there's an interchange one mile to the east with full access. Again... why not simply close the break in the limited access line?

https://www.google.com/maps/@31.211829,-105.4972231,3a,75y,55.34h,87.71t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sE-6Qrgw9IvBOppToujoZdQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

[Plutonic Panda]

Bandage Solutions need not be applied to Interstates.

Do it right, or go back to U.S. Highway.

It's been an interstate highway for decades. It's never going to go back.

Clearly TxDOT  that disagrees that is why they are spending the money to fix it

[sprjus4]

Bandage Solutions need not be applied to Interstates.

Do it right, or go back to U.S. Highway.

It's been an interstate highway for decades. It's never going to go back.

Clearly TxDOT  that disagrees that is why they are spending the money to fix it

They disagree? How?

[Plutonic Panda]

Bandage Solutions need not be applied to Interstates.

Do it right, or go back to U.S. Highway.

It's been an interstate highway for decades. It's never going to go back.

Clearly TxDOT  that disagrees that is why they are spending the money to fix it

They disagree? How?

They're spending money to eliminate the at grade intersections are they not?

[sprjus4]

Bandage Solutions need not be applied to Interstates.

Do it right, or go back to U.S. Highway.

It's been an interstate highway for decades. It's never going to go back.

Clearly TxDOT  that disagrees that is why they are spending the money to fix it

They disagree? How?

They're spending money to eliminate the at grade intersections are they not?

I'm talking about removing the I-10 designation.

I'm all for removing the intersections, but it needs to be realized it's a very low priority.

[sparker]

Bandage Solutions need not be applied to Interstates.

Do it right, or go back to U.S. Highway.

It's been an interstate highway for decades. It's never going to go back.

Clearly TxDOT  that disagrees that is why they are spending the money to fix it

They disagree? How?

They're spending money to eliminate the at grade intersections are they not?

I'm talking about removing the I-10 designation.

I'm all for removing the intersections, but it needs to be realized it's a very low priority.

Question:  what's driving TxDOT's discussions about eliminating the at-grade crossings on I-10?  Have there been any incidents/accidents at any or all of these anomalies?  Can't imagine it being on any sort of radar otherwise -- unless some property owner out Sierra Blanca way is thinking of some sort of roadside development and has put the bug up someone's ass to get their access improved (avoiding customers or employees getting T-boned at one of the crossings might be considered beneficial!).   

[In_Correct]

You mean like this?

https://www.google.com/maps/@31.1892171,-105.4190556,3a,22.4y,304.38h,86.34t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s0IXOalRX-Wq2Bk4ywf3HWw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D0IXOalRX-Wq2Bk4ywf3HWw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D102.39008%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en

[Avalanchez71]

So are you saying that they are going to close off the ranch "exits"?

[Avalanchez71]

    Believe that is looking W, with the Border Patrol checkpoint for EB traffic in the distance.  Pretty much appears that the WB frontage there is old US 80, which in that area was retained for some reason, instead of being subsumed by either EB or WB I-10.   Probably for local travel in Sierra Blanca, itself.
    Substandard?  Yes.  But is it going to be "fixed" anytime soon?  No.   It might be better in short term to improve (lengthen) deceleration lanes at the BP station, and to add a third climbing lane for I-10 EB west of that BP station.   A third lane to the outside, for WB I-10 trucking, with over sized 12 foot shoulder. There is a considerable incline for close to ten miles, approaching Sierra Blanca and that BP station from the W. 
    But am of opinion, that literally billions have been wasted statewide, since roughly '00, or the beginning of the Rick Perry administration.  Billions spent on clearview conversions, some where perfectly good "standard" FHWA signage was taken down.  Lots of sign clutter erected.  Billions spent on architectural frills - inlays, terraces, landscaping, high mast lighting, throwaway improvements, and much more.  The poorly conceived projects - the El Paso W side "toll way" and "GO-10".  Failure to fix I-10 itself, especially in the Sunland Park area, and in the original Spaghetti Bowl area.  The Ft. Bliss Spur 601 deficiencies and the horrible DDI and mainline shift on Loop 375.  The failure to plan for, and acquire a proper straight alignment for the Anthony Gap future Interstate.  Incredible.  A lot of money.  But not spent wisely.

When was US 80 decommissioned in that area?

[zzcarp]

When was US 80 decommissioned in that area?

USEnds.com says:

Then in 1991, AASHTO approved Texas' request to decommission the stretch between Anthony (near El Paso) and its current terminus in Dallas (although reportedly it took until 1993 before all the signs were removed between those two points).

[Avalanchez71]

Seems like the designation of US 80 could easily be retained to the west of Fort Worth via TX 180 and TX 580 to I-30.  Actually it appears that the designation could easily be retained all the way to Benson.  Why take down US 80 signs only to put up AZ 80, NM 80, NM 418, NM 579 and others?

[zzcarp]

Seems like the designation of US 80 could easily be retained to the west of Fort Worth via TX 180 and TX 580 to I-30.  Actually it appears that the designation could easily be retained all the way to Benson.  Why take down US 80 signs only to put up AZ 80, NM 80, NM 418, NM 579 and others?

While fictional, I second that. US 80 could (and IMHO should) easily subsume US 180 from DFW to El Paso.

As for the rest, Arizona has had several odd decommissionings of US routes, and New Mexico has many former US route alignments still on the state system. Perhaps, as I-10 was completed, US 80 was placed onto the freeway alignment, and the former alignments on the state system weren't up to current US Route standards to put the former designation back onto them.

[zzcarp]

I just checked out New Mexico's request to AASHTO for elimination of 80 (search for Route Number 80 with a state of New Mexico and the documents will come right up). The rationale was that it would eliminate duplicative signage along the Interstate, Arizona had already decommissioned it to Benson, and that Texas wanted to eliminate it west of Dallas.

[Avalanchez71]

As anyone here even seen those ranch access exits actually in use?  I haven't travelled the area enough but I will say I have neve seen them used.