At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas

[kkt]

11 accidents in 6 years seems to justify doing something to me.  So far, we've been lucky, and they haven't been incapacitating or fatal.

[Bobby5280]

That was just the report from I-10. I'd like to see stats on that stretch of I-40 near the NM border.

You didn't answer this question.  These crossovers are open to the public by all appearances.  Motorists are advised to do or not do certain things by signs and striping.  Doing what is apparently legal, especially on a wide-open stretch of highway in the boonies, should not be considered stupid or careless.

It's stupid and careless when you're slowing to a near stop in the left main travel lane. Whether the turns are legal or not for any driver to use, anyone using that turn to make a quick U-turn would have to be concerned about getting ass-ended by someone going 80mph behind them or getting t-boned or ass-ended by traffic going the opposite direction. I'd personally go down the next controlled exit if I needed to back-track.

Divided highways with at grade intersections are designed & built different from Interstate highways. The intersections at least have turn bays for left turns and sometimes turn bays for right turns as well, like these two examples on OK-7 in the Lawton area:
https://goo.gl/cnBtd7
https://goo.gl/mHyFq9

Driver behavior is different on those roads. They anticipate vehicles making at grade turns on these roads, so they know people are going to be slowing down in front of them to make a turn from time to time. Or other cars are going to be turning onto the highway. Speed limits are also more varied on these roads.

On an Interstate no one is anticipating a driver in front of them slowing down to nothing in the left/passing lane of an 80mph Interstate to make a left turn. They're not expecting some rancher to pull out in front of them from nowhere either.

There are sections of Interstate highway where cyclists are allowed; generally they are prohibited, but on some sections they area allowed.  Do you also consider riding a bicycle on an Interstate on such a section of highway stupid and careless?

Yes. Stupid, careless and foolhardy. Especially when considering just how many motorists aren't paying full attention to the highway.

Oh, I hate the grassy medians!  There was some discussion on the board, though, about whether the median cable barrier is actually safer or just appears safer, because a wayward vehicle could still sling the cable into oncoming traffic due to the narrow median.  Either way, I-44 south of Lawton is not "up to Interstate standards" even with the cable barrier.  I'm not suggesting they rip up the whole highway and do it all over again just because of the potential conflict, and I don't think you are either.  I'm good with I-44 the way it is, and I'm likewise good with I-10 and I-40 the way they are.

I don't know how I-44 South of Lawton violates Interstate standards currently. OTA installed cable barriers and did work on the shoulders in the past couple or so years. I-44 between the Red River and US-70 exit where the H.E. Bailey Turnpike begins has been re-paved (and re-signed with a few face-palm design mistakes). Google Maps/Earth still show how I-44 used to be:
https://goo.gl/f4ppiI
It doesn't need to go back to that terrible design. It was great for high speed, head-on collisions.

You'd be lucky to get a definition of "fully controlled access facilities" from the general public.  In my experience, many motorists of the general public assume using a crossover is permitted if there's no sign prohibiting it, even on Interstates.

Motorists have the general understanding that once they enter the freeway they're not going to be dealing with any stop and go traffic, at least not out in the boonies of rural West Texas anyway.

So I guess you don't want to downgrade it to FM-10, then?

Along that stretch of the highway, yes. Call it FM-10, State Highway 10 or whatever. It doesn't deserve to carry an Interstate shield or be marked as such on a map if it isn't up to full Interstate standards.

There are other roads in the US that cannot yet be signed as Interstates due to the very same kinds of standards violations. Segments of what eventually will be I-86 in New York are one example. I-74 in North Carolina is another. I-22 in Mississippi can't be signed as such yet because it doesn't comply with the latest Interstate highway standards and it doesn't even have any at grade crossings between I-269 and the Alabama state line. Somehow I-10 and I-40 in West Texas are given a pass on this stuff.

[kphoger]

You didn't answer this question.  These crossovers are open to the public by all appearances.  Motorists are advised to do or not do certain things by signs and striping.  Doing what is apparently legal, especially on a wide-open stretch of highway in the boonies, should not be considered stupid or careless.

It's stupid and careless when you're slowing to a near stop in the left main travel lane. Whether the turns are legal or not for any driver to use, anyone using that turn to make a quick U-turn would have to be concerned about getting ass-ended by someone going 80mph behind them or getting t-boned or ass-ended by traffic going the opposite direction. I'd personally go down the next controlled exit if I needed to back-track.

Divided highways with at grade intersections are designed & built different from Interstate highways. The intersections at least have turn bays for left turns and sometimes turn bays for right turns as well, like these two examples on OK-7 in the Lawton area:
https://goo.gl/cnBtd7
https://goo.gl/mHyFq9

Driver behavior is different on those roads. They anticipate vehicles making at grade turns on these roads, so they know people are going to be slowing down in front of them to make a turn from time to time. Or other cars are going to be turning onto the highway. Speed limits are also more varied on these roads.

On an Interstate no one is anticipating a driver in front of them slowing down to nothing in the left/passing lane of an 80mph Interstate to make a left turn. They're not expecting some rancher to pull out in front of them from nowhere either.

Divided highways with at-grade intersections are not always built with turn bays for left or right turns.
Example in Texas on a stretch with a 75-mph speed limit

Besides which, this warning sign should alert drivers nicely that they should anticipate someone slowing down in front of them from time to time.  Put a twin sign on the left side, maybe a flashing yellow beacon, and that's plenty of warning.  Add a 65- or 70-mph speed advisory tab and everyone should be happy.

11 accidents in 6 years seems to justify doing something to me.  So far, we've been lucky, and they haven't been incapacitating or fatal.

I suppose seeming to "justify doing something" is a fuzzy issue when it comes to things like this, keeping in mind what I said earlier about the data not even stating the accidents were in any way related to the crossover.  But one thing I'm certain of is that you could find other highway intersections in Texas that see more accidents and fatal accidents than this one–i.e., justifying doing something drastically more than at this location.  Unless you live in a world where "fix everything" is a viable option, I'd rather keep spending the money elsewhere.

[sdmichael]

You didn't answer this question.  These crossovers are open to the public by all appearances.  Motorists are advised to do or not do certain things by signs and striping.  Doing what is apparently legal, especially on a wide-open stretch of highway in the boonies, should not be considered stupid or careless.

It's stupid and careless when you're slowing to a near stop in the left main travel lane. Whether the turns are legal or not for any driver to use, anyone using that turn to make a quick U-turn would have to be concerned about getting ass-ended by someone going 80mph behind them or getting t-boned or ass-ended by traffic going the opposite direction. I'd personally go down the next controlled exit if I needed to back-track.

Divided highways with at grade intersections are designed & built different from Interstate highways. The intersections at least have turn bays for left turns and sometimes turn bays for right turns as well, like these two examples on OK-7 in the Lawton area:
https://goo.gl/cnBtd7
https://goo.gl/mHyFq9

Driver behavior is different on those roads. They anticipate vehicles making at grade turns on these roads, so they know people are going to be slowing down in front of them to make a turn from time to time. Or other cars are going to be turning onto the highway. Speed limits are also more varied on these roads.

On an Interstate no one is anticipating a driver in front of them slowing down to nothing in the left/passing lane of an 80mph Interstate to make a left turn. They're not expecting some rancher to pull out in front of them from nowhere either.

Divided highways with at-grade intersections are not always built with turn bays for left or right turns.
Example in Texas on a stretch with a 75-mph speed limit

Besides which, this warning sign should alert drivers nicely that they should anticipate someone slowing down in front of them from time to time.  Put a twin sign on the left side, maybe a flashing yellow beacon, and that's plenty of warning.  Add a 65- or 70-mph speed advisory tab and everyone should be happy.

11 accidents in 6 years seems to justify doing something to me.  So far, we've been lucky, and they haven't been incapacitating or fatal.

I suppose seeming to "justify doing something" is a fuzzy issue when it comes to things like this, keeping in mind what I said earlier about the data not even stating the accidents were in any way related to the crossover.  But one thing I'm certain of is that you could find other highway intersections in Texas that see more accidents and fatal accidents than this one–i.e., justifying doing something drastically more than at this location.  Unless you live in a world where "fix everything" is a viable option, I'd rather keep spending the money elsewhere.

By putting up lights/signs warning of the grade crossings, you've now acknowledged the roadway no longer being a freeway. Interstates are freeways. Marking the crossings with warnings now treats the roadway as an expressway and should have additional signs such as "End Freeway" and "Cross Traffic Ahead".

[Avalanchez71]

What it the wrecks were caused by someone that had nothing to due with the behaviour that you are speaking of?  You could have someone that may have hit the berm or ditch when negoitaiting the turn off.  It could be that a truck lost a load unreleated to the turn that in turn caused a wreck. 

[kkt]

What it the wrecks were caused by someone that had nothing to due with the behaviour that you are speaking of?  You could have someone that may have hit the berm or ditch when negoitaiting the turn off.  It could be that a truck lost a load unreleated to the turn that in turn caused a wreck. 

Good point.  Is there a control available, a nearby stretch of Texas interstate that doesn't happen to have any cross traffic?

[kphoger]

Interstates are freeways.

Only as a generality.

I-35 south of Emporia, KS
I-70 in Breezewood, PA
I-78 in Jersey City, NJ
I-94 near Fort Custer, MI
I-180 in Cheyenne, WY
I-516 in Savannah, GA

General rules get broken.  That's life.

What it the wrecks were caused by someone that had nothing to due with the behaviour that you are speaking of?  You could have someone that may have hit the berm or ditch when negoitaiting the turn off.  It could be that a truck lost a load unreleated to the turn that in turn caused a wreck. 

Good point.  Is there a control available, a nearby stretch of Texas interstate that doesn't happen to have any cross traffic?

Even then, it wouldn't necessarily be a control.  I notice there is a bridge nearby; accidents could be related to the barriers.  Without knowing what caused the accidents, we cannot accurately compare.

[sdmichael]

Interstates are freeways.

Only as a generality.

I-35 south of Emporia, KS
Substandard ramp, still a freeway.

I-70 in Breezewood, PA

I-70 breaks and has an indirect connector - Isn't I-70 through Breezewood.

I-78 in Jersey City, NJ
Unsigned and only a connection.

I-94 near Fort Custer, MI
Marked as "Authorized Vehicles Only" - common for maintenance/law enforcement and still a freeway

I-180 in Cheyenne, WY
An exception, and a poor one at that. Isn't a freeway at all. I-10 has a break in freeway status.

I-516 in Savannah, GA
Not a grade crossing, just substandard ramps.

General rules get broken.  That's life.

Not sure what you're trying to show. Interstates are freeways. Not all freeways are up to full standards, but all of those, except I-180, are still freeways. The section of I-10 in question has marked crossings, shields, arrows, and are not marked as "Authorized Vehicles Only". As such, it isn't a freeway and should not be marked as such.

[Avalanchez71]

But your expectionation doesn't meet reality.  I-180 is marked as an interstate but it isn't fully controlled.  What about the interstate highways in Alaska?  How many miles are fully controlled , what four miles.

[hotdogPi]

expectionation

[kphoger]

Interstates are freeways.

Only as a generality.

I-35 south of Emporia, KS
Substandard ramp, still a freeway.

I-70 in Breezewood, PA

I-70 breaks and has an indirect connector - Isn't I-70 through Breezewood.

I-78 in Jersey City, NJ
Unsigned and only a connection.

I-94 near Fort Custer, MI
Marked as "Authorized Vehicles Only" - common for maintenance/law enforcement and still a freeway

I-180 in Cheyenne, WY
An exception, and a poor one at that. Isn't a freeway at all. I-10 has a break in freeway status.

I-516 in Savannah, GA
Not a grade crossing, just substandard ramps.

General rules get broken.  That's life.

Not sure what you're trying to show. Interstates are freeways. Not all freeways are up to full standards, but all of those, except I-180, are still freeways. The section of I-10 in question has marked crossings, shields, arrows, and are not marked as "Authorized Vehicles Only". As such, it isn't a freeway and should not be marked as such.

There are several ranch access points on I-35 in the Flint Hills of Kansas; I only showed one.  These are not substandard ramps, because they are not considered exits; they have gated access points immediately off-highway (which you can even see in the GSV I linked to), it is impossible to pay a toll upon "exiting" or "entering," they are quite obviously private entrances.  Private entrances are by definition not allowed on freeways, yet things work a little differently in wide-open ranching country.  They knew that when the highways were built and designated, and people still know it.

Exceptions and anomalies are a part of the system.  And that's fine.

[sdmichael]

Interstates are freeways.

Only as a generality.

I-35 south of Emporia, KS
Substandard ramp, still a freeway.

I-70 in Breezewood, PA

I-70 breaks and has an indirect connector - Isn't I-70 through Breezewood.

I-78 in Jersey City, NJ
Unsigned and only a connection.

I-94 near Fort Custer, MI
Marked as "Authorized Vehicles Only" - common for maintenance/law enforcement and still a freeway

I-180 in Cheyenne, WY
An exception, and a poor one at that. Isn't a freeway at all. I-10 has a break in freeway status.

I-516 in Savannah, GA
Not a grade crossing, just substandard ramps.

General rules get broken.  That's life.

Not sure what you're trying to show. Interstates are freeways. Not all freeways are up to full standards, but all of those, except I-180, are still freeways. The section of I-10 in question has marked crossings, shields, arrows, and are not marked as "Authorized Vehicles Only". As such, it isn't a freeway and should not be marked as such.

There are several ranch access points on I-35 in the Flint Hills of Kansas; I only showed one.  These are not substandard ramps, because they are not considered exits; they have gated access points immediately off-highway (which you can even see in the GSV I linked to), it is impossible to pay a toll upon "exiting" or "entering," they are quite obviously private entrances.  Private entrances are by definition not allowed on freeways, yet things work a little differently in wide-open ranching country.  They knew that when the highways were built and designated, and people still know it.

Exceptions and anomalies are a part of the system.  And that's fine.

So, they aren't freeways along that section. US 101, albeit not an Interstate, has many sections of expressway and freeway. As it is not an Interstate, it isn't a problem at all to have these breaks in freeway standard. All are usually fairly well marked when the freeway begins/ends. Why not apply the same to these Interstates? At-grade crossings, regardless of reasons given, make those sections expressways, not freeways. All Texas did by marking, paving, and signing those crossings was to downgrade a freeway yet further. If they warrant such markings, an overpass or two should be built and those crossings eliminated. Otherwise it rather dilutes the meaning of Interstate Freeway and freeways in general. One of the main points of their construction was to ELIMINATE grade crossings, not encourage them.

[kphoger]

So you're proposing to deconstruct the Interstate highway system, such that I-10 and I-35 do not actually go cross-country anymore, just because of some driveways.

[sdmichael]

So you're proposing to deconstruct the Interstate highway system, such that I-10 and I-35 do not actually go cross-country anymore, just because of some driveways.

Umm... no. Texas, in keeping with the thread topic, has already done that with their paving, striping, and signing of grade crossings on an Interstate freeway. Those sections, not that they were before, are no longer freeways and no longer up to Interstate standards. Those sections may have been allowed on a temporary basis but what Texas did was to make something temporary look a whole lot more permanent. There are overpasses in remote areas in California and Texas. Why not do that and get it over with?

[kphoger]

Sorry, I was confusing your reaction with Bobby5280's.  He is the one who suggested decommissioning these stretches from the Interstate highway system.  You simply recommended additional signage.

[kkt]

I don't think there are any interstates in California that are as remote as the west Texas ranch country.

Maybe the bigger question is, Is it appropriate that interstate standards call for no grade crossings?  Maybe the standards should allow interstates with right on/right off ranch access anywhere AADT is low and it's a long way between overpasses.  Heck, maybe they should allow super 2's.  That would sure have save a lot of money building I-29 in North Dakota and I-15 in Montana, which could be used instead expanding capacity where it's needed.

[dfwmapper]

By putting up lights/signs warning of the grade crossings, you've now acknowledged the roadway no longer being a freeway. Interstates are freeways. Marking the crossings with warnings now treats the roadway as an expressway and should have additional signs such as "End Freeway" and "Cross Traffic Ahead".

Texas doesn't have any state laws that define different classes of roads (i.e. freeways, expressways, and whatnot), nor does it treat state highways that would be generally recognized as freeways any different than any other state highway. Such signs just are not used here, and would almost certainly require a change in state law to start using, and there's really no interest in doing that.

[Avalanchez71]

I just recalled that there are also direct driveway connections on I-40 in North Carolina in the mountains as well.
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6971424,-83.045212,3a,75y,29.66h,79.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-1m8V-KTTgSEtGWnm8jj2g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7233063,-83.0266453,3a,75y,128.95h,80.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCvz_4FGVe0Cgi9nQNTlMWQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

[US 41]

I feel like a lot of you have never been to western Texas before. If you had been, then you would understand why there are a couple of at-grades on the interstates out there. There are probably 3 people (if that) that use these side roads per day and you can see forever out there (it is extremely flat and there are no trees; just dry dirt, cacti, and some dead weeds). I think it would be a waste of time and money to build an interchange or overpass for these little dirt side roads.

[dfwmapper]

I just recalled that there are also direct driveway connections on I-40 in North Carolina in the mountains as well.
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6971424,-83.045212,3a,75y,29.66h,79.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-1m8V-KTTgSEtGWnm8jj2g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7233063,-83.0266453,3a,75y,128.95h,80.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCvz_4FGVe0Cgi9nQNTlMWQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

Judging just from streetview, those also seem to have hundreds of times heavier traffic volumes than what the handful of driveways in west Texas have, as well as significantly worse sightlines, shoulders, and clear space.

[In_Correct]

...

Your signature says "Keep right except to pass. Yes. You." do you really mean that? because slowing down to a complete stop to make a left turn on the passing lane of an Interstate which is SUPPOSED to be controlled access but is not controlled access ... sounds like it would annoy you.

Of course this is the way things work!  I don't want my tax dollars going to pay for projects that aren't warranted.  If the data do not show these crossovers to be dangerous, then it is a fallacy to claim removing them would improve safety.  They have existed for decades with little to no issue, so I'm fine with my tax dollars instead going to a project where actual fatalities are occurring in real life.

You should be upset about all the other things that your tax dollars are funding, things that really are wasteful. Other nations do not appear to have this system in place. They build and upgrade roads without hesitation.

I suppose seeming to "justify doing something" is a fuzzy issue when it comes to things like this, keeping in mind what I said earlier about the data not even stating the accidents were in any way related to the crossover.  But one thing I'm certain of is that you could find other highway intersections in Texas that see more accidents and fatal accidents than this one–i.e., justifying doing something drastically more than at this location.  Unless you live in a world where "fix everything" is a viable option, I'd rather keep spending the money elsewhere.

That is exactly what some of these other nations appear to do. They "Fix Everything".

Exceptions and anomalies are a part of the system.  And that's fine.

No it is not fine. I have to drive these roads as well. And unlike the general population. I appreciate and actually like my cars. I do not consider cars to be disposable even though everybody else does. Even though I pay very close attention to the road conditions, I still want them as safe as possible. There are piles of things that Tax Dollars are wasted on. And many of those things aren't even related to infrastructure. They should make the Interstate Highway System as controlled access as possible, but much more "important" things happen today: such as counting all the smashed cars and dead people, and everybody else concerned about wasteful tax spending when it only applies to infrastructure.

I-10 is a nationwide Interstate highway. Texas has a reputation for high quality roads. This "anomaly" is an embarrassment for both Texas and the U.S.A.'s longest Interstate Highway.

Perhaps they should build / convert more toll roads or fund the Interstate projects without tax dollars.

I feel like a lot of you have never been to western Texas before. If you had been, then you would understand why there are a couple of at-grades on the interstates out there. There are probably 3 people (if that) that use these side roads per day and you can see forever out there (it is extremely flat and there are no trees; just dry dirt, cacti, and some dead weeds). I think it would be a waste of time and money to build an interchange or overpass for these little dirt side roads.

Perhaps it would be cheaper for TX DOT to purchase the invading ranches and then there would be no need for the Intersections. And then they would not even have to worry about having to build bridges for them. And then I-10 can still call itself I-10.

[kphoger]

Your signature says "Keep right except to pass. Yes. You." do you really mean that? because slowing down to a complete stop to make a left turn on the passing lane of an Interstate which is SUPPOSED to be controlled access but is not controlled access ... sounds like it would annoy you.

No, I am in favor of allowing left turns.  I'm also in favor of passing on the left, moving to the left for emergency vehicles, etc.  Good grief, you're really reaching, there.  Have you ever even read the keep-right laws for the states that have them?  There are exceptions written into them, because common sense exists.  FWIW, if these west Texas intersections were in Mexico, the local rancher would pull off onto the right shoulder, wait for both directions of traffic to clear, and then make his left turn.  This setup actually both allows the left turn and keeps slower traffic to the right.

You should be upset about all the other things that your tax dollars are funding, things that really are wasteful. Other nations do not appear to have this system in place. They build and upgrade roads without hesitation. [...] these other nations appear to ... "Fix Everything".

Who said I'm not concerned about other wasteful spending?  Just because other wasteful spending concerns me, that doesn't mean this particular wasteful spending would not concern me.  And just because other nations appear to have bottomless pockets, that doesn't mean the USA has bottomless pockets.  But I'm not quite sure what nations you're talking about anyway, because no other nation has Interstate highways for you to compare ours to.  Are you suggesting there are other nations that have divided freeways across wide-empty ranch land and are currently in the process of removing all remnants of local ranch access to said freeways?  If so, please let us know which ones so we can make a fair assessment of your claim.

And unlike the general population, I appreciate and actually like my cars. I do not consider cars to be disposable even though everybody else does. Even though I pay very close attention to the road conditions, I still want them as safe as possible.

Please don't suggest things about me that aren't true.  I was just in a car accident on Monday morning, and my car has been deemed a total loss.  This is a vehicle I drove 700 miles with my family to go buy back in February.  I am now in the process of navigating my way through insurance to get a new vehicle.  I value my vehicle, and I do not consider it disposable.  I want safe roads too.  But my point is that these ranch access points are safe.

There are piles of things that Tax Dollars are wasted on. And many of those things aren't even related to infrastructure. They should make the Interstate Highway System as controlled access as possible, but much more "important" things happen today: such as counting all the smashed cars and dead people, and everybody else concerned about wasteful tax spending when it only applies to infrastructure.

Are you saying that counting wrecks and fatalities is a waste of tax money, or are you saying it's something that should happen.  Well, it does happen, and it is important.  If nobody counts those things, then there's no way of knowing where the money would be best spent.  If intersection A has twelve accidents a year and four of them had fatalities, while intersection B has two accidents that year with zero fatalities, then that's useful information for the state to know when it comes to funding highway projects.  The state is responsible for spending its money wisely on the safety of all highways, not just Interstates.  And, beyond that, if section X of an Interstate has higher crash rates than section Y of the same Interstate, then that's useful information as well.

I-10 is a nationwide Interstate highway. Texas has a reputation for high quality roads. This "anomaly" is an embarrassment for both Texas and the U.S.A.'s longest Interstate Highway.

I'm not so sure Texas is all that embarrassed about it.

I have to drive these roads as well.

I feel like a lot of you have never been to western Texas before. If you had been, then you would understand why there are a couple of at-grades on the interstates out there. There are probably 3 people (if that) that use these side roads per day and you can see forever out there (it is extremely flat and there are no trees; just dry dirt, cacti, and some dead weeds). I think it would be a waste of time and money to build an interchange or overpass for these little dirt side roads.

Perhaps it would be cheaper for TX DOT to purchase the invading ranches and then there would be no need for the Intersections. And then they would not even have to worry about having to build bridges for them. And then I-10 can still call itself I-10.

(1) So do you drive or have you driven in west Texas?  I have driven several times between the Panhandle and Big Bend, although it was more than 15 years ago.  I currently drive from Wichita Falls to (and past) the Mexican border at Del Rio and back annually, though I don't know if that counts as "west" or not.  Your profile says you live in Texas, so you may be more familiar with these specific areas than I am.  Have you ever seen traffic using these access points?  Have you ever seen conflicts arise?

(2) Do you really think it's going to go over well in west Texas for the state to use eminent domain to buy ranch land in order to not build anything at a location where fatal accidents are not happening?  By the way, I-10 can still call itself I-10.

[Bobby5280]

Sorry, I was confusing your reaction with Bobby5280's.  He is the one who suggested decommissioning these stretches from the Interstate highway system.

And I stand by that. Those stretches of road shouldn't be identified on maps or via signage as freeways if they're not freeways. Interstates are meant to be exclusively limited access highways. If DOT's want to play fast and loose with the rules, installing driveways willy nilly for any rancher that wants one or just keeping at grade intersections rather than replacing them with exits or removing them entirely then we might as well go back to having a regular US highway system rather than an Interstate system. This country seems to be headed that direction anyway with all the damned price inflation in road construction projects, making things like freeways too expensive to build at all.

The at grades make those parts of I-10 and I-40 no better than the OK-7 four lane road between Lawton and Duncan. But with the notable exception that OK-7 at least has some damned turn lanes so if you need to slow down to make a left turn you're not doing it in the 70mph left/passing lane and risking getting ass ended by someone not paying enough attention behind you.

I've been in a bad rear-end collision before. It totaled my Camaro and I was in physical therapy for weeks dealing with my neck and back. And that was just from some idiot running into the back of my car when I was turning onto my own street. It would be a whole lot worse getting rear ended by someone doing 80mph on an Interstate.

I just recalled that there are also direct driveway connections on I-40 in North Carolina in the mountains as well.

https://goo.gl/pSB4mK

That driveway definitely violates Interstate standards, as well as violating normal highway standards as well since there are no signs at all indicating that upcoming turn around that blind curve. I'm sure drivers actually trying to use that road have missed the turn plenty of times. Of course, there is one BIG difference between this "driveway" and the crap going on in West Texas: a big concrete Jersey barrier blocking any possible left turns. With some modest modifications, like at least adding some kind of turn bay and proper traffic signage it could be turned into a partial exit not much different in appearance than this exit on I-25 near Trinidad, CO.
https://goo.gl/DN4PXz

I feel like a lot of you have never been to western Texas before. If you had been, then you would understand why there are a couple of at-grades on the interstates out there. There are probably 3 people (if that) that use these side roads per day and you can see forever out there (it is extremely flat and there are no trees; just dry dirt, cacti, and some dead weeds). I think it would be a waste of time and money to build an interchange or overpass for these little dirt side roads.

I have driven in the Texas Panhandle lots of times. The stretches of I-40 and I-10 that have those at-grade turns are not on perfectly pancake flat land. In the Panhandle when you get close to the New Mexico border the land goes from being flat with occasional river and creek valleys to lots of modest dips, rises and grassy rolling hills.

That stuff drove me nuts when US-64/US-87 was just a 2-lane highway going to Raton. It was tough to pass anyone. The terrain made it seem like you could see forever, but all those little undulations in the land did a great job hiding oncoming traffic. It really sucked if there was slow poke up ahead. RV's were the worst. There would be a train's length worth of traffic stuck behind it. It's so much better now being 4-laned. And while it's not an Interstate, at least the at grade left turns have turn bays for deceleration (unlike the crap on I-10 & I-40).

If probably only 3 people use those at-grade turns a day (if even that), why is TX DOT wasting money creating and maintaining the driveways there? In the case of the ones on I-40 near the NM border there are other roads on that property running parallel to I-40 and connecting to other roads in the area.

[kphoger]

Those stretches of road shouldn't be identified ... via signage as freeways if they're not freeways

They are not identified via signage as freeways.  They are identified as Interstate highways.

Interstates are meant to be exclusively limited access highways.

To be nitpicky, these stretches are limited-access, in that access is limited to only a few points.  What they are not is fully controlled-access, which is what I'm assuming you meant.  I just want you to be aware that there is a difference.  Limited-access is not synonymous with controlled-access.

If DOT's want to play fast and loose with the rules, installing driveways willy nilly for any rancher that wants one ...

Were I-10 and I-40 not already divided highways through here when they were designated as Interstates?  I'm not up on the history.

... or just keeping at grade intersections rather than replacing them with exits or removing them entirely then we might as well go back to having a regular US highway system rather than an Interstate system.

Having a very limited number of driveway access points (especially in the boonies) on a highway network that's 99.99% controlled-access is certainly not the same as not having an Interstate highway system at all.

The at grades make those parts of I-10 and I-40 no better than the OK-7 four lane road between Lawton and Duncan. But with the notable exception that OK-7 at least has some damned turn lanes so if you need to slow down to make a left turn you're not doing it in the 70mph left/passing lane and risking getting ass ended by someone not paying enough attention behind you.

What??  Not even close!  On OK-7, there are public cross roads intersecting at grade pretty much every mile.  I-10 in Texas is controlled-access with a very few ranch access points that almost nobody uses.  "No better" is not a valid way to describe it.

I've been in a bad rear-end collision before. It totaled my Camaro and I was in physical therapy for weeks dealing with my neck and back. And that was just from some idiot running into the back of my car when I was turning onto my own street. It would be a whole lot worse getting rear ended by someone doing 80mph on an Interstate.

Yes, it would be much worse.  And, if this sort of thing were actually happening there, then I'd see reason to remove the ranch access.  However, absent any evidence that it's happening there, I don't see any reason.

If probably only 3 people use those at-grade turns a day (if even that), why is TX DOT wasting money creating and maintaining the driveways there? In the case of the ones on I-40 near the NM border there are other roads on that property running parallel to I-40 and connecting to other roads in the area.

I assume this it was part of the deal when it was designated an Interstate–a reasonable compromise that might not be made if it happened today instead of back then.  A bigger question to ask might be this:  who maintains the roads that run parallel to the Interstate (in the cases where there is such a road)?

[sdmichael]

Those stretches of road shouldn't be identified ... via signage as freeways if they're not freeways

They are not identified via signage as freeways.  They are identified as Interstate highways.

Interstates are meant to be exclusively limited access highways.

To be nitpicky, these stretches are limited-access, in that access is limited to only a few points.  What they are not is fully controlled-access, which is what I'm assuming you meant.  I just want you to be aware that there is a difference.  Limited-access is not synonymous with controlled-access.

If DOT's want to play fast and loose with the rules, installing driveways willy nilly for any rancher that wants one ...

Were I-10 and I-40 not already divided highways through here when they were designated as Interstates?  I'm not up on the history.

... or just keeping at grade intersections rather than replacing them with exits or removing them entirely then we might as well go back to having a regular US highway system rather than an Interstate system.

Having a very limited number of driveway access points (especially in the boonies) on a highway network that's 99.99% controlled-access is certainly not the same as not having an Interstate highway system at all.

The at grades make those parts of I-10 and I-40 no better than the OK-7 four lane road between Lawton and Duncan. But with the notable exception that OK-7 at least has some damned turn lanes so if you need to slow down to make a left turn you're not doing it in the 70mph left/passing lane and risking getting ass ended by someone not paying enough attention behind you.

What??  Not even close!  On OK-7, there are public cross roads intersecting at grade pretty much every mile.  I-10 in Texas is controlled-access with a very few ranch access points that almost nobody uses.  "No better" is not a valid way to describe it.

I've been in a bad rear-end collision before. It totaled my Camaro and I was in physical therapy for weeks dealing with my neck and back. And that was just from some idiot running into the back of my car when I was turning onto my own street. It would be a whole lot worse getting rear ended by someone doing 80mph on an Interstate.

Yes, it would be much worse.  And, if this sort of thing were actually happening there, then I'd see reason to remove the ranch access.  However, absent any evidence that it's happening there, I don't see any reason.

If probably only 3 people use those at-grade turns a day (if even that), why is TX DOT wasting money creating and maintaining the driveways there? In the case of the ones on I-40 near the NM border there are other roads on that property running parallel to I-40 and connecting to other roads in the area.

I assume this it was part of the deal when it was designated an Interstate–a reasonable compromise that might not be made if it happened today instead of back then.  A bigger question to ask might be this:  who maintains the roads that run parallel to the Interstate (in the cases where there is such a road)?

So, you'd rather wait for a potentially fatal collision than correct the problem? Why are so many other states spending millions of dollars for freeway upgrades when Texas proudly downgrades their Interstates to expressways, still calling them an Interstate? It may have been a "reasonable compromise" at the time as a TEMPORARY measure, not permanent. When I drive a freeway, the LAST thing I expect to see or deal with is cross traffic. It is the WHOLE POINT of having a freeway - no cross traffic!