At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas

[kphoger]

We're these highways downgraded? I was under the impression the ranch access points had been there a long time. When we're they added to the existing Interstate freeways?

And yes, I'd rather not spend money fixing a problem that doesn't exist.

[kkt]

installing driveways willy nilly for any rancher that wants one

To be fair, I don't think Texas is installing new driveways.  Ranches that already had driveways into the predecessor route of I-10 still needed access.  Saying access had to be by dirt road 30 miles to the next interchange would be seen by the courts as a chargeable loss of use of that ranch land, so the state would either have to buy the ranch or pay for a good frontage road.

[kphoger]

Two questions, though...

(1) Who said people were being fair in this discussion?

(2) Why does my phone insist I mean "we're" instead of "were"?

[sdmichael]

We're these highways downgraded? I was under the impression the ranch access points had been there a long time. When we're they added to the existing Interstate freeways?

And yes, I'd rather not spend money fixing a problem that doesn't exist.

Yes, they were. They went from a "temporary" and unpaved situation to a paved, signed, and more permanent situation. There are many instances when a pre-existing access point on an expressway  was removed and replaced with either an interchange or some other access other than a grade-crossing. A freeway doesn't have grade crossings. It is a part of the very definition.

Images posted on this very thread show this condition. I, for one, would prefer to not have someone die when they death could have well been averted. When you take a freeway without grade crossings and add grade crossings, you no longer have a freeway. It is an expressway, pure and simple. A very simple underpass and overpass could easily be built at a couple of the locations, regardless of the amount of traffic. It only takes ONE collision to kill someone, and that only takes TWO vehicles.

[Rick Powell]

The numbers are back for the above request.

Without the corresponding police reports, we really know nothing except a crash occurred within the section. Could be a car being sideswiped, hitting an animal, running off the road and having property damage just over the state reporting threshold. It could be that all, none, or somewhere in between of these crashes had anything to do with a user of the crossing road.  Just sayin' - I have done a lot of highway safety studies, and you really need the background info to go anywhere with a conclusion on causation.

[dfwmapper]

Yes, they were. They went from a "temporary" and unpaved situation to a paved, signed, and more permanent situation. There are many instances when a pre-existing access point on an expressway  was removed and replaced with either an interchange or some other access other than a grade-crossing. A freeway doesn't have grade crossings. It is a part of the very definition.

There are a shitton of freeways out there that don't meet current Interstate guidelines and cause actual safety problems (looking at you urban Interstates in California where the inside shoulder is 3 inches of yellow paint and however far up you can drive up the K-rail), but sure, spend your time complaining about a few driveways with minimal traffic on low-volume rural Interstates. The simple answer is that there's nothing under Texas law that prohibits them, and the sections were approved as part of the Interstate Highway System by AASHTO or AASHO or whatever agency was in charge at the time. If/when an actual issue presents itself, then something will be done about it.

Images posted on this very thread show this condition. I, for one, would prefer to not have someone die when they death could have well been averted. When you take a freeway without grade crossings and add grade crossings, you no longer have a freeway. It is an expressway, pure and simple. A very simple underpass and overpass could easily be built at a couple of the locations, regardless of the amount of traffic. It only takes ONE collision to kill someone, and that only takes TWO vehicles.

Great, just pull a few million bucks out of your ass and make the check out to the State of Texas and I'm sure we can get them right on it.

[Brian556]

Historical Info: If you look at the old US 290 sections parallel to I-10, you will see that they are two lane. Also, a quick check of the Official 1958 Texas Highway Map shows now divided sections on US 290, which is what I expected. 

[sdmichael]

Yes, they were. They went from a "temporary" and unpaved situation to a paved, signed, and more permanent situation. There are many instances when a pre-existing access point on an expressway  was removed and replaced with either an interchange or some other access other than a grade-crossing. A freeway doesn't have grade crossings. It is a part of the very definition.

There are a shitton of freeways out there that don't meet current Interstate guidelines and cause actual safety problems (looking at you urban Interstates in California where the inside shoulder is 3 inches of yellow paint and however far up you can drive up the K-rail), but sure, spend your time complaining about a few driveways with minimal traffic on low-volume rural Interstates. The simple answer is that there's nothing under Texas law that prohibits them, and the sections were approved as part of the Interstate Highway System by AASHTO or AASHO or whatever agency was in charge at the time. If/when an actual issue presents itself, then something will be done about it.

Images posted on this very thread show this condition. I, for one, would prefer to not have someone die when they death could have well been averted. When you take a freeway without grade crossings and add grade crossings, you no longer have a freeway. It is an expressway, pure and simple. A very simple underpass and overpass could easily be built at a couple of the locations, regardless of the amount of traffic. It only takes ONE collision to kill someone, and that only takes TWO vehicles.

Great, just pull a few million bucks out of your ass and make the check out to the State of Texas and I'm sure we can get them right on it.

Great. Do any of those substandard Interstates you mention have at-grade crossing? They don't. Big difference. I-10 is an expressway, not a freeway through the section in question. How is this not understood?

[Bobby5280]

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

Same Goddamned thing. If it has any at-grade intersections it has zero business being called an Interstate. And, yeah, pull that I-180 phony baloney out of Cheyenne too by the way.

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.

When the Interstate highway system was still "in progress" of being built between the 1950's and 1970's there was no problem having portions of I-10 or I-40 being labeled as such and the non-Interstate quality segments just being called US-66 or whatever the hell. Motorists got along just fine with that.

Those sections of I-10 and I-40 just never got finished. They still have bullshit driveways running off of them. And at least in the case of the ones on I-40 there is zero justification for them since other roadways on that private property already serve the area. If you're really worried about saving taxpayer money then why in the living hell should TX DOT maintain some damned driveways in the sticks off I-40 when the property owner already has his own roads on his own property that seem to be doing just as good? Get rid of the damned things!

As long as the driveways are still there those parts of the highways are NOT Interstate quality.

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.

Why don't you back up there a bit since you're conveniently trying to have it both ways.

Earlier you griped about my complaints that those at grade intersections on I-40 were a hazard if the general public used them. Public access, right?

If any regular motorist on I-40 is using those at-grade intersections to make a convenient U-turn, quick stop or whatever he is absolutely posing a damned hazard to other high speed 80mph motorists going down the road NOT expecting to come up upon someone stopping to make an idiotic turn in the middle of what's supposed to be a LIMITED ACCESS FREEWAY. Maybe no one has got killed so far with this lunatic road design, but at some point some motorist or multiple people absolutely will get killed. It is a dangerous, sub-standard highway design.

And yes, it absolutely does SUCK compared to a normal 4 lane expressway design with at grade crossings. At least OK-7 and other roads like it have features built into the highway to account for the traffic movements. These idiotic, dangerous at-grades on I-10 and I-40 pretend to be a freeway while providing the cheapness of a 4-lane divided street. It's the worst of both worlds.

To be fair, I don't think Texas is installing new driveways.  Ranches that already had driveways into the predecessor route of I-10 still needed access.  Saying access had to be by dirt road 30 miles to the next interchange would be seen by the courts as a chargeable loss of use of that ranch land, so the state would either have to buy the ranch or pay for a good frontage road.

Nice exaggeration there, but it's not any 30 miles to the next interchange. Nevertheless, if it's so damned important to maintain taxpayer funded driveways for ranchers directly on and off I-10 and I-40 in those part of West Texas then those little segments of I-10 and I-40 do not need to be identified as Interstate highways. For the safety of the general public they should be downgraded to ordinary 4 lane expressways with at-grade intersections until the taxpayers want to get rid of those driveways in some manner, be it frontage roads, exits or just living with certain parts of those Interstates not really being Interstates. Basically I-90 would be the only true coast to coast Interstate. The others are bullshit.

Great, just pull a few million bucks out of your ass and make the check out to the State of Texas and I'm sure we can get them right on it.

Nah, better yet, just remove the I-10 and I-40 designations of those segments of non-Interstate quality highway. No cost to taxpayers there. But it will aggravate road geeks nationwide I'm sure. Nevertheless, those parts of the highway are not Interstate quality.

[wxfree]

Looking at further information, I've found that removals of three grade crossings are the top three priorities of the El Paso district rural transportation plan.  This plan includes only rural areas, so it ignores El Paso which is within an MPO area.  The top three rural priorities are listed for each district.  Elsewhere in the district, some designated trunk highways need four-laning for technical reasons, but that mostly isn't warranted at this time, so the I-10 intersections get priority.

The top three are: 4.7 mi E of FM 34, 0.9 mi W of Laska Road (Exit 99), and 2.1 mi W of Laska Road (Exit 99).  These three are all ranked at 461 of about 630 rankings statewide.  They're the top three in the district because that district doesn't have many rural needs.  Ten of the 11 in the list are grade crossing eliminations.  They're on TxDOT's radar, but are not high priorities.  Since they're all private roads, I would assume that they're basically used only by people who've used them before, so they would likely know not to slow down for a turn in the left lane right in front of following traffic.  I expect left-turning drivers either put themselves at the front of a gap in traffic along the way, or stop on the right shoulder and make the turn when it's safe.

The source of the information is these documents: http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/tpp/rural_2035/report/0512/

[sdmichael]

Looking at further information, I've found that removals of three grade crossings are the top three priorities of the El Paso district rural transportation plan.  This plan includes only rural areas, so it ignores El Paso which is within an MPO area.  The top three rural priorities are listed for each district.  Elsewhere in the district, some designated trunk highways need four-laning for technical reasons, but that mostly isn't warranted at this time, so the I-10 intersections get priority.

The top three are: 4.7 mi E of FM 34, 0.9 mi W of Laska Road (Exit 99), and 2.1 mi W of Laska Road (Exit 99).  These three are all ranked at 461 of about 630 rankings statewide.  They're the top three in the district because that district doesn't have many rural needs.  Ten of the 11 in the list are grade crossing eliminations.  They're on TxDOT's radar, but are not high priorities.  Since they're all private roads, I would assume that they're basically used only by people who've used them before, so they would likely know not to slow down for a turn in the left lane right in front of following traffic.  I expect left-turning drivers either put themselves at the front of a gap in traffic along the way, or stop on the right shoulder and make the turn when it's safe.

The source of the information is these documents: http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/tpp/rural_2035/report/0512/

That is good to hear. While some on here seem to think it isn't an issue, it does appear that TxDOT does, which is a good thing. They can, and apparently will, do something about it as they DO see it as a safety issue.

My issue isn't, however, with the locals that know the crossings are there. My issue is with those that find out about them and use them, when most passing through never expect them in the first place.

[kkt]

Nice exaggeration there, but it's not any 30 miles to the next interchange. Nevertheless, if it's so damned important to maintain taxpayer funded driveways for ranchers directly on and off I-10 and I-40 in those part of West Texas then those little segments of I-10 and I-40 do not need to be identified as Interstate highways. For the safety of the general public they should be downgraded to ordinary 4 lane expressways with at-grade intersections until the taxpayers want to get rid of those driveways in some manner, be it frontage roads, exits or just living with certain parts of those Interstates not really being Interstates. Basically I-90 would be the only true coast to coast Interstate. The others are bullshit.

There are lots and lots of waivered sections of interstates.  No shoulder or too narrow shoulder, insufficient sightlines, left entrances or exits, etc., etc.  Should we take away interstate signs from all of them?  There probably wouldn't be a single interstate left untouched.  The ranch exits in west Texas are nowhere near the most dangerous of them.

As an intermediate step, the ranch exits could be changed to right on-right off, with merge lanes.

[jwolfer]

I hope the posters with their panties  all in a wad live in Colorado or another state with recreational marijuana.  They need some relaxation! Of course without driving

But the bigger question is what are FritzOwls plans for these sections. Maybe we could make those ranch access roads into 3dis with five level stack interchanges instead of driveways😂

All the concern about safety, I am sure Texas has many intersections on other roads that are more dangerous and warrant safety improvements before adding an interchange or even spending money closing the mostly never used access points.

Changing signage from the familiar red white  and blue would just confuse some people driving along the road  to point of slamming on brakes because the think they are on the wrong road, and perhaps ironically using these crossings to make an illegal u turn or drive into the desert and die from exposure. It would probably be a similar number to the current accidents caused by the current configuration

Maybe to give some comfort and succor to those upset by the crossing situation on rural interstates, Texas could slap a "TO" banner on top of the shield assembly.

Furthermore it seems that as traffic counts are increasing Texas is already planning to remove these abominations

[Bobby5280]

There are lots and lots of waivered sections of interstates.  No shoulder or too narrow shoulder, insufficient sightlines, left entrances or exits, etc., etc.  Should we take away interstate signs from all of them?  There probably wouldn't be a single interstate left untouched.

Interstate highways don't get left as-is when they were first signed as Interstates decades ago. They're really a work in progress. The government changes regulations on highway design periodically and the states have to comply with that. If some state wants to keep a section of Interstate in 1970's era quality or ignore other new safety regulations then it shouldn't be signed as an Interstate.

I've seen a lot of work get done to the Interstates and other highways here in Oklahoma over the past few years. They've modified the shoulders, added cable barriers or Jersey barriers, changed the design of guard rails, changed sign structures, adopted Clearview on signs then went back to Series Gothic, etc.

It's more and more difficult for a new road to be signed as an Interstate highway. There's sections of 100% limited access highway waiting to be signed as Interstates in other parts of the country but aren't signed yet because the states aren't finished making the mandated improvements to the roads. Meanwhile those sections of I-10 and I-40 just get a pass on all that regulation.

The ranch exits in west Texas are nowhere near the most dangerous of them.

Which ones are the most dangerous?

All the concern about safety, I am sure Texas has many intersections on other roads that are more dangerous and warrant safety improvements before adding an interchange or even spending money closing the mostly never used access points.

I don't want interchanges or exits. I just want the driveways onto I-10 and I-40 removed. In the case of I-40, frontage roads already line most of that Interstate in the panhandle. I don't know why TX DOT didn't just build the frontage roads all the way to the NM border. Worst case scenario: they could build partial frontage roads the length of a rest area stop to serve these driveways. This approach is being put to use on I-69 in South Texas. The same thing can be used on I-10 and I-40.

[J N Winkler]

To be fair, I don't think Texas is installing new driveways.  Ranches that already had driveways into the predecessor route of I-10 still needed access.  Saying access had to be by dirt road 30 miles to the next interchange would be seen by the courts as a chargeable loss of use of that ranch land, so the state would either have to buy the ranch or pay for a good frontage road.

As I understand it, the ranch accesses on Interstates in west Texas are a legacy of Dewitt C. Greer's "interregional highways" policy, the original plan being that few if any overpasses would be built to serve low traffic volumes.  BPR eventually asked Greer and his department to adhere to more stringent standards.

I do not agree that driveway closure would necessarily be construed as compensable denial of access even if the alternate route to the property were of significantly lower quality.  There is a long line of court decisions which hold that access must be paid for if it is taken, but the alternate access does not have to match the denied access in quality or convenience.  These cases were worked through in multiple states during their respective periods of early freeway construction.

Why does my phone insist I mean "we're" instead of "were"?

If you are thumb-typing on an unrooted Android phone and using Google Keyboard, then my suspicion is a recent update with a ham-fisted implementation of smart spaces and word prediction.  I have the same problem with my phone completing "its" as "it's."  The assumption at Google seems to be that anyone with an IQ of more than 90 (or the ability to form sentences with dependent clauses) must be treated like Harrison Bergeron unless he or she is Swyping, which seems to be the cue not to activate these "smart" functions that aren't.

[Brian556]

Meanwhile, in Florida, there is this overpass with no road. Just for property access:

https://www.google.com/maps/@28.781414,-81.9721636,198m/data=!3m1!1e3

[aboges26]

Meanwhile, in Florida, there is this overpass with no road. Just for property access:

https://www.google.com/maps/@28.781414,-81.9721636,198m/data=!3m1!1e3

That is odd that it has a sign saying "Bailey Road" but there is clearly no road on either side of it....

[kkt]

There are lots and lots of waivered sections of interstates.  No shoulder or too narrow shoulder, insufficient sightlines, left entrances or exits, etc., etc.  Should we take away interstate signs from all of them?  There probably wouldn't be a single interstate left untouched.

Interstate highways don't get left as-is when they were first signed as Interstates decades ago. They're really a work in progress. The government changes regulations on highway design periodically and the states have to comply with that. If some state wants to keep a section of Interstate in 1970's era quality or ignore other new safety regulations then it shouldn't be signed as an Interstate.

Or else what?  What sections of interstate that either received waivers to be included or met requirements when they were included have had their signage removed because they don't meet current interstate requirements?

I've seen a lot of work get done to the Interstates and other highways here in Oklahoma over the past few years. They've modified the shoulders, added cable barriers or Jersey barriers, changed the design of guard rails, changed sign structures, adopted Clearview on signs then went back to Series Gothic, etc.

It's more and more difficult for a new road to be signed as an Interstate highway. There's sections of 100% limited access highway waiting to be signed as Interstates in other parts of the country but aren't signed yet because the states aren't finished making the mandated improvements to the roads. Meanwhile those sections of I-10 and I-40 just get a pass on all that regulation.

Yes, I realize it's now harder to get any deficient roadway signed as interstate than it used to be, but I haven't seen them remove existing interstates for not being updated.

The ranch exits in west Texas are nowhere near the most dangerous of them.

Which ones are the most dangerous?

Hm.  I-880 in Oakland features narrow lanes and no shoulders.  The Bay Bridge west span has no shoulders.  There are several bridges in Washington and other states that have lower clearance than would be allowed for new construction, and some of them are fracture-critical.

All the concern about safety, I am sure Texas has many intersections on other roads that are more dangerous and warrant safety improvements before adding an interchange or even spending money closing the mostly never used access points.

I don't want interchanges or exits. I just want the driveways onto I-10 and I-40 removed. In the case of I-40, frontage roads already line most of that Interstate in the panhandle. I don't know why TX DOT didn't just build the frontage roads all the way to the NM border. Worst case scenario: they could build partial frontage roads the length of a rest area stop to serve these driveways. This approach is being put to use on I-69 in South Texas. The same thing can be used on I-10 and I-40.

[TheStranger]

Yes, I realize it's now harder to get any deficient roadway signed as interstate than it used to be, but I haven't seen them remove existing interstates for not being updated.

Would current Business 80 in Sacramento between E Street and I-80/unsigned Route 244 be one example of this?

The current remaining section of Central Freeway in SF was once part of I-80 in the early 1960s, though it was removed from the route once the Western Freeway project was canceled.

The one-time I-580 in Omaha, Nebraska might fit this too, wasn't that signed?

[jeffandnicole]

I am not going to "just accept" anything. I want safe roads. But the official definition of safety is based on fatalities. It seems that many people have to die in wrecks before the Controlled Access is finished.

Controlled access may reduce deaths, but it doesn't eliminate them. 

[Avalanchez71]

Meanwhile, in Florida, there is this overpass with no road. Just for property access:

https://www.google.com/maps/@28.781414,-81.9721636,198m/data=!3m1!1e3

That is odd that it has a sign saying "Bailey Road" but there is clearly no road on either side of it....

They may have likely named the road on on the overpass as Bailey Rd.  So does the property owner get to access the Florida's Turnpike via the Okahumpka Service Plaza area?

[Bobby5280]

Interstate highways don't get left as-is when they were first signed as Interstates decades ago. They're really a work in progress. The government changes regulations on highway design periodically and the states have to comply with that. If some state wants to keep a section of Interstate in 1970's era quality or ignore other new safety regulations then it shouldn't be signed as an Interstate.

Or else what?  What sections of interstate that either received waivers to be included or met requirements when they were included have had their signage removed because they don't meet current interstate requirements?

The "or else" part is the federal government denying federal funding on highway projects in that state. They do have some leverage on getting new standards adopted.

The ranch exits in west Texas are nowhere near the most dangerous of them.

Which ones are the most dangerous?

Hm.  I-880 in Oakland features narrow lanes and no shoulders.  The Bay Bridge west span has no shoulders.  There are several bridges in Washington and other states that have lower clearance than would be allowed for new construction, and some of them are fracture-critical

Bridges are a difficult and lately a very expensive problem, but if the condition of a bridge deteriorates to a certain point it has to be closed and then re-built if possible. The I-35W bridge collapse in Minneapolis lit a fire under the butts of a lot of people. Here in Oklahoma a lot of bridges had to be repaired or replaced due to being fracture critical. Here in Lawton the I-44 and Cache Road interchange, which features some fairly big bridges, was mostly re-built due to that disaster in Minnesota.

Narrow lanes with litle if any shoulders are somewhat common on older, urban Interstate highways -especially elevated ones that are extremely expensive to replace. Those at-grade intersections in Texas wouldn't be nearly so expensive to remedy. In Oklahoma City the old, elevated section of I-40 going through downtown was demolished, with the new highway relocated a few blocks South.

Narrow lanes and smaller shoulders aren't necessarily all that dangerous on an urban freeway, provided the road carries a slower speed limit. But the risk is definitely there for vehicles to trade paint with each other.

The potential hazard of an at grade crossing on a rural Interstate with a 80mph speed limit is quite a bit more severe. Here in the Lawton area I've seen the aftermath of some pretty bad, fatal accidents where drivers made a left turn on divided highways without paying enough attention to oncoming traffic in the opposing lanes and got t-boned. Those were in 65mph or 70mph posted zones. At 80mph a vehicle is traveling nearly 120 feet per second. When you're looking at an approaching vehicle its speed can be deceptive. This effect is enhanced as speeds get faster.

[Brian556]

Quote from Bobby5380:

Narrow lanes and smaller shoulders aren't necessarily all that dangerous on an urban freeway, provided the road carries a slower speed limit. But the risk is definitely there for vehicles to trade paint with each other.

Take a look at this narrow bridge in Denton, Texas:https://www.google.com/maps/@33.2085462,-97.1618197,3a,75y,164.31h,61.76t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sBQ12N4YG4wKFVR3fXXE3_A!2e0!5s20121201T000000!7i13312!8i6656

Once, a semi hit the wall on the right, which practically protrudes into the lane, went over the center divider, striking two oncoming vehicles. These deficiencies are indeed dangerous

[Bobby5280]

As I said though, a bridge is quite a bit more of an expensive fix. That's old street view imagery by the way. The bridge was repaired, but the road wasn't widened much following that repair. OTOH, I-35E is going through a pretty big upgrade between Denton and Dallas. Those narrow shoulders probably won't be there for much longer.

Those at grade crossings farther west are much less expensive to remedy.

[Brian556]

Quote from Bobby5280:

As I said though, a bridge is quite a bit more of an expensive fix. That's old street view imagery by the way. The bridge was repaired, but the road wasn't widened much following that repair. OTOH, I-35E is going through a pretty big upgrade between Denton and Dallas. Those narrow shoulders probably won't be there for much longer.

Those at grade crossings farther west are much less expensive to remedy.

I know it's old imagery. I had to use the "turn back time" feature to get it. I live near I-35E near Lewisville Lake, so I keep up well with the project