Construction is proceeding well and it could be open as soon as later this year
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdallasfreeways.com%2Fdfwfreeways%2FAARoads%2F20180402_12-0247-1600.jpg&hash=0bb03bfa38ca3ff3da6e51655cb49c119e439f31)
Going westbound, this is the start near downtown
http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20180402_12-0247-1600.jpg (http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20180402_12-0247-1600.jpg)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdallasfreeways.com%2Fdfwfreeways%2FAARoads%2F20180402_12-0257-1600.jpg&hash=05eaaff321cf811f0dfe0376a82df9c42f1a5bf3)
Elevated structure
http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20180402_12-0257-1600.jpg (http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20180402_12-0257-1600.jpg)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdallasfreeways.com%2Fdfwfreeways%2FAARoads%2F20180402_12-0259-1600.jpg&hash=7cbf460b1736777dac46a0b29c5e4bf15f8a85ee)
The background on the left side is Mexico
http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20180402_12-0259-1600.jpg (http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20180402_12-0259-1600.jpg)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdallasfreeways.com%2Fdfwfreeways%2FAARoads%2F20180402_12-0261-1600.jpg&hash=fbd03683fcba8b8594d1cff95ee84174604d9d00)
http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20180402_12-0261-1600.jpg (http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20180402_12-0261-1600.jpg)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdallasfreeways.com%2Fdfwfreeways%2FAARoads%2F20180402_12-0267-1600.jpg&hash=5337871d9a9f251d0d442f6a5fd37d129140ef59)
http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20180402_12-0267-1600.jpg (http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20180402_12-0267-1600.jpg)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdallasfreeways.com%2Fdfwfreeways%2FAARoads%2F20180402_12-0280-1600.jpg&hash=ff8db7b5e90869a4e82f2d2a11c7cc917423eea3)
This is near the former Ascarco smelter
http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20180402_12-0280-1600.jpg (http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20180402_12-0280-1600.jpg)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdallasfreeways.com%2Fdfwfreeways%2FAARoads%2F20180402_12-0285-1600.jpg&hash=30bce16fda01bc65d01a9393b51215a5309eebac)
Looking westbound/northwest near the former Asarco smelter
http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20180402_12-0285-1600.jpg (http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20180402_12-0285-1600.jpg)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdallasfreeways.com%2Fdfwfreeways%2FAARoads%2F20180402_12-0292-1600.jpg&hash=4c4ac879551c0ea8b9c4f00e3f62025fa3201f95)
http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20180402_12-0292-1600.jpg (http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20180402_12-0292-1600.jpg)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdallasfreeways.com%2Fdfwfreeways%2FAARoads%2F20180402_12-0297-1600.jpg&hash=39aadf5c2d9f746e8df60cd9b1c0bd3d7e4a857f)
There is a lot of work along Interstate 10. This view is along Interstate 10. The existing direct connector as Sunland Park road is currently being demolished.
http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20180402_12-0297-1600.jpg (http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20180402_12-0297-1600.jpg)
Really not impressed with this project, as most of it has been a mistake. The existing Interstate 10 alignment, should have been moved onto the pre-existing Paisano Blvd, just east of the Rio Grande, and the border. Keeping it east of the Union Pacific tracks. Asarco smelter is closed and removed! Shifting 10 could have freed up property for future development! The tight curve at Exit 13, Sunland Park Dr, has not been eliminated! Which would have been done had the Interstate been shifted west. There is a significant incline, as well, east of Sunland Park, for both eastbound and westbound traffic on 10, also, that could have been eliminated had the Interstate been shifted west. That creates rolling cyclical backups due to trucking slowing as it goes up the incline from both directions. Two other items that should have been pursued were a completely new Executive and I-10 interchange(exit 16) and a new Southern Pacific double track RR bridge in the Executive/10 vicinity. Likely more than half of this $800 million plus boondoggle was to complete the Loop 375, cramming in it along the border via creation of a modern Embarcadero. Just because an agency has money, doesn't mean it should simply throw it around without careful study and foresight.
I'm wondering if they're still planning a US-62/Montana Avenue freeway out on the East side of El Paso. A lot of renderings and animated videos were produced of it years ago. As far as I can tell the project could be in limbo.
Elevated Structure? :-o
I am surprised they are still building them.
Well, it is Texas after all. A decent number of elevated "Lexus Lanes" have been added to big city highways in Texas over the past decade.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 17, 2018, 04:35:31 PM
I'm wondering if they're still planning a US-62/Montana Avenue freeway out on the East side of El Paso. A lot of renderings and animated videos were produced of it years ago. As far as I can tell the project could be in limbo.
Would guess such an undertaking, would be at least a decade away. There has been widening (to six lanes) and traffic signal replacements done on the Montana Avenue corridor (US 62-180) in recent years. It would seem senseless (and wasteful, another txdot theme) to rip all that out in the immediate future time frame.
Such a facility (Montana Ave freeway) would essentially be an "orphan" facility, as it would not connect to a freeway at either end. It would cross the eastern side of the loop 375 facility, which encircles El Paso, and is built to varying (non Interstate mostly) standards.
One thing the agency should have done, and should be thinking about, is ROW acquisition in certain areas along this heavily traveled Montana Ave. corridor. Vestiges of ROW preservation are visible along Montana Avenue in the Hawkins and McRae Blvd areas, likely from the sixties. Ironically that area is west of the proposed freeway upgrade. It does seem the cat is out of the bag long ago though, as development tightly hugs the corridor at many traffic signals and in certain stretches along the south side. Much of the north side is Fort Bliss property and perhaps the idea is to simply shift a hypothetical freeway with frontages to the north.
A "Trowbridge Avenue" freeway was planned years ago, which would have used much of the Montana Avenue corridor, and then traveled to the west along Trowbridge Avenue to meet the current Patriot Freeway barely a mile north of present day Interstate 10. The amount of takings required along Trowbridge, to create an open path, and the obvious duplication of Interstate 10 were likely reasons for it's demise.
Quote from: In_Correct on June 22, 2018, 01:10:05 PM
Elevated Structure? :-o
I am surprised they are still building them.
These elevated structures are being constructed in former Asarco Copper property, and along the Union Pacific RR tracks directly adjacent to the international border. It is essentially "brownfield" property, and there are no residential abutters to create opposition. Basically a path of least resistance in a quest (would term it obsession) to "complete the loop". Improving pre-existing Interstate 10 geometrically should have been the goal.
Is there any update to this project? Has anyone been through there recently or know of any news on its potential opening date?
Quote from: chays on March 01, 2019, 03:07:06 PM
Is there any update to this project? Has anyone been through there recently or know of any news on its potential opening date?
When I had my trucking job, I drove through El Paso regularly. I've seen bits and pieces of the Loop 375 Tollway going up, and even one BGS with a "375 Toll" shield, but it's very far from completion. Meanwhile, the construction zone on I-10 has been such a nightmare for so long that it's sometimes wiser to take the northern Loop 375 expressway, except that some of the hills are so steep they will slow fully loaded tractor-trailers down to around 35 MPH.
Another option to bypass El Paso and the 10 mess is to zigzag through NE El Paso heading north from Loop 375 by means of either McCombs or Patriot Freeway to Warr Road. This leads to NM 213 and then NM 404 to rejoin 10 at exit 162. The absence of an Interstate grade facility taking care of this bypass movement is obscene. For a metroplex of its' size. Which includes Cuidad Juarez by necessity, as it is part of the metroplex. The Woodrow bean Parkway is not suited for this role, as it is a mountain Parkway with sinuous curves and 8% grades posted.
NM 404 is currently just a 2 lane facility from I-10 to Chaparral and NM-213. But there's more than enough space to 4-lane it or upgrade it to Interstate quality. Going South and connecting into the Patriot Freeway (US-54) could be more tricky. There's not enough space along Martin Luther King Jr Blvd to upgrade that into a freeway. A new terrain route could dodge the North Hills West neighborhood to its West side, but the road would have to be built up some to avoid flash flooding. The neighborhood already has a fairly tall flood control berm there. That would still be a more desirable route than having the freeway concept connect to US-54 farther North and East.
If such an Interstate quality bypass was built it might put more pressure on improving the interchange at US-54 and Loop 375. There are no direct connect flyover ramps on that interchange currently.
Believe that there were some scoping at one time, for a new terrain route leaving "Loop 375" (still despise that designation) east of Railroad Drive, and shooting to the NW, across the far Northeast side (or fan) of El Paso. It should have been as straight as possible, crossing the rail road, and the arterials of Railroad, Dyer, and McCombs, before reaching open range land (Bowen Ranch). Would meet, and bridge, NM 213 north of state line, and follow high tension lines to the saddle of Anthony Gap. This would remove the heavy turning movements at the fruity "rotary" at the NM 213/404 intersection. NM 404 would be "double barreled" west of there, west of the Gap, all the way to Interstate 10. Variable width median, and varying elevation for the two carriageways would be utilized. Minimum 88 foot median would be employed, over 100 feet would be better. Box Beam flyovers would carry both 10 south to 404 east (future I-210) and 404 west to I-10 north traffic. There is a community college and a ranch property at this interchange. The west to north flyover could be omitted if ranch property is acquired and leveled. The south to east flyover would go over the 10 mainlines, and behind (south) of the community college. Other movements would utilize existing 404/I-10 diamond interchange. The I-10 frontage road, on the west side of 10, in the vicinity of the NM 404 exit, was moved farther away from the interstate, in a possible preparation for this necessary eventuality. Although no fan of the NM department, that was a good move.
Just no concerted effort to move on this needed routing / facility. Heads in the sand, ostrich-like behavior. This project is of more importance than the adopted "Move 10" fiasco, imho. In terms of rational connectivity, and removal of long distance trucking from downtown El Paso.
Quote from: DJStephens on March 16, 2019, 10:28:35 AM
Believe that there were some scoping at one time, for a new terrain route leaving "Loop 375" (still despise that designation) east of Railroad Drive, and shooting to the NW, across the far Northeast side (or fan) of El Paso. It should have been as straight as possible, crossing the rail road, and the arterials of Railroad, Dyer, and McCombs, before reaching open range land (Bowen Ranch). Would meet, and bridge, NM 213 north of state line, and follow high tension lines to the saddle of Anthony Gap. This would remove the heavy turning movements at the fruity "rotary" at the NM 213/404 intersection. NM 404 would be "double barreled" west of there, west of the Gap, all the way to Interstate 10. Variable width median, and varying elevation for the two carriageways would be utilized. Minimum 88 foot median would be employed, over 100 feet would be better. Box Beam flyovers would carry both 10 south to 404 east (future I-210) and 404 west to I-10 north traffic. There is a community college and a ranch property at this interchange. The west to north flyover could be omitted if ranch property is acquired and leveled. The south to east flyover would go over the 10 mainlines, and behind (south) of the community college. Other movements would utilize existing 404/I-10 diamond interchange. The I-10 frontage road, on the west side of 10, in the vicinity of the NM 404 exit, was moved farther away from the interstate, in a possible preparation for this necessary eventuality. Although no fan of the NM department, that was a good move.
Just no concerted effort to move on this needed routing / facility. Heads in the sand, ostrich-like behavior. This project is of more importance than the adopted "Move 10" fiasco, imho. In terms of rational connectivity, and removal of long distance trucking from downtown El Paso.
Any official documentation available regarding this bypass project? The timeframe in which it was considered would be telling -- particularly since it likely predates the TX penchant for toll facilities. If NM would have had to participate in the project -- given its abject lack of interest in 3di's or similar bypass concepts (e.g. US 70 around Las Cruces and/or an Albuquerque outer loop -- even partial) -- the lack of follow-through might be explained -- if not rationalized.
New Mexico does about as little as it can improving its highways. It seems like there usually has to be some kind of severe safety issue for them to convert a 2-lane highway to 4-lane on their own. Recent 4-lane projects, such as the US-64/87 part of the Ports to Plains Corridor from Clayton to Raton, were parts of larger multi-state/national efforts. TX DOT would likely have to chip in some money for an Interstate quality upgrade of NM-404.
A new terrain route could spur off Loop 375, following the diagonal route North of Biggs Field on past the Northern fringes of El Paso. But some agreements would have to be worked out with Fort Bliss for that ROW. It might not be the best path since the Fort Bill Rod and Gun Club has its ranges aimed in the direction where the concept highway would run. A large berm would need to be built up around the gun range and perhaps the highway might need to be trenched and/or lined with barrier walls.
Quote from: sparker on March 16, 2019, 03:14:01 PM
Quote from: DJStephens on March 16, 2019, 10:28:35 AM
Believe that there were some scoping at one time, for a new terrain route leaving "Loop 375" (still despise that designation) east of Railroad Drive, and shooting to the NW, across the far Northeast side (or fan) of El Paso. It should have been as straight as possible, crossing the rail road, and the arterials of Railroad, Dyer, and McCombs, before reaching open range land (Bowen Ranch). Would meet, and bridge, NM 213 north of state line, and follow high tension lines to the saddle of Anthony Gap. This would remove the heavy turning movements at the fruity "rotary" at the NM 213/404 intersection. NM 404 would be "double barreled" west of there, west of the Gap, all the way to Interstate 10. Variable width median, and varying elevation for the two carriageways would be utilized. Minimum 88 foot median would be employed, over 100 feet would be better. Box Beam flyovers would carry both 10 south to 404 east (future I-210) and 404 west to I-10 north traffic. There is a community college and a ranch property at this interchange. The west to north flyover could be omitted if ranch property is acquired and leveled. The south to east flyover would go over the 10 mainlines, and behind (south) of the community college. Other movements would utilize existing 404/I-10 diamond interchange. The I-10 frontage road, on the west side of 10, in the vicinity of the NM 404 exit, was moved farther away from the interstate, in a possible preparation for this necessary eventuality. Although no fan of the NM department, that was a good move.
Just no concerted effort to move on this needed routing / facility. Heads in the sand, ostrich-like behavior. This project is of more importance than the adopted "Move 10" fiasco, imho. In terms of rational connectivity, and removal of long distance trucking from downtown El Paso.
Any official documentation available regarding this bypass project? The timeframe in which it was considered would be telling -- particularly since it likely predates the TX penchant for toll facilities. If NM would have had to participate in the project -- given its abject lack of interest in 3di's or similar bypass concepts (e.g. US 70 around Las Cruces and/or an Albuquerque outer loop -- even partial) -- the lack of follow-through might be explained -- if not rationalized.
It was a proposal of the Camino Real Regional Mobility Authority as recently as 2008. I remember seeing official documentation of the proposed "Northeast Parkway" to be a toll road from Loop 375 to the NM border. From the 2008 Comprehensive Mobility Plan map, you can see the generic proposed route here: https://crrma-production.s3.amazonaws.com/documents/files/000/000/007/original/1_-_2008_CMP_-_Map.pdf?1480523942 This CMP called for ROW acquisition to begin in the 2008 - 2013 timeframe.
Recently, it appears TxDOT has taken over the proposal and that the toll idea is nixed for a 2 phase project where the first phase would construct a Super-2 facility somewhat like the current southeast portion of the Amarillo Loop, with a final build-out to a full freeway with frontage roads: https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/el-paso/northeastpky-lp375-fm3325.html
You can see a map of the current proposal here: http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/elp/northeastpky/072618-locationmap.pdf
Schematics here: https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/el-paso/072618.html
I got a good laugh of the route shown in the Project Location Map PDF. It makes a big crazy loop when it splits from Loop 375, all to get around the Fort Bliss Rod and Gun Club range. They'll have to bridge over or under the access road to the gun club. But that loop and extra bridge work might be cheaper than all the earth work needed for a straight route. And even with berms, putting the road into a trench, etc the road would still not be safe from stray rounds. Some people are really really stupid with guns and rifles.
That proposed route for the Northeast Parkway just gets a potential freeway built up to the New Mexico border. It's still going to be up to NM DOT to build their portion of the super highway on NM-404.
Regarding the intersection with NM-404 and NM-213, I would hope that NM DOT would split a new freeway away from the existing NM-404 alignment shortly after it passes East of the mountains. It would be better for a new terrain road to run straight East, rather than ENE toward Chaparral. Just before reaching NM-213 the highway could curve SE and pretty much run straight into the proposed Northeast Parkway route.
Don't know the date of that aerial that the tex-dot uses in the link, but it shows a potential ROW existing between Sean Haggerty and the Patriot Frwy (US - 54). Along with a patchwork of open properties to the south/southeast. Their proposed route shows extra length, by looping around development entirely to the east. Am guessing that infill has already consumed some of that property. Planning is not exactly a strong point in this part of the country.
The El Paso area appears to be growing fairly rapidly. So if TX DOT wants to be able to build the Northeast Parkway from Loop 375 to the NM Border they had better secure the ROW for it ASAP and begin building out the frontage roads.
I think if that corridor along with NM-404 was properly built out it would attract a heck of a lot of long distance truck traffic. Big rigs would be able to avoid all the traffic in El Paso and would have an easy route through the mountains, one far better than the steep one Loop 375 takes.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 16, 2019, 04:53:12 PM
New Mexico does about as little as it can improving its highways. It seems like there usually has to be some kind of severe safety issue for them to convert a 2-lane highway to 4-lane on their own. Recent 4-lane projects, such as the US-64/87 part of the Ports to Plains Corridor from Clayton to Raton, were parts of larger multi-state/national efforts. TX DOT would likely have to chip in some money for an Interstate quality upgrade of NM-404.
A new terrain route could spur off Loop 375, following the diagonal route North of Biggs Field on past the Northern fringes of El Paso. But some agreements would have to be worked out with Fort Bliss for that ROW. It might not be the best path since the Fort Bill Rod and Gun Club has its ranges aimed in the direction where the concept highway would run. A large berm would need to be built up around the gun range and perhaps the highway might need to be trenched and/or lined with barrier walls.
The easiest solution would be to move the gun range/club. Farther out into the vast expanse of Fort Bliss. Of course that isn't considered, even though it would make the most sense. Typical of the region.
It's officially complete after over 4 years of construction! Opened on Thursday, October 3 for all drivers and is currently NOT tolled! A future date will be announced on when will tolling starts on this stretch of road!
We need someone to go out there and get a video and photos of that road!
Quote from: Great Lakes Roads on October 07, 2019, 08:44:47 PM
We need someone to go out there and get a video and photos of that road!
Yes! Me want exit numbers, for TravelMapping!
Exit 59 Paisano Drive
Exit 62 UT El Paso
Exit 64 Executive Center Boulevard
Exit 66 I-10
https://twitter.com/txdotelp/status/1179414235069190145
Thanks for the link/video.
The video is eastbound, making the Exit 66 depicted this one (https://www.google.com/maps/@31.8042419,-106.5404403,3a,36.4y,136.54h,94.46t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sfmVQncXyIVr0y1z2334SjQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40), for US85 "East".
WB, we first have an exit for Doniphan Drive (https://www.google.com/maps/@31.7948546,-106.5300053,114m/data=!3m1!1e3), then (closer to the EB ramp) an exit (https://www.google.com/maps/@31.8017032,-106.5363615,114m/data=!3m1!1e3) for the I-10 frontage road and eventually Sunland Park Drive.
Hm. So WB, we could have 65 & 66, 66 & 67, 66A & 66B, or God knows what...
Edit: Wiki[citation needed]pedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_State_Highway_Loop_375#Exit_list) says 66A & 66B.
https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/commission/2023/1026/agenda.pdf
Good news! The agenda for next week's commission meeting has this item
QuoteEl Paso County - Camino Real Regional Mobility Authority - Consider approval of the
conversion of the Loop 375 Border Highway West Extension project to a non-tolled state
highway, the removal of the toll project designation for the project, and cancellation of the
Camino Real Regional Mobility Authority's obligation to repay financial assistance from the
department (MO)
This is the second toll project in El Paso to have its tolls removed. The first was the managed lanes along the west border highway.
Maybe someone in El Paso can speculate about a reason for the toll removal. Was traffic very low? My guess is that traffic was so low it didn't justify the cost of collecting tolls. Tolls probably caused the highway to have negligible benefit, not removing any traffic from I-10. Of course, traffic counts on Loop 375 west should go up dramatically when tolls are removed, and benefits to I-10 will be realized.
Sometimes there is discussion at the commission meeting, sometimes they just approve the items without discussion. We'll find out next week if there is an official explanation.
It would be nice if this starts a trend of removing tolls from toll roads which were paid for with TxDOT general funds (not project-specific bonds). First on my list is the toll lanes at the DFW connector, which should be converted to express lanes.
I would also like to see SH 130 serving the Tesla factory (between SH 71 and US 290) have its tolls removed to improve access to Tesla. SH 130 was financed with bonds, but Tesla is surely generating so much new traffic on adjacent sections (north of US 290 and south of SH 71) that the loss of toll revenue on that section won't cause financial harm.
SH-130 needs its tolls removed to increase the appeal of bypassing I-35 in Austin and "hopefully" increasing LOS to some extent. Not to make it cheaper for people working at the Tesla Gigafactory which I'm sure are already paid handsomely.
https://www.crrma.org/past-projects/border-west-expressway-loop-375-toll-lanes
According to the CRRMA website, toll collection has never started on the Loop 375 western segment:
The facility was opened in a toll deferral period. That means that there is currently no charge to use the roadway. The CRRMA is working with TxDOT on determining when to end the toll deferral period and to begin collecting tolls.
According to the TxDOT statewide planning map, the AADT on Loop 375 west is 38,000.
Is the toll collection infrastructure set up already? Maybe they decided the cost of building it wasn't worth it.
Quote from: US 89 on October 21, 2023, 08:38:40 AM
Is the toll collection infrastructure set up already? Maybe they decided the cost of building it wasn't worth it.
Yes, the toll capture structures are in place:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/Sqk4ZZ7PkYGH4DBG9?g_st=ic
According to the minute order: "The project was opened to traffic on October 3, 2019, but tolling has not commenced. By letter dated November 4, 2020, the CRRMA requested that the department consider operating the Border West Expressway as a non-tolled facility, which will allow the facility to be fully available to all motorists in the region. The letter references an updated traffic and revenue study which resulted in a report that identified project revenues which were less than projected expenses for at least 15 years from commencement of toll operations and points out that the department and the CRRMA would be forced to expend public funds on toll operations when there is no financial benefit to the region in doing so."
It's kind of easy to understand why motorists in the El Paso area would shun-pike the would-be toll road and not bother getting a TxTag account. They have to drive at least 550 miles East to find the nearest TxTag-compatible toll road.
https://cbs4local.com/news/local/border-west-expressway-in-el-paso-transitions-from-toll-road-to-free-highway-following-state-commission-vote-border-freeway-el-paso-austin-loop-375-camino-real-mobility-authority-txdot
The Texas Transportation Commision voted to not make Loop 375 a toll road.
This ends the toll road experiment for El Paso? There used to be tolled express lanes on the eastern segment of Loop 375 where there was almost no traffic using it.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 23, 2023, 09:38:09 PM
It's kind of easy to understand why motorists in the El Paso area would shun-pike the would-be toll road and not bother getting a TxTag account. They have to drive at least 550 miles East to find the nearest TxTag-compatible toll road.
That makes no sense. El Paso drivers would choose whether or not to use an El Paso tollway based on convenience, time savings, traffic avoidance, etc. Not if they can use the transponder somewhere else.
Quote from: Chris on October 27, 2023, 02:00:11 PM
This ends the toll road experiment for El Paso? There used to be tolled express lanes on the eastern segment of Loop 375 where there was almost no traffic using it.
I agree, I think it is very unlikely there will ever be any toll roads in El Paso, or even consideration of building any.
El Paso is a low income city, and tolls are expensive. I think the pool of customers for toll roads is small, since most residents are unwilling or unable to regularly pay expensive tolls.
San Antonio is also a low income city (although not as low as El Paso), and of course it has no toll roads.
The Rio Grande Valley is another low income area which has one toll road and is contemplating more, although the IBTC is non-tolled. I don't know how toll SH 550 is performing, and I don't have time to investigate right now.
In contrast, higher-income areas Houston, DFW and Austin have an overabundance of toll roads, and the toll roads attract plenty of traffic and revenue.
I don't think Texas should forsake toll roads altogether, although I'm sure there are some who would support that (while likely having no idea how to otherwise fund transportation needs within the state). Are traffic demands high enough for some express toll lanes to be constructed in the El Paso area? Such as along Interstate 10 or the US 54 freeway?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 29, 2023, 06:33:54 PM
I don't think Texas should forsake toll roads altogether, although I'm sure there are some who would support that (while likely having no idea how to otherwise fund transportation needs within the state). Are traffic demands high enough for some express toll lanes to be constructed in the El Paso area? Such as along Interstate 10 or the US 54 freeway?
To your last point: I think most existing tolls should be eliminated. But, I think having those same "freeways" with tolled express lanes is a fair compromise (similar to Katy Freeway and TEXpress in DFW).
Example: SH130 in Austin. That is a critical enough route that it should be free, but there's enough traffic on the segment between SH71 and SH45 to justify tolled express lanes, and there is enough space in the median to accommodate it.
Given that the 375 loop will be a full freeway for its entire length, has TxDOT expressed any interest in designating it as an interstate loop? I think I-210 would be available if TxDOT chose to do so, since I don't know of an I-210 that either exists or is proposed in Texas. If not I-210, then perhaps I-810.
The roadway will likely keep the Loop 375 designation. Although Texas (and North Carolina) are the interstate-designating capitals of the country, I don't think the El Paso area will get any more 3dis outside of existing Interstate 110.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 20, 2023, 09:00:57 PM
SH-130 needs its tolls removed to increase the appeal of bypassing I-35 in Austin and "hopefully" increasing LOS to some extent. Not to make it cheaper for people working at the Tesla Gigafactory which I'm sure are already paid handsomely.
I have not been through El Paso in a number of years. Is I-110 still unsigned?
Quote from: ski-man on October 30, 2023, 02:22:53 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 20, 2023, 09:00:57 PM
SH-130 needs its tolls removed to increase the appeal of bypassing I-35 in Austin and "hopefully" increasing LOS to some extent. Not to make it cheaper for people working at the Tesla Gigafactory which I'm sure are already paid handsomely.
I have not been through El Paso in a number of years. Is I-110 still unsigned?
It depends if you count this as signage (https://www.google.com/maps/@31.7679563,-106.4510927,3a,75y,35.49h,91.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRlIcw4XpocbRvIYg9vVTew!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu). Otherwise it is unsigned.
Correct if I'm wrong but isn't I-10 through downtown El Paso's next big project? I could see toll lanes working on that. But then again if TxDOT isn't even tolling the express lanes in Austin I doubt they would in El Paso.
Quote from: 74/171FAN on October 30, 2023, 02:38:05 PM
Quote from: ski-man on October 30, 2023, 02:22:53 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 20, 2023, 09:00:57 PM
SH-130 needs its tolls removed to increase the appeal of bypassing I-35 in Austin and "hopefully" increasing LOS to some extent. Not to make it cheaper for people working at the Tesla Gigafactory which I'm sure are already paid handsomely.
I have not been through El Paso in a number of years. Is I-110 still unsigned?
It depends if you count this as signage (https://www.google.com/maps/@31.7679563,-106.4510927,3a,75y,35.49h,91.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sRlIcw4XpocbRvIYg9vVTew!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?entry=ttu). Otherwise it is unsigned.
Cool. I used to come from Mexico that way on certain days and didn't see those signs, so those must be newer than about 10-15 years. I know on I-10 you did not see I-110, only a sign that said Juarez, Mexico.
Quote from: abqtraveler on October 30, 2023, 09:46:20 AM
Given that the 375 loop will be a full freeway for its entire length, has TxDOT expressed any interest in designating it as an interstate loop? I think I-210 would be available if TxDOT chose to do so, since I don't know of an I-210 that either exists or is proposed in Texas. If not I-210, then perhaps I-810.
It doesn't meet standards. Not everywhere, but the final product is a cobbled together spaghetti string of varying elements. A lot of piecemealing went on.
The original Trans Mountain Road, which was constructed in the early seventies, has 8% grades. There should not be Class A trucking on that road today. Should have remained a Parkway, for passenger cars, and light trucks only.
The section through NE El Paso has a narrow cross section and deficient shoulders. With a lot of vertical curvature. Roughly a 55-60 mph design speed. It could have been straighter, and better there - meaning having a 3 x 3 cross section with better shoulders.
The section through Fort Bliss, could have, and should have been far better. The original plan circa mid sixties, was to have a consistent arc across the post. Instead, what was built, was pulled westward, and featured two sharp curves. Curves that are not I standard. Am guessing this was to bring it closer to the planned, and now extant "new" William Beamount Army Medical Hospital. Am not sure why the new WBAMH had to be, where it was constructed. The connection to the silly "spur 601" was half baked. An overpass carrying 375 was built, and built skewed off the original alignment. Plenty of space existed, and still exists, to build a correct "T" directional interchange, with flyovers and correct geometry. Instead, a screwball DDI was built under the skewed overpass. Spur 601 also could have been executed better. With a median (in the eastern section) and proper geometrics. Several fatal wrecks have occurred, on the 375 alignment, directly S of the improper 601 "connection" due to speed, abrupt curvature, and the shift of alignment. The entire 375/601 "connection" was a mistake, is half baked, and is deficient.
As for an "I" quality section, the only piece that consistently meets those standards is the section from Montana Avenue to Interstate 10. It has a 3 x 3 cross section, with some auxiliary lanes, although believe a 4 x 4 build out would have been preferable. The underpass of Pellicano Avenue might be the best single element on the section.
The product, that has evolved over the last several decades, is testament to the lack of foresight and horrible/non extant "planning" that exists in the borderland region. Years, decades even, of fiscal neglect, from Austin, then a massive infusion of cash, then repeated, monumental mistakes were made.
Why does Loop 375's exit sequence start at 11? Loop 375 officially starts at the corner of Talbot Ave. and Doniphan Dr./TX 20 (former US 80/85/180). It is most definitely not 11 miles from that intersection to Loop 375's interchange with Northwestern Dr., so the exit number would be lower if it were numbered by its actual mileage.
Would suspect that it might? be numbered from some point in downtown, near the rio grande river. So "11" would be 11 miles N of some point in downtown.
It does look like TX DOT is trying to remedy some of the design flaws with the existing Loop 375 freeway. Just North of the Montana Ave interchange they're building new roadway to replace the 50mph rated curve with one featuring a much larger (and higher speed) curve radius. They're doing something similar to the curve just South of the Spur 601 interchange.
But, yeah, there is a LOT of other sub-standard garbage along Loop 375 that has to be fixed before anyone could apply for an Interstate route designation. The Transmountain Drive is just a non-starter unless they wanted to start over and build some tunnels.
The best hope for any sort of "I-210" route in El Paso would depend in part on New Mexico. They would need to build a new freeway, starting from I-10 near the NM-404 exit and going East to meet up with the Northern end of the proposed Borderland Expressway. That project might be why some of the curve improvement work is taking place on the NE portions of Loop 375. Still, the shoulders and some other features on Loop 375 are sub-standard for Interstate status.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 06, 2023, 12:04:59 PM
It does look like TX DOT is trying to remedy some of the design flaws with the existing Loop 375 freeway. Just North of the Montana Ave interchange they're building new roadway to replace the 50mph rated curve with one featuring a much larger (and higher speed) curve radius. They're doing something similar to the curve just South of the Spur 601 interchange.
But, yeah, there is a LOT of other sub-standard garbage along Loop 375 that has to be fixed before anyone could apply for an Interstate route designation. The Transmountain Drive is just a non-starter unless they wanted to start over and build some tunnels.
The best hope for any sort of "I-210" route in El Paso would depend in part on New Mexico. They would need to build a new freeway, starting from I-10 near the NM-404 exit and going East to meet up with the Northern end of the proposed Borderland Expressway. That project might be why some of the curve improvement work is taking place on the NE portions of Loop 375. Still, the shoulders and some other features on Loop 375 are sub-standard for Interstate status.
Not happening. The NM department is "finishing" a cheapie four lane of existing NM 404. Featuring a Flush median, a terrible product is nearing completion. Another example of it could have been so much better.
At least there is plenty of wide open space in the area around the NM-404 corridor. TX DOT can get its projects on Loop-375 and the Borderlands Expressway completed South of the NM border. Then that can make it painfully obvious what needs to get done on the NM side of the border.
Of course, getting an I-quality freeway extension of the Borderlands Expressway built along (or over) NM-404 to I-10 might require a lot of Federal help. That means both funding and overriding the cheapskate habits of NM DOT and the state government.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 03, 2023, 06:23:23 PM
Why does Loop 375's exit sequence start at 11? Loop 375 officially starts at the corner of Talbot Ave. and Doniphan Dr./TX 20 (former US 80/85/180). It is most definitely not 11 miles from that intersection to Loop 375's interchange with Northwestern Dr., so the exit number would be lower if it were numbered by its actual mileage.
Because of the unusual way Texas references mileage and exit numbers on non-interstate freeways. Instead of starting at the south/west end of the road and increasing heading north/east, Texas uses a reference system where the northern border between the Texas Panhandle and Oklahoma is used for mileage on north-south routes. For routes that run east/west, the reference point is the Texas/New Mexico/Mexico tripoint. Since Loop 375 starts as an east-west route, its first exit number is 11 because that is 11 miles from the Texas/New Mexico/Mexico tripoint.
Quote from: DJStephens on November 07, 2023, 01:31:09 AMQuote from: Bobby5280 on November 06, 2023, 12:04:59 PMThe best hope for any sort of "I-210" route in El Paso would depend in part on New Mexico. They would need to build a new freeway, starting from I-10 near the NM-404 exit and going East to meet up with the Northern end of the proposed Borderland Expressway. That project might be why some of the curve improvement work is taking place on the NE portions of Loop 375. Still, the shoulders and some other features on Loop 375 are sub-standard for Interstate status.
Not happening. The NM department is "finishing" a cheapie four lane of existing NM 404. Featuring a Flush median, a terrible product is nearing completion. Another example of it could have been so much better.
Maybe you haven't seen the construction lately, but I would not call it a "cheapie" reconstruction of NM-404 through the Anthony Gap. They are building a proper expressway with a constant slope concrete barrier (rated for trucks) along nearly the entire length. It only goes away for pipeline/utility and ranch access intersections. Those along with the access to DACC and the solid waste facility are the main reasons why this road will not be a freeway.
However, NMDOT is doing a far better job on this than what they did with US-285 between Santa Fe and Pojoaque, US-70 east of Las Cruces, and especially US-550.
The hardest and last part will be the connection along the Texas-New Mexico state line. Both states are working from their sides and meeting in the middle.
You can see NMDOT's plans to bypass the NM-404 and NM-213 roundabout at this project website: https://bhi.mysocialpinpoint.com/nm-213-study/involvement (https://bhi.mysocialpinpoint.com/nm-213-study/involvement)
Personally, I hope they choose alternate 3: the 60 MPH flyovers, or several of the braided ramp options.