Poll
Question:
Upgrade The Boulevard?
Option 1: Rail Bridge.
votes: 0
Option 2: Frontage Road Bridge.
votes: 0
Option 3: Highway Bridge.
votes: 1
Option 4: Finish Widening It.
votes: 0
Option 5: Finish Paving It.
votes: 1
Option 6: Add Interchange.
votes: 1
Option 7: Add The Frontage Road On The Other Side.
votes: 1
Option 8: All Of The Above.
votes: 5
Option 9: None Of The Above.
votes: 4
Option 10: Other.
votes: 2
[Split from "I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston", thread. Related thread "The Boulevard" merged in. -S.]
Quote from: wxfree on August 15, 2018, 03:46:33 PM
TxDOT has plans to eliminate 10 grade crossings in Hudspeth County. They aren't high-ranking priorities, but they are on the radar.
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/tpp/rural_2035/report/0512/trtp_appendix_e_district.pdf.pdf
That's a list. Here's a map.
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/tpp/rural_2035/el_paso.pdf
Traveled this corridor last month. Nothing has changed. Figure with all the waste in El Paso, proper, some pennies/dollars could have been thrown this direction.
^
I would assume there's greater demand for urban projects in El Paso vs. removing some minor, virtually never used at grade intersections on a lightly traveled highway.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on August 15, 2018, 01:27:10 AM
Quote from: DJStephens on August 10, 2018, 06:00:49 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 09, 2017, 05:11:50 PM
There is definitely a good number of I-10 segments that could use upgrades from 2 lanes to 3 lanes in both directions. However, I-10 goes through some pretty remote area too. I think it would be strange to have a 3-3 highway setup in West Texas yet still have all those damned at-grade gravel driveways connecting to the highway. With such a sub-standard thing being allowed to fly on an Interstate in West Texas one could make a good argument to sign I-40 all the way to Bakersfield, CA.
The ranch access gates and cross-overs are in remote stretches of I-10 both east and west of Van Horn. Am sure exceptions were granted for those ranchers, to avoid the need to build expensive exits, interchanges, and frontages that could stretch for miles. If I-10 was built to complete "limited access" there, these facilities would have been used by a handful. The pre-existing US 80 was completely laid over/eliminated by the interstate for much of those sections.
There are also ranch access gates in the ranch property area of I-10 between Tucson, and Benson, AZ.
Regardless of the costs, they need to either build interchanges or collector roads that lead to interchanges no matter how rural the area is. Standards should be followed.
Then are you saying that it should be marked as US 80 in that area? There are times when waivers and exceptions should be granted when warranted. There is no need for a continuous super highway in the area. Money doesn't grow on trees. If Texans want to spend the money then they will spend it. They were granted the waiver and it was signed as I-10. Perhaps they should have signed it as US 80 to I-10 to meet your standard.
I'm an unsure what you are saying but IMHO any road designated as an interstate should adhere to standards with zero exceptions. That means no at grade intersections anywhere.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 18, 2021, 11:22:19 AM
I'm an unsure what you are saying but IMHO any road designated as an interstate should adhere to standards with zero exceptions. That means no at grade intersections anywhere.
There's zero reason to
not sign I-10 through that area, besides satisfying a few road geeks. It would cause more confusion to long distance travelers when all of a sudden "I-10" is gone for dozens of miles.
Historically, many Interstate highways were not signed for their entire length. The non-interstate quality segments were signed as other highways, sometimes with a "TO" Interstate sign marker to go along with it. That condition existed for decades. As far as I'm concerned I-40 in the Texas Panhandle and I-10 in West Texas are technically un-finished Interstates.
Let's also not forget both I-10 and I-40 are major Interstate routes. They're not more "minor" Interstate routes, such as I-27. Funny thing, I-27 between Lubbock and Amarillo has continuous frontage roads along nearly all its length with one or maybe two exceptions where the frontage roads end just short of a rail line. Yet TX DOT can't manage to build frontage roads along I-40 the last few miles to the New Mexico border.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 18, 2021, 02:17:26 PM
Historically, many Interstate highways were not signed for their entire length. The non-interstate quality segments were signed as other highways, sometimes with a "TO" Interstate sign marker to go along with it. That condition existed for decades. As far as I'm concerned I-40 in the Texas Panhandle and I-10 in West Texas are technically un-finished Interstates.
Let's also not forget both I-10 and I-40 are major Interstate routes. They're not more "minor" Interstate routes, such as I-27. Funny thing, I-27 between Lubbock and Amarillo has continuous frontage roads along nearly all its length with one or maybe two exceptions where the frontage roads end just short of a rail line. Yet TX DOT can't manage to build frontage roads along I-40 the last few miles to the New Mexico border.
That condition only existed because eventually the interstate was built and no longer had disconnected segments.
Going back to how things were back then, would absolutely not be an improvement.
Frontage roads don't exist to help traffic, they exist so that the property owner maintains access (in TX they decided that it costs less to build such roads than to buy out the property owners' access rights). The fact that they often help traffic is a beneficial side effect rather than the actual purpose.
Quote from: longhorn on May 18, 2021, 03:32:34 PM
So they are rebuilding the roadbed then. I thought this was simple add an interior lane in the median and add a layer of black top like they did with I-35 between SAT and AUS. But they are doing a full on rebuild ala I-35 Salado to Hillsboro.
This seems to be Texas' approach to widening in the modern day, which IMO is good in the long run.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 18, 2021, 02:17:26 PM
Let's also not forget both I-10 and I-40 are major Interstate routes. They're not more "minor" Interstate routes, such as I-27.
But none of them (I-10, I-27, I-40) carry volumes over 20,000 AADT, let alone barely over 10,000 AADT in most areas. They may be major in the sense of long-haul travel, but they are not carrying high levels of traffic.
A multi-million dollar project (overpass bridges, ramps, frontage roads, etc.) to remove the few private farm/ranch access points that gated up the vast majority of the time and virtually never used is an absolute waste of money and resources, especially when to the state, the highway is already "Interstate Highway 10" and "Interstate Highway 40" and officially designated as such. There's no safety issue posed by them, the interstates in question do not serve high volumes of traffic, etc.
If this was new construction, I'd agree it should be included in such a project. But this is a condition that has existed for decades and not affected anybody.
Again, it's a non-existent issue made into one by a few roadgeeks that would involve a costly remedy when it has virtually zero impact in the public eye. It's a waste of limited tax dollars.
If some body says "Waste Of Tax Dollars" be prepared to say every waste of tax dollars or they are hypocrites.
Bandage Solutions need not be applied to Interstates.
Do it right, or go back to U.S. Highway.
Quote from: In_Correct on May 18, 2021, 04:51:04 PM
Bandage Solutions need not be applied to Interstates.
Do it right, or go back to U.S. Highway.
It's been an interstate highway for decades. It's never going to go back.
Now, I must admit, something like this... needs to go.
https://www.google.com/maps/@31.1969822,-105.5828985,3a,39.1y,274.42h,86.48t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skD3sDGrj2ffmZLUlMqmBeQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
To the point where it connects to the frontage road (well, a number of the at-grade intersections seem to do that, but it seems they could merely close the break in the limited access line), and there's a sign saying this is I-10...
And this is the "dead end", it's virtually an off-ramp.
https://www.google.com/maps/@31.182461,-105.6221584,3a,47.4y,94.96h,81.55t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGcrSDv-SwnEtSB-mcfF1ew!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
Here's another beauty that gives the cardinal directions. I don't get this though... there's an interchange one mile to the east with full access. Again... why not simply close the break in the limited access line?
https://www.google.com/maps/@31.211829,-105.4972231,3a,75y,55.34h,87.71t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sE-6Qrgw9IvBOppToujoZdQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 18, 2021, 04:54:27 PM
Quote from: In_Correct on May 18, 2021, 04:51:04 PM
Bandage Solutions need not be applied to Interstates.
Do it right, or go back to U.S. Highway.
It's been an interstate highway for decades. It's never going to go back.
Clearly TxDOT that disagrees that is why they are spending the money to fix it
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 18, 2021, 06:17:10 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 18, 2021, 04:54:27 PM
Quote from: In_Correct on May 18, 2021, 04:51:04 PM
Bandage Solutions need not be applied to Interstates.
Do it right, or go back to U.S. Highway.
It's been an interstate highway for decades. It's never going to go back.
Clearly TxDOT that disagrees that is why they are spending the money to fix it
They disagree? How?
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 18, 2021, 06:54:59 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 18, 2021, 06:17:10 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 18, 2021, 04:54:27 PM
Quote from: In_Correct on May 18, 2021, 04:51:04 PM
Bandage Solutions need not be applied to Interstates.
Do it right, or go back to U.S. Highway.
It's been an interstate highway for decades. It's never going to go back.
Clearly TxDOT that disagrees that is why they are spending the money to fix it
They disagree? How?
They're spending money to eliminate the at grade intersections are they not?
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 18, 2021, 07:07:01 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 18, 2021, 06:54:59 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 18, 2021, 06:17:10 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 18, 2021, 04:54:27 PM
Quote from: In_Correct on May 18, 2021, 04:51:04 PM
Bandage Solutions need not be applied to Interstates.
Do it right, or go back to U.S. Highway.
It's been an interstate highway for decades. It's never going to go back.
Clearly TxDOT that disagrees that is why they are spending the money to fix it
They disagree? How?
They're spending money to eliminate the at grade intersections are they not?
I'm talking about removing the I-10 designation.
I'm all for removing the intersections, but it needs to be realized it's a
very low priority.
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 18, 2021, 07:10:40 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 18, 2021, 07:07:01 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 18, 2021, 06:54:59 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 18, 2021, 06:17:10 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 18, 2021, 04:54:27 PM
Quote from: In_Correct on May 18, 2021, 04:51:04 PM
Bandage Solutions need not be applied to Interstates.
Do it right, or go back to U.S. Highway.
It's been an interstate highway for decades. It's never going to go back.
Clearly TxDOT that disagrees that is why they are spending the money to fix it
They disagree? How?
They're spending money to eliminate the at grade intersections are they not?
I'm talking about removing the I-10 designation.
I'm all for removing the intersections, but it needs to be realized it's a very low priority.
Question: what's driving TxDOT's discussions about eliminating the at-grade crossings on I-10? Have there been any incidents/accidents at any or all of these anomalies? Can't imagine it being on any sort of radar otherwise -- unless some property owner out Sierra Blanca way is thinking of some sort of roadside development and has put the bug up someone's ass to get their access improved (avoiding customers or employees getting T-boned at one of the crossings might be considered beneficial!).
You mean like this?
https://www.google.com/maps/@31.1892171,-105.4190556,3a,22.4y,304.38h,86.34t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s0IXOalRX-Wq2Bk4ywf3HWw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D0IXOalRX-Wq2Bk4ywf3HWw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D102.39008%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
So are you saying that they are going to close off the ranch "exits"?
Quote from: DJStephens on May 19, 2021, 08:03:32 AM
Believe that is looking W, with the Border Patrol checkpoint for EB traffic in the distance. Pretty much appears that the WB frontage there is old US 80, which in that area was retained for some reason, instead of being subsumed by either EB or WB I-10. Probably for local travel in Sierra Blanca, itself.
Substandard? Yes. But is it going to be "fixed" anytime soon? No. It might be better in short term to improve (lengthen) deceleration lanes at the BP station, and to add a third climbing lane for I-10 EB west of that BP station. A third lane to the outside, for WB I-10 trucking, with over sized 12 foot shoulder. There is a considerable incline for close to ten miles, approaching Sierra Blanca and that BP station from the W.
But am of opinion, that literally billions have been wasted statewide, since roughly '00, or the beginning of the Rick Perry administration. Billions spent on clearview conversions, some where perfectly good "standard" FHWA signage was taken down. Lots of sign clutter erected. Billions spent on architectural frills - inlays, terraces, landscaping, high mast lighting, throwaway improvements, and much more. The poorly conceived projects - the El Paso W side "toll way" and "GO-10". Failure to fix I-10 itself, especially in the Sunland Park area, and in the original Spaghetti Bowl area. The Ft. Bliss Spur 601 deficiencies and the horrible DDI and mainline shift on Loop 375. The failure to plan for, and acquire a proper straight alignment for the Anthony Gap future Interstate. Incredible. A lot of money. But not spent wisely.
When was US 80 decommissioned in that area?
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 19, 2021, 08:20:49 AM
When was US 80 decommissioned in that area?
USEnds.com (https://www.usends.com/80.html) says:
QuoteThen in 1991, AASHTO approved Texas' request to decommission the stretch between Anthony (near El Paso) and its current terminus in Dallas (although reportedly it took until 1993 before all the signs were removed between those two points).
Seems like the designation of US 80 could easily be retained to the west of Fort Worth via TX 180 and TX 580 to I-30. Actually it appears that the designation could easily be retained all the way to Benson. Why take down US 80 signs only to put up AZ 80, NM 80, NM 418, NM 579 and others?
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 19, 2021, 09:01:32 AM
Seems like the designation of US 80 could easily be retained to the west of Fort Worth via TX 180 and TX 580 to I-30. Actually it appears that the designation could easily be retained all the way to Benson. Why take down US 80 signs only to put up AZ 80, NM 80, NM 418, NM 579 and others?
While fictional, I second that. US 80 could (and IMHO should) easily subsume US 180 from DFW to El Paso.
As for the rest, Arizona has had several odd decommissionings of US routes, and New Mexico has many former US route alignments still on the state system. Perhaps, as I-10 was completed, US 80 was placed onto the freeway alignment, and the former alignments on the state system weren't up to current US Route standards to put the former designation back onto them.
I just checked out New Mexico's request to AASHTO for elimination of 80 (search for Route Number 80 with a state of New Mexico and the documents will come right up (https://grmservices.grmims.com/vsearch/portal/public/na4/aashto/default)). The rationale was that it would eliminate duplicative signage along the Interstate, Arizona had already decommissioned it to Benson, and that Texas wanted to eliminate it west of Dallas.
As anyone here even seen those ranch access exits actually in use? I haven't travelled the area enough but I will say I have neve seen them used.
Quote from: zzcarp on May 19, 2021, 09:43:14 AM
I just checked out New Mexico's request to AASHTO for elimination of 80 (search for Route Number 80 with a state of New Mexico and the documents will come right up (https://grmservices.grmims.com/vsearch/portal/public/na4/aashto/default)). The rationale was that it would eliminate duplicative signage along the Interstate, Arizona had already decommissioned it to Benson, and that Texas wanted to eliminate it west of Dallas.
I see the maps from 1989 documents do show that even though US 80 was clearly on those state roads adjacent to I-10 they had previously moved US 80 to I-10 prior to the truncation application. I understand the request more clearly now. They decided not to do a North Carolina and put the road on the old road(s).
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 18, 2021, 11:39:49 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on May 18, 2021, 11:22:19 AM
I'm an unsure what you are saying but IMHO any road designated as an interstate should adhere to standards with zero exceptions. That means no at grade intersections anywhere.
There's zero reason to not sign I-10 through that area, besides satisfying a few road geeks. It would cause more confusion to long distance travelers when all of a sudden "I-10" is gone for dozens of miles.
This exactly. The primary purpose of road numbering is to aid in navigation, not to adhere to some arbitrary grid, or denote design standards that < 10% of the population is aware of in the first place.
There are numerous driveways on Interstate 10, which makes it decades outdated. Interstate 40 has a similar problem. Many people say to leave in place.
However, this example is of a street that crosses at grade a Rail Road, at grade a Frontage Road, and at grade both Carriageways of Interstate 10.
I had been interested in The Boulevard as no adequate Grade Separation For Rail exists in Van Horn and Sierra Blanca. The Boulevard also could be a solution, but currently is not.
Also, When did They build The Boulevard, and Why?
That Example I posted is of a Road, not a Driveway.
Where exactly is "The Boulevard"? I just followed Google Maps between Van Horn and Sierra Blanca and didn't see anything that looked like a boulevard. Can you give me a Google Maps "snapshot" of the exact location of "The Boulevard", since I have been unable to find it on my own?
It's a private unpaved residential street.
Search for "the Blvd" on Google Maps west of Sierra Blanca
Quote from: NE2 on May 20, 2021, 02:48:55 AM
It's a private unpaved residential street.
Residential? for rattlesnakes maybe.
There's a freakin roundabout north of the freeway! Looks like maybe after you go through a gate or something? And then an "Office Loop" goes around a building to the east.
Some kind of installation or is manufacturing/mining/construction going on there?
I am not familiar with this exact place, but all in all, the crossings in west Texas have been very low traffic, way too low traffic to upgrade. I think they have finally made intersections for all of the Ranch to Market Roads (RM#X). Like I said, I haven't gone out I-10 or I-20 that far in around a decade. Is it actually a problem or just a violation of the sense that this violates the rules of a controlled access highway.
If I remember correctly, this is the case in West Texas, New Mexico, and in Arizona. I have never driven across the desert in any other state except California and that was at night. The expense of providing access is prohibitive in those low traffic areas where I-10 is just an upgrade to US80 or US-90. In all of the cases I ever saw, the cross traffic loads were too low to matter or at least justify the expense.
I looked more closely at this. There is a paved frontage road along the westbound side. The one on the south side is dirt. The remnants of US-80 are still on the north side of the tracks but seemingly in poor condition. I kind of agree that the north side access to the freeway shouldn't be there. The south side is a different situation though.
I could see real estate investors selling this as "Palm Springs at 1/4 of the price" to retirees selling single family homes in California for $1M+. This looks like a residential speculators thing. It also looks like no one has bit so far.
I looked into it as well. Agree that it appears to be some sort of proposed residential development. Worth noting, though, that the road also serves some sort of mining operation that's visible on aerial imagery.
Checking on the area with the Landgrid app, the property shows to be owned by the state of Tx. It is an interesting feature and development done. One of the streets is named Clubhouse Rd. Was the idea to create a golf course also?
Quote from: msunat97 on May 20, 2021, 02:14:01 PM
Checking on the area with the Landgrid app, the property shows to be owned by the state of Tx. It is an interesting feature and development done. One of the streets is named Clubhouse Rd. Was the idea to create a golf course also?
The building in the middle of clubhouse road, looks more like a DPS or DHS / CBP office facility.
That said, it isn't unusual for economic development land in Texas to remain in government hands until the developer actually sells it. Sometimes, it is titled by an EDC, but more often it just stays in the governments' hands until it has a real sale.
Another issue is some of the smaller more rural counties don't post their data on-line until it is done by a title insurance company. Title insurance is kinda moot on the direct sale from government in land that was held long-term by the government.
RCL Rocks is the name of the company at that address on Office Loop. Here's a link to an image of the building:
https://pin.it/3299AN0
Down on the boulevard, they take it hard.
For those interested, this is the area in question:
https://www.google.com/maps/@31.1913005,-105.419091,1531m/data=!3m1!1e3
What I would suggest TxDOT do is to build exit ramps to the frontage road on the north side and remove the crossing in the median. If one wanted to get to Cowser Road from "The Boulevard" they could turn around at exit 99 to the west.
Quote from: Road Hog on May 20, 2021, 10:58:00 PM
Down on the boulevard, they take it hard.
Thank you.
Nobody rides for free.
Quote from: In_Correct on May 18, 2021, 04:51:04 PM
If some body says "Waste Of Tax Dollars" be prepared to say every waste of tax dollars or they are hypocrites.
Bandage Solutions need not be applied to Interstates.
Do it right, or go back to U.S. Highway.
If some body says anything then check to see if you're in a haunted house, because corpses generally don't talk.
Looking at a GSV of the section of I-10 on either side of Sierra Blanca, the presence of the at-grade intersections may well be a matter of "follow the money" rather than simple local accommodation. There are four such intersections; one west of that town (the one pictured in the post above) and three to the east. The one to the west feeds directly north to a corporate gate, behind which is a large roundbout and a divided private road to a mining facility a couple of miles to the north; a RR spur also accesses that mine (and GSV depicted a rather long train at the mine's ostensible loading facility, so it looks to be pretty active). The three east of Sierra Blanca appear to be for the benefit of the adjoining ranch area; one connects major facilities both north and south of I-10; another connects what looks like either a feed lot or manure collection facility (i.e., a big pile of shit) on the south side across I-10 from old US 80 (which serves most of the ranch facilities); while the third looks like it's pretty gratuitous as far as connecting any particular thing -- simply to shunt traffic from I-10 to the frontage road (that's the farthest east as well). An educated guess -- neither the mining firm nor the ranch/ranches wished or were asked to pony up any funds for grade separations or interchanges; one or both had some political influence that filtered down to TxDOT; and a C/B analysis of public money being used for such upgrades showed low or negligible returns. The old adage that money talks and BS walks likely applied here, and the crossings were probably installed to placate these local interests (who were and are merely a phone call away from their state representative). In any number of other states, these private parties would have been requested to contribute to a grade separation or interchange facility's construction; that doesn't appear to be the case here in TX, which tends to carry the accommodation of businesses considerably farther than other venues.
But one thing that showed when backing out of GSV to standard GE was that traffic coming from the mining facility showed a definite wear pattern when turning east on old US 80 toward Sierra Blanca itself; it didn't seem like the I-10 grade crossing got a lot of use in that regard. Another guess -- trucks going to and from the mine head into town, while the crossing gets used sporadically by employees and other individuals heading to points west of the mine along I-10.
Quote from: armadillo speedbump on May 21, 2021, 12:32:28 PM
Quote from: Road Hog on May 20, 2021, 10:58:00 PM
Down on the boulevard, they take it hard.
Thank you.
Nobody rides for free.
Strangers waiting up & down The Boulevard
Shadows searching through the night.
......
buzzzzzz......."What is: things that don't happen in Sierra Blanca".
apologies to Steve Perry & Neal Schon! :sombrero:
Quote from: CoreySamson on May 21, 2021, 12:55:12 AM
For those interested, this is the area in question:
https://www.google.com/maps/@31.1913005,-105.419091,1531m/data=!3m1!1e3
What I would suggest TxDOT do is to build exit ramps to the frontage road on the north side and remove the crossing in the median. If one wanted to get to Cowser Road from "The Boulevard" they could turn around at exit 99 to the west.
There's a huge ghost development east of town too. Did someone seriously think that Sierra Blanca was going to explode in population at some point? It has a population of 500 and doesn't even have a grocery store...not exactly a booming town...
As for The Boulevard's intersection with I-10, there is a service road on the north side of the highway. Just reroute what little traffic it gets to exit 105, which is 2½ miles east of that point. For Cowser Road, redirect it down an onramp to EB I-10, and if they want to go west, they can turn around at exit 105.
That makes sense. But it is time for the At Grade Intersections to go away or it risks even more of them being added.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/The+Blvd,+Texas/@31.2402352,-105.3975568,17z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x86e667d927816855:0xe3c7d01b9f5503cb!8m2!3d31.2402352!4d-105.3953681
https://www.google.com/maps/place/The+Blvd,+Texas/@31.2402352,-105.3975568,610m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x86e667d927816855:0xe3c7d01b9f5503cb!8m2!3d31.2402352!4d-105.3953681
Mountain Road, which is part of The Boulevard:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/The+Blvd,+Texas/@31.2437484,-105.3981791,17z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x86e667d927816855:0xe3c7d01b9f5503cb!8m2!3d31.2402352!4d-105.3953681
https://www.google.com/maps/place/The+Blvd,+Texas/@31.2437484,-105.3981791,610m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x86e667d927816855:0xe3c7d01b9f5503cb!8m2!3d31.2402352!4d-105.3953681
Club House Road South:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/The+Blvd,+Texas/@31.2623437,-105.409591,17z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x86e667d927816855:0xe3c7d01b9f5503cb!8m2!3d31.2402352!4d-105.3953681
https://www.google.com/maps/place/The+Blvd,+Texas/@31.2623437,-105.409591,610m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x86e667d927816855:0xe3c7d01b9f5503cb!8m2!3d31.2402352!4d-105.3953681
Club House Road North:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/The+Blvd,+Texas/@31.2799811,-105.4137426,17z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x86e667d927816855:0xe3c7d01b9f5503cb!8m2!3d31.2402352!4d-105.3953681
https://www.google.com/maps/place/The+Blvd,+Texas/@31.2799811,-105.4137426,610m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x86e667d927816855:0xe3c7d01b9f5503cb!8m2!3d31.2402352!4d-105.3953681
Gates on both sides of Junction R.M. 1111:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/The+Blvd,+Texas/@31.2949532,-105.3339702,20z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x86e667d927816855:0xe3c7d01b9f5503cb!8m2!3d31.2402352!4d-105.3953681
https://www.google.com/maps/place/The+Blvd,+Texas/@31.2949532,-105.3339702,76m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x86e667d927816855:0xe3c7d01b9f5503cb!8m2!3d31.2402352!4d-105.3953681
https://www.google.com/maps/@31.295171,-105.3340101,3a,75y,167.38h,96.5t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sl8MiWJAevoowtqqCjbzQ7A!2e0!7i3328!8i1664
Sunrise And Mountain Road:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/The+Blvd,+Texas/@31.2506187,-105.3340641,21z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x86e667d927816855:0xe3c7d01b9f5503cb!8m2!3d31.2402352!4d-105.3953681
https://www.google.com/maps/place/The+Blvd,+Texas/@31.2506187,-105.3340641,38m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x86e667d927816855:0xe3c7d01b9f5503cb!8m2!3d31.2402352!4d-105.3953681
https://www.google.com/maps/@31.2507982,-105.3340331,3a,75y,189.11h,95.97t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbxfM0_BFoTKC_59ZT6G9pA!2e0!7i3328!8i1664
The Boulevard junction with Interstate 10 at grade intersection, also Cowser Road:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/The+Blvd,+Texas/@31.1893134,-105.4197101,19z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x86e667d927816855:0xe3c7d01b9f5503cb!8m2!3d31.2402352!4d-105.3953681
https://www.google.com/maps/place/The+Blvd,+Texas/@31.1893134,-105.4197101,153m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x86e667d927816855:0xe3c7d01b9f5503cb!8m2!3d31.2402352!4d-105.3953681
https://www.google.com/maps/@31.1892171,-105.4190556,3a,22.4y,304.38h,86.34t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s0IXOalRX-Wq2Bk4ywf3HWw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D0IXOalRX-Wq2Bk4ywf3HWw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D102.39008%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656?hl=en
In addition with the problem At Grade Intersection Interstate 10, there are also two problem Rail Road At Grade Crossings:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/The+Blvd,+Texas/@31.1906637,-105.4193624,21z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x86e667d927816855:0xe3c7d01b9f5503cb!8m2!3d31.2402352!4d-105.3953681
https://www.google.com/maps/place/The+Blvd,+Texas/@31.1906637,-105.4193624,38m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x86e667d927816855:0xe3c7d01b9f5503cb!8m2!3d31.2402352!4d-105.3953681
https://www.google.com/maps/place/The+Blvd,+Texas/@31.1936201,-105.4262815,610m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x86e667d927816855:0xe3c7d01b9f5503cb!8m2!3d31.2402352!4d-105.3953681
https://www.google.com/maps/place/The+Blvd,+Texas/@31.2611143,-105.4123027,38m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x86e667d927816855:0xe3c7d01b9f5503cb!8m2!3d31.2402352!4d-105.3953681
Is the Rail Road active?
Quote from: In_Correct on May 22, 2021, 06:13:08 AM
That makes sense. But it is time for the At Grade Intersections to go away or it risks even more of them being added.
They had a couple of at grades on I-70 and it was two lanes in UT. They wasted money on turning it into four lanes and putting up exits. The area did not need any of that as it as such a low AADT. There are holes in the system as no system needs to be absolute or rigid.
Quote from: In_Correct on May 22, 2021, 07:03:57 AM
In addition with the problem At Grade Intersection Interstate 10, there are also two problem Rail Road At Grade Crossings:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/The+Blvd,+Texas/@31.1906637,-105.4193624,21z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x86e667d927816855:0xe3c7d01b9f5503cb!8m2!3d31.2402352!4d-105.3953681
https://www.google.com/maps/place/The+Blvd,+Texas/@31.1906637,-105.4193624,38m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x86e667d927816855:0xe3c7d01b9f5503cb!8m2!3d31.2402352!4d-105.3953681
https://www.google.com/maps/place/The+Blvd,+Texas/@31.1936201,-105.4262815,610m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x86e667d927816855:0xe3c7d01b9f5503cb!8m2!3d31.2402352!4d-105.3953681
https://www.google.com/maps/place/The+Blvd,+Texas/@31.2611143,-105.4123027,38m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x86e667d927816855:0xe3c7d01b9f5503cb!8m2!3d31.2402352!4d-105.3953681
Is the Rail Road active?
There is a loaded string on the siding at the quarry A locomotive is on the north end. Probably all they would need to push it down to the main. I didn't see a stacker arm long enough to reach the rail cars so they are using front-end loaders to load the cars. If volume is low, that is more cost-effective than using a stacker.
Quote from: sparker on May 21, 2021, 08:21:21 PM
Looking at a GSV of the section of I-10 on either side of Sierra Blanca, the presence of the at-grade intersections may well be a matter of "follow the money" rather than simple local accommodation. There are four such intersections; one west of that town (the one pictured in the post above) and three to the east. The one to the west feeds directly north to a corporate gate, behind which is a large roundabout and a divided private road to a mining facility a couple of miles to the north; a RR spur also accesses that mine (and GSV depicted a rather long train at the mine's ostensible loading facility, so it looks to be pretty active)..........
But one thing that showed when backing out of GSV to standard GE was that traffic coming from the mining facility showed a definite wear pattern when turning east on old US 80 toward Sierra Blanca itself; it didn't seem like the I-10 grade crossing got a lot of use in that regard. Another guess -- trucks going to and from the mine head into town, while the crossing gets used sporadically by employees and other individuals heading to points west of the mine along I-10.
I work in the aggregates industry so I took a closer look at the quarry. They have a truck scale at the north end but it doesn't look as if it is active. Based on the traffic patterns of the water truck (why some of the dirt is darker, an MHSA requirement) and the lack of any meaningful endpoint within driving distance, I believe this to be a 100% rail facility. The workers would all head back to tow after shifts hence the traffic pattern you see at the south end. That quarry is too far away from any developed area for it to make sense to do anything but ship by rail.
I looked them up. It is active and is run by Sierra Blanca Quarry, LLC, which looks to be a family-run business. They run M-F on 10 hour shifts. I would guess they are selling to a stone yard in El Paso or other convenient pickup location.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 22, 2021, 07:20:17 AM
Quote from: In_Correct on May 22, 2021, 06:13:08 AM
That makes sense. But it is time for the At Grade Intersections to go away or it risks even more of them being added.
They had a couple of at grades on I-70 and it was two lanes in UT. They wasted money on turning it into four lanes and putting up exits. The area did not need any of that as it as such a low AADT. There are holes in the system as no system needs to be absolute or rigid.
And if they did not construct the required grade separated exit, it would risk an increase of Breezewoods.
Quote from: rte66man on May 22, 2021, 12:32:30 PM
Quote from: sparker on May 21, 2021, 08:21:21 PM
Looking at a GSV of the section of I-10 on either side of Sierra Blanca, the presence of the at-grade intersections may well be a matter of "follow the money" rather than simple local accommodation. There are four such intersections; one west of that town (the one pictured in the post above) and three to the east. The one to the west feeds directly north to a corporate gate, behind which is a large roundabout and a divided private road to a mining facility a couple of miles to the north; a RR spur also accesses that mine (and GSV depicted a rather long train at the mine's ostensible loading facility, so it looks to be pretty active)..........
But one thing that showed when backing out of GSV to standard GE was that traffic coming from the mining facility showed a definite wear pattern when turning east on old US 80 toward Sierra Blanca itself; it didn't seem like the I-10 grade crossing got a lot of use in that regard. Another guess -- trucks going to and from the mine head into town, while the crossing gets used sporadically by employees and other individuals heading to points west of the mine along I-10.
I work in the aggregates industry so I took a closer look at the quarry. They have a truck scale at the north end but it doesn't look as if it is active. Based on the traffic patterns of the water truck (why some of the dirt is darker, an MHSA requirement) and the lack of any meaningful endpoint within driving distance, I believe this to be a 100% rail facility. The workers would all head back to tow after shifts hence the traffic pattern you see at the south end. That quarry is too far away from any developed area for it to make sense to do anything but ship by rail.
I looked them up. It is active and is run by Sierra Blanca Quarry, LLC, which looks to be a family-run business. They run M-F on 10 hour shifts. I would guess they are selling to a stone yard in El Paso or other convenient pickup location.
It makes sense that the quarry/mine is locally owned & operated; it's likely there's some sort of relationship -- personal or even financial -- between any state legislators from this area and what appears to be one of the major employers in that rather isolated area -- or at least some acknowlegement that the facility has specific needs. But that revelation doesn't cast much light as to why the I-10 at-grade intersection persists there; it's probable that whatever traffic (personnel, etc.) is required to access the facility could simply use old US 80/the frontage road to get where they needed to go -- east into Sierra Blanca itself or west to the next I-10 interchange. It's possible that whatever is
south of I-10 -- and it looks like more ranch-related activity -- may be the driving force behind retention of the crossing (in a similar fashion to the other three intersections to the east). But again, there's not a lot of commercial activity in this neck of the woods; and it's more than likely that even if bunched together, this county's ranches wouldn't be able to scrape together enough available cash to contribute to funding of a grade separation much less an interchange. Hence the "waiver" of standards (or simply willfull avoidance of applying such) for I-10 in this area. As I posited before, unless there's some sort of incident stemming from a crossing/turning movement onto or off of these side roads, these will likely continue to exist.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The poster above detailed the activities of the quarry/mine in question over in the "Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio & Houston" thread in this board; reply #109 [now reply #50 in this thread -S.] -- that answers a lot of these questions.
Quote from: sparker on May 22, 2021, 03:13:32 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The poster above detailed the activities of the quarry/mine in question over in the "Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio & Houston" thread in this board; reply #109 [now reply #50 in this thread -S.] -- that answers a lot of these questions.
Thanks -- when the thread description has been stretched that far, a change is needed, especially when there's so many opinions among the posters about the efficacy of the intersections at issue that have functionally zero to do with the principal thread!
Interstate 10 at least in Texas should be upgraded to Toll Roads. That would address the concerns about "Nothing Is Free.". It would also address the At Grade Intersections by either closing them and redirect to Frontage Roads instead. Or even better: To have the Grade Separated Interchanges:
https://i.imgur.com/XBAJ74O.jpg
( How ever, Toll Roads would require slightly modified Interchanges; Often they have only the Bridges. )
to provide more convenience for Etholen. Building A Bridge spanning Interstate 10 in Etholen also corrects the problem of the Rail Road At Grade Crossings ...
Here is yet another one:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/The+Blvd,+Texas/@31.2140385,-105.4598249,21z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x86e667d927816855:0xe3c7d01b9f5503cb!8m2!3d31.2402352!4d-105.3953681
https://www.google.com/maps/place/The+Blvd,+Texas/@31.2140385,-105.4598249,27m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x86e667d927816855:0xe3c7d01b9f5503cb!8m2!3d31.2402352!4d-105.3953681
... As long as the Bridge is long and goes over the Frontage Roads also. Interstate 35 does this.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Denton,+TX/@33.3503114,-97.1819197,18z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x864c4ca0c088b1d1:0x724474cb4814fb1b!8m2!3d33.2148412!4d-97.1330683
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Denton,+TX/@33.3503114,-97.1819197,213m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x864c4ca0c088b1d1:0x724474cb4814fb1b!8m2!3d33.2148412!4d-97.1330683
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.3507338,-97.1823877,3a,67.2y,160.65h,89.78t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sbtFYSW7VirNoHpilTkx5YA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DbtFYSW7VirNoHpilTkx5YA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D100.95997%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192
Even now, they can simply close the At Grade Intersections as both The Boulevard (twice actually) and Cowser Road also can be accessed with: R.M. 1111.
Quote from: In_Correct on May 23, 2021, 11:22:34 PM
Interstate 10 at least in Texas should be upgraded to Toll Roads. That would address the concerns about "Nothing Is Free.". It would also address the At Grade Intersections by either closing them and redirect to Frontage Roads instead. Or even better: To have the Grade Separated Interchanges:
https://i.imgur.com/XBAJ74O.jpg
( How ever, Toll Roads would require slightly modified Interchanges; Often they have only the Bridges. )
to provide more convenience for Etholen. Building A Bridge spanning Interstate 10 in Etholen also corrects the problem of the Rail Road At Grade Crossings ...
Here is yet another one:
https://www.google.com/maps/place/The+Blvd,+Texas/@31.2140385,-105.4598249,21z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x86e667d927816855:0xe3c7d01b9f5503cb!8m2!3d31.2402352!4d-105.3953681
https://www.google.com/maps/place/The+Blvd,+Texas/@31.2140385,-105.4598249,27m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x86e667d927816855:0xe3c7d01b9f5503cb!8m2!3d31.2402352!4d-105.3953681
... As long as the Bridge is long and goes over the Frontage Roads also. Interstate 35 does this.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Denton,+TX/@33.3503114,-97.1819197,18z/data=!4m5!3m4!1s0x864c4ca0c088b1d1:0x724474cb4814fb1b!8m2!3d33.2148412!4d-97.1330683
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Denton,+TX/@33.3503114,-97.1819197,213m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x864c4ca0c088b1d1:0x724474cb4814fb1b!8m2!3d33.2148412!4d-97.1330683
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.3507338,-97.1823877,3a,67.2y,160.65h,89.78t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sbtFYSW7VirNoHpilTkx5YA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DbtFYSW7VirNoHpilTkx5YA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D100.95997%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192
Even now, they can simply close the At Grade Intersections as both The Boulevard (twice actually) and Cowser Road also can be accessed with: R.M. 1111.
Why close the at-grade? How far is the distance to The Boulevard and Cowser Road? What are the road conditions? US 80 was open for decades prior to I-10 being designated. What is the benefit of closing off the at-grade?
I am sure those that use this access know how to use the access.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 24, 2021, 08:01:17 AM
Why close the at-grade?
Because it's funny to watch you lose your shit any time the government does anything.
Quote from: Scott5114 on May 24, 2021, 09:43:35 AM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 24, 2021, 08:01:17 AM
Why close the at-grade?
Because it's funny to watch you lose your shit any time the government does anything.
:popcorn: :popcorn: :popcorn:
Granted, I'm a roadgeek, and like seeing interstates adhere to standards, but do these at-grade crossings really need to be addressed? I'm pretty sure TxDOT has much larger fis to fry, like completing I-69.
Quote from: OCGuy81 on May 24, 2021, 07:16:11 PM
Granted, I'm a roadgeek, and like seeing interstates adhere to standards, but do these at-grade crossings really need to be addressed? I'm pretty sure TxDOT has much larger fis to fry, like completing I-69.
Since they've persisted for over three decades, it's pretty clear that no particular agency, be it TxDOT, FHWA, or even AASHTO intends to prioritize any remedy or even mandate such a change. It would take a serious (meaning one that's reported beyond local press or police logs) incident, probably involving loss of life, to prompt even an examination/review of the situation. It'll likely be
status quo otherwise.
Quote from: OCGuy81 on May 24, 2021, 07:16:11 PM
Granted, I'm a roadgeek, and like seeing interstates adhere to standards, but do these at-grade crossings really need to be addressed? I'm pretty sure TxDOT has much larger fis to fry, like completing I-69.
US 77 through Kenedy County is more than sufficient. I don't see the use of I-69 through there. Then north of Houston is well covered by other routes as well.
These at-grades were acceptable at the time. Early interstates had things such as super-twos, immediate exits, railroad crossings and left turn exits.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 25, 2021, 08:08:07 AM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on May 24, 2021, 07:16:11 PM
Granted, I'm a roadgeek, and like seeing interstates adhere to standards, but do these at-grade crossings really need to be addressed? I'm pretty sure TxDOT has much larger fis to fry, like completing I-69.
US 77 through Kenedy County is more than sufficient. I don't see the use of I-69 through there. Then north of Houston is well covered by other routes as well.
These at-grades were acceptable at the time. Early interstates had things such as super-twos, immediate exits, railroad crossings and left turn exits.
:poke: :poke: :poke:
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 25, 2021, 08:53:19 AM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 25, 2021, 08:08:07 AM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on May 24, 2021, 07:16:11 PM
Granted, I'm a roadgeek, and like seeing interstates adhere to standards, but do these at-grade crossings really need to be addressed? I'm pretty sure TxDOT has much larger fis to fry, like completing I-69.
US 77 through Kenedy County is more than sufficient. I don't see the use of I-69 through there. Then north of Houston is well covered by other routes as well.
These at-grades were acceptable at the time. Early interstates had things such as super-twos, immediate exits, railroad crossings and left turn exits.
:poke: :poke: :poke:
All temporary measures within partial construction; for the most part later rectified. Honestly, the BANANA attitude just isn't aging well!
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on May 25, 2021, 08:08:07 AM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on May 24, 2021, 07:16:11 PM
Granted, I'm a roadgeek, and like seeing interstates adhere to standards, but do these at-grade crossings really need to be addressed? I'm pretty sure TxDOT has much larger fis to fry, like completing I-69.
US 77 through Kenedy County is more than sufficient. I don't see the use of I-69 through there. Then north of Houston is well covered by other routes as well.
These at-grades were acceptable at the time. Early interstates had things such as super-twos, immediate exits, railroad crossings and left turn exits.
A lot of things that were "acceptable at the time" were changed because it was eventually determined to be unsafe - such as immediate exits, railroad crossings of freeways, and left exits.
This (https://www.google.com/maps/@31.211997,-105.4969322,3a,60y,0.8h,77.35t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sTVvRCeKu1tnsx5__u_vOrg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) is the one that infuriates me the most. There is simply no reason for it. To the east of the gate/driveway, not even a mile, just past the parking area is an underpass for Lasca Road, and an eastbound entrance ramp, so you don't have to go far to be on the eastbound I-10 main lanes. You can circle there if you want to go westbound, or you just go west from the driveway on the two way frontage road to FM 34 where you can cross over. Yes, that's 10 miles away, but the going east to go west routine works pretty good if you want to get up to 80 mph as quick as you can.
The only thing I can think of is the ranch owner there negotiated some sort of clause when the state bought the right-of-way for I-10 that states that he must have immediate access to the main lanes of both directions of the interstate. Meaning, his driveway gets a full diamond interchange with an overpass, or they go cheep and build an at-grade intersection. That has to be the reason because there is simply no other reason to have an at-grade intersection here.
I don't want to be too unreasonable and unforgiving about these crossings, but the one at The Blvd. (I like it better that way) does not need to exist. Maybe it's needed for Cowser Rd. but there's no reason to have the connection between the frontage road and the main lanes. The frontage road goes east and west to proper interchanges, so traffic to or from either direction can go that way without backtracking. Most of these grade crossings exist because there's no other way to go, or because the other way to go is very indirect, but this one exists because "I'd rather get directly to the freeway." There is a paved state-maintained road that will get you to the freeway without backtracking through safe interchanges. That shouldn't be optional.
Quote from: wxfree on May 25, 2021, 10:53:11 PM
I don't want to be too unreasonable and unforgiving about these crossings, but the one at The Blvd. (I like it better that way) does not need to exist. Maybe it's needed for Cowser Rd. but there's no reason to have the connection between the frontage road and the main lanes. The frontage road goes east and west to proper interchanges, so traffic to or from either direction can go that way without backtracking. Most of these grade crossings exist because there's no other way to go, or because the other way to go is very indirect, but this one exists because "I'd rather get directly to the freeway." There is a paved state-maintained road that will get you to the freeway without backtracking through safe interchanges. That shouldn't be optional.
Have you actually driven this routing? It is an interesting situation. Was the interchange built much later and the ranch access just not closed off?
I've been by on the freeway. I've never driven that section of frontage road.
According to the highway maps, the freeway, frontage road, and both interchanges existed in 1972. The map shows no Boulevard. According to old aerial photos, Cowser Rd. intersected with the two-lane US 80 in 1963. It would seem that the Interstate was built with the frontage road along the location of the old highway and the two relevant interchanges were in place from the beginning. The 1982 photography shows the situation as it is now, three Interstate roadways and an intersecting road on both sides with a grade crossing. They decided to allow the four-way grade crossing despite the frontage road and interchanges being available on the north side.
The 1963 imagery shows Lasca Rd. intersecting with a two-lane highway just east of the end of the new freeway. Skunk Canyon Rd. is shown with a grade crossing when the freeway was first built.