Finally! TxDOT receives bids for SH 114 overpass at US 377 (Roanoke)

Started by MaxConcrete, June 04, 2021, 07:39:57 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

MaxConcrete

Webber is the low bidder at $36.9 million, 21% below the estimate. There were 13 bidders on this job. The large number of bids and low price suggests that TxDOT should be bidding more jobs of this size in North Texas to get some good prices.

http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/06043202.htm

County:   DENTON   Let Date:   06/04/21
Type:   CONSTRUCT 0 TO 6 LANE GRADE SEPARATION OVER US 37   Seq No:   3202
Time:   0 X   Project ID:   C 353-9-2
Highway:   SH 114   Contract #:   06213202
Length:   1.078   CCSJ:   0353-09-002
Limits:   
From:   WEST OF US 377   Check:   $100,000
To:   EAST OF US 377   Misc Cost:   
Estimate   $46,908,124.71   % Over/Under   Company
Bidder 1   $36,943,838.16   -21.24%   WEBBER, LLC
Bidder 2   $37,972,149.83   -19.05%   AUSTIN BRIDGE & ROAD SERVICES, LP
Bidder 3   $39,500,045.45   -15.79%   ZACHRY CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION
Bidder 4   $39,975,999.98   -14.78%   FLUOR HEAVY CIVIL, LLC
Bidder 5   $41,955,441.35   -10.56%   ARCHER WESTERN CONSTRUCTION, LLC
Bidder 6   $42,460,336.59   -9.48%   SEMA CONSTRUCTION, INC.
Bidder 7   $42,539,349.82   -9.31%   J.D. ABRAMS, L.P.
Bidder 8   $42,841,364.21   -8.67%   RAGLE CONSTRUCTION, INC.
Bidder 9   $42,870,353.94   -8.61%   ED BELL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY
Bidder 10   $43,154,479.35   -8.00%   SUNDT CONSTRUCTION, INC.
Bidder 11   $44,555,607.06   -5.02%   OHL USA, INC.
Bidder 12   $45,600,100.27   -2.79%   COPASA INC
Bidder 13   $47,115,719.53   +0.44%   FLATIRON CONSTRUCTORS, INC.
www.DFWFreeways.com
www.HoustonFreeways.com


In_Correct

Drive Safely. :sombrero: Ride Safely. And Build More Roads, Rails, And Bridges. :coffee: ... Boulevards Wear Faster Than Interstates.

Bobby5280

That is a way way overdue project. The last few times I've driven in and out of the DFW area I've been snarled in back-ups at that intersection. Even at night.

TX DOT absolutely needs to get the TX-114 freeway extended from the TX-170 on over to I-35W and past that interchange to the Northwest Independent School District complex. They need to get that done ASAP. That's a freeway segment that really should have been built not long after the Texas Motor Speedway stadium was built. Really, TX-114 needs to be an Interstate quality facility all the way to the intersection with US-287 in Rhome.

MaxConcrete

Work is proceeding very quickly. As of September there was no construction underway, and now it is nearing 50% complete. Nearly all the piers are in place and about half the beams. I'm thinking it will be open later this year. I can't think of any non-emergency project that has proceeded at such a breakneck speed. Of course this is a good thing, since this overpass is urgently needed. Photo taken March 20.

http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/sh114-roanoke.jpg


www.DFWFreeways.com
www.HoustonFreeways.com

MaxConcrete

According to the June Progress report, this project is on a fast track and will be complete by early 2023, less than 18 months after construction started.
https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot-info/dal/progress/june-2022-progress-report-web.pdf
www.DFWFreeways.com
www.HoustonFreeways.com

rte66man

Photos taken Saturday, July 16 from the WB lanes of TX 114 at sunset:





When you come to a fork in the road... TAKE IT.

                                                               -Yogi Berra

rte66man

It's been over 3 months since I was there so I'm assuming this is about ready to open as they didn't have a whole lot left to do. Does anyone have an update?
When you come to a fork in the road... TAKE IT.

                                                               -Yogi Berra

Bobby5280

I've been wondering about the TX-114/US-377 intersection project as well as the larger plan to extend the TX-114 freeway past the I-35W interchange to the Northwest ISD school complex. What is the current time line for at least extending the TX-114 freeway to I-35W?

Between the US-377 intersection and I-35W the TX-114 frontage roads have traffic signals at two intersections (one at Litsey Road the other at Cleveland Gibbs/Dale Earnhardt Road). The one at Litsey was aleady a choke point of sorts. Once the US-377 intersection is hopped with that short freeway segment the Litsey Road intersection will become the new bottleneck. Hopefully TX DOT can leap frog both those intersections with new freeway segments sometime soon.

I suspect the Chadwick Commons development near the SE corner of the TX-114/I-35W intersection will sprout more traffic signals on the TX-114 frontage roads, especially on the Eastbound side. There is so much development on the corners of the TX-114/I-35W intersection that it could be extremely difficult or just impossible to build a complete freeway to freeway interchange there.

TX-114 is really turning into an awful mess West of the Northwest ISD school complex. There formerly was space to expand TX-114 into a freeway West over the BNSF rail line. The Rivers Edge housing addition had a 440' wide swath of empty land separating it from TX-114. Now all of that land is getting filled in with new housing additions that are going right up against the current 250' wide TX-114 ROW. 250' isn't really enough for 4 freeway main lanes and flanking frontage roads built to modern design standards. A 300' ROW seems to be the minimum requirement for that. Not unless you elevate the freeway portion. People who are buying these McMansions packed in tightly together would probably raise holy hell over any proposals to to build an elevated freeway.

Going West past the BSNF line to US-287 the TX-114 ROW varies in width, mostly 240' with a couple brief spots at 280' and 300'. Good enough for a 4-lane divided highway or a divided suburban street pigged with traffic signals. Not good enough for a suburban freeway.

MaxConcrete

Bids for SH 114 main lanes from Roanoke to just east of I-35W are scheduled to be received in April 2023. Estimated cost is $89 million.

I don't see any work scheduled at I-35W or westward.
www.DFWFreeways.com
www.HoustonFreeways.com

armadillo speedbump

#9
It's baloney that you can't build a freeway in a 240' ROW.  Who cares if it won't meet interstate designation requirements, all 99.5% of users care is that it functions as a freeway, not what it is called.

For example, the footprint of Wurzbach Parkway and feeder roads on the east side of Jones Maltzburger Road intersection/overpass is 208' wide: 

https://www.google.com/maps/@29.5480139,-98.4720118,194m/data=!3m1!1e3

That's 2 feeder lanes and 2 freeway lanes and edge sidewalks in both directions, with room for a 3rd feeder lane where there is currently a raised concrete semi-median filler on the insides.  Adjust that with a 3rd mainlane in each way would require 230 or 232'.  The inside breakdown lanes on the overpasses are narrow, but the remainder of a 240' ROW and excess on the inside concrete feeder medians leaves room to convert that.  You don't need grassy medians for drainage, you can use more urban standards and underground pipes/gutters.  So a 2 feeder-3 mainlanes or 3 feeder-2 mainlanes each direction is very doable even at overpass/intersections in a 240' ROW.  3/3 each way for sure if you have a little more ROW width at the intersections.

Anther example, the footprint for massive Stemmon Fwy between Wycliff and Med District Dr is mostly 270' wide for 3 feeder lanes, 5 mainlanes, and full inside and outside breakdown lanes in each direction:

https://www.google.com/maps/@32.8041579,-96.8356782,145m/data=!3m1!1e3

Reduce by 2 mainlanes each way and your down to a 226' footprint.  That doesn't include the mostly grassy buffer ROW to the outside of the feeders, but there are grassy medians for drainage between feeders and mainlanes that could be narrowed if built similar to Wurzbach's urban form.  Intersections/overpass ROW's are wider, but again that isn't a must if  more flush walls instead of sloped and/or longer bridging is used to accommodate the additional turn lanes, or perhaps leave out the separate U-turn lanes. 

The point being that a 240' ROW can handle a 2-3-3-2, 3-2-2-3, or perhaps even a 3-3-3-3 suburban freeway depending on design and willingness to make some minor compromises.  It may cost more, but politically that may be better than taking homes.  The 114 ROW west of I-35 may not be optimal, but it is very doable as a freeway with continuous feeders.

And I just measured 114 at the BNSF rail lines, where it widens to 350'.  Looks like maybe all the future major cross roads (that would require lights and additional turn lanes) are wider than 240' ROW & easements.  The intersection of the high school and Harriet Creek Dr suggests the ROW + easements are around 280-290' wide, certainly enough to handle a 3-3-3-3.  Look at how wide the easement is past the sidewalk for the gas station at Wolf Crossing/Roaring River Rd at 114, appears to be at least 285' wide. At Winding Meadows look how the sidewalks end 25' further back than utility lines.  Pembrey, Willow Bend, Page Rd stretch there's at least 270' width between the fences.  So ROW + easements should accommodate a 3-3-3-3 plus sidewalks & associated buffers.  250' at intersections further west near the S curve, but also low-end industrial so ROW takings if needed are politically easier.

I now have full confidence that 114 can feasibly be converted to at a minimum a 2 feeder-3 mainlanes or 3 feeder-2 mainlines each way freeway/tollway, and without taking any homes.  Probably 3-3-3-3 all the way is doable.

armadillo speedbump

#10
Looked up the Denton County Thoroughfare Plan, they have 114 designated as a 6-lane arterial west of 156, 120-160' ROW. 

https://www.dentoncounty.gov/DocumentCenter/View/256/Denton-County-Thoroughfare-Plan-Map-PDF

So the fact that it appears ROW + easements are 240'+ suggests someone is planning for more than that.  And in the plan they discuss on page 21 that the 2035 projected level of service for 114 west of 156 as a 6-lane arterial would be level F (that means bad bad).  It will be interesting what the next plan shows.

https://www.dentoncounty.gov/DocumentCenter/View/257/Denton-County-Thoroughfare-Plan-Final-PDF

Bobby5280

Freeway-wide ROW, for a freeway designed to current safety and speed standards, requires more than just the physical space for main travel lanes and lanes for frontage roads. The inner and outer shoulders for the freeway main lanes require more space than they did in the past. Frontage road intersections with crossing streets need room for turning lanes (and Texas U-turn lanes). Then there is the extra land needed within the ROW for grading/drainage. That green space is also meant as a buffer to give vehicles that lose control extra space to come to a stop. Finally the on/off slip ramps require a certain amount of space too. All of that adds up quick.

Here's a recently completed grade separation project in the DFW metro on US-287 just East of Midlothian:
https://www.google.com/maps/@32.4605908,-96.9425807,310m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en

That's a pretty slender looking highway design, but it still ended up requiring 300' of ROW to build. That's just for 2 freeway lanes in each direction and 2 lanes for each frontage road.

Here's an example in the Charlotte area of what would have to be done to squeeze a modern freeway with frontage roads into a ROW around 240' wide:
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.0997661,-80.6776103,150m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en

That example along US-74 looks like it is only a couple steps removed from being an elevated freeway. It looks alright in a commercial district, but probably wouldn't be so popular running through a bunch of housing additions.
View from Google Street View:
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.098096,-80.676171,3a,75y,96.07h,98.57t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBKyDZRzpC8fd6Ivuva3uFw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en

The South end of I-88 in Binghamton, NY is one of the skinniest designs I've seen. But that's a minimal design that leaves zero room for exit ramps or anything else. The ROW along I-88 there flares outward considerably for the exits and the North and South end of that weird looking segment.
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.1516547,-75.8893218,326m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en

Quote from: armadillo speedbumpLooked up the Denton County Thoroughfare Plan, they have 114 designated as a 6-lane arterial west of 156, 120-160' ROW.

That would be a big mistake if they allowed TX-114 to pretty much turn into a SLOW city street. It would be even worse if they allowed developers to carve away TX-114 ROW to squeeze the corridor worse with more buildings. TX-114 is a major connection with US-287. Most people driving to DFW from the Panhandle, Wichita Falls, SW OK, etc will use TX-114 as the main road to get in and out of the DFW metro.

armadillo speedbump

#12
All of that is basically addressed in my comments.  Tradeoffs and design adjustments/higher costs vs. typical layouts.  Wurzbach example shows how to incorporate all that.  Feasible is not the same as preferable.  A freeway in the 114 corridor is feasible (and I bet it happens within the next 30 years).

I only checked your Charlotte example, but it proves my point.  First section is 230' ROW and accommodates 3 feeder lanes + 3 mainlanes each direction (if one substitutes a 3rd westbound feeder lane for the wider ramp).  The intersection to the east has a footprint of 225' and 255' wide, other than right at the corners.  The buffer areas are not for drainage, and as I noted, the arterial intersection areas on 114 already have ROW+ easements at 255-285' wide or border low-end industrial properties with building setbacks that would be politically easy to buy out any additions over 240' width. 

Sky is falling all you want, but on 114 the ROW is already there for a future freeway, tollway, or free-flow super street with overpasses at the arterials.  For super streets, see 90A in southwest Houston.  About a 190' footprint in a 220-240' ROW at the critical Post Oak intersection.  About 220' ROW at Fondren and Gessner.  Kirkwood/Dulles is 240' from gas station to edge of RR ballast (thus less than 240' ROW).  All of those are 2 feeder-3 mainlanes each way with overpasses.  So not only can it be done, it has been done.

Also, sound walls have been invented.

Bobby5280

Quote from: armadillo speedbumpWurzbach example shows how to incorporate all that.  Feasible is not the same as preferable.

Wurzbach Parkway is an urban parkway and not a real freeway. It has a slower design speed (60mph), portions of it lack shoulders and it has a number of RIRO at-grade turns and other side street entrances along the way. Parkways like that are meant for serving local traffic, not regional or long distance traffic. The same thing applies to "super streets" like the example of US-90A in Houston.

TX-114 is a major entry-exit point for DFW. It's not just some urban street.

Quote from: armadillo speedbumpI only checked your Charlotte example, but it proves my point.

But that's an urban freeway design. Geometrically speaking it fits into a 240' wide space. But how are the legions of new home owners along TX-114 going to feel about the looks of something like that? It's not quite the same as an elevated freeway, but from the ground level it does look like a huge brick monolith.

And, yeah, sound walls can be erected along the edges of a highway ROW. Not every home owner is going to be open to something like that going up over their back yard. Then again, I think the "city planning" along TX-114 between I-35W and US-287 is downright schizophrenic. So maybe the home owners in those new additions don't have room to complain about the looks of TX-114 if it is ever upgraded into a freeway.

There's the housing additions with dozens of fairly big homes packed into those planned neighborhoods like sardines. But then next door more and more HUGE distribution buildings are going up. They're rapidly filling in any vacant space remaining near the BNSF Alliance yard and Fort Worth Alliance airport. Texas Motor Speedway is getting surrounded by new distribution buildings. A good bit of that distro traffic will going in/out by rail or air. It also generates a lot of truck traffic too. Trucks won't just be using I-35W either. Closer to the merge with US-287 there's a bunch of industrial type businesses next to TX-114. It's really a pretty random mix of things. But all those different things, along with major consumer destinations surrounding the I-35W/TX-114 intersection are going to put more and more traffic onto TX-114.

Quote from: armadillo speedbumpSky is falling all you want, but on 114 the ROW is already there for a future freeway, tollway, or free-flow super street with overpasses at the arterials.

A 240' wide ROW is pretty standard for ordinary 4-lane divided highways in rural or suburban areas. OK-7 between Lawton and Duncan has a 240' ROW most of the way. A 240' wide ROW doesn't imply a future freeway is ever going to be built, especially in Texas, given its prior history of how it built freeway-ready corridors in the past.

Portions of US-287 between Wichita Falls and Fort Worth have long been freeway-ready. Some of those segments have ROW widths of 350' to 400'.  Nearly all of it is at least 300' wide until just a couple or so miles North of Decatur.

rte66man

Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 10, 2022, 11:33:14 PM
Portions of US-287 between Wichita Falls and Fort Worth have long been freeway-ready. Some of those segments have ROW widths of 350' to 400'.  Nearly all of it is at least 300' wide until just a couple or so miles North of Decatur.

That stretch was the first part with dual carriageways for 287 between Saginaw and Wichita Falls and was built in the early 60's before TxDOT thought of freewayization.
When you come to a fork in the road... TAKE IT.

                                                               -Yogi Berra

armadillo speedbump

#15
Looking at it again, a US90A type of superstreet is probably the way to go for 114 between FM 156 and US 287.  There's room along the entire route to convert to 4-lanes each way, including full inside and outside breakdown lanes and a concrete divider, by simply filling in the grassy median.  Just add a few overpass intersections, for Denton County perhaps at Texan Dr + Harriet Creek Dr (stadium and school), the future John Day Rd, and County Line Rd (both planned major arterials).  Maybe 1 or 2 more in Wise County.  Everything else can access one-way and use the u-turns under those overpasses.  When the time comes it would be a cheaper conversion to free-flow, elimination of all the riskier left turn and cross street at-grade center crossovers, and less disruptive construction.  Don't need a full freeway and frontage road system the entire way, instead just at those 4 or 5 intersections.

thisdj78

Quote from: armadillo speedbump on November 10, 2022, 08:15:15 PM
All of that is basically addressed in my comments.  Tradeoffs and design adjustments/higher costs vs. typical layouts.  Wurzbach example shows how to incorporate all that.  Feasible is not the same as preferable.  A freeway in the 114 corridor is feasible (and I bet it happens within the next 30 years).

I agree with you, there is a plenty of ROW west of I-35 for a conversion of 114 to a freeway. Probably the closest example is FM1093/future Westpark Tollway between SH99 and Fulshear. Lots of residential and business being developed on both sides and they recently finished expanding 1093 to frontage roads to accommodate the future tollway. ROW is maybe 250ft at most.

Bobby5280

Quote from: armadillo speedbumpDon't need a full freeway and frontage road system the entire way, instead just at those 4 or 5 intersections.

It's 9.3 miles on TX-114 from the US-287 split in Rhome to the FM-156 intersection where TX-114 becomes truly freeway ready. Just in the last 3 years there has been an incredible amount of new development activity, both in terms of housing additions and logistics centers. That rapid development is going to drop a traffic bomb on TX-114. Going by June 2022 imagery in Google Earth it looks like the only empty plots of land remaining in that area have oil wells on them.

In the years ahead US-287 will be upgraded to Interstate quality in stages from I-35W up to and likely North of the TX-114 split. The interchange with US-287 and TX-114 will get new ramps. I think TX DOT will be forced to fill in the non-freeway gap on TX-114. I think it's a shame TX DOT didn't acquire more ROW when they widened that part of TX-114 a decade ago when there was far more empty space out there.

Quote from: thisdj78Probably the closest example is FM1093/future Westpark Tollway between SH99 and Fulshear. Lots of residential and business being developed on both sides and they recently finished expanding 1093 to frontage roads to accommodate the future tollway. ROW is maybe 250ft at most.

The Westpark Tollway/FM-1093 has a 300' ROW from the Grand Parkway and going West towards Fulshear.

Farther East closer to Houston the Westpark Tollway runs along a more narrow ROW width, like 240' or even less. But that comes with the consequence of exits that often don't have a full set of on/off ramps.

armadillo speedbump

The Westpark Tollway also had to leave 50' of ROW available for future transit use.  It is built on a former railroad line running west to Eagle Lake and beyond.  Houston Metro bought the corridor and later an agreement was reach to allow the tollway authorities to use it.  I don't know how far west Metro ownership extends.  The 50' width is infringed upon in a few areas, but like most things, that can be engineered for compliance if/when a transit corridor is built.

So another example of where 240' is sufficient for a freeway with a few compromises.  Perhaps not perfect but it works and the world keeps turning.

Bobby5280

For a 4-lane freeway plus frontage roads to work along the existing TX-114 ROW between US-287 and FM-156 they would have to use a configuration similar to what the Westpark Tollway has between the FM-1464 intersection and Westpark Drive.
Overhead View:
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.7082617,-95.6811526,200m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en
Street View:
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.7083572,-95.6809783,3a,75y,108.38h,90.57t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMhm7DhcMCfFxIqHjaIv7wg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en

The configuration on that segment fits within a 220' to 230' wide ROW, but at the consequence of slip ramps needing to be positioned at not so convenient locations farther from major intersections. That might not be such a bad thing for that stretch of TX-114. The frontage roads mainly just need to serve local traffic and be safely barrier-separated from the faster, thru traffic. Slip ramps will be needed in at least a few strategically located spots. Intersections like Wolff Crossing are going to dump a lot of truck traffic onto TX-114 due to all the new warehouses that are quickly surrounding the Northwest ISD school complex. And Northwest ISD is a big traffic generator on its own. The bridges over the BNSF line will have to be re-done to include freeway main lanes and frontage road lanes.

okroads

I was in this area on Sunday and was pleasantly surprised to see that both directions of TX 114 are now open over US 377. Here are some pictures from TX 114 East.

DSC08028 by Eric Stuve, on Flickr

DSC08029 by Eric Stuve, on Flickr

DSC08030 by Eric Stuve, on Flickr

DSC08031 by Eric Stuve, on Flickr


rte66man

Quote from: okroads on March 01, 2023, 10:40:37 PM
I was in this area on Sunday and was pleasantly surprised to see that both directions of TX 114 are now open over US 377. Here are some pictures from TX 114 East.

DSC08028 by Eric Stuve, on Flickr

DSC08029 by Eric Stuve, on Flickr

DSC08030 by Eric Stuve, on Flickr

DSC08031 by Eric Stuve, on Flickr


Why aren't more lanes open EB? It looks like that will back up just like the frontage roads.
When you come to a fork in the road... TAKE IT.

                                                               -Yogi Berra

Bobby5280

In order to add more lanes I think TX-114 would have to be expanded to a 4x4 lanes configuration on the East end of the TX-114/TX-170 "Y" split. A 4x4 configuration would help prevent some merging conflicts.

South of the US-377 intersection there are two on-ramps to EB TX-114 from Bryon Nelson Blvd and TX-170. Within the 114/170 interchange the TX-114 roadway has enough road surface to paint in another inboard lane. But that slab runs out at the on-ramps from Trophy Lake Drive.

With the TX-114 overpass over US-377 complete I wonder how much longer it will take for TX-DOT to extend the freeway over Litsey Road, Cleveland Gibbs Road and I-35W. They really need to get the damned thing extended at least as far as the West end of the Northwest ISD school complex and the rapidly growing cluster of big-ass distribution buildings. It's like they're sleep walking this situation. Handling it one intersection at a time ain't gonna cut it.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.