At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas

[sprjus4]

^ He means Jersey City (not Manhattan), where it does go through a few at-grades on local streets.

[Rothman]

Sorry for the bump, but in my opinion the at-grade intersections are fine. The traffic out in this part of Texas isn't all that high and there are probably better things for Texas to spend money on. Although in a perfect world they wouldn't exist.

I fundamentally disagree.

Interstate highways need to be fully controlled access freeways. It is not that expensive to build frontage roads to allow access to rural areas.

And I'd spend the money to remove at-grade sections from freeways and/or tollways. Breezwoods should not exist. Build a true interchange between I-70 and I-76, and let Breezewood be a spur. Eliminate I-180 in Wyoming entirely. Reroute I-278 away from the at-grade section in Manhattan.  And so forth.

Freeways need to be FREEWAYS.

I-278 doesn't have an at grade segment. You may be thinking of I-587 in Kingston, which has traffic circles at either end. I-690 used to be an example, but they've since fixed it to be a proper interchange.

My bad....actually, I was thinking about I-78 through Manhattan, which does go through local city streets.

You are having a real tough time with this.

[Anthony_JK]

Sorry for the bump, but in my opinion the at-grade intersections are fine. The traffic out in this part of Texas isn't all that high and there are probably better things for Texas to spend money on. Although in a perfect world they wouldn't exist.

I fundamentally disagree.

Interstate highways need to be fully controlled access freeways. It is not that expensive to build frontage roads to allow access to rural areas.

And I'd spend the money to remove at-grade sections from freeways and/or tollways. Breezwoods should not exist. Build a true interchange between I-70 and I-76, and let Breezewood be a spur. Eliminate I-180 in Wyoming entirely. Reroute I-278 away from the at-grade section in Manhattan.  And so forth.

Freeways need to be FREEWAYS.

I-278 doesn't have an at grade segment. You may be thinking of I-587 in Kingston, which has traffic circles at either end. I-690 used to be an example, but they've since fixed it to be a proper interchange.

My bad....actually, I was thinking about I-78 through Manhattan, which does go through local city streets.

You are having a real tough time with this.

Whatever. I'm only human, I make mistakes. My original point stands.

[Avalanchez71]

BUMP
Saw this in the preliminary Texas Rural Tansportation Plan:
https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot-info/tpp/rural_2035/report/0512/trtp_appendix_e_id.pdf

1322 393.8 461 El Paso Hudspeth IH 10 Eliminate at-grade intersection At 4.7 mi E of FM 34 0 1.0
1323 393.8 461 El Paso Hudspeth IH 10 Eliminate at-grade intersection At 0.9 mi W of Laska Road (Exit 99) 0 1.0
1324 393.8 461 El Paso Hudspeth IH 10 Eliminate at-grade intersection At 2.1 mi W of Laska Road (Exit (99) 0 1.0
1325 392.4 465 El Paso Hudspeth IH 10 Eliminate at-grade intersection At 3.8 mi W of FM 1111 0 1.0
1326 392.4 465 El Paso Hudspeth IH 10 Eliminate at-grade intersection At 2.4 mi E of FM 1111 0 1.0
1327 387.5 475 El Paso Hudspeth IH 10 Eliminate at-grade intersection At 5.1 mi E of FM 1111 0 1.0
1328 387.5 475 El Paso Hudspeth IH 10 Eliminate at-grade intersection At 6.9 mi E of FM 1111 0 1.0
1329 387.5 475 El Paso Hudspeth IH 10 Eliminate at-grade intersection At 7.7 mi E of FM 1111 0 1.0
1330 387.5 475 El Paso Hudspeth IH 10 Eliminate at-grade intersection At 11.6 mi E of FM 1111 0 1.0
1331 387.0 480 El Paso Hudspeth IH 10 Eliminate at-grade intersection At 6 mi W of US 90 0 1.0

At least it's now on the radar

How is this going now?  Is it still in planning?

[Bobby5280]

Based on Google Street View imagery around Sierra Blanca, TX and other places nearby it doesn't look like TX DOT has done any work so far on those at-grade intersections.

[bwana39]

While these are all but one of the rural priorities in the El Paso TxDOT district, as to the state priorities, they are in the lower 1/4 of the statewide list.

BTW, this list is not new. Some of these projects are already complete. Many are just that: on a list and may NEVER happen.

I don't believe these will happen anytime soon unless the feds force TxDOT's hand. The traffic counts simply do not justify the expense of the intersection. While there are left turns across the freeway lanes, but due to the low volume, they actually are less dangerous than merges at most regular freeway interchanges. I get that a crossover on a freeway is out of the norm, but they are negligible to the dangers of  2-lane traffic on US-271 between Mount Pleasant and Paris as an example.

[Sykotyk]

Is there a single 'intersection' in west Texas that sees more than one car per day using the intersection on average? And not just U-turns. But actually using those 'intersections'.

To me, I would just remove them and have a regular cross-over and an extra wide shoulder. And just 'authorize' the owners of those ranches to use the cross-overs and to make turns from those freeways. And just remove the yield/stop/turn signs from the highway.

[Bobby5280]

I don't know if TX DOT has any way to monitor the use number of those intersections. But there seems to be enough vehicles using them for the intersections to be paved and given all sorts of signage. Some of the signs are very unique for any Interstate highway, such as the post-mounted Interstate signs rotated 90 degrees from the highway lanes and facing the crossover intersection. It's in the same fashion as One Way signs. The at-grade crossings often have those too. It's one more thing to make the highway NOT feel like an Interstate, but rather more like a standard 4-lane divided highway.

I wouldn't mind these at-grade intersections as much if they were indeed for the exclusive use only for ranchers or oil-field workers who use adjacent land. The problem is no one should under-estimate the ability of other motorists to make really stupid decisions. Some clown sees an upcoming at-grade intersection and decides at the last second to brake to a near dead stop to hang a hard turn so he can get out to take a piss.

Some of these at-grade crossings are already serviced by parallel access roads, even paved ones. Those at-grade crossings should be the first to be removed.

[J N Winkler]

Since the TRTP (quoted above) gives a nice convenient list of at-grade intersections with locations keyed to FM 1111 (Sierra Blanca) and FM 34 (a bit east of Esperanza), I gave myself a StreetView tour.  I identified one or two for which I think stopping up the existing access by building a Jersey barrier across it, with ramps to access one side of the freeway, might be a reasonable solution.  For others, culverts might work.  However, even these relatively inexpensive solutions come at a cost.  As Bwana39 suggests, eliminating all the flat intersections on I-10 would involve suspending prioritization on the basis of need in favor of enforcing minimum standards.

[Scott5114]

Aren't the New Mexico ones gone now?

I think they are still there.  I know I have seen them in person a lot more recently than the 1997 date Kyle mentions (maybe January 2005?), and I think at some point (during a previous debate on Interstate at-grades), I dug up StreetView imagery of them.  They are temporary only in the geological sense.

I didn't see them in October 2022 when I went through there the first time. I guess the actual crossings may still be there without signs and I just didn't notice them, though.