And I'm not talking just immediate metro Houston, I'm talking well into eastern Texas. I expected this would be like I-95 south of Richmond; easy cruise control, but its pretty steady, why?
Port Arthur / Beaumont / Lake Charles traffic, in addition to long distance through traffic.
Going to your Virginia comparison, I-64 east of Richmond is a very busy corridor.
If it was this way today or yesterday, could be folks evacuating from the incoming hurricane.
It's the only major east-west route for 200 miles in the heart of a significant petroleum producing region. Not only do you have traffic from South, Central, and Southeast Texas going to-and-from Louisiana and points east, you've also got all the oilfield services traffic going between the coast, the refineries, and pipeline terminals. It's very much a strategic chokepoint.
I-10 is crowded East of Houston to the Louisiana border because it just isn't wide enough. The Houston metro area has over 6 million people. I-10 is one of the nation's most important cross-country highways.
East of downtown out to Beltway 8 the configuration of I-10 is mostly 4 lanes in both directions. It only widens to 5 or 6 lanes for lane drops onto other major routes, such as I-610. Just to the East of Beltway 8 and Sheldon Rd I-10 drops to 3 lanes in both directions. If you look at the Google Earth imagery (dated 12/1/2019) it's easy to see how that lane drop from a 4-4 to 3-3 configuration causes a traffic bottle-neck.
I-10 drops to 2 lanes in each direction just East of Winnie. There are spotty pieces of construction between there and Beaumont. I-10 goes back up to 3-3 in Beaumont. Some of that was widened from 2-2 to 3-3 around 10 years ago. There is on-going construction on I-10 at Orange, TX right up to the LA border.
I think I-10 needs to be at least a 5-5 or 6-6 configuration inside the Houston beltways. I-10 probably needs to go from a 3-3 to 4-4 configuration to Winnie. Louisiana has even bigger problems with I-10. Those really long bridges over the Atchafalaya River/Swamp and the Maurepas Swamp are really old and the 2-2 configuration is really not adequate.
^
I-10 only carries around 50,000 - 55,000 AADT east of SH-99 to Winnie. Perhaps in the future, 8 lane widening will be necessarily, but it's generally adequate with 6 lanes.
Between SH-99 and Beltway 8, 8 lane widening is needed, carrying 70,000 AADT near SH-99 and up to nearly 130,000 AADT near Beltway 8.
Between Beaumont and the Louisiana border, I-10 carries over 60,000 AADT, peaking to nearly 80,000 AADT at the border. That section has mostly been widened to 6 lanes. Louisiana needs to finish the 10 mile gap between the Texas state line and the 6 lane segment near Vinton.
The same reason 35 between San Antonio and DFW is crowded; a continuous string of towns. Same story with 95 in the northeast, 95 in Florida, US-101 from LA to SF.
Quote from: STLmapboy on October 10, 2020, 12:57:27 PM
The same reason 35 between San Antonio and DFW is crowded; a continuous string of towns. Same story with 95 in the northeast, 95 in Florida, US-101 from LA to SF.
While some of the medium-sized cities on I-35 (not small towns) do contribute to a percentage of the traffic, a good majority of that traffic is either long-distance truck traffic or traffic traveling between San Antonio, Austin, and Dallas-Fort Worth. Same goes for I-45 between Dallas and Houston, and I-10 between San Antonio and Houston to a lesser extent.
IMO, IH 10 should have been made to be 8 lanes minimum from Jacksonville to the westside of Houston after Katrina hit in 2005 because it's such a crucial economic route/Vacation/Spring Break and evacuation route, why that wasn't acted on as a big infrastructure project after 2005 is beyond me! I say the same for IH 75 and 85 in Florida. The southern part of Florida could be next in upcoming years with catastrophic hurricanes.
^
I-10 doesn't need any more than 6 lanes in most areas and all of I-10 east of Mobile is adequate with 4 lanes. Carries around 30,000 AADT between east of Mobile and Pensacola, with only about 22,000 AADT between Pensacola and outside of Jacksonville.
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 08, 2020, 01:47:55 PM
Port Arthur / Beaumont / Lake Charles traffic, in addition to long distance through traffic.
Going to your Virginia comparison, I-64 east of Richmond is a very busy corridor.
Yea but that's because of beach and tourist traffic, I-64 W of Richmond is dead.
Quote from: STLmapboy on October 10, 2020, 12:57:27 PM
The same reason 35 between San Antonio and DFW is crowded; a continuous string of towns. Same story with 95 in the northeast, 95 in Florida, US-101 from LA to SF.
But those are major cities, east of Houston it's rural. I expected it to be like I-95 south of Richmond.
Quote from: bluecountry on October 11, 2020, 07:02:53 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 08, 2020, 01:47:55 PM
Port Arthur / Beaumont / Lake Charles traffic, in addition to long distance through traffic.
Going to your Virginia comparison, I-64 east of Richmond is a very busy corridor.
Yea but that's because of beach and tourist traffic, I-64 W of Richmond is dead.
Quote from: STLmapboy on October 10, 2020, 12:57:27 PM
The same reason 35 between San Antonio and DFW is crowded; a continuous string of towns. Same story with 95 in the northeast, 95 in Florida, US-101 from LA to SF.
But those are major cities, east of Houston it's rural. I expected it to be like I-95 south of Richmond.
I-10, I-20, and I-30 are pretty congested everywhere east of I-45 (maybe even I-35)
I-35 is congested everywhere.
Why? All three of them have to do with imports from Mexico and to a lesser degree the west coast.
The difference between the Richmond location on I-95 and I-35 are several. First the exports fan out predominately from west to east in the US. The west coast traffic would either be on I-40 or I-81 (among others). There is a greater interstate highway density east of the Mississippi river. Interstate 95 is a regional route whereas I-35 and the east west routes are heavy with national traffic.
The CITIES may make it worse, but even the materials that are processed in them is traffic making a short stop in a fairly linear path from Mexico or the west coast to wherever.
Quote from: bluecountry on October 11, 2020, 07:02:53 PM
I-64 W of Richmond is dead.
Hardly "dead". It can get quite full, though usually moves 75 - 80 mph. It carries over 40,000 AADT between I-81 and Richmond, the same volume as I-81. The difference between I-64 and I-81 though is truck percentages. If I-64 carried the sheer amount of truck traffic that I-81 did in that section, 6 lane widening would be as necessary as it is along I-81.
I-64 west of I-81 is dead, carrying under 10,000 AADT for the most part. Most long distance traffic from Hampton Roads, Richmond, and Charlottesville default onto I-81 South heading west towards I-40 West in Tennessee.
Would it be possible to upgrade US 90 to freeway standards from Houston to Beaumont as a way of relieving congestion on Interstate 10, as well as providing an alternative route? Or wouldn't it make much difference?
^
Perhaps start with 4 lane widening with a median sufficient for a future mainline, plus town bypasses.
I think all priority though is still on widening I-10.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 12, 2020, 07:12:25 PM
Would it be possible to upgrade US 90 to freeway standards from Houston to Beaumont as a way of relieving congestion on Interstate 10, as well as providing an alternative route? Or wouldn't it make much difference?
About 1/4 of it is already done. From I-10 just east of I-610 to near Crosby. It is doable, but it still leaves the aggregate traffic volume in Beaumont. It will likely be built slowly but surely, but widening I-10 is a more immediate project.
Quote from: Tomahawkin on October 10, 2020, 10:10:02 PM
IMO, IH 10 should have been made to be 8 lanes minimum from Jacksonville to the westside of Houston after Katrina hit in 2005 because it's such a crucial economic route/Vacation/Spring Break and evacuation route, why that wasn't acted on as a big infrastructure project after 2005 is beyond me! I say the same for IH 75 and 85 in Florida. The southern part of Florida could be next in upcoming years with catastrophic hurricanes.
Agreed. And even with the traffic counts, it seems like traffic is always pretty packed and the would road would be more pleasant to drive at 8 lanes. Not all roads in DFW warrant six lanes but many are which vastly improves quality of life and their roads are beautiful.
Perfectly put and 8 lanes total makes a last minute evacuation due to a hurricane a hell of a lot more bearable. IMO
SO what's the I-10 traffic, freight/NAFTA imports/exports as opposed to Megalopolis/tourists on I-95/I-64 N and E or Richmond.
Quote from: bluecountry on October 14, 2020, 03:36:10 PM
SO what's the I-10 traffic, freight/NAFTA imports/exports as opposed to Megalopolis/tourists on I-95/I-64 N and E or Richmond.
Well the Northeast from DC to Boston is pretty congested. The east has a larger concentration of freeways than west of the Mississippi. Traffic can fan out.
Houston and San Antonio are both on I-10. Austin and even DFW feed from them. Tourists? Louisiana is a tourist Mecca. I might add. Texans average 35K miles on their personal cars. We drive.
As to comparing I-10 east of Houston to Richmond, you might choose I-40 west of Memphis to compare. Houston is the 4th or 5th largest metro area in the US. Memphs and Richmond fall in the forties.
Not only does the DC to Boston corridor have numerous freeway and toll road options (parallel freeways and toll roads linking the same cities in some cases), but there is also far more in the way of regional commuter rail. That also spreads out the burden. I remember all the talk in the 1990's about a "Texas TGV" high speed rail system linking the Texas Triangle cities. As best as I can tell that effort has gone nowhere.
For the time being there is not much in the way of relief routes or relatively low cost forms of alternative transportation to link Houston, DFW, Austin-San Antonio.
Quote from: The GhostbusterWould it be possible to upgrade US 90 to freeway standards from Houston to Beaumont as a way of relieving congestion on Interstate 10, as well as providing an alternative route? Or wouldn't it make much difference?
I think there is a good case to be made for upgrading US-90 to Interstate standards from Houston to Beaumont as a means of giving the Northern reaches of Houston a faster outlet to Beaumont and points farther East. There is probably already a good amount of traffic using US-90 for that purpose. When you incorporate the Northern leg of the Grand Parkway the route can function as an effective gateway to Austin. The "Texas I-12" route I've mentioned in the past would incorporate US-90, The Grand Parkway and US-290.
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 10, 2020, 01:08:02 PM
Quote from: STLmapboy on October 10, 2020, 12:57:27 PM
The same reason 35 between San Antonio and DFW is crowded; a continuous string of towns. Same story with 95 in the northeast, 95 in Florida, US-101 from LA to SF.
While some of the medium-sized cities on I-35 (not small towns) do contribute to a percentage of the traffic, a good majority of that traffic is either long-distance truck traffic or traffic traveling between San Antonio, Austin, and Dallas-Fort Worth. Same goes for I-45 between Dallas and Houston, and I-10 between San Antonio and Houston to a lesser extent.
Not to mention people heading to New Braunfels to cool off at Schlitterbahn every summer.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 15, 2020, 11:47:29 PM
Not only does the DC to Boston corridor have numerous freeway and toll road options (parallel freeways and toll roads linking the same cities in some cases), but there is also far more in the way of regional commuter rail. That also spreads out the burden. I remember all the talk in the 1990's about a "Texas TGV" high speed rail system linking the Texas Triangle cities. As best as I can tell that effort has gone nowhere.
For the time being there is not much in the way of relief routes or relatively low cost forms of alternative transportation to link Houston, DFW, Austin-San Antonio.
Construction on a 90-minute high speed rail line between Houston and Dallas is scheduled to begin next year.
https://www.texastribune.org/2020/09/21/dallas-houston-high-speed-train/
https://www.texascentral.com/
After the pathetic debacle to link Los Angeles and the SF Bay Area with high speed rail I'm going to go with the attitude of "I'll believe it when I see it" in regards to a DFW-Houston high speed rail line. IIRC the LA-SF high speed rail line is now just going to be a Bakersfield to Fresno thing. And even that segment is still going to cost tens of billions of dollars.
^
Major difference between the two. The Houston - Dallas one is being completed by a private company, the LA - SF one is public and being complete by the state.
Not to mention, the Houston - Dallas line doesn't have the geographic issues that LA - SF does, and costs significantly less.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 16, 2020, 09:45:38 AM
After the pathetic debacle to link Los Angeles and the SF Bay Area with high speed rail I'm going to go with the attitude of "I'll believe it when I see it" in regards to a DFW-Houston high speed rail line. IIRC the LA-SF high speed rail line is now just going to be a Bakersfield to Fresno thing. And even that segment is still going to cost tens of billions of dollars.
To move perhaps a few thousand individuals. If even that. A few hundred, perhaps?? The cost of the disconnected HSR segment in the central valley - that could have finished the 710 tunnel and completed I-40 to Bakersfied/I-5.
The cost of that California HSR boondoggle might have been able to fund more than that. In addition to a proper completion of I-40 and the I-710 tunnel in LA there probably would have been money left over for other projects. I think CA-14 needs to be upgraded to Interstate quality all the way through Mojave up to CA-58 (maybe future I-40). CA-86 needs to be upgraded to Interstate quality from I-10 at Indio down to Brawley and CA-111 upgraded the rest of the way down to I-8 and El Centro. Oh, and US-101 needs all sorts of spot improvements between the LA and SF Bay areas.
The HDC freeway was de facto canceled. The 710 south expansion was effectively indefinitely shelved due to local opposition. The 710 tunnel gap has been killed and it will be a miracle if it ever comes back. The last director of caltrans said new GP lanes are a relic of the past in California.
Color me very shocked if metro embarks on any of its planned highway expansion projects at all for a very long time and after the current round of freeway projects are completed I wonder if we'll see anymore start up. Los Angeles is a shit hole. I live here and it's infuriating how anti freeway these nutbag leaders have become.
The train is a joke. It's "initial" operation is now planned to not be electrified, run 110 MPH, and only connect both ends of the valley. Cost estimates are nearing 100 billion and going up by the month. I won't be shocked if the real costs of connecting LA to Palmdale are over 50 billion by itself. I doubt this train ever sees the light of day with current leadership. We need reforms on how we build infrastructure and cost reducing measures implemented.
I think the situation in the big coastal cities of California and the Northeast is reaching "critical mass." The extreme costs of living, the high tax rates and the overall general level of pain in the ass affecting all aspects of life are starting to yield consequences.
How will local and state politicians be able to hang on to their anti-freeway hysteria if their local economies (particularly the hyper-inflated real estate market) implode into the toilet? They could go from being devoutly anti-freeway to years later pushing street and highway improvement projects to stimulate the economy.
There is a notable exodus of young adults who are moving to more affordable cities. They're either moving a short distance, such as from San Francisco to Sacramento, or they're moving farther away to states like Texas. Even some celebrities are leaving California. The biggest consequence will be if/when major companies pick up and leave. Elon Musk made a lot of headlines by threatening to move Tesla's headquarters out of California; he's still seriously considering it even after his factory in Fremont was allowed to re-open. The newest "gigafactory" will be built near Austin.
Regardless of population shifts, something really has to be done to reign in the exploding costs of infrastructure. It's insane how much time, legal action and money has to be spent to get any big projects, such as a new highway, built in the US. It's really pathetic.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 18, 2020, 02:08:11 PM
Regardless of population shifts, something really has to be done to reign in the exploding costs of infrastructure. It's insane how much time, legal action and money has to be spent to get any big projects, such as a new highway, built in the US. It's really pathetic.
It's not just big projects. I'm trying to remodel a barn in a rural town of 7,000. So far it's required a public hearing, two Planning Commission meetings, and a city council meeting to get it done. Made contact with the city in July to get the necessary permits, and we're looking at the earliest final city council approval on December 10. And this is all just for the zoning nonsense, we haven't even got into building permits yet.
The same on the fringes of smaller towns too. So I hear, in Oregon and some other states, you need building permits to build any non-agricultural structure in completely RURAL areas. As I understand it, even the agricultural ones need permits in many cases.
I know this is off topic but regarding the last few posts, now the 605 expansion is possibly being canceled in lieu of "alternative corridor enhancements" or something stupid like that. Anywho, I was just banned from Streetsblog for "repeated as hominem attacks" by Joe Linton who can't provide to me a single example of where I've done so. That was in response to me responding to their anti-freeway article crying the race card opposing the expansion and my criticism of their article.
What a joke. I bet we can soon add to the list of canceled freeway projects the 605 expansion while the transit advocates will cry foul basking in a sea of 100 plus billion in mass transit expansion for LA alone.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 19, 2020, 01:09:25 PM
I know this is off topic but regarding the last few posts, now the 605 expansion is possibly being canceled in lieu of "alternative corridor enhancements" or something stupid like that. Anywho, I was just banned from Streetsblog for "repeated as hominem attacks" by Joe Linton who can't provide to me a single example of where I've done so. That was in response to me responding to their anti-freeway article crying the race card opposing the expansion and my criticism of their article.
What a joke. I bet we can soon add to the list of canceled freeway projects the 605 expansion while the transit advocates will cry foul basking in a sea of 100 plus billion in mass transit expansion for LA alone.
You're in California. Why not just get an initiative going?
Quote from: TXtoNJ on October 19, 2020, 01:39:36 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on October 19, 2020, 01:09:25 PM
I know this is off topic but regarding the last few posts, now the 605 expansion is possibly being canceled in lieu of "alternative corridor enhancements" or something stupid like that. Anywho, I was just banned from Streetsblog for "repeated as hominem attacks" by Joe Linton who can't provide to me a single example of where I've done so. That was in response to me responding to their anti-freeway article crying the race card opposing the expansion and my criticism of their article.
What a joke. I bet we can soon add to the list of canceled freeway projects the 605 expansion while the transit advocates will cry foul basking in a sea of 100 plus billion in mass transit expansion for LA alone.
You're in California. Why not just get an initiative going?
lots going on in my life. I plan to eventually.
Quote from: Scott5114It's not just big projects. I'm trying to remodel a barn in a rural town of 7,000. So far it's required a public hearing, two Planning Commission meetings, and a city council meeting to get it done.
I can sympathize, working in the commercial sign industry. Regulations vary
widely depending on the city or town where you want to install something new. There are some stipulations where I have no quarrel, such as requiring UL Listing on any electrical sign. That's a win-win even if we don't get the job. Years later if we're having to service some other company's crap our service crew won't have to worry so much about getting electrocuted by it. Nevertheless, the regulations can grow out of control. Edmond banned any new LED-based outdoor variable message signs. And they're adding new restrictions all the time. OKC isn't much easier to deal with, but they're really demanding on the amount of red tape to get anything done.
As much as I can gripe about being forced to draw up an electrical section detail drawing to exact scale of some nothing channel letter sign we'll stick on a restaurant building fascia, that's nothing compared to what highway engineers have to draw up and revise over and over and over and over and over again for all the damned attorneys, politicians, press, neighborhood action groups and any other interested parties just to get one stage of planning done on a highway project or a bridge.
I really believe we are weakening ourselves as a nation with this inward fixation of bureaucratic nitpicking. I've said it before. the United States is literally losing its ability to build big things. Building big things is a big part of what made this nation great in the first place. Look back 50 years or more. There's all sorts of civil engineering projects that were ground-breaking for their time. All the various suspension bridges in the New York City area are testaments to that. How about the Hoover Dam, the Gateway Arch, the Pentagon
or even the Interstate Highway System? It may not be Germany's Autobahn, but it covers a lot more mileage. And the Autobahn doesn't match the sheer scale of some of our highways, much less match some of the far more advanced freeway to freeway interchanges. But America is pricing itself out of building that kind of stuff.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 21, 2020, 01:00:49 AM
Quote from: Scott5114It's not just big projects. I'm trying to remodel a barn in a rural town of 7,000. So far it's required a public hearing, two Planning Commission meetings, and a city council meeting to get it done.
I can sympathize, working in the commercial sign industry. Regulations vary widely depending on the city or town where you want to install something new. There are some stipulations where I have no quarrel, such as requiring UL Listing on any electrical sign. That's a win-win even if we don't get the job. Years later if we're having to service some other company's crap our service crew won't have to worry so much about getting electrocuted by it. Nevertheless, the regulations can grow out of control. Edmond banned any new LED-based outdoor variable message signs. And they're adding new restrictions all the time.
When I first read about Edmond's action, I agreed with you. However, I've changed my mind. One of those LED VM signs was installed on NW Expressway just east of Portland. During the day it isn't a problem, but at night it nearly caused me to have a wreck when it changed in my peripheral vision from a muted background to harsh white. I thought someone was coming out of a side drive straight at me. Same goes for those stupid panel trucks with those ads on their sides.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 21, 2020, 01:00:49 AM
the commercial sign industry
When the company I work for built its current building here in Park City (KS), city ordinances wouldn't permit our company sign to be put up. One of the city officers worked with the owner to come up with an alternate solution: build the "sign" into the façade of the building itself, thereby making it a design feature no longer subject to said ordinances.
The city officer who helped develop that solution? Oh, that was
BTK (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dennis_Rader).
Quote from: rte6manHowever, I've changed my mind. One of those LED VM signs was installed on NW Expressway just east of Portland. During the day it isn't a problem, but at night it nearly caused me to have a wreck when it changed in my peripheral vision from a muted background to harsh white. I thought someone was coming out of a side drive straight at me.
That sounds like the business didn't have the LED sign setup correctly. Any outdoor LED board worth a damn will have timers or solar sensors built-in to automatically adjust the brightness of the display between day and night. It's not difficult for a local sign code to take that factor into account.
The problem with Edmond is that suburb just wants to ban or severely restrict as many types of signs as possible. The funny thing is Edmond still has shitty looking signs. A hack-quality sign designer can make a tiny, modest sign look just as shitty as a big one. Squeezed and stretched default Arial type, bad color combinations and disorganized, cluttered layouts are just as common on small signs as big signs. Maybe even more common since the little modest signs are relatively cheap.
Aside from a LED sign's brightness problem there are standards and practices anyone creating ads for LED-based variable message signs should follow. Stark white backgrounds are not visually pleasing on most kinds of signs. On LED signs a white background can blow out lettering via overglow, especially if the letter strokes are narrow at all.
Since the Oklahoma contingent is here, you all might get a kick out of knowing that it's Blanchard handing out the red tape. Everyone we've dealt with has been nice and professional, it's just...you know, still red tape, despite how small the town is.
I feel like whenever I-69 is finished between Houston and Shreveport that it would funnel some of the eastbound traffic from I-10 further inland to I-20,
The possibility for I-69 filter some EB traffic off I-10 in Houston really depends on where the traffic is ultimately headed. For example, if Atlanta was the destination the motorist would still be best off staying on I-10 to Mobile, taking I-65 up to Montgomery and I-85 the rest of the way. That would be more direct than I-69 to Shreveport and I-20 across. If Birmingham was the destination then I-69 to Shreveport and I-20 across would be just as good as the I-10, I-12, I-59, I-20 combo.
I think a great deal of the traffic on I-69 in Texas (once the road is completed) will be heading between South Texas/Mexico and the Upper Midwest and Northeast US. I-69 is on a pretty different axis than I-10.