AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules to ensure post quality. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: El Paso: bids opened for IH-10 widening  (Read 4624 times)

MaxConcrete

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 927
  • Location: Houston, TX
  • Last Login: December 06, 2022, 11:38:00 PM
El Paso: bids opened for IH-10 widening
« on: October 08, 2021, 08:28:59 PM »

This section is 11 miles from North Mesa Street in north El Paso to the New Mexico state line. It will be mostly 3x3 with some short 4x4 sections. This is long overdue since the section in New Mexico from the state line to Las Cruces has been 3x3 for many years.

The winning bid of $246.7 million is a budget buster, $54 million (28%) above the estimate. I hope this was due to a low estimate instead of construction cost inflation. Webber is usually a very competitive bidder and they were 37% above the estimate at $264 million.

The contract time of 1832 working days seems excessively long. That's 7 years!

http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/10083201.htm


County:   EL PASO   Let Date:   10/08/21
Type:   CONSTRUCT NEW ROAD   Seq No:   3201
Time:   1832 WORKING DAYS   Project ID:   F 2022(053)
Highway:   IH 10   Contract #:   10213201
Length:   33.459   CCSJ:   2121-01-094
Limits:   
From:   0.22 MI W OF FM 1905 (ANTONIO ST)   Check:   $100,000
To:   SH 20 (MESA ST)   Misc Cost:   
Estimate   $192,755,433.56   % Over/Under   Company
Bidder 1   $246,687,523.27   +27.98%   JORDAN FOSTER CONSTRUCTION, LLC
Bidder 2   $253,947,505.77   +31.75%   SUNDT CONSTRUCTION, INC.
Bidder 3   $264,214,918.56   +37.07%   WEBBER, LLC
« Last Edit: October 08, 2021, 08:34:10 PM by MaxConcrete »
Logged

DJStephens

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 970
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Las Cruces NM 88012
  • Last Login: Today at 07:31:27 AM
Re: El Paso: bids opened for IH-10 widening
« Reply #1 on: October 17, 2021, 04:26:08 PM »

   Long overdue.  Am guessing the cost involves conversion to all concrete pavement.   
   There has been "piecemeal" work done on 10 in El Paso county, since the mid 90's perhaps earlier.   
   A lot of projects - have been done in last twenty years on W side, that don't fit together.  Frontage road curbing, reconstruction.   Pulling Anthony TX NB off ramp way back south, like a mile and a half south of Exit 0.  Mistakes with Exit 0, itself.  Not rebuilding Exit 2 with 10 going over a flattened Vinton Road.  Mistakes at Transmountain, Exit 6.  Mistakes at Artcraft, Exit 8.  Not lowering mainlines between Artcraft and Thorn.   Exit 9, Redd Road, also a mistake.  Should have been depression under Redd, with an eight lane 10 going under.   
A whole host of planning and execution blunders.   Could have been a lot better.   
Logged

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 3135
  • Location: Los Angeles/OKC
  • Last Login: Today at 08:09:30 AM
Re: El Paso: bids opened for IH-10 widening
« Reply #2 on: October 21, 2021, 12:40:54 PM »

7 years to widen 11 miles of 4 lane rural interstate to 6? That seems extremely excessive especially for TxDOT. That has to a typo, no?
Logged

Chris

  • *
  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 2463
  • International road enthusiast

  • Age: 35
  • Location: the Netherlands
  • Last Login: Today at 08:12:52 AM
    • Flickr
Re: El Paso: bids opened for IH-10 widening
« Reply #3 on: October 21, 2021, 01:06:29 PM »

Should it have been 832 days? That's a little over two years.

Or do those 1832 days include drawing up a complete design for the project (as in a design-build contract?)

DJStephens

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 970
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Las Cruces NM 88012
  • Last Login: Today at 07:31:27 AM
Re: El Paso: bids opened for IH-10 widening
« Reply #4 on: October 21, 2021, 10:01:49 PM »

7 years to widen 11 miles of 4 lane rural interstate to 6? That seems extremely excessive especially for TxDOT. That has to a typo, no?

It was "rural" in the mid nineties.  The original interchanges, truss gantries, and signage were still in use then.   Signage was more basic, and an argument can be made it was better than the cluttered mess of today.   The El Paso city limits are aprox MP 4, on the West side, they have annexed a good deal of the "empty" land that exists N of Transmountain Road.   A lot of construction, both retail and residential has taken place, on both side of the highway, N of Transmountain as well.   
Logged

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 3135
  • Location: Los Angeles/OKC
  • Last Login: Today at 08:09:30 AM
Re: El Paso: bids opened for IH-10 widening
« Reply #5 on: October 21, 2021, 11:39:17 PM »

Would you call it urban? But even then, 7 years seems a bit drawn out.
Logged

DJStephens

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 970
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Las Cruces NM 88012
  • Last Login: Today at 07:31:27 AM
Re: El Paso: bids opened for IH-10 widening
« Reply #6 on: October 23, 2021, 09:56:27 AM »

   Urban?  Yes it is now urban, from just N of Transmountain (MP 6) to Mesa St (Exit 11).

   Development will likely line both N and S frontages up to Vinton, and then Anthony, TX sooner than later. It will likely be of the nature of truck stops, diesel servicing for trucking, and other trucking related, and or warehousing, with some retail mixed in - family dollar, dollar general type of quick stop convenience stores.  Do not believe there will be much additional housing, constructed E of 10 between Transmountain, and the NM state line.  New housing does extend, for close to a linear mile, N of Transmountain, but believe there are limits to that continuing.  Along the river and to the W of 10, it will be completely filled, and El Paso will likely move to annex any remaining unincorporated regions up to the NM state line in the next few decades.
 
    Likely the price tag comes from rebuilding all the arroyo crossings and the bridge widening to get to a 6 lane cross section.  Of course they will be going into the median, and eliminating the separation that exists now.  Roughly 60 feet, yellow line to yellow line.  Personally, would have gone to the outside, and preserved much of the median, for the future, if an eight lane cross section was ever desired.   Meaning that if you had a vision, for an eventual eight lane build-out, the cross section would be roughly 150 feet.  Eight lanes - 96 feet, four FULL shoulders - 48 feet and footprint of three (3) CBR - 6 to 9 feet.      They could have had an eight lane cross section, up to at least Transmountain by now, if the piecemeal approach had not been done, and the process had had some vision for an ultimate build out.
 
   Major fails:
 
    Exit 9: Elevating 10 over Redd Rd with only a four lane cross section.   Widening here will require "adding" onto existing bridge over Redd, with a lot of phasing, detours, and complications.  Looking at the topography in that area, the from scratch Redd interchange then, (2002-ish) should have gone under Redd, and the additional hill N of the interchange flattened, and the whole 10 mainline depressed, with a clear sight-line from Thorn (S of Redd) to Artcraft.   And the 10 main line could have been built out then, as an eight lane cross-section, in anticipation of growth, that would, and DID happen.  This same mistake was made at Zaragosa Road, (Exit 32) in the '96 - '97 time frame, an original bridge, was replaced by one in kind (only four lanes) where it could have been built in anticipation of growth, that DID happen on the E side of El Paso.   
 
    Hypothetical Redd fill could have been moved to staging areas, to near other interchanges that COULD have been built properly.
 
   Exit 6: This should have been a full stack, with correct geometry.  What they did build, was a pair of visually brutal overpasses to both the Transmountain mainlines heading E up towards the mountain.  Some of the columns, and cantilever bent columns were placed, so all one can get is a 6 lane I-10 cross section underneath them.  Blunder.   Am also not sure why they cantilevered over pre-existing ramps with these flyovers, instead of combining them both (old and new ramps) together, on both sides of 10 into a single exit point (NB) and a single entrance point (SB).  Am guessing cheapness, and no desire to acquire additional property, which should have been done to shift frontages outward.  A box beam, or seg-mental design could have greatly reduced the number of columns, and it would have had some additional seismic resistance.   The entire Artcraft / Redd / Transmountain area has been completely urbanized, with strip malls, free standing retail, warehousing, and residential behind them, completely filling in an area, that was largely vacant desert - thirty years ago.  A lot of this residential, is also high density apartments and condos, which spew out more traffic than less dense single family housing would.   Not much planning has gone on here, it has become a congested mess, at both Artcraft Rd, and Transmountain Road interchange areas.  And housing construction continues in the Rio Grande Valley N of Artcraft.   Believe the two interchanges should have been combined - into one full symmetrical stack, either at Exit 8 (artcraft) or Exit 6 (transmountain), or in-between (Exit 7) if there had been some planning process.   
   
   Exit 2.  Was simply rebuilt as it existed originally, with the Vinton road going over the 10 mainlines.  A lot of wasted space in the interchange core, that could have been used more efficiently, had 10 been routed over a flattened Vinton Road.   The approaches on Vinton road are quite steep, and separate CD road/frontage road U turn bridges were added later, to the main Vinton road bridge over 10.  These belated U turn bridges seem tacked on, and cheap.   Fill from a hypothetical Redd I-10 trench, could have been brought here, and used for the 10 approaches.   In fact, the Redd bridge design should have been used for Vinton Rd, with an eight lane 10 cross section.  The inside and outside lanes, on both NB and SB, would have not been used, until later widening(s) put them into use.   Would have erected a sound-wall also for the colonia neighborhood in the NE quadrant of that Exit 2 interchange.
 
   Exit 0.  Anthony TX/NM.  Another interchange replacement ('00-'01) that failed in execution.   Too much emphasis on frills - terracing, landscraping, and funky design elements such as steel stars.   Three major truck stops now there - Love's, Flying J and Pilot.  Bridge was not wide enough, and exit ramps were not properly lengthened, and accel / decel lanes added.   Large amounts of long distance trucking should dictate better design.   The I-10 mainlines under "new" bridge retained the original humped up nature, and should have flattened, to provide greater vertical clearance, and better sight lines.   The NB 10 exit ramp, Exit 0, was moved far to the south actually becoming an Exit 1.5 in it's new location.   Very confusing.   An informal truck pull off south of Anthony for NB trucking is the likely reason for this.  This "pull-off" should have been either eliminated, or moved southward to the space between Transmountain and Vinton.
   
    Yes you would have had to be in this area, for a long time (27 years) to have seen all this change, and a lot of it has not been optimum or for the better.   Very Piecemeal.     Planning is not a strong suit, in this part of the country, growth happens, and then there is some belated knee jerk response to it, that is usually half-baked.   By this "part" of the country, am referring to W Texas, and the entire state of New Mexico.  Am of belief planning and execution is better in Texas, once one is away from the oilfields, and travels to the E. 
« Last Edit: October 23, 2021, 11:25:35 AM by DJStephens »
Logged

In_Correct

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 636
  • Safety > Danger ... Road Buffets > Road Diets

  • Location: TX
  • Last Login: Today at 02:34:04 AM
Re: El Paso: bids opened for IH-10 widening
« Reply #7 on: October 28, 2021, 07:42:33 AM »


Interstate 10 in Texas is an embarrassment. It is so bad, that New Mexico is doing a better job.

Quote
Personally, would have gone to the outside, and preserved much of the median, for the future, if an eight lane cross section was ever desired.

It will be.

Quote
Meaning that if you had a vision, for an eventual eight lane build-out, the cross section would be roughly 150 feet.

New Mexico just might start before Texas finishes with six.
Logged
Drive Safely. :sombrero: Ride Safely. And Build More Roads, Rails, And Bridges. :coffee: ... Boulevards Wear Faster Than Interstates.

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3451
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: December 06, 2022, 11:34:43 PM
Re: El Paso: bids opened for IH-10 widening
« Reply #8 on: October 28, 2021, 07:09:11 PM »

Quote from: In_Correl
Interstate 10 in Texas is an embarrassment. It is so bad, that New Mexico is doing a better job.

There is a whole lot of Interstate 10 in Texas. The quality of the road depends on the specific part of the state. Katy Freeway is one of the most impressive stretches of highway in the entire nation. But between San Antonio and El Paso I-10 is rife with improvised dirt road driveways and even some purpose-built at-grade intersections. That ain't Interstate quality.
Logged

J N Winkler

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7939
  • Location: Wichita, Kansas
  • Last Login: Today at 01:03:59 AM
Re: El Paso: bids opened for IH-10 widening
« Reply #9 on: October 28, 2021, 10:29:19 PM »

Should it have been 832 days? That's a little over two years.

I do not think it is an error.  Per the bidding proposal, the project is divided into five phases of 399 (1A), 426 (1B), 433 (2), 216 (3), and 114 (5) working days.  These sum up to 1588 days, so I suspect the difference between that and 1832 days includes allowances for mobilization, winter shutdowns, and the like.

Or do those 1832 days include drawing up a complete design for the project (as in a design-build contract?)

No.  This is a design-bid-build project, and the construction plans are available through TxDOT's Plans Online FTP server.  They aggregate to over 3000 sheets.
Logged
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 3135
  • Location: Los Angeles/OKC
  • Last Login: Today at 08:09:30 AM
Re: El Paso: bids opened for IH-10 widening
« Reply #10 on: October 29, 2021, 12:40:17 AM »

Wow. El Paso has palm trees IIRC, so the winters canít get too cold. That seems like an awfully long time to complete a widening to six lanes but what do I know
Logged

DJStephens

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 970
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Las Cruces NM 88012
  • Last Login: Today at 07:31:27 AM
Re: El Paso: bids opened for IH-10 widening
« Reply #11 on: November 01, 2021, 07:37:46 AM »

There are several species of "hardy" palms that can withstand 10 F, in some cases lower.  The freak cold snap of early Feb 2011, saw temperatures recorded near - 5 F at the University.  (NMSU).  It was below freezing (32 F) for just over 72 hours.   A lot of non-native vegetation died off, as a result.  Most of the palms made it through, just fine.   
Logged

DJStephens

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 970
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Las Cruces NM 88012
  • Last Login: Today at 07:31:27 AM
Re: El Paso: bids opened for IH-10 widening
« Reply #12 on: November 01, 2021, 07:44:49 AM »

Quote from: In_Correl
Interstate 10 in Texas is an embarrassment. It is so bad, that New Mexico is doing a better job.

There is a whole lot of Interstate 10 in Texas. The quality of the road depends on the specific part of the state. Katy Freeway is one of the most impressive stretches of highway in the entire nation. But between San Antonio and El Paso I-10 is rife with improvised dirt road driveways and even some purpose-built at-grade intersections. That ain't Interstate quality.

    In another thread, believe that some of these are finally going to be addressed.  The geometrics and alignment, and concrete pavement on I-10 is actually excellent.  In many places, a 60 to 88 foot median, someplaces even more.   The road, itself is good.   This is E of El Paso County.   There does need to be a ten mile climbing lane, on I-10 EB approaching the Sierra Blanca Border Patrol checkpoint.  Along with a greater amount of "space" for trucking at that checkpoint.
   Have more of an issue with the waste, and design regressions, in El Paso county itself, and the horrible job on US 285 NW of Pecos, and other Oil Field shortcomings.   FM 652, as a leading example.   
« Last Edit: November 01, 2021, 07:51:51 AM by DJStephens »
Logged

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 3135
  • Location: Los Angeles/OKC
  • Last Login: Today at 08:09:30 AM
Re: El Paso: bids opened for IH-10 widening
« Reply #13 on: November 01, 2021, 08:37:47 AM »

There are several species of "hardy" palms that can withstand 10 F, in some cases lower.  The freak cold snap of early Feb 2011, saw temperatures recorded near - 5 F at the University.  (NMSU).  It was below freezing (32 F) for just over 72 hours.   A lot of non-native vegetation died off, as a result.  Most of the palms made it through, just fine.
Iím aware of cold hardy palms but that cold snap was extremely rare. Does El Paso regularly get cold in the winter? It looks like the lowest average low is 33 degrees.
Logged

MaxConcrete

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 927
  • Location: Houston, TX
  • Last Login: December 06, 2022, 11:38:00 PM
Re: El Paso: bids opened for IH-10 widening
« Reply #14 on: January 12, 2022, 10:19:37 PM »

It turns out that the bids on this job were rejected due to the cost overrun.

I noticed that the same project is receiving bids in February, and the estimated cost is now $181,216,220 (compared to the estimate of $192,755,433 for the rejected bids).

This project was discussed in detail at the October Commission meeting, see item 4A. http://txdot.swagit.com/play/10292021-504
Apparently the El Paso district could not cover the cost overrun.

Looking at the plans for the rebid, it appears that the section from the New Mexico border to Vinton Road (3 miles) is going to remain in its current configuration (2x2) on the existing pavement, with only some ramp improvements.
« Last Edit: January 12, 2022, 10:37:54 PM by MaxConcrete »
Logged

Plutonic Panda

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 3135
  • Location: Los Angeles/OKC
  • Last Login: Today at 08:09:30 AM
Re: El Paso: bids opened for IH-10 widening
« Reply #15 on: January 14, 2022, 03:03:21 PM »

Well that just sucks. So there are no plans to widen the entire thing now just scaled back or they are doing that in a later phase?
Logged

DJStephens

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 970
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Las Cruces NM 88012
  • Last Login: Today at 07:31:27 AM
Re: El Paso: bids opened for IH-10 widening
« Reply #16 on: January 16, 2022, 11:46:57 AM »

It turns out that the bids on this job were rejected due to the cost overrun.

I noticed that the same project is receiving bids in February, and the estimated cost is now $181,216,220 (compared to the estimate of $192,755,433 for the rejected bids).

This project was discussed in detail at the October Commission meeting, see item 4A. http://txdot.swagit.com/play/10292021-504
Apparently the El Paso district could not cover the cost overrun.

Looking at the plans for the rebid, it appears that the section from the New Mexico border to Vinton Road (3 miles) is going to remain in its current configuration (2x2) on the existing pavement, with only some ramp improvements.

    Interesting.   There is a lot of "wonkiness" with the hap-hazard and piecemeal work that has been done since the early 00's.   The Anthony interchange replacement ('01) was not properly thought out.   Three truckstops are now at that interchange.  Flying J, Pilot, and most recently, Love's.   
With the ramps, and mainlines at Exit 0 are a mess. 
1. WB I-10, actually true NB in this area, was moved south to become in actuality "Exit 1".   Highly confusing to casual trucker or motorist, not familiar to the area, to miss this "Exit 1", travel N, and then discover there is no exit for the services and truckstops at Exit 0.   
2. The ramp to I-10 N is too short, and dumps into the main lines shortly after crossing into the state of New Mexico.  There is an antiquated NM rest / welcome area there which should be demolished and moved several miles N.  They did add a short acceleration lane, which is better than what was there before, but it is still too short for the trucking.   
3. EB I-10, actually SB, there is no deceleration lane at all.  The exit simply veers off the mainlanes.  The missing deceleration lane is in the state of new mexico, and could have been built when NM did their widening project.   Typical oversight/blunder. 
4. On - ramp to I-10 EB.   Also very abrupt, with unclear right side "acceleration" lane, that also acts as a deceleration lane to access the frontage and the fairly new TX welcome  rest area, built off to the side of the SB frontage.   Likely an oversized 12 foot shoulder in the area, was then turned into an informal travel lane.   
   The I-10 mainlanes, under the "Exit 0" bridge, are clearly humped up, and are of uneven elevations.  The NB lanes are close to six feet higher, where the mainlines pass under.  Both sides need to be brought down, to match, and also provide greater vertical clearance.   Why they didn't address, and fix this, in '01, is beyond comprehension.   
Logged

MaxConcrete

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 927
  • Location: Houston, TX
  • Last Login: December 06, 2022, 11:38:00 PM
Re: El Paso: bids opened for IH-10 widening
« Reply #17 on: February 04, 2022, 08:20:29 PM »

Bids were opened today for the reduced-scope project. The results look good, with the winning bid of $174.3 million 4% under estimate
http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/02043225.htm

County:   EL PASO   Let Date:   02/04/22
Type:   CONSTRUCT NEW ROAD   Seq No:   3225
Time:   975 WORKING DAYS   Project ID:   F 2022(053)
Highway:   IH 10   Contract #:   02223225
Length:   33.459   CCSJ:   2121-01-094
Limits:   
From:   0.22 MI W OF FM 1905 (ANTONIO ST)   Check:   $100,000
To:   SH 20 (MESA ST)   Misc Cost:   $1294047.54
Estimate   $181,874,297.10   % Over/Under   Company
Bidder 1   $174,305,265.46   -4.16%   SUNDT CONSTRUCTION, INC.
Bidder 2   $187,434,508.95   +3.06%   JORDAN FOSTER CONSTRUCTION, LLC
Bidder 3   $213,168,307.41   +17.21%   WEBBER, LLC

jtespi

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 38
  • Age: 23
  • Location: Las Cruces, NM
  • Last Login: December 02, 2022, 01:22:24 AM
Re: El Paso: bids opened for IH-10 widening
« Reply #18 on: July 01, 2022, 01:30:38 AM »

Preliminary road work on widening has started this week. They've paved over the right shoulder and rumble strip for I-10 E (south) from between mile marker 5 to 6. There are overnight closures on I-10 East with diversion to the frontage road to accomplish this. The old cantilevered sign gantry just before the I-10 E Redd Rd. exit has been removed along with one newer tubular sign gantry on I-10 W just before the Transmountain Exit 6A flyover.

With the ramps, and mainlines at Exit 0 are a mess. 

3. EB I-10, actually SB, there is no deceleration lane at all.  The exit simply veers off the mainlanes.  The missing deceleration lane is in the state of New Mexico, and could have been built when NM did their widening project.   Typical oversight/blunder. 
I believe the state of NM didn't do a deceleration lane or exit only lane to Exit 0 on I-10 E because Texas was going to eventually add a 3rd lane from the state line to Mesa. The 3rd lane on I-10 in NM starts and ends at the TX state line in the inside lane for that reason. It would have been mostly trivial for NMDOT to do an exit only lane now and then reconfigure it once Texas built the 3rd lane, but I guess they figured it wouldn't take Texas >10 years.
Logged

DJStephens

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 970
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Las Cruces NM 88012
  • Last Login: Today at 07:31:27 AM
Re: El Paso: bids opened for IH-10 widening
« Reply #19 on: August 14, 2022, 11:44:43 AM »

Preliminary road work on widening has started this week. They've paved over the right shoulder and rumble strip for I-10 E (south) from between mile marker 5 to 6. There are overnight closures on I-10 East with diversion to the frontage road to accomplish this. The old cantilevered sign gantry just before the I-10 E Redd Rd. exit has been removed along with one newer tubular sign gantry on I-10 W just before the Transmountain Exit 6A flyover.

With the ramps, and mainlines at Exit 0 are a mess. 

3. EB I-10, actually SB, there is no deceleration lane at all.  The exit simply veers off the mainlanes.  The missing deceleration lane is in the state of New Mexico, and could have been built when NM did their widening project.   Typical oversight/blunder. 
I believe the state of NM didn't do a deceleration lane or exit only lane to Exit 0 on I-10 E because Texas was going to eventually add a 3rd lane from the state line to Mesa. The 3rd lane on I-10 in NM starts and ends at the TX state line in the inside lane for that reason. It would have been mostly trivial for NMDOT to do an exit only lane now and then reconfigure it once Texas built the 3rd lane, but I guess they figured it wouldn't take Texas >10 years.

What I meant, is that there should have been a "deceleration lane" added to I-10 EB (road actually runs N-S in the area) approaching the Anthony Exit 0, which is inside TX by about 500 feet.   As much as a Quarter mile long (1250 feet) due to the trucking.  Built to the outside of the existing EB right lane. They (the new mexico entity) instead placed a sound barrier, right outside the guardrail, instead of back on the edge of the ROW itself.  Yes, placing the sound wall, correctly, back on the ROW western edge.  This would have made it necessary to have had a "taller" wall.  So instead, they "walled" themselves off from their own ROW.   The also placed a ridiculous overhead gantry, just before the abrupt exit, stating you are "leaving" the state.  Complete waste.  Gantry appears to have a slight lean, as well, towards the traffic mainlanes, although it might be an illusion. 
« Last Edit: August 19, 2022, 01:51:38 PM by DJStephens »
Logged

DJStephens

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 970
  • Age: 47
  • Location: Las Cruces NM 88012
  • Last Login: Today at 07:31:27 AM
Re: El Paso: bids opened for IH-10 widening
« Reply #20 on: October 01, 2022, 05:07:25 PM »

   There is currently activity in the median between Vinton (Exit 2) to just N of Redd Road (Exit (9).  Appears to be work to close the median, by completely rebuilding all arroyo crossings with bridges that have greater spans, than the originals, that had multiple short spans.  In short, complete replacements of all arroyo crossings, in phases.   So the bridges will be "half finished" and then traffic (two lanes each direction, cattle chutes, no shoulders) will be shifted inwards, and then demolition and replacement of arroyo crossings will continue on the outside lanes. This complexity and expense, of the crossings, probably explains much of the total cost of this operation, and the length of the total project.   That, and the what believe will be conversion to all concrete pavements.   
   Am holding breath to see if they correctly bring down the "crest" in the 10 mainlines, S of Artcraft.  (MP 8) Am guessing they will not, and there will be a similar situation to what happened in the mid-late nineties on the E side, (MP 31) where a "humped" up mainline was left that way, instead of being properly "flattened" for greater sight lines.   They even put continuous reinforced concrete pavement over the hump.  At this point it doesn't look good.   
« Last Edit: October 01, 2022, 05:20:34 PM by DJStephens »
Logged

jtespi

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 38
  • Age: 23
  • Location: Las Cruces, NM
  • Last Login: December 02, 2022, 01:22:24 AM
Re: El Paso: bids opened for IH-10 widening
« Reply #21 on: October 09, 2022, 04:55:04 AM »

   There is currently activity in the median between Vinton (Exit 2) to just N of Redd Road (Exit (9).  Appears to be work to close the median, by completely rebuilding all arroyo crossings with bridges that have greater spans, than the originals, that had multiple short spans.  In short, complete replacements of all arroyo crossings, in phases.   So the bridges will be "half finished" and then traffic (two lanes each direction, cattle chutes, no shoulders) will be shifted inwards, and then demolition and replacement of arroyo crossings will continue on the outside lanes.

I've never heard of concrete barriers being colloquially referred to as "cattle chutes" before. But anyways, yes those lanes are very narrow. When you are passing a truck, there's not more than a meter between your driver side mirror and the concrete barrier.

I also noticed that they filled in the rumble strips just north of Redd where the project lane shifts start/end. It was very jarring to drivers to have to drive over them at the start/end of the construction zone. It probably caused a lot of drivers to slam on the brakes.

   Am holding breath to see if they correctly bring down the "crest" in the 10 mainlines, S of Artcraft.  (MP 8) Am guessing they will not, and there will be a similar situation to what happened in the mid-late nineties on the E side, (MP 31) where a "humped" up mainline was left that way, instead of being properly "flattened" for greater sight lines.   They even put continuous reinforced concrete pavement over the hump.  At this point it doesn't look good.

I looked on GSV but didn't see any "humped" up mainlines near MP 31. At least nothing as noticeable and egregious as the hill between Artcraft and Redd Rd. It's silly that TXDOT left that hill when they could have graded it and elevated the frontage roads more, which dip pretty low near Helen of Troy Drive and Montoya Lane.
Logged

Alps

  • y u m
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15327
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 39
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: December 06, 2022, 10:01:18 PM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: El Paso: bids opened for IH-10 widening
« Reply #22 on: October 09, 2022, 06:29:07 PM »

   There is currently activity in the median between Vinton (Exit 2) to just N of Redd Road (Exit (9).  Appears to be work to close the median, by completely rebuilding all arroyo crossings with bridges that have greater spans, than the originals, that had multiple short spans.  In short, complete replacements of all arroyo crossings, in phases.   So the bridges will be "half finished" and then traffic (two lanes each direction, cattle chutes, no shoulders) will be shifted inwards, and then demolition and replacement of arroyo crossings will continue on the outside lanes.

I've never heard of concrete barriers being colloquially referred to as "cattle chutes" before. But anyways, yes those lanes are very narrow. When you are passing a truck, there's not more than a meter between your driver side mirror and the concrete barrier.
The term refers to the lanes between the barriers. Usually reserved for a one-lane section because if someone breaks down or hits barrier, the entire lane is blocked. 2 narrow lanes without shoulders can also merit the appellation.

 


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.