AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Texas  (Read 49745 times)

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8495
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: September 12, 2021, 12:44:33 AM
Re: Texas
« Reply #125 on: September 12, 2020, 05:33:33 AM »

Looked at the video twice; no sign of a direct NB>EB connector, possibly since if one were to be configured as a "split" from the turbine ramps per the other three direct ramps, it would require either (a) a separate crossing of the canal south of the main SH 73 crossing before merging with that facility or (b) a very sharp set of curves, first left then right, to enable the ramp to merge with EB 73 before the canal bridge.  I'm guessing TxDOT didn't want to do (b) for safety reasons, and (a) would have been a cost overrun for the project.  Since NB traffic is a surface street prior to just before the interchange, making a right at the last signal NB and then "grid-patterning" to the next EB entrance on 73 was considered adequate provision of movement.

Thanks for the elucidation (sorry to make you watch the clip twice!)--I think I must have been looking southbound when I thought I was looking northbound.  I can certainly see motorists being directed to make the missing movement by surface streets if the existing ramp already attracts low demand.  It looks like there is a subdivision and an additional drainage channel (shown as a thin blue line in Google Maps) in the SE quadrant that would be in the way of a fourth link ramp matching the generous geometry of the other three, so the potential for high cost is clearly there.

Not to worry, it was a pretty decent video in any case.  We're probably both reasonably correct regarding the reason there is a missing movement; sometimes replacing an existing interchange with a higher-speed format runs into problems of potential spillover into existing infrastructure;  a similar thing happened with the I-215/CA 60/CA 91 interchange in Riverside, CA, where the existing direct WB>NB ramp which reduces to a single lane was retained rather than encroach on the adjoining neighborhood -- even though that ramp carries NB I-215 through traffic. 
Logged

Brian556

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2405
  • Location: Lewisville, TX
  • Last Login: November 30, 2022, 10:43:45 PM
Re: Texas
« Reply #126 on: November 08, 2022, 10:02:55 PM »

Near Blum, Texas, SH 174 bridge over the Brazos River down to one lane with traffic signals long term. News article from 2020 says that is when it started. Looks like it was done due to inadequate lane width. Bridge was built in 1950. Has to be a massive PITA for drivers. Bridge to be replaced soon.

News Article from 2020: https://www.kxxv.com/one-direction-of-travel-for-sh-174-bridge
Logged

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1372
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: December 01, 2022, 11:08:05 PM
Re: Texas
« Reply #127 on: November 08, 2022, 10:52:11 PM »

Near Blum, Texas, SH 174 bridge over the Brazos River down to one lane with traffic signals long term. News article from 2020 says that is when it started. Looks like it was done due to inadequate lane width. Bridge was built in 1950. Has to be a massive PITA for drivers. Bridge to be replaced soon.

News Article from 2020: https://www.kxxv.com/one-direction-of-travel-for-sh-174-bridge

They have been doing this all over the Atlanta district.  US67 over White Oak Creek (Sulphur river relief) and Sulphur River. SH 98 over Anderson Creek, and SH49 over BNSF railway. Most of these were both widening and pouring new bridge decks.

My point being that this is not an isolated situation.
Logged
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

 


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.