News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas

Started by Anthony_JK, April 22, 2015, 09:12:28 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

US 41

#75
TXDOT could get rid of the at-grade intersection 2.4 miles west of Sierra Blanca if they just poured a gravel frontage road south of I-10. There's already a frontage road north of the interstate there.

They could probably do away with the one at Arispe too.
Visited States and Provinces:
USA (48)= All of Lower 48
Canada (5)= NB, NS, ON, PEI, QC
Mexico (9)= BCN, BCS, CHIH, COAH, DGO, NL, SON, SIN, TAM


mwb1848

The former journalist in me is coming out. I'm open records requesting crash data for these locations over the last 10 years. I'll let you know what I find.

Avalanchez71

Quote from: mwb1848 on August 09, 2016, 05:48:44 PM
The former journalist in me is coming out. I'm open records requesting crash data for these locations over the last 10 years. I'll let you know what I find.

Sounds good.  I haven't gotten around to even look up which agency to request the records nor how records are requested in Texas.

mwb1848

As it happens, TxDOT has an online portal through which accident data can be requested.

http://www.txdot.gov/apps-cg/crash_records/form.htm

For this exercise, I've requested information on all accidents between 1/1/10 (earliest available) and 8/1/16 between Mile Marker 112 and Mile Marker 113 on I-10. This is the Arispe crossing. I'm hesitant to request the data for the Sierra Blanca crossing, only because the eastbound Border Patrol Checkpoint is immediately adjacent an traffic queueing at that location would skew the results.

We'll see what we find!

slorydn1

I am going to ask a stupid question. As few and far between as these are, how are the any different than the emergency vehicle turnarounds on freeways across the country? I have seen cops many times go to the shoulder, slow down and then hit the center cut through to turn around.

I understand that in these cases the cross roads are on both sides of the interstate, but don't people that access these roads pull to the shoulder and slow down or do they just lock up the brakes right in the travel lane?
Please Note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of any governmental agency, non-governmental agency, quasi-governmental agency or wanna be governmental agency

Counties: Counties Visited

AlexandriaVA

I think the differences are that

1) Emergency vehicle turnarounds are often labeled explicitly for official use only (although the Texas at-grade crossings may be marked similarly as private property)

2) The turnarounds are just that- places in the median for the vehicle the turnaround, while the at-grade crossings let a private farm vehicle transverse the entire Interstate right-of-way, presumably at slow speeds.

slorydn1

That is a good point, about the slow cross traffic. One would hope that the tractor or whatever it is would wait until there is a sufficient break in traffic to attempt the crossing.

I have only been through the area in question once, in April of 2011, heading westbound in the afternoon. It seemed like there was a quarter mile or more separation between cars heading in the same direction-I was rarely passed and it was rarer that I passed anyone else during that time.
Please Note: All posts represent my personal opinions and do not represent those of any governmental agency, non-governmental agency, quasi-governmental agency or wanna be governmental agency

Counties: Counties Visited

In_Correct

I think that they should install a traffic light post, and install flashing yellow lights as you approach a crossing. Do they even have that installed?

But even though nobody lives in that area and there isn't much traffic, I don't like it. They should eventually replace that intersection with a bridge. It does not necessarily have to be an expensive bridge. But it needs to be there. I have driven on Interstate 35 and somewhere between Sanger and Denton by a Love's there is a bridge. It is not a turnaround bridge. It is a regular exit. And that bridge is so steep and narrow and it is probably extremely old. They could move that old bridge to the Intersection and put a new bridge for I-35. They will have to replace bridges on I-35 anyways whenever they widen it.

So just build a low quality bridge and place a Load Limit sign on the bridges. Add half baked ramps to the exit.

Even though I am suggesting this, I still want them to go back again and upgrade the bridge and the ramps. And build frontage roads lol.

I was going to buy land East Of El Paso In The Middle Of Nowhere, but I can wait. They say that there is going to be "development between two cities" and that "land value is going to go up".  :rolleyes: I doubt the land is that desirable but I would like to see road improvement. I am not impressed with towns cut in half by railroads with no bridge or tunnel anywhere. They should be improved because they are near an Interstate. And every Interstate should be of high quality. High Quality Interstates are something that Texas should be proud of.

... except there are a few issues such as in far west Texas, whether it be in The Desert, or in The Panhandle.


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

Avalanchez71

Why don't you go ahead and buy?  I heard that property taxes in Texas are on the high side though.

AlexandriaVA

No way you could ever justify the expense for such a dumb project. Just accept the fact that rural interstates are going to have a lot of compromises when it comes to standards and road design. My freeway, 395, is definitely not up to modern Interstate standards but nobody grips about it.

QuoteHigh Quality Interstates are something that Texas should be proud of.

They're roads...not your kids. I don't see how one becomes proud of a road.

ethanhopkin14

Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 15, 2016, 02:49:36 PM
No way you could ever justify the expense for such a dumb project. Just accept the fact that rural interstates are going to have a lot of compromises when it comes to standards and road design. My freeway, 395, is definitely not up to modern Interstate standards but nobody grips about it.

QuoteHigh Quality Interstates are something that Texas should be proud of.

They're roads...not your kids. I don't see how one becomes proud of a road.

You wouldn't understand unless you are from Texas.

wxfree

The development of land depends on how far east you're talking about.  If it's near town, then development might happen in the coming decades.  In much of west Texas, there have been rumors of imminent development for years.  It never happens, but the rumors keep going.  As an example, in Hudspeth County, just east of El Paso, the population is the same as it was 85 years ago.

Most counties out west have had steady or slowly declining populations for a long time.  The exceptions are the bigger towns, where some growth occurs.  Scenic areas have had recent population increases.  The population in Jeff Davis County is almost back to where it was 75 years ago, and Brewster County is at the highest level ever, gaining almost 2,000 people since 1950.  Between cities, the only development that happens is that people leave.

Buy land if you want a piece of barren wasteland.  I say that as someone who loves the west Texas desert and would like to have a piece of land out there.  You should buy only for the love of the land and to have a place for hunting or camping, not to get ahead of imminent development.
I'd like to buy a vowel, Alex.  What is E?

wtd67

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 15, 2016, 02:58:00 PM
Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 15, 2016, 02:49:36 PM
No way you could ever justify the expense for such a dumb project. Just accept the fact that rural interstates are going to have a lot of compromises when it comes to standards and road design. My freeway, 395, is definitely not up to modern Interstate standards but nobody grips about it.

QuoteHigh Quality Interstates are something that Texas should be proud of.

They're roads...not your kids. I don't see how one becomes proud of a road.

You wouldn't understand unless you are from Texas.

So like all new roads in Texas, it must be built as a toll bridge? :-D

7/8

Quote from: In_Correct on August 15, 2016, 02:16:41 PM
I think that they should install a traffic light post, and install flashing yellow lights as you approach a crossing. Do they even have that installed?

I think this would be a lot more dangerous than no post at all, since the post would be a roadside hazard. Someone hitting that at 80 mph would be toast!

kphoger

Quote from: AlexandriaVA on August 15, 2016, 02:49:36 PM
Just accept the fact that rural interstates are going to have a lot of compromises when it comes to standards and road design.

This.

And you could even remove the word "rural" and change "interstates" to "highways".  Just accept the fact that highways are going to have a lot of compromises.
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

wxfree

Big Rig Steve drove through the area of I-40 with the intersections.  It starts 2 hours and 40 minutes into this video (the link goes directly there).  It's not exactly a desolate piece of freeway, and the traffic counts are about the same to slightly less than they are on I-10.

If this needed to be done, it should have been on I-10 east of I-20, where traffic is very light.  I've never noticed anything other than complete access control, with some obvious tolerance for unofficial ramps, in that area.  That would be the area to save money.  On the other hand, I don't know the distribution of these otherwise-inaccessible ranches.  Maybe they aren't located in the most ideal area.

https://youtu.be/dEBzV9lcIGk?t=2h40m48s
I'd like to buy a vowel, Alex.  What is E?

mwb1848

Quote from: mwb1848 on August 10, 2016, 02:17:02 PM
As it happens, TxDOT has an online portal through which accident data can be requested.

http://www.txdot.gov/apps-cg/crash_records/form.htm

For this exercise, I've requested information on all accidents between 1/1/10 (earliest available) and 8/1/16 between Mile Marker 112 and Mile Marker 113 on I-10. This is the Arispe crossing. I'm hesitant to request the data for the Sierra Blanca crossing, only because the eastbound Border Patrol Checkpoint is immediately adjacent an traffic queueing at that location would skew the results.

We'll see what we find!

The numbers are back for the above request.


Bobby5280

On the stretch of I-40 between the NM state line and Exit 15 (Ivy Road) where all those at grade crossings are located I think TX DOT should  remove the left turn capability. That's really the biggest hazard, especially with no turn lanes. Install cable barriers or at least remove the pavement.

The intersections may be meant only for the land owner, but I can see other motorists carelessly using these intersections as a site for a quick stop or to make a U-turn. Never underestimate the stupidity and carelessness of some drivers.

In a perfect world with infinite amounts of money for roads this stretch of I-40 would be flanked by frontage roads all the way to the New Mexico border and perhaps beyond that. Currently there are dirt & gravel roads running parallel on both sides of I-40 on the private property. So if all those at grade crossings on I-40 were removed completely the land owner would still be able to access his property. It might even be more secure too. It's no trick for ne'er do wells to cut through a locked gate. It's harder to drive through an uneven ditch and create an opening in a fence.

Maybe TX DOT could build some short runs of frontage roads the length of a rest area stop -kind of like what they're planning for I-69E and I-69-C in South Texas.

kphoger

Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 22, 2016, 02:39:51 PM
The intersections may be meant only for the land owner, but I can see other motorists carelessly using these intersections as a site for a quick stop or to make a U-turn. Never underestimate the stupidity and carelessness of some drivers.

I don't see using those crossovers as either stupid or careless.  No signs prohibit their use, the cross roads have yield or stop signs, and there is road striping on some of the crossovers.  Why would Joe Driver assume he couldn't use them for a quick rest stop or a U turn?
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

In_Correct

I am not going to "just accept" anything. I want safe roads. But the official definition of safety is based on fatalities. It seems that many people have to die in wrecks before the Controlled Access is finished.
Drive Safely. :sombrero: Ride Safely. And Build More Roads, Rails, And Bridges. :coffee: ... Boulevards Wear Faster Than Interstates.

Avalanchez71

The stats are in.  There is no reason for fully controlled access on the above stated stretch.  The highway was US 80 for many years prior to the highway becoming I-10.  Why spend the money for nothing?

kphoger

Exactly.  No fatalities are occurring there.  The perception that these crossovers are unsafe is not based on facts.
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

Bobby5280

#97
Quote from: kphogerI don't see using those crossovers as either stupid or careless.  No signs prohibit their use, the cross roads have yield or stop signs, and there is road striping on some of the crossovers.  Why would Joe Driver assume he couldn't use them for a quick rest stop or a U turn?

It creates a hazard for other drivers not expecting to see stop and go traffic ahead of them in the main travel lanes on the Interstate. There are no turn bays for these at-grade right and left turns. If the at grade intersections are so important then TX-DOT needs to reconfigure the road like any other divided highway with at grade intersections: create turn bays, install proper signs instead of the minimal bull crap there now, install flashing yellow signals, and remove the Interstate designation from that segment of the highway. It's not a real Interstate there.

The stats may not show a lot of fatalities or serious accidents along those stretches of I-40 and I-10, but the stats also don't show all the burned up brakes, jangled nerves and blown tempers of long distance motorists not expecting to see some jack-ass coming to a stop in front of him in a 80mph Interstate highway lane.

Quote from: In_CorrectI am not going to "just accept" anything. I want safe roads. But the official definition of safety is based on fatalities. It seems that many people have to die in wrecks before the Controlled Access is finished.

That seems to be the standard. There has to be some very grisly, high profile accidents to light a fire under the backsides of lawmakers to do something. They can't acknowledge the potential dangers in a flawed road design and do something to prevent fatalities. They have to wait until enough people get killed before they act.

When I first moved to Oklahoma in the early 1990's the I-44 turnpikes had nothing more than a little grassy median separating the EB and WB roadways. And there was no shoulder on the left lane at all. The grassy median hugged right up to the edge of the lane. It was pretty easy for vehicles to cross into the oncoming lanes. Oklahoma Turnpike Authority didn't get serious about replacing the medians with concrete Jersey barriers until a horrible multiple fatality accident happened near Elgin. But they still left the H.E. Bailey Turnpike south of Lawton as is. More fatal accidents happened along that road. They only finally installed cable barriers just recently.

Quote from: Avalanchez71There is no reason for fully controlled access on the above stated stretch.  The highway was US 80 for many years prior to the highway becoming I-10.  Why spend the money for nothing?

That stretch of I-10 can go back to being called US-80 or something else. The Interstate designation should be removed and the speed limit dropped to 70 or slower. There's already a Texas state highway 10 in the Fort Worth area. But there's no Farm to Market Road 10 currently. That part of I-10 not built to Interstate standards could be signed as FM-10. The designation would be fitting considering how important it must be to keep all those ranch driveways intact.

The general public has the understanding Interstate highways are fully controlled access facilities. These at-grade intersections completely confuse that definition. Worse, they're an unexpected hazard for long distance drivers not familiar with that area. If I have been driving along at 80mph (possibly for hours) and suddenly see someone ahead of me hitting the brakes in the main travel lanes to make a right or left turn it can create quite a "holy shit" moment. That's the "money for nothing" thing right there. I-10 serves a hell of a lot more than just local ranch traffic out there. It's a major coast-to-coast highway, easily in the top 10 of most important roads in the country.

kphoger

Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 23, 2016, 11:02:30 AM
Quote from: kphogerWhy would Joe Driver assume he couldn't use them for a quick rest stop or a U turn?

It creates a hazard for other drivers not expecting to see stop and go traffic ahead of them in the main travel lanes on the Interstate. There are no turn bays for these at-grade right and left turns. If the at grade intersections are so important then TX-DOT needs to reconfigure the road like any other divided highway with at grade intersections: create turn bays, install proper signs instead of the minimal bull crap there now, install flashing yellow signals, and remove the Interstate designation from that segment of the highway. It's not a real Interstate there.

You didn't answer this question.  These crossovers are open to the public by all appearances.  Motorists are advised to do or not do certain things by signs and striping.  Doing what is apparently legal, especially on a wide-open stretch of highway in the boonies, should not be considered stupid or careless.  There are sections of Interstate highway where cyclists are allowed; generally they are prohibited, but on some sections they area allowed.  Do you also consider riding a bicycle on an Interstate on such a section of highway stupid and careless?

Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 23, 2016, 11:02:30 AM
The stats may not show a lot of fatalities or serious accidents along those stretches of I-40 and I-10, but the stats also don't show all the burned up brakes, jangled nerves and blown tempers of long distance motorists not expecting to see some jack-ass coming to a stop in front of him in a 80mph Interstate highway lane.

Where there is smoke, there is fire.  Where there is no smoke, there is usually no fire.  Meaning that, if there were such a thing as "all the burned up brakes, jangled nerves and blown tempers" at this location, then there would likely also be more accidents.  And let's all bear in mind that the few accidents that happened along this stretch did not necessarily involve the crossover; assuming such would be reading information into the data that isn't actually presented.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 23, 2016, 11:02:30 AM
Quote from: In_CorrectI am not going to "just accept" anything. I want safe roads. But the official definition of safety is based on fatalities. It seems that many people have to die in wrecks before the Controlled Access is finished.

That seems to be the standard. There has to be some very grisly, high profile accidents to light a fire under the backsides of lawmakers to do something. They can't acknowledge the potential dangers in a flawed road design and do something to prevent fatalities. They have to wait until enough people get killed before they act.

Of course this is the way things work!  I don't want my tax dollars going to pay for projects that aren't warranted.  If the data do not show these crossovers to be dangerous, then it is a fallacy to claim removing them would improve safety.  They have existed for decades with little to no issue, so I'm fine with my tax dollars instead going to a project where actual fatalities are occurring in real life.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 23, 2016, 11:02:30 AM
When I first moved to Oklahoma in the early 1990's the I-44 turnpikes had nothing more than a little grassy median separating the EB and WB roadways. And there was no shoulder on the left lane at all. The grassy median hugged right up to the edge of the lane. It was pretty easy for vehicles to cross into the oncoming lanes. Oklahoma Turnpike Authority didn't get serious about replacing the medians with concrete Jersey barriers until a horrible multiple fatality accident happened near Elgin. But they still left the H.E. Bailey Turnpike south of Lawton as is. More fatal accidents happened along that road. They only finally installed cable barriers just recently.

Oh, I hate the grassy medians!  There was some discussion on the board, though, about whether the median cable barrier is actually safer or just appears safer, because a wayward vehicle could still sling the cable into oncoming traffic due to the narrow median.  Either way, I-44 south of Lawton is not "up to Interstate standards" even with the cable barrier.  I'm not suggesting they rip up the whole highway and do it all over again just because of the potential conflict, and I don't think you are either.  I'm good with I-44 the way it is, and I'm likewise good with I-10 and I-40 the way they are.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 23, 2016, 11:02:30 AM
The Interstate designation should be removed and the speed limit dropped to 70 or slower.

Why?  There are two-lane surface highways in Texas with a speed limit of 75 mph, yet you would drop a four-lane divided highway to 70 or lower?

Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 23, 2016, 11:02:30 AM
That part of I-10 not built to Interstate standards could be signed as FM-10. The designation would be fitting considering how important it must be to keep all those ranch driveways intact.

Are you just now on a personal rant about agriculture, or what?  Would you like every highway in the nation with farm or ranch access roads to be downgraded to Farm-to-Market status?  Or is it just this one stretch?  Be serious.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 23, 2016, 11:02:30 AM
The general public has the understanding Interstate highways are fully controlled access facilities.

No they don't. Roadgeeks have that understanding, not the general public.  You'd be lucky to get a definition of "fully controlled access facilities" from the general public.  In my experience, many motorists of the general public assume using a crossover is permitted if there's no sign prohibiting it, even on Interstates.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 23, 2016, 11:02:30 AM
Worse, they're an unexpected hazard for long distance drivers not familiar with that area. If I have been driving along at 80mph (possibly for hours) and suddenly see someone ahead of me hitting the brakes in the main travel lanes to make a right or left turn it can create quite a "holy shit" moment. That's the "money for nothing" thing right there.

While this sounds good upon first reading... that's what warning signs are for.  And, again, where there is no smoke, there usually is no fire.  I don't see much data supporting your notion that these "holy shit moments" are even happening in the real world.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 23, 2016, 11:02:30 AM
I-10 serves a hell of a lot more than just local ranch traffic out there. It's a major coast-to-coast highway, easily in the top 10 of most important roads in the country.

So I guess you don't want to downgrade it to FM-10, then?
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

Avalanchez71

#99
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 23, 2016, 11:02:30 AM
Quote from: kphogerI don't see using those crossovers as either stupid or careless.  No signs prohibit their use, the cross roads have yield or stop signs, and there is road striping on some of the crossovers.  Why would Joe Driver assume he couldn't use them for a quick rest stop or a U turn?

It creates a hazard for other drivers not expecting to see stop and go traffic ahead of them in the main travel lanes on the Interstate. There are no turn bays for these at-grade right and left turns. If the at grade intersections are so important then TX-DOT needs to reconfigure the road like any other divided highway with at grade intersections: create turn bays, install proper signs instead of the minimal bull crap there now, install flashing yellow signals, and remove the Interstate designation from that segment of the highway. It's not a real Interstate there.

The stats may not show a lot of fatalities or serious accidents along those stretches of I-40 and I-10, but the stats also don't show all the burned up brakes, jangled nerves and blown tempers of long distance motorists not expecting to see some jack-ass coming to a stop in front of him in a 80mph Interstate highway lane.

Quote from: In_CorrectI am not going to "just accept" anything. I want safe roads. But the official definition of safety is based on fatalities. It seems that many people have to die in wrecks before the Controlled Access is finished.

That seems to be the standard. There has to be some very grisly, high profile accidents to light a fire under the backsides of lawmakers to do something. They can't acknowledge the potential dangers in a flawed road design and do something to prevent fatalities. They have to wait until enough people get killed before they act.

When I first moved to Oklahoma in the early 1990's the I-44 turnpikes had nothing more than a little grassy median separating the EB and WB roadways. And there was no shoulder on the left lane at all. The grassy median hugged right up to the edge of the lane. It was pretty easy for vehicles to cross into the oncoming lanes. Oklahoma Turnpike Authority didn't get serious about replacing the medians with concrete Jersey barriers until a horrible multiple fatality accident happened near Elgin. But they still left the H.E. Bailey Turnpike south of Lawton as is. More fatal accidents happened along that road. They only finally installed cable barriers just recently.

Quote from: Avalanchez71There is no reason for fully controlled access on the above stated stretch.  The highway was US 80 for many years prior to the highway becoming I-10.  Why spend the money for nothing?

That stretch of I-10 can go back to being called US-80 or something else. The Interstate designation should be removed and the speed limit dropped to 70 or slower. There's already a Texas state highway 10 in the Fort Worth area. But there's no Farm to Market Road 10 currently. That part of I-10 not built to Interstate standards could be signed as FM-10. The designation would be fitting considering how important it must be to keep all those ranch driveways intact.

The general public has the understanding Interstate highways are fully controlled access facilities. These at-grade intersections completely confuse that definition. Worse, they're an unexpected hazard for long distance drivers not familiar with that area. If I have been driving along at 80mph (possibly for hours) and suddenly see someone ahead of me hitting the brakes in the main travel lanes to make a right or left turn it can create quite a "holy shit" moment. That's the "money for nothing" thing right there. I-10 serves a hell of a lot more than just local ranch traffic out there. It's a major coast-to-coast highway, easily in the top 10 of most important roads in the country.

Do you know that I-180 in Wyoming has no fully controlled access and it has traffic lights and is posted as an interstate.  This section has been waivered.  There are many portions of intersate highway that are not up to interstate highway standards throughout the US.

Why not number it some silly number like RM 9910?



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.