AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Mid-South => Topic started by: Anthony_JK on April 22, 2015, 09:12:28 PM

Title: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: Anthony_JK on April 22, 2015, 09:12:28 PM
[Split off from the I-69 in Texas thread: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.0 -S.]

That would be a BAD idea to keep the at-grades, because that would set a bad precedent for allowing at-grades on Interstate grade facilities. The current proposal for US 77 (the intermittent exits and grade-separated turnarounds) is a reasonable compromise. It's bad enough we have Breezwood and I-180 in Cheyenne.

A better idea for flexibility in future Interstate designation would be to allow "future designations" in corridors already in the works to be upgraded.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: NE2 on April 22, 2015, 11:04:17 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on April 22, 2015, 09:12:28 PM
That would be a BAD idea to keep the at-grades, because that would set a bad precedent for allowing at-grades on Interstate grade facilities.
Uh, I-10 and I-40 already have them in slightly more populated areas of west Texas.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: Atomica on May 04, 2015, 12:03:36 AM
Quote from: NE2 on April 22, 2015, 11:04:17 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on April 22, 2015, 09:12:28 PM
That would be a BAD idea to keep the at-grades, because that would set a bad precedent for allowing at-grades on Interstate grade facilities.
Uh, I-10 and I-40 already have them in slightly more populated areas of west Texas.

That I have noticed, with minimally travelled dirt tracks at a grade-level junction with the I-10 in the Texas Mountain Corridor well east of El Paso.  Though I would barely be comfortable with turning onto an 80mi/h interstate from a dirt track which might be good for 30mi/h on a good day.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: Bobby5280 on May 05, 2015, 04:45:02 PM
At grade right/left turns & at grade traffic crossing should not be happening on an Interstate highway, especially one with the high speeds I-10 has in West Texas. There are no turn lanes for acceleration or deceleration at those intersections. Traffic has to slow down from going 80mph or faster down to nothing to make any of those turns. From what I've seen via Street View in Google Earth those intersections are poorly signed.

The other danger is the element of surprise to motorists, cruising along at 80mph not expecting any at grade turns with possible crossing or turning traffic. Plenty of drivers are distracted and inattentive. On a very long drive, like the trek between El Paso and San Antonio one can get a little hypnotized by both the length and desolation of the trip. They might not be perfectly ready to have to suddenly hit the breaks for cars ahead slowing to make a right or left turn, or other drivers turning onto the road in front of them.

I think the short stretches of frontage roads for at grade right turns and no crossing traffic across Interstate lanes is a good alternative. It's not going to hurt a rural farmer or oil field work to drive a mile or two down the road to the next bridge to get across to the other side of the highway.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: Anthony_JK on May 06, 2015, 03:42:52 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 05, 2015, 04:45:02 PM
At grade right/left turns & at grade traffic crossing should not be happening on an Interstate highway, especially one with the high speeds I-10 has in West Texas. There are no turn lanes for acceleration or deceleration at those intersections. Traffic has to slow down from going 80mph or faster down to nothing to make any of those turns. From what I've seen via Street View in Google Earth those intersections are poorly signed.

The other danger is the element of surprise to motorists, cruising along at 80mph not expecting any at grade turns with possible crossing or turning traffic. Plenty of drivers are distracted and inattentive. On a very long drive, like the trek between El Paso and San Antonio one can get a little hypnotized by both the length and desolation of the trip. They might not be perfectly ready to have to suddenly hit the breaks for cars ahead slowing to make a right or left turn, or other drivers turning onto the road in front of them.

I think the short stretches of frontage roads for at grade right turns and no crossing traffic across Interstate lanes is a good alternative. It's not going to hurt a rural farmer or oil field work to drive a mile or two down the road to the next bridge to get across to the other side of the highway.

That is exactly my point...we already have major issues on US 90 between Lafayette and Morgan City where drivers going at 70mph speeds through the freeway-completed segments all of a sudden run into the at-grade intersections at LA 318 and/or going into Broussard or Patterson.  If you are going to build a freeway, build a FREEWAY....not a half-ass "temporary" facility.

The proposal for US 77/I-69E and US 281/I-69C are more than adequate compromises that retain the freeway concept while allowing for access to the ranch properties. I'd still prefer continuous frontage roads throughout that segment to completely separate farm equipment from through traffic on the mainlanes; and I do hope that TXDOT has allowed for auxillary lanes between the "ramps" and the "crossunders" along with adequate vertical clearance for the overpasses for farm/ranch equipment. Better that than risking death with at-grade crossovers, which have no business being on a fully- controlled access facility.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: Brian556 on May 07, 2015, 04:15:05 PM
quote from Anthony_JK:
QuoteIf you are going to build a freeway, build a FREEWAY....not a half-ass "temporary" facility.

amen. thank you. Half-assed temporary facilities are unsafe.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: kkt on May 07, 2015, 04:35:41 PM
Yes.  The reason that they wanted an Interstate shield instead of a state route was the prestige that comes with a limited access route!  If you didn't want to actually build a limited-access route, make it a state route.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: Atomica on May 08, 2015, 03:34:44 AM
Considering that Texas have a $15bn surplus, I would think they would be able to afford a few million just to build frontage roads, an occasional overpass, and even an occasional interchange along the I-10 in Hudspeth and Jeff Davis Counties - or failing that at least an occasional turn lane and a flashing TRAFFIC APPROACHING sign like there are at a number of Missouri interchanges for those dirt tracks branching off the I-10.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: dfwmapper on May 08, 2015, 11:41:55 AM
Better to spend those millions where it will actually have an impact on safety or traffic flow. There just isn't enough volume on the driveways or freeways to make it worth the effort to go back and close off access on I-10/I-40. It's not like you're going to randomly come upon a truck that just made the turn either, all of them are in areas with flat terrain and miles of visibility, and the people who use them are smart enough to not play chicken with semis doing 80.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: vtk on May 10, 2015, 11:12:36 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 05, 2015, 04:45:02 PM
At grade right/left turns & at grade traffic crossing should not be happening on an Interstate highway, especially one with the high speeds I-10 has in West Texas. There are no turn lanes for acceleration or deceleration at those intersections. Traffic has to slow down from going 80mph or faster down to nothing to make any of those turns. From what I've seen via Street View in Google Earth those intersections are poorly signed.

The other danger is the element of surprise to motorists, cruising along at 80mph not expecting any at grade turns with possible crossing or turning traffic. Plenty of drivers are distracted and inattentive. On a very long drive, like the trek between El Paso and San Antonio one can get a little hypnotized by both the length and desolation of the trip. They might not be perfectly ready to have to suddenly hit the breaks for cars ahead slowing to make a right or left turn, or other drivers turning onto the road in front of them.

I think the short stretches of frontage roads for at grade right turns and no crossing traffic across Interstate lanes is a good alternative. It's not going to hurt a rural farmer or oil field work to drive a mile or two down the road to the next bridge to get across to the other side of the highway.

What's the traffic like on that part of I-10?  I imagine it's easily a LOS A facility.  If a farm truck slows down to turn off the freeway ahead of you, just change lanes to pass.  You probably won't even have to disengage your cruise control.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: Anthony_JK on May 10, 2015, 10:17:10 PM
Quote from: vtk on May 10, 2015, 11:12:36 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 05, 2015, 04:45:02 PM
At grade right/left turns & at grade traffic crossing should not be happening on an Interstate highway, especially one with the high speeds I-10 has in West Texas. There are no turn lanes for acceleration or deceleration at those intersections. Traffic has to slow down from going 80mph or faster down to nothing to make any of those turns. From what I've seen via Street View in Google Earth those intersections are poorly signed.

The other danger is the element of surprise to motorists, cruising along at 80mph not expecting any at grade turns with possible crossing or turning traffic. Plenty of drivers are distracted and inattentive. On a very long drive, like the trek between El Paso and San Antonio one can get a little hypnotized by both the length and desolation of the trip. They might not be perfectly ready to have to suddenly hit the breaks for cars ahead slowing to make a right or left turn, or other drivers turning onto the road in front of them.

I think the short stretches of frontage roads for at grade right turns and no crossing traffic across Interstate lanes is a good alternative. It's not going to hurt a rural farmer or oil field work to drive a mile or two down the road to the next bridge to get across to the other side of the highway.

What's the traffic like on that part of I-10?  I imagine it's easily a LOS A facility.  If a farm truck slows down to turn off the freeway ahead of you, just change lanes to pass.  You probably won't even have to disengage your cruise control.

A 40 mph farm truck negotiating a turn-off on a freeway posted for 75 or 80 mph??? Seriously?? By the time you do disengage your cruise control you're dead.  Unless you have proper warning signals for such turn-offs, better to have frontage roads or back roads for that.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: dfwmapper on May 10, 2015, 11:07:48 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 10, 2015, 10:17:10 PM
A 40 mph farm truck negotiating a turn-off on a freeway posted for 75 or 80 mph??? Seriously?? By the time you do disengage your cruise control you're dead.  Unless you have proper warning signals for such turn-offs, better to have frontage roads or back roads for that.
Maybe pay attention while you're driving. It's not like you're going to go over a hill and randomly come upon turning traffic. All of the areas with direct freeway access are flat as a board. You'll see that truck at least a mile before you get to it and have plenty of time to move over.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: Anthony_JK on May 10, 2015, 11:58:00 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on May 10, 2015, 10:24:15 PM
What kind of idiot wouldn't pull off and slow down on the shoulder for those turns? Leave them there, no harm in them.


iPhone

So...you're saying that through traffic on a freeway designed for 70 mph should cede to the shoulder for turning traffic onto a direct crossover? In that case, it's no longer a freeway. Would you recommend that everywhere for all Interstate-grade freeways to have direct access crossovers? NO.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: Molandfreak on May 11, 2015, 12:01:00 AM

Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 10, 2015, 11:58:00 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on May 10, 2015, 10:24:15 PM
What kind of idiot wouldn't pull off and slow down on the shoulder for those turns? Leave them there, no harm in them.


iPhone

So...you're saying that through traffic on a freeway designed for 70 mph should cede to the shoulder for turning traffic onto a direct crossover? In that case, it's no longer a freeway. Would you recommend that everywhere for all Interstate-grade freeways to have direct access crossovers? NO.
I'm taking about traffic on RIROs going into the shoulder to turn. Not other traffic going on the shoulder.


iPhone
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: Anthony_JK on May 11, 2015, 12:06:22 AM
Quote from: Molandfreak on May 11, 2015, 12:01:00 AM

Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 10, 2015, 11:58:00 PM
Quote from: Molandfreak on May 10, 2015, 10:24:15 PM
What kind of idiot wouldn't pull off and slow down on the shoulder for those turns? Leave them there, no harm in them.


iPhone

So...you're saying that through traffic on a freeway designed for 70 mph should cede to the shoulder for turning traffic onto a direct crossover? In that case, it's no longer a freeway. Would you recommend that everywhere for all Interstate-grade freeways to have direct access crossovers? NO.
I'm taking about traffic on RIROs going into the shoulder to turn. Not other traffic going on the shoulder.


iPhone

OK...for RIRO's, that would be acceptable, although I still would prefer a dedicated turning lane rather than using the shoulder, just to free up the mainlaines.

My real issue is with *left-turn* at-grade crossovers used for direct access on otherwise freeway facilities. HELL TO THE NO on that.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: Chris on May 11, 2015, 10:11:11 AM
Like this one near Sierra Blanca. It's not really a deserted stretch of freeway with 18,000 vehicles per day.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FUFCIRUx.jpg&hash=7392e7fdb1eb8ed9251a686874e49569ecf59dd6)
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: wxfree on May 11, 2015, 11:31:39 AM
The only grade crossings I know of are west of I-20, where traffic counts are significantly higher.  East of I-20 traffic is ridiculously light, reaching as low as 3,800.  This is a predictable outcome, since west of the junction the road serves as the route for two combined highways.  I do wonder about why they put the grade crossings there instead of between I-20 and Junction.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: vtk on May 11, 2015, 10:04:11 PM
Yes but what was the projected traffic count for 20 years in the future when the highway was designed 50+ years ago? Some people on the forum seem to imagine those at-grade crossings were approved and built yesterday. Are they problematic today? Probably not, or there would be a whole thread here about the constant accidents. They certainly weren't problematic within a couple decades of the highway's construction.

Bringing the thread back on topic, I suspect traffic counts on the roads that will become I-69 are already high enough that at-grade crossings would be too conspicuous a deficiency.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: wxfree on May 11, 2015, 10:55:58 PM
Traffic counts in Kenedy County are 9,000 to 10,000, significantly less than where these crossings are.  I doubt if Interstating the road will increase that, since it's already the only viable connection.

I'm not opposed to the crossings, if they're rare exceptions.  On I-10 I think they're all, or almost all, for private drives, so it's only the few people who use those drives who use the crossings.  I did once make a hard right turn onto the frontage road, just for the novelty (there was an exit to where I wanted to go).  I've never turned left or gone straight across one.  Since there aren't a lot of them, and (I think) they're only for private drives (I need to inventory all of them), and they're in a pretty desolate area, it doesn't bother me.  The same argument could be made in Kenedy County, where there are no public roads for nearly 50 miles (more than twice the distance between roads on I-10).

If there are going to be grade crossings on I-10, I'd rather see them east of I-20.  To the west, the road is by no means busy, but to the east, it's desolate.  Some of the money spent on frontage roads and overpasses could have been shifted west.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: O Tamandua on May 11, 2015, 11:38:33 PM
Quote from: wxfree on May 11, 2015, 10:55:58 PM
Traffic counts in Kenedy County are 9,000 to 10,000, significantly less than where these crossings are.  I doubt if Interstating the road will increase that, since it's already the only viable connection.

I'm not opposed to the crossings, if they're rare exceptions.  On I-10 I think they're all, or almost all, for private drives, so it's only the few people who use those drives who use the crossings.  I did once make a hard right turn onto the frontage road, just for the novelty (there was an exit to where I wanted to go).  I've never turned left or gone straight across one.  Since there aren't a lot of them, and (I think) they're only for private drives (I need to inventory all of them), and they're in a pretty desolate area, it doesn't bother me.  The same argument could be made in Kenedy County, where there are no public roads for nearly 50 miles (more than twice the distance between roads on I-10).

If there are going to be grade crossings on I-10, I'd rather see them east of I-20.  To the west, the road is by no means busy, but to the east, it's desolate.  Some of the money spent on frontage roads and overpasses could have been shifted west.

I will probably get laughed at for this and maybe rightly so, but, wondering out loud...

One major difference I would see between I-10 and (future) I-69E through Kenedy County is that the latter (unless things have changed) must be a HUGE route for "spring breakers" down to South Padre Island.  I've been to Big Bend National park south of I-10 and it's pretty cool...but my gut feeling is that I-10, while carrying much interstate traffic, also carries a lot of West Texas traffic which more than likely would expect or at least be more used to ranches and their occasional need for an Interstate grade crossing, and that there will be far less kids from D/FW, Houston and beyond going to Big Bend, Fort Stockton, Ozona and Eldorado than will be going to Harlingen, Brownsville and the powdery beaches to the east.

JMO, but I-69 in Kenedy would have to see, at times, a LOT of kids driving down who've never seen a real live ranch before, and could probably care less as they're likely driving like bats out of you-know-where trying to get to a place of sun, booze and the opposite sex in bathing suits.  Again, I'm just wondering, but my gut feeling is that there is a potential for more and very, deadly serious accidents among the crowd who still think they're 10 feet tall and bulletproof, hence the possible perceived need for a different type of protection on this route.

Laugh for the day.  :sombrero:
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: dfwmapper on May 12, 2015, 12:52:38 AM
But the question for those people is whether they would even notice a distinction between the road as a 4 lane divided highway with all major crossings grade separated but occasional driveways accessible at-grade, versus a fully access-controlled freeway. And the answer is "probably not". Anyone who has driven any length of time in Texas (or really, just about anywhere in the central US) is already used to driving on this type of road. There are so many better ways to use that money than closing off a couple driveways that see no traffic.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: Bobby5280 on May 12, 2015, 01:47:25 PM
Quote from: MolandfreakWhat kind of idiot wouldn't pull off and slow down on the shoulder for those turns?

Lots of people actually. Never ever underestimate the stupidity and selfishness of other drivers on the road.

Here in the Lawton area I see drivers do all kinds of stupid nonsense, including slowing down to a near stop in the travel lanes of a high speed divided road like OK-7 or OK-49 to make a hard right or left turn. It would make sense to pull off to the shoulder, slow down and then make the turn. Plenty of drivers prefer doing things that don't make any sense. Or they just like driving with their heads up their backsides (digital backsides if it involves a phone). Just a couple days ago a bad accident happened on OK-49 right in front of the Fisherman's Cove restaurant. A guy leaving the restaurant in broad daylight just pulled right out in front of an oncoming car despite good visibility in both directions.

I see drivers around here routinely never using a turn signal. I see funny things like right turns made from the left lane and left turns from the right lane. It's great fun to have timid drivers come to a complete stop on an I-44 on ramp or off ramp. Everyone gets to test their breaks and then their vehicle's acceleration capabilities when they now have next to nothing in terms of an acceleration lane. Let's not forget the huge range of driving speeds! We have both lane swerving maniacs going 20mph over the posted limit and others driving 20mph below the limit at the same time.

Maybe driving etiquette is a little different in far West Texas, but I would be horrified if ODOT built any new at grade right/left turns on I-44 around here. They would be invitations to fatal disaster.

Quote from: dfwmapperMaybe pay attention while you're driving. It's not like you're going to go over a hill and randomly come upon turning traffic. All of the areas with direct freeway access are flat as a board. You'll see that truck at least a mile before you get to it and have plenty of time to move over.

It's more difficult to gauge distance, particularly slowing and stopping distance needed, when you're driving really fast -like at those 80mph limits (and 5-10mph above) on I-10. Some knucklead slowing down to nothing in the main lanes rather than the shoulder to make a turn and not using his turn signal creates an outrageous hazard for others on the road. And that's just at daytime. It's going to be even worse at night. Cooter Brown could be making one of those turns in his 50 year old beater truck with taillights barely as bright as a firefly's butt.

Quote from: wxfreeTraffic counts in Kenedy County are 9,000 to 10,000, significantly less than where these crossings are.  I doubt if Interstating the road will increase that, since it's already the only viable connection.

The traffic counts may not be much now, but they'll surely increase as more of I-69 gets completed and as the far South Texas region continues to grow in population.

Right now I-35 is the primary road link between Texas and Mexico. A good bit of that traffic could shift East to Reynosa & Matamoros and the I-69C & I-69W corridors as I-69 gets filled in between South Texas and Houston. Traffic headed to the US from places like Mexico City might hug more to coastal routes than having to go over the mountains to get to Monterrey.

Mexico's efforts to modernize its oil industry (by inviting outside investment & development from companies from the US and elsewhere) will certainly result in at least some additional road & rail traffic between the US & Mexico. A lot of that traffic will probably stay close to the Gulf Coast, which leads up through Matamoros and Brownsville.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: Bobby5280 on June 06, 2015, 08:17:36 PM
QuoteThose people shouldn't be allowed to drive. Doesn't mean that the DOT has to waste money to remove at-grades with roads nobody uses.

If nobody uses them then why are the at-grades there in the first place? Why is TX DOT wasting money maintaining those intersections and roads no one supposedly uses?

While I agree certain drivers I encounter shouldn't be allowed to drive, enforcing such a thing is only possible in a perfect world. Limited access highways not only allow higher, uninterrupted driving speeds, they make an attempt to idiot-proof the flow of traffic, limiting how and when drivers can make a turn. Having at-grade right/left turns directly off the main lanes of a 80mph Interstate defeats that purpose.

If it was up to me, those parts of I-10 and I-40 in far West Texas and the Texas Panhandle wouldn't carry Interstate designations along the segments where those at-grade turns existed. I'd have "freeway ends" signs posted to alert drivers they're coming up on at-grade intersections.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: Anthony_JK on June 09, 2015, 12:17:24 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 06, 2015, 08:17:36 PM
If it was up to me, those parts of I-10 and I-40 in far West Texas and the Texas Panhandle wouldn't carry Interstate designations along the segments where those at-grade turns existed. I'd have "freeway ends" signs posted to alert drivers they're coming up on at-grade intersections.

While I'd much rather those at-grades simply not exist, and frontage road connections to the nearest interchanges built; I think that they are so rare and so rarely used that advanced warning signs would be suitable enough. Rather than "Freeway Ends", I'd have "WARNING: Direct Crossing Ahead 1 MILE: WATCH FOR CROSSING TRAFFIC" signs with even flashing yellow lights.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: kkt on June 09, 2015, 12:41:57 PM
Legally it is no longer a freeway at those points.  "Freeway Ends" is a pretty clear description.  Maybe add a "Cross Traffic Ahead" as well, to make it clearer.  But I have to wonder how hard it would be to make a one-lane gravel road paralleling the freeway to the next interchange, and how that cost would compare with putting up warning signs.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: Anthony_JK on June 09, 2015, 12:50:48 PM
Problem is, once past the crossing, it becomes a freeway once again; it's not like the road becomes an arterial past that isolated crossing. An isolated "Cross Traffic Ahead" sign would probably do the trick.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: kkt on June 09, 2015, 01:15:42 PM
Then you put a "Begin Freeway" sign after the crossing.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: noelbotevera on June 09, 2015, 01:24:30 PM
Quote from: kkt on June 09, 2015, 01:15:42 PM
Then you put a "Begin Freeway" sign after the crossing.
People would be confused if there was an "End Freeway" sign before the ranch road, then a "Begin Freeway" sign after the ranch road. It's better to use a W1-7 sign or a W2-1 sign from the MUTCD instead.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: Scott5114 on June 11, 2015, 08:20:14 PM
I've seen Nebraska put up "END/BEGIN FREEWAY" signs at either end of a work zone with a crossover section, so there is precedent for it, I guess. Maybe instead of "begin" it could say "FREEWAY RESUMES". Not that it's particularly necessary.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: Anthony_JK on June 12, 2015, 01:32:15 AM
Quote from: kkt on June 09, 2015, 01:15:42 PM
Then you put a "Begin Freeway" sign after the crossing.


All that just for one crossing?? I'd understand if this was an extended segment of at-grades, but not for one mere isolated crossing.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: kkt on June 12, 2015, 10:24:29 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on June 12, 2015, 01:32:15 AM
Quote from: kkt on June 09, 2015, 01:15:42 PM
Then you put a "Begin Freeway" sign after the crossing.
All that just for one crossing?? I'd understand if this was an extended segment of at-grades, but not for one mere isolated crossing.

it only takes one vehicle pulling in to cause a serious accident if there's not space or they're not seen.

If putting up signs is too much work, they could build a frontage road to the next interchange.  You know, like you're supposed to do with interstates...

Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: Anthony_JK on June 12, 2015, 03:12:07 PM
Quote from: kkt on June 12, 2015, 10:24:29 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on June 12, 2015, 01:32:15 AM
Quote from: kkt on June 09, 2015, 01:15:42 PM
Then you put a "Begin Freeway" sign after the crossing.
All that just for one crossing?? I'd understand if this was an extended segment of at-grades, but not for one mere isolated crossing.

it only takes one vehicle pulling in to cause a serious accident if there's not space or they're not seen.

If putting up signs is too much work, they could build a frontage road to the next interchange.  You know, like you're supposed to do with interstates...



My point exactly. It wouldn't be that hard to simply build a frontage road for local traffic, and use the closest interchange for access, rather than breaking the controlled access rules for one house or two.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: dfwmapper on June 12, 2015, 03:31:39 PM
Some of these are located in places where there might not be another interchange for 5 or 10 miles. That's a lot of pavement to lay for half a vehicle per day. Especially when the vehicle in question is a pickup with good ground clearance and Texas is a state where medians are often viewed as mere suggestions.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: lordsutch on June 12, 2015, 05:25:16 PM
As an alternative to median breaks or flyovers, I think it would be safe enough to install median U-turns a mile or two upstream and downstream of each at-grade access - essentially a Superstreet treatment without the signalization. That would avoid the potential T-bone problems and save money on overpasses.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: NE2 on June 12, 2015, 05:47:32 PM
Quote from: lordsutch on June 12, 2015, 05:25:16 PM
As an alternative to median breaks or flyovers, I think it would be safe enough to install median U-turns a mile or two upstream and downstream of each at-grade access - essentially a Superstreet treatment without the signalization.
I-10 at I-20 gets more U-turning traffic than these ever would.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: kkt on June 15, 2015, 04:43:38 PM
If Texas wants the red, white, and blue shield, they've gotta build them to interstate standards.  If they don't want to build interstates, they can stay US routes.

Sure, the crossings are only used once in a while, but that only means the freeway traffic will not be looking for cross-traffic at all.  It would be entirely on the cross-traffic to judge how quickly the freeway traffic is approaching, and it's well-known that it's hard to estimate how quickly someone is coming almost directly toward you.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: mwb1848 on June 15, 2015, 05:34:28 PM
Quote from: kkt on June 09, 2015, 12:41:57 PM
Legally it is no longer a freeway at those points.  "Freeway Ends" is a pretty clear description.  Maybe add a "Cross Traffic Ahead" as well, to make it clearer.  But I have to wonder how hard it would be to make a one-lane gravel road paralleling the freeway to the next interchange, and how that cost would compare with putting up warning signs.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi907.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fac274%2Fmartinbartlett%2FI-10%2520Grade%2520Crossings_zps2qjnos0f.png&hash=21f9b4c5c3ca4945923f8d799f2acd7c25aa6c32) (http://s907.photobucket.com/user/martinbartlett/media/I-10%20Grade%20Crossings_zps2qjnos0f.png.html)
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: Bobby5280 on June 16, 2015, 01:22:14 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JKProblem is, once past the crossing, it becomes a freeway once again; it's not like the road becomes an arterial past that isolated crossing. An isolated "Cross Traffic Ahead" sign would probably do the trick.

Those stretches of I-10 in West Texas and I-40 in the Texas Panhandle have several at grade crossings. It's not just one or a couple. There is a whole series of those crossings. I would remove the Interstate designation between where the at grade crossings begin and end. The speed limits ought to be lowered from 80mph down to 65mph or 70mph.

The "Freeway Ends" signs would be consistent with other highways in Texas that transition from freeway facilities to expressway facilities with at-grade turns. Flashing yellow caution lights would be a good idea at the beginning of the sequence of crossover turns. I might even include signs stating the at grade turns occur for the next X number of miles.

Quote from: lordsutchAs an alternative to median breaks or flyovers, I think it would be safe enough to install median U-turns a mile or two upstream and downstream of each at-grade access - essentially a Superstreet treatment without the signalization. That would avoid the potential T-bone problems and save money on overpasses.

Both freeway roadways would have to be re-built and spread fairly wide apart to allow a large enough U-turn inside the median that doesn't require turning traffic to turn at very slow speeds. Such a thing could be costly, maybe even as much as building a normal exit with an overpass. Might as well build a service plaza or rest area in the median for such an approach.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: lordsutch on June 16, 2015, 01:49:16 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 16, 2015, 01:22:14 PM
Quote from: lordsutchAs an alternative to median breaks or flyovers, I think it would be safe enough to install median U-turns a mile or two upstream and downstream of each at-grade access - essentially a Superstreet treatment without the signalization. That would avoid the potential T-bone problems and save money on overpasses.

Both freeway roadways would have to be re-built and spread fairly wide apart to allow a large enough U-turn inside the median that doesn't require turning traffic to turn at very slow speeds. Such a thing could be costly, maybe even as much as building a normal exit with an overpass. Might as well build a service plaza or rest area in the median for such an approach.

Looks like a pretty big-ass median to me. Pave a 1/3 mile acceleration and deceleration lane in the median, and you've got plenty of room for a 10-15 mph curve. You can build a lot of high-quality U-turns for overpass money.

If cops can safely pull a U-turn at an unpaved median break without acceleration and deceleration lanes, mere mortals can probably pull one off safely with this much help.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: Anthony_JK on June 17, 2015, 01:48:42 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 16, 2015, 01:22:14 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JKProblem is, once past the crossing, it becomes a freeway once again; it's not like the road becomes an arterial past that isolated crossing. An isolated "Cross Traffic Ahead" sign would probably do the trick.

Those stretches of I-10 in West Texas and I-40 in the Texas Panhandle have several at grade crossings. It's not just one or a couple. There is a whole series of those crossings. I would remove the Interstate designation between where the at grade crossings begin and end. The speed limits ought to be lowered from 80mph down to 65mph or 70mph.

The "Freeway Ends" signs would be consistent with other highways in Texas that transition from freeway facilities to expressway facilities with at-grade turns. Flashing yellow caution lights would be a good idea at the beginning of the sequence of crossover turns. I might even include signs stating the at grade turns occur for the next X number of miles.

Doing that would essentially render them useless as Interstate routes. If you have too many at-grade crossovers, it no longer is a controlled access facility, and thusly should not be considered an Interstate. It's one thing to have isolated at-grades in the middle on nowhere, but too many of them is a dangerous thing. Frontage roads to the next available interchange would be a better alternative.

Quote
Quote from: lordsutchAs an alternative to median breaks or flyovers, I think it would be safe enough to install median U-turns a mile or two upstream and downstream of each at-grade access - essentially a Superstreet treatment without the signalization. That would avoid the potential T-bone problems and save money on overpasses.

Both freeway roadways would have to be re-built and spread fairly wide apart to allow a large enough U-turn inside the median that doesn't require turning traffic to turn at very slow speeds. Such a thing could be costly, maybe even as much as building a normal exit with an overpass. Might as well build a service plaza or rest area in the median for such an approach.

You could do as Louisiana has done with their "J-turns" and build turn bays where the U-turn movements have enough space beyond the mainline ROW to negotiate median U-turns. Once again, though, that still would break the controlled access aspect of the highway, and possibly create a dangerous situation.

One or two isolated at-grades used as RIRO's I have no problem with. More than two, though? Use continuous frontage roads or use what TX is doing with US 77 with off-ramp RIRO's and intermettent "cross-under" overpasses. An Interstate shield should mean "fully controlled access" if it has any meaning at all.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: Anthony_JK on June 17, 2015, 01:52:33 AM
Quote from: lordsutch on June 16, 2015, 01:49:16 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 16, 2015, 01:22:14 PM
Quote from: lordsutchAs an alternative to median breaks or flyovers, I think it would be safe enough to install median U-turns a mile or two upstream and downstream of each at-grade access - essentially a Superstreet treatment without the signalization. That would avoid the potential T-bone problems and save money on overpasses.

Both freeway roadways would have to be re-built and spread fairly wide apart to allow a large enough U-turn inside the median that doesn't require turning traffic to turn at very slow speeds. Such a thing could be costly, maybe even as much as building a normal exit with an overpass. Might as well build a service plaza or rest area in the median for such an approach.

Looks like a pretty big-ass median to me. Pave a 1/3 mile acceleration and deceleration lane in the median, and you've got plenty of room for a 10-15 mph curve. You can build a lot of high-quality U-turns for overpass money.

If cops can safely pull a U-turn at an unpaved median break without acceleration and deceleration lanes, mere mortals can probably pull one off safely with this much help.

There is a fundamental difference between cops and emergency personnel having median breaks on Interstates for emergency response reasons, and regular people having them just for the fun of turning around. The former is vital; the latter simply isn't.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: Bobby5280 on June 19, 2015, 01:12:56 AM
Ultimately you can't have people making right turns or left turns off the main lanes of an Interstate highway. They're going to slow down at speeds of next to nothing to make the CHEAP, non-Interstate standard, 90 degree turn.

Most divided expressways with at-grade turns have dedicated turn lanes, especially for left turns. I see none of those with the at-grade right/left turns on I-10, I-40 or any other Interstate for that matter. That's a dangerous design flaw.

A U-turn in the median must allow adequate room for deceleration away from main lane traffic. A narrow median is not going to provide the space for that.

As far as I'm concerned, I-10 and I-40 in Texas remain incomplete as long as those at grade turns are in place. I think the powers that be just went ahead and signed the routes all the way through as if they were completed. But they really were not. Those segments of the road are expressway standard bearing Interstate shields. They're not full Interstate quality.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on June 19, 2015, 03:39:11 PM
True, but if you are eastbound on 10 and you see a vehicle with their left signal on for a few miles in advance, won't you just ignore it and assume they are a retiree for AZ.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: vtk on June 19, 2015, 07:26:48 PM
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on June 19, 2015, 03:39:11 PM
True, but if you are eastbound on 10 and you see a vehicle with their left signal on for a few miles in advance, won't you just ignore it and assume they are a retiree for AZ.

How much driving experience do you have? Watching out for other drivers doing unexpected things is part of the task of driving on any road. You're less likely to encounter someone using one of these at-grades on an Interstate than any number of surprising and possibly more dangerous manoeuvres anywhere else.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: Sykotyk on June 20, 2015, 05:44:47 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 05, 2015, 04:45:02 PM
At grade right/left turns & at grade traffic crossing should not be happening on an Interstate highway, especially one with the high speeds I-10 has in West Texas. There are no turn lanes for acceleration or deceleration at those intersections. Traffic has to slow down from going 80mph or faster down to nothing to make any of those turns. From what I've seen via Street View in Google Earth those intersections are poorly signed.

The other danger is the element of surprise to motorists, cruising along at 80mph not expecting any at grade turns with possible crossing or turning traffic. Plenty of drivers are distracted and inattentive. On a very long drive, like the trek between El Paso and San Antonio one can get a little hypnotized by both the length and desolation of the trip. They might not be perfectly ready to have to suddenly hit the breaks for cars ahead slowing to make a right or left turn, or other drivers turning onto the road in front of them.

I think the short stretches of frontage roads for at grade right turns and no crossing traffic across Interstate lanes is a good alternative. It's not going to hurt a rural farmer or oil field work to drive a mile or two down the road to the next bridge to get across to the other side of the highway.

I think you're greatly exaggerating the volume of traffic utilizing these ranch accesses on a daily basis. I've driven through West Texas many times on I-10 and I-20 and have never once seen a car either pulling off or pulling onto the highway.

In addition, traffic volumes on the interstate themselves aren't so high as someone who wanted to get onto the highway at an at-grade would generally be able to find a reasonable gap, even at 80mph, to get on and accelerate up to highway speed. As for traffic slowing to stop, in Texas drivers utilize shoulders on almost all rural roads to make a right turn, and a left turn can be accomplished almost the same along most stretches of I-10 or I-20.

I-40 has a few just east of New Mexico, but again, I've never yet seen someone use them. I'm sure the AADT for one of these 'crossroads' is less than .5/day.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: Sykotyk on June 20, 2015, 05:47:39 PM
Quote from: vtk on June 19, 2015, 07:26:48 PM
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on June 19, 2015, 03:39:11 PM
True, but if you are eastbound on 10 and you see a vehicle with their left signal on for a few miles in advance, won't you just ignore it and assume they are a retiree for AZ.

How much driving experience do you have? Watching out for other drivers doing unexpected things is part of the task of driving on any road. You're less likely to encounter someone using one of these at-grades on an Interstate than any number of surprising and possibly more dangerous manoeuvres anywhere else.

I think there's more utilization of illegal crossovers on a daily basis by traffic volume than there is usage of these at-grade intersections in West Texas.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: Rothman on June 21, 2015, 02:21:50 PM
Quote from: Sykotyk link=topic=3624.msg2073207#msg2073207I've never yet seen someone use them. I'm sure the AADT for one of these 'crossroads' is less than .5/day.

Heh.  Reminds me of someone who calculated the Vatican City's population density as "more or less 2 Popes."
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: Alex on June 22, 2015, 11:16:00 AM
West Texas has very long sight lines. Couple that with low traffic counts and having at-grade intersections with ranch roads should never be an issue. Drivers have plenty of time to shift lanes to bypass turning traffic.

South Texas is fairly wide open with long straightaways as well. VPD's along the US 77 stretch range from 8723 to 9425.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: mwb1848 on June 22, 2015, 04:13:39 PM
Quote from: Sykotyk on June 20, 2015, 05:47:39 PM
Quote from: vtk on June 19, 2015, 07:26:48 PM
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on June 19, 2015, 03:39:11 PM
True, but if you are eastbound on 10 and you see a vehicle with their left signal on for a few miles in advance, won't you just ignore it and assume they are a retiree for AZ.

How much driving experience do you have? Watching out for other drivers doing unexpected things is part of the task of driving on any road. You're less likely to encounter someone using one of these at-grades on an Interstate than any number of surprising and possibly more dangerous manoeuvres anywhere else.

I think there's more utilization of illegal crossovers on a daily basis by traffic volume than there is usage of these at-grade intersections in West Texas.
Bingo. The traffic count to consider isn't the one on I-10, it's the one on the unpaved roads that intersect it at these at-grade crossings. I've driven the stretch of I-10 in West Texas more times that I care to count over the last ten years and have NEVER seen them used.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: kkt on June 22, 2015, 04:43:07 PM
Quote from: mwb1848 on June 22, 2015, 04:13:39 PM
Quote from: Sykotyk on June 20, 2015, 05:47:39 PM
Quote from: vtk on June 19, 2015, 07:26:48 PM
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on June 19, 2015, 03:39:11 PM
True, but if you are eastbound on 10 and you see a vehicle with their left signal on for a few miles in advance, won't you just ignore it and assume they are a retiree for AZ.

How much driving experience do you have? Watching out for other drivers doing unexpected things is part of the task of driving on any road. You're less likely to encounter someone using one of these at-grades on an Interstate than any number of surprising and possibly more dangerous manoeuvres anywhere else.

I think there's more utilization of illegal crossovers on a daily basis by traffic volume than there is usage of these at-grade intersections in West Texas.
Bingo. The traffic count to consider isn't the one on I-10, it's the one on the unpaved roads that intersect it at these at-grade crossings. I've driven the stretch of I-10 in West Texas more times that I care to count over the last ten years and have NEVER seen them used.

Then they don't need to exist, do they?

How much would an interstate minimum deceleration and acceleration lane for a right-on, right-off driveway access cost?
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: Scott5114 on June 22, 2015, 07:39:29 PM
Quote from: kkt on June 22, 2015, 04:43:07 PM
Quote from: mwb1848 on June 22, 2015, 04:13:39 PM
Quote from: Sykotyk on June 20, 2015, 05:47:39 PM
Quote from: vtk on June 19, 2015, 07:26:48 PM
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on June 19, 2015, 03:39:11 PM
True, but if you are eastbound on 10 and you see a vehicle with their left signal on for a few miles in advance, won't you just ignore it and assume they are a retiree for AZ.

How much driving experience do you have? Watching out for other drivers doing unexpected things is part of the task of driving on any road. You're less likely to encounter someone using one of these at-grades on an Interstate than any number of surprising and possibly more dangerous manoeuvres anywhere else.

I think there's more utilization of illegal crossovers on a daily basis by traffic volume than there is usage of these at-grade intersections in West Texas.
Bingo. The traffic count to consider isn't the one on I-10, it's the one on the unpaved roads that intersect it at these at-grade crossings. I've driven the stretch of I-10 in West Texas more times that I care to count over the last ten years and have NEVER seen them used.

Then they don't need to exist, do they?

How much would an interstate minimum deceleration and acceleration lane for a right-on, right-off driveway access cost?
North of $100,000 a piece, I'm sure. Not worth the money for how little they're used.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: Sykotyk on June 25, 2015, 10:34:47 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 22, 2015, 07:39:29 PM
Quote from: kkt on June 22, 2015, 04:43:07 PM
Quote from: mwb1848 on June 22, 2015, 04:13:39 PM
Quote from: Sykotyk on June 20, 2015, 05:47:39 PM
Quote from: vtk on June 19, 2015, 07:26:48 PM
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on June 19, 2015, 03:39:11 PM
True, but if you are eastbound on 10 and you see a vehicle with their left signal on for a few miles in advance, won't you just ignore it and assume they are a retiree for AZ.

How much driving experience do you have? Watching out for other drivers doing unexpected things is part of the task of driving on any road. You're less likely to encounter someone using one of these at-grades on an Interstate than any number of surprising and possibly more dangerous manoeuvres anywhere else.

I think there's more utilization of illegal crossovers on a daily basis by traffic volume than there is usage of these at-grade intersections in West Texas.
Bingo. The traffic count to consider isn't the one on I-10, it's the one on the unpaved roads that intersect it at these at-grade crossings. I've driven the stretch of I-10 in West Texas more times that I care to count over the last ten years and have NEVER seen them used.

Then they don't need to exist, do they?

How much would an interstate minimum deceleration and acceleration lane for a right-on, right-off driveway access cost?
North of $100,000 a piece, I'm sure. Not worth the money for how little they're used.

Also, by building in the accel/decel lanes, you're 'legitimizing' the intersection for others to take. Generally, these are only there for ranch owners as they have no other access to their property. They are not generally through roads that any person can just take if they wanted.

Also, they aren't just RIRO, you are allowed to make a left and cross the other lanes of travel. For how little they are used, what Texas has done is by far the cheapest, easiest, and generally safest. A few signs, and that's it. And buying out the property owner, building frontage roads, overpasses, or underpasses, etc is overkill given how little these intersections are used.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on July 14, 2015, 12:00:11 AM
This whole thing is so silly.  I have driven this stretch of Interstate 10 several times, and most recently yesterday.  I would love for these intersections to be removed because it clearly violates the interstate standards which are a bible.  But also, we are talking 10 to 20 intersections, and each one is a dirt road leading to a locked gate.  Anyone who knows about large Texas ranches knows there are a lot of ranches no one lives on, and these are no exception.  So we are talking a remote dirt road here and there to a locked gate that goes to a ranch that maybe is used by the owner, or caretaker for mineral rights or just to check up on things maybe once a month at the most.  So yes it infuriates me to see a yellow diamond sign with a black + on it on an interstate, but I don't like the idea of the state wasting a bunch of money to build a frontage road to the next intersection (which might be 10 miles away or more) all for one dirt road here and there just to satisfy me and the other sticklers for the interstate rules either.  I would rather that money be used to bring another interstate to Austin.  Remember again we are talking about one of the most remote, sparsely populated places in the country.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: kkt on July 14, 2015, 12:16:42 AM
Yeah, but I bet the frontage roads for all those ranch intersections together would only buy about one inch of new interstate for Austin.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: iBallasticwolf2 on July 14, 2015, 10:25:21 AM
How about we build dirt frontage roads to protect these drivers using the turns? It would be good for people going right in and right out. The left turns can stay the same.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: MaxConcrete on July 14, 2015, 11:29:32 PM
I drove on I-40 between the Amarillo and the New Mexico border on Saturday. I counted five fully-developed at-grade intersections around mile markers 8-12. By fully-developed, I mean paved, striped and signed. See the images below. Other at-grade intersections I have seen were more informal, unpaved and without full striping. But these intersections were like you would see on a non controlled access, four-lane divided highway.

The photo quality is marginal since they were taken at full speed. Grass was high outside the shoulder so it was not ideal for stopping and parking.

I was amazed by the concentration of wind turbines on the north side of I-40 west of Amarillo. From mile marker approx 10 to 50, there are continuous wind turbines multiple rows deep.

(https://1968d90e831cd27d2017897e0c81e9a12852eb10.googledrive.com/host/0B4gwdXQk1LyieHZHSTBqd0VJSnc/AARoads/20150622-0711-3562-800.jpg)

(https://1968d90e831cd27d2017897e0c81e9a12852eb10.googledrive.com/host/0B4gwdXQk1LyieHZHSTBqd0VJSnc/AARoads/20150622-0711-3560-800.jpg)

(https://1968d90e831cd27d2017897e0c81e9a12852eb10.googledrive.com/host/0B4gwdXQk1LyieHZHSTBqd0VJSnc/AARoads/20150622-0711-0266-800.jpg)
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: intelati49 on July 15, 2015, 04:51:16 AM
Quote from: MaxConcrete on July 14, 2015, 11:29:32 PM
I drove on I-40 between the Amarillo and the New Mexico border on Saturday. I counted five fully-developed at-grade intersections around mile markers 8-12. By fully-developed, I mean paved, striped and signed. See the images below. Other at-grade intersections I have seen were more informal, unpaved and without full striping. But these intersections were like you would see on a non controlled access, four-lane divided highway.

The photo quality is marginal since they were taken at full speed. Grass was high outside the shoulder so it was not ideal for stopping and parking.

I was amazed by the concentration of wind turbines on the north side of I-40 west of Amarillo. From mile marker approx 10 to 50, there are continuous wind turbines multiple rows deep.

img

img

img

Okay, that I have a problem with. If there is enough traffic to warrant paving, there should be an outer road. You just turned a freeway into an expressway.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: jeffandnicole on July 15, 2015, 06:22:08 AM
Quote from: intelati49 on July 15, 2015, 04:51:16 AM
Quote from: MaxConcrete on July 14, 2015, 11:29:32 PM
I drove on I-40 between the Amarillo and the New Mexico border on Saturday. I counted five fully-developed at-grade intersections around mile markers 8-12. By fully-developed, I mean paved, striped and signed. See the images below. Other at-grade intersections I have seen were more informal, unpaved and without full striping. But these intersections were like you would see on a non controlled access, four-lane divided highway.

The photo quality is marginal since they were taken at full speed. Grass was high outside the shoulder so it was not ideal for stopping and parking.

I was amazed by the concentration of wind turbines on the north side of I-40 west of Amarillo. From mile marker approx 10 to 50, there are continuous wind turbines multiple rows deep.

img

img

img

Okay, that I have a problem with. If there is enough traffic to warrant paving, there should be an outer road. You just turned a freeway into an expressway.

I wonder if there really isn't enough traffic, but a paved surface is a lot easier to drive on, especially coming from a complete stop. 

They should probably put a turn lane/decal lane in there though, rather than a hard left turn from the left lane of the highway.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: mwb1848 on July 16, 2015, 11:07:31 AM
Quote from: intelati49 on July 15, 2015, 04:51:16 AM
Quote from: MaxConcrete on July 14, 2015, 11:29:32 PM
I drove on I-40 between the Amarillo and the New Mexico border on Saturday. I counted five fully-developed at-grade intersections around mile markers 8-12. By fully-developed, I mean paved, striped and signed. See the images below. Other at-grade intersections I have seen were more informal, unpaved and without full striping. But these intersections were like you would see on a non controlled access, four-lane divided highway.

The photo quality is marginal since they were taken at full speed. Grass was high outside the shoulder so it was not ideal for stopping and parking.

I was amazed by the concentration of wind turbines on the north side of I-40 west of Amarillo. From mile marker approx 10 to 50, there are continuous wind turbines multiple rows deep.

img

img

img

Okay, that I have a problem with. If there is enough traffic to warrant paving, there should be an outer road. You just turned a freeway into an expressway.

Agreed!! I have no problem at all with the occasional, barely-improved at-grade crossing on I-10 and I-20. But this is no longer an Interstate.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: txstateends on July 16, 2015, 11:37:59 AM
Those 3 pix look no better, really, than US 87-US 287 between Amarillo and Dumas.  Yet, that stretch is not considered an interstate and the pictured parts of I-40 are.

Quote from: maxconcrete
I was amazed by the concentration of wind turbines on the north side of I-40 west of Amarillo. From mile marker approx 10 to 50, there are continuous wind turbines multiple rows deep.

I knew there had been several projects to add new turbines, but I didn't know it had gotten to the level you describe.  After the years I lived up there, I'd always wondered why there weren't plans *much* sooner to do wind power projects...goodness knows, there's enough wind up there to keep many in lights for a long time.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: dfwmapper on July 16, 2015, 02:53:24 PM
Quote from: iBallasticwolf2 on July 14, 2015, 10:25:21 AM
How about we build dirt frontage roads to protect these drivers using the turns? It would be good for people going right in and right out. The left turns can stay the same.
IIRC, TxDOT's design standards don't permit unpaved surfaces on state highways, including frontage roads.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 15, 2015, 06:22:08 AM
They should probably put a turn lane/decal lane in there though, rather than a hard left turn from the left lane of the highway.
They don't want to encourage normal drivers to use them because then it really would start to become a safety issue.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: iBallasticwolf2 on July 16, 2015, 03:02:27 PM
It could be possible to make paved turn lanes but have no decal or lane marking change.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: Truvelo on July 16, 2015, 03:13:15 PM
Traffic turning left would most likely pull onto the shoulder and wait for a gap in the traffic before turning across both lanes. It would be a lot safer than coming to a halt in the fast lane.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: Grzrd on August 02, 2015, 11:16:29 AM
Quote from: vtk on May 11, 2015, 10:04:11 PM
what was the projected traffic count for 20 years in the future when the highway was designed 50+ years ago? Some people on the forum seem to imagine those at-grade crossings were approved and built yesterday. Are they problematic today? Probably not, or there would be a whole thread here about the constant accidents. They certainly weren't problematic within a couple decades of the highway's construction.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 14, 2015, 12:00:11 AM
we are talking 10 to 20 intersections, and each one is a dirt road leading to a locked gate.  Anyone who knows about large Texas ranches knows there are a lot of ranches no one lives on, and these are no exception.  So we are talking a remote dirt road here and there to a locked gate that goes to a ranch that maybe is used by the owner, or caretaker for mineral rights or just to check up on things maybe once a month at the most.
Quote from: Grzrd on July 30, 2015, 07:46:29 PM
The Texas Transportation Commission has posted a July 29 TxDOT Interstate Corridor Planning - Prioritization of Corridor Studies presentation (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2015/0729/2b.pdf) ... (p.5/13 of pdf) .... The anticipated congestion, combined with possible rebuilding of much of the system that is reaching the end of its expected service life (p. 8/13 of pdf), suggests that Texas will have to spend a lot of money over the next 25 years.
(bottom quote from Texas (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10567.msg2082666#msg2082666) thread)

In the not too distant future, Texas may have to rebuild many of the sections of interstates that currently have the at-grades, and take into account anticipated traffic counts.  The below snips compare west Texas congestion in 2013 to west Texas estimated congestion in 2040:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FcCRTgeU.jpg&hash=29f86d9ee4d6bde61ee103e98390ef7cd9f52078)(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FuuOaIKq.jpg&hash=153c342f6a6fea299346c26f6078c40579e798df)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FCCzMCyW.jpg&hash=189862ddc10ca7d3b62a58717f96bd52c54ac65a)

In looking at projected traffic flows along I-10 and I-40, at what point, if any, would TxDOT deem it necessary to upgrade at least some of the at-grades for safety reasons (at initial glance I-10 east of the I-20 interchange seems like it could keep the at-grades)?
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on August 05, 2015, 11:40:35 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on August 02, 2015, 11:16:29 AM
Quote from: vtk on May 11, 2015, 10:04:11 PM
what was the projected traffic count for 20 years in the future when the highway was designed 50+ years ago? Some people on the forum seem to imagine those at-grade crossings were approved and built yesterday. Are they problematic today? Probably not, or there would be a whole thread here about the constant accidents. They certainly weren't problematic within a couple decades of the highway's construction.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 14, 2015, 12:00:11 AM
we are talking 10 to 20 intersections, and each one is a dirt road leading to a locked gate.  Anyone who knows about large Texas ranches knows there are a lot of ranches no one lives on, and these are no exception.  So we are talking a remote dirt road here and there to a locked gate that goes to a ranch that maybe is used by the owner, or caretaker for mineral rights or just to check up on things maybe once a month at the most.
Quote from: Grzrd on July 30, 2015, 07:46:29 PM
The Texas Transportation Commission has posted a July 29 TxDOT Interstate Corridor Planning - Prioritization of Corridor Studies presentation (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2015/0729/2b.pdf) ... (p.5/13 of pdf) .... The anticipated congestion, combined with possible rebuilding of much of the system that is reaching the end of its expected service life (p. 8/13 of pdf), suggests that Texas will have to spend a lot of money over the next 25 years.
(bottom quote from Texas (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10567.msg2082666#msg2082666) thread)

In the not too distant future, Texas may have to rebuild many of the sections of interstates that currently have the at-grades, and take into account anticipated traffic counts.  The below snips compare west Texas congestion in 2013 to west Texas estimated congestion in 2040:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FcCRTgeU.jpg&hash=29f86d9ee4d6bde61ee103e98390ef7cd9f52078)(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FuuOaIKq.jpg&hash=153c342f6a6fea299346c26f6078c40579e798df)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FCCzMCyW.jpg&hash=189862ddc10ca7d3b62a58717f96bd52c54ac65a)

In looking at projected traffic flows along I-10 and I-40, at what point, if any, would TxDOT deem it necessary to upgrade at least some of the at-grades for safety reasons (at initial glance I-10 east of the I-20 interchange seems like it could keep the at-grades)?

The funny thing is, the at-grade intersections on Interstate 10 start west of Van Horn, some 40 or so miles west of the I-10, I-20 split.  So, ironically, where the traffic is the lightest on I-10, there are no at-grade intersections.  But the ones on the west side would have to be removed if traffic continues to get worse, I agree.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: wxfree on December 15, 2015, 09:36:53 PM
The Texas Rural Transportation Plan of 2012 lists priorities and associated ranks for rural highway projects.  It includes elimination of several at-grade intersections in Hudspeth County.  Apparently, TxDOT considers the situation undesirable and wants to correct it.  The rankings for the projects are in the 460 to 480 range.  There appear to be fewer than 700 rankings given, so it's a moderate to low priority at this time.

http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/tpp/rural_2035/report/0512/trtp_appendix_e_district.pdf.pdf (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/tpp/rural_2035/report/0512/trtp_appendix_e_district.pdf.pdf)

The projects are listed by district, and districts are listed alphabetically.  This is in the El Paso district.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: US 41 on December 15, 2015, 10:40:07 PM
I saw some of these at grades on I-10 last month on my way to Presidio from El Paso. Even though the speed limit is 80 I didn't really see a problem with them. They do sign that there is a crossroads ahead. Keep in mind that there are at grades on lots of roads in Texas that have 75 mph speed limits. As long as you use a turn signal and give plenty of warning that you will be turning you should be fine.

Here is a photo of one of the crossroads signs I took while driving on eastbound I-10 shortly after going through an internal customs checkpoint.
(https://scontent-ord1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpa1/v/t1.0-9/12376173_192469327763105_3298267775445785363_n.jpg?oh=49806722a9a75c38d70c1042bda4233c&oe=5719B255)


EDIT: I totally forgot about the at grades on I-40 west of Amarillo. Now that I saw the pictures I remember seeing those on my trip as well. I didn't take any pictures of them.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: The Ghostbuster on December 16, 2015, 03:21:30 PM
Somehow, I doubt the at-grades will ever be removed. Interstate Standards be damned!
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: Anthony_JK on December 17, 2015, 12:29:05 AM
Quote from: MaxConcrete on July 14, 2015, 11:29:32 PM
I drove on I-40 between the Amarillo and the New Mexico border on Saturday. I counted five fully-developed at-grade intersections around mile markers 8-12. By fully-developed, I mean paved, striped and signed. See the images below. Other at-grade intersections I have seen were more informal, unpaved and without full striping. But these intersections were like you would see on a non controlled access, four-lane divided highway.

The photo quality is marginal since they were taken at full speed. Grass was high outside the shoulder so it was not ideal for stopping and parking.

I was amazed by the concentration of wind turbines on the north side of I-40 west of Amarillo. From mile marker approx 10 to 50, there are continuous wind turbines multiple rows deep.


Yeah..that's not acceptable for me. Now you are on an expressway, not a freeway. At the very least, make them jughandles so that there is some flexibility for left-turning traffic, or add deceleration lanes outside of the mainlaines.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on August 05, 2016, 12:47:49 PM
Its funny to me that a state that prides themselves on their massive use of service roads (Texas) can't just build a service road out where it's needed, so it causes a violation in the Interstate Highway System.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: Avalanchez71 on August 05, 2016, 01:43:04 PM
I have never seen these roads used ever.  Has anyone actually seen anyone use these?  I see no problem at all with them.  These were approved long ago and are a part of the interstate system.  If I had time to dig up the records I would probably put in a public records request to see the accident rate at these intersections.

If this was an issue it would be dealt with.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on August 05, 2016, 02:49:32 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on August 05, 2016, 01:43:04 PM
I have never seen these roads used ever.  Has anyone actually seen anyone use these?  I see no problem at all with them.  These were approved long ago and are a part of the interstate system.  If I had time to dig up the records I would probably put in a public records request to see the accident rate at these intersections.

If this was an issue it would be dealt with.


I go back and forth with this one.  Sometimes it infuriates me to no end, and then other times I say the same thing, that maybe these roads get used once or twice a year.  obviously its not enough to build another road, but it does make me mad because the one time it is used, someone slows to a 20 mph right hand turn on a "freeway" with an 80 mph speed limit. 
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: Brian556 on August 05, 2016, 03:00:35 PM
It is incredibly dangerous to allow left turns from an interstate with no turn bay. If they were to prohibit left or U-turns, and do Jersey lefts (with short gravel exit ramps) at these, I might be more ok with them.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on August 05, 2016, 03:08:42 PM
Quote from: Brian556 on August 05, 2016, 03:00:35 PM
It is incredibly dangerous to allow left turns from an interstate with no turn bay. If they were to prohibit left or U-turns, and do Jersey lefts (with short gravel exit ramps) at these, I might be more ok with them.

I would be more okay with gradual right in, right outs.  I mean there is a long way between exits out there, but not that long.  Texas is known to have more exits.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: sparker on August 05, 2016, 10:40:25 PM
A possibility for dealing with the safety issues would be to construct a series of left and/or right turn lanes next to the through lanes -- but construct them with chip seal (more than adequate if only used sporadically), and use dashed double yellow lines (inner) and dashed white lines (outer) to delineate the turn lanes.  The difference in texture and basic road noise would discourage through traffic from using the lanes; they could be marked by signage as "Private Ranch Access Only" with arrows pointing down diagonally to the turn lanes.  That would get whatever turning movements that occurred off the main roadway with relatively minimal expense.  I'd also repave the median crossings on I-40 with chip seal to achieve the same result.  Doesn't solve the "expressway vs. freeway" argument, but this is simply a safety measure.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: US 41 on August 05, 2016, 11:00:08 PM
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.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: Avalanchez71 on August 10, 2016, 12:52:22 PM
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.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: 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 (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!
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: slorydn1 on August 15, 2016, 08:39:14 AM
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?
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: AlexandriaVA on August 15, 2016, 08:45:55 AM
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.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: slorydn1 on August 15, 2016, 09:29:08 AM
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.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: 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?

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.


Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: Avalanchez71 on August 15, 2016, 02:35:54 PM
Why don't you go ahead and buy?  I heard that property taxes in Texas are on the high side though.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: wxfree on August 15, 2016, 04:13:41 PM
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.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: wtd67 on August 15, 2016, 10:41:48 PM
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
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: 7/8 on August 16, 2016, 12:33:57 PM
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!
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: kphoger on August 16, 2016, 01:05:02 PM
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.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: wxfree on September 21, 2016, 11:41:16 PM
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 (https://youtu.be/dEBzV9lcIGk?t=2h40m48s)
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: mwb1848 on September 22, 2016, 01:51:55 PM
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 (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.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi907.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fac274%2Fmartinbartlett%2FAt%2520Grade%2520Crossing_zps1t79ijt8.png&hash=eb6bde73bfd921ae9cfa09384fd2353442f97a86) (http://s907.photobucket.com/user/martinbartlett/media/At%20Grade%20Crossing_zps1t79ijt8.png.html)
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: Bobby5280 on September 22, 2016, 02:39:51 PM
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.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: kphoger on September 22, 2016, 05:32:44 PM
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?
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: In_Correct on September 23, 2016, 12:21:56 AM
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.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: Avalanchez71 on September 23, 2016, 09:00:49 AM
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?
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: kphoger on September 23, 2016, 10:27:06 AM
Exactly.  No fatalities are occurring there.  The perception that these crossovers are unsafe is not based on facts.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: kphoger on September 23, 2016, 12:15:02 PM
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?
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: Avalanchez71 on September 23, 2016, 01:41:03 PM
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?
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: kkt on September 23, 2016, 01:41:25 PM
11 accidents in 6 years seems to justify doing something to me.  So far, we've been lucky, and they haven't been incapacitating or fatal.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: Bobby5280 on September 23, 2016, 02:14:49 PM
That was just the report from I-10. I'd like to see stats on that stretch of I-40 near the NM border.

Quote from: kphogerYou 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.

It's stupid and careless when you're slowing to a near stop in the left main travel lane. Whether the turns are legal or not for any driver to use, anyone using that turn to make a quick U-turn would have to be concerned about getting ass-ended by someone going 80mph behind them or getting t-boned or ass-ended by traffic going the opposite direction. I'd personally go down the next controlled exit if I needed to back-track.

Divided highways with at grade intersections are designed & built different from Interstate highways. The intersections at least have turn bays for left turns and sometimes turn bays for right turns as well, like these two examples on OK-7 in the Lawton area:
https://goo.gl/cnBtd7
https://goo.gl/mHyFq9

Driver behavior is different on those roads. They anticipate vehicles making at grade turns on these roads, so they know people are going to be slowing down in front of them to make a turn from time to time. Or other cars are going to be turning onto the highway. Speed limits are also more varied on these roads.

On an Interstate no one is anticipating a driver in front of them slowing down to nothing in the left/passing lane of an 80mph Interstate to make a left turn. They're not expecting some rancher to pull out in front of them from nowhere either.

Quote from: kphogerThere 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?

Yes. Stupid, careless and foolhardy. Especially when considering just how many motorists aren't paying full attention to the highway.

Quote from: kphogerOh, 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.

I don't know how I-44 South of Lawton violates Interstate standards currently. OTA installed cable barriers and did work on the shoulders in the past couple or so years. I-44 between the Red River and US-70 exit where the H.E. Bailey Turnpike begins has been re-paved (and re-signed with a few face-palm design mistakes). Google Maps/Earth still show how I-44 used to be:
https://goo.gl/f4ppiI
It doesn't need to go back to that terrible design. It was great for high speed, head-on collisions.

Quote from: kphogerYou'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.

Motorists have the general understanding that once they enter the freeway they're not going to be dealing with any stop and go traffic, at least not out in the boonies of rural West Texas anyway.

Quote from: kphogerSo I guess you don't want to downgrade it to FM-10, then?

Along that stretch of the highway, yes. Call it FM-10, State Highway 10 or whatever. It doesn't deserve to carry an Interstate shield or be marked as such on a map if it isn't up to full Interstate standards.

There are other roads in the US that cannot yet be signed as Interstates due to the very same kinds of standards violations. Segments of what eventually will be I-86 in New York are one example. I-74 in North Carolina is another. I-22 in Mississippi can't be signed as such yet because it doesn't comply with the latest Interstate highway standards and it doesn't even have any at grade crossings between I-269 and the Alabama state line. Somehow I-10 and I-40 in West Texas are given a pass on this stuff.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: kphoger on September 23, 2016, 03:03:38 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 23, 2016, 02:14:49 PM
Quote from: kphogerYou 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.

It's stupid and careless when you're slowing to a near stop in the left main travel lane. Whether the turns are legal or not for any driver to use, anyone using that turn to make a quick U-turn would have to be concerned about getting ass-ended by someone going 80mph behind them or getting t-boned or ass-ended by traffic going the opposite direction. I'd personally go down the next controlled exit if I needed to back-track.

Divided highways with at grade intersections are designed & built different from Interstate highways. The intersections at least have turn bays for left turns and sometimes turn bays for right turns as well, like these two examples on OK-7 in the Lawton area:
https://goo.gl/cnBtd7
https://goo.gl/mHyFq9

Driver behavior is different on those roads. They anticipate vehicles making at grade turns on these roads, so they know people are going to be slowing down in front of them to make a turn from time to time. Or other cars are going to be turning onto the highway. Speed limits are also more varied on these roads.

On an Interstate no one is anticipating a driver in front of them slowing down to nothing in the left/passing lane of an 80mph Interstate to make a left turn. They're not expecting some rancher to pull out in front of them from nowhere either.

Divided highways with at-grade intersections are not always built with turn bays for left or right turns.
Example in Texas on a stretch with a 75-mph speed limit

Besides which, this warning sign should alert drivers nicely that they should anticipate someone slowing down in front of them from time to time.  Put a twin sign on the left side, maybe a flashing yellow beacon, and that's plenty of warning.  Add a 65- or 70-mph speed advisory tab and everyone should be happy.

Quote from: kkt on September 23, 2016, 01:41:25 PM
11 accidents in 6 years seems to justify doing something to me.  So far, we've been lucky, and they haven't been incapacitating or fatal.

I suppose seeming to "justify doing something" is a fuzzy issue when it comes to things like this, keeping in mind what I said earlier about the data not even stating the accidents were in any way related to the crossover.  But one thing I'm certain of is that you could find other highway intersections in Texas that see more accidents and fatal accidents than this one–i.e., justifying doing something drastically more than at this location.  Unless you live in a world where "fix everything" is a viable option, I'd rather keep spending the money elsewhere.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: sdmichael on September 23, 2016, 03:24:07 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 23, 2016, 03:03:38 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 23, 2016, 02:14:49 PM
Quote from: kphogerYou 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.

It's stupid and careless when you're slowing to a near stop in the left main travel lane. Whether the turns are legal or not for any driver to use, anyone using that turn to make a quick U-turn would have to be concerned about getting ass-ended by someone going 80mph behind them or getting t-boned or ass-ended by traffic going the opposite direction. I'd personally go down the next controlled exit if I needed to back-track.

Divided highways with at grade intersections are designed & built different from Interstate highways. The intersections at least have turn bays for left turns and sometimes turn bays for right turns as well, like these two examples on OK-7 in the Lawton area:
https://goo.gl/cnBtd7
https://goo.gl/mHyFq9

Driver behavior is different on those roads. They anticipate vehicles making at grade turns on these roads, so they know people are going to be slowing down in front of them to make a turn from time to time. Or other cars are going to be turning onto the highway. Speed limits are also more varied on these roads.

On an Interstate no one is anticipating a driver in front of them slowing down to nothing in the left/passing lane of an 80mph Interstate to make a left turn. They're not expecting some rancher to pull out in front of them from nowhere either.

Divided highways with at-grade intersections are not always built with turn bays for left or right turns.
Example in Texas on a stretch with a 75-mph speed limit

Besides which, this warning sign should alert drivers nicely that they should anticipate someone slowing down in front of them from time to time.  Put a twin sign on the left side, maybe a flashing yellow beacon, and that's plenty of warning.  Add a 65- or 70-mph speed advisory tab and everyone should be happy.

Quote from: kkt on September 23, 2016, 01:41:25 PM
11 accidents in 6 years seems to justify doing something to me.  So far, we've been lucky, and they haven't been incapacitating or fatal.

I suppose seeming to "justify doing something" is a fuzzy issue when it comes to things like this, keeping in mind what I said earlier about the data not even stating the accidents were in any way related to the crossover.  But one thing I'm certain of is that you could find other highway intersections in Texas that see more accidents and fatal accidents than this one–i.e., justifying doing something drastically more than at this location.  Unless you live in a world where "fix everything" is a viable option, I'd rather keep spending the money elsewhere.

By putting up lights/signs warning of the grade crossings, you've now acknowledged the roadway no longer being a freeway. Interstates are freeways. Marking the crossings with warnings now treats the roadway as an expressway and should have additional signs such as "End Freeway" and "Cross Traffic Ahead".
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: Avalanchez71 on September 23, 2016, 03:33:10 PM
What it the wrecks were caused by someone that had nothing to due with the behaviour that you are speaking of?  You could have someone that may have hit the berm or ditch when negoitaiting the turn off.  It could be that a truck lost a load unreleated to the turn that in turn caused a wreck. 
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: kkt on September 23, 2016, 03:57:29 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on September 23, 2016, 03:33:10 PM
What it the wrecks were caused by someone that had nothing to due with the behaviour that you are speaking of?  You could have someone that may have hit the berm or ditch when negoitaiting the turn off.  It could be that a truck lost a load unreleated to the turn that in turn caused a wreck. 

Good point.  Is there a control available, a nearby stretch of Texas interstate that doesn't happen to have any cross traffic?
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: kphoger on September 23, 2016, 04:19:41 PM
Quote from: sdmichael on September 23, 2016, 03:24:07 PM
Interstates are freeways.

Only as a generality.

I-35 south of Emporia, KS (https://goo.gl/maps/paD1CqXbUYD2)
I-70 in Breezewood, PA (https://goo.gl/maps/k2v55wawmPv)
I-78 in Jersey City, NJ (https://goo.gl/maps/LVcTvdHyK3S2)
I-94 near Fort Custer, MI (https://goo.gl/maps/cWUDGooYP9S2)
I-180 in Cheyenne, WY (https://goo.gl/maps/R3V7J65FM1K2)
I-516 in Savannah, GA (https://goo.gl/maps/562Vtpu6uVr)

General rules get broken.  That's life.

Quote from: kkt on September 23, 2016, 03:57:29 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on September 23, 2016, 03:33:10 PM
What it the wrecks were caused by someone that had nothing to due with the behaviour that you are speaking of?  You could have someone that may have hit the berm or ditch when negoitaiting the turn off.  It could be that a truck lost a load unreleated to the turn that in turn caused a wreck. 

Good point.  Is there a control available, a nearby stretch of Texas interstate that doesn't happen to have any cross traffic?

Even then, it wouldn't necessarily be a control.  I notice there is a bridge nearby; accidents could be related to the barriers.  Without knowing what caused the accidents, we cannot accurately compare.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: sdmichael on September 23, 2016, 04:40:35 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 23, 2016, 04:19:41 PM
Quote from: sdmichael on September 23, 2016, 03:24:07 PM
Interstates are freeways.

Only as a generality.

I-35 south of Emporia, KS (https://goo.gl/maps/paD1CqXbUYD2)
Substandard ramp, still a freeway.

I-70 in Breezewood, PA (https://goo.gl/maps/k2v55wawmPv)

I-70 breaks and has an indirect connector - Isn't I-70 through Breezewood.

I-78 in Jersey City, NJ (https://goo.gl/maps/LVcTvdHyK3S2)
Unsigned and only a connection.

I-94 near Fort Custer, MI (https://goo.gl/maps/cWUDGooYP9S2)
Marked as "Authorized Vehicles Only" - common for maintenance/law enforcement and still a freeway

I-180 in Cheyenne, WY (https://goo.gl/maps/R3V7J65FM1K2)
An exception, and a poor one at that. Isn't a freeway at all. I-10 has a break in freeway status.

I-516 in Savannah, GA (https://goo.gl/maps/562Vtpu6uVr)
Not a grade crossing, just substandard ramps.

General rules get broken.  That's life.

Not sure what you're trying to show. Interstates are freeways. Not all freeways are up to full standards, but all of those, except I-180, are still freeways. The section of I-10 in question has marked crossings, shields, arrows, and are not marked as "Authorized Vehicles Only". As such, it isn't a freeway and should not be marked as such.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: Avalanchez71 on September 23, 2016, 04:45:34 PM
But your expectionation doesn't meet reality.  I-180 is marked as an interstate but it isn't fully controlled.  What about the interstate highways in Alaska?  How many miles are fully controlled , what four miles.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: hotdogPi on September 23, 2016, 04:58:07 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on September 23, 2016, 04:45:34 PM
expectionation
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: kphoger on September 23, 2016, 05:29:04 PM
Quote from: sdmichael on September 23, 2016, 04:40:35 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 23, 2016, 04:19:41 PM
Quote from: sdmichael on September 23, 2016, 03:24:07 PM
Interstates are freeways.

Only as a generality.

I-35 south of Emporia, KS (https://goo.gl/maps/paD1CqXbUYD2)
Substandard ramp, still a freeway.

I-70 in Breezewood, PA (https://goo.gl/maps/k2v55wawmPv)

I-70 breaks and has an indirect connector - Isn't I-70 through Breezewood.

I-78 in Jersey City, NJ (https://goo.gl/maps/LVcTvdHyK3S2)
Unsigned and only a connection.

I-94 near Fort Custer, MI (https://goo.gl/maps/cWUDGooYP9S2)
Marked as "Authorized Vehicles Only" - common for maintenance/law enforcement and still a freeway

I-180 in Cheyenne, WY (https://goo.gl/maps/R3V7J65FM1K2)
An exception, and a poor one at that. Isn't a freeway at all. I-10 has a break in freeway status.

I-516 in Savannah, GA (https://goo.gl/maps/562Vtpu6uVr)
Not a grade crossing, just substandard ramps.

General rules get broken.  That's life.

Not sure what you're trying to show. Interstates are freeways. Not all freeways are up to full standards, but all of those, except I-180, are still freeways. The section of I-10 in question has marked crossings, shields, arrows, and are not marked as "Authorized Vehicles Only". As such, it isn't a freeway and should not be marked as such.

There are several ranch access points on I-35 in the Flint Hills of Kansas; I only showed one.  These are not substandard ramps, because they are not considered exits; they have gated access points immediately off-highway (which you can even see in the GSV I linked to), it is impossible to pay a toll upon "exiting" or "entering," they are quite obviously private entrances.  Private entrances are by definition not allowed on freeways, yet things work a little differently in wide-open ranching country.  They knew that when the highways were built and designated, and people still know it.

Exceptions and anomalies are a part of the system.  And that's fine.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: sdmichael on September 23, 2016, 05:53:38 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 23, 2016, 05:29:04 PM
Quote from: sdmichael on September 23, 2016, 04:40:35 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 23, 2016, 04:19:41 PM
Quote from: sdmichael on September 23, 2016, 03:24:07 PM
Interstates are freeways.

Only as a generality.

I-35 south of Emporia, KS (https://goo.gl/maps/paD1CqXbUYD2)
Substandard ramp, still a freeway.

I-70 in Breezewood, PA (https://goo.gl/maps/k2v55wawmPv)

I-70 breaks and has an indirect connector - Isn't I-70 through Breezewood.

I-78 in Jersey City, NJ (https://goo.gl/maps/LVcTvdHyK3S2)
Unsigned and only a connection.

I-94 near Fort Custer, MI (https://goo.gl/maps/cWUDGooYP9S2)
Marked as "Authorized Vehicles Only" - common for maintenance/law enforcement and still a freeway

I-180 in Cheyenne, WY (https://goo.gl/maps/R3V7J65FM1K2)
An exception, and a poor one at that. Isn't a freeway at all. I-10 has a break in freeway status.

I-516 in Savannah, GA (https://goo.gl/maps/562Vtpu6uVr)
Not a grade crossing, just substandard ramps.

General rules get broken.  That's life.

Not sure what you're trying to show. Interstates are freeways. Not all freeways are up to full standards, but all of those, except I-180, are still freeways. The section of I-10 in question has marked crossings, shields, arrows, and are not marked as "Authorized Vehicles Only". As such, it isn't a freeway and should not be marked as such.

There are several ranch access points on I-35 in the Flint Hills of Kansas; I only showed one.  These are not substandard ramps, because they are not considered exits; they have gated access points immediately off-highway (which you can even see in the GSV I linked to), it is impossible to pay a toll upon "exiting" or "entering," they are quite obviously private entrances.  Private entrances are by definition not allowed on freeways, yet things work a little differently in wide-open ranching country.  They knew that when the highways were built and designated, and people still know it.

Exceptions and anomalies are a part of the system.  And that's fine.

So, they aren't freeways along that section. US 101, albeit not an Interstate, has many sections of expressway and freeway. As it is not an Interstate, it isn't a problem at all to have these breaks in freeway standard. All are usually fairly well marked when the freeway begins/ends. Why not apply the same to these Interstates? At-grade crossings, regardless of reasons given, make those sections expressways, not freeways. All Texas did by marking, paving, and signing those crossings was to downgrade a freeway yet further. If they warrant such markings, an overpass or two should be built and those crossings eliminated. Otherwise it rather dilutes the meaning of Interstate Freeway and freeways in general. One of the main points of their construction was to ELIMINATE grade crossings, not encourage them.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: kphoger on September 23, 2016, 05:59:24 PM
So you're proposing to deconstruct the Interstate highway system, such that I-10 and I-35 do not actually go cross-country anymore, just because of some driveways.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: sdmichael on September 23, 2016, 06:12:29 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 23, 2016, 05:59:24 PM
So you're proposing to deconstruct the Interstate highway system, such that I-10 and I-35 do not actually go cross-country anymore, just because of some driveways.

Umm... no. Texas, in keeping with the thread topic, has already done that with their paving, striping, and signing of grade crossings on an Interstate freeway. Those sections, not that they were before, are no longer freeways and no longer up to Interstate standards. Those sections may have been allowed on a temporary basis but what Texas did was to make something temporary look a whole lot more permanent. There are overpasses in remote areas in California and Texas. Why not do that and get it over with?
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: kphoger on September 23, 2016, 06:27:13 PM
Sorry, I was confusing your reaction with Bobby5280's.  He is the one who suggested decommissioning these stretches from the Interstate highway system.  You simply recommended additional signage.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: kkt on September 23, 2016, 06:38:50 PM
I don't think there are any interstates in California that are as remote as the west Texas ranch country.

Maybe the bigger question is, Is it appropriate that interstate standards call for no grade crossings?  Maybe the standards should allow interstates with right on/right off ranch access anywhere AADT is low and it's a long way between overpasses.  Heck, maybe they should allow super 2's.  That would sure have save a lot of money building I-29 in North Dakota and I-15 in Montana, which could be used instead expanding capacity where it's needed.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: dfwmapper on September 23, 2016, 09:14:03 PM
Quote from: sdmichael on September 23, 2016, 03:24:07 PM
By putting up lights/signs warning of the grade crossings, you've now acknowledged the roadway no longer being a freeway. Interstates are freeways. Marking the crossings with warnings now treats the roadway as an expressway and should have additional signs such as "End Freeway" and "Cross Traffic Ahead".
Texas doesn't have any state laws that define different classes of roads (i.e. freeways, expressways, and whatnot), nor does it treat state highways that would be generally recognized as freeways any different than any other state highway. Such signs just are not used here, and would almost certainly require a change in state law to start using, and there's really no interest in doing that.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: Avalanchez71 on September 23, 2016, 11:16:52 PM
I just recalled that there are also direct driveway connections on I-40 in North Carolina in the mountains as well.
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6971424,-83.045212,3a,75y,29.66h,79.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-1m8V-KTTgSEtGWnm8jj2g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6971424,-83.045212,3a,75y,29.66h,79.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-1m8V-KTTgSEtGWnm8jj2g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7233063,-83.0266453,3a,75y,128.95h,80.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCvz_4FGVe0Cgi9nQNTlMWQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7233063,-83.0266453,3a,75y,128.95h,80.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCvz_4FGVe0Cgi9nQNTlMWQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: US 41 on September 23, 2016, 11:31:10 PM
I feel like a lot of you have never been to western Texas before. If you had been, then you would understand why there are a couple of at-grades on the interstates out there. There are probably 3 people (if that) that use these side roads per day and you can see forever out there (it is extremely flat and there are no trees; just dry dirt, cacti, and some dead weeds). I think it would be a waste of time and money to build an interchange or overpass for these little dirt side roads.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: dfwmapper on September 24, 2016, 12:05:35 AM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on September 23, 2016, 11:16:52 PM
I just recalled that there are also direct driveway connections on I-40 in North Carolina in the mountains as well.
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6971424,-83.045212,3a,75y,29.66h,79.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-1m8V-KTTgSEtGWnm8jj2g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.6971424,-83.045212,3a,75y,29.66h,79.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s-1m8V-KTTgSEtGWnm8jj2g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7233063,-83.0266453,3a,75y,128.95h,80.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCvz_4FGVe0Cgi9nQNTlMWQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.7233063,-83.0266453,3a,75y,128.95h,80.89t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCvz_4FGVe0Cgi9nQNTlMWQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
Judging just from streetview, those also seem to have hundreds of times heavier traffic volumes than what the handful of driveways in west Texas have, as well as significantly worse sightlines, shoulders, and clear space.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: In_Correct on September 24, 2016, 02:57:22 AM
Quote from: kphoger...

Your signature says "Keep right except to pass. Yes. You." do you really mean that? because slowing down to a complete stop to make a left turn on the passing lane of an Interstate which is SUPPOSED to be controlled access but is not controlled access ... sounds like it would annoy you.

Quote from: kphogerOf 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.

You should be upset about all the other things that your tax dollars are funding, things that really are wasteful. Other nations do not appear to have this system in place. They build and upgrade roads without hesitation.

Quote from: kphogerI suppose seeming to "justify doing something" is a fuzzy issue when it comes to things like this, keeping in mind what I said earlier about the data not even stating the accidents were in any way related to the crossover.  But one thing I'm certain of is that you could find other highway intersections in Texas that see more accidents and fatal accidents than this one–i.e., justifying doing something drastically more than at this location.  Unless you live in a world where "fix everything" is a viable option, I'd rather keep spending the money elsewhere.

That is exactly what some of these other nations appear to do. They "Fix Everything".

Quote from: kphogerExceptions and anomalies are a part of the system.  And that's fine.

No it is not fine. I have to drive these roads as well. And unlike the general population. I appreciate and actually like my cars. I do not consider cars to be disposable even though everybody else does. Even though I pay very close attention to the road conditions, I still want them as safe as possible. There are piles of things that Tax Dollars are wasted on. And many of those things aren't even related to infrastructure. They should make the Interstate Highway System as controlled access as possible, but much more "important" things happen today: such as counting all the smashed cars and dead people, and everybody else concerned about wasteful tax spending when it only applies to infrastructure.

I-10 is a nationwide Interstate highway. Texas has a reputation for high quality roads. This "anomaly" is an embarrassment for both Texas and the U.S.A.'s longest Interstate Highway.

Perhaps they should build / convert more toll roads or fund the Interstate projects without tax dollars.

Quote from: US 41 on September 23, 2016, 11:31:10 PM
I feel like a lot of you have never been to western Texas before. If you had been, then you would understand why there are a couple of at-grades on the interstates out there. There are probably 3 people (if that) that use these side roads per day and you can see forever out there (it is extremely flat and there are no trees; just dry dirt, cacti, and some dead weeds). I think it would be a waste of time and money to build an interchange or overpass for these little dirt side roads.

Perhaps it would be cheaper for TX DOT to purchase the invading ranches and then there would be no need for the Intersections. And then they would not even have to worry about having to build bridges for them. And then I-10 can still call itself I-10.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: kphoger on September 24, 2016, 01:18:17 PM
Quote from: In_Correct on September 24, 2016, 02:57:22 AM
Your signature says "Keep right except to pass. Yes. You." do you really mean that? because slowing down to a complete stop to make a left turn on the passing lane of an Interstate which is SUPPOSED to be controlled access but is not controlled access ... sounds like it would annoy you.

No, I am in favor of allowing left turns.  I'm also in favor of passing on the left, moving to the left for emergency vehicles, etc.  Good grief, you're really reaching, there.  Have you ever even read the keep-right laws for the states that have them?  There are exceptions written into them, because common sense exists.  FWIW, if these west Texas intersections were in Mexico, the local rancher would pull off onto the right shoulder, wait for both directions of traffic to clear, and then make his left turn.  This setup actually both allows the left turn and keeps slower traffic to the right.

Quote from: In_Correct on September 24, 2016, 02:57:22 AM
You should be upset about all the other things that your tax dollars are funding, things that really are wasteful. Other nations do not appear to have this system in place. They build and upgrade roads without hesitation. [...] these other nations appear to ... "Fix Everything".

Who said I'm not concerned about other wasteful spending?  Just because other wasteful spending concerns me, that doesn't mean this particular wasteful spending would not concern me.  And just because other nations appear to have bottomless pockets, that doesn't mean the USA has bottomless pockets.  But I'm not quite sure what nations you're talking about anyway, because no other nation has Interstate highways for you to compare ours to.  Are you suggesting there are other nations that have divided freeways across wide-empty ranch land and are currently in the process of removing all remnants of local ranch access to said freeways?  If so, please let us know which ones so we can make a fair assessment of your claim.

Quote from: In_Correct on September 24, 2016, 02:57:22 AM
And unlike the general population, I appreciate and actually like my cars. I do not consider cars to be disposable even though everybody else does. Even though I pay very close attention to the road conditions, I still want them as safe as possible.

Please don't suggest things about me that aren't true.  I was just in a car accident on Monday morning, and my car has been deemed a total loss.  This is a vehicle I drove 700 miles with my family to go buy back in February.  I am now in the process of navigating my way through insurance to get a new vehicle.  I value my vehicle, and I do not consider it disposable.  I want safe roads too.  But my point is that these ranch access points are safe.

Quote from: In_Correct on September 24, 2016, 02:57:22 AM
There are piles of things that Tax Dollars are wasted on. And many of those things aren't even related to infrastructure. They should make the Interstate Highway System as controlled access as possible, but much more "important" things happen today: such as counting all the smashed cars and dead people, and everybody else concerned about wasteful tax spending when it only applies to infrastructure.

Are you saying that counting wrecks and fatalities is a waste of tax money, or are you saying it's something that should happen.  Well, it does happen, and it is important.  If nobody counts those things, then there's no way of knowing where the money would be best spent.  If intersection A has twelve accidents a year and four of them had fatalities, while intersection B has two accidents that year with zero fatalities, then that's useful information for the state to know when it comes to funding highway projects.  The state is responsible for spending its money wisely on the safety of all highways, not just Interstates.  And, beyond that, if section X of an Interstate has higher crash rates than section Y of the same Interstate, then that's useful information as well.

Quote from: In_Correct on September 24, 2016, 02:57:22 AM
I-10 is a nationwide Interstate highway. Texas has a reputation for high quality roads. This "anomaly" is an embarrassment for both Texas and the U.S.A.'s longest Interstate Highway.

I'm not so sure Texas is all that embarrassed about it.

Quote from: In_Correct on September 24, 2016, 02:57:22 AM
I have to drive these roads as well.
Quote from: In_Correct on September 24, 2016, 02:57:22 AM
Quote from: US 41 on September 23, 2016, 11:31:10 PM
I feel like a lot of you have never been to western Texas before. If you had been, then you would understand why there are a couple of at-grades on the interstates out there. There are probably 3 people (if that) that use these side roads per day and you can see forever out there (it is extremely flat and there are no trees; just dry dirt, cacti, and some dead weeds). I think it would be a waste of time and money to build an interchange or overpass for these little dirt side roads.

Perhaps it would be cheaper for TX DOT to purchase the invading ranches and then there would be no need for the Intersections. And then they would not even have to worry about having to build bridges for them. And then I-10 can still call itself I-10.

(1) So do you drive or have you driven in west Texas?  I have driven several times between the Panhandle and Big Bend, although it was more than 15 years ago.  I currently drive from Wichita Falls to (and past) the Mexican border at Del Rio and back annually, though I don't know if that counts as "west" or not.  Your profile says you live in Texas, so you may be more familiar with these specific areas than I am.  Have you ever seen traffic using these access points?  Have you ever seen conflicts arise?

(2) Do you really think it's going to go over well in west Texas for the state to use eminent domain to buy ranch land in order to not build anything at a location where fatal accidents are not happening?  By the way, I-10 can still call itself I-10.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: Bobby5280 on September 24, 2016, 03:08:20 PM
Quote from: kphogerSorry, I was confusing your reaction with Bobby5280's.  He is the one who suggested decommissioning these stretches from the Interstate highway system.

And I stand by that. Those stretches of road shouldn't be identified on maps or via signage as freeways if they're not freeways. Interstates are meant to be exclusively limited access highways. If DOT's want to play fast and loose with the rules, installing driveways willy nilly for any rancher that wants one or just keeping at grade intersections rather than replacing them with exits or removing them entirely then we might as well go back to having a regular US highway system rather than an Interstate system. This country seems to be headed that direction anyway with all the damned price inflation in road construction projects, making things like freeways too expensive to build at all.

The at grades make those parts of I-10 and I-40 no better than the OK-7 four lane road between Lawton and Duncan. But with the notable exception that OK-7 at least has some damned turn lanes so if you need to slow down to make a left turn you're not doing it in the 70mph left/passing lane and risking getting ass ended by someone not paying enough attention behind you.

I've been in a bad rear-end collision before. It totaled my Camaro and I was in physical therapy for weeks dealing with my neck and back. And that was just from some idiot running into the back of my car when I was turning onto my own street. It would be a whole lot worse getting rear ended by someone doing 80mph on an Interstate.

Quote from: Avalanchez71I just recalled that there are also direct driveway connections on I-40 in North Carolina in the mountains as well.
https://goo.gl/pSB4mK

That driveway definitely violates Interstate standards, as well as violating normal highway standards as well since there are no signs at all indicating that upcoming turn around that blind curve. I'm sure drivers actually trying to use that road have missed the turn plenty of times. Of course, there is one BIG difference between this "driveway" and the crap going on in West Texas: a big concrete Jersey barrier blocking any possible left turns. With some modest modifications, like at least adding some kind of turn bay and proper traffic signage it could be turned into a partial exit not much different in appearance than this exit on I-25 near Trinidad, CO.
https://goo.gl/DN4PXz

Quote from: US 41I feel like a lot of you have never been to western Texas before. If you had been, then you would understand why there are a couple of at-grades on the interstates out there. There are probably 3 people (if that) that use these side roads per day and you can see forever out there (it is extremely flat and there are no trees; just dry dirt, cacti, and some dead weeds). I think it would be a waste of time and money to build an interchange or overpass for these little dirt side roads.

I have driven in the Texas Panhandle lots of times. The stretches of I-40 and I-10 that have those at-grade turns are not on perfectly pancake flat land. In the Panhandle when you get close to the New Mexico border the land goes from being flat with occasional river and creek valleys to lots of modest dips, rises and grassy rolling hills.

That stuff drove me nuts when US-64/US-87 was just a 2-lane highway going to Raton. It was tough to pass anyone. The terrain made it seem like you could see forever, but all those little undulations in the land did a great job hiding oncoming traffic. It really sucked if there was slow poke up ahead. RV's were the worst. There would be a train's length worth of traffic stuck behind it. It's so much better now being 4-laned. And while it's not an Interstate, at least the at grade left turns have turn bays for deceleration (unlike the crap on I-10 & I-40).

If probably only 3 people use those at-grade turns a day (if even that), why is TX DOT wasting money creating and maintaining the driveways there? In the case of the ones on I-40 near the NM border there are other roads on that property running parallel to I-40 and connecting to other roads in the area.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: kphoger on September 24, 2016, 03:44:18 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 24, 2016, 03:08:20 PM
Those stretches of road shouldn't be identified ... via signage as freeways if they're not freeways

They are not identified via signage as freeways.  They are identified as Interstate highways.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 24, 2016, 03:08:20 PM
Interstates are meant to be exclusively limited access highways.

To be nitpicky, these stretches are limited-access, in that access is limited to only a few points.  What they are not is fully controlled-access, which is what I'm assuming you meant.  I just want you to be aware that there is a difference.  Limited-access is not synonymous with controlled-access.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 24, 2016, 03:08:20 PM
If DOT's want to play fast and loose with the rules, installing driveways willy nilly for any rancher that wants one ...

Were I-10 and I-40 not already divided highways through here when they were designated as Interstates?  I'm not up on the history.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 24, 2016, 03:08:20 PM
... or just keeping at grade intersections rather than replacing them with exits or removing them entirely then we might as well go back to having a regular US highway system rather than an Interstate system.

Having a very limited number of driveway access points (especially in the boonies) on a highway network that's 99.99% controlled-access is certainly not the same as not having an Interstate highway system at all.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 24, 2016, 03:08:20 PM
The at grades make those parts of I-10 and I-40 no better than the OK-7 four lane road between Lawton and Duncan. But with the notable exception that OK-7 at least has some damned turn lanes so if you need to slow down to make a left turn you're not doing it in the 70mph left/passing lane and risking getting ass ended by someone not paying enough attention behind you.

What??  Not even close!  On OK-7, there are public cross roads intersecting at grade pretty much every mile.  I-10 in Texas is controlled-access with a very few ranch access points that almost nobody uses.  "No better" is not a valid way to describe it.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 24, 2016, 03:08:20 PM
I've been in a bad rear-end collision before. It totaled my Camaro and I was in physical therapy for weeks dealing with my neck and back. And that was just from some idiot running into the back of my car when I was turning onto my own street. It would be a whole lot worse getting rear ended by someone doing 80mph on an Interstate.

Yes, it would be much worse.  And, if this sort of thing were actually happening there, then I'd see reason to remove the ranch access.  However, absent any evidence that it's happening there, I don't see any reason.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 24, 2016, 03:08:20 PM
If probably only 3 people use those at-grade turns a day (if even that), why is TX DOT wasting money creating and maintaining the driveways there? In the case of the ones on I-40 near the NM border there are other roads on that property running parallel to I-40 and connecting to other roads in the area.

I assume this it was part of the deal when it was designated an Interstate–a reasonable compromise that might not be made if it happened today instead of back then.  A bigger question to ask might be this:  who maintains the roads that run parallel to the Interstate (in the cases where there is such a road)?
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: sdmichael on September 24, 2016, 03:52:27 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 24, 2016, 03:44:18 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 24, 2016, 03:08:20 PM
Those stretches of road shouldn't be identified ... via signage as freeways if they're not freeways

They are not identified via signage as freeways.  They are identified as Interstate highways.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 24, 2016, 03:08:20 PM
Interstates are meant to be exclusively limited access highways.

To be nitpicky, these stretches are limited-access, in that access is limited to only a few points.  What they are not is fully controlled-access, which is what I'm assuming you meant.  I just want you to be aware that there is a difference.  Limited-access is not synonymous with controlled-access.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 24, 2016, 03:08:20 PM
If DOT's want to play fast and loose with the rules, installing driveways willy nilly for any rancher that wants one ...

Were I-10 and I-40 not already divided highways through here when they were designated as Interstates?  I'm not up on the history.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 24, 2016, 03:08:20 PM
... or just keeping at grade intersections rather than replacing them with exits or removing them entirely then we might as well go back to having a regular US highway system rather than an Interstate system.

Having a very limited number of driveway access points (especially in the boonies) on a highway network that's 99.99% controlled-access is certainly not the same as not having an Interstate highway system at all.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 24, 2016, 03:08:20 PM
The at grades make those parts of I-10 and I-40 no better than the OK-7 four lane road between Lawton and Duncan. But with the notable exception that OK-7 at least has some damned turn lanes so if you need to slow down to make a left turn you're not doing it in the 70mph left/passing lane and risking getting ass ended by someone not paying enough attention behind you.

What??  Not even close!  On OK-7, there are public cross roads intersecting at grade pretty much every mile.  I-10 in Texas is controlled-access with a very few ranch access points that almost nobody uses.  "No better" is not a valid way to describe it.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 24, 2016, 03:08:20 PM
I've been in a bad rear-end collision before. It totaled my Camaro and I was in physical therapy for weeks dealing with my neck and back. And that was just from some idiot running into the back of my car when I was turning onto my own street. It would be a whole lot worse getting rear ended by someone doing 80mph on an Interstate.

Yes, it would be much worse.  And, if this sort of thing were actually happening there, then I'd see reason to remove the ranch access.  However, absent any evidence that it's happening there, I don't see any reason.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 24, 2016, 03:08:20 PM
If probably only 3 people use those at-grade turns a day (if even that), why is TX DOT wasting money creating and maintaining the driveways there? In the case of the ones on I-40 near the NM border there are other roads on that property running parallel to I-40 and connecting to other roads in the area.

I assume this it was part of the deal when it was designated an Interstate–a reasonable compromise that might not be made if it happened today instead of back then.  A bigger question to ask might be this:  who maintains the roads that run parallel to the Interstate (in the cases where there is such a road)?

So, you'd rather wait for a potentially fatal collision than correct the problem? Why are so many other states spending millions of dollars for freeway upgrades when Texas proudly downgrades their Interstates to expressways, still calling them an Interstate? It may have been a "reasonable compromise" at the time as a TEMPORARY measure, not permanent. When I drive a freeway, the LAST thing I expect to see or deal with is cross traffic. It is the WHOLE POINT of having a freeway - no cross traffic!
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: kphoger on September 24, 2016, 06:37:40 PM
We're these highways downgraded? I was under the impression the ranch access points had been there a long time. When we're they added to the existing Interstate freeways?

And yes, I'd rather not spend money fixing a problem that doesn't exist.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: kkt on September 24, 2016, 07:49:16 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 24, 2016, 03:08:20 PM
installing driveways willy nilly for any rancher that wants one

To be fair, I don't think Texas is installing new driveways.  Ranches that already had driveways into the predecessor route of I-10 still needed access.  Saying access had to be by dirt road 30 miles to the next interchange would be seen by the courts as a chargeable loss of use of that ranch land, so the state would either have to buy the ranch or pay for a good frontage road.

Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: kphoger on September 24, 2016, 08:06:38 PM
Two questions, though...

(1) Who said people were being fair in this discussion?

(2) Why does my phone insist I mean "we're" instead of "were"?
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: sdmichael on September 24, 2016, 08:37:47 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 24, 2016, 06:37:40 PM
We're these highways downgraded? I was under the impression the ranch access points had been there a long time. When we're they added to the existing Interstate freeways?

And yes, I'd rather not spend money fixing a problem that doesn't exist.

Yes, they were. They went from a "temporary" and unpaved situation to a paved, signed, and more permanent situation. There are many instances when a pre-existing access point on an expressway  was removed and replaced with either an interchange or some other access other than a grade-crossing. A freeway doesn't have grade crossings. It is a part of the very definition.

Images posted on this very thread show this condition. I, for one, would prefer to not have someone die when they death could have well been averted. When you take a freeway without grade crossings and add grade crossings, you no longer have a freeway. It is an expressway, pure and simple. A very simple underpass and overpass could easily be built at a couple of the locations, regardless of the amount of traffic. It only takes ONE collision to kill someone, and that only takes TWO vehicles.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: Rick Powell on September 24, 2016, 09:49:15 PM
Quote from: mwb1848 on September 22, 2016, 01:51:55 PM
The numbers are back for the above request.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi907.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fac274%2Fmartinbartlett%2FAt%2520Grade%2520Crossing_zps1t79ijt8.png&hash=eb6bde73bfd921ae9cfa09384fd2353442f97a86) (http://s907.photobucket.com/user/martinbartlett/media/At%20Grade%20Crossing_zps1t79ijt8.png.html)

Without the corresponding police reports, we really know nothing except a crash occurred within the section. Could be a car being sideswiped, hitting an animal, running off the road and having property damage just over the state reporting threshold. It could be that all, none, or somewhere in between of these crashes had anything to do with a user of the crossing road.  Just sayin' - I have done a lot of highway safety studies, and you really need the background info to go anywhere with a conclusion on causation.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: dfwmapper on September 25, 2016, 12:17:40 AM
Quote from: sdmichael on September 24, 2016, 08:37:47 PM
Yes, they were. They went from a "temporary" and unpaved situation to a paved, signed, and more permanent situation. There are many instances when a pre-existing access point on an expressway  was removed and replaced with either an interchange or some other access other than a grade-crossing. A freeway doesn't have grade crossings. It is a part of the very definition.
There are a shitton of freeways out there that don't meet current Interstate guidelines and cause actual safety problems (looking at you urban Interstates in California where the inside shoulder is 3 inches of yellow paint and however far up you can drive up the K-rail), but sure, spend your time complaining about a few driveways with minimal traffic on low-volume rural Interstates. The simple answer is that there's nothing under Texas law that prohibits them, and the sections were approved as part of the Interstate Highway System by AASHTO or AASHO or whatever agency was in charge at the time. If/when an actual issue presents itself, then something will be done about it.
QuoteImages posted on this very thread show this condition. I, for one, would prefer to not have someone die when they death could have well been averted. When you take a freeway without grade crossings and add grade crossings, you no longer have a freeway. It is an expressway, pure and simple. A very simple underpass and overpass could easily be built at a couple of the locations, regardless of the amount of traffic. It only takes ONE collision to kill someone, and that only takes TWO vehicles.
Great, just pull a few million bucks out of your ass and make the check out to the State of Texas and I'm sure we can get them right on it.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: Brian556 on September 25, 2016, 12:21:51 AM
Historical Info: If you look at the old US 290 sections parallel to I-10, you will see that they are two lane. Also, a quick check of the Official 1958 Texas Highway Map shows now divided sections on US 290, which is what I expected. 
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: sdmichael on September 25, 2016, 12:31:42 AM
Quote from: dfwmapper on September 25, 2016, 12:17:40 AM
Quote from: sdmichael on September 24, 2016, 08:37:47 PM
Yes, they were. They went from a "temporary" and unpaved situation to a paved, signed, and more permanent situation. There are many instances when a pre-existing access point on an expressway  was removed and replaced with either an interchange or some other access other than a grade-crossing. A freeway doesn't have grade crossings. It is a part of the very definition.
There are a shitton of freeways out there that don't meet current Interstate guidelines and cause actual safety problems (looking at you urban Interstates in California where the inside shoulder is 3 inches of yellow paint and however far up you can drive up the K-rail), but sure, spend your time complaining about a few driveways with minimal traffic on low-volume rural Interstates. The simple answer is that there's nothing under Texas law that prohibits them, and the sections were approved as part of the Interstate Highway System by AASHTO or AASHO or whatever agency was in charge at the time. If/when an actual issue presents itself, then something will be done about it.
QuoteImages posted on this very thread show this condition. I, for one, would prefer to not have someone die when they death could have well been averted. When you take a freeway without grade crossings and add grade crossings, you no longer have a freeway. It is an expressway, pure and simple. A very simple underpass and overpass could easily be built at a couple of the locations, regardless of the amount of traffic. It only takes ONE collision to kill someone, and that only takes TWO vehicles.
Great, just pull a few million bucks out of your ass and make the check out to the State of Texas and I'm sure we can get them right on it.

Great. Do any of those substandard Interstates you mention have at-grade crossing? They don't. Big difference. I-10 is an expressway, not a freeway through the section in question. How is this not understood?
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: Bobby5280 on September 25, 2016, 12:41:18 AM
Quote from: kphogerThey are not identified via signage as freeways.  They are identified as Interstate highways.

Same Goddamned thing. If it has any at-grade intersections it has zero business being called an Interstate. And, yeah, pull that I-180 phony baloney out of Cheyenne too by the way.

Quote from: kphogerHaving a very limited number of driveway access points (especially in the boonies) on a highway network that's 99.99% controlled-access is certainly not the same as not having an Interstate highway system at all.

When the Interstate highway system was still "in progress" of being built between the 1950's and 1970's there was no problem having portions of I-10 or I-40 being labeled as such and the non-Interstate quality segments just being called US-66 or whatever the hell. Motorists got along just fine with that.

Those sections of I-10 and I-40 just never got finished. They still have bullshit driveways running off of them. And at least in the case of the ones on I-40 there is zero justification for them since other roadways on that private property already serve the area. If you're really worried about saving taxpayer money then why in the living hell should TX DOT maintain some damned driveways in the sticks off I-40 when the property owner already has his own roads on his own property that seem to be doing just as good? Get rid of the damned things!

As long as the driveways are still there those parts of the highways are NOT Interstate quality.

Quote from: kphoger
What??  Not even close!  On OK-7, there are public cross roads intersecting at grade pretty much every mile.  I-10 in Texas is controlled-access with a very few ranch access points that almost nobody uses.  "No better" is not a valid way to describe it.

Why don't you back up there a bit since you're conveniently trying to have it both ways.

Earlier you griped about my complaints that those at grade intersections on I-40 were a hazard if the general public used them. Public access, right?

If any regular motorist on I-40 is using those at-grade intersections to make a convenient U-turn, quick stop or whatever he is absolutely posing a damned hazard to other high speed 80mph motorists going down the road NOT expecting to come up upon someone stopping to make an idiotic turn in the middle of what's supposed to be a LIMITED ACCESS FREEWAY. Maybe no one has got killed so far with this lunatic road design, but at some point some motorist or multiple people absolutely will get killed. It is a dangerous, sub-standard highway design.

And yes, it absolutely does SUCK compared to a normal 4 lane expressway design with at grade crossings. At least OK-7 and other roads like it have features built into the highway to account for the traffic movements. These idiotic, dangerous at-grades on I-10 and I-40 pretend to be a freeway while providing the cheapness of a 4-lane divided street. It's the worst of both worlds.

Quote from: kktTo be fair, I don't think Texas is installing new driveways.  Ranches that already had driveways into the predecessor route of I-10 still needed access.  Saying access had to be by dirt road 30 miles to the next interchange would be seen by the courts as a chargeable loss of use of that ranch land, so the state would either have to buy the ranch or pay for a good frontage road.

Nice exaggeration there, but it's not any 30 miles to the next interchange. Nevertheless, if it's so damned important to maintain taxpayer funded driveways for ranchers directly on and off I-10 and I-40 in those part of West Texas then those little segments of I-10 and I-40 do not need to be identified as Interstate highways. For the safety of the general public they should be downgraded to ordinary 4 lane expressways with at-grade intersections until the taxpayers want to get rid of those driveways in some manner, be it frontage roads, exits or just living with certain parts of those Interstates not really being Interstates. Basically I-90 would be the only true coast to coast Interstate. The others are bullshit.

Quote from: sdmichaelGreat, just pull a few million bucks out of your ass and make the check out to the State of Texas and I'm sure we can get them right on it.

Nah, better yet, just remove the I-10 and I-40 designations of those segments of non-Interstate quality highway. No cost to taxpayers there. But it will aggravate road geeks nationwide I'm sure. Nevertheless, those parts of the highway are not Interstate quality.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: wxfree on September 25, 2016, 12:55:11 AM
Looking at further information, I've found that removals of three grade crossings are the top three priorities of the El Paso district rural transportation plan.  This plan includes only rural areas, so it ignores El Paso which is within an MPO area.  The top three rural priorities are listed for each district.  Elsewhere in the district, some designated trunk highways need four-laning for technical reasons, but that mostly isn't warranted at this time, so the I-10 intersections get priority.

The top three are: 4.7 mi E of FM 34, 0.9 mi W of Laska Road (Exit 99), and 2.1 mi W of Laska Road (Exit 99).  These three are all ranked at 461 of about 630 rankings statewide.  They're the top three in the district because that district doesn't have many rural needs.  Ten of the 11 in the list are grade crossing eliminations.  They're on TxDOT's radar, but are not high priorities.  Since they're all private roads, I would assume that they're basically used only by people who've used them before, so they would likely know not to slow down for a turn in the left lane right in front of following traffic.  I expect left-turning drivers either put themselves at the front of a gap in traffic along the way, or stop on the right shoulder and make the turn when it's safe.

The source of the information is these documents: http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/tpp/rural_2035/report/0512/ (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/tpp/rural_2035/report/0512/)
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: sdmichael on September 25, 2016, 01:07:20 AM
Quote from: wxfree on September 25, 2016, 12:55:11 AM
Looking at further information, I've found that removals of three grade crossings are the top three priorities of the El Paso district rural transportation plan.  This plan includes only rural areas, so it ignores El Paso which is within an MPO area.  The top three rural priorities are listed for each district.  Elsewhere in the district, some designated trunk highways need four-laning for technical reasons, but that mostly isn't warranted at this time, so the I-10 intersections get priority.

The top three are: 4.7 mi E of FM 34, 0.9 mi W of Laska Road (Exit 99), and 2.1 mi W of Laska Road (Exit 99).  These three are all ranked at 461 of about 630 rankings statewide.  They're the top three in the district because that district doesn't have many rural needs.  Ten of the 11 in the list are grade crossing eliminations.  They're on TxDOT's radar, but are not high priorities.  Since they're all private roads, I would assume that they're basically used only by people who've used them before, so they would likely know not to slow down for a turn in the left lane right in front of following traffic.  I expect left-turning drivers either put themselves at the front of a gap in traffic along the way, or stop on the right shoulder and make the turn when it's safe.

The source of the information is these documents: http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/tpp/rural_2035/report/0512/ (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/tpp/rural_2035/report/0512/)

That is good to hear. While some on here seem to think it isn't an issue, it does appear that TxDOT does, which is a good thing. They can, and apparently will, do something about it as they DO see it as a safety issue.

My issue isn't, however, with the locals that know the crossings are there. My issue is with those that find out about them and use them, when most passing through never expect them in the first place.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: kkt on September 25, 2016, 02:14:04 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 25, 2016, 12:41:18 AM
Nice exaggeration there, but it's not any 30 miles to the next interchange. Nevertheless, if it's so damned important to maintain taxpayer funded driveways for ranchers directly on and off I-10 and I-40 in those part of West Texas then those little segments of I-10 and I-40 do not need to be identified as Interstate highways. For the safety of the general public they should be downgraded to ordinary 4 lane expressways with at-grade intersections until the taxpayers want to get rid of those driveways in some manner, be it frontage roads, exits or just living with certain parts of those Interstates not really being Interstates. Basically I-90 would be the only true coast to coast Interstate. The others are bullshit.

There are lots and lots of waivered sections of interstates.  No shoulder or too narrow shoulder, insufficient sightlines, left entrances or exits, etc., etc.  Should we take away interstate signs from all of them?  There probably wouldn't be a single interstate left untouched.  The ranch exits in west Texas are nowhere near the most dangerous of them.

As an intermediate step, the ranch exits could be changed to right on-right off, with merge lanes.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: jwolfer on September 25, 2016, 02:25:32 PM
I hope the posters with their panties  all in a wad live in Colorado or another state with recreational marijuana.  They need some relaxation! Of course without driving

But the bigger question is what are FritzOwls plans for these sections. Maybe we could make those ranch access roads into 3dis with five level stack interchanges instead of driveways😂

All the concern about safety, I am sure Texas has many intersections on other roads that are more dangerous and warrant safety improvements before adding an interchange or even spending money closing the mostly never used access points.

Changing signage from the familiar red white  and blue would just confuse some people driving along the road  to point of slamming on brakes because the think they are on the wrong road, and perhaps ironically using these crossings to make an illegal u turn or drive into the desert and die from exposure. It would probably be a similar number to the current accidents caused by the current configuration

Maybe to give some comfort and succor to those upset by the crossing situation on rural interstates, Texas could slap a "TO" banner on top of the shield assembly.

Furthermore it seems that as traffic counts are increasing Texas is already planning to remove these abominations
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: Bobby5280 on September 25, 2016, 07:57:24 PM
Quote from: kktThere are lots and lots of waivered sections of interstates.  No shoulder or too narrow shoulder, insufficient sightlines, left entrances or exits, etc., etc.  Should we take away interstate signs from all of them?  There probably wouldn't be a single interstate left untouched.

Interstate highways don't get left as-is when they were first signed as Interstates decades ago. They're really a work in progress. The government changes regulations on highway design periodically and the states have to comply with that. If some state wants to keep a section of Interstate in 1970's era quality or ignore other new safety regulations then it shouldn't be signed as an Interstate.

I've seen a lot of work get done to the Interstates and other highways here in Oklahoma over the past few years. They've modified the shoulders, added cable barriers or Jersey barriers, changed the design of guard rails, changed sign structures, adopted Clearview on signs then went back to Series Gothic, etc.

It's more and more difficult for a new road to be signed as an Interstate highway. There's sections of 100% limited access highway waiting to be signed as Interstates in other parts of the country but aren't signed yet because the states aren't finished making the mandated improvements to the roads. Meanwhile those sections of I-10 and I-40 just get a pass on all that regulation.

Quote from: kktThe ranch exits in west Texas are nowhere near the most dangerous of them.

Which ones are the most dangerous?

Quote from: jwolferAll the concern about safety, I am sure Texas has many intersections on other roads that are more dangerous and warrant safety improvements before adding an interchange or even spending money closing the mostly never used access points.

I don't want interchanges or exits. I just want the driveways onto I-10 and I-40 removed. In the case of I-40, frontage roads already line most of that Interstate in the panhandle. I don't know why TX DOT didn't just build the frontage roads all the way to the NM border. Worst case scenario: they could build partial frontage roads the length of a rest area stop to serve these driveways. This approach is being put to use on I-69 in South Texas. The same thing can be used on I-10 and I-40.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: J N Winkler on September 25, 2016, 09:21:44 PM
Quote from: kkt on September 24, 2016, 07:49:16 PMTo be fair, I don't think Texas is installing new driveways.  Ranches that already had driveways into the predecessor route of I-10 still needed access.  Saying access had to be by dirt road 30 miles to the next interchange would be seen by the courts as a chargeable loss of use of that ranch land, so the state would either have to buy the ranch or pay for a good frontage road.

As I understand it, the ranch accesses on Interstates in west Texas are a legacy of Dewitt C. Greer's "interregional highways" policy, the original plan being that few if any overpasses would be built to serve low traffic volumes.  BPR eventually asked Greer and his department to adhere to more stringent standards.

I do not agree that driveway closure would necessarily be construed as compensable denial of access even if the alternate route to the property were of significantly lower quality.  There is a long line of court decisions which hold that access must be paid for if it is taken, but the alternate access does not have to match the denied access in quality or convenience.  These cases were worked through in multiple states during their respective periods of early freeway construction.

Quote from: kphoger on September 24, 2016, 08:06:38 PMWhy does my phone insist I mean "we're" instead of "were"?

If you are thumb-typing on an unrooted Android phone and using Google Keyboard, then my suspicion is a recent update with a ham-fisted implementation of smart spaces and word prediction.  I have the same problem with my phone completing "its" as "it's."  The assumption at Google seems to be that anyone with an IQ of more than 90 (or the ability to form sentences with dependent clauses) must be treated like Harrison Bergeron unless he or she is Swyping, which seems to be the cue not to activate these "smart" functions that aren't.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: Brian556 on September 25, 2016, 11:42:53 PM
Meanwhile, in Florida, there is this overpass with no road. Just for property access:

https://www.google.com/maps/@28.781414,-81.9721636,198m/data=!3m1!1e3 (https://www.google.com/maps/@28.781414,-81.9721636,198m/data=!3m1!1e3)
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: aboges26 on September 26, 2016, 12:25:50 AM
Quote from: Brian556 on September 25, 2016, 11:42:53 PM
Meanwhile, in Florida, there is this overpass with no road. Just for property access:

https://www.google.com/maps/@28.781414,-81.9721636,198m/data=!3m1!1e3 (https://www.google.com/maps/@28.781414,-81.9721636,198m/data=!3m1!1e3)

That is odd that it has a sign saying "Bailey Road" but there is clearly no road on either side of it....
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: kkt on September 26, 2016, 01:35:12 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 25, 2016, 07:57:24 PM
Quote from: kktThere are lots and lots of waivered sections of interstates.  No shoulder or too narrow shoulder, insufficient sightlines, left entrances or exits, etc., etc.  Should we take away interstate signs from all of them?  There probably wouldn't be a single interstate left untouched.
Interstate highways don't get left as-is when they were first signed as Interstates decades ago. They're really a work in progress. The government changes regulations on highway design periodically and the states have to comply with that. If some state wants to keep a section of Interstate in 1970's era quality or ignore other new safety regulations then it shouldn't be signed as an Interstate.

Or else what?  What sections of interstate that either received waivers to be included or met requirements when they were included have had their signage removed because they don't meet current interstate requirements?

Quote
I've seen a lot of work get done to the Interstates and other highways here in Oklahoma over the past few years. They've modified the shoulders, added cable barriers or Jersey barriers, changed the design of guard rails, changed sign structures, adopted Clearview on signs then went back to Series Gothic, etc.

It's more and more difficult for a new road to be signed as an Interstate highway. There's sections of 100% limited access highway waiting to be signed as Interstates in other parts of the country but aren't signed yet because the states aren't finished making the mandated improvements to the roads. Meanwhile those sections of I-10 and I-40 just get a pass on all that regulation.

Yes, I realize it's now harder to get any deficient roadway signed as interstate than it used to be, but I haven't seen them remove existing interstates for not being updated.

Quote
Quote from: kktThe ranch exits in west Texas are nowhere near the most dangerous of them.
Which ones are the most dangerous?

Hm.  I-880 in Oakland features narrow lanes and no shoulders.  The Bay Bridge west span has no shoulders.  There are several bridges in Washington and other states that have lower clearance than would be allowed for new construction, and some of them are fracture-critical.

Quote
Quote from: jwolferAll the concern about safety, I am sure Texas has many intersections on other roads that are more dangerous and warrant safety improvements before adding an interchange or even spending money closing the mostly never used access points.
I don't want interchanges or exits. I just want the driveways onto I-10 and I-40 removed. In the case of I-40, frontage roads already line most of that Interstate in the panhandle. I don't know why TX DOT didn't just build the frontage roads all the way to the NM border. Worst case scenario: they could build partial frontage roads the length of a rest area stop to serve these driveways. This approach is being put to use on I-69 in South Texas. The same thing can be used on I-10 and I-40.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: TheStranger on September 26, 2016, 02:13:09 AM
Quote from: kkt on September 26, 2016, 01:35:12 AM

Yes, I realize it's now harder to get any deficient roadway signed as interstate than it used to be, but I haven't seen them remove existing interstates for not being updated.


Would current Business 80 in Sacramento between E Street and I-80/unsigned Route 244 be one example of this?

The current remaining section of Central Freeway in SF was once part of I-80 in the early 1960s, though it was removed from the route once the Western Freeway project was canceled.

The one-time I-580 in Omaha, Nebraska might fit this too, wasn't that signed?
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: jeffandnicole on September 26, 2016, 06:08:14 AM
Quote from: In_Correct on September 23, 2016, 12:21:56 AM
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.

Controlled access may reduce deaths, but it doesn't eliminate them. 
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: Avalanchez71 on September 26, 2016, 11:35:31 AM
Quote from: aboges26 on September 26, 2016, 12:25:50 AM
Quote from: Brian556 on September 25, 2016, 11:42:53 PM
Meanwhile, in Florida, there is this overpass with no road. Just for property access:

https://www.google.com/maps/@28.781414,-81.9721636,198m/data=!3m1!1e3 (https://www.google.com/maps/@28.781414,-81.9721636,198m/data=!3m1!1e3)

That is odd that it has a sign saying "Bailey Road" but there is clearly no road on either side of it....

They may have likely named the road on on the overpass as Bailey Rd.  So does the property owner get to access the Florida's Turnpike via the Okahumpka Service Plaza area?
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: Bobby5280 on September 26, 2016, 09:59:27 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280Interstate highways don't get left as-is when they were first signed as Interstates decades ago. They're really a work in progress. The government changes regulations on highway design periodically and the states have to comply with that. If some state wants to keep a section of Interstate in 1970's era quality or ignore other new safety regulations then it shouldn't be signed as an Interstate.
Quote from: kktOr else what?  What sections of interstate that either received waivers to be included or met requirements when they were included have had their signage removed because they don't meet current interstate requirements?

The "or else" part is the federal government denying federal funding on highway projects in that state. They do have some leverage on getting new standards adopted.

Quote from: kktThe ranch exits in west Texas are nowhere near the most dangerous of them.
Quote from: Bobby5280Which ones are the most dangerous?
Quote from: kktHm.  I-880 in Oakland features narrow lanes and no shoulders.  The Bay Bridge west span has no shoulders.  There are several bridges in Washington and other states that have lower clearance than would be allowed for new construction, and some of them are fracture-critical

Bridges are a difficult and lately a very expensive problem, but if the condition of a bridge deteriorates to a certain point it has to be closed and then re-built if possible. The I-35W bridge collapse in Minneapolis lit a fire under the butts of a lot of people. Here in Oklahoma a lot of bridges had to be repaired or replaced due to being fracture critical. Here in Lawton the I-44 and Cache Road interchange, which features some fairly big bridges, was mostly re-built due to that disaster in Minnesota.

Narrow lanes with litle if any shoulders are somewhat common on older, urban Interstate highways -especially elevated ones that are extremely expensive to replace. Those at-grade intersections in Texas wouldn't be nearly so expensive to remedy. In Oklahoma City the old, elevated section of I-40 going through downtown was demolished, with the new highway relocated a few blocks South.

Narrow lanes and smaller shoulders aren't necessarily all that dangerous on an urban freeway, provided the road carries a slower speed limit. But the risk is definitely there for vehicles to trade paint with each other.

The potential hazard of an at grade crossing on a rural Interstate with a 80mph speed limit is quite a bit more severe. Here in the Lawton area I've seen the aftermath of some pretty bad, fatal accidents where drivers made a left turn on divided highways without paying enough attention to oncoming traffic in the opposing lanes and got t-boned. Those were in 65mph or 70mph posted zones. At 80mph a vehicle is traveling nearly 120 feet per second. When you're looking at an approaching vehicle its speed can be deceptive. This effect is enhanced as speeds get faster.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: Brian556 on September 26, 2016, 10:10:16 PM
Quote from Bobby5380:
QuoteNarrow lanes and smaller shoulders aren't necessarily all that dangerous on an urban freeway, provided the road carries a slower speed limit. But the risk is definitely there for vehicles to trade paint with each other.

Take a look at this narrow bridge in Denton, Texas:https://www.google.com/maps/@33.2085462,-97.1618197,3a,75y,164.31h,61.76t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sBQ12N4YG4wKFVR3fXXE3_A!2e0!5s20121201T000000!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.2085462,-97.1618197,3a,75y,164.31h,61.76t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sBQ12N4YG4wKFVR3fXXE3_A!2e0!5s20121201T000000!7i13312!8i6656)

Once, a semi hit the wall on the right, which practically protrudes into the lane, went over the center divider, striking two oncoming vehicles. These deficiencies are indeed dangerous
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: Bobby5280 on September 27, 2016, 01:06:09 AM
As I said though, a bridge is quite a bit more of an expensive fix. That's old street view imagery by the way. The bridge was repaired, but the road wasn't widened much following that repair. OTOH, I-35E is going through a pretty big upgrade between Denton and Dallas. Those narrow shoulders probably won't be there for much longer.

Those at grade crossings farther west are much less expensive to remedy.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: Brian556 on September 27, 2016, 01:16:16 AM
Quote from Bobby5280:
QuoteAs I said though, a bridge is quite a bit more of an expensive fix. That's old street view imagery by the way. The bridge was repaired, but the road wasn't widened much following that repair. OTOH, I-35E is going through a pretty big upgrade between Denton and Dallas. Those narrow shoulders probably won't be there for much longer.

Those at grade crossings farther west are much less expensive to remedy.

I know it's old imagery. I had to use the "turn back time" feature to get it. I live near I-35E near Lewisville Lake, so I keep up well with the project
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: kphoger on September 27, 2016, 12:45:03 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 25, 2016, 12:41:18 AM
Quote from: kphoger
What??  Not even close!  On OK-7, there are public cross roads intersecting at grade pretty much every mile.  I-10 in Texas is controlled-access with a very few ranch access points that almost nobody uses.  "No better" is not a valid way to describe it.

Why don't you back up there a bit since you're conveniently trying to have it both ways.

Earlier you griped about my complaints that those at grade intersections on I-40 were a hazard if the general public used them. Public access, right?

No, my gripe was about calling a driver "careless" or "stupid" for using a portion of the roadway that, by all appearances, is open for public use.  You and I agree in that the pavement markings and signs indicate the crossover can be used by the public; this increases the likelihood that Joe Driver will use it and cause issues.  I maintain that, as a private entrance used only by people doing business there, the safety impact is quite minimal, but I do concede that markings and signage might possibly lead to a higher safety impact; I also note that the severity of any collision would likely be high, due to the narrow median and lack of acceleration or deceleration lanes.  However, I do not favor the addition of true acceleration or deceleration lanes, as those would only further indicate to passing traffic that it's OK to flip a U-turn there or that the crossroad actually leads somewhere they might want to go–again increasing the likelihood of problems.

The more I think about it, the more I think the paved section in the median should be lengthened (to accommodate a vehicle with a trailer without blocking the through lanes), supplementary plaques should be added to the existing W2-1 advance warning signs, tailored to the specific instance by TxDOT as provided for in MUTCD 2C.03(04) (I would suggest "LOCAL TRAFFIC ONLY" or "PRIVATE ENTRANCE" or some such phrase), said W2-1 signs should be added to the left side of the roadway, and perhaps a flashing yellow beacon be added as well.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 25, 2016, 12:41:18 AM
And yes, it absolutely does SUCK compared to a normal 4 lane expressway design with at grade crossings. At least OK-7 and other roads like it have features built into the highway to account for the traffic movements. These idiotic, dangerous at-grades on I-10 and I-40 pretend to be a freeway while providing the cheapness of a 4-lane divided street. It's the worst of both worlds.

There being turn lanes on OK-7 does not automatically make it safer than I-10 or I-40.  There is a LOT more to highway safety than just one feature.  OK-7 surely has higher traffic volumes and certainly has gads more conflict points.  You really need to stop comparing the two, because it's just making you look dumb.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 26, 2016, 09:59:27 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280The government changes regulations on highway design periodically and the states have to comply with that. If some state wants to keep a section of Interstate in 1970's era quality or ignore other new safety regulations then it shouldn't be signed as an Interstate.

Quote from: kktOr else what?  What sections of interstate that either received waivers to be included or met requirements when they were included have had their signage removed because they don't meet current interstate requirements?

The "or else" part is the federal government denying federal funding on highway projects in that state. They do have some leverage on getting new standards adopted.

This would not happen.  Let's get back to the real world, where a significant percentage of the Interstate highway system is currently in 1970s-era quality.



* * *



(1) All this talk about drivers not expecting a crossroad goes out the window with the W2-1 advance warning signs.  It may be a surprise to find a W2-1 sign along there but, once a driver does see it, then he or she should be fully prepared for cross traffic.

(2) All this talk of 80 mph traffic needs to be toned down.  Texas has curvy, two-lane highways with ranch access signed at 75 mph, so 80 is certainly not out of line for a four-lane divided highway.  In fact, Texas has one highway farther east signed for 85 mph.  Even if it were such a big deal, then a speed zone could simply be added to the section(s) of Interstate or a speed advisory tab be added to the W2-1 signs.

(3) I've been reading posts about these driveways being temporary in nature.  Does anyone have actual documentation that Texas ever intended to remove these access points?  Without any official reference to their being temporary in nature, I must assume they were always intended to be permanent.  (Besides, if we argued for downgrading every highway that had something in the original plans left unfinished, we'd be downgrading a boatload of highways out there.)

(4) Is it really hard for people to understand that money is not unlimited?  The money has to come from somewhere, and allocating it to one project merely takes it away from another potential project.  Unless we have a plan to make money grow on trees, let's use the available funds at locations where fatal accidents are actually happening.  DOTs fund projects based on actual numbers, not philosophical arguments about expectations and embarrassment.  If my tax money went to an agency that spent millions of dollars on a project based on a hypothetical scenario drummed up in someone's imagination, while shelving a project where people were actually dying in car wrecks, then I should speak up as a responsible, concerned citizen.

Edited a bunch of MUTCD references to the correct identifier (W2-1)
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: kkt on September 27, 2016, 01:16:57 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on September 26, 2016, 02:13:09 AM
Quote from: kkt on September 26, 2016, 01:35:12 AM
Yes, I realize it's now harder to get any deficient roadway signed as interstate than it used to be, but I haven't seen them remove existing interstates for not being updated.
Would current Business 80 in Sacramento between E Street and I-80/unsigned Route 244 be one example of this?

Good point... do you know whether it had a permanent waiver or a temporary one with the agreement that it would be upgraded later at mostly Federal expense?

Quote
The current remaining section of Central Freeway in SF was once part of I-80 in the early 1960s, though it was removed from the route once the Western Freeway project was canceled.

Was the expectation that the Central Freeway would have been rebuilt to higher standards at the same time as the Western Freeway was built?

Quote
The one-time I-580 in Omaha, Nebraska might fit this too, wasn't that signed?

Well, I haven't seen historic photos of signs, but the I-580 appeared on at least one map that's seen on the AA Roads site.

You're right, in a few cases interstate designations were removed.  I suspect they had a temporary waiver and then decided not to carry through with the agreed upgrades.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: Avalanchez71 on September 27, 2016, 01:20:53 PM
Well I-124 is Chattanooga is designated as an Interstate Highway but not signed.  So should we remove the I-10 and I-40 signs and then make sure that the I-124 signs go up?
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: TheStranger on September 27, 2016, 01:39:56 PM
Quote from: kkt on September 27, 2016, 01:16:57 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on September 26, 2016, 02:13:09 AM
Quote from: kkt on September 26, 2016, 01:35:12 AM
Yes, I realize it's now harder to get any deficient roadway signed as interstate than it used to be, but I haven't seen them remove existing interstates for not being updated.
Would current Business 80 in Sacramento between E Street and I-80/unsigned Route 244 be one example of this?

Good point... do you know whether it had a permanent waiver or a temporary one with the agreement that it would be upgraded later at mostly Federal expense?

You know, I had always interpreted the timeline as thus (and I could be wrong on the details as this was before my time) -

- CalTrans had planned (federal money or otherwise) to build the parallel realignment, not unlike what Oklahoma has done with I-40 in Oklahoma City, and Rhode Island has done somewhat with I-195 in Providence...one that would be updated to 1960s/1970s Interstate standard.  While the portion of (former) I-80 that is now US 50 is Interstate-standard in its entirety, and the portion of today's Route 51/Business 80 that was built in the 1960s (the 29/30 viaduct from Route 99 to E Street) is as well...the portion from E Street to the north terminus of Route 51 was constructed as US 99E (or US 40 & US 99E) first, then grandfathered into the Interstate system.

- In the mid-1970s, local opposition and county officials nixed multiple bypass projects (143, 148, 244, 102) in the area.

- In 1979, the City of Sacramento voted against having any further construction of the parallel realignment along the railroad tracks.  The carraigeway for the upgraded I-80 at this point had only been completed to Winters Street near Del Paso Heights.  Funding for the realignment was diverted to a new light rail project. 

- As a result of the 1979 changes, in 1982 I-80 was moved off of the old US 99E corridor and the east-west segment from what had been I-880 (now I-80) in West Sacramento to Route 99.  I-880 designation was removed, while Business 80 was created.  880 would remain unused until 1984 when it was designated along Route 17 from Oakland south to San Jose.  This is the part that is nebulous for me - was the funding diversion from 1979 the reason that the original Sacramento I-80 lost its Interstate designation, or the fact that the old US 99E/current Route 51 did not get upgraded?   Even with the Marconi Curve and other narrow segments, the 1940s-era freeway isn't as dramatically non-standard as say I-278.

- 1986 was the first year of the Sacramento RT light rail system.  The unused I-80 right of way between Watt Avenue and Winters Street was incorporated into the Watt/I-80, Watt/I-80 West, and Roseville Road stations, with the pavement now being connected to Winters.

- In recent years, there has been some talk about completely modernizing the existing Business 80 north of E Street, which kinda brings us back to what had originally been planned in the 1960s for that corridor!


Quote from: kkt on September 27, 2016, 01:16:57 PM

Quote
The current remaining section of Central Freeway in SF was once part of I-80 in the early 1960s, though it was removed from the route once the Western Freeway project was canceled.

Was the expectation that the Central Freeway would have been rebuilt to higher standards at the same time as the Western Freeway was built?


I recall seeing on Flickr (there's one guy on there who posted a lot of SF planning photos and maps from the 1950s-1960s) that the Fell Street junction would have been expanded drastically to included a directional Y interchange between the Western and Central Freeways.  Having said that...I don't know if any rebuild was ever planned for the 2 miles between Fell Street and today's 101/80 split; the section of the Central Freeway west of Van Ness reconfigured ca. 2005 is the newest construction along that route.

There's a video on Youtube somewhere of I-80 in the 1980s showing 80/101 cosigned westbound along the San Francisco Skyway, which I always have interpreted as a vestige of the 1960s concurrency along the Central Freeway.

https://youtu.be/rZkRml9jU4M?t=3m44s

  Since Loma Prieta, this has primarily been signed (inaccurately) as "US 101 South - San Jose".
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: Bobby5280 on September 27, 2016, 04:28:54 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280Why don't you back up there a bit since you're conveniently trying to have it both ways.

Earlier you griped about my complaints that those at grade intersections on I-40 were a hazard if the general public used them. Public access, right?
Quote from: kphogerNo, my gripe was about calling a driver "careless" or "stupid" for using a portion of the roadway that, by all appearances, is open for public use.

You and I agree in that the pavement markings and signs indicate the crossover can be used by the public; this increases the likelihood that Joe Driver will use it and cause issues.  I maintain that, as a private entrance used only by people doing business there, the safety impact is quite minimal, but I do concede that markings and signage might possibly lead to a higher safety impact; I also note that the severity of any collision would likely be high, due to the narrow median and lack of acceleration or deceleration lanes.  However, I do not favor the addition of true acceleration or deceleration lanes, as those would only further indicate to passing traffic that it's OK to flip a U-turn there or that the crossroad actually leads somewhere they might want to go–again increasing the likelihood of problems.

The more I think about it, the more I think the paved section in the median should be lengthened (to accommodate a vehicle with a trailer without blocking the through lanes), supplementary plaques should be added to the existing W2-1 advance warning signs, tailored to the specific instance by TxDOT as provided for in MUTCD 2C.03(04) (I would suggest "LOCAL TRAFFIC ONLY" or "PRIVATE ENTRANCE" or some such phrase), said W2-1 signs should be added to the left side of the roadway, and perhaps a flashing yellow beacon be added as well.

Unless TX-DOT did something in the past couple months, there aren't any W2-1 Cross Road signs along I-40 between Exit 0 and the rest area just past mile marker 12. There's other signs along there, such as a "I-40 Purple Heart Trail" display. But there's nothing warning traffic about the eight at-grade crossings through that stretch.

The at-grade crossings on I-10 in West Texas don't appear to be signed at all. They're mostly dirt & gravel roads that look improvised to enter and exit I-10 in any manner deemed convenient. Some of them enter I-10 directly even when the Interstate is flanked on both sides by frontage roads. In most spots were a frontage road comes to a dead end there's a gravel road hopping right onto the Interstate. It's funny that there is that kind of lee-way on standards being granted to I-10 in West Texas while other road projects, such as the very long delayed I-86 project in New York, is held to a higher standard before I-86 shields can be installed.

Back to the crossings on I-40, the only thing "open" for public use with those at-grade crossings is making U-turns. That's dangerous to do on an Interstate highway and should be strongly discouraged. If the at-grade crossings are to be left as is then they need to be marked with Private Entrance and R3-4 No U Turn signs. As to extending the pavement for trailers, deceleration left turn lanes might make turns for trucks hauling things like cattle trailers "easier" by giving at least a little more room. A trailer of significant length might be a bitch to turn safely through those crossings regardless.

Quote from: kphogerThere being turn lanes on OK-7 does not automatically make it safer than I-10 or I-40.  There is a LOT more to highway safety than just one feature.  OK-7 surely has higher traffic volumes and certainly has gads more conflict points.  You really need to stop comparing the two, because it's just making you look dumb.

The intersection designs on the stretch of OK-7 I showed are safer than those crossings on I-40. Left turn movements are taken out of the passing lanes on the main roadways. If the crossings on I-40 are going to be remain minimally signed and implied as okay for public use then they should have turn lanes added.

Quote from: Avalanchez71Well I-124 is Chattanooga is designated as an Interstate Highway but not signed.  So should we remove the I-10 and I-40 signs and then make sure that the I-124 signs go up?

I-124 was signed at one time, but I don't know why it went to being un-signed. Roads that are Interstate quality but unsigned is another topic. There are state highways, US highways and toll roads that are Interstate quality, but not marked with Interstate shields. But if a road is marked with an Interstate shield I think it needs to live up to certain standards or carry a different kind of route marker.

I also think the transition from freeway quality to non-freeway quality road needs to be indicated somehow. It might be a bit much to have a big overhead "Freeway Ends" sign installed. But I think motorists should be warned with signs that for the next X number of miles the highway will have at grade crossings just like any other ordinary 4 lane divided highway.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: kphoger on September 27, 2016, 05:29:03 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 27, 2016, 04:28:54 PM
Unless TX-DOT did something in the past couple months, there aren't any W2-1 Cross Road signs along I-40 between Exit 0 and the rest area just past mile marker 12. There's other signs along there, such as a "I-40 Purple Heart Trail" display. But there's nothing warning traffic about the eight at-grade crossings through that stretch.

The at-grade crossings on I-10 in West Texas don't appear to be signed at all. They're mostly dirt & gravel roads that look improvised to enter and exit I-10 in any manner deemed convenient.

Sorry, I was going by the ones near the Hudspeth County ghost towns of Arispe and Etholen–especially the latter.

Warning sign approaching Arizpe, eastbound I-10 (https://goo.gl/maps/iVDWwWbKHDJ2)
Warning sign approaching Arizpe, westbound I-10 (https://goo.gl/maps/PPwJ2RxhAt92)
Crossroads at Arizpe (https://goo.gl/maps/34UJCnqxPyj)–gravel median crossover, but paved north-side frontage road

Warning sign approaching Etholen, eastbound I-10 (https://goo.gl/maps/hnSV3Xrywiz)
Warning sign approaching Etholen, westbound I-10 (https://goo.gl/maps/FAtoVp1cYbS2)
Crossroads at Etholen (https://goo.gl/maps/LhG8eMrEhEu)–narrow paved median crossover, but paved north-side frontage road

I lso spot-checked a few other spots in the area, and they all had W2-1 advance warning signs.

Now, I know I looked at one of the I-40 ones a while ago, but I can't for the life of me remember where they are.  Would you link to Google Maps for one of them?
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: dfwmapper on September 27, 2016, 07:02:40 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 27, 2016, 12:45:03 PM
(2) All this talk of 80 mph traffic needs to be toned down.  Texas has curvy, two-lane highways with ranch access signed at 75 mph, so 80 is certainly not out of line for a four-lane divided highway.  In fact, Texas has one highway farther east signed for 85 mph.  Even if it were such a big deal, then a speed zone could simply be added to the section(s) of Interstate or a speed advisory tab be added to the W2-1 signs.
Advisory signs are fine, but under Texas law, changing the speed limit would require an engineering study to determine that current limit is incorrect based on a very specific set of criteria (primarily the 85th percentile speeds, but also design and crash statistics). Given that the limits along that portion have changed multiple times over the years (which would have required engineering studies), the limits are clearly correct as things stand. Lowering the limits would just lead to more dangerous situations when some drivers lower their speeds to follow the law while the rest of us flip off the sign and drive at the speed that is actually reasonable for the road (i.e. keep the cruise set to 80ish). That large speed differential between large numbers of vehicles is almost certainly more dangerous than 3 cars a day making turns.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: Bobby5280 on September 27, 2016, 09:56:16 PM
Quote from: kphogerSorry, I was going by the ones near the Hudspeth County ghost towns of Arispe and Etholen–especially the latter.

I missed those. I was going by the literally dozens of at-grade gravel & dirt road crossings on I-10 East of the I-20 interchange. They're scattered nearly to Junction, TX. None of them are signed. But the crossings are indeed there.

Quote from: kphogerNow, I know I looked at one of the I-40 ones a while ago, but I can't for the life of me remember where they are.  Would you link to Google Maps for one of them?

There's fresh Street View imagery on the Eastbound lanes of that stretch of I-40, dated Jan. 2016. There are no W2-1 cross roads signs visible for I-40 traffic. The intersections have Yield and One Way signs facing the gates of private property, but nothing warning I-40 traffic of the oncoming at-grade intersections. There's plenty of other at-grade intersections on regular divided highways in Texas that aren't signed worth a damn, but when you're driving on a road like US-287 you expect lots of at-grade crossings and driveways. Such things are pretty out of place on Interstates.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: Brian556 on September 28, 2016, 12:55:56 AM
The situation at Arizpe is insane. That's not just ranch property access, that's a freakin' asphalt plant!!! There has to be trucks coming and going quite frequently!!!! Plus, there is frontage road access to an interchange on either side!!! WTF were they thinking?!!!

Thanks kphoger for pointing this one out!
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: mwb1848 on September 28, 2016, 01:51:55 PM
FWIW: I don't think that plant is even active. The CEMEX sign has blown away and those two trailers appear in the same location in Google Streetview Images dating back to 2007.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: J N Winkler on September 28, 2016, 02:07:11 PM
Quote from: kphoger on September 27, 2016, 12:45:03 PMAll this talk about drivers not expecting a crossroad goes out the window with the W2-1 advance warning signs.  It may be a surprise to find a W2-1 sign along there but, once a driver does see it, then he or she should be fully prepared for cross traffic.

This is a small point, but it is still possible for drivers to be surprised by these crossings if the sign is mounted on only one side (as is the case on I-10 at Arizpe, in one of the examples you cited) and it is hidden by a large truck.

Quote from: kphoger on September 27, 2016, 12:45:03 PMI've been reading posts about these driveways being temporary in nature.  Does anyone have actual documentation that Texas ever intended to remove these access points?  Without any official reference to their being temporary in nature, I must assume they were always intended to be permanent.  (Besides, if we argued for downgrading every highway that had something in the original plans left unfinished, we'd be downgrading a boatload of highways out there.)

I am not aware that any intent that these crossings be temporary has been documented in the case of Texas specifically.  However, the I-40 accesses in New Mexico west of Albuquerque are signed with "TEMPORARY" placards, which leads directly to the assumption that if FHWA permits these in New Mexico on the basis that they are temporary, the more or less identical accesses in Texas are permitted for the same reason.

Quote from: kphoger on September 27, 2016, 12:45:03 PMIs it really hard for people to understand that money is not unlimited?  The money has to come from somewhere, and allocating it to one project merely takes it away from another potential project.  Unless we have a plan to make money grow on trees, let's use the available funds at locations where fatal accidents are actually happening.  DOTs fund projects based on actual numbers, not philosophical arguments about expectations and embarrassment.  If my tax money went to an agency that spent millions of dollars on a project based on a hypothetical scenario drummed up in someone's imagination, while shelving a project where people were actually dying in car wrecks, then I should speak up as a responsible, concerned citizen.

Interstate standards call for full control of access, and the remedies people have been suggesting--such as outright closure, or pavement build-outs that allow these accesses to be signed as ranch exits (as on I-80 in Wyoming, for example)--hardly amount to luxurious provision.  We have engineering standards in the first place because consistent provision is in itself a benefit.  They also provide a baseline that can be used to simplify the optimization problems inherent in assigning priority to projects in a way that maximizes public benefit from limited funds.

I do not think the long-term persistence of these unpaved at-grade accesses necessarily means that TxDOT thinks it is a waste of money to do anything about them.  That might be true if it were really expensive to address them, but I suspect the marginal cost of appropriate interventions (à la Wyoming) is small enough that their inclusion in 3R/4R projects would not noticeably disturb the overall preference ordering of TxDOT projects.  I suspect that TxDOT is instead working to a playbook that basically ignores the existence of these unpaved accesses, in much the same way they (until quite recently) cared little about geometric design consistency or flowing-line aesthetics in their freeways.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: kphoger on October 17, 2016, 11:49:50 AM
Quote from: J N Winkler on September 28, 2016, 02:07:11 PM
However, the I-40 accesses in New Mexico west of Albuquerque are signed with "TEMPORARY" placards, which leads directly to the assumption that if FHWA permits these in New Mexico on the basis that they are temporary, the more or less identical accesses in Texas are permitted for the same reason.

I don't remember exactly where they were, but I recall seeing "TEMPORARY" signs at private drive access to I-40 in New Mexico back around 1997 or so.  I specifically remember them, because my dad commented, 'I wonder how temporary those really are.'  Ha!
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: NE2 on October 17, 2016, 12:02:04 PM
Aren't the New Mexico ones gone now?
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: J N Winkler on October 17, 2016, 12:24:12 PM
Quote from: NE2 on October 17, 2016, 12:02:04 PMAren'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.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: MaxConcrete on April 13, 2018, 05:53:02 PM
I drove Interstate 10 westbound from San Antonio to El Paso last week. I did not see any at-grade intersections on Interstate 10 east of Van Horn (which is west of the Interstate 20 merge point). However, between Van Horn and El Paso there were many signed at-grade crossings. I counted 12, but I lost count and there were probably more.

These crossings were not fully paved and striped like the crossings on IH-40 west of Amarillo. They were all gravel, but had stop signs, yield signs and one-way signs. While these gravel crossings are common everywhere, they are normally posted with signs like "For Official Use Only". But these 12+ crossings are officially open for use by anyone. I'm thinking that TxDOT realizes the crossings are being used by the public, so to promote safety they posted signage.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdallasfreeways.com%2Fdfwfreeways%2FAARoads%2F20180402_12-0111-1600.jpg&hash=223bb19670a944551ee2fd386e071ecfc6374d0b)
http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20180402_12-0111-1600.jpg (http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20180402_12-0111-1600.jpg)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdallasfreeways.com%2Fdfwfreeways%2FAARoads%2F20180402_12-0113-1600.jpg&hash=4fbbb260c26d88da2fa3977562f821985320ebb6)
http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20180402_12-0113-1600.jpg (http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20180402_12-0113-1600.jpg)
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: Plutonic Panda on April 13, 2018, 06:09:23 PM
 :ded:
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: Roadgeekteen on July 22, 2021, 10:12:06 PM
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.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: tolbs17 on July 22, 2021, 10:16:44 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 22, 2021, 10:12:06 PM
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.
And there are some on I-40 (in the mountains) in North Carolina as well.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: rte66man on February 13, 2022, 12:32:18 PM
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
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: Plutonic Panda on February 13, 2022, 05:20:49 PM
Awesome but nothing for I-40. :/
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: Anthony_JK on February 14, 2022, 04:06:31 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 22, 2021, 10:12:06 PM
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.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: Rothman on February 14, 2022, 06:50:41 AM
I-278 is at-grade on Manhattan?   I suppose Randalls Island is part of Manhattan Borough, but I-278 isn't at-grade through there as part of the Triborough...
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: MATraveler128 on February 14, 2022, 06:57:08 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on February 14, 2022, 04:06:31 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 22, 2021, 10:12:06 PM
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.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: Anthony_JK on February 14, 2022, 12:03:31 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on February 14, 2022, 06:57:08 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on February 14, 2022, 04:06:31 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 22, 2021, 10:12:06 PM
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.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: wdcrft63 on February 14, 2022, 06:38:35 PM
I-78 ends with the Holland Tunnel. Originally there was supposed to be an extension across Manhattan but it won't ever be built. So there are no at-grade streets in Manhattan that are part of I-78.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: sprjus4 on February 14, 2022, 06:45:51 PM
^ He means Jersey City (not Manhattan), where it does go through a few at-grades on local streets.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: Rothman on February 14, 2022, 09:09:18 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on February 14, 2022, 12:03:31 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on February 14, 2022, 06:57:08 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on February 14, 2022, 04:06:31 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 22, 2021, 10:12:06 PM
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. :D
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: Anthony_JK on February 16, 2022, 06:40:18 AM
Quote from: Rothman on February 14, 2022, 09:09:18 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on February 14, 2022, 12:03:31 PM
Quote from: BlueOutback7 on February 14, 2022, 06:57:08 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on February 14, 2022, 04:06:31 AM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on July 22, 2021, 10:12:06 PM
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. :D

Whatever. I'm only human, I make mistakes. My original point stands.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: Avalanchez71 on January 14, 2024, 01:15:43 PM
Quote from: rte66man on February 13, 2022, 12:32:18 PM
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?
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: Bobby5280 on January 14, 2024, 09:17:03 PM
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.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: bwana39 on January 16, 2024, 01:58:00 PM
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.

Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: Sykotyk on January 19, 2024, 08:07:46 PM
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.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: Bobby5280 on January 21, 2024, 12:55:24 PM
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.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: J N Winkler on January 21, 2024, 02:48:17 PM
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.
Title: Re: At-grade intersections on Interstates in Texas
Post by: Scott5114 on January 22, 2024, 06:59:09 AM
Quote from: J N Winkler on October 17, 2016, 12:24:12 PM
Quote from: NE2 on October 17, 2016, 12:02:04 PMAren'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.