Texas

[Quillz]

I like Clearview. Fine with it being used.

[Quillz]

TX DOT has their own way of doing things. I can't complain too much since, overall, their BGS designs are much better than most states. Here in Oklahoma it's just embarrassing. At least Oklahoma's highway signs don't like patched over and hammered junk like Caltrans' stuff. I really don't care about the Clearview vs Series Gothic issue; Clearview is usually handled pretty well on Texas BGS panels.

Yeah, the route numbering scheme in Texas doesn't appear to follow any kind of system. I imagine that's because the state is so big and has evolved economically in dramatic ways. It would be difficult crafting a route numbering system that could adapt to those shifts over the decades.

The BGS are fine, they don't bother me. The one point of confusion, though, is since number duplication is allowed, and all the state-level highways use the exact same design, there could potentially be something like "TEXAS 10" alongside "FM 10." Although I suspect the numbers are chosen in such a way there aren't any real conflicts like that.

Otherwise, I'm noticing the so called "sign salad." I like how everything does appear to be signed, but I also will see things like a farm-to-market road signed alongside with the interstates and state routes. I'm more used to the idea of just the most important route being signed, although with GPS, the navigation around here has been fine.

[J N Winkler]

The BGS are fine, they don't bother me. The one point of confusion, though, is since number duplication is allowed, and all the state-level highways use the exact same design, there could potentially be something like "TEXAS 10" alongside "FM 10." Although I suspect the numbers are chosen in such a way there aren't any real conflicts like that.

Actually, there is one notorious example where such confusion can occur--FM 121 near Van Alstyne, which is easily confused with SH 121/Sam Rayburn Tollway, a freeway-standard route to DFW Airport.  Signing (to designs that have varied over the years) is provided to instruct airport traffic to stay on southbound US 75.

[Quillz]

The BGS are fine, they don't bother me. The one point of confusion, though, is since number duplication is allowed, and all the state-level highways use the exact same design, there could potentially be something like "TEXAS 10" alongside "FM 10." Although I suspect the numbers are chosen in such a way there aren't any real conflicts like that.

Actually, there is one notorious example where such confusion can occur--FM 121 near Van Alstyne, which is easily confused with SH 121/Sam Rayburn Tollway, a freeway-standard route to DFW Airport.  Signing (to designs that have varied over the years) is provided to instruct airport traffic to stay on southbound US 75.

Heh, was just there, didn't notice. I was on Loop 97.

[Great Lakes Roads]

Speed limits are going to be lowered on some Texas highways...

Speed limits will change on the following highways:
S.H. 87 from west Port Arthur to Sabine Pass will change from 65 to 55 mph.
S.H. 347 from U.S. 69 to the Dupont Plant will change from 70 to 65 mph.
U.S. 69 from the U.S. 69 split to S.H. 73 will change from 75 to 70 mph.
I-10 from 9th Street to the Neches River will change from 65 to 55 mph.
I-10 from the Old U.S. 90 Exit to 450 west of the Rose City City limits will change from 75 mph to 70 mph.
U.S. 90 from West Calder to Dowlen Road will change from 50 to 45 mph.

[Plutonic Panda]

It seems like most of these are in the SE part of the state. Is that just one district? Not happy to see lower limits especially in Texas. If anything limits should generally be going up.

[Great Lakes Roads]

It seems like most of these are in the SE part of the state. Is that just one district? Not happy to see lower limits especially in Texas. If anything limits should generally be going up.

Yup, mainly in the Beaumont/Port Arthur area.

[bwana39]

It seems like most of these are in the SE part of the state. Is that just one district? Not happy to see lower limits especially in Texas. If anything limits should generally be going up.

Yup, mainly in the Beaumont/Port Arthur area.

Except for the I-10 part that extends into Orange County, it is all in Jefferson County.  I would assume that the speed limit already dropped 450' from the west CL of Rose City through Vidor.  This probably only feathered the limit so it did not go from 70 to 75 then quickly back to 65. It really only reached into Orange county to facilitate this feathering.

For what it is worth, most of the cities of over 50K in Texas and some even smaller have reduced their freeway speeds to 70 or even 65. The freeways leading into Louisiana (I-10 & I-20) are all at or below 70 MPH for miles back to the west.

[sprjus4]

^ Besides the few miles of work zone from Orange to the Louisiana state line, which I swear has been under construction forever, I recall I-10 mostly being 75 mph between Orange and Beaumont when I last drove through in 2022.

40 miles of I-20 between Longview and the Louisiana state line was posted at 75 mph until 2 years ago, they lowered it to 70 mph for "safety" reasons despite the fact traffic was moving at 80 mph, meaning the reduction was artificial in nature and likely hasn't changed anything. This is the same county where north-south US-59, which is a non-limited-access 4 lane highway, is posted faster (75 mph) than the safer, access controlled interstate highway.

[BurnTheStroads]

Speed limits are going to be lowered on some Texas highways...

Speed limits will change on the following highways:
S.H. 87 from west Port Arthur to Sabine Pass will change from 65 to 55 mph.
S.H. 347 from U.S. 69 to the Dupont Plant will change from 70 to 65 mph.
U.S. 69 from the U.S. 69 split to S.H. 73 will change from 75 to 70 mph.
I-10 from 9th Street to the Neches River will change from 65 to 55 mph.
I-10 from the Old U.S. 90 Exit to 450 west of the Rose City City limits will change from 75 mph to 70 mph.
U.S. 90 from West Calder to Dowlen Road will change from 50 to 45 mph.

The I-10 Beaumont section makes sense. Although 65 is the posted limit, you will really never get close to it without driving aggressively in a heavily congested area.

In the affected section, exits and lane changes are frequent, cars/semis are in close proximity with little spacing, and that last interchange before the Neches is outright dangerous if your speed is above 60.

I don't typically see eye-to-eye with TXDOT in any context, but, this decision to reduce, at least in this section of I-10, seems sound. 

[kernals12]

I've had a thought. Texas should get rid of its eponymous U-turns and instead use Michigan lefts. This would mean intersections on frontage roads would only need 2-phase signals.

[Plutonic Panda]

No thank you. The Texas u turns are by far on of the most convenient designs I've encountered. Not so much with the Michigan lefts. Fuck that.

[Rothman]

No thank you. The Texas u turns are by far on of the most convenient designs I've encountered. Not so much with the Michigan lefts. Fuck that.

I'm with the Panda on this one.

[kernals12]

No thank you. The Texas u turns are by far on of the most convenient designs I've encountered. Not so much with the Michigan lefts. Fuck that.

But Michigan lefts would mean you hit fewer red lights as you travel on frontage roads.

[Plutonic Panda]

I've experienced both setups and IMO the Texas system works much better more lights or not.

[Rothman]

I've experienced both setups and IMO the Texas system works much better more lights or not.

^So much this.  I mean, yes, half of Texas seems to be paved over with their huge setups, but traffic flows pretty darned well in a lot of areas comparable to MI.

[Bobby5280]

Things like a Michigan Left or a J-turn are best confined to a not so busy 4-lane divided highway without controlled access. Such turns would be very inefficient in a Texas-style freeway flanked by frontage roads. The Texas U-turns work really great in those kinds of freeways since they filter some of the frontage road traffic away from other vehicles on the surface street that is crossing the freeway. The thru traffic on a surface street would be blocked by a Michigan Left or J-Turn arrangement.

I can think of a couple key locations here in Lawton where a J-Turn or Michigan Left would be ideal. Just East of Lawton the at-grade intersection of SE 60th Street and the OK-7 divided highway is kind of dangerous. It's difficult to see Westbound OK-7 traffic from the intersection due to the highway rising to a sort of crest East of the intersection and then dropping down.

[kphoger]

Things like a Michigan Left or a J-turn are best confined to a not so busy 4-lane divided highway without controlled access. Such turns would be very inefficient in a Texas-style freeway flanked by frontage roads. The Texas U-turns work really great in those kinds of freeways since they filter some of the frontage road traffic away from other vehicles on the surface street that is crossing the freeway. The thru traffic on a surface street would be blocked by a Michigan Left or J-Turn arrangement.

Yeah, if you were to implement that Michigan Urban Diamond in any decent-sized Texas city, then there would be a large amount of weaving that does not currently exist.

[achilles765]

The BGS are fine, they don't bother me. The one point of confusion, though, is since number duplication is allowed, and all the state-level highways use the exact same design, there could potentially be something like "TEXAS 10" alongside "FM 10." Although I suspect the numbers are chosen in such a way there aren't any real conflicts like that.

Actually, there is one notorious example where such confusion can occur--FM 121 near Van Alstyne, which is easily confused with SH 121/Sam Rayburn Tollway, a freeway-standard route to DFW Airport.  Signing (to designs that have varied over the years) is provided to instruct airport traffic to stay on southbound US 75.

Another kind of exists in the Beaumont area. There's an FM 105 that leads to Vidor but is not very far from SH 105, which heads east-west to Conroe and onward. So a sign on I-10 directs motorists that SH 105 is farther down the road.

[TheBox]

Just how much would Laredo benefit from I-2 extension, I-27, and a complete I-69W?
I see I-2 sooner than the latter two in my lifetime

And which side of the extended I-27 does Lubbock and Amarillo benefit from more? North of Amarillo or South of Lubbock?

[Bobby5280]

Laredo is the busiest inland port of entry in the US. The city has already been growing at a fairly significant pace. The city had 263,000 residents as of the 2020 Census. In 2000 the city's population was 176,000.

By the time I-69W is completed Laredo's population may be much larger. Laredo isn't far from some other major population centers. The Rio Grande Valley cluster of cities has over a million people and is around 130 miles to the South (the Roma/Rio Grande City area is closer and also growing). San Antonio is about 150 miles away. Monterrey is only 125 miles away and has 4 million people.

Anyway, it's perfectly justifiable to extend I-2 to Laredo.

I-27 to Laredo might be a slightly harder sell, but it would hit Del Rio and Eagle Pass along the way. Those two inland port cities can help serve as a "relief valve" for all the traffic currently crossing the border in Laredo. I-27 would help commercial traffic move faster thru that region and up to places like the Front Range cities in Colorado.

Regarding I-27 benefits to Amarillo and Lubbock, the extended Interstate could help spur new development as well as help move the added traffic coming from the new homes and businesses already being built. The West side of Amarillo is growing and growth in Lubbock is spreading South of the 289 loop.

[Rothman]

Busiest inland port of entry...makes me wonder how "inland" is defined.

[kphoger]

I-27 to Laredo might be a slightly harder sell, but it would hit Del Rio and Eagle Pass along the way. Those two inland port cities can help serve as a "relief valve" for all the traffic currently crossing the border in Laredo. I-27 would help commercial traffic move faster thru that region and up to places like the Front Range cities in Colorado.

I was skeptical about that, but then I checked the map.  Sure enough...

395 miles = a random industrial park near Monterrey → Sonora via Colombia, US-83, and TX-55

379 miles = a random industrial park near Monterrey → Sonora via Piedras Negras and US-277

[splashflash]

And which side of the extended I-27 does Lubbock and Amarillo benefit from more? North of Amarillo or South of Lubbock?

Traffic counts north of Amarillo are higher than south to Lamisa, and more than double those potential I-27E or 27W branches south of Lamisa to either Midland or Big Spring.  Also, US 84 from Sweetwater to Lubbock, also has double the counts of those branches.

[Bobby5280]

Traffic counts north of Amarillo are higher than south to Lamisa, and more than double those potential I-27E or 27W branches south of Lamisa to either Midland or Big Spring.

Based on the TX DOT TPP District Traffic Web Viewer US-87/287 traffic between Amarillo and Dumas has AADT counts between 10,000 and 12,000. The AADT counts drop considerably both North and West of Dumas.

Traffic counts on US-87 South of Lubbock range from over 20K per day just South of the 289 loop down to less than 10K by the time US-87 reaches Atoka.

Here's an interesting thing. US-287 between Amarillo and Wichita Falls has similar AADT counts to I-27 outside the loops in Lubbock and Amarillo. Between Wichita Falls and Fort Worth the AADT counts on US-287 are considerably higher than I-27 (going above 20K AADT frequently and getting above 30K in places by the time US-287 passes Alvord).

Also, US 84 from Sweetwater to Lubbock, also has double the counts of those branches.

According to that map the AADT counts on US-84 Southwest of Lubbock range 20,000 to 17,000 to Slaton nearby. Then the counts drop closer to 10,000 per day the rest of the way to I-20.