AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Mid-South => Topic started by: longhorn on July 08, 2017, 03:19:02 PM

Title: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: longhorn on July 08, 2017, 03:19:02 PM
Old article and behind a paywall, but states I-10 will be expanded to three lanes each way between SAT and HOU. With I-35 project winding down, TxDot can move on to this next major project.

http://www.expressnews.com/news/local/article/TxDOT-proposes-adding-lanes-to-I-10-6180343.php

Read on another post that on weekends I-10 can be parking lot even in rural areas between San Antonio and Houston.
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: MaxConcrete on July 08, 2017, 05:37:50 PM
I've learned not to return to Houston on I-10 west at the end of holiday and long weekends due to the long backups.

Realistically, we're not going to see a six-lane I-10 for the entire distance between Houston and San Antonio for a very long time, maybe never. However, I think we'll get six lanes between Houston and Columbus in 10 to 15 years, and that will solve most of the problem.

In June TxDOT awarded a $142 million contract for reconstruction and expansion to 6 lanes for 6 miles west of Houston where the existing freeway is reduced to 4 lanes, from Brookshire to the Brazos River.
http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/06073201.htm (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/06073201.htm)

Estimate   $142,378,747.21   % Over/Under   Company
Bidder 1   $141,496,478.10   -0.62%   WILLIAMS BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.
Bidder 2   $142,921,883.90   +0.38%   JAMES CONSTRUCTION GROUP, L.L.C.
Bidder 3   $146,660,739.22   +3.01%   BALFOUR BEATTY INFRASTRUCTURE, INC.
Bidder 4   $149,830,396.24   +5.23%   PULICE CONSTRUCTION, INC.
Bidder 5   $152,474,810.66   +7.09%   WEBBER, LLC


The next section section going west is slated for bidding in August 2018, 9.7 miles estimated at $233 million.
http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/let/2018/austin.htm#027102055

At $25 million per mile, the 38 miles from Brookshire to Coluimbus is going to cost around $1 billion.
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: nexus73 on July 08, 2017, 06:33:40 PM
Too bad we can't make it a national priority to upgrade I-10 to a 6-lane minimum across the continent.  It is the only coast to coast freeway that can be figured to be open during the winter.  Lots of truck traffic, tourists and regional interurban travel takes place on I-10. 

Rick
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: Bobby5280 on July 09, 2017, 05:11:50 PM
There is definitely a good number of I-10 segments that could use upgrades from 2 lanes to 3 lanes in both directions. However, I-10 goes through some pretty remote area too. I think it would be strange to have a 3-3 highway setup in West Texas yet still have all those damned at-grade gravel driveways connecting to the highway. With such a sub-standard thing being allowed to fly on an Interstate in West Texas one could make a good argument to sign I-40 all the way to Bakersfield, CA.

Whether it can be built soon or not for many years, it's very easy to justify a 3-3 upgrade for all of rural I-10 between Houston and San Antonio. The other thing that is very easy to justify: upgrading all of US-290 between Houston and Austin to Interstate quality, even 3 lanes in both directions the whole way.
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: sparker on July 09, 2017, 09:09:08 PM
Too bad we can't make it a national priority to upgrade I-10 to a 6-lane minimum across the continent.  It is the only coast to coast freeway that can be figured to be open during the winter.  Lots of truck traffic, tourists and regional interurban travel takes place on I-10. 

Rick
There is definitely a good number of I-10 segments that could use upgrades from 2 lanes to 3 lanes in both directions. However, I-10 goes through some pretty remote area too. I think it would be strange to have a 3-3 highway setup in West Texas yet still have all those damned at-grade gravel driveways connecting to the highway. With such a sub-standard thing being allowed to fly on an Interstate in West Texas one could make a good argument to sign I-40 all the way to Bakersfield, CA.

Whether it can be built soon or not for many years, it's very easy to justify a 3-3 upgrade for all of rural I-10 between Houston and San Antonio. The other thing that is very easy to justify: upgrading all of US-290 between Houston and Austin to Interstate quality, even 3 lanes in both directions the whole way.

From about Kerrville west to the I-20 merge there just isn't enough I-10 traffic to warrant 3 + 3.  However, west from there all the way to at least AZ 85 west of Phoenix there is ample traffic for such a widening.  But Houston-SA is a good start; the current facility is definitely substandard to handle the levels of traffic that it does, particularly along the narrower-than-usual segments through some of the towns (Flatonia, I'm looking at you!).  And I fully agree with Bobby's call for an Austin-Houston Interstate -- but something tells me TxDOT might utilize TX 71 for that just because it involves less mileage -- and much of such a facility could be laid atop the current alignment.  Unfortunately, that would just add to the wear & tear on I-10 east of Columbus; my preference would also be for something along 290 -- or a "hybrid" via Bastrop and TX 21, and using US 290 east of there.     
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: longhorn on July 10, 2017, 09:37:14 AM
The improved sight lines and elevation changes have done wonders for I-35. I expect the same for I-10 from SAT to HOU. East of HOU I-10 is three to Winnie. And in Louisiana from Vinton through Lake Charles. So eventually though two sections will merge.

With I-35 wrapping up, TxDot will turn more attention to I-10.

As regards 290 between AUS and HOU. I do not know why after all of these years, its not a priority with TxDot. In the space of time, the "highway of death" State 195 from Killeen to Georgetown has been rebuilt to almost interstate levels yet nothing done to 290.
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: Henry on July 10, 2017, 10:09:13 AM
Seeing that there's almost nothing between Houston and San Antonio, I really don't see any need for a six-lane I-10 outside those areas. But it would be very worthwhile.
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: iBallasticwolf2 on July 10, 2017, 11:03:59 AM
Seeing that there's almost nothing between Houston and San Antonio, I really don't see any need for a six-lane I-10 outside those areas. But it would be very worthwhile.
Perhaps for now the only 6 lane sections needed would be between I-410 in San Antonio and TX 130 and between Brookshire and TX 71
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: longhorn on July 10, 2017, 11:44:10 AM
Seeing that there's almost nothing between Houston and San Antonio, I really don't see any need for a six-lane I-10 outside those areas. But it would be very worthwhile.

 Traffic from the SAT and HOU metropolitan areas necessitates the third lane in each direction.
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: Chris on July 10, 2017, 12:05:42 PM
The AADT is only around 30,000 on the middle section between Seguin and Columbus. It doesn't exceed 60,000 until you reach the Katy area.

http://www.txdot.gov/apps/statewide_mapping/StatewidePlanningMap.html
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: nguyenhm16 on July 10, 2017, 12:20:12 PM
Seeing that there's almost nothing between Houston and San Antonio, I really don't see any need for a six-lane I-10 outside those areas. But it would be very worthwhile.
Perhaps for now the only 6 lane sections needed would be between I-410 in San Antonio and TX 130 and between Brookshire and TX 71

I drive the Houston-Columbus segment a lot (as well as 290, and many of the back roads in Fayette/Colorado/Austin/Bastrop counties), and this is correct.
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: ukfan758 on July 11, 2017, 11:25:22 AM
The AADT is only around 30,000 on the middle section between Seguin and Columbus. It doesn't exceed 60,000 until you reach the Katy area.

http://www.txdot.gov/apps/statewide_mapping/StatewidePlanningMap.html

If it wasn't such a major interstate and between two cities, I would probably support just adding trucklanes/3+3 for 2 to 3 miles every 10-20 miles. Considering the two cities are growing, therefore more commerce between them, it really does need to be 3+3 the entire distance.
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: mwb1848 on July 11, 2017, 03:07:08 PM
There is definitely a good number of I-10 segments that could use upgrades from 2 lanes to 3 lanes in both directions. However, I-10 goes through some pretty remote area too. I think it would be strange to have a 3-3 highway setup in West Texas yet still have all those damned at-grade gravel driveways connecting to the highway. With such a sub-standard thing being allowed to fly on an Interstate in West Texas one could make a good argument to sign I-40 all the way to Bakersfield, CA.

I assume you're referring to extending I-40 along CA 58. That highway includes at least one section which is 2-lane and undivided, has at least one at-grade intersection with a state highway, and an at-grade crossing with a railroad. I don't think it's a fair comparison to a fully four-laned I-10 in West Texas which has a few at-grade crossing with unpaved local roads and driveways.
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: Bobby5280 on July 11, 2017, 05:24:13 PM
Plans are in progress to convert CA-58 into an Interstate quality facility around Hinkley. Similar plans are in the works for Kramer Junction. It won't be long before all of CA-58 between Barstow and Mojave is all Interstate quality. Any expressway-grade segments will be easy to upgrade.

The section of CA-58 between Tehachapi and the CA-223 junction would be really difficult to upgrade fully to Interstate standard (and get I-40 extended to Bakersfield and even I-5). Some of the grades are too steep (never mind the fact a huge number of big rig trucks and other traffic take this road anyway). There is a lot of gravel access roads and driveways spilling out onto CA-58, very much in the same manner as those gravel driveways along I-10 in West Texas. Those driveways are one of the primary reasons why I-40 may never be signed through there.
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: Duke87 on July 11, 2017, 10:35:03 PM
The AADT is only around 30,000 on the middle section between Seguin and Columbus. It doesn't exceed 60,000 until you reach the Katy area.

http://www.txdot.gov/apps/statewide_mapping/StatewidePlanningMap.html

But as has been stated, the issue is not the traffic counts on an ordinary day, it's the traffic counts on weekends. AADT, because it is simply an annual average, does not capture this phenomenon and indeed masks it when it is relied upon too heavily as the single metric by which to determine whether a road is operating within capacity.

It would be helpful to look at what the daily traffic is at various percentile levels. Or, to keep it simple, at what specifically the average daily traffic is Fri/Sat/Sun/Hol only.
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: sparker on July 12, 2017, 12:34:52 AM
Plans are either in progress to convert CA-58 into an Interstate quality facility around Hinkley. Similar plans are in the works for Kramer Junction. It won't be long before all of CA-58 between Barstow and Mojave is all Interstate quality. Any expressway-grade segments will be easy to upgrade.

The section of CA-58 between Tehachapi and the CA-223 junction would be really difficult to upgrade fully to Interstate standard (and get I-40 extended to Bakersfield and even I-5). Some of the grades are too steep (never mind the fact a huge number of big rig trucks and other traffic take this road anyway). There is a lot of gravel access roads and driveways spilling out onto CA-58, very much in the same manner as those gravel driveways along I-10 in West Texas. Those driveways are one of the primary reasons why I-40 may never be signed through there.

I discussed the points stated (particularly as concerns side-road access) above in two threads in the SW region; "CA-58 Hinkley Bypass Project", reply #113, and "Westside Parkway & Centennial Corridor", reply #117.  In reality, the grades and curvature on CA 58 between CA 223 and Tehachapi aren't that much different than on I-80 between Colfax and Yuba Gap.  Some carving out of the mountainside to allow a bit of an inside shoulder in the Tehachapi Loop area might be required; most of the remainder would be likely to qualify for terrain waivers (if necessary).
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: codyg1985 on July 12, 2017, 08:25:28 AM
There is definitely a good number of I-10 segments that could use upgrades from 2 lanes to 3 lanes in both directions. However, I-10 goes through some pretty remote area too. I think it would be strange to have a 3-3 highway setup in West Texas yet still have all those damned at-grade gravel driveways connecting to the highway. With such a sub-standard thing being allowed to fly on an Interstate in West Texas one could make a good argument to sign I-40 all the way to Bakersfield, CA.

I would also argue that I-10 along most of the Florida panhandle wouldn't be justified to be three lanes in each direction yet.. I would definitely see it as a priority between Pensacola and San Antonio. Also, widen the entire length of I-12.
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: sparker on July 12, 2017, 04:16:31 PM
There is definitely a good number of I-10 segments that could use upgrades from 2 lanes to 3 lanes in both directions. However, I-10 goes through some pretty remote area too. I think it would be strange to have a 3-3 highway setup in West Texas yet still have all those damned at-grade gravel driveways connecting to the highway. With such a sub-standard thing being allowed to fly on an Interstate in West Texas one could make a good argument to sign I-40 all the way to Bakersfield, CA.

I would also argue that I-10 along most of the Florida panhandle wouldn't be justified to be three lanes in each direction yet.. I would definitely see it as a priority between Pensacola and San Antonio. Also, widen the entire length of I-12.

From my experience, I-10 could use a third lane in each direction from Tallahassee east to its Jacksonville terminus (and possibly even 4+4 east of I-75 -- or at least periodic additional lanes for slower trucks).  And I concur that I-12 has enough (slow) truck traffic to warrant 3+3 along its entire length; there's plenty of "chemical coast" traffic coming out of Houston and environs that turns north on I-59.
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: plain on July 12, 2017, 09:27:58 PM
I don't see much of a need for I-10 to be widened through much of Texas either. I spent a week & a half in San Antonio and the entire east side of the city south of the I-35 corridor barely had traffic to speak of (even on I-410) and the stretch between Houston and SA was pretty light once I got out of the Houston metro.

I do say that the portion from I-12 to I-65 could be widened to 6 lanes though (outside of the already 6 & 8 lane portion in the Gulfport-Biloxi region of course) but that's a lot easier said than done with the obvious environmental issues. I've never been to Florida as the closest I've came was Mobile so I can't speak on that.

SM-S820L

Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: codyg1985 on July 13, 2017, 07:26:42 AM
I do say that the portion from I-12 to I-65 could be widened to 6 lanes though (outside of the already 6 & 8 lane portion in the Gulfport-Biloxi region of course) but that's a lot easier said than done with the obvious environmental issues. I've never been to Florida as the closest I've came was Mobile so I can't speak on that.

There are a few high-rise bridges along I-10 in Mississippi which would make widening rather expensive, but MDOT is creeping along east of Biloxi with widening.
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: longhorn on July 17, 2017, 12:54:54 PM
I do say that the portion from I-12 to I-65 could be widened to 6 lanes though (outside of the already 6 & 8 lane portion in the Gulfport-Biloxi region of course) but that's a lot easier said than done with the obvious environmental issues. I've never been to Florida as the closest I've came was Mobile so I can't speak on that.

There are a few high-rise bridges along I-10 in Mississippi which would make widening rather expensive, but MDOT is creeping along east of Biloxi with widening.

There is a lot of traffic on I-10 no matter what statics say. One can say the same about I-35, but thank goodness they expanded it to three lanes with a fourth lane built in for future use.

The I-10 bridge in Lake Charles is slated for replacement and you can guess it will be three lanes at least on each side.

I do not believe truck traffic is counted in population statics and that's what creates the stop and gos in the middle of nowhere Texas between two major metropolitan centers.
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: codyg1985 on July 17, 2017, 01:49:43 PM
I do say that the portion from I-12 to I-65 could be widened to 6 lanes though (outside of the already 6 & 8 lane portion in the Gulfport-Biloxi region of course) but that's a lot easier said than done with the obvious environmental issues. I've never been to Florida as the closest I've came was Mobile so I can't speak on that.

There are a few high-rise bridges along I-10 in Mississippi which would make widening rather expensive, but MDOT is creeping along east of Biloxi with widening.

There is a lot of traffic on I-10 no matter what statics say. One can say the same about I-35, but thank goodness they expanded it to three lanes with a fourth lane built in for future use.

The I-10 bridge in Lake Charles is slated for replacement and you can guess it will be three lanes at least on each side.

I do not believe truck traffic is counted in population statics and that's what creates the stop and gos in the middle of nowhere Texas between two major metropolitan centers.

Typically trucks are counted and there is a factor included in the traffic count information which shows the percentage of trucks and heavy vehicles.
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: MaxConcrete on August 08, 2018, 08:44:44 PM
http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/08083201.htm (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/08083201.htm)

Bids were opened today on the next section to be widened to 3x3, 10.2 miles from the Brazos River to west of Sealy.

It's an expensive job with the low bid of $317.5 million, or $31 million/mile, and 4.8% above estimate.

Estimate   $303,003,725.27   % Over/Under   Company
Bidder 1   $317,508,658.52   +4.79%   WEBBER, LLC
Bidder 2   $318,849,499.48   +5.23%   WILLIAMS BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.
Bidder 3   $326,380,527.70   +7.72%   FLUOR HEAVY CIVIL, LLC
Bidder 4   $340,535,018.06   +12.39%   PULICE CONSTRUCTION, INC.
Bidder 5   $346,686,800.41   +14.42%   BALFOUR BEATTY INFRASTRUCTURE, INC.


Observations
* This is a rare case when a bidder underbid Williams Brothers when WB is playing to win. WB already is working on the adjacent section to the east, so you would think the nearby presence would have lowered their cost
* The Brazos River bridge is included in this job and is shown as 4x4 in the plans. It is unclear if the existing bridge will be widened or replaced. The plans mention bridge demolition, so it is probably replacement.
* Looking at the plans, this entire section has near-continuous frontage roads (except for the Brazos bridge and BNSF RR) and it appears that all frontage roads will be rebuilt, and also widened in Sealy. So I'm thinking this is the main reason why the job is so expensive
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: Anthony_JK on August 09, 2018, 11:25:46 AM
In Louisiana, there's already a working project to widen I-10 to 3x3 from the I-49 interchange in Lafayette to the base of the Atchafalaya River Basin viaduct, along with completing the 3x3 widening from Cooley Bayou near Vinton to the Sabine River Bridge at the Texas state line (which is wide enough for 3x3 but currently striped for 2x2). I wouldn't be surprised if within 10-20 years all of I-10 was 3x3 all the way from TX to the Atchafalaya Basin and from BTR through NOLA (with even wider lengths through BTR and NOLA).

Widening the Basin segment would be a bear due to the existing bridges across the Atchafalaya River and Whiskey Bay Channel, and that rest area in the median at Butte la Rose. But, it would be a fine idea, since the only alternative would be to upgrade US 190 from the I-49 interchange at Opelousas to at least the LA 415 interchange near Lobdell/Port Allen to freeway standards....and I can't see Port Barre, Krotz Springs, or Livonia giving up that sweet speed trap funding.
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: jbnv on August 09, 2018, 02:03:18 PM
I don't see the Basin bridge being widened.

As for US 190, it could work as an alternate route if the TX 12 / LA 12 / US 190 corridor were expressway all the way from Vidor to Baton Rouge.
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: longhorn on August 09, 2018, 03:12:23 PM
I don't see the Basin bridge being widened.

As for US 190, it could work as an alternate route if the TX 12 / LA 12 / US 190 corridor were expressway all the way from Vidor to Baton Rouge.

Why not? Heck it would be a good to widen it to 4x4 so the whole thing doesn't shut down every time there is an accident.
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: longhorn on August 09, 2018, 03:14:50 PM
http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/08083201.htm (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/08083201.htm)

Bids were opened today on the next section to be widened to 3x3, 10.2 miles from the Brazos River to west of Sealy.

It's an expensive job with the low bid of $317.5 million, or $31 million/mile, and 4.8% above estimate.

Estimate   $303,003,725.27   % Over/Under   Company
Bidder 1   $317,508,658.52   +4.79%   WEBBER, LLC
Bidder 2   $318,849,499.48   +5.23%   WILLIAMS BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.
Bidder 3   $326,380,527.70   +7.72%   FLUOR HEAVY CIVIL, LLC
Bidder 4   $340,535,018.06   +12.39%   PULICE CONSTRUCTION, INC.
Bidder 5   $346,686,800.41   +14.42%   BALFOUR BEATTY INFRASTRUCTURE, INC.


Observations
* This is a rare case when a bidder underbid Williams Brothers when WB is playing to win. WB already is working on the adjacent section to the east, so you would think the nearby presence would have lowered their cost
* The Brazos River bridge is included in this job and is shown as 4x4 in the plans. It is unclear if the existing bridge will be widened or replaced. The plans mention bridge demolition, so it is probably replacement.
* Looking at the plans, this entire section has near-continuous frontage roads (except for the Brazos bridge and BNSF RR) and it appears that all frontage roads will be rebuilt, and also widened in Sealy. So I'm thinking this is the main reason why the job is so expensive

Could be expensive because they will use concrete. Even on the access roads like they did on I-35 rebuild between Temple and Waco.
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: nolia_boi504 on August 09, 2018, 04:32:18 PM
Will I-10 west of Katy Mills be built over major cross streets, as opposed to the akward exit and collection areas required when the cross stress jump over the highway?

Cane Island interchange is god awful, especially the north side with the traffic circle.

The I-10 overhaul project to the east of Grand Parkway did a much better job rebuilding the interchanges to what I like to think of as Texas standard.

Nexus 5X

Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: jbnv on August 09, 2018, 06:12:21 PM
I don't see the Basin bridge being widened.

Why not? Heck it would be a good to widen it to 4x4 so the whole thing doesn't shut down every time there is an accident.

Cost, plus good luck getting that one past the environmentalists.
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: DJStephens on August 10, 2018, 06:00:49 PM
There is definitely a good number of I-10 segments that could use upgrades from 2 lanes to 3 lanes in both directions. However, I-10 goes through some pretty remote area too. I think it would be strange to have a 3-3 highway setup in West Texas yet still have all those damned at-grade gravel driveways connecting to the highway. With such a sub-standard thing being allowed to fly on an Interstate in West Texas one could make a good argument to sign I-40 all the way to Bakersfield, CA. 

   The ranch access gates and cross-overs are in remote stretches of I-10 both east and west of Van Horn.   Am sure exceptions were granted for those ranchers, to avoid the need to build expensive exits, interchanges, and frontages that could stretch for miles.  If I-10 was built to complete "limited access" there, these facilities would have been used by a handful.   The pre-existing US 80 was completely laid over/eliminated by the interstate for much of those sections. 
    There are also ranch access gates in the ranch property area of I-10 between Tucson, and Benson, AZ.   
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: nexus73 on August 10, 2018, 08:45:04 PM
4 lanes in each direction sets up well for handling a lot of truck traffic in the right two lanes while allowing for 80+ MPH travel in the left two lanes.  This is the kind of setup I would like to see on I-5 between I-580 and SR 99.  Let the traffic roll and flow in the empty spaces of the West!

Rick
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: Plutonic Panda on August 15, 2018, 01:27:10 AM
There is definitely a good number of I-10 segments that could use upgrades from 2 lanes to 3 lanes in both directions. However, I-10 goes through some pretty remote area too. I think it would be strange to have a 3-3 highway setup in West Texas yet still have all those damned at-grade gravel driveways connecting to the highway. With such a sub-standard thing being allowed to fly on an Interstate in West Texas one could make a good argument to sign I-40 all the way to Bakersfield, CA. 

   The ranch access gates and cross-overs are in remote stretches of I-10 both east and west of Van Horn.   Am sure exceptions were granted for those ranchers, to avoid the need to build expensive exits, interchanges, and frontages that could stretch for miles.  If I-10 was built to complete "limited access" there, these facilities would have been used by a handful.   The pre-existing US 80 was completely laid over/eliminated by the interstate for much of those sections. 
    There are also ranch access gates in the ranch property area of I-10 between Tucson, and Benson, AZ.
Regardless of the costs, they need to either build interchanges or collector roads that lead to interchanges no matter how rural the area is. Standards should be followed.
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: Anthony_JK on August 15, 2018, 01:17:21 PM
I don't see the Basin bridge being widened.

Why not? Heck it would be a good to widen it to 4x4 so the whole thing doesn't shut down every time there is an accident.

Cost, plus good luck getting that one past the environmentalists.


The existing wide median between the roadway structures would be suitable for widening from the inside to at least 3x3,  but you would then have to deal with replacing the Atchafalaya River and Whiskey Bay Channel structures where the median disappears to a concrete divider, as well as the Butte la Rose rest area inbetween the structures just before the main Atchafalaya River channel crossing. Also, the median crossovers would have to be reconstructed, although the way I see it, it presents a perfect opportunity to convert them to grade-separated crossovers.

With I-10 being widened to 3x3 (and 4x4 through Baton Rouge and New Orleans) everywhere else in most places, I find it inevitable that there will be some push to widen the Atchafalaya Basin section. The only alternative would be to freewayize US 190 from the I-49 interchange in Opelousas to at least the LA 415 connector at Lobdell, if not the LA 1 connector at Port Allen near the old Mississippi River Bridge. I don't think that towns like Port Barre, Krotz Springs, Livonia, or Erwinville would like the idea of having their main speed trap revenue cows taken away from them...let alone the issue of controlling access on that road.

Of course, some would say that I-49 South would effectively become I-10's "bypass" when completed.
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: Bobby5280 on August 15, 2018, 01:46:23 PM
Quote from: DJStephens
The ranch access gates and cross-overs are in remote stretches of I-10 both east and west of Van Horn.   Am sure exceptions were granted for those ranchers, to avoid the need to build expensive exits, interchanges, and frontages that could stretch for miles.  If I-10 was built to complete "limited access" there, these facilities would have been used by a handful.   The pre-existing US 80 was completely laid over/eliminated by the interstate for much of those sections.

I think at the very least they should come up with some other solutions. One idea is building gravel/dirt frontage roads flanking the main lanes of I-10. Those could connect to other paved frontage road segments that do exist. Or they can do what is proposed for spots of I-69E and I-69C in South Texas: short length frontage roads with functional on/off ramps & acceleration lanes, creating a safer RIRO for those access points.

Whether the ranch access gates get used frequently or not they do pose a danger every time they are used. Ranchers should not be entering the freeway directly from a dirt road, especially a road (or driveway) that connects perpendicular to the highway, forcing hard right turns.

The thru traffic on I-10 out there is traveling at 80mph or significantly faster than that depending on how bad someone is speeding. 80mph is 117.3 feet per second. That's a football field in under 3 seconds. If some rancher is making a hard right turn onto I-10 from some gravel/dirt road he has to take extreme precautions to wait for a big enough gap in traffic before attempting to turn onto the highway. It takes more than a few seconds to go from a dead stop, turn right and then get up to highway travel speed. Many of these ranchers are hauling trailers behind their pickups, which greatly increases the time it takes to make a turn and speed up to the flow of traffic. God forbid the guy hops one set of lanes to jump over to make a left turn. Imagery in Google Earth clearly shows this is happening in some spots.

Ranchers may be used to dealing with those hazards, but other non-farmer types driving I-10 don't have the practice. Going 80mph or more it will be difficult for them to suddenly slow down for someone making a hard turn onto the highway in front of them. And that's even if they anticipate something like that could happen. Most people driving on freeways don't expect pickups entering out of nowhere from some gravel road. Normal Interstate exits have room to accelerate on the on ramps or have acceleration lanes at the end of the on ramps. These ranch access things have none of those safety features.

The terrain along I-10 in West Texas is pretty irregular. The highway is far from perfectly straight. If one of these ranch access roads is around a bend then visibility to I-10 traffic will be blocked within so and such many seconds of the turn. Trees, bushes and hills add to the visibility problems. That's one of the factors that makes all the gravel road off-shoots on CA-58 in California so potentially hazardous.
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: wxfree on August 15, 2018, 03:46:33 PM
TxDOT has plans to eliminate 10 grade crossings in Hudspeth County.  They aren't high-ranking priorities, but they are on the radar.

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

That's a list.  Here's a map.

http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/tpp/rural_2035/el_paso.pdf
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: TXtoNJ on August 15, 2018, 04:28:22 PM
I don't see the Basin bridge being widened.

Why not? Heck it would be a good to widen it to 4x4 so the whole thing doesn't shut down every time there is an accident.

Cost, plus good luck getting that one past the environmentalists.


The existing wide median between the roadway structures would be suitable for widening from the inside to at least 3x3,  but you would then have to deal with replacing the Atchafalaya River and Whiskey Bay Channel structures where the median disappears to a concrete divider, as well as the Butte la Rose rest area inbetween the structures just before the main Atchafalaya River channel crossing. Also, the median crossovers would have to be reconstructed, although the way I see it, it presents a perfect opportunity to convert them to grade-separated crossovers.

With I-10 being widened to 3x3 (and 4x4 through Baton Rouge and New Orleans) everywhere else in most places, I find it inevitable that there will be some push to widen the Atchafalaya Basin section. The only alternative would be to freewayize US 190 from the I-49 interchange in Opelousas to at least the LA 415 connector at Lobdell, if not the LA 1 connector at Port Allen near the old Mississippi River Bridge. I don't think that towns like Port Barre, Krotz Springs, Livonia, or Erwinville would like the idea of having their main speed trap revenue cows taken away from them...let alone the issue of controlling access on that road.

Of course, some would say that I-49 South would effectively become I-10's "bypass" when completed.


It'll happen within the next 25 years, if only because the structure will be approaching 75 years old at that point, under constant corrosion from the brackish water.
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: sparker on August 15, 2018, 09:29:13 PM
TxDOT has plans to eliminate 10 grade crossings in Hudspeth County.  They aren't high-ranking priorities, but they are on the radar.

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

That's a list.  Here's a map.

http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/tpp/rural_2035/el_paso.pdf

I don't suppose there's any equivalent plans to address the grade crossings on I-40 in the western Panhandle?
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: wxfree on August 15, 2018, 09:48:57 PM
TxDOT has plans to eliminate 10 grade crossings in Hudspeth County.  They aren't high-ranking priorities, but they are on the radar.

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

That's a list.  Here's a map.

http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/tpp/rural_2035/el_paso.pdf

I don't suppose there's any equivalent plans to address the grade crossings on I-40 in the western Panhandle?

No.  The only at-grade intersection eliminations on the list are the ones in Hudspeth County.
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: Bobby5280 on August 15, 2018, 10:44:48 PM
That's at least a start. But there's a whole bunch of other gravel driveways along I-10 farther East well past the split with I-20. They're fairly frequent between Van Horn and Junction. They don't really stop completely until just East of Kerrville. Many of them look improvised, just wheel ruts coming off the highway. Few are like the signed at-grade crossings on I-40 in the Texas Panhandle.

I guess some farmers and ranchers are so used to hopping directly onto the main lanes of I-10 from a gravel driveway that they'll even do it from the frontage roads. I-10 doesn't get very far Northwest out of metro San Antonio before there's clear evidence of that happening. The first example I spotted is just West of Exit 537 (Business US-87/Main St in Boerne).
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: wxfree on August 15, 2018, 11:19:03 PM
I remember a few places where a frontage road ends at a private drive, and instead of backtracking along the frontage road to the next ramp, it's obvious people drive directly to the freeway lanes, while there is a "Keep off median" sign and a cable barrier to prevent illegal crossing, but that barrier ends just at the end of the frontage road, making room for the illegal maneuver.  They build those long barriers and then end them 20 or 30 feet short of actually being effective.  You could almost get the impression it's a form of unofficial tolerance.
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: MaxConcrete on September 27, 2018, 12:03:20 AM
The public meeting for the expansion around Columbus showed plans for a major realignment of IH 10 at the Colorado River crossing to elminate curves in the area.

Alternative 1 will result in the abandonment of about 1.3 miles of the existing interstate. Alternative 2 abandons around 1 mile. Work is slated to begin in 2022.

https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/yoakum/092518.html (https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/yoakum/092518.html)

Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: DNAguy on September 27, 2018, 10:30:02 AM
The public meeting for the expansion around Columbus showed plans for a major realignment of IH 10 at the Colorado River crossing to elminate curves in the area.

Alternative 1 will result in the abandonment of about 1.3 miles of the existing interstate. Alternative 2 abandons around 1 mile. Work is slated to begin in 2022.

https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/yoakum/092518.html (https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/yoakum/092518.html)

Oh wow. The slow and steady march of 3 lanes all the way from SA to Houston and from Houston to SA continues.

Makes sense and it totally warranted. Having traveled this stretch many times this is needed badly.

Quick travel hack for those traveling from SA or Austin and going to the Soutwest side of Houston (like Missouri City, Sugar Land, Richmond, etc) or possibly the west side if there's a significant enough wreck on I10:

Take FM102 just east of Columbus to Eagle Lake and then take US 90 Alternate to Spur 10 to 59/69. FM102 is actually kind of nice in some areas (trees, cows, etc).

On Sundays you can totally bypass the back-ups in Sealy and avoid the tolls of either SH99 or the Beltway.
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: MaxConcrete on October 07, 2019, 11:35:18 PM
See page 5
https://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/ppd/projected-contracts/2020.pdf (https://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/ppd/projected-contracts/2020.pdf)

"Schematic/Environmental services in the Yoakum District: IH 10 from SH 71 to US 77."

I thought the widening to 3x3 would not extend west past SH 71. But it appears the wheels will be set in motion to continue westward. In January TxDOT is slated to award a consultant contract for the next section going west, 20 miles to US 77. Start of construction is probably at least 5 years away, since two major projects still need to start to reach SH 71. A $148 million project for 7 miles (east of SH 71) is slated for November award.
http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/let/2020/austin.htm#027102049 (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/let/2020/austin.htm#027102049)
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: dariusb on October 08, 2019, 11:55:32 PM
In Louisiana, there's already a working project to widen I-10 to 3x3 from the I-49 interchange in Lafayette to the base of the Atchafalaya River Basin viaduct, along with completing the 3x3 widening from Cooley Bayou near Vinton to the Sabine River Bridge at the Texas state line (which is wide enough for 3x3 but currently striped for 2x2). I wouldn't be surprised if within 10-20 years all of I-10 was 3x3 all the way from TX to the Atchafalaya Basin and from BTR through NOLA (with even wider lengths through BTR and NOLA).

Widening the Basin segment would be a bear due to the existing bridges across the Atchafalaya River and Whiskey Bay Channel, and that rest area in the median at Butte la Rose. But, it would be a fine idea, since the only alternative would be to upgrade US 190 from the I-49 interchange at Opelousas to at least the LA 415 interchange near Lobdell/Port Allen to freeway standards....and I can't see Port Barre, Krotz Springs, or Livonia giving up that sweet speed trap funding.

I agree. Houston to Lake Charles should be 3×3 and again from Lafayette to Baton Rouge. Traffic on that section is very heavy and frequently backs up in the afternoon at the Plaquemine exit and on the bridge leading into Baton Rouge.
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: TXtoNJ on October 09, 2019, 03:01:06 PM
In Louisiana, there's already a working project to widen I-10 to 3x3 from the I-49 interchange in Lafayette to the base of the Atchafalaya River Basin viaduct, along with completing the 3x3 widening from Cooley Bayou near Vinton to the Sabine River Bridge at the Texas state line (which is wide enough for 3x3 but currently striped for 2x2). I wouldn't be surprised if within 10-20 years all of I-10 was 3x3 all the way from TX to the Atchafalaya Basin and from BTR through NOLA (with even wider lengths through BTR and NOLA).

Widening the Basin segment would be a bear due to the existing bridges across the Atchafalaya River and Whiskey Bay Channel, and that rest area in the median at Butte la Rose. But, it would be a fine idea, since the only alternative would be to upgrade US 190 from the I-49 interchange at Opelousas to at least the LA 415 interchange near Lobdell/Port Allen to freeway standards....and I can't see Port Barre, Krotz Springs, or Livonia giving up that sweet speed trap funding.

I agree. Houston to Lake Charles should be 3×3 and again from Lafayette to Baton Rouge. Traffic on that section is very heavy and frequently backs up in the afternoon at the Plaquemine exit and on the bridge leading into Baton Rouge.

Problem is I can see the section between Winnie and Beaumont as being particularly expensive, since there would be a lot local demand to raise it on pylons given the twice-a-year flooding that shuts down the highway.
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: nexus73 on October 09, 2019, 06:10:31 PM
In Louisiana, there's already a working project to widen I-10 to 3x3 from the I-49 interchange in Lafayette to the base of the Atchafalaya River Basin viaduct, along with completing the 3x3 widening from Cooley Bayou near Vinton to the Sabine River Bridge at the Texas state line (which is wide enough for 3x3 but currently striped for 2x2). I wouldn't be surprised if within 10-20 years all of I-10 was 3x3 all the way from TX to the Atchafalaya Basin and from BTR through NOLA (with even wider lengths through BTR and NOLA).

Widening the Basin segment would be a bear due to the existing bridges across the Atchafalaya River and Whiskey Bay Channel, and that rest area in the median at Butte la Rose. But, it would be a fine idea, since the only alternative would be to upgrade US 190 from the I-49 interchange at Opelousas to at least the LA 415 interchange near Lobdell/Port Allen to freeway standards....and I can't see Port Barre, Krotz Springs, or Livonia giving up that sweet speed trap funding.

I agree. Houston to Lake Charles should be 3×3 and again from Lafayette to Baton Rouge. Traffic on that section is very heavy and frequently backs up in the afternoon at the Plaquemine exit and on the bridge leading into Baton Rouge.

Making all of I-10 a minimum 3-lane in each direction freeway would make sense since so many trucks use it.  Even West Texas needs this since trucks are the Big Beasts that need all the room they can get when they pass each other while the leftmost lane lets us in regular vehicles zip along at 80+ MPH unimpeded.  Safety!

Rick
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: Plutonic Panda on October 09, 2019, 07:49:44 PM
^^^ I completely agree with this. It isn’t just traffic counts that should be the only thing factored into a six laning. If enough truck traffic exists, then they ought to consider widening so cars don’t constantly get stuck behind trucks passing each other.
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: Bobby5280 on October 09, 2019, 09:45:10 PM
Quote from: dariusb
I agree. Houston to Lake Charles should be 3×3 and again from Lafayette to Baton Rouge. Traffic on that section is very heavy and frequently backs up in the afternoon at the Plaquemine exit and on the bridge leading into Baton Rouge.

I agree I-10 should be expanded through there. It pretty much should be at least a 3x3 facility from the Texas border to Mississippi. But replacing all those long bridges over swamp land is going to be seriously expensive. It's going to have to happen eventually though.
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: Echostatic on October 09, 2019, 11:40:09 PM
But replacing all those long bridges over swamp land is going to be seriously expensive. It's going to have to happen eventually though.

I doubt the Atchafalaya Basin Bridge will be replaced in my lifetime. Eighteen miles of concrete over water, in Louisiana, with today's level of infrastructure funding. They'll use that bridge until it falls into the sea.
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: longhorn on October 10, 2019, 11:36:34 AM
Quote from: dariusb
I agree. Houston to Lake Charles should be 3×3 and again from Lafayette to Baton Rouge. Traffic on that section is very heavy and frequently backs up in the afternoon at the Plaquemine exit and on the bridge leading into Baton Rouge.

I agree I-10 should be expanded through there. It pretty much should be at least a 3x3 facility from the Texas border to Mississippi. But replacing all those long bridges over swamp land is going to be seriously expensive. It's going to have to happen eventually though.

Why does it have to be replaced, just widened. The bones are still good.
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: cenlaroads on October 24, 2019, 08:02:04 PM

I agree. Houston to Lake Charles should be 3×3 and again from Lafayette to Baton Rouge. Traffic on that section is very heavy and frequently backs up in the afternoon at the Plaquemine exit and on the bridge leading into Baton Rouge.

Problem is I can see the section between Winnie and Beaumont as being particularly expensive, since there would be a lot local demand to raise it on pylons given the twice-a-year flooding that shuts down the highway.

The section from Winnie to Beaumont is already being widened as we speak.  2 sections are under construction, and the others are scheduled to be let within the next few years.
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: sparker on October 24, 2019, 08:56:06 PM
Quote from: dariusb
I agree. Houston to Lake Charles should be 3×3 and again from Lafayette to Baton Rouge. Traffic on that section is very heavy and frequently backs up in the afternoon at the Plaquemine exit and on the bridge leading into Baton Rouge.

I agree I-10 should be expanded through there. It pretty much should be at least a 3x3 facility from the Texas border to Mississippi. But replacing all those long bridges over swamp land is going to be seriously expensive. It's going to have to happen eventually though.

Why does it have to be replaced, just widened. The bones are still good.

If widening/expansion occurs on I-10 between Lafayette and Baton Rouge, what will likely be the methodology used, particularly on the Atchafayala Swamp viaduct, is to "bridge" the space between the parallel spans and install a K-rail for directional separation, with the additional lane per direction in the center (and likely the standard minimum 4-foot inner shoulders).   Sinking additional support bents into the swamp would almost certainly not be the first choice of LDOT engineers (or their accountants, for that matter!).  Either option would be costly and require either complete or at least single lane closures at some point.  Nevertheless, this is something that will have to be considered at one point -- unless I-49 South is completed, which may have the effect of diverting some traffic away from I-10, particularly if signage proclaiming it as an alternative to and from N.O. is deployed.   
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: Bobby5280 on October 25, 2019, 03:57:40 PM
The median between the two exising I-10 bridges over the Atchafalaya Swamp is approximately 125' wide. The same design is used on the other really long I-10 and I-55 bridges over the Maurepas Swamp farther East between New Orleans and Baton Rouge.

The strip of space between the two bridges is wide enough that it functions as a boat channel. But it's probably not wide enough to squeeze in a new 6-lane bridge (particularly one that complies modern highway geometry and bridge regulations) while leaving the two existing bridges unaffected.

My guess is when they finally start replacing these aging bridge structures they'll shift traffic to just one bridge, demolish and replace the other span, shift traffic to the newly completed span and replace the other old span. I wouldn't expect them to start replacing those aging bridges until the I-49 South project to New Orleans is completed. That would provide one alternate route to ease the traffic load on I-10. Once the projects get going the process will be aggravating and maybe involve non-freeway detours.
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: sprjus4 on October 25, 2019, 04:54:28 PM
The median between the two exising I-10 bridges over the Atchafalaya Swamp is approximately 125' wide. The same design is used on the other really long I-10 and I-55 bridges over the Maurepas Swamp farther East between New Orleans and Baton Rouge.

The strip of space between the two bridges is wide enough that it functions as a boat channel. But it's probably not wide enough to squeeze in a new 6-lane bridge (particularly one that complies modern highway geometry and bridge regulations) while leaving the two existing bridges unaffected.

My guess is when they finally start replacing these aging bridge structures they'll shift traffic to just one bridge, demolish and replace the other span, shift traffic to the newly completed span and replace the other old span. I wouldn't expect them to start replacing those aging bridges until the I-49 South project to New Orleans is completed. That would provide one alternate route to ease the traffic load on I-10. Once the projects get going the process will be aggravating and maybe involve non-freeway detours.
With 125 ft, you could technically squeeze a 6-lane viaduct in there.

Three 12 foot lanes each way, a 12 foot right and left shoulder, separated by a 4 foot median barrier.

124 foot wide bridge.
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: sparker on October 25, 2019, 06:01:08 PM
The median between the two exising I-10 bridges over the Atchafalaya Swamp is approximately 125' wide. The same design is used on the other really long I-10 and I-55 bridges over the Maurepas Swamp farther East between New Orleans and Baton Rouge.

The strip of space between the two bridges is wide enough that it functions as a boat channel. But it's probably not wide enough to squeeze in a new 6-lane bridge (particularly one that complies modern highway geometry and bridge regulations) while leaving the two existing bridges unaffected.

My guess is when they finally start replacing these aging bridge structures they'll shift traffic to just one bridge, demolish and replace the other span, shift traffic to the newly completed span and replace the other old span. I wouldn't expect them to start replacing those aging bridges until the I-49 South project to New Orleans is completed. That would provide one alternate route to ease the traffic load on I-10. Once the projects get going the process will be aggravating and maybe involve non-freeway detours.
With 125 ft, you could technically squeeze a 6-lane viaduct in there.

Three 12 foot lanes each way, a 12 foot right and left shoulder, separated by a 4 foot median barrier.

124 foot wide bridge.

Plus another 8-10 feet for railings (either half-K-rails or an actual railing structure); if the left shoulder were shrunk to the Interstate minimum of 4 feet, and the side rails were 4 feet each (sticking with the 12' lanes + outer shoulder), the overall width would be 116 feet.  With that margin, the inner/left shoulder could be brought out to 8 feet (enough to accommodate most automobiles if not trucks) to achieve the 124' width that could -- technically -- be accommodated in the space between the present I-10 bridges. 

That being said, Bobby is probably correct as to the replacement method -- but with a potential "twist" -- building one new single-direction bridge (68' wide: eventually 3 12' lanes + double 12' shoulders + double 4" siderails) in between the two existing bridges, but substantially closer to one than the other.  The old bridge closest to the new one would be kept intact for one direction, while the other is relocated on the new bridge.  At that point the more distant bridge is torn down and replaced with a new structure identical to the first.  When that's opened, the remaining old bridge would be removed.  The choice of precise location of the new bridges would be left to LDOT's engineers.  And whether the 2nd new bridge would be located within the footprint of the first of the old ones to go or farther afield to maintain the 125' median would also have to be determined by the engineers.  With the traffic volume on I-10 across the swamp, LDOT may not wish to squeeze both directions into one of the existing structures; the method described above would avoid that issue.   
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: cenlaroads on October 25, 2019, 06:59:10 PM
I don't know anything about bridge widening/replacement, but one factor to be taken into account is that the two viaducts join to become a single span at two locations, (1) the Atchafalaya River:

https://www.google.com/maps/@30.3436708,-91.7178502,3a,75y,63.17h,69.76t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sxlb4imNKJnRQR35Zsh0GLw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3Dxlb4imNKJnRQR35Zsh0GLw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D264.9236%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

and (2) the Whiskey Bay Pilot Channel:

https://www.google.com/maps/@30.365312,-91.6380252,3a,75y,84.37h,55.93t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sQNysUBrOn7c-gVq9dT3Cwg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DQNysUBrOn7c-gVq9dT3Cwg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D254.27167%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: sprjus4 on October 25, 2019, 07:02:37 PM
I don't know anything about bridge widening/replacement, but one factor to be taken into account is that the two viaducts join to become a single span at two locations, (1) the Atchafalaya River:

https://www.google.com/maps/@30.3436708,-91.7178502,3a,75y,63.17h,69.76t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sxlb4imNKJnRQR35Zsh0GLw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3Dxlb4imNKJnRQR35Zsh0GLw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D264.9236%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

and (2) the Whiskey Bay Pilot Channel:

https://www.google.com/maps/@30.365312,-91.6380252,3a,75y,84.37h,55.93t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sQNysUBrOn7c-gVq9dT3Cwg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DQNysUBrOn7c-gVq9dT3Cwg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D254.27167%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656
As sparker noted, realistically if any bridge replacement were to occur, it would be built in sections and phased out over a few years. These sections would be tied seamlessly into a new viaduct, as for construction likely would build part of it, shift traffic, demolish part of the existing, build the rest, shift traffic. Up where I'm at in Hampton Roads, they used a lot of that on older 60s bridges that are being replaced on the I-64 Widening projects heading west.
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: Anthony_JK on October 25, 2019, 09:00:23 PM
The median between the two exising I-10 bridges over the Atchafalaya Swamp is approximately 125' wide. The same design is used on the other really long I-10 and I-55 bridges over the Maurepas Swamp farther East between New Orleans and Baton Rouge.

The strip of space between the two bridges is wide enough that it functions as a boat channel. But it's probably not wide enough to squeeze in a new 6-lane bridge (particularly one that complies modern highway geometry and bridge regulations) while leaving the two existing bridges unaffected.

My guess is when they finally start replacing these aging bridge structures they'll shift traffic to just one bridge, demolish and replace the other span, shift traffic to the newly completed span and replace the other old span. I wouldn't expect them to start replacing those aging bridges until the I-49 South project to New Orleans is completed. That would provide one alternate route to ease the traffic load on I-10. Once the projects get going the process will be aggravating and maybe involve non-freeway detours.
With 125 ft, you could technically squeeze a 6-lane viaduct in there.

Three 12 foot lanes each way, a 12 foot right and left shoulder, separated by a 4 foot median barrier.

124 foot wide bridge.

Except, the idea here is NOT to build a new 6-lane viaduct in between the current ROW, but simply add a third lane and appropriate shoulder. You only need an additional 12 ft. lane in either direction and a 10' shoulder, plus an occasional "layby" at regular intervals for accident clearance or breakdowns.
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: Anthony_JK on October 25, 2019, 09:06:21 PM
I don't know anything about bridge widening/replacement, but one factor to be taken into account is that the two viaducts join to become a single span at two locations, (1) the Atchafalaya River:

https://www.google.com/maps/@30.3436708,-91.7178502,3a,75y,63.17h,69.76t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sxlb4imNKJnRQR35Zsh0GLw!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3Dxlb4imNKJnRQR35Zsh0GLw%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D264.9236%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

and (2) the Whiskey Bay Pilot Channel:

https://www.google.com/maps/@30.365312,-91.6380252,3a,75y,84.37h,55.93t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sQNysUBrOn7c-gVq9dT3Cwg!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo2.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DQNysUBrOn7c-gVq9dT3Cwg%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D254.27167%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656

There are two ways to resolve that issue:

1) Make a transition so that the new lanes and shoulders are tacked on to the outside of the existing high-rises and transition smoothly to the expanded sections outside of those locations;

or 2) do as LADOTD did with the I-10 High Rise in NOLA and simply build the improved crossings in a new ROW and transition them back into the existing ROW.

Since the current Butte la Rose and Whiskey Bay crossings don't have shoulders, any improvement would help greatly.
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: sprjus4 on October 25, 2019, 09:26:01 PM
The median between the two exising I-10 bridges over the Atchafalaya Swamp is approximately 125' wide. The same design is used on the other really long I-10 and I-55 bridges over the Maurepas Swamp farther East between New Orleans and Baton Rouge.

The strip of space between the two bridges is wide enough that it functions as a boat channel. But it's probably not wide enough to squeeze in a new 6-lane bridge (particularly one that complies modern highway geometry and bridge regulations) while leaving the two existing bridges unaffected.

My guess is when they finally start replacing these aging bridge structures they'll shift traffic to just one bridge, demolish and replace the other span, shift traffic to the newly completed span and replace the other old span. I wouldn't expect them to start replacing those aging bridges until the I-49 South project to New Orleans is completed. That would provide one alternate route to ease the traffic load on I-10. Once the projects get going the process will be aggravating and maybe involve non-freeway detours.
With 125 ft, you could technically squeeze a 6-lane viaduct in there.

Three 12 foot lanes each way, a 12 foot right and left shoulder, separated by a 4 foot median barrier.

124 foot wide bridge.

Except, the idea here is NOT to build a new 6-lane viaduct in between the current ROW, but simply add a third lane and appropriate shoulder. You only need an additional 12 ft. lane in either direction and a 10' shoulder, plus an occasional "layby" at regular intervals for accident clearance or breakdowns.
In theory that would work - but consider this. The 22 mile long bridges are nearing 50 years old. Considering any massive expansion is at least 10 years out, it’s a better bet to go ahead and replace the two viaducts with a new span entirely that would have a much longer life span, up to at least 100 years.

Here in Hampton Roads, a massive $3.8 billion project to widen the HRBT (Hampton Roads Bridge Tunnel) from 4 to 8 lanes begins next year, and the original concept was to retain the two 4-mile viaducts, one from the 50s and the other from the 70s, and simply build a new 4-lane viaduct next to them. Instead though, after considering how old they are, “sea level rise” , and other factors, they’ve decided to instead replace the whole thing with one brand-new higher 8-lane viaduct with a 100 year lifespan, and demolish the existing ones.
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: Bobby5280 on October 26, 2019, 01:03:27 PM
Quote from: sparker
That being said, Bobby is probably correct as to the replacement method -- but with a potential "twist" -- building one new single-direction bridge (68' wide: eventually 3 12' lanes + double 12' shoulders + double 4" siderails) in between the two existing bridges, but substantially closer to one than the other.  The old bridge closest to the new one would be kept intact for one direction, while the other is relocated on the new bridge.  At that point the more distant bridge is torn down and replaced with a new structure identical to the first.

That approach could work, but it would come at a cost of taking out the boat channels. There are boat ramps in between the bridges at Exit 121 and 127. Farther East near New Orleans the I-10 and I-55 bridges over the Maurepas Swamp have accommodations for boating and fishing. It would be controversial to build a new bridge structure through much of the middle of that channel.

Considering what it will cost to replace any of these existing bridges, building new structures only wide enough to add a third lane seems like not nearly enough of a benefit in return for all the cost and inconvenience that will occur when the bridges are replaced. I think the planners should consider building each replacement span 4 lanes wide.

Quote from: Anthony_JK
Except, the idea here is NOT to build a new 6-lane viaduct in between the current ROW, but simply add a third lane and appropriate shoulder. You only need an additional 12 ft. lane in either direction and a 10' shoulder, plus an occasional "layby" at regular intervals for accident clearance or breakdowns.
Quote from: sprjus4
In theory that would work - but consider this. The 22 mile long bridges are nearing 50 years old. Considering any massive expansion is at least 10 years out, it’s a better bet to go ahead and replace the two viaducts with a new span entirely that would have a much longer life span, up to at least 100 years

Exactly. The existing bridges are OLD. There is nothing visually attractive about these bridges to warrant saving them from demolition and replacement with entirely new structures built to modern standards.

Simply adding an additional lane onto aging bridges could open a big can of worms in terms of legal and regulatory red tape. These existing bridges do not comply with modern Interstate highway standards and modern highway bridge standards. Would a significant alteration to these bridges (adding a 3rd lane) require the entire structures to be brought up to code?

Very often it's just more simple to demolish the old, out of date bridge structure and replace it with a new bridge. Lately the trend with major Interstate highway bridge projects has been to build twin spans to increase capacity.
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: sprjus4 on October 26, 2019, 01:12:57 PM
Lately the trend with major Interstate highway bridge projects has been to build twin spans to increase capacity.
Not necessarily, having one single 6-lane span would be adequate.

In a massive multi-billion dollar project like this, I'd say replace the existing spans with a single 6-lane span designed to easily be widened in the future to 8-lanes if warranted. It wouldn't be 6-lanes with wide shoulders, but rather a standard 6-lane cross section with the bridge structure able to easily accommodate a widening of the structure.
 
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: Beltway on October 26, 2019, 11:39:58 PM
That approach could work, but it would come at a cost of taking out the boat channels. There are boat ramps in between the bridges at Exit 121 and 127. Farther East near New Orleans the I-10 and I-55 bridges over the Maurepas Swamp have accommodations for boating and fishing. It would be controversial to build a new bridge structure through much of the middle of that channel.
I have been an occasional boater since youth.

How serious is this boat channel?  Does it serve private properties?  Does it provide connections between lakes and rivers?  Is it part of a system that connects to the Gulf?  Does it carry commercial traffic such as fishing vessels and barges?  Does it carry large volumes of pleasure craft?

If is a serious boat channel then there is no way that its users will not vigorously oppose anything that would compromise it.
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: Bobby5280 on October 28, 2019, 11:45:34 AM
The boat channels between I-10 and I-55 over the Maurepas Swamp close to New Orleans both have outlets to Lake Ponchartrain. On I-10 about 2.5 miles West of the LA-3188 exit at least 3 boat houses are built down there along the boat channel at the junction of an outlet going directly North to Lake Ponchartrain. These buildings can be reached only by boat.

Farther West going over the Atchafalaya Swamp two of the three channels between the I-10 bridges have permanent boat ramps for access to the channels. The one by the Atchafalaya Welcome Center (positioned within the I-10 exit with LA-3177) is a primary outlet to Lake Bigeaux and other parts of the swamp. The East channel is more isolated, but I've personally seen boats down in it on drives across that bridge.

I think if both existing bridges along I-10 and I-55 were to remain open while a first new bridge was built I would bet on the first new bridge being shifted outside the existing pair of bridges (and require a bit more clearing of trees and brush along the edge of the channel). Building in between may be a non-starter. Such an approach may be necessary anyway. For instance, the taller bridge going over the Atchafalaya River will require a new bridge (or pair of new bridges) to be built to the left or right of the existing bridge. Some of the exits will have to be rebuilt as well since those on/off ramp bridges are just as old.
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: Beltway on October 28, 2019, 11:57:28 AM
I think if both existing bridges along I-10 and I-55 were to remain open while a first new bridge was built I would bet on the first new bridge being shifted outside the existing pair of bridges (and require a bit more clearing of trees and brush along the edge of the channel).
The boat channel looks like it involved considerable dredging so that the construction barges could operate there, maybe as much as 5 or 6 feet of depth.

Building this pre-NEPA didn't encounter the kinds of environmental and permitting issues that would occur today, not to mention the amount of excavation that would be required to dredge a new or widened channel.

This may be a difficult project to figure out, given the limited clearances they would have to work with if they stay within the existing channel.

Have any EIS/location studies been conducted for widening these bridges?
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: longhorn on October 28, 2019, 11:59:56 AM
I remember when the twin spans were built over the swamp. Everyone had to take 190 out of Baton Rouge until finished. When there is an accident on the bridge guess where traffic is rerouted? The 190 stretch from Lafayette to Baton Rouge on 190.

Though the spans are getting up in age, I just don't see Louisiana having the money to rebuild, so a simple addition of lane will be relatively cheap and do wanders for the immense traffic that stretch sees. Seeing how well the bridges have held up with no issues speaks to how well engineered and made it was.
 
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: Beltway on October 28, 2019, 12:14:37 PM
Though the spans are getting up in age, I just don't see Louisiana having the money to rebuild, so a simple addition of lane will be relatively cheap and do wanders for the immense traffic that stretch sees. Seeing how well the bridges have held up with no issues speaks to how well engineered and made it was.
The "Swamp Expressway" was one of the more notable projects in the early years of building the Interstate highway system.

That said, they are approaching 50 years old, well beyond the design life envisioned back then (most highway engineers didn't plan more than 20 years then), and if not complete replacement, they will soon need a major restoration on the order of complete superstructure replacement and major rehabilitation to the substructure.  That might be not much less costly than a full replacement.

The Atchafalaya Basin Bridge opened in 1973.  It is the 3rd longest bridge in the United States spanning a total of 96,095 feet or about 18.2 miles.  The Atchafalaya Basin Bridge holds the title of 2nd longest bridge on the U.S. interstate system and is the 14th longest in the world by total length.

It's almost inconceivable that it only took a little under 3 years to complete.  Construction started in 1971 and it opened to the public in '73.  At the time of it's opening, the Atchafalaya Basin Bridge was honored with the title, 'longest bridge in the world'.  It only has two exits.  One at Butte La Rose and the other for Whiskey Bay.  Latest data (2015) puts the average traffic count at 30,420 vehicles per day.

https://999ktdy.com/vintage-video-of-the-atchafalaya-basin-bridge-being-built-is-unbelievable-video/?utm_source=tsmclip&utm_medium=referral
 
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: sprjus4 on October 28, 2019, 04:40:07 PM
Everyone had to take 190 out of Baton Rouge until finished. When there is an accident on the bridge guess where traffic is rerouted? The 190 stretch from Lafayette to Baton Rouge on 190.
I ended up having to take US-190 a couple of months ago heading east due to a major accident on the bridge that shut it down. It was at night, but there was still a significant amount of traffic but everybody was moving fast. The detour wasn't too bad, it's all divided 4-lane highway, and the speed limit is mostly 55 mph with 65 mph in some areas, although everybody was already doing 70+ mph. Going with flow, hit 80 mph in a couple of times. Not something I'd do if I was alone (probably 65 - 70 mph is the most I'd do if solo), but was in a group of cars all going the same speed. No major delays, only a couple of towns and traffic signals.
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: MaxConcrete on November 05, 2019, 07:17:08 PM
Bids were opened today for the next section to be upgraded to 3x3, 7.6 miles from Sealy to the Austin/Colorado county line. (I don't know why the bid listing shows 13.75 miles, the plans state 7.642 miles, which is correct.) Lowest bid is $184.6 million, or $24.1 million per mile. It's nice to see that the low bid is 5.4% under estimate. Last month the aggregate bid total was 1.07% under estimate, so it looks like the recent inflationary surge has taken a pause.

http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/11053001.htm
 (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/11053001.htm)
County:   AUSTIN   Let Date:   11/05/19
Type:   WIDEN FREEWAY   Seq No:   3001
Time:   0 X   Project ID:   NH 2020(115)
Highway:   IH 10   Contract #:   11193001
Length:   13.750   CCSJ:   0271-02-049
Limits:   
From:   COLORADO C/L   Check:   $100,000
To:   FM 3538   Misc Cost:   $744,400.00
Estimate   $195,127,131.22   % Over/Under   Company
Bidder 1   $184,551,690.06   -5.42%   WEBBER, LLC
Bidder 2   $192,205,823.26   -1.50%   JAMES CONSTRUCTION GROUP, L.L.C.
Bidder 3   $198,611,306.16   +1.79%   ZACHRY CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION
Bidder 4   $209,125,829.73   +7.17%   WILLIAMS BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: Anthony_JK on November 06, 2019, 02:32:29 AM
I remember when the twin spans were built over the swamp. Everyone had to take 190 out of Baton Rouge until finished. When there is an accident on the bridge guess where traffic is rerouted? The 190 stretch from Lafayette to Baton Rouge on 190.

Though the spans are getting up in age, I just don't see Louisiana having the money to rebuild, so a simple addition of lane will be relatively cheap and do wanders for the immense traffic that stretch sees. Seeing how well the bridges have held up with no issues speaks to how well engineered and made it was.
 

Actually, the exact alternate detour route (going east) is I-49 North (exit 103B on I-10) to Opelousas, then US 190 east (exit 19A off I-49) to Lobdell just west of Port Allen, then LA 415 south to I-10. Just reverse it for westbound detour traffic.


Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: MaxConcrete on February 24, 2020, 07:50:48 PM
TxDOT posted a solicitation for a consultant to prepare the plans for widening to 3x3 from Columbus to Schulenberg, about 20 miles.

The schematic is posted with the solicitation
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/ppd/solicitations/4305/schematics.pdf (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/ppd/solicitations/4305/schematics.pdf)

Observations:
* The main lane design is 100% per TxDOT's modern template: 3x3 with full interior and exterior shoulders, no median, center concrete barrier
* There is a strange diversion from the existing alignment about 1 mile east of US 90. The reason appears to be for smoothing the curve at this location. The diversion is about 1 mile long. Maybe that curve is accident-prone? This seems especially strange since the curve could have been smoothed on the north side, with much less right-of-way acquisition. Maybe the nearby railroad crossing was a design factor.
* Between CR 210 and CR 220, a forested area between the main lanes and frontage road is eliminated by relocating the frontage road to be alongside the main lanes. This eliminates the only location of natural foliage within the right-of-way on this section of IH 10.
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: thisdj78 on February 24, 2020, 10:20:13 PM
TxDOT posted a solicitation for a consultant to prepare the plans for widening to 3x3 from Columbus to Schulenberg, about 20 miles.

The schematic is posted with the solicitation
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/ppd/solicitations/4305/schematics.pdf (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/ppd/solicitations/4305/schematics.pdf)

Observations:
* The main lane design is 100% per TxDOT's modern template: 3x3 with full interior and exterior shoulders, no median, center concrete barrier
* There is a strange diversion from the existing alignment about 1 mile east of US 90. The reason appears to be for smoothing the curve at this location. The diversion is about 1 mile long. Maybe that curve is accident-prone? This seems especially strange since the curve could have been smoothed on the north side, with much less right-of-way acquisition. Maybe the nearby railroad crossing was a design factor.
* Between CR 210 and CR 220, a forested area between the main lanes and frontage road is eliminated by relocating the frontage road to be alongside the main lanes. This eliminates the only location of natural foliage within the right-of-way on this section of IH 10.

Are there bids for the Austin/Colorado County line to Columbus?
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: MaxConcrete on May 13, 2021, 11:54:06 PM
The Houston Chronicle has a report about the ongoing work between Brookshire to west of Sealy. The article says this work will be done in mid-2022. However, the start of work on the next section to Columbus has been delayed.

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/transportation/article/Brookshire-bottleneck-moving-west-as-part-of-570-16174173.php (https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/transportation/article/Brookshire-bottleneck-moving-west-as-part-of-570-16174173.php)

(https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/20/03/50/20986406/3/1200x0.jpg)

(https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/20/03/50/20986401/3/ratio3x2_1200.jpg)
This view shows traffic using the feeders while the main lanes are built. You can see the barrier separating the main traffic from the local access lane.

(https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/20/03/50/20986397/3/ratio3x2_1200.jpg)
In Sealy traffic is also diverted to the feeder, but there's no need for a barrier to create a local access lane here.

(https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/20/03/50/20986391/3/ratio3x2_1200.jpg)
At the Brazos River

(https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/20/03/50/20986403/3/ratio3x2_1200.jpg)
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: Bobby5280 on May 14, 2021, 09:07:14 PM
That looks like a pretty massive project just for something with an end result of 3 lanes in both directions (flanked by frontage roads too). I wonder if they're building in additional expansion capacity.
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: jlwm on May 17, 2021, 11:07:29 PM
The Houston Chronicle has a report about the ongoing work between Brookshire to west of Sealy. The article says this work will be done in mid-2022. However, the start of work on the next section to Columbus has been delayed.

https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/transportation/article/Brookshire-bottleneck-moving-west-as-part-of-570-16174173.php (https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/transportation/article/Brookshire-bottleneck-moving-west-as-part-of-570-16174173.php)

(https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/20/03/50/20986406/3/1200x0.jpg)

(https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/20/03/50/20986401/3/ratio3x2_1200.jpg)
This view shows traffic using the feeders while the main lanes are built. You can see the barrier separating the main traffic from the local access lane.

(https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/20/03/50/20986397/3/ratio3x2_1200.jpg)
In Sealy traffic is also diverted to the feeder, but there's no need for a barrier to create a local access lane here.

(https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/20/03/50/20986391/3/ratio3x2_1200.jpg)
At the Brazos River

(https://s.hdnux.com/photos/01/20/03/50/20986403/3/ratio3x2_1200.jpg)

An interesting thing I've noticed about this project is the section of the project in the Yoakum District in Austin County is being built to the Houston District's Horizontal Regional Design Scheme architectural guidelines. Outside of the Houston District, the respective bordering districts usually either utilize their own architectural guidelines or do a general unadorned design. 
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: longhorn on May 18, 2021, 03:32:34 PM
So they are rebuilding the roadbed then. I thought this was  simple add an interior lane in the median and add a layer of black top like they did with I-35 between SAT and AUS. But they are doing a full on rebuild ala I-35 Salado to Hillsboro.
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: Scott5114 on May 22, 2021, 04:20:16 PM
Discussion of at-grade intersections on I-10 in west Texas split to: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=29359.0
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: jbnv on May 23, 2021, 08:32:25 PM
Discussion of at-grade intersections on I-10 in west Texas split to: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=29359.0

I'm surprised you didn't split out the discussion of the Atchafalaya Basin bridge as well.
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: MaxConcrete on August 06, 2021, 07:26:52 PM
Photo posted on the Webber twitter account
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E79xbQnXoAUOGzo?format=jpg)

large:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E79xbQnXoAUOGzo?format=jpg&name=4096x4096 (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E79xbQnXoAUOGzo?format=jpg&name=4096x4096)

https://twitter.com/webberllc/status/1422980728573218816
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on August 07, 2021, 01:01:36 PM
Photo posted on the Webber twitter account
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E79xbQnXoAUOGzo?format=jpg)

large:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E79xbQnXoAUOGzo?format=jpg&name=4096x4096 (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E79xbQnXoAUOGzo?format=jpg&name=4096x4096)

https://twitter.com/webberllc/status/1422980728573218816

I have been periodically driving from Austin to Lake Jackson the past year to see family (choosing the I-10, Sam Houston Tollway, SH-288 route) so I have had the pleasure of driving through this.  I must say, this project is coming along pretty fast.  Way faster than the I-35 version of this between Austin and DFW.
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: longhorn on March 25, 2022, 02:50:41 PM
Much overdo between Seguin and San Antonio.  It seems  more cars and trucks are taking 130 and spilling onto I-10 headed to San Antonio. More stop and go than I recently remembered.
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: jlwm on May 26, 2022, 01:56:29 AM
The eastbound mainlanes of I-10 are striped in their final 3 lane configuration between Sealy and the Brazos River. Of course you hit another backup when it goes back to 2 lanes at the river since that section is still under construction, but it was nice to free flow on Sunday evening for that small section instead of a constant slowdown between Columbus and Brookshire.
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: thisdj78 on July 09, 2022, 02:05:26 AM
The eastbound mainlanes of I-10 are striped in their final 3 lane configuration between Sealy and the Brazos River. Of course you hit another backup when it goes back to 2 lanes at the river since that section is still under construction, but it was nice to free flow on Sunday evening for that small section instead of a constant slowdown between Columbus and Brookshire.

Rode on that section this evening. It’s fully open from Sealy to the river. Can’t wait until they open the section to Brookshire. I agree it was a nice change as the last time I drove this route was near the beginning of the year.
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: MaxConcrete on October 27, 2022, 12:43:30 PM
For the section west of Sealy, all concrete is done and crews are now building the central barrier. So this section should be done within a few months.

As noted previously, the section from the Brazos River to Brookshire still has a long way to go. This project, being done by Williams Brothers, seems to have been in progress for a long time and I'm wondering if it is behind schedule. I think (but I'm not sure) that this section was awarded before the two sections at Sealy and west of Sealy.
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: Bobby5280 on October 27, 2022, 06:44:36 PM
There is very recent Google Street View imagery in the Sealy area (dated 10/2022) on the Westbound lanes of I-10. The imagery goes at least several miles West of Sealy thru the end of the construction project.
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: MaxConcrete on June 01, 2023, 06:08:36 PM
Bids opened today for widening 5 miles to 3x3 on the north side of Seguin. Looking at the plans, the pavement width is mostly 4x4, with long sections having an auxiliary lane. (But it is not continuously 4x4.) The design is TxDOT's standard template for widening existing interstates, which is to pave the median and have a center barrier, with 12-foot-wide inner and outer shoulders. This project is expensive and is over estimate.

County:   GUADALUPE   Let Date:   06/01/23
Type:   WIDEN ROAD - ADD LANES   Seq No:   3002
Time:   1711 WORKING DAYS   Project ID:   F 2023(947)
Highway:   IH 10   Contract #:   06233002
Length:   13.184   CCSJ:   0535-01-074
Limits:   
From:   FM 464   Check:   $100,000
To:   SH 123   Misc Cost:   
Estimate   $219,314,547.45   % Over/Under   Company
Bidder 1   $245,194,039.15   +11.80%   WEBBER, LLC
Bidder 2   $264,440,864.99   +20.58%   PULICE CONSTRUCTION, INC.
Bidder 3   $289,744,880.52   +32.11%   ZACHRY CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: longhorn on June 02, 2023, 12:07:57 AM
Would imagine every bridge though Seguin will need to be replaced. That will cost.
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: MaxConcrete on June 28, 2023, 06:02:36 PM
Bids were opened today for rebuilding and expanding 12.3 miles to 3x3 with continuous frontage roads from west of Sealy to east of the Colorado River. Main lane inner and outer shoulders are 12 feet wide, probably to accommodate traffic westbound during a hurricane evacuation.
http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/06283602.htm (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/06283602.htm)

The job is still listed with a $330 million estimate on another TxDOT site, so I think this high cost of $35 million per mile reflects severe inflation in construction costs. Lack of bidders surely contributed to the high bids. The next job going west includes a new bridge over the Colorado river. It is scheduled for May 2024 and listed at $519 million.

County:   COLORADO   Let Date:   06/28/23
Type:   WIDEN ROAD - ADD LANES   Seq No:   3602
Time:   0 X   Project ID:   C 271-1-66
Highway:   IH 10   Contract #:   06233602
Length:   12.325   CCSJ:   0271-01-066
Limits:   
From:   US 90 (ALLEYTON RD SOUTH)   Check:   $100,000
To:   FM 2761   Misc Cost:   
Estimate   $443,597,130.05   % Over/Under   Company
Bidder 1   $429,395,799.87   -3.20%   WEBBER, LLC
Bidder 2   $488,964,288.85   +10.23%   PULICE CONSTRUCTION, INC.

 

Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on July 07, 2023, 02:46:27 PM
I am curious every time I drive through there if they will keep the wide median west of Brookshire or not when that segment of the project is complete. 
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: MaxConcrete on July 07, 2023, 05:22:44 PM
I am curious every time I drive through there if they will keep the wide median west of Brookshire or not when that segment of the project is complete. 

I looked at the plans, but that was years ago when the project started. I'm virtually certain the wide median area is retained.

Of course, that wide median area was originally a rest area. The rest area was decommissioned a long time ago, maybe in the 1990s or early 2000s.
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: thisdj78 on July 07, 2023, 08:24:47 PM
I am curious every time I drive through there if they will keep the wide median west of Brookshire or not when that segment of the project is complete.

Judging by how they are rebuilding the Donigan Rd bridge, it looks like they keeping the I-10 alignment the same in that area. Plus a bayou/creek runs parallel with the highway in part of that median, so it probably was more cost effective to keep it as is.
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: thisdj78 on July 07, 2023, 08:26:48 PM
I am curious every time I drive through there if they will keep the wide median west of Brookshire or not when that segment of the project is complete. 

I looked at the plans, but that was years ago when the project started. I'm virtually certain the wide median area is retained.

Of course, that wide median area was originally a rest area. The rest area was decommissioned a long time ago, maybe in the 1990s or early 2000s.

Yeah, I feel like it was between 98-00. I remember pulling into the rest area with car trouble when I was in college (that was around 97-98) and not long after that it was closed.
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on July 09, 2023, 04:01:37 PM
I am curious every time I drive through there if they will keep the wide median west of Brookshire or not when that segment of the project is complete. 

I looked at the plans, but that was years ago when the project started. I'm virtually certain the wide median area is retained.

Of course, that wide median area was originally a rest area. The rest area was decommissioned a long time ago, maybe in the 1990s or early 2000s.

Yeah, I feel like it was between 98-00. I remember pulling into the rest area with car trouble when I was in college (that was around 97-98) and not long after that it was closed.

They really should modernize it and open it back up.  It is still "rural" enough to justify it's existence. 
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: DJStephens on July 12, 2023, 07:32:59 PM
The problem with median located "rest areas" is the fact that sure enough, someone will pull into the left lane, at the last second, to exit into this facility.  Keep it retired.   
Unfortunate, with all the money tex-dot has, they cannot break away from this monotone of "no median" building a hypnotic cross - section, with monolithic center barrier. A sixty foot median, with cable, and greater horizontal clearance for the new over and under passes would have been preferable.   
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: sprjus4 on July 12, 2023, 10:09:55 PM
^ While I agree new freeways should be built with at least a 46 foot depressed grassy median, I see no reason to expand the cross section for a widened highway. Three lanes in either direction with a concrete median is adequate IMO, and any wider would just require unnecessary right of way acquisition.
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: Bobby5280 on July 12, 2023, 11:57:09 PM
Quote from: DJStephens
The problem with median located "rest areas" is the fact that sure enough, someone will pull into the left lane, at the last second, to exit into this facility.

Exactly. Travel plazas in the median are tricky. I've gotten into the habit of shifting over to the right lane, treating it as a passing lane, when I pass one of those median plazas. Vehicles slowing down in the left lane to take that exit can pose quite a weaving hazard (especially with other vehicles going 80mph or more).

I-44 in Oklahoma has a few turnpike plazas. Three of them are built in the median. There's a one-way plaza off to the side in Chandler. The plaza near Vinita is built over the main lanes of I-44. That one is pretty cool, but I'm sure it costs a whole lot more than those other plazas. Other Oklahoma turnpikes have these median plazas. They tore down one of the two plazas on the Indian Nation Turnpike (the one near Antlers). There's a couple other places where it looked like they were planning a median plaza but didn't follow through. The turnpike lanes just bow out and around something never built.
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: ran4sh on July 13, 2023, 12:15:04 AM
^ While I agree new freeways should be built with at least a 46 foot depressed grassy median, I see no reason to expand the cross section for a widened highway. Three lanes in either direction with a concrete median is adequate IMO, and any wider would just require unnecessary right of way acquisition.

That only makes sense in some specific situations, and not as a general rule. 6 lanes, 3 each way, with concrete median, may be adequate by itself, but the issue is acquiring additional right of way if more lanes are wanted. In regions that are experiencing population growth, it should at least be considered to build a 6 lane highway with the same median width as a 4 lane highway. Then, when widening to 8 or 10 lanes is desired (and/or adding an HOV, HO/T, express, etc lane), use the median right of way.
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on July 13, 2023, 10:09:21 AM
Quote from: DJStephens
The problem with median located "rest areas" is the fact that sure enough, someone will pull into the left lane, at the last second, to exit into this facility.

Exactly. Travel plazas in the median are tricky. I've gotten into the habit of shifting over to the right lane, treating it as a passing lane, when I pass one of those median plazas. Vehicles slowing down in the left lane to take that exit can pose quite a weaving hazard (especially with other vehicles going 80mph or more).

I-44 in Oklahoma has a few turnpike plazas. Three of them are built in the median. There's a one-way plaza off to the side in Chandler. The plaza near Vinita is built over the main lanes of I-44. That one is pretty cool, but I'm sure it costs a whole lot more than those other plazas. Other Oklahoma turnpikes have these median plazas. They tore down one of the two plazas on the Indian Nation Turnpike (the one near Antlers). There's a couple other places where it they were planning a median plaza but didn't follow through.

My issue with median based rest areas/plazas is, as an RV drive, our long road trips involve spending the night in a rest area.  With the rest area in the middle, I don't sleep as well because I am more afraid of someone running off the road and hitting us, because we have travel lanes on both sides of us rather than just one, and in theory the higher speed travel lane is the closet one to us (meaning a longer distance for an errant car to come to a complete stop).  I think about someone falling asleep at the wheel a lot when we are in a rest area late at night because they have zero capacity to avoid the collision when they are asleep.  I try to find rest areas with a physical barrier between the parking area the main lanes, like the building for the rest area or a nice berm. 
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: rte66man on July 15, 2023, 06:41:42 PM
I-44 in Oklahoma has a few turnpike plazas. Three of them are built in the median. There's a one-way plaza off to the side in Chandler. The plaza near Vinita is built over the main lanes of I-44. That one is pretty cool, but I'm sure it costs a whole lot more than those other plazas. Other Oklahoma turnpikes have these median plazas. They tore down one of the two plazas on the Indian Nation Turnpike (the one near Antlers). There's a couple other places where it looked like they were planning a median plaza but didn't follow through. The turnpike lanes just bow out and around something never built.

The plaza at Stroud was built in the late 70's to replace the original service area that had a gas station on  both sides and a HoJo on the eastbound side. Westbound travelers used a covered footbridge to reach it. It is scheduled to be removed next year as a part of removing the "bow" and returning to the original configuration. A new westbound service area will then be built at Stroud. Give that the Vinita service are was built with the restaurant over the turnpike, there was never a reason to replace it.

There are no plans I'm aware of to replace the Lone Chimney service are on the Cimarron. Same goes for the one north of Muskogee on the Muskogee Turnpike. The Leach service are on the Cherokee was torn down about 20 years ago and never replaced (low patronage).

Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: Plutonic Panda on July 15, 2023, 11:30:02 PM
Yeah I just don’t like median service stations in general. I don’t like the look and unless they want to build an expensive ramp the only way to get to them is through left exits which I don’t like.
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: Bobby5280 on July 16, 2023, 01:57:39 AM
I don't mind the service plazas in the median all that much. But I would prefer the more elaborate design where the plaza is built over the highway and has exits and parking areas flanking the left and right of the main lanes of the Interstate. No left exits with that approach.

The I-44 service plaza near Vinita is fairly unique. At one time it had what was considered the world's largest McDonald's location. The recently re-built plaza has handful of restaurants in it along with a convenience store and tourist info stuff.
Title: Re: I-10 expansion between San Antonio and Houston
Post by: Rothman on July 16, 2023, 07:45:08 AM
I don't like plazas where you can't reverse direction.