AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules for political content in signatures and user profiles. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: Interstate 10 and Woodrow Bean Transmountain Drive Intersection in El Paso  (Read 5371 times)

ethanhopkin14

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 345
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Last Login: April 09, 2019, 05:15:35 PM

I was browsing the Googs and saw that the intersection of Interstate 10 and Woodrow Bean Transmountain Drive (Loop 375) has been upgraded with flyovers from west bound Interstate 10 to east bound Loop 375 and one from west bound Loop 375 to east bound Interstate 10.  I was wondering why there isn't a connector flyover from east bound Interstate 10 to east bound Loop 375.  I was thinking the intention is to serve as a loop around downtown El Paso, and a direct connector would help that, bringing east bound I-10 traffic onto Loop 375 so that traffic can loop around the city.  Is there an intention in the future for that?
Logged

wxfree

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1036
  • Age: -1
  • Location: Over there
  • Last Login: May 23, 2019, 02:34:25 AM

The information shows no intention of additional direct connectors.  The project's main page is here: http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/el-paso/loop-375-west.html

That page links to this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qx7HykxRSAg

The most extensive building option in the environmental assessment is Alternative 5, which is what's shown in the video and is what was built.  It includes only the two direct connectors.
Logged
All of my posts represent my personal opinions and the official views of any governmental agency that has good sense.

ethanhopkin14

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 345
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Last Login: April 09, 2019, 05:15:35 PM

The information shows no intention of additional direct connectors.  The project's main page is here: http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/el-paso/loop-375-west.html

That page links to this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qx7HykxRSAg

The most extensive building option in the environmental assessment is Alternative 5, which is what's shown in the video and is what was built.  It includes only the two direct connectors.

Stupid.

Way to drop the ball again TxDOT
Logged

ARMOURERERIC

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 964
  • Age: 55
  • Location: Morganton NC
  • Last Login: Today at 03:59:09 PM

I just drove through there 90 days ago on my move from San Diego to NC.  With the shape of 375 north of 10, nobody is going to use this as a beltway to bypass downtown El Paso.  The better question is why is TX not doing anything to 6 lane 10 from 375 to the NM border where it is 6 lanes.
Logged

dfwmapper

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 624
  • Location: DFW
  • Last Login: June 18, 2017, 12:20:34 AM

^ this

It's far too mountainous to serve as a good bypass. The flyovers were a waste of money, and the interchange probably would have been adequately served with some minor work to rebuild it with continuous flow left turn lanes (like I-35 and SH 80 in San Marcos, https://goo.gl/WC5ZcW).
Logged

coatimundi

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 788
  • Age: 38
  • Location: Marina, CA
  • Last Login: May 12, 2017, 12:42:29 AM

Aside from being a good back way into Fort Bliss and connecting those western suburbs with US 54, Transmountain is not particularly useful. I haven't been through there in years, but I'm surprised to hear that they built even the ramps that they did. It just doesn't seem prudent.
Paisano to 375 south is my typical back way bypass of the snarling I-10. Aside from Downtown and a couple of lights, it's basically all freeway. I used Transmountain once and never tried it again.
Logged

DJStephens

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 547
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Dona Ana NM/Tucson AZ
  • Last Login: May 23, 2019, 03:10:13 PM

Trans mountain Road has 8% grades up to the pass through the Franklin Mountains.   Interstate standards call for a maximum of 6%.  There are several truck "runaway" ramps on both sides of the cut through the mountains.   Class A trucking should not even be allowed on that road, imho.
There does need to be an interstate facility "Interstate 210" which would run from the east side of El Paso (Exit 34-or loop 375) northward atop the loopy 375 designation into Fort Bliss.  The route would then take a new terrain route directly northwesterly to Anthony Gap, crossing into New Mexico.  NM 404 would then be "double barreled" westward to Exit 162, I-10 just north of Anthony, NM/TX.    El Paso does need additional Interstate signage, it continues to grow, and several numbers are available, such as I-110(patriot freeway, unsigned), I-210 (eastern bypass) and I-310 (border highway, spur into downtown).     
Logged

mwb1848

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 193
  • Location: El Paso, TX
  • Last Login: April 21, 2019, 10:36:09 AM

This bring up a handful of points.

First, the El Paso MPO and others have long envisioned an upgraded facility built in coordination with NMDOT to take advantage of the comparatively gentle grades along NM 404 through the Anthony Gap to help build a more truck-friendly northern bypass. However, NMDOT has no interest in playing along. To get the ball rolling, they are toying with a Super 2 concept from Loop 375 north of Spur 601 to the state line at FM 3255. In the meantime, TxDOT has very much lamented the fact that Transmountain Road doesn't provide a truck-friendly bypass  especially as the Go10 project and Border West Expressway Projects have closed much of US 85/Paisano Drive, reduced lane capacity on I-10 in West El Paso, and dumped astounding volumes of traffic onto Mesa Street (SH 20).
http://www.elpasodevnews.com/2013/04/crrma-gets-update-on-proposed-northeast.html

Secondly, TxDOT seems to envision the Border West Expressway Project as a southern El Paso Bypass. The project was originally called the "Southern Relief Route" project." This is a very ambitious design-build project that will connect to I-10 at Sunland Park, weave its way south of Downtown, and connect to the existing SW stub of Loop 375 at Santa Fe Street in Downtown.
http://www.borderwestexpressway.com

Thirdly, I suspect this goes to why TxDOT has oriented the direct connecters at I-10 and Loop 375/Transmountain Road the way they have. Basically Loop 375 is a backwards "C". The northern terminus at the Transmountain Road intersection; The southern terminus, a stub, at Santa Fe Street in South El Paso. Border West Expressway has been seen as the missing link. From the point at which Loop 375 intersects I-10 near Canutillo, plans have indicated that Loop 375 will be multiplexed with I-10 south to near Sunland Park Drive where the Border West Expressway will be signed as Loop 375.  connecting to the existing Loop 375 stub at Santa Fe Street. Those direct connectors and other recent work in Northeast El Paso mean you'll be able to drive Loop 375 continuously without ever encountering a traffic light. (Never mind a few grade crossings near the summit of the Franklin Mountains.)
« Last Edit: August 04, 2016, 03:41:19 PM by mwb1848 »
Logged

DJStephens

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 547
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Dona Ana NM/Tucson AZ
  • Last Login: May 23, 2019, 03:10:13 PM

This bring up a handful of points.

First, the El Paso MPO and others have long envisioned an upgraded facility built in coordination with NMDOT to take advantage of the comparatively gentle grades along NM 404 through the Anthony Gap to help build a more truck-friendly northern bypass. However, NMDOT has no interest in playing along. To get the ball rolling, they are toying with a Super 2 concept from Loop 375 north of Spur 601 to the state line at FM 3255. In the meantime, TxDOT has very much lamented the fact that Transmountain Road doesn't provide a truck-friendly bypass especially as the Go10 project and Border West Expressway Projects have closed much of US 85/Paisano Drive, reduced lane capacity on I-10 in West El Paso, and dumped astounding volumes of traffic onto Mesa Street (SH 20).
http://www.elpasodevnews.com/2013/04/crrma-gets-update-on-proposed-northeast.html

Secondly, TxDOT seems to envision the Border West Expressway Project as a southern El Paso Bypass. The project was originally called the "Southern Relief Route" project." This is a very ambitious design-build project that will connect to I-10 at Sunland Park, weave its way south of Downtown, and connect to the existing SW stub of Loop 375 at Santa Fe Street in Downtown.
http://www.borderwestexpressway.com

Thirdly, I suspect this goes to why TxDOT has oriented the direct connecters at I-10 and Loop 375/Transmountain Road the way they have. Basically Loop 375 is a backwards "C". The northern terminus at the Transmountain Road intersection; The southern terminus, a stub, at Santa Fe Street in South El Paso. Border West Expressway has been seen as the missing link. From the point at which Loop 375 intersects I-10 near Canutillo, plans have indicated that Loop 375 will be multiplexed with I-10 south to near Sunland Park Drive where the Border West Expressway will be signed as Loop 375.  connecting to the existing Loop 375 stub at Santa Fe Street. Those direct connectors and other recent work in Northeast El Paso mean you'll be able to drive Loop 375 continuously without ever encountering a traffic light. (Never mind a few grade crossings near the summit of the Franklin Mountains.)

   There are serious problems with the nmdot with design standards and decision-making.   However, the department has likely inched forward under the Martinez administration from roughly #45 at the end of the Richardson era to #37 at the present.  (out of the 50 states).   There has been extensive milling and overlaying of eroded asphalt pavements statewide, some sign improvements have occurred (mainly fixing mistakes), and non adoption of clearview seems evident (some has appeared in Lea county/Hobbs though).   
  Both the go10 and border west projects are tremendous mistakes, as I have noted in an earlier thread.  The main design deficiencies on I-10 are not being addressed - the major one being the "curve" just south of the Sunland park exit.   It is unnecessary and wasteful to build this parallel facililty to I-10.  Fix I-10, and it should have been moved atop the present west side Paisano Blvd.  Between just south of sunland park exit to just south of executive blvd.  A new twin track Southern Pacific RR bridge should have been part of this, as well.   
  Not really a fan of former El Paso city rep "Susie Byrd" but she may have had the right idea in suggesting that the recent Transmountain road west side project should have been built as a boulevard.  The grades on the upper reaches of the highway, near the 'pass" are too steep for major through truck traffic.  That traffic needs to be routed through Anthony Gap, and transmountain road recognized for what it is - a parkway.   
Logged

ethanhopkin14

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 345
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Last Login: April 09, 2019, 05:15:35 PM

This bring up a handful of points.

First, the El Paso MPO and others have long envisioned an upgraded facility built in coordination with NMDOT to take advantage of the comparatively gentle grades along NM 404 through the Anthony Gap to help build a more truck-friendly northern bypass. However, NMDOT has no interest in playing along. To get the ball rolling, they are toying with a Super 2 concept from Loop 375 north of Spur 601 to the state line at FM 3255. In the meantime, TxDOT has very much lamented the fact that Transmountain Road doesn't provide a truck-friendly bypass — especially as the Go10 project and Border West Expressway Projects have closed much of US 85/Paisano Drive, reduced lane capacity on I-10 in West El Paso, and dumped astounding volumes of traffic onto Mesa Street (SH 20).
http://www.elpasodevnews.com/2013/04/crrma-gets-update-on-proposed-northeast.html

Secondly, TxDOT seems to envision the Border West Expressway Project as a southern El Paso Bypass. The project was originally called the "Southern Relief Route" project." This is a very ambitious design-build project that will connect to I-10 at Sunland Park, weave its way south of Downtown, and connect to the existing SW stub of Loop 375 at Santa Fe Street in Downtown.
http://www.borderwestexpressway.com

Thirdly, I suspect this goes to why TxDOT has oriented the direct connecters at I-10 and Loop 375/Transmountain Road the way they have. Basically Loop 375 is a backwards "C". The northern terminus at the Transmountain Road intersection; The southern terminus, a stub, at Santa Fe Street in South El Paso. Border West Expressway has been seen as the missing link. From the point at which Loop 375 intersects I-10 near Canutillo, plans have indicated that Loop 375 will be multiplexed with I-10 south to near Sunland Park Drive where the Border West Expressway will be signed as Loop 375.  connecting to the existing Loop 375 stub at Santa Fe Street. Those direct connectors and other recent work in Northeast El Paso mean you'll be able to drive Loop 375 continuously without ever encountering a traffic light. (Never mind a few grade crossings near the summit of the Franklin Mountains.)


   There are serious problems with the nmdot with design standards and decision-making.   However, the department has likely inched forward under the Martinez administration from roughly #45 at the end of the Richardson era to #37 at the present.  (out of the 50 states).   There has been extensive milling and overlaying of eroded asphalt pavements statewide, some sign improvements have occurred (mainly fixing mistakes), and non adoption of clearview seems evident (some has appeared in Lea county/Hobbs though). 

Don't forget the redesign of the I-10 - I-25 interchange in Las Cruces.  I think that was well done, and it brought New Mexico's only two freeway-to-freeway interchanges to the 21st century (the big "I" a decade before).  I was quite impressed with their work between Anthony and Las Cruces.  But, yes signage, or lack thereof, is still a major problem in New Mexico.  The funniest thing would be if New Mexico finally gets a 3 digit interstate all because Texas forced them to.



  Both the go10 and border west projects are tremendous mistakes, as I have noted in an earlier thread.  The main design deficiencies on I-10 are not being addressed - the major one being the "curve" just south of the Sunland park exit.   It is unnecessary and wasteful to build this parallel facililty to I-10.  Fix I-10, and it should have been moved atop the present west side Paisano Blvd.  Between just south of sunland park exit to just south of executive blvd.  A new twin track Southern Pacific RR bridge should have been part of this, as well.   
  Not really a fan of former El Paso city rep "Susie Byrd" but she may have had the right idea in suggesting that the recent Transmountain road west side project should have been built as a boulevard.  The grades on the upper reaches of the highway, near the 'pass" are too steep for major through truck traffic.  That traffic needs to be routed through Anthony Gap, and transmountain road recognized for what it is - a parkway.


I thought the "curve" at the Paisano Dr. exit was to make it through the pass.  Would be nice to straighten that curve out, since the speed limits drop there, but might be expensive.  Then again, the reason I started this thread was because I thought TxDOT would improve Trans Mountain road through Franklin Pass to make it more truck friendly since there are now flyovers, which would be even more expensive.
« Last Edit: August 05, 2016, 10:08:34 AM by ethanhopkin14 »
Logged

DJStephens

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 547
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Dona Ana NM/Tucson AZ
  • Last Login: May 23, 2019, 03:10:13 PM

   The I-10/I-25 interchange was not built to the highest possible standard.  It was "compressed" and moved to the southeast (from ideal) to make "room" for a future possible interchange on I-10 just the west of it.  That will create weaving issues.  The I-10 E to I-25 N ramp has a "escape" ramp that was built just to the south, along the southbound two way frontage.    So future S bound traffic coming off this future overpass over I-10 will "mix" with I-10 E to I-25N traffic and then split to the south on this "escape" ramp.  Did they (nmdot) get a federal waiver to possibly build two interchanges so close together on a major cross country interstate highway?  To sum it up, the structure, especially the escape ramp, and its compressed nature, is plain ugly.   
    Conversion to one way frontage in the vicinity of this reconstructed interchange would have solved several issues.
 
a) eliminated occasional head on collisions on existing two way frontage
b) eliminated "need" for additional diamond interchange just to W of existing 10/25 interchange, a  simple ramp off the main line to a one way frontage is easy.   
c) one way frontage is a logical progression as an area develops.   

  The 10 widening project south of the 10/25 split is for the most part well done.   Left hand full shoulder, cable barriers, and widened R shoulder.  The section south of the poorly placed N bound state inspection station should have featured widening completely to the outside, preserving the pre existing 60 foot median.   The N bound lanes could have been shifted further to the east for aprox. two miles - from the Anthony Gap exit (162) to the inspection station (MP 160), matching the cross section up to the 10/25 interchange.   If the inspection station (MP 160), had been placed roughly a two miles further N on I-10 (mid nineties), a Berino NM (159/160) diamond interchange matching both Anthony Gap(162), and Vado (155)  would have been possible.   
« Last Edit: August 05, 2016, 11:27:36 AM by DJStephens »
Logged

Gordon

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 183
  • Last Login: Today at 01:37:52 PM

This was an article I found about I 49 do you guys think this will  end this debate.
August 14, 2016) The picture shows why building the I-49 Lafayette Connector below grade is generally a bad idea. The only thing that prevents the Evangeline Thruway from being submerged is the high level roadbed. Any section below grade is risky because mother nature can overcome anything engineered by mankind. At minimum, I-49 needs an overpass at Pinhook to seal off the subsurface segment from the river. If you don't like the idea of a continuous elevated viaduct, the problem could be solved with three simple interchanges and most of I-49 at ground level: one overpass at er Pinhook, run Johnston St over the railroad tracks and I-49 using an overpass a single point interchange above the I-49 connector, then finally run I-49 over a longer overpass from Jefferson to Mudd Ave, back to ground level, then overpasses at the next railroad track, and Willow St. However, my guess is the flood will be enough evidence in favor of an elevated viaduct and against the below grade road in the supplemental environmental study.
Logged

Gordon

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 183
  • Last Login: Today at 01:37:52 PM

I clicked on the wrong discussion can someone move it to the I 49 connector topic, thanks
Logged

Anthony_JK

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1312
  • Age: 55
  • Location: Lafayette, Louisiana
  • Last Login: Today at 01:03:11 PM

I clicked on the wrong discussion can someone move it to the I 49 connector topic, thanks


I've moved and attached it to the I-49 Connector thread, along with a response.
Logged

mwb1848

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 193
  • Location: El Paso, TX
  • Last Login: April 21, 2019, 10:36:09 AM

Since this thread has touched a few times on the future of NM 404, I thought I'd share this info which I just ran across.



I'm really torn, the urbanist in me wants to go advocate for an urban boulevard. But the realist in my wants to go advocate for a controlled access freeway.

It increasingly feels like Loop 375 should have been built as the urban boulevard since it really can't ever accommodate thru truck traffic because of its grades and since it's becoming increasingly urban and NM 404 should have been upgraded to a freeway.
Logged

DJStephens

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 547
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Dona Ana NM/Tucson AZ
  • Last Login: May 23, 2019, 03:10:13 PM

Class A trucking on the existing Transmountain Road is pure insanity.  It needs to be routed through Anthony Gap, yes, into New Mexico, and on a properly designed Interstate grade facility.  Meaning full width shoulders, separation of travel lanes, and decent sight lines.   
Logged

mwb1848

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 193
  • Location: El Paso, TX
  • Last Login: April 21, 2019, 10:36:09 AM

Despite the lack of direct connectors from WB Loop 375 to WB I-10 noted above, it seems plenty of motorists are interesting in making that connection. Unfortunately, signage hadn't been in place until very recently to guide them.

The middle sign on this installation and the one in the background were added a few months ago.



Originally, there was no explanation that motorists seeking to get from WB Loop 375 to WB I-10 should continue straight ahead and turn right at the traffic light and access the freeway via a frontage road.

More recently than that, these two ground mounted installations went up:





Surprisingly, there is no mention of the newly construction Spur 16 which connects from the end of the Loop 375 freeway to SH 20.
Logged

Max Rockatansky

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 8619
  • Location: Route 9, Sector 26
  • Last Login: Today at 05:43:18 PM
    • Sure, Why Not? (Highway Blog Spot)

I drove 375 last January just to see how much progress had been made.  I used to take 375 from I-10 over the mountains to get around Biggs AAF and Fort Bliss just most of the route was being upgraded to full expressway or freeway as a traffic bypass to US 180/62.  Kind of amazing to see how much progress really has been made just in this decade.

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.