Texas

[wxfree]

I can confirm that there are no signs for Park Road 77.  I wondered if there would be.  In other parks, even tiny, narrow roads have the signs.  The park opened today and I saw the full length of the road.

I've been told this was a soft opening and not a grand opening of the park, and that the official grand opening date hasn't been publicly announced yet. I assume there will be signage put up for that route once the grand opening happens.

That's a possibility.  Work crews are still present and some things aren't complete.  I don't know if that includes any road related items.  This is a fantastic park, it's beautiful and has great hiking.  And it's not that far from me, so I'll be going there with some frequency.  I'll note road signs in the future, which is something I always do.

[Great Lakes Roads]

Here's a visualization of the MoPac South (Loop 1) express lanes.

2-3 GP/1-2 EX/1-2 EX/2-3 GP

[CoreySamson]

First time spending any time in Waco this weekend, and I have to say that this city has the most hodgepodge road and freeway system that I've ever seen.

[ElishaGOtis]

Apparently parts of I-10 between Houston and Beaumont had the speed limit increased from 65 to 75.

[bwana39]

First time spending any time in Waco this weekend, and I have to say that this city has the most hodgepodge road and freeway system that I've ever seen.

Think about Waco as Longview. Waco has really outgrown Longview, but they have similar roots. Waco was until the late 90's a single freeway town. The growth out by SH-6 is recent. The university is not really part of town even though town seems to envelope it.

After you get used to WACO, it makes a lot of sense. The problem is the freeways are NOT really a part of the grid if you will. The streets do have a cognizant meaning.

[Bobby5280]

Waco is indeed a mess in terms of its streets and highways layout. Longview isn't great, but at least its street grid is designed mostly in a sort of North-South-East-West arrangement. Everything in Waco is on various diagonals.

The main arterials in Waco are in mixed bag configurations. Some portions are as good as Interstate quality freeway, while other portions are mere surface streets or various stages in between. A bunch of it looks not-finished.

There is only one complete freeway to freeway system interchange: I-35 & TX-6 on the South side of town. Everything else is some sort of volleyball or whatever. There are multiple junctions where 3 or more arterials are meeting in close proximity. I'm pretty good with geography and finding my way around without having to rely on GPS. But some of the stuff in Waco is odd enough that I have to be careful not to make a mistake and then have to back track.

Steve Martin was born in Waco. I wonder if the street layout helped influence him to be a wild and crazy guy.

[kphoger]

Steve Martin was born in Waco. I wonder if the street layout helped influence him to be a wild and crazy guy.

He was a philosophy major in college.  I wonder if the street layout helped him start asking questions about the meaning of life.

[MaxConcrete]

First time spending any time in Waco this weekend, and I have to say that this city has the most hodgepodge road and freeway system that I've ever seen.

Some roads and freeways are relics from the pre-IH35 era, and TxDOT is planning to modernize them, which for US 77 means downsizing.

The Business US 77 Freeway in northeast Waco is slated to be demolished and replaced with a boulevard. (public meeting). According to TxDOT (copied from presentation)

• This stretch of BU 77 was constructed in the early 1950's as the original US 77, the main highway connecting Waco to Dallas-Fort Worth.
• Over time, traffic patterns through and around Waco have changed with the construction of roads such as I-35 and SL 340.
• Due to the age of the corridor, deteriorating pavement and bridge conditions have necessitated a reconstruction of the roadway.
• Current and future traffic volumes do not warrant this corridor to be reconstructed as a freeway.

Separately, the three-level interchange at US 84 and BU 77 (at top left in map) was partially demolished in 2024, with a total rebuild at ground level anticipated in the future. Like US 77, the structure was at the end of its life and current traffic does not justify a three-level interchange.

[Chris]

Is this what the first generation freeways of Texas looked like? It seems like this is still the original concrete from the early 1950s.

[Stephane Dumas]

There is only one complete freeway to freeway system interchange: I-35 & TX-6 on the South side of town. Everything else is some sort of volleyball or whatever. There are multiple junctions where 3 or more arterials are meeting in close proximity. I'm pretty good with geography and finding my way around without having to rely on GPS. But some of the stuff in Waco is odd enough that I have to be careful not to make a mistake and then have to back track.

There's also some plans to upgrade US-84 at the southwest of Waco which'll include 2 direct ramps from/to US-84 west to/from TX-6 east which'll allow US-84 users to reach I-35 without a traffic light. https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/wac/us84-spur298/041222-presentation-script.pdf

[CoreySamson]

Apparently parts of I-10 between Houston and Beaumont had the speed limit increased from 65 to 75.

About time. I counted while driving the speed limit on that stretch some time in the past 3 years, and the ratio of the cars that passed me to the cars I passed was something like 40:1.

[cenlaroads]

Apparently parts of I-10 between Houston and Beaumont had the speed limit increased from 65 to 75.

About time. I counted while driving the speed limit on that stretch some time in the past 3 years, and the ratio of the cars that passed me to the cars I passed was something like 40:1.

Before they started widening I-10 between Winnie and Beaumont, I remember it was always 65 on the 6-lane section from Houston to Winnie and 75 on the 4-lane from Winnie to Beaumont.  Traffic always moved faster, especially on the 6-lane part.  I remember driving it on Christmas Day once and being in the middle of a long line of cars going about 90.  Since the construction started, I haven't paid much attention to the speed limits.  I always thought it should be 75 from at least Baytown to Beaumont.

[Road Hog]

Apparently parts of I-10 between Houston and Beaumont had the speed limit increased from 65 to 75.

About time. I counted while driving the speed limit on that stretch some time in the past 3 years, and the ratio of the cars that passed me to the cars I passed was something like 40:1.

Before they started widening I-10 between Winnie and Beaumont, I remember it was always 65 on the 6-lane section from Houston to Winnie and 75 on the 4-lane from Winnie to Beaumont.  Traffic always moved faster, especially on the 6-lane part.  I remember driving it on Christmas Day once and being in the middle of a long line of cars going about 90.  Since the construction started, I haven't paid much attention to the speed limits.  I always thought it should be 75 from at least Baytown to Beaumont.

A lot of that was probably speed limits due to EPA non-attainment pollution regulations which certain counties (specifically mine) were beholden to by state law but have been slightly relaxed in recent years. If you lived in Collin County, you might as well have been living in California.

In 2027 I expect the Texas Legislature to completely scrap all smog regulations and make all 254 counties the same standard.

[Road Hog]

Apparently parts of I-10 between Houston and Beaumont had the speed limit increased from 65 to 75.

About time. I counted while driving the speed limit on that stretch some time in the past 3 years, and the ratio of the cars that passed me to the cars I passed was something like 40:1.

Before they started widening I-10 between Winnie and Beaumont, I remember it was always 65 on the 6-lane section from Houston to Winnie and 75 on the 4-lane from Winnie to Beaumont.  Traffic always moved faster, especially on the 6-lane part.  I remember driving it on Christmas Day once and being in the middle of a long line of cars going about 90.  Since the construction started, I haven't paid much attention to the speed limits.  I always thought it should be 75 from at least Baytown to Beaumont.

A lot of that was probably speed limits due to EPA non-attainment pollution regulations which certain counties (specifically mine) were beholden to by state law but have been slightly relaxed in recent years. If you lived in Collin County, you might as well have been living in California.

In 2027 I expect the Texas Legislature to completely scrap all smog regulations and make all 254 counties the same standard.

[CoreySamson]

Apparently parts of I-10 between Houston and Beaumont had the speed limit increased from 65 to 75.

About time. I counted while driving the speed limit on that stretch some time in the past 3 years, and the ratio of the cars that passed me to the cars I passed was something like 40:1.

Before they started widening I-10 between Winnie and Beaumont, I remember it was always 65 on the 6-lane section from Houston to Winnie and 75 on the 4-lane from Winnie to Beaumont.  Traffic always moved faster, especially on the 6-lane part.  I remember driving it on Christmas Day once and being in the middle of a long line of cars going about 90.  Since the construction started, I haven't paid much attention to the speed limits.  I always thought it should be 75 from at least Baytown to Beaumont.

A lot of that was probably speed limits due to EPA non-attainment pollution regulations which certain counties (specifically mine) were beholden to by state law but have been slightly relaxed in recent years. If you lived in Collin County, you might as well have been living in California.

In 2027 I expect the Texas Legislature to completely scrap all smog regulations and make all 254 counties the same standard.

This billboard that I saw yesterday is a hilarious reminder of the 65 mph environmental speed limit imposed on the Houston-area counties. This is right at the Waller county line where the limit goes down.

[ElishaGOtis]

Apparently parts of I-10 between Houston and Beaumont had the speed limit increased from 65 to 75.

About time. I counted while driving the speed limit on that stretch some time in the past 3 years, and the ratio of the cars that passed me to the cars I passed was something like 40:1.

Before they started widening I-10 between Winnie and Beaumont, I remember it was always 65 on the 6-lane section from Houston to Winnie and 75 on the 4-lane from Winnie to Beaumont.  Traffic always moved faster, especially on the 6-lane part.  I remember driving it on Christmas Day once and being in the middle of a long line of cars going about 90.  Since the construction started, I haven't paid much attention to the speed limits.  I always thought it should be 75 from at least Baytown to Beaumont.

A lot of that was probably speed limits due to EPA non-attainment pollution regulations which certain counties (specifically mine) were beholden to by state law but have been slightly relaxed in recent years. If you lived in Collin County, you might as well have been living in California.

In 2027 I expect the Texas Legislature to completely scrap all smog regulations and make all 254 counties the same standard.

This billboard that I saw yesterday is a hilarious reminder of the 65 mph environmental speed limit imposed on the Houston-area counties. This is right at the Waller county line where the limit goes down.

Slight update. Just drove that section of IH-10, and I can confirm it was increased 65-75 from SH-146 to the beginning of the widening project (technically at the Chambers/Jefferson C/L). I was not expecting them to go as far into SH-99 as they did, but I'm super glad that was done. Signage after the work zone is a bit iffy, and there's a police-installed speed feedback trailer that still shows 65, but other than that it's been increased!

(I've updated my ideal speed limit map to compensate for the change   🤓)

[Scott5114]

All sign lettering, numerals, and other characters shall be of the Standard Alphabets as provided in the "Standard Highway Sign Designs for Texas" publication (see Section 1A.05), unless otherwise provided in this Manual. Notwithstanding other provisions of this manual, positive contrast signs shall use Series B-, C-, D-, E-, E(modified)- or F-Alternate fonts as provided in the "Standard Highway Sign Designs for Texas" publication.

"Series E (or whatever) Alternate" is what the 2023 MUTCD calls Clearview, presumably because the name Clearview is trademarked or something.

[CoreySamson]

Apparently parts of I-10 between Houston and Beaumont had the speed limit increased from 65 to 75.

About time. I counted while driving the speed limit on that stretch some time in the past 3 years, and the ratio of the cars that passed me to the cars I passed was something like 40:1.

Before they started widening I-10 between Winnie and Beaumont, I remember it was always 65 on the 6-lane section from Houston to Winnie and 75 on the 4-lane from Winnie to Beaumont.  Traffic always moved faster, especially on the 6-lane part.  I remember driving it on Christmas Day once and being in the middle of a long line of cars going about 90.  Since the construction started, I haven't paid much attention to the speed limits.  I always thought it should be 75 from at least Baytown to Beaumont.

A lot of that was probably speed limits due to EPA non-attainment pollution regulations which certain counties (specifically mine) were beholden to by state law but have been slightly relaxed in recent years. If you lived in Collin County, you might as well have been living in California.

In 2027 I expect the Texas Legislature to completely scrap all smog regulations and make all 254 counties the same standard.

This billboard that I saw yesterday is a hilarious reminder of the 65 mph environmental speed limit imposed on the Houston-area counties. This is right at the Waller county line where the limit goes down.

Slight update. Just drove that section of IH-10, and I can confirm it was increased 65-75 from SH-146 to the beginning of the widening project (technically at the Chambers/Jefferson C/L). I was not expecting them to go as far into SH-99 as they did, but I'm super glad that was done. Signage after the work zone is a bit iffy, and there's a police-installed speed feedback trailer that still shows 65, but other than that it's been increased!

(I've updated my ideal speed limit map to compensate for the change   🤓)

Woah. That's actually setting a huge precedent for the Houston area if I'm seeing this correctly. I don't think an existing freeway in Houston or its adjacent counties has had its speed increased above 65 mph since the 65 mph environmental limit was set. I wonder if this opens up the door for other freeways in the Houston area to have faster limits (my mind immediately went to TX 288 and TX 249).

[ElishaGOtis]

Apparently parts of I-10 between Houston and Beaumont had the speed limit increased from 65 to 75.

About time. I counted while driving the speed limit on that stretch some time in the past 3 years, and the ratio of the cars that passed me to the cars I passed was something like 40:1.

Before they started widening I-10 between Winnie and Beaumont, I remember it was always 65 on the 6-lane section from Houston to Winnie and 75 on the 4-lane from Winnie to Beaumont.  Traffic always moved faster, especially on the 6-lane part.  I remember driving it on Christmas Day once and being in the middle of a long line of cars going about 90.  Since the construction started, I haven't paid much attention to the speed limits.  I always thought it should be 75 from at least Baytown to Beaumont.

A lot of that was probably speed limits due to EPA non-attainment pollution regulations which certain counties (specifically mine) were beholden to by state law but have been slightly relaxed in recent years. If you lived in Collin County, you might as well have been living in California.

In 2027 I expect the Texas Legislature to completely scrap all smog regulations and make all 254 counties the same standard.

This billboard that I saw yesterday is a hilarious reminder of the 65 mph environmental speed limit imposed on the Houston-area counties. This is right at the Waller county line where the limit goes down.

Slight update. Just drove that section of IH-10, and I can confirm it was increased 65-75 from SH-146 to the beginning of the widening project (technically at the Chambers/Jefferson C/L). I was not expecting them to go as far into SH-99 as they did, but I'm super glad that was done. Signage after the work zone is a bit iffy, and there's a police-installed speed feedback trailer that still shows 65, but other than that it's been increased!

(I've updated my ideal speed limit map to compensate for the change   🤓)

Woah. That's actually setting a huge precedent for the Houston area if I'm seeing this correctly. I don't think an existing freeway in Houston or its adjacent counties has had its speed increased above 65 mph since the 65 mph environmental limit was set. I wonder if this opens up the door for other freeways in the Houston area to have faster limits (my mind immediately went to TX 288 and TX 249).

SH-99 has 70, it was previously 75 but was reduced during the mass reductions in 2023-2024.

The benefits of actually putting in a request to change a speed limit

(for context, I actually put in a request to TxDOT to increase the speed limit to 70+ from MP 800 to 828-ish but was ok with additional increases. Not saying this was directly my input but it clearly contributed )

[Great Lakes Roads]

Have they decided on the turbine interchange design? The web page shows four different design alternatives, with the turbine interchange being alternative #1. The #2 and #3 options are less costly (and less good). Alternative #4 is a five level directional stack; that's not going to happen in such a rural area.

Any of the four design options would preserve enough right of way for a proper freeway to freeway interchange. But Texas has quite a few incomplete freeway to freeway interchanges that have remained incomplete for decades. If they chose alternatives #2 or #3 for the TX-71/US-281 interchange those configurations might stay put for a long time.

I like the turbine design. It's almost as effective as a directional stack interchange but doesn't have to cost nearly as much.

It's as if TXDOT is planning for ultimate freeway upgrades to both corridors.

Bee Cave is quite an obstacle for the TX-71 corridor. It's certainly possible to have freeway spurs leading into Bee Cave from the West via US-281 and from the East via US-290. But pushing a freeway thru Bee Cave itself would probably be very difficult.

I think US-281 could emerge as an important relief corridor for I-35.

It's been over two years since the last public meeting on the US 281/TX SH 71 interchange, and they are officially going with the turbine interchange!

https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/austin/2026/us281-at-sh71-interchange-040926.html

[Bobby5280]

While I like the design of the turbine interchange for US-281 and TX-71, I'm fairly pissed off at how the housing development crap was handled along US-281 both North and South of that interchange. Were the "planners" taking stupid pills by the fist full or what!?

A bunch of the new homes and condos are built right up on the edge of the existing 5-lane undivided highway ROW. I guess it didn't occur to them US-281 is a potential future freeway corridor. US-281 is going to have multiple intersections with traffic signals on either side of that turbine interchange.

You can't squeeze a new freeway into a right of way only 150' wide. Not unless you make really severe compromises. Any surface street connections have to be removed and there would be no frontage roads. The housing neighborhoods would have to be connected by other surface streets built around other edges of the developments.

Texas is just getting really lousy at highway corridor planning.

[ElishaGOtis]

How on EARTH did I miss this?

Effective September 1, 2025, pedestrians and any other users approaching or using a crosswalk are subject to (*checks notes*) an 8mph speed limit?  

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/TN/htm/TN.552.htm#552.0035

Texas Transportation Code Section 552.0035 subsections (b) thru (c)

(b)  Notwithstanding Subsection (a), a sidewalk user may not suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and proceed into a crosswalk in the path of a vehicle so close that it is impossible for the vehicle operator to stop and yield.
(c)  Notwithstanding Subsection (a), a sidewalk user may not approach or enter a crosswalk at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the existing conditions and having regard for actual and potential existing hazards.  For the purposes of this subsection, a speed greater than eight miles per hour is prima facie evidence that the speed is not reasonable and prudent.

Subsection (b) is law in almost every state (and it's sensible imho), but it's subsection (c) that I find kinda unusual. I can kinda get this for bikes and e-bikes and all but... PEDESTRIANS??

There is also this new provision making pedestrians subject to stop signs, but it's not as unprecedented...

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/TN/htm/TN.552.htm#552.0036

Texas Transportation Code Section 552.0036

A sidewalk user approaching an intersection with a stop sign shall:
(1)  stop before entering the crosswalk; and
(2)  after stopping, yield the right-of-way to a vehicle that:
   (A)  has entered the intersection; or
   (B)  is approaching the intersection so closely as to be an immediate hazard to the sidewalk user entering or moving across the crosswalk.

Y'all ever seen anything like this before?

Update: I severely misinterpreted this, but it's very easy to do and I wouldn't be surprised if law enforcement & prosecutors miss this as well until the first few court cases. "Sidewalk user" apparently excludes pedestrians.

(6)  "Sidewalk user" means an individual lawfully operating one of the following on a sidewalk:
(A)  a bicycle;
(B)  a motor-assisted scooter, as defined by Section 551.351;
(C)  an electric personal assistive mobility device, as defined by Section 551.201;
(D)  a skateboard;
(E)  roller skates; or
(F)  a similar device.

This makes FAR more sense in the grand scheme of things.

All that being said, NAL...

[wxfree]

There's a thread for official historic maps, which this doesn't fit, but some archives of the Texas Almanac are now online.  They go back to 1858, which is too early for road purposes, but there's still a lot of interesting information.  The most interesting part for road studies is the county maps.  They are not official and are not highly detailed, but to my knowledge they're pretty accurate.  An advantage over some other archives is that they're produced every two years.  While not all of the editions are in the archive, there are a lot of years showing examples of the road system evolving.  They're of limited use in Dallas County, because of the inability to pack all of the highways onto a small map, but they're fantastic for Crockett County and the large number of other rural counties.  Unfortunately, the county maps don't, in my observation, go back past about 1940.  However, there are some articles about early transportation and roads (and a ton of other interesting information) and it's easy to scan through the pages.  This link should lead to a list with the oldest first.  That's how I ordered them, but there's an option to change it.

https://texashistory.unt.edu/explore/collections/TXALC/browse/?q=&t=fulltext&sort=date_a

I'm currently looking at the history of RM 33 in Crockett County, part of which later became US 190.  It shows what's built and what kind of surface it has, and what's proposed, in each year.  In 1952, it was a paved road south from Reagan County (where SH 137 is now) to about where US 190 now splits off to the west, with a proposed road east to SH 163, as designated in 1948 and to Schleicher County, as designated in 1949, along a slightly different route than what was later built.  There's a lot of information in these maps.

The 1966 edition calls today's US 190 across the county SH 29, which it never was.  In 1968 it's back to FMs 33 and 1980, which was correct.  SH 29 never went west of Eldorado.  The accuracy is pretty good, but not perfect.

[kphoger]

Looks like Google Maps is at least wrong about Loop 239 continuing to the International Bridge based on the last addendum to the minutes,

Except for it being a spur, the Goog is correct:

From US 90/US 277 and SS 297, westward along Gibbs Ave past Cordona St, then southward on new location to US 277 Spur, then along US 277 Spur to the International Bridge, a distance of approx. 2.75 miles.

TxDOT appears not to have a highway designation category for spur US routes, although it does for each of mainline US routes (US), business US routes (BU), and alternate US routes (UA).  I suspect the State Loop/Spur (SL/SS) category covers loops and spurs for all flavors of primary state highway.

In the specific case of US-277 Spur, it is included inside the highway destination file for US-277.

Yup.  These all look like instances where routes that are functionally spurs of US 277 have SL/SS designations.  There isn't actually an out-of-the-box option in SHSD for explicitly signing spur US routes because there is no "Spur" tab.  AASHTO does list multiple US 277 Spur designations in the vicinity of Eagle Pass and Del Rio, but I will be very surprised if any of them are actually signed as US 277 Spurs and not under their SL/SS designations.

The first two posts that I just quoted are from a different thread.  I never put two and two together until just now, when I was looking through the file designation for Spur-239 myself:

From Las Vacas Street south to the border bridge, there's actually a duplex of US 277 Spur and Texas State Spur 239.

Are there any other instances of two spur routes being designated on the same road?

[wxfree]

To answer your question, I can only say that it's an interesting question.  I'd like to know, too.

The spur matter is a little complex and I didn't really understand it until I did a little research.  There's no statement of principle, but I think I see a pattern.  State highway loops and spurs, which are just regular loops and spurs, use a separate system of numbers and can duplicate other state highway numbers.  I don't know of any cases of a state highway loop or spur carrying in the same number, or being designated in the same minute order, as the highway it loops or spurs from.

FM spurs are usually designated with the primary FM road.  They're just short roads that essentially lead to a third endpoint.  However, there is a separate category, FS (FM Spur), for farm to market spurs (state highway spurs are SS and loops are SL).  There are 10 FS files in the designation files, but there are other FM spurs that are not in that list, designated along with their parent routes.

US (United States) spurs can't be US (US Spur), so they skip to the second letter and call them UP.  (US Alternate routes are UA.  That's how these letters work.)  There are 3 UP files, not including 277, which is designated with the primary route.

Looking at the designations, it appears that when a spur is used to add a third endpoint at some place of interest, it's designated with the parent route.  But when something changes and a spur is added, it gets its own file.  One FS route was added because the parent route was realigned to go under an intersecting highway when that highway was improved.  The tail end left behind, going toward the upgraded highway and just ending, was changed to FS.  Another was added when the parent was straightened a little and the old route was retained.  It's essentially a business route, but outside of any town.  There is no FL designation for FM Loop, which this case would fit.

UPs seem to be used the same way, when there's a realignment.  Two of the three are in Denton.  When US 77 and 377 were moved to the Interstate and most of the old route through town was dedesignated, two pieces that were retained on the system were changed to UP 77.

The route in Del Rio is a little different.  It was thought proper that the border crossing in Eagle Pass have a US route number, so US 277 was extended to US 83, with spur connections to the crossings in Del Rio and Eagle Pass.  This was in 1950.  The two spurs were given state highway spur numbers in addition to the US 277 number.  From then until 1983, the answer to your question was yes.  SS 240 was designated along the US 277 spur in Eagle Pass.  In 1983 the US spur was cancelled and now the road is just Spur 240.  (It was not a UP, it was designated with the parent route and added a fourth endpoint.  New question, what's the largest number of endpoints a highway has ever had?)

This is the minute order.  Back then they weren't printed separately, but as a single file of minutes.  Scroll down to order number 29126.

https://onbasepav.txdot.gov/commission/api/Document/24152524/

I didn't figure out the spur designation scheme, or know anything about why US 277 was extended in 1950, and I hadn't noticed the duplicate spur route in Del Rio, until you asked this.  Good question.

Edit - US 57 was designated in 1971.  That gives the border crossing a US route number without needing a spur from 277.  Twelve years later the spur was removed.  SS 240 stayed in place.  It currently runs along the old route of US 57/277 Spur.  It was left in place when US 57 was rerouted two blocks south.  I don't know when the reroute happened.  The concurrency of spurs may not have persisted until 1983.