AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Texas  (Read 37135 times)

DevalDragon

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 188
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Chicago, Illinois
  • Last Login: April 05, 2020, 03:22:52 AM
    • Deval Dragon's Website
Re: Texas
« Reply #50 on: May 11, 2014, 01:55:48 AM »

What about the OSR - Old Spanish Road?
Logged

wxfree

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1218
  • Age: -1
  • Location: Over there
  • Last Login: July 10, 2020, 09:17:06 PM
Re: Texas
« Reply #51 on: May 11, 2014, 03:58:35 AM »

What about the OSR - Old Spanish Road?

http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/sh/shosr.htm

Old San Antonio Road, State Highway OSR, the only highway in Texas without a number.  They use a regular state highway sign, but with "OSR" instead of a number.
http://goo.gl/maps/RMqYZ
Logged
All of my posts represent my personal opinions and the official views of any governmental agency that has good sense.

txstateends

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1081
  • Location: north TX, not far from an interstate interchange and a US terminus
  • Last Login: June 05, 2019, 11:30:28 AM
Re: Texas
« Reply #52 on: May 11, 2014, 05:39:38 AM »

What about the OSR - Old Spanish Road?

http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/sh/shosr.htm

Old San Antonio Road, State Highway OSR, the only highway in Texas without a number.  They use a regular state highway sign, but with "OSR" instead of a number.
http://goo.gl/maps/RMqYZ

I've never understood why it didn't get numbered, either as part of TX 21 (which is the number labeling the parts of the road east and west of the OSR stretch) or separately numbered.
Logged
\/ \/ click for a bigger image \/ \/

txstateends

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1081
  • Location: north TX, not far from an interstate interchange and a US terminus
  • Last Login: June 05, 2019, 11:30:28 AM
Re: Texas
« Reply #53 on: May 11, 2014, 06:03:51 AM »

Logged
\/ \/ click for a bigger image \/ \/

txstateends

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1081
  • Location: north TX, not far from an interstate interchange and a US terminus
  • Last Login: June 05, 2019, 11:30:28 AM
Re: Texas
« Reply #54 on: May 11, 2014, 09:36:22 AM »

http://www.athensreview.com/local/x1535592430/County-opposes-TxDOT-expense

Now TxDOT is trying something else to cut back on expenditures -- turning the manufacture and maintenance of the advance green county road guide signs (like these)

over to the counties.  If TxDOT comes along and sees a sign not to their specs, they say they'll remove it and bill the county in question with the expense.  And, a county would be liable if damage is caused as a result of the signs' presence.

Commissioners in Henderson County (SE of Dallas) have voted to reject the TxDOT arrangement.

The article doesn't say that this is a potential TxDOT policy, or if it's already been put in place.
Logged
\/ \/ click for a bigger image \/ \/

texaskdog

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2917
  • Age: 51
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Last Login: July 10, 2020, 10:36:13 PM
Re: Texas
« Reply #55 on: May 11, 2014, 10:57:28 AM »

I've never seen a Texas county road.  I assumed that's what RMs & FMs were.
Logged

formulanone

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8081
  • Age: 46
  • Location: HSV
  • Last Login: July 10, 2020, 11:41:01 PM
Re: Texas
« Reply #56 on: May 11, 2014, 11:55:54 AM »

I've never seen a Texas county road.  I assumed that's what RMs & FMs were.

There seems to be just a few Texas counties that use the generic MUTCD pentagons.



« Last Edit: February 18, 2019, 08:16:07 PM by formulanone »
Logged
Latest Photo Thread | Flickr | Civilization isn't collapsing, it's somewhere between structurally deficient and functionally obsolete.

wxfree

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1218
  • Age: -1
  • Location: Over there
  • Last Login: July 10, 2020, 09:17:06 PM
Re: Texas
« Reply #57 on: May 11, 2014, 02:06:33 PM »

What about the OSR - Old Spanish Road?

http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/sh/shosr.htm

Old San Antonio Road, State Highway OSR, the only highway in Texas without a number.  They use a regular state highway sign, but with "OSR" instead of a number.
http://goo.gl/maps/RMqYZ

I've never understood why it didn't get numbered, either as part of TX 21 (which is the number labeling the parts of the road east and west of the OSR stretch) or separately numbered.

Here's something I found.  It gives some historical perspective, but doesn't answer the question.

"In 1929 the Texas legislature designated the Zivley version of the Old San Antonio Road one of the historic trails of Texas. The legislature also directed the highway department to preserve and maintain the road along the route. Save for some temporary deviations and a few locations impractical for a usable road, most of the distance from the Sabine to San Antonio had been opened and paved by 1949. Much of this route is still in use as State Highway 21 and related country roads."

The Zivley route "followed a southeasterly course. It began at Paso de Francia on the Rio Grande, passed near Cotulla and Poteet, and entered San Antonio, from where it passed between Hays and Caldwell counties and through Bastrop, Lee, and Burleson counties, formed the boundary between Robertson and Brazos and Madison and Leon counties, and passed through Houston, Cherokee, Nacogdoches, San Augustine, and Sabine counties, before crossing the Sabine River at Gaines Ferry."

http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/exo04

The highway department was directed to maintain the route.  The article doesn't say that the designation was mandated, and only a piece of route got the numerical designation.  The road got special attention, but I still don't know why a portion of it got the OSR designation and the rest didn't.
Logged
All of my posts represent my personal opinions and the official views of any governmental agency that has good sense.

nolia_boi504

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 70
  • Location: Houston
  • Last Login: July 10, 2020, 10:20:24 PM
Re: Texas
« Reply #58 on: May 15, 2014, 05:05:58 PM »

I wonder if this will eventually help close the gap for Grand Parkway on the east side...

TxDOT planning new bridge on SH 146
http://www.galvestondailynews.com/news/local_news/article_9df89686-dbd6-11e3-b59f-001a4bcf6878.html

KEMAH — The four-lane bridge between Kemah and Seabrook may be in line for a $150 million expansion.

The Texas Department of Transportation is in the early stages of a plan to not only widen the existing State Highway 146 bridge that runs from Kemah to Seabrook, but to also build a separate elevated express lane.
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2151
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: July 09, 2020, 04:18:53 PM
Re: Texas
« Reply #59 on: May 16, 2014, 01:47:28 PM »

It wouldn't make much sense to build a separate, elevated express lane without converting the road to a superhighway. Any such conversion will displace a bunch of old businesses built right next to the road. There is a decommissioned railroad line taking up some space that could be used for future highway expansion. However there is a bunch of high capacity power transmission lines running adjacent to it.

It's obvious TX DOT has long term plans of upgrading TX-146 based on how the road is laid out North & South of Kemah & Seabrook. I think they'll be doing any such expansion at a pretty slow pace. I would even go so far as to say the rest of the Grand Parkway will get finished before they start messing with that particular stretch of road (other than this proposed bridge expansion). 
Logged

txstateends

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1081
  • Location: north TX, not far from an interstate interchange and a US terminus
  • Last Login: June 05, 2019, 11:30:28 AM
Re: Texas
« Reply #60 on: May 24, 2014, 05:57:43 PM »

http://impactnews.com/dfw-metro/grapevine-colleyville-southlake/21st-century-technology-manages-rush-hour-traffic/

This graphic attempts to educate drivers about the 'TExpress' (tolled HOV lanes) system:


EB on TX 114 coming into Grapevine from Southlake, a gantry shows the pricing for the tolled HOV lanes that are just ahead on the left:
Logged
\/ \/ click for a bigger image \/ \/

mcdonaat

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 907
  • Age: 27
  • Location: Pineville, LA
  • Last Login: August 15, 2015, 05:21:19 PM
    • Backroading Louisiana
Re: Texas
« Reply #61 on: May 27, 2014, 12:30:04 AM »

What on earth is a traffic island, and how is it any different than just a Y-interchange? TX 63 at FM 776 is signed as a traffic island, but TX 63 at US 190 East is not.

Street view of the sign - http://goo.gl/maps/yzahO

Also, what's up with reassurance shields? Good grief, I saw US 190 posted about 20 times between Louisiana and TX 63 East, while there was a TX 63 East shield at the foot of the Burr Ferry Bridge... which is the last land they can post on before the bridge is elevated into Louisiana. Makes NO SENSE!

Also, I like how Louisiana doesn't post a 55 MPH sign for a while on LA 8, meaning if you go by the last posted speed limit, you can legally do 60 MPH on a two lane road in Louisiana. As for the Louisiana side of the bridge, LA 8 is posted as an alternate route for the Myths and Legends trail. Yes, 60 MPH on a two-laned state highway in Louisiana, at a ferry that doesn't exist, by taking an alternate historic trail.

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: March 29, 2020, 01:23:03 PM
Re: Texas
« Reply #62 on: June 01, 2014, 01:10:36 PM »

This article reports that the Texas Transportation Commission recently approved funding to advance the second causeway to South Padre Island and Outer Parkway projects ....
This map shows the relationship between the two projects

This article reports that the Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority ("CCRMA") is currently conducting a survey to help CCRMA better understand residents’ travel patterns and preferences to determine better planning decisions for the second bridge and that environmental clearance for the project is hoped to be received by Fall 2015:

Quote
The Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority is seeking the public’s input in a survey meant to determine residents’ needs for a second bridge to South Padre Island ....
The project will also include the construction of another tolled road, the outer parkway, which will stretch east from I-69/US 77, just north of Harlingen. This outer parkway will connect to the planned second access, which will be located north of Holly Beach and lead to South Padre Island between Cameron County beach accesses 5 and 6. This location was approved in July 2012.
“(The outer parkway) is a key component so we can get traffic from I-69 directly to the island,” Sepulveda said.
The tolled parkway and the second access will serve as an alternate access to South Padre Island, in addition to the Queen Isabella Memorial Bridge, which is the only existing route connecting South Padre Island to the mainland ....
An environmental clearance document for the project is anticipated to be completed this fall, and environmental clearance notification should be expected fall 2015.
Logged

txstateends

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1081
  • Location: north TX, not far from an interstate interchange and a US terminus
  • Last Login: June 05, 2019, 11:30:28 AM
Re: Texas
« Reply #63 on: July 26, 2014, 03:36:54 PM »

http://www.athensreview.com/local/x1535592430/County-opposes-TxDOT-expense

Now TxDOT is trying something else to cut back on expenditures -- turning the manufacture and maintenance of the advance green county road guide signs (like these)

over to the counties.  If TxDOT comes along and sees a sign not to their specs, they say they'll remove it and bill the county in question with the expense.  And, a county would be liable if damage is caused as a result of the signs' presence.

Commissioners in Henderson County (SE of Dallas) have voted to reject the TxDOT arrangement.

The article doesn't say that this is a potential TxDOT policy, or if it's already been put in place.

http://www.athensreview.com/local/x197370750/TxDOT-signs-at-issue-in-county

TxDOT has backed down, and apparently won't require individual counties to pay for fabricating and maintenance of LGS (like the one in the quote) for county roads.  It's not clear how much grief/blowback they got over this issue.
Logged
\/ \/ click for a bigger image \/ \/

Stephane Dumas

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2041
  • Last Login: July 10, 2020, 09:31:53 PM
Re: Texas
« Reply #64 on: July 26, 2014, 08:36:49 PM »

I saw this video showing the proposed freeway conversion of Montana Avenue in El Paso. Interesting to note it's a revival in part of the cancelled Trowbridge-Montana freeway.
http://www.texasfreeway.com/ElPaso/elpaso.shtml
Logged

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: March 29, 2020, 01:23:03 PM
Re: Texas
« Reply #65 on: October 11, 2014, 01:59:29 PM »

As previously posted in another thread, TxDOT has posted a table of the 100 Congested Roadways.  The table has hyperlinks for all of the segments that show TxDOT's planned improvements for them.

Here is a link to a September 30 article about the study:

http://www.bizjournals.com/austin/news/2014/09/30/surprise-i-35-mopac-among-most-congested-texas.html?page=all
Logged

TheStranger

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3833
  • Last Login: July 10, 2020, 04:03:54 AM
Re: Texas
« Reply #66 on: October 11, 2014, 03:01:54 PM »

I saw this video showing the proposed freeway conversion of Montana Avenue in El Paso. Interesting to note it's a revival in part of the cancelled Trowbridge-Montana freeway.
http://www.texasfreeway.com/ElPaso/elpaso.shtml

The video doesn't make it clear where the project's west end will be (as before the simulated flyover starts, I already see ramps and frontage roads west of Yarbrough).  Will the freeway segment reach any of the airport access roads or possibly have a direct connection with I-10?

EDIT: Here's an article on what has been proposed.  Included there is a proposed grade separation at Hawkins, west of where this video covers:

http://www.elpasodevnews.com/2013/11/from-avenue-to-freeway.html
« Last Edit: October 11, 2014, 03:06:57 PM by TheStranger »
Logged
Chris Sampang

DJStephens

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 714
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Las Cruces NM 88012
  • Last Login: July 09, 2020, 08:25:37 AM
Re: Texas
« Reply #67 on: October 12, 2014, 12:47:54 PM »

there was at one time (circa 2000) a TXDOT idea floated to grade separate the intersection of Montana (US 62 / 180 ) and Airway, which is the street grade connection to the El Paso Airport.  That area is too densely developed to accomplish that, without acquiring and leveling a lot of businesses which crowd that intersection.  Chevron, Jack in the Box, etc. 

The entire Montana corridor west of Airway has a lot of auto dealerships and other related ancillary businesses close to the road, so extending a freeway along it and then to I-10 via the Paisano "cut-off" is not possible.  If by some miracle it was extended along the cut-off to I-10, it would be then too close to the existing US-54/I-10/I-110 Spaghetti Bowl, which itself was jammed in forty plus years ago, in between two pre - existing interchanges on I-10.   The original 1963 plan never showed the Montana Freeway ever connecting to I-10, but connecting to the present day "Patriot" Freeway or US - 54 (or logically - I-110).  That would have required knocking down businesses and old brownstone homes along Montana / Trowbridge Ave for its entire stretch to the future US 54 freeway.  Maybe doable then, not today.   

Do believe it might be possible to "depress" the center four lanes of Airway in a trench, all the way from the south entrance of the airport to roughly Viscount, just north of it's interchange with I-10.  Airport access in El Paso has got to be one of the worst in the western world, a street grade approach from I-10 from the south. 

The article states US 62/180/Montana Ave freeway would "begin" just west of the Yarbrough / Global reach intersection (despise the Global Reach designation, it should be Yarbrough, also)  Article then goes on to mention there may be a separate project, a grade separation of Hawkins at Montana.   Which is west of the stated western end of the main project. 

There is clear visibility of preserved ROW, on the sides of Montana, between Hawkins and Yarbrough, (probably from early 60's pre planning)  so this possible project really needs to be extended west to include this area also.   A better begin point on the west end would be the section between Airway and Hawkins, which is semi - freeway with frontage / CD roads already.   
« Last Edit: October 12, 2014, 01:35:03 PM by DJStephens »
Logged

txstateends

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1081
  • Location: north TX, not far from an interstate interchange and a US terminus
  • Last Login: June 05, 2019, 11:30:28 AM
Re: Texas
« Reply #68 on: October 16, 2014, 05:36:53 AM »

Amarillo:
TxDOT wants to redo Loop 335
http://amarillo.com/news/latest-news/2014-10-15/txdot-wants-redo-loop





The map shows where a planned reroute of Loop 335 may go.  The green line is the reroute, the blue is where Loop 335 runs now in that portion of it.  The pic is on Soncy Road (the west section of Loop 335) just south of I-40, looking south.  This is one of the most congested parts of the Loop, and wasn't planned well for future traffic patterns.  A few years ago, there was talk of doing this with tolls; the tone of current plans aren't including anything about tolling a reroute of Loop 335.
Logged
\/ \/ click for a bigger image \/ \/

DJStephens

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 714
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Las Cruces NM 88012
  • Last Login: July 09, 2020, 08:25:37 AM
Re: Texas
« Reply #69 on: October 19, 2014, 12:28:58 AM »

Texas seems to persist with the somewhat loopy designations, while some of the metro areas served by "loop" designations could qualify for Interstate designations:
Amarillo (population over 100,000)
Odessa / Midland (population over 200,000 for both)
Lubbock (population over 150,000)
El Paso (population over 600,000)
Houston (population over 3,000,000
San Antonio (population over 1,000,000) 
Logged

adventurernumber1

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1640
  • David Carson

  • Age: 20
  • Location: Dalton, Georgia, USA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:03:24 AM
Re: Texas
« Reply #70 on: October 19, 2014, 12:46:25 AM »

Texas seems to persist with the somewhat loopy designations, while some of the metro areas served by "loop" designations could qualify for Interstate designations:
Amarillo (population over 100,000)
Odessa / Midland (population over 200,000 for both)
Lubbock (population over 150,000)
El Paso (population over 600,000)
Houston (population over 3,000,000
San Antonio (population over 1,000,000) 

Houston's Beltway 8 could be an I-810.
Logged
Now alternating between different highway shields for my avatar - my previous highway shield avatar for the last few years was US 76.

Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/127322363@N08/

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-vJ3qa8R-cc44Cv6ohio1g

adventurernumber1

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1640
  • David Carson

  • Age: 20
  • Location: Dalton, Georgia, USA
  • Last Login: Today at 01:03:24 AM
Re: Texas
« Reply #71 on: October 20, 2014, 01:16:28 PM »

Beltway 8 has hundreds of at grade intersections so no.

Oh. It does? I thought it was all limited-access, reason because Google Maps colors the whole thing orange, and I've only seen a portion of it on street view one time, and it looked limited-access to me. If it has plenty of at-grade intersections, they could upgrade the road, then make it I-810  :-P
Logged
Now alternating between different highway shields for my avatar - my previous highway shield avatar for the last few years was US 76.

Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/127322363@N08/

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-vJ3qa8R-cc44Cv6ohio1g

Anthony_JK

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1372
  • Age: 56
  • Location: Lafayette, Louisiana
  • Last Login: July 10, 2020, 01:15:08 PM
Re: Texas
« Reply #72 on: October 20, 2014, 01:40:21 PM »

Beltway 8 has hundreds of at grade intersections so no.

Beltway 8 officially is the frontage/access road portion of the Sam Houston Tollway, plus the free freeway portions (between I-45 and US 59/Future I-69; between US 90/I-10 and the Jesse Jones Bridge across the Houston Ship Channel). The freeway/tollway mainlines are indeed fully access controlled after the completion of the tolled northeast section between US 90 and US 59. That's not the reason why it couldn't be I-810; the fact that it is a tollway not built with Fed funds but mostly by TXDOT and HCTA funds is.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2014, 01:44:35 PM by Anthony_JK »
Logged

J N Winkler

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6725
  • Location: Wichita, Kansas/Oxford, Great Britain
  • Last Login: July 10, 2020, 11:10:40 PM
Re: Texas
« Reply #73 on: October 20, 2014, 03:07:30 PM »

That's not the reason why it couldn't be I-810; the fact that it is a tollway not built with Fed funds but mostly by TxDOT and HCTRA funds is.

There may be other reasons it can't be I-810, but I don't think that is one of them.  The rule is that if federal Interstate funds are accepted (e.g., for planning or preliminary design) in respect of a road which is later built as a toll road using non-federal resources, then that road cannot be an Interstate unless the federal funds are repaid.  This is why Virginia SR 895 around Richmond cannot be I-895.  On the other hand, if a road is planned, designed, and built entirely from non-federal resources, then it can be both an Interstate and a toll road, Illinois I-355 being a case in point.  There is also no requirement that a state-level entity has to be the owning agency for an Interstate, I-83 in Baltimore City being one example of a city-owned Interstate.
Logged
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

Grzrd

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3424
  • Interested Observer

  • Location: Atlanta, GA
  • Last Login: March 29, 2020, 01:23:03 PM
Re: Texas
« Reply #74 on: July 30, 2015, 07:46:29 PM »

The Texas Transportation Commission has posted a July 29 TxDOT Interstate Corridor Planning - Prioritization of Corridor Studies presentation. Here is a snip from a slide comparing congestion in 2013 to estimated congestion in 2040 (p.5/13 of pdf):



The anticipated congestion, combined with possible rebuilding of much of the system that is reaching the end of its expected service life (p. 8/13 of pdf), suggests that Texas will have to spend a lot of money over the next 25 years.
Logged

 


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.