DFW Projects Thread

[BJ59]

Does anyone know if the North Tarrant Express Project on I35W will ever expand into Denton County? The current I35W setup in Denton County seems doesn't seem like it will be able to accommodate for all the new housing developments springing up in the area

[Bobby5280]

The current plans have the express lanes on I-35W ending just South of the TX-114 interchange. As has been the case for at least the past decade or longer TX DOT has been caught 100% flat-footed by the sheer amount of population growth and new business development going up North of Fort Worth. The 2x2 configuration on I-35W between the TX-114 interchange and North split of I-35E/I-35W is just ridiculously pathetic. That section of I-35W needs to be upgraded into at least a 4x4 configuration, if not a 3-2-2-3 layout.

It's kind of staggering to see just how many giant logistical warehouses have been built near the I-35W/TX-114 interchange in the last few years. Add to that a whole bunch of new housing subdivisions.

Not only is TX DOT goofing up with I-35W South of Denton, but they're really screwing the pooch when it comes to TX-114 between I-35W and US-287. There is barely enough space along that segment of TX-114 to shoe-horn an Interstate quality upgrade and flanking frontage roads -thanks to all the damned new development creeping up too ****king close to the highway.

[BJ59]

I agree. TX-114 between I-35W and US-287 needs to be upgraded before it turns into a mess like it has between I-35W and TX-170. At least in that stretch, they have the ROW for a freeway. They do not between I-35W and US-287.

[Bobby5280]

TX DOT could upgrade that portion of TX-114 into a 2x2 freeway flanked by frontage roads if they didn't waste any extra space on greenery and decorative treatments. Most of the existing ROW is about 250' across, as measured from one utility easement across the road to the other utility easement. About 85' is needed for a pair of 12' wide travel lanes in each direction, plus 10' outer shoulders, 6' inner shoulders and room for concrete barriers (tall ones to block out headlight glare from traffic in opposing lanes). Frontage roads would consume at least another 48' of ROW (plus whatever is needed for shoulders). The difficult thing is accommodating on/off ramps. Frontage roads have to flare outward to make room for slip ramps large enough to allow safe traffic flow on and off the freeway main lanes. Those slip ramps are typically what make it necessary for a Texas style freeway to have a 300'-350' wide ROW.

It's geometrically possible to build a 2x2 freeway with frontage roads and slip ramps in a 250' wide foot print. But some "creative" design choices might be necessary, like elevating stretches of the main lanes so on/off ramps can taper in more closely to the main lanes. People buying pricey homes in "upper middle class" developments aren't big fans of elevated freeway structures.

[MaxConcrete]

TX DOT could upgrade that portion of TX-114 into a 2x2 freeway flanked by frontage roads if they didn't waste any extra space on greenery and decorative treatments. Most of the existing ROW is about 250' across, as measured from one utility easement across the road to the other utility easement. About 85' is needed for a pair of 12' wide travel lanes in each direction, plus 10' outer shoulders, 6' inner shoulders and room for concrete barriers (tall ones to block out headlight glare from traffic in opposing lanes). Frontage roads would consume at least another 48' of ROW (plus whatever is needed for shoulders). The difficult thing is accommodating on/off ramps. Frontage roads have to flare outward to make room for slip ramps large enough to allow safe traffic flow on and off the freeway main lanes. Those slip ramps are typically what make it necessary for a Texas style freeway to have a 300'-350' wide ROW.

It's geometrically possible to build a 2x2 freeway with frontage roads and slip ramps in a 250' wide foot print. But some "creative" design choices might be necessary, like elevating stretches of the main lanes so on/off ramps can taper in more closely to the main lanes. People buying pricey homes in "upper middle class" developments aren't big fans of elevated freeway structures.

The May 2023 public meeting for improvements to US 287 around and south of Rhome includes the following schematic which includes a short section of SH 114.
https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/ftw/us81-us287/051623-schematic-3.pdf

Frontage roads are planned for this section of SH 114, with the suggestion that the frontage roads will be extended. (The frontage roads don't merge into the main lanes.) In addition, the new right-of-way on each side of SH 114 is very close to or exactly 30 feet, which will make the corridor 300 feet wide, which is the minimum for a decent quality freeway.

So this is very encouraging. I have not seen any evidence of planning for the rest of the corridor. As Bobby5280 has mentioned, TxDOT needs to hurry up to avoid another mess like US 380 in Collin County.

[Bobby5280]

I certainly hope the proposed "Y" interchange of US-287/TX-114 in Rhome is fully built out as planned. I had seen less detailed versions of this interchange design before. The schematic PDF makes it look more likely. Hopefully the new interchange will improve the grading for WB TX-114 transitioning into NB US-287. The current design has motorists going on a somewhat serious downslope around a long curve. It can be tricky for motorists on TX-114 to see oncoming traffic from US-287 in order to merge safely.

If this US-287/TX-114 interchange is built and the TX-114 freeway extension is built across I-35W to the FM-156 interchange that would leave the remaining segment from the Northwest ISD school complex to the edge of Rhome as the final segment to upgrade. I would imagine at least two or three exits would be needed along the way. TX DOT really has to get on the ball quick though. It's staggering to see just how many of these huge logistics warehouses are being built near the I-35W/TX-114 interchange. Some new ones are being built next to TX-114. The Northwest ISD school complex is getting surrounded by those things. Those warehouses can generate a hell of a lot of truck traffic.

[BJ59]

I recently saw that the Mario Sinacola construction group has set up in the TX-114 median just east of I-35W. There are also roadwork signs set up all the way from US-377 to I-35W on TX-114. Did Sinacola acquire a contract to extend the TX-114 freeway to I-35W?

[bwana39]

I recently saw that the Mario Sinacola construction group has set up in the TX-114 median just east of I-35W. There are also roadwork signs set up all the way from US-377 to I-35W on TX-114. Did Sinacola acquire a contract to extend the TX-114 freeway to I-35W?

Sincola just does the dirtwork, but that would be the assumption.

[yakra]

FM 121 Spur is open!
https://www.kten.com/story/49580615/grayson-parkway-opens-speeding-tollway-access
At 1:31 in the video, there's a shot of "Farm Spur" shield, looking like a traditional FM shield except with "Spur" instead of "Road".
Prior to this, I've only ever seen shields for FM spurs that confusingly look indistinguishable from State Highway Spur shields. I like this new style, and hope they continue to use it going forward.

[-- US 175 --]

FM 121 Spur is open!
https://www.kten.com/story/49580615/grayson-parkway-opens-speeding-tollway-access
At 1:31 in the video, there's a shot of "Farm Spur" shield, looking like a traditional FM shield except with "Spur" instead of "Road".
Prior to this, I've only ever seen shields for FM spurs that confusingly look indistinguishable from State Highway Spur shields. I like this new style, and hope they continue to use it going forward.

I've always wondered why TX couldn't use this or a regular FM/RM with a SPUR banner above the shield, instead of the more-confusing state spur shield.

[Ellie]

FM 121 Spur is open!
https://www.kten.com/story/49580615/grayson-parkway-opens-speeding-tollway-access
At 1:31 in the video, there's a shot of "Farm Spur" shield, looking like a traditional FM shield except with "Spur" instead of "Road".
Prior to this, I've only ever seen shields for FM spurs that confusingly look indistinguishable from State Highway Spur shields. I like this new style, and hope they continue to use it going forward.

Checked it out a few weeks ago; it's a nice new stretch of pavement (speed limit is 55, as opposed to the Dallas Parkway south of there, which is only 50, and has only curbs instead of an actual shoulder). No traffic either.

[longhorn]

I-30 widening project

https://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/I30EC

[bwana39]

OK , so what is the point in making subsurface main lanes when you put in ground level frontage roads and 18-foot noise barriers?

[Plutonic Panda]

OK , so what is the point in making subsurface main lanes when you put in ground level frontage roads and 18-foot noise barriers?

Less traffic noise? Plus it allows for the realistically portrayal of amazing renderings of a billion dollar park cap that won't ever be built.

[Chris]

https://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/projects/us-highways/us80-spur557

A public hearing was held for the six lane expansion of US 80 and Spur 557 near Forney (east of Dallas).

However my eye caught the 'Kaufman County Loop', which is illustrated as a massive 16 lane corridor.

According to the project website that project is still in design phase: https://kaufmanouterloop.com/

[Stephane Dumas]

No need to guess then the Kaufman County Loop will be part of Loop-9.

[MaxConcrete]

https://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/projects/us-highways/us80-spur557

A public hearing was held for the six lane expansion of US 80 and Spur 557 near Forney (east of Dallas).

On a related note for US 80, rebuilding the interchange at I-635 is scheduled to receive bids in July. The estimated cost is $440 million.

The interchange is proceeding before the planned expansion in Dallas County, and is sooner than I expected. I suppose it is ready for construction, whereas other projects are not.

A meeting to solicit an inspection contractor was held today.

This interchange is the second of the six interchanges which I call the "cookie cutter" interchanges in the DFW Freeways book. These six interchanges along I-635 have a nearly identical design, all with the central double-T pylon. The first cookie cutter at I-30 is almost entirely gone now, replaced by a new interchange as part of the LBJ East project. I'm not aware of any plans to replace the other four cookie cutters.

[Bobby5280]

The new I-30/I-635 interchange will have higher traffic capacities on the ramps as well as accommodating the wider main lane roadways of both freeways. However, it is not much of a visual upgrade over the old "cookie cutter" interchange. All the new directional ramp bridges have a very blocky, Stonehenge appearance (like so many other stack interchanges in Texas).

Dallas-Fort Worth seems like a big enough metro to be worthy enough for some interchanges featuring cast-segmental ramp bridges. Those kinds of bridges are more visually pleasing. They have fluid curves and need fewer support pylons. Phoenix has several stack interchanges built in that fashion. The High Five interchange (I-635 & US-75) is the only one in the Metroplex with any bridge segments featuring a cast-segmental design. But that's only in the middle of the interchange -where engineers were forced to use that method because the support pylons had to be spaced so far apart. The rest of the High-Five interchange is the usual Stonehenge stuff. I suppose it has something to do with cost cutting.

[MaxConcrete]

I suppose it has something to do with cost cutting.

The lack of precast segmental and cast-in-place concrete in Texas has everything to do with cost. With a new interchange built with lowest-cost techniques costing around $500 million (the $440 million is an estimate, and there are other expenses before construction), there just isn't money available for more expensive designs. I think Texas-style interchanges can be reasonably attractive if they include architectural enhancements, as has been standard in Houston for the last 25 years. But I do agree that many un-enhanced interchanges and ramps in DFW, especially associated with toll roads, are very ugly.

I don't know if those locations you mention in Phoenix have an earthquake risk. Of course California must use cast-in-place concrete due to earthquake risk. But you may have noticed that it has been a very long time since a full interchange was built in California. I'm thinking at least 20 years(?) (I'm aware of a few ramps being built, but not full interchanges.)

I have wondered how much it would cost to build an interchange like the interchanges along I-105 (Century Freeway) in Los Angeles. I'm thinking around $1.5 billion. Which explains why we may never see another one built in California, unless there is an earthquake which destroys an interchange, necessitating replacement.

[Bobby5280]

Some of the interchanges in Phoenix are somewhat recent builds, such as the I-10/Loop 303 interchange. Interchanges in Las Vegas are getting similar treatment. The flyover ramp bridges look nice. They're not clunky looking.

I can't begin to understand just what the hell is happening in California. The state has, by far, the highest gasoline prices in the nation. But it seems clear the state is diverting most of that gasoline tax revenue to other efforts (or just letting it get burned up in the "general fund"). California's highways are deteriorating. And their highway signs often look revolting, both in terms of layout composition and general poor condition of the sign. It's a 180° swing from my childhood experiences riding in the car with my parents thru parts of Southern California. Back in the 1970's and early 1980's California's highways were state of the art. Now they look like shit. But I guess that's part of the whole anti-car agenda out there. Never mind the fact you still need a freaking vehicle to survive there.

Speaking of earthquake risk, DFW is in close proximity to Oklahoma. We've had some pretty strong earthquakes here. There was a 5.1 quake near OKC on Feb 3. Many people believe the fracking practices of the oil industry have caused all these new quakes. Plenty of fracking goes on in Texas too.

Another thing I wonder about, as to why we don't see these more graceful looking freeway interchanges built in Texas: the geology. Maybe the bedrock in Arizona and Nevada is a lot more solid and supportive of such interchanges. North-Central Texas and much of Oklahoma is notorious for having a lot of red clay soil, which is less stable. Still, these bridge pylons have to be extended deep in the ground regardless of what kinds of soil is present near the surface.

[-- US 175 --]

https://www.keepitmovingdallas.com/projects/us-highways/us80-spur557

A public hearing was held for the six lane expansion of US 80 and Spur 557 near Forney (east of Dallas).

On a related note for US 80, rebuilding the interchange at I-635 is scheduled to receive bids in July. The estimated cost is $440 million.

The interchange is proceeding before the planned expansion in Dallas County, and is sooner than I expected. I suppose it is ready for construction, whereas other projects are not.

A meeting to solicit an inspection contractor was held today.

This interchange is the second of the six interchanges which I call the "cookie cutter" interchanges in the DFW Freeways book. These six interchanges along I-635 have a nearly identical design, all with the central double-T pylon. The first cookie cutter at I-30 is almost entirely gone now, replaced by a new interchange as part of the LBJ East project. I'm not aware of any plans to replace the other four cookie cutters.

The US 175/I-20/I-635 interchange is on the Project Tracker list.  Whatever will be done, has a listed budget/cost of $200 million.  The project extent spans from the Edd Rd. exit to the Masters Rd. exit.  The listing isn't specific, but my guess is that the project may include long advance ramps to connect to I-20 as well as a separate ramp to connect to I-635.  If so, this would cut back quite a bit on the weaving and last-minute decisions made between US 175, I-635, and each direction of I-20.  I'm not sure about any timelines, but with the AADT of US 175 approaching the interchange, I'm sure that the sooner any work can be done, the better (pending funding, of course).

[Stephane Dumas]

Speaking of earthquake risk, DFW is in close proximity to Oklahoma. We've had some pretty earthquakes here. There was a 5.1 quake near OKC on Feb 3. Many people believe the fracking practices of the oil industry have caused all these new quakes. Plenty of fracking goes on in Texas too.

Another thing I wonder about, as to why we don't see these more graceful looking freeway interchanges built in Texas: the geology. Maybe the bedrock in Arizona and Nevada is a lot more solid and supportive of such interchanges. North-Central Texas and much of Oklahoma is notorious for having a lot of red clay soil, which is less stable. Still, these bridge pylons have to be extended deep in the ground regardless of what kinds of soil is present near the surface.

Speaking of geology, isn't the DFW area close to the Balcones Escarpment (Wikipedia refers it as Belcones Fault)? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balcones_Fault

[J N Winkler]

Regarding the use or otherwise of precast segmental bridges for direct connectors in stack interchanges, I wonder if a shortage of suitable locations for casting yards may be a factor in the lack of such structures in Dallas.  The High Five replaced a directional interchange that had a large footprint and what appeared (in 2001 aerial imagery) to be unused land adjacent to the southeast quadrant, so it was not difficult to locate a yard near the construction site.

Most of the Arizona stacks were partial greenfield construction since at each location, just one of the crossing freeways already existed (I-17 at Loop 101, US 60 at Loop 202, I-10 at Loops 202 and 303).  I-10/I-17 is the main exception to this general observation, and its flyovers use steel I-beam girders.  The others all use concrete.  This said, unlike the case at the High Five, they also maintain an uniform cross-section without haunching at piers, though at I-10/Loop 303 superstructure depth increases to accommodate wider spacing between piers within the interchange core.

[Road Hog]

There are escarpments in the DFW area but they tend to be known by different names depending on the location. They likely are all related to the Balcones formation. The underlying surface is the Eagle Ford shale, which in some locales makes for good fracking but for others makes some horrible foundations for homes.

[Plutonic Panda]

I have wondered how much it would cost to build an interchange like the interchanges along I-105 (Century Freeway) in Los Angeles. I'm thinking around $1.5 billion. Which explains why we may never see another one built in California, unless there is an earthquake which destroys an interchange, necessitating replacement.

True but it is worth noting California could easily do it if they had the will. Even at $2 a pop they hey could easily afford it with SB-1 providing tens of billions it's about priority. And given LA's recent anti freeway positions maybe just modernizing them could be in store. With less money spent on widening and new freeways there's more for existing interchange rebuilds and I can think of several off hand that need it.

I-605 and I-710 interchanges on the 5. These are planned to be rebuilt but IIRC it's like 20 or so years out. Absolutely ridiculous.

The 405/101 interchange.

Tons of missing connections like a NB 101 to EB 134 connector.