Funny Construction 820 and I 35
#101 
Posted 25 May 2018 - 08:08 PM
- Dylan and bclaridge like this
#102
Posted 25 May 2018 - 08:19 PM
Reading what people have said outside this forum. Many Fort Worth people think we can build more freeways out of clogged traffic. 
#103
Posted 25 May 2018 - 08:25 PM
The construction is what is backing things up on I-35W in both directions. Maybe one of these days, I could get some photographs of the work.
#104
Posted 25 May 2018 - 11:50 PM
two words:
Induced Demand
Nope. Believe it or not, they did not add any new free lanes. 
All of this construction was only to add toll lanes. Many drivers are not willing to pay tolls.
-Dylan
#105
Posted 26 May 2018 - 12:00 AM
That unrealistic video was probably created to gain support for the project.
In reality, the developer wants the free lanes to be congested so drivers will pay to use the toll lanes.
- Volare and Not Sure like this
-Dylan
#106
Posted 26 May 2018 - 06:29 AM
In reality, the developer wants the free lanes to be congested so drivers will pay to use the toll lanes.
Bingo! And not only did they recreate the existing problems of 35W, they created new ones, like the 820 mess they talked about in the article. Recall previously going south on 35W there were separate exits for E and W bound 820. Not anymore! Some of us had been saying before the construction started that nothing would be fixed by this. What we didn't know was that their incompetence would make it even worse.
- Dylan likes this
#107
Posted 28 May 2018 - 04:06 PM
In reality, the developer wants the free lanes to be congested so drivers will pay to use the toll lanes.
Bingo! And not only did they recreate the existing problems of 35W, they created new ones, like the 820 mess they talked about in the article. Recall previously going south on 35W there were separate exits for E and W bound 820. Not anymore! Some of us had been saying before the construction started that nothing would be fixed by this. What we didn't know was that their incompetence would make it even worse.
It is all very disappointing. Though I am normally great to charge the people that use things, I hate toll roads. And all our new ones are the worst. Ever. Just a complicated mess of concrete. Increase the gasoline tax a dime a gallon and let us drive on the "Toll Lanes" They blew it completely.
- Not Sure likes this
www.fortworthview.com
#108
Posted 28 May 2018 - 05:10 PM
What happened is that video represents the ultimate project to be built and funded at a later time, and what we are getting now is the interim project. TxDOT should have at least done something about the bottlenecks though, instead of just recreating them. I've suggested before that some of the bottlenecks with the North Tarrant Express projects could be (somewhat) alleviated by having a 3-2-2-3 configuration along 35W from 820 north to the 287 split, and adding a third free lane along 820 westbound from Holiday Lane to the TEXpress Lanes entrance at Rufe Snow. Add a second lane to the southbound off-ramp from 35W to 820 and that could also help, along with giving more warning of the right lane ending going northbound along 35W at 28th Street (I'd extend that lane a bit further though by placing the warning signs where the lane currently ends and having the lane end just before the traffic from 28th merges into 35W northbound).
- Not Sure likes this
Brandon Claridge, proud Horned Frog (TCU Class of 2017) and lifelong Fort Worth resident.
While I majored in psychology (B.Sc.), I have a hobby interest in urban design and planning.
#109
Posted 28 May 2018 - 06:36 PM
The bottleneck at 820/121/183 by northeast mall, specifically where westbound lanes from 820 and 183 merge headed toward Holiday Lane, is a creation of the toll project. In the current arrangement, westbound drivers from 183/121 must merge with drivers entering from Bedford-Euless Road on the right and two through lanes from 820 on the left. Furthermore, both westbound lanes end shortly after the merge, one simply ends and the other becomes an exit only lane to Holiday Lane. This bottleneck could be eliminated by making the far right lane the exit only lane to Holiday Lane and extending the three remaining lanes to the express lane entrance where the leftmost lane becomes an exit only lane to the express lanes.
#110
Posted 29 May 2018 - 11:48 AM
So... what happened to all of this?
What happened is that video represents the ultimate project to be built and funded at a later time, and what we are getting now is the interim project. TxDOT should have at least done something about the bottlenecks though, instead of just recreating them. I've suggested before that some of the bottlenecks with the North Tarrant Express projects could be (somewhat) alleviated by having a 3-2-2-3 configuration along 35W from 820 north to the 287 split, and adding a third free lane along 820 westbound from Holiday Lane to the TEXpress Lanes entrance at Rufe Snow. Add a second lane to the southbound off-ramp from 35W to 820 and that could also help, along with giving more warning of the right lane ending going northbound along 35W at 28th Street (I'd extend that lane a bit further though by placing the warning signs where the lane currently ends and having the lane end just before the traffic from 28th merges into 35W northbound).
...ok.
I'll be waiting, then.
#111
Posted 29 May 2018 - 12:14 PM
So... what happened to all of this?
What happened is that video represents the ultimate project to be built and funded at a later time, and what we are getting now is the interim project. TxDOT should have at least done something about the bottlenecks though, instead of just recreating them. I've suggested before that some of the bottlenecks with the North Tarrant Express projects could be (somewhat) alleviated by having a 3-2-2-3 configuration along 35W from 820 north to the 287 split, and adding a third free lane along 820 westbound from Holiday Lane to the TEXpress Lanes entrance at Rufe Snow. Add a second lane to the southbound off-ramp from 35W to 820 and that could also help, along with giving more warning of the right lane ending going northbound along 35W at 28th Street (I'd extend that lane a bit further though by placing the warning signs where the lane currently ends and having the lane end just before the traffic from 28th merges into 35W northbound)....ok.
I'll be waiting, then.
TxDOT -¯ \_( ツ )_/ ¯
#112
Posted 29 May 2018 - 01:02 PM
Lol a bil and a half for an interim, temporary solution.
- Jeriat likes this
#113
Posted 30 May 2018 - 10:40 AM
In reality, the developer wants the free lanes to be congested so drivers will pay to use the toll lanes.
Bingo! And not only did they recreate the existing problems of 35W, they created new ones, like the 820 mess they talked about in the article. Recall previously going south on 35W there were separate exits for E and W bound 820. Not anymore! Some of us had been saying before the construction started that nothing would be fixed by this. What we didn't know was that their incompetence would make it even worse.
It is all very disappointing. Though I am normally great to charge the people that use things, I hate toll roads. And all our new ones are the worst. Ever. Just a complicated mess of concrete. Increase the gasoline tax a dime a gallon and let us drive on the "Toll Lanes" They blew it completely.
While I am totally in agreement with your comment on the gas tax (while acknowledging that it doesn't seem likely in the near future), I really don't agree that these toll roads have been the "worst" in any way.
Yes, it's a complicated mess of concrete. But to say that I have been pleasantly surprised about the Texpress portion of 183 in the mid-cities would be a big understatement. The fact is that TxDOT has no funding for certain roads. And the fact is that every driver paying these tolls is one less driver in the main lanes. Yes, I think it would have been nice to force Cintra to give us an additional free lane in each direction on all these roads. But for those of you who argue that you don't want more freeways (induced demand, etc.), why aren't you clapping for this situation? It seems to me that charging money for driving on freeways is exactly the right way to handle things going forward. Roads cost a fortune. Make the users pay for it, and you'll eventually see alternative forms of mass transportation become viable. As for the actual design of Cintra's work (635 in Dallas and 183 in mid-cities so far), I think it's really quite good. And they haven't snarled traffic for a decade while doing it. The work has gone remarkably fast compared with typical public transportation projects.
Anyway, instead of griping about bottlenecks at 820 and I-35, personally I look at it and say "serves them right for choosing to live in an area with notoriously bad traffic," just as I don't feel sorry for people who live in Frisco complaining about their toll bills. The worst thing long-term for better transportation options would have been Cintra building a perfectly flowing 12 lane freeway. So I'm glad we only got half of that.
#114
Posted 30 May 2018 - 12:49 PM
I drive the 183 portion of NTE every day and I would agree that there are a lot of things that they did right. Going east in the evenings, the extended entrance and exit ramps greatly improved traffic flow and traffic moves pretty free starting at Bedford-Euless Road. It does back up when the express lane merges back onto 121 going north toward Grapevine, but there is a plan to add a lane each direction on that section of 121. Going west in the mornings, 121 backs up going into Bedford, 820 south backs up from Pipeline, and, as many have mentioned, 820 going east backs up from Rufe Snow. There's a lot of crossing of merged traffic in both of those areas contributing to the backup. The upcoming work on 820 between Pipeline and Randol Mill may sort out the traffic going south, but the westbound pinch point is baffling.
I would agree that Cintra did a nice job on LBJ through north Dallas. I drove through there on Sunday evening and it is a huge improvement. TXDoT also did a great job on the DFW Connector and they have continued to find ways to keep tweaking that project (the 360/121/William D. Tate merge was just completed and another phase of the Flower Mound section is about to start). My biggest complaint about the NTE work is that it appeared that TXDoT gave up control of large portions of the decision making process and Cintra value engineered the @#%! out of everything - removed the elevated toll lanes which left no room in the narrow right-of-ways for additional free lanes, switched from concrete paving to asphalt, etc.
It sounds like I'm complaining, but I'm really not. I make a choice to live where I do and I know that traffic on my commute is part of life. I've been commuting from Bedford to west Fort Worth for 20 years now and, given the growth in this area and that there's been highway construction on some part of my route for better than half of that time, the fact that my commute time isn't really all that much longer than it was 2 decades ago tells me that something has improved.
#115
Posted 30 May 2018 - 01:33 PM
I noticed the permanent speed limit signs are installed north of 820 now. The toll lanes are signed for 70 mph. The free lanes have been reduced to 50 mph.
Www.fortwortharchitecture.com
#116
Posted 31 May 2018 - 05:49 AM
Reduced to 50 and ignored by most motorists.
#117
Posted 31 May 2018 - 08:44 PM
?That's not a temporary construction speed limit? That's ridiculous.
It's time to put an end to private companies designing and operating split freeway / tollways.
TXDOT needs to start taxing gas as a percentage per gallon to keep up with inflation.
The current flat rate is the reason they're so broke and the reason we got this mess.
-Dylan
#118
Posted 05 June 2018 - 12:02 PM
Bingo! And not only did they recreate the existing problems of 35W, they created new ones....
It is all very disappointing. ... They blew it completely.
Yes, it's a complicated mess of concrete.....
For me, the greatest disappointment was a failure on the part of the City to insist upon a design that would have connected Butler Neighborhood to Harmon Park and the river.
Simply lowering the 287 section of the road to a depth that would have allowed for a deck bridge (Kyle Warren Deck Park) would make the Butler Neighborhood ripe for development. Instead, the Butler Neighborhood continues to be walled off by freeways. What a gigantic missed opportunity.
- panthercity likes this
#119
Posted 06 June 2018 - 05:35 AM
Yes, it's a complicated mess of concrete.....
For me, the greatest disappointment was a failure on the part of the City to insist upon a design that would have connected Butler Neighborhood to Harmon Park and the river.
Simply lowering the 287 section of the road to a depth that would have allowed for a deck bridge (Kyle Warren Deck Park) would make the Butler Neighborhood ripe for development. Instead, the Butler Neighborhood continues to be walled off by freeways. What a gigantic missed opportunity.
The problem with deck bridge parks many overlook is who ultimately pays for them. Take the nearby Kyle Warren Deck Park as the leading example. USDOT didn't pay for it, TXDOT didn't pay for it, Dallas County didn't pay for it, City of Dallas didn't pay for it, surprise! surprise! surprise! they only did paid $58 million of the total $110 million for it. The remaining $52 million was paid by a private foundation formed for the deck park. FYI, 58/110 is 53%, 52/110 is 47%.
https://www.dallasne...n-not-taxpayers
In 2004, Jody Grant and his wife, Sheila, along with Texas Capital Bank and the Real Estate Council, committed $3 million in seed money. That led, in turn, to $10 million in private capital and an agreement from the city to put the park on the 2006 bond program for $20 million. Fast-forward eight years, and private donors have given more than $52 million to the park. Some of those got naming rights in return, either for the park itself or for elements within it. The park is named for energy magnate Kelcy Warren's 10-year-old son. Meanwhile, government — at the federal, state and city level — has spent nearly $58 million, almost all of it to build the deck under the park.
"At the outset, we said this should be a one-third, one-third, one-third deal — the city, the state and the private sector," Grant said. "As it's developed, the private sector has stepped up and taken a much greater share of the responsibility."
Has any "private" party from the City of Fort Worth stepped up to pay 47% of the costs to build and maintain a deck park over a freeway near the Butler Neighborhood or anywhere else in Fort Worth? Specifically, placing their own money into the mix to act as a seed so a tree will grow.It's so easy for participants of discussion forums on the internet to suggest government should do this or that project on the whim of the moment, but if you really want to get something done you're going to have to pitch in more than just talk, you're going to have to walk that walk.
As an example that there are some in Fort Worth willing to walk that walk, look behind the "private" and "public" efforts to get the new Dickies Arena built. I guarantee it took more than just talk to get it done.
- hannerhan likes this
#120
Posted 06 June 2018 - 10:44 AM
Yes, it's a complicated mess of concrete.....
For me, the greatest disappointment was a failure on the part of the City to insist upon a design that would have connected Butler Neighborhood to Harmon Park and the river.
Simply lowering the 287 section of the road to a depth that would have allowed for a deck bridge (Kyle Warren Deck Park) would make the Butler Neighborhood ripe for development. Instead, the Butler Neighborhood continues to be walled off by freeways. What a gigantic missed opportunity.
The problem with deck bridge parks many overlook is who ultimately pays for them. Take the nearby Kyle Warren Deck Park as the leading example. USDOT didn't pay for it, TXDOT didn't pay for it, Dallas County didn't pay for it, City of Dallas didn't pay for it, surprise! surprise! surprise! they only did paid $58 million of the total $110 million for it. The remaining $52 million was paid by a private foundation formed for the deck park. FYI, 58/110 is 53%, 52/110 is 47%.
https://www.dallasne...n-not-taxpayers
In 2004, Jody Grant and his wife, Sheila, along with Texas Capital Bank and the Real Estate Council, committed $3 million in seed money. That led, in turn, to $10 million in private capital and an agreement from the city to put the park on the 2006 bond program for $20 million. Fast-forward eight years, and private donors have given more than $52 million to the park. Some of those got naming rights in return, either for the park itself or for elements within it. The park is named for energy magnate Kelcy Warren's 10-year-old son. Meanwhile, government — at the federal, state and city level — has spent nearly $58 million, almost all of it to build the deck under the park.
"At the outset, we said this should be a one-third, one-third, one-third deal — the city, the state and the private sector," Grant said. "As it's developed, the private sector has stepped up and taken a much greater share of the responsibility."
Has any "private" party from the City of Fort Worth stepped up to pay 47% of the costs to build and maintain a deck park over a freeway near the Butler Neighborhood or anywhere else in Fort Worth? Specifically, placing their own money into the mix to act as a seed so a tree will grow.It's so easy for participants of discussion forums on the internet to suggest government should do this or that project on the whim of the moment, but if you really want to get something done you're going to have to pitch in more than just talk, you're going to have to walk that walk.
As an example that there are some in Fort Worth willing to walk that walk, look behind the "private" and "public" efforts to get the new Dickies Arena built. I guarantee it took more than just talk to get it done.
You're full of BS and hypocrisy.
Dallas is putting down a down payment for a second deck, this one over R.L. Thornton to connect the dallas zoo to West Oak Cliff.
https://oakcliff.adv...e-35-deck-park/
Yet proposing that Fort Worth might have done the same thing brings out the lame excuse of who is going to pay for it. I believe that Fort Worth has people who love their city just as much as other cities, there would be support, I am sure. Insinuating that Fort Worth lacks a philanthropic base is insulting.
Fort Worth does not disparage things going on in Dallas; why the need to do that for things suggested for Fort Worth?
Hypocrisy.
#121
Posted 06 June 2018 - 11:00 AM
Yes, it's a complicated mess of concrete.....
For me, the greatest disappointment was a failure on the part of the City to insist upon a design that would have connected Butler Neighborhood to Harmon Park and the river.
Simply lowering the 287 section of the road to a depth that would have allowed for a deck bridge (Kyle Warren Deck Park) would make the Butler Neighborhood ripe for development. Instead, the Butler Neighborhood continues to be walled off by freeways. What a gigantic missed opportunity.
The problem with deck bridge parks many overlook is who ultimately pays for them. Take the nearby Kyle Warren Deck Park as the leading example. USDOT didn't pay for it, TXDOT didn't pay for it, Dallas County didn't pay for it, City of Dallas didn't pay for it, surprise! surprise! surprise! they only did paid $58 million of the total $110 million for it. The remaining $52 million was paid by a private foundation formed for the deck park. FYI, 58/110 is 53%, 52/110 is 47%.
https://www.dallasne...n-not-taxpayers
In 2004, Jody Grant and his wife, Sheila, along with Texas Capital Bank and the Real Estate Council, committed $3 million in seed money. That led, in turn, to $10 million in private capital and an agreement from the city to put the park on the 2006 bond program for $20 million. Fast-forward eight years, and private donors have given more than $52 million to the park. Some of those got naming rights in return, either for the park itself or for elements within it. The park is named for energy magnate Kelcy Warren's 10-year-old son. Meanwhile, government — at the federal, state and city level — has spent nearly $58 million, almost all of it to build the deck under the park.
"At the outset, we said this should be a one-third, one-third, one-third deal — the city, the state and the private sector," Grant said. "As it's developed, the private sector has stepped up and taken a much greater share of the responsibility."
Has any "private" party from the City of Fort Worth stepped up to pay 47% of the costs to build and maintain a deck park over a freeway near the Butler Neighborhood or anywhere else in Fort Worth? Specifically, placing their own money into the mix to act as a seed so a tree will grow.It's so easy for participants of discussion forums on the internet to suggest government should do this or that project on the whim of the moment, but if you really want to get something done you're going to have to pitch in more than just talk, you're going to have to walk that walk.
As an example that there are some in Fort Worth willing to walk that walk, look behind the "private" and "public" efforts to get the new Dickies Arena built. I guarantee it took more than just talk to get it done.
You're full of BS and hypocrisy.
Dallas is putting down a down payment for a second deck, this one over R.L. Thornton to connect the dallas zoo to West Oak Cliff.
https://oakcliff.adv...e-35-deck-park/
Yet proposing that Fort Worth might have done the same thing brings out the lame excuse of who is going to pay for it. I believe that Fort Worth has people who love their city just as much as other cities, there would be support, I am sure.
Fort Worth does not disparage things going on in Dallas; why the need to do that to Fort Worth?
Hypocrisy.
I'm not really sure where you're coming from. What the previous poster clearly outlined was that it took private citizens putting up seed capital and ramping up the idea before it ever came to fruition. Sometimes that's what it takes when you're doing something unique that hasn't been done before. Especially when it costs a boatload of money. So, yeah, now that the first one is successful it's way easier for Dallas to do the 2nd one with public funds. But the point made by Electricron is pretty valid.
Sounds like you guys might need to work out some personal issues.
#122
Posted 06 June 2018 - 11:12 AM
The crazy thing is that southbound 35W at the north side now has only a single exit lane for both westbound and eastbound 820. Previously there was a right exit for westbound and a left exit for eastbound. Part of the Toll agreement is that free lanes are supposed to be rebuilt to their original capacity. In this case, the capacity has been cut in half. So who agreed to that??
Conversely, southbound 35W at the south side where it intersects 820 has THREE exit lanes for 820. Two for westbound 820 and one for eastbound. So who on earth ever though that a single exit lane would be sufficient up in the massive growth northside. I say again, who from TxDOT signed off on a rebuild to less than original capacity??
#123
Posted 06 June 2018 - 11:46 AM
I think it is obvious where I am coming from.
I don't believe his point is valid. To back my statement, I cited where Dallas is doing what Fort Worth could have done. Yes it takes a lot of money, It also takes vision and that vision was lacking by Fort Worth when it came to remake of the I-35W expansion. My criticism was of Fort Worth.
What Dallas is doing is visionary. So why can't we assume that Fort Worth could not have been as visionary; or that Fort Worth could not have sought private donations as seed for the TXDOT to build a deck park. The answer implies that Fort Worth just doesn't have people willing to do the donations and that there is no seed money her; and to that extent, where is there evidence that there isn't seed money in this City?
The KWP Deck was a first, but it was achieved. So saying that its unique implies that Dallas can do things that Fort Worth shouldn't try; well that sounds highly hypocritical and belittling.
I think the failure of including a deck as a part of the freeway expansion is on Fort Worth; not on the caliber of its philanthropy as has been implied. Again, it was a gigantic missed opportunity to connect Butler with the park and the river.
Personally, I don't find a need to dis things that happen crosstown; I don't have any issues with what is being done there: "No horse in that race; No need to work anything out". However, I will call out this long ongoing default pattern implying that Fort Worth's ability in almost everything it does is inferior or unattainable when compared to another city.;and when someone who has an issue with things going in our City repeatedly makes unfounded comments pooh pawing , then it will be called out.
For the record, the deck of Woodall Rogers Freeway was a 50/50 public private effort. How is possible for the false idea about the Woodall Rogers Deck being private funding alone able to still get floated about?
https://www.dmagazin...de-warren-park/
#124
Posted 07 June 2018 - 07:46 AM
I think it is obvious where I am coming from.
I don't believe his point is valid. To back my statement, I cited where Dallas is doing what Fort Worth could have done. Yes it takes a lot of money, It also takes vision and that vision was lacking by Fort Worth when it came to remake of the I-35W expansion. My criticism was of Fort Worth.
What Dallas is doing is visionary. So why can't we assume that Fort Worth could not have been as visionary; or that Fort Worth could not have sought private donations as seed for the TXDOT to build a deck park. The answer implies that Fort Worth just doesn't have people willing to do the donations and that there is no seed money her; and to that extent, where is there evidence that there isn't seed money in this City?
The KWP Deck was a first, but it was achieved. So saying that its unique implies that Dallas can do things that Fort Worth shouldn't try; well that sounds highly hypocritical and belittling.
I think the failure of including a deck as a part of the freeway expansion is on Fort Worth; not on the caliber of its philanthropy as has been implied. Again, it was a gigantic missed opportunity to connect Butler with the park and the river.
Personally, I don't find a need to dis things that happen crosstown; I don't have any issues with what is being done there: "No horse in that race; No need to work anything out". However, I will call out this long ongoing default pattern implying that Fort Worth's ability in almost everything it does is inferior or unattainable when compared to another city.;and when someone who has an issue with things going in our City repeatedly makes unfounded comments pooh pawing , then it will be called out.
For the record, the deck of Woodall Rogers Freeway was a 50/50 public private effort. How is possible for the false idea about the Woodall Rogers Deck being private funding alone able to still get floated about?
https://www.dmagazin...de-warren-park/
The original proposal was hoping for a 33-33-33 split. It ended up being at 47 to 53 split. But the amount of the split wasn't the major point of my earlier reply. I wanted to point out that it took a privately funded foundation with its' grass roots political, economic, and social interactions along with hard work to get the Kyle Warren Park built.
Whatever is happening in Oak Cliff is still just a possibility, it's a work in progress. No one know how the final tally of who will pay for it will be split.
But I will guarantee, with the KWP precedent established, that TXDOT isn't going to pay for all of it. Someone or some entity from Fort Worth (public or private) will have to ante up nearly half the costs.
#125
Posted 21 July 2018 - 10:23 AM
Not exactly I-35 related, but definitely freeway related. I spent 3 unexpected days in Houston this week dealing with a family matter. Anyone that thinks that induced demand relative to freeway construction is some type of voodoo science dreamed up by hippie mass transit nuts should go spend a few days in Houston. Wide, recently expanded freeways abound and the traffic is bumper-to-bumper. We drove down on I-45 and made it to Huntsville around 4:00 and barely drove faster than 50mph from there to our destination in Sugar Land.
The only toll road we used was the Sam Houston Tollway (Beltway 8) and I was amazed that they still have cash toll booths - 3 booths and 3 toll tag lanes at each plaza. Traffic slowed to a crawl a mile or two leading into each plaza, even at 3:00 on our trip out of town yesterday. Even though it was only about 15 minutes quicker, I opted for driving home on 290 and 6 through Waco to return.
#126
Posted 21 July 2018 - 03:22 PM
Fun before and after video. Might require some Dramamine.
http://fortworthtexa...35W-completion/
#127
Posted 21 July 2018 - 03:56 PM
Not exactly I-35 related, but definitely freeway related. I spent 3 unexpected days in Houston this week dealing with a family matter. Anyone that thinks that induced demand relative to freeway construction is some type of voodoo science dreamed up by hippie mass transit nuts should go spend a few days in Houston. Wide, recently expanded freeways abound and the traffic is bumper-to-bumper. We drove down on I-45 and made it to Huntsville around 4:00 and barely drove faster than 50mph from there to our destination in Sugar Land.
The Katy Freeway... the WIDEST freeway in America:
#128
Posted 21 July 2018 - 04:44 PM
I grew up in Houston. The Katy freeway is a lot better than it was when it only had 3 lanes on each side, but of course like the rest of Texas rail is lagging way behind. At least it is being expanded, albeit slowly. And when I come back from visiting friends and family I always take 290 to highway 6. Way less traffic than taking 45, especially on highway 6. Very few big rigs on that drive, much less stressful.
#129
Posted 21 July 2018 - 05:33 PM
I quit driving down I-45 to Houston years ago. I have been using TX 6 for quite some time.
#130
Posted 21 July 2018 - 06:47 PM
I just drove on 35. Can confirm, it's a highway.
#131
Posted 21 July 2018 - 07:17 PM
Austin, how far did you go, and which direction did you drive on I-35?
#132
Posted 21 July 2018 - 07:23 PM
I started on 7th Street and spur 280, which merges multiple lanes still and causes a slowdown, but I think that's meant to be fixed later. I went all the way up to 820 them went East.
Having 2 lanes is kinda a bummer as if there's two slow cars in each lane overtaking becomes tricky.
#133
Posted 22 July 2018 - 12:33 AM
Here's an interesting story about the widening of Central Expressway in the 1990s. The underground DART tunnel is also discussed.
A couple of quotes at 4:34 in the video: "Central is not designed to take all the cars that are projected to move in there in the 21st century."
"In other words: Because of continuing suburban growth, Central still won't be big enough when it's finished."
----------
Does that mean they shouldn't have widened Central Expressway in Dallas? How about Katy Freeway in Houston?
Here's my thought process: the amount of cars on roads and highways is continuing to increase with population, regardless of road capacity.
At the very least, if you increase freeway capacity, you increase the amount of cars it can handle at a time. Congestion would be less bad than if you didn't widen it. Rush hour would be shorter than if you didn't widen it.
Imagine all of the cars on I-10 in Houston today if the freeway were still three lanes wide (no toll lanes). The freeway and parallel streets would be even more congested than they are now. Remember, all of those cars would have to go somewhere. The number of cars on the roads wouldn't magically be lower just because the freeway capacity is lower.
-Dylan
#134
Posted 22 July 2018 - 01:24 AM
That depends on whether or not you believe highways spur growth or vice versa.
#135
Posted 22 July 2018 - 06:42 AM
By the time the Katy freeway was expanded, the Katy area was already huge. Now 290 in Houston is wrapping up and will be pretty similar to I-10. Very similar population out in the Cypress area, so again the expansion is coming after the growth was already there. Texas attracts a lot of growth because of the economy and cost of living. Really a catch 22 situation for freeway expansion, because the cities are already sprawling and although all Texas cities have committed to more dense development in the core in recent decades, there really isnt anything that can be done about the already existing suburban sprawl from so many years of different thinking in Texas.
- Dylan likes this
#136
Posted 22 July 2018 - 09:18 AM
By the time the Katy freeway was expanded, the Katy area was already huge. Now 290 in Houston is wrapping up and will be pretty similar to I-10. Very similar population out in the Cypress area, so again the expansion is coming after the growth was already there. Texas attracts a lot of growth because of the economy and cost of living. Really a catch 22 situation for freeway expansion, because the cities are already sprawling and although all Texas cities have committed to more dense development in the core in recent decades, there really isnt anything that can be done about the already existing suburban sprawl from so many years of different thinking in Texas.
When I was going to PVAMU, 290 was still mostly 2 lanes from Waller to Cypress... that was 6 years ago.
Now it looks just like every other highway in the Houston area.
#137
Posted 22 July 2018 - 12:03 PM
Yeah I just went to Houston last weekend and now instead of going down to 2 lanes at the outlets near the grand parkway, it stays at 3 lanes all the way to the Waller county line just before prairie view.
#138
Posted 22 July 2018 - 12:52 PM
The Katy Freeway... the WIDEST freeway in America:
By the time the Katy freeway was expanded, the Katy area was already huge. Now 290 in Houston is wrapping up and will be pretty similar to I-10. Very similar population out in the Cypress area, so again the expansion is coming after the growth was already there. Texas attracts a lot of growth because of the economy and cost of living. Really a catch 22 situation for freeway expansion, because the cities are already sprawling and although all Texas cities have committed to more dense development in the core in recent decades, there really isnt anything that can be done about the already existing suburban sprawl from so many years of different thinking in Texas.
The optic coming from this image is not good; who would want to be faced with that coming and going to work or to other trips?
The things that I predicted to myself and what I suspect were the deciding reasons that Houston would not make the cut for Amazon are:
1. The freeway sprawl and its auto/petro dominant economy
2. Hurricane Harvey and the massive infrastructure collapse; and was a window into the future to predictable natural disasters repeating themselves
3. Lack of a comprehensive rail transit network.
It is to its credit that Los Angeles did make the final cut and that LA has and is developing a pretty impressive transit rail network that had to be taken into consideration.
#139
Posted 22 July 2018 - 07:18 PM
I was not implying that freeways shouldn't be modernized or expanded, but I think it's important to remember that it is an endless cycle with consequences and failing to similarly invest in alternative means of transit is just as big a problem.
#140
Posted 23 July 2018 - 07:58 AM
Increase the gasoline tax a dime a gallon and let us drive on the "Toll Lanes" They blew it completely.
Archaic thinking. New projects will never be paid for by a gasoline tax because gasoline will not be the major fuel for auto transit for much longer. In 5-10 years it will be a vestige of what we're seeing today; by 2028 the vast majority of cars will be electric only.
#141
Posted 23 July 2018 - 08:31 AM
"Adding highway lanes to deal with traffic congestion is like loosening your belt to cure obesity." - Lewis Mumford, 1955, The Roaring Traffic's Boom
Still true.
You only "solve" traffic by removing reasons why people need to drive. By encouraging the "necessities of daily living" to be within walking, biking, transit distance of where people can call home.
#142
Posted 25 January 2019 - 06:17 PM
TEXPress ramps to Belknap and Weatherford are now open. https://www.star-tel...e225098400.html
#143
Posted 28 January 2019 - 10:08 AM
#144
Posted 19 February 2019 - 10:43 PM
So, this will not be a freeway; it will be hybrid version of a toll road/parkway. I don't think that the TXDOT build freeways anymore. Expect the section west of Jim Wright Freeway to be the toll road; and the section east of Jim Wright to Downtown to be a parkway. It is this section that may have the best chances of having TROW included in the planning.
I doubt that TxDOT is suddenly going to try and convert the plans for SH-199 between FM-1886 and I-820 to include tolls, especially in this anti-toll political climate. That is, unless there are issues with securing funding, and Texas politicians start favoring toll roads once again.
Mayor Betsy Price announces that TXDOT will be expanding I-35W north of US287 to Eagle Parkway. TXDOT does not say that the expanded I-35W will include toll lanes, but TXDOT also did not say that they will not be included.
Here is a look into the crystal ball -
https://www.ntetexpr...aq-page#t66n114
#145
Posted 19 February 2019 - 11:23 PM
From the Star Telegram article:
Only $18 million in tax-supported state funds is needed for the project. Most of the rest is expected to be covered by federal loans and private equity raised by the private developer that is under contract to build the project, North Tarrant Express Mobility Partners.
Read more here: https://www.star-tel...l#storylink=cpy
There will be toll lanes. That is how the private developer mentioned above gets paid.
- renamerusk likes this
#146
Posted 01 June 2019 - 12:53 AM
I'm going to go ahead and bump this by saying that the ramp to westbound I-820 from southbound I-35W has become a major problem, and seems to be the source of many of the problems with the interchange rebuild. To a lesser extent the ramp to westbound I-820 from northbound I-35W is also a problem. There is a significant bottleneck there as traffic merging onto westbound I-820 has to quickly move over before they are forced off at Mark IV Parkway.
None of the other ramps in the interchange complex seem to have this problem and appear to flow much more smoothly.
- Dylan likes this
Brandon Claridge, proud Horned Frog (TCU Class of 2017) and lifelong Fort Worth resident.
While I majored in psychology (B.Sc.), I have a hobby interest in urban design and planning.
#147
Posted 01 June 2019 - 01:27 PM
Part of the reason SB 35 at the 820 exit is bad: the 820 exit comes just after the Western Center entrance.
So, you've got a bunch of cars trying to merge onto the freeway at the same time a bunch of cars are trying to exit, and all of this takes place in about a quarter mile.
Tip: if you're on SB 35 and not exiting, stay in the left lane (not counting the toll merge lane). You can go about 35mph and blow past traffic in the right & exit lanes.
------------------------
However, on NB 35, there's no on-ramp immediately before the 820 exit. So, I don't get why NB 35 to 820 is even worse.
Also odd: SB 35 during the morning rush is often free-flowing between 820 and Northside, but NB 35 in the afternoon is always slow between Northside and 820.
- johnfwd likes this
-Dylan
#148
Posted 01 June 2019 - 02:38 PM
Part of the reason SB 35 at the 820 exit is bad: the 820 exit comes just after the Western Center entrance.
So, you've got a bunch of cars trying to merge onto the freeway at the same time a bunch of cars are trying to exit, and all of this takes place in about a quarter mile.
Tip: if you're on SB 35 and not exiting, stay in the left lane (not counting the toll merge lane). You can go about 35mph and blow past traffic in the right & exit lanes.
------------------------
However, on NB 35, there's no on-ramp immediately before the 820 exit. So, I don't get why NB 35 to 820 is even worse.
Also odd: SB 35 during the morning rush is often free-flowing between 820 and Northside, but NB 35 in the afternoon is always slow between Northside and 820.
The northbound-to-westbound ramp has one of the same problems as the southbound-to-westbound ramp: the bottleneck on westbound 820 at Mark IV. It's not worse than the southbound-to-westbound ramp though, which also has to merge into the traffic coming from the northbound-to-westbound ramp and then into the westbound 820 main lanes (not to mention the problems between Western Center and the 820 off-ramp). There is less than 1/4 mile to merge into westbound 820 before you are forced off at Mark IV if you are coming from 35W to westbound 820.
I work in far north Fort Worth and live in the northwest quadrant of town inside the loop, and it is because of that southbound-to-westbound ramp that I always take 28th Street when I'm going home. That said, I have no problem taking 820 to 35W to get to work because you have a two-lane, left-merging on-ramp. Those left-merging on-ramps (for traffic entering 35W from 820) may not seem very intuitive, and I did not like that design at first, but they actually work very well at that location and seem to keep the traffic flowing pretty well.
TxDOT got a little cheap on the westward extent of the interchange improvements, ending them at the bridge over Mark IV Parkway. I would love to see that westbound auxiliary lane on 820 extended west to Blue Mound Road (from Mark IV) to give merging traffic from 35W more time to move over. Not to mention having a dual-lane offramp to the 820 ramps on southbound 35W. Simply making this ramp dual-lane will not fix the problem, since things have to be fixed with the merge at Mark IV to untangle everything. Eventually the plan is to make an interwoven ramp to and from Mark IV within the interchange complex (like the ramps to Beach and Riverside on the east side of the interchange), which would help with the merging problem on westbound 820. But a good interim improvement would be the extension of the westbound auxiliary lane to Blue Mound, possibly closing the westbound on-ramp from Mark IV (until more extensive and expensive improvements can be made) if necessary. You would not need to close the ramp from Mark IV if another auxiliary lane could be added between Mark IV and Blue Mound though, and then the auxiliary lane from 35W could end at the bridge over Blue Mound Road.
Here's how I would envision these improvements on an interim basis.
- Dylan likes this
Brandon Claridge, proud Horned Frog (TCU Class of 2017) and lifelong Fort Worth resident.
While I majored in psychology (B.Sc.), I have a hobby interest in urban design and planning.
#149
Posted 01 June 2019 - 04:05 PM
The merge from 35 onto WB 820 does look problematic, and may very well be a big part of the reason for backups on 35.
In my previous response, I focused more on 35 (since I'm familiar with it) than 820.
I'll admit, I didn't realize how short the merging area is on WB 820 between 35 and Mark IV until you provided the map above. I've never been on that ramp, and didn't look up satellite imagery for it earlier.
Perhaps we can push for the ramp to be extended past Mark IV as part of the project to add toll lanes north of 287 (though I doubt it, as the toll lane developer wants traffic on free lanes).
- bclaridge likes this
-Dylan
#150
Posted 01 June 2019 - 05:09 PM
The merge from 35 onto WB 820 does look problematic, and may very well be a big part of the reason for backups on 35.
In my previous response, I focused more on 35 (since I'm familiar with it) than 820.
I'll admit, I didn't realize how short the merging area is on WB 820 between 35 and Mark IV until you provided the map above. I've never been on that ramp, and didn't look up satellite imagery for it earlier.
Perhaps we can push for the ramp to be extended past Mark IV as part of the project to add toll lanes north of 287 (though I doubt it, as the toll lane developer wants traffic on free lanes).
The ramps to westbound 820 do not compete with any of the toll lanes at all. There is no direct connection between the toll lanes and westbound 820, and the toll lanes on 820 end at 35W.
- Dylan likes this
Brandon Claridge, proud Horned Frog (TCU Class of 2017) and lifelong Fort Worth resident.
While I majored in psychology (B.Sc.), I have a hobby interest in urban design and planning.
Source: https://www.fortwortharchitecture.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=4811&page=3
0 Response to "Funny Construction 820 and I 35"
Postar um comentário