Author Topic: TX: TX Loop 375 issues  (Read 152 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rickmastfan67

  • TM Collaborator (A)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1190
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 12:00:24 am
TX: TX Loop 375 issues
« on: July 31, 2021, 01:45:18 pm »
ParkAccRd -> needs recentered
61A -> 60A
+X* -> Probably could use a shaping point or two between exits 62 & 64 to keep it away from the I-10 ROW.  I-10 could use the same in that area too.
66A -> 65A
66B -> 65B or 66

Offline yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3397
  • Last Login:Today at 02:02:30 am
Re: TX: TX Loop 375 issues
« Reply #1 on: July 31, 2021, 04:05:10 pm »
ParkAccRd -> needs recentered
61A -> 60A
Done.

+X* -> Probably could use a shaping point or two between exits 62 & 64 to keep it away from the I-10 ROW.
I'll pass on this one. Adding a shaper to TXLp375 would bring the route trace pretty close to US85, and beg for shaping there too. Being that precise with shaping when already within tolerance raises ideas of...
I-10 could use the same in that area too.
;) ...and that would just end up smushing the I-10 & TXLp375 polylines wicked close together.
As it stands now, they don't inappropriately cross one another, and mapview does a good job of showing that TXLp375 is west of I-10 and US85 is west of that. Adequate IMO.

66A -> 65A
Done.

66B -> 65B or 66
Oh boy. Gotta love TX and their partial interchanges. Serving different destinations in opposite directions, an argument can be made for multiple interchanges -> both points. A visible point here would  keep the TXLp375 & US85 traces farther apart for a wee bit longer.



Review endpoint & splits with I-10 / US85, concurrencies or lack thereof.
375's designation file still isn't updated; no help here.
Grid maps have the area right at the border between two maps; insufficient detail.
Shapefiles & the Statewide Planning Map are inconclusive. We see 375 splitting from 85 near Racetrack Dr, but neither really gives us any info on multiplexes.
WB, this bad boy right as 85 merges in suggests 375 continues on for a bit.
EB, overhead signage at the exits & supplemental frontage roads consistently signs both 375 & 85 together. Then, US85 is Exit 66 from TXLp375, suggesting that TXLp375 is already a route in progress at that point.
OTOH, Maybe the unnumbered exit at RacDr shouldn't be overlooked; maybe Exit 66 is an exit right smack at the route's beginning.

I was leaning toward keeping the US85 concurrency, and going no-build on the terminus, but could be talked into truncating. Thoughts?
(I'll throw this standalone reassurance shield in the mix too.)

In any case, no plans on extending westward along the supplemental frontage roads. These are marked as part of the IH 10 complex in the shapefiles & Statewide Planning Map. Doubtful that 375 extends any farther here.

What I will do though is break the 10/85 concurrency between 12 and 13, as US85 uses the supplemental frontage roads here.
« Last Edit: July 31, 2021, 09:46:11 pm by yakra »
Sri Syadasti Syadavaktavya Syadasti Syannasti Syadasti Cavaktavyasca Syadasti Syannasti Syadavatavyasca Syadasti Syannasti Syadavaktavyasca

Offline yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3397
  • Last Login:Today at 02:02:30 am
Re: TX: TX Loop 375 issues
« Reply #2 on: July 31, 2021, 10:42:01 pm »
https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/5006 implements the changes above. TXLp375's end is still at I-10.
Sri Syadasti Syadavaktavya Syadasti Syannasti Syadasti Cavaktavyasca Syadasti Syannasti Syadavatavyasca Syadasti Syannasti Syadavaktavyasca

Offline rickmastfan67

  • TM Collaborator (A)
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1190
  • Gender: Male
  • Last Login:Yesterday at 12:00:24 am
Re: TX: TX Loop 375 issues
« Reply #3 on: July 31, 2021, 11:47:31 pm »
I would say this "TOLL ROAD ENDS" sign right at I-10 means TX Toll 375 makes it that far.

Offline yakra

  • TM Collaborator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3397
  • Last Login:Today at 02:02:30 am
Re: TX: TX Loop 375 issues
« Reply #4 on: August 01, 2021, 12:14:03 pm »
OOP! Forgot that one. Then the pull request has it right.
I'ma just go ahead & close this topic.
Sri Syadasti Syadavaktavya Syadasti Syannasti Syadasti Cavaktavyasca Syadasti Syannasti Syadavatavyasca Syadasti Syannasti Syadavaktavyasca