Mail Bag: I-10 frontage roads at Old Fred, signal timing, enforcement and more

Can you please explain the multiple construction delays that have occurred at Old Fredericksburg Rd and I-10 frontage Road. It was closed in October and targeted for December and had been delayed now for the 3rd time to March! How does this now take 6 months to add drainage?! Yes we’ve had rain, ice, and snow days but not for 4 months straight. This detour has been a major pain to get around for those that live in neighborhoods off the frontage roads.
- Christina
Please clarify how 4-6 days of inclement weather would cause a completion date to be extended over 90 days? Original completion was to be Dec 23.
- Vicky
We'll pull no punches here. We went directly to the contractor to find out what is going on and to let them know of the danger they're in of having their reputation in the public harmed.
Back in December Sundt's area director said they were going to work hard to get the road reopened to two-way traffic. At that time the items to get constructed before the frontage road could be reopened included a culvert and headwall, dirt work to develop the two roadway lanes and laying asphalt, curb and sidewalk. That road surface was to be wide enough for barrier so they could continue to work on a retaining wall.
At the time Sundt said they could get all that done in about 5-6 weeks, not including the mandatory break over Christmas. After adding the likelihood of inclement weather their assessment showed a completion of mid- to late-February.

So much for that idea. Here's what they said mid-February in an email update:
"Obviously, we did not make the second or third week in February to open up the westbound frontage road. We left the (storm water detention) pond construction out of the prior list on what needs to be done before the paving can go in. The access is really tight as well for the wall construction."
These are the two biggest reasons they're giving us for the delay. The lesson we're learning on our end is the need for milestones on work like this; we left the milestone off during planning as a judgment call believing the intersection would be built quickly as it was broken into quadrants. That omission won't happen in the future.
As for now, Sundt is working on that retaining wall and the pond, as well as the culvert that was being built. They have brought in two additional concrete crews to get the concrete work moving faster. Pavement work needs to wait a bit for dry weather as well as these other tasks to wrap up.
From Sundt's area manager: "We are making this corner of the intersection a priority on the job, but there is just a lot to take care of."
At the time of the email update we got a rough estimate on when Sundt would have things wrapped up. In that note they estimated:

• Retaining wall, three more weeks
• Concrete pads lining the pond, two more weeks
• Concrete channel for the box culvert, two more weeks
• Road grading and asphalt work, two weeks (cannot begin until wall and pond are finished)
• Concrete curb, sidewalks and island, two weeks (cannot start until after the road grading and asphalt work is done)
• Best-case scenario is to get two-way traffic reopened by March 21

Sundt isn't making the corner a priority just for fun, either. At this point they need to finish in order to do other work. As soon as they have that southeast corner of the future intersection of Old Fredericksburg Road and I-10 reopened they'll flip over to the northwest side. They'll then work around to the northeast and then the southwest quadrants. If that sounds painful, here's some assurance from that same area manager:

"These other three quadrants will go much quicker due to roadway pavement reconstruction being the only aspect of work to be done in these areas."

That is, they only have the actual roadway to mess with in the other quadrants - not a ton of drain structures.

Once the intersection is built Sundt will go to work on the new exit and entrance ramps, which need to be in place before we can switch traffic to one-way.

What do orange flags on top of stop sign mean? Thanks

- Anthony
Those are actually there just to make the sign more visible. Check out section 2A.15 in our Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices online.


Who is responsible for signal light timing on Loop 1604 near Randolph AFB between Hanover Cove and Lower Seguin Rd? It seems as though the lights are perfectly timed to make you stop at each intersection, almost without fail.
Synchronizing the lights would really help to alleviate traffic buildups here.
- Marshall
Thanks for bringing this issue up, Marshall. Those signals should be ours to time. Keep in mind they're not on a true timer - those days are over. We use instead a video infrared vehicle detection system (VIVD) on those signals, which act as smart devices to trigger the signals when a prescribed volume of traffic hits the intersection from a given direction.
We'll have our traffic operations folks check out those signals to make sure they're operating the way they should.


Just wondering whether anyone enforces the "no trucks in left lane" signs on I-35 north of 1604 through New Braunfels? I drive that section daily and see a truck using the lane at least once a week, sometimes even blocking traffic or cutting off cars. Do you have more information on the purpose of those signs? Thanks for all of your posts!
- John
On any major highway the left lane is primarily for passing. Where semi truck traffic is typically 5-10 miles per hour slower than the rest of the traffic, those trucks shouldn't be in that left lane at all.
Within city limits we can post those. You'll note they are white signs with black writing - regulatory signs. Enforcement is entirely up to the police department patrolling those roads. In the case you're describing, that would be New Braunfels Police Department or the Department of Public Safety (Comal County Sherriff has authority to patrol there, but they don't do it often in an effort to put their resources in areas not covered by the city police or by DPS).
If that doesn't answer the question, let us know and we'll give it a bigger crack!

THANK YOU! To the person(s) who had the idea, and to the person(s) who went out to westbound I-10 (before the Dominion Drive exit) and put a speed reader monitor.
Driving that part of I-10 is frustrating, and disappointing, with the speeders. With reconstruction, no shoulder, and barriers ... the speeding got horrible. Not anymore! People are slowing down! YAY!
- Mercy
We're glad you like those measures! We like to use the speed monitors as safety devices on some of our major projects where highway main lanes are under significant construction, like I-10. We are also using these radar trailers on I-35 near Walzem, and we consider them carefully for each major project as we move through the planning process.

Those yellow "exit-only" designations on OSBs

First of all, an OSB is an overhead sign bridge - one of those big green things that tell you where you need to go, identify the highway you're on or let you know what lane an exit might be in. They may be considered the most important navigation tool a driver has, and paying attention to them is critical as they relay some really, really important information.
One thing an OSB might have is a yellow "exit only" designation. This marks a lane that's for exiting only, alerting a driver the lane under the yellow tab on the sign is about to exit the highway.
A short while back a reader named Juan reached out and asked about these yellow exit only designations. Here's Juan's email verbatim:

I'm curious about the usage of yellow "exit only" designations on overhead signs on local highways. I think they're generally very helpful, since they allow observant drivers to plan ahead as they approach the exits.
I've noticed one or two locations, though, where the yellow "exit only" signs are absent. Most recently, I was entering a congested northbound 281 from San Pedro Ave, planning to exit on Bitters Rd. The Wurzbach Pkwy exit sign didn't have one of these yellow "exit only" markers attached, and I didn't realize until too late that my lane was being forced to exit.
Fortunately, of course, the Wurzbach Parkway exit was perfectly acceptable for me, since I was just going to Bitters Rd anyway. But I can imagine it being more of an inconvenience for someone whose destination was farther north.
Is there some nuanced reasoning for these signs being present at most "exit only" locations but not at all of them? Or is this simply an oversight?

Juan, thanks for your patience in us getting an answer to this. We've visited with our traffic operations engineers at length to find the right answer and make sure you get the question addressed as completely as possible.
Most of the answer is found in our Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices, which can be found online here. There are some situational issues here the MUTCD doesn't address, though, so we'll take a crack at it.

Use of the Exit Only panel
First of all, let's define when we are supposed to be using those Exit Only tabs on the OSBs. The MUTCD tells us they're only to be used when we have a lane drop on the freeway through lanes. Because auxiliary lanes aren't freeway through lanes - they tie an entrance ramp to an adjacent exit ramp - we haven't typically used the Exit Only tabs at these locations, and these make up the majority of the lanes that might qualify as "exit only" locations across the area.

Auxiliary lanes

Auxiliary lanes are those temporary lanes you have linking an entrance ramp and the next exit ramp. They allow entering traffic an opportunity to accelerate to highway speeds and comfortably merge with freeway traffic. They're a fairly simple way to address some of our congestion issues in targeted locations - like on I-35 in the Schertz-Selma area, where we added auxiliary lanes and adjusted some of the entrance and exit ramps a few years ago.
Auxiliary lanes are typically striped differently than normal through lanes, using extra wide lines and the large dashes. We'll also use, where needed, arrows on the road surface to ensure drivers are aware they're not in a through lane.
We do have guidance in one of our handbooks telling us when an auxiliary lane is longer than 2,000 feet we should sign it as though it's a through lane dropping. We try to follow that the best we can. Most auxiliary lanes are much shorter than this, though, and do not require the additional marking with the yellow tab on the OSBs.

Some inconsistencies
We know of some areas where we've got an unnecessary Exit Only panel, and others where we should but don't. For example, on northbound US 281 between San Pedro and Bitters, the auxiliary lane is about 2,500 feet. We should have that Exit Only panel but we don't - likely an oversight during the last construction project we had.
Our traffic operations team looks for and keeps tabs on these locations to make sure the issue is addressed during our next construction project in the area. Those OSBs are crazy expensive (can cost more than $50,000) and we don't like to pull them down without already having the work planned through other projects. So, where we know we have work going on in an area, we'll take a survey of our signs and make sure to include any needed upgrades or revisions.

Mail Bag: driver responsibility, crash cushions, lane restrictions, I-410 work

So ... we've not done a Mail Bag post in a while, so we've got a lot of questions to go through. This is the first of two installments, which will all publish in the next week.

There seems to have been some lane changes on the I-410 S access road at Vista West Dr. It's gone down to one lane which is causing significant traffic backups in the morning. Is this temporary?
- Mike
So, the single lane is temporary while we've got construction going on right there (more in a moment). One thing that's not temporary is the elimination of the redundancy with the Lakeside Parkway exit (from which you couldn't really even reach Lakeside Parkway) and the Marbach exit.
The work is a major "operational improvement" (engineerese for "we're changing the way things work...") along I-410 between US 90 and Hwy 151. That work started with the new year this year (ahem, that's 2017) and will take about two and a half years to finish.
When we're all done you'll have a new lane in each direction on the I-410 main lanes between Hwy 151 and US 90. You'll have reconfigured exit and entrance ramps to allow a more fluid traffic flow along the corridor, which means the frontage roads are being adjusted. Oh, and we're making sure the curbs and sidewalks along these frontage roads are just right.
The cherry on top? New direct connectors at US 90, moving eastbound traffic on US 90 to northbound I-410 and southbound traffic from I-410 to westbound US 90. That means if you're commute goes between, say, Castroville and the Crossroads area ... it'll get a lot nicer when we're all done (at the end of 2019).

The I-10 westbound access road between Dominion Drive and Boerne Stage Road looks almost complete. Can you tell us when this access road will open both lanes?
-RobertBy now, Robert, you know we have things opened up to two lanes. We've posted on this a bit more earlier this month (you've likely seen it by now), but the bottom line is we'll have traffic in its final configuration by the first week of April. That's still on schedule, by the way!

I have two concerns. My first is about the intersection of the frontage roads of Loop 1604 and I-10. I've almost been hit multiple times as drivers get into the turn lane for the Top Golf entrance, disregard the pavement markings and continue straight to get to the I-10 frontage. The current markings aren't working, so I'm now avoiding the area. My second is about the park-and-ride at I-35 and Shin Oak. Apparently it has turned into a park-and-stay for 18-wheelers. This looks horrible and seems to have discouraged the few people who were actually using it as designed from doing so. Many years ago there used to be a sign that said "No Overnight Parking" there. What can be done about these two concerns?
- Steven
So ... it seems we have a law enforcement issue with the traffic ignoring the regulatory lane markers. We've been through a slew of different ideas with this area (the Top Golf driveway...), and right now we've done all we can feasibly do. The next steps require some serious concessions from the property owners we're unlikely to get - like permission to permanently close the driveway altogether.
As for the park-and-ride issue, this is a problem that occurs at every park-and-ride we have in the region. Heck, some folks have been known to park their cars and post them for sale at these lots, which we had to remedy by threatening folks to tow their cars. We're getting with our maintenance folks to try and re-post those signs if possible - it may help a little.

I've noticed that the collapsible guardrail end cap at the northbound Loop 1604 exit to Bandera is continually destroyed, fixed, and then smashed again. Is there any plan to smooth out or widen that area so that cars are not pointed directly at the barrier end cap when they exit? It seems like the exit angle is too tight or at least tighter than what people anticipate. It might just take a re-stripe of the area to flatten out the exit curve a bit. It's scary to take that exit if you're not anticipating being pointed directly at the barrier end cap. It feels like an emergency evasive maneuver to not hit it.
- Bob
This is a problem we're having at multiple locations - people keep forgetting to keep their vehicle between the lines and end up running into these crash cushions. We are repairing them constantly all over the region; it's not just at this location.
The major crashes we've seen at this location all involve failure to control speed (certainly that was the case with the first major crash on this ramp) and a failure to maintain proper attention. That means folks are distracted.
Certainly a crash cushion can sneak up on a driver when their eyes aren't on the road - and that's what's happening here, Bob. Folks simply aren't paying attention to driving. The motorized vehicle is the single deadliest weapon in America, and folks don't pay attention to what they're doing while wielding it. Scary!

Any update on what defines a "truck", in reference to the "No Trucks Left Lane" signs? I noticed that the regulation's language permits trucks to use the left lane for passing; if that is true, it almost makes that statute redundantly unnecessary since the left lane (for passenger cars and trucks) is for passing only anyways.
- Mark
Well, short of going to law school for this one, we've done a little digging and come up with better information than the last time we get on this topic. Here goes....
The definition of "truck" according to Texas Transportation Code is a motor vehicle that's designed and operated to transport property. If you want to read it on your own, look for Texas Code 541.001(21) here. Further definition of a "truck" for these restrictions typically does include a requirement of three or more axles - see the first paragraph of this TTC Minute Order from Hill County in 2012 for an example. You'll note the reference to "truck tractors", which is defined in section 22 of 541.001 referenced above.
While that minute order pertains to somewhere that's not San Antonio, the Texas Highwayman shows the history of the left-lane restrictions locally (which, by the way, began back in 2004).
The legal result? An emphasis on getting trucks out of the left lane with stiffer penalties. You're absolutely right about the left lane for the rest of us - it's really designed for passing only (note to you who like to hang out in the left lane ... you're doing it wrong). This whole "no trucks" thing simply adds extra teeth for those big wheelers.

I heard about a 3-car accident at westbound 1604 and Stone Oak, just before the exit to Blanco, on the news this morning and it reminded me of other major accident crashes at that location due to the merging traffic. I drive through there everyday and it always seems that something happens probably once every 2 weeks or so (probably more often than that), and I see y'all replacing the damaged guardrails probably once a month at that location. Forgive me, but it seems like a waste of money to keep repeatedly replacing the guardrails that often. I'm just curious if y'all had noticed that's an emerging trouble spot due to the recently constructed ramps, and was wondering if you had any thoughts on that, and if TxDOT (or the city) have any future plan of action?
- Mike
To be completely honest, Mike, the best plan of action is to ask drivers to follow those basic driving principles we all learn in drivers' education as new drivers - but somehow forget with experience.
The problem isn't highway design, it's rude and poor driving habits. As you'll note, Mike, we have other locations where these guardrails and crash cushions are being repaired on the regular. Heck, we have crews repairing these safety features at some location in our city pretty much every day.
That's unacceptable. For us, we're focused on what we call "vision zero". This is a collaborative effort with the city of San Antonio to help make our multimodal transportation routes as safe as possible. It's not something we can do on our own, though. Ultimately driver responsibility has to enter.
That's why you won't hear us referring to these collisions as "accidents" - because they're not an accident. Safety is no accident, Mike. It's very deliberate.
These crashes occur because a driver is being negligent. They are failing to control speed, driving while distracted or driving while intoxicated. They are being rude and following too closely, failing to yield or failing to merge properly. They don't signal. They ignore the world around them and just do them ... and that selfish driving behavior is killing folks.
We will continue to design safe roads and post the "instructions" of safe use everywhere. But we need drivers who won't ignore these instructions to keep the facilities safe.

Mail Bag (1 of 2): Wurzbach speed limits (again), potholes, highway signs, Loop 1604 northeast

To those who've reached out to us reporting potholes ... thank you! Those reports have been passed along to the appropriate folks and will be addressed as soon as possible. As for other questions, we've got two Mail Bag posts this week (look for 2 of 2 this weekend).

With just about everyone having access to Google Maps and or cell phones, why don't you include a GPS coordinate description option? This would eliminate cumbersome requested information. Your road crews have cell phones with that resource. Those reporting who don't have a GPS coordinate, can use the other descriptive sources.
- Ruben

Not a bad option, Ruben - provided those using the GPS feature to report the potholes were passengers only. Unfortunately, not enough folks have gotten the message that use of a mobile device - to call or to text - while driving is an extremely poor decision, so we're not about to start providing more opportunities for a bad choice.
Also, as luck would have it, our crews are actually not equipped with fancy GPS gear. We go by good, old-fashioned cross streets and mile markers for the most part. Sure, some of our guys have their own personal cell phones ... but not all have state-issued devices.
That said, if you submit a report with a GPS coordinate, we'll pass it along the same as the others!

Not a question, more of an observation. The questions regarding the speed limit on PA 1502 (Wurzbach Parkway) likely stem from the fact that it feels like it was designed for 60 and the local PD has been providing frequent written and costly reminders that it is currently 45.
- Bill

Bill, we've addressed this issue before. More than once, actually. That said, the issue should be adjusted pretty darned soon - the Texas Transportation Commission discussed this topic in today's commission meeting.

How do I keep myself safe going the 45 MPH posted speed when people are zooming around me going 60-70 MPH? Do I risk getting a ticket to keep up with them?
- Anonymous

The best advice we have is to be patient. As we've discussed before and in the question above, this issue will be completely resolved very, very soon....

Now that all the lanes are open on Loop 1604 on the Northeast Side between Universal City and I-10, would it be possible to have the traffic lights optimized in this area to improve the flow of traffic on Loop 1604? I drive 1604 daily, and I frequently hit every red light between I-10 and I-35, driving with the flow of traffic and at the speed limit. It would really help the flow in this area if the lights were timed better.
- David

Those signals, like most in the region, operate on a VIVD system and are optimized. We have to balance the timing of the signals on your route with the timing of signals on other routes. Heck, most of us have days where we feel like we hit every signal along the way. Every. Single. One. (SO frustrating....)
The signals are optimized, but we can make sure the detection cameras are clean and working as designed. Thanks for letting us know!
By the way, most signals in San Antonio - even those on state-maintained roads - are controlled by the city of San Antonio Transportation and Capital Improvements division.

On Loop 1604 between Braun and Culebra, would it be possible to have Williams Brothers close the third lane, in particular southbound before the turnaround to New Guilbeau and northbound after the turnaround? I recognize that these lanes feed into the turnarounds; however, it seems like it has transformed into a lane for opportunists rather than those desiring to turn left (at the aforementioned areas) and would improve the flow of traffic by eliminating another merge point.
- Ryan

This has been suggested more than once, and we've looked into it with pretty great detail. The problem is, per the engineers who've studied this option and run some models, this will create an even bigger problem with traffic flow than what's out there now.
On the plus side, as was written earlier this week, we could have the intersections at New Guilbeau and (with a little luck...) Shaenfield open to traffic as early as Christmas. That will help us adjust the way things look out there and help stop the folks who are cutting in line as you've observed.

Why are there no overhead signs indicating that the exit lanes on northbound US 281 at Brook Hollow and at Oak Shadows/Winding Way, as well as on eastbound I-410 at Airport Avenue, are exit only? Additionally, there are new signs along US 281 in the vicinity of Wurzbach Parkway that indicate the entrance ramps merge directly into the main lanes of 281. This is not the case. The ramps have their own dedicated lanes that turn into exit only lanes further along.
- Travis

We used to have those northbound US 281 exits marked as you've indicated - and the pavement is marked accordingly. Let us double-check with our traffic operations folks to ensure these markings are appropriate.
The southbound traffic issues you've identified should be corrected by now (in fairness, Travis sent his note to us a few weeks ago and these issues have been resolved, or mostly resolved, in the meantime).

When will the bicycle path west of Jones Maltsberger Road open for use?
- Tom

We're hoping by the end of the year! The rains put a hurt on some of what we've built down there, but we're working to get it all repaired and up to snuff again. Honestly, our contractor wants to be done and over with the project so all resources can be moved to a new job ... so you can bet you'll be riding through the whole thing well ahead of Christmas (and might even be able to do so by Thanksgiving).


How can we get a yellow flashing turn signal from southbound Randolph Boulevard onto eastbound Crestway Drive in northeast San Antonio that will prevent one from having to wait through two light changes to make a left turn?
- Terry

The area you've asked about doesn't fall within the authority of the state's highway department. However, Terry, we've already passed your request along to the good folks with the city of San Antonio - you should hear from them soon!

Mail Bag: Highway signs, spare material on projects, closure announcements and more

I remember reading years ago on the Texas Highway Man Web site that one of the things the eponymous Highway Man wished he saw more of in the San Antonio district was more interchange sequence signs. I can think of maybe 3 or 4 I know of in the city, but admittedly, I don't see nearly as many here as I did when living in Houston (or visiting Dallas or Austin), and I'm curious: what is the reason the San Antonio area freeways have seemingly few of these signs?
- Donald

First of all, thanks for referencing the Texas Highway Man. If you're looking for a reliable third party to let you know the ins and outs of what we do, that's the place to go. While the site is in no way affiliated with the Texas Department of Transportation, the information there is typically right on target.

For those who don't know what Donald is talking about with sequence signs, here's a look:

A sequence sign on US 75 - "Central Expressway" - north of downtown Dallas.

Basically, sequence signs are those you'll typically see in an urban area showing you a list of upcoming exits, with the mileage before each exit.

Per our own Texas Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices, the rule of thumb is to use what's called advance guide signing - where we use a single sign, or two side-by-side signs, to warn drivers of an upcoming exit - unless the exits are very closely spaced. Our practice in San Antonio is to use the advance guide signs rather than sequence signs because most of our exits are spaced at least three-quarters of a mile apart.

It's our position in San Antonio that advance guide signs convey much simpler information versus the more complex info sets found on sequence signs.

What were the results of the variable speed limit pilot program on north Loop 1604?
- Mark

To find an answer to this question, we reached out to our traffic operations division up in Austin. The study results are in hand and are being prepared for publication right now - but they're not ready yet. Once those results are ready, they should be sent out via news release and readily available on our Web site. You'll also likely see a post on the topic right here, when the time comes.

What will become of the uprooted oak trees resulting from the expansion of Spur 53? That's an awful lot of firewood.
- Gary

This is a question that will give a glimpse into how the business of road-building works, and provide a solid answer to boot! Love questions like this....

As with any project, the contractor retains ownership of material (i.e. dirt, trees, etc.) removed from any contract. Whatever they do with that material is really their choice. This actually acts as an incentive for some contractors who aggressively bid projects, saving us a tremendous amount of money on the cost of construction. When a contractor aggressively bids on a project and under-bids competitors (often leaving potentially available money on the table), they are able to make a profit and earn the money to stay in business by appropriately finding a profitable way to dispose of the materials taken off the construction site.

That means that, if there's something you're interested in getting from the construction site (again, any site) you should coordinate that through the contractor. Just be aware that many contractors are dependent on that material to turn some sort of a profit. That may sound ridiculous with the dollar amounts we talk about (this project on UTSA Boulevard is a $9 million project, for instance), but the contractors are typically operating on a razor-thin profit margin for each project.

Now that a turn lane from eastbound Boerne Stage Road onto the eastbound I-10 access road is open, can something be done to make drivers stop or even just yield like they should? Accidents WILL happen there - the drivers are just not yielding.- Tim

First, it's good to hear there's some progress in the area that's helping. We know that project (Boerne Stage Road) isn't a TxDOT project (it's a Bexar County job), but it's right there next to ours. The county has done a fair job on the project, and it's near time to complete their work out there.

As for our project, the one thing that might help - an acceleration lane for that traffic to turn right onto - isn't in the cards. The best we can do is educate drivers on what the traffic configuration means to daily drivers. From there, the best option is to get law enforcement agencies to enforce things like yield signs or stop signs. Without that enforcement, folks simply don't seem to want to follow the rules. Our advice: take this one up with the appropriate law enforcement agencies.

There is a sign at the intersection of Wurzbach Pkwy and West Ave that has PA on it. What does PA stand for? When I lived in the north PA stood for Pennsylvania. You have us northern transplants confused. Please let me know!
- Jean

There's a really quick way to answer this one ... and since it's asked often, it's worth adding here: PA is TxDOT-ese for "Parkway". For Wurzbach Parkway, the state highway designation is "Parkway 1502".

In Texas, we use a number of state highway designations. We have the Interstate highways (NOT Interstate Highways - note the difference in capitalization!) like I-10, I-35, I-37, I-410 (Also note ... NOT "IH Whatever" ... Just a simple "I-" before the number!). We have U.S. Highways (like 281, 90, 87). We have Texas Highways (like 46 and 16). We have State Loops (like Loop 1604). We have State Spurs (like Spur 53, Spur 536 and Spur 371). We have Farm-to-Market (FM) roads, and we have Ranch-to-Market (RM) roads.

By the way ... the difference between the FM and RM designation is all geography. Generally speaking, west of U.S. 281 in our state, the roads are RM roads. East of U.S. 281, the roads are FM roads.

Each of these roads is owned, developed and maintained by the Texas Department of Transportation. If a road doesn't have one of these state highway designations, it's probably not maintained by us in any way.

Please check your dates. July and June appear to be randomly mixed on the July 2 (lane closures) post.
- Anonymous

Thanks for bringing this to our attention! Many of the lane closures each week are repetitive, so we do a lot of cut-copy-paste and then edit. There are some things that slip through the cracks, and on July 2 a lot of stuff slipped through. The issue was corrected for the July 10 post.

How come there was no notice of the closure of lanes on 1604 between Shaenfield and New Gulibeau?
- Zane

Well, Zane, the closures along that area were announced right here on the blog the week prior to these closures. There was some additional work, mostly at night and primarily around the turnarounds north of Shaenfield. Those closures were announced to us a little too late to get posted on the blog.

While these late closures are annoying (for all of us), they were very minimal. When they happen we get after the contractor and subcontractors responsible and they do better for us. That's what we'll do in this instance.