Mail Bag: A whole lot of I-10 stuff, FM 1103 at I-35, US 281 at the Guadalupe River

I'm curious about some of the project dates on this web site. On the Upcoming Projects page, the project to build the bridge over I-10 at Balcones Creek Road and convert the frontage roads to one-way between Fair Oaks Parkway and the Bexar-Kendall county line is scheduled to start in 2018. The project to expand the US 87 and TX 46 bridges over I-10 and convert the frontage roads to one-way between Scenic Loop Road and TX 46 is also scheduled to start in 2018.
However, the project to convert the frontage roads to one-way between Scenic Loop Road and the Bexar-Kendall county line is shown as starting in 2026. Is that a mistake, or will the other projects actually take 8 years to complete before this project is required?
Also, can you share an estimated completion date for the Fair Oaks Parkway bridge over I-10?
- Lee
Those dates are drawn from our project tracker, which pulls from our Unified Transportation Program. The UTP is updated every year and gives a comprehensive look at our 5- and 10-year plans. The middle segment, between Scenic Loop Road and the Bexar-Kendall county line, is placed last on the list of segments to be finished for one-way frontage roads conversion due to budgeting constraints. We'll start before 2026 if we can secure the funds to do so.
Each of those projects, which will often move forward concurrently, will take about three years to finish (that's a generic time range for reference; each project has its own timeframe).
As for the completion of the Fair Oaks Parkway bridge over I-10, RELMCo Inc. is on pace to have that wrapped up this summer. That's summer 2018. As in just a few months from now.


First of all, thanks for the great work you do with the mailbag. It’s always a fun - and informative - read!
I’ve been curious about the use of panels on Wurzbach Parkway over Blanco Road. These are the green wall-like structures that prevent drivers on Wurzbach Pkwy from looking down onto Blanco. To put it simply: what purpose do they serve?
Similar overpasses of the Parkway over West Ave., Jones Maltsberger, Nacogdoches, and Perrin-Beitel don’t have these panels. What’s special about Blanco?
- Juan
First of all, thank you and you're welcome!

Those panels are visual barriers, preventing the headlights of evening drivers from peering into apartment windows immediately adjacent to Wurzbach Parkway right there. It also maintains some semblance of privacy for the residents. You should find similar visual barriers along the eastbound lanes of Wurzbach Parkway over Perrin-Beitel.
While there is an apartment complex at the corner of West Avenue and Wurzbach, it is set far enough back from the highway and is separated from the parkway with a strip of trees. These natural barriers eliminate the need for the visual barrier panels you're seeing at Blanco.


Who is responsible for the timing of the signals on Hausman at 1604? In both directions the signal on the near side of 1604 turns green at the same time as the signal on the far side.
- Jim
Those signals are timed by the city of San Antonio. We'll reach out to our friends there to ask they take a look at the issue.


Thank you for the post about speed limits on I-10. I think I am the only one driving 60 mph and cars ride my bumper and pass me like crazy. Please add more speed limit signs and the LED reader boards. Thank you.
- Beth
We're happy to do what we can to improve the safety along any highway corridor. We'll take a look at this and other corridors and see if there are any additional signs we can add to improve awareness of the speed limits. That said, what typically helps the most in this area is enforcement of the speed limit, which we understand will be increasing as work continues to move forward.


With the bridge replacement project on I-35 at FM 1103, we know that the turn around lanes have been added to the original project. The last we had heard the move of the exits IS NOT included on this project. The northbound 35 exit to 1103 is already too close to 1103 and adding the turnaround lane will compound that issue. Have the plans changed to address the exits or what will it take to prevent the inevitable crashes that will happen frequently on a short exit with turnaround lanes?
- Jeff

The turnarounds were included with the project when it bid and were part of the actual design of the project. They may not have been part of the package presented in public meetings but were certainly part of the plans when we got bids from contractors.
The distance between the end of the ramp and the start of the intersection, heading north, is about 600 feet. We actually have design standards giving us the desired distance at an intersection like this. The total volume of the frontage road and the ramp is less than 2,500 vehicles per hour. The total traffic volume of FM 1103 at this location is just a shave higher than 750 vehicles per hour. We have three or more lanes for traffic to weave between the ramp and the intersection.

As you can see, Table 3-16 shows we like to have at least 460 feet between the end of the ramp and the intersection at a location like this. We have about 600 feet, exceeding by more than 30 percent the design requirements for an approach like this.
Knowing we've exceeded the design criteria as we have, we are confident this location will continue to be a safe intersection enjoyed by all.


Is there any plan to go back between Huebner and DeZavala to add an entrance to I-10 west? The only entrance that is left is very dangerous with all the traffic from the Huebner area merging with the Fredericksburg road traffic to merge to get onto I-10 west then merge with all the traffic getting off at UTSA Blvd.
- Max
The short answer here, Max, is no. The distances involved out there are beyond adequate to handle what we've got, and since we've had the current configuration in place (it's been a few years) we've seen no crash data to suggest any real hazard. It's actually in line with the standard used across the country. Adding another entrance to westbound I-10 would be redundant and actually create hazards.
If you don't remember the way the road was configured prior to the project in 2012 that built I-10 between Huebner and Lp 1604 as you know it today, we actually had two on ramps from Huebner Road. We eliminated one as a way to improve safety, and that safety enhancing configuration is the one you're seeing today.


I am still wondering about the I-10 project from Ralph Fair to fair oaks Ranch. According to the info provided at the open house the schedule for this project was:

• Begin Construction ― I-10 improvements (frontage road conversion, ramp reversals, and Old Fredericksburg Rd / Buckskin Dr overpass): Fall of 2015
• Fair Oaks Pkwy Bridge: Fall of 2016
• Construction time ― I-10 improvements: Approximately 2 Years
• Construction time ― Fair Oaks Pkwy Bridge: Approximately 1 Year

That indicates that the I-10 improvements was to run from Fall 2015 2 years to Fall 2017. It is now early Spring 2018 and this project is several months from being done. It appears to me the contractor under-resourced this project from the start.
What happened? Weather can not be blamed for all this delay. What is a realistic completion date now?
-Bob
Bob, we're glad you asked. First off, timetables given at those open house meetings are based on best engineering guesses with the plans not fully fleshed out. When you got these dates we didn't have full plan sheets drawn out and the target timeframes were goals to be met.
We began work on the I-10 improvements late March 2016 - a six-month delay from our intended start date due to some utility conflicts in the area - with a timeline of just over two years. We still have a few months from time expiring on the contract. If work isn't complete at that point we'll charge liquidated damages for each day the project continues beyond the contracted completion date. While we don't decide for the contractor the resources they ought to commit to a project, the consequence at the end of the job is, essentially, the contractor working for free (which is bad business for any private business).
By the way, the Fair Oaks Parkway bridge project began early 2017 with an 18-month schedule. We are currently on track to finish before the end of the school year, which is actually a bit ahead of the contract requirement.
One last thing: You'll recall in the open house we discussed totally closing the bridge and having it built in one piece to meet that construction timeline of a year. That plan was scrapped at the behest of those attending the open house who didn't like the idea of eliminating access to the bridge long-term. We were clear at the time the requested construction process would about double the duration of the project.


What is the estimated time to completion for the work at US 281 and the Guadalupe river? Also, what is being done? Thanks.
- John
This is a project that's really run under the radar, despite being a fairly major project up in Comal County. Thanks for bringing it out for us, John.
We are updating the southbound bridge deck over the Guadalupe River. That means a new bridge deck, new bridge rail (replacing the steel barrier with concrete barrier), cleaning up the bridge structure and the like. We've also recently added some pavement repair to the scope of work on the project.
All told work should be finished next summer (that is, Summer 2019). Between now and then you'll see a variety of traffic shifts. As those happen we'll do our best to get them posted here.

Mail Bag: Loop 1604 between Wiseman and US 90; No trucks in left lane; lane-splitting

Your photo/drawing of the bridge construction at Fair Oaks Parkway:
You show the existing westbound exit to FOP being obliterated, but I didn't see any replacement for it. Where will it be, or will we have to exit clear back at Ralph Fair? Also, it would have been helpful if the westbound turnaround to I-10 east had been done before the bridge to minimize the delays caused by westbound turnaround traffic to I-10 east.
- Al
Al, you wrote us twice and we sincerely apologize for taking this long to respond here. To answer your question, take a look again at the schematic we've got for all the work going on out there. You'll see on the westbound side the exit to FOP immediately after the new overpass at Old Fredericksburg Road. You'll also see the new on-ramp located just across the highway from the new westbound exit.
As for the construction timeline ... the work at the Fair Oaks Parkway bridge is concurrent with that along the frontage roads. We're actually doing what you're suggesting (thanks to input during the open house meetings held on these jobs). We won't convert the frontage roads between Ralph Fair and Old Fred to one-way until the overpass at Old Fred is finished with a functional intersection in place at that location. Similarly, we're holding off on converting the frontage road between Old Fred and Fair Oaks as long as we can and should be able to time it right with the completion of the turnaround bridge (at the least), if not the full bridge.
Hope that helps!

For those that live right outside of Loop 1604 on the west side north of U.S. 90, I would like to set a formal complaint.
The road to 90 every morning is beyond dispicable, and the intersection at 1604 and Potranco is unneccesseraly backed up, some times to the light at Emory Peak. I understand Potranco is getting work done, but nothing is being done to alleviate the looooong lines for the current residents have to deal with on a daily basis. Its not worth the 6 min drive to HEB because it ends up taking 20 min one way, and the even longer because Potranco traffic moves even slower. What are you, or can you be doing to eleviate our strife?
- Mark
Mark, it seems you've got a few different issues going on, so we'll try to address them each one-at-a-time. We'll start with the work on Potranco itself - which is work administered by Bexar County Public Works. We've kept in touch with them and they're doing a heck of a job at maintaining access and traffic flow through that corridor.
Seems you're getting traffic back-up on northbound and southbound Loop 1604 as you're commuting to and from work. While the road condition is far from despicable, the traffic volumes are certainly indicative of the explosive growth in residential development out where you're living. Three years ago county officials anecdotally discussed that region of Bexar County reaching population levels on par with the Waco metro area sometime in the next decade, so brace yourself for that.
How are we addressing the issue? We did just start a pair of expansion projects along Loop 1604, running from Hwy 151 through US Hwy 90. The one that will help you the most will wrap up by 2020 and features a direct connector from southbound Loop 1604 to eastbound US 90. Yes, that's a long time to wait before we're finished - building a road is a lot like recarpeting your house without removing furniture and maintaining complete use of the house. It's hard! We're doing what we can, though, and should have some incremental helps come for you along the way.

Why was the Wiseman exit from Loop 1604 towards Hwy 151 eliminated? Many neighborhoods utilize that exit as well as being an exit for the Christus Santa Rosa Westover Hills Hospital. Workers at the Wells Fargo Call Center and anyone working or attending Northwest Vista College would also use this exit. Now it is very inconvenient to reach these places coming from 1604.
- Vanessa
Great questions, Vanessa.
Traffic headed to the hospital can (and should) use the exit to Westover Hills - using the Wiseman exit would have taken you through a signal and created undue delays in an emergency situation. That traffic movement getting onto Hwy 151 and exiting for the hospital has been left as convenient as ever (if not more so).
Those heading to Wells Fargo or Northwest Vista will need to do so by heading to Wiseman on Loop 1604. We've timed this, and the change isn't really all that radical. The added distance from pre-construction conditions is about two miles and, at typical speeds, should add no more than about five extra minutes.
We'll point out, though, this route is considerably more safe and no longer requires drivers to slow down abruptly and cross competing lanes of traffic to reach the Wells Fargo campus, as so many were doing before we started construction.
As to your question about why an exit was eliminated? The Texas Highwayman addresses this better than we could, so we'll refer you to his comments on the matter.

Why is the speed limit on Loop 1604 between Bandera and Culebra roads 60 MPH while the north section of 1604 is set at 70 MPH? I figured once the construction of this section of 1604 was complete (thanks btw!) that the speed limit would be changed. But it hasn't. What is the reasoning behind this?
- Carol
First off, you're welcome!
The change is still coming. We asked our traffic operations engineer for a date, and his reply was "Soon".
The change requires a minute order through the Texas Transportation Commission, then is placed on a work order list. We're expediting the process as much as we can, but it does take a bit of time. We're encouraged by the "soon" response, though; he's usually right on point with items like this.

Hello! I follow the Go Ahead! San Antonio blog for all the road updates and I must say, it's really great! I have a question for you: do you think we'll ever see any sort of legislation regarding lane splitting, filtering, and sharing for motorcycles? If you live in San Antonio, you've probably noticed that in some areas, traffic has gotten bad! I won't lie to you, I often lane-split heading into town via I-10, and while the reactions of drivers can often be mixed, most are usually accepting, and some even make extra room. I'd love to hear your thoughts, and maybe even reactions if you discuss on your blog. Thanks in advance!
- Nicholas
Thanks for following us! And thanks for the question - though we're sure you're not going to like what we have to say very much. It's a great topic to cover, though, and we might take this up on a bigger post later.
First of all, as a state agency we cannot advocate for or against any legislative measure. We want to be clear anything we say here is not intended to endorse any side of any legislation.
Information regarding the legality of lane-splitting in Texas is available at this legal blog (link does not imply endorsement of the law firm).
The super-short version: lane-splitting is not legal in the state of Texas right now. A measure was introduced during the 2015 Texas Legislative Session that would have added provisions to allow the practice, but the measure didn't get a vote on the floor. No word on whether such a measure will be introduced during this session.
As for our take? Any time you're breaking that lane and creating a potential conflict point, you've got a dangerous situation on your hands. Frustrating the issue are riders like this, who opt to lane-split at ridiculously high  rates of speed.
We're working hard with motorcycle advocacy groups to improve safety for motorcyclists state-wide, particularly with our Look Twice campaign. We'll spare you the gory statistics right now, but more than 10 percent of highway fatalities in our state were motorcyclists in 2015. That's more than a bit disproportionate, and creating a situation where a motorcycle can suddenly come from out of "nowhere" by lane-splitting only serves to hinder those driving in big ol' cages from seeing you when you're out there.
Our thoughts: lane-splitting, as it's done typically, is not a safe practice on our highways. We'll dig deeper into the situation for you, though, and see if we can come up with something more concrete than a "we don't like it" answer for you in the future. Deal?

Are commercial buses considered "trucks", in reference to "NO TRUCKS LEFT LANE"? I was under the impression that it was three axles or greater, which would include the aforementioned buses. I see many of the trans-national buses travel (often-times for miles) in the left lane of I-35 between Austin and San Antonio.
- Mark
Before we get into the weeds of what constitutes a "truck", we'll point out that, state-wide, the left lane is for passing only and those who impede traffic by cruising in the left lane are subject to a $200 fine. That's right, you can get a ticket for going too slow.
Our counterparts in our communication division have used the three-axle rule when discussing these signs before, but these are described with trucks - and the state's transportation code has a specific description for buses as well.
We're not attorneys here, so we'll have to dig deeper. As we've promised Nicholas, we'll put a pin in this for a larger post in the future.

Mail Bag: A month-plus worth of questions

Does TxDOT evaluate drainage conditions on major roads after a major rain?
The left lane of the southbound 281 access road between Bitters and Wurzbach Parkway was under water Monday morning (9/26). The on-ramp to 281 was also under water with a stalled car on the ramp. Since there was not a flood gauge on the side of the road, it was hard to know how much water was on the on-ramp.
- Tom
We do take a look for problem areas and find ways to address these areas as needed after our major flood events. At your location we don't have a posted flood gauge because it's not the location of a creek bed. Per our Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices:
"If used, the Depth Gauge sign shall be in addition to the ROAD MAY FLOOD, WATER CROSSING, or WHEN FLOODED TURN AROUND DON'T DROWN sign and shall indicate the depth of the water at the deepest point on the roadway." (Section 2C.35.03)

That same section tells us not to post a "water crossing" sign where water only occasionally or temporarily crosses due to flash floods, like this instance. The "road may flood" sign is for areas with frequent flooding issues. This little section of the southbound frontage road of US 281 does not qualify for one of these signs.

Do you know when will they begin to finish the clover on 1604 and 281? What is the projected duration of the project? Will they be expanding 281 from 1604 to Overlook Parkway and be adding bridges across the highway - for example, at Evans Road? Thanks.
- Sal
Are you talking about the other direct connectors at the intersection of Lp 1604 and US 281? Those are part of a project expanding US 281 to include overpasses and frontage roads through Stone Oak Parkway. That project is set to begin spring 2017 and will take more than three years to complete. Continuing the expressway from Stone Oak Parkway through the Comal County line is targeted for the winter of 2018-2019.

Can VIA provide new or modified bus route(s) to relieve traffic congestion in the Alamo Ranch area (e.g, Wiseman west of 1604, Alamo Ranch Parkway, Culebra & FM 1560, etc.)?
- Richard
This would be a fantastic question to pose to VIA; we can't speak on their behalf.

Regarding the "zipper merge", does the "merge at the last minute" rule apply to lanes which are used for entrance and exit ramps such as the ones on Loop 1604 between I-10 and Blanco Rd? Would it be possible to post "zipper merge" signs at several needed places in San Antonio?
-Tom
To be honest, we're still fleshing out the best places for us to use the late merge or "zipper" as well as signing policies. One place you should always use it is when you're approaching a construction zone or a crash scene that's got lanes closed off. Remember - this really only applies during heavy traffic. If traffic is free flowing and not all that congested, merge as soon as you feel comfortable.
As for what to do at those ramp merge points, a good rule of thumb is to not cross a solid line. Wait for the broken line. That's supposed to show drivers where merging is to be done, but not everyone has gotten that memo.

Hi, I think someone wrote up the construction notices incorrectly this week. Your notice said "Current through Wednesday, October 19. 9 p.m. until 5 a.m. nightly. Main lanes, both directions, at Hwy 151. Alternating lanes will close while crews do overhead bridge work. Traffic will use the frontage roads to reach its destination."
1604 was closed off in the middle of the day all day Saturday, causing backups and gridlock. What happened here?
- Rick
Rick, you're absolutely correct. We completely missed the note regarding that closure and dropped the ball. We depend on contractors sending in closure alerts weekly by Thursday night in order to allow our communication staff time to get everything compiled into a weekly report. Sometimes a contractor misses this Thursday deadline, and we're working on getting accountability written into our contracts to prevent this. We're also working to ensure accountability exists when no notice is given.
In this case, it was an oversight - one that won't soon be repeated.

How far towards Canyon Lake is the FM 306 expansion project going to go?
All the way thru to Hgy 281?
- LD
The current work we have going runs from about Hunter Road and ends at River Chase. We have another project at the intersection of Bravo, near Canyon Lake, but that's constructing a left-turn lane at that location and won't expand the road beyond that.

What is the purpose of the new overpass at I-10 and Leon Spring Road?
- Jim
Jim, we're assuming you're talking about the work at Old Fredericksburg Road. If we're wrong, let us know.
We do get asked about the purpose from time to time, and some folks assume it's a widening project that will add capacity to the I-10 main lanes. It's not. All we're doing is adding this new overpass at Old Fred and converting the frontage roads to one-way.
The frontage road conversion is the key here; it's about safety, really. We're hoping to eliminate the excuse those on two-way frontage roads have when they end up driving the wrong way on an interstate. In order to do that, though, we need to shorten the distance for folks between their access point to I-10 and their feeder road. Old Fred cuts the distance between Ralph Fair and Fair Oaks roughly in half.
It also provides an additional distribution route for traffic from the growing Leon Springs/Fair Oaks Ranch area to reach I-10. Right now all that traffic is squeezed into Ralph Fair and through Fair Oaks. With this overpass and its accompanying entrances and exits, we're effectively adding a third option for folks to use in order to reach I-10 and commute into town as they are.

When will the construction of the north bound I-10 off ramp at Hwy 46 in Boerne be completed? This has been going on with little completion for over a year and there doesn't seem to be much current effort to complete it. This intersection is a daily mess. Thanks!
- Mike
We're still looking at spring 2017 for completion of this project. We don't have anything going on at the intersection, though, so we shouldn't really be impacting that much at all. None of the lane shifts we've had there actually impacts the operation of the intersection. What you're likely seeing in your daily commute is additional traffic from a rapidly growing section of Boerne.

On Hwy 46 just East of Boerne the speed limits coming into town are way to fast. There has already been a fatality accident in that area. Traffic should slow down before the Esperonza sub division. Traffic from there to Charger Blvd should not be 50 mph, and from there to the bend at the Kendall County Fair Grounds should be lower than 45. Speed is a proven factor in all accidents. This area is becoming very populated. The limits really need to be lowered. Please!
- Rodney
Rodney, there's a specific process for setting our speed limits and our processes rarely yield a lowered speed limit. That said, we checked with our traffic engineer, who dug this information out for us about a rarely used provision in our policy allowing local governments to conduct their own speed studies on state highways, then make their own recommendation to us:

==================================================

TxDOT’s Procedures for Establishing Speed Zones, Chapter 4, Section 2Speed Zones Unacceptable to a CityAlthough TxDOT has the authority to alter the speed limits on highways within the corporate limits of cities or override a speed limit set by city ordinance on such highways, it is intended that studies be made and recommendations be presented to the city for their acceptance and passage of a city ordinance to establish city speed zones. TxDOT should make every effort to have reasonable speed limits established.In the event that a city will not accept the zones within its corporate limits as submitted by the district, and it is not possible to reach an agreement with the city on reasonable and prudent speed limits, then the district should prepare one strip map showing the city’s preference and one strip map showing TxDOT’s  recommendation. Both strip maps should be submitted to TRF along with the district’s request for Transportation Commission action for making one of the zones effective.  When the commission minute order has been passed, the district should send a copy of the minute order, along with a copy of the strip map, to the city.The setting of speed limits within a city by commission minute order should only be used as a last resort; TxDOT should make every effort to secure the cooperation of the city so that the zones will be set by city ordinance.

==================================================