Is this turn legal? (Austin, Brushy Creek: home, neighborhood, middle school)

[CarnivalGal]

I don't know where else to ask this. Is it legal to make a right turn at an intersection if there is a dedicated right turn lane before that intersection? In other words, can you not use the dedicated lane for that purpose and turn at the intersection instead? On the attached picture, the green line shows the dedicated turn lane. Is turning at the intersection, indicated by the red line in the picture, a legal turn? There is a stop light at that intersection, if it matters.

[ScoPro]

Am not sure, but I see a lot of motorists making a right turn (at the red line) frequently from the west bound 45 service road to go northbound on O’Connor towards 620 up to Brushy Creek.
They do that to avoid the long line of rush hour traffic waiting in the dedicated (green) right turn lane.
Basically it is really line-cutting.

[CarnivalGal]

Originally Posted by ScoPro

Am not sure, but I see a lot of motorists making a right turn (at the red line) frequently from the west bound 45 service road to go northbound on O’Connor towards 620 up to Brushy Creek.
They do that to avoid the long line of rush hour traffic waiting in the dedicated (green) right turn lane.
Basically it is really line-cutting.

Yep. That's exactly the issue. This is the new bypass from 620 to 2222. I don't have to deal with morning traffic, since I work from home and my daughter is old enough to drive herself to school now. But when I do, it's rage inducing.

I had jury duty on Monday, which forced me into morning traffic. There were TONS of people making this turn, for the sole reason of not having to wait like everyone else. Even more rage inducing is the fact that despite most of the mess being Vandegrift High School traffic, the majority of the people I see doing these things are adults - not the teenaged drivers. The teenagers are actually (usually) the ones following the rules.

They finally had to have police sit on 2222 to prevent all the people making illegal u-turns on 2222 to avoid waiting in line at the light to turn on McNeil. There are at least half a dozen no u-turn signs, by the way. And again, it was usually adults, not kids.

There's an argument going on in one of the neighborhood social media pages about whether it's illegal, because people are suggesting having the police sit there too.

[Need4Camaro]

I think it's technically one of those cases that falls under, not 'illegal' but not clearly established as 'legal' either - kind of like Lane Splitting in certain states.. (in Texas Lane splitting is clearly illegal, but this isn't lane splitting as you never leave a legally marked lane) ..I'd call it unwise but I am unable to find any laws that prohibit it. I think the only way it would be illegal is if the intersection was marked with a 'no right turn' sign or if there were arrow markings either on the pavement or signed at the intersection indicating that the right lane was for traffic going straight only. That intersection doesn't have either of those and only the slip lane is marked...

...now I would imagine given the nature of FM620 and its high speed limit, it's probably not by design, I'd imagine some engineers didn't really imagine someone attempting that given the clear indication of the slip lane...

...but the presence of a slip lane alone does not appear to establish a legal necessity to use it to accomplish the turn, but rather a design feature to reduce traffic conflicts.

So legally speaking, you could probably do it.. ..cop may cite you with improper lane usage but you could probably fight the ticket given there's no law saying you MUST use the slip lane and there's no signage indicating the lanes at the intersection are for pass through traffic only.

Another thing is the term 'Rat Running' is illegal in Texas, but the best definition I can find for that is when you use an adjacent private property to avoid sitting in traffic and cut in line, but it doesn't say the same for using another section of Public Roadway that is unmarked for such purposes, so I'm unsure if it would fall into that category.

They probably need to make a more clear establishment with signage like they did with this intersection:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/EtFsgT5ShgSJ4p3e7

Used to not have the No Turn on Red sign and I wasn't sure if it was or was not legal to make a right on red arrow at that intersection as many people did.

Edit:

Other foods for thought, right hand turns at an intersection can only be made from the far right lane unless otherwise marked.. ..technically at the 'intersection', that is the far right lane but I guess it would depend on how they define the intersection.. ..the section where the two roadways meet, or the section where traffic can make any possible turns.

[Need4Camaro]

On a side note I have been wondering, given they can't extend SH45 westward, what if they just built interchanges at congested intersections like Anderson Mill Rd and FM2222 (which is what they should have did instead of building the bypass) and kept the smaller intersections as well as businesses intact.

[CarnivalGal]

Originally Posted by Need4Camaro

On a side note I have been wondering, given they can't extend SH45 westward, what if they just built interchanges at congested intersections like Anderson Mill Rd and FM2222 (which is what they should have did instead of building the bypass) and kept the smaller intersections as well as businesses intact.

There were plans to build an interchange at Anderson Mill and 620. There were plans and funding already in place. At the last minute, the city redirected those funds to I-35.

https://communityimpact.com/austin/n...-go-from-here/

I will say that between the bypass and widening of 2222, it has helped. But it still bottlenecks at McNeil/2222 because it's literally the only road to the high school and middle school. Leander ISD asked the city repeatedly to extend Four Points Blvd to McNeil, which would mean that everyone coming from north of 620 and from River Place/Westminster Glen - basically half the population of those schools - could avoid getting on 2222 altogether. 3M officials also supported the measure, back when 3M still had their offices there. But the city refuses to get the variance from Fish and Wildlife. LISD had discussed just building it themselves; it's a minimal cost, since it just involves essentially paving a short stretch of a current utility easement. But I don't know what the status of that is. Extending that road would make a HUGE difference.

[Need4Camaro]

Im thinking they should do something similar with MLK and interchange MLK and Airport while extending their light rail in the median along with a protected walk/bikeway that bypasses the interchange.

[Trainwreck20]

That turn is legal unless marked as 'not' legal. They do that in some places where it is problematic (I have not seen it in Austin, though). They simply put up a sign that says 'no right turn' at the intersection. In the absence of that, though, it is fair game, I think.

[NorthofHere]

Originally Posted by CarnivalGal

I don't know where else to ask this. Is it legal to make a right turn at an intersection if there is a dedicated right turn lane before that intersection? In other words, can you not use the dedicated lane for that purpose and turn at the intersection instead? On the attached picture, the green line shows the dedicated turn lane. Is turning at the intersection, indicated by the red line in the picture, a legal turn? There is a stop light at that intersection, if it matters.

It is at an intersection near me where you need to make that turn at your red arrow to get into the far left lane or the middle lanes. The earlier turn gets you into a lane that then turns right. I see a new development going in to my guess is that some will need to get into the left lane in the future. Is there also a light at that intersection? If so then it should be legal unless posted otherwise.

[Need4Camaro]

Originally Posted by Trainwreck20

That turn is legal unless marked as 'not' legal. They do that in some places where it is problematic (I have not seen it in Austin, though). They simply put up a sign that says 'no right turn' at the intersection. In the absence of that, though, it is fair game, I think.

I agree. I think however its not the intended design for that intersection. They should probably post a no right turn sign there.