News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

Interstate 2

Started by Strider, July 18, 2013, 11:38:02 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

kphoger

I agree with everything except the mention of Laredo as an important border crossing for commerce.  Of course the statement itself is absolutely true, and nothing east of El Paso even comes close in that respect, but I have to wonder how much of that commercial traffic really has a destination that would be served by I-2.  Certainly the vast majority of it is headed towards/form San Antonio via I-35, and what little is headed towards/from the Valley would surely cross at Pharr instead.
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.


Bobby5280

#326
Quote from: sparkerFully concur.  Given past TX practice, what I'd expect would be a step-by-step continuation of the freeway NW from Mission (frontage roads first, freeway lanes later) with a similar progression SE from the western end (presuming it'll be along the Laredo loop and likely tie in to I-69W), at first to serve the growing Laredo 'burbs but later marching right down US 83.  Likely the last part to be completed will be a bridge over the reservoir SE of Zapata -- that might even be the "golden spike", so to speak, of I-2.

Hopefully TX DOT will do what it can to protect the segments of US-83 that can be upgraded to Interstate 2. It's really as simple as requiring certain set-back distances from the highway for new properties built along the rural areas of the road.

It would be a really tight squeeze, but existing US-83 probably could be upgraded to I-2 from Sullivan City (the West end of the La Joya relief route) to La Puerta. Some properties might have to be consumed for exit ramps and utility relocation.

A new terrain bypass rougly 20 miles long would be needed to get around Las Lomas, Rio Grande City, Los Alverez, Escobares, Roma and Roma Creek. US-83 is 4-laned but undivided, narrow and encroached with development through much of that stretch. Edit: the planned Texas Loop 195 would address much of this issue, but its proposed Eastern end terminates at FM 755 in Rio Grande City rather than going farther east to merge back into existing US-83 East of La Puerta. Perhaps that is to tie into a possible new terrain bypass of La Puerta to Sullivan City and tie into the La Joya relief route rather than dovetail back into US-83.

Existing US-83 could be converted to I-2 between Roma Creek to the edge of Siesta Shores and Falcon Lake Estates. A new US-83 bridge is being built over the river separating Zapata and Falcon Lake Estates. But US-83 on either side has way too much property build on top of it to widen into a freeway. A bypass about 10 miles long to the Northeast of US-83 would be necessary.

A 3 mile segment of US-83 between Ramireño and San Ygnacio is 4-laned with a large median. San Ygnacio would probably have to be bypassed just to the East.

The rest of US-83 up to Laredo would be relatively easy to upgrade. US-83 in Rio Bravo has a short freeway segment. The Bob Bullock loop around Laredo looks like it will eventually be expanded to just North of Rio Bravo.

TZ138

The problem with I-2/Us-83 , especially for commercial truck traffic involves a few pitfalls: 1)illegal foot traffic crossing the highway at night being hit; 2)the time consuming trip through the Roma-Rio Grande City area; and 3)the slower nature of much of the route in general... I used to travel between Laredo and The Valley quite often between loads... I, like many others would use Tx-359, Tx-16, (Hebbornville)  Tx-285, Fm-1017, and Us-281 instead... The back roads are about ten miles longer, but thirty minutes to an hour faster; and the illegal pedestrian traffic was not an issue... This means that the traffic counts are off due to traffic using alternate routes... As I-2 is completed, traffic will shift over to it... Tx-20 will likely end up carrying I-2 in Webb county because it is slowly being upgraded to interstate standards, and the new Cuatro Vientos Blvd extension is the service roads of a future freeway...

sparker

Quote from: TZ138 on February 25, 2018, 04:23:05 PM
The problem with I-2/Us-83 , especially for commercial truck traffic involves a few pitfalls: 1)illegal foot traffic crossing the highway at night being hit; 2)the time consuming trip through the Roma-Rio Grande City area; and 3)the slower nature of much of the route in general... I used to travel between Laredo and The Valley quite often between loads... I, like many others would use Tx-359, Tx-16, (Hebbornville)  Tx-285, Fm-1017, and Us-281 instead... The back roads are about ten miles longer, but thirty minutes to an hour faster; and the illegal pedestrian traffic was not an issue... This means that the traffic counts are off due to traffic using alternate routes... As I-2 is completed, traffic will shift over to it... Tx-20 will likely end up carrying I-2 in Webb county because it is slowly being upgraded to interstate standards, and the new Cuatro Vientos Blvd extension is the service roads of a future freeway...

As far as interaction between illegal immigrants from across the river and a potential I-2 is concerned, it would seem that the present US 83 would pose more of an issue, as it isn't fenced off from the adjacent property as an Interstate facility would be.  The only exception would be if it were constructed in the Texas fashion where there are frontage roads with sizeable fence breaks for ramp access; that could pose a problem if such ramps are closely spaced.  But if there's little need for frontage facilities along that route, then a reasonably tall fence might discourage foot traffic from actually crossing the freeway and utilizing over/underpasses instead (Trump's ICE might want to electrify said fences -- not a particularly useful idea along an Interstate!). 

Bobby5280

Interstate highway property is rarely fenced off to prevent pedestrians from crossing the roadway. Even when high fencing is installed it often still doesn't work as intended.

Here in Lawton ODOT just installed some high chain link fencing on I-44 between the Gore Blvd and Lee Blvd exits. That stretch of road has been the scene of numerous pedestrian fatalities. People on foot coming from Lawton's South side cut through the industrial area and jay-walk across I-44 as a short cut to reach Comanche Nation Casino or Apache Casino farther East. Despite the additional fencing I still see people jay-walking across the Interstate. They're either climbing over the fence or crawling under at street drainage points. Pedestrian access at the Gore Blvd and Lee Blvd crossings of I-44 is non-existent. There were plans to add a sidewalk to one of the Gore Blvd bridges over I-44, but those plans are in limbo indefinitely. ODOT wants the City of Lawton to pay most of the cost, even though that exit is ODOT property.

Anyway, the I-2/US-83 corridor should be upgraded between Laredo and La Joya based on the population growth in that region and growing traffic needs of that corridor. If we're too worried about jay-walking pedestrians (in this case, illegal migrants) we won't be able to build highways in many places. I think fencing along that highway would mostly be a waste of money. Migrants, particularly ones traveling in groups, often have some tools handy for cutting holes in fences. Lighting is probably a better solution for zones that are prone to pedestrians entering the ROW.

Avalanchez71

When is the wall planned to be built in the area?

Bobby5280

There is no telling. As slow as the US moves on any infrastructure projects chances are between slim and none a new border wall gets built along the Rio Grande River. Political administrations come and go. Sometimes projects one administration championed will be axed by the next one.

Logistically speaking, it's going to be really difficult to build a border wall along the Rio Grande. It might be feasible in the far South Texas area where much of the land is flat. But the farther North you go the terrain gets ever more difficult. There are hundreds of little gullies, creeks, etc that feed into the Rio Grande -all things the wall would have to span. Significant portions of the river & border are within a canyon. Can't build a wall in that. The wall would have to be built farther inland from the river. That would literally cede American territory over to Mexico. We're talking anywhere from dozens of yards back from the river in one place to possibly a number of miles in other places. Quite a few American citizen property owners face having land they own along the border taken under eminent domain. The situation could turn into a very nasty political fight. And all for what? There's no proof at all such a wall would even work. Most illegals enter at legal points of entry and simply over-stay their visas. Currently it's estimated more migrants are actually going back South of the border than those crossing into the US.

triplemultiplex

Quote from: Avalanchez71 on February 26, 2018, 03:47:00 PM
When is the wall planned to be built in the area?

As soon as Trump resigns.
"That's just like... your opinion, man."

mvak36

Seems to me they should probably build a moat instead of a wall, what with people tunneling underneath the border to cross illegally.
Counties: Counties visited
Travel Mapping: Summary

rickmastfan67

Let's get back on topic about I-2 and leave political differences about the 'wall' out of this thread, as it's not directly attached to any future I-2 construction.

sparker

Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 26, 2018, 03:46:40 PM
Interstate highway property is rarely fenced off to prevent pedestrians from crossing the roadway. Even when high fencing is installed it often still doesn't work as intended.

Fencing off freeways -- unless topologically impractical -- is standard practice here in CA, even in rural areas.  Some fences are no more than 4'-5' high (most along CA 99 and I-5 in the Valley fit in that category); most fence installations markedly higher are in urban areas.  In farm or desert country, it's more to keep larger animals out of the ROW than anything else (although in practice that doesn't always work) as well as delineate the limits of Caltrans maintenance.     

Bobby5280

#336
It's one thing to build fences to prevent cattle from roaming off of an owner's property. It's easy for a person to climb over (or through) a basic barbed wire fence. Those types of fences are common along the highways in Oklahoma. But there is plenty of agricultural property adjacent to highways with no fencing at all.

I think the money ODOT spent on the fencing recently installed along I-44 here is pretty much a waste of money. It's not doing a good job of deterring pedestrians from crossing the Interstate on foot. This is tall chain link fencing too. It looks like it's at least 10' to 12' tall.

Rothman

Actually saw someone cross the Northway (I-87) on foot behind the NYSDOT Main Office a few years ago.  I believe there were still vestiges of fencing back there then.  Can't see much, if any, currently.

So, you build a fence that doesn't keep people out and then don't maintain it and then it doesn't keep anything out, Man or beast.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

sparker

Quote from: Rothman on February 27, 2018, 12:52:27 PM
So, you build a fence that doesn't keep people out and then don't maintain it and then it doesn't keep anything out, Man or beast.

That would accurately describe the fencing on much of the CA freeway mileage in the mountains and out in the desert -- considering the number of jackrabbit and coyote carcasses I've personally seen on CA 58 alone (no one has ever figured out how to keep those species fenced out).  About the only animals the fences manage to keep out of the roads on a regular basis are domesticated types who see no need to venture outside of their food supply. 

seicer

And plenty of ATV's riding alongside the ROW on I-81 south of Wilkes-Barre. And when I was accessing a very old rail tunnel, the easiest method to it was dropping off of I-81's northbound shoulder and squeezing through a very large gap in the ROW fencing to an off-road trail.

707

I came across this news article while browsing for any news of a possible I-2 extension. I realize its a year old, but it talks about planning a new corridor between Roma, Texas and South Padre Island. Could the corridor being mentioned in the article become a western extension of I-2? Given that the article hints at the section heading west to Roma would parallel and relieve the US 83 corridor and that I-2 has taken over the US 83 freeway from Pharr to Brownsville?

https://riograndeguardian.com/txdot-working-on-a-new-corridor-from-roma-to-a-2nd-causeway-at-spi/

TXDOT working on a new corridor from Roma to a 2nd Causeway at SPI

WESLACO, RGV — The Texas Department of Transportation is working on a plan to create a new east-west corridor in the northern part of the Rio Grande Valley that would connect Roma to a second causeway at South Padre Island.

TxDOT's Pharr District Engineer Pedro "Pete"  Alvarez said the corridor will be needed because the Valley is expected to add one million more people over the next 25 years, growing from 1.4 million to 2.4 million by 2040.

...

"If we look at it as a phased approach we need to connect Hidalgo County to Cameron County and South Padre Island first. The other parts of the project would come in future years. The congestion that is being experienced in Roma, Escobares and Rio Grande City is because U.S. 83 is handling over 40,000 vehicles a day on a five-lane roadway. That roadway cannot handle that much traffic, that is why there is congestion. The important thing is to provide a relief route for commuters who are going from the Valley to, say, Laredo, along the U.S. 83 corridor."

txstateends

I've heard nothing in regards to what condition or designation this second South Padre Island connection would be.  So far, it's just been that a second way of accessing/departing South Padre is very much needed, not only for hurricane evacuations, but that the Queen Isabella Causeway was already compromised once and took a bit of time to get repaired.  I'd be pleasantly surprised if I-2 were built further east and end up being the second way in/out for South Padre.
\/ \/ click for a bigger image \/ \/

NE2

Quote from: TZ138 on February 25, 2018, 04:23:05 PM
The problem with I-2/Us-83 , especially for commercial truck traffic involves a few pitfalls: 1)illegal foot traffic crossing the highway at night being hit; 2)the time consuming trip through the Roma-Rio Grande City area; and 3)the slower nature of much of the route in general... I used to travel between Laredo and The Valley quite often between loads... I, like many others would use Tx-359, Tx-16, (Hebbornville)  Tx-285, Fm-1017, and Us-281 instead... The back roads are about ten miles longer, but thirty minutes to an hour faster; and the illegal pedestrian traffic was not an issue... This means that the traffic counts are off due to traffic using alternate routes... As I-2 is completed, traffic will shift over to it... Tx-20 will likely end up carrying I-2 in Webb county because it is slowly being upgraded to interstate standards, and the new Cuatro Vientos Blvd extension is the service roads of a future freeway...
There's nothing illegal about walking along a rural highway.
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

Bobby5280

Quote from: 707I came across this news article while browsing for any news of a possible I-2 extension. I realize its a year old, but it talks about planning a new corridor between Roma, Texas and South Padre Island. Could the corridor being mentioned in the article become a western extension of I-2? Given that the article hints at the section heading west to Roma would parallel and relieve the US 83 corridor and that I-2 has taken over the US 83 freeway from Pharr to Brownsville?

There are various plans to build a new loop highway and other freeway links in the area around McAllen, Pharr and other built-up areas leading to Harlingen. There is also plans for a north link into South Padre Island (which would involve building a new causeway). But Roma is a little far West to attach directly into that.

More likely Western extension of I-2 itself would be built as a bypass just to the North of Roma, Escobares and other communitues along US-83, such as Rio Grande City.

US-83 between La Puerta and Sullivan City has a wide enough ROW for I-2 to be built up in the median.

The next part of I-2 will be the La Joya Relief Route, currently in the planning stage.

707

#344
I see. Thanks for the insight. Honestly, I hope they actually do something with I-2 rather tgan keep it a glorified 3DI like I-97. Though I guess by that logic, one could say I-4 deserves a 3DI number over its current one too. Neither I-4 or I-2 are very long.

rickmastfan67

Quote from: 707 on July 31, 2018, 03:04:45 AM
Though I guess by that logic, one could say I-4 deserves a 3DI number over its current one too. Neither I-4 or I-2 are very long.

But then again, with I-4, it can't be extended any farther unlike I-2 or I-97 (well, unless you wanted to figure out a way to extend I-4 to US-1 from I-95).

Bobby5280

#346
I have no problem with the designation of I-4 along its corridor. That highway directly serves major population centers (Tampa, Orlando) and gives them direct access to the I-95 corridor. At 132 miles it's longer than I-12 in Louisiana (86 miles) or I-86 in Idaho (62 miles).

I-97 in the Baltimore area is much harder to justify. Why even sign that while leaving I-595 unsigned? It's a real head-scratcher. I could understand the I-97 designation more if it went from Baltimore down to the Virginia Beach area somehow. In its present form it should just be a 3-digit Interstate.

I-2 at least has the potential of being extended up to Laredo. Such an extension would give the highway length comparable to I-4. I-2 is serving a pretty large population center too.

wxfree

Quote from: rickmastfan67 on July 31, 2018, 07:35:39 AM
Quote from: 707 on July 31, 2018, 03:04:45 AM
Though I guess by that logic, one could say I-4 deserves a 3DI number over its current one too. Neither I-4 or I-2 are very long.

But then again, with I-4, it can't be extended any farther unlike I-2 or I-97 (well, unless you wanted to figure out a way to extend I-4 to US-1 from I-95).

Aside from length, I-4 connects two legitimately major two-digit Interstates.  If I-2 did that, or I-14 or I-97, I think the one or two digit designations would be more warranted.
I'd like to buy a vowel, Alex.  What is E?

vdeane

I-2 connects a major 2di (or what presumably will be one someday) to itself.  And, if it gets extended to Laredo, twice.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

wxfree

#349
Quote from: vdeane on July 31, 2018, 07:58:03 PM
I-2 connects a major 2di (or what presumably will be one someday) to itself.  And, if it gets extended to Laredo, twice.

Right now it's part of a disconnected Interstate system, but even if it were connected to the north I wouldn't consider the suffixed routes to be separate Interstates for connectivity purposes, since they converge into a single one.  Similarly, I-20, I-30, and I-94 connecting to I-35s E and W constitute a connection to a single Interstate, I-35, in my reckoning.  If I-2 were extended to I-35 that would be what I'd consider connections to two major Interstates.  If it doesn't, it should probably be an x69 because of its lack of either length or inter-Interstate connectivity.
I'd like to buy a vowel, Alex.  What is E?



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.