Interstate 2

[bassoon1986]

What control cities are present on the I-2/US 83 freeway? Is it Harlingen and McAllen? What is signed west of US 281?

I wonder if the city designations will change to something more long range, like Laredo, much like Cleveland, TX will probably pass to Lufkin or Shreveport on I-69.

[Bobby5280]

At its present length, I don't think the "I-2" designation is justified. It would have been just as good to label it "I-169" or something like that. BTW, I don't like other short 2di routes like I-97 or I-86 in Idaho either.

Now if I-2 were extended upward to Laredo the designation would be more worth it. If the south Texas region continues to grow I could even see one making a case to extend I-2 up to Eagle Pass, Del Rio and even as far as Fort Stockton to meet I-10. An extension to Laredo at least seems justifiable in the near term.

[kphoger]

I could even see one making a case to extend I-2 up to Eagle Pass, Del Rio and even as far as Fort Stockton to meet I-10.

Just as long as you're not taking the notion of upgrading an unused gravel road in the middle of the desert to an Interstate-grade freeway just to make a bunch of roadgeeks happy–thereby shaving a whopping six miles off the existing route along US highways.  Cause that just ain't a-gonna happen.

[Alps]

At its present length, I don't think the "I-2" designation is justified. It would have been just as good to label it "I-169" or something like that. BTW, I don't like other short 2di routes like I-97 or I-86 in Idaho either.

Now if I-2 were extended upward to Laredo the designation would be more worth it. If the south Texas region continues to grow I could even see one making a case to extend I-2 up to Eagle Pass, Del Rio and even as far as Fort Stockton to meet I-10. An extension to Laredo at least seems justifiable in the near term.

I-2 is longer than I-97, the only logical spot for such a number, and therefore I find it awesome and want to keep it.

[FightingIrish]

At its present length, I don't think the "I-2" designation is justified. It would have been just as good to label it "I-169" or something like that. BTW, I don't like other short 2di routes like I-97 or I-86 in Idaho either.

Now if I-2 were extended upward to Laredo the designation would be more worth it. If the south Texas region continues to grow I could even see one making a case to extend I-2 up to Eagle Pass, Del Rio and even as far as Fort Stockton to meet I-10. An extension to Laredo at least seems justifiable in the near term.

I-2 is longer than I-97, the only logical spot for such a number, and therefore I find it awesome and want to keep it.

I-2 is fine. Another I-69 variant would probably just be confusing. Plus, I-2 has the potential of being expanded, depending on whether future demand warrants it.

Besides, where else is an I-2 going to go?

[rickmastfan67]

Besides, where else is an I-2 going to go?

Replacing I-75's East/West segment in Florida. lol.

[silverback1065]

Besides, where else is an I-2 going to go?

Replacing I-75's East/West segment in Florida. lol.

I suggested that earlier, I think it's a good idea!  and rename us 41 us 94 again!

[FightingIrish]

Besides, where else is an I-2 going to go?

Replacing I-75's East/West segment in Florida. lol.

I suggested that earlier, I think it's a good idea!  and rename us 41 us 94 again!

Stupid idea. Why change the names of long-established routes? Especially just to placate a few anal-retentive road geeks.

[Molandfreak]

Stupid idea. Why change the names of long-established routes? Especially just to placate a few anal-retentive road geeks.

As much as I really like I-2, the same could theoretically said about it replacing the long-established "83 expressway."

[FightingIrish]

Stupid idea. Why change the names of long-established routes? Especially just to placate a few anal-retentive road geeks.

As much as I really like I-2, the same could theoretically said about it replacing the long-established "83 expressway."

Replacing a US highway with an interstate is a lot different than replacing an interstate number with another interstate number, especially when not really necessary.

And I'm sure everyone here knows why US routes get replaced by interstates.

[31E]

If it's a better number and makes more sense in the context of the whole system, I say go for it and renumber it. People who care about the roadways that they and millions of others drive on every day are not anal retentive; they're just trying to use their brains to think of better designations for them. "Changing the names of long-established routes" by definition does include replacing US Routes with Interstates, and US 94 itself was once long-established. The most common reason US Routes are replaced by Interstates is that it is a logical addition to the Interstate system.

In the case of US 41, however, the routing through Florida is quite sensible, especially considering that US 94, being south of US 98, didn't fit into the grid that well to start with. Besides, switching designations on a continuous roadway doesn't make much sense to me. South Texas is the only place with a long east-west freeway further south than I-4, so it's a shoo-in for the 2 designation. Now that 2 is taken, 6 is the one number still available for an east-west Interstate south of I-10. If a freeway is ever needed between Corpus Christi and Laredo, I-6 would be the obvious choice. Houston to Austin is the other far southern east-west "phantom link", but since that's north of I-10 it could be I-14 or perhaps a three-digit number if TxDOT is feeling adventurous. Personally I'd use the 12 number for a Houston to Austin Interstate, and rename the current 12 to 410 or 810, but we're veering into fictional highways territory now.

[The High Plains Traveler]

Does I-2 have exit numbers? If so, assuming mile 0 is the west end as it should be, is it the current freeway terminus near McAllen or some notional extension, such as to Laredo?

[FightingIrish]

If it's a better number and makes more sense in the context of the whole system, I say go for it and renumber it. People who care about the roadways that they and millions of others drive on every day are not anal retentive; they're just trying to use their brains to think of better designations for them. "Changing the names of long-established routes" by definition does include replacing US Routes with Interstates, and US 94 itself was once long-established. The most common reason US Routes are replaced by Interstates is that it is a logical addition to the Interstate system.

In the case of US 41, however, the routing through Florida is quite sensible, especially considering that US 94, being south of US 98, didn't fit into the grid that well to start with. Besides, switching designations on a continuous roadway doesn't make much sense to me. South Texas is the only place with a long east-west freeway further south than I-4, so it's a shoo-in for the 2 designation. Now that 2 is taken, 6 is the one number still available for an east-west Interstate south of I-10. If a freeway is ever needed between Corpus Christi and Laredo, I-6 would be the obvious choice. Houston to Austin is the other far southern east-west "phantom link", but since that's north of I-10 it could be I-14 or perhaps a three-digit number if TxDOT is feeling adventurous. Personally I'd use the 12 number for a Houston to Austin Interstate, and rename the current 12 to 410 or 810, but we're veering into fictional highways territory now.

The grid will never be perfect. It's impossible. And renumbering a bunch of interstates just for the sake of renumbering solves a problem that doesn't exist. In fact, it'll just make things worse. And first and foremost, route numbering is mostly about making things more convenient and helpful to the people who drive on them. Plus, state DOT's are not going to just go out and resign routes just for the hell of it. That costs a lot of money.

I have no problem with I-75 taking a left turn and going east to Miami. Highways DO actually change direction once in a while.

[Urban Prairie Schooner]

If it's a better number and makes more sense in the context of the whole system, I say go for it and renumber it. People who care about the roadways that they and millions of others drive on every day are not anal retentive; they're just trying to use their brains to think of better designations for them. "Changing the names of long-established routes" by definition does include replacing US Routes with Interstates, and US 94 itself was once long-established. The most common reason US Routes are replaced by Interstates is that it is a logical addition to the Interstate system.

In the case of US 41, however, the routing through Florida is quite sensible, especially considering that US 94, being south of US 98, didn't fit into the grid that well to start with. Besides, switching designations on a continuous roadway doesn't make much sense to me. South Texas is the only place with a long east-west freeway further south than I-4, so it's a shoo-in for the 2 designation. Now that 2 is taken, 6 is the one number still available for an east-west Interstate south of I-10. If a freeway is ever needed between Corpus Christi and Laredo, I-6 would be the obvious choice. Houston to Austin is the other far southern east-west "phantom link", but since that's north of I-10 it could be I-14 or perhaps a three-digit number if TxDOT is feeling adventurous. Personally I'd use the 12 number for a Houston to Austin Interstate, and rename the current 12 to 410 or 810, but we're veering into fictional highways territory now.

US 98 was established in 1933 meaning it would have been the out of place route at the time.

I-6 = proposed I-49 "south"; I-14 = Houston-Austin link

[texaskdog]

If a freeway is ever needed between Corpus Christi and Laredo, I-6 would be the obvious choice.

Like I-69?

[kphoger]

People who care about the roadways that they and millions of others drive on every day are not anal retentive; they're just trying to use their brains to think of better designations for them.

So....people who don't care if route numbers form a perfect grid don't "care about the roadways"?  Is it not possible to care enough about our roadways that we don't want to unnecessarily confuse the millions of others who drive on them every day by changing their route numbers to something we think is more appropriate?

"Changing the names of long-established routes" by definition does include replacing US Routes with Interstates.

No it doesn't.  For example, changing the name of US-41 to US-94 does not, by definition, replace a US Route with an Interstate.

If a freeway is ever needed between Corpus Christi and Laredo, I-6 would be the obvious choice.

Like I-69?

Nah.  More like I-69R or I-69Y.

[texaskdog]

Arent they all "69why"?

[roadman65]

If a freeway is ever needed between Corpus Christi and Laredo, I-6 would be the obvious choice.

Like I-69?

More like another x69.

On another note, I would like to say that I find it interesting that I-2 is only 47 miles long at present, but I-369 on the other side of the state will be 110 miles almost twice as long.  Another thing is at least its almost twice the length of Anne Arundell County, MD's own I-97.

I was just reading Wikipedia and just noticed that until I-69E is finished to Robstown through Kenedy County, I-2 is not at all connected to the interstate system, a big violation.  However, congress approved it, and of course their word is final over AASHTO.  We can thank both Buddy Shuster with the cooperation of the NIMBY's we have now in Washington to allow this to happen.

[FightingIrish]

I was just reading Wikipedia and just noticed that until I-69E is finished to Robstown through Kenedy County, I-2 is not at all connected to the interstate system, a big violation.  However, congress approved it, and of course their word is final over AASHTO.  We can thank both Buddy Shuster with the cooperation of the NIMBY's we have now in Washington to allow this to happen.

So long as I-2 has definitive plans to be connected to the rest of the system (which it will with the I-69s), AASHTO allows this, and always has.

[31E]

I was just reading Wikipedia and just noticed that until I-69E is finished to Robstown through Kenedy County, I-2 is not at all connected to the interstate system, a big violation.  However, congress approved it, and of course their word is final over AASHTO.  We can thank both Buddy Shuster with the cooperation of the NIMBY's we have now in Washington to allow this to happen.

Meh. If a link is planned to be completed in the near future it's okay for it to be disconnected for a while. If it ends up like all those orphaned x78's in New York then the situation gets a bit stickier. I agree that Bud Shuster set a bad precedent - numbering should be determined by AASHTO, not Congress.

"Changing the names of long-established routes" by definition does include replacing US Routes with Interstates.

No it doesn't.  For example, changing the name of US-41 to US-94 does not, by definition, replace a US Route with an Interstate.

Replacing a US Route with an Interstate is a change of name and many of these names are long-established. Whether you think it make sense or not, it is a big change of name, and therefore replacing US 87 with I-2 is no more confusing to the driver than changing US 41 to US 94 would be. If it's a better number and makes more sense in the context of the system I say go for it. Changing US 41 to US 94 doesn't meet that test. Changing, for example, I-238 to I-480 would meet that test.

The grid will never be perfect. It's impossible.

Route numbers should fit the grid as neatly as possible; I-85 is perfectly fine even if it veers to the west of I-75 because it's mostly east of I-75, and diagonal routes should have a number that fits at least part of the route. I-24 and I-26 stray far to the north but that's okay because they spend a good chunk of their journeys between 20 and 40. 73 and 74 if they're ever finished would be the same way. On the other hand, numbers like I-238, US 400, US 412, and to a lesser extent I-99 don't fit the grid at all, and didn't have to happen.

I have no problem with I-75 taking a left turn and going east to Miami. Highways DO actually change direction once in a while.

I-75 is by and large a north-south routing, so that's perfectly fine. It would be a different story if the whole route was more east-west than north-south. My only pet peeve in these situations is when north-south routes go east-west for hundreds of miles and are still signed north-south, such as 75 North taking you due west for 100 miles  .

[roadman65]

What is more confusing is I-94 between Chicago and Milwaukee where I-94 goes north and south for quite the distance.  If people from Chicagoland or the Milwaukee metro area can live with saying "Lets go east on 94 to go to Chicago" when they know that the windy city is south of them, or "Lets take 94 west to Milwaukee" also knowing that it is north of them with the named Tr State being referred to as being N-S, then easily people of Florida are living with I-75 being out of place directional wise! 

I live in the Sunshine State and have heard no complaints.  Heck no one says anything about I-4 running due north and south through most of Central Florida as we still say East and West knowing that it is not true to that direction.

Also, I-2 could be used if the FL 80 corridor needs to be upgraded between Fort Myers and West Palm Beach LOL!

[mgk920]

What is more confusing is I-94 between Chicago and Milwaukee where I-94 goes north and south for quite the distance.  If people from Chicagoland or the Milwaukee metro area can live with saying "Lets go east on 94 to go to Chicago" when they know that the windy city is south of them, or "Lets take 94 west to Milwaukee" also knowing that it is north of them with the named Tr State being referred to as being N-S, then easily people of Florida are living with I-75 being out of place directional wise!

Well, that one is being, at least, partially corrected (See: 'US-41 Interstate Conversion' thread in the Midwest-Great Lakes section of this forvm).



Mike

[Bobby5280]

So long as I-2 has definitive plans to be connected to the rest of the system (which it will with the I-69s), AASHTO allows this, and always has.

Another thing worth mentioning: IIRC, back in the 1960's and 1970's when significant parts of the Interstate highway system were still under construction there were signed segments of Interstate highways separated from the rest of the system by gaps, with those gaps either proposed or under construction.

I have no problem with segments of I-69 in Texas being signed since there are clear, definitive plans to complete the route and fill in the gaps. It wouldn't bother me if certain completed segments, like the toll road going through Falfurrias, are signed as parts of the Interstate before the rest of it is built. I don't have a problem with the proposed I-369 route being as long as it is; it doesn't need to carry a 2di Interstate designation. I just wish I-2 was a longer, more significant route. Who knows? Maybe in a few years (or more) it may be built that way. South Texas is growing fast.

One of the few issues I have with I-69: how it's being routed in Kentucky. I guess the highway is going to make a big, distance wasting L-shape, going South on the Pennyrile Parkway (KY-9004) and then West on the Wendell H. Ford Western Kentucky Parkway (KY-9001). I guess a more direct route from Henderson to Calvert City isn't going to be built.

[Brandon]

What is more confusing is I-94 between Chicago and Milwaukee where I-94 goes north and south for quite the distance.  If people from Chicagoland or the Milwaukee metro area can live with saying "Lets go east on 94 to go to Chicago" when they know that the windy city is south of them, or "Lets take 94 west to Milwaukee" also knowing that it is north of them with the named Tr State being referred to as being N-S, then easily people of Florida are living with I-75 being out of place directional wise! 

We call it north-south anyway, regardless of what the actual signage may suggest.

[roadman65]

What is more confusing is I-94 between Chicago and Milwaukee where I-94 goes north and south for quite the distance.  If people from Chicagoland or the Milwaukee metro area can live with saying "Lets go east on 94 to go to Chicago" when they know that the windy city is south of them, or "Lets take 94 west to Milwaukee" also knowing that it is north of them with the named Tr State being referred to as being N-S, then easily people of Florida are living with I-75 being out of place directional wise! 

We call it north-south anyway, regardless of what the actual signage may suggest.

It did not surprise me that people would call it North and South.

Even in Central Florida we call the two route concurrency of US 17 & 92 in which the even number of the two is signed E-W as solely N-S even though only US 17 runs that way.    It actually runs north and south from Kissimmee to DeLand and only from Kissimmee to Intercession City and from Haines City to Lake Alfred does the two route concurrency actually run due east and west and that is only a short part.  Plus many Floridians do not refer to US 17 and US 92 south of FL 50 anyway as all of Orange Blossom Trail in Orlando and Kissimmee is either OBT or Four Forty-one.  The brief overlap with FL 50 is either known as Colonial or Highway 50 and I do not think many even know of that brief segment.