"Spur of a Spur" Interstate Numbering Question

[Grzrd]

I recently ran across an article about highway projects in Longview TX:
http://www.news-journal.com/news/local/texas-upgrades-take-shape-as-focus-turns-to-other-projects/article_5ac3223e-c2a5-5142-b3c5-45079e3f5f1f.html

The article indicates that community leaders in Longview would eventually like to have a spur connection to I-69 north of Marshall:

" ... Owen also will provide a briefing on the latest news for Interstate 69, a planned controlled-access highway the state wants to build along U.S. 59 and other existing roads. Longview leaders have pushed in recent years for construction of a spur that would connect Longview to the planned I-69 north of Marshall ..."

Although I-69 routing in Texas is still in extremely early, developmental stages, it currently looks like an I-x69 will have an interchange with I-69 around Tenaha, and proceed northward up through Marshall on the way to Texarkana.  As a result, the "Longview Spur" would be a spur to a lengthy I-x69.

Assume the Tenaha-Texarkana Spur will be numbered I-969.  Also assume the Longview Spur is built to interstate standards.  Should the Longview Spur be numbered I-x969 or simply be an I-x69?  Since I-69 in Texas has the three southern branches, I assume this situation could be repeated on the two 3di southern branches, and Texas could possibly have an over-demand for available "x69" spur numbers.

Here is link to a map showing Longview, Marshall, and Tenaha:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=32.275522,-94.474182&spn=0.839468,1.229095&t=h&z=10&vpsrc=6

[oscar]

I recently ran across an article about highway projects in Longview TX:
http://www.news-journal.com/news/local/texas-upgrades-take-shape-as-focus-turns-to-other-projects/article_5ac3223e-c2a5-5142-b3c5-45079e3f5f1f.html

The article indicates that community leaders in Longview would eventually like to have a spur connection to I-69 north of Marshall:

" ... Owen also will provide a briefing on the latest news for Interstate 69, a planned controlled-access highway the state wants to build along U.S. 59 and other existing roads. Longview leaders have pushed in recent years for construction of a spur that would connect Longview to the planned I-69 north of Marshall ..."

Although I-69 routing in Texas is still in extremely early, developmental stages, it currently looks like an I-x69 will have an interchange with I-69 around Tenaha, and proceed northward up through Marshall on the way to Texarkana.  As a result, the "Longview Spur" would be a spur to a lengthy I-x69.

Assume the Tenaha-Texarkana Spur will be numbered I-969.  Also assume the Longview Spur is built to interstate standards.  Should the Longview Spur be numbered I-x969 or simply be an I-x69?  Since I-69 in Texas has the three southern branches, I assume this situation could be repeated on the two 3di southern branches, and Texas could possibly have an over-demand for available "x69" spur numbers.

Here is link to a map showing Longview, Marshall, and Tenaha:
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&ll=32.275522,-94.474182&spn=0.839468,1.229095&t=h&z=10&vpsrc=6

A "spur of a spur" would follow the numbering rules for spurs, so the "Longview Spur" would get an x69 number (preferably with an odd first digit).  For example, I-590 in NY and I-980 in CA are spurs from spurs and also loops, with no direct contact with their "parent" 2dis -- and both are in states with a shortage of I-x80 (CA) and I-x90 (NY) available numbers, yet they stuck with 3 digits for those spurs   Also, I-190 in MA, I-380 in CA, I-370 and I-795 in MD, I-579 in PA, I-990 in NY, and I-175 and I-375 in FL are spurs from loops.   Better that than try to squeeze four characters onto an Interstate shield, which proved to be manageable but suboptimal for Hawaii's Interstate H-201.

Or that spur could just get a state route number, helping Texas get by with no more than nine x69 routes.  Texas has many significant freeways not graced by Interstate numbers, including toll roads with no numbers at all, even though it's not even close to running out of suitable I-xxx numbers for any of its main Interstate routes.  So that state seems not to be fixated on slapping Interstate shields on anything that might qualify, whatever local politicians and business interests might prefer.

[roadfro]

^ Yeah, nowadays the I-shield itself does not necessarily equate to funding, and other route types can get the same amount of funding as an interstate.