News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered at https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=33904.0
Corrected several already and appreciate your patience as we work through the rest.

Main Menu

Interstate 2

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

Previous topic - Next topic

Bobby5280

The exit numbers along I-2 imply the ultimate goal would be eventual extension to Laredo. Aside from that, where else in the United States would one even be able to build an Interstate 2? The far South end of Texas is the only place that makes any sense. Adding to that (getting into fictional territory), a Laredo to Corpus Christi route is the only path I could see for "I-6." If not for the I-69 stuff in South Texas, a Houston-Corpus-Laredo route (which I-69 & I-69W are set to follow) probably should have been the path for I-6.


rickmastfan67

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 01, 2018, 01:12:15 AM
The exit numbers along I-2 imply the ultimate goal would be eventual extension to Laredo. Aside from that, where else in the United States would one even be able to build an Interstate 2? The far South end of Texas is the only place that makes any sense.

Well, I-75's Alligator Alley segment would have been the only other place I-2 could have worked.

texaskdog

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 01, 2018, 01:12:15 AM
The exit numbers along I-2 imply the ultimate goal would be eventual extension to Laredo. Aside from that, where else in the United States would one even be able to build an Interstate 2? The far South end of Texas is the only place that makes any sense. Adding to that (getting into fictional territory), a Laredo to Corpus Christi route is the only path I could see for "I-6." If not for the I-69 stuff in South Texas, a Houston-Corpus-Laredo route (which I-69 & I-69W are set to follow) probably should have been the path for I-6.

Why not just extend 35 instead of calling it 2?

hotdogPi

Quote from: texaskdog on August 01, 2018, 08:30:38 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 01, 2018, 01:12:15 AM
The exit numbers along I-2 imply the ultimate goal would be eventual extension to Laredo. Aside from that, where else in the United States would one even be able to build an Interstate 2? The far South end of Texas is the only place that makes any sense. Adding to that (getting into fictional territory), a Laredo to Corpus Christi route is the only path I could see for "I-6." If not for the I-69 stuff in South Texas, a Houston-Corpus-Laredo route (which I-69 & I-69W are set to follow) probably should have been the path for I-6.

Why not just extend 35 instead of calling it 2?

If it was an extension of I-35, then I-35 would currently have a gap.
Clinched, minus I-93 (I'm missing a few miles and my file is incorrect)

Traveled, plus US 13, 44, and 50, and several state routes

I will be in Burlington VT for the eclipse.

vdeane

Quote from: wxfree on July 31, 2018, 10:02:09 PM
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.
That's why I said I-2 connects a major 2di TO ITSELF.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

707

I wish TXDOT could give us proposed plans related to I-2's future, which would hopefully confirm the high exit numbers meaning eventual plan to extend west to Laredo. I always assumed the exit numbers were based on the the mileage of US 83. Though US 83 being a "north south" route like 77 or I-69, the exit number on I-2's east terminus at I-69E would be a low number reflecting US 83's proximity to the border gate in Brownsville instead of a high one with the numbers decreasing westward if I-2's exits reflected US 83's mileage right?

VS988

sparker

Quote from: 707 on August 03, 2018, 12:13:10 AM
I wish TXDOT could give us proposed plans related to I-2's future, which would hopefully confirm the high exit numbers meaning eventual plan to extend west to Laredo. I always assumed the exit numbers were based on the the mileage of US 83. Though US 83 being a "north south" route like 77 or I-69, the exit number on I-2's east terminus at I-69E would be a low number reflecting US 83's proximity to the border gate in Brownsville instead of a high one with the numbers decreasing westward if I-2's exits reflected US 83's mileage right?

VS988


It appears I-2's exit numbering system is predicated on the route's eventual/projected end at I-69W in the outskirts of Laredo.  Like most even-numbered Interstates, its mileposts and exits start at that western end and proceed eastward (although in this case there's a pronounced southward bias to the corridor), with the highest number being at the eastern Harlingen-area terminus at I-69E. 

texaskdog

Quote from: 1 on August 01, 2018, 08:41:35 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on August 01, 2018, 08:30:38 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 01, 2018, 01:12:15 AM
The exit numbers along I-2 imply the ultimate goal would be eventual extension to Laredo. Aside from that, where else in the United States would one even be able to build an Interstate 2? The far South end of Texas is the only place that makes any sense. Adding to that (getting into fictional territory), a Laredo to Corpus Christi route is the only path I could see for "I-6." If not for the I-69 stuff in South Texas, a Houston-Corpus-Laredo route (which I-69 & I-69W are set to follow) probably should have been the path for I-6.

Why not just extend 35 instead of calling it 2?

If it was an extension of I-35, then I-35 would currently have a gap.

The whole system started with gaps

sparker

Quote from: texaskdog on August 03, 2018, 10:47:29 AM
Quote from: 1 on August 01, 2018, 08:41:35 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on August 01, 2018, 08:30:38 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 01, 2018, 01:12:15 AM
The exit numbers along I-2 imply the ultimate goal would be eventual extension to Laredo. Aside from that, where else in the United States would one even be able to build an Interstate 2? The far South end of Texas is the only place that makes any sense. Adding to that (getting into fictional territory), a Laredo to Corpus Christi route is the only path I could see for "I-6." If not for the I-69 stuff in South Texas, a Houston-Corpus-Laredo route (which I-69 & I-69W are set to follow) probably should have been the path for I-6.

Why not just extend 35 instead of calling it 2?

If it was an extension of I-35, then I-35 would currently have a gap.

The whole system started with gaps

The Interstate system has some extensions that "hooked" around in another direction:  the east end (past Raleigh) of I-40, the north end (past Lansing) of I-69, the south end of I-75 (although given FL's shape and where its metro areas are located, that probably couldn't have been helped).  No need to add any more via an I-35 extension down to Harlingen; I-2 will do just fine for that purpose. 

The Ghostbuster

Does anyone see Interstate 2 being extended further west towards Laredo any time soon?

sparker

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 03, 2018, 05:52:06 PM
Does anyone see Interstate 2 being extended further west towards Laredo any time soon?

In bits and pieces, yes; apparently there are some plans for town bypasses (Roma comes to mind) in the works as well as a short extension just west of the present western terminus ("filling in" the freeway between frontages, TX-style!).  Suppose it all depends upon what is considered "anytime soon" -- a guesstimate as to full corridor completion would be the early-mid 2030's.

Bobby5280

Far South Texas is continuing to add population at a brisk growth rate. I think the tourism industry (South Padre Island) is growing; it's a good alternative to the usual Florida destinations for spring breakers. It's only a matter of time for I-2 to be slowly extended farther West. It may take at least a decade for it to get to the Roma area. Population growth could force the issue. It will be interesting to see if I-2 gets signed along Loop 20 in Laredo any time soon. Once that freeway is completed down to US-83 it would be relatively easy to extend the freeway farther South.

Duke87

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 03, 2018, 05:52:06 PM
Does anyone see Interstate 2 being extended further west towards Laredo any time soon?

As far as bypassing Roma, yes. Beyond there? No. There is not nearly enough traffic on US 83 between Laredo and Roma for a freeway to be anywhere close to necessary.

I don't see that changing as much as you might think as the Valley region grows either... the fastest route to that area from just about anywhere else in the US involves US 281/I-69C or US 77/I-69E. US 83 is only the logical approach if you are coming from Laredo or some other smaller community along or relatively near the Rio Grande (Eagle Pass, Del Rio, etc.)

The other thing to keep in mind here is you don't need to improve things to interstate standards to keep traffic moving. Much of US 83 between Laredo and Roma is already posted at 70 MPH. If there is a traffic need it would be more cost effective to just twin US 83 into a four-lane expressway (which Texas will have no qualms posting at 70-75) between Laredo and Roma with a bypass of Zapata. No real need for a full freeway when cross roads and driveways are few and far between.
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

texaskdog

the interstate system is not only based on where you need a freeway, or there wouldn't be that many in the western states

Bobby5280

Quote from: Duke 87As far as bypassing Roma, yes. Beyond there? No. There is not nearly enough traffic on US 83 between Laredo and Roma for a freeway to be anywhere close to necessary.

Far more people live along the US-83 corridor from Laredo down to the end of I-2 in Harlingen than live along the existing I-27 corridor from Amarillo down to Lubbock. Laredo has a slightly higher city limits population than Lubbock (2010 Census figures have it 244,731 vs 229,573). The McAllen-Edinburg-Mission MSA is 774,760 as of the 2010 Census. That's more than the combined metro populations of both Amarillo and Lubbock. And that doesn't count the Brownsville-Harlingen MSA. West of Mission there's all these other towns (La Joya, Sullivan City, Alto Bonito, Garciasville, La Casita, La Puerta, Las Lomas) leading to Rio Grande City. Several more towns are between Rio Grande City and Roma.

Zapata is the only town of significant size between Roma and Laredo. But that section of US-83 isn't as desolate US-281 between Edinburgh and Alice or US-77 between Raymondville and Kingsville. There is definitely enough people living in that Rio Grande region to justify a freeway corridor. I think the only real knock against it is income demographics. There's a lot of people in far South Texas living below the poverty line.

seicer

You are only looking at 3,300 VPD west of Roma at its most desolate, and around 5,000 VPD in most other areas. There isn't justification to spend money to build a freeway when, at most, a two-lane facility built on a four-lane ROW would suffice.

sparker

#366
Quote from: seicer on August 21, 2018, 01:59:57 PM
You are only looking at 3,300 VPD west of Roma at its most desolate, and around 5,000 VPD in most other areas. There isn't justification to spend money to build a freeway when, at most, a two-lane facility built on a four-lane ROW would suffice.

Which isn't the usual TX process.  Frontage roads will be built first, with at-grade intersections and enough space in between the directions to put 6 lanes of freeway (although here it's almost certain they'd start with 4).  This will preserve the ROW so that the full I-2 can be constructed down the line as TXDOT and the local MPO see fit.  It's likely that the only actual freeway segment west of the existing west I-2 terminus for quite some time will be the future Roma bypass. 

Duke87

Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 06, 2018, 03:36:18 PM
Quote from: Duke 87As far as bypassing Roma, yes. Beyond there? No. There is not nearly enough traffic on US 83 between Laredo and Roma for a freeway to be anywhere close to necessary.

Far more people live along the US-83 corridor from Laredo down to the end of I-2 in Harlingen than live along the existing I-27 corridor from Amarillo down to Lubbock.

It's not about population, it's about travel demand. As seicer points out you are looking at 3000-5000 AADT along that stretch of US 83, which is fine for a rural 2-lane road.

I would also argue that the rural parts of I-27 (AADT 11-12k) would be fine as 4-lane expressway not fully grade-separated, but federal funding was earmarked to build it to interstate standards and so it was. Even still, that road is overbuilt as an interstate and now we're talking about giving similar treatment to a road with less than half the traffic count.
If you always take the same road, you will never see anything new.

Bobby5280

Quote from: Duke87It's not about population, it's about travel demand. As seicer points out you are looking at 3000-5000 AADT along that stretch of US 83, which is fine for a rural 2-lane road.

The existing US-83 facility isn't good enough to attract additional demand. Many other parts of the US highway system were in the same position prior to Interstates being built. A properly improved corridor would make a difference for moving local traffic as well as longer distance port and tourism traffic. US-83 is currently more of a corridor to be avoided by long distance traffic reaching the Rio Grande Valley cities.

US-83 is along the larger Ports to Plains Corridor. As that corridor continues to be improved it will attract more long distance traffic. It could generate a lot of traffic from urban centers like Denver. Of course Colorado has its own odd road deficiencies, which makes something like an extension of I-27 into Colorado a long shot, especially if it was left up to Colorado to fund all of it. There's currently all kinds of hub-bub going on about the plan to add a single toll lane in each direction of I-25 between Colorado Springs and Denver, which would make for a rather puny upgrade to just 3 lanes in each direction. Such an "upgrade" would hardly generate any headlines in Texas.

TX DOT has to start planning something. They won't be able to build an extension of I-2 through those parts of far South Texas after daily vehicle counts reach typical Interstate levels. There won't be any place to build the road.

Quote from: sparkerWhich isn't the usual TX process. Frontage roads will be built first, with at-grade intersections and enough space in between the directions to put 6 lanes of freeway (although here it's almost certain they'd start with 4). This will preserve the ROW so that the full I-2 can be constructed down the line as TXDOT and the local MPO see fit. It's likely that the only actual freeway segment west of the existing west I-2 terminus for quite some time will be the future Roma bypass.

TX DOT can take a number of approaches, which they have done elsewhere in the state. The method of building frontage roads with a huge freeway size median works in some places. Frontage roads themselves cost a good bit of money to build and maintain. In other places they can do something as modest as build a new Super-2 road with or without grade separations/exits -kind of like US-82 between Sherman and Paris, TX. The road would have wide enough property set backs so the rest of the freeway can be built later as needed. The first little bits of the Colin County Outer Loop just North of McKinney does a similar thing. It's just a 2 lane road with freeway sized ROW secured off to one side.

At the very least TX DOT needs to work at securing ROW for Future I-2 between Laredo and La Joya, be it frontage roads or an upgrade-able Super-2.

seicer

That system of frontage roads isn't universal in Texas. There are plenty of rural routes built to contemporary standards. I suspect that with the rugged terrain that US 83 has to go through, you'd have some farm/ranch roads intersecting it in lieu of full interchanges. Which makes it more dubious for the need for a full freeway when you can post 70 MPH speed limits on expressways. And 65 MPH speed limits on two-lane routes.

sparker

Quote from: seicer on August 22, 2018, 09:07:46 PM
That system of frontage roads isn't universal in Texas. There are plenty of rural routes built to contemporary standards. I suspect that with the rugged terrain that US 83 has to go through, you'd have some farm/ranch roads intersecting it in lieu of full interchanges. Which makes it more dubious for the need for a full freeway when you can post 70 MPH speed limits on expressways. And 65 MPH speed limits on two-lane routes.

It was mentioned in another thread that TXDOT is planning on eliminating the cross-traffic on I-10 in the Sierra Blanca area via consolidation into a few bridges and ramps for each affected area -- although the I-40 at-grade crossings in the Panhandle will seemingly remain untouched for the present.  If and when it is decided to actually extend I-2 NW to Laredo, there's the distinct possibility that any private access such as this could be simply handled like I-40 well to the north -- with clearly marked private access points.  Or they could elect to choose the path they're planning to take with I-69E on King Ranch property -- a partially separated lane accessing ranch roads with ample deceleration and acceleration zones.  But since I-2 will probably not see full development for at least 20 years; TXDOT will have time to evaluate how well the King Ranch approach works prior to any projects along that corridor. 

Bobby5280

In the near term TX DOT has to get to work on preserving and/or building the I-2 corridor farther West to at least Roma. Existing US-83 between Sullivan City and La Puerta would not be difficult to upgrade. There is enough ROW there for a freeway upgrade. Bypasses will have to be built in other places. The La Joya bypass is already in the works. They've gotta work on other segments to make sure they don't get cut off and swallowed by development.

US-83 is just a 2-lane route between Roma and the Zapata-Falcon Lake area. Zapata to Laredo is the most desolate part of the route. It's not going to be nearly as difficult to do an upgrade on this route similar to the upgrade program TX DOT did on US-277 between Abilene and Wichita Falls.

texaskdog

Quote from: sparker on August 03, 2018, 01:04:06 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on August 03, 2018, 10:47:29 AM
Quote from: 1 on August 01, 2018, 08:41:35 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on August 01, 2018, 08:30:38 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 01, 2018, 01:12:15 AM
The exit numbers along I-2 imply the ultimate goal would be eventual extension to Laredo. Aside from that, where else in the United States would one even be able to build an Interstate 2? The far South end of Texas is the only place that makes any sense. Adding to that (getting into fictional territory), a Laredo to Corpus Christi route is the only path I could see for "I-6." If not for the I-69 stuff in South Texas, a Houston-Corpus-Laredo route (which I-69 & I-69W are set to follow) probably should have been the path for I-6.

Why not just extend 35 instead of calling it 2?

If it was an extension of I-35, then I-35 would currently have a gap.

The whole system started with gaps

The Interstate system has some extensions that "hooked" around in another direction:  the east end (past Raleigh) of I-40, the north end (past Lansing) of I-69, the south end of I-75 (although given FL's shape and where its metro areas are located, that probably couldn't have been helped).  No need to add any more via an I-35 extension down to Harlingen; I-2 will do just fine for that purpose. 

it'll keep heading south

NE2

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".

bugo

Quote from: 707 on July 29, 2018, 06:07:07 AM
I-2
According to Google Maps, the quickest route from Laredo to Brownsville is TX 359 to TX 285 to US 77 to I-69E. There are two alternate routes shown: One follows US 83/I-2 all the way, and the other shows TX 359 to FM 1017 to US 281 to I-69C to I-2 to I-69E.



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.