News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

Proposed I-X10 in Houston

Started by FreewayDan, May 27, 2012, 03:56:35 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

FreewayDan

Two Texas congressmen (U.S. Rep. Michael T. McCaul, R-Austin and U.S. Rep. John Culberson, R-Houston) are proposing to make U.S. 290 (Northwest Freeway) into an Interstate highway.  This effort is to get more federal funds for its expansion.

http://www.chron.com/neighborhood/cyfair-news/article/Officials-favoring-upgrade-by-TXDOT-2180292.php
LEFT ON GREEN
ARROW ONLY


austrini

"the federal government is too big" ... "the federal government should give us money"
AICP (2012), GISP (2020) | Formerly TX, now UK

Anthony_JK

Plus, where exactly will this designation go to?? The rules state that a spur of an Interstate highway must terminate at a NHS or US highway. Unless they plan on upgrading 290 clear to Austin or combining it with an upgrade of SH 6 to Waco, this isn't going to fly for long.

Plus, what are they going to do with the plans to build the SH 249 tolll road??

I figured that when they started to drop I-69 shields on US 77, that others would want to get in on this sham.


Anthony

OCGuy81

What would it be?  It's "parent" would technically be I-610.  An odd number 3-di is what I'd assume unless it did actually connect to 35 in Austin.

I-310?

NE2

Quote from: Anthony_JK on May 27, 2012, 06:21:11 PM
Plus, where exactly will this designation go to?? The rules state that a spur of an Interstate highway must terminate at a NHS or US highway.
US 290 is not ony NHS but (partly) STRAHNET: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/nhs/maps/tx_east/tx_texaseast.pdf

Anyway, Interstate designation doesn't mean more funding.
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".

Perfxion

I love Texas, it doesn't want "dirty federal money" unless its highway funding. They want to turn US290 from Houston to Austin into an interstate. It would be an interstate because it will A: connect with a "child" route of I-10, B: would directly connect with its parent due to the new construction, C: end at either a US or interstate route in Austin.

BTW: the toll road expansion of SH259 is just from Spring Cypress to FM1774. They aren't going any further at the moment.
5/10/20/30/15/35/37/40/44/45/70/76/78/80/85/87/95/
(CA)405,(NJ)195/295(NY)295/495/278/678(CT)395(MD/VA)195/495/695/895

froggie

QuoteUS 290 is not ony NHS but (partly) STRAHNET:

I don't think he was asking about US 290 proper being NHS or STRAHNET.  He was asking what the western terminus of any such Interstate designation would be.  That western terminus, per FHWA policy, would have to be at a logical termini...which in practice usually means an intersecting NHS or STRAHNET route.  That means it'd have to end either at the proposed Grand Parkway (TX 99), or the freeway proper would have to be extended past Hempstead to Brenham (and TX 36).  FHWA wouldn't approve an Interstate until either the Grand Parkway gets built to US 290 or the freeway is extended to Brenham.

Anthony_JK

Quote from: froggie on May 28, 2012, 10:45:46 AM
QuoteUS 290 is not ony NHS but (partly) STRAHNET:

I don't think he was asking about US 290 proper being NHS or STRAHNET.  He was asking what the western terminus of any such Interstate designation would be.  That western terminus, per FHWA policy, would have to be at a logical termini...which in practice usually means an intersecting NHS or STRAHNET route.  That means it'd have to end either at the proposed Grand Parkway (TX 99), or the freeway proper would have to be extended past Hempstead to Brenham (and TX 36).  FHWA wouldn't approve an Interstate until either the Grand Parkway gets built to US 290 or the freeway is extended to Brenham.


Exactly....Froggie got what I was trying to say.

But, I didn't know that SH 36 was a freeway, or that US 290 had a freeway gap between Hempstead and Brenham. I may need to reacquaint myself with Google Maps more.


Anthony

InterstateNG

36 shares pavement with 290 on a freeway bypass of Brenham.

Continuing the freeway past Brenham is problematic.  Currently westbound traffic has to cloverleaf off the bypass to continue on 290.  Giddings has to be bypassed entirely and the final few miles in Austin would be part of the Manor Expresseay, which is going to be a tolled.
I demand an apology.

froggie

SH 36 isn't a freeway, but it's on the NHS and as such could be considered a "logical termini" for any I-x10 designation along US 290.

texaskdog

Quote from: InterstateNG on May 28, 2012, 03:04:32 PM
36 shares pavement with 290 on a freeway bypass of Brenham.

Continuing the freeway past Brenham is problematic.  Currently westbound traffic has to cloverleaf off the bypass to continue on 290.  Giddings has to be bypassed entirely and the final few miles in Austin would be part of the Manor Expresseay, which is going to be a tolled.

Nothing that can't be changed. Won't be too many years before 290 is a freeway anyway, too much traffic heading that way. 

InterstateNG

Hey if it takes more Houston-bound traffic off of 71, that works for me.
I demand an apology.

texaskdog

Quote from: InterstateNG on May 28, 2012, 07:45:58 PM
Hey if it takes more Houston-bound traffic off of 71, that works for me.

Depends which side of Austin you live on.  I"m on the NW side so its 6 of one, half a dozen of the other.  We usually go out 290 & come back on 71.

txstateends

Quote from: FreewayDan on May 27, 2012, 03:56:35 PM
Two Texas congressmen (U.S. Rep. Michael T. McCaul, R-Austin and U.S. Rep. John Culberson, R-Houston)

Why would a Congress-person from Austin care about a possible Interstate that only involves/serves the Houston area, unless there was the possibility of (and his desire for) the Interstate reaching all the way to Austin?
\/ \/ click for a bigger image \/ \/

agentsteel53

Quote from: txstateends on May 29, 2012, 12:40:36 PM

Why would a Congress-person from Austin care about a possible Interstate that only involves/serves the Houston area, unless there was the possibility of (and his desire for) the Interstate reaching all the way to Austin?

economic development in Texas in general would benefit the Austin area.
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

Perfxion

They want to make 290 into a full freeway from Houston to Austin. They also want to make a full freeway from Houston to College Station. The billion dollar question(pun intended) is what money? Isn't this state already going broke with all these road projects? Upgrading US59, Upgrading US277, upgrading US281, upgrading US290, upgrading SH249, building the grand parkway, thats not even touching DFW area. So where is this money coming from? Is it growing on trees? And if so, where is this tree? I might need to make a visit.
5/10/20/30/15/35/37/40/44/45/70/76/78/80/85/87/95/
(CA)405,(NJ)195/295(NY)295/495/278/678(CT)395(MD/VA)195/495/695/895

texaskdog

Who would want to go to College Station?

Chris

It's quite obvious most new projects in Texas will be toll roads. The gas tax hardly covers minimum maintenance and other projects you can't toll.

If Austin would've been a major city in the 1950's I'm sure there would have been some kind of Interstate Highway running from Austin to Houston. However Austin was only a small regional city at the time, like various other state capitals.

texaskdog

Quote from: Chris on May 30, 2012, 03:36:37 PM
It's quite obvious most new projects in Texas will be toll roads. The gas tax hardly covers minimum maintenance and other projects you can't toll.

If Austin would've been a major city in the 1950's I'm sure there would have been some kind of Interstate Highway running from Austin to Houston. However Austin was only a small regional city at the time, like various other state capitals.

I would build up 290 then the mainline from points west to east would run thru austin, though really would have made more sense to run the freeway along 71 heading east

TXtoNJ

If they wanted to troll, they'd number it I-14.
If they really wanted to troll, they'd number it I-27

InterstateNG

I demand an apology.

Cam4rd98

Quote from: InterstateNG on May 28, 2012, 03:04:32 PM
36 shares pavement with 290 on a freeway bypass of Brenham.

Continuing the freeway past Brenham is problematic.  Currently westbound traffic has to cloverleaf off the bypass to continue on 290.  Giddings has to be bypassed entirely and the final few miles in Austin would be part of the Manor Expresseay, which is going to be a tolled.


Quote from: InterstateNG on May 28, 2012, 03:04:32 PM
36 shares pavement with 290 on a freeway bypass of Brenham.

Continuing the freeway past Brenham is problematic.  Currently westbound traffic has to cloverleaf off the bypass to continue on 290.  Giddings has to be bypassed entirely and the final few miles in Austin would be part of the Manor Expresseay, which is going to be a tolled.



I got an idea that would work
Texas 36-US.290 Tie in Brenham



Bobby5280

I don't see a problem adding an Interstate I-x10 spur designation to US-290. But the Interstate designation at this point could only travel to the split with TX-6 at Hempstead.

The 18 mile stretch between Hempstead and Brenham is mostly 4-lane divided highway with at grade intersections. Obviously the freeway in Brenham wouldn't be able to carry any Interstate designation at this point.

It looks like the long term plan is to have College Station linked to the Houston area with superhighway all the way. It might be another matter for TX-6 to carry an Interstate route designation. I sure wouldn't want to see the I-x10 route number being proposed to US-290 hang a hard right turn North to College Station.

Long term (perhaps a decade or two), I can see US-290 eventually being upgraded to full Interstate highway standards from Houston to Austin. If the upgrading progress eventually goes that far it might be alright to rename it with a 2 digit number (I-12 or I-14). There are 3 digit Interstates that do travel significant distances though.

texaskdog

Quote from: Cam4rd98 on September 22, 2013, 05:18:59 PM
Quote from: InterstateNG on May 28, 2012, 03:04:32 PM
36 shares pavement with 290 on a freeway bypass of Brenham.

Continuing the freeway past Brenham is problematic.  Currently westbound traffic has to cloverleaf off the bypass to continue on 290.  Giddings has to be bypassed entirely and the final few miles in Austin would be part of the Manor Expresseay, which is going to be a tolled.


Quote from: InterstateNG on May 28, 2012, 03:04:32 PM
36 shares pavement with 290 on a freeway bypass of Brenham.

Continuing the freeway past Brenham is problematic.  Currently westbound traffic has to cloverleaf off the bypass to continue on 290.  Giddings has to be bypassed entirely and the final few miles in Austin would be part of the Manor Expresseay, which is going to be a tolled.



I got an idea that would work
Texas 36-US.290 Tie in Brenham




Generally we don't do cloverleafs in Texas...except in San Antonio

Henry

Quote from: OCGuy81 on May 27, 2012, 09:15:30 PM
What would it be?  It's "parent" would technically be I-610.  An odd number 3-di is what I'd assume unless it did actually connect to 35 in Austin.

I-310?
I could see that, unless they pulled a Texarkana/NWA and renumbered that spur to I-14, a western I-16, I-18 or even I-12!
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!



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.