UPDATE 2022-10-13: The study recommends a future 4-lane highway. Interstate status is not justified.
https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/statewide/us-57-corridor.html (https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/statewide/us-57-corridor.html)
It's probably going to take another 30+ years to finish I-69, especially in east Texas. There are studies underway for I-12 I-14. There has been a recommendation for numerous interstate corridors associated with the I-27 extension.
And now another study for a corridor which surely cannot justify interstate status? (US 57 from the Eagle Pass border crossing to Moore, TX, along I-35, 43 miles south of San Antonio.)
My suspicion is that someone in the legislature requested this and TxDOT is acceding. Of course this is the first study, and maybe it will recommend four-lane divided instead of interstate standards.
I-12? Is TxDOT finally considering a Houston to Austin interstate?
Quote from: Some one on September 30, 2022, 01:09:16 AM
I-12? Is TxDOT finally considering a Houston to Austin interstate?
I-12 in Louisiana would like a word with TxDOT. :wave:
Perhaps the OP meant I-14, W of Copperas Cove. That is another route that is likely to go nowhere.
Have to wonder, perhaps this proposed US 57 "upgrade" could be called I-69 W II.
Not familiar with corridor, maybe it does need a double barrelling, and not a "poor boy" or a "flush median" job. Maybe they'll cook up a three lane, that's what they did with US 285 N of Pecos. Terrible.
This is a route that I would like to keep the 57 number, upgrade or not. The number 57 is specifically because it's mainly Mexico's route. It's analogous to NB 95.
Wonder how much it's costing...but if they're using Statewide Planning and Research funding (SPR), FHWA has gobs of that...
Quote from: 1 on September 30, 2022, 07:54:22 AM
This is a route that I would like to keep the 57 number, upgrade or not. The number 57 is specifically because it's mainly Mexico's route. It's analogous to NB 95.
They'll probably rename it to Interstate 57 and find a way to connect it to I-57 in Little Rock. (if/when that happens) :-D
Oh great, another Interstate corridor in TX? How many more can they get?
I'm surprised that I-35 has only one child in the entire state, that being I-635 in Dallas. Now would be a perfect time to give it another spur route along the US 57 corridor. How about I-135?
Quote from: Some one on September 30, 2022, 01:09:16 AM
I-12? Is TxDOT finally considering a Houston to Austin interstate?
Austin to Houston is more of a priority than US 57 given the large population of the two metro areas. What are the traffic counts of US 57 between Eagle Pass and I-35? Is this really necessary?
Quote from: Some one on September 30, 2022, 12:02:38 PM
Quote from: 1 on September 30, 2022, 07:54:22 AM
This is a route that I would like to keep the 57 number, upgrade or not. The number 57 is specifically because it's mainly Mexico's route. It's analogous to NB 95.
They'll probably rename it to Interstate 57 and find a way to connect it to I-57 in Little Rock. (if/when that happens) :-D
Take over all of I-30, and you got I-57 south to Dallas at least :-D
2021 AADTs shown below:
(https://i.imgur.com/RtKbwpr.jpg)
Existing US 96 should have been designated US 57 when US 59 was rerouted at Tenaha in 1939. This road should have been given the US 96 designation (or it should have remained TX 57 or TX 76). As for designating US 57 as an Interstate corridor, I agree with the subject thread that it is likely wishful-thinking.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 30, 2022, 02:17:44 PM
Existing US 96 should have been designated US 57 when US 59 was rerouted at Tenaha in 1939. This road should have been given the US 96 designation (or it should have remained TX 57 or TX 76). As for designating US 57 as an Interstate corridor, I agree with the subject thread that it is likely wishful-thinking.
US-96 and US59 were simply switched from Teneha south and the part of SH35 from Teneha to Houston (more or less) was filled in.
Honestly, 59 should not have been changed and the route from Teneha to Mexico given a new number. This was probably a swap that was made when new route numbers were not being approved. Texas wanted a single number route from Texarkana to the RGV.
US-96 where it currently is SHOULD have been either an X-59 or an X-69 if US-59 was going to follow its current route. No one wanted to lose 2-digit US highway numbers back then. Pretty much still don't unless it is superseded by an interstate number (and probably a 2di at that.).
US-57 from Eagle Pass to the Y-junction with I-35 in Moore? Nah, I'm not feeling that for an Interstate corridor. Standard 4-lane divided with at-grade intersections maybe. Even that might be a stretch. The only thing I think helping this concept at all is the relatively short distance of the route (around 96 miles). I think Laredo to Corpus Christi is a far easier potential Interstate corridor to justify building. I-69W would at least cover half the distance to Freer.
Eagle Pass is a significant border crossing, but it pales in comparison drastically to the Laredo crossing. Laredo is on a direct path between Monterrey (5 million metro pop.) and San Antonio. Mexico Autopista route 85D is mostly limited access, pointing into the I-35 corridor. Route 57 going up to Piedras Negras/Eagle pass is a mix of 4-lane divided and 2-lane, but not limited access. If truckers are looking to bypass all the traffic going into Laredo they'll be more likely to take Route 29 up to Ciudad Acuña to cross the river at Del Rio.
An I-27 extension that goes down to San Angelo, then down to Del Rio, Eagle Pass and Laredo would be more valuable than this US-57 idea. It would be even more valuable still if San Angelo and Abilene were linked with a 4-lane divided route. That would provide a higher quality connection into the I-44 corridor. Trucks could more easily bypass Laredo and all the I-35 traffic in Texas by going thru Del Rio. IMHO, I-44 should be extended down to San Angelo to meet an I-27 extension there.
But, yeah, TX DOT has
lots of different fish to fry.
The I-69 corridor is one priority. Progress is slow-going. But if they can get finish enough segments in/around small cities like Lufkin, Nacogdoches and Marshall it may create enough momentum to finish more rural segments faster.
The I-14 corridor has its own uphill battles. Even though there is no Interstate-halo floating over the US-290 and TX-71 corridors those two routes are going to end up getting more and more limited access spot upgrades by virtue of all the growth in Austin and Houston. I can easily imagine both corridors being 100% limited access before I-14 is substantially complete within the Texas Triangle. The TX-80 and TX-46 corridors are important connections to I-10 for the rapidly growing cities of San Marcos and New Braunfels. Buc-ee's is planning its biggest ever store in Luling, where TX-80 meets I-10. I've gotta keep beating the dead horse on US-287 from Amarillo to Fort Worth.
With all that going on, the concept of US-57 as an Interstate from Eagle Pass to I-35 just makes me go: huh? :confused:
Quote from: cjk374I-12 in Louisiana would like a word with TxDOT.
I-74, I-76, I-84, I-86, I-87, I-88. I-49 remains disconnected even though there are long term plans to connect both segments eventually. I-57 may exist in a similar manner for some time. I-69 has multiple disconnected segments. So it's not going to hurt anything for Texas to have a much longer and more significant I-12 route that doesn't connect at all to the one in Louisiana.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 30, 2022, 09:10:09 PM
If truckers are looking to bypass all the traffic going into Laredo they'll be more likely to take Route 29 up to Ciudad Acuña to cross the river at Del Rio.
And they don't. I've hardly ever seen any international trucks at all on Mexico-29 between Allende and Ciudad Acuña, and I've driven that highway probably ten times. It's pretty much all passenger vehicles and local trucks. I do occasionally see dual-plated trucks on US-277 between Del Rio and Sonora, but still not very many.
But truckers aren't looking to bypass Laredo anyway. As I've hammered home over and over again on the forum, only a handful of carriers are granted permission to run dual-plated long-haul runs between the US and Mexico (or vice versa). Everyone else has to drop their trailer in a drayage yard near the border, where it will then be picked up by a dedicated drayage driver, who then drops it off in a drayage yard on the other side of the border, where it then gets picked up by a carrier licensed to operate in that country. And those drayage yards are in and around Laredo. I don't think Del Rio and Acuña really have them–not that I've noticed, anyway. Maybe Eagle Pass and Piedras Negras have some? I haven't made it down to that border crossing yet, so I'm not sure.
Not only is Monterrey the #3 city in Mexico, but it's also a huge manufacturing center. Monclova and Castaños have industry, but most of it is national industry, not necessarily stuff that gets exported to the US. Saltillo goods might as well go through Monterrey anyway. And, for the most part, all that cargo is going to head through Dallas or Houston anyway, so crossing the border farther upriver would just add miles for no real benefit.
Then that's probably all the more reason to make Laredo a key focal point. I-69W is already going there. I-2 is sort penciled in to do so as well (since its exit numbers reflect a likely long-term possibility). The ultimate South terminus for I-27 is Laredo too. I think I-27 should clip Del Rio and Eagle Pass as well, but if it goes all the way to Laredo it will help the other border cities along the way. If it all can be built the end result would be continuous Interstate from the Texas Panhandle down to the South tip of Texas.
Quote from: Some one on September 30, 2022, 01:09:16 AM
I-12? Is TxDOT finally considering a Houston to Austin interstate?
That should have been done decades ago! It's makes perfect sense to connect the state's capital to the state's largest city. And get rid of that cloverleaf ramp at Brenham when continuing on US-290 Westbound while we're at it.
Quote from: DJStephens on September 30, 2022, 07:50:04 AM
Perhaps the OP meant I-14, W of Copperas Cove. That is another route that is likely to go nowhere.
Have to wonder, perhaps this proposed US 57 "upgrade" could be called I-69 W II.
Not familiar with corridor, maybe it does need a double barrelling, and not a "poor boy" or a "flush median" job. Maybe they'll cook up a three lane, that's what they did with US 285 N of Pecos. Terrible.
I think they may have a point in I-12. I-14 is to be N of Houston (Livingston).
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 30, 2022, 09:10:09 PMI've gotta keep beating the dead horse on US-287 from Amarillo to Fort Worth.
Seemingly no legislative or transportation officials want to see the regional connective importance (much less the likely growing traffic counts) of the Fort Worth-Amarillo segment of US 287. Logically, it's much more important (and needed) than the I-14 thing (which is better off a 3di along the portion that exists now) or whatever the US 57 proposal turns out to be.
Quote from: jgb191And get rid of that cloverleaf ramp at Brenham when continuing on US-290 Westbound while we're at it.
It's very likely if/when a US-290 freeway is extended West out of Brenham it will have to be built on a new terrain path. The existing road West of that partial cloverleaf interchange has too much development hugging close to the ROW.
Quote from: US 175Seemingly no legislative or transportation officials want to see the regional connective importance (much less the likely growing traffic counts) of the Fort Worth-Amarillo segment of US 287. Logically, it's much more important (and needed) than the I-14 thing (which is better off a 3di along the portion that exists now) or whatever the US 57 proposal turns out to be.
A bunch of the road would be EASY to upgrade to Interstate standards. Vernon thru Wichita Falls, down thru Bowie and Alford could be done fast with hardly any new ROW needed. Getting closer to Fort Worth is more tricky. From Alford down to Decatur is a tighter squeeze but still do-able. Decatur itself is the toughest nut to crack, but that segment badly needs upgrading. South of Decatur more Interstate quality upgrades are likely.
Amarillo may not be as much of a highway network hub as DFW or OKC. But it's an important stop. Buc-ee's is planning a big super store near the I-40/US-287 junction. Buc-ee's tends to build big stores near important highway junctions. Amarillo's city council already approved it. But progress is being held up due to a legal fight between property owners and Love's, who owns the Speedco Truck Lube and Tires shop. There's a back entrance to it from Juett Attebury Road. The new Buc-ee's location would remove that back entrance. Until the legal issues are solved Buc-ee's won't buy the land.
^
I know I'm getting dangerously close to fantasy here. Curious about how much traffic is actually going to/from Fort Worth. If most of the traffic is going through Fort Worth, it would probably be easier and cheaper to run a freeway east from Decatur to I-35 at Denton along the US 380 corridor rather than continuing down to Fort Worth. Too bad it's probably too late to upgrade US 380 to freeway from Denton to the other side of McKinney; it would have made part of a great bypass of the entire metro.
Quote from: skluth on October 02, 2022, 03:38:04 PM
^
I know I'm getting dangerously close to fantasy here. Curious about how much traffic is actually going to/from Fort Worth. If most of the traffic is going through Fort Worth, it would probably be easier and cheaper to run a freeway east from Decatur to I-35 at Denton along the US 380 corridor rather than continuing down to Fort Worth. Too bad it's probably too late to upgrade US 380 to freeway from Denton to the other side of McKinney; it would have made part of a great bypass of the entire metro.
As grown up as it is, 380 will probably be freeway from at least Decatur to Princeton and probably eventually I-30.
As to 287, Rhome and TX114 is the plan for the Dallas Route. TXDOT already has the ROW for full freeway from Decatur to Rhome and US-287 is already freeway from Rhome to Fort Worth.
Quote from: Henry on September 30, 2022, 12:57:51 PM
I'm surprised that I-35 has only one child in the entire state, that being I-635 in Dallas. Now would be a perfect time to give it another spur route along the US 57 corridor. How about I-135?
There's five odd x35s available in TX, and you want to use the one that would duplicate a major 100-mile route accessible within a day's travel of TX? Why?
535, 735, or 935 would be preferable. Personally, I vote 735. It has both a 5 and a 7 in it, and there's no I-735 anywhere in the country.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 30, 2022, 02:17:44 PM
Existing US 96 should have been designated US 57 when US 59 was rerouted at Tenaha in 1939. This road should have been given the US 96 designation (or it should have remained TX 57 or TX 76). As for designating US 57 as an Interstate corridor, I agree with the subject thread that it is likely wishful-thinking.
US-57 has that number because it connects to Mexico 57. It wasn't ever intended to fit in the grid.
Quote from: bwana39I know I'm getting dangerously close to fantasy here. Curious about how much traffic is actually going to/from Fort Worth. If most of the traffic is going through Fort Worth, it would probably be easier and cheaper to run a freeway east from Decatur to I-35 at Denton along the US 380 corridor rather than continuing down to Fort Worth.
Just in terms of traffic movement within the greater DFW region the US-287 corridor from Decatur to Fort Worth needs to be upgraded to Interstate standards regardless of US-380.
US-380 is a whole other legit issue. It has rapidly growing demands and needs for a Interstate-class upgrade from Decatur to Greenville. The Denton to McKinney segment is especially urgent, yet difficult to tackle due to the massive amount of development that has already taken place along the corridor. Add US-82 to this mix; that corridor from Gainesville to Sherman needs a full blown upgrade ASAP. If the DFW metro continues growing like it has for the past 30 years than it will be eventually necessary for the US-82 corridor to be upgraded from Henrietta clear over to New Boston.
Quote from: bwana39 on October 02, 2022, 06:26:48 PM
Quote from: skluth on October 02, 2022, 03:38:04 PM
^
I know I'm getting dangerously close to fantasy here. Curious about how much traffic is actually going to/from Fort Worth. If most of the traffic is going through Fort Worth, it would probably be easier and cheaper to run a freeway east from Decatur to I-35 at Denton along the US 380 corridor rather than continuing down to Fort Worth. Too bad it's probably too late to upgrade US 380 to freeway from Denton to the other side of McKinney; it would have made part of a great bypass of the entire metro.
As grown up as it is, 380 will probably be freeway from at least Decatur to Princeton and probably eventually I-30.
As to 287, Rhome and TX114 is the plan for the Dallas Route. TXDOT already has the ROW for full freeway from Decatur to Rhome and US-287 is already freeway from Rhome to Fort Worth.
Not quite yet. There are at least 4 at-grade crossings with a large number of private drives on 287 between Rhome and Avondale. The stretch from Avondate to 35W still has a number of private drives and no frontage roads. I believe that stretch is being addressed by TxDOT over the next few years.
There are real plans to eliminate the last remaining driveways emptying into US-287 between Avondale and I-35W. That and other improvements to the US-287 main lanes there should be done within the next few years.
From Avondale up to Rhome and the TX-114 split is less clear. But that stretch of US-287 definitely needs to be fully Interstate quality. There is just enough ROW preserved to fill in the frontage road gaps. The US-287/TX-114 interchange may need some improvements; the current ramp designs are not all that great. TX-114 is threatening to turn into a big problem between the US-287 split and the Northwest ISD school complex. TX DOT should have reserved enough ROW for a full freeway facility. The existing 4-lane divided highway is threatening to be downgraded into a stupid-slow suburban street pigged with traffic signals. TX-114 is a major in/out access route for the DFW metro. It shouldn't be a reduced into a city street.
US-287 North of Rhome up to the southern edge of Decatur would be (for now) easy to upgrade to Interstate quality. Within Decatur US-287 is turning into a big, increasingly dangerous mess. There's just too much crap built right up onto the edge of the US-287 main lanes. The highway is busy through there, yet all sorts of traffic from businesses and side streets can just whip right out there into the highway. It's stupid how TX-DOT has let this situation persist for decades. They have more freeway upgrade plans drawn up for US-287 both North and South of Decatur. As far as I can tell they're not planning anything for US-287 within Decatur. TX-DOT needs to stop farting around on this.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 02, 2022, 02:11:40 PM
Quote from: jgb191And get rid of that cloverleaf ramp at Brenham when continuing on US-290 Westbound while we're at it.
It's very likely if/when a US-290 freeway is extended West out of Brenham it will have to be built on a new terrain path. The existing road West of that partial cloverleaf interchange has too much development hugging close to the ROW.
https://www.txdot.gov/projects/projects-studies/bryan/us290-brenham.html
Looks like they chose Alternative B.
Regardless of what happens in the US 290 corridor, I do not think an Interstate designation should be applied to 290. Then again, this is Texas, where every highway corridor has to become an Interstate.
I was talking to the president of ASCE today and he was talking about how I-30 was supposed to go through Starkville, home of MS State U. First I'd heard of that. Guess they didn't have the Texas attitude they needed.
Quote from: Alps on October 06, 2022, 09:29:05 PM
I was talking to the president of ASCE today and he was talking about how I-30 was supposed to go through Starkville, home of MS State U. First I'd heard of that. Guess they didn't have the Texas attitude they needed.
Heh. A better way from Little Rock to Jackson with a new Mississippi River bridge would be nice...
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 04, 2022, 01:56:29 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 02, 2022, 02:11:40 PM
Quote from: jgb191And get rid of that cloverleaf ramp at Brenham when continuing on US-290 Westbound while we're at it.
It's very likely if/when a US-290 freeway is extended West out of Brenham it will have to be built on a new terrain path. The existing road West of that partial cloverleaf interchange has too much development hugging close to the ROW.
https://www.txdot.gov/projects/projects-studies/bryan/us290-brenham.html
Option B I think looks to be the best choice
Option E is also good
Option D looks alright but can also work
Option C looks very unorthodox
Option A no way Jose
Quote from: Alps on October 06, 2022, 09:29:05 PM
I was talking to the president of ASCE today and he was talking about how I-30 was supposed to go through Starkville, home of MS State U. First I'd heard of that. Guess they didn't have the Texas attitude they needed.
I think that was just wishful thinking. Nowhere have I seen any indication or study of I-30 going through Starkville, dating back to my time stationed there 20 years ago and digging through MDOT and state archives. Even the 78,800 mile system (https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/8270276839) that was part of the Interregional Highways report lacked an Interstate corridor across US 82 in Mississippi.
Quote from: froggie on October 07, 2022, 08:44:10 AM
Quote from: Alps on October 06, 2022, 09:29:05 PM
I was talking to the president of ASCE today and he was talking about how I-30 was supposed to go through Starkville, home of MS State U. First I'd heard of that. Guess they didn't have the Texas attitude they needed.
I think that was just wishful thinking. Nowhere have I seen any indication or study of I-30 going through Starkville, dating back to my time stationed there 20 years ago and digging through MDOT and state archives. Even the 78,800 mile system (https://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/8270276839) that was part of the Interregional Highways report lacked an Interstate corridor across US 82 in Mississippi.
They didn't have US-82 in Arkansas as one either. Funny thing, looking at that pie in the sky 79K map shows that Arkansas actually eventually will have what was in that version with currently progressing plans, except for US-65 and US-167.
Quote from: Alps on October 06, 2022, 09:29:05 PM
I was talking to the president of ASCE today and he was talking about how I-30 was supposed to go through Starkville, home of MS State U. First I'd heard of that. Guess they didn't have the Texas attitude they needed.
For I-30 to grid correctly (on a blank slate) it should have followed US-82 at least from Birmingham (and likely skipping Tuscaloosa) to Texarkana. That would likely go through / near Starkville. Perhaps even to I-25. (and perhaps along US-60 to Phoenix... but the mountains)
I-20 should have skipped Birmingham and went through Montgomery.
I-30 should have gone to Atlanta and I-20 should have tracked closer to Columbus.
Dallas to LRA should have been a 3DI or at best not an X-0 Interstate.
The the realities of routing these interstates to economic centers and political strongholds undid the "Perfect Grid" .
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 06, 2022, 05:03:03 PM
Regardless of what happens in the US 290 corridor, I do not think an Interstate designation should be applied to 290. Then again, this is Texas, where every highway corridor has to become an Interstate.
Makes more sense than I-14 or whatever US 57 is gonna be. But I do agree that not every corridor needs to have an interstate shield slapped on it.
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 04, 2022, 01:56:29 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 02, 2022, 02:11:40 PM
Quote from: jgb191And get rid of that cloverleaf ramp at Brenham when continuing on US-290 Westbound while we're at it.
It's very likely if/when a US-290 freeway is extended West out of Brenham it will have to be built on a new terrain path. The existing road West of that partial cloverleaf interchange has too much development hugging close to the ROW.
https://www.txdot.gov/projects/projects-studies/bryan/us290-brenham.html
Now when are they gonna focus on the Giddings bypass and the Elgin-Manor freeway/tollway overpasses?
Quote from: jgb191Option B I think looks to be the best choice
Option E is also good
Option D looks alright but can also work
Option C looks very unorthodox
Option A no way Jose
Option B looks like it could work
in the short term. But it doesn't work out as great if the ultimate plan is to upgrade US-290 to Interstate standards along the existing ROW. Just West of the TX-36/US-290 interchange a lot of property hugs pretty close to the ROW. According to the map Option B would have to clear at least a few buildings just to work.
Option E looks like it would remove fewer buildings. Option D, while going a bit out of the way (going North and then curving back down into the US-290 ROW), would take the fewest number of buildings.
Quote from: TheBoxNow when are they gonna focus on the Giddings bypass and the Elgin-Manor freeway/tollway overpasses?
Are there any specific plans yet for a new terrain bypass around Giddings? TX DOT did a modest upgrade project on 8 miles of US-290 East of Giddings, but it's not Interstate quality. I still believe this road will need to be upgraded to Interstate quality, regardless if it is labeled by an Interstate shield or not.
The meeting video is now online https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSwKc8SpI0Q (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSwKc8SpI0Q)
The study concluded that Interstate status is not justified by current and future traffic. A four-lane divided highway is recommended. This is a a logical outcome.
Option | Cost | Benefit/cost ratio |
4-lane undivided | $420 million | 1.12 |
4-lane divided | $510 million | 1.3 |
Interstate | $2 billion | 0.4 |
Quote from: MaxConcrete on October 13, 2022, 01:15:10 PM
The meeting video is now online https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSwKc8SpI0Q (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vSwKc8SpI0Q)
The study concluded that Interstate status is not justified by current and future traffic. A four-lane divided highway is recommended. This is a a logical outcome.
Option | Cost | Benefit/cost ratio |
4-lane undivided | $420 million | 1.12 |
4-lane divided | $510 million | 1.3 |
Interstate | $2 billion | 0.4 |
Similar benefit to parts 2 and 3 with only slight improvements.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 06, 2022, 05:03:03 PM
Regardless of what happens in the US 290 corridor, I do not think an Interstate designation should be applied to 290. Then again, this is Texas, where every highway corridor has to become an Interstate.
There's not enough conversions to 3 DI's. Plenty of routes, statewide, that COULD have been developed in the last FIFTY years, to have become Interstates.
1. El Paso. could have had 110, 210, and 310 fully in place by now. Cuidad Juarez cannot be ignored, there is a lot of cross-border international traffic, piling onto the El Paso highway network. Metro region of 3 million plus now. Work done since the beginning of the Rick Perry regime has been spotty, it's inconsistent, and numerous mistakes along with Waste is evident. Lowered Design standards. Poor prioritization and decision-making. Darn is pete rahn working as a consultant now?? (Clearview, architectural frills, landscaping etc.) The "piece-mealing" more than anything else, is what stands out. Possibly as much as 1.5 Billion squandered. In El Paso county alone.
2. Lubbock. Loop 289 should have had an Interstate shield, 45 years ago. With Volleyball removals.
3. Odessa-Midland. Big enough to have had at least a half Beltway, N of I-20 around both cities.
4. San Antonio. Why isn't the Charles Anderson Loop fully built out, with an I shield??
5. Houston. Several routes could have had the shield, most notably Beltway 8. And US - 290.
6. DFW. Same possibilities as Houston, several routes in the metro could have had shields.
7. Even Austin could have had supplementary routes.
Texas is a state that is big enough, highly populous enough and in a vital enough location that lots of Interstate routes can be easily justified. The state has a bunch of non-Interstate highway corridors that could carry Interstate shields without question if they were fully upgraded. That's part of what makes this US-57 Eagle Pass-San Antonio thing such a head scratcher. There's a bunch of other corridors within Texas in more need of Interstate quality upgrades than this one.
Austin's city limits population as of the 2020 Census was 965,872. The MSA population is 2.2 million. There is a lot of important business and industry there. Austin also happens to be a popular regional tourist destination. All of this adds up to Austin being 100% absolutely worthy of having an Interstate corridor crossing it East-West.
US-290 absolutely should be Interstate quality from Houston to Austin as well as West out past Fredericksburg to I-10. Throw in TX-71 from Austin to Columbus for good measure. Add to that I-10 connections for New Braunfels and San Marcos. The San Antonio metro is growing rapidly as well. There could be Interstate shields all over the place in that region.
Even if TX DOT does convert a highway to Interstate standards more often than not the end result ends up carrying a US Highway or State Highway marker. There are numerous examples of this in the metros of DFW, Houston, Austin, San Antonio, El Paso, Lubbock, Amarillo (Loop 335 in progress), etc. Even the swarm of small cities in far South Texas may end up having the same thing: state-named loop freeways connecting to I-2, I-69C and I-69E.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 15, 2022, 11:41:02 AM.
Even if TX DOT does convert a highway to Interstate standards more often than not the end result ends up carrying a US Highway or State Highway marker. There are numerous examples of this in the metros of DFW, Houston, Austin, San Antonio, El Paso, Lubbock, Amarillo (Loop 327 in progress), etc. Even the swarm of small cities in far South Texas may end up having the same thing: state-named loop freeways connecting to I-2, I-69C and I-69E.
*Loop 335 ?
Yeah, I should have wrote Loop 335. I think I had I-27 on the brain when I wrote that typo. When the loop is completed it could (in theory) carry a "I-427" shield. More likely it will just stay named as Loop 335.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 15, 2022, 11:41:02 AM
US-290 absolutely should be Interstate quality from Houston to Austin as well as West out past Fredericksburg to I-10. Throw in TX-71 from Austin to Columbus for good measure. Add to that I-10 connections for New Braunfels and San Marcos. The San Antonio metro is growing rapidly as well. There could be Interstate shields all over the place in that region.
Even if TX DOT does convert a highway to Interstate standards more often than not the end result ends up carrying a US Highway or State Highway marker. There are numerous examples of this in the metros of DFW, Houston, Austin, San Antonio, El Paso, Lubbock, Amarillo (Loop 335 in progress), etc. Even the swarm of small cities in far South Texas may end up having the same thing: state-named loop freeways connecting to I-2, I-69C and I-69E.
It's crazy to me that no state representative has pushed for an Interstate (or even just a full
limited access upgrade) between Austin and Houston.
Quote from: thisdj78 on October 18, 2022, 11:21:25 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 15, 2022, 11:41:02 AM
US-290 absolutely should be Interstate quality from Houston to Austin as well as West out past Fredericksburg to I-10. Throw in TX-71 from Austin to Columbus for good measure. Add to that I-10 connections for New Braunfels and San Marcos. The San Antonio metro is growing rapidly as well. There could be Interstate shields all over the place in that region.
Even if TX DOT does convert a highway to Interstate standards more often than not the end result ends up carrying a US Highway or State Highway marker. There are numerous examples of this in the metros of DFW, Houston, Austin, San Antonio, El Paso, Lubbock, Amarillo (Loop 335 in progress), etc. Even the swarm of small cities in far South Texas may end up having the same thing: state-named loop freeways connecting to I-2, I-69C and I-69E.
It's crazy to me that no state representative has pushed for an Interstate (or even just a full
limited access upgrade) between Austin and Houston.
That should be an indicator of the actual need.
Quote from: Rothman on October 18, 2022, 11:27:18 PM
Quote from: thisdj78 on October 18, 2022, 11:21:25 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 15, 2022, 11:41:02 AM
US-290 absolutely should be Interstate quality from Houston to Austin as well as West out past Fredericksburg to I-10. Throw in TX-71 from Austin to Columbus for good measure. Add to that I-10 connections for New Braunfels and San Marcos. The San Antonio metro is growing rapidly as well. There could be Interstate shields all over the place in that region.
Even if TX DOT does convert a highway to Interstate standards more often than not the end result ends up carrying a US Highway or State Highway marker. There are numerous examples of this in the metros of DFW, Houston, Austin, San Antonio, El Paso, Lubbock, Amarillo (Loop 335 in progress), etc. Even the swarm of small cities in far South Texas may end up having the same thing: state-named loop freeways connecting to I-2, I-69C and I-69E.
It's crazy to me that no state representative has pushed for an Interstate (or even just a full
limited access upgrade) between Austin and Houston.
That should be an indicator of the actual need.
So apparently Texas needs an interstate on an empty two-lane road more than it needs a route connecting two of its largest 5 cities by that logic?
Quote from: Rothman on October 18, 2022, 11:27:18 PM
Quote from: thisdj78 on October 18, 2022, 11:21:25 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 15, 2022, 11:41:02 AM
US-290 absolutely should be Interstate quality from Houston to Austin as well as West out past Fredericksburg to I-10. Throw in TX-71 from Austin to Columbus for good measure. Add to that I-10 connections for New Braunfels and San Marcos. The San Antonio metro is growing rapidly as well. There could be Interstate shields all over the place in that region.
Even if TX DOT does convert a highway to Interstate standards more often than not the end result ends up carrying a US Highway or State Highway marker. There are numerous examples of this in the metros of DFW, Houston, Austin, San Antonio, El Paso, Lubbock, Amarillo (Loop 335 in progress), etc. Even the swarm of small cities in far South Texas may end up having the same thing: state-named loop freeways connecting to I-2, I-69C and I-69E.
It's crazy to me that no state representative has pushed for an Interstate (or even just a full
limited access upgrade) between Austin and Houston.
That should be an indicator of the actual need.
Definitely more of a need than I-14.
It's not the name as much as the conceptualizing, followed by the funding, followed by the execution.
Functionally a SH spur in Denison works as well right now as a direct IH shot to Dallas.
Quote from: Rothman on October 18, 2022, 11:27:18 PM
Quote from: thisdj78 on October 18, 2022, 11:21:25 PM
It's crazy to me that no state representative has pushed for an Interstate (or even just a full
limited access upgrade) between Austin and Houston.
That should be an indicator of the actual need.
That assumes elected officials are rational actors whose only goal is providing the most benefit to their constituents.
Quote from: Scott5114That assumes elected officials are rational actors whose only goal is providing the most benefit to their constituents.
The issue shouldn't be 100% up to lawmakers within Austin. Sub-par highway connections to the 11th most populous city in the US affect far more motorists than merely those who live within Austin city limits.
Big picture highway network issues come into play here.
And, yes, not all lawmakers from the Austin area are exactly interested in improving highways. Some are more inclined to block such improvement efforts. Thankfully, most of the highway improvements needed are well outside Austin city limits (and outside the jurisdiction of anti-roads urban politicians). It's the rural between-cities connectors that need a lot of work. That puts the ball more in the court of state and federal officials than any local politicians.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 19, 2022, 02:13:03 PM
Quote from: Scott5114That assumes elected officials are rational actors whose only goal is providing the most benefit to their constituents.
The issue shouldn't be 100% up to lawmakers within Austin. Sub-par highway connections to the 11th most populous city in the US affect far more motorists than merely those who live within Austin city limits. Big picture highway network issues come into play here.
And, yes, not all lawmakers from the Austin area are exactly interested in improving highways. Some are more inclined to block such improvement efforts. Thankfully, most of the highway improvements needed are well outside Austin city limits (and outside the jurisdiction of anti-roads urban politicians). It's the rural between-cities connectors that need a lot of work. That puts the ball more in the court of state and federal officials than any local politicians.
Agreed. When I mentioned state reps, I was thinking about the folks that represent the areas between Austin and Houston (eg. LaGrange, Smithville, Giddings, Elgin, Brenham, etc).
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 02, 2022, 07:25:05 PM
Quote from: Henry on September 30, 2022, 12:57:51 PM
I'm surprised that I-35 has only one child in the entire state, that being I-635 in Dallas. Now would be a perfect time to give it another spur route along the US 57 corridor. How about I-135?
There's five odd x35s available in TX, and you want to use the one that would duplicate a major 100-mile route accessible within a day's travel of TX? Why?
535, 735, or 935 would be preferable. Personally, I vote 735. It has both a 5 and a 7 in it, and there's no I-735 anywhere in the country.
I've given it lots of thought, and yeah, it would be nice to have a unique spur numbering system. I-535 is currently used in Duluth, near the other end of I-35, so that makes two 3di's that have yet to be used. And given the choice between I-735 and I-935, I'd pick the lower number as well.
A theoretical Interstate number for US-57 from Eagle Pass to I-35 doesn't really matter since the study concluded a standard 4-lane full access highway would be sufficient.
TX-255 just North of Laredo has the potential to be a future I-x35 route. That's one of a few possible freeway upgrades there. Mines Road from the I-69W interchange up to TX-255 looks like it needs to be converted into a freeway. That could be either a I-x35 route or a I-x69 route. Mines Road has a tremendous amount of heavy truck traffic. Mines Road looks like it has enough room in the median for a four lane freeway along much of its length. Closer to the I-69W loop where ROW is much tighter an elevated freeway would suffice. The surroundings are pretty much all industrial and logistical, so it's not like a bunch of home owners would be complaining about an "ugly" elevated highway structure.
The TX-46 corridor from Boerne to Seguin could be a future freeway/turnpike corridor around the Northern reaches of San Antonio. If a super highway was ever built out along that way it might more likely carry a I-x10 label, but a I-x35 route would also be possible. San Marcos to Luling (TX-80) is another possible future I-x35 route.
The Austin area has a couple or so routes that could have been named as I-x35 routes. The DFW metro has several. The loops around Temple and Waco aren't fully up to Interstate standards.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 20, 2022, 11:40:51 AM
TX-255 just North of Laredo has the potential to be a future I-x35 route. That's one of a few possible freeway upgrades there.
The Camino Colombia Toll Road was built with the promise of (1) a bypass to be built on the Mexican side that would connect to it at the Colombia POE and (2) all commercial traffic being required to use the Colombia POE. Instead, Texas decided to build the World Trade Bridge crossing, and Mexico built its bypass to connect to that POE instead. Traffic counts on the CCTR were therefore abysmally low compared to the projections the investors had banked on, the agency went bankrupt, and the toll road facility was auctioned off on the courthouse steps. Texas bought it, at which point it became TX-255, and the tollbooth was removed.
I'm more than a bit skeptical that such a failure of a highway needs to be an Interstate. Most of it isn't four lanes, and no traffic count site along its length exceeds 4000 AADT. I've never seen anything more than light traffic on it, any of the dozen or so times I've driven the highway.
Truckers aren't avoiding TX-255 because it's not an Interstate. They're avoiding it because Colombia isn't the POE they're headed to.
Aside from the controversy with the failed Camino-Columbia toll road, Laredo is the most busy inland Port of Entry in the US. Most of the traffic crosses the Mexico border where I-69W ends. That crossing has only so much capacity.
Lots of new logistical buildings and warehouses have been getting built in the Laredo area. A bunch of it is up and down the Mines Road corridor. If commercial traffic gets too backed up at the World Trade Bridge in Laredo the Columbia POE could serve as a relief valve for that.
There's no need to convert TX-255 to Interstate quality very soon (although it would be a pretty simple project). But the city population of Laredo is forecast to go from 270,000 currently to 420,000 by 2060. At some between now and then both Mines Road and TX-255 might need substantial freeway upgrades.
I wholeheartedly agree that Mines Road needs some serious help.
But–and I know I've harped on this several times in the past–the huge majority of truck lines simply aren't permitted to cross directly between the USA and Mexico. For example, as of September 2021, there were only 63 Mexican carriers allowed to operate directly into the USA. I don't know the number of US operators allowed to operate directly into Mexico, but my understanding is that it's substantially lower because hardly any US carriers are interested in operating in Mexico. While it's possible that USMCA (Trump's "NAFTA 2.0") may finally get that number starting to tick upward, the agreement still has verbiage that allows the USA to stop accepting new applications from Mexican carriers if the political powers that be determine it's in the USA's best interest to do so.
As for the other 99% of carriers with cross-border loads, they have to drop their trailers off in drayage yards before the border, where the trailers are subsequently picked up by dedicated drayage drivers (who are Teamsters, hence the pushback against allowing NAFTA-required cross-border long-haul operations, and hence the abandonment of the pilot program a decade ago, and hence it taking the revocation of NAFTA to make any progress at all, twenty years after the NAFTA deadline, but that's enough politics for now) to take across and drop off in a drayage yard on the other side. So, except for that tiny group of select dual-plated international carriers, no driver is heading straight from San Antonio to Monterrey (or vice versa) anyway: they're all heading to a destination within Laredo city limits. To that end, TX-255 is of no use to them.
In addition to an interstate standard highway between Houston and Austin (say I-12), I'd say add a triple-figure numbered interstate from Hempstead to Bryan (perhaps I-112) or even continue all the way to Waco by following TX-6.
It's pretty baffling that Laredo is destined to have 4 interstates in the future but Austin, the state capital and 4th largest city, can't even get one east-west interstate.
Quote from: kphogerAs for the other 99% of carriers with cross-border loads, they have to drop their trailers off in drayage yards before the border, where the trailers are subsequently picked up by dedicated drayage drivers (who are Teamsters, hence the pushback against allowing NAFTA-required cross-border long-haul operations, and hence the abandonment of the pilot program a decade ago, and hence it taking the revocation of NAFTA to make any progress at all, twenty years after the NAFTA deadline, but that's enough politics for now) to take across and drop off in a drayage yard on the other side.
As traffic levels crossing the border at Laredo continue to increase more drayage yards will be needed. There is a lot more open space for such yards near the Columbia border crossing than there is down near the World Trade Bridge.
Quote from: jgb191In addition to an interstate standard highway between Houston and Austin (say I-12), I'd say add a triple-figure numbered interstate from Hempstead to Bryan (perhaps I-112) or even continue all the way to Waco by following TX-6.
The TX-249 toll road from Houston to (almost) Navasota will undercut the need to upgrade TX-6 to limited access from Hempstead to Navasota. I think chances are better TX-6 between Waco and Bryan will be upgraded to Interstate quality
regardless of efforts to build out I-14. A lot of Fort Worth to Houston traffic uses TX-6 from Waco on down rather than using I-45.
Quote from: Some oneIt's pretty baffling that Laredo is destined to have 4 interstates in the future but Austin, the state capital and 4th largest city, can't even get one east-west interstate.
I have no problem with Laredo turning into a major Interstate highway hub. I do find it baffling some people argue against Austin having any real East-West thru Interstate routes. Some even think I-14, nearly an hour's drive North in Killeen, is "good enough" for Austin's East-West travel.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 21, 2022, 07:00:18 PM
As traffic levels crossing the border at Laredo continue to increase more drayage yards will be needed. There is a lot more open space for such yards near the Columbia Colombia border crossing than there is down near the World Trade Bridge.
How much is cross-border commercial traffic on the rise at Laredo?
Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 21, 2022, 07:00:18 PM
Quote from: Some oneIt's pretty baffling that Laredo is destined to have 4 interstates in the future but Austin, the state capital and 4th largest city, can't even get one east-west interstate.
I have no problem with Laredo turning into a major Interstate highway hub. I do find it baffling some people argue against Austin having any real East-West thru Interstate routes. Some even think I-14, nearly an hour's drive North in Killeen, is "good enough" for Austin's East-West travel.
Any city being an interstate hub is usually a good thing, especially a city with significant international traffic. Could care less if Austin gets another interstate when the more immediate concern is the stop-and-stop-and-stop-again traffic on I-35.
Quote from: kphogerHow much is cross-border commercial traffic on the rise at Laredo?
I don't know the current levels versus forecast levels. But it looks like there is potential for a very dramatic increase in cross-border traffic. Laredo's population is forecast to increase dramatically. Then there is the issue of China's increasingly adversarial relationship with the US. There is increasing motivation to repatriate some manufacturing back within the US. Mexico is also an alternative. For instance a lot of auto manufacturing/assembly is done in Mexico. I can imagine a lot more production being shifted from China to Mexico.
Quote from: skluthAny city being an interstate hub is usually a good thing, especially a city with significant international traffic. Could care less if Austin gets another interstate when the more immediate concern is the stop-and-stop-and-stop-again traffic on I-35.
The traffic issues with I-35 in the center of Austin don't cancel out the needs to improve the US-290 and TX-71 corridors. Those are the primary connections between the Austin and Houston metros. And US-290 is the Austin metro's primary outlet to West Texas.
Most vehicles made in Mexico are transported across the border by rail, not by truck–although car parts are indeed shipped by truck.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 21, 2022, 07:00:18 PM
The TX-249 toll road from Houston to (almost) Navasota will undercut the need to upgrade TX-6 to limited access from Hempstead to Navasota. I think chances are better TX-6 between Waco and Bryan will be upgraded to Interstate quality regardless of efforts to build out I-14. A lot of Fort Worth to Houston traffic uses TX-6 from Waco on down rather than using I-45.
Oh yeah I forgot about the Tomball Tollway. And I agree that the TX-6 between Bryan and Waco should be at least a major four-lane divided highway, if not full interstate quality....this gives drivers an alternative route between Ft. Worth and Houston (along with US-287/I-45).
As for Laredo, it has more than doubled in size between 1990 and 2020....the city has now well over a quarter-million people, and probably will reach a half-million between 2040 and 2050. Laredo (much like the rest of South Texas) has several desirable qualities: mid-size city with a small-town feel, easy to drive/navigate, one of the most affordable cities to live in North America, plentiful land, and one of the most attractive year-round climate you'll find anywhere in the country (only about three freezing night per year). Many people do go golfing in Laredo during the winter months.
That's probably correct. Eagle Pass isn't really all that big of a place.
Quote from: jgb191Oh yeah I forgot about the Tomball Tollway. And I agree that the TX-6 between Bryan and Waco should be at least a major four-lane divided highway, if not full interstate quality....this gives drivers an alternative route between Ft. Worth and Houston (along with US-287/I-45).
I think it is very odd that so much of TX-6 between Waco and Bryan is built as an undivided 4-lane road. That's a busy highway. I know people here in Lawton who choose to drive thru Waco and College Station for road trips to Houston rather than use I-45. Some of that has to do with
where in the giant-sized Houston metro they're driving. It also has to do with I-45 being able to deliver traffic nightmares almost any time of the day or night.
A few years ago I got caught in a major traffic jam on I-45 near The Woodlands. It was near midnight. A serious multi-vehicle accident closed down all the Southbound lanes and traffic was diverted to the frontage roads.
It doesn't look like I-14 has much potential to deliver any substantial upgrades along the TX-6 corridor. The "proposed" route follows US-190 in a extremely stupid "W" shape (Cameron, Milano, Hearne, Bryan & Madisonville). There is a chance actual sanity might come into the situation, making I-14 go more direct to Bryan and then College Station to Huntsville. But that would also mean hardly any more of TX-6 being upgraded to Interstate standards.
Under the current traffic situation within the Texas Triangle, TX-6 is a more important corridor than US-190.
Quote from: jgb191As for Laredo, it has more than doubled in size between 1990 and 2020....the city has now well over a quarter-million people, and probably will reach a half-million between 2040 and 2050. Laredo (much like the rest of South Texas) has several desirable qualities: mid-size city with a small-town feel, easy to drive/navigate, one of the most affordable cities to live in North America, plentiful land, and one of the most attractive year-round climate you'll find anywhere in the country (only about three freezing night per year). Many people do go golfing in Laredo during the winter months.
It's certainly possible for Laredo's metro population to pass 500,000 before 2050. Over a million people live in the Brownsville-McAllen complex of cities. The cost of living in far South Texas is relatively low and the weather is tropical almost year-round. Laredo isn't as Hurricane-prone as Brownsville. Anyone wanting to move down to that part of Texas should brush up on their Spanish. It's still technically America, but a lot of residents down there don't speak much English.
Quote from: thisdj78 on October 20, 2022, 08:40:59 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 19, 2022, 02:13:03 PM
Quote from: Scott5114That assumes elected officials are rational actors whose only goal is providing the most benefit to their constituents.
The issue shouldn't be 100% up to lawmakers within Austin. Sub-par highway connections to the 11th most populous city in the US affect far more motorists than merely those who live within Austin city limits. Big picture highway network issues come into play here.
And, yes, not all lawmakers from the Austin area are exactly interested in improving highways. Some are more inclined to block such improvement efforts. Thankfully, most of the highway improvements needed are well outside Austin city limits (and outside the jurisdiction of anti-roads urban politicians). It's the rural between-cities connectors that need a lot of work. That puts the ball more in the court of state and federal officials than any local politicians.
Agreed. When I mentioned state reps, I was thinking about the folks that represent the areas between Austin and Houston (eg. LaGrange, Smithville, Giddings, Elgin, Brenham, etc).
What I was getting at is that state reps are not necessarily motivated by "this will be good for the region I represent" when they decide what to support. If they feel like they can get more votes by cutting spending, they will focus on cutting spending, even if the spending is a necessary infrastructure investment that would be good for the region they represent.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 22, 2022, 07:06:16 PM
It doesn't look like I-14 has much potential to deliver any substantial upgrades along the TX-6 corridor. The "proposed" route follows US-190 in a extremely stupid "W" shape (Cameron, Milano, Hearne, Bryan & Madisonville).
Where exactly is this an "extremely stupid "W" shape?" Temple to Huntsville looks like a relatively straight, direct line to me.
(https://i.ibb.co/HrHw88g/I14-Route-Options.png)
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 22, 2022, 07:53:05 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 22, 2022, 07:06:16 PM
It doesn't look like I-14 has much potential to deliver any substantial upgrades along the TX-6 corridor. The "proposed" route follows US-190 in a extremely stupid "W" shape (Cameron, Milano, Hearne, Bryan & Madisonville).
Where exactly is this an "extremely stupid "W" shape?" Temple to Huntsville looks like a relatively straight, direct line to me.
(https://i.ibb.co/HrHw88g/I14-Route-Options.png)
He's referring to the original segment study area:
https://www.kbtx.com/content/news/Plans-moving-forward-to-bring-Interstate-14-to-Brazos-Valley-443098493.html
Is the blue line in that map actually, officially the preferred alternative? I'd be perfectly happy with that. The red line route isn't so bad either. The orange idea going up to Madisonville sucks. I-14 needs to go direct from College Station to Huntsville.
I've had the impression nothing substantial has been decided on an I-14 route alignment thru the Texas Triangle.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 22, 2022, 10:13:21 PM
Is the blue line in that map actually, officially the preferred alternative? I'd be perfectly happy with that. The red line route isn't so bad either. The orange idea going up to Madisonville sucks. I-14 needs to go direct from College Station to Huntsville.
I've had the impression nothing substantial has been decided on an I-14 route alignment thru the Texas Triangle.
I have said this before. The I-14 designation was originally done as an incentive to keep Ft Hood off the BRACC lists. Since its naming, lot's of people have jumped on the bandwagon. We even had a
completely nonbinding piece of legislation that defined a rough route from Midland to Ft. Stewart. That said, there are LOTS of non-interstate projects that FAR ahead of I-14 in Texas. I really doubt any of us(even the youngest) will ever live to see I-14 stretch from I-35 to I-69 much less to Georgia. Why should you plan for something that virtually everyone realizes will NEVER be built. I honestly see it actually being far less likely than a complete I-69 in Arkansas & Louisiana.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 22, 2022, 10:13:21 PM
Is the blue line in that map actually, officially the preferred alternative? I'd be perfectly happy with that. The red line route isn't so bad either. The orange idea going up to Madisonville sucks. I-14 needs to go direct from College Station to Huntsville.
I've had the impression nothing substantial has been decided on an I-14 route alignment thru the Texas Triangle.
That map is a sample illustration of how the final project study recommendation will look. It is NOT the recommended alternative. You are correct: nothing has been decided, and I don't know if any effort is even in progress.
If the study has started, there have not been any meetings and the "universe of alternatives" has not been made public.
Quote from: MaxConcrete on October 24, 2022, 07:49:45 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 22, 2022, 10:13:21 PM
Is the blue line in that map actually, officially the preferred alternative? I'd be perfectly happy with that. The red line route isn't so bad either. The orange idea going up to Madisonville sucks. I-14 needs to go direct from College Station to Huntsville.
I've had the impression nothing substantial has been decided on an I-14 route alignment thru the Texas Triangle.
That map is a sample illustration of how the final project study recommendation will look. It is NOT the recommended alternative. You are correct: nothing has been decided, and I don't know if any effort is even in progress.
If the study has started, there have not been any meetings and the "universe of alternatives" has not been made public.
Exactly, this is all the meanderings of groups like the Lincoln Highway Association in the 1920's.
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 02, 2022, 07:25:05 PM
Quote from: Henry on September 30, 2022, 12:57:51 PM
I'm surprised that I-35 has only one child in the entire state, that being I-635 in Dallas. Now would be a perfect time to give it another spur route along the US 57 corridor. How about I-135?
There's five odd x35s available in TX, and you want to use the one that would duplicate a major 100-mile route accessible within a day's travel of TX? Why?
535, 735, or 935 would be preferable. Personally, I vote 735. It has both a 5 and a 7 in it, and there's no I-735 anywhere in the country.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 30, 2022, 02:17:44 PM
Existing US 96 should have been designated US 57 when US 59 was rerouted at Tenaha in 1939. This road should have been given the US 96 designation (or it should have remained TX 57 or TX 76). As for designating US 57 as an Interstate corridor, I agree with the subject thread that it is likely wishful-thinking.
US-57 has that number because it connects to Mexico 57. It wasn't ever intended to fit in the grid.
And what's even more laughable is that just because 57 is odd, it's signed N-S although it's *clearly* E-W