News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

US 57 border to I-35: Interstate status not justified

Started by MaxConcrete, September 30, 2022, 12:04:40 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Bobby5280

#50
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.


thisdj78

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).

Henry

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.
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

Bobby5280

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.

kphoger

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.
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

Bobby5280

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.

kphoger

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.
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

jgb191

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.
We're so far south that we're not even considered "The South"

Some one

#58
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.

Bobby5280

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.

kphoger

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?
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

skluth

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.

Bobby5280

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.

kphoger

Most vehicles made in Mexico are transported across the border by rail, not by truck–although car parts are indeed shipped by truck.
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

jgb191

#64
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.
We're so far south that we're not even considered "The South"

Roadgeekteen

That's probably correct. Eagle Pass isn't really all that big of a place.
God-emperor of Alanland, king of all the goats and goat-like creatures

Current Interstate map I am making:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edit?hl=en&mid=1PEDVyNb1skhnkPkgXi8JMaaudM2zI-Y&ll=29.05778059819179%2C-82.48856825&z=5

Bobby5280

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.

Scott5114

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.   
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

sprjus4

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.



thisdj78

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.


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

Bobby5280

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.

bwana39

#71
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.
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

MaxConcrete

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.
www.DFWFreeways.com
www.HoustonFreeways.com

bwana39

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.
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

geek11111

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
Ssssssssssssssssssssssssssss
Dlaoooooooooooooooooooooo



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.