So i decided to make a topic about US-290 between Austin and Houston, cause why the hell not?
From the past decade, TxDOT focused more on updating TX-71 more than US-290, even when the overall the traffic between the 2 kinda splits
the most US-290 got from the past decade is, US-290 Toll, a grass median in certain rural areas in between, and the US-290/Northwest Freeway expansion + the notorious I-610/I-10 intersection overhaul in Houston
EDIT: and the underpass under TX-21
We could be doing more with it (since Houstonians are more used to US-290 than TX-71 i'm guessing................and vice-versa, again i'm guessing); the re-aligned Brenham bypass, the Giddings bypass, the Manor-Elgin overpass (w/frontage roads), and then minor adjustments for the rest of the way that can come after these 3 major obstacles.
it looks like TxDOT may be finally doing the long overdue re-alignment or the Brenham bypass soon (D or E are most valuable to me, whiling B is the most realistic if they want to be cheap and quick with it)
https://youtu.be/tfPyWxXyQKI
This topic has been on-going in a couple or so different Austin-related threads.
It would be stupid for TX-DOT to "upgrade" the US-290/TX-36 intersection into a DDI. They really need to give US-290 a freeway quality escape route West out of Brenham. There are problem spots between Brenham and Hempstead (where the US-290 freeway going out of Houston currently ends). The US-290 ROW narrows considerably West of the TX-6/US-290 interchange. The road immediately gets sandwiched by a golf course to the South and convenience stores to the North. There's a traffic signal stop in Chapel Hill.
The Austin and Houston metros are enormous enough in population to justify building out both the US-290 and TX-71 corridors to Interstate standards. The Houston metro covers a lot of area. Anyone in Austin heading to the Northern half of the Houston metro would likely use US-290. If they're driving to Southern areas of the Houston metro then TX-71 would be a better alternative.
It is odd why TxDot has not upgraded more sections of 290. TxDot rebuilt the infamous highway of death, 195 between Killeen and I-35( at one time GIs were forbidden from using the old two lane road because it was so dangerous). One would think the 290 corridor is a slam dunk unless the towns along 290 like Giddings do not want an upgrade.
Frankly, it should be a 6 lane divided highway. If one is going to rebuild it, build in growth from the get go. 290 is six lanes to Waller from Houston.
Quote from: longhorn on November 08, 2022, 04:10:53 PM
It is odd why TxDot has not upgraded more sections of 290. TxDot rebuilt the infamous highway of death, 195 between Killeen and I-35( at one time GIs were forbidden from using the old two lane road because it was so dangerous). One would think the 290 corridor is a slam dunk unless the towns along 290 like Giddings do not want an upgrade.
Frankly, it should be a 6 lane divided highway. If one is going to rebuild it, build in growth from the get go. 290 is six lanes to Waller from Houston.
We'll send you to war just not down 195!
The situation with US-290 from Austin to Houston is indeed really puzzling.
US-290 going West out of the Houston metro has long been limited access. In recent years that segment of US-290 has largely been completely re-built and substantially expanded to Waller, 9 miles East of where the freeway ends in Hempstead.
US-290 going East out of the Austin metro thru Manor is a whole other story. None of it has freeway-wide ROW. A number of commercial businesses built next to the roadway will have to be bought and cleared for any freeway (or toll road) expansion. US-290 thru Elgin is so encroached by development that a new-terrain bypass would likely be the only realistic solution. Giddings will need a freeway bypass.
Austin has been a legitimately big city for a long time. I don't know why more work hasn't been done to expand US-290 over the years, even if it just meant spreading apart the main lanes to preserve a freeway-wide median. TX DOT could have phased that in a long time ago before US-290 had so much development built up alongside it.
TxDOT just doesn't seem to have the money. It's not hard to figure out when you see much needed like I-345, I-30(Canyon), I-35 Austin central, and NHHIP not starting until later this decade or even the 2030s.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. I've *never* heard or read of any organization advocating for highway improvements between Houston and Austin, both SH 71 and US 290. That includes business interests, transportation/logistics interests, governments, cities (Houston, Austin and everything between) and TxDOT itself. No advocacy, ever. The only place I've seen the idea promoted is in this forum.
In the meantime, there are well-organized advocacy groups for I-69 and all those pie-in-the-sky Interstate proposals in West Texas. For example http://i69texasalliance.com/ (http://i69texasalliance.com/), which has been lobbying for I-69 for a very long time.
As Plutonic Panda noted, there's never enough money to meet all needs. Politics and advocacy steer a lot of the available funding. Nothing is steering funding to highways between Houston and Austin.
I drive between Houston and Hempstead on an occasional basis, and I'm nearly always surprised by the heavy traffic. Traffic does seem to drop substantially west of Hempstead. Looking at the TxDOT traffic charts, it is around 40k vpd east of Hempstead, 25k vpd west of Hempstead, and around 13k vpd east and west of Giddings.
What about the traffic counts on US-290 in the Austin area from Manor to Elgin? I'd bet there is considerably more than 13k vehicles per day using that segment. I'm surprised there appears to be no effort on improvement that highway segment compared to some spot upgrades taking place on TX-71 just to the South. The Manor to Elgin segment of US-290 has similar levels of development compared to TX-71 between the Austin airport and Bastrop.
Even without a specific, concentrated effort on creating one or two 100% limited access freeway corridors from Austin to Houston it's still surprising to see the lack of effort going East out of Austin compared to the far greater efforts going Northwest out of Houston.
Quote from: MaxConcrete on November 08, 2022, 08:18:58 PM
I've said it before and I'll say it again. I've *never* heard or read of any organization advocating for highway improvements between Houston and Austin, both SH 71 and US 290. That includes business interests, transportation/logistics interests, governments, cities (Houston, Austin and everything between) and TxDOT itself. No advocacy, ever. The only place I've seen the idea promoted is in this forum.
In the meantime, there are well-organized advocacy groups for I-69 and all those pie-in-the-sky Interstate proposals in West Texas. For example http://i69texasalliance.com/ (http://i69texasalliance.com/), which has been lobbying for I-69 for a very long time.
As Plutonic Panda noted, there's never enough money to meet all needs. Politics and advocacy steer a lot of the available funding. Nothing is steering funding to highways between Houston and Austin.
I drive between Houston and Hempstead on an occasional basis, and I'm nearly always surprised by the heavy traffic. Traffic does seem to drop substantially west of Hempstead. Looking at the TxDOT traffic charts, it is around 40k vpd east of Hempstead, 25k vpd west of Hempstead, and around 13k vpd east and west of Giddings.
I would assume the majority of that traffic is heading north on TX6 to College Station and Waco. I go that way when I have to be in the west Houston metro. Anything to bypass I45.
Austin is a far larger metro than College Station. Austin has nearly 1 million residents just for its city limits population and over 2 million in its metro area. The Austin metro is almost as populous as the San Antonio metro, and the Austin metro might be growing faster. Houston has direct Interstate links with DFW and San Antonio but not Austin. San Antonio has its own N-S and E-W Interstates (I-10 and I-35), but not Austin. I guess various planners think Austin is no bigger than Waco.
Regardless if there has been no public cheer-leading effort to get an Interstate link built between Austin and Houston it's still weird as hell just from the perspective of highway network management. The northern part of the Austin metro has all sorts of wishful plans for super-highway corridors in the future (with not nearly enough effort put in to preserve ROW). But the main arterials going East out of Austin toward Houston (US-290 and TX-71) don't have a lot of future-proofing being done, especially US-290. It's a mess and it's weird as hell.
Houston and Austin have two 75 mph, four lane highways between them already. Outside of safety concerns, there's no need for further upgrades. That's why nobody is pushing for them.
Quote from: TXtoNJ on November 09, 2022, 01:11:06 PM
Houston and Austin have two 75 mph, four lane highways between them already. Outside of safety concerns, there’s no need for further upgrades. That’s why nobody is pushing for them.
If I had political clout I would be yelling to the masses for one or two interstates or interstate standards. The speed limit may be 75, but all the side streets, red lights, and non-divided parts of the road on both 290 & 71 are dangerous, partly because you are going 75-85 and someone pulls out in front of you.
Quote from: TXtoNJHouston and Austin have two 75 mph, four lane highways between them already.
No. Not really. It's a joke to suggest TX-71 and US-290 going East out of Austin are anything comparable to an actual Interstate quality highway. Both corridors are not
free-flowing. They do not sustain a 75mph speed limit. There are numerous speed zones along the way. Both corridors even have a decent number of traffic signal controlled intersections along with a far greater number of uncontrolled at-grade intersections (and driveways too). On TX-71 some of the traffic signaled intersections in Bastrop were converted into freeway exits. But there's still at least four traffic signals on TX-71 between the Austin airport and Bastrop. US-290 from Manor to Hempstead has even more traffic signals and speed zones than TX-71.
These are things that only matter to roadgeeks. To the highway engineers and logistics companies, the status quo is fine. That's why there's no organized effort to change it.
Downtown Houston to Austin is 2.5 hours without traffic, and has been for 50+ years. People are happy with that. Getting that down to 2h 15m isn't going to move the needle with anyone who matters, because Houston-to-Austin isn't on any national distribution network. It's all O&D traffic.
Thank you for starting this thread. Hopefully all the whining about it from the Money Grows on Trees! Party will now be contained to here.
Some nitpick facts:
Manor has gotten some minor lane and intersection improvements in the last 5 or so years. But if you do some research on Google Earth, the amount of new homes in that area is surprisingly small given how close it is to Austin and the huge jump in housing costs. I don't know if the school district stinks or Travis County is slow rolling outer growth or primarily something else.
Converting 290 to a divided highway was a big deal for safety. I've gone out of my way before to take 71 instead when there was heavy rain expected or late at night.
Agree on the heavy traffic for the 2+2 section east of Hempstead. I'm hoping the aggy tollway may divert some of that, but probably won't be much. Looks like the gap to widen is 9 miles and 7 sets of bridges.
290 doesn't need to be a freeway, but I'm all in on a Giddings bypass and converting the stoplights to overpasses in Manor, Elgin, and Chappell Hill. Glad the Brenham project is advancing. Getting it to no stoplights free flow like 71 will soon be is 90% of the needs.
TX-71 still has some traffic signals too.
Quote from: TXtoNJDowntown Houston to Austin is 2.5 hours without traffic, and has been for 50+ years. People are happy with that. Getting that down to 2h 15m isn't going to move the needle with anyone who matters, because Houston-to-Austin isn't on any national distribution network. It's all O&D traffic.
It's about more than just shaving minutes off drive time between the Austin and Houston metro areas. Safety plays a big part in that too. Limited access freeways are generally quite a bit safer for high speed driving. You don't have to worry about
Cooter Brown hauling a junk trailer and whipping out in front of you from some side road while you're driving 70mph.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 10, 2022, 07:50:28 PM
TX-71 still has some traffic signals too.
True but at least they are in the process of removing most of them and they are all in the Bastrop to Toll 130 stretch.
Quote from: armadillo speedbump on November 10, 2022, 07:42:58 PM
Manor has gotten some minor lane and intersection improvements in the last 5 or so years. But if you do some research on Google Earth, the amount of new homes in that area is surprisingly small given how close it is to Austin and the huge jump in housing costs. I don't know if the school district stinks or Travis County is slow rolling outer growth or primarily something else.
I think that will change quickly with Tesla to the south and Samsung being built to the north. I could see families preferring Manor over say Taylor for example. There are plans to built a limited access bypass from 290 to Toll 130, wrapping around the southeast-south side of Manor. Near the south end of where the bypass will meet 130 and at the intersection of Parmer just to the north, there are many new homes being built. I wouldn't be surprised if that is where the next big shopping area is built.
Quote from: armadillo speedbump on November 10, 2022, 07:42:58 PM
Manor has gotten some minor lane and intersection improvements in the last 5 or so years. But if you do some research on Google Earth, the amount of new homes in that area is surprisingly small given how close it is to Austin and the huge jump in housing costs. I don't know if the school district stinks or Travis County is slow rolling outer growth or primarily something else.
You are correct. I heard it was the liberal NIMBY whorns that moved in and now live in that area.
I just drove to Houston from South Austin on 71 this afternoon. Honestly with two lanes traffic is not bad at all. It was far worse when I go on to I-10 in Columbus. 10 needs expansion far more than 71 needing to be a freeway. Houston was a total abomination for traffic heading INTO town.
Quote from: texaskdog on November 11, 2022, 04:12:45 AM
I just drove to Houston from South Austin on 71 this afternoon. Honestly with two lanes traffic is not bad at all. It was far worse when I go on to I-10 in Columbus. 10 needs expansion far more than 71 needing to be a freeway. Houston was a total abomination for traffic heading INTO town.
Fortunately, there are plans in place to expand I-10 all the way to San Antonio.
The last remaining piece of SH71 that has no plans is the segment through Ellinger. If they can either make the section through town grade separated or bypass the town completely, SH71 would be completely free flowing (when you include the work being done to remove the last remaining stop lights between Bastrop and Toll 130).
For the SH71 route, here is the project page for the removal of the last stop lights. Looks like with exception of the Ross Rd and Kellam Rd intersections (which are under construction), the remaining intersections are in the final design/ROW acquisition stage:
https://www.txdot.gov/content/txdotreimagine/us/es/home/projects/projects-studies/austin/sh71-east-corridor.html
You know I'm okay with US 290 not being redesignated as an interstate highway by TxDoT (although my preference is to do so). But stil several things need to be changed: 1) Get rid of the cloverleaf continuation at Brenham, 2) Bypasses around Giddings, Manor, and Elgin, and 3) Upgrade Chappell Hill from a traffic light intersection to a diamond interchange underpass.
An Austin to Houston interstate would definitely be more useful than I-2 and I-14, maybe even I-69. Connecting the capitol with the 4th largest city in Texas. However, from an article I've read, the reason TXDOT hasn't considered upgrading US 290 or SH 71 to interstate status is because of all the properties on the highway. Although, TXDOT does plan on removing all the stoplights on SH 71, so soon we'll see a stoplight-free corridor from Houston to Austin.
TxDOT PUBLIC MEETING TUESDAY ON HIGHWAY 290 — FM 1155 INTERSECTION
https://kwhi.com/2023/01/16/txdot-public-meeting-tuesday-on-highway-290-fm-1155-intersection/
Quote from: thisdj78 on January 16, 2023, 12:53:55 PM
TxDOT PUBLIC MEETING TUESDAY ON HIGHWAY 290 — FM 1155 INTERSECTION
https://kwhi.com/2023/01/16/txdot-public-meeting-tuesday-on-highway-290-fm-1155-intersection/
So the three not that old gas stations will be bought out and torn down? No doubt rebuilt but........
Quote from: longhorn on January 16, 2023, 05:10:34 PM
Quote from: thisdj78 on January 16, 2023, 12:53:55 PM
TxDOT PUBLIC MEETING TUESDAY ON HIGHWAY 290 — FM 1155 INTERSECTION
https://kwhi.com/2023/01/16/txdot-public-meeting-tuesday-on-highway-290-fm-1155-intersection/
So the three not that old gas stations will be bought out and torn down? No doubt rebuilt but........
It's a tight squeeze, but seems like they could use the existing ROW with minimal tear downs. I-35 through downtown Bruceville-Eddy comes to mind as an example.
Quote from: texaskdog on November 11, 2022, 04:12:45 AM
I just drove to Houston from South Austin on 71 this afternoon. Honestly with two lanes traffic is not bad at all. It was far worse when I go on to I-10 in Columbus. 10 needs expansion far more than 71 needing to be a freeway. Houston was a total abomination for traffic heading INTO town.
Not bad at all. Everytime I drive it (and my in-laws live in south east Texas, so I drive it a lot) I nearly get into a fatal accident from driving 75 mph and someone pulls out from a driveway or cross street. Just because there are no stoplights doesn't mean its good to go. You still have side streets and driveways connecting directly to the mainlanes, not to mention blind hills, tight curves (yes, SH-71 still has a few of both) and houses placed way too close for a 75 mph corridor that has the look of a freeway but is not. It's not about time, it's not about speed, it's about the movement of trucks and cars at a speed and it to be safe to do so. It is hilarious to me to read everyone on this forum dismiss a need for SH-71 to be an interstate citing "it's a four lane expressway, it's good enough" or "it's 2.5 hours between the two, shaving off 15 minutes is not enough of a reason" and completely ignore the real reason this needs to happen. It's for the same reason any of the interstates were built. To keep traffic out of an Elinger, TX scenario (Oh, I love driving SH-71 to slow down to 55 in that town so I can relive 1960!) and so that long haul traffic moves safer. Everyone that loves to pile on this topic and say all is well in the world with the current status of SH-71 are the same people that jump on the thread about the at-grade crossings on West Texas I-10 and lament on how much of a travesty that is. It can't be both ways people!
Quote from: Some one on November 14, 2022, 04:24:00 PM
An Austin to Houston interstate would definitely be more useful than I-2 and I-14, maybe even I-69. Connecting the capitol with the 4th largest city in Texas. However, from an article I've read, the reason TXDOT hasn't considered upgrading US 290 or SH 71 to interstate status is because of all the properties on the highway. Although, TXDOT does plan on removing all the stoplights on SH 71, so soon we'll see a stoplight-free corridor from Houston to Austin.
I hate those lame excuses. For some reason, the state had no issue buying up property for the right-of-way of the interstate highway system in the beginning and build over 3,000 miles of new freeway, but this 88 mile stretch, just can't do it! I know different era, but that's a lame excuse. As stated before and above, a stop-light free road is not equal to an interstate. Would you pay money to watch Metalica in concert, only to find out when they took the stage they were actually a Metalica cover band and the guys in the band were just some regular guys with 9 to 5s?
My vote has always been to upgrade SH-71. Everyone in Austin uses it to go to Houston more because it is wider and half of the trip to Houston is on I-10 if you go that way (not to mention it's faster). Upgrading it is cheaper because it's half the distance US-290 is. US-290 just always feels like a wasteland.
Well using that argument every expressway should be a freeway, because people can turn out into a 75 MPH road. That's Fritzowl territory.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on January 17, 2023, 10:42:46 AMMy vote has always been to upgrade SH-71. Everyone in Austin uses it to go to Houston more because it is wider and half of the trip to Houston is on I-10 if you go that way (not to mention it's faster). Upgrading it is cheaper because it's half the distance US-290 is. US-290 just always feels like a wasteland.
US-290 is already up to IH standards from I-610 to the Brazos River (nearly midway to Austin); plus several more miles east of I-35 almost to Manor. Upgrading the remaining half of US-290 would provide a direct route from Houston which would be useful in the inevitable need for hurricane evacuations plus alleviate traffic on the already overloaded I-10 segment between Houston and Columbus.
Quote from: thisdj78It's a tight squeeze, but seems like they could use the existing ROW with minimal tear downs.
The typical footprint of a Texas freeway exit flanked by frontage roads is around 300' wide. At that width they're going to at least be cutting well into the parking lots of businesses on both sides of US-290.
Nevertheless, this is one project that needs to be done. The intersection of US-290 and FM-1155 in Chappell Hill is currently controlled by a stop light. A grade-separated freeway exit will be one more incremental step (of many) to make US-290
free flowing from Austin to Houston.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14Everytime I drive it (and my in-laws live in south east Texas, so I drive it a lot) I nearly get into a fatal accident from driving 75 mph and someone pulls out from a driveway or cross street. Just because there are no stoplights doesn't mean its good to go. You still have side streets and driveways connecting directly to the mainlanes, not to mention blind hills, tight curves (yes, SH-71 still has a few of both) and houses placed way too close for a 75 mph corridor that has the look of a freeway but is not. It's not about time, it's not about speed, it's about the movement of trucks and cars at a speed and it to be safe to do so.
Exactly. Far more than raw VPD numbers go into whether a certain highway should just be 2-lane, divided 4-lane or even limited access. Safety has to be a factor of consideration. If a given amount of thru traffic on the highway is traveling at a high speed (like 70mph or more) yet there is a lot of intersecting streets, driveways etc it's going to create an unsafe situation. Either the speed limit has to be considerably lower or at-grade access to the highway has to be more limited.
Quote from: texasdogWell using that argument every expressway should be a freeway, because people can turn out into a 75 MPH road. That's Fritzowl territory.
Not all highways in rural areas on the same. It's one thing if you're on a 4-lane divided highway out in Western Oklahoma and some guy hauling a trailer whips out into the main lanes from a dead stop. In that case you're probably going to have room to change lanes and get around the guy without slamming your brakes. Not many other vehicles will be nearby. It's another thing entirely if you're on a very busy 4-lane divided highway and the same thing happens. Chances are there will be more vehicles in the adjacent lanes as well as driving right behind you. Slamming the brakes in this case will be the only option, but you could still end up in a serious accident anyway.
Houston is the 4th most populous city in the US and Austin is the 11th most populous. Their downtown districts are only 150 miles from each other. The notion these two major cities aren't worthy of a direct Interstate-quality link is just silly. Calling it "Fritzowl territory" is batshit crazy.
Quote from: jgb191 on January 17, 2023, 04:02:05 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on January 17, 2023, 10:42:46 AMMy vote has always been to upgrade SH-71. Everyone in Austin uses it to go to Houston more because it is wider and half of the trip to Houston is on I-10 if you go that way (not to mention it's faster). Upgrading it is cheaper because it's half the distance US-290 is. US-290 just always feels like a wasteland.
US-290 is already up to IH standards from I-610 to the Brazos River (nearly midway to Austin); plus several more miles east of I-35 almost to Manor. Upgrading the remaining half of US-290 would provide a direct route from Houston which would be useful in the inevitable need for hurricane evacuations plus alleviate traffic on the already overloaded I-10 segment between Houston and Columbus.
Just to clarify: US290 isn't interstate standards between Hempstead and the Brazos river (yet). Still several at grade driveways and cross streets in that section.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 17, 2023, 04:20:14 PM
Houston is the 4th most populous city in the US and Austin is the 11th most populous. Their downtown districts are only 150 miles from each other. The notion these two major cities aren't worthy of a direct Interstate-quality link is just silly. Calling it "Fritzowl territory" is batshit crazy.
I know I'm beating a dead horse, but I'm surprised that no politician from this region (between Austin and Houston) has taken this on as a legislative agenda.
The amount of economic development that would occur (especially companies looking to relocate to TX that see being smack in between Austin/Houston as a bonus) would seem to be a good talking point. Interstates help attract that type of development.
Quote from: thisdj78Just to clarify: US290 isn't interstate standards between Hempstead and the Brazos river (yet). Still several at grade driveways and cross streets in that section.
The roughly 7 miles of US-290 between the TX-6 interchange and the Brazos River has more than a dozen at-grade intersections with streets. There are even more driveways.
The FM-1155 intersection with US-290 is the first traffic light West of the TX-6/US-290 interchange. Farther West there are 22 more traffic lights along US-290 before reaching East end of the Manor Expressway toll road in the Austin metro. That doesn't count any flashing yellow signals either.
Some people appear to be assuming US-290 between Austin and Houston is a fully free-flowing 4-lane divided highway when that's not nearly the case at all. US-290 is Interstate quality as far West as Hempstead. After that it's a mix of four lane divided, five lane not-divided and short bits of four lane not-divided. There's lots of at-grade intersections, nearly 2 dozen of them controlled by full traffic signals (and at least 1 with a flashing yellow). And there's lots and lots of driveways connecting directly to the main highway lanes.
Quote from: thisdj78I know I'm beating a dead horse, but I'm surprised that no politician from this region (between Austin and Houston) has taken this on as a legislative agenda.
Maybe the lawmakers in Austin and Houston believe people should be using bicycles to travel between the two cities. Their legislative priorities appear to be only concerned with issues within their respective metros, not the space between the two metros. The segments of US-290 and TX-71 between the Austin and Houston metros are more a state-wide issue, if not an issue affecting the larger highway network.
^ TX-6 (not OK-6), but I know where you are talking about.
I guess I overlooked the intersections between Hempstead and the Brazos, but if I remember correctly the Brazos River stretch is several miles of uninterrupted IH-quality highway that wouldn't need upgrading. And as I mentioned before they really need to do something at Brenham; the 270-degree circular ramp turn needs to be replaced or rerouted.
Quote from: jgb191 on January 18, 2023, 02:01:55 PM
the 270-degree circular ramp turn needs to be replaced or rerouted.
Why, works for Memphis! :-D
Quote from: jgb191 on January 18, 2023, 02:01:55 PM
^ TX-6 (not OK-6), but I know where you are talking about.
I guess I overlooked the intersections between Hempstead and the Brazos, but if I remember correctly the Brazos River stretch is several miles of uninterrupted IH-quality highway that wouldn't need upgrading. And as I mentioned before they really need to do something at Brenham; the 270-degree circular ramp turn needs to be replaced or rerouted.
Correct, the stretch over Brazos is fine. There are plans to redo the intersection with SH36.
Meanwhile, once the lights outside of Austin are replaced with interchanges (which is happening very soon if I'm not mistaken), the only slowdown on TX 71 is in Ellinger. I'm of the firm belief that if any freeway route between Houston and Austin is built, that it should be on the TX 71 corridor.
(sry to inject this into a thread about 290)
Quote from: CoreySamson on January 18, 2023, 10:04:42 PM
Meanwhile, once the lights outside of Austin are replaced with interchanges (which is happening very soon if I'm not mistaken), the only slowdown on TX 71 is in Ellinger. I'm of the firm belief that if any freeway route between Houston and Austin is built, that it should be on the TX 71 corridor.
(sry to inject this into a thread about 290)
SH-71 would be the quickest and easiest to convert to at least a free flowing expressway. I haven't seen any plans for Ellinger though.
Quote from: thisdj78 on November 10, 2022, 08:41:30 PM
Quote from: armadillo speedbump on November 10, 2022, 07:42:58 PM
Manor has gotten some minor lane and intersection improvements in the last 5 or so years. But if you do some research on Google Earth, the amount of new homes in that area is surprisingly small given how close it is to Austin and the huge jump in housing costs. I don't know if the school district stinks or Travis County is slow rolling outer growth or primarily something else.
I think that will change quickly with Tesla to the south and Samsung being built to the north. I could see families preferring Manor over say Taylor for example. There are plans to built a limited access bypass from 290 to Toll 130, wrapping around the southeast-south side of Manor. Near the south end of where the bypass will meet 130 and at the intersection of Parmer just to the north, there are many new homes being built. I wouldn’t be surprised if that is where the next big shopping area is built.
TBF, there's only 5-6 places in Manor that would have to be moved or demolished (2 of which are old gas stations) to make space for the ROW
everything else in Manor can stay, freeway/tollway or not
and as a US-290 progress goes
a planned Brenham Bypass Re-Alignment (preferably D or E, or at the very least B), and a planned Chappell Hill Overpass
so what's next now?
Brenham Bypass Re-Alignment concepts
Concept B - (https://i.imgur.com/OSTJibA.png)
Concept D - (https://i.imgur.com/vC0oRQw.png)
Concept E - (https://i.imgur.com/woV16PS.png)
Chappell Hill Overpass concept
(https://kwhi.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Concept-2.jpg)
Quote from: TheBox on February 10, 2023, 10:26:36 AM
and as a US-290 progress goes
so what's next now?
Though I haven't seen any plans, the next logical step would be a bypass around Giddings and at least extension/expansion of the 290 expressway from Manor to Elgin. Those two upgrades would probably cut off 30 minutes of travel time between Austin and Houston.
TX DOT faces a possibly difficult job just extending the US-290 freeway thru Manor. Such an upgrade is
do-able, but it's going to require buying and clearing at least a couple dozen commercial properties along the North side of US-290.
The traffic signal at Elm Creek (and Red Elm Parkway) just West of Elgin is a tight squeeze. If US-290 is ever upgraded to a freeway in/near Elgin it probably will have to be built on a new terrain path a considerably way South of town. Obviously Giddings would need a new terrain bypass too.
Quote from: thisdj78Those two upgrades would probably cut off 30 minutes of travel time between Austin and Houston.
Freeway bypasses around Elgin and Giddings would probably save a few minutes, but I doubt if it would be 30 minutes worth of drive time. On the other hand, if all the traffic signaled intersections on US-290 between Manor and Hempstead were converted into freeway exits that would likely save more than 30 minutes of drive time. It's not just the amount of time a motorist has to sit, looking at a red light. There's all the changing speed limits leading to and past that traffic signal. The Manor to Hempstead segment of US-290 going from Austin to Houston is far from being
free flowing.
^ More than 30 minutes? Doubtful. Maybe 5 or 10 at best.
The speed limit is 75 mph for most of the route, and drops to probably 55 mph at some of the signals, not counting the few towns.
There is a couple dozen traffic signals along that way. It's not like you're going to hit every green light. And there are speed zones leading up to many of those signals. Also, I don't know where you're seeing the speed limit is 75mph for most of the route. In between traffic signals and the associated speed zones US-290 is signed at 60mph, 65mph and 70mph along much of the way.
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 11, 2023, 11:57:07 PM
^ More than 30 minutes? Doubtful. Maybe 5 or 10 at best.
The speed limit is 75 mph for most of the route, and drops to probably 55 mph at some of the signals, not counting the few towns.
I should say for me, since I'm always going to Houston late afternoons. Coming from the southern Round Rock/Hutto area, it takes forever to get to Elgin via SH130/290, to the point that it can be quicker to take 79 to Taylor and down 95. Giddings can get congested as well, especially at the US77 light. So to clarify: during peak hours.
I still don'
t get why there isn't a direct freeway from Houston to Austin.
Quote from: bluecountry on February 12, 2023, 01:15:13 PM
I still don'
t get why there isn't a direct freeway from Houston to Austin.
Because two 4-lane divided highways sufficiently handle the traffic.
Quote from: texaskdog on February 12, 2023, 02:56:31 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on February 12, 2023, 01:15:13 PM
I still don'
t get why there isn't a direct freeway from Houston to Austin.
Because two 4-lane divided highways sufficiently handle the traffic.
Why have interstates at all then? Safety reasons.
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 12, 2023, 03:06:53 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on February 12, 2023, 02:56:31 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on February 12, 2023, 01:15:13 PM
I still don'
t get why there isn't a direct freeway from Houston to Austin.
Because two 4-lane divided highways sufficiently handle the traffic.
Why have interstates at all then? Safety reasons.
Hey I'm with Fritz Owl
Quote from: texaskdog on February 12, 2023, 03:38:04 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 12, 2023, 03:06:53 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on February 12, 2023, 02:56:31 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on February 12, 2023, 01:15:13 PM
I still don'
t get why there isn't a direct freeway from Houston to Austin.
Because two 4-lane divided highways sufficiently handle the traffic.
Why have interstates at all then? Safety reasons.
Hey I'm with Fritz Owl
To be fair money is the issue.
It's barely 100 miles from Manor (the East edge of the Austin metro) to Hempstead, where the freeway coming out of Houston ends. The Austin metro has over 2 million people. The Houston metro has over 6 million people. Both metros are less than 200 miles apart. Anyone claiming those two metros are not worth connecting directly with an Interstate quality freeway is a Goddamned idiot. And that especially goes for any bullshit "Fritz Owl" insult nonsense. Fuck of all of that.
If Houston and Austin are not worthy of a direct Interstate connection then NONE of the entire Interstate system should have ever been built. Everything should only be connected with 2-lane roads if we're going to live by that standard. Let's break out the damned bicycle paths for any trips under 100 miles!
posting some 2019 articles about US-290 between the two
https://transportationtodaynews.com/news/14048-texas-dot-begins-us-290-east-widening-project/ (which is where Giddings is, also the only work done between 2019 and 2021 was that they made a grass divider median, west of it specifically between Giddings and Elgin)
https://www.kvue.com/article/news/drivers-say-changes-to-us-290-east-overdue/269-0de5ab2f-92de-4a29-8919-8cf8fcc8a65e
That was a modest improvement that merely raised that portion of US-290 up to regular 4-lane divided highway standards. Up here between Lawton and Duncan OK-7 is basically the same thing, 4-lane divided including the cable barriers.
There is another un-divided segment of US-290 going West out of Brenham.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 22, 2023, 11:03:55 PM
There is another un-divided segment of US-290 going West out of Brenham.
if the upcoming Brenham Re-Alignment is concept B (or worst A) then nothing would fundamentally change.
(https://i.imgur.com/OSTJibA.png)
But if it is Concept D or E, then chances are they'll so something about the remaining half left west of Country Rd 30/S Berlin Rd
(https://i.imgur.com/vC0oRQw.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/woV16PS.png)
just pray that it's one of the latter two
speaking of, when will they begin the Brenham Re-Alignment and the Chappell Hill Overpass?
Y'all know that TxDOT selected Alternative B nearly two years ago, right?
https://www.txdot.gov/projects/projects-studies/bryan/us290-brenham.html#:~:text=In%20Spring%20of%202021%2C%20based%20on%20TxDOT%E2%80%99s%20technical%20evaluation%2C%20local%20stakeholder%20and%20public%20input%2C%20we%20announced%20through%20a%20press%20release%20that%20Revised%20Concept%20B%20%E2%80%93%20Central%20Direct%20Connect%20was%20the%20selected%20alternative%20for%20further%20development%2C (https://www.txdot.gov/projects/projects-studies/bryan/us290-brenham.html#:~:text=In%20Spring%20of%202021%2C%20based%20on%20TxDOT%E2%80%99s%20technical%20evaluation%2C%20local%20stakeholder%20and%20public%20input%2C%20we%20announced%20through%20a%20press%20release%20that%20Revised%20Concept%20B%20%E2%80%93%20Central%20Direct%20Connect%20was%20the%20selected%20alternative%20for%20further%20development%2C)
Quote from: Echostatic on February 23, 2023, 06:12:49 PM
Y'all know that TxDOT selected Alternative B nearly two years ago, right?
https://www.txdot.gov/projects/projects-studies/bryan/us290-brenham.html#:~:text=In%20Spring%20of%202021%2C%20based%20on%20TxDOT%E2%80%99s%20technical%20evaluation%2C%20local%20stakeholder%20and%20public%20input%2C%20we%20announced%20through%20a%20press%20release%20that%20Revised%20Concept%20B%20%E2%80%93%20Central%20Direct%20Connect%20was%20the%20selected%20alternative%20for%20further%20development%2C (https://www.txdot.gov/projects/projects-studies/bryan/us290-brenham.html#:~:text=In%20Spring%20of%202021%2C%20based%20on%20TxDOT%E2%80%99s%20technical%20evaluation%2C%20local%20stakeholder%20and%20public%20input%2C%20we%20announced%20through%20a%20press%20release%20that%20Revised%20Concept%20B%20%E2%80%93%20Central%20Direct%20Connect%20was%20the%20selected%20alternative%20for%20further%20development%2C)
i didn't know, but TBF, i think that is the least expansive of the bunch if i'm not mistaken
Quote from: TheBox on February 23, 2023, 08:34:42 PM
Quote from: Echostatic on February 23, 2023, 06:12:49 PM
Y'all know that TxDOT selected Alternative B nearly two years ago, right?
https://www.txdot.gov/projects/projects-studies/bryan/us290-brenham.html#:~:text=In%20Spring%20of%202021%2C%20based%20on%20TxDOT%E2%80%99s%20technical%20evaluation%2C%20local%20stakeholder%20and%20public%20input%2C%20we%20announced%20through%20a%20press%20release%20that%20Revised%20Concept%20B%20%E2%80%93%20Central%20Direct%20Connect%20was%20the%20selected%20alternative%20for%20further%20development%2C (https://www.txdot.gov/projects/projects-studies/bryan/us290-brenham.html#:~:text=In%20Spring%20of%202021%2C%20based%20on%20TxDOT%E2%80%99s%20technical%20evaluation%2C%20local%20stakeholder%20and%20public%20input%2C%20we%20announced%20through%20a%20press%20release%20that%20Revised%20Concept%20B%20%E2%80%93%20Central%20Direct%20Connect%20was%20the%20selected%20alternative%20for%20further%20development%2C)
i didn't know, but TBF, i think that is the least expansive of the bunch if i'm not mistaken
It was likely the path of least resistance in terms of buying property for the ROW
I get TXDOT has a lot on its plate already, but it really baffles me that they haven't considered a Houston to Austin corridor yet. There should at the very least be a stoplight-free expressway between the two cities. While they are removing the last 4 stop lights on Highway 71, 290 should also be a stoplight-free expressway with bypasses. I do agree that anyone who thinks that there shouldn't be a Houston to Austin interstate corridor is foolish. Beyond connecting the largest city to the capital, it would give Austin a better connection to Louisiana and beyond, and vice versa. Heck, they could possibly tie it into I-14 or I-27.
Quote from: Some one on February 25, 2023, 04:54:51 PM
I get TXDOT has a lot on its plate already, but it really baffles me that they haven't considered a Houston to Austin corridor yet. There should at the very least be a stoplight-free expressway between the two cities. While they are removing the last 4 stop lights on Highway 71, 290 should also be a stoplight-free expressway with bypasses. I do agree that anyone who thinks that there shouldn't be a Houston to Austin interstate corridor is foolish. Beyond connecting the largest city to the capital, it would give Austin a better connection to Louisiana and beyond, and vice versa. Heck, they could possibly tie it into I-14 or I-27.
I agree with you but... If there is not interstate specific money, it doesn't have to be an interstate EVEN if it were to be 100% 4-lane controlled access.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 12, 2023, 11:12:25 PM
It's barely 100 miles from Manor (the East edge of the Austin metro) to Hempstead, where the freeway coming out of Houston ends. The Austin metro has over 2 million people. The Houston metro has over 6 million people. Both metros are less than 200 miles apart. Anyone claiming those two metros are not worth connecting directly with an Interstate quality freeway is a Goddamned idiot. And that especially goes for any bullshit "Fritz Owl" insult nonsense. Fuck of all of that.
If Houston and Austin are not worthy of a direct Interstate connection then NONE of the entire Interstate system should have ever been built. Everything should only be connected with 2-lane roads if we're going to live by that standard. Let's break out the damned bicycle paths for any trips under 100 miles!
I agree.
I find it ironic and annoying that TXDOT is planning some new, unnecessary sprawl inducing highway(I-14) at all, without even thinking of taking care of the Austin-Houston corridor.
Moreover, I mean, the capital of Texas and the largest city in Texas, not connected by interstate IN CAR CRAZY TEXAS?
WTF?
If they would address the traffic signals on US-290 / SH-71 and replace them with interchanges or town bypasses, I personally would believe that I-14 between I-35 and I-45 is a higher priority than upgrading the rural portions of US-290 or SH-71 with frontage roads.
The reason I say that, is because once those traffic signals are removed, Houston and Austin will be connected by two four lane divided highways that are free-flowing with 65-75 mph speed limits.
On the other hand, US-190 follows a zig-zagging unimproved 2 lane road connecting Killeen, Temple, College Station, and Huntsville. Constructing I-14 in this location would provide a more direct corridor and allow 4 lanes free-flowing. It may only warrant intersections and not full freeway, but if you're constructing the entire thing on new location, you might as well build it to full interstate standards.
I agree US-290 and SH-71, or at the very least, one of them, ought to improved to interstate standards throughout between Houston and Austin at some point in the future, but outside of problematic intersections / towns, it's certainly a lower priority. Even widening US-290 west of Austin to US-281 to a proper four lane divided highway, and a bypass of Johnson City for both US-290 and US-281 would be a higher need.
Now as far as I-14 west of Lampasas, there's likely far less demand and the existing 2 lane route is adequate for many years to come.
Killeen, Temple, College Station, and Huntsville are all small cities, not major destinations. Out of corridors within the Texas Triangle the TX-6 corridor from Waco to College Station and the Houston metro is more important than this I-14 stuff. IMHO the TX-6 corridor within the Texas Triangle isn't as important as US-290 and TX-71.
I'm not against building a freeway from the Killeen/Fort Hood metro over to Huntsville via College Station, but whatever alignment is chosen should not be along the existing "W" shape of the US-190 corridor in the Texas Triangle. That would be a ridiculously stupid, pork-barrel waste of money. I-14 going West is a tougher ask. I think the San Angelo and Midland-Odessa areas would need to grow quite a bit more to elevate that proposed segment of I-14 into a high priority.
Both TX-71 and US-290 going East out of the Austin metro need a considerable amount of upgrade work. In both cases I don't think building a run of the mill 4-lane divided highway is going to suffice. Such a solution certainly isn't going to be satisfactory considering both the Houston and Austin metro areas are still rapidly adding population. Limited access links between the Austin and Houston metros are overdue. Austin is a big enough city that it needs a high speed, limited access gateway out of the West side of the metro to I-10.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 09, 2023, 04:06:30 PM
Killeen, Temple, College Station, and Huntsville are all small cities, not major destinations. Out of corridors within the Texas Triangle the TX-6 corridor from Waco to College Station and the Houston metro is more important than this I-14 stuff. IMHO the TX-6 corridor within the Texas Triangle isn't as important as US-290 and TX-71.
You've missed the point entirely. The US-190 corridor stands in higher importance because it's not even a four lane highway, let alone does it follow a straight alignment. It has much lower capacity, adds significant travel time, and provides poor connectivity. At least SH-6, along with US-290 and SH-71 are four lane divided highways that can carry significant capacity (once the interchanges are completed and there's no more traffic signals). US-190 doesn't even have anything close to that.
Quote
I'm not against building a freeway from the Killeen/Fort Hood metro over to Huntsville via College Station, but whatever alignment is chosen should not be along the existing "W" shape of the US-190 corridor in the Texas Triangle. That would be a ridiculously stupid, pork-barrel waste of money.
I know we've had this discussion before... they are
not going to follow the existing W-shape routing at all... the entire purpose is to create a new, straighter, more direct alignment and that is what the study maps showed, were more direct, straight line corridors.
Quote
Both TX-71 and US-290 going East out of the Austin metro need a considerable amount of upgrade work. In both cases I don't think building a run of the mill 4-lane divided highway is going to suffice. Such a solution certainly isn't going to be satisfactory considering both the Houston and Austin metro areas are still rapidly adding population. Limited access links between the Austin and Houston metros are overdue. Austin is a big enough city that it needs a high speed, limited access gateway out of the West side of the metro to I-10.
I agree, but from a standpoint of limited funding and priorities, US-290 and SH-71 can adequately handle the traffic volumes, especially once free-flow is achieved by eliminating all the traffic signals. Upgrades can come in the future as money allows to complete a limited access link. It's not a priority need right now and isn't demanding enough to just redirect all funds to it right now.
Would an Austin-Houston interstate *have* to have a 2di numbering, or could it get away with a 3di (I-x10, I-x35)?
Quote from: sprjus4You've missed the point entirely. The US-190 corridor stands in higher importance because it's not even a four lane highway, let alone does it follow a straight alignment.
US-190 in Central Texas
connects to zero major destinations. It is not a major corridor at all. Should there be a more direct path from Killeen or Temple down to College Station? Maybe. But building out a full-blown Interstate highway and christening it with an "I-14" label is overkill. Lots of
road geeks got annoyed by a tiny stub of a route in Maryland being named I-97. At least I-97 connects to a major metro (Baltimore). This I-14 thing is arguably worse
(it certainly is in its current configuration). There is very little chance I-14 will extend West past Copperas Cove any time soon. And it will probably take 20 years or more just to build the more likely part of I-14 to College Station and Huntsville.
Quote from: sprjus4I know we've had this discussion before... they are not going to follow the existing W-shape routing at all.
TX DOT hasn't even come close to choosing a final alignment. I wouldn't be surprised at all if political arm twisting forced I-14 to ping pong its way to Milano, Hearne, Byran and Madisonville rather than just do a straight shot from Cameron to College Station.
Quote from: sprjus4I agree, but from a standpoint of limited funding and priorities, US-290 and SH-71 can adequately handle the traffic volumes, especially once free-flow is achieved by eliminating all the traffic signals.
Those traffic signals are having to be eliminated by replacing the at-grade intersections with grade separated freeway exits. Making either corridor
free flowing will require upgrading them to a level at or very near Interstate quality.
Quote from: US 175Would an Austin-Houston interstate *have* to have a 2di numbering, or could it get away with a 3di (I-x10, I-x35)?
Odds are very high TX DOT wouldn't even bother with a route number change. It wouldn't make any difference to them if US-290 and TX-71 kept their current designations even if upgraded to Interstate quality.
IMHO, US-290 would make a better I-12 route than the existing one in Louisiana (especially if it went
thru Austin and connected with I-10 in West Texas). It's about 80 miles along TX-71 from the TX-130 toll road in metro Austin down to I-10 in Columbus. That's short enough to get away with a 3-digit I-x10 or I-x35 designation. But TX DOT would likely keep it labeled as TX-71.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 10, 2023, 02:41:36 PM
Quote from: sprjus4You've missed the point entirely. The US-190 corridor stands in higher importance because it's not even a four lane highway, let alone does it follow a straight alignment.
US-190 in Central Texas connects to zero major destinations. It is not a major corridor at all. Should there be a more direct path from Killeen or Temple down to College Station? Maybe. But building out a full-blown Interstate highway and christening it with an "I-14" label is overkill. Lots of road geeks got annoyed by a tiny stub of a route in Maryland being named I-97. At least I-97 connects to a major metro (Baltimore). This I-14 thing is arguably worse (it certainly is in its current configuration). There is very little chance I-14 will extend West past Copperas Cove any time soon. And it will probably take 20 years or more just to build the more likely part of I-14 to College Station and Huntsville.
Quote from: sprjus4I know we've had this discussion before... they are not going to follow the existing W-shape routing at all.
TX DOT hasn't even come close to choosing a final alignment. I wouldn't be surprised at all if political arm twisting forced I-14 to ping pong its way to Milano, Hearne, Byran and Madisonville rather than just do a straight shot from Cameron to College Station.
Quote from: sprjus4I agree, but from a standpoint of limited funding and priorities, US-290 and SH-71 can adequately handle the traffic volumes, especially once free-flow is achieved by eliminating all the traffic signals.
Those traffic signals are having to be eliminated by replacing the at-grade intersections with grade separated freeway exits. Making either corridor free flowing will require upgrading them to a level at or very near Interstate quality.
Quote from: US 175Would an Austin-Houston interstate *have* to have a 2di numbering, or could it get away with a 3di (I-x10, I-x35)?
Odds are very high TX DOT wouldn't even bother with a route number change. It wouldn't make any difference to them if US-290 and TX-71 kept their current designations even if upgraded to Interstate quality.
IMHO, US-290 would make a better I-12 route than the existing one in Louisiana (especially if it went thru Austin and connected with I-10 in West Texas). It's about 80 miles along TX-71 from the TX-130 toll road in metro Austin down to I-10 in Columbus. That's short enough to get away with a 3-digit I-x10 or I-x35 designation. But TX DOT would likely keep it labeled as TX-71.
I-10N
I-10NE
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on March 11, 2023, 11:56:10 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 10, 2023, 02:41:36 PM
Quote from: sprjus4You've missed the point entirely. The US-190 corridor stands in higher importance because it's not even a four lane highway, let alone does it follow a straight alignment.
US-190 in Central Texas connects to zero major destinations. It is not a major corridor at all. Should there be a more direct path from Killeen or Temple down to College Station? Maybe. But building out a full-blown Interstate highway and christening it with an "I-14" label is overkill. Lots of road geeks got annoyed by a tiny stub of a route in Maryland being named I-97. At least I-97 connects to a major metro (Baltimore). This I-14 thing is arguably worse (it certainly is in its current configuration). There is very little chance I-14 will extend West past Copperas Cove any time soon. And it will probably take 20 years or more just to build the more likely part of I-14 to College Station and Huntsville.
Quote from: sprjus4I know we've had this discussion before... they are not going to follow the existing W-shape routing at all.
TX DOT hasn't even come close to choosing a final alignment. I wouldn't be surprised at all if political arm twisting forced I-14 to ping pong its way to Milano, Hearne, Byran and Madisonville rather than just do a straight shot from Cameron to College Station.
Quote from: sprjus4I agree, but from a standpoint of limited funding and priorities, US-290 and SH-71 can adequately handle the traffic volumes, especially once free-flow is achieved by eliminating all the traffic signals.
Those traffic signals are having to be eliminated by replacing the at-grade intersections with grade separated freeway exits. Making either corridor free flowing will require upgrading them to a level at or very near Interstate quality.
Quote from: US 175Would an Austin-Houston interstate *have* to have a 2di numbering, or could it get away with a 3di (I-x10, I-x35)?
Odds are very high TX DOT wouldn't even bother with a route number change. It wouldn't make any difference to them if US-290 and TX-71 kept their current designations even if upgraded to Interstate quality.
IMHO, US-290 would make a better I-12 route than the existing one in Louisiana (especially if it went thru Austin and connected with I-10 in West Texas). It's about 80 miles along TX-71 from the TX-130 toll road in metro Austin down to I-10 in Columbus. That's short enough to get away with a 3-digit I-x10 or I-x35 designation. But TX DOT would likely keep it labeled as TX-71.
I-10N
I-10NE
No, no, it'd be I-10C and I-10N :-D
The existing I-10 would have to be re-named I-10S, which sort of looks like "I-tens." That "I-10NE" idea looks either like "I-one-one" or "I-none."
Seriously, I don't think there would be anything wrong with establishing a much longer I-12 route in Texas. It could be potentially around 357 miles in length. That would be starting at I-10 exit 477 in West Texas, the US-290 junction. It would go 113 miles to I-35 in Austin, run concurrent with I-35 in Austin for 8 miles, go around 126 miles to TX-99, roughly 61 miles on the North part of the Grand Parkway and then another 49 miles to I-10 in Beaumont.
Another somewhat shorter version could be a combo of US-290 West of Austin and TX-71 East of Austin. That "I-10N" route would be nearly 200 miles in length. Obviously that length would vary some based on what sort of new alignment routes a US-290 freeway going West out of the Austin metro is forced to take. I doubt if it would be feasible to upgrade US-290 on its existing alignment thru Dripping Springs. But then again, it's mostly commercial businesses lining the 290 route. A new terrain alignment is going to consume residential properties.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 11, 2023, 01:07:40 PM
The existing I-10 would have to be re-named I-10S, which sort of looks like "I-tens." That "I-10NE" idea looks either like "I-one-one" or "I-none."
Seriously, I don't think there would be anything wrong with establishing a much longer I-12 route in Texas. It could be potentially around 357 miles in length. That would be starting at I-10 exit 477 in West Texas, the US-290 junction. It would go 113 miles to I-35 in Austin, run concurrent with I-35 in Austin for 8 miles, go around 126 miles to TX-99, roughly 61 miles on the North part of the Grand Parkway and then another 49 miles to I-10 in Beaumont.
Another somewhat shorter version could be a combo of US-290 West of Austin and TX-71 East of Austin. That "I-10N" route would be nearly 200 miles in length. Obviously that length would vary some based on what sort of new alignment routes a US-290 freeway going West out of the Austin metro is forced to take. I doubt if it would be feasible to upgrade US-290 on its existing alignment thru Dripping Springs. But then again, it's mostly commercial businesses lining the 290 route. A new terrain alignment is going to consume residential properties.
Except that one house my wife and I just looked at 20 minutes ago.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 11, 2023, 01:07:40 PM
The existing I-10 would have to be re-named I-10S, which sort of looks like "I-tens." That "I-10NE" idea looks either like "I-one-one" or "I-none."
Seriously, I don't think there would be anything wrong with establishing a much longer I-12 route in Texas. It could be potentially around 357 miles in length. That would be starting at I-10 exit 477 in West Texas, the US-290 junction. It would go 113 miles to I-35 in Austin, run concurrent with I-35 in Austin for 8 miles, go around 126 miles to TX-99, roughly 61 miles on the North part of the Grand Parkway and then another 49 miles to I-10 in Beaumont.
Another somewhat shorter version could be a combo of US-290 West of Austin and TX-71 East of Austin. That "I-10N" route would be nearly 200 miles in length. Obviously that length would vary some based on what sort of new alignment routes a US-290 freeway going West out of the Austin metro is forced to take. I doubt if it would be feasible to upgrade US-290 on its existing alignment thru Dripping Springs. But then again, it's mostly commercial businesses lining the 290 route. A new terrain alignment is going to consume residential properties.
In my ideal vision, I'd had I-12 overlap with I-10 to Beaumont, then have it follow US 90 to Houston, then overlap with I-10 again through the inner loop, then have it follow US 290 to Austin. From there I'd have it follow either US 183 or SH 71 to future I-14 or 27. Though it'd probably be harder to have I-12 follow US 90 between Houston and Beaumont because of all the properties on the way.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 11, 2023, 01:07:40 PM
Seriously, I don't think there would be anything wrong with establishing a much longer I-12 route in Texas. It could be potentially around 357 miles in length. That would be starting at I-10 exit 477 in West Texas, the US-290 junction. It would go 113 miles to I-35 in Austin, run concurrent with I-35 in Austin for 8 miles, go around 126 miles to TX-99, roughly 61 miles on the North part of the Grand Parkway and then another 49 miles to I-10 in Beaumont.
The "I-12" portion from Grand Parkway to Beaumont would be perfect along the US-90 route.
Quote from: Some one on March 11, 2023, 05:07:52 PM
In my ideal vision, I'd had I-12 overlap with I-10 to Beaumont, then have it follow US 90 to Houston, then overlap with I-10 again through the inner loop, then have it follow US 290 to Austin. From there I'd have it follow either US 183 or SH 71 to future I-14 or 27. Though it'd probably be harder to have I-12 follow US 90 between Houston and Beaumont because of all the properties on the way.
There is lots of open land between Crosby and Beaumont. I agree that along the current US-90 is a little bit congested, but on a greenfield, there is plenty.
Then again, I hate the I-12 numbering idea.
The US-290 corridor west of Austing and the SH-71 corridor east of Austin is and always will be the best route to upgrade, be it a repeated I-12 or my favorite, I-18 (it used to be compliant until, ya know, I-14). First off, it's a shorter route to upgrade total (meaning less $$$), and second it ties into I-10 at both ends putting Austin affectively on the I-10 coast-to-coast corridor. Any other route will make the Houston-Austin interstate kinda a one off.
What's wrong with a second I-12? We only have a bunch of other 2-digit Interstate routes that have separate segments in other parts of the country: I-49, I-69, I-74, I-76, I-84, I-86, I-87, I-88, I-99. I might have missed one or more examples. A second I-12 wouldn't exactly be breaking any rules.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14The US-290 corridor west of Austin and the SH-71 corridor east of Austin is and always will be the best route to upgrade, be it a repeated I-12 or my favorite, I-18 (it used to be compliant until, ya know, I-14). First off, it's a shorter route to upgrade total (meaning less $$$), and second it ties into I-10 at both ends putting Austin affectively on the I-10 coast-to-coast corridor. Any other route will make the Houston-Austin interstate kinda a one off.
The TX-71 would be the shortest, easiest and least costly highway segment to upgrade to Interstate standards. And it seems likely Interstate quality upgrades on that portion of TX-71 will happen in additional phases. But TX-71 is not a replacement for US-290. The US-290 corridor connects more directly with the Northern half of the Houston metro, which is growing considerably faster than the Southern half. My opinion is since the Houston metro is so gigantic in terms of size and population and the Austin metro is not tiny at all either both of those highway corridors are going to have to be upgraded.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 11, 2023, 11:54:17 PM
What's wrong with a second I-12? We only have a bunch of other 2-digit Interstate routes that have separate segments in other parts of the country: I-49, I-69, I-74, I-76, I-84, I-86, I-87, I-88, I-99. I might have missed one or more examples. A second I-12 wouldn't exactly be breaking any rules.
I-49, I-69, I-74, and I-99 are all planned to be connected. Some may not happen, but that is the idea behind the numbering. Any "I-12" would not be connected, nor planned to be.
I-76, I-84, I-86, I-87, and I-88 are in different regions altogether and many hours apart. "I-12" would be duplicated within 250 miles.
While the idea for connecting route providing a "I-10N" in a sense is plausible, I'm not sure there's much warrant traffic wise to upgrading west of Austin, especially closer to I-10. I-10 even dips to under 10,000 AADT west of US-290, traffic volumes on US-290 are in the 2,000 range I believe. There's zero need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars upgrading that. And the argument I've seen thrown around here that tons of traffic is driving another hour via San Antonio to avoid two lane road is false. It might be some, but certainly not adding a lot of traffic. And again - I-10 west of US-290 dips to below 10,000 in some areas.
Let's focus on getting SH-71 to interstate standards east of Austin first.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 12, 2023, 12:28:39 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 11, 2023, 11:54:17 PM
What's wrong with a second I-12? We only have a bunch of other 2-digit Interstate routes that have separate segments in other parts of the country: I-49, I-69, I-74, I-76, I-84, I-86, I-87, I-88, I-99. I might have missed one or more examples. A second I-12 wouldn't exactly be breaking any rules.
I-49, I-69, I-74, and I-99 are all planned to be connected. Some may not happen, but that is the idea behind the numbering. Any "I-12" would not be connected, nor planned to be.
I-76, I-84, I-86, I-87, and I-88 are in different regions altogether and many hours apart. "I-12" would be duplicated within 250 miles.
While the idea for connecting route providing a "I-10N" in a sense is plausible, I'm not sure there's much warrant traffic wise to upgrading west of Austin, especially closer to I-10. I-10 even dips to under 10,000 AADT west of US-290, traffic volumes on US-290 are in the 2,000 range I believe. There's zero need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars upgrading that. And the argument I've seen thrown around here that tons of traffic is driving another hour via San Antonio to avoid two lane road is false. It might be some, but certainly not adding a lot of traffic. And again - I-10 west of US-290 dips to below 10,000 in some areas.
Let's focus on getting SH-71 to interstate standards east of Austin first.
They can do like I-80 and I-90 in IN/OH: Run I-12 and I-10 concurrent from LA thru TX until they split again.
Thread's gone full fictional.
Here's my "radical" idea: leave the 290 corridor US 290! That makes the most sense to me; unless someone can come up with a good explanation (excuse) on why Texas needs more Interstate Highway designations. Hint: It doesn't IMHO.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 12, 2023, 12:39:46 PM
Here's my "radical" idea: leave the 290 corridor US 290! That makes the most sense to me; unless someone can come up with a good explanation (excuse) on why Texas needs more Interstate Highway designations. Hint: It doesn't IMHO.
Counterpoint: After US 59, US 290 is arguably the most important non-interstate corridor in the Houston region. While US 59 is slowly being upgraded to interstate standard (and will eventually be I-69), that leaves US 290. And let's face it, whether it becomes interstate or not, US 290 is due for some upgrades. And while I do agree that some of Texas's interstate designations are pretty silly (cough) I-14 and the 69 suffixes, I think designating US 290 as an interstate would make some sense. After all, why wouldn't you want the corridor between the capital and largest city to be an interstate?
I am fine with US 290 receiving whatever improvements are deemed necessary for the corridor. I just want said-corridor to keep its existing designation.
If TX DOT has the say on route designations (rather than politicians) both US-290 and TX-71 will remain named as such regardless if either or both are upgraded to Interstate standards between Houston and Austin.
Quote from: sprjus4I-49, I-69, I-74, and I-99 are all planned to be connected. Some may not happen, but that is the idea behind the numbering. Any "I-12" would not be connected, nor planned to be.
I-74 ain't gonna happen. Chances are very slim for I-99, even though the NY and PA segments are not very far apart. I-69 faces very difficult hurdles in Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississippi -with Mississippi being by far the worst challenge. I-49 arguably has the best chance of being fully connected since it's up to just one state (Arkansas) to make it happen.
Quote from: sprjus4I-76, I-84, I-86, I-87, and I-88 are in different regions altogether and many hours apart. "I-12" would be duplicated within 250 miles.
The two I-87 routes aren't all that far apart. The existing I-12 route is nothing more than a short relief route for I-10, and it probably should have been given a 3-digit I-x10 number. A Texas I-12 route either 357 miles long or 200 miles long (depending on route overlaps chosen) would serve a larger purpose going East-West thru the Austin metro (2 million+ population). But, like I-12 in Louisiana, the East and West ends of this route would terminate at I-10.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 12, 2023, 06:56:59 PM
If TX DOT has the say on route designations (rather than politicians) both US-290 and TX-71 will remain named as such regardless if either or both are upgraded to Interstate standards between Houston and Austin.
Yeah, it seems as though unless it's congressionally designated, TXDOT has no interest in redesignating their highways as interstates. Would US 190 and US 59 have even been redesignated as interstates if they weren't congressionally?
Regardless of if they become interstates or not, both highways do need to be upgraded to (near) interstate standards. Hopefully, once they remove the last stoplight on SH 71 they shift their focus to the 290 corridor.
Quote from: Some one on March 12, 2023, 08:57:13 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 12, 2023, 06:56:59 PM
If TX DOT has the say on route designations (rather than politicians) both US-290 and TX-71 will remain named as such regardless if either or both are upgraded to Interstate standards between Houston and Austin.
Yeah, it seems as though unless it's congressionally designated, TXDOT has no interest in redesignating their highways as interstates. Would US 190 and US 59 have even been redesignated as interstates if they weren't congressionally?
Regardless of if they become interstates or not, both highways do need to be upgraded to (near) interstate standards. Hopefully, once they remove the last stoplight on SH 71 they shift their focus to the 290 corridor.
There are additional requirements on new construction if it is an interstate. There are mandatory upgrades / differences to change from a non-interstate to an interstate and finally it requires additional paperwork to use federal funds on an interstate.
If it is not an interstate, TxDOT controls the rhetoric. If it an interstate, FHWA and AASHTO control it. If the funds are not specific to an Interstate, there are clear reasons advantages to not make it an Interstate.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 12, 2023, 06:56:59 PM
Quote from: sprjus4I-49, I-69, I-74, and I-99 are all planned to be connected. Some may not happen, but that is the idea behind the numbering. Any "I-12" would not be connected, nor planned to be.
I-74 ain't gonna happen. Chances are very slim for I-99, even though the NY and PA segments are not very far apart. I-69 faces very difficult hurdles in Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississippi -with Mississippi being by far the worst challenge. I-49 arguably has the best chance of being fully connected since it's up to just one state (Arkansas) to make it happen.
Like I said - "some may not happen, but that is the idea behind the numbering" .
Quote
Quote from: sprjus4I-76, I-84, I-86, I-87, and I-88 are in different regions altogether and many hours apart. "I-12" would be duplicated within 250 miles.
The two I-87 routes aren't all that far apart. The existing I-12 route is nothing more than a short relief route for I-10, and it probably should have been given a 3-digit I-x10 number. A Texas I-12 route either 357 miles long or 200 miles long (depending on route overlaps chosen) would serve a larger purpose going East-West thru the Austin metro (2 million+ population). But, like I-12 in Louisiana, the East and West ends of this route would terminate at I-10.
Any idea for a "I-12" routing is purely fictional. This thread is related on upgrades to freeway standards along US-290 between Austin and Houston.
This idea for "I-12" seems to come up every time freeway upgrades or interchanges are discussed... can we split the real stuff from this fictional concept that is likely decades from fruition / will never happen (particularly west of Austin)?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on March 12, 2023, 06:10:46 PM
I am fine with US 290 receiving whatever improvements are deemed necessary for the corridor. I just want said-corridor to keep its existing designation.
I want them to change to an interstate designation only because it forces TxDOT to upgrade the entire corridor to interstate standards. TxDOT is notorious for going halfway with things unless they are forced to do better. Designating it as an interstate corridor (whether it be US-290 or SH-71) will force TxDOT to get rid of hills with bad sightlines, driveways connecting directly to the mainlanes, usually sharp turns and intersections. I have seen it happen too many times. They may make SH-71 a 90% freeway but it will still have some unsafe areas. making an interstate designation will force their cheapness out of the project.
I wonder if US-290 and/or TX-71 between Austin and Houston can be added to the Interstate system but do so as un-signed routes. Whether the corridors are signed as Interstates or not, the at-grade intersections and driveways connecting to the main lanes need to be eliminated. They gotta go.
It's one thing if you have a four-lane divided highway, such as OK-7 between Lawton and Duncan, that doesn't directly connect two of the most populous cities in the nation. Traffic isn't all that heavy on OK-7. So if some guy in a pickup truck hauling a trailer pulls out onto the main lanes from a section line road and then goes 25mph for a couple miles before finally getting up to speed you can usually get around that crap by using the left lane. On a highway like US-290 you're more likely to get boxed in behind the slow rolling pickup and trailer. There are more conflict points along the highway.
I'm mostly annoyed Texas chose 14 for their fantasy central Texas corridor. To me, 18 is a better number. Then 14 is free for whatever someone wants to do in Austin.
Yeah "I-18" would have been a far more logical choice for that Interstate stub in Killeen. My guess the politicians who picked the route number figured I-14 would be the only future East-West Interstate route between I-20 and I-10 in Texas, Louisiana, etc. In addition Texas has its own intra-state political rivalry: big city metros vs everyone else. The everyone else camp takes ownership of "I-14" to throw a middle finger at people in Austin.
Figures. I hadn't popped into this thread in quite some time–if I even had at all previously–and what do I find? A discussion about route numbers...
Quote from: kphoger on March 15, 2023, 12:15:00 PM
Figures. I hadn't popped into this thread in quite some time–if I even had at all previously–and what do I find? A discussion about route numbers...
Anytime any improvements get discussed between Austin and Houston, it seems the same users bring in the interstate upgrade idea, then start talking these route number concepts. Fictional highways exists for a reason.
It's a more than a stretch to call these sections of US-290 or TX-71 and the remote but possible prospects of an Interstate designation "fictional." These are existing corridors between two of the biggest cities in the US. We're not talking about non-existent routes that have to be built from scratch.
It's ridiculous so many people on this forum are joyous about the I-14 crap linking Killeen and College Station sometime in the decades ahead yet they're getting their panties in a twist over an Interstate highway directly linking Austin and Houston. That's hypocrisy.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 15, 2023, 09:54:28 PM
It's a more than a stretch to call these sections of US-290 or TX-71 and the remote but possible prospects of an Interstate designation "fictional." These are existing corridors between two of the biggest cities in the US. We're not talking about non-existent routes that have to be built from scratch.
Fictional proposal. TxDOT has not officially planned any full length freeway upgrades or interstate designation for the corridor. It's fictional.
Am I saying the idea has no merit? No. But it does not belong in a thread about real upgrades to US-290. Move it to fictional highways, and discuss all day long. When it becomes a real, official proposal, then a new thread can be created in the Mid-South forum.
Quote
It's ridiculous so many people on this forum are joyous about the I-14 crap linking Killeen and College Station sometime in the decades ahead yet they're getting their panties in a twist over an Interstate highway directly linking Austin and Houston. That's hypocrisy.
No one is "joyous" . It's simply a real world, real life proposal by TxDOT, and has its own merits.
Doesn't US 290 have a superstreet design in several places? That would be a good placeholder for the freeway upgrades yet to come. Build some interchanges at major highways where there already isn't one, and utilize Michigan lefts at the minor intersections, effectively eliminating all the cross traffic; best of both worlds.
Quote from: Henry on March 15, 2023, 10:27:52 PM
Doesn't US 290 have a superstreet design in several places? That would be a good placeholder for the freeway upgrades yet to come. Build some interchanges at major highways where there already isn't one, and utilize Michigan lefts at the minor intersections, effectively eliminating all the cross traffic; best of both worlds.
I'm not sure, to be honest. I know TxDOT recently reconstructed a portion from an undivided 4 lane to a 4 lane divided highway with a median, but with standard intersections.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 15, 2023, 10:02:23 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 15, 2023, 09:54:28 PM
It's a more than a stretch to call these sections of US-290 or TX-71 and the remote but possible prospects of an Interstate designation "fictional." These are existing corridors between two of the biggest cities in the US. We're not talking about non-existent routes that have to be built from scratch.
Fictional proposal. TxDOT has not officially planned any full length freeway upgrades or interstate designation for the corridor. It's fictional.
Am I saying the idea has no merit? No. But it does not belong in a thread about real upgrades to US-290. Move it to fictional highways, and discuss all day long. When it becomes a real, official proposal, then a new thread can be created in the Mid-South forum.
Quote
It's ridiculous so many people on this forum are joyous about the I-14 crap linking Killeen and College Station sometime in the decades ahead yet they're getting their panties in a twist over an Interstate highway directly linking Austin and Houston. That's hypocrisy.
No one is "joyous" . It's simply a real world, real life proposal by TxDOT, and has its own merits.
There has been official discussion and legislation proposed to designate US290 as an Interstate, it just didn't get any traction. So I think this is a grey area when it comes to being fictional:
https://www.chron.com/neighborhood/cyfair-news/article/Officials-favoring-upgrade-by-TXDOT-2180292.php
Quote from: thisdj78 on March 16, 2023, 09:13:13 AM
There has been official discussion and legislation proposed to designate US290 as an Interstate, it just didn't get any traction. So I think this is a grey area when it comes to being fictional:
https://www.chron.com/neighborhood/cyfair-news/article/Officials-favoring-upgrade-by-TXDOT-2180292.php
Unless I missed it in the article, the only officials discussing and proposing it were two US Representatives and a Chamber of Commerce. They sent
recommendations that TxDOT consider it, but that doesn't mean TxDOT actually did.
Quote from: kphoger on March 16, 2023, 10:01:39 AM
Quote from: thisdj78 on March 16, 2023, 09:13:13 AM
There has been official discussion and legislation proposed to designate US290 as an Interstate, it just didn't get any traction. So I think this is a grey area when it comes to being fictional:
https://www.chron.com/neighborhood/cyfair-news/article/Officials-favoring-upgrade-by-TXDOT-2180292.php
Unless I missed it in the article, the only officials discussing and proposing it were two US Representatives and a Chamber of Commerce. They sent recommendations that TxDOT consider it, but that doesn't mean TxDOT actually did.
My overall point is that, once discussion has happened at the legislative level (even if it never made it into a bill) and it is documented in the news (as in the link above), I would think that it is no longer fictional. It may not be considered by TXDOT in the near term, but it's clearly not just us talking about it on a highway forum.
Quote from: thisdj78 on March 16, 2023, 11:55:01 AM
My overall point is that, once discussion has happened at the legislative level (even if it never made it into a bill) and it is documented in the news (as in the link above), I would think that it is no longer fictional.
Adding tolls to existing Interstate highways has been "discussed" by both Congress and the President under at least the Obama and Trump administrations. Does this take tolling existing Interstates out of the realm of fiction?
Quote from: kphoger on March 16, 2023, 12:05:56 PM
Quote from: thisdj78 on March 16, 2023, 11:55:01 AM
My overall point is that, once discussion has happened at the legislative level (even if it never made it into a bill) and it is documented in the news (as in the link above), I would think that it is no longer fictional.
Adding tolls to existing Interstate highways has been "discussed" by both Congress and the President under at least the Obama and Trump administrations. Does this take tolling existing Interstates out of the realm of fiction?
In my personal opinion, yes. Fictional to me means something that has never been discussed and documented at an official level. As I noted before though, I fully concede that it is a grey area.
^ The letter in question seems to seek redesignation of the existing US-290 freeway between I-10 / I-610 and SH-6 in Hempstead, given it's mention the route "already meets interstate standards" .
I don't believe it's talking about upgrading the rural sections west of there to interstate standards.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 16, 2023, 03:37:29 PM
^ The letter in question seems to seek redesignation of the existing US-290 freeway between I-10 / I-610 and SH-6 in Hempstead, given it's mention the route "already meets interstate standards" .
I don't believe it's talking about upgrading the rural sections west of there to interstate standards.
Yes they refer to the existing route but in hopes that the interstate designation would speed up improvements on the rest of the route. One of the congressmen is out of Austin BTW, so he had a mutual interest in the designation.
Quote from: thisdj78 on March 16, 2023, 11:01:39 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 16, 2023, 03:37:29 PM
^ The letter in question seems to seek redesignation of the existing US-290 freeway between I-10 / I-610 and SH-6 in Hempstead, given it's mention the route "already meets interstate standards" .
I don't believe it's talking about upgrading the rural sections west of there to interstate standards.
Yes they refer to the existing route but in hopes that the interstate designation would speed up improvements on the rest of the route. One of the congressmen is out of Austin BTW, so he had a mutual interest in the designation.
Was it specified about hoping towards further upgrades of the route? Or is that speculation?
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 16, 2023, 11:46:15 PM
Quote from: thisdj78 on March 16, 2023, 11:01:39 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 16, 2023, 03:37:29 PM
^ The letter in question seems to seek redesignation of the existing US-290 freeway between I-10 / I-610 and SH-6 in Hempstead, given it's mention the route "already meets interstate standards" .
I don't believe it's talking about upgrading the rural sections west of there to interstate standards.
Yes they refer to the existing route but in hopes that the interstate designation would speed up improvements on the rest of the route. One of the congressmen is out of Austin BTW, so he had a mutual interest in the designation.
Was it specified about hoping towards further upgrades of the route? Or is that speculation?
Yes, mentioned twice in the article:
" Local leaders in northwest Houston are asking the Texas Department of Transportation to seek U.S. 290's designation as a federal interstate highway not only to gain potential federal funds for its expansion but also to improve its visibility as a location for business and industry wanting to locate in Texas." " The designation could improve the potential for federal funding to expand the highway, he said."
That's still vague though... extension further west? Or expansion as in, widen the existing freeway with more capacity.
That's what expansion sounds like to me.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 16, 2023, 11:54:16 PM
That's still vague though... extension further west? Or expansion as in, widen the existing freeway with more capacity.
That's what expansion sounds like to me.
They note in the article that this is not regarding existing expansion plans:
" would not impact existing plans to expand U.S. 290 because the current design already meets interstate standards." So this was referring to expansion further west. Considering that one of the Representatives district is pretty much all of the rural area between Waller and Elgin, that would make sense.
Read further.
Quote Business leaders cite traffic congestion on U.S. 290 as a detriment to potential economic growth in the region, but only a portion of its planned expansion has been funded by the state.
According to TxDOT's US290.com website, construction is under way on Project K, the inbound interchange with I-10 and Loop 610 funded with a $314.5 million allocation from Proposition 12 bond funds.
In October, the Texas Transportation Commission approved an additional $140 million, including $50 million for right of way and $90 million for construction of Project J-1, which includes the interchange and partial outbound improvements.
But a funding source has not been pinned down for reconstruction and widening of the highway from Loop 610 all the way to FM 2920, including two segments from 610 to FM 1960 which rank in the top third of the state's 100 most congested highway segments.
The
existing expansion plans a decade ago would not be impacted as their design already meets interstate standards. But other portions of the US-290 corridor between Hempstead and Houston still needed funding for improvements, and this is was hopeful to be a potential source.
Again - no mention of
anything west of Hempstead.
^ Just because a representative from outside the immediate corridor supports it, doesn't mean the work has to occur there.
For example, I live down in South Hampton Roads, VA. They are funding and will soon begin construction of 29 miles of widening on I-64 east of Richmond. I am over an hour away from that project, but I still strongly support it, and so do elected officials in Hampton Roads, because it impacts a route to the Hampton Roads region, even though the physical construction is in a rural area.
In the same sense, representatives west of Hempstead and Austin may support it because widening the urban US-290 freeway in the Houston area would ultimately benefit traffic using that segment to get to Austin.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 17, 2023, 12:09:25 AM
^ Just because a representative from outside the immediate corridor supports it, doesn't mean the work has to occur there.
For example, I live down in South Hampton Roads, VA. They are funding and will soon begin construction of 29 miles of widening on I-64 east of Richmond. I am over an hour away from that project, but I still strongly support it, and so do elected officials in Hampton Roads, because it impacts a route to the Hampton Roads region, even though the physical construction is in a rural area.
In the same sense, representatives west of Hempstead and Austin may support it because widening the urban US-290 freeway in the Houston area would ultimately benefit traffic using that segment to get to Austin.
Either way you look at it, my original point is that designating US290 as an interstate is not fictional, based on the article. Whether it refers to just the portion to Hempstead or the rural parts....the point remains that US290 in some form or fashion was officially discussed/proposed as a possible interstate. With that said, it should not be simply discarded as fictional.
Would 290 be a three digit interstate? Renamed I-12, and make I-12 a three digit intestate? Rename I-14 to something else, since Ft. Hood is getting renamed too in two years.
Quote from: longhorn on March 17, 2023, 10:47:22 AM
Would 290 be a three digit interstate? Renamed I-12, and make I-12 a three digit intestate? Rename I-14 to something else, since Ft. Hood is getting renamed too in two years.
Following the real-life proposal (albeit 10 years old) to designate US-290 between Hempstead and Houston as an interstate highway, likely a 3di if anything. That would be too short for a 2di designation.
Quote from: longhorn on March 17, 2023, 10:47:22 AM
Would 290 be a three digit interstate? Renamed I-12, and make I-12 a three digit intestate? Rename I-14 to something else, since Ft. Hood is getting renamed too in two years.
There is no urgency in Texas to hang an IH sign on a highway: even on a fully grade separated facility with through frontage roads. While the casual observer would assume that this is all it takes, THINK AGAIN.
Why not? There are little tweaks that FHWA and AASHTO require for an Interstate that they don't require for US Highways (or state numbered routes that surprisingly can be funded with federal dollars.) The bottom line is if they don't label it as IH, then there are certain personal (TxDOT) preferences that can be applied, there are cases where expense can be cut, and finally the existing numbers and the familiarity that comes with them doesn't change. Expense cutting is not limited to the kinds of things that you hear on here ad nauseum. While in a lot of cases, leaving driveways, minor cross traffic, and terrible sightlines will save a LOT of money, there are reasons beyond this for not taking the IH plunge.
There is ONE clear advantage for IH labeling. There is absolutely no guessing if it is fully controlled access. (Except in West Texas and the next couple of states on I-10 and I-40.)
Quote from: bwana39 on March 17, 2023, 03:11:32 PM
Quote from: longhorn on March 17, 2023, 10:47:22 AM
Would 290 be a three digit interstate? Renamed I-12, and make I-12 a three digit intestate? Rename I-14 to something else, since Ft. Hood is getting renamed too in two years.
There is no urgency in Texas to hang an IH sign on a highway: even on a fully grade separated facility with through frontage roads. While the casual observer would assume that this is all it takes, THINK AGAIN.
Why not? There are little tweaks that FHWA and AASHTO require for an Interstate that they don't require for US Highways (or state numbered routes that surprisingly can be funded with federal dollars.) The bottom line is if they don't label it as IH, then there are certain personal (TxDOT) preferences that can be applied, there are cases where expense can be cut, and finally the existing numbers and the familiarity that comes with them doesn't change. Expense cutting is not limited to the kinds of things that you hear on here ad nauseum. While in a lot of cases, leaving driveways, minor cross traffic, and terrible sightlines will save a LOT of money, there are reasons beyond this for not taking the IH plunge.
There is ONE clear advantage for IH labeling. There is absolutely no guessing if it is fully controlled access. (Except in West Texas and the next couple of states on I-10 and I-40.)
I used to agree with that statement, until I-2 and I-14 were signed as interstates. Frankly I think they are both subpar interstates. So is I-69E in Calallen. To me they look just like all the rest of the non-interstate freeways in Texas.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on March 20, 2023, 12:14:26 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on March 17, 2023, 03:11:32 PM
Quote from: longhorn on March 17, 2023, 10:47:22 AM
Would 290 be a three digit interstate? Renamed I-12, and make I-12 a three digit intestate? Rename I-14 to something else, since Ft. Hood is getting renamed too in two years.
There is no urgency in Texas to hang an IH sign on a highway: even on a fully grade separated facility with through frontage roads. While the casual observer would assume that this is all it takes, THINK AGAIN.
Why not? There are little tweaks that FHWA and AASHTO require for an Interstate that they don't require for US Highways (or state numbered routes that surprisingly can be funded with federal dollars.) The bottom line is if they don't label it as IH, then there are certain personal (TxDOT) preferences that can be applied, there are cases where expense can be cut, and finally the existing numbers and the familiarity that comes with them doesn't change. Expense cutting is not limited to the kinds of things that you hear on here ad nauseum. While in a lot of cases, leaving driveways, minor cross traffic, and terrible sightlines will save a LOT of money, there are reasons beyond this for not taking the IH plunge.
There is ONE clear advantage for IH labeling. There is absolutely no guessing if it is fully controlled access. (Except in West Texas and the next couple of states on I-10 and I-40.)
I used to agree with that statement, until I-2 and I-14 were signed as interstates. Frankly I think they are both subpar interstates. So is I-69E in Calallen. To me they look just like all the rest of the non-interstate freeways in Texas.
We've been over this ground before - those were legislative decisions.
Also - I-2 and I-69E are perfectly fine for interstate highways in terms of design, I don't see any issues with them.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 20, 2023, 12:43:10 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on March 20, 2023, 12:14:26 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on March 17, 2023, 03:11:32 PM
Quote from: longhorn on March 17, 2023, 10:47:22 AM
Would 290 be a three digit interstate? Renamed I-12, and make I-12 a three digit intestate? Rename I-14 to something else, since Ft. Hood is getting renamed too in two years.
There is no urgency in Texas to hang an IH sign on a highway: even on a fully grade separated facility with through frontage roads. While the casual observer would assume that this is all it takes, THINK AGAIN.
Why not? There are little tweaks that FHWA and AASHTO require for an Interstate that they don't require for US Highways (or state numbered routes that surprisingly can be funded with federal dollars.) The bottom line is if they don't label it as IH, then there are certain personal (TxDOT) preferences that can be applied, there are cases where expense can be cut, and finally the existing numbers and the familiarity that comes with them doesn't change. Expense cutting is not limited to the kinds of things that you hear on here ad nauseum. While in a lot of cases, leaving driveways, minor cross traffic, and terrible sightlines will save a LOT of money, there are reasons beyond this for not taking the IH plunge.
There is ONE clear advantage for IH labeling. There is absolutely no guessing if it is fully controlled access. (Except in West Texas and the next couple of states on I-10 and I-40.)
I used to agree with that statement, until I-2 and I-14 were signed as interstates. Frankly I think they are both subpar interstates. So is I-69E in Calallen. To me they look just like all the rest of the non-interstate freeways in Texas.
We've been over this ground before - those were legislative decisions.
Also - I-2 and I-69E are perfectly fine for interstate highways in terms of design, I don't see any issues with them.
I wasn't talking about the numbers or the fact they are interstates. I am talking about the quality of the actual road. Just the eye test makes me think interstate standards are a bit more loosey goosey than we all think.
What I mean by that, I-69E in Calallen looks more like a half freeway around a po-dunk town than a true interstate. The median seems too narrow, and the pavement looks more like Texas' rural US-highways, which are not the standard of pavement you get on Texas' interstates. To me, it looks like they wanted the designation there so bad, they just approved it as is. This is my opinion, to me it looks substandard for interstate highways.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on March 21, 2023, 09:58:38 AM
Just the eye test makes me think interstate standards are a bit more loosey goosey than we all think.
What I mean by that, I-69E in Calallen looks more like a half freeway around a po-dunk town than a true interstate. The median seems too narrow ...
Interstate design standards call for a left shoulder of no less than four feet if the roadway has fewer than three lanes. I'm not seeing anywhere along I-69E in Calallen that violates that standard.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on March 21, 2023, 09:58:38 AM
What I mean by that, I-69E in Calallen looks more like a half freeway around a po-dunk town than a true interstate. The median seems too narrow, and the pavement looks more like Texas' rural US-highways, which are not the standard of pavement you get on Texas' interstates. To me, it looks like they wanted the designation there so bad, they just approved it as is. This is my opinion, to me it looks substandard for interstate highways.
How so? The highway has two 12 foot travel lanes, 10 foot right paved shoulder, 4 foot left paved shoulder, and a grassy 40-50 ft median. It has full control of access, overpasses, ramps, frontage roads, etc. Where does it violate interstate standards at all?
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 21, 2023, 01:22:00 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on March 21, 2023, 09:58:38 AM
What I mean by that, I-69E in Calallen looks more like a half freeway around a po-dunk town than a true interstate. The median seems too narrow, and the pavement looks more like Texas' rural US-highways, which are not the standard of pavement you get on Texas' interstates. To me, it looks like they wanted the designation there so bad, they just approved it as is. This is my opinion, to me it looks substandard for interstate highways.
How so? The highway has two 12 foot travel lanes, 10 foot right paved shoulder, 4 foot left paved shoulder, and a grassy 40-50 ft median. It has full control of access, overpasses, ramps, frontage roads, etc. Where does it violate interstate standards at all?
I wasn't talking about the shoulders. There are more to the standards than the shoulders. The median feels too narrow here (https://goo.gl/maps/1z1mriJYdED8XhjZ8). I am not talking about getting out and throwing a tape measure on it. Also the sightlines on the overpasses seem more like rural US highway freeways in Texas then a true interstate highway, as in they seem too blind. It was repaved recently, so it used to look like this (https://goo.gl/maps/NUKxtyR9f1nJHFG8A). Just to me, that's so subpar asphalt compared to interstates in Texas that have been interstates since the beginning.
I am not saying it doesn't conform, because obviously it does, but it looks like all the other rural non-interstate freeways in Texas, and as we have stated ad nauseum, if Texas don't have to, Texas won't. So, either most or all of Texas' non-interstate freeways are actually built to interstate standards, or the interstate standards are not quite as hardcore as everyone makes them out to be. Again, this is all my opinion on how this freeway looks when I drive it vs. other interstates in the same state, even compared to the one it intersects with just to the north.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on March 21, 2023, 02:10:20 PM
I wasn't talking about the shoulders. There are more to the standards than the shoulders. The median feels too narrow here (https://goo.gl/maps/1z1mriJYdED8XhjZ8). I am not talking about getting out and throwing a tape measure on it.
Interstate standards call for a median of at least 50 feet. It might be a couple of feet short of that standard.
What about all the numerous Interstates that don't have a median? A bunch of them have only a concrete Jersey barrier or even a mere cable barrier separating the two directions of traffic. New segments of super highways signed as Interstates get built like that all the time.
The main difference I see with modern Interstate standards is better/longer ramp designs and wider shoulders. I'm sure there are other things involving how smooth the road should be (not a bunch of rolling dips and rises). Median width doesn't seem to be a big issue. Not unless the median will have no physical barriers, be it concrete or cable barriers.
Quote from: kphoger on March 21, 2023, 02:39:32 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on March 21, 2023, 02:10:20 PMI wasn't talking about the shoulders. There are more to the standards than the shoulders. The median feels too narrow here (https://goo.gl/maps/1z1mriJYdED8XhjZ8). I am not talking about getting out and throwing a tape measure on it.
Interstate standards call for a median of at least 50 feet. It might be a couple of feet short of that standard.
I threw the tape measure or, rather, the Google Maps measure tool. What you say is correct on both counts--minimum median width in rural areas is 50 feet and I-69E/US 77 appears to have a median width of 48 feet at this location. However, it does have cable barrier.
The 2016 edition of the Interstate standards uses the word
should for median width, but
shall for other criteria such as shoulders and unit lane width, which suggests to me that there is more leeway for medians.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 21, 2023, 07:05:35 PMWhat about all the numerous Interstates that don't have a median? A bunch of them have only a concrete Jersey barrier or even a mere cable barrier separating the two directions of traffic. New segments of super highways signed as Interstates get built like that all the time.
A barrier of some kind (cable or Jersey) is the usual get-out. The 50-foot minimum applies just to flat and rolling topographies in any case.
Another aspect of median design referenced in the Interstate standards is that the median
should not be engineered to drain over the traveled way. However, first-generation public-authority turnpikes (including the rural lengths of I-44 in Oklahoma) still hang on to Interstate status despite not honoring this guideline.
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 21, 2023, 11:37:44 PM
The 2016 edition of the Interstate standards uses the word should for median width, but shall for other criteria such as shoulders and unit lane width, which suggests to me that there is more leeway for medians.
There definitely is. Texas seems to either use 48 foot for standard median width on new construction (some exceptions do exist with wider), or a concrete barrier only (narrow median).
North Carolina uses 46 foot median for the most part, including over 100 miles of I-40 built between Raleigh and Wilmington in the 1980s. Even the newer addition freeways have areas with 46 foot median. There's nothing wrong with it.
I wouldn't advise narrow medians on new construction, but incorporating an older freeway segment with a narrow median (after installing cable barrier at the minimum) that meets interstate standards otherwise (full access control, full paved shoulders, etc.) should be, and is allowed.
Kentucky's segments of I-69 along the existing parkways have a 35 foot median I believe, and they've all been incorporated. There wasn't even a cable barrier installed in most places. I believe from a safety standpoint, those should be incorporated regardless of standards or not. You have two dual roadways with opposing 70+ mph traffic that close, there ought to be a barrier.
Quote from: J N Winkler on March 21, 2023, 11:37:44 PM
A barrier of some kind (cable or Jersey) is the usual get-out. The 50-foot minimum applies just to flat and rolling topographies in any case.
To wit, medians in urban or mountainous areas (which is where barriers are mentioned) are required to be "wide enough to accommodate the left shoulder width plus the space needed for a barrier". This seems to assume that barriers are only ever used in urban or mountainous areas, but such is obviously not the case.
TXDOT is taking public comment on its 2050 plan until May 31st. Being that I do not see any plans for US290 or SH71, I will be submitting a comment on the need to expand these corridors:
Email: ConnectingTexas2050@txdot.gov
http://txdot.gov/en/home/projects/hearings-meetings/transportation-planning/connecting-texas-2050.html
*If the above link doesn't work, try getting there from this article:
https://communityimpact.com/austin/central-austin/transportation/2023/03/23/heres-how-you-can-provide-input-on-the-statewide-transportation-plan-for-2050/
71 is in the process of having all stops removed, it will soon be free flowing from at least Austin Oak Hill to I-10. Brenham and Chappell Hill improvements are in the pipeline, so just need a Giddings bypass and Elgin-Manor improvements to become free flowing all the way. Good enough for 99% of the population.
Quote from: armadillo speedbump on April 05, 2023, 08:49:50 PM
71 is in the process of having all stops removed, it will soon be free flowing from at least Austin Oak Hill to I-10. Brenham and Chappell Hill improvements are in the pipeline, so just need a Giddings bypass and Elgin-Manor improvements to become free flowing all the way. Good enough for 99% of the population.
Don't forget, on SH71, Ellinger needs a bypass as well. Yes it's technically "free flowing" through the town but the slower speed limit and gas/general store traffic pulling in and out, can make it unsafe.
Quote from: armadillo speedbump on April 05, 2023, 08:49:50 PM
71 is in the process of having all stops removed, it will soon be free flowing from at least Austin Oak Hill to I-10. Brenham and Chappell Hill improvements are in the pipeline, so just need a Giddings bypass and Elgin-Manor improvements to become free flowing all the way. Good enough for 99% of the population.
As I have said a billion times on this forum, I cannot stand the "good enough" approach to anything in my life. Having an expressway with at-grade intersections on it that is the route between a town with 2.5 million people and a town on 6 million people is far from good enough. Tell the person that was driving 75 miles per hour and had some old man in a pickup turn in front of them because his driveway connected directly to the highway and it killed both of them that the very unsafe conditions that where created were "good enough."
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on April 20, 2023, 11:28:49 AM
Quote from: armadillo speedbump on April 05, 2023, 08:49:50 PM
71 is in the process of having all stops removed, it will soon be free flowing from at least Austin Oak Hill to I-10. Brenham and Chappell Hill improvements are in the pipeline, so just need a Giddings bypass and Elgin-Manor improvements to become free flowing all the way. Good enough for 99% of the population.
As I have said a billion times on this forum, I cannot stand the "good enough" approach to anything in my life. Having an expressway with at-grade intersections on it that is the route between a town with 2.5 million people and a town on 6 million people is far from good enough. Tell the person that was driving 75 miles per hour and had some old man in a pickup turn in front of them because his driveway connected directly to the highway and it killed both of them that the very unsafe conditions that where created were "good enough."
Every road has its issues. It comes down to priorities. How many of these accidents have actually occurred? Do you have statistics? What is the crash frequency on the roadway? Is there a pressing need for safety improvements, such as billions of dollars being invested over spending a billion dollars to finish widening I-10 to 6 lanes, for example?
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on April 20, 2023, 11:28:49 AM
Quote from: armadillo speedbump on April 05, 2023, 08:49:50 PM
71 is in the process of having all stops removed, it will soon be free flowing from at least Austin Oak Hill to I-10. Brenham and Chappell Hill improvements are in the pipeline, so just need a Giddings bypass and Elgin-Manor improvements to become free flowing all the way. Good enough for 99% of the population.
As I have said a billion times on this forum, I cannot stand the "good enough" approach to anything in my life. Having an expressway with at-grade intersections on it that is the route between a town with 2.5 million people and a town on 6 million people is far from good enough. Tell the person that was driving 75 miles per hour and had some old man in a pickup turn in front of them because his driveway connected directly to the highway and it killed both of them that the very unsafe conditions that where created were "good enough."
Agreed, which is why there needs to be high speed rail. But most people are satisficers, rather than optimizers. Your view isn't a popular one.
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 20, 2023, 11:46:35 AM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on April 20, 2023, 11:28:49 AM
Quote from: armadillo speedbump on April 05, 2023, 08:49:50 PM
71 is in the process of having all stops removed, it will soon be free flowing from at least Austin Oak Hill to I-10. Brenham and Chappell Hill improvements are in the pipeline, so just need a Giddings bypass and Elgin-Manor improvements to become free flowing all the way. Good enough for 99% of the population.
As I have said a billion times on this forum, I cannot stand the "good enough" approach to anything in my life. Having an expressway with at-grade intersections on it that is the route between a town with 2.5 million people and a town on 6 million people is far from good enough. Tell the person that was driving 75 miles per hour and had some old man in a pickup turn in front of them because his driveway connected directly to the highway and it killed both of them that the very unsafe conditions that where created were "good enough."
Every road has its issues. It comes down to priorities. How many of these accidents have actually occurred? Do you have statistics? What is the crash frequency on the roadway? Is there a pressing need for safety improvements, such as billions of dollars being invested over spending a billion dollars to finish widening I-10 to 6 lanes, for example?
Granted, this is only a portion of US290, but it goes to show just how dangerous this road is in its current configuration:
https://www.kvue.com/article/news/local/205-crashes-have-occurred-in-the-stretch-of-us-290-between-elgin-and-mcdade-in-the-last-5-years/269-622941252
Quote from: TXtoNJ on April 20, 2023, 01:08:31 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on April 20, 2023, 11:28:49 AM
Quote from: armadillo speedbump on April 05, 2023, 08:49:50 PM
71 is in the process of having all stops removed, it will soon be free flowing from at least Austin Oak Hill to I-10. Brenham and Chappell Hill improvements are in the pipeline, so just need a Giddings bypass and Elgin-Manor improvements to become free flowing all the way. Good enough for 99% of the population.
As I have said a billion times on this forum, I cannot stand the "good enough" approach to anything in my life. Having an expressway with at-grade intersections on it that is the route between a town with 2.5 million people and a town on 6 million people is far from good enough. Tell the person that was driving 75 miles per hour and had some old man in a pickup turn in front of them because his driveway connected directly to the highway and it killed both of them that the very unsafe conditions that where created were "good enough."
Agreed, which is why there needs to be high speed rail. But most people are satisficers, rather than optimizers. Your view isn't a popular one.
I doubt the traffic reduction resulting from high-speed rail would amount to anything more than a drop in the bucket.
Quote from: kphoger on April 20, 2023, 01:31:04 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on April 20, 2023, 01:08:31 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on April 20, 2023, 11:28:49 AM
Quote from: armadillo speedbump on April 05, 2023, 08:49:50 PM
71 is in the process of having all stops removed, it will soon be free flowing from at least Austin Oak Hill to I-10. Brenham and Chappell Hill improvements are in the pipeline, so just need a Giddings bypass and Elgin-Manor improvements to become free flowing all the way. Good enough for 99% of the population.
As I have said a billion times on this forum, I cannot stand the "good enough" approach to anything in my life. Having an expressway with at-grade intersections on it that is the route between a town with 2.5 million people and a town on 6 million people is far from good enough. Tell the person that was driving 75 miles per hour and had some old man in a pickup turn in front of them because his driveway connected directly to the highway and it killed both of them that the very unsafe conditions that where created were "good enough."
Agreed, which is why there needs to be high speed rail. But most people are satisficers, rather than optimizers. Your view isn't a popular one.
I doubt the traffic reduction resulting from high-speed rail would amount to anything more than a drop in the bucket.
But it is much, much safer than driving
Trains don't go straight to the driveway of your house.
For the vast majority of Americans passenger rail is not a practical solution AT ALL. And I'm not even talking about the extremely over-priced "high speed" version of it. We can't even get regular speed rail right in this country without a short commuter line costing billions of dollars. Never mind the pie in the sky high speed rail stuff (tens or hundreds of billions there).
Most Americans have to own a motor vehicle even when living in a metro that has light rail, subways and/or elevated commuter train lines. The big downside with using mass transit is it wastes a LOT of time. There's nothing fast at all about commuting via a city bus or subway train. The only advantage one has with using such a mode of transportation is you might be able to avoid high costs of parking an automobile in a major city center. In a city like New York it's more advantageous to take the train because of the parking costs as well as bridge/tunnel tolls. But you still lose a LOT of time commuting by train, bus or ferry there.
Americans like their personal vehicles. They provide independence of movement and a decent amount of privacy.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 23, 2023, 01:09:47 AM
In a city like New York it's more advantageous to take the train because of the parking costs as well as bridge/tunnel tolls. But you still lose a LOT of time commuting by train, bus or ferry there.
I'd argue due to traffic and difficultly finding places to park in somewhere such as Manhattan, the subway would be probably be far more advantageous and faster overall. You lose time stuck in traffic, trying to find a place to park, walking a mile and half from where you parked, etc.
However, I agree that in most places, rail is going to add more time than driving.
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 23, 2023, 10:15:28 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 23, 2023, 01:09:47 AM
In a city like New York it's more advantageous to take the train because of the parking costs as well as bridge/tunnel tolls. But you still lose a LOT of time commuting by train, bus or ferry there.
I'd argue due to traffic and difficultly finding places to park in somewhere such as Manhattan, the subway would be probably be far more advantageous and faster overall. You lose time stuck in traffic, trying to find a place to park, walking a mile and half from where you parked, etc.
However, I agree that in most places, rail is going to add more time than driving.
Yep, plus our entire culture and cities are built around driving cars. Contrast that with most European cities that have grown around other modes of transport, like mass transit, walking or bicycles.
Quote from: thisdj78 on April 23, 2023, 02:10:50 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 23, 2023, 10:15:28 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 23, 2023, 01:09:47 AM
In a city like New York it's more advantageous to take the train because of the parking costs as well as bridge/tunnel tolls. But you still lose a LOT of time commuting by train, bus or ferry there.
I'd argue due to traffic and difficultly finding places to park in somewhere such as Manhattan, the subway would be probably be far more advantageous and faster overall. You lose time stuck in traffic, trying to find a place to park, walking a mile and half from where you parked, etc.
However, I agree that in most places, rail is going to add more time than driving.
Yep, plus our entire culture and cities are built around driving cars. Contrast that with most European cities that have grown around other modes of transport, like mass transit, walking or bicycles.
I know you're talking about living there, but I've found driving right into Manhattan and then using public transit to get around much more economical time and money-wise than using the available rail services to get to the metro area.
Y'all are missing the point - if we're concerned with min-maxing safety, then high speed rail is the only option. That's not what we're going for here - it's a balance of safety, speed, and serving local traffic. Nobody in the region outside of roadgeeks is pushing for an interstate corridor for either 290 or 71, because the planned upgrades are seen as an acceptable combination of all three above factors.
Quote from: RothmanI know you're talking about living there, but I've found driving right into Manhattan and then using public transit to get around much more economical time and money-wise than using the available rail services to get to the metro area.
That would depend on where you were starting your drive into Manhattan. Four of the bridges connecting Manhattan to Brooklyn and Queens don't have tolls. If you have an EZ-Pass the Queens Midtown Tunnel toll (I think) is under $7. I think it's the same for the Battery Tunnel. Driving into Manhattan from New Jersey or Staten Island is going to cost more due to the higher tolls and/or more toll bridges/tunnels to cross.
Commuting was one of my least favorite things about living in New York City. I lived on Staten Island for 4 of those 5 years. From Staten Island to Manhattan took roughly 90 minutes each way. Standing at a bus stop early in the morning in often freezing, windy weather was no fun. It would take at least 20 minutes to get up to the St George Ferry terminal. Hopefully the bus would be pulling into the station before the next boat was leaving. The ferry ride is about half an hour. If the timing was right I'd catch a bus across the Verrazano Bridge to the Bay Ridge area in Brooklyn and get on the R train. That might cut 20 or so minutes off the commute time. Riding the subway was not a fast process. All the station stops take time. All the various delays in the tunnels use up time too. Whenever I was able to ride in a passenger vehicle into Manhattan it felt like a luxury.
Quote from: TXtoNJY'all are missing the point - if we're concerned with min-maxing safety, then high speed rail is the only option.
That safety thing is an illusion. Again, a high speed rail line is not going to drop you off at the door step of your house. You have to use other modes of transportation to get to that high speed rail station,
like driving a passenger car.
Interstate quality roads on the US-290 and TX-71 corridors are going to be far less costly and far easier to build than a freaking high speed rail line. Americans are going to drive their cars. It's not as clear they'll be willing to pay a premium to park and ride on a high speed train
(and then rent a vehicle or something after reaching their destination).
Did you read the rest of the post?
Quote from: TXtoNJ on April 23, 2023, 03:18:32 PM
Y'all are missing the point - if we're concerned with min-maxing safety, then high speed rail is the only option. That's not what we're going for here - it's a balance of safety, speed, and serving local traffic. Nobody in the region outside of roadgeeks is pushing for an interstate corridor for either 290 or 71, because the planned upgrades are seen as an acceptable combination of all three above factors.
When congressmen proposed designating 290 as an Interstate, they cited commerce as the primary motivating factor. Having an Interstate run by Brenham, Giddings and Elgin would do wonders for them attracting large businesses with significant semi-truck traffic. Look at the amount of big warehouses in small towns along Interstates vs those that aren't.
Quote from: thisdj78 on April 23, 2023, 10:53:01 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on April 23, 2023, 03:18:32 PM
Y'all are missing the point - if we're concerned with min-maxing safety, then high speed rail is the only option. That's not what we're going for here - it's a balance of safety, speed, and serving local traffic. Nobody in the region outside of roadgeeks is pushing for an interstate corridor for either 290 or 71, because the planned upgrades are seen as an acceptable combination of all three above factors.
When congressmen proposed designating 290 as an Interstate, they cited commerce as the primary motivating factor. Having an Interstate run by Brenham, Giddings and Elgin would do wonders for them attracting large businesses with significant semi-truck traffic. Look at the amount of big warehouses in small towns along Interstates vs those that aren't.
They're promoting I-14 more, because Killeen/B-CS/Huntsville are all bigger cities with the same ambitions.
It gets frustrating when people from the region are mentioning why this isn't happening, only to be met with "well it should!", without any regard for the surrounding political process.
Quote from: TXtoNJ on April 24, 2023, 10:59:43 AM
Quote from: thisdj78 on April 23, 2023, 10:53:01 PM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on April 23, 2023, 03:18:32 PM
Y'all are missing the point - if we're concerned with min-maxing safety, then high speed rail is the only option. That's not what we're going for here - it's a balance of safety, speed, and serving local traffic. Nobody in the region outside of roadgeeks is pushing for an interstate corridor for either 290 or 71, because the planned upgrades are seen as an acceptable combination of all three above factors.
When congressmen proposed designating 290 as an Interstate, they cited commerce as the primary motivating factor. Having an Interstate run by Brenham, Giddings and Elgin would do wonders for them attracting large businesses with significant semi-truck traffic. Look at the amount of big warehouses in small towns along Interstates vs those that aren't.
They're promoting I-14 more, because Killeen/B-CS/Huntsville are all bigger cities with the same ambitions.
It gets frustrating when people from the region are mentioning why this isn't happening, only to be met with "well it should!", without any regard for the surrounding political process.
I understand that, I was just pointing out that the one time 290 was close to being proposed as an Interstate, it wasn't just safety cited as the reasoning. Funny enough, construction to standards and I-XX designation for 290 could be accomplished much faster and have quicker impact on the region than I-14 would, especially when you're talking about towns in between two large metro areas and closer access to ports and major airports.
Quote from: thisdj78 on April 23, 2023, 02:10:50 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 23, 2023, 10:15:28 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 23, 2023, 01:09:47 AM
In a city like New York it's more advantageous to take the train because of the parking costs as well as bridge/tunnel tolls. But you still lose a LOT of time commuting by train, bus or ferry there.
I'd argue due to traffic and difficultly finding places to park in somewhere such as Manhattan, the subway would be probably be far more advantageous and faster overall. You lose time stuck in traffic, trying to find a place to park, walking a mile and half from where you parked, etc.
However, I agree that in most places, rail is going to add more time than driving.
Yep, plus our entire culture and cities are built around driving cars. Contrast that with most European cities that have grown around other modes of transport, like mass transit, walking or bicycles.
The folks living in Texas couldn't be more different than the folks in Europe. Texas is growing, Europe is aging and shrinking. Texas' growth started after the advent of automobiles (and more specifically, air conditioning), whereas European cities all developed long before the advent of the automobile and most even before rail. The folks hoping our culture would change to facilitate rail in Texas clearly haven't spent much time in Texas. The only way it works in Texas outside of potentially the Texas Triangle is if the rail has railcars to drive your car onto like the Amtrak Auto Train. Houston will never have a usable mass transit system that doesn't rely on busses that fight most of the same traffic issues as cars.
Slightly irrelevant to the title of this, but what is the possibility of upgrading the US-290 a four-lane divided highway from Austin westward to connect with I-10 between Ingram and Junction? Obviously reroutes around Johnson City and Fredricksburg (maybe even Harper?).
Quote from: jgb191 on April 25, 2023, 04:22:10 PM
Slightly irrelevant to the title of this, but what is the possibility of upgrading the US-290 a four-lane divided highway from Austin westward to connect with I-10 between Ingram and Junction? Obviously reroutes around Johnson City and Fredricksburg (maybe even Harper?).
I think four lane divided highway would be a good option for the long term... in terms of actual plans. I believe a freeway bypass around Fredericksburg was recently canned... so I don't see any major developments happening anytime soon.
Right now the main focus has to be on US-290 between the Austin and Houston metro areas. However, the US-290 corridor going West out of Austin is carrying ever greater loads of traffic. The current construction project in Oak Hill to extend the US-290 freeway to the Circle Drive split is a good start. Due to the residential and commercial growth in the areas West of Austin that freeway will eventually have to be extended past Dripping Springs somehow and probably as far West at the US-281 corridor.
Other corridors in that immediate region will need improvements and expansion. I think the South half of the TX-45 "loop" should be extended West to the US-290 corridor. Over the long term, if Texas keeps adding population like it has been, the US-281 corridor may have to be improved into an Interstate quality relief route for I-35.
I think Austin is a big enough metro (over 2 million in population) to justify an Interstate quality outlet Westward past Fredericksburg to I-10. Currently Austin has a modest-sized distribution and logistics hub. New things like the Tesla Giga plant and further additions in the future could dramatically increase the amount of commercial truck traffic on the roads going out in all directions. Austin doesn't have much in terms of rail infrastructure compared to Houston, DFW or even San Antonio. There is no rail line going West out of Austin. The main North-South line is single track. Distribution centers will have to depend more on the airport and trucks to move goods in/out of Austin. That could improve the odds for more improvements to the US-290 corridor between Austin and I-10 out West.
The idea for an interstate quality route along US-290 to I-10 west may seem plausible on paper, however the traffic volumes do not warrant more than a 2 lane road in most areas. I think 4 lanes divided with town bypasses would be a good compromise, with room for expansion if that day ever came.
Quote from: sprjus4 on April 25, 2023, 08:22:29 PM
The idea for an interstate quality route along US-290 to I-10 west may seem plausible on paper, however the traffic volumes do not warrant more than a 2 lane road in most areas. I think 4 lanes divided with town bypasses would be a good compromise, with room for expansion if that day ever came.
I think a full freeway is warranted out to Dripping Springs, but traffic volumes drop precipitously west of that point.
2021 AADT36131 – Travis/Hays county line
32841 – Dripping Springs, eastern limit
8848 – Hays/Blanco county line (Henly)
7244 – Jct. US-281
7841 – Johnson City, western limit
5986 – Blanco/Gillespie county line
7267 – Stonewall, RM-1623 overlap
11463 – Fredericksburg, eastern limit
5775 – Fredericksburg, western limit
4836 – Harper, RM-783 overlap
2194 – Gillespie/Kimball county line
1001 – Jct. I-10
Just another recap of future planned US-290 plans (between Houston and Austin) by me
Still waiting on those Manor-Elgin freeway/tollway, Elgin bypass, and Giddings bypass plans (if any)
Chappell Hill overpass
(https://kwhi.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Concept-2.jpg)
Brenham re-alignment
(https://i.imgur.com/OSTJibA.png)
I think I remember a gas station at the 290/36 interchange that I guess will be demolished. Hope they move quickly with that project. Never made any sense from an engineering standpoint.
The legislature has required TxDOT to study US 290 in the upcoming two-year budget cycle which starts in September.
The text mentions railroad crossings, and elimination of the crossing in Giddings would probably require a bypass. While this study may not lead to any major improvements or meeting interstate standards, it potentially could recommend freeway standards for sections between Houston and Austin, or all of the corridor.
QuoteU.S. 290 Traffic Study. Using funds appropriated above, the Department of Transportation shall
conduct a study on options for reducing traffic congestion on segments of U.S. 290 that serve as
hurricane evacuation routes and include at-grade rail crossings. In conducting the study, the
department shall consider projected traffic and usage patterns, projected usage during disasters,
and the potential use of the Texas Rail Relocation and Improvement Fund to address rail crossing
issues.
See page VII-34
https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/pdf/HB00001F.pdf#navpanes=0 (https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/pdf/HB00001F.pdf#navpanes=0)
Quote from: MaxConcrete on June 27, 2023, 08:30:45 AM
The legislature has required TxDOT to study US 290 in the upcoming two-year budget cycle which starts in September.
The text mentions railroad crossings, and elimination of the crossing in Giddings would probably require a bypass. While this study may not lead to any major improvements or meeting interstate standards, it potentially could recommend freeway standards for sections between Houston and Austin, or all of the corridor.
QuoteU.S. 290 Traffic Study. Using funds appropriated above, the Department of Transportation shall
conduct a study on options for reducing traffic congestion on segments of U.S. 290 that serve as
hurricane evacuation routes and include at-grade rail crossings. In conducting the study, the
department shall consider projected traffic and usage patterns, projected usage during disasters,
and the potential use of the Texas Rail Relocation and Improvement Fund to address rail crossing
issues.
See page VII-34
https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/pdf/HB00001F.pdf#navpanes=0 (https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/pdf/HB00001F.pdf#navpanes=0)
Nice! 290 is finally getting a little bit of legislative attention again!
Is it just me or does A) US-59 both north and south of Houston have more truck traffic than US-290 between Austin and Hempstead where the TX-6 intersection is? or B) that all these stop-lights between said Austin and Hempstead makes the truck traffic look more sparse than it actually is?
And I use Google Maps Street View
I don't think images from Google Street View are a reliable way to gauge traffic counts on highways. Depending on the time of day the Google car did its photo pass it could make traffic levels look better or worse than average. Actual VPD numbers for the highways would be the real indicator.
I do know from my own driving experiences US-290 is pretty busy going Northwest out of Houston and also pretty busy going East out of Austin. I did see lots of trucks. The city limits population of Austin is close to cracking the 1 million mark (964,177 is the 2021 estimate). Houston's city limits population is over 2 million. The downtowns of both cities are only about 150 miles apart. It seems only logical there would be a serious amount of commercial traffic moving between the two big metro areas.
If US-59 (future I-69) had more truck traffic than US-290 it might be because of traffic going to/from Mexico or other Gulf port cities. They also might be choosing US-59 as a way to bypass DFW.
Quote from: TheBox on September 02, 2023, 04:06:28 PM
Is it just me or does A) US-59 both north and south of Houston have more truck traffic than US-290 between Austin and Hempstead where the TX-6 intersection is? or B) that all these stop-lights between said Austin and Hempstead makes the truck traffic look more sparse than it actually is?
And I use Google Maps Street View
That would make sense, and likely why they chose US59 for the I-69 alignment in the first place.
I travel US290 between Austin and Houston very frequently and there's not a lot of 18 wheeler traffic. Most of the freight traffic coming in and out of Austin is from I-35, for Houston it's I-10 and to a lesser extent I-45 & US59/I-69.
Does anyone have official AADT counts for both US-290 and US-59, along with truck percentages?
Quote from: sprjus4 on September 03, 2023, 01:29:16 AM
Does anyone have official AADT counts for both US-290 and US-59, along with truck percentages?
Data is a little old but this gives a visual representation:
https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/nat_freight_stats/images/hi_res_pdf/nhsmajortrkrts2040.pdf
Options for improvements at Giddings are posted online (https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/aus/us290-giddings/040924-exhibits.pdf), alignments start at page 18.
The yellow option south of town looks best for through traffic.
Locals might want the turquoise or purple options on the north side since they provide improved access to the high school.
I expect the blue option, which adds a large overpass in the downtown area, and green option, which requires right-of-way clearance, to both be nonstarters (I hope).
A decision for the recommended alignment is expected in the first quarter of 2025.
The blue and green options won't do much to improve the existing situation. It's likely if either of those two alternatives was picked TX DOT would have to come back a short time later to propose yet another freeway bypass project around the town.
I kind of like the purple option. It's a bypass, yet is still a short distance from the downtown area. Local businesses might be more friendly to that option than the yellow option that goes well outside to the town to the South.
I'm confident they poisoned pilled green and blue enough to get them bounced in the next round. They could squeeze in a 3rd lane each way just by eliminating parking, but they're going with expanding the ROW and lots of business takings. Whose tax revenues might relocate outside city limits if forced to move.
Have to grade separate the railroad and while technically they could have squeezed that in west of the US 77 intersection, the businesses would not go for fronting a narrow sidewalk facing a highway wall and zero street visibility. A noisy and ugly 1500' viaduct, with possibly a nice covered median for the street below to attract any homeless, will also be unpopular.
It will be a much needed bypass.
I (or anybody for that matter) never thought I would ever wake up in the morning to see news of a Giddings bypass study.
(https://i.imgur.com/eCyZFaB_d.webp?maxwidth=760&fidelity=grand)
(https://i.imgur.com/IehtTxT_d.webp?maxwidth=760&fidelity=grand)
(https://i.imgur.com/1pwYkcE_d.webp?maxwidth=760&fidelity=grand)
(https://i.imgur.com/idP1JdP_d.webp?maxwidth=760&fidelity=grand)
(https://i.imgur.com/4uXsexO_d.webp?maxwidth=760&fidelity=grand)
(https://i.imgur.com/wJCKMSF_d.webp?maxwidth=760&fidelity=grand)
(https://i.imgur.com/4Om0ATO_d.webp?maxwidth=760&fidelity=grand)
Between the QoL expansion between Elgin and Giddings 5 years back (it was undivided before that point) and the recent studies of Chappell Hill, Brenham, and now (again) Giddings, we're finally so back.
With the idea of a freeflow expressway (regardless if it's US-290 or TX-71) between the state's largest city and capital city being long overdue for years or even decades, and Houston and Austin growing to all-time highs (for better or worse), it's about damn time.
They should've studied this if not built this years of not a decade ago, but the Texas Triangle corners and to a lesser extent I-69 say otherwise.
Here's the Chappell Hill and Brenham studies for reference and reminder
Chappell Hill overpass
(https://kwhi.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/Concept-2.jpg)
Brenham re-alignment
(https://i.imgur.com/OSTJibA.png)
If all the plans for the Giddings bypass project get approved, how long after the completion of the study and design work might construction start? Would 2040 be a good estimate on when a US 290 Giddins bypass project would be constructed?
Speaking of Giddings, just my personal opinion, along with the plans for US 290 bypass, I really believe US-77 should also get a bypass around Giddings. Probably won't happen for a long while if ever, but I would like to see it at least become a major four-lane divided highway north of Victoria all the way to Waco giving a more direct route from South Texas to North Texas and vice versa.
How funny, the Giddings Turquoise option is similar to the route I drew up, just farther out from town:
Quote from: thisdj78 on February 28, 2022, 08:06:39 AMQuote from: aboges26 on February 27, 2022, 12:55:29 PMQuote from: TXtoNJ on February 10, 2022, 11:31:09 AMQuote from: TheBox on February 10, 2022, 11:23:20 AMIf a Giddings bypass ever happens, should it go and bypass north above or south below?
North minimizes residential takings, so it's almost certainly the path they'll choose
Seeing that the high school is on the north side they should automatically go south, but being TXDOT they will make sure the route goes as close to the high school as possible.
There seems to be plenty of ROW to run a bypass between the school and the town and it still not be too close to the campus:
(https://i.ibb.co/J5FJSSR/908-C090-B-019-A-48-DD-A646-169-FE04-E3841.jpg) (https://ibb.co/hD1zTTR)
Quote from: thisdj78 on April 11, 2024, 11:20:14 PMHow funny, the Giddings Turquoise option is similar to the route I drew up, just farther out from town:
Quote from: thisdj78 on February 28, 2022, 08:06:39 AMQuote from: aboges26 on February 27, 2022, 12:55:29 PMQuote from: TXtoNJ on February 10, 2022, 11:31:09 AMQuote from: TheBox on February 10, 2022, 11:23:20 AMIf a Giddings bypass ever happens, should it go and bypass north above or south below?
North minimizes residential takings, so it's almost certainly the path they'll choose
Seeing that the high school is on the north side they should automatically go south, but being TXDOT they will make sure the route goes as close to the high school as possible.
There seems to be plenty of ROW to run a bypass between the school and the town and it still not be too close to the campus:
(https://i.ibb.co/J5FJSSR/908-C090-B-019-A-48-DD-A646-169-FE04-E3841.jpg) (https://ibb.co/hD1zTTR)
It sounds like you're downright giddy about the Giddings bypass, no?
Quote from: DNAguy on April 12, 2024, 01:27:14 PMQuote from: thisdj78 on April 11, 2024, 11:20:14 PMHow funny, the Giddings Turquoise option is similar to the route I drew up, just farther out from town:
Quote from: thisdj78 on February 28, 2022, 08:06:39 AMQuote from: aboges26 on February 27, 2022, 12:55:29 PMQuote from: TXtoNJ on February 10, 2022, 11:31:09 AMQuote from: TheBox on February 10, 2022, 11:23:20 AMIf a Giddings bypass ever happens, should it go and bypass north above or south below?
North minimizes residential takings, so it's almost certainly the path they'll choose
Seeing that the high school is on the north side they should automatically go south, but being TXDOT they will make sure the route goes as close to the high school as possible.
There seems to be plenty of ROW to run a bypass between the school and the town and it still not be too close to the campus:
(https://i.ibb.co/J5FJSSR/908-C090-B-019-A-48-DD-A646-169-FE04-E3841.jpg) (https://ibb.co/hD1zTTR)
It sounds like you're downright giddy about the Giddings bypass, no?
As someone who drives thru Giddings on the way from Williamson County to Houston almost monthly, very much so...yes!