You have:
-10, 45, 69 (which is confusing), and 610....thats it!
All the rest are not part of the interstate system:
-8, 90, 99, 288, 249, 290, and then Hardy/Westpark Toll
Why is it there is just a single interstate spur?
My only guess, Houston was a late booming metro region, by which point all Fed funds were gone?
Quote from: bluecountry on January 29, 2020, 01:09:00 PM
My only guess, Houston was a late booming metro region, by which point all Fed funds were gone?
Makes sense. Compare Phoenix and Orlando.
Houston wasn't that small during the initial development of the Interstate Highway system. Harris County already had a population of 1.2 million in 1960. By comparison, Travis County had a population of only 212,000 at that time.
I guess they didn't want to be DFW but they could easily turn at least 6 of those into 3DIs if they felt the need. The population has been here since the beginning to add more to the network, question is really do they want to.
Quote from: Perfxion on January 29, 2020, 04:30:10 PM
I guess they didn't want to be DFW but they could easily turn at least 6 of those into 3DIs if they felt the need. The population has been here since the beginning to add more to the network, question is really do they want to.
At this time -- with no additional maintenance/rehab funding in play -- TxDOT is unlikely to want to change designations simply to obtain a bunch of red/white/blue shields that wouldn't matter much to local drivers. Things such as the potential to attract overseas investors in warehousing/distribution are what tend to drive Interstate conversion or even new Interstate facilities -- and while Houston
is expanding outwards, most of that is housing rather than commercial zones. The one possibility for a new Interstate would be the TX 99 outer loop, which has periodically been touted as a potential "I-669" bypass of the parent route; it was initially considered as one of the alternatives for the main I-69 routing early on. But otherwise, it's unlikely TxDOT will attempt to "fix" what "ain't broke"!
Quote from: bluecountry on January 29, 2020, 01:09:00 PM
You have:
-10, 45, 69 (which is confusing), and 610....thats it!
All the rest are not part of the interstate system:
-8, 90, 99, 288, 249, 290, and then Hardy/Westpark Toll
Why is it there is just a single interstate spur?
My only guess, Houston was a late booming metro region, by which point all Fed funds were gone?
Well, eventhough Houston was still of decent size back when Interstate system was being built out, the surrounding areas weren't densely populated (compared to say a Chicago, Philadelphia or a Detroit), so it wasn't necessary to have many "spoke" interstates leading into or around Houston.
So I mean is there any reason why so few expressways are interstates?
Quote from: bluecountry on January 30, 2020, 10:37:38 AM
So I mean is there any reason why so few expressways are interstates?
Well, again, not every highway needs a red-white-and-blue shield. Only one of the highways listed in the OP is actually an interstate (lower-case-I) highway. And as long as we have the "US" system as a secondary system, there's little need to convert every major highway into an "Interstate" highway.
Furthermore, the strict requirements for "Interstate" highways reduces the point in labelling all limited-access highways as "Interstate" highways. IIRC, all of the non-Interstate highways listed in the OP except for 8 have portions that are well below Interstate requirements. If I were God, I'd loosen those requirements so that we could convert more US highways to Interstate status. For example, I'd make Interstate 12 a true interstate (lower-case-I) highway (US 290, I-610, US 90 to Beaumont, TX/LA 12, US 190 to Baton Rouge). I'd use black-and-white shields for the non-controlled segments. Alas, that goes back to the vanity of renumbering routes. Nobody "needs" for the US 290/90/190 corridor I just described to be named "Interstate 12." You can get from one place to another just well on the existing roads with their existing numbers.
Doesn't really answer the 'why' as in why does a major metro area like Houston have so few interstates.
What's the reason, compared to other metro areas?
Interstate highways are built as a system, with the exception of most loops and spurs, one of which Houston has, which are mostly put in place where traffic is higher because of big cities. You don't build an entire Interstate highway or two to connect to a city, even if it's a big city, unless it makes sense as part of the system. If there were a major city, or a huge area of land, southeast of the city, then maybe other Interstates would be warranted. Chicago gets an extra Interstate, I-94, because of the need to go around Lake Michigan. The Gulf of Mexico is too big to build, say, I-2 around so it can continue in Florida, so Houston's I-count isn't added to from that, either.
Quote from: bluecountry on January 30, 2020, 01:29:48 PM
Doesn't really answer the 'why' as in why does a major metro area like Houston have so few interstates.
What's the reason, compared to other metro areas?
I believe I answered it: when the interstate system was being built out (and with a lot more funding), Houston did not have much of a dense population outside of the core urban area (as compared to NorthEast cities or Los Angeles for example). Much of the sprawl occurred after the system was most built out and funding trailed off.
Plus besides renaming, what would be the point? I-69 is still called 59 by everyone in town. Some people still call FM1960 Jack Rabit road. The only large group that cares about that shield on any of those highways are on this board.
Also, many of the highways in and around Houston are built as toll roads, run by regional/county toll road authorities. Easier to build toll freeways and maintain them than going through the federal system. But, many of the toll freeways are still Interstate caliber routes, so like Florida, Oklahoma and formally Kentucky the roads function perfectly fine as they are built.
Quote from: Ryctor2018 on January 30, 2020, 11:06:57 PM
Also, many of the highways in and around Houston are built as toll roads, run by regional/county toll road authorities. Easier to build toll freeways and maintain them than going through the federal system. But, many of the toll freeways are still Interstate caliber routes, so like Florida, Oklahoma and formally Kentucky the roads function perfectly fine as they are built.
"Interstate caliber" isn't quite true as, especially in Kentucky, improvements had to be made to earn the shield.
Quote from: Rothman on January 31, 2020, 07:05:28 AM
Quote from: Ryctor2018 on January 30, 2020, 11:06:57 PM
Also, many of the highways in and around Houston are built as toll roads, run by regional/county toll road authorities. Easier to build toll freeways and maintain them than going through the federal system. But, many of the toll freeways are still Interstate caliber routes, so like Florida, Oklahoma and formally Kentucky the roads function perfectly fine as they are built.
"Interstate caliber" isn't quite true as, especially in Kentucky, improvements had to be made to earn the shield.
At a few select interchanges, and when they combined two separate parkways into one interstate route, a seamless connection was built (I-69). Everything else meets interstate standards, they have 12 foot lanes, 10 foot paved shoulders, 35 foot median, 70 mph speed limits, etc. When I-69 and I-165 were designated, only minor modifications were made to the things mentioned above.
Quote from: thisdj78 on January 30, 2020, 05:05:12 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on January 30, 2020, 01:29:48 PM
Doesn't really answer the 'why' as in why does a major metro area like Houston have so few interstates.
What's the reason, compared to other metro areas?
I believe I answered it: when the interstate system was being built out (and with a lot more funding), Houston did not have much of a dense population outside of the core urban area (as compared to NorthEast cities or Los Angeles for example). Much of the sprawl occurred after the system was most built out and funding trailed off.
Except, the Northeast has a lot of non-Interstate highways as well. NJ is loaded with them.
So basically the reason is, by the time Houston needed expressways interstate funding was all dry, right?
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 31, 2020, 07:44:15 AM
Quote from: thisdj78 on January 30, 2020, 05:05:12 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on January 30, 2020, 01:29:48 PM
Doesn't really answer the 'why' as in why does a major metro area like Houston have so few interstates.
What's the reason, compared to other metro areas?
I believe I answered it: when the interstate system was being built out (and with a lot more funding), Houston did not have much of a dense population outside of the core urban area (as compared to NorthEast cities or Los Angeles for example). Much of the sprawl occurred after the system was most built out and funding trailed off.
Except, the Northeast has a lot of non-Interstate highways as well. NJ is loaded with them.
True, but there are also a lot of Interstates as well, which is the point I was trying to make. Boston is a great example: a smaller metro area than Houston but they have Interstates going to and in between most major "exburbs" in the region (eg. Providence, Cape Cod, Worcester, Lawrence, southern NH)
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 31, 2020, 07:44:15 AM
Quote from: thisdj78 on January 30, 2020, 05:05:12 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on January 30, 2020, 01:29:48 PM
Doesn't really answer the 'why' as in why does a major metro area like Houston have so few interstates.
What's the reason, compared to other metro areas?
I believe I answered it: when the interstate system was being built out (and with a lot more funding), Houston did not have much of a dense population outside of the core urban area (as compared to NorthEast cities or Los Angeles for example). Much of the sprawl occurred after the system was most built out and funding trailed off.
Except, the Northeast has a lot of non-Interstate highways as well. NJ is loaded with them.
Most built PRE Interstate act though.
Quote from: bluecountry on January 31, 2020, 11:43:09 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 31, 2020, 07:44:15 AM
Quote from: thisdj78 on January 30, 2020, 05:05:12 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on January 30, 2020, 01:29:48 PM
Doesn't really answer the 'why' as in why does a major metro area like Houston have so few interstates.
What's the reason, compared to other metro areas?
I believe I answered it: when the interstate system was being built out (and with a lot more funding), Houston did not have much of a dense population outside of the core urban area (as compared to NorthEast cities or Los Angeles for example). Much of the sprawl occurred after the system was most built out and funding trailed off.
Except, the Northeast has a lot of non-Interstate highways as well. NJ is loaded with them.
Most built PRE Interstate act though.
False.
Of NJ's 3 toll roads, 2 were built pre-Interstate highway. 1 of them was to be about 25% rolled into the Interstate System; it eventually became about 60% rolled into the system.
NJ 55, 18 and others were built after the Interstate Highway system was announced.
Much of the eastern I-76 took over highway and toll roads already built. Same with PA's I-276, also part of the PA Turnpike.
More recently, DE 1 and MD 200 were built without I-numbers. Yet the Carolina's have a few newer highways designated as Interstates.
One advantage that Houston has had over other large cities is that most of the freeways proposed in the last 60-70 years have been built out (or soon to be), with the exception of the Harrisonburg Freeway. Not many cities can say that, being that most have a handful of "cancelled" freeways.
Quote from: thisdj78 on January 31, 2020, 05:46:37 PM
One advantage that Houston has had over other large cities is that most of the freeways proposed in the last 60-70 years have been built out (or soon to be), with the exception of the Harrisonburg Freeway. Not many cities can say that, being that most have a handful of "cancelled" freeways.
That's pretty much correct; most metro area that featured in-city Interstate trunks or loops experienced some level of protestation about either the specific routing -- or even basic existence -- of these corridors. This started coming into play about 7-8 years after the original Yellow Book (abstract Interstate general routings) was trotted out in '56-'57. Quite a few states, particularly in the east and midwest, had concentrated their initial efforts on the more rural sections of the system -- which worked against them when it came time to plan and construct the urban sections, many of which were mired in controversy by the mid-60's. Almost every metro area in the country saw reroutings, truncation, or even deletions of in-city segments from the original system iteration due to local opposition. Only a few areas avoided this; Los Angeles, which built its entire Yellow Book complement of freeways, largely completed by 1970 except for I-210, which was a little "dicey" at times due to wealthy NIMBY's in the La Canada-Flintridge area. The CA Division of Highways elected to concentrate on their urban mileage first, which was quite a saving grace; except for San Francisco (which was going to be problematic in any case) the Yellow Book routings were completed as planned (the Sacramento I-80 issue came about because of a planned reroute years later). Other cities avoiding 60's/70's Interstate-deployment problems included most of the TX metro areas as well as Kansas City. Of course, almost every state has had its share of issues with non-Interstate freeways, but that's another subject.
Quote from: sparker on January 31, 2020, 08:08:29 PM
Quote from: thisdj78 on January 31, 2020, 05:46:37 PM
One advantage that Houston has had over other large cities is that most of the freeways proposed in the last 60-70 years have been built out (or soon to be), with the exception of the Harrisonburg Freeway. Not many cities can say that, being that most have a handful of "cancelled" freeways.
That's pretty much correct; most metro area that featured in-city Interstate trunks or loops experienced some level of protestation about either the specific routing -- or even basic existence -- of these corridors. This started coming into play about 7-8 years after the original Yellow Book (abstract Interstate general routings) was trotted out in '56-'57. Quite a few states, particularly in the east and midwest, had concentrated their initial efforts on the more rural sections of the system -- which worked against them when it came time to plan and construct the urban sections, many of which were mired in controversy by the mid-60's. Almost every metro area in the country saw reroutings, truncation, or even deletions of in-city segments from the original system iteration due to local opposition. Only a few areas avoided this; Los Angeles, which built its entire Yellow Book complement of freeways, largely completed by 1970 except for I-210, which was a little "dicey" at times due to wealthy NIMBY's in the La Canada-Flintridge area. The CA Division of Highways elected to concentrate on their urban mileage first, which was quite a saving grace; except for San Francisco (which was going to be problematic in any case) the Yellow Book routings were completed as planned (the Sacramento I-80 issue came about because of a planned reroute years later). Other cities avoiding 60's/70's Interstate-deployment problems included most of the TX metro areas as well as Kansas City. Of course, almost every state has had its share of issues with non-Interstate freeways, but that's another subject.
Interesting, I never knew about the Yellow Book. Just now coming across this link to it:
http://www.ajfroggie.com/roads/yellowbook/
The thing is pretty much 95% of the highways are owned by state and local agencies anymore. The federal government doles out grants and stuff like that these days. That's leaving states and cities to come up with more creative ways to fund new highways. That's pretty much the case with the Houston metro area. If the feds were more involved and made it possible for roads like Loop 8 and the Grand Parkway to be funded and built using nothing but gasoline taxes those roads might be carrying Interstate highway shields today. But that's not how it worked out. So they're state highway toll roads.
One also has to consider Texas culture. The state kind of waves the American flag and is pretty conservative. But at the same time Texas still likes to at times act like it's the 1800's when it was a sovereign nation unto itself. So while some people may love the brand identity of a highway carrying a US Interstate shield, not everyone in Texas is on that same page.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 01, 2020, 01:42:04 AM
The thing is pretty much 95% of the highways are owned by state and local agencies anymore. The federal government doles out grants and stuff like that these days. That's leaving states and cities to come up with more creative ways to fund new highways. That's pretty much the case with the Houston metro area. If the feds were more involved and made it possible for roads like Loop 8 and the Grand Parkway to be funded and built using nothing but gasoline taxes those roads might be carrying Interstate highway shields today. But that's not how it worked out. So they're state highway toll roads.
One also has to consider Texas culture. The state kind of waves the American flag and is pretty conservative. But at the same time Texas still like to at times act like it's the 1800's when it was a sovereign nation unto itself. So while some people may love the brand identity of a highway carrying a US Interstate shield, not everyone in Texas is on that same page.
Some very good points. Places such as Lubbock, Midland/Odessa and mainly - El Paso should have additional 3DI routes, and yes those locales would benefit greatly from the "brand identity" they have. Unfortunate that short - sightness has prevented this thus far. The silly Loop designations are more suited for small-medium municipalities.
I think there is one psychological advantage to a limited access freeway carrying an Interstate designation in an urban area. Not everyone is good at reading maps and understanding the idiosyncracies of how highways are named or numbered. If they see a loop highway had an Interstate shield on it they'll probably understand it is 100% a limited access super highway. Those drivers will feel more secure taking an Interstate loop to reach another thru Interstate highway.
Texas state highways and its specialized "loop" and "spur" designations run the full gamut of highway types. Some are huge super highways every bit as good as any Interstate route. Then there are other Loop routes that are nothing more than divided (or undivided) urban streets riddled with traffic lights. Some loop routes are a mixture of freeway, 4-lane expressway with traffic signals and even 2 lane configurations. Texas has big toll road super highways and some toll routes that drop down to just 2 lanes. When a motorist gets on an Interstate he pretty much knows the whole thing is going to be at least 4 lanes and not have any traffic lights on it.
Loop 289 in Lubbock has been around for a very long time. The only scenario where I could see it being re-named as an Interstate is if I-27 is extended South to San Angelo via Big Spring and/or Midland-Odessa. The "and/or" part could be an I-27E/I-27W split. It almost seems necessary given the tremendous amount of truck traffic out there in the "oil patch."
I think Midland-Odessa could gain more benefit over Loop 338 in Odessa and Loop 250 in Midland being re-named as 3 digit I-x20 routes. The road network in Midland-Odessa is pretty complicated. Converting those two loop routes into Interstates, and maybe even re-naming the TX-191 freeway as an Interstate would make the road naming situation more logical. They just have to be careful about using an "I-420" designation on any of those routes. Pot heads will be trying to steal those signs right and left. If I-27 (or a West leg of it) was extended to Midland that would add additional 3di Interstate naming options to the mix.
El Paso could benefit from a 3 digit I-10 loop route to signal long distance drivers about a possible future real bypass around the metro area. The I-x10 loop route could run on Loop 375 from I-10 up to the Fort Bliss Rod and Gun Club. Then it could take the new route proposed to go up and around the Franklin Mountains. New Mexico just has to build their part of the route, presumably over NM-404.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 01, 2020, 05:01:58 PM
El Paso could benefit from a 3 digit I-10 loop route to signal long distance drivers about a possible future real bypass around the metro area. The I-x10 loop route could run on Loop 375 from I-10 up to the Fort Bliss Rod and Gun Club. Then it could take the new route proposed to go up and around the Franklin Mountains. New Mexico just has to build their part of the route, presumably over NM-404.
This would certainly form a true bypass of El Paso, and after calculating the miles, it would be less mileage to take the bypass vs. I-10 through the city. It would surely be a draw for long-distance traffic. If they had to do just once interstate 3di designation, this would certainly be one to do it on, assuming New Mexico completes its part.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 31, 2020, 11:58:22 AM
Quote from: bluecountry on January 31, 2020, 11:43:09 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on January 31, 2020, 07:44:15 AM
Quote from: thisdj78 on January 30, 2020, 05:05:12 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on January 30, 2020, 01:29:48 PM
Doesn't really answer the 'why' as in why does a major metro area like Houston have so few interstates.
What's the reason, compared to other metro areas?
I believe I answered it: when the interstate system was being built out (and with a lot more funding), Houston did not have much of a dense population outside of the core urban area (as compared to NorthEast cities or Los Angeles for example). Much of the sprawl occurred after the system was most built out and funding trailed off.
Except, the Northeast has a lot of non-Interstate highways as well. NJ is loaded with them.
Most built PRE Interstate act though.
False.
Of NJ's 3 toll roads, 2 were built pre-Interstate highway. 1 of them was to be about 25% rolled into the Interstate System; it eventually became about 60% rolled into the system.
NJ 55, 18 and others were built after the Interstate Highway system was announced.
Much of the eastern I-76 took over highway and toll roads already built. Same with PA's I-276, also part of the PA Turnpike.
More recently, DE 1 and MD 200 were built without I-numbers. Yet the Carolina's have a few newer highways designated as Interstates.
Yes NJ has some non-interstate expressways, but it has a TON of interstates.
Houston has predominantly non-interstate expressways where clearly one would expect an I, such as 8/99.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 01, 2020, 05:01:58 PM
I think there is one psychological advantage to a limited access freeway carrying an Interstate designation in an urban area. Not everyone is good at reading maps and understanding the idiosyncracies of how highways are named or numbered. If they see a loop highway had an Interstate shield on it they'll probably understand it is 100% a limited access super highway. Those drivers will feel more secure taking an Interstate loop to reach another thru Interstate highway.
Have you noticed that most people don't read maps? They simply rely on their app to tell them where to go.
Part of the reason also why a lot of Houston's freeways are not interstates is because they represent state routes that were originally surface roads that were upgraded to freeways over time, while keeping the same route designations.
Quote from: abqtraveler on February 03, 2020, 09:52:51 AM
Part of the reason also why a lot of Houston's freeways are not interstates is because they represent state routes that were originally surface roads that were upgraded to freeways over time, while keeping the same route designations.
Well the NJTP, the PATP, the CT TP, etc all were in the same spot.
I'm sticking to my theory, Houston was too 'late' to the show by which point Fed funds were gone.
This actually applies not just to Houston, but to the American West and how the country was developed. The Interstate system followed population trends and back when much of the system was first built, more people lived in the Northeast, Midwest and Mid-Atlantic. Outside of California, the country in the 1950's & '60's is not what it is now in the 21st Century. Other than Dallas, & Oklahoma City, many western cities and several southern one's don't have a lot of Interstates relative to population.
Houston has 2(3) mainlines, plus 3di's. Austin has 1, San Antonio has 3, plus a 3di and one of those is an Intrastate Interstate. El Paso has 1. This is just Texas.
Phoenix has 2 and no 3di's. Denver has 4, probably could have had at least 5 if the 470's were one Interstate. Albuquerque has 2. Las Vegas has 1 mainline, will have another once I-11 is figured out, plus when 215 is finally finished, Salt Lake a couple same as Portland.
The state of Florida is similar: South Florida has I-95 and I-75 plus a few 3di's. Orlando only 1, Southwest Florida only 1 linking all it's cities. Tampa/St. Pete does have I-275 thru town with I-4 and I-75 the bypass. I could ramble on and on, but you get the picture.
Many of these places do have 4 lane highways. But, they are either toll roads, expressways, super arterials or state freeways. The population came later, but roared in once the cities start developing. State DOT's didn't have time to wait for an I-route or needed different funding than the traditional methods. The roads were built to fill the needs for each community.
Quote from: abqtraveler on February 03, 2020, 09:52:51 AM
Part of the reason also why a lot of Houston's freeways are not interstates is because they represent state routes that were originally surface roads that were upgraded to freeways over time, while keeping the same route designations.
Not sure which roads you are referring to in Houston. US59 (Southwest Freeway) doesn't come anywhere near it's original routing SW of downtown. TX288 is in the same boat. US59 north (Eastex Freeway) is some of both. Grand Parkway has been discussed in other threads as to why it isn't I669.
US290 to Hempstead is the only non-interstate that fits that description, yet I don't see why it would be an interstate as it needs lots of upgrades to reach Austin as a limited access road.
For the sake of me being rigid, I wish they would retro-actively just re-name several of them "I."
Hypothetically:
-Beltway 8=I-245
-99=I-845
-249=I-795
-290=I-310
-288=I-545
I'd leave Hardy Toll and Westpark as is.
Quote from: bluecountry on February 04, 2020, 11:23:27 AM
For the sake of me being rigid, I wish they would retro-actively just re-name several of them "I."
Hypothetically:
-Beltway 8=I-245
-99=I-845
-249=I-795
-290=I-310
-288=I-545
I'd leave Hardy Toll and Westpark as is.
If anything, 99 would be I-X69 as mentioned above.
290 = Interstate 12. Everything else would be unnecessary.
Quote from: thisdj78 on February 04, 2020, 02:13:16 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on February 04, 2020, 11:23:27 AM
For the sake of me being rigid, I wish they would retro-actively just re-name several of them "I."
Hypothetically:
-Beltway 8=I-245
-99=I-845
-249=I-795
-290=I-310
-288=I-545
I'd leave Hardy Toll and Westpark as is.
If anything, 99 would be I-X69 as mentioned above.
290 = Interstate 12. Everything else would be unnecessary.
I disagree, I like the use of "I" and don't get why 290 would be I-12.
Quote from: bluecountry on February 04, 2020, 03:06:20 PM
Quote from: thisdj78 on February 04, 2020, 02:13:16 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on February 04, 2020, 11:23:27 AM
For the sake of me being rigid, I wish they would retro-actively just re-name several of them "I."
Hypothetically:
-Beltway 8=I-245
-99=I-845
-249=I-795
-290=I-310
-288=I-545
I'd leave Hardy Toll and Westpark as is.
If anything, 99 would be I-X69 as mentioned above.
290 = Interstate 12. Everything else would be unnecessary.
I disagree, I like the use of "I" and don't get why 290 would be I-12.
Because I-14 is being used already in northern central TX. 290 is a major enough route (to Austin) that it warrants its own Interstate designation. Yes there is an I-12 in Louisiana but it serves a similar function: an alternative to I-10. It wouldn't be the only non-continuous interstate in the US.
Quote from: thisdj78 on February 04, 2020, 03:13:31 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on February 04, 2020, 03:06:20 PM
Quote from: thisdj78 on February 04, 2020, 02:13:16 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on February 04, 2020, 11:23:27 AM
For the sake of me being rigid, I wish they would retro-actively just re-name several of them "I."
Hypothetically:
-Beltway 8=I-245
-99=I-845
-249=I-795
-290=I-310
-288=I-545
I'd leave Hardy Toll and Westpark as is.
If anything, 99 would be I-X69 as mentioned above.
290 = Interstate 12. Everything else would be unnecessary.
I disagree, I like the use of "I" and don't get why 290 would be I-12.
Because I-14 is being used already in northern central TX. 290 is a major enough route (to Austin) that it warrants its own Interstate designation. Yes there is an I-12 in Louisiana but it serves a similar function: an alternative to I-10. It wouldn't be the only non-continuous interstate in the US.
I don't like non-contigous interstates.
I'd rather is be I-310 (or 510 or 710)
That's too bad. Unconnected, duplicate numbered Interstate routes are already common in the system. Having a much longer I-12 in Texas isn't going to hurt a freaking thing. If anything the original I-12 route should have carried a I-x10 designation.
Since we already have a porky I-14 route established with a very jagged proposed path a little farther North that takes I-14 off the table as a potential Interstate route overlapping US-290 between metro Houston and Austin. While lots of upgrades are still left to do along US-290 it still seems likely the road will eventually be 100% Interstate quality, whether or not it ever carries an Interstate designation. The same holds true for TX-71 between Austin and the I-10 exit at Columbus, TX.
If the very rapid pace of development continues between Austin and San Antonio, particularly in San Marcos and New Braunfels, a couple more freeway or toll road "spokes" will be needed between I-35 and I-10 running along or near the TX-80 and TX-46 corridors.
Or maybe the US 290 corridor could keep its existing designation. But given that this is Texas, I would not be shocked if 290 (or any other route) eventually did get an Interstate designation.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 04, 2020, 04:37:59 PM
Since we already have a porky I-14 route established with a very jagged proposed path
Already mentioned several times before, that's a rough corridor. The actual interstate will likely be a lot straighter roughly following those roads.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 04, 2020, 04:37:59 PM
If the very rapid pace of development continues between Austin and San Antonio, particularly in San Marcos and New Braunfels, a couple more freeway or toll road "spokes" will be needed between I-35 and I-10 running along or near the TX-80 and TX-46 corridors.
Agreed. I think this path would be perfect and I'm sure the Outlet malls would love having a freeway leading almost directly to them:
(https://i.imgur.com/Un6dl8P.jpg)
A spur off the TX-130 toll road up to I-35 just SW of San Marcos would be one way to handle that "spoke." But I still think the TX-80 corridor from San Marcos SE down to Luling (and I-10) is going to get considerably more busy. Obviously there is a good bit of the existing TX-80 corridor that cannot be upgraded into a freeway (or toll road) because those portions are too encroached with development already.
Quote from: thisdj78 on February 04, 2020, 08:11:10 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 04, 2020, 04:37:59 PM
If the very rapid pace of development continues between Austin and San Antonio, particularly in San Marcos and New Braunfels, a couple more freeway or toll road "spokes" will be needed between I-35 and I-10 running along or near the TX-80 and TX-46 corridors.
Agreed. I think this path would be perfect and I'm sure the Outlet malls would love having a freeway leading almost directly to them:
(https://i.imgur.com/Un6dl8P.jpg)
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 04, 2020, 08:35:15 PM
A spur off the TX-130 toll road up to I-35 just SW of San Marcos would be one way to handle that "spoke." But I still think the TX-80 corridor from San Marcos SE down to Luling (and I-10) is going to get considerably more busy. Obviously there is a good bit of the existing TX-80 corridor that cannot be upgraded into a freeway (or toll road) because those portions are too encroached with development already.
I say just turn
123 (https://goo.gl/maps/Q1jfyPdnCPzWq82D6) into a freeway.
TX-123 in Seguin could obviously be converted into a freeway, due to the big median and frontage roads already there. TX-123 at I-10 is all bottled up. There is enough ROW along TX-123 just North of I-10 to turn it into a divided 4-lane highway for a couple miles. A bunch of TX-123 is flanked by a good amount of development and homes, just like a few other regional corridors between Austin and San Antonio.
TX-46 is growing into an important outer partial loop corridor for San Antonio. But the existing road is getting too covered up in development to be converted into a freeway to link Boerne (and I-10) to New Braunfels (and I-35). The same goes for TX-46 between New Braunfels and Seguin. Even Loop 337 around New Braunfels may never be fully converted into an Interstate quality loop. Nevertheless, the regional planners are going to have to do something about this.
The TX-80 corridor going SE out of San Marcos to Luling and I-10 is another to Houston route. TX-123 wouldn't work so well for that purpose; it would do more to duplicate I-35 efforts of moving traffic from San Marcos into San Antonio.
Quote from: kphoger on February 05, 2020, 01:17:32 PM
Quote from: thisdj78 on February 04, 2020, 08:11:10 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 04, 2020, 04:37:59 PM
If the very rapid pace of development continues between Austin and San Antonio, particularly in San Marcos and New Braunfels, a couple more freeway or toll road "spokes" will be needed between I-35 and I-10 running along or near the TX-80 and TX-46 corridors.
Agreed. I think this path would be perfect and I'm sure the Outlet malls would love having a freeway leading almost directly to them:
(https://i.imgur.com/Un6dl8P.jpg)
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 04, 2020, 08:35:15 PM
A spur off the TX-130 toll road up to I-35 just SW of San Marcos would be one way to handle that "spoke." But I still think the TX-80 corridor from San Marcos SE down to Luling (and I-10) is going to get considerably more busy. Obviously there is a good bit of the existing TX-80 corridor that cannot be upgraded into a freeway (or toll road) because those portions are too encroached with development already.
I say just turn 123 (https://goo.gl/maps/Q1jfyPdnCPzWq82D6) into a freeway.
Unnecessary IMO, when nearly half the corridor is already built via 130, all that's needed is a T flyover interchange and a spur continuing north to the Hunter/Outlets area. Not much development in that path vs going via 46 or 123.
The one advantage that conceptual spur off TX-130 going NW toward I-35 halfway between New Braunfels and San Marcos: there's not a lot of development out there to block a new toll road.
The TX-80 corridor down from San Marcos and the TX-46 corridor down from San Marcos both need to be improved somehow. New Braunfels and San Marcos are both getting big enough to need freeway (or toll road) quality routes down to I-10 going toward Houston. The question is where do you build the upgraded routes? The existing TX-80 & TX-46 routes are getting too covered up to just widen into new freeways. Lots of people would be raising hell for all the properties that would have to be bought and cleared. Considering the soaring costs of housing in many parts of this region, anyone displaced due to their home being taken via eminent domain might not be able to find a comparable place to live for whatever the government paid for that property. It would probably be easier to push through new suburban highways in a down real estate market.
Is there generally any method to how spur and bypass interstates are named?
I know spurs are odd, bypass even, but if they were to make 8 and 99 part of the I system, generally don't you want the higher digits to be further out?
Quote from: bluecountry on February 06, 2020, 11:53:47 AM
Is there generally any method to how spur and bypass interstates are named?
Often they are numbered in order (within a state), from west to east and south to north. Of course that only works when they are commissioned at a similar date. You add one at a later time, you take what number is available.
Quote from: GaryV on February 06, 2020, 12:18:34 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on February 06, 2020, 11:53:47 AM
Is there generally any method to how spur and bypass interstates are named?
Often they are numbered in order (within a state), from west to east and south to north. Of course that only works when they are commissioned at a similar date. You add one at a later time, you take what number is available.
So, hypothetically, if 8 and 99 were originally part of the I system, what would the numbering of 99, 8, 610 be properly?
With I-10 in Texas it would sort of appear at the 3-digit I-x10 routes are numbered sequentially in order from West to East. But there's only I-110 in El Paso, I-410 in San Antonio and I-610 in Houston.
Upstate New York is one of the few areas of the country where a very obvious sequential numbering system took place for 3-digit Interstate routes from Buffalo to Albany. But then I-990 came along to disrupt that system.
Hypothetically, Loop 8 in Houston could be called I-810. Or if we wanted to keep the sixes thing going for Houston loop routes, Loop 8 could be called I-645 and the Grand Parkway could be re-numbered as I-669 (as some have previously suggested).
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 06, 2020, 02:32:12 PM
With I-10 in Texas it would sort of appear at the 3-digit I-x10 routes are numbered sequentially in order from West to East. But there's only I-110 in El Paso, I-410 in San Antonio and I-610 in Houston.
Upstate New York is one of the few areas of the country where a very obvious sequential numbering system took place for 3-digit Interstate routes from Buffalo to Albany. But then I-990 came along to disrupt that system.
Hypothetically, Loop 8 in Houston could be called I-810. Or if we wanted to keep the sixes thing going for Houston loop routes, Loop 8 could be called I-645 and the Grand Parkway could be re-numbered as I-669 (as some have previously suggested).
Gotcha, so pretty much Houston boxed themselves in with I-610 being the 1st loop.
Couldn't have 8 be 245 or 445?
Several combinations with I-10, I-45 or I-69 being the parent 2di routes would work.
Unsigned I-345 is the only 3di route from I-45. That leaves I-245, I-445, I-645 and I-845 open for potential use on loop highways in Texas.
So far I-69 has turned and burned only I-169 and I-369. That leaves 4 even numbered routes and 3 odd numbered routes open.
As mentioned before, only I-110, I-410 and I-610 have been used in Texas so far. 4 odd numbered and 2 even numbered I-x10 routes remain available.
If it was up to me, I'd go with I-645 on Loop 8 and I-669 on the Grand Parkway just for the aesthetic thing of having all the big loops in Houston be 600 numbered routes. It would be a touch like the AZ-101, AZ-202, AZ-303 theme going on in Phoenix. Oh, there is that proposed Northeast spur of the Grand Parkway that begins at the NE corner of that giant loop and runs North to meet I-69. That could be I-269 or I-869, take your pick.
In the end, this is all just hypothetical talk. Chances are the loops around Houston will remain with state highway designations. And US-290 between Houston and Austin may continue to carry that designation long after the entire route is upgraded to Interstate quality.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 06, 2020, 10:15:53 PM
Several combinations with I-10, I-45 or I-69 being the parent 2di routes would work.
Unsigned I-345 is the only 3di route from I-45. That leaves I-245, I-445, I-645 and I-845 open for potential use on loop highways in Texas.
So far I-69 has turned and burned only I-169 and I-369. That leaves 4 even numbered routes and 3 odd numbered routes open.
As mentioned before, only I-110, I-410 and I-610 have been used in Texas so far. 4 odd numbered and 2 even numbered I-x10 routes remain available.
If it was up to me, I'd go with I-645 on Loop 8 and I-669 on the Grand Parkway just for the aesthetic thing of having all the big loops in Houston be 600 numbered routes. It would be a touch like the AZ-101, AZ-202, AZ-303 theme going on in Phoenix. Oh, there is that proposed Northeast spur of the Grand Parkway that begins at the NE corner of that giant loop and runs North to meet I-69. That could be I-269 or I-869, take your pick.
In the end, this is all just hypothetical talk. Chances are the loops around Houston will remain with state highway designations. And US-290 between Houston and Austin may continue to carry that designation long after the entire route is upgraded to Interstate quality.
I didn't know about that spur from the Grand Parkway. Where could I find info on that?
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 06, 2020, 10:15:53 PM
Several combinations with I-10, I-45 or I-69 being the parent 2di routes would work.
Unsigned I-345 is the only 3di route from I-45. That leaves I-245, I-445, I-645 and I-845 open for potential use on loop highways in Texas.
So far I-69 has turned and burned only I-169 and I-369. That leaves 4 even numbered routes and 3 odd numbered routes open.
As mentioned before, only I-110, I-410 and I-610 have been used in Texas so far. 4 odd numbered and 2 even numbered I-x10 routes remain available.
If it was up to me, I'd go with I-645 on Loop 8 and I-669 on the Grand Parkway just for the aesthetic thing of having all the big loops in Houston be 600 numbered routes. It would be a touch like the AZ-101, AZ-202, AZ-303 theme going on in Phoenix. Oh, there is that proposed Northeast spur of the Grand Parkway that begins at the NE corner of that giant loop and runs North to meet I-69. That could be I-269 or I-869, take your pick.
In the end, this is all just hypothetical talk. Chances are the loops around Houston will remain with state highway designations. And US-290 between Houston and Austin may continue to carry that designation long after the entire route is upgraded to Interstate quality.
But it definitely should be where 8 and 99 are no lower than 6 as the first digit where they to be interstates?
Houston's a late bloomer, as it wasn't nearly as large in 1960 as it is now. So I suspect that's why there aren't anymore Interstates than the four that are there (I-10, I-45, I-69 and I-610).
Does the city of Houston, or the state of Texas need any more Interstate designations? I would loudly say "NO!", and tell both Texas and North Carolina to lay off the Interstate designation binge they've been on.
Quote from: thisdj78I didn't know about that spur from the Grand Parkway. Where could I find info on that?
I've seen a couple images of it. Such as this:
http://i.imgur.com/1ScQV.pngI don't know how serious those proposals may be. Construction of Section H on the Grand Parkway (the NW area of the loop going East of I-69) is well under way, but doesn't include any spur coming off the NW area going up toward Cleveland or Sheppard. If TX DOT or other toll road agencies do want to build such a thing they'll have to get after it. Otherwise any potential ROW may end up covered in new residential development before they can get anything built.
Quote from: The GhostbusterDoes the city of Houston, or the state of Texas need any more Interstate designations? I would loudly say "NO!", and tell both Texas and North Carolina to lay off the Interstate designation binge they've been on.
I don't mind them re-naming an existing urban/suburban loop highway or spur with a 3-digit Interstate designation. Texas doesn't really have many of those. My main gripe is with politically charged, porky routes like I-14.
Texas is a huge state and most of its nearly 28 million residents live along or within the Texas Triangle. I don't think that region is over-served with Interstate-labeled highways. One thing is certain: several corridors both short and long in length within the Texas triangle need major upgrades.
Quote from: thisdj78 on February 06, 2020, 10:40:37 PM
I didn't know about that spur from the Grand Parkway. Where could I find info on that?
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg167349#msg167349
Quote from: bluecountry on February 03, 2020, 10:26:02 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on February 03, 2020, 09:52:51 AM
Part of the reason also why a lot of Houston's freeways are not interstates is because they represent state routes that were originally surface roads that were upgraded to freeways over time, while keeping the same route designations.
Well the NJTP, the PATP, the CT TP, etc all were in the same spot.
I'm sticking to my theory, Houston was too 'late' to the show by which point Fed funds were gone.
The turnpikes of the northeast were either built or under construction when the Interstate Highway System was established in 1956. These toll roads were already built as limited access highways, and were added to the Interstate system since it made no sense to build "free" interstates paralleling the turnpikes.
A lot of the freeways around Houston started off decades ago as 2-lane roads, that were widened to 4 lane roads, and then converted to freeways with at-grade intersections replaced with interchanges. Most of the turnpikes were built as new-terrain freeways where no road previously existed, although most of those turnpikes parallel a pre-existing US route.
Let's do a hypothetical:
Scenario A:
-Houston decides to incorporate to the "I" system:
Beltway 8, 99, 290, 249, 288 (leaving Hardy and Westpark as is)...I am missing any?
What would their I #s be today?
Scenario B:
-Like the northeast, when Houston built their expressways they were incoporated from the start to the "I" system
What would 610/8/99/249/290/288 be?
Quote from: bluecountryScenario A:
-Houston decides to incorporate to the "I" system:
Beltway 8, 99, 290, 249, 288 (leaving Hardy and Westpark as is)...I am missing any?
What would their I #s be today?
NOBODY knows the answer to that. If anyone says they do they're lying. Why continue to ask the same question over and over again? All anyone in this forum can do is guess what Interstate number a toll road like Beltway 8 would receive in the
very unlikely event it was granted an Interstate designation. At best it only makes for a "fictional highway" discussion.
OK lets make a guess then if we had a blank slate
We've already been guessing and stating our own preferences for what the numbers could be. It's pointless repeating that.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 10, 2020, 09:20:16 PM
We've already been guessing and stating our own preferences for what the numbers could be. It's pointless repeating that.
OK fine, here is my guess:
If starting from scratch:
I-610=I-210
8=I-645
99=I-810
90=I-110
249=I-345
288=I-369
290=I-710
If re-naming today:
I-610=I-610
8=I-645
99=I-810
90=I-110
249=I-345
288=I-369
290=I-710
This has definitely crossed into fantasy.
Why Are There So Few Actually 'I' Interstate Expressways in Metro Houston? Maybe the same reason there aren't any 3dis in Phoenix (both 410 and 510 were canceled). Or am I comparing apples to oranges?
Quote from: bluecountry on January 29, 2020, 01:09:00 PM
You have:
-10, 45, 69 (which is confusing), and 610....thats it!
All the rest are not part of the interstate system:
-8, 90, 99, 288, 249, 290, and then Hardy/Westpark Toll
Why is it there is just a single interstate spur?
My only guess, Houston was a late booming metro region, by which point all Fed funds were gone?
It is ALL of Texas, not just Houston
First, Texas doesn't generally have ANY state highway mainlanes that are tolled. As a rule, the service (feeder if you are in Houston LOL) lanes are the numbered highway and the toll road is just the toll road. This in itself keeps over half of the roads you mentioned excluded from Interstate numbering.
Likewise some of the interstates in Texas also have tolled HOV lanes.
Each of the MAJOR Texas cities back in the sixties got one 3-digit interstate loop. Houston got 610. Dallas got 635. Fort Worth got 820. San Antonio got 410. That is it. (There is of course the unmarked spur (I-345) That bridges Interstate 45 and US75 in downtown Dallas. ) Austin was somewhat smaller back then.
Someone else touched on it. Houston has been a top ten city since before the initiation of the interstates.
Texas hasn't left money on the table.Interstate highways since the late sixties have just been a label. Sometimes, upgrading a limited access US or State Highway to Interstate SPECIFICATIONS is costly. In a lot of cases, AASHTO certification is not worth the expense.
In a nutshell, Texas has not really been big in the numbering game. I-69 is the first new interstate in decades
Quote from: bwana39 on February 11, 2020, 04:50:06 PM
First, Texas doesn't generally have ANY state highway mainlanes that are tolled.
SH 130
SH 45, except for the Circle C portion
SH 99
SH 121
to name a few
Quote from: Echostatic on February 13, 2020, 10:22:43 AM
Quote from: bwana39 on February 11, 2020, 04:50:06 PM
First, Texas doesn't generally have ANY state highway mainlanes that are tolled.
SH 130
SH 45, except for the Circle C portion
SH 99
SH 121
to name a few
Formerly 255 as well.
^
Don't toll road segments have special designations?
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 13, 2020, 05:11:36 PM
Don't toll road segments have special designations?
They have a different shield but they're still the same old TX Highway. Same thing applies to TX Loop highways.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Texas_45.svg) VS (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7a/Toll_Texas_45.svg/385px-Toll_Texas_45.svg.png) or (https://www.mobilityauthority.com/upload/images/logos/SW45_Toll_Shield.jpg)
Quote from: Echostatic on February 13, 2020, 10:22:43 AM
Quote from: bwana39 on February 11, 2020, 04:50:06 PM
First, Texas doesn't generally have ANY state highway mainlanes that are tolled.
SH 130
SH 45, except for the Circle C portion
SH 99
SH 121
to name a few
All of 121 is technically the frontage (service / feeder) roads except for the free parts. The Tolled freeway lanes are technically Sam Rayburn Tollway. It is possible the TXDOT operated ones around Austin and Houston do not follow those rules, but in North Texas it is that way.
Quote from: bwana39 on February 13, 2020, 06:39:22 PM
Quote from: Echostatic on February 13, 2020, 10:22:43 AM
Quote from: bwana39 on February 11, 2020, 04:50:06 PM
First, Texas doesn't generally have ANY state highway mainlanes that are tolled.
SH 130
SH 45, except for the Circle C portion
SH 99
SH 121
to name a few
All of 121 is technically the frontage (service / feeder) roads except for the free parts. The Tolled freeway lanes are technically Sam Rayburn Tollway. It is possible the TXDOT operated ones around Austin and Houston do not follow those rules, but in North Texas it is that way.
Beltway 8 in Houston is the same way except change the word Rayburn to Houston.
This is the way.
Quote from: bwana39 on February 13, 2020, 06:39:22 PM
Quote from: Echostatic on February 13, 2020, 10:22:43 AM
Quote from: bwana39 on February 11, 2020, 04:50:06 PM
First, Texas doesn't generally have ANY state highway mainlanes that are tolled.
SH 130
SH 45, except for the Circle C portion
SH 99
SH 121
to name a few
All of 121 is technically the frontage (service / feeder) roads except for the free parts. The Tolled freeway lanes are technically Sam Rayburn Tollway. It is possible the TXDOT operated ones around Austin and Houston do not follow those rules, but in North Texas it is that way.
Beltway 8/Sam Houston Tollway in Houston follows the same protocol: Beltway 8 signed on the frontage roads; SHT signed on the tolled mainlanes. Only exception is the free section between I-610 and US 90 on the eastern side, including the James Jones Bridge.
Quote from: Anthony_JK on February 14, 2020, 10:34:18 AM
Quote from: bwana39 on February 13, 2020, 06:39:22 PM
Quote from: Echostatic on February 13, 2020, 10:22:43 AM
Quote from: bwana39 on February 11, 2020, 04:50:06 PM
First, Texas doesn't generally have ANY state highway mainlanes that are tolled.
SH 130
SH 45, except for the Circle C portion
SH 99
SH 121
to name a few
All of 121 is technically the frontage (service / feeder) roads except for the free parts. The Tolled freeway lanes are technically Sam Rayburn Tollway. It is possible the TXDOT operated ones around Austin and Houston do not follow those rules, but in North Texas it is that way.
Beltway 8/Sam Houston Tollway in Houston follows the same protocol: Beltway 8 signed on the frontage roads; SHT signed on the tolled mainlanes. Only exception is the free section between I-610 and US 90 on the eastern side, including the James Jones Bridge.
And between I-45 and US-59 by Bush Airport.
Quote from: Echostatic on February 13, 2020, 05:29:45 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 13, 2020, 05:11:36 PM
Don't toll road segments have special designations?
They have a different shield but they're still the same old TX Highway. Same thing applies to TX Loop highways.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Texas_45.svg) VS (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7a/Toll_Texas_45.svg/385px-Toll_Texas_45.svg.png) or (https://www.mobilityauthority.com/upload/images/logos/SW45_Toll_Shield.jpg)
The blue and white shields are state highways, mostly built by TxDOT (segments 5 and 6 of SH 130 were not built by TxDOT but are still owned by the state and are part of the state highway, despite being operated and maintained by a private concessionaire). The yellow and blue shields are CTRMA roads and aren't state highways.
Why Are There So Few Actually 'I' Interstate Expressways in TEXAS? is the real qurstion.
Until the recent I-69 and I-14 the last new "i" interstate was extending I-44 to Wichita Falls in the early eighties. Before that it was 1-27 in the late sixties (completed about 1990).
The bottom line is mostly it boils down to how Texas spends its highway money. Until this most recent bout of love with the interstate, It made sense to have 4 lane divided highways in rural areas and to have controlled access in urban ones.
Even in controlled access areas, Little things like frequency of exits, lengths and angles of exits and entrances, maximum angles on curves... The list goes on and on are more restrictive (and expensive to meet) on Interstates. If the same money can build either?
Here is the system I've kinda envisioned for Houston:
Spur 330 on the east side in Baytown becomes I-710
SH 288 becomes IH 145
SH 225 and SH 146 stay the same –state highways
SH 249 becomes I-345 since they're removing 345 in Dallas; otherwise make it 545
Beltway 8 becomes IH 645
Grand parkway becomes IH 669
Spur 527 becomes IH 569
US 290 becomes either IH 12 or a corrected IH 14.
US 90 becomes IH 510
Quote from: thisdj78 on January 29, 2020, 09:07:38 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on January 29, 2020, 01:09:00 PM
You have:
-10, 45, 69 (which is confusing), and 610....thats it!
All the rest are not part of the interstate system:
-8, 90, 99, 288, 249, 290, and then Hardy/Westpark Toll
Why is it there is just a single interstate spur?
My only guess, Houston was a late booming metro region, by which point all Fed funds were gone?
Well, eventhough Houston was still of decent size back when Interstate system was being built out, the surrounding areas weren't densely populated (compared to say a Chicago, Philadelphia or a Detroit), so it wasn't necessary to have many "spoke" interstates leading into or around Houston.
To add to this, Houston is relatively geographically isolated from the rest of the country (owing to it's southern location). Before NAFTA, there really wasn't much of a reason to have a diagonal interstate that would more easily reach the Northeast and/or Midwest. (oil/gas being transported in pipelines/trains, and all other freight imports by rail).
Quote from: achilles765 on December 22, 2020, 01:39:39 PM
Beltway 8 becomes IH 645
Grand parkway becomes IH 669
Liked how you continued the first digit from 610 onto the other beltways interstate number. I'm a fan of numbering patterns, like 101, 202 and 303 in Phoenix.
I don't see any reason to change things from how they already are. I've fantasized about renumbering every freeway in the Houston area in the past, but for what? So roadgeeks can be happy? It would literally make almost zero difference whether they are resigned or not. There's not even really a legitimate reason to renumber Beltway 8 and 99 (the most likely candidates for renumbering) to Interstates because it's faster to use the freeways through downtown or 610 for long-distance travels. 8 and 99 (actually, most the state highways in Houston) are mostly for locals getting around.
I don't think Houston was as big in the 50s.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on December 22, 2020, 08:19:42 PM
I don't think Houston was as big in the 50s.
According to this 1950 census pdf (https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/1950/pc-03/pc-3-03.pdf) on page 11, Houston's metro area was about the same size as Kansas City. Houston was definitely large enough that I-45 was planned in its current location just to give Houston an x5, instead of saving the number for a longer corridor like I-49. But even comparing to Kansas City, the latter still got more interstates. Kansas City has 3 2di, compared to 2 in Houston back then. Kansas City's beltway (I-435) is more than double the length of Houston's I-610. Kansas City also had I-635 and I-470 in its 1950s plans, and Houston also started planning Beltway 8 in the 1950s, but I don't know why that wasn't an interstate in a time when the federal government was throwing money at interstate construction like it grows on trees.
Quote from: SkyPesos on December 23, 2020, 12:02:51 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on December 22, 2020, 08:19:42 PM
I don't think Houston was as big in the 50s.
According to this 1950 census pdf (https://www2.census.gov/library/publications/decennial/1950/pc-03/pc-3-03.pdf) on page 11, Houston's metro area was about the same size as Kansas City. Houston was definitely large enough that I-45 was planned in its current location just to give Houston an x5, instead of saving the number for a longer corridor like I-49. But even comparing to Kansas City, the latter still got more interstates. Kansas City has 3 2di, compared to 2 in Houston back then. Kansas City's beltway (I-435) is more than double the length of Houston's I-610. Kansas City also had I-635 and I-470 in its 1950s plans, and Houston also started planning Beltway 8 in the 1950s, but I don't know why that wasn't an interstate in a time when the federal government was throwing money at interstate construction like it grows on trees.
I lived in Houston in the 60's and remember the 1960 population was about 935,000. I know that didn't count all the suburbs but I'd bet KC was bigger. We lived in Sharpstown and you could reach the country by going west on Bellaire past Gessner. The Southwest Freeway wasn't finished past Gessner(IIRC) and the frontage roads ended at US90. They finished Beltway 8 between 45 and 59 in time for the Intercontinental Airport to open. Had to take my father there for a flight and it seemed so far out in the boonies.
NO ONE could have forecast the explosive growth that Houston has experienced. Combine that with the already mentioned matter of location and you get the reason why Houston only got two 2 digit interstates.
KC is in a location where N/S and E/W routes cross - like in Denver, Salt Lake and Albuquerque, to name a few others. In addition, KC has I-29 which starts there, kind of like a "spur".
Houston/Galveston being at the bottom of the country, only has an E/W route going through it. I-45 is a spur-like route similar to I-29 in KC. But there's no where for a long-distance N/S route that can compare to I-35 in KC.
Look at other cities around the "edges" of the country. They have a major "thru" route, and another spur (in a few cases 2 spurs) that starts there or nearby. Seattle, Portland, Jacksonville, Baltimore, Washington.
Quote from: GaryV on December 23, 2020, 12:50:23 PM
But there's no where for a long-distance N/S route that can compare to I-35 in KC.
Not until I-69 is completed anyways, though that's modern day / future.
Quote from: GaryV on December 23, 2020, 12:50:23 PM
Look at other cities around the "edges" of the country. They have a major "thru" route, and another spur (in a few cases 2 spurs) that starts there or nearby. Seattle, Portland, Jacksonville, Baltimore, Washington.
Then you have cities such as Wilmington (NC), Charleston, Hampton Roads, etc. that only have one east-west spur connecting it (I-40, I-26, I-64), and is bypassed by the major north-south route (I-95).
Quote from: GaryV on December 23, 2020, 12:50:23 PM
Look at other cities around the "edges" of the country. They have a major "thru" route, and another spur (in a few cases 2 spurs) that starts there or nearby. Seattle, Portland, Jacksonville, Baltimore, Washington.
I was trying so hard to think of an exception, but there isn't really any
NYC: 95 (through route), 78, 80 (spurs).
Baltimore: 95 (through route), 70N, 83 (spurs). 97 is in the "wannabe 2di that should really be a 70N or 83 extension" league.
DC: 95 (through route), 66, 70S (spurs). 70S could be an E-W through route if it got extended along the northern loop of I-495 to US 50 towards Annapolis and possibly Dover, but that's fictional territory.
LA: 5 (through route), 10 (spur)
And then there's the Bay Area without an N-S interstate at all, and only an E-W spur of I-80.
The only N-S non-spur I can think of for Houston is US 59, but that's modern day.
Quote from: SkyPesos on December 23, 2020, 12:02:51 PM
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on December 22, 2020, 08:19:42 PM
I don't think Houston was as big in the 50s.
Houston also started planning Beltway 8 in the 1950s, but I don't know why that wasn't an interstate in a time when the federal government was throwing money at interstate construction like it grows on trees.
There are several issues here. First, Texas and California both got lots of MILES of Interstate highway. That did not translate into lots of separate Interstate Highways. California has added lots of Loop and Spur interstates, ESPECIALLY in the San Francisco area. Texas has not done that. Texas got about as much interstate as the funding was available for. After the dedicated interstate funding tapered off, Texas focused on building 4-lane divided highways in the rural areas and built additional freeways and used the existing numbers or state highway numbers.
The only reason I-69 goes through Houston is the clout a top-5 city has versus a cross-country interstate. between Victoria and Teneha more or less.
Why did Dallas / Ft.Worth get an outsized piece of the pie versus Houston? While most of us, previous to the late 1970's, thought of Dallas and Ft. Worth as two separate entities the regional planning was probably more cooperative then, than today. While Dallas itself was less populous than Houston, even then, DFW had a population edge. This, however, is not where the power lay any way. Sam Rayburn was the speaker through MOST of the fifties. His influence as a North Texas native and resident was far more important for Texas.
Quote from: SkyPesos on December 23, 2020, 02:20:01 PM
Quote from: GaryV on December 23, 2020, 12:50:23 PM
Look at other cities around the "edges" of the country. They have a major "thru" route, and another spur (in a few cases 2 spurs) that starts there or nearby. Seattle, Portland, Jacksonville, Baltimore, Washington.
I was trying so hard to think of an exception, but there isn't really any
NYC: 95 (through route), 78, 80 (spurs).
Baltimore: 95 (through route), 70N, 83 (spurs). 97 is in the "wannabe 2di that should really be a 70N or 83 extension" league.
DC: 95 (through route), 66, 70S (spurs). 70S could be an E-W through route if it got extended along the northern loop of I-495 to US 50 towards Annapolis and possibly Dover, but that's fictional territory.
LA: 5 (through route), 10 (spur)
And then there's the Bay Area without an N-S interstate at all, and only an E-W spur of I-80.
The only N-S non-spur I can think of for Houston is US 59, but that's modern day.
OK, your concept of spurs is a little disorienting. By spurs, you mean something that goes in a ray from a given point as opposed to a line (or more technically line segment) going through a given city. I miss how I-45 misses your definition of a through N-S non-spur.
Quote from: bwana39 on December 23, 2020, 03:29:34 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on December 23, 2020, 02:20:01 PM
Quote from: GaryV on December 23, 2020, 12:50:23 PM
Look at other cities around the "edges" of the country. They have a major "thru" route, and another spur (in a few cases 2 spurs) that starts there or nearby. Seattle, Portland, Jacksonville, Baltimore, Washington.
I was trying so hard to think of an exception, but there isn't really any
NYC: 95 (through route), 78, 80 (spurs).
Baltimore: 95 (through route), 70N, 83 (spurs). 97 is in the "wannabe 2di that should really be a 70N or 83 extension" league.
DC: 95 (through route), 66, 70S (spurs). 70S could be an E-W through route if it got extended along the northern loop of I-495 to US 50 towards Annapolis and possibly Dover, but that's fictional territory.
LA: 5 (through route), 10 (spur)
And then there's the Bay Area without an N-S interstate at all, and only an E-W spur of I-80.
The only N-S non-spur I can think of for Houston is US 59, but that's modern day.
OK, your concept of spurs is a little disorienting. By spurs, you mean something that goes in a ray from a given point as opposed to a line (or more technically line segment) going through a given city. I miss how I-45 misses your definition of a through N-S non-spur.
The post I quoted said nearby as well. I-45 terminates in Galveston, which is part of the Houston metro area. The only direction it goes outside the metro area is north, since south of the metro area is the Gulf of Mexico.
Quote from: SkyPesos on December 23, 2020, 02:20:01 PM
And then there's the Bay Area without an N-S interstate at all, and only an E-W spur of I-80.
I-580 (the east west spur of 80 you are referring to) was originally proposed and signed as I-5W, part of a west branch of I-5 along I-505/I-80/I-580 from Dunnigan to Vernalis via Vacaville, Vallejo, and Oakland. To be fair, only a short portion of the MacArthur Freeway near downtown Oakland did get the I-5W signage (concurrent with US 50).
So it was intended as part of one north-south route at one point.
US 101 itself between Boyle Heights and Novato was submitted for possible inclusion into the Interstate system at one point in the 50s or 60s but was not taken in.
Quote from: bwana39 on December 23, 2020, 03:29:34 PM
Quote from: SkyPesos on December 23, 2020, 02:20:01 PM
Quote from: GaryV on December 23, 2020, 12:50:23 PM
Look at other cities around the "edges" of the country. They have a major "thru" route, and another spur (in a few cases 2 spurs) that starts there or nearby. Seattle, Portland, Jacksonville, Baltimore, Washington.
I was trying so hard to think of an exception, but there isn't really any
NYC: 95 (through route), 78, 80 (spurs).
Baltimore: 95 (through route), 70N, 83 (spurs). 97 is in the "wannabe 2di that should really be a 70N or 83 extension" league.
DC: 95 (through route), 66, 70S (spurs). 70S could be an E-W through route if it got extended along the northern loop of I-495 to US 50 towards Annapolis and possibly Dover, but that's fictional territory.
LA: 5 (through route), 10 (spur)
And then there's the Bay Area without an N-S interstate at all, and only an E-W spur of I-80.
The only N-S non-spur I can think of for Houston is US 59, but that's modern day.
OK, your concept of spurs is a little disorienting. By spurs, you mean something that goes in a ray from a given point as opposed to a line (or more technically line segment) going through a given city. I miss how I-45 misses your definition of a through N-S non-spur.
Correct, I couldn't think of a better word for it. I realize spur usually refers to an odd-first-digit 3di. In this case I was using it as noted here, a ray emanating in one direction from a metro area (or very near to a metro area).
DFW was brought up as an example. DFW and OKC are communities at cross-roads similar to KC, with a n/s and e/w thru routes, and a ray-spur 2di route as well. (We often talk about how I-30 isn't a "real" or "worthy" 2di ending in 0. Same as we talk about I-45 not being "real" or "worthy".)
Regarding some cities on the east coast like Norfolk and Charleston, they don't have a n/s "thru" route because of their locations, too far east due to the bend in the coastline. It made sense for I-95 to be inland as a more direct route nationally. The same thing happened with the US highways - US 1 is inland, and those areas had to make do with US 13 and US 17.
Quote from: dfwmapper on February 17, 2020, 02:27:44 AM
Quote from: Echostatic on February 13, 2020, 05:29:45 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on February 13, 2020, 05:11:36 PM
Don't toll road segments have special designations?
They have a different shield but they're still the same old TX Highway. Same thing applies to TX Loop highways.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d2/Texas_45.svg) VS (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7a/Toll_Texas_45.svg/385px-Toll_Texas_45.svg.png) or (https://www.mobilityauthority.com/upload/images/logos/SW45_Toll_Shield.jpg)
The blue and white shields are state highways, mostly built by TxDOT (segments 5 and 6 of SH 130 were not built by TxDOT but are still owned by the state and are part of the state highway, despite being operated and maintained by a private concessionaire). The yellow and blue shields are CTRMA roads and aren't state highways.
This comment is a little moot technically every single shielded road in texas is a part of the state highway system just becuase tolling authorities own the roads they are still jurisdictions of the state of Texas. The toll roads are part of the grid using technicalities saying the named or numbered toll routes aren't part of the system because they aren't managed by TXDOT. TXDOT and the tolling agencies agree on the designations and notice how some of the toll roads are constructed by TXDOT and turned over to the toll authorities to manage. Also there are tolled lanes owned by TXDOT in DFW on 114, 121, 183, I35 E/W I635, I820.
OK so
1) So few 'I's' in Houston due to
a. Unforeseen levels of explosive growth late 20th century
b. When funding for new interstates had dried up
c. In a bottom of the US non-crossroads location
Going on a tangent,
1) Why is there no direct, limited access highway from Houston to Austin?
-Given Austin is the capital and the Port of Houston/Galveston was well established this makes little sense.
2) Why is I-45 'I-45' and not some non-two digit I?
Quote from: bluecountry on January 03, 2021, 01:28:41 PM
2) Why is I-45 'I-45' and not some non-two digit I?
It wouldn't fit in the grid elsewhere because it would duplicate US-45 in some states. So they "wasted" it in a single state, rather than skipping it altogether as with I-50 and I-60.
Quote from: GaryV on January 03, 2021, 06:10:04 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on January 03, 2021, 01:28:41 PM
2) Why is I-45 'I-45' and not some non-two digit I?
It wouldn't fit in the grid elsewhere because it would duplicate US-45 in some states. So they "wasted" it in a single state, rather than skipping it altogether as with I-50 and I-60.
50/60 being skipped makes total sense given it would have likely run too close to US 50 & 60.
Quote from: GaryV on January 03, 2021, 06:10:04 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on January 03, 2021, 01:28:41 PM
2) Why is I-45 'I-45' and not some non-two digit I?
It wouldn't fit in the grid elsewhere because it would duplicate US-45 in some states. So they "wasted" it in a single state, rather than skipping it altogether as with I-50 and I-60.
If I-45 was on the 29/49 corridor, there would be no duplication with US 45.
Quote from: bluecountry on January 03, 2021, 01:28:41 PM
OK so
1) So few 'I's' in Houston due to
a. Unforeseen levels of explosive growth late 20th century
b. When funding for new interstates had dried up
c. In a bottom of the US non-crossroads location
Going on a tangent,
1) Why is there no direct, limited access highway from Houston to Austin?
-Given Austin is the capital and the Port of Houston/Galveston was well established this makes little sense.
2) Why is I-45 'I-45' and not some non-two digit I?
As to answer #1) 60+ years ago, Government in Texas was truly small. Beyond that it was spread around the state. Austin was more comparable to Lubbock. Waco, or at most ElPaso in 1950.
Capitals of states does not mean influence. Even today some smaller state's Capital cities more closely resemble Texarkana than Oklahoma City much less 21st century Austin. Back when the interstates were being planned in the fifties and sixties , Austin was a sleepy little town, not the Urban behemoth that it is today.
The legislature in Texas meets for about three months in ODD NUMBERED YEARS. While there are occasional special sessions, there still is not a permanent legislature in Austin. Austin was a small college town that HAPPENED to be the Capital. Even today, most of Texas holds no real esteem for Austin. It is kind of like the principal's office. Nothing good ever comes out of it and you certainly don't send rewards its way.
Government has grown in Texas. The University has grown. Much of the government has migrated from around the state to Austin. The concept of college alumni staying in the geographic area of universities has helped Austin grow. (As an aside A&M alumni have REALLY grown out Bryan / College Station)
Back to Austin. I think almost everyone EXCEPT the legislature appreciates the need for better transportation infrastructure in Austin. Austin itself fights between urbanists and people who understand that highways are the way Texans get around. Travis county is a Democrat stronghold (super majority) in a state that is significantly Republican. The legislature owes no allegiance to Austin. The legislature will leave it to TXDOT to duke it out with the differing parties.
#2) Even in the nineteen fifties, Texas was populous enough to get (deserve) two X5 Interstates. I-45 runs between the two most populous urban areas in Texas both then and now. . Why it failed to go farther is up for debate. Some say Texas wanted it to go to Amarillo (follow SH-114 & US-287) and lacked the funds to route it across so many desolate miles. Others suggest that other states (Oklahoma in particular) didn't want / need another north / south interstate. AND when it was originally adopted there were ZERO other I-4X odd numbers in use, so of course, Texas opted to ask for the X5. As to the 3DI, when it was built, it was not that much shorter than many other 2DI's (and still is longer than all for the ODD I-4X numbers except I-49 and even that is just since 2015.) Beside that TEXAS has EXACTLY 2 Spur (odd first digit) 3DI's. Neither is two miles long.
TEXAS does NOT have an affinity to Interstate Spurs or even Interstate Loops as far as that matters.
Would be interesting to know if there were any other plans for extending I-45.
Also, why doesn't Texas like 3 digit spur/loop interstates?
Quote from: bluecountry on January 04, 2021, 10:17:34 AM
Would be interesting to know if there were any other plans for extending I-45.
Also, why doesn't Texas like 3 digit spur/loop interstates?
It is generally believed that when the updates to US-75 in downtown Sherman are complete, that Texas will ask for it to be extended to at least the US-69 / US-75 intersection near the Oklahoma state line. Oklahoma is sort of thinking about it, but honestly they already have problems maintaining that which they already have.
Quote from: 1 on January 03, 2021, 06:25:43 PM
Quote from: GaryV on January 03, 2021, 06:10:04 PM
Quote from: bluecountry on January 03, 2021, 01:28:41 PM
2) Why is I-45 'I-45' and not some non-two digit I?
It wouldn't fit in the grid elsewhere because it would duplicate US-45 in some states. So they "wasted" it in a single state, rather than skipping it altogether as with I-50 and I-60.
If I-45 was on the 29/49 corridor, there would be no duplication with US 45.
I-49 was first proposed DECADES after I-45 was built. Besides, I-49 originally went only from Lafayette LA to Shreveport LA. Proposals to extend it came about a decade or more after the original stretch was opened.