News:

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

Main Menu

Why Are There So Few Actually 'I' Interstate Expressways in Metro Houston?

Started by bluecountry, January 29, 2020, 01:09:00 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

bluecountry

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?


hotdogPi

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.
Clinched, minus I-93 (I'm missing a few miles and my file is incorrect)

Traveled, plus US 13, 44, and 50, and several state routes

I will be in Burlington VT for the eclipse.

Chris

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.

Perfxion

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.
5/10/20/30/15/35/37/40/44/45/70/76/78/80/85/87/95/
(CA)405,(NJ)195/295(NY)295/495/278/678(CT)395(MD/VA)195/495/695/895

sparker

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"!

thisdj78

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.

bluecountry

So I mean is there any reason why so few expressways are interstates?

jbnv

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.
🆕 Louisiana Highways on Twitter | Yes, I like Clearview. Deal with it. | Redos: US | La. | Route Challenge

bluecountry

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?

wxfree

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.
I'd like to buy a vowel, Alex.  What is E?

thisdj78

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.

Perfxion

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.
5/10/20/30/15/35/37/40/44/45/70/76/78/80/85/87/95/
(CA)405,(NJ)195/295(NY)295/495/278/678(CT)395(MD/VA)195/495/695/895

Ryctor2018

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.
2DI's traveled: 5, 8, 10, 12, 15, 20, 24, 30, 35, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 49, 55, 57, 59, 64, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 85, 87, 88, 90, 93, 94, 95, 96

Rothman



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.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

sprjus4

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.

jeffandnicole

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.

bluecountry

So basically the reason is, by the time Houston needed expressways interstate funding was all dry, right?

thisdj78

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)

bluecountry

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.

jeffandnicole

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.

thisdj78

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.

sparker

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.

thisdj78

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/

Bobby5280

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.

DJStephens

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.   



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.