US-290 between Austin and Houston thread (future freeway-ish upgrades when?)

[Plutonic Panda]

I still don'
t get why there isn't a direct freeway from Houston to Austin.

Because two 4-lane divided highways sufficiently handle the traffic.

Why have interstates at all then? Safety reasons.

Hey I'm with Fritz Owl

To be fair money is the issue.

[Bobby5280]

It's barely 100 miles from Manor (the East edge of the Austin metro) to Hempstead, where the freeway coming out of Houston ends. The Austin metro has over 2 million people. The Houston metro has over 6 million people. Both metros are less than 200 miles apart. Anyone claiming those two metros are not worth connecting directly with an Interstate quality freeway is a Goddamned idiot. And that especially goes for any bullshit "Fritz Owl" insult nonsense. Fuck of all of that.

If Houston and Austin are not worthy of a direct Interstate connection then NONE of the entire Interstate system should have ever been built. Everything should only be connected with 2-lane roads if we're going to live by that standard. Let's break out the damned bicycle paths for any trips under 100 miles!

[TheBox]

posting some 2019 articles about US-290 between the two

https://transportationtodaynews.com/news/14048-texas-dot-begins-us-290-east-widening-project/ (which is where Giddings is, also the only work done between 2019 and 2021 was that they made a grass divider median, west of it specifically between Giddings and Elgin)

https://www.kvue.com/article/news/drivers-say-changes-to-us-290-east-overdue/269-0de5ab2f-92de-4a29-8919-8cf8fcc8a65e

[Bobby5280]

That was a modest improvement that merely raised that portion of US-290 up to regular 4-lane divided highway standards. Up here between Lawton and Duncan OK-7 is basically the same thing, 4-lane divided including the cable barriers.

There is another un-divided segment of US-290 going West out of Brenham.

[TheBox]

There is another un-divided segment of US-290 going West out of Brenham.

if the upcoming Brenham Re-Alignment is concept B (or worst A) then nothing would fundamentally change.


But if it is Concept D or E, then chances are they'll so something about the remaining half left west of Country Rd 30/S Berlin Rd



just pray that it's one of the latter two
speaking of, when will they begin the Brenham Re-Alignment and the Chappell Hill Overpass?

[Echostatic]

Y'all know that TxDOT selected Alternative B nearly two years ago, right?

https://www.txdot.gov/projects/projects-studies/bryan/us290-brenham.html#:~:text=In%20Spring%20of%202021%2C%20based%20on%20TxDOT%E2%80%99s%20technical%20evaluation%2C%20local%20stakeholder%20and%20public%20input%2C%20we%20announced%20through%20a%20press%20release%20that%20Revised%20Concept%20B%20%E2%80%93%20Central%20Direct%20Connect%20was%20the%20selected%20alternative%20for%20further%20development%2C

[TheBox]

Y'all know that TxDOT selected Alternative B nearly two years ago, right?

https://www.txdot.gov/projects/projects-studies/bryan/us290-brenham.html#:~:text=In%20Spring%20of%202021%2C%20based%20on%20TxDOT%E2%80%99s%20technical%20evaluation%2C%20local%20stakeholder%20and%20public%20input%2C%20we%20announced%20through%20a%20press%20release%20that%20Revised%20Concept%20B%20%E2%80%93%20Central%20Direct%20Connect%20was%20the%20selected%20alternative%20for%20further%20development%2C

i didn't know, but TBF, i think that is the least expansive of the bunch if i'm not mistaken

[thisdj78]

Y'all know that TxDOT selected Alternative B nearly two years ago, right?

https://www.txdot.gov/projects/projects-studies/bryan/us290-brenham.html#:~:text=In%20Spring%20of%202021%2C%20based%20on%20TxDOT%E2%80%99s%20technical%20evaluation%2C%20local%20stakeholder%20and%20public%20input%2C%20we%20announced%20through%20a%20press%20release%20that%20Revised%20Concept%20B%20%E2%80%93%20Central%20Direct%20Connect%20was%20the%20selected%20alternative%20for%20further%20development%2C

i didn't know, but TBF, i think that is the least expansive of the bunch if i'm not mistaken

It was likely the path of least resistance in terms of buying property for the ROW

[Some one]

I get TXDOT has a lot on its plate already, but it really baffles me that they haven't considered a Houston to Austin corridor yet. There should at the very least be a stoplight-free expressway between the two cities. While they are removing the last 4 stop lights on Highway 71, 290 should also be a stoplight-free expressway with bypasses. I do agree that anyone who thinks that there shouldn't be a Houston to Austin interstate corridor is foolish. Beyond connecting the largest city to the capital, it would give Austin a better connection to Louisiana and beyond, and vice versa. Heck, they could possibly tie it into I-14 or I-27.

[bwana39]

I get TXDOT has a lot on its plate already, but it really baffles me that they haven't considered a Houston to Austin corridor yet. There should at the very least be a stoplight-free expressway between the two cities. While they are removing the last 4 stop lights on Highway 71, 290 should also be a stoplight-free expressway with bypasses. I do agree that anyone who thinks that there shouldn't be a Houston to Austin interstate corridor is foolish. Beyond connecting the largest city to the capital, it would give Austin a better connection to Louisiana and beyond, and vice versa. Heck, they could possibly tie it into I-14 or I-27.

I agree with you but... If there is not interstate specific money, it doesn't have to be an interstate EVEN if it were to be 100% 4-lane controlled access.

[bluecountry]

It's barely 100 miles from Manor (the East edge of the Austin metro) to Hempstead, where the freeway coming out of Houston ends. The Austin metro has over 2 million people. The Houston metro has over 6 million people. Both metros are less than 200 miles apart. Anyone claiming those two metros are not worth connecting directly with an Interstate quality freeway is a Goddamned idiot. And that especially goes for any bullshit "Fritz Owl" insult nonsense. Fuck of all of that.

If Houston and Austin are not worthy of a direct Interstate connection then NONE of the entire Interstate system should have ever been built. Everything should only be connected with 2-lane roads if we're going to live by that standard. Let's break out the damned bicycle paths for any trips under 100 miles!

I agree.
I find it ironic and annoying that TXDOT is planning some new, unnecessary sprawl inducing highway(I-14) at all, without even thinking of taking care of the Austin-Houston corridor.
Moreover, I mean, the capital of Texas and the largest city in Texas, not connected by interstate IN CAR CRAZY TEXAS?
WTF?

[sprjus4]

If they would address the traffic signals on US-290 / SH-71 and replace them with interchanges or town bypasses, I personally would believe that I-14 between I-35 and I-45 is a higher priority than upgrading the rural portions of US-290 or SH-71 with frontage roads.

The reason I say that, is because once those traffic signals are removed, Houston and Austin will be connected by two four lane divided highways that are free-flowing with 65-75 mph speed limits.

On the other hand, US-190 follows a zig-zagging unimproved 2 lane road connecting Killeen, Temple, College Station, and Huntsville. Constructing I-14 in this location would provide a more direct corridor and allow 4 lanes free-flowing. It may only warrant intersections and not full freeway, but if you're constructing the entire thing on new location, you might as well build it to full interstate standards.

I agree US-290 and SH-71, or at the very least, one of them, ought to improved to interstate standards throughout between Houston and Austin at some point in the future, but outside of problematic intersections / towns, it's certainly a lower priority. Even widening US-290 west of Austin to US-281 to a proper four lane divided highway, and a bypass of Johnson City for both US-290 and US-281 would be a higher need.

Now as far as I-14 west of Lampasas, there's likely far less demand and the existing 2 lane route is adequate for many years to come.

[Bobby5280]

Killeen, Temple, College Station, and Huntsville are all small cities, not major destinations. Out of corridors within the Texas Triangle the TX-6 corridor from Waco to College Station and the Houston metro is more important than this I-14 stuff. IMHO the TX-6 corridor within the Texas Triangle isn't as important as US-290 and TX-71.

I'm not against building a freeway from the Killeen/Fort Hood metro over to Huntsville via College Station, but whatever alignment is chosen should not be along the existing "W" shape of the US-190 corridor in the Texas Triangle. That would be a ridiculously stupid, pork-barrel waste of money. I-14 going West is a tougher ask. I think the San Angelo and Midland-Odessa areas would need to grow quite a bit more to elevate that proposed segment of I-14 into a high priority.

Both TX-71 and US-290 going East out of the Austin metro need a considerable amount of upgrade work. In both cases I don't think building a run of the mill 4-lane divided highway is going to suffice. Such a solution certainly isn't going to be satisfactory considering both the Houston and Austin metro areas are still rapidly adding population. Limited access links between the Austin and Houston metros are overdue. Austin is a big enough city that it needs a high speed, limited access gateway out of the West side of the metro to I-10.

[sprjus4]

Killeen, Temple, College Station, and Huntsville are all small cities, not major destinations. Out of corridors within the Texas Triangle the TX-6 corridor from Waco to College Station and the Houston metro is more important than this I-14 stuff. IMHO the TX-6 corridor within the Texas Triangle isn't as important as US-290 and TX-71.

You've missed the point entirely. The US-190 corridor stands in higher importance because it's not even a four lane highway, let alone does it follow a straight alignment. It has much lower capacity, adds significant travel time, and provides poor connectivity. At least SH-6, along with US-290 and SH-71 are four lane divided highways that can carry significant capacity (once the interchanges are completed and there's no more traffic signals). US-190 doesn't even have anything close to that.

I'm not against building a freeway from the Killeen/Fort Hood metro over to Huntsville via College Station, but whatever alignment is chosen should not be along the existing "W" shape of the US-190 corridor in the Texas Triangle. That would be a ridiculously stupid, pork-barrel waste of money.

I know we've had this discussion before... they are not going to follow the existing W-shape routing at all... the entire purpose is to create a new, straighter, more direct alignment and that is what the study maps showed, were more direct, straight line corridors.

Both TX-71 and US-290 going East out of the Austin metro need a considerable amount of upgrade work. In both cases I don't think building a run of the mill 4-lane divided highway is going to suffice. Such a solution certainly isn't going to be satisfactory considering both the Houston and Austin metro areas are still rapidly adding population. Limited access links between the Austin and Houston metros are overdue. Austin is a big enough city that it needs a high speed, limited access gateway out of the West side of the metro to I-10.

I agree, but from a standpoint of limited funding and priorities, US-290 and SH-71 can adequately handle the traffic volumes, especially once free-flow is achieved by eliminating all the traffic signals. Upgrades can come in the future as money allows to complete a limited access link. It's not a priority need right now and isn't demanding enough to just redirect all funds to it right now.

[-- US 175 --]

Would an Austin-Houston interstate *have* to have a 2di numbering, or could it get away with a 3di (I-x10, I-x35)?

[Bobby5280]

You've missed the point entirely. The US-190 corridor stands in higher importance because it's not even a four lane highway, let alone does it follow a straight alignment.

US-190 in Central Texas connects to zero major destinations. It is not a major corridor at all. Should there be a more direct path from Killeen or Temple down to College Station? Maybe. But building out a full-blown Interstate highway and christening it with an "I-14" label is overkill. Lots of road geeks got annoyed by a tiny stub of a route in Maryland being named I-97. At least I-97 connects to a major metro (Baltimore). This I-14 thing is arguably worse (it certainly is in its current configuration). There is very little chance I-14 will extend West past Copperas Cove any time soon. And it will probably take 20 years or more just to build the more likely part of I-14 to College Station and Huntsville.

I know we've had this discussion before... they are not going to follow the existing W-shape routing at all.

TX DOT hasn't even come close to choosing a final alignment. I wouldn't be surprised at all if political arm twisting forced I-14 to ping pong its way to Milano, Hearne, Byran and Madisonville rather than just do a straight shot from Cameron to College Station.

I agree, but from a standpoint of limited funding and priorities, US-290 and SH-71 can adequately handle the traffic volumes, especially once free-flow is achieved by eliminating all the traffic signals.

Those traffic signals are having to be eliminated by replacing the at-grade intersections with grade separated freeway exits. Making either corridor free flowing will require upgrading them to a level at or very near Interstate quality.

Would an Austin-Houston interstate *have* to have a 2di numbering, or could it get away with a 3di (I-x10, I-x35)?

Odds are very high TX DOT wouldn't even bother with a route number change. It wouldn't make any difference to them if US-290 and TX-71 kept their current designations even if upgraded to Interstate quality.

IMHO, US-290 would make a better I-12 route than the existing one in Louisiana (especially if it went thru Austin and connected with I-10 in West Texas). It's about 80 miles along TX-71 from the TX-130 toll road in metro Austin down to I-10 in Columbus. That's short enough to get away with a 3-digit I-x10 or I-x35 designation. But TX DOT would likely keep it labeled as TX-71.

[ethanhopkin14]

You've missed the point entirely. The US-190 corridor stands in higher importance because it's not even a four lane highway, let alone does it follow a straight alignment.

US-190 in Central Texas connects to zero major destinations. It is not a major corridor at all. Should there be a more direct path from Killeen or Temple down to College Station? Maybe. But building out a full-blown Interstate highway and christening it with an "I-14" label is overkill. Lots of road geeks got annoyed by a tiny stub of a route in Maryland being named I-97. At least I-97 connects to a major metro (Baltimore). This I-14 thing is arguably worse (it certainly is in its current configuration). There is very little chance I-14 will extend West past Copperas Cove any time soon. And it will probably take 20 years or more just to build the more likely part of I-14 to College Station and Huntsville.

I know we've had this discussion before... they are not going to follow the existing W-shape routing at all.

TX DOT hasn't even come close to choosing a final alignment. I wouldn't be surprised at all if political arm twisting forced I-14 to ping pong its way to Milano, Hearne, Byran and Madisonville rather than just do a straight shot from Cameron to College Station.

I agree, but from a standpoint of limited funding and priorities, US-290 and SH-71 can adequately handle the traffic volumes, especially once free-flow is achieved by eliminating all the traffic signals.

Those traffic signals are having to be eliminated by replacing the at-grade intersections with grade separated freeway exits. Making either corridor free flowing will require upgrading them to a level at or very near Interstate quality.

Would an Austin-Houston interstate *have* to have a 2di numbering, or could it get away with a 3di (I-x10, I-x35)?

Odds are very high TX DOT wouldn't even bother with a route number change. It wouldn't make any difference to them if US-290 and TX-71 kept their current designations even if upgraded to Interstate quality.

IMHO, US-290 would make a better I-12 route than the existing one in Louisiana (especially if it went thru Austin and connected with I-10 in West Texas). It's about 80 miles along TX-71 from the TX-130 toll road in metro Austin down to I-10 in Columbus. That's short enough to get away with a 3-digit I-x10 or I-x35 designation. But TX DOT would likely keep it labeled as TX-71.

I-10N

I-10NE

[Some one]

You've missed the point entirely. The US-190 corridor stands in higher importance because it's not even a four lane highway, let alone does it follow a straight alignment.

US-190 in Central Texas connects to zero major destinations. It is not a major corridor at all. Should there be a more direct path from Killeen or Temple down to College Station? Maybe. But building out a full-blown Interstate highway and christening it with an "I-14" label is overkill. Lots of road geeks got annoyed by a tiny stub of a route in Maryland being named I-97. At least I-97 connects to a major metro (Baltimore). This I-14 thing is arguably worse (it certainly is in its current configuration). There is very little chance I-14 will extend West past Copperas Cove any time soon. And it will probably take 20 years or more just to build the more likely part of I-14 to College Station and Huntsville.

I know we've had this discussion before... they are not going to follow the existing W-shape routing at all.

TX DOT hasn't even come close to choosing a final alignment. I wouldn't be surprised at all if political arm twisting forced I-14 to ping pong its way to Milano, Hearne, Byran and Madisonville rather than just do a straight shot from Cameron to College Station.

I agree, but from a standpoint of limited funding and priorities, US-290 and SH-71 can adequately handle the traffic volumes, especially once free-flow is achieved by eliminating all the traffic signals.

Those traffic signals are having to be eliminated by replacing the at-grade intersections with grade separated freeway exits. Making either corridor free flowing will require upgrading them to a level at or very near Interstate quality.

Would an Austin-Houston interstate *have* to have a 2di numbering, or could it get away with a 3di (I-x10, I-x35)?

Odds are very high TX DOT wouldn't even bother with a route number change. It wouldn't make any difference to them if US-290 and TX-71 kept their current designations even if upgraded to Interstate quality.

IMHO, US-290 would make a better I-12 route than the existing one in Louisiana (especially if it went thru Austin and connected with I-10 in West Texas). It's about 80 miles along TX-71 from the TX-130 toll road in metro Austin down to I-10 in Columbus. That's short enough to get away with a 3-digit I-x10 or I-x35 designation. But TX DOT would likely keep it labeled as TX-71.

I-10N

I-10NE

No, no, it'd be I-10C and I-10N 

[Bobby5280]

The existing I-10 would have to be re-named I-10S, which sort of looks like "I-tens." That "I-10NE" idea looks either like "I-one-one" or "I-none."

Seriously, I don't think there would be anything wrong with establishing a much longer I-12 route in Texas. It could be potentially around 357 miles in length. That would be starting at I-10 exit 477 in West Texas, the US-290 junction. It would go 113 miles to I-35 in Austin, run concurrent with I-35 in Austin for 8 miles, go around 126 miles to TX-99, roughly 61 miles on the North part of the Grand Parkway and then another 49 miles to I-10 in Beaumont.

Another somewhat shorter version could be a combo of US-290 West of Austin and TX-71 East of Austin. That "I-10N" route would be nearly 200 miles in length. Obviously that length would vary some based on what sort of new alignment routes a US-290 freeway going West out of the Austin metro is forced to take. I doubt if it would be feasible to upgrade US-290 on its existing alignment thru Dripping Springs. But then again, it's mostly commercial businesses lining the 290 route. A new terrain alignment is going to consume residential properties.

[ethanhopkin14]

The existing I-10 would have to be re-named I-10S, which sort of looks like "I-tens." That "I-10NE" idea looks either like "I-one-one" or "I-none."

Seriously, I don't think there would be anything wrong with establishing a much longer I-12 route in Texas. It could be potentially around 357 miles in length. That would be starting at I-10 exit 477 in West Texas, the US-290 junction. It would go 113 miles to I-35 in Austin, run concurrent with I-35 in Austin for 8 miles, go around 126 miles to TX-99, roughly 61 miles on the North part of the Grand Parkway and then another 49 miles to I-10 in Beaumont.

Another somewhat shorter version could be a combo of US-290 West of Austin and TX-71 East of Austin. That "I-10N" route would be nearly 200 miles in length. Obviously that length would vary some based on what sort of new alignment routes a US-290 freeway going West out of the Austin metro is forced to take. I doubt if it would be feasible to upgrade US-290 on its existing alignment thru Dripping Springs. But then again, it's mostly commercial businesses lining the 290 route. A new terrain alignment is going to consume residential properties.

Except that one house my wife and I just looked at 20 minutes ago.

[Some one]

The existing I-10 would have to be re-named I-10S, which sort of looks like "I-tens." That "I-10NE" idea looks either like "I-one-one" or "I-none."

Seriously, I don't think there would be anything wrong with establishing a much longer I-12 route in Texas. It could be potentially around 357 miles in length. That would be starting at I-10 exit 477 in West Texas, the US-290 junction. It would go 113 miles to I-35 in Austin, run concurrent with I-35 in Austin for 8 miles, go around 126 miles to TX-99, roughly 61 miles on the North part of the Grand Parkway and then another 49 miles to I-10 in Beaumont.

Another somewhat shorter version could be a combo of US-290 West of Austin and TX-71 East of Austin. That "I-10N" route would be nearly 200 miles in length. Obviously that length would vary some based on what sort of new alignment routes a US-290 freeway going West out of the Austin metro is forced to take. I doubt if it would be feasible to upgrade US-290 on its existing alignment thru Dripping Springs. But then again, it's mostly commercial businesses lining the 290 route. A new terrain alignment is going to consume residential properties.

In my ideal vision, I'd had I-12 overlap with I-10 to Beaumont, then have it follow US 90 to Houston, then overlap with I-10 again through the inner loop, then have it follow US 290 to Austin. From there I'd have it follow either US 183 or SH 71 to future I-14 or 27. Though it'd probably be harder to have I-12 follow US 90 between Houston and Beaumont because of all the properties on the way.

[thisdj78]

Seriously, I don't think there would be anything wrong with establishing a much longer I-12 route in Texas. It could be potentially around 357 miles in length. That would be starting at I-10 exit 477 in West Texas, the US-290 junction. It would go 113 miles to I-35 in Austin, run concurrent with I-35 in Austin for 8 miles, go around 126 miles to TX-99, roughly 61 miles on the North part of the Grand Parkway and then another 49 miles to I-10 in Beaumont.

The "I-12"  portion from Grand Parkway to Beaumont would be perfect along the US-90 route.

[bwana39]

In my ideal vision, I'd had I-12 overlap with I-10 to Beaumont, then have it follow US 90 to Houston, then overlap with I-10 again through the inner loop, then have it follow US 290 to Austin. From there I'd have it follow either US 183 or SH 71 to future I-14 or 27. Though it'd probably be harder to have I-12 follow US 90 between Houston and Beaumont because of all the properties on the way.

There is lots of open land between Crosby and Beaumont. I agree that along the current US-90 is a little bit congested, but on a greenfield, there is plenty.

Then again, I hate the I-12 numbering idea.

[ethanhopkin14]

The US-290 corridor west of Austing and the SH-71 corridor east of Austin is and always will be the best route to upgrade, be it a repeated I-12 or my favorite, I-18 (it used to be compliant until, ya know, I-14).  First off, it's a shorter route to upgrade total (meaning less $$$), and second it ties into I-10 at both ends putting Austin affectively on the I-10 coast-to-coast corridor.  Any other route will make the Houston-Austin interstate kinda a one off. 

[Bobby5280]

What's wrong with a second I-12? We only have a bunch of other 2-digit Interstate routes that have separate segments in other parts of the country: I-49, I-69, I-74, I-76, I-84, I-86, I-87, I-88, I-99. I might have missed one or more examples. A second I-12 wouldn't exactly be breaking any rules.

The US-290 corridor west of Austin and the SH-71 corridor east of Austin is and always will be the best route to upgrade, be it a repeated I-12 or my favorite, I-18 (it used to be compliant until, ya know, I-14).  First off, it's a shorter route to upgrade total (meaning less $$$), and second it ties into I-10 at both ends putting Austin affectively on the I-10 coast-to-coast corridor.  Any other route will make the Houston-Austin interstate kinda a one off.

The TX-71 would be the shortest, easiest and least costly highway segment to upgrade to Interstate standards. And it seems likely Interstate quality upgrades on that portion of TX-71 will happen in additional phases. But TX-71 is not a replacement for US-290. The US-290 corridor connects more directly with the Northern half of the Houston metro, which is growing considerably faster than the Southern half. My opinion is since the Houston metro is so gigantic in terms of size and population and the Austin metro is not tiny at all either both of those highway corridors are going to have to be upgraded.