Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[sprjus4]

A -western- I-12.

It would -not- be related to the existing I-12. It’s a separate route.

[wxfree]

I-12W

[AcE_Wolf_287]

A -western- I-12.

It would -not- be related to the existing I-12. It’s a separate route.

Or (I know this is fictional that i'm about to say) But you could have Current I-12 be I-410, then I-12 is transferred from Midland to Houston going through San Angelo and Austin

[Brian556]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bb1DTsxBOfE

[sparker]

A -western- I-12.

It would -not- be related to the existing I-12. It’s a separate route.

Or (I know this is fictional that i'm about to say) But you could have Current I-12 be I-410, then I-12 is transferred from Midland to Houston going through San Angelo and Austin

The current I-12 has now been in use over 50 years; no need to effect any changes at this point in time.  The potential Austin corridor is in a separate state, so the number could be readily re-used in TX regardless of exact alignment (TX 71 or US 290 -- or possibly a combination of both).   These days, existing designations aren't terribly exclusionary (e.g., I-87!). 

[texaskdog]

I'd make a freeway from Columbus to Junction.  Great way for cross country traffic to stay out of San Antonio.  Though that's about the last Austin freeway that is not overpacked.

[CoreySamson]

I made a thread in Fictional Highways extending I-12 westward. My plan includes a 3di to Austin.

Here’s the link:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=26645.0

[Bobby5280]

Good grief.

The Interstate highway system already has several duplicate 2-digit routes that are not connected to each other and will never connect with each other. Those routes include I-74, I-76, I-84, I-86, I-87 and I-88. There is an outside chance the disconnected segments of I-49 and I-69 will eventually be connected. With that said, who really should care if one I-12 route in Louisiana doesn't connect to an even bigger I-12 route in Texas? There's really no need for that.

But chances are likely if US-290 is ever brought up fully to Interstate standards from its split with I-10 in West Texas, going through Austin and over to Houston TX DOT will probably just keep US-290 named as US-290. TX DOT and the higher-ups in the Texas state legislature don't appear all that fond of getting new Interstate route designations.

[bwana39]

Texas is as a whole a compliance hawk. If new guidance comes down, TXDOT tries to retrofit even existing Interstates (ex: the bridge & culvert widing from the 90's and 00's.) An interstate designation just brings compliance issues with no significant income to offset them.

That in a nutshell is why Texas is not overly apt to make it an interstate.  Even the initial phases of I-69 had extra federal funding.

[sparker]

Texas is as a whole a compliance hawk. If new guidance comes down, TXDOT tries to retrofit even existing Interstates (ex: the bridge & culvert widing from the 90's and 00's.) An interstate designation just brings compliance issues with no significant income to offset them.

That in a nutshell is why Texas is not overly apt to make it an interstate.  Even the initial phases of I-69 had extra federal funding.

Except for certain specified projects, the maximum Federal share of road projects is currently 80%; the major in progress and/or planned TX Interstate corridors are both Federally-legislated high priority corridors, slated to receive that 80-point share (HPC 18 & 20 for I-69, HPC #84 for I-14).  Of course, these days there's no guarantee that the money will be available at any given point; the state's congressional delegation has to stand in line and press for a portion of the yearly outlay like with every other state.  But when it comes, it's in the form of that eighty percent.  But then the state and/or locality has to come up with the other 20%, which has perpetually been a major issue. 

Adding an interstate designation to HPC legislation -- new or existing -- has been the default method of getting new Interstate trunks developed since the 1995 NHS legislation.  Originally these were "tacked on" to new corridors in omnibus legislation (like with the 30-odd corridors designated with 2005's SAFETEA-LU act); but in 2004 a new corridor (#45) was inserted into that year's transportation outlay; it contained the I-22 designation -- the first to be designated outside a major nationwide program.  Since then, others have followed, tacking on I-designations to existing corridors (such as I-11 onto HPC #26 Phoenix-LV -- and then later onto #68 LV-I-80; this was also used for I-87 on HPC #13) as well as new ones like the aforementioned HPC #84/I-14.  Of the five new Interstates designated from 2012 to 2016, only one, I-2, went through the "usual" AASHTO-approved method; the others were Congressionally mandated, bypassing AASHTO vetting.  Of course, FHWA still has to sign off on the routes once deployed, but if constructed to standard, that's usually not an issue. 

If by chance an E-W corridor through Austin is proposed, it'll almost certainly utilize the new-HPC/I-designation route, whether inserted into yearly USDOT outlays or the next phase of major nationwide legislation.  That way when actual development commences, it'll garner that 80% federal share (more, if the state's congressfolks can weasel some special consideration).   

[TXtoNJ]

Long-distance routes to and from Austin are largely fine. The only real expansion that's needed is conversion of SH71 to an interstate (likely I-12 or I-510, would've easily been I-10N before the '70s).

Within town, the few expansions that are needed have largely been planned - the extension of 183 Toll and further expansion north of Mopac will be a big help. The current plans for 35 in town are good as well - that freeway does need to be sunk and expanded. Austin is trying to take the best examples of urban infrastructure from the other Texas cities, with Klyde Warren Park being the crown jewel.

[sparker]

Long-distance routes to and from Austin are largely fine. The only real expansion that's needed is conversion of SH71 to an interstate (likely I-12 or I-510, would've easily been I-10N before the '70s).

Within town, the few expansions that are needed have largely been planned - the extension of 183 Toll and further expansion north of Mopac will be a big help. The current plans for 35 in town are good as well - that freeway does need to be sunk and expanded. Austin is trying to take the best examples of urban infrastructure from the other Texas cities, with Klyde Warren Park being the crown jewel.

I'll probably take some flack for this, but even if an eastern Interstate approach along either TX 71 or US 290 ever sees upgrades to Interstate status, the western section back to I-10 east of Junction could be replaced -- if and only if I-14 is developed along US 190 and US 87 west of Lampasas to San Angelo and beyond -- by an extension of the US 183 tollway/freeway north to meet I-14, giving Austin a westerly outlet.  The rationales here are simple -- (a) cost; if I-14 is going to be built to West Texas anyway, connecting to it via US 183 would require about 40 miles of new construction versus about 110-115 miles to I-10 generally via US 290; and (b) the presence of considerably more regional destinations (San Angelo, Midland/Odessa, etc.) via I-14 than the vast emptiness that is I-10.  Not all commercial traffic west of I-35 is headed only to El Paso and beyond; TX is a huge state that is still seeing growth in its western reaches.   

[Bobby5280]

No one needing to drive West out of Austin is going to drive clear up to the Killeen area if they're intending to connect to I-10. Such a path is way way out of way. That traffic is going to stay on US-290.

If I-14 can ever get extended to Lampasas and farther West (it's a long shot) chances are likely I-14 would only go to San Angelo and then to Midland. That second proposed Southern leg splitting off to I-10 is never going to happen.

[sparker]

No one needing to drive West out of Austin is going to drive clear up to the Killeen area if they're intending to connect to I-10. Such a path is way way out of way. That traffic is going to stay on US-290.

If I-14 can ever get extended to Lampasas and farther West (it's a long shot) chances are likely I-14 would only go to San Angelo and then to Midland. That second proposed Southern leg splitting off to I-10 is never going to happen.

The idea was not to particularly connect with I-10 (well, not until the I-20 merge!) but to effect a general movement west from Austin via an extended US 183 tollway/freeway toward other populated areas in west Texas.  I-10 from US 290 west to I-20 wouldn't figure into that equation.   If one absolutely positively has to access that part of I-10 from Austin, then, yes, US 290 would remain in the picture as the routing of choice.   

[TravelingBethelite]

A -western- I-12.

It would -not- be related to the existing I-12. It’s a separate route.

Oughta be called I-210. No reason to reuse a mainline number for what amounts to a spur/bypass route! Texas hasn't even used that number yet anyway.

[sprjus4]

A -western- I-12.

It would -not- be related to the existing I-12. It’s a separate route.

Oughta be called I-210. No reason to reuse a mainline number for what amounts to a spur/bypass route! Texas hasn't even used that number yet anyway.

An interstate highway along the US-290 would be around 150 miles long, linking two major metros along with I-10 and I-35.

I wouldn't call it a "spur" or "bypass". I think a 2di such as a western "I-12" would be an appropriate designation as opposed to be a 3di, which would become the longest in the country.

[TXtoNJ]

A -western- I-12.

It would -not- be related to the existing I-12. It’s a separate route.

Oughta be called I-210. No reason to reuse a mainline number for what amounts to a spur/bypass route! Texas hasn't even used that number yet anyway.

I-210 has been reserved for El Paso since the start of the system, and if you don't think that matters, you don't know local politics.

[sparker]

A -western- I-12.

It would -not- be related to the existing I-12. It’s a separate route.

Oughta be called I-210. No reason to reuse a mainline number for what amounts to a spur/bypass route! Texas hasn't even used that number yet anyway.

I-210 has been reserved for El Paso since the start of the system, and if you don't think that matters, you don't know local politics.

Most likely local El Paso politicos/interests are holding out hope that the Loop 375 alignment -- or at least the part of it north of I-10 -- will still eventually be part of the Interstate system (if they can deal with or realign around the steep gradients between US 54 and I-10 to the west).  That would, of course, be the most likely I-210 candidate. 

[TravelingBethelite]

A -western- I-12.

It would -not- be related to the existing I-12. It’s a separate route.

Oughta be called I-210. No reason to reuse a mainline number for what amounts to a spur/bypass route! Texas hasn't even used that number yet anyway.

I-210 has been reserved for El Paso since the start of the system, and if you don't think that matters, you don't know local politics.

I can't say I do. What proves that? Who says that 210 is reserved for El Paso?

[BrandonC_TX]

I guess you could number it I-810 if the need to reserve I-210 for El Paso remains.  Though the only reason I see to reserve I-210 in El Paso would be to allow for a west-east numerical increase in 3di routes (I-210 in El Paso, I-410 in San Antonio, I-610 in Houston, perhaps I-810 for Beaumont?), although this reflects practice with primary Interstates with higher numbers to the east.  Considering that this route also connects with Interstate 35, I-235, I-435, and I-835 are also options, with I-435 or I-235 probably making the most sense if you wanted to have higher 3di numbers to the north (since I-635 is in Dallas, possibly reserving I-835 for something like the northern DFW Outer Loop or Loop 288/US 380 between Denton & McKinney if US 75 north of Dallas becomes I-45); however, this route is more of a spur of I-10 than of I-35.

Although the route connects two Interstates, viewing the highway as a spur could allow for the use of a odd-first-digit 3di, such as I-310, I-510, I-710, or I-910 (I-110 is already in use in El Paso), but this would slightly break from convention.  I guess you could use I-310 for TX 71 and I-510 for US 290 (to reflect the higher number of primary Interstates with northward extent), or make one of those routes part of a western I-12 (US 290 most likely, because it directly connects Houston with Austin).

[bwana39]

A -western- I-12.

It would -not- be related to the existing I-12. It’s a separate route.

Oughta be called I-210. No reason to reuse a mainline number for what amounts to a spur/bypass route! Texas hasn't even used that number yet anyway.

210 would be a loop. I-310 would be the correct demarcation for a spur.  Even though Texas doubtfully will number it an interstate.

[sprjus4]

210 would be a loop. I-310 would be the correct demarcation for a spur.  Even though Texas doubtfully will number it an interstate.

While I disagree with the aspect of numbering an Austin to Houston corridor as a 3di, if it were to be, an even 3di would be appropriate.

Since it is connecting two interstates, I-35 and I-10, it would work.

[Bobby5280]

If people want to be anal retentive about it, that there can be only one I-12 route, then maybe the original I-12 in Louisiana should be re-numbered as a 3-digit I-10 route. The Louisiana version of I-12 is only 85 miles in length. The "I-12" I'd like to see built in Texas would be around 270 miles in length. The leg along US-290 between Houston and Austin alone is around 140 miles. It's another 130 or so miles West out of Austin to I-10. And then if the route were to actually begin in Beaumont and go West to the Grand Parkway that would add another 80 miles. It wouldn't make any sense at all for an Interstate 270 or 350 miles long to carry a 3 digit label.

The idea was not to particularly connect with I-10 (well, not until the I-20 merge!) but to effect a general movement west from Austin via an extended US 183 tollway/freeway toward other populated areas in west Texas. I-10 from US 290 west to I-20 wouldn't figure into that equation. If one absolutely positively has to access that part of I-10 from Austin, then, yes, US 290 would remain in the picture as the routing of choice.

The concept of upgrading US-290 to the West out of Austin to I-10 is to provide high speed access to destinations out to the West that are far larger in population than San Angelo or Midland. Cities such as El Paso, Tucson, Phoenix, San Diego and Los Angeles are going to be accessed from Austin via the US-290 route to I-10. Going up to Killeen and Midland and then back down again from I-20 to I-10 is a wasteful diversion. Drivers and commerce coming from those major Southwest cities heading to Austin are going to take the same route.

[BrandonC_TX]

You could even have I-10 share its designation with I-12 between Houston and Baton Rouge, if there were an insistence on a single I-12.  Both I-12 corridors (Houston-Austin-N of Kerrville and Slidell-Baton Rouge) would serve a similar purpose, to be a shortcut for the main I-10 corridor.

[wtd67]

Being that this is in Texas, it would be numbered I-10N and rename the other section of I-10 to I-10S.