News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

Interstate 2

Started by Strider, July 18, 2013, 11:38:02 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

CobaltYoshi27

Any ideas on how far I-2 will go when completed?
I's traveled:
10(TX) 20(TX) 24(TN) 30(TX) 35(TX) 40(TN) 45(TX) 64(KY-VA) 65(TN-KY) 66(VA-DC) 68(WV-MD) 69(TX) 70(IN-MD) 71(OH) 75(TN-MI) 76(OH-NJ) 77(VA-OH) 78(PA-NJ) 79(WV-PA) 80(OH-NJ) 81(TN-NY) 83(MD-PA) 84(NY-MA) 86(PA-NY) 87(NY) 88(NY) 89(NH-VT) 90(OH-MA) 91(CT-VT) 93(MA-NH) 95(NC-MA) 99(PA)


silverback1065

Quote from: CobaltYoshi27 on May 06, 2016, 07:03:52 PM
Any ideas on how far I-2 will go when completed?

i believe larado.  Also i-69e should be I-37, the portion east going into corpus christi should be i-137.  i-69c should be i-69 and if there's an i-69w it should be anything but i-69w.

ethanhopkin14

I got to ride down Interstate 2 this weekend.  I saw the exit numbers up and the mile posts.  I am upset how cheap they did it, by posting the mileposts on the jersey rail in the center of the road.  I hate that.  They also posted the exit gore signs on the right of the gore which is odd.  I also rode up Interstate 69W and it was signed the same with mileposts on the jersey rail in the center of the road.

Grzrd

Quote from: erik_ram2005 on January 13, 2015, 07:05:47 PM
Interstate Shields are up along I-2 in south Texas ....
Quote from: yakra on May 06, 2016, 02:35:23 PM
Now, this is interesting; I didn't see it mentioned anywhere else...
From page 49 of http://route.transportation.org/Documents/2016%20SM%20Des%20Moines,%20IA/US_Routes_Binder_MOtoWI.pdf :

US 83TexasRegularRio Grande City53791NONE
US 83TexasRegularJct. Havana82820Ends now at I-2
US 83TexasRegularPharr82841Crosses U.S. 281  (Revised to account for I-2 designation)
US 83TexasRegularHarlingen30871Joins U.S. 77  (Revised to account for I-2 designation)
US 83TexasRegularBrownsville26897U.S. 281 joins & ends  (Revised to account for I-2 designation)
US 83TexasRegularBrownsville2899Route ends, International Boundary; U.S. 77 ends  (Revised to account for I-2 designation)
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on May 09, 2016, 10:48:04 AM
I got to ride down Interstate 2 this weekend.  I saw the exit numbers up and the mile posts.  I am upset how cheap they did it, by posting the mileposts on the jersey rail in the center of the road.  I hate that.  They also posted the exit gore signs on the right of the gore which is odd.

Are the US 83 signs still up along I-2?

CobaltYoshi27

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on May 09, 2016, 10:48:04 AM
I got to ride down Interstate 2 this weekend.  I saw the exit numbers up and the mile posts.  I am upset how cheap they did it, by posting the mileposts on the jersey rail in the center of the road.  I hate that.  They also posted the exit gore signs on the right of the gore which is odd.  I also rode up Interstate 69W and it was signed the same with mileposts on the jersey rail in the center of the road.

The mileposts in the center doesn't bother me nearly as much as the exits on the other side of the gore. That bothers me more.
I's traveled:
10(TX) 20(TX) 24(TN) 30(TX) 35(TX) 40(TN) 45(TX) 64(KY-VA) 65(TN-KY) 66(VA-DC) 68(WV-MD) 69(TX) 70(IN-MD) 71(OH) 75(TN-MI) 76(OH-NJ) 77(VA-OH) 78(PA-NJ) 79(WV-PA) 80(OH-NJ) 81(TN-NY) 83(MD-PA) 84(NY-MA) 86(PA-NY) 87(NY) 88(NY) 89(NH-VT) 90(OH-MA) 91(CT-VT) 93(MA-NH) 95(NC-MA) 99(PA)

silverback1065

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on May 09, 2016, 10:48:04 AM
I got to ride down Interstate 2 this weekend.  I saw the exit numbers up and the mile posts.  I am upset how cheap they did it, by posting the mileposts on the jersey rail in the center of the road.  I hate that.  They also posted the exit gore signs on the right of the gore which is odd.  I also rode up Interstate 69W and it was signed the same with mileposts on the jersey rail in the center of the road.

putting blue mile markers on the jersey barrier is fairly common.

lordsutch

Quote from: CobaltYoshi27 on May 09, 2016, 02:34:03 PM
The mileposts in the center doesn't bother me nearly as much as the exits on the other side of the gore. That bothers me more.

TxDOT has a rather irritating habit of doing this in places in south Texas (see e.g. here), which is downright dangerous IMHO since the driver expectation is that the Exit sign will be installed behind the theoretical gore. I complained to the district office when this example was installed, obviously to no avail.

CobaltYoshi27

Quote from: lordsutch on May 09, 2016, 03:46:06 PM
Quote from: CobaltYoshi27 on May 09, 2016, 02:34:03 PM
The mileposts in the center doesn't bother me nearly as much as the exits on the other side of the gore. That bothers me more.

TxDOT has a rather irritating habit of doing this in places in south Texas (see e.g. here), which is downright dangerous IMHO since the driver expectation is that the Exit sign will be installed behind the theoretical gore. I complained to the district office when this example was installed, obviously to no avail.

I was born in Houston, and never went south beyond Galveston. That annoys me now.
I's traveled:
10(TX) 20(TX) 24(TN) 30(TX) 35(TX) 40(TN) 45(TX) 64(KY-VA) 65(TN-KY) 66(VA-DC) 68(WV-MD) 69(TX) 70(IN-MD) 71(OH) 75(TN-MI) 76(OH-NJ) 77(VA-OH) 78(PA-NJ) 79(WV-PA) 80(OH-NJ) 81(TN-NY) 83(MD-PA) 84(NY-MA) 86(PA-NY) 87(NY) 88(NY) 89(NH-VT) 90(OH-MA) 91(CT-VT) 93(MA-NH) 95(NC-MA) 99(PA)

texaskdog

Quote from: CobaltYoshi27 on May 09, 2016, 03:48:18 PM
Quote from: lordsutch on May 09, 2016, 03:46:06 PM
Quote from: CobaltYoshi27 on May 09, 2016, 02:34:03 PM
The mileposts in the center doesn't bother me nearly as much as the exits on the other side of the gore. That bothers me more.

TxDOT has a rather irritating habit of doing this in places in south Texas (see e.g. here), which is downright dangerous IMHO since the driver expectation is that the Exit sign will be installed behind the theoretical gore. I complained to the district office when this example was installed, obviously to no avail.

I was born in Houston, and never went south beyond Galveston. That annoys me now.

Well, you'd be in the ocean

The Ghostbuster

If Interstate 2 ever makes it to Laredo, it would be a legitimate Interstate. Right now, not so much.

ethanhopkin14

Quote from: Grzrd on May 09, 2016, 02:10:00 PM
Quote from: erik_ram2005 on January 13, 2015, 07:05:47 PM
Interstate Shields are up along I-2 in south Texas ....
Quote from: yakra on May 06, 2016, 02:35:23 PM
Now, this is interesting; I didn't see it mentioned anywhere else...
From page 49 of http://route.transportation.org/Documents/2016%20SM%20Des%20Moines,%20IA/US_Routes_Binder_MOtoWI.pdf :

US 83TexasRegularRio Grande City53791NONE
US 83TexasRegularJct. Havana82820Ends now at I-2
US 83TexasRegularPharr82841Crosses U.S. 281  (Revised to account for I-2 designation)
US 83TexasRegularHarlingen30871Joins U.S. 77  (Revised to account for I-2 designation)
US 83TexasRegularBrownsville26897U.S. 281 joins & ends  (Revised to account for I-2 designation)
US 83TexasRegularBrownsville2899Route ends, International Boundary; U.S. 77 ends  (Revised to account for I-2 designation)
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on May 09, 2016, 10:48:04 AM
I got to ride down Interstate 2 this weekend.  I saw the exit numbers up and the mile posts.  I am upset how cheap they did it, by posting the mileposts on the jersey rail in the center of the road.  I hate that.  They also posted the exit gore signs on the right of the gore which is odd.

Are the US 83 signs still up along I-2?

Yes they are.  And they will be for years.  In fact, the interstate is signed the same way TxDOT signs it's sub interstates (U.S. and state) freeways.  All they did was put an Interstate 2 shield where there was only a U.S. 83 shield.  I can see that U.S. 83 will be signed for a very long time, even after it has been extended to Laredo.  remember the Interstate highway system was built for a long time before they started truncating the former U.S. highways. I still remember U.S. Highway 83 being co-signed through Austin in the 80's along Interstate 35, and they finished most of Interstate 35 in the late 60's early 70's.  In fact, US 83 wasn't officially truncated until I think 1991. 

Thing is, the two will be co signed through construction, and years past completion of construction to get people used to the transition. 

And yes, I have seen the blue milepost on the jersey rail in other states, but it is not common place in Texas.  prior to the installation of mileposts in the valley, the only place there are jersey rail mileposts in the entire state is south of downtown Fort Worth, for just a few miles because of limited space on the side of the road because of walls. 

I guess, as a Texan, I have always took pride in Texas roads going the extra mile (no pun intended) to sign, stripe and post every little detail.  It angers me when I see TxDOT do something half assed.  I was the first to be angry at TxDOT switching to gore signs with the exit number on the gore sign instead of the old practice of having the number as a tab above the gore sign.  The old way seemed like there was a lot more effort put into the sign, where the new way just seems like they are going through the motions.  The only good thing about putting the exit number directly on the gore sign is the tab can't fall off like it would before and leave the exit "numberless".

And yes, I hate the gore sign being on the side of the road because it is slightly dangerous and confusing because you are expecting the sign to split the roads at the gore.


texaskdog

83 never went through Austin.  81?  (and 79 later)

ethanhopkin14

Quote from: texaskdog on May 11, 2016, 05:23:23 PM
83 never went through Austin.  81?  (and 79 later)

Yeah, I meant US 81

Grzrd

#288
Quote from: Grzrd on May 05, 2016, 09:37:53 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on September 21, 2015, 12:58:08 PM
This proposed Minute Order for the September 24 Texas Transportation Committee ("TTC") meeting ....
Here is a snip of Exhibit A illustrating the redesignations:
Quote from: yakra on May 06, 2016, 02:35:23 PM
http://route.transportation.org/Documents/2016%20SM%20Des%20Moines,%20IA/US_Routes_Binder_MOtoWI.pdf
the map that TxDOT submitted with its application shows that, notwithstanding the deficiencies in the Agenda's language, TxDOT's request does track the Minute Order (p. 42/86 of pdf):
Quote from: froggie on May 25, 2016, 08:47:44 PM
If one digs through the AASHTO app, the meeting minutes are now online (not yet on the route committee's website) ....
The other denied request was the US 83 relocation, BUS 83 extension, and SPUR 83 designation in La Joya and Piñetas, TX.  The denial cites "that the next section should be a business route as well" and that there should be a continuous BUSINESS 83 in the area, but as best as I can tell, the TxDOT proposal already had that.  Not sure what happened with this one.
(above quote from May 2016 AASHTO SCOURN Meeting thread)
Quote from: Grzrd on May 25, 2016, 10:25:16 PM
Here's the link:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/v3-app_crowdc/assets/5/5c/5cdc51ea50f12d6f/USRN_Meeting_Minutes_May25_2016.original.1464203915.pdf
(above quote from May 2016 AASHTO SCOURN Meeting thread)

I think the above top map from the TTC meeting better illustrates the reason for AASHTO's decision because it includes the currently existing Spur 83. TxDOT apparently designated the short section (Segment C-B on the AASHTO application map) as Spur 83 in order to maintain a direct connection between US 83 and Spur 83 when the "new" US 83 opens.  However, in doing so, TxDOT severed one Business 83/ US 83 connection.

Here is AASHTO's comment (p. 9/10 of pdf):



I think AASHTO is simply saying that Segment C-B should be dually redesignated as Spur 83 and Business 83.  Should be easy to take care of at the Fall meeting.

The Ghostbuster

Will this realignment be a freeway, or just a four-lane expressway? And would it be an extension of Interstate 2 if it is a freeway?

Grzrd

Quote from: Grzrd on July 30, 2014, 08:57:04 PM
I recently had an email Q & A with TxDOT about whether they intend to install I-2 mileage markers along I-2/US 83. Basically, an extension of I-2 to Laredo is a very long term proposition, but TxDOT has identified the I-35/US 83 interchange in Laredo as "mile zero" and the current western terminus near Mission is near Mile 131:
Quote
Q:
It is my understanding that mileage for east-west interstates begins at the western terminus in the state. Regarding Interstate 2, I cannot imagine it going all of the way to New Mexico.
Does TxDOT intend to keep the current US 83 mileage markers, or do you intend to install mileage markers based on the mileage on Interstate 2?  If Interstate 2, where would be the location of "mile zero"?
A:
Yes, interstate mileage markers for east and west interstates begin with 0 at the western end and build eastward. For I-2, there is the possibility of carrying it along US 83 up to Laredo, but very long term. Therefore, the "0"  mile marker for I-2 begins at the intersection of I-35 and US 83 in Laredo. The mile marker for where I-2 begins on the western end west of Mission is Mile Marker 131. The actual mile marker may not be present. As resources are made available, these will be installed.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on May 09, 2016, 10:48:04 AM
I got to ride down Interstate 2 this weekend.  I saw the ... mile posts.  I am upset how cheap they did it, by posting the mileposts on the jersey rail in the center of the road.  I hate that ...

This June, 2015 Google Street View imagery shows the Mile Marker 131 referenced in the TxDOT email:






Quote from: CobaltYoshi27 on May 06, 2016, 07:03:52 PM
Any ideas on how far I-2 will go when completed?

As indicated above, approximately 130 miles to the current intersection of US 83 and I-35 in Laredo.  That said, and realizing that I-2 in Laredo may never happen, there has been some discussion here and here that I-2 in Laredo may ultimately be routed along the Cuatro Vientos Road section of Loop 20, which would provide a direct connection to I-69W and allow I-2 to truly be the "I-2 Connector" that would connect the three I-69 suffixed prongs:


Grzrd

#291
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 26, 2016, 03:18:39 PM
Will this realignment be a freeway, or just a four-lane expressway? And would it be an extension of Interstate 2 if it is a freeway?

The current Phase I construction will be an expressway.  Future phases will convert it to a freeway; with "mile zero" in Laredo, I believe TxDOT intends to eventually designate the freeway as a westward extension of I-2.  More details in this post:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9935.msg2022754;topicseen#msg2022754

yakra

Quote from: Grzrd on May 26, 2016, 12:10:48 PM
I think the above top map from the TTC meeting better illustrates the reason for AASHTO's decision because it includes the currently existing Spur 83. TxDOT apparently designated the short section (Segment C-B on the AASHTO application map) as Spur 83 in order to maintain a direct connection between US 83 and Spur 83 when the "new" US 83 opens.  However, in doing so, TxDOT severed one Business 83/ US 83 connection.
...
I think AASHTO is simply saying that Segment C-B should be dually redesignated as Spur 83 and Business 83.  Should be easy to take care of at the Fall meeting.

Thing is though, the "83S" on the top map doesn't denote a spur -- it's BU 83S. TXDOT gives individual business routes an internal letter suffix to tell them apart from one another.

(Maybe AASHTO fell victim to the same thinking, and thought existing BU 83S was a spur?)

I'm with froggie: "the TxDOT proposal already had that."
"Officer, I'm always careful to drive the speed limit no matter where I am and that's what I was doin'." Said "No, you weren't," she said, "Yes, I was." He said, "Madam, I just clocked you at 22 MPH," and she said "That's the speed limit," he said "No ma'am, that's the route numbah!"  - Gary Crocker

Grzrd

#293
Quote from: yakra on May 27, 2016, 11:06:48 AM
Thing is though, the "83S" on the top map doesn't denote a spur -- it's BU 83S. TXDOT gives individual business routes an internal letter suffix to tell them apart from one another.
(Maybe AASHTO fell victim to the same thinking, and thought existing BU 83S was a spur?)
I'm with froggie: "the TxDOT proposal already had that."

Yep. I now agree. The Business 83 extension will connect with the "new" US 83 at the western end of the "new" US 83.  The newly created Spur 83 will connect the eastern end of the "new" US 83 to Business 83.  I had been confused by the "83-S".

SCOUSRN had a bad Texas day ..........

edit

I had also overlooked wxfree's early identification/ explanation of the Committee's mistake in the May 2016 AASHTO SCOURN Meeting thread:

Quote from: wxfree on May 25, 2016, 11:13:38 PM
The US 83 request includes a continuous business route, but the petition doesn't explain that.  When I saw the proposal it looked strange, so I looked at a map and saw that the new business route would extend to the existing one, and the spur would connect back to the mainline.  The map in the petition doesn't show the existing business route.  It gives the impression that the spur designation is just the tail end of the business route for no logical reason.  My guess is that someone didn't do their research.  This is why it's important to include all relevant information, which is why there's often so much redundancy and obvious stuff included in government papers.  If you give someone a chance to misunderstand, someone will ...

Grzrd

Quote from: Grzrd on November 23, 2014, 08:14:54 PM
TxDOT recently posted a Notice Affording Opportunity For Public Hearing for the La Joya relief route.  It looks like Phase I of the project will be construction of the frontage roads:
Quote
The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) is proposing the construction of the US 83 Relief Route at La Joya/Peñitas (a new locationhighway parallel to US 83) in western Hidalgo County. The project would enhance the local and regional transportation system by creating a new location roadway that would reduce traffic congestion and improve connectivity and safety.The limits of the project are from 0.85 miles east of FM 886 (El Faro Road) to 0.28 miles west of Showers Road a length of approximately 9.2 miles. The project will be constructed in two or more phases. Phase I would involve construction of a four lane divided rural highway consisting of two roadways separated by a depressed median, which would serve as the future frontage roads. Each roadway would consist of two 12-foot wide travel lanes, a 4-foot wide inside and a 10-foot wide outside shoulder. Future phases of construction would include main lanes and overpasses within the depressed median ...
Quote from: Grzrd on July 30, 2015, 04:00:08 PM
TxDOT has awarded an approximately $87 million contract for the La Joya relief route frontage road projects:

I was wondering why I had not read about progress on the La Joya Bypass. I emailed TxDOT and received the following reply:

Quote
The La Joya bypass is  tentatively scheduled to be let it in 2018.  We are adding three overpasses as part of the design.

As best as i can tell, after TxDOT let the contract, they decided to combine Phase I and Phase II into one project and delayed it until the overpasses could be designed. Maybe they will seek an I-2 designation when the project is finished.

adventurernumber1

#295
Interstate 2 really does seem like an exciting new thing, as long as they can get it to Laredo. Also, along the array of other proposed solutions here, my two cents for the suffixed I-69 mess is very simple. I think that I-69E should simply be I-69, and here is what I think should be done with I-69C: make it I-269, and right where the limited-access currently ends (going north) and US 281 continues on as a divided highway, I-269 should split off of US 281 and veer northeast, connecting to Interstate 69 (currently I-69E), perhaps just north of Raymondville. Should I-269 not be feasible for whatever reason I think any even I-x69 or I-x02 should be fine. There is no need to upgrade the entirety of both US 77 and US 281 to interstate standards, since they very closely parallel eachother. I think US 77 should simply be upgraded to I-69, and except for the southern section that become I-269, US 281 simply be left alone, existing as an alternative route. Something as simple as the idea I just threw out could easily fix the I-69C & I-69E mess (and hopefully there isn't a I-69W to come). With this, I-69, I-2, I-269, and miscellaneous could turn out quite nicely in southern Texas. As someone said earlier in the thread, extending Interstate 2 all the way to Laredo would make it even more useful than it already is.


I also find it interesting to have found out that Interstate 2 (of the U.S.) parallels Mexican Federal Highway 2 (of Mexico), which is just closely on the other side of the Rio Grande.
Now alternating between different highway shields for my avatar - my previous highway shield avatar for the last few years was US 76.

Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/127322363@N08/

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-vJ3qa8R-cc44Cv6ohio1g

The Ghostbuster

I suspect it will be a long time before Interstate 2 reaches Laredo, if it does at all. Correct me if I'm wrong, though.

Bobby5280

Any future extension of I-2 depends on two things: continued rapid population growth in the Rio Grande Valley and TX DOT being able to plan for it appropriately.

According to Wikipedia the 4 county region in the south end of Texas had 325,000 residents in 1969 and now over 1.3 million people. That's probably enough people to justify building 2 Interstate routes (I-69E and I-69C) down to that area.

On the opposite potential end of I-2, Laredo has 244,731 residents as of the 2012 census estimate. That's a significant sized city at a major border crossing. That might be big enough to justify an Interstate quality border route down McAllen-Brownsville area.

At first glance there may not seem to be much between Laredo and La Joya. There are border towns in between with a lot of potential growth: Zapata & the Falcon Lake area, Roma-Escobares, Rio Grande City and Las Lomas. These towns have all grown enough that I-2 cannot be routed on the existing US-83 corridor. New terrain bypasses to the North will be necessary. Meanwhile TX-DOT will also have to work at protecting and/or acquiring ROW along parts of US-83 that can be upgraded to Interstate quality. A lot of other little towns are positioned along US-83. Over the next couple or so decades development could fill in the Texas border from Lake Falcon down to McAllen.

There is some North-South highway construction project going on in Rio Grande City parallel to Redwood Street. It looks like something to serve the nearby border crossing a couple blocks away. It looks freeway-wide.

Alps

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 30, 2016, 06:08:02 PM
I suspect it will be a long time before Interstate 2 reaches Laredo, if it does at all. Correct me if I'm wrong, though.
IME it should only go as far northwest as Zapata. Not enough traffic from there on to Laredo. But the milemarkers anticipate it.

Grzrd

#299
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on May 09, 2016, 10:48:04 AM
I got to ride down Interstate 2 this weekend.  I saw the exit numbers up and the mile posts.

This January 13 TV video reports that construction work on I-2, and on US 83 Business, is almost complete and should be finished by the summer.

Quote
The Inspiration Road project in Mission was scheduled to be completed late 2016, but due to poor weather conditions in 2015, the Texas Department of Transportation was forced to take longer than expected.
On Thursday, TxDOT Spokesman Octavio Saenz told CBS 4 News the roadway is officially in its final stage.
"The big thing that we are doing right now is trying to open the main lanes and finish up the road. The construction should be wrapping up,"  said Saenz ....
Once the reconstruction is finalized, there will be three lanes on Interstate 2 going westbound and eastbound, a widened bridge on Interstate 2 and Inspiration Road, and a continuous frontage.

As a bonus, it contains confirmation that exit numbers are up:



Here is July, 2015 StreetView imagery of the construction.



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.