I was reading about US highways on Wikipedia recently and looked over US-96's Wikipedia page when I noticed something interesting. Under the future tab, it said this:
The US 96 Corridor is being considered as an Interstate Highway running from Interstate 69 and Interstate 369 interchange in Tenaha to the US 96 and I-10 split in Beaumont, Texas.
This is a crucial corridor for moving troops and supplies from the military bases along Interstate 14 such as Fort Hood, Fort Polk, and Fort Bliss.
Currently as of 2019 a construction project on US 96 in Beaumont is expanding the highway to 6 lanes (3 in each direction) to prepare the highway for Interstate Standards.
I haven't heard about any plans to expand 96 into an interstate, and there is nothing that the article sources confirming that it is being considered.
What are y'alls opinion on this? Has anyone else heard anything about 96 being expanded, or does anyone think this is the product of an overzealous I-14 proponent (cuz I sure do)?
Quote from: CoreySamson on March 25, 2020, 01:32:22 PM
I was reading about US highways on Wikipedia recently and looked over US-96's Wikipedia page when I noticed something interesting. Under the future tab, it said this:
The US 96 Corridor is being considered as an Interstate Highway running from Interstate 69 and Interstate 369 interchange in Tenaha to the US 96 and I-10 split in Beaumont, Texas.
This is a crucial corridor for moving troops and supplies from the military bases along Interstate 14 such as Fort Hood, Fort Polk, and Fort Bliss.
Currently as of 2019 a construction project on US 96 in Beaumont is expanding the highway to 6 lanes (3 in each direction) to prepare the highway for Interstate Standards.
I haven't heard about any plans to expand 96 into an interstate, and there is nothing that the article sources confirming that it is being considered.
What are y'alls opinion on this? Has anyone else heard anything about 96 being expanded, or does anyone think this is the product of an overzealous I-14 proponent (cuz I sure do)?
US-96 has another distinction as being a US route that does not follow time held naming standards.
It is entirely inside Texas and is nowhere close to its sister roads which are well to the west.
The interstate desire probably drove TxDOT to make it a federal route so they could justify a corridor later.
US96 may actually make the interstate push. It should at least become four lane divided highways with loops around most towns and overpasses at significant intersections.
As to the numbering abnomaly, US 96 had been labeled and has followed this route since 1939. What happened in 1939?
Prior to that US 96 had gone from Rosenburg (west of Houston) to Laredo. US 59 Went from Texarkana to Beaumont.
Texas decided that there needed to be a Federal route from east Texas to the fast growing metropolis of Houston. The solution was to reroute US 59 from Teneha to Houston along the previous SH35 and to also continue it along US 96 to Laredo. This left the previous US 59 route without a US Highway route. The now unneeded US 96 was reassigned out of Grid to a north / south alignment. Texas still in the throes of the depression, likely moved the same shields from one road to the other.
Quote from: CoreySamson on March 25, 2020, 01:32:22 PM
I was reading about US highways on Wikipedia recently and looked over US-96's Wikipedia page when I noticed something interesting. Under the future tab, it said this:
The US 96 Corridor is being considered as an Interstate Highway running from Interstate 69 and Interstate 369 interchange in Tenaha to the US 96 and I-10 split in Beaumont, Texas.
This is a crucial corridor for moving troops and supplies from the military bases along Interstate 14 such as Fort Hood, Fort Polk, and Fort Bliss.
Currently as of 2019 a construction project on US 96 in Beaumont is expanding the highway to 6 lanes (3 in each direction) to prepare the highway for Interstate Standards.
I haven't heard about any plans to expand 96 into an interstate, and there is nothing that the article sources confirming that it is being considered.
What are y'alls opinion on this? Has anyone else heard anything about 96 being expanded, or does anyone think this is the product of an overzealous I-14 proponent (cuz I sure do)?
idk but I-47??? I-369 would be part of it or I-369 is Extended along US 96
US-96 as an Interstate from Beaumont to Tenaha? IMHO, such an upgrade would be a big waste of money. It would be good enough to make it a regular 4 lane road with at-grade intersections, where traffic levels warrant such an upgrade. US-96 connects to no major destinations. That's a major knock against an Interstate upgrade. Even worse, an Interstate conversion of US-96 wouldn't serve as a time-saving bypass for any major destinations either.
Texas already has a LOT on its plate in terms of Interstate highway projects to build. An upgrade of US-96 to Interstate standards would be even more porky than some of the wants in the I-14 effort. The on-going I-69 effort is the biggest long term upgrade effort in the state. The Ports to Plains Corridor is another. Then there's all the growing upgrade needs along various corridors in the state due to rampant growth in the DFW, Houston and Austin-San Antonio regions. West Texas has seen heavy truck traffic levels increase dramatically with the boom in oil drilling activity (although that's getting very disrupted as of late).
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 25, 2020, 04:18:03 PM
US-96 as an Interstate from Beaumont to Tenaha? IMHO, such an upgrade would be a big waste of money. It would be good enough to make it a regular 4 lane road with at-grade intersections, where traffic levels warrant such an upgrade. US-96 connects to no major destinations. That's a major knock against an Interstate upgrade. Even worse, an Interstate conversion of US-96 wouldn't serve as a time-saving bypass for any major destinations either.
Beaumont and Texarkana are cities of over 100,000 and would be directly linked via such a highway.
Nonetheless, a more realistic proposal, since I-14 will more than likely never end up east of Texas, would be to re-route the eastern end of I-14 from I-69 at Livingston to I-10 at Beaumont.
This, in addition to providing long-distance I-10 traffic to the I-14 corridor to bypass Houston and San Antonio, would allow I-369 / I-69 traffic from Texarkana and other northern locations to connect to I-14 at Livingston bound to Beaumont. This would require about 60 miles of new interstate highway as opposed to at least 140 miles if a routing to Tenaha, one that would run parallel with I-69 separated by 40 miles for its entire length, and be wasteful IMO.
Quote from: AcE_Wolf_287 on March 25, 2020, 04:11:13 PM
Quote from: CoreySamson on March 25, 2020, 01:32:22 PM
I was reading about US highways on Wikipedia recently and looked over US-96's Wikipedia page when I noticed something interesting. Under the future tab, it said this:
The US 96 Corridor is being considered as an Interstate Highway running from Interstate 69 and Interstate 369 interchange in Tenaha to the US 96 and I-10 split in Beaumont, Texas.
This is a crucial corridor for moving troops and supplies from the military bases along Interstate 14 such as Fort Hood, Fort Polk, and Fort Bliss.
Currently as of 2019 a construction project on US 96 in Beaumont is expanding the highway to 6 lanes (3 in each direction) to prepare the highway for Interstate Standards.
I haven't heard about any plans to expand 96 into an interstate, and there is nothing that the article sources confirming that it is being considered.
What are y'alls opinion on this? Has anyone else heard anything about 96 being expanded, or does anyone think this is the product of an overzealous I-14 proponent (cuz I sure do)?
idk but I-47??? I-369 would be part of it or I-369 is Extended along US 96
If you're going to designate US-96 as I-47, I would extend the I-47 designation over I-369 to a new interchange with I-49 north of Texarkana.
Quote from: abqtraveler on March 25, 2020, 05:20:59 PM
Quote from: AcE_Wolf_287 on March 25, 2020, 04:11:13 PM
Quote from: CoreySamson on March 25, 2020, 01:32:22 PM
I was reading about US highways on Wikipedia recently and looked over US-96's Wikipedia page when I noticed something interesting. Under the future tab, it said this:
The US 96 Corridor is being considered as an Interstate Highway running from Interstate 69 and Interstate 369 interchange in Tenaha to the US 96 and I-10 split in Beaumont, Texas.
This is a crucial corridor for moving troops and supplies from the military bases along Interstate 14 such as Fort Hood, Fort Polk, and Fort Bliss.
Currently as of 2019 a construction project on US 96 in Beaumont is expanding the highway to 6 lanes (3 in each direction) to prepare the highway for Interstate Standards.
I haven't heard about any plans to expand 96 into an interstate, and there is nothing that the article sources confirming that it is being considered.
What are y'alls opinion on this? Has anyone else heard anything about 96 being expanded, or does anyone think this is the product of an overzealous I-14 proponent (cuz I sure do)?
idk but I-47??? I-369 would be part of it or I-369 is Extended along US 96
If you're going to designate US-96 as I-47, I would extend the I-47 designation over I-369 to a new interchange with I-49 north of Texarkana.
yea, i wish they did that with I-69 but...
I think this thread has been infected with calrogvirus...
If I-69 is going to get built in East Texas there really isn't much need to have a parallel US-96 Interstate corridor running much of that North-South length nearby.
I'm not opposed to a corridor like US-287 being improved to Interstate standards going North out of Beaumont to perhaps connect into the future I-14 corridor at Woodville or Livingston. But such a route would not work as an I-10 relief route around Houston. The US-90 and TX-105 corridors are far better positioned to create a Northern bypass around Houston. The US-90 alternative could connect into the Grand Parkway and then US-290 on the West side of the Houston metro. The TX-105 corridor would create a bypass farther North connecting to Cleveland, Conroe, Navasota and Brenham. Either one of those solutions would point the traffic into the Austin area.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 25, 2020, 04:18:03 PM
US-96 as an Interstate from Beaumont to Tenaha? IMHO, such an upgrade would be a big waste of money. It would be good enough to make it a regular 4 lane road with at-grade intersections, where traffic levels warrant such an upgrade. US-96 connects to no major destinations. That's a major knock against an Interstate upgrade. Even worse, an Interstate conversion of US-96 wouldn't serve as a time-saving bypass for any major destinations either.
Texas already has a LOT on its plate in terms of Interstate highway projects to build. An upgrade of US-96 to Interstate standards would be even more porky than some of the wants in the I-14 effort. The on-going I-69 effort is the biggest long term upgrade effort in the state. The Ports to Plains Corridor is another. Then there's all the growing upgrade needs along various corridors in the state due to rampant growth in the DFW, Houston and Austin-San Antonio regions. West Texas has seen heavy truck traffic levels increase dramatically with the boom in oil drilling activity (although that's getting very disrupted as of late).
That is exactly what I was thinking. There probably isn't very much traffic trying to get from Beaumont to Texarkana. Any traffic coming from the west would use 69, and any from the east would use 49.
Although here's an interesting idea: as soon as TxDot finishes 69, what if they move 59s southern terminus back to Beaumont like how it was in the 30s and do away with the US 96 designation entirely?
Quote from: CoreySamson on March 25, 2020, 11:58:16 PM
Although here's an interesting idea: as soon as TxDot finishes 69, what if they move 59s southern terminus back to Beaumont like how it was in the 30s and do away with the US 96 designation entirely?
Seeing as I-69W will likely never see the light of day between Victoria and Freer, or even Laredo, I'd say the odds are slim.
Quote from: abqtraveler on March 25, 2020, 05:20:59 PM
Quote from: AcE_Wolf_287 on March 25, 2020, 04:11:13 PM
Quote from: CoreySamson on March 25, 2020, 01:32:22 PM
I was reading about US highways on Wikipedia recently and looked over US-96's Wikipedia page when I noticed something interesting. Under the future tab, it said this:
The US 96 Corridor is being considered as an Interstate Highway running from Interstate 69 and Interstate 369 interchange in Tenaha to the US 96 and I-10 split in Beaumont, Texas.
This is a crucial corridor for moving troops and supplies from the military bases along Interstate 14 such as Fort Hood, Fort Polk, and Fort Bliss.
Currently as of 2019 a construction project on US 96 in Beaumont is expanding the highway to 6 lanes (3 in each direction) to prepare the highway for Interstate Standards.
I haven't heard about any plans to expand 96 into an interstate, and there is nothing that the article sources confirming that it is being considered.
What are y'alls opinion on this? Has anyone else heard anything about 96 being expanded, or does anyone think this is the product of an overzealous I-14 proponent (cuz I sure do)?
idk but I-47??? I-369 would be part of it or I-369 is Extended along US 96
If you're going to designate US-96 as I-47, I would extend the I-47 designation over I-369 to a new interchange with I-49 north of Texarkana.
Why does everything have to be an Interstate?
Quote from: US71 on March 27, 2020, 08:12:21 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on March 25, 2020, 05:20:59 PM
Quote from: AcE_Wolf_287 on March 25, 2020, 04:11:13 PM
Quote from: CoreySamson on March 25, 2020, 01:32:22 PM
I was reading about US highways on Wikipedia recently and looked over US-96's Wikipedia page when I noticed something interesting. Under the future tab, it said this:
The US 96 Corridor is being considered as an Interstate Highway running from Interstate 69 and Interstate 369 interchange in Tenaha to the US 96 and I-10 split in Beaumont, Texas.
This is a crucial corridor for moving troops and supplies from the military bases along Interstate 14 such as Fort Hood, Fort Polk, and Fort Bliss.
Currently as of 2019 a construction project on US 96 in Beaumont is expanding the highway to 6 lanes (3 in each direction) to prepare the highway for Interstate Standards.
I haven't heard about any plans to expand 96 into an interstate, and there is nothing that the article sources confirming that it is being considered.
What are y'alls opinion on this? Has anyone else heard anything about 96 being expanded, or does anyone think this is the product of an overzealous I-14 proponent (cuz I sure do)?
idk but I-47??? I-369 would be part of it or I-369 is Extended along US 96
If you're going to designate US-96 as I-47, I would extend the I-47 designation over I-369 to a new interchange with I-49 north of Texarkana.
Why does everything have to be an Interstate?
I think FritzOwl has his own sort of Coronavirus...
Quote from: US71 on March 27, 2020, 08:12:21 PM
Quote from: abqtraveler on March 25, 2020, 05:20:59 PM
Quote from: AcE_Wolf_287 on March 25, 2020, 04:11:13 PM
Quote from: CoreySamson on March 25, 2020, 01:32:22 PM
I was reading about US highways on Wikipedia recently and looked over US-96's Wikipedia page when I noticed something interesting. Under the future tab, it said this:
The US 96 Corridor is being considered as an Interstate Highway running from Interstate 69 and Interstate 369 interchange in Tenaha to the US 96 and I-10 split in Beaumont, Texas.
This is a crucial corridor for moving troops and supplies from the military bases along Interstate 14 such as Fort Hood, Fort Polk, and Fort Bliss.
Currently as of 2019 a construction project on US 96 in Beaumont is expanding the highway to 6 lanes (3 in each direction) to prepare the highway for Interstate Standards.
I haven't heard about any plans to expand 96 into an interstate, and there is nothing that the article sources confirming that it is being considered.
What are y'alls opinion on this? Has anyone else heard anything about 96 being expanded, or does anyone think this is the product of an overzealous I-14 proponent (cuz I sure do)?
idk but I-47??? I-369 would be part of it or I-369 is Extended along US 96
If you're going to designate US-96 as I-47, I would extend the I-47 designation over I-369 to a new interchange with I-49 north of Texarkana.
Why does everything have to be an Interstate?
Not
everything -- just a shitload of routes in NC & TX! Their DOT's, in conjunction with their congressional delegations, have certainly been busy bees as of late.
Texas should have more 3DI routes. The silly Loop designations near larger cities are laughable.
Quote from: DJStephens on April 08, 2020, 08:45:15 PM
Texas should have more 3DI routes. The silly Loop designations near larger cities are laughable.
You seem to value the Interstate Brand and devalue the TX-XX Brand.
The Hill Country Fare stuff at HEB is generally better than the national brands.
As I have pointed out before. Texas does NOT have tolls on any numbered highway main lanes
PARTICULARLY IS and Interstate Highways. All of these loops are Tolled. The numbered (free) mainlanes are the at grade service (frontage, feeder, etc ) lanes adjacent to them. Likewise, the HOV toll lanes are just coupled with the free Mainlanes. Texas has no tolled numbered mainlanes. (Admittedly some have names containing numbers like TOLL49, but in all but a very few cases, the tolled lanes have free lanes immediately adjacent to them. ) I THINK TOLL 49 in Tyler is the only NUMBERED one that doesn't have adjacent free lanes.
Quote from: bwana39 on April 08, 2020, 09:45:44 PM
As I have pointed out before. Texas does NOT have tolls on any numbered highway main lanes PARTICULARLY IS and Interstate Highways. All of these loops are Tolled. The numbered (free) mainlanes are the at grade service (frontage, feeder, etc ) lanes adjacent to them. Likewise, the HOV toll lanes are just coupled with the free Mainlanes. Texas has no tolled numbered mainlanes. (Admittedly some have names containing numbers like TOLL49, but in all but a very few cases, the tolled lanes have free lanes immediately adjacent to them. ) I THINK TOLL 49 in Tyler is the only NUMBERED one that doesn't have adjacent free lanes.
SH 99?
US 69/96/287 is already a full-on Interstate grade freeway from its interchange with I-10 in central Beaumont to the 69/96 split near Lumberton; there are projects to upgrade the existing I-10/US 69 interchange through widening the mainline ramps to 2 lanes and improving frontage road access; as well as widening the current US 69 freeway to 6 lanes with continuous frontage roads to the 69/96 split.
There has recently been talk about incorporating a section of US 96 or US 69 into the I-14 Colossus as a spur connector, or even redirecting I-14 onto US 69 to end at I-10 in Beaumont to avoid Louisiana and Mississippi. Right now, though, it's just talk.
Personally, I don't see the need, since 4-laning US 69 (and renaming it once I-69 is completed to avoid the duplication rule) would more than suffice for me.
Quote from: Anthony_JK on April 09, 2020, 01:09:53 AM
Personally, I don't see the need, since 4-laning US 69 (and renaming it once I-69 is completed to avoid the duplication rule) would more than suffice for me.
TXDOT is totally unworried about the duplication of numbers. Their plan as of now seems to be ignore the 69/69 confluence / concurrence.
My take is they should either renumber the current US69 as US271 South from Tyler or US175 South from Jacksonville and truncate US69 there.
Quote from: bwana39 on April 09, 2020, 04:02:22 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on April 09, 2020, 01:09:53 AM
Personally, I don't see the need, since 4-laning US 69 (and renaming it once I-69 is completed to avoid the duplication rule) would more than suffice for me.
TXDOT is totally unworried about the duplication of numbers. Their plan as of now seems to be ignore the 69/69 confluence / concurrence.
My take is they should either renumber the current US69 as US271 South from Tyler or US175 South from Jacksonville and truncate US69 there.
I'd just swap 69 & 75 south of the routes' split south of the Red River. US 69 goes to Dallas and terminates; US 75 gets back to the Gulf (or an inlet thereof). Ironically, it'll once again intersect US 175 -- but at the other end! And TxDOT won't give a shit about TX 75 along I-45; just another duplicate as far as they're concerned.
The 69 / 75 reversal actually would have been my choice all along without expense being a major criteria. That said, I would pick 175 or 271 to reduce the number of signs needing changed. US-75 in Texas is probably going away in the next five or so years anyway.
As to SH75, Texas does not worry about SH duplicating a US Highway or Interstate unless they intersect. FM's duplication is not worried about at all.
Quote from: bwana39 on April 09, 2020, 04:22:50 PM
The 69 / 75 reversal actually would have been my choice all along without expense being a major criteria. That said, I would pick 175 or 271 to reduce the number of signs needing changed. US-75 in Texas is probably going away in the next five or so years anyway.
As to SH75, Texas does not worry about SH duplicating a US Highway or Interstate unless they intersect.
The 1 glaring exception to that being out in Matador, with US 62-US 70 crossing TX 70, and apparently TxDOT has not been crying in their beer over that instance now, or ever.
Quote from: bwana39 on April 09, 2020, 04:02:22 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on April 09, 2020, 01:09:53 AM
Personally, I don't see the need, since 4-laning US 69 (and renaming it once I-69 is completed to avoid the duplication rule) would more than suffice for me.
TXDOT is totally unworried about the duplication of numbers. Their plan as of now seems to be ignore the 69/69 confluence / concurrence.
My take is they should either renumber the current US69 as US271 South from Tyler or US175 South from Jacksonville and truncate US69 there.
I wouldn't mind using this as a way of lengthening US 175 (for obvious reasons ;-) :D ), but I've heard nothing yet of any kind of future plan like this. It would be somewhat logical, both from a TxDOT Trunk Route angle (when TxDOT was initially formulating TX Trunk Routes, the combo of US 69 Beaumont-Jacksonville and US 175 to Dallas was in the first set of 11 planned in the state), and from those who drive trucks for a living (the Beaumont-Dallas path using the 2 routes has long been a well-used trucker alternative to avoid Houston; a rep from the Tyler TxDOT office has told me in the past that at least 20% of US 175's traffic has been from truckers).
Quote from: bwana39 on April 09, 2020, 04:22:50 PM
The 69 / 75 reversal actually would have been my choice all along without expense being a major criteria. That said, I would pick 175 or 271 to reduce the number of signs needing changed. US-75 in Texas is probably going away in the next five or so years anyway.
As to SH75, Texas does not worry about SH duplicating a US Highway or Interstate unless they intersect. FM's duplication is not worried about at all.
Would US 75 become TX 75? If you're going to that, kill US 75 at Atoka / US 69
Quote from: US71 on April 10, 2020, 02:00:13 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on April 09, 2020, 04:22:50 PM
The 69 / 75 reversal actually would have been my choice all along without expense being a major criteria. That said, I would pick 175 or 271 to reduce the number of signs needing changed. US-75 in Texas is probably going away in the next five or so years anyway.
As to SH75, Texas does not worry about SH duplicating a US Highway or Interstate unless they intersect. FM's duplication is not worried about at all.
Would US 75 become TX 75? If you're going to that, kill US 75 at Atoka / US 69
In this case, US 75 would simply subsume US 69 -- and remain signed as a US highway -- from the split near Denison all the way south to Port Arthur. US 69 would then take the current US 75 freeway straight into Dallas, where it would terminate at the I-345/TX 366 junction like US 75 does today. If, of course, I-45 is ever extended up to the TX/OK line with a unilateral TX action, US 69 would either (a) terminate at the state line or (b) at ODOT option, be itself cut back to Atoka.
Quote from: US71 on April 10, 2020, 02:00:13 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on April 09, 2020, 04:22:50 PM
The 69 / 75 reversal actually would have been my choice all along without expense being a major criteria. That said, I would pick 175 or 271 to reduce the number of signs needing changed. US-75 in Texas is probably going away in the next five or so years anyway.
As to SH75, Texas does not worry about SH duplicating a US Highway or Interstate unless they intersect. FM's duplication is not worried about at all.
Would US 75 become TX 75? If you're going to that, kill US 75 at Atoka / US 69
No, it is expected US 75 from Dallas to the state line would become I-45.
I will add one thing to this discussion. Texas has not had a major renumber or significant rerouting of a US Highway except for replacement by an interstate since the sixties. Renumbering US 69 is a BIG deal. It has not happened
Quote from: bwana39 on April 11, 2020, 04:10:58 PM
Quote from: US71 on April 10, 2020, 02:00:13 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on April 09, 2020, 04:22:50 PM
The 69 / 75 reversal actually would have been my choice all along without expense being a major criteria. That said, I would pick 175 or 271 to reduce the number of signs needing changed. US-75 in Texas is probably going away in the next five or so years anyway.
As to SH75, Texas does not worry about SH duplicating a US Highway or Interstate unless they intersect. FM's duplication is not worried about at all.
Would US 75 become TX 75? If you're going to that, kill US 75 at Atoka / US 69
No, it is expected US 75 from Dallas to the state line would become I-45.
I will add one thing to this discussion. Texas has not had a major renumber or significant rerouting of a US Highway except for replacement by an interstate since the sixties. Renumbering US 69 is a BIG deal. It has not happened
Nevertheless, there is
one thing TxDOT doesn't mind doing --
truncating US highways that have been effectively subsumed by Interstates, particularly when much of the freeway alignment sits atop or immediately adjacent to the original road. US 80 west of DFW, US 81, US 75, US 290 -- all cut back significantly. Of course, US 90 is the exception, with its western independent section intact along with the portion following I-10 east of San Antonio (the other shorter independent segment between Houston and Beaumont notwithstanding). And US 190 was extended west in the '80's (gratuitiously, IMO!); the oddity was the 1970 addition of US 57 (as a connector to the like-numbered Mexico federal highway). But since those additions, the only activity
has been the truncations. Otherwise, I would have expected Alternate US 90 to be redesignated as mainline US 90 in order to avoid I-10 duplication, but that has never occurred.
Not bumping. Wikipedia says US-96 is considered being upgraded to an interstate on it's entire route so it can connect to I-10, I-14 and I-69. I like the idea. It may seem unnecessary, but I think I-14's existence takes unnecessary off the table forever.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 27, 2021, 02:51:39 PM
Not bumping. Wikipedia says US-96 is considered being upgraded to an interstate on it's entire route so it can connect to I-10, I-14 and I-69. I like the idea. It may seem unnecessary, but I think I-14's existence takes unnecessary off the table forever.
Such was added to the Wikipedia article
on 17-JUN-2019 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=U.S._Route_96&diff=902262744&oldid=892216067), and
that user (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Cool25B) cited no sources.
Is this actually a thing?
Quote from: kphoger on July 27, 2021, 03:00:43 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 27, 2021, 02:51:39 PM
Not bumping. Wikipedia says US-96 is considered being upgraded to an interstate on it's entire route so it can connect to I-10, I-14 and I-69. I like the idea. It may seem unnecessary, but I think I-14's existence takes unnecessary off the table forever.
Such was added to the Wikipedia article on 17-JUN-2019 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=U.S._Route_96&diff=902262744&oldid=892216067), and that user (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Cool25B) cited no sources.
Is this actually a thing?
Hence why I started the thread in the first place. It makes no sense why anyone would want this with I-49 and I-69 in close proximity. I-14 to Beaumont is something I would push for, but any other enhancements of the US 96 corridor are IMO completely, utterly pointless.
If nobody here knows of any actual agency considering the upgrade, then the edit on Wikipedia should probably be disputed.
Quote from: kphoger on July 27, 2021, 03:00:43 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 27, 2021, 02:51:39 PM
Not bumping. Wikipedia says US-96 is considered being upgraded to an interstate on it's entire route so it can connect to I-10, I-14 and I-69. I like the idea. It may seem unnecessary, but I think I-14's existence takes unnecessary off the table forever.
Such was added to the Wikipedia article on 17-JUN-2019 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=U.S._Route_96&diff=902262744&oldid=892216067), and that user (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Cool25B) cited no sources.
Is this actually a thing?
Maybe my reference to Wikipedia was in jest. The greatest source in the world.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 27, 2021, 02:51:39 PM
Not bumping. Wikipedia says US-96 is considered being upgraded to an interstate on it's entire route so it can connect to I-10, I-14 and I-69. I like the idea. It may seem unnecessary, but I think I-14's existence takes unnecessary off the table forever.
I disagree. I can't see justifying an unnecessary highway because there's another unnecessary highway. Where does one draw the line?
Quote from: US71 on July 27, 2021, 04:04:12 PM
Where does one draw the line?
It's a straight line, between Lake Unerie and and Lewis/Gerry/Havery tripoint.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 27, 2021, 03:38:09 PM
Quote from: kphoger on July 27, 2021, 03:00:43 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 27, 2021, 02:51:39 PM
Not bumping. Wikipedia says US-96 is considered being upgraded to an interstate on it's entire route so it can connect to I-10, I-14 and I-69. I like the idea. It may seem unnecessary, but I think I-14's existence takes unnecessary off the table forever.
Such was added to the Wikipedia article on 17-JUN-2019 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=U.S._Route_96&diff=902262744&oldid=892216067), and that user (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Cool25B) cited no sources.
Is this actually a thing?
Maybe my reference to Wikipedia was in jest. The greatest source in the world.
IIRC, somewhere along the line in the process of planning (and marketing!) I-14, a number of branches both in west and east TX were proposed. One of them, IIRC,
did follow US 96, ostensibly to draw traffic from the area of the I-69/369 junction; the other veered southeast from the US 190-based trunk several miles east of Livingston, joining the US 96 "branch" near Lumberton; the combined routes then headed south to Beaumont and Port Arthur.
While the following comment is more suited for the I-14 thread than this one -- as long as we're on the subject -- and the chances of I-14 leaving TX in our lifetimes (or maybe even our kids' lifetimes!) being slim & none, if I-14 sees in-state development, following the east Livingston branch down to Beaumont and Port Arthur makes eminently more sense than building something that would end in the middle of nowhere on the banks of the Sabine! At least it'd make a decent bypass/cutoff from I-10 to the central part of the state, avoiding Houston in the process.
I think the idea is pretty much DOA due to some difficult problems.
The first problem is the split of US-69/287 and US-96 on the South side of Lumberton. Immediately North of where the existing freeway ends at that "Y" both highways drop down to undivided streets closely bracketed with development. Any Interstate upgrade of US-96 would have to divert off the existing freeway North of Beaumont well South of the Lumberton Y. Going on North much of the road would have to be new terrain highway. That wouldn't be an easy path. If it isn't towns like Silsbee in the way it's a hell of a lot of swamp land.
TX DOT has too many other super highway projects as irons in the fire. US-96 should be way way down on the list of priorities.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 27, 2021, 10:55:10 PM
I think the idea is pretty much DOA due to some difficult problems.
The first problem is the split of US-69/287 and US-96 on the South side of Lumberton. Immediately North of where the existing freeway ends at that "Y" both highways drop down to undivided streets closely bracketed with development. Any Interstate upgrade of US-96 would have to divert off the existing freeway North of Beaumont well South of the Lumberton Y. Going on North much of the road would have to be new terrain highway. That wouldn't be an easy path. If it isn't towns like Silsbee in the way it's a hell of a lot of swamp land.
TX DOT has too many other super highway projects as irons in the fire. US-96 should be way way down on the list of priorities.
It's just not going to happen. It's only ancillary to anything in the I-14 pathway, and has no formal connection to the I-69 effort; without a support base, it's just someone's pipedream, even if it found its way to being a highlighted portion of a map somewhere. There's just no Beaumont-Texarkana traffic base to speak of, so even by TX's often overblown rationales, US 96, already a multilane facility for most of its length, is more than adequate for regional purposes.
^ US-96 is one of those important regional arterial highways that should at least be upgraded to free-flow. Four lane non-limited-access in rural areas, and controlled access bypasses at towns. Interchanges where needed in rural areas to eliminate all traffic signals. A blanket 75 mph speed limit throughout.
This one is a non-starter. US-96 (and US-287, and US-69) leave Beaumont together. They split soon after they leave. The farther north US-96 goes, the less important it becomes. US-69 and US-287 seemingly are seemingly more important.
You have to realize everyone WANTS an INTERSTATE. No one wants to pay for one and in Texas even most of the freeways may not be one. This corridor is way down the line. Like seventeenth (a random number picked out of the air).
Outside the Golden Triangle (the Beaumont area) no one even even has thought about it.
Quote from: bwana39 on July 28, 2021, 02:13:06 PM
This one is a non-starter. US-96 (and US-287, and US-69) are leave Beaumont together. They split soon after they leave. The farther north US-96 goes, the less important it becomes. US-69 and US-287 seemingly are seemingly more important.
You have to realize everyone WANTS an INTERSTATE. No one wants to pay for one and in Texas even most of the freeways may not be one. This corridor is way down the line. Like seventeenth (a random number picked out of the air).
Outside the Golden Triangle (the Beaumont area) no one even even has thought about it.
The only portion of US 96 that stands even a snowball's chance in hell of ever being part of an Interstate corridor is that already multiplexed with US 69 and US 287 -- and that as a branch of the I-14 project -- a corridor segment that's likely to be at least a couple of decades out if selected for development. Just little or no demand for a full freeway north of there, although it looks like US 96 is gradually being 4-laned.
The closest I could see to an Interstate along the US 96 corridor is a Beaumount-to-Port Aurthur 3di spur, and even that seems very unlikely.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 29, 2021, 03:46:02 PM
The closest I could see to an Interstate along the US 96 corridor is a Beaumount-to-Port Aurthur 3di spur, and even that seems very unlikely.
It's been mostly a freeway for decades, and if such an action hasn't taken place by now, it won't down the line. It would take being considered a part of a longer corridor project to provoke any official Interstate-related activity here. TxDOT's track record of "one major city, one 3di Interstate loop" speaks for itself.
Quote from: sparker on July 29, 2021, 05:35:27 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 29, 2021, 03:46:02 PM
The closest I could see to an Interstate along the US 96 corridor is a Beaumount-to-Port Aurthur 3di spur, and even that seems very unlikely.
It's been mostly a freeway for decades, and if such an action hasn't taken place by now, it won't down the line. It would take being considered a part of a longer corridor project to provoke any official Interstate-related activity here. TxDOT's track record of "one major city, one 3di Interstate loop" speaks for itself.
I would agree, but I-14 exists. The US-190 freeway has been a freeway for years before it was I-14, then it got knighted.
^
Quote from: sparker on July 29, 2021, 05:35:27 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 29, 2021, 03:46:02 PM
The closest I could see to an Interstate along the US 96 corridor is a Beaumount-to-Port Aurthur 3di spur, and even that seems very unlikely.
It's been mostly a freeway for decades, and if such an action hasn't taken place by now, it won't down the line. It would take being considered a part of a longer corridor project to provoke any official Interstate-related activity here. TxDOT's track record of "one major city, one 3di Interstate loop" speaks for itself.
The interstate portion of the WP page has been removed for unsourced info.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 29, 2021, 06:23:10 PM
^
Quote from: sparker on July 29, 2021, 05:35:27 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 29, 2021, 03:46:02 PM
The closest I could see to an Interstate along the US 96 corridor is a Beaumount-to-Port Aurthur 3di spur, and even that seems very unlikely.
It's been mostly a freeway for decades, and if such an action hasn't taken place by now, it won't down the line. It would take being considered a part of a longer corridor project to provoke any official Interstate-related activity here. TxDOT's track record of "one major city, one 3di Interstate loop" speaks for itself.
My point. US-96 would get the Interstate treatment right now if it were part of a larger plan. Just because it had been a freeway for a long time without an I designation doesn't mean it can't get it.
Thanks, but I fail to see the need for any Interstate, or even a freeway, on US 96 north of the US 69 split. Four-laning TX 105 from Lumberton to Cleveland where it meets US 59/Future I-69 would be a good enough connection.
Quote from: kphoger on July 27, 2021, 03:06:19 PM
If nobody here knows of any actual agency considering the upgrade, then the edit on Wikipedia should probably be disputed.
Thank you, whoever that was.
Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=U.S._Route_96&action=history
03:08, 28 July 2021
WindowsOSXLinuxBSD
21,683 bytes −594
Unsourced information
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Visual edit
Quote from: Anthony_JK on July 30, 2021, 12:05:43 PM
Thanks, but I fail to see the need for any Interstate, or even a freeway, on US 96 north of the US 69 split. Four-laning TX 105 from Lumberton to Cleveland where it meets US 59/Future I-69 would be a good enough connection.
Oh no! Not the "good enough" argument again.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 30, 2021, 01:59:59 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on July 30, 2021, 12:05:43 PM
Thanks, but I fail to see the need for any Interstate, or even a freeway, on US 96 north of the US 69 split. Four-laning TX 105 from Lumberton to Cleveland where it meets US 59/Future I-69 would be a good enough connection.
Oh no! Not the "good enough" argument again.
Pretty much the only way an Interstate between the 69/96 split in Lumberton and anywhere north of there on 96 would be considered is if I-14 were to become an active concept along its projected pathway out of TX and across to Alexandria, LA; then as a connector down to the port area. But east of I-69, it's likely that such a I-14 corridor won't see the light of day in our lifetimes; there's just no organized effort nor viable political clout to pull off such a limited-value corridor segment. But again, a conditional rationale for this would be if US 165 north of Alexandria eventually connects to the AR 530 N-S corridor in that state (as a further I-57 extension?); I-14 would then be a useful way to shunt any traffic from that route over into TX (pardon the veer into quasi-fictional territory). Otherwise, effectively nada!
Anything that puts an interstate onto the the US 165 and LA 28 corridors is more likely to happen than Louisiana building its segment of I-69.
Quote from: kphoger on July 30, 2021, 01:44:37 PM
Quote from: kphoger on July 27, 2021, 03:06:19 PM
If nobody here knows of any actual agency considering the upgrade, then the edit on Wikipedia should probably be disputed.
Thank you, whoever that was.
Quote from: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=U.S._Route_96&action=history
03:08, 28 July 2021
WindowsOSXLinuxBSD
21,683 bytes −594
Unsourced information
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Visual edit
Oh and btw, that was me. (Not kidding) You're welcome.
Quote from: jbnv on August 04, 2021, 04:47:47 PM
Anything that puts an interstate onto the the US 165 and LA 28 corridors is more likely to happen than Louisiana building its segment of I-69.
Mosey on over to the I-14/TX thread for breaking news on this front.