Interstate 2

[RoadWarrior56]

"One of the few issues I have with I-69: how it's being routed in Kentucky. I guess the highway is going to make a big, distance wasting L-shape, going South on the Pennyrile Parkway (KY-9004) and then West on the Wendell H. Ford Western Kentucky Parkway (KY-9001). I guess a more direct route from Henderson to Calvert City isn't going to be built."

You would probably wait 30 years for the funding to be there for the direct route.  This allows I-69 to be designated through Kentucky much sooner and at much lower cost.  The distance difference is probably no more than 10-15 miles in any case.  Plus the traffic will be there to justify the route since you will have existing Parkway traffic along with new I-69 traffic as more segments are constructed elsewhere.

[silverback1065]

"One of the few issues I have with I-69: how it's being routed in Kentucky. I guess the highway is going to make a big, distance wasting L-shape, going South on the Pennyrile Parkway (KY-9004) and then West on the Wendell H. Ford Western Kentucky Parkway (KY-9001). I guess a more direct route from Henderson to Calvert City isn't going to be built."

You would probably wait 30 years for the funding to be there for the direct route.  This allows I-69 to be designated through Kentucky much sooner and at much lower cost.  The distance difference is probably no more than 10-15 miles in any case.  Plus the traffic will be there to justify the route since you will have existing Parkway traffic along with new I-69 traffic as more segments are constructed elsewhere.

I don't think there are any plans to ever make a more direct route, why do it when the roads are already there to put it on?  It's cheaper, and that's all that really matters to DOTs now. 

[Grzrd]

I just noticed that an Alliance for I-69 Texas map shows Future I-2 extending from Laredo to Brownsville:



In addition, the Texas Transportation Commission has posted an I-69 in South Texas Initiatives Presentation from its Sept. 26 meeting in McAllen that includes an "I-2/US 83 Progress" slide listing a La Joya relief route and Super 2 projects north of Roma (page 11/12 of pdf):



Maybe I-2 and I-35 will meet in Laredo one day!

[FightingIrish]

I just noticed that an Alliance for I-69 Texas map shows Future I-2 extending from Laredo to Brownsville:



In addition, the Texas Transportation Commission has posted an I-69 in South Texas Initiatives Presentation from its Sept. 26 meeting in McAllen that includes an "I-2/US 83 Progress" slide listing a La Joya relief route and Super 2 projects north of Roma (page 11/12 of pdf). Maybe I-2 and I-35 will meet in Laredo one day!

That doesn't indicate anything about a future I-2. It just shows that there is a road (US 83) that connects the two western segments of I-69. Though, given how Interstate-happy Texas is, I'm sure I-2 will eventually be extended to Laredo.

[Grzrd]

I just noticed that an Alliance for I-69 Texas map shows Future I-2 extending from Laredo to Brownsville:

That doesn't indicate anything about a future I-2. It just shows that there is a road (US 83) that connects the two western segments of I-69. Though, given how Interstate-happy Texas is, I'm sure I-2 will eventually be extended to Laredo.

We simply interpret the map differently. The map is entitled "I-69 National Route", and I think we would agree that the thick red lines are intended to show I-69.  There are two thin red lines in Texas. I interpret the northern thin red line to be TX 44, which the Alliance for I-69 Texas considers to be a non-Congressionally designated part of the Texas I-69 "system" that is hoped to eventually be upgraded to interstate-grade.  We do agree that the southern thin red line is US 83. I interpret the red color to signal that the Alliance for I-69 Texas now considers US 83 from Laredo to Brownsville to be part of the Texas I-69 "system" as Future I-2 (in contrast to the red color of US 83, note the green color of US 87 from I-10 to I-20).  It is possible that the Alliance for I-69 Texas now considers that section of US 83 as being a non-interstate grade addition to the Texas I-69 "system" with no intent to upgrade, but I view the red color as more likely indicating an Alliance for I-69 Texas looooooong-term hope for an I-2 from Laredo to Brownsville.

edit

Although it does not indicate how much of U.S. 83 is intended to be upgraded to interstate-grade, this banner from the Alliance for I-69 Texas website includes U.S. 83 with the other corridors:

[NE2]

You're probably reading too much into the choices of a single GIS consultant.

[Grzrd]

an Alliance for I-69 Texas map

You're probably reading too much into the choices of a single GIS consultant.

I agree that I may be possibly reading too much into the map; however, I am also comparing the above map to past Alliance for I-69 Texas maps (I have no idea whether or not they use the same GIS consultant for all of their maps). For example:



In this earlier map, only the current I-2 is shown and US 83 from the western terminus of I-2 to Laredo is not shown (TX 44 is shown).  The appearance of non-I-2 US 83 on the later map in "I-69 red" struck me as being noteworthy, and in my opinion, signaled an Alliance for I-69 Texas desire for a Future I-2.  That said, it could have been either a consultant's mistake or a choice by a consultant independent of direction from the Alliance for I-69 Texas.

[vtk]

You're probably reading too much into the choices of a single GIS consultant.

If that was generated in GIS software, the source datasets are awful.  The geometry of the Interstates shown is rather lazy, and it looks more like curves someone might draw with a Bézier tool than the polyline that typically results from simplifying a high-density object in GIS from what I've seen.  And the "straight" east-west borders of states are drawn as perfectly straight lines, not curving with the parallels of Earth – I'm not sure what oversight led to that, but someone either wasn't paying attention or doesn't understand map projections.

[The High Plains Traveler]

As of this week there are no surface-mounted I-2 markers along the length of the route, neither at frontage road onramps nor on the mainline. Nor are there exit numbers or Interstate mileposts. The only mile markers are based on the Texas reference points used for all state highways, so the markers start in the 890s at Harlingen and go down from there. The only indication it's I-2 is on overhead signs at the U.S. 77/I-69E junction and a couple interchanges in McAllen.

But, I guess I can call it another clinched Interstate, at least until it's extended west.

[seanpatf]

Just a thought. Can I consider having clinched Interstate 2, even though I haven't driven on the stretch from Harlingen through McAllen since 1998? It was the U.S. 83 freeway back then!

[hotdogPi]

Just a thought. Can I consider having clinched Interstate 2, even though I haven't driven on the stretch from Harlingen through McAllen since 1998? It was the U.S. 83 freeway back then!

Yes. That counts.

[Grzrd]

an Alliance for I-69 Texas map

Maybe I-2 and I-35 will meet in Laredo one day!

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:

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.

It looks like the dream for the Immigration Freedomway to extend past Laredo will not be realized.

[vdeane]

I don't think they'll be building the segments from Brownsville to Havana or Havana to Miami any time soon either.

[Grzrd]

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

... the Texas Transportation Commission has posted an I-69 in South Texas Initiatives Presentation from its Sept. 26 meeting in McAllen that includes an "I-2/US 83 Progress" slide listing a La Joya relief route ... (page 11/12 of pdf):

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:

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. These main lanes would consist of two 12-foot wide travel lanes with a 4-foot wide inside and a 10-foot wide outside shoulder in each direction of travel. Controlled access ramps would provide connectivity between the main lanes and the frontage roads constructed during Phase I ....

Inching towards Laredo ...

[NE2]

This could become part of I-2: http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2013/documents/minute_orders/0926/6.pdf

[halork]

Have they completed signage on I-2 yet? (Or 69E and 69C, for that matter.) I haven't seen any more photos or updates.

[austrini]

I was down there recently and there were no reassurance or standalone shields, but a lot of overhead BGSes for IH 2 (and all the others). My colleague at TxDot says it will be completely signed by April 2015.

[Henry]

This could become part of I-2: http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2013/documents/minute_orders/0926/6.pdf

It would be no surprise at all! Yet another reason to finish the thing to Laredo so it can tie in to I-69 (I-69W?) and/or I-35.

[Molandfreak]

^pukes with disgust for that I-69E shield.

[silverback1065]

I was down there recently and there were no reassurance or standalone shields, but a lot of overhead BGSes for IH 2 (and all the others). My colleague at TxDot says it will be completely signed by April 2015.

Sigh, I hate these new suffixed 69 routes, let's rid ourselves of all of them!

[OCGuy81]

Those 69E shields seem awfully cluttered, like the characters are squeezed in there.

Meanwhile, I-2 has a nice 3-di sized shield all to itself!

Sorry if this is too OT, but is the TxDot norm the use of 3-di shields for 2-di routes?

[Brandon]

^pukes with disgust for that I-69E shield.

Yeah, think TxDOT could cram it in there any more?

The 69 in the shield actually looks like it is 69ing! 

[silverback1065]

Those 69E shields seem awfully cluttered, like the characters are squeezed in there.

Meanwhile, I-2 has a nice 3-di sized shield all to itself!

Sorry if this is too OT, but is the TxDot norm the use of 3-di shields for 2-di routes?

They look a lot like the Hawaii interstate shields.

[NE2]

The 69 in the shield actually looks like it is 69ing! 

And the 9 is getting fisted.

[txstateends]

is the TxDot norm the use of 3-di shields for 2-di routes?

Not statewide, but at times in some places.  Before I moved from Amarillo over 20 years ago, the last batch of new BGSes installed there at that time had I-27 and I-40 shields in a 3di-width like the I-2 BGS shields above.  Most of the ones I see around DFW are more proportional and not too wide (there are at least a couple of I-45 BGS exceptions around the downtown Dallas area that are a 3di-width).  I think I've seen some I-35 shield pix from outside of DFW that have used 3di widths; not sure if those are used currently or only previously.