Print

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

[CoreySamson]

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.

My I-12 thread I posted about earlier in this thread does have a 10/12 concurrency, however, the concurrency goes from Baton Rouge to Beaumont, where I-12 splits off onto the TX-105 corridor, effectively turning 12 into a Houston bypass.

[Bobby5280]

There isn't any need for an I-10/I-12 concurrency. I think it would look pretty silly on a map to have I-10 and I-12 signed on the same road for roughly 180 miles from Beaumont to Baton Rouge for I-12 to only exist another 85 miles before ending in Slidell.

Another (long shot) alternative: upgrading US-190 to Interstate standards from Baton Rouge to Ragley and then LA-12/TX-12 down back to I-10 in Vidor, TX (just East of Beaumont). That would create a pair of short I-10/I-12 concurrences, one in Baton Rouge and one in Beaumont.

There might be value in an extended I-12 route across Southern Louisiana to the North of I-10. It might help serve as an alternate route in case of hurricanes. Plus those really long I-10 bridges over those swamps are going to need to be replaced in the not too distant future. An extended I-12 would be a major relief route for such efforts. Unfortunately Louisiana already has its plate full with a few other Interstate projects, I-49 being the main one, I-69 being a lower priority and I-14 being another long shot prospect. It looks like Louisiana's plans for the US-190 corridor from Baton Rouge thru Opelousas are no better than a regular 4-lane divided expressway with at grade crossings.

[sparker]

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

Given the proclivity toward suffixed numbers back in 1957, I'm just surprised that what's now I-12 wasn't originally designated I-10N as part of a split I-10N/I-10S, with the former addressing cross-country traffic and the latter serving N.O.  But in 1980 it would likely have been renumbered as it is today when suffixes were no longer considered generally acceptable (except, as later demonstrated, by Congressional decree!). 

[Echostatic]

Refocusing to an actual project in Austin, the Mopac Intersections Project should wrap up tomorrow with the opening of the La Crosse Avenue bridge over the new Mopac mainlanes. This will finally make Mopac a freeway for its entire length, as La Crosse Avenue is currently the last light on the highway. The bridge was delayed for months after the contractors found karst formations under the original bridge pillars, so they had to fill in the caves and change the bridge's design. The project's sound walls, landscaping, and signage will still be worked on for a few months, but all new structures should be open tomorrow.

[silverback1065]

will the 45 gap in between 1 and 35 be filled any time soon?  or is there opposition?

[Echostatic]

will the 45 gap in between 1 and 35 be filled any time soon?  or is there opposition?

That's still in planning at this point but it's definitely a priority. There won't be much opposition from residents that live by 45 itself but the SOS folk will protest any highway. If I had to bet I'd say 45 in the gap will open around 2030.

[texaskdog]

will the 45 gap in between 1 and 35 be filled any time soon?  or is there opposition?

1? lol.  My roommate once called it Loop 1.   

[sprjus4]

will the 45 gap in between 1 and 35 be filled any time soon?  or is there opposition?

1? lol.  My roommate once called it Loop 1.

Texas Loop 1, MoPac Expressway.

[texaskdog]

will the 45 gap in between 1 and 35 be filled any time soon?  or is there opposition?

1? lol.  My roommate once called it Loop 1.

Texas Loop 1, MoPac Expressway.

Mopac!  Mo-park is also acceptable.

[rlb2024]

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

Given the proclivity toward suffixed numbers back in 1957, I'm just surprised that what's now I-12 wasn't originally designated I-10N as part of a split I-10N/I-10S, with the former addressing cross-country traffic and the latter serving N.O.  But in 1980 it would likely have been renumbered as it is today when suffixes were no longer considered generally acceptable (except, as later demonstrated, by Congressional decree!).

I don't believe I-10 and I-12 were initially planned to come back together on the east end of I-12 near Slidell.  If I remember right I-10 was originially going to take a slightly more southerly route along US 90, with I-59 extending southward to meet I-10 south of Lake Pontchartrain by roughly following the path of US 11.  I-12 and I-59 were to intersect north of the lake as they currently do.

[bwana39]

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

Given the proclivity toward suffixed numbers back in 1957, I'm just surprised that what's now I-12 wasn't originally designated I-10N as part of a split I-10N/I-10S, with the former addressing cross-country traffic and the latter serving N.O.  But in 1980 it would likely have been renumbered as it is today when suffixes were no longer considered generally acceptable (except, as later demonstrated, by Congressional decree!).

I don't believe I-10 and I-12 were initially planned to come back together on the east end of I-12 near Slidell.  If I remember right I-10 was originially going to take a slightly more southerly route along US 90, with I-59 extending southward to meet I-10 south of Lake Pontchartrain by roughly following the path of US 11.  I-12 and I-59 were to intersect north of the lake as they currently do.

Actually I12 and I59 were supposed to meet North of Slidell, out near Pearl River LA.  Knowing the geography of the Riggolets and Venician Isles, cannot imagine they ever thought about running a freeway out that way unless they planned on sticking it in Lake St Catherine or  Lake Borgne.

[rlb2024]

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

Given the proclivity toward suffixed numbers back in 1957, I'm just surprised that what's now I-12 wasn't originally designated I-10N as part of a split I-10N/I-10S, with the former addressing cross-country traffic and the latter serving N.O.  But in 1980 it would likely have been renumbered as it is today when suffixes were no longer considered generally acceptable (except, as later demonstrated, by Congressional decree!).

I don't believe I-10 and I-12 were initially planned to come back together on the east end of I-12 near Slidell.  If I remember right I-10 was originially going to take a slightly more southerly route along US 90, with I-59 extending southward to meet I-10 south of Lake Pontchartrain by roughly following the path of US 11.  I-12 and I-59 were to intersect north of the lake as they currently do.

Actually I12 and I59 were supposed to meet North of Slidell, out near Pearl River LA.  Knowing the geography of the Riggolets and Venician Isles, cannot imagine they ever thought about running a freeway out that way unless they planned on sticking it in Lake St Catherine or  Lake Borgne.

I can't imagine it either, but this would have been before Hurricanes Betsy, Camille, and Katrina.  The thought processes changed a lot after those storms.  Before that they may have thought about an elevated freeway like I-10 through the Atchafalaya Basin.

[BrandonC_TX]

will the 45 gap in between 1 and 35 be filled any time soon?  or is there opposition?

That's still in planning at this point but it's definitely a priority. There won't be much opposition from residents that live by 45 itself but the SOS folk will protest any highway. If I had to bet I'd say 45 in the gap will open around 2030.

Here's how I would close the gap on SH-45 between FM-1626 and I-35.  To discourage development in that area, I would have no intermediate interchanges between FM-1626 and I-35, except for access to and from FM-1327 (essentially the end of FM-1327 would default onto westbound SH-45).  The stack interchange with I-35 would have only 4 levels (rather than 5); the current WB-to-SB ramp is only the third level of the interchange (not the fourth), so a five-level stack there would require that SH-45 go under I-35 (much like the design of the interchange between I-30 and the President George Bush Turnpike in Grand Prairie, TX), unless there is a desire to rebuild that ramp entirely. 

Rather than rebuild the existing ramps, or build additional bridges for I-35 (2nd level) and its frontage roads (3rd level), it may be more economical to have the SH-45 mainlanes cross I-35 at the current location of the southern "frontage road" bridge, which looks to have empty pillars on its southern edge (presumably for U-turn lanes, as the FM-1327 bridge has them too).  Also at the point where it crosses over I-35, SH-45 would narrow to the 4-lane, median-barrier configuration currently seen between FM-1626 and Loop 1.  Where the ramps to/from I-35 merge with SH-45 on the west side of the stack, a 6-lane, median-barrier configuration could be used between I-35 and FM-1626 (with a short fourth acceleration lane where traffic from FM-1327 merges onto westbound SH-45).  Nevertheless, it would still be necessary to build new bridges over the I-35 frontage roads (which would drop to level 1 of the interchange at the SH-45 overpass, and also flare out to allow more room for the frontage roads to rise to the grade of the FM-1327 bridge north of the SH-45 overpass)

[Echostatic]

That's a very well thought out plan and probably close to what CTRMA has in mind for the long-term, especially the lack of intersections between I-35 and FM-1626. However, I think the main reason 45 won't be extended eastward in the near future isn't environmental or local opposition but the cost of building a new stack at I-35. I feel pretty certain that any connection project will include a full stack at I-35, probably not a 5-level like Ben White/I-35 but still quite a large interchange.

The intersection at FM-1626 will probably be reconfigured to a typical diamond once 45 is extended, but I guess it could be changed slightly to a SPUI. Whatever's planned for 1626 is probably the cheapest part of the project anyway so it doesn't matter much. The mainlanes will probably keep the 2-2 median barrier layout for as long as possible due to environmental impact. It is the recharge zone after all, and the existing 45SW was marketed on sustainability with a shared-use trail and PFC roadway surfacing. I don't think 45SC will be different.

I think your depiction of the 45/I-35 stack is pretty close to what the final product will be. Maybe the FM1327 connectors will be cut out for cost saving, but I think that 45 running along the south of the intersection is likely and I-35's frontage roads running level with I-35 is very likely for avoiding a 5-level stack.

[CoreySamson]

That's a very well thought out plan and probably close to what CTRMA has in mind for the long-term, especially the lack of intersections between I-35 and FM-1626. However, I think the main reason 45 won't be extended eastward in the near future isn't environmental or local opposition but the cost of building a new stack at I-35. I feel pretty certain that any connection project will include a full stack at I-35, probably not a 5-level like Ben White/I-35 but still quite a large interchange.

The intersection at FM-1626 will probably be reconfigured to a typical diamond once 45 is extended, but I guess it could be changed slightly to a SPUI. Whatever's planned for 1626 is probably the cheapest part of the project anyway so it doesn't matter much. The mainlanes will probably keep the 2-2 median barrier layout for as long as possible due to environmental impact. It is the recharge zone after all, and the existing 45SW was marketed on sustainability with a shared-use trail and PFC roadway surfacing. I don't think 45SC will be different.

I think your depiction of the 45/I-35 stack is pretty close to what the final product will be. Maybe the FM1327 connectors will be cut out for cost saving, but I think that 45 running along the south of the intersection is likely and I-35's frontage roads running level with I-35 is very likely for avoiding a 5-level stack.

Does there really need to be a stack interchange there within the next 10 years? They could simply just add feeder roads, make them intersect, and then build a bridge for 45 over the entire thing, looking something like this interchange:

https://www.google.com/maps/@29.6133881,-95.4935916,16z/data=!3m1!1e3

That would be much simpler and much more cost-efficient than building a full-blown stack. Then if they wanted to, they could build the ramps over that to complete the stack in 10-20 years or so, unless that interchange really needs a stack.

[Echostatic]

Does there really need to be a stack interchange there within the next 10 years? They could simply just add feeder roads, make them intersect, and then build a bridge for 45 over the entire thing, looking something like this interchange:

https://www.google.com/maps/@29.6133881,-95.4935916,16z/data=!3m1!1e3

That would be much simpler and much more cost-efficient than building a full-blown stack. Then if they wanted to, they could build the ramps over that to complete the stack in 10-20 years or so, unless that interchange really needs a stack.

The reason I think a stack is required at the 45/I-35 intersection has less to do with total volume and more to do with direction of traffic (but the volume is probably high enough to justify it alone.)

Traffic heading North on I-35 is coming from the suburban cities of Buda/Kyle, both of which have grown at a blistering pace in 2000s and are continuing to grow. Much of this traffic will be heading onto 45 Westbound to access The Domain and other job centers along Mopac in West Austin. Not as much will head Eastbound on 45 but that flyover already exists so it's not relevant.

Traffic heading West on SH 45 already has ramps in both directions so it's irrelevant, but there's a lot of open land along 45 in that direction that has future plans for more homes.

Traffic heading South on I-35 will be coming back from Downtown and other East Austin job clusters, and they'll want to get to their homes around Hays and North Buda which are difficult to access from existing I-35 crossings but easy to access from FM 1626 on SH 45 Westbound. Eastbound 45 will again be in lower demand but that will change with the new construction planned out East.

Traffic heading East on SH 45 will want to go home to Buda and Kyle, which would demand a SB I-35 connection. Frankly the EB 45 -> NB I-35 flyover probably isn't needed at this point but with more development spurred on by 45's extension it might eventually demand it. All the other ramps have enough existing traffic that would shift to the connected SH 45 to warrant them.

[texaskdog]

They tend to build those stub ramps then wait years to finish e.g. 183 & 35

[bwana39]

That's a very well thought out plan and probably close to what CTRMA has in mind for the long-term, especially the lack of intersections between I-35 and FM-1626. However, I think the main reason 45 won't be extended eastward in the near future isn't environmental or local opposition but the cost of building a new stack at I-35. I feel pretty certain that any connection project will include a full stack at I-35, probably not a 5-level like Ben White/I-35 but still quite a large interchange.

The intersection at FM-1626 will probably be reconfigured to a typical diamond once 45 is extended, but I guess it could be changed slightly to a SPUI. Whatever's planned for 1626 is probably the cheapest part of the project anyway so it doesn't matter much. The mainlanes will probably keep the 2-2 median barrier layout for as long as possible due to environmental impact. It is the recharge zone after all, and the existing 45SW was marketed on sustainability with a shared-use trail and PFC roadway surfacing. I don't think 45SC will be different.

I think your depiction of the 45/I-35 stack is pretty close to what the final product will be. Maybe the FM1327 connectors will be cut out for cost saving, but I think that 45 running along the south of the intersection is likely and I-35's frontage roads running level with I-35 is very likely for avoiding a 5-level stack.

Does there really need to be a stack interchange there within the next 10 years? They could simply just add feeder roads, make them intersect, and then build a bridge for 45 over the entire thing, looking something like this interchange:

https://www.google.com/maps/@29.6133881,-95.4935916,16z/data=!3m1!1e3

That would be much simpler and much more cost-efficient than building a full-blown stack. Then if they wanted to, they could build the ramps over that to complete the stack in 10-20 years or so, unless that interchange really needs a stack.

TXDOT built the simple intersection you outlined at US75 / US82 in Sherman. It is scheduled for replacement with a stack.
NETRMA did it at Loop49 and I-20 it is probably not going anywhere in the immediate future, but it is universally hated by those who go from I-20 To 49Toll.

[Echostatic]

NETRMA did it at Loop49 and I-20 it is probably not going anywhere in the immediate future, but it is universally hated by those who go from I-20 To 49Toll.

That intersection is a mess and one of the worst parts on my trips from Austin to Jackson. However the other linked interchange at US 75/US 82 seems much more efficient with the Texas U-turns and better signage but still low-capacity for 45/I-35.

[bwana39]

I started writing this as there is no need..... Then I looked at the map.  I still do not see the need for an interstate from the Austin or even Temple area to Midland Odessa.

On the other hand, It makes perfect sense to build freeway from I-10 west of Fredricksburg to Austin. Follow along US290 to Loop 99 then the North side of Loop99 to US 90. Then Build US90 out as freeway to Beaumont or perhaps go on down to I-10 near Winnie on the proposed Loop99.

It bypasses SanAntonio and most of Houston.  There needs to be some straighening on 290 that probably won't happen, but it does lessen the load on I-10 in Houston and San Antonio which particularly in Houston is severe and unavoidable without a HUGE loop around. (I-610 is nearly as congested as I-10)

Beltway 8 is congested AND dramatically out of the way. Loop 99 (when completed) from I-10 is so circumnavigous as to make a hour sitting still in gridlock preferable .

[sprjus4]

I started writing this as there is no need..... Then I looked at the map.  I still do not see the need for an interstate from the Austin or even Temple area to Midland Odessa.

On the other hand, It makes perfect sense to build freeway from I-10 west of Fredricksburg to Austin. Follow along US290 to Loop 99 then the North side of Loop99 to US 90. Then Build US90 out as freeway to Beaumont or perhaps go on down to I-10 near Winnie on the proposed Loop99.

It bypasses SanAntonio and most of Houston.  There needs to be some straighening on 290 that probably won't happen, but it does lessen the load on I-10 in Houston and San Antonio which particularly in Houston is severe and unavoidable without a HUGE loop around. (I-610 is nearly as congested as I-10)

Beltway 8 is congested AND dramatically out of the way. Loop 99 (when completed) from I-10 is so circumnavigous as to make a hour sitting still in gridlock preferable .

What you're proposing is a freeway that bypasses San Antonio and Houston, by dumping traffic through Austin, which would only make the horrific traffic problem along I-35 (which US-290 overlaps) worse.

If you want an effective bypass, a routing through Temple, which avoids Austin, San Antonio, and Houston entirely, would be the best solution.

[sparker]

I started writing this as there is no need..... Then I looked at the map.  I still do not see the need for an interstate from the Austin or even Temple area to Midland Odessa.

On the other hand, It makes perfect sense to build freeway from I-10 west of Fredricksburg to Austin. Follow along US290 to Loop 99 then the North side of Loop99 to US 90. Then Build US90 out as freeway to Beaumont or perhaps go on down to I-10 near Winnie on the proposed Loop99.

It bypasses SanAntonio and most of Houston.  There needs to be some straighening on 290 that probably won't happen, but it does lessen the load on I-10 in Houston and San Antonio which particularly in Houston is severe and unavoidable without a HUGE loop around. (I-610 is nearly as congested as I-10)

Beltway 8 is congested AND dramatically out of the way. Loop 99 (when completed) from I-10 is so circumnavigous as to make a hour sitting still in gridlock preferable .

What you're proposing is a freeway that bypasses San Antonio and Houston, by dumping traffic through Austin, which would only make the horrific traffic problem along I-35 (which US-290 overlaps) worse.

If you want an effective bypass, a routing through Temple, which avoids Austin, San Antonio, and Houston entirely, would be the best solution.

Something tells me that the rationale behind I-14 included the metro bypass notion, along with serving previously unserved but decidedly smaller metros like Bryan/College Station and San Angelo. 

[Bobby5280]

What you're proposing is a freeway that bypasses San Antonio and Houston, by dumping traffic through Austin, which would only make the horrific traffic problem along I-35 (which US-290 overlaps) worse.

First thing: the Austin area is in far greater need of an East-West Interstate highway connecting to the rest of the system (I-10 in this case) than freaking Killeen. Austin is a major destination. Killeen is not. The horrific traffic problems along I-35 in the middle of Austin were created by Austin itself when it chose to grow like crazy into a city of almost 1 million people within the city limits and over 2 million in the metro area. More and more people are moving to that region every day. Continued growth is THE thing that will make those horrific traffic problems worse. The need for improving highway corridors going in and out of Austin only grows much worse as that metro continues to grow.

Now, a completed TX-45 partial loop on the South side of Austin could help bypass long distance US-290 traffic around the middle of Austin and away from the I-35 corridor. Making long distance traffic do stupid zig-zags along the jagged, nonsensical paths proposed for I-14 won't work so well. Long distance traffic will just stick to the long established I-10 and I-20 routes.

[sprjus4]

First thing: the Austin area is in far greater need of an East-West Interstate highway connecting to the rest of the system (I-10 in this case) than freaking Killeen. Austin is a major destination. Killeen is not. The horrific traffic problems along I-35 in the middle of Austin were created by Austin itself when it chose to grow like crazy into a city of almost 1 million people within the city limits and over 2 million in the metro area. More and more people are moving to that region every day. Continued growth is THE thing that will make those horrific traffic problems worse. The need for improving highway corridors going in and out of Austin only grows much worse as that metro continues to grow.

I'd argue improving the western connection - US-290 - to I-10 West - is a greater need than US-290 or TX-71 to the east.

Now, a completed TX-45 partial loop on the South side of Austin could help bypass long distance US-290 traffic around the middle of Austin and away from the I-35 corridor. Making long distance traffic do stupid zig-zags along the jagged, nonsensical paths proposed for I-14 won't work so well. Long distance traffic will just stick to the long established I-10 and I-20 routes.

I-14 isn't a "jagged" route as refuted umpteenth times.

[bwana39]

I started writing this as there is no need..... Then I looked at the map.  I still do not see the need for an interstate from the Austin or even Temple area to Midland Odessa.

On the other hand, It makes perfect sense to build freeway from I-10 west of Fredricksburg to Austin. Follow along US290 to Loop 99 then the North side of Loop99 to US 90. Then Build US90 out as freeway to Beaumont or perhaps go on down to I-10 near Winnie on the proposed Loop99.

It bypasses SanAntonio and most of Houston.  There needs to be some straighening on 290 that probably won't happen, but it does lessen the load on I-10 in Houston and San Antonio which particularly in Houston is severe and unavoidable without a HUGE loop around. (I-610 is nearly as congested as I-10)

Beltway 8 is congested AND dramatically out of the way. Loop 99 (when completed) from I-10 is so circumnavigous as to make a hour sitting still in gridlock preferable .

What you're proposing is a freeway that bypasses San Antonio and Houston, by dumping traffic through Austin, which would only make the horrific traffic problem along I-35 (which US-290 overlaps) worse.

If you want an effective bypass, a routing through Temple, which avoids Austin, San Antonio, and Houston entirely, would be the best solution.

Something tells me that the rationale behind I-14 included the metro bypass notion, along with serving previously unserved but decidedly smaller metros like Bryan/College Station and San Angelo.

I-14 is just a BRACC point. While you will hear ongoing discussions of expanding it, it is just that: discussion.  There is no real appetite for a cross country interstate especially one that totally misses the major cities. Oil travels by pipeline. Not highway. Copperas cove to Midland then to wherever is a lot of extra lane-miles. And doesn't change much. It still links El Paso and points west to the deep south just like I-10

I69 works because 1) congress mandated and funded it (with local matching). 2) It goes from Mexico and the Texas Gulf ports to the upper midwest. 3) US-59 was already a very busy corridor in spite of its journeys through Corrigan, Diboll, and Atlanta.