Austin, TX

[Thegeet]

A short length route like the TX-130 tollway does not warrant burning a 2-digit Interstate designation. A 3-digit I-x35 designation would be just fine.

Besides, if there was going to be a "I-33" route designated, the US-281 corridor going North out of San Antonio would be a better candidate. In big picture terms the US-281 corridor could emerge as a relief North-South corridor for I-35, basically a Western bypass of Austin and DFW. The route could go up to Wichita Falls and even overlap the portion of I-44 Southwest of OKC before re-connecting back to I-35 in OKC. That would be a better "I-33" and it would be an actual Interstate, going across state lines. BTW I think US-277 should be gradually upgraded between Wichita Falls and Abilene. That could turn into an eventual extension of I-44 to I-20 (or even to San Angelo to meet up with a possible extension of I-27).

Okay, but why isn't I-12 I-410, or something I-x10? I-12 in LA is even shorter, and it connects to I-10 twice.

Actually, SH 45 & SH 130 could really be considered a new I-x35 bypass loop around Austin.

About US-281, I'd prefer an extension of I-37.

[Bobby5280]

Okay, but why isn't I-12 I-410, or something I-x10? I-12 in LA is even shorter, and it connects to I-10 twice.

I-12 is a unique case. I-12 in Louisiana at least runs in a straight, direct path. It probably should have been called I-10 and what is currently I-10 bending down thru New Orleans should have been given a 3 digit I-x10 route. The treatment would be similar to how I-5 bypasses the SF Bay area rather than go through it.

Not that any of this matters. TX DOT is not big at all on designating new Interstate routes; they're perfectly happy converting state and US highways to freeways and maintaining those designations. I-69 and I-14 are exceptions driven in part by politics.

[Thegeet]

Okay, but why isn't I-12 I-410, or something I-x10? I-12 in LA is even shorter, and it connects to I-10 twice.

I-12 is a unique case. I-12 in Louisiana at least runs in a straight, direct path. It probably should have been called I-10 and what is currently I-10 bending down thru New Orleans should have been given a 3 digit I-x10 route. The treatment would be similar to how I-5 bypasses the SF Bay area rather than go through it.

Not that any of this matters. TX DOT is not big at all on designating new Interstate routes; they're perfectly happy converting state and US highways to freeways and maintaining those designations. I-69 and I-14 are exceptions driven in part by politics.

At least I-5 goes through Sacramento. I-12 doesn't go through any significant cities.

[Bobby5280]

Good grief. Look at the map. I-12 isn't meant to go through any major cities. It is a DIRECT bypass of New Orleans. I-10 has to bend well out of the way to go through New Orleans. Cross country traffic on I-10 uses I-12 to SAVE TIME and MILEAGE.

[sprjus4]

Good grief. Look at the map. I-12 isn't meant to go through any major cities. It is a DIRECT bypass of New Orleans. I-10 has to bend well out of the way to go through New Orleans. Cross country traffic on I-10 uses I-12 to SAVE TIME and MILEAGE.

That's not what he was trying to say.

He was pointing out the fact that routing I-10 over I-12 wouldn't be an exact comparison to I-5 and it bypassing San Francisco, because it still goes through another major city - Sacramento - whereas I-12 does not.

[Anthony_JK]

I-10 was designated as such to directly serve NOLA with the most prominent southern 2di.

I-12 was designated as such to serve as the principal bypass of NOLA for I-10.

Both designations are totally warranted.



Also, Baton Rouge is the state capital of Louisiana. I wouldn't quite call it "insignificant". Maybe compared to Frisco, but hardly insignificant in relative terms.

[Thegeet]

I-5 is supposed to bypass San Francisco in order to reach Sacramento.

I-10 was designated as such to directly serve NOLA with the most prominent southern 2di.

I-12 was designated as such to serve as the principal bypass of NOLA for I-10.

Both designations are totally warranted.



Also, Baton Rouge is the state capital of Louisiana. I wouldn't quite call it "insignificant". Maybe compared to Frisco, but hardly insignificant in relative terms.

Exactly. Yes. Baton Rouge is the only significant city it serves. Other than that, which is the western end, there's no other notable cities it serves.

[ethanhopkin14]

I-5 is supposed to bypass San Francisco in order to reach Sacramento.

I-10 was designated as such to directly serve NOLA with the most prominent southern 2di.

I-12 was designated as such to serve as the principal bypass of NOLA for I-10.

Both designations are totally warranted.



Also, Baton Rouge is the state capital of Louisiana. I wouldn't quite call it "insignificant". Maybe compared to Frisco, but hardly insignificant in relative terms.

Exactly. Yes. Baton Rouge is the only significant city it serves. Other than that, which is the western end, there's no other notable cities it serves.

At the western terminus which I-10 serves anyway, so I don't really consider I-12 going through Baton Rouge since you can also get there by staying on I-10.

[longhorn]

https://www.kxan.com/traffic/north-austin-traffic/nb-us-183-to-nb-i-35-flyover-to-open-friday-morning/

Another ramp opens on 183-I35 interchange.

[thisdj78]

https://www.kxan.com/traffic/north-austin-traffic/nb-us-183-to-nb-i-35-flyover-to-open-friday-morning/

Another ramp opens on 183-I35 interchange.

Now Austin has a non-stop inner-city bypass of I-35

[longhorn]

Drove to COTA this weekend from Georgetown, when did they black top tollway 130 from 71 south? How far does the black top go? Is it on 45 too? I know a different consortium owns the southern Tollway.

[longhorn]

The regroved Tollway 130 on the north side is heavenly, so quiet and smooth, till you get back to the ungroved concrete.

[TheBox]

I know they prioritized TX-71 much more than they prioritized US-290 in the past decade, but when are gonna update the US-290 @ TX-36 in Brenham intersection?

that was all apart of a freeway plan from decades ago (related to I-27), only for those plans to never happen anyway

EDIT: and yes, i'm aware this was around a time before Austin became the big developing and growing Texas metropolis is it today, cause back then (i wasn't born yet lol) it was just a college city that just so happens to be Texas' capital city

[thisdj78]

I know they prioritized TX-75 much more than they prioritized US-290 in the past decade, but when are gonna update the US-290 @ TX-36 in Brenham intersection?

that was all apart of a freeway plan from decades ago (related to I-27), only for those plans to never happen anyway

I think you meant 71.

But yes there are still plans to realign the 290 @ 36 intersection. There were schematics posted of the different alignment options several months ago somewhere on here.

[TheBox]

I know they prioritized TX-75 much more than they prioritized US-290 in the past decade, but when are gonna update the US-290 @ TX-36 in Brenham intersection?

that was all apart of a freeway plan from decades ago (related to I-27), only for those plans to never happen anyway

I think you meant 71.

But yes there are still plans to realign the 290 @ 36 intersection. There were schematics posted of the different alignment options several months ago somewhere on here.

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

If i were them i would pick either Option D or E, since those the most interstate-esque upgrades

[thisdj78]

I know they prioritized TX-75 much more than they prioritized US-290 in the past decade, but when are gonna update the US-290 @ TX-36 in Brenham intersection?

that was all apart of a freeway plan from decades ago (related to I-27), only for those plans to never happen anyway

I think you meant 71.

But yes there are still plans to realign the 290 @ 36 intersection. There were schematics posted of the different alignment options several months ago somewhere on here.

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

If i were them i would pick either Option D or E, since those the most interstate-esque upgrades

Even B would be acceptable. I don't know what they were thinking with C 👀

[Echostatic]

Definitely would go with E, D, or B (in that order.) Given budget concerns I think B is most likely to happen, though. But it's fine! It still provides continuous flow of traffic on 290.

[armadillo speedbump]

Why was the idiotic Option A even included?  Expensive, disruptive construction for no time improvement or worse, since it adds an extra light to 290 movement.

[CoolAngrybirdsrio4]

Okay, but why isn't I-12 I-410, or something I-x10? I-12 in LA is even shorter, and it connects to I-10 twice.

I-12 is a unique case. I-12 in Louisiana at least runs in a straight, direct path. It probably should have been called I-10 and what is currently I-10 bending down thru New Orleans should have been given a 3 digit I-x10 route. The treatment would be similar to how I-5 bypasses the SF Bay area rather than go through it.

Not that any of this matters. TX DOT is not big at all on designating new Interstate routes; they're perfectly happy converting state and US highways to freeways and maintaining those designations. I-69 and I-14 are exceptions driven in part by politics.

At least I-5 goes through Sacramento. I-12 doesn't go through any significant cities.

It does go through a few midsize cities such as Hammond, and it is a bypass of New Orleans.

[longhorn]

TxDOT plans to fix "˜dip' on new NB US 183 flyover at NB I-35

https://www.kxan.com/traffic/txdot-plans-to-fix-dip-on-new-nb-us-183-flyover-at-nb-i-35/

[texaskdog]

TxDOT plans to fix ‘dip’ on new NB US 183 flyover at NB I-35

https://www.kxan.com/traffic/txdot-plans-to-fix-dip-on-new-nb-us-183-flyover-at-nb-i-35/

It was ridiculous to build with only one lane.

[TheBox]

Again, i know they prioritized TX-71 over US-290 so much for the past decade that they they're almost down with it making it a expressway (from I-10 in Columbus to Austin).

I just still wish they at least do some work around US-290 between Houston and Austin (like a freeway with overpasses in Manor and Elgin, the Giddings bypass, and the Brenham realignment, or at the very least the latter two suggestions) sooner than later.

but Texas has other plans, like I-69 and eventually I-27

[Bobby5280]

The Austin-San Antonio metro is growing fast enough TX DOT will be forced to upgrade more and more segments of both TX-71 and US-290 to Interstate quality until both are 100% limited access. They'll also have to improve the San Marcos-Luling and New Braunfels-Seguin corridors.

If TX DOT re-builds the US-290/TX-36 interchange in Brenham as a DDI they'll have to come back later and build a separate freeway spur off the existing US-290 bypass around Brenham. It's inevitable US-290 will need to be Interstate quality between Hempstead and Brenham. Then the upgrades will have to proceed farther West toward Giddings. Likewise, US-290 will have to get upgraded thru Manor, Elgin and farther East.

TX-71 needs a bunch of work. Near term, it needs to be Interstate quality from the TX-130 intersection down to Bastrop. Some TX DOT projects in the works will accomplish some of that. Farther Southeast any highway upgrades should be easier.

As for the I-69 and I-27 projects, parts of those will be in danger delayed indefinitely. There is much more of a push happening for I-69 since several segments are in progress. The only things new potentially related to I-27 are the loops around Amarillo and Big Spring.

[kernals12]

Don't forget I-14

[Bobby5280]

The Killeen/Fort Hood area is a different metro than Austin. I-14 does nothing to help move traffic in the Austin metro.