Interstate 2

[seicer]

Wouldn't this be more typical of an interstate or limited-access highway in other states?

[sprjus4]

^ Yes. It does not seem like the new location route would include frontage roads, but the project page specifically indicates future overpass locations. It would be upgradable to a traditional four lane limited access freeway.

[sparker]

Not to mention, the whole Laredo extension, is fictional at best. I've never seen any official plans to build it all the way. Not saying it's a bad idea, but it's fictional despite being treated as official by many roadgeeks.

Actually, a FONSI was issued on July 1 for a long extension from Rio Grande City to Roma Creek. I'm glad to see that the alignment is straight and direct, without the twists and turns that TxDOT likes to include in most new alignments.

https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/pharr/043021.html

Map
https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/phr/sl-195/070121-project-location-map.pdf

However, this extension is designated as SH 195 and is planned as a 4-lane divided highway on a 300-foot-wide right-of-way, except at intersections where the right-of-way is wider. The typical section view shown in the environmental document has a 124-foot-wide median, so that leaves only 50 feet between the outer edge (right side) of the pavement and the edge of the right of way. I suppose frontage roads could be squeezed into that space, but it seems like the design is not intended to be upgraded to limited access in the future.

At a total 300-foot width, what is planned is similar to what's along much of the US 281 corridor that will eventually be I-69C.  First to be built will be a pair of carriageways that'll eventually serve as the frontage road; the actual freeway will be built at a later time down the median; there's enough room for a 6-lane freeway (likely 4 lanes at first) with a median barrier and Interstate-grade shoulder widths, flanked on each side by the 2-lane frontage road that'll be the initial construction phase.  This is typical Texas process -- secure the ROW, build something that'll work in the interim for both through and local traffic, and construct the final freeway lanes, grade separations, and interchanges when funding permits. 

[bwana39]

^ Yes. It does not seem like the new location route would include frontage roads, but the project page specifically indicates future overpass locations. It would be upgradable to a traditional four lane limited access freeway.

Few are the freeways in Texas without through frontage roads.

[Bobby5280]

Looks like I-2 will now end just east of Sullivan City when done.

Yep. I don't think it should be too difficult to upgrade existing US-83 into I-2 thru Sullivan City. It would be a tight squeeze, but it appears there is just barely enough ROW in place to build a 4-lane facility closely flanked by frontage roads.

The prospects get easier going farther West. I think I-2 could go as far as the Eastern edge of La Puerta before having to veer off on a new terrain alignment. That's just short of the Las Lomas and Rio Grande City area. I-2 will have to bypass that and the cluster of other towns along that stretch such as Escobares and Roma.

Not to mention, the whole Laredo extension, is fictional at best. I've never seen any official plans to build it all the way. Not saying it's a bad idea, but it's fictional despite being treated as official by many roadgeeks.

The exit numbers on I-2 suggest an eventual extension to Laredo.

However, this extension is designated as SH 195 and is planned as a 4-lane divided highway on a 300-foot-wide right-of-way, except at intersections where the right-of-way is wider. The typical section view shown in the environmental document has a 124-foot-wide median, so that leaves only 50 feet between the outer edge (right side) of the pavement and the edge of the right of way. I suppose frontage roads could be squeezed into that space, but it seems like the design is not intended to be upgraded to limited access in the future.

A 124 wide median between the two roadways? That seems like enough space to fit a 4-lane freeway. 80 feet is the bare minimum for four 12' travel lanes, two 10' outer shoulders and two 6' inner shoulders. I thnk one of the key questions is how much ROW will be preserved outside the original roadway. If there is ample space preserved the first roadways could be altered at exit points to make room for slip ramps.

It's also possible they could build this as a roadway that could be upgraded into a freeway without continuous frontage roads.

The TX-195 designation appears to make sense. This section of road could be built ahead of the bypass around La Puerta and Las Lomas.

[Thegeet]

^ Yes. It does not seem like the new location route would include frontage roads, but the project page specifically indicates future overpass locations. It would be upgradable to a traditional four lane limited access freeway.

Few are the freeways in Texas without through frontage roads.

I mean, it's not like Interstate Highways are required to include frontage roads.

[bwana39]

^ Yes. It does not seem like the new location route would include frontage roads, but the project page specifically indicates future overpass locations. It would be upgradable to a traditional four lane limited access freeway.

Few are the freeways in Texas without through frontage roads.

I mean, it's not like Interstate Highways are required to include frontage roads.

Texas property law makes it difficult to not build them especially along the R.O.W. of a formerly not controlled access roadway.  They may not have to be through service roads, but access to every property has to be maintained. It is easier as a whole to just build them.

[achilles765]

^ Yes. It does not seem like the new location route would include frontage roads, but the project page specifically indicates future overpass locations. It would be upgradable to a traditional four lane limited access freeway.

Few are the freeways in Texas without through frontage roads.

I mean, it's not like Interstate Highways are required to include frontage roads.

Texas property law makes it difficult to not build them especially along the R.O.W. of a formerly not controlled access roadway.  They may not have to be through service roads, but access to every property has to be maintained. It is easier as a whole to just build them.

I've seen very few spots where there aren't feeder roads. Usually it's in very very rural areas, or when the freeway runs through downtown. Occasionally if there is a parallel city street nearby they may not have feeders. Like here in Houston almost none of SH 288 has frontage roads, but Almeda road is only a block away.
But aside from downtowns, all the interstates I've ever driven on have frontage roads except in very very rural areas like between San Antonio and Corpus Christi

[Thegeet]

^ Yes. It does not seem like the new location route would include frontage roads, but the project page specifically indicates future overpass locations. It would be upgradable to a traditional four lane limited access freeway.

Few are the freeways in Texas without through frontage roads.

I mean, it's not like Interstate Highways are required to include frontage roads.

Texas property law makes it difficult to not build them especially along the R.O.W. of a formerly not controlled access roadway.  They may not have to be through service roads, but access to every property has to be maintained. It is easier as a whole to just build them.

Ah, that explains the frontage road project for US 59 in Victoria (87 to 185).

So even if it's something like a simple house on one side of the highway?

[sprjus4]

SH-99 doesn't have frontage roads in a lot of areas, same with SH-130. It's not always a thing.

[Anthony_JK]

SH-99 doesn't have frontage roads in a lot of areas, same with SH-130. It's not always a thing.

Because both are tollways, not publicly financed, and they don't use preexisting ROW.

Also, the portions of TOLL 130 contingent with US 181 does use a feeder road system for local US 181 access.

[sprjus4]

^ I was referring to the new location segments of each route. And it's exactly my point. This new US-83 alignment would be a new location highway, which would not use pre-existing right of way. So those issues you mentioned would not be in the way.

[yakra]

However, this extension is designated as SH 195 and is planned as a 4-lane divided highway on a 300-foot-wide right-of-way, except at intersections where the right-of-way is wider. The typical section view shown in the environmental document has a 124-foot-wide median, so that leaves only 50 feet between the outer edge (right side) of the pavement and the edge of the right of way. I suppose frontage roads could be squeezed into that space, but it seems like the design is not intended to be upgraded to limited access in the future.

The TX-195 designation appears to make sense. This section of road could be built ahead of the bypass around La Puerta and Las Lomas.

Not SH 195, but SL 195.

Minute Order 113706, dated 09/26/2013; DesLtr 3-2013, dated 02/18/2014
From US 83 at Loma Blanca Road to FM 755 northeast of Rio Grande City, a distance of approximately 17.4 miles. (Starr County) NEW DESIGNATION.

Odd thing is, there's already SS 195 in Collin County, though SL 195 in RGV was designated a few months before. (A case of the left hand not knowing what the right is doing?)
SL/SS are considered one system by TXDOT. The only existing instances of a loop & spur having the same number, they come as a package deal, intersecting each other:
- SL & SS 19
- SL & SS 108
Be interesting to see what TXDOT does to resolve this, if anything. Will 195 be the first case of an unrelated loop & spur sharing the same number?

[The Ghostbuster]

Couldn't this new roadway be signed as a relocated US 83, with existing 83 becoming Business 83?

[edwaleni]

Couldn't this new roadway be signed as a relocated US 83, with existing 83 becoming Business 83?

You think this would be the case but TxDOT has gotten interstate drunk it seems. 69 E, C and W, now I-2? Talk of extending I-27?

US-287 from Dallas To Amarillo today has more reason to be an I-route as far as Wichita Falls, but it isn't.

NAFTA/USMCA traffic is reportedly driving this I-route boom and it shows no sign of abating. It's all about federal funding.

[Bobby5280]

Texas is a big enough state, with a big enough (and rapidly growing) population, to warrant the Interstate upgrades. "Interstate drunk" would be North Carolina.

Even if every legit potential Interstate corridor was built-out in Texas the overall density of super highways would still be considerably more spaced out and less dense than the super highways in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states. Texas is attracting people in droves from those regions.

The cluster of cities in the Rio Grande Valley add up to over 1 million people. That's not counting the other town clusters farther West like Rio Grande City, Las Lomas and Roma. Brownsville is an important port city. The Laredo area has over 250,000 residents and (I think) is the busiest "inland port city" along the US/Mexico border. I see no issue at all in fully fleshing out I-2 from Laredo to Brownsville.

When the I-69E, I-69C and I-69W branches were first announced for South Texas I initially thought that was a bit much. The "E" and "W" routes made sense, but "C" seemed like overkill. Then I looked up how many people live in the far South end of Texas and I was pretty shocked. Now I believe all three legs are justified. Considering the growth in the Austin and San Antonio areas, upgrades of the US-281 corridor are 100% valid. That includes the "C" leg of I-69. And over the long term US-281 going North out of San Antonio could turn into a relief route for I-35 to bypass Austin and DFW.

An I-27 extension Southward from Lubbock is justifiable. The Ports to Plains Corridor has been in the works a long time.

I agree 100% about US-287 between Fort Worth and Amarillo being overlooked. That needs to be an Interstate. Chances are good US-287 will be fully Interstate quality from the I-45 split in Ennis up to the TX-114 split in Rhome. Getting it upgraded to Decatur (and thru Decatur) could be difficult. But it needs to be done. The stretch between Decatur and Alvord is a tight squeeze. NW of Alvord the upgrades get easy.

But, yeah, it's all about the funding. And Texas has so much growth happening in so many areas that it is resulting in many corridors being over-burdened and in need of upgrades. Just like US-287 needs upgrades, so does the TX-199 corridor nearby. They could turn that into a freeway or toll road clear to Jacksboro. US-82 and US-380 to the North of DFW badly need upgrades. The list goes on and on.

[edwaleni]

Texas is a big enough state, with a big enough (and rapidly growing) population, to warrant the Interstate upgrades. "Interstate drunk" would be North Carolina.

Even if every legit potential Interstate corridor was built-out in Texas the overall density of super highways would still be considerably more spaced out and less dense than the super highways in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states. Texas is attracting people in droves from those regions.

The cluster of cities in the Rio Grande Valley add up to over 1 million people. That's not counting the other town clusters farther West like Rio Grande City, Las Lomas and Roma. Brownsville is an important port city. The Laredo area has over 250,000 residents and (I think) is the busiest "inland port city" along the US/Mexico border. I see no issue at all in fully fleshing out I-2 from Laredo to Brownsville.

When the I-69E, I-69C and I-69W branches were first announced for South Texas I initially thought that was a bit much. The "E" and "W" routes made sense, but "C" seemed like overkill. Then I looked up how many people live in the far South end of Texas and I was pretty shocked. Now I believe all three legs are justified. Considering the growth in the Austin and San Antonio areas, upgrades of the US-281 corridor are 100% valid. That includes the "C" leg of I-69. And over the long term US-281 going North out of San Antonio could turn into a relief route for I-35 to bypass Austin and DFW.

An I-27 extension Southward from Lubbock is justifiable. The Ports to Plains Corridor has been in the works a long time.

I agree 100% about US-287 between Fort Worth and Amarillo being overlooked. That needs to be an Interstate. Chances are good US-287 will be fully Interstate quality from the I-45 split in Ennis up to the TX-114 split in Rhome. Getting it upgraded to Decatur (and thru Decatur) could be difficult. But it needs to be done. The stretch between Decatur and Alvord is a tight squeeze. NW of Alvord the upgrades get easy.

But, yeah, it's all about the funding. And Texas has so much growth happening in so many areas that it is resulting in many corridors being over-burdened and in need of upgrades. Just like US-287 needs upgrades, so does the TX-199 corridor nearby. They could turn that into a freeway or toll road clear to Jacksboro. US-82 and US-380 to the North of DFW badly need upgrades. The list goes on and on.

Don't disagree with your assessment. I think the original question was why use an I-name for these routes? There are a lot of 4 lane interstate grade routes in Texas without I-names, why does Brownsville to Laredo need one vs simply US-83? I think you answered it well, but it seems these days in the US a road isn't "legit" unless it has a I-name on it.

[Thegeet]

Texas is a big enough state, with a big enough (and rapidly growing) population, to warrant the Interstate upgrades. "Interstate drunk" would be North Carolina.

Even if every legit potential Interstate corridor was built-out in Texas the overall density of super highways would still be considerably more spaced out and less dense than the super highways in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states. Texas is attracting people in droves from those regions.

The cluster of cities in the Rio Grande Valley add up to over 1 million people. That's not counting the other town clusters farther West like Rio Grande City, Las Lomas and Roma. Brownsville is an important port city. The Laredo area has over 250,000 residents and (I think) is the busiest "inland port city" along the US/Mexico border. I see no issue at all in fully fleshing out I-2 from Laredo to Brownsville.

When the I-69E, I-69C and I-69W branches were first announced for South Texas I initially thought that was a bit much. The "E" and "W" routes made sense, but "C" seemed like overkill. Then I looked up how many people live in the far South end of Texas and I was pretty shocked. Now I believe all three legs are justified. Considering the growth in the Austin and San Antonio areas, upgrades of the US-281 corridor are 100% valid. That includes the "C" leg of I-69. And over the long term US-281 going North out of San Antonio could turn into a relief route for I-35 to bypass Austin and DFW.

An I-27 extension Southward from Lubbock is justifiable. The Ports to Plains Corridor has been in the works a long time.

I agree 100% about US-287 between Fort Worth and Amarillo being overlooked. That needs to be an Interstate. Chances are good US-287 will be fully Interstate quality from the I-45 split in Ennis up to the TX-114 split in Rhome. Getting it upgraded to Decatur (and thru Decatur) could be difficult. But it needs to be done. The stretch between Decatur and Alvord is a tight squeeze. NW of Alvord the upgrades get easy.

But, yeah, it's all about the funding. And Texas has so much growth happening in so many areas that it is resulting in many corridors being over-burdened and in need of upgrades. Just like US-287 needs upgrades, so does the TX-199 corridor nearby. They could turn that into a freeway or toll road clear to Jacksboro. US-82 and US-380 to the North of DFW badly need upgrades. The list goes on and on.

Don't disagree with your assessment. I think the original question was why use an I-name for these routes? There are a lot of 4 lane interstate grade routes in Texas without I-names, why does Brownsville to Laredo need one vs simply US-83? I think you answered it well, but it seems these days in the US a road isn't "legit" unless it has a I-name on it.

Exactly. Interstate highways have ousted the U.S. highways in terms of popularity and desire. People would rather travel continuously (without stop) and safely than have to settle for potentially constant red lights and possible traffic congestion. And although it's not always the case for U.S. highways, people have associated Interstate highways as superior, and more reliable, than U.S. highways, due to the strict standards of Interstate highways.

[bwana39]

Texas is a big enough state, with a big enough (and rapidly growing) population, to warrant the Interstate upgrades. "Interstate drunk" would be North Carolina.

Even if every legit potential Interstate corridor was built-out in Texas the overall density of super highways would still be considerably more spaced out and less dense than the super highways in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states. Texas is attracting people in droves from those regions.

The cluster of cities in the Rio Grande Valley add up to over 1 million people. That's not counting the other town clusters farther West like Rio Grande City, Las Lomas and Roma. Brownsville is an important port city. The Laredo area has over 250,000 residents and (I think) is the busiest "inland port city" along the US/Mexico border. I see no issue at all in fully fleshing out I-2 from Laredo to Brownsville.

When the I-69E, I-69C and I-69W branches were first announced for South Texas I initially thought that was a bit much. The "E" and "W" routes made sense, but "C" seemed like overkill. Then I looked up how many people live in the far South end of Texas and I was pretty shocked. Now I believe all three legs are justified. Considering the growth in the Austin and San Antonio areas, upgrades of the US-281 corridor are 100% valid. That includes the "C" leg of I-69. And over the long term US-281 going North out of San Antonio could turn into a relief route for I-35 to bypass Austin and DFW.

An I-27 extension Southward from Lubbock is justifiable. The Ports to Plains Corridor has been in the works a long time.

I agree 100% about US-287 between Fort Worth and Amarillo being overlooked. That needs to be an Interstate. Chances are good US-287 will be fully Interstate quality from the I-45 split in Ennis up to the TX-114 split in Rhome. Getting it upgraded to Decatur (and thru Decatur) could be difficult. But it needs to be done. The stretch between Decatur and Alvord is a tight squeeze. NW of Alvord the upgrades get easy.

But, yeah, it's all about the funding. And Texas has so much growth happening in so many areas that it is resulting in many corridors being over-burdened and in need of upgrades. Just like US-287 needs upgrades, so does the TX-199 corridor nearby. They could turn that into a freeway or toll road clear to Jacksboro. US-82 and US-380 to the North of DFW badly need upgrades. The list goes on and on.

Don't disagree with your assessment. I think the original question was why use an I-name for these routes? There are a lot of 4 lane interstate grade routes in Texas without I-names, why does Brownsville to Laredo need one vs simply US-83? I think you answered it well, but it seems these days in the US a road isn't "legit" unless it has a I-name on it.

Exactly. Interstate highways have ousted the U.S. highways in terms of popularity and desire. People would rather travel continuously (without stop) and safely than have to settle for potentially constant red lights and possible traffic congestion. And although it's not always the case for U.S. highways, people have associated Interstate highways as superior, and more reliable, than U.S. highways, due to the strict standards of Interstate highways.

As a whole, Texas has chosen (outside the I-69 corridor(s) and I-14) to not use Interstate labels.  There is reduced expense in building and maintaining non-interstate freeways when the differences are minimal to none especially to those who are not engineers or rules followers. I-69 was mandated by the US Congress, as I have said elsewhere; even down to the inane numbering scheme.
I-14 seemingly was done to say Fort Hood is on an Interstate.  As to the I-27 corridor, It will see upgrades but may NEVER extend as an Interstate, Likewise with US-287.

While I agree there is seemingly uncertainty when a non-interstate is (or is not) freeway or at least high speed expressway (in Texas that generally means 4-lane divided highway WITH crossovers and grade separations at MAJOR intersections.)  There is a far greater upgrade from 2-lane to 4-lane divided than from 4-lane divided to full freeway.

[ethanhopkin14]

Texas is a big enough state, with a big enough (and rapidly growing) population, to warrant the Interstate upgrades. "Interstate drunk" would be North Carolina.

Even if every legit potential Interstate corridor was built-out in Texas the overall density of super highways would still be considerably more spaced out and less dense than the super highways in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states. Texas is attracting people in droves from those regions.

The cluster of cities in the Rio Grande Valley add up to over 1 million people. That's not counting the other town clusters farther West like Rio Grande City, Las Lomas and Roma. Brownsville is an important port city. The Laredo area has over 250,000 residents and (I think) is the busiest "inland port city" along the US/Mexico border. I see no issue at all in fully fleshing out I-2 from Laredo to Brownsville.

When the I-69E, I-69C and I-69W branches were first announced for South Texas I initially thought that was a bit much. The "E" and "W" routes made sense, but "C" seemed like overkill. Then I looked up how many people live in the far South end of Texas and I was pretty shocked. Now I believe all three legs are justified. Considering the growth in the Austin and San Antonio areas, upgrades of the US-281 corridor are 100% valid. That includes the "C" leg of I-69. And over the long term US-281 going North out of San Antonio could turn into a relief route for I-35 to bypass Austin and DFW.

An I-27 extension Southward from Lubbock is justifiable. The Ports to Plains Corridor has been in the works a long time.

I agree 100% about US-287 between Fort Worth and Amarillo being overlooked. That needs to be an Interstate. Chances are good US-287 will be fully Interstate quality from the I-45 split in Ennis up to the TX-114 split in Rhome. Getting it upgraded to Decatur (and thru Decatur) could be difficult. But it needs to be done. The stretch between Decatur and Alvord is a tight squeeze. NW of Alvord the upgrades get easy.

But, yeah, it's all about the funding. And Texas has so much growth happening in so many areas that it is resulting in many corridors being over-burdened and in need of upgrades. Just like US-287 needs upgrades, so does the TX-199 corridor nearby. They could turn that into a freeway or toll road clear to Jacksboro. US-82 and US-380 to the North of DFW badly need upgrades. The list goes on and on.

Don't forget the I-44 extension from Wichita Falls to Abilene. 

[sprjus4]

^ I'm more skeptical to if this will ever happen. The traffic volumes on that corridor are extremely low and it's already built out as a four lane divided highway with town bypasses, with two exceptions - east of Holliday and Anson. Once those towns get bypassed, given the corridor is already high quality with low demand, I can't see much more happening to it. The idea of tying I-44 to I-20 is a good one from a national standpoint, but from the state's perspective, it's of very low priority.

Something like US-287 has more importance, carries higher traffic volumes, and has more merit.

[ethanhopkin14]

^ I'm more skeptical to if this will ever happen. The traffic volumes on that corridor are extremely low and it's already built out as a four lane divided highway with town bypasses, with two exceptions - east of Holliday and Anson. Once those towns get bypassed, given the corridor is already high quality with low demand, I can't see much more happening to it. The idea of tying I-44 to I-20 is a good one from a national standpoint, but from the state's perspective, it's of very low priority.

Something like US-287 has more importance, carries higher traffic volumes, and has more merit.

Agreed.  I still want it done.

[Bobby5280]

Don't disagree with your assessment. I think the original question was why use an I-name for these routes? There are a lot of 4 lane interstate grade routes in Texas without I-names, why does Brownsville to Laredo need one vs simply US-83? I think you answered it well, but it seems these days in the US a road isn't "legit" unless it has a I-name on it.

It's all in the "branding" of the Interstate highway system. The Interstate system has links to almost every major metro area in the mainland 48 states. The Rio Grande Valley is likely the most populated MSA to not have any super highway connections linking into the Interstate system.

For the longest time I had the opinion I-37 should be extended down to Brownsville. I was a little surprised by the I-2 and I-69 developments, which mostly involved re-naming existing freeways in the Rio Grande Valley. The sheer size of the Rio Grande Valley metro makes it strange that it wasn't already connected to the Interstate system.

Some other corridors in Texas may get upgraded to Interstate quality without getting an Interstate designation. US-82 and US-380 to the North of DFW could fall in that camp. That also goes for US-290 and TX-71 between Houston and Austin.

The I-27 corridor is a pretty long way West of the Texas Triangle. Amarillo, Lubbock, Midland-Odessa, Big Spring and San Angelo aren't small towns. There is a lot of commercial vehicle traffic out there related to the oil industry and agri-business. The combination of that, commerce along the Tex-Mex border and growth along the Front Range of the Rockies is why the Ports to Plains Corridor is needed. At least from Lubbock down to Laredo an I-27 extension is justifiable. North of Amarillo is a tougher sell. An I-27 extension to Dumas where the P2P splits is certainly worthwhile. Upgrades farther North would have to be phased in over a long period of time.

Don't forget the I-44 extension from Wichita Falls to Abilene.

Hell, I want I-44 extended to San Angelo to meet an extension of I-27.

The current traffic counts along US-277 between Wichita Falls and Abilene aren't great. I think one reason for that is both commercial and personal vehicle traffic gravitates to Interstate corridors. They do so for various reasons. Traffic on US-277 heading to destinations far West won't all take the same route. Some may go to Abilene to pick up I-20 and then I-10. Others may leave US-277 at Seymour to take US-82 to Lubbock and then go thru Roswell, Alamogordo and Las Cruces to get to I-10.

The nice thing about US-277 is that it is (for the most part) easy to upgrade to Interstate quality, thanks to the limited access or near-limited access bypasses built along the way. Unfortunately the folks in Wichita Falls are doing a good job to gum up this corridor's upgrade potential. The gap between Kell Freeway and the Holliday bypass is going to be no more than a 5-lane street. Plans to build a freeway to span the gap have been scrapped for now.

[Thegeet]

Texas is a big enough state, with a big enough (and rapidly growing) population, to warrant the Interstate upgrades. "Interstate drunk" would be North Carolina.

Even if every legit potential Interstate corridor was built-out in Texas the overall density of super highways would still be considerably more spaced out and less dense than the super highways in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states. Texas is attracting people in droves from those regions.

The cluster of cities in the Rio Grande Valley add up to over 1 million people. That's not counting the other town clusters farther West like Rio Grande City, Las Lomas and Roma. Brownsville is an important port city. The Laredo area has over 250,000 residents and (I think) is the busiest "inland port city" along the US/Mexico border. I see no issue at all in fully fleshing out I-2 from Laredo to Brownsville.

When the I-69E, I-69C and I-69W branches were first announced for South Texas I initially thought that was a bit much. The "E" and "W" routes made sense, but "C" seemed like overkill. Then I looked up how many people live in the far South end of Texas and I was pretty shocked. Now I believe all three legs are justified. Considering the growth in the Austin and San Antonio areas, upgrades of the US-281 corridor are 100% valid. That includes the "C" leg of I-69. And over the long term US-281 going North out of San Antonio could turn into a relief route for I-35 to bypass Austin and DFW.

An I-27 extension Southward from Lubbock is justifiable. The Ports to Plains Corridor has been in the works a long time.

I agree 100% about US-287 between Fort Worth and Amarillo being overlooked. That needs to be an Interstate. Chances are good US-287 will be fully Interstate quality from the I-45 split in Ennis up to the TX-114 split in Rhome. Getting it upgraded to Decatur (and thru Decatur) could be difficult. But it needs to be done. The stretch between Decatur and Alvord is a tight squeeze. NW of Alvord the upgrades get easy.

But, yeah, it's all about the funding. And Texas has so much growth happening in so many areas that it is resulting in many corridors being over-burdened and in need of upgrades. Just like US-287 needs upgrades, so does the TX-199 corridor nearby. They could turn that into a freeway or toll road clear to Jacksboro. US-82 and US-380 to the North of DFW badly need upgrades. The list goes on and on.

Don't disagree with your assessment. I think the original question was why use an I-name for these routes? There are a lot of 4 lane interstate grade routes in Texas without I-names, why does Brownsville to Laredo need one vs simply US-83? I think you answered it well, but it seems these days in the US a road isn't "legit" unless it has a I-name on it.

Exactly. Interstate highways have ousted the U.S. highways in terms of popularity and desire. People would rather travel continuously (without stop) and safely than have to settle for potentially constant red lights and possible traffic congestion. And although it's not always the case for U.S. highways, people have associated Interstate highways as superior, and more reliable, than U.S. highways, due to the strict standards of Interstate highways.

As a whole, Texas has chosen (outside the I-69 corridor(s) and I-14) to not use Interstate labels.  There is reduced expense in building and maintaining non-interstate freeways when the differences are minimal to none especially to those who are not engineers or rules followers. I-69 was mandated by the US Congress, as I have said elsewhere; even down to the inane numbering scheme.
I-14 seemingly was done to say Fort Hood is on an Interstate.  As to the I-27 corridor, It will see upgrades but may NEVER extend as an Interstate, Likewise with US-287.

While I agree there is seemingly uncertainty when a non-interstate is (or is not) freeway or at least high speed expressway (in Texas that generally means 4-lane divided highway WITH crossovers and grade separations at MAJOR intersections.)  There is a far greater upgrade from 2-lane to 4-lane divided than from 4-lane divided to full freeway.

Wasn't there a rumor that I-27 would pass through Lamesa, San Angelo, and Eagle Pass, and end at Laredo? Which sounds fabricated, but it's something worth watching.

Don't disagree with your assessment. I think the original question was why use an I-name for these routes? There are a lot of 4 lane interstate grade routes in Texas without I-names, why does Brownsville to Laredo need one vs simply US-83? I think you answered it well, but it seems these days in the US a road isn't "legit" unless it has a I-name on it.

It's all in the "branding" of the Interstate highway system. The Interstate system has links to almost every major metro area in the mainland 48 states. The Rio Grande Valley is likely the most populated MSA to not have any super highway connections linking into the Interstate system.

For the longest time I had the opinion I-37 should be extended down to Brownsville. I was a little surprised by the I-2 and I-69 developments, which mostly involved re-naming existing freeways in the Rio Grande Valley. The sheer size of the Rio Grande Valley metro makes it strange that it wasn't already connected to the Interstate system.

Some other corridors in Texas may get upgraded to Interstate quality without getting an Interstate designation. US-82 and US-380 to the North of DFW could fall in that camp. That also goes for US-290 and TX-71 between Houston and Austin.

The I-27 corridor is a pretty long way West of the Texas Triangle. Amarillo, Lubbock, Midland-Odessa, Big Spring and San Angelo aren't small towns. There is a lot of commercial vehicle traffic out there related to the oil industry and agri-business. The combination of that, commerce along the Tex-Mex border and growth along the Front Range of the Rockies is why the Ports to Plains Corridor is needed. At least from Lubbock down to Laredo an I-27 extension is justifiable. North of Amarillo is a tougher sell. An I-27 extension to Dumas where the P2P splits is certainly worthwhile. Upgrades farther North would have to be phased in over a long period of time.

Don't forget the I-44 extension from Wichita Falls to Abilene.

Hell, I want I-44 extended to San Angelo to meet an extension of I-27.

The current traffic counts along US-277 between Wichita Falls and Abilene aren't great. I think one reason for that is both commercial and personal vehicle traffic gravitates to Interstate corridors. They do so for various reasons. Traffic on US-277 heading to destinations far West won't all take the same route. Some may go to Abilene to pick up I-20 and then I-10. Others may leave US-277 at Seymour to take US-82 to Lubbock and then go thru Roswell, Alamogordo and Las Cruces to get to I-10.

The nice thing about US-277 is that it is (for the most part) easy to upgrade to Interstate quality, thanks to the limited access or near-limited access bypasses built along the way. Unfortunately the folks in Wichita Falls are doing a good job to gum up this corridor's upgrade potential. The gap between Kell Freeway and the Holliday bypass is going to be no more than a 5-lane street. Plans to build a freeway to span the gap have been scrapped for now.

BTW, why is I-44 designed as a more North- South alignment as opposed to West-East? And why isn't it an odd number or at least signed E-W?

[sprjus4]

^ I-44 only existed between Oklahoma City and St. Louis originally, which is more east-west. I-44 south of Oklahoma City to Wichita Falls was added to the interstate system later on, over pre existing turnpike.