In preparation for I-27 extension, expect bypass and/or 4-lane upgrades...

[sprjus4]

^ I-18, as previously suggested. It doesn't have to be "grid compliant"  100% of the time.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Any of the suggestions, from a suffixed I-10 all the way to I-18 (save 14!) would work; the I-grid's been busted too many times to be worrisome except to extreme anal retentives (those that can't decide if they need a psychiatrist or a proctologist!).  But the designation is secondary; Job #1 is getting some solid and consistent backing at all levels -- local, state, and national via the regional congressfolks -- for such a corridor's development in the first place.  First thing -- venture a bit north and talk to appropriate folks from Bryan, Temple, and Killeen and pick up some pointers about getting a new corridor into the system.  Pick out a catchy name for your project (Access Austin has a nice ring to it) and get those emails, texts, and even hard-copy fliers out in the affected area.  Avoid commissioning outside "studies"; that's where proposals go to die!  Once you've got that ball rolling, and the requisite legislation written and ready to insert into the FHWA kitty, then you can decide what is to fill in the blank where the Interstate reference is to go. 

(P.S.:  this would apply to US 287 DFW>Amarillo as well -- except for the catchy name.)

[Bobby5280]

Any of the suggestions, from a suffixed I-10 all the way to I-18 (save 14!) would work; the I-grid's been busted too many times to be worrisome except to extreme anal retentives (those that can't decide if they need a psychiatrist or a proctologist!).

Given Texas' history with highways over the past 20-30 years, odds are strong if US-290 and/or TX-71 were upgraded to Interstate standards between Austin and Houston/I-10 the freeways would retain their current numbers rather than gain Interstate designations. The same might go for any new freeway "spokes" between I-35 and I-10 between San Antonio and Austin.

But the designation is secondary; Job #1 is getting some solid and consistent backing at all levels -- local, state, and national via the regional congressfolks -- for such a corridor's development in the first place.  First thing -- venture a bit north and talk to appropriate folks from Bryan, Temple, and Killeen and pick up some pointers about getting a new corridor into the system.

I think any congratulatory overtures to backers of I-14 are premature. The only thing of substance that has been accomplished so far is renaming an existing short freeway in the Killeen-Copperas Cove-Fort Hood area as I-14. There is little in the way of actual new construction taking place anywhere else that I-14 has been proposed. Even easy tasks, such as adding a second pair of lanes to the existing Super 2 bypass around the South side of Copperas Cove appear to be on the back burner. There are various proposals for snaking I-14 across the "Texas Triangle," but none are final.

Meanwhile rapid growth is happening elsewhere in Texas. That activity does its own thing to incite highway improvements.

[sparker]

Any of the suggestions, from a suffixed I-10 all the way to I-18 (save 14!) would work; the I-grid's been busted too many times to be worrisome except to extreme anal retentives (those that can't decide if they need a psychiatrist or a proctologist!).

Given Texas' history with highways over the past 20-30 years, odds are strong if US-290 and/or TX-71 were upgraded to Interstate standards between Austin and Houston/I-10 the freeways would retain their current numbers rather than gain Interstate designations. The same might go for any new freeway "spokes" between I-35 and I-10 between San Antonio and Austin.

But the designation is secondary; Job #1 is getting some solid and consistent backing at all levels -- local, state, and national via the regional congressfolks -- for such a corridor's development in the first place.  First thing -- venture a bit north and talk to appropriate folks from Bryan, Temple, and Killeen and pick up some pointers about getting a new corridor into the system.

I think any congratulatory overtures to backers of I-14 are premature. The only thing of substance that has been accomplished so far is renaming an existing short freeway in the Killeen-Copperas Cove-Fort Hood area as I-14. There is little in the way of actual new construction taking place anywhere else that I-14 has been proposed. Even easy tasks, such as adding a second pair of lanes to the existing Super 2 bypass around the South side of Copperas Cove appear to be on the back burner. There are various proposals for snaking I-14 across the "Texas Triangle," but none are final.

Meanwhile rapid growth is happening elsewhere in Texas. That activity does its own thing to incite highway improvements.

The successful feat of the I-14 backers to date has been to get the corridor on the federal books in the first place.  The signage of US 190 in the Killeen area as I-14 was simply as an exercise to publicize that corridor; actually building it out fully was never a task that was projected to happen overnight.   Those backers had a plan and got it noticed -- period.  What happens after that depends upon follow-through and circumstance.   Unless there's quite a bit of existing Interstate-grade or near to that along the corridor's length there will invariably be delays while negotiations regarding routing and ROW acquisition take place; except for a bit of TX 6 in the State College/Bryan area, everything between I-35 and I-45 is functionally "virgin territory".  I-14's backers therefore have a tougher row to hoe than other in-state corridors with considerable upgradeable or existing mileage, such as I-69/69E/69C.  However, that doesn't diminish my admiration for the way the corridor proponents were able to carve a cohesive plan out of a previously "scattershot" set of concepts, and get it on the TX radar.   The P2P is more of a mixed bag -- while there is considerable divided highway between San Angelo and Lubbock, only some of it is appropriate for "re-use" as an Interstate facility; the rest will require either a full rebuild or a parallel new-terrain alignment.   Also -- the basic P2P concept has been around for nearly 30 years; the I-14 corridor in its present form was germinated less than ten years ago; it's likely the older corridor concept will reach some form of realization considerably sooner than the more recent effort. 

[SquonkHunter]

There has never been any Lubbock to Houston proposal of the Ports to Plains Corridor. Given the location of Lubbock, the most direct paths from Lubbock down to Houston go thru the DFW metro via one of two corridors: US-82 to Seymour to pick up TX-114 or US-84 down to Roscoe to pick up I-20. Either route goes into DFW where the traffic would pick up I-45. Any other route combinations are going to be more complicated. Lubbock is not enough of a major destination to gain a 460+ mile long freeway route direct to Houston.

Actually, there was such a "plan" at one time in the early '70s. I don't think it ever got past the nebulous "proposal" phase and the 1973-74 oil crisis pretty much killed it. The plan was to extend I-27 down US 84 from Lubbock to Roscoe, concurrent along I-20 to Abilene, from there thru Temple and entering Houston via the Northwest Frwy. (US 290). The section from Abilene to Temple was not specified. There was much speculation how it would be routed - TX 36 thru Comanche and Hamilton or US 84 via Brownwood and US 190 to Belton (current I-14).

My Grandfather worked for several different road construction contractors back then and lived in Hamilton County. He was privy to a lot of non-public info. I distinctly remember hearing him speak of it, particularly the potential routing of the Abilene to Temple section. I also remember him commenting later that it would probably never be built now.

A quick search of the 'net didn't turn up anything useful or else I would have posted it for all to see. I guess you'll just have to trust the memories of an old man, or not, as you see fit. Either way, no harm, no foul. Cheers.   

[TXtoNJ]

There has never been any Lubbock to Houston proposal of the Ports to Plains Corridor. Given the location of Lubbock, the most direct paths from Lubbock down to Houston go thru the DFW metro via one of two corridors: US-82 to Seymour to pick up TX-114 or US-84 down to Roscoe to pick up I-20. Either route goes into DFW where the traffic would pick up I-45. Any other route combinations are going to be more complicated. Lubbock is not enough of a major destination to gain a 460+ mile long freeway route direct to Houston.

Actually, there was such a "plan" at one time in the early '70s. I don't think it ever got past the nebulous "proposal" phase and the 1973-74 oil crisis pretty much killed it. The plan was to extend I-27 down US 84 from Lubbock to Roscoe, concurrent along I-20 to Abilene, from there thru Temple and entering Houston via the Northwest Frwy. (US 290). The section from Abilene to Temple was not specified. There was much speculation how it would be routed - TX 36 thru Comanche and Hamilton or US 84 via Brownwood and US 190 to Belton (current I-14).

My Grandfather worked for several different road construction contractors back then and lived in Hamilton County. He was privy to a lot of non-public info. I distinctly remember hearing him speak of it, particularly the potential routing of the Abilene to Temple section. I also remember him commenting later that it would probably never be built now.

A quick search of the 'net didn't turn up anything useful or else I would have posted it for all to see. I guess you'll just have to trust the memories of an old man, or not, as you see fit. Either way, no harm, no foul. Cheers.   

I wonder if the current design of the 290-36 interchange in Brenham is a vestige of these plans.

[sparker]

There has never been any Lubbock to Houston proposal of the Ports to Plains Corridor. Given the location of Lubbock, the most direct paths from Lubbock down to Houston go thru the DFW metro via one of two corridors: US-82 to Seymour to pick up TX-114 or US-84 down to Roscoe to pick up I-20. Either route goes into DFW where the traffic would pick up I-45. Any other route combinations are going to be more complicated. Lubbock is not enough of a major destination to gain a 460+ mile long freeway route direct to Houston.

Actually, there was such a "plan" at one time in the early '70s. I don't think it ever got past the nebulous "proposal" phase and the 1973-74 oil crisis pretty much killed it. The plan was to extend I-27 down US 84 from Lubbock to Roscoe, concurrent along I-20 to Abilene, from there thru Temple and entering Houston via the Northwest Frwy. (US 290). The section from Abilene to Temple was not specified. There was much speculation how it would be routed - TX 36 thru Comanche and Hamilton or US 84 via Brownwood and US 190 to Belton (current I-14).

My Grandfather worked for several different road construction contractors back then and lived in Hamilton County. He was privy to a lot of non-public info. I distinctly remember hearing him speak of it, particularly the potential routing of the Abilene to Temple section. I also remember him commenting later that it would probably never be built now.

A quick search of the 'net didn't turn up anything useful or else I would have posted it for all to see. I guess you'll just have to trust the memories of an old man, or not, as you see fit. Either way, no harm, no foul. Cheers.   

I wonder if the current design of the 290-36 interchange in Brenham is a vestige of these plans.

Seeing the Brenham bypass comes in on 36 from the north and aims southeast on 290 at the other end, one might think so.  But there's been quite a few bypasses and upgrades on TX 36 between there and Temple, particularly on the section shared with US 190 (occasionally commented upon in the I-14 thread), which tend to point to a sporadic but multi-section TxDOT effort to generally upgrade TX 36.  The Brenham bypass likely acknowledges the reality that much of the commercial traffic using 36 north of there will shift to EB US 290 toward Houston metro; the development of that and other TX 36 upgrades took place between any more comprehensive plan fomented in the 1970's and the current I-14 effort.  That being said, any preliminary studies done back then regarding any such proposal might have indicated that TX 36 was being utilized as a commercial corridor and could use a few upgrades for the sake of safety and/or efficiency. 

[monty]

I've recently driven US 287 and US 87 from DFW through Dumas, Dalhart and to Raton. That highway carries a lot of truck traffic and travelers from Texas to the Rocky Mountain region. It is driven like a high speed corridor. The danger is that it's not built for the traffic load. It's easy to understand the interest in upgrades. Construction of the new Loop 335 around Amarillo's west side is making good progress.

A primary Relief route that begins just a couple of miles short of the improved 335 project - FR1061 and US 385 going NW out of Amarillo up to Hartley last weekend was jammed with holiday vacation traffic. People driving 85 mph around those going 75 in an endless string of traffic with minimal relief at the too few third passing lane options. Never mind a slow moving vehicle trying to make the trip. I'd hate to be that guy.

Another TXDOT improvement is the addition of passing lanes on Texas 152, which appears as a legitimate Google Maps option via OKC when searching routes from Dallas to Raton.

As others have stated, the rural areas passed through are scarce of people, but not the traffic of those driving the corridors moving regionally.

[sparker]

I've recently driven US 287 and US 87 from DFW through Dumas, Dalhart and to Raton. That highway carries a lot of truck traffic and travelers from Texas to the Rocky Mountain region. It is driven like a high speed corridor. The danger is that it's not built for the traffic load. It's easy to understand the interest in upgrades. Construction of the new Loop 335 around Amarillo's west side is making good progress.

A primary Relief route that begins just a couple of miles short of the improved 335 project - FR1061 and US 385 going NW out of Amarillo up to Hartley last weekend was jammed with holiday vacation traffic. People driving 85 mph around those going 75 in an endless string of traffic with minimal relief at the too few third passing lane options. Never mind a slow moving vehicle trying to make the trip. I'd hate to be that guy.

Another TXDOT improvement is the addition of passing lanes on Texas 152, which appears as a legitimate Google Maps option via OKC when searching routes from Dallas to Raton.

As others have stated, the rural areas passed through are scarce of people, but not the traffic of those driving the corridors moving regionally.

Although the Dumas-Raton segment of US 87 remains included in the P2P/HPC #38 corridor definition as a branch, most of the maps issued by TxDOT and the other backers of corridor development emphasize US 287 north across the OK panhandle and up to I-70 at Limon, CO as the principal "spine" and the one that would be likely to gain the I-27 designation.  Avoidance of the aging I-25 corridor south of Denver, and Raton Pass itself, seems to be a goal of said backers, any number of whom are likely connected to the trucking industry and looking to forge an alternate to the existing I-25/US 87 corridor.  Also likely to be a subject of avoidance:  NM and its oft-derided DOT, which has been loath to deploy free-flow facilities (most likely because of expense) and instead engage in widening or twinning of existing roads (like the heavily criticized US 550 corridor).  A P2P without severe gradients, even though it'll require considerably new construction, is probably going to be one of the governing criteria; avoidance of chokepoints like Pueblo and Colorado Springs would be icing on the cake.

Fancifully (and fictionally), if the new US 412-based Interstate corridor reaches fruition, a westward extension of such might well encompass the Dumas-Raton P2P corridor branch -- but right now that would be pure speculation as that corridor is expected to terminate at I-35.   

[achilles765]

Since 1990 Texas has had a long range plan to develop a "trunk system" of 4 lane divided highways. One feature of the plan was building bypasses around towns or thru routes on existing alignments that would either be freeways or upgradeable to freeways. The US-277 project between Wichita Falls and Abilene is one example of this trunk highway concept. One nice aspect to this plan is the resulting hybrid freeway/expressway roads would have segments easier to upgrade to Interstate quality later if needed.

Some of the corridors we frequently mention, such as this topic of US-87 in relation to I-27, were included in the Phase 1 plan trunk system plan.

A 4-lane divided highway is certainly going to be safer and more efficient at moving traffic than a mere 2-lane road. However 4-lane divided highways still have plenty of conflict points from vehicles turning onto the highway from at-grade streets or driveways. The conflict points are enhanced when thru traffic is moving at speeds of 70mph or more.

I think US-87 through most of the Panhandle down to far South Texas needs to be Interstate quality. Amarillo, Lubbock, Big Spring, Midland-Odessa, San Angelo, Del Rio, Eagle Pass and Laredo form a pretty valuable commercial traffic corridor -one that would be even better connected to the Front Range cities in Colorado.

Statements that suggest Texas is trying to be North Carolina by frivolously signing new Interstates is just ridiculous. Texas is a gigantic state and its existing Interstate quality routes are spaced much farther apart than many states farther East. Texas is also home to four of the biggest urban MSA's in the nation, with Austin & San Antonio effectively merging into one huge MSA. Texas is continuing to add population at a fast rate, some of which is being drawn from the West Coast and Northeast. All that adds up to Texas needing to beef up its highways in a big way. Not every "trunk route" in Texas is worthy of an Interstate upgrade. But there is at least half a dozen corridors in Texas definitely worthy of Interstate upgrades.

I think its insane when I look at a map and see that a state like Ohio has so many interstate routes and 3dis...as does PA, NY, KY...and most of them just connect dead and dying rust belt towns; but here in Texas we only seem to have the major, long distance routes and a couple of intrastate connectors.. 

I also agree with your statement that a lot of Texas corridors need to be interstate-d.
Ones I immediately think of:
1. US 290 from Austin to Houston should be a western I-12
2. SH 249 should be I-545
3. US 287 from Beaumont to Amarillo and maybe farther north should be I-47, though maybe it ends and the route continuers as I-27 to Denver
4. Spur 330 in Houston should be I-710
5. SH 44 to Freer should be Interstate 6.  Or maybe Interstate 337
6. Beltway 8 should be renumbered I-245.
7. Hardy Toll Road should become I-445.
8. The grand parkway from IH 69 in Porter to IH 69 in Sugar Land should be I-469. Forget about the southern portion, forget the portion from IH 45 to SH 146, and assign SH 99 to the segment from SH 146 to IH 69/US59.
9. Spur 527 into downtown Houston should be I-569
10. Loop 1604 in SA should be I-837.
11. US 69/US96/US287 should be an I-914 from IH 14 to Port Arthur

Im sure I have some other ideas but I always think of those specifically based just on my own experience and familiarity

[TXtoNJ]

It's really not insane. Interstate-status ultimately only indicates funding mechanism and basic design standards. The Rust Belt had been able to get that funding because it was still the Manufacturing Belt, and those factory towns had been critical to the WWII effort. Texas received less (though a lot of mileage for underserved rural areas) since ranching, cotton farming, and oil were the primary economic drivers, and freeways were mostly locally needed to get these primary goods from extraction points to the port in Houston or railhead in Dallas-Fort Worth.

The economy has drastically changed since then, as you're aware.

In Texas particularly, state highways are understood to be very good-quality roads. As such, I just don't think there's any practical purpose to slap Interstate labels on highways that are already sufficient. You can see that the most recent interstates (69, 2, 14) are by-and-large vanity projects to make the areas served seem like a bigger deal, nationally (don't think that Dallas having 4 major interstates, and Houston just 2, wasn't a huge motivator behind changing US 59 to I-69).

That's not to say that extending I-27 to Limon would be a vanity project. It would make sense precisely because so few are served on its current route. But to me, at least, you must have a better, more practical reason for creating/extending an Interstate than "lines on a map", completionism, or vanity.

[Scott5114]

I think its insane when I look at a map and see that a state like Ohio has so many interstate routes and 3dis...as does PA, NY, KY...and most of them just connect dead and dying rust belt towns; but here in Texas we only seem to have the major, long distance routes and a couple of intrastate connectors.. 

Well, that's because in 1956 the rust belt towns weren't dead and dying. In the '50s Ohio had more seats in Congress than Texas did, in fact.

In Texas particularly, state highways are understood to be very good-quality roads. As such, I just don't think there's any practical purpose to slap Interstate labels on highways that are already sufficient.

State highways are understood to be very good-quality roads in just about every state that isn't New Mexico. Why not just do away with shields at all and sign the numbers in a square like European countries do?

Answer: because the shields have meaning. An Interstate shield means "this route is guaranteed to be a freeway". A U.S. route shield means "this may or may not be a freeway but it's a long-distance route that probably will take you out of state". A state highway shield, especially in Texas, could mean absolutely anything, from a full-on ten-lane freeway to a chipsealed two-lane laid down straight over the hills without much grading. It's one of the things that makes driving in Texas irritating to me–I have no clue what I'm going to get from a Texas highway without looking at a map.

In that sense, states like Illinois and North Carolina that put an Interstate designation on most every freeway are doing it right. Now, Oklahoma isn't blameless here; not every freeway in my home state is an Interstate. But we also don't have anywhere near as many disparate freeways as Texas does, and at least this month Oklahoma took a step toward fixing that with its I-240 extensions and by introducing more 3xx numbers for turnpikes.

[TXtoNJ]

Answer: because the shields have meaning. An Interstate shield means "this route is guaranteed to be a freeway". A U.S. route shield means "this may or may not be a freeway but it's a long-distance route that probably will take you out of state". A state highway shield, especially in Texas, could mean absolutely anything, from a full-on ten-lane freeway to a chipsealed two-lane laid down straight over the hills without much grading. It's one of the things that makes driving in Texas irritating to me–I have no clue what I'm going to get from a Texas highway without looking at a map.

In that sense, states like Illinois and North Carolina that put an Interstate designation on most every freeway are doing it right. Now, Oklahoma isn't blameless here; not every freeway in my home state is an Interstate. But we also don't have anywhere near as many disparate freeways as Texas does, and at least this month Oklahoma took a step toward fixing that with its I-240 extensions and by introducing more 3xx numbers for turnpikes.

The funny thing is, your ideal system looks far more like the European system than the present one.

I have almost never seen a chipseal on a Texas State Highway - that treatment is generally reserved for the Farm/Ranch-to-Market roads. There are a couple of exceptions in West Texas, but in the Triangle, a white square means you're getting good pavement, wide shoulders, and 75 mph in rural areas.

I know we like seeing blue shields everywhere, but consider the perspective of the non-roadgeek, who only registers route numbers or names. From that perspective, changing the route number to give it a blue shield is far more disruptive than upgrading the highway, but keeping the number. If you're going to change the number of the highway just to appeal to some "lines on a map" sense of propriety, isn't that causing a lot of undue navigational stress? It might even cause more accidents than just keeping the number.

[sparker]

Since 1990 Texas has had a long range plan to develop a "trunk system" of 4 lane divided highways. One feature of the plan was building bypasses around towns or thru routes on existing alignments that would either be freeways or upgradeable to freeways. The US-277 project between Wichita Falls and Abilene is one example of this trunk highway concept. One nice aspect to this plan is the resulting hybrid freeway/expressway roads would have segments easier to upgrade to Interstate quality later if needed.

Some of the corridors we frequently mention, such as this topic of US-87 in relation to I-27, were included in the Phase 1 plan trunk system plan.

A 4-lane divided highway is certainly going to be safer and more efficient at moving traffic than a mere 2-lane road. However 4-lane divided highways still have plenty of conflict points from vehicles turning onto the highway from at-grade streets or driveways. The conflict points are enhanced when thru traffic is moving at speeds of 70mph or more.

I think US-87 through most of the Panhandle down to far South Texas needs to be Interstate quality. Amarillo, Lubbock, Big Spring, Midland-Odessa, San Angelo, Del Rio, Eagle Pass and Laredo form a pretty valuable commercial traffic corridor -one that would be even better connected to the Front Range cities in Colorado.

Statements that suggest Texas is trying to be North Carolina by frivolously signing new Interstates is just ridiculous. Texas is a gigantic state and its existing Interstate quality routes are spaced much farther apart than many states farther East. Texas is also home to four of the biggest urban MSA's in the nation, with Austin & San Antonio effectively merging into one huge MSA. Texas is continuing to add population at a fast rate, some of which is being drawn from the West Coast and Northeast. All that adds up to Texas needing to beef up its highways in a big way. Not every "trunk route" in Texas is worthy of an Interstate upgrade. But there is at least half a dozen corridors in Texas definitely worthy of Interstate upgrades.

I think its insane when I look at a map and see that a state like Ohio has so many interstate routes and 3dis...as does PA, NY, KY...and most of them just connect dead and dying rust belt towns; but here in Texas we only seem to have the major, long distance routes and a couple of intrastate connectors.. 

I also agree with your statement that a lot of Texas corridors need to be interstate-d.
Ones I immediately think of:
1. US 290 from Austin to Houston should be a western I-12
2. SH 249 should be I-545
3. US 287 from Beaumont to Amarillo and maybe farther north should be I-47, though maybe it ends and the route continuers as I-27 to Denver
4. Spur 330 in Houston should be I-710
5. SH 44 to Freer should be Interstate 6.  Or maybe Interstate 337
6. Beltway 8 should be renumbered I-245.
7. Hardy Toll Road should become I-445.
8. The grand parkway from IH 69 in Porter to IH 69 in Sugar Land should be I-469. Forget about the southern portion, forget the portion from IH 45 to SH 146, and assign SH 99 to the segment from SH 146 to IH 69/US59.
9. Spur 527 into downtown Houston should be I-569
10. Loop 1604 in SA should be I-837.
11. US 69/US96/US287 should be an I-914 from IH 14 to Port Arthur

Im sure I have some other ideas but I always think of those specifically based just on my own experience and familiarity

Austin-Houston has been discussed ad nauseum in several TX threads, with numerous opinions about the efficacy of elevating TX 71 and/or US 290 to Interstates.  Seek out those discussions and you shall find!  The chances are that somewhere down the line US 287 DFW-Amarillo might gain enough consistent backing and corresponding publicity to advance any Interstate plans, but it'll likely be signed as an even 2di in the 30's rather than the northwestern part of a big arc coming up from Beaumont.  And you've got a lot of Houston-based loops & spurs on the list; just be reminded that TxDOT probably won't sign any toll facilities as Interstates until they're paid off.  And the recent I-14 extension legislation specifies just such a spur up US 96 from Port Arthur to the E-W main trunk of I-14 at Jasper -- but don't hold your breath; this is a project that's going to take several decades to get off the ground.   And TX 44 Corpus-Freer?  Could be I-6, could be I-569, could be just about anything related to the grid or the intersecting routes.  Since you're more intimate with Houston-area matters, whether your local corridors are viable is something you need to figure out with additional research -- but the ones in the other part of the state have all gotten some attention -- even if only within this board. 

[Scott5114]

Answer: because the shields have meaning. An Interstate shield means "this route is guaranteed to be a freeway". A U.S. route shield means "this may or may not be a freeway but it's a long-distance route that probably will take you out of state". A state highway shield, especially in Texas, could mean absolutely anything, from a full-on ten-lane freeway to a chipsealed two-lane laid down straight over the hills without much grading. It's one of the things that makes driving in Texas irritating to me–I have no clue what I'm going to get from a Texas highway without looking at a map.

In that sense, states like Illinois and North Carolina that put an Interstate designation on most every freeway are doing it right. Now, Oklahoma isn't blameless here; not every freeway in my home state is an Interstate. But we also don't have anywhere near as many disparate freeways as Texas does, and at least this month Oklahoma took a step toward fixing that with its I-240 extensions and by introducing more 3xx numbers for turnpikes.

The funny thing is, your ideal system looks far more like the European system than the present one.

I have almost never seen a chipseal on a Texas State Highway - that treatment is generally reserved for the Farm/Ranch-to-Market roads. There are a couple of exceptions in West Texas, but in the Triangle, a white square means you're getting good pavement, wide shoulders, and 75 mph in rural areas.

I know we like seeing blue shields everywhere, but consider the perspective of the non-roadgeek, who only registers route numbers or names. From that perspective, changing the route number to give it a blue shield is far more disruptive than upgrading the highway, but keeping the number. If you're going to change the number of the highway just to appeal to some "lines on a map" sense of propriety, isn't that causing a lot of undue navigational stress? It might even cause more accidents than just keeping the number.

The non-roadgeeks I know of are more confused by the difference between a US shield and a state highway shield than they are between either of those and an Interstate shield. Both of those are "Highway X", but an Interstate is always "I-X". And Interstate = freeway is synonymous in most people's minds. Hell, I remember hearing somewhere that there are people in Ada that refer to their freeway loop as "the interstate", despite the fact that it's signed as State Highway 3 and doesn't even connect to the Interstate System. To these sorts of people a road "becoming an Interstate" makes logical sense because it means the same thing as "becoming a freeway", so long as the new designation is applied right after the upgrade, of course.

Even the FM/RM shield is no indication of quality or lack thereof, though. There's at least one freeway that carries it. So, like the white square shield, since it can mean anything, it means nothing.

[Bobby5280]

I have almost never seen a chipseal on a Texas State Highway - that treatment is generally reserved for the Farm/Ranch-to-Market roads.

I've personally seen it numerous times out in the Panhandle and other parts of West Texas. For instance TX-256 between US-83 and the US-287 junction in Memphis, TX has been quite a mixed bag of 2-lane road standards over the years. Some portions of the road have been improved to where it is moderately safe. But there are still other parts that suck (rough road surface, next to nothing in terms of shoulders and lots of hills and dips creating many blind spots for any passing).

[vdeane]

An Interstate shield means "this route is guaranteed to be a freeway".

Does it really?

[Scott5114]

Wyoming doesn't actually exist. Corco made it up.

[sparker]

An Interstate shield means "this route is guaranteed to be a freeway".

Does it really?

Those are just ramp metering lights on I-180.........yeah, that's the ticket! 

[SkyPesos]

I think its insane when I look at a map and see that a state like Ohio has so many interstate routes and 3dis...as does PA, NY, KY...and most of them just connect dead and dying rust belt towns; but here in Texas we only seem to have the major, long distance routes and a couple of intrastate connectors..

Ohio doesn't really have any 3di that connects one city to another; the 3dis are concentrated within metro areas. Also, unlike NY with I-587 and I-790, there aren't really any "glorified ramp"  3dis either, unless you count I-490 in Cleveland, which was originally planned to be something longer.
Kentucky's intercity 3di are pretty recent, as most of those are on a named parkway: the state's former toll road system.

[I-55]

I think its insane when I look at a map and see that a state like Ohio has so many interstate routes and 3dis...as does PA, NY, KY...and most of them just connect dead and dying rust belt towns; but here in Texas we only seem to have the major, long distance routes and a couple of intrastate connectors..

Ohio doesn't really have any 3di that connects one city to another; the 3dis are concentrated within metro areas. Also, unlike NY with I-587 and I-790, there aren't really any "glorified ramp"  3dis either, unless you count I-490 in Cleveland, which was originally planned to be something longer.
Kentucky's intercity 3di are pretty recent, as most of those are on a named parkway: the state's former toll road system.

Populations of Kentucky towns served by new 3dis (per Google):

I-165: Owensboro (59,536), Bowling Green (67,600)

I-365: Glasgow (14,393), Somerset (11,447, Pulaski County 64,979 up 50% since 1980), feeds into I-65 toward BG.

I-569: Most populous on current route would be Central City (5,808). If extended along WK Parkway to Elizabethtown (29,620) and Leitchfield (6,807) are added.

BG Parkway upgrade would connect Elizabethtown with Lexington (320,601)

[TXtoNJ]

I have almost never seen a chipseal on a Texas State Highway - that treatment is generally reserved for the Farm/Ranch-to-Market roads.

I've personally seen it numerous times out in the Panhandle and other parts of West Texas. For instance TX-256 between US-83 and the US-287 junction in Memphis, TX has been quite a mixed bag of 2-lane road standards over the years. Some portions of the road have been improved to where it is moderately safe. But there are still other parts that suck (rough road surface, next to nothing in terms of shoulders and lots of hills and dips creating many blind spots for any passing).

"There are a couple of exceptions in West Texas, but in the Triangle, a white square means you're getting good pavement, wide shoulders, and 75 mph in rural areas."

I believe this holds up.

[Bobby5280]

There is a whole lot of Texas outside the triangle. Having driven much of West Texas (and continuing to do so) I stand by my statement. Further, there are FM roads within the Triangle that are clearly better than SH routes outside the Triangle.

[TXtoNJ]

Not a whole lot of people though. Only about 1.5 million spread over that vast area. So, your statement really doesn't comport with most everyday Texans' experience.

Furthermore, those higher-quality FM roads were why they tried to implement that UR designation 25 years ago.

[Scott5114]

So it's okay for TxDOT to botch it so long as it happens where nobody notices?