Print

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

[Thegeet]

Here are the CAMPO 2045 arterial plans. Looks like they anticipate (or propose) that both 71 East and 290 East will be limited access, at last in the outer metro area:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hJvCstSua55osbz013HvPSKzf7Pw7G6b/view?usp=sharing

Nice to see both US-290 and SH-71 as limited access heading east... unfortunately US-290 to the west ends limited access at Dripping Springs. For a true long range plan, should extend out to US-281 at a minimum, or in this case, to the edge of the metropolitan planning area.

If US 290 we’re to be upgraded to limited access from Austin to Houston, I could see it become an interstate, as least to connect Houston to Austin. It could be a new designation, or Maybe it could be a continuation of I-12, (could be co-signed with I-10 from Houston (I-610 interchange) to Baton Rouge (western terminus), like 20/59 from MS to AL). Not saying it will become interstate though, but if it did indeed become one, would it still be cosigned with I-35 in Austin?

Unless it continued on west back to I-10, a multiplex with I-35 would be pointless; it would likely just end at its junction with that route.  Since we've let a bit of Fictional through the door -- it would likely be an independent western I-12; signage from Baton Rouge to Houston would be a bit gratuitous.

Also, the Bergstrom Expressway just opened east of Austin, on which the designation could run…since it connects to 71 west. Versus dumping traffic on an already congested I-35.

This is why I have pushed for SH-71 east of Austin and US 290 west of Austin as the preferred El Paso-Austin-Houston interstate.  Many reasons.

-It's a straight shot through Austin without a co-sign. 
-It would relive any cross Texas/cross country I-10 traffic from dipping way south to San Antonio.
-It would effectively act as the I-35E and I-35W split being the 71/290 version being more of an I-10N and the existing I-10 from Columbus to Segovia being effectively I-10S
-It would be relatively less work for a greater impact.  Not only would the upgrades be minimum, especially through Austin and east of Austin, but it is a 220 mile corridor to upgrade to make an impact on a 2,500 mile corridor.  Just 220 miles to make a coast to coast interstate.
-Finally the El Paso-Austin-Houston corridor will be connected by interstate.

The only flaw I see is that I-10N&S would be hard to achieve, considering AASHTO rejecting almost all suffixed routes (Interstate & US, at least).

[sprjus4]

-It would relive any cross Texas/cross country I-10 traffic from dipping way south to San Antonio.
-It would effectively act as the I-35E and I-35W split being the 71/290 version being more of an I-10N and the existing I-10 from Columbus to Segovia being effectively I-10S
-It would be relatively less work for a greater impact.  Not only would the upgrades be minimum, especially through Austin and east of Austin, but it is a 220 mile corridor to upgrade to make an impact on a 2,500 mile corridor.  Just 220 miles to make a coast to coast interstate.
-Finally the El Paso-Austin-Houston corridor will be connected by interstate.

You’re cutting off a mere 8 miles over a distance of 200+ miles, and “bypassing” San Antonio by dumping traffic through the Austin metro. Once the Loop 1604 expansion to 10 lanes is complete, along with the eventual construction to complete the freeway link on the east side to I-10, plus the ongoing widening of I-10 between San Antonio and Houston, I don’t foresee the current routing through San Antonio being any sort of headache for through traffic.

I’m not opposed to an interstate linking Austin and Houston, but anything west is questionable. Again, not fully opposed, just not a pressing need, and particularly being a “through traffic” argument. It’s main benefits simply appear to be connecting Austin to I-10 West, which given US-290 gets down to 1,000 AADT just east of I-10, I don’t imagine is a major connection for the region.

[ethanhopkin14]

Here are the CAMPO 2045 arterial plans. Looks like they anticipate (or propose) that both 71 East and 290 East will be limited access, at last in the outer metro area:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hJvCstSua55osbz013HvPSKzf7Pw7G6b/view?usp=sharing

Nice to see both US-290 and SH-71 as limited access heading east... unfortunately US-290 to the west ends limited access at Dripping Springs. For a true long range plan, should extend out to US-281 at a minimum, or in this case, to the edge of the metropolitan planning area.

If US 290 we’re to be upgraded to limited access from Austin to Houston, I could see it become an interstate, as least to connect Houston to Austin. It could be a new designation, or Maybe it could be a continuation of I-12, (could be co-signed with I-10 from Houston (I-610 interchange) to Baton Rouge (western terminus), like 20/59 from MS to AL). Not saying it will become interstate though, but if it did indeed become one, would it still be cosigned with I-35 in Austin?

Unless it continued on west back to I-10, a multiplex with I-35 would be pointless; it would likely just end at its junction with that route.  Since we've let a bit of Fictional through the door -- it would likely be an independent western I-12; signage from Baton Rouge to Houston would be a bit gratuitous.

Also, the Bergstrom Expressway just opened east of Austin, on which the designation could run…since it connects to 71 west. Versus dumping traffic on an already congested I-35.

This is why I have pushed for SH-71 east of Austin and US 290 west of Austin as the preferred El Paso-Austin-Houston interstate.  Many reasons.

-It's a straight shot through Austin without a co-sign. 
-It would relive any cross Texas/cross country I-10 traffic from dipping way south to San Antonio.
-It would effectively act as the I-35E and I-35W split being the 71/290 version being more of an I-10N and the existing I-10 from Columbus to Segovia being effectively I-10S
-It would be relatively less work for a greater impact.  Not only would the upgrades be minimum, especially through Austin and east of Austin, but it is a 220 mile corridor to upgrade to make an impact on a 2,500 mile corridor.  Just 220 miles to make a coast to coast interstate.
-Finally the El Paso-Austin-Houston corridor will be connected by interstate.

The only flaw I see is that I-10N&S would be hard to achieve, considering AASHTO rejecting almost all suffixed routes (Interstate & US, at least).

Those are placeholders, just to compare the I-35E I-35W split to this corridor.  I by no means am wanting a I-10N, neither do I want to renumber any interstate, especially I-10 through San Antonio.   That's why I said effectively, not renumbered.  I prefer I-18.  I have been wanting I-18 before I-14 reared it's ugly head.

[ethanhopkin14]

-It would relive any cross Texas/cross country I-10 traffic from dipping way south to San Antonio.
-It would effectively act as the I-35E and I-35W split being the 71/290 version being more of an I-10N and the existing I-10 from Columbus to Segovia being effectively I-10S
-It would be relatively less work for a greater impact.  Not only would the upgrades be minimum, especially through Austin and east of Austin, but it is a 220 mile corridor to upgrade to make an impact on a 2,500 mile corridor.  Just 220 miles to make a coast to coast interstate.
-Finally the El Paso-Austin-Houston corridor will be connected by interstate.

You’re cutting off a mere 8 miles over a distance of 200+ miles, and “bypassing” San Antonio by dumping traffic through the Austin metro. Once the Loop 1604 expansion to 10 lanes is complete, along with the eventual construction to complete the freeway link on the east side to I-10, plus the ongoing widening of I-10 between San Antonio and Houston, I don’t foresee the current routing through San Antonio being any sort of headache for through traffic.

I’m not opposed to an interstate linking Austin and Houston, but anything west is questionable. Again, not fully opposed, just not a pressing need, and particularly being a “through traffic” argument. It’s main benefits simply appear to be connecting Austin to I-10 West, which given US-290 gets down to 1,000 AADT just east of I-10, I don’t imagine is a major connection for the region.

Again, bigger picture.
I don't care if the traffic at that specific spot is low, if you build it, they will come. 
It's about El Paso-Austin-Houston.  Long-range.  Not the Harper-Fredericksburg corridor.

I am thinking about all freight movements from points west of Austin on I-10 that are moving to points east of Austin that stay on I-10 because it's a freeway and don't want to drive through Harper and Fredericksburg.  Given a new interstate, they would take it all day. 

It is a difference of 8 miles, yes, if you drive the exact corridor the way it is currently constructed (driving though downtown Fredericksburg and Johnson City have very unnecessary north-south sections eating miles).  We all know a new interstate won't be a on-the-spot upgrade or there will be a freeway in downtown Fredericksburg.  If you follow a more straight path, more like an interstate does, its more like 20 miles shorter, very similar to what I-35W is to I-35E. 

Yes you will be dumping traffic into Austin, but hey, if that's what it takes to make my commute that should have been a freeway 40 years ago to get a bit expedited, I am all for it.  Bring on the trucks.  Plus, This corridor isn't the major traffic bog down of the city.  Ben White through town is the one time I actually saw TxDOT plan a bit for the future and make it wider than it needed to be when it was built in 1995. 

Again, just like there are low traffic counts at certain sections of the Ports-to-Plains corridor, that's doesn't mean that Point A, Point B and Point C doesn't need to be connected.  I am sure if you took away the cross country traffic on I-10, the section from Kerrville through Junction to Ozona would be just as dismal, yet they built the interstate there. 

[TXtoNJ]

-It would relive any cross Texas/cross country I-10 traffic from dipping way south to San Antonio.
-It would effectively act as the I-35E and I-35W split being the 71/290 version being more of an I-10N and the existing I-10 from Columbus to Segovia being effectively I-10S
-It would be relatively less work for a greater impact.  Not only would the upgrades be minimum, especially through Austin and east of Austin, but it is a 220 mile corridor to upgrade to make an impact on a 2,500 mile corridor.  Just 220 miles to make a coast to coast interstate.
-Finally the El Paso-Austin-Houston corridor will be connected by interstate.

You’re cutting off a mere 8 miles over a distance of 200+ miles, and “bypassing” San Antonio by dumping traffic through the Austin metro. Once the Loop 1604 expansion to 10 lanes is complete, along with the eventual construction to complete the freeway link on the east side to I-10, plus the ongoing widening of I-10 between San Antonio and Houston, I don’t foresee the current routing through San Antonio being any sort of headache for through traffic.

I’m not opposed to an interstate linking Austin and Houston, but anything west is questionable. Again, not fully opposed, just not a pressing need, and particularly being a “through traffic” argument. It’s main benefits simply appear to be connecting Austin to I-10 West, which given US-290 gets down to 1,000 AADT just east of I-10, I don’t imagine is a major connection for the region.

A lot of suggestions from people who have only seen these areas on a map, rather than from behind the wheel.

[sprjus4]

A lot of suggestions from people who have only seen these areas on a map, rather than from behind the wheel.

I’ve driven around the San Antonio metro, including I-10 both east and west, and through the city, numerous times, for the record.

The biggest choke points, both from my own experience and on a map, appear to be I-10 between Bourne and Loop 1604, Loop 1604 on the northern side and particularly the I-10 interchange, and I-10 east of the city, all of which are being widened and significant rebuilt with much greater capacity.

Again, bigger picture.
I don't care if the traffic at that specific spot is low, if you build it, they will come. 
It's about El Paso-Austin-Houston.  Long-range.  Not the Harper-Fredericksburg corridor.

I am thinking about all freight movements from points west of Austin on I-10 that are moving to points east of Austin that stay on I-10 because it's a freeway and don't want to drive through Harper and Fredericksburg.  Given a new interstate, they would take it all day. 

It is a difference of 8 miles, yes, if you drive the exact corridor the way it is currently constructed (driving though downtown Fredericksburg and Johnson City have very unnecessary north-south sections eating miles).  We all know a new interstate won't be a on-the-spot upgrade or there will be a freeway in downtown Fredericksburg.  If you follow a more straight path, more like an interstate does, its more like 20 miles shorter, very similar to what I-35W is to I-35E. 

Yes you will be dumping traffic into Austin, but hey, if that's what it takes to make my commute that should have been a freeway 40 years ago to get a bit expedited, I am all for it.  Bring on the trucks.  Plus, This corridor isn't the major traffic bog down of the city.  Ben White through town is the one time I actually saw TxDOT plan a bit for the future and make it wider than it needed to be when it was built in 1995. 

Again, just like there are low traffic counts at certain sections of the Ports-to-Plains corridor, that's doesn't mean that Point A, Point B and Point C doesn't need to be connected.  I am sure if you took away the cross country traffic on I-10, the section from Kerrville through Junction to Ozona would be just as dismal, yet they built the interstate there. 

I agree with the bigger picture point, and is part of the reason I support the Ports to Plains concepts… I just question this particular corridor because that long distance corridor you keep saying will come is… well already in full existence. It just goes through San Antonio rather than Austin.

And for the record, the build it, they will come argument seems moot when you consider I-10 dips down to a mere 4,000 AADT west of Fort Stockton. Not seeing where all this freight movement is coming from.

And how much of the 15,000 AADT (clearly not all long haul to El Paso traffic) east of the western US-290 split that remains on I-10 is truly continuing to Houston? There’s San Antonio, I-37 South to Corpus Christi and the Valley, etc…

I don’t think much would change if you upgraded it for the “big picture”, given these facts.

[Thegeet]

Here are the CAMPO 2045 arterial plans. Looks like they anticipate (or propose) that both 71 East and 290 East will be limited access, at last in the outer metro area:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hJvCstSua55osbz013HvPSKzf7Pw7G6b/view?usp=sharing

Nice to see both US-290 and SH-71 as limited access heading east... unfortunately US-290 to the west ends limited access at Dripping Springs. For a true long range plan, should extend out to US-281 at a minimum, or in this case, to the edge of the metropolitan planning area.

If US 290 we’re to be upgraded to limited access from Austin to Houston, I could see it become an interstate, as least to connect Houston to Austin. It could be a new designation, or Maybe it could be a continuation of I-12, (could be co-signed with I-10 from Houston (I-610 interchange) to Baton Rouge (western terminus), like 20/59 from MS to AL). Not saying it will become interstate though, but if it did indeed become one, would it still be cosigned with I-35 in Austin?

Unless it continued on west back to I-10, a multiplex with I-35 would be pointless; it would likely just end at its junction with that route.  Since we've let a bit of Fictional through the door -- it would likely be an independent western I-12; signage from Baton Rouge to Houston would be a bit gratuitous.

Also, the Bergstrom Expressway just opened east of Austin, on which the designation could run…since it connects to 71 west. Versus dumping traffic on an already congested I-35.

This is why I have pushed for SH-71 east of Austin and US 290 west of Austin as the preferred El Paso-Austin-Houston interstate.  Many reasons.

-It's a straight shot through Austin without a co-sign. 
-It would relive any cross Texas/cross country I-10 traffic from dipping way south to San Antonio.
-It would effectively act as the I-35E and I-35W split being the 71/290 version being more of an I-10N and the existing I-10 from Columbus to Segovia being effectively I-10S
-It would be relatively less work for a greater impact.  Not only would the upgrades be minimum, especially through Austin and east of Austin, but it is a 220 mile corridor to upgrade to make an impact on a 2,500 mile corridor.  Just 220 miles to make a coast to coast interstate.
-Finally the El Paso-Austin-Houston corridor will be connected by interstate.

The only flaw I see is that I-10N&S would be hard to achieve, considering AASHTO rejecting almost all suffixed routes (Interstate & US, at least).

Those are placeholders, just to compare the I-35E I-35W split to this corridor.  I by no means am wanting a I-10N, neither do I want to renumber any interstate, especially I-10 through San Antonio.   That's why I said effectively, not renumbered.  I prefer I-18.  I have been wanting I-18 before I-14 reared it's ugly head.

Ah sorry. Didn’t catch that. Hmm. Would I-16 work too? Just asking.

[bwana39]

The only reason I think I-610 exists in LA is because they wanted I-10 to touch the center of the city.

Now, Austin is growing at a faster rate than ever, and they are all going to rely on only one Interstate, and toll roads. The only reason I thought of I-12 was for it being a route based in the south. But 16 or 18 would be fine. Now, If anything, I would check again a few decades and see any plans should they come to fruition to build a new Interstate in Austin.

I 610 was built after I-10 so through traffic could bypass the central city.  I-10 went to downtown and back for a decade or more before 610 was built.

I stand with my position that the only reason Austin to Houston gets an INTERSTATE number is if Washington forces it either by legislation or restricted funding.

[ethanhopkin14]

Here are the CAMPO 2045 arterial plans. Looks like they anticipate (or propose) that both 71 East and 290 East will be limited access, at last in the outer metro area:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hJvCstSua55osbz013HvPSKzf7Pw7G6b/view?usp=sharing

Nice to see both US-290 and SH-71 as limited access heading east... unfortunately US-290 to the west ends limited access at Dripping Springs. For a true long range plan, should extend out to US-281 at a minimum, or in this case, to the edge of the metropolitan planning area.

If US 290 we’re to be upgraded to limited access from Austin to Houston, I could see it become an interstate, as least to connect Houston to Austin. It could be a new designation, or Maybe it could be a continuation of I-12, (could be co-signed with I-10 from Houston (I-610 interchange) to Baton Rouge (western terminus), like 20/59 from MS to AL). Not saying it will become interstate though, but if it did indeed become one, would it still be cosigned with I-35 in Austin?

Unless it continued on west back to I-10, a multiplex with I-35 would be pointless; it would likely just end at its junction with that route.  Since we've let a bit of Fictional through the door -- it would likely be an independent western I-12; signage from Baton Rouge to Houston would be a bit gratuitous.

Also, the Bergstrom Expressway just opened east of Austin, on which the designation could run…since it connects to 71 west. Versus dumping traffic on an already congested I-35.

This is why I have pushed for SH-71 east of Austin and US 290 west of Austin as the preferred El Paso-Austin-Houston interstate.  Many reasons.

-It's a straight shot through Austin without a co-sign. 
-It would relive any cross Texas/cross country I-10 traffic from dipping way south to San Antonio.
-It would effectively act as the I-35E and I-35W split being the 71/290 version being more of an I-10N and the existing I-10 from Columbus to Segovia being effectively I-10S
-It would be relatively less work for a greater impact.  Not only would the upgrades be minimum, especially through Austin and east of Austin, but it is a 220 mile corridor to upgrade to make an impact on a 2,500 mile corridor.  Just 220 miles to make a coast to coast interstate.
-Finally the El Paso-Austin-Houston corridor will be connected by interstate.

The only flaw I see is that I-10N&S would be hard to achieve, considering AASHTO rejecting almost all suffixed routes (Interstate & US, at least).

Those are placeholders, just to compare the I-35E I-35W split to this corridor.  I by no means am wanting a I-10N, neither do I want to renumber any interstate, especially I-10 through San Antonio.   That's why I said effectively, not renumbered.  I prefer I-18.  I have been wanting I-18 before I-14 reared it's ugly head.

Ah sorry. Didn’t catch that. Hmm. Would I-16 work too? Just asking.

I can't stand duplicated interstate routes.  The northern ones are in a "not much more they could do" position because there are a lot of east-west routes and not many numbers.  I am of the impression if there are available numbers between the two major routes, use them, even if there is a slight grid violation.  It's way better then having two routes with the same number but have nothing to do with each other. 

I-12 taken, exists in Louisiana
I-14 taken, exists in Texas (and was a planned interstate for years before that)
I-16 taken, exists in Georgia

That leaves I-18 which has been my preferred route number. 

[Thegeet]

Here are the CAMPO 2045 arterial plans. Looks like they anticipate (or propose) that both 71 East and 290 East will be limited access, at last in the outer metro area:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hJvCstSua55osbz013HvPSKzf7Pw7G6b/view?usp=sharing

Nice to see both US-290 and SH-71 as limited access heading east... unfortunately US-290 to the west ends limited access at Dripping Springs. For a true long range plan, should extend out to US-281 at a minimum, or in this case, to the edge of the metropolitan planning area.

If US 290 we’re to be upgraded to limited access from Austin to Houston, I could see it become an interstate, as least to connect Houston to Austin. It could be a new designation, or Maybe it could be a continuation of I-12, (could be co-signed with I-10 from Houston (I-610 interchange) to Baton Rouge (western terminus), like 20/59 from MS to AL). Not saying it will become interstate though, but if it did indeed become one, would it still be cosigned with I-35 in Austin?

Unless it continued on west back to I-10, a multiplex with I-35 would be pointless; it would likely just end at its junction with that route.  Since we've let a bit of Fictional through the door -- it would likely be an independent western I-12; signage from Baton Rouge to Houston would be a bit gratuitous.

Also, the Bergstrom Expressway just opened east of Austin, on which the designation could run…since it connects to 71 west. Versus dumping traffic on an already congested I-35.

This is why I have pushed for SH-71 east of Austin and US 290 west of Austin as the preferred El Paso-Austin-Houston interstate.  Many reasons.

-It's a straight shot through Austin without a co-sign. 
-It would relive any cross Texas/cross country I-10 traffic from dipping way south to San Antonio.
-It would effectively act as the I-35E and I-35W split being the 71/290 version being more of an I-10N and the existing I-10 from Columbus to Segovia being effectively I-10S
-It would be relatively less work for a greater impact.  Not only would the upgrades be minimum, especially through Austin and east of Austin, but it is a 220 mile corridor to upgrade to make an impact on a 2,500 mile corridor.  Just 220 miles to make a coast to coast interstate.
-Finally the El Paso-Austin-Houston corridor will be connected by interstate.

The only flaw I see is that I-10N&S would be hard to achieve, considering AASHTO rejecting almost all suffixed routes (Interstate & US, at least).

Those are placeholders, just to compare the I-35E I-35W split to this corridor.  I by no means am wanting a I-10N, neither do I want to renumber any interstate, especially I-10 through San Antonio.   That's why I said effectively, not renumbered.  I prefer I-18.  I have been wanting I-18 before I-14 reared it's ugly head.

Ah sorry. Didn’t catch that. Hmm. Would I-16 work too? Just asking.

I can't stand duplicated interstate routes.  The northern ones are in a "not much more they could do" position because there are a lot of east-west routes and not many numbers.  I am of the impression if there are available numbers between the two major routes, use them, even if there is a slight grid violation.  It's way better then having two routes with the same number but have nothing to do with each other. 

I-12 taken, exists in Louisiana
I-14 taken, exists in Texas (and was a planned interstate for years before that)
I-16 taken, exists in Georgia

That leaves I-18 which has been my preferred route number.

So would that mean the west and east termini both  be at I-10?

[longhorn]

I-76 is in two locations now.

New freeway should be I-16. Assign it to 290 if TXDot ever gets serious about (I doubt it). Or make the 71 leg to I-10 once brought up to interstate standards a three digit interstate.

Now back to reality, 290 is a dangerous four lane undivided highway in some areas with no turning lane. Amazes me there are not more rear ended collisions.

[thisdj78]

I-76 is in two locations now.

New freeway should be I-16. Assign it to 290 if TXDot ever gets serious about (I doubt it). Or make the 71 leg to I-10 once brought up to interstate standards a three digit interstate.

Now back to reality, 290 is a dangerous four lane undivided highway in some areas with no turning lane. Amazes me there are not more rear ended collisions.

They are in the process adding medians to the undivided sections and I think it’s almost complete. The only undivided sections left are at Elgin, Giddings and Brenham.

Though, I wish they would have just gone ahead and made the medians wide enough to
accommodate future freeway lanes in the middle. This makes me believe they plan on 71 being the limited access route of choice.

[sprjus4]

Texas doesn’t seem too much on board with the super wide median concept that much these days… if they upgrade it, they’ll likely either build frontage roads to the outside, or do what they are proposing on segments of US-59 and just tear it all up and build a new 2+2+2+2 layout on the existing footprint but all new (i.e. not reusing the old roadbed of the original divided highway).

[thisdj78]

Texas doesn’t seem too much on board with the super wide median concept that much these days… if they upgrade it, they’ll likely either build frontage roads to the outside, or do what they are proposing on segments of US-59 and just tear it all up and build a new 2+2+2+2 layout on the existing footprint but all new (i.e. not reusing the old roadbed of the original divided highway).

Nope, at least not for highways that won’t be upgraded for several years. They are building a highway like that near me (I posted about it in the Williamson County thread), but I think the plan is to build out the mainlanes shortly after the frontage roads are done.

[sprjus4]

Texas doesn’t seem too much on board with the super wide median concept that much these days… if they upgrade it, they’ll likely either build frontage roads to the outside, or do what they are proposing on segments of US-59 and just tear it all up and build a new 2+2+2+2 layout on the existing footprint but all new (i.e. not reusing the old roadbed of the original divided highway).

Nope, at least not for highways that won’t be upgraded for several years. They are building a highway like that near me (I posted about it in the Williamson County thread), but I think the plan is to build out the mainlanes shortly after the frontage roads are done.

For new location urban facilities, that trend seems to continue. For rural widening projects… not so much.

[Thegeet]

Sometimes the medians are wide enough to fit four main lanes. Is that something they’ve ever done?

[thisdj78]

Sometimes the medians are wide enough to fit four main lanes. Is that something they’ve ever done?

As far the Austin area, 183 has been built like that several years between Leander and Liberty Hill. I think they finally break ground on the mainlanes for that section next year.

For Texas in general, US77 has always been that way between Riviera and Raymondville and I believe they are building the mainlanes for 69 in the middle.

[bwana39]

Here are the CAMPO 2045 arterial plans. Looks like they anticipate (or propose) that both 71 East and 290 East will be limited access, at last in the outer metro area:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hJvCstSua55osbz013HvPSKzf7Pw7G6b/view?usp=sharing

Nice to see both US-290 and SH-71 as limited access heading east... unfortunately US-290 to the west ends limited access at Dripping Springs. For a true long range plan, should extend out to US-281 at a minimum, or in this case, to the edge of the metropolitan planning area.

If US 290 we’re to be upgraded to limited access from Austin to Houston, I could see it become an interstate, as least to connect Houston to Austin. It could be a new designation, or Maybe it could be a continuation of I-12, (could be co-signed with I-10 from Houston (I-610 interchange) to Baton Rouge (western terminus), like 20/59 from MS to AL). Not saying it will become interstate though, but if it did indeed become one, would it still be cosigned with I-35 in Austin?

Unless it continued on west back to I-10, a multiplex with I-35 would be pointless; it would likely just end at its junction with that route.  Since we've let a bit of Fictional through the door -- it would likely be an independent western I-12; signage from Baton Rouge to Houston would be a bit gratuitous.

Also, the Bergstrom Expressway just opened east of Austin, on which the designation could run…since it connects to 71 west. Versus dumping traffic on an already congested I-35.

This is why I have pushed for SH-71 east of Austin and US 290 west of Austin as the preferred El Paso-Austin-Houston interstate.  Many reasons.

-It's a straight shot through Austin without a co-sign. 
-It would relive any cross Texas/cross country I-10 traffic from dipping way south to San Antonio.
-It would effectively act as the I-35E and I-35W split being the 71/290 version being more of an I-10N and the existing I-10 from Columbus to Segovia being effectively I-10S
-It would be relatively less work for a greater impact.  Not only would the upgrades be minimum, especially through Austin and east of Austin, but it is a 220 mile corridor to upgrade to make an impact on a 2,500 mile corridor.  Just 220 miles to make a coast to coast interstate.
-Finally the El Paso-Austin-Houston corridor will be connected by interstate.

The only flaw I see is that I-10N&S would be hard to achieve, considering AASHTO rejecting almost all suffixed routes (Interstate & US, at least).

Those are placeholders, just to compare the I-35E I-35W split to this corridor.  I by no means am wanting a I-10N, neither do I want to renumber any interstate, especially I-10 through San Antonio.   That's why I said effectively, not renumbered.  I prefer I-18.  I have been wanting I-18 before I-14 reared it's ugly head.

Ah sorry. Didn’t catch that. Hmm. Would I-16 work too? Just asking.

I can't stand duplicated interstate routes.  The northern ones are in a "not much more they could do" position because there are a lot of east-west routes and not many numbers.  I am of the impression if there are available numbers between the two major routes, use them, even if there is a slight grid violation.  It's way better then having two routes with the same number but have nothing to do with each other. 

I-12 taken, exists in Louisiana
I-14 taken, exists in Texas (and was a planned interstate for years before that)
I-16 taken, exists in Georgia

That leaves I-18 which has been my preferred route number.

So would that mean the west and east termini both  be at I-10?

As I have said elsewhere and on here more than once, I really don't see an interstate numbering on this or any Austin to Houston routing.  If it were, the number should be an X10 number. Either I-810 or I-710. While the 8 would be more apt for a route that begins and ends at I-10, the seven would seemingly be more in line with the intent for the road, especially if it did not follow on to I-10 past Austin.

[sparker]

Here are the CAMPO 2045 arterial plans. Looks like they anticipate (or propose) that both 71 East and 290 East will be limited access, at last in the outer metro area:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hJvCstSua55osbz013HvPSKzf7Pw7G6b/view?usp=sharing

Nice to see both US-290 and SH-71 as limited access heading east... unfortunately US-290 to the west ends limited access at Dripping Springs. For a true long range plan, should extend out to US-281 at a minimum, or in this case, to the edge of the metropolitan planning area.

If US 290 we’re to be upgraded to limited access from Austin to Houston, I could see it become an interstate, as least to connect Houston to Austin. It could be a new designation, or Maybe it could be a continuation of I-12, (could be co-signed with I-10 from Houston (I-610 interchange) to Baton Rouge (western terminus), like 20/59 from MS to AL). Not saying it will become interstate though, but if it did indeed become one, would it still be cosigned with I-35 in Austin?

Unless it continued on west back to I-10, a multiplex with I-35 would be pointless; it would likely just end at its junction with that route.  Since we've let a bit of Fictional through the door -- it would likely be an independent western I-12; signage from Baton Rouge to Houston would be a bit gratuitous.

Also, the Bergstrom Expressway just opened east of Austin, on which the designation could run…since it connects to 71 west. Versus dumping traffic on an already congested I-35.

This is why I have pushed for SH-71 east of Austin and US 290 west of Austin as the preferred El Paso-Austin-Houston interstate.  Many reasons.

-It's a straight shot through Austin without a co-sign. 
-It would relive any cross Texas/cross country I-10 traffic from dipping way south to San Antonio.
-It would effectively act as the I-35E and I-35W split being the 71/290 version being more of an I-10N and the existing I-10 from Columbus to Segovia being effectively I-10S
-It would be relatively less work for a greater impact.  Not only would the upgrades be minimum, especially through Austin and east of Austin, but it is a 220 mile corridor to upgrade to make an impact on a 2,500 mile corridor.  Just 220 miles to make a coast to coast interstate.
-Finally the El Paso-Austin-Houston corridor will be connected by interstate.

Actually, since it is Texas, which hasn't shied away from the reiteration of suffixed Interstates, and Austin itself is approaching the 1M population mark, there's sufficient cause to actually and formally designate I-10N and I-10S through Austin and San Antonio respectively.  Of course, AASHTO and FHWA would have to concur, but if TxDOT were to initiate the move, that might go a way toward realization.  Now -- getting the Austin powers that be to throw their support behind such a corridor -- a necessary initial step -- might be a tougher row to hoe; their priorities seem to be providing local corridors to serve the expanding metro area rather than those to connect it with other regions -- and some local factions may prefer not to be located on a cross-country corridor, or anything with the potential to bring more "outside" traffic into the metro area.  So far that concept has been officially avoided in Austin; corridor concepts like I-14, which is in part intended to serve a previously Interstate-free zone, haven't gotten traction or even attention in the state capital city.  But that doesn't mean someone can't try to get the ball rolling -- but somewhere along the line they're liable to encounter apathy or outright opposition.  All that can be said is "good luck" to anyone attempting to identify and develop such a corridor.

[ethanhopkin14]

Here are the CAMPO 2045 arterial plans. Looks like they anticipate (or propose) that both 71 East and 290 East will be limited access, at last in the outer metro area:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hJvCstSua55osbz013HvPSKzf7Pw7G6b/view?usp=sharing

Nice to see both US-290 and SH-71 as limited access heading east... unfortunately US-290 to the west ends limited access at Dripping Springs. For a true long range plan, should extend out to US-281 at a minimum, or in this case, to the edge of the metropolitan planning area.

If US 290 we’re to be upgraded to limited access from Austin to Houston, I could see it become an interstate, as least to connect Houston to Austin. It could be a new designation, or Maybe it could be a continuation of I-12, (could be co-signed with I-10 from Houston (I-610 interchange) to Baton Rouge (western terminus), like 20/59 from MS to AL). Not saying it will become interstate though, but if it did indeed become one, would it still be cosigned with I-35 in Austin?

Unless it continued on west back to I-10, a multiplex with I-35 would be pointless; it would likely just end at its junction with that route.  Since we've let a bit of Fictional through the door -- it would likely be an independent western I-12; signage from Baton Rouge to Houston would be a bit gratuitous.

Also, the Bergstrom Expressway just opened east of Austin, on which the designation could run…since it connects to 71 west. Versus dumping traffic on an already congested I-35.

This is why I have pushed for SH-71 east of Austin and US 290 west of Austin as the preferred El Paso-Austin-Houston interstate.  Many reasons.

-It's a straight shot through Austin without a co-sign. 
-It would relive any cross Texas/cross country I-10 traffic from dipping way south to San Antonio.
-It would effectively act as the I-35E and I-35W split being the 71/290 version being more of an I-10N and the existing I-10 from Columbus to Segovia being effectively I-10S
-It would be relatively less work for a greater impact.  Not only would the upgrades be minimum, especially through Austin and east of Austin, but it is a 220 mile corridor to upgrade to make an impact on a 2,500 mile corridor.  Just 220 miles to make a coast to coast interstate.
-Finally the El Paso-Austin-Houston corridor will be connected by interstate.

Actually, since it is Texas, which hasn't shied away from the reiteration of suffixed Interstates, and Austin itself is approaching the 1M population mark, there's sufficient cause to actually and formally designate I-10N and I-10S through Austin and San Antonio respectively.  Of course, AASHTO and FHWA would have to concur, but if TxDOT were to initiate the move, that might go a way toward realization.  Now -- getting the Austin powers that be to throw their support behind such a corridor -- a necessary initial step -- might be a tougher row to hoe; their priorities seem to be providing local corridors to serve the expanding metro area rather than those to connect it with other regions -- and some local factions may prefer not to be located on a cross-country corridor, or anything with the potential to bring more "outside" traffic into the metro area.  So far that concept has been officially avoided in Austin; corridor concepts like I-14, which is in part intended to serve a previously Interstate-free zone, haven't gotten traction or even attention in the state capital city.  But that doesn't mean someone can't try to get the ball rolling -- but somewhere along the line they're liable to encounter apathy or outright opposition.  All that can be said is "good luck" to anyone attempting to identify and develop such a corridor.

Interesting point I never really considered.  I always thought more traffic means more $$.  After all money makes everything move right?   My biggest selling point to Austin was and always is, the corridor in question is about 955 complete in Austin, and the other 5% has been on the books for 40 years.  I have always took the stance that Austin hates freeway construction, and heavy emphasis on construction.  Once it's constructed they usually move on with life.  Once upon a time they hated Mopac, but now its there they seem to actually like it.  I figured this way of thinking would help the biggest hurdle.  The biggest hurdle being getting it through Austin.  The old " the corridor needs no upgrading in your backyard, just those other people's back yard".  I never thought someone would be opposed to being on, essentially, a coast to coast route.   Yes it will bring more traffic to Austin, but local business knows more traffic brings more money.   People will use a freeway more readily to get to businesses in a city that is thought to be a long way away since the trip become quicker.  Like Austin and San Antonio don't really feel that far apart, only because there is a freeway between the two (a heavy congested one, I know).

[bwana39]

I think you fail to understand the dynamics of Austin. Texas is still conservative, rugged, and love our cars. Then there is Austin; progressive, modern, a college town run amuck. The government (the legislature) meets there every other year and then goes home. Austin is just an afterthought to the rest of Texas and the majority of the legislature. The governor has very limited power beyond the veto and a few emergency powers. 

Even the UT alumni who didn't stay in Austin have limited love for it.

Somehow you think someone (anyone) in Texas (especially those Aggie Engineers at TXDOT) has any desire to make Austin something special, you had better think again. Austin is the old aunt we visit because we have to. We cannot get away fast enough and stay away until we have to return EXCEPT for the Austinites who think it is heaven and that makes the rest of us want to stay away even more.

[Anthony_JK]

[...]

As to the I-12 number. The way it should have worked was I-12 should have been a renumbered I-10 and I-10 from Baton Rouge to Slidell, should have been numbered as a 3DI or perhaps I-59.  Absent that, For sure I-610 should have been renumbered as I-10 and the downtown loop numbered as a 3DI.

Absolutely NOT.

New Orleans is large enough of a metropolitan area to deserve I-10 through it, not a 3DI. I-12 is important enough in its own right as a bypass.

Also, the original concept of the IHS was to directly serve central business districts; therefore it was favored to have Interstate highways as close to CBD's as possible. I-10's routing through NOLA, in this case, is perfectly acceptable; with I-610 serving as the "through" bypass.

[Plutonic Panda]

I thought the original plan of the Interstate project was to mirror Germany’s autobahn network and pass close to cities not through them and then that was changed.

[Anthony_JK]

[...]

Actually, since it is Texas, which hasn't shied away from the reiteration of suffixed Interstates, and Austin itself is approaching the 1M population mark, there's sufficient cause to actually and formally designate I-10N and I-10S through Austin and San Antonio respectively.  Of course, AASHTO and FHWA would have to concur, but if TxDOT were to initiate the move, that might go a way toward realization.  Now -- getting the Austin powers that be to throw their support behind such a corridor -- a necessary initial step -- might be a tougher row to hoe; their priorities seem to be providing local corridors to serve the expanding metro area rather than those to connect it with other regions -- and some local factions may prefer not to be located on a cross-country corridor, or anything with the potential to bring more "outside" traffic into the metro area.  So far that concept has been officially avoided in Austin; corridor concepts like I-14, which is in part intended to serve a previously Interstate-free zone, haven't gotten traction or even attention in the state capital city.  But that doesn't mean someone can't try to get the ball rolling -- but somewhere along the line they're liable to encounter apathy or outright opposition.  All that can be said is "good luck" to anyone attempting to identify and develop such a corridor.

That would actually be a great idea if the corridor was US 290 from I-10 east to Austin and then TX 71 to I-10. The main issue would be how would San Antonio feel about their main W-E corridor being "downgraded" to a subsegment.

Personally, though, I'd have no problem whatsoever with a western I-12 designation for that corridor. You could make the concurrency with I-10 from there to Baton Rouge silent.

[Anthony_JK]

I thought the original plan of the Interstate project was to mirror Germany’s autobahn network and pass close to cities not through them and then that was changed.

Perhaps so....I'm guessing that major cities effected that change because they wanted to further develop their CBD's.