Interstate 2

[Grzrd]

I recently had an email Q & A with TxDOT ... TxDOT has identified the I-35/US 83 intersection in Laredo as "mile zero" ...:

.... For I-2, there is the possibility of carrying it along US 83 up to Laredo, but very long term. Therefore, the "0"  mile marker for I-2 begins at the intersection of I-35 and US 83 in Laredo. The mile marker for where I-2 begins on the western end west of Mission is Mile Marker 131.

This April 10 article reports that TxDOT will accept bids on the two La Joya relief route frontage road projects on July 15

TxDOT has issued a Finding of No Significant Impact ("FONSI") for the La Joya relief route

TxDOT has awarded an approximately $87 million contract for the La Joya relief route frontage road projects:



With FONSI and contract in hand for this project, now begins the post-I-2-designation slow crawl to Laredo .......

... That said it's more realistic that a future I-2, when built, would follow Cuatro Vientos and Bob Bullock Loop than US 83 north of Rio Bravo, since the US 83 corridor is heavily built up, particularly on the east-west portion; you'd have to bulldoze between the one-way pair for probably 30 blocks to even get to I-35, and putting an interchange there would take out a whole neighborhood.
All this is really pie-in-the-sky, though, since traffic on US 83 drops off almost completely between Rio Bravo and  the north side of Roma.

This July 6 article reports that the groundbreaking for the Loop 20/ Clark Boulevard overpass was held on July 6 ....
this July 6 TV video reports on work that is to soon begin on the Interstate 69 corridor and includes comments from Commissioner Austin, presumably from the Clark Boulevard overpass groundbreaking:

Work is set to begin soon on the I-69 corridor, which will connect Laredo to the valley as well as other parts of the nation.
We spoke with Jeff Austin the third with the Texas Transportation Commission, who explains why this is important for commerce.
"Part of our commercial priorities is to help let Interstate 69 and all spurs become part of a national freight corridor.

In trying to read the tea leaves, I guess it is possible that Commissioner Austin, and TxDOT, have a vision for the Clark Boulevard interchange non-I-69W part of Loop 20 to ultimately be part of an I-69W spur.

(bottom quote from I-69 in TX thread)

I suppose there is a remote possibility that, even if TxDOT pursues an I-x69 designation for the "southern" section of the Bob Bullock Loop in the near term, the I-x69 spur could one day be redesignated as part of I-2.  If so, roadgeeks would then be able to argue whether the Clark Boulevard overpass was actually the first post-I-2-designation "I-2" project.  Too bad I won't be around to participate.

[Henry]

Just as I had suspected! Twenty years ago, only I-35 served Laredo, and now I-69W and I-2 are projected to serve the area too. It'll be interesting to see how much of I-2 gets built in my lifetime.

[ARMOURERERIC]

There is no way for me not to be political here, but I wondered today, with all the concerns about the ability to make a border fence along the Rio Grand, why could Texas not design the new parts of I-2 as to be a difficult immigration barrier?

[iBallasticwolf2]

There is no way for me not to be political here, but I wondered today, with all the concerns about the ability to make a border fence along the Rio Grand, why could Texas not design the new parts of I-2 as to be a difficult immigration barrier?

It could be built similar to Loop 375 in El Paso by making it right on the waterfront with possibly
the road above ground level but not elevated and controlled by embankments like on a flyover ramp.

[roadman65]

If it were extended to El Paso, heck even Laredo, then IMO it would be out of the 97 club. 

BTW the 97 club is what I call the waste of a good interstate number. It got its name for the one county two digit interstate near Baltimore that is just a glorified spur of the Baltimore Beltway. Right now I-2 is just a 3 digit spur of the even more worthless I-69 suffix routes as far as I am concerned.

[english si]

I-97 has viable potential for use on another corridor (especially as I-99 is taken). The I-2 number doesn't really (especially as I-6 can be deployed), and has that extension potential.

And it's not like, while short, the I-97 isn't worthy of being a 2-di - what with being the interstate link for a state capital. Of course, there's 2dis that could have been extended to Annapolis (eg 83 or 66 - even I-70)

[roadman65]

Considering that I-2 is a long way off, I still say wait until it gets to Laredo. Right now I-169 would work or keep it as US 83 as its been.   Just because its a freeway does not mean it has to be interstate, and just because a corridor  needs to be there for truckers does not mean it needs to be upgraded to interstate either.  US 77 in Kenedy county is more efficient than any interstate quality roadway is in a lot of places, and as is can transport goods as quickly as it would be interstate.

[Grzrd]

New shields coming to the Pharr District after the January 2013 maintenance letting (CCSJ Cameron 6252-51-001):  I-69E (US 77), I-69C (US 281), I-169 (US 83).  In all cases TxDOT is using three-digit shields even for the routes (I-69E and I-69C) which are notionally two-digit with suffix.

(above quote from I-69 in TX thread)

Considering that I-2 is a long way off, I still say wait until it gets to Laredo. Right now I-169 would work or keep it as US 83 as its been.

It appears that TxDOT initially wanted to designate it as I-169.  I would be interested to know why they apparently changed their mind. If it had been designated as I-169, then the long way off extension to Laredo could have been redesignated as an extension of I-35 (I think the LRGV community would have been likely to oppose a redesignation of the 2di I-2).  Maybe they decided against the I-35 extension option in order to avoid having to change exit numbers and mile markers on the current I-35, and anticipated a similar problem for I-2 by establishing I-2's "mile zero" in Laredo.

[roadman65]

It seems so funny though that I-2 will be shorter than I-369.

Also they could have had it unsigned like neighboring LA has for I-910 or Maryland has for I-595.  Then the same for the western built freeway plan as unsigned I-x35 but clearly visible US 83 to any upgrades to that proposal.

[bassoon1986]

Well, if we're worried about the number 2 being used on such a short corridor, there honestly aren't many I-x2's out there except 72 and 82. The I-x5's are obviously major routes and of the I-x1's and I-x9's there are a couple of major ones. I-2 fits nicely where it is located, and if it works it way up to Laredo, it will seem more like a 2di than a 3di .

[empirestate]

Well, if we're worried about the number 2 being used on such a short corridor, there honestly aren't many I-x2's out there except 72 and 82. The I-x5's are obviously major routes and of the I-x1's and I-x9's there are a couple of major ones. I-2 fits nicely where it is located, and if it works it way up to Laredo, it will seem more like a 2di than a 3di .

And once they build the Trans-Gulf Bridge to Key West, it can be extended along the Overseas Highway to I-95.


iPhone

[Grzrd]

Cuatro Vientos is being built as an expressway-standard route; it could be subsequently upgraded to a full freeway, and there are accommodations for overpasses at a few cross-roads, but unlike Bob Bullock Loop to the north some areas won't have space for frontage roads where there are at-grade intersections.
That said it's more realistic that a future I-2, when built, would follow Cuatro Vientos and Bob Bullock Loop than US 83 north of Rio Bravo ...
All this is really pie-in-the-sky, though, since traffic on US 83 drops off almost completely between Rio Bravo and  the north side of Roma

This July 6 article reports that the groundbreaking for the Loop 20/ Clark Boulevard overpass was held on July 6 ....
this July 6 TV video reports on work that is to soon begin on the Interstate 69 corridor and includes comments from Commissioner Austin, presumably from the Clark Boulevard overpass groundbreaking
In trying to read the tea leaves, I guess it is possible that Commissioner Austin, and TxDOT, have a vision for the Clark Boulevard interchange non-I-69W part of Loop 20 to ultimately be part of an I-69W spur ....
I suppose there is a remote possibility that, even if TxDOT pursues an I-x69 designation for the "southern" section of the Bob Bullock Loop in the near term, the I-x69 spur could one day be redesignated as part of I-2.

(above quote from I-69 in TX thread)

The final Laredo 2015-40 Metropolitan Transportation Plan has been posted

I recently looked at the 2015-40 Metropolitan Transportation Plan ... a map of their "illustrative projects" (unfunded wish list) ... Here is a snip of the "illustrative projects" map (p. 321/368 of pdf; p. 12-39 of document):

(above quote from I-69 in TX thread)

Regardless of whether it will eventually become part of I-2, the illustrative map demonstrates big dreams for Cuatro Vientos.  Projects on the map suggest a possible routing of a Future I-2 up US 83 to the proposed four-lane Outer Loop to Cuatro Vientos (the potentially more direct route of the proposed Cuatro Vientos extension from the Outer Loop to US 83 is only proposed as two-lane new construction).  Proposed projects include a through traffic overpass on US 83 near the Outer Loop, two direct connectors connecting US 83 and the Outer Loop (interestingly, there are no proposed direct connectors from the Outer Loop to Cuatro Vientos), four through traffic overpasses on Cuatro Vientos, and a widening of Cuatro Vientos from four to six lanes if the Outer Loop is built.

If these projects start coming to fruition in a few years, then this routing, or at least the Cuatro Vientos part of it, could become part of an I-x69 and/or part of a long-term I-2.

[The Ghostbuster]

Maybe Interstate 2 east of Interstate 69C could have been part of 69C, and the portion west of there could have stayed US 83. Just a thought, since Interstate 2 may never reach Laredo.

[aboges26]

Now with the proposed southern terminus of I-27 in Laredo, I-2 could have just been the natural extension and I-27 could have its 0 point at I-69E in Harlingen if not duplexing all the way to the end of I-69E in Brownsville.  Rather than guessing the approximate future route of I-2 to sign its current mileage markers, labeling it as I-27 would enable the simplest mileage assignment.

[ethanhopkin14]

You guys are taking all the fun out of when I went down to the Valley to watch the sign unveiling ceremony for the lowest numbered interstate in the country!  Stop trying to make Interstate 2 I-69, or whatever you feel like renumbering, or worse of all, trying to decommission it 2 years into it's existence and making it revert back to just US 83 just because "you don't like it's shortness."  The whole point of all the exercises of adding I-69E, I69C and I-2 is because the valley has no interstates and needs them.  So now you want to say, "I know you have needed this interstate for decades, but now that you have it, we are going to renumber it 20 times, or just yank it away altogether.   

[Rothman]

The whole point of all the exercises of adding I-69E, I69C and I-2 is because the valley has no interstates and needs them. 

Why do they need interstates, specifically?

[ethanhopkin14]

The whole point of all the exercises of adding I-69E, I69C and I-2 is because the valley has no interstates and needs them. 

Why do they need interstates, specifically?

I guess no one "needs" an interstate.  But I hate to break it to all you so called "roadgeeks", yes the interstate shield means something.  it means the security that this freeway will not suddenly become a 2 lane road like the U.S. highway shield suggests.  It means a great road for a long time.  It means truck, which brings jobs, which brings people.  It means a faster way to get good across this enormous country on the ground.  It means when planning that cross country family road trip, you can count on the shield getting you to your destination not only quicker, but safer.  That's what the representatives of the Rio Grande Valley were talking about when they said the Valley needs interstate highways.  They need the above mentioned. 

The point is, an interstate highway means power.  It isn't the same if you slap a half assed freeway/expressway somewhere and say that's just as good as an interstate.  It's like going to a double A minor league baseball game and saying it's just as good as watching the Yankees and Red Sox.

[Rothman]

The whole point of all the exercises of adding I-69E, I69C and I-2 is because the valley has no interstates and needs them. 

Why do they need interstates, specifically?

I guess no one "needs" an interstate.  But I hate to break it to all you so called "roadgeeks", yes the interstate shield means something.  it means the security that this freeway will not suddenly become a 2 lane road like the U.S. highway shield suggests.  It means a great road for a long time.  It means truck, which brings jobs, which brings people.  It means a faster way to get good across this enormous country on the ground.  It means when planning that cross country family road trip, you can count on the shield getting you to your destination not only quicker, but safer.  That's what the representatives of the Rio Grande Valley were talking about when they said the Valley needs interstate highways.  They need the above mentioned. 

Interstate 2 is hardly cross country (even if extended to Laredo) and the economic benefits of interstates have always been greatly exaggerated (I-86 in NY through the Southern Tier is a prime example of unrealized economic gains).  As I've mentioned elsewhere, if interstates universally meant economic growth, then Binghamton, NY should be a thriving community when it's in reality the urban equivalent of a decaying old man about to be taken off of life support.  It's really unfortunate that the idea that interstates mean guaranteed meaningful economic growth (i.e., beyond the generation of fast food joints and gas stations) has taken such a strong hold...except I suppose it does provide a compelling argument used to just put more money in contractors' pockets to build and maintain them.

I agree that there are the benefits from the adherence to the specifications for interstates, but other than that, the other benefits mentioned get stretched pretty thinly.

[NE2]

it means the security that this freeway will not suddenly become a 2 lane road like the U.S. highway shield suggests.

I-2 doesn't become a two-lane road

[iBallasticwolf2]

it means the security that this freeway will not suddenly become a 2 lane road like the U.S. highway shield suggests.

I-2 doesn't become a two-lane road

I think ethan is just speaking for the whole Interstate system.

[empirestate]

While I think the Interstate "branding" could have these various benefits with adequate promotion and awareness of the brand, I think the extent to which this actually happens now tend to be greatly overstated.


iPhone

[kkt]

because red, white, and blue is more patriotic than black and white!  You DO want to be patriotic, don't you?

[Rothman]

because red, white, and blue is more patriotic than black and white!  You DO want to be patriotic, don't you?

Maybe he's a Commie.

[iBallasticwolf2]

because red, white, and blue is more patriotic than black and white!  You DO want to be patriotic, don't you?

Maybe he's a Commie.

WE WILL NEVER KNOW.

[lordsutch]

I think the major rationale is that the LRGV is the largest metropolitan area/region in the lower 48 without a freeway connection to the rest of the country, and in most of America the Interstate shield (albeit with exceptions) is a close-to guarantee of a well-engineered, controlled-access facility in a way that no other symbol is.

It's the same reason why it's a BIG DEAL that Glasgow and London now have a direct motorway connection in the UK and why you see the same thing with plans for the Newcastle region in England to be connected to London and Belfast-Dublin on the island of Ireland, even though functionally the old non-motorway dual carriageway links that were/are there now accomplish (or accomplished, in the case of the old A74 north of Carlisle) almost the same thing.

Plus for the LRGV it's a marketing tool for cross-border shipment to be able to say you can get straight onto the Interstate system in McAllen or Brownsville, just like in Laredo and El Paso, rather than having to stop to explain to the foreign investors how US 77 is almost as awesome as an Interstate and you don't slow down that much on US 281 through George West and all the other settlements along it. Especially when dealing with people from Mexico who know a lot of the libres (which they'd see as the equivalent to a US route; even though the analogy isn't perfect it's how people operate) aren't anything close to good highways, it makes sense.