Has a US Route ever passed thru Corpus Christi?

[thisdj78]

I know that US181 ends in Corpus Christi at I-37 but has a US Route ever passed completely thru Corpus Christi?

[jgb191]

US-77 has come the closest passing just 14 miles west of downtown Corpus Christi, although Calallen homes and businesses still have the Corpus Christi physical address so technically it does count as passing through.  It also would have made (perhaps way too much) sense to extend US 183 southward from Refugio through Bayside to join up with US-181/TX-35 in Gregory down to the city.

On another note, I would have liked to see TX-358 relabeled as I-137, and TX-286 relabeled as US-181 extension down to FM-43 (Weber Road).  If that's the case, US-181 would be passing right through the heart of the city.

[usends]

For about 15 years, both US 77 and US 181 ended right in downtown Corpus.  But no, no US route has ever continued all the way through the city.

[bugo]

I would have liked to see TX-358 relabeled as I-137, and TX-286 relabeled as US-181 extension down to FM-43 (Weber Road).

You want a US highway to end at a Texas farm road? That doesn't make any sense. Even if it extended to Chapman Ranch, it would still end at a farm road. The only logical way to extend it is to build a new highway from Chapman Ranch to Riviera and call it US 181. But then again, this is the state that is building two parallel Interstates 15 miles apart from each other, despite the fact that most of US 77 and 281 south of the TX 44 corridor are both high speed expressways with very little cross traffic other than some ranch access roads. If you must, upgrade US 77 to Interstate standards and give it a normal number like I-33 or I-47, and drop that 69WCE nonsense. A handful of bypasses and some interchanges and grade separations is all US 281 really needs. Two Interstates running 15-20 miles apart is redundant. Some are calling I-57 in Arkansas redundant to I-40 and I-55, but I-69C and I-69W running that close together is truly redundant.

[Anthony_JK]

Really, is it such a big deal that there are two controlled access highways within shouting distance of each other to serve South Texas?


There is certainly justification for both US 77 and US 281 being Interstate grade, for both serve different purposes. 281 connects with I-37 at George West, and provides more direct access to the San Antonio area and the I-35/NAFTA corridor for South Texas. 77 serves as the connection between South Texas and Corpus Christi, with access NE to Victoria, Houston, and beyond. Also, they are both Interstate grade within the Harlingen/Brownsvill area, and they were quite easy to remove the direct access to the ranch access roads to make them freeway-grade, so what's the beef against that?


The I-69 naming colossus may be questioned on its merits (I'd make 69E an I-37 extension; run I-69 (no suffix) down US 59 to Freer and then SH 44 to Robstown, then continue down US 77 to Victoria and US 59 to Houston and beyond; and keep US 287 as is but still upgrade it), but since it's now the law and official, it is what it is.


If we are going to go Fictional with this, go all the way Fictional. Build a proper extension of SH 358 paralleling US 59/I-69 to connect with SH 288 or even I-45 south of Houston as a hurricane evac route. Otherwise, it's fine as it is.

[bugo]

Because having two Interstates running parallel 15-20 miles apart is wasteful, especially since both roads are 4 lanes divided most of the way. Upgrading both of them is a waste of money and resources that could be used for more important roads (US 287 and US 290, for example).

[jgb191]

I would have liked to see TX-358 relabeled as I-137, and TX-286 relabeled as US-181 extension down to FM-43 (Weber Road).

You want a US highway to end at a Texas farm road? That doesn't make any sense. Even if it extended to Chapman Ranch, it would still end at a farm road. The only logical way to extend it is to build a new highway from Chapman Ranch to Riviera and call it US 181.

I actually visited our local TxDOT office for a class project right before the new century, and one of the points they informed me were that there were propositions to extend the Crosstown Expressway down to various endpoints towards (and even approaching) Chapman Ranch; there were already plans in place to extend the TX-286 Expressway down to Saratoga Blvd (TX-357) which included replacing the vintage, three-way interchange with TX-358 (SPID) with a modern, four-way, triple-level stack interchange (completed in 2006).  I asked if there was any possibility of extending it down to Bishop or Kingsville, which they answered "not anytime soon."

As for the new Interstates in South Texas:  For decades, I thought Houston to Victoria to Brownsville (US-59 and US-77) seemed very logical and was certainly inevitable.  But I also believe it's logical to upgrade TX-44 from C.C. to Freer and then US-59 to Laredo to an interstate highway as both cities were growing quite rapidly.  I also agreed with keeping the US-281 segment from Three Rivers to McAllen as it is now.  I'd also like to see I-35 extended down to meet up with the new I-2 in Roma.  I might just sketch and display a map of my idea for an interstate system in South Texas.

[Rothman]

Because having two Interstates running parallel 15-20 miles apart is wasteful, especially since both roads are 4 lanes divided most of the way. Upgrading both of them is a waste of money and resources that could be used for more important roads (US 287 and US 290, for example).

Tell that to NJ.

[brad2971]

Because having two Interstates running parallel 15-20 miles apart is wasteful, especially since both roads are 4 lanes divided most of the way. Upgrading both of them is a waste of money and resources that could be used for more important roads (US 287 and US 290, for example).

Tell that to NJ.

South Florida is also entering the chat. After all, there are a few miles in northern Palm Beach County where both I-95 and the Florida Turnpike are right next to one another.

[jgb191]

Because having two Interstates running parallel 15-20 miles apart is wasteful, especially since both roads are 4 lanes divided most of the way. Upgrading both of them is a waste of money and resources that could be used for more important roads (US 287 and US 290, for example).

Tell that to NJ.

Well then let me ask you this:  Are there any parts of New Jersey that only have about 900 residents in over four thousand square miles of wide-open empty land area?  That calculates to more than four square miles of land per resident.  That's how sparsely populated the portion of Texas is between TX-285 and TX-186/FM-1017.  Not saying I disagreeing with you, but I've never been to NJ so I don't know if such sparely populated parts exist there.

[Bobby5280]

Well then let me ask you this:  Are there any parts of New Jersey that only have about 900 residents in over four thousand square miles of wide-open empty land area?

The open area spanned by I-69C and I-69E is irrelevant. What matters more is well over 1 million people live in that cluster of cities in the Rio Grande Valley region at the far South end of Texas. Many Americans have no clue just how many people live there. There is no one single city in that region which functions as a large "parent" to a bunch of smaller "child" suburbs (the way most other large population centers in the US are built). So it's easy to assume not many people live there.

The Rio Grande Valley has major border crossings serving Interstate commerce. Plus the two routes going North out of the region need to be ready to pull duty as hurricane evacuation routes. I see nothing wasteful with upgrading US-77 and US-281 to Interstate status. I also think I-2 should be extended up to Laredo as well (the exit numbers already reflect such a possibility).

[thisdj78]

Because having two Interstates running parallel 15-20 miles apart is wasteful, especially since both roads are 4 lanes divided most of the way. Upgrading both of them is a waste of money and resources that could be used for more important roads (US 287 and US 290, for example).

Tell that to NJ.

Well then let me ask you this:  Are there any parts of New Jersey that only have about 900 residents in over four thousand square miles of wide-open empty land area?  That calculates to more than four square miles of land per resident.  That's how sparsely populated the portion of Texas is between TX-285 and TX-186/FM-1017.  Not saying I disagreeing with you, but I've never been to NJ so I don't know if such sparely populated parts exist there.

There are some sparsely populated areas in south Jersey but they also don't have closely paralleled freeways down there either.

[Road Hog]

This is a ridiculous argument. New Jersey is the most densely populated state in the U.S. at 1,300 per square mile. Rhode Island is second at 1,100 per square mile. But Texas is different because you have densely populated areas separated by hundreds of miles with a great need for mobility between them.

[ethanhopkin14]

This is a ridiculous argument. New Jersey is the most densely populated state in the U.S. at 1,300 per square mile. Rhode Island is second at 1,100 per square mile. But Texas is different because you have densely populated areas separated by hundreds of miles with a great need for mobility between them.

Agreed.   This conversation seems to read like this:

"If there are two metro areas of 5 million people 300 miles apart, but no one lives between them, then there is no need for a freeway."

I will say, like Liberace always said, "Too much of a good thing is wonderful."  You will never hear me complain that there are too many Interstates/freeways or that there are two Interstates two close together.  I will always complain there are not near enough Interstates/freeways.