AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

New rules to ensure post quality. See this thread for details.

Author Topic: Austin, TX  (Read 31437 times)

Thegeet

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 211
  • Location: Port Lavaca, TX
  • Last Login: November 28, 2021, 12:45:04 PM
Re: Austin, TX
« Reply #325 on: October 08, 2021, 08:16:10 PM »

A short length route like the TX-130 tollway does not warrant burning a 2-digit Interstate designation. A 3-digit I-x35 designation would be just fine.

Besides, if there was going to be a "I-33" route designated, the US-281 corridor going North out of San Antonio would be a better candidate. In big picture terms the US-281 corridor could emerge as a relief North-South corridor for I-35, basically a Western bypass of Austin and DFW. The route could go up to Wichita Falls and even overlap the portion of I-44 Southwest of OKC before re-connecting back to I-35 in OKC. That would be a better "I-33" and it would be an actual Interstate, going across state lines. BTW I think US-277 should be gradually upgraded between Wichita Falls and Abilene. That could turn into an eventual extension of I-44 to I-20 (or even to San Angelo to meet up with a possible extension of I-27).
Okay, but why isnít I-12 I-410, or something I-x10? I-12 in LA is even shorter, and it connects to I-10 twice.

Actually, SH 45 & SH 130 could really be considered a new I-x35 bypass loop around Austin.

About US-281, Iíd prefer an extension of I-37.
« Last Edit: October 08, 2021, 08:19:37 PM by Thegeet »
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2731
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: November 28, 2021, 11:59:46 PM
Re: Austin, TX
« Reply #326 on: October 09, 2021, 01:31:35 AM »

Quote from: Thegeet
Okay, but why isnít I-12 I-410, or something I-x10? I-12 in LA is even shorter, and it connects to I-10 twice.

I-12 is a unique case. I-12 in Louisiana at least runs in a straight, direct path. It probably should have been called I-10 and what is currently I-10 bending down thru New Orleans should have been given a 3 digit I-x10 route. The treatment would be similar to how I-5 bypasses the SF Bay area rather than go through it.

Not that any of this matters. TX DOT is not big at all on designating new Interstate routes; they're perfectly happy converting state and US highways to freeways and maintaining those designations. I-69 and I-14 are exceptions driven in part by politics.
Logged

Thegeet

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 211
  • Location: Port Lavaca, TX
  • Last Login: November 28, 2021, 12:45:04 PM
Re: Austin, TX
« Reply #327 on: October 09, 2021, 01:51:47 AM »

Quote from: Thegeet
Okay, but why isnít I-12 I-410, or something I-x10? I-12 in LA is even shorter, and it connects to I-10 twice.

I-12 is a unique case. I-12 in Louisiana at least runs in a straight, direct path. It probably should have been called I-10 and what is currently I-10 bending down thru New Orleans should have been given a 3 digit I-x10 route. The treatment would be similar to how I-5 bypasses the SF Bay area rather than go through it.

Not that any of this matters. TX DOT is not big at all on designating new Interstate routes; they're perfectly happy converting state and US highways to freeways and maintaining those designations. I-69 and I-14 are exceptions driven in part by politics.
At least I-5 goes through Sacramento. I-12 doesnít go through any significant cities.
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2731
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: November 28, 2021, 11:59:46 PM
Re: Austin, TX
« Reply #328 on: October 09, 2021, 11:17:18 AM »

Good grief. Look at the map. I-12 isn't meant to go through any major cities. It is a DIRECT bypass of New Orleans. I-10 has to bend well out of the way to go through New Orleans. Cross country traffic on I-10 uses I-12 to SAVE TIME and MILEAGE.
Logged

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7086
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 06:40:16 AM
Re: Austin, TX
« Reply #329 on: October 09, 2021, 11:31:33 AM »

Good grief. Look at the map. I-12 isn't meant to go through any major cities. It is a DIRECT bypass of New Orleans. I-10 has to bend well out of the way to go through New Orleans. Cross country traffic on I-10 uses I-12 to SAVE TIME and MILEAGE.
Thatís not what he was trying to say.

He was pointing out the fact that routing I-10 over I-12 wouldnít be an exact comparison to I-5 and it bypassing San Francisco, because it still goes through another major city - Sacramento - whereas I-12 does not.
Logged

Anthony_JK

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1477
  • Age: 57
  • Location: Lafayette, Louisiana
  • Last Login: November 28, 2021, 02:57:46 AM
Re: Austin, TX
« Reply #330 on: October 09, 2021, 11:35:52 AM »

I-10 was designated as such to directly serve NOLA with the most prominent southern 2di.

I-12 was designated as such to serve as the principal bypass of NOLA for I-10.

Both designations are totally warranted.



Also, Baton Rouge is the state capital of Louisiana. I wouldn't quite call it "insignificant". Maybe compared to Frisco, but hardly insignificant in relative terms.

« Last Edit: October 09, 2021, 11:38:32 AM by Anthony_JK »
Logged

Thegeet

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 211
  • Location: Port Lavaca, TX
  • Last Login: November 28, 2021, 12:45:04 PM
Re: Austin, TX
« Reply #331 on: October 09, 2021, 12:06:05 PM »

I-5 is supposed to bypass San Francisco in order to reach Sacramento.
I-10 was designated as such to directly serve NOLA with the most prominent southern 2di.

I-12 was designated as such to serve as the principal bypass of NOLA for I-10.

Both designations are totally warranted.



Also, Baton Rouge is the state capital of Louisiana. I wouldn't quite call it "insignificant". Maybe compared to Frisco, but hardly insignificant in relative terms.
Exactly. Yes. Baton Rouge is the only significant city it serves. Other than that, which is the western end, thereís no other notable cities it serves.
Logged

ethanhopkin14

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1369
  • Age: 42
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Last Login: November 24, 2021, 09:11:07 AM
Re: Austin, TX
« Reply #332 on: October 09, 2021, 05:53:44 PM »

I-5 is supposed to bypass San Francisco in order to reach Sacramento.
I-10 was designated as such to directly serve NOLA with the most prominent southern 2di.

I-12 was designated as such to serve as the principal bypass of NOLA for I-10.

Both designations are totally warranted.



Also, Baton Rouge is the state capital of Louisiana. I wouldn't quite call it "insignificant". Maybe compared to Frisco, but hardly insignificant in relative terms.
Exactly. Yes. Baton Rouge is the only significant city it serves. Other than that, which is the western end, thereís no other notable cities it serves.

At the western terminus which I-10 serves anyway, so I don't really consider I-12 going through Baton Rouge since you can also get there by staying on I-10.
Logged

longhorn

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 380
  • Last Login: November 24, 2021, 05:47:48 PM
Re: Austin, TX
« Reply #333 on: November 12, 2021, 09:47:39 AM »

Logged

thisdj78

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 256
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Texas
  • Last Login: November 28, 2021, 10:56:10 PM
Re: Austin, TX
« Reply #334 on: November 14, 2021, 07:46:06 PM »

Logged

longhorn

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 380
  • Last Login: November 24, 2021, 05:47:48 PM
Re: Austin, TX
« Reply #335 on: November 15, 2021, 10:10:35 PM »

Drove to COTA this weekend from Georgetown, when did they black top tollway 130 from 71 south? How far does the black top go? Is it on 45 too? I know a different consortium owns the southern Tollway.
Logged

longhorn

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 380
  • Last Login: November 24, 2021, 05:47:48 PM
Re: Austin, TX
« Reply #336 on: November 15, 2021, 10:11:47 PM »

The regroved Tollway 130 on the north side is heavenly, so quiet and smooth, till you get back to the ungroved concrete.
Logged

TheBox

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 39
  • Location: Houston, TX, United States
  • Last Login: Today at 07:25:40 AM
Re: Austin, TX
« Reply #337 on: November 22, 2021, 11:31:57 PM »

I know they prioritized TX-71 much more than they prioritized US-290 in the past decade, but when are gonna update the US-290 @ TX-36 in Brenham intersection?

that was all apart of a freeway plan from decades ago (related to I-27), only for those plans to never happen anyway

EDIT: and yes, i'm aware this was around a time before Austin became the big developing and growing Texas metropolis is it today, cause back then (i wasn't born yet lol) it was just a college city that just so happens to be Texas' capital city
« Last Edit: November 23, 2021, 11:33:36 PM by TheBox »
Logged

thisdj78

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 256
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Texas
  • Last Login: November 28, 2021, 10:56:10 PM
Re: Austin, TX
« Reply #338 on: November 23, 2021, 10:53:55 AM »

I know they prioritized TX-75 much more than they prioritized US-290 in the past decade, but when are gonna update the US-290 @ TX-36 in Brenham intersection?

that was all apart of a freeway plan from decades ago (related to I-27), only for those plans to never happen anyway

I think you meant 71.

But yes there are still plans to realign the 290 @ 36 intersection. There were schematics posted of the different alignment options several months ago somewhere on here.
Logged

TheBox

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 39
  • Location: Houston, TX, United States
  • Last Login: Today at 07:25:40 AM
Re: Austin, TX
« Reply #339 on: November 27, 2021, 10:39:23 PM »

I know they prioritized TX-75 much more than they prioritized US-290 in the past decade, but when are gonna update the US-290 @ TX-36 in Brenham intersection?

that was all apart of a freeway plan from decades ago (related to I-27), only for those plans to never happen anyway

I think you meant 71.

But yes there are still plans to realign the 290 @ 36 intersection. There were schematics posted of the different alignment options several months ago somewhere on here.

If i were them i would pick either Option D or E, since those the most interstate-esque upgrades
Logged

thisdj78

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 256
  • Age: 43
  • Location: Texas
  • Last Login: November 28, 2021, 10:56:10 PM
Re: Austin, TX
« Reply #340 on: November 28, 2021, 12:36:21 AM »

I know they prioritized TX-75 much more than they prioritized US-290 in the past decade, but when are gonna update the US-290 @ TX-36 in Brenham intersection?

that was all apart of a freeway plan from decades ago (related to I-27), only for those plans to never happen anyway

I think you meant 71.

But yes there are still plans to realign the 290 @ 36 intersection. There were schematics posted of the different alignment options several months ago somewhere on here.

If i were them i would pick either Option D or E, since those the most interstate-esque upgrades

Even B would be acceptable. I donít know what they were thinking with C 👀
Logged

Echostatic

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 71
  • Age: 16
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Last Login: November 28, 2021, 11:10:35 PM
Re: Austin, TX
« Reply #341 on: November 28, 2021, 10:54:14 AM »

Definitely would go with E, D, or B (in that order.) Given budget concerns I think B is most likely to happen, though. But it's fine! It still provides continuous flow of traffic on 290.

armadillo speedbump

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 67
  • Location: texas
  • Last Login: November 28, 2021, 04:46:46 PM
Re: Austin, TX
« Reply #342 on: November 28, 2021, 02:34:20 PM »

Why was the idiotic Option A even included?  Expensive, disruptive construction for no time improvement or worse, since it adds an extra light to 290 movement.
Logged

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.