News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

Texas and 3dis

Started by Sub-Urbanite, October 17, 2024, 11:15:16 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

The Ghostbuster

Tell that to FritzOwl. I think most of the rest of us understand that quite well.


PColumbus73

If there's an addition that might be helpful it might be extending I-635 at DFW Airport to I-35W using TX 114 or I-820 using 121 and 183. I've never been through there, but the collection of routes that converge north of the airport looks like they might be confusing for the uninitiated. Especially given the number of interchanges in such a short area.

I think it's unnecessary to designate a new interstate if it's not going to provide a time or navigational benefit. TX 99 / Grand Pkwy is so bulbous that it might not save that much time over just punching straight through Houston. The southwest quadrant of TX 335 between I-27 & 40 could be an interstate, but I haven't seen any comments complaining about how bad traffic is on I-27 in Amarillo.

I also think there's value in a division between the national interstate system and the state freeway system. Where the Interstate guides out-of-towners through an unfamiliar area, and the local freeway system that's primarily commuter and other locally important highways.

Bobby5280

#27
I think the West end of I-635 is logical enough at its current location near Grapevine Mills. Overlapping I-635 onto other roads North of DFW Intl Airport would probably create even more confusion. TX-114, TX-121 and International Parkway (airport toll road) are all distinct, separate routes. The ramps connecting them and I-635 are challenging enough. Motorists who are not familiar with the area really have to pay attention to the signs and be in the correct lanes well in advance of the exits.

The zone where TX-114 and TX-121 overlap in Grapevine is arguably the most impressive non-Interstate super highway in the nation. That road is really wide there.

I don't think TX-114 needs to be signed as an Interstate unless the freeway gets extended West to US-287 and US-287 is brought up to Interstate standards from Fort Worth to at least Wichita Falls, if not Amarillo. Then it might make sense to re-sign TX-114 as an Interstate route.

Regarding Grand Parkway and its potential value as a route to bypass Houston, that would be a tough sell. The route is pretty long and not very direct either. If someone driving through the Houston area on I-69 used the Grand Parkway to bypass Houston proper the accumulated tolls would probably be pretty expensive. I think most people driving on the Grand Parkway are using it for shorter connections.

When Loop 335 is completed in Amarillo it will be worthy of an Interstate number. I-27 may eventually be signed on the Western half. If that happens the East half could get a 3-digit I-x27 designation.

The Interstate system is alright as a level above "ordinary" US and state highway routes. But not every freeway or toll road needs to be signed as an Interstate.

PColumbus73

I was thinking a theoretical 635 extension would replace one of the existing routes. But it ain't broke...

For Loop 335, I wouldn't try giving it an interstate number until the Ports-to-Plains / I-27 extensions become concrete. Until then, I don't see much point.

Bobby5280

#29
Both TX-114 and TX-121 extend inside and outside the DFW metro area. I-635 wouldn't be able to replace either; it could only be co-signed on segments of those routes. I-635 functions as a partial loop highway for Dallas. Extending the I-635 designation thru Grapevine and to Roanoke would kind of obscure that purpose.

If TX-114 was to be given an Interstate designation I think it would be better if it began with the TX-114/I-35E split near downtown Dallas and run West all the way to US-287 in Rhome. At the bare minimum US-287 from I-45 in Ennis to US-380 in Decatur has to be improved fully to Interstate standards.

I agree there isn't any point changing the Loop 335 designation in Amarillo until the loop is completed and there is actual construction work being done to extend I-27 up to Dumas. TX DOT appears to have the opposite philosophy of North Carolina, where Interstate numbers are popping up all over the place. It's possible or even very likely if I-27 was signed on the West half of Loop 335 the East half would still be signed as Loop 335.

PColumbus73

Politicians signing numbers into law severely complicates things. But North Carolina makes me wish there were stricter criteria for designating interstate corridors, but that might be hard to do without making arbitrary rules. Like with the proposed I-685 or 777, I don't see much tangible need for them, but nothing to stop them from being signed.

Maybe something like a cost-benefit analysis that accompanies an interstate EIS that includes areas to be connected, current and projected AADTs, capacity of the existing system. If that already exists, maybe it becomes more heavily weighted.

The Ghostbuster

The proposed Interstate 685 designation along its portion of US 421 is rational, although the corridor is long enough that a 2di designation such as Interstate 38 would also have sufficed (especially if the previously-proposed unnecessary extension to Wilmington is also constructed). The proposed Interstate 777 designation along its portion of 421 is a misnumbered designation in my opinion, since I think it should've been Interstate 340 or Interstate 177 (an Interstate 177 designation would be far enough away from existing NC 177 to avoid confusion).

PColumbus73

I could get on board with 685 if the routing was from Greensboro to Fayetteville. Having it parallel I-40 all the way to Wilmington is unnecessary. I-777 would be pointless. Considering North Carolina has about a dozen future interstates in various stages of realization, I don't think they should be taking on any more until they get some of the existing 'future' interstates finished.

With the exception of the suffixed interstates that are being proposed in Texas, I can appreciate them not wanting to designate every freeway they have as an interstate. I would assume Texas is like Florida in that it's faster for them to build toll roads versus an Interstate.


Bobby5280

I'd prefer the proposed I-685 route to go into the Fayetteville area rather than a point just South of Dunn. However, it would not be feasible to upgrade the existing highway between Sanford and Fort Liberty to Interstate quality. The freeway would have to be built on a new terrain alignment.

While NC is kind of going nuts with the Interstate designations (they have I-587 and I-785, kind of a palindrome) I don't really mind the I-777 thing if it actually extends to Wilkesboro for a proper odd-numbered spur route. Most of that freeway is already existing. It just needs work on some exit ramps, shoulders, etc.

english si

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 10, 2025, 04:36:33 PMThe proposed Interstate 685 designation along its portion of US 421 is rational
...
The proposed Interstate 777 designation along its portion of 421 is a misnumbered designation in my opinion, since I think it should've been Interstate 340 or Interstate 177
Why is 685 rational if 777 is misnumbered and ought to be 340 (177 vs 777 is completely subjective as there's no logic to what first digits are used in NC beyond odd-even).

Greensville and Dunn are both places on I-40. The proposed interstate is much more linked to I-40. It should be I-640 (especially as 540 has cemented itself as the number for the Raleigh loop), rather than I-685.

And even with Fayetteville, the route would be more an E-W route spurring off the I-40 corridor, rather than a N-S one spurring off the I-85 corridor. Other than Greensboro, you'd go different ways (OK, you'd probably go up 685 to Sandford and 540 to get to Durham from Fayetteville) to get to I-85 destinations. But from Fayetteville to I-40 places Greensborough and west, you'd use it.

I-685 is fine - I have no problem with that number, but it's just as 'misnumbered' as 777 as both are spurs of the I-40 corridor, rather than the other interstates.

Rothman

Thread's gone off the rails.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

kphoger

Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 04, 2024, 06:40:34 PMTX-130 in Austin:
"I-235" would probably be alright there.

Quote from: ski-man on November 04, 2024, 08:29:22 PMSo are you thinking "I-235" would make a turn on TX-45SE back over to I-35 to give it a 2xx designation. If it follows TX-130 all the way to Sequin & I-10 should it be "I-335"?

Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 04, 2024, 09:07:40 PMTX-130 could be "I-235" along its entire length. There are numerous examples of even-numbered 3-digit Interstate routes that start at their parent route and then end at a different 2-digit Interstate route (or even another 3-digit Interstate route).

You two seem to be under the impression that the southern endpoint of TX-130 is at I-10 near Seguin.  This is not true.  TX-130 already reaches I-35 at both ends.

Quote from: TxDOT Highway Designation FileMinute Order 112863, dated 09/29/2011; DesLtr 3-2011, dated 2/13/2012

In Georgetown, from IH 35 southward via Hutto, Pflugerville, and Austin to SH 45 northeast of Mustang Ridge, then concurrent with SH 45 southward approximately 0.5 mile to US 183, then southward parallel with US 183 approximately 11.7 miles to north Lockhart, then southwestward to IH 10 in Seguin, then concurrent with IH 10 westward to IH 410, then concurrent with IH 410 south and westward to IH 35 in San Antonio, a total distance of approximately 130.6 miles. (Williamson, Travis, Caldwell, Guadalupe, and Bexar Counties). Route was extended approximately 53.1 miles, concurrent with IH 10, then concurrent with IH 410 to its new terminus at IH 35 in San Antonio.

Note the TX-130 shields on all the signs:
GSV at southern terminus, southbound
GSV at southern terminus, eastbound
GSV at southern terminus, northbound
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

Bobby5280

Quote from: kphogerYou two seem to be under the impression that the southern endpoint of TX-130 is at I-10 near Seguin.  This is not true.  TX-130 already reaches I-35 at both ends.

Yeah, TX-130 technically reaches I-35 at its South end via some lazy co-signing with I-10. But it's easy to overlook since the thing co-signed with I-10 is a plain state highway marker. It would be stupid doing the same thing with a 3-digit "I-235" designation

kphoger

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 22, 2025, 03:25:25 PMYeah, TX-130 technically reaches I-35 at its South end via some lazy co-signing with I-10. But it's easy to overlook since the thing co-signed with I-10 is a plain state highway marker. It would be stupid doing the same thing with a 3-digit "I-235" designation

As much as I dislike pointless concurrencies like that...  When I've driven I-35 from Wichita to Laredo and back in the past, it was really useful to simply follow signs for TX-130 all the way from I-35 to I-35.  That's simpler than I-35 to TX-130 to I-10 to I-410 to I-35.
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

texaskdog

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 22, 2025, 03:25:25 PM
Quote from: kphogerYou two seem to be under the impression that the southern endpoint of TX-130 is at I-10 near Seguin.  This is not true.  TX-130 already reaches I-35 at both ends.

Yeah, TX-130 technically reaches I-35 at its South end via some lazy co-signing with I-10. But it's easy to overlook since the thing co-signed with I-10 is a plain state highway marker. It would be stupid doing the same thing with a 3-digit "I-235" designation

Their attempt at getting people taking it SB to know where to go to get back to I-35



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.