Why Are There So Few Actually 'I' Interstate Expressways in Metro Houston?

[Bobby5280]

I think there is one psychological advantage to a limited access freeway carrying an Interstate designation in an urban area. Not everyone is good at reading maps and understanding the idiosyncracies of how highways are named or numbered. If they see a loop highway had an Interstate shield on it they'll probably understand it is 100% a limited access super highway. Those drivers will feel more secure taking an Interstate loop to reach another thru Interstate highway.

Texas state highways and its specialized "loop" and "spur" designations run the full gamut of highway types. Some are huge super highways every bit as good as any Interstate route. Then there are other Loop routes that are nothing more than divided (or undivided) urban streets riddled with traffic lights. Some loop routes are a mixture of freeway, 4-lane expressway with traffic signals and even 2 lane configurations. Texas has big toll road super highways and some toll routes that drop down to just 2 lanes. When a motorist gets on an Interstate he pretty much knows the whole thing is going to be at least 4 lanes and not have any traffic lights on it.

Loop 289 in Lubbock has been around for a very long time. The only scenario where I could see it being re-named as an Interstate is if I-27 is extended South to San Angelo via Big Spring and/or Midland-Odessa. The "and/or" part could be an I-27E/I-27W split. It almost seems necessary given the tremendous amount of truck traffic out there in the "oil patch."

I think Midland-Odessa could gain more benefit over Loop 338 in Odessa and Loop 250 in Midland being re-named as 3 digit I-x20 routes. The road network in Midland-Odessa is pretty complicated. Converting those two loop routes into Interstates, and maybe even re-naming the TX-191 freeway as an Interstate would make the road naming situation more logical. They just have to be careful about using an "I-420" designation on any of those routes. Pot heads will be trying to steal those signs right and left. If I-27 (or a West leg of it) was extended to Midland that would add additional 3di Interstate naming options to the mix.

El Paso could benefit from a 3 digit I-10 loop route to signal long distance drivers about a possible future real bypass around the metro area. The I-x10 loop route could run on Loop 375 from I-10 up to the Fort Bliss Rod and Gun Club. Then it could take the new route proposed to go up and around the Franklin Mountains. New Mexico just has to build their part of the route, presumably over NM-404.

[sprjus4]

El Paso could benefit from a 3 digit I-10 loop route to signal long distance drivers about a possible future real bypass around the metro area. The I-x10 loop route could run on Loop 375 from I-10 up to the Fort Bliss Rod and Gun Club. Then it could take the new route proposed to go up and around the Franklin Mountains. New Mexico just has to build their part of the route, presumably over NM-404.

This would certainly form a true bypass of El Paso, and after calculating the miles, it would be less mileage to take the bypass vs. I-10 through the city. It would surely be a draw for long-distance traffic. If they had to do just once interstate 3di designation, this would certainly be one to do it on, assuming New Mexico completes its part.

[bluecountry]

Doesn't really answer the 'why' as in why does a major metro area like Houston have so few interstates.
What's the reason, compared to other metro areas?

I believe I answered it: when the interstate system was being built out (and with a lot more funding), Houston did not have much of a dense population outside of the core urban area (as compared to NorthEast cities or Los Angeles for example). Much of the sprawl occurred after the system was most built out and funding trailed off.

Except, the Northeast has a lot of non-Interstate highways as well.  NJ is loaded with them.

Most built PRE Interstate act though.

False. 

Of NJ's 3 toll roads, 2 were built pre-Interstate highway.  1 of them was to be about 25% rolled into the Interstate System; it eventually became about 60% rolled into the system.

NJ 55, 18 and others were built after the Interstate Highway system was announced.

Much of the eastern I-76 took over highway and toll roads already built.  Same with PA's I-276, also part of the PA Turnpike.

More recently, DE 1 and MD 200 were built without I-numbers.  Yet the Carolina's have a few newer highways designated as Interstates.

Yes NJ has some non-interstate expressways, but it has a TON of interstates.
Houston has predominantly non-interstate expressways where clearly one would expect an I, such as 8/99.

[GaryV]

I think there is one psychological advantage to a limited access freeway carrying an Interstate designation in an urban area. Not everyone is good at reading maps and understanding the idiosyncracies of how highways are named or numbered. If they see a loop highway had an Interstate shield on it they'll probably understand it is 100% a limited access super highway. Those drivers will feel more secure taking an Interstate loop to reach another thru Interstate highway.

Have you noticed that most people don't read maps?  They simply rely on their app to tell them where to go.

[abqtraveler]

Part of the reason also why a lot of Houston's freeways are not interstates is because they represent state routes that were originally surface roads that were upgraded to freeways over time, while keeping the same route designations.

[bluecountry]

Part of the reason also why a lot of Houston's freeways are not interstates is because they represent state routes that were originally surface roads that were upgraded to freeways over time, while keeping the same route designations.

Well the NJTP, the PATP, the CT TP, etc all were in the same spot.

I'm sticking to my theory, Houston was too 'late' to the show by which point Fed funds were gone.

[Ryctor2018]

This actually applies not just to Houston, but to the American West and how the country was developed. The Interstate system followed population trends and back when much of the system was first built, more people lived in the Northeast, Midwest and Mid-Atlantic. Outside of California, the country in the 1950's & '60's is not what it is now in the 21st Century. Other than Dallas, & Oklahoma City, many western cities and several southern one's don't have a lot of Interstates relative to population.
Houston has 2(3) mainlines, plus 3di's. Austin has 1, San Antonio has 3, plus a 3di and one of those is an Intrastate Interstate. El Paso has 1. This is just Texas.

Phoenix has 2 and no 3di's. Denver has 4, probably could have had at least 5 if the 470's were one Interstate. Albuquerque has 2. Las Vegas has 1 mainline, will have another once I-11 is figured out, plus when 215 is finally finished, Salt Lake a couple same as Portland.

The state of Florida is similar: South Florida has I-95 and I-75 plus a few 3di's. Orlando only 1, Southwest Florida only 1 linking all it's cities. Tampa/St. Pete does have I-275 thru town with I-4 and I-75 the bypass. I could ramble on and on, but you get the picture.

Many of these places do have 4 lane highways. But, they are either toll roads, expressways, super arterials or state freeways. The population came later, but roared in once the cities start developing. State DOT's didn't have time to wait for an I-route or needed different funding than the traditional methods. The roads were built to fill the needs for each community.

[rte66man]

Part of the reason also why a lot of Houston's freeways are not interstates is because they represent state routes that were originally surface roads that were upgraded to freeways over time, while keeping the same route designations.

Not sure which roads you are referring to in Houston. US59 (Southwest Freeway) doesn't come anywhere near it's original routing SW of downtown.  TX288 is in the same boat.  US59 north (Eastex Freeway) is some of both. Grand Parkway has been discussed in other threads as to why it isn't I669.

US290 to Hempstead is the only non-interstate that fits that description, yet I don't see why it would be an interstate as it needs lots of upgrades to reach Austin as a limited access road.

[bluecountry]

For the sake of me being rigid, I wish they would retro-actively just re-name several of them "I."

Hypothetically:

-Beltway 8=I-245
-99=I-845
-249=I-795
-290=I-310
-288=I-545

I'd leave Hardy Toll and Westpark as is.

[thisdj78]

For the sake of me being rigid, I wish they would retro-actively just re-name several of them "I."

Hypothetically:

-Beltway 8=I-245
-99=I-845
-249=I-795
-290=I-310
-288=I-545

I'd leave Hardy Toll and Westpark as is.

If anything, 99 would be I-X69 as mentioned above.

290 = Interstate 12. Everything else would be unnecessary.

[bluecountry]

For the sake of me being rigid, I wish they would retro-actively just re-name several of them "I."

Hypothetically:

-Beltway 8=I-245
-99=I-845
-249=I-795
-290=I-310
-288=I-545

I'd leave Hardy Toll and Westpark as is.

If anything, 99 would be I-X69 as mentioned above.

290 = Interstate 12. Everything else would be unnecessary.

I disagree, I like the use of "I" and don't get why 290 would be I-12.

[thisdj78]

For the sake of me being rigid, I wish they would retro-actively just re-name several of them "I."

Hypothetically:

-Beltway 8=I-245
-99=I-845
-249=I-795
-290=I-310
-288=I-545

I'd leave Hardy Toll and Westpark as is.

If anything, 99 would be I-X69 as mentioned above.

290 = Interstate 12. Everything else would be unnecessary.

I disagree, I like the use of "I" and don't get why 290 would be I-12.

Because I-14 is being used already in northern central TX. 290 is a major enough route (to Austin) that it warrants its own Interstate designation. Yes there is an I-12 in Louisiana but it serves a similar function: an alternative to I-10. It wouldn't be the only non-continuous interstate in the US.

[bluecountry]

For the sake of me being rigid, I wish they would retro-actively just re-name several of them "I."

Hypothetically:

-Beltway 8=I-245
-99=I-845
-249=I-795
-290=I-310
-288=I-545

I'd leave Hardy Toll and Westpark as is.

If anything, 99 would be I-X69 as mentioned above.

290 = Interstate 12. Everything else would be unnecessary.

I disagree, I like the use of "I" and don't get why 290 would be I-12.

Because I-14 is being used already in northern central TX. 290 is a major enough route (to Austin) that it warrants its own Interstate designation. Yes there is an I-12 in Louisiana but it serves a similar function: an alternative to I-10. It wouldn't be the only non-continuous interstate in the US.

I don't like non-contigous interstates.
I'd rather is be I-310 (or 510 or 710)

[Bobby5280]

That's too bad. Unconnected, duplicate numbered Interstate routes are already common in the system. Having a much longer I-12 in Texas isn't going to hurt a freaking thing. If anything the original I-12 route should have carried a I-x10 designation.

Since we already have a porky I-14 route established with a very jagged proposed path a little farther North that takes I-14 off the table as a potential Interstate route overlapping US-290 between metro Houston and Austin. While lots of upgrades are still left to do along US-290 it still seems likely the road will eventually be 100% Interstate quality, whether or not it ever carries an Interstate designation. The same holds true for TX-71 between Austin and the I-10 exit at Columbus, TX.

If the very rapid pace of development continues between Austin and San Antonio, particularly in San Marcos and New Braunfels, a couple more freeway or toll road "spokes" will be needed between I-35 and I-10 running along or near the TX-80 and TX-46 corridors.

[The Ghostbuster]

Or maybe the US 290 corridor could keep its existing designation. But given that this is Texas, I would not be shocked if 290 (or any other route) eventually did get an Interstate designation.

[sprjus4]

Since we already have a porky I-14 route established with a very jagged proposed path

Already mentioned several times before, that's a rough corridor. The actual interstate will likely be a lot straighter roughly following those roads.

[thisdj78]

If the very rapid pace of development continues between Austin and San Antonio, particularly in San Marcos and New Braunfels, a couple more freeway or toll road "spokes" will be needed between I-35 and I-10 running along or near the TX-80 and TX-46 corridors.

Agreed. I think this path would be perfect and I'm sure the Outlet malls would love having a freeway leading almost directly to them:

[Bobby5280]

A spur off the TX-130 toll road up to I-35 just SW of San Marcos would be one way to handle that "spoke." But I still think the TX-80 corridor from San Marcos SE down to Luling (and I-10) is going to get considerably more busy. Obviously there is a good bit of the existing TX-80 corridor that cannot be upgraded into a freeway (or toll road) because those portions are too encroached with development already.

[kphoger]

If the very rapid pace of development continues between Austin and San Antonio, particularly in San Marcos and New Braunfels, a couple more freeway or toll road "spokes" will be needed between I-35 and I-10 running along or near the TX-80 and TX-46 corridors.

Agreed. I think this path would be perfect and I'm sure the Outlet malls would love having a freeway leading almost directly to them:

A spur off the TX-130 toll road up to I-35 just SW of San Marcos would be one way to handle that "spoke." But I still think the TX-80 corridor from San Marcos SE down to Luling (and I-10) is going to get considerably more busy. Obviously there is a good bit of the existing TX-80 corridor that cannot be upgraded into a freeway (or toll road) because those portions are too encroached with development already.

I say just turn 123 into a freeway.

[Bobby5280]

TX-123 in Seguin could obviously be converted into a freeway, due to the big median and frontage roads already there. TX-123 at I-10 is all bottled up. There is enough ROW along TX-123 just North of I-10 to turn it into a divided 4-lane highway for a couple miles. A bunch of TX-123 is flanked by a good amount of development and homes, just like a few other regional corridors between Austin and San Antonio.

TX-46 is growing into an important outer partial loop corridor for San Antonio. But the existing road is getting too covered up in development to be converted into a freeway to link Boerne (and I-10) to New Braunfels (and I-35). The same goes for TX-46 between New Braunfels and Seguin. Even Loop 337 around New Braunfels may never be fully converted into an Interstate quality loop. Nevertheless, the regional planners are going to have to do something about this.

The TX-80 corridor going SE out of San Marcos to Luling and I-10 is another to Houston route. TX-123 wouldn't work so well for that purpose; it would do more to duplicate I-35 efforts of moving traffic from San Marcos into San Antonio.

[thisdj78]

If the very rapid pace of development continues between Austin and San Antonio, particularly in San Marcos and New Braunfels, a couple more freeway or toll road "spokes" will be needed between I-35 and I-10 running along or near the TX-80 and TX-46 corridors.

Agreed. I think this path would be perfect and I'm sure the Outlet malls would love having a freeway leading almost directly to them:

A spur off the TX-130 toll road up to I-35 just SW of San Marcos would be one way to handle that "spoke." But I still think the TX-80 corridor from San Marcos SE down to Luling (and I-10) is going to get considerably more busy. Obviously there is a good bit of the existing TX-80 corridor that cannot be upgraded into a freeway (or toll road) because those portions are too encroached with development already.

I say just turn 123 into a freeway.

Unnecessary IMO, when nearly half the corridor is already built via 130, all that's needed is a T flyover interchange and a spur continuing north to the Hunter/Outlets area. Not much development in that path vs going via 46 or 123.

[Bobby5280]

The one advantage that conceptual spur off TX-130 going NW toward I-35 halfway between New Braunfels and San Marcos: there's not a lot of development out there to block a new toll road.

The TX-80 corridor down from San Marcos and the TX-46 corridor down from San Marcos both need to be improved somehow. New Braunfels and San Marcos are both getting big enough to need freeway (or toll road) quality routes down to I-10 going toward Houston. The question is where do you build the upgraded routes? The existing TX-80 & TX-46 routes are getting too covered up to just widen into new freeways. Lots of people would be raising hell for all the properties that would have to be bought and cleared. Considering the soaring costs of housing in many parts of this region, anyone displaced due to their home being taken via eminent domain might not be able to find a comparable place to live for whatever the government paid for that property. It would probably be easier to push through new suburban highways in a down real estate market.

[bluecountry]

Is there generally any method to how spur and bypass interstates are named?
I know spurs are odd, bypass even, but if they were to make 8 and 99 part of the I system, generally don't you want the higher digits to be further out?

[GaryV]

Is there generally any method to how spur and bypass interstates are named?

Often they are numbered in order (within a state), from west to east and south to north.  Of course that only works when they are commissioned at a similar date.  You add one at a later time, you take what number is available.

[bluecountry]

Is there generally any method to how spur and bypass interstates are named?

Often they are numbered in order (within a state), from west to east and south to north.  Of course that only works when they are commissioned at a similar date.  You add one at a later time, you take what number is available.

So, hypothetically, if 8 and 99 were originally part of the I system, what would the numbering of 99, 8, 610 be properly?