I looked at the google maps for a town in south Texas for my possible trip, and I noticed a new interstate shield.. Interstate 2?! Where does that come from... and I have not heard of anything about it.. (I knew about three I-69s). Is there a reason for I-2? Just curious.
Is there a possible extension of I-2 or?
It was approved in May, at the same time as I-69C and I-69E. See the "I-69 in TX" thread for more info.
Even better, a link to a picture showing an I-2 shield from that thread. :)
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg232990#msg232990
The official dedication of Interstate 2 was this past Monday, so it hasn't been around long, althought it was approved May 30th.
I posted that it should be I-69S.
AASHTO approved I-2 in early May and additional discussion about I-2 can be found in this AASHTO thread:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9416.msg220220#msg220220
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on July 18, 2013, 12:06:12 PM
I posted that it should be I-69S.
Likewise, with the additional suggestion that TX 44 should be I-69N:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg165054#msg165054
thats pretty interesting... I guess this makes I-2 officially the lowest numbered interstate. Hopefully it will be extended west to Laredo maybe?
Quote from: Strider on July 18, 2013, 01:24:15 PM
thats pretty interesting... I guess this makes I-2 officially the lowest numbered interstate. Hopefully it will be extended west to Laredo maybe?
Maybe extend it to US 41 in Naples then over to Miami via the Gulf of Mexico.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on July 18, 2013, 02:15:24 PM
Quote from: Strider on July 18, 2013, 01:24:15 PM
thats pretty interesting... I guess this makes I-2 officially the lowest numbered interstate. Hopefully it will be extended west to Laredo maybe?
Maybe extend it to US 41 in Naples then over to Miami via the Gulf of Mexico.
And I think there is a proposal to extend it west through Mexico on the Federal Highway 2 corridor.
Quote from: Strider on July 18, 2013, 01:24:15 PM
thats pretty interesting... I guess this makes I-2 officially the lowest numbered interstate. Hopefully it will be extended west to Laredo maybe?
it depends on what value you assign the letter H. I've always thought H-1, H-2, H-3 were the three lowest.
now that we have a 2 and an H-2, it may be time to re-evaluate things.
Quote from: Strider on July 18, 2013, 01:24:15 PM
thats pretty interesting... I guess this makes I-2 officially the lowest numbered interstate. Hopefully it will be extended west to Laredo maybe?
And connect it to Loop 20, or what?
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 18, 2013, 02:18:00 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on July 18, 2013, 02:15:24 PM
Quote from: Strider on July 18, 2013, 01:24:15 PM
thats pretty interesting... I guess this makes I-2 officially the lowest numbered interstate. Hopefully it will be extended west to Laredo maybe?
Maybe extend it to US 41 in Naples then over to Miami via the Gulf of Mexico.
And I think there is a proposal to extend it west through Mexico on the Federal Highway 2 corridor.
Well, if we actually combine the idea of extending it into México with the idea of extending it to Laredo, then I say we make this corridor a full freeway:
http://goo.gl/maps/0aPFT (http://goo.gl/maps/0aPFT)
If we remove Laredo from the equation, then there's this:
http://goo.gl/maps/j3xCd (http://goo.gl/maps/j3xCd)
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 18, 2013, 02:23:16 PM
Quote from: Strider on July 18, 2013, 01:24:15 PM
thats pretty interesting... I guess this makes I-2 officially the lowest numbered interstate. Hopefully it will be extended west to Laredo maybe?
it depends on what value you assign the letter H. I've always thought H-1, H-2, H-3 were the three lowest.
now that we have a 2 and an H-2, it may be time to re-evaluate things.
H is a variable substituting for the imaginary number,
i. Hence, I-1
i, I-2
i, and I-3
i, and all have been divided by zero. :bigass:
Quote from: Brandon on July 18, 2013, 03:23:32 PM
H is a variable substituting for the imaginary number, i. Hence, I-1i, I-2i, and I-3i, and all have been divided by zero. :bigass:
giving something an imaginary component doesn't mean dividing it by 0. 1/0 != i.
Quote from: kphoger on July 18, 2013, 02:31:54 PM
Quote from: Strider on July 18, 2013, 01:24:15 PM
thats pretty interesting... I guess this makes I-2 officially the lowest numbered interstate. Hopefully it will be extended west to Laredo maybe?
And connect it to Loop 20, or what?
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 18, 2013, 02:18:00 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on July 18, 2013, 02:15:24 PM
Quote from: Strider on July 18, 2013, 01:24:15 PM
thats pretty interesting... I guess this makes I-2 officially the lowest numbered interstate. Hopefully it will be extended west to Laredo maybe?
Maybe extend it to US 41 in Naples then over to Miami via the Gulf of Mexico.
And I think there is a proposal to extend it west through Mexico on the Federal Highway 2 corridor.
Well, if we actually combine the idea of extending it into México with the idea of extending it to Laredo, then I say we make this corridor a full freeway:
http://goo.gl/maps/0aPFT (http://goo.gl/maps/0aPFT)
If we remove Laredo from the equation, then there's this:
http://goo.gl/maps/j3xCd (http://goo.gl/maps/j3xCd)
In all seriousness, I am all for it being extended to Laredo, on the US side. Some of the I-69 Alliance maps show the corridor from Laredo to current I-2 as future upgrading, so it looks like it will happen. We will just see how long it takes. Personally I would like to see it keep going west to I-10 so it connects El Paso to The Valley and Laredo directly, but good luck trying to get an interstate to go through the remote desert.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 18, 2013, 02:23:16 PM
Quote from: Strider on July 18, 2013, 01:24:15 PM
thats pretty interesting... I guess this makes I-2 officially the lowest numbered interstate. Hopefully it will be extended west to Laredo maybe?
it depends on what value you assign the letter H. I've always thought H-1, H-2, H-3 were the three lowest.
now that we have a 2 and an H-2, it may be time to re-evaluate things.
We've long had (unsigned) Interstates A-2 and PRI-2 as well. so adding an I-2 to the system isn't that big a deal from the system-purity standpoint.
My south Texas Interstate and highways map proposal
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimageshack.us%2Fa%2Fimg109%2F5343%2Fmpes.jpg&hash=ac3f03a708abe668c80c8d22bb2428e761663540)
Laredo Texas proposed map
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimageshack.us%2Fa%2Fimg835%2F1866%2Fj0o7.jpg&hash=f3ce88e92ef86ff37bea2710a4b79ec920a44fb4)
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on July 18, 2013, 02:15:24 PM
Maybe extend it to US 41 in Naples then over to Miami via the Gulf of Mexico.
Echoes of the I-2 Immigration Freedomway (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6122.msg134396#msg134396)'s vision of an extension to Cuba and then up to Miami. Remarkably, in less than 1.5 years, part of the Texas portion of the I-2 Immigration Freedomway Corridor has become signed reality:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdl.dropbox.com%2Fu%2F21890345%2Faaroads%2Fi2plan3.png&hash=3fdb1586d7d525f817d664c7eaec332a5c907f12)
Let's please keep the "fictional" maps in the fictional area please, Jbte. Thanks.
I can see I-2 extended to Laredo.. (where I-35 and I-69) will meet in the future. Can't see it extended it farther west..
Quote from: Strider on July 19, 2013, 11:35:49 AM
I can see I-2 extended to Laredo.. (where I-35 and I-69) will meet in the future. Can't see it extended it farther west..
Considering there isn't even a direct paved road between Laredo and Eagle Pass on the US side today (and no real plans to pave the road that's there), I'm sure you're right.
Wasn't the original designation for any freeway from Laredo south along US 83 going to be Interstate 31?
Quote from: msubulldog on July 21, 2013, 06:19:56 PM
Wasn't the original designation for any freeway from Laredo south along US 83 going to be Interstate 31?
Maybe in the fictional ghetto...
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 18, 2013, 02:23:16 PM
now that we have a 2 and an H-2, it may be time to re-evaluate things.
Actually, it's Texas, so they'll call it IH-2. Put that together with Hawaii's I-H2...
But that's just Texas being Texas. As far as the rest of the country is concerned, it's I-2.
Quote from: vtk on July 22, 2013, 01:55:24 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 18, 2013, 02:23:16 PM
now that we have a 2 and an H-2, it may be time to re-evaluate things.
Actually, it's Texas, so they'll call it IH-2. Put that together with Hawaii's I-H2...
Interesting, maybe this will finally convince those wacky Texans at the TXDOT to stop calling their Interstates as "IH" and just use the plain ol' "I" like the rest of the Continental US.
Quote from: apjung on July 23, 2013, 01:58:06 AM
Quote from: vtk on July 22, 2013, 01:55:24 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 18, 2013, 02:23:16 PM
now that we have a 2 and an H-2, it may be time to re-evaluate things.
Actually, it's Texas, so they'll call it IH-2. Put that together with Hawaii's I-H2...
Interesting, maybe this will finally convince those wacky Texans at the TXDOT to stop calling their Interstates as "IH" and just use the plain ol' "I" like the rest of the Continental US.
You just don't understand Texans. We don't do anything everybody else does. That is sometimes a good thing, and sometimes a bad thing.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 23, 2013, 09:02:16 AM
You just don't understand Texans. We don't do anything everybody else does. That is sometimes a good thing, and sometimes a bad thing.
Tongue in cheek:
Non-Texan: "Hey, some guy from Austin said something about all Texans"
Non-Austin Texan: "Whatever he said, he's wrong"
Quote from: kurumi on July 23, 2013, 10:20:09 AM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 23, 2013, 09:02:16 AM
You just don't understand Texans. We don't do anything everybody else does. That is sometimes a good thing, and sometimes a bad thing.
Tongue in cheek:
Non-Texan: "Hey, some guy from Austin said something about all Texans"
Non-Austin Texan: "Whatever he said, he's wrong"
Hey, it's true!!
Does I-2 overlap U.S. 83? I'm having trouble finding it on a map.
Quote from: pctech on July 23, 2013, 10:32:02 AM
Does I-2 overlap U.S. 83? I'm having trouble finding it on a map.
Why yes, I believe it does
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 23, 2013, 10:39:05 AM
Quote from: pctech on July 23, 2013, 10:32:02 AM
Does I-2 overlap U.S. 83? I'm having trouble finding it on a map.
Why yes, I believe it does
The May 30 Minutes of the Texas Transportation Commission (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2013/documents/minutes/may30.pdf) provide that I-2 will be concurrently signed with US 83 (pp. 8-9/30 of pdf):
Quote
The Texas Transportation Commission (commission) previously authorized the Texas Department of Transportation (department) to submit applications to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) requesting that the following highway segments be added to the Interstate Highway System ....
- A 46.8 mile segment of US 83, from the junction of Showers Road in Palmview to US 77 in Harlingen, to be designated as I-2 ....
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED by the commission that ... I-2 ... be so designated on the state highway system concurrent with the existing route numbers.
Quote from: pctech on July 23, 2013, 10:32:02 AM
Does I-2 overlap U.S. 83? I'm having trouble finding it on a map.
It does. It is the same east-west valley freeway that has been there since the 80s. Just resigned.
So we can expect to see this on the 2015 Rand McNally road atlas?
Quote from: Henry on July 23, 2013, 11:09:39 AM
So we can expect to see this on the 2015 Rand McNally road atlas?
No, but it'll be on the limited-edition toilet paper.
Quote from: NE2 on July 23, 2013, 11:24:13 AM
Quote from: Henry on July 23, 2013, 11:09:39 AM
So we can expect to see this on the 2015 Rand McNally road atlas?
No, but it'll be on the limited-edition toilet paper.
What better way to commemorate I-"2"?
I guess "I-2 is cool"?
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 23, 2013, 09:02:16 AM
You just don't understand Texans. We don't do anything everybody else does. That is sometimes a good thing, and sometimes a bad thing.
signwise - only until 1969.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/TX/TX19530811i1.jpg)
after that, you guys started worshipping the federal standards, complete with garish '70 spec shields... and then even decided to adopt Clearview. not very different at all.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 23, 2013, 12:29:49 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 23, 2013, 09:02:16 AM
You just don't understand Texans. We don't do anything everybody else does. That is sometimes a good thing, and sometimes a bad thing.
signwise - only until 1969.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/TX/TX19530811i1.jpg)
after that, you guys started worshipping the federal standards, complete with garish '70 spec shields... and then even decided to adopt Clearview. not very different at all.
I cringe every time I see those old shields.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 23, 2013, 01:37:15 PM
I cringe every time I see those old shields.
what's wrong with them? I actually think they look great.
I'm digging the expressway and business route banners, hating the udderly useless center sign, not much opinion one way or the other on the arrows in the shields.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 23, 2013, 01:39:16 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 23, 2013, 01:37:15 PM
I cringe every time I see those old shields.
what's wrong with them? I actually think they look great.
Oh I don't like the arrows on the shields. It's a weird problem I have since Texas until this year was the only state that didn't put the exit number on the gore sign and instead put it as a separate tab; it somehow reminds me of that and looks a little lazy to me, IMO.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 23, 2013, 12:29:49 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 23, 2013, 09:02:16 AM
You just don't understand Texans. We don't do anything everybody else does. That is sometimes a good thing, and sometimes a bad thing.
signwise - only until 1969.
after that, you guys started worshipping the federal standards, complete with garish '70 spec shields... and then even decided to adopt Clearview. not very different at all.
And that's not all. I can think of plenty of things Texans do that everybody else does: urinate, fornicate, procrastinate, masticate, etc.
I hate to get back on topic, ha, but I personally would like to see Bussiness Route 83 decommissioned and US 83 rerouted on Bussiness 83. I cannot stand long concurencies and seeing how all of Interstate 2 will be concurent with US 83, this really chaps my hide. I think eventually (especially if Interstate 2 gets extended to Laredo) US 83 will be truncated, but for now, US 83 should be the local route and Interstate 2 should be the express route.
I think there's an AASHTO rule that you an't move a US route from a freeway to a local road.
Quote from: vtk on July 24, 2013, 12:37:06 PM
I think there's an AASHTO rule that you an't move a US route from a freeway to a local road.
Of course, as with all AASHTO rules, they are made to be broken (US 377!), right!?
In all seriousness though, didn't NCDOT successfully move US 117 back to its original route after I-795 was designated?
Quote from: vtk on July 24, 2013, 12:37:06 PM
I think there's an AASHTO rule that you an't move a US route from a freeway to a local road.
Ohio once had US-40 routed on I-70 just to get people to use the freeway, and then they moved it back. I don't recall them getting a special waiver above and beyond the standard AASHO procedures.
Quote from: vtk on July 24, 2013, 12:37:06 PM
I think there's an AASHTO rule that you an't move a US route from a freeway to a local road.
But in Texas, bannered routes are state highways. So it isn't a local road per se.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 24, 2013, 11:13:28 AM
I hate to get back on topic, ha, but I personally would like to see Bussiness Route 83 decommissioned and US 83 rerouted on Bussiness 83. I cannot stand long concurencies and seeing how all of Interstate 2 will be concurent with US 83, this really chaps my hide. I think eventually (especially if Interstate 2 gets extended to Laredo) US 83 will be truncated, but for now, US 83 should be the local route and Interstate 2 should be the express route.
I agree. I don't know why AASHTO has such a rule, because it makes a lot more sense to do this as opposed to keeping the US Route merged onto the Interstate, where it might (generally inadvertently) go hidden.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 23, 2013, 12:29:49 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 23, 2013, 09:02:16 AM
You just don't understand Texans. We don't do anything everybody else does. That is sometimes a good thing, and sometimes a bad thing.
signwise - only until 1969.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/TX/TX19530811i1.jpg)
after that, you guys started worshipping the federal standards, complete with garish '70 spec shields... and then even decided to adopt Clearview. not very different at all.
so awesome. wonder where this is?
Quote from: vtk on July 22, 2013, 01:55:24 AM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 18, 2013, 02:23:16 PM
now that we have a 2 and an H-2, it may be time to re-evaluate things.
Actually, it's Texas, so they'll call it IH-2. Put that together with Hawaii's I-H2
Stupid. I refuse! And in Austin I see both.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 23, 2013, 03:52:15 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 23, 2013, 01:39:16 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 23, 2013, 01:37:15 PM
I cringe every time I see those old shields.
what's wrong with them? I actually think they look great.
Oh I don't like the arrows on the shields. It's a weird problem I have since Texas until this year was the only state that didn't put the exit number on the gore sign and instead put it as a separate tab; it somehow reminds me of that and looks a little lazy to me, IMO.
Texas is far from the only state to do that. Iowa until very recently, also put the number on a separate tab on top of the sign.
Quote from: Brandon on July 24, 2013, 01:48:29 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 23, 2013, 03:52:15 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 23, 2013, 01:39:16 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 23, 2013, 01:37:15 PM
I cringe every time I see those old shields.
what's wrong with them? I actually think they look great.
Oh I don't like the arrows on the shields. It's a weird problem I have since Texas until this year was the only state that didn't put the exit number on the gore sign and instead put it as a separate tab; it somehow reminds me of that and looks a little lazy to me, IMO.
Texas is far from the only state to do that. Iowa until very recently, also put the number on a separate tab on top of the sign.
I know Texas is not the only state that does it, but in my travels and looking through pictures it seamed to be the only state that did it exclusively. Missouri does it some, and I can think of some specific situations where it exists in other states, like the eastbound I-10 exit for Bussiness Route 90 in New Orleans, and the western junction of I-10 and I-17 in Phoenix on the westbound lanes on I-10 exit to I-17.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 24, 2013, 12:49:07 PM
Ohio once had US-40 routed on I-70 just to get people to use the freeway, and then they moved it back. I don't recall them getting a special waiver above and beyond the standard AASHO procedures.
This was probably done before they became ASSHOles about it.
Quote from: TheStranger on July 24, 2013, 12:37:46 PM
Quote from: vtk on July 24, 2013, 12:37:06 PM
I think there's an AASHTO rule that you an't move a US route from a freeway to a local road.
Of course, as with all AASHTO rules, they are made to be broken (US 377!), right!?
In all seriousness though, didn't NCDOT successfully move US 117 back to its original route after I-795 was designated?
I don't know if FHWA recognizes that 117 was moved back. But I agree with the stupidity of the rule. It was only enacted after the I-system was in place, or else we'd be missing a whole lot more of our highway network.
I don't think FHWA cares about U.S. Route numbering, except for the purpose of inventorying NHS routes.
(And now I need to change my North Carolina trivia question from "AASHTO did not approve moving this route off I-795, but NCDOT did it anyway.")
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 24, 2013, 12:49:07 PM
Quote from: vtk on July 24, 2013, 12:37:06 PM
I think there's an AASHTO rule that you an't move a US route from a freeway to a local road.
Ohio once had US-40 routed on I-70 just to get people to use the freeway, and then they moved it back. I don't recall them getting a special waiver above and beyond the standard AASHO procedures.
That was in the 60s. I'm sure this rule is not that old.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 24, 2013, 12:59:37 PM
But in Texas, bannered routes are state highways. So it isn't a local road per se.
By 'local' I didn't mean not a state highway – I meant not a freeway or road built specifically for long-distance travel. I don't know how the actual rule is worded, but that's the general intention as I understand it.
Personally, I'd prefer to see US 83 stay on the freeway, and Business US 83 becomes Business I-2.
I remember seeing I-2 pictures on here but I can't find them now.
Quote from: stormwatch7721 on July 24, 2013, 09:34:31 PM
I remember seeing I-2 pictures on here but I can't find them now.
Here you go:
https://plus.google.com/photos/108314424034130737389/albums/5900933620817858929
(https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-2InNqof_TOc/UeRUcAbwYaI/AAAAAAAAAao/eNqx76KFuxE/w311-h553-no/P1020136.JPG)
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-iLxRdwBhYCs/UeRVbiOwxbI/AAAAAAAAAgQ/2-abF5LDMFc/w311-h553-no/P1020181.JPG)
Thank you.
Quote from: Brandon on July 24, 2013, 01:48:29 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 23, 2013, 03:52:15 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 23, 2013, 01:39:16 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 23, 2013, 01:37:15 PM
I cringe every time I see those old shields.
what's wrong with them? I actually think they look great.
Oh I don't like the arrows on the shields. It's a weird problem I have since Texas until this year was the only state that didn't put the exit number on the gore sign and instead put it as a separate tab; it somehow reminds me of that and looks a little lazy to me, IMO.
Texas is far from the only state to do that. Iowa until very recently, also put the number on a separate tab on top of the sign.
The only place in Louisiana I can think of that puts the exit sign with a tab is here at I-10 Westbound at US 90 Business in New Orleans.
http://goo.gl/maps/7e3Dz
I-69C? Is TXDOT splitting their segments of I-69 into different routes?
Quote from: pctech on July 25, 2013, 07:40:26 AM
I-69C? Is TXDOT splitting their segments of I-69 into different routes?
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.0
Is the first Central split? Now to think of it my state has a central split, US 70. However, we sign it as US 70 and not US 70C!
Quote from: Rover_0 on July 24, 2013, 01:24:45 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 24, 2013, 11:13:28 AM
I hate to get back on topic, ha, but I personally would like to see Bussiness Route 83 decommissioned and US 83 rerouted on Bussiness 83. I cannot stand long concurencies and seeing how all of Interstate 2 will be concurent with US 83, this really chaps my hide. I think eventually (especially if Interstate 2 gets extended to Laredo) US 83 will be truncated, but for now, US 83 should be the local route and Interstate 2 should be the express route.
I agree. I don't know why AASHTO has such a rule, because it makes a lot more sense to do this as opposed to keeping the US Route merged onto the Interstate, where it might (generally inadvertently) go hidden.
The rule makes sense. The primary purpose of numbering routes is to help motorists find the most efficient route to where they're going on the current highway system,
not to help roadgeeks memorialize a previously important route that has now been bypassed. Call the old route "business I-2" or "historic US-83" maybe, but not US-83.
Quote from: kkt on July 25, 2013, 12:09:45 PM
Quote from: Rover_0 on July 24, 2013, 01:24:45 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 24, 2013, 11:13:28 AM
I hate to get back on topic, ha, but I personally would like to see Bussiness Route 83 decommissioned and US 83 rerouted on Bussiness 83. I cannot stand long concurencies and seeing how all of Interstate 2 will be concurent with US 83, this really chaps my hide. I think eventually (especially if Interstate 2 gets extended to Laredo) US 83 will be truncated, but for now, US 83 should be the local route and Interstate 2 should be the express route.
I agree. I don't know why AASHTO has such a rule, because it makes a lot more sense to do this as opposed to keeping the US Route merged onto the Interstate, where it might (generally inadvertently) go hidden.
The rule makes sense. The primary purpose of numbering routes is to help motorists find the most efficient route to where they're going on the current highway system, not to help roadgeeks memorialize a previously important route that has now been bypassed. Call the old route "business I-2" or "historic US-83" maybe, but not US-83.
I honestly don't see it from a road geek point of view, but instead from an information overload point of view. That's why I hate long distance cosigning; it is too cluttered. I don't give a crap about the historic route, I just want one route to be I-2 and another to be US 83. Besides, if you routed US 83 back on the business route, even the stupidest motorist knows that the interstate is the quick, through direct route and the US highway is the route with the traffic lights, driveways and people crossing the road.
anyone else think they should have made i-69e south of i-2, i-2 and not i-69e?
From the aesthetic point of view, with I-69 being the NAFTA route, my guess is the powers that be wanted I-69 numbered routes going to the border crossings at Laredo and Brownsville.
Perhaps in the long run I-2 could run concurrent with I-69E for a few miles and then swallow up the TX-550 toll road and then maybe be extended along the Brownsville-Port Isabel highway (TX-48) to TX-100, stopping just short of South Padre Island.
The I-2 numbering kind of annoys me a little. It might have made more sense giving it a 3 digit number like I-669. But then again I don't know where else in the contiguous 48 states an I-2 route could exist. The existing route is around 48 miles long, which makes it longer than I-97 and the Interstate routes in Hawaii.
Chances are probably very slim I-2 would be extended to Laredo. About 120 miles of upgrades to US-83 (and bypasses around Los Lomas, Rio Grande City, Escobares, Roma Creek and Zapata) would be in order. If that ever happened the route would be around 170 miles in length, making it longer than I-4 in Florida (132 miles). I-2 would even be longer than I-27 (124 miles).
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 25, 2013, 01:47:22 PM
anyone else think they should have made i-69e south of i-2, i-2 and not i-69e?
I hadn't thought of that, but I think AASHTO's hands were tied on that matter.
Quote from: vtk on July 25, 2013, 02:06:41 PM
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 25, 2013, 01:47:22 PM
anyone else think they should have made i-69e south of i-2, i-2 and not i-69e?
I hadn't thought of that, but I think AASHTO's hands were tied on that matter.
Yeah, their hands were tied, since, by law,
I-69 I-69E has to connect to Mexico.
Padre is where they need the freeway. Very tediuos travel east once you leave 77.
That would make sense to have I-2 go to Padre Island. Hey if Myrtle Beach can get two interstates, at least this popular tourist spot should at least get at least one!
The beach theme would make sense for an Eastern terminus to I-2.
I-4 ends at Daytona Beach, so why not have I-2 end at South Padre Island?
Then there's the hurricane evacuation route purpose I-2 could serve for South Padre Island. Perhaps that might give more justification to extend I-2 farther Northwest toward Laredo. Then there's the growing population in that area to consider.
Finally, an I-2 route extension along the Port of Brownsville might pull heavy trucks off TX-100 headed toward S. Padre. I don't know if that's a big problem, but it might make travel easier for those still taking TX-100 to S. Padre.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 25, 2013, 02:55:46 PM
The beach theme would make sense for an Eastern terminus to I-2.
I-4 ends at Daytona Beach, so why not have I-2 end at South Padre Island?
Then there's the hurricane evacuation route purpose I-2 could serve for South Padre Island. Perhaps that might give more justification to extend I-2 farther Northwest toward Laredo. Then there's the growing population in that area to consider.
Finally, an I-2 route extension along the Port of Brownsville might pull heavy trucks off TX-100 headed toward S. Padre. I don't know if that's a big problem, but it might make travel easier for those still taking TX-100 to S. Padre.
I am in agreeance! Let's extend I-2 to South Padre!!
The 69E-2 interchange is set up with 69E as the through route.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 25, 2013, 12:21:04 PM
Quote from: kkt on July 25, 2013, 12:09:45 PM
Quote from: Rover_0 on July 24, 2013, 01:24:45 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 24, 2013, 11:13:28 AM
I hate to get back on topic, ha, but I personally would like to see Bussiness Route 83 decommissioned and US 83 rerouted on Bussiness 83. I cannot stand long concurencies and seeing how all of Interstate 2 will be concurent with US 83, this really chaps my hide. I think eventually (especially if Interstate 2 gets extended to Laredo) US 83 will be truncated, but for now, US 83 should be the local route and Interstate 2 should be the express route.
I agree. I don't know why AASHTO has such a rule, because it makes a lot more sense to do this as opposed to keeping the US Route merged onto the Interstate, where it might (generally inadvertently) go hidden.
The rule makes sense. The primary purpose of numbering routes is to help motorists find the most efficient route to where they're going on the current highway system, not to help roadgeeks memorialize a previously important route that has now been bypassed. Call the old route "business I-2" or "historic US-83" maybe, but not US-83.
I honestly don't see it from a road geek point of view, but instead from an information overload point of view. That's why I hate long distance cosigning; it is too cluttered. I don't give a crap about the historic route, I just want one route to be I-2 and another to be US 83. Besides, if you routed US 83 back on the business route, even the stupidest motorist knows that the interstate is the quick, through direct route and the US highway is the route with the traffic lights, driveways and people crossing the road.
Co-signing is often the clearest way to sign a situation. For instance California leaves gaps in routes rather than co-sign them, which leaves motorists wondering at every reassurance sign whether they missed the turn for the route they intended to follow. Or, if they have actually missed the turn, it lets them keep driving another 100 miles before they figure out there's a problem.
In this case, how about truncating US 83 where I-2 begins?
If you leave old 83 signed as US 83, it will confuse people into following it who don't realize there's a freeway paralleling it now.
Quote from: kkt on July 25, 2013, 04:05:17 PMFor instance California leaves gaps in routes rather than co-sign them
really? I can't think of an example of this other than I-10 being invisible on the I-5 segment of the East LA interchange. that one took me a while to get used to: that there's, effectively, two I-10s. before I learned the LA freeway system (and the relative locations of San Bernardino and Santa Monica) I would get onto the wrong one every so often.
there are definitely
gaps in California routes ...try following 39 or 84 from beginning to end, for example - but that isn't the problem described here.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 25, 2013, 04:25:05 PM
Quote from: kkt on July 25, 2013, 04:05:17 PMFor instance California leaves gaps in routes rather than co-sign them
really? I can't think of an example of this other than I-10 being invisible on the I-5 segment of the East LA interchange. that one took me a while to get used to: that there's, effectively, two I-10s. before I learned the LA freeway system (and the relative locations of San Bernardino and Santa Monica) I would get onto the wrong one every so often.
there are definitely gaps in California routes ...try following 39 or 84 from beginning to end, for example - but that isn't the problem described here.
Route 193 along I-80 in Auburn is probably another example of this. Route 16 through Sacramento fits to some degree too.
I think SR 1 has some unsigned overlaps on US 101.
Quote from: NE2 on July 25, 2013, 04:43:42 PM
I think SR 1 has some unsigned overlaps on US 101.
I think you're right, the part around the golden gate bridge is unsigned I think.
Quote from: silverback1065 on July 25, 2013, 04:57:13 PM
Quote from: NE2 on July 25, 2013, 04:43:42 PM
I think SR 1 has some unsigned overlaps on US 101.
I think you're right, the part around the golden gate bridge is unsigned I think.
There are Route 1/US 101 sign assemblies on the Marin end; in SF though the portion from the 1/101 junction to the bridge seems to only be signed for 101 now.
More notable is the longer concurrency in Santa Barbara in which only 101 signage can be found.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 25, 2013, 04:25:05 PM
Quote from: kkt on July 25, 2013, 04:05:17 PMFor instance California leaves gaps in routes rather than co-sign them
really? I can't think of an example of this other than I-10 being invisible on the I-5 segment of the East LA interchange. that one took me a while to get used to: that there's, effectively, two I-10s. before I learned the LA freeway system (and the relative locations of San Bernardino and Santa Monica) I would get onto the wrong one every so often.
there are definitely gaps in California routes ...try following 39 or 84 from beginning to end, for example - but that isn't the problem described here.
Maybe I don't see the distinction you're making.
For instance CA-99 has a gap from where it meets US-50 at the SE side of Sacramento to where it splits off from I-5 NW of Sacramento...
Quote from: kkt on July 25, 2013, 05:11:47 PM
Maybe I don't see the distinction you're making.
For instance CA-99 has a gap from where it meets US-50 at the SE side of Sacramento to where it splits off from I-5 NW of Sacramento...
But there is signage (not the best, but still quite a bit) for Route 99 along US 50 and I-5.
In comparison, Route 84 between Rio Vista and Livermore has no signage whatsoever, to use the example brought up there
Quote from: TheStranger on July 25, 2013, 05:23:20 PM
Quote from: kkt on July 25, 2013, 05:11:47 PM
Maybe I don't see the distinction you're making.
For instance CA-99 has a gap from where it meets US-50 at the SE side of Sacramento to where it splits off from I-5 NW of Sacramento...
But there is signage (not the best, but still quite a bit) for Route 99 along US 50 and I-5.
In comparison, Route 84 between Rio Vista and Livermore has no signage whatsoever, to use the example brought up there
Legislatively, I think CalTrans doesn't do overlaps, but they may sign the more important ones. Most states will allow overlaps. Another example: NY allows them, but reference markers almost always only follow one of the two routes. (I have a 42/52 exception in the next update.)
Quote from: kkt on July 25, 2013, 12:09:45 PM
Quote from: Rover_0 on July 24, 2013, 01:24:45 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 24, 2013, 11:13:28 AM
I hate to get back on topic, ha, but I personally would like to see Bussiness Route 83 decommissioned and US 83 rerouted on Bussiness 83. I cannot stand long concurencies and seeing how all of Interstate 2 will be concurent with US 83, this really chaps my hide. I think eventually (especially if Interstate 2 gets extended to Laredo) US 83 will be truncated, but for now, US 83 should be the local route and Interstate 2 should be the express route.
I agree. I don't know why AASHTO has such a rule, because it makes a lot more sense to do this as opposed to keeping the US Route merged onto the Interstate, where it might (generally inadvertently) go hidden.
The rule makes sense. The primary purpose of numbering routes is to help motorists find the most efficient route to where they're going on the current highway system, not to help roadgeeks memorialize a previously important route that has now been bypassed. Call the old route "business I-2" or "historic US-83" maybe, but not US-83.
See though, I'm on the East Coast, where you have US 1, US 301, and I-95. Everyone knows I-95 is the route to take, and you use 1 or 301 if you're going locally. It's really not hard to figure out. The old route serves towns and local traffic and deserves to continue being a route. As long as it's state maintained, why not keep it a US highway?
Quote from: Steve on July 25, 2013, 06:54:03 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on July 25, 2013, 05:23:20 PM
Quote from: kkt on July 25, 2013, 05:11:47 PM
Maybe I don't see the distinction you're making.
For instance CA-99 has a gap from where it meets US-50 at the SE side of Sacramento to where it splits off from I-5 NW of Sacramento...
But there is signage (not the best, but still quite a bit) for Route 99 along US 50 and I-5.
In comparison, Route 84 between Rio Vista and Livermore has no signage whatsoever, to use the example brought up there
Legislatively, I think CalTrans doesn't do overlaps, but they may sign the more important ones. Most states will allow overlaps. Another example: NY allows them, but reference markers almost always only follow one of the two routes. (I have a 42/52 exception in the next update.)
Quote from: kkt on July 25, 2013, 12:09:45 PM
Quote from: Rover_0 on July 24, 2013, 01:24:45 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 24, 2013, 11:13:28 AM
I hate to get back on topic, ha, but I personally would like to see Bussiness Route 83 decommissioned and US 83 rerouted on Bussiness 83. I cannot stand long concurencies and seeing how all of Interstate 2 will be concurent with US 83, this really chaps my hide. I think eventually (especially if Interstate 2 gets extended to Laredo) US 83 will be truncated, but for now, US 83 should be the local route and Interstate 2 should be the express route.
I agree. I don't know why AASHTO has such a rule, because it makes a lot more sense to do this as opposed to keeping the US Route merged onto the Interstate, where it might (generally inadvertently) go hidden.
The rule makes sense. The primary purpose of numbering routes is to help motorists find the most efficient route to where they're going on the current highway system, not to help roadgeeks memorialize a previously important route that has now been bypassed. Call the old route "business I-2" or "historic US-83" maybe, but not US-83.
See though, I'm on the East Coast, where you have US 1, US 301, and I-95. Everyone knows I-95 is the route to take, and you use 1 or 301 if you're going locally. It's really not hard to figure out. The old route serves towns and local traffic and deserves to continue being a route. As long as it's state maintained, why not keep it a US highway?
This is exactly what I am saying. Everyone will know Interstate 2 is for long haul freeway traffic and U.S. 83 is for local traffic. Say you are on the west side of the Valley and you want to go to South Padre Island. You will know staying on the freeway is the way to go, and you know all interstates are freeways. If you want to instead go to down town Mission for some fun at the Tom Landry Museum, you know US 83 is your guy!! Again, even the stupidest motorist that never pays attention to the road and drives by landmarks knows this.
Another thing about concurrences that I hate is exactly what is being said. Example: The Interstate route is always the most primary route, and will always be signed, but a lot of times, the US highway gets skipped a sign post or two (ie: US 67 on Interstate 30, or US 85 on Interstate 25 through ALL of New Mexico). When one of these posts gets skipped, the driver thinks the US route left the freeway and panics. Eliminating concurrences helps reduce the information overload and the possibility the concurrency was miss marked.
Agreed. Concurrences should be avoided where possible; instances where a route ends in a concurrency should be banned (the only one I tolerate is NY 332/NY 21, and that's because NY 332's routing was burned into my brain before I was old enough to realize that NY 21 existed south of Canandaigua).
For an extreme example of this, go look at NYSDOT traffic information concerning routes in the Utica/Rome area. You have to stare at a map a REALLY long time to figure out what they're talking about, even if you're local, because of the routes darting in and out of multiplexes. I didn't even realize that the ramp from NY 365 east to NY 49 west was NY 26 north (and only NY 26 north) until two months into a bridge closure because there's a triplex on two on the sides of the interchange and a duplex on the third. The intersection not even one mile to the north has the same situation (without the closure). And there's the infamous quadplex with I-790; most people refer to NY 5/8/12 as only NY 12, with other segments freeways having similar treatments, leading to the disappearances of routes in local parlance (a la CalTrans) even though they're all signed.
I am all for elimination of concurrences if possible. Here is a fun example. US 90 in Houston west of the Liberty freeway. The only signed routing if the Alt route. The unsigned concurrency with I-10 means someone could drive 40 miles out of their way to to stay on a road that mainly stays hugged to I-10. It makes for pointless remembering if you need to be on the Alt or regular to go somewhere. Because its listed both as US90.
I am all for a concurrency like the GWB where the is only 3 bridges for NYC and somethings might need to double up. But for every bridge, there are a ton of roads like I-69 and US59 in Houston with more names than they know what to do with.
Shouldn't this be in the topic of useless multiplexes?
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=437.msg10401#msg104014
BTW, I am not telling the moderators how to do their jobs here, just being friendly and reminding those that there is already a discussion about this very same subject someplace else.
Quote from: roadman65 on July 26, 2013, 07:33:37 AM
Shouldn't this be in the topic of useless multiplexes?
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=437.msg10401#msg104014
BTW, I am not telling the moderators how to do their jobs here, just being friendly and reminding those that there is already a discussion about this very same subject someplace else.
Yeah, the I-2 discussion has drifted a little, but that's because I-2 is tied up in the I-69 mess.
Back to moving US 83 to the Business route, That happened in Round Rock, TX years ago. Back before the truncation of US 81, it used to run concurrent with I-35 except in certain locations. In Round Rock, it was signed on the freeway with I-35, while Business 81 was signed on Mays Street. This might have been a hold over from the old days when I-35 was being built and the freeway part was just US 81 and Mays Street was Business 81 until I-35 came along. Then in the early 90's, US 81 was moved to the Business route on Mays Street leaving the freeway to just Interstate 35. This didn't last very long since it was a few years later that US 81 was truncated to the north side of Fort Worth leaving Mays St. with the designation of Business Loop 35.
(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-v74HqJ0FA8c/UeRMHuWoebI/AAAAAAAAADA/kjtZoAw1ICM/w983-h553-no/P1010732.JPG)
(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-TXfxF_cmBhA/UeRNoG6vy0I/AAAAAAAAASo/z-bwFBgQNdo/w983-h553-no/P1010855.JPG)
Since Texas hasn't signed an interstate since 1991 (Interstate 27) until now (2012) with Interstate 69 in various places, I am curious to see if the signing of Interstate 2 will be done more like they sign a normal interstate. To explain, Interstate 69 seems to have "makeshift" signage, like they only signed it on the mainlanes in some areas, and where they signed it on the mainlanes they just cut the pole where the US 59 shield was, put a "Y" pole up there and signed both I-69 and US 59. In other words, Interstate 69 is signed just like any state route in Texas: every other mile or every mile with the Texas Reference Marker placed below the shield, with a 24"X 24" shield, and not consistent with how interstates in any state are signed (after on ramps, a 36"X 36" reassurance shield is followed by a speed limit sign and a distance sign). I understand that the Interstate 69 segments are signed the way they are because they are kind of a temporary solution, especially since I-69 in Texas technically doesn't go anywhere, so big time signage is kind of pointless. But in contrast, Interstate 2 is complete mostly finished and it actually does go somewhere, so it is a viable route. So after all of this I wonder if we will see our first new 36"X 36" shields in Texas since 1991 coming to Interstate 2, or will they just do the sign replacement of US 83 like they did for I-69, and it will be signed like other state highways in Texas complete with 24"X 24" shields and inconsistent with Texas Interstate Highways.
I was wondering if there are any Texas Rio Grande Valley road geeks here who can keep us updated on the signing progress on Interstate 2. I am so curious about it because it is a different situation than the previous Interstate 69 segments that have been signed. Interstate 2, even though, according to the I-69 Alliance website will extend to Laredo (please, please, please!!), has a definite beginning point, for now. With that being said, I am wondering if there will be a mile 0 post and mile post set up along the route. And of course, as you can see in my previous post, I am wondering if there will be 36"X 36" shields set up after every on ramp.
My guess would be that I-2 would be done the same way as I-69(C,E), and both of these will be rationalized to a more typical signage scheme whenever the next total resignage is scheduled.
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 21, 2013, 01:51:36 AM
My guess would be that I-2 would be done the same way as I-69(C,E), and both of these will be rationalized to a more typical signage scheme whenever the next total resignage is scheduled.
I figured that would be the case. I was wanting an update in the field.
One thing I'm curious about regarding I-2 and signage is how it will be treated on overhead "big green signs." Texas has a pretty odd-ball way of handling Interstate shields on BGS displays. They'll often use a 3 digit shield for a 2-digit route. And then they'll stick a 3-digit route on 2-digit shields.
:confused:
It will be interesting to see if they use some 3-digit shields for I-2 markers -especially if routes like I-69C and I-69E are shown on the same sign panel in 2-digit shields.
Perhaps this is some highway sign design supervisor's version of non-conformity, kind of like all the people entering a Walmart through the exit doors rather than the place marked "entrance."
:-/
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 21, 2013, 04:20:10 PM
It will be interesting to see if they use some 3-digit shields for I-2 markers -especially if routes like I-69C and I-69E are shown on the same sign panel in 2-digit shields.
this is precisely how it is done. the 2 looks goofy, the 69C in Series D looks badly squished in. Alex, can you post some of JeffR's photos?
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 21, 2013, 04:23:59 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 21, 2013, 04:20:10 PM
It will be interesting to see if they use some 3-digit shields for I-2 markers -especially if routes like I-69C and I-69E are shown on the same sign panel in 2-digit shields.
this is precisely how it is done. the 2 looks goofy, the 69C in Series D looks badly squished in. Alex, can you post some of JeffR's photos?
.
I think the usage of 3di shields for 2di (or in this case 1di) interstates has been phased out of TxDOT standards, since I have seen more and more correct shields on BGSs. Although, some 3di for 2di have remained. To correct you, the only place I have ever seen 2di for 3dis are on I-35E and a few on I-610. Other than that, 3dis get 3di treatment in Texas.
you're right, the "69C" is in an identical wide shield as the 2. it just doesn't look correct because the digits are too wide and thus crammed in.
(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-6YUKX1b72Iw/UeRMmTp720I/AAAAAAAAAIY/VZs_usK_kl8/w983-h553-no/P1010775.JPG)
Here is a situation where both are used.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 21, 2013, 04:23:59 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 21, 2013, 04:20:10 PM
It will be interesting to see if they use some 3-digit shields for I-2 markers -especially if routes like I-69C and I-69E are shown on the same sign panel in 2-digit shields.
this is precisely how it is done. the 2 looks goofy, the 69C in Series D looks badly squished in. Alex, can you post some of JeffR's photos?
Sure thing, here they are from this Monday:
(//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/texas/i-069c_sb_at_i-002.jpg) (//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/texas/i-069c_sb_at_i-002.jpg)
Interstate 69C south at Interstate 2/U.S. 83.
(//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/texas/i-002_eb_at_i-069c.jpg) (//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/texas/i-002_eb_at_i-069c.jpg)
Interstate 2 east at Interstate 69C/U.S. 281.
Quote from: Alex on August 21, 2013, 06:43:31 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 21, 2013, 04:23:59 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 21, 2013, 04:20:10 PM
It will be interesting to see if they use some 3-digit shields for I-2 markers -especially if routes like I-69C and I-69E are shown on the same sign panel in 2-digit shields.
this is precisely how it is done. the 2 looks goofy, the 69C in Series D looks badly squished in. Alex, can you post some of JeffR's photos?
Sure thing, here they are from this Monday:
(//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/texas/i-069c_sb_at_i-002.jpg) (//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/texas/i-069c_sb_at_i-002.jpg)
Interstate 69C south at Interstate 2/U.S. 83.
(//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/texas/i-002_eb_at_i-069c.jpg) (//www.aaroads.com/forum_images/texas/i-002_eb_at_i-069c.jpg)
Interstate 2 east at Interstate 69C/U.S. 281.
Worst. Of. Road. Signs.
Is US 83 normally signed east-west there?
Quote from: NE2 on August 21, 2013, 08:04:08 PM
Is US 83 normally signed east-west there?
I know it was back in the 90's.
Quote from: NE2 on August 21, 2013, 08:04:08 PM
Is US 83 normally signed east-west there?
Yes, it is signed east/west.
I don't think ... no, I'm certain that I have never seen a worse Interstate shield than those wide I-2's.
Quote from: apeman33 on August 27, 2013, 01:28:57 AM
I don't think ... no, I'm certain that I have never seen a worse Interstate shield than those wide I-2's.
Who's got a photo of the I-290 in Worcester?
I received this email from TxDOT regarding signage:
Quote
The standard size 24" X 24" shields will be utilized for the IH 2/US 83 route markers along the route and at the frontage road entrance ramps and at the interchange intersections in the urbanized area. We already have a lot of sign clutter on the highway and the fact that we will also be signing for the "dual designation" which means that we will have both the IH 2 and the US 83 route marker shields hung together on the same mount. The IH 69C/US 281 and IH 69E/US 77 shields will be 30" X 24" due to the three digits on the road designation. They are all going to be installed as dual designation on all of the affected roadways.
Quote from: NE2 on August 27, 2013, 02:59:21 AM
Quote from: apeman33 on August 27, 2013, 01:28:57 AM
I don't think ... no, I'm certain that I have never seen a worse Interstate shield than those wide I-2's.
Who's got a photo of the I-290 in Worcester?
dunno about Worcester, but here is the Brick of Tonawanda.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/NY/NY20032901i1.jpg)
the worst part is that it replaced this classic.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/NY/NY19612901i1.jpg)
Yeah, that one. I thought it replaced the ballsy I-290 in Worcester.
Quote from: NE2 on August 27, 2013, 01:30:11 PM
Yeah, that one. I thought it replaced the ballsy I-290 in Worcester.
this one?
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/MA/MA19722901i1.jpg)
Yep.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 27, 2013, 01:05:17 PM
Quote from: NE2 on August 27, 2013, 02:59:21 AM
Quote from: apeman33 on August 27, 2013, 01:28:57 AM
I don't think ... no, I'm certain that I have never seen a worse Interstate shield than those wide I-2's.
Who's got a photo of the I-290 in Worcester?
dunno about Worcester, but here is the Brick of Tonawanda.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/NY/NY20032901i1.jpg)
the worst part is that it replaced this classic.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/NY/NY19612901i1.jpg)
Put that awful sign in the worst of signs thread!
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 27, 2013, 01:05:17 PM
Quote from: NE2 on August 27, 2013, 02:59:21 AM
Quote from: apeman33 on August 27, 2013, 01:28:57 AM
I don't think ... no, I'm certain that I have never seen a worse Interstate shield than those wide I-2's.
Who's got a photo of the I-290 in Worcester?
dunno about Worcester, but here is the Brick of Tonawanda.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/NY/NY20032901i1.jpg)
At first I thought this was a sick joke. Much agreed, it belongs in the Worst of Road Signs thread. Hell, it deserves a place of honor there. X-(
Tulsa has had a few overhead big green signs with truly hideous, nowhere near spec, Interstate highway shields. The ones on the East side of town (near the Hard Rock Hotel) were recently replaced with new signs featuring proper looking shields and Clearview Hwy type. There is still at least one abomination I-244 shield left on Westbound I-44 approaching the western terminus of I-244.
There's also some particularly wacky looking I-35 shields on overhead signs as I-44 approaches the Kilpatrick Turnpike/I-35/I-44 interchange.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 27, 2013, 01:05:17 PM
Quote from: NE2 on August 27, 2013, 02:59:21 AM
Quote from: apeman33 on August 27, 2013, 01:28:57 AM
I don't think ... no, I'm certain that I have never seen a worse Interstate shield than those wide I-2's.
Who's got a photo of the I-290 in Worcester?
dunno about Worcester, but here is the Brick of Tonawanda.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/NY/NY20032901i1.jpg)
That's hilarious!
Quote from: FightingIrish on August 27, 2013, 06:02:53 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 27, 2013, 01:05:17 PM
Quote from: NE2 on August 27, 2013, 02:59:21 AM
Quote from: apeman33 on August 27, 2013, 01:28:57 AM
I don't think ... no, I'm certain that I have never seen a worse Interstate shield than those wide I-2's.
Who's got a photo of the I-290 in Worcester?
dunno about Worcester, but here is the Brick of Tonawanda.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/NY/NY20032901i1.jpg)
That's hilarious!
In a sad sort of way. Designed by somebody who once had an interstate shield described to them, by a 5-year-old.
Quote from: Brandon on August 27, 2013, 05:17:49 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 27, 2013, 01:05:17 PM
Quote from: NE2 on August 27, 2013, 02:59:21 AM
Quote from: apeman33 on August 27, 2013, 01:28:57 AM
I don't think ... no, I'm certain that I have never seen a worse Interstate shield than those wide I-2's.
Who's got a photo of the I-290 in Worcester?
dunno about Worcester, but here is the Brick of Tonawanda.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/NY/NY20032901i1.jpg)
At first I thought this was a sick joke. Much agreed, it belongs in the Worst of Road Signs thread. Hell, it deserves a place of honor there. X-(
Hmm... maybe it can't go in worst of road signs then. The other signs would kick it out because they're too good to be associated with this.
I actually kind of like the idea of using that design as a placeholder for future Interstate highways. It could be stuck over a real shield and popped off to reveal it when the time is right.
I'd prefer a grayscale shield as a placeholder.
Quote from: NE2 on August 28, 2013, 03:04:21 AM
I'd prefer a grayscale shield as a placeholder.
Like so?
(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/p206x206/1237839_10153205041420331_2096977970_n.jpg)
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 27, 2013, 01:05:17 PM
dunno about Worcester, but here is the Brick of Tonawanda.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/NY/NY20032901i1.jpg)
For some reason it looks like something I'd expect Minnesota to accidentally put up.
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 28, 2013, 02:31:11 AM
I actually kind of like the idea of using that design as a placeholder for future Interstate highways. It could be stuck over a real shield and popped off to reveal it when the time is right.
I'd rather see a screw on or sticker method of just placing "interstate" over the Future xx shields North Carolina uses.
You could also use the German method: just put a thin red X over the shield :bigass:
Quote from: NE2 on August 28, 2013, 11:21:34 PM
You could also use the German method: just put a thin red X over the shield :bigass:
Red tape works so great. (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpsroads.net%2Froads%2Fqc%2Fa-40%2F125n.jpg&hash=76ace678df6864fce83a2ef31e362be27ecd394c)
Quote from: apeman33 on August 27, 2013, 01:28:57 AM
I don't think ... no, I'm certain that I have never seen a worse Interstate shield than those wide I-2's.
Not as bad as that "290" thing further up the thread, but I'd put these as being worse than those I-2s. They've been replaced. (Picture from AARoads) I suppose these are supposed to be US shields, not Interstate shields, so they qualify as "worst of US shields," but there's no denying what the shape actually is.
(Also, why is the "1" aligned lower than the other digits?)
(https://www.aaroads.com/mid-atlantic/district_of_columbia/us-001_nb_at_madison_dr_nw.jpg)
Quote from: Revive 755 on August 28, 2013, 11:06:33 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on August 27, 2013, 01:05:17 PM
dunno about Worcester, but here is the Brick of Tonawanda.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/NY/NY20032901i1.jpg)
For some reason it looks like something I'd expect Minnesota to accidentally put up.
No, it looks more like a MD sign to me.
As much as I'm geeking out about the new Interstate 2 signing, I can't help but feel that the new interstate doesn't really serve a purpose outside a glorified 69 spur. If I-2 is to be connected to Interstate 10 in the future, my mindset may change, but for now, I think it's just a symptom of the 69 gluttony in South Texas.
I guess we march to our own drummer
What control cities are present on the I-2/US 83 freeway? Is it Harlingen and McAllen? What is signed west of US 281?
I wonder if the city designations will change to something more long range, like Laredo, much like Cleveland, TX will probably pass to Lufkin or Shreveport on I-69.
At its present length, I don't think the "I-2" designation is justified. It would have been just as good to label it "I-169" or something like that. BTW, I don't like other short 2di routes like I-97 or I-86 in Idaho either.
Now if I-2 were extended upward to Laredo the designation would be more worth it. If the south Texas region continues to grow I could even see one making a case to extend I-2 up to Eagle Pass, Del Rio and even as far as Fort Stockton to meet I-10. An extension to Laredo at least seems justifiable in the near term.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 02, 2013, 04:51:07 PM
I could even see one making a case to extend I-2 up to Eagle Pass, Del Rio and even as far as Fort Stockton to meet I-10.
Just as long as you're not taking the notion of upgrading an unused gravel road in the middle of the desert (https://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=Bob+Bullock+Loop&daddr=28.0891788,-99.9725665+to:Texas+State+Loop+480&hl=en&sll=28.21729,-99.917908&sspn=1.940919,2.458191&geocode=FedHpQEdkxAS-g%3BFVqbrAEdKooK-inRR3dZb2NghjHe498hZoBGFA%3BFQowtgEdBocD-g&mra=dvme&mrsp=1&sz=9&via=1&t=m&z=9) to an Interstate-grade freeway just to make a bunch of roadgeeks happy–thereby shaving a whopping six miles off the existing route along US highways (https://maps.google.com/maps?saddr=Bob+Bullock+Loop&daddr=28.2231665,-99.6142367+to:Texas+State+Loop+480&hl=en&sll=28.21729,-99.917908&sspn=1.940919,2.458191&geocode=FedHpQEdkxAS-g%3BFb6mrgEd5AEQ-imlyXNza5lghjHCVEGJH6oOSA%3BFQowtgEdBocD-g&mra=dvme&mrsp=1&sz=9&via=1&t=m&z=9). Cause that just ain't a-gonna happen.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 02, 2013, 04:51:07 PM
At its present length, I don't think the "I-2" designation is justified. It would have been just as good to label it "I-169" or something like that. BTW, I don't like other short 2di routes like I-97 or I-86 in Idaho either.
Now if I-2 were extended upward to Laredo the designation would be more worth it. If the south Texas region continues to grow I could even see one making a case to extend I-2 up to Eagle Pass, Del Rio and even as far as Fort Stockton to meet I-10. An extension to Laredo at least seems justifiable in the near term.
I-2 is longer than I-97, the only logical spot for such a number, and therefore I find it awesome and want to keep it.
Quote from: Steve on September 02, 2013, 11:56:53 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 02, 2013, 04:51:07 PM
At its present length, I don't think the "I-2" designation is justified. It would have been just as good to label it "I-169" or something like that. BTW, I don't like other short 2di routes like I-97 or I-86 in Idaho either.
Now if I-2 were extended upward to Laredo the designation would be more worth it. If the south Texas region continues to grow I could even see one making a case to extend I-2 up to Eagle Pass, Del Rio and even as far as Fort Stockton to meet I-10. An extension to Laredo at least seems justifiable in the near term.
I-2 is longer than I-97, the only logical spot for such a number, and therefore I find it awesome and want to keep it.
I-2 is fine. Another I-69 variant would probably just be confusing. Plus, I-2 has the potential of being expanded, depending on whether future demand warrants it.
Besides, where else is an I-2 going to go?
Quote from: FightingIrish on September 03, 2013, 07:59:27 AMBesides, where else is an I-2 going to go?
Replacing I-75's East/West segment in Florida. lol.
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on September 03, 2013, 10:28:17 PM
Quote from: FightingIrish on September 03, 2013, 07:59:27 AMBesides, where else is an I-2 going to go?
Replacing I-75's East/West segment in Florida. lol.
I suggested that earlier, I think it's a good idea! and rename us 41 us 94 again!
Quote from: silverback1065 on September 03, 2013, 10:33:27 PM
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on September 03, 2013, 10:28:17 PM
Quote from: FightingIrish on September 03, 2013, 07:59:27 AMBesides, where else is an I-2 going to go?
Replacing I-75's East/West segment in Florida. lol.
I suggested that earlier, I think it's a good idea! and rename us 41 us 94 again!
Stupid idea. Why change the names of long-established routes? Especially just to placate a few anal-retentive road geeks.
Quote from: FightingIrish on September 04, 2013, 08:29:50 AM
Stupid idea. Why change the names of long-established routes? Especially just to placate a few anal-retentive road geeks.
As much as I really like I-2, the same could theoretically said about it replacing the long-established "83 expressway."
Quote from: Molandfreak on September 04, 2013, 09:04:52 AM
Quote from: FightingIrish on September 04, 2013, 08:29:50 AM
Stupid idea. Why change the names of long-established routes? Especially just to placate a few anal-retentive road geeks.
As much as I really like I-2, the same could theoretically said about it replacing the long-established "83 expressway."
Replacing a US highway with an interstate is a lot different than replacing an interstate number with another interstate number, especially when not really necessary.
And I'm sure everyone here knows why US routes get replaced by interstates.
If it's a better number and makes more sense in the context of the whole system, I say go for it and renumber it. People who care about the roadways that they and millions of others drive on every day are not anal retentive; they're just trying to use their brains to think of better designations for them. "Changing the names of long-established routes" by definition does include replacing US Routes with Interstates, and US 94 itself was once long-established. The most common reason US Routes are replaced by Interstates is that it is a logical addition to the Interstate system.
In the case of US 41, however, the routing through Florida is quite sensible, especially considering that US 94, being south of US 98, didn't fit into the grid that well to start with. Besides, switching designations on a continuous roadway doesn't make much sense to me. South Texas is the only place with a long east-west freeway further south than I-4, so it's a shoo-in for the 2 designation. Now that 2 is taken, 6 is the one number still available for an east-west Interstate south of I-10. If a freeway is ever needed between Corpus Christi and Laredo, I-6 would be the obvious choice. Houston to Austin is the other far southern east-west "phantom link", but since that's north of I-10 it could be I-14 or perhaps a three-digit number if TxDOT is feeling adventurous. Personally I'd use the 12 number for a Houston to Austin Interstate, and rename the current 12 to 410 or 810, but we're veering into fictional highways territory now.
Does I-2 have exit numbers? If so, assuming mile 0 is the west end as it should be, is it the current freeway terminus near McAllen or some notional extension, such as to Laredo?
Quote from: 31E on September 04, 2013, 10:51:24 AM
If it's a better number and makes more sense in the context of the whole system, I say go for it and renumber it. People who care about the roadways that they and millions of others drive on every day are not anal retentive; they're just trying to use their brains to think of better designations for them. "Changing the names of long-established routes" by definition does include replacing US Routes with Interstates, and US 94 itself was once long-established. The most common reason US Routes are replaced by Interstates is that it is a logical addition to the Interstate system.
In the case of US 41, however, the routing through Florida is quite sensible, especially considering that US 94, being south of US 98, didn't fit into the grid that well to start with. Besides, switching designations on a continuous roadway doesn't make much sense to me. South Texas is the only place with a long east-west freeway further south than I-4, so it's a shoo-in for the 2 designation. Now that 2 is taken, 6 is the one number still available for an east-west Interstate south of I-10. If a freeway is ever needed between Corpus Christi and Laredo, I-6 would be the obvious choice. Houston to Austin is the other far southern east-west "phantom link", but since that's north of I-10 it could be I-14 or perhaps a three-digit number if TxDOT is feeling adventurous. Personally I'd use the 12 number for a Houston to Austin Interstate, and rename the current 12 to 410 or 810, but we're veering into fictional highways territory now.
The grid will never be perfect. It's impossible. And renumbering a bunch of interstates just for the sake of renumbering solves a problem that doesn't exist. In fact, it'll just make things worse. And first and foremost, route numbering is mostly about making things more convenient and helpful to the people who drive on them. Plus, state DOT's are not going to just go out and resign routes just for the hell of it. That costs a lot of money.
I have no problem with I-75 taking a left turn and going east to Miami. Highways DO actually change direction once in a while.
Quote from: 31E on September 04, 2013, 10:51:24 AM
If it's a better number and makes more sense in the context of the whole system, I say go for it and renumber it. People who care about the roadways that they and millions of others drive on every day are not anal retentive; they're just trying to use their brains to think of better designations for them. "Changing the names of long-established routes" by definition does include replacing US Routes with Interstates, and US 94 itself was once long-established. The most common reason US Routes are replaced by Interstates is that it is a logical addition to the Interstate system.
In the case of US 41, however, the routing through Florida is quite sensible, especially considering that US 94, being south of US 98, didn't fit into the grid that well to start with. Besides, switching designations on a continuous roadway doesn't make much sense to me. South Texas is the only place with a long east-west freeway further south than I-4, so it's a shoo-in for the 2 designation. Now that 2 is taken, 6 is the one number still available for an east-west Interstate south of I-10. If a freeway is ever needed between Corpus Christi and Laredo, I-6 would be the obvious choice. Houston to Austin is the other far southern east-west "phantom link", but since that's north of I-10 it could be I-14 or perhaps a three-digit number if TxDOT is feeling adventurous. Personally I'd use the 12 number for a Houston to Austin Interstate, and rename the current 12 to 410 or 810, but we're veering into fictional highways territory now.
US 98 was established in 1933 meaning it would have been the out of place route at the time.
I-6 = proposed I-49 "south"; I-14 = Houston-Austin link
Quote from: 31E on September 04, 2013, 10:51:24 AM
If a freeway is ever needed between Corpus Christi and Laredo, I-6 would be the obvious choice.
Like I-69?
Quote from: 31E on September 04, 2013, 10:51:24 AM
People who care about the roadways that they and millions of others drive on every day are not anal retentive; they're just trying to use their brains to think of better designations for them.
So....people who don't care if route numbers form a perfect grid don't "care about the roadways"? Is it not possible to care enough about our roadways that we don't want to unnecessarily confuse the millions of others who drive on them every day by changing their route numbers to something
we think is more appropriate?
Quote from: 31E on September 04, 2013, 10:51:24 AM
"Changing the names of long-established routes" by definition does include replacing US Routes with Interstates.
No it doesn't. For example, changing the name of US-41 to US-94 does not, by definition, replace a US Route with an Interstate.
Quote from: texaskdog on September 04, 2013, 02:19:47 PM
Quote from: 31E on September 04, 2013, 10:51:24 AM
If a freeway is ever needed between Corpus Christi and Laredo, I-6 would be the obvious choice.
Like I-69?
Nah. More like I-69R or I-69Y.
Arent they all "69why"?
Quote from: texaskdog on September 04, 2013, 02:19:47 PM
Quote from: 31E on September 04, 2013, 10:51:24 AM
If a freeway is ever needed between Corpus Christi and Laredo, I-6 would be the obvious choice.
Like I-69?
More like another x69.
On another note, I would like to say that I find it interesting that I-2 is only 47 miles long at present, but I-369 on the other side of the state will be 110 miles almost twice as long. Another thing is at least its almost twice the length of Anne Arundell County, MD's own I-97.
I was just reading Wikipedia and just noticed that until I-69E is finished to Robstown through Kenedy County, I-2 is not at all connected to the interstate system, a big violation. However, congress approved it, and of course their word is final over AASHTO. We can thank both Buddy Shuster with the cooperation of the NIMBY's we have now in Washington to allow this to happen.
Quote from: roadman65 on September 12, 2013, 07:31:21 PM
I was just reading Wikipedia and just noticed that until I-69E is finished to Robstown through Kenedy County, I-2 is not at all connected to the interstate system, a big violation. However, congress approved it, and of course their word is final over AASHTO. We can thank both Buddy Shuster with the cooperation of the NIMBY's we have now in Washington to allow this to happen.
So long as I-2 has definitive plans to be connected to the rest of the system (which it will with the I-69s), AASHTO allows this, and always has.
Quote from: roadman65 on September 12, 2013, 07:31:21 PM
I was just reading Wikipedia and just noticed that until I-69E is finished to Robstown through Kenedy County, I-2 is not at all connected to the interstate system, a big violation. However, congress approved it, and of course their word is final over AASHTO. We can thank both Buddy Shuster with the cooperation of the NIMBY's we have now in Washington to allow this to happen.
Meh. If a link is planned to be completed in the near future it's okay for it to be disconnected for a while. If it ends up like all those orphaned x78's in New York then the situation gets a bit stickier. I agree that Bud Shuster set a bad precedent - numbering should be determined by AASHTO, not Congress.
Quote from: kphoger on September 04, 2013, 03:54:25 PM
Quote from: 31E on September 04, 2013, 10:51:24 AM
"Changing the names of long-established routes" by definition does include replacing US Routes with Interstates.
No it doesn't. For example, changing the name of US-41 to US-94 does not, by definition, replace a US Route with an Interstate.
Replacing a US Route with an Interstate
is a change of name and many of these names are long-established. Whether you think it make sense or not, it is a big change of name, and therefore replacing US 87 with I-2 is no more confusing to the driver than changing US 41 to US 94 would be. If it's a better number and makes more sense in the context of the system I say go for it. Changing US 41 to US 94 doesn't meet that test. Changing, for example, I-238 to I-480 would meet that test.
Quote from: FightingIrish on September 04, 2013, 12:33:34 PMThe grid will never be perfect. It's impossible.
Route numbers should fit the grid as neatly as possible; I-85 is perfectly fine even if it veers to the west of I-75 because it's mostly east of I-75, and diagonal routes should have a number that fits at least part of the route. I-24 and I-26 stray far to the north but that's okay because they spend a good chunk of their journeys between 20 and 40. 73 and 74 if they're ever finished would be the same way. On the other hand, numbers like I-238, US 400, US 412, and to a lesser extent I-99 don't fit the grid at all, and didn't have to happen.
QuoteI have no problem with I-75 taking a left turn and going east to Miami. Highways DO actually change direction once in a while.
I-75 is by and large a north-south routing, so that's perfectly fine. It would be a different story if the whole route was more east-west than north-south. My only pet peeve in these situations is when north-south routes go east-west for hundreds of miles and are still signed north-south, such as 75 North taking you due west for 100 miles :banghead:.
What is more confusing is I-94 between Chicago and Milwaukee where I-94 goes north and south for quite the distance. If people from Chicagoland or the Milwaukee metro area can live with saying "Lets go east on 94 to go to Chicago" when they know that the windy city is south of them, or "Lets take 94 west to Milwaukee" also knowing that it is north of them with the named Tr State being referred to as being N-S, then easily people of Florida are living with I-75 being out of place directional wise!
I live in the Sunshine State and have heard no complaints. Heck no one says anything about I-4 running due north and south through most of Central Florida as we still say East and West knowing that it is not true to that direction.
Also, I-2 could be used if the FL 80 corridor needs to be upgraded between Fort Myers and West Palm Beach LOL!
Quote from: roadman65 on September 17, 2013, 07:48:45 PM
What is more confusing is I-94 between Chicago and Milwaukee where I-94 goes north and south for quite the distance. If people from Chicagoland or the Milwaukee metro area can live with saying "Lets go east on 94 to go to Chicago" when they know that the windy city is south of them, or "Lets take 94 west to Milwaukee" also knowing that it is north of them with the named Tr State being referred to as being N-S, then easily people of Florida are living with I-75 being out of place directional wise!
Well, that one is being, at least, partially corrected (See: 'US-41 Interstate Conversion' thread in the Midwest-Great Lakes section of this forvm).
:nod:
Mike
QuoteSo long as I-2 has definitive plans to be connected to the rest of the system (which it will with the I-69s), AASHTO allows this, and always has.
Another thing worth mentioning: IIRC, back in the 1960's and 1970's when significant parts of the Interstate highway system were still under construction there were signed segments of Interstate highways separated from the rest of the system by gaps, with those gaps either proposed or under construction.
I have no problem with segments of I-69 in Texas being signed since there are clear, definitive plans to complete the route and fill in the gaps. It wouldn't bother me if certain completed segments, like the toll road going through Falfurrias, are signed as parts of the Interstate before the rest of it is built. I don't have a problem with the proposed I-369 route being as long as it is; it doesn't need to carry a 2di Interstate designation. I just wish I-2 was a longer, more significant route. Who knows? Maybe in a few years (or more) it may be built that way. South Texas is growing fast.
One of the few issues I have with I-69: how it's being routed in Kentucky. I guess the highway is going to make a big, distance wasting L-shape, going South on the Pennyrile Parkway (KY-9004) and then West on the Wendell H. Ford Western Kentucky Parkway (KY-9001). I guess a more direct route from Henderson to Calvert City isn't going to be built.
Quote from: roadman65 on September 17, 2013, 07:48:45 PM
What is more confusing is I-94 between Chicago and Milwaukee where I-94 goes north and south for quite the distance. If people from Chicagoland or the Milwaukee metro area can live with saying "Lets go east on 94 to go to Chicago" when they know that the windy city is south of them, or "Lets take 94 west to Milwaukee" also knowing that it is north of them with the named Tr State being referred to as being N-S, then easily people of Florida are living with I-75 being out of place directional wise!
We call it north-south anyway, regardless of what the actual signage may suggest.
Quote from: Brandon on September 20, 2013, 12:09:11 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on September 17, 2013, 07:48:45 PM
What is more confusing is I-94 between Chicago and Milwaukee where I-94 goes north and south for quite the distance. If people from Chicagoland or the Milwaukee metro area can live with saying "Lets go east on 94 to go to Chicago" when they know that the windy city is south of them, or "Lets take 94 west to Milwaukee" also knowing that it is north of them with the named Tr State being referred to as being N-S, then easily people of Florida are living with I-75 being out of place directional wise!
We call it north-south anyway, regardless of what the actual signage may suggest.
It did not surprise me that people would call it North and South.
Even in Central Florida we call the two route concurrency of US 17 & 92 in which the even number of the two is signed E-W as solely N-S even though only US 17 runs that way. It actually runs north and south from Kissimmee to DeLand and only from Kissimmee to Intercession City and from Haines City to Lake Alfred does the two route concurrency actually run due east and west and that is only a short part. Plus many Floridians do not refer to US 17 and US 92 south of FL 50 anyway as all of Orange Blossom Trail in Orlando and Kissimmee is either OBT or Four Forty-one. The brief overlap with FL 50 is either known as Colonial or Highway 50 and I do not think many even know of that brief segment.
"One of the few issues I have with I-69: how it's being routed in Kentucky. I guess the highway is going to make a big, distance wasting L-shape, going South on the Pennyrile Parkway (KY-9004) and then West on the Wendell H. Ford Western Kentucky Parkway (KY-9001). I guess a more direct route from Henderson to Calvert City isn't going to be built."
You would probably wait 30 years for the funding to be there for the direct route. This allows I-69 to be designated through Kentucky much sooner and at much lower cost. The distance difference is probably no more than 10-15 miles in any case. Plus the traffic will be there to justify the route since you will have existing Parkway traffic along with new I-69 traffic as more segments are constructed elsewhere.
Quote from: RoadWarrior56 on September 21, 2013, 04:51:03 PM
"One of the few issues I have with I-69: how it's being routed in Kentucky. I guess the highway is going to make a big, distance wasting L-shape, going South on the Pennyrile Parkway (KY-9004) and then West on the Wendell H. Ford Western Kentucky Parkway (KY-9001). I guess a more direct route from Henderson to Calvert City isn't going to be built."
You would probably wait 30 years for the funding to be there for the direct route. This allows I-69 to be designated through Kentucky much sooner and at much lower cost. The distance difference is probably no more than 10-15 miles in any case. Plus the traffic will be there to justify the route since you will have existing Parkway traffic along with new I-69 traffic as more segments are constructed elsewhere.
I don't think there are any plans to ever make a more direct route, why do it when the roads are already there to put it on? It's cheaper, and that's all that really matters to DOTs now.
I just noticed that an Alliance for I-69 Texas map (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update%209.26.13%20caucus.html) shows Future I-2 extending from Laredo to Brownsville:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fka8uZNp.jpg&hash=230bcf0ad9da45962da6a6a7d18df6775e9ffdeb)
In addition, the Texas Transportation Commission has posted an I-69 in South Texas Initiatives Presentation (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2013/documents/minute_orders/0926/3a-presentation.pdf) from its Sept. 26 meeting in McAllen that includes an "I-2/US 83 Progress" slide listing a La Joya (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=La+Joya,+TX&hl=en&ll=26.272483,-98.459988&spn=0.119141,0.153637&sll=32.678125,-83.178297&sspn=7.15487,9.832764&oq=La+Joya+TX&t=h&hnear=La+Joya,+Hidalgo,+Texas&z=13) relief route and Super 2 projects north of Roma (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Roma,+TX&hl=en&ll=26.770135,-98.931885&spn=1.897942,2.458191&sll=32.678125,-83.178297&sspn=7.15487,9.832764&oq=roma+tx&t=h&hnear=Roma,+Starr,+Texas&z=9) (page 11/12 of pdf):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FjCe37q9.png&hash=d7bddaa30f132f3497583ef1feca062eeabf6349) (http://imgur.com/jCe37q9)
Maybe I-2 and I-35 will meet in Laredo one day!
Quote from: Grzrd on September 27, 2013, 11:10:23 PM
I just noticed that an Alliance for I-69 Texas map (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update%209.26.13%20caucus.html) shows Future I-2 extending from Laredo to Brownsville:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fka8uZNp.jpg&hash=230bcf0ad9da45962da6a6a7d18df6775e9ffdeb)
In addition, the Texas Transportation Commission has posted an I-69 in South Texas Initiatives Presentation (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2013/documents/minute_orders/0926/3a-presentation.pdf) from its Sept. 26 meeting in McAllen that includes an "I-2/US 83 Progress" slide listing a La Joya (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=La+Joya,+TX&hl=en&ll=26.272483,-98.459988&spn=0.119141,0.153637&sll=32.678125,-83.178297&sspn=7.15487,9.832764&oq=La+Joya+TX&t=h&hnear=La+Joya,+Hidalgo,+Texas&z=13) relief route and Super 2 projects north of Roma (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Roma,+TX&hl=en&ll=26.770135,-98.931885&spn=1.897942,2.458191&sll=32.678125,-83.178297&sspn=7.15487,9.832764&oq=roma+tx&t=h&hnear=Roma,+Starr,+Texas&z=9) (page 11/12 of pdf). Maybe I-2 and I-35 will meet in Laredo one day!
That doesn't indicate anything about a future I-2. It just shows that there is a road (US 83) that connects the two western segments of I-69. Though, given how Interstate-happy Texas is, I'm sure I-2 will eventually be extended to Laredo.
Quote from: FightingIrish on September 28, 2013, 07:32:27 AM
Quote from: Grzrd on September 27, 2013, 11:10:23 PM
I just noticed that an Alliance for I-69 Texas map (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update%209.26.13%20caucus.html) shows Future I-2 extending from Laredo to Brownsville:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fka8uZNp.jpg&hash=230bcf0ad9da45962da6a6a7d18df6775e9ffdeb)
That doesn't indicate anything about a future I-2. It just shows that there is a road (US 83) that connects the two western segments of I-69. Though, given how Interstate-happy Texas is, I'm sure I-2 will eventually be extended to Laredo.
We simply interpret the map differently. The map is entitled "I-69 National Route", and I think we would agree that the thick red lines are intended to show I-69. There are two thin red lines in Texas. I interpret the northern thin red line to be TX 44, which the Alliance for I-69 Texas considers to be a non-Congressionally designated part of the Texas I-69 "system" that is hoped to eventually be upgraded to interstate-grade. We do agree that the southern thin red line is US 83. I interpret the red color to signal that the Alliance for I-69 Texas now considers US 83 from Laredo to Brownsville to be part of the Texas I-69 "system" as Future I-2 (in contrast to the red color of US 83, note the green color of US 87 from I-10 to I-20). It
is possible that the Alliance for I-69 Texas now considers that section of US 83 as being a non-interstate grade addition to the Texas I-69 "system" with no intent to upgrade, but I view the red color as more likely indicating an Alliance for I-69 Texas looooooong-term hope for an I-2 from Laredo to Brownsville.
edit
Although it does not indicate how much of U.S. 83 is intended to be upgraded to interstate-grade, this banner from the Alliance for I-69 Texas website includes U.S. 83 with the other corridors:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FeoBjKEE.png&hash=7c59073af7fef4a811f91dd82b0d5da23a58dec6)
You're probably reading too much into the choices of a single GIS consultant.
Quote from: Grzrd on September 27, 2013, 11:10:23 PM
an Alliance for I-69 Texas map (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update%209.26.13%20caucus.html)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fka8uZNp.jpg&hash=230bcf0ad9da45962da6a6a7d18df6775e9ffdeb)
Quote from: NE2 on September 28, 2013, 11:33:20 AM
You're probably reading too much into the choices of a single GIS consultant.
I agree that I may be possibly reading too much into the map; however, I am also comparing the above map to past Alliance for I-69 Texas maps (I have no idea whether or not they use the same GIS consultant for all of their maps). For example:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F7909cTM.jpg&hash=5a74af0dd53d9533f86f0f9b01dd532d5e5675cf)
In this earlier map, only the current I-2 is shown and US 83 from the western terminus of I-2 to Laredo is not shown (TX 44 is shown). The appearance of non-I-2 US 83 on the later map in "I-69 red" struck me as being noteworthy, and in my opinion, signaled an Alliance for I-69 Texas desire for a Future I-2. That said, it could have been either a consultant's mistake or a choice by a consultant independent of direction from the Alliance for I-69 Texas.
Quote from: Grzrd on September 27, 2013, 11:10:23 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fka8uZNp.jpg&hash=230bcf0ad9da45962da6a6a7d18df6775e9ffdeb)
Quote from: NE2 on September 28, 2013, 11:33:20 AM
You're probably reading too much into the choices of a single GIS consultant.
If that was generated in GIS software, the source datasets are awful. The geometry of the Interstates shown is rather lazy, and it looks more like curves someone might draw with a Bézier tool than the polyline that typically results from simplifying a high-density object in GIS from what I've seen. And the "straight" east-west borders of states are drawn as perfectly straight lines, not curving with the parallels of Earth – I'm not sure what oversight led to that, but someone either wasn't paying attention or doesn't understand map projections.
As of this week there are no surface-mounted I-2 markers along the length of the route, neither at frontage road onramps nor on the mainline. Nor are there exit numbers or Interstate mileposts. The only mile markers are based on the Texas reference points used for all state highways, so the markers start in the 890s at Harlingen and go down from there. The only indication it's I-2 is on overhead signs at the U.S. 77/I-69E junction and a couple interchanges in McAllen.
But, I guess I can call it another clinched Interstate, at least until it's extended west.
Just a thought. Can I consider having clinched Interstate 2, even though I haven't driven on the stretch from Harlingen through McAllen since 1998? It was the U.S. 83 freeway back then!
Quote from: seanpatf on November 03, 2013, 09:58:22 PM
Just a thought. Can I consider having clinched Interstate 2, even though I haven't driven on the stretch from Harlingen through McAllen since 1998? It was the U.S. 83 freeway back then!
Yes. That counts.
Quote from: Grzrd on September 27, 2013, 11:10:23 PM
an Alliance for I-69 Texas map (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update%209.26.13%20caucus.html)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fka8uZNp.jpg&hash=230bcf0ad9da45962da6a6a7d18df6775e9ffdeb)
Maybe I-2 and I-35 will meet in Laredo one day!
I recently had an email Q & A with TxDOT about whether they intend to install I-2 mileage markers along I-2/US 83. Basically, an extension of I-2 to Laredo is a very long term proposition, but TxDOT has identified the I-35/US 83 interchange in Laredo as "mile zero" and the current western terminus near Mission is near Mile 131:
Quote
Q:
It is my understanding that mileage for east-west interstates begins at the western terminus in the state. Regarding Interstate 2, I cannot imagine it going all of the way to New Mexico.
Does TxDOT intend to keep the current US 83 mileage markers, or do you intend to install mileage markers based on the mileage on Interstate 2? If Interstate 2, where would be the location of "mile zero"?
A:
Yes, interstate mileage markers for east and west interstates begin with 0 at the western end and build eastward. 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. The actual mile marker may not be present. As resources are made available, these will be installed.
It looks like the dream for the Immigration Freedomway to extend past Laredo will not be realized.
I don't think they'll be building the segments from Brownsville to Havana or Havana to Miami any time soon either.
Quote from: Grzrd on July 30, 2014, 08:57:04 PM
TxDOT has identified the I-35/US 83 interchange in Laredo as "mile zero" and the current western terminus near Mission is near Mile 131
Quote from: Grzrd on September 27, 2013, 11:10:23 PM
... the Texas Transportation Commission has posted an I-69 in South Texas Initiatives Presentation (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2013/documents/minute_orders/0926/3a-presentation.pdf) from its Sept. 26 meeting in McAllen that includes an "I-2/US 83 Progress" slide listing a La Joya (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=La+Joya,+TX&hl=en&ll=26.272483,-98.459988&spn=0.119141,0.153637&sll=32.678125,-83.178297&sspn=7.15487,9.832764&oq=La+Joya+TX&t=h&hnear=La+Joya,+Hidalgo,+Texas&z=13) relief route ... (page 11/12 of pdf):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FjCe37q9.png&hash=d7bddaa30f132f3497583ef1feca062eeabf6349) (http://imgur.com/jCe37q9)
TxDOT recently posted a Notice Affording Opportunity For Public Hearing (http://www.mypublicnotices.com/Images/Cobrands/TheMonitor/Photos/95188195_11092014.pdf) for the La Joya relief route. It looks like Phase I of the project will be construction of the frontage roads:
Quote
The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) is proposing the construction of the US 83 Relief Route at La Joya/Peñitas (a new locationhighway parallel to US 83) in western Hidalgo County. The project would enhance the local and regional transportation system by creating a new location roadway that would reduce traffic congestion and improve connectivity and safety.The limits of the project are from 0.85 miles east of FM 886 (El Faro Road) to 0.28 miles west of Showers Road a length of approximately 9.2 miles. The project will be constructed in two or more phases. Phase I would involve construction of a four lane divided rural highway consisting of two roadways separated by a depressed median, which would serve as the future frontage roads. Each roadway would consist of two 12-foot wide travel lanes, a 4-foot wide inside and a 10-foot wide outside shoulder. Future phases of construction would include main lanes and overpasses within the depressed median. These main lanes would consist of two 12-foot wide travel lanes with a 4-foot wide inside and a 10-foot wide outside shoulder in each direction of travel. Controlled access ramps would provide connectivity between the main lanes and the frontage roads constructed during Phase I ....
Inching towards Laredo ...
This could become part of I-2: http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2013/documents/minute_orders/0926/6.pdf
Have they completed signage on I-2 yet? (Or 69E and 69C, for that matter.) I haven't seen any more photos or updates.
I was down there recently and there were no reassurance or standalone shields, but a lot of overhead BGSes for IH 2 (and all the others). My colleague at TxDot says it will be completely signed by April 2015.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fqbr08ZA.jpg&hash=a6ac41fba00eab27e09fe35e3650fc53938e59a9)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fpa021b6.jpg&hash=a3c55e8d19bd9c06db75ff1c25a4fb80a87656d1)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fu6bIqOW.jpg&hash=41a5138d9fb450635b7441eb60cf143b9b07e5ff)
Quote from: NE2 on December 02, 2014, 12:04:31 PM
This could become part of I-2: http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2013/documents/minute_orders/0926/6.pdf
It would be no surprise at all! Yet another reason to finish the thing to Laredo so it can tie in to I-69 (I-69W?) and/or I-35.
Quote from: austrini on December 23, 2014, 12:14:44 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fpa021b6.jpg&hash=a3c55e8d19bd9c06db75ff1c25a4fb80a87656d1)
^pukes with disgust for that I-69E shield. :(
Quote from: austrini on December 23, 2014, 12:14:44 PM
I was down there recently and there were no reassurance or standalone shields, but a lot of overhead BGSes for IH 2 (and all the others). My colleague at TxDot says it will be completely signed by April 2015.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fqbr08ZA.jpg&hash=a6ac41fba00eab27e09fe35e3650fc53938e59a9)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fpa021b6.jpg&hash=a3c55e8d19bd9c06db75ff1c25a4fb80a87656d1)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fu6bIqOW.jpg&hash=41a5138d9fb450635b7441eb60cf143b9b07e5ff)
Sigh, I hate these new suffixed 69 routes, let's rid ourselves of all of them!
Those 69E shields seem awfully cluttered, like the characters are squeezed in there.
Meanwhile, I-2 has a nice 3-di sized shield all to itself!
Sorry if this is too OT, but is the TxDot norm the use of 3-di shields for 2-di routes?
Quote from: Molandfreak on December 23, 2014, 04:04:02 PM
Quote from: austrini on December 23, 2014, 12:14:44 PM
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fpa021b6.jpg&hash=a3c55e8d19bd9c06db75ff1c25a4fb80a87656d1)
^pukes with disgust for that I-69E shield. :(
Yeah, think TxDOT could cram it in there any more?
The 69 in the shield actually looks like it is 69ing! :-o
Quote from: OCGuy81 on December 23, 2014, 04:50:37 PM
Those 69E shields seem awfully cluttered, like the characters are squeezed in there.
Meanwhile, I-2 has a nice 3-di sized shield all to itself!
Sorry if this is too OT, but is the TxDot norm the use of 3-di shields for 2-di routes?
They look a lot like the Hawaii interstate shields.
Quote from: Brandon on December 23, 2014, 05:00:04 PM
The 69 in the shield actually looks like it is 69ing! :-o
And the 9 is getting fisted.
Quote from: OCGuy81 on December 23, 2014, 04:50:37 PM
is the TxDot norm the use of 3-di shields for 2-di routes?
Not statewide, but at times in some places. Before I moved from Amarillo over 20 years ago, the last batch of new BGSes installed there at that time had I-27 and I-40 shields in a 3di-width like the I-2 BGS shields above. Most of the ones I see around DFW are more proportional and not too wide (there are at least a couple of I-45 BGS exceptions around the downtown Dallas area that are a 3di-width). I think I've seen some I-35 shield pix from outside of DFW that have used 3di widths; not sure if those are used currently or only previously.
I would consider TX DOT's practice of putting 2 digit markers on 3 digit shields on Interstate highway overhead signs a pretty widespread thing. I've seen it in Amarillo, Lubbock, El Paso, Wichita Falls, Houston, Dallas-Fort Worth, along a lot of I-35, I-20 and I-45. I think it's more rare to see a 2 digit marker on a 2 digit shield -again for overhead signs.
Another odd one, TX DOT likes to put 3 digit markers on 2 digit shields along some Interstate highways. There's examples of it on I-635 in Dallas and I-610 in Houston. TX DOT just wants to be oddly different.
Never noticed the 3di on a 2di. I'll have to look for that when I'm in Dallas in February.
I always thought the 3di thing was just another example of everything being bigger in Texas. :-)
Quote from: OCGuy81 on December 23, 2014, 04:50:37 PM
Those 69E shields seem awfully cluttered, like the characters are squeezed in there.
Meanwhile, I-2 has a nice 3-di sized shield all to itself!
Sorry if this is too OT, but is the TxDot norm the use of 3-di shields for 2-di routes?
Anyone else notice that US 83 is directionless?
Quote from: Alps on December 23, 2014, 10:30:52 PM
Quote from: OCGuy81 on December 23, 2014, 04:50:37 PM
Those 69E shields seem awfully cluttered, like the characters are squeezed in there.
Meanwhile, I-2 has a nice 3-di sized shield all to itself!
Sorry if this is too OT, but is the TxDot norm the use of 3-di shields for 2-di routes?
Anyone else notice that US 83 is directionless?
This sign insinuates that it is E-W:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fu6bIqOW.jpg&hash=41a5138d9fb450635b7441eb60cf143b9b07e5ff)
US 83 is/was consistently signed East/West along the freeway; I can't recall offhand where it finally gets signed north/south (only drove 83 once to the Valley; going via Hebbronville is faster despite the CBP checks).
Looks like the directions were erroneously placed above the Interstate shields rather than above all shields. US 83 is signed north-south on I-69E and east-west on I-2. It changes back to north-south at the Hidalgo-Starr County line (west Sullivan City limits). So there are only about 10 miles of independent east-west US 83 remaining.
QuoteNever noticed the 3di on a 2di. I'll have to look for that when I'm in Dallas in February.
You can check out examples of it on Street View in Google Earth/Maps.
One notable example with I-635 on 2 digit shields: overhead signs along US-75 (North Central Expressway) leading into the Dallas High Five interchange. You can see the same thing in at least one or two places where I-30 approaches I-635. The interchange at I-35E had some similar occurrences, but as the interchange has been going through its re-build new I-635 overhead signs have featured 3-digit shields.
I-820 in Fort Worth has similar examples. Both interchanges where I-20 and I-820 meet in Fort Worth have side by side examples of I-20 on 3 digit shields and I-820 on 2-digit shields.
I-610 in Houston has lots of 2 digit shields on overhead signs there. It's rare to see I-610 on a 3-digit shield there other than ground mounted signs.
San Antonio is one city that bucks Texas' odd treatment of 2-digit and 3-digit Interstate routes on overhead signs. Most overhead signs there have I-35, I-37 and I-10 on 2-digit shields while I-410 is only on 3-digit shields.
Texas High Five interchange, southbound:
Interstate Shields are up along I-2 in south Texas. no sign of exit numbering yet.
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi357.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Foo18%2Ferik_ram2005%2FIMG_0581_zps5933bbf0.jpg&hash=3e4737f1639b6d8a453ea699919afedcff0a2aba)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi357.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Foo18%2Ferik_ram2005%2FIMG_0572_zpsdbc44447.jpg&hash=843f4b2c8d3af02e83073e67498be713e72a93aa)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi357.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Foo18%2Ferik_ram2005%2FIMG_0568_zps7cd8db0f.jpg&hash=85e0b8136699541556d4e0e3a6f91f91a50ab355)
Is there explicit signage of the west end of I-2?
Those are good looking shields. I just knew they were gonna be 3di shields like on the BGSs.
Quote from: cjk374 on January 13, 2015, 08:24:01 PM
Those are good looking shields. I just knew they were gonna be 3di shields like on the BGSs.
what
The number two is too close to the word TEXAS.
Don't Mess With Texas.
If a number two was close to the word OKLAHOMA, that would be ok because....well....
Quote from: Brian556 on January 14, 2015, 12:44:26 AM
If a number two was close to the word OKLAHOMA, that would be ok because....well....
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.plumbingsupply.com%2Fimages%2Feljer-trip-lever-495-2704-01.jpg&hash=268b8598112a28a0217f90b6cb37bf63780df11b)
Quote from: Brian556 on January 14, 2015, 12:44:26 AM
The number two is too close to the word TEXAS.
Don't Mess With Texas.
If a number two was close to the word OKLAHOMA, that would be ok because....well....
Why does the wind blow in Oklahoma? Because Texas sucks.
Quote from: bugo on January 14, 2015, 01:45:06 AM
Quote from: Brian556 on January 14, 2015, 12:44:26 AM
The number two is too close to the word TEXAS.
Don't Mess With Texas.
If a number two was close to the word OKLAHOMA, that would be ok because....well....
Why does the wind blow in Oklahoma? Because Texas sucks.
If it weren't for that football team that used to be good no one would ever think of Oklahoma.
QuoteThose are good looking shields. I just knew they were gonna be 3di shields like on the BGSs.
Texas DOT usually confines its odd-ball, backwards treatment of 2-digit and 3-digit Interstate shields to big green overhead signs. Ground mounted markers are usually proper in the basic sense: 2-digit routes on 2-digit markers and 3-digit routes on 3-digit markers. That doesn't take into account the horrible spacing issues that result from over-sized numerals on neutered shields. Now, I'm not 100% certain on this, but I could have sworn I've seen some I-610 ground mounted markers in Houston using 2-digit shields. There's definitely a bunch of them on overhead signs.
Quote from: NE2 on January 13, 2015, 08:00:02 PM
Is there explicit signage of the west end of I-2?
I'm not sure, I haven't been out to the west end of I-2 yet, but I should be able to confirm this within the next week as I will have some errands to run in that direction.
Quote from: erik_ram2005 on January 14, 2015, 08:33:48 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 13, 2015, 08:00:02 PM
Is there explicit signage of the west end of I-2?
I'm not sure, I haven't been out to the west end of I-2 yet, but I should be able to confirm this within the next week as I will have some errands to run in that direction.
Or does it just go right into Mexico?
Quote from: texaskdog on January 15, 2015, 10:30:25 AM
Quote from: erik_ram2005 on January 14, 2015, 08:33:48 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 13, 2015, 08:00:02 PM
Is there explicit signage of the west end of I-2?
I'm not sure, I haven't been out to the west end of I-2 yet, but I should be able to confirm this within the next week as I will have some errands to run in that direction.
Or does it just go right into Mexico?
I thought the AASHTO approval for I-2 made it clear that the route, for now, ends where the freeway ends, near where Business US 83 peels away from US 83 east of La Joya, That is fairly close to the border, but AFAIK there are no bridge or ferry crossings of the Rio Grande in that area.
There was no I-2 signage ("begin", "end", or otherwise) at or near freeway's end or the Bus 83 junction, when I drove there last year. But then I-2 signage was sparse along the entire route. Maybe that has changed, and is worth checking out.
Are there that many end signs in Texas? The only two that I'm aware of are at the I-30/US 75/I-45/I-345 interchange.
Really nice seeing the state name on those new shields. Love to see that become a national trend again, and not just California (or as we're seeing now, Texas)
I've seen "END" on some dead end FM routes but I can't recall any on US highways. Does 27, 37, 44, or the south end of 45 have anything?
End signs are not common. Other than the ones mentioned in Dallas, the only one I recall is for US 285.
Quote from: OCGuy81 on January 15, 2015, 03:45:49 PM
Really nice seeing the state name on those new shields. Love to see that become a national trend again, and not just California (or as we're seeing now, Texas)
It seems redundant but when you're on a long trip sometimes it's a nice reminder
Quote from: bugo on January 15, 2015, 03:37:09 PM
Are there that many end signs in Texas? The only two that I'm aware of are at the I-30/US 75/I-45/I-345 interchange.
Aren't the ones on the north and south ends of 35W still there? They were last year.
Quote from: bassoon1986 on January 15, 2015, 03:53:14 PM
I've seen "END" on some dead end FM routes but I can't recall any on US highways. Does 27, 37, 44, or the south end of 45 have anything?
I don't remember an END on I-44 in Wichita Falls. There wasn't an END for I-27 at the I-40 interchange in Amarillo until after it was redone a few years ago; now (per Street View) there is an END/ENDS small BGS for I-27 since then.
The few pix of I-37 (either end) and I-45 (Galveston) I have seen online have not included END signage, although that doesn't include Street View angles I might have missed.
There's an ENDS sign at the south end of Spur 408. http://goo.gl/maps/hET9H
Quote from: dfwmapper on January 16, 2015, 06:59:52 AM
There's an ENDS sign at the south end of Spur 408. http://goo.gl/maps/hET9H
Yet there is a ground mounted 'South Spur 408' sign after the 'END' BGS. http://goo.gl/maps/7srp1
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on January 16, 2015, 09:07:10 PM
Quote from: dfwmapper on January 16, 2015, 06:59:52 AM
There's an ENDS sign at the south end of Spur 408. http://goo.gl/maps/hET9H
Yet there is a ground mounted 'South Spur 408' sign after the 'END' BGS. http://goo.gl/maps/7srp1
There probably has to be one posted there because that's where the reference marker (the little green rectangle) goes.
There is also an "I-635 ENDS" on SB I-635 just before it merges with I-20 WB.
Quote from: oscar on January 15, 2015, 11:12:10 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on January 15, 2015, 10:30:25 AM
Quote from: erik_ram2005 on January 14, 2015, 08:33:48 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 13, 2015, 08:00:02 PM
Is there explicit signage of the west end of I-2?
I'm not sure, I haven't been out to the west end of I-2 yet, but I should be able to confirm this within the next week as I will have some errands to run in that direction.
Or does it just go right into Mexico?
I thought the AASHTO approval for I-2 made it clear that the route, for now, ends where the freeway ends, near where Business US 83 peels away from US 83 east of La Joya, That is fairly close to the border, but AFAIK there are no bridge or ferry crossings of the Rio Grande in that area.
There was no I-2 signage ("begin", "end", or otherwise) at or near freeway's end or the Bus 83 junction, when I drove there last year. But then I-2 signage was sparse along the entire route. Maybe that has changed, and is worth checking out.
Made the trip over towards the west I-2 terminus today, and saw no sign of any I-2 ENDS signs or anything indicating I-2 ends or begins (going west to east). The last I-2 shields I saw up were before the last overpass (showers rd). I do believe the official end though is at the business 83 intersection though, but no signs there either. Hopefully this becomes clear when exit numbering is installed soon.
Quote from: erik_ram2005 on January 17, 2015, 01:41:48 AM
I do believe the official end though is at the business 83 intersection though, but no signs there either.
Nope, it's 1/2 mile west of Showers Road, which is where the frontage roads end.
Quote from: erik_ram2005 on January 17, 2015, 01:41:48 AM
Hopefully this becomes clear when exit numbering is installed soon.
Hopefully not. Is it really a good idea to use 0 for the current and and have to renumber every time the freeway is extended?
Quote from: NE2 on January 17, 2015, 02:15:54 AM
Is it really a good idea to use 0 for the current and and have to renumber every time the freeway is extended?
FWIW, in a previous post (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9935.msg316300#msg316300), I posted about email correspondence with TxDOT indicating that the current western terminus is near Mile 131:
Quote from: Grzrd on July 30, 2014, 08:57:04 PM
I recently had an email Q & A with TxDOT about whether they intend to install I-2 mileage markers along I-2/US 83. Basically, an extension of I-2 to Laredo is a very long term proposition, but TxDOT has identified the I-35/US 83 interchange in Laredo as "mile zero" and the current western terminus near Mission is near Mile 131:
Quote
.... 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. The actual mile marker may not be present. As resources are made available, these will be installed.
I assume that, with this understanding, TxDOT will be able to provide exit numbers for all of the current interchanges, as well.
Quote from: Grzrd on November 23, 2014, 08:14:54 PM
TxDOT recently posted a Notice Affording Opportunity For Public Hearing (http://www.mypublicnotices.com/Images/Cobrands/TheMonitor/Photos/95188195_11092014.pdf) for the La Joya relief route. It looks like Phase I of the project will be construction of the frontage roads:
Quote
The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) is proposing the construction of the US 83 Relief Route at La Joya/Peñitas (a new locationhighway parallel to US 83) in western Hidalgo County. The project would enhance the local and regional transportation system by creating a new location roadway that would reduce traffic congestion and improve connectivity and safety. The limits of the project are from 0.85 miles east of FM 886 (El Faro Road) to 0.28 miles west of Showers Road a length of approximately 9.2 miles. The project will be constructed in two or more phases. Phase I would involve construction of a four lane divided rural highway consisting of two roadways separated by a depressed median, which would serve as the future frontage roads. Each roadway would consist of two 12-foot wide travel lanes, a 4-foot wide inside and a 10-foot wide outside shoulder. Future phases of construction would include main lanes and overpasses within the depressed median. ....
Quote from: MaxConcrete on January 21, 2015, 08:48:05 PM
TxDOT has released the tentative list of projects for the $1.74 billion available. The link has a nice listing and maps
http://www.txdot.gov/apps-cq/prop1/project_info.htm (http://www.txdot.gov/apps-cq/prop1/project_info.htm) ....
| $88 million | Improvements to the west end of US 83 near La Hoya (appears to be non-freeway) |
(bottom quote from Texas: Proposition 1 easily passes (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=13877.msg2036209#msg2036209) thread)
The Pharr District list of projects (http://www.txdot.gov/apps-cq/prop1/project_info.htm) includes construction of the frontage roads for the La Joya relief route:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FvRQZGVj.png&hash=20fe9320262b0863a2b0921d4346538e1a3fdd1f)
Granted, this is a minor observation, but I find it interesting that, in a January 14, 2015 presentation linked as "I-69 Alliance Introductory Presentation 1.14.15" on the Alliance for I-69 Texas website (http://i69texasalliance.com/resource.html), I-2, in the context of the I-69 "system", is referred to as "the I-2 Connector" (page 4/13 of pdf; page 4 of document):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FFAsjRfo.png&hash=f2df150e57739784108a493bb325b3c7f03c7e09)
Quote from: Grzrd on January 17, 2015, 09:35:06 PM
FWIW, in a previous post (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9935.msg316300#msg316300), I posted about email correspondence with TxDOT indicating that the current western terminus is near Mile 131:
Quote from: Grzrd on July 30, 2014, 08:57:04 PM
I recently had an email Q & A with TxDOT about whether they intend to install I-2 mileage markers along I-2/US 83. Basically, an extension of I-2 to Laredo is a very long term proposition, but TxDOT has identified the I-35/US 83 interchange in Laredo as "mile zero" and the current western terminus near Mission is near Mile 131:
Quote
.... 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. The actual mile marker may not be present. As resources are made available, these will be installed.
I assume that, with this understanding, TxDOT will be able to provide exit numbers for all of the current interchanges, as well.
Quote from: J N Winkler on January 29, 2015, 12:06:43 PM
I thought I'd mention that TxDOT has scheduled a maintenance contract for the February 2015 letting that calls for updating and replacement of signs on I-2, I-69C, and I-69E (495 total sheets, of which 54 are sign panel detail sheets):
ftp://planuser:txdotplans@plans.dot.state.tx.us/State-Let-Maintenance/February%2015/02%20Plans/Hidalgo%206273-50-001.exe
Caution! Filesize is 1.7 GB
(above quote from I-69 in TX (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg2038173#msg2038173) thread)
Quote from: NE2 on January 30, 2015, 09:21:27 PM
Not wishing to download the huge file, I'm going to ask you if there are exit numbers.
(above quote from I-69 in TX (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg2038533#msg2038533) thread)
J N Winkler, thank you very much for providing the following I-2-specific information to NE2:
Quote from: J N Winkler on January 30, 2015, 10:35:13 PM
Yes, there are exit numbers ....
On I-2, Showers Road is Exit 130, the I-69C/US 281 interchange is Exits 146A-B, and the I-69E/US 77 interchange (end of route) is Exit 175.
(above quote from I-69 in TX (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg2038547#msg2038547) thread)
It looks like the only way the exit numbers would change would be as a result of a westward extension of I-2 past Laredo. Not in my lifetime ............
edit
Also, thanks to NE2 for quickly putting together an I-2 exit list:
Quote from: NE2 on January 31, 2015, 08:37:55 AM
exit numbers now added to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_2#Exit_list
(above quote from I-69 in TX (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg2038588#msg2038588) thread)
Quote from: Grzrd on September 27, 2013, 11:10:23 PM
the Texas Transportation Commission has posted an I-69 in South Texas Initiatives Presentation (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2013/documents/minute_orders/0926/3a-presentation.pdf) from its Sept. 26 meeting in McAllen that includes an "I-2/US 83 Progress" slide ... (page 11/12 of pdf):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FjCe37q9.png&hash=d7bddaa30f132f3497583ef1feca062eeabf6349) (http://imgur.com/jCe37q9)
Quote from: lordsutch on February 11, 2015, 11:33:30 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 11, 2015, 09:24:12 PM
With all the population growth taking place in the far South end of Texas it's pretty obvious TX-DOT really needs to start thinking about the long term possibility of building a South loop relief highway for I-2.
Here you go: http://www.hcrma.net/sh365.html
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 12, 2015, 02:58:23 PM
Seems like a "I-202" type of thing to me.
(bottom two quotes from I-69 in TX (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg2042411#msg2042411) thread)
Another possible I-x02 is SH 68, which, as shown in this Handout from a September 9, 2014 Meeting (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/phr/notices/092514-handout.pdf), will provide an eastern connection from I-2 to I-69C (it looks more like an I-x69 to me because of the greater length that is parallel to I-69C, but TxDOT identified it as an "I-2/ US 83" project in the above-quoted slide, apparently because Phase 1 will be from I-2 to FM 1925):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FGH41ihl.jpg&hash=e244353881975d54cf41d28327620913632230f1)
It is possible that ROW acquisition for Phase 1 will begin late 2015 and Phase 1 construction will begin in 2017-2018:
Quote
SH 68 is a proposed 22 mile new road that will connect I-2/US 83 to I-69C/US 281. The proposed new road will connect with I-2/US 83 between Alamo and Donna and run north to I-69C/US 281 at FM 490, north of Edinburg ....
Project Phasing and Description
- Phase 1: Frontage roads from I-2/US 83 to FM 1925
- Phase 2: Frontage roads from FM 1925 to I-69C/
US 281
- Phase 3: Main lanes from I-2/US 83 to I-69C/US 281 ....
All three phases of this project are just beginning the environmental study and preliminary planning process. Phase 1 is the only part of the project that is funded for construction. It is anticipated that the entire project will receive environmental approval in late 2015 and that right of way acquisition for Phase 1 only will begin after that and continue into 2016. Phase 1 construction is anticipated for 2017-2018.
edit
This map (http://www.hcrma.net/maps/2012-06-23%20HCRMA%20PROJ%20MAP%20(24X36)%20(3).pdf) shows how SH 68 will connect with the International Bridge Trade Corridor ("IBTC"), which in turn will connect with SH 365:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F2inN9nH.jpg&hash=4bf58d66de6f604a99f8e515edfc402f90dda905)
From this perspective, an I-x02 designation for SH 68 (and the entire loop) makes more sense.
second edit
Later SH 68 developments are discussed in this thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=15627.0).
Quote from: Grzrd on July 30, 2014, 08:57:04 PM
I recently had an email Q & A with TxDOT about whether they intend to install I-2 mileage markers along I-2/US 83. Basically, an extension of I-2 to Laredo is a very long term proposition, but TxDOT has identified the I-35/US 83 interchange in Laredo as "mile zero" .... :
Quote
.... 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.
Quote from: NE2 on December 02, 2014, 12:04:31 PM
This could become part of I-2: http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2013/documents/minute_orders/0926/6.pdf
After posting about recent Loop 20 developments in Laredo in another thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg2045749#msg2045749), the possibility of Loop 195 becoming part of I-2 in the Roma/ Rio Grande City area made me think that Loop 20 could possibly become part of I-2 from Rio Bravo to Laredo and that, contrary to the info provided to me by TxDOT, "mile zero" for I-2 may ultimately be the I-69W interchange on Loop 20. Not being familiar with Laredo, I rely on a summary of the two primary sections of Loop 20 contained in the January 2014 City of Laredo Federal Legislative Agenda (http://www.ci.laredo.tx.us/CASS/Pres_Fed/2014/FL_Agenda.pdf): the Bob Bullock Loop and Cuatro Vientos Road (page 55/58 of pdf; page 46 of document):
Quote
State Loop 20, in Laredo, Texas has been developed in two sections. The first section to be developed was the portion of Loop 20 known as "Bob Bullock Loop" and it is an on-system roadway. It begins on the west side of the City of Laredo at the entrance to Laredo's World Trade Bridge and begins to circle the city as it crosses under Interstate Highway 35 continuing east and southward through its intersection with U.S. Highway 59 to State Highway 359.
"Cuatro Vientos Road" , which is the second segment of State Loop 20, is an on-system roadway which parallels US 83, beginning at SH 359 on the north, at the intersection of Loop 20, and extend 7.25 miles south to connect with US 83, a Texas Trunk System Road. The road alleviates congestion along US 83, resulting in better roadway system capacity through increased average peak operating speeds, and reductions in travel times and accidents. The corridor allows residents in South Laredo and nearby communities to access jobs and centers of trade.
A map from the 2010-35 Laredo MTP Roadway Plan (http://ci.laredo.tx.us/) provides a good visual of Cuatro Vientos and its relationship to US 83 (page 22/26 of pdf; page 22 of document):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FtEfAeEG.jpg&hash=647119379492fb12e7c5b932ecaccd06933cb8a1)
Routing I-2 along Cuatro Vientos (and the short section of the Bob Bullock Loop from SH 359 to I-69W) instead of US 83 would be similar to the routing of I-69W along the Bob Bullock Loop instead of along the former US 59 into Laredo. It would seem to be much easier to upgrade Cuatro Vientos to an interstate-grade facility than to try and do so with US 83 in Laredo.
The Draft Laredo 2015-2040 MTP (http://www.ci.laredo.tx.us/city-planning/departments/mpo/files/mtp/2015-40MTPDraft.pdf) has a "Special Issues" section that discusses the interaction with the I-35 and I-69 Advisory Committees (pages 149-152/360 of pdf; pages 5-43 thru 5-46 of document), but I do not see any mention of I-2 in connection with Cuatro Vientos, i.e. (page 152/360 of pdf; page 5-46 of document):
Quote
TxDOT is currently constructing the interchange of Loop 20 and SH 359, which is part of the Cuatro Vientos project which will carry Loop 20 down into south Laredo to offer relief to the US 83 corridor.
Also, the current upgrade of Bob Bullock Loop to I-69W would allow for I-2 signage as Cuatro Vientos would be upgraded to an interstate-grade facility from the I-69W interchange, if TxDOT were inclined to provide a western bookend to the eastern section of I-2.
edit
Quote from: Grzrd on January 22, 2015, 12:47:30 PM
in a January 14, 2015 presentation linked as "I-69 Alliance Introductory Presentation 1.14.15" on the Alliance for I-69 Texas website (http://i69texasalliance.com/resource.html), I-2, in the context of the I-69 "system", is referred to as "the I-2 Connector" (page 4/13 of pdf; page 4 of document)
If I-2 is ultimately routed along Cuatro Vientos in the Laredo area, then it truly will be a border-area "connector" for the I-69 system by having its termini at I-69W and I-69E, and an interchange at the southern terminus for I-69C.
Quote from: texaskdog on July 24, 2013, 01:46:33 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on July 23, 2013, 12:29:49 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 23, 2013, 09:02:16 AM
You just don't understand Texans. We don't do anything everybody else does. That is sometimes a good thing, and sometimes a bad thing.
signwise - only until 1969.
(//www.aaroads.com/shields/img/TX/TX19530811i1.jpg)
after that, you guys started worshipping the federal standards, complete with garish '70 spec shields... and then even decided to adopt Clearview. not very different at all.
so awesome. wonder where this is?
I would guess this was at about mm246 on current I-35 SB.
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, 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. I don't see any need for anything in between besides a Zapata bypass and four-laning the existing route for decades, especially given the real lack of economic interaction between Laredo and the LRGV cities - Laredoans go to San Antonio or Corpus, not McAllen/Pharr/Edinburg, when they want to go to a "big city." Maybe that would change if I-2 made it to Roma and it became less of a pain to get over to McAllen, but I'm not sure - the "back way" via Hebbronville and Falfurrias, despite the CBP inspection stops, is fast enough.
There are possible wild cards that could speed up development along the border region of far South Texas.
The state's population is still growing pretty rapidly. "Flyover" parts of the interior US are seeing more and more people and business relocating from places like California due to economic and tax situations. Per capita income levels in far South Texas are not all that great. Still, there's 1.5 million people living down there.
Panama Canal expansion could bring a lot more ship traffic and business growth to port cities like Brownsville. That could equate into more truck traffic rolling up the potential I-2 corridor to destinations farther North and West.
Funny thing is that I just did much research on moving to San Antonio because of some tax breaks Texas offered my duck farm and promptly found that SA is having some serious water supply problems.
Some places in Texas are in pretty rough straits when it comes to water supply.
Cities in the Dallas-Fort Worth area are trying to build up water supply to keep up with booming population growth and industrial demand; they're even trying to take legal action in places here in Oklahoma, claiming water in this state belongs to them. The situation just within Oklahoma is very complicated with various tribes and municipalities like Oklahoma City going to court over water.
A big chunk of West Texas and Western Oklahoma has been stuck in a very serious, prolonged drought. Wichita Falls' reservoirs have been down to under 25% of capacity for much of the past year, forcing them to recycle waste water and truck in water from elsewhere. Several towns here in Oklahoma are under stage 5 water use restrictions. Some say the drought we're in currently is statistically worse than the drought that caused the dust bowl decades ago. The difference now is we have far better soil management policies in place.
As Texas keeps adding more and more people the state will have to build more dams, reservoirs and highways.
I hope it is not long before GSV makes its way to the valley. I have been dying to see the new signage without having to drive down there.
Quote from: lordsutch on February 11, 2015, 11:33:30 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 11, 2015, 09:24:12 PM
With all the population growth taking place in the far South end of Texas it's pretty obvious TX-DOT really needs to start thinking about the long term possibility of building a South loop relief highway for I-2 ...
Here you go: http://www.hcrma.net/sh365.html
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 12, 2015, 02:58:23 PM
Thanks! ... Seems like a "I-202" type of thing to me.
(above quotes from I-69 in TX (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg2042411#msg2042411) thread)
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on March 06, 2015, 01:35:08 PM
we can still keep up the hope that one day I-2 can extend to South Padre Island ...?
(above quote from I-69 in TX (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg2048779#msg2048779) thread)
In a recent post in another thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg2048941#msg2048941), I responded to ethanhopkin14's question in part by touching on the possibility of an interstate connection for the SPI 2nd Access project. Since then, I have run across a December 29, 2014 article (http://riograndeguardian.com/sepulveda-putting-finishing-touches-to-his-fourth-new-u-s-mexico-trade-corridor/) that reports on the belief that the SPI 2nd Access will greatly expand the Cameron County tax base, reports on studies indicating that, on peak weekends, 40% of the traffic going to SPI will come from Hidalgo County, reports that FM 1925 will be upgraded to serve "as an alternative to I-2" for the beach traffic by going from I-69C north of I-2 to connect with the Outer Parkway at I-69E (with long-term TxDOT plans to extend it to Starr and Zapata counties, which would put it close to Laredo and Webb County):
Quote
Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority Executive Director Pete Sepulveda, Jr. ....
Sepulveda said that over the last ten years, CCRMA's work has expanded from two projects to over 20. He said two of them are as big as one is ever likely to work on — upgrading U.S. 77 to interstate standards between Brownsville and Corpus Christi, and building a second causeway to South Padre Island ....
The other major, "once in a lifetime," project CCRMA is working on, Sepulveda told the Border to Border Transportation Conference, is a second access point to South Padre Island.
"The island is only half a mile wide and three miles long. There is no access to north, so that is as much as it can grow. Twenty percent of county's tax base comes from South Padre Island. If we were able to provide access to the north, that island has the ability to double or triple in growth. You all can figure what that does to our tax valuation. So, this is a very important project," Sepulveda said ....
Another interesting point about the South Padre Island project, he said, is that CCRMA has, through its studies, found that on a peak weekend 40 percent of the traffic going to the Island comes from Hidalgo County. "That is huge. It really makes it a regional transportation project," he said ....
The final project Sepulveda mentioned at the Border to Border Transportation Conference is a link between I-69 Central in Edinburg and I-69 East north of Harlingen along FM 1925. He said four miles of this project are in Hidalgo County and six miles are in Cameron County. He said the link would then be extended eastwards to South Padre Island via the planned second causeway. Eventually, Sepulveda said, TxDOT would like to see FM 1925 extend westwards to Starr and Zapata counties. For now, though, it is a project being developed jointly between CCRMA and Hidalgo County RMA. "This is a great project (bearing in mind) the UT-Rio Grande Valley and the UTRGV Medical School component and the second access to South Padre Island. It will be an alternative to I-2 (Expressway 83)."
Here is a snip of a slide from the November, 2014 Border to Border Conference referenced in the Dec. 29 article:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fm9h93dc.jpg&hash=697ed8c5befa96185009770458023bc29c5886a6)
Could there ultimately be an "I-402" type of connection to South Padre Island?
edit
Later FM 1925, SPI 2nd Access and Outer Parkway developments are discussed in this thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16652.msg2099893#msg2099893).
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 27, 2015, 10:01:25 AM
Some places in Texas are in pretty rough straits when it comes to water supply.
Cities in the Dallas-Fort Worth area are trying to build up water supply to keep up with booming population growth and industrial demand; they're even trying to take legal action in places here in Oklahoma, claiming water in this state belongs to them. The situation just within Oklahoma is very complicated with various tribes and municipalities like Oklahoma City going to court over water.
A big chunk of West Texas and Western Oklahoma has been stuck in a very serious, prolonged drought. Wichita Falls' reservoirs have been down to under 25% of capacity for much of the past year, forcing them to recycle waste water and truck in water from elsewhere. Several towns here in Oklahoma are under stage 5 water use restrictions. Some say the drought we're in currently is statistically worse than the drought that caused the dust bowl decades ago. The difference now is we have far better soil management policies in place.
As Texas keeps adding more and more people the state will have to build more dams, reservoirs and highways.
It's pouring in Austin today. Been a very rainy 2015 so I think it's starting to even out.
I think I-2 to Larado would be extremely useful
Quote from: Grzrd on January 22, 2015, 12:47:30 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on November 23, 2014, 08:14:54 PM
TxDOT recently posted a Notice Affording Opportunity For Public Hearing (http://www.mypublicnotices.com/Images/Cobrands/TheMonitor/Photos/95188195_11092014.pdf) for the La Joya relief route. It looks like Phase I of the project will be construction of the frontage roads:
Quote
Phase I would involve construction of a four lane divided rural highway consisting of two roadways separated by a depressed median, which would serve as the future frontage roads.
Quote from: MaxConcrete on January 21, 2015, 08:48:05 PM
TxDOT has released the tentative list of projects for the $1.74 billion available. The link has a nice listing and maps
http://www.txdot.gov/apps-cq/prop1/project_info.htm (http://www.txdot.gov/apps-cq/prop1/project_info.htm) ....
| $88 million | Improvements to the west end of US 83 near La Hoya (appears to be non-freeway) |
(quote from Texas: Proposition 1 easily passes (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=13877.msg2036209#msg2036209) thread)
The Pharr District list of projects (http://www.txdot.gov/apps-cq/prop1/project_info.htm) includes construction of the frontage roads for the La Joya relief route:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FvRQZGVj.png&hash=20fe9320262b0863a2b0921d4346538e1a3fdd1f)
This April 10 article (http://www.progresstimes.net/news/general-interest/7194-la-joya-bypass-project-to-get-moving-over-summer.html) reports that TxDOT will accept bids on the two La Joya relief route frontage road projects on July 15:
Quote
Three projects expected to ease congestion on the west side of the county will get moving this year.
The Texas Department of Transportation is scheduled to begin accepting bids July 15 on La Joya Bypass project, which was broken into two parts. The combined total of the two pieces add up to $88 million, with nearly $26 million coming from Proposition 1, an item approved by voters in November that moved $1.74 billion of oil and gas revenues into the State Highway Fund.
La Joya Bypass project has been in the plans for more than a decade. It will allow traffic to move north of U.S. 83 around La Joya and Peñitas. City officials in La Joya have eagerly anticipated the project, believing it will bring additional opportunities for economic development into the area ....
Octavio Saenz, TxDOT spokesman for the Pharr district ....
Saenz said consideration was given to projects that could immediately relieve congestion in the community. He said part of the scoring relied on average daily traffic counts, which showed more than 33,000 vehicles cross over La Joya and Peñitas daily on U.S. 83.
There's been a lot of growth throughout the entire Valley, but the most congested area is here in the Hidalgo County," Saenz said. "The projects in essence echo what the people want. These are much needed road projects and we all heard it last November when we realized from the Texas voters that the transportation projects are paramount for the area."
Traffic counts are higher in other parts of the county, like Pharr and McAllen, but Saenz said projects are already in the works to alleviate traffic in those areas. For example, he said,TxDOT is restructuring Interstate 2 at Bicentennial to create an underpass.
Quote from: Grzrd on March 08, 2015, 08:07:16 PM
Quote from: lordsutch on February 11, 2015, 11:33:30 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 11, 2015, 09:24:12 PM
With all the population growth taking place in the far South end of Texas it's pretty obvious TX-DOT really needs to start thinking about the long term possibility of building a South loop relief highway for I-2 ...
Here you go: http://www.hcrma.net/sh365.html
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 12, 2015, 02:58:23 PM
Thanks! ... Seems like a "I-202" type of thing to me.
(above quotes from I-69 in TX (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg2042411#msg2042411) thread)
The Hidalgo County Regional Mobility Authority ("HCRMA") and TxDOT will hold a public hearing (http://www.hcrma.net/agendas/2015-04-22%20SH%20365%20PH%20Notice%20(English%20Ver).pdf) regarding SH 365 on May 26:
Quote
The purpose of the hearing is to present the proposed State Highway 365 (SH 365) controlled access tolled facility from Farm‐to‐Market Road (FM) 1016 (Conway Avenue) east to U.S. Highway 281 (Military Highway) in Hidalgo County, Texas, and to receive public comment.
The intent of the proposed project is to: improve east‐west mobility and interconnectivity necessary to effectively distribute traffic between existing and planned border crossings and local freight transfer facilities; reduce community disruption south of Interstate Highway 2 (I‐2/US 83) associated with increasing freight movement originating from and destined to the border to access local freight transfer facilities; address safety concerns regarding the mix of vehicle types and conflicting movements on the arterial and local street network; and construct the proposed project through the use of vehicle registration fees, toll revenue bonds, state/federal funding, SIB loan, TIFIA Bonds, and TRZ revenues, as the funding needs cannot be addressed through traditional non-tolled funding sources.
The proposed SH 365 project would initially be developed as a four‐lane divided controlled access toll facility divided by a grassy median with Rights‐of‐Way (ROW) reserved for future widening for the ultimate facility when necessary. The ultimate facility would consist of six travel lanes divided by a flushed median with a concrete barrier. The 16.53‐milelong proposed tolled facility is primarily on new location within a typical 300‐foot ROW, which varies from 160 feet to 400 feet ... The logical termini for the proposed project are from FM 1016 (Conway Avenue) to US 281 (Military Highway) with construction limits for the proposed toll project from 0.5 mile west of FM 1016 (Conway Avenue) east to Spur 29 (Veterans Boulevard), located south of US 281 (Military Highway).
edit
Later SH 365 developments are discussed in this thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=15627.0).
Quote from: Grzrd on April 23, 2015, 02:27:58 PM
The Pharr District list of projects (http://www.txdot.gov/apps-cq/prop1/project_info.htm) includes construction of the frontage roads for the La Joya relief route:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FvRQZGVj.png&hash=20fe9320262b0863a2b0921d4346538e1a3fdd1f)
TxDOT has issued a Finding of No Significant Impact ("FONSI") for the La Joya relief route and has made it available for public review (the Notice does not appear to provide online access to the FONSI):
Quote
Notice of Availabilty - US 83 Relief Route Finding of No Significant Impact
Location: Pharr
Date: 07/17/15
Purpose: This notice is to advise the public that TxDOT has issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for the proposed US 83 Relief Route from 0.85 miles east of FM 886 (El Faro Road) to 0.28 miles west of Showers Road in the cities of La Joya and Peñitas both in Cameron County, Texas.
The Notice on the TxDOT website can be found here (http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/pharr/071715.html).
La Joya and Peñitas in Cameron County?
Quote from: Grzrd on July 30, 2014, 08:57:04 PM
I recently had an email Q & A with TxDOT ... TxDOT has identified the I-35/US 83 intersection in Laredo as "mile zero" ...:
Quote
.... 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.
Quote from: Grzrd on April 23, 2015, 02:27:58 PM
This April 10 article (http://www.progresstimes.net/news/general-interest/7194-la-joya-bypass-project-to-get-moving-over-summer.html) reports that TxDOT will accept bids on the two La Joya relief route frontage road projects on July 15
Quote from: Grzrd on July 18, 2015, 02:07:34 PM
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 (http://www.txdot.gov/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/results/awardeds.htm):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FPMTP9QM.jpg&hash=1a4b2de304015ab6e6d4811dad22049e746b27e8)
With FONSI and contract in hand for this project, now begins the post-I-2-designation slow crawl to Laredo .......
Quote from: lordsutch on February 25, 2015, 09:33:18 PM
... 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.
Quote from: Grzrd on July 07, 2015, 04:30:35 PM
This July 6 article (http://www.lmtonline.com/front-news/article_a84906ae-2435-11e5-9003-17839064fce8.html) reports that the groundbreaking for the Loop 20/ Clark Boulevard overpass (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Clark+Blvd,+Laredo,+TX/@27.5168842,-99.4508671,922m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x8661215c821fab61:0xfa01a43bcb890978) was held on July 6 ....
this July 6 TV video (http://www.kgns.tv/home/headlines/Work-soon-to-begin-on-Interstate-69-corridor-311860121.html) 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:
Quote
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 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg2077013#msg2077013) 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.
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.
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?
Quote from: ARMOURERERIC on August 02, 2015, 01:22:35 AM
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.
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.
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)
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.
Quote from: J N Winkler on December 19, 2012, 01:16:14 PM
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 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg191601#msg191601) thread)
Quote from: roadman65 on August 02, 2015, 03:48:13 PM
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.
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.
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 .
Quote from: bassoon1986 on August 03, 2015, 10:57:29 AM
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. :bigass:
iPhone
Quote from: lordsutch on February 25, 2015, 09:33:18 PM
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
Quote from: Grzrd on July 30, 2015, 04:00:08 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on July 07, 2015, 04:30:35 PM
This July 6 article (http://www.lmtonline.com/front-news/article_a84906ae-2435-11e5-9003-17839064fce8.html) reports that the groundbreaking for the Loop 20/ Clark Boulevard overpass (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Clark+Blvd,+Laredo,+TX/@27.5168842,-99.4508671,922m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x8661215c821fab61:0xfa01a43bcb890978) was held on July 6 ....
this July 6 TV video (http://www.kgns.tv/home/headlines/Work-soon-to-begin-on-Interstate-69-corridor-311860121.html) 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 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg2077013#msg2077013) thread)
Quote from: Grzrd on August 03, 2015, 03:25:53 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on July 31, 2015, 06:53:42 PM
The final Laredo 2015-40 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (http://www.cityoflaredo.com/planning/mpo/files/mtp/2015-2040/MTP_2015-2040.pdf) 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):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FKWOHCqn.png&hash=64d2ae27a435d599e20db42c7af5bbcd2dfecbbd)
(above quote from I-69 in TX (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg2083488#msg2083488) 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.
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.
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.
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. :banghead:
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 05, 2015, 11:13:52 AM
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?
Quote from: Rothman on August 05, 2015, 12:32:43 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 05, 2015, 11:13:52 AM
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.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 05, 2015, 02:01:26 PM
Quote from: Rothman on August 05, 2015, 12:32:43 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 05, 2015, 11:13:52 AM
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.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 05, 2015, 02:01:26 PM
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 :D
Quote from: NE2 on August 05, 2015, 03:56:37 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 05, 2015, 02:01:26 PM
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 :D
I think ethan is just speaking for the whole Interstate system.
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
because red, white, and blue is more patriotic than black and white! You DO want to be patriotic, don't you?
Quote from: kkt on August 05, 2015, 05:51:50 PM
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.
Quote from: Rothman on August 05, 2015, 06:29:47 PM
Quote from: kkt on August 05, 2015, 05:51:50 PM
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.
:wow:
WE WILL NEVER KNOW.
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.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 05, 2015, 02:01:26 PMIt'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.
So an Interstate is like watching the Yankees play a double A minor league team, in other words.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on August 06, 2015, 04:07:12 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 05, 2015, 02:01:26 PMIt'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.
So an Interstate is like watching the Yankees play a double A minor league team, in other words.
Nowadays, the AA team could well beat the Yankees!
:spin:
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on August 08, 2015, 10:50:11 AM
Quote from: Pete from Boston on August 06, 2015, 04:07:12 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 05, 2015, 02:01:26 PMIt'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.
So an Interstate is like watching the Yankees play a double A minor league team, in other words.
Nowadays, the AA team could well beat the Yankees!
:spin:
Mike
Fortunately they're in the AL East, which includes no team at or above the AA level, and therefore remain in first place.
Google Street View has posted some May, 2015 imagery showing I-2 shields in the field (https://www.google.com/maps/@26.18887,-98.225253,3a,75y,319.52h,88.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssKj8uhrdY0lRu6EuGxVLqQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1).
Quote from: lordsutch on August 05, 2015, 07:56:50 PMIt'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.
TBH, a lot of the A1 route needs the widening. The last bit of M6 needed the extra lane as well (though north of there it didn't need D3, but did need safety upgrades and if you are going to build an offline route, why not add an extra lane in each direction).
Belfast-Dublin isn't planned. Some safety upgrades, sure, but motorway conversion of Lisburn-Newry isn't on the table.
Quote from: Grzrd on August 08, 2015, 02:43:31 PM
Google Street View has posted some May, 2015 imagery showing I-2 shields in the field (https://www.google.com/maps/@26.18887,-98.225253,3a,75y,319.52h,88.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssKj8uhrdY0lRu6EuGxVLqQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1).
That was fast... Is it me or is the coverage getting better for both streetview and satellite.
Only in certain areas. There is still surprisingly old footage in GSV.
Quote from: Rothman on August 09, 2015, 04:19:42 PM
Only in certain areas. There is still surprisingly old footage in GSV.
An example of that would be Norfolk, VA only seems to have footage from 2012-2013 or older.
Quote from: intelati49 on August 09, 2015, 04:17:09 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on August 08, 2015, 02:43:31 PM
Google Street View has posted some May, 2015 imagery showing I-2 shields in the field (https://www.google.com/maps/@26.18887,-98.225253,3a,75y,319.52h,88.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssKj8uhrdY0lRu6EuGxVLqQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1).
That was fast... Is it me or is the coverage getting better for both streetview and satellite.
There are still many parts of TX that have not been re-visited by the Google car since 2008-2009. I've even seen a few spots (not just old forgotten country roads, either) that have yet to have a visit.
Quote from: txstateends on August 10, 2015, 08:58:05 AM
Quote from: intelati49 on August 09, 2015, 04:17:09 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on August 08, 2015, 02:43:31 PM
Google Street View has posted some May, 2015 imagery showing I-2 shields in the field (https://www.google.com/maps/@26.18887,-98.225253,3a,75y,319.52h,88.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssKj8uhrdY0lRu6EuGxVLqQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1).
That was fast... Is it me or is the coverage getting better for both streetview and satellite.
There are still many parts of TX that have not been re-visited by the Google car since 2008-2009. I've even seen a few spots (not just old forgotten country roads, either) that have yet to have a visit.
Why is it that any street view taken in the US before 2010 is very poor quality, but yet in other countries where the SV was taken before 2010 it is perfectly clear?
Here's a perfect example of poor quality (taken June 2009 of US 412 in NM). https://goo.gl/maps/ComU1
Here's one that perfectly clear (taken Feb 2009 of MX 16 in Chihuahua, Mexico) https://goo.gl/maps/Yw4LP
There are countless examples of this.
Shouldn't this be moved to the Google maps F***n sucks thread?
I looked around, there are several on-ramps where the I-2 has been added and seen by GSV, and the intersection at FM 2220 and the I-2/US 83 service road shows the full signage update--but only at certain angles. Both the SB FM 2220 on the north side, and vice versa, only show the previous just US 83 version that had the cheapie-lazy up-arrow-and-right-side-arrow-together sign with 1 US 83 shield and no directions. In my initial looking around, I haven't found a main-lane I-2/US 83 post assembly yet. All the new assemblies I've seen so far have east or west for both routes, no north or south on the US 83 parts I've run across. Either way, it's good to see the I-2 shield rollout go beyond just the BGS installations.
https://search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=Ahds1cLshfuLSXzd155yQuWbvZx4?p=topps+paint+jobs&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8&fr=yfp-t-901&fp=1
Or they could just do it like Topps did in the 1970 when a player switched teams
Quote from: US 41 on August 10, 2015, 09:43:35 AM
Quote from: txstateends on August 10, 2015, 08:58:05 AM
Quote from: intelati49 on August 09, 2015, 04:17:09 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on August 08, 2015, 02:43:31 PM
Google Street View has posted some May, 2015 imagery showing I-2 shields in the field (https://www.google.com/maps/@26.18887,-98.225253,3a,75y,319.52h,88.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssKj8uhrdY0lRu6EuGxVLqQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1).
That was fast... Is it me or is the coverage getting better for both streetview and satellite.
There are still many parts of TX that have not been re-visited by the Google car since 2008-2009. I've even seen a few spots (not just old forgotten country roads, either) that have yet to have a visit.
Why is it that any street view taken in the US before 2010 is very poor quality, but yet in other countries where the SV was taken before 2010 it is perfectly clear?
Here's a perfect example of poor quality (taken June 2009 of US 412 in NM). https://goo.gl/maps/ComU1
Here's one that perfectly clear (taken Feb 2009 of MX 16 in Chihuahua, Mexico) https://goo.gl/maps/Yw4LP
There are countless examples of this.
They bought higher resolution cameras for their USA operations in about 2010.
:nod:
Mike
Quote from: mgk920 on August 10, 2015, 10:46:42 PM
Quote from: US 41 on August 10, 2015, 09:43:35 AM
Quote from: txstateends on August 10, 2015, 08:58:05 AM
Quote from: intelati49 on August 09, 2015, 04:17:09 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on August 08, 2015, 02:43:31 PM
Google Street View has posted some May, 2015 imagery showing I-2 shields in the field (https://www.google.com/maps/@26.18887,-98.225253,3a,75y,319.52h,88.29t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssKj8uhrdY0lRu6EuGxVLqQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1).
That was fast... Is it me or is the coverage getting better for both streetview and satellite.
There are still many parts of TX that have not been re-visited by the Google car since 2008-2009. I've even seen a few spots (not just old forgotten country roads, either) that have yet to have a visit.
Why is it that any street view taken in the US before 2010 is very poor quality, but yet in other countries where the SV was taken before 2010 it is perfectly clear?
Here's a perfect example of poor quality (taken June 2009 of US 412 in NM). https://goo.gl/maps/ComU1
Here's one that perfectly clear (taken Feb 2009 of MX 16 in Chihuahua, Mexico) https://goo.gl/maps/Yw4LP
There are countless examples of this.
They bought higher resolution cameras for their USA operations in about 2010.
:nod:
Mike
I always assumed it was because the good ol' litigious US of A was scared for a while about Google Street View cars picking up their faces and license plates because they could be robbed, looked at, recognized, visited or who knows what this sissy nation is scared of, so the folks at Google made the resolution quality so bad it couldn't pick up that crap. Then in 2010 they realized they could have HD pictures, but give a bunch of people a newly created job of going through all the pictures and blurring out the faces and license plates so this sissy nation can live happily ever after.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 11, 2015, 12:25:51 AM
Quote from: mgk920 on August 10, 2015, 10:46:42 PM
Quote from: US 41 on August 10, 2015, 09:43:35 AM
Quote from: txstateends on August 10, 2015, 08:58:05 AM
Why is it that any street view taken in the US before 2010 is very poor quality, but yet in other countries where the SV was taken before 2010 it is perfectly clear?
Here's a perfect example of poor quality (taken June 2009 of US 412 in NM). https://goo.gl/maps/ComU1
Here's one that perfectly clear (taken Feb 2009 of MX 16 in Chihuahua, Mexico) https://goo.gl/maps/Yw4LP
There are countless examples of this.
They bought higher resolution cameras for their USA operations in about 2010.
:nod:
Mike
I always assumed it was because the good ol' litigious US of A was scared for a while about Google Street View cars picking up their faces and license plates because they could be robbed, looked at, recognized, visited or who knows what this sissy nation is scared of, so the folks at Google made the resolution quality so bad it couldn't pick up that crap. Then in 2010 they realized they could have HD pictures, but give a bunch of people a newly created job of going through all the pictures and blurring out the faces and license plates so this sissy nation can live happily ever after.
Oh, I'm sure the answer is much simpler: since the StreetView program started in the US, it was using the lower-quality first-gen equipment. As newer and better equipment was introduced, it was first used in areas of new coverage, and only later did they return to previously covered areas that already had imagery, albeit poorer imagery.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 11, 2015, 12:25:51 AM
Then in 2010 they realized they could have HD pictures, but give a bunch of people a newly created job of going through all the pictures and blurring out the faces and license plates so this sissy nation can live happily ever after.
Google has a program that automatically goes through their images and finds things that look like faces and blurs them. This is why you often see pixelated road signs, fuzzy automobile wheels and business signs with blurred letter O's in GSV.
Quote from: triplemultiplex on August 14, 2015, 03:10:00 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 11, 2015, 12:25:51 AM
Then in 2010 they realized they could have HD pictures, but give a bunch of people a newly created job of going through all the pictures and blurring out the faces and license plates so this sissy nation can live happily ever after.
Google has a program that automatically goes through their images and finds things that look like faces and blurs them. This is why you often see pixelated road signs, fuzzy automobile wheels and business signs with blurred letter O's in GSV.
License plates don't look like faces, but they still get blurred.
License plates look like license plates.
And so do route shields.
Quote from: NE2 on December 02, 2014, 12:04:31 PM
This could become part of I-2: http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2013/documents/minute_orders/0926/6.pdf
Here is a snip from the map accompanying the above Loop 195 Minute Order:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FkYCjuZm.png&hash=f8ab64a6f8ab0b9f92f427655f22b60c20cd769d)
This September 6 article (http://www.themonitor.com/news/local/starr-county-sets-sights-on-economic-boost-from-infrastructure/article_6913fb3c-536b-11e5-a4cf-3f8e53a9dc6f.html) reports that that approximately $13 million has been earmarked for improvements to FM 755, but that there is currently no funding for the estimated $159 million cost to build Loop 195:
Quote
Major road construction is also on the table, particularly for a realignment of Texas Highway 755 – one of the only north to south direct routes that connects much of the rural county to the east-west highway corridor.
Future plans for a new expressway bypass would cut out the historic downtown of Rio Grande City, Escobares and Roma entirely. The goal would be to expedite commercial traffic between the Rio Grande City-Camargo International Bridge and Laredo.
"People don't even drive through Highway 83 to Laredo anymore, there's too much congestion," said Sam Vale, owner of the international bridge and Starr County Industrial Foundation chair. "TXDOT (Texas Department of Transportation) said you probably need a road here but you've got no funding for it."
There's now about $13 million earmarked for some improvements along Texas Highway 755. To construct the new loop would cost upwards of $159 million, according to a master plan.
It seemed there was also a point of contention on how the new traffic loop was being sold to the community – whether it was for economic development or a relief route for residents hoping to escape flooding.
"We welcome every business but we have at least five accidents a day in that area from the first light (near Wal-Mart)," said Eloy Garza, Starr County commissioner. "We are going to try to work with them but it's not going to alleviate what they are telling them it will – they are going to build out there (central Starr County) and have legs come down here."
Quote from: Grzrd on July 30, 2015, 04:00:08 PM
TxDOT has awarded an approximately $87 million contract for the La Joya relief route frontage road projects (http://www.txdot.gov/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/results/awardeds.htm):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FPMTP9QM.jpg&hash=1a4b2de304015ab6e6d4811dad22049e746b27e8)
This proposed Minute Order for the September 24 Texas Transportation Committee ("TTC") meeting (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2015/0924/16d2.pdf) provides that US 83 will be redesignated along the relief route after construction of the frontage roads, and that sections of the current US 83 will receive BU 83-S and US Spur 83 designations at that same time, respectively:
Quote
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED by the commission that: 1) US 83 is designated on the state highway system along a new location from 1.7 miles east of FM 886 (El Faro Road) to 0.8 miles west of Showers Road, a distance of approximately 7.9 miles; 2) a portion of existing US 83 is redesignated as Business US Highway 83-S from 1.7 miles east of FM 886 (El Faro Road) to the intersection of existing Business US Highway 83-S, a distance of approximately 6.3 miles; and 3) the remaining portion of existing US 83 is redesignated as US Highway Spur 83 from the intersection of existing Business US Highway 83-S eastward to the new location of US 83, a distance of approximately 0.4 miles, as shown in Exhibit A.
Here is a snip of Exhibit A illustrating the redesignations:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FdtXlMk9.png&hash=130cc90cf95385d099d7f7e8fac04c008ea11274)
Quote from: Grzrd on November 23, 2014, 08:14:54 PM
TxDOT recently posted a Notice Affording Opportunity For Public Hearing (http://www.mypublicnotices.com/Images/Cobrands/TheMonitor/Photos/95188195_11092014.pdf) for the La Joya relief route:
Quote
The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) is proposing the construction of the US 83 Relief Route at La Joya/Peñitas (a new location highway parallel to US 83) in western Hidalgo County ... The project will be constructed in two or more phases. Phase I would involve construction of a four lane divided rural highway consisting of two roadways separated by a depressed median, which would serve as the future frontage roads ... Future phases of construction would include main lanes and overpasses within the depressed median. These main lanes would consist of two 12-foot wide travel lanes with a 4-foot wide inside and a 10-foot wide outside shoulder in each direction of travel. Controlled access ramps would provide connectivity between the main lanes and the frontage roads constructed during Phase I ....
I assume that TxDOT will submit an application for an I-2 designation along the relief route if and when the main lanes and overpasses are built.
Mile Posts an exit numbers are up! my exit is Shary Rd, which i believe its exit 139.
Quote from: Grzrd on September 21, 2015, 12:58:08 PM
This proposed Minute Order for the September 24 Texas Transportation Committee ("TTC") meeting (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2015/0924/16d2.pdf) provides that US 83 will be redesignated along the relief route after construction of the frontage roads, and that sections of the current US 83 will receive BU 83-S and US Spur 83 designations at that same time, respectively:
Quote
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED by the commission that: 1) US 83 is designated on the state highway system along a new location from 1.7 miles east of FM 886 (El Faro Road) to 0.8 miles west of Showers Road, a distance of approximately 7.9 miles; 2) a portion of existing US 83 is redesignated as Business US Highway 83-S from 1.7 miles east of FM 886 (El Faro Road) to the intersection of existing Business US Highway 83-S, a distance of approximately 6.3 miles; and 3) the remaining portion of existing US 83 is redesignated as US Highway Spur 83 from the intersection of existing Business US Highway 83-S eastward to the new location of US 83, a distance of approximately 0.4 miles, as shown in Exhibit A.
Here is a snip of Exhibit A illustrating the redesignations:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FdtXlMk9.png&hash=130cc90cf95385d099d7f7e8fac04c008ea11274)
.... I assume that TxDOT will submit an application for an I-2 designation along the relief route if and when the main lanes and overpasses are built.
The AASHTO Special Committee on Route Numbering's May 24 Agenda (http://route.transportation.org/Documents/2016%20SM%20Des%20Moines%2c%20IA/Agenda%20and%20List%20of%20Applications%20SM-2016.pdf) includes consideration of TxDOT's application for the Hidalgo County relocation of US 83 and related extension of Business US 83:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FEKRZReS.jpg&hash=45724a4181b1d7e338021f68847e21e549d813bd)
It's interesting that the Agenda description of the route changes includes neither the description of the US 83 relocation nor any mention of the redesignation of part of US 83 to Spur 83 that are contained in the TxDOT Minute Order. Maybe the Agenda language will be cleaned up before the meeting.
Also, TxDOT's Project Tracker (http://apps.dot.state.tx.us/apps-cq/project_tracker/) lists the status of the new terrain frontage roads project as "Construction Scheduled".
edit
Quote from: yakra on May 06, 2016, 02:35:23 PM
http://route.transportation.org/Documents/2016%20SM%20Des%20Moines,%20IA/US_Routes_Binder_MOtoWI.pdf
Page 41/86 from the pdf in yakra's link includes TxDOT's estimate that the relocated US 83 will be open to traffic in August, 2020:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fv6IcFYu.png&hash=63eaa68fe3a03df06ce11498ba530da7a40feb02)
Also, the map that TxDOT submitted with its application shows that, notwithstanding the deficiencies in the Agenda's language, TxDOT's request does track the Minute Order (p. 42/86 of pdf):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FfMEQrf4.png&hash=f3ecfc6dc9500af5ea995e3b72ea6b1fc32bda79)
Now, this is interesting; I didn't see it mentioned anywhere else...
From page 49 of http://route.transportation.org/Documents/2016%20SM%20Des%20Moines,%20IA/US_Routes_Binder_MOtoWI.pdf :
| US 83 | Texas | Regular | Rio Grande City | 53 | 791 | NONE |
| US 83 | Texas | Regular | Jct. Havana | 82 | 820 | Ends now at I-2 |
US 83 | Texas | Regular | Pharr | 82 | 841 | Crosses U.S. 281 (Revised to account for I-2 designation) |
US 83 | Texas | Regular | Harlingen | 30 | 871 | Joins U.S. 77 (Revised to account for I-2 designation) |
US 83 | Texas | Regular | Brownsville | 26 | 897 | U.S. 281 joins & ends (Revised to account for I-2 designation) |
US 83 | Texas | Regular | Brownsville | 2 | 899 | Route ends, International Boundary; U.S. 77 ends (Revised to account for I-2 designation) |
What's the likelihood of Interstate 2 being extended further west in the near or long term?
Any ideas on how far I-2 will go when completed?
Quote from: CobaltYoshi27 on May 06, 2016, 07:03:52 PM
Any ideas on how far I-2 will go when completed?
i believe larado. Also i-69e should be I-37, the portion east going into corpus christi should be i-137. i-69c should be i-69 and if there's an i-69w it should be anything but i-69w.
I got to ride down Interstate 2 this weekend. I saw the exit numbers up and the mile posts. I am upset how cheap they did it, by posting the mileposts on the jersey rail in the center of the road. I hate that. They also posted the exit gore signs on the right of the gore which is odd. I also rode up Interstate 69W and it was signed the same with mileposts on the jersey rail in the center of the road.
Quote from: erik_ram2005 on January 13, 2015, 07:05:47 PM
Interstate Shields are up along I-2 in south Texas ....
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi357.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Foo18%2Ferik_ram2005%2FIMG_0568_zps7cd8db0f.jpg&hash=85e0b8136699541556d4e0e3a6f91f91a50ab355)
Quote from: yakra on May 06, 2016, 02:35:23 PM
Now, this is interesting; I didn't see it mentioned anywhere else...
From page 49 of http://route.transportation.org/Documents/2016%20SM%20Des%20Moines,%20IA/US_Routes_Binder_MOtoWI.pdf :
| US 83 | Texas | Regular | Rio Grande City | 53 | 791 | NONE |
| US 83 | Texas | Regular | Jct. Havana | 82 | 820 | Ends now at I-2 |
US 83 | Texas | Regular | Pharr | 82 | 841 | Crosses U.S. 281 (Revised to account for I-2 designation) |
US 83 | Texas | Regular | Harlingen | 30 | 871 | Joins U.S. 77 (Revised to account for I-2 designation) |
US 83 | Texas | Regular | Brownsville | 26 | 897 | U.S. 281 joins & ends (Revised to account for I-2 designation) |
US 83 | Texas | Regular | Brownsville | 2 | 899 | Route ends, International Boundary; U.S. 77 ends (Revised to account for I-2 designation) |
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on May 09, 2016, 10:48:04 AM
I got to ride down Interstate 2 this weekend. I saw the exit numbers up and the mile posts. I am upset how cheap they did it, by posting the mileposts on the jersey rail in the center of the road. I hate that. They also posted the exit gore signs on the right of the gore which is odd.
Are the US 83 signs still up along I-2?
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on May 09, 2016, 10:48:04 AM
I got to ride down Interstate 2 this weekend. I saw the exit numbers up and the mile posts. I am upset how cheap they did it, by posting the mileposts on the jersey rail in the center of the road. I hate that. They also posted the exit gore signs on the right of the gore which is odd. I also rode up Interstate 69W and it was signed the same with mileposts on the jersey rail in the center of the road.
The mileposts in the center doesn't bother me nearly as much as the exits on the other side of the gore. That bothers me more.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on May 09, 2016, 10:48:04 AM
I got to ride down Interstate 2 this weekend. I saw the exit numbers up and the mile posts. I am upset how cheap they did it, by posting the mileposts on the jersey rail in the center of the road. I hate that. They also posted the exit gore signs on the right of the gore which is odd. I also rode up Interstate 69W and it was signed the same with mileposts on the jersey rail in the center of the road.
putting blue mile markers on the jersey barrier is fairly common.
Quote from: CobaltYoshi27 on May 09, 2016, 02:34:03 PM
The mileposts in the center doesn't bother me nearly as much as the exits on the other side of the gore. That bothers me more.
TxDOT has a rather irritating habit of doing this in places in south Texas (see e.g. here (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.6380354,-99.4872276,3a,75y,195.99h,67.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s30OPRv4bUE-iCALotEx7Cw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1)), which is downright dangerous IMHO since the driver expectation is that the Exit sign will be installed behind the theoretical gore. I complained to the district office when this example was installed, obviously to no avail.
Quote from: lordsutch on May 09, 2016, 03:46:06 PM
Quote from: CobaltYoshi27 on May 09, 2016, 02:34:03 PM
The mileposts in the center doesn't bother me nearly as much as the exits on the other side of the gore. That bothers me more.
TxDOT has a rather irritating habit of doing this in places in south Texas (see e.g. here (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.6380354,-99.4872276,3a,75y,195.99h,67.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s30OPRv4bUE-iCALotEx7Cw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1)), which is downright dangerous IMHO since the driver expectation is that the Exit sign will be installed behind the theoretical gore. I complained to the district office when this example was installed, obviously to no avail.
I was born in Houston, and never went south beyond Galveston. That annoys me now.
Quote from: CobaltYoshi27 on May 09, 2016, 03:48:18 PM
Quote from: lordsutch on May 09, 2016, 03:46:06 PM
Quote from: CobaltYoshi27 on May 09, 2016, 02:34:03 PM
The mileposts in the center doesn't bother me nearly as much as the exits on the other side of the gore. That bothers me more.
TxDOT has a rather irritating habit of doing this in places in south Texas (see e.g. here (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.6380354,-99.4872276,3a,75y,195.99h,67.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s30OPRv4bUE-iCALotEx7Cw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!6m1!1e1)), which is downright dangerous IMHO since the driver expectation is that the Exit sign will be installed behind the theoretical gore. I complained to the district office when this example was installed, obviously to no avail.
I was born in Houston, and never went south beyond Galveston. That annoys me now.
Well, you'd be in the ocean
If Interstate 2 ever makes it to Laredo, it would be a legitimate Interstate. Right now, not so much.
Quote from: Grzrd on May 09, 2016, 02:10:00 PM
Quote from: erik_ram2005 on January 13, 2015, 07:05:47 PM
Interstate Shields are up along I-2 in south Texas ....
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi357.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Foo18%2Ferik_ram2005%2FIMG_0568_zps7cd8db0f.jpg&hash=85e0b8136699541556d4e0e3a6f91f91a50ab355)
Quote from: yakra on May 06, 2016, 02:35:23 PM
Now, this is interesting; I didn't see it mentioned anywhere else...
From page 49 of http://route.transportation.org/Documents/2016%20SM%20Des%20Moines,%20IA/US_Routes_Binder_MOtoWI.pdf :
| US 83 | Texas | Regular | Rio Grande City | 53 | 791 | NONE |
| US 83 | Texas | Regular | Jct. Havana | 82 | 820 | Ends now at I-2 |
US 83 | Texas | Regular | Pharr | 82 | 841 | Crosses U.S. 281 (Revised to account for I-2 designation) |
US 83 | Texas | Regular | Harlingen | 30 | 871 | Joins U.S. 77 (Revised to account for I-2 designation) |
US 83 | Texas | Regular | Brownsville | 26 | 897 | U.S. 281 joins & ends (Revised to account for I-2 designation) |
US 83 | Texas | Regular | Brownsville | 2 | 899 | Route ends, International Boundary; U.S. 77 ends (Revised to account for I-2 designation) |
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on May 09, 2016, 10:48:04 AM
I got to ride down Interstate 2 this weekend. I saw the exit numbers up and the mile posts. I am upset how cheap they did it, by posting the mileposts on the jersey rail in the center of the road. I hate that. They also posted the exit gore signs on the right of the gore which is odd.
Are the US 83 signs still up along I-2?
Yes they are. And they will be for years. In fact, the interstate is signed the same way TxDOT signs it's sub interstates (U.S. and state) freeways. All they did was put an Interstate 2 shield where there was only a U.S. 83 shield. I can see that U.S. 83 will be signed for a very long time, even after it has been extended to Laredo. remember the Interstate highway system was built for a long time before they started truncating the former U.S. highways. I still remember U.S. Highway 83 being co-signed through Austin in the 80's along Interstate 35, and they finished most of Interstate 35 in the late 60's early 70's. In fact, US 83 wasn't officially truncated until I think 1991.
Thing is, the two will be co signed through construction, and years past completion of construction to get people used to the transition.
And yes, I have seen the blue milepost on the jersey rail in other states, but it is not common place in Texas. prior to the installation of mileposts in the valley, the only place there are jersey rail mileposts in the entire state is south of downtown Fort Worth, for just a few miles because of limited space on the side of the road because of walls.
I guess, as a Texan, I have always took pride in Texas roads going the extra mile (no pun intended) to sign, stripe and post every little detail. It angers me when I see TxDOT do something half assed. I was the first to be angry at TxDOT switching to gore signs with the exit number on the gore sign instead of the old practice of having the number as a tab above the gore sign. The old way seemed like there was a lot more effort put into the sign, where the new way just seems like they are going through the motions. The only good thing about putting the exit number directly on the gore sign is the tab can't fall off like it would before and leave the exit "numberless".
And yes, I hate the gore sign being on the side of the road because it is slightly dangerous and confusing because you are expecting the sign to split the roads at the gore.
83 never went through Austin. 81? (and 79 later)
Quote from: texaskdog on May 11, 2016, 05:23:23 PM
83 never went through Austin. 81? (and 79 later)
Yeah, I meant US 81
Quote from: Grzrd on May 05, 2016, 09:37:53 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on September 21, 2015, 12:58:08 PM
This proposed Minute Order for the September 24 Texas Transportation Committee ("TTC") meeting (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2015/0924/16d2.pdf) ....
Here is a snip of Exhibit A illustrating the redesignations:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FdtXlMk9.png&hash=130cc90cf95385d099d7f7e8fac04c008ea11274)
Quote from: yakra on May 06, 2016, 02:35:23 PM
http://route.transportation.org/Documents/2016%20SM%20Des%20Moines,%20IA/US_Routes_Binder_MOtoWI.pdf
the map that TxDOT submitted with its application shows that, notwithstanding the deficiencies in the Agenda's language, TxDOT's request does track the Minute Order (p. 42/86 of pdf):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FfMEQrf4.png&hash=f3ecfc6dc9500af5ea995e3b72ea6b1fc32bda79)
Quote from: froggie on May 25, 2016, 08:47:44 PM
If one digs through the AASHTO app, the meeting minutes are now online (not yet on the route committee's website) ....
The other denied request was the US 83 relocation, BUS 83 extension, and SPUR 83 designation in La Joya and Piñetas, TX. The denial cites "that the next section should be a business route as well" and that there should be a continuous BUSINESS 83 in the area, but as best as I can tell, the TxDOT proposal already had that. Not sure what happened with this one.
(above quote from May 2016 AASHTO SCOURN Meeting (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=17917.msg2147130#msg2147130) thread)
Quote from: Grzrd on May 25, 2016, 10:25:16 PM
Here's the link:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/v3-app_crowdc/assets/5/5c/5cdc51ea50f12d6f/USRN_Meeting_Minutes_May25_2016.original.1464203915.pdf
(above quote from May 2016 AASHTO SCOURN Meeting (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=17917.msg2147160#msg2147160) thread)
I think the above top map from the TTC meeting better illustrates the reason for AASHTO's decision because it includes the currently existing Spur 83. TxDOT apparently designated the short section (Segment C-B on the AASHTO application map) as Spur 83 in order to maintain a direct connection between US 83 and Spur 83 when the "new" US 83 opens. However, in doing so, TxDOT severed one Business 83/ US 83 connection.
Here is AASHTO's comment (p. 9/10 of pdf):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_26_05_16_12_04_34.png)
I think AASHTO is simply saying that Segment C-B should be
dually redesignated as Spur 83
and Business 83. Should be easy to take care of at the Fall meeting.
Will this realignment be a freeway, or just a four-lane expressway? And would it be an extension of Interstate 2 if it is a freeway?
Quote from: Grzrd on July 30, 2014, 08:57:04 PM
I recently had an email Q & A with TxDOT about whether they intend to install I-2 mileage markers along I-2/US 83. Basically, an extension of I-2 to Laredo is a very long term proposition, but TxDOT has identified the I-35/US 83 interchange in Laredo as "mile zero" and the current western terminus near Mission is near Mile 131:
Quote
Q:
It is my understanding that mileage for east-west interstates begins at the western terminus in the state. Regarding Interstate 2, I cannot imagine it going all of the way to New Mexico.
Does TxDOT intend to keep the current US 83 mileage markers, or do you intend to install mileage markers based on the mileage on Interstate 2? If Interstate 2, where would be the location of "mile zero"?
A:
Yes, interstate mileage markers for east and west interstates begin with 0 at the western end and build eastward. 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. The actual mile marker may not be present. As resources are made available, these will be installed.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on May 09, 2016, 10:48:04 AM
I got to ride down Interstate 2 this weekend. I saw the ... mile posts. I am upset how cheap they did it, by posting the mileposts on the jersey rail in the center of the road. I hate that ...
This June, 2015 Google Street View imagery (https://www.google.com/maps/@26.2370883,-98.4001975,3a,37.5y,323.38h,80.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMgL7ntZv9pA_AUYsS0Q-RA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) shows the Mile Marker 131 referenced in the TxDOT email:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_26_05_16_3_09_05.png)
Quote from: CobaltYoshi27 on May 06, 2016, 07:03:52 PM
Any ideas on how far I-2 will go when completed?
As indicated above, approximately 130 miles to the current intersection of US 83 and I-35 in Laredo. That said, and realizing that I-2 in Laredo may never happen, there has been some discussion here (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9935.msg2046211;topicseen#msg2046211) and here (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9935.msg2046493#msg2046493) that I-2 in Laredo may ultimately be routed along the Cuatro Vientos Road section of Loop 20, which would provide a direct connection to I-69W and allow I-2 to truly be the "I-2 Connector" that would connect the three I-69 suffixed prongs:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FFAsjRfo.png&hash=f2df150e57739784108a493bb325b3c7f03c7e09)
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on May 26, 2016, 03:18:39 PM
Will this realignment be a freeway, or just a four-lane expressway? And would it be an extension of Interstate 2 if it is a freeway?
The current Phase I construction will be an expressway. Future phases will convert it to a freeway; with "mile zero" in Laredo, I believe TxDOT intends to eventually designate the freeway as a westward extension of I-2. More details in this post:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9935.msg2022754;topicseen#msg2022754
Quote from: Grzrd on May 26, 2016, 12:10:48 PM
I think the above top map from the TTC meeting better illustrates the reason for AASHTO's decision because it includes the currently existing Spur 83. TxDOT apparently designated the short section (Segment C-B on the AASHTO application map) as Spur 83 in order to maintain a direct connection between US 83 and Spur 83 when the "new" US 83 opens. However, in doing so, TxDOT severed one Business 83/ US 83 connection.
...
I think AASHTO is simply saying that Segment C-B should be dually redesignated as Spur 83 and Business 83. Should be easy to take care of at the Fall meeting.
Thing is though, the "83S" on the top map doesn't denote a spur -- it's BU 83S (http://www.txdot.gov/tpp/hwy/bu/bu0083s.htm). TXDOT gives individual business routes an internal letter suffix to tell them apart from one another (https://www.txdot.gov/tpp/search/query.htm?Route=BU&search=83).
(Maybe AASHTO fell victim to the same thinking, and thought existing BU 83S was a spur?)
I'm with froggie: "the TxDOT proposal already had that."
Quote from: yakra on May 27, 2016, 11:06:48 AM
Thing is though, the "83S" on the top map doesn't denote a spur -- it's BU 83S (http://www.txdot.gov/tpp/hwy/bu/bu0083s.htm). TXDOT gives individual business routes an internal letter suffix to tell them apart from one another (https://www.txdot.gov/tpp/search/query.htm?Route=BU&search=83).
(Maybe AASHTO fell victim to the same thinking, and thought existing BU 83S was a spur?)
I'm with froggie: "the TxDOT proposal already had that."
Yep. I now agree. The Business 83 extension will connect with the "new" US 83 at the western end of the "new" US 83. The newly created Spur 83 will connect the eastern end of the "new" US 83 to Business 83. I had been confused by the "83-S".
SCOUSRN had a bad Texas day ..........
edit
I had also overlooked wxfree's early identification/ explanation of the Committee's mistake in the May 2016 AASHTO SCOURN Meeting thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=17917.msg2147169#msg2147169):
Quote from: wxfree on May 25, 2016, 11:13:38 PM
The US 83 request includes a continuous business route, but the petition doesn't explain that. When I saw the proposal it looked strange, so I looked at a map and saw that the new business route would extend to the existing one, and the spur would connect back to the mainline. The map in the petition doesn't show the existing business route. It gives the impression that the spur designation is just the tail end of the business route for no logical reason. My guess is that someone didn't do their research. This is why it's important to include all relevant information, which is why there's often so much redundancy and obvious stuff included in government papers. If you give someone a chance to misunderstand, someone will ...
Quote from: Grzrd on November 23, 2014, 08:14:54 PM
TxDOT recently posted a Notice Affording Opportunity For Public Hearing (http://www.mypublicnotices.com/Images/Cobrands/TheMonitor/Photos/95188195_11092014.pdf) for the La Joya relief route. It looks like Phase I of the project will be construction of the frontage roads:
Quote
The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) is proposing the construction of the US 83 Relief Route at La Joya/Peñitas (a new locationhighway parallel to US 83) in western Hidalgo County. The project would enhance the local and regional transportation system by creating a new location roadway that would reduce traffic congestion and improve connectivity and safety.The limits of the project are from 0.85 miles east of FM 886 (El Faro Road) to 0.28 miles west of Showers Road a length of approximately 9.2 miles. The project will be constructed in two or more phases. Phase I would involve construction of a four lane divided rural highway consisting of two roadways separated by a depressed median, which would serve as the future frontage roads. Each roadway would consist of two 12-foot wide travel lanes, a 4-foot wide inside and a 10-foot wide outside shoulder. Future phases of construction would include main lanes and overpasses within the depressed median ...
Quote from: Grzrd on July 30, 2015, 04:00:08 PM
TxDOT has awarded an approximately $87 million contract for the La Joya relief route frontage road projects (http://www.txdot.gov/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/results/awardeds.htm):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FPMTP9QM.jpg&hash=1a4b2de304015ab6e6d4811dad22049e746b27e8)
I was wondering why I had not read about progress on the La Joya Bypass. I emailed TxDOT and received the following reply:
Quote
The La Joya bypass is tentatively scheduled to be let it in 2018. We are adding three overpasses as part of the design.
As best as i can tell, after TxDOT let the contract, they decided to combine Phase I and Phase II into one project and delayed it until the overpasses could be designed. Maybe they will seek an I-2 designation when the project is finished.
Interstate 2 really does seem like an exciting new thing, as long as they can get it to Laredo. Also, along the array of other proposed solutions here, my two cents for the suffixed I-69 mess is very simple. I think that I-69E should simply be I-69, and here is what I think should be done with I-69C: make it I-269, and right where the limited-access currently ends (going north) and US 281 continues on as a divided highway, I-269 should split off of US 281 and veer northeast, connecting to Interstate 69 (currently I-69E), perhaps just north of Raymondville. Should I-269 not be feasible for whatever reason I think any even I-x69 or I-x02 should be fine. There is no need to upgrade the entirety of both US 77 and US 281 to interstate standards, since they very closely parallel eachother. I think US 77 should simply be upgraded to I-69, and except for the southern section that become I-269, US 281 simply be left alone, existing as an alternative route. Something as simple as the idea I just threw out could easily fix the I-69C & I-69E mess (and hopefully there isn't a I-69W to come). With this, I-69, I-2, I-269, and miscellaneous could turn out quite nicely in southern Texas. As someone said earlier in the thread, extending Interstate 2 all the way to Laredo would make it even more useful than it already is.
I also find it interesting to have found out that Interstate 2 (of the U.S.) parallels Mexican Federal Highway 2 (of Mexico), which is just closely on the other side of the Rio Grande.
I suspect it will be a long time before Interstate 2 reaches Laredo, if it does at all. Correct me if I'm wrong, though.
Any future extension of I-2 depends on two things: continued rapid population growth in the Rio Grande Valley and TX DOT being able to plan for it appropriately.
According to Wikipedia the 4 county region in the south end of Texas had 325,000 residents in 1969 and now over 1.3 million people. That's probably enough people to justify building 2 Interstate routes (I-69E and I-69C) down to that area.
On the opposite potential end of I-2, Laredo has 244,731 residents as of the 2012 census estimate. That's a significant sized city at a major border crossing. That might be big enough to justify an Interstate quality border route down McAllen-Brownsville area.
At first glance there may not seem to be much between Laredo and La Joya. There are border towns in between with a lot of potential growth: Zapata & the Falcon Lake area, Roma-Escobares, Rio Grande City and Las Lomas. These towns have all grown enough that I-2 cannot be routed on the existing US-83 corridor. New terrain bypasses to the North will be necessary. Meanwhile TX-DOT will also have to work at protecting and/or acquiring ROW along parts of US-83 that can be upgraded to Interstate quality. A lot of other little towns are positioned along US-83. Over the next couple or so decades development could fill in the Texas border from Lake Falcon down to McAllen.
There is some North-South highway construction project going on in Rio Grande City parallel to Redwood Street. It looks like something to serve the nearby border crossing a couple blocks away. It looks freeway-wide.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 30, 2016, 06:08:02 PM
I suspect it will be a long time before Interstate 2 reaches Laredo, if it does at all. Correct me if I'm wrong, though.
IME it should only go as far northwest as Zapata. Not enough traffic from there on to Laredo. But the milemarkers anticipate it.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on May 09, 2016, 10:48:04 AM
I got to ride down Interstate 2 this weekend. I saw the exit numbers up and the mile posts.
This January 13 TV video (http://valleycentral.com/news/local/inspiration-road-project-in-mission-expected-to-be-completed-before-summer-2017) reports that construction work on I-2, and on US 83 Business, is almost complete and should be finished by the summer.
Quote
The Inspiration Road project in Mission was scheduled to be completed late 2016, but due to poor weather conditions in 2015, the Texas Department of Transportation was forced to take longer than expected.
On Thursday, TxDOT Spokesman Octavio Saenz told CBS 4 News the roadway is officially in its final stage.
"The big thing that we are doing right now is trying to open the main lanes and finish up the road. The construction should be wrapping up," said Saenz ....
Once the reconstruction is finalized, there will be three lanes on Interstate 2 going westbound and eastbound, a widened bridge on Interstate 2 and Inspiration Road, and a continuous frontage.
As a bonus, it contains confirmation that exit numbers are up:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_18_01_17_11_38_19.png)
Here is July, 2015 StreetView imagery (https://www.google.com/maps/@26.217103,-98.3495145,3a,75y,59.55h,83.76t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sEGq07HjExKd8PcSo4vn03w!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) of the construction.
Can anyone confirm whether exit numbers are posted along I-2's entire length?
i live in mission tx. yes there are mile markers and mile exits, my exit is exit 139.
From mile 130 (from penitas tx) to i wanna say to mile 180 or 190-ish (Harlingen Tx) is the current full length.
being that mile marker starts at 130 from penitas, clearly soon I-2 will expand to Laredo, Tx
Quote from: JotheC11 on January 19, 2017, 09:05:09 AM
i live in mission tx. yes there are mile markers and mile exits, my exit is exit 139.
From mile 130 (from penitas tx) to i wanna say to mile 180 or 190-ish (Harlingen Tx) is the current full length.
being that mile marker starts at 130 from penitas, clearly soon I-2 will expand to Laredo, Tx it was intended to reach Laredo when the plans were drawn.
FTFY.
Quote from: JotheC11 on January 19, 2017, 09:05:09 AM
i live in mission tx. yes there are mile markers and mile exits, my exit is exit 139.
From mile 130 (from penitas tx) to i wanna say to mile 180 or 190-ish (Harlingen Tx) is the current full length.
being that mile marker starts at 130 from penitas, clearly soon I-2 will expand to Laredo, Tx
Are exit numbers posted along I-69C & I-69E as well?
I think it will be decades before the three I-69s actually connect, and I-2 actually reaches Laredo. Then again, I-27 may not go there either. Three may be a crowd, but four is just too much.
If current political attitudes and policies keep going on their current path, I agree it will take decades for these routes to be fully completed.
The United States hasn't been always been so deficient at building infrastructure. Much of the original Interstate highway system was built from the late 1950's through 1970's. The aggressive pace of construction back then makes today's pace of road building look laughably pathetic by comparison. Additionally much more direct, efficient routes were being built rather than the pointless, crooked crap we have with current routes in development, like I-69.
If the federal and state governments really want it bad enough they could build out routes like the I-69 variants and I-2 in far South Texas and complete it in a relatively short amount of time.
The rapid rate of population growth in South Texas might force the I-69 and I-2 corridors to be built out sooner than our conservative predictions.
Quote from: yakra on January 20, 2017, 12:38:57 AM
Quote from: JotheC11 on January 19, 2017, 09:05:09 AM
i live in mission tx. yes there are mile markers and mile exits, my exit is exit 139.
From mile 130 (from penitas tx) to i wanna say to mile 180 or 190-ish (Harlingen Tx) is the current full length.
being that mile marker starts at 130 from penitas, clearly soon I-2 will expand to Laredo, Tx
Are exit numbers posted along I-69C & I-69E as well?
on I-69C yes they are, ive seen exit 1c, 1b, 1a, exit 2, etc
as for 69E ive yet to travel there
and i believe I-169 is not signed up yet near brownsville on the TX state hwy 550 tollway
Quote from: kphoger on January 19, 2017, 11:24:30 AM
Quote from: JotheC11 on January 19, 2017, 09:05:09 AM
i live in mission tx. yes there are mile markers and mile exits, my exit is exit 139.
From mile 130 (from penitas tx) to i wanna say to mile 180 or 190-ish (Harlingen Tx) is the current full length.
being that mile marker starts at 130 from penitas, clearly soon I-2 will expand to Laredo, Tx it was intended to reach Laredo when the plans were drawn.
FTFY.
thanks for the correction, didnt know they were drawn.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 20, 2017, 02:01:34 PM
If current political attitudes and policies keep going on their current path, I agree it will take decades for these routes to be fully completed.
The United States hasn't been always been so deficient at building infrastructure. Much of the original Interstate highway system was built from the late 1950's through 1970's. The aggressive pace of construction back then makes today's pace of road building look laughably pathetic by comparison. Additionally much more direct, efficient routes were being built rather than the pointless, crooked crap we have with current routes in development, like I-69.
If the federal and state governments really want it bad enough they could build out routes like the I-69 variants and I-2 in far South Texas and complete it in a relatively short amount of time.
The rapid rate of population growth in South Texas might force the I-69 and I-2 corridors to be built out sooner than our conservative predictions.
The cities may not look that big but there are well over a million people in the valley, and that may be just counting the legals.
Quote from: JotheC11 on January 21, 2017, 09:13:39 AM
Quote from: kphoger on January 19, 2017, 11:24:30 AM
Quote from: JotheC11 on January 19, 2017, 09:05:09 AM
i live in mission tx. yes there are mile markers and mile exits, my exit is exit 139.
From mile 130 (from penitas tx) to i wanna say to mile 180 or 190-ish (Harlingen Tx) is the current full length.
being that mile marker starts at 130 from penitas, clearly soon I-2 will expand to Laredo, Tx it was intended to reach Laredo when the plans were drawn.
FTFY.
thanks for the correction, didnt know they were drawn.
I wasn't referring to actual design sheets. What I meant is that exit numbers in no way predict the fulfillment of the dream. They only describe the dream.
Quote from: kphoger on January 21, 2017, 03:28:43 PM
Quote from: JotheC11 on January 21, 2017, 09:13:39 AM
Quote from: kphoger on January 19, 2017, 11:24:30 AM
Quote from: JotheC11 on January 19, 2017, 09:05:09 AM
i live in mission tx. yes there are mile markers and mile exits, my exit is exit 139.
From mile 130 (from penitas tx) to i wanna say to mile 180 or 190-ish (Harlingen Tx) is the current full length.
being that mile marker starts at 130 from penitas, clearly soon I-2 will expand to Laredo, Tx it was intended to reach Laredo when the plans were drawn.
FTFY.
thanks for the correction, didnt know they were drawn.
I wasn't referring to actual design sheets. What I meant is that exit numbers in no way predict the fulfillment of the dream. They only describe the dream.
Exactly. Here in California, many state highways have mile markers that don't line up with the actual mileage of the route (such as CA-14 starting with a mile marker in the teens, reflecting the never-built extension to the ocean).
No exit numbers posted for I-69C's FM 162 & FM 490 interchanges?
Since it wasn't explicitly answered yet, I can confirm that I-69E's exit numbers are posted in the field.. at least between I-2 and northern end of that segment past exit 51. The Robstown segment does not have exit numbers.
Quote from: Grzrd on September 10, 2015, 05:41:49 PM
Quote from: NE2 on December 02, 2014, 12:04:31 PM
This could become part of I-2: http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2013/documents/minute_orders/0926/6.pdf
Here is a snip from the map accompanying the above Loop 195 Minute Order:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FkYCjuZm.png&hash=f8ab64a6f8ab0b9f92f427655f22b60c20cd769d)
This September 6 article (http://www.themonitor.com/news/local/starr-county-sets-sights-on-economic-boost-from-infrastructure/article_6913fb3c-536b-11e5-a4cf-3f8e53a9dc6f.html) reports that that approximately $13 million has been earmarked for improvements to FM 755, but that there is currently no funding for the estimated $159 million cost to build Loop 195
TxDOT recently held publlc meetings in Roma and Rio Grande City (http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/pharr/021617.html) about Loop 195. From the Notice of Public Meeting (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/phr/sl-195/021617-notice.pdf):
Quote
The proposed project will be constructed in three phases as traffic volumes increase and funding becomes available. This project involves constructing a four-lane divided rural highway with a grass median within a proposed right of way (ROW) width that varies between 300-450 feet ....
The proposed project would require approximately 700 acres of additional roadway ROW. It is anticipated that the proposed project would require one business and eleven residential relocations. Relocation assistance is available for those displaced through TxDOT's Relocation Assistance Program. The relocation process would be conducted according to the Title II and Title III of the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970. Information about the benefits, services and Right of Way Acquisition schedule can be obtained at the TxDOT District Office, located at 600 W. U.S. 83, Pharr Texas.
Quote from: Grzrd on February 22, 2017, 02:04:38 PM
TxDOT recently held publlc meetings in Roma and Rio Grande City (http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/pharr/021617.html) about Loop 195.
TxDOT has added the materials from the meeting. Here is a snip of the map of the Project Area from the Presentation (p. 6/18 of pdf) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/phr/sl-195/021617-presentation.pdf):
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_28_02_17_10_16_31.png)
Here is a Video conceptualization of the project:
It won't be I-2 upon completion of this project, but I suppose it could be upgraded in the future. Construction is projected to begin in 2021,
Quote from: Grzrd on February 28, 2017, 10:37:49 AM
It won't be I-2 upon completion of this project, but I suppose it could be upgraded in the future.
Judging from the configuration I'd say it looks more like future I-2 frontage roads than anything else (except the overpass at US 83, which would be usable for the interstate itself).
I was recently down in South Texas and managed to clinch all the signed portions of I-69E,C,W, and I-2 while I was there (at least as much as I could drive without going into Mexico). One question: there were almost no reassurance markers for I-2 along its entire length. Is this usual for urban freeways in Texas?
Quote from: halork on April 07, 2017, 03:18:09 AM
I was recently down in South Texas and managed to clinch all the signed portions of I-69E,C,W, and I-2 while I was there (at least as much as I could drive without going into Mexico). One question: there were almost no reassurance markers for I-2 along its entire length. Is this usual for urban freeways in Texas?
there is reassurance markers on every entrance ramps, frontage roads, and as well on overhead signs.
Quote from: JotheC11 on April 20, 2017, 10:48:30 AM
Quote from: halork on April 07, 2017, 03:18:09 AM
I was recently down in South Texas and managed to clinch all the signed portions of I-69E,C,W, and I-2 while I was there (at least as much as I could drive without going into Mexico). One question: there were almost no reassurance markers for I-2 along its entire length. Is this usual for urban freeways in Texas?
there is reassurance markers on every entrance ramps, frontage roads, and as well on overhead signs.
A reassurance marker is the marker posted on the mainline immediately after an interchange, to "reassure" you that you have successfully made it onto the mainline. By definition they cannot be on an entrance ramp or frontage road.
Quote from: JotheC11 on January 19, 2017, 09:05:09 AM
i live in mission tx. yes there are mile markers and mile exits, my exit is exit 139.
From mile 130 (from penitas tx) to i wanna say to mile 180 or 190-ish (Harlingen Tx) is the current full length.
being that mile marker starts at 130 from penitas, clearly soon I-2 will expand to Laredo, Tx
I-515 in Nevada uses US 95's mile markers, but a planned freeway to extend that down is never going to happen, but still Nevada use them. In fact with I-11 in the works they all will have to be renumbered to reflect it entering the state at the new bridge over the Colorado along US 93.
So that being said means that I-2 is not in concrete to go to Laredo even though it would be logical.
Quote from: roadman65 on April 20, 2017, 05:57:55 PM
Quote from: JotheC11 on January 19, 2017, 09:05:09 AM
i live in mission tx. yes there are mile markers and mile exits, my exit is exit 139.
From mile 130 (from penitas tx) to i wanna say to mile 180 or 190-ish (Harlingen Tx) is the current full length.
being that mile marker starts at 130 from penitas, clearly soon I-2 will expand to Laredo, Tx
I-515 in Nevada uses US 95's mile markers, but a planned freeway to extend that down is never going to happen, but still Nevada use them. In fact with I-11 in the works they all will have to be renumbered to reflect it entering the state at the new bridge over the Colorado along US 93.
So that being said means that I-2 is not in concrete to go to Laredo even though it would be logical.
Nevertheless, the new I-2-related mile markers specifically
do not reference the existing route, US 83 -- those would increase as US 83 continued north from its southern terminus. There would be no reason for TxDOT to deploy those markers unless there were plans, regardless of how long-term they were, to designate a specific corridor from Laredo (the zero-point of the calculated mileage) to Harlingen -- ostensibly I-2. Extrapolating from this, TxDOT is likely to, at some point, set forth plans for the full corridor. When that will occur -- or the time frame required to construct the corridor -- is, for the time being, anyone's guess!
Quote from: sparker on April 20, 2017, 07:39:24 PM
Nevertheless, the new I-2-related mile markers specifically do not reference the existing route, US 83 -- those would increase as US 83 continued north from its southern terminus. There would be no reason for TxDOT to deploy those markers unless there were plans, regardless of how long-term they were, to designate a specific corridor from Laredo (the zero-point of the calculated mileage) to Harlingen -- ostensibly I-2. Extrapolating from this, TxDOT is likely to, at some point, set forth plans for the full corridor. When that will occur -- or the time frame required to construct the corridor -- is, for the time being, anyone's guess!
You're forgetting FHWA rules - I-2 is an east-west route and not a loop, and so mile and exit numbering must start in the west, and since I-2 is expected to creep west in the future, the zero point needs to be somewhere west of the current terminus.
So it's possible I-2 could be designated starting in Laredo at some point (the US 83/I-35 interchange, however, is an extremely unlikely terminus). As a matter of future-proofing it's the longest logical extent it will ever have, so that makes sense as a zero point.
But as a practical matter, absent a large influx of federal funding and huge growth in the upper RGV, or a policy decision that a direct freeway link wholly within the CBP border zone is needed to facilitate trade, there's little likelihood it will ever extend past Roma.
Quote from: lordsutch on April 21, 2017, 12:04:22 AM
Quote from: sparker on April 20, 2017, 07:39:24 PM
Nevertheless, the new I-2-related mile markers specifically do not reference the existing route, US 83 -- those would increase as US 83 continued north from its southern terminus. There would be no reason for TxDOT to deploy those markers unless there were plans, regardless of how long-term they were, to designate a specific corridor from Laredo (the zero-point of the calculated mileage) to Harlingen -- ostensibly I-2. Extrapolating from this, TxDOT is likely to, at some point, set forth plans for the full corridor. When that will occur -- or the time frame required to construct the corridor -- is, for the time being, anyone's guess!
You're forgetting FHWA rules - I-2 is an east-west route and not a loop, and so mile and exit numbering must start in the west, and since I-2 is expected to creep west in the future, the zero point needs to be somewhere west of the current terminus.
So it's possible I-2 could be designated starting in Laredo at some point (the US 83/I-35 interchange, however, is an extremely unlikely terminus). As a matter of future-proofing it's the longest logical extent it will ever have, so that makes sense as a zero point.
But as a practical matter, absent a large influx of federal funding and huge growth in the upper RGV, or a policy decision that a direct freeway link wholly within the CBP border zone is needed to facilitate trade, there's little likelihood it will ever extend past Roma.
I'm fully familiar with the rules -- just making the point that there's little chance that the mileposts refer to anything else but a
projected I-2 corridor with its west terminus in or around Laredo -- and since it will utilize or closely parallel US 83 for most if not all of its length, mileposts that increase NW to SE (the actual basic alignment of the corridor) will in fact refer to an E-W route with I-2 the logical candidate. And since this
is Texas, where pure political will often has its way, there's a decent chance that the route will indeed be fully developed -- likely in the longer term. That being said, I'm not holding my breath!
I think an I-2 extension to Laredo is indeed a very possible and justifiable thing. Just look at the population numbers in far South Texas. The Rio Grande Valley MSA, which includes Brownsville, McAllen, Harlingen, Mission, Edinburgh, Pharr, Weslaco, Rio Grande City and Hidalgo has over 1.3 million people. South Padre Island is growing in popularity as a tourist destination.
236,000 people live within Laredo's city limits, which is very close to the 249,000 population level of Lubbock -and that city was apparently big enough to warrant I-27 being built from Amarillo. Laredo is an important border crossing for US/Mexican commerce.
There are other border communities growing along the US-83 corridor South of Laredo, like Zapata, Roma, Escobares, etc. Regardless of what happens with I-2, the US-83 highway will have to be improved more and more as population grows in that region.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on April 21, 2017, 11:21:50 AM
I think an I-2 extension to Laredo is indeed a very possible and justifiable thing. Just look at the population numbers in far South Texas. The Rio Grande Valley MSA, which includes Brownsville, McAllen, Harlingen, Mission, Edinburgh, Pharr, Weslaco, Rio Grande City and Hidalgo has over 1.3 million people. South Padre Island is growing in popularity as a tourist destination.
236,000 people live within Laredo's city limits, which is very close to the 249,000 population level of Lubbock -and that city was apparently big enough to warrant I-27 being built from Amarillo. Laredo is an important border crossing for US/Mexican commerce.
There are other border communities growing along the US-83 corridor South of Laredo, like Zapata, Roma, Escobares, etc. Regardless of what happens with I-2, the US-83 highway will have to be improved more and more as population grows in that region.
Fully concur. Given past TX practice, what I'd expect would be a step-by-step continuation of the freeway NW from Mission (frontage roads first, freeway lanes later) with a similar progression SE from the western end (presuming it'll be along the Laredo loop and likely tie in to I-69W), at first to serve the growing Laredo 'burbs but later marching right down US 83. Likely the last part to be completed will be a bridge over the reservoir SE of Zapata -- that might even be the "golden spike", so to speak, of I-2.
I agree with everything except the mention of Laredo as an important border crossing for commerce. Of course the statement itself is absolutely true, and nothing east of El Paso even comes close in that respect, but I have to wonder how much of that commercial traffic really has a destination that would be served by I-2. Certainly the vast majority of it is headed towards/form San Antonio via I-35, and what little is headed towards/from the Valley would surely cross at Pharr instead.
Quote from: sparkerFully concur. Given past TX practice, what I'd expect would be a step-by-step continuation of the freeway NW from Mission (frontage roads first, freeway lanes later) with a similar progression SE from the western end (presuming it'll be along the Laredo loop and likely tie in to I-69W), at first to serve the growing Laredo 'burbs but later marching right down US 83. Likely the last part to be completed will be a bridge over the reservoir SE of Zapata -- that might even be the "golden spike", so to speak, of I-2.
Hopefully TX DOT will do what it can to protect the segments of US-83 that can be upgraded to Interstate 2. It's really as simple as requiring certain set-back distances from the highway for new properties built along the rural areas of the road.
It would be a really tight squeeze, but existing US-83 probably could be upgraded to I-2 from Sullivan City (the West end of the La Joya relief route) to La Puerta. Some properties might have to be consumed for exit ramps and utility relocation.
A new terrain bypass rougly 20 miles long would be needed to get around Las Lomas, Rio Grande City, Los Alverez, Escobares, Roma and Roma Creek. US-83 is 4-laned but undivided, narrow and encroached with development through much of that stretch.
Edit: the planned Texas Loop 195 would address much of this issue, but its proposed Eastern end terminates at FM 755 in Rio Grande City rather than going farther east to merge back into existing US-83 East of La Puerta. Perhaps that is to tie into a possible new terrain bypass of La Puerta to Sullivan City and tie into the La Joya relief route rather than dovetail back into US-83.Existing US-83 could be converted to I-2 between Roma Creek to the edge of Siesta Shores and Falcon Lake Estates. A new US-83 bridge is being built over the river separating Zapata and Falcon Lake Estates. But US-83 on either side has way too much property build on top of it to widen into a freeway. A bypass about 10 miles long to the Northeast of US-83 would be necessary.
A 3 mile segment of US-83 between Ramireño and San Ygnacio is 4-laned with a large median. San Ygnacio would probably have to be bypassed just to the East.
The rest of US-83 up to Laredo would be relatively easy to upgrade. US-83 in Rio Bravo has a short freeway segment. The Bob Bullock loop around Laredo looks like it will eventually be expanded to just North of Rio Bravo.
The problem with I-2/Us-83 , especially for commercial truck traffic involves a few pitfalls: 1)illegal foot traffic crossing the highway at night being hit; 2)the time consuming trip through the Roma-Rio Grande City area; and 3)the slower nature of much of the route in general... I used to travel between Laredo and The Valley quite often between loads... I, like many others would use Tx-359, Tx-16, (Hebbornville) Tx-285, Fm-1017, and Us-281 instead... The back roads are about ten miles longer, but thirty minutes to an hour faster; and the illegal pedestrian traffic was not an issue... This means that the traffic counts are off due to traffic using alternate routes... As I-2 is completed, traffic will shift over to it... Tx-20 will likely end up carrying I-2 in Webb county because it is slowly being upgraded to interstate standards, and the new Cuatro Vientos Blvd extension is the service roads of a future freeway...
Quote from: TZ138 on February 25, 2018, 04:23:05 PM
The problem with I-2/Us-83 , especially for commercial truck traffic involves a few pitfalls: 1)illegal foot traffic crossing the highway at night being hit; 2)the time consuming trip through the Roma-Rio Grande City area; and 3)the slower nature of much of the route in general... I used to travel between Laredo and The Valley quite often between loads... I, like many others would use Tx-359, Tx-16, (Hebbornville) Tx-285, Fm-1017, and Us-281 instead... The back roads are about ten miles longer, but thirty minutes to an hour faster; and the illegal pedestrian traffic was not an issue... This means that the traffic counts are off due to traffic using alternate routes... As I-2 is completed, traffic will shift over to it... Tx-20 will likely end up carrying I-2 in Webb county because it is slowly being upgraded to interstate standards, and the new Cuatro Vientos Blvd extension is the service roads of a future freeway...
As far as interaction between illegal immigrants from across the river and a potential I-2 is concerned, it would seem that the present US 83 would pose more of an issue, as it isn't fenced off from the adjacent property as an Interstate facility would be. The only exception would be if it were constructed in the Texas fashion where there are frontage roads with sizeable fence breaks for ramp access;
that could pose a problem if such ramps are closely spaced. But if there's little need for frontage facilities along that route, then a reasonably tall fence might discourage foot traffic from actually crossing the freeway and utilizing over/underpasses instead (Trump's ICE might want to electrify said fences -- not a particularly useful idea along an Interstate!).
Interstate highway property is rarely fenced off to prevent pedestrians from crossing the roadway. Even when high fencing is installed it often still doesn't work as intended.
Here in Lawton ODOT just installed some high chain link fencing on I-44 between the Gore Blvd and Lee Blvd exits. That stretch of road has been the scene of numerous pedestrian fatalities. People on foot coming from Lawton's South side cut through the industrial area and jay-walk across I-44 as a short cut to reach Comanche Nation Casino or Apache Casino farther East. Despite the additional fencing I still see people jay-walking across the Interstate. They're either climbing over the fence or crawling under at street drainage points. Pedestrian access at the Gore Blvd and Lee Blvd crossings of I-44 is non-existent. There were plans to add a sidewalk to one of the Gore Blvd bridges over I-44, but those plans are in limbo indefinitely. ODOT wants the City of Lawton to pay most of the cost, even though that exit is ODOT property.
Anyway, the I-2/US-83 corridor should be upgraded between Laredo and La Joya based on the population growth in that region and growing traffic needs of that corridor. If we're too worried about jay-walking pedestrians (in this case, illegal migrants) we won't be able to build highways in many places. I think fencing along that highway would mostly be a waste of money. Migrants, particularly ones traveling in groups, often have some tools handy for cutting holes in fences. Lighting is probably a better solution for zones that are prone to pedestrians entering the ROW.
When is the wall planned to be built in the area?
There is no telling. As slow as the US moves on any infrastructure projects chances are between slim and none a new border wall gets built along the Rio Grande River. Political administrations come and go. Sometimes projects one administration championed will be axed by the next one.
Logistically speaking, it's going to be really difficult to build a border wall along the Rio Grande. It might be feasible in the far South Texas area where much of the land is flat. But the farther North you go the terrain gets ever more difficult. There are hundreds of little gullies, creeks, etc that feed into the Rio Grande -all things the wall would have to span. Significant portions of the river & border are within a canyon. Can't build a wall in that. The wall would have to be built farther inland from the river. That would literally cede American territory over to Mexico. We're talking anywhere from dozens of yards back from the river in one place to possibly a number of miles in other places. Quite a few American citizen property owners face having land they own along the border taken under eminent domain. The situation could turn into a very nasty political fight. And all for what? There's no proof at all such a wall would even work. Most illegals enter at legal points of entry and simply over-stay their visas. Currently it's estimated more migrants are actually going back South of the border than those crossing into the US.
Quote from: Avalanchez71 on February 26, 2018, 03:47:00 PM
When is the wall planned to be built in the area?
As soon as Trump resigns.
Seems to me they should probably build a moat instead of a wall, what with people tunneling underneath the border to cross illegally.
Let's get back on topic about I-2 and leave political differences about the 'wall' out of this thread, as it's not directly attached to any future I-2 construction.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on February 26, 2018, 03:46:40 PM
Interstate highway property is rarely fenced off to prevent pedestrians from crossing the roadway. Even when high fencing is installed it often still doesn't work as intended.
Fencing off freeways -- unless topologically impractical -- is standard practice here in CA, even in rural areas. Some fences are no more than 4'-5' high (most along CA 99 and I-5 in the Valley fit in that category); most fence installations markedly higher are in urban areas. In farm or desert country, it's more to keep larger animals out of the ROW than anything else (although in practice that doesn't always work) as well as delineate the limits of Caltrans maintenance.
It's one thing to build fences to prevent cattle from roaming off of an owner's property. It's easy for a person to climb over (or through) a basic barbed wire fence. Those types of fences are common along the highways in Oklahoma. But there is plenty of agricultural property adjacent to highways with no fencing at all.
I think the money ODOT spent on the fencing recently installed along I-44 here is pretty much a waste of money. It's not doing a good job of deterring pedestrians from crossing the Interstate on foot. This is tall chain link fencing too. It looks like it's at least 10' to 12' tall.
Actually saw someone cross the Northway (I-87) on foot behind the NYSDOT Main Office a few years ago. I believe there were still vestiges of fencing back there then. Can't see much, if any, currently.
So, you build a fence that doesn't keep people out and then don't maintain it and then it doesn't keep anything out, Man or beast.
Quote from: Rothman on February 27, 2018, 12:52:27 PM
So, you build a fence that doesn't keep people out and then don't maintain it and then it doesn't keep anything out, Man or beast.
That would accurately describe the fencing on much of the CA freeway mileage in the mountains and out in the desert -- considering the number of jackrabbit and coyote carcasses I've personally seen on CA 58 alone (no one has ever figured out how to keep those species fenced out). About the only animals the fences manage to keep out of the roads on a regular basis are domesticated types who see no need to venture outside of their food supply.
And plenty of ATV's riding alongside the ROW on I-81 south of Wilkes-Barre. And when I was accessing a very old rail tunnel, the easiest method to it was dropping off of I-81's northbound shoulder and squeezing through a very large gap in the ROW fencing to an off-road trail.
I came across this news article while browsing for any news of a possible I-2 extension. I realize its a year old, but it talks about planning a new corridor between Roma, Texas and South Padre Island. Could the corridor being mentioned in the article become a western extension of I-2? Given that the article hints at the section heading west to Roma would parallel and relieve the US 83 corridor and that I-2 has taken over the US 83 freeway from Pharr to Brownsville?
https://riograndeguardian.com/txdot-working-on-a-new-corridor-from-roma-to-a-2nd-causeway-at-spi/
TXDOT working on a new corridor from Roma to a 2nd Causeway at SPI
WESLACO, RGV — The Texas Department of Transportation is working on a plan to create a new east-west corridor in the northern part of the Rio Grande Valley that would connect Roma to a second causeway at South Padre Island.
TxDOT's Pharr District Engineer Pedro "Pete" Alvarez said the corridor will be needed because the Valley is expected to add one million more people over the next 25 years, growing from 1.4 million to 2.4 million by 2040.
...
"If we look at it as a phased approach we need to connect Hidalgo County to Cameron County and South Padre Island first. The other parts of the project would come in future years. The congestion that is being experienced in Roma, Escobares and Rio Grande City is because U.S. 83 is handling over 40,000 vehicles a day on a five-lane roadway. That roadway cannot handle that much traffic, that is why there is congestion. The important thing is to provide a relief route for commuters who are going from the Valley to, say, Laredo, along the U.S. 83 corridor."
I've heard nothing in regards to what condition or designation this second South Padre Island connection would be. So far, it's just been that a second way of accessing/departing South Padre is very much needed, not only for hurricane evacuations, but that the Queen Isabella Causeway was already compromised once and took a bit of time to get repaired. I'd be pleasantly surprised if I-2 were built further east and end up being the second way in/out for South Padre.
Quote from: TZ138 on February 25, 2018, 04:23:05 PM
The problem with I-2/Us-83 , especially for commercial truck traffic involves a few pitfalls: 1)illegal foot traffic crossing the highway at night being hit; 2)the time consuming trip through the Roma-Rio Grande City area; and 3)the slower nature of much of the route in general... I used to travel between Laredo and The Valley quite often between loads... I, like many others would use Tx-359, Tx-16, (Hebbornville) Tx-285, Fm-1017, and Us-281 instead... The back roads are about ten miles longer, but thirty minutes to an hour faster; and the illegal pedestrian traffic was not an issue... This means that the traffic counts are off due to traffic using alternate routes... As I-2 is completed, traffic will shift over to it... Tx-20 will likely end up carrying I-2 in Webb county because it is slowly being upgraded to interstate standards, and the new Cuatro Vientos Blvd extension is the service roads of a future freeway...
There's nothing illegal about walking along a rural highway.
Quote from: 707I came across this news article while browsing for any news of a possible I-2 extension. I realize its a year old, but it talks about planning a new corridor between Roma, Texas and South Padre Island. Could the corridor being mentioned in the article become a western extension of I-2? Given that the article hints at the section heading west to Roma would parallel and relieve the US 83 corridor and that I-2 has taken over the US 83 freeway from Pharr to Brownsville?
There are various plans to build a new loop highway and other freeway links in the area around McAllen, Pharr and other built-up areas leading to Harlingen. There is also plans for a north link into South Padre Island (which would involve building a new causeway). But Roma is a little far West to attach directly into that.
More likely Western extension of I-2 itself would be built as a bypass just to the North of Roma, Escobares and other communitues along US-83, such as Rio Grande City.
US-83 between La Puerta and Sullivan City has a wide enough ROW for I-2 to be built up in the median.
The next part of I-2 will be the La Joya Relief Route, currently in the planning stage.
I see. Thanks for the insight. Honestly, I hope they actually do something with I-2 rather tgan keep it a glorified 3DI like I-97. Though I guess by that logic, one could say I-4 deserves a 3DI number over its current one too. Neither I-4 or I-2 are very long.
Quote from: 707 on July 31, 2018, 03:04:45 AM
Though I guess by that logic, one could say I-4 deserves a 3DI number over its current one too. Neither I-4 or I-2 are very long.
But then again, with I-4, it can't be extended any farther unlike I-2 or I-97 (well, unless you wanted to figure out a way to extend I-4 to US-1 from I-95).
I have no problem with the designation of I-4 along its corridor. That highway directly serves major population centers (Tampa, Orlando) and gives them direct access to the I-95 corridor. At 132 miles it's longer than I-12 in Louisiana (86 miles) or I-86 in Idaho (62 miles).
I-97 in the Baltimore area is much harder to justify. Why even sign that while leaving I-595 unsigned? It's a real head-scratcher. I could understand the I-97 designation more if it went from Baltimore down to the Virginia Beach area somehow. In its present form it should just be a 3-digit Interstate.
I-2 at least has the potential of being extended up to Laredo. Such an extension would give the highway length comparable to I-4. I-2 is serving a pretty large population center too.
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on July 31, 2018, 07:35:39 AM
Quote from: 707 on July 31, 2018, 03:04:45 AM
Though I guess by that logic, one could say I-4 deserves a 3DI number over its current one too. Neither I-4 or I-2 are very long.
But then again, with I-4, it can't be extended any farther unlike I-2 or I-97 (well, unless you wanted to figure out a way to extend I-4 to US-1 from I-95).
Aside from length, I-4 connects two legitimately major two-digit Interstates. If I-2 did that, or I-14 or I-97, I think the one or two digit designations would be more warranted.
I-2 connects a major 2di (or what presumably will be one someday) to itself. And, if it gets extended to Laredo, twice.
Quote from: vdeane on July 31, 2018, 07:58:03 PM
I-2 connects a major 2di (or what presumably will be one someday) to itself. And, if it gets extended to Laredo, twice.
Right now it's part of a disconnected Interstate system, but even if it were connected to the north I wouldn't consider the suffixed routes to be separate Interstates for connectivity purposes, since they converge into a single one. Similarly, I-20, I-30, and I-94 connecting to I-35s E and W constitute a connection to a single Interstate, I-35, in my reckoning. If I-2 were extended to I-35 that would be what I'd consider connections to two major Interstates. If it doesn't, it should probably be an x69 because of its lack of either length or inter-Interstate connectivity.
The exit numbers along I-2 imply the ultimate goal would be eventual extension to Laredo. Aside from that, where else in the United States would one even be able to build an Interstate 2? The far South end of Texas is the only place that makes any sense. Adding to that (getting into fictional territory), a Laredo to Corpus Christi route is the only path I could see for "I-6." If not for the I-69 stuff in South Texas, a Houston-Corpus-Laredo route (which I-69 & I-69W are set to follow) probably should have been the path for I-6.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 01, 2018, 01:12:15 AM
The exit numbers along I-2 imply the ultimate goal would be eventual extension to Laredo. Aside from that, where else in the United States would one even be able to build an Interstate 2? The far South end of Texas is the only place that makes any sense.
Well, I-75's Alligator Alley segment would have been the only other place I-2 could have worked.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 01, 2018, 01:12:15 AM
The exit numbers along I-2 imply the ultimate goal would be eventual extension to Laredo. Aside from that, where else in the United States would one even be able to build an Interstate 2? The far South end of Texas is the only place that makes any sense. Adding to that (getting into fictional territory), a Laredo to Corpus Christi route is the only path I could see for "I-6." If not for the I-69 stuff in South Texas, a Houston-Corpus-Laredo route (which I-69 & I-69W are set to follow) probably should have been the path for I-6.
Why not just extend 35 instead of calling it 2?
Quote from: texaskdog on August 01, 2018, 08:30:38 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 01, 2018, 01:12:15 AM
The exit numbers along I-2 imply the ultimate goal would be eventual extension to Laredo. Aside from that, where else in the United States would one even be able to build an Interstate 2? The far South end of Texas is the only place that makes any sense. Adding to that (getting into fictional territory), a Laredo to Corpus Christi route is the only path I could see for "I-6." If not for the I-69 stuff in South Texas, a Houston-Corpus-Laredo route (which I-69 & I-69W are set to follow) probably should have been the path for I-6.
Why not just extend 35 instead of calling it 2?
If it was an extension of I-35, then I-35 would currently have a gap.
Quote from: wxfree on July 31, 2018, 10:02:09 PM
Quote from: vdeane on July 31, 2018, 07:58:03 PM
I-2 connects a major 2di (or what presumably will be one someday) to itself. And, if it gets extended to Laredo, twice.
Right now it's part of a disconnected Interstate system, but even if it were connected to the north I wouldn't consider the suffixed routes to be separate Interstates for connectivity purposes, since they converge into a single one. Similarly, I-20, I-30, and I-94 connecting to I-35s E and W constitute a connection to a single Interstate, I-35, in my reckoning. If I-2 were extended to I-35 that would be what I'd consider connections to two major Interstates. If it doesn't, it should probably be an x69 because of its lack of either length or inter-Interstate connectivity.
That's why I said I-2 connects a major 2di
TO ITSELF.
I wish TXDOT could give us proposed plans related to I-2's future, which would hopefully confirm the high exit numbers meaning eventual plan to extend west to Laredo. I always assumed the exit numbers were based on the the mileage of US 83. Though US 83 being a "north south" route like 77 or I-69, the exit number on I-2's east terminus at I-69E would be a low number reflecting US 83's proximity to the border gate in Brownsville instead of a high one with the numbers decreasing westward if I-2's exits reflected US 83's mileage right?
VS988
Quote from: 707 on August 03, 2018, 12:13:10 AM
I wish TXDOT could give us proposed plans related to I-2's future, which would hopefully confirm the high exit numbers meaning eventual plan to extend west to Laredo. I always assumed the exit numbers were based on the the mileage of US 83. Though US 83 being a "north south" route like 77 or I-69, the exit number on I-2's east terminus at I-69E would be a low number reflecting US 83's proximity to the border gate in Brownsville instead of a high one with the numbers decreasing westward if I-2's exits reflected US 83's mileage right?
VS988
It appears I-2's exit numbering system is predicated on the route's eventual/projected end at I-69W in the outskirts of Laredo. Like most even-numbered Interstates, its mileposts and exits start at that western end and proceed eastward (although in this case there's a pronounced southward bias to the corridor), with the highest number being at the eastern Harlingen-area terminus at I-69E.
Quote from: 1 on August 01, 2018, 08:41:35 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on August 01, 2018, 08:30:38 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 01, 2018, 01:12:15 AM
The exit numbers along I-2 imply the ultimate goal would be eventual extension to Laredo. Aside from that, where else in the United States would one even be able to build an Interstate 2? The far South end of Texas is the only place that makes any sense. Adding to that (getting into fictional territory), a Laredo to Corpus Christi route is the only path I could see for "I-6." If not for the I-69 stuff in South Texas, a Houston-Corpus-Laredo route (which I-69 & I-69W are set to follow) probably should have been the path for I-6.
Why not just extend 35 instead of calling it 2?
If it was an extension of I-35, then I-35 would currently have a gap.
The whole system started with gaps
Quote from: texaskdog on August 03, 2018, 10:47:29 AM
Quote from: 1 on August 01, 2018, 08:41:35 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on August 01, 2018, 08:30:38 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 01, 2018, 01:12:15 AM
The exit numbers along I-2 imply the ultimate goal would be eventual extension to Laredo. Aside from that, where else in the United States would one even be able to build an Interstate 2? The far South end of Texas is the only place that makes any sense. Adding to that (getting into fictional territory), a Laredo to Corpus Christi route is the only path I could see for "I-6." If not for the I-69 stuff in South Texas, a Houston-Corpus-Laredo route (which I-69 & I-69W are set to follow) probably should have been the path for I-6.
Why not just extend 35 instead of calling it 2?
If it was an extension of I-35, then I-35 would currently have a gap.
The whole system started with gaps
The Interstate system has some extensions that "hooked" around in another direction: the east end (past Raleigh) of I-40, the north end (past Lansing) of I-69, the south end of I-75 (although given FL's shape and where its metro areas are located, that probably couldn't have been helped). No need to add any more via an I-35 extension down to Harlingen; I-2 will do just fine for that purpose.
Does anyone see Interstate 2 being extended further west towards Laredo any time soon?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 03, 2018, 05:52:06 PM
Does anyone see Interstate 2 being extended further west towards Laredo any time soon?
In bits and pieces, yes; apparently there are some plans for town bypasses (Roma comes to mind) in the works as well as a short extension just west of the present western terminus ("filling in" the freeway between frontages, TX-style!). Suppose it all depends upon what is considered "anytime soon" -- a guesstimate as to full corridor completion would be the early-mid 2030's.
Far South Texas is continuing to add population at a brisk growth rate. I think the tourism industry (South Padre Island) is growing; it's a good alternative to the usual Florida destinations for spring breakers. It's only a matter of time for I-2 to be slowly extended farther West. It may take at least a decade for it to get to the Roma area. Population growth could force the issue. It will be interesting to see if I-2 gets signed along Loop 20 in Laredo any time soon. Once that freeway is completed down to US-83 it would be relatively easy to extend the freeway farther South.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 03, 2018, 05:52:06 PM
Does anyone see Interstate 2 being extended further west towards Laredo any time soon?
As far as bypassing Roma, yes. Beyond there? No. There is not nearly enough traffic on US 83 between Laredo and Roma for a freeway to be anywhere close to necessary.
I don't see that changing as much as you might think as the Valley region grows either... the fastest route to that area from just about anywhere else in the US involves US 281/I-69C or US 77/I-69E. US 83 is only the logical approach if you are coming from Laredo or some other smaller community along or relatively near the Rio Grande (Eagle Pass, Del Rio, etc.)
The other thing to keep in mind here is you don't need to improve things to interstate standards to keep traffic moving. Much of US 83 between Laredo and Roma is already posted at 70 MPH. If there is a traffic need it would be more cost effective to just twin US 83 into a four-lane expressway (which Texas will have no qualms posting at 70-75) between Laredo and Roma with a bypass of Zapata. No real need for a full freeway when cross roads and driveways are few and far between.
the interstate system is not only based on where you need a freeway, or there wouldn't be that many in the western states
Quote from: Duke 87As far as bypassing Roma, yes. Beyond there? No. There is not nearly enough traffic on US 83 between Laredo and Roma for a freeway to be anywhere close to necessary.
Far more people live along the US-83 corridor from Laredo down to the end of I-2 in Harlingen than live along the existing I-27 corridor from Amarillo down to Lubbock. Laredo has a slightly higher city limits population than Lubbock (2010 Census figures have it 244,731 vs 229,573). The McAllen-Edinburg-Mission MSA is 774,760 as of the 2010 Census. That's more than the combined metro populations of both Amarillo and Lubbock. And that doesn't count the Brownsville-Harlingen MSA. West of Mission there's all these other towns (La Joya, Sullivan City, Alto Bonito, Garciasville, La Casita, La Puerta, Las Lomas) leading to Rio Grande City. Several more towns are between Rio Grande City and Roma.
Zapata is the only town of significant size between Roma and Laredo. But that section of US-83 isn't as desolate US-281 between Edinburgh and Alice or US-77 between Raymondville and Kingsville. There is definitely enough people living in that Rio Grande region to justify a freeway corridor. I think the only real knock against it is income demographics. There's a lot of people in far South Texas living below the poverty line.
You are only looking at 3,300 VPD west of Roma at its most desolate, and around 5,000 VPD in most other areas. There isn't justification to spend money to build a freeway when, at most, a two-lane facility built on a four-lane ROW would suffice.
Quote from: seicer on August 21, 2018, 01:59:57 PM
You are only looking at 3,300 VPD west of Roma at its most desolate, and around 5,000 VPD in most other areas. There isn't justification to spend money to build a freeway when, at most, a two-lane facility built on a four-lane ROW would suffice.
Which isn't the usual TX process. Frontage roads will be built first, with at-grade intersections and enough space in between the directions to put 6 lanes of freeway (although here it's almost certain they'd start with 4). This will preserve the ROW so that the full I-2 can be constructed down the line as TXDOT and the local MPO see fit. It's likely that the only actual freeway segment west of the existing west I-2 terminus for quite some time will be the future Roma bypass.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 06, 2018, 03:36:18 PM
Quote from: Duke 87As far as bypassing Roma, yes. Beyond there? No. There is not nearly enough traffic on US 83 between Laredo and Roma for a freeway to be anywhere close to necessary.
Far more people live along the US-83 corridor from Laredo down to the end of I-2 in Harlingen than live along the existing I-27 corridor from Amarillo down to Lubbock.
It's not about population, it's about travel demand. As seicer points out you are looking at 3000-5000 AADT along that stretch of US 83, which is fine for a rural 2-lane road.
I would also argue that the rural parts of I-27 (AADT 11-12k) would be fine as 4-lane expressway not fully grade-separated, but federal funding was earmarked to build it to interstate standards and so it was. Even still, that road is overbuilt as an interstate and now we're talking about giving similar treatment to a road with less than half the traffic count.
Quote from: Duke87It's not about population, it's about travel demand. As seicer points out you are looking at 3000-5000 AADT along that stretch of US 83, which is fine for a rural 2-lane road.
The existing US-83 facility isn't good enough to attract additional demand. Many other parts of the US highway system were in the same position prior to Interstates being built. A properly improved corridor would make a difference for moving local traffic as well as longer distance port and tourism traffic. US-83 is currently more of a corridor to be avoided by long distance traffic reaching the Rio Grande Valley cities.
US-83 is along the larger Ports to Plains Corridor. As that corridor continues to be improved it will attract more long distance traffic. It could generate a lot of traffic from urban centers like Denver. Of course Colorado has its own odd road deficiencies, which makes something like an extension of I-27 into Colorado a long shot, especially if it was left up to Colorado to fund all of it. There's currently all kinds of hub-bub going on about the plan to add a single toll lane in each direction of I-25 between Colorado Springs and Denver, which would make for a rather puny upgrade to just 3 lanes in each direction. Such an "upgrade" would hardly generate any headlines in Texas.
TX DOT has to start planning something. They won't be able to build an extension of I-2 through those parts of far South Texas
after daily vehicle counts reach typical Interstate levels. There won't be any place to build the road.
Quote from: sparkerWhich isn't the usual TX process. Frontage roads will be built first, with at-grade intersections and enough space in between the directions to put 6 lanes of freeway (although here it's almost certain they'd start with 4). This will preserve the ROW so that the full I-2 can be constructed down the line as TXDOT and the local MPO see fit. It's likely that the only actual freeway segment west of the existing west I-2 terminus for quite some time will be the future Roma bypass.
TX DOT can take a number of approaches, which they have done elsewhere in the state. The method of building frontage roads with a huge freeway size median works in some places. Frontage roads themselves cost a good bit of money to build and maintain. In other places they can do something as modest as build a new Super-2 road with or without grade separations/exits -kind of like US-82 between Sherman and Paris, TX. The road would have wide enough property set backs so the rest of the freeway can be built later as needed. The first little bits of the Colin County Outer Loop just North of McKinney does a similar thing. It's just a 2 lane road with freeway sized ROW secured off to one side.
At the very least TX DOT needs to work at securing ROW for Future I-2 between Laredo and La Joya, be it frontage roads or an upgrade-able Super-2.
That system of frontage roads isn't universal in Texas. There are plenty of rural routes built to contemporary standards. I suspect that with the rugged terrain that US 83 has to go through, you'd have some farm/ranch roads intersecting it in lieu of full interchanges. Which makes it more dubious for the need for a full freeway when you can post 70 MPH speed limits on expressways. And 65 MPH speed limits on two-lane routes.
Quote from: seicer on August 22, 2018, 09:07:46 PM
That system of frontage roads isn't universal in Texas. There are plenty of rural routes built to contemporary standards. I suspect that with the rugged terrain that US 83 has to go through, you'd have some farm/ranch roads intersecting it in lieu of full interchanges. Which makes it more dubious for the need for a full freeway when you can post 70 MPH speed limits on expressways. And 65 MPH speed limits on two-lane routes.
It was mentioned in another thread that TXDOT is planning on eliminating the cross-traffic on I-10 in the Sierra Blanca area via consolidation into a few bridges and ramps for each affected area -- although the I-40 at-grade crossings in the Panhandle will seemingly remain untouched for the present. If and when it is decided to actually extend I-2 NW to Laredo, there's the distinct possibility that any private access such as this could be simply handled like I-40 well to the north -- with clearly marked private access points. Or they could elect to choose the path they're planning to take with I-69E on King Ranch property -- a partially separated lane accessing ranch roads with ample deceleration and acceleration zones. But since I-2 will probably not see full development for at least 20 years; TXDOT will have time to evaluate how well the King Ranch approach works prior to any projects along that corridor.
In the near term TX DOT has to get to work on preserving and/or building the I-2 corridor farther West to at least Roma. Existing US-83 between Sullivan City and La Puerta would not be difficult to upgrade. There is enough ROW there for a freeway upgrade. Bypasses will have to be built in other places. The La Joya bypass is already in the works. They've gotta work on other segments to make sure they don't get cut off and swallowed by development.
US-83 is just a 2-lane route between Roma and the Zapata-Falcon Lake area. Zapata to Laredo is the most desolate part of the route. It's not going to be nearly as difficult to do an upgrade on this route similar to the upgrade program TX DOT did on US-277 between Abilene and Wichita Falls.
Quote from: sparker on August 03, 2018, 01:04:06 PM
Quote from: texaskdog on August 03, 2018, 10:47:29 AM
Quote from: 1 on August 01, 2018, 08:41:35 AM
Quote from: texaskdog on August 01, 2018, 08:30:38 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 01, 2018, 01:12:15 AM
The exit numbers along I-2 imply the ultimate goal would be eventual extension to Laredo. Aside from that, where else in the United States would one even be able to build an Interstate 2? The far South end of Texas is the only place that makes any sense. Adding to that (getting into fictional territory), a Laredo to Corpus Christi route is the only path I could see for "I-6." If not for the I-69 stuff in South Texas, a Houston-Corpus-Laredo route (which I-69 & I-69W are set to follow) probably should have been the path for I-6.
Why not just extend 35 instead of calling it 2?
If it was an extension of I-35, then I-35 would currently have a gap.
The whole system started with gaps
The Interstate system has some extensions that "hooked" around in another direction: the east end (past Raleigh) of I-40, the north end (past Lansing) of I-69, the south end of I-75 (although given FL's shape and where its metro areas are located, that probably couldn't have been helped). No need to add any more via an I-35 extension down to Harlingen; I-2 will do just fine for that purpose.
it'll keep heading south
this sucks
Quote from: 707 on July 29, 2018, 06:07:07 AM
I-2
According to Google Maps, the quickest route from Laredo to Brownsville is TX 359 to TX 285 to US 77 to I-69E. There are two alternate routes shown: One follows US 83/I-2 all the way, and the other shows TX 359 to FM 1017 to US 281 to I-69C to I-2 to I-69E.
In my trips from Laredo down to McAllen, using TX 359 to Hebbronville was definitely the way to go rather than US 83; from there, I tried FM 1017 and TX 285 and both ways took about the same time, although northbound I'd imagine the FM 1017 checkpoint is unlikely to be backed up while the one on US 281 south of Falfurrias gets a lot more traffic, being on the main route to San Antonio and points north. Then again, if I had an unreliable car I'd probably want to be use 281 and 285; 1017 is pretty desolate south of Hebbronville until you get to FM 2686 (I don't remember seeing anyone coming the opposite direction for miles at a time). I never tried any of the options using FM 649.
The one time I used US 83 it was over an hour slower, although north of Roma it's not terrible (Zapata is the only town of much note between there and Laredo); the only reason to go that way if you're headed anywhere east of Roma would be to avoid la migra, or if you just want to spend more time near civilization. It's also a little more scenic although much of its alignment is well away from the river.
I can't believe the SPR-100 corridor has not had any serious consideration as an I-2 eastern extension, since it would provide a great hurricane evacuation route for Port Isabel and South Padre Island.
What is the SPR-100 corridor? How does it pertain to a potential Interstate 2 eastern extension? At any rate, I doubt Interstate 2 will be extended further east than it already does.
State Park Road 100 is a corridor that could be Interstate 2 if Interstate 2 were to continue east. If they ever extend Interstate 2 east, there is not much distance between its current east terminus and The Gulf Of Mexico.
At the same time, TX DOT might think Interstate 2 is close enough to The Gulf Of Mexico all ready.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 16, 2019, 03:08:39 PM
I can't believe the SPR-100 corridor has not had any serious consideration as an I-2 eastern extension, since it would provide a great hurricane evacuation route for Port Isabel and South Padre Island.
Has hurricane evacuation ever been the reason for constructing an Interstate?
Quote from: In_Correct on July 16, 2019, 05:21:52 PM
TX DOT might think Interstate 2 is close enough to The Gulf Of Mexico all ready.
I don't imagine TxDOT cares very much how far or close I-2 is to the Gulf of Mexico.
Quote from: kphoger on July 16, 2019, 08:11:11 PM
Has hurricane evacuation ever been the reason for constructing an Interstate?
Fake 87.
Also, while not an Interstate, the Lake Pontchartrain Causeway would not have existed if it wasn't for hurricane evacuation.
Quote from: 1 on July 16, 2019, 08:19:52 PM
Fake 87.
????
Quote from: 1 on July 16, 2019, 08:19:52 PM
Also, while not an Interstate, the Lake Pontchartrain Causeway would not have existed if it wasn't for hurricane evacuation.
While not an Interstate, SPR-100
already exists.
Quote from: kphoger on July 16, 2019, 08:11:11 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 16, 2019, 03:08:39 PM
I can't believe the SPR-100 corridor has not had any serious consideration as an I-2 eastern extension, since it would provide a great hurricane evacuation route for Port Isabel and South Padre Island.
Has hurricane evacuation ever been the reason for constructing an Interstate?
Interstate 37 was constructed largely so there would be a hurricane evacuation route for South Texas coming out of the largest single town in South Texas.
I found this YouTube video from about three weeks ago showing some initial grading, etc. of the La Joya Bypass:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=33kG-IWspaY
Pretty wide open spaces.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 17, 2019, 08:51:14 AM
Quote from: kphoger on July 16, 2019, 08:11:11 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 16, 2019, 03:08:39 PM
I can't believe the SPR-100 corridor has not had any serious consideration as an I-2 eastern extension, since it would provide a great hurricane evacuation route for Port Isabel and South Padre Island.
Has hurricane evacuation ever been the reason for constructing an Interstate?
Interstate 37 was constructed largely so there would be a hurricane evacuation route for South Texas coming out of the largest single town in South Texas.
Also, one of the rationales for the "I-49 South" extension between NOLA and Lafayette is as an additional evacuation route from the NO metro area -- even though it's closer to potential hurricane landfall areas than something heading more directly inland -- but OTOH, the presence of Lake Ponchartrain has always complicated movement in and out of that city, so when it comes to aggregate provision of evac routes, it's the more lanes out of NO the better!
But getting back to the I-2 service area -- wouldn't an extension of the presently proposed I-169 spur do much the same thing as the SPR-100 corridor cited above?
Quote from: Grzrd on August 07, 2020, 07:40:38 PM
I found this YouTube video from about three weeks ago showing some initial grading, etc. of the La Joya Bypass:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=33kG-IWspaY
Pretty wide open spaces.
It's now showing on Google Maps:
https://www.google.com/maps/@26.2600584,-98.5054659,4010m/data=!3m1!1e3
Quote from: sparker on August 08, 2020, 01:44:54 AM
[...]
Also, one of the rationales for the "I-49 South" extension between NOLA and Lafayette is as an additional evacuation route from the NO metro area -- even though it's closer to potential hurricane landfall areas than something heading more directly inland -- but OTOH, the presence of Lake Ponchartrain has always complicated movement in and out of that city, so when it comes to aggregate provision of evac routes, it's the more lanes out of NO the better!
[...]
Not so much for NOLA as for the communities along US 90 from Morgan City on northwestward. NOLA's main evac routes remain I-10 west to I-55, I-10 east to I-59, and the Ponchatrain Causeway.
I came across this website for the construction company that is building the bridge(s) for the La Joys bypass. It has some good pictures of the construction and it mentions that they are building a wildlife bridge, too:
https://www.andersoncolumbia.com/la-joya-bypass.html
I apologize for BUMPing...once again, but I decided to bring this up amid bridge construction. The bypass has purportedly reached the halfway mark in February, according to media. Google maps street view has been updated to show the bridges in construction. Satellite view is outdated, though.
Question: where would I-2 end in Laredo? Would it use the Southern half of the Loop 20 route and terminate at I-69W/US 59, or will it be be a different terminus?
Once again, sorry for bumping.
I think it's fairly obvious if I-2 is eventually extended to Laredo it would overlap Loop 20 up to the junction with I-69W. Existing US-83 coming up into Laredo from the South could be upgraded easily to a freeway as far North as Masterson Street. Past that point any freeway upgrades would be increasingly harder to build as US-83 gets closer to downtown Laredo. It would be impossible to connect that freeway spur to I-35 without demolishing a lot of properties.
FWIW: The Google Maps car came down I-2 in April 2021 and has recent pictures of the La Joya Bypass under construction.
Includes the overpass being built at Tom Gill Road.
Looks like I-2 will now end just east of Sullivan City when done.
This is future Interstate 2, right?: https://www.google.com/maps/@26.2570766,-98.5107369,4147m/data=!3m1!1e3.
Correct. And I can't wait to see the final product.
^ Has there actually been any plans to designate the new bypass as I-2?
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 17, 2021, 02:17:19 PM
^ Has there actually been any plans to designate the new bypass as I-2?
Yes. This bypass will be I-2 soon. Besides traffic control, extending I-2 (and in the future, to Laredo) is another main reason to build this bypass.
https://www.progresstimes.net/2021/02/28/with-new-highway-about-halfway-complete-penitas-poised-for-growth/
Quote from: Thegeet on July 17, 2021, 02:45:08 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 17, 2021, 02:17:19 PM
^ Has there actually been any plans to designate the new bypass as I-2?
Yes. This bypass will be I-2 soon. Besides traffic control, extending I-2 (and in the future, to Laredo) is another main reason to build this bypass.
https://www.progresstimes.net/2021/02/28/with-new-highway-about-halfway-complete-penitas-poised-for-growth/
Any official plans that list the new extension as I-2? As far as I knew, it was US-83.
Not to mention, the whole Laredo extension, is fictional at best. I've never seen any official plans to build it all the way. Not saying it's a bad idea, but it's fictional despite being treated as official by many roadgeeks.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 17, 2021, 02:55:25 PM
Quote from: Thegeet on July 17, 2021, 02:45:08 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 17, 2021, 02:17:19 PM
^ Has there actually been any plans to designate the new bypass as I-2?
Yes. This bypass will be I-2 soon. Besides traffic control, extending I-2 (and in the future, to Laredo) is another main reason to build this bypass.
https://www.progresstimes.net/2021/02/28/with-new-highway-about-halfway-complete-penitas-poised-for-growth/
Any official plans that list the new extension as I-2? As far as I knew, it was US-83.
Not to mention, the whole Laredo extension, is fictional at best. I've never seen any official plans to build it all the way. Not saying it's a bad idea, but it's fictional despite being treated as official by many roadgeeks.
As far as TxDOT goes, none. But, the info I saw with mentions to US 83 is outdated.
Quote from: kphoger on July 16, 2019, 08:11:11 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 16, 2019, 03:08:39 PM
I can't believe the SPR-100 corridor has not had any serious consideration as an I-2 eastern extension, since it would provide a great hurricane evacuation route for Port Isabel and South Padre Island.
Has hurricane evacuation ever been the reason for constructing an Interstate?
Quote from: In_Correct on July 16, 2019, 05:21:52 PM
TX DOT might think Interstate 2 is close enough to The Gulf Of Mexico all ready.
I don't imagine TxDOT cares very much how far or close I-2 is to the Gulf of Mexico.
That is the reason Louisiana spent money to build I-49 north from Lafayette..
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 17, 2021, 02:55:25 PM
Not to mention, the whole Laredo extension, is fictional at best. I've never seen any official plans to build it all the way. Not saying it's a bad idea, but it's fictional despite being treated as official by many roadgeeks.
Actually, a FONSI was issued on July 1 for a long extension from Rio Grande City to Roma Creek. I'm glad to see that the alignment is straight and direct, without the twists and turns that TxDOT likes to include in most new alignments.
https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/pharr/043021.html (https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/pharr/043021.html)
Map
https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/phr/sl-195/070121-project-location-map.pdf (https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/phr/sl-195/070121-project-location-map.pdf)
However, this extension is designated as SH 195 and is planned as a 4-lane divided highway on a 300-foot-wide right-of-way, except at intersections where the right-of-way is wider. The typical section view shown in the environmental document has a 124-foot-wide median, so that leaves only 50 feet between the outer edge (right side) of the pavement and the edge of the right of way. I suppose frontage roads could be squeezed into that space, but it seems like the design is not intended to be upgraded to limited access in the future.
Wouldn't this be more typical of an interstate or limited-access highway in other states?
^ Yes. It does not seem like the new location route would include frontage roads, but the project page specifically indicates future overpass locations. It would be upgradable to a traditional four lane limited access freeway.
Quote from: MaxConcrete on July 17, 2021, 04:04:30 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 17, 2021, 02:55:25 PM
Not to mention, the whole Laredo extension, is fictional at best. I've never seen any official plans to build it all the way. Not saying it's a bad idea, but it's fictional despite being treated as official by many roadgeeks.
Actually, a FONSI was issued on July 1 for a long extension from Rio Grande City to Roma Creek. I'm glad to see that the alignment is straight and direct, without the twists and turns that TxDOT likes to include in most new alignments.
https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/pharr/043021.html (https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/pharr/043021.html)
Map
https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/phr/sl-195/070121-project-location-map.pdf (https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/phr/sl-195/070121-project-location-map.pdf)
However, this extension is designated as SH 195 and is planned as a 4-lane divided highway on a 300-foot-wide right-of-way, except at intersections where the right-of-way is wider. The typical section view shown in the environmental document has a 124-foot-wide median, so that leaves only 50 feet between the outer edge (right side) of the pavement and the edge of the right of way. I suppose frontage roads could be squeezed into that space, but it seems like the design is not intended to be upgraded to limited access in the future.
At a total 300-foot width, what is planned is similar to what's along much of the US 281 corridor that will eventually be I-69C. First to be built will be a pair of carriageways that'll eventually serve as the frontage road; the actual freeway will be built at a later time down the median; there's enough room for a 6-lane freeway (likely 4 lanes at first) with a median barrier and Interstate-grade shoulder widths, flanked on each side by the 2-lane frontage road that'll be the initial construction phase. This is typical Texas process -- secure the ROW, build something that'll work in the interim for both through and local traffic, and construct the final freeway lanes, grade separations, and interchanges when funding permits.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 17, 2021, 04:21:59 PM
^ Yes. It does not seem like the new location route would include frontage roads, but the project page specifically indicates future overpass locations. It would be upgradable to a traditional four lane limited access freeway.
Few are the freeways in Texas without through frontage roads.
Quote from: edwaleniLooks like I-2 will now end just east of Sullivan City when done.
Yep. I don't think it should be too difficult to upgrade existing US-83 into I-2 thru Sullivan City. It would be a tight squeeze, but it appears there is just barely enough ROW in place to build a 4-lane facility closely flanked by frontage roads.
The prospects get easier going farther West. I think I-2 could go as far as the Eastern edge of La Puerta before having to veer off on a new terrain alignment. That's just short of the Las Lomas and Rio Grande City area. I-2 will have to bypass that and the cluster of other towns along that stretch such as Escobares and Roma.
Quote from: sprjus4Not to mention, the whole Laredo extension, is fictional at best. I've never seen any official plans to build it all the way. Not saying it's a bad idea, but it's fictional despite being treated as official by many roadgeeks.
The exit numbers on I-2 suggest an eventual extension to Laredo.
Quote from: Max ConcreteHowever, this extension is designated as SH 195 and is planned as a 4-lane divided highway on a 300-foot-wide right-of-way, except at intersections where the right-of-way is wider. The typical section view shown in the environmental document has a 124-foot-wide median, so that leaves only 50 feet between the outer edge (right side) of the pavement and the edge of the right of way. I suppose frontage roads could be squeezed into that space, but it seems like the design is not intended to be upgraded to limited access in the future.
A 124 wide median between the two roadways? That seems like enough space to fit a 4-lane freeway. 80 feet is the bare minimum for four 12' travel lanes, two 10' outer shoulders and two 6' inner shoulders. I thnk one of the key questions is how much ROW will be preserved outside the original roadway. If there is ample space preserved the first roadways could be altered at exit points to make room for slip ramps.
It's also possible they could build this as a roadway that could be upgraded into a freeway without continuous frontage roads.
The TX-195 designation appears to make sense. This section of road could be built ahead of the bypass around La Puerta and Las Lomas.
Quote from: bwana39 on July 17, 2021, 05:49:40 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 17, 2021, 04:21:59 PM
^ Yes. It does not seem like the new location route would include frontage roads, but the project page specifically indicates future overpass locations. It would be upgradable to a traditional four lane limited access freeway.
Few are the freeways in Texas without through frontage roads.
I mean, it's not like Interstate Highways are required to include frontage roads.
Quote from: Thegeet on July 17, 2021, 11:46:11 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on July 17, 2021, 05:49:40 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 17, 2021, 04:21:59 PM
^ Yes. It does not seem like the new location route would include frontage roads, but the project page specifically indicates future overpass locations. It would be upgradable to a traditional four lane limited access freeway.
Few are the freeways in Texas without through frontage roads.
I mean, it's not like Interstate Highways are required to include frontage roads.
Texas property law makes it difficult to not build them especially along the R.O.W. of a formerly not controlled access roadway. They may not have to be through service roads, but access to every property has to be maintained. It is easier as a whole to just build them.
Quote from: bwana39 on July 18, 2021, 01:47:54 AM
Quote from: Thegeet on July 17, 2021, 11:46:11 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on July 17, 2021, 05:49:40 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 17, 2021, 04:21:59 PM
^ Yes. It does not seem like the new location route would include frontage roads, but the project page specifically indicates future overpass locations. It would be upgradable to a traditional four lane limited access freeway.
Few are the freeways in Texas without through frontage roads.
I mean, it's not like Interstate Highways are required to include frontage roads.
Texas property law makes it difficult to not build them especially along the R.O.W. of a formerly not controlled access roadway. They may not have to be through service roads, but access to every property has to be maintained. It is easier as a whole to just build them.
I've seen very few spots where there aren't feeder roads. Usually it's in very very rural areas, or when the freeway runs through downtown. Occasionally if there is a parallel city street nearby they may not have feeders. Like here in Houston almost none of SH 288 has frontage roads, but Almeda road is only a block away.
But aside from downtowns, all the interstates I've ever driven on have frontage roads except in very very rural areas like between San Antonio and Corpus Christi
Quote from: bwana39 on July 18, 2021, 01:47:54 AM
Quote from: Thegeet on July 17, 2021, 11:46:11 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on July 17, 2021, 05:49:40 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 17, 2021, 04:21:59 PM
^ Yes. It does not seem like the new location route would include frontage roads, but the project page specifically indicates future overpass locations. It would be upgradable to a traditional four lane limited access freeway.
Few are the freeways in Texas without through frontage roads.
I mean, it's not like Interstate Highways are required to include frontage roads.
Texas property law makes it difficult to not build them especially along the R.O.W. of a formerly not controlled access roadway. They may not have to be through service roads, but access to every property has to be maintained. It is easier as a whole to just build them.
Ah, that explains the frontage road project for US 59 in Victoria (87 to 185).
So even if it's something like a simple house on one side of the highway?
SH-99 doesn't have frontage roads in a lot of areas, same with SH-130. It's not always a thing.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 18, 2021, 02:13:34 AM
SH-99 doesn't have frontage roads in a lot of areas, same with SH-130. It's not always a thing.
Because both are tollways, not publicly financed, and they don't use preexisting ROW.
Also, the portions of TOLL 130 contingent with US 181 does use a feeder road system for local US 181 access.
^ I was referring to the new location segments of each route. And it's exactly my point. This new US-83 alignment would be a new location highway, which would not use pre-existing right of way. So those issues you mentioned would not be in the way.
Quote from: MaxConcrete on July 17, 2021, 04:04:30 PM
However, this extension is designated as SH 195 and is planned as a 4-lane divided highway on a 300-foot-wide right-of-way, except at intersections where the right-of-way is wider. The typical section view shown in the environmental document has a 124-foot-wide median, so that leaves only 50 feet between the outer edge (right side) of the pavement and the edge of the right of way. I suppose frontage roads could be squeezed into that space, but it seems like the design is not intended to be upgraded to limited access in the future.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 17, 2021, 07:33:07 PM
The TX-195 designation appears to make sense. This section of road could be built ahead of the bypass around La Puerta and Las Lomas.
Not SH 195, but SL 195.
Quote from: http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/sl/sl0195.htm
Minute Order 113706, dated 09/26/2013; DesLtr 3-2013, dated 02/18/2014
From US 83 at Loma Blanca Road to FM 755 northeast of Rio Grande City, a distance of approximately 17.4 miles. (Starr County) NEW DESIGNATION.
Odd thing is,
there's already SS 195 in Collin County, though SL 195 in RGV was designated a few months before. (A case of the left hand not knowing what the right is doing?)
SL/SS are considered one system by TXDOT. The only existing instances of a loop & spur having the same number, they come as a package deal, intersecting each other:
-
SL &
SS 19-
SL &
SS 108Be interesting to see what TXDOT does to resolve this, if anything. Will 195 be the first case of an unrelated loop & spur sharing the same number?
Couldn't this new roadway be signed as a relocated US 83, with existing 83 becoming Business 83?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on July 19, 2021, 02:13:18 PM
Couldn't this new roadway be signed as a relocated US 83, with existing 83 becoming Business 83?
You think this would be the case but TxDOT has gotten interstate drunk it seems. 69 E, C and W, now I-2? Talk of extending I-27?
US-287 from Dallas To Amarillo today has more reason to be an I-route as far as Wichita Falls, but it isn't.
NAFTA/USMCA traffic is reportedly driving this I-route boom and it shows no sign of abating. It's all about federal funding.
Texas is a big enough state, with a big enough (and rapidly growing) population, to warrant the Interstate upgrades. "Interstate drunk" would be North Carolina.
Even if every legit potential Interstate corridor was built-out in Texas the overall density of super highways would still be considerably more spaced out and less dense than the super highways in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states. Texas is attracting people in droves from those regions.
The cluster of cities in the Rio Grande Valley add up to over 1 million people. That's not counting the other town clusters farther West like Rio Grande City, Las Lomas and Roma. Brownsville is an important port city. The Laredo area has over 250,000 residents and (I think) is the busiest "inland port city" along the US/Mexico border. I see no issue at all in fully fleshing out I-2 from Laredo to Brownsville.
When the I-69E, I-69C and I-69W branches were first announced for South Texas I initially thought that was a bit much. The "E" and "W" routes made sense, but "C" seemed like overkill. Then I looked up how many people live in the far South end of Texas and I was pretty shocked. Now I believe all three legs are justified. Considering the growth in the Austin and San Antonio areas, upgrades of the US-281 corridor are 100% valid. That includes the "C" leg of I-69. And over the long term US-281 going North out of San Antonio could turn into a relief route for I-35 to bypass Austin and DFW.
An I-27 extension Southward from Lubbock is justifiable. The Ports to Plains Corridor has been in the works a long time.
I agree 100% about US-287 between Fort Worth and Amarillo being overlooked. That needs to be an Interstate. Chances are good US-287 will be fully Interstate quality from the I-45 split in Ennis up to the TX-114 split in Rhome. Getting it upgraded to Decatur (and thru Decatur) could be difficult. But it needs to be done. The stretch between Decatur and Alvord is a tight squeeze. NW of Alvord the upgrades get easy.
But, yeah, it's all about the funding. And Texas has so much growth happening in so many areas that it is resulting in many corridors being over-burdened and in need of upgrades. Just like US-287 needs upgrades, so does the TX-199 corridor nearby. They could turn that into a freeway or toll road clear to Jacksboro. US-82 and US-380 to the North of DFW badly need upgrades. The list goes on and on.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 19, 2021, 11:26:03 PM
Texas is a big enough state, with a big enough (and rapidly growing) population, to warrant the Interstate upgrades. "Interstate drunk" would be North Carolina.
Even if every legit potential Interstate corridor was built-out in Texas the overall density of super highways would still be considerably more spaced out and less dense than the super highways in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states. Texas is attracting people in droves from those regions.
The cluster of cities in the Rio Grande Valley add up to over 1 million people. That's not counting the other town clusters farther West like Rio Grande City, Las Lomas and Roma. Brownsville is an important port city. The Laredo area has over 250,000 residents and (I think) is the busiest "inland port city" along the US/Mexico border. I see no issue at all in fully fleshing out I-2 from Laredo to Brownsville.
When the I-69E, I-69C and I-69W branches were first announced for South Texas I initially thought that was a bit much. The "E" and "W" routes made sense, but "C" seemed like overkill. Then I looked up how many people live in the far South end of Texas and I was pretty shocked. Now I believe all three legs are justified. Considering the growth in the Austin and San Antonio areas, upgrades of the US-281 corridor are 100% valid. That includes the "C" leg of I-69. And over the long term US-281 going North out of San Antonio could turn into a relief route for I-35 to bypass Austin and DFW.
An I-27 extension Southward from Lubbock is justifiable. The Ports to Plains Corridor has been in the works a long time.
I agree 100% about US-287 between Fort Worth and Amarillo being overlooked. That needs to be an Interstate. Chances are good US-287 will be fully Interstate quality from the I-45 split in Ennis up to the TX-114 split in Rhome. Getting it upgraded to Decatur (and thru Decatur) could be difficult. But it needs to be done. The stretch between Decatur and Alvord is a tight squeeze. NW of Alvord the upgrades get easy.
But, yeah, it's all about the funding. And Texas has so much growth happening in so many areas that it is resulting in many corridors being over-burdened and in need of upgrades. Just like US-287 needs upgrades, so does the TX-199 corridor nearby. They could turn that into a freeway or toll road clear to Jacksboro. US-82 and US-380 to the North of DFW badly need upgrades. The list goes on and on.
Don't disagree with your assessment. I think the original question was why use an I-name for these routes? There are a lot of 4 lane interstate grade routes in Texas without I-names, why does Brownsville to Laredo need one vs simply US-83? I think you answered it well, but it seems these days in the US a road isn't "legit" unless it has a I-name on it.
Quote from: edwaleni on July 20, 2021, 12:30:48 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 19, 2021, 11:26:03 PM
Texas is a big enough state, with a big enough (and rapidly growing) population, to warrant the Interstate upgrades. "Interstate drunk" would be North Carolina.
Even if every legit potential Interstate corridor was built-out in Texas the overall density of super highways would still be considerably more spaced out and less dense than the super highways in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states. Texas is attracting people in droves from those regions.
The cluster of cities in the Rio Grande Valley add up to over 1 million people. That's not counting the other town clusters farther West like Rio Grande City, Las Lomas and Roma. Brownsville is an important port city. The Laredo area has over 250,000 residents and (I think) is the busiest "inland port city" along the US/Mexico border. I see no issue at all in fully fleshing out I-2 from Laredo to Brownsville.
When the I-69E, I-69C and I-69W branches were first announced for South Texas I initially thought that was a bit much. The "E" and "W" routes made sense, but "C" seemed like overkill. Then I looked up how many people live in the far South end of Texas and I was pretty shocked. Now I believe all three legs are justified. Considering the growth in the Austin and San Antonio areas, upgrades of the US-281 corridor are 100% valid. That includes the "C" leg of I-69. And over the long term US-281 going North out of San Antonio could turn into a relief route for I-35 to bypass Austin and DFW.
An I-27 extension Southward from Lubbock is justifiable. The Ports to Plains Corridor has been in the works a long time.
I agree 100% about US-287 between Fort Worth and Amarillo being overlooked. That needs to be an Interstate. Chances are good US-287 will be fully Interstate quality from the I-45 split in Ennis up to the TX-114 split in Rhome. Getting it upgraded to Decatur (and thru Decatur) could be difficult. But it needs to be done. The stretch between Decatur and Alvord is a tight squeeze. NW of Alvord the upgrades get easy.
But, yeah, it's all about the funding. And Texas has so much growth happening in so many areas that it is resulting in many corridors being over-burdened and in need of upgrades. Just like US-287 needs upgrades, so does the TX-199 corridor nearby. They could turn that into a freeway or toll road clear to Jacksboro. US-82 and US-380 to the North of DFW badly need upgrades. The list goes on and on.
Don't disagree with your assessment. I think the original question was why use an I-name for these routes? There are a lot of 4 lane interstate grade routes in Texas without I-names, why does Brownsville to Laredo need one vs simply US-83? I think you answered it well, but it seems these days in the US a road isn't "legit" unless it has a I-name on it.
Exactly. Interstate highways have ousted the U.S. highways in terms of popularity and desire. People would rather travel continuously (without stop) and safely than have to settle for potentially constant red lights and possible traffic congestion. And although it's not always the case for U.S. highways, people have associated Interstate highways as superior, and more reliable, than U.S. highways, due to the strict standards of Interstate highways.
Quote from: Thegeet on July 20, 2021, 01:05:04 AM
Quote from: edwaleni on July 20, 2021, 12:30:48 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 19, 2021, 11:26:03 PM
Texas is a big enough state, with a big enough (and rapidly growing) population, to warrant the Interstate upgrades. "Interstate drunk" would be North Carolina.
Even if every legit potential Interstate corridor was built-out in Texas the overall density of super highways would still be considerably more spaced out and less dense than the super highways in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states. Texas is attracting people in droves from those regions.
The cluster of cities in the Rio Grande Valley add up to over 1 million people. That's not counting the other town clusters farther West like Rio Grande City, Las Lomas and Roma. Brownsville is an important port city. The Laredo area has over 250,000 residents and (I think) is the busiest "inland port city" along the US/Mexico border. I see no issue at all in fully fleshing out I-2 from Laredo to Brownsville.
When the I-69E, I-69C and I-69W branches were first announced for South Texas I initially thought that was a bit much. The "E" and "W" routes made sense, but "C" seemed like overkill. Then I looked up how many people live in the far South end of Texas and I was pretty shocked. Now I believe all three legs are justified. Considering the growth in the Austin and San Antonio areas, upgrades of the US-281 corridor are 100% valid. That includes the "C" leg of I-69. And over the long term US-281 going North out of San Antonio could turn into a relief route for I-35 to bypass Austin and DFW.
An I-27 extension Southward from Lubbock is justifiable. The Ports to Plains Corridor has been in the works a long time.
I agree 100% about US-287 between Fort Worth and Amarillo being overlooked. That needs to be an Interstate. Chances are good US-287 will be fully Interstate quality from the I-45 split in Ennis up to the TX-114 split in Rhome. Getting it upgraded to Decatur (and thru Decatur) could be difficult. But it needs to be done. The stretch between Decatur and Alvord is a tight squeeze. NW of Alvord the upgrades get easy.
But, yeah, it's all about the funding. And Texas has so much growth happening in so many areas that it is resulting in many corridors being over-burdened and in need of upgrades. Just like US-287 needs upgrades, so does the TX-199 corridor nearby. They could turn that into a freeway or toll road clear to Jacksboro. US-82 and US-380 to the North of DFW badly need upgrades. The list goes on and on.
Don't disagree with your assessment. I think the original question was why use an I-name for these routes? There are a lot of 4 lane interstate grade routes in Texas without I-names, why does Brownsville to Laredo need one vs simply US-83? I think you answered it well, but it seems these days in the US a road isn't "legit" unless it has a I-name on it.
Exactly. Interstate highways have ousted the U.S. highways in terms of popularity and desire. People would rather travel continuously (without stop) and safely than have to settle for potentially constant red lights and possible traffic congestion. And although it's not always the case for U.S. highways, people have associated Interstate highways as superior, and more reliable, than U.S. highways, due to the strict standards of Interstate highways.
As a whole, Texas has chosen (outside the I-69 corridor(s) and I-14) to not use Interstate labels. There is reduced expense in building and maintaining non-interstate freeways when the differences are minimal to none especially to those who are not engineers or rules followers. I-69 was mandated by the US Congress, as I have said elsewhere;
even down to the inane numbering scheme.
I-14 seemingly was done to say Fort Hood is on an Interstate. As to the I-27 corridor, It will see upgrades but may NEVER extend as an Interstate, Likewise with US-287.
While I agree there is seemingly uncertainty when a non-interstate is (or is not) freeway or at least high speed expressway (in Texas that generally means 4-lane divided highway WITH crossovers and grade separations at MAJOR intersections.) There is a far greater upgrade from 2-lane to 4-lane divided than from 4-lane divided to full freeway.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 19, 2021, 11:26:03 PM
Texas is a big enough state, with a big enough (and rapidly growing) population, to warrant the Interstate upgrades. "Interstate drunk" would be North Carolina.
Even if every legit potential Interstate corridor was built-out in Texas the overall density of super highways would still be considerably more spaced out and less dense than the super highways in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states. Texas is attracting people in droves from those regions.
The cluster of cities in the Rio Grande Valley add up to over 1 million people. That's not counting the other town clusters farther West like Rio Grande City, Las Lomas and Roma. Brownsville is an important port city. The Laredo area has over 250,000 residents and (I think) is the busiest "inland port city" along the US/Mexico border. I see no issue at all in fully fleshing out I-2 from Laredo to Brownsville.
When the I-69E, I-69C and I-69W branches were first announced for South Texas I initially thought that was a bit much. The "E" and "W" routes made sense, but "C" seemed like overkill. Then I looked up how many people live in the far South end of Texas and I was pretty shocked. Now I believe all three legs are justified. Considering the growth in the Austin and San Antonio areas, upgrades of the US-281 corridor are 100% valid. That includes the "C" leg of I-69. And over the long term US-281 going North out of San Antonio could turn into a relief route for I-35 to bypass Austin and DFW.
An I-27 extension Southward from Lubbock is justifiable. The Ports to Plains Corridor has been in the works a long time.
I agree 100% about US-287 between Fort Worth and Amarillo being overlooked. That needs to be an Interstate. Chances are good US-287 will be fully Interstate quality from the I-45 split in Ennis up to the TX-114 split in Rhome. Getting it upgraded to Decatur (and thru Decatur) could be difficult. But it needs to be done. The stretch between Decatur and Alvord is a tight squeeze. NW of Alvord the upgrades get easy.
But, yeah, it's all about the funding. And Texas has so much growth happening in so many areas that it is resulting in many corridors being over-burdened and in need of upgrades. Just like US-287 needs upgrades, so does the TX-199 corridor nearby. They could turn that into a freeway or toll road clear to Jacksboro. US-82 and US-380 to the North of DFW badly need upgrades. The list goes on and on.
Don't forget the I-44 extension from Wichita Falls to Abilene.
^ I'm more skeptical to if this will ever happen. The traffic volumes on that corridor are extremely low and it's already built out as a four lane divided highway with town bypasses, with two exceptions - east of Holliday and Anson. Once those towns get bypassed, given the corridor is already high quality with low demand, I can't see much more happening to it. The idea of tying I-44 to I-20 is a good one from a national standpoint, but from the state's perspective, it's of very low priority.
Something like US-287 has more importance, carries higher traffic volumes, and has more merit.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 20, 2021, 10:47:10 AM
^ I'm more skeptical to if this will ever happen. The traffic volumes on that corridor are extremely low and it's already built out as a four lane divided highway with town bypasses, with two exceptions - east of Holliday and Anson. Once those towns get bypassed, given the corridor is already high quality with low demand, I can't see much more happening to it. The idea of tying I-44 to I-20 is a good one from a national standpoint, but from the state's perspective, it's of very low priority.
Something like US-287 has more importance, carries higher traffic volumes, and has more merit.
Agreed. I still want it done.
Quote from: edwaleniDon't disagree with your assessment. I think the original question was why use an I-name for these routes? There are a lot of 4 lane interstate grade routes in Texas without I-names, why does Brownsville to Laredo need one vs simply US-83? I think you answered it well, but it seems these days in the US a road isn't "legit" unless it has a I-name on it.
It's all in the "branding" of the Interstate highway system. The Interstate system has links to
almost every major metro area in the mainland 48 states. The Rio Grande Valley is likely the most populated MSA to not have any super highway connections linking into the Interstate system.
For the longest time I had the opinion I-37 should be extended down to Brownsville. I was a little surprised by the I-2 and I-69 developments, which mostly involved re-naming existing freeways in the Rio Grande Valley. The sheer size of the Rio Grande Valley metro makes it strange that it wasn't already connected to the Interstate system.
Some other corridors in Texas may get upgraded to Interstate quality without getting an Interstate designation. US-82 and US-380 to the North of DFW could fall in that camp. That also goes for US-290 and TX-71 between Houston and Austin.
The I-27 corridor is a pretty long way West of the Texas Triangle. Amarillo, Lubbock, Midland-Odessa, Big Spring and San Angelo aren't small towns. There is a lot of commercial vehicle traffic out there related to the oil industry and agri-business. The combination of that, commerce along the Tex-Mex border and growth along the Front Range of the Rockies is why the Ports to Plains Corridor is needed. At least from Lubbock down to Laredo an I-27 extension is justifiable. North of Amarillo is a tougher sell. An I-27 extension to Dumas where the P2P splits is certainly worthwhile. Upgrades farther North would have to be phased in over a long period of time.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14Don't forget the I-44 extension from Wichita Falls to Abilene.
Hell, I want I-44 extended to San Angelo to meet an extension of I-27.
The current traffic counts along US-277 between Wichita Falls and Abilene aren't great. I think one reason for that is both commercial and personal vehicle traffic gravitates to Interstate corridors. They do so for various reasons. Traffic on US-277 heading to destinations far West won't all take the same route. Some may go to Abilene to pick up I-20 and then I-10. Others may leave US-277 at Seymour to take US-82 to Lubbock and then go thru Roswell, Alamogordo and Las Cruces to get to I-10.
The nice thing about US-277 is that it is (for the most part) easy to upgrade to Interstate quality, thanks to the limited access or near-limited access bypasses built along the way. Unfortunately the folks in Wichita Falls are doing a good job to gum up this corridor's upgrade potential. The gap between Kell Freeway and the Holliday bypass is going to be no more than a 5-lane street. Plans to build a freeway to span the gap have been scrapped for now.
Quote from: bwana39 on July 20, 2021, 08:27:42 AM
Quote from: Thegeet on July 20, 2021, 01:05:04 AM
Quote from: edwaleni on July 20, 2021, 12:30:48 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 19, 2021, 11:26:03 PM
Texas is a big enough state, with a big enough (and rapidly growing) population, to warrant the Interstate upgrades. "Interstate drunk" would be North Carolina.
Even if every legit potential Interstate corridor was built-out in Texas the overall density of super highways would still be considerably more spaced out and less dense than the super highways in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states. Texas is attracting people in droves from those regions.
The cluster of cities in the Rio Grande Valley add up to over 1 million people. That's not counting the other town clusters farther West like Rio Grande City, Las Lomas and Roma. Brownsville is an important port city. The Laredo area has over 250,000 residents and (I think) is the busiest "inland port city" along the US/Mexico border. I see no issue at all in fully fleshing out I-2 from Laredo to Brownsville.
When the I-69E, I-69C and I-69W branches were first announced for South Texas I initially thought that was a bit much. The "E" and "W" routes made sense, but "C" seemed like overkill. Then I looked up how many people live in the far South end of Texas and I was pretty shocked. Now I believe all three legs are justified. Considering the growth in the Austin and San Antonio areas, upgrades of the US-281 corridor are 100% valid. That includes the "C" leg of I-69. And over the long term US-281 going North out of San Antonio could turn into a relief route for I-35 to bypass Austin and DFW.
An I-27 extension Southward from Lubbock is justifiable. The Ports to Plains Corridor has been in the works a long time.
I agree 100% about US-287 between Fort Worth and Amarillo being overlooked. That needs to be an Interstate. Chances are good US-287 will be fully Interstate quality from the I-45 split in Ennis up to the TX-114 split in Rhome. Getting it upgraded to Decatur (and thru Decatur) could be difficult. But it needs to be done. The stretch between Decatur and Alvord is a tight squeeze. NW of Alvord the upgrades get easy.
But, yeah, it's all about the funding. And Texas has so much growth happening in so many areas that it is resulting in many corridors being over-burdened and in need of upgrades. Just like US-287 needs upgrades, so does the TX-199 corridor nearby. They could turn that into a freeway or toll road clear to Jacksboro. US-82 and US-380 to the North of DFW badly need upgrades. The list goes on and on.
Don't disagree with your assessment. I think the original question was why use an I-name for these routes? There are a lot of 4 lane interstate grade routes in Texas without I-names, why does Brownsville to Laredo need one vs simply US-83? I think you answered it well, but it seems these days in the US a road isn't "legit" unless it has a I-name on it.
Exactly. Interstate highways have ousted the U.S. highways in terms of popularity and desire. People would rather travel continuously (without stop) and safely than have to settle for potentially constant red lights and possible traffic congestion. And although it's not always the case for U.S. highways, people have associated Interstate highways as superior, and more reliable, than U.S. highways, due to the strict standards of Interstate highways.
As a whole, Texas has chosen (outside the I-69 corridor(s) and I-14) to not use Interstate labels. There is reduced expense in building and maintaining non-interstate freeways when the differences are minimal to none especially to those who are not engineers or rules followers. I-69 was mandated by the US Congress, as I have said elsewhere; even down to the inane numbering scheme.
I-14 seemingly was done to say Fort Hood is on an Interstate. As to the I-27 corridor, It will see upgrades but may NEVER extend as an Interstate, Likewise with US-287.
While I agree there is seemingly uncertainty when a non-interstate is (or is not) freeway or at least high speed expressway (in Texas that generally means 4-lane divided highway WITH crossovers and grade separations at MAJOR intersections.) There is a far greater upgrade from 2-lane to 4-lane divided than from 4-lane divided to full freeway.
Wasn't there a rumor that I-27 would pass through Lamesa, San Angelo, and Eagle Pass, and end at Laredo? Which sounds fabricated, but it's something worth watching.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 21, 2021, 12:30:04 AM
Quote from: edwaleniDon't disagree with your assessment. I think the original question was why use an I-name for these routes? There are a lot of 4 lane interstate grade routes in Texas without I-names, why does Brownsville to Laredo need one vs simply US-83? I think you answered it well, but it seems these days in the US a road isn't "legit" unless it has a I-name on it.
It's all in the "branding" of the Interstate highway system. The Interstate system has links to almost every major metro area in the mainland 48 states. The Rio Grande Valley is likely the most populated MSA to not have any super highway connections linking into the Interstate system.
For the longest time I had the opinion I-37 should be extended down to Brownsville. I was a little surprised by the I-2 and I-69 developments, which mostly involved re-naming existing freeways in the Rio Grande Valley. The sheer size of the Rio Grande Valley metro makes it strange that it wasn't already connected to the Interstate system.
Some other corridors in Texas may get upgraded to Interstate quality without getting an Interstate designation. US-82 and US-380 to the North of DFW could fall in that camp. That also goes for US-290 and TX-71 between Houston and Austin.
The I-27 corridor is a pretty long way West of the Texas Triangle. Amarillo, Lubbock, Midland-Odessa, Big Spring and San Angelo aren't small towns. There is a lot of commercial vehicle traffic out there related to the oil industry and agri-business. The combination of that, commerce along the Tex-Mex border and growth along the Front Range of the Rockies is why the Ports to Plains Corridor is needed. At least from Lubbock down to Laredo an I-27 extension is justifiable. North of Amarillo is a tougher sell. An I-27 extension to Dumas where the P2P splits is certainly worthwhile. Upgrades farther North would have to be phased in over a long period of time.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14Don't forget the I-44 extension from Wichita Falls to Abilene.
Hell, I want I-44 extended to San Angelo to meet an extension of I-27.
The current traffic counts along US-277 between Wichita Falls and Abilene aren't great. I think one reason for that is both commercial and personal vehicle traffic gravitates to Interstate corridors. They do so for various reasons. Traffic on US-277 heading to destinations far West won't all take the same route. Some may go to Abilene to pick up I-20 and then I-10. Others may leave US-277 at Seymour to take US-82 to Lubbock and then go thru Roswell, Alamogordo and Las Cruces to get to I-10.
The nice thing about US-277 is that it is (for the most part) easy to upgrade to Interstate quality, thanks to the limited access or near-limited access bypasses built along the way. Unfortunately the folks in Wichita Falls are doing a good job to gum up this corridor's upgrade potential. The gap between Kell Freeway and the Holliday bypass is going to be no more than a 5-lane street. Plans to build a freeway to span the gap have been scrapped for now.
BTW, why is I-44 designed as a more North- South alignment as opposed to West-East? And why isn't it an odd number or at least signed E-W?
^ I-44 only existed between Oklahoma City and St. Louis originally, which is more east-west. I-44 south of Oklahoma City to Wichita Falls was added to the interstate system later on, over pre existing turnpike.
If I-44 were to at least connect to I-20 in Abilene it would, in the big picture view, still make sense overall as a diagonal East-West corridor. The spur from OKC to Wichita Falls was added in the early 1980's. When I was a kid I remember seeing I-44 signs with a "Future" badge above the shield.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 21, 2021, 12:55:26 AM
If I-44 were to at least connect to I-20 in Abilene it would, in the big picture view, still make sense overall as a diagonal East-West corridor. The spur from OKC to Wichita Falls was added in the early 1980's. When I was a kid I remember seeing I-44 signs with a "Future" badge above the shield.
I'm surprised -- but only mildly so -- that Abilene-Wichita Falls wasn't seriously brought up as a I-44 extension in the '80's after the Bailey Turnpike extension was designated. But then, even with halting plans for remedies forwarded sporadically over the years, TxDOT and their Austin handlers saw fit to strand the southern end of I-27 at Lubbock, the recent P2P push notwithstanding -- so doing likewise with I-44 in the Falls had some precedent. Nevertheless, with the Permian petroleum boom peaking around that time, it's curious why such a corridor concept never found an audience, even if it would have been shot down in short order.
Quote from: sparker on July 21, 2021, 01:58:22 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 21, 2021, 12:55:26 AM
If I-44 were to at least connect to I-20 in Abilene it would, in the big picture view, still make sense overall as a diagonal East-West corridor. The spur from OKC to Wichita Falls was added in the early 1980's. When I was a kid I remember seeing I-44 signs with a "Future" badge above the shield.
I'm surprised -- but only mildly so -- that Abilene-Wichita Falls wasn't seriously brought up as a I-44 extension in the '80's after the Bailey Turnpike extension was designated. But then, even with halting plans for remedies forwarded sporadically over the years, TxDOT and their Austin handlers saw fit to strand the southern end of I-27 at Lubbock, the recent P2P push notwithstanding -- so doing likewise with I-44 in the Falls had some precedent. Nevertheless, with the Permian petroleum boom peaking around that time, it's curious why such a corridor concept never found an audience, even if it would have been shot down in short order.
I always thought the I-44 Extension was a military highway accommodation for Fort Sill and Sheppard AFB. It allowed technical resources from Tinker AFB to get down there.
Quote from: edwaleni on July 21, 2021, 09:48:46 AM
Quote from: sparker on July 21, 2021, 01:58:22 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 21, 2021, 12:55:26 AM
If I-44 were to at least connect to I-20 in Abilene it would, in the big picture view, still make sense overall as a diagonal East-West corridor. The spur from OKC to Wichita Falls was added in the early 1980's. When I was a kid I remember seeing I-44 signs with a "Future" badge above the shield.
I'm surprised -- but only mildly so -- that Abilene-Wichita Falls wasn't seriously brought up as a I-44 extension in the '80's after the Bailey Turnpike extension was designated. But then, even with halting plans for remedies forwarded sporadically over the years, TxDOT and their Austin handlers saw fit to strand the southern end of I-27 at Lubbock, the recent P2P push notwithstanding -- so doing likewise with I-44 in the Falls had some precedent. Nevertheless, with the Permian petroleum boom peaking around that time, it's curious why such a corridor concept never found an audience, even if it would have been shot down in short order.
I always thought the I-44 Extension was a military highway accommodation for Fort Sill and Sheppard AFB. It allowed technical resources from Tinker AFB to get down there.
Actually, my understanding, based on contemporary newspaper articles, was that it was merely the Oklahoma transportation apparatus's way of celebrating the 75th anniversary of Oklahoma statehood in 1982. The turnpike had been open for a couple of decades by that point, it just didn't have a number. Lest that sound faintly ridiculous, it wouldn't be the last time Oklahoma did something like that–the replacement of the circle shield with the meat cleaver was done in 2006 explicitly as part of the state's centennial celebration.
(So for those who are hoping for I-45 in Oklahoma or the designation of US-412 as an interstate...2032 maybe?)
The H.E. Bailey Turnpike was first completed in 1964. The biggest reason for building the turnpike was connecting the cities of Lawton and Wichita Falls to Oklahoma City. One of the motives for re-signing the turnpike as an extension of I-44 could have been Fort Sill and Sheppard AFB. One of the original purposes of the Interstate highway system was help efficiently move military equipment and personnel over land -just like the Autobahn in Germany.
The military is another angle why I think more should be done with US-281 in Texas. Not only does it have the potential as a serious relief route for I-35 (to bypass Austin and even DFW). It also could better connect the various military installations in San Antonio, Fort Hood in Killeen as well as Sheppard AFB, Fort Sill in Lawton and Tinker AFB in OKC. Altus AFB is about an hour's drive West of Lawton. US-62 is four-laned all that way; however, the road in Lawton (Rogers Lane) needs some serious work, as does I-44 where it runs thru Fort Sill.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 21, 2021, 01:38:47 PM
the road in Lawton (Rogers Lane) needs some serious work, as does I-44 where it runs thru Fort Sill.
I always dread I-44 through Lawton. It's not even
all that bad, really. But I still don't like it. Low speed limit, curves, a combination of slow-driving vacationers and fast-driving locals...
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 21, 2021, 01:14:16 PM
Quote from: edwaleni on July 21, 2021, 09:48:46 AM
Quote from: sparker on July 21, 2021, 01:58:22 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 21, 2021, 12:55:26 AM
If I-44 were to at least connect to I-20 in Abilene it would, in the big picture view, still make sense overall as a diagonal East-West corridor. The spur from OKC to Wichita Falls was added in the early 1980's. When I was a kid I remember seeing I-44 signs with a "Future" badge above the shield.
I'm surprised -- but only mildly so -- that Abilene-Wichita Falls wasn't seriously brought up as a I-44 extension in the '80's after the Bailey Turnpike extension was designated. But then, even with halting plans for remedies forwarded sporadically over the years, TxDOT and their Austin handlers saw fit to strand the southern end of I-27 at Lubbock, the recent P2P push notwithstanding -- so doing likewise with I-44 in the Falls had some precedent. Nevertheless, with the Permian petroleum boom peaking around that time, it's curious why such a corridor concept never found an audience, even if it would have been shot down in short order.
I always thought the I-44 Extension was a military highway accommodation for Fort Sill and Sheppard AFB. It allowed technical resources from Tinker AFB to get down there.
Actually, my understanding, based on contemporary newspaper articles, was that it was merely the Oklahoma transportation apparatus's way of celebrating the 75th anniversary of Oklahoma statehood in 1982. The turnpike had been open for a couple of decades by that point, it just didn't have a number. Lest that sound faintly ridiculous, it wouldn't be the last time Oklahoma did something like that–the replacement of the circle shield with the meat cleaver was done in 2006 explicitly as part of the state's centennial celebration.
(So for those who are hoping for I-45 in Oklahoma or the designation of US-412 as an interstate...2032 maybe?)
But, they will have to get Texas to comply.
I don't know what I think about extending I-45. I would like to see it go to Tulsa, yet I have always had some weird sense of pride that the only intrastate interstate ending in 0 or 5 was in my home state. It's like one of those stats out there that's not a bad stat, but not necessarily a good one either, but you are proud of it just the same when it's a stat about you. Like as a Cubs fan, I am kinda proud the team had to wait 108 years to win a championship. It's like world championship type suffrage!!
Quote from: kphogerI always dread I-44 through Lawton. It's not even all that bad, really. But I still don't like it. Low speed limit, curves, a combination of slow-driving vacationers and fast-driving locals...
The stretch of I-44 going by Fort Sill's Polo Field and the Key Gate exit 41 is pretty sub-standard. There are no interior left shoulders. The right shoulders go from minimal to non-existant along the exit on/off ramps. The I-44 bridges over Sheridan Road have no shoulders at all. Same goes for the I-44 bridges over Howitzer Trail immediately North of Exit 41. The whole thing is a pretty narrow bottleneck. To top it off, the I-44 bridges over Medicine Creek are fairly low. In the past 10 years we've had flooding along Medicine Creek and Cache Creek bad enough to close I-44 there (as well as OK-7/Lee Blvd and Gore Blvd).
The I-44 interchange with Cache Road and 2nd Street in Lawton is an odd one. There are multiple features I don't like about it, the biggest one being the tight curve on EB I-44 at the top of the bridge just before the left exit ramp to Cache Road. There's lots of vehicle and tire scuff marks along the concrete bridge walls from drivers taking the curve too fast.
Regarding how fast locals drive in Lawton, I have a much bigger problem with people around here driving way under the speed limit than driving too fast. There's nothing quite like someone driving 15-20mph under the posted speed limit on a busy street like Cache Road to cause all kinds of traffic weaving conflicts. Too many people are obsessed with their phones too. A traffic signal will turn green, but one or more cars ahead aren't moving. Gotta finish writing that tweet first.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 21, 2021, 02:00:13 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 21, 2021, 01:14:16 PM
Quote from: edwaleni on July 21, 2021, 09:48:46 AM
Quote from: sparker on July 21, 2021, 01:58:22 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 21, 2021, 12:55:26 AM
If I-44 were to at least connect to I-20 in Abilene it would, in the big picture view, still make sense overall as a diagonal East-West corridor. The spur from OKC to Wichita Falls was added in the early 1980's. When I was a kid I remember seeing I-44 signs with a "Future" badge above the shield.
I'm surprised -- but only mildly so -- that Abilene-Wichita Falls wasn't seriously brought up as a I-44 extension in the '80's after the Bailey Turnpike extension was designated. But then, even with halting plans for remedies forwarded sporadically over the years, TxDOT and their Austin handlers saw fit to strand the southern end of I-27 at Lubbock, the recent P2P push notwithstanding -- so doing likewise with I-44 in the Falls had some precedent. Nevertheless, with the Permian petroleum boom peaking around that time, it's curious why such a corridor concept never found an audience, even if it would have been shot down in short order.
I always thought the I-44 Extension was a military highway accommodation for Fort Sill and Sheppard AFB. It allowed technical resources from Tinker AFB to get down there.
Actually, my understanding, based on contemporary newspaper articles, was that it was merely the Oklahoma transportation apparatus's way of celebrating the 75th anniversary of Oklahoma statehood in 1982. The turnpike had been open for a couple of decades by that point, it just didn't have a number. Lest that sound faintly ridiculous, it wouldn't be the last time Oklahoma did something like that–the replacement of the circle shield with the meat cleaver was done in 2006 explicitly as part of the state's centennial celebration.
(So for those who are hoping for I-45 in Oklahoma or the designation of US-412 as an interstate...2032 maybe?)
But, they will have to get Texas to comply.
I don't know what I think about extending I-45. I would like to see it go to Tulsa, yet I have always had some weird sense of pride that the only intrastate interstate ending in 0 or 5 was in my home state. It's like one of those stats out there that's not a bad stat, but not necessarily a good one either, but you are proud of it just the same when it's a stat about you. Like as a Cubs fan, I am kinda proud the team had to wait 108 years to win a championship. It's like world championship type suffrage!!
You love Texas so much you are a Cubs Fan? LOL.
You know the singe biggest roadblock for Texas not wanting to use IH #'s? The minimum distance between exits. TXDT generally builds every freeway to the IH standards except for that. There are some older ones that lack complete shoulders and have geometry issues, but the new ones pretty much are good in those areas.
Quote from: bwana39 on July 22, 2021, 11:37:50 AM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 21, 2021, 02:00:13 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 21, 2021, 01:14:16 PM
Quote from: edwaleni on July 21, 2021, 09:48:46 AM
Quote from: sparker on July 21, 2021, 01:58:22 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 21, 2021, 12:55:26 AM
If I-44 were to at least connect to I-20 in Abilene it would, in the big picture view, still make sense overall as a diagonal East-West corridor. The spur from OKC to Wichita Falls was added in the early 1980's. When I was a kid I remember seeing I-44 signs with a "Future" badge above the shield.
I'm surprised -- but only mildly so -- that Abilene-Wichita Falls wasn't seriously brought up as a I-44 extension in the '80's after the Bailey Turnpike extension was designated. But then, even with halting plans for remedies forwarded sporadically over the years, TxDOT and their Austin handlers saw fit to strand the southern end of I-27 at Lubbock, the recent P2P push notwithstanding -- so doing likewise with I-44 in the Falls had some precedent. Nevertheless, with the Permian petroleum boom peaking around that time, it's curious why such a corridor concept never found an audience, even if it would have been shot down in short order.
I always thought the I-44 Extension was a military highway accommodation for Fort Sill and Sheppard AFB. It allowed technical resources from Tinker AFB to get down there.
Actually, my understanding, based on contemporary newspaper articles, was that it was merely the Oklahoma transportation apparatus's way of celebrating the 75th anniversary of Oklahoma statehood in 1982. The turnpike had been open for a couple of decades by that point, it just didn't have a number. Lest that sound faintly ridiculous, it wouldn't be the last time Oklahoma did something like that–the replacement of the circle shield with the meat cleaver was done in 2006 explicitly as part of the state's centennial celebration.
(So for those who are hoping for I-45 in Oklahoma or the designation of US-412 as an interstate...2032 maybe?)
But, they will have to get Texas to comply.
I don't know what I think about extending I-45. I would like to see it go to Tulsa, yet I have always had some weird sense of pride that the only intrastate interstate ending in 0 or 5 was in my home state. It's like one of those stats out there that's not a bad stat, but not necessarily a good one either, but you are proud of it just the same when it's a stat about you. Like as a Cubs fan, I am kinda proud the team had to wait 108 years to win a championship. It's like world championship type suffrage!!
You love Texas so much you are a Cubs Fan? LOL.
You know the singe biggest roadblock for Texas not wanting to use IH #'s? The minimum distance between exits. TXDT generally builds every freeway to the IH standards except for that. There are some older ones that lack complete shoulders and have geometry issues, but the new ones pretty much are good in those areas.
Explain. It was my understanding that Texas had more exits than any other state's freeways because they wanted access to every bump in the road.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 22, 2021, 01:57:38 PM
It was my understanding that Texas had more exits than any other state's freeways because they wanted access to every bump in the road.
Yeah, I believe Texas' approach to Interstate-ing was to
preserve as much local access as possible. That contrasts with most states' approach.
Quote from: bwana39 on July 22, 2021, 11:37:50 AM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 21, 2021, 02:00:13 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 21, 2021, 01:14:16 PM
Quote from: edwaleni on July 21, 2021, 09:48:46 AM
Quote from: sparker on July 21, 2021, 01:58:22 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 21, 2021, 12:55:26 AM
If I-44 were to at least connect to I-20 in Abilene it would, in the big picture view, still make sense overall as a diagonal East-West corridor. The spur from OKC to Wichita Falls was added in the early 1980's. When I was a kid I remember seeing I-44 signs with a "Future" badge above the shield.
I'm surprised -- but only mildly so -- that Abilene-Wichita Falls wasn't seriously brought up as a I-44 extension in the '80's after the Bailey Turnpike extension was designated. But then, even with halting plans for remedies forwarded sporadically over the years, TxDOT and their Austin handlers saw fit to strand the southern end of I-27 at Lubbock, the recent P2P push notwithstanding -- so doing likewise with I-44 in the Falls had some precedent. Nevertheless, with the Permian petroleum boom peaking around that time, it's curious why such a corridor concept never found an audience, even if it would have been shot down in short order.
I always thought the I-44 Extension was a military highway accommodation for Fort Sill and Sheppard AFB. It allowed technical resources from Tinker AFB to get down there.
Actually, my understanding, based on contemporary newspaper articles, was that it was merely the Oklahoma transportation apparatus's way of celebrating the 75th anniversary of Oklahoma statehood in 1982. The turnpike had been open for a couple of decades by that point, it just didn't have a number. Lest that sound faintly ridiculous, it wouldn't be the last time Oklahoma did something like that–the replacement of the circle shield with the meat cleaver was done in 2006 explicitly as part of the state's centennial celebration.
(So for those who are hoping for I-45 in Oklahoma or the designation of US-412 as an interstate...2032 maybe?)
But, they will have to get Texas to comply.
I don't know what I think about extending I-45. I would like to see it go to Tulsa, yet I have always had some weird sense of pride that the only intrastate interstate ending in 0 or 5 was in my home state. It's like one of those stats out there that's not a bad stat, but not necessarily a good one either, but you are proud of it just the same when it's a stat about you. Like as a Cubs fan, I am kinda proud the team had to wait 108 years to win a championship. It's like world championship type suffrage!!
You love Texas so much you are a Cubs Fan? LOL.
You know the singe biggest roadblock for Texas not wanting to use IH #'s? The minimum distance between exits. TXDT generally builds every freeway to the IH standards except for that. There are some older ones that lack complete shoulders and have geometry issues, but the new ones pretty much are good in those areas.
Cubs fans are not and never will be restricted by geography. Though I gotta say, I have never, ever thought of the Dallas Cowboys as "America's Team". Only network executives push that narrative because its not in New York, Chicago or Los Angeles and want the ratings to stay high.
Quote from: kphoger on July 22, 2021, 02:11:28 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 22, 2021, 01:57:38 PM
It was my understanding that Texas had more exits than any other state's freeways because they wanted access to every bump in the road.
Yeah, I believe Texas' approach to Interstate-ing was to preserve as much local access as possible. That contrasts with most states' approach.
With TX penchant -- and legal requirements for private access -- for constructing extensive frontage roads on most of their freeways, Interstate or not, adding exits at even seemingly random points would be less difficult that with other states; conversely, the exits can be (and sometimes are) spaced out so that a single exit ramp over to the frontage road is intended to serve several intersecting roads or nearby communities.
Re the Cowboys as "America's Team": That perception is the result of decades of incessant PR flack, and the continuing desire of the NFL to foment ongoing rivalries (hence the placement of Dallas in the NFC
East so as to require at least two games per year with teams from the NE metro areas) -- essentially the "Yankee snobs" versus the "guys with the white hats", so to speak. Regional tribalism at its finest!
Quote from: edwaleni on July 22, 2021, 02:20:51 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on July 22, 2021, 11:37:50 AM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 21, 2021, 02:00:13 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on July 21, 2021, 01:14:16 PM
Quote from: edwaleni on July 21, 2021, 09:48:46 AM
Quote from: sparker on July 21, 2021, 01:58:22 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on July 21, 2021, 12:55:26 AM
If I-44 were to at least connect to I-20 in Abilene it would, in the big picture view, still make sense overall as a diagonal East-West corridor. The spur from OKC to Wichita Falls was added in the early 1980's. When I was a kid I remember seeing I-44 signs with a "Future" badge above the shield.
I'm surprised -- but only mildly so -- that Abilene-Wichita Falls wasn't seriously brought up as a I-44 extension in the '80's after the Bailey Turnpike extension was designated. But then, even with halting plans for remedies forwarded sporadically over the years, TxDOT and their Austin handlers saw fit to strand the southern end of I-27 at Lubbock, the recent P2P push notwithstanding -- so doing likewise with I-44 in the Falls had some precedent. Nevertheless, with the Permian petroleum boom peaking around that time, it's curious why such a corridor concept never found an audience, even if it would have been shot down in short order.
I always thought the I-44 Extension was a military highway accommodation for Fort Sill and Sheppard AFB. It allowed technical resources from Tinker AFB to get down there.
Actually, my understanding, based on contemporary newspaper articles, was that it was merely the Oklahoma transportation apparatus's way of celebrating the 75th anniversary of Oklahoma statehood in 1982. The turnpike had been open for a couple of decades by that point, it just didn't have a number. Lest that sound faintly ridiculous, it wouldn't be the last time Oklahoma did something like that–the replacement of the circle shield with the meat cleaver was done in 2006 explicitly as part of the state's centennial celebration.
(So for those who are hoping for I-45 in Oklahoma or the designation of US-412 as an interstate...2032 maybe?)
But, they will have to get Texas to comply.
I don't know what I think about extending I-45. I would like to see it go to Tulsa, yet I have always had some weird sense of pride that the only intrastate interstate ending in 0 or 5 was in my home state. It's like one of those stats out there that's not a bad stat, but not necessarily a good one either, but you are proud of it just the same when it's a stat about you. Like as a Cubs fan, I am kinda proud the team had to wait 108 years to win a championship. It's like world championship type suffrage!!
You love Texas so much you are a Cubs Fan? LOL.
You know the singe biggest roadblock for Texas not wanting to use IH #'s? The minimum distance between exits. TXDT generally builds every freeway to the IH standards except for that. There are some older ones that lack complete shoulders and have geometry issues, but the new ones pretty much are good in those areas.
Cubs fans are not and never will be restricted by geography. Though I gotta say, I have never, ever thought of the Dallas Cowboys as "America's Team". Only network executives push that narrative because its not in New York, Chicago or Los Angeles and want the ratings to stay high.
I did not mention the Cowboys. Jerrell Jones is a mouth that overloads his behind. The Cowboys are as glittery as their cheerleaders and haven't been competitive is a couple of decades. I am still a fan in spite of it, but I haven't watched a NFL game except in passing in a restaurant in three or four years.
I am a Rangers Fan. I am not a Jon Daniels fan though!
I was shocked also to learn that there was an interstate less than 4 (in florida). I-2 doesn't even fully connect to any of the I 69s and I'm not sure what they connect to either. They just should bring the 101 freeway in CA up to interstate standards and have an Interstate 1!
Quote from: Mike2357 on August 12, 2021, 08:41:55 PM
I-2 doesn't even fully connect to any of the I 69s and I'm not sure what they connect to either.
I-2 has direct interchange connections to both I-69C and I-69E. I-2 also intersects US 281 and US 77 at the 69C and 69E interchanges, and is concurrent with part of US 83.
Quote from: Mike2357I was shocked also to learn that there was an interstate less than 4 (in florida). I-2 doesn't even fully connect to any of the I 69s and I'm not sure what they connect to either. They just should bring the 101 freeway in CA up to interstate standards and have an Interstate 1!
The existing US-83 freeway from the Mission area to Harlingen was re-signed as I-2 recently, the same time I-69C and I-69E were signed over US-281 and US-77 respectively. The I-2/I-69C and I-2/I-69E "Y" interchanges are pretty decent.
Considering just how many people live within the group of cities at the far South end of Texas it shouldn't be surprising that region would get its existing freeways re-signed as 3 different Interstate routes. Other loop projects are in the works for that region.
Like other parts of the I-69 system in Texas the I-2 corridor is far from being complete. The exit numbers for I-2 at least show long term
intention for the Interstate's
Western terminus to be in Laredo. The La Joya Bypass currently under construction will extend the length of I-2 by around 7 miles. Planning has been ongoing for a bypass going North of the cluster of towns from Roma over to Las Lomas. That won't be Interstate quality at first, but may be upgrade-able to such later.
As for US-101, I agree the whole thing from L.A. up to San Jose ought to be improved to Interstate standards (including re-doing a LOT of really crappy ramps). I think it will happen eventually, but over a course of many more years. As for re-naming it as "I-1," I think there is zero chance of that happening. For one, there's the naming conflict with CA-1 in the immediate vicinity. And I think quite a few people are used to the 101 being called
the 101.
We've just gotta find the right segment of CA1 to renumber as I-1, and then...
Quote from: yakra on August 12, 2021, 10:01:55 PM
We've just gotta find the right segment of CA1 to renumber as I-1, and then...
I don't like those roads that constantly change whether they are limited access or not. The 101 must change that at least 5 times.
The current US-101 route from the Bay Area down to LA is a mess of different standards. Bits and pieces of it are up to major Interstate urban freeway standards and other parts are no different than an average bum-f*** 4-lane highway here in Oklahoma, with driveways a-plenty. One freeway interchange will have modern quality ramps while another nearby has ramp designs of 1960's quality.
I think the patch-work of different standards along US-101 make the road far less safe than a route that is 100% up to modern Interstate standards.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 13, 2021, 12:01:50 AM
The current US-101 route from the Bay Area down to LA is a mess of different standards. Bits and pieces of it are up to major Interstate urban freeway standards and other parts are no different than an average bum-f*** 4-lane highway here in Oklahoma, with driveways a-plenty. One freeway interchange will have modern quality ramps while another nearby has ramp designs of 1960's quality.
I think the patch-work of different standards along US-101 make the road far less safe than a route that is 100% up to modern Interstate standards.
The potential -- or lack thereof -- of deploying an Interstate, or even raising US 101 standards to that level, has been pretty much hashed over to death in the Southwest board; but despite the population base arrayed along that route, it'll probably never happen for any number of reasons: much of it, particularly along the coast above Santa Barbara, is within California Coastal Commission-governed territory, and they're pretty much death for any new freeway projects north of Goleta. About the only new upgrades are in the Paso Robles area, where the expressway section north of town is being upgraded to a freeway because of the additional traffic stemming from the area becoming a wine-tasting mecca (better that half-drunk folks get off the freeway on a diamond ramp than try to make a left across traffic!).
Nevertheless, US 101 is a longstanding and quasi-permanent situation that most CA drivers have internalized by this time; if US 83 gets interim expressway -- either 2 or 4 lanes -- treatment as the first step toward an Interstate, that facility will likely get the full treatment in a relatively short time. TxDOT isn't Caltrans; they aren't looking over their shoulders anytime someone in the agency says the word "freeway" in anything but a perjorative manner. There will probably be a finished I-2 to Laredo by 2035-40, while out here US 101 drivers will still be dodging at-grade cross traffic along most of the sections where that's the case today.
The Google Maps car drove I-2 last April.
Here is a view of the Western end of the construction at La Hoya:
https://www.google.com/maps/@26.2568313,-98.5279642,3a,75y,105.6h,92.8t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9nroBltB_RQV4J5uBvSkvw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Also the Future I-2 interchange at Tom Gill Rd
https://www.google.com/maps/@26.2553453,-98.4440335,3a,75y,5.82h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1skrjxHXOwob85fZw_PwdMDw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Lastly, the Eastern End of the Construction at Mission:
https://www.google.com/maps/@26.2404535,-98.4243274,3a,75y,289.94h,83.92t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWDkprZwp_n19hsl4ajok-g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
I wonder where they got the number 2 from though. How did they get that from connecting to two 69s? Also, it seems the two 69s don't connect to any other interstates themselves either, at least not yet.
1. It was in all likelihood a random (but educated) number.
2. They passed a bill to allow the designations to stand. BUT, under the conditions that they will connect within 25 years of the bill.
Quote from: Mike2357 on August 13, 2021, 10:33:14 AM
I wonder where they got the number 2 from though. How did they get that from connecting to two 69s? Also, it seems the two 69s don't connect to any other interstates themselves either, at least not yet.
Quote from: Thegeet on August 13, 2021, 10:50:08 AM
1. It was in all likelihood a random (but educated) number.
2. They passed a bill to allow the designations to stand. BUT, under the conditions that they will connect within 25 years of the bill.
I-2 does fit in the grid after all.
Quote from: 74/171FAN on August 13, 2021, 10:57:59 AM
I-2 does fit in the grid after all.
It's east-west, and wicked faah south bub. Farther south than FL's I-4.
Despite the other I-69 numbering nonsense in the RGV, it's a sensible number.
I-87 is the longest north-south intrastate highway and it it even lol. I think those rules only apply to the major parent interstates 75, 35, 95, or 10, 80, 90, but not necessarily the auxiliary ones. Although you are probably right about the reason being it is farther south than I-4, I'm so stupid to not realize that!
Quote from: Mike2357 on August 13, 2021, 12:05:36 PM
I-87 is the longest north-south intrastate highway and it it even lol.
87 is an odd number...
Quote from: 1 on August 13, 2021, 12:07:21 PM
Quote from: Mike2357 on August 13, 2021, 12:05:36 PM
I-87 is the longest north-south intrastate highway and it it even lol.
87 is an odd number...
Oh I was thinking of the auxiliary ones that have to start with even/odd numbers NVM ur right
Those have 3 digits.
Quote from: Mike2357 on August 13, 2021, 12:05:36 PM
I-87 is the longest north-south intrastate highway and it it even lol. I think those rules only apply to the major parent interstates 75, 35, 95, or 10, 80, 90, but not necessarily the auxiliary ones. Although you are probably right about the reason being it is farther south than I-4, I'm so stupid to not realize that!
I could have sworn that I-45 was longer than I-87, because it's in Texas, but nope, I-87 beats it by 48 miles...
Quote from: GreenLanternCorps on August 13, 2021, 12:58:54 PM
Quote from: Mike2357 on August 13, 2021, 12:05:36 PM
I-87 is the longest north-south intrastate highway and it it even lol. I think those rules only apply to the major parent interstates 75, 35, 95, or 10, 80, 90, but not necessarily the auxiliary ones. Although you are probably right about the reason being it is farther south than I-4, I'm so stupid to not realize that!
I could have sworn that I-45 was longer than I-87, because it's in Texas, but nope, I-87 beats it by 48 miles...
Well if you want to include the major Deegan "ExPrEsSwAy" in that mile total of I-87 LOL
Quote from: Mike2357 on August 13, 2021, 10:33:14 AM
I wonder where they got the number 2 from though. How did they get that from connecting to two 69s? Also, it seems the two 69s don't connect to any other interstates themselves either, at least not yet.
It is on the southern border of the country, so it has the lowest even number. (The next-further-north east-west interstate is 4, and the next after that is 8, and then 10, and so on.)
Quote from: Mike2357 on August 13, 2021, 01:50:51 PM
Quote from: GreenLanternCorps on August 13, 2021, 12:58:54 PM
Quote from: Mike2357 on August 13, 2021, 12:05:36 PM
I-87 is the longest north-south intrastate highway and it it even lol. I think those rules only apply to the major parent interstates 75, 35, 95, or 10, 80, 90, but not necessarily the auxiliary ones. Although you are probably right about the reason being it is farther south than I-4, I'm so stupid to not realize that!
I could have sworn that I-45 was longer than I-87, because it's in Texas, but nope, I-87 beats it by 48 miles...
Well if you want to include the major Deegan "ExPrEsSwAy" in that mile total of I-87 LOL
...why wouldn't you? The official southern terminus of I-87 is at I-278 in the Bronx. I-87 is 333.49 miles as officially carried by NYSDOT.
Well you are hardly going at speeds worthy or "interstate" (or even intrastate for that matter) on the major demon expressway.
Quote from: 74/171FAN on August 13, 2021, 10:57:59 AM
Quote from: Mike2357 on August 13, 2021, 10:33:14 AM
I wonder where they got the number 2 from though. How did they get that from connecting to two 69s? Also, it seems the two 69s don't connect to any other interstates themselves either, at least not yet.
Quote from: Thegeet on August 13, 2021, 10:50:08 AM
1. It was in all likelihood a random (but educated) number.
2. They passed a bill to allow the designations to stand. BUT, under the conditions that they will connect within 25 years of the bill.
I-2 does fit in the grid after all.
Not only that, but the existing US 83 freeway connecting the I-69E and I-69C alignments was decidedly
not included in the HPC 18/20 legislation that specified 69 and/or suffixed designations (at least that's how it was interpreted by TxDOT and the Alliance for I-69/TX) for the branches, so all parties involved, including the local MPO's, picked a number that was appropriate for its location -- functionally the farthest south point in the "lower 48", so the lowest 1/2di was selected. For a new Interstate designation, pretty damn intuitive and appropriate for once!
Quote from: Mike2357 on August 13, 2021, 04:16:06 PM
Well you are hardly going at speeds worthy or "interstate" (or even intrastate for that matter) on the major demon expressway.
That has nothing to do with the highway designation. There is no minimum speed limit, or level of service required, under Interstate standards.
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 13, 2021, 04:56:45 PM
Quote from: Mike2357 on August 13, 2021, 04:16:06 PM
Well you are hardly going at speeds worthy or "interstate" (or even intrastate for that matter) on the major demon expressway.
That has nothing to do with the highway designation. There is no minimum speed limit, or level of service required, under Interstate standards.
I-68 through Cumberland, MD nods its head in agreement!
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 13, 2021, 04:56:45 PM
Quote from: Mike2357 on August 13, 2021, 04:16:06 PM
Well you are hardly going at speeds worthy or "interstate" (or even intrastate for that matter) on the major demon expressway.
That has nothing to do with the highway designation. There is no minimum speed limit, or level of service required, under Interstate standards.
Well that's apparent, as I-78 in New Jersey, and I-676 are allowed interstate designations along local streets, so comparatively, you are correct actually, no reason I-87 should change.
Quote from: sparker on August 13, 2021, 05:02:32 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 13, 2021, 04:56:45 PM
Quote from: Mike2357 on August 13, 2021, 04:16:06 PM
Well you are hardly going at speeds worthy or "interstate" (or even intrastate for that matter) on the major demon expressway.
That has nothing to do with the highway designation. There is no minimum speed limit, or level of service required, under Interstate standards.
I-68 through Cumberland, MD nods its head in agreement!
Ditto Interstate H-1 in Honolulu (35mph S-curve east of the airport).
The La Joya bypass progress appears to be going well as of October and November:
(November):
-https://www.google.com/maps/@26.2401998,-98.4212359,3a,62.5y,288.92h,89.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swvXDRF_QAH3XfqmS_Ds7Cg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&authuser=0
(https://www.google.com/maps/@26.2401998,-98.4212359,3a,62.5y,288.92h,89.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1swvXDRF_QAH3XfqmS_Ds7Cg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&authuser=0)
-https://www.google.com/maps/@26.2561338,-98.5262953,3a,75y,358.94h,88.21t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sGOE8eKTbAMTJnKhkUZoJEw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DGOE8eKTbAMTJnKhkUZoJEw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D336.65155%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&authuser=0 (https://www.google.com/maps/@26.2561338,-98.5262953,3a,75y,358.94h,88.21t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sGOE8eKTbAMTJnKhkUZoJEw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DGOE8eKTbAMTJnKhkUZoJEw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D336.65155%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&authuser=0)
(October):
-https://www.google.com/maps/@26.2659403,-98.4830862,3a,85.9y,26.79h,89.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1saI7js97JL1g8dJJ9TSJSRw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&authuser=0 (https://www.google.com/maps/@26.2659403,-98.4830862,3a,85.9y,26.79h,89.49t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1saI7js97JL1g8dJJ9TSJSRw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&authuser=0)
From this, the FM 2221 overpass is nearing completion and the overpasses over US 83 are around halfway there with construction along US 83 from the bypass to Sullivan City being present.
Quote from: rickmastfan67 on August 01, 2018, 05:25:04 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 01, 2018, 01:12:15 AM
The exit numbers along I-2 imply the ultimate goal would be eventual extension to Laredo. Aside from that, where else in the United States would one even be able to build an Interstate 2? The far South end of Texas is the only place that makes any sense.
Well, I-75's Alligator Alley segment would have been the only other place I-2 could have worked.
It could still work. It could also be I-4S.
It looks like the La Joya Bypass project stops at the East edge of Sullivan City. Does anyone know for certain if I-2 will be extended thru Sullivan City on the existing US-83 alignment? It would be a pretty tight squeeze, but I think it's possible for I-2 to stay on existing US-83 thru Sullivan City and farther West another 10 or so miles where the existing divided highway ends on the edge of La Puerta. I think a minimal number of properties (if any) would have to be taken for that leg of I-2. The towns of La Puerta, Rio Grande City and Roma would need a pretty substantial bypass (which is already in planning stages).
How long until the projected finish date?
May 2023 is the projected time when Phases I and II of the La Joya Bypass project will be complete. From the look of what's visible on Google Street View (Nov 2021 imagery) it looks like they could be little ahead of schedule. If they finish ahead of time hopefully that might give a faster push for extending I-2 farther West.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 14, 2021, 06:57:24 PM
May 2023 is the projected time when Phases I and II of the La Joya Bypass project will be complete. From the look of what's visible on Google Street View (Nov 2021 imagery) it looks like they could be little ahead of schedule. If they finish ahead of time hopefully that might give a faster push for extending I-2 farther West.
While it ultimately will go all the way to Laredo, I checked and don't see any plans or funding to take I-2 any further in the interim.
Until traffic west of Sullivan City increases dramatically, it may be awhile.
Hopefully city planners in the towns along US-83 from Sullivan City to La Puerta can keep new businesses from building right up next to the existing roadway. Right now there is barely enough room to squeeze in a 2x2 freeway closely flanked with frontage roads.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 15, 2021, 12:02:06 PM
Hopefully city planners in the towns along US-83 from Sullivan City to La Puerta can keep new businesses from building right up next to the existing roadway. Right now there is barely enough room to squeeze in a 2x2 freeway closely flanked with frontage roads.
Most of I-2 will probably involve new terrain where businesses are built up along the current US-83.
Hence the recent bypass.
The bridge wall was also nearing completion on the eastern end of the bypass
https://www.google.com/maps/@26.2404428,-98.4258119,3a,75y,53.15h,82.57t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s-1bNZP5YATVDEpnbNsZIWA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D-1bNZP5YATVDEpnbNsZIWA%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D344.50366%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&authuser=0 (https://www.google.com/maps/@26.2404428,-98.4258119,3a,75y,53.15h,82.57t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s-1bNZP5YATVDEpnbNsZIWA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D-1bNZP5YATVDEpnbNsZIWA%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D344.50366%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&authuser=0)
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 13, 2021, 07:17:11 PM
It looks like the La Joya Bypass project stops at the East edge of Sullivan City. Does anyone know for certain if I-2 will be extended thru Sullivan City on the existing US-83 alignment? It would be a pretty tight squeeze, but I think it's possible for I-2 to stay on existing US-83 thru Sullivan City and farther West another 10 or so miles where the existing divided highway ends on the edge of La Puerta. I think a minimal number of properties (if any) would have to be taken for that leg of I-2. The towns of La Puerta, Rio Grande City and Roma would need a pretty substantial bypass (which is already in planning stages).
According to Figure 5.2 of Lower Rio Grande Valley Transportation Infrastructure Priorities, it could go slightly south of the city.
https://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/iro/lrgv/lrgv-ch5.pdf (https://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/iro/lrgv/lrgv-ch5.pdf)
Quote from: edwaleniMost of I-2 will probably involve new terrain where businesses are built up along the current US-83.
That's understood where US-83 goes through more densely developed areas, such as a the Roma-Rio Grande City complex of towns. A bypass is planned for that. But that segment of US-83 from Sullivan City to the edge of La Puerta could be upgraded in a manner similar to what was done with US-281 going thru Falfurrias. If it doesn't carve away too much of the parking lots I think the business owners in Sullivan Cit, Alto Bonito, etc would prefer their stores not to get completely bypassed by a new Interstate.
Quote from: CoolAngrybirdsrio4According to Figure 5.2 of Lower Rio Grande Valley Transportation Infrastructure Priorities, it could go slightly south of the city.
https://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/iro/lrgv/lrgv-ch5.pdf
I'm not sure how a future I-2 route could go
slightly South of Sullivan City. If it bypassed the town to the South it would have to go considerably well South to avoid hitting Sam Fordyce Elementary, Sullivan City PD and a couple ponds/lakes. The next town, Narisco Pena, has a short freeway segment there.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 16, 2021, 11:32:56 AM
I'm not sure how a future I-2 route could go slightly South of Sullivan City. If it bypassed the town to the South it would have to go considerably well South to avoid hitting Sam Fordyce Elementary, Sullivan City PD and a couple ponds/lakes. The next town, Narisco Pena, has a short freeway segment there.
It would follow the Union Pacific Railroad and Old Military Road right on the flood ridge of the Rio Grande.
The cross back over for US-83 would be just west of Grulla High School.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 16, 2021, 11:32:56 AM
Quote from: CoolAngrybirdsrio4According to Figure 5.2 of Lower Rio Grande Valley Transportation Infrastructure Priorities, it could go slightly south of the city.
https://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/iro/lrgv/lrgv-ch5.pdf
I'm not sure how a future I-2 route could go slightly South of Sullivan City. If it bypassed the town to the South it would have to go considerably well South to avoid hitting Sam Fordyce Elementary, Sullivan City PD and a couple ponds/lakes. The next town, Narisco Pena, has a short freeway segment there.
Perhaps it would go north of both the elementary school and police department, although it would be close to the original alignment. It is still possible for Interstate 2 to go straight through Sullivan City though.
^ Is there any confirmation the US-83 improvements beyond the existing I-2 are going to be signed / built as Interstate 2?
As far as I'm aware, it's still fictional.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 17, 2021, 12:50:10 AM
^ Is there any confirmation the US-83 improvements beyond the existing I-2 are going to be signed / built as Interstate 2?
As far as I'm aware, it's still fictional.
Despite the fact there is no confirmation of an I-2 extension, the freeway portion of US 83 is getting extended by 9 miles north of La Joya. Therefore, it could be at some point Interstate 2 once the project consisting of two phases will be done by 2023. Phase 1 appears to be the frontage roads, and phase 2 is the freeway portion plus drainage.
https://riograndeguardian.com/casanova-1000-acres-set-to-be-developed-in-north-la-joya-project-includes-900-new-homes/ (https://riograndeguardian.com/casanova-1000-acres-set-to-be-developed-in-north-la-joya-project-includes-900-new-homes/)
QuoteA master-planned development that includes retail, industrial and residential components is being forged in the city of La Joya, Mayor Isidro Casanova has confirmed.
In an exclusive interview with the Rio Grande Guardian International News Service, Casanova said city leaders and planners are in discussions with two local landowners. The development could cover more than 100 acres and bring 900 new homes to the city.
According to the 2020 Census, La Joya's population is 4,321 but Casanova believes there was a sizable undercount.
At the rate of growth that it's going in, I recommend that TxDOT starts working on the designing phases of upgrading US 83 within Sullivan City to the interchange with FM 2360. This would be especially true if La Joya and Sullivan City grow at the same rate Penitas did from 2000 to 2010. Plus, La Joya had announced that it will build their new fire station.
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 17, 2021, 12:50:10 AM
^ Is there any confirmation the US-83 improvements beyond the existing I-2 are going to be signed / built as Interstate 2?
As far as I'm aware, it's still fictional.
I could ask TxDOT and see if they have any word about this.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 13, 2021, 12:01:50 AM
The current US-101 route from the Bay Area down to LA is a mess of different standards. Bits and pieces of it are up to major Interstate urban freeway standards and other parts are no different than an average bum-f*** 4-lane highway here in Oklahoma, with driveways a-plenty. One freeway interchange will have modern quality ramps while another nearby has ramp designs of 1960's quality.
I think the patch-work of different standards along US-101 make the road far less safe than a route that is 100% up to modern Interstate standards.
If you want to get from the S.F. area to L.A. in a hurry and don't want to deal with a patchwork of expressway mixed in with the interstate grade freeway, take I-580 to I-5, distance 383 miles.
Via 101 it's 420 miles, so even if all the patches of expressway were upgraded to freeway it would still take longer than via I-5.
Quote from: CoolAngrybirdsrio4At the rate of growth that it's going in, I recommend that TxDOT starts working on the designing phases of upgrading US 83 within Sullivan City to the interchange with FM 2360. This would be especially true if La Joya and Sullivan City grow at the same rate Penitas did from 2000 to 2010. Plus, La Joya had announced that it will build their new fire station.
I really don't think most Americans outside of South Texas realize just how many people live in the Rio Grade Valley region. IMHO, an I-2 upgrade of the US-83 corridor up to Laredo is necessary.
There are plans and studies in progress for areas West of Sullivan City. The cluster of cities from Roma to La Puerta will eventually get a freeway bypass, which could be a further extension of I-2. I think the segment of US-83 from the end of the La Joya bypass thru Sullivan City to La Puerta could be upgraded to Interstate quality along the existing US-83 ROW. It would be a tight squeeze though.
Interstate upgrades of US-83 between Roma and Laredo would be easier since the territory is more desolate. The towns of Zapata and Siesta Shores would need a new terrain bypass out to the East. I imagine there might be an outcry about that from local businesses. But the upshot is the towns would be more visible on the map being connected to the Interstate network.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 31, 2021, 08:56:03 PM
Quote from: CoolAngrybirdsrio4At the rate of growth that it's going in, I recommend that TxDOT starts working on the designing phases of upgrading US 83 within Sullivan City to the interchange with FM 2360. This would be especially true if La Joya and Sullivan City grow at the same rate Penitas did from 2000 to 2010. Plus, La Joya had announced that it will build their new fire station.
I really don't think most Americans outside of South Texas realize just how many people live in the Rio Grade Valley region. IMHO, an I-2 upgrade of the US-83 corridor up to Laredo is necessary.
There are plans and studies in progress for areas West of Sullivan City. The cluster of cities from Roma to La Puerta will eventually get a freeway bypass, which could be a further extension of I-2. I think the segment of US-83 from the end of the La Joya bypass thru Sullivan City to La Puerta could be upgraded to Interstate quality along the existing US-83 ROW. It would be a tight squeeze though.
Interstate upgrades of US-83 between Roma and Laredo would be easier since the territory is more desolate. The towns of Zapata and Siesta Shores would need a new terrain bypass out to the East. I imagine there might be an outcry about that from local businesses. But the upshot is the towns would be more visible on the map being connected to the Interstate network.
I do. Approximately 1.3 million in the Rio Grande Valley, 2/3 of them in the McAllen area and 1/3 of them in the Brownsville area. And growing! As is most of Texas. Very little of Texas is depopulating, Texas overall is one of the fastest-growing states, especially in the Triangle.
Yeah, I would say I-2's extension could be desired, possibly needed. Although I would say an upgrade of primarily Texas 71 between Austin and Columbus to Interstate quality and designating it I-12 is a higher priority.
You have to remember though, Texas is one of the few states that has very reasonable speed limits on its highways. Among the best in the nation! They need Interstates and multi-lane divided highways more for capacity than they do speed!
I would LOVE to have Texas's speed limits! Tennessee's speed limits, especially on their Interstate highways, suck! As does most of the East! Where you have 75 and 80 mph speed limits on your expressways (even 85 on Toll Texas 130!), we are stuck with...70.
Quote from: Daniel FiddlerYeah, I would say I-2's extension could be desired, possibly needed. Although I would say an upgrade of primarily Texas 71 to Interstate quality and designating it I-12 is a higher priority.
Texas is a big enough state to be able to walk and chew gum at the same time in terms of building out highway projects.
The Austin-San Antonio megapolis is growing rapidly. A full Interstate-quality upgrade of TX-71 looks like it could be in the cards. I also think US-290 between the NW fringes of the Houston metro to Austin is in every bit as much need of Interstate quality upgrading,
if not even more so. That's actually where I would stick an I-12 designation. As it stands, TX DOT doesn't seem all that keen in re-naming existing highways into Interstates. The I-69 thing is an exception, but that has been a national effort. Also the TX-80 corridor between San Marcos and Luling may need serious Interstate-quality upgrading in the near future. Same goes for the TX-46 corridor between New Braunfels and Seguin. TX-46 could be yet another Interstate quality partial ring around the Northern reaches of San Antonio.
All of that is a different issue from what affects the Rio Grande Valley and far South Texas. Just like the traffic development needs of Dallas Fort Worth are separate from those of Houston.
How long before Interstate 2 will finally reach Laredo? My rough guess would be in about 40 or 50 years.
There is no telling. But the La Joya bypass is going to be finished pretty soon. I think freeway upgrades of US-83 farther West thru Sullivan City to La Puerta would be fairly simple, which means that could be done before 2030. The bypass around the Roma-Rio Grande City-La Puerta cluster is already in the works. So that could be in progress by 2030 or sooner.
The gap between Laredo and Roma is the biggest question mark since it is the most sparsely populated. The Zapata area is the only significant population center in between. That segment of highway would be the easiest to target with procrastination. It would be up to the cities in the Rio Grande Valley and Laredo to push hard enough to get the highway fully completed. Perhaps others across the rest of Texas could see value in a completed I-2 as well as an extension of I-27 to Laredo. That would make for a pretty interesting West Texas corridor, one even more interesting if it extended into Colorado.
It seems the Lower Rio Grande Valley has been gaining around 100,000+ from 2010 to 2020, with most of the growth from Hidalgo County.
Quote from: Thegeet on December 31, 2021, 01:12:25 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on December 17, 2021, 12:50:10 AM
^ Is there any confirmation the US-83 improvements beyond the existing I-2 are going to be signed / built as Interstate 2?
As far as I'm aware, it's still fictional.
I could ask TxDOT and see if they have any word about this.
I have asked TxDOT just now. They should reply within 2 weeks.
There is a very large amount of right-of-way acquisition for SL 195 in this month's TxDOT minute order.
I didn't plot all the parcels, but it appears to be most of the ROW needed from Rio Grande City (east end) to US 83 at Loma Blanca Road north of Roma.
https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/commission/2022/0223/5.pdf (https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/commission/2022/0223/5.pdf)
SL 195 can be seen in this map (as mentioned, the ROW is for the section from Rio Grande City to Roma)
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/phr/major-projects.pdf (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/phr/major-projects.pdf)
I'm glad they're taking real steps forward with the Loop 195 project to skirt the Rio Grande City-Roma cluster of towns. Maybe one day in the not too distant future it will be signed as I-2.
The PDF map of proposed major projects in the Rio Grande Valley region is interesting:
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/phr/major-projects.pdf
Obviously not all of them will be Interstate quality freeways. Still if a lot of those projects are built-out it will make that far South Texas area look far more like a major metro on a map than it does now.
Quote from: https://www.progresstimes.net/2021/02/28/with-new-highway-about-halfway-complete-penitas-poised-for-growth/
Anderson Columbia, a construction company based in Lake City, Florida, is scheduled to finish Phase I by February 2022.
That article is almost a year old though, and I haven't seen any more recent news.
Google updated some of the satellite imagery in Google Earth for the Rio Grande Valley region. More progress on I-69E is visible going North of Raymondville. That progress makes it a little more clear what they intend with limited length frontage roads to maintain ranch connections.
And then there's I-2. All of the La Joya Bypass route construction is now visible. Holy cow, that first turn on the East end of the bypass looks pretty sharp. Is that even going rated at a 55mph speed limit? Just a short drive North of that and you get another turn, but not quite as sharp. It was one thing seeing the proposed path, but another actually seeing it getting built out.
I don't appear to see any new satellite imagery: the I-69E was from around last year. The I-2 only shows construction on the West side.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 23, 2022, 12:07:31 AM
And then there's I-2. All of the La Joya Bypass route construction is now visible. Holy cow, that first turn on the East end of the bypass looks pretty sharp. Is that even going rated at a 55mph speed limit? Just a short drive North of that and you get another turn, but not quite as sharp. It was one thing seeing the proposed path, but another actually seeing it getting built out.
The speed limit will be posted at 65 mph, with an advisory speed of 55 mph.
Quote from: wxfree on October 04, 2019, 02:49:34 PM
The speed limit on the end of the existing freeway is 65. Going westbound, the speed limit will remain 65 through the first curve. There will be an advisory speed of 55. The speed limit increases to 70 in the second curve, with no advisory speed. Eastbound, the speed limit will reduce to 65 in the first curve, and the second curve will have an advisory speed of 55. Frontage road speed limits are 55 near the interchange. The business route has a speed limit of 65 on the east end, reducing to 55 before the first intersection. There is no increase to 75, although that may happen after they have the opportunity to study the traffic.
Anderson Columbia is the contractor. This project will most likely drag for years.
Quote from: ThegeetI don't appear to see any new satellite imagery: the I-69E was from around last year. The I-2 only shows construction on the West side.
The new imagery is visible in Google Earth Pro. I don't see it yet in Google Maps. For some odd reason the imagery date doesn't show up on my work computer, but I'm pretty sure it's from early this year (2022).
Quote from: roadman65Anderson Columbia is the contractor. This project will most likely drag for years.
In the case of the LaJoya Bypass, it is pretty far along in progress. Barring really bad weather, like hurricanes or floods, it looks like it should be finished before the end of 2022.
GSV does show the eastern end of the bypass being built from US 83. It shows the two flyovers being built above the current US 83 as part of the future interchange carrying the main freeway over the future business route.
https://goo.gl/maps/FBLZ5kjaPv2CEAS2A
Then at the west end, goggle does show it in Sattellite imagery as well as Street View.
https://goo.gl/maps/XHJuUXb6ohPAexZc6
The new overhead imagery of the LaJoya Bypass has to be from early 2022, maybe even late February. The Street View imagery of the East End of the bypass is dated 11/2021 and the interchange bridges with US-83/I-2 are only partially erected. The bridge structures are fully built out in the overhead imagery, plus the new berms leading to the overpasses are in place. All that's needed is for the road decks to be finished.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 23, 2022, 04:50:59 PMQuote from: ThegeetI don't appear to see any new satellite imagery: the I-69E was from around last year. The I-2 only shows construction on the West side.
The new imagery is visible in Google Earth Pro. I don't see it yet in Google Maps. For some odd reason the imagery date doesn't show up on my work computer, but I'm pretty sure it's from early this year (2022).
Quote from: roadman65Anderson Columbia is the contractor. This project will most likely drag for years.
In the case of the LaJoya Bypass, it is pretty far along in progress. Barring really bad weather, like hurricanes or floods, it looks like it should be finished before the end of 2022.
Can you please upload an image since mine doesn't show it.
If you want to see more recent aerials in Google Earth click the "show historic aerial" button at the top of the UI. (The clock icon with a counterclockwise arrow). Newer aerials are often "hiding" in the the historic option for various reasons (clouds or whatever). This is especially true for urban areas.
This is only an option in Google Earth, not Google Maps. And it's only a feature of the desktop app, not the mobile app.
https://travelmapping.net/hb/showroute.php?r=tx.i002&lat=26.255549220624292&lon=-98.47479343414307&zoom=14
Hover over the layers menu @ top-right & select "Esri WorldImagery".
https://www.progresstimes.net/2021/02/28/with-new-highway-about-halfway-complete-penitas-poised-for-growth/ (https://www.progresstimes.net/2021/02/28/with-new-highway-about-halfway-complete-penitas-poised-for-growth/)
(https://www.progresstimes.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TxDOT-Photo-1-Courtesy-of-TxDOT-300x300.jpeg)
(https://www.progresstimes.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/TxDOT-Photo-2-Courtesy-of-TxDOT-300x300.jpeg)
(https://www.progresstimes.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/La-Joya-Bypass-Map-Courtesy-of-TxDOT.png)
With construction on the La Joya bypass about halfway complete, the city of Peñitas is preparing for growth.
Officially called the "U.S. 83 Relief Route," the project will extend Interstate 2 from Palmview to Sullivan City.
"We're excited about it, especially because we're going to have two exit lanes, one on Liberty and one on Tom Gill, so we're expecting a lot of the traffic to get off here," said Peñitas Mayor Rodrigo "Rigo" Lopez.
"We're not going to be one of those cities that gets left behind."
Construction on Phase I of the project, which connects the east side of Sullivan City to Jara Chinas Road, is about 63% complete, according to information provided by the Texas Department of Transportation.
Along with the highway and frontage roads, Phase I involved the construction of a bridge over La Joya Lake.
Anderson Columbia, a construction company based in Lake City, Florida, is scheduled to finish Phase I by February 2022.
Construction on Phase II of the project, which connects Jara Chinas Road to Interstate 2 near Showers Road, is about 47% complete, according to information provided by the Department of Transportation.
Phase II also involved drainage work, which is more than 90% complete.
Pulice Construction – a subsidiary of Dragados, a Spanish construction conglomerate – is scheduled to finish Phase II by May 2023.
Phase I and Phase II cost about $183 million, according to information provided by the Department of Transportation. When completed, the project will extend Interstate 2 by about 9 miles.
The new highway will allow motorists to avoid U.S. 83 between Sullivan City and Palmview, which is prone to congestion during rush hour.
Planning for the project started more than a decade ago. Peñitas worked closely with the Rio Grande Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization and the Department of Transportation throughout the process.
"We've been talking about it for several years now and it's finally here," Lopez said. "We're going to be able to see this come to fruition."
Exits on Liberty Road and Tom Gill Road will position the city of Peñitas for commercial development, Lopez said, adding that about 500 acres of undeveloped land is ready for new businesses.
"We're looking to attract maybe your franchise, sit-down restaurants and maybe some hotels and stuff of that nature," Lopez said.
The city is working to market Peñitas to hotels, restaurants and big-box retailers.
"Anything in particular, I wouldn't want to mention because of the competition that surrounds these types of things," Lopez said.
Reducing the travel time between Peñitas and McAllen will also position the city for residential growth.
"You can get on the expressway here in Peñitas and be in central McAllen at the same time as if you live on Trenton and drove down Second and got to central McAllen," said Peñitas City Manager Omar Romero.
More rooftops and retail development will boost tax revenue, allowing Peñitas to expand city services.
"We're looking forward to it," Romero said. "And we think that the growth for the city is going to be tremendous after it."
Uhh...this article is over a year old.
Quote from: Thegeet on March 26, 2022, 08:16:53 PM
Uhh...this article is over a year old.
I caught that after I posted. My bad.
Quote from: edwaleni on March 26, 2022, 08:50:46 PM
Quote from: Thegeet on March 26, 2022, 08:16:53 PM
Uhh...this article is over a year old.
I caught that after I posted. My bad.
Never trust the Goog. I've learned that several times resulting with egg all over me.
I still don't understand why they didn't "round off" the eastern end curves. As mentioned upthread, they have to room to have done so. Bad decision.
Quote from: roadman65 on March 27, 2022, 11:41:39 AM
Quote from: edwaleni on March 26, 2022, 08:50:46 PM
Quote from: Thegeet on March 26, 2022, 08:16:53 PM
Uhh...this article is over a year old.
I caught that after I posted. My bad.
Never trust the Goog. I've learned that several times resulting with egg all over me.
I still think its 2021 at times...must be a covid thing. I did look at that publication date and it went right by me.
Quote from: rte66manI still don't understand why they didn't "round off" the eastern end curves. As mentioned upthread, they have to room to have done so. Bad decision.
It's quite likely TX DOT was forced into that really outrageously angled alignment on the East end of the LaJoya Bypass due to property owners not wanting to sell ROW they needed to make the turns more gradual. That first turn at the East end is probably as sharp as anything you could find on an existing US freeway without it being a slow cloverleaf ramp.
I also think it's very likely in the years ahead that there will be plenty of accidents on that first turn from drivers not anticipating the sharp curve. TX DOT will need to install some visually "loud" warning signs to force motorists to pay attention. The finished bypass will serve as a kind of traffic flow experiment. Over time if there are too many accidents TX DOT will be forced to alter the alignment of the bypass' East end to work in more gradual curves.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 27, 2022, 05:29:21 PM
Quote from: rte66manI still don't understand why they didn't "round off" the eastern end curves. As mentioned upthread, they have to room to have done so. Bad decision.
It's quite likely TX DOT was forced into that really outrageously angled alignment on the East end of the LaJoya Bypass due to property owners not wanting to sell ROW they needed to make the turns more gradual. That first turn at the East end is probably as sharp as anything you could find on an existing US freeway without it being a slow cloverleaf ramp.
I also think it's very likely in the years ahead that there will be plenty of accidents on that first turn from drivers not anticipating the sharp curve. TX DOT will need to install some visually "loud" warning signs to force motorists to pay attention. The finished bypass will serve as a kind of traffic flow experiment. Over time if there are too many accidents TX DOT will be forced to alter the alignment of the bypass' East end to work in more gradual curves.
I thought I remembered some advisory speed signs on the curve I-45 makes at Richland, but I didn't see them on GSV. I do remember it being a bit of a pull on your vehicle at 75 mph.
It may take something ala I-90 in Cleveland or I-10 westbound in Baton Rouge.
iPhone
Quote from: bassoon1986 on March 27, 2022, 05:47:51 PM
It may take something ala I-90 in Cleveland or I-10 westbound in Baton Rouge.
Those are 35 mph curves, the one at La Joya will have an advisory speed of 55 mph.
The second curve I believe is designed for and will be posted for 70 mph.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on March 27, 2022, 05:29:21 PM
Quote from: rte66manI still don't understand why they didn't "round off" the eastern end curves. As mentioned upthread, they have to room to have done so. Bad decision.
It's quite likely TX DOT was forced into that really outrageously angled alignment on the East end of the LaJoya Bypass due to property owners not wanting to sell ROW they needed to make the turns more gradual. That first turn at the East end is probably as sharp as anything you could find on an existing US freeway without it being a slow cloverleaf ramp.
I also think it's very likely in the years ahead that there will be plenty of accidents on that first turn from drivers not anticipating the sharp curve. TX DOT will need to install some visually "loud" warning signs to force motorists to pay attention. The finished bypass will serve as a kind of traffic flow experiment. Over time if there are too many accidents TX DOT will be forced to alter the alignment of the bypass' East end to work in more gradual curves.
Looking at the area in Google maps that is some sort of concrete ditch or depression just to the west of the ROW for I-2 and just North of what appears to be a canal of some sort. I'm guessing that it it is something more than just a run of the mill ditch and that forced I-2 into the path it is taking.
https://www.google.com/maps/@26.249351,-98.4269498,1407m/data=!3m1!1e3
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 27, 2022, 07:22:55 PM
Quote from: bassoon1986 on March 27, 2022, 05:47:51 PM
It may take something ala I-90 in Cleveland or I-10 westbound in Baton Rouge.
Those are 35 mph curves, the one at La Joya will have an advisory speed of 55 mph.
The second curve I believe is designed for and will be posted for 70 mph.
Looks like a normal flyover to me.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51965720397_0b70c878d7_h.jpg)
Quote from: edwaleni on March 28, 2022, 10:57:41 AM
Looks like a normal flyover to me.
It's a curve designed for a 55-60 mph speed on an otherwise 70-75 mph posted highway. It's a flawed design.
Google Satellite View has updated the imagery for the future La Joya bypass.
Good to know! Hopefully, Interstate 2 makes it to Laredo, although I wouldn't be shocked if it doesn't.
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 28, 2022, 05:03:19 PM
Quote from: edwaleni on March 28, 2022, 10:57:41 AM
Looks like a normal flyover to me.
It's a curve designed for a 55-60 mph speed on an otherwise 70-75 mph posted highway. It's a flawed design.
Looks like the issue here is spacing between the intersection of existing US 83 with Business 83 to the west and the Showers Road interchange to the east, along with the property line setup and the businesses along the northbound frontage road north of Showers. The combination thereof precludes a more gradual transition and requires a sharper T divergence. Personally, I see no issue; the curve is not unlike a lot of relief route exits, and at least there's no left exits.
Quote from: The GhostbusterGood to know! Hopefully, Interstate 2 makes it to Laredo, although I wouldn't be shocked if it doesn't.
The hardest part is going to be getting the highway extended West to Roma. There are at least plans on paper to build a regional bypass around the cluster of cities from Rio Grande City out West past Roma. If it gets built any time soon it's likely going to start out as a Super 2 road with or without limited access, just to preserve ROW.
The other important leg is the stretch between Sullivan City and Las Lomas. I guess that's what will be tackled after the La Joya bypass is finished. It looks like they could build a new Interstate along the existing ROW, but I think plans are to build some new terrain bypass mileage around Sullivan City at least.
Quote from: Anthony_JK on April 04, 2022, 07:15:42 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on March 28, 2022, 05:03:19 PM
Quote from: edwaleni on March 28, 2022, 10:57:41 AM
Looks like a normal flyover to me.
It's a curve designed for a 55-60 mph speed on an otherwise 70-75 mph posted highway. It's a flawed design.
Looks like the issue here is spacing between the intersection of existing US 83 with Business 83 to the west and the Showers Road interchange to the east, along with the property line setup and the businesses along the northbound frontage road north of Showers. The combination thereof precludes a more gradual transition and requires a sharper T divergence. Personally, I see no issue; the curve is not unlike a lot of relief route exits, and at least there's no left exits.
Sure, but since it's a designed to be a continuous 75 mph highway extending east-west, a more seamless transition without a sharp 55 mph would have been ideal - and was certainly possible. The right of way exists for a larger radii curve.
https://www.newsbreak.com/news/2608015910297/u-s-83-relief-route-project-nearing-completion
Posted May 19. To be completed in about a year. About 85% done with the project, it says.
Lists 3 phases, though there's no mention of the first phases opening to traffic earlier.
Quote- Phase 1: Frontage Roads 0.85 miles East of El Faro Rd. to FM 2221
- Phase 2: Frontage Roads and Main Lanes from FM 2221 to 0.28 Miles West of Showers Rd.
- Phase 3: Maine lanes 0.85 Miles East of El Faro Rd. to FM 2221
Good to know we'uh finally gettin' some maw innastate lanes up heyuh too bub. Needham (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Needham_(food)) sutton wicked.
Quote from: yakra on June 12, 2022, 11:21:47 AM
https://www.newsbreak.com/news/2608015910297/u-s-83-relief-route-project-nearing-completion
Posted May 19. To be completed in about a year. About 85% done with the project, it says.
Lists 3 phases, though there's no mention of the first phases opening to traffic earlier.
Quote- Phase 1: Frontage Roads 0.85 miles East of El Faro Rd. to FM 2221
- Phase 2: Frontage Roads and Main Lanes from FM 2221 to 0.28 Miles West of Showers Rd.
- Phase 3: Maine lanes 0.85 Miles East of El Faro Rd. to FM 2221
Good to know we'uh finally gettin' some maw innastate lanes up heyuh too bub. Needham sutton wicked.
Da ya thinks dat dis wil bee maid an' innrstate hiwey up on openin'?
It better be an Interstate Highway when it opens, even if it is just signed as Interstate 2. At some point, the US 83 designation should be truncated, ultimately to Botines.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 13, 2022, 02:14:59 PM
It better be an Interstate Highway when it opens, even if it is just signed as Interstate 2. At some point, the US 83 designation should be truncated, ultimately to Botines.
If prior history means anything, the current US-83 will be changed to BUSN US-83 and I-2 and US-83 will be cosigned on the new route.
Quote from: edwaleni on June 13, 2022, 02:39:37 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 13, 2022, 02:14:59 PM
It better be an Interstate Highway when it opens, even if it is just signed as Interstate 2. At some point, the US 83 designation should be truncated, ultimately to Botines.
If prior history means anything, the current US-83 will be changed to BUSN US-83 and I-2 and US-83 will be cosigned on the new route.
I think you are right. It's stupid though. US-83 should stay where it is and the new alignment should be I-2 only.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on June 13, 2022, 02:53:19 PM
Quote from: edwaleni on June 13, 2022, 02:39:37 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 13, 2022, 02:14:59 PM
It better be an Interstate Highway when it opens, even if it is just signed as Interstate 2. At some point, the US 83 designation should be truncated, ultimately to Botines.
If prior history means anything, the current US-83 will be changed to BUSN US-83 and I-2 and US-83 will be cosigned on the new route.
It makes it easier to transition to a non US business route in the future I am sure.
I think you are right. It's stupid though. US-83 should stay where it is and the new alignment should be I-2 only.
I think US 83 will be the initial designation, and I-2 will be signed months later.
Quote from: Thegeet on June 14, 2022, 06:25:04 PM
I think US 83 will be the initial designation, and I-2 will be signed months later.
I have a feeling you are correct. Sign it as US-83 now because it has to have a number when it first opens, then sign it as I-2 so all the politicians can get together for the sign unveiling and back slap each other. US-83 will be the dress rehearsal, I-2 will be the wedding.
^ Can't they just have AASHTO and FHWA approve the I-2 extension to sign it from the start? They'd have to go to AASHTO to realign US 83 anyways.
Quote from: vdeane on June 15, 2022, 12:49:08 PM
^ Can't they just have AASHTO and FHWA approve the I-2 extension to sign it from the start? They'd have to go to AASHTO to realign US 83 anyways.
I'm not sure. Only reason I say US 83 will come first is due to my experience with I-69. The Driscoll bypass for instance was signed initially as US 77.
US83 relocation was approved by AASHTO back in spring 2016. I don't believe there's been approval for I-2 specifically.
Makes sense having that designation come later if the Maine [sic] lanes are being built in a separate phase later.
Google drove by the I-2 construction in La Joya last July...
East End:
https://www.google.com/maps/@26.2406178,-98.423099,3a,79.5y,290.53h,90.59t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1seWNxg3eEFRO7tuzOHRIVmQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
West End:
https://www.google.com/maps/@26.256545,-98.5281618,3a,75y,37.15h,95.88t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s9q5rMdyrKRxvIvgQTKYS0A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Once the La Joya Bypass of Interstate 2/US 83 is completed, the Sullivan City-to-Roma segments will likely be constructed next. Past Roma, future 2 could probably be built really close to existing US 83, save for the future bypass around Zapata.
Has TX DOT decided whether they're going to build the Sullivan City segment of I-2 on a new alignment South of town or will they do upgrades along the existing US-83 alignment?
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 20, 2022, 10:50:06 PM
Has TX DOT decided whether they're going to build the Sullivan City segment of I-2 on a new alignment South of town or will they do upgrades along the existing US-83 alignment?
The original discussion was south of Sullivan City until about Buena Vista. I don't think its funded, therefore no route has been formalized.
Apparently, a portion was opened in late July 2023: https://www.krgv.com/news/txdot-opens-portion-of-u-s-83-relief-route-in-western-hidalgo-county/
How come I-2 isn't being extended with these bypasses? Did AASHTO reject the idea of extending it?
Here is the current position of TxDOT Pharr District on the extension of road improvements all the way to Roma.
At this point the project is being called "TX-195 Loop". Waiting on a regional highway study due in August 2024.
https://riograndeguardian.com/alvarez-txdot-wants-to-build-a-relief-route-to-us-83-in-starr-county/ (https://riograndeguardian.com/alvarez-txdot-wants-to-build-a-relief-route-to-us-83-in-starr-county/)
Listen to the entire video, he explains their thinking all the way to Laredo.
Quote from: roadman65 on September 23, 2023, 02:22:44 PM
How come I-2 isn't being extended with these bypasses? Did AASHTO reject the idea of extending it?
The bypass of La Joya is not quite finished, even though part of it is open. Even if it were completed, the paperwork to get the I-2 designation approved will take some time to get through the FHWA and AASHTO approval processes before I-2 signs are installed on the La Joya Bypass.
Hopefully the government agencies involved won't slow-walk progress with I-2 for decades, although that's likely what will happen. They won't be prepared for the population growth that region is likely to experience.
Laredo already has over 200,000 people. More than a million live in the Rio Grande Valley cluster of cities. The Roma-Rio Grande City area has over 60,000 people officially -the video mentions the possibility of that area being under-counted in the last Census.
In a positive scenario where American manufacturers increasingly shift foreign production away from China to points elsewhere Mexico could be a great option for them to relocate factories. Some of that depends on us Americans changing some of our dirty, illegal habits which keep Mexico stuck in its current situation. Otherwise manufacturers will look to other nations like Vietnam or even countries in Africa. If Mexico does become a landing spot for a lot more manufacturers it will dramatically increase border traffic and development along the border. That could happen in a time line far shorter than the decades it now takes to build any new Interstate highway.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 24, 2023, 03:56:14 PM
Hopefully the government agencies involved won't slow-walk progress with I-2 for decades, although that's likely what will happen. They won't be prepared for the population growth that region is likely to experience.
Laredo already has over 200,000 people. More than a million live in the Rio Grande Valley cluster of cities. The Roma-Rio Grande City area has over 60,000 people officially -the video mentions the possibility of that area being under-counted in the last Census.
In a positive scenario where American manufacturers increasingly shift foreign production away from China to points elsewhere Mexico could be a great option for them to relocate factories. Some of that depends on us Americans changing some of our dirty, illegal habits which keep Mexico stuck in its current situation. Otherwise manufacturers will look to other nations like Vietnam or even countries in Africa. If Mexico does become a landing spot for a lot more manufacturers it will dramatically increase border traffic and development along the border. That could happen in a time line far shorter than the decades it now takes to build any new Interstate highway.
American interest in "dirty, illegal" substances is nothing new. Even the Egyptians imported shrooms from the Gauls to feed certain habits. Doesn't make it right, just saying that things like this parallel human expansion globally.
Unfortunately I-2 will be competing with the various I-69 efforts for funding. My guess is that if the "Port to Plains" efforts gets any traction (a different thread) then perhaps it will pick up as well.
Quote from: edwaleniAmerican interest in "dirty, illegal" substances is nothing new. Even the Egyptians imported shrooms from the Gauls to feed certain habits. Doesn't make it right, just saying that things like this parallel human expansion globally.
This situation is still pretty unique because of the sheer scale of its effects on Mexico and the rest of Central America. And I didn't call the substances involved "dirty." It's the choices and actions of Americans which are dirty.
We shouldn't forget the immense level of hypocrisy involved either. So many Americans look down their noses at Mexico and other countries farther South as if the problems of corruption and violence are only their fault. We have at least some blame to shoulder for the violence and despair down there. It's mostly American money that keeps the drug cartels and other criminal organizations operational. They use money from American consumers to destabilize police and government functions from the local to national level. It's partly our fault so many people are trying to escape nations from Venezuela on up to come here. We've helped ruin their countries with our dirty illegal habits.
If it wasn't for the damned illegal drug industry Mexico could probably be an economic power house. So much potential is being lost in manufacturing, tourism, agriculture and various other industries.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 25, 2023, 07:13:51 PM
They use money from American consumers to destabilize police and government functions from the local to national level.
The CIA has been doing that since WW2.
I don't think anyone disagrees with you except that it doesn't have much to do with I-2.
Can we get back to that?
Let's get off the non-road politics, shall we?
On Google Maps, the new bypass of La Joya is listed as I-2 East and I-2 West. However, there are no other markers along the bypass, as neither Interstate 2 nor US 83 is shown. This will likely be rectified in time.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on September 29, 2023, 11:58:40 AM
On Google Maps, the new bypass of La Joya is listed as I-2 East and I-2 West. However, there are no other markers along the bypass, as neither Interstate 2 nor US 83 is shown. This will likely be rectified in time.
Don't think it's gonna be I-2, at least not right away. Google jumped the gun there.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/QgmnFKWYMyahFYFz8
I saw a headline from the Rio Grande Guardian newspaper saying that freight traffic between Laredo and the Rio Grande Valley is forecast to increase nearly 400% by 2050. There is no freight rail line going from Laredo to RGV. All that traffic is going to be trucks on highways. The study recommended limited access relief routes for Sullivan City, Rio Grande City, Roma, Zapata and San Ygnacio.
https://riograndeguardian.com/by-2050-freight-between-laredo-and-rgv-is-forecast-to-increase-by-nearly-400/
Sullivan City is next in line for the I-2 upgrade parade. It's not clear if Sullivan City would be bypassed to the South or if attempts would be made to build a new freeway along existing US-83 thru the middle of Sullivan City. A bypass going South of Sullivan City would provide a better connection to the town of Los Ebanos.
West of Sullivan City it looks like US-83 could be upgraded to Interstate standards in place thru East Lopez, Alto Bonito, La Casita-Garciasville and just short of La Puerta, where a bypass around the Roma-Rio Grande City metro would have to begin.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on September 29, 2023, 12:55:01 PM
I saw a headline from the Rio Grande Guardian newspaper saying that freight traffic between Laredo and the Rio Grande Valley is forecast to increase nearly 400% by 2050. There is no freight rail line going from Laredo to RGV. All that traffic is going to be trucks on highways. The study recommended limited access relief routes for Sullivan City, Rio Grande City, Roma, Zapata and San Ygnacio.
https://riograndeguardian.com/by-2050-freight-between-laredo-and-rgv-is-forecast-to-increase-by-nearly-400/
The Border Pacific Railroad and the Rio Grande Valley Switching RR runs between Rio Grande City and Harlington. But it does not reach Laredo along the RGV. In fact, in the history of Texas, I don't think *any* railroad was built south of Laredo. They all went east or north.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/53222238042_c7df160422_b.jpg)
La Joya Bypass (Day 1 opening 07-28-2023)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcGsm2qnjvw
No exit numbers? That disappoints me. Maybe numbers will be added when the La Joya Bypass officially becomes part of Interstate 2.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 17, 2023, 01:48:35 PM
No exit numbers? That disappoints me. Maybe numbers will be added when the La Joya Bypass officially becomes part of Interstate 2.
Well, it's not quite finished yet, as they're still working at the west end where it ties into the old road. I would suspect that TxDOT will apply to extend the I-2 designation once the La Joya Bypass is fully complete.
Quote from: abqtraveler on October 17, 2023, 08:57:46 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 17, 2023, 01:48:35 PM
No exit numbers? That disappoints me. Maybe numbers will be added when the La Joya Bypass officially becomes part of Interstate 2.
Well, it's not quite finished yet, as they're still working at the west end where it ties into the old road. I would suspect that TxDOT will apply to extend the I-2 designation once the La Joya Bypass is fully complete.
Actually, it might take a about one or two years before being designated an Interstate, as they have to get approval from AASHTO and FHWA.
Quote from: abqtraveler on October 17, 2023, 08:57:46 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 17, 2023, 01:48:35 PM
No exit numbers? That disappoints me. Maybe numbers will be added when the La Joya Bypass officially becomes part of Interstate 2.
Well, it's not quite finished yet, as they're still working at the west end where it ties into the old road. I would suspect that TxDOT will apply to extend the I-2 designation once the La Joya Bypass is fully complete.
I thought exit numbers were now required for new construction, no matter if it's an Interstate or not. ?
Quote from: kphoger on October 19, 2023, 09:41:32 AM
Quote from: abqtraveler on October 17, 2023, 08:57:46 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 17, 2023, 01:48:35 PM
No exit numbers? That disappoints me. Maybe numbers will be added when the La Joya Bypass officially becomes part of Interstate 2.
Well, it's not quite finished yet, as they're still working at the west end where it ties into the old road. I would suspect that TxDOT will apply to extend the I-2 designation once the La Joya Bypass is fully complete.
I thought exit numbers were now required for new construction, no matter if it's an Interstate or not. ?
That would be true for interstates. I don't know whether non-interstate routes require exit numbers. If that's the case, it would create a very confusing system, as the mileage system for non-interstate routes in Texas is very convoluted. For north-south routes, the mileage is determined from the northwest corner of the Texas Panhandle. For east-west routes, mileage is determined from the Texas/New Mexico/Mexico tripoint at the westernmpost point in the state. And then you have interstates whose mileage follows the traditional convention of starting at the south/west end of the route and increasing heading north/east.
So for the La Joya Bypass, you would get exit numbers around 850 (based on US-83 distance from the NW corner of the Panhandle) changing to Exit 130 and increasing once you reach the east end of the bypass and it becomes I-2.
Since existing Interstate 2's exits are numbered 130 to 176, it would make perfect sense to number the La Joya Bypass's exits as a continuation of those numbers, rather than number them by the mileage of US 83 (depending on whether mile 0 would be at the Oklahoma/Texas border, or at the Mexican border along the Veterans International Bridge co-current with US 77).