Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[thisdj78]

My overall point is that, once discussion has happened at the legislative level (even if it never made it into a bill) and it is documented in the news (as in the link above), I would think that it is no longer fictional.

Adding tolls to existing Interstate highways has been "discussed" by both Congress and the President under at least the Obama and Trump administrations.  Does this take tolling existing Interstates out of the realm of fiction?

In my personal opinion, yes. Fictional to me means something that has never been discussed and documented at an official level. As I noted before though, I fully concede that it is a grey area.

[sprjus4]

^ The letter in question seems to seek redesignation of the existing US-290 freeway between I-10 / I-610 and SH-6 in Hempstead, given it’s mention the route “already meets interstate standards”.

I don’t believe it’s talking about upgrading the rural sections west of there to interstate standards.

[thisdj78]

^ The letter in question seems to seek redesignation of the existing US-290 freeway between I-10 / I-610 and SH-6 in Hempstead, given it’s mention the route “already meets interstate standards”.

I don’t believe it’s talking about upgrading the rural sections west of there to interstate standards.

Yes they refer to the existing route but in hopes that the interstate designation would speed up improvements on the rest of the route. One of the congressmen is out of Austin BTW, so he had a mutual interest in the designation.

[sprjus4]

^ The letter in question seems to seek redesignation of the existing US-290 freeway between I-10 / I-610 and SH-6 in Hempstead, given it’s mention the route “already meets interstate standards”.

I don’t believe it’s talking about upgrading the rural sections west of there to interstate standards.

Yes they refer to the existing route but in hopes that the interstate designation would speed up improvements on the rest of the route. One of the congressmen is out of Austin BTW, so he had a mutual interest in the designation.

Was it specified about hoping towards further upgrades of the route? Or is that speculation?

[thisdj78]

^ The letter in question seems to seek redesignation of the existing US-290 freeway between I-10 / I-610 and SH-6 in Hempstead, given it’s mention the route “already meets interstate standards”.

I don’t believe it’s talking about upgrading the rural sections west of there to interstate standards.

Yes they refer to the existing route but in hopes that the interstate designation would speed up improvements on the rest of the route. One of the congressmen is out of Austin BTW, so he had a mutual interest in the designation.

Was it specified about hoping towards further upgrades of the route? Or is that speculation?

Yes, mentioned twice in the article:

”Local leaders in northwest Houston are asking the Texas Department of Transportation to seek U.S. 290's designation as a federal interstate highway not only to gain potential federal funds for its expansion but also to improve its visibility as a location for business and industry wanting to locate in Texas.”

”The designation could improve the potential for federal funding to expand the highway, he said.”

[sprjus4]

That’s still vague though… extension further west? Or expansion as in, widen the existing freeway with more capacity.

That’s what expansion sounds like to me.

[thisdj78]

That’s still vague though… extension further west? Or expansion as in, widen the existing freeway with more capacity.

That’s what expansion sounds like to me.

They note in the article that this is not regarding existing expansion plans:

”would not impact existing plans to expand U.S. 290 because the current design already meets interstate standards.”

So this was referring to expansion further west. Considering that one of the Representatives district is pretty much all of the rural area between Waller and Elgin, that would make sense.

[sprjus4]

Read further.

Business leaders cite traffic congestion on U.S. 290 as a detriment to potential economic growth in the region, but only a portion of its planned expansion has been funded by the state.

According to TxDOT's US290.com website, construction is under way on Project K, the inbound interchange with I-10 and Loop 610 funded with a $314.5 million allocation from Proposition 12 bond funds.

In October, the Texas Transportation Commission approved an additional $140 million, including $50 million for right of way and $90 million for construction of Project J-1, which includes the interchange and partial outbound improvements.

But a funding source has not been pinned down for reconstruction and widening of the highway from Loop 610 all the way to FM 2920, including two segments from 610 to FM 1960 which rank in the top third of the state's 100 most congested highway segments.

The existing expansion plans a decade ago would not be impacted as their design already meets interstate standards. But other portions of the US-290 corridor between Hempstead and Houston still needed funding for improvements, and this is was hopeful to be a potential source.

Again - no mention of anything west of Hempstead.

[sprjus4]

^ Just because a representative from outside the immediate corridor supports it, doesn’t mean the work has to occur there.

For example, I live down in South Hampton Roads, VA. They are funding and will soon begin construction of 29 miles of widening on I-64 east of Richmond. I am over an hour away from that project, but I still strongly support it, and so do elected officials in Hampton Roads, because it impacts a route to the Hampton Roads region, even though the physical construction is in a rural area.

In the same sense, representatives west of Hempstead and Austin may support it because widening the urban US-290 freeway in the Houston area would ultimately benefit traffic using that segment to get to Austin.

[thisdj78]

^ Just because a representative from outside the immediate corridor supports it, doesn’t mean the work has to occur there.

For example, I live down in South Hampton Roads, VA. They are funding and will soon begin construction of 29 miles of widening on I-64 east of Richmond. I am over an hour away from that project, but I still strongly support it, and so do elected officials in Hampton Roads, because it impacts a route to the Hampton Roads region, even though the physical construction is in a rural area.

In the same sense, representatives west of Hempstead and Austin may support it because widening the urban US-290 freeway in the Houston area would ultimately benefit traffic using that segment to get to Austin.

Either way you look at it, my original point is that designating US290 as an interstate is not fictional, based on the article. Whether it refers to just the portion to Hempstead or the rural parts….the point remains that US290 in some form or fashion was officially discussed/proposed as a possible interstate. With that said, it should not be simply discarded as fictional.

[longhorn]

Would 290 be a three digit interstate? Renamed I-12, and make I-12 a three digit intestate? Rename I-14 to something else, since Ft. Hood is getting renamed too in two years.

[sprjus4]

Would 290 be a three digit interstate? Renamed I-12, and make I-12 a three digit intestate? Rename I-14 to something else, since Ft. Hood is getting renamed too in two years.

Following the real-life proposal (albeit 10 years old) to designate US-290 between Hempstead and Houston as an interstate highway, likely a 3di if anything. That would be too short for a 2di designation.

[bwana39]

Would 290 be a three digit interstate? Renamed I-12, and make I-12 a three digit intestate? Rename I-14 to something else, since Ft. Hood is getting renamed too in two years.

There is no urgency in Texas to hang an IH sign on a highway: even on a fully grade separated facility with through frontage roads. While the casual observer would assume that this is all it takes, THINK AGAIN.

Why not? There are little tweaks that FHWA and AASHTO require for an Interstate that they don't require for US Highways (or state numbered routes that surprisingly can be funded with federal dollars.)   The bottom line is if they don't label it as IH, then there are certain personal (TxDOT) preferences that can be applied, there are cases where expense can be cut, and finally the existing numbers and the familiarity that comes with them doesn't change.  Expense cutting is not limited to the kinds of things that you hear on here ad nauseum.  While in a lot of cases, leaving driveways, minor cross traffic, and terrible sightlines will save a LOT of money, there are reasons beyond this for not taking the IH plunge.

There is ONE clear advantage for IH labeling. There is absolutely no guessing if it is fully controlled access. (Except in West Texas and the next couple of states on I-10 and I-40.)

[ethanhopkin14]

Would 290 be a three digit interstate? Renamed I-12, and make I-12 a three digit intestate? Rename I-14 to something else, since Ft. Hood is getting renamed too in two years.

There is no urgency in Texas to hang an IH sign on a highway: even on a fully grade separated facility with through frontage roads. While the casual observer would assume that this is all it takes, THINK AGAIN.

Why not? There are little tweaks that FHWA and AASHTO require for an Interstate that they don't require for US Highways (or state numbered routes that surprisingly can be funded with federal dollars.)   The bottom line is if they don't label it as IH, then there are certain personal (TxDOT) preferences that can be applied, there are cases where expense can be cut, and finally the existing numbers and the familiarity that comes with them doesn't change.  Expense cutting is not limited to the kinds of things that you hear on here ad nauseum.  While in a lot of cases, leaving driveways, minor cross traffic, and terrible sightlines will save a LOT of money, there are reasons beyond this for not taking the IH plunge.

There is ONE clear advantage for IH labeling. There is absolutely no guessing if it is fully controlled access. (Except in West Texas and the next couple of states on I-10 and I-40.)

I used to agree with that statement, until I-2 and I-14 were signed as interstates.  Frankly I think they are both subpar interstates.  So is I-69E in Calallen.  To me they look just like all the rest of the non-interstate freeways in Texas. 

[sprjus4]

Would 290 be a three digit interstate? Renamed I-12, and make I-12 a three digit intestate? Rename I-14 to something else, since Ft. Hood is getting renamed too in two years.

There is no urgency in Texas to hang an IH sign on a highway: even on a fully grade separated facility with through frontage roads. While the casual observer would assume that this is all it takes, THINK AGAIN.

Why not? There are little tweaks that FHWA and AASHTO require for an Interstate that they don't require for US Highways (or state numbered routes that surprisingly can be funded with federal dollars.)   The bottom line is if they don't label it as IH, then there are certain personal (TxDOT) preferences that can be applied, there are cases where expense can be cut, and finally the existing numbers and the familiarity that comes with them doesn't change.  Expense cutting is not limited to the kinds of things that you hear on here ad nauseum.  While in a lot of cases, leaving driveways, minor cross traffic, and terrible sightlines will save a LOT of money, there are reasons beyond this for not taking the IH plunge.

There is ONE clear advantage for IH labeling. There is absolutely no guessing if it is fully controlled access. (Except in West Texas and the next couple of states on I-10 and I-40.)

I used to agree with that statement, until I-2 and I-14 were signed as interstates.  Frankly I think they are both subpar interstates.  So is I-69E in Calallen.  To me they look just like all the rest of the non-interstate freeways in Texas. 

We’ve been over this ground before - those were legislative decisions.

Also - I-2 and I-69E are perfectly fine for interstate highways in terms of design, I don’t see any issues with them.

[ethanhopkin14]

Would 290 be a three digit interstate? Renamed I-12, and make I-12 a three digit intestate? Rename I-14 to something else, since Ft. Hood is getting renamed too in two years.

There is no urgency in Texas to hang an IH sign on a highway: even on a fully grade separated facility with through frontage roads. While the casual observer would assume that this is all it takes, THINK AGAIN.

Why not? There are little tweaks that FHWA and AASHTO require for an Interstate that they don't require for US Highways (or state numbered routes that surprisingly can be funded with federal dollars.)   The bottom line is if they don't label it as IH, then there are certain personal (TxDOT) preferences that can be applied, there are cases where expense can be cut, and finally the existing numbers and the familiarity that comes with them doesn't change.  Expense cutting is not limited to the kinds of things that you hear on here ad nauseum.  While in a lot of cases, leaving driveways, minor cross traffic, and terrible sightlines will save a LOT of money, there are reasons beyond this for not taking the IH plunge.

There is ONE clear advantage for IH labeling. There is absolutely no guessing if it is fully controlled access. (Except in West Texas and the next couple of states on I-10 and I-40.)

I used to agree with that statement, until I-2 and I-14 were signed as interstates.  Frankly I think they are both subpar interstates.  So is I-69E in Calallen.  To me they look just like all the rest of the non-interstate freeways in Texas. 

We’ve been over this ground before - those were legislative decisions.

Also - I-2 and I-69E are perfectly fine for interstate highways in terms of design, I don’t see any issues with them.

I wasn't talking about the numbers or the fact they are interstates.  I am talking about the quality of the actual road.  Just the eye test makes me think interstate standards are a bit more loosey goosey than we all think. 

What I mean by that, I-69E in Calallen looks more like a half freeway around a po-dunk town than a true interstate.  The median seems too narrow, and the pavement looks more like Texas' rural US-highways, which are not the standard of pavement you get on Texas' interstates.  To me, it looks like they wanted the designation there so bad, they just approved it as is.  This is my opinion, to me it looks substandard for interstate highways. 

[kphoger]

Just the eye test makes me think interstate standards are a bit more loosey goosey than we all think. 

What I mean by that, I-69E in Calallen looks more like a half freeway around a po-dunk town than a true interstate.  The median seems too narrow ...

Interstate design standards call for a left shoulder of no less than four feet if the roadway has fewer than three lanes.  I'm not seeing anywhere along I-69E in Calallen that violates that standard.

[sprjus4]

What I mean by that, I-69E in Calallen looks more like a half freeway around a po-dunk town than a true interstate.  The median seems too narrow, and the pavement looks more like Texas' rural US-highways, which are not the standard of pavement you get on Texas' interstates.  To me, it looks like they wanted the designation there so bad, they just approved it as is.  This is my opinion, to me it looks substandard for interstate highways.

How so? The highway has two 12 foot travel lanes, 10 foot right paved shoulder, 4 foot left paved shoulder, and a grassy 40-50 ft median. It has full control of access, overpasses, ramps, frontage roads, etc. Where does it violate interstate standards at all?

[ethanhopkin14]

What I mean by that, I-69E in Calallen looks more like a half freeway around a po-dunk town than a true interstate.  The median seems too narrow, and the pavement looks more like Texas' rural US-highways, which are not the standard of pavement you get on Texas' interstates.  To me, it looks like they wanted the designation there so bad, they just approved it as is.  This is my opinion, to me it looks substandard for interstate highways.

How so? The highway has two 12 foot travel lanes, 10 foot right paved shoulder, 4 foot left paved shoulder, and a grassy 40-50 ft median. It has full control of access, overpasses, ramps, frontage roads, etc. Where does it violate interstate standards at all?

I wasn't talking about the shoulders.  There are more to the standards than the shoulders.  The median feels too narrow here.  I am not talking about getting out and throwing a tape measure on it.  Also the sightlines on the overpasses seem more like rural US highway freeways in Texas then a true interstate highway, as in they seem too blind.  It was repaved recently, so it used to look like this.  Just to me, that's so subpar asphalt compared to interstates in Texas that have been interstates since the beginning. 

I am not saying it doesn't conform, because obviously it does, but it looks like all the other rural non-interstate freeways in Texas, and as we have stated ad nauseum, if Texas don't have to, Texas won't.  So, either most or all of Texas' non-interstate freeways are actually built to interstate standards, or the interstate standards are not quite as hardcore as everyone makes them out to be.  Again, this is all my opinion on how this freeway looks when I drive it vs. other interstates in the same state, even compared to the one it intersects with just to the north. 

[kphoger]

I wasn't talking about the shoulders.  There are more to the standards than the shoulders.  The median feels too narrow here.  I am not talking about getting out and throwing a tape measure on it.

Interstate standards call for a median of at least 50 feet.  It might be a couple of feet short of that standard.

[Bobby5280]

What about all the numerous Interstates that don't have a median? A bunch of them have only a concrete Jersey barrier or even a mere cable barrier separating the two directions of traffic. New segments of super highways signed as Interstates get built like that all the time.

The main difference I see with modern Interstate standards is better/longer ramp designs and wider shoulders. I'm sure there are other things involving how smooth the road should be (not a bunch of rolling dips and rises). Median width doesn't seem to be a big issue. Not unless the median will have no physical barriers, be it concrete or cable barriers.

[J N Winkler]

I wasn't talking about the shoulders.  There are more to the standards than the shoulders.  The median feels too narrow here.  I am not talking about getting out and throwing a tape measure on it.

Interstate standards call for a median of at least 50 feet.  It might be a couple of feet short of that standard.

I threw the tape measure or, rather, the Google Maps measure tool.  What you say is correct on both counts--minimum median width in rural areas is 50 feet and I-69E/US 77 appears to have a median width of 48 feet at this location.  However, it does have cable barrier.

The 2016 edition of the Interstate standards uses the word should for median width, but shall for other criteria such as shoulders and unit lane width, which suggests to me that there is more leeway for medians.

What about all the numerous Interstates that don't have a median? A bunch of them have only a concrete Jersey barrier or even a mere cable barrier separating the two directions of traffic. New segments of super highways signed as Interstates get built like that all the time.

A barrier of some kind (cable or Jersey) is the usual get-out.  The 50-foot minimum applies just to flat and rolling topographies in any case.

Another aspect of median design referenced in the Interstate standards is that the median should not be engineered to drain over the traveled way.  However, first-generation public-authority turnpikes (including the rural lengths of I-44 in Oklahoma) still hang on to Interstate status despite not honoring this guideline.

[sprjus4]

The 2016 edition of the Interstate standards uses the word should for median width, but shall for other criteria such as shoulders and unit lane width, which suggests to me that there is more leeway for medians.

There definitely is. Texas seems to either use 48 foot for standard median width on new construction (some exceptions do exist with wider), or a concrete barrier only (narrow median).

North Carolina uses 46 foot median for the most part, including over 100 miles of I-40 built between Raleigh and Wilmington in the 1980s. Even the newer addition freeways have areas with 46 foot median. There’s nothing wrong with it.

I wouldn’t advise narrow medians on new construction, but incorporating an older freeway segment with a narrow median (after installing cable barrier at the minimum) that meets interstate standards otherwise (full access control, full paved shoulders, etc.) should be, and is allowed.

Kentucky’s segments of I-69 along the existing parkways have a 35 foot median I believe, and they’ve all been incorporated. There wasn’t even a cable barrier installed in most places. I believe from a safety standpoint, those should be incorporated regardless of standards or not. You have two dual roadways with opposing 70+ mph traffic that close, there ought to be a barrier.

[kphoger]

A barrier of some kind (cable or Jersey) is the usual get-out.  The 50-foot minimum applies just to flat and rolling topographies in any case.

To wit, medians in urban or mountainous areas (which is where barriers are mentioned) are required to be "wide enough to accommodate the left shoulder width plus the space needed for a barrier".  This seems to assume that barriers are only ever used in urban or mountainous areas, but such is obviously not the case.