US-290 between Austin and Houston thread (future freeway-ish upgrades when?)

[sprjus4]

What's wrong with a second I-12? We only have a bunch of other 2-digit Interstate routes that have separate segments in other parts of the country: I-49, I-69, I-74, I-76, I-84, I-86, I-87, I-88, I-99. I might have missed one or more examples. A second I-12 wouldn't exactly be breaking any rules.

I-49, I-69, I-74, and I-99 are all planned to be connected. Some may not happen, but that is the idea behind the numbering. Any "I-12"  would not be connected, nor planned to be.

I-76, I-84, I-86, I-87, and I-88 are in different regions altogether and many hours apart. "I-12"  would be duplicated within 250 miles.

While the idea for connecting route providing a "I-10N"  in a sense is plausible, I'm not sure there's much warrant traffic wise to upgrading west of Austin, especially closer to I-10. I-10 even dips to under 10,000 AADT west of US-290, traffic volumes on US-290 are in the 2,000 range I believe. There's zero need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars upgrading that. And the argument I've seen thrown around here that tons of traffic is driving another hour via San Antonio to avoid two lane road is false. It might be some, but certainly not adding a lot of traffic. And again - I-10 west of US-290 dips to below 10,000 in some areas.

Let's focus on getting SH-71 to interstate standards east of Austin first.

[thisdj78]

What's wrong with a second I-12? We only have a bunch of other 2-digit Interstate routes that have separate segments in other parts of the country: I-49, I-69, I-74, I-76, I-84, I-86, I-87, I-88, I-99. I might have missed one or more examples. A second I-12 wouldn't exactly be breaking any rules.

I-49, I-69, I-74, and I-99 are all planned to be connected. Some may not happen, but that is the idea behind the numbering. Any "I-12"  would not be connected, nor planned to be.

I-76, I-84, I-86, I-87, and I-88 are in different regions altogether and many hours apart. "I-12"  would be duplicated within 250 miles.

While the idea for connecting route providing a "I-10N"  in a sense is plausible, I'm not sure there's much warrant traffic wise to upgrading west of Austin, especially closer to I-10. I-10 even dips to under 10,000 AADT west of US-290, traffic volumes on US-290 are in the 2,000 range I believe. There's zero need to spend hundreds of millions of dollars upgrading that. And the argument I've seen thrown around here that tons of traffic is driving another hour via San Antonio to avoid two lane road is false. It might be some, but certainly not adding a lot of traffic. And again - I-10 west of US-290 dips to below 10,000 in some areas.

Let's focus on getting SH-71 to interstate standards east of Austin first.

They can do like I-80 and I-90 in IN/OH: Run I-12 and I-10 concurrent from LA thru TX until they split again.

[Rothman]

Thread's gone full fictional.

[sprjus4]

Thread's gone full fictional.

Agreed 100%

[The Ghostbuster]

Here's my "radical"  idea: leave the 290 corridor US 290! That makes the most sense to me; unless someone can come up with a good explanation (excuse) on why Texas needs more Interstate Highway designations. Hint: It doesn't IMHO.

[Some one]

Here's my "radical"  idea: leave the 290 corridor US 290! That makes the most sense to me; unless someone can come up with a good explanation (excuse) on why Texas needs more Interstate Highway designations. Hint: It doesn't IMHO.

Counterpoint: After US 59, US 290 is arguably the most important non-interstate corridor in the Houston region. While US 59 is slowly being upgraded to interstate standard (and will eventually be I-69), that leaves US 290. And let's face it, whether it becomes interstate or not, US 290 is due for some upgrades. And while I do agree that some of Texas's interstate designations are pretty silly (cough) I-14 and the 69 suffixes, I think designating US 290 as an interstate would make some sense. After all, why wouldn't you want the corridor between the capital and largest city to be an interstate?

[The Ghostbuster]

I am fine with US 290 receiving whatever improvements are deemed necessary for the corridor. I just want said-corridor to keep its existing designation.

[Bobby5280]

If TX DOT has the say on route designations (rather than politicians) both US-290 and TX-71 will remain named as such regardless if either or both are upgraded to Interstate standards between Houston and Austin.

I-49, I-69, I-74, and I-99 are all planned to be connected. Some may not happen, but that is the idea behind the numbering. Any "I-12"  would not be connected, nor planned to be.

I-74 ain't gonna happen. Chances are very slim for I-99, even though the NY and PA segments are not very far apart. I-69 faces very difficult hurdles in Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississippi -with Mississippi being by far the worst challenge. I-49 arguably has the best chance of being fully connected since it's up to just one state (Arkansas) to make it happen.

I-76, I-84, I-86, I-87, and I-88 are in different regions altogether and many hours apart. "I-12"  would be duplicated within 250 miles.

The two I-87 routes aren't all that far apart. The existing I-12 route is nothing more than a short relief route for I-10, and it probably should have been given a 3-digit I-x10 number. A Texas I-12 route either 357 miles long or 200 miles long (depending on route overlaps chosen) would serve a larger purpose going East-West thru the Austin metro (2 million+ population). But, like I-12 in Louisiana, the East and West ends of this route would terminate at I-10.

[Some one]

If TX DOT has the say on route designations (rather than politicians) both US-290 and TX-71 will remain named as such regardless if either or both are upgraded to Interstate standards between Houston and Austin.

Yeah, it seems as though unless it's congressionally designated, TXDOT has no interest in redesignating their highways as interstates. Would US 190 and US 59 have even been redesignated as interstates if they weren't congressionally?

Regardless of if they become interstates or not, both highways do need to be upgraded to (near) interstate standards. Hopefully, once they remove the last stoplight on SH 71 they shift their focus to the 290 corridor.

[bwana39]

If TX DOT has the say on route designations (rather than politicians) both US-290 and TX-71 will remain named as such regardless if either or both are upgraded to Interstate standards between Houston and Austin.

Yeah, it seems as though unless it's congressionally designated, TXDOT has no interest in redesignating their highways as interstates. Would US 190 and US 59 have even been redesignated as interstates if they weren't congressionally?

Regardless of if they become interstates or not, both highways do need to be upgraded to (near) interstate standards. Hopefully, once they remove the last stoplight on SH 71 they shift their focus to the 290 corridor.

There are additional requirements on new construction if it is an interstate. There are mandatory upgrades / differences to change from a non-interstate to an interstate and finally it requires additional paperwork to use federal funds on an interstate.

If it is not an interstate, TxDOT controls the rhetoric. If it an interstate, FHWA and AASHTO control it. If the funds are not specific to an Interstate, there are clear reasons advantages to not make it an Interstate.

[sprjus4]

I-49, I-69, I-74, and I-99 are all planned to be connected. Some may not happen, but that is the idea behind the numbering. Any "I-12"  would not be connected, nor planned to be.

I-74 ain't gonna happen. Chances are very slim for I-99, even though the NY and PA segments are not very far apart. I-69 faces very difficult hurdles in Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississippi -with Mississippi being by far the worst challenge. I-49 arguably has the best chance of being fully connected since it's up to just one state (Arkansas) to make it happen.

Like I said - "some may not happen, but that is the idea behind the numbering" .

I-76, I-84, I-86, I-87, and I-88 are in different regions altogether and many hours apart. "I-12"  would be duplicated within 250 miles.

The two I-87 routes aren't all that far apart. The existing I-12 route is nothing more than a short relief route for I-10, and it probably should have been given a 3-digit I-x10 number. A Texas I-12 route either 357 miles long or 200 miles long (depending on route overlaps chosen) would serve a larger purpose going East-West thru the Austin metro (2 million+ population). But, like I-12 in Louisiana, the East and West ends of this route would terminate at I-10.

Any idea for a "I-12"  routing is purely fictional. This thread is related on upgrades to freeway standards along US-290 between Austin and Houston.

This idea for "I-12"  seems to come up every time freeway upgrades or interchanges are discussed... can we split the real stuff from this fictional concept that is likely decades from fruition / will never happen (particularly west of Austin)?

[ethanhopkin14]

I am fine with US 290 receiving whatever improvements are deemed necessary for the corridor. I just want said-corridor to keep its existing designation.

I want them to change to an interstate designation only because it forces TxDOT to upgrade the entire corridor to interstate standards.  TxDOT is notorious for going halfway with things unless they are forced to do better.  Designating it as an interstate corridor (whether it be US-290 or SH-71) will force TxDOT to get rid of hills with bad sightlines, driveways connecting directly to the mainlanes, usually sharp turns and intersections.  I have seen it happen too many times.  They may make SH-71 a 90% freeway but it will still have some unsafe areas.  making an interstate designation will force their cheapness out of the project. 

[Bobby5280]

I wonder if US-290 and/or TX-71 between Austin and Houston can be added to the Interstate system but do so as un-signed routes. Whether the corridors are signed as Interstates or not, the at-grade intersections and driveways connecting to the main lanes need to be eliminated. They gotta go.

It's one thing if you have a four-lane divided highway, such as OK-7 between Lawton and Duncan, that doesn't directly connect two of the most populous cities in the nation. Traffic isn't all that heavy on OK-7. So if some guy in a pickup truck hauling a trailer pulls out onto the main lanes from a section line road and then goes 25mph for a couple miles before finally getting up to speed you can usually get around that crap by using the left lane. On a highway like US-290 you're more likely to get boxed in behind the slow rolling pickup and trailer. There are more conflict points along the highway.

[triplemultiplex]

I'm mostly annoyed Texas chose 14 for their fantasy central Texas corridor.  To me, 18 is a better number. Then 14 is free for whatever someone wants to do in Austin.

[Bobby5280]

Yeah "I-18" would have been a far more logical choice for that Interstate stub in Killeen. My guess the politicians who picked the route number figured I-14 would be the only future East-West Interstate route between I-20 and I-10 in Texas, Louisiana, etc. In addition Texas has its own intra-state political rivalry: big city metros vs everyone else. The everyone else camp takes ownership of "I-14" to throw a middle finger at people in Austin.

[kphoger]

Figures.  I hadn't popped into this thread in quite some time–if I even had at all previously–and what do I find?  A discussion about route numbers...

[sprjus4]

Figures.  I hadn't popped into this thread in quite some time–if I even had at all previously–and what do I find?  A discussion about route numbers...

Anytime any improvements get discussed between Austin and Houston, it seems the same users bring in the interstate upgrade idea, then start talking these route number concepts. Fictional highways exists for a reason.

[Bobby5280]

It's a more than a stretch to call these sections of US-290 or TX-71 and the remote but possible prospects of an Interstate designation "fictional." These are existing corridors between two of the biggest cities in the US. We're not talking about non-existent routes that have to be built from scratch.

It's ridiculous so many people on this forum are joyous about the I-14 crap linking Killeen and College Station sometime in the decades ahead yet they're getting their panties in a twist over an Interstate highway directly linking Austin and Houston. That's hypocrisy.

[sprjus4]

It's a more than a stretch to call these sections of US-290 or TX-71 and the remote but possible prospects of an Interstate designation "fictional." These are existing corridors between two of the biggest cities in the US. We're not talking about non-existent routes that have to be built from scratch.

Fictional proposal. TxDOT has not officially planned any full length freeway upgrades or interstate designation for the corridor. It's fictional.

Am I saying the idea has no merit? No. But it does not belong in a thread about real upgrades to US-290. Move it to fictional highways, and discuss all day long. When it becomes a real, official proposal, then a new thread can be created in the Mid-South forum.

It's ridiculous so many people on this forum are joyous about the I-14 crap linking Killeen and College Station sometime in the decades ahead yet they're getting their panties in a twist over an Interstate highway directly linking Austin and Houston. That's hypocrisy.

No one is "joyous" . It's simply a real world, real life proposal by TxDOT, and has its own merits.

[Henry]

Doesn't US 290 have a superstreet design in several places? That would be a good placeholder for the freeway upgrades yet to come. Build some interchanges at major highways where there already isn't one, and utilize Michigan lefts at the minor intersections, effectively eliminating all the cross traffic; best of both worlds.

[sprjus4]

Doesn't US 290 have a superstreet design in several places? That would be a good placeholder for the freeway upgrades yet to come. Build some interchanges at major highways where there already isn't one, and utilize Michigan lefts at the minor intersections, effectively eliminating all the cross traffic; best of both worlds.

I'm not sure, to be honest. I know TxDOT recently reconstructed a portion from an undivided 4 lane to a 4 lane divided highway with a median, but with standard intersections.

[thisdj78]

It's a more than a stretch to call these sections of US-290 or TX-71 and the remote but possible prospects of an Interstate designation "fictional." These are existing corridors between two of the biggest cities in the US. We're not talking about non-existent routes that have to be built from scratch.

Fictional proposal. TxDOT has not officially planned any full length freeway upgrades or interstate designation for the corridor. It's fictional.

Am I saying the idea has no merit? No. But it does not belong in a thread about real upgrades to US-290. Move it to fictional highways, and discuss all day long. When it becomes a real, official proposal, then a new thread can be created in the Mid-South forum.

It's ridiculous so many people on this forum are joyous about the I-14 crap linking Killeen and College Station sometime in the decades ahead yet they're getting their panties in a twist over an Interstate highway directly linking Austin and Houston. That's hypocrisy.

No one is "joyous" . It's simply a real world, real life proposal by TxDOT, and has its own merits.

There has been official discussion and legislation proposed to designate US290 as an Interstate, it just didn't get any traction. So I think this is a grey area when it comes to being fictional:

https://www.chron.com/neighborhood/cyfair-news/article/Officials-favoring-upgrade-by-TXDOT-2180292.php

[kphoger]

There has been official discussion and legislation proposed to designate US290 as an Interstate, it just didn't get any traction. So I think this is a grey area when it comes to being fictional:

https://www.chron.com/neighborhood/cyfair-news/article/Officials-favoring-upgrade-by-TXDOT-2180292.php

Unless I missed it in the article, the only officials discussing and proposing it were two US Representatives and a Chamber of Commerce.  They sent recommendations that TxDOT consider it, but that doesn't mean TxDOT actually did.

[thisdj78]

There has been official discussion and legislation proposed to designate US290 as an Interstate, it just didn't get any traction. So I think this is a grey area when it comes to being fictional:

https://www.chron.com/neighborhood/cyfair-news/article/Officials-favoring-upgrade-by-TXDOT-2180292.php

Unless I missed it in the article, the only officials discussing and proposing it were two US Representatives and a Chamber of Commerce.  They sent recommendations that TxDOT consider it, but that doesn't mean TxDOT actually did.

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. It may not be considered by TXDOT in the near term, but it's clearly not just us talking about it on a highway forum.

[kphoger]

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?