but not I-26 to the state line on US 23? Both are places where the freeway ends at a relatively minor interchange and the only NHS road continues straight.
Because nothing is, or ever will be, more important than giving Texas as many miles of Interstate as possible.
Same deal with I-69E's south end, which isn't the international border but the end of the freeway at a city street (US 77 and 83 continuing to the border proper).
My assumption is different FHWA divisions apply different interpretations of the standards. Might as well ask why NC division of FHWA allows "Future I-xx" standalone shields but no other state FHWA division apparently does, or why some divisions approve of odd 3dis ending at Interstates at both ends and some don't.
If anything this seems like a reversion to old standards before the NHS rule was added, where Interstate designations can just end at the end of the freeway. To name just a few examples from the original Interstate designations, there's no NHS route (or any state or nationally designated highway, for that matter) intersecting the east end of I-16 or south end of I-516; I-35 south dies out several blocks from the international border at a traffic signal, rather than at US 59 a mile or so to the north; etc.
SPUI, US 11W is on the NHS, so the relationship to I-26 doesn't exactly apply. Also happens to be the exit closest to downtown Kingsport.
(edit) lordsutch: I believe the fundamental difference is that, with the "old standards", we were talking about the originally authorized Interstate construction, funded via Interstate Construction funds and whatnot. Now, we're talking almost completely about non-chargeable Interstate, so some sort of "new standard" had to be put in. Agree with the concept of different interpretation by different FHWA divisions, but I believe some of it may also apply to FHWA interpretation of what could arguably be called "Congressional meddling"...specifically writing roads (and route numbers) into Congressional legislation.
The northern I-49 peters out just south of the Route H interchange. It could be considered to end at Route H. Talk about an unimportant road for an interstate to end at.
Quote from: NE2 on October 03, 2013, 10:44:47 PM
but not I-26 to the state line on US 23?
This FHWA page (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/economic_development/assistance/i26tn.cfm) provides a little history about the conversion of I-181 to I-26. Significantly, Congress got into the act:
Quote
-2005 - Section 1908(a)(2) of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (a.k.a., SAFTEA-LU; P.L. 109-59) required that "... The Secretary shall designate as part of Interstate Route 26 the 11-mile section of Interstate Route 181 lying northwest of the intersection with Interstate Route 81., Tennessee."
My best guess is that FHWA had previously required the logical terminus of I-181 to be US 11W under the "old rules". Once Congress defined the I-26 extension to be the then-existing I-181, then FHWA may have interpreted the statutory language to mean that it did not have the authority to permit an extension to the state line, which may be an unintended consequence of legislating the I-26 designation for the extension. Also, since the enactment of the legislation, TDOT probably has not requested an extension to the state line, particularly in light of the 2004 FHWA decision that led to the legislation.* Just a guess.
edit *
Quote
-2004 - Tennessee DOT asked AASHTO to approve extending the I-26 designation from I-81 to Kingsport. AASHTO, after consultation with FHWA, did not approve per lack of plans to extend I-26 into and beyond Virginia.
FWIW, TxDOT's application to AASHTO for the I-2 designation (p. 315/377 of pdf) (http://route.transportation.org/Documents/Binder-all%20applications%20May%202013.pdf) makes the argument that I-2 constitutes a logical addition and connection to the interstate system in part because U.S. 83 continues as a high capacity principal arterial on the National Highway System:
Quote
this segment of U.S. 83 satisfies all the criteria of Appendix A to Subpart A of Part 470, and thus would be a logical addition and connection to the Interstate System based on the following rationale:
- It would provide critical east-west access in the Rio Grande Valley region of Texas, serving a 2010 population of 1,180,989 people of which nearly 90 percent are Hispanic or Latino.
- It would provide connectivity to cross routes serving nine international border crossings and serve as an important link between two major north-south trade routes (U.S. 77 and U.S. 281). The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) approval to add U.S. 77 to the Intestate System as IH 69 East (E) from Brownsville, TX to Raymondville, TX is pending. Also, TxDOT is currently coordinating with FHWA to process a request to have US 281 added to the Interstate System as IH 69 Central (C) from US 83 to Edinburg, TX. AASHTO conditionally approved individual Interstate applications for these segments of U.S. 77 and U.S. 281 at the Fall 2012 AASHTO meeting.
- It is of sufficient length (46.8 miles) to serve long distance Interstate travel, linking major municipalities in the Rio Grande Valley which are major highway traffic generators that are presently not served by the Interstate System.
- It would have logical termini, connecting directly to IH 69E/U.S. 77 and extending 46.8 miles to the limits of U.S. 83 access control near the junction of Showers Road where U.S. 83 continues as a high capacity principal arterial on the National Highway System.
- It serves as an important Hurricane Evacuation Route.
- It is part of the Strategic Highway Network (STRAHNET)
With that in mind, maybe the answer is simply that TxDOT asked and received approval, whereas TnDOT probably has not asked since the enactment of the I-26 extension legislation.
Quote from: froggie on October 04, 2013, 02:48:00 AM
US 11W is on the NHS
I know - that's why, as I understand it, I-26 ends there and not at the state line. But I-2 extends past whatever the last NHS crossroad is (SH 364? hard to tell on the maps) to the end of the freeway.
PS: I-49 and I-69 don't count, as both are congressionally defined. I-2 is not.
PPS: How long before FHWA requires TNDOT to post an exit number on US 23 at the state line?
Quote from: NE2 on October 04, 2013, 12:03:22 PM
PPS: How long before FHWA requires TNDOT to post an exit number on US 23 at the state line?
I often wondered why I-181 ended at US 11W and not at the end of the freeway.
What exit number would that have? Mile Marker 0 for I-26 is at the US 11W interchange. Might we see Exit (negative) 2 for US 23?
And that would be an exit to self anyway, since southbound, the old four-lane continues as TN 36 and US 23 takes a ramp to the freeway. Northbound, US 23 follows a ramp and there's an exit to the state highways there.
^ Looking at Google Maps, it appears that part of the interchange (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Kingsport,+TN&hl=en&ll=36.5945,-82.572236&spn=0.001499,0.00327&sll=36.066862,-81.529541&sspn=6.179478,13.392334&oq=kingsport&t=h&hnear=Kingsport,+Sullivan,+Tennessee&z=19) may be in Virginia. Whether that part of the interchange would be considered "interstate mileage" in Virginia seems similar to the I-495 split from I-95 in Delaware/Pennsylvania (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3851.msg84171#msg84171). Would TNDOT have to submit a joint application with VDOT for the designation?
Although not explicitly shown on VDOT GIS shapefiles, the northernmost tip (about 60ft or so...basically the gore) of the northbound ramp is in Virginia.
Quote from: froggie on October 05, 2013, 01:20:15 AM
Although not explicitly shown on VDOT GIS shapefiles, the northernmost tip (about 60ft or so...basically the gore) of the northbound ramp is in Virginia.
Just the tip, as it were.
Interstate 2? When did that happen?
Edit: also I-69W/C/E?
Quote from: realjd on October 05, 2013, 09:39:52 AM
Interstate 2? When did that happen?
Edit: also I-69W/C/E?
I-2 -- approved, May 5, 2013; first signed (Harlingen ceremony and Pharr ceremony), July 15, 2013
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_2
http://www.interstate-guide.com/i-002.html
I-69 -- E: original signing (as I-69) (Robstown ceremony), December 5, 2011; re-designation, Spring 2013 (by AASHTO) and May 28, 2013 (by TTC); first signed (as I-69E) (Harlingen ceremony), July 15, 2013
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_69E_(Texas)
http://www.interstate-guide.com/i-069e_tx.html
C: approved (by AASHTO), November 15, 2012 and May 28, 2013 (by TTC); first signed (Pharr ceremony), July 15, 2013
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_69C_(Texas)
http://www.interstate-guide.com/i-069c_tx.html
W: approved but not signed yet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_69W
Quote from: realjd on October 05, 2013, 09:39:52 AM
Interstate 2? When did that happen?
Edit: also I-69W/C/E?
It is my understanding that AASHTO did not approve of these designations, as recently as their last committee: http://route.transportation.org/Documents/Report%20to%20SCOH%20from%20USRN%20SM2013%20May%203.pdf (http://route.transportation.org/Documents/Report%20to%20SCOH%20from%20USRN%20SM2013%20May%203.pdf)
The references the wiki articles are using was approval from the Texas Transportation Commission, which doesn't have final say on Interstates.
Quote from: WashuOtaku on October 05, 2013, 03:09:58 PM
It is my understanding that AASHTO did not approve of these designations, as recently as their last committee: http://route.transportation.org/Documents/Report%20to%20SCOH%20from%20USRN%20SM2013%20May%203.pdf (http://route.transportation.org/Documents/Report%20to%20SCOH%20from%20USRN%20SM2013%20May%203.pdf)
First page:
Quote(Please note: SCOH approved all three Texas Interstate Routes with the condition that they are approved by FHWA. Therefore, all applications submitted to the Special Committee on U.S. Route Numbering are approved since SCOH overruled the Special Committee decision and the SCOH decision was accepted by the AASHTO Board of Directors on May 7, 2013.)
The northern end of Arkansas I-540 is where US 62 splits from the interstate instead of continuing a few miles northwest to the end of the freeway. Also, the south end is either at US 271 or at the Oklahoma line depending on whom you believe, and the freeway continues for a couple of miles as US 271.
Quote from: NE2 on October 05, 2013, 03:49:45 PM
Quote from: WashuOtaku on October 05, 2013, 03:09:58 PM
It is my understanding that AASHTO did not approve of these designations, as recently as their last committee: http://route.transportation.org/Documents/Report%20to%20SCOH%20from%20USRN%20SM2013%20May%203.pdf (http://route.transportation.org/Documents/Report%20to%20SCOH%20from%20USRN%20SM2013%20May%203.pdf)
First page:
Quote(Please note: SCOH approved all three Texas Interstate Routes with the condition that they are approved by FHWA. Therefore, all applications submitted to the Special Committee on U.S. Route Numbering are approved since SCOH overruled the Special Committee decision and the SCOH decision was accepted by the AASHTO Board of Directors on May 7, 2013.)
I was hoping for something more official, but I guess that will do. I have no real issue with I-2 overall because it makes sense... but I hate the idea of I-69E/I-69C/I-69W; two of them should simply be 3-digit interstates. :ded:
Quote from: WashuOtaku on October 06, 2013, 04:40:45 PM
Quote from: NE2 on October 05, 2013, 03:49:45 PM
Quote from: WashuOtaku on October 05, 2013, 03:09:58 PM
It is my understanding that AASHTO did not approve of these designations, as recently as their last committee: http://route.transportation.org/Documents/Report%20to%20SCOH%20from%20USRN%20SM2013%20May%203.pdf (http://route.transportation.org/Documents/Report%20to%20SCOH%20from%20USRN%20SM2013%20May%203.pdf)
First page:
Quote(Please note: SCOH approved all three Texas Interstate Routes with the condition that they are approved by FHWA. Therefore, all applications submitted to the Special Committee on U.S. Route Numbering are approved since SCOH overruled the Special Committee decision and the SCOH decision was accepted by the AASHTO Board of Directors on May 7, 2013.)
I was hoping for something more official, but I guess that will do. I have no real issue with I-2 overall because it makes sense... but I hate the idea of I-69E/I-69C/I-69W; two of them should simply be 3-digit interstates. :ded:
Why not make 69E as 169 and 69W as 369, make 69C as simply 69?
they already have an I-369.
Yes, with the exception that 69E or 69C should have been an extension/reroute of I-37, but that is way off topic.
So to go back on topic, how long will I-2 eventually go or is this it?
I-2 will go as far as pork takes it.
Operation Fast and Furious demands it be signed all the way to Monterrey.
Quote from: NE2 on October 07, 2013, 05:38:45 PM
I-2 will go as far as POO or go as far as ALAN.
:bigass: Fixed (or not) for you.
Quote from: WashuOtaku on October 07, 2013, 05:35:15 PM
So to go back on topic, how long will I-2 eventually go or is this it?
In theory it could eventually make it to Laredo. For now, I think you could justify construction of a bypass of Roma & Rio Grande City and four-laning of the remaining 2-lane sections of US 83 between the Webb County line and Roma (the latter mostly for safety), but there's no real need for a continuous freeway anytime soon. West of Laredo, there's never going to be any justification.
My question is how did C become a suffix?
Quote from: KEK Inc. on October 08, 2013, 05:06:12 AM
My question is how did C become a suffix?
Congress defined High Priority Corridor 18(D)(ii) (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm#l18) as follows:
Quote
include United States Route 281 from the Rio Grande River to Interstate Route 37 and then to Victoria, Texas, via United States Route 59; [I-69 Central]
FHWA interpreted the "I-69 Central" designation as requiring "I-69C" signage. It is also interesting to note that, in High Priority Corridor 20 (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm#l20), Congress also defined the approximately eighty-mile US 59 section of I-69C as I-69:
Quote
United States Route 59 Corridor from Laredo, Texas, through Houston, Texas, to the vicinity of Texarkana, Texas. [I-69]
In this post (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg235193#msg235193), I posted about an email from FHWA which reflected their current thinking that TxDOT will be able to choose either I-69 or I-69C for that section of the US 59 upgrade:
Quote from: Grzrd on July 25, 2013, 05:02:38 PM
I just received an email from FHWA and their current interpretation of HPC 18 and HPC 20 ... allows TxDOT to choose between I-69C and I-69 for the Victoria to George West segment of US 59:
Quote
US 59 from Victoria to George West can be I-69 or I-69C, which ever Texas Department of Transportation requests.
Quote from: lordsutch on October 08, 2013, 04:48:07 AM
Quote from: WashuOtaku on October 07, 2013, 05:35:15 PM
So to go back on topic, how long will I-2 eventually go or is this it?
In theory it could eventually make it to Laredo.
High Priority Corridor 18(D)(iii) is defined by Congress in relevant part as follows:
Quote
including FM511 from United States Route 77 to the Port of Brownsville.
In doing so, Congress did not designate a number for that part of the Texas I-69 Corridor. For practical purposes, Toll SH 550 is within the FM 511 corridor. So, looking to the east, and assuming that SH 550 is/will be interstate grade, a possibility exists that it could also receive a designation as an eastward extension of I-2 that would include a brief overlap with I-69E.
Quote from: getemngo on October 04, 2013, 02:12:35 AM
Because nothing is, or ever will be, more important than giving Texas as many miles of Interstate as possible.
Quite ironic that Texas, a state where most of the U.S. Congressional and Senate congregation wants to kill the federal government, is trying to milk it for as many Interstate dollars as possible.
Quote from: FightingIrish on October 08, 2013, 09:12:44 AM
Quote from: getemngo on October 04, 2013, 02:12:35 AM
Because nothing is, or ever will be, more important than giving Texas as many miles of Interstate as possible.
Quite ironic that Texas, a state where most of the U.S. Congressional and Senate congregation wants to kill the federal government, is trying to milk it for as many Interstate dollars as possible.
What you call pork I call a necessity. What you call necessary, I call pork. It's a matter of perspective, and yes, for all politicians, it is hypocritical.
Quote from: FightingIrish on October 08, 2013, 09:12:44 AM
Quote from: getemngo on October 04, 2013, 02:12:35 AM
Because nothing is, or ever will be, more important than giving Texas as many miles of Interstate as possible.
Quite ironic that Texas, a state where most of the U.S. Congressional and Senate congregation wants to kill the federal government, is trying to milk it for as many Interstate dollars as possible.
+1
(now watch my two unrelated posts get merged by overzealous mods)
Quote from: Billy F 1988 on October 06, 2013, 07:58:07 PM
Quote from: WashuOtaku on October 06, 2013, 04:40:45 PM
Quote from: NE2 on October 05, 2013, 03:49:45 PM
Quote from: WashuOtaku on October 05, 2013, 03:09:58 PM
It is my understanding that AASHTO did not approve of these designations, as recently as their last committee: http://route.transportation.org/Documents/Report%20to%20SCOH%20from%20USRN%20SM2013%20May%203.pdf (http://route.transportation.org/Documents/Report%20to%20SCOH%20from%20USRN%20SM2013%20May%203.pdf)
First page:
Quote(Please note: SCOH approved all three Texas Interstate Routes with the condition that they are approved by FHWA. Therefore, all applications submitted to the Special Committee on U.S. Route Numbering are approved since SCOH overruled the Special Committee decision and the SCOH decision was accepted by the AASHTO Board of Directors on May 7, 2013.)
I was hoping for something more official, but I guess that will do. I have no real issue with I-2 overall because it makes sense... but I hate the idea of I-69E/I-69C/I-69W; two of them should simply be 3-digit interstates. :ded:
Why not make 69E as 569 and 69W as 369, make 69C as simply 69?
My thoughts are that these spurs would be too long for 3di's. This is how I'd set it up:
I-69E: Southern I-39/I-41/I-43
I-69C: I-37 Extension
I-69W: I-69
Is I-69C even needed at all? It seems awfully close to I-69E.
Quote from: vdeane on October 08, 2013, 07:13:03 PM
Is I-69C even needed at all? It seems awfully porky.
I can see suffixes used in the cases of Dallas-Ft. Worth and Minneapolis-St. Paul, but not in the case of what is happening in south Texas. So I-69 goes three different ways. That does not mean there has to be an I-69W, an I-69C, and an I-69E. The US 59 corridor should be mainline I-69, US 281 remains as is, and the US 77 corridor should be I-(5, 7, or 9)69, or an extended I-37.
IMHO, I see nothing wrong with approving I-2. It fits the grid and, besides, it looks nice to have an I-2.
Quote from: vdeane on October 08, 2013, 07:13:03 PM
Is I-69C even needed at all? It seems awfully close to I-69E.
US 281 serves different traffic flows than US 77. Basically, US 281 (69C) serves McAllen/Edinburg/Pharr/Mission/Reyonsa to/from the I-35 corridor cities, while US 77 (69E) serves Brownsville/Matamoros to/from everywhere and (with I-2) McAllen etc. to/from Corpus and Houston. Without one or the other you'd be looking at backtracking 40-50 miles on some of these journeys.
Both routes probably don't need to be freeways their entire length, but most of the money is going toward needed bypasses - the incremental cost of upgrading may be "porky" but in the grand scheme of things given how rural the area is pretty cheap - maybe an overpass for a turnaround every 5-10 miles or so.
IMO 69C functions more as a spur of I-37 and probably should be numbered as such, but in a world with I-238 I think we can live with 69C.
The difference between I-238 and the 69's is that I-238 functions as a closeted I-x80, I-238 makes more since in that it is simply an upgraded CA 238. The I-69 trinity in South Texas is an Interstate that can't make up its mind where it wants to go. At least I-238 (and I-99) travels in a linear direction.
I have no problem with I-2 as it is. It's an isolated segment that does not preclude other I-2s, such as Alligator Alley if they wanted to do that. There's more than enough precedent for unconnected Interstate designations with the same number, which don't bother me as long as they're in different states and as long as running a concurrency would require a stupidly long distance. It's also in one of the most obvious locations for such a number. An eventual connection with I-35 is pretty obvious.
I'm not a big fan of the 69 trinity. The most obvious route for a mainline is to Laredo, where it connects with another long Interstate. I don't really mind I-35W through Fort Worth, since it's nearly 90 miles long, joins the mainline on each end, and is an obvious (in fact, shorter) mainline alternative. Rules without exceptions omit discretion. However, the I-69s don't meet on their south ends. The difference here is that the designations were established by politicians. That isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I'd hate to see it become a standard practice.