I've gone a long time in my life without visiting Texas, but now I've gone twice in the past year and I'm impressed. I don't know how they can afford to do it, but the amount of road construction across the state is phenomenal.
What I don't understand is this: Texas seems to have no problem building interstate highways. They're building so many they've introduced a third suffix letter to the interstate system. BUT... for all the new freeways I saw around Austin and El Paso... none were 3di's.
Now, in Arizona, I get it, because choices have been made. But again, Texas ain't Arizona. They're not shying away from putting the Interstate shield up on their new freeway construction projects... just, seemingly, on spurs and belt routes. Is there a backstory here?
A lot of it also comes to just renumbering a highway for the sake of it. Like in Houston area, SH249, SH99(from US59 west/southwest to US59), US290, Beltway 8, Hardy Toll Road, SH288, and Westpark Tollway could all be 3dis but would all be treated like I69. Yes, officially a new number, but the locals will still keep calling it the old name/number.
We could Fictionally renumber things, but it would just be relabeling a working map.
I think the funding source for the roads plays a part in the naming equation too. A super highway funded mostly by toll revenue or a combination of tolls and state taxes would be more likely to carry a state-based highway number. Texas lawmakers are kind of big on expressing how Texas goes its own way. So they're not going to be all that keen on applying a federal-based Interstate route marker if the feds didn't fund most of the route's construction.
Texas has a number of 3dis. Adding more is probably not necessary.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 17, 2024, 03:37:37 PMTexas has a number of 3dis. Adding more is probably not necessary.
Right now, Texas has one even numbered (loop / bypass) 3DI per major metro area (except Austin which was not a major city prior to the 1990's or perhaps later.)
Texas has its FIRST long distance 3DI in interstate 369. I-110 and I-345 were the only spur / connector Interstates before 2015. I-110 is less than a mile long and signage noting it is minimal (2 signs TOTAL mention it.) I-345 is completely unsigned and around a mile and a half. Both of them are interstates because they were built with funds that were reserved solely for Interstate highways.
I-169 would be less that 5 miles when completed and may never be an interstate due to its anticipated toll status.
That said at best I-69E & I-69C should be labeled as 3DI's and I-69W should just be the completion of I-69.
Personally, I don't favor naming more highways here in Texas as interstates. Some people ( particularly from the Northeast) believe that EVERY controlled access highway should be labeled as one....
Three digit Interstates are overrated, no need to fix what isn't broken. Having to apply to the FHWA and AASHTO just to get the rights to pay for non-chargeable corridor signs isn't worth it.
Quote from: bwana39 on October 17, 2024, 09:42:55 PMQuote from: The Ghostbuster on October 17, 2024, 03:37:37 PMTexas has a number of 3dis. Adding more is probably not necessary.
Right now, Texas has one even numbered (loop / bypass) 3DI per major metro area (except Austin which was not a major city prior to the 1990's or perhaps later.)
Texas has its FIRST long distance 3DI in interstate 369. I-110 and I-345 were the only spur / connector Interstates before 2015. I-110 is less than a mile long and signage noting it is minimal (2 signs TOTAL mention it.) I-345 is completely unsigned and around a mile and a half. Both of them are interstates because they were built with funds that were reserved solely for Interstate highways.
I-169 would be less that 5 miles when completed and may never be an interstate due to its anticipated toll status.
That said at best I-69E & I-69C should be labeled as 3DI's and I-69W should just be the completion of I-69.
Personally, I don't favor naming more highways here in Texas as interstates. Some people ( particularly from the Northeast) believe that EVERY controlled access highway should be labeled as one....
DFW, in fact, has two even 3dis: I-635 in Dallas and I-820 in Ft. Worth. Then there's I-610 in Houston and I-410 in San Antonio. But El Paso is a huge exception in that while it does have I-110, there is no even 3di to serve it. It'll be a long time before I-169 and I-369 actually connect to their implied parent, and the former will have to be changed if I-69C and I-69E are renumbered to different numbers (the best fits would be southern versions of 39, 41 and/or 43). And as for numbering more limited-access highways as interstates, NC is currently TX's biggest rival, with I-87 and I-42 among its newest additions. Hell, FritzOwl even thinks that US highways should be renumbered as Interstates, but that's for another topic in Fictional Highways.
Texas is such a huge state that it wouldn't be a problem if more cities had 3-digit Interstate routes. For instance, Amarillo is a fairly long distance from the DFW metro (and anywhere else in Texas). Loop 335 will probably remain named 335 when the freeway upgrade is completed. But the loop would be worthy of a I-x40 or I-x27 designation. I don't know off-hand if Texas has a rule against having state highways and Interstate highways with the same number. If Loop 335 was renamed an Interstate it would free up "I-335" to be used elsewhere.
I think Texas just has a philosophy that appears opposite of the practice in North Carolina (where Interstate designations are popping up all over the place). North Carolina is a far smaller state than Texas.
In some giant metros, such as DFW, it could be a bad idea piling Interstate designations on many of the freeways and toll roads that are up to Interstate standards, but signed as US or state highways. Lots of people who aren't familiar with driving in DFW can get lost pretty easily. If every Interstate-quality freeway had an Interstate number it might be confusing as hell to those motorists. The greater variety of route marker types might make it easier for those motorists to distinguish the different super highways from each other.
Quote from: bwana39I-169 would be less that 5 miles when completed and may never be an interstate due to its anticipated toll status.
A very brief segment of the TX-550 toll road has I-169 signage. It's at the intersection with Old Alice Road. I think the intentions are there to sign the whole thing as I-169. Currently so much of the toll road is sub-par. Traffic is diverted to frontage roads in two places since the main lanes don't exist yet. Farther down the road reduces to a barrier-separated 2-lane facility. It's all a very interim configuration.
Quote from: bwana39That said at best I-69E & I-69C should be labeled as 3DI's and I-69W should just be the completion of I-69.
I think I-69E and I-69C are too long for 3di routes (even with I-369 in NE Texas being considered). I agree the I-69 main route should be signed to Laredo -the busiest inland "port" in the US. If I had my way I-69C would be I-33 and I-69E would be I-37. But the I-69E-C-W routes were written into law
(like I-99).
Texas DOES NOT have a rule or policy to not duplicate numbers. Fact of business, it is almost assured that I-69 and US-69 will have a concurrency in Lufkin.
E-C-& W were designated due to the idea that there are different congressional districts down there and each route would have a common value: none would be subordinate.
I understand the reasoning behind the I-69 E-C-W "balance" across South Texas. The various cities fight over who gets the mainline I-69 route and not wanting to get stuck with lesser 3-digit spurs.
TX DOT could have achieved the same goal by signing I-37 down to Brownsville and using I-33 on the I-69C/US-281 branch. Everyone would still have a 2-digit "parent" Interstate going thru their locales. I think "I-33" could be a pretty long route in Texas, a relief route for I-35, overlapping US-281 much of the way.
Maybe I'm in the minority here but I wish we would sign more freeways as 3dis
FM 1764——-IH 145
NASA 1——-IH 345
Hardy toll road——-IH 445
Hardy airport connector—- IH 545
Current IH 345—-either extended I-45 or IH 945
Grand parkway——-IH 469
Loop 375 in El Paso—IH 210
SH 130——IH 235
Spur 330—-IH 710
Loop 335—- IH 240
Loop 289– IH 427
None of those corridors need an Interstate designation, save Interstate 45 being extended over 345 (which hasn't been officially proposed; renumbering it to Interstate 945 would be ludicrous). How many of those corridors are even up to Interstate Standards?
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 02, 2024, 07:26:05 PMNone of those corridors need an Interstate designation, save Interstate 45 being extended over 345 (which hasn't been officially proposed; renumbering it to Interstate 945 would be ludicrous). How many of those corridors are even up to Interstate Standards?
To be fair, how many of the routes in NYC are truly up to interstate standards? Most of the ones I suggested are closer to the standards than I-278 or I-78 with its traffic lights. They're also mostly in higher standards than many many interstate routes I've travelled in the northeast.
FM 1764 in Texas City:
The road might need some shoulder improvements to meet current Interstate standards. Otherwise I wouldn't have a problem with "I-145" there.
NASA 1:
This freeway is too narrow in its design to meet Interstate standards. Outer shoulders are very narrow and inner shoulders hardly exist at all. The interchange with I-45 is a partial one and ramps are single lane.
Hardy Toll Road:
The road has some design issues. Much of it has no interior left shoulder. Right shoulders are often inadequate. There is very little room for expansion. The toll road doesn't start complying with current Interstate standards til it's a good bit North of Loop 8 (we finally start seeing adequate left and right shoulders).
Hardy Airport Connector:
Same problems as the Hardy Toll Road. Plus it's a very short route for burning up an Interstate number.
Current IH 345:
I'm all for extending I-45 North into Oklahoma. But it's probably not going to happen for a long time, if ever.
Grand Parkway:
I think a I-x69 route number would be fine there. But I'd prefer a "bigger" number like "I-869" since there's already an I-469 in Fort Wayne.
Loop 375 in El Paso:
The hangup here is the route thru the Franklin Mountains. It's not Interstate quality.
TX-130 in Austin:
"I-235" would probably be alright there.
Spur 330 in Baytown:
The only knock against this road getting an Interstate number is its short length, just under 5 miles. If the Grand Parkway ever got an Interstate designation then that would improve the odds for Spur 330 to get one as well.
Loop 335 in Amarillo:
Once the loop is done it will be a significant Interstate quality loop. I don't like the "I-240" idea. There are too many I-240 routes already. An "I-640" or "I-840" designation would add a little more balance.
Loop 289 in Lubbock:
I can imagine a I-x27 designation on the loop once I-27 is extended farther South.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 04, 2024, 06:40:34 PMTX-130 in Austin:
"I-235" would probably be alright there.
So are you thinking "I-235" would make a turn on TX-45SE back over to I-35 to give it a 2xx designation. If it follows TX-130 all the way to Sequin & I-10 should it be "I-335"?
TX-130 could be "I-235" along its entire length. There are numerous examples of even-numbered 3-digit Interstate routes that start at their parent route and then end at a different 2-digit Interstate route (or even another 3-digit Interstate route).
I-235 in Oklahoma City connects to I-35 only at its Southern end; its North end is at I-44. I-235 in OKC could be extended up to the Kilpatrick Turnpike if I-344 gets signed. The only practical way to get the North end of I-235 touching I-35 is by signing it over the Kilpatrick Turnpike (which would create another signing mess).
Fictional.
I would have liked to see our SPID freeway renamed from TX-358 to I-137.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 18, 2024, 02:50:10 PMTX DOT could have achieved the same goal by signing I-37 down to Brownsville....
As I was told by our local planners, originally that was the plan to extend I-37 from Calallen down to Brownsville and redesignate the last 14 miles of the current I-37 from Calallen into Corpus Christi to a 3-digit number (maybe I-137 or I-337 or something like that). But then in the 90s when proposals to convert US-59/US-77 from Houston to Brownsville were announced, they decided to keep I-37 route as is from San Antonio to Corpus Christi.
Quote from: jgb191 on November 04, 2024, 10:33:40 PMI would have liked to see our SPID freeway renamed from TX-358 to I-137.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 18, 2024, 02:50:10 PMTX DOT could have achieved the same goal by signing I-37 down to Brownsville....
As I was told by our local planners, originally that was the plan to extend I-37 from Calallen down to Brownsville and redesignate the last 14 miles of the current I-37 from Calallen into Corpus Christi to a 3-digit number (maybe I-137 or I-337 or something like that). But then in the 90s when proposals to convert US-59/US-77 from Houston to Brownsville were announced, they decided to keep I-37 route as is from San Antonio to Corpus Christi.
I like the idea of making SPID I-137 and crosstown expressway being I-337. Or designating the whole loop from both ends of I-37 to I-237 and making the rest of crosstown I-137.
Jumping away from fictional territory kind of...
Me having to explain to the bureaucrats that 3di's exist and not every split corridor has to be I-14N/14S and I-27E/27W and I-69W/69C/69E... :bigass:
Texas is gangbusters about designating new 2di's but new 3di's, not so much. Last time I was through Texarkana I saw the I-369 shield was pulled off the gantry.
Quote from: Road Hog on January 02, 2025, 06:43:17 PMTexas is gangbusters about designating new 2di's but new 3di's, not so much. Last time I was through Texarkana I saw the I-369 shield was pulled off the gantry.
Where? There are no (TO) I-369 Signs ANYWHERE in Texarkana Arkansas and a LONE (To) I-49 sign on SB SL-151 at US-59 in Texas (except on the North Side of Town where I-49 should EVENTUALLY enter Texas.)
They just repainted the Lane Markings for I-369 from I-30 WB to I-369 SB. Painted them right on the pavement.....
Quote from: Henry on October 17, 2024, 10:16:49 PMDFW, in fact, has two even 3dis: I-635 in Dallas and I-820 in Ft. Worth.
Come on. In the 1960's DFW was NOT a thing. Dallas and Fort Worth were pretty much seperate TV markets until the early sixties. Both were viewed into the 1970's as separate metropolitan areas. The consolidation started AFTER Amon Carter's death in 1955 and it actually happened rather slowly.
In the early 1960's there was quite a bit of rural space between Fort Worth and Dallas. The Dallas-Fort Worth turnpike had recently opened in 1957. Most of the other freeways in DFW weren't built yet.
I can recall how the DFW metro looked in the late 1970's when I was in elementary school. My family visited the area to go to Six Flags. The space between Fort Worth and Dallas was rapidly filling up back then. Towns like Arlington and Grand Prairie were little blink-and-you-miss-it towns in the early 1960's. They were city-sized suburbs by 1980. The growth from 1980 to today has been staggering. Today, Dallas and Fort Worth together make up only 1/3 of the overall metro population of that megapolis now.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on October 17, 2024, 03:37:37 PMTexas has a number of 3dis. Adding more is probably not necessary.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on November 02, 2024, 07:26:05 PMNone of those corridors need an Interstate designation
No corridor, no freeway, needs interstate numbers.
To keep pointing this out is unnecessary.
Tell that to FritzOwl. I think most of the rest of us understand that quite well.
If there's an addition that might be helpful it might be extending I-635 at DFW Airport to I-35W using TX 114 or I-820 using 121 and 183. I've never been through there, but the collection of routes that converge north of the airport looks like they might be confusing for the uninitiated. Especially given the number of interchanges in such a short area.
I think it's unnecessary to designate a new interstate if it's not going to provide a time or navigational benefit. TX 99 / Grand Pkwy is so bulbous that it might not save that much time over just punching straight through Houston. The southwest quadrant of TX 335 between I-27 & 40 could be an interstate, but I haven't seen any comments complaining about how bad traffic is on I-27 in Amarillo.
I also think there's value in a division between the national interstate system and the state freeway system. Where the Interstate guides out-of-towners through an unfamiliar area, and the local freeway system that's primarily commuter and other locally important highways.
I think the West end of I-635 is logical enough at its current location near Grapevine Mills. Overlapping I-635 onto other roads North of DFW Intl Airport would probably create even more confusion. TX-114, TX-121 and International Parkway (airport toll road) are all distinct, separate routes. The ramps connecting them and I-635 are challenging enough. Motorists who are not familiar with the area really have to pay attention to the signs and be in the correct lanes well in advance of the exits.
The zone where TX-114 and TX-121 overlap in Grapevine is arguably the most impressive non-Interstate super highway in the nation. That road is really wide there.
I don't think TX-114 needs to be signed as an Interstate unless the freeway gets extended West to US-287 and US-287 is brought up to Interstate standards from Fort Worth to at least Wichita Falls, if not Amarillo. Then it might make sense to re-sign TX-114 as an Interstate route.
Regarding Grand Parkway and its potential value as a route to bypass Houston, that would be a tough sell. The route is pretty long and not very direct either. If someone driving through the Houston area on I-69 used the Grand Parkway to bypass Houston proper the accumulated tolls would probably be pretty expensive. I think most people driving on the Grand Parkway are using it for shorter connections.
When Loop 335 is completed in Amarillo it will be worthy of an Interstate number. I-27 may eventually be signed on the Western half. If that happens the East half could get a 3-digit I-x27 designation.
The Interstate system is alright as a level above "ordinary" US and state highway routes. But not every freeway or toll road needs to be signed as an Interstate.
I was thinking a theoretical 635 extension would replace one of the existing routes. But it ain't broke...
For Loop 335, I wouldn't try giving it an interstate number until the Ports-to-Plains / I-27 extensions become concrete. Until then, I don't see much point.
Both TX-114 and TX-121 extend inside and outside the DFW metro area. I-635 wouldn't be able to replace either; it could only be co-signed on segments of those routes. I-635 functions as a partial loop highway for Dallas. Extending the I-635 designation thru Grapevine and to Roanoke would kind of obscure that purpose.
If TX-114 was to be given an Interstate designation I think it would be better if it began with the TX-114/I-35E split near downtown Dallas and run West all the way to US-287 in Rhome. At the bare minimum US-287 from I-45 in Ennis to US-380 in Decatur has to be improved fully to Interstate standards.
I agree there isn't any point changing the Loop 335 designation in Amarillo until the loop is completed and there is actual construction work being done to extend I-27 up to Dumas. TX DOT appears to have the opposite philosophy of North Carolina, where Interstate numbers are popping up all over the place. It's possible or even very likely if I-27 was signed on the West half of Loop 335 the East half would still be signed as Loop 335.
Politicians signing numbers into law severely complicates things. But North Carolina makes me wish there were stricter criteria for designating interstate corridors, but that might be hard to do without making arbitrary rules. Like with the proposed I-685 or 777, I don't see much tangible need for them, but nothing to stop them from being signed.
Maybe something like a cost-benefit analysis that accompanies an interstate EIS that includes areas to be connected, current and projected AADTs, capacity of the existing system. If that already exists, maybe it becomes more heavily weighted.
The proposed Interstate 685 designation along its portion of US 421 is rational, although the corridor is long enough that a 2di designation such as Interstate 38 would also have sufficed (especially if the previously-proposed unnecessary extension to Wilmington is also constructed). The proposed Interstate 777 designation along its portion of 421 is a misnumbered designation in my opinion, since I think it should've been Interstate 340 or Interstate 177 (an Interstate 177 designation would be far enough away from existing NC 177 to avoid confusion).
I could get on board with 685 if the routing was from Greensboro to Fayetteville. Having it parallel I-40 all the way to Wilmington is unnecessary. I-777 would be pointless. Considering North Carolina has about a dozen future interstates in various stages of realization, I don't think they should be taking on any more until they get some of the existing 'future' interstates finished.
With the exception of the suffixed interstates that are being proposed in Texas, I can appreciate them not wanting to designate every freeway they have as an interstate. I would assume Texas is like Florida in that it's faster for them to build toll roads versus an Interstate.
I'd prefer the proposed I-685 route to go into the Fayetteville area rather than a point just South of Dunn. However, it would not be feasible to upgrade the existing highway between Sanford and Fort Liberty to Interstate quality. The freeway would have to be built on a new terrain alignment.
While NC is kind of going nuts with the Interstate designations (they have I-587 and I-785, kind of a palindrome) I don't really mind the I-777 thing if it actually extends to Wilkesboro for a proper odd-numbered spur route. Most of that freeway is already existing. It just needs work on some exit ramps, shoulders, etc.
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 10, 2025, 04:36:33 PMThe proposed Interstate 685 designation along its portion of US 421 is rational
...
The proposed Interstate 777 designation along its portion of 421 is a misnumbered designation in my opinion, since I think it should've been Interstate 340 or Interstate 177
Why is 685 rational if 777 is misnumbered and ought to be 340 (177 vs 777 is completely subjective as there's no logic to what first digits are used in NC beyond odd-even).
Greensville and Dunn are both places on I-40. The proposed interstate is much more linked to I-40. It should be I-640 (especially as 540 has cemented itself as the number for the Raleigh loop), rather than I-685.
And even with Fayetteville, the route would be more an E-W route spurring off the I-40 corridor, rather than a N-S one spurring off the I-85 corridor. Other than Greensboro, you'd go different ways (OK, you'd probably go up 685 to Sandford and 540 to get to Durham from Fayetteville) to get to I-85 destinations. But from Fayetteville to I-40 places Greensborough and west, you'd use it.
I-685 is fine - I have no problem with that number, but it's just as 'misnumbered' as 777 as both are spurs of the I-40 corridor, rather than the other interstates.
Thread's gone off the rails.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 04, 2024, 06:40:34 PMTX-130 in Austin:
"I-235" would probably be alright there.
Quote from: ski-man on November 04, 2024, 08:29:22 PMSo are you thinking "I-235" would make a turn on TX-45SE back over to I-35 to give it a 2xx designation. If it follows TX-130 all the way to Sequin & I-10 should it be "I-335"?
Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 04, 2024, 09:07:40 PMTX-130 could be "I-235" along its entire length. There are numerous examples of even-numbered 3-digit Interstate routes that start at their parent route and then end at a different 2-digit Interstate route (or even another 3-digit Interstate route).
You two seem to be under the impression that the southern endpoint of TX-130 is at I-10 near Seguin. This is not true. TX-130 already reaches I-35 at both ends.
Quote from: TxDOT Highway Designation FileMinute Order 112863, dated 09/29/2011; DesLtr 3-2011, dated 2/13/2012
In Georgetown, from IH 35 southward via Hutto, Pflugerville, and Austin to SH 45 northeast of Mustang Ridge, then concurrent with SH 45 southward approximately 0.5 mile to US 183, then southward parallel with US 183 approximately 11.7 miles to north Lockhart, then southwestward to IH 10 in Seguin, then concurrent with IH 10 westward to IH 410, then concurrent with IH 410 south and westward to IH 35 in San Antonio, a total distance of approximately 130.6 miles. (Williamson, Travis, Caldwell, Guadalupe, and Bexar Counties). Route was extended approximately 53.1 miles, concurrent with IH 10, then concurrent with IH 410 to its new terminus at IH 35 in San Antonio.
Note the TX-130 shields on all the signs:
GSV at southern terminus, southboundGSV at southern terminus, eastboundGSV at southern terminus, northbound
Quote from: kphogerYou two seem to be under the impression that the southern endpoint of TX-130 is at I-10 near Seguin. This is not true. TX-130 already reaches I-35 at both ends.
Yeah, TX-130
technically reaches I-35 at its South end via some lazy co-signing with I-10. But it's easy to overlook since the thing co-signed with I-10 is a plain state highway marker. It would be stupid doing the same thing with a 3-digit "I-235" designation
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 22, 2025, 03:25:25 PMYeah, TX-130 technically reaches I-35 at its South end via some lazy co-signing with I-10. But it's easy to overlook since the thing co-signed with I-10 is a plain state highway marker. It would be stupid doing the same thing with a 3-digit "I-235" designation
As much as I dislike pointless concurrencies like that... When I've driven I-35 from Wichita to Laredo and back in the past, it was really useful to simply follow signs for TX-130 all the way from I-35 to I-35. That's simpler than I-35 to TX-130 to I-10 to I-410 to I-35.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 22, 2025, 03:25:25 PMQuote from: kphogerYou two seem to be under the impression that the southern endpoint of TX-130 is at I-10 near Seguin. This is not true. TX-130 already reaches I-35 at both ends.
Yeah, TX-130 technically reaches I-35 at its South end via some lazy co-signing with I-10. But it's easy to overlook since the thing co-signed with I-10 is a plain state highway marker. It would be stupid doing the same thing with a 3-digit "I-235" designation
Their attempt at getting people taking it SB to know where to go to get back to I-35