AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Mid-South => Topic started by: FreewayDan on May 27, 2012, 03:56:35 PM

Title: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
Post by: FreewayDan on May 27, 2012, 03:56:35 PM
Two Texas congressmen (U.S. Rep. Michael T. McCaul, R-Austin and U.S. Rep. John Culberson, R-Houston) are proposing to make U.S. 290 (Northwest Freeway) into an Interstate highway.  This effort is to get more federal funds for its expansion.

 http://www.chron.com/neighborhood/cyfair-news/article/Officials-favoring-upgrade-by-TXDOT-2180292.php
Title: Re: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
Post by: austrini on May 27, 2012, 06:07:10 PM
"the federal government is too big" ... "the federal government should give us money"
Title: Re: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
Post by: Anthony_JK on May 27, 2012, 06:21:11 PM
Plus, where exactly will this designation go to?? The rules state that a spur of an Interstate highway must terminate at a NHS or US highway. Unless they plan on upgrading 290 clear to Austin or combining it with an upgrade of SH 6 to Waco, this isn't going to fly for long.

Plus, what are they going to do with the plans to build the SH 249 tolll road??

I figured that when they started to drop I-69 shields on US 77, that others would want to get in on this sham.


Anthony
Title: Re: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
Post by: OCGuy81 on May 27, 2012, 09:15:30 PM
What would it be?  It's "parent" would technically be I-610.  An odd number 3-di is what I'd assume unless it did actually connect to 35 in Austin.

I-310?
Title: Re: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
Post by: NE2 on May 27, 2012, 09:34:38 PM
Plus, where exactly will this designation go to?? The rules state that a spur of an Interstate highway must terminate at a NHS or US highway.
US 290 is not ony NHS but (partly) STRAHNET: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/nhs/maps/tx_east/tx_texaseast.pdf

Anyway, Interstate designation doesn't mean more funding.
Title: Re: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
Post by: Perfxion on May 28, 2012, 06:14:55 AM
I love Texas, it doesn't want "dirty federal money" unless its highway funding. They want to turn US290 from Houston to Austin into an interstate. It would be an interstate because it will A: connect with a "child" route of I-10, B: would directly connect with its parent due to the new construction, C: end at either a US or interstate route in Austin.

BTW: the toll road expansion of SH259 is just from Spring Cypress to FM1774. They aren't going any further at the moment.
Title: Re: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
Post by: froggie on May 28, 2012, 10:45:46 AM
Quote
US 290 is not ony NHS but (partly) STRAHNET:

I don't think he was asking about US 290 proper being NHS or STRAHNET.  He was asking what the western terminus of any such Interstate designation would be.  That western terminus, per FHWA policy, would have to be at a logical termini...which in practice usually means an intersecting NHS or STRAHNET route.  That means it'd have to end either at the proposed Grand Parkway (TX 99), or the freeway proper would have to be extended past Hempstead to Brenham (and TX 36).  FHWA wouldn't approve an Interstate until either the Grand Parkway gets built to US 290 or the freeway is extended to Brenham.
Title: Re: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
Post by: Anthony_JK on May 28, 2012, 02:38:26 PM
Quote
US 290 is not ony NHS but (partly) STRAHNET:

I don't think he was asking about US 290 proper being NHS or STRAHNET.  He was asking what the western terminus of any such Interstate designation would be.  That western terminus, per FHWA policy, would have to be at a logical termini...which in practice usually means an intersecting NHS or STRAHNET route.  That means it'd have to end either at the proposed Grand Parkway (TX 99), or the freeway proper would have to be extended past Hempstead to Brenham (and TX 36).  FHWA wouldn't approve an Interstate until either the Grand Parkway gets built to US 290 or the freeway is extended to Brenham.


Exactly....Froggie got what I was trying to say.

But, I didn't know that SH 36 was a freeway, or that US 290 had a freeway gap between Hempstead and Brenham. I may need to reacquaint myself with Google Maps more.


Anthony
Title: Re: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
Post by: InterstateNG on May 28, 2012, 03:04:32 PM
36 shares pavement with 290 on a freeway bypass of Brenham.

Continuing the freeway past Brenham is problematic.  Currently westbound traffic has to cloverleaf off the bypass to continue on 290.  Giddings has to be bypassed entirely and the final few miles in Austin would be part of the Manor Expresseay, which is going to be a tolled.
Title: Re: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
Post by: froggie on May 28, 2012, 04:55:53 PM
SH 36 isn't a freeway, but it's on the NHS and as such could be considered a "logical termini" for any I-x10 designation along US 290.
Title: Re: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
Post by: texaskdog on May 28, 2012, 04:59:54 PM
36 shares pavement with 290 on a freeway bypass of Brenham.

Continuing the freeway past Brenham is problematic.  Currently westbound traffic has to cloverleaf off the bypass to continue on 290.  Giddings has to be bypassed entirely and the final few miles in Austin would be part of the Manor Expresseay, which is going to be a tolled.

Nothing that can't be changed. Won't be too many years before 290 is a freeway anyway, too much traffic heading that way. 
Title: Re: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
Post by: InterstateNG on May 28, 2012, 07:45:58 PM
Hey if it takes more Houston-bound traffic off of 71, that works for me.
Title: Re: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
Post by: texaskdog on May 29, 2012, 10:27:02 AM
Hey if it takes more Houston-bound traffic off of 71, that works for me.

Depends which side of Austin you live on.  I"m on the NW side so its 6 of one, half a dozen of the other.  We usually go out 290 & come back on 71.
Title: Re: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
Post by: txstateends on May 29, 2012, 12:40:36 PM
Two Texas congressmen (U.S. Rep. Michael T. McCaul, R-Austin and U.S. Rep. John Culberson, R-Houston)

Why would a Congress-person from Austin care about a possible Interstate that only involves/serves the Houston area, unless there was the possibility of (and his desire for) the Interstate reaching all the way to Austin?
Title: Re: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
Post by: agentsteel53 on May 29, 2012, 12:41:40 PM

Why would a Congress-person from Austin care about a possible Interstate that only involves/serves the Houston area, unless there was the possibility of (and his desire for) the Interstate reaching all the way to Austin?

economic development in Texas in general would benefit the Austin area.
Title: Re: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
Post by: Perfxion on May 29, 2012, 06:41:47 PM
They want to make 290 into a full freeway from Houston to Austin. They also want to make a full freeway from Houston to College Station. The billion dollar question(pun intended) is what money? Isn't this state already going broke with all these road projects? Upgrading US59, Upgrading US277, upgrading US281, upgrading US290, upgrading SH249, building the grand parkway, thats not even touching DFW area. So where is this money coming from? Is it growing on trees? And if so, where is this tree? I might need to make a visit.
Title: Re: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
Post by: texaskdog on May 30, 2012, 08:28:55 AM
Who would want to go to College Station?
Title: Re: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
Post by: Chris on May 30, 2012, 03:36:37 PM
It's quite obvious most new projects in Texas will be toll roads. The gas tax hardly covers minimum maintenance and other projects you can't toll.

If Austin would've been a major city in the 1950's I'm sure there would have been some kind of Interstate Highway running from Austin to Houston. However Austin was only a small regional city at the time, like various other state capitals.
Title: Re: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
Post by: texaskdog on May 30, 2012, 04:06:17 PM
It's quite obvious most new projects in Texas will be toll roads. The gas tax hardly covers minimum maintenance and other projects you can't toll.

If Austin would've been a major city in the 1950's I'm sure there would have been some kind of Interstate Highway running from Austin to Houston. However Austin was only a small regional city at the time, like various other state capitals.

I would build up 290 then the mainline from points west to east would run thru austin, though really would have made more sense to run the freeway along 71 heading east
Title: Re: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
Post by: TXtoNJ on June 12, 2012, 11:37:08 PM
If they wanted to troll, they'd number it I-14.
If they really wanted to troll, they'd number it I-27
Title: Re: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
Post by: InterstateNG on June 13, 2012, 09:04:57 AM
Good to know.
Title: Re: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
Post by: Cam4rd98 on September 22, 2013, 05:18:59 PM
36 shares pavement with 290 on a freeway bypass of Brenham.

Continuing the freeway past Brenham is problematic.  Currently westbound traffic has to cloverleaf off the bypass to continue on 290.  Giddings has to be bypassed entirely and the final few miles in Austin would be part of the Manor Expresseay, which is going to be a tolled.


36 shares pavement with 290 on a freeway bypass of Brenham.

Continuing the freeway past Brenham is problematic.  Currently westbound traffic has to cloverleaf off the bypass to continue on 290.  Giddings has to be bypassed entirely and the final few miles in Austin would be part of the Manor Expresseay, which is going to be a tolled.



I got an idea that would work
Texas 36-US.290 Tie in Brenham


(http://i1297.photobucket.com/albums/ag25/cameron_ford2/290and36_zpsb1762ca8.jpg) (http://s1297.photobucket.com/user/cameron_ford2/media/290and36_zpsb1762ca8.jpg.html)
Title: Re: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
Post by: Bobby5280 on September 24, 2013, 01:00:44 PM
I don't see a problem adding an Interstate I-x10 spur designation to US-290. But the Interstate designation at this point could only travel to the split with TX-6 at Hempstead.

The 18 mile stretch between Hempstead and Brenham is mostly 4-lane divided highway with at grade intersections. Obviously the freeway in Brenham wouldn't be able to carry any Interstate designation at this point.

It looks like the long term plan is to have College Station linked to the Houston area with superhighway all the way. It might be another matter for TX-6 to carry an Interstate route designation. I sure wouldn't want to see the I-x10 route number being proposed to US-290 hang a hard right turn North to College Station.

Long term (perhaps a decade or two), I can see US-290 eventually being upgraded to full Interstate highway standards from Houston to Austin. If the upgrading progress eventually goes that far it might be alright to rename it with a 2 digit number (I-12 or I-14). There are 3 digit Interstates that do travel significant distances though.
Title: Re: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
Post by: texaskdog on September 24, 2013, 01:16:23 PM
36 shares pavement with 290 on a freeway bypass of Brenham.

Continuing the freeway past Brenham is problematic.  Currently westbound traffic has to cloverleaf off the bypass to continue on 290.  Giddings has to be bypassed entirely and the final few miles in Austin would be part of the Manor Expresseay, which is going to be a tolled.


36 shares pavement with 290 on a freeway bypass of Brenham.

Continuing the freeway past Brenham is problematic.  Currently westbound traffic has to cloverleaf off the bypass to continue on 290.  Giddings has to be bypassed entirely and the final few miles in Austin would be part of the Manor Expresseay, which is going to be a tolled.



I got an idea that would work
Texas 36-US.290 Tie in Brenham


(http://i1297.photobucket.com/albums/ag25/cameron_ford2/290and36_zpsb1762ca8.jpg) (http://s1297.photobucket.com/user/cameron_ford2/media/290and36_zpsb1762ca8.jpg.html)

Generally we don't do cloverleafs in Texas...except in San Antonio
Title: Re: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
Post by: Henry on September 24, 2013, 01:42:43 PM
What would it be?  It's "parent" would technically be I-610.  An odd number 3-di is what I'd assume unless it did actually connect to 35 in Austin.

I-310?
I could see that, unless they pulled a Texarkana/NWA and renumbered that spur to I-14, a western I-16, I-18 or even I-12!
Title: Re: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
Post by: nolia_boi504 on September 24, 2013, 04:03:04 PM
I-12 already exists as a bypass I-10 around New Orleans
Title: Re: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
Post by: Bobby5280 on September 24, 2013, 04:45:32 PM
Yes, there is an I-12 (basically an I-10 bypass of New Orleans). But there are multiple examples of Interstates using the same number at two (or more) locations in the system.

I-88 (New York, Illinois)
I-86 (Idaho, NE US)
I-84 (NW US, NE US)
I-76 (CO/NB, OH/PA)
I-74 (Carolinas, Midwest)

There's an existing I-66 and a different, proposed I-66 that wouldn't connect with the original, metro Wash. DC route.

I-69 currently exists in several, unattached segments.

It doesn't really matter to me what Interstate number they use if the US-290 route gets such a designation. Austin is a big enough city to justify a direct Interstate quality link to Houston. One could even make a case for upgrading US-290 to Interstate status through Austin and farther West to its terminus at I-10. If US-290 was upgraded that far an I-14 designation would be worthwhile. But good luck on funding such a plan.
Title: Re: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
Post by: agentsteel53 on September 24, 2013, 04:46:53 PM
a different, proposed I-66 that wouldn't connect with the original, metro Wash. DC route.

it wouldn't?  what's the plan for it, then?
Title: Re: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
Post by: english si on September 24, 2013, 05:05:09 PM
From http://www.aaroads.com/high-priority/corr03.html
Quote
Leaving Kentucky, the Los Angeles Times article has Interstate 66 heading east via U.S. 50 and Corridor H through southeastern Ohio and northern West Virginia to Strasburg. Corridor H is defined as running from Interstate 79 at Elkins, W.V., to Interstate 81 at Strasburg, Va. This project is under the gun from environmental groups due to the freeway's potential intrusion on pristine wilderness, so Corridor H may not be completed. The Interstate 64 and Interstate 81 corridor is obviously the cheapest and least intrusive. We are not sure what the actual plan was for Interstate 66 in this area, but it could be routed anywhere from Beckley to Strasburg.
The I-66 plan did link to the existing one.
Title: Re: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
Post by: 1 on September 24, 2013, 05:08:32 PM
The duplicates seem to be only when there is no alternative. If a low number is available (and there are many), then we don't need a duplicate.
Title: Re: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
Post by: nolia_boi504 on September 24, 2013, 05:08:43 PM
Yes, there is an I-12 (basically an I-10 bypass of New Orleans). But there are multiple examples of Interstates using the same number at two (or more) locations in the system.

I-88 (New York, Illinois)
I-86 (Idaho, NE US)
I-84 (NW US, NE US)
I-76 (CO/NB, OH/PA)
I-74 (Carolinas, Midwest)

There's an existing I-66 and a different, proposed I-66 that wouldn't connect with the original, metro Wash. DC route.

I-69 currently exists in several, unattached segments.

It doesn't really matter to me what Interstate number they use if the US-290 route gets such a designation. Austin is a big enough city to justify a direct Interstate quality link to Houston. One could even make a case for upgrading US-290 to Interstate status through Austin and farther West to its terminus at I-10. If US-290 was upgraded that far an I-14 designation would be worthwhile. But good luck on funding such a plan.


Hmm I did not know about those non-continuous interstates up north. I-69 however will all be connected as one continuous cross country Interstate, so that makes sense to me. I thought it just became allowed for non-continuous interstates to have the same number as long as they are planned to be connected in the next X number of years (I believe 25 years). Regardless, I totally agree, there needs to be an interstate of some number linking Austin and Houston.
Title: Re: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
Post by: bugo on September 25, 2013, 01:32:51 AM
Plus, where exactly will this designation go to?? The rules state that a spur of an Interstate highway must terminate at a NHS or US highway. Unless they plan on upgrading 290 clear to Austin or combining it with an upgrade of SH 6 to Waco, this isn't going to fly for long.

I-49 ends at a Missouri lettered route.
Title: Re: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
Post by: Anthony_JK on September 25, 2013, 04:30:09 AM
Plus, where exactly will this designation go to?? The rules state that a spur of an Interstate highway must terminate at a NHS or US highway. Unless they plan on upgrading 290 clear to Austin or combining it with an upgrade of SH 6 to Waco, this isn't going to fly for long.

I-49 ends at a Missouri lettered route.

That's only temporary until the Bella Vista Bypass is completed. Not the same thing.
Title: Re: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
Post by: Henry on September 25, 2013, 11:42:17 AM
Yes, there is an I-12 (basically an I-10 bypass of New Orleans). But there are multiple examples of Interstates using the same number at two (or more) locations in the system.

I-88 (New York, Illinois)
I-86 (Idaho, NE US)
I-84 (NW US, NE US)
I-76 (CO/NB, OH/PA)
I-74 (Carolinas, Midwest)

There's an existing I-66 and a different, proposed I-66 that wouldn't connect with the original, metro Wash. DC route.

I-69 currently exists in several, unattached segments.

It doesn't really matter to me what Interstate number they use if the US-290 route gets such a designation. Austin is a big enough city to justify a direct Interstate quality link to Houston. One could even make a case for upgrading US-290 to Interstate status through Austin and farther West to its terminus at I-10. If US-290 was upgraded that far an I-14 designation would be worthwhile. But good luck on funding such a plan.


Hmm I did not know about those non-continuous interstates up north. I-69 however will all be connected as one continuous cross country Interstate, so that makes sense to me. I thought it just became allowed for non-continuous interstates to have the same number as long as they are planned to be connected in the next X number of years (I believe 25 years). Regardless, I totally agree, there needs to be an interstate of some number linking Austin and Houston.
I know about the existing I-12. Personally, I'd push for a western extension of that route to Austin, and failing that, I-16 and I-18 would be the next best choices (although this new I-16 wouldn't connect to the one in GA, and I-14 has already been proposed for a new route across the Deep South).
Title: Re: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
Post by: Bobby5280 on September 25, 2013, 12:06:43 PM
There are existing examples of 3-digit Interstate spur highways ending at roads that aren't an Interstate or US Highway.

I-575 North of Atlanta ends at a Georgia state highway.
I-385 in Greenville, SC ends at a regular city street with no route number.
I-140 outside Knoxville, TN ends at TN-33.
I-787 in Albany, NY ends at NY-7
I-790 in Utica, NY ends downtown at a jumble of state highways.
I-990 in Buffalo, NY ends at NY-263
I-184 in Boise, ID ends at S. 13th Street downtown.
I-105 in Eugene, OR ends at OR-99 downtown.
I-705 in Tacoma, WA ends downtown at a city street.

There may be other examples in the system. I just did a quick scan and found those.

Quote
I know about the existing I-12. Personally, I'd push for a western extension of that route to Austin, and failing that, I-16 and I-18 would be the next best choices (although this new I-16 wouldn't connect to the one in GA, and I-14 has already been proposed for a new route across the Deep South).

I don't see how the existing I-12 route could logically be extended to Austin without it running concurrent with I-10 for much of its route. For that matter, I-12 is barely justifiable as it is with having a 2-digit designation. If it were up to me I would have named the route I-410.

Title: Re: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
Post by: Indyroads on September 25, 2013, 12:34:26 PM
I-184 in Boise, ID ends at S. 13th Street downtown.


Technically I-184 in Boise ends at US-20/26 at the Chinden Blvd overpass. the remaining portion of the connector is actually US-20/26.
Title: Re: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on September 25, 2013, 01:53:12 PM
This discussion is why I keep proposing my Interstate 18. It is the only number left. I-12 is in Louisiana, and I hate repeat route numbers. I-16 has a current proposal in Georgia. I-18 is the number left, except I want the route to go down SH 71 to Austin and US 290 from Austin to Junction.  The reason that route seams more viable is because getting up to US 290 in Houston is a bit out of the way, where as SH 71 is much more direct and a better route between Austin and Houston. Plus it connects to the transcontinental I-10 much better than a disjointed US 290 that terminates at I-610. The SH 71 to US 290 corridor makes more sense because it will work as a I-10N/I-10S split similar to Dallas/Ft. Worth with I-18 acting as I-10N through Austin and mainline I-10 acting as I-10S through San Antonio. 
Title: Re: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
Post by: texaskdog on September 25, 2013, 03:31:07 PM
Right on bro!
Title: Re: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
Post by: Bobby5280 on September 25, 2013, 03:39:28 PM
I think the difference would come down to traffic counts. Which road is carrying more vehicles between Houston & Austin? TX-71 or US-290? I think it's a safe bet US-290 is carrying more traffic. There are more small cities and towns along that route between Houston & Austin. US-290 is also picking up a lot of Houston-bound traffic from TX-6, although the stretch between its junction with US-290 in Hempstead to I-610 in Houston is already up to Interstate standards, and is the only part of US-290 that could be given an Interstate designation at this point.

One thing in favor of upgrading TX-71 between Austin & Columbus: using TX-71 would require fewer miles of Interstate quality road upgrades to complete a Houston to Austin Interstate link than upgrading US-290 between Hempstead and Austin.

The mileage differences between the two Houston-Austin routes is negligible. Any mileage saving advantage between the two routes would depend highly upon where the trip between Houston and Austin was beginning and ending. Obviously anyone living in a Northern Austin suburb, like Round Rock and headed to a point in Houston anywhere North of I-10 would use the US-290 route. If you're starting out in Central or Southern Austin and driving to a more southerly point, such as Galveston, then TX-71 would make more sense.

Regarding the I-14 proposal in the 2005 SAFETEA-LU bill, I'm extremely skeptical that road will ever get built. Certainly not the vague route being proposed between Alexandria, LA and Augusta, GA. The "I-3" route proposed between Savannah, Augusta and Knoxville is another, IMHO, wild fantasy and glaring violation of Interstate numbering rules.

With that being said, I think chances are greater we'll eventually see an I-14 route built in Texas linking Houston & Austin before we see that deep South proposal become a reality.
Title: Re: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
Post by: froggie on September 26, 2013, 03:31:48 AM
Quote
There are existing examples of 3-digit Interstate spur highways ending at roads that aren't an Interstate or US Highway.

For most of your examples, those were either their approved original mileages, or they end/continue-on as a major road (several of those being on the National Highway System).  Also, unless TDOT snuck a request in, I-140 ends at US 129 and the freeway continues as TN 162.
Title: Re: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
Post by: NE2 on September 26, 2013, 03:49:03 AM
they end/continue-on as a major road (several of those being on the National Highway System)
Is continuing on allowed? If so, US 290 could be an Interstate all the way to the end of the freeway, and US 23 could be I-26 to the Virginia state line.
Title: Re: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
Post by: froggie on September 26, 2013, 06:29:44 AM
Quote
Is continuing on allowed? If so, US 290 could be an Interstate all the way to the end of the freeway, and US 23 could be I-26 to the Virginia state line.

In the past, continuing on was allowed (i.e. I-575 GA, I-195 ME, etc etc), but IIRC, current policy prefers termini at a major crossroad junction or major feature, hence why I-26 ends at US 11W (though it doesn't explain I-69's odd ending at the Tunica/DeSoto County line in MS).  An example of the "major feature" would be the new I-781 NY, which feeds directly into the main gate at Fort Drum.
Title: Re: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
Post by: english si on September 26, 2013, 07:13:17 AM
I think the difference would come down to traffic counts. Which road is carrying more vehicles between Houston & Austin? TX-71 or US-290? I think it's a safe bet US-290 is carrying more traffic. There are more small cities and towns along that route between Houston & Austin.
Surely if making an I-14 Austin - Houston Interstate route, then that route would also pick up extra traffic due to be the Interstate route between the two cities?

There's no reason why US290 can't be a 3di (perhaps an I-x45?) to TX6 (and then up TX6 to Bryan and College Station) even if TX71 is chosen as the Houston-Austin Interstate route.
Plus, where exactly will this designation go to?? The rules state that a spur of an Interstate highway must terminate at a NHS or US highway. Unless they plan on upgrading 290 clear to Austin or combining it with an upgrade of SH 6 to Waco, this isn't going to fly for long.
TX36 at Brenham is NHS, as is TX105 at Navasota. However, there is no reason why TXDOT cannot request that TX249 be removed from the NHS, replaced by TX6 between Navasota and Hempstead in order to have the interstate end with the freeway at Hempstead.
Title: Re: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
Post by: yakra on September 26, 2013, 09:12:17 AM
Quote from: froggie
I-195 ME
I-195 officially ends at US1, but is signed as going all the way to ME5 in the field. (Keep continuity, Reduce driver confusion, etc etc). East of there, the WB alignment is internally ME5 north, and the EB alignment has an internal inventory route number of, appropriately, 5195S.
Title: Re: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
Post by: Cameron918 on August 22, 2018, 05:48:42 PM
The cloverleaf I created should be redesigned, there should be a realignment of us 290 somehow or direct ramp connectors like the ones at us 290 and SH 6 in Hempstead.

The 290 Interchange in Brenham
Title: Re: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
Post by: DNAguy on August 23, 2018, 09:24:46 AM
The new expansion of 290 will allow for 290 traffic to directly exit to I10 w/out entering 610 mainlanes when complete. In addition, when all the construction is done, you will be able to exit I10 to 290 w/out entering 610 main lanes when complete. I think this is an actuality now. However, the project is not officially complete so I'll leave my verbiage as is.
Therefore, you would have the terminus be I10 if you designate the direct connectors as being part of the X10 interstate.
I think that gets around the debate we've been having around terminus issues.

http://www.my290.com/images/documents/maps/I-610US290InterchangeProfiles.pdf
http://www.my290.com/images/documents/maps/I-610US290PlanView.pdf

Title: Re: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
Post by: TXtoNJ on August 23, 2018, 12:01:59 PM
The new expansion of 290 will allow for 290 traffic to directly exit to I10 w/out entering 610 mainlanes when complete. In addition, when all the construction is done, you will be able to exit I10 to 290 w/out entering 610 main lanes when complete. I think this is an actuality now. However, the project is not officially complete so I'll leave my verbiage as is.
Therefore, you would have the terminus be I10 if you designate the direct connectors as being part of the X10 interstate.
I think that gets around the debate we've been having around terminus issues.

http://www.my290.com/images/documents/maps/I-610US290InterchangeProfiles.pdf
http://www.my290.com/images/documents/maps/I-610US290PlanView.pdf



Yes, you already can do that.
Title: Re: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
Post by: longhorn on August 24, 2018, 11:40:40 AM
Good point about making 290 an interstate like I-110, I-710 or even I-545. But one could a new short interstate from Bryan/College Station (Hwy 6 connecting to future I-14) to I-610 and call it I-39, or I-41

The state of Illinois in the last ten years or so went through a phase where some of their state highways received interstate designation.
Title: Re: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
Post by: jbnv on August 27, 2018, 03:43:08 PM
I'll be shocked if they don't ultimately promote US 290 or TX 71 to I-12. One can make a theoretical "I-12" corridor along US 90, TX 12, LA 12 and US 190 to connect US 290 to the existing I-12.

If they want to troll, they could designate US 290 as I-12N and TX 71 as I-12S. Or US 290 as I-10N and TX 71 as I-10C (I'll escort myself out now).
Title: Re: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 27, 2018, 04:50:35 PM
Does US 290 really need an Interstate designation? I would say no, but Texas and North Carolina seem intent on making every freeway within their borders Interstates (an exaggeration, of course, but they are the most gung-ho about designating new Interstate corridors). Personally, I would wait until when/if US 290 is completely freeway/tollway between Austin and Houston before assigning it an Interstate designation.
Title: Re: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
Post by: rlb2024 on August 27, 2018, 09:43:38 PM
Make it I-69NW.  There are already so many I-69s in Texas what's one more?    :crazy:
Title: Re: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
Post by: yakra on September 02, 2018, 12:38:19 AM
A modest proposal. ;)