AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Proposed I-X10 in Houston  (Read 16398 times)

nolia_boi504

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 61
  • Location: Houston
  • Last Login: April 20, 2019, 05:23:50 PM
Re: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
« Reply #25 on: September 24, 2013, 04:03:04 PM »

I-12 already exists as a bypass I-10 around New Orleans
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1609
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: April 21, 2019, 09:27:53 PM
Re: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
« Reply #26 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.
Logged

agentsteel53

  • invisible hand
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 15374
  • long live button copy!

  • Age: 37
  • Location: San Diego, CA
  • Last Login: November 21, 2016, 09:58:39 AM
    • AARoads Shield Gallery
Re: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
« Reply #27 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?
Logged
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

english si

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3452
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Buckinghamshire, England
  • Last Login: April 21, 2019, 08:05:14 PM
Re: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
« Reply #28 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.
Logged

1

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 6642
  • UMass Lowell student

  • Age: 20
  • Location: MA/NH border
  • Last Login: Today at 02:13:16 PM
    • Flickr account
Re: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
« Reply #29 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.
Logged
Clinched

Traveled, plus:
US ⒉⒔50
MA ⒐22.40.99.10⒎10⒐1⒒1⒚127.141.159
NH 27,111A; NY 366; GA 42,140; FL A1A; CT 32

Flickr

nolia_boi504

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 61
  • Location: Houston
  • Last Login: April 20, 2019, 05:23:50 PM
Re: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
« Reply #30 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.
Logged

bugo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6016
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Oklahoma
  • Last Login: April 21, 2019, 02:21:26 PM
    • No Frills Blog
Re: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
« Reply #31 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.
Logged
This signature has been censored by the AARoads Bureau of Morality.

Anthony_JK

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1306
  • Age: 54
  • Location: Lafayette, Louisiana
  • Last Login: April 21, 2019, 04:39:39 AM
Re: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
« Reply #32 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.
Logged

Henry

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4683
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Chicago, IL/Seattle, WA
  • Last Login: Today at 10:16:15 AM
    • Henry Watson's Online Freeway
Re: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
« Reply #33 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).
Logged
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1609
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: April 21, 2019, 09:27:53 PM
Re: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
« Reply #34 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.

« Last Edit: September 25, 2013, 12:12:28 PM by Bobby5280 »
Logged

Indyroads

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 225
  • Age: 44
  • Location: Lebanon, Indiana
  • Last Login: October 17, 2018, 11:49:42 PM
    • Indyroads.com
Re: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
« Reply #35 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.
Logged
And a highway will be there;
    it will be called the Way of Holiness;
    it will be for those who walk on that Way.
The unclean will not journey on it;
    wicked fools will not go about on it.
Isaiah 35:8-10 (NIV)

ethanhopkin14

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 345
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Last Login: April 09, 2019, 05:15:35 PM
Re: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
« Reply #36 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. 
Logged

texaskdog

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2428
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Last Login: April 21, 2019, 09:40:26 PM
Re: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
« Reply #37 on: September 25, 2013, 03:31:07 PM »

Right on bro!
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1609
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: April 21, 2019, 09:27:53 PM
Re: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
« Reply #38 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.
Logged

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10361
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: April 20, 2019, 10:37:54 PM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
« Reply #39 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.
Logged

NE2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13774
  • fuck

  • Age: 10
  • Location: central Florida
  • Last Login: April 21, 2019, 09:24:28 AM
Re: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
« Reply #40 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.
Logged
Florida route log | pre-1945
I will do my best to not make America hate again.
Global warming denial is barely worse than white privilege denial.

froggie

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 10361
  • Location: Greensboro, VT
  • Last Login: April 20, 2019, 10:37:54 PM
    • Froggie's Place
Re: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
« Reply #41 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.
Logged

english si

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3452
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Buckinghamshire, England
  • Last Login: April 21, 2019, 08:05:14 PM
Re: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
« Reply #42 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.
Logged

yakra

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1044
  • Location: Area Code 207
  • Last Login: April 19, 2019, 12:18:11 AM
Re: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
« Reply #43 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.
Logged
"Officer, I'm always careful to drive the speed limit no matter where I am and that's what I was doin'." Said "No, you weren't," she said, "Yes, I was." He said, "Madam, I just clocked you at 22 MPH," and she said "That's the speed limit," he said "No ma'am, that's the route numbah!"  - Gary Crocker

Cameron918

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3
  • Location: Austin Tx
  • Last Login: April 02, 2019, 11:37:22 AM
Re: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
« Reply #44 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
« Last Edit: August 23, 2018, 10:37:16 AM by Cameron918 »
Logged

DNAguy

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 36
  • Location: United States
  • Last Login: January 02, 2019, 03:48:18 PM
Re: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
« Reply #45 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

Logged

TXtoNJ

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 521
  • Last Login: Today at 11:17:54 AM
Re: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
« Reply #46 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.
Logged

longhorn

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 281
  • Last Login: April 18, 2019, 05:33:53 PM
Re: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
« Reply #47 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.
Logged

jbnv

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2831
  • Visionary

  • Age: 43
  • Location: Independence/Hammond, LA
  • Last Login: April 18, 2019, 07:13:46 PM
    • Personal Site
Re: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
« Reply #48 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).
Logged
Keep Clearview, lose the government bureaucracies and the politicians who enable them.
US Redo | Louisiana Redo | Route Challenge | Photos

The Ghostbuster

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2093
  • Age: 34
  • Location: Madison, WI
  • Last Login: April 18, 2019, 04:10:21 PM
Re: Proposed I-X10 in Houston
« Reply #49 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.
Logged

 


Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.