Interstate 2

[Thegeet]

While the US-83 shield on the McAllen follow thru panel has plenty of negative space around it, there isn't enough space there to patch-in an Interstate 2 shield. The installers would need to re-apply the entire top line of graphics. That alone isn't a big deal; it's just cut reflective vinyl. The bigger expense is having a crane truck and its crew go out there to do the install work.

I disagree. I think there's enough room to insert a shield on the right side of "EAST". I don't assume it being significantly bigger than the US 83 shield, and placed there, I can't really see it looking much out of place. Sure, it looks odd to read "US 83 EAST I-2", it shouldn't really be that bad. For comparison, here's "I-69E SOUTH US 77": https://www.google.com/maps/place/I-69E+Frontage+Rd,+Texas+78380/@27.8543966,-97.6304803,3a,15y,174.59h,107.08t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sx4BIIvcX02lfM3p1ISGNpg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D-17.079563627552076%26panoid%3Dx4BIIvcX02lfM3p1ISGNpg%26yaw%3D174.58712065942606!7i16384!8i8192!4m6!3m5!1s0x86687e0b421fb26b:0xb48b613e2ebbe6b2!8m2!3d27.7328858!4d-97.7049434!16s%2Fg%2F11vprymk1j?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDYwNC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

[kphoger]

For comparison, here's "I-69E SOUTH US 77": https://www.google.com/maps/place/I-69E+Frontage+Rd,+Texas+78380/@27.8543966,-97.6304803,3a,15y,174.59h,107.08t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sx4BIIvcX02lfM3p1ISGNpg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D-17.079563627552076%26panoid%3Dx4BIIvcX02lfM3p1ISGNpg%26yaw%3D174.58712065942606!7i16384!8i8192!4m6!3m5!1s0x86687e0b421fb26b:0xb48b613e2ebbe6b2!8m2!3d27.7328858!4d-97.7049434!16s%2Fg%2F11vprymk1j?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDYwNC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

There wasn't really room for that either.

[Bobby5280]

I disagree. I think there's enough room to insert a shield on the right side of "EAST".

I've been working in the sign industry doing design work for a long time. I'm a pretty good judge on what passes for enough negative space to patch-in additional elements. And it's not just a matter of fitting in an additional shield. The highway shields are supposed to have a certain amount of negative space surrounding them.

BTW, the I-69E/US-77 Robstown/Kingsville example you linked via Google Maps looks hideous. There is hardly any negative space at all between the highway route shields, the edge of the sign panel and the word "South". Obviously the agency cut corners installing a sign panel too damned small to hold the content. It almost looks like something a rank amateur would design, except the Clearview lettering isn't squeezed or stretched out of its normal proportions.

[kphoger]

[Scott5114]

The highway shields are supposed to have a certain amount of negative space surrounding them.

Sixteen inches, to be exact. Though most states get away with eight.

[Thegeet]

XD that makes me laugh so much, and the thing is...I'm already going to Kingsville for studying to TAMUK, so I'll bee seeing that sign again soon!

Anyways...I think that the future I-2 sign will then be an entire replacement.

[vtk]

I disagree. I think there's enough room to insert a shield on the right side of "EAST".

...it's not just a matter of fitting in an additional shield. The highway shields are supposed to have a certain amount of negative space surrounding them.

A hypothetical I-2 shield to the right of the "EAST" element could have exactly the same amount of negative space around it as the US-83 shield already does. What's sufficient for the US-83 shield would be sufficient for an I-2 shield, no?

[Bobby5280]

A hypothetical I-2 shield to the right of the "EAST" element could have exactly the same amount of negative space around it as the US-83 shield already does. What's sufficient for the US-83 shield would be sufficient for an I-2 shield, no?

It's usually standard practice to place route shields to the left of the cardinal direction lettering.

While it might look balanced to have the word "East" centered on the panel with US-83 and I-2 shields positioned to the left and right of the word, the arrangement would be backward. The Interstate shield should be on the left with the US highway shield to the right of it. That would give the Interstate route "top billing," followed by the US route.

If TX DOT has any plans to add I-2 to these signs, and do so with less cost, they'll have to make the changes sooner than later. Otherwise they'll have to replace the green background vinyl and all the graphics applied to it.

It doesn't take very long for that white reflective vinyl to get baked into the background. After a year or two it can be difficult to peel that stuff off the background without it cracking into little pieces. And it can leave ghosting on the green background after it is removed. Standard reflective vinyl is relatively cheap. The type 3 high intensity reflective vinyl used in the background costs quite a bit more.

[Thegeet]

A hypothetical I-2 shield to the right of the "EAST" element could have exactly the same amount of negative space around it as the US-83 shield already does. What's sufficient for the US-83 shield would be sufficient for an I-2 shield, no?

It's usually standard practice to place route shields to the left of the cardinal direction lettering.

While it might look balanced to have the word "East" centered on the panel with US-83 and I-2 shields positioned to the left and right of the word, the arrangement would be backward. The Interstate shield should be on the left with the US highway shield to the right of it. That would give the Interstate route "top billing," followed by the US route.

If TX DOT has any plans to add I-2 to these signs, and do so with less cost, they'll have to make the changes sooner than later. Otherwise they'll have to replace the green background vinyl and all the graphics applied to it.

It doesn't take very long for that white reflective vinyl to get baked into the background. After a year or two it can be difficult to peel that stuff off the background without it cracking into little pieces. And it can leave ghosting on the green background after it is removed. Standard reflective vinyl is relatively cheap. The type 3 high intensity reflective vinyl used in the background costs quite a bit more.

Just because it's unusual doesn't mean it can't happen. After all, this I-45 exit to US 59 has 59 1st and I-69 2nd. https://www.google.com/maps/@29.7266185,-95.3344882,3a,26y,332.01h,101.87t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sz3J0dQD1VezJiciPNim9Sg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D-11.868778039315458%26panoid%3Dz3J0dQD1VezJiciPNim9Sg%26yaw%3D332.01288738365446!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDYwOS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

[Scott5114]

After all, this I-45 exit to US 59 has 59 1st and I-69 2nd.

Which is against the MUTCD.

[Bobby5280]

Just because it's unusual doesn't mean it can't happen.

Just because you see an installed sign composed a certain way does not mean it was designed correctly.

Commercial landscapes across the country are littered with badly designed signs. The signs for bigger companies will often look better because they at least have brand guidelines they follow. Signs for small businesses often look like shit. There aren't any industry standards for quality of work and there aren't job requirement standards for hiring people to do the design work either. 40 years ago if someone wanted to be a "graphic designer" they usually needed quite a bit of formal training, if not a 2-year or 4-year degree, in order to do the work productively. Most of the tools were analog-based back then. In the years since computer-based tools arrived the hiring standards have declined.

Unfortunately traffic control signage is not immune from this problem. Despite the existence of "traffic engineers," supervising agencies and manuals like the MUTCD, signs still get badly botched. Not enough people care about doing the damned job correctly (just like the commercial sign industry). Add to that the issue of higher ups looking for any way to cut corners and reduce cost. That's how we get tiny green sign panels with the design elements crammed into them or the bad patch jobs we see frequently.

[Chris]

https://www.krgv.com/news/construction-kicks-off-for-state-loop-195-project-in-starr-county/

A groundbreaking ceremony was held on December 2 for the Loop 195 project in Starr County. It's 'State Loop 195 Phase I'.

In a news release, the Texas Department of Transportation said the $240 million project will be constructed in three phases.

Phase one will connect FM 755 and FM 3167 in Rio Grande City.

Phase two will connect FM 3167 in Rio Grande City to FM 649 near El Sauz. It's scheduled to go out for construction bids in late 2026.

The third and final phase will connect FM 649 and the intersection of US 83 and Loma Blanca Road. Construction bids are set to go out in 2028.

[Bobby5280]

That will be a pretty big chunk of Future I-2. The highway is being built initially as an ordinary four lane divided highway. Like certain other divided highways in Texas the median will be large and able to hold main lanes of a future freeway (or toll road).

[TBKS1]

Just out of curiosity but if loops and spur routes share the same number pool, TX Spur 195 already exists in Collin County, what would happen to that route?

I know there's some exceptions to this rule, Spur 19 and 108 are two examples, as they have spur routes directly connecting to the loop roads with the same number.

[NE2]

Loop 195 was designated in September 2013 and Spur 195 in December 2013. Looks like one hand didn't know what the other was doing.

[Bobby5280]

The duplication ultimately won't matter once the I-2 designation swallows up "Loop 195."

[Thegeet]

^ Is there any confirmation the US-83 improvements beyond the existing I-2 are going to be signed / built as Interstate 2?

As far as I'm aware, it's still fictional.

FYI, https://www.txdot.gov/projects/projects-studies/statewide/us83-corridor.html

"TxDOT is conducting the US 83 Regional Corridor Study from Interstate 2 west of Palmview in Hidalgo County to the US 59/State Loop 20 junction in Webb County, approximately 130 miles. The purpose of the study is to enhance mobility, safety and connectivity between Laredo and Rio Grande Valley. The study will also include assessing the feasibility of upgrading this corridor to interstate standards."

[edwaleni]

That will be a pretty big chunk of Future I-2. The highway is being built initially as an ordinary four lane divided highway. Like certain other divided highways in Texas the median will be large and able to hold main lanes of a future freeway (or toll road).

The last section won't even go out for bid until 2028 at the soonest. I wouldn't expect to see the entire Rio Grande City to Loma Blanca route to be driveable all the way through until 2033.

[Bobby5280]

The last section won't even go out for bid until 2028 at the soonest. I wouldn't expect to see the entire Rio Grande City to Loma Blanca route to be drive-able all the way through until 2033.

And then there's the issue of the gap between the East end of the project at FM-755 and the existing West end of I-2 between La Joya and Sullivan City. That's almost 20 miles. As far as I know there aren't any final plans on a corridor to fill that gap.

It's kind of surprising how far that cluster of towns and cities at the bottom edge of Texas spans. It's over 100 miles from Roma to South Padre Island.

[sprjus4]

^ Is there any confirmation the US-83 improvements beyond the existing I-2 are going to be signed / built as Interstate 2?

As far as I'm aware, it's still fictional.

FYI, https://www.txdot.gov/projects/projects-studies/statewide/us83-corridor.html

"TxDOT is conducting the US 83 Regional Corridor Study from Interstate 2 west of Palmview in Hidalgo County to the US 59/State Loop 20 junction in Webb County, approximately 130 miles. The purpose of the study is to enhance mobility, safety and connectivity between Laredo and Rio Grande Valley. The study will also include assessing the feasibility of upgrading this corridor to interstate standards."

So no, still no official plans to sign US-83 improvements beyond the existing I-2 as Interstate 2.

[The Ghostbuster]

Until the La Joya bypass becomes signed as part of Interstate 2, I expect the exits will remain unnumbered.

[MaxConcrete]

The last section won't even go out for bid until 2028 at the soonest. I wouldn't expect to see the entire Rio Grande City to Loma Blanca route to be drive-able all the way through until 2033.

And then there's the issue of the gap between the East end of the project at FM-755 and the existing West end of I-2 between La Joya and Sullivan City. That's almost 20 miles. As far as I know there aren't any final plans on a corridor to fill that gap.

It's kind of surprising how far that cluster of towns and cities at the bottom edge of Texas spans. It's over 100 miles from Roma to South Padre Island.

The alignment east of FM 755 has a huge problem: the Lower Rio Grande Valley National Wildlife Refuge.

The refuge is not shown on Google maps. Here is map which shows the refuge. It seems unexpected that the existing Loop 195 alignment would logically go east into the refuge. (Why was the existing SL 195 alignment selected?)

There was a public meeting in December showing all the alignments under consideration. Of course, they are all bad because the need to go north of the refuge. (See map below)

I'm wondering why the existing US 83 corridor cannot be used. (It is not an alternative.)

In the matrix in the presentation on page 17, the options range from $2.31 to 2.55 billion. Only the north connector (light blue) avoids sharp curves and a wasteful longer route. Either the north (yellow) or central (dark blue) eastward extension would work well with the north connector.

The reality is that the complexity and high cost will almost surely ensure that it won't happen anytime soon.


Full size map

[Bobby5280]

The North Connector route option is the only alternative that looks like it makes any sense for getting around the wildlife refuge. That's the least bad option. The other alternatives, particularly that extremely crooked "South" option, just look stupid.

A connection that goes farther South, attempting to hook into US-83 West of the wildlife refuge, looks less do-able. The problem is the US-83 alignment in La Puerta is a narrow 5-lane surface street. A decent sized cluster of residential properties are situated near the highway. Most of those homes would get erased by a Y-interchange that dovetails into US-83 and expands the alignment to a 250'-300' width. It makes more sense for the SL-195 bypass to merge into US-83 near the FM-2360 intersection. US-83 has a short segment of limited access freeway there.

It looks like the long range plan is to upgrade US-83 in place between the FM-2360 exit and the West end of the La Joya Bypass. They might have to buy/demolish a few properties too close to the road. But it looks like there is enough ROW along most of that stretch to squeeze new Interstate main lanes and frontage roads into the same space.

[edwaleni]

I will have to go back and look where I saw it, but I thought I-2/US-83 was going to bypass Sullivan City to the south and follow the RR grade as far as La Puerta and then cross over to the north to get to FM-755 north of Rio Grande City.

I might be dreaming on that, but that was supposed to let them avoid many of the protected lands north of US-83.

[Bobby5280]

I had seen similar proposals to bypass Sullivan City to the South. I don't know what has happened to those plans or the status of them.

US-83 within the town of Sullivan City is on too narrow an alignment to upgrade to a proper freeway -at least not without buying and demolishing dozens of properties on either side of the highway. Immediately West of Sullivan City the US-83 ROW opens up a good bit to 280'-300' widths. That freeway upgrade-friendly corridor stretches 4.5 miles to the FM-2360 freeway exit, near the point where SL-195 would dovetail into US-83.

Sullivan City may just need a short bypass similar to the short I-69E bypass in Riviera, now in very early stages of construction (ROW clearing).