US-290 between Austin and Houston thread (future freeway-ish upgrades when?)

[TheBox]

California AG Rob cancelled the settlement with Paramount this morning

I wonder does Paramount have to do next?

[TheBox]

An important detail I just now realized I failed to reveal sooner yesterday

If Paramount doesn't see progress in its controversial horizontal acquisition before October 1st, then they move from out of California
https://x.com/LeaveDelaware/status/2091717999719813520?s=20

[TheBox]

Paramount is now reportedly considering moving to Tennessee as the leading after exploring Texas

https://x.com/LeaveDelaware/status/2091894420761157738?s=20

This short-lived discussion here was fun whiling it lasted, back to square one it is.

[MaxConcrete]

I found this study of the US 290 corridor on the TxDOT web site

US 290 Texas Corridor Study

According to the schedule, it is getting started this summer and will be active in 2027. "The study will consider the following key elements to identify and prioritize proposed improvements along the corridor: ..."

I think it is likely this study will recommend full freeway status between Houston and Austin, and could recommend interstate status. However, it doesn't have environmental study for any particular projects, and won't result in anything happening in the near term. But it could finally unite all the interests along the corridor for political advocacy. As I've stated many times, there has been zero or negligible political advocacy for upgrades on US 290, and money flows to projects with political advocacy (such as I-69).

[thisdj78]

I found this study of the US 290 corridor on the TxDOT web site

US 290 Texas Corridor Study

According to the schedule, it is getting started this summer and will be active in 2027. "The study will consider the following key elements to identify and prioritize proposed improvements along the corridor: ..."

I think it is likely this study will recommend full freeway status between Houston and Austin, and could recommend interstate status. However, it doesn't have environmental study for any particular projects, and won't result in anything happening in the near term. But it could finally unite all the interests along the corridor for political advocacy. As I've stated many times, there has been zero or negligible political advocacy for upgrades on US 290, and money flows to projects with political advocacy (such as I-69).

Good news! A small step but still a step!

[Plutonic Panda]

I found this study of the US 290 corridor on the TxDOT web site

US 290 Texas Corridor Study

According to the schedule, it is getting started this summer and will be active in 2027. "The study will consider the following key elements to identify and prioritize proposed improvements along the corridor: ..."

I think it is likely this study will recommend full freeway status between Houston and Austin, and could recommend interstate status. However, it doesn't have environmental study for any particular projects, and won't result in anything happening in the near term. But it could finally unite all the interests along the corridor for political advocacy. As I've stated many times, there has been zero or negligible political advocacy for upgrades on US 290, and money flows to projects with political advocacy (such as I-69).

Good news! A small step but still a step!

At the very least, it's something official. It seems like up until this there is no serious talks about upgrading this corridor to a full freeway other than just peace Mail projects.

[splashflash]

Another factory of SpaceX is being built nearby.  This one at Bastrop.

https://sandstonegroup.us/profound-game-changer-musk-launching-new-turbine-blade-factory-to-solve-shortage-threatening-ai-boom/

"Elon Musk confirmed on August 29 that SpaceX is bringing the hardest part of the gas-turbine supply chain in-house: casting hot-section blades and vanes at a new foundry in Bastrop, Texas. He called the move "a profound game-changer" because those parts—not the rest of the machine—are what now set the pace.

[Rothman]

Another factory of SpaceX is being built nearby.  This one at Bastrop.

https://sandstonegroup.us/profound-game-changer-musk-launching-new-turbine-blade-factory-to-solve-shortage-threatening-ai-boom/

"Elon Musk confirmed on August 29 that SpaceX is bringing the hardest part of the gas-turbine supply chain in-house: casting hot-section blades and vanes at a new foundry in Bastrop, Texas. He called the move "a profound game-changer" because those parts—not the rest of the machine—are what now set the pace.

Wonder what Bastrop thinks about this.

[thisdj78]

I found this study of the US 290 corridor on the TxDOT web site

US 290 Texas Corridor Study

According to the schedule, it is getting started this summer and will be active in 2027. "The study will consider the following key elements to identify and prioritize proposed improvements along the corridor: ..."

I think it is likely this study will recommend full freeway status between Houston and Austin, and could recommend interstate status. However, it doesn't have environmental study for any particular projects, and won't result in anything happening in the near term. But it could finally unite all the interests along the corridor for political advocacy. As I've stated many times, there has been zero or negligible political advocacy for upgrades on US 290, and money flows to projects with political advocacy (such as I-69).

Good news! A small step but still a step!

At the very least, it's something official. It seems like up until this there is no serious talks about upgrading this corridor to a full freeway other than just peace Mail projects.

I'm going to sound like I grew up in the 1950s, telling my future grandkids "We used to have to drive through stop lights in Elgin and Giddings to get to Houston". 😂

[armadillo speedbump]

Don't need to waste money right now upgrading to full freeway standards, just build enough bypasses and overpasses to make it free flowing.  Hopefully this study will speed that part up, perfection can come later.  Already a Giddings bypass slogging through the process, the Brenham upgrades are further along, 190 to east of Elgin will happen.  Those will make a big difference.  Don't need to waste limited funds on duplicate frontage roads McDade to Brenham, the main lines providing access (and with median turnarounds) is good enough for years to come.

[Plutonic Panda]

It's not wasting money and it absolutely does need to be a full freeway and ideally an interstate though I'm not sure if it should be a 2DI or a 3DI.

[armadillo speedbump]

Because money grows on trees.

[Plutonic Panda]

Because money grows on trees.

You're right what was I thinking? I thought money grew on trees. It can't be done.

[thisdj78]

Don't need to waste money right now upgrading to full freeway standards, just build enough bypasses and overpasses to make it free flowing.  Hopefully this study will speed that part up, perfection can come later.  Already a Giddings bypass slogging through the process, the Brenham upgrades are further along, 190 to east of Elgin will happen.  Those will make a big difference.  Don't need to waste limited funds on duplicate frontage roads McDade to Brenham, the main lines providing access (and with median turnarounds) is good enough for years to come.

They can do both: Plan for an eventual full freeway but only spend to build the most critical parts first (eg. bypasses). Similar to how they are constructing I-69 in Texas, it will be at least 20 years before it's a full interstate.

[Bobby5280]

The thing TX DOT (and whatever toll road agency is involved) need to be doing right the F now is acquire right of way.

They don't need to be building interim projects, such as maybe traffic signaled intersections with J-turns. That isn't going to cut it if the long term goal is making US-290 a full super highway corridor between Austin and Houston. All of that farting around, wasting money on interim projects, will allow the corridor to get even more clogged with development. Then the best hope will be a half-ass "super street" with occasional grade separations and stop lights at other intersections.

They're already going to have a hell of a time pushing an expanded US-290 superhighway thru Manor and Elgin. That process would have been far easier if TX DOT had applied the frontage road and wide median treatment to that portion of US-290 over 25 years ago. The same thing goes for a number of other suburban corridors in major urban regions of Texas. TX DOT used to be really good at securing corridors for future freeway upgrades. Over the past 30 years they've really dropped the ball.

[armadillo speedbump]

Don't need to waste money right now upgrading to full freeway standards, just build enough bypasses and overpasses to make it free flowing.  Hopefully this study will speed that part up, perfection can come later.  Already a Giddings bypass slogging through the process, the Brenham upgrades are further along, 190 to east of Elgin will happen.  Those will make a big difference.  Don't need to waste limited funds on duplicate frontage roads McDade to Brenham, the main lines providing access (and with median turnarounds) is good enough for years to come.

They can do both: Plan for an eventual full freeway but only spend to build the most critical parts first (eg. bypasses). Similar to how they are constructing I-69 in Texas, it will be at least 20 years before it's a full interstate.

Yes, that what my post advocates.

[Plutonic Panda]

Don't need to waste money right now upgrading to full freeway standards, just build enough bypasses and overpasses to make it free flowing.  Hopefully this study will speed that part up, perfection can come later.  Already a Giddings bypass slogging through the process, the Brenham upgrades are further along, 190 to east of Elgin will happen.  Those will make a big difference.  Don't need to waste limited funds on duplicate frontage roads McDade to Brenham, the main lines providing access (and with median turnarounds) is good enough for years to come.

They can do both: Plan for an eventual full freeway but only spend to build the most critical parts first (eg. bypasses). Similar to how they are constructing I-69 in Texas, it will be at least 20 years before it's a full interstate.

Yes, that what my post advocates.

I don't think any thing or anybody has suggested otherwise here. That's exactly what the plan will most likely be there. There's no way Texas is just gonna undertake this entire project at once.

[thisdj78]

Don't need to waste money right now upgrading to full freeway standards, just build enough bypasses and overpasses to make it free flowing.  Hopefully this study will speed that part up, perfection can come later.  Already a Giddings bypass slogging through the process, the Brenham upgrades are further along, 190 to east of Elgin will happen.  Those will make a big difference.  Don't need to waste limited funds on duplicate frontage roads McDade to Brenham, the main lines providing access (and with median turnarounds) is good enough for years to come.

They can do both: Plan for an eventual full freeway but only spend to build the most critical parts first (eg. bypasses). Similar to how they are constructing I-69 in Texas, it will be at least 20 years before it's a full interstate.

Yes, that what my post advocates.

Ah ok, I misread

[Thegeet]

Don't need to waste money right now upgrading to full freeway standards, just build enough bypasses and overpasses to make it free flowing.  Hopefully this study will speed that part up, perfection can come later.  Already a Giddings bypass slogging through the process, the Brenham upgrades are further along, 190 to east of Elgin will happen.  Those will make a big difference.  Don't need to waste limited funds on duplicate frontage roads McDade to Brenham, the main lines providing access (and with median turnarounds) is good enough for years to come.

They can do both: Plan for an eventual full freeway but only spend to build the most critical parts first (eg. bypasses). Similar to how they are constructing I-69 in Texas, it will be at least 20 years before it's a full interstate.

I'm thinking maybe they can extend I-12 a la I-59/I-20.

[Bobby5280]

I'm thinking maybe they can extend I-12 a la I-59/I-20.

You're joking with that idea, right?

The only halfway realistic scenario I could see for extending the Louisiana I-12 West into Texas is by routing it over US-190/LA-12 from Baton Rouge over to Beaumont. That would involve two overlaps with I-10. I-12 would have to follow the US-96 freeway North out of Beaumont to find a clear outlet to go West toward the Houston metro, maybe overlapping US-90 along parts of the way. I-12 could be routed over the Northern portion of the Grand Parkway in order to reach the US-290 corridor.

Currently there is no way to justify upgrading US-190 in Louisiana to Interstate standards. The only way I could think of to sell an I-12 extension over US-190 is by having it as a relief route for I-10 -for whenever the time comes to replace those long 2-lane bridges over the Atchafalaya Swamp. A second Interstate parallel to I-10 might help with hurricane evacuation or if I-10 is severely damaged by a hurricane.

Given the reality the Interstate highway system already has multiple examples of different 2-digit Interstates carrying the same number, I see nothing wrong with simply having US-290 designated as I-12 from the massive I-10/I-610/US-290 interchange in Houston over thru Austin, out past Fredericksburg to I-10 again near Junction. That I-12 would still be a lot longer than the one in Louisiana.

It's obvious that "lesser" 2-digit Interstates, such as I-86 for one example, are functioning as if they were 3-digit routes but maybe they're just a tad bit long to carry a 3-digit number. I think I-12 in Louisiana would have been fine with a I-x10 designation. Maybe traffic engineers settled on the "I-12" to give the route more importance so thru travelers would use it rather than having a brain fart and staying on I-10 down thru New Orleans.

[Rothman]

The suggestion of extending I-12 made me think of connecting the two I-155s.

Just an amateur roadgeek's silly fantasy...

[achilles765]

I'm thinking maybe they can extend I-12 a la I-59/I-20.

You're joking with that idea, right?

The only halfway realistic scenario I could see for extending the Louisiana I-12 West into Texas is by routing it over US-190/LA-12 from Baton Rouge over to Beaumont. That would involve two overlaps with I-10. I-12 would have to follow the US-96 freeway North out of Beaumont to find a clear outlet to go West toward the Houston metro, maybe overlapping US-90 along parts of the way. I-12 could be routed over the Northern portion of the Grand Parkway in order to reach the US-290 corridor.

Currently there is no way to justify upgrading US-190 in Louisiana to Interstate standards. The only way I could think of to sell an I-12 extension over US-190 is by having it as a relief route for I-10 -for whenever the time comes to replace those long 2-lane bridges over the Atchafalaya Swamp. A second Interstate parallel to I-10 might help with hurricane evacuation or if I-10 is severely damaged by a hurricane.

Given the reality the Interstate highway system already has multiple examples of different 2-digit Interstates carrying the same number, I see nothing wrong with simply having US-290 designated as I-12 from the massive I-10/I-610/US-290 interchange in Houston over thru Austin, out past Fredericksburg to I-10 again near Junction. That I-12 would still be a lot longer than the one in Louisiana.

It's obvious that "lesser" 2-digit Interstates, such as I-86 for one example, are functioning as if they were 3-digit routes but maybe they're just a tad bit long to carry a 3-digit number. I think I-12 in Louisiana would have been fine with a I-x10 designation. Maybe traffic engineers settled on the "I-12" to give the route more importance so thru travelers would use it rather than having a brain fart and staying on I-10 down thru New Orleans.

The idea of extending I-12 isn't that crazy to me—my idea has always been to extend I-12 to Lafayette, route I-10 along the future I-49 south to New Orleans, and then have I-10 and I-12 run concurrently from Lafayette to Beaumont.  There, it could hop onto US 69/96/287 then use parts of SH 105 and US 90 to get to Houston and then run concurrently with I-610 along the north loop until the beginning of US 290, where it would then take over for 290 from Houston to Austin.

Or barring the neeed to construct a new freeway along US 90, just run I-10 and I-12 concurrent until Houston and either send I-12 along the east and north loops, or along the west loop to 290.

[thisdj78]

I'm thinking maybe they can extend I-12 a la I-59/I-20.

You're joking with that idea, right?

The only halfway realistic scenario I could see for extending the Louisiana I-12 West into Texas is by routing it over US-190/LA-12 from Baton Rouge over to Beaumont. That would involve two overlaps with I-10. I-12 would have to follow the US-96 freeway North out of Beaumont to find a clear outlet to go West toward the Houston metro, maybe overlapping US-90 along parts of the way. I-12 could be routed over the Northern portion of the Grand Parkway in order to reach the US-290 corridor.

Currently there is no way to justify upgrading US-190 in Louisiana to Interstate standards. The only way I could think of to sell an I-12 extension over US-190 is by having it as a relief route for I-10 -for whenever the time comes to replace those long 2-lane bridges over the Atchafalaya Swamp. A second Interstate parallel to I-10 might help with hurricane evacuation or if I-10 is severely damaged by a hurricane.

Given the reality the Interstate highway system already has multiple examples of different 2-digit Interstates carrying the same number, I see nothing wrong with simply having US-290 designated as I-12 from the massive I-10/I-610/US-290 interchange in Houston over thru Austin, out past Fredericksburg to I-10 again near Junction. That I-12 would still be a lot longer than the one in Louisiana.

It's obvious that "lesser" 2-digit Interstates, such as I-86 for one example, are functioning as if they were 3-digit routes but maybe they're just a tad bit long to carry a 3-digit number. I think I-12 in Louisiana would have been fine with a I-x10 designation. Maybe traffic engineers settled on the "I-12" to give the route more importance so thru travelers would use it rather than having a brain fart and staying on I-10 down thru New Orleans.

The idea of extending I-12 isn't that crazy to me—my idea has always been to extend I-12 to Lafayette, route I-10 along the future I-49 south to New Orleans, and then have I-10 and I-12 run concurrently from Lafayette to Beaumont.  There, it could hop onto US 69/96/287 then use parts of SH 105 and US 90 to get to Houston and then run concurrently with I-610 along the north loop until the beginning of US 290, where it would then take over for 290 from Houston to Austin.

Or barring the neeed to construct a new freeway along US 90, just run I-10 and I-12 concurrent until Houston and either send I-12 along the east and north loops, or along the west loop to 290.

Is there a requirement that I-12 would need to run concurrent with I-10? I say keep it simple and have two separate segments with no connection to each other (eg. I-76 in CO and PA).

[The Ghostbuster]

There was a suggestion in 2011 by US House Representatives John Culberson and Michael T. McCaul that US 290 become an Interstate, but nothing since. Even if the Interstate 12 designation was applied to the corridor, and the designation followed 10 and 610 to connect to the existing one in Louisiana, it would be about a 277-mile duplex with the two Interstates. That would be slightly longer than the 275-mile Interstate 80/90 duplex in Indiana and Ohio.

[achilles765]

I'm thinking maybe they can extend I-12 a la I-59/I-20.

You're joking with that idea, right?

The only halfway realistic scenario I could see for extending the Louisiana I-12 West into Texas is by routing it over US-190/LA-12 from Baton Rouge over to Beaumont. That would involve two overlaps with I-10. I-12 would have to follow the US-96 freeway North out of Beaumont to find a clear outlet to go West toward the Houston metro, maybe overlapping US-90 along parts of the way. I-12 could be routed over the Northern portion of the Grand Parkway in order to reach the US-290 corridor.

Currently there is no way to justify upgrading US-190 in Louisiana to Interstate standards. The only way I could think of to sell an I-12 extension over US-190 is by having it as a relief route for I-10 -for whenever the time comes to replace those long 2-lane bridges over the Atchafalaya Swamp. A second Interstate parallel to I-10 might help with hurricane evacuation or if I-10 is severely damaged by a hurricane.

Given the reality the Interstate highway system already has multiple examples of different 2-digit Interstates carrying the same number, I see nothing wrong with simply having US-290 designated as I-12 from the massive I-10/I-610/US-290 interchange in Houston over thru Austin, out past Fredericksburg to I-10 again near Junction. That I-12 would still be a lot longer than the one in Louisiana.

It's obvious that "lesser" 2-digit Interstates, such as I-86 for one example, are functioning as if they were 3-digit routes but maybe they're just a tad bit long to carry a 3-digit number. I think I-12 in Louisiana would have been fine with a I-x10 designation. Maybe traffic engineers settled on the "I-12" to give the route more importance so thru travelers would use it rather than having a brain fart and staying on I-10 down thru New Orleans.

The idea of extending I-12 isn't that crazy to me—my idea has always been to extend I-12 to Lafayette, route I-10 along the future I-49 south to New Orleans, and then have I-10 and I-12 run concurrently from Lafayette to Beaumont.  There, it could hop onto US 69/96/287 then use parts of SH 105 and US 90 to get to Houston and then run concurrently with I-610 along the north loop until the beginning of US 290, where it would then take over for 290 from Houston to Austin.

Or barring the neeed to construct a new freeway along US 90, just run I-10 and I-12 concurrent until Houston and either send I-12 along the east and north loops, or along the west loop to 290.

Is there a requirement that I-12 would need to run concurrent with I-10? I say keep it simple and have two separate segments with no connection to each other (eg. I-76 in CO and PA).

I suppose you COULD do that, but having two separate, unconnected segments in different places has always bothered me...just like the E/W and E/W/C do...

Also, the two I-12s would be very close to each other, so may as well keep it concurrent to avoid any possible confusion.  and to make an official direct route between the two state capitals