Why did FHWA approve the west end of I-2

[agentsteel53]

Operation Fast and Furious demands it be signed all the way to Monterrey.

[Billy F 1988]

I-2 will go as far as POO or go as far as ALAN.

Fixed (or not) for you.

[lordsutch]

So to go back on topic, how long will I-2 eventually go or is this it?

In theory it could eventually make it to Laredo. For now, I think you could justify construction of a bypass of Roma & Rio Grande City and four-laning of the remaining 2-lane sections of US 83 between the Webb County line and Roma (the latter mostly for safety), but there's no real need for a continuous freeway anytime soon. West of Laredo, there's never going to be any justification.

[KEK Inc.]

My question is how did C become a suffix?

[Grzrd]

My question is how did C become a suffix?

Congress defined High Priority Corridor 18(D)(ii) as follows:

include United States Route 281 from the Rio Grande River to Interstate Route 37 and then to Victoria, Texas, via United States Route 59; [I-69 Central]

FHWA interpreted the "I-69 Central" designation as requiring "I-69C" signage.  It is also interesting to note that, in High Priority Corridor 20, Congress also defined the approximately eighty-mile US 59 section of I-69C as I-69:

United States Route 59 Corridor from Laredo, Texas, through Houston, Texas, to the vicinity of Texarkana, Texas. [I-69]

In this post, I posted about an email from FHWA which reflected their current thinking that TxDOT will be able to choose either I-69 or I-69C for that section of the US 59 upgrade:

I just received an email from FHWA and their current interpretation of HPC 18 and HPC 20 ... allows TxDOT to choose between I-69C and I-69 for the Victoria to George West segment of US 59:

US 59 from Victoria to George West can be I-69 or I-69C, which ever Texas Department of Transportation requests.

So to go back on topic, how long will I-2 eventually go or is this it?

In theory it could eventually make it to Laredo.

High Priority Corridor 18(D)(iii) is defined by Congress in relevant part as follows:

including FM511 from United States Route 77 to the Port of Brownsville.

In doing so, Congress did not designate a number for that part of the Texas I-69 Corridor.  For practical purposes, Toll SH 550 is within the FM 511 corridor.  So, looking to the east, and assuming that SH 550 is/will be interstate grade, a possibility exists that it could also receive a designation as an eastward extension of I-2 that would include a brief overlap with I-69E.

[FightingIrish]

Because nothing is, or ever will be, more important than giving Texas as many miles of Interstate as possible.

Quite ironic that Texas, a state where most of the U.S. Congressional and Senate congregation wants to kill the federal government, is trying to milk it for as many Interstate dollars as possible.

[Brandon]

Because nothing is, or ever will be, more important than giving Texas as many miles of Interstate as possible.

Quite ironic that Texas, a state where most of the U.S. Congressional and Senate congregation wants to kill the federal government, is trying to milk it for as many Interstate dollars as possible.

What you call pork I call a necessity.  What you call necessary, I call pork.  It's a matter of perspective, and yes, for all politicians, it is hypocritical.

[bugo]

Because nothing is, or ever will be, more important than giving Texas as many miles of Interstate as possible.

Quite ironic that Texas, a state where most of the U.S. Congressional and Senate congregation wants to kill the federal government, is trying to milk it for as many Interstate dollars as possible.

+1

(now watch my two unrelated posts get merged by overzealous mods)

[Henry]

It is my understanding that AASHTO did not approve of these designations, as recently as their last committee:  http://route.transportation.org/Documents/Report%20to%20SCOH%20from%20USRN%20SM2013%20May%203.pdf

First page:

(Please note: SCOH approved all three Texas Interstate Routes with the condition that they are approved by FHWA. Therefore, all applications submitted to the Special Committee on U.S. Route Numbering are approved since SCOH overruled the Special Committee decision and the SCOH decision was accepted by the AASHTO Board of Directors on May 7, 2013.)

I was hoping for something more official, but I guess that will do.  I have no real issue with I-2 overall because it makes sense... but I hate the idea of I-69E/I-69C/I-69W; two of them should simply be 3-digit interstates. 

Why not make 69E as 569 and 69W as 369, make 69C as simply 69?

My thoughts are that these spurs would be too long for 3di's. This is how I'd set it up:

I-69E: Southern I-39/I-41/I-43
I-69C: I-37 Extension
I-69W: I-69

[vdeane]

Is I-69C even needed at all?  It seems awfully close to I-69E.

[NE2]

Is I-69C even needed at all?  It seems awfully porky.

[amroad17]

I can see suffixes used in the cases of Dallas-Ft. Worth and Minneapolis-St. Paul, but not in the case of what is happening in south Texas.  So I-69 goes three different ways.  That does not mean there has to be an I-69W, an I-69C, and an I-69E.  The US 59 corridor should be mainline I-69, US 281 remains as is, and the US 77 corridor should be I-(5, 7, or 9)69, or an extended I-37.

IMHO, I see nothing wrong with approving I-2.  It fits the grid and, besides, it looks nice to have an I-2.

[lordsutch]

Is I-69C even needed at all?  It seems awfully close to I-69E.

US 281 serves different traffic flows than US 77. Basically, US 281 (69C) serves McAllen/Edinburg/Pharr/Mission/Reyonsa to/from the I-35 corridor cities, while US 77 (69E) serves Brownsville/Matamoros to/from everywhere and (with I-2) McAllen etc. to/from Corpus and Houston. Without one or the other you'd be looking at backtracking 40-50 miles on some of these journeys.

Both routes probably don't need to be freeways their entire length, but most of the money is going toward needed bypasses - the incremental cost of upgrading may be "porky" but in the grand scheme of things given how rural the area is pretty cheap - maybe an overpass for a turnaround every 5-10 miles or so.

IMO 69C functions more as a spur of I-37 and probably should be numbered as such, but in a world with I-238 I think we can live with 69C.

[PColumbus73]

The difference between I-238 and the 69's is that I-238 functions as a closeted I-x80, I-238 makes more since in that it is simply an upgraded CA 238. The I-69 trinity in South Texas is an Interstate that can't make up its mind where it wants to go. At least I-238 (and I-99) travels in a linear direction.

[wxfree]

I have no problem with I-2 as it is.  It's an isolated segment that does not preclude other I-2s, such as Alligator Alley if they wanted to do that.  There's more than enough precedent for unconnected Interstate designations with the same number, which don't bother me as long as they're in different states and as long as running a concurrency would require a stupidly long distance.  It's also in one of the most obvious locations for such a number.  An eventual connection with I-35 is pretty obvious.

I'm not a big fan of the 69 trinity.  The most obvious route for a mainline is to Laredo, where it connects with another long Interstate.  I don't really mind I-35W through Fort Worth, since it's nearly 90 miles long, joins the mainline on each end, and is an obvious (in fact, shorter) mainline alternative.  Rules without exceptions omit discretion.  However, the I-69s don't meet on their south ends.  The difference here is that the designations were established by politicians.  That isn't necessarily a bad thing, but I'd hate to see it become a standard practice.