AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: Austin, TX  (Read 534 times)

sprjus4

  • *
  • Online Online

  • Posts: 3764
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 04:20:54 AM
Re: Austin, TX
« Reply #25 on: March 30, 2020, 06:59:26 PM »

A -western- I-12.

It would -not- be related to the existing I-12. Itís a separate route.
Logged

wxfree

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1151
  • Age: -1
  • Location: Over there
  • Last Login: Today at 02:09:20 AM
Re: Austin, TX
« Reply #26 on: March 30, 2020, 09:44:15 PM »

I-12W
Logged
All of my posts represent my personal opinions and the official views of any governmental agency that has good sense.

AcE_Wolf_287

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 143
  • The Interstate Ideas just keep coming!

  • Location: Columbia, SC & Latham, NY
  • Last Login: Today at 03:09:57 AM
    • Youtube Channel
Re: Austin, TX
« Reply #27 on: March 30, 2020, 09:50:26 PM »

A -western- I-12.

It would -not- be related to the existing I-12. Itís a separate route.

Or (I know this is fictional that i'm about to say) But you could have Current I-12 be I-410, then I-12 is transferred from Midland to Houston going through San Angelo and Austin
Logged

Brian556

  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2276
  • Location: Lewisville, TX
  • Last Login: April 01, 2020, 11:23:50 PM
Re: Austin, TX
« Reply #28 on: March 30, 2020, 10:24:46 PM »

Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6517
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: April 01, 2020, 08:55:55 PM
Re: Austin, TX
« Reply #29 on: March 31, 2020, 02:37:50 PM »

A -western- I-12.

It would -not- be related to the existing I-12. Itís a separate route.

Or (I know this is fictional that i'm about to say) But you could have Current I-12 be I-410, then I-12 is transferred from Midland to Houston going through San Angelo and Austin

The current I-12 has now been in use over 50 years; no need to effect any changes at this point in time.  The potential Austin corridor is in a separate state, so the number could be readily re-used in TX regardless of exact alignment (TX 71 or US 290 -- or possibly a combination of both).   These days, existing designations aren't terribly exclusionary (e.g., I-87!). 
Logged

texaskdog

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2806
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Last Login: April 01, 2020, 04:06:44 PM
Re: Austin, TX
« Reply #30 on: March 31, 2020, 03:27:59 PM »

I'd make a freeway from Columbus to Junction.  Great way for cross country traffic to stay out of San Antonio.  Though that's about the last Austin freeway that is not overpacked.
Logged

CoreySamson

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 43
  • Location: Greater Houston Tx
  • Last Login: April 01, 2020, 08:09:07 PM
Re: Austin, TX
« Reply #31 on: March 31, 2020, 07:36:40 PM »

I made a thread in Fictional Highways extending I-12 westward. My plan includes a 3di to Austin.

Hereís the link:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=26645.0
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2074
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: April 01, 2020, 12:10:28 AM
Re: Austin, TX
« Reply #32 on: March 31, 2020, 11:57:19 PM »

Good grief.

The Interstate highway system already has several duplicate 2-digit routes that are not connected to each other and will never connect with each other. Those routes include I-74, I-76, I-84, I-86, I-87 and I-88. There is an outside chance the disconnected segments of I-49 and I-69 will eventually be connected. With that said, who really should care if one I-12 route in Louisiana doesn't connect to an even bigger I-12 route in Texas? There's really no need for that.

But chances are likely if US-290 is ever brought up fully to Interstate standards from its split with I-10 in West Texas, going through Austin and over to Houston TX DOT will probably just keep US-290 named as US-290. TX DOT and the higher-ups in the Texas state legislature don't appear all that fond of getting new Interstate route designations.
Logged

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 69
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: April 01, 2020, 11:52:58 PM
Re: Austin, TX
« Reply #33 on: April 01, 2020, 01:50:40 PM »

Texas is as a whole a compliance hawk. If new guidance comes down, TXDOT tries to retrofit even existing Interstates (ex: the bridge & culvert widing from the 90's and 00's.) An interstate designation just brings compliance issues with no significant income to offset them.

That in a nutshell is why Texas is not overly apt to make it an interstate.  Even the initial phases of I-69 had extra federal funding.
Logged

sparker

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 6517
  • Location: Bay Area, CA
  • Last Login: April 01, 2020, 08:55:55 PM
Re: Austin, TX
« Reply #34 on: April 01, 2020, 04:31:11 PM »

Texas is as a whole a compliance hawk. If new guidance comes down, TXDOT tries to retrofit even existing Interstates (ex: the bridge & culvert widing from the 90's and 00's.) An interstate designation just brings compliance issues with no significant income to offset them.

That in a nutshell is why Texas is not overly apt to make it an interstate.  Even the initial phases of I-69 had extra federal funding.

Except for certain specified projects, the maximum Federal share of road projects is currently 80%; the major in progress and/or planned TX Interstate corridors are both Federally-legislated high priority corridors, slated to receive that 80-point share (HPC 18 & 20 for I-69, HPC #84 for I-14).  Of course, these days there's no guarantee that the money will be available at any given point; the state's congressional delegation has to stand in line and press for a portion of the yearly outlay like with every other state.  But when it comes, it's in the form of that eighty percent.  But then the state and/or locality has to come up with the other 20%, which has perpetually been a major issue. 

Adding an interstate designation to HPC legislation -- new or existing -- has been the default method of getting new Interstate trunks developed since the 1995 NHS legislation.  Originally these were "tacked on" to new corridors in omnibus legislation (like with the 30-odd corridors designated with 2005's SAFETEA-LU act); but in 2004 a new corridor (#45) was inserted into that year's transportation outlay; it contained the I-22 designation -- the first to be designated outside a major nationwide program.  Since then, others have followed, tacking on I-designations to existing corridors (such as I-11 onto HPC #26 Phoenix-LV -- and then later onto #68 LV-I-80; this was also used for I-87 on HPC #13) as well as new ones like the aforementioned HPC #84/I-14.  Of the five new Interstates designated from 2012 to 2016, only one, I-2, went through the "usual" AASHTO-approved method; the others were Congressionally mandated, bypassing AASHTO vetting.  Of course, FHWA still has to sign off on the routes once deployed, but if constructed to standard, that's usually not an issue. 

If by chance an E-W corridor through Austin is proposed, it'll almost certainly utilize the new-HPC/I-designation route, whether inserted into yearly USDOT outlays or the next phase of major nationwide legislation.  That way when actual development commences, it'll garner that 80% federal share (more, if the state's congressfolks can weasel some special consideration).   
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.