AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

The forum just turned ten years old! Where has all the time gone?

Author Topic: Interstate 2  (Read 120029 times)

ethanhopkin14

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 345
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Last Login: March 22, 2018, 11:28:50 AM
Re: Interstate 2
« Reply #50 on: July 24, 2013, 02:03:43 PM »


I cringe every time I see those old shields.

what's wrong with them?  I actually think they look great.

Oh I don't like the arrows on the shields. It's a weird problem I have since Texas until this year was the only state that didn't put the exit number on the gore sign and instead put it as a separate tab; it somehow reminds me of that and looks a little lazy to me, IMO.

Texas is far from the only state to do that.  Iowa until very recently, also put the number on a separate tab on top of the sign.

I know Texas is not the only state that does it, but in my travels and looking through pictures it seamed to be the only state that did it exclusively. Missouri does it some, and I can think of some specific situations where it exists in other states, like the eastbound I-10 exit for Bussiness Route 90 in New Orleans, and the western junction of I-10 and I-17 in Phoenix on the westbound lanes on I-10 exit to I-17.
Logged

NE2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13723
  • fuck

  • Age: 10
  • Location: central Florida
  • Last Login: Today at 04:19:11 PM
Re: Interstate 2
« Reply #51 on: July 24, 2013, 02:36:18 PM »

Ohio once had US-40 routed on I-70 just to get people to use the freeway, and then they moved it back.  I don't recall them getting a special waiver above and beyond the standard AASHO procedures.

This was probably done before they became ASSHOles about it.
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.

Alps

  • Everybody Obeys the Octagon
  • *
  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 12171
  • Elimitante the truck trarffic,

  • Age: 36
  • Location: New Jersey
  • Last Login: Today at 05:02:19 PM
    • Alps' Roads
Re: Interstate 2
« Reply #52 on: July 24, 2013, 07:05:49 PM »

I think there's an AASHTO rule that you an't move a US route from a freeway to a local road.

Of course, as with all AASHTO rules, they are made to be broken (US 377!), right!?

In all seriousness though, didn't NCDOT successfully move US 117 back to its original route after I-795 was designated?
I don't know if FHWA recognizes that 117 was moved back. But I agree with the stupidity of the rule. It was only enacted after the I-system was in place, or else we'd be missing a whole lot more of our highway network.

NE2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13723
  • fuck

  • Age: 10
  • Location: central Florida
  • Last Login: Today at 04:19:11 PM
Re: Interstate 2
« Reply #53 on: July 24, 2013, 07:27:34 PM »

I don't think FHWA cares about U.S. Route numbering, except for the purpose of inventorying NHS routes.

(And now I need to change my North Carolina trivia question from "AASHTO did not approve moving this route off I-795, but NCDOT did it anyway.")
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.

vtk

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3906
  • she pronouns please

  • Age: -16
  • Location: Columbus
  • Last Login: February 07, 2019, 03:15:03 PM
    • Vid's Space
Re: Interstate 2
« Reply #54 on: July 24, 2013, 08:25:20 PM »

I think there's an AASHTO rule that you an't move a US route from a freeway to a local road.

Ohio once had US-40 routed on I-70 just to get people to use the freeway, and then they moved it back.  I don't recall them getting a special waiver above and beyond the standard AASHO procedures.

That was in the 60s. I'm sure this rule is not that old.

But in Texas, bannered routes are state highways. So it isn't a local road per se.

By 'local' I didn't mean not a state highway — I meant not a freeway or road built specifically for long-distance travel.  I don't know how the actual rule is worded, but that's the general intention as I understand it.

Personally, I'd prefer to see US 83 stay on the freeway, and Business US 83 becomes Business I-2.
Logged
Look, over by the restrooms! It's a girl! It's a boy! No, it's Captain Enby!

…Do you think they're trying to decide which one to use?

stormwatch7721

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 147
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Massillon, OH, US
  • Last Login: October 04, 2018, 03:43:41 PM
Re: Interstate 2
« Reply #55 on: July 24, 2013, 09:34:31 PM »

I remember seeing I-2 pictures on here but I can't find them now.
Logged

ethanhopkin14

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 345
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Last Login: March 22, 2018, 11:28:50 AM
Re: Interstate 2
« Reply #56 on: July 24, 2013, 09:44:51 PM »

Logged

stormwatch7721

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 147
  • Age: 32
  • Location: Massillon, OH, US
  • Last Login: October 04, 2018, 03:43:41 PM
Re: Interstate 2
« Reply #57 on: July 24, 2013, 09:48:31 PM »

Thank you.
Logged

apjung

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 144
  • Andy P. Jung on misc.transport.road

  • Age: 47
  • Location: Metairie, Louisiana, USA and born in Taipei, Taiwan, ROC
  • Last Login: January 09, 2019, 01:48:09 AM
    • Welcome to JungWorld.com!
Re: Interstate 2
« Reply #58 on: July 24, 2013, 09:49:28 PM »


I cringe every time I see those old shields.

what's wrong with them?  I actually think they look great.

Oh I don't like the arrows on the shields. It's a weird problem I have since Texas until this year was the only state that didn't put the exit number on the gore sign and instead put it as a separate tab; it somehow reminds me of that and looks a little lazy to me, IMO.

Texas is far from the only state to do that.  Iowa until very recently, also put the number on a separate tab on top of the sign.

The only place in Louisiana I can think of that puts the exit sign with a tab is here at I-10 Westbound at US 90 Business in New Orleans.
http://goo.gl/maps/7e3Dz
« Last Edit: July 24, 2013, 09:53:06 PM by apjung »
Logged

pctech

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 318
  • Last Login: December 12, 2017, 03:39:20 PM
Re: Interstate 2
« Reply #59 on: July 25, 2013, 07:40:26 AM »

I-69C? Is TXDOT splitting their segments of I-69 into different routes?
Logged

1995hoo

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 9614
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Fairfax County, Virginia
  • Last Login: Today at 05:30:38 PM
Re: Interstate 2
« Reply #60 on: July 25, 2013, 07:53:30 AM »

I-69C? Is TXDOT splitting their segments of I-69 into different routes?

http://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.0
Logged
"You know, you never have a guaranteed spot until you have a spot guaranteed."
—Olaf Kolzig, as quoted in the Washington Times on March 28, 2003,
commenting on the Capitals clinching a playoff spot.

"That sounded stupid, didn't it?"—Kolzig, to the same reporter a few seconds later.

Avalanchez71

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1009
  • Location: Middle Tennessee
  • Last Login: May 09, 2018, 05:19:13 PM
Re: Interstate 2
« Reply #61 on: July 25, 2013, 11:57:02 AM »

Is the first Central split? Now to think of it my state has a central split, US 70.  However, we sign it as US 70 and not US 70C!
« Last Edit: July 25, 2013, 12:28:49 PM by Avalanchez71 »
Logged

kkt

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4507
  • Location: Seattle, Washington
  • Last Login: February 16, 2019, 04:49:31 PM
Re: Interstate 2
« Reply #62 on: July 25, 2013, 12:09:45 PM »

I hate to get back on topic, ha, but I personally would like to see Bussiness Route 83 decommissioned and US 83 rerouted on Bussiness 83.  I cannot stand long concurencies and seeing how all of Interstate 2 will be concurent with US 83, this really chaps my hide.  I think eventually (especially if Interstate 2 gets extended to Laredo) US 83 will be truncated, but for now, US 83 should be the local route and Interstate 2 should be the express route.

I agree. I don't know why AASHTO has such a rule, because it makes a lot more sense to do this as opposed to keeping the US Route merged onto the Interstate, where it might (generally inadvertently) go hidden.

The rule makes sense.  The primary purpose of numbering routes is to help motorists find the most efficient route to where they're going on the current highway system, not to help roadgeeks memorialize a previously important route that has now been bypassed.  Call the old route "business I-2" or "historic US-83" maybe, but not US-83.
Logged

ethanhopkin14

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 345
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Last Login: March 22, 2018, 11:28:50 AM
Re: Interstate 2
« Reply #63 on: July 25, 2013, 12:21:04 PM »

I hate to get back on topic, ha, but I personally would like to see Bussiness Route 83 decommissioned and US 83 rerouted on Bussiness 83.  I cannot stand long concurencies and seeing how all of Interstate 2 will be concurent with US 83, this really chaps my hide.  I think eventually (especially if Interstate 2 gets extended to Laredo) US 83 will be truncated, but for now, US 83 should be the local route and Interstate 2 should be the express route.

I agree. I don't know why AASHTO has such a rule, because it makes a lot more sense to do this as opposed to keeping the US Route merged onto the Interstate, where it might (generally inadvertently) go hidden.

The rule makes sense.  The primary purpose of numbering routes is to help motorists find the most efficient route to where they're going on the current highway system, not to help roadgeeks memorialize a previously important route that has now been bypassed.  Call the old route "business I-2" or "historic US-83" maybe, but not US-83.

I honestly don't see it from a road geek point of view, but instead from an information overload point of view. That's why I hate long distance cosigning; it is too cluttered. I don't give a crap about the historic route, I just want one route to be I-2 and another to be US 83.  Besides, if you routed US 83 back on the business route, even the stupidest motorist knows that the interstate is the quick, through direct route and the US highway is the route with the traffic lights, driveways and people crossing the road.
Logged

silverback1065

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2871
  • Age: 29
  • Location: Indianapolis
  • Last Login: Today at 03:04:36 PM
Re: Interstate 2
« Reply #64 on: July 25, 2013, 01:47:22 PM »

anyone else think they should have made i-69e south of i-2, i-2 and not i-69e?
Logged

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1487
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: February 16, 2019, 05:10:08 PM
Re: Interstate 2
« Reply #65 on: July 25, 2013, 02:05:36 PM »

From the aesthetic point of view, with I-69 being the NAFTA route, my guess is the powers that be wanted I-69 numbered routes going to the border crossings at Laredo and Brownsville.

Perhaps in the long run I-2 could run concurrent with I-69E for a few miles and then swallow up the TX-550 toll road and then maybe be extended along the Brownsville-Port Isabel highway (TX-48) to TX-100, stopping just short of South Padre Island.

The I-2 numbering kind of annoys me a little. It might have made more sense giving it a 3 digit number like I-669. But then again I don't know where else in the contiguous 48 states an I-2 route could exist. The existing route is around 48 miles long, which makes it longer than I-97 and the Interstate routes in Hawaii.

Chances are probably very slim I-2 would be extended to Laredo. About 120 miles of upgrades to US-83 (and bypasses around Los Lomas, Rio Grande City, Escobares, Roma Creek and Zapata) would be in order. If that ever happened the route would be around 170 miles in length, making it longer than I-4 in Florida (132 miles). I-2 would even be longer than I-27 (124 miles).
Logged

vtk

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3906
  • she pronouns please

  • Age: -16
  • Location: Columbus
  • Last Login: February 07, 2019, 03:15:03 PM
    • Vid's Space
Re: Interstate 2
« Reply #66 on: July 25, 2013, 02:06:41 PM »

anyone else think they should have made i-69e south of i-2, i-2 and not i-69e?

I hadn't thought of that, but I think AASHTO's hands were tied on that matter.
Logged
Look, over by the restrooms! It's a girl! It's a boy! No, it's Captain Enby!

…Do you think they're trying to decide which one to use?

ethanhopkin14

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 345
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Last Login: March 22, 2018, 11:28:50 AM
Re: Interstate 2
« Reply #67 on: July 25, 2013, 02:17:19 PM »

anyone else think they should have made i-69e south of i-2, i-2 and not i-69e?

I hadn't thought of that, but I think AASHTO's hands were tied on that matter.

Yeah, their hands were tied, since, by law, I-69 I-69E has to connect to Mexico.
Logged

texaskdog

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 2400
  • Age: 49
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Last Login: Today at 12:58:59 PM
Re: Interstate 2
« Reply #68 on: July 25, 2013, 02:18:59 PM »

Padre is where they need the freeway. Very tediuos travel east once you leave 77.
Logged

roadman65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8797
  • Location: Orlando, fl
  • Last Login: February 15, 2019, 10:38:37 PM
Re: Interstate 2
« Reply #69 on: July 25, 2013, 02:36:59 PM »

That would make sense to have I-2 go to Padre Island.  Hey if Myrtle Beach can get two interstates, at least this popular tourist spot should at least get at least one!
Logged
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1487
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: February 16, 2019, 05:10:08 PM
Re: Interstate 2
« Reply #70 on: July 25, 2013, 02:55:46 PM »

The beach theme would make sense for an Eastern terminus to I-2.

I-4 ends at Daytona Beach, so why not have I-2 end at South Padre Island?

Then there's the hurricane evacuation route purpose I-2 could serve for South Padre Island. Perhaps that might give more justification to extend I-2 farther Northwest toward Laredo. Then there's the growing population in that area to consider.

Finally, an I-2 route extension along the Port of Brownsville might pull heavy trucks off TX-100 headed toward S. Padre. I don't know if that's a big problem, but it might make travel easier for those still taking TX-100 to S. Padre.
Logged

ethanhopkin14

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 345
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Austin, TX
  • Last Login: March 22, 2018, 11:28:50 AM
Re: Interstate 2
« Reply #71 on: July 25, 2013, 03:02:50 PM »

The beach theme would make sense for an Eastern terminus to I-2.

I-4 ends at Daytona Beach, so why not have I-2 end at South Padre Island?

Then there's the hurricane evacuation route purpose I-2 could serve for South Padre Island. Perhaps that might give more justification to extend I-2 farther Northwest toward Laredo. Then there's the growing population in that area to consider.

Finally, an I-2 route extension along the Port of Brownsville might pull heavy trucks off TX-100 headed toward S. Padre. I don't know if that's a big problem, but it might make travel easier for those still taking TX-100 to S. Padre.

I am in agreeance! Let's extend I-2 to South Padre!! 
Logged

NE2

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 13723
  • fuck

  • Age: 10
  • Location: central Florida
  • Last Login: Today at 04:19:11 PM
Re: Interstate 2
« Reply #72 on: July 25, 2013, 03:43:13 PM »

The 69E-2 interchange is set up with 69E as the through route.
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.

kkt

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 4507
  • Location: Seattle, Washington
  • Last Login: February 16, 2019, 04:49:31 PM
Re: Interstate 2
« Reply #73 on: July 25, 2013, 04:05:17 PM »

I hate to get back on topic, ha, but I personally would like to see Bussiness Route 83 decommissioned and US 83 rerouted on Bussiness 83.  I cannot stand long concurencies and seeing how all of Interstate 2 will be concurent with US 83, this really chaps my hide.  I think eventually (especially if Interstate 2 gets extended to Laredo) US 83 will be truncated, but for now, US 83 should be the local route and Interstate 2 should be the express route.

I agree. I don't know why AASHTO has such a rule, because it makes a lot more sense to do this as opposed to keeping the US Route merged onto the Interstate, where it might (generally inadvertently) go hidden.

The rule makes sense.  The primary purpose of numbering routes is to help motorists find the most efficient route to where they're going on the current highway system, not to help roadgeeks memorialize a previously important route that has now been bypassed.  Call the old route "business I-2" or "historic US-83" maybe, but not US-83.

I honestly don't see it from a road geek point of view, but instead from an information overload point of view. That's why I hate long distance cosigning; it is too cluttered. I don't give a crap about the historic route, I just want one route to be I-2 and another to be US 83.  Besides, if you routed US 83 back on the business route, even the stupidest motorist knows that the interstate is the quick, through direct route and the US highway is the route with the traffic lights, driveways and people crossing the road.

Co-signing is often the clearest way to sign a situation.  For instance California leaves gaps in routes rather than co-sign them, which leaves motorists wondering at every reassurance sign whether they missed the turn for the route they intended to follow.  Or, if they have actually missed the turn, it lets them keep driving another 100 miles before they figure out there's a problem.

In this case, how about truncating US 83 where I-2 begins?

If you leave old 83 signed as US 83, it will confuse people into following it who don't realize there's a freeway paralleling it now.
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: Interstate 2
« Reply #74 on: July 25, 2013, 04:25:05 PM »

For instance California leaves gaps in routes rather than co-sign them

really?  I can't think of an example of this other than I-10 being invisible on the I-5 segment of the East LA interchange.  that one took me a while to get used to: that there's, effectively, two I-10s.  before I learned the LA freeway system (and the relative locations of San Bernardino and Santa Monica) I would get onto the wrong one every so often.

there are definitely gaps in California routes ...try following 39 or 84 from beginning to end, for example - but that isn't the problem described here.
Logged
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

 


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.