News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

I-69 in TX

Started by Grzrd, October 09, 2010, 01:18:12 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

roadman65

Quote from: lordsutch on June 15, 2015, 01:53:29 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 14, 2015, 09:15:13 PM
Also, if I-69W is to be along Loop 20 in Laredo, will it dog leg or will TexDOT get it to cut straight east from Loop 20's Northeastern turn as the shortest distance between two points is a straight line?

Pretty sure we already talked about this a few pages ago. The answer for now is: who knows? TxDOT hasn't done any environmental study for Laredo-to-Freer that I'm aware of.

That said an in-place upgrade of US 59 east of Loop 20 would be a pain (moreso than upgrading Loop 20 itself), so some sort of tangent routing makes sense. Laredo's long-range planning documents show an "expressway" running east from Loop 20 at International Blvd to the proposed Laredo Outer Loop, but that's all pie-in-the-sky thinking; they don't even have half of the proposed local streets built inside the loop yet, despite continuing population growth.
Sorry I do not get the chance to read everything, but I just wondered if anyone heard anything that is not published.  Road departments can do strange things as we all know.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe


The Ghostbuster

Does anyone know when we might see exit numbers on the completed sections of the 4 Interstate 69's?

Molandfreak

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on June 16, 2015, 02:42:22 PM
Does anyone know when we might see exit numbers on the completed sections of the 4 Interstate 69's?
Maybe when TXDOT has a better understanding of which ROW is going to be used. With all the bypasses that need to happen, there can currently be a rough estimate of the mileage I-69 will have in Texas, but that's about it.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 05, 2023, 08:24:57 PM
AASHTO attributes 28.5% of highway inventory shrink to bad road fan social media posts.

Scott5114

At-grade intersection discussion split to new thread (which is already 3 pages!): https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=15847
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

Grzrd

#1004
Quote from: Grzrd on February 23, 2015, 12:49:03 PM
this Feb. 16, 2015 TV video reports on the Loop 20 Clark Boulevard overpass project; although the Clark Boulevard overpass is not part of the I-69W section of Loop 20 (I guess it could one day be part of an I-x69 or an I-x02) ...

This July 6 article reports that the groundbreaking for the Loop 20/ Clark Boulevard overpass was held on July 6, and that it included the attendance of Texas Transportation Commissioner Jeff Austin III:

Quote
A groundbreaking for the $34 million overpass at Loop 20 and Clark Boulevard was held Monday morning ....
Texas Transportation Commissioner Jeff Austin III, who attended the event
, said, "TxDOT is committed to community by improving mobility across the state, and South Texas is no different."
The new overpass project is a product of 80 percent federal and 20 percent state dollars totaling $34 million. The projects consists of construction of an overpass interchange at Spur 400 to separate Loop 20 traffic from the Spur 400 intersection traffic.
Project completion is estimated for early spring 2018 ....
Two other Loop 20 enhancement projects to be constructed in conjunction with the Spur 400 overpass project; those being the widening of the Loop 20 bridge over the Kansas City Southern railroad tracks with estimated construction costs of $9.1 million, and the adding of frontage roads over the KCS bridge and the adjoining overpass project at an estimated cost of $15.4 million.
A total estimated investment is approximately $57 million in TxDOT-spearheaded projects, all to keep Laredo moving.

Also, this July 6 TV video reports on work that is to soon begin on the Interstate 69 corridor and includes comments from Commissioner Austin, presumably from the Clark Boulevard overpass groundbreaking:

Quote
Work is set to begin soon on the I-69 corridor, which will connect Laredo to the valley as well as other parts of the nation.
We spoke with Jeff Austin the third with the Texas Transportation Commission, who explains why this is important for commerce.
"Part of our commercial priorities is to help let Interstate 69 and all spurs become part of a national freight corridor.
This also connects not just the inland ports, and crossings from Laredo, but out to sea ports. You have Brownsville, Corpus, Freeport, all into Houston and close to the Beaumont, Port Arthur area. So this is an important commerce corridor", said Austin.
Ultimately the I-69 corridor will be able to take people from Laredo all the way up to Michigan.

In trying to read the tea leaves, I guess it is possible that Commissioner Austin, and TxDOT, have a vision for the Clark Boulevard interchange non-I-69W part of Loop 20 to ultimately be part of an I-69W spur.

CentralPAGal

Quote from: Grzrd on July 07, 2015, 04:30:35 PM
In trying to read the tea leaves, I guess it is possible that Commissioner Austin, and TxDOT, have a vision for the Clark Boulevard interchange non-I-69W part of Loop 20 to ultimately be part of an I-69W spur.
I-69WS
Clinched:
I: 83, 97, 176, 180 (PA), 270 (MD), 283, 395 (MD), 470 (OH-WV), 471, 795 (MD)
Traveled:
I: 70, 71, 75, 76 (E), 78, 79, 80, 81, 86 (E), 95, 99, 270 (OH), 275 (KY-IN-OH), 376, 495 (MD-VA), 579, 595 (MD), 695 (MD)
US: 1, 9, 11, 13, 15, 22, 25, 30, 40, 42, 50, 113, 119, 127, 209, 220, 222, 301

Henry

Quote from: CentralPAguy on July 07, 2015, 09:26:42 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on July 07, 2015, 04:30:35 PM
In trying to read the tea leaves, I guess it is possible that Commissioner Austin, and TxDOT, have a vision for the Clark Boulevard interchange non-I-69W part of Loop 20 to ultimately be part of an I-69W spur.
I-69WS
:rofl:
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

Grzrd

#1007
Quote from: Grzrd on January 17, 2015, 02:20:54 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on January 16, 2015, 11:20:56 AM
Texas Congressman Blake Farenthold's office announced in a January 14, 2015 press release that Farenthold has reintroduced the "44-to-69" legislation for this year
If anyone cares to follow the progress of the bill, it is also known as H.R.301 – 114th Congress (2015-2016).
Quote from: thefro on June 30, 2015, 08:28:24 AM
I skimmed the text of the [Drive Act] bill
(bottom quote from I-69 in MS thread)

In looking at the proposed Section 1204 High Priority Corridor amendments in the DRIVE Act bill, I noticed that amendments related to I-11 and North Carolina HPCs are included in the draft, but that the proposed addition of SH 44 to the I-69 Corridor is not included (the above-quoted link to H.R. 301 indicates that no action has been taken on the "44-to-69" bill since January 14).

Is this an easily correctable oversight that can be cured if and when work begins on a final version of the DRIVE Act bill, or is Congress saying "ENOUGH" to the expansion of the I-69 Corridor in Texas?

edit

I recently noticed that SH 44 is included in Section 11204 of the companion House bill, H.R. 22:

Quote
SEC. 11204. High priority corridors on the National Highway System.
Section 1105 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2031) is amended–
(1) in subsection (c) (105 Stat. 2032; 112 Stat. 190; 119 Stat. 1213)–  ....
(B) in paragraph (18)(D)– 
(i) in clause (ii), by striking "and"  at the end;
(ii) in clause (iii), by striking the period at the end and inserting "; and" ; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following:
"(iv) include Texas State Highway 44 from United States Route 59 at Freer, Texas, to Texas State Highway 358."

Grzrd

Quote from: Henry on July 09, 2015, 11:29:54 AM
Quote from: CentralPAguy on July 07, 2015, 09:26:42 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on July 07, 2015, 04:30:35 PM
In trying to read the tea leaves, I guess it is possible that Commissioner Austin, and TxDOT, have a vision for the Clark Boulevard interchange non-I-69W part of Loop 20 to ultimately be part of an I-69W spur.
I-69WS
:rofl:

In regard to the I-69W part of Loop 20, this June 15, 2015 Environmental Status of the US 59/ Loop 20/ I-69W Project overview indicates that the next Loop 20/ I-69W project scheduled to be let will be in December, 2015 for the mainlanes overpass at International Blvd. (p. 2/9 of pdf):


noelbotevera

Quote from: Grzrd on July 13, 2015, 11:54:04 AM
Quote from: Henry on July 09, 2015, 11:29:54 AM
Quote from: CentralPAguy on July 07, 2015, 09:26:42 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on July 07, 2015, 04:30:35 PM
In trying to read the tea leaves, I guess it is possible that Commissioner Austin, and TxDOT, have a vision for the Clark Boulevard interchange non-I-69W part of Loop 20 to ultimately be part of an I-69W spur.
I-69WS
:rofl:

In regard to the I-69W part of Loop 20, this June 15, 2015 Environmental Status of the US 59/ Loop 20/ I-69W Project overview indicates that the next Loop 20/ I-69W project scheduled to be let will be in December, 2015 for the mainlanes overpass at International Blvd. (p. 2/9 of pdf):


Cheap compared to Texas' roadway projects. Texas is rich.

Grzrd

#1010
Quote from: Grzrd on February 26, 2015, 01:21:58 PM
at the "southern" end of I-69W, the Draft 2015-40 Laredo MTP schedules an additional $392 million for the conversion of Loop 20 to I-69W by 2020 (page 295/360 of pdf; p. 12-15 of document)

This July 28 video, primarily about the privatization of a restaurant at the Casa Blanca Golf Course, mentions that the golf course will lose about thirty acres to the I-69W/ Loop 20 project when ROW acquisition begins "[w]ithin the next four years":

Quote
Webb County Judge Tano Tijerina ....
the county is rethinking the golf course.
Within the next four years, TxDot will stepping in to take land, to expand loop 20.
"And so that's going to take about 30 acres away from the golf course", said Tijerina.

That's why they're looking into future plans. Maybe a nine-hole "executive course" and driving range.
The first step is the restaurant.

It looks like they are currently on schedule for the 2020 target date.

The final Laredo 2015-40 Metropolitan Transportation Plan has been posted, and it includes the same schedule for the project (p. 302/368 of pdf; p. 12-20 of document):


roadman65

I never realized this, but I-369 is going to intersect with I-20.   Because of this, the interstate should have an even number instead of the odd 3 to start it off with as it is not just a spur that connects with nothing.  Its not even one to connect to one other interstate either, but to two interstates.

However, you have I-376 in PA and I-495 in NY, and you have this extension of I-69 even longer than the other one that wastes a perfectly good one digit number further south along the Rio Grande.  So in essence why should this be any different? 
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

english si

#1012
Quote from: roadman65 on August 02, 2015, 02:49:20 PMI never realized this, but I-369 is going to intersect with I-20.
And beyond to I-30 (which it already intersects) and I-49.
QuoteBecause of this, the interstate should have an even number instead of the odd 3 to start it off with as it is not just a spur that connects with nothing.
Nope. You give the I-376 example below, but here's some more: IL I-155, IL I-355, MI I-196, NY I-390 (post hoc), MA-CT I-395, CA I-505.
QuoteIts not even one to connect to one other interstate either, but to two interstates.
Three other 2-dis (four in total) and possibly some 3dis.
Quotewastes a perfectly good one digit number further south along the Rio Grande.
It's not a waste if there's not demand for use elsewhere!
QuoteSo in essence why should this be any different?
Indeed. I guess I-369 could be I-47, but I-69 is a national corridor, and Texarkana is trying to be 'crossroads of America', which it wouldn't be able to push for if it had an intrastate as its third interstate, rather than a spur of a trans-national route.

roadman65

I-49 is indirect via TX 151.  Also I did not count I-69 itself due to the fact the point of origin is that.

Yes, the guidelines will not be followed to the T, but that is going to happen again and again.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

english si

Quote from: roadman65 on August 02, 2015, 04:05:00 PM
I-49 is indirect via TX 151.
No, the plans abandon current I-369 and have I-369 end on I-49 north of Texarkana, via a western loop.

roadman65

Quote from: english si on August 02, 2015, 04:16:02 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on August 02, 2015, 04:05:00 PM
I-49 is indirect via TX 151.
No, the plans abandon current I-369 and have I-369 end on I-49 north of Texarkana, via a western loop.
A lot of new strip malls and sprawl will have to go as when I was there in 2012, there was no ROW north of the I-369 and I-30 interchange.
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

Grzrd

#1016
Quote from: Grzrd on March 26, 2015, 09:38:45 PM
an Alliance for I-69 Texas discussion of the frontage roads:
Quote
Brief sections of access road will be built near ranch gates to allow traffic on and off the freeway lanes. Overpasses will be built at intervals of 5 to 10 miles to allow traffic to reverse direction.
Quote from: Grzrd on July 30, 2015, 07:46:29 PM
The Texas Transportation Commission has posted a July 29 TxDOT Interstate Corridor Planning - Prioritization of Corridor Studies presentation ... (p.5/13 of pdf) .... The anticipated congestion, combined with possible rebuilding of much of the system that is reaching the end of its expected service life (p. 8/13 of pdf), suggests that Texas will have to spend a lot of money over the next 25 years.
(bottom quote from Texas thread)

I recently asked a question in another thread about how great of an expected increase in traffic flow would warrant improving the west Texas at-grade intersections when TxDOT begins rebuilding some of those sections of the interstates that are approaching the end of their respective expected life spans.  Similarly, TxDOT has to consider the expected increased traffic flows through the section of US 77/ Future I-69E containing the at-grade intersections in Kenedy County. The below snips appears to show that I-69E in Kenedy County is expected to have an increase to regular constrained flow by 2040 from the 2013 periodic constrained flow experienced by US 77 (an I-69E shield blocks the view in part of Kenedy County):

2013:2040:

Assuming the expectation is for regular constrained flow by 2040, would TxDOT find it absolutely necessary (or FHWA mandate that it is absolutely necessary) to build the short frontage roads at the at-grade intersections (as well as the associated overpasses)?

yakra

Quote from: Grzrd on August 02, 2015, 07:17:59 PM(as well as the associated overpasses)?
Left exit. Left entrance. Michigan Lefts on a grand (Interstate) scale. BOOM. Done.
"Officer, I'm always careful to drive the speed limit no matter where I am and that's what I was doin'." Said "No, you weren't," she said, "Yes, I was." He said, "Madam, I just clocked you at 22 MPH," and she said "That's the speed limit," he said "No ma'am, that's the route numbah!"  - Gary Crocker

Anthony_JK

Quote from: Grzrd on August 02, 2015, 07:17:59 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on March 26, 2015, 09:38:45 PM
an Alliance for I-69 Texas discussion of the frontage roads:
Quote
Brief sections of access road will be built near ranch gates to allow traffic on and off the freeway lanes. Overpasses will be built at intervals of 5 to 10 miles to allow traffic to reverse direction.
Quote from: Grzrd on July 30, 2015, 07:46:29 PM
The Texas Transportation Commission has posted a July 29 TxDOT Interstate Corridor Planning - Prioritization of Corridor Studies presentation ... (p.5/13 of pdf) .... The anticipated congestion, combined with possible rebuilding of much of the system that is reaching the end of its expected service life (p. 8/13 of pdf), suggests that Texas will have to spend a lot of money over the next 25 years.
(bottom quote from Texas thread)

I recently asked a question in another thread about how great of an expected increase in traffic flow would warrant improving the west Texas at-grade intersections when TxDOT begins rebuilding some of those sections of the interstates that are approaching the end of their respective expected life spans.  Similarly, TxDOT has to consider the expected increased traffic flows through the section of US 77/ Future I-69E containing the at-grade intersections in Kenedy County. The below snips appears to show that I-69E in Kenedy County is expected to have an increase to regular constrained flow by 2040 from the 2013 periodic constrained flow experienced by US 77 (an I-69E shield blocks the view in part of Kenedy County):

2013:2040:

Assuming the expectation is for regular constrained flow by 2040, would TxDOT find it absolutely necessary (or FHWA mandate that it is absolutely necessary) to build the short frontage roads at the at-grade intersections (as well as the associated overpasses)?

Well...technically they wouldn't be at-grades....more like RIRO's because of the way the "frontage roads" would serve as mini-access roads for these ranch roads. The intermediate overpasses would replace the "at grades".

A better question would be if traffic does increase along mainline US 77, would we begin to see full-length frontage roads to take the pressure off the mainlines?

Grzrd

#1019
Quote from: lordsutch on May 15, 2015, 12:24:19 PM
Here's a map of Laredo's pie-in-the-sky thinking, for what it's worth. If this plan was adopted, I-69W could follow the proposed expressway east and either keep going east until it intersects with US 59, or dog-leg along the outer loop a few miles.
(above quote from US 59B and I-69W in Laredo thread)
Quote from: lordsutch on June 15, 2015, 01:53:29 PM
Quote from: roadman65 on June 14, 2015, 09:15:13 PM
Also, if I-69W is to be along Loop 20 in Laredo, will it dog leg or will TexDOT get it to cut straight east from Loop 20's Northeastern turn as the shortest distance between two points is a straight line?
... who knows? TxDOT hasn't done any environmental study for Laredo-to-Freer that I'm aware of.
That said an in-place upgrade of US 59 east of Loop 20 would be a pain (moreso than upgrading Loop 20 itself), so some sort of tangent routing makes sense. Laredo's long-range planning documents show an "expressway" running east from Loop 20 at International Blvd to the proposed Laredo Outer Loop, but that's all pie-in-the-sky thinking ...
Quote from: Grzrd on July 31, 2015, 06:53:42 PM
The final Laredo 2015-40 Metropolitan Transportation Plan has been posted

I recently looked at the 2015-40 Metropolitan Transportation Plan on the outside chance that it would include a tangent routing from Loop 20 to US 59. I could not find evidence of one. However, a map of their "illustrative projects" (unfunded wish list) does show the Outer Loop and an Outer Loop "spur" from the northeastern corner of Loop 20 to the Outer Loop. Elsewhere in the document, the Outer Loop is described as a four-lane arterial and the "spur" is described as a two-lane road.  Here is a snip of the "illustrative projects" map (p. 321/368 of pdf; p. 12-39 of document):



I do think that many drivers would choose a Loop 20-"spur"-Outer Loop- US 59 routing over a Loop 20-US 59 routing.  Maybe we will find out in about twenty years.

Grzrd

Quote from: Grzrd on January 24, 2015, 08:29:45 PM
In this January 23, 2015 press release, TxDOT announces that it is moving forward with Phase 2 of the US 59/ Loop 224S interchange (Phase 1 began on January 5, 2015)

TxDOT will hold a Sept. 3 Open House about plans for Phase II in the Nacogdoches area:

Quote
Since Phase I is under construction, this meeting will focus on Phase II improvements which include:
Constructing new US 59 northbound and southbound main lanes that would directly connect to State Loop 224 just south of SH 7
Constructing overpasses at Spradley Street, existing US 59 and Old Lufkin Road
Constructing frontage roads for State Loop 224 between SH 7 and BU 59

Here is a snip of the Project Location Map:


MaxConcrete

TxDOT is soliciting professional services for the PS&E (plan, specifications and estimates) for I-69 for a 4-mile section south of Cleveland (which is about 40 miles north of Houston). This is a non-freeway gap between the end of the freeway at Fostoria road and the Cleveland bypass. Plans show six main lanes and a new southbound frontage road. It looks like most of the existing northbound lanes become the northbound frontage road.

Listing (see August 11  item) http://www.txdot.gov/business/consultants/architectural-engineering-surveying/advertised-contracts.html

Links to schematics http://www.txdot.gov/business/consultants/architectural-engineering-surveying/advertised-contracts/0000000953.html

When TxDOT initiates work on the PS&E, it usually means that construction is anticipated in the near term, i.e. within a few years.

www.DFWFreeways.com
www.HoustonFreeways.com

The Ghostbuster

Anyone think we'll see a completed Interstate 69 between Brownsville/Pharr/Laredo, Texas and Port Huron, Michigan by, say, 2050?

iBallasticwolf2

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 11, 2015, 07:15:51 PM
Anyone think we'll see a completed Interstate 69 between Brownsville/Pharr/Laredo, Texas and Port Huron, Michigan by, say, 2050?
If Arkansas and Tennessee get to work on it then maybe.
Only two things are infinite in this world, stupidity, and I-75 construction

noelbotevera

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on August 11, 2015, 07:15:51 PM
Anyone think we'll see a completed Interstate 69 between Brownsville/Pharr/Laredo, Texas and Port Huron, Michigan by, say, 2050?
Indiana is almost done with their section (fully completed sometime in 2016), although I-69's Ohio River bridge is seeking for contractors (my prediction is planned completion by 2017 or 2018).

Kentucky, I'm unsure about.

Tennessee, I-269 has a planned completion date of 2017, and plus, I-69 already has 21 miles done. So, I'm thinking sometime around 2017 or 2018.

Mississippi's portion is far from completion, but it mostly overlaps routes - US 61 has to be upgraded to be a part of I-69 between Southaven and Rosedale. I-69 finds US 278, overlaps it, and uses the Dean Bridge into Arkansas. The Dean Bridge and US 61 have to be upgraded so maybe 2018 or 2019.

Arkansas is broke and is mostly focusing on I-49, so sometime around 2023 or 2024. Arkansas' portion of I-69 consists of 185 miles, and the Monticello Bypass is the only part of I-69 under construction, hence why the date.

Louisiana's portion means breaking away from US 79 and US 84 northeast of Carthage, heading towards Shreveport. However, I-69 dodges Sherveport and goes around it to the east. As of 2006 (news article dated February 2006 is the source - forgot the name), Louisiana is planning to build it, but is focusing more on I-49. So, 2022 or 2023.

AFAIK, TXDOT says 285 miles out of 650 miles of I-69 are done. With the construction around Houston and Laredo, I-69 could be done sometime around 2016 or 2017.



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.