I-69 in TX

[edwaleni]

I had the honor of meeting the mayor of Logan, TX (population 40), in Panola County last week and asked him if he had been approached about any work on I-69 between Tenaha and Shreveport.

After reminding me for pronouncing Tenaha incorrectly, he said he owns a bunch of ranch land all long the Texas-Louisiana border east of Carthage and that the planned route of I-69 runs 6 miles south of his property line.

He said he hasn't heard anything in several years about any work being done for it. Said most of it is planning is between Nachodoches and Carthage.

[CtrlAltDel]

After reminding me for pronouncing Tenaha incorrectly

Just out of idle curiosity, what is the correct pronunciation of Tenaha?

[edwaleni]

After reminding me for pronouncing Tenaha incorrectly

Just out of idle curiosity, what is the correct pronunciation of Tenaha?

I said it Yankee style "TEN-naha"

He said it Texas style "TEENA-haw" or at least that is what it sounded like with his rural accent.

"It was founded in 1885 as a shipping point on the Houston, East and West Texas Railway, when that railroad was being constructed through the county. The community was named by members of the Hicks family for Tenehaw Municipality, the original name of Shelby County."

[CtrlAltDel]

After reminding me for pronouncing Tenaha incorrectly

Just out of idle curiosity, what is the correct pronunciation of Tenaha?

I said it Yankee style "TEN-naha"

He said it Texas style "TEENA-haw" or at least that is what it sounded like with his rural accent.

"It was founded in 1885 as a shipping point on the Houston, East and West Texas Railway, when that railroad was being constructed through the county. The community was named by members of the Hicks family for Tenehaw Municipality, the original name of Shelby County."

I've been pronouncing it tuh-NAY-hah, so this is good to know.

[bwana39]

After reminding me for pronouncing Tenaha incorrectly

Just out of idle curiosity, what is the correct pronunciation of Tenaha?

I said it Yankee style "TEN-naha"

He said it Texas style "TEENA-haw" or at least that is what it sounded like with his rural accent.

"It was founded in 1885 as a shipping point on the Houston, East and West Texas Railway, when that railroad was being constructed through the county. The community was named by members of the Hicks family for Tenehaw Municipality, the original name of Shelby County."

More likely Tinn e haw

[thisdj78]

Had a chance to drive on I-69E between Calallen and Brownsville this weekend. I noticed that the southbound bypass lanes around Driscoll still aren't open. Seems like it's been awhile since the northbound lanes opened, anyone know what the issue is with the southbound portion?

[splashflash]

I had the honor of meeting the mayor of Logan, TX (population 40), in Panola County last week...

He said he hasn't heard anything in several years about any work being done for it. Said most of it is planning is between Nachodoches and Carthage.

Anything about new anlgnment or preferred route location between the two?

[kphoger]

After reminding me for pronouncing Tenaha incorrectly

Just out of idle curiosity, what is the correct pronunciation of Tenaha?

I said it Yankee style "TEN-naha"

He said it Texas style "TEENA-haw" or at least that is what it sounded like with his rural accent.

According to the Texas Almanac Pronunciation Guide (.pdf warning) from the 1940s–which is my go-to reference material for Texas town name pronunciations–and also a 2021 article in Texas Monthly, it is pronounced TEN-uh-haw.

[MaxConcrete]

Bids were opened today for upgrading 6 miles north of Cleveland to interstate standards.
http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/06273402.htm

The plans show 2x2 main lanes with continuous frontage roads on both sides, including the side adjacent to the railroad (northbound). There is a center barrier on the main lanes, no median. It looks like $30 million a mile is the going rate these days for rural interstate upgrades.

County:   SAN JACINTO   Let Date:   06/27/23
Type:   HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT   Seq No:   3402
Time:   1309 WORKING DAYS   Project ID:   F 2023(773)
Highway:   US 59   Contract #:   06233402
Length:   6.620   CCSJ:   0177-02-057
Limits:   
From:   FM 2914   Check:   $100,000
To:   LIBERTY C/L   Misc Cost:   
Estimate   $176,543,400.31   % Over/Under   Company
Bidder 1   $189,820,653.98   +7.52%   WEBBER, LLC
Bidder 2   $192,087,573.02   +8.80%   JAMES CONSTRUCTION GROUP, LLC

[wdcrft63]

Bids were opened today for upgrading 6 miles north of Cleveland to interstate standards.
http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/06273402.htm

The plans show 2x2 main lanes with continuous frontage roads on both sides, including the side adjacent to the railroad (northbound). There is a center barrier on the main lanes, no median. It looks like $30 million a mile is the going rate these days for rural interstate upgrades.

County:   SAN JACINTO   Let Date:   06/27/23
Type:   HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT   Seq No:   3402
Time:   1309 WORKING DAYS   Project ID:   F 2023(773)
Highway:   US 59   Contract #:   06233402
Length:   6.620   CCSJ:   0177-02-057
Limits:   
From:   FM 2914   Check:   $100,000
To:   LIBERTY C/L   Misc Cost:   
Estimate   $176,543,400.31   % Over/Under   Company
Bidder 1   $189,820,653.98   +7.52%   WEBBER, LLC
Bidder 2   $192,087,573.02   +8.80%   JAMES CONSTRUCTION GROUP, LLC

Does this fill the gap to Shepherd, and is the Shepherd bypass at interstate standards?

[MaxConcrete]

Does this fill the gap to Shepherd, and is the Shepherd bypass at interstate standards?

The north end of this job is just south of FM 2914, which already has an overpass. The Shepherd bypass is interstate standards, and the section from FM 2914 is limited access.

So the answer is yes, this job will fill the gap to have freeway standards from Houston to the north side of Shepherd.

[Chris]

It looks like $30 million a mile is the going rate these days for rural interstate upgrades.

I wonder how this compares to states that do not have extensive frontage roads. It also makes you wonder if greenfield alignments might be cheaper than upgrades of existing highways which necessitates extensive frontage roads and a larger right-of-way footprint.

The average cost in rural Europe seems to be around $ 20 million per mile, barring any expensive tunnels or bridges.

[wdcrft63]

It looks like $30 million a mile is the going rate these days for rural interstate upgrades.

I wonder how this compares to states that do not have extensive frontage roads. It also makes you wonder if greenfield alignments might be cheaper than upgrades of existing highways which necessitates extensive frontage roads and a larger right-of-way footprint.

The average cost in rural Europe seems to be around $ 20 million per mile, barring any expensive tunnels or bridges.

FWIW the Rockingham Bypass in NC is 7.2 miles for $146.2M or about $20.3M/mile; it's 4 lanes with no frontage roads. It's a 2019 contract so it would be more today but not $30M/mile.

[MaxConcrete]

It looks like $30 million a mile is the going rate these days for rural interstate upgrades.

I wonder how this compares to states that do not have extensive frontage roads. It also makes you wonder if greenfield alignments might be cheaper than upgrades of existing highways which necessitates extensive frontage roads and a larger right-of-way footprint.

The average cost in rural Europe seems to be around $ 20 million per mile, barring any expensive tunnels or bridges.

FWIW the Rockingham Bypass in NC is 7.2 miles for $146.2M or about $20.3M/mile; it's 4 lanes with no frontage roads. It's a 2019 contract so it would be more today but not $30M/mile.

The plans for the I-69 work generally show a width of 94 feet for the main lanes (full inner and outer shoulders) and 36 feet on each frontage road (8 foot outer and 4 foot inner shoulder) for a total of 72 feet. So the material for the frontage roads is around 76% of the main lane material. So it is reasonable and expected that the cost per mile will be around 50% higher than a facility without frontage roads.

I don't know about North Carolina, but highway cost inflation in Texas has been extreme in the last two years, with costs up around 48% in the last two years. Inflation alone accounts for price-per-mile increase from $20 million to $30 million.
https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot-info/cst/hci-binder.pdf

[abqtraveler]

It looks like $30 million a mile is the going rate these days for rural interstate upgrades.

I wonder how this compares to states that do not have extensive frontage roads. It also makes you wonder if greenfield alignments might be cheaper than upgrades of existing highways which necessitates extensive frontage roads and a larger right-of-way footprint.

The average cost in rural Europe seems to be around $ 20 million per mile, barring any expensive tunnels or bridges.

FWIW the Rockingham Bypass in NC is 7.2 miles for $146.2M or about $20.3M/mile; it's 4 lanes with no frontage roads. It's a 2019 contract so it would be more today but not $30M/mile.

The plans for the I-69 work generally show a width of 94 feet for the main lanes (full inner and outer shoulders) and 36 feet on each frontage road (8 foot outer and 4 foot inner shoulder) for a total of 72 feet. So the material for the frontage roads is around 76% of the main lane material. So it is reasonable and expected that the cost per mile will be around 50% higher than a facility without frontage roads.

I don't know about North Carolina, but highway cost inflation in Texas has been extreme in the last two years, with costs up around 48% in the last two years. Inflation alone accounts for price-per-mile increase from $20 million to $30 million.
https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot-info/cst/hci-binder.pdf

So do those figures in the linked file account for just materials or is labor included as well?  For projects that receive any federal funding have minimum wage requirements for each job position under the Davis-Bacon Act, based on the local prevailing wages at the time the contract is awarded. Due to the challenges of finding skilled labor, wages on major projects are likely much higher than those prescribed by Davis-Bacon, just to get people hired to do the work. Remember all the handouts folks were getting for COVID-19 (in some states up to $100K per year to sit at home on their couch, smoking dope).  So how do you get people to work if they can make as much, if not more, sitting on their asses and holding out their hand and getting a check from We the American Taxpayer?

[J N Winkler]

So do those figures in the linked file account for just materials or is labor included as well?  For projects that receive any federal funding have minimum wage requirements for each job position under the Davis-Bacon Act, based on the local prevailing wages at the time the contract is awarded. Due to the challenges of finding skilled labor, wages on major projects are likely much higher than those prescribed by Davis-Bacon, just to get people hired to do the work. Remember all the handouts folks were getting for COVID-19 (in some states up to $100K per year to sit at home on their couch, smoking dope).  So how do you get people to work if they can make as much, if not more, sitting on their asses and holding out their hand and getting a check from We the American Taxpayer?

Prevailing wage schedules are updated periodically and thus should, at least in theory, account for increases in wages due to worker shortages.  Highways are generally constructed through unit cost contracts, where the quoted price per pay item includes the labor cost of furnishing and placing the estimated quantity of the material involved on the finished project, per the plans and specifications.

Per the file MaxConcrete linked to, cost indexes have been rising in all of the broad categories under consideration--earthmoving, subgrade & base, surfacing, and structures.  Labor costs can be part of that, but so can increases in material prices, which can also result from bottlenecks at cement and asphalt plants as well as steel mills.  Another large factor is the size of the work available in relation to contractors' capacity.

Since construction was largely exempt from covid-related drawdowns, but federal stimulus packages like ARPA, Build Back Better, Inflation Reduction, etc. have greatly increased the funding available, I suspect we may now be in a situation of too much work chasing too few contractors.  Labor (skilled or unskilled) is not the only constraint on contractor capacity--management resource (typically white-collar) comes into play as well, as does capital.  Financing costs are significantly higher due to increased interest rates.

[MaxConcrete]

Since construction was largely exempt from covid-related drawdowns, but federal stimulus packages like ARPA, Build Back Better, Inflation Reduction, etc. have greatly increased the funding available, I suspect we may now be in a situation of too much work chasing too few contractors.  Labor (skilled or unskilled) is not the only constraint on contractor capacity--management resource (typically white-collar) comes into play as well, as does capital.  Financing costs are significantly higher due to increased interest rates.

I agree. I think there is too much work for the available construction capacity in the industry, and contractors are so busy they don't need to win any specific job, so they raise their bid prices.

This is probably especially true in Texas, since TxDOT is awarding close to $1 billion in new jobs every month.

[splashflash]

https://www.journal-spectator.com/news/article_e5b60886-229a-11ee-903e-77d82c126f53.html#tncms-source=article-nav-prev


A $3.6 million effort to help transform the 7.9 miles of U.S. 59 between El Campo and Wharton into I-69 was approved in a U.S. House subcommittee Thursday.

Slowly converting to interstate, southwest and northeast of Houston.

[sprjus4]

https://www.journal-spectator.com/news/article_e5b60886-229a-11ee-903e-77d82c126f53.html#tncms-source=article-nav-prev


A $3.6 million effort to help transform the 7.9 miles of U.S. 59 between El Campo and Wharton into I-69 was approved in a U.S. House subcommittee Thursday.

Slowly converting to interstate, southwest and northeast of Houston.

That sends me to an article about right to farm in Texas... nothing about an interstate highway. Also, it's paywalled.

[MaxConcrete]

https://www.journal-spectator.com/news/article_e5b60886-229a-11ee-903e-77d82c126f53.html#tncms-source=article-nav-prev


A $3.6 million effort to help transform the 7.9 miles of U.S. 59 between El Campo and Wharton into I-69 was approved in a U.S. House subcommittee Thursday.

Slowly converting to interstate, southwest and northeast of Houston.

The article is paywalled, but the map is visible. The 7.9-mile section is proposed to receive $438 million new funding in the 2024 UTP, or $55 million per mile. There is $339 million in separate work in Wharton which was previously funded. All work is listed to start in FY 2024-2027. See page 165 https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/tpp/utp/070723-draft-2024utp.pdf

Without the details of the article, I don't know where the $3.6 million comes from, which is obviously less than 1% of the overall cost. $55 million per mile seems high, but I'm assuming it is all-inclusive including right-of-way, utility relocation, engineering, construction, etc.  A job to rebuild and expand I-10 to 3x3 with frontage roads received a low bid for construction of $35 million per mile in June. I think this section of I-69 will have 2x2 main lanes.

[abqtraveler]

https://www.journal-spectator.com/news/article_e5b60886-229a-11ee-903e-77d82c126f53.html#tncms-source=article-nav-prev


A $3.6 million effort to help transform the 7.9 miles of U.S. 59 between El Campo and Wharton into I-69 was approved in a U.S. House subcommittee Thursday.

Slowly converting to interstate, southwest and northeast of Houston.

The article is paywalled, but the map is visible. The 7.9-mile section is proposed to receive $438 million new funding in the 2024 UTP, or $55 million per mile. Existing work in Wharton was previously allocated $339 million. All work is listed to start in FY 2024-2027. See page 165 https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/tpp/utp/070723-draft-2024utp.pdf

Without the details of the article, I don't know where the $3.6 million comes from, which is obviously less than 1% of the overall cost. $55 million per mile seems high, but I'm assuming it is all-inclusive including right-of-way, utility relocation, engineering, construction, etc.  A job to rebuild and expand I-10 to 3x3 with frontage roads received a low bid for construction of $35 million per mile in June. I think this section of I-69 will have 2x2 main lanes.

Not sure what's included in the scope of work to upgrade US-59 between Wharton and El Campo, but I can see replacing the bridges that carry US-59 over the Colorado River at Wharton being a significant cost driver. There will likely be some ROW acquisition and utility relocation costs if TxDOT intends to add frontage roads to both sides of the mainline.

[bwana39]

https://www.journal-spectator.com/news/article_e5b60886-229a-11ee-903e-77d82c126f53.html#tncms-source=article-nav-prev


A $3.6 million effort to help transform the 7.9 miles of U.S. 59 between El Campo and Wharton into I-69 was approved in a U.S. House subcommittee Thursday.

Slowly converting to interstate, southwest and northeast of Houston.

The article is paywalled, but the map is visible. The 7.9-mile section is proposed to receive $438 million new funding in the 2024 UTP, or $55 million per mile. Existing work in Wharton was previously allocated $339 million. All work is listed to start in FY 2024-2027. See page 165 https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/tpp/utp/070723-draft-2024utp.pdf

Without the details of the article, I don't know where the $3.6 million comes from, which is obviously less than 1% of the overall cost. $55 million per mile seems high, but I'm assuming it is all-inclusive including right-of-way, utility relocation, engineering, construction, etc.  A job to rebuild and expand I-10 to 3x3 with frontage roads received a low bid for construction of $35 million per mile in June. I think this section of I-69 will have 2x2 main lanes.

Not sure what's included in the scope of work to upgrade US-59 between Wharton and El Campo, but I can see replacing the bridges that carry US-59 over the Colorado River at Wharton being a significant cost driver. There will likely be some ROW acquisition and utility relocation costs if TxDOT intends to add frontage roads to both sides of the mainline.

They generally don't put frontage roads over major bodies of water outside of MAJOR urban areas. Those bridges may be all that is there and there to stay.

[Bobby5280]

$438 million seems awful high for 8 miles of new Interstate. The recently completed section going into Kendleton has 3x3 main lanes. I kind of wonder if the 3x3 configuration will continue through Wharton.

The existing US-59 bridges over the Colorado River look like they have wide enough shoulders to qualify for Interstate standards. But those bridges look pretty old. If a 3x3 configuration is in the cards then those bridges would obviously be replaced. They might get replaced anyway.

[abqtraveler]

$438 million seems awful high for 8 miles of new Interstate. The recently completed section going into Kendleton has 3x3 main lanes. I kind of wonder if the 3x3 configuration will continue through Wharton.

The existing US-59 bridges over the Colorado River look like they have wide enough shoulders to qualify for Interstate standards. But those bridges look pretty old. If a 3x3 configuration is in the cards then those bridges would obviously be replaced. They might get replaced anyway.

At the very least the bridges over the Colorado would need extensive rehabilitation/upgrading if not complete replacement. Among other things, the guardrails that keep traffic on the bridge would have to be upgraded to concrete parapets that meet current standards.  It might make more sense to fully replace these bridges than to rehab them if you look it at it from a life expectancy point of view. You could get a new bridge (or maybe two) with a 100-year design life, versus rehabbing the existing ones and maybe get another 20-30 years out of them before they have to eventually be replaced anyway.

https://www.google.com/maps/@29.3135404,-96.1249569,3a,75y,356.02h,72.15t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sybcfhArfWcEsK0dZVYX5zw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DybcfhArfWcEsK0dZVYX5zw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D135.36368%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

[jgb191]

https://www.journal-spectator.com/news/article_e5b60886-229a-11ee-903e-77d82c126f53.html#tncms-source=article-nav-prev


A $3.6 million effort to help transform the 7.9 miles of U.S. 59 between El Campo and Wharton into I-69 was approved in a U.S. House subcommittee Thursday.

Slowly converting to interstate, southwest and northeast of Houston.

The article is paywalled, but the map is visible. The 7.9-mile section is proposed to receive $438 million new funding in the 2024 UTP, or $55 million per mile. Existing work in Wharton was previously allocated $339 million. All work is listed to start in FY 2024-2027. See page 165 https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/tpp/utp/070723-draft-2024utp.pdf

Without the details of the article, I don't know where the $3.6 million comes from, which is obviously less than 1% of the overall cost. $55 million per mile seems high, but I'm assuming it is all-inclusive including right-of-way, utility relocation, engineering, construction, etc.  A job to rebuild and expand I-10 to 3x3 with frontage roads received a low bid for construction of $35 million per mile in June. I think this section of I-69 will have 2x2 main lanes.

Not sure what's included in the scope of work to upgrade US-59 between Wharton and El Campo, but I can see replacing the bridges that carry US-59 over the Colorado River at Wharton being a significant cost driver. There will likely be some ROW acquisition and utility relocation costs if TxDOT intends to add frontage roads to both sides of the mainline.

The tiny town of Pierce needs an overpass, maybe even another overpass at the Wharton County Airport.  The intersection at FM-102 needs to be partially revised: the exit ramp from northbound US-59 needs to be relocated ahead of the intersection and not after it (as it is having to turn a near 180-degrees back to the FM-102.

Speaking of local airports, the intersection at Jackson County Airport could also use an overpass alongside the Cordele exit.