I-69 in TX

[Thegeet]

And I thought they would only sign it US 77 first, then I-69E.

Not a chance; TxDOT and their Alliance for I-69/TX cohorts have a lot, reputation-wise, on getting those tri-color shields posted ASAP on as many miles as they can to show whatever progress has actually been made.

I hope they can get El Campo to Kendleton ready soon so we can see mainline I-69 extended even further. And if it weren't for the "connect to Interstate"  requirements, we would see I-69 already in Victoria, Falfurrias, Edna, and other places by now, which I'm not necessarily complaining about.

BTW, have they started the bidding process for the Riviera bypass yet or will it start in 2022?

[ethanhopkin14]

And I thought they would only sign it US 77 first, then I-69E.

Not a chance; TxDOT and their Alliance for I-69/TX cohorts have a lot, reputation-wise, on getting those tri-color shields posted ASAP on as many miles as they can to show whatever progress has actually been made.

I hope they can get El Campo to Kendleton ready soon so we can see mainline I-69 extended even further. And if it weren't for the "connect to Interstate"  requirements, we would see I-69 already in Victoria, Falfurrias, Edna, and other places by now, which I'm not necessarily complaining about.

BTW, have they started the bidding process for the Riviera bypass yet or will it start in 2022?

A bill was passed many years ago that allows parts of I-69 to be signed that are isolated from the system.  That is why I-69E, I-69C and I-2 exist.  The provision is they need to connect to the rest of the system in 20 years from their dedication. 

[Thegeet]

And I thought they would only sign it US 77 first, then I-69E.

Not a chance; TxDOT and their Alliance for I-69/TX cohorts have a lot, reputation-wise, on getting those tri-color shields posted ASAP on as many miles as they can to show whatever progress has actually been made.

I hope they can get El Campo to Kendleton ready soon so we can see mainline I-69 extended even further. And if it weren't for the "connect to Interstate"  requirements, we would see I-69 already in Victoria, Falfurrias, Edna, and other places by now, which I'm not necessarily complaining about.

BTW, have they started the bidding process for the Riviera bypass yet or will it start in 2022?

A bill was passed many years ago that allows parts of I-69 to be signed that are isolated from the system.  That is why I-69E, I-69C and I-2 exist.  The provision is they need to connect to the rest of the system in 20 years from their dedication.

Does that mean I-69E from Brownsville to Kingsville shall be finished in 2031?

[ethanhopkin14]

And I thought they would only sign it US 77 first, then I-69E.

Not a chance; TxDOT and their Alliance for I-69/TX cohorts have a lot, reputation-wise, on getting those tri-color shields posted ASAP on as many miles as they can to show whatever progress has actually been made.

I hope they can get El Campo to Kendleton ready soon so we can see mainline I-69 extended even further. And if it weren't for the "connect to Interstate"  requirements, we would see I-69 already in Victoria, Falfurrias, Edna, and other places by now, which I'm not necessarily complaining about.

BTW, have they started the bidding process for the Riviera bypass yet or will it start in 2022?

A bill was passed many years ago that allows parts of I-69 to be signed that are isolated from the system.  That is why I-69E, I-69C and I-2 exist.  The provision is they need to connect to the rest of the system in 20 years from their dedication.

Does that mean I-69E from Brownsville to Kingsville shall be finished in 2031?

Sposed to be!

[Thegeet]

And I thought they would only sign it US 77 first, then I-69E.

Not a chance; TxDOT and their Alliance for I-69/TX cohorts have a lot, reputation-wise, on getting those tri-color shields posted ASAP on as many miles as they can to show whatever progress has actually been made.

I hope they can get El Campo to Kendleton ready soon so we can see mainline I-69 extended even further. And if it weren't for the "connect to Interstate"  requirements, we would see I-69 already in Victoria, Falfurrias, Edna, and other places by now, which I'm not necessarily complaining about.

BTW, have they started the bidding process for the Riviera bypass yet or will it start in 2022?

A bill was passed many years ago that allows parts of I-69 to be signed that are isolated from the system.  That is why I-69E, I-69C and I-2 exist.  The provision is they need to connect to the rest of the system in 20 years from their dedication.

Does that mean I-69E from Brownsville to Kingsville shall be finished in 2031?

Sposed to be!

Because according to the I-69 tabloid by TxDOT, there's an unfounded segment set to be started in 2035. Interesting to see what happens if they don't finish in that 20 year timeline.

[TXtoNJ]

And I thought they would only sign it US 77 first, then I-69E.

Not a chance; TxDOT and their Alliance for I-69/TX cohorts have a lot, reputation-wise, on getting those tri-color shields posted ASAP on as many miles as they can to show whatever progress has actually been made.

I hope they can get El Campo to Kendleton ready soon so we can see mainline I-69 extended even further. And if it weren't for the "connect to Interstate"  requirements, we would see I-69 already in Victoria, Falfurrias, Edna, and other places by now, which I'm not necessarily complaining about.

BTW, have they started the bidding process for the Riviera bypass yet or will it start in 2022?

A bill was passed many years ago that allows parts of I-69 to be signed that are isolated from the system.  That is why I-69E, I-69C and I-2 exist.  The provision is they need to connect to the rest of the system in 20 years from their dedication.

Does that mean I-69E from Brownsville to Kingsville shall be finished in 2031?

Sposed to be!

Because according to the I-69 tabloid by TxDOT, there's an unfounded segment set to be started in 2035. Interesting to see what happens if they don't finish in that 20 year timeline.

An extension will get tacked on as a rider to some uncontroversial bill, and nothing will subsequently change.

[Thegeet]

And I thought they would only sign it US 77 first, then I-69E.

Not a chance; TxDOT and their Alliance for I-69/TX cohorts have a lot, reputation-wise, on getting those tri-color shields posted ASAP on as many miles as they can to show whatever progress has actually been made.

I hope they can get El Campo to Kendleton ready soon so we can see mainline I-69 extended even further. And if it weren't for the "connect to Interstate"  requirements, we would see I-69 already in Victoria, Falfurrias, Edna, and other places by now, which I'm not necessarily complaining about.

BTW, have they started the bidding process for the Riviera bypass yet or will it start in 2022?

A bill was passed many years ago that allows parts of I-69 to be signed that are isolated from the system.  That is why I-69E, I-69C and I-2 exist.  The provision is they need to connect to the rest of the system in 20 years from their dedication.

Does that mean I-69E from Brownsville to Kingsville shall be finished in 2031?

Sposed to be!

Because according to the I-69 tabloid by TxDOT, there's an unfounded segment set to be started in 2035. Interesting to see what happens if they don't finish in that 20 year timeline.

An extension will get tacked on as a rider to some uncontroversial bill, and nothing will subsequently change.

Not bad. After all, such segment is only inside a county with one of the least populations in the country. And really, it's just two things: unpaved roads which lead to nowhere or to other unpaved roads, and crossovers (which can be solved by placing an "Emergency Vehicles Only"  sign or a no U-Turn sign).

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Out of pure curiosity, does anyone thing that since the 69E branch has such an extended completion horizon, that 69C over to the west might over time catch up to the east branch in terms of actual miles built?  FWIW, the truck traffic on US 281 is both heavy and consistent (almost certainly the reason the branch was designated in the first place) -- but OTOH, like its eastern counterpart most of it is already divided and serving reasonably well as is -- absent any safety issues regarding at-grade cross traffic.  One thing pretty certain -- both will see substantial completion before any part of 69W not within metro Laredo and/or Victoria sees actual construction activity. 

[Thegeet]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Out of pure curiosity, does anyone thing that since the 69E branch has such an extended completion horizon, that 69C over to the west might over time catch up to the east branch in terms of actual miles built?  FWIW, the truck traffic on US 281 is both heavy and consistent (almost certainly the reason the branch was designated in the first place) -- but OTOH, like its eastern counterpart most of it is already divided and serving reasonably well as is -- absent any safety issues regarding at-grade cross traffic.  One thing pretty certain -- both will see substantial completion before any part of 69W not within metro Laredo and/or Victoria sees actual construction activity.

I think C will be fully finished first. For E to finish, 77 needs a new bypass for Riviera, Odem and Refugio and cleanup in Sinton and Woodsboro. Meanwhile for C, 281 only needs a bypass in Premont (in progress), and clean up in Alice, and then work in George West. Also, C is shorther than E. Designations depend on the progress of W.

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Out of pure curiosity, does anyone thing that since the 69E branch has such an extended completion horizon, that 69C over to the west might over time catch up to the east branch in terms of actual miles built?  FWIW, the truck traffic on US 281 is both heavy and consistent (almost certainly the reason the branch was designated in the first place) -- but OTOH, like its eastern counterpart most of it is already divided and serving reasonably well as is -- absent any safety issues regarding at-grade cross traffic.  One thing pretty certain -- both will see substantial completion before any part of 69W not within metro Laredo and/or Victoria sees actual construction activity.

I think C will be fully finished first. For E to finish, 77 needs a new bypass for Riviera, Odem and Refugio and cleanup in Sinton and Woodsboro. Meanwhile for C, 281 only needs a bypass in Premont (in progress), and clean up in Alice, and then work in George West. Also, C is shorther than E. Designations depend on the progress of W.

From the plans I've seen, I-69C is simply slated to end at I-69W/US 59 south of George West; any connection to I-37 would be accomplished by a short NE leg along 69W.  But I've also heard vague rumors that there are local politicos who want 69C extended north over US 281 as a shortcut to north I-37, even though that would mean modifying the original legislated route descriptions.  If anyone can verify that such an idea has gotten official traction, please let the rest of us know! 

[Thegeet]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Out of pure curiosity, does anyone thing that since the 69E branch has such an extended completion horizon, that 69C over to the west might over time catch up to the east branch in terms of actual miles built?  FWIW, the truck traffic on US 281 is both heavy and consistent (almost certainly the reason the branch was designated in the first place) -- but OTOH, like its eastern counterpart most of it is already divided and serving reasonably well as is -- absent any safety issues regarding at-grade cross traffic.  One thing pretty certain -- both will see substantial completion before any part of 69W not within metro Laredo and/or Victoria sees actual construction activity.

I think C will be fully finished first. For E to finish, 77 needs a new bypass for Riviera, Odem and Refugio and cleanup in Sinton and Woodsboro. Meanwhile for C, 281 only needs a bypass in Premont (in progress), and clean up in Alice, and then work in George West. Also, C is shorther than E. Designations depend on the progress of W.

From the plans I've seen, I-69C is simply slated to end at I-69W/US 59 south of George West; any connection to I-37 would be accomplished by a short NE leg along 69W.  But I've also heard vague rumors that there are local politicos who want 69C extended north over US 281 as a shortcut to north I-37, even though that would mean modifying the original legislated route descriptions.  If anyone can verify that such an idea has gotten official traction, please let the rest of us know!

That would likely involve designating a Spur route (I-569).

[aboges26]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Out of pure curiosity, does anyone thing that since the 69E branch has such an extended completion horizon, that 69C over to the west might over time catch up to the east branch in terms of actual miles built?  FWIW, the truck traffic on US 281 is both heavy and consistent (almost certainly the reason the branch was designated in the first place) -- but OTOH, like its eastern counterpart most of it is already divided and serving reasonably well as is -- absent any safety issues regarding at-grade cross traffic.  One thing pretty certain -- both will see substantial completion before any part of 69W not within metro Laredo and/or Victoria sees actual construction activity.

I think C will be fully finished first. For E to finish, 77 needs a new bypass for Riviera, Odem and Refugio and cleanup in Sinton and Woodsboro. Meanwhile for C, 281 only needs a bypass in Premont (in progress), and clean up in Alice, and then work in George West. Also, C is shorther than E. Designations depend on the progress of W.

From the plans I've seen, I-69C is simply slated to end at I-69W/US 59 south of George West; any connection to I-37 would be accomplished by a short NE leg along 69W.  But I've also heard vague rumors that there are local politicos who want 69C extended north over US 281 as a shortcut to north I-37, even though that would mean modifying the original legislated route descriptions.  If anyone can verify that such an idea has gotten official traction, please let the rest of us know!

That would likely involve designating a Spur route (I-569).

I-569 sure sounds like a good number for the whole I-69C route....

[TheBox]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Out of pure curiosity, does anyone thing that since the 69E branch has such an extended completion horizon, that 69C over to the west might over time catch up to the east branch in terms of actual miles built?  FWIW, the truck traffic on US 281 is both heavy and consistent (almost certainly the reason the branch was designated in the first place) -- but OTOH, like its eastern counterpart most of it is already divided and serving reasonably well as is -- absent any safety issues regarding at-grade cross traffic.  One thing pretty certain -- both will see substantial completion before any part of 69W not within metro Laredo and/or Victoria sees actual construction activity.

I think C will be fully finished first. For E to finish, 77 needs a new bypass for Riviera, Odem and Refugio and cleanup in Sinton and Woodsboro. Meanwhile for C, 281 only needs a bypass in Premont (in progress), and clean up in Alice, and then work in George West. Also, C is shorther than E. Designations depend on the progress of W.

Meanwhile, work on I-69W/US-59 still has a long way to go. Even just between George West and Victoria, still needs upgrades and progress.

[sprjus4]

I-69C just needs to be an I-x37, cut it from the I-69 system altogether.

[Thegeet]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Out of pure curiosity, does anyone thing that since the 69E branch has such an extended completion horizon, that 69C over to the west might over time catch up to the east branch in terms of actual miles built?  FWIW, the truck traffic on US 281 is both heavy and consistent (almost certainly the reason the branch was designated in the first place) -- but OTOH, like its eastern counterpart most of it is already divided and serving reasonably well as is -- absent any safety issues regarding at-grade cross traffic.  One thing pretty certain -- both will see substantial completion before any part of 69W not within metro Laredo and/or Victoria sees actual construction activity.

I think C will be fully finished first. For E to finish, 77 needs a new bypass for Riviera, Odem and Refugio and cleanup in Sinton and Woodsboro. Meanwhile for C, 281 only needs a bypass in Premont (in progress), and clean up in Alice, and then work in George West. Also, C is shorther than E. Designations depend on the progress of W.

Meanwhile, work on I-69W/US-59 still has a long way to go. Even just between George West and Victoria, still needs upgrades and progress.

The only progress for I-69W that is about to occur is at the 59/77/BU 59T interchange, something carrying over from the US 77 freeway project, which will occur right after they finish the SH 185 project.

[Revive 755]

I-69C just needs to be an I-x37, cut it from the I-69 system altogether.

Except the x37 would be almost the same length as its parent - that doesn't seem right to me.  IMHO better to make it mainline 37 and have the existing I-37 to Corpus Christi the x37.

Or since this area is far enough south, make it another odd 2di.

[Thegeet]

I-69C just needs to be an I-x37, cut it from the I-69 system altogether.

Except the x37 would be almost the same length as its parent - that doesn't seem right to me.  IMHO better to make it mainline 37 and have the existing I-37 to Corpus Christi the x37.

Or since this area is far enough south, make it another odd 2di.

Or make US 281 from I-37 to US 59 I-x37, and US 59 to I-2 can be I-69C. If it were to reroute I-37 to Pharrell, it would likely wipeout US 281.

[GreenLanternCorps]

Update on Driscoll Bypass: After watching a video on a Snapchat story, the future NB lane at the future BU 77 exit south of Driscoll has the BGS installed and signed as North I-69E/US 77.

Do you have a link to that?

I screened it with my phone. It's kinda blurry though.
https://flic.kr/p/2majo25

Thanks, it is blurry, but I can make out the interstate sign on the BGS.

[sparker]

I-69C just needs to be an I-x37, cut it from the I-69 system altogether.

Except the x37 would be almost the same length as its parent - that doesn't seem right to me.  IMHO better to make it mainline 37 and have the existing I-37 to Corpus Christi the x37.

Or since this area is far enough south, make it another odd 2di.

Or make US 281 from I-37 to US 59 I-x37, and US 59 to I-2 can be I-69C. If it were to reroute I-37 to Pharrell, it would likely wipeout US 281.

All well & good -- but TxDOT went ahead and specified the current suffixed designations back around 2004 based on the HPC #18 & 20 language within the authorizing act that was part of the 1995 NHS-establishing legislation (the first time Interstate numbers were appended to corridors; that year also produced I-73 and I-99).  The corridor branches south of Victoria were labeled "east" and "central"; originally it was assumed that plain old I-69 would head straight down US 59 to Laredo.  Rather than confuse TX's congressional delegation, who were shepherding the process through Congress, with numbers not reflecting the "69" omnibus plan.  TxDOT and the group of Houston business interests that promulgated the overall corridor, the Alliance for I-69/Texas, apparently didn't have much confidence in said delegation understanding numbering concepts that didn't correspond to the original act as legislated, so they simply transferred the descriptions to the actual route numbers, including Central, which had not been formally utilized previously.  The addition of "W" or West came about when it was decided to sign North Laredo's International Bridge as part of the I-69 "family"; since at that time (circa 2012-13) signage of both I-69E and I-69C was taking place in the lower Rio Grande Valley, it was decided to add the "W" suffix to the branch along US 59 to differentiate it from the others. 

At this point it would literally take an act of Congress to get any designations changed; that's a process unlikely to happen at least until the three branches are substantially completed -- if even a subject for consideration then.   

[Thegeet]

How long can we expect US 77 in Ytturia (N of Raymondville) to be co-signed I-69E?

[sparker]

How long can we expect US 77 in Ytturia (N of Raymondville) to be co-signed I-69E?

If it's already signed as I-69E, hopefully forever!  If it hasn't been signed yet, it's because (a) it's not yet at Interstate standards, or (b) it's been completed, but FHWA hasn't signed off on it yet.  Now -- if the experience of US 75/I-45 and US 81/I-35 are any indication, once I-69E is completed from Victoria to its southern terminus near the border, signage for US 77 might be removed.  But the co-signage will almost certainly continue until full completion.

[sprjus4]

^ Regarding US-281, if I-x37 is too lengthy, designate it I-3x or I-4x. It won't be grid compliant (sorry sticklers) but it would be less confusing to the general public as opposed to changing I-37 for some hundred miles.

[Thegeet]

How long can we expect US 77 in Ytturia (N of Raymondville) to be co-signed I-69E?

If it's already signed as I-69E, hopefully forever!  If it hasn't been signed yet, it's because (a) it's not yet at Interstate standards, or (b) it's been completed, but FHWA hasn't signed off on it yet.  Now -- if the experience of US 75/I-45 and US 81/I-35 are any indication, once I-69E is completed from Victoria to its southern terminus near the border, signage for US 77 might be removed.  But the co-signage will almost certainly continue until full completion.

Would this also apply for US 281 and US 59 once fully complete?

[Thegeet]

I-69C just needs to be an I-x37, cut it from the I-69 system altogether.

Except the x37 would be almost the same length as its parent - that doesn't seem right to me.  IMHO better to make it mainline 37 and have the existing I-37 to Corpus Christi the x37.

Or since this area is far enough south, make it another odd 2di.

Or make US 281 from I-37 to US 59 I-x37, and US 59 to I-2 can be I-69C. If it were to reroute I-37 to Pharrell, it would likely wipeout US 281.

All well & good -- but TxDOT went ahead and specified the current suffixed designations back around 2004 based on the HPC #18 & 20 language within the authorizing act that was part of the 1995 NHS-establishing legislation (the first time Interstate numbers were appended to corridors; that year also produced I-73 and I-99).  The corridor branches south of Victoria were labeled "east" and "central"; originally it was assumed that plain old I-69 would head straight down US 59 to Laredo.  Rather than confuse TX's congressional delegation, who were shepherding the process through Congress, with numbers not reflecting the "69" omnibus plan.  TxDOT and the group of Houston business interests that promulgated the overall corridor, the Alliance for I-69/Texas, apparently didn't have much confidence in said delegation understanding numbering concepts that didn't correspond to the original act as legislated, so they simply transferred the descriptions to the actual route numbers, including Central, which had not been formally utilized previously.  The addition of "W" or West came about when it was decided to sign North Laredo's International Bridge as part of the I-69 "family"; since at that time (circa 2012-13) signage of both I-69E and I-69C was taking place in the lower Rio Grande Valley, it was decided to add the "W" suffix to the branch along US 59 to differentiate it from the others. 

At this point it would literally take an act of Congress to get any designations changed; that's a process unlikely to happen at least until the three branches are substantially completed -- if even a subject for consideration then.   

Besides, if AASHTO were to block I-69C, they would've sued already.

[vdeane]

I-69C just needs to be an I-x37, cut it from the I-69 system altogether.

Except the x37 would be almost the same length as its parent - that doesn't seem right to me.  IMHO better to make it mainline 37 and have the existing I-37 to Corpus Christi the x37.

Or since this area is far enough south, make it another odd 2di.

Or make US 281 from I-37 to US 59 I-x37, and US 59 to I-2 can be I-69C. If it were to reroute I-37 to Pharrell, it would likely wipeout US 281.

All well & good -- but TxDOT went ahead and specified the current suffixed designations back around 2004 based on the HPC #18 & 20 language within the authorizing act that was part of the 1995 NHS-establishing legislation (the first time Interstate numbers were appended to corridors; that year also produced I-73 and I-99).  The corridor branches south of Victoria were labeled "east" and "central"; originally it was assumed that plain old I-69 would head straight down US 59 to Laredo.  Rather than confuse TX's congressional delegation, who were shepherding the process through Congress, with numbers not reflecting the "69" omnibus plan.  TxDOT and the group of Houston business interests that promulgated the overall corridor, the Alliance for I-69/Texas, apparently didn't have much confidence in said delegation understanding numbering concepts that didn't correspond to the original act as legislated, so they simply transferred the descriptions to the actual route numbers, including Central, which had not been formally utilized previously.  The addition of "W" or West came about when it was decided to sign North Laredo's International Bridge as part of the I-69 "family"; since at that time (circa 2012-13) signage of both I-69E and I-69C was taking place in the lower Rio Grande Valley, it was decided to add the "W" suffix to the branch along US 59 to differentiate it from the others. 

At this point it would literally take an act of Congress to get any designations changed; that's a process unlikely to happen at least until the three branches are substantially completed -- if even a subject for consideration then.   

Why would the congressional delegation need to understand anything?  They already did their part in creating the corridor.  Now it's up to the DOTs to actually build everything.