News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

Will US 69 be renumbered when I-69 comes through Texas?

Started by bugo, July 30, 2012, 11:08:13 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

bugo

There are no US routes that could really be extended over it unless they extended US 169 south from Tulsa.  AASHTO wouldn't allow a single state US highway. 


Revive 755

Given that North Carolina has not had to renumber or decommission US 74 and US 41 will likely not be truncated for a possible I-41 in Wisconsin, I'd say US 69 will remain in Texas.

Road Hog

Texas numbers its roads under multiple shields and numbers are often duplicated. There will be an I-69, a US 69, a Spur 69 and an FM 69. I don't think there's a SH 69 but it's certainly possible to have one.

yakra

http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/sh/sh0069.htm
QuoteAdm. Auth., dated 09/14/1992; Adm. Ltr. 003-1992, dated 09/14/1992

Cancelled.  (Eastland County)  As requested by District, this mileage transferred to SH 112.  (This is due to numerous thefts of the popular SH 69 signs.)
"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

bassoon1986

If I-69 follows the US 59 bypass/loop in Lufkin it will definitely share with US 69 for a few of those miles. Wonder if TX will keep Loop 287 with it too.....I-69+US 59+US 69+Loop 287.  Texas has other highways with 4+ highway numbers but still.

txstateends

Quote from: bassoon1986 on August 05, 2012, 09:25:00 PM
If I-69 follows the US 59 bypass/loop in Lufkin it will definitely share with US 69 for a few of those miles. Wonder if TX will keep Loop 287 with it too.....I-69+US 59+US 69+Loop 287.  Texas has other highways with 4+ highway numbers but still.

The initial layouts of the path in the Lufkin and Nacogdoches areas show a bypass to the east of Lufkin and to the west of Nacogdoches.  There will be a crossing somewhere of I-69 and US 69, but I doubt that I-69 would be able to use the path of the east loop in Lufkin.  Too narrow and developed, plus there are still some at-grade situations along the way also.
\/ \/ click for a bigger image \/ \/

NE2

Quote from: txstateends on August 06, 2012, 05:04:33 PM
I doubt that I-69 would be able to use the path of the east loop in Lufkin.  Too narrow and developed, plus there are still some at-grade situations along the way also.
There seems to be enough room, looking at aerials, and they just built a couple flyovers at the south end of the loop.
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

Scott5114

Quote from: bugo on July 30, 2012, 11:08:13 PM
There are no US routes that could really be extended over it unless they extended US 169 south from Tulsa.  AASHTO wouldn't allow a single state US highway. 

It could revert to US 73. Renumbering would have the benefit of reducing 69 sign theft too.

But I don't think it's going to happen.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

national highway 1

#8
Quote from: bugo on July 30, 2012, 11:08:13 PM
There are no US routes that could really be extended over it unless they extended US 169 south from Tulsa.  AASHTO wouldn't allow a single state US highway. 
The US 169 option could work, however it's like how US 127 replaced old US 27 in Michigan because of I-69.
Quote from: Revive 755 on July 30, 2012, 11:21:56 PM
Given that North Carolina has not had to renumber or decommission US 74 and US 41 will likely not be truncated for a possible I-41 in Wisconsin, I'd say US 69 will remain in Texas.
I believe that 'I-74' should really be, in fact, numbered I-32. No need to have two 74s to confuse everybody, and there is no way it will be connected to Cincinnati.
I-41 in Wisconsin should really be an extension of I-57 from Chicago, with or/without utilization of WI 57.
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 10, 2012, 11:41:08 PM
Quote from: bugo on July 30, 2012, 11:08:13 PM
There are no US routes that could really be extended over it unless they extended US 169 south from Tulsa.  AASHTO wouldn't allow a single state US highway. 

It could revert to US 73. Renumbering would have the benefit of reducing 69 sign theft too.

But I don't think it's going to happen.
That could also potentially work, but at the expense of US 69. But US 73 is very short anyway.
"Set up road signs; put up guideposts. Take note of the highway, the road that you take." Jeremiah 31:21

Scott5114

Quote from: national highway 1 on August 24, 2012, 10:04:39 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on August 10, 2012, 11:41:08 PM
Quote from: bugo on July 30, 2012, 11:08:13 PM
There are no US routes that could really be extended over it unless they extended US 169 south from Tulsa.  AASHTO wouldn't allow a single state US highway. 

It could revert to US 73. Renumbering would have the benefit of reducing 69 sign theft too.

But I don't think it's going to happen.
That could also potentially work, but at the expense of US 69. But US 73 is very short anyway.

69 south of Kansas City was at one point at least theoretically numbered 73 (this was in the first few years of the US highway system's existence so the 73 numbering may well have been confined to maps). It was truncated to Kansas City in favor of 69.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

bwana39

Quote from: bugo on July 30, 2012, 11:08:13 PM
There are no US routes that could really be extended over it unless they extended US 169 south from Tulsa.  AASHTO wouldn't allow a single state US highway.

US-271 From Tyler.
US-175 from Jacksonville,
Even really looking to the future: US-75 from Denison if I-45 numbering were extended.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7365.msg166645#msg166645

By the way, in Texas we already have US-175, US-96, and I-45 as single state federal routes.
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

Stephane Dumas

Quote from: bwana39 on April 19, 2021, 08:30:25 AM

US-271 From Tyler.
US-175 from Jacksonville,
Even really looking to the future: US-75 from Denison if I-45 numbering were extended.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7365.msg166645#msg166645

By the way, in Texas we already have US-175, US-96, and I-45 as single state federal routes.

Add also US-181 to the list. https://www.usends.com/181.html

bwana39

Quote from: Stephane Dumas on April 19, 2021, 09:37:24 AM
Quote from: bwana39 on April 19, 2021, 08:30:25 AM


US-271 From Tyler.
US-175 from Jacksonville,
Even really looking to the future: US-75 from Denison if I-45 numbering were extended.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7365.msg166645#msg166645


By the way, in Texas we already have US-175, US-96, and I-45 as single state federal routes.

Add also US-181 to the list. https://www.usends.com/181.html

As far as that goes, I-2 & I-14.  I really did not check to see if there were any more... The point was, that giving US-69 a different US Highway number that was solely in Texas is not without precedence.   I would say though that an orphaned segment of US-73 (or even a renumber from Kansas City) is NOT a solution.
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

The Ghostbuster

US 69 will continue to co-exist with Interstate 69 in Texas permanently. If US 69 was going to be renumbered, it likely would have happened when Interstate 69 was first designated in Texas in 2011. That was how Wisconsin handled renumbering state highways when US Highways of the same number were designated, and renumbering state highways when Interstate Highways of the same number were designated from the 1920s to the 1970s. The state has eased up on that since the designation of Interstate 39 in 1992. Of course, US 41 and Interstate 41 are co-designated, and STH-794 continues off the end of Interstate 794.

bwana39

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 19, 2021, 01:13:29 PM
US 69 will continue to co-exist with Interstate 69 in Texas permanently. If US 69 was going to be renumbered, it likely would have happened when Interstate 69 was first designated in Texas in 2011. That was how Wisconsin handled renumbering state highways when US Highways of the same number were designated, and renumbering state highways when Interstate Highways of the same number were designated from the 1920s to the 1970s. The state has eased up on that since the designation of Interstate 39 in 1992. Of course, US 41 and Interstate 41 are co-designated, and STH-794 continues off the end of Interstate 794.

The weird part is TxDOT has ignored it when asked.  It would seem there is someone who has an iron in this fire outside of TxDOT or there is one cog at TxDOT that doesn't want the change. There is not a definitive answer about what they plan on doing. If they just said they are going to leave it like it is, that would be that. They say NOTHING about it.  My thinking is some regional politician or donor wants US-69 to continue to go to Beaumont.  Absent that there is someone fairly high up the chain of command who doesn't want change of ANY sort and this is change.  I will discuss TxDOT on another string...
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

motorola870

#15
Quote from: bwana39 on April 19, 2021, 01:54:50 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on April 19, 2021, 01:13:29 PM
US 69 will continue to co-exist with Interstate 69 in Texas permanently. If US 69 was going to be renumbered, it likely would have happened when Interstate 69 was first designated in Texas in 2011. That was how Wisconsin handled renumbering state highways when US Highways of the same number were designated, and renumbering state highways when Interstate Highways of the same number were designated from the 1920s to the 1970s. The state has eased up on that since the designation of Interstate 39 in 1992. Of course, US 41 and Interstate 41 are co-designated, and STH-794 continues off the end of Interstate 794.

The weird part is TxDOT has ignored it when asked.  It would seem there is someone who has an iron in this fire outside of TxDOT or there is one cog at TxDOT that doesn't want the change. There is not a definitive answer about what they plan on doing. If they just said they are going to leave it like it is, that would be that. They say NOTHING about it.  My thinking is some regional politician or donor wants US-69 to continue to go to Beaumont.  Absent that there is someone fairly high up the chain of command who doesn't want change of ANY sort and this is change.  I will discuss TxDOT on another string...
who knows at this point TXDOT might not even be on a spree to truncate. At this for all we know I345 in Dallas would just revert to being I45 and US75 and have dual shielding into Oklahoma to not have to deal with truncating arguing with Oklahoma. I think the itch to remove dual signing is long gone. After how bad they felt after destroying US66 towns the itch to truncate has worn off. Haven't seen a truncation since the 1990s for interstates in Texas have we not?. Same with a US69 and I69 overlap these days with GPS number snafus aren't as an issue as when we had to use only a paper map. Quite frankly I think just extending US75 back down to I30 in Dallas and updating the overhead signs would be better as the signs already mention 75 and 45.

US 89

Quote from: bwana39 on April 19, 2021, 08:30:25 AM
By the way, in Texas we already have US-175, US-96, and I-45 as single state federal routes.

Ok Calrog

Scott5114

US Interstate 69-dub! Border-bound traffic near a little green shrub!
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

bwana39

Quote from: US 89 on April 19, 2021, 11:37:35 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on April 19, 2021, 08:30:25 AM
By the way, in Texas we already have US-175, US-96, and I-45 as single state federal routes.

Ok Calrog

I went and looked up CalRog. He apparently was gone from this forum way before I got here.

There were two points..... 1) There are existing US routes to subsume US-69 in Texas so that  I-69 and US-69 would not meet. Routes that end in a city or town where US-69 already runs.  Someone suggested US-73???
2) That someone said AASHTO would not approve single state US-routes. I pointed out  that they already were some in Texas (Then someone else started telling  the list was incomplete.) My point was that it has happened and more than once. I was not wanting to get into a listing competition.

I don't know who CalRog was. I definitely am not him or hopefully his evil spawn. (If I have done something particularly egregious, pm me and tell me what etiquette I defiled. )
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

Scott5114

Carl Rogers is a guy who used to spam the hell out of misc.transport.road with links to his site. His posts (and his site) were always very pretentious. He referred to road enthusiasm with the made-up term "viatology", which he desperately tried to get other people to use, to no avail. He always called US highways "federal routes", which drove people up the wall, because the federal government doesn't have anything to do with US routes (they're owned and maintained by the states, and numbering is coordinated by AASHTO, which isn't a government agency). 

He often posted videos, featuring cringeworthy narration, sometimes with him badly speaking other languages. One time he accidentally recorded a banana in his car instead of the road, but still posted it to MTR, referring to it as a video of a "potassium-rich snack". One time he sang an out-of-key ode to US-31W, with incredibly lame lyrics.

He wasn't ever on this forum, mercifully. And if he tried he would have got banned long ago.

That said, judging by his Instagram account, he's chilled out a lot, and his photography has gotten much better.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

Rothman

Don't forget him standing in gores in his videos, too.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position(s) of NYSDOT.

bwana39

Quote from: Scott5114 on April 20, 2021, 02:54:44 AM
Carl Rogers is a guy who used to spam the hell out of misc.transport.road with links to his site. His posts (and his site) were always very pretentious. He referred to road enthusiasm with the made-up term "viatology", which he desperately tried to get other people to use, to no avail. He always called US highways "federal routes", which drove people up the wall, because the federal government doesn't have anything to do with US routes (they're owned and maintained by the states, and numbering is coordinated by AASHTO, which isn't a government agency). 

He often posted videos, featuring cringeworthy narration, sometimes with him badly speaking other languages. One time he accidentally recorded a banana in his car instead of the road, but still posted it to MTR, referring to it as a video of a "potassium-rich snack". One time he sang an out-of-key ode to US-31W, with incredibly lame lyrics.

He wasn't ever on this forum, mercifully. And if he tried he would have got banned long ago.

That said, judging by his Instagram account, he's chilled out a lot, and his photography has gotten much better.

Federal routes include the interstates.. For me it was just a shortening of the phrase US numbered routes or Interstate highways.   
I can get on mu soap box at times. Sorry of the term FEDERAL Routes triggered something unpleasant. I find myself admonished.
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

kphoger

Bottom line:  US Routes are state routes.

This is unlike in Mexico, where the nationwide-numbered routes are actually administered by a federal agency (except the ones that aren't).
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

Scott5114

Quote from: bwana39 on April 20, 2021, 10:38:09 AM
Quote from: Scott5114 on April 20, 2021, 02:54:44 AM
Carl Rogers is a guy who used to spam the hell out of misc.transport.road with links to his site. His posts (and his site) were always very pretentious. He referred to road enthusiasm with the made-up term "viatology", which he desperately tried to get other people to use, to no avail. He always called US highways "federal routes", which drove people up the wall, because the federal government doesn't have anything to do with US routes (they're owned and maintained by the states, and numbering is coordinated by AASHTO, which isn't a government agency). 

He often posted videos, featuring cringeworthy narration, sometimes with him badly speaking other languages. One time he accidentally recorded a banana in his car instead of the road, but still posted it to MTR, referring to it as a video of a "potassium-rich snack". One time he sang an out-of-key ode to US-31W, with incredibly lame lyrics.

He wasn't ever on this forum, mercifully. And if he tried he would have got banned long ago.

That said, judging by his Instagram account, he's chilled out a lot, and his photography has gotten much better.

Federal routes include the interstates.. For me it was just a shortening of the phrase US numbered routes or Interstate highways.   
I can get on mu soap box at times. Sorry of the term FEDERAL Routes triggered something unpleasant. I find myself admonished.

Interstates are state owned and maintained too. Some of them just get special funding from the federal government, and their designation requires both FHWA and AASHTO to sign off.

Really, there's no such thing as a "federal route". If you want to group Interstates and US routes together, something like "national-system routes" would be more accurate.

I personally don't really care one way or the other (it would be nice to have an unambiguous term that means "Interstate and US routes"). But a lot of people associate that specific term with Carl. I wonder, in a universe where Carl was a chill enough guy back in the day that MTR didn't hate his guts, if people would have gotten as pedantic about it.

Probably.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

vdeane

Quote from: Scott5114 on April 21, 2021, 08:05:58 PM
Interstates are state owned and maintained too. Some of them just get special funding from the federal government, and their designation requires both FHWA and AASHTO to sign off.
But FHWA is involved with designation, which is not the case with US routes.  A US route means nothing to FHWA - to them, it's just a state route with a fancy shield (many US routes aren't even on the NHS).  That's not the case with interstates - not only is it its own functional classification, they even have their own performance targets which, if not met, can trigger FHWA forcing states to spend some of their federal money on them!
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.



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.