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

I-69 in TX

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

Previous topic - Next topic

Alex

Quote from: sprjus4 on August 25, 2019, 06:05:55 PM
The new section completed in 2017 near Driscoll also used "I-69"  signage, not "I-69E"  signage.

I've said it before though, they should keep that as I-69 and designate I-69C and W with different numbers.

Just about every stand alone shield we passed earlier this month on the portion south of IH 37 referenced the section as IH 69 instead of IH 69E. Was texting with Jeff Royston about it at the time and he passed along a photo of shields posted on the newest section of IH 69 there, long after the 69/69E change, that referenced it as just 69.


Jeff shot this assembly in 2016, and we saw that it had been replaced since then, and yet still references IH 69E as IH 69.




As for construction of the Driscoll bypass, grading work is visible along the east side of U.S. 77 leading south from town to the freeway section through Bishop. Photos from August 3, 2019:



US 77 south at CR 18 just outside Driscoll.



More grading underway along side US 77 at CR 14, 1.5 miles ahead of the freeway through Bishop. Test files are in the ground further south.

From the TxDOT Project Tracker:
Driscoll Bypass
Quote
Project ID   010216001
Highway   US 77
Description   Construct Relief Route Around Driscoll
From Limit   CR 28
To Limit   CR 16
District   Corpus Christi
County   Nueces
Est. Construction Cost   $82,400,883
Project Length   5.09 (Miles)
Last Updated   8/26/2019
Est. Complete Date   4/22/2022

US 77 upgraded from Driscoll to Bishop
QuoteProject ID   010203082
Highway   US 77
Description   Construct Main Lanes And Overpasses
From Limit   CR 16
To Limit   SOUTH OF FM 3354
District   Corpus Christi
County   Nueces
Est. Construction Cost   $23,240,669
Project Length   2.89 (Miles)
Last Updated   8/26/2019
Est. Complete Date   4/22/2022


O Tamandua

QuoteNACOGDOCHES, Texas (KTRE) - By the length of the groundbreaking lineup, it appeared no one was left out of celebrating the Nacogdoches flyover startup, certainly not Senator Robert Nichols of Jacksonville, the chair of the Senate Committee on Transportation.

"There is about $400-million dollars committed by the state over the next 4-6 years along this route in this area of Texas,"  said Nichols.

The 4-lane connector from Spradley Street to Highway 7 west, several overpasses, and access roads are costing over 86 million dollars. The Interstate-69 readiness project will join the 200 miles of I-69 already opened.

"City, state dignitaries celebrate groundbreaking for Nacogdoches I-69 flyover project" (KTRE):  https://www.ktre.com/2019/10/03/city-state-dignitaries-celebrate-groundbreaking-nacogdoches-i-flyover-project/

sparker

Quote from: O Tamandua on October 05, 2019, 11:37:45 PM
QuoteNACOGDOCHES, Texas (KTRE) - By the length of the groundbreaking lineup, it appeared no one was left out of celebrating the Nacogdoches flyover startup, certainly not Senator Robert Nichols of Jacksonville, the chair of the Senate Committee on Transportation.

"There is about $400-million dollars committed by the state over the next 4-6 years along this route in this area of Texas,"  said Nichols.

The 4-lane connector from Spradley Street to Highway 7 west, several overpasses, and access roads are costing over 86 million dollars. The Interstate-69 readiness project will join the 200 miles of I-69 already opened.

"City, state dignitaries celebrate groundbreaking for Nacogdoches I-69 flyover project" (KTRE):  https://www.ktre.com/2019/10/03/city-state-dignitaries-celebrate-groundbreaking-nacogdoches-i-flyover-project/

And the Alliance for I-69/Texas will be breaking out a couple of bottles of domestic champagne to celebrate progress on the north-of-Houston corridor segment.  They'll save the Dom or Cristal until completion to Texarkana!

O Tamandua

Though I know $$$$$ is always the answer, I still submit that when I-49 Arkansas and I-69 Texas meet (figuratively) I-35 and I-49 south someday in TXK, there will be many who will note other KEY interstate corridors completed many decades earlier and wonder, in spite of the money, what the heck took this route so long.

sparker

Quote from: O Tamandua on October 08, 2019, 10:18:27 PM
Though I know $$$$$ is always the answer, I still submit that when I-49 Arkansas and I-69 Texas meet (figuratively) I-35 and I-49 south someday in TXK, there will be many who will note other KEY interstate corridors completed many decades earlier and wonder, in spite of the money, what the heck took this route so long.

Probably because for much of the corridor's length within TX the DOT has been effectively starting from scratch.  True, the potentially most costly portion through Houston was already in service and needed only a bit of "polishing" to reach standards, but much of the corridor, though a succession of divided facilities when the corridor was formalized as an Interstate in 1995, most of those were simply "twinnings" of the original 2-lane roads (particularly along US 59 and US 77) with little or no access control; full freeway mileage away from Houston and the Rio Grande Valley was sporadic at best.  As a result, either in situ expansion, requiring construction of frontage roads and moving or compensating the roadside businesses or, alternately, new-terrain construction away from the existing alignment was necessary for most of the corridor.  And when that rare stretch of free-flowing rural facility was present, there were additional problems (e.g., the King Ranch section of I-69E/US 77 where ranch access needed to be provided without incurring the cost of expensive bridges or interchanges), yet to be upgraded. 

Contrast that with two corridors that were constructed or upgraded in relatively short order -- I-49 in MO and I-22 in MS; the former had been rebuilt extensively over the last 30 years; by 2000 it was either a freeway or an expressway with frontage roads and access control (no driveways!) -- minimal ROW purchases, mostly for bridge berms and ramps, had to be made to convert it to an Interstate.  And I-22 had been constructed as a full freeway -- albeit with some substandard features -- under ARC auspices since the late '70's; widening the New Albany segment and adding paved shoulders were the principal tasks prior to Interstate designation.   But I-69 and its ancillary branches are another story -- upgrading much of the present divided conventional highway is out of the question due to the need for local access and the political ramifications of not doing so.  So between protracted planning efforts and trying to fit segments of the very long corridor & branches into the yearly transportation outlay, it's a time-consuming affair (budgetary considerations notwithstanding) -- hardly a project that requires ROW acquisition goes off without a hitch today in pretty much all jurisdictions.   But TxDOT is fortunate to not have to plow through or circumvent a major urban area; most of the regions through which the I-69 "cluster" passes don't seem to have an issue with its development.  It's just that it's about 1K miles to develop; and that needs to be spread over many years -- and STIP's -- so the overall timeframe extends out for decades.       

MikeSantNY78

Quote from: sprjus4 on August 26, 2019, 01:38:59 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 25, 2019, 09:36:02 PM
The I-69 numbering is a done deal. But TX DOT could at least do something about all those horrible 3-digit I-69X shields with the extreme cramped kerning. Set the freaking lettering in Series C rather than Series D. Or decrease the character sizes on the shields more in keeping with older, better looking Interstate shield specs. I really really hate neutered Interstate shields. They suck.

If re-numbering existing routes was on the table I would be more in favor of routing I-37 down along what is going to become I-69E. The last few miles of I-37 going into Corpus Christi would become a 3-digit route of I-37.

I think a fictional I-33 route would be more likely as a long distance Western bypass of Austin and DFW along the US-281 corridor going North out of San Antonio and terminating with I-44 in Wichita Falls. But if re-numbering was on the table, the same I-33 route could be applied to US-281 South of San Antonio along what is now becoming I-69C.

Given the heavy volume of commercial traffic crossing the border at Laredo, which is IIRC has the most commercial truck traffic crossing the Mexican border, I think the I-69 core route should go to Laredo rather than it being called I-69W.

As for I-6, the only place in the nation that makes sense for it is Laredo to Corpus Christi. The question is whether there is enough traffic to justify such a road. OTOH, cities in South Texas are growing. So it seems like a freeway (or toll road) linking those cities would have to be built eventually.

To me, I-47 only makes sense applied to the Houston to Texarkana corridor. But I-69 and I-369 is already applied to that route.
You're missing I-37 to Victoria.
My guess is (on reading this post): would stay US 77, but at least be built up to IH standards. Just in case.

Bobby5280

Quote from: sprjus4You're missing I-37 to Victoria.

I didn't get around to responding to that earlier, but since it was quoted again: I-37 to Victoria? That doesn't make any sense. I-37 begins in San Antonio, goes Southeast 142 miles to Corpus Christi. Then it's going to make a 90 degree turn, going up Northwest 80-90 miles (depending on alignment) to Victoria. That's almost a "V" shape route. It's at least a crooked check mark shape.

One possible fictional route would be a version of Interstate 6 going from Laredo to Freer to Corpus Christi and then up to Victoria. That would make more sense than a V-shaped I-37. But I-69W is already set for that Laredo to Freer segment. So I guess that could leave an I-6 route bouncing from Freer to Corpus and up to Victoria.

sprjus4

#1532
Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 13, 2019, 12:16:34 AM
Quote from: sprjus4You're missing I-37 to Victoria.

I didn't get around to responding to that earlier, but since it was quoted again: I-37 to Victoria? That doesn't make any sense. I-37 begins in San Antonio, goes Southeast 142 miles to Corpus Christi. Then it's going to make a 90 degree turn, going up Northwest 80-90 miles (depending on alignment) to Victoria. That's almost a "V" shape route. It's at least a crooked check mark shape.

One possible fictional route would be a version of Interstate 6 going from Laredo to Freer to Corpus Christi and then up to Victoria. That would make more sense than a V-shaped I-37. But I-69W is already set for that Laredo to Freer segment. So I guess that could leave an I-6 route bouncing from Freer to Corpus and up to Victoria.
You're missing the segment of US-77 from I-37 to Victoria.

Ideally, I'd just change I-69E into I-69, and I-69C into I-3(9?) (yes, it's out of grid, but unavoidable), change the SH-44 spur & I-69W from Freer to Laredo to I-4, and eliminate I-69W east of Freer.

The US-59 corridor between Freer and Victoria would ideally become a 75 mph 4-lane divided highway with town bypasses, but that's about all that's necessary. An interstate highway for long-distance traffic already exists between Houston and Laredo if truly desired - I-10 and I-35 - no need to build an entire new interstate highway to serve the same endpoints and some small towns in between.

Bobby5280

Quote from: sprjus4You're missing the segment of US-77 from I-37 to Victoria

That's still a hard 90 degree angle turn coming from San Antonio. 2 digit Interstate routes shouldn't be doing that. How do you even sign the cardinal direction on a V-shaped route like that? You'll be driving along I-37 South and then it suddenly becomes I-37 North? It doesn't matter since I-69E is already slated to be running along US-77 between Victoria and the Corpus area anyway.

Changing the I-37 designation going into Corpus Christi on its own would be incredibly disruptive to local businesses and motorists there. Switching the name of an existing route number affects a whole lot more than signs along the roadway. While I wouldn't mind seeing I-37 extended down to Brownsville, I do know it would come with plenty of consequences to businesses in the Corpus Christi area. A whole lot of marketing and administrative materials for both business and government have to be revised to change any references made to that route number.

sprjus4

#1534
Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 13, 2019, 01:06:25 AM
Quote from: sprjus4You're missing the segment of US-77 from I-37 to Victoria

That's still a hard 90 degree angle turn coming from San Antonio. 2 digit Interstate routes shouldn't be doing that. How do you even sign the cardinal direction on a V-shaped route like that? You'll be driving along I-37 South and then it suddenly becomes I-37 North? It doesn't matter since I-69E is already slated to be running along US-77 between Victoria and the Corpus area anyway.

Changing the I-37 designation going into Corpus Christi on its own would be incredibly disruptive to local businesses and motorists there. Switching the name of an existing route number affects a whole lot more than signs along the roadway. While I wouldn't mind seeing I-37 extended down to Brownsville, I do know it would come with plenty of consequences to businesses in the Corpus Christi area. A whole lot of marketing and administrative materials for both business and government have to be revised to change any references made to that route number.
You're missing an interstate designation (I.E what I-69 currently is) on the segment from I-37 to Victoria.

I think you're misunderstanding - I'm not saying I-37 should be routed up US-77, I'm saying it's currently I-69 under TxDOT's plan, and the plan proposed by someone on here to re-number the I-69 branches did not include that particular segment, which is a major piece on the Houston - Brownsville corridor.

As for the fate of I-37 with this whole I-69 jumble, I think it should remain designated where it's at, from Downtown Corpus Christi to Downtown San Antonio. The only extension / change I'd support is extending it northward from Downtown San Antonio up to the northern end of the US-281 freeway.

Bobby5280

#1535
It looked like you were suggesting I-37 should be extended to Victoria. But, like you said, I-69E is already designated to travel along that path. The other route re-numbering suggestions for the I-69 segments are kind of useless at this point. The ship has already sailed. But please, TX DOT, get rid of those AWFUL neutered shields with the series D numerals. They absolutely, horrendously SUCK. I'd have to search pretty hard to find letter spacing as crowded and hideous as it is on those shields. Get rid of them!

I don't agree with I-37 being routed West of I-35. Given the federal government's funding stance, US-281 could be upgraded from San Antonio up to Wichita Falls to Interstate quality yet still only carry a US highway designation. I doubt if TX DOT will push for an Interstate marker unless the feds want to pony up a significant amount of money to help the effort. If it carried an Interstate designation I'd prefer it to be called I-33. There's hardly any other location elsewhere in the system where I-33 can exist.

dfwmapper

Not my video, just happened to stumble across it. Drone video of the work that has been done so far on the new interchange on the south side of Nacogdoches mentioned a few posts up, taken last week.

sparker

Quote from: dfwmapper on October 15, 2019, 11:23:09 PM
Not my video, just happened to stumble across it. Drone video of the work that has been done so far on the new interchange on the south side of Nacogdoches mentioned a few posts up, taken last week.


Nice find!  Looks like the major work to be done is the "cutoff" connector from NB 59 to Loop 224; it also appears that at least the portion of the loop covered by the drone is "ready for prime time" needing little if anything to achieve Interstate standards.   At least work is underway for this portion of the corridor -- had been wondering when some definitive progress was made. 

Bobby5280

#1538
The drone video shows a good start. But the Western half of TX Loop 224 is going to need a considerable amount of work to bring up to Interstate standards. The portion of the loop shown in the video (between the US-59/Loop-224 interchange and TX-7 exit) shows a whole lot of driveways emptying out onto the main lanes of the road and exit ramps. Mockinbird Lane still crosses Loop 224 at-grade. Continuous frontage roads have to be built on both sides to isolate the driveways and crossing streets from the future freeway main lanes and the on/off ramps as well.

North of the TX-7 exit Loop 224 turns into even more of a mess. Not only are there plenty of driveways built out to the main lanes of the highway, quite a few properties are hugging way too close and will have to be bought and removed. Hopefully some of that work has started to happen. I can't really tell since the Google Earth Imagery for Nacogdoches is almost 4 years old (Nov 2015). It's still not a good sign if all those residential driveways hitting the freeway main lanes are still there in that drone video.

sparker

Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 16, 2019, 04:35:12 PM
The drone video shows a good start. But the Western half of TX Loop 224 is going to need a considerable amount of work to bring up to Interstate standards. The portion of the loop shown in the video (between the US-59/Loop-224 interchange and TX-7 exit) shows a whole lot of driveways emptying out onto the main lanes of the road and exit ramps. Mockinbird Lane still crosses Loop 224 at-grade. Continuous frontage roads have to be built on both sides to isolate the driveways and crossing streets from the future freeway main lanes and the on/off ramps as well.

North of the TX-7 exit Loop 224 turns into even more of a mess. Not only are there plenty of driveways built out to the main lanes of the highway, quite a few properties are hugging way too close and will have to be bought and removed. Hopefully some of that work has started to happen. I can't really tell since the Google Earth Imagery for Nacogdoches is almost 4 years old (Nov 2015). It's still not a good sign if all those residential driveways hitting the freeway main lanes are still there in that drone video.

It does look like there's sufficient room for a frontage road to be deployed between the freeway lanes -- in archetypal TX fashion -- which would take care of the driveway access situation.  Also that SB ramp from the diamond interchange (approximately where the drone footage ended) is straight, then curves toward the main SB lanes; this appears to support the idea that a frontage road would extended from that straight section.  But it's likely that a full rebuild -- again with full frontage roads -- will be necessary north of the construction zone; most of these divided bypasses were not intended to be limited access facilities (clearly pre-I-69 efforts); purchases for additional  ROW are inevitable.   Even in the "flyover" zone at the connector to southward US 59 there remain driveways that will have to be truncated or "joisted" over to different access points.  It won't be easy or simple -- let's hope TxDOT has incorporated all these potential sticking points into their planning and construction efforts.

Stephane Dumas

Quote from: sparker on October 16, 2019, 04:57:50 PM
It does look like there's sufficient room for a frontage road to be deployed between the freeway lanes -- in archetypal TX fashion -- which would take care of the driveway access situation.  Also that SB ramp from the diamond interchange (approximately where the drone footage ended) is straight, then curves toward the main SB lanes; this appears to support the idea that a frontage road would extended from that straight section.  But it's likely that a full rebuild -- again with full frontage roads -- will be necessary north of the construction zone; most of these divided bypasses were not intended to be limited access facilities (clearly pre-I-69 efforts); purchases for additional  ROW are inevitable.   Even in the "flyover" zone at the connector to southward US 59 there remain driveways that will have to be truncated or "joisted" over to different access points.  It won't be easy or simple -- let's hope TxDOT has incorporated all these potential sticking points into their planning and construction efforts.

TxDOT posted a video of this gap of US-59 from south of Spradley Street on US 59 to the intersection of SH 7 West and SL 224.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmjvI98hTLI

Bobby5280

The proposal looks pretty good in principal but the strange effect of the horizon line in the rendering has me thinking of old-school 1980's video game console graphics. Whatever. Style is not the point here.

Really, the problem going on is policy. Just exactly how close do you let business owners situate their buildings and parking lots next to the freaking road? The US-59/Loop 224 interchange up to TX-7 might be an easy enough nut to crack. But there are worse problems immediately North of that exit that will block I-69 progress. And it probably didn't have to be that way if some planners 20-30 or so years ago had any inkling of foresight about "future proofing" a vital highway corridor.

sprjus4

Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 17, 2019, 01:32:29 AM
The proposal looks pretty good in principal but the strange effect of the horizon line in the rendering has me thinking of old-school 1980's video game console graphics. Whatever. Style is not the point here.

Really, the problem going on is policy. Just exactly how close do you let business owners situate their buildings and parking lots next to the freaking road? The US-59/Loop 224 interchange up to TX-7 might be an easy enough nut to crack. But there are worse problems immediately North of that exit that will block I-69 progress. And it probably didn't have to be that way if some planners 20-30 or so years ago had any inkling of foresight about "future proofing" a vital highway corridor.
TXDOT will most likely reconstruct the mainlines to have a narrow median w/ a 10 foot left shoulder & barrier, adding additional room to squeeze frontage roads in.

That could reasonably work.

rte66man

Quote from: sprjus4 on October 17, 2019, 06:17:00 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 17, 2019, 01:32:29 AM
The proposal looks pretty good in principal but the strange effect of the horizon line in the rendering has me thinking of old-school 1980's video game console graphics. Whatever. Style is not the point here.

Really, the problem going on is policy. Just exactly how close do you let business owners situate their buildings and parking lots next to the freaking road? The US-59/Loop 224 interchange up to TX-7 might be an easy enough nut to crack. But there are worse problems immediately North of that exit that will block I-69 progress. And it probably didn't have to be that way if some planners 20-30 or so years ago had any inkling of foresight about "future proofing" a vital highway corridor.
TXDOT will most likely reconstruct the mainlines to have a narrow median w/ a 10 foot left shoulder & barrier, adding additional room to squeeze frontage roads in.

That could reasonably work.

If it looks like I69 south of Robstown, then I may get claustrophobia
https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7673179,-97.6778267,3a,75y,29.72h,78.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1se61zYfjE1a0mNyyYbXzX0Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
When you come to a fork in the road... TAKE IT.

                                                               -Yogi Berra

sprjus4

Quote from: rte66man on October 17, 2019, 01:43:51 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 17, 2019, 06:17:00 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 17, 2019, 01:32:29 AM
The proposal looks pretty good in principal but the strange effect of the horizon line in the rendering has me thinking of old-school 1980's video game console graphics. Whatever. Style is not the point here.

Really, the problem going on is policy. Just exactly how close do you let business owners situate their buildings and parking lots next to the freaking road? The US-59/Loop 224 interchange up to TX-7 might be an easy enough nut to crack. But there are worse problems immediately North of that exit that will block I-69 progress. And it probably didn't have to be that way if some planners 20-30 or so years ago had any inkling of foresight about "future proofing" a vital highway corridor.
TXDOT will most likely reconstruct the mainlines to have a narrow median w/ a 10 foot left shoulder & barrier, adding additional room to squeeze frontage roads in.

That could reasonably work.

If it looks like I69 south of Robstown, then I may get claustrophobia
https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7673179,-97.6778267,3a,75y,29.72h,78.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1se61zYfjE1a0mNyyYbXzX0Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
A lot of future I-69 segments, including 40 miles south of Falfurrius and 40 miles south of Houston are planned like that.

It's not that bad honestly, and having the full left shoulder gives a lot of breathing room. I've driven that stretch near Robstown and around Bishop with that design at least a dozen times since it's been completed, and have never felt cramped. It's only on some of those isolated interchanges that they reduce the left shoulder to only 3-4 ft that's it cramped.

sparker

Quote from: sprjus4 on October 17, 2019, 04:12:38 PM
Quote from: rte66man on October 17, 2019, 01:43:51 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 17, 2019, 06:17:00 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 17, 2019, 01:32:29 AM
The proposal looks pretty good in principal but the strange effect of the horizon line in the rendering has me thinking of old-school 1980's video game console graphics. Whatever. Style is not the point here.

Really, the problem going on is policy. Just exactly how close do you let business owners situate their buildings and parking lots next to the freaking road? The US-59/Loop 224 interchange up to TX-7 might be an easy enough nut to crack. But there are worse problems immediately North of that exit that will block I-69 progress. And it probably didn't have to be that way if some planners 20-30 or so years ago had any inkling of foresight about "future proofing" a vital highway corridor.
TXDOT will most likely reconstruct the mainlines to have a narrow median w/ a 10 foot left shoulder & barrier, adding additional room to squeeze frontage roads in.

That could reasonably work.

If it looks like I69 south of Robstown, then I may get claustrophobia
https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7673179,-97.6778267,3a,75y,29.72h,78.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1se61zYfjE1a0mNyyYbXzX0Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
A lot of future I-69 segments, including 40 miles south of Falfurrius and 40 miles south of Houston are planned like that.

It's not that bad honestly, and having the full left shoulder gives a lot of breathing room. I've driven that stretch near Robstown and around Bishop with that design at least a dozen times since it's been completed, and have never felt cramped. It's only on some of those isolated interchanges that they reduce the left shoulder to only 3-4 ft that's it cramped.

The key to snaking I-69 through this area is: all of the above!  It'll probably look a lot like the pic of I-69E down by Robstown, minus the elevation for most of the run.  It probably boils down to:  K-rails, 4' inner shoulders/10' outer shoulders, and frontage roads, frontage roads, and more frontage roads.  Except for some parking lots used for trailer storage, most facilities look far enough away from the lanes to shove a frontage road through their front yards (going by the 4-year-old GE view).   The finished product won't be particularly pretty, but it'll get the job done -- hopefully in a few short years. 

sprjus4

Quote from: sparker on October 17, 2019, 06:20:46 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 17, 2019, 04:12:38 PM
Quote from: rte66man on October 17, 2019, 01:43:51 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 17, 2019, 06:17:00 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 17, 2019, 01:32:29 AM
The proposal looks pretty good in principal but the strange effect of the horizon line in the rendering has me thinking of old-school 1980's video game console graphics. Whatever. Style is not the point here.

Really, the problem going on is policy. Just exactly how close do you let business owners situate their buildings and parking lots next to the freaking road? The US-59/Loop 224 interchange up to TX-7 might be an easy enough nut to crack. But there are worse problems immediately North of that exit that will block I-69 progress. And it probably didn't have to be that way if some planners 20-30 or so years ago had any inkling of foresight about "future proofing" a vital highway corridor.
TXDOT will most likely reconstruct the mainlines to have a narrow median w/ a 10 foot left shoulder & barrier, adding additional room to squeeze frontage roads in.

That could reasonably work.

If it looks like I69 south of Robstown, then I may get claustrophobia
https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7673179,-97.6778267,3a,75y,29.72h,78.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1se61zYfjE1a0mNyyYbXzX0Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
A lot of future I-69 segments, including 40 miles south of Falfurrius and 40 miles south of Houston are planned like that.

It's not that bad honestly, and having the full left shoulder gives a lot of breathing room. I've driven that stretch near Robstown and around Bishop with that design at least a dozen times since it's been completed, and have never felt cramped. It's only on some of those isolated interchanges that they reduce the left shoulder to only 3-4 ft that's it cramped.

The key to snaking I-69 through this area is: all of the above!  It'll probably look a lot like the pic of I-69E down by Robstown, minus the elevation for most of the run.  It probably boils down to:  K-rails, 4' inner shoulders/10' outer shoulders, and frontage roads, frontage roads, and more frontage roads.  Except for some parking lots used for trailer storage, most facilities look far enough away from the lanes to shove a frontage road through their front yards (going by the 4-year-old GE view).   The finished product won't be particularly pretty, but it'll get the job done -- hopefully in a few short years.
The US-75 freeway northeast of Dallas has a long segment with this design - https://www.google.com/maps/@33.4836781,-96.6200904,3a,75y,197.55h,78.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPrJz-0sN8Pai_tN9GYDZ8g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Seems to work. IIRC, a lot of the segments with median barrier are being built with a stealth 3rd outer lane for future expansion purposes. The stretch I mentioned of US-75 originally actually had a ~40 ft grassy median plus the frontage roads & freeway design, but was rebuilt to its current design about 20 years ago with the torn-up outer lane a stealth lane for future expansion purposes.

sparker

Quote from: sprjus4 on October 17, 2019, 06:51:49 PM
The US-75 freeway northeast of Dallas has a long segment with this design - https://www.google.com/maps/@33.4836781,-96.6200904,3a,75y,197.55h,78.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPrJz-0sN8Pai_tN9GYDZ8g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Seems to work. IIRC, a lot of the segments with median barrier are being built with a stealth 3rd outer lane for future expansion purposes. The stretch I mentioned of US-75 originally actually had a ~40 ft grassy median plus the frontage roads & freeway design, but was rebuilt to its current design about 20 years ago with the torn-up outer lane a stealth lane for future expansion purposes.

The picture sure shows that "stealth" lane in all its glory; it appears to be a full 12' wide, so another 10' of shoulder should do it down the road.  Right now it's certainly 4-lane Interstate standard -- but if the rate of growth in the area continues, 6-laning won't be all that far in the future.   Would be a hoot (and just a fair bit snarky) if TxDOT requested a I-45 designation up to either the state line or the US 69 merge just short of there; that would almost surely obviate the I-345 teardown effort, as well as put the ball directly in OK's court re any extensions there (at least up to US 70/Durant).   

Revive 755

Quote from: sparker on October 17, 2019, 10:07:18 PM
Would be a hoot (and just a fair bit snarky) if TxDOT requested a I-45 designation up to either the state line or the US 69 merge just short of there; that would almost surely obviate the I-345 teardown effort, as well as put the ball directly in OK's court re any extensions there (at least up to US 70/Durant).

If I-45 made it north of Dallas, the teardown proponents would just have I-45 rerouted onto I-635 or over TX 366, I-35E, and I-30.

sprjus4

Quote from: sparker on October 17, 2019, 10:07:18 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on October 17, 2019, 06:51:49 PM
The US-75 freeway northeast of Dallas has a long segment with this design - https://www.google.com/maps/@33.4836781,-96.6200904,3a,75y,197.55h,78.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPrJz-0sN8Pai_tN9GYDZ8g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Seems to work. IIRC, a lot of the segments with median barrier are being built with a stealth 3rd outer lane for future expansion purposes. The stretch I mentioned of US-75 originally actually had a ~40 ft grassy median plus the frontage roads & freeway design, but was rebuilt to its current design about 20 years ago with the torn-up outer lane a stealth lane for future expansion purposes.

The picture sure shows that "stealth" lane in all its glory; it appears to be a full 12' wide, so another 10' of shoulder should do it down the road.  Right now it's certainly 4-lane Interstate standard -- but if the rate of growth in the area continues, 6-laning won't be all that far in the future.   Would be a hoot (and just a fair bit snarky) if TxDOT requested a I-45 designation up to either the state line or the US 69 merge just short of there; that would almost surely obviate the I-345 teardown effort, as well as put the ball directly in OK's court re any extensions there (at least up to US 70/Durant).   
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.5061733,-96.6180646,3a,75y,14.33h,74.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0F8dqmUhDlVLvKpsLCTZiA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

A lot of the northbound bridges have a full lane already built over the bridges, a leftover from the original design with the grassy median, but the southbound lane does not have that wide shoulder.

A lot of I-35 between Austin and Dallas was rebuilt around 10-20 years ago removing the grassy median and filling it in and leaving the outside lane as a "stealth" lane. Here we are today, and it has all since been expanded fully to 6-lanes. A similar design exists on portions of I-10 east of Houston, and most of that is currently underway or planned to be 6-laned all the way to Louisiana.



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.