AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Mid-South => Topic started by: Anthony_JK on July 04, 2017, 10:20:04 PM

Title: US 69 South from Beaumont to Port Arthur
Post by: Anthony_JK on July 04, 2017, 10:20:04 PM
This segment of roadway has always confounded me.


It's full freeway standard from I-10 to Spur 330 (M. L. King Parkway)/SH 347, but then it turns into a mix of freeway and expressway with a few at-grade intersections up to the SH 73 cloverleaf before entering Port Arthur.


I've always wondered why it couldn't be a 3di I-x10, or, why the remaining segments couldn't be upgraded to freeway at least to SH 73.
Title: Re: US 69 South from Beaumont to Port Arthur
Post by: bugo on July 05, 2017, 03:12:10 AM
I only see a couple of at grades, namely a couple of RIRO intersections just northwest of TX 73 and an iffy short frontage road along the southbound lanes at around the same place.

As far as it being an interstate, not every freeway has to have the shiny colorful shields (unless it's North Carolina, which seems hell-bent on making every stretch of freeway in the state an interstate).
Title: Re: US 69 South from Beaumont to Port Arthur
Post by: FreewayDan on July 05, 2017, 11:41:14 PM
This segment of roadway has always confounded me.


It's full freeway standard from I-10 to Spur 330 (M. L. King Parkway)/SH 347, but then it turns into a mix of freeway and expressway with a few at-grade intersections up to the SH 73 cloverleaf before entering Port Arthur.


I've always wondered why it couldn't be a 3di I-x10, or, why the remaining segments couldn't be upgraded to freeway at least to SH 73.

Spur 330 is in Baytown (Decker Drive).
Title: Re: US 69 South from Beaumont to Port Arthur
Post by: Bobby5280 on July 06, 2017, 01:35:46 PM
Quote from: Anthony_JK
I've always wondered why it couldn't be a 3di I-x10, or, why the remaining segments couldn't be upgraded to freeway at least to SH 73.

The driveways along US-69 between Jimmy Johnson Blvd and TX-73 are pretty odd. I can only guess TX-DOT didn't built the frontage roads all the way to the TX-73 interchange due to the marshlands and deep ditches next to the highway.

As for the rest of the freeway up to I-10, none of it meets current Interstate standards. The inner left shoulder is all but non-existent along that highway. The outer right shoulders are deficient in many places. Some of the on-ramp of off-ramp geometry is short and questionable. It's a pretty old freeway. It would need a lot of serious renovation to be turned into a 3 digit Interstate. One could make a sales pitch for upgrades of the US-69 freeway and TX-73 in Port Arthur for the purpose of hurricane evacuation.
Title: Construction started on new US-69 - SH-73 intersection replacement
Post by: bwana39 on June 29, 2022, 11:29:24 AM
The New SH-73 / US-69 rebuild started construction this week. Replacing a very old set of cloverleafs with flyovers in a "Turbine" design.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/slow-down-70m-construction-project-at-cloverleaf-interchange-in-port-arthur-bringing-road-closures/ar-AAYY9rP?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=9fdd8e6de6154418956fa7ac2215f957

https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/beaumont/us-69-sh-73-interchange.html



Title: Re: US 69 South from Beaumont to Port Arthur
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on June 29, 2022, 11:43:11 AM
I've always wondered why it couldn't be a 3di I-x10, or, why the remaining segments couldn't be upgraded to freeway at least to SH 73.

Interstate 47 from Port Arthur to Tenaha using US-96's corridor so we can decommission it since it is out of place. 
Title: Re: US 69 South from Beaumont to Port Arthur
Post by: Anthony_JK on June 29, 2022, 01:30:44 PM
I've always wondered why it couldn't be a 3di I-x10, or, why the remaining segments couldn't be upgraded to freeway at least to SH 73.


Interstate 47 from Port Arthur to Tenaha using US-96's corridor so we can decommission it since it is out of place. 

Naaaah. Not needed.

Have they ever explained why there's no direct connection ramp from northbound US 69 to eastbound TX 73?
Also, it does look like they have removed the at-grades, or at least made one of them RIRO.
Title: Re: US 69 South from Beaumont to Port Arthur
Post by: rlb2024 on June 29, 2022, 02:41:00 PM
I've always wondered why it couldn't be a 3di I-x10, or, why the remaining segments couldn't be upgraded to freeway at least to SH 73.


Interstate 47 from Port Arthur to Tenaha using US-96's corridor so we can decommission it since it is out of place. 

Naaaah. Not needed.

Have they ever explained why there's no direct connection ramp from northbound US 69 to eastbound TX 73?
Also, it does look like they have removed the at-grades, or at least made one of them RIRO.

From the summary of the public meeting (this was the very first comment submitted):

For US 69 northbound traffic to access SH 73 eastbound, the US 69 northbound traffic would use the SH 73 westbound direct connector to the Groves/Savannah Avenue exit and make a turnaround through the intersection to travel east, and then enter SH 73 eastbound and proceed east toward Groves. Guide signs would be installed to inform drivers. The US 69 northbound to eastbound SH 73 direct connector was removed due to safety and operational issues. There is insufficient spacing with the downstream entrance from the southbound US 69 to eastbound SH 73 direct connector and the 9th Avenue exit ramp from eastbound SH 73. Existing traffic volume data shows that this ramp currently less than 150 vehicles per hour while the US 69 southbound to eastbound serves approximately 1800 vehicles per hour.
Title: Re: US 69 South from Beaumont to Port Arthur
Post by: The Ghostbuster on July 01, 2022, 01:34:45 PM
I always found the US 69/96/287 to be an unnecessary triplex. Does Port Arthur really need three US Highways serving it, when one would have sufficient. I would have prefered US 287 to have terminated in Woodville, and US 69 to have terminated in Lumberton, leaving US 96 as the sole route serving Port Arthur.
Title: Re: US 69 South from Beaumont to Port Arthur
Post by: bwana39 on July 01, 2022, 01:38:30 PM
I always found the US 69/96/287 to be an unnecessary triplex. Does Port Arthur really need three US Highways serving it, when one would have sufficient. I would have prefered US 287 to have terminated in Woodville, and US 69 to have terminated in Lumberton, leaving US 96 as the sole route serving Port Arthur.

I agree it is out of character in Texas for this triplex. Someone said it was left that way to help people plan hurricane evacuations. IE I am going to Tyler: I take US-69. I am going to DFW: I take 287. I am going to Texarkana or Shreveport: I take US-96.

Title: Re: US 69 South from Beaumont to Port Arthur
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on July 01, 2022, 04:27:09 PM
I always found the US 69/96/287 to be an unnecessary triplex. Does Port Arthur really need three US Highways serving it, when one would have sufficient. I would have prefered US 287 to have terminated in Woodville, and US 69 to have terminated in Lumberton, leaving US 96 as the sole route serving Port Arthur.

I agree it is out of character in Texas for this triplex. Someone said it was left that way to help people plan hurricane evacuations. IE I am going to Tyler: I take US-69. I am going to DFW: I take 287. I am going to Texarkana or Shreveport: I take US-96.

I never thought of that.  That's probably why US-77A and US-183 stay cosigned to Refugio as well. 
Title: Re: US 69 South from Beaumont to Port Arthur
Post by: Anthony_JK on July 01, 2022, 11:49:18 PM
I've always wondered why it couldn't be a 3di I-x10, or, why the remaining segments couldn't be upgraded to freeway at least to SH 73.


Interstate 47 from Port Arthur to Tenaha using US-96's corridor so we can decommission it since it is out of place. 

Naaaah. Not needed.

Have they ever explained why there's no direct connection ramp from northbound US 69 to eastbound TX 73?
Also, it does look like they have removed the at-grades, or at least made one of them RIRO.

From the summary of the public meeting (this was the very first comment submitted):

For US 69 northbound traffic to access SH 73 eastbound, the US 69 northbound traffic would use the SH 73 westbound direct connector to the Groves/Savannah Avenue exit and make a turnaround through the intersection to travel east, and then enter SH 73 eastbound and proceed east toward Groves. Guide signs would be installed to inform drivers. The US 69 northbound to eastbound SH 73 direct connector was removed due to safety and operational issues. There is insufficient spacing with the downstream entrance from the southbound US 69 to eastbound SH 73 direct connector and the 9th Avenue exit ramp from eastbound SH 73. Existing traffic volume data shows that this ramp currently less than 150 vehicles per hour while the US 69 southbound to eastbound serves approximately 1800 vehicles per hour.


OK, that makes sense, since traffic from Port Arthur going east on 73 towards Orange can use 9th Avenue.

Title: Re: US 69 South from Beaumont to Port Arthur
Post by: jgb191 on July 04, 2022, 02:07:15 AM
I always imagined that I-10 would eventually be split up between Stowell/Winnie and Orange.  The current I-10 through Beaumont would be renamed I-10N; and upgrading the current TX 73 through Pt. Arthur and renaming it I-10S.  Maybe that could be a possible consideration in the near or distant future?
Title: Re: US 69 South from Beaumont to Port Arthur
Post by: Bobby5280 on July 04, 2022, 01:10:26 PM
I think a good case can be made for upgrading the general TX-73 corridor from Winnie to Orange to Interstate quality limited access. But I don't think it's an important enough corridor to justify a I-10N/I-10S split. At best it could be another I-210 (a short drive from the one in Lake Charles). Even still, TX DOT doesn't seem to like applying Interstate shields to state highway corridors upgraded to Interstate quality.

TX-73 from Winnie to Port Arthur looks like it will eventually be upgraded to Interstate quality. An Interstate quality route from Port Arthur up to Orange would have to be built mostly on a new terrain path.
Title: Re: US 69 South from Beaumont to Port Arthur
Post by: rlb2024 on July 04, 2022, 02:37:17 PM
I think a good case can be made for upgrading the general TX-73 corridor from Winnie to Orange to Interstate quality limited access. But I don't think it's an important enough corridor to justify a I-10N/I-10S split. At best it could be another I-210 (a short drive from the one in Lake Charles). Even still, TX DOT doesn't seem to like applying Interstate shields to state highway corridors upgraded to Interstate quality.

TX-73 from Winnie to Port Arthur looks like it will eventually be upgraded to Interstate quality. An Interstate quality route from Port Arthur up to Orange would have to be built mostly on a new terrain path.
Having traveled the stretch of TX-73 east out of Winnie many times during my working career, I don't see the need to make it limited-access.  I haven't seen enough traffic on that route to justify the expense once you get east of Winnie.  It's currently 4-lane divided with 75-mph speed limit.

From Port Acres (on the west side of Port Arthur) all the way to Orange would be a nightmare to upgrade.  New high-rise bridges would be required over the mouth of the Neches River between Groves and Bridge City, then a bypass around Bridge City would be required.
Title: Re: US 69 South from Beaumont to Port Arthur
Post by: The Ghostbuster on July 04, 2022, 03:26:52 PM
I would prefer a hypothetical TX 73 Interstate upgrade to be numbered Interstate 210 (or Interstate 810) than to designate an Interstate 10N and an Interstate 10S (as if Texas designating an Interstate 69E/69C/69W wasn’t bad enough).