I-69 in TX

[J N Winkler]

(edit) I-2 has more than a mile missing between sheets 31 and 32 (files 39 and 40).

I am not sure what is going on there, since that is in the general vicinity of Exits 138-141 and Exit 138 is signed for Shary Rd. (FM 494), Bentsen Rd., and Taylor Rd., which is a sequence of crossroads that covers about one mile along I-2.

In regard to the self-extracting ZIP issue, there are apparently Linux archive managers that can decompress them despite the OS not being able to run the Windows executable part of the payload.

Edit:  I have looked at the Wikipedia articles with the updated exit numbers.  This is not something that needs attention urgently, but at some point it would be a good idea to update the citations to make explicit the county and CCSJ (Hidalgo 6273-50-001) for this project, since the link provided will go dead in about five months and anyone who wants to go back to the source will have to request the plans from TxDOT.  Plans stay on the Plans Online FTP server for six months maximum (not something I agree with or particularly like but, again, part of the way TxDOT has been doing things since long before 2002).

[Grzrd]

The Alliance for I-69 Texas recently posted a Status of National I-69 System map that shows a section of I-69C heading directly south from the I-2 interchange to the Mexican border as "Potential I-69" ...
I emailed TxDOT and they basically explained that their interpretation of the statute is reflected in the map, but that they have no plans for that section:

The "Proposed I-69"  sections on that map show the Congressionally Designated I-69 route.  The I-69C route extends to the border under this designation, but at this time TxDOT doesn't have any plans to extend I-69C south of I-2.

I thought I'd mention that TxDOT has scheduled a maintenance contract for the February 2015 letting that calls for updating and replacement of signs on I-2, I-69C, and I-69E (495 total sheets, of which 54 are sign panel detail sheets):
ftp://planuser:txdotplans@plans.dot.state.tx.us/State-Let-Maintenance/February%2015/02%20Plans/Hidalgo%206273-50-001.exe
Caution!  Filesize is 1.7 GB

On I-2, Showers Road is Exit 130 ....
On I-69C, the I-2 interchange is Exits 1A-B

exit numbers now added to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_2#Exit_list
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_69C#Exit_list
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_69E#Exit_list

T/h to both J N Winkler and NE2 in regard to the exit numbers.  It is interesting to compare I-2's theoretical future western terminus in Laredo (which results in the Exit 130 designation for Showers Road, etc.) to I-69C's lack of a theoretical future southern terminus at the border (which results in the Exits 1A-B designations at the I-2 interchange).  Such a southern extension for I-69C must truly not even be on TxDOT's long-range radar.

[yakra]

I'm too lazy to check upthread ATM. Any knowledge on when these will be posted?

[J N Winkler]

I'm too lazy to check upthread ATM. Any knowledge on when these will be posted?

This job is scheduled for the February letting.  Allow one month for contract award and two months for issuance of notice to proceed, and the contractor should start deploying around May.  It's hard to say how long after that it would take for the signs actually to appear on the roads--I am not familiar enough with TxDOT's prosecution-and-progress clauses to know what latitude the contractor has in this regard.

I know we have at least one member of this forum who is based in the Brownsville/Harlingen/McAllen area.  I'd expect to hear reports of newly installed signs by this time next year.

[yakra]

[poo] exit numbers now added to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_2#Exit_list
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_69C#Exit_list
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_69E#Exit_list

I-69E Exit 11:
OSM suggests there a relocation of FM 803 planned or under construction, but nothing is visible yet in Bing or Google aerial imagery. FM 803's designation file lists still describes the southern terminus as Olmito. BGSes shown in GMSV just say "Ramcho Viejo". Looks like listing FM 803 for this exit is premature, and FM 803 should be removed from the description. Yes?

[NE2]

I-69E Exit 11:
OSM suggests there a relocation of FM 803 planned or under construction, but nothing is visible yet in Bing or Google aerial imagery. FM 803's designation file lists still describes the southern terminus as Olmito. BGSes shown in GMSV just say "Ramcho Viejo". Looks like listing FM 803 for this exit is premature, and FM 803 should be removed from the description. Yes?

The plans show FM 803 shields on the replacement signs. Perhaps they'll be greened out.

Edit:  I have looked at the Wikipedia articles with the updated exit numbers.  This is not something that needs attention urgently, but at some point it would be a good idea to update the citations to make explicit the county and CCSJ (Hidalgo 6273-50-001) for this project, since the link provided will go dead in about five months and anyone who wants to go back to the source will have to request the plans from TxDOT.  Plans stay on the Plans Online FTP server for six months maximum (not something I agree with or particularly like but, again, part of the way TxDOT has been doing things since long before 2002).

By that time they'll be signed, and nobody really seems to care about referencing the exit numbers. I only added the reference because otherwise people might think I made them up.

It is interesting to compare I-2's theoretical future western terminus in Laredo (which results in the Exit 130 designation for Showers Road, etc.) to I-69C's lack of a theoretical future southern terminus at the border (which results in the Exits 1A-B designations at the I-2 interchange).  Such a southern extension for I-69C must truly not even be on TxDOT's long-range radar.

Perhaps they expect that to be a spur of I-2, since a continuation straight down US 281 would phuck up Pharr. FM 396 looks like it's already planned as a freeway to the Anzalduas Bridge.

[lordsutch]

A Windows executable? Tacky.

Since Linux's command line unzip will unzip it, I think it's just a self-extracting ZIP file.

[yakra]

Curious as to why, on I-69C, the exit numbers for FM 162 and FM 490 were omitted.
IIRC I-69C's northward extension to FM 490 is AASHTO and TTC-approved, if possibly not open to traffic & signed yet.
The alignment and mileage are pretty much set in stone. Why no exit numbers?

[OCGuy81]

Curious if it's been posted already, but any idea what the highest exit number on mainline 69 will be?  In the 500s?

[roadman65]

First of all where is the zero going to be on I-69C or I-69W?  That would help more as the W alignment is much shorter.

[Grzrd]

Curious if it's been posted already, but any idea what the highest exit number on mainline 69 will be?  In the 500s?

Since mile zero for mainline I-69 will be in Victoria, I assume that there will be an exit number east of Joaquin somewhere in the neighborhood of 315.

[OCGuy81]

Thanks, Grzrd.  For some reason, I thought there were more miles at play in TX, but I guess having 69 essentially end in Victoria truncates a lot of those.

If 69 ran to the Mexican border, that might make it one of the longer interstates in TX (though still lacking well behind I-10 I imagine)

[ethanhopkin14]

Thanks, Grzrd.  For some reason, I thought there were more miles at play in TX, but I guess having 69 essentially end in Victoria truncates a lot of those.

If 69 ran to the Mexican border, that might make it one of the longer interstates in TX (though still lacking well behind I-10 I imagine)

Per the AASHTOs, when you are in a suffixed interstate situation, and they are labled as E and W, the E branch gets the mainline milage. The zero milepost will not be in Victoria. 

[bassoon1986]

But is it a different situation since the E and W don't reconnect to a mainline ala DFW or Minneapolis/St Paul? 69 doesn't reconnect on the south ends of those legs

[NE2]

Per the AASHTOs, when you are in a suffixed interstate situation, and they are labled as E and W, the E branch gets the mainline milage.

[citation needed]
You can't generalize from two special cases.

[Grzrd]

mile zero for mainline I-69 will be in Victoria

The zero milepost will not be in Victoria.

To help put TxDOT's I-69 email answer to me in context, here is a Q & A I had with TxDOT re I-2's "mile zero":

Q:
It is my understanding that mileage for east-west interstates begins at the western terminus in the state. Regarding Interstate 2, I cannot imagine it going all of the way to New Mexico.
Does TxDOT intend to keep the current US 83 mileage markers, or do you intend to install mileage markers based on the mileage on Interstate 2?  If Interstate 2, where would be the location of "mile zero"?
A:
Yes, interstate mileage markers for east and west interstates begin with 0 at the western end and build eastward. For I-2, there is the possibility of carrying it along US 83 up to Laredo, but very long term. Therefore, the "0"  mile marker for I-2 begins at the intersection of I-35 and US 83 in Laredo. The mile marker for where I-2 begins on the western end west of Mission is Mile Marker 131. The actual mile marker may not be present. As resources are made available, these will be installed.

I then later asked the same individual about "mile zero" for I-69:

Recently, you were kind enough to inform me that the I-35/US 83 interchange in Laredo will be "Mile Zero" for Interstate 2.  Similarly, where will "Mile Zero" be located for I-69: Laredo, McAllen, Brownsville, or Victoria?

Here is the complete TxDOT answer:

Yes, mile zero will be in all four of those cities because of I-69 plus the three additional legs.  This is where mile zero will be for the various legs of the I-69 Texas system:
I-69W in Laredo: Just east of the World Trade Bridge
I-69C in McAllen: Intersection of I-2/US 83
I-69E in Brownsville: Intersection of University Blvd/US 77, just north of the Veterans International Bridge
I-69 in Victoria: Intersection of US 59 and US 77

There is always the possibility that the TxDOT rep misunderstood my question in terms of what I meant by "mile zero".  Maybe FHWA will approve I-69's "inside I-610" segment in the near future and TxDOT will then install some mileage markers in Houston to provide a final answer. We can only hope.

[TXtoNJ]

There is a mile marker for mile 514 on the trenched section of the Southwest Freeway in Houston, but that's probably a state reference number, given that none of the potential mile zeroes are 514 miles away.

[NE2]

There is a mile marker for mile 514 on the trenched section of the Southwest Freeway in Houston, but that's probably a state reference number, given that none of the potential mile zeroes are 514 miles away.

That's how Texas does mile markers: north to south, with the start defined based on lat/long. For US 59, there are actually a few exit numbers posted in Shepherd, Livingston, and Lufkin that use this mileage.

[ethanhopkin14]

mile zero for mainline I-69 will be in Victoria

The zero milepost will not be in Victoria.

To help put TxDOT's I-69 email answer to me in context, here is a Q & A I had with TxDOT re I-2's "mile zero":

Q:
It is my understanding that mileage for east-west interstates begins at the western terminus in the state. Regarding Interstate 2, I cannot imagine it going all of the way to New Mexico.
Does TxDOT intend to keep the current US 83 mileage markers, or do you intend to install mileage markers based on the mileage on Interstate 2?  If Interstate 2, where would be the location of "mile zero"?
A:
Yes, interstate mileage markers for east and west interstates begin with 0 at the western end and build eastward. For I-2, there is the possibility of carrying it along US 83 up to Laredo, but very long term. Therefore, the "0"  mile marker for I-2 begins at the intersection of I-35 and US 83 in Laredo. The mile marker for where I-2 begins on the western end west of Mission is Mile Marker 131. The actual mile marker may not be present. As resources are made available, these will be installed.

I then later asked the same individual about "mile zero" for I-69:

Recently, you were kind enough to inform me that the I-35/US 83 interchange in Laredo will be "Mile Zero" for Interstate 2.  Similarly, where will "Mile Zero" be located for I-69: Laredo, McAllen, Brownsville, or Victoria?

Here is the complete TxDOT answer:

Yes, mile zero will be in all four of those cities because of I-69 plus the three additional legs.  This is where mile zero will be for the various legs of the I-69 Texas system:
I-69W in Laredo: Just east of the World Trade Bridge
I-69C in McAllen: Intersection of I-2/US 83
I-69E in Brownsville: Intersection of University Blvd/US 77, just north of the Veterans International Bridge
I-69 in Victoria: Intersection of US 59 and US 77

There is always the possibility that the TxDOT rep misunderstood my question in terms of what I meant by "mile zero".  Maybe FHWA will approve I-69's "inside I-610" segment in the near future and TxDOT will then install some mileage markers in Houston to provide a final answer. We can only hope.

Well crap, I was hoping the zero milepost would not be in Victoria I should have said.  I don't like that at all.

[MikeSantNY78]

But is it a different situation since the E and W don't reconnect to a mainline ala DFW or Minneapolis/St Paul? 69 doesn't reconnect on the south ends of those legs

I had presumed (before checking the maps) that in each case (DFW, MSP) the larger city (in population) would get the mainline mile exits: but Minneapolis (on I-35W, separate #) is larger than St. Paul (I-35E, continued #) (roughly 400K-294K).  But since, as stated by Grzrd, that I-69's (non-suffixed leg) zero milepost WILL BE IN VICTORIA, that led me to the idea of (previously posted) of prefixed mileposts for the legs (not without precedent: the section legs that branched off of the NYS Thruway mainline had similar designations: N - Niagara, NE - New England, B - Berkshire)...

[vtk]

I thought the I-35Es carried the mainline mileage because each is longer than its W counterpart.

[Bobby5280]

Regarding any possible extension of I-69C to the Mexico border, via the FM-396 freeway spur off I-2, such an extension would be pretty odd. I-69C would have to be multiplexed along I-2 for more than 8 miles to get to FM-396. And then the FM-396 freeway itself is only about 4 miles long. Basically any chance I-69C had of reaching the border ended long ago when development grew too dense along US-281 South of the I-2 interchange and current I-69C terminus.

If FM-396 is ever going to carry an Interstate designation it's more likely it would be "I-102" or maybe even "I-202."

With all the population growth taking place in the far South end of Texas it's pretty obvious TX-DOT really needs to start thinking about the long term possibility of building a South loop relief highway for I-2. Border towns like Grajeno, Hidalgo, Progreso and others along US-281 are probably going to grow.

There is already a couple or so limited access interchanges along TX-241 in Hidalgo and US-281 farther East.

[lordsutch]

With all the population growth taking place in the far South end of Texas it's pretty obvious TX-DOT really needs to start thinking about the long term possibility of building a South loop relief highway for I-2. Border towns like Grajeno, Hidalgo, Progreso and others along US-281 are probably going to grow.

There is already a couple or so limited access interchanges along TX-241 in Hidalgo and US-281 farther East.

Here you go: http://www.hcrma.net/sh365.html

[Bobby5280]

Thanks! I guess that answers that question. Seems like a "I-202" type of thing to me.

[Bickendan]

I thought the I-35Es carried the mainline mileage because each is longer than its W counterpart.

MN's 35W longer than 35E by about 2 miles.