The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

US 69 (US 287) north of Beaumont freeway upgrade

Started by MaxConcrete, April 02, 2024, 09:57:36 PM

Previous topic - Next topic


A public meeting today revealed the recommended alignment for the freeway upgrade for 23 miles north of Beaumont, from south of Lumberton to north of Kountze.

The main news is that the recommended alignment is not among the multiple options that were considered in the route selection phase, although parts of the recommended alignment follow the path of original options.
Per the presentation: "Based on public input received during the May 2023 public meetings, TxDOT has eliminated the previous alternatives from further study and has developed a revised recommended alternative for public review and input."
You can see all the alignments in this map.

The good news is that the alignment is now very straight, since it follows a high voltage corridor. Yay!

Other observations
  • The recommended alignment is entirely on new right-of-way.
  • The right-of-way is a minimum of 345 feet wide, and is wider on some sections.
  • The schematics show frontage lanes for the entire length, even though there is no need for access along the corridor. I'm thinking the frontage roads would be built after the main lanes.
  • The schematics show some long bridges, mostly over Boggy Creek which meanders along the right-of-way. This will be expensive, and is probably why the recommended alternative was not in the original options.
  • The cross section shows a 78-foot-wide median
  • The presentation says construction could begin in 2032.



Today TxDOT had a public meeting for the next section of US 69 going north, a 25-mile section from Warren to Colmesneil which includes US 287 on the south half.

In October 2023 TxDOT presented 4 options for the alignment.
A: diverts far to the west
B: Looked like the best alignment with minimal impacts
C: Looked like a good candidate
D: The most eastward alignment which generally follows an abandoned railroad alignment (which is barely visible in Google satellite view)

In today's meeting it was revealed (new map)
A: Remains in consideration with a modification on the south end to move it further west. Length is 28.1 miles.
B: Eliminated. The reason is unclear - maybe impacts to the Boy Scout property was a fatal flaw.
C: Eliminated
D: Remains in consideration with modifications. The modifications are mostly beneficial from the design perspective, removing some excessive curving and avoiding floodplains. Length is 26.6 miles.

There's no obvious answer for the recommended alternative. Option D is closer to Woodville. I'm thinking that if Woodville wants the freeway nearby for convenience, D will be selected. If they don't want it nearby, A will be selected.

Other observations
  • The cross section shows a 400-foot-wide (122m) corridor
  • The cross section shows 4 main lanes having a 96-foot-wide median, and two-lane frontage roads in each direction. I did not review the schematics to see if the frontage roads are continuous.
  • Page 10 compares options A and D. Option D has more displacements (113 vs 43). Option A, which is entirely greenfield, requires 1612 acres, while option D requires 1195 acres.
  • Estimated cost is $703 million for option A and $665 million for option D.
  • Earliest possible start of construction is 2030


Quote from: splashflash on April 02, 2024, 10:44:12 PMUS 69 or 96?

I believe they are both concurrent (along with US-287) from Pt. Arthur to Lumberton (running through Beaumont).  Then they split up somewhere near Lumberton.  North of there, US-69 continues to Tyler and US-96 goes to either Longview or Marshall.
We're so far south that we're not even considered "The South"


I wonder if this could ultimately lead to something like a "I-114" number being assigned to the route -assuming the I-14 parent route gets built to the Louisiana border.

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.