Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Grzrd]

I did not know AASHO was approving suffixed routes still.  I thought they were put on the ban list in the early 1980s, with strong pressure to remove all but the pair of 35E/W splits.

I seriously doubt that they will.  The only reason I included that as a possibility is that the federal legislation authorizing the I-69 Corridor speaks in terms of suffixes.  It may be possible that AASHTO would feel compelled to comply with the legislation (although I doubt it).  I'm primarily interested in which route will be the "main" I-69: US 59, 77, or 281.

[NE2]

Given that US 77 is already all four-lane, I'd expect it to be the main I-69.

[njroadhorse]

Given that US 77 is already all four-lane, I'd expect it to be the main I-69.

The Laredo routing makes more sense though. It's a bigger city that you're connecting to.

[NE2]

The Laredo routing makes more sense though. It's a bigger city that you're connecting to.

Not by much, and US 77 wins slightly when you add Harlingen. (Also note that, despite US 281 being another designated leg of I-69, US 77 easily serves McAllen etc.)

As for travel into the interior of Mexico, US 59 to Laredo does look like a better route; Houston to Monterrey is about 50 miles shorter via Laredo than via McAllen.

[Alps]

NJ Turnpike might consider applying for I-95W and I-95E for the Western and Eastern Spurs, though it's more to keep exit numbers aligned on both roadways versus restarting one at 0. (The Eastern Spur would likely become an x95, though the even ones are all taken in the area...)

[Anthony_JK]

I've always figured that US 59 through Laredo would be the main route for I-69, and the other routes would be suppementary I-x69 routes.

Personally, I'd rather that they get "Future I-69" shields or BGS's before they complete all of I-69...or they simply complete construction and just keep them as US routes until everything is done.


Anthony

[NE2]

NJ Turnpike might consider applying for I-95W and I-95E for the Western and Eastern Spurs, though it's more to keep exit numbers aligned on both roadways versus restarting one at 0. (The Eastern Spur would likely become an x95, though the even ones are all taken in the area...)

Why would they have to do that? I-276's exit numbers are measured from the state line on I-76.

[Alps]

NJ Turnpike might consider applying for I-95W and I-95E for the Western and Eastern Spurs, though it's more to keep exit numbers aligned on both roadways versus restarting one at 0. (The Eastern Spur would likely become an x95, though the even ones are all taken in the area...)

Why would they have to do that? I-276's exit numbers are measured from the state line on I-76.

I-276 is technically in violation, though. I don't know if PTC is going to fix that or be made to fix that now... I don't think they use Fed money so I have my doubts. (Same doubts I have about NJ Turnpike being forced to comply, but we'll find out)

[NE2]

Really, sometimes you just have to ignore the rules. However, I read 2009 MUTCD Section 2E.31 and I don't see anything requiring mileage to begin at 0, only that "interchanges shall be numbered in ascending order starting at the interchange where the spur leaves the mainline route". I-276 follows this, beginning with 326 where it leaves I-76.

[Alps]

Really, sometimes you just have to ignore the rules. However, I read 2009 MUTCD Section 2E.31 and I don't see anything requiring mileage to begin at 0, only that "interchanges shall be numbered in ascending order starting at the interchange where the spur leaves the mainline route". I-276 follows this, beginning with 326 where it leaves I-76.

Hmm... 2H.05 has some more rules about numbering, I have much easier access at work but I know numbers have to count up from south-north and west-east (sorry, I-180 PA). Exit numbers are based on mileposts, so it's up to whether there's a rule about mileposts starting at 0...

[NE2]

Niiiiiice - it's should, not shall. "Zero distance should begin at the south and west State lines, or at the south and west terminus points where routes begin within a State." Arizona would have been screwed otherwise.

[Alps]

Niiiiiice - it's should, not shall. "Zero distance should begin at the south and west State lines, or at the south and west terminus points where routes begin within a State." Arizona would have been screwed otherwise.

Interesting. I wonder if they had a hand in it?

[akotchi]

Thankfully, it is a "should" condition -- ticket-system toll roads carrying different routes over various parts of their lengths would have trouble resolving this issue if it were "shall," mainly because of confusion of exit numbers.  Extensions within the ticket system are even more problematic, though Pa's works with I-476 mileposts because 31 - 131 on there is nowhere near 30 - 131 on the east-west (I-76) portion.

[Grzrd]

Given that US 77 is already all four-lane, I'd expect it to be the main I-69.

This article also indicates that the Corpus Christi to Brownsville stretch of US 77 is only $160 million away from being completely upgraded to interstate quality:
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/interstate-129742-closer-push.html

... County Administrator Pete Sepulveda said that, of the 123-mile section of road between Corpus Christi and Brownsville, about 24 miles are up to interstate standards, though work is under way to bring the remainder up to snuff.
A 1.8-mile section of U.S. Expressway 77 at Robstown, part of the greater Corpus Christi metro area, has been upgraded and in-cludes an overpass at FM 892. The project cost $20 million. The Texas Department of Transportation recently began soliciting bids for construction of a 3.3-mile section of U.S. Expressway 77 between Lyford and Sebastian. The cost of the project, which will also include a new overpass, is estimated at $30.4 million.
TxDOT in early 2012 will open bids for improvements to U.S. Expressway 77 in the Kingsville area. Initial plans called for up-grades, including overpasses, at Driscoll and Riviera to be paid for with private money, which would make it necessary for tolls to be charged along those sections. Sepulveda hopes federal and/or state funding can be found to make private money — and tolls — unnecessary. Ground has not yet been broken on those projects.
Sepulveda, who’s also coordinator for the Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority, said local officials have been meeting with political leaders in counties north of Cameron County, and working with the TxDOT district engineer in Corpus Christi, to identify funding sources to finish upgrading the remaining miles. Sepulveda said the Corpus Christi-to-Brownsville stretch is about $160 million away from being completely upgraded to interstate quality. Being so close money-wise makes it much easier to get taken seriously in Austin and Washington, he said, when it comes to asking for funding. Upgrading all 123 miles will end up costing somewhere in the neighborhood of $300,000,000 Sepulveda said, adding that “it’s very doable” to secure all the necessary funding within two years. The various projects are being funded with a combination of local, state and federal dollars.
Of all the Valley’s transportation needs, being connected to interstate-quality road is the most important factor in terms of eco-nomic development, growing the tax base and industrial base, and creating jobs, he said.
“At the end of day our goal is to create jobs,” Sepulveda said.

[Grzrd]

Given that US 77 is already all four-lane, I'd expect it to be the main I-69.

Draft agenda for Aug. 25 meeting of Texas Transportation Commission indicates that they will petition AASHTO to designate the above-mentioned section of US 77 as Interstate 69 [page 5/9 of pdf]:
http://www.txdot.gov/about_us/commission/2011_meetings/documents/agendas/aug25.pdf

10. Highway Designation
Nueces County – Authorize submission of an application to the American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) to designate a segment of US 77
from I-37 in Corpus Christi to SH 44 in Robstown as Interstate 69 (MO)
In accordance with the processes established by the Federal Highway Administration and AASHTO, this
minute order authorizes the department to petition AASHTO to include a 6.2-mile segment of US 77 from
I-37 in Corpus Christi to SH 44 in Robstown as part of the Interstate Highway System as I-69. A technical
report prepared by the department, which evaluated the existing design features and operational
conditions of the route, found that in addition to being part of the High Priority Corridor 18 System, this
segment of US 77 also meets current interstate system design standards and connects to an existing
interstate system segment via a fully directional interchange with 1-37, thus establishing its eligibility for
the designation.

[Anthony_JK]

Given that US 77 is already all four-lane, I'd expect it to be the main I-69.

Draft agenda for Aug. 25 meeting of Texas Transportation Commission indicates that they will petition AASHTO to designate the above-mentioned section of US 77 as Interstate 69 [page 5/9 of pdf]:
http://www.txdot.gov/about_us/commission/2011_meetings/documents/agendas/aug25.pdf

"10. Highway Designation
Nueces County – Authorize submission of an application to the American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) to designate a segment of US 77
from I-37 in Corpus Christi to SH 44 in Robstown as Interstate 69 (MO)
In accordance with the processes established by the Federal Highway Administration and AASHTO, this
minute order authorizes the department to petition AASHTO to include a 6.2-mile segment of US 77 from
I-37 in Corpus Christi to SH 44 in Robstown as part of the Interstate Highway System as I-69. A technical
report prepared by the department, which evaluated the existing design features and operational
conditions of the route, found that in addition to being part of the High Priority Corridor 18 System, this
segment of US 77 also meets current interstate system design standards and connects to an existing
interstate system segment via a fully directional interchange with 1-37, thus establishing its eligibility for
the designation."

I understand that...but again, isn't the Laredo to Houston segment of US 59 scheduled to be designated as the main route of I-69 upon completion of the upgrade to Interstate standards??

Also...isn't there some controversy over upgrading US 77 in Refugio, where some folk have expressed opposition to a freeway upgrade there??

I'm not opposed to giving  US 77 Interstate mileage...but either an extended I-37 or an I-x37 would be more appropriate. Even a suffixed I-69E would be more appropriate while the other segments are being built. (YUCK!!! I hate suffixed routes...I-35W/E excepted.)


Anthony

[Grzrd]

isn't the Laredo to Houston segment of US 59 scheduled to be designated as the main route of I-69 upon completion of the upgrade to Interstate standards??
Anthony

The ISTEA legisalation does indicate that Laredo to Houston is mainline I-69, but it looks like a combination of US 77 being a faster upgrade and overall population growth in Rio Grande Valley may have changed some minds.  OTOH it is anticipated that there will be I-69 signs going through Houston by next summer: http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update8.12.11.html

US 59 IN HOUSTON AREA
TxDOT is also in the process of requesting that the Federal Highway Administration approve adding completed sections of US 59 in the Houston metropolitan area to the Interstate Highway System as I-69.
The Eastex Freeway (US 59) is at interstate highway standard with full controlled access from downtown Houston to near Splendora in Montgomery County, a total of 38 miles. The Southwest Freeway (US 59) is at interstate standard from downtown Houston to Rosenberg, a total of 35 miles. These I-69 route sections connect to the existing Interstate System at I-10, I-45 and I-610.
Barton said the section north of Loop 610 has already been submitted to FHWA for review and that the highway through Houston and south to Rosenberg should be ready ready in the next two months. TxDOT has been coordinating the effort with FHWA and he expects quick action. These sections are likely to go to the AASHTO route numbering committee for approval at their semi-annual meeting next May. He expects signs to be up by next summer.
He said that getting the first sections added to the Interstate System and signed is an important milestone that marks the beginning of an era when Texas will focus on filling in the I-69 gaps rather than talking about a large corridor that is yet to be started.

[Sykotyk]

Population growth is one thing, but Laredo transfers the bulk of international truck traffic between Texas and Mexico. It would make more sense for the Mexico to eastern U.S. points is best served by one continuous route.

[Grzrd]

Population growth is one thing, but Laredo transfers the bulk of international truck traffic between Texas and Mexico. It would make more sense for the Mexico to eastern U.S. points is best served by one continuous route.

I asked I-69 Alliance about the "mainline" issue, and reply indicates that there will be some uncertainty for a while:

US 77 will still carry the I-69 name.  East and Central were added to eliminate driver confusion about different roadways to the border being labeled I-69.  The fact that US 77 will be signed first does not indicate a decision about the "mainline", but rather a reflection of the fact that upgrades to bring a portion of US 77 to interstate standards have been completed faster than work on US 59 to Laredo.  We do expect FHWA to approve signing of US 59 through the Houston as I-69 early next year.
Thank you for your interest.

Jennifer Shepard
Executive Director
Alliance for I-69 Texas
Phone/Fax 703-580-4416
Jennifer@jgshepard.com

[Sykotyk]

Yeah, the stretch from Laredo to Victoria will require a lot of work. ROW, four-laning, bypasses, etc. US77 just needs some overpasses, frontage or mainlines, etc and it's essentially done. I do believe a few small bypasses are needed. But nowhere near the extent of US59. Especially Beeville, Freer, etc.

[Grzrd]

Population growth is one thing, but Laredo transfers the bulk of international truck traffic between Texas and Mexico. It would make more sense for the Mexico to eastern U.S. points is best served by one continuous route.

I asked I-69 Alliance about the "mainline" issue, and reply indicates that there will be some uncertainty for a while:
"US 77 will still carry the I-69 name.  East and Central were added to eliminate driver confusion about different roadways to the border being labeled I-69.  The fact that US 77 will be signed first does not indicate a decision about the "mainline", but rather a reflection of the fact that upgrades to bring a portion of US 77 to interstate standards have been completed faster than work on US 59 to Laredo.  We do expect FHWA to approve signing of US 59 through the Houston as I-69 early next year.
Alliance for I-69 Texas

Here is a link to the Transcript of the August 25 meeting of the Texas Transportation Commission in which they authorized submission of an application to AASHTO for approval of the I-69 designation for the US 77 segment:
http://www.txdot.gov/about_us/commission/2011_meetings/documents/transcripts/aug25.pdf

On pages 94/124 and 102/124 of the pdf, one of the comissioners wants to know if AASHTO's involvement is even necessary, given that the FHWA has signed off on the section meeting interstate standards and that the I-69 designation is written into the federal statute.  He really does not get a direct answer, but reading between the lines, I suspect the Commission wants AASHTO to "legitimize" the I-69 designation for the US 77 segment, even though that designation would not be in technical compliance with the statute referring to it as "I-69 East".

I wonder if AASHTO will consider the I-69 designation as possibly being temporary?

[Anthony_JK]

I'd still think that AASHTO would still have a huge issue with signing segments as I-69 when they don't even connect with each other, let alone with existing I-69. At least when the sections in Indiana are complete, they would have some sembulance of connection with existing I-69.

Then again, the politicians can simply ignore AASHTO's objections and go rogue on their own, as Mississippi did with the Tunica segment of I-69. Or, as Bud Shuster did with I-99.


Anthony

[Grzrd]

"Future I-69 Corridor" signs will soon be placed in five more counties along US 59:
http://lufkindailynews.com/news/local/article_3cd683f8-eef4-11e0-ab73-001cc4c03286.html

The I-69 corridor, a proposed national interstate highway extending from Michigan through Lufkin and East Texas to the Mexican border, will take a visible step toward reality this week.
The Federal Highway Administration recently granted approval for the Texas Department of Transportation to erect 14 “Future I-69 Corridor” signs along U.S. 59 in TxDOT’s Lufkin District, which includes Angelina, Nacogdoches, Polk, San Jacinto and Shelby counties.
According to a TxDOT-issued statement, the signs are intended to inform the traveling public that U.S. 59 in Texas is federally designated to become a future part of I-69 when it meets Interstate design standards.
Lufkin Mayor Jack Gorden, who serves as a member on the executive committee of the Alliance for I-69 Texas, said that the project has made some significant steps in the last two years.
“It doesn’t mean it’s going to be built tomorrow, but good things have happened,” Gorden said. “This signage issue is something that we came up a couple of years ago.”
TxDOT has previously erected “Future I-69 Corridor” signs along other segments of U.S 59, U.S. 77, and U.S. 281, which are also federally designated to become part of the future national I-69 system, according to the statement, and with this approval, TxDOT can move forward to install future Interstate signs along U.S. 59 in these five counties. The signs are expected to be installed by Friday ...

[OCGuy81]

Great post, and a lot of information to read over! Thanks.

What is the plan to connect the portions of I-69 in Texas to the already signed portions of I-69 (specifically the segment south of Memphis in Mississippi, which I've seen signed)?  Will 69 follow 59 all the way to Texarkana, have a concurrent segment with 30 and 40 in Arkansas and then split off and connect to the I-69/MS 304 segment in Mississippi?

North of that, I guess US 51 through Tennessee and Purchase Pkwy in Kentucky?  I'm just trying to determine a rout off Google maps.

[Grzrd]

What is the plan to connect the portions of I-69 in Texas to the already signed portions of I-69 (specifically the segment south of Memphis in Mississippi, which I've seen signed)?  Will 69 follow 59 all the way to Texarkana, have a concurrent segment with 30 and 40 in Arkansas and then split off and connect to the I-69/MS 304 segment in Mississippi?

For Texas, go to this link http://www.txdot.gov/public_involvement/committees/i69/default.htm and the Interim Update Reports for the 5 Segment Committees all have maps.  In Segment 1, the portion of the I-69 Corridor from Tenaha to Texarkana is commonly referred to as an "I-69 Spur" and may eventually link to Future I-49 in Texas to the northwest of Texarkana.

I'm a little lazy today & cannot provide other links, but check out
Mid-South "I-69 in LA ..." thread: first paragraph of my April 27, 2011 post has links to two maps through Louisiana & my Sept. 15, 2011 post discusses current status of section from US 171 in LA to TX state line.
Mid-South "I-69 in AR" thread: my May 8, 2011 and May 15, 2011 posts have links to maps through Arkansas.
Southeastern "I-69 in MS" thread: my June 8, 2011 post has links to a map of SIU 11 through Mississippi as well as SIU 9 through and around metro Memphis.

North of that, I guess US 51 through Tennessee and Purchase Pkwy in Kentucky?  I'm just trying to determine a rout off Google maps.

This link will lead you to maps of the SIUs in Tennessee:
http://www.tdot.state.tn.us/i69/projectsegments.htm

In the Ohio Valley "I-69 in KY" thread, my September 1, 2011 post pastes sections of an article that describes the route through Kentucky along the parkways.

EDIT

Mid-South "I-69 in AR" thread: my October 9, 2011 post has a map of the I-69 Connector from the I-530 interchange in Pine Bluff to US 278 near Wilmar.