I-69 in TX

[ethanhopkin14]

I drove the section of US-77 from Odem to I-37.  Yes, that needs a bypass as soon as possible.  There is way too much traffic going though that town.  I also drove I-69E in Calallen.  Sign mounted posts have now been converted from I-69 to I-69E shields.

[ethanhopkin14]

I also found this comical.

[sprjus4]

I drove the section of US-77 from Odem to I-37.  Yes, that needs a bypass as soon as possible.  There is way too much traffic going though that town.  I also drove I-69E in Calallen.  Sign mounted posts have now been converted from I-69 to I-69E shields.

I wouldn't say the portion southwest of Odem to I-37 needs to be bypassed. Ultimately, the whole highway should be upgraded to controlled access freeway with frontage roads, however in the short term, a bypass around Odem to either the north or south needs to be built (tying into the existing US-77 between I-37 and just south of Odem) both to allow uninterrupted flow around the town, and also to provide a grade separation of the two railroad lines that pass through.

Additionally, Refugio needs to have that eastern bypass finally built, along with an interchange near Woodsboro.

[roadman65]

https://goo.gl/maps/2XGjbe6LH5SZRwdo7
https://goo.gl/maps/PoM3cYAMW3ri6W5N6
Why are thereI-69 shields here instead of I-69E? One error is normal but in multiple places is not coincidence.

[Rothman]

https://goo.gl/maps/2XGjbe6LH5SZRwdo7
https://goo.gl/maps/PoM3cYAMW3ri6W5N6
Why are thereI-69 shields here instead of I-69E? One error is normal but in multiple places is not coincidence.

Because a whole lot of people don't care enough about the "E" as much as roadgeeks do.

[ethanhopkin14]

https://goo.gl/maps/2XGjbe6LH5SZRwdo7
https://goo.gl/maps/PoM3cYAMW3ri6W5N6
Why are thereI-69 shields here instead of I-69E? One error is normal but in multiple places is not coincidence.

Because this segment of I-69E was originally signed I-69 until Texas came back and decided the I-69E/69W/69C/69X/69A/69B ridiculousness needed to be done.  It's just taken them a long time to replace the I-69 shields with I-69E shields.

I think I-69E will be complete from I-37 to the border and there will still be I-69 shields along it's course.

[triplemultiplex]

I think I-69E will be complete from I-37 to the border and there will still be I-69 shields along it's course.

I'd be fine with that since in my mind, that's the "legitimate" branch in South Texas.

[TheBox]

Looking back, Texas (who has massive balls) as well as Indiana, Kentucky, and to an lesser extent Tennessee done most of the work this past decade (or so) as far the idea of a I-69 extension concerned

Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississipi forgot they're even involved here, that or they have other plans (if any)

[sprjus4]

Looking back, Texas (who has massive balls) as well as Indiana, Kentucky, and to an lesser extent Tennessee done most of the work this past decade (or so) as far the idea of a I-69 extension concerned

Tennessee has really done nothing, except a Union City bypass that has been under construction for over a decade.

Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississipi forgot they're even involved here, that or they have other plans (if any)

They didn't forget, they just don't have funding.

[Some one]

Looking back, Texas (who has massive balls) as well as Indiana, Kentucky, and to an lesser extent Tennessee done most of the work this past decade (or so) as far the idea of a I-69 extension concerned

Tennessee has really done nothing, except a Union City bypass that has been under construction for over a decade.

Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississipi forgot they're even involved here, that or they have other plans (if any)

They didn't forget, they just don't have funding.

And other priorities.

[TheBox]

Looking back, Texas (who has massive balls) as well as Indiana, Kentucky, and to an lesser extent Tennessee done most of the work this past decade (or so) as far the idea of a I-69 extension concerned

Tennessee has really done nothing, except a Union City bypass that has been under construction for over a decade.

Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississipi forgot they're even involved here, that or they have other plans (if any)

They didn't forget, they just don't have funding.

And other priorities.

TN did also bothered with the I-269 outer loop in Memphis.............and that's where their progress ends

also, is the Union City Bypass cancelled in the middle of development hell? or just expensive AF?

[Bobby5280]

I'd be fine with that since in my mind, that's the "legitimate" branch in South Texas.

IMHO, I-37 should have been extended down that route to Brownsville. As for I-69, with it being a so-called "NAFTA Corridor," plain I-69 should have gone to Laredo. That's the most busy inland port in the US. As for US-281, it could have just stayed as US-281 even if it was upgraded fully to Interstate standards. That kind of model seems to work elsewhere in Texas (numerous freeways and/or toll roads signed as state highways or US highways).

[Rick Powell]

also, is the Union City Bypass cancelled in the middle of development hell? or just expensive AF?

Should be open end of this year according to this TDOT spokesperson:
https://www.wbbjtv.com/2023/02/15/update-given-on-new-interstate-69-in-west-tennessee/

[ethanhopkin14]

Looking back, Texas (who has massive balls) as well as Indiana, Kentucky, and to an lesser extent Tennessee done most of the work this past decade (or so) as far the idea of a I-69 extension concerned

Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississipi forgot they're even involved here, that or they have other plans (if any)

Mississippi did sign that one segment south of Memphis.  It was actually one of the first newly constructed segments of I-69 to be signed. 

[GreenLanternCorps]

also, is the Union City Bypass cancelled in the middle of development hell? or just expensive AF?

Should be open end of this year according to this TDOT spokesperson:
https://www.wbbjtv.com/2023/02/15/update-given-on-new-interstate-69-in-west-tennessee/

Thanks for the link, I updated the I-69 Tennessee thread.

[wdcrft63]

Looking back, Texas (who has massive balls) as well as Indiana, Kentucky, and to an lesser extent Tennessee done most of the work this past decade (or so) as far the idea of a I-69 extension concerned

Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississipi forgot they're even involved here, that or they have other plans (if any)

Mississippi did sign that one segment south of Memphis.  It was actually one of the first newly constructed segments of I-69 to be signed.

Check the I-69 in MS thread for background on this, posted today

[bluecountry]

I don't understand why they want I-69E, I-69W, and I-69, why not have spur routes?

[DNAguy]

If 39, 41, or 43 were still available I'm sure that they would have been snatched up.

But considering the length of the segments and no available numbers that fit the grid numbering system orthodoxy, they just went with E, W, and C in a highly rural area.

Bigger numbering crimes have been commited elsewhere and politicians were just happy to suck at the government $ largess to get an interstate through.

Which considering the amount of "˜re-shoring' of manufacturing to Mexico and cross border trade, looks like a needed investment.

Trade and tonnage crossing the US/Mexico border is booming.

Laredo crossings are nuts.

The Valley is growing.

The added interstates are both needed functionally and symbolically for the interstate system and what it "˜stands for'

[abqtraveler]

I don't understand why they want I-69E, I-69W, and I-69, why not have spur routes?

Because those route designations were written into law by Congress.

[Bobby5280]

In addition to the US Congress mandating the route designations it's also unusual for a 3-digit Interstate "spur" route to run for a considerably long length. Only two existing 3 digit routes run over 100 miles (I-476 in PA and I-495 in MA). The I-69E route from Victoria down to Brownsville is over 200 miles. I-69W from Victoria to Laredo is about 180 miles. I-69C is around 150 miles from George West down to the I-2 interchange in Pharr.

[edwaleni]

Because a bunch of old men in Congress couldn't differentiate the 3 routes for the Mexico to Canada Highway in Texas.

To them it looked like they were funding 3 new "original" highways so the numbers were changed to share the 69 scheme to help them keep the story straight.

Yes, they are original new highways, but to keep the pork barrel from rolling too far and have other states also demand 3 new orginal routes as well, (becuase that is how trading pork in Congress works).

As far as I know, the only other state to roll some pork on the original I-69 bill was Arkansas for their Little Rock - Monticello highway. Texas got some additional pork on the Tenaha - Texarkana route.

[abqtraveler]

As far as I know, the only other state to roll some pork on the original I-69 bill was Arkansas for their Little Rock - Monticello highway. Texas got some additional pork on the Tenaha - Texarkana route.

And even that's not finished. There's still a 10-mile gap in AR-530 (Future I-530 extension) between AR-11 and AR-35, and filling in that gap doesn't even show up in ArDOT's STIP that goes through FY-26.

[kphoger]

I don't understand why they want I-69E, I-69W, and I-69, why not have spur routes?

*sigh*  Why isn't this a sticky yet?  Or is it?  I don't know.  Anyway...

I am baffled why they didn't pick one to be I-69 and make the rest 3dis of I-69

This has been explained:

Back in 2010, I (via my consulting entity) submitted a paper to the Alliance for I-69 Texas suggesting just that except for designating US 281 as I-169.  Their response was that they were inclined to follow the original "placeholder" designations of "Central" & "East" as the signed designations (a) because it followed the "letter of the law" as laid out in the HPC 18 legislative description, and (b) so as not to confuse the legislators tasked with pushing the various funding bills through Congress.  Obviously they followed suit with the "69W" designation to Laredo using the same rationale. 

My take on this is the Alliance used the "69" number as a virtual trademark -- to the extent that each aspect of the corridor was to retain some sort of reference to 69.  Frankly, I was shocked to see that they had selected I-2 for the US 83 connector; I had expected it would be I-569 or something similar.  But since no suffix was previously suggested for the Freer-Corpus added segment, I wouldn't be surprised if, when funding is sought for any activity on that segment, that it comes with a I-6 designation to match I-2 to the south as a "cross-trident" connector.

I guess the Alliance didn't trust their selected Congressional critters to do anything except walk & talk a straight line between point A (concept) and point B (funding & construction).

It took a literal interpretation of an act of Congress (the authorization of HPC 18 and the subsequent Interstate designation) to get the W-C-E 69 "trident" into the Interstate lexicon (although "West" was never legislatively specified).  I'm sure many of us thought the "east" and "central" routings within that legislation were merely placeholders and not the final definition (I certainly did) -- but TxDOT and the Alliance for I-69 Texas thought otherwise -- and had the final say.   In other words, the folks who started the dance to begin with were able to dictate what the decorations looked like!

Back circa late 2010 or early 2011 I submitted an analysis to the Alliance for I-69 Texas, in which I stated that the suffixed branches within the I-69 cluster were simply placeholders, since they were spelled out rather than stated as a single suffixed number (i.e. I-69 East vis-à-vis I-69E), and as such, could be changed quite easily by a simple alteration of the HPC 18/20 language.  I suggested that I-69 itself replace I-69 East down to the border at Brownsville; that the segment along US 59 from Laredo to Victoria should become I-6, and that I-69 Central become I-169, which would then shunt east over US 83 to the main I-69 trunk at Harlingen (no I-2 in sight for this proposal).  Also: the segment from Tenaha north to Texarkana should be I-47.  Part of the rationale I expressed to the Alliance was that the suffixed numbers violated FHWA and AASHTO guidelines -- and although the legislated aspect of the corridor designations did in fact allow them to ignore those guidelines, it might be more appropriate from a regional standpoint to consider better-fitting alternative designations. 

The response was that while my ideas had merit, the Congresspersons on board the proposal didn't want to "rock the boat" by substituting numbers that late in the game, that all their documentation referred to the branches as some form of the original "69" proposal -- besides, it had become recognized as a sort of "trademark" for the proposal in general and that the internal preference was for some iteration of "69" to be applied to all corridors covered by the original legislation (obviously that didn't apply to the I-2 corridor, as it was addressed separately and later). 

And that was the end of that!  However, when I-2 was designated a couple of years later, I was as surprised as anyone -- fully expecting US 83 to be I-169 or I-569, etc. to "keep it in the family", so to speak.  I guess the Laredo-bound ambitions of that corridor had a bit to do with the choice. 

Nevertheless, Congressfolks can and do override AASHTO and/or FHWA internal criteria; that's how the E-C-W branches of I-69 came about.  Actually, the directional references were originally simply "placeholders" within the original legislation, designed to describe the relative orientation of the branches -- but both the Alliance for I-69/Texas and their cohorts at TXDOT took a truly literalist view of the legislation, hence the field-posted suffixed shields (with more to come).   

Back in late 2010 I actually wrote a numbering proposal to the Alliance for I-69 Texas, suggesting the following:  I-69 mainline down what's now I-69E, I-6 along I-69W, and I-169 for I-69C, which would have turned east on what's now I-2 to Harlingen.  Also: I-47 for the I-369 corridor (hey, it's 115 miles long!).  Received a reply after a few weeks stating that as far as numbering, their hands were tied by the legal definitions attached to the original HPC 18 & 20 legislation.  I shot back that those appeared to be simply "placeholder" designations to delineate the three branches (and 69W wasn't even mentioned in the original language), and that any of their "pet" area congressfolks could slip in amendments to specify different numbers.  That got a quick reply essentially inferring that they didn't want to deviate one little bit from the original legislation, since the support for the project was on relatively thin ice at the time (this was around the time of the 2010 midterm elections) and that some of the newly elected conservatives from TX would have to be persuaded to support the concept and its associated expenditures -- and that selling the whole "69" package as is to the new congressional delegation was job #1 in order to maintain what progress was being made.  Thus, to them, every segment of the cluster had to reference the number "69" to avoid confusing those legislators who weren't the sharpest pencils in the box! 

At that point I simply rolled my eyes, figuring any further comment would be pointless.  But if they were dealing with elected legislators, I could -- with some imaginative stretch -- see their POV; they'd put a lot more aggregate effort into their corridor than had I!  But I still think my ideas had some merit -- but the chances of any changes being made is ultra-slim -- now that there is nascent suffixed signage on all 3 branches (plus I-2!).

... the numbering aspect of the I-69 corridor cluster has been hashed out repeatedly within this forum; the current suffixed situation boils down to TxDOT and the major corridor promoter, the Alliance for I-69/Texas electing to make any corridor authorized by the language of high priority corridors 18 & 20 refer to the main trunk number "69" in some way or form.  Most of us thought the authorizing language's reference to "east" and "central" would have been a mere referential placeholder -- but the two governing entities thought otherwise, choosing to take a very literal approach to the numbering -- hence the suffixes (I'm certain that if I-369 would have been dubbed "I-69N" it would have been accepted and formalized as well!).  I-2 was exempt from that as it wasn't a part of the original authorized corridor bundle.  At this point, with signage already posted, any suggestion regarding designation change wouldn't make it past the front desk within the official circles handling the project.   

No the "trident" actually dates back to the late 90s and was certainly discussed on MTR though not extensively.  For example...

https://groups.google.com/g/misc.transport.road/c/AJEIdQWFToU/m/TVnXZufPRq4J

https://groups.google.com/g/misc.transport.road/c/X9Foxr3CObc/m/iuWSXPs4PnoJ

Furthermore, the MTR posts also quoted the original House bill, which stated both that "the segment identified in subsection (c)(18)(B)(ii) shall be designated as Interstate Route I-69 Central" and that "the segment identified in subsection (c)(18)(B)(i) shall be designated as Interstate Route I-69 East".  And all of the ensuing discussion happened before the creation of AARoads.

The actual Interstate designations waited until those segments were ready for and requested to be added to the Interstate system proper...this is what vdeane makes her reference to.

However, reading through the actual TEA-21 legislation (copied in the 1998 MTR post linked upthread), the legislation makes it pretty clear that I-69C and I-69E were written into Federal law in that act (much as I-99 had been previous to that), so with those two routes it was "settled" in 1998 when TEA-21 was passed.

[ethanhopkin14]

I don't understand why they want I-69E, I-69W, and I-69, why not have spur routes?

*sigh*  Why isn't this a sticky yet?  Or is it?  I don't know.  Anyway...

I am baffled why they didn't pick one to be I-69 and make the rest 3dis of I-69

This has been explained:

Back in 2010, I (via my consulting entity) submitted a paper to the Alliance for I-69 Texas suggesting just that except for designating US 281 as I-169.  Their response was that they were inclined to follow the original "placeholder" designations of "Central" & "East" as the signed designations (a) because it followed the "letter of the law" as laid out in the HPC 18 legislative description, and (b) so as not to confuse the legislators tasked with pushing the various funding bills through Congress.  Obviously they followed suit with the "69W" designation to Laredo using the same rationale. 

My take on this is the Alliance used the "69" number as a virtual trademark -- to the extent that each aspect of the corridor was to retain some sort of reference to 69.  Frankly, I was shocked to see that they had selected I-2 for the US 83 connector; I had expected it would be I-569 or something similar.  But since no suffix was previously suggested for the Freer-Corpus added segment, I wouldn't be surprised if, when funding is sought for any activity on that segment, that it comes with a I-6 designation to match I-2 to the south as a "cross-trident" connector.

I guess the Alliance didn't trust their selected Congressional critters to do anything except walk & talk a straight line between point A (concept) and point B (funding & construction).

It took a literal interpretation of an act of Congress (the authorization of HPC 18 and the subsequent Interstate designation) to get the W-C-E 69 "trident" into the Interstate lexicon (although "West" was never legislatively specified).  I'm sure many of us thought the "east" and "central" routings within that legislation were merely placeholders and not the final definition (I certainly did) -- but TxDOT and the Alliance for I-69 Texas thought otherwise -- and had the final say.   In other words, the folks who started the dance to begin with were able to dictate what the decorations looked like!

Back circa late 2010 or early 2011 I submitted an analysis to the Alliance for I-69 Texas, in which I stated that the suffixed branches within the I-69 cluster were simply placeholders, since they were spelled out rather than stated as a single suffixed number (i.e. I-69 East vis-à-vis I-69E), and as such, could be changed quite easily by a simple alteration of the HPC 18/20 language.  I suggested that I-69 itself replace I-69 East down to the border at Brownsville; that the segment along US 59 from Laredo to Victoria should become I-6, and that I-69 Central become I-169, which would then shunt east over US 83 to the main I-69 trunk at Harlingen (no I-2 in sight for this proposal).  Also: the segment from Tenaha north to Texarkana should be I-47.  Part of the rationale I expressed to the Alliance was that the suffixed numbers violated FHWA and AASHTO guidelines -- and although the legislated aspect of the corridor designations did in fact allow them to ignore those guidelines, it might be more appropriate from a regional standpoint to consider better-fitting alternative designations. 

The response was that while my ideas had merit, the Congresspersons on board the proposal didn't want to "rock the boat" by substituting numbers that late in the game, that all their documentation referred to the branches as some form of the original "69" proposal -- besides, it had become recognized as a sort of "trademark" for the proposal in general and that the internal preference was for some iteration of "69" to be applied to all corridors covered by the original legislation (obviously that didn't apply to the I-2 corridor, as it was addressed separately and later). 

And that was the end of that!  However, when I-2 was designated a couple of years later, I was as surprised as anyone -- fully expecting US 83 to be I-169 or I-569, etc. to "keep it in the family", so to speak.  I guess the Laredo-bound ambitions of that corridor had a bit to do with the choice. 

Nevertheless, Congressfolks can and do override AASHTO and/or FHWA internal criteria; that's how the E-C-W branches of I-69 came about.  Actually, the directional references were originally simply "placeholders" within the original legislation, designed to describe the relative orientation of the branches -- but both the Alliance for I-69/Texas and their cohorts at TXDOT took a truly literalist view of the legislation, hence the field-posted suffixed shields (with more to come).   

Back in late 2010 I actually wrote a numbering proposal to the Alliance for I-69 Texas, suggesting the following:  I-69 mainline down what's now I-69E, I-6 along I-69W, and I-169 for I-69C, which would have turned east on what's now I-2 to Harlingen.  Also: I-47 for the I-369 corridor (hey, it's 115 miles long!).  Received a reply after a few weeks stating that as far as numbering, their hands were tied by the legal definitions attached to the original HPC 18 & 20 legislation.  I shot back that those appeared to be simply "placeholder" designations to delineate the three branches (and 69W wasn't even mentioned in the original language), and that any of their "pet" area congressfolks could slip in amendments to specify different numbers.  That got a quick reply essentially inferring that they didn't want to deviate one little bit from the original legislation, since the support for the project was on relatively thin ice at the time (this was around the time of the 2010 midterm elections) and that some of the newly elected conservatives from TX would have to be persuaded to support the concept and its associated expenditures -- and that selling the whole "69" package as is to the new congressional delegation was job #1 in order to maintain what progress was being made.  Thus, to them, every segment of the cluster had to reference the number "69" to avoid confusing those legislators who weren't the sharpest pencils in the box! 

At that point I simply rolled my eyes, figuring any further comment would be pointless.  But if they were dealing with elected legislators, I could -- with some imaginative stretch -- see their POV; they'd put a lot more aggregate effort into their corridor than had I!  But I still think my ideas had some merit -- but the chances of any changes being made is ultra-slim -- now that there is nascent suffixed signage on all 3 branches (plus I-2!).

... the numbering aspect of the I-69 corridor cluster has been hashed out repeatedly within this forum; the current suffixed situation boils down to TxDOT and the major corridor promoter, the Alliance for I-69/Texas electing to make any corridor authorized by the language of high priority corridors 18 & 20 refer to the main trunk number "69" in some way or form.  Most of us thought the authorizing language's reference to "east" and "central" would have been a mere referential placeholder -- but the two governing entities thought otherwise, choosing to take a very literal approach to the numbering -- hence the suffixes (I'm certain that if I-369 would have been dubbed "I-69N" it would have been accepted and formalized as well!).  I-2 was exempt from that as it wasn't a part of the original authorized corridor bundle.  At this point, with signage already posted, any suggestion regarding designation change wouldn't make it past the front desk within the official circles handling the project.   

No the "trident" actually dates back to the late 90s and was certainly discussed on MTR though not extensively.  For example...

https://groups.google.com/g/misc.transport.road/c/AJEIdQWFToU/m/TVnXZufPRq4J

https://groups.google.com/g/misc.transport.road/c/X9Foxr3CObc/m/iuWSXPs4PnoJ

Furthermore, the MTR posts also quoted the original House bill, which stated both that "the segment identified in subsection (c)(18)(B)(ii) shall be designated as Interstate Route I-69 Central" and that "the segment identified in subsection (c)(18)(B)(i) shall be designated as Interstate Route I-69 East".  And all of the ensuing discussion happened before the creation of AARoads.

The actual Interstate designations waited until those segments were ready for and requested to be added to the Interstate system proper...this is what vdeane makes her reference to.

However, reading through the actual TEA-21 legislation (copied in the 1998 MTR post linked upthread), the legislation makes it pretty clear that I-69C and I-69E were written into Federal law in that act (much as I-99 had been previous to that), so with those two routes it was "settled" in 1998 when TEA-21 was passed.

....but why are they I-69 E C & W?   

[CoreySamson]

The main lanes of I-69 are now open through the TX-105 interchange in Cleveland and just south of it as of last night (meaning the I-69/US 59 corridor is now 3x3 all the way to Cleveland now). However, I did not see any I-69 shields in the area.

TxDOT also did their dumb habit of not removing the construction speed limit signs upon opening the new section. Hence, the speed limit was still 45 mph (never have I been going 15 over and getting passed by everyone!). However, a partially uncovered sign indicated that the real speed limit will be 65.