I-69 in TX

[Chris]

It seems like they opened the main lanes on February 25.


https://twitter.com/TxDOTBeaumont/status/1629151727218790404

[asdfjkll]

Google Streetview has been updated to last month showing the new southbound lanes open in the upgrade south of Cleveland (they probably went through there before TxDOT opened the northbound lanes shortly afterwards as the northbound lanes appeared to be complete in the updated streetview). With this section wrapping up, it looks like the next section that will start construction is between Cleveland and FM 2914/Shepherd. The project site for the Cleveland to Sheperd freeway upgrade (https://www.txdot.gov/projects/projects-studies/lufkin/us59-shepherd-cleveland.html) states that the project will be let in 2023, and the 24-month letting schedule seems to agree with that as well (on that site there is a huge spike in total estimated cost for the Lufkin district on the July 2023 letting, which has this I-69 upgrade budgeted for $70 million).

[sprjus4]

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.

US-59 is still posted at 55 mph between Sugar Land and Kendleton despite construction being completed for a couple years now and open as a six lane interstate highway with full control of access. On the much busier, wider portion north of Sugar Land, the speed limit raises to 65 mph.

Traffic moves 75+ mph and the speed limit is blatantly (and rightfully) ignored. TxDOT said last summer a speed study is underway, but why couldn't it at least be signed as 65 mph? It has to at least be designed for that speed, if not 70 mph. A speed study would determine raising it further to 75 mph (above the 70 mph default speed limit).

https://twitter.com/txdothouston/status/1550549438627717120

[Phudman]

I wonder how soon it would take for the Cleveland bypass to be expanded to three lanes in each direction? Also, upgrade the FM 2025 overpass as well.

[bluecountry]

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.

That is the dumbest thing I have heard, so basically it pretty much nullifies any 3 digit spur route.
It just creates confusion within the whole interstate system.

[Bobby5280]

I don't think the I-69E/C/W thing is hard to follow. The three routes aren't re-connecting with each other (unlike the two I-35E/W twins in the system). The two splits in Victoria and George West are diverting to obvious destinations.

Still I think it would have been better to use other numbers. I-37 could have easily taken the I-69E route. The main I-69 route should have gone to Laredo, our nation's busiest inland "port" city. The I-69C route could have been named something else (like I-33), or just stay named as US-281. But I understand the political idea about branding and selling a project. What's done is done. Those I-69E/C/W designations are pretty much set in stone whether anyone likes it or not.

I don't understand the comment about nullifying 3-digit routes. There is a I-169 route in Brownsville, although it's not signed properly. I-369 if fully built-out will be one of the longest 3-digit routes in the Interstate system.

[sprjus4]

I personally think I-369 is a waste... a routing via a complete I-69 to I-49 in Louisiana / Arkansas to Texarkana would be around 8-9 more miles, and basically the entire north-south segment of that route is already complete.

I-369 is over 100 miles of construction that would parallel an existing interstate highway that carries low traffic volumes.

Prioritize completing I-69 between Tenaha and I-49, and the entire segment between Tenaha and Texarkana is taken care of. Traffic largely stays on US-59 in Texas today because no reliable / good route exists between the US-59 corridor and Shreveport. US-79 exists but it's mostly a two-lane road with a 65 mph speed limit in Texas, and a 55 mph speed limit in Louisiana. It was a lot of four lane undivided in Texas, but they restriped a good amount to be an alternating passing configuration. I-69 would fill that gap and likely draw more traffic onto I-49. Divert funds for building I-369 in Texas towards upgrading / building I-69 south of Tenaha towards Houston.

[mvak36]

I personally think I-369 is a waste... a routing via a complete I-69 to I-49 in Louisiana / Arkansas to Texarkana would be around 8-9 more miles, and basically the entire north-south segment of that route is already complete.

I-369 is over 100 miles of construction that would parallel an existing interstate highway that carries low traffic volumes.

Prioritize completing I-69 between Tenaha and I-49, and the entire segment between Tenaha and Texarkana is taken care of. Traffic largely stays on US-59 in Texas today because no reliable / good route exists between the US-59 corridor and Shreveport. US-79 exists but it's mostly a two-lane road with a 65 mph speed limit in Texas, and a 55 mph speed limit in Louisiana. It was a lot of four lane undivided in Texas, but they restriped a good amount to be an alternating passing configuration. I-69 would fill that gap and likely draw more traffic onto I-49. Divert funds for building I-369 in Texas towards upgrading / building I-69 south of Tenaha towards Houston.

IMO, I don't know if Texas cares about the overall routing of I-69. For them it's a way to connect Texarkana to Houston, Corpus Christi/Laredo/Rio Grande Valley. It will be a long time before it's all built but at least they don't have to deal with other states and can build it piecemeal whenever they have funding.

[J N Winkler]

There is precedent going back to the early days of Interstate construction for apparently duplicative freeway routings to be approved--the Kansas Turnpike/free I-35 between Emporia and Kansas City, or US 69 in Kansas/US 71 (now I-49) in Missouri both come to mind.

Has an origin-destination study been performed in the general area of Tenaha/Carthage/Shreveport/Texarkana to confirm that I-369 will attract little traffic from the existing US 59 routing or a conceptual US 59/US 79/I-49 alternative?

[sprjus4]

IMO, I don't know if Texas cares about the overall routing of I-69. For them it's a way to connect Texarkana to Houston, Corpus Christi/Laredo/Rio Grande Valley. It will be a long time before it's all built but at least they don't have to deal with other states and can build it piecemeal whenever they have funding.

That's the thing though - besides the ~25 miles in Louisiana between the Texas state line and I-49, the routing is already fully complete in Louisiana and Arkansas. I-49 between Shreveport and Texarkana was constructed over the last decade or so. It's a largely desolate highway with low traffic volumes and has room for growth.

If they could partner with Louisiana to prioritize that segment, it would save Texas over 100 miles of redundant construction.

Even with current conditions, I've driven up from Houston to Texarkana a couple times and used US-79 to cut over to I-49, just to have the last 70 miles or so on uninterrupted freeway vs. four-lane divided with towns and traffic signals on US-59. I lost probably around 5-7 minutes dealing with the US-79 portion, but upgrading that connection into Louisiana (or building a new one - via I-69 to the south) would improve that connection, reduce travel time, and increase speeds. Arkansas recently raised their speed limit to 75 mph, and the Louisiana portion was already 75 mph, so in terms of speed, it's already the same.

If Texas wanted to fully do their own work, they could also construct a new location alignment along US-79, and cutting north to I-20 just parallel to the Louisiana border, allowing motorists to use I-20 and I-220 to connect with I-49 North.

[sprjus4]

There is precedent going back to the early days of Interstate construction for apparently duplicative freeway routings to be approved--the Kansas Turnpike/free I-35 between Emporia and Kansas City, or US 69 in Kansas/US 71 (now I-49) in Missouri both come to mind.

Has an origin-destination study been performed in the general area of Tenaha/Carthage/Shreveport/Texarkana to confirm that I-369 will attract little traffic from the existing US 59 routing or a conceptual US 59/US 79/I-49 alternative?

I-369 would attract traffic from the US-59 corridor... it is slightly more direct than I-49. My point, however, is that in an effort to cut down on costs, it would not be much more out of the way to simply direct through traffic to I-49.

I-369 would be effective on attracting US-59 traffic, but would require over 100 miles of interstate to be constructed, whereas a nearby parallel interstate highway (I-49) already covers that distance and is underutilized.

[The Ghostbuster]

Does anyone think Interstate 369 will ever be completed? I have my doubts, and think existing 369 (and Loop 151) should have been numbered Interstate 230.

[sprjus4]

Does anyone think Interstate 369 will ever be completed? I have my doubts, and think existing 369 (and Loop 151) should have been numbered Interstate 230.

Read the discussion immediately above this post.

[Some one]

Does anyone think Interstate 369 will ever be completed? I have my doubts, and think existing 369 (and Loop 151) should have been numbered Interstate 230.

I don't think I-369 is going to be completed anytime soon, if ever. The current plans for the corridor are just the Marshall bypass and a highway overpass at FM 1794. As of now, TXDOT's main priority seems to be upgrading US 59 between Houston and Victoria and US 77 between Brownsville and Corpus Christi. Not to mention the issue of extending the current highway both north and south of Texarkana.

[bwana39]

Does anyone think Interstate 369 will ever be completed? I have my doubts, and think existing 369 (and Loop 151) should have been numbered Interstate 230.

Read the discussion immediately above this post.

Am I sure I-369 will ever be completed? I am a lot more confident of its completion than that of I-69 itself north of Nacogdoches (or More aptly past its split from US-59 whether said split is in Teneha or in rural Panola County. ) Should I-69 be a higher priority? Yes, it would take a significant load off of I-30 & I-40. As much as we want to think of the interstates as national highways, they are still just a completed construct of segments of highway built and maintained by the individual states. Mississippi has little to no interest in I-69 outside of metro Memphis. Louisiana has zero interest in the section north of I-20 and the South Louisiana controlled legislature may not even have an interest in the state line to I-49 segment. Local pressure will get something built from I-49 to US-71 at least. The rest, I am very sceptical of it being built soon if ever.

As to the labeling of the Texarkana part, that itself is a long story of two communities fighting one another. All of Loop 151 was planned on being the "NEW US-71" ... What became I-49. Texas built it out and then Arkansas got the presidency and more importantly, a Miller County resident as governor. I-49 was supposed to follow Loop 151 before that. It probably should be an even X-30 (or an odd X-49), but I doubt that Arkansas  would have played with their roughly 2 mile stretch to I-49. Things are not as bad as they were  a decade ago, but some elements are just as friendly as ex-spouses from an acrimonious divorce. The main reason that I-369 was labeled as such along loop 151 was to make sure that I-369 actually came to the Texarkana loop as opposed to going straight to I-49 north of town and missing the loop by 5 or six miles. I agree it is probably very premature.

OH, one other thing. The portion of I-69 from Cleveland to Nacogdoches, is in full swing. My estimation has the freeway completed to at least Livingston by 2026 or 2027 and to Lufkin in another 5-7 years. There will probably will be some foot dragging on details in San Jacinto and Northern Polk counties, but it will creep along. I could also  see it fully completed through all of Angelina County in the same time frame even if there is still some unimproved spots further south.

[Bobby5280]

I think I-369 in Texas stands a far better chance of being completed than the I-69 segment in Louisiana.

We might see some portions of the I-69 LA route completed in the Shreveport area. But Louisiana already has a ton of stuff already on its plate with the I-49 South projects and needs in the New Orleans metro area. Let's not forget the looming problem of I-10 and its really long yet over-loaded 2-lane bridges across those swamps. And there's the I-14 nonsense too. Louisiana doesn't have the population or political clout of Texas. I think they're more likely to be stuck in having to pick and choose things that are more realistic and practical to build.

[sprjus4]

I think I-369 in Texas stands a far better chance of being completed than the I-69 segment in Louisiana.

I'm skeptical, that's over 100 miles of construction that's redundant to I-49.

What TxDOT should do, IMO, is build a freeway parallel to US-79, then turn due north and parallel the state line up to I-20.

That new highway, plus I-20 to I-220 to I-49, would complete an all-freeway routing to Texarkana, make a more direct connector between Shreveport and Texas, and save TxDOT an additional 60-70 miles of needed upgrades along US-59. Louisiana builds zero miles of new road.

[wtd67]

US59 will need to be upgraded to I-369 from Tenaha to Texarkana just for the truck traffic.  Most trucking companies pay drivers by the mile which means they pay for the shortest route not the fastest.  The shortest route from Houston to Texarkana is US59.  I see this in East Texas with several trucking companies sending trucks from Texarkana to Waco/Austin/San Antonio.  They send them via US59 to Linden, TX155 to Tyler, TX31 to Waco, then I-35.  It isn't the fastest route, but it is shorter by about 30 miles.  I-69 in MS, AR, LA will never have much traffic if it is ever built, too far out of the way.  Any money, if it ever becomes available, should go to widen I-30 and I-40 in Arkansas.

If going up I-49 was the best option, they would be doing it now.  US79 is straight shot as a two lane from Carthage, TX to Greenwood, LA, making it an interstate would not shorten it.  Upgrading US59 to interstate standards will not greatly increase the truck traffic since most trucks are already using this route.  The only thing that will increase traffic on this route is more trade in and out of Houston, not being an interstate.

[sprjus4]

^ At the very least, upgrading US-79 would provide an interstate highway connector between I-69 and I-20 going into Shreveport.

Regardless of whatever happens with I-369, I see a number of trucks use this route to cut over to both Shreveport and those ultimately bound to I-20 East. It should at least be four lanes divided.

In terms of mileage, US-79 / I-20 / I-220 / I-49 is only 10 miles longer than US-59. Travel times are both equal or off by +/- 1 minute. Upgrading US-79 to a 75 mph (currently has a 55-65 mph posted) would shave off around 7 minutes.

It's a better investment for TxDOT, IMO. Improves the connection to I-20 East and Shreveport, and provides an outlet to I-49 North reducing the need to upgrade US-59, saving at least 70 miles of redundant construction. If some trucks still desire to shave 10 miles and follow 100 miles of arterial roadway, that's not enough of a reason IMO to pour the money in, unless it's significant enough it's still causing bottlenecks.

[MikieTimT]

^ At the very least, upgrading US-79 would provide an interstate highway connector between I-69 and I-20 going into Shreveport.

Regardless of whatever happens with I-369, I see a number of trucks use this route to cut over to both Shreveport and those ultimately bound to I-20 East. It should at least be four lanes divided.

In terms of mileage, US-79 / I-20 / I-220 / I-49 is only 10 miles longer than US-59. Travel times are both equal or off by +/- 1 minute. Upgrading US-79 to a 75 mph (currently has a 55-65 mph posted) would shave off around 7 minutes.

It's a better investment for TxDOT, IMO. Improves the connection to I-20 East and Shreveport, and provides an outlet to I-49 North reducing the need to upgrade US-59, saving at least 70 miles of redundant construction. If some trucks still desire to shave 10 miles and follow 100 miles of arterial roadway, that's not enough of a reason IMO to pour the money in, unless it's significant enough it's still causing bottlenecks.

I see Texas definitely doing I-369.  They are trying to grow Texarkana, and putting another Interstate feeder into it makes it more appealing to the warehousing and industrial types that they are seeking for the area.  They are competing with the Arkansas side for growth, and Arkansas has some cost of doing business advantages otherwise, especially since the Arkansas side also has income tax exemption like all of Texas.

[kphoger]

It just creates confusion within the whole interstate system.

As much as I hate the 69 trident, I disagree with that assertion.  The rest of the Interstate system remains just as confusion-free as it was before.

[sprjus4]

^ At the very least, upgrading US-79 would provide an interstate highway connector between I-69 and I-20 going into Shreveport.

Regardless of whatever happens with I-369, I see a number of trucks use this route to cut over to both Shreveport and those ultimately bound to I-20 East. It should at least be four lanes divided.

In terms of mileage, US-79 / I-20 / I-220 / I-49 is only 10 miles longer than US-59. Travel times are both equal or off by +/- 1 minute. Upgrading US-79 to a 75 mph (currently has a 55-65 mph posted) would shave off around 7 minutes.

It's a better investment for TxDOT, IMO. Improves the connection to I-20 East and Shreveport, and provides an outlet to I-49 North reducing the need to upgrade US-59, saving at least 70 miles of redundant construction. If some trucks still desire to shave 10 miles and follow 100 miles of arterial roadway, that's not enough of a reason IMO to pour the money in, unless it's significant enough it's still causing bottlenecks.

I see Texas definitely doing I-369.  They are trying to grow Texarkana, and putting another Interstate feeder into it makes it more appealing to the warehousing and industrial types that they are seeking for the area.  They are competing with the Arkansas side for growth, and Arkansas has some cost of doing business advantages otherwise, especially since the Arkansas side also has income tax exemption like all of Texas.

Perhaps but in terms of priorities and actual projects... I see it being decades off. Completing I-69 south of Tenaha is a much larger priority, with particular emphasis on town bypasses and removing all the traffic signals.

[bwana39]

^ At the very least, upgrading US-79 would provide an interstate highway connector between I-69 and I-20 going into Shreveport.

Regardless of whatever happens with I-369, I see a number of trucks use this route to cut over to both Shreveport and those ultimately bound to I-20 East. It should at least be four lanes divided.

In terms of mileage, US-79 / I-20 / I-220 / I-49 is only 10 miles longer than US-59. Travel times are both equal or off by +/- 1 minute. Upgrading US-79 to a 75 mph (currently has a 55-65 mph posted) would shave off around 7 minutes.

It's a better investment for TxDOT, IMO. Improves the connection to I-20 East and Shreveport, and provides an outlet to I-49 North reducing the need to upgrade US-59, saving at least 70 miles of redundant construction. If some trucks still desire to shave 10 miles and follow 100 miles of arterial roadway, that's not enough of a reason IMO to pour the money in, unless it's significant enough it's still causing bottlenecks.

I see Texas definitely doing I-369.  They are trying to grow Texarkana, and putting another Interstate feeder into it makes it more appealing to the warehousing and industrial types that they are seeking for the area.  They are competing with the Arkansas side for growth, and Arkansas has some cost of doing business advantages otherwise, especially since the Arkansas side also has income tax exemption like all of Texas.

Back decades ago, people started buying up property in Bowie County and Miller Counties.  This "COMMERCIAL PROPERTY" has lain fallow for decades. There is plenty of vacant property all over both. People are finally starting to sell it due to the next generation not wanting to hold it forever. Part of this is may be due to Tex-Americas center having land to sell and suddenly these commercial real estate investors are not the only show.

I will be honest, I don't see this area increasing in population by over 25% which is between 15 -25 thousand people. Texarkana has the WORST of both a small town and the city.  Our kids virtually all grow up and move away. Texarkana wants to play, but property values are still high enough, that nothing is happening or going to happen.

[Bobby5280]

I'm skeptical, that's over 100 miles of construction that's redundant to I-49.

I-49 going South of Texarakana into Louisiana does zero to serve interests of cities in Texas. The I-69/I-369 combo in Texas obviously will give Texarkana and other small cities along the way a faster, more efficient route to Houston. Other cities in that region, such as Longview and Tyler, will derive some benefit from it as well.

The state of Texas is far more vested in the various I-69 projects than any other states along the extended route. Texas also doesn't have to do anything to help neighboring states get their mainline segments of I-69 completed.

[sprjus4]

I'm skeptical, that's over 100 miles of construction that's redundant to I-49.

I-49 going South of Texarakana into Louisiana does zero to serve interests of cities in Texas.

It runs parallel to the proposed I-369 corridor within 15 miles to the east, for around 70 miles. I-369 could be a good redundancy, but given the traffic volumes, it's likely adequate enough to simply tie I-69 traffic into I-49 heading to Texarkana.

The state of Texas is far more vested in the various I-69 projects than any other states along the extended route. Texas also doesn't have to do anything to help neighboring states get their mainline segments of I-69 completed.

Texas has seemed quite uninterested in any major projects along the I-69 / I-369 combo north of Houston bypass a few bypasses. A good chunk of US-59 is still a four lane undivided highway.