News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

I-69 in TX

Started by Grzrd, October 09, 2010, 01:18:12 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

J N Winkler

Quote from: Rick Powell on December 12, 2022, 03:22:58 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 10, 2022, 12:16:09 AM
It still looks like the bypass around Corrigan will skirt the town to the West. Not above the town.

Looking at the drawings, it appears that US 59/I-69 will be elevated over US 289, so I guess one part will go "slightly" over the ground level near Corrigan, but not the whole freeway over the town proper as seems to be suggested by the article's wording.

It seems to me, after reading the article and watching the video, that the bit about the bypass going over the town is a mistranscription of the video, which describes the alignment in a bit more detail.

In any event, the construction plans (linkback to previous discussion) are the authoritative source, and make it very clear that the bypass does not go over the town.  Here's the title sheet:

"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini


edwaleni

https://easttexasnews.com/polk-county-news-2/3517-historic-day-as-work-begins-on-corrigan-relief-route

HISTORIC DAY AS WORK BEGINS ON CORRIGAN RELIEF ROUTE

By Emily Banks Wooten
editor@polkenterprise.com

Monday was a history-making day for the north end of the county, a day that many wondered if they would ever see. With a slew of dignitaries on hand to hold the shovels, ground was broken for the construction of the Corrigan Relief Route, the largest and most expensive project ever undertaken for the Texas Department of Transportation's (TxDOT) Lufkin District.

"This is a really exciting day and has been a long time coming. It will complement Corrigan and provide a non-stop travel experience,"  Lufkin District Engineer Kelli Morris

"Change is coming, and we need to prepare for it,"  County Judge Sydney Murphy said. "I do think this project has had more stops and starts than anything in the history of the state of Texas. I know it's been close to 40 years. I remember being a teacher at Corrigan-Camden and hearing Jasper Cockrell talk about it when I was pregnant with my son Matthew and Matthew's 38 now. We welcome you and thank you."

"I'm excited to see the project begin and I'm proud to be the one to lead this project,"  Livingston Area Engineer Clint Jones, who serves Polk and San Jacinto counties, said.

"This project will bring Hwy. 59 up to interstate standards and will result in goods and services being sourced in the area for years to come,"  Shawn Dunn, speaking on behalf of Sen. Robert Nichols, said.

"I know with growth there are growing pains. This is a project that has been on the books for over 25 years now. There are a lot of people that we owe a debt of gratitude to that are not in this room. We're standing on their shoulders. This is huge. It's monumental. I know this is going to be welcome for our traveling public and freight movement,"  Rep. Trent Ashby said.

"Getting to break ground today on the Corrigan Relief Route is very exciting. Once complete, it will serve as the hurricane evacuation route,"  TxDOT's Director of Construction Shannon Ramos said.

The $172.8 million construction project will be built to interstate standards and will include construction of new U.S. 59 northbound and southbound lanes with controlled access.

The 6.3-mile project will be from 3.4 miles north of U.S. 287 to 3 miles south of U.S. 287. Work will include the construction of overpasses at United Pacific Railroad, U.S. 287 and Union Springs Road. Entrance and exit ramps will be added at U.S. 59 tie-ins and at the U.S. 287 overpass and will include the construction of four main lanes for travel.

James Construction Group LLC of Baton Rouge, La. will serve as contractor for the project that is scheduled to be completed in six years.

Planning for the Corrigan Relief Route began in the late 1990s when environmental studies began but were stopped due to budgetary constraints. Project development resumed in 2012 when I-69 in Polk County was considered a top priority by the I-69 Segment Two Committee. Schematics and right-of-way maps were studied and in 2014, an open house was held for the public to view the proposed path.

Further refinements to the plan were made and presented to the public in 2015, and in 2016 environmental studies and schematic reviews were performed. A public hearing was held in 2017 to gather public comments and the Texas Transportation Commission approved the revisions and funded the project.

The Corrigan Relief Route will be built to promote public safety, improve emergency evacuations and support freight transport. As the work begins, motorists should be alert to moving equipment and workers near the work zone. Reduce speed and obey all traffic control.

For more information, contact Rhonda.Oaks@txdot.gov or call (936) 633-4395.

sprjus4

6 years?? For 6 miles of rural interstate highway construction?

Thegeet

Gypsy. That's all I gotta say. (It's an expression I adopted and repurposed not unlike poggers or haiyaa/fuiyoh)

J N Winkler

Quote from: sprjus4 on December 12, 2022, 09:46:41 PM6 years?? For 6 miles of rural interstate highway construction?

I question whether that has been accurately reported.  It's budgeted (per the letting schedule) for 902 working days, equivalent to 3.6 years at 250 working days per year.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

Scott5114

Quote from: Thegeet on December 13, 2022, 12:25:08 AM
Gypsy. That's all I gotta say. (It's an expression I adopted and repurposed not unlike poggers or haiyaa/fuiyoh)

You may not want to use it any longer–the Roma people consider it an ethnic slur directed toward them.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

Thegeet

Quote from: Scott5114 on December 13, 2022, 04:11:44 AM
Quote from: Thegeet on December 13, 2022, 12:25:08 AM
Gypsy. That's all I gotta say. (It's an expression I adopted and repurposed not unlike poggers or haiyaa/fuiyoh)

You may not want to use it any longer–the Roma people consider it an ethnic slur directed toward them.
That's why I'm planning to detoxify the word one day.

NE2

Quote from: Thegeet on December 13, 2022, 01:20:36 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 13, 2022, 04:11:44 AM
Quote from: Thegeet on December 13, 2022, 12:25:08 AM
Gypsy. That's all I gotta say. (It's an expression I adopted and repurposed not unlike poggers or haiyaa/fuiyoh)

You may not want to use it any longer–the Roma people consider it an ethnic slur directed toward them.
That's why I'm planning to detoxify the word one day.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Yh7TVDXH8Y
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

Thegeet

Quote from: NE2 on December 13, 2022, 05:45:32 PM
Quote from: Thegeet on December 13, 2022, 01:20:36 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on December 13, 2022, 04:11:44 AM
Quote from: Thegeet on December 13, 2022, 12:25:08 AM
Gypsy. That's all I gotta say. (It's an expression I adopted and repurposed not unlike poggers or haiyaa/fuiyoh)

You may not want to use it any longer–the Roma people consider it an ethnic slur directed toward them.
That's why I'm planning to detoxify the word one day.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Yh7TVDXH8Y
🤣🤣🤣🤣...then how do y'all explain that song from Fleetwood Mac?

armadillo speedbump

Quote from: Thegeet on December 13, 2022, 05:50:24 PM
🤣🤣🤣🤣...then how do y'all explain that song from Fleetwood Mac?

She is dancing away from you now

Thegeet

Quote from: armadillo speedbump on December 14, 2022, 09:45:21 PM
Quote from: Thegeet on December 13, 2022, 05:50:24 PM
🤣🤣🤣🤣...then how do y'all explain that song from Fleetwood Mac?

She is dancing away from you now
She was just a wish..she was just...a wish.

yakra

Just don't talk trash about Travelers.
"Officer, I'm always careful to drive the speed limit no matter where I am and that's what I was doin'." Said "No, you weren't," she said, "Yes, I was." He said, "Madam, I just clocked you at 22 MPH," and she said "That's the speed limit," he said "No ma'am, that's the route numbah!"  - Gary Crocker

Thegeet

Quote from: yakra on December 19, 2022, 10:20:07 AM
Just don't talk trash about Travelers.
I promise. When I use the word, I will only use it out of casuality and not for discrimination.

mrose

I think she wrote that song about herself. Also, it was 1982.

Thegeet

Quote from: mrose on December 21, 2022, 04:45:25 AM
I think she wrote that song about herself. Also, it was 1982.
Indeed. And that's my favorite Fleetwood Mac song of all time.
See, guys. We don't have to use the word as a derogatory term all the time.

But, I mean, if it takes a whole year to put up new signals in Port Lavaca on SH 35, then maybe 6 years on a bypass is justifiable.

MikieTimT

Infographics YouTube video on the Interstate just got posted yesterday.  Of course, most of the comments were about the number! :-D

https://youtu.be/4anVYVJvtBI

MaxConcrete

Quote from: MikieTimT on December 26, 2022, 02:48:23 PM
Infographics YouTube video on the Interstate just got posted yesterday.  Of course, most of the comments were about the number! :-D

https://youtu.be/4anVYVJvtBI

The video has some good detailed information about the history of the project. It is correct when it states that most people alive today won't live long enough to see I-69 completed, if it is ever completed.

The video does not give Texas enough credit for the amount of work in progress, which includes the Diboll bypass, Corrigan bypass, freeway upgrades north of Cleveland, major reconstruction in north Wharton County (southwest of Houston), upgrades around Kingsville, and upgrade to interstate south of Kingsville. In addition, TxDOT has an ongoing program for I-69 and is working to get environmental clearance for numerous sections.

The video fails to mention that the section in Louisiana and Arkansas is not really needed if I-69 and I-369 are built to Texarkana, and then I-30 and I-40 can provide the connection to Memphis.

That video also seems to be biased if favor of environmentalist anti-freeway efforts. The video claims that environmental impacts statements have "obviously" been bypassed, but that's total nonsense. Environmental rules cannot be bypassed, and rules are now so strict that even small projects require major studies to be able to proceed. For example
https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/fort-worth/east-west-connector-fonsi.html
www.DFWFreeways.com
www.HoustonFreeways.com

triplemultiplex

Not sure the link to this video needed to be posted in every single I-69 thread on the forum, but okay.
"That's just like... your opinion, man."

Rick Powell

#2418
In addition to Max Concrete's observations, the narrative stretches the truth when talking about the Ohio River crossing. It states "after getting off the I-69 and crossing into Kentucky, you would eventually find yourself back on the interstate." Cripes, it's less than 6 miles from the existing river crossing to I-69 at the south end of Henderson, it's what, a 10-minute non-interstate drive? And the progress on the ORX Crossing project, which is scheduled to be in place just past the end of the decade, seems to get short shrift here. Which is funny, because the video seems to identify the yet-unfinished section of I-69 between SR 144 and I-465 south of Indy as "done". It also hints that the I-465 section around Indy that connects the northern and southern pieces of I-69 in IN is some kind of detour, when it will actually be an integral, co-signed part of I-69 once the southern connection is made.

abqtraveler

Quote from: Rick Powell on December 28, 2022, 11:21:01 AM
In addition to Max Concrete's observations, the narrative stretches the truth when talking about the Ohio River crossing. It states "after getting off the I-69 and crossing into Kentucky, you would eventually find yourself back on the interstate." Cripes, it's less than 6 miles from the existing river crossing to I-69 at the south end of Henderson, it's what, a 10-minute non-interstate drive? And the progress on the ORX Crossing project, which is scheduled to be in place just past the end of the decade, seems to get short shrift here. Which is funny, because the video seems to identify the yet-unfinished section of I-69 between SR 144 and I-465 south of Indy as "done". It also hints that the I-465 section around Indy that connects the northern and southern pieces of I-69 in IN is some kind of detour, when it will actually be an integral, co-signed part of I-69 once the southern connection is made.
There were a lot of inaccuracies with dates in the infographic as well. the most glaring one was that claims I-69 was finished from Indianapolis to Angola by 1956. Construction began in the Fort Wayne area in 1956, with the last sections between Indy and Angola opening in 1971. The other inaccuracy was the Lansing-Port Huron section starting construction in 1992. That's also inaccurate. The last remaining sections around Lansing were completed in 1992; prior to that motorists had to exit I-69 and follow US-27 (designated a TEMPORARY I-69) through Lansing to rejoin I-69 on the other side of town. I could go on here, but don't want to get too off-topic.
2-d Interstates traveled:  4, 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 24, 25, 27, 29, 35, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 49, 55, 57, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76(E), 77, 78, 81, 83, 84(W), 85, 87(N), 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95

2-d Interstates Clinched:  12, 22, 30, 37, 44, 59, 80, 84(E), 86(E), 238, H1, H2, H3, H201

bwana39

This is more of a question. I am looking for opinions. In several cases, US-59 runs adjacent to a rail line. How should the frontage roads be handled in that situation.

1) Build them as if the rail line was not there.
2) Build a 2-laned 2-way access road on the other side of the rail line. and no frontage roads along the freeway side of the tracks.
3) Force the traffic off the frontage roads and onto the freeway in these areas and build no frontage roads.


I prefer option 2, but it adds crossing the rail line into the equation, which in itself has several options.

Your thoughts?
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

Thegeet

Quote from: bwana39 on January 21, 2023, 02:38:09 PM
This is more of a question. I am looking for opinions. In several cases, US-59 runs adjacent to a rail line. How should the frontage roads be handled in that situation.

1) Build them as if the rail line was not there.
2) Build a 2-laned 2-way access road on the other side of the rail line. and no frontage roads along the freeway side of the tracks.
3) Force the traffic off the frontage roads and onto the freeway in these areas and build no frontage roads.


I prefer option 2, but it adds crossing the rail line into the equation, which in itself has several options.

Your thoughts?
I would build a self closing exit ramp that automatically closes when trains are approaching, and forces traffic up the overpass and onto the other exit.

thisdj78

#2422
Quote from: bwana39 on January 21, 2023, 02:38:09 PM
This is more of a question. I am looking for opinions. In several cases, US-59 runs adjacent to a rail line. How should the frontage roads be handled in that situation.

1) Build them as if the rail line was not there.
2) Build a 2-laned 2-way access road on the other side of the rail line. and no frontage roads along the freeway side of the tracks.
3) Force the traffic off the frontage roads and onto the freeway in these areas and build no frontage roads.


I prefer option 2, but it adds crossing the rail line into the equation, which in itself has several options.

Your thoughts?

The ROW would just be widened on the side opposite of the rail line, which I think has been the case so far where they've widen sections parallel with tracks.

The current main lanes closest to the tracks typically become the location of the frontage road once they build out.

bwana39

Quote from: thisdj78 on January 21, 2023, 03:26:21 PM
Quote from: bwana39 on January 21, 2023, 02:38:09 PM
This is more of a question. I am looking for opinions. In several cases, US-59 runs adjacent to a rail line. How should the frontage roads be handled in that situation.

1) Build them as if the rail line was not there.
2) Build a 2-laned 2-way access road on the other side of the rail line. and no frontage roads along the freeway side of the tracks.
3) Force the traffic off the frontage roads and onto the freeway in these areas and build no frontage roads.


I prefer option 2, but it adds crossing the rail line into the equation, which in itself has several options.

Your thoughts?

The ROW would just be widened on the side opposite of the rail line, which I think has been the case so far where they've widen sections parallel with tracks.

The current main lanes closest to the tracks typically become the location of the frontage road once they build out.

That is correct. That is what the seem to do.

The point I was trying to ask is; isn't it pointless to build a through frontage road  between a limited access lane and railroad tracks?

Building the access road across the tracks seems to make better sense for a couple reasons.
1) Fewer grade railroad crossings. (in one ten-mile section, you could do away with 6 grade crossings even with a grade crossing for access on either end.)
2) Better access to the land across the railroad tracks without crossing railroad grade crossings.
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

J N Winkler

Quote from: bwana39 on January 21, 2023, 03:57:15 PMThat is correct. That is what the seem to do.

The point I was trying to ask is; isn't it pointless to build a through frontage road between a limited access lane and railroad tracks?

Building the access road across the tracks seems to make better sense for a couple reasons.

1) Fewer grade railroad crossings. (In one ten-mile section, you could do away with 6 grade crossings even with a grade crossing for access on either end.)

2) Better access to the land across the railroad tracks without crossing railroad grade crossings.

I suspect the main reason railroad lines aren't located between a freeway and its frontage road is to avoid having heavy volumes of entering and exiting traffic trying to cross the rail line at speed and on a skew.  While such crossings can be grade-separated, there is a heavy penalty to do so in terms of structure cost, especially since rail needs a minimum clearance of 17 feet.

This said, I'm surprised it's not more common to omit frontage roads when a freeway closely parallels a rail line.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini



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.