I am starting a thread for the proposed cross section to the I-69 plan that many have guess will end up being Interstate 6. This would be the SH-44 corridor from Corpus Christi to Freer. Frist off, would the freeway extend into Corpus Christi more than the current terminus into SPD? Also, is all of this way ahead of the curve because without I-69W, I-6 is also a pipe dream?
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 28, 2020, 06:00:37 PM
I am starting a thread for the proposed cross section to the I-69 plan that many have guess will end up being Interstate 6. This would be the SH-44 corridor from Corpus Christi to Freer. Frist off, would the freeway extend into Corpus Christi more than the current terminus into SPD? Also, is all of this way ahead of the curve because without I-69W, I-6 is also a pipe dream?
have any maps of this?
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 28, 2020, 06:00:37 PM
I am starting a thread for the proposed cross section to the I-69 plan that many have guess will end up being Interstate 6. This would be the SH-44 corridor from Corpus Christi to Freer. Frist off, would the freeway extend into Corpus Christi more than the current terminus into SPD? Also, is all of this way ahead of the curve because without I-69W, I-6 is also a pipe dream?
My opinion is that US-59 between Laredo and Freer, and SH-44 between Freer and Corpus Christi ought to be combined into one facility, such as Interstate 6 or Interstate 69W.
I still don't see the merits of a corridor along US-59 between Freer and Victoria, when I-69E between Victoria and Corpus Christi, and "I-6" between Corpus Christi and Freer would provide the same movement. Sure, the US-59 routing is about 20 miles more direct, but is it worth constructing 120 miles of additional interstate highway? A completed I-69E and "I-6" would take about the same amount of time that US-59 does today, albeit more mileage, but all 4 lane interstate highway vs. the present mostly 2 lane US-59.
As for its approach into Corpus Christi, I'd imagine they'd continue it east along SH-44 to end at SH-358 / NPID (people refer to the entire length of SH-358 as "SPID" (South Padre Island Drive), though it's only that south of Bear Ln). The remaining arterial segment between outside of Robstown and Corpus Christi currently under construction to build the main lanes with overpasses in the median of what will become the frontage road. The small segment that's undivided highway between I-69E and just outside Robstown will be covered by the future SH-44 Robstown Bypass, to create a seamless facility with a system interchange at I-69E.
Quote from: sprjus4 on July 28, 2020, 07:34:40 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 28, 2020, 06:00:37 PM
I am starting a thread for the proposed cross section to the I-69 plan that many have guess will end up being Interstate 6. This would be the SH-44 corridor from Corpus Christi to Freer. Frist off, would the freeway extend into Corpus Christi more than the current terminus into SPD? Also, is all of this way ahead of the curve because without I-69W, I-6 is also a pipe dream?
My opinion is that US-59 between Laredo and Freer, and SH-44 between Freer and Corpus Christi ought to be combined into one facility, such as Interstate 6 or Interstate 69W.
I still don't see the merits of a corridor along US-59 between Freer and Victoria, when I-69E between Victoria and Corpus Christi, and "I-6" between Corpus Christi and Freer would provide the same movement. Sure, the US-59 routing is about 20 miles more direct, but is it worth constructing 120 miles of additional interstate highway? A completed I-69E and "I-6" would take about the same amount of time that US-59 does today, albeit more mileage, but all 4 lane interstate highway vs. the present mostly 2 lane US-59.
As for its approach into Corpus Christi, I'd imagine they'd continue it east along SH-44 to end at SH-358 / NPID (people refer to the entire length of SH-358 as "SPID" (South Padre Island Drive), though it's only that south of Bear Ln). The remaining arterial segment between outside of Robstown and Corpus Christi currently under construction to build the main lanes with overpasses in the median of what will become the frontage road. The small segment that's undivided highway between I-69E and just outside Robstown will be covered by the future SH-44 Robstown Bypass, to create a seamless facility with a system interchange at I-69E.
Or will SPID between SH-44 and I-37 be cosigned as I-6?
1) This belongs in Fictional Highways.
2) The Freer to Corpus Christi segment of SH 44 is already integrated into the I-69 system. An I-x69 is more suitable for that segment if it is upgraded and the rest of the I-69 system is built.
3) A simpler idea would be to just eliminate the designation for I-69W between Freer and Victoria and simply 4-lane that section as an arterial highway with freeway bypasses at certain points, transfer I-69W to SH 44 from Freer to Robstown where it would meet I-69E/US 77, and just make that section from there I-69.
Save I-6 for the renumber of I-49 South in Louisiana + a Lafayette bypass.
Quote from: Anthony_JK on July 28, 2020, 08:31:35 PM
1) This belongs in Fictional Highways.
2) The Freer to Corpus Christi segment of SH 44 is already integrated into the I-69 system. An I-x69 is more suitable for that segment if it is upgraded and the rest of the I-69 system is built.
3) A simpler idea would be to just eliminate the designation for I-69W between Freer and Victoria and simply 4-lane that section as an arterial highway with freeway bypasses at certain points, transfer I-69W to SH 44 from Freer to Robstown where it would meet I-69E/US 77, and just make that section from there I-69.
Save I-6 for the renumber of I-49 South in Louisiana + a Lafayette bypass.
I wish & hope Louisiana will number I-49 south of Lafayette to I-6. So much money would be saved not renumbering the exits on current I-49.
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on July 28, 2020, 07:54:44 PM
Or will SPID between SH-44 and I-37 be cosigned as I-6?
Perhaps, as a way to connect directly with I-37 towards Downtown.
Quote from: Anthony_JK on July 28, 2020, 08:31:35 PM
1) This belongs in Fictional Highways.
The number may be, but since the thread is discussing that segment for interstate upgrade and it is indeed an official proposal, it's not fictional.
Quote from: Anthony_JK on July 28, 2020, 08:31:35 PM
2) The Freer to Corpus Christi segment of SH 44 is already integrated into the I-69 system. An I-x69 is more suitable for that segment if it is upgraded and the rest of the I-69 system is built.
Perhaps, though just like I-6 it's pure speculation.
I-2 is part of the I-69 system, though did not receive an I-x69 designation, rather a new 2di.[/quote]
Quote from: Anthony_JK on July 28, 2020, 08:31:35 PM
3) A simpler idea would be to just eliminate the designation for I-69W between Freer and Victoria and simply 4-lane that section as an arterial highway with freeway bypasses at certain points, transfer I-69W to SH 44 from Freer to Robstown where it would meet I-69E/US 77, and just make that section from there I-69.
Agreed, and I even question the need for 4 lanes in many areas. The two lanes seems adequate, and through traffic would likely divert to I-69E and a SH-44 interstate if constructed, so at that point US-59 is serving local traffic.
20 miles of US-59 west of Victoria is currently 75 mph 4 lane divided highway. The remainder west of there is 75 mph super-2.
Quote from: Anthony_JK on July 28, 2020, 08:31:35 PM
Save I-6 for the renumber of I-49 South in Louisiana + a Lafayette bypass.
Seems fine as is with I-49.
Quote from: cjk374 on July 28, 2020, 08:43:34 PM
I wish & hope Louisiana will number I-49 south of Lafayette to I-6. So much money would be saved not renumbering the exits on current I-49.
That's a minor expense. Indiana recently had to renumber I-69 exits to account for the 200 mile southern extension.
Quote from: Anthony_JK on July 28, 2020, 08:31:35 PM
1) This belongs in Fictional Highways.
The reason I called this thread I-6 is because I have seen it so many times I am starting to think when the time comes it will be I-6 (maybe?). This isn't a fictional highway, it is part of the I-69 legislation. It may not get a I-X69 designation because, like I-2, it's number is not written into the legislation. It will be up to application to AASHTO just like I-2 was. It could be an I-X69, a new mainline number, or if it connects to I-37, it could be an I-X37. I doubt the last scenario would happen, it seems like Texas is allergic to 3di's in general, and really allergic to 3di's for intrastate interstates (I-345 included since they won't sign it).
Quote from: Anthony_JK on July 28, 2020, 08:31:35 PM
1) This belongs in Fictional Highways.
2) The Freer to Corpus Christi segment of SH 44 is already integrated into the I-69 system. An I-x69 is more suitable for that segment if it is upgraded and the rest of the I-69 system is built.
3) A simpler idea would be to just eliminate the designation for I-69W between Freer and Victoria and simply 4-lane that section as an arterial highway with freeway bypasses at certain points, transfer I-69W to SH 44 from Freer to Robstown where it would meet I-69E/US 77, and just make that section from there I-69.
Save I-6 for the renumber of I-49 South in Louisiana + a Lafayette bypass.
That is the Eastern I-8! :D
Quote from: GreenLanternCorps on July 29, 2020, 08:08:11 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on July 28, 2020, 08:31:35 PM
1) This belongs in Fictional Highways.
2) The Freer to Corpus Christi segment of SH 44 is already integrated into the I-69 system. An I-x69 is more suitable for that segment if it is upgraded and the rest of the I-69 system is built.
3) A simpler idea would be to just eliminate the designation for I-69W between Freer and Victoria and simply 4-lane that section as an arterial highway with freeway bypasses at certain points, transfer I-69W to SH 44 from Freer to Robstown where it would meet I-69E/US 77, and just make that section from there I-69.
Save I-6 for the renumber of I-49 South in Louisiana + a Lafayette bypass.
That is the Eastern I-8! :D
:ded:
Quote from: GreenLanternCorps on July 29, 2020, 08:08:11 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on July 28, 2020, 08:31:35 PM
1) This belongs in Fictional Highways.
2) The Freer to Corpus Christi segment of SH 44 is already integrated into the I-69 system. An I-x69 is more suitable for that segment if it is upgraded and the rest of the I-69 system is built.
3) A simpler idea would be to just eliminate the designation for I-69W between Freer and Victoria and simply 4-lane that section as an arterial highway with freeway bypasses at certain points, transfer I-69W to SH 44 from Freer to Robstown where it would meet I-69E/US 77, and just make that section from there I-69.
Save I-6 for the renumber of I-49 South in Louisiana + a Lafayette bypass.
That is the Eastern I-8! :D
And here I thought it was the western I-4. (-:
Quote from: Finrod on August 01, 2020, 09:15:49 PM
Quote from: GreenLanternCorps on July 29, 2020, 08:08:11 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on July 28, 2020, 08:31:35 PM
1) This belongs in Fictional Highways.
2) The Freer to Corpus Christi segment of SH 44 is already integrated into the I-69 system. An I-x69 is more suitable for that segment if it is upgraded and the rest of the I-69 system is built.
3) A simpler idea would be to just eliminate the designation for I-69W between Freer and Victoria and simply 4-lane that section as an arterial highway with freeway bypasses at certain points, transfer I-69W to SH 44 from Freer to Robstown where it would meet I-69E/US 77, and just make that section from there I-69.
Save I-6 for the renumber of I-49 South in Louisiana + a Lafayette bypass.
That is the Eastern I-8! :D
And here I thought it was the western I-4. (-:
Not western I-4. Pontoon bridge in the Gulf of Mexico for a south bypass of Houston, New Orleans, Biloxi, Mobile, Pensacola and Tallahassee on your way to Tampa and Orlando. South Texas fast corridor to Disney World!!!
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 05, 2020, 08:48:26 AM
Quote from: Finrod on August 01, 2020, 09:15:49 PM
Quote from: GreenLanternCorps on July 29, 2020, 08:08:11 AM
Quote from: Anthony_JK on July 28, 2020, 08:31:35 PM
1) This belongs in Fictional Highways.
2) The Freer to Corpus Christi segment of SH 44 is already integrated into the I-69 system. An I-x69 is more suitable for that segment if it is upgraded and the rest of the I-69 system is built.
3) A simpler idea would be to just eliminate the designation for I-69W between Freer and Victoria and simply 4-lane that section as an arterial highway with freeway bypasses at certain points, transfer I-69W to SH 44 from Freer to Robstown where it would meet I-69E/US 77, and just make that section from there I-69.
Save I-6 for the renumber of I-49 South in Louisiana + a Lafayette bypass.
That is the Eastern I-8! :D
And here I thought it was the western I-4. (-:
Not western I-4. Pontoon bridge in the Gulf of Mexico for a south bypass of Houston, New Orleans, Biloxi, Mobile, Pensacola and Tallahassee on your way to Tampa and Orlando. South Texas fast corridor to Disney World!!!
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AwesomeButImpractical
^^ Okay, now it's getting fictional!! (Drain the Gulf and...)
.
Seriously, nothing wrong with an I-6, but an I-269 ties in with the patterns... it would be between 169 and 369, and it's a connection between branches of 69 (although perpendicular, not parallel or looping).
.
It's certainly not fictional that this freeway will be built to the same probability as the rest of the I-69 monstrosity. (I still think it should be numbered such that 69W to 69C and 69C should be numbered I-69 proper, 69W from 69C to SR 44 should be I-669 with the SR 44 and rest of 69W being I-6, and 69E should be the southern I-71 -- which would be "suggested" by Kentucky extending 71 down I-65 and over the WK instead of using an x69 there.)
In the past (prior to the I-69 stuff) I thought "I-6" could be a legit designation for a freeway directly linking Laredo and Corpus Christi and Houston. Laredo is a very significant border crossing and has over 200,000 residents. Corpus Christi is a pretty significant port city. There should be no debate whether or not Corpus and Houston should be linked by an Interstate class route (they should be linked). The I-69 efforts have muddied the waters for "I-6" possibilities in Texas.
I don't think a Freer to Corpus route is long enough to justify an "I-6" designation. I-69W has started getting signed in the Laredo area. Meanwhile it would take years worth of political work to get an "I-6" in that area off the ground. Chances are good the I-69W segment between Laredo and Freer will start taking shape and getting signed as I-69W before I-6 efforts could materialize.
If anything, more improvement work needs to be done near and along the coast in the Corpus Christi region to improve access for port traffic, oil business traffic and hurricane evacuation. I think TX-35 needs to be fully upgraded into an Interstate class facility through Aransas Pass, Rockport and over Copano Bay. Then, farther East, the segment over by Port Lavaca and Point Comfort needs to be fully upgraded. A bunch of this upgrade work needs to happen regardless of the planned improvements to US-59 off to the Northwest. Ultimately over the long term a corridor could emerge going from Corpus to Galveston and linking several oil towns and isolated refineries along the way. A Freer to Galveston freeway corridor would be long enough to name as something like "I-6".
Lafayette to New Orleans is indeed another possibility for "I-6." But I think too much effort has already gone into designating it as I-49. Having one route number go all the way from New Orleans up thru Shreveport sort of sounds better in political terms. If the I-49 South effort had another route "brand name" it might have been even more difficult to get it built.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 05, 2020, 12:53:13 PM
In the past (prior to the I-69 stuff) I thought "I-6" could be a legit designation for a freeway directly linking Laredo and Corpus Christi and Houston. Laredo is a very significant border crossing and has over 200,000 residents. Corpus Christi is a pretty significant port city. There should be no debate whether or not Corpus and Houston should be linked by an Interstate class route (they should be linked). The I-69 efforts have muddied the waters for "I-6" possibilities in Texas.
I don't think a Freer to Corpus route is long enough to justify an "I-6" designation. I-69W has started getting signed in the Laredo area. Meanwhile it would take years worth of political work to get an "I-6" in that area off the ground. Chances are good the I-69W segment between Laredo and Freer will start taking shape and getting signed as I-69W before I-6 efforts could materialize.
If anything, more improvement work needs to be done near and along the coast in the Corpus Christi region to improve access for port traffic, oil business traffic and hurricane evacuation. I think TX-35 needs to be fully upgraded into an Interstate class facility through Aransas Pass, Rockport and over Copano Bay. Then, farther East, the segment over by Port Lavaca and Point Comfort needs to be fully upgraded. A bunch of this upgrade work needs to happen regardless of the planned improvements to US-59 off to the Northwest. Ultimately over the long term a corridor could emerge going from Corpus to Galveston and linking several oil towns and isolated refineries along the way. A Freer to Galveston freeway corridor would be long enough to name as something like "I-6".
Lafayette to New Orleans is indeed another possibility for "I-6." But I think too much effort has already gone into designating it as I-49. Having one route number go all the way from New Orleans up thru Shreveport sort of sounds better in political terms. If the I-49 South effort had another route "brand name" it might have been even more difficult to get it built.
The I-6 (or whatever it will be called) corridor this thread is about WILL be built. It's part of the I-69 legislation. It's not a matter if it's feasible or not, it will happen. It may be the last thing to happen though.
Let me breath for a second. Hahaha. I have finally gotten over the three I-69 legs. I hate them, it's stupid, but I have had to live with them since they have to be named that way. I hate it when I read good ideas like yours that fit the system better, like now I want to see a Laredo-Freer-Corpus route as I-6, yet we are stuck with dumb suffixed routes. They can't be renamed, and they would have been so much better used if the FHWA had their say. UGGGGH!
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 05, 2020, 01:51:45 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 05, 2020, 12:53:13 PM
In the past (prior to the I-69 stuff) I thought "I-6" could be a legit designation for a freeway directly linking Laredo and Corpus Christi and Houston. Laredo is a very significant border crossing and has over 200,000 residents. Corpus Christi is a pretty significant port city. There should be no debate whether or not Corpus and Houston should be linked by an Interstate class route (they should be linked). The I-69 efforts have muddied the waters for "I-6" possibilities in Texas.
I don't think a Freer to Corpus route is long enough to justify an "I-6" designation. I-69W has started getting signed in the Laredo area. Meanwhile it would take years worth of political work to get an "I-6" in that area off the ground. Chances are good the I-69W segment between Laredo and Freer will start taking shape and getting signed as I-69W before I-6 efforts could materialize.
If anything, more improvement work needs to be done near and along the coast in the Corpus Christi region to improve access for port traffic, oil business traffic and hurricane evacuation. I think TX-35 needs to be fully upgraded into an Interstate class facility through Aransas Pass, Rockport and over Copano Bay. Then, farther East, the segment over by Port Lavaca and Point Comfort needs to be fully upgraded. A bunch of this upgrade work needs to happen regardless of the planned improvements to US-59 off to the Northwest. Ultimately over the long term a corridor could emerge going from Corpus to Galveston and linking several oil towns and isolated refineries along the way. A Freer to Galveston freeway corridor would be long enough to name as something like "I-6".
Lafayette to New Orleans is indeed another possibility for "I-6." But I think too much effort has already gone into designating it as I-49. Having one route number go all the way from New Orleans up thru Shreveport sort of sounds better in political terms. If the I-49 South effort had another route "brand name" it might have been even more difficult to get it built.
The I-6 (or whatever it will be called) corridor this thread is about WILL be built. It's part of the I-69 legislation. It's not a matter if it's feasible or not, it will happen. It may be the last thing to happen though.
Let me breath for a second. Hahaha. I have finally gotten over the three I-69 legs. I hate them, it's stupid, but I have had to live with them since they have to be named that way. I hate it when I read good ideas like yours that fit the system better, like now I want to see a Laredo-Freer-Corpus route as I-6, yet we are stuck with dumb suffixed routes. They can't be renamed, and they would have been so much better used if the FHWA had their say. UGGGGH!
Texas is the only entity that thinks it should be named that, i thought the feds used those as place holders and Texas took it literally.
Quote from: silverback1065 on August 05, 2020, 09:01:57 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 05, 2020, 01:51:45 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 05, 2020, 12:53:13 PM
In the past (prior to the I-69 stuff) I thought "I-6" could be a legit designation for a freeway directly linking Laredo and Corpus Christi and Houston. Laredo is a very significant border crossing and has over 200,000 residents. Corpus Christi is a pretty significant port city. There should be no debate whether or not Corpus and Houston should be linked by an Interstate class route (they should be linked). The I-69 efforts have muddied the waters for "I-6" possibilities in Texas.
I don't think a Freer to Corpus route is long enough to justify an "I-6" designation. I-69W has started getting signed in the Laredo area. Meanwhile it would take years worth of political work to get an "I-6" in that area off the ground. Chances are good the I-69W segment between Laredo and Freer will start taking shape and getting signed as I-69W before I-6 efforts could materialize.
If anything, more improvement work needs to be done near and along the coast in the Corpus Christi region to improve access for port traffic, oil business traffic and hurricane evacuation. I think TX-35 needs to be fully upgraded into an Interstate class facility through Aransas Pass, Rockport and over Copano Bay. Then, farther East, the segment over by Port Lavaca and Point Comfort needs to be fully upgraded. A bunch of this upgrade work needs to happen regardless of the planned improvements to US-59 off to the Northwest. Ultimately over the long term a corridor could emerge going from Corpus to Galveston and linking several oil towns and isolated refineries along the way. A Freer to Galveston freeway corridor would be long enough to name as something like "I-6".
Lafayette to New Orleans is indeed another possibility for "I-6." But I think too much effort has already gone into designating it as I-49. Having one route number go all the way from New Orleans up thru Shreveport sort of sounds better in political terms. If the I-49 South effort had another route "brand name" it might have been even more difficult to get it built.
The I-6 (or whatever it will be called) corridor this thread is about WILL be built. It's part of the I-69 legislation. It's not a matter if it's feasible or not, it will happen. It may be the last thing to happen though.
Let me breath for a second. Hahaha. I have finally gotten over the three I-69 legs. I hate them, it's stupid, but I have had to live with them since they have to be named that way. I hate it when I read good ideas like yours that fit the system better, like now I want to see a Laredo-Freer-Corpus route as I-6, yet we are stuck with dumb suffixed routes. They can't be renamed, and they would have been so much better used if the FHWA had their say. UGGGGH!
Texas is the only entity that thinks it should be named that, i thought the feds used those as place holders and Texas took it literally.
I think you may be correct, but I think it also had to do with congressional law writing. Maybe it was written into law that the names were the placeholders, but Texas thought since they were in the law verbiage that they 100% had to be those names.
What's funny to me is the first segment to be signed as I-69 in Texas was the segment between Callalen to Robstown, and it was signed I-69. Then after the two sections of US 59 north and south of Houston were signed as I-69, the naming changed to I-69E. It's like someone went back to the law and re-read everything and said, woops, we made a mistake. Like we didn't read it thoroughly enough the first time, but by god, we'll read it way more thoroughly now!!!
The new segment that recently was completed between north of Driscoll and south of Robstown uses "I-69" shields as opposed to "I-69E" .
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 06, 2020, 12:10:15 PM
The new segment that recently was completed between north of Driscoll and south of Robstown uses "I-69" shields as opposed to "I-69E" .
Do you have pictures of that?? Or do you have a link?? Because, that's a major signing error if they have I-69 adjoining I-69E everywhere north and south of that section.
Quote from: sturmde on August 06, 2020, 12:54:22 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 06, 2020, 12:10:15 PM
The new segment that recently was completed between north of Driscoll and south of Robstown uses "I-69" shields as opposed to "I-69E" .
Do you have pictures of that?? Or do you have a link?? Because, that's a major signing error if they have I-69 adjoining I-69E everywhere north and south of that section.
There are some, but the BGSs have I-69E shields:
https://www.google.com/maps/@27.8676872,-97.6232089,3a,60y,181.68h,97.69t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOk6g0pNaiNYQYHpy6ffNZg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.8676872,-97.6232089,3a,60y,181.68h,97.69t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOk6g0pNaiNYQYHpy6ffNZg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)
Quote from: sturmde on August 06, 2020, 12:54:22 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 06, 2020, 12:10:15 PM
The new segment that recently was completed between north of Driscoll and south of Robstown uses "I-69" shields as opposed to "I-69E" .
Do you have pictures of that?? Or do you have a link?? Because, that's a major signing error if they have I-69 adjoining I-69E everywhere north and south of that section.
All of the ground mounted signage from Robstown to I-37 is signed as "I-69". "I-69E" signage only exists on a few BGS, as ethanhopkin14 mentioned.
The newest segment constructed a couple years from north of Driscoll to south of Robstown only has ground mounted signage, and it still only reads "I-69".
https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7428491,-97.6972893,3a,43.3y,53.34h,89.43t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0TvOJnoFhPg683WfOPotGg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 06, 2020, 05:40:14 PM
Quote from: sturmde on August 06, 2020, 12:54:22 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 06, 2020, 12:10:15 PM
The new segment that recently was completed between north of Driscoll and south of Robstown uses "I-69" shields as opposed to "I-69E" .
Do you have pictures of that?? Or do you have a link?? Because, that's a major signing error if they have I-69 adjoining I-69E everywhere north and south of that section.
All of the ground mounted signage from Robstown to I-37 is signed as "I-69". "I-69E" signage only exists on a few BGS, as ethanhopkin14 mentioned.
The newest segment constructed a couple years from north of Driscoll to south of Robstown only has ground mounted signage, and it still only reads "I-69".
https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7428491,-97.6972893,3a,43.3y,53.34h,89.43t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0TvOJnoFhPg683WfOPotGg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
So weird they are still like that.
This belongs in fictional since I-6 doesn't exist.
Quote from: Roadgeekteen on August 06, 2020, 08:20:55 PM
This belongs in fictional since I-6 doesn't exist.
Freer to Corpus Christi - "I-6" - is an official proposal. It's not fictional.
I-6 should go ahead and be signed on the freeway parts of SR 44, north on SR 358, cosigned on I-37, US 181, and along SR 35 for the freeway parts as they are extended east...
Quote from: sturmde on August 07, 2020, 12:54:05 AM
I-6 should go ahead and be signed on the freeway parts of SR 44, north on SR 358, cosigned on I-37, US 181, and along SR 35 for the freeway parts as they are extended east...
Agreed. I have always wanted the Harbor Bridge and the freeway northeast of there to Aransas Pass to carry an interstate shield. That would unfortunately require one of my most hated things: a route that is cosigned and dies in the cosign. Whether it be two routes that terminate together on the same pavement or, one terminates and the other continues. You could truncate I-37 about 6ish miles, then you have to change 147 miles of mile markers and exit numbers!
In the scenario of an I-6 route being built thru Corpus Christi and over the new Harbour Bridge to Aransas Pass and farther East, it would open a new possibility for I-37. Make I-37 consume the TX-358 freeway and terminate at North Padre Island. I-6, coming by way of TX-44, would have a short concurrency with I-37 on the North end of the TX-358 freeway. Then I-6 would turn East and take over the last couple or so miles of freeway currently used by I-37.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 07, 2020, 01:46:14 PM
In the scenario of an I-6 route being built thru Corpus Christi and over the new Harbour Bridge to Aransas Pass and farther East, it would open a new possibility for I-37. Make I-37 consume the TX-358 freeway and terminate at North Padre Island. I-6, coming by way of TX-44, would have a short concurrency with I-37 on the North end of the TX-358 freeway. Then I-6 would turn East and take over the last couple or so miles of freeway currently used by I-37.
If
Interstate 6 were to be extended northeastwards from Corpus Christi to Aransas Pass and further east, where will it ultimately end?
TBH, if it were to be designated as an I-69 auxiliary route, this connects three branches different from mainline route, so my hot take is I-1069. It may be fictional in numbering,but it's still related to I-69.
In all seriousness, I-6(?) would be designated in the next decade or so, considering the timeline for the direct connectors. And I predict the routing to be from US 59 in Freer, to SH 358 in CC.
Quote from: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on December 31, 2021, 12:24:22 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 07, 2020, 01:46:14 PM
In the scenario of an I-6 route being built thru Corpus Christi and over the new Harbour Bridge to Aransas Pass and farther East, it would open a new possibility for I-37. Make I-37 consume the TX-358 freeway and terminate at North Padre Island. I-6, coming by way of TX-44, would have a short concurrency with I-37 on the North end of the TX-358 freeway. Then I-6 would turn East and take over the last couple or so miles of freeway currently used by I-37.
If Interstate 6 were to be extended northeastwards from Corpus Christi to Aransas Pass and further east, where will it ultimately end?
You could theoretically route it up TX-35 up to Houston in accordance with the new TX-35 freeway between I-610 and Alvin that's been in the cards for a while now. I pondered doing that in my fictional highways thread but decided against it.
Quote from: CoreySamson on December 31, 2021, 01:44:57 PM
Quote from: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on December 31, 2021, 12:24:22 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on August 07, 2020, 01:46:14 PM
In the scenario of an I-6 route being built thru Corpus Christi and over the new Harbour Bridge to Aransas Pass and farther East, it would open a new possibility for I-37. Make I-37 consume the TX-358 freeway and terminate at North Padre Island. I-6, coming by way of TX-44, would have a short concurrency with I-37 on the North end of the TX-358 freeway. Then I-6 would turn East and take over the last couple or so miles of freeway currently used by I-37.
If Interstate 6 were to be extended northeastwards from Corpus Christi to Aransas Pass and further east, where will it ultimately end?
You could theoretically route it up TX-35 up to Houston in accordance with the new TX-35 freeway between I-610 and Alvin that's been in the cards for a while now. I pondered doing that in my fictional highways thread but decided against it.
If it were the case, would the freeway be routed on the current LBJ Causeway bridge near Fulton, or would it require a new bridge west of it?
Otherwise, this routing would potentially require bypasses in Tivoli, Port Lavaca, Palacios, Bay City, West Columbia, and Angleton, about 6 bypasses at least. In Port Lavaca, I don't think the median is wide enough to fit four new lanes, even with a barrier, only barely more than 100ft wide.
Quote from: CoolAngrybirdsrio4If Interstate 6 were to be extended northeastwards from Corpus Christi to Aransas Pass and further east, where will it ultimately end?
There are a couple possibilities. The first would be signing I-6 over TX-35 to Aransas Pass and the current dead end of the TX-35 freeway in Fulton. It's possible to extend that freeway straight NE, skirting by the Aransas County Airport to the Northwest. There is undeveloped ROW in front of that freeway dead end. A new causeway would be needed across Copano Bay to a point near Holiday Beach where the highway can merge back into the existing TX-35 highway. Trying to push an I-6 route over to the existing causeway would be too disruptive. If money was no object I'd build an I-6 tunnel under Copano Bay to Holiday Beach. But that's too costly.
Farther Northeast in the towns of Port Lavaca and Point Comfort the TX-35 roadway is
Interstate-ready. But the Lavaca Bay Causeway would need some serious upgrades to be made Interstate-quality.
I wouldn't have an I-6 route divert down to Palacios, but rather go direct from Point Comfort to Blessing and Bay City. Next stop is Old Ocean and the refinery there. The I-6 route would then need a new terrain bypass of West Columbia and Angleton.
If it was up to me I'd ultimately have I-6 ending at I-45 in Texas City just on the other side of West Bay from Galveston. Some might be bothered by I-6 and TX-6 crossing each other, but I don't see that as a problem at all. I-69 and US-69 will cross each other in Texas too.
An Interstate between Corpus Christi and Galveston could serve multiple purposes. There are multiple oil refineries along the way; I-6 would help move related commercial traffic. I-6 would help business in nearby beach communities. And it would be another major lateral arterial to aid in hurricane evacuation.
A freeway along the SH-35 corridor just seems redundant to US-77 and US-59, which is already a four lane divided highway that's free-flowing between Corpus Christi and Houston, and will eventually be I-69.
Not to mention, the fastest route now between Corpus Christi and Galveston is still US-77 / US-59, the Sam Houston Tollway, and I-45. Once the SH-99 Grand Pkwy is completed along the southern side, it will improve that routing further.
And a side note, the SH-35 route near Rockport and Fulton is merely a four lane divided highway, it's not a freeway. It's a high quality, 75 mph roadway with no traffic signals, but not fully interstate standard. You'd need a few interchanges and frontage roads.
Quote from: sprjus4A freeway along the SH-35 corridor just seems redundant to US-77 and US-59, which is already a four lane divided highway that's free-flowing between Corpus Christi and Houston, and will eventually be I-69.
It's not any more redundant than I-69E and I-69C going into far South Texas. TX-35 runs much closer to the coast than US-59/Future I-69 and US-77. US-77 diverges Northward at Victoria. TX-35 directly connects a series of oil refineries close to the coast. The Houston metro is pretty gigantic in size and population scale. Based on previous events the current escape routes for incidents like incoming hurricanes are insufficient. An I-6 route built from Corpus Christ to Texas City could be another high speed escape route to distribute some of the burden.
There are several other highly populated regions of the US that have 2 or even 3 parallel super highways carrying traffic. South Florida has I-95 and the Florida Turnpike doing double duty.
I can't see any other realistic place within the contiguous 48 states where an I-6 route could be located other than South Texas. But it would kind of suck if an I-6 route was built only run between Freer and Corpus Christi. It wouldn't be much longer than that dinky I-97 route in Maryland.
Could an "Interstate 6" along the TX 44 corridor theoretically continue west of US 59/future Interstate 69W in Freer, to Interstate 35 in Encinal? Or are traffic counts too low to justify such an extension?
I doubt if such an upgrade to Encinal would be worth it. It's not a significant destination like Laredo and its extremely busy border crossing. One exception to that would be if the grander visions of an I-27 extension were realized: an extension South of Lubbock down thru Midland/Big Spring (the I-27W/I-27E thing), San Angelo, Del Rio, Eagle Pass and Laredo. An I-6 route that began on that I-27 extension running thru Encinal to Freer might work out better in a big picture scheme. Still I don't think the traffic counts are there to justify it.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 31, 2021, 07:54:49 PM
Quote from: CoolAngrybirdsrio4If Interstate 6 were to be extended northeastwards from Corpus Christi to Aransas Pass and further east, where will it ultimately end?
There are a couple possibilities. The first would be signing I-6 over TX-35 to Aransas Pass and the current dead end of the TX-35 freeway in Fulton. It's possible to extend that freeway straight NE, skirting by the Aransas County Airport to the Northwest. There is undeveloped ROW in front of that freeway dead end. A new causeway would be needed across Copano Bay to a point near Holiday Beach where the highway can merge back into the existing TX-35 highway. Trying to push an I-6 route over to the existing causeway would be too disruptive. If money was no object I'd build an I-6 tunnel under Copano Bay to Holiday Beach. But that's too costly.
Farther Northeast in the towns of Port Lavaca and Point Comfort the TX-35 roadway is Interstate-ready. But the Lavaca Bay Causeway would need some serious upgrades to be made Interstate-quality.
I wouldn't have an I-6 route divert down to Palacios, but rather go direct from Point Comfort to Blessing and Bay City. Next stop is Old Ocean and the refinery there. The I-6 route would then need a new terrain bypass of West Columbia and Angleton.
If it was up to me I'd ultimately have I-6 ending at I-45 in Texas City just on the other side of West Bay from Galveston. Some might be bothered by I-6 and TX-6 crossing each other, but I don't see that as a problem at all. I-69 and US-69 will cross each other in Texas too.
An Interstate between Corpus Christi and Galveston could serve multiple purposes. There are multiple oil refineries along the way; I-6 would help move related commercial traffic. I-6 would help business in nearby beach communities. And it would be another major lateral arterial to aid in hurricane evacuation.
It would be interesting to see a freeway ultimately run from Galveston to Corpus Christi, bypassing Houston.
Another thing to consider if a Gulf Coast freeway like this I-6 concept could be built from Corpus Christi to Galveston: what if the highway didn't have to end at I-45? Has there ever been any proposals to tunnel across Galveston Bay from Texas City to the Bolivar Peninsula on the other side? Currently the only way to get across is the ferry on the East side of Galveston.
An Interstate quality tunnel to the Bolivar Peninsula and a freeway on the other side could blow open a lot of business opportunity there. And it could allow this I-6 concept to go even farther East to Port Arthur, Bridge City and meet up with I-10 somewhere near the Louisiana border. That kind of concept would make I-6 pretty legit.
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 31, 2021, 11:53:42 PM
Another thing to consider if a Gulf Coast freeway like this I-6 concept could be built from Corpus Christi to Galveston: what if the highway didn't have to end at I-45? Has there ever been any proposals to tunnel across Galveston Bay from Texas City to the Bolivar Peninsula on the other side? Currently the only way to get across is the ferry on the East side of Galveston.
An Interstate quality tunnel to the Bolivar Peninsula and a freeway on the other side could blow open a lot of business opportunity there. And it could allow this I-6 concept to go even farther East to Port Arthur, Bridge City and meet up with I-10 somewhere near the Louisiana border. That kind of concept would make I-6 pretty legit.
I was thinking of having a possible eastern terminus in Winnie or Orange, Texas if it were to be extended onto the the Bolivar Peninsula and continue northeast.
An I-6 concept going that far would have to tie into I-10 a bit West of Orange, TX due to all the existing development on the existing TX-73 and TX-87 corridors thru Bridge City and Orange on the way to I-10.
This thread is fictional malarky.
Quote from: Rothman on January 01, 2022, 01:24:51 AM
This thread is fictional malarky.
Yup... the only official segment of "I-6" (not yet designated) is SH-44 between SH-358 and US-59 (Future I-69W) at Freer.
Anything north of Corpus Christi is pure fictional, and even more so beyond Lake Jackson.
This should be moved to fictional.
There is no record at the FHWA for any planned use of number 6 for interstate use.
There is no record of *any* federal legislation authorizing the use of I-6.
There is no (and never has been) appropriation bill proposing the use of I-6.
I couldn't locate any state legislation in Texas looking to request *any* road be called I-6.
I have asked TxDOT what the number might be, and if I-6 is said by them, by all means, this thread may be kept. If not, I would create a new thread.
Quote from: edwaleni on January 01, 2022, 02:06:55 AM
This should be moved to fictional.
There is no record at the FHWA for any planned use of number 6 for interstate use.
There is no record of *any* federal legislation authorizing the use of I-6.
There is no (and never has been) appropriation bill proposing the use of I-6.
I couldn't locate any state legislation in Texas looking to request *any* road be called I-6.
The thread is in reference to the proposed interstate along SH-44 between SH-358 and US-59 in Texas, which is not fictional - it is an official proposal apart of the I-69 system.
The only fictional part is the "I-6" label, which if anything, should simply be removed from the title of the thread.
Yeah you make it sound official. That freeway has been planned bot TexDOT won't assign it a designation yet. I thought that this was news being reported.
This topic should probably just be moved to Fictional. Far more fictional speculation than discussion of actual plans for TX-44.
Unfortunately, it was made that by a few users. A thread is reasonable to discuss improvements to the SH-44 corridor. The discussion about any further extensions beyond Corpus Christi to the northeast should 100% be split into its own fictional thread.
Maybe we should wait until TX 44 officially joins the Interstate System before speculating on its number, although I think numbering it as Interstate 6 is the most logical (if it happens). Since Congressman Blake Farenthold first proposed it in 2014, until it becomes official, I'll believe TX 44 will become an Interstate when I see it.