I-69 in TX

[jbnv]

I don't know where else one could build "I-6" other than a Corpus Christi to Laredo route. Still, Corpus Christi to Freer is only about 75 miles. That's kind of short for a 2di route.
[/quote]

I-12 is less than 90 miles long and has virtually no chance of being extended contiguously. If you extend the TX 44 corridor to Eagle Pass, you get about 200 miles.

[wdcrft63]

I-369 is a reasonable choice.

Already taken, up in Texarkana.

Then there's only one solution that makes any sense, given the I-69E/C/W crap... Multiplex I-369 down I-69, along I-69W at the first split, and along I-69C at the second split. This proceeds to TX 44. TX 44 east of I-69C is I-369E and vice versa.

How about calling 369 Interstate 6 or 4

Please no I-4; we don't need that duplication. I-269 is fine.

[CentralPAGal]

I-369 is a reasonable choice.

Already taken, up in Texarkana.

Then there's only one solution that makes any sense, given the I-69E/C/W crap... Multiplex I-369 down I-69, along I-69W at the first split, and along I-69C at the second split. This proceeds to TX 44. TX 44 east of I-69C is I-369E and vice versa.

How about calling 369 Interstate 6 or 4

In a more perfect world, it should be I-6. I'd definitely rather see that than I-1269SE or whatever

[Guysdrive780]

Who wants Interstate 6 on SH 44

[Bobby5280]

In a more perfect world, it should be I-6. I'd definitely rather see that than I-1269SE or whatever

There's no chance at all of any 3di route along the I-69 corridor carrying a suffix letter, such as "I-269E" or some nonsense like that. Up in Dallas there is already a precedent: I-635. That route only connects to I-35E. But it's not named "I-635E." Likewise any 3di routes along the I-69E, I-69C and I-69W are not going to carry the suffix letters of their parent routes.

If "I-6" was to be used, I would prefer it to run along as much distance as possible. Obviously it would only start at Freer and I-69W. But it could push up past Corpus Christi and along the Gulf Coast where some freeway has been built. It could at least extend to Fulton, but it might be a bit much to ask to have the Interstate upgrade the TX-35 route (or near) to points farther like Port Lavaca, Palacios or Freeport. I-69 would be running parallel not far to the North. But if the route did run that far it would be easier to justify the "I-6" tag. With just a 75 mile length it makes more sense to give the route a 3di number rooted with I-69.

[jbnv]

Obviously it would only start at Freer and I-69W.

Obviously it could never go west to Eagle Pass? That's just as likely to happen as your extension to Port Lavaca or Freeport.

Heck, if we're going to dream that big, extend it to Galveston. Then to Port Arthur. Then to New Iberia where it can consume most of what is currently called I-49 South.

On second thought, someone should give the Eagle Pass-Port Arthur idea to the Congressman who got I-14 designated. This just might happen, even if it takes 20 years.

[CentralPAGal]

In a more perfect world, it should be I-6. I'd definitely rather see that than I-1269SE or whatever

There's no chance at all of any 3di route along the I-69 corridor carrying a suffix letter, such as "I-269E" or some nonsense like that.

Yeah, I wouldn't realistically expect a 3di with a suffix, I was just being facetious. I seriously would rather see I-6 used for SH 44 though than a 3di though.

[lordsutch]

Absent upgrades on the Mexican side to MEX 57, there's really no good reason to extend the SH 44 freeway corridor west to Eagle Pass. (Heck, there's not even demand enough at present for a paved road on the US side between Laredo and Eagle Pass.)

Personally I'd extend the hypothetical I-6 designation west to Laredo; it could multiplex with I-69W on the US 59 corridor and then split off on a more direct line to meet I-35 north of the US 83/I-35 split and utilize an upgraded Toll SH 255 to the Colombia bridge.

[Pete from Boston]

Who wants Interstate 6 on SH 44

The Interstate shield is becoming the participation trophy of Texas highways.

There's no chance at all of any 3di route along the I-69 corridor carrying a suffix letter, such as "I-269E" or some nonsense like that.

Three suffixed mainline branches of one mainline Interstate was ludicrous a few years ago, too (some might say still is, but...).

[ARMOURERERIC]

I-69LAT

[Anthony_JK]

Absent upgrades on the Mexican side to MEX 57, there's really no good reason to extend the SH 44 freeway corridor west to Eagle Pass. (Heck, there's not even demand enough at present for a paved road on the US side between Laredo and Eagle Pass.)

Personally I'd extend the hypothetical I-6 designation west to Laredo; it could multiplex with I-69W on the US 59 corridor and then split off on a more direct line to meet I-35 north of the US 83/I-35 split and utilize an upgraded Toll SH 255 to the Colombia bridge.

Personally, if you asked me, I'd start I-6 at Laredo, overlay US 59 to Freer, and then run it along SH 44 to Corpus Christi.  Truncate I-69W to begin at Freer, then work along US 59 to Victoria, where it would hook up with I-69E/US 77.

Of course, in my perfect world, there would be only one I-69 (Laredo to Houston along US 59); US 77 from Robstown south would be an extension of I-37, SH 44 and US 77 from Robstown to Victoria would be an I-x69 (or perhaps I-41), and US 281 would remain US 281, but upgraded.

[Grzrd]

If you were to designate all of SH 44 as I-6, then you could begin with a western terminus at US 83/ proposed Future I-27, then proceed across I-35 at Encinal, and then across I-69W, I-69C and I-69E. Then, overlap I-6 with SH 358 to an eastern terminus at I-37.  I-6 connecting six interstates: nice symmetry.
 

[Bobby5280]

Whatever happens, I would not want "I-6" (or whatever it will be) and I-69W running concurrent with each other to Laredo. Only one of them needs to be signed.

Obviously it could never go west to Eagle Pass? That's just as likely to happen as your extension to Port Lavaca or Freeport.

It would be very difficult to justify building a freeway between Freer and Eagle Pass, presumably going through or skirting Carrizo Springs. That's not a major corridor. Eagle Pass is a border town but only has 25,000 residents. The only way I could see an Interstate highway getting built there would be a Southern extension of I-27 coming from Del Rio. Even that is a long shot.

Chances are very slim for an "I-6" route to get built along the coastline NE from Corpus Christi due to the cost of building some pretty big bridges. However, it would be easier to justify improving the TX-35 corridor up to Interstate standards since there is a lot more people living in that area and the improved route could serve as a more efficient hurricane evacuation route.

Right now the TX-35 partial freeway dead ends in Fulton, TX just short of the Aransas County Airport. It might be tricky extending the freeway past the airport and over to the LBJ Causeway. From there it wouldn't be as difficult to built up to Port Lavaca and Palacios. Going beyond there would be expensive for all the ship channels and swamps.

[US 41]

https://www.google.com/maps/@25.0732922,-98.0680954,3a,66.8y,200.14h,77.02t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1smPzhCdyryqs2glPYnkkiGA!2e0

The above street view image link tells the whole story. This interchange is where MX 101 and MX 97 come together about 70 miles south of the border. Both 69C and 69E both indirectly become these routes once they get to Mexico. Matamoros and Reynosa are both larger cities than McAllen and Brownsville. There is no need to upgrade US 77 and US 281 to the Mexican border. I'm not entirely convinced that I-69W is necessary, but at least it will indirectly connect with 85D, which is a very good route (and leads to other good routes) to get to places like Monterrey, Saltillo, Torreon, Mazatlán, San Luis Potosi, and Mexico City.

[Bobby5280]

MX-101 in that area is not really a high traffic corridor, at least not as heavy as MX-40 going to Monterrey. The Eastern coastal area of Mexico is not heavily populated. A lot of traffic bound for other cities in Mexico tends to funnel through Monterrey. My guess is the Eastern coast of Mexico is more flood prone and hurricane prone.

I-69E would at least funnel traffic to/from the MX-101 corridor toward cities like Tampico. But I-69C, I-69W and I-35 all seem to send/receive traffic to/from Monterrey via MX-85 and MX-40. Both of those routes are built up with more limited access and 4-lane function.

[US 41]

MX-101 in that area is not really a high traffic corridor, at least not as heavy as MX-40 going to Monterrey. The Eastern coastal area of Mexico is not heavily populated. A lot of traffic bound for other cities in Mexico tends to funnel through Monterrey. My guess is the Eastern coast of Mexico is more flood prone and hurricane prone.

I-69E would at least funnel traffic to/from the MX-101 corridor toward cities like Tampico. But I-69C, I-69W and I-35 all seem to send/receive traffic to/from Monterrey via MX-85 and MX-40. Both of those routes are built up with more limited access and 4-lane function.

MX 101 also has a reputation lately of being cartel infested, especially the town of San Fernando, which is why it is not heavily traveled. I've read many reports online of people traveling on it safely however, and I would be willing to drive on it myself. I'd like to eventually take a trip to Ciudad Victoria to see the mountains southwest of the city. https://www.google.com/maps/@23.6664116,-99.1952015,3a,66.8y,264.12h,90.18t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sg0daoxAfDdJ98g_UCRU7gw!2e0

[lordsutch]

Bear in mind that a lot of the demand for freight from the lower valley to the rest of the U.S. is locally-generated due to the maquiladora (manufacturing/assembly) operations in Reynosa-Matamoros, which are much bigger than up in Nuevo Laredo.

NL is more of a transshipment point for stuff from the rest of Mexico or further afield (legal and otherwise) because the infrastructure on both sides is better. There is some freight via MX-40 but a lot of it is destined for the maquiladoras themselves. And from much of eastern Mexico like Veracruz it's probably cheaper to ship to the U.S. via the Gulf than over land anyway (again, partially due to infrastructure).

All that said the need for direct freeway connections at the border is relatively low, mostly because (particularly northbound) the border crossing process is much more of a timesuck than sitting at a few traffic signals after you've crossed, particularly if you're hauling a trailer that has to be transferred from a Mexican cab to a U.S. one or vice versa. That's a major reason why Toll 255 was/is such a failure, even though the Colombia crossing is one of the faster ones.

[US 41]

Bear in mind that a lot of the demand for freight from the lower valley to the rest of the U.S. is locally-generated due to the maquiladora (manufacturing/assembly) operations in Reynosa-Matamoros, which are much bigger than up in Nuevo Laredo.

NL is more of a transshipment point for stuff from the rest of Mexico or further afield (legal and otherwise) because the infrastructure on both sides is better. There is some freight via MX-40 but a lot of it is destined for the maquiladoras themselves. And from much of eastern Mexico like Veracruz it's probably cheaper to ship to the U.S. via the Gulf than over land anyway (again, partially due to infrastructure).

All that said the need for direct freeway connections at the border is relatively low, mostly because (particularly northbound) the border crossing process is much more of a timesuck than sitting at a few traffic signals after you've crossed, particularly if you're hauling a trailer that has to be transferred from a Mexican cab to a U.S. one or vice versa. That's a major reason why Toll 255 was/is such a failure, even though the Colombia crossing is one of the faster ones.

I've read that most Mexican trucking companies use the "libres" rather than the "cuotas" because most companies (and/or their drivers) can't afford the high tolls, so it makes sense that they would ship products from Tampico and Veracruz to the United States.

One of the problems with TX 255 is that it goes way out of the way and is fairly expensive to use. Taking FM 1472 is a good free option and the way I'd probably go if I was driving to the Colombia Bridge. If I was ever driving from San Antonio to Monterrey in my car I would use Columbia because of the short lines. It also has a place to get permits and a tourist card. I feel like Int'l 1 or 2 would have very long lines. I try to avoid major crossings as much as possible and will drive a little out of the way for more "laid back" crossings.

[lordsutch]

Taking FM 1472 is a good free option

Spoken like someone who hasn't actually driven out FM 1472. It's a real slog from I-69W north to FM 3338 during most of the day (at least it was circa 2011 and I can't imagine it's any better now since TxDOT hasn't improved it any). Unless you have business in Laredo to do first, there's no good reason to go 10+ miles out of your way to avoid paying $3.

TX 255 is great for what it was intended to do - get San Antonio-bound traffic to Colombia and vice versa. The problem is due to the transshipment rules (which were supposed to go away with NAFTA, but haven't) there's not a lot of demand for going directly from inland Mexico to the inland US or vice versa.

[Grzrd]

TxDOT has posted a Notice Affording an Opportunity for a Public Hearing — US 59 Loop in the Laredo area:

Purpose:   TxDOT is offering the opportunity to request a public hearing covering the social, economic and environmental effects of the proposed project on a section of US 59 (formerly known as Loop 20 and Bob Bullock Loop) in northern Laredo, Webb County. This section of US 59 is also part of the western leg of the Future I-69 system (I-69W) in south Texas ....
Description:   The proposed US 59/Loop project limits are from 0.33-mile west of I-35 (at the eastern end of the existing I-69W mainlanes) to 0.160-mile west of McPherson Road (at the western side of that overpass bridge structure).
The proposed mainlanes would include:
* Three 12-foot travel lanes in each direction
* Center concrete traffic barrier
* Inside and outside shoulders
* Appropriately placed on-off ramps
The mainlanes would be constructed between the existing loop frontage roads within the existing, approximately 300-ft. wide right-of-way.
This project would fully integrate with the existing I-69W mainlanes west of I-35 as well as the McPherson Road interchange that opened to traffic in 2014. It will also integrate with the International Boulevard interchange project that is currently under a construction contract; construction work there is scheduled to start in the near future. Upon completion of these projects, through traffic will have uninterrupted service from International Blvd. to the entrance to the World Trade International Bridge IV. All of these interrelated projects are to be constructed to urban interstate (I-69W) design standards.

Also, if I-69W is to be along Loop 20 in Laredo, will it dog leg or will TexDOT get it to cut straight east from Loop 20's Northeastern turn as the shortest distance between two points is a straight line?

... who knows? TxDOT hasn't done any environmental study for Laredo-to-Freer that I'm aware of.
That said an in-place upgrade of US 59 east of Loop 20 would be a pain (moreso than upgrading Loop 20 itself), so some sort of tangent routing makes sense. Laredo's long-range planning documents show an "expressway" running east from Loop 20 at International Blvd to the proposed Laredo Outer Loop, but that's all pie-in-the-sky thinking ...

The final Laredo 2015-40 Metropolitan Transportation Plan has been posted

I recently looked at the 2015-40 Metropolitan Transportation Plan on the outside chance that it would include a tangent routing from Loop 20 to US 59. I could not find evidence of one. However, a map of their "illustrative projects" (unfunded wish list) does show the Outer Loop and an Outer Loop "spur" from the northeastern corner of Loop 20 to the Outer Loop. Elsewhere in the document, the Outer Loop is described as a four-lane arterial and the "spur" is described as a two-lane road.  Here is a snip of the "illustrative projects" map (p. 321/368 of pdf; p. 12-39 of document)

This project map, in addition to showing the project area, describes Loop 20 from International Boulevard to the completed interchange at US 59 as "Future US 59/I-69W Expressway Project":

[Grzrd]

http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/media-center/statewide-news/03-2016.html
Full project list
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/media-center/statewide/docs/congestionprojects.pdf ....
Houston US 59 (IH 69) / IH 610 interchange rebuild: This project was planned for multiple phases, and now the entire project will be built in one phase. This is also an urgently needed improvement. http://txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/houston/59-610.html

(above quote from TxDOT announces $1.3 billion congestion relief program thread)

TxDOT's January 27, 2016 Congestion Relief Initiative Update presentation to the Texas Transportation Commission includes a slide indicating that the southwestern I-69/I-610 interchange rebuild could be let as soon as Summer 2017 and completed by Spring 2021 (p. 28/37 of pdf):

[Grzrd]

As regards relief options in Houston ... I-69 Segment Two Committee Report and Recommendations (pages 37-38/157; pages 31-32 of document)

the Segment Two Committee ...incorporate part of the Grand Parkway as a "Committee Suggested I-69 Route" (page 21/157 of pdf; page 15 of document):

An August 23 Houston Chronicle editorial advocates that the Grand Parkway should be finished in a manner that meshes well with the purposes of I-69:

... This bypass would divert I-69 traffic away from Houston's city center while also improving necessary transportation access to our booming port areas.
But it seems like we've already got something along those lines underway with the Grand Parkway. While there's still a lot of construction remaining on the planned 180-mile third loop around Houston, some parkway segments have been completed, including one in Baytown.
Because plans are not yet set in pavement, we still have some flexibility to construct the Grand Parkway in a manner that can best serve some of the needs of I-69, particularly the influx of long-haul trucking and port commerce that is a near-inevitable part of Houston's future ...

This article reports that a Harris County judge believes that the bypass needs to go south and east in order to best serve the port:

Harris County Judge Ed Emmett addressed the importance of Interstate 69.
"It's pretty much agreed now that we need to have a bypass around the Houston area," he said. "It needs to go south and east instead of west, so it can support the port."

This article reports that Judge Emmett, in his State of the County address, once again spoke about the need for "the I-69 bypass" to serve the ports to the south and east and, further, that he regards the I-69 bypass as his personal priority:

Harris County Judge Ed Emmett delivered his ninth State of the County address on Tuesday at NRG Center and spoke about the county's accomplishments and challenges.
Emmett stressed that an important factor in that future will be improving transportation.
He advocated using more the railroad system – to move both people and freight – to alleviate Houston's congested freeways.
As he addressed the city's heavy traffic, Emmett singled out an option he thinks is essential.
"My personal priority is the I-69 bypass. We know that U.S. 59 is being converted to Interstate 69, but we really don't want all that traffic coming right through the middle. There needs to be a bypass and there needs to go south and east,"  said the county judge.
Emmett also noted the I-69 bypass would be an important component to handle traffic from the Port of Houston, as well as from ports in Galveston and Freeport.

The article does not indicate whether Judge Emmett considers the southern and eastern sections of the Grand Parkway as "the I-69 bypass".

[MaxConcrete]

This article reports that a Harris County judge believes that the bypass needs to go south and east in order to best serve the port:

The article does not indicate whether Judge Emmett considers the southern and eastern sections of the Grand Parkway as "the I-69 bypass".

I don't like the approved alignment of section B of the Grand Parkway, between SH 288 and the Gulf Freeway, because it has a ridiculous large dip to the south. Due to modern environment study processes, we get these absurd alignments.
http://www.grandpky.com/segment-b

One problem with a Grand Parkway alignment is that it stops at the Gulf Freeway because section A (Gulf Freeway to SH 146) has been determined to be infeasible. There are two large container ports along SH 146, and if they want to justify a south alignment to serve port traffic, it will need to connect to SH 146.

To have a continuous loop-style bypass, it will need to connect to SH 146.

The next problem is that the Grand Parkway alignment is much longer than existing routes to most Port of Houston locations and will be much more expensive for users due to tolls over the long distance. So truckers will avoid it.

Judge Emmett's objective may be to get federal funding from the new freight corridor funding in the recent federal transportation legislation. The funding could make the Grand Parkway feasible, since I'm thinking tolls along won't cover the cost.

In an ideal world, I would like to see a new alignment study which would create and efficient (i.e. mostly straight) route which connects US 59 to SH 146. 
 

[codyg1985]

What's in that area that necessitated the huge dip to the south?

[jbnv]

Looks like they're trying to make use of a good part of that Tx-35 bypass around Alvin.