I-69 in TX

[bwana39]

Was the reason to keep it out of Rusk Country because Rusk County had preferred US 259 up to Mt. Enterprise and TX-315 to Carthage as the I-69 route rather than close to the state border?  Going through the south east corner or the county would not bring any benefit to them only encroachment on land and loss of land tax revenue?

Rusk County is in the Tyler TxDOT Region. It adds an additional layer of complication and priority setting to the mix.

As to Tax revenue, even with as few as one intersection, the overall evaluation SHOULD increase from the commercial projects at the intersections.

As to local concerns. Shelby county wants all of I-69 (but evidently not I-369). When the US-84 route was proposed the State Rep was frm Center.

[Chris]

The southbound lanes of the bypass of Premont (US 281, future I-69C) opened to traffic on October 25:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgG3RNek9Hs

[TheBox]

When are they gonna upgrade US-59 (future I-69W) anywhere between Laredo and Goliad?

It is mostly 2-lane undivided there, meaning they'll have to go from that to a 4-lane divided expressway, and that's before all the bypasses and any realignments

[Some one]

When are they gonna upgrade US-59 (future I-69W) anywhere between Laredo and Goliad?

It is mostly 2-lane undivided there, meaning they'll have to go from that to a 4-lane divided expressway, and that's before all the bypasses and any realignments

I honestly see them completing US 77/I-69E south of I-37 before they even start on a segment of US 59/I-69W east of Laredo

[MaxConcrete]

When are they gonna upgrade US-59 (future I-69W) anywhere between Laredo and Goliad?

It is mostly 2-lane undivided there, meaning they'll have to go from that to a 4-lane divided expressway, and that's before all the bypasses and any realignments

I honestly see them completing US 77/I-69E south of I-37 before they even start on a segment of US 59/I-69W east of Laredo

I expect IH 69W (Laredo to Victoria) to be the last section if the IH 69 system to be built, after IH 69E, IH 69W, I-69 (Victoria to Nacogdoches), and IH 369. So that's in the very distant future, after 2050.

[Thegeet]

When are they gonna upgrade US-59 (future I-69W) anywhere between Laredo and Goliad?

It is mostly 2-lane undivided there, meaning they'll have to go from that to a 4-lane divided expressway, and that's before all the bypasses and any realignments

Better yet, which one will be first: I-69W from Laredo to Victoria, or I-69 in Jackson County?

[Bobby5280]

If TX DOT was smart about it they would get to work acquiring ROW around towns where the I-69W route will have to be built on new terrain bypasses. That means bypasses around Goliad, Beeville, George West and Freer. They could start out with modest Super 2 roadways that have at-grade intersections, but preserve enough ROW to eventually upgrade it to 4-lane divided, limited access.

If they fart around for 20 or more years before doing anything at all it could cost the taxpayers a bunch. The new terrain bypasses may have to go farther around these towns due to additional development (such as speculators deliberately building a bunch of crap in the freeway's future path).

TX DOT could take decades filling in the gaps between towns if they choose. But they need to get the more difficult stuff (town bypasses) built sooner than later. They're already kind of doing this with I-69 North of Houston. Towns like Corrigan, Diboll, Lufkin and Nacogdoches have I-69 projects in progress. TX DOT isn't simply upgrading US-59 into I-69 North out of Houston in a linear fashion.

[edwaleni]

If TX DOT was smart about it they would get to work acquiring ROW around towns where the I-69W route will have to be built on new terrain bypasses. That means bypasses around Goliad, Beeville, George West and Freer. They could start out with modest Super 2 roadways that have at-grade intersections, but preserve enough ROW to eventually upgrade it to 4-lane divided, limited access.

If they fart around for 20 or more years before doing anything at all it could cost the taxpayers a bunch. The new terrain bypasses may have to go farther around these towns due to additional development (such as speculators deliberately building a bunch of crap in the freeway's future path).

TX DOT could take decades filling in the gaps between towns if they choose. But they need to get the more difficult stuff (town bypasses) built sooner than later. They're already kind of doing this with I-69 North of Houston. Towns like Corrigan, Diboll, Lufkin and Nacogdoches have I-69 projects in progress. TX DOT isn't simply upgrading US-59 into I-69 North out of Houston in a linear fashion.

I might disagree. These towns are in the middle of almost nowhere. The populations are growing at an aggregate of less than 2%.  The I-69 effort has been on the books for several years now and TxDOT has had no issues acquiring ROW thus far.  In this case I think the highway upgrade will bring growth after they are built, not before.

[Bobby5280]

A lot can happen in a 20-30 year time span. The Laredo border crossing is the busiest inland port of entry in the US for commercial traffic. Various geopolitical shifts, such as manufacturers leaving an increasingly autocratic China, could dramatically ramp up commercial traffic levels at US/Mexico border crossings in the years ahead. Mexico isn't the most ideal place to set up manufacturing facilities either, but a growing number of industries (such as our auto industry) have already been producing there for years.

Those small towns do have the deck stacked against them for future growth due to multiple factors. But if a small town is in the right location it can end up growing anyway. I think the I-69 corridor from Laredo to Houston is going to get a lot more busy in the future.

And what I'm talking about for those towns isn't grandiose. It would just be 2-lane bypasses with at-grade intersections, built with enough ROW off to the left or right to hold a future freeway. The bypasses could be designed with or without frontage roads in mind. The key thing is the bypasses don't have to cost a fortune to build. It just gets the land reserved for the future.

[sprjus4]

I would agree that building super-2 bypasses would be a good start. US-59 currently does not have the traffic volumes or warrants for a freeway, let alone a divided highway, but preserving that right of way, and allowing it to be a continuous 75 mph super-2 throughout would be an improvement over those current in-town situations.

[edwaleni]

I would agree that building super-2 bypasses would be a good start. US-59 currently does not have the traffic volumes or warrants for a freeway, let alone a divided highway, but preserving that right of way, and allowing it to be a continuous 75 mph super-2 throughout would be an improvement over those current in-town situations.

Does Texas have a history of building Super-2's in anticipation of a future freeway?

[lordsutch]

Does Texas have a history of building Super-2's in anticipation of a future freeway?

Not really; it's more of a Arkansas thing. Toll SH 49, Loop 390, and former Toll SH 255 would seem to be the exceptions that prove the rule.

[bwana39]

Does Texas have a history of building Super-2's in anticipation of a future freeway?

Not really; it's more of a Arkansas thing. Toll SH 49, Loop 390, and former Toll SH 255 would seem to be the exceptions that prove the rule.

Not sure how SL-390 fits here. It is not currently controlled access at any point. The other two are 2-laned controlled access. As you said, still outliers in Texas even at that.

[kphoger]

Does Texas have a history of building Super-2's in anticipation of a future freeway?

Not really; it's more of a Arkansas thing. Toll SH 49, Loop 390, and former Toll SH 255 would seem to be the exceptions that prove the rule.

Not sure how SL-290 fits here. It is not currently controlled access at any point. The other two are 2-laned controlled access. As you said, still outliers in Texas even at that.

255 doesn't fit either, because it was built as a private toll road, and the state of Texas only gained ownership of it when it was auctioned off years later.

[MikieTimT]

There are a not insignificant number of small towns that fight bypasses due to the lost revenue that the traffic brings to whatever commercial district (or speedtrap toll road) they already have, such as a few instances along US-69 in Oklahoma, if we remember.  This might also be a case of Texas not wanting to pick a fight before its time.

[J N Winkler]

Building two-lane with full control of access is even more of a Kansas thing than an Arkansas thing--examples include US 69 from Fort Scott to Pittsburg in the 1970's (since expanded to a full cross-section) and the just-opened K-14/K-96 Northwest Passage between Hutchinson and Lyons.  For interim construction, Texas has tended to favor frontage roads with town bypasses or poor-boys.  In light of the poor safety record of the latter, I would expect the former to be used if and when TxDOT judges there is a need for corridor preservation.

One aspect that makes facilities like Toll 49 and the former Camino Colombia Toll Road (now SH 255) exceptions that prove the rule is that neither was developed in its current configuration by TxDOT.  NET RMA owns Toll 49, while the Camino Colombia was privately built.

[Bobby5280]

The Super-2 bypasses I'm suggesting for Goliad, Beeville, George West, etc do not have to be built with limited access from the outset. They can start out as mere 2-lane roads with at-grade intersections. The whole point is just doing the minimum to get the ROW reserved. Bridges, exit ramps and better quality main travel lanes can be added in phases.

Does Texas have a history of building Super-2's in anticipation of a future freeway?

They've done it in various places.

The re-build of US-82 going East of Sherman to Honey Grove started out as a Super-2 with some limited access exits in the 2000's. The second pair of lanes was added only a couple or so years ago. The Collin County Outer Loop to the North of McKinney and Propser is starting out as a 2-lane frontage road with 300'-400' of ROW reserved off to the side. The TX-49 toll road in Tyler is just 2 lanes, but was built so a second roadway could be added later. This approach of building up a freeway or turnpike in phases is becoming more common.

There are a not insignificant number of small towns that fight bypasses due to the lost revenue that the traffic brings to whatever commercial district (or speedtrap toll road) they already have, such as a few instances along US-69 in Oklahoma, if we remember. This might also be a case of Texas not wanting to pick a fight before its time.

The problem is these small towns (including the speed traps of Stringtown and Atoka in Oklahoma) are steadily losing population under current status-quo conditions. Some of these places could become ghost towns. At some point the residents of a small town in decline could reverse their opposition to a freeway bypass or even routing a freeway thru town as a means of trying to stop the decline.

[edwaleni]

The Super-2 bypasses I'm suggesting for Goliad, Beeville, George West, etc do not have to be built with limited access from the outset. They can start out as mere 2-lane roads with at-grade intersections. The whole point is just doing the minimum to get the ROW reserved. Bridges, exit ramps and better quality main travel lanes can be added in phases.

Does Texas have a history of building Super-2's in anticipation of a future freeway?

They've done it in various places.

The re-build of US-82 going East of Sherman to Honey Grove started out as a Super-2 with some limited access exits in the 2000's. The second pair of lanes was added only a couple or so years ago. The Collin County Outer Loop to the North of McKinney and Propser is starting out as a 2-lane frontage road with 300'-400' of ROW reserved off to the side. The TX-49 toll road in Tyler is just 2 lanes, but was built so a second roadway could be added later. This approach of building up a freeway or turnpike in phases is becoming more common.

There are a not insignificant number of small towns that fight bypasses due to the lost revenue that the traffic brings to whatever commercial district (or speedtrap toll road) they already have, such as a few instances along US-69 in Oklahoma, if we remember. This might also be a case of Texas not wanting to pick a fight before its time.

The problem is these small towns (including the speed traps of Stringtown and Atoka in Oklahoma) are steadily losing population under current status-quo conditions. Some of these places could become ghost towns. At some point the residents of a small town in decline could reverse their opposition to a freeway bypass or even routing a freeway thru town as a means of trying to stop the decline.

Interesting. Some friends of mine just moved to Atoka. They absolutely love it. They are in their late 20's and say its the most friendliest town they have ever been in. 3 kids born and they want to stay.

But it doesn't appear TxDOT does Super-2's as a strategic activity, just when necessary.

[Bobby5280]

Most school districts in Oklahoma outside of the big metros are struggling, especially the more rural districts. There are "rich" districts like Edmond that seem to have everything in terms of funding, resources and ability to attract and retain good teachers. Small town districts get out-gunned. And then there's the matter of so many teachers in Oklahoma leaving the state altogether because of the comparative low pay to other states and the hostile anti-teacher attitudes coming out of the state capitol.

[bwana39]

The Super-2 bypasses I'm suggesting for Goliad, Beeville, George West, etc do not have to be built with limited access from the outset. They can start out as mere 2-lane roads with at-grade intersections. The whole point is just doing the minimum to get the ROW reserved. Bridges, exit ramps and better quality main travel lanes can be added in phases.

Does Texas have a history of building Super-2's in anticipation of a future freeway?

They've done it in various places.

The re-build of US-82 going East of Sherman to Honey Grove started out as a Super-2 with some limited access exits in the 2000's. The second pair of lanes was added only a couple or so years ago. The Collin County Outer Loop to the North of McKinney and Propser is starting out as a 2-lane frontage road with 300'-400' of ROW reserved off to the side. The TX-49 toll road in Tyler is just 2 lanes, but was built so a second roadway could be added later. This approach of building up a freeway or turnpike in phases is becoming more common.

There are a not insignificant number of small towns that fight bypasses due to the lost revenue that the traffic brings to whatever commercial district (or speedtrap toll road) they already have, such as a few instances along US-69 in Oklahoma, if we remember. This might also be a case of Texas not wanting to pick a fight before its time.

The problem is these small towns (including the speed traps of Stringtown and Atoka in Oklahoma) are steadily losing population under current status-quo conditions. Some of these places could become ghost towns. At some point the residents of a small town in decline could reverse their opposition to a freeway bypass or even routing a freeway thru town as a means of trying to stop the decline.

Interesting. Some friends of mine just moved to Atoka. They absolutely love it. They are in their late 20's and say its the most friendliest town they have ever been in. 3 kids born and they want to stay.

But it doesn't appear TxDOT does Super-2's as a strategic activity, just when necessary.

Atoka is still very much a small town. Small towns either tend to quickly adopt newcomers into their society or you can live there decades and still be an outsider.

No TxDOT NEVER does super 2-s. Toll 49 was built by and is operated and maintained by NETRMA (Northeast Texas Regional Mobility Authority) a regional transportation authority. NETRMA also does busses in select NE Texas counties. As has been discussed at length, the former Camino Colombia Toll Road (now SH 255) was not developed by or for TxDOT. For what it is worth, TxDOT did NOT buy the SH-255 at the foreclosure auction. They were outbid by by an insurer. They gave 8 million dollars more for it nearly a year later.

US-82 has always had driveways east of Bells. There are select grade separations but even FM road intersections (ex: FM-1396) mostly are at grade. It does bypass all the little towns in Fannin and Grayson counties, but NOT a super 2. Nothing as to limited access has changed with the 2x2 upgrade. There is R.O.W. to later upgrade and put in frontage roads when / if warranted.

US-259 around Kilgore and the previously mentioned SL-390 at Marshall are other examples of 2-lane placeholders slated for eventual upgrade in all or part to limited access. Neither are a so-called Super-2.

[GreenLanternCorps]

Getting back to I-69 in Texas, Looking at Google Maps and the Wikipedia article on I-69E.

What exactly is left to be done before I-69E can be signed from South of Kingsville to it's current terminus just South of Robstown?

The hard part, the Driscoll bypass is done, trying to figure out what is left.

As a side note, it looks like construction has started on the interchange in Ricardo, just South of Kingsville, per Google Maps


https://www.google.com/maps/@27.4214543,-97.8508558,3a,75y,24.67h,89.45t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sK0qQMz2ALkM1xUSolQMvJw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DK0qQMz2ALkM1xUSolQMvJw%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D115.24743%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu

[Bobby5280]

Construction projects in Kingsville and Driscoll are still not finished. Once those are done I-69E can be signed down to the South end of Kingsville.

US-82 has always had driveways east of Bells. There are select grade separations but even FM road intersections (ex: FM-1396) mostly are at grade. It does bypass all the little towns in Fannin and Grayson counties, but NOT a super 2.

News flash: a Super 2 roadway does not have to be 100% limited access. Not far from here the Duncan Bypass is a Super 2 facility. It does still have a couple of at-grade intersections. But it still qualifies as a Super 2. The roadway is built with Interstate quality grading. That's the main factor. And enough ROW is preserved to eventually turn it into a fully limited access freeway. It's a less expensive approach than the old Texas standard of building a divided highway with a giant median in between the two roadways.

[Phudman]

New Nacogdoches flyover
https://youtu.be/PVuVJjodfig?si=YO2L4w-ewwj_gSvn

[bwana39]

Construction projects in Kingsville and Driscoll are still not finished. Once those are done I-69E can be signed down to the South end of Kingsville.

US-82 has always had driveways east of Bells. There are select grade separations but even FM road intersections (ex: FM-1396) mostly are at grade. It does bypass all the little towns in Fannin and Grayson counties, but NOT a super 2.

News flash: a Super 2 roadway does not have to be 100% limited access. Not far from here the Duncan Bypass is a Super 2 facility. It does still have a couple of at-grade intersections. But it still qualifies as a Super 2. The roadway is built with Interstate quality grading. That's the main factor. And enough ROW is preserved to eventually turn it into a fully limited access freeway. It's a less expensive approach than the old Texas standard of building a divided highway with a giant median in between the two roadways.

I moved this discussion over to a separate thread.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=34103.0

[MaxConcrete]

I drove from Houston to Boca Chica (South Padre) for the rocket launch.

Status of I-69

Freeway in Fort Bend County (to Kendleton) appears to be 100% complete. 3x3 main lanes have been open for a while, more than a year, but I did not see any lingering work on the frontage roads.

Wharton County, Kendleton to north Wharton: Traffic is on the frontage roads with work proceeding on the main lanes. Main lane progress is variable, substantial progress on the north half and less on the south half. I think it is at least 2 years before completion. A $341 million project for work through Wharton is scheduled to be awarded in December.

Wharton to Victoria. Most of the highway has a recent, smooth asphalt overlay.

Corpus, multiplex with I-37: Substantial work in progress

South half of Kingsville bypass: traffic is on the frontage roads and main lanes look around 75% complete

Kingsville to Riviera: work is substantially progressed on the northbound frontage road, with most bridges in place. Minimal work on the southbound main lanes (which will be in the existing median.)

I-69C interchange at I-2 in Pharr: new ramps are either open or past 50% complete. There is substantial work on I-2 main lanes west of the interchange. I did not drive I-69C north of the interchange.