I-69 in TX

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

Previous topic - Next topic

O Tamandua

The Nacogdoches flyover (and other things related to it) continue to take shape:

Quote



Crews rescheduled to remove overhead power lines as part of U.S. 59 flyover project

NACOGDOCHES, Texas (KTRE) - Drivers on U.S. 59 near Loop 224 in Nacogdoches County will soon experience a round of rolling stops related to the ongoing U.S. 59 flyover construction project.

Crews will remove overhead electric lines that cross U.S. 59 South and the southwest area of Loop 224. There are nine locations where lines will be removed, and delays should last about 15 minutes each time, said Rhonda Oaks, a spokesperson for Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) Lufkin.

https://www.ktre.com/2020/05/06/crews-rescheduled-remove-overhead-power-lines-part-us-flyover-project/



MaxConcrete

#1626
Bids were opened yesterday for upgrading 3 miles of US 77 (IH 69E) on the south side of Kingsville. Looking at the plans, most of the work is adding frontage roads. It looks like some of the existing main lanes will be replaced, and some will get a fresh topping of asphalt.
http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/05083202.htm

County:   KLEBERG   Let Date:   05/08/20
Type:   CONSTRUCT MAINLANES, FRONTAGE ROADS AND STRUCTURE   Seq No:   3202
Time:   660 WORKING DAYS   Project ID:   NH 2020(871)
Highway:   US 77   Contract #:   05203202
Length:   3.390   CCSJ:   0102-04-099
Limits:   
From:   FM 1356   Check:   $100,000
To:   CR 2130   Misc Cost:   
Estimate   $48,109,866.82   % Over/Under   Company
Bidder 1   $55,237,175.26   +14.81%   BAY LTD.
Bidder 2   $63,707,812.88   +32.42%   ANDERSON COLUMBIA CO., INC.
Bidder 3   $64,999,726.21   +35.11%   ZACHRY CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION
Bidder 4   $73,104,113.56   +51.95%   HAAS-ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION, LTD.

www.DFWFreeways.com
www.HoustonFreeways.com

sprjus4

Quote from: MaxConcrete on May 09, 2020, 05:13:28 PM
Bids were opened yesterday for upgrading 3 miles of US 77 (IH 69E) on the south side of Kingsville. Looking at the plans, most of the work is adding frontage roads. It looks like some of the existing main lanes will be replaced, and some will get a fresh topping of asphalt.
http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/05083202.htm

County:   KLEBERG   Let Date:   05/08/20
Type:   CONSTRUCT MAINLANES, FRONTAGE ROADS AND STRUCTURE   Seq No:   3202
Time:   660 WORKING DAYS   Project ID:   NH 2020(871)
Highway:   US 77   Contract #:   05203202
Length:   3.390   CCSJ:   0102-04-099
Limits:   
From:   FM 1356   Check:   $100,000
To:   CR 2130   Misc Cost:   
Estimate   $48,109,866.82   % Over/Under   Company
Bidder 1   $55,237,175.26   +14.81%   BAY LTD.
Bidder 2   $63,707,812.88   +32.42%   ANDERSON COLUMBIA CO., INC.
Bidder 3   $64,999,726.21   +35.11%   ZACHRY CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION
Bidder 4   $73,104,113.56   +51.95%   HAAS-ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION, LTD.
Where do you go to access project plans?

MaxConcrete

#1628
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 10, 2020, 12:26:29 AM
Where do you go to access project plans?

First you identify the county and project ID number on the monthly project lists
Main page https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/division/general-services/letting/letting-schedule.html
May 2020 list https://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/let/2020/letmay.htm

Then you go to the plans online page
https://www.txdot.gov/business/letting-bids/plans-online.html

Proceed through a few disclaimer screens, then drill down to the month and find the project among the list, which is by county.

Plans for larger projects are usually several hundred MB, you'll usually want to right click the link, download and open in Adobe Reader for better viewing performance.

The illustrations in plans vary, but there is usually something similar to a schematic, often with the desription "proposed section" or "horizontal alignment", which are usually at the top of the document but not always.
www.DFWFreeways.com
www.HoustonFreeways.com

sprjus4

Quote from: MaxConcrete on May 10, 2020, 08:37:06 AM
Quote from: sprjus4 on May 10, 2020, 12:26:29 AM
Where do you go to access project plans?

First you identify the county and project ID number on the monthly project lists
Main page https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/division/general-services/letting/letting-schedule.html
May 2020 list https://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/let/2020/letmay.htm

Then you go to the plans online page
https://www.txdot.gov/business/letting-bids/plans-online.html

Proceed through a few disclaimer screens, then drill down to the month and find the project among the list, which is by county.

Plans for larger projects are usually several hundred MB, you'll usually want to right click the link, download and open in Adobe Reader for better viewing performance.

The illustrations in plans vary, but there is usually something similar to a schematic, often with the desription "proposed section" or "horizontal alignment", which are usually at the top of the document but not always.
Thank you the information! Very useful.

sprjus4

Quote from: MaxConcrete on May 09, 2020, 05:13:28 PM
Bids were opened yesterday for upgrading 3 miles of US 77 (IH 69E) on the south side of Kingsville. Looking at the plans, most of the work is adding frontage roads. It looks like some of the existing main lanes will be replaced, and some will get a fresh topping of asphalt.
http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/05083202.htm

County:   KLEBERG   Let Date:   05/08/20
Type:   CONSTRUCT MAINLANES, FRONTAGE ROADS AND STRUCTURE   Seq No:   3202
Time:   660 WORKING DAYS   Project ID:   NH 2020(871)
Highway:   US 77   Contract #:   05203202
Length:   3.390   CCSJ:   0102-04-099
Limits:   
From:   FM 1356   Check:   $100,000
To:   CR 2130   Misc Cost:   
Estimate   $48,109,866.82   % Over/Under   Company
Bidder 1   $55,237,175.26   +14.81%   BAY LTD.
Bidder 2   $63,707,812.88   +32.42%   ANDERSON COLUMBIA CO., INC.
Bidder 3   $64,999,726.21   +35.11%   ZACHRY CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION
Bidder 4   $73,104,113.56   +51.95%   HAAS-ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION, LTD.
So looking at the project plans, it appears as you said the work is mostly adding frontage roads and overpasses. The existing 74 foot median will be maintained similar to recent projects north of there up to I-37 (except near Bishop and Robstown that reduced the median to a concrete barrier).

IIRC, south of this project, future projects will reduce the concrete barrier though. Having a 10 foot shoulder certainly helps to make it less cramped on longer stretches, like near Bishop.

Bobby5280

Google Earth has new imagery (dated 1/31/2020) for the Corpus Christi area. More of the on-going progress with the Harbor Bridge project is visible. More work is happening on the TX-44 freeway West of Corpus Christi. Across the harbor in Gregory, TX there's an interchange improvement happening at the US-181/TX-35 split. Finally, more work on I-69E is visible, such as the bypasses around Driscoll and Bishop.

Once I-69E is complete down past Kingsville further upgrades should be relatively simple. A bypass is being planned for Riviera. But the rest of US-77 between Kingsville and Raymondville will be upgraded to Interstate standards along the existing ROW.

sprjus4

#1632
Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 11, 2020, 10:07:13 PM
More work is happening on the TX-44 freeway West of Corpus Christi.
IIRC, that project will complete the freeway from SH-358 to the point it narrows to undivided highway immediately outside Robstown.

Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 11, 2020, 10:07:13 PM
Across the harbor in Gregory, TX there's an interchange improvement happening at the US-181/TX-35 split.
Never knew about this project... it was not under construction when I drove past the area this past summer.

http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/crp/us-181/041718-schematic.pdf

This will construct Phase 2 of the interchange project, building about 1 mile of new freeway mainlines bypassing two intersections, tying into another overpass at SH-2986. Ultimately, about 2 miles of US-181 will be freeway approaching the SH-35 interchange.

Further north on US-181, a new interchange on the southern end of the Sinton Bypass is also under construction.

Bobby5280

Does TX DOT have any plans to connect the TX-44 freeway with I-69E in the Robstown area? Currently it looks like there is a work-able path where the TX-44 could dovetail into I-69E on the South side of Robstown where I-69E bends through that curve just South of the Industrial Blvd exit.

sprjus4

Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 11, 2020, 11:13:51 PM
Does TX DOT have any plans to connect the TX-44 freeway with I-69E in the Robstown area? Currently it looks like there is a work-able path where the TX-44 could dovetail into I-69E on the South side of Robstown where I-69E bends through that curve just South of the Industrial Blvd exit.
TxDOT owns that southern path's right of way, however a larger study was completed in 2017 for a full SH-44 Robstown Bypass, and the preferred alternative includes a southern alignment that will connect to I-69E with a system interchange further south near SH-36.

Interestingly enough, looking at the preferred alternative map, it shows that TxDOT plans to construct both the bypass and that currently owned TxDOT R/W corridor for the northern ramps. Seems pointless rather than one system interchange - considering those northern movements carry less traffic - but who knows.


https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/corpus-christi/sh-44-robstown.html


Bobby5280

I think they need to take a compromise approach with that bypass. It's going to be less expensive to build that short extension of the TX-44 freeway to I-69E than the longer East half of that bypass. The shorter freeway extension will give Robstown more of a direct benefit. I'm not opposed to building the West half of that loop. A pair of T interchanges along I-69E in two different locations is probably going to be less expensive than building a full interchange between two crossing freeways (especially if the interchange is a directional stack).

sparker

Quote from: Bobby5280 on May 11, 2020, 11:35:10 PM
I think they need to take a compromise approach with that bypass. It's going to be less expensive to build that short extension of the TX-44 freeway to I-69E than the longer East half of that bypass. The shorter freeway extension will give Robstown more of a direct benefit. I'm not opposed to building the West half of that loop. A pair of T interchanges along I-69E in two different locations is probably going to be less expensive than building a full interchange between two crossing freeways (especially if the interchange is a directional stack).

Two semi-directional-T interchanges for the TX 44 (eventually I-whatever) freeway would work as long as there are slip lanes between so unnecessary merging is kept to a minimum.  And since it's so close to the I-37/69E interchange, multiple ramp lanes on the SB>EB and WB>NB connectors wouldn't be necessary at the northern junction point.   In fact, TxDOT could even configure that northern junction as a trumpet and save a few bucks in the process. 

bwana39

While many threads on here get intermingled, this one has lots of discussion of what amounts to US-69 (primarily in Oklahoma.) While we Texans would doubtfully confuse an INTERSTATE with as US Highway. People from other places might. People who call the interstate "Route" (often said ROOT) or Highway. In Texas it is "Interstate XX" or "Highway XX" (meaning US or SH). FM. RM, Loop, Spur etc having their unique colloquilism.

Texas doesn't renumber highways. They rarely make significant reroutes beyond a loop or a minimal straightening.  I-69 / I-369  is planned to follow US -59.  No significant deviation except loops around towns. Not even a real deviation going through Lufkin.

Renumbering US-69 is an issue.

While there some esoteric ideas like assigning part of it with a completely NEW Number or some sort of funky US-287 reroute, the concensus seems to leave it be. Convention and AASHTO standards and  precedent be damned. 

To me there are for are a handful of options that work and work well. These go from least involved to most.

1) Truncate US69 in Jacksonville TX and extend US-175 to SE Texas
2) Truncate US69 in Tyler and extend US-271 to SE Texas
3) Truncate US69 in Denison and reroute US75 along its route. (This requires renumbering US-75 to Dallas, possibly / probably as I-45). This one MIGHT be confusing to the people in Denison.
4) Truncate US69 in Jacksonville. Delete US-175. Renumber all of US175 & the current US-69 south of Jacksonville as US-75.
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

NE2

Quote from: bwana39 on May 12, 2020, 11:58:15 AM
Texas doesn't renumber highways.
Quote from: http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/sh/sh0069.htm
Adm. Auth., dated 09/14/1992; Adm. Ltr. 003-1992, dated 09/14/1992

Cancelled.  (Eastland County)  As requested by District, this mileage transferred to SH 112.  (This is due to numerous thefts of the popular SH 69 signs.)
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".

Bobby5280

Quote from: sparkerTwo semi-directional-T interchanges for the TX 44 (eventually I-whatever) freeway would work as long as there are slip lanes between so unnecessary merging is kept to a minimum.

There appears to be an adequate enough distance between the two possible T-interchange locations that criss-crossing traffic movements would not be much of a problem. The bigger challenge for the Northern TX-44/I-69E interchange option is being pretty close to the existing TX-44 interchange. Some ramp braiding may be necessary there.

sprjus4

I would be curious to see a schematic of the proposed design.

ethanhopkin14

Quote from: bwana39 on May 12, 2020, 11:58:15 AM
While many threads on here get intermingled, this one has lots of discussion of what amounts to US-69 (primarily in Oklahoma.) While we Texans would doubtfully confuse an INTERSTATE with as US Highway. People from other places might. People who call the interstate "Route" (often said ROOT) or Highway. In Texas it is "Interstate XX" or "Highway XX" (meaning US or SH). FM. RM, Loop, Spur etc having their unique colloquilism.

Texas doesn't renumber highways. They rarely make significant reroutes beyond a loop or a minimal straightening.  I-69 / I-369  is planned to follow US -59.  No significant deviation except loops around towns. Not even a real deviation going through Lufkin.

Renumbering US-69 is an issue.

While there some esoteric ideas like assigning part of it with a completely NEW Number or some sort of funky US-287 reroute, the concensus seems to leave it be. Convention and AASHTO standards and  precedent be damned. 

To me there are for are a handful of options that work and work well. These go from least involved to most.

1) Truncate US69 in Jacksonville TX and extend US-175 to SE Texas
2) Truncate US69 in Tyler and extend US-271 to SE Texas
3) Truncate US69 in Denison and reroute US75 along its route. (This requires renumbering US-75 to Dallas, possibly / probably as I-45). This one MIGHT be confusing to the people in Denison.
4) Truncate US69 in Jacksonville. Delete US-175. Renumber all of US175 & the current US-69 south of Jacksonville as US-75.

I have the same thoughts about this as I do people wanting to renumber long stretches of highway just to make another highway conform to the grid:

Let it go.

The interstate grid is beautiful.  Like natural beauty, one of the things that make it beautiful is the few exceptions to the rules.  Do I hate that I-180 in Wyoming should be a Business Spur and not a full interstate?  Yes I do, but I am also fascinated with it being an oddity.  Renumbering hundreds of miles of US 69 just to make I-69 not violate a rule is impractical.  Changing addresses of every house, business and farm that have had that address for decades just so that I-69, an interstate that's already in violation once it gets west of Indianapolis, is just dumb.  I do like your what if scenarios, yes, but it seems a lot of people get so serious about these violations.

So no, we are not going to renumber all of I-17 to an extension of I-19, having it cosigned with I-10, just so we can number the future I-11 as I-17.  It's okay it's out of the grid. 

ethanhopkin14

I now the I-69C subject has come up numerous times, but I don't think anyone has really analyzed this part until I was thinking about it today.  The current alignment crosses I-69W at George West, but it continues north to I-37 north of Three Rivers.  I never really thought much of it before, but shouldn't that part not be signed as I-69C.  I mean, I-69C should be spawned from I-69W if we are going to be technical about it, so shouldn't the segment from George West to the current intersection of US 281 and I-37 north of Three Rivers have a separate number?

sprjus4

Assuming I-69W isn't actually built, the easiest thing would be to bypass George West around the southeastern side, follow US-59 to I-37, then tie into I-37 and terminate.

About 7 miles of construction saved going that way vs. following US-281 all the way up to I-37.

ethanhopkin14

Quote from: sprjus4 on August 06, 2020, 05:22:43 PM
Assuming I-69W isn't actually built, the easiest thing would be to bypass George West around the southeastern side, follow US-59 to I-37, then tie into I-37 and terminate.

About 7 miles of construction saved going that way vs. following US-281 all the way up to I-37.

As far as I can remember, all the legs have to be built. 

sprjus4

#1645
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 06, 2020, 05:27:00 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 06, 2020, 05:22:43 PM
Assuming I-69W isn't actually built, the easiest thing would be to bypass George West around the southeastern side, follow US-59 to I-37, then tie into I-37 and terminate.

About 7 miles of construction saved going that way vs. following US-281 all the way up to I-37.

As far as I can remember, all the legs have to be built.
In reality, I cannot see any segments of I-69W northeast of Freer actually getting funding. Maybe in 50 years it'll be segmented together, but it's certain a low priority compared to I-69C and I-69E which are due for major construction activities in the next decade, notably completing I-69E between Corpus Christi and Brownsville, and completing I-69C between McAllen and Falfurrias. Laredo to Freer, and Freer to Corpus Christi may also be slow-paced, but might eventually happen. Nothing earmarked for I-69W.

Between Freer and Victoria, I-69W provides a shortcut to taking I-69E and "I-6", but the real question is, is shaving off 20 miles off the trip worth over a hundred miles of new construction, in today's funding environment, along a present-day 2 lane 75 mph road? This would mostly benefit long distance Houston to Laredo traffic, which is already primarily served by I-10 and I-35. Aside from that, only small traffic volumes from small towns that are already adequately served by 2-lane US-59 or can utilize the I-69E to "I-6" routing.

I'm not necessarily against that segment of I-69W, but I don't think it's a high priority. If funding can be one day found to complete all of the I-69 legs, I'm all for having that segment built. But with limited funding available, let's finish I-69E and I-69C first, then Freer to Corpus Christi, then maybe Freer to Victoria.

ethanhopkin14

Quote from: sprjus4 on August 06, 2020, 05:28:16 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 06, 2020, 05:27:00 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 06, 2020, 05:22:43 PM
Assuming I-69W isn't actually built, the easiest thing would be to bypass George West around the southeastern side, follow US-59 to I-37, then tie into I-37 and terminate.

About 7 miles of construction saved going that way vs. following US-281 all the way up to I-37.

As far as I can remember, all the legs have to be built.
In reality, I cannot see any segments of I-69W northeast of Freer actually getting funding. Maybe in 50 years it'll be segmented together, but it's certain a low priority compared to I-69C and I-69E which are due for major construction activities in the next decade, notably completing I-69E between Corpus Christi and Brownsville, and completing I-69C between McAllen and Falfurrias. Nothing earmarked for I-69W.

I agree it will be the slower leg, but it still will be finished per legislation.  It won't be a "on the shelf indefinitely" thing like a lot of projects become. 

sparker

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 06, 2020, 05:35:11 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 06, 2020, 05:28:16 PM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 06, 2020, 05:27:00 PM
Quote from: sprjus4 on August 06, 2020, 05:22:43 PM
Assuming I-69W isn't actually built, the easiest thing would be to bypass George West around the southeastern side, follow US-59 to I-37, then tie into I-37 and terminate.

About 7 miles of construction saved going that way vs. following US-281 all the way up to I-37.

As far as I can remember, all the legs have to be built.
In reality, I cannot see any segments of I-69W northeast of Freer actually getting funding. Maybe in 50 years it'll be segmented together, but it's certain a low priority compared to I-69C and I-69E which are due for major construction activities in the next decade, notably completing I-69E between Corpus Christi and Brownsville, and completing I-69C between McAllen and Falfurrias. Nothing earmarked for I-69W.

I agree it will be the slower leg, but it still will be finished per legislation.  It won't be a "on the shelf indefinitely" thing like a lot of projects become. 

It's probably safe to assume that the prioritization will be I-69E and I-69C because of the sheer present volume of commercial traffic.  Prior to the Freer-Corpus cluster addition, the sole purpose of I-69W was to take San Antonio out of the mix for Houston-bound traffic coming over the border at Laredo; in that respect, that particular branch is more of a "relief route" for the I-35/10 combination than anything else.  It makes sense when one realizes that the San Antonio-Austin corridor, besides being TX' "tech central", is also one of the major consumer-product distribution areas in the central U.S., particularly in regards to food items.  Houston, OTOH, is more geared toward large industrial and manufacturing distribution -- B-to-B stuff -- like PVC conduits and pipes (the Alvin/Lake Jackson area produces at least a plurality of the nation's supply of the stuff).  Industrial components coming through Laredo tend to head for Houston, while consumer products will for the most part stay right on I-35.  So I-69W/69 -- as a "straight shot" to the destination -- is an effective relief route for the present "arc" through SA.  And yeah, I know it's an indirect subsidy to business interests -- but what else is new? 

That being said -- I-69W will almost certainly be the last of the three legs to be developed, although in the long run it will happen; the W-C-E "trident" was specifically intended in the authorizing legislation (itself whipped up by members of TX' congressional delegation back in '91 through '95) to provide access to the three major border crossings in the lower Rio Grande Valley (I-2 connecting them all near their southern termini was a bit of an afterthought).  I'll opine that the "I-6" Freer-Corpus segment will be built quickly if Corpus' port sees significantly increased business due to the Panamax opening.  If not, it'll join the queue with the rest of the I-69 projects. 

ethanhopkin14

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 06, 2020, 02:54:44 PM
I now the I-69C subject has come up numerous times, but I don't think anyone has really analyzed this part until I was thinking about it today.  The current alignment crosses I-69W at George West, but it continues north to I-37 north of Three Rivers.  I never really thought much of it before, but shouldn't that part not be signed as I-69C.  I mean, I-69C should be spawned from I-69W if we are going to be technical about it, so shouldn't the segment from George West to the current intersection of US 281 and I-37 north of Three Rivers have a separate number?

Another thing to this, since officially I-69C will usurp US 281 from the valley all the way to the intersection of I-37 and US 281 north of Three Rivers, the control cities might get interesting.  Since it is part of the I-69 triad, it should have a control city of Victoria like the other legs will, informing drivers that that is the routing of I-69, but in reality, I-69C will be constructed more like an I-X37, meaning I-37's northern terminus should be a control city too.  So it will have a BGS control set up saying Victoria San Antonio?

ethanhopkin14

Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 07, 2020, 08:52:41 AM
Quote from: ethanhopkin14 on August 06, 2020, 02:54:44 PM
I now the I-69C subject has come up numerous times, but I don't think anyone has really analyzed this part until I was thinking about it today.  The current alignment crosses I-69W at George West, but it continues north to I-37 north of Three Rivers.  I never really thought much of it before, but shouldn't that part not be signed as I-69C.  I mean, I-69C should be spawned from I-69W if we are going to be technical about it, so shouldn't the segment from George West to the current intersection of US 281 and I-37 north of Three Rivers have a separate number?

Another thing to this, since officially I-69C will usurp US 281 from the valley all the way to the intersection of I-37 and US 281 north of Three Rivers, the control cities might get interesting.  Since it is part of the I-69 triad, it should have a control city of Victoria like the other legs will, informing drivers that that is the routing of I-69, but in reality, I-69C will be constructed more like an I-X37, meaning I-37's northern terminus should be a control city too.  So it will have a BGS control set up saying Victoria San Antonio?

Going back to the I-69 Alliance website, the section from George West to Three Rivers is no longer highlighted.  Maybe everything I am talking about is moot?



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.