I-69 in TX

[Chris]

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.   

Wouldn't it be feasible to construct it alongside SH 146 through Seabrook, Kemah and Bacliff, and then turn west to bypass Dickinson to the south and link up with Alvin? That way there isn't as much property displacement.

If I remember correctly there are already plans to extend SH 146 south as a freeway through Seabrook. There seems to be an old railroad right-of-way. But there are also power lines.

[MaxConcrete]

Yes, there are plans to upgrade that section of SH 146 to a freeway, and the Grand Parkway would follow SH 146 to complete that section of the loop. Plans for the north section of freeway have environmental clearance, and I think the process is still in progress in Galveston County.
http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/houston/sh146-red-bluff.html

But a feasibility study for the section of the Grand Parkway from I-45s (Gulf Freeway) to SH 146 was completed in 2010, and the study recommended no further action on that section. I don't know why that section was deferred, although I'm thinking there must have been some local opposition.

Of course, that section, (section A) could be revived.

This screenshot is from today's Houston Chronicle

[texaskdog]

When Texas is our own country again we can just use 1-100 for everything

1-I 35/35E
2-I 35W
3-I 10
4-I 20 through Fort Worth then I -30
5-I 20 east of Fort Worth
6-I 69/69W
7-I 45 & US 75
8-I 40
9-I 37
10-I 27
11-I 2

the smaller freeways would be 2dis   (69c, 69e, and the 3dis)

[Bobby5280]

The Section B alignment of the Grand Parkway reminds me of I-69 in Southern Indiana and some other areas: very crooked and time/distance wasting. Ugh.

Section A, between I-45 and TX-146 isn't going to work being run along the FM-646 corridor. Too much development has gone up along it near the intersection with I-45.

I think the Grand Parkway planners need to re-think the current terminus of Section B at I-45. The Grand Parkway southern interchange with I-45 really should be relocated farther South between the Hughes Rd and Holland Rd exits of I-45. It looks like plenty of space is available just South of Ranger Outlets. Section A of the Grand Parkway could be built from there, moving East and then Northeast, curving up into TX-146.

The non-freeway/tollway section of TX-146 in Kemah and Seabrook would be a very tricky challenge to upgrade. Lots of businesses are built snug against the East side of the highway. As many as four columns of electrical transmission line towers are on the West side of the highway. I don't think it's possible to relocate that power line corridor. Can high power lines such as these be buried? It is possible to encase them and incorporate them into the structure of a new superhighway? I have a feeling it will be "easier" to just bulldoze the dozens of businesses on the East side of TX-146 and create the space for the bigger road there.

[The Ghostbuster]

Can we stop talking about the Grand Parkway, and move discussion of it onto its own thread. As far as I know, none of Interstate 69 in Texas will actually utilize the Grand Parkway.

[jbnv]

Can we stop talking about the Grand Parkway, and move discussion of it onto its own thread. As far as I know, none of Interstate 69 in Texas will actually utilize the Grand Parkway.

I did a quick search. Didn't see an existing thread for Grand Parkway segment B. This would be a good seed for one.

[Perfxion]

Ghostbuster, they are discussing the Grand Parkway being built as a relief route/bypass of I-69 in greater Houston. Maybe to be another X69 for the state. But I think Emmett is saying this to get the unbuilt side done on federal dime versus state/toll dime. I don't think it is going to work in some areas. Also, if he was really for an X69 route of for it, March 31st will have a complete section from I-69 to I-69 on the north and west sides.

[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):

Hmmmmm....an I-469/TX 99 concurrence?? With TX99 moved to the feeders and I-469 as the mainline?

... if he was really for an X69 route of for it, March 31st will have a complete section from I-69 to I-69 on the north and west sides.

The above-linked I-69 Segment Two Committee Report and Recommendations includes language suggesting that the north and west I-69 to I-69 section of the Grand Parkway could be part of an I-x69 because, in relation to an I-x69 providing access to the ports, it would be an "additional option" for through travelers to bypass Houston (pages 37-38/157; pages 31-32 of document):

US 59 Relief Options in Houston — In the first few months of meeting, the committee discussed highways they recommend serving as I-69, highways to be part of the I-69 program and important connections to the I-69 system. In developing recommendations for the Houston area, committee members from that area met to discuss their recommended highway to serve as I-69 and also discussed the importance of providing connectivity to the Port of Houston and other ports along the Texas gulf coast. This discussion concluded with the committee recommending that US 59 through Houston serve as I-69 and that relief options within and around the Houston area be studied and considered to provide convenient, vital access to the sea ports along the coast along with additional options for through-travelers to bypass Houston, instead of having to use US 59 or other routes to travel through Houston. Such a study should include financial and technical participation from TxDOT.

The March completion of the I-69 to I-69 section of the Grand Parkway on the north and west sides provides the possibility that TxDOT may seek approval from AASHTO to designate that section as an I-x69 at AASHTO's May meeting.

[Bobby5280]

The North and West quadrant of the Grand Parkway can serve as a Houston bypass for I-69, but it won't do anything to serve port traffic like Judge Emmett wants.

It won't be easy getting any sort of freeway or tollway built along TX-146 thru the developed parts of Kemah and Seabrook. The study from 2012 called for widening the at-grade street and building an elevated superhighway with 2 lanes in each direction alongside the boulevard. That might be enough to handle local traffic. But it might need 3 lanes in each direction if additional long distance traffic from I-69 was routed onto it. I don't know how much political opposition is organized against this road expansion project.

The location of the Grand Parkway, Section A becomes more critical if I-69 were to use it for Houston bypass purposes, either as I-69 or a 3-digital I-x69 variant. The proposed Section A route along FM-646 was deemed unfeasible to build. TX-96 a few blocks North has a few places of freeway-wide ROW, but no easy way for Section B of the Grand Parkway to go farther North to meet TX-96 at I-45. Segment A and the terminus of Segment B would probably have to be shifted South of Dickinson in order for the entire loop to get connected in a continuous manner.

Additional freeway sections would have to be built on the far West and North ends of the bypass Judge Emmett envisions -additional to a completed Grand Parkway loop. The SW leg would start around Wharton and connect to the SW corner of the Grand Parkway loop. The NE leg would start around Cleveland and connect to the NE corner of the Grand Parkway Loop.

[Anthony_JK]

If accessing the Baytown ports were that important, then using existing I-610 to TX 225 (the Pasadena Freeway) would suffice. There really is no need to move I-69 off the existing Southwest/Eastex Freeway corridor, and the northern/western segments of the Grand Parkway should remain TX 99 unless they are planning to de-toll those segments.

Actually, I'd rather they complete the I-10/SPUR 330 (Decker Drive) interchange with full connectors to/from the west rather than the indirect movements through the Crosby-Lynchburg Road interchange, and even finish upgrading existing TX 146 between the Chambers-Harris County Line and I-10, before they finish the Grand Parkway segment through Baytown.

[nolia_boi504]

If accessing the Baytown ports were that important, then using existing I-610 to TX 225 (the Pasadena Freeway) would suffice.

I'm not sure how that will help as it doesn't provide relief routes from the existing conditions. It's already horrible as it is at 59/610, and the point is to keep the traffic out and around Houston to help alleviate congestion in the core.

Nexus 5X

[Grzrd]

The Texas Transportation Commission's December 17 Agenda indicates that the concurrent I-169 designation for the 1.5 mile section of SH 550 from I-69E to Old Alice Road should be approved on December 17 (p. 2/12 of pdf):
ftp://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2015/1217/agenda.pdf

This Alliance for I-69 Texas article reports that the Texas Transportation Commission did indeed approve the above I-169 designation ....
Here is a snip of a map accompanying the article:

This February 16 article reports that local officials unveiled the I-169 shield on February 16:

State and local officials gathered under an overpass Tuesday for the unveiling of the first I-169 sign marking the new designation of a portion of the S.H. 550 toll road.
The U.S. Department of Transportation late last year gave the I-169 designation to a roughly 1 1/2-mile stretch of S.H. 550 between I-69E and Old Alice Road, making it part of the federal interstate highway system.
Running 10 miles from I-69E to S.H. 48 and the Port of Brownsville, S.H. 550 is the Rio Grande Valley's first toll road. Two short segments of the toll way still have to be brought up to interstate standards before the entire length can be designated "I-169."
Among those in attendance at Tuesday's brief, informal ceremony near the S.H. 550 frontage road and Baker Lane intersection were Texas Transportation Commission Chairman Tryon D. Lewis, Texas Secretary of State Carlos H. Cascos, state Sen. Eddie Lucio Jr. and state Rep. Eddie Lucio III.

Here is a snip from a photo of the shield accompanying the article:



Hmmmmm ..... a neutered shield. Is this the beginning of a new trend in Texas?

[Bobby5280]

The oversize numerals in that neutered 3-digit shield look terrible. "69" already has a rough enough time fitting in a neutered 2 digit shield. It probably wouldn't be so bad if the numerals were spaced a little better.

I'm definitely far more in favor of leaving state names in Interstate shields. The numerals may be smaller, but they fit in those curvy Interstate shields a whole lot better.

[US 81]

Wait a minute, Texas is neutering shields again?

[codyg1985]

It is already on Google Maps.

[oscar]

Hmmmmm ..... a neutered shield. Is this the beginning of a new trend in Texas?

I think the non-standard font size is a tip-off that this is just a fake shield, thrown together for the ceremony. I hope that when real route markers go up, they'll look more normal, and might be non-neutered.

Not that I have a problem with neutered shields, at least in this location. If you haven't figured out by that point you're in Texas, you probably shouldn't be behind the wheel.

[TXtoNJ]

Hmmmmm ..... a neutered shield. Is this the beginning of a new trend in Texas?

I think the non-standard font size is a tip-off that this is just a fake shield, thrown together for the ceremony. I hope that when real route markers go up, they'll look more normal, and might be non-neutered.

Not that I have a problem with neutered shields, at least in this location. If you haven't figured out by that point you're in Texas, you probably shouldn't be behind the wheel.

It looks like a BGS-spec sign.

[abqtraveler]

The oversize numerals in that neutered 3-digit shield look terrible. "69" already has a rough enough time fitting in a neutered 2 digit shield. It probably wouldn't be so bad if the numerals were spaced a little better.

I'm definitely far more in favor of leaving state names in Interstate shields. The numerals may be smaller, but they fit in those curvy Interstate shields a whole lot better.

Given that the ceremony was held off the highway itself, it looks like the I-169 sign used in the unveiling was a static display and not actually used as an assurance sign on the toll road.  It'll probably take weeks to months for all of the I-169 signage to be installed on SH-550. 

On a related note, a lot of US-59 through Houston, though approved to be signed as I-69, has yet be to be signed as such, at least as of last month when I traveled through that area.  I did notice that TxDOT did install mileposts on the Southwest Freeway from I-610 to at least Sugar Land.

[txstateends]

The oversize numerals in that neutered 3-digit shield look terrible. "69" already has a rough enough time fitting in a neutered 2 digit shield. It probably wouldn't be so bad if the numerals were spaced a little better.

I'm definitely far more in favor of leaving state names in Interstate shields. The numerals may be smaller, but they fit in those curvy Interstate shields a whole lot

The oversize numerals in that neutered 3-digit shield look terrible. "69" already has a rough enough time fitting in a neutered 2 digit shield. It probably wouldn't be so bad if the numerals were spaced a little better.

I'm definitely far more in favor of leaving state names in Interstate shields. The numerals may be smaller, but they fit in those curvy Interstate shields a whole lot better.

On a related note, a lot of US-59 through Houston, though approved to be signed as I-69, has yet be to be signed as such, at least as of last month when I traveled through that area.  I did notice that TxDOT did install mileposts on the Southwest Freeway from I-610 to at least Sugar Land.

Does seem a bit odd that the additional-naming process went through rather quickly and yet there isn't the relatively-same pace in getting signs made and put up.

[Grzrd]

Any confirmed sightings of I-69W signage in the area will be greatly appreciated.

as would a confirmation of the new US 59 mainline @ business route.

Just in case anyone has missed it, the AARoads Facebook page includes a March 23 post with a photo of an I-69W/ US 59 BGS:

[jbnv]

Just in case anyone has missed it, the AARoads Facebook page includes a March 23 post with a photo of an I-69W/ US 59 BGS:

Is that a real photo? Looks like a bad Photoshop job.

[abqtraveler]

Just in case anyone has missed it, the AARoads Facebook page includes a March 23 post with a photo of an I-69W/ US 59 BGS:

Is that a real photo? Looks like a bad Photoshop job.

Looks like TxDOT installed a cover plate bearing the I-69W and US-59 shields over the old US-59 shield instead of completely replacing the sign.

[Grzrd]

A proposed Minute Order on the July 31, 2014 Texas Transportation Commission ("TTC") Agenda indicates that the TTC will designate Loop 20 to be concurrent with US 59/ Future I-69W so that local businesses will not have to change their addresses (page 7/14 of pdf; page 7 of document)

Webb County - Designate State Loop 20 (SL 20) on the state highway system concurrent with US 59 from the entrance to the World Trade Bridge to the junction of SL 20 and US 59 in the city of Laredo (MO)
Minute Order 113852 redesignated a portion of SL 20 as US 59 from the entrance of the World Trade Bridge to the junction of SL 20 and US 59 in Laredo, which began the process of designating applicable portions of US 59 as part of the I-69 system. However, the minute order did not reference maintaining the LP 20 signage so that addresses would not need to be changed. This minute order corrects that oversight and designates a portion of SL 20 on the state highway system, concurrent with US 59.

Just in case anyone has missed it, the AARoads Facebook page includes a March 23 post with a photo of an I-69W/ US 59 BGS:

Is that a real photo? Looks like a bad Photoshop job.

Looks like TxDOT installed a cover plate bearing the I-69W and US-59 shields over the old US-59 shield instead of completely replacing the sign.

This December 2012 Google StreetView imagery indicates that the I-69W and US 59 shields covered a Loop 20 shield accompanied by "WEST" as the direction:



Given the effort to correct the oversight about the Loop 20 designation, it seems strange that TxDOT did not include a Loop 20 shield on the cover plate (the TTC did approve the Minute Order).

[roadman65]

I just thought of how to end the I-69 split in South Texas.  Extend I-45 south from Houston to Pharr to take over the Central Spur.  Then extend I-37 over the eastern spur and keep I-69 to Laredo. 

I-45 to Galveston becomes I-145.
I-37 into Corpus Christi Becomes I-137.

Then if I-45 ever should make it to Tulsa, then I-45 would be closer to living up to the expectations of an interstate ending in 5.

I suppose this should really be in fictional though, but being its about three freeways already on the books in TexDOT its not fictional, just suggesting some better route designations.

[CobaltYoshi27]

I just thought of how to end the I-69 split in South Texas.  Extend I-45 south from Houston to Pharr to take over the Central Spur.  Then extend I-37 over the eastern spur and keep I-69 to Laredo. 

I-45 to Galveston becomes I-145.
I-37 into Corpus Christi Becomes I-137.

Then if I-45 ever should make it to Tulsa, then I-45 would be closer to living up to the expectations of an interstate ending in 5.

I suppose this should really be in fictional though, but being its about three freeways already on the books in TexDOT its not fictional, just suggesting some better route designations.

I'd reverse that so I-45 is the eastern spur and I-37 is the central spur. Even then, it's fine the way it is.