I-69 in TX

[Bobby5280]

According to Wikipedia, Loop 463 exists since 1968. Regardless, it is going to be interesting to see what this does for Victoria.

If you look at historical imagery in Google Earth for 1985 and 1995 there is no Loop 463 roadway at all going past US-87 on the North side of Victoria. Move the slider to 2005 and you'll see a mostly Super-2 route (with a couple 4-lane segments) getting built from the US-87 exit on West and then downward to the US-59/US-77 exit. The 2017 imagery shows an additional 4-lane upgrade being built over the Guadalupe River.

Where should they build I-69W on new location?

That's actually a tough one to say for sure. Coleto Creek and the railroad line next to US-59 are obstacles to consider.

If a straight Interstate upgrade was performed on US-59 going West of the Victoria Loop it would involve having to buy and clear a few properties along US-59 in Raisin. That would be to make room for the freeway main lanes and frontage roads. Once US-59 gets close to Fannin it gets more upgrade-friendly.

If they were going to build a new terrain outlet for I-69W to spur off the loop the interchange would have to be built about halfway between the US-77/77B/59/TX-91 complex at the SW corner of the loop and the US-59/77/59B exit 3.5 miles to the North. That would give the most distance between either exit to limit possible traffic weaving issues. I-69W would still have to cross Coleto Creek, but it would have plenty of room to miss the properties and other stuff in Raisin. Then it could dovetail into US-59 just East of Fannin.

[Thegeet]

According to Wikipedia, Loop 463 exists since 1968. Regardless, it is going to be interesting to see what this does for Victoria.

If you look at historical imagery in Google Earth for 1985 and 1995 there is no Loop 463 roadway at all going past US-87 on the North side of Victoria. Move the slider to 2005 and you'll see a mostly Super-2 route (with a couple 4-lane segments) getting built from the US-87 exit on West and then downward to the US-59/US-77 exit. The 2017 imagery shows an additional 4-lane upgrade being built over the Guadalupe River.

According to an old map source, Loop 463 was a short route between US-87 and US-77 north of Victoria. The current alignment of US-59 as it is known today, was originally Loop 175.

Where should they build I-69W on new location?

That's actually a tough one to say for sure. Coleto Creek and the railroad line next to US-59 are obstacles to consider.

If a straight Interstate upgrade was performed on US-59 going West of the Victoria Loop it would involve having to buy and clear a few properties along US-59 in Raisin. That would be to make room for the freeway main lanes and frontage roads. Once US-59 gets close to Fannin it gets more upgrade-friendly.

If they were going to build a new terrain outlet for I-69W to spur off the loop the interchange would have to be built about halfway between the US-77/77B/59/TX-91 complex at the SW corner of the loop and the US-59/77/59B exit 3.5 miles to the North. That would give the most distance between either exit to limit possible traffic weaving issues. I-69W would still have to cross Coleto Creek, but it would have plenty of room to miss the properties and other stuff in Raisin. Then it could dovetail into US-59 just East of Fannin.

To me at least, Coleto Creek is the least of concerns. However, the railroad brings up a good question: why were these highways built parallel to railroad tracks? Does some vehicle need to follow freight train or something? (Joking of course)

[abqtraveler]

According to Wikipedia, Loop 463 exists since 1968. Regardless, it is going to be interesting to see what this does for Victoria.

If you look at historical imagery in Google Earth for 1985 and 1995 there is no Loop 463 roadway at all going past US-87 on the North side of Victoria. Move the slider to 2005 and you'll see a mostly Super-2 route (with a couple 4-lane segments) getting built from the US-87 exit on West and then downward to the US-59/US-77 exit. The 2017 imagery shows an additional 4-lane upgrade being built over the Guadalupe River.

According to an old map source, Loop 463 was a short route between US-87 and US-77 north of Victoria. The current alignment of US-59 as it is known today, was originally Loop 175.

Where should they build I-69W on new location?

That's actually a tough one to say for sure. Coleto Creek and the railroad line next to US-59 are obstacles to consider.

If a straight Interstate upgrade was performed on US-59 going West of the Victoria Loop it would involve having to buy and clear a few properties along US-59 in Raisin. That would be to make room for the freeway main lanes and frontage roads. Once US-59 gets close to Fannin it gets more upgrade-friendly.

If they were going to build a new terrain outlet for I-69W to spur off the loop the interchange would have to be built about halfway between the US-77/77B/59/TX-91 complex at the SW corner of the loop and the US-59/77/59B exit 3.5 miles to the North. That would give the most distance between either exit to limit possible traffic weaving issues. I-69W would still have to cross Coleto Creek, but it would have plenty of room to miss the properties and other stuff in Raisin. Then it could dovetail into US-59 just East of Fannin.

To me at least, Coleto Creek is the least of concerns. However, the railroad brings up a good question: why were these highways built parallel to railroad tracks? Does some vehicle need to follow freight train or something? (Joking of course)

I think it goes back to when the US highway system was being laid out. In many places you'll notice that US routes closely follow a major rail line. I suppose it was easier for the US routes to parallel the rail lines since the railroads were the transportation backbone of America until the US highway system, and later the interstate system were established.

[texaskdog]

Plus usually a right of way already cleared

[kphoger]

And along a relatively level path.  Between two points where there's already a town.

[Thegeet]

Ah. Okay.

New topic: Where would the Odem bypass route for US-77(I-69E) be built? West or East?

[sparker]

According to Wikipedia, Loop 463 exists since 1968. Regardless, it is going to be interesting to see what this does for Victoria.

If you look at historical imagery in Google Earth for 1985 and 1995 there is no Loop 463 roadway at all going past US-87 on the North side of Victoria. Move the slider to 2005 and you'll see a mostly Super-2 route (with a couple 4-lane segments) getting built from the US-87 exit on West and then downward to the US-59/US-77 exit. The 2017 imagery shows an additional 4-lane upgrade being built over the Guadalupe River.

According to an old map source, Loop 463 was a short route between US-87 and US-77 north of Victoria. The current alignment of US-59 as it is known today, was originally Loop 175.

Where should they build I-69W on new location?

That's actually a tough one to say for sure. Coleto Creek and the railroad line next to US-59 are obstacles to consider.

If a straight Interstate upgrade was performed on US-59 going West of the Victoria Loop it would involve having to buy and clear a few properties along US-59 in Raisin. That would be to make room for the freeway main lanes and frontage roads. Once US-59 gets close to Fannin it gets more upgrade-friendly.

If they were going to build a new terrain outlet for I-69W to spur off the loop the interchange would have to be built about halfway between the US-77/77B/59/TX-91 complex at the SW corner of the loop and the US-59/77/59B exit 3.5 miles to the North. That would give the most distance between either exit to limit possible traffic weaving issues. I-69W would still have to cross Coleto Creek, but it would have plenty of room to miss the properties and other stuff in Raisin. Then it could dovetail into US-59 just East of Fannin.

To me at least, Coleto Creek is the least of concerns. However, the railroad brings up a good question: why were these highways built parallel to railroad tracks? Does some vehicle need to follow freight train or something? (Joking of course)

I think it goes back to when the US highway system was being laid out. In many places you'll notice that US routes closely follow a major rail line. I suppose it was easier for the US routes to parallel the rail lines since the railroads were the transportation backbone of America until the US highway system, and later the interstate system were established.

A lot of the original US and state highway alignments were laid out along the railroads' parallel service roads, many of which were essentially well-used wagon trails.  Since railroads sought out the paths of least resistance -- and gradient -- most of the major cross-country highways followed suit -- US 30 followed the original transcontinental portion of Union Pacific; much of US 10 tracked the old Northern Pacific, while US 66 west of the Rio Grande closely followed the Santa Fe.  In the case of US 59 and US 77 in south Texas, the old Missouri Pacific and Southern Pacific (more precisely, their Texas & New Orleans subsidiary) alternated as the closest parallel route to what's now becoming I-69 and 69E. 

[Thegeet]

According to Wikipedia, Loop 463 exists since 1968. Regardless, it is going to be interesting to see what this does for Victoria.

If you look at historical imagery in Google Earth for 1985 and 1995 there is no Loop 463 roadway at all going past US-87 on the North side of Victoria. Move the slider to 2005 and you'll see a mostly Super-2 route (with a couple 4-lane segments) getting built from the US-87 exit on West and then downward to the US-59/US-77 exit. The 2017 imagery shows an additional 4-lane upgrade being built over the Guadalupe River.

According to an old map source, Loop 463 was a short route between US-87 and US-77 north of Victoria. The current alignment of US-59 as it is known today, was originally Loop 175.

Where should they build I-69W on new location?

That's actually a tough one to say for sure. Coleto Creek and the railroad line next to US-59 are obstacles to consider.

If a straight Interstate upgrade was performed on US-59 going West of the Victoria Loop it would involve having to buy and clear a few properties along US-59 in Raisin. That would be to make room for the freeway main lanes and frontage roads. Once US-59 gets close to Fannin it gets more upgrade-friendly.

If they were going to build a new terrain outlet for I-69W to spur off the loop the interchange would have to be built about halfway between the US-77/77B/59/TX-91 complex at the SW corner of the loop and the US-59/77/59B exit 3.5 miles to the North. That would give the most distance between either exit to limit possible traffic weaving issues. I-69W would still have to cross Coleto Creek, but it would have plenty of room to miss the properties and other stuff in Raisin. Then it could dovetail into US-59 just East of Fannin.

To me at least, Coleto Creek is the least of concerns. However, the railroad brings up a good question: why were these highways built parallel to railroad tracks? Does some vehicle need to follow freight train or something? (Joking of course)

I think it goes back to when the US highway system was being laid out. In many places you'll notice that US routes closely follow a major rail line. I suppose it was easier for the US routes to parallel the rail lines since the railroads were the transportation backbone of America until the US highway system, and later the interstate system were established.

A lot of the original US and state highway alignments were laid out along the railroads' parallel service roads, many of which were essentially well-used wagon trails.  Since railroads sought out the paths of least resistance -- and gradient -- most of the major cross-country highways followed suit -- US 30 followed the original transcontinental portion of Union Pacific; much of US 10 tracked the old Northern Pacific, while US 66 west of the Rio Grande closely followed the Santa Fe.  In the case of US 59 and US 77 in south Texas, the old Missouri Pacific and Southern Pacific (more precisely, their Texas & New Orleans subsidiary) alternated as the closest parallel route to what's now becoming I-69 and 69E. 

Nice. I didn’t know railroads played a big role in highways. The only thing is that when a train comes, it’s frustrating for a driver to have to wait.

[Anthony_JK]

According to Wikipedia, Loop 463 exists since 1968. Regardless, it is going to be interesting to see what this does for Victoria.

If you look at historical imagery in Google Earth for 1985 and 1995 there is no Loop 463 roadway at all going past US-87 on the North side of Victoria. Move the slider to 2005 and you'll see a mostly Super-2 route (with a couple 4-lane segments) getting built from the US-87 exit on West and then downward to the US-59/US-77 exit. The 2017 imagery shows an additional 4-lane upgrade being built over the Guadalupe River.

According to an old map source, Loop 463 was a short route between US-87 and US-77 north of Victoria. The current alignment of US-59 as it is known today, was originally Loop 175.

Where should they build I-69W on new location?

That's actually a tough one to say for sure. Coleto Creek and the railroad line next to US-59 are obstacles to consider.

If a straight Interstate upgrade was performed on US-59 going West of the Victoria Loop it would involve having to buy and clear a few properties along US-59 in Raisin. That would be to make room for the freeway main lanes and frontage roads. Once US-59 gets close to Fannin it gets more upgrade-friendly.

If they were going to build a new terrain outlet for I-69W to spur off the loop the interchange would have to be built about halfway between the US-77/77B/59/TX-91 complex at the SW corner of the loop and the US-59/77/59B exit 3.5 miles to the North. That would give the most distance between either exit to limit possible traffic weaving issues. I-69W would still have to cross Coleto Creek, but it would have plenty of room to miss the properties and other stuff in Raisin. Then it could dovetail into US-59 just East of Fannin.

To me at least, Coleto Creek is the least of concerns. However, the railroad brings up a good question: why were these highways built parallel to railroad tracks? Does some vehicle need to follow freight train or something? (Joking of course)

I think it goes back to when the US highway system was being laid out. In many places you'll notice that US routes closely follow a major rail line. I suppose it was easier for the US routes to parallel the rail lines since the railroads were the transportation backbone of America until the US highway system, and later the interstate system were established.

A lot of the original US and state highway alignments were laid out along the railroads' parallel service roads, many of which were essentially well-used wagon trails.  Since railroads sought out the paths of least resistance -- and gradient -- most of the major cross-country highways followed suit -- US 30 followed the original transcontinental portion of Union Pacific; much of US 10 tracked the old Northern Pacific, while US 66 west of the Rio Grande closely followed the Santa Fe.  In the case of US 59 and US 77 in south Texas, the old Missouri Pacific and Southern Pacific (more precisely, their Texas & New Orleans subsidiary) alternated as the closest parallel route to what's now becoming I-69 and 69E. 

Just a question, Sparker: This is the same T&NO that ran the SP line from Houston to New Orleans via Lafayette that is now jointly run by UP and BNSF alternatively, am I correct?

Back to the I-69 Colossus Confluence in Victoria: I'm wondering why the rush to actually build a full Victoria freeway loop, even if most of it is or will be freeway grade when I-69/I-69E will be built, when I-69W probably won't be built for quite a while yet? Are there plans to at least 4-lane US 59 between Laredo and Victoria currently as a starter?

[Thegeet]

According to Wikipedia, Loop 463 exists since 1968. Regardless, it is going to be interesting to see what this does for Victoria.

If you look at historical imagery in Google Earth for 1985 and 1995 there is no Loop 463 roadway at all going past US-87 on the North side of Victoria. Move the slider to 2005 and you'll see a mostly Super-2 route (with a couple 4-lane segments) getting built from the US-87 exit on West and then downward to the US-59/US-77 exit. The 2017 imagery shows an additional 4-lane upgrade being built over the Guadalupe River.

According to an old map source, Loop 463 was a short route between US-87 and US-77 north of Victoria. The current alignment of US-59 as it is known today, was originally Loop 175.

Where should they build I-69W on new location?

That's actually a tough one to say for sure. Coleto Creek and the railroad line next to US-59 are obstacles to consider.

If a straight Interstate upgrade was performed on US-59 going West of the Victoria Loop it would involve having to buy and clear a few properties along US-59 in Raisin. That would be to make room for the freeway main lanes and frontage roads. Once US-59 gets close to Fannin it gets more upgrade-friendly.

If they were going to build a new terrain outlet for I-69W to spur off the loop the interchange would have to be built about halfway between the US-77/77B/59/TX-91 complex at the SW corner of the loop and the US-59/77/59B exit 3.5 miles to the North. That would give the most distance between either exit to limit possible traffic weaving issues. I-69W would still have to cross Coleto Creek, but it would have plenty of room to miss the properties and other stuff in Raisin. Then it could dovetail into US-59 just East of Fannin.

To me at least, Coleto Creek is the least of concerns. However, the railroad brings up a good question: why were these highways built parallel to railroad tracks? Does some vehicle need to follow freight train or something? (Joking of course)

I think it goes back to when the US highway system was being laid out. In many places you'll notice that US routes closely follow a major rail line. I suppose it was easier for the US routes to parallel the rail lines since the railroads were the transportation backbone of America until the US highway system, and later the interstate system were established.

A lot of the original US and state highway alignments were laid out along the railroads' parallel service roads, many of which were essentially well-used wagon trails.  Since railroads sought out the paths of least resistance -- and gradient -- most of the major cross-country highways followed suit -- US 30 followed the original transcontinental portion of Union Pacific; much of US 10 tracked the old Northern Pacific, while US 66 west of the Rio Grande closely followed the Santa Fe.  In the case of US 59 and US 77 in south Texas, the old Missouri Pacific and Southern Pacific (more precisely, their Texas & New Orleans subsidiary) alternated as the closest parallel route to what's now becoming I-69 and 69E. 

Just a question, Sparker: This is the same T&NO that ran the SP line from Houston to New Orleans via Lafayette that is now jointly run by UP and BNSF alternatively, am I correct?

Back to the I-69 Colossus Confluence in Victoria: I'm wondering why the rush to actually build a full Victoria freeway loop, even if most of it is or will be freeway grade when I-69/I-69E will be built, when I-69W probably won't be built for quite a while yet? Are there plans to at least 4-lane US 59 between Laredo and Victoria currently as a starter?

I'm going to guess that Victoria is highly prioritized because TxDOT feels that it is an emerging attraction for new businesses and companies, including "warehouses and redistribution centers"  (Victoria Mayor Rawley McCoy). But most importantly, they're prioritizing the more urban areas first, which are the hardest parts. Why other places similar sizes don't get this rush, I'm not 100% sure, but it's an idea.

According to TXDOT's project tracker, they're already developing the route at the US-59T BUS interchange to widen to 4 lanes total.

[sparker]

According to Wikipedia, Loop 463 exists since 1968. Regardless, it is going to be interesting to see what this does for Victoria.

If you look at historical imagery in Google Earth for 1985 and 1995 there is no Loop 463 roadway at all going past US-87 on the North side of Victoria. Move the slider to 2005 and you'll see a mostly Super-2 route (with a couple 4-lane segments) getting built from the US-87 exit on West and then downward to the US-59/US-77 exit. The 2017 imagery shows an additional 4-lane upgrade being built over the Guadalupe River.

According to an old map source, Loop 463 was a short route between US-87 and US-77 north of Victoria. The current alignment of US-59 as it is known today, was originally Loop 175.

Where should they build I-69W on new location?

That's actually a tough one to say for sure. Coleto Creek and the railroad line next to US-59 are obstacles to consider.

If a straight Interstate upgrade was performed on US-59 going West of the Victoria Loop it would involve having to buy and clear a few properties along US-59 in Raisin. That would be to make room for the freeway main lanes and frontage roads. Once US-59 gets close to Fannin it gets more upgrade-friendly.

If they were going to build a new terrain outlet for I-69W to spur off the loop the interchange would have to be built about halfway between the US-77/77B/59/TX-91 complex at the SW corner of the loop and the US-59/77/59B exit 3.5 miles to the North. That would give the most distance between either exit to limit possible traffic weaving issues. I-69W would still have to cross Coleto Creek, but it would have plenty of room to miss the properties and other stuff in Raisin. Then it could dovetail into US-59 just East of Fannin.

To me at least, Coleto Creek is the least of concerns. However, the railroad brings up a good question: why were these highways built parallel to railroad tracks? Does some vehicle need to follow freight train or something? (Joking of course)

I think it goes back to when the US highway system was being laid out. In many places you'll notice that US routes closely follow a major rail line. I suppose it was easier for the US routes to parallel the rail lines since the railroads were the transportation backbone of America until the US highway system, and later the interstate system were established.

A lot of the original US and state highway alignments were laid out along the railroads' parallel service roads, many of which were essentially well-used wagon trails.  Since railroads sought out the paths of least resistance -- and gradient -- most of the major cross-country highways followed suit -- US 30 followed the original transcontinental portion of Union Pacific; much of US 10 tracked the old Northern Pacific, while US 66 west of the Rio Grande closely followed the Santa Fe.  In the case of US 59 and US 77 in south Texas, the old Missouri Pacific and Southern Pacific (more precisely, their Texas & New Orleans subsidiary) alternated as the closest parallel route to what's now becoming I-69 and 69E. 

Just a question, Sparker: This is the same T&NO that ran the SP line from Houston to New Orleans via Lafayette that is now jointly run by UP and BNSF alternatively, am I correct?

Back to the I-69 Colossus Confluence in Victoria: I'm wondering why the rush to actually build a full Victoria freeway loop, even if most of it is or will be freeway grade when I-69/I-69E will be built, when I-69W probably won't be built for quite a while yet? Are there plans to at least 4-lane US 59 between Laredo and Victoria currently as a starter?

Absolutely correct re T&NO.  Until 1959, Texas state law required railroads with trackage within TX to be incorporated in TX.  This led to the major RR lines establishing subsidiaries to, at least on paper, be TX-based.  T&NO never had any locomotives or rolling stock (freight/passenger cars) advertising the subsidiary name; all were labeled "Southern Pacific" as with the CA-based parent company (although locomotives running on the T&NO lines had small discreet "T&NO" stencils within the specification list on their chasses.  The major T&NO line ran from El Paso east to New Orleans via Alpine, Del Rio, San Antonio, Houston (which was T&NO's "official" HQ), Lake Charles, Lafayette, Morgan City, and NO itself -- basically tracing US 90 (or Alternate US 90) in both states.  Branches were Houston-Brownsville, Houston-DFW, and Victoria-DFW, crossing the main E-W line at Flatonia.  Missouri Pacific had two subsidiary companies: Missouri Pacific of Texas, which owned and operated most of the NE-SW lines in TX, and the more famous Texas & Pacific, which ran along US 80 and/or I-20 across the entire state before dipping SE at Shreveport to serve Baton Rouge and NO.  Likewise, Santa Fe had a subsidiary that paper-owned their TX trackage, the Gulf, Colorado, and Santa Fe.  The only part of TX that was exempt from the ownership rule was the Panhandle north of the Red River, which was "grandfathered" in when the ownership rule came into effect in the 1890's.  When UP bought SP (1996),  which had "re-absorbed" its T&NO subsidiary in 1960, it deemed the section of E-W line east of Lake Charles to be superfluous and overly high-maintenance (particularly the section east of Lafayette, which featured a multitude of bridges); they sold that line to BNSF, which didn't have a NO server (UP already had the former MP line into Baton Rouge and the former T&P line from Shreveport by which to access New Orleans).  BTW, MP and SP had parallel trackage from Houston to Brownsville; after SP's UP acquisition, the latter company either sold most of the SP trackage to Kansas City Southern or, south of Corpus Christi, simply abandoned the SP line in favor of the former MP.     

[Bobby5280]

Aside from the desire to attract distribution centers and other businesses to the Victoria area (and other points along the Future I-69 system in Texas) there is also the very pressing concern of I-35 needing a relief valve for re-directing at least some commercial traffic.

I-35 in Texas has very heavy levels of commercial trucking traffic, among the most the in nation. And that starts right at the border in Laredo. Combine that with the factor of the Dallas-Fort Worth and Austin-San Antonio regions adding residents faster than most other places in the nation. The substantial upgrade to I-35 built between Austin and DFW won't be enough to shoulder that burden. I-69 will be able to siphon away some of that burden. Driving through Houston can be a less-than-fun experience, but Houston is just one giant metro as opposed to San Antonio, Austin and DFW. Plus, half of the Grand Parkway is nearly complete from I-69 on the SW side of Houston to I-69 on the NE side. They just need to build the TX-99/I-69 interchange in Greatwood. I'm sure that will happen long before the rest of I-69 is completed between Houston and Laredo.

[kphoger]

Aside from the desire to attract distribution centers and other businesses to the Victoria area (and other points along the Future I-69 system in Texas) there is also the very pressing concern of I-35 needing a relief valve for re-directing at least some commercial traffic.

I-35 in Texas has very heavy levels of commercial trucking traffic, among the most the in nation. And that starts right at the border in Laredo. Combine that with the factor of the Dallas-Fort Worth and Austin-San Antonio regions adding residents faster than most other places in the nation. The substantial upgrade to I-35 built between Austin and DFW won't be enough to shoulder that burden. I-69 will be able to siphon away some of that burden. Driving through Houston can be a less-than-fun experience, but Houston is just one giant metro as opposed to San Antonio, Austin and DFW. Plus, half of the Grand Parkway is nearly complete from I-69 on the SW side of Houston to I-69 on the NE side. They just need to build the TX-99/I-69 interchange in Greatwood. I'm sure that will happen long before the rest of I-69 is completed between Houston and Laredo.

While I do agree, I at least want to point out that the AADT just north of San Marcos is about six or seven times higher than the AADT just north of Encinal.

[sparker]

Aside from the desire to attract distribution centers and other businesses to the Victoria area (and other points along the Future I-69 system in Texas) there is also the very pressing concern of I-35 needing a relief valve for re-directing at least some commercial traffic.

I-35 in Texas has very heavy levels of commercial trucking traffic, among the most the in nation. And that starts right at the border in Laredo. Combine that with the factor of the Dallas-Fort Worth and Austin-San Antonio regions adding residents faster than most other places in the nation. The substantial upgrade to I-35 built between Austin and DFW won't be enough to shoulder that burden. I-69 will be able to siphon away some of that burden. Driving through Houston can be a less-than-fun experience, but Houston is just one giant metro as opposed to San Antonio, Austin and DFW. Plus, half of the Grand Parkway is nearly complete from I-69 on the SW side of Houston to I-69 on the NE side. They just need to build the TX-99/I-69 interchange in Greatwood. I'm sure that will happen long before the rest of I-69 is completed between Houston and Laredo.

While I do agree, I at least want to point out that the AADT just north of San Marcos is about six or seven times higher than the AADT just north of Encinal.

While it might siphon off only a small portion of current NB I-35 traffic compared to the potential of I-69W/I-69 as a Laredo-Houston direct shot, development of the P2P (I-27) corridor, branching off with US 83 just north of metro Laredo, may help in this regard, particularly with any commercial destination west of the I-35 corridor.  But in reality there can be no comparison between any part of I-35 from San Antonio all the way north to Temple, which constitutes the area experiencing the greatest population growth in the region, with anything south toward Laredo.  North of, for instance, the southern junction of I-35 and Loop 1604 there will be regularized commuter traffic with which to contend, and this condition will likely persist to the northern outskirts of Temple, adding a magnitude of local traffic to any through traffic on I-35; from Laredo to the San Antonio outskirts, there is little in the way of development (as of yet); while there's plenty of commercial traffic, it hasn't been inundated with the levels seen in the line of metro areas to the north and the rapidly filling spaces between them.  Building out I-35 to beyond 6 lanes along that stretch may not be critical as both facility expansion and making more relief routes (besides 130!) available to disperse the increassed traffic in and north of San Antonio.       

[Thegeet]

When can we expect to see progress on future I-69W in the Corpus Christi District (i.e., Goliad, Beeville, George West, Freer)?

[sparker]

When can we expect to see progress on future I-69W in the Corpus Christi District (i.e., Goliad, Beeville, George West, Freer)?

Probably not until I-69E is substantially completed, and I-69C has at least half of its length built out to full Interstate standards.  While Laredo is the proverbial 800-pound gorilla of border crossings in terms of sheer commercial volume, it's pretty clear that Hidalgo and Brownsville are, via the MX 40 toll road, positioned to be alternatives when (not if) the funnel spout that is Laredo reaches a point of critical mass.  Also -- 69C and 69E serve the lower Rio Grande valley, which has been growing almost exponentially for the last couple of decades.  I-69W is seen as ultimately needed -- but not desperately at present; the corridor's primary function is as a relief route rather than a connector to an expanding population center.  As such, its development can proceed at a slower pace without touching off political or public reaction.  In short, it's more of a "one trick pony" than the other two branches -- that trick being a commercial shortcut from Laredo to Houston not involving San Antonio as a chokepoint. 

[Thegeet]

When can we expect to see progress on future I-69W in the Corpus Christi District (i.e., Goliad, Beeville, George West, Freer)?

Probably not until I-69E is substantially completed, and I-69C has at least half of its length built out to full Interstate standards.  While Laredo is the proverbial 800-pound gorilla of border crossings in terms of sheer commercial volume, it's pretty clear that Hidalgo and Brownsville are, via the MX 40 toll road, positioned to be alternatives when (not if) the funnel spout that is Laredo reaches a point of critical mass.  Also -- 69C and 69E serve the lower Rio Grande valley, which has been growing almost exponentially for the last couple of decades.  I-69W is seen as ultimately needed -- but not desperately at present; the corridor's primary function is as a relief route rather than a connector to an expanding population center.  As such, its development can proceed at a slower pace without touching off political or public reaction.  In short, it's more of a "one trick pony" than the other two branches -- that trick being a commercial shortcut from Laredo to Houston not involving San Antonio as a chokepoint. 

Ock.
thanks.

Google maps has uploaded new satellite imagery north of Raymondville, showing new main lanes open for US-77.

Also, one more question: about how much more expensive (or highly unlikely from what I’ve heard, cheaper) would it be to construct most of I-69 in Texas over mostly existing corridors as compared to I-69 in mostly new terrain?

[sprjus4]

Looking at updated aerial imagery, has construction began on upgrading US-59 between Kendleton and Wharton? It appears something is ongoing there, almost like frontage road construction.

It's been a couple years since I've been through the area, but back in 2019, construction had been well underway from Kendleton north to the existing I-69 segment near Rosenberg, but not immediately south - work was also underway for rural frontage road construction on existing right of way in El Campo and Victoria which I imagine is complete now. Good to see progress pushing forward more.

[Thegeet]

Looking at updated aerial imagery, has construction began on upgrading US-59 between Kendleton and Wharton? It appears something is ongoing there, almost like frontage road construction.

It's been a couple years since I've been through the area, but back in 2019, construction had been well underway from Kendleton north to the existing I-69 segment near Rosenberg, but not immediately south - work was also underway for rural frontage road construction on existing right of way in El Campo and Victoria which I imagine is complete now. Good to see progress pushing forward more.

There's definitely something going on near Hungerford, like another bridge being built, probably frontage rd? Wharton has definitely not been doing much in March except the frontage rds.
Great job on pointing that out, btw.


Also, El campo btw, has closed the main lanes for extensive (maybe exaggerating) reconstruction. Wharton county is making progress. Wharton, the city, won't start main construction until 2023. But more importantly, Jackson county hasn't even started.

[ethanhopkin14]

It's official!  I took a trip to Corpus Christi this Memorial Day weekend and southbound I-37 past the north U.S. 77 exit is signed as I-37 and I-69E South (Kingsville Corpus Christi).  Sorry no picture.  On the way back home I noticed it was not signed this way northbound.  It is still signed as the I-37/U.S. 77 cosign.  So I-69E has now been extended about a 2.4 miles...in one direction only!!

[sprjus4]

I-69E now overlaps I-37? Interesting they'd make a move this early with no US-77 upgrade north of I-37.

I'll be in the area next month, I will update if anything changes.

[ethanhopkin14]

I-69E now overlaps I-37? Interesting they'd make a move this early with no US-77 upgrade north of I-37.

I'll be in the area next month, I will update if anything changes.

Excellent.

[Thegeet]

I-69E now overlaps I-37? Interesting they'd make a move this early with no US-77 upgrade north of I-37.

I'll be in the area next month, I will update if anything changes.

Excellent.

Yes. I-69E should theoretically overlap I-37 where US 77 is concurrent with I-37.

It's official!  I took a trip to Corpus Christi this Memorial Day weekend and southbound I-37 past the north U.S. 77 exit is signed as I-37 and I-69E South (Kingsville Corpus Christi).  Sorry no picture.  On the way back home I noticed it was not signed this way northbound.  It is still signed as the I-37/U.S. 77 cosign.  So I-69E has now been extended about a 2.4 miles...in one direction only!!

Does that concurrency still use the exit numbers from I-37?

[ethanhopkin14]

I-69E now overlaps I-37? Interesting they'd make a move this early with no US-77 upgrade north of I-37.

I'll be in the area next month, I will update if anything changes.

Excellent.

Yes. I-69E should theoretically overlap I-37 where US 77 is concurrent with I-37.

It's official!  I took a trip to Corpus Christi this Memorial Day weekend and southbound I-37 past the north U.S. 77 exit is signed as I-37 and I-69E South (Kingsville Corpus Christi).  Sorry no picture.  On the way back home I noticed it was not signed this way northbound.  It is still signed as the I-37/U.S. 77 cosign.  So I-69E has now been extended about a 2.4 miles...in one direction only!!

In that case, I should go look for the minute order. BTW, Does that concurrency still use the exit numbers from I-37?

Yes it does.  Nothing has changed other than the overhead BGS.

[sparker]

I-69E now overlaps I-37? Interesting they'd make a move this early with no US-77 upgrade north of I-37.

I'll be in the area next month, I will update if anything changes.

Excellent.

Yes. I-69E should theoretically overlap I-37 where US 77 is concurrent with I-37.

It's official!  I took a trip to Corpus Christi this Memorial Day weekend and southbound I-37 past the north U.S. 77 exit is signed as I-37 and I-69E South (Kingsville Corpus Christi).  Sorry no picture.  On the way back home I noticed it was not signed this way northbound.  It is still signed as the I-37/U.S. 77 cosign.  So I-69E has now been extended about a 2.4 miles...in one direction only!!

In that case, I should go look for the minute order. BTW, Does that concurrency still use the exit numbers from I-37?

Yes it does.  Nothing has changed other than the overhead BGS.

Makes sense that they'd sign it southbound; that leads directly to an existing signed I-69E portion, where the opposite direction doesn't -- and there are active projects south from there to bring US 77 up to Interstate standards.  Question: does anyone with TX connections have any idea when work will commence on the conversion of US 77 to I-69E from I-37 north to Victoria?  Looks like Odem and Refugio will require bypasses; the one around Sinton appears to be partially completed as a freeway.