US 59B and I-69W in Laredo

[bugo]

Does US 59B have a hanging end at I-35/US 83 where US 59 used to end or does it follow 35/83 north back to US 59? Where is I-69W going to tie into the current US 59 loop north of town? Much of the US 59 loop is an "Arkansas Freeway" with a central turn lane and driveways and won't be converted into a freeway. On the northeastern part of the loop it widens into a "Texas Expressway" with completed frontage roads and room in the middle to build the freeway lanes. I expect it will connect to 59 somewhere around the place the frontage roads begin, but where exactly?

[usends]

Does US 59B have a hanging end at I-35/US 83 where US 59 used to end or does it follow 35/83 north back to US 59?

As of Dec. 2014, it was unknown how Bus. 59 will be signed, because Saunders and Lafayette streets (which Goog shows as Bus. 59) were still signed as mainline 59.  US 59 traffic was (is?) not yet directed onto Loop 20.
http://usends.com/50-59/059/059.html

[lordsutch]

Where is I-69W going to tie into the current US 59 loop north of town? Much of the US 59 loop is an "Arkansas Freeway" with a central turn lane and driveways and won't be converted into a freeway. On the northeastern part of the loop it widens into a "Texas Expressway" with completed frontage roads and room in the middle to build the freeway lanes. I expect it will connect to 59 somewhere around the place the frontage roads begin, but where exactly?

My understanding of TxDOT's current intent is that they do plan to rebuild all of the loop to freeway standards, including the "Arkansas Freeway" portion, including frontage roads. The needed right-of-way is available already along most of the route. Whether I-69W will follow that all the way to Saunders, or some other route will be chosen, is still up in the air.

The original plan was for a "Laredo Outer Loop" to split off where the frontage roads currently end, but that plan was replaced with a plan to build a distinct outer loop further out.

Here's a map of Laredo's pie-in-the-sky thinking, for what it's worth. If this plan was adopted, I-69W could follow the proposed expressway east and either keep going east until it intersects with US 59, or dog-leg along the outer loop a few miles.

[Henry]

Here's a map of Laredo's pie-in-the-sky thinking, for what it's worth. If this plan was adopted, I-69W could follow the proposed expressway east and either keep going east until it intersects with US 59, or dog-leg along the outer loop a few miles.

Also, if I-2 were to go all the way to Laredo, it could then use up the part of the loop that's not used by I-69W. This should make for a very worthwhile project, as the area would have three Interstates serving it, including the existing I-35.

[The Ghostbuster]

This doesn't have to do with US 59B or I-69W, but what's with the short viaduct along state highway 359 between Monterrey Ave. and Cedar Ave? It's very short. Will the viaduct be extended in either direction in the future? I just found it a rather strange road in Laredo. If someone can give me more information on it, that would be great.

[bugo]

This doesn't have to do with US 59B or I-69W, but what's with the short viaduct along state highway 359 between Monterrey Ave. and Cedar Ave? It's very short. Will the viaduct be extended in either direction in the future? I just found it a rather strange road in Laredo. If someone can give me more information on it, that would be great.

That's just a viaduct over the railroad tracks. There's a similar one in downtown Ft Worth. Must be a Texas thing.

[dfwmapper]

Grade-separating rail crossings on state highways has been a popular project with TxDOT for a while. Everyone likes it as a project. Drivers like it because to eliminates waits for trains to cross. Railroads like it because it cuts down on having to do paperwork when some idiot loses a race with the train. Environmentalists like it because it cuts down on emissions from vehicles stopped waiting for trains to cross.

[bugo]

Grade-separating rail crossings on state highways has been a popular project with TxDOT for a while. Everyone likes it as a project. Drivers like it because to eliminates waits for trains to cross. Railroads like it because it cuts down on having to do paperwork when some idiot loses a race with the train. Environmentalists like it because it cuts down on emissions from vehicles stopped waiting for trains to cross.

I'm sure some of the homeowners who lost their houses don't like the large amount of land it takes to build a bridge like this.

[dfwmapper]

I hadn't looked at this one in particular, which was a bit hungrier than what I had been thinking of, like FM 2100 in Crosby or US 87 in Dumas which needed only a bit of real estate. But in this case, there weren't exactly a lot of homeowners in that area anyway, being that it was the crossing of a major US highway with a major rail line, surrounded with the low-end commercial and industrial properties one would expect for that sort of location.

[cjk374]

Grade-separating rail crossings on state highways has been a popular project with TxDOT for a while. Everyone likes it as a project. Drivers like it because to eliminates waits for trains to cross. Railroads like it because it cuts down on having to do paperwork when some idiot loses a race with the train. Environmentalists like it because it cuts down on emissions from vehicles stopped waiting for trains to cross.

I wish many more DOTs would love this kind of project.     

[bugo]

Here's the one in Ft Worth:

https://www.google.com/lochp?ll=32.760507,-97.326872&spn=0.003062,0.004812&t=h&z=18

[lordsutch]

This doesn't have to do with US 59B or I-69W, but what's with the short viaduct along state highway 359 between Monterrey Ave. and Cedar Ave? It's very short. Will the viaduct be extended in either direction in the future? I just found it a rather strange road in Laredo. If someone can give me more information on it, that would be great.

Technically that's US 83 although there is some sporadic SH 359 signage eastbound. In any event, the viaduct was built largely because there's a lot of freight traffic on that line as part of the "port-to-port" corridor to Corpus Christi; TxDOT has also been pretty aggressive about adding grade separations on the railroad line north to San Antonio as well (hence the elaborate FM 1472 overpass on the north side of town).

The eventual hope is to build a rail freight bypass around Laredo with a crossing either at Colombia or somewhere in the Rio Bravo/El Cenizo area (along with Laredo bridge 5/Nuevo Laredo bridge 4) to avoid going through both downtowns, but it's been tied up in wrangling between the railroads and local, state, and federal governments.

[rte66man]

This doesn't have to do with US 59B or I-69W, but what's with the short viaduct along state highway 359 between Monterrey Ave. and Cedar Ave? It's very short. Will the viaduct be extended in either direction in the future? I just found it a rather strange road in Laredo. If someone can give me more information on it, that would be great.

Technically that's US 83 although there is some sporadic SH 359 signage eastbound. In any event, the viaduct was built largely because there's a lot of freight traffic on that line as part of the "port-to-port" corridor to Corpus Christi; TxDOT has also been pretty aggressive about adding grade separations on the railroad line north to San Antonio as well (hence the elaborate FM 1472 overpass on the north side of town).

The eventual hope is to build a rail freight bypass around Laredo with a crossing either at Colombia or somewhere in the Rio Bravo/El Cenizo area (along with Laredo bridge 5/Nuevo Laredo bridge 4) to avoid going through both downtowns, but it's been tied up in wrangling between the railroads and local, state, and federal governments.

Why did they pave the entire median at either end?  That is UGLY (plus it maximizes the runoff).

[usends]

As of Dec. 2014, it was unknown how Bus. 59 will be signed, because Saunders and Lafayette streets (which Goog shows as Bus. 59) were still signed as mainline 59.  US 59 traffic was (is?) not yet directed onto Loop 20.
http://usends.com/50-59/059/059.html

Update: ironically, right about the same time I posted that, TXDoT was changing US 59 signage to reflect its new terminus (approved by AASHTO about a year earlier).  GMSV has some Aug. 2015 coverage of westbound Saunders at Loop 20, and it shows that US 59 has now been signed to follow the loop, while Saunders west of there has been signed as Business 59.  (I believe that link shows the best view currently available; if you navigate forward from there, the next image is from 2012.  And photos from the Loop itself aren't any newer than 2013.)

Anyone know the planned route of I-69W heading east from the World Trade Bridge?  I'd be surprised if it followed US 59 all the way down and around the south end of Lake Casa Blanca.  Seems like the preference would be to build a new cutoff alignment north of the lake.

[Grzrd]

Anyone know the planned route of I-69W heading east from the World Trade Bridge?  I'd be surprised if it followed US 59 all the way down and around the south end of Lake Casa Blanca.  Seems like the preference would be to build a new cutoff alignment north of the lake.

This post includes prior discussion of the possibility of a new cutoff alignment.  To make a long story short, no environmental studies have been conducted yet.  That said, a "direct cutoff" does not appear on the long-term MTP, but the possibility exists that I-69W may one day be routed along a proposed outer loop.

Above said, this post indicates that the long-term MTP reflects a plan to upgrade Loop 20 to interstate standards down to US 59 and that it will eventually be designated as I-69W.

[The Ghostbuster]

When the Interstate 69s are completed, will US 59 and the other US highways that parallel them be decommissioned? Does anyone think they should be?

[txstateends]

When the Interstate 69s are completed, will US 59 and the other US highways that parallel them be decommissioned? Does anyone think they should be?

I asked the same question several months ago.  By the looks of what will be built and where, all the USes (59, 77, 281) along the upcoming I-69 corridors will pretty much be built on-top-of, leaving lots of overlaps--or lots of decomissioning.  I wouldn't cry in my beer if they were removed, or be overly excited for any/all to remain overlapped.

[wxfree]

When the Interstate 69s are completed, will US 59 and the other US highways that parallel them be decommissioned? Does anyone think they should be?

That seems to be what Texas does when a long stretch of highway is run over by an Interstate all the way to its end.  US 290 by I-10, US 81 by I-35/W, US 80 by I-10/20, US 75 by I-45, and, of course, US 66 by I-40.

If the route is almost all a direct replacement, then I think it should be done in order to be consistent.  As for whether they should be decommissioned at all, I think it's a good idea.  It's better than having long concurrencies with short independent sections, or, worse, hundreds of miles of pointless non-stop concurrency.

[The Ghostbuster]

I concur. Otherwise, especially in US 59's case, they co-signages would be quite lengthily.

[jbnv]

When the Interstate 69s are completed, will US 59 and the other US highways that parallel them be decommissioned? Does anyone think they should be?

That seems to be what Texas does when a long stretch of highway is run over by an Interstate all the way to its end.  US 290 by I-10, US 81 by I-35/W, US 80 by I-10/20, US 75 by I-45, and, of course, US 66 by I-40.

If the route is almost all a direct replacement, then I think it should be done in order to be consistent.  As for whether they should be decommissioned at all, I think it's a good idea.  It's better than having long concurrencies with short independent sections, or, worse, hundreds of miles of pointless non-stop concurrency.

I think about this every time I drive on I-55, which carries US 51 for 20 miles just to bring US 51 one more mile to US 61 at LaPlace. US 51 isn't even needed in Louisiana any more.

[cjk374]

When the Interstate 69s are completed, will US 59 and the other US highways that parallel them be decommissioned? Does anyone think they should be?

That seems to be what Texas does when a long stretch of highway is run over by an Interstate all the way to its end.  US 290 by I-10, US 81 by I-35/W, US 80 by I-10/20, US 75 by I-45, and, of course, US 66 by I-40.

If the route is almost all a direct replacement, then I think it should be done in order to be consistent.  As for whether they should be decommissioned at all, I think it's a good idea.  It's better than having long concurrencies with short independent sections, or, worse, hundreds of miles of pointless non-stop concurrency.

I think about this every time I drive on I-55, which carries US 51 for 20 miles just to bring US 51 one more mile to US 61 at LaPlace. US 51 isn't even needed in Louisiana any more.

Not even as a detour route for I-55? Those displaced US routes need some useful purpose.

[jbnv]

Not even as a detour route for I-55? Those displaced US routes need some useful purpose.

They can be signed as alternate routes. Louisiana has precedent for doing that.

As it is, we have a large number of people in this country who refuse to use route numbers to follow directions. Good luck explaining to them that a US highway exists solely as an alternate route for the interstate.