Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Bobby5280]

To some extent, once Loop 99 is complete, it will provide this southern bypass. During evacuation, tolls could be lifted. Unless of course, planning for a fourth loop is desired...?

I think the TX-35 corridor should be improved considerably between Corpus Christi and Galveston. That would give the Houston area another escape alternative for hurricane evacuation. Aransas Pass, Port Lavaca, Freeport and Galveston need a more efficient East-West link. I think it would help the oil businesses through there as well as tourism. The whole thing doesn't have to be a freeway. But a more straight, direct route is needed.

I still don't get the usefulness of both 69C and 69E when they are so close

I had the same question at first. Corpus to Brownsville? That makes sense for an Interstate. For a long time I thought I-37 should be extended down to Brownsville. The other route between Edinburg and George West? Seems like overkill. But then I saw just how many people live down in the far South tip of Texas. There's over a million people in that cluster of small cities. And the Rio Grande Valley is continuing to grow pretty fast. There are multiple border crossings there. The crossing at Reynosa is the main RGV crossing for traffic coming up from Monterrey. It's better for that commerce traffic to get on I-69C/US-281 and go North rather than clogging up I-2 to get to I-69E/US-77. The US-77 corridor is more exposed to hurricane strikes. US-281 is a relief route for that.

[Grzrd]

.... Being completely fictional here, but what if Houston had a southern bypass to help with hurricane evacuation? I think it would be called I-469 and it could use the TX 36 corridor to the west, the FM 2004 and TX 146 corridors in the south, and a new bridge across Trinity Bay from San Leon to Smith Point which would lead to Winnie in the east. This would give residents a way out from hurricanes.

It is not a completely fictional idea. The I-69 Segment Two Planning Committee laid out a plan for a southern I-69 bypass of Houston:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg2274283#msg2274283

[sparker]

.... Being completely fictional here, but what if Houston had a southern bypass to help with hurricane evacuation? I think it would be called I-469 and it could use the TX 36 corridor to the west, the FM 2004 and TX 146 corridors in the south, and a new bridge across Trinity Bay from San Leon to Smith Point which would lead to Winnie in the east. This would give residents a way out from hurricanes.

It is not a completely fictional idea. The I-69 Segment Two Planning Committee laid out a plan for a southern I-69 bypass of Houston:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg2274283#msg2274283

At one point, wasn't the Grand Parkway -- or at least the west and north legs between the US 59 intersections -- considered for an alternate I-69 alignment; and after it was decided to go right through town with the main corridor, a future/potential I-669?  The south and east legs shown here, including the big bridge, could simply be considered to be either an alternate alignment or just an extension of that concept.  OTOH, one would think that with the full revamping of the downtown (I-10/45/69) freeway network, any other major Houston projects would be "back-burnered" for the time being, unless as toll facilities they would or could be addressed separately from the historical "freeway" network.   

[abqtraveler]

.... Being completely fictional here, but what if Houston had a southern bypass to help with hurricane evacuation? I think it would be called I-469 and it could use the TX 36 corridor to the west, the FM 2004 and TX 146 corridors in the south, and a new bridge across Trinity Bay from San Leon to Smith Point which would lead to Winnie in the east. This would give residents a way out from hurricanes.

It is not a completely fictional idea. The I-69 Segment Two Planning Committee laid out a plan for a southern I-69 bypass of Houston:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg2274283#msg2274283

At one point, wasn't the Grand Parkway -- or at least the west and north legs between the US 59 intersections -- considered for an alternate I-69 alignment; and after it was decided to go right through town with the main corridor, a future/potential I-669?  The south and east legs shown here, including the big bridge, could simply be considered to be either an alternate alignment or just an extension of that concept.  OTOH, one would think that with the full revamping of the downtown (I-10/45/69) freeway network, any other major Houston projects would be "back-burnered" for the time being, unless as toll facilities they would or could be addressed separately from the historical "freeway" network.   

IIRC, some of the old Trans-Texas Corridor environmental studies considered using part of the Grand Parkway alignment for I-69, and there was another concept floated more recently (5-10 years ago) that would have been somewhat similar to what's being done around Memphis, Tennessee, that envisioned I-69 following the current alignment through downtown Houston, with a 3di bypass to the east of the city (probably I-269). While work has been progressing nicely on the I-69 mainline, I haven't heard anything about the eastern bypass aside from the initial proposal that was floated years ago.

[bwana39]

I don't know if this has been discussed yet, but what are they going to do about the fact that in east Texas, I-69 is going to intersect with US69?  What are they going to do about the number duplicity?

Texas has so many route numbers duplicated between their various numbering systems that I doubt they will do anything about it.

As strange as this sounds, I think you are right. While there are lots of ways to undo this,
Truncate US-69 in Jacksonville and extend US-175. (or renumber all of US-175 to US-75 including the Jacksonville + extension)
Truncate US-69 in Tyler and extend US-271
Truncate US-69 at the Oklahoma state line, Renumber the Current US75 inTexas to IH-45, and extend US-75 along the current US-69.

All the signs point toward them not changing US-69.



For a Texan, the venacular for Interstate is "Interstate X"  . Texans would never call an interstate "Highway X". Texans would NEVER call ANY road ROUTE (ROOT?) anything.

Generally the US Highways and State Highways are all generically called "Highway X" or Just "X"
Farm Roads are usually called "Farm to Market X" or sometimes "Farm Road X"
From a Texan point of view it would not be particularly confusing ifUS 69 remained unchanged.

On the other hand, I heard a discusion about perhaps actually sending US-59 back to its original endpoint...

THEN there are the easterners and Yankees who call em Root X or HwyX it might be  a  problem. In their venacular, it might be "which ROOT 69?"



People with opinions of why (or why not) make a change? I am talking about reasons beyon AASHTO or FHWA standards. Real world reasons.....

[-- US 175 --]

I don't know if this has been discussed yet, but what are they going to do about the fact that in east Texas, I-69 is going to intersect with US69?  What are they going to do about the number duplicity?

Texas has so many route numbers duplicated between their various numbering systems that I doubt they will do anything about it.

As strange as this sounds, I think you are right. While there are lots of ways to undo this,
Truncate US-69 in Jacksonville and extend US-175. (or renumber all of US-175 to US-75 including the Jacksonville + extension)
Truncate US-69 in Tyler and extend US-271
Truncate US-69 at the Oklahoma state line, Renumber the Current US75 inTexas to IH-45, and extend US-75 along the current US-69.

All the signs point toward them not changing US-69.



For a Texan, the venacular for Interstate is "Interstate X"  . Texans would never call an interstate "Highway X". Texans would NEVER call ANY road ROUTE (ROOT?) anything.

Generally the US Highways and State Highways are all generically called "Highway X" or Just "X"
Farm Roads are usually called "Farm to Market X" or sometimes "Farm Road X"
From a Texan point of view it would not be particularly confusing ifUS 69 remained unchanged.

On the other hand, I heard a discusion about perhaps actually sending US-59 back to its original endpoint...

THEN there are the easterners and Yankees who call em Root X or HwyX it might be  a  problem. In their venacular, it might be "which ROOT 69?"



People with opinions of why (or why not) make a change? I am talking about reasons beyon AASHTO or FHWA standards. Real world reasons.....

And, ironically enough, that post and its potentials are being debated on the 69th page of this thread.

I've heard nothing new as to the possibilty of doing anything about the 2-69 issue.  IMO, something should be done, but it looks like, for now, it's not a very front-burner topic on TxDOT's list.

[ethanhopkin14]

I don't know if this has been discussed yet, but what are they going to do about the fact that in east Texas, I-69 is going to intersect with US69?  What are they going to do about the number duplicity?

Texas has so many route numbers duplicated between their various numbering systems that I doubt they will do anything about it.

As strange as this sounds, I think you are right. While there are lots of ways to undo this,
Truncate US-69 in Jacksonville and extend US-175. (or renumber all of US-175 to US-75 including the Jacksonville + extension)
Truncate US-69 in Tyler and extend US-271
Truncate US-69 at the Oklahoma state line, Renumber the Current US75 inTexas to IH-45, and extend US-75 along the current US-69.

All the signs point toward them not changing US-69.



For a Texan, the venacular for Interstate is "Interstate X"  . Texans would never call an interstate "Highway X". Texans would NEVER call ANY road ROUTE (ROOT?) anything.

Generally the US Highways and State Highways are all generically called "Highway X" or Just "X"
Farm Roads are usually called "Farm to Market X" or sometimes "Farm Road X"
From a Texan point of view it would not be particularly confusing ifUS 69 remained unchanged.

On the other hand, I heard a discusion about perhaps actually sending US-59 back to its original endpoint...

THEN there are the easterners and Yankees who call em Root X or HwyX it might be  a  problem. In their venacular, it might be "which ROOT 69?"



People with opinions of why (or why not) make a change? I am talking about reasons beyon AASHTO or FHWA standards. Real world reasons.....

And, ironically enough, that post and its potentials are being debated on the 69th page of this thread.

I've heard nothing new as to the possibilty of doing anything about the 2-69 issue.  IMO, something should be done, but it looks like, for now, it's not a very front-burner topic on TxDOT's list.

I know lots of Texans, myself included, that call US highways "US Highway 69".  They may call State Highways "Highway 21", but usually differentiate.  Then other Texans just use the number like "69" or "21" for everything other than interstate, but always, no matter what, interstates come with "I" before the number.  I have heard some people call US Highways "Interstate 59" in Texas, but those people are always people who are not from Texas.  Lastly, in agreement, I have only heard people from the northeast call a road a route.  I never even heard that term until I was in my 30s, with the exception of the song "(Get Your Kicks on) Route 66" and even then, I thought it just meant the literal definition of a route, being the current way you are driving, not something people call a US Highway.

Anyway, again, I don't think this is even a subject.  The original reason the rule of flip flopping the grid to keep like numbered Interstates and US Highways out of the same state was because of the original interstate plan.  The US Highways were to supplement the interstate system.  The interstate highway system is one of those things that worked well, extremely well.  It worked way better than anyone could possibly have thought, to the point that the original reason for the system became second thought (connecting military instillations) and the secondary reason (connecting major cities and fast vacation travel times) became primary.  For this reason, the original rules and thoughts of the interstate highway system have been dropped or laxed or even forgotten.  This is the reason I feel like the US Highway system no longer supplements the interstate system.  Now they are just state highways that go into other states with the same number.  That reason is why you see Interstate 41 cosigned with US 41.  The US Highway system doesn't carry the same value it did in the late 50s.  Then, in the infancy of the interstate system, it was still the way to cross the country.  Now, they are just another set of local roads.  First step was demoting the US Highway Shield from a cutout with state name to a square shield, and a shell of it's former self. 

[sparker]

I still don't get the usefulness of both 69C and 69E when they are so close, big chunks going through limited traffic, the US highways as currently is get to the RGV without any delays that needed the blue shields. If they wanted a blue shield to get from Texarkana to the RGV, they could have called it I-47, pick the US77 one and saved a lot of these funds for projects that need it.

Two things:  US 281, as illustrated in a study of (current) non-Interstate commercial corridors' relative traffic (reproduced in this or another thread), is one of the nation's most heavily trafficked non-Interstate commercial corridors between the border and I-37; it's right up there with the perennial "champion", CA 99.  Whoever suggested it as an Interstate back in 1995 likely saw this coming due to the increasing congestion at other border crossing sites, particularly Laredo (I-35).  Whether foresight or prescience, such traffic has manifested itself in the last quarter century.  Second -- the numbering aspect of the I-69 corridor cluster has been hashed out repeatedly within this forum; the current suffixed situation boils down to TxDOT and the major corridor promoter, the Alliance for I-69/Texas electing to make any corridor authorized by the language of high priority corridors 18 & 20 refer to the main trunk number "69" in some way or form.  Most of us thought the authorizing language's reference to "east" and "central" would have been a mere referential placeholder -- but the two governing entities thought otherwise, choosing to take a very literal approach to the numbering -- hence the suffixes (I'm certain that if I-369 would have been dubbed "I-69N" it would have been accepted and formalized as well!).  I-2 was exempt from that as it wasn't a part of the original authorized corridor bundle.  At this point, with signage already posted, any suggestion regarding designation change wouldn't make it past the front desk within the official circles handling the project.   

[ethanhopkin14]

I still don't get the usefulness of both 69C and 69E when they are so close, big chunks going through limited traffic, the US highways as currently is get to the RGV without any delays that needed the blue shields. If they wanted a blue shield to get from Texarkana to the RGV, they could have called it I-47, pick the US77 one and saved a lot of these funds for projects that need it.

Two things:  US 281, as illustrated in a study of (current) non-Interstate commercial corridors' relative traffic (reproduced in this or another thread), is one of the nation's most heavily trafficked non-Interstate commercial corridors between the border and I-37; it's right up there with the perennial "champion", CA 99.  Whoever suggested it as an Interstate back in 1995 likely saw this coming due to the increasing congestion at other border crossing sites, particularly Laredo (I-35).  Whether foresight or prescience, such traffic has manifested itself in the last quarter century.  Second -- the numbering aspect of the I-69 corridor cluster has been hashed out repeatedly within this forum; the current suffixed situation boils down to TxDOT and the major corridor promoter, the Alliance for I-69/Texas electing to make any corridor authorized by the language of high priority corridors 18 & 20 refer to the main trunk number "69" in some way or form.  Most of us thought the authorizing language's reference to "east" and "central" would have been a mere referential placeholder -- but the two governing entities thought otherwise, choosing to take a very literal approach to the numbering -- hence the suffixes (I'm certain that if I-369 would have been dubbed "I-69N" it would have been accepted and formalized as well!).  I-2 was exempt from that as it wasn't a part of the original authorized corridor bundle.  At this point, with signage already posted, any suggestion regarding designation change wouldn't make it past the front desk within the official circles handling the project.   

Agreed, with rebuttal.  I-69's first signing in Texas was the section of US-77 from I-37 to just south of Calallen.  Everyone came out, got their cameras out and smiled as they unveiled brand new I-69 shields.  Problem was it was after this that they decided the legs needed to be suffixed (and that section was part of I-69E) so the new signing had to (partially) come down in lieu of I-69E shields.  So just saying, that section has been signed and renumbered once already.

That is a little bit of a more manageable scenario, since the "opps" I-69 shields can be re-purposed somewhere else along the corridor. 

[sparker]

^^^^^^^^^^^^
Definitely the finalization of the suffixed approach, long favored within Alliance ranks -- they thought that was the only way to keep their pet Congressfolks busy getting appropriations (i.e., don't confuse them too much with non-69-referenced segments) took place in the 2010's and not earlier.  I was in contact with those folks in 2010-11 regarding designation options; their response to me was essentially along those lines, couched in the "maintaining consistency" concept.   If I had to cobble up an explanation for the original deployment of unsuffixed I-69 shields along what would become I-69E, it would be along the old "camel's nose through the tent door" sort of dynamic -- "brand" the route with the basic number and worry about the specifics later.  And, yeah, the old now-replaced shields may well find themselves up by Nacogdoches in time!   

[ethanhopkin14]

^^^^^^^^^^^^
Definitely the finalization of the suffixed approach, long favored within Alliance ranks -- they thought that was the only way to keep their pet Congressfolks busy getting appropriations (i.e., don't confuse them too much with non-69-referenced segments) took place in the 2010's and not earlier.  I was in contact with those folks in 2010-11 regarding designation options; their response to me was essentially along those lines, couched in the "maintaining consistency" concept.   If I had to cobble up an explanation for the original deployment of unsuffixed I-69 shields along what would become I-69E, it would be along the old "camel's nose through the tent door" sort of dynamic -- "brand" the route with the basic number and worry about the specifics later.  And, yeah, the old now-replaced shields may well find themselves up by Nacogdoches in time!

Yeah, just a little fading and some dust.. Good as new!

[sprjus4]

Agreed, with rebuttal.  I-69's first signing in Texas was the section of US-77 from I-37 to just south of Calallen.  Everyone came out, got their cameras out and smiled as they unveiled brand new I-69 shields.  Problem was it was after this that they decided the legs needed to be suffixed (and that section was part of I-69E) so the new signing had to (partially) come down in lieu of I-69E shields.  So just saying, that section has been signed and renumbered once already.

That is a little bit of a more manageable scenario, since the "opps" I-69 shields can be re-purposed somewhere else along the corridor.

I-69 shields still remain for the most part on that segment, including the new segments being upgraded south of there, with only I-69E on overheads.

[ethanhopkin14]

Agreed, with rebuttal.  I-69's first signing in Texas was the section of US-77 from I-37 to just south of Calallen.  Everyone came out, got their cameras out and smiled as they unveiled brand new I-69 shields.  Problem was it was after this that they decided the legs needed to be suffixed (and that section was part of I-69E) so the new signing had to (partially) come down in lieu of I-69E shields.  So just saying, that section has been signed and renumbered once already.

That is a little bit of a more manageable scenario, since the "opps" I-69 shields can be re-purposed somewhere else along the corridor.

I-69 shields still remain for the most part on that segment, including the new segments being upgraded south of there, with only I-69E on overheads.

Yes, that would be the reason for the (partially).  Either way, they are going to come down.

[sprjus4]

^

I just want to know why they put them on the Robstown to Driscoll segment, and if they will go on the Driscoll to Kingsville segment once the gap is complete.

[ethanhopkin14]

^

I just want to know why they put them on the Robstown to Driscoll segment, and if they will go on the Driscoll to Kingsville segment once the gap is complete.

Yeah, that one is a head scratcher. I thought maybe it was because that is 100% going to be the leg that connects the Valley first so it will be interim I-69 until the other legs are finished, but US-77 in the valley only has I-69E signage so you are going to have I-69 signage turn to I-69E abruptly, but the whole time it will all be I-69E?

[sparker]

^

I just want to know why they put them on the Robstown to Driscoll segment, and if they will go on the Driscoll to Kingsville segment once the gap is complete.

Yeah, that one is a head scratcher. I thought maybe it was because that is 100% going to be the leg that connects the Valley first so it will be interim I-69 until the other legs are finished, but US-77 in the valley only has I-69E signage so you are going to have I-69 signage turn to I-69E abruptly, but the whole time it will all be I-69E?

Question for knowledgable TX posters: does TxDOT divide the state up into districts, and do those districts have some degree of autonomy regarding signage (a la Caltrans and their 12 districts, each with distinct signage practices)?  If so, that may account for the continuation of I-69 signage on what is actually designated I-69E.  Perhaps they just didn't have any 69E shields in their corporate yard!

[rte66man]

^

I just want to know why they put them on the Robstown to Driscoll segment, and if they will go on the Driscoll to Kingsville segment once the gap is complete.

Yeah, that one is a head scratcher. I thought maybe it was because that is 100% going to be the leg that connects the Valley first so it will be interim I-69 until the other legs are finished, but US-77 in the valley only has I-69E signage so you are going to have I-69 signage turn to I-69E abruptly, but the whole time it will all be I-69E?

Question for knowledgable TX posters: does TxDOT divide the state up into districts, and do those districts have some degree of autonomy regarding signage (a la Caltrans and their 12 districts, each with distinct signage practices)?  If so, that may account for the continuation of I-69 signage on what is actually designated I-69E.  Perhaps they just didn't have any 69E shields in their corporate yard!

Yes to Districts. You can clearly see the dividing line here:
https://www.dot.state.tx.us/drivenbytexans/maps.htm

Do not know about signage autonomy.

[ethanhopkin14]

^

I just want to know why they put them on the Robstown to Driscoll segment, and if they will go on the Driscoll to Kingsville segment once the gap is complete.

Yeah, that one is a head scratcher. I thought maybe it was because that is 100% going to be the leg that connects the Valley first so it will be interim I-69 until the other legs are finished, but US-77 in the valley only has I-69E signage so you are going to have I-69 signage turn to I-69E abruptly, but the whole time it will all be I-69E?

Question for knowledgable TX posters: does TxDOT divide the state up into districts, and do those districts have some degree of autonomy regarding signage (a la Caltrans and their 12 districts, each with distinct signage practices)?  If so, that may account for the continuation of I-69 signage on what is actually designated I-69E.  Perhaps they just didn't have any 69E shields in their corporate yard!

Yes to Districts. You can clearly see the dividing line here:
https://www.dot.state.tx.us/drivenbytexans/maps.htm

Do not know about signage autonomy.

Yes they do.  I don't know anything official about signage autonomy, but you can see it when you drive.  Like the Houston District like to place yellow diamonds on the support poles of ground mounted BGSs.  https://www.google.com/maps/@29.7771448,-95.9068856,3a,75y,103.28h,92.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8twsKmA70YH52LQ3Orl9YA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 No one in the state does that.  The Valley (Pharr) District puts gore signs to the right of the gore, instead of to the left like the rest of the normal world.  The Corpus Christi District used to love Exit signs with 2 gore arrows, but I think they have been retired now.  The Atlanta District likes to put ground mounted BGSs for junction and directional signs at intersections with US 59 instead of stand alone shields.  https://www.google.com/maps/@32.887262,-94.3582107,3a,75y,50.01h,84.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smYLlU3OlvazD5ny430OxYQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656  I like it but its the only place in the state I have seen it done consistently.  The Dallas District used to do a lot of things differently that I mentioned on another thread, they have since changed a lot of things.  Some districts in Texas wrap the pole on standalone shields and signs with a yellow adhesive reflector half way up the pole: https://www.google.com/maps/@28.9929404,-98.4329759,3a,46.8y,96.71h,95.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7lQVpdN7wWqkhvj4t0dmcA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192, others don't https://www.google.com/maps/@30.7104128,-94.9141568,3a,36.9y,330.51h,84.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smM5S7colzNG4NtKvBpBpzA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656  The San Antonio District likes putting these on all the Texas U-turns. https://www.google.com/maps/@29.4968117,-98.4008325,3a,41.2y,213.3h,92.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sStXHeEa2LGMU-nL9AEcJYw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192  They have showed up in other places recently, mainly the I-35 widening project, but San Antonio was the only place it was consistent.  The San Angelo District, on I-10 changed the language on BGSs from the road name, to "County Road xxx" then having another smaller BGS saying "Allison Road, Next Right"  Again, probably done in other districts, but the only place it is done constantly. 

Texas moved to Exit Gore Signs with the exit number on the gore sign about 10 years ago. https://www.google.com/maps/@31.2162899,-97.2987424,3a,28.1y,233.02h,90.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxvpoaa5_GV5dUH81TVK5QA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192  Some districts were well on board and had almost all their signs replaced (Dallas, Austin, San Antonio) others, it has taken them longer to switch https://www.google.com/maps/@30.9928159,-103.6565055,3a,75y,319.67h,86.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCzaJ6dJMOwc2JTUkGE2wZw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192  This might be a sign longevity thing, but the signs on SH 130 weren't that old since the road itself isn't that old and they got replace, save a few.

There are differences in the way the roads are made/stripped too.  Some districts used to really love those circular dimple reflectors I called "McDonald's Reflectors" and used them in insane amounts.  Others never used them.  Some districts, the pavement is darker than others, some use a lot of concrete instead of asphalt.  Some districts have rumble strips in the center of the highway, some on the shoulder and some have both.  Always when you cross into another district, there is an abrupt pavement change, almost like you are going into another state. 

I could go on and on, and a lot of differences don't cross my mind until I re-visit other parts of the state. Again, I have no idea if any of these things are official or they just happen to be something a higher up in these districts love so that district does it and no other district does.  I actually love this because I remember noticing these things as far back as when I was 5.  It was part of traveling in Texas.  Not only did the scenery change, but the roads were different, and you were still in Texas!

[J N Winkler]

Question for knowledgable TX posters: does TxDOT divide the state up into districts, and do those districts have some degree of autonomy regarding signage (a la Caltrans and their 12 districts, each with distinct signage practices)?

Yes, and yes--there are 26 districts total and signing is typically designed at the district level, though Traffic Operations at TxDOT headquarters in Austin carries out some coordinating functions, such as keeping the TxMUTCD and SHSD up to date, ensuring that each district has access to Clearview licenses and other software resources (for example, there is a Microstation bolt-on--still available for download, I think--that was used to make conventional-road guide signs with all-uppercase Series D lettering, and I think the availability of this is one reason such signs had an uniform appearance statewide before Clearview was rolled out and SignCAD became common), and so on.  Some districts have their own traffic-related standard plan sheets; for example, the Houston district has one for shields for the HCTRA toll roads.

I don't think TxDOT does "superdistricts" like Caltrans does (e.g., in California much design activity for thinly populated Districts 1 and 2 is in fact done out of the District 3 offices).

[bwana39]

Question for knowledgable TX posters: does TxDOT divide the state up into districts, and do those districts have some degree of autonomy regarding signage (a la Caltrans and their 12 districts, each with distinct signage practices)?

Yes, and yes--there are 26 districts total and signing is typically designed at the district level, though Traffic Operations at TxDOT headquarters in Austin carries out some coordinating functions, such as keeping the TxMUTCD and SHSD up to date, ensuring that each district has access to Clearview licenses and other software resources (for example, there is a Microstation bolt-on--still available for download, I think--that was used to make conventional-road guide signs with all-uppercase Series D lettering, and I think the availability of this is one reason such signs had an uniform appearance statewide before Clearview was rolled out and SignCAD became common), and so on.  Some districts have their own traffic-related standard plan sheets; for example, the Houston district has one for shields for the HCTRA toll roads.

I don't think TxDOT does "superdistricts" like Caltrans does (e.g., in California much design activity for thinly populated Districts 1 and 2 is in fact done out of the District 3 offices).

I think you have to realize that many signs are on vendor contracts in Texas. Some come down every year or so and they alternate signs. There surely is some sort of maintenance beyond cleaning them, but on at least one occasion, the same US-93 sign came back after a hiatus when it had correctly been TX-93. This cycle the sign was replaced with one updated for "TO I-49" so, my guess is I don't have to wonder how close is the Hoover Dam any more.

[J N Winkler]

I think you have to realize that many signs are on vendor contracts in Texas.

What do you mean by vendor contract:  a type of fixed term, indefinite quantity contract where a contractor comes in and fabricates and installs replacement signs in response to work orders issued by the TxDOT district?

I'm familiar mainly with the signing contracts TxDOT processes through the statewide construction and (occasionally) maintenance lettings.  These typically include sign panel detail and sign elevation sheets in the plans sets made available to contractors before bid opening.  I've accumulated about 22,000 of these sheets and I've seen several examples of signs being replaced repeatedly within very short periods of time--for example, I think the signs for the SH 349 Iraan/Sheffield exit off I-10 were replaced at least three times within ten years.

[bwana39]

^^^^^^^^^^^^
Definitely the finalization of the suffixed approach, long favored within Alliance ranks -- they thought that was the only way to keep their pet Congressfolks busy getting appropriations (i.e., don't confuse them too much with non-69-referenced segments) took place in the 2010's and not earlier.  I was in contact with those folks in 2010-11 regarding designation options; their response to me was essentially along those lines, couched in the "maintaining consistency" concept.   If I had to cobble up an explanation for the original deployment of unsuffixed I-69 shields along what would become I-69E, it would be along the old "camel's nose through the tent door" sort of dynamic -- "brand" the route with the basic number and worry about the specifics later.  And, yeah, the old now-replaced shields may well find themselves up by Nacogdoches in time!

It is more about keeping any of the three constituencies from thinking they were lesser (IE not getting the MAIN I-69) everyone gets an equivalent.Sort of like Dallas and Fort Worth or Minneapolis and Saint Paul.  Neither of them got bypassed.

[bwana39]

from: sparker on August 25, 2020, 05:45:26 PM

... But getting back to the matter at hand -- the analysis of the rationale behind maintaining the I-69 alignment as a relief route is pretty spot on; if TX completes its I-69/369 continuum well ahead of full development of the main I-69 trunk across AR and into MS, expect to see serious consequences -- essentially "rolling congestion" along I-30, I-440, and I-40 across the state (possibly lessened once I-57 is completed) due to the present configuration of both freeways, which doesn't readily lend itself to expansion without a substantial overall rebuild.  Much freeway design of the '60's, particularly in states that employed a more frugal approach to the original design/construction effort, is that type -- not anticipating the overall traffic increases that have occurred in the last half century.  And remember that a relief route "offsite", so to speak, doesn't pose the traffic interruption issues endemic to "expand-in-place" efforts.

The Gridlock is already worse between Texarkana and Little Rock and I-69 is not anywhere near finished. Traffic on I-49 is light.  The difference between Mount Pleasant and Hope traffic volumes is already primarily from US-59.

[sprjus4]

One interesting aspect of the coronavirus is that there are now a lot of virtual meetings in which roadgeeks can participate. One such meeting is about the proposed widening of US 59/ US 77 in Victoria for the Future I-69:

https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/yoakum/082520.html

It will take place on August 25.

* edit

Thanks to rte66man for the welcome back over in the Interstate 269 thread.

Meeting materials have been posted to the TxDOT project website.

The project limits are what I had predicted before - the remainder of the Victoria Beltway between FM-236 and US-77 / US-59 (Future I-69E)


Similar to the existing freeway segment north of FM-236, the project would ultimately construct a 4 lane freeway with a concrete barrier median / 6 foot left paved shoulders along with two-lane one way frontage roads in each direction. Two alternatives were presented, with the largest difference being two curves on US-59 / US-77 east of the US-59 / Business US-59 interchange - Alternative 1 would increase the radius on the two curves, Alternative 2 would completely realign the highway to eliminate the two curves. Both alternatives also feature direct flyovers to/from US-59 / US-77 to US-59 (the proposed I-69W movements). The US-59 / US-77 (Future I-69E / I-69W) interchange will not be modified.

Due to budget constraints, the project will be constructed in two phases. The first phase, in typical TxDOT fashion, would construct the frontage roads with a wide median, for around $35 million. This phase is fully funded and will begin construction in Fall 2023. Even though this is not constructing the freeway portion of the project, it would still eliminate the last 2 lane section of the beltway, a major improvement over the current situation. Phase 2 would construct the mainline / freeway in the median, and likely the US-59 flyovers, and is not currently funded.

The design speed for the mainline / freeway is 60 mph and the frontage roads is 50 mph, so in typical TxDOT fashion, the speed limit will likely be 70 - 75 mph. What is the point of a low design speed when the actual speed limit will ultimately be the default 70 mph or higher 75 mph?

Project Website: https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/yoakum/082520.html
Presentation: http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/ykm/us59-us77/082520-presentation.pdf
Alternative 1: http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/ykm/us59-us77/082520-schematic-1.pdf
Alternative 2: http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/ykm/us59-us77/082520-schematic-2.pdf
Typical Sections: http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/ykm/us59-us77/082520-typical-sections.pdf

[bluecountry]

I do not get why I-69 has I-69, 69E, 69W, why not just have spurs?