News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

I-69 in TX

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

Previous topic - Next topic

Brandon

OK, so it's not OK to have I-80S to Denver, I-15E in Idaho, I-5W through the Bay Area, but it is OK to have I-69W, I-69C, and I-69E without an I-69 south of the point I-69W, I-69C, and I-69E branch off?

So, tell me, when did we get to Alanland and let AlanlandDOT make decisions for FHWA?
"If you think this has a happy ending, you haven't been paying attention." - Ramsay Bolton

"Symbolic of his struggle against reality." - Reg


agentsteel53

Quote from: Brandon on May 30, 2014, 12:39:32 PM
when did we get to Alanland

we followed a logical and continuous routing of I-74 eastward from its origin in Iowa through the Appalachians...

and then we accidentally took US-74 because we got confused.
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

TheStranger

Quote from: Brandon on May 30, 2014, 12:39:32 PM
OK, so it's not OK to have I-80S to Denver, I-15E in Idaho, I-5W through the Bay Area, but it is OK to have I-69W, I-69C, and I-69E without an I-69 south of the point I-69W, I-69C, and I-69E branch off?

So, tell me, when did we get to Alanland and let AlanlandDOT make decisions for FHWA?

I-5W was a true loop though (including what would later be built as 505, and the new-terrain 580 between Altamont and Vernalis).

And yeah, the existence of I-69W/I-69C/I-69E as suffixed spur routes...is a complete 180 from the 1980 directive to remove all suffixed spurs from the Interstate system.  (Back then, the only suffixed Interstates grandfathered in were all loops: the I-35 pairings, and I-15E in California)
Chris Sampang

texaskdog

Quote from: TheStranger on May 30, 2014, 12:52:53 PM
Quote from: Brandon on May 30, 2014, 12:39:32 PM
OK, so it's not OK to have I-80S to Denver, I-15E in Idaho, I-5W through the Bay Area, but it is OK to have I-69W, I-69C, and I-69E without an I-69 south of the point I-69W, I-69C, and I-69E branch off?

So, tell me, when did we get to Alanland and let AlanlandDOT make decisions for FHWA?

I-5W was a true loop though (including what would later be built as 505, and the new-terrain 580 between Altamont and Vernalis).

And yeah, the existence of I-69W/I-69C/I-69E as suffixed spur routes...is a complete 180 from the 1980 directive to remove all suffixed spurs from the Interstate system.  (Back then, the only suffixed Interstates grandfathered in were all loops: the I-35 pairings, and I-15E in California)

Three digit numbers are fine.  It's not like Brownsville & Harlingen would be offended

O Tamandua

Sheesh...like a dummy I hadn't even though of how I-69 (and maybe parts of I-49 as well) will become the highway to South Padre Island.  This article tells of how they're considering a second bridge for "SPI" linkng to I-69.

O Tamandua

Quote from: O Tamandua on June 01, 2014, 06:25:34 PM
Sheesh...like a dummy I hadn't even though of how I-69 (and maybe parts of I-49 as well) will become the highway to South Padre Island.  This article tells of how they're considering a second bridge for "SPI" linkng to I-69.

(EDIT: Sorry, Grzrd, didn't see you'd posted on this on the "Texas" thread.  :no: )

thefro

Glad they're going with the I-69W spur naming.  Makes no sense for that to be mainline I-69 considering there's a "I-69C".

That still leaves the question of what the route from George West to Victoria will be named.  I'm in favor of that being I-69W.

Pete from Boston

So will we be seeing an "I-169W" in the near future?

Scott5114

Following the precedent in the Dallas area, the 3di wouldn't take the lettered suffix: it's I-635, not I-635E.
uncontrollable freak sardine salad chef

TheStranger

Quote from: Scott5114 on June 02, 2014, 03:10:21 PM
Following the precedent in the Dallas area, the 3di wouldn't take the lettered suffix: it's I-635, not I-635E.

IIRC, the only ever planned suffixed 3di of a suffixed 2di was the old I-180N in Idaho, which was built as I-184.
Chris Sampang

Molandfreak

I hope it's I-169W if it happens. Might as well remedy the stupid numbering with something cool and unique.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on December 05, 2023, 08:24:57 PM
AASHTO attributes 28.5% of highway inventory shrink to bad road fan social media posts.

yakra

How come always have mucho trouble searching for the "A Modest Proposal" thread?
"Officer, I'm always careful to drive the speed limit no matter where I am and that's what I was doin'." Said "No, you weren't," she said, "Yes, I was." He said, "Madam, I just clocked you at 22 MPH," and she said "That's the speed limit," he said "No ma'am, that's the route numbah!"  - Gary Crocker

bugo

Quote from: TheStranger on June 02, 2014, 03:34:01 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 02, 2014, 03:10:21 PM
Following the precedent in the Dallas area, the 3di wouldn't take the lettered suffix: it's I-635, not I-635E.

IIRC, the only ever planned suffixed 3di of a suffixed 2di was the old I-180N in Idaho, which was built as I-184.

Wasn't there to be an I-H1A or something like that?

oscar

Quote from: bugo on June 02, 2014, 11:02:41 PM
Quote from: TheStranger on June 02, 2014, 03:34:01 PM
Quote from: Scott5114 on June 02, 2014, 03:10:21 PM
Following the precedent in the Dallas area, the 3di wouldn't take the lettered suffix: it's I-635, not I-635E.

IIRC, the only ever planned suffixed 3di of a suffixed 2di was the old I-180N in Idaho, which was built as I-184.

Wasn't there to be an I-H1A or something like that?

That was Hawaii DOT's original proposed number for what became H-201.  The proposed suffixed number went nowhere, and was quickly replaced by a 3di number.
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html

Grzrd

#714
Quote from: Grzrd on July 25, 2013, 05:02:38 PM
I just received an email from FHWA and their current interpretation of HPC 18 and HPC 20 ... allows TxDOT to choose between I-69C and I-69 for the Victoria to George West segment of US 59:
Quote
US 59 from Victoria to George West can be I-69 or I-69C, which ever Texas Department of Transportation requests ... This is based on the current law.
Quote from: thefro on June 02, 2014, 11:57:55 AM
Glad they're going with the I-69W spur naming.  Makes no sense for that to be mainline I-69 considering there's a "I-69C".
That still leaves the question of what the route from George West to Victoria will be named.  I'm in favor of that being I-69W.

I'm in favor of the George West to Victoria section of US 59 also being named I-69; that way, the East, Central, and West "spurs" would each have a direct connection to "mainline" I-69.

Anthony_JK

I would assume that "I-69W" would encompass the entire Laredo to George West segment of I-69, and that the Harlingen-George West section of US 281 and the George West-Victoria segment of US-59 would become "I-69C", amirite?

Actually makes plenty sense to me, since the routes would split.

I'd still prefer US 281 to remain as is, US 77 to be a I-37 extension, and US 59 remain as I-69 proper....but I have no problem with this setup.

But...if they are going to do that, then I want I-49 shields on the freewayized sections of US 90 and the Westbank Expressway between Lafayette and New Orleans. Make it happen, LADOTD!!!

Bobby5280

I don't mind the I-69E, I-69W & I-69C names as long as they all connect to the parent I-69 route. Any 3di route stemming from them should merely be a standard number, like I-169, I-269, etc. A four character name like I-269E would stink. The 3di shields are not designed to handle it properly, especially if the shields are neutered and have enlarged numerals. I can't stand how the characters look on those I-H201 shields.

apjung

Quote from: Bobby5280 on June 05, 2014, 02:07:23 PM
I don't mind the I-69E, I-69W & I-69C names as long as they all connect to the parent I-69 route. Any 3di route stemming from them should merely be a standard number, like I-169, I-269, etc. A four character name like I-269E would stink. The 3di shields are not designed to handle it properly, especially if the shields are neutered and have enlarged numerals. I can't stand how the characters look on those I-H201 shields.

IMHO, I-H201 should have be named as I-H4 since Hawaii's Interstates are all so short. It's slightly more than half the length of I-H2

Grzrd

TxDOT has posted a March 27, 2014 I-69 System Funding Program map which color-codes the various I-69 projects into three categories: (1) Constructed/ Under Construction, (2) Funded Construction, and (3) Project Development.

O Tamandua

Quote from: Grzrd on June 11, 2014, 05:46:16 PM
TxDOT has posted a March 27, 2014 I-69 System Funding Program map which color-codes the various I-69 projects into three categories: (1) Constructed/ Under Construction, (2) Funded Construction, and (3) Project Development.

Great find, Grzrd.  The vise is slowly tightening on Arkansas with the Missouri/MoDOT map on the "Bella Vista" thread...

Grzrd

Quote from: O Tamandua on May 05, 2014, 10:04:06 PM
LONG article from the Victoria Advocate yesterday about small business owners in Victoria (my daughter's name  :colorful: ) who are less than enthralled by what the future I-69 will do for their retail traffic...feel for them.  I didn't know I-69 construction was so full-bore there.  There is a significant petrochemical presence in that city, too, enough that a large barge canal has been dug some time back...I'm sure there will be some happy I-69 shippers there eventually:
http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/2014/may/03/frontage_road_mc_050414_238470/?business

This article reports that TxDOT will not allow two-way frontage roads as a temporary solution for the local businesses:

Quote
Texas Department of Transportation put the brakes on a proposed change to the future Interstate 69 corridor in Victoria.
Area business owners were rooting for TxDOT to change the flow of traffic on frontage roads, which are currently under construction, to two-way. Without two-way traffic or an overpass, customers could end up traveling an almost eight-mile loop to access some businesses along U.S. Highway 59.
However, TxDOT officials point to the state roadway design manual: any frontage road constructed as part of the state highway system will be designed and constructed for one-way traffic ....
TxDOT cannot agree to the construction of two-way frontage roads, Chairman of the Texas Transportation Commission Ted Houghton Jr. said in a letter addressed to County Judge Don Pozzi ....
"As we move to eliminate all existing two-way frontage roads to greatly improve the safety of the state highway system, it is not reasonable for us to consider creating unnecessary safety risks on other highways by adding two-way frontage roads to them," Houghton said in the letter ....
The transportation chairman said he believes other options exist to provide access to properties along the new frontage road, but business owners and the county judge are less optimistic ....
Still, John New is hopeful the state will elaborate on their options.
"The overpass is the solution, and I hope there's enough wisdom to see that needs to get done," New said. "I just hope they have the wisdom to get that overpass built in a reasonable period of time."

O Tamandua

Grzrd, reading about this article on how engineers, meeting with the public at Marshall, TX (the largest city on I-369 not named "Texarkana"), presented three different routes the other day:

http://www.marshallnewsmessenger.com/news/best-roads-highway-development-group-considers-options-at-meeting/article_ba1d78b1-c583-5a13-ba42-5b6f4f0270bb.html

...made me think: GEE, there seems to be both significant citizen input and interest in this.

Would that west Arkansas show the same for I-49, we might start seeing it built (between Greenwood and Texarkana) next year...

Grzrd

Quote from: Grzrd on May 30, 2014, 11:56:05 AM
In reading the tea leaves, it seems like FHWA initially pushed back against an I-69W designation, but TxDOT eventually persuaded them to change their interpretation of the law. It does make intuitive sense that FHWA now views this section as being a "spur" that warrants the "I-69W" designation.

I'm sure it's a technical formality, but the June 26, 2014 Texas Transportation Commission ("TTC") Agenda indicates that the TTC also needs to sign off on I-69W (page 2/17 of pdf):


bugo

Will this make US 59 a border-to-border highway once again?

oscar

#724
Quote from: bugo on June 19, 2014, 05:03:04 PM
Will this make US 59 a border-to-border highway once again?

Almost, technically.  Both I-69W and US 59 will stop just a little short of the Mexican border, excluding the World Trade Bridge across the Rio Grande into Mexico, the U.S. Customs facilities on the eastbound lanes, and what appears to be a toll plaza on the westbound and eastbound lanes.  No such technicality at the north end of US 59, AFAIK, with US 59 reaching the Canadian border and continuing north as MB 59 to Victoria Beach.

Since the bridge is limited to commercial traffic, and isn't even open 24/7 (the Sunday afternoon I was there, it closed for the day at 2pm), it made sense to end at least I-69W at the minor at-grade crossing just east of the World Trade Bridge.
my Hot Springs and Highways pages, with links to my roads sites:
http://www.alaskaroads.com/home.html



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.