I-69 in TX

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

Previous topic - Next topic

ITB


By and large, I've found this discussion of I-69 in Texas to be the most informed and useful of all sources I've uncovered on the internet. I'm wondering, however, if the current state of I-69 construction and planning in Texas could be presented more effectively in tabular/summary format. I've tried using the TXDOT Project Tracker, and while results are produced it's a laborious and confusing process.

Could one or more of you who follow the I-69 project in Texas closely put together a easy-to-understand construction/planning status summary, and then update it periodically. For instance, information could be separated into the following categories:

- Segments Completed and Signed I-69 (district, county, length, start date, completion/signed date)
- Under Construction (district, county, length, start date, projected completion date)
- Construction Scheduled – Near Future / 1-4 years (district, county, length, estimated start date, projected completion date)
- Construction Planned – Mid-range / 5-10 years (district, county, length, estimated start date, projected completion date)
- Construction Planned – Long Range / 7-12 Years (district, county, length, estimated start date, projected completion date)
- Segment/Route Approved – Not Yet Funded (district, county, length, estimated construction timeline)
- Corridor Study (district, county, length, status of study (Tier 1, Tier 2, etc.), estimated construction timeline)

If such a summary is put together, perhaps it could be placed as the first entry of the I-69 in TX discussion. Updates could then be announced periodically in the thread.

Is this something some of you might find useful? Comments? Feedback?






Plutonic Panda

As someone more interested in the actual progress of the road itself rather than the signs, I'd welcome that in most threads.

Chris

Public meetings are schedulded for the US 281 upgrades in Hidalgo and Brooks counties, from SH 186 at Linn to FM 3066 south of Falfurrias.

https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/pharr/102318.html

QuoteProposed improvements include to construct, in the interim, 4 lanes divided (2 main lanes each direction) and 2-lane frontage roads. The ultimate section would add an additional 2 main lanes (1 lane each direction) to be constructed as traffic warrants in the future. The purpose of the proposed project is to enhance mobility, safety, and improve traffic operations along US 281. The goal is to construct the project within the existing right-of-way (ROW) however; additional ROW may be required to upgrade the facility based on a chosen feasible alternative alignment.

This section is a good 40 miles long. US 281 is already a four lane divided highway which runs pretty much through the middle of nowhere. Most intersections are with unpaved roads to remote farms. The only remaining major intersection with FM 755 has already been grade-separated in 2014.

Are they going to upgrade this stretch to freeway standards in the interim phase? They don't mention any further grade-separation.

A future upgrade to six main lanes seems very far away. There is nothing out there and traffic volumes are only some 15,000 vehicles per day according to the TxDOT planning map.

sprjus4

Quote from: Chris on October 05, 2018, 11:24:25 AM
Public meetings are schedulded for the US 281 upgrades in Hidalgo and Brooks counties, from SH 186 at Linn to FM 3066 south of Falfurrias.

https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/pharr/102318.html

QuoteProposed improvements include to construct, in the interim, 4 lanes divided (2 main lanes each direction) and 2-lane frontage roads. The ultimate section would add an additional 2 main lanes (1 lane each direction) to be constructed as traffic warrants in the future. The purpose of the proposed project is to enhance mobility, safety, and improve traffic operations along US 281. The goal is to construct the project within the existing right-of-way (ROW) however; additional ROW may be required to upgrade the facility based on a chosen feasible alternative alignment.

This section is a good 40 miles long. US 281 is already a four lane divided highway which runs pretty much through the middle of nowhere. Most intersections are with unpaved roads to remote farms. The only remaining major intersection with FM 755 has already been grade-separated in 2014.

Are they going to upgrade this stretch to freeway standards in the interim phase? They don't mention any further grade-separation.

A future upgrade to six main lanes seems very far away. There is nothing out there and traffic volumes are only some 15,000 vehicles per day according to the TxDOT planning map.
Bumping the thread here. I must say, I don't know where this project has gone since October, but this is being phased the wrong way. All of the four-lane I-69 sections currently have a median of about 47 feet, grassy. Future expansion can happen in the middle to create 6 lanes with barrier when needed, but that's not for a while.

Why are they proposing here to construct the long-term section now, with the median being a barrier? I think they should construct the "outside" lane first, and have a 47 foot median consistently through this project, and build to the inside when necessary. Not to mention, 44 miles of rural driving to be divided by a barrier, kind of ugly IMHO, especially when it's not needed now.

My two cents.

sparker

^^^^^^^^
This sort of plan is likely a response to the high volumes of truck traffic heading to & from the Hidalgo POE that are using US 281 to get to both US 59 and I-37.  The upgrade to I-69C has been a relatively slow slog compared to other portions of the corridor complex, and locals who have to get in & out of the original "frontage road" lanes preliminarily constructed per usual TXDOT practice are likely finding that truck volume problematic regarding safety and in all probability are lodging complaints regarding such.  Thus, the schedule to construct those 44 miles of freeway with a barrier appropriate for such commercial traffic volumes has been thus advanced. 

Clearly the initial expansion of US 281 to 2+2 attracted truck traffic away from parallel US 77 (I-69E); while both routes feature the long open sections favored by commercial drivers (and their dispatchers), 281 does provide a shorter and more direct route to San Antonio distribution facilities as well as points along I-35 north of there.  That feature was in all likelihood near the top of the list of reasons why both US 77 and US 281 were included in the I-69 "family".   

sprjus4

Quote from: sparker on January 15, 2019, 07:24:34 PM
^^^^^^^^
This sort of plan is likely a response to the high volumes of truck traffic heading to & from the Hidalgo POE that are using US 281 to get to both US 59 and I-37.  The upgrade to I-69C has been a relatively slow slog compared to other portions of the corridor complex, and locals who have to get in & out of the original "frontage road" lanes preliminarily constructed per usual TXDOT practice are likely finding that truck volume problematic regarding safety and in all probability are lodging complaints regarding such.  Thus, the schedule to construct those 44 miles of freeway with a barrier appropriate for such commercial traffic volumes has been thus advanced.
I understand that eventually the freeway will have six lanes, with a barrier, but when constructing the initial four lanes, the "room" for future expansion should be on the inside, not the outside. Construct the initial four lanes now with a 47 foot grassy median + the two frontage roads, then fill in the grassy median with an additional lane + shoulder in each direction on the mainline when warranted. Building now to the inside, then constructing on the outside later on presents issues in the future. One of those, each outside ramp will have to be reconfigured when 6-laned to accommodate that new lane. That would present traffic issues and confusing maneuvering during a widening project. If it was built initially to the outside, additional lane widening wouldn't affect any movements off the freeway, and any ramps.

Other segments of I-69 are designed this way, including the Falfurrias freeway upgrade a years back, and the existing I-69C north of Edinburg. It has a 47 foot median, and when it does widen out to six lanes near Edinburg, it takes the median. The rest of the route north of that 6-lane segment was clearly designed to handle widening in the median, and this new section should too IMHO.

Quote from: sparker on January 15, 2019, 07:24:34 PM
Clearly the initial expansion of US 281 to 2+2 attracted truck traffic away from parallel US 77 (I-69E); while both routes feature the long open sections favored by commercial drivers (and their dispatchers), 281 does provide a shorter and more direct route to San Antonio distribution facilities as well as points along I-35 north of there.  That feature was in all likelihood near the top of the list of reasons why both US 77 and US 281 were included in the I-69 "family".   
The I-69 family is confusing IMHO. It's all normal heading south until Victoria. I-69C & I-69W will follow U.S. 59, which who knows how that'll work. I-69C finally splits off at George West then will resume its path down U.S. 281. Most traffic I imagine will get off I-69C at I-37 to head north.

The real question is how will U.S. 59 be done to Laredo? They'll either upgrade U.S. 59 into a four-lane freeway with frontage roads, or build it all on new location. I imagine that'll be the most expensive out of all this I-69, judging by the fact U.S. 59 is a two-lane road. I think the biggest priorities should be to finish the bypasses on U.S. 77 (Refugio and Odem), then finish the rural sections of I-69E, then finish I-69C to a point just south of George West, then bare east and have an interchange with I-37. That'll bypass both George West and Three Rivers for U.S. 281 traffic. If I-69W is ever built, it'll use that short segment between U.S. 281 and I-37.

---------------------------------

On a different note, am I the only one who finds it weird the recent upgrade south of Robstown is signed solely as I-69 instead of I-69E? Is this an error, or could it possibly hint that will be the "main" I-69, while the others are "spurs"...?

sparker

The chances are that I-69C and I-69E will be finished close to the same time; the former feeding into I-37 while the latter simply segues into I-69 at Victoria.  This will address the present truck traffic; the largest share of that currently being on US 281/I-69C, as well as the more populated areas along US 77 (Corpus Christi metro, Harlingen-Brownsville).  I-69W from Laredo to Victoria will likely be the last part of the cluster to be constructed.  The "joker" in this mix is the recently added "branch" from Freer on the I-69W routing along US 59 over to Corpus Christi via TX 44; it may well be constructed, along with I-69W from Laredo to Freer, prior to the Freer-Victoria I-69W segment even breaking ground.  What they'll designate that corridor as is yet TBD (some wags have mentioned I-6, as a northern counterpart to I-2), but it appears to have more local political support than the main I-69W line east of Freer.  Both the TX 44 and US 59 alignments traverse rolling plains, so construction, even despite lack of current facilities readily upgradeable, should be relatively simple.  But IMO I-69C&E will be done by 2030, the Corpus Christi branch about 5 years later, and I-69W in full about 5 years after that, if current progress continues.

The Ghostbuster

How much do you all want to bet that Texas will complete its portion of Interstate 69 and its three spurs long before any groundbreaking begins in Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississippi (excluding the existing spur south of Memphis?

cjk374

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 16, 2019, 04:04:57 PM
How much do you all want to bet that Texas will complete its portion of Interstate 69 and its three spurs long before any groundbreaking begins in Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississippi (excluding the existing spur south of Memphis?

This is a guarantee.
Runnin' roads and polishin' rails.

sparker

Quote from: cjk374 on January 16, 2019, 05:38:46 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 16, 2019, 04:04:57 PM
How much do you all want to bet that Texas will complete its portion of Interstate 69 and its three spurs long before any groundbreaking begins in Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississippi (excluding the existing spur south of Memphis?

This is a guarantee.

The Monticello I-69 bypass (currently 2 lanes on a 2+2 ROW, signed as Bypass US 278) in southeast AR broke ground several years ago, so technically there's a piece in AR under construction; an eastern extension to US 65 is in the planning stage but not let as of yet.  But it'll be years (if not decades) until either of these projects is upgraded to full Interstate standards -- while the portion SW of there into LA is likely to lag behind the remainder of the full corridor with the possible exception of the Great River bridge.  MS just doesn't have the bucks to do anything about their portion, so don't expect anything to emerge from there in the near term.  And TX I-69 projects are promoted and "shepherded" by what can only be described as either a persistent state power player or the functional equivalent of an omnipresent nagging parent -- the Alliance for I-69/Texas, who want the in-state corridor completed sooner than later (they operate at the behest of cities and private industries arrayed along the various corridor parts).  I've had dealings with them -- and they are indeed a highly motivated and directed group of folks with an unwavering resolve to get I-69 done.  Of course, they're also behind the prioritization of the Texarkana-bound I-369 corridor over the "main line" into LA -- but as TX boosters, that was and is an inevitable byproduct of their activities and influence.  If there were an equivalent within the other jurisdictions (except for the perpetually broke MS) there may at least be more progress -- but since there isn't, it is likely that at least most of the I-69 family -- with the exception of I-69W west of I-69C and the "stub" over to the LA state line -- will be opened to traffic or under construction before another section of Interstate-grade I-69 is built between Tenaha, TX and Tunica, MS -- unless Shreveport interests can convince LADOT (who in turn need to coordinate with TXDOT) to build I-69 south of I-20 as a SIU Shreveport bypass.  But with the south I-49 and the Shreveport inner connector, LADOT has a lot on their plate right now, so I for one wouldn't expect to see much I-69 activity there for a long time. 

edwaleni

Quote from: cjk374 on January 16, 2019, 05:38:46 PM
Quote from: The Ghostbuster on January 16, 2019, 04:04:57 PM
How much do you all want to bet that Texas will complete its portion of Interstate 69 and its three spurs long before any groundbreaking begins in Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississippi (excluding the existing spur south of Memphis?

This is a guarantee.

I am sure if those states had as much highway dollars to pump into I-69 they would.

Texas does it because they have diverse revenue sources and political clout in DC.

Mississippi will probably be the last state to complete their part as they don't generate the tax revenue and the federal dollars are in short supply.

The only thing right now that could advance I-69 funding federally is if the New Madrid decides to start dancing again.

Plutonic Panda

^^^^ those states should get on the ball then with finding funding.

edwaleni

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 16, 2019, 11:55:55 PM
^^^^ those states should get on the ball then with finding funding.

Mississippi probably won't do anything until the Great River Bridge is funded by the Feds. That is a $1B project in and of itself.

As long as it reaches the gambling resorts in Tunica, they are happy.  From Tunica south, there isn't a great deal of population or industry.

Texas is pushing it due to the large influx of trucks due to trade with Mexico. While I think everyone on these boards agree to its strategic significance, as long as Texas can use the I-30 gateway via Texarkana and I-369, there is no rush to take I-69 further east.

MikieTimT

Quote from: edwaleni on January 17, 2019, 10:36:52 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 16, 2019, 11:55:55 PM
^^^^ those states should get on the ball then with finding funding.

Mississippi probably won't do anything until the Great River Bridge is funded by the Feds. That is a $1B project in and of itself.

As long as it reaches the gambling resorts in Tunica, they are happy.  From Tunica south, there isn't a great deal of population or industry.

Texas is pushing it due to the large influx of trucks due to trade with Mexico. While I think everyone on these boards agree to its strategic significance, as long as Texas can use the I-30 gateway via Texarkana and I-369, there is no rush to take I-69 further east.

Then Arkansas at least will have to either find a way to make it happen in state, or there will have to be additional lanes on I-30, I-440, and I-40 east of Little Rock with the even greater influx of truck traffic.  Lord help us all if at least the far left lane of that isn't restricted from trucks, though.  At least there isn't elevation changes of consequence along that stretch to make it even worse for trucks passing trucks.

NE2

Where do those trucks currently go? Oh wait, the same route through Arkansas.

Also remember there's the I-57 extension to bypass Memphis.
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

MikieTimT

Quote from: NE2 on January 17, 2019, 12:49:05 PM
Where do those trucks currently go? Oh wait, the same route through Arkansas.

Also remember there's the I-57 extension to bypass Memphis.

If the upgrade of US-59 to I-69 doesn't affect traffic counts any, then what's the point of spending money on it.  Of course it will increase counts, especially freight traffic.  AKA, trucks.

I-57 is likely not to be completed before I-69/I-369 in Texas.  Texas has money.  Arkansas and Missouri do not.  Unless you know of a hidden bucket of federal money that's going to become available within the next 10 years or so.

sparker

Too true; the "Alliance" and the other TX backers of the in-state corridor complex had three goals in mind at the outset: (1) secure a NE outlet from Houston toward I-20 and I-30, and (2) provide some connections to the burgeoning population in the lower Rio Grande valley, which would also enhance trade with Mexico via several POE's.  And, finally (3):  secure the maximum available 80% federal funding to do so.  Unlike many other states, they had the wherewithal to leverage the remaining 20% -- so the construction projects continue at the pace that said 20% becomes available (their congressional delegation provides the conduit for the big Fed chunk).  They're getting what they've wanted for decades; if the central portion of I-69 is delayed or even discarded, they'll shed a few "crocodile tears" -- but will, at least internally, be more than satisfied.   

jbnv

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 16, 2019, 11:55:55 PM
^^^^ those states should get on the ball then with finding funding.

LOL. Things Louisiana will fund before funding I-69:

* I-49 through Lafayette to the Westbank.
* I-49 through Shreveport.
* Expanding I-10 at the junction with I-110.
* A loop/bypass around Baton Rouge, with another bridge over the Mississippi.
* Interstate 14 across central Louisiana.
* Upgrading US 165 to interstate standards (once someone shows Louisiana politicians how to extend I-57 all the way to Lake Charles).

I-69  provides very little benefit to Louisiana. Shreveport is the only major city with skin in that game. We'll take care of our own cities before we work on helping truck traffic pass through our state, tearing up our roads for little economic benefit.
🆕 Louisiana Highways on Twitter | Yes, I like Clearview. Deal with it. | Redos: US | La. | Route Challenge

vdeane

I'd rather see I-69 done than I-14 or even I-49 south of I-10.  I'm still scratching my head on what the point of I-14 even is.
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

sparker

#1394
Quote from: vdeane on January 17, 2019, 08:11:14 PM
I'd rather see I-69 done than I-14 or even I-49 south of I-10.  I'm still scratching my head on what the point of I-14 even is.

Within TX, there are two (albeit internal) reasons (if not actually rationales) for I-14.  Out west (Midland/Odessa and San Angelo) local boosters were tired of waiting for the Ports-to-Plains corridor, more or less N-S, to be developed after decades of procrastination.  In the "Triangle" area anchored by Houston, San Antonio, and DFW, there's growth in certain areas: Temple/Belton/Copperas Cove and the "Texas A&M" area of Bryan and State College (a lot of this Houston "overflow").  The two groups of boosters, with the aid of several of the state congressional delegation (who saw what a concerted effort re I-69 yielded), got together and in 2016 added High Priority Corridor #84 to the list, tacked on a I-14 designation, and had a generally E-W corridor that took care of their various needs by connecting the support areas.  Now -- taking it to LA and east is a result of politicos from those areas jumping on the bandwagon and reviving the western portion of a proposal (mostly along US 84) that reared its head about the turn of the century.  Since HPC #84 ends at the TX/LA line, those folks have yet to follow legislative suit.  My guess is that they'll do so, likely designating something east as far as Laurel, MS and I-59 (seeing that AL recently wiped their slate clean of freeway proposals, going east of there isn't presently in the cards).  But whether they actually build something or simply erect "Future I-14 Corridor" signs" along the projected routing is yet to be seen.  It's likely that I-14 will eventually be done in TX as far east as I-45 or even I-69 -- but the farther east in TX it goes its support wanes.  Out west, like with I-69, the corridor has been augmented by several branches -- at least one of which mimics some of the old "Port-to-Plains" scenario (surprise, surprise).  And this has also prompted a P-to-P "mini-revival" of sorts, with a San Angelo-Lubbock extension of I-27 being reconsidered. 

The operating theory here is "if it worked there, it'll work here".  That, in a nutshell, is how Interstate corridors, regardless of warrant level, get established these days -- particularly in TX, which is big enough to accommodate disparate regional rivalries and the subsequent regional plans that emerge.  If there's a metro area over 100K in the state, they want their Interstate(s) -- and if they yell and piss and moan loud enough -- and someone is listening -- they'll get it (if the P-to-P corridor is revitalized, San Angelo may well get two for the price of one -- well, one-and-a half!). 

Bobby5280

#1395
Texas should just build its I-69 system up to Texarkana and not worry about the segments running East of it. A corridor running from South Texas up to Texarkana will at least be functional, not something leading to a dead end.

I-14 should be way down the list of priorities in Texas, especially the proposed segment of I-14 in West Texas. The only part of I-14 that makes any sense at all is the Killeen to College Station and then Huntsville section, but not in the currently proposed path (which is a jagged, way the hell out of the way "W" shape).

Around a dozen different corridors in Texas clearly rank way higher in importance than I-14. TX DOT needs to keep working on its I-69 segments, putting as much emphasis as possible on the South Texas segments. US-290 between Austin and Houston is a higher priority. TX-74 between Austin and Columbus (Jct I-10) is a bigger priority. US-287 between Amarillo and Fort Worth is an important corridor. So is US-82 from Wichita Falls to Texarkana. Then there's the neglected Ports to Plains corridor. Add to that a bunch of urban and suburban corridors that all need improvement. I-14 in West Texas is really frivolous compared to all those other corridors.

Arkansas has its own plate full with its I-49 projects and now I-57. I don't think it makes sense for them to put much effort in developing their segment of I-69 as long as Mississippi is broke and the federal government is basically AWOL. Louisiana has a similar situation with prioritizing I-49 and other projects over an I-69 leg that would likely dead-end in South Arkansas for the foreseeable future.

Tennessee can work out its segments of I-69 since it's North of I-40 and more related to the Indiana and Kentucky segments.

mvak36

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 17, 2019, 10:04:36 PM

Tennessee can work out its segments of I-69 since it's North of I-40 and more related to the Indiana and Kentucky segments.
IMO, I don't think TN will do anything for a while once the section from I-155 to the KY state line since the two segments will be connected by I-155 and I-55 without having to go too far out of the way.
Counties: Counties visited
Travel Mapping: Summary

Bobby5280

It's possible (or even likely if the folks in Nashville have their way) that I-69 in Tennessee from Memphis to Dyersburg will be put in limbo indefinitely. Nevertheless they at least have plans drawn for the section between Millington and Dyersburg, starting at the North end of I-269. The segment between North Memphis and Millington is the tough nut to crack.

I'm willing to bet the I-69 segment between Millington and Dyersburg will be under construction or even finished before anything begins on the Great River Bridge. Even I-57 between Walnut Ridge and Sikeston might be well under way or finished by that time too.

NE2

Quote from: MikieTimT on January 17, 2019, 04:51:05 PM
Quote from: NE2 on January 17, 2019, 12:49:05 PM
Where do those trucks currently go? Oh wait, the same route through Arkansas.

Also remember there's the I-57 extension to bypass Memphis.

If the upgrade of US-59 to I-69 doesn't affect traffic counts any, then what's the point of spending money on it.  Of course it will increase counts, especially freight traffic.  AKA, trucks.
Inducing demand should never be the point of building a highway. Build it for traffic that currently exists and that is expected to exist whether or not the highway is built.
pre-1945 Florida route log

I accept and respect your identity as long as it's not dumb shit like "identifying as a vaccinated attack helicopter".

thefro

One thing to keep in mind is by the time I-69 is actually done there will probably be a lot of big trucks driven by AI instead of humans.



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.