AARoads Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

Author Topic: I-69 in TX  (Read 882336 times)

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8404
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 09:16:26 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #2550 on: May 15, 2023, 09:02:37 PM »

I'm not aware of any other toll-free interstates being tolled, although I have read reports of multiple studies in other states. The new bridge toll would be $2.88 in 2021 dollars for local traffic, and through traffic (mostly Texans) would be hit with higher tolls.
In Virginia, the I-264 Downtown Tunnel between Norfolk and Portsmouth began tolling in 2014 after being toll-free since 1990, to help fund construction of a second Midtown Tunnel on another roadway altogether (US-58).

Not interstate, but in the same region, a standard non-controlled-access two lane road, US-17 Dominion Blvd had a draw bridge over the Elizabeth River in Chesapeake replaced by a four lane high-level fixed span bridge & upgraded to an interstate-standard freeway, and is now tolled.
Logged

abqtraveler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1073
  • US-85 runs thru Albuquerque, but only on paper

  • Location: Albuquerque, NM
  • Last Login: June 05, 2023, 11:25:34 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #2551 on: May 16, 2023, 08:24:08 AM »


I'm not aware of any other toll-free interstates being tolled, although I have read reports of multiple studies in other states. The new bridge toll would be $2.88 in 2021 dollars for local traffic, and through traffic (mostly Texans) would be hit with higher tolls.
The I-65 bridge over the Ohio River between Louisville, Kentucky and southern Indiana used to be toll-free.  Following its reconstruction last decade, it is now tolled. Kentucky and Ohio are looking at taking a similar approach to reconstructing the Brent Spence Bridge, also over the Ohio River, but further east.

Also last decade, the State of Rhode Island reconstructed the bridge that carried RI-24 over the Sakonnet River. The original bridge was toll-free, but the replacement bridge was initially tolled for about a year before tolling was discontinued.
Logged
2-d Interstates traveled:  4, 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 24, 25, 27, 29, 35, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 49, 55, 57, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76(E), 77, 78, 81, 83, 85, 87(N), 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95

2-d Interstates Clinched:  12, 22, 30, 37, 44, 59, 80, 84(E), 86(E), 238, H1, H2, H3, H201

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8404
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 09:16:26 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #2552 on: May 16, 2023, 01:05:20 PM »

Kentucky and Ohio are looking at taking a similar approach to reconstructing the Brent Spence Bridge, also over the Ohio River, but further east.
I thought that bridge was not going to be tolled.
Logged

abqtraveler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1073
  • US-85 runs thru Albuquerque, but only on paper

  • Location: Albuquerque, NM
  • Last Login: June 05, 2023, 11:25:34 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #2553 on: May 16, 2023, 04:27:59 PM »

Kentucky and Ohio are looking at taking a similar approach to reconstructing the Brent Spence Bridge, also over the Ohio River, but further east.
I thought that bridge was not going to be tolled.
Maybe they changed their mind, but last I heard the Brent Spence will be tolled following its reconstruction.
Logged
2-d Interstates traveled:  4, 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 24, 25, 27, 29, 35, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 49, 55, 57, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76(E), 77, 78, 81, 83, 85, 87(N), 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95

2-d Interstates Clinched:  12, 22, 30, 37, 44, 59, 80, 84(E), 86(E), 238, H1, H2, H3, H201

Anthony_JK

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1644
  • Age: 59
  • Location: Lafayette, Louisiana
  • Last Login: Today at 07:14:32 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #2554 on: May 16, 2023, 06:41:36 PM »

Louisiana DOT just needs to copy what AR DOT did with its two (disconnected) segments of AR-530 to the South of Pine Bluff. Just build a Super 2 road with temporary at grade intersections in order to establish and preserve the right of way. That way it can be "double barreled" in the future without any difficulty. A future Interstate does not always need to be flanked by frontage roads. If the road is built on a new terrain alignment across a rural area it should be relatively simple to control or even prevent any new development along side the route ROW.

Perhaps some of the problem in Louisiana is budgetary issues. But I suspect it also has to do with some poor planning and lawmakers simply being far more interested in other priorities.

Still, I do not believe at all that the I-69 designation would be routed up thru Texarkana. Our national highway network map already has lots of odd goofs on it. A really long I-369 route and not-finished I-69 route would just be "more of the same."

Random thought: I had to do a face-palm while watching news coverage of storms in Southern Texas this weekend. They referred to I-69 in the Houston area as "I-59." Either call it US-59 or I-69. Not that other crap.
 :-/
The problem with Louisiana is that the state's needs for the existing highway--let alone new highway construction--far outstrip the available funding. Several major projects on existing interstates are being prioritized over I-69: new I-10 bridges over the Mississippi River at Baton Rouge and further west over the Atchafalaya Swamp; reconstruction of I-20 through Bossier City, to name a few.  And then there's completing I-49 between Lafayette and New Orleans, and the Inner-City Connector through Shreveport that will come ahead of any major portion of I-69 through the state.

There are NO plans to add a twin span to the I-10 Mississippi River bridge through Baton Rouge. The current plan for widening I-10 through BTR only involve adding a lane in either direction between LA 415 and the I-10/I-12 Split (keeping the existing bridge alignment), modifying local access between the I-110 Split and Dalyrmple Drive, and removing the Perkins Road interchange.  I-49 South (including I-49 through Lafayette) and the I-10 Calcasieu River bridge in Lake Charles are the highest priorities right now. Also, there are NO plans for widening I-10 through the Atchafalaya Swamp right now. Filling the gap of I-49 through Shreveport is the next priority. I-69 through Louisiana can wait until more of I-69/I-369 through Texas is completed, and Arkansas and Mississippi make up their minds whether they want their section of I-69.
Logged

abqtraveler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1073
  • US-85 runs thru Albuquerque, but only on paper

  • Location: Albuquerque, NM
  • Last Login: June 05, 2023, 11:25:34 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #2555 on: May 17, 2023, 10:02:42 AM »

Louisiana DOT just needs to copy what AR DOT did with its two (disconnected) segments of AR-530 to the South of Pine Bluff. Just build a Super 2 road with temporary at grade intersections in order to establish and preserve the right of way. That way it can be "double barreled" in the future without any difficulty. A future Interstate does not always need to be flanked by frontage roads. If the road is built on a new terrain alignment across a rural area it should be relatively simple to control or even prevent any new development along side the route ROW.

Perhaps some of the problem in Louisiana is budgetary issues. But I suspect it also has to do with some poor planning and lawmakers simply being far more interested in other priorities.

Still, I do not believe at all that the I-69 designation would be routed up thru Texarkana. Our national highway network map already has lots of odd goofs on it. A really long I-369 route and not-finished I-69 route would just be "more of the same."

Random thought: I had to do a face-palm while watching news coverage of storms in Southern Texas this weekend. They referred to I-69 in the Houston area as "I-59." Either call it US-59 or I-69. Not that other crap.
 :-/
The problem with Louisiana is that the state's needs for the existing highway--let alone new highway construction--far outstrip the available funding. Several major projects on existing interstates are being prioritized over I-69: new I-10 bridges over the Mississippi River at Baton Rouge and further west over the Atchafalaya Swamp; reconstruction of I-20 through Bossier City, to name a few.  And then there's completing I-49 between Lafayette and New Orleans, and the Inner-City Connector through Shreveport that will come ahead of any major portion of I-69 through the state.

There are NO plans to add a twin span to the I-10 Mississippi River bridge through Baton Rouge. The current plan for widening I-10 through BTR only involve adding a lane in either direction between LA 415 and the I-10/I-12 Split (keeping the existing bridge alignment), modifying local access between the I-110 Split and Dalyrmple Drive, and removing the Perkins Road interchange.  I-49 South (including I-49 through Lafayette) and the I-10 Calcasieu River bridge in Lake Charles are the highest priorities right now. Also, there are NO plans for widening I-10 through the Atchafalaya Swamp right now. Filling the gap of I-49 through Shreveport is the next priority. I-69 through Louisiana can wait until more of I-69/I-369 through Texas is completed, and Arkansas and Mississippi make up their minds whether they want their section of I-69.
Arkansas is building their section of I-69, but at glacial speed. They just broke ground on another section between US-278 east of Monticello and AR-293. Next will be the section between AR-293 and US-65. After the initial 2-lane buildouts are finished for those sections, work is expected to shift to the western section of the Monticello Bypass, but that's years away. 

Mississippi is just broke and the political will is not there to raise the required revenue to maintain its existing roads and bridges, let alone build I-69. So don't hold your breath on Mississippi doing anything with I-69 any time soon.
Logged
2-d Interstates traveled:  4, 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 24, 25, 27, 29, 35, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 49, 55, 57, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76(E), 77, 78, 81, 83, 85, 87(N), 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95

2-d Interstates Clinched:  12, 22, 30, 37, 44, 59, 80, 84(E), 86(E), 238, H1, H2, H3, H201

I-55

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 909
  • Midwesterner and Southerner

  • Location: Indiana
  • Last Login: June 03, 2023, 04:43:20 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #2556 on: May 18, 2023, 09:34:26 PM »

Kentucky and Ohio are looking at taking a similar approach to reconstructing the Brent Spence Bridge, also over the Ohio River, but further east.
I thought that bridge was not going to be tolled.
Maybe they changed their mind, but last I heard the Brent Spence will be tolled following its reconstruction.
Last time I remember anyone talking about tolling on this bridge was when Matt Bevin lost his gubernatorial reelection (partly for saying the bridge would be tolled). I think the tolling decision won't be made until absolutely necessary depending on the amount of funding received. At the time it seemed like they would need tolls to fund the bridge but with the new infrastructure package who knows how much they'll need. Probably will still need a significant amount, but not as bad as before.
Logged
Let's Go Purdue Basketball Whoosh

Henry

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 7863
  • Age: 53
  • Location: Chicago, IL/Seattle, WA
  • Last Login: June 05, 2023, 11:18:23 PM
    • Henry Watson's Online Freeway
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #2557 on: May 18, 2023, 10:14:21 PM »

Louisiana DOT just needs to copy what AR DOT did with its two (disconnected) segments of AR-530 to the South of Pine Bluff. Just build a Super 2 road with temporary at grade intersections in order to establish and preserve the right of way. That way it can be "double barreled" in the future without any difficulty. A future Interstate does not always need to be flanked by frontage roads. If the road is built on a new terrain alignment across a rural area it should be relatively simple to control or even prevent any new development along side the route ROW.

Perhaps some of the problem in Louisiana is budgetary issues. But I suspect it also has to do with some poor planning and lawmakers simply being far more interested in other priorities.

Still, I do not believe at all that the I-69 designation would be routed up thru Texarkana. Our national highway network map already has lots of odd goofs on it. A really long I-369 route and not-finished I-69 route would just be "more of the same."

Random thought: I had to do a face-palm while watching news coverage of storms in Southern Texas this weekend. They referred to I-69 in the Houston area as "I-59." Either call it US-59 or I-69. Not that other crap.
 :-/
The problem with Louisiana is that the state's needs for the existing highway--let alone new highway construction--far outstrip the available funding. Several major projects on existing interstates are being prioritized over I-69: new I-10 bridges over the Mississippi River at Baton Rouge and further west over the Atchafalaya Swamp; reconstruction of I-20 through Bossier City, to name a few.  And then there's completing I-49 between Lafayette and New Orleans, and the Inner-City Connector through Shreveport that will come ahead of any major portion of I-69 through the state.

There are NO plans to add a twin span to the I-10 Mississippi River bridge through Baton Rouge. The current plan for widening I-10 through BTR only involve adding a lane in either direction between LA 415 and the I-10/I-12 Split (keeping the existing bridge alignment), modifying local access between the I-110 Split and Dalyrmple Drive, and removing the Perkins Road interchange.  I-49 South (including I-49 through Lafayette) and the I-10 Calcasieu River bridge in Lake Charles are the highest priorities right now. Also, there are NO plans for widening I-10 through the Atchafalaya Swamp right now. Filling the gap of I-49 through Shreveport is the next priority. I-69 through Louisiana can wait until more of I-69/I-369 through Texas is completed, and Arkansas and Mississippi make up their minds whether they want their section of I-69.
Arkansas is building their section of I-69, but at glacial speed. They just broke ground on another section between US-278 east of Monticello and AR-293. Next will be the section between AR-293 and US-65. After the initial 2-lane buildouts are finished for those sections, work is expected to shift to the western section of the Monticello Bypass, but that's years away. 

Mississippi is just broke and the political will is not there to raise the required revenue to maintain its existing roads and bridges, let alone build I-69. So don't hold your breath on Mississippi doing anything with I-69 any time soon.
TN is also doing a half-assed job in completing its sections of I-69. AFAIK, Memphis to Dyersburg has not been worked on yet, and neither has the connection to KY. At least the Union City bypass is being built, although it's taking forever to get it done.
Logged
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

abqtraveler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1073
  • US-85 runs thru Albuquerque, but only on paper

  • Location: Albuquerque, NM
  • Last Login: June 05, 2023, 11:25:34 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #2558 on: May 19, 2023, 09:17:19 AM »

Louisiana DOT just needs to copy what AR DOT did with its two (disconnected) segments of AR-530 to the South of Pine Bluff. Just build a Super 2 road with temporary at grade intersections in order to establish and preserve the right of way. That way it can be "double barreled" in the future without any difficulty. A future Interstate does not always need to be flanked by frontage roads. If the road is built on a new terrain alignment across a rural area it should be relatively simple to control or even prevent any new development along side the route ROW.

Perhaps some of the problem in Louisiana is budgetary issues. But I suspect it also has to do with some poor planning and lawmakers simply being far more interested in other priorities.

Still, I do not believe at all that the I-69 designation would be routed up thru Texarkana. Our national highway network map already has lots of odd goofs on it. A really long I-369 route and not-finished I-69 route would just be "more of the same."

Random thought: I had to do a face-palm while watching news coverage of storms in Southern Texas this weekend. They referred to I-69 in the Houston area as "I-59." Either call it US-59 or I-69. Not that other crap.
 :-/
The problem with Louisiana is that the state's needs for the existing highway--let alone new highway construction--far outstrip the available funding. Several major projects on existing interstates are being prioritized over I-69: new I-10 bridges over the Mississippi River at Baton Rouge and further west over the Atchafalaya Swamp; reconstruction of I-20 through Bossier City, to name a few.  And then there's completing I-49 between Lafayette and New Orleans, and the Inner-City Connector through Shreveport that will come ahead of any major portion of I-69 through the state.

There are NO plans to add a twin span to the I-10 Mississippi River bridge through Baton Rouge. The current plan for widening I-10 through BTR only involve adding a lane in either direction between LA 415 and the I-10/I-12 Split (keeping the existing bridge alignment), modifying local access between the I-110 Split and Dalyrmple Drive, and removing the Perkins Road interchange.  I-49 South (including I-49 through Lafayette) and the I-10 Calcasieu River bridge in Lake Charles are the highest priorities right now. Also, there are NO plans for widening I-10 through the Atchafalaya Swamp right now. Filling the gap of I-49 through Shreveport is the next priority. I-69 through Louisiana can wait until more of I-69/I-369 through Texas is completed, and Arkansas and Mississippi make up their minds whether they want their section of I-69.
Arkansas is building their section of I-69, but at glacial speed. They just broke ground on another section between US-278 east of Monticello and AR-293. Next will be the section between AR-293 and US-65. After the initial 2-lane buildouts are finished for those sections, work is expected to shift to the western section of the Monticello Bypass, but that's years away. 

Mississippi is just broke and the political will is not there to raise the required revenue to maintain its existing roads and bridges, let alone build I-69. So don't hold your breath on Mississippi doing anything with I-69 any time soon.
TN is also doing a half-assed job in completing its sections of I-69. AFAIK, Memphis to Dyersburg has not been worked on yet, and neither has the connection to KY. At least the Union City bypass is being built, although it's taking forever to get it done.
Tennessee has been waiting on Kentucky to finish their upgrades to the Purchase Parkway and completion of the bypass around Union City before they will do anything about the interchange at the state line. At least the good news is that Kentucky is now working on upgrading the final 14 miles of the Purchase Parkway to interstate standards, which includes converting the last "bowtie" interchange at Wingo to a standard diamond configuration. With that and the bypass around Union City opening in the next couple of years, I think we'll see Tennessee shift their focus to the South Fulton interchange and the bypass around Troy.
Logged
2-d Interstates traveled:  4, 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 24, 25, 27, 29, 35, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 49, 55, 57, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76(E), 77, 78, 81, 83, 85, 87(N), 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95

2-d Interstates Clinched:  12, 22, 30, 37, 44, 59, 80, 84(E), 86(E), 238, H1, H2, H3, H201

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1505
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: Today at 08:19:50 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #2559 on: May 19, 2023, 11:42:48 AM »

Louisiana DOT just needs to copy what AR DOT did with its two (disconnected) segments of AR-530 to the South of Pine Bluff. Just build a Super 2 road with temporary at grade intersections in order to establish and preserve the right of way. That way it can be "double barreled" in the future without any difficulty. A future Interstate does not always need to be flanked by frontage roads. If the road is built on a new terrain alignment across a rural area it should be relatively simple to control or even prevent any new development along side the route ROW.

Perhaps some of the problem in Louisiana is budgetary issues. But I suspect it also has to do with some poor planning and lawmakers simply being far more interested in other priorities.

Still, I do not believe at all that the I-69 designation would be routed up thru Texarkana. Our national highway network map already has lots of odd goofs on it. A really long I-369 route and not-finished I-69 route would just be "more of the same."

Random thought: I had to do a face-palm while watching news coverage of storms in Southern Texas this weekend. They referred to I-69 in the Houston area as "I-59." Either call it US-59 or I-69. Not that other crap.
 :-/
The problem with Louisiana is that the state's needs for the existing highway--let alone new highway construction--far outstrip the available funding. Several major projects on existing interstates are being prioritized over I-69: new I-10 bridges over the Mississippi River at Baton Rouge and further west over the Atchafalaya Swamp; reconstruction of I-20 through Bossier City, to name a few.  And then there's completing I-49 between Lafayette and New Orleans, and the Inner-City Connector through Shreveport that will come ahead of any major portion of I-69 through the state.

There are NO plans to add a twin span to the I-10 Mississippi River bridge through Baton Rouge. The current plan for widening I-10 through BTR only involve adding a lane in either direction between LA 415 and the I-10/I-12 Split (keeping the existing bridge alignment), modifying local access between the I-110 Split and Dalyrmple Drive, and removing the Perkins Road interchange.  I-49 South (including I-49 through Lafayette) and the I-10 Calcasieu River bridge in Lake Charles are the highest priorities right now. Also, there are NO plans for widening I-10 through the Atchafalaya Swamp right now. Filling the gap of I-49 through Shreveport is the next priority. I-69 through Louisiana can wait until more of I-69/I-369 through Texas is completed, and Arkansas and Mississippi make up their minds whether they want their section of I-69.
Arkansas is building their section of I-69, but at glacial speed. They just broke ground on another section between US-278 east of Monticello and AR-293. Next will be the section between AR-293 and US-65. After the initial 2-lane buildouts are finished for those sections, work is expected to shift to the western section of the Monticello Bypass, but that's years away. 

Mississippi is just broke and the political will is not there to raise the required revenue to maintain its existing roads and bridges, let alone build I-69. So don't hold your breath on Mississippi doing anything with I-69 any time soon.

I think romanticizing what Arkansas is doing as a buildup to I-69 is a little premature.  US-278 is well past needing these upgrades. US-278 is mostly 45 mph or less all the was from Hope east. (There are virtually no sustained stretches at the MAX 55 MPH speed limit)These upgrades are badly needed. Perhaps some day I -69 will subsume these parts of the road. Probably not. It would be like saying upgrading US-59 north from Humble to having shoulders and 4-lane stretches in the 1960's or 4-laning it into the 80's as readying it for I-69.  It will be like the first Palestine Texas bypass. Just city streets by the time they do anything with it. Absent dramatic federal earmarks (probably above 80%) nothing will happen in the next FORTY years.  Even then, not necessarily where (former) General Assembly President then Arkansas Highway Commission Chairman (now retired) Bob Moore wanted it.

Moore had a LOT of influence in BOTH JOBS on this. I think Senator Trent Lott (MS) liked the location because it would probably never follow US-61 but instead would Join I-55 at his hometown of Grenada.

Finally, I have said this before. I-69 is behind I-49 and I-57 in the priority list. It is probably behind I-57 SOUTH (an expanded US-425 / I-530.) That and maintaining what they already have is probably too much all ready.
« Last Edit: May 19, 2023, 01:21:59 PM by bwana39 »
Logged
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8404
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 09:16:26 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #2560 on: May 19, 2023, 12:01:16 PM »

It would be like saying upgrading US-59 north from Humble to having shoulders and 4-lane stretches in the 1960's or 4-laning it into the 80's as readying it for I-69.  It will be like the first Palestine Texas bypass. Just city streets by the time they do anything with it.
These definitely arenít comparableÖ the super-two sections of highway being built in Arkansas have limited access (no private driveways) and sufficient right of way for widening to 4 lanes along with full control of access upgrade with interchanges and overpasses. They are certainly much higher quality than those earlier Texas bypasses that had no access control.

Quote
It is probably behind I-57 SOUTH (an expanded US-425 / I-130.)
Is this even a real project? It seems to be I-69 would definitely be a higher priority, albeit still low.
Logged

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1505
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: Today at 08:19:50 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #2561 on: May 19, 2023, 01:17:30 PM »

It would be like saying upgrading US-59 north from Humble to having shoulders and 4-lane stretches in the 1960's or 4-laning it into the 80's as readying it for I-69.  It will be like the first Palestine Texas bypass. Just city streets by the time they do anything with it.
These definitely arenít comparableÖ the super-two sections of highway being built in Arkansas have limited access (no private driveways) and sufficient right of way for widening to 4 lanes along with full control of access upgrade with interchanges and overpasses. They are certainly much higher quality than those earlier Texas bypasses that had no access control.

Quote
It is probably behind I-57 SOUTH (an expanded US-425 / I-530.)
Is this even a real project? It seems to be I-69 would definitely be a higher priority, albeit still low.
 

Is it a real project? Is I-69 a real project? 

Sure there is no access, but the problems in Texas are about Texas inability to limit access to properties.  Down the road Arkansas can open the access if I-69 falls through. It may be in some sort of preparation. It is not something that cannot be undone.  It could be kept as is as a two lane limited access for another half century waiting for a freeway to get built. Regardless of what they are building it is needed in east central Arkansas. I just don't think the freeway will ever get there.

As to the I-57 extension, it is probably as real as I-69.
Logged
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

abqtraveler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1073
  • US-85 runs thru Albuquerque, but only on paper

  • Location: Albuquerque, NM
  • Last Login: June 05, 2023, 11:25:34 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #2562 on: May 19, 2023, 03:02:21 PM »

It would be like saying upgrading US-59 north from Humble to having shoulders and 4-lane stretches in the 1960's or 4-laning it into the 80's as readying it for I-69.  It will be like the first Palestine Texas bypass. Just city streets by the time they do anything with it.
These definitely arenít comparableÖ the super-two sections of highway being built in Arkansas have limited access (no private driveways) and sufficient right of way for widening to 4 lanes along with full control of access upgrade with interchanges and overpasses. They are certainly much higher quality than those earlier Texas bypasses that had no access control.

Quote
It is probably behind I-57 SOUTH (an expanded US-425 / I-530.)
Is this even a real project? It seems to be I-69 would definitely be a higher priority, albeit still low.
 

Is it a real project? Is I-69 a real project? 

Sure there is no access, but the problems in Texas are about Texas inability to limit access to properties.  Down the road Arkansas can open the access if I-69 falls through. It may be in some sort of preparation. It is not something that cannot be undone.  It could be kept as is as a two lane limited access for another half century waiting for a freeway to get built. Regardless of what they are building it is needed in east central Arkansas. I just don't think the freeway will ever get there.

As to the I-57 extension, it is probably as real as I-69.
The I-57 extension will be finished long before I-69 through Arkansas gets done. If I were to wager a guess on how Arkansas prioritizes its major highway projects, I would think it would be in this order, only the top 4 of which are actually programmed by ArDOT:

1. I-49 from I-40 to AR-22, including the new Arkansas River Bridge.
2. US-67/Future I-57 from Walnut Ridge to MO State Line
3. First 2 lanes of Future I-49 (AR-549?) from US-71 (south of Fort Smith) to Y-City
4. Western Section Monticello Bypass (US-278 Bypass/Future I-69)
5. Remaining sections of Future I-49 between Y-City and Texarkana
6. Remaining sections of Future I-69 from Monticello to Louisiana border
Logged
2-d Interstates traveled:  4, 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 24, 25, 27, 29, 35, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 49, 55, 57, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76(E), 77, 78, 81, 83, 85, 87(N), 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95

2-d Interstates Clinched:  12, 22, 30, 37, 44, 59, 80, 84(E), 86(E), 238, H1, H2, H3, H201

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1505
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: Today at 08:19:50 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #2563 on: May 19, 2023, 05:39:15 PM »

It would be like saying upgrading US-59 north from Humble to having shoulders and 4-lane stretches in the 1960's or 4-laning it into the 80's as readying it for I-69.  It will be like the first Palestine Texas bypass. Just city streets by the time they do anything with it.
These definitely arenít comparableÖ the super-two sections of highway being built in Arkansas have limited access (no private driveways) and sufficient right of way for widening to 4 lanes along with full control of access upgrade with interchanges and overpasses. They are certainly much higher quality than those earlier Texas bypasses that had no access control.

Quote
It is probably behind I-57 SOUTH (an expanded US-425 / I-530.)
Is this even a real project? It seems to be I-69 would definitely be a higher priority, albeit still low.
 

Is it a real project? Is I-69 a real project? 

Sure there is no access, but the problems in Texas are about Texas inability to limit access to properties.  Down the road Arkansas can open the access if I-69 falls through. It may be in some sort of preparation. It is not something that cannot be undone.  It could be kept as is as a two lane limited access for another half century waiting for a freeway to get built. Regardless of what they are building it is needed in east central Arkansas. I just don't think the freeway will ever get there.

As to the I-57 extension, it is probably as real as I-69.
The I-57 extension will be finished long before I-69 through Arkansas gets done. If I were to wager a guess on how Arkansas prioritizes its major highway projects, I would think it would be in this order, only the top 4 of which are actually programmed by ArDOT:

1. I-49 from I-40 to AR-22, including the new Arkansas River Bridge.
2. US-67/Future I-57 from Walnut Ridge to MO State Line
3. First 2 lanes of Future I-49 (AR-549?) from US-71 (south of Fort Smith) to Y-City
4. Western Section Monticello Bypass (US-278 Bypass/Future I-69)
5. Remaining sections of Future I-49 between Y-City and Texarkana
6. Remaining sections of Future I-69 from Monticello to Louisiana border

I agree fully. I fear other things will supplant I-69 and keep it at the end of any new lists after some of these items move off.  Some of those would be expanding US-412 across northern Arkansas, US-425 or US-63 from Pine Bluff to Louisiana, US-65 from Conway to Missouri, maybe even an expanded US-82 across south Arkansas. Undoubtedly there will be more projects in NW Arkansas.

If Louisiana were to build I-69 toward Arkansas, there might be an incentive, but for Louisiana, a road from Alexandria to Monroe or Ruston to points north makes more  sense evacuating South Louisiana.  So would US-425 to Ferriday and then US-61 to Baton Rouge.
Logged
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

Bobby5280

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 3744
  • Location: Lawton, OK
  • Last Login: June 05, 2023, 07:22:40 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #2564 on: May 20, 2023, 10:32:10 PM »

If Arkansas is going to have to come up with most or all of the funding they're obviously going to concentrate on highway projects that provide the most benefits to their own state residents. I-69 is more of a national project and it doesn't run through the busiest areas of Arkansas.
Logged

MikieTimT

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1315
  • Age: 50
  • Location: Wedington Woods, Arkansas
  • Last Login: Today at 08:58:36 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #2565 on: May 21, 2023, 12:07:45 AM »

If Arkansas is going to have to come up with most or all of the funding they're obviously going to concentrate on highway projects that provide the most benefits to their own state residents. I-69 is more of a national project and it doesn't run through the busiest areas of Arkansas.

True, but at least ROW has been purchased, dirt moved, and some lanes of some segments of the Dickey Split paved.  More than Louisiana can say.  And more promise of future growth of more segments than Mississippi has shown since completing I-269 to Tunica.

Texas is the only state south of Tennessee that will have any significant mileage completed in the next 25 years, likely all that I'll live to see anyway if I make it to an average life expectancy.
Logged

abqtraveler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1073
  • US-85 runs thru Albuquerque, but only on paper

  • Location: Albuquerque, NM
  • Last Login: June 05, 2023, 11:25:34 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #2566 on: May 21, 2023, 10:43:37 PM »


If Louisiana were to build I-69 toward Arkansas, there might be an incentive, but for Louisiana, a road from Alexandria to Monroe or Ruston to points north makes more  sense evacuating South Louisiana.  So would US-425 to Ferriday and then US-61 to Baton Rouge.

The only section of I-69 I could see Louisiana getting done in the distant, but foreseeable future may be between I-49 south of Shreveport/Bossier and I-20 to the east, with a new crossing of the Red River south of Barksdale AFB. There is some independent utility to that section that would allow for a southern relief route around Shreveport/Bossier and better access to the Port of Shreveport/Bossier. Still, I wouldn't think anything with even that stretch of I-69 would occur after the I-49 Inner-City Connector is complete, or at least under construction.
Logged
2-d Interstates traveled:  4, 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 24, 25, 27, 29, 35, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 49, 55, 57, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76(E), 77, 78, 81, 83, 85, 87(N), 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95

2-d Interstates Clinched:  12, 22, 30, 37, 44, 59, 80, 84(E), 86(E), 238, H1, H2, H3, H201

bassoon1986

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1326
  • Finish I-49 north in LA!

  • Age: 37
  • Location: Woodworth, LA
  • Last Login: Today at 08:34:45 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #2567 on: May 22, 2023, 02:20:05 PM »

It would be nice for the I-69 red river bridge. Coming from the south you have to slog your way through south Shreveport to get to LA 511/Jimmie Davis Bridge to get to south Bossier. Even if thereís just a connector from I-49 east to US 71 that would be better than nothing.


I really thought 10 years ago Louisiana might have had more interest with I-69 but I agree with others above that LA simply has more pressing things on the books.
Logged

roadman65

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 14654
  • Location: Lakeland, Florida
  • Last Login: Today at 06:16:32 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #2568 on: May 22, 2023, 02:30:40 PM »

La has more interest in I-49 over I-69 because the former benefits the state. I-49 is part of a longer route to connect Canada to the ports at NOLA. The latter is for international trade that donít directly benefit the state.
Logged
Every day is a winding road, you just got to get used to it.

Sheryl Crowe

abqtraveler

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1073
  • US-85 runs thru Albuquerque, but only on paper

  • Location: Albuquerque, NM
  • Last Login: June 05, 2023, 11:25:34 PM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #2569 on: May 22, 2023, 02:36:40 PM »

La has more interest in I-49 over I-69 because the former benefits the state. I-49 is part of a longer route to connect Canada to the ports at NOLA. The latter is for international trade that donít directly benefit the state.
That is true, save for the section between I-49 S and I-20 E just because it adds an additional crossing of the Red River and a relief route for Shreveport/Bossier and Barksdale AFB.
Logged
2-d Interstates traveled:  4, 5, 8, 10, 15, 20, 24, 25, 27, 29, 35, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 49, 55, 57, 64, 65, 66, 69, 70, 71, 72, 74, 75, 76(E), 77, 78, 81, 83, 85, 87(N), 89, 90, 91, 93, 94, 95

2-d Interstates Clinched:  12, 22, 30, 37, 44, 59, 80, 84(E), 86(E), 238, H1, H2, H3, H201

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1505
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: Today at 08:19:50 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #2570 on: May 23, 2023, 12:17:46 AM »

La has more interest in I-49 over I-69 because the former benefits the state. I-49 is part of a longer route to connect Canada to the ports at NOLA. The latter is for international trade that don’t directly benefit the state.

The building of freeways in Louisiana has virtually NOTHING to do with international trade.

It is about hurricane evacuation routes. I-69 funnels traffic into Louisiana not out of South Louisiana.
« Last Edit: May 27, 2023, 10:40:23 AM by bwana39 »
Logged
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

sprjus4

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 8404
  • Location: Hampton Roads, VA
  • Last Login: Today at 09:16:26 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #2571 on: May 23, 2023, 12:32:53 AM »

La has more interest in I-49 over I-69 because the former benefits the state. I-49 is part of a longer route to connect Canada to the ports at NOLA. The latter is for international trade that donít directly benefit the state.

It has virtually NOTHING to do with international trade.
I-69 or I-49? I-69 is certainly an international trade corridor, especially for trucks coming up from Mexico along I-35, US-59, and US-281 heading north and northeast out of Texas.
Logged

bwana39

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1505
  • Location: Near Texarkana TX
  • Last Login: Today at 08:19:50 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #2572 on: May 24, 2023, 05:17:17 PM »

La has more interest in I-49 over I-69 because the former benefits the state. I-49 is part of a longer route to connect Canada to the ports at NOLA. The latter is for international trade that donít directly benefit the state.

It has virtually NOTHING to do with international trade.
I-69 or I-49? I-69 is certainly an international trade corridor, especially for trucks coming up from Mexico along I-35, US-59, and US-281 heading north and northeast out of Texas.

The port of South Louisiana (Houma area)  clearly will benefit from I-49 BUT the freeway building has virtually nothing to do with said trade. It is about hurricane evacuation routes.

I-69 is mostly about international trade. I-69 benefits Louisiana virtually zero in trade and absolutely zero in Hurricane evacuation.
Logged
Let's build what we need as economically as possible.

MaxConcrete

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 989
  • Location: Houston, TX
  • Last Login: Today at 08:09:12 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #2573 on: June 01, 2023, 05:57:22 PM »

Bids received this month for work on I-69.

The first is US 281, future I-69C, at Alice. This upgrades the existing Alice bypass to freeway standards. I looked at the plans and there is a 1.5-mile-long bridge structure on the north side, from CR 117 southward. Looking at Google maps, I don't see any reason for the bridge. South of SH 44, this project adds main lanes at ground level in the median.

County:   JIM WELLS   Let Date:   06/01/23
Type:   CONVERT NON-FREEWAY   Seq No:   3001
Time:   937 WORKING DAYS   Project ID:   C 254-7-8
Highway:   US 281   Contract #:   06233001
Length:   10.500   CCSJ:   0254-07-008
Limits:   
From:   BU 281 R N. OF ALICE   Check:   $100,000
To:   SH 44, ETC.   Misc Cost:   
Estimate   $120,677,775.58   % Over/Under   Company
Bidder 1   $138,438,662.84   +14.72%   ANDERSON COLUMBIA CO., INC.
Bidder 2   $141,093,402.64   +16.92%   HUNTER INDUSTRIES, LTD.
Bidder 3   $147,671,271.24   +22.37%   WEBBER, LLC
Bidder 4   $157,996,115.43   +30.92%   ZACHRY CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION
Bidder 5   $162,449,802.79   +34.61%   JAMES CONSTRUCTION GROUP, LLC


The second project is US 59 (future I-369) north of Carthage at FM 1794. I looked at the plans and it has high standards, with a 460-foot-wide right-of-way and a 100-foot-wide median for the main lanes. But this is just one overpass.

County:   PANOLA   Let Date:   06/01/23
Type:   CONSTRUCT GRADE SEPARATION   Seq No:   3003
Time:   504 WORKING DAYS   Project ID:   C 63-10-15
Highway:   US 59   Contract #:   06233003
Length:   1.458   CCSJ:   0063-10-015
Limits:   
From:   AT INTERSECTION OF FM 1794   Check:   $100,000
To:   .   Misc Cost:   
Estimate   $34,951,362.52       % Over/Under   Company
Bidder 1   $36,905,848.43       +5.59%           LONGVIEW BRIDGE AND ROAD, LTD.
Bidder 2   $40,957,722.26       +17.18%   EAST TEXAS BRIDGE, INC.

rte66man

  • *
  • Offline Offline

  • Posts: 1757
  • Location: Oklahoma City, OK
  • Last Login: June 05, 2023, 09:09:57 AM
Re: I-69 in TX
« Reply #2574 on: June 02, 2023, 09:59:21 AM »

Bids received this month for work on I-69.

The first is US 281, future I-69C, at Alice. This upgrades the existing Alice bypass to freeway standards. I looked at the plans and there is a 1.5-mile-long bridge structure on the north side, from CR 117 southward. Looking at Google maps, I don't see any reason for the bridge.

Looking at Street View, the road is elevated above the surrounding area, which is full of trees. This tells me there are water issues there as you only see that many trees in south TX where there is a regular source of ground water. The existing highway has a long bridge just south of 117 yet I see no evidence of a creek or stream.
Logged
When you come to a fork in the road... TAKE IT.

                                                               -Yogi Berra

 


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.