I-69 in TX

[lordsutch]

Kentucky, I'm unsure about.

The bridge at Henderson is the big hold-up. No definitive timeline on when it happens, but it's a lesser priority than the new bridges at Louisville and Cincinnati.

Tennessee, I-269 has a planned completion date of 2017, and plus, I-69 already has 21 miles done. So, I'm thinking sometime around 2017 or 2018.

Way off. There's not even a final environmental document yet for the Millington to Dyersburg section. TDOT may get some more of the Union City/Troy bypass section done by 2018 but even that is pushing it. Realistically I see Union City/Troy (SIU 7) being done circa 2025, with south of Dyersburg to Memphis being 2035 or so.

Mississippi's portion is far from completion, but it mostly overlaps routes - US 61 has to be upgraded to be a part of I-69 between Southaven and Rosedale. I-69 finds US 278, overlaps it, and uses the Dean Bridge into Arkansas. The Dean Bridge and US 61 have to be upgraded so maybe 2018 or 2019.

There is no Dean Bridge yet. I'd say mid-2030s at best between Shreveport and Tunica County.

Arkansas is broke and is mostly focusing on I-49, so sometime around 2023 or 2024. Arkansas' portion of I-69 consists of 185 miles, and the Monticello Bypass is the only part of I-69 under construction, hence why the date.

Louisiana's portion means breaking away from US 79 and US 84 northeast of Carthage, heading towards Shreveport. However, I-69 dodges Sherveport and goes around it to the east. As of 2006 (news article dated February 2006 is the source - forgot the name), Louisiana is planning to build it, but is focusing more on I-49. So, 2022 or 2023.

AFAIK, TXDOT says 285 miles out of 650 miles of I-69 are done. With the construction around Houston and Laredo, I-69 could be done sometime around 2016 or 2017.

All of this is wildly optimistic. There might be a continuous freeway from Brownsville to Lufkin in the mid-2020s. Between Lufkin and Shreveport I think the mid-2030s is more realistic.

Now, if pork barrel spending comes back into vogue, the feds and states finally fix their revenue streams for highways, or we decide to throw a bunch of money into yet more stimulus grants, the timeline might improve. But other than that, it seems unlikely.

[thefro]

Here's what I can remember for the non-Texas stuff:
Indiana: All new terrain I-69 will be open later this year between Evansville/Bloomington.  1st half of SR 37 upgrade to I-69 scheduled to open in 2016.  Final section is in tier 2 studies to lock in route (which should be done in 2017-2018).  Would guess 2-3 years to build after that.  Evansville is pushing for the I-69 bridge to Kentucky and the new route they suggested may be viable with tolls paying for it.  I believe there's a toll study happening.  I'd guess they get the bridge done by 2025, although that could move quickly if most of the cost can be covered by tolling.
Kentucky:  Western Kentucky Parkway is already signed I-69, Pennyrile is going to be signed I-69 later this year and I've read an article that the Purchase will be as well.  That's the whole route except for the bridge/new terrain approach in Henderson.  Kentucky Legislature will need to pass a bill allowing the Evansville/Henderson bridge to be a P3 project but that may happen next year.
Tennessee: They have plans to finish upgrading US 51 from KY State Line to Dyersburg to I-69 over the next several years, but lack of a long-term Federal Highway funding bill is slowing that.  Section from Dyersburg to Memphis is on the back burner (SIU 8).  I-269 should be done fairly soon.
Mississippi: They have the environmental studies done, but just need federal money.
Arkansas:  Not anytime soon, only Monticello Bypass is being worked on (2 lanes).
Louisiana: Believe the Red River bridge, etc should hopefully happen in the medium term.

[US 41]

Is the I-69W really needed? I found a hill on US 59 on GSV, and there is not one car anywhere to be seen on US 59 / Future I-69W.

https://goo.gl/maps/xWdPU

[Chris]

These are the traffic volumes on the current road to Laredo. They are pretty low.

[MikeTheActuary]

Isn't 69W one of those "build it and they will come" arrangements, perhaps with some hand-waving to argue that it's needed to help shift future long-haul traffic growth away from 35, once the many tentacles of 69 connect up to decent routes elsewhere?

I think  you could probably find examples elsewhere in the Interstate system of portions of highways that don't seem to make sense in light of traffic counts on pre-existing roads, but that turned out to (arguably) be logical components of the overall system.

[erik_ram2005]

Hello there guys this is just an update on how I69 is nicely coming together in the lower Rio Grande Valley

It seems that the only thing missing on I-69C and I-2 are exit numbering. Mile markers are up, roadside shields are up, and the BGS are up all through I-69E as well.

BGS near I-2/I69-C interchange


Mile 1 Marker on I-69C just north of I-2 interchange. (Sorry it's a little fuzzy/blurry.)


rainy day day on I-69E in Harlingen

[rte66man]

Hello there guys this is just an update on how I69 is nicely coming together in the lower Rio Grande Valley

It seems that the only thing missing on I-69C and I-2 are exit numbering. Mile markers are up, roadside shields are up, and the BGS are up all through I-69E as well.

BGS near I-2/I69-C interchange

I've never seen a BGS cantilevered like that.  Can't see why they chose to do it w/o a 3rd post.

[txstateends]

Hello there guys this is just an update on how I69 is nicely coming together in the lower Rio Grande Valley

It seems that the only thing missing on I-69C and I-2 are exit numbering. Mile markers are up, roadside shields are up, and the BGS are up all through I-69E as well.

BGS near I-2/I-69C interchange

I've never seen a BGS cantilevered like that.  Can't see why they chose to do it w/o a 3rd post.

I think I see a spot on the ground about where a third post would go.  Either way, I've never seen TxDOT deliberately have signs put up where there aren't adequate numbers of posts, nor adequate spacing of those posts, for each sign.

[lordsutch]

I think I see a spot on the ground about where a third post would go.  Either way, I've never seen TxDOT deliberately have signs put up where there aren't adequate numbers of posts, nor adequate spacing of those posts, for each sign.

An errant motorist on the frontage road may have taken out the post without taking down the sign (or before the sign went up).

[Grzrd]

Don't forget Houston. I-69 will turn it from a cow town into an oil town.

(above quote from Texarkana; (Future I-49, I-69 Spur) thread)

The 11.9 mile section of US 59 inside of Loop 610 in Houston has been added to the Interstate Highway System as Interstate 69. All of the route through Harris County is now part of I-69 and a continuous section of 75 miles of I-69 is now in place through Montgomery County, Harris County and extending to a point at the south edge of Rosenberg in Fort bend County. The Texas Transportation Commission voted March 26 to complete the designation process for the section through central Houston.
Source:
http://www.i69texasalliance.com/

This Thursday, August 20th, will be the sign unveiling for Interstate 69 inside the 610s.

(above quote from Houston Interstate 69 signing ceremony (inside the I-610s) thread)

This August 20 article reports that the I-69 unveiling ceremony did take place on August 20:

A segment of US 59 in the Houston area was officially designated a part of the I-69 system during a sign unveiling held today. The move brings the entire corridor inside the Houston area under the interstate designation ....
"A total of 63 miles of US 59 in the greater Houston area is now Interstate 69 and today we are marking the milestone of approximately 12 more miles inside Loop 610 being added to the system,"  said Texas Transportation Commissioner Jeff Austin. "We thank our transportation partners, including the Alliance for I-69 Texas, for their efforts to get us to this point."  ....
The Texas portion of I-69 represents nearly half of the overall length of the national Interstate as it extends from northeast and east Texas through Houston to the Texas-Mexico border. The inclusion of the I-69 segment inside IH 610 brings the total of I-69 system miles in Texas to nearly 200.

Here is a snip of a photo accompanying the article showing one of the I-69 shields being put in place:



It only took about five months to start putting the shields up. Nevertheless, I guess Houston can now shed the cow town label. 

[Grzrd]

An August 23 Houston Chronicle editorial advocates that the Grand Parkway should be finished in a manner that meshes well with the purposes of I-69:

To quote an aphorism, measure twice, cut once. And by cut, we mean construct a massive highway along the outer edges of greater Houston.
As U.S. 59 becomes part of Interstate 69 .... a grass-roots committee appointed by the Texas Transportation Commission has mentioned a bypass on the city's east side.
This bypass would divert I-69 traffic away from Houston's city center while also improving necessary transportation access to our booming port areas.
But it seems like we've already got something along those lines underway with the Grand Parkway. While there's still a lot of construction remaining on the planned 180-mile third loop around Houston, some parkway segments have been completed, including one in Baytown.
Because plans are not yet set in pavement, we still have some flexibility to construct the Grand Parkway in a manner that can best serve some of the needs of I-69, particularly the influx of long-haul trucking and port commerce that is a near-inevitable part of Houston's future.
And even if we cannot build the parkway as close to the ports as would be optimal, additional investment in service roads could help this third loop both bypass and provide port access.

As regards relief options in Houston, in both the I-69 Segment Two Committee Report and Recommendations (pages 37-38/157; pages 31-32 of document) and the I-69 Segment Three Committee Report and Recommendations (page 36/157; page 30 of document), the Segment Two and Segment Three Committees ... did not tip their hand as far as recommending a specific relief route

... the Segment Two Committee.  Below is a map included in their report in which they incorporate part of the Grand Parkway as a "Committee Suggested I-69 Route" (page 21/157 of pdf; page 15 of document):

This article reports that a Harris County judge believes that the bypass needs to go south and east in order to best serve the port:

Harris County Judge Ed Emmett addressed the importance of Interstate 69.
"It's pretty much agreed now that we need to have a bypass around the Houston area," he said. "It needs to go south and east instead of west, so it can support the port."

This August 19 article includes photographs of the I-45/ Grand Parkway interchange construction and reports that Segments F1, F2, and G should be open to traffic in the fourth quarter of 2015, possibly as soon as October:

... the three segments are on track to be completed by the fourth quarter of 2015 ....
The Grand Parkway was a significant driver in luring Exxon Mobil to relocate their headquarters from Fairfax, Va., and move 20,000 employees and their families to a new headquarters off Interstate 45 and the Grand Parkway.
The new headquarters opened in March ....

(bottom quote from Houston: Builder selected for Grand Parkway F-G thread)

Although Judge Emmett stated that the I-x69 bypass needs to go south and east instead of west, the western I-69-to-I-69 part of the Grand Parkway should be open to traffic by the end of this year. I wonder if ExxonMobil, having recently moved its corporate headquarters and associated 20,000 employees to the Houston metro, has "suggested" to TxDOT and political leaders that it might be nice to have red-white-and-blue I-x69 shields on the western I-69-to-I-69 part of the Grand Parkway. Doing so would involve minimal cost and would still allow the same I-x69 designation on the south and east I-69-to-I-69 part of the Grand Parkway to serve the ports if and when it is completed (as well as allow an I-x69 spur designation for the route from the Grand Parkway to Cleveland suggested by the above map).

[Anthony_JK]

(bottom quote from Houston: Builder selected for Grand Parkway F-G thread)

Although Judge Emmett stated that the I-x69 bypass needs to go south and east instead of west, the western I-69-to-I-69 part of the Grand Parkway should be open to traffic by the end of this year. I wonder if ExxonMobil, having recently moved its corporate headquarters and associated 20,000 employees to the Houston metro, has "suggested" to TxDOT and political leaders that it might be nice to have red-white-and-blue I-x69 shields on the western I-69-to-I-69 part of the Grand Parkway. Doing so would involve minimal cost and would still allow the same I-x69 designation on the south and east I-69-to-I-69 part of the Grand Parkway to serve the ports if and when it is completed (as well as allow an I-x69 spur designation for the route from the Grand Parkway to Cleveland suggested by the above map).

Hmmmmm....an I-469/TX 99 concurrence?? With TX99 moved to the feeders and I-469 as the mainline?

If that could happen, could you also make the Sam Houston Tollway I-445/BW8?

[Grzrd]

Does anyone know whether they are planning to keep at-grade intersections for ranch access on I-69E in rural south Texas, as was done on I-10 in west Texas?  I could not find any earlier discussion on this, so I apologize if I missed it.

It may not be too late for them to keep the at-grades in Kenedy County. This article reports on a recent trip to Washington by Texas representatives urging federal officials to continue and accelerate the ongoing development of Interstate 69.  Included in their wish list is "greater flexibility in interstate designations in rural area":

Priorities for Texas include providing greater flexibility in interstate designations in rural area and the designation of State Highway 44 from Freer to Corpus Christi as a future I-69 system connector.

This Alliance for I-69 Texas article, primarily about the recent I-69 unveiling in Houston, provides a little more detail about "greater flexibility" by quoting Congressman Blake Farenthold as saying that the Texas delegation is currently working on "dealing with access to I-69 from seldom used ranch gates in South Texas":

Congressman Blake Farenthold, a member of the U.S. House Transportation Committee ....
pointed to three measures related to I-69 that he and others have been working to see are addressed at the federal level.  These include adding State Highway 44 west of Corpus Christi to the I-69 corridor, dealing with access to I-69 from seldom used ranch gates in South Texas and dealing with maintaining certain existing weight limits.

Hopefully our congress and house members will pass a long term federal highway bill this fall or it will be a slow go on I 49 for both states.

Remember: the opposite of PROgress is CONgress.

(above quote from I-49 in Arkansas thread)

Farenthold also presents some bad news for those hoping that we will see a long-term reauthorization in the near future:

Congressman Farenthold provided an update on the pending federal transportation authorization bill and funding for the Highway Trust Fund.  He noted that members of the House Transportation Committee are generally in agreement on what should be in the bill but that the problem is finding the $120 to $180 billion needed to pay for the shortfall in the amount generated from motor fuels taxes.  He expects a couple of more short term extensions of highway funding before a proposed six-year bill is passed.
He noted that Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan has said the Congress will find the funding for highways as part of a major tax reform effort.  "That means it is going to be a longer wait than a lot of us want," said Farenthold who represents a district stretching from Corpus Christi to Bay City and west to Bastrop.

Looks like cjk374 has sized it up pretty well.

[Henry]

(bottom quote from Houston: Builder selected for Grand Parkway F-G thread)

Although Judge Emmett stated that the I-x69 bypass needs to go south and east instead of west, the western I-69-to-I-69 part of the Grand Parkway should be open to traffic by the end of this year. I wonder if ExxonMobil, having recently moved its corporate headquarters and associated 20,000 employees to the Houston metro, has "suggested" to TxDOT and political leaders that it might be nice to have red-white-and-blue I-x69 shields on the western I-69-to-I-69 part of the Grand Parkway. Doing so would involve minimal cost and would still allow the same I-x69 designation on the south and east I-69-to-I-69 part of the Grand Parkway to serve the ports if and when it is completed (as well as allow an I-x69 spur designation for the route from the Grand Parkway to Cleveland suggested by the above map).

Hmmmmm....an I-469/TX 99 concurrence?? With TX99 moved to the feeders and I-469 as the mainline?

If that could happen, could you also make the Sam Houston Tollway I-445/BW8?

Anything goes...but I could see an I-869 there!

[ethanhopkin14]

What about Interstate 669?

[ethanhopkin14]

I think that all the focus should be on upgrading the rural part of US 59 and US 77 from Rosenberg to Corpus Christi.  All of the highway is a four lane divided highway, and almost all the small towns along the route (El Campo, Edna, Victoria, ect.) have freeway bypass routes on them.  I think that the rural divided highway can be easily upgraded so that Interstate 69 from Houston to Corpus Christi will mean more than just one of Houston's urban freeways.  That in combination with the work going on from Interstate 37 to the valley will help move the project along.

[Grzrd]

TxDOT will hold a Sept. 3 Open House about plans for Phase II in the Nacogdoches area

This TV video reports about the Open House that was primarily about the currently unfunded Phase II:

Nacogdoches residents and businesses gathered at the County Expo Center to catch up with big changes going on in their community.  The US 59/State Loop 224 South Interchange, part of the Interstate 69 project is well underway ....
"We are wanting to bring to the public the changes that we have made since the original schematic that we had approved since 2011," said Jennifer Adams, the I-69 Project Manager ....
Once Phase I is complete, the US 59 and Loop 224 intersection will have sidewalks, raised medians, and a widened roadway. ....
Phase II of the project, which would involve construction of new US 59 lanes, overpasses at Spradley Street, and frontage roads on State Loop 224, would ease the bumper to bumper according to TxDOT.   
"Phase II, which is what we are actually here to talk about, will be the direct connector. That should alleviate some of the congestion at business 59," Adams said.
Phase two has not yet been funded, but it is still in the works ....
"We are working on getting the reevaluation approved and the new updates to the schematic approved," Adams said.
Until then, completion of phase one is approaching.
The Phase I section of the "Future  I-69" Project should be done by Spring 2017.

Here is a 3D Animation of the project that was shown at the Open House.

[yakra]

Has anyone here been down to Laredo and seen shields for the US59 relocation and US59 business route?

Also, can anyone confirm signage for:
I-69C extension to FM490?
I-69E (Robstown) extension to FM892?

[Guysdrive780]

TxDOT has shared this video looking like the bypass for Nacogdoches. This is only a segment of that route but its from the south side of the city. Looking at it you might ask the question. "Why did TXDOT bring it to the right and then back to the left?" Well the map can answer the question. If they did go to the right then they would hit some more homes. People would be forced out of there house. To the Right, according to the video and comparing it to the map, the road would hit a home selling business then the swing back to the left would hit some hotels.

[Anthony_JK]

TxDOT has shared this video looking like the bypass for Nacogdoches. This is only a segment of that route but its from the south side of the city. Looking at it you might ask the question. "Why did TXDOT bring it to the right and then back to the left?" Well the map can answer the question. If they did go to the right then they would hit some more homes. People would be forced out of there house. To the Right, according to the video and comparing it to the map, the road would hit a home selling business then the swing back to the left would hit some hotels.

That's quite innovative how they curve the through lanes like that....much better than mere direct connectors at the 59/224 interchange, and cleaner, too.

[oscar]

Also, can anyone confirm signage for:
I-69C extension to FM490?
I-69E (Robstown) extension to FM892?

I haven't been there lately, but when I was, signage on both routes was really sparse, to the point that I had no visual confirmation that I was on southbound I-69C until near the I-2 interchange. So even if there is no signage on the extensions, that doesn't mean the extensions aren't official. Besides, assuming you're doing this for CHM and/or Travel Mapping, even an entirely unsigned Interstate route still counts.

I suggest just going with Texas Transportation Commission orders (if any), following up on AASHTO and FHWA approvals to officially add mileage to I-69C and I-69E.

[yakra]

Fair enough. Both extensions are listed in the designation files. I'll extend the routes in my next TX pull request.

[Grzrd]

The Alliance for I-69 Texas website ....
Local politicos are also pushing for engineering and right-of-way funding for the Driscoll and Riviera relief routes:

The environmental assessment for the overall US 77 Upgrade calls for new relief routes at Driscoll and Riviera. The Driscoll route would connect on the north with the $35 million project planned to go to bid in 2013 and on the south with the 10-mile design-build project.
Cameron County Commissioner David Garza urged the transportation commissioners to allocate an additional $15 million for engineering and right of way for the two relief routes in order to get them ready for future construction.  He pledged that Cameron County and the Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority will assist TxDOT with planning and design necessary to move these two projects forward.

The Alliance for I-69 Texas has posted an update on current I-69E projects .... The update also includes a discussion about the future Driscoll relief route project that will be the last upgrade between I-37 and south of Kingsville:

DRISCOLL RELIEF ROUTE - A relief route around the town of Driscoll will be built in the future.  It will close a gap in highway upgrades of about six miles and will create a connected freeway from Interstate 37 at Corpus Christi south through Kingsville. The relief route will run through open farm fields and cross Petronila Creek on the east side of Driscoll.

This article provides updates on the Driscoll and Riviera bypasses, reporting that ROW acquisition should begin for the Driscoll bypass in December and that it is still uncertain when ROW acquisition will begin for the Riviera bypass:

December will mark four years since the first I-69 signs went up on U.S. 77.
That was on a 6.2-mile stretch of the highway between the I-37 terminus at Corpus Christi and State Highway 44 at Robstown.
It was an initial step toward the larger goal of converting U.S. 77 to interstate all the way from Brownsville to I-37. The journey isn't over by a long shot, and no one is sure how long it will take, though officials insist that the $600 million to $800 million project is moving forward ....
The segments of U.S. 77 that still aren't interstate grade are at Driscoll in Nueces County and Riviera in Kleberg County, where low speed limits and traffic lights are an issue. The conversion project includes bypasses at both communities that will allow motorists – eventually – to whiz by at interstate speed.
The project itself is at a crawl, though it is moving. Right-of-way acquisition for the Driscoll bypass is scheduled to begin in December, though it's unknown when right-of-way acquisition for the Riviera bypass will get under way, according to Cameron County Precinct 3 Commissioner David Garza.
"They're getting ready to start that process,"  he said. "(Cameron County) is trying to help coordinate that effort to move it forward."
Garza, a member of the Alliance for I-69 Texas, said he and Cameron County Judge Pete Sepulveda Jr. would head to Kleberg County soon to discuss the Riviera bypass with officials there. The good news is that the interstate conversion project has received environmental clearance all the way from northern Willacy County to Corpus Christi, he said.

[The Ghostbuster]

I reckon Texas will complete its segments of Interstate 69 before most of the other states 69 will run through will have their segments completed.

[NE2]

I reckon Texas will complete its segments of Interstate 69 before most of the other states 69 will run through will have their segments completed.

As it should be. Large portions in Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi are useless.