News:

The AARoads Wiki is live! Come check it out!

Main Menu

I-69 in TX

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

Previous topic - Next topic

MaxConcrete

TxDOT has scheduled a public meeting for a 4.87-mile section of I-69C in south Texas. This will be a new-location bypass of the town of Premont along current US 281. This kind of meeting often indicates that construction could be imminent, but the announcement does not reveal the schedule, which will be available at the meeting.

http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/corpus-christi/121114.html

From the announcement (bold added by me):

The purpose of the proposed project is to upgrade US 281 at Premont to meet current interstate design standards and improve the safety of the traveling public, in a manner that is sensitive to the environment and serves the access and mobility needs of the community. To minimize overall impacts to Premont including homes and businesses, a relief route east of Premont has been identified as the preferred solution to upgrade US 281 in the Premont area. The relief route would extend from just 0.5 mile north of FM 1538 to 1 mile north of CR 431. It would include two northbound and southbound interstate quality main lanes, an interchange at S.E. 7th Street, and is 4.87 miles long. The main lanes would accommodate a 70 mph design speed, are separated by a 48-foot grassy median and the right-of-way width is approximately 500 feet.

The proposed relief route addresses the project needs while minimizing environmental, cultural, and socio-economic resource impacts and does not require the relocation of homes or businesses. The proposed relief route would be designated as US 281 and would become part of I-69 system in Texas and would specifically be designated as Interstate 69 Central (I-69C).

The proposed project would require approximately 192.8 acres of additional right of way. Information concerning services and benefits available to affected property owners and information about the tentative schedules for right-of-way acquisition and construction may be obtained at the public hearing or from the district office.


www.DFWFreeways.com
www.HoustonFreeways.com


Grzrd

Quote from: Grzrd on November 17, 2014, 03:42:35 PM
The November 20, 2014 Texas Transportation Commission ("TTC") Agenda indicates that the TTC will approve a 1.6 mile addition to I-69E and a 4.5 mile addition to I-69C (pp. 3-4/13 of pdf; pp. 3-4 of document) ....
Here's a map of the two additions from the Agenda:

The Alliance for I-69 Texas reports that the TTC, as expected, approved the two segments on November 20:

Quote
Two new sections totaling 6.1 miles have been added to Interstate 69 in South Texas. The Texas Transportation Commission voted Nov. 20th to designate 1.6 miles of newly finished freeway near Robstown in Nueces County as I-69E/US 77. A 4.5 mile section of new freeway on the north side of Edinburg in Hidalgo County was designated at I-69C/US 281. This action means 192 miles of the I-69 System route in Texas have been added to the Interstate Highway System.

yakra

According to some notes I took after the results of the May 2014 AASHTO SCOH USRN meeting were published, the I-69C and I-69E extensions were to open Feb 2015 and Nov 2014 respectively. I'm unsure now what the source of my info was, as the USRN applications both say "Date facility available to traffic   Existing facility currently open to traffic".

Is this (still?) the case? Or have opening dates changed?
"Officer, I'm always careful to drive the speed limit no matter where I am and that's what I was doin'." Said "No, you weren't," she said, "Yes, I was." He said, "Madam, I just clocked you at 22 MPH," and she said "That's the speed limit," he said "No ma'am, that's the route numbah!"  - Gary Crocker

wxfree

Quote from: yakra on November 20, 2014, 09:08:23 PM
According to some notes I took after the results of the May 2014 AASHTO SCOH USRN meeting were published, the I-69C and I-69E extensions were to open Feb 2015 and Nov 2014 respectively. I'm unsure now what the source of my info was, as the USRN applications both say "Date facility available to traffic   Existing facility currently open to traffic".

Is this (still?) the case? Or have opening dates changed?

Today's extensions apply to sections of road that are both under construction and both open to traffic.  The existing roads are being upgraded to Interstate standards.  The designations will be effective upon FHWA approval.

http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2014/1120/11a.pdf
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2014/1120/11b.pdf
I'd like to buy a vowel, Alex.  What is E?

Grzrd

Quote from: Grzrd on September 19, 2014, 12:34:24 PM
Quote from: nolia_boi504 on August 23, 2014, 07:39:27 PM
How will the south to north increasing numbers get assigned with I-69 E/C/W taking up the southern portion? I assume each leg will be numbered S-N and then I-69 will start from 0 at some point after the separate legs merge.
I recently received an email clarification from TxDOT:
Quote
This is where mile zero will be for the various legs of the I-69 Texas system:
I-69W in Laredo: Just east of the World Trade Bridge
I-69C in McAllen: Intersection of I-2/US 83
I-69E in Brownsville: Intersection of University Blvd/US 77, just north of the Veterans International Bridge
I-69 in Victoria: Intersection of US 59 and US 77

While participating in another thread, I noticed that the FHWA, in their Interstate Route Log and Finder List, provides separate mileage totals for I-69, I-69 Central and I-69 East in Texas, which is consistent with having four separate I-69 Corridor "mile zero"s in Texas:


kkt


Grzrd

#781
Quote from: kkt on December 05, 2014, 03:39:57 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on December 05, 2014, 03:02:47 PM
four separate I-69 Corridor "mile zero"s in Texas:
:banghead:

Oops, I forgot about I-369. That's five.
Then, if SH 550 (I-69 SIU 32) receives a distinct interstate designation (I would prefer that it be an I-2 extension, but I am hearing strong, unconfirmed rumors that I-169 is the frontrunner), we would be up to six.
Also, SH 44 might be statutorily added to the I-69 Corridor in the relatively near future. Lucky 7.

If you accept that I-2 is part of the Texas I-69 "system", then the "system" could potentially have eight "mile zero"s.

The more the merrier, eh?   :bigass:

Bobby5280

I wouldn't be surprised if TX-44 was upgraded into a I-69 system route, but it would almost certainly be a 3-digit route, like I-469 or I-669. In the near term I would only expect the segment of TX-44 between I-69E in Robstown and TX 358 to be signed as a 3-digit I-x69 route. It could be conceivably given an odd 3-digit number if routed onto the TX 358 freeway down to its end at Padre Island.

It may be a long time before an Interstate class highway is built linking Robstown, Alice and Freer.

texaskdog

Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 10, 2014, 01:51:39 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if TX-44 was upgraded into a I-69 system route, but it would almost certainly be a 3-digit route, like I-469 or I-669. In the near term I would only expect the segment of TX-44 between I-69E in Robstown and TX 358 to be signed as a 3-digit I-x69 route. It could be conceivably given an odd 3-digit number if routed onto the TX 358 freeway down to its end at Padre Island.

It may be a long time before an Interstate class highway is built linking Robstown, Alice and Freer.

I-4469.  Not to be confused with I-4469S that will head to Padre Island

Grzrd

Quote from: Grzrd on December 06, 2014, 12:57:18 PM
SH 550 (I-69 SIU 32)
Quote from: Grzrd on September 18, 2014, 11:20:29 AM
This article reports that SH 550 is on track to be completed in early December:
Quote
After it's complete, probably in early December, the SH 550 toll way will connect I-69 to the Port of Brownsville.

This November 25 article reports that SH 550 is still on track to be completed in December (Google Translate English version of quotes from article):

Quote
The SH 550 corridor is already in its final stage, as stated by the director of marketing and communications Regional Mobility Authority Transport Cameron County, Michelle Lopez. Lopez said the work is in its final stage, where it is estimated that the road line is operating for the month of December under the scheduled times ....
Upon completion of the work, will be the fastest route traffic I69E the Port of Brownsville, since it estimates a running time of 10 minutes, depending on the days and hours of traffic, instead of the 30 minutes it currently performed.

Here is a photo accompanying the article that may whet the appetite for the opening:




Grzrd

Quote from: MaxConcrete on July 26, 2014, 05:11:15 PM
There is a public meeting on 29-July-2014 to collect public feedback on the two remaining alignment options in Nacogdoches, one following the existing west loop and one on a new alignment just west of the west loop. http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/committees/angelina_nacogdoches/072914-display-adver.pdf
New alignment option
http://www.txdot.gov/drivenbytexans_images/naco_new_location_full.jpg
Option using the existing alignment
http://www.txdot.gov/drivenbytexans_images/naco_upgrade_full.jpg
In August 2013 the local guidance committee recommended the US 59 upgrade option, which eliminated nearly all new alignments for the corridor.
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/committees/angelina_nacogdoches/081913_materials.pdf
My preference was for a new alignment bypassing the entire region on either the west of east side, but the locals want to upgrade US 59.
This shows the route in Nacogdoches from the 2013 recommendation. Based on the new map, the southmost of the two options south of Nacogdoches is eliminated.
http://www.oscarmail.net/photos/20140726_ih-69-lufkin/20140726_nacogdoches.jpg

This December 16 article reports that the Nacogdoches city council recently met to discuss the proposed route of I-69 in the Nacogdoches area, that, in order to pay the city's estimated $6 million portion of the project, consideration is being given to raising the $10/year road and bridges fee charged to residents up to $20/year, and that construction on the project could begin as early as 2017:

Quote
The proposed Interstate 69 project took center stage at the Nacogdoches City Council meeting Tuesday night.
The council discussed a proposal to agree with TXDOT on the proposed route of the project. The council said the proposed route will take the interstate from the intersection of Highway 59 and the south loop around the west loop and up to the intersection of 59 and Highway 259.
"I don't think people are going to be able to imagine the positive results because of I 69," said mayor Roger Van Horn.
The plans discussed at the meeting also included the construction of a connector ramp from 59 to the west loop.
The project's cost on Nacogdoches and the county will be large. it is estimated at $21 million, with $6 million of that being charged to the city. ....
City officials say the best way to form a new stream of income is to increase the road and bridges fee charged to residents. Right now, the fee is $10 per year. The proposal calls for an increase to $20 per year. The  change would result in an added $500,000 per year. City Manager Jim Jeffers
said the proposed rate would not go into effect until the project started and would only go until the $21 million was raised.
"It's going to have a term limit after the road is built but I don't want people to think it is going to be three years," Van Horn said.
The proposed rate change would not happen unless it passed a special election by the residents of Nacogdoches. Jeffers said the special election could not happen until the state legislature approves the plan for a special election.
"I'd say six months to a year [is what it will take]," Jeffers said. "I think it would be a full year before you actually see a vote, and that's if the legislature approves."
Jeffers told council members construction on the project could start as early as 2017 or 2018.

MaxConcrete

Quote from: Grzrd on December 18, 2014, 12:10:50 PM
The council said the proposed route will take the interstate from the intersection of Highway 59 and the south loop around the west loop and up to the intersection of 59 and Highway 259.

The quote means that 100% of Interstate 69 through Lufkin and Nacogdoches will follow the existing U.S. 59, and none of it will be on a new alignment. The only new alignment in the area is south of Lufkin for the Diboll bypass, which is by far the most urgently needed project.

I would have liked to see a straight, new-alignment bypass of the area, preferably to the east. But for whatever reason, Lufkin-Nacogdoches did not want any of Interstate 69 on a new alignment.

www.DFWFreeways.com
www.HoustonFreeways.com

NE2

I bet FHWA will throw a shitfit over the recently-built one-lane flyovers at the south end of the Lufkin bypass.
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".

Grzrd

Quote from: MaxConcrete on November 17, 2014, 08:19:23 PM
TxDOT has scheduled a public meeting for a 4.87-mile section of I-69C in south Texas. This will be a new-location bypass of the town of Premont along current US 281 ...
http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/corpus-christi/121114.html

TxDOT has posted the presentation from the public hearing.

NE2

Interesting that the overview map shows the national route of US 281, not I-69.
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".

Grzrd

#790
Quote from: Grzrd on July 25, 2013, 07:52:41 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on July 05, 2013, 08:41:39 PM
Quote
18. Corridor from Sarnia, Ontario, Canada, through Port Huron, Michigan ....
D.In the Lower Rio Grande Valley, the Corridor shall ....
iii. include the Corpus Christi North-side Highway and Rail Corridor from the existing intersection of United States Route 77 and Interstate Route 37 to United States Route 181
(above quote from AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications thread)
I just received a FHWA email ...
Quote
This is a proposed Interstate 69 connector for the existing "Joe Fulton International Trade Corridor"  that connects at US 181 on the east end and I-37 on the west end at Carbon Plant Road.  I-37 then proceeds northwest and connects to US 77 (proposed I-69 E).
This 2007 article reports on the opening of the Joe Fulton International Trade Corridor ... Here is a map of the Joe Fulton International Trade Corridor from the article:
Quote from: Grzrd on December 06, 2014, 12:57:18 PM
SH 550 (I-69 SIU 32)

I recently began to wonder why SH 550 is considered Segment of Independent Utility 32 for the I-69 Corridor, but the Joe Fulton International Trade Corridor is not considered an I-69 Corridor Segment of Independent Utility.  Here is an email  Q & A I recently had with FHWA that addresses this question; basically, environmental issues precluded a freeway or interstate upgrade of the Joe Fulton International Trade Corridor:

Quote
Q:  In HPC 18(d)(iii), what is essentially the Joe Fulton International Trade Corridor in Corpus Christi and SH 550 in Brownsville are designated as part of the I-69 Corridor:
"A.    In the Lower Rio Grande Valley, the Corridor shall ....
iii    include the Corpus Christi North-side Highway and Rail Corridor from the existing intersection of United States Route 77 and Interstate Route 37 to United States Route 181, including FM511 from United States Route 77 to the Port of Brownsville."
My understanding is that SH 550 (for the most part built along FM 511) is I-69 Segment of Independent Utility 32; however, I do not believe that the Joe Fulton International Trade Corridor has been designated as an I-69 Segment of Independent Utility. If this is indeed the case, then why is it not deemed a Segment of Independent Utility?

A:  Your recent email dated December 7, 2014 regarding I-69 in Texas has been referred to the Texas Division Office of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for a response.   
Please let me start with a brief explanation of the Federal-aid highway program.  Our working relationship with the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) is prescribed by Federal law (Title 23, United States Code-23 U.S.C. and 23 Code of Federal Regulations).  Under the Federal-aid highway program, the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) is responsible for project planning, design, construction and maintenance.  Our role is to work with the TxDOT to ensure those program actions comply with applicable Federal requirements and to provide technical advice and grant approvals at key stages of project development.
The question raised in your recent email related to a section of I-69 and Independent Utility.  The Texas Department of Transportation conducted feasibility studies on both facilities after the identification in the 1995 legislation. For the Corpus Christi Northside (Joe Fulton International Trade) Corridor, it was determined not be feasible as a freeway or interstate quality facility due to significant environmental issues. The recommendation was for a two-lane highway with a center turn lane. Since it was not feasible as an interstate quality facility, it was not identified as an I-69 Segment of Independent Utility.

I guess there's a trivia question in there somewhere ........

Grzrd

#791
Quote from: Grzrd on December 06, 2014, 12:57:18 PM
SH 550 (I-69 SIU 32) receives a distinct interstate designation (I would prefer that it be an I-2 extension, but I am hearing strong, unconfirmed rumors that I-169 is the frontrunner)
Quote from: Grzrd on December 11, 2014, 02:31:13 PM
This November 25 article reports that SH 550 is still on track to be completed in December

This article reports that SH 550's direct connection with I-69E should be completed in January, 2015; after that, work will begin on a new section to just east of the new overpass on Old Alice Road, the completion of which will be necessary for an I-169 designation:

Quote
Pete Sepulveda Jr., Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority executive director, said work on the final phase of the $44 million 550 connector project started in March 2013 and is expected to be complete this month in terms of establishing direct connectivity between the interstate and the port.
The most recent step was the installation, nearly complete, of a "center bent"  over I-69 East between Rancho Viejo and the Brownsville Sports Park.
It was part of the third and final phase of a $44 million project to connect I-69 with the Port of Brownsville via direct toll road along the old FM 511 route.
"The next step after that is to work with TxDOT (Texas Department of Transportation) to design the portion that connects 550 with I-69 East to just east of the new overpass on Old Alice Road,"  Sepulveda said. "That will be designated as Interstate-169. It'll be about three miles long."
In all, two more segments of the project have to be finished before the 550 connector can be designated as interstate along its entire length, he said. That construction will start the first quarter of this month.

The purpose of the connector project is largely to create a faster, safer route for 18-wheelers between the interstate and the port, though it's convenient for passenger vehicles as well, Sepulveda said.

Revive 755

^ So I-69 will have the most spurs of any interstate in Texas?  Seems odd that state route designations are good enough for most other freeway spurs of interstates in Texas, but not I-69.

Wonder how long it will be before an I-569 is announced somewhere in Texas?

codyg1985

It might be for political reasons so that as many places as possible can be on the "I-69 System(TM)" 
Cody Goodman
Huntsville, AL, United States

Bobby5280

QuoteWonder how long it will be before an I-569 is announced somewhere in Texas?

That developing freeway spur of TX-44 off of I-69E in Robstown going toward Corpus Christi looks like a very obvious I-569 candidate. Going one better, if TX-44 was turned into I-569 then TX-358 could conceivably get turned into I-769.

I wonder where I-969 could wind up in Texas.


NE2

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 03, 2015, 11:32:10 PM
I wonder where I-969 could wind up in Texas.
SH 288 to Freeport.
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".

andy3175

Quote from: Bobby5280 on January 03, 2015, 11:32:10 PM
QuoteWonder how long it will be before an I-569 is announced somewhere in Texas?

That developing freeway spur of TX-44 off of I-69E in Robstown going toward Corpus Christi looks like a very obvious I-569 candidate. Going one better, if TX-44 was turned into I-569 then TX-358 could conceivably get turned into I-769.

I wonder where I-969 could wind up in Texas.



I'd always thought that 69W should be 69, 69C should be an x69, and 69E be another x69 or a continuation of 37. Given the desire to have as many places as possible on the 69 system, it seems to me like they needed to use 69C-E-W since they might well use up all the x69 options in Texas.
Regards,
Andy

www.aaroads.com

Anthony_JK

Personally, I'd prefer I-69 to stick with US 59, the US 77 corridor south of Corpus Christi to be an I-37 extension, US 281 remain US 281 (yet upgraded), and the combination of SH 44 between Freer and Robstown, and US 77 east of CC to Victoria, to be an even I-x69. Plus, no need really to change any of the Houston freeways, IMO.

Henry

Quote from: Anthony_JK on January 04, 2015, 08:58:07 AM
Personally, I'd prefer I-69 to stick with US 59, the US 77 corridor south of Corpus Christi to be an I-37 extension, US 281 remain US 281 (yet upgraded), and the combination of SH 44 between Freer and Robstown, and US 77 east of CC to Victoria, to be an even I-x69. Plus, no need really to change any of the Houston freeways, IMO.
That's not a bad idea, but I'd do something like this:

I-69E: I-41 (or I-43)
I-69C: I-39 (or I-41)
I-69W: I-69
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

TXtoNJ

The more I look at the system - what exactly is the point of I-69W, specifically the route between Victoria and Freer? Is it just to save 20 minutes between Laredo and Houston?

The money would likely be much better spent triple-laning I-35 between Laredo and SA, and I-10 between I-410 and Katy.



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.