News:

Thanks to everyone for the feedback on what errors you encountered from the forum database changes made in Fall 2023. Let us know if you discover anymore.

Main Menu

I-69 in TX

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

Previous topic - Next topic

sparker

Quote from: Revive 755 on October 17, 2019, 10:14:05 PM
Quote from: sparker on October 17, 2019, 10:07:18 PM
Would be a hoot (and just a fair bit snarky) if TxDOT requested a I-45 designation up to either the state line or the US 69 merge just short of there; that would almost surely obviate the I-345 teardown effort, as well as put the ball directly in OK's court re any extensions there (at least up to US 70/Durant).

If I-45 made it north of Dallas, the teardown proponents would just have I-45 rerouted onto I-635 or over TX 366, I-35E, and I-30.

I've actually hears that there have been recent plans proposed that would "sink" this stretch of freeway using a cut-and-cover approach (due to a couple of RR crossings that the current bridge surmounts).  Maybe this will placate the more rational members of the RE/T crowd: the ones who primarily view the structure as urban blight -- but the generalist "anti-car" cadre will still piss & moan.  Can't please 'em all!


debragga

Quote from: Revive 755 on October 17, 2019, 10:14:05 PM
Quote from: sparker on October 17, 2019, 10:07:18 PM
Would be a hoot (and just a fair bit snarky) if TxDOT requested a I-45 designation up to either the state line or the US 69 merge just short of there; that would almost surely obviate the I-345 teardown effort, as well as put the ball directly in OK's court re any extensions there (at least up to US 70/Durant).

If I-45 made it north of Dallas, the teardown proponents would just have I-45 rerouted onto I-635 or over TX 366, I-35E, and I-30.

The second option isn't even possible right now going northbound: https://www.google.com/maps/dir/32.7722302,-96.7780709/32.7747035,-96.7922203/32.8017573,-96.7929922/@32.7851225,-96.8047162,14.16z/data=!4m10!4m9!1m0!1m5!3m4!1m2!1d-96.8060881!2d32.7698137!3s0x864e990e2d69908b:0x93c8baf93e3d631e!1m0!3e0

But it is possible southbound: https://www.google.com/maps/dir/32.8087309,-96.793012/32.7715106,-96.7782931/@32.7885107,-96.8135235,14z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m19!4m18!1m15!3m4!1m2!1d-96.7964791!2d32.7937113!3s0x864e9928a80a6491:0xe1f1dda09b4d75a1!3m4!1m2!1d-96.8022813!2d32.7890178!3s0x864e9924c2b368db:0x71f60d7a1eaed1f0!3m4!1m2!1d-96.7992671!2d32.7719069!3s0x864e991b25051697:0xf9635357053f29c0!1m0!3e0

sprjus4

Quote from: debragga on October 19, 2019, 12:42:26 PM
Quote from: Revive 755 on October 17, 2019, 10:14:05 PM
Quote from: sparker on October 17, 2019, 10:07:18 PM
Would be a hoot (and just a fair bit snarky) if TxDOT requested a I-45 designation up to either the state line or the US 69 merge just short of there; that would almost surely obviate the I-345 teardown effort, as well as put the ball directly in OK's court re any extensions there (at least up to US 70/Durant).

If I-45 made it north of Dallas, the teardown proponents would just have I-45 rerouted onto I-635 or over TX 366, I-35E, and I-30.

The second option isn't even possible right now going northbound: https://www.google.com/maps/dir/32.7722302,-96.7780709/32.7747035,-96.7922203/32.8017573,-96.7929922/@32.7851225,-96.8047162,14.16z/data=!4m10!4m9!1m0!1m5!3m4!1m2!1d-96.8060881!2d32.7698137!3s0x864e990e2d69908b:0x93c8baf93e3d631e!1m0!3e0

But it is possible southbound: https://www.google.com/maps/dir/32.8087309,-96.793012/32.7715106,-96.7782931/@32.7885107,-96.8135235,14z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m19!4m18!1m15!3m4!1m2!1d-96.7964791!2d32.7937113!3s0x864e9928a80a6491:0xe1f1dda09b4d75a1!3m4!1m2!1d-96.8022813!2d32.7890178!3s0x864e9924c2b368db:0x71f60d7a1eaed1f0!3m4!1m2!1d-96.7992671!2d32.7719069!3s0x864e991b25051697:0xf9635357053f29c0!1m0!3e0
That just seems like a mistake. I-345 needs to stay - it's a major corridor for north-south traffic and destroying it would just create a catastrophe on I-30, I-35E, and TX-366.

Bobby5280

Yeah, if the New Urbanists succeed in removing I-345 completely, taking out that major freeway connection would overwhelm the recently completed I-30/I-35E "Horseshoe" widening project (the "mixmaster" interchange around the South and West sides of downtown). Both I-30 and I-35E generate a heck of a lot of traffic all on their own and that newly upgraded interchange was only designed to handle that. The interchange can't take on all the traffic coming up from I-45 and coming down from North Central Expressway. It would be one hell of a bottle neck situation.

But then the New Urbanists probably have their own plans about that: y'know, remove all the freeways inside of the I-635 loop. I would not put it past them to float that kind of insanity out to the general public.

aboges26

Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 19, 2019, 09:13:04 PM
Yeah, if the New Urbanists succeed in removing I-345 completely, taking out that major freeway connection would overwhelm the recently completed I-30/I-35E "Horseshoe" widening project (the "mixmaster" interchange around the South and West sides of downtown). Both I-30 and I-35E generate a heck of a lot of traffic all on their own and that newly upgraded interchange was only designed to handle that. The interchange can't take on all the traffic coming up from I-45 and coming down from North Central Expressway. It would be one hell of a bottle neck situation.

But then the New Urbanists probably have their own plans about that: y'know, remove all the freeways inside of the I-635 loop. I would not put it past them to float that kind of insanity out to the general public.

The New Urbanists should put their money where their mouth is and have the DOT shut down I-345 for a week or even a month, turn the freeway into a bike and pedestrian highway, and see what it does to car traffic.  That way they can see what it would be like if they had their way and it would not have to result in permanent traffic hell for the rest of us that would take millions of dollars to undo after seeing that maybe I-345 was a necessary facility to disperse and move traffic.  Maybe traffic would readjust and we would all be proven wrong, but this way the proposal could be tested and officials make an educated decision afterwards, rather than ripping the freeway out based on feelings instead of reality.

In_Correct

Quote from: Revive 755 on October 17, 2019, 10:14:05 PM
Quote from: sparker on October 17, 2019, 10:07:18 PM
Would be a hoot (and just a fair bit snarky) if TxDOT requested a I-45 designation up to either the state line or the US 69 merge just short of there; that would almost surely obviate the I-345 teardown effort, as well as put the ball directly in OK's court re any extensions there (at least up to US 70/Durant).

If I-45 made it north of Dallas, the teardown proponents would just have I-45 rerouted onto I-635 or over TX 366, I-35E, and I-30.

Yes they would. Crooked, Lengthy Interstates are the new Industry Standard.
Drive Safely. :sombrero: Ride Safely. And Build More Roads, Rails, And Bridges. :coffee: ... Boulevards Wear Faster Than Interstates.

sparker

Quote from: aboges26 on October 20, 2019, 11:00:32 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on October 19, 2019, 09:13:04 PM
Yeah, if the New Urbanists succeed in removing I-345 completely, taking out that major freeway connection would overwhelm the recently completed I-30/I-35E "Horseshoe" widening project (the "mixmaster" interchange around the South and West sides of downtown). Both I-30 and I-35E generate a heck of a lot of traffic all on their own and that newly upgraded interchange was only designed to handle that. The interchange can't take on all the traffic coming up from I-45 and coming down from North Central Expressway. It would be one hell of a bottle neck situation.

But then the New Urbanists probably have their own plans about that: y'know, remove all the freeways inside of the I-635 loop. I would not put it past them to float that kind of insanity out to the general public.

The New Urbanists should put their money where their mouth is and have the DOT shut down I-345 for a week or even a month, turn the freeway into a bike and pedestrian highway, and see what it does to car traffic.  That way they can see what it would be like if they had their way and it would not have to result in permanent traffic hell for the rest of us that would take millions of dollars to undo after seeing that maybe I-345 was a necessary facility to disperse and move traffic.  Maybe traffic would readjust and we would all be proven wrong, but this way the proposal could be tested and officials make an educated decision afterwards, rather than ripping the freeway out based on feelings instead of reality.

You do realize that the NU's would actually like to see such traffic congestion; they seem to be under the impression that making driving particularly onerous in urban areas will cause auto owner/drivers to "see the light" and either (a) start using transit to get around in town or (b) move out of the suburbs into dense city centers.   In reality, they may get 5-10% compliance with their wishes from that small portion of commuters who have the freedom to actually make those choices.   But if the overall urban regions keep expanding in population at the current rates, the numbers of those making the modal switch will be rapidly swamped by new arrivals with their vehicles.  What the NU crowd seems not to comprehend is that owning a private vehicle is about more than simply getting to and from work; it's inexorably tied to "trip-chaining" -- taking care of personal and commercial activities during the commute process; not necessarily a "hub-and-spoke" affair (work>home, home>grocery store & back, etc.).  And the concept of online ordering of merchandise with subsequent delivery as an alternative to personal shopping is only applicable to those purchases that are relatively fungible in nature or repeat items; there's still plenty of us who give a shit about what we purchase who would rather examine potential items personally prior to committing to buy.   But then the NU's probably are predicating their positions upon a future sea change in consumption habits that largely limit purchases to absolutely necessary items (i.e., an existentialist approach to purchasing).   But despite their wish list, much of the present commercial arena is tied it with availability of a vehicle to both shop for and transport the purchased items.   Of course it remains to be seen if that model will persist as it has since at least the end of WWII, arguably the beginning of the modern consumer era, when auto ownership became widespread.   But for the foreseeable future, folks will continue to consume items for necessity and pleasure -- and more often than not use their vehicles to expedite that phenomenon.         

In_Correct

Despite it happening all the time in Cartoons, you can not simply order Pets and have them delivered.
Drive Safely. :sombrero: Ride Safely. And Build More Roads, Rails, And Bridges. :coffee: ... Boulevards Wear Faster Than Interstates.

sparker

Quote from: In_Correct on October 20, 2019, 10:04:25 PM
Despite it happening all the time in Cartoons, you can not simply order Pets and have them delivered.

............unless they're of the Penthouse variety; but in that case the tariff is likely to be exorbitant!  :awesomeface:

Bobby5280

Quote from: sparkerYou do realize that the NU's would actually like to see such traffic congestion; they seem to be under the impression that making driving particularly onerous in urban areas will cause auto owner/drivers to "see the light" and either (a) start using transit to get around in town or (b) move out of the suburbs into dense city centers. In reality, they may get 5-10% compliance with their wishes from that small portion of commuters who have the freedom to actually make those choices.

It appears New Urbanists are completely out of touch with FINANCIAL reality. They utterly fail to realize suburban sprawl is driven by economics more than any other factor. People move farther and farther out from city centers in search of housing that is more affordable and situated in safer neighborhoods. Good housing in city centers is extremely expensive, and the costs are just obscene for living spaces big enough for a family.

A middle class worker has a variety of bad living arrangement choices if he wants to reside in the dense urban center of a major city. He might be able to find affordable housing in an urban ghetto, if the ghetto hasn't been gentrified by real estate speculators already. If the process of gentrification hasn't taken hold he can put up with the risk of crime. The middle class worker can try co-habitation with multiple roommates to share living costs. That arrangement can work out great for young adults, but it's a lousy environment in which to start a family.

Today we're not only seeing cities like New York and Los Angeles driving middle and lower class workers farther and farther out into the exhurbs. We're seeing major cities and high cost of living states drive a lot of residents and businesses to states with lower living costs. The homeless population has exploded in NYC, LA and other major cities. The biggest of those cities have significant numbers of working homeless; they have jobs, but not enough savings to escape to the exhurbs or a totally different region of the country.

This whole New Urbanism movement is pretty much a Utopian douchebag lie. And it will remain an absurdly out of touch pipe dream as long as the cost of living in dense urban centers remains sky high. Suburban and exhurban sprawl as well as Interstate migration will keep on happening until the cost of living in the middle of the city becomes financially attractive. Until then the New Urbanists can keep on dreaming.

The Ghostbuster

While I completely agree with previous posters about New Urbanism, let's get back to discussing Interstate 69 in Texas. Complaints about New Urbanism can go on a different thread in a different location in the AAROADS forum.

O Tamandua

"Here's why finishing I-69 is essential to Texas"

FYI, in the Corpus Christi Caller-Times 3 days ago from Barbara Canales, a local judge who is also an Alliance for I-69 board member:

QuoteThe champions of I-69 have much to cheer about in 2020. This year the Texas Transportation Commission authorized funding for more than 60 projects on the I-69 System over the next decade with a cost of almost $6 billion. While this level of investment indicates the importance of I-69 to the state, there remain many miles to be funded.  As such, the Alliance urges our federal and state officials to pursue ways to speed up the completion of I-69.  Texas needs I-69. We do not want to bear the cost of not completing I-69.

https://www.caller.com/story/opinion/2019/12/12/finishing-interstate-69-essential-texas-nafta-trade-mexico-canada/4408644002/

vdeane

They should have added 9 more projects and could have had a grand press release.  Just imagine the celebratory slogans they could have come up with - "69 projects for 69!".
Please note: All comments here represent my own personal opinion and do not reflect the official position of NYSDOT or its affiliates.

ARMOURERERIC


sprjus4

I-2 is apart of the I-69 system?

Bobby5280

Quote from: ARMOURERICTexans love 69!

I thought most red-blooded American adults love 69.

Quote from: sprjus4I-2 is apart of the I-69 system?

Strangely enough, yes. It's old news. If I-2 is completely built out from Harlingen to Laredo both ends would terminate at a variant of I-69. I-2 would be the only Interstate to meet all three suffixed versions of I-69. That is unless we have an "I-6" built between Corpus Christi and Freer.

ilpt4u

Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 16, 2019, 11:51:11 PM
That is unless we have an "I-6" built between Corpus Christi and Freer.
I-6?

Nah. Western I-4 sounds better

sparker

Quote from: ilpt4u on December 17, 2019, 12:10:17 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 16, 2019, 11:51:11 PM
That is unless we have an "I-6" built between Corpus Christi and Freer.
I-6?

Nah. Western I-4 sounds better

Nyet!!!!!!  Make it I-6; numbers shouldn't be duplicated unless absolutely necessary (do ya hear me, southern I-87?)  Never understood the logic (or lack thereof) some folks have about hoarding unused numbers.  :confused:   

Bobby5280

That zone is South Central Texas is basically the only area in the US where a "I-6" route could logically exist.

edwaleni

Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 17, 2019, 12:39:01 PM
That zone is South Central Texas is basically the only area in the US where a "I-6" route could logically exist.

Then what would FDOT called the long planned route from Jacksonville to Gainesville?

sparker

Quote from: edwaleni on December 17, 2019, 04:59:55 PM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 17, 2019, 12:39:01 PM
That zone is South Central Texas is basically the only area in the US where a "I-6" route could logically exist.

Then what would FDOT called the long planned route from Jacksonville to Gainesville?

In all likelihood a toll road -- which historically in FL haven't been considered for Interstate status.

Bobby5280

Even if a Gainesville to Jacksonville super highway had an interstate designation, as short as the route may be it would be just as good to have a 3-digit designation with I-10 or I-75 as the parent route.

An "I-6" route between Corpus Christi and Freer would be a little over 70 miles from Freer to the TX-44/TX-358 interchange in Corpus Christi. Another 30 miles could be added by routing "I-6" along the TX-358 freeway SE down to North Padre Island. Or "I-6" could be routed over the new bridge they're building over the new Nueces Bay ship channel then routed along the TX-35 corridor toward the Houston metro. Having two freeways (I-69 and I-6) running almost parallel to each other might seem like overkill. But there are several port towns that would benefit greatly from having real freeway access. Plus there's precedent in other highly populated areas of the country. I-95, I-295 and the New Jersey Turnpike all run parallel to each other close to the Delaware river.

A long time ago (before any of the I-69 business in Texas) I imagined an "I-6" route might run West-East from Laredo to Corpus Christi.

sparker

Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 17, 2019, 10:19:18 PM
Even if a Gainesville to Jacksonville super highway had an interstate designation, as short as the route may be it would be just as good to have a 3-digit designation with I-10 or I-75 as the parent route.

An "I-6" route between Corpus Christi and Freer would be a little over 70 miles from Freer to the TX-44/TX-358 interchange in Corpus Christi. Another 30 miles could be added by routing "I-6" along the TX-358 freeway SE down to North Padre Island. Or "I-6" could be routed over the new bridge they're building over the new Nueces Bay ship channel then routed along the TX-35 corridor toward the Houston metro. Having two freeways (I-69 and I-6) running almost parallel to each other might seem like overkill. But there are several port towns that would benefit greatly from having real freeway access. Plus there's precedent in other highly populated areas of the country. I-95, I-295 and the New Jersey Turnpike all run parallel to each other close to the Delaware river.

A long time ago (before any of the I-69 business in Texas) I imagined an "I-6" route might run West-East from Laredo to Corpus Christi.

In an alternate universe where dumbass politicos and their syncophant handlers didn't decide such things, I-69W would logically be I-6!  But since we're not living there, Freer-Corpus is at least a moderately acceptable substitute.  Nevertheless, at this point there hasn't been any great rush to actually come up with a designation for this relatively new corridor addition; I'm guessing that with bigger regional fish to fry, it'll be years before that subject is addressed; we all will likely have more than sufficient time to speculate.

sprjus4

Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 17, 2019, 10:19:18 PM
Even if a Gainesville to Jacksonville super highway had an interstate designation, as short as the route may be it would be just as good to have a 3-digit designation with I-10 or I-75 as the parent route.

An "I-6" route between Corpus Christi and Freer would be a little over 70 miles from Freer to the TX-44/TX-358 interchange in Corpus Christi. Another 30 miles could be added by routing "I-6" along the TX-358 freeway SE down to North Padre Island. Or "I-6" could be routed over the new bridge they're building over the new Nueces Bay ship channel then routed along the TX-35 corridor toward the Houston metro. Having two freeways (I-69 and I-6) running almost parallel to each other might seem like overkill. But there are several port towns that would benefit greatly from having real freeway access. Plus there's precedent in other highly populated areas of the country. I-95, I-295 and the New Jersey Turnpike all run parallel to each other close to the Delaware river.
There's very little warrant or demand for a freeway along the TX-35 corridor. I've driven that route before, and very little traffic. The most I could see, and even this is a stretch, is 4-laning parts of it, and passing lanes for the rest.

The US-77 / US-59 corridor is adequate, and I-69E / I-69 will be plenty.

Bobby5280

Quote from: sparkerIn an alternate universe where dumbass politicos and their syncophant handlers didn't decide such things, I-69W would logically be I-6!  But since we're not living there, Freer-Corpus is at least a moderately acceptable substitute.  Nevertheless, at this point there hasn't been any great rush to actually come up with a designation for this relatively new corridor addition; I'm guessing that with bigger regional fish to fry, it'll be years before that subject is addressed; we all will likely have more than sufficient time to speculate.

In all likelihood TX-44 (particularly the freeway between Robstown and TX-358 in Corpus Christi) will probably remain signed as TX-44, given the federal government's AWOL involvement in highway development these days. If for some reason it ever received an Interstate designation it would more likely be a 3-digit I-x69 number.

Quote from: sprjus4There's very little warrant or demand for a freeway along the TX-35 corridor. I've driven that route before, and very little traffic. The most I could see, and even this is a stretch, is 4-laning parts of it, and passing lanes for the rest.

The reason why there is little traffic on TX-35 currently is due to the fact it is a jagged, indirect route in mostly 2-lane configuration. It's easier for traffic moving from Corpus Chrisi and Houston to take US-77 up to Victoria and US-59 the rest of the way. That's regardless of the fact TX-35 is an arguably more direct way out of town in Houston's direction.

Nevertheless TX DOT built segments of TX-35 in Aranasas Pass/Rockport and Port Lavaca/Point Comfort where they can be upgraded to freeways. Connecting those segments with other freeway upgrades would be challenging however. The Lyndon B Johnson Causeway by Rockport would need some upgrading. A fair amount of the route would need to be built on new terrain, cutting off some of the strange angles of the current route.

Point Comfort and Old Ocean both have large oil refineries, which generate a good amount of truck traffic. I think the Lake Jackson/Freeport area and Galveston needs a better, direct connection (right now there isn't one). Then there's the matter of improving hurricane evacuation routes. Not all such routes need to run North-South away from the Gulf. Efficient East-West routes would allow some traffic to filter to other routes rather than trying to cram all into one highway, such as I-45.



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.