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

Bobby5280

Quote from: sparkerIIRC, TX 44 east to TX 358 and TX 358 north to I-37 were part of the Freer-Corpus addition authorized last year, which makes sense, as the main purpose of the TX 44 sub-corridor was to enhance the P.O.E. Laredo connection with the Port of Corpus Christi.  AFAIK, no designation for this segment has been discussed or proposed to date.

I've seen some past suggestions of calling the Laredo to Corpus Christi corridor I-6 if it's fully developed into an Interstate class road. But with I-69W taking up the Freer to Laredo segment (around 50 miles), that would reduce a fictional I-6 (Freer to Corpus) down to less than 80 miles. The end result may just end up being a I-x69 designation if it becomes an Interstate.


sparker

Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 07, 2017, 11:51:25 PM
Quote from: sparkerIIRC, TX 44 east to TX 358 and TX 358 north to I-37 were part of the Freer-Corpus addition authorized last year, which makes sense, as the main purpose of the TX 44 sub-corridor was to enhance the P.O.E. Laredo connection with the Port of Corpus Christi.  AFAIK, no designation for this segment has been discussed or proposed to date.

I've seen some past suggestions of calling the Laredo to Corpus Christi corridor I-6 if it's fully developed into an Interstate class road. But with I-69W taking up the Freer to Laredo segment (around 50 miles), that would reduce a fictional I-6 (Freer to Corpus) down to less than 80 miles. The end result may just end up being a I-x69 designation if it becomes an Interstate.

Seeing as how I-2 came about absent concrete (i.e. funded) plans to take it to Laredo, even a 80-mile corridor would likely be considered as a I-6 given the predilections of TXDOT and even the Committee for I-69/TX, which has effectively been promoting -- if not outright running -- the I-69 show since the beginning.  They're particularly steadfast on calling anything that was originally designated as part of the "69" family as either originally legislated in the 1995 NHS amendments to HPC's 18 & 20 (hence the suffixes as well as I-369) -- but don't seem to be similarly inclined when it comes to adjacent corridors not included within the original authorizing language; while an x69 for any of these would likely be given consideration, making the later-authorized connectors their own trunk Interstates independent of the "69" portfolio might be a more politically desirable option among local circles. 

GreenLanternCorps

Quote from: theroadwayone on November 07, 2017, 09:56:09 PM
I'm sorry if I sound dumb, but when I-69 is completed, in Texas, and overall, how long will it be?

800 miles or so for I-69 proper, well over 1000 if you Include I-69E, 69C, 69W, and 369.

75 miles of I-69 is signed from Cleveland, south through Houston to Rosenberg.

theroadwayone

Quote from: GreenLanternCorps on November 08, 2017, 08:46:45 AM
Quote from: theroadwayone on November 07, 2017, 09:56:09 PM
I'm sorry if I sound dumb, but when I-69 is completed, in Texas, and overall, how long will it be?

800 miles or so for I-69 proper, well over 1000 if you Include I-69E, 69C, 69W, and 369.

75 miles of I-69 is signed from Cleveland, south through Houston to Rosenberg.
That would make it the sixth longest north-south interstate, and 14th longest overall.

hotdogPi

Quote from: theroadwayone on November 08, 2017, 11:08:29 AM
Quote from: GreenLanternCorps on November 08, 2017, 08:46:45 AM
Quote from: theroadwayone on November 07, 2017, 09:56:09 PM
I'm sorry if I sound dumb, but when I-69 is completed, in Texas, and overall, how long will it be?

800 miles or so for I-69 proper, well over 1000 if you Include I-69E, 69C, 69W, and 369.

75 miles of I-69 is signed from Cleveland, south through Houston to Rosenberg.
That would make it the sixth longest north-south interstate, and 14th longest overall.

800 miles in Texas. It would be much longer overall.
Clinched, minus I-93 (I'm missing a few miles and my file is incorrect)

Traveled, plus US 13, 44, and 50, and several state routes

I will be in Burlington VT for the eclipse.

Bobby5280

I-69C (George West to Pharr) - 150 miles approx.
I-69W (Victoria to Laredo) - 190 miles approx.
I-69E (Victoria to Brownsville) - 220 miles approx.
I-69 (Victoria to Logansport/LA Border) - 330 miles approx.
I-369 (Tenaha to I-30 near Texarkana) - 120 miles approx.

All of that is over 1000 miles of highway just within Texas. Add a few more miles for I-169 near Brownsville.

theroadwayone

Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 08, 2017, 01:01:48 PM
I-69C (George West to Pharr) - 150 miles approx.
I-69W (Victoria to Laredo) - 190 miles approx.
I-69E (Victoria to Brownsville) - 220 miles approx.
I-69 (Victoria to Logansport/LA Border) - 330 miles approx.
I-369 (Tenaha to I-30 near Texarkana) - 120 miles approx.

All of that is over 1000 miles of highway just within Texas. Add a few more miles for I-169 near Brownsville.
Regardless, it would still be the longest interstate highway that has a number not divisible by 5.

thefro

#1282
It's ~1500 miles  from Port Huron, MI to Victoria, TX (using as much of the future I-69 route as I can), then add the spur routes at the end if you want.

GreenLanternCorps

Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 08, 2017, 01:01:48 PM
I-69C (George West to Pharr) - 150 miles approx.
I-69W (Victoria to Laredo) - 190 miles approx.
I-69E (Victoria to Brownsville) - 220 miles approx.
I-69 (Victoria to Logansport/LA Border) - 330 miles approx.
I-369 (Tenaha to I-30 near Texarkana) - 120 miles approx.

All of that is over 1000 miles of highway just within Texas. Add a few more miles for I-169 near Brownsville.

My number for I-69 proper was WAY off...

Grzrd

A good complement to the materials provided above is the March, 2016 I-69 Implementation Strategy Report (p.15/73 of pdf; p. 11 of document):



It provides a good snapshot of I-69's plans from March, 2016. Not included in it is the Houston relief route; nothing is official but it has the potential of adding substantial mileage one day:

Quote from: Grzrd on December 19, 2016, 01:31:10 PM
Judge Emmett spoke at the December 2 luncheon of the Alliance for I-69 Texas and he provided an outline of the "I-69 Bypass";
Quote
Emmett .... spoke in favor of development of an eastern bypass of Houston for truck traffic moving in and out of the Port of Houston, the Port of Freeport, the Port of Galveston and Texas City. He envisions a route that would leave the I-69/US 59 corridor at some point south of El Campo and swing east before curving up to run near Alvin, LaPorte and Baytown before heading north to tie back in to I-69/US 59 in the vicinity of Cleveland. He said advancing planning for the freight bypass is a top priority for him.
Although El Campo is not on this map, I suspect that, as aboges26 suggests, the following matches Judge Emmett's vision (and answers my question as to the southwestern interchange with I-69):
Quote from: Grzrd on August 10, 2012, 01:11:11 PM
I may have spoken too soon about the lack of a proposed relief route, at least in regard to 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):

I would really like to see where the Segment Two Committee envisioned the southwestern interchange of the mainline and the relief route.  Maybe next decade ...

Grzrd

Quote from: Grzrd on October 28, 2016, 01:26:26 PM
TxDOT has published a four-page October 2016 U.S. 59 Loop Upgrade newsletter which contains a Notice of a December 1 Public Meeting.  Here is a snip from a map in the newsletter:


This November 10 article reports that another small segment of Future I-69W is complete: the International Blvd. overpass:

Quote
Laredoans will see less traffic congestion on the north side of town all thanks to the new overpass on International.
TxDOT has announced that the newly constructed overpass on International Boulevard and Loop 20 is now open.
After a year and a half of construction, the 22 million dollar project will now enhance the mobility for motorists who use Loop 20 as part of their daily commute.
An official inaugural event celebrating the opening of the overpass will be set in the near future.

Grzrd

Quote from: Grzrd on December 10, 2017, 08:28:52 PM
When the Loop 20 project is completed (current estimate about eight years (p. 6/18 of pdf)), there may be some rumblings to make Loop 20 from Saunders Street to SH 359 an I-x69. The rumblings will be even louder if construction is started on the fifth international bridge, which Laredo officials showcased the site as recently as August
(above quote from Interstate 169 (Texas) thread)

This Dec. 19 article reports on rumblings at TxDOT to reenergize an interstate-grade Laredo Outer Loop:

Quote
The vision for an outer loop that runs through Webb County, concentric to Loop 20, was first discussed in the 1990s, before the current loop was even constructed.
Two studies have been conducted for the road since, most recently in 2005, but the outer loop project has remained sidelined while the Texas Department of Transportation, the city and the county spend resources upgrading Loop 20.
On Monday, however, TxDOT reinvigorated the project in its presentation to the Metropolitan Planning Organization, and suggested continuing its study of the proposed road path and developing a schematic. The MPO asked to have this topic on the agenda for all future monthly meetings ....
Back in the day, Montemayor said, Kansas City Southern Railway was also looking at an outer loop alignment for similar purposes, unbeknownst to TxDOT. When they found out, the two groups got together and discovered that their proposed paths were very similar.
They had conversations that this road could be a utilities corridor, Montemayor said. And today TxDOT thinks the outer loop could be designed as a future interstate to be proactive about future growth, she said ....
TxDOT engineer Roberto Rodriguez, who led the presentation on Monday, said the road would connect to Highway 255 in the north, and loop to a possible fifth bridge site south of Laredo. In 2006, the construction estimate for the outer loop was $441 million.



Theoretically, part of I-69W may be incorporated into this route. It will be interesting to watch plans develop.

I suppose it would likely be an I-x35 (and I-2 long-term).

sparker

Quote from: Grzrd on December 25, 2017, 08:58:42 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on December 10, 2017, 08:28:52 PM
When the Loop 20 project is completed (current estimate about eight years (p. 6/18 of pdf)), there may be some rumblings to make Loop 20 from Saunders Street to SH 359 an I-x69. The rumblings will be even louder if construction is started on the fifth international bridge, which Laredo officials showcased the site as recently as August
(above quote from Interstate 169 (Texas) thread)

This Dec. 19 article reports on rumblings at TxDOT to reenergize an interstate-grade Laredo Outer Loop:

Quote
The vision for an outer loop that runs through Webb County, concentric to Loop 20, was first discussed in the 1990s, before the current loop was even constructed.
Two studies have been conducted for the road since, most recently in 2005, but the outer loop project has remained sidelined while the Texas Department of Transportation, the city and the county spend resources upgrading Loop 20.
On Monday, however, TxDOT reinvigorated the project in its presentation to the Metropolitan Planning Organization, and suggested continuing its study of the proposed road path and developing a schematic. The MPO asked to have this topic on the agenda for all future monthly meetings ....
Back in the day, Montemayor said, Kansas City Southern Railway was also looking at an outer loop alignment for similar purposes, unbeknownst to TxDOT. When they found out, the two groups got together and discovered that their proposed paths were very similar.
They had conversations that this road could be a utilities corridor, Montemayor said. And today TxDOT thinks the outer loop could be designed as a future interstate to be proactive about future growth, she said ....
TxDOT engineer Roberto Rodriguez, who led the presentation on Monday, said the road would connect to Highway 255 in the north, and loop to a possible fifth bridge site south of Laredo. In 2006, the construction estimate for the outer loop was $441 million.



Theoretically, part of I-69W may be incorporated into this route. It will be interesting to watch plans develop.

I suppose it would likely be an I-x35 (and I-2 long-term).

Or since the Port-to-Plains/I-27 extension has seemingly been resurrected as of late, the north end of this bypass looks like it could "dovetail" into the southern end of that corridor.  Laredo looks like it's fast becoming the common point for various regional project concepts. 

Henry

Quote from: theroadwayone on November 09, 2017, 12:00:34 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 08, 2017, 01:01:48 PM
I-69C (George West to Pharr) - 150 miles approx.
I-69W (Victoria to Laredo) - 190 miles approx.
I-69E (Victoria to Brownsville) - 220 miles approx.
I-69 (Victoria to Logansport/LA Border) - 330 miles approx.
I-369 (Tenaha to I-30 near Texarkana) - 120 miles approx.

All of that is over 1000 miles of highway just within Texas. Add a few more miles for I-169 near Brownsville.
Regardless, it would still be the longest interstate highway that has a number not divisible by 5.
And IIRC, it would take that title away from I-94?
Go Cubs Go! Go Cubs Go! Hey Chicago, what do you say? The Cubs are gonna win today!

hotdogPi

Quote from: Henry on December 26, 2017, 09:20:29 AM
Quote from: theroadwayone on November 09, 2017, 12:00:34 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 08, 2017, 01:01:48 PM
I-69C (George West to Pharr) - 150 miles approx.
I-69W (Victoria to Laredo) - 190 miles approx.
I-69E (Victoria to Brownsville) - 220 miles approx.
I-69 (Victoria to Logansport/LA Border) - 330 miles approx.
I-369 (Tenaha to I-30 near Texarkana) - 120 miles approx.

All of that is over 1000 miles of highway just within Texas. Add a few more miles for I-169 near Brownsville.
Regardless, it would still be the longest interstate highway that has a number not divisible by 5.
And IIRC, it would take that title away from I-94?

Only the longest branch counts. To determine the total length of I-35, we don't count both I-35W and I-35E for the total, so we shouldn't be counting each branch of I-69 separately.
Clinched, minus I-93 (I'm missing a few miles and my file is incorrect)

Traveled, plus US 13, 44, and 50, and several state routes

I will be in Burlington VT for the eclipse.

sparker

Quote from: 1 on December 26, 2017, 09:27:36 AM
Quote from: Henry on December 26, 2017, 09:20:29 AM
Quote from: theroadwayone on November 09, 2017, 12:00:34 AM
Quote from: Bobby5280 on November 08, 2017, 01:01:48 PM
I-69C (George West to Pharr) - 150 miles approx.
I-69W (Victoria to Laredo) - 190 miles approx.
I-69E (Victoria to Brownsville) - 220 miles approx.
I-69 (Victoria to Logansport/LA Border) - 330 miles approx.
I-369 (Tenaha to I-30 near Texarkana) - 120 miles approx.

All of that is over 1000 miles of highway just within Texas. Add a few more miles for I-169 near Brownsville.
Regardless, it would still be the longest interstate highway that has a number not divisible by 5.
And IIRC, it would take that title away from I-94?

Only the longest branch counts. To determine the total length of I-35, we don't count both I-35W and I-35E for the total, so we shouldn't be counting each branch of I-69 separately.

In that case, both length and AADT would definitely favor I-69E if a national total for I-69 and its "associates" were sought.  Ironically, one of the 1968 Interstate additions that was dropped when the legislation was shrunk to 1500 rather than the originally sought 4500 miles was a functional combination of I-69E, I-69 as far north as Shreveport, and I-49 from there north to I-30 at Texarkana -- i.e., one of the more useful segments of the entire I-69 concept.

Grzrd

Quote from: Grzrd on February 25, 2017, 04:23:43 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on January 25, 2017, 08:59:00 PM
TxDOT will hold a February 9 Open House about the route through Robstown, including the interchange with I-69E:
TxDOT has posted the materials from the Open House.  Here is a snip of a map of the alternatives from the Fact Sheet

TxDOT will hold a January 18 Open House regarding an interstate upgrade to SH 44 just east of the SH 44/I-69E interchange project area:



Quote
Purpose:
The purpose of the open house is to discuss the proposed upgrades to SH 44 from west of FM 3386 to east of FM 1694 in Nueces County. The purpose of the open house is to give the public the opportunity to review available project information and exhibits, discuss the project with project staff, and ask questions. The meeting will be held in a come-and-go format, so the public may attend at their convenience. Staff will be available to answer questions.
Description:
The proposed improvements include:
Upgrading the existing four-lane divided highway to a four-lane divided freeway with frontage roads
Constructing on and off ramps
Constructing overpasses at FM 24 (Violet Road) and CR 61

sparker

I'd guess that the full "red/B" option was thrown in there as a cost-saving alternative, since the interchanges with I-69E/US 77 would likely require less area and cost than the full stack favored by TXDot for a full crossing (unless they cheap out with a volleyball!).  But looking at the map and GSV, my bet would be on the green C/red B (east) combo alignment, the green C/blue D route, or the northern A/orange corridor.  The portion of the southern alignments closest to the airports are far enough from I-69E that any flyovers won't pose an issue; the freeway itself could be kept at or close to ground level. 

Question:  has a number for the TX 44 portion of the I-69 "family" been discussed in any TX quarters as of yet?  Given the proclivities within the state, the "usual suspect" TX promoters (primarily the Alliance for I-69/Texas and it's Congressional lapdogs -- although Rep. Farenthold, who seems to have been caught with his pants down, so to speak, might be keeping an extremely low profile as of late!) might be itching to post "future corridor" signs along the route, and it seems things are well past the generic "69" signs at this point, now that all the suffixes have some field signage.


paulthemapguy

I don't know if this has been discussed yet, but what are they going to do about the fact that in east Texas, I-69 is going to intersect with US69?  What are they going to do about the number duplicity?
Avatar is the last interesting highway I clinched.
My website! http://www.paulacrossamerica.com Now featuring all of Ohio!
My USA Shield Gallery https://flic.kr/s/aHsmHwJRZk
TM Clinches https://bit.ly/2UwRs4O

National collection status: 361/425. Only 64 route markers remain

kphoger

↑  probably make another I-69
Keep right except to pass.  Yes.  You.
Visit scenic Orleans County, NY!
Male pronouns, please.

Quote from: Philip K. DickIf you can control the meaning of words, you can control the people who must use them.

lordsutch

Quote from: paulthemapguy on January 18, 2018, 04:21:34 PM
I don't know if this has been discussed yet, but what are they going to do about the fact that in east Texas, I-69 is going to intersect with US69?  What are they going to do about the number duplicity?

Texas has so many route numbers duplicated between their various numbering systems that I doubt they will do anything about it.

cjk374

Runnin' roads and polishin' rails.

wdcrft63

Quote from: paulthemapguy on January 18, 2018, 04:21:34 PM
I don't know if this has been discussed yet, but what are they going to do about the fact that in east Texas, I-69 is going to intersect with US69?  What are they going to do about the number duplicity?

All I-69 and US 69 do is intersect. In NC, we have I-74 and US 74 actually running concurrent, thanks to a Congressional fiat. It drives some of us Forum folks crazy, but nobody in southern NC seems at all concerned about it.

sparker

Quote from: wdcrft63 on January 18, 2018, 07:10:07 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on January 18, 2018, 04:21:34 PM
I don't know if this has been discussed yet, but what are they going to do about the fact that in east Texas, I-69 is going to intersect with US69?  What are they going to do about the number duplicity?

All I-69 and US 69 do is intersect. In NC, we have I-74 and US 74 actually running concurrent, thanks to a Congressional fiat. It drives some of us Forum folks crazy, but nobody in southern NC seems at all concerned about it.

Any state that contains I-20, a SH 20 (El Paso area) and Loop 20 (Laredo) is clearly indicating that they aren't at all concerned with numerical duplication. 

wxfree

Quote from: sparker on January 18, 2018, 07:32:49 PM
Quote from: wdcrft63 on January 18, 2018, 07:10:07 PM
Quote from: paulthemapguy on January 18, 2018, 04:21:34 PM
I don't know if this has been discussed yet, but what are they going to do about the fact that in east Texas, I-69 is going to intersect with US69?  What are they going to do about the number duplicity?

All I-69 and US 69 do is intersect. In NC, we have I-74 and US 74 actually running concurrent, thanks to a Congressional fiat. It drives some of us Forum folks crazy, but nobody in southern NC seems at all concerned about it.

Any state that contains I-20, a SH 20 (El Paso area) and Loop 20 (Laredo) is clearly indicating that they aren't at all concerned with numerical duplication.

Not to mention Farm to Market Road 20 and Park Road 20.

As an interesting, or uninteresting, side note there are 20 highway designations numbered 20 in Texas, counting all of the Interstate business routes.
I'd like to buy a vowel, Alex.  What is E?



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.