Interstate 69 Extension: Your Thoughts

[DrZoidberg]

The Sam Houston could be a viable alternative....but they have to complete the northeast segment between US 90 and US 59 and add some direct connectors to the US 59, Hardy Toll Road, and proposed US 90 freeway interchanges.

Unless they went west from the US 59/ BW 8 interchange, and took the western alignment of the Sam Houston Tollway, jutting off at the SW US 59 interchange near Sugar Land.

[Marc]

Is TX-99 being built to Interstate standards?  I hear it's planned to be the 3rd loop around Houston, but wasn't sure if it's Interstate standard or not.  I think if they do want to bypass Houston, the Sam Houston Tollway would be a more viable option.  Just my opinion.

From everything I've heard from TxDOT, the Grand Parkway will be ultimately Interstate-grade limited access. The original construction was at-grade only as a stopgap internim measure.

Grand Parkway is interstate-grade from Westpark Tollway all the way north to I-10. Originally, it was only interstate-grade only from Westpark Tollway northward to Highland Knolls (without frontage roads), but they extended the freeway (with frontage roads) from Highland Knolls northward to I-10 three or four years ago. However, the rest of the Grand to the south is not to freeway standards.

[Darkchylde]

...Since there are some old I-20 signs left, the only two-digit interstate with no state-named shields known is I-10.  Here's hoping they fix that soon!

Taken from US 90 in Gulfport on the 30th of January. State-named shield (sort of) for I-10.

[Darkchylde]

Yeah, it was added as part of the roadwork going on there. There's new signage all the way up and down the thing.

Anyway. As for I-69, I'm torn on it. On the one hand, it'd make a nice connection from the Southwest to the Northeast. On the other hand... it's a grid-buster, that's for sure. 

[mightyace]

Yeah, it was added as part of the roadwork going on there. There's new signage all the way up and down the thing.

Anyway. As for I-69, I'm torn on it. On the one hand, it'd make a nice connection from the Southwest to the Northeast. On the other hand... it's a grid-buster, that's for sure. 

True, but the beloved US-66 was a grid buster, too.

[bugo]

I guess it will be nice when finished, but I wish they'd finish I-49 and the I-30 extension (US 67) first.  As somebody noted, the I-40-440-30-Future I-49/AR 549/US 71 routing will be fine between Shreveport and Memphis once 49 is finished into Louisiana.

I also wonder if the US 82 El Dorado bypass will ever be extended to I-69.

[un1]

I think I-37 should be extended down to Brownsville and not I-69...

[DrZoidberg]

I think I-37 should be extended down to Brownsville and not I-69...

That's not a bad idea.  You could route I-37 down along US 77 to Brownsville, and make the remaining stretch of I-37 to Corpus Christi something like I-137.

[un1]

Exactly what I was thinking.

[Anthony_JK]

Yeah......re-routing I-37 along US 77 south to Brownsville would be an excellent idea...and would take care of one of the "I-69 spurs".

Which brings me to the way that I would handle the I-69 extension a bit differently from the proposed route.

Basically, I'd split the extension into three portions:

1) The Memphis to Indianapolis section would remain as planned, including the Memphis Outer Loop.

2) The middle section, though, would not connect directly with US 59 in Texas, but would use the US 165 and US 425 corridors in Louisiana and Arkansas, mostly bisecting Louisiana  from I-10 east of Lake Charles through Alexandria and Monroe and Bastrop to Monticello, where it would turn eastward and use the proposed I-69 corridor through Eutaw Landing and Clarksburg and Tunica. The southern part would be part of my proposed "I-51" freeway from Lake Charles to Little Rock, the section from Monticello eastward to I-55 could be renamed as "I-53".

3) The western section would include a full freeway along the US 59 corridor all the way from Laredo to Texarkana, but with a shorter connector along US 84 or US 79 to access Sherveport.  Also, the above mentioned extension of I-37 from Corpus Christi to Brownsville would be included.

Just my proposal, nothing more or less.


Anthony

[Revive 755]

I'm beginning to question the need for the Memphis-Shreveport section of I-69.  Evansville, IN could use better access to Bloomington and Indianapolis.  Upgrading US 41 between I-64 and I-70 wouldn't provide access to Bloomington, and would further increase the amount of traffic on I-70, which already could use to be widened to six lanes.  The Evansville-Henderson, KY section would improve access from I-64 to Kentucky's parkways.  With the rest of I-69 in Kentucky following existing parkways and I-24, I don't have a problem with changing the signs and slowly upgrading the parkways to interstate standards.  I-64 in Missouri was allowed to be signed before the existing freeway was upgraded, so I don't see why the same can't happen in Kentucky.  Filling the gap between the end of Purchase Parkway and I-40 in Memphis would provide a better Indianapolis-Memphis route without having to use heavily traveled I-65 and I-40 (excluding the small part around Memphis).

I'd drop the Shreveport-Memphis and instead  build up to Texarkana, with this section numbered as I-53, I-51, I-47 - or if I had more control, I-45 with existing I-45 becoming a southern I-39.  This new interstate would replace I-30 between Texarkana and Little Rock, and eventually extend up US 67 to I-55 at Festus.

I don't think building a new highway just so trucks from Mexico can reach Canada is really worth it.  Put the trailers on flat cars and ship them by rail to Canada.

[tdindy88]

I would second the need for a highway in general in Southwest Indiana. The other importance for the route besides Evansville and Bloomington is the Crane Naval Depot which employs a lot of people down there. As for Bloomington, I'm pretty sure most of the city actually hates the idea of 69 coming thru and have tried numerous times to get the highway not build there, though it is still many years away. The section between Bloomington and Crane about 30 miles away is the part that most enviromental folks aren't too happy about and it seems that they will fight it to the bitter end. In the meantime, construction has started just north of I-64 in Gibson County so at least something is finally being done. Finally, I commute everyday from northern Indianapolis into the city, so driving on a highway numbered 69 is quite commonplace.

[un1]

Extending I-35 to Canada would work to as a replacement... ...
(I might just say that because I live not far north of the terminus if it were to be extended, although more traffic isn't needed but I guess that means we need a freeway up here)

[Revive 755]

Extending I-35 to Canada would work to as a replacement... ...
(I might just say that because I live not far north of the terminus if it were to be extended, although more traffic isn't needed but I guess that means we need a freeway up here)

I think the environmentalist would really flip if there was consideration of extended I-35 to the Canadian border.  I doubt it could get extended further through Duluth either without another Big Dig type project; probably need to build a bypass.

But I like that section of I-35 with the tunnels along the lakeshore.

[un1]

That is true, the area is really beautiful. But that is why I added 6 periods to the end of the sentence to show it is probably never going to happen.

[Terry Shea]

Extending I-35 to Canada would work to as a replacement... ...
(I might just say that because I live not far north of the terminus if it were to be extended, although more traffic isn't needed but I guess that means we need a freeway up here)

Except that I think the idea is to make a direct freeway connection to the populated regions of Canada like Toronto and Montreal, not Thunder Bay and Red Rock.

[Voyager]

Almost all traffic on 35 near it's terminus goes to Duluth as far as I know.

[un1]

Red Rock, that made me laugh.  

[Terry Shea]

Red Rock, that made me laugh. 

I thought you might appreciate that. 

[leifvanderwall]

I think I-69 is a viable route in Texas as a Hurricane escape route, but I think the extended highway from Texas to Kentucky should be called Interstate 51; have Interstate 69 end in Kentucky at one of the parkways. I think 51 is a better fit and US 51 should be decomissioned anyways because I-55 and I-39 have pretty much took the route over.

[Marc]

Possibly, but I would never evacuate to the northeast as hurricanes tend to always turn northeast right before landfall. During Rita, many people evacuated to Lufkin, and Lufkin got hit more rain than Houston did.

[leifvanderwall]

I have officially decided NAFTA 69 absolutely does not work and it is a waste of taxpayer money. In Michigan , I-69 should take over the US 127 corridor to Grayling, Mi. and I-896 should be the route from Lansing to Port Huron. My interstates 51, 61, & 63 would cover I-69's route from Laredo to Indianapolis. I also have I-27 extended to Brownsville. For details on my routes go to my postings on Roads You would like to See on Fictional Highways and Renumerbering the Interstate grid on General Highway Talk

[Revive 755]

Looking at a couple truck flow maps, it looks like an I-69 extension would be well utilized and take some pressure off of I-30 and parts of I-40 and I-70.

Truck flow map for Brownsville, Texas border crossing:
http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/presentations/longdesc_na_21.htm

Truck flow map for Laredo border crossing:
http://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/presentations/longdesc_na_22.htm

I'd still like to see comparison to an improved Laredo-Detroit rail corridor though.

[bicyclehazard]

I have an email from INDOT that admits that they illegally closed a portion of highway 57 when I 69 was built. Technically that portion of the interstate does not exist. It is an interstate corridor. It seems the Amish sued the federal government and won. The judge ruled that preventing horses and wagons from using public roads is a violation of the religious freedom clause of the United States Constitution. They also won on appeal. INDOT can not build an interstate within the right of way of highway 37. I just cycled the route. They can build an interstate corridor. I don't expect the construction to be finished within 20 years. I have informed the office of inspector general of the federal highway department That I will be bringing constitutional charges against them if they don't start reading the law. That is the road law put into place by George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.

[Brandon]

I have an email from INDOT that admits that they illegally closed a portion of highway 57 when I 69 was built. Technically that portion of the interstate does not exist. It is an interstate corridor. It seems the Amish sued the federal government and won. The judge ruled that preventing horses and wagons from using public roads is a violation of the religious freedom clause of the United States Constitution. They also won on appeal. INDOT can not build an interstate within the right of way of highway 37. I just cycled the route. They can build an interstate corridor. I don't expect the construction to be finished within 20 years. I have informed the office of inspector general of the federal highway department That I will be bringing constitutional charges against them if they don't start reading the law. That is the road law put into place by George Washington and Thomas Jefferson.

Citations?  Links?