I-69 in TX

[Thegeet]

Something feels off about the I-69 signs in Rosenberg, and the new NB sign. The ones in Rosenberg have thinner numbers, but the new NB one feels weird, albeit less.

[CoolAngrybirdsrio4]

https://goo.gl/maps/J7NvtW8WE5stYdqf7

Aah, thanks. I was just checking regular imagery, not Street View.

New I-69 signage south of Rosenburg
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.5298312,-95.8649107,3a,16.2y,284.12h,88.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKSGiPZBNsyiz3sMwU08pVg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&authuser=0

And as soon as you drive ahead a few yards to the ramp gore, it's plain US59. LOL what a tease.
Meanwhile heading the other direction, there's a new I-69 sign that wasn't there in May. In one sense, not as big a deal in that it's already north of the previously accepted end @ Spur 529, but at least it's something? But this sign's new, darnit!
With no access to the mainlanes between here & Spur 529, one could argue that with I-69 already in progress, it begins at least at the last access point to the mainlanes behind the camera car. ...Whever one deems that to be.

Also, Exit 94 is signed & numbered in both directions. South of here, where work is more clearly ongoing, no exit numbers.
Does this mean something? "This is Exit 94 from the thing that has an Exit 94"? You be the judge.

*deep breath*
I think I'll extend I-69 a tiny bit in TravelMapping...

Only on the southbound frontage road there's I-69 & US 59 shields with a directional arrow. However, I-69 might've ended at the entrance ramp as well, which explains why there's US 59 shields (construction sign) further down the road. I also noticed there's exit 94 signs on both sides as well.

https://www.google.com/maps/@29.5198846,-95.88074,3a,16.7y,64.84h,92.62t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sFvsj1KedgN92MGd5S3BguA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DFvsj1KedgN92MGd5S3BguA%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D53.983467%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&authuser=0

One of the exit signs are covered

Another exit sign without exit number

https://www.google.com/maps/@29.5176992,-95.8846278,3a,15y,272.33h,102.99t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sgSAL2qXzo9juSOm3iPTYYw!2e0!5s20211201T000000!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&authuser=0

[CoolAngrybirdsrio4]

Newer I-69E shields in Robstown, Texas

https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7752819,-97.6686443,3a,15y,148.98h,77.05t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sAU-pr8qYdY4sdWR0Cts_TQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DAU-pr8qYdY4sdWR0Cts_TQ%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D132.38371%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&authuser=0
https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7855692,-97.6548781,3a,15y,73.95h,83.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMD3MPsKA8dkrnJGXFkp_jw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&authuser=0

[-- US 175 --]

Newer I-69E shields in Robstown, Texas

https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7752819,-97.6686443,3a,15y,148.98h,77.05t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sAU-pr8qYdY4sdWR0Cts_TQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DAU-pr8qYdY4sdWR0Cts_TQ%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D132.38371%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&authuser=0
https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7855692,-97.6548781,3a,15y,73.95h,83.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMD3MPsKA8dkrnJGXFkp_jw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&authuser=0

Strange that in the 2nd link, there is the one I-69E shield you referenced, but at the same intersection (for those looking east on TX 44), there is a non-suffixed I-69 one, and up past the RR track on the service road, another one that's just I-69.  Hopefully by the next signage contract (but preferably sooner), there will be uniformity amongst the shields.

[CoolAngrybirdsrio4]

Newer I-69E shields in Robstown, Texas

https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7752819,-97.6686443,3a,15y,148.98h,77.05t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sAU-pr8qYdY4sdWR0Cts_TQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DAU-pr8qYdY4sdWR0Cts_TQ%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D132.38371%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&authuser=0
https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7855692,-97.6548781,3a,15y,73.95h,83.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMD3MPsKA8dkrnJGXFkp_jw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&authuser=0

Strange that in the 2nd link, there is the one I-69E shield you referenced, but at the same intersection (for those looking east on TX 44), there is a non-suffixed I-69 one, and up past the RR track on the service road, another one that's just I-69.  Hopefully by the next signage contract (but preferably sooner), there will be uniformity amongst the shields.

I have found it odd that they would half replace the I-69 signs with I-69E signs at the intersection.

[GreenLanternCorps]

Newer I-69E shields in Robstown, Texas

https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7752819,-97.6686443,3a,15y,148.98h,77.05t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sAU-pr8qYdY4sdWR0Cts_TQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DAU-pr8qYdY4sdWR0Cts_TQ%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D132.38371%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&authuser=0
https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7855692,-97.6548781,3a,15y,73.95h,83.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMD3MPsKA8dkrnJGXFkp_jw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&authuser=0

Strange that in the 2nd link, there is the one I-69E shield you referenced, but at the same intersection (for those looking east on TX 44), there is a non-suffixed I-69 one, and up past the RR track on the service road, another one that's just I-69.  Hopefully by the next signage contract (but preferably sooner), there will be uniformity amongst the shields.

I have found it odd that they would half replace the I-69 signs with I-69E signs at the intersection.

The BGS just north of that interchange still has a plain I-69 sign on it...

https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7870208,-97.6547128,3a,15y,3.93h,89.72t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNjnXHGpSrJRyrcd0dE5FTQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&authuser=0

[Thegeet]

I've forgotten: is it convenient to reuse these old I-69 signs (those in good condition) for US 59 in FB county?

[The Ghostbuster]

I look forward to Interstate 69E's completion between Raymondville and Robstown. Then Interstate 2 and Interstate 69C will finally connect with the rest of the Interstate System. Maybe the Parking Area north of Raymondville could be upgraded into a Rest Area: https://www.google.com/maps/@26.6983513,-97.7645573,2066m/data=!3m1!1e3.

[edwaleni]

I look forward to Interstate 69E's completion between Raymondville and Robstown. Then Interstate 2 and Interstate 69C will finally connect with the rest of the Interstate System. Maybe the Parking Area north of Raymondville could be upgraded into a Rest Area: https://www.google.com/maps/@26.6983513,-97.7645573,2066m/data=!3m1!1e3.

It will be jammed with pilgrims headed to Boca Chica to worship the gods of space travel. 

[Thegeet]

https://goo.gl/maps/5tJ4jSTMc5FGHTHp9
https://goo.gl/maps/pC9abMTS1rW9P4PJ6
Recent SV imagery of a new bridge between Wharton and Hungerford. Will this be part of a new interchange a la FM 762 (Exit 101) Or will it replace one of the existing lanes?

[jlwm]

https://goo.gl/maps/5tJ4jSTMc5FGHTHp9
https://goo.gl/maps/pC9abMTS1rW9P4PJ6
Recent SV imagery of a new bridge between Wharton and Hungerford. Will this be part of a new interchange a la FM 762 (Exit 101) Or will it replace one of the existing lanes?

That'll replace part of the southbound lanes per the schematic. Interesting thing is the design on that bent  is used by the Houston District on their projects using the Horizontal Scheme from their Green Ribbon Project. Aside from the I-10 widening project that runs through the Houston and Yoakum Districts, this is the first time I've seen a Houston Green Ribbon Project scheme outside of the Houston District that isn't tied to a project that crosses into the Houston District.

[Thegeet]

https://goo.gl/maps/5tJ4jSTMc5FGHTHp9
https://goo.gl/maps/pC9abMTS1rW9P4PJ6
Recent SV imagery of a new bridge between Wharton and Hungerford. Will this be part of a new interchange a la FM 762 (Exit 101) Or will it replace one of the existing lanes?

That'll replace part of the southbound lanes per the schematic. Interesting thing is the design on that bent  is used by the Houston District on their projects using the Horizontal Scheme from their Green Ribbon Project. Aside from the I-10 widening project that runs through the Houston and Yoakum Districts, this is the first time I've seen a Houston Green Ribbon Project scheme outside of the Houston District that isn't tied to a project that crosses into the Houston District.

There are still wires protruding from them. Maybe the decided to add another lane at the last minute? Jk. I look forward to seeing the next bridge being built.

[TheBox]

In case they ever have to expand the southern direct Lufkin ramps eventually (from US-59 south of Lufkin to the loop), how can they do it?

it's only 1x1 as I speak

[Thegeet]

In case they ever have to expand the southern direct Lufkin ramps eventually (from US-59 south of Lufkin to the loop), how can they do it?

it's only 1x1 as I speak

They would have to tear down and have more room to do so, AFAIK.

[bwana39]

In case they ever have to expand the southern direct Lufkin ramps eventually (from US-59 south of Lufkin to the loop), how can they do it?

it's only 1x1 as I speak

Yes, this intersection is going to be a mess. Yes, it will have to be torn down and moved (probably) toward the south.

There will be some businesses that have to be closed / relocated. There is room, but not without a number of commercial building teardowns.

[sprjus4]

The existing alignment could likely be utilized as an urban freeway, but the flyovers need to be completely reconstructed to at least have 2 lanes each way, and ideally have continuity and a 55 mph design.

The rest of the bypass could be reconstructed to have an urban 2x2 or 3x3 with full control of access and a 65-70 mph design.

The northern end of the bypass is done better, even with the "exit"  situation for northbound.

Given the bypass has at least access control for most parts, and particularly the southern substandard section in question, it's reasonable to evaluate upgrading that to modern standards and even 6 lanes if needed and retain the urban freeway with easy access to a number of businesses, stores, hotels, restaurants, etc. via interchanges.

Not sure if an outer bypass is fully warranted, unless volumes are high enough it's desired to avoid an urban situation altogether.

[Thegeet]

The existing alignment could likely be utilized as an urban freeway, but the flyovers need to be completely reconstructed to at least have 2 lanes each way, and ideally have continuity and a 55 mph design.

The rest of the bypass could be reconstructed to have an urban 2x2 or 3x3 with full control of access and a 65-70 mph design.

The northern end of the bypass is done better, even with the "exit"  situation for northbound.

Given the bypass has at least access control for most parts, and particularly the southern substandard section in question, it's reasonable to evaluate upgrading that to modern standards and even 6 lanes if needed and retain the urban freeway with easy access to a number of businesses, stores, hotels, restaurants, etc. via interchanges.

Not sure if an outer bypass is fully warranted, unless volumes are high enough it's desired to avoid an urban situation altogether.

The exit could be converted into a "left exit" . I also agree that an urban freeway could've been better, had it not been for businesses and development.

[bwana39]

The existing alignment could likely be utilized as an urban freeway, but the flyovers need to be completely reconstructed to at least have 2 lanes each way, and ideally have continuity and a 55 mph design.

The rest of the bypass could be reconstructed to have an urban 2x2 or 3x3 with full control of access and a 65-70 mph design.

The northern end of the bypass is done better, even with the "exit"  situation for northbound.

Given the bypass has at least access control for most parts, and particularly the southern substandard section in question, it's reasonable to evaluate upgrading that to modern standards and even 6 lanes if needed and retain the urban freeway with easy access to a number of businesses, stores, hotels, restaurants, etc. via interchanges.

Not sure if an outer bypass is fully warranted, unless volumes are high enough it's desired to avoid an urban situation altogether.

The exit could be converted into a "left exit" . I also agree that an urban freeway could've been better, had it not been for businesses and development.

I assume by "outer bypass" you are referring to Loop 287 (John Reddit Drive). Clearly the Medford Drive to 1st street portion of US-59 needs to be fully controlled access.  The rest of the loop going clockwise  is not fully controlled access.

US-59 /I-69 SB should split from SL-287 as a left exit as the through interstate should take the leftmost lanes. (technically not an exit at all but a curve on I-69).

[sprjus4]

The existing alignment could likely be utilized as an urban freeway, but the flyovers need to be completely reconstructed to at least have 2 lanes each way, and ideally have continuity and a 55 mph design.

The rest of the bypass could be reconstructed to have an urban 2x2 or 3x3 with full control of access and a 65-70 mph design.

The northern end of the bypass is done better, even with the "exit"  situation for northbound.

Given the bypass has at least access control for most parts, and particularly the southern substandard section in question, it's reasonable to evaluate upgrading that to modern standards and even 6 lanes if needed and retain the urban freeway with easy access to a number of businesses, stores, hotels, restaurants, etc. via interchanges.

Not sure if an outer bypass is fully warranted, unless volumes are high enough it's desired to avoid an urban situation altogether.

Here's a fictional redesign I came up with for that junction, sort of illustrating the concept I mentioned above. The flyovers have a curve radius capable of handling a 60 mph design speed, and would be 2 lanes in each direction.

The red indicates the I-69 mainline.

[bwana39]

The existing alignment could likely be utilized as an urban freeway, but the flyovers need to be completely reconstructed to at least have 2 lanes each way, and ideally have continuity and a 55 mph design.

The rest of the bypass could be reconstructed to have an urban 2x2 or 3x3 with full control of access and a 65-70 mph design.

The northern end of the bypass is done better, even with the "exit"  situation for northbound.

Given the bypass has at least access control for most parts, and particularly the southern substandard section in question, it's reasonable to evaluate upgrading that to modern standards and even 6 lanes if needed and retain the urban freeway with easy access to a number of businesses, stores, hotels, restaurants, etc. via interchanges.

Not sure if an outer bypass is fully warranted, unless volumes are high enough it's desired to avoid an urban situation altogether.

Here's a fictional redesign I came up with for that junction, sort of illustrating the concept I mentioned above. The flyovers have a curve radius capable of handling a 60 mph design speed, and would be 2 lanes in each direction.

The red indicates the I-69 mainline.

If you can get enough width to do this in the recessed roadway, I agree. First street and Tulane both cross the loop at ground level with the loop sunk into a canyon below.

[TheBox]

Whiling we're on the subject of future direct ramps

When they do eventually have to make one for Carthage, should they turn to the left side of the loop or the right side of the loop?

[Thegeet]

Whiling we're on the subject of future direct ramps

When they do eventually have to make one for Carthage, should they turn to the left side of the loop or the right side of the loop?

Right.

[bwana39]

Whiling we're on the subject of future direct ramps

When they do eventually have to make one for Carthage, should they turn to the left side of the loop or the right side of the loop?

Right.

The folks in Carthage would prefer left.....

[Thegeet]

Whiling we're on the subject of future direct ramps

When they do eventually have to make one for Carthage, should they turn to the left side of the loop or the right side of the loop?

Right.

The folks in Carthage would prefer left.....

US 59 is already signed to the right, so it makes sense to continue that.

[bwana39]

Whiling we're on the subject of future direct ramps

When they do eventually have to make one for Carthage, should they turn to the left side of the loop or the right side of the loop?

Right.

The folks in Carthage would prefer left.....

US 59 is already signed to the right, so it makes sense to continue that.

Yes BUT....
It is a continuous loop. Most of the business in Carthage is on the west loop. TXDOT has been incrementally improving the west loop to freeway. The only seeming impediments to freeway  with frontage roads on the West Loop is the part they have already started upgrading. THe Atlanta District Chief engineer previously was the Panola County TXDOT chief, the powers that be in Carthage have an inroad.