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

Grzrd

This (behind paywall) article reports on a recent meeting of a committee of representatives from Angelina and Nacodoches counties to review I-69 options in their area:

Quote
TxDOT officials are seeking feedback on two possible routes through Angelina and Nacogdoches counties. One route would involve upgrading U.S. 59 to interstate standards with continuous access roads. The upgrade would include a six-lane highway in the current footprint of U.S. 59 through Lufkin and a four-lane highway in the current footprint of U.S. 59 through Nacogdoches. The other option, dubbed "new location"  by TxDOT officials, would involve construction of a interstate-standard relief route east of Diboll and Lufkin and west of Nacogdoches, meeting with U.S. 59 just north of Appleby.
"The commitment from TxDOT is that in the development of I-69, we will look at development of existing corridors or the existing footprint before we start looking at anything that deviates from that,"  Cooley said. "We went through the process with the segment committees – the Segment Committee Two and the Segment Committee One have this area – and both recommended that we go on the new location. Now that we have funding, we can start the process. We're taking the information that the segment committees recommended, and we're starting to drill down by working with this stakeholder group to do an outreach to the public, more so than what we've done in the past, to be sure that as we go forward, we're going the direction that the communities want."

Lufkin options:                                                                Nacogdoches options:
                         

edit

Quote from: lamsalfl on December 09, 2012, 10:16:16 PM
When might we expect to see those I-369 shields?

I recently posted a TxDOT email response to this question in another thread:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3321.msg190337#msg190337


Grzrd

Quote from: Grzrd on December 12, 2012, 04:03:31 PM
Quote
This is a very rough timeline that's dependent on several entities but we hope to have I-369 signs up sometime before the end of 2013.
(above quote from Texarkana; (Future I-49, I-69 Spur) thread)

I emailed TxDOT again and asked if the other conditionally approved sections of I-69 were on the same timetable as I-369 for signage and if a numerical interstate designation had been selected for US 83. TxDOT's response:

Quote
The US 59 section southwest of Houston, and the US 77 and US 281 sections are on the same timetable as the Texarkana section; we hope to have those also designated as Interstate by the end of 2013.  For US 83, TxDOT has not yet decided on the number to request for its Interstate numbering.  This should be decided in the next few months though.

Applications for AASHTO's Spring meeting are due in mid-March.  I assume TxDOT intends to select a numerical designation for US 83 by that time.

lamsalfl

Not sure if I would feel with an I-2 there even though there are no other likely candidate routes for the number at this time.  I dunno, maybe. 

Perfxion

I-2 or I-x69 could both work. I-2 might work as well since I don't see ANY interstate being built SOUTH of that one. Or best answer, US83 since it is called that.
5/10/20/30/15/35/37/40/44/45/70/76/78/80/85/87/95/
(CA)405,(NJ)195/295(NY)295/495/278/678(CT)395(MD/VA)195/495/695/895

Anthony_JK

Quote from: Perfxion on December 13, 2012, 07:46:22 PM
I-2 or I-x69 could both work. I-2 might work as well since I don't see ANY interstate being built SOUTH of that one. Or best answer, US83 since it is called that.

I-2 would work for me only if they extended it north somehow to Laredo or even as far north as I-10 east of El Paso. Otherwise, an even I-x69 would suffice.

lordsutch

Quote from: codyg1985 on November 29, 2012, 12:19:13 PM
^ I wouldn't say this is quite up to interstate standards.

That's the overpass over US 59 and probably wouldn't be part of I-69.  More than likely I-69 will have to run a little to the north of existing US 59 to avoid some residential areas near Loop 20, either between Lake Casa Blanca and US 59 or north of Lake Casa Blanca.  Personally I'd swing it away from US 59 WNW around here, and connect to Loop 20 about 1/2 mile south of Del Mar.  It's far more direct, and there's nothing much but scrubland out there, so there's plenty of room for a fully directional interchange at Loop 20.  Plus it would reduce the concurrency of through trucks to Corpus & Houston with local commuter traffic from south Laredo to the airport, arena, and university.

And the McPherson overpass is desperately needed; trucks frequently stack up almost all the way down to I-35 trying to turn north on McPherson there or to make a U-Turn.  With more residential and commercial development occurring in that area, things are becoming a bit of a mess.  Hopefully the missing I-35 direct connectors, particularly to and from the north, will come soon too.

J N Winkler

New shields coming to the Pharr District after the January 2013 maintenance letting (CCSJ Cameron 6252-51-001):  I-69E (US 77), I-69C (US 281), I-169 (US 83).  In all cases TxDOT is using three-digit shields even for the routes (I-69E and I-69C) which are notionally two-digit with suffix.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

agentsteel53

Quote from: J N Winkler on December 19, 2012, 01:16:14 PM
New shields coming to the Pharr District after the January 2013 maintenance letting (CCSJ Cameron 6252-51-001):  I-69E (US 77), I-69C (US 281), I-169 (US 83).  In all cases TxDOT is using three-digit shields even for the routes (I-69E and I-69C) which are notionally two-digit with suffix.

I think treating the suffix as a full digit has been the standard since 1961.
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

Grzrd

#258
Quote from: J N Winkler on December 19, 2012, 01:16:14 PM
New shields coming to the Pharr District ... I-169 (US 83).

The I-169 designation is interesting because that route will provide an interstate connection between I-69C and I-69E; I would have preferred I-269 or I-469.*

*
An I-69S designation might have been humorous, but slightly unrealistic.

lamsalfl

So we will have interstate segments around the Rio Grande not connected to the main network like Hawaii?

If so, why can't Louisiana sign the freeway from Raceland to Morgan City as I-49? State preference?

Grzrd

Quote from: lamsalfl on December 19, 2012, 01:57:34 PM
why can't Louisiana sign the freeway from Raceland to Morgan City as I-49? State preference?

Assuming it is interstate-grade freeway, under FHWA's current interpretation of the MAP-21 legislation enacted this past summer, Louisiana could do so if it would commit to FHWA that it will connect that section to the currently existing interstate network within twenty-five years. MAP-21 has similar, yet separate, provisions regarding I-69 and I-11 that are being followed regarding I-69 in Texas.

The legislation is of such recent vintage that Louisiana may not even be aware that it can do so.

Anthony_JK

Quote from: Grzrd on December 19, 2012, 02:08:32 PM
Quote from: lamsalfl on December 19, 2012, 01:57:34 PM
why can't Louisiana sign the freeway from Raceland to Morgan City as I-49? State preference?

Assuming it is interstate-grade freeway, under FHWA's current interpretation of the MAP-21 legislation enacted this past summer, Louisiana could do so if it would commit to FHWA that it will connect that section to the currently existing interstate network within twenty-five years. MAP-21 has similar, yet separate, provisions regarding I-69 and I-11 that are being followed regarding I-69 in Texas.

The legislation is of such recent vintage that Louisiana may not even be aware that it can do so.

In an nutshell, Louisiana would have to commit to building the I-49 Connector through Lafayette before they could drop I-49 shields on the finished segments of US 90.

Grzrd

#262
Quote from: Grzrd on October 27, 2011, 12:50:23 PM
Quote
Today's decision enables TxDOT to add the concurrent designation of I-69 to a 6.2-mile section of US 77 between I-37 and SH 44 in Nueces County.
Quote from: lordsutch on August 01, 2012, 11:06:59 AM
my sense from my time in Laredo is nobody really cares that much about a slightly-shorter Houston route, while Corpus is a major priority
Quote from: J N Winkler on December 19, 2012, 01:16:14 PM
New shields coming to the Pharr District after the January 2013 maintenance letting (CCSJ Cameron 6252-51-001):  I-69E (US 77), I-69C (US 281), I-169 (US 83).

Since the recently designated SH 44 to I-37 section of I-69 is north of the US 77/ I-69  and SH 44 interchange,


and the sections of US 77 near the border will be signed as I-69E, I'm beginning to think that the ultimate goal is to have "mainline" I-69 connect Laredo, Corpus and Houston by including the SH 44 routing from US 77 to US 59 (statutory amendment technically needed), and the Freer to Victoria US 59 segment would be an I-x69 (sort of a Texas-sized version of I-475 in Georgia).

english si

I-69 from Corpus to Laredo will be I-69W, but yes, I think they want main I-69 to run to Robstown with US59 to be considered a 3di.

drummer_evans_aki

You know, I was reading the articles about I-69's three "legs." Got me thinking.

From Laredo to Victoria, I'd sign that as Interstate 6.

From Three Rivers to Pharr, I'd re-route that as Interstate 37

And from Brownsville to Victoria, interstate 69.

From Corpus Christi to current I-37's exit 72, I'd designate that as a three digit... Interstate 137?

Could you imagine getting directions from a guy with tourettes?

J N Winkler

There is plenty of precedent for two suffixed branches (I-35W and I-35E in both DFW and the Twin Cities), and a mainline with one suffixed branch (I-80 and I-80N out west, I-35 and I-35W in Kansas).  Is there any precedent for a splitting of routes with one route suffixed "C" and no unsuffixed route?
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

agentsteel53

Quote from: J N Winkler on December 21, 2012, 01:34:05 PM
There is plenty of precedent for two suffixed branches (I-35W and I-35E in both DFW and the Twin Cities), and a mainline with one suffixed branch (I-80 and I-80N out west, I-35 and I-35W in Kansas).  Is there any precedent for a splitting of routes with one route suffixed "C" and no unsuffixed route?

I have never heard of a C suffix.  closest I can think of is the Portland, OR area having US-99, 99E, and 99W all at the same time.
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

Grzrd

Quote from: J N Winkler on December 21, 2012, 01:34:05 PM
Is there any precedent for a splitting of routes with one route suffixed "C" and no unsuffixed route?

US 59 from Victoria to Laredo is still statutorily designated as the continuation of the unsuffixed I-69. I find it interesting that there is currently scheduled to be: the unsuffixed I-69 prong, an I-69E prong, and an I-69C prong, but no I-69W prong. Our Congressional representatives in action!

agentsteel53

when will the good people in the TXDOT engineering department rise above their political oppressors and number the routes something logical?
live from sunny San Diego.

http://shields.aaroads.com

jake@aaroads.com

english si

Quote from: Grzrd on December 21, 2012, 02:16:13 PMUS 59 from Victoria to Laredo is still statutorily designated as the continuation of the unsuffixed I-69. I find it interesting that there is currently scheduled to be: the unsuffixed I-69 prong, an I-69E prong, and an I-69C prong, but no I-69W prong. Our Congressional representatives in action!
And TX DOT won't upgrade Freer - Victoria for quite some time, preferring to upgrade the TX44 route to Freer.
Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 21, 2012, 02:54:10 PMwhen will the good people in the TXDOT engineering department rise above their political oppressors and number the routes something logical?
Surely Texans would revolt over EU-style bureaucracy/technocracy, symbolised by the FHWA/TXDOT, ignoring the wishes of a representative democracy?

TheStranger

Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 21, 2012, 01:39:43 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on December 21, 2012, 01:34:05 PM
There is plenty of precedent for two suffixed branches (I-35W and I-35E in both DFW and the Twin Cities), and a mainline with one suffixed branch (I-80 and I-80N out west, I-35 and I-35W in Kansas).  Is there any precedent for a splitting of routes with one route suffixed "C" and no unsuffixed route?

I have never heard of a C suffix.  closest I can think of is the Portland, OR area having US-99, 99E, and 99W all at the same time.

Isn't there a "NJ 76C" spur of I-76 in Camden?  Not that that really counts.

Tennessee presently has US 70, US 70S, AND US 70N, with US 70S concurrent with US 70 in Nashville.
Chris Sampang

Alps

Quote from: TheStranger on December 21, 2012, 03:27:17 PM
Quote from: agentsteel53 on December 21, 2012, 01:39:43 PM
Quote from: J N Winkler on December 21, 2012, 01:34:05 PM
There is plenty of precedent for two suffixed branches (I-35W and I-35E in both DFW and the Twin Cities), and a mainline with one suffixed branch (I-80 and I-80N out west, I-35 and I-35W in Kansas).  Is there any precedent for a splitting of routes with one route suffixed "C" and no unsuffixed route?

I have never heard of a C suffix.  closest I can think of is the Portland, OR area having US-99, 99E, and 99W all at the same time.

Isn't there a "NJ 76C" spur of I-76 in Camden?  Not that that really counts.

Tennessee presently has US 70, US 70S, AND US 70N, with US 70S concurrent with US 70 in Nashville.
76C is for Connector, actually, not Camden. (Not only is it not within the City of Camden, but it feeds traffic in from points south and east largely.)

mcdonaat

Quote from: Grzrd on December 19, 2012, 02:08:32 PM
Quote from: lamsalfl on December 19, 2012, 01:57:34 PM
why can't Louisiana sign the freeway from Raceland to Morgan City as I-49? State preference?

Assuming it is interstate-grade freeway, under FHWA's current interpretation of the MAP-21 legislation enacted this past summer, Louisiana could do so if it would commit to FHWA that it will connect that section to the currently existing interstate network within twenty-five years. MAP-21 has similar, yet separate, provisions regarding I-69 and I-11 that are being followed regarding I-69 in Texas.

The legislation is of such recent vintage that Louisiana may not even be aware that it can do so.
I think the focus right now is on I-49 North instead of South. I wouldn't be surprised if a bypass of Logansport and a highway connecting I-49 in Shreveport to I-20 in the form of a loop through the port and around Barksdale are completed before I-49 South gets shields. Once Arkansas starts construction of I-69 near the Louisiana line, I think our state will jump on the ball for it.

I, for one, cannot wait to start seeing work done on a Logansport Bypass.

longhorn

So what will the state highway 83 from McAllen to Brownsville be labled?

NE2

Quote from: longhorn on December 26, 2012, 12:14:12 PM
So what will the state highway 83 from McAllen to Brownsville be labled?
US 83.
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".



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.