AARoads Forum

Regional Boards => Mid-South => Topic started by: Grzrd on October 09, 2010, 01:18:12 PM

Title: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on October 09, 2010, 01:18:12 PM
TxDOT estimates that it will have $4 billion to $5 billion to begin construction on I-69 in approximately 5 years:

http://www.caller.com/news/2010/oct/08/proposed-interstate-69-could-cost-165-billion-in/

Quote
A long awaited highway could cost as much as $16.5 billion to build through Texas, the state Department of Transportation told regional leaders at a meeting Friday.
Construction of Interstate 69 in South Texas could begin as soon as five years from now, and the road from the Rio Grande Valley through the Coastal Bend to Texarkana is at least 20 years from completion, said John Barton, the assistant executive director for engineering operations for the transportation department.
The department expects to have about $4 billion to $5 billion to begin construction on the interstate in Texas...
(caller. com (Corpus Christi); 10/8/10)

$4 billion seems like a decent amount of money to get things going ...
Title: Re: I-69 TX; TxDOT Estimates $16.5 Billion Price Tag
Post by: The Premier on October 10, 2010, 12:04:09 PM
$4 billion seems like a decent amount of money to get things going ...

Or more alarmingly expensive. They may as well make I-69 a toll road for that price.
Title: Re: I-69 TX; TxDOT Estimates $16.5 Billion Price Tag
Post by: Revive 755 on October 10, 2010, 07:40:37 PM
I see from the last half of that article that the exact routing has not exactly been narrowed down for the southern end of I-69,
Title: Re: I-69 TX; TxDOT Estimates $16.5 Billion Price Tag
Post by: Anthony_JK on October 10, 2010, 11:38:50 PM
I see from the last half of that article that the exact routing has not exactly been narrowed down for the southern end of I-69,

Actually, it has been, to a point...all three roads (US 59 to Laredo, and US 77 and US 281 to Harlingen/Brownsville) are planned to be integrated into the I-69 system and upgraded. My guess is that US 59 will serve as the main trunk and the other roadways as branches.

Personally, I'd reserve the I-69 moniker for the US 59 corridor, and use an extension of I-37 for the US 77 upgrade. An I-x69 could be suitable for the upgrade of US 281.

And....if I had to choose which corridor to South Texas out of 77 and 281 I'd upgrade first, I'd prefer 77.


Anthony
Title: Re: I-69 TX; TxDOT Estimates $16.5 Billion Price Tag
Post by: bogdown on October 11, 2010, 04:56:40 PM
id give 77 the nod, after they upgrade 59, of course
Title: Re: I-69 TX; TxDOT Estimates $16.5 Billion Price Tag
Post by: Mergingtraffic on October 11, 2010, 09:06:03 PM
How does TX get all this money to build roads and expand them?  It seems they are always building new stacks, expanding highways or building new ones.  How do they do it?
Title: Re: I-69 TX; TxDOT Estimates $16.5 Billion Price Tag
Post by: Scott5114 on October 12, 2010, 09:14:15 PM
Texas is a big state with a lot of taxpayers. Tolls build most of the urban stuff, so I guess most of the general tax money goes towards maintenance and building of rural roads. That doesn't explain how they are able to keep all the FMs up, though...
Title: Re: I-69 TX; TxDOT Estimates $16.5 Billion Price Tag
Post by: jgb191 on October 14, 2010, 11:14:53 PM
$4 billion seems like a decent amount of money to get things going ...

Or more alarmingly expensive. They may as well make I-69 a toll road for that price.


That's because you're talking about a thousand miles of highway in Texas alone:  

-- 229 miles of US 77 from Victoria to Brownsville
-- 166 miles of US 281 from Three Rivers to McAllen
-- 612 miles of US 59 from Texarkana to Laredo

All three of those are going to be upgraded to interstates.  A few portions of those stretches are already fully completed freeways.
Title: Re: I-69 TX; TxDOT Estimates $16.5 Billion Price Tag
Post by: Grzrd on October 14, 2010, 11:18:33 PM
And....if I had to choose which corridor to South Texas out of 77 and 281 I'd upgrade first, I'd prefer 77.
Anthony
id give 77 the nod, after they upgrade 59, of course

One small step for 77 ... : http://www.caller.com/news/2010/oct/14/new-overpass-near-robstown-means-i-69-is-one-to/

Quote
ROBSTOWN – An overpass under construction will move U.S. Highway 77 between Corpus Christi and Brownsville one step closer to interstate highway standards.
The $11.7 million project will raise the four lanes of U.S. 77 to allow traffic on Farm-to-Market Road 892 to travel underneath. The overpass is expected to open within the next three months, according to the Texas Department of Transportation.
The project will help improve traffic through an increasingly congested area, said Transportation Planning and Development Director Paula Sales Evans. It also brings the freeway closer to interstate standards by removing cross traffic from the intersection.
At a ribbon cutting Thursday, officials stood near a sign noting that U.S. 77 is the future Interstate 69 corridor...
(www.caller.com; Corpus Christi, 10/14/10)
Title: Re: I-69 TX; TxDOT Estimates $16.5 Billion Price Tag
Post by: J N Winkler on October 15, 2010, 03:47:35 AM
Texas is a big state with a lot of taxpayers. Tolls build most of the urban stuff, so I guess most of the general tax money goes towards maintenance and building of rural roads. That doesn't explain how they are able to keep all the FMs up, though...

Agencies responsible for state highways in Texas (which include not just TxDOT but also cities, counties, RMAs, and regional toll road agencies) issue an awful lot of debt and do a lot of work through Comprehensive Development Agreements which in effect sign away a cashflow in order to avoid paying the entire costs of construction up-front.  It is getting increasingly hard to find large projects through TxDOT lettings, not just because a lot of the high-dollar stuff has been farmed out to RMAs and regional toll agencies, but also because the gas tax has not been increased in Texas since the early 1990's and TxDOT is running out of money.  Quite a lot of the stuff TxDOT does let is minor construction and major maintenance on FM and RM roads, generally in the sub-$10 million range.

I have been following TxDOT lettings for over eight years.  The very first contract I downloaded from TxDOT and archived was a sign replacement contract for I-20 west of Fort Worth, in February 2002.  Most of the Katy Freeway contracts (well over $2 billion of work) passed through the TxDOT lettings and I got all of those contracts, over a three-year period beginning in 2003 and ending in 2006.  TxDOT has also been running construction for the Marsha Sharp Freeway in Lubbock through its lettings.  But that has been pretty much it for the big projects since 2006, with isolated exceptions like the southwestern end of the Crosby Freeway in Houston (modifying the I-10/I-610 east stack to incorporate new ramps for the US 90 connection).  At the moment I have 9,437 pattern-accurate sign design sheets from TxDOT, but the growth rate has slowed to 700 sheets annually, and the proportion of sheets I have which are from toll road agency/RMA contracts with TxDOT-assigned CCSJs has gone way up in the last three years.  At the present rate I won't break 10,000 sheets until September 2011 at earliest.  There are two stacks under construction right now in Texas that I am aware of, and I have the construction plans for both of them, but they are both administered by NTTA, not TxDOT.

I am missing construction plans for the US 271 Mount Pleasant Bypass and SL 79 down near Del Rio because those are both being administered by counties through a new TxDOT financing mechanism--Pass-Through Funding.  I would like to obtain the construction plans for them, but to my knowledge they were never put online, and I do not look forward to dealing with the counties.
Title: Re: I-69 TX; TxDOT Estimates $16.5 Billion Price Tag
Post by: Grzrd on October 21, 2010, 07:20:57 AM
Upgrade of U.S. 59 to I-69 from Lufkin to Texarkana is now projected to cost approximately $4.5 billion:

http://www.texarkanagazette.com/news/localnews/2010/10/21/study-building-interstate-will-cost-texa-81.php

Quote
JEFFERSON, Texas–Studies estimate U.S. Highway 59 between Texarkana and Lufkin can become Interstate 69 for $4.5 billion.
The preliminary numbers were revealed Wednesday during a planning meeting for the interstate corridor’s Segment 1."
The article also discusses alternative methods of financing Segment 1:
"But with no pot of gold in sight for transportation, local committee member Bill Cork asked what new funding options are available.
Barton said a tool legislators are supporting is more public/private partnerships, which are frequently assumed to be toll roads. A builder constructs a road and charges a fee to drive on it, recouping its investment.
“But there are other options,”  Barton said. “Private companies come in and build the asset and the way they generate the revenue is through a retail opportunity.”  
An investor could build a convenience store along the corridor and make its profit back on a service provided rather than use of the system.
Tax increment districts can also help pay for transportation expansion. Both Texarkanas have taxing districts established that capture revenues as property values increase and put that money into expenses in specific areas.
Other options include increases in state and/or federal gas taxes, directing more of the shared tax revenues to Texas roadways and increased costs of vehicle registration.
Title: Re: I-69 TX; TxDOT Estimates $16.5 Billion Price Tag
Post by: Chris on October 21, 2010, 03:49:53 PM
Lufkin - Texarkana is 160 miles, so that comes down to $ 28 million per mile. I can't say that is an absurd amount of money.
Title: Re: I-69 TX; TxDOT Estimates $16.5 Billion Price Tag
Post by: 3467 on October 21, 2010, 09:43:29 PM
It is sticker shock though for US rural contruction but it is not out of line . US 20 in Illinois reached 23 million a mile and was put on the back burner. Just 10 years ago a rural interstate freeway was about 10 million a mile . In the 1990s a 4 lane expresway construction was as low as 2.5 million a mile. Now without a lot of structures it is 6 million. I can see why Missouri shifted to passing lanes instead.
Title: Re: I-69 TX; TxDOT Estimates $16.5 Billion Price Tag
Post by: Grzrd on October 22, 2010, 08:11:29 AM
Here is a link to materials from the July 23, 2010 Segment Committee 1 meeting (click "Meetings" under Segment Committee 1 and you will find pdfs from various meetings):

http://www.txdot.gov/public_involvement/committees/i69/default.htm

On page 3/3 is a map of the constantly-evolving route.  I thought that the whole idea of upgrading U.S. 59 as opposed to choosing a new terrain route was to save money.  If an upgrade is $28 million/mile, how much would new terrain cost?
Title: Re: I-69 TX; TxDOT Estimates $16.5 Billion Price Tag
Post by: 3467 on October 22, 2010, 12:28:53 PM
Probably not a lot more, but it avoids taking a lot of land. To put this in perspective, Illinois is looking at 4-laning 200-300 miles statewide, and that is all expressway, not freeway. and I bet most other states are not much more (MORE WHAT???), so I-69 in Texas alone is an immense project by today's construction rates.

Punctuation is God's gift to literacy. ~S
Title: Re: I-69 TX; TxDOT Estimates $16.5 Billion Price Tag
Post by: Chris on October 22, 2010, 04:16:58 PM
Upgrading an existing road could turn out more expensive because you either need to build frontage roads for local traffic, or build a lot more interchanges to serve all the minor roads US 59 serves today. If you have greenfield construction, you can greatly reduce the amount of nonsense interchanges to backwater roads.
Title: Re: I-69 TX; TxDOT Estimates $16.5 Billion Price Tag
Post by: Anthony_JK on October 22, 2010, 08:45:00 PM
Upgrading an existing road could turn out more expensive because you either need to build frontage roads for local traffic, or build a lot more interchanges to serve all the minor roads US 59 serves today. If you have greenfield construction, you can greatly reduce the amount of nonsense interchanges to backwater roads.

Considering Texas' liberal use of frontage roads, as well as the brohaha over the Trans-Texas Corridor's original proposals for new toll facilities bisecting farmland, I'd say that using existing roadways as much as possible with relief bypasses around urbanized areas is probably a good decision.


Anthony
Title: Re: I-69 TX; TxDOT Estimates $16.5 Billion Price Tag
Post by: 3467 on October 22, 2010, 11:08:33 PM
TX DOT is proposing 4laning 3000 miles of trunk highway for 6.6 billion by 2035. That is only 2 million per mile which is a thenth of the 69 price and a bargain. I expected Texas to be less than Illinois but a third suprises me.
Title: Re: I-69 TX; TxDOT Estimates $16.5 Billion Price Tag
Post by: J N Winkler on October 23, 2010, 04:08:06 AM
Remember that Texas is the home of the "poor boy" four-lane.
Title: Re: I-69 TX; TxDOT Estimates $16.5 Billion Price Tag
Post by: 3467 on October 23, 2010, 11:52:36 AM
What is the Poor boy 4 lane. I would add Illinois 4 lanes have all paved shoulders and if the existing 2 lane is used it is reconstructed . There are left and right turn lanes at every intersection and all the bridges are rebuilt. They are also designed to be converted to freeway in most cases.I take it that isnt a poor boy so maybe the comparison isnt right.
On most passing lane or center turn lanes the road is reconstructed and there are gravel shoulders sometimes paved ones so those run about 3 million a mile.
Title: Re: I-69 TX; TxDOT Estimates $16.5 Billion Price Tag
Post by: J N Winkler on October 23, 2010, 03:52:25 PM
The "poor boy" was basically an undivided rural four-lane arterial highway made by converting the full shoulders on a two-lane highway (which in Texas frequently have a 44' paved width consisting of two 12' lanes and two 10' shoulders) into part of the traveled way.  A typical poor-boy might have four lanes (two up and two down) of 11' each with no shoulder.  The heyday of poor-boys was the early 1980's, and I am not sure there are many examples still around--I think SH 6 near Bryan used to be a poor-boy but has since been reconstructed into a full freeway.  It was discovered that poor-boys have a marginally better safety record than two-lane highways because continuous passing opportunities are provided, but are still far inferior to four-lane expressways with full shoulders because there is no lateral separation between up and down traffic and no place to pull off in an emergency.  TxDOT practice in the recent past has been to spend more to get more, by building a full four-lane divided highway instead of a "poor boy," but I am not sure how keen they will be on holding the line with a cash crunch in progress.
Title: Re: I-69 TX; TxDOT Estimates $16.5 Billion Price Tag
Post by: 3467 on October 23, 2010, 09:46:40 PM
Thanks I was just on a couple of Illinois roads that could be easily turned ino poor boys. I know Illinois wouldnt like that Since thye are low volume I think a few more miles of passing lanes would do the trick.

The TxDOT 2035 did claim they could 4 make the trunk system 4 lane divided for 2 million a mile but I dont know when they came out with that plan. I could see how thye could do cheaper divideds with no bypasses and no upgarde to the existing roads. I coule see 3 million since I suspect their labor rates are cheaper and Texas being warmer than Illinois might need less asphalt or concrete.

But if they have no money I think you are right the "poor boy" would be tempting. It is to me!
Title: Re: I-69 TX; TxDOT Estimates $16.5 Billion Price Tag
Post by: Sykotyk on October 25, 2010, 01:01:08 AM
The problem with 'poor boy' highways is if it was originally a shoulder upgraded to a four-lane, the new slow lane will slope the edge, of which there is no shoulder (US77 north of I-10 is like this for a ways, it's quite annoying, actually).

I prefer the Texas style of driving where slower moving traffic moves to the shoulder to be overtaken as the need arrises. Otherwise, they stay in the wide open lane with an ample shoulder to accommodate any issue that arises.
Title: I-69 Shields Coming Soon To Rio Grande Valley?
Post by: Grzrd on November 10, 2010, 07:43:23 AM
A Texas representative is attempting to amend federal I-69 legislation to allow designation of portions of defined corridor that are currently up to interstate standards to be signed as I-69, even though those portions do not currently connect to another interstate: http://www.themonitor.com/articles/interstate-44356-designation-valley.html

Quote
A slight tweak to language included in the 1995 law that designated U.S. 77 and U.S. 281 as future segments of the interstate highway system could be a step toward securing the long-awaited blue shield for the two Rio Grande Valley highways.
U.S. Rep. Ruben Hinojosa, D-Mercedes, plans to add legislative language that could accelerate the designation of the interstate-quality portions of the two corridors as Interstate 69 by the end of this year ...
Although the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 stipulated that the two north-south highways leaving the Valley would be included as part of the I-69 corridor, it also said that they must be up to interstate system design standards and connect to an existing interstate system.
Portions of U.S. 281 and U.S. 77 and nearly all of Expressway 83 –the major route that connects them – are up to interstate design standards in the Valley. But billions in construction dollars still separate the highway’s rural portions from being up to standard before they connect with Interstate 37 outside Corpus Christi.
Hinojosa’s language would stipulate that the interstate-quality segments at the highway’s southern terminus be given the I-69 designation even though they don’t connect with I-37 ...
But the Valley’s portions of the highways – such as U.S. 281 to just outside of Edinburg and U.S. 77 to Raymondville – qualify for the interstate designation, Hinojosa said. By adding language to the federal code that allows those sections because they connect to the border, the Valley could already reap the economic benefits of an interstate ...

Looks like he will attempt to amend the law to make a border terminus the equivalent of a connection to another interstate.
Title: Re: I-69 TX; TxDOT Estimates $16.5 Billion Price Tag
Post by: J N Winkler on November 10, 2010, 07:46:36 AM
This would actually be a return of I-69 signs.  There were originally "future" I-69 signs along US 77 and (I think) US 83 in Willacy and Cameron counties, but these were removed when US 77 and US 83 were upgraded some years ago.
Title: Re: I-69 TX; TxDOT Estimates $16.5 Billion Price Tag
Post by: Grzrd on December 31, 2010, 02:38:20 PM
A Texas representative is attempting to amend federal I-69 legislation to allow designation of portions of defined corridor that are currently up to interstate standards to be signed as I-69, even though those portions do not currently connect to another interstate: http://www.themonitor.com/articles/interstate-44356-designation-valley.html

"A slight tweak to language included in the 1995 law that designated U.S. 77 and U.S. 281 as future segments of the interstate highway system could be a step toward securing the long-awaited blue shield for the two Rio Grande Valley highways ... Although the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995 stipulated that the two north-south highways leaving the Valley would be included as part of the I-69 corridor, it also said that they must be up to interstate system design standards and connect to an existing interstate system ... By adding language to the federal code that allows those sections because they connect to the border, the Valley could already reap the economic benefits of an interstate ..."

Looks like he will attempt to amend the law to make a border terminus the equivalent of a connection to another interstate.
TxDOT's website now has pdfs of Nov. 2010 Interim Reports from the five I-69 Segment Committees: http://www.txdot.gov/public_involvement/committees/i69/default.htm

In these reports, the respective committees identify the interim top 5 priorities for each Segment (Segment Committee 4, in an attempt to not favor either US 77 corridor over US 281 corridor or vice versa, list top 4 separate priorities for US 77 and US 281 corridors).

The Committees also recommend immediately signing the following freeway sections as I-69:

Committee 2: US 59 in Houston from I-10 northward to Cleveland;

Committee 3: US 59 in Houston from I-10 southward to Rosenberg;

Committee 4: US 77 from I-37 to south of Robstown; US 281 from Mexican border to north of McAllen; US 77 from Mexican border to south of Lyford.

The first three recommendations are analogous to the Mississippi segment of I-69 because they tie in to current interstates.  Apparently, the final two would be dependent upon the proposed legislation that would make a terminus at the Mexican border equivalent to an interstate junction.
Title: Re: I-69 TX; TxDOT Estimates $16.5 Billion Price Tag
Post by: Brian556 on January 01, 2011, 03:17:15 PM
Regarding "Poor Boy" four lane highways: a short section of US 80 somewhere in east Texas is like this.
Title: Re: I-69 TX; TxDOT Estimates $16.5 Billion Price Tag
Post by: 3467 on January 01, 2011, 07:49:55 PM
US 77 is too
I am thinking this would be a good thread for alternative improvemnets in an era of tight budgets
"Shoulder Upgrading alternatives to improve the operational charateristics of 2 lane roads"by the Texas Transportation Institute showed they were safe . Most 4 lanings are for lower volume roads like US 77 which is about 4000vpd.
 Illinois could widen three times the current milage under study yet for some reason they are very much against the idea.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on April 18, 2011, 10:53:15 PM
A Texas representative is attempting to amend federal I-69 legislation to allow designation of portions of defined corridor that are currently up to interstate standards to be signed as I-69, even though those portions do not currently connect to another interstate: http://www.themonitor.com/articles/interstate-44356-designation-valley.html

U.S. Rep. Ruben Hinojosa, D-Mercedes, plans to add legislative language that could accelerate the designation of the interstate-quality portions of the two corridors as Interstate 69 by the end of this year ...

Hinojosa’s language would stipulate that the interstate-quality segments at the highway’s southern terminus be given the I-69 designation even though they don’t connect with I-37 ...
Apparently, Hinojosa has not gotten very far with his effort; however, it appears that another Texas representative, Blake Farenthold, is about to introduce another bill to designate the interstate-quality portions of the two corridors as Interstate 69:

http://www.caller.com/news/2011/apr/14/farenthold-marks-100-days-in-office/

Quote
... Farenthold could file his second bill as early as today [April 14] that would designate a portion of the planned Interstate 69 corridor in the Rio Grande Valley as highway ready, making it eligible for federal funding, Farenthold spokeswoman Margarita Valdez said.
Valdez said the bill has the support of the majority of the Texas delegation ...

I'm taking the leap of faith that "highway ready" is intended to mean "ready to be designated as I-69".
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on May 09, 2011, 09:58:25 AM
it appears that another Texas representative, Blake Farenthold, is about to introduce another bill to designate the interstate-quality portions of the two corridors as Interstate 69 ... Farenthold could file his second bill as early as today [April 14] that would designate a portion of the planned Interstate 69 corridor in the Rio Grande Valley as highway ready, making it eligible for federal funding
In addition to trying to designate the interstate-quality portions of the two corridors as I-69, Farenthold is making it a priority to upgrade US 77 from Corpus Christi to Harlingen as I-69:

http://farenthold.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1120:transportation&catid=115&Itemid=100045

Quote
One of my highest priorities in the 112th Congress will be to upgrade US 77 to Interstate 69 in order to better serve the mobility needs of South Texans. Historically, the Lower Rio Grande Valley ...  is ... the largest metropolitan area in the nation not served by the Interstate Highway System which has caused limited economic opportunities and growth. The Interstate 69 project is expected to create more than 40,000 new jobs by 2025, resulting in $12.8 billion in additional wages and $24 billion in added value. Completion of US 77 upgrades will mean that Kleberg, Kennedy, Willacy and Cameron counties are all finally on an interstate highway.
Interstate 69 in Texas is an ongoing upgrade of existing highways to interstate standards. Currently, interstate designation is being pursued for several completed sections in South Texas. The Texas Department of Transportation is also nearing completion of a successful Environmental Assessment (EA) on upgrading the US 77 sections from Interstate 37 at Corpus Christi to US 83 in Harlingen. Completion of US 77 upgrades between Corpus Christi and Harlingen will serve as a model for how the rest of I-69 in Texas will become a reality.

Farenthold's use of the "serve as a model" language to describe the 110-mile US 77 upgrade is echoed in this document from the Alliance for I-69 Texas: http://www.i69texas.org/mediacenter/presentations/Alliance_Legislative.pdf

Quote
The initiative to upgrade US 77 between Corpus Christi and Harlingen may serve as a model for how much of the rest of I-69 in Texas will become a reality.
[page 5/10 of the pdf].

The pdf is circa 2009 and includes a financing plan that would use other toll projects to finance the US 77 upgrade. (page 5/10 of the pdf).

Does anyone know if this is still the financing model that Farenthold is advocating for the US 77 upgrade?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Henry on May 09, 2011, 04:05:38 PM
One has to wonder: How did they manage to come up with the I-69A, I-69C and I-69E designations, even some 30 years after suffixed routes were supposedly done away with (except for I-35 in TX and MN)?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Alps on May 09, 2011, 07:11:50 PM
One has to wonder: How did they manage to come up with the I-69A, I-69C and I-69E designations, even some 30 years after suffixed routes were supposedly done away with (except for I-35 in TX and MN)?
The eventual designations would likely involve two 3di's. Right now the politics haven't played out to determine which would be the main route. Just my guess.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on May 10, 2011, 03:02:56 PM
From what I have heard, the Laredo branch would be the mainline I-69, with the US 77 branch from Corpus Christi to Brownsville and the US 281 branch being x69 spurs.

Personally, here's what I would do to avoid the issue of suffixing:

Laredo-Houston branch of US 59 = I-69

SH 44 between Freer and Corpus Christi + US 77 through Corpus Christi to US 59 junction = I-469

US 77 from Corpus Christi to Brownsville = extended I-37

Existing I-37 from US 77 to downtown Corpus Christi = I-x37

I'd keep US 281 as is, really no need to make it an Interstate route..but if you insist, try an I-x69.


Anthony
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Henry on May 10, 2011, 03:29:04 PM
One has to wonder: How did they manage to come up with the I-69A, I-69C and I-69E designations, even some 30 years after suffixed routes were supposedly done away with (except for I-35 in TX and MN)?
The eventual designations would likely involve two 3di's. Right now the politics haven't played out to determine which would be the main route. Just my guess.
Which makes perfectly good sense.
From what I have heard, the Laredo branch would be the mainline I-69, with the US 77 branch from Corpus Christi to Brownsville and the US 281 branch being x69 spurs.

Personally, here's what I would do to avoid the issue of suffixing:

Laredo-Houston branch of US 59 = I-69

SH 44 between Freer and Corpus Christi + US 77 through Corpus Christi to US 59 junction = I-469

US 77 from Corpus Christi to Brownsville = extended I-37

Existing I-37 from US 77 to downtown Corpus Christi = I-x37

I'd keep US 281 as is, really no need to make it an Interstate route..but if you insist, try an I-x69.


Anthony

Seeing that US 77 and US 281 are pretty close together, they'd be better off upgrading one to Interstate standards and leaving the other as is. As for the actual designations, I could see I-37 go further down US 77 from Corpus Christi to Brownsville, with the rest of the US 77 corridor into Victoria being a southern I-39 or I-41. They already have two I-76s, two I-84s, two I-86s, and two I-88s, so why not two odd-numbered routes? (I'll discuss this further in the Fictional Highways section at an undetermined time.)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on May 21, 2011, 11:32:51 PM
it appears that another Texas representative, Blake Farenthold, is about to introduce another bill to designate the interstate-quality portions of the two corridors as Interstate 69 ... Farenthold could file his second bill as early as today [April 14] that would designate a portion of the planned Interstate 69 corridor in the Rio Grande Valley as highway ready, making it eligible for federal funding

Farenthold has filed his bill, and the two US Senators from Texas are apparently filing a companion bill in the Senate:

http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/immigration-126797-country-portion.html

Quote
... U.S. Rep. Blake Farenthold, R-Corpus Christi, whose district also includes a portion of Cameron County, introduced H.R. 1535, Interstate Designation for Portions of the I-69 Route, with the full support of the entire Texas delegation.
H.R. 1535 would allow portions of I-69 (US 59, 77, and 281) to be desig-nated as an interstate once segments are constructed to interstate standard, Farenthold said. If enacted, the bill would facilitate interstate signage on the multi-state I-69 corridor stretching from Port Huron, Mich., to the U.S.-Mexico border in Texas.
He said significant investments have been made and are continuing to be made in Texas using local, state and federal funding to build I-69.
“Close proximity to an interstate is arguably one of the greatest factors to encourage economic development and job creation,”  said Farenthold. “Along with my colleagues in Congress, I have been working with the Alli-ance for I-69 to ensure that work on the interstate is completed in a timely manner.”
“I am also very pleased that Senators Hutchinson and Cornyn are intro-ducing a companion bill in the Senate this week. This is an example of the great work and collaborative efforts made by both members of the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate,”  Farenthold said.

One has to wonder: How did they manage to come up with the I-69A, I-69C and I-69E designations, even some 30 years after suffixed routes were supposedly done away with (except for I-35 in TX and MN)?
The eventual designations would likely involve two 3di's. Right now the politics haven't played out to determine which would be the main route. Just my guess.
Which makes perfectly good sense.

If this legislation passes, the politics may have to play out sooner rather than later; I wonder if Texas is ready to make that call?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on May 22, 2011, 03:11:41 PM
it appears that another Texas representative, Blake Farenthold, is about to introduce another bill to designate the interstate-quality portions of the two corridors as Interstate 69
Farenthold has filed his bill
The proposed bill does two interesting things.  First, it increases the mileage of the I-69 corridor by adding US 83 between US 281 and US 77 to the corridor.  Then, it proposes to specifically exclude I-69 from the requirement that a new segment of interstate may not be signed unless it connects to another segment of the interstate system.  I had thought the amendment would consider a connection to a national border as being equivalent to a connection to the existing interstate system; instead, it appears that this introduced legislation would allow any segment of I-69 in Texas to be immediately signed after an upgrade to interstate standards, regardless of the distance from the existing interstate system.

Here's the text of the bill:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h112-1535

The relevant prior legislation that the bill proposes to amend can be found here:

https://www.aaroads.com/high-priority/nhslegis.html

From what I have heard, the Laredo branch would be the mainline I-69, with the US 77 branch from Corpus Christi to Brownsville and the US 281 branch being x69 spurs.
Anthony

As far as I can tell, federal legislation (Section 1105(e)(5)(c)(i) of ISTEA) currently mandates that US 59 from Laredo to Houston will be I-69 and the US 77 (I-69 East) and US 281 (I-69 Central) routes will be suffixed:

Quote
...A State having jurisdiction over any segment of routes referred to in subsections (c)(18) and (c)(20) shall erect signs identifying such segment that is consistent with the criteria set forth in subsections (e)(5)(A)(i) and (e)(5)(A)(ii) as Interstate Route I-69, including segments of United States Route 59 in the State of Texas. The segment identified in subsection (c)(18)(B)(i) shall be designated as Interstate Route I-69 East, and the segment identified in subsection (c)(18)(B)(ii) shall be designated as Interstate Route I-69 Central ...
(https://www.aaroads.com/high-priority/nhslegis.html)

Farenthold's bill does not attempt to amend this portion of the legislation dealing with the identification of the routes.

My understanding is that "nearly all of" US 83 is interstate-grade and signage-ready if legislation passes (http://www.themonitor.com/articles/interstate-44356-designation-valley.html).  Any guesses as to its designation?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on May 22, 2011, 03:47:42 PM
"...A State having jurisdiction over any segment of routes referred to in subsections (c)(18) and (c)(20) shall erect signs identifying such segment that is consistent with the criteria set forth in subsections (e)(5)(A)(i) and (e)(5)(A)(ii) as Interstate Route I-69, including segments of United States Route 59 in the State of Texas. The segment identified in subsection (c)(18)(B)(i) shall be designated as Interstate Route I-69 East, and the segment identified in subsection (c)(18)(B)(ii) shall be designated as Interstate Route I-69 Central ..." (https://www.aaroads.com/high-priority/nhslegis.html)
This appears to require the posting of I-69 signs on I-94 from Chicago to Detroit :)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on May 23, 2011, 01:40:30 PM
The proposed bill does two interesting things.  First, it increases the mileage of the I-69 corridor by adding US 83 between US 281 and US 77 to the corridor.  Then, it proposes to specifically exclude I-69 from the requirement that a new segment of interstate may not be signed unless it connects to another segment of the interstate system.

This article quotes Farenthold as asserting that 230 miles of highway in the Texas I-69 corridor, 25% of the I-69 route in Texas, is currently built to freeway standard and could be immediately signed if the legislation passes:

http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2011/05/texas-lawmakers-working-to-connect-pieces-of-nafta-superhighway-in-texas/

Quote
Piecing together the so-called NAFTA superhighway stretching 1,800 miles from Mexico to Canada will get a boost if the House adopts legislation submitted by Rep. Blake Farenthold, R-Corpus Christi ... The freshman lawmaker —- and 30 bipartisan members of Texas’ congressional delegation —- are asking the GOP-led chamber to designate three segments of Texas’ long-distance highways as part of Interstate-69 ... Currently, there are 230 miles of Texas highways built to freeway standard — nearly 25 percent of the Interstate-69 route in Texas, Farenthold said ... The measure would enable portions of US 59, US 77, and US 281 in Texas to be designated part of the interstate once those segments are constructed to interstate standard.

The proposed bill ...increases the mileage of the I-69 corridor by adding US 83 between US 281 and US 77 to the corridor .... My understanding is that "nearly all of" US 83 is interstate-grade and signage-ready if legislation passes (http://www.themonitor.com/articles/interstate-44356-designation-valley.html).  Any guesses as to its designation?

Who knows?  With US 83 connecting US 77 and US 281 near the border, the opportunity would exist after passage of legislation to maintain parity between the US 77 and US 281 corridors: give the two corridors the same designation by creating an absurdly elongated even-digit 3di that connects with US 59 (assuming an I-37/I-x69 duplex)  :sombrero:

EDIT

Here's a link to a local TV station's video report about the legislation:

http://www.ketknbc.com/news/i-69-superhighway-running-through-east-texas

SECOND EDIT

Sens. Hutchison and Cornyn have filed their bill, too.  As far as I can tell, it is identical to the House version.  Here is a link to a page on Senator Hutchison's website that discusses the bill (this page also has a link to the Senate version of the bill): http://hutchison.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=579
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Sykotyk on May 25, 2011, 11:26:39 PM
The really long 3DI loop would be bad because 'take I-x69 north' would be troublesome for non-long distant driving. May also be confusing for those in the valley given directions.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: DorkOfNerky on May 26, 2011, 12:39:44 AM
One has to wonder: How did they manage to come up with the I-69A, I-69C and I-69E designations, even some 30 years after suffixed routes were supposedly done away with (except for I-35 in TX and MN)?
The eventual designations would likely involve two 3di's. Right now the politics haven't played out to determine which would be the main route. Just my guess.

I kinda guessed the I-x69 designations would always be the way they would go as shown in a little illustration I did some time back:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3022.msg81239#msg81239
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on May 27, 2011, 06:56:40 AM
US 281 will soon be getting an upgrade to bring it one step closer to being signed as I-69 if the legislation passes:

http://www.themonitor.com/news/state-51023-county-interstate.html

Quote
The state will spend $9.2 million to clear another obstacle along U.S. 281 and continue upgrades to the route to make it Interstate-quality.
The Hidalgo County Regional Mobility Authority received $9.2 million in state funding to construct an overpass in Brooks County on U.S. 281 at Farm-to-Market Road 755, which stretches from Encino to Rio Grande City. Other than a relief route around Premont and a connection to Interstate 37 from George West, the intersection at FM 755 is one of the last major impediments before U.S. 281 is at expressway standards, a key step toward getting the Interstate 69 designation that economic development officials say is critical to attracting companies to the county.
“If we’re ever going to be able to make 281 part of I-69, we’ve got to start paying attention to those improvements along 281,”  said mobility authority chairman Dennis Burleson. “This is one more obstacle off of 281 to make it look more like an Interstate.”  ...
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on June 01, 2011, 12:15:21 PM
As far as I can tell, federal legislation (Section 1105(e)(5)(c)(i) of ISTEA) currently mandates that US 59 from Laredo to Houston will be I-69 and the US 77 (I-69 East) and US 281 (I-69 Central) routes will be suffixed:
"...A State having jurisdiction over any segment of routes referred to in subsections (c)(18) and (c)(20) shall erect signs identifying such segment that is consistent with the criteria set forth in subsections (e)(5)(A)(i) and (e)(5)(A)(ii) as Interstate Route I-69, including segments of United States Route 59 in the State of Texas. The segment identified in subsection (c)(18)(B)(i) shall be designated as Interstate Route I-69 East, and the segment identified in subsection (c)(18)(B)(ii) shall be designated as Interstate Route I-69 Central ..." (https://www.aaroads.com/high-priority/nhslegis.html)
Farenthold's bill does not attempt to amend this portion of the legislation dealing with the identification of the routes.
One has to wonder: How did they manage to come up with the I-69A, I-69C and I-69E designations, even some 30 years after suffixed routes were supposedly done away with (except for I-35 in TX and MN)?
The eventual designations would likely involve two 3di's. Right now the politics haven't played out to determine which would be the main route. Just my guess.
The Alliance For I-69 Texas has worked closely with the Texas delegation on the two bills.  I recently emailed and asked if they planned to go with either the current I-69+suffix designations or I-x69 designations.

As Steve suggested, it appears the procedure will be:  let the national politics play out and get the bill passed, then let the Texas politics play out and figure out (probable) 3di designations:

Quote
Thanks for your inquiry.  The priority for the Alliance and the communities along the corridor is to get the interstate designation and shield.  As such, we are not as concerned at this point with the numbering (ie, I-169,I-369, etc.).    As for US 83, we are attempting to add that to the I-69 Corridor designation as it serves as a vital connector between US 281 and US 77 and it is currently at interstate standards.  
 
Jennifer Shepard
Executive Director
Alliance for I-69 Texas

Her response indicates that, regardless of the current legislation, the suffixed numbering scheme probably will not be used.  It is also interesting that Ms. Shepard maintains that US 83 is already at interstate standards (and would thus be ready for immediate signage).

EDIT

This recent opinion piece by a member of the Alliance indicates that, regardless of the fate of the legislation, some form of I-69 signage may soon be appearing on a 75-mile stretch of US 59 through Houston and a 10-mile stretch of US 77 in Nueces County:

http://www.caller.com/news/2011/jun/07/so-far-230-miles-of-interstate-69-built/

Quote
... The Nueces County Commissioners Court recently supported Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority's project to enhance Highway 77, through a court resolution. We were pleased to learn that such support may have been a contributing factor to their ability to leverage $25 million of pass-through financing from the State of Texas. Texans now could soon see Interstate 69 signs on a 75-mile portion of U.S. 59 in the Houston region and a 10-mile piece of U.S. 77 in Nueces County, both of which connect to existing interstate highways ...
Title: TxDOT Launches New I-69 Website
Post by: Grzrd on June 17, 2011, 09:19:59 PM
TxDOT has recently launched a new I-69 website as part of its citizens outreach efforts:

http://www.txdot.gov/drivenbytexans/default.htm
Title: I-69 Now Officially in Texas
Post by: Grzrd on August 11, 2011, 12:57:31 PM
A 6.2 mile stretch of US 77 near Robstown, between I-37 and State Highway 44,  is now officially I-69 (apparently, shields have been ordered):

http://www.caller.com/news/2011/aug/09/robstown-highway-officially-becomes-first-of-69/
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on August 11, 2011, 01:36:51 PM

I'd keep US 281 as is, really no need to make it an Interstate route..but if you insist, try an I-x69.


Anthony


Some interstates already have 2 separate segments, so how about I-99?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on August 11, 2011, 01:38:01 PM
I-238 would fit better.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on August 11, 2011, 01:47:40 PM
I-238 would fit better.

Hey, good idea!
Title: Re: TxDOT Launches New I-69 Website
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 11, 2011, 03:47:33 PM
question is, will we ever see a state-named Texas I-69?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on August 11, 2011, 05:01:41 PM
I'd keep US 281 as is, really no need to make it an Interstate route..but if you insist, try an I-x69.
Anthony
Some interstates already have 2 separate segments, so how about I-99?
question is, will we ever see a state-named Texas I-69?
I just finished a phone call with the public information director for the Corpus Christi district.  He gave a little bit of clarity to the situation.
The FHWA has signed off on the above-mentioned section of US 77 being included in the I-69 Corridor.  However, AASHTO still has to approve the actual number for this segment (I-69 or I-x69 or I-69suffix).  This is expected to occur in September.  I suppose it is possible to have an I-x69 designation before an actual I-69 designation.  However, the article indicates that the shields have already been ordered ... :eyebrow:
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: agentsteel53 on August 11, 2011, 06:42:35 PM
I did not know AASHO was approving suffixed routes still.  I thought they were put on the ban list in the early 1980s, with strong pressure to remove all but the pair of 35E/W splits.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on August 11, 2011, 10:20:21 PM
I did not know AASHO was approving suffixed routes still.  I thought they were put on the ban list in the early 1980s, with strong pressure to remove all but the pair of 35E/W splits.
I seriously doubt that they will.  The only reason I included that as a possibility is that the federal legislation authorizing the I-69 Corridor speaks in terms of suffixes.  It may be possible that AASHTO would feel compelled to comply with the legislation (although I doubt it).  I'm primarily interested in which route will be the "main" I-69: US 59, 77, or 281.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on August 11, 2011, 10:49:46 PM
Given that US 77 is already all four-lane, I'd expect it to be the main I-69.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: njroadhorse on August 12, 2011, 06:03:21 PM
Given that US 77 is already all four-lane, I'd expect it to be the main I-69.
The Laredo routing makes more sense though. It's a bigger city that you're connecting to.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on August 12, 2011, 06:12:33 PM
The Laredo routing makes more sense though. It's a bigger city that you're connecting to.
Not by much, and US 77 wins slightly when you add Harlingen. (Also note that, despite US 281 being another designated leg of I-69, US 77 easily serves McAllen etc.)

As for travel into the interior of Mexico, US 59 to Laredo does look like a better route; Houston to Monterrey is about 50 miles shorter via Laredo than via McAllen.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Alps on August 12, 2011, 07:26:12 PM
NJ Turnpike might consider applying for I-95W and I-95E for the Western and Eastern Spurs, though it's more to keep exit numbers aligned on both roadways versus restarting one at 0. (The Eastern Spur would likely become an x95, though the even ones are all taken in the area...)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on August 12, 2011, 07:31:09 PM
I've always figured that US 59 through Laredo would be the main route for I-69, and the other routes would be suppementary I-x69 routes.

Personally, I'd rather that they get "Future I-69" shields or BGS's before they complete all of I-69...or they simply complete construction and just keep them as US routes until everything is done.


Anthony
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on August 12, 2011, 07:32:35 PM
NJ Turnpike might consider applying for I-95W and I-95E for the Western and Eastern Spurs, though it's more to keep exit numbers aligned on both roadways versus restarting one at 0. (The Eastern Spur would likely become an x95, though the even ones are all taken in the area...)
Why would they have to do that? I-276's exit numbers are measured from the state line on I-76.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Alps on August 12, 2011, 09:41:20 PM
NJ Turnpike might consider applying for I-95W and I-95E for the Western and Eastern Spurs, though it's more to keep exit numbers aligned on both roadways versus restarting one at 0. (The Eastern Spur would likely become an x95, though the even ones are all taken in the area...)
Why would they have to do that? I-276's exit numbers are measured from the state line on I-76.
I-276 is technically in violation, though. I don't know if PTC is going to fix that or be made to fix that now... I don't think they use Fed money so I have my doubts. (Same doubts I have about NJ Turnpike being forced to comply, but we'll find out)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on August 12, 2011, 10:25:32 PM
Really, sometimes you just have to ignore the rules. However, I read 2009 MUTCD Section 2E.31 and I don't see anything requiring mileage to begin at 0, only that "interchanges shall be numbered in ascending order starting at the interchange where the spur leaves the mainline route". I-276 follows this, beginning with 326 where it leaves I-76.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Alps on August 12, 2011, 10:56:31 PM
Really, sometimes you just have to ignore the rules. However, I read 2009 MUTCD Section 2E.31 and I don't see anything requiring mileage to begin at 0, only that "interchanges shall be numbered in ascending order starting at the interchange where the spur leaves the mainline route". I-276 follows this, beginning with 326 where it leaves I-76.

Hmm... 2H.05 has some more rules about numbering, I have much easier access at work but I know numbers have to count up from south-north and west-east (sorry, I-180 PA). Exit numbers are based on mileposts, so it's up to whether there's a rule about mileposts starting at 0...
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on August 12, 2011, 10:59:20 PM
Niiiiiice - it's should, not shall. "Zero distance should begin at the south and west State lines, or at the south and west terminus points where routes begin within a State." Arizona would have been screwed otherwise.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Alps on August 13, 2011, 02:56:03 AM
Niiiiiice - it's should, not shall. "Zero distance should begin at the south and west State lines, or at the south and west terminus points where routes begin within a State." Arizona would have been screwed otherwise.
Interesting. I wonder if they had a hand in it?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: akotchi on August 13, 2011, 10:36:14 AM
Thankfully, it is a "should" condition -- ticket-system toll roads carrying different routes over various parts of their lengths would have trouble resolving this issue if it were "shall," mainly because of confusion of exit numbers.  Extensions within the ticket system are even more problematic, though Pa's works with I-476 mileposts because 31 - 131 on there is nowhere near 30 - 131 on the east-west (I-76) portion.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on August 13, 2011, 02:48:35 PM
Given that US 77 is already all four-lane, I'd expect it to be the main I-69.

This article also indicates that the Corpus Christi to Brownsville stretch of US 77 is only $160 million away from being completely upgraded to interstate quality:
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/interstate-129742-closer-push.html

Quote
... County Administrator Pete Sepulveda said that, of the 123-mile section of road between Corpus Christi and Brownsville, about 24 miles are up to interstate standards, though work is under way to bring the remainder up to snuff.
A 1.8-mile section of U.S. Expressway 77 at Robstown, part of the greater Corpus Christi metro area, has been upgraded and in-cludes an overpass at FM 892. The project cost $20 million. The Texas Department of Transportation recently began soliciting bids for construction of a 3.3-mile section of U.S. Expressway 77 between Lyford and Sebastian. The cost of the project, which will also include a new overpass, is estimated at $30.4 million.
TxDOT in early 2012 will open bids for improvements to U.S. Expressway 77 in the Kingsville area. Initial plans called for up-grades, including overpasses, at Driscoll and Riviera to be paid for with private money, which would make it necessary for tolls to be charged along those sections. Sepulveda hopes federal and/or state funding can be found to make private money – and tolls – unnecessary. Ground has not yet been broken on those projects.
Sepulveda, who’s also coordinator for the Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority, said local officials have been meeting with political leaders in counties north of Cameron County, and working with the TxDOT district engineer in Corpus Christi, to identify funding sources to finish upgrading the remaining miles. Sepulveda said the Corpus Christi-to-Brownsville stretch is about $160 million away from being completely upgraded to interstate quality. Being so close money-wise makes it much easier to get taken seriously in Austin and Washington, he said, when it comes to asking for funding. Upgrading all 123 miles will end up costing somewhere in the neighborhood of $300,000,000 Sepulveda said, adding that “it’s very doable”  to secure all the necessary funding within two years. The various projects are being funded with a combination of local, state and federal dollars.
Of all the Valley’s transportation needs, being connected to interstate-quality road is the most important factor in terms of eco-nomic development, growing the tax base and industrial base, and creating jobs, he said.
“At the end of day our goal is to create jobs,”  Sepulveda said.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on August 15, 2011, 09:19:19 PM
Given that US 77 is already all four-lane, I'd expect it to be the main I-69.
Draft agenda for Aug. 25 meeting of Texas Transportation Commission indicates that they will petition AASHTO to designate the above-mentioned section of US 77 as Interstate 69 [page 5/9 of pdf]:
http://www.txdot.gov/about_us/commission/2011_meetings/documents/agendas/aug25.pdf

Quote
10. Highway Designation
Nueces County — Authorize submission of an application to the American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) to designate a segment of US 77
from I-37 in Corpus Christi to SH 44 in Robstown as Interstate 69 (MO)
In accordance with the processes established by the Federal Highway Administration and AASHTO, this
minute order authorizes the department to petition AASHTO to include a 6.2-mile segment of US 77 from
I-37 in Corpus Christi to SH 44 in Robstown as part of the Interstate Highway System as I-69. A technical
report prepared by the department, which evaluated the existing design features and operational
conditions of the route, found that in addition to being part of the High Priority Corridor 18 System, this
segment of US 77 also meets current interstate system design standards and connects to an existing
interstate system segment via a fully directional interchange with 1-37, thus establishing its eligibility for
the designation.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on August 16, 2011, 09:54:28 PM
Given that US 77 is already all four-lane, I'd expect it to be the main I-69.
Draft agenda for Aug. 25 meeting of Texas Transportation Commission indicates that they will petition AASHTO to designate the above-mentioned section of US 77 as Interstate 69 [page 5/9 of pdf]:
http://www.txdot.gov/about_us/commission/2011_meetings/documents/agendas/aug25.pdf

"10. Highway Designation
Nueces County — Authorize submission of an application to the American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) to designate a segment of US 77
from I-37 in Corpus Christi to SH 44 in Robstown as Interstate 69 (MO)
In accordance with the processes established by the Federal Highway Administration and AASHTO, this
minute order authorizes the department to petition AASHTO to include a 6.2-mile segment of US 77 from
I-37 in Corpus Christi to SH 44 in Robstown as part of the Interstate Highway System as I-69. A technical
report prepared by the department, which evaluated the existing design features and operational
conditions of the route, found that in addition to being part of the High Priority Corridor 18 System, this
segment of US 77 also meets current interstate system design standards and connects to an existing
interstate system segment via a fully directional interchange with 1-37, thus establishing its eligibility for
the designation."

I understand that...but again, isn't the Laredo to Houston segment of US 59 scheduled to be designated as the main route of I-69 upon completion of the upgrade to Interstate standards??

Also...isn't there some controversy over upgrading US 77 in Refugio, where some folk have expressed opposition to a freeway upgrade there??

I'm not opposed to giving  US 77 Interstate mileage...but either an extended I-37 or an I-x37 would be more appropriate. Even a suffixed I-69E would be more appropriate while the other segments are being built. (YUCK!!! I hate suffixed routes...I-35W/E excepted.)


Anthony
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on August 17, 2011, 12:19:39 PM
isn't the Laredo to Houston segment of US 59 scheduled to be designated as the main route of I-69 upon completion of the upgrade to Interstate standards??
Anthony
The ISTEA legisalation does indicate that Laredo to Houston is mainline I-69, but it looks like a combination of US 77 being a faster upgrade and overall population growth in Rio Grande Valley may have changed some minds.  OTOH it is anticipated that there will be I-69 signs going through Houston by next summer: http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update8.12.11.html

Quote
US 59 IN HOUSTON AREA
TxDOT is also in the process of requesting that the Federal Highway Administration approve adding completed sections of US 59 in the Houston metropolitan area to the Interstate Highway System as I-69.
The Eastex Freeway (US 59) is at interstate highway standard with full controlled access from downtown Houston to near Splendora in Montgomery County, a total of 38 miles. The Southwest Freeway (US 59) is at interstate standard from downtown Houston to Rosenberg, a total of 35 miles. These I-69 route sections connect to the existing Interstate System at I-10, I-45 and I-610.
Barton said the section north of Loop 610 has already been submitted to FHWA for review and that the highway through Houston and south to Rosenberg should be ready ready in the next two months. TxDOT has been coordinating the effort with FHWA and he expects quick action. These sections are likely to go to the AASHTO route numbering committee for approval at their semi-annual meeting next May. He expects signs to be up by next summer.
He said that getting the first sections added to the Interstate System and signed is an important milestone that marks the beginning of an era when Texas will focus on filling in the I-69 gaps rather than talking about a large corridor that is yet to be started.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Sykotyk on August 20, 2011, 05:13:41 AM
Population growth is one thing, but Laredo transfers the bulk of international truck traffic between Texas and Mexico. It would make more sense for the Mexico to eastern U.S. points is best served by one continuous route.

Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on August 26, 2011, 10:04:32 AM
Population growth is one thing, but Laredo transfers the bulk of international truck traffic between Texas and Mexico. It would make more sense for the Mexico to eastern U.S. points is best served by one continuous route.
I asked I-69 Alliance about the "mainline" issue, and reply indicates that there will be some uncertainty for a while:

Quote
US 77 will still carry the I-69 name.  East and Central were added to eliminate driver confusion about different roadways to the border being labeled I-69.  The fact that US 77 will be signed first does not indicate a decision about the "mainline", but rather a reflection of the fact that upgrades to bring a portion of US 77 to interstate standards have been completed faster than work on US 59 to Laredo.  We do expect FHWA to approve signing of US 59 through the Houston as I-69 early next year.
Thank you for your interest.

Jennifer Shepard
Executive Director
Alliance for I-69 Texas
Phone/Fax 703-580-4416
Jennifer@jgshepard.com
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Sykotyk on September 01, 2011, 12:30:08 AM
Yeah, the stretch from Laredo to Victoria will require a lot of work. ROW, four-laning, bypasses, etc. US77 just needs some overpasses, frontage or mainlines, etc and it's essentially done. I do believe a few small bypasses are needed. But nowhere near the extent of US59. Especially Beeville, Freer, etc.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on September 15, 2011, 09:31:53 AM
Population growth is one thing, but Laredo transfers the bulk of international truck traffic between Texas and Mexico. It would make more sense for the Mexico to eastern U.S. points is best served by one continuous route.
I asked I-69 Alliance about the "mainline" issue, and reply indicates that there will be some uncertainty for a while:
"US 77 will still carry the I-69 name.  East and Central were added to eliminate driver confusion about different roadways to the border being labeled I-69.  The fact that US 77 will be signed first does not indicate a decision about the "mainline", but rather a reflection of the fact that upgrades to bring a portion of US 77 to interstate standards have been completed faster than work on US 59 to Laredo.  We do expect FHWA to approve signing of US 59 through the Houston as I-69 early next year.
Alliance for I-69 Texas
Here is a link to the Transcript of the August 25 meeting of the Texas Transportation Commission in which they authorized submission of an application to AASHTO for approval of the I-69 designation for the US 77 segment:
http://www.txdot.gov/about_us/commission/2011_meetings/documents/transcripts/aug25.pdf

On pages 94/124 and 102/124 of the pdf, one of the comissioners wants to know if AASHTO's involvement is even necessary, given that the FHWA has signed off on the section meeting interstate standards and that the I-69 designation is written into the federal statute.  He really does not get a direct answer, but reading between the lines, I suspect the Commission wants AASHTO to "legitimize" the I-69 designation for the US 77 segment, even though that designation would not be in technical compliance with the statute referring to it as "I-69 East".

I wonder if AASHTO will consider the I-69 designation as possibly being temporary?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on September 16, 2011, 12:09:44 AM
I'd still think that AASHTO would still have a huge issue with signing segments as I-69 when they don't even connect with each other, let alone with existing I-69. At least when the sections in Indiana are complete, they would have some sembulance of connection with existing I-69.

Then again, the politicians can simply ignore AASHTO's objections and go rogue on their own, as Mississippi did with the Tunica segment of I-69. Or, as Bud Shuster did with I-99.


Anthony
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on October 05, 2011, 05:13:19 PM
"Future I-69 Corridor" signs will soon be placed in five more counties along US 59:
http://lufkindailynews.com/news/local/article_3cd683f8-eef4-11e0-ab73-001cc4c03286.html

Quote
The I-69 corridor, a proposed national interstate highway extending from Michigan through Lufkin and East Texas to the Mexican border, will take a visible step toward reality this week.
The Federal Highway Administration recently granted approval for the Texas Department of Transportation to erect 14 “Future I-69 Corridor”  signs along U.S. 59 in TxDOT’s Lufkin District, which includes Angelina, Nacogdoches, Polk, San Jacinto and Shelby counties.
According to a TxDOT-issued statement, the signs are intended to inform the traveling public that U.S. 59 in Texas is federally designated to become a future part of I-69 when it meets Interstate design standards.
Lufkin Mayor Jack Gorden, who serves as a member on the executive committee of the Alliance for I-69 Texas, said that the project has made some significant steps in the last two years.
“It doesn’t mean it’s going to be built tomorrow, but good things have happened,”  Gorden said. “This signage issue is something that we came up a couple of years ago.”
TxDOT has previously erected “Future I-69 Corridor”  signs along other segments of U.S 59, U.S. 77, and U.S. 281, which are also federally designated to become part of the future national I-69 system, according to the statement, and with this approval, TxDOT can move forward to install future Interstate signs along U.S. 59 in these five counties. The signs are expected to be installed by Friday ...
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: OCGuy81 on October 06, 2011, 10:35:53 AM
Great post, and a lot of information to read over! Thanks.

What is the plan to connect the portions of I-69 in Texas to the already signed portions of I-69 (specifically the segment south of Memphis in Mississippi, which I've seen signed)?  Will 69 follow 59 all the way to Texarkana, have a concurrent segment with 30 and 40 in Arkansas and then split off and connect to the I-69/MS 304 segment in Mississippi?

North of that, I guess US 51 through Tennessee and Purchase Pkwy in Kentucky?  I'm just trying to determine a rout off Google maps.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on October 06, 2011, 11:54:15 AM
What is the plan to connect the portions of I-69 in Texas to the already signed portions of I-69 (specifically the segment south of Memphis in Mississippi, which I've seen signed)?  Will 69 follow 59 all the way to Texarkana, have a concurrent segment with 30 and 40 in Arkansas and then split off and connect to the I-69/MS 304 segment in Mississippi?
For Texas, go to this link http://www.txdot.gov/public_involvement/committees/i69/default.htm and the Interim Update Reports for the 5 Segment Committees all have maps.  In Segment 1, the portion of the I-69 Corridor from Tenaha to Texarkana is commonly referred to as an "I-69 Spur" and may eventually link to Future I-49 in Texas to the northwest of Texarkana.

I'm a little lazy today & cannot provide other links, but check out
Mid-South "I-69 in LA ..." thread: first paragraph of my April 27, 2011 post has links to two maps through Louisiana & my Sept. 15, 2011 post discusses current status of section from US 171 in LA to TX state line.
Mid-South "I-69 in AR" thread: my May 8, 2011 and May 15, 2011 posts have links to maps through Arkansas.
Southeastern "I-69 in MS" thread: my June 8, 2011 post has links to a map of SIU 11 through Mississippi as well as SIU 9 through and around metro Memphis.


North of that, I guess US 51 through Tennessee and Purchase Pkwy in Kentucky?  I'm just trying to determine a rout off Google maps.
This link will lead you to maps of the SIUs in Tennessee:
http://www.tdot.state.tn.us/i69/projectsegments.htm

In the Ohio Valley "I-69 in KY" thread, my September 1, 2011 post pastes sections of an article that describes the route through Kentucky along the parkways.

EDIT

Mid-South "I-69 in AR" thread: my October 9, 2011 post has a map of the I-69 Connector from the I-530 interchange in Pine Bluff to US 278 near Wilmar.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: OCGuy81 on October 06, 2011, 12:26:15 PM
Thank you Grzrd!
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on October 09, 2011, 04:51:19 PM
Thank you Grzrd!
You are welcome OCGuy81!

The Alliance For I-69 Texas website has recently reported that the Texas Transportation Commission has approved $89.8 million of Proposition 12 bond funding for several I-69 upgrade projects along the US 59, 77 and 281 routes (the webpage has a good map of the respective locations of the projects):
http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update10.7.11.html
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Sykotyk on October 10, 2011, 06:46:37 AM
Yeah, I-30/I-40 in Arkansas has more than enough traffic. This future I-69 (when fully completed through southern Arkansas and northern Louisiana) will greatly alleviate a lot of the heavy truck traffic that's clogging up I-30/I-40 (aside from the split speed limit that buffers car traffic as well).

Even if Tennessee doesn't build up US51 (it's a pain right now), the easy alternative is I-55 north to I-155 to Dyersburg.

Sykotyk
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on October 25, 2011, 11:03:49 PM
Given that US 77 is already all four-lane, I'd expect it to be the main I-69.
Draft agenda for Aug. 25 meeting of Texas Transportation Commission indicates that they will petition AASHTO to designate the above-mentioned section of US 77 as Interstate 69 [page 5/9 of pdf]:
http://www.txdot.gov/about_us/commission/2011_meetings/documents/agendas/aug25.pdf
"10. Highway Designation
Nueces County — Authorize submission of an application to the American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) to designate a segment of US 77
from I-37 in Corpus Christi to SH 44 in Robstown as Interstate 69 (MO)
In accordance with the processes established by the Federal Highway Administration and AASHTO, this
minute order authorizes the department to petition AASHTO to include a 6.2-mile segment of US 77 from
I-37 in Corpus Christi to SH 44 in Robstown as part of the Interstate Highway System as I-69. A technical
report prepared by the department, which evaluated the existing design features and operational
conditions of the route, found that in addition to being part of the High Priority Corridor 18 System, this
segment of US 77 also meets current interstate system design standards and connects to an existing
interstate system segment via a fully directional interchange with 1-37, thus establishing its eligibility for
the designation."
On October 15, the AASHTO Highways Special Committee on U.S. Route Numbering reported its approval of the I-69 designation for the above-referenced segment in Texas [page 8/8 of pdf]:
http://www.transportation.org/sites/route/docs/USRN%20Report%20to%20SCOH%20Oct%2015%202011.pdf
Title: TTC Votes To Add I-69 to Texas State Highway System
Post by: Grzrd on October 27, 2011, 12:50:23 PM
This morning, the Texas Transportation Commission voted to add the AASHTO-approved section of US 77 to the Texas state highway system as I-69 (the first I-69 shield is supposed to go up in early December):
http://www.txdot.gov/news/045-2011.htm

Quote
The Texas Transportation Commission took action today to add Interstate 69 to the state highway system, allowing Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) officials to label the first Texas stretch of the nearly 1000-mile interstate since I-69 received federal high-priority route designation more than a decade ago.
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. This concurrent designation is possible without additional funding, right of way or construction because the existing highway already meets interstate standards .... The first I-69 sign will go up in early December at the intersection of I-69/US 77 and SH 44 in Robstown .... TxDOT is also asking the FHWA for approval to add completed sections of US 59 in the Houston metropolitan area to the Interstate Highway System as I-69.
Title: "Texas" Will Be on I-69 Shields
Post by: Grzrd on October 28, 2011, 11:37:59 AM
I emailed the Executive Director of the I-69 in Texas Alliance and asked her if "Texas" will be on the I-69 shields.  I was mildly surprised by her response:

Quote
Yes!  The shields will have Texas on them.  This is something we encouraged TxDOT to do.
Title: Re: "Texas" Will Be on I-69 Shields
Post by: agentsteel53 on October 28, 2011, 11:44:48 AM
I emailed the Executive Director of the I-69 in Texas Alliance and asked her if "Texas" will be on the I-69 shields.  I was mildly surprised by her response:
"Yes!  The shields will have Texas on them.  This is something we encouraged TxDOT to do."


our very own space captain JeffR had a hand in this.  I may or may not have made the mockup shield he used as a prop at the meetings.
Title: Re: "Texas" Will Be on I-69 Shields
Post by: Alex on October 28, 2011, 11:47:25 AM
I emailed the Executive Director of the I-69 in Texas Alliance and asked her if "Texas" will be on the I-69 shields.  I was mildly surprised by her response:
"Yes!  The shields will have Texas on them.  This is something we encouraged TxDOT to do."


The efforts of Jeff Royston had something to do with the addition of the state name on I-69 shields in Texas. He shared with us some of his communications with the Executive Director of Alliance for I-69 Texas:

Quote
FYI.  Thanks for your assistance on this matter.  The Alliance leadership
strongly supports including the state name on the interstate shields.

Quote
<snip>
I wanted to let you know that we are planning to hold an event in the Corpus
Christi area at 2 p.m. on Dec. 5th to mark the posting of the first
interstate signs on a section of US 77 that will be designated as I-69.
TxDOT is preparing the invitation and I will forward it to you once it is
released.  I have confirmed with TxDOT that the interstate shield will
include "Texas".  Many thanks for your efforts on this!
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Alps on October 28, 2011, 07:17:37 PM
Power to the road people! Let's march on Washington and demand US cutouts!
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on October 31, 2011, 03:43:01 PM
I recently received an email update from the Executive Director of the I-69 in Texas Alliance on the current status of the proposed bill that would allow I-69 signage on US 281, US 83, and US 77 in the Lower Rio Grande Valley.  Basically, it is anticipated that the bill, although introduced as a stand alone bill, will be rolled into the next reauthorization bill (if and when that ever occurs... :no:).  Part of her response:

Quote
We have gotten a commitment from Chairman Mica that he plans to include the signage legislation in his proposed reauthorization bill.  The signage legislation has been introduced as stand alone bills in both the House and Senate, but we expect that it will be rolled into the reauthorization bill.  However, as you have observed, timing is quite uncertain on the reauthorization bill.  The Senate EPW Committee is scheduled to mark-up a two-year reauthorization bill on Nov. 9th.  We will see what the House does.

If the bill does pass in the relatively near future, and with US 77 definitely being signed as I-69, it will be interesting to see what interstate designations US 83 and US 281 will receive.

EDITED: The map at this link shows the portions of US 281, US 83 and US 77 near the Mexican border that currently combine for 91 miles of freeway standard mileage:
http://www.i69texasalliance.com/i69.html

The map at this link shows, as of June 20, 2011, the working draft recommendation of the Section 4 Committee that US 77 be signed as an interstate from the Mexican border to south of Lyford and that US 281 be signed as an interstate from US 83 to north of McAllen (not sure why there is no apparent current status/recommendation for US 83 itself) [page 4/5 of pdf]:
http://www.i69texasalliance.com/ResourcesPDFs/Seg%20Cmte%20Maps%20June2011.pdf

If the proposed bill passes, maybe TxDOT could follow KYTC's lead and reach an agreement with FHWA regarding the 91 miles of freeway standard mileage mentioned in second link above and immediately sign all 91 miles as interstate.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: mgk920 on October 31, 2011, 10:58:57 PM
I recently received an email update from the Executive Director of the I-69 in Texas Alliance on the current status of the proposed bill that would allow I-69 signage on US 281, US 83, and US 77 in the Lower Rio Grande Valley.  Basically, it is anticipated that the bill, although introduced as a stand alone bill, will be rolled into the next reauthorization bill (if and when that ever occurs... :no:).  Part of her response:

"We have gotten a commitment from Chairman Mica that he plans to include the signage legislation in his proposed reauthorization bill.  The signage legislation has been introduced as stand alone bills in both the House and Senate, but we expect that it will be rolled into the reauthorization bill.  However, as you have observed, timing is quite uncertain on the reauthorization bill.  The Senate EPW Committee is scheduled to mark-up a two-year reauthorization bill on Nov. 9th.  We will see what the House does."

If the bill does pass in the relatively near future, and with US 77 definitely being signed as I-69, it will be interesting to see what interstate designations US 83 and US 281 will receive.

The map at this link shows the portions of US 281, US 83 and US 77 near the Mexican border that are currently at freeway (and presumably interstate) standard and would be eligible for I-69 signage under the proposed bill:
http://www.i69texasalliance.com/i69.html

Ditto US 59 to Laredo.  I could see US 59 west of Victoria becoming 'I-6' and US 281 being a rerouted I-37.  US 83?  Howabout a 'western' I-4?

Mike
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Alex on December 05, 2011, 10:41:11 PM
Interstate 69 Texas shields are now posted along Interstate 37 for the interchange with U.S. 77. Jeff Royston snapped a couple of images with his Iphone:

(http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/texas/i-037_nb_exit_014_01.jpg)

Northbound Interstate 37


(http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/texas/i-037_sb_exit_014_01.jpg)

Southbound Interstate 37
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: rickmastfan67 on December 05, 2011, 11:35:48 PM
Wow, state named shields on the BGS's!  Don't see that often anymore.

Only personally know of two.
I-279 (http://g.co/maps/ewjp9)
I-16 (http://g.co/maps/4tjzd)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on December 06, 2011, 07:42:54 AM
Here's a link to a TV news video report of the signage ceremony (also included on the webpage is a still photo of a "shield in the field"):
http://www.kiiitv.com/story/16194594/i-69-sign-installed-along-us-77

Also, this article indicates that ten I-69 signs were installed on the section (EDIT - this link was updated after my post to include a still photo of the unveiling of a BGS with I-69 shield):
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/article/Coastal-Bend-Valley-unveil-first-stretch-of-2346709.php

Quote
The Rio Grande Valley came 6.2 miles closer to losing its distinction as the largest metro area in the nation without direct access to an interstate Monday with the first stretch of Interstate 69, a trade corridor promised to someday link the Valley's Mexican border cities to inland America and Canada.
The segment already met interstate standards and required no new construction, making Monday's ceremony largely symbolic. But the 10 “I-69”  signs make those miles the first new interstate in Texas since 1992 ...
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: codyg1985 on December 06, 2011, 09:03:51 AM
^ Did anyone notice that the sign used for the ceremony used greenout panels for "Texas' First Segment" and "Robstown, TX, Dec 5, 2011"? I guess that sign will later go in the field somewhere.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: agentsteel53 on December 06, 2011, 12:49:16 PM

Only personally know of two.
I-279 (http://g.co/maps/ewjp9)
I-16 (http://g.co/maps/4tjzd)

there are lots and lots out there.  I can think of at least one in nearly every state, including some generally hard-to-find states like Massachusetts. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bassoon1986 on December 06, 2011, 01:02:19 PM
Also, this article indicates that ten I-69 signs were installed on the section (EDIT - this link was updated after my post to include a still photo of the unveiling of a BGS with I-69 shield):
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/article/Coastal-Bend-Valley-unveil-first-stretch-of-2346709.php


it mentioned that this was the first new interstate in Texas since 1992, was that the new I-20 in SE Dallas?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: txstateends on December 06, 2011, 05:35:01 PM
Also, this article indicates that ten I-69 signs were installed on the section (EDIT - this link was updated after my post to include a still photo of the unveiling of a BGS with I-69 shield):
http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/article/Coastal-Bend-Valley-unveil-first-stretch-of-2346709.php


it mentioned that this was the first new interstate in Texas since 1992, was that the new I-20 in SE Dallas?

It would either have to be I-20 between Balch Springs and Terrell, or the last part of I-27 in the panhandle.  I'm kinda surprised that I-44 didn't get the nod to extend along the new elevated section when it opened in Wichita Falls down to US 82.  Then that might have been the most recent interstate section.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Alps on December 06, 2011, 08:38:17 PM

Only personally know of two.
I-279 (http://g.co/maps/ewjp9)
I-16 (http://g.co/maps/4tjzd)

there are lots and lots out there.  I can think of at least one in nearly every state, including some generally hard-to-find states like Massachusetts. 
On BGS? I know of none in many states, though I wouldn't say most.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: agentsteel53 on December 07, 2011, 11:27:53 AM
by BGS, do you also include side-mounted (as opposed to overhead-mounted) green signs?

for example, is this a BGS?  it's B, and it's G, and it's certainly an S, but it might be a borderline example given its purpose.

(http://www.aaroads.com/shields/img/NH/NH19610934i1.jpg)

a quick survey of the shield gallery reveals, offhand, only ID, KY, MO, ND, OH, OR, SD, TN, WV with no state-named shields on green signs in photos taken at any time, including some examples from only the 60s (RI), but most with examples surviving into the early 2000s at least.  ID, OH, OR, SD and TN are likely the results of insufficient data, as they got rid of state-named shields quite a while back.  MO, ND and WV are very scrupulous in their standards compliance, and KY is a little bit of both, I think.

(LA would be an example as well, but there is a brand-new state-named I-10 shield on a green sign which I have not yet posted to the gallery.)

restricting it to signs which are known to survive to the present day gives a few more negative examples, but those are directly in proportion to states in general not using state-named shields (Delaware, Utah, etc).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Alex on December 07, 2011, 12:00:09 PM
(http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/texas/i-069_us-077.jpg) (http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/texas/i-069_us-077.jpg)

Another Jeff shot from yesterday.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: OCGuy81 on December 07, 2011, 11:14:06 PM
Thanks Alex! That's an excellent picture.  And so nice to see the state name in the shield.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Hot Rod Hootenanny on December 08, 2011, 01:39:47 PM
a quick survey of the shield gallery reveals, offhand, only ID, KY, MO, ND, OH, OR, SD, TN, WV with no state-named shields on green signs in photos taken at any time, including some examples from only the 60s (RI), but most with examples surviving into the early 2000s at least.  ID, OH, OR, SD and TN are likely the results of insufficient data, as they got rid of state-named shields quite a while back.  MO, ND and WV are very scrupulous in their standards compliance, and KY is a little bit of both, I think.

Evidently ODOT was schizophrenic about their interstate shields.
For every stand alone interstate shield with 'Ohio' on it
(http://www.roadfan.com/ohio71.jpg)
You will find an interstate shield without 'Ohio' on it
(http://www.odotonline.org/photoArchive/PhotoArchiveImages/Medium/59y.jpg)
(ODOT's archives date this as 1959, FWIW)
Then theres this sign bridge from 1971 (according to ODOT again)
http://www.odotonline.org/photoArchive/PhotoArchiveImages/Large/sign71.jpg
The foreground I-70 shields don't have 'Ohio' on them. The I-70 shield in the background might. It doesn't look like it though.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Alps on December 08, 2011, 07:56:23 PM
by BGS, do you also include side-mounted (as opposed to overhead-mounted) green signs?

for example, is this a BGS?  it's B, and it's G, and it's certainly an S, but it might be a borderline example given its purpose.

(http://www.aaroads.com/shields/img/NH/NH19610934i1.jpg)


LGS. The difference between L and B, at least to me, is the makeup of the sign panel. A single sheet of aluminum is L, even if it's overhead. Extruded strips, several panels, etc. with backing reinforcement is B, even if it's side-mounted.

P.S. I'm jealous. I have a crappy photo of that sign, and it disappeared by the time I made it back.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: agentsteel53 on December 08, 2011, 08:21:25 PM

LGS. The difference between L and B, at least to me, is the makeup of the sign panel. A single sheet of aluminum is L, even if it's overhead. Extruded strips, several panels, etc. with backing reinforcement is B, even if it's side-mounted.

fair enough.  I tend to note the distinction as "would the sign have mixed case in a jurisdiction where smaller signs have all-caps?"  for example, Texas until recently had all-caps Series D on LGSes and mixed case Series E or EM on BGSes. 

this NH example is indeed quite borderline, as there are no letters apart from the shield itself.

so your LGS/BGS distinction might indeed lose a few states.  Washington comes to mind offhand as LGS-only.

Quote
P.S. I'm jealous. I have a crappy photo of that sign,

that photo I posted is quite crappy... but I might be able to dig up a better one.

Quote
and it disappeared by the time I made it back.

well rats; here I thought it had survived.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Alps on December 09, 2011, 05:40:37 PM

LGS. The difference between L and B, at least to me, is the makeup of the sign panel. A single sheet of aluminum is L, even if it's overhead. Extruded strips, several panels, etc. with backing reinforcement is B, even if it's side-mounted.

fair enough.  I tend to note the distinction as "would the sign have mixed case in a jurisdiction where smaller signs have all-caps?"  for example, Texas until recently had all-caps Series D on LGSes and mixed case Series E or EM on BGSes. 

this NH example is indeed quite borderline, as there are no letters apart from the shield itself.

so your LGS/BGS distinction might indeed lose a few states.  Washington comes to mind offhand as LGS-only.


The only place I've been without BGS is Prince Edward Island. Washington certainly has BGS, I just checked my site to make sure.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: agentsteel53 on December 09, 2011, 06:20:49 PM

The only place I've been without BGS is Prince Edward Island. Washington certainly has BGS, I just checked my site to make sure.

I was unclear.  I had intended to say that Washington has state-named shields only on LGSes.  but then I found this example on the shield gallery which I had forgotten about:

(http://www.aaroads.com/shields/img/WA/WA19610901i1.jpg)

that, by my definition is a BGS.  large font mixed case control city.  in your definition, it might be LGS.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: agentsteel53 on December 09, 2011, 06:30:13 PM
You will find an interstate shield without 'Ohio' on it
[old photo]
(ODOT's archives date this as 1959, FWIW)

yep, it looks like either California or Ohio invented the 1961-spec neutered shield, with the shorter crown.  California had it by 1958 for sure, and Ohio by 1959.  

I do not know what Ohio's rules were for neutered vs state-named, but California was also fairly schizophrenic in the very, very early days.

(http://www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CA/CA19584051i1.jpg)

1959 photo.  I was at one point tempted to say that independent-mount three-digit routes had no state name, while two-digit ones did, but this I-5 from 1959 exists and clearly has a pole mark on the back.  

(http://www.aaroads.com/shields/img/CA/CA19580054i1.jpg)
yep, that is federal '61 spec neutered.  It may very well be a green-sign shield mounted on a post by error.  The two holes in upper left and right are non-conclusive: they might be for mounting to a green sign, or to add a wind brace for an independent mount.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: J N Winkler on December 09, 2011, 08:41:37 PM
The NH sign is definitely a small guide sign ("LGS" as used on here), not just because it is a flat sheet aluminum sign, but also because its placement (close by a curb) and composition (thin border, minimally rounded corners) is characteristic of D-series signs.  (Placement is an important distinguishing criterion in states where there is little difference between small and large guide signs in terms of composition.  For example, Washington and California have both traditionally used mixed-case primary destination legend on both small and large guide signs.)

My rule for distinguishing between small guide signs ("LGS") and large guide signs ("BGS") is based on the MUTCD.  Large guide signs are covered in Chapter 2E and generally have "E" sign codes.  They are not found solely on freeway or expressway mainlines--many types of freeway approach signs are large guide signs too.  In contradistinction, small guide signs are covered in Chapter 2D and generally have "D" (hence the alternate label "D-series") or "M" codes.  ("M" is supposed to mean "marker" but some green-background signs, like the combination junction sign, are M-series signs.)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: US71 on December 14, 2011, 06:57:50 PM
 Celebration Marks I-69 Signs Now Up in Corpus Christi & Robstown (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update12.6.11.html/)

Even the BGS's are named shields.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on December 14, 2011, 07:40:50 PM
Corrected link for I-69 Texas Alliance article (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update12.6.11.html)

(The last commentor forgot to take out the '/' at the end.)


Anthony
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on January 25, 2012, 08:29:51 PM
TxDOT has updated its I-69 Segment Committees page (http://www.txdot.gov/public_involvement/committees/i69/default.htm) by adding notes from November, 2011 meetings of the five committees.

My primary interest is Houston.  First, regarding the redesignation of US 59 as I-69 through Houston, Committee 3 (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/notes/seg3/notes_110411.pdf) is aiming for AASHTO approval by AASHTO's May 2012 meeting [page 2/30 of pdf]:

Quote
Roger Beall answered that the request to add U.S. 59 through Houston to the interstate system was tentatively scheduled to be sent to FHWA in January. If the request is approved, the Texas Transportation Commission will consider submission of an application to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Special Committee on Route Numbering to use the I-69 route number. The next AASHTO meeting will occur in May 2012. The committee member then asked for a letter from TxDOT regarding the redesignation and requesting local support. He explained that he would forward this letter to communities along U.S. 59 with a sample resolution and a document describing the benefits of redesignation. TxDOT agreed to send the resolution request letter. The committee member also noted that in October of 2010, the HGAC Transportation Policy Council passed a resolution of support for I-69 and the Segment Committees. He suggested that the level of support by the communities along U.S. 59 needs to be ascertained.

Committee 3 also views it as a Recommended Priority that U.S. 59 through Houston should be dual designation as both I-69 and U.S. 59 [page 4/30 of pdf].

Regarding Houston relief options, Committee 3 decided to expand the area of study to the following [page 4/30 of pdf]:

Quote
- Extend the U.S. 59 relief options box (as depicted on the map) further south on U.S. 59 to south of Brazoria
- Extend the U.S. 59 relief options box (as depicted on the map) further north (in Segment Two) up to Cleveland
- Include the Port of Freeport in the U.S. 59 relief options box

Also, Committee 3 discussed that an Early Implementation Opportunity would be to study relief options and not just potential relief routes [page 4/30 of pdf]:

Quote
- Perform a study U.S. 59 relief options for Houston. It was noted that the U.S. 59 relief options for Houston might not be just a relief route and could include improvements such as widenings and interchanges.

Committee 2 (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/notes/seg2/notes_111511.pdf) also views the study of relief options for Houston as a Recommended Priority [page 4/32 of pdf].

It will be interesting to watch the relief options unfold over the years ...
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on January 30, 2012, 09:51:02 PM
The Alliance For I-69 Texas has recently posted an update about the Draft Environmental Assessment for a 122 mile segment of the US 77 upgrade to I-69 being completed: (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update1.28.12.html)

Quote
The Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) of upgrading US 77 from Corpus Christi to Harlingen is complete and five public hearings were scheduled for early February.
The Preferred Alternative recommended in the document is to upgrade the existing highway, adding to the right-of-way width where necessary. Two short highway sections would be relocated to create relief routes around Driscoll in Nueces County and Riviera in Kleberg County ....
After the review of public comments is complete later this year the Federal Highway Administration is expected to issue a finding of no significant impact (FONSI) which will allow individual upgrade projects on the route to move forward once they are designed and funded ....
The US 77 Upgrade Project will provide additional capacity and significantly improve safety along the 122 miles of highway covered by the assessment. Currently there are dozens of at-grade crossings and cross-overs along the route.
The EA found that the estimated cost of completing Interstate 69 from Corpus Christi to Harlingen is approximately $1 billion ....

TxDOT's Public Hearing Notice (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/crp/projects/us77_upgrade/notice.pdf) notes that the Driscoll and Riviera relief routes may be tolled.  I wonder if this will trigger some Trans Texas Corridor fears?

TxDOT also has a US 77 Upgrade (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/crp/projects/us77_upgrade/) page with pdfs of the Draft Environmental Assessment.  It looks like completion of the US 77 "southern prong"  will be a primary focus for TxDOT in trying to make headway with I-69 in Texas.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on January 31, 2012, 11:50:46 AM
I find it fascinating how they use off ramps to handle the many ranch "gate crossings" along the route, as well as the strategic cattle crossings they would have. In Louisiana, they probably would have used frontage roads with intermediate interchanges and grade-seperated "crossunders" for that purpose.

I'm not so happy with the proposed toll bypasses for Driscoll and Rivera, but I'm guessing that because they will be short, the toll won't be so bad...and there will be TxTollTag available for the locals to avoid mail sticker shock.


Anthony
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 31, 2012, 12:01:25 PM
I find it fascinating how they use off ramps to handle the many ranch "gate crossings" along the route, as well as the strategic cattle crossings they would have. In Louisiana, they probably would have used frontage roads with intermediate interchanges and grade-seperated "crossunders" for that purpose.

the frontage road design is something they use in west Texas a lot.  what about the crossunders - do they have those out there?  I've never noticed.

also, in west Texas, they have the occasional at-grade crossing! 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on February 15, 2012, 06:53:06 PM
I did not know AASHO was approving suffixed routes still.  I thought they were put on the ban list in the early 1980s, with strong pressure to remove all but the pair of 35E/W splits.
I seriously doubt that they will.  The only reason I included that as a possibility is that the federal legislation authorizing the I-69 Corridor speaks in terms of suffixes.  It may be possible that AASHTO would feel compelled to comply with the legislation (although I doubt it).  I'm primarily interested in which route will be the "main" I-69: US 59, 77, or 281.
Given that US 77 is already all four-lane, I'd expect it to be the main I-69.
The Laredo routing makes more sense though. It's a bigger city that you're connecting to.
Not by much, and US 77 wins slightly when you add Harlingen. (Also note that, despite US 281 being another designated leg of I-69, US 77 easily serves McAllen etc.)
As for travel into the interior of Mexico, US 59 to Laredo does look like a better route; Houston to Monterrey is about 50 miles shorter via Laredo than via McAllen.

I recently received an email response from FHWA's National Systems and Economic Team to a question about I-69 signage in Texas.  If I read the response correctly, it looks like, in the absence of an amendment to current I-69 legislation, in the future not only will the current US 77/I-69 corridor have to be re-signed, but also the US 77 and US 281 corridors will have some interesting shields indeed:

Quote
... regarding the recent addition of US 77 as I-69.  Section 1105(e)(5)(C)(i) of ISTEA amended, designates future Interstate routes along High Priority Corridor (HPC) #20 as “I-69” , HPC # (c)(18)(D)(i) as “I-69 East” , and HPC # (c)(18)(D)(ii) as “I-69 Central” .  These three future I-69 corridors correspond to US 59, US 77, and US 281 respectively.  Since there are no other approved additions along the “I-69”  or “I-69 Central”  Texas corridors, the US 77 segment was added as I-69 to avoid To avoid driver confusion.  Once segments are added along the other two corridors the State will need to sign the routes accordingly.

Well, I think there will be pleeeenty of time to enact an amendment ...  :-P

EDIT

On second thought, maybe there will not be much time at all.  I just remembered the following:

TxDOT's website now has pdfs of Nov. 2010 Interim Reports from the five I-69 Segment Committees: http://www.txdot.gov/public_involvement/committees/i69/default.htm
The Committees also recommend immediately signing the following freeway sections as I-69 ... Committee 4: ... US 281 from Mexican border to north of McAllen; US 77 from Mexican border to south of Lyford ... Apparently, the final two would be dependent upon the proposed legislation that would make a terminus at the Mexican border equivalent to an interstate junction.

Even if a multi-year highway reauthorization is not passed this year, at least a short-term extension of the current reauthorization will be passed sometime around March 31.  It is conceivable that the "I-69 terminus at the Mexican border" provision could be included in the extension.  Doing so would raise two immediate related questions: (1) what interstate designation do you give the US 281 border segment (will FHWA really mandate "I-69 Central"?), and (2) would the current US 77/I-69 segment have to be re-signed as "I-69 East" because of the interstate signage of the US 281 section?

A third question would be whether the Texas delegation would have the foresight to include language that would do away with the mandatory designations.  :pan:
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on March 19, 2012, 03:17:14 PM
TxDOT's website now has pdfs of Nov. 2010 Interim Reports from the five I-69 Segment Committees: http://www.txdot.gov/public_involvement/committees/i69/default.htm
The Committees also recommend immediately signing the following freeway sections as I-69 ... Committee 4: ... US 281 from Mexican border to north of McAllen; US 77 from Mexican border to south of Lyford ... Apparently, the final two would be dependent upon the proposed legislation that would make a terminus at the Mexican border equivalent to an interstate junction.

The amendment for I-69 signage on freeways at the Mexican border (http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2012/03/texas-is-a-big-winner-in-the-senates-bipartisan-highway-bill/) survived the final version of MAP-21 two-year reauthorization passed by the Senate:

Quote
I-69
Construction of the proposed Interstate 69, the so-called NAFTA Superhighway from the Texas-Mexico border north into the American heartland, would move forward under MAP-21. The bill allows for segments to be deemed “Interstate”  if they meet federal, access-controlled standards. This provision will allow for development along unfinished corridors.

Although unlikely, a possibility does exist that the House will simply vote on the Senate bill because the House bills have encountered great resistance.  If so, some I-69 Mexican border signage (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg4_report.pdf) (page 4/4 of pdf) may spring up in the near future.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bugo on March 19, 2012, 04:34:08 PM
Why are they building 2 parallel interstates in south Texas?  They're just a few miles apart.  Wouldn't a 4 lane expressway with bypasses be enough for one of the two roads?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on March 20, 2012, 11:29:21 PM
Short answer: Bcause they're Texas, and they can.   :sombrero: :sombrero: :sombrero:

Longer answer: Both highways can easily be converted to Interstate grade without much difficulty, and both already have Interstate freeway-grade sections. So, why pick and choose?


Anthony
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bugo on March 21, 2012, 02:43:17 AM
Why did they build the parallel highways (281 and 77) in the first place?  They could have upgraded one and built spurs to the towns that were on the 2 lane route.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on March 21, 2012, 03:11:30 AM
Longer answer: Both highways can easily be converted to Interstate grade without much difficulty, and both already have Interstate freeway-grade sections. So, why pick and choose?
But why does either need to be freeway in the first place? Are there problems with the occasional at-grade that currently exists?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Perfxion on March 21, 2012, 06:32:28 AM
Texas loves expressways. That's why there are going to be 2 loops around Houston, with currently 9 expressways out of Houston that are not currently interstates. From what I understand, 77 is the closer to interstate of the 3 routes planned. Thus 77 to 59 getting labeled to I-69 by the end of next month is the goal that Texas wants to "speed" the process of getting I-69 signed as fast as possible. 59 from Victoria to Laredo would take more work. 281 has the lower section freeway grade, but it will take a while to get the rest to interstate standards.

Personally, I would skip adding 281 all together and leave it as such, if they want an interstate and McAllen, then almost all of 83 is a freeway standard, label that a spur of I-69.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on March 21, 2012, 10:51:31 AM
Why did they build the parallel highways (281 and 77) in the first place?  They could have upgraded one and built spurs to the towns that were on the 2 lane route.

I think a lot of freeways would have been built differently with more foresight.  I would have sent I-20 west from Fort Worth, north of Midland/Odessa straight west to El Paso, to avoid all that extra mileage.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: agentsteel53 on March 21, 2012, 11:01:59 AM

I think a lot of freeways would have been built differently with more foresight.  I would have sent I-20 west from Fort Worth, north of Midland/Odessa straight west to El Paso, to avoid all that extra mileage.

I disagree on this, because when you take into consideration that the I-10 segment west of the 10/20 split had to be built only once, you're saving mileage. 

as the traffic quantity isn't anywhere near so heavy as to need more than four lanes, you may as well bring 20 into 10.  it adds actual miles per user, but saved a lot of miles to be built.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on March 21, 2012, 11:05:00 AM
I think a lot of freeways would have been built differently with more foresight.  I would have sent I-20 west from Fort Worth, north of Midland/Odessa straight west to El Paso, to avoid all that extra mileage.
This would have added at least 60 miles of Interstate, with two parallel routes into El Paso from the east (like the two parallel routes of I-69). All to save at most about 25 miles of driving.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Scott5114 on April 07, 2012, 08:23:43 PM
I think a lot of freeways would have been built differently with more foresight.  I would have sent I-20 west from Fort Worth, north of Midland/Odessa straight west to El Paso, to avoid all that extra mileage.
This would have added at least 60 miles of Interstate, with two parallel routes into El Paso from the east (like the two parallel routes of I-69). All to save at most about 25 miles of driving.

Which, at 80 MPH, is only about 19 minutes, assuming I did the math correctly.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Henry on April 07, 2012, 09:46:01 PM

I think a lot of freeways would have been built differently with more foresight.  I would have sent I-20 west from Fort Worth, north of Midland/Odessa straight west to El Paso, to avoid all that extra mileage.

I disagree on this, because when you take into consideration that the I-10 segment west of the 10/20 split had to be built only once, you're saving mileage. 

as the traffic quantity isn't anywhere near so heavy as to need more than four lanes, you may as well bring 20 into 10.  it adds actual miles per user, but saved a lot of miles to be built.
I-20 meeting I-10 in West Texas makes a lot more sense than paralleling it all the way to El Paso. At least there's a fork in the road that gives you a choice of a nonstop trip to Dallas or San Antonio.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: oscar on April 07, 2012, 09:54:37 PM
as the traffic quantity isn't anywhere near so heavy as to need more than four lanes, you may as well bring 20 into 10.  it adds actual miles per user, but saved a lot of miles to be built.

Good luck getting up to 80 on the stretch west of the I-10/20 merge.  Sometimes it can be done, but all too often slow trucks passing slower trucks will tie up the passing lane.  Like with I-5 through California's Central Valley, an extra lane in each direction would help.  But a parallel freeway would be overdoing it.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: achilles765 on April 14, 2012, 07:32:23 AM
Minor little update type thing I thought was cool (to me at least).  I recently recieved the official state map from TXDot and it has the short section of IH 69 near Corpus Christi marked.  Hopefully soon we will see some new signage here in Houston.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bob7374 on May 08, 2012, 12:41:17 PM
Minor little update type thing I thought was cool (to me at least).  I recently recieved the official state map from TXDot and it has the short section of IH 69 near Corpus Christi marked.  Hopefully soon we will see some new signage here in Houston.
AASHTO SCOH's Special Committee on US Route Numbering (USRN) has posted its agenda for its Spring Meeting next week online at: http://www.transportation.org/sites/route/docs/Agenda%20USRN%20SM2012%20May%2018.pdf (http://www.transportation.org/sites/route/docs/Agenda%20USRN%20SM2012%20May%2018.pdf) Page 14 includes an application from TxDOT for signing I-69 along 35 miles of US 59 from I-610 north to just north of the Liberty County line. (The proposal document links are not active as of yet). There are also applications involving US 377.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: US71 on May 09, 2012, 12:18:00 PM
There is also a proposal to designate part of US 59 near Texarkana as part of I-69. It appears in today's Texarkana Gazette (behind a paywall).


Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: english si on May 09, 2012, 01:32:59 PM
Guessing the section of the Beltway from I-30 to US 59.

But that's not going to be part of I-69!

Looking at the growth of I-69 and I-49 it's interesting - I-69 is in multiple sections - as soon as a freeway is up to standard (or not in the case of KY) and links two sections of the NHS, they go with it. I-49 is much more conservative, waiting for continuous freeway from existing I-49 before renumbering.

Then again, neither have removed the 3-digit interstates that they will abolish (I-164 and I-540).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: US71 on May 09, 2012, 01:53:17 PM
Here is the article:


MPO to mull I-69 designation
By: Brandy S. Chewning - Texarkana Gazette

The Metropolitan Planning Organization is considering whether to support designating a small section of U.S. Highway 59 as Interstate 69.

U.S. 59 bypass (originally known as Loop 151), connecting U.S. 59 and Interstate 30, is already built to interstate standards, and the local committee for planning I-69 in Texas has requested that MPO support designating it I-69.

Jerry Sparks, chairman of the Segment 1 corridor committee, said part of the southern portion of the route, around Houston, has already been designated I-69.

“We’re going to show people that Texas has it tagged at the top and bottom; all we have to do is connect the dots,”  Sparks said.

To get a legitimate designation as I-69, not just as a future corridor, will likely take 18 months, Sparks said.

“It is an awareness that I-69 is moving forward,”  he said. “It’s a very small piece, more for recognition value than anything else. It is my understanding that the recognition of the north and the south ends of I-69 being built to interstate standards is a positive factor in helping secure more federal funds.”

The proposed resolution says all that will be designated is the short section of the bypass (Loop 151) and calls for continued study of a relief route west of Texarkana. Various routes have been considered, and all have met with public opposition.

In other action at an upcoming meeting, the MPO technical committee is expected to recommend a project for spending $2.2 million received from the Texas Transportation Commission.

Though it sounds like a lot of money for most pocketbooks, MPO Director Brad McCaleb told MPO members last month that $2.2 million is minimal in the transportation world.

Two billion dollars is being divvied out to MPOs in Texas, but qualifying projects will have strict criteria and tight timelines. McCaleb said there has been discussion of allowing MPOs to loan their funds if they do not have qualifying projects themselves.

“You have one MPO and they don’t have any projects that they can get ready to meet this timeline, but you have another MPO, they have a project, it’s ready to go out the door but they’re short on funding,”  McCaleb explained. “The first MPO would transfer their allocation to the second MPO ... part of the agreement being that that second MPO then, at a particular point in time in the future, would send a portion of their allocated funds back to the first MPO.

“Basically, you’re buying yourself time to develop that project that you don’t currently have ready,”  he said.

Texarkana’s portion of the state funding will likely be used to rebuild the intersection of U.S. 59 and Kings Highway.

The MPO technical committee meets at 10 a.m. Thursday and the policy board will take final action at 10 a.m. May 17. Both meetings will be at the Texas Municipal Building, 220 Texas Blvd.

Published: 05/09/2012
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: mcdonaat on May 09, 2012, 03:04:23 PM
There is also a proposal to designate part of US 59 near Texarkana as part of I-69. It appears in today's Texarkana Gazette (behind a paywall).




That's CRAZY! From what I remember, I-69 will go nowhere near Texarkana; instead, passing through El Dorado towards Haynesville, LA, then near Shreveport and into Texas well south of US 79. Maybe a SPUR I-69 or I-169, but not I-69 itself.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: dariusb on May 09, 2012, 11:27:30 PM
Here is the article:


MPO to mull I-69 designation
By: Brandy S. Chewning - Texarkana Gazette

The Metropolitan Planning Organization is considering whether to support designating a small section of U.S. Highway 59 as Interstate 69.

U.S. 59 bypass (originally known as Loop 151), connecting U.S. 59 and Interstate 30, is already built to interstate standards, and the local committee for planning I-69 in Texas has requested that MPO support designating it I-69.

Jerry Sparks, chairman of the Segment 1 corridor committee, said part of the southern portion of the route, around Houston, has already been designated I-69.

"We’re going to show people that Texas has it tagged at the top and bottom; all we have to do is connect the dots,” Sparks said.

To get a legitimate designation as I-69, not just as a future corridor, will likely take 18 months, Sparks said.

"It is an awareness that I-69 is moving forward,” he said. "It’s a very small piece, more for recognition value than anything else. It is my understanding that the recognition of the north and the south ends of I-69 being built to interstate standards is a positive factor in helping secure more federal funds.”

The proposed resolution says all that will be designated is the short section of the bypass (Loop 151) and calls for continued study of a relief route west of Texarkana. Various routes have been considered, and all have met with public opposition.

In other action at an upcoming meeting, the MPO technical committee is expected to recommend a project for spending $2.2 million received from the Texas Transportation Commission.

Though it sounds like a lot of money for most pocketbooks, MPO Director Brad McCaleb told MPO members last month that $2.2 million is minimal in the transportation world.

Two billion dollars is being divvied out to MPOs in Texas, but qualifying projects will have strict criteria and tight timelines. McCaleb said there has been discussion of allowing MPOs to loan their funds if they do not have qualifying projects themselves.

"You have one MPO and they don’t have any projects that they can get ready to meet this timeline, but you have another MPO, they have a project, it’s ready to go out the door but they’re short on funding,” McCaleb explained. "The first MPO would transfer their allocation to the second MPO ... part of the agreement being that that second MPO then, at a particular point in time in the future, would send a portion of their allocated funds back to the first MPO.

"Basically, you’re buying yourself time to develop that project that you don’t currently have ready,” he said.

Texarkana’s portion of the state funding will likely be used to rebuild the intersection of U.S. 59 and Kings Highway.

The MPO technical committee meets at 10 a.m. Thursday and the policy board will take final action at 10 a.m. May 17. Both meetings will be at the Texas Municipal Building, 220 Texas Blvd.

Published: 05/09/2012

You beat me to the punch. I posted this a few minutes ago but typed the whole article from the newspaper itself since I don't subscribe to the Gazette and didn't allow me access to the entire article.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Perfxion on May 10, 2012, 06:32:40 AM
Odd part is that they want to sign US59 north of I-610 as I-69, yet the freeway is built south halfway to Victoria. You would think they would make the whole city of Houston one number instead of doing a Dallas split like I-45.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on May 16, 2012, 05:38:49 PM
Odd part is that they want to sign US59 north of I-610 as I-69, yet the freeway is built south halfway to Victoria. You would think they would make the whole city of Houston one number instead of doing a Dallas split like I-45.

I recently received an email clarification from the Alliance for I-69 Texas.  Basically, the stretch through Houston has been divided into three parts as explained in the email:

Quote
TxDOT has broken the I-69 route into 3 segments through the Houston region stretching from the Liberty County line on the north to just south of Rosenberg due to some of the complexities in getting approval for a large stretch.  As you indicated, the northern section is on AASHTO's spring agenda.  TxDOT is finalizing the documentation to submit to FHWA in June for the southern segment which stretches from I-610 on the south side of Houston to just south of Rosenberg.  They will then proceed with the documentation necessary for the middle section which could be more complicated since it is an older section.
I hope this clarifies things.

I wonder if the middle section will be considered "close, but not quite interstate grade" like the Kentucky parkways?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on May 16, 2012, 10:18:10 PM
Why would the middle section of US 59 in Houston (Eastex/Southwest Freeways) be that hard to designate an Interstate? Inadequate shoulder length or height restrictions on some underpasses??

I know that I-45 has that low-height underpass just north of the junction with I-10..and that didn't prevent it from getting an I-shield.

Perhaps H-Town's still looking to have the Grand Parkway finished and designated as I-69??


Anthony
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Perfxion on May 17, 2012, 06:32:49 AM
Grand parkway is WAY south and WAY north of I-610 to be in the picture. Plus that is many years away, if anything. Most of the freeways inside of I-610 are not to the standards outside of I-610. But, a few are to interstate standards that most older highways are. (45, US59, SH288) The only big issue I can think of is the US59 merge/split with SH288 right before they hit I-45. There is a lower than standard overpass(but trucks still can get through) along with no shoulder for like a mile stretch.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: InterstateNG on May 17, 2012, 09:12:25 AM
If one of the goals of 69 is moving long-distance truck traffic from Mexico to points north then it makes perfect sense to route 69 well away from Houston proper.  If the completion date of the loop from I-10 to US-59 along the west and north sides of the metro area by 2015 is met, that seems reasonable.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Perfxion on May 17, 2012, 02:18:40 PM
Problem is that Grand Parkway seems to be a tollway and US59 is non tolled. It would be faster, smarter, and cheaper resigning US59 than to build another highway that is WAY outside the city of Houston. It would be smarter than to use Beltway 8/Sam Houston Tollway than to wait on the Grand Parkway which might only be 2 lanes anyways.

Only other option from what they are labeling as I-69 would be part of I-610. Which would be worst than US59 as way too much traffic is on that road. Especially south and west of downtown.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on May 17, 2012, 07:00:05 PM
Well...one of the original plans when the I-69 extension was originally thought of was to run I-69 through a completed Grand Parkway (TX 99) around its western and northern ends...and work is ongoing on completing the segments of the Grand Parkway between both ends of US 59.  Also, there was a plan to designate the GP as a spur of I-69 as well (in the same form as I-69/I-269 in Memphis).

And, there are plans to widen the completed segments of the GP to six lanes (while upgrading them to Interstate standards).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: InterstateNG on May 17, 2012, 07:26:28 PM
Problem is that Grand Parkway seems to be a tollway and US59 is non tolled. It would be faster, smarter, and cheaper resigning US59 than to build another highway that is WAY outside the city of Houston. It would be smarter than to use Beltway 8/Sam Houston Tollway than to wait on the Grand Parkway which might only be 2 lanes anyways.

Only other option from what they are labeling as I-69 would be part of I-610. Which would be worst than US59 as way too much traffic is on that road. Especially south and west of downtown.

What's the rush to sign 69?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bugo on May 17, 2012, 09:01:49 PM
I wonder if AHTD reapplied for I-49 if AASHTO would accept it from I-40 in Alma to US 62 in Bentonville/Rogers and the AR 549 portion after the new I-30 interchange and connector is built in Texarkana.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Perfxion on May 18, 2012, 06:51:15 PM
I am in no rush to label it anything, just think is really stupid to have one highway in the same city limits have the names of EasTex freeway, Southwest freeway, US 59, and 2 stubs of I-69 on the outside of the inner loop. Hard enough telling people how to get to Minute Maid Park, lets not keep adding names and numbers to the same highway in one area.

Personally, do the whole city or none.
Title: TxDOT to take cost quotes for 12-mile US 77 to I-69 Upgrade
Post by: Grzrd on May 31, 2012, 04:51:14 PM
This article (http://www.caller.com/news/2012/may/31/state-gives-go-ahead-for-i-69-work-near-driscoll/) indicates that the 12-mile US 77 to I-69 upgrade is planned to be between Driscoll and Kingsville:

Quote
The governing board of the Texas Department of Transportation on Thursday approved the department's plan to request cost quotes for improving a 12-mile stretch of U.S. 77 between Driscoll and Kingsville as part of the Interstate 69 corridor expansion ....  during the next few months, the department will receive, analyze and select a list of quotes for use in developing a formal request for pricing ... the project will cost about $50 million but, until proposals are received, a more accurate cost estimate is not yet available.
The department's goal is to have financing for the project secured by the end of the year, he said, and for work to be under way sometime in 2013.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on June 01, 2012, 08:50:20 PM
This article (http://www.caller.com/news/2012/may/31/state-gives-go-ahead-for-i-69-work-near-driscoll/) indicates that the 12-mile US 77 to I-69 upgrade is planned to be between Driscoll and Kingsville

The Alliance for I-69 Texas website (http://i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update5.31.12.html) refers to the above project as a 10-mile design-build project and indicates that another 6.5 mile US 77 upgrade to I-69 project between Robstown and Driscoll is already funded and scheduled to go to bid in 2013:

Quote
other Nueces County projects south of I-37 are funded ... a $35 million project to upgrade 6.5 miles of US 77 to interstate standard between Robstown and Driscoll .... planned to go to bid in 2013

I'm not so happy with the proposed toll bypasses for Driscoll and Rivera, but I'm guessing that because they will be short, the toll won't be so bad...and there will be TxTollTag available for the locals to avoid mail sticker shock.
Anthony

Local politicos are also pushing for engineering and right-of-way funding for the Driscoll and Riviera relief routes, with the Driscoll relief route connecting the above two projects:

Quote
The environmental assessment for the overall US 77 Upgrade calls for new relief routes at Driscoll and Riviera.  The Driscoll route would connect on the north with the $35 million project planned to go to bid in 2013 and on the south with the 10-mile design-build project.
Cameron County Commissioner David Garza urged the transportation commissioners to allocate an additional $15 million for engineering and right of way for the two relief routes in order to get them ready for future construction.  He pledged that Cameron County and the Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority will assist TxDOT with planning and design necessary to move these two projects forward.

Steady progress on the US 77 leg ...

Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Quillz on June 01, 2012, 09:52:07 PM
(http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/texas/i-037_sb_exit_014_01.jpg)
Ugh... In this case, I actually prefer neutered shields. The numerals are so huge within the shield that it just makes the state name look really cramped and an afterthought. The only good state name shields are the original '57 specs.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: blawp on June 02, 2012, 02:03:18 PM
All caps clearview on the "MILE" notation as well. We deserve better.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on June 08, 2012, 12:57:49 PM
The results are out. (http://www.transportation.org/sites/route/docs/Report%20to%20SCOHSM2012%205-19-2012.pdf)  All applications where approved, with the three Interstate applications receiving conditional approval pending final approval by FHWA (who has final approval authority for all Interstate route numbering changes).
(above quote from AASHTO Meeting May 18, 2012 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6658.msg150401#msg150401) thread)

I recently received an email update from TxDOT regarding their efforts to receive FHWA approval for adding the section northeast of Houston to the interstate system; TxDOT hopes for FHWA approval later this summer and approval from the Texas Transportation Commission will still be necessary after FHWA approval in order for the dual I-69/ US 59 signage to occur:

Quote
A request to dually designate US 59 as I-69/US 59 northeast of Houston has been sent to FHWA.  Because AASHTO meets twice a year to consider interstate numbering, AASHTO conditionally numbered this section of highway as I-69 dependant on FHWA adding it to the interstate system.  Once FHWA approval is acquired, the Texas Transportation Commission will also have to approve the dual designation of this section of highway as I-69/US 59 before interstate signs are posted.  TxDOT is hoping to receive FHWA approval later this summer. 
In addition to the northeast portion of US 59 in the Houston area, US 59 southwest of Houston and through Houston are also under review for interstate standards.  It is anticipated that a request to add the southwest section to the interstate system will be done later this year and the section through Houston will be done in 2013.
(bold emphasis added by me)

It's interesting that TxDOT submitted its requests to AASHTO and FHWA before having final approval from the TTC (I'm sure it's just a formality, but it is a strange procedural process that could possibly turn out to be a waste of time for both AASHTO and FHWA).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: vdeane on June 08, 2012, 06:04:06 PM
Toronto Transit Commission?  Trident Technical College?  The Tetris Company?

Or maybe this thing Wikipedia call the Trans-Texas Corridor?

Note: those three are all real organizations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TTC).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Takumi on June 08, 2012, 06:10:13 PM
^ Nah, it's totally the French hip-hop trio TTC that has final approval on the project. :sombrero:
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Alps on June 08, 2012, 09:50:35 PM
Toronto Transit Commission?  Trident Technical College?  The Tetris Company?

Or maybe this thing Wikipedia call the Trans-Texas Corridor?

Note: those three are all real organizations (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TTC).
reading the post.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on June 08, 2012, 10:55:51 PM
Toronto Transit Commission?  Trident Technical College?  The Tetris Company?
Or maybe this thing Wikipedia call the Trans-Texas Corridor?

I want to see the "sex lane" area. TxDOT may have struck gold and a new way to raise funds   :sombrero:
(above quote from I-10 From Houston to Louisiana (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4309.msg94673#msg94673) thread)

It's not the Texas Trysting Commission, either (but 2 out of 3 ain't bad).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on June 29, 2012, 11:13:30 AM
The Texas Transportation Commission, in its revision of the 2012 Unified Transportation Program (UTP) gave approval for the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) to move forward with additional funding identified earlier this year (http://www.txdot.gov/news/030-2012.htm). Several I-69 projects are included in TxDOT's Projects Selected for $2 Billion Allocation (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/tpp/utp/2012/projects_2b_allocation.pdf) list:

Quote
(US 59) Liberty County line to south of Cleveland freeway upgrade - $6 million
(US 281) Premont relief route - $41 million
(US 77) Design-build Driscoll to Kingsville - $60 million
(US 59) Priority project development services - Corrigan - $5 million
(US 59) Priority project development services - Lufkin - $6 million
(US 59) Priority project development services - Nacogdoches - $6 million
(US 59) Ramps, frontage roads, remove cross overs from north of SL 463 to south of US 87 - $11.62 million
(US 59) Priority project development services - Fort Bend and Wharton counties - $6 million

It looks like the most immediate progress will be on the US 281 Premont relief route and the US 77 Driscoll-Kingsville design-build projects.

EDIT

The Alliance for I-69 Texas also has an article, "$144 Million in New Funding Approved for I-69 Projects (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update6.28.12.html)".
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on June 30, 2012, 11:33:43 AM
Farenthold has filed his bill, and the two US Senators from Texas are apparently filing a companion bill in the Senate:
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/immigration-126797-country-portion.html
Quote
... U.S. Rep. Blake Farenthold, R-Corpus Christi, whose district also includes a portion of Cameron County, introduced H.R. 1535, Interstate Designation for Portions of the I-69 Route, with the full support of the entire Texas delegation.
H.R. 1535 would allow portions of I-69 (US 59, 77, and 281) to be desig-nated as an interstate once segments are constructed to interstate standard, Farenthold said. If enacted, the bill would facilitate interstate signage on the multi-state I-69 corridor stretching from Port Huron, Mich., to the U.S.-Mexico border in Texas.

Rep. Farenthold's office has issued a press release (http://farenthold.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1350:rep-farenthold-encouraged-i-69-language-included-in-two-year-transportation-bill&catid=126:press-releases) in which he expresses his pleasure that more I-69 signage can soon take place now that the bill has been passed (and will become law as soon as Obama signs it):

Quote
Today, the House of Representatives voted on a two year agreement to fund our transportation systems. Included in the H.R. 4348 Conference Report, is language, proposed by Congressman Blake Farenthold (TX-27), allowing highways that meet interstate standards and approved by the Secretary of Transportation, to be signed as an interstate. Many South Texas communities along US 59, 77 and 281 will soon have access to an interstate ....
A link to H.R. 4348 can be found here (http://www.rules.house.gov/Media/file/PDF_112_2/LegislativeText/CRPT-112hrpt-HR4348.pdf).
The language referenced in this release is on page 23 - (b) Inclusion of Certain Route Segments on Interstate system(1)(B) [in the second sentence, by striking ”˜”˜that the segment’ and all that follows through the period and inserting ”˜”˜that the segment meets the Interstate System design standards approved by the Secretary under section 109(b) of title 23, United States Code, and is planned to connect to an existing Interstate System segment…]

The Alliance For I-69 Texas has worked closely with the Texas delegation on the two bills.  I recently emailed
Quote
Thanks for your inquiry.  The priority for the Alliance and the communities along the corridor is to get the interstate designation and shield ... As for US 83, we are attempting to add that to the I-69 Corridor designation as it serves as a vital connector between US 281 and US 77 and it is currently at interstate standards. 
Jennifer Shepard
Executive Director
Alliance for I-69 Texas

As far as I can tell, it looks like the  "US 83 as part of I-69 Corridor" provision did not survive the final bill.  However, I think that, because US 83 is currently at interstate standards, the following provision from the bill (page 21/599 of pdf) may allow designation of US 83 as an interstate in the near future:

Quote
”˜”˜(4) INTERSTATE SYSTEM DESIGNATIONS.–
”˜”˜(A) ADDITIONS.–If the Secretary determines that a highway on the National Highway System meets all standards of a highway on the Interstate System and that the highway is a logical addition or connection to the Interstate System, the Secretary may, upon the affirmative recommendation of the State or States in which the highway is located, designate the highway as a route on the Interstate System.

TxDOT would have to convince FHWA that US 83 would be a "logical addition or connection" to the interstate system, but that should be relatively easy to do once the border sections of US 77 and/or US 281 are signed as interstates.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on June 30, 2012, 08:09:08 PM
I recently received an email response from FHWA's National Systems and Economic Team to a question about I-69 signage in Texas.  If I read the response correctly, it looks like, in the absence of an amendment to current I-69 legislation, in the future not only will the current US 77/I-69 corridor have to be re-signed, but also the US 77 and US 281 corridors will have some interesting shields indeed:
Quote
... regarding the recent addition of US 77 as I-69.  Section 1105(e)(5)(C)(i) of ISTEA amended, designates future Interstate routes along High Priority Corridor (HPC) #20 as "I-69”, HPC # (c)(18)(D)(i) as "I-69 East”, and HPC # (c)(18)(D)(ii) as "I-69 Central”.  These three future I-69 corridors correspond to US 59, US 77, and US 281 respectively. Since there are no other approved additions along the "I-69” or "I-69 Central” Texas corridors, the US 77 segment was added as I-69 to avoid To avoid driver confusion.  Once segments are added along the other two corridors the State will need to sign the routes accordingly.
It is conceivable that the "I-69 terminus at the Mexican border" provision could be included in the extension.  Doing so would raise two immediate related questions: (1) what interstate designation do you give the US 281 border segment (will FHWA really mandate "I-69 Central"?), and (2) would the current US 77/I-69 segment have to be re-signed as "I-69 East" because of the interstate signage of the US 281 section?
A third question would be whether the Texas delegation would have the foresight to include language that would do away with the mandatory designations.
Rep. Farenthold's office has issued a press release (http://farenthold.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1350:rep-farenthold-encouraged-i-69-language-included-in-two-year-transportation-bill&catid=126:press-releases) in which he expresses his pleasure that more I-69 signage can soon take place now that the bill has been passed (and will become law as soon as Obama signs it):
Quote
Many South Texas communities along US 59, 77 and 281 will soon have access to an interstate ....

Well, as far as I can tell, the statutory designations for the I-69 Corridor in Texas were not amended by the new highway bill.  South Texas communities along US 59 and US 281 will "soon" have access to an interstate.  The FHWA National Systems and Economic Team has indicated that, once that happens, Texas will need to sign the routes accordingly.

Any predictions on the eventual signage designation outcome?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Scott5114 on June 30, 2012, 09:22:55 PM
Wait, so does this mean that AASHTO is cut out of the loop on Interstate designations?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on June 30, 2012, 10:18:27 PM
^ ^ In the case of I-69 (and several other interstates, now including I-11), the interstate designations are required by federal statute.  In the case of a sole designation as an interstate for one of these "statutory interstates", AASHTO basically receives a courtesy copy.  However, AASHTO still has a role to play in the request for a dual designation: for example, TxDOT's recent request for I-69/US 59 dual designation northeast of Houston.

edit - Here's a prior thread on AASHTO and I-69 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=5862.msg128595#msg128595)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on July 01, 2012, 11:27:16 AM
Rep. Farenthold's office has issued a press release (http://farenthold.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1350:rep-farenthold-encouraged-i-69-language-included-in-two-year-transportation-bill&catid=126:press-releases) in which he expresses his pleasure that more I-69 signage can soon take place now that the bill has been passed (and will become law as soon as Obama signs it)

The Alliance for I-69 Texas also expresses pleasure in its I-69 Scores Victory in Passage of MAP-21 Highway Bill (http://i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update7.1.12.html) article on its website.  The article identifies approximately 100 miles of roadway that might be signed in the near future:

Quote
In a major victory for Texans, language sought by the Alliance for I-69 Texas is included as part of the two-year $140 million MAP-21 highway funding bill approved by Congress this week.
The language changes existing law by removing the requirement that completed highway segments must be connected to an existing interstate highway before they can be added to the Interstate Highway System.
Now the law allows sections of the I-69 routes that are at interstate standard but are not connected to an existing interstate to be designated as part of the Interstate Highway System and signed.
This change in federal law will facilitate the designation and signing of about 100 miles of I-69 routes that are already at or near interstate highway standard. Completed sections of US 59, US 77 and US 281 that could be considered are in Cameron, Hidalgo, Willacy, Kleberg, Brooks, San Patricio, Jackson, Wharton, Fort Bend, Liberty, San Jacinto, Polk, Angelina and Nacogdoches Counties.  The longest of these sections is more than 40 miles of existing US 77 freeway through Brownsville and Harlingen. There is a 16 mile long completed section of US 281 in the McAllen-Edinburg area.

FUTURE SIGNAGE


When other upgrade projects are completed in the future it will be possible under the new law to routinely add them to the Interstate System. This approach to signing disconnected completed sections was common when the original Interstate System was being built in the 1960 and 1970s ....
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on July 05, 2012, 08:05:16 AM
Several I-69 projects are included in TxDOT's Projects Selected for $2 Billion Allocation (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/tpp/utp/2012/projects_2b_allocation.pdf) list:
Quote
...
(US 281) Premont relief route - $41 million
...
It looks like the most immediate progress will be on the US 281 Premont relief route and the US 77 Driscoll-Kingsville design-build projects.

Maybe it will take a while for the US 281 Premont project to come together. This article (http://www.caller.com/news/2012/jul/05/state-announces-funding-for-four-of-the-areas-i/) indicates that the route has yet to be decided:

Quote
Some of the Coastal Bend's highest priority transportation projects have been funded, including a controversial plan to reroute U.S. Highway 281 in Premont ....
The state also approved $41 million for ... Upgrading the stretch of U.S. Highway 281 that runs through the center of Premont.
The route has yet to be decided. The state has narrowed the options to two: One calls for an overpass over town with access roads on both sides that could displace highway restaurants and gas stations while the other calls for rerouting the highway around the town's eastern edge. City Council has approved a resolution supporting the eastern route.
Although some in town hoped the state wouldn't proceed with the project, doing nothing is not an option, especially now the project is funded, City Councilman Matthew Pérez said. He said the town now must come to terms with which is the best option, the eastern relief route or the through-town option.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on July 06, 2012, 09:53:56 AM
TxDOT recently posted the Segment 3 Committee's December 16, 2011 Notes (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/notes/seg3/notes_121611.pdf) on its website.  In the Notes, there is an interesting summary of how the designation of US 59 as I-69 will affect concrete companies in the greater Houston area (pages 2-3/11 of pdf; pages 2-3 of document):

Quote
A committee member reported that there is a large ready mix concrete plant in Rosenberg, Fort Bend County, which depends upon U.S. 59 for transportation. A representative from the plant notified the committee member that the plant’s transport fleet of vehicles is permitted to use U.S. routes but have restictions on interstates. It was further explained that the plant would need to modify its entire fleet in order to utilize the interstate with an advanced lead time of up to 18 to 24 months to complete the installation process. In response, Marc Williams indicated that the committee could call attention to this issue in their report. Another committee member suggested that TxDOT explore possible courses of actions that could be taken to potentially resolve this issue. This information could also be included in the report. The concrete plant representative further explained that an interstate restriction along the currently designated U.S. 59 route would affect several concrete companies in the Houston region. To utilize the interstate, the concrete companies would need to reduce their loads by 40 percent which would not be economical. Consequently, the only other options would be to find alternative routes or to modify their entire fleets by adding an extra axle. It would cost approximately $20,000 per vehicle to retrofit it with the extra axle. It was further emphasized that the concrete industry in the region would need enough lead time to either work with federal and state legislators to modify the current regulatory restrictions and/or to modify the their fleets.

I had not realized that there was such a large difference in weight restrictions on interstates as compared to US routes.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: blawp on July 07, 2012, 09:02:50 PM
Houston businesses notoriously whine about rules, especially those imposed by the Federal Government. I think it's a red herring.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: InterstateNG on July 08, 2012, 02:31:07 AM
So do California businesses.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: blawp on July 08, 2012, 12:08:14 PM
It seems like all of the concrete and gravel trucks near interstate 210 in Irwindale have figured out the weight limit issue...
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on July 13, 2012, 09:20:22 PM
This article (http://www.news-journal.com/panola/news/carthage-loop-designated-as-part-of-future-i/article_0fb0095d-1389-56d7-9e8b-707440038030.html) indicates an interesting form of alternative financing for I-69, a dedicated freight fee:

Quote
James Carlow, who represents the Texarkana Chamber of Commerce for the I-69 project .... said he expects funding for the I-69 project to partially come from a dedicated 20 percent fee directed from freight revenue transferred from the Port of Houston to Texarkana.

I have spoken with Judge Carlow, and I believe that, in his comments from the above article, he was probably speaking about the Frieght Shuttle as indicated in this post from the "Texarkana; (Future I-49, I-69 Spur)" thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3321.msg134152#msg134152):

After sending out an email with some questions about the I-69 Spur, I eventually was referred to and had a very interesting conversation with an individual who serves on both the I-69 for Texas Alliance and the TxDOT I-69 Segment 1 Committee ... The thought is to pursue the notion of TexAmericas Center becoming an inland port ... The idea is to lease the air space over the I-69 Corridor from Texarkana to an as yet undetermined Texas Gulf port.  A private group of investors would then build an elevated Freight Shuttle (http://freightshuttleinternational.com/) track within the ground-level ROW of I-69 between Texarkana and the Gulf port.  The money from the air rights would be used to at least partially fund I-69 construction along the route of the track.  Also, the hope is that TexAmericas Center would also be the location of a manufacturing plant for the shuttle cars. The cost per mile for freight using the Shuttle is estimated to be 30 cents per mile and the cost per mile by truck is estimated to be $2.30 per mile. Apparently, this idea is being studied very seriously.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: dariusb on July 14, 2012, 03:47:40 AM
This article (http://www.news-journal.com/panola/news/carthage-loop-designated-as-part-of-future-i/article_0fb0095d-1389-56d7-9e8b-707440038030.html) indicates an interesting form of alternative financing for I-69, a dedicated freight fee:

Quote
James Carlow, who represents the Texarkana Chamber of Commerce for the I-69 project .... said he expects funding for the I-69 project to partially come from a dedicated 20 percent fee directed from freight revenue transferred from the Port of Houston to Texarkana.

I have spoken with Judge Carlow, and I believe that, in his comments from the above article, he was probably speaking about the Frieght Shuttle as indicated in this post from the "Texarkana; (Future I-49, I-69 Spur)" thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3321.msg134152#msg134152):

After sending out an email with some questions about the I-69 Spur, I eventually was referred to and had a very interesting conversation with an individual who serves on both the I-69 for Texas Alliance and the TxDOT I-69 Segment 1 Committee ... The thought is to pursue the notion of TexAmericas Center becoming an inland port ... The idea is to lease the air space over the I-69 Corridor from Texarkana to an as yet undetermined Texas Gulf port.  A private group of investors would then build an elevated Freight Shuttle (http://freightshuttleinternational.com/) track within the ground-level ROW of I-69 between Texarkana and the Gulf port.  The money from the air rights would be used to at least partially fund I-69 construction along the route of the track.  Also, the hope is that TexAmericas Center would also be the location of a manufacturing plant for the shuttle cars. The cost per mile for freight using the Shuttle is estimated to be 30 cents per mile and the cost per mile by truck is estimated to be $2.30 per mile. Apparently, this idea is being studied very seriously.

Wow! Very interesting.
Title: FONSI Issued For US 77 to I-69 Upgrade in Texas
Post by: Grzrd on July 14, 2012, 08:54:42 PM
TxDOT also has a US 77 Upgrade (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/crp/projects/us77_upgrade/) page with pdfs of the Draft Environmental Assessment.

This article (http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/articles/upgrades-142418-agency-clears.html) reports that the the FHWA, on July 10, issued a Finding of No Significant Impact for upgrades planned for US 77 between Corpus Christi and Harlingen:

Quote
Officials said they have received environmental clearance to upgrade a portion of U.S. 77 between Corpus Christi and Brownsville to interstate standards.
The Federal Highway Administration on July 10 issued a “Finding of No Significant Impact”  for the improvements to the segment, officials said.
This is huge for South Texas,”  said David E. Allex, chairman of the Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority ....
The environmental approvals just announced are for a list of upgrades to Expressway 77 from Corpus Christi to Brownsville, Allex said. Those projects include improvements to overpasses, underpasses and the frontage road to eventually turn Expressway 77 into a limited-access highway that will become part of I-69, which is planned to connect South Texas to the Midwest and Canada, he said.

I find it fascinating how they use off ramps to handle the many ranch "gate crossings" along the route, as well as the strategic cattle crossings they would have.

The Alliance for I-69 Texas also has an article about the issuance of the FONSI (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update7.13.12%20us77.html) and it discusses the method of ranch access:

Quote
An interesting element of the schematic plans included in the EA is the way ranch access is to be accomplished in the 42-mile passage through Kenedy County where there are no public roads crossing US 77. This highway passes through sections of the King Ranch, the Kenedy Ranch and the Armstrong Ranch, all of which span the highway and the adjacent Union Pacific Railroad. Brief sections of access road will be built near ranch gates to allow traffic on and off the freeway lanes. Overpasses will be built at intervals of 5 to 10 miles to allow traffic to reverse direction. Below is a simplified drawing of a ranch gate access point. This arrangement will avoid the need to build long stretches of dual frontage roads that have little transportation value.

(http://i.imgur.com/nATsg.jpg)

The Alliance article also estimates the total cost of the upgrades to be in the neighborhood of $1 billion:

Quote
The EA found that the estimated cost of completing Interstate 69 from Corpus Christi to Harlingen is approximately $1 billion. Several upgrade projects are in various stages of completion and are already being advanced under separate environmental documents.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: njroadhorse on July 14, 2012, 09:04:52 PM
That ranch access is a very good idea on the designer's part. Do you know if those ranch access points would be signed as exits or not, since the diagram includes ramps?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on July 14, 2012, 09:09:08 PM
With the U-turns it's a lot like the 'Jersey freeway' concept.

Or they could pull an I-10 in west Texas and keep the at-grades. Why were those allowed to be grandfathered there but not here?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on July 17, 2012, 03:02:02 PM
Is there a real need for US 77 to be a freeway?  Isn't it a 4 lane divided road from Victoria to Harlingen except for a few short stretches?  From the looks on the map, there are long stretches of nothing.  Isn't that good enough?  What is the speed limit (I'm guessing 70.)  If there are small towns it still goes through, then by all means bypass them but building a new interstate next to a perfectly good 4 lane highway seems wasteful to me.
I believe the road in between the small towns will be upgraded to interstate standards, but bypasses will be built around the towns.
(above quote from I-69 in TN (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3841.msg161600#msg161600) thread)

This July 17 article (http://www.themonitor.com/news/officials-62324-say-segments.html) reports that it will cost approximately $175 million to bring the approximate 130 miles from Corpus Christi to Harlingen up to interstate-grade, and the desire for interstate signage comes from the hope that the interstate signage will improve marketing efforts aimed at getting businesses to locate/relocate along the US 77 corridor:

Quote
Pete Sepulveda, county administrator and coordinator for the Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority, said the roughly 130 miles between Corpus Christi and Harlingen is some $175 million away from being ready for the I-69 moniker.
That cost breaks down to around $10 million for engineering and design, $15 million for right-of-way acquisition and $150 million for construction, he said.
The remaining construction projects, mostly concentrated in a 30-mile stretch of U.S. 77, include bypasses at Driscoll and Riviera and overpasses at Kingsville and Sarita, Sepulveda said ....
Also, the Texas Transportation Commission recently approved ... $60 million ... for designing and building interstate-quality freeway on U.S. 77 between Driscoll and the north side of Kingsville.
As for obtaining permission from the government to erect I-69 signs sooner than would have been possible otherwise and why it’s important, county officials say it’s largely about marketing.
“A lot of times when you’re trying to lure a business or industry to your community one of the first questions that’s asked is what is the interstate that goes into your community,”  Sepulveda said.
“Well, we don’t have one. That’s a major turn-off for companies that require good access to deliver their products. It’s huge ....

$175 million for 130 miles of interstate seems like a pretty good deal.  They also seem to be aiming to have the US 77 corridor's conversion to interstate-grade facility to be funded and completed within three to five years:

Quote
“Having an interstate that goes directly into our international bridges will be a major accomplishment. It’s a priority for us and we’re going to try to have all the improvements funded and completed within the next three to five years,”

Pretty good timetable for 130 miles of interstate, too.

EDIT

This article also indicates that the Corpus Christi to Brownsville stretch of US 77 is only $160 million away from being completely upgraded to interstate quality:
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/interstate-129742-closer-push.html
Quote
Sepulveda said the Corpus Christi-to-Brownsville stretch is about $160 million away from being completely upgraded to interstate quality.
The Alliance article also estimates the total cost of the upgrades to be in the neighborhood of $1 billion:
Quote
The EA found that the estimated cost of completing Interstate 69 from Corpus Christi to Harlingen is approximately $1 billion. Several upgrade projects are in various stages of completion and are already being advanced under separate environmental documents.

I have not seen a copy of the FONSI posted on the internet yet.  I will be interested to see how the $1 billion was calculated and see why it differs from the county administrator's cited figure of $175 million.  Since the August, 2011 article reports a $160 million figure, I'm guessing $175 million is probably the more accurate construction cost estimate.

SECOND EDIT

TxDOT also has a US 77 Upgrade (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/crp/projects/us77_upgrade/) page with pdfs of the Draft Environmental Assessment.

I think I guessed wrong; the Environmental Assessment Volume 1 (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/crp/projects/us77_upgrade/ea_vol1.pdf) does provide a figure of $1.06 billion (pages 9-10/271 of pdf):

Quote
The estimated cost for the US 77 Upgrade Project proposed improvements is $1.06 Billion,
which includes:
- construction including: excavation, embankment, pavement, retaining walls, structures, drainage
- construction engineering
- miscellaneous costs (including supplemental work, cost escalation, bond options, contingencies)
- signing, striping, barricades, signs, and traffic handling
- environmental mitigation
- environmental analysis
- ROW acquisition
- mitigation of hazardous materials sites
- design including preliminary engineering
- utility relocations.
....
TxDOT is in the process of developing a project development plan to complete the US 77 upgrade program. This plan will identify the construction phasing, project costs, and reasonably anticipated funding for the next 25 years (2037).

I wonder how Mr. Sepulveda calculated his estimate; at any rate, it is not the bargain that I initially thought and it looks like they are planning on a 25 year construction horizon.
Title: I-69 Comes to NE Houston
Post by: Grzrd on July 26, 2012, 09:37:32 PM
AASHTO SCOH's Special Committee on US Route Numbering (USRN) has posted its agenda for its Spring Meeting next week online at: http://www.transportation.org/sites/route/docs/Agenda%20USRN%20SM2012%20May%2018.pdf (http://www.transportation.org/sites/route/docs/Agenda%20USRN%20SM2012%20May%2018.pdf) Page 14 includes an application from TxDOT for signing I-69 along 35 miles of US 59 from I-610 north to just north of the Liberty County line.
I recently received an email update from TxDOT regarding their efforts to receive FHWA approval for adding the section northeast of Houston to the interstate system; TxDOT hopes for FHWA approval later this summer and approval from the Texas Transportation Commission will still be necessary after FHWA approval in order for the dual I-69/ US 59 signage to occur
Don't forget Houston. I-69 will turn it from a cow town into an oil town.
(above quote from Texarkana; (Future I-49, I-69 Spur) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3321.msg163916#msg163916) thread)

This article reports (http://www.caller.com/news/2012/jul/26/officials-add-another-link-in-interstate-69s-to/) that, today, the Texas Transportation Commission authorized the signing of a 35 mile stretch of I-69 northeast of Houston:

Quote
... In December, I-69 signs went up on a 6.2-mile section of U.S. 77 in Robstown.
"It's not an accident that the first sign was put up there," Texas Transportation Commissioner Jeff Austin said, saying South Texans are ahead of other areas of the state in terms of local leaders working together with state and federal officials to agree on project specifics and move them forward.
Thursday, the commission, holding a rare meeting outside Austin in Corpus Christi, authorized naming a 35-mile section of U.S. Highway 59 north of Houston as I-69. A key provision of the I-69 plan is to minimize new construction through the use of existing highways, many of which already are close to interstate highway standards. The roads may have interchanges and overpasses but lack on/off ramps, or vice versa.
It's now possible to start on I-69 in Robstown, pick it up again outside Houston, drive all the way to Mississippi without seeing it again, pick it up briefly there, briefly again in Kentucky, and then hit it again in Indianapolis, where it continues on to Canada.

Does Houston now officially qualify as a tri-interstate city?

EDIT

The Alliance for I-69 Texas (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update7.26.12%20houston.html) also has a map and an article about the addition:

(http://i.imgur.com/29c4e.jpg)

Quote
The Texas Transportation Commission has checked the final box to add 35 more miles of I-69 to the Interstate Highway System.
The new interstate segment starts at Interstate 610 North in Houston and extends north past Bush Intercontinental Airport and through Humble, Kingwood, Porter, New Caney and Splendora. The north end is just beyond the Montgomery-Liberty County Line ....
Designation of this new section as Interstate 69 was previously approved by the Houston-Galveston Area Council, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The highway will be known concurrently as I-69 and US 59. ....
Two additional sections of US 59 in the Houston area that have long been at interstate highway standard are currently under review. The next to be added to the Interstate System is likely to be the Southwest Freeway from the I-610 Loop South down through Sugar Land and on to Rosenberg. The final Houston section is expected to be the part of US 59 inside Loop 610. Each designation requires an extensive submittal by the TxDOT and an exhaustive review by the federal FHWA to see that standards are being met.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bassoon1986 on July 27, 2012, 01:37:25 PM
I've lost my camera but I will be in Kingwood TX next weekend, which is along US59/new I-69 NE of Houston. I'll check out and take a picture somehow if there are new signs posted or space ready for signs
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on July 27, 2012, 09:21:40 PM
As far as I can tell, it looks like the  "US 83 as part of I-69 Corridor" provision did not survive the final bill.  However, I think that, because US 83 is currently at interstate standards, the following provision from the bill ... may allow designation of US 83 as an interstate in the near future:
Quote
”˜”˜(4) INTERSTATE SYSTEM DESIGNATIONS.–
”˜”˜(A) ADDITIONS.–If the Secretary determines that a highway on the National Highway System meets all standards of a highway on the Interstate System and that the highway is a logical addition or connection to the Interstate System, the Secretary may, upon the affirmative recommendation of the State or States in which the highway is located, designate the highway as a route on the Interstate System.
TxDOT would have to convince FHWA that US 83 would be a "logical addition or connection" to the interstate system, but that should be relatively easy to do once the border sections of US 77 and/or US 281 are signed as interstates.

TxDOT has announced (http://www.txdot.gov/news/032-2012.htm) that the five I-69 Committees have released their respective final reports (http://txdot.gov/drivenbytexans/publications.htm). The combined Segments Four and Five report (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg45_final.pdf) has interesting recommendations for immediate interstate designations along the Mexican border, including an interstate designation for US 83, which includes a section of US 83 west of US 281 (page 44/165 of pdf; page 38 of document):

Quote
Dually Designate US 83 as Interstate in Hidalgo and Cameron Counties — The committee members advocated the need to seek interstate designation for US 83 in the Rio Grande Valley noting its role in serving major metropolitan population centers and border traffic. It was recommended that designating US 83 as an interstate would include consideration of US 83 from its interchange with US 77 in Cameron County to west of Mission in Hidalgo County.

A map showing the proposed border designations is below (page 45/165 of pdf; page 39 of document):

(http://i.imgur.com/94Tt6.png)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: O Tamandua on July 27, 2012, 11:43:13 PM
Question, Grzrd.

From what you see, will routes 281 (from McAllen area) and 77 (from Brownsville) be dual parts of I-69, functioning like I-35W and I-35E in the Dallas/Fort Worth area?  It's understood that the lower Rio Grande valley is quite populous now, but I'm kind of confused at what the TxDOT is trying to do.

Thanks in advance.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on July 28, 2012, 09:57:03 AM
will routes 281 (from McAllen area) and 77 (from Brownsville) be dual parts of I-69, functioning like I-35W and I-35E in the Dallas/Fort Worth area?  It's understood that the lower Rio Grande valley is quite populous now, but I'm kind of confused at what the TxDOT is trying to do.

You are not alone.  Throughout this thread, many people question the need for the parallel US 77 and US 281 corridors:

Seeing that US 77 and US 281 are pretty close together, they'd be better off upgrading one to Interstate standards and leaving the other as is.
Why are they building 2 parallel interstates in south Texas?  They're just a few miles apart.  Wouldn't a 4 lane expressway with bypasses be enough for one of the two roads?
why does either need to be freeway in the first place? Are there problems with the occasional at-grade that currently exists?

There is even a My Take on the I-69 Southern Extension (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4711.msg102664#msg102664) thread in Fictional Highways.
Above said, the I-69 Corridor has been statutorily designated by Congress, and the US 59, US 77, and US 281 corridors are all part of the "I-69 Corridor" (currently, US 83 is not part of the statutory I-69 Corridor).  TxDOT is simply trying to build and sign as much of its I-69 Corridor as it can.  Regarding signage (and your I-35E/ I-35W analogy), I am very interested in how TxDOT will sign the different corridors, particularly in light of recent communications from FHWA:

I recently received an email response from FHWA's National Systems and Economic Team to a question about I-69 signage in Texas.  If I read the response correctly, it looks like, in the absence of an amendment to current I-69 legislation, in the future not only will the current US 77/I-69 corridor have to be re-signed, but also the US 77 and US 281 corridors will have some interesting shields indeed:
Quote
... regarding the recent addition of US 77 as I-69.  Section 1105(e)(5)(C)(i) of ISTEA amended, designates future Interstate routes along High Priority Corridor (HPC) #20 as "I-69”, HPC # (c)(18)(D)(i) as "I-69 East”, and HPC # (c)(18)(D)(ii) as "I-69 Central”.  These three future I-69 corridors correspond to US 59, US 77, and US 281 respectively.  Since there are no other approved additions along the "I-69” or "I-69 Central” Texas corridors, the US 77 segment was added as I-69 to avoid To avoid driver confusion.  Once segments are added along the other two corridors the State will need to sign the routes accordingly.

The primary reason MAP-21 now allows signage of disconnected segments of I-69 is that the lower Rio Grande valley wants interstate signage along both the US 77 and US 281 corridors sooner rather than later. Can TxDOT avoid a federal statute? Stay tuned.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on July 29, 2012, 11:49:58 AM
My guess is that they all will get temporary I-69 shields for themselves, and will figure out the details later.

I still don't think it's appropriate, since the original I-69 is supposed to use the US 59 corridor from Laredo to Houston..and that is nowhere near even 4-lane, never mind Interstate compatible. It's going to be quite interesting when they will be asked to pull those shields for more appropriate numbers.

I've said my peace on what the numbers should be, so I won't repeat it here.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on July 29, 2012, 02:33:08 PM
the original I-69 is supposed to use the US 59 corridor from Laredo to Houston..and that is nowhere near even 4-lane, never mind Interstate compatible.

Speaking of Laredo, it is interesting (and practical) that, in the combined Segments Four and Five report (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg45_final.pdf), the Segment 5 Committee recommends that (among their top five priorities), because of ROW and congestion problems along US 59 in Laredo, instead of having I-69 end at the current southern terminus of US 59 (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Laredo,+TX&hl=en&ll=27.530803,-99.502975&spn=0.003587,0.004823&sll=32.678125,-83.178297&sspn=6.970126,9.876709&oq=laredo&hnear=Laredo,+Webb,+Texas&t=h&z=18), perhaps I-69 could be routed along Loop 20 from the Mexican border to the current Loop 20/ US 59 interchange (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Laredo,+TX&hl=en&ll=27.562461,-99.488754&spn=0.114743,0.154324&sll=32.678125,-83.178297&sspn=6.970126,9.876709&oq=laredo&hnear=Laredo,+Webb,+Texas&t=h&z=13) (page 46/165 of pdf; page 40 of document):

Quote
US 59 from Mexico Border to East of Laredo — Due to limited right-of-way and congestion along existing US 59 in Laredo, committee members recommended that future I-69 planning in Laredo consider an eastern relief route that could potentially utilize existing Loop 20, provide an interchange with I-35 and connect to the World Trade Bridge border crossing with Mexico.

It would also be similar to the southern terminus of I-49 (I-10 interchange in New Orleans) in that one would need to make a significant drive south in order to drive north.  :-P

Loop 20 is not part of the statutorily defined I-69 Corridor.  however, SH 44 is part of the statutorily defined I-69 Corridor.  Neither is SH 44; nevertheless, SH 44 interchanges with US 59 and US 281 are two of the other top five priorities from the Segment 5 Committee (page 46/165 of pdf; page 40 of document):
(edited to correct status of SH 44)

Quote
US 59/SH 44 Relief Route at FreerAn interchange with US 59 and SH 44 and a relief route for Freer was recommended by the committee members to be incorporated into future planning. The members noted that limited right-of way along existing US 59 through Freer required consideration of a relief route around the community.   
SH 44 Relief Route at AliceA relief route for SH 44 at Alice that includes an interchange with US 281 was identified as a priority section by the committee due to limited right-of-way and congestion along SH 44 in Alice. As noted above, the planning for the relief routes of Alice and San Diego should be a coordinated effort.

Below is a map showing the Segment 5 Committee priorities (page 47/165 of pdf; page 41 of document):

(http://i.imgur.com/16AUA.png)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: mgk920 on July 30, 2012, 10:32:52 AM
Will there be enough 'I-x69' numbers available in Texas to give all of those 'I-69' routes numbers?  The US 281 part for example, IMHO, would do better as an 'I-x37'.

Mike
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on July 30, 2012, 10:36:12 AM
TxDOT has updated its I-69 Segment Committees page (http://www.txdot.gov/public_involvement/committees/i69/default.htm) by adding notes from November, 2011 meetings of the five committees .... Regarding Houston relief options ... Committee 3  (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/notes/seg3/notes_110411.pdf)discussed that an Early Implementation Opportunity would be to study relief options and not just potential relief routes [page 4/30 of pdf]:
Quote
- Perform a study U.S. 59 relief options for Houston. It was noted that the U.S. 59 relief options for Houston might not be just a relief route and could include improvements such as widenings and interchanges.
Committee 2 (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/notes/seg2/notes_111511.pdf) also views the study of relief options for Houston as a Recommended Priority [page 4/32 of pdf].
Quote
The Texas Transportation Commission has checked the final box to add 35 more miles of I-69 to the Interstate Highway System.
The new interstate segment starts at Interstate 610 North in Houston and extends north past Bush Intercontinental Airport and through Humble, Kingwood, Porter, New Caney and Splendora. The north end is just beyond the Montgomery-Liberty County Line .... The highway will be known concurrently as I-69 and US 59.

As regards relief options in Houston, in both the I-69 Segment Two Committee Report and Recommendations (pages 37-38/157; pages 31-32 of document) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg2_final.pdf) and the I-69 Segment Three Committee Report and Recommendations (page 36/157; page 30 of document) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg3_final.pdf), the Segment Two and Segment Three Committees discussed three things: (1) highways they recommend serving as I-69, (2) highways to be part of  the I-69 program and (3) important connections to the I-69 system.  Three observations: (1) US 59 will definitely serve as I-69 through Houston, (2) the Committees did not tip their hand as far as recommending a specific relief route, and (3) at the risk of parsing the language too closely, by not limiting "important connections to the I-69 system" to highways, the Committees probably intend for studies to include non-highway options for freight, including the Freight Shuttle along the I-69 corridor (discussed in this thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=6191.msg135757#msg135757)).

The language regarding Houston relief options in the two Committee reports is identical:

Quote
Relief Options in Houston — In the first few months of meeting, the committee discussed highways they recommend serving as I-69, highways to be part of the I-69 program and important connections to the I-69 system. In developing recommendations for the Houston area, committee members from that area met to discuss their recommended highway to serve as I-69 and also discussed the importance of providing connectivity to the Port of Houston and other ports along the Texas gulf coast. This discussion concluded with the committee recommending that US 59 through Houston serve as I-69 and that relief options within and around the Houston area be studied and considered to provide convenient, vital access to the sea ports along the coast, as well as additional options for through travelers to bypass Houston instead of having to use US 59 or other routes to travel through Houston. Such a study should include financial and technical participation from TxDOT.

However, it is clear that the two Committees want the relief options to provide access to Texas gulf coast ports.  I'm sure the immediate focus is on I-69 signage for the two segments through Houston and southwest of Houston before there will be much movement on studying relief options.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on July 30, 2012, 11:37:18 AM
Will there be enough 'I-x69' numbers available in Texas to give all of those 'I-69' routes numbers?  The US 281 part for example, IMHO, would do better as an 'I-x37'.

Mike

If you really asked me, I'd say (and have said in the past) that the US 77 corridor south of Corpus Christi would be better for an I-37 extension. US 281 is probably best staying as US 281.

Or..you could make US 281 from George West to Harlingen and US 83 east of there to US 77 an even I-x37 loop, and make remainder of existing I-37 to Corpus an odd I-x-37 spur.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: english si on July 30, 2012, 01:23:05 PM
Will there be enough 'I-x69' numbers available in Texas to give all of those 'I-69' routes numbers?  The US 281 part for example, IMHO, would do better as an 'I-x37'.
How about this:
I-69 Shreveport-Houston-Corpus Christi-Laredo
I-169 Texarkana spur
I-269 reserved for Houston belt
I-469 Freer-Victoria
I-37 San Antonio-Corpus Christi-Brownsville
I-237 George West-McAllen-Harlingen
I-337 rump I-37 in Corpus Christi
I-537 spur at McAllen (US83)
I-737 spur at McAllen (to border)
I-937 spur at Brownsville

Of course, the lower Rio Grande want's I-69 so I-37 numbers aren't going to happen.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: DorkOfNerky on July 30, 2012, 03:06:09 PM
How about this:
I-69 Shreveport-Houston-Corpus Christi-Laredo
I-169 Texarkana spur
I-269 reserved for Houston belt
I-469 Freer-Victoria
I-37 San Antonio-Corpus Christi-Brownsville
I-237 George West-McAllen-Harlingen
I-337 rump I-37 in Corpus Christi
I-537 spur at McAllen (US83)
I-737 spur at McAllen (to border)
I-937 spur at Brownsville

I always figured it'd be something like the following.
I-69 - Current US 59

Spurs
I-169 - Current US 281
I-369 - Current US 77
I-569 -
I-769 -
I-969 - Texarkana Spur

Loops
I-269 -
I-469 -
I-669 - Houston Loop
I-869 -

My thinking is the left-to-right numbering used for north-south highways. So I start from the left for the lower numbers and to the right for the higher numbers. Since US 59 is suppose to be mainline I-69, using my thinking, US 281/I-169 would be the first spur off of it since it intersects that route first, then US 77/I-369 would be the next. And since the Texarkana spur would very likely be the last before I-69 exits the state, it seems logical to make that spur I-969.

To keep open any possible loops around other towns between Laredo and Houston (such as possibly in Victoria), I skipped a couple of numbers (I-269 and I-469). Not to mention since there's likely to be a I-x69 loop around Houston, I matched up the number of its current loop (I-610). This then leaves open I-869 for any possible loops between Houston and the state line.

The one that really has me scratching my head would be the Interstate designation wanted for US 83. Guess you really can't call that a loop since it doesn't connect back to mainline I-69. (Otherwise I-269 would have worked nicely.) I guess it could be a spur if US 83 was at freeway standards all the way to Laredo, but then that would make US 83 I-169 since it's the first spur, meaning US 281 would have to be I-369 and US 77 would be I-569. Really unsure of this one.

Mind you, I'm not an expert in all the rules of numbering and so forth, so I'm sure I'm driving someone completely insane with my thoughts, but that's all they are. Thoughts.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Perfxion on July 30, 2012, 07:31:33 PM
Which beltway would be the Houston loop? We have one done and one being worked on, outside of 610. And better idea, Sam Houston turns into 869 or 845 since it is always known as Beltway 8.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: DorkOfNerky on July 30, 2012, 08:10:37 PM
Which beltway would be the Houston loop? We have one done and one being worked on, outside of 610. And better idea, Sam Houston turns into 869 or 845 since it is always known as Beltway 8.

I figured the Grand Parkway would be the I-x69 loop (I-669?) since it'll eventually roll near the refineries in Baytown, Pasadena, La Porte, and Texas City in its southeast quadrant while those wanting to bypass Houston can hit its northwest quadrant.

I have a hard time seeing the Harris County Toll Road Authority wanting to give up their cash cow. (Unless they were still able to toll it and keep it.) Not to mention the Sam Houston Tollway on its west and north side are already busy enough. Making it a bypass wouldn't seem like a good idea.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on July 30, 2012, 08:24:36 PM
I have a hard time seeing the Harris County Toll Road Authority wanting to give up their cash cow. (Unless they were still able to toll it and keep it.)
I-185 in South Carolina.
Title: "I-69 East" and "I-69 Central" Coming Soon?
Post by: Grzrd on July 31, 2012, 09:26:43 AM
I did not know AASHO was approving suffixed routes still.  I thought they were put on the ban list in the early 1980s, with strong pressure to remove all but the pair of 35E/W splits.
will routes 281 (from McAllen area) and 77 (from Brownsville) be dual parts of I-69, functioning like I-35W and I-35E in the Dallas/Fort Worth area?

I just received a comprehensive email from TxDOT that addresses a lot of I-69 issues.  Indeed, it is possible that Texas will have "I-69 East" and "I-69 Central" shields by the New Year.  At the risk of provoking boredom, I will paste the entire email (adding emphasis here and there):

Quote
Thank you for your interest in I-69 Texas.  In June 2012, Congress amended the law that established High Priority Corridors 18 and 20, including US 59 throughout the state and US 77 and US 281 in South Texas, as future Interstate 69.
The new legislation, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) states that these routes can be designated as part of the I-69 system if the route or a segment of the route meets current Interstate design standards and connects to, or is planned to connect to, an existing Interstate within 25 years. 
By allowing segments that are planned to connect to the Interstate to be designated I-69, the legislation permits the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) to move forward with the designation process on segments of roadway that were not previously eligible because they did not directly connect to an Interstate.  This recent legislation changed nothing else in the Interstate designation process. 

The Interstate Designation Process

Currently, about 50 miles of US 59 in the greater Houston area and five miles in Texarkana are under review for Interstate designation.  A section in the greater Houston area was approved to be added to the state highway system by the Texas Transportation Commission July 26, 2012.  The process has three basic steps:
Like the previously designated section of US 77 in Robstown, new sections must undergo an extensive engineering review to confirm that the highway meets Interstate standards.  TxDOT must submit this review and a request for Interstate designation to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) before any route segment can be added to the Interstate system. 
 TxDOT and FHWA then coordinate with the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Official’s (AASHTO) Special Committee on U.S. Route Numbering to identify an Interstate number for the highway. 
 Finally, the Texas Transportation Commission adds this newly numbered Interstate to the state highway system.
 
Designating Interstates in South Texas

In South Texas, US 77 and US 281 are part of the Congressionally Designated I-69 System.  US 83 is not part of this Congressionally designated route, but TxDOT can still request that it be designated as an Interstate highway under different criteria.   
The number of requests for Interstate designation will depend on the number and types of design issues that deviate from Interstate standards for each individual highway.   If there are few design issues for all highway segments combined, it is likely one group of requests for Interstate designation will be submitted at the same time for all three highways - US 77, 83 and 281.  If there are numerous design issues on one of the three highways, individual requests for Interstate designation will be sent to FHWA separately so Interstate designation of the other highways is not delayed.  The number of design issues, if any, will be known later this year once the engineering review is complete. 

How will these roads be numbered as Interstate?

Ultimately, the Interstate numbering scheme will be decided by AASHTO’s Special Committee on U.S. Route Numbering.  Later this year, a segment of US 59 near Houston will be "signed" as I-69/US 59 along with the current section of I-69/US 77 near Robstown.  Once highway segments in different corridors of the I-69 system have been granted Interstate designation, it is likely TxDOT will work with AASHTO to renumber the segments concurrent with US 77 as I-69 East, and those concurrent with US 281 as I-69 Central.  US 83 Interstate route numbering will also be decided jointly by FHWA, TxDOT, and AASHTO and may be numbered as a spur of I-69, or designated a completely new Interstate, giving the Rio Grande Valley multiple Interstate highways.  Because the primary national I-69 route extends into Louisiana south of Texarkana, US 59 north of US 84 will be on the I-69 system but its specific numbering will be determined in consultation with FHWA, AASHTO and TxDOT.  US 59 from Texarkana to Tenaha may be designated in a manner that is consistent with an interstate spur, e.g. I-369. 

What is the timeline for Interstate designation?

US 77, 83 and 281 in South Texas are currently undergoing an extensive engineering review to confirm that these highways meet Interstate design standards.  This review is anticipated to be completed in fall 2012.  Depending on the type and number of design issues identified during the reviews, one or multiple requests for Interstate designation will be submitted to FHWA by the end of the year.  Approval for adding highways to the Interstate system will depend on FHWA’s timeline and the number of design issues that need to be addressed.  This process has typically taken approximately six months. 
TxDOT plans to submit Interstate route number applications to AASHTO for consideration at their November 2012 meeting.    Earlier this year, AASHTO conditionally numbered US 59 north of Houston as I-69, dependent upon FHWA’s official designation of US 59 as I-69.  TxDOT anticipates seeking a similar conditional approval for the three highways in South Texas.     

What highways are being considered for Interstate designation?

Highways currently under consideration for Interstate designation are:

US 59 in Texarkana,
US 59 from I-610 on the north side of Houston to near Rosenberg,
US 77 in South Texas,
US 83 in South Texas and
US 281 in South Texas
 
These highways are under consideration because they likely already meet Interstate standards and they are included in a corridor development plan that meets the legislative requirement of connecting to the Interstate system within 25 years.  The Houston and Texarkana segments already connect to an existing Interstate.  US 77 has a 25-year program development plan to upgrade to Interstate standards and connect to existing I-69 in Robstown.  A feasibility study has started on US 281 to develop a program of upgrade projects in the coming months. 
Adding additional segments of I-69 to the Interstate system will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis as careful consideration must be given to satisfying the federal requirement that all proposed segments connect to the Interstate system within 25 years. 
Please let me know if you have additional questions or need further details.  Thanks.

I'm trying to visualize the East and Central shields ...
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: english si on July 31, 2012, 09:47:27 AM
No mention of TX44 there.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on July 31, 2012, 09:57:04 AM
No mention of TX44 there.

I have already sent a followup email regarding TX 44 and will post info if and when I receive a reply.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on July 31, 2012, 10:17:23 AM
So, sorry, but this is MADNESS.

If we are going to see "I-69C" and "I-69E" shields again, then I want my "I-10N" and "I-10S" shields for I-10 and I-12 in Louisiana....or just drop "I-10S" shields on Future I-49 South between Lafayette and New Orleans.

Why have FHWA and AASHTO rules for Interstate numbering designations if anyone can flout them at the tip of the hat??

I-69 should run on what was originally intended: US 59 from Laredo to Carthage/Tenaha, then US 84 to Louisiana. US 77 south of Corpus Christi should be an I-37 extension. TX 44 and the segment of US 77 from Corpus Christi to Victoria should be an even I-x69 loop. US 281 should remain US 281(though with a  freeway connection bypassing George West to I-37), and ditto with US 83 (or, make that another I-x69 spur). Screw these "Central" and "West" designations, and be gone with this "we have to drop an Interstate shield on every freeway we get" meme.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on July 31, 2012, 10:39:38 AM
I-69 should run on what was originally intended: US 59 from Laredo to Carthage/Tenaha, then US 84 to Louisiana.
The original I-69, as defined by TEA-21, included all three branches: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-105publ178/html/PLAW-105publ178.htm
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on July 31, 2012, 10:54:29 AM
I-69 should run on what was originally intended: US 59 from Laredo to Carthage/Tenaha, then US 84 to Louisiana.
The original I-69, as defined by TEA-21, included all three branches: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-105publ178/html/PLAW-105publ178.htm

Acknowledged...and still, in my view, very, very wrong.  But, it's just my view.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: txstateends on July 31, 2012, 11:00:07 AM
Sure, it's madness, but AASHTO hasn't exactly stomped out to Minneapolis-St.Paul or Dallas-Fort Worth to peel off the E's and W's off the I-35 shields.  Sounds like, without some kind of change we haven't heard about yet, the Valley will have some kind of madness.  At least it won't quite be an I-99 or I-238 or, heaven forbid, another Breezewood....
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on July 31, 2012, 11:09:02 AM
No mention of TX44 there.
I have already sent a followup email regarding TX 44 and will post info if and when I receive a reply.

TxDOT's reply:

Quote
SH 44 does not have a 25 year plan and is not part of the Congressionally Designated I-69 route.  SH 44, like US 83, potentially could be added to the interstate highway system, once it's at interstate standards.  Its numbering would be decided jointly by FHWA, TxDOT and AASHTO.  Currently, because SH 44 is not a controlled access facility and does not have a 25 year plan, it is not under consideration for interstate designation.

So, sorry, but this is MADNESS.
in my view, very, very wrong.

Why not go with it and completely embrace the madness:  TX 44 as "I-69N" and US 83 as "I-69S"?  :bigass:
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: vdeane on July 31, 2012, 11:33:36 AM
Suffixed interstates are just plain wrong.  As far as I'm concerned, I-35E and I-35W are abominations of the system as bad as I-99 and I-238 that should be removed.  There's no need for more.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on July 31, 2012, 02:47:35 PM
Suffixed interstates are just plain wrong.  As far as I'm concerned, I-35E and I-35W are abominations of the system as bad as I-99 and I-238 that should be removed.  There's no need for more.

I can actually live with dividing I-35 in DFW and Minneapolis-St. Paul, because they are temporary and because they are within the same metropolitan area. It's the suffixed spur routes that I am against...and especially the idea of simply dropping Interstate shields on roads that aren't even completed.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: lordsutch on August 01, 2012, 11:06:59 AM
Speaking of Laredo, it is interesting (and practical) that, in the combined Segments Four and Five report (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg45_final.pdf), the Segment 5 Committee recommends that (among their top five priorities), because of ROW and congestion problems along US 59 in Laredo, instead of having I-69 end at the current southern terminus of US 59 (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Laredo,+TX&hl=en&ll=27.530803,-99.502975&spn=0.003587,0.004823&sll=32.678125,-83.178297&sspn=6.970126,9.876709&oq=laredo&hnear=Laredo,+Webb,+Texas&t=h&z=18), perhaps I-69 could be routed along Loop 20 from the Mexican border to the current Loop 20/ US 59 interchange (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Laredo,+TX&hl=en&ll=27.562461,-99.488754&spn=0.114743,0.154324&sll=32.678125,-83.178297&sspn=6.970126,9.876709&oq=laredo&hnear=Laredo,+Webb,+Texas&t=h&z=13) (page 46/165 of pdf; page 40 of document):

Quote
US 59 from Mexico Border to East of Laredo — Due to limited right-of-way and congestion along existing US 59 in Laredo, committee members recommended that future I-69 planning in Laredo consider an eastern relief route that could potentially utilize existing Loop 20, provide an interchange with I-35 and connect to the World Trade Bridge border crossing with Mexico.

It would also be similar to the southern terminus of I-49 (I-10 interchange in New Orleans) in that one would need to make a significant drive south in order to drive north.  :-P

Definitely more practical; there are already substantial plans to "freewayize" Loop 20 with minimal relocations.  Really the only traffic that would be going out of its way would be local traffic from downtown Laredo and NL, particularly once the fourth bridge is built south of the urbanized area to more directly connect through traffic from Monterey.

As far as the numbering business goes, the whole business is a mess, especially with Valley politics (Brownsville can't get a 3di if McAllen gets a 2di, and vice versa) and the lack of any in-pattern number between I-35 and I-37 where all these roads go.  I can't see suffixes flying with AASHTO.  My guess though is that US 77 "keeps" I-69, US 281 gets something else out-of-pattern but non-confusing like I-41, and the Laredo-Corpus corridor gets I-6 or something (while Freer-Victoria doesn't get built at all - 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).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: CanesFan27 on August 01, 2012, 01:02:32 PM
Grzrd,

I keep wanting to commend you on the information dig up or come across in research, etc.  You and Bob Malme are great researchers.

As for complaining about the numbering, (http://www.gribblenation.com/room.jpg)

I'm with Chris in that I doubt AASHTO will allow Suffixes and even if they do allow suffixes who cares (Don't most in the hobby like oddities and peculiarities - i mean after all a lot of people wish the color us route shields were still around). And he is also exactly right about the Valley politics - which is why there are the three branches in South Texas.  Personally I have no issue if US 83 gets an I-2 or I-6 or if US 281 77 or 59 become I-33 or I-31 or an I-x69 or I-69E and I-69W.

When you add routes that were most likely not thought of (whether legislatively or not) in the original plans of this system, you are going to get numbering out of whack. If it meets the criteria for an interstate from design standards to national importance - does it really number what the number is?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on August 01, 2012, 03:50:48 PM
Grzrd,
I keep wanting to commend you on the information dig up or come across in research, etc.  You and Bob Malme are great researchers.

Thanks for the compliment.  In turn, I always enjoy your posts and the Sure, Why Not?  (http://surewhynotnow.blogspot.com/) blog.  Always informative.

My guess though is that ... ( ... Freer-Victoria doesn't get built at all - 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).

Lordsutch of i69info.com (http://www.i69info.com/), et al I presume?  I enjoyed reading i69info.com for a long time and still go to it for solid info.  Thanks for the great work and I am glad you are now posting on this forum.  Your insight into the Laredo mindset certainly explains the five priorities of the Segment 5 Committee (below).  Since it was post #1, welcome!:
(http://i.imgur.com/16AUA.png) 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on August 02, 2012, 10:45:18 AM
Don't most in the hobby like oddities and peculiarities ... ?

I certainly do; that's why I am entertained by the Congressional legislation regarding I-69 in Texas.  It has designated and/or produced the following:

- an I-69/I-69 interchange in the Carthage/Tenaha vicinity;
- a resolution from the Texarkana MPO seeking an I-69 designation for US 59 even though that part of US 59 would be part of an I-69 spur;
- a realization from TxDOT that it would be better to seek an I-x69 designation for the Texarkana I-69 Spur (and avoid the problem of the I-69/I-69 interchange), even though it would result in an I-69 "child" 100+ miles from its I-69 "parent";
- instead of having the three southern Texas legs be I-69 East, Central, and West, it was decided to have an I-69, and I-69 East and an I-69 Central;
- presumably the political reason behind I-69 East and I-69 Central was the desire for the US 77 and US 281 corridors to have "equal" 2di status, even though the respective suffixes would make them "3 character interstates". (so why not "equal" 3di designations?)
- a large part of the US 59 corridor that received the treasured 2di I-69 designation (from Freer to Victoria) appears to have been put on the backburner in favor of developing the SH 44 - US 77 corridor from Freer to Victoria, even though SH 44 is not part of the Congessionally designated I-69 corridor.

Congressional reality IS stranger than fiction ...

I am against ... the idea of simply dropping Interstate shields on roads that aren't even completed.

As an Old Guy, I respectfully disagree.  Way back, as a kid growing up in the pre-internet days of the growth of the interstate system, I would give the annual Rand McNally intensive study and figure out the "pieces of the interstate puzzle" that had been added during the year.  It was fun to watch the system grow in that manner.  As for my parents and their contemporaries?  As part of Brokaw's Greatest Generation, they bravely and successfully navigated the disconnected segments of the interstate system with ease and without complaint.  :D
 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on August 02, 2012, 11:12:45 AM
I certainly do; that's why I am entertained by the Congressional legislation regarding I-69 in Texas.  It has designated and/or produced the following:
Also: the requirement to post I-69 shields along I-94 between Chicago and Detroit.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: vdeane on August 02, 2012, 12:41:16 PM
I certainly do; that's why I am entertained by the Congressional legislation regarding I-69 in Texas.  It has designated and/or produced the following:
Also: the requirement to post I-69 shields along I-94 between Chicago and Detroit.
Thankfully Michigan has its own I-69 segment, reducing the length of the pointless multiplex to a few miles.

(Don't most in the hobby like oddities and peculiarities - i mean after all a lot of people wish the color us route shields were still around).
Oddities, yes.  Disorder and trashing the interstate numbering system (I had hoped the interstates would never become like US routes, but it seems that is happening), no.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on August 02, 2012, 01:12:25 PM
Thankfully Michigan has its own I-69 segment, reducing the length of the pointless multiplex to a few miles.
Actually the law requires them to post I-69 shields on any segment of Corridor 18 or 20 that is connected to the Interstate system ("A State having jurisdiction over any segment of routes referred to in subsections (c)(18) and (c)(20) shall erect signs identifying such segment that is consistent with the criteria set forth in subsections (e)(5)(A)(i) and (e)(5)(A)(ii) as Interstate Route I-69, including segments of United States Route 59 in the State of Texas."). Corridor 18 includes "from Windsor, Ontario, Canada, through Detroit, Michigan, westerly along Interstate Route 94 to Chicago, Illinois."
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: CanesFan27 on August 02, 2012, 02:33:13 PM

(Don't most in the hobby like oddities and peculiarities - i mean after all a lot of people wish the color us route shields were still around).
Oddities, yes.  Disorder and trashing the interstate numbering system (I had hoped the interstates would never become like US routes, but it seems that is happening), no.

You're 21. Not 71.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: nolia_boi504 on August 02, 2012, 04:59:18 PM
Looks like Google recently updated their maps to show the recently approved portion of I-69 in the northern part of Houston. I wonder how long it will take until we start seeing the signs being put up.

https://local.google.com/?ll=29.880541,-95.303307&spn=0.231002,0.198784&t=m&z=12
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: dariusb on August 06, 2012, 01:19:17 PM
This is from todays Texarkana Gazette:
     A report concerning the local leg of the future Interstate 69 is now available. Segment committees have made the reports available, and the Texarkana and East Texas corridor is Segment One. The reports are found at txdot.gov/drivenbytexans/publications.htm  Statewide there are 5 segment committees composed of citizen volunteers. I-69 is a proposed national highway linking Michigan and Texas. It stretches about 1,600 miles and includes Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana and Michigan. Jerry Sparks chairs the I-69 Segment One Committee, and said the report will be passed to decision makers, including legislators and Texas Dept Of Transportationofficials.

      The lengthy report is the culmination of about 2 years work.Segment One runs from Texarkana south to around Lufkin, Tx and the future I-69 largely follows U.S. Hwy 59. "Everywhere along the I-69 corridor where it's feasible, it uses existing corridors. We're not trying to build a new superhighway through the middle of nowhere. We want to take advantage of existing highways that meet interstate standards", Sparks said. The report represents traffic and highway data, citizen input and resolutions of support for I-69. It states support for I-69 is not only needed to accomodate population and traffic growth, but also to provide safer travel, improve emergency evacuations and improve economic development. The cost estimate is staggering for the Texas portion. About 16.4 billion is needed statewide to reconstruct roads to be designated I-69 corridors, with 4.6 billion in improvements identified in Segment One alone.

        Sparks pointed out funding is likely to be scarce, as state and national transportation budgets have been cut. "Without adequate funding, all we have is a conceptual plan. But we have to start now and know its an uphill battle. It's not going to be fast," he said. In a TxDOT press release dated July 24, the agency says Texas Transportation Commission recently approved an additional $140 million for various projects along the route, bringing total funding to more than $600 million. The release states funded priorities include the study of relief options in the Nacogdoches/Lufkin/Corrigan area; right of way acquisition for U.S. 59 improvements in Liberty County; environmental and engineering studies in the fort Bend and Wharton County areas; upgrading a section of U.S. 59 in Victoria to interstate standards; construction of a relief route in Premont; the U>S> 77/I-69 interstate-upgrade project from Driscoll to Kingsville; and construction of an overpass in Laredo. The I-69 advisory committee and 5 segment committees were created in 2008 by TTC. The move is a grassroots effort to encourage citizen involvement in planning the Texas portion of I-69.

       In a TxDOT press release dated July 24, the agency said it is reviewing more than 200 miles of highway along U.S. 59, U.S. 77, U.S. 83 and U.S. 281 as the first step in designating these highways as I-69. Most recently 35 miles of U.S. 59 was dually designated as I-69/U.S. 59 between I-610 North in Houston and the Liberty County line. Six miles of U.S. 77 has been designated I-69 between I-37 and state highway 44 in Robstown.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Road Hog on August 06, 2012, 02:47:10 PM
Looks like there is more misunderstanding locally of what the I-69 spur will be. The main interstate is not going through Texarkana. The main I-69 will go through the Shreveport area instead and will enter Texas somewhere between Carthage and Tenaha north of the north end of Toledo Bend Lake. What will be built to Texarkana instead will be a three-digit spur.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: TXtoNJ on August 06, 2012, 04:27:09 PM
Is it possible that they renumber the spur to Laredo as I-6, and the central spur as something like I-906 (to keep the reference to I-69 intact)? Then you could have the Freer-Alice connector as I-269 (i.e. "to I-69")?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: txstateends on August 06, 2012, 05:21:07 PM
Is it possible that they renumber the spur to Laredo as I-6, and the central spur as something like I-906 (to keep the reference to I-69 intact)? Then you could have the Freer-Alice connector as I-269 (i.e. "to I-69")?

Nothing definitive has come out about exact numberings, other than the references to "I-69" in the valley having 'East' and 'Central' (and one more) naming.  I haven't heard about the use of any other number than a "69" or a possible "x69" as actual numbers, which for the moment leaves out any different possibilities, like a "6" or an I-37 extension/x37 numbering.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on August 09, 2012, 02:09:23 PM
As regards relief options in Houston, in both the I-69 Segment Two Committee Report and Recommendations (pages 37-38/157; pages 31-32 of document) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg2_final.pdf) and the I-69 Segment Three Committee Report and Recommendations (page 36/157; page 30 of document) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg3_final.pdf), the Segment Two and Segment Three Committees ... did not tip their hand as far as recommending a specific relief route .... The language regarding Houston relief options in the two Committee reports is identical:
Quote
Relief Options in Houston — In the first few months of meeting, the committee discussed ... the importance of providing connectivity to the Port of Houston and other ports along the Texas gulf coast. This discussion concluded with the committee recommending that ... relief options within and around the Houston area be studied and considered to provide convenient, vital access to the sea ports along the coast, as well as additional options for through travelers to bypass Houston instead of having to use US 59 or other routes to travel through Houston ...
I figured the Grand Parkway would be the I-x69 loop (I-669?) since it'll eventually roll near the refineries in Baytown, Pasadena, La Porte, and Texas City in its southeast quadrant while those wanting to bypass Houston can hit its northwest quadrant

I have been trying to get a better grip on the recommendations regarding relief "options" for Houston. The Segment 3 Committee characterizes the Grand Parkway as "an important connection for I-69", but does not go so far as to call it a "relief route" (page 20/157 of pdf; page 14 of document):

Quote
Regional Highways — Committee members recognized that their segment is served by a number of important regional highways where future connections and interchanges with I-69 will be important planning objectives. Interstate highways I 10 and I-45 in the Houston area and I-37 just southwest of the segment provide important regional connections for future I-69 planning. In the Houston area, the future development of the Grand Parkway/SH 99 was considered to be an important connection for I-69 by members of the committee, as it would provide a link to the Port of Houston as well as provide connections to I-10, I-45, US 290 and SH 288.

Below is a map showing, among other things, the relationship between I-69 and the Grand Parkway (page 21/157 of pdf; page 15 of document):
(http://i.imgur.com/3aTjY.jpg)

My guess is that the Grand Parkway is already a de facto relief route (although it may be a looooong time before it, too, is finished), and that the Committees are considering options beyond a through route/relief route analysis. Thoughts?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: O Tamandua on August 09, 2012, 05:23:09 PM
Interesting that on that map at El Campo (Dr. Chuck Swindoll's hometown) is a "proposed KCS bypass"...interesting because that particular stretch of track was inactive and just languishing until the Kansas City Southern railway acquired it sometime last decade...they've made it a key part of their emerging Kansas City to Mexico mainline which through trackage or haulage rights goes north to Canada, I believe.  It's a blessing that the tracks they called "The macaroni line" (built with extensive help from Italian immigrants) were still in place, and that El Campo now has to have such a bypass on their part of the I-69 plan.

Arthur Stilwell, the KCS founder, envisioned a railroad that would be the shortest route between critical freight/cattle center Kansas City and the Gulf of Mexico, and had a railway built between KC and Beaumont/Port Arthur, TX - Lake Charles, LA.  Through acquisitions the KCS got the Louisiana and Arkansas and a railroad which runs pretty much parallel to I-49 (current, plus I-10 and future) all the way to New Orleans, and now with their still developing Mexico line they're running parallel to a future Kansas City/Mexico corridor via I-49 and I-69.  They may merge with someone some day, but Kansas City Southern is a fascinating story in that they as a medium-range* railroad have carved out a niche among the Union Pacific, Burlington Northern Santa Fe, CSX, Norfolk Southern and Canadian National/Illinois Central, the current "big boys" of American railroading that have acquired many railroads between them.

Shows me just how critical this emerging dual I-69 and I-49 corridor is as well.

*As a rule, most American railroad traffic goes between east and west.  Don't know that same rule applies to highway traffic as well.  KCS also has a key corridor between Dallas/Fort Worth into Birmingham (and therefore Atlanta) so they've got a good chunk of that sector.  If, may God forbid, the New Madrid fault blows and affects St.Louis and/or Memphis (and somehow leaves the KCS/I-20 Vicksburg/Tallulah bridge standing) that railroad will get even more critical.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: codyg1985 on August 10, 2012, 12:05:48 PM
*As a rule, most American railroad traffic goes between east and west.  Don't know that same rule applies to highway traffic as well.  KCS also has a key corridor between Dallas/Fort Worth into Birmingham (and therefore Atlanta) so they've got a good chunk of that sector.  If, may God forbid, the New Madrid fault blows and affects St.Louis and/or Memphis (and somehow leaves the KCS/I-20 Vicksburg/Tallulah bridge standing) that railroad will get even more critical.

KCS "Meridian Speedway" actually runs from Shreveport, LA to Meridian, MS. West of Shreveport it transitions to UP, and in Meridian it transitions to NS.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on August 10, 2012, 12:10:50 PM
KCS "Meridian Speedway" actually runs from Shreveport, LA to Meridian, MS. West of Shreveport it transitions to UP, and in Meridian it transitions to NS.
Nope - a KCS predecessor got the old MKT from Shreveport to DFW in 1923: http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/eql08 You're right about the east end though - KCS did have a (since spun off) branch into Birmingham, but it wasn't the main line.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on August 10, 2012, 01:11:11 PM
As regards relief options in Houston, in both the I-69 Segment Two Committee Report and Recommendations (pages 37-38/157; pages 31-32 of document) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg2_final.pdf) and the I-69 Segment Three Committee Report and Recommendations (page 36/157; page 30 of document) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg3_final.pdf), the Segment Two and Segment Three Committees ... did not tip their hand as far as recommending a specific relief route
My guess is that the Grand Parkway is already a de facto relief route (although it may be a looooong time before it, too, is finished), and that the Committees are considering options beyond a through route/relief route analysis.

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):
(http://i.imgur.com/1ScQV.png)

Unfortunately, the Segment Three Committee apparently did not share the same opinion. For ease of comparison, here is the comparable Segment Three map again; the comparison shows that the Segment Three Committee does not extend the relief route suggested by the Segment Two Committee:
(http://i.imgur.com/3aTjY.jpg)

Which beltway would be the Houston loop? We have one done and one being worked on, outside of 610. And better idea, Sam Houston turns into 869 or 845 since it is always known as Beltway 8.

Another difference between the two Committee reports is that the Segment Two Committee report expressly mentions the Sam Houston Tollway as providing a similar function to the Grand Parkway (whereas the Segment Three Committee report does not) (page 20/157 of pdf; page 14 of document):

Quote
Regional Highways — ... In the Houston area, the future development of the Grand Parkway/SH 99 was considered to be an important connection for I-69 by members of the committee, as it would provide a link to the Port of Houston, the Fred Hartman ship channel bridge, SH 146 and SH 225 to the south. To the west, the proposed Grand Parkway/SH 99 would provide connections to I-10, I-45, US 290 and SH 249. Currently, committee members noted that the Beltway 8/ Sam Houston Tollway provides similar connections for traffic in the Houston area.

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 ...
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: O Tamandua on August 10, 2012, 03:23:43 PM
*As a rule, most American railroad traffic goes between east and west.  Don't know that same rule applies to highway traffic as well.  KCS also has a key corridor between Dallas/Fort Worth into Birmingham (and therefore Atlanta) so they've got a good chunk of that sector.  If, may God forbid, the New Madrid fault blows and affects St.Louis and/or Memphis (and somehow leaves the KCS/I-20 Vicksburg/Tallulah bridge standing) that railroad will get even more critical.

KCS "Meridian Speedway" actually runs from Shreveport, LA to Meridian, MS. West of Shreveport it transitions to UP, and in Meridian it transitions to NS.

The individual is correct about the KCS from SHV to D/FW (was the old "Louisiana and Arkansas" railroad and I think there was an acquisition that got KCS to the Alliance yard near Fort Worth) and according to the KCS web site today (http://www.kcsouthern.com/en-us/Services/Pages/RouteMap.aspx#) the route actually goes north of Meridian (forget which railroad that once was) for a ways then heads east slightly to Columbus, where the KCS leases NS trackage to Brookwood, AL, then has trackage rights to Birmingham.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on August 24, 2012, 10:31:21 AM
As regards relief options in Houston ... I-69 Segment Two Committee Report and Recommendations (pages 37-38/157; pages 31-32 of document) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg2_final.pdf)
the Segment Two Committee ...incorporate part of the Grand Parkway as a "Committee Suggested I-69 Route" (page 21/157 of pdf; page 15 of document):
(http://i.imgur.com/1ScQV.png)

An August 23 Houston Chronicle editorial (http://www.chron.com/opinion/editorials/article/Editorial-How-might-I-69-coexist-with-the-Grand-3811256.php) advocates that the Grand Parkway should be finished in a manner that meshes well with the purposes of I-69:

Quote
To quote an aphorism, measure twice, cut once. And by cut, we mean construct a massive highway along the outer edges of greater Houston.
As U.S. 59 becomes part of Interstate 69 ... projections show traffic in some areas growing by up to 150 percent over the next 20 years ....
a grass-roots committee appointed by the Texas Transportation Commission has mentioned a bypass on the city's east side.
This bypass would divert I-69 traffic away from Houston's city center while also improving necessary transportation access to our booming port areas.
But it seems like we've already got something along those lines underway with the Grand Parkway. While there's still a lot of construction remaining on the planned 180-mile third loop around Houston, some parkway segments have been completed, including one in Baytown.
Because plans are not yet set in pavement, we still have some flexibility to construct the Grand Parkway in a manner that can best serve some of the needs of I-69, particularly the influx of long-haul trucking and port commerce that is a near-inevitable part of Houston's future.

And even if we cannot build the parkway as close to the ports as would be optimal, additional investment in service roads could help this third loop both bypass and provide port access.
Doing it right once, instead of building it twice, can save taxpayer dollars and help ensure that this increased traffic will drive Houston's growth rather than hold it back. After all, the increased traffic is going to come from the people, ports and businesses that power Houston's economy, not to mention the long-haul trucks that are part of healthy international trade ....
So as the Legislature starts up next session, we hope that our representatives won't starve the goose that lays the golden egg. We need to fund Houston's transportation infrastructure.

I have been trying to get a better grip on the recommendations regarding relief "options" for Houston.
Quote
And even if we cannot build the parkway as close to the ports as would be optimal, additional investment in service roads could help this third loop both bypass and provide port access.

The above quote from the editorial board indicates that they are also looking beyond a Grand Parkway/ I-x69 relief route and recognize the need for additional relief options to optimize the entire Houston-area I-69 "system".  Too bad there are no near-term prospects for money to fund this vision.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: FreewayDan on September 10, 2012, 08:42:45 PM
Interstate 69 signs have now popped up in Houston.  These photo locations are along eastbound Beltway 8.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8439/7974641373_921fdb3ccb.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/22306412@N07/7974641373/)
Distance to IH 69 &amp; US 59 on Beltway 8 Eastbound - 1.5 Miles (http://www.flickr.com/photos/22306412@N07/7974641373/) by FreewayDan (http://www.flickr.com/people/22306412@N07/), on Flickr
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8447/7974642645_ac6daf6250.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/22306412@N07/7974642645/)
Distance to IH 69 &amp; US 59 on Beltway 8 Eastbound - 1 Mile (http://www.flickr.com/photos/22306412@N07/7974642645/) by FreewayDan (http://www.flickr.com/people/22306412@N07/), on Flickr
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8462/7974646356_1f09ff40c4.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/22306412@N07/7974646356/)
Approach to IH 69 &amp; US 59 along eastbound Beltway 8 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/22306412@N07/7974646356/) by FreewayDan (http://www.flickr.com/people/22306412@N07/), on Flickr
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: txstateends on September 11, 2012, 04:59:35 AM
Interstate 69 signs have now popped up in Houston.  These photo locations are along eastbound Beltway 8.
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8439/7974641373_921fdb3ccb.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/22306412@N07/7974641373/)
Distance to IH 69 &amp; US 59 on Beltway 8 Eastbound - 1.5 Miles (http://www.flickr.com/photos/22306412@N07/7974641373/) by FreewayDan (http://www.flickr.com/people/22306412@N07/), on Flickr
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8447/7974642645_ac6daf6250.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/22306412@N07/7974642645/)
Distance to IH 69 &amp; US 59 on Beltway 8 Eastbound - 1 Mile (http://www.flickr.com/photos/22306412@N07/7974642645/) by FreewayDan (http://www.flickr.com/people/22306412@N07/), on Flickr
(http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8462/7974646356_1f09ff40c4.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/22306412@N07/7974646356/)
Approach to IH 69 &amp; US 59 along eastbound Beltway 8 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/22306412@N07/7974646356/) by FreewayDan (http://www.flickr.com/people/22306412@N07/), on Flickr

Well, by the looks of these pix, not all the TX I-69 shields will be the same since these are neutered.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on September 17, 2012, 04:19:50 PM
The Alliance for I-69 Texas website also has some Houston-area photos (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update9.14.12houston2.html) and an article about the new signage.

One of the photos:
(http://i.imgur.com/WBWJU.jpg)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Perfxion on September 17, 2012, 10:36:24 PM
From the website, I-69 goes right over US59 through Houston. Thus making some sense, saving some money, but still might need some upgrades inside the loop.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Brian556 on September 17, 2012, 11:46:20 PM
Quote
The individual is correct about the KCS from SHV to D/FW (was the old "Louisiana and Arkansas" railroad and I think there was an acquisition that got KCS to the Alliance yard near Fort Worth) and according to the KCS web site today
Concerning the KCS railroad stuff, the aquesition that got them to the Alliance yard was the former "Santa Fe Connection" (now the KCS Alliance Sub); which runs fron Dallas to Metro JCT north of Krum.

Here's some new info on the Louisiana and Arkansas line that ran east out of McKinney, Tx:
http://www.abandonedrails.com/McKinney_to_Farmersville (http://www.abandonedrails.com/McKinney_to_Farmersville)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bugo on September 17, 2012, 11:47:55 PM
Are there going to be any "I-69 ends, follow US 59" signs?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Perfxion on September 18, 2012, 06:16:25 AM
If its dual signed, might not be needed to say I-69 ends, since US59 signs are all over the place. Crazy thing is the current stubs of I-69 aren't even on the same road or highway.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bugo on September 18, 2012, 09:24:47 AM
There's a sign at the end of Future I-49 advising traffic on I-49 to continue north on US 71.  I would think TxDOT would post similar signs at the ends of the I-69 segments.

(http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7267/7417260392_b1da1012d9_z.jpg)

Speaking of I-49, it is ridiculous that all of these 5 mile long stretches of I-69 are allowed to be signed, but I-49 is not signed in Arkansas because of AASHTO.  They need a blanket policy one way or the other.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Perfxion on September 18, 2012, 02:25:18 PM
The problem is I-69 is written into law like I-99. I-49 goes by standard rules. Thus it seems AASHTO hands are tied with what happens with I-69.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: wxfree on September 19, 2012, 09:45:47 PM
The agenda for TTC's meeting next week includes this item: Highway Designations
(1) Bowie County - Authorize the submission of an application to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) to designate a segment of US 59 in Texarkana as an Interstate Highway (MO)
In accordance with the processes established by the Federal Highway Administration and AASHTO, this minute order authorizes the department to petition AASHTO to include a 3.5 mile segment of US 59 from I-30 to SL 151 in Texarkana as part of the Interstate Highway System as I-369. The proposed route will act as a spur within the developing Interstate Highway 69 System.

The Texarkana spur may be designated as I-369.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on September 19, 2012, 10:01:56 PM
The agenda for TTC's meeting next week includes this item: Highway Designations
(1) Bowie County - Authorize the submission of an application to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) to designate a segment of US 59 in Texarkana as ... I-369. The proposed route will act as a spur within the developing Interstate Highway 69 System.
The Texarkana spur may be designated as I-369.

Interesting. I had thought they would go for I-969 because it would theoretically be the northernmost spur in the state.

EDIT

Also interesting - the Texas Transportation Commission will also consider an interstate designation application for US 83 in the Rio Grande Valley (http://www.txdot.gov/about_us/commission/2012_meetings/documents/agendas/sept27.pdf), but a specific numerical request will apparently not be considered: (page 6/14 of pdf):

Quote
Cameron, Hidalgo and Starr Counties - Authorize the submission of an application to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) to designate one or more segments of US 83 in the Rio Grande Valley as an Interstate Highway (MO) In accordance with the processes established by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and AASHTO, this minute order authorizes the department to petition AASHTO to include segments of US 83 in the Rio Grande Valley as part of the Interstate Highway System. FHWA's designation is contingent upon a finding that the segments meet current Interstate design standards and approval to add the segments to the Interstate System.

I guess it will not be an I-x69. Also, it seems like they should have sought the respective approvals for the US 77 and US 281 corridors before US 83 because those corridors have termini at the border and are planned to eventually connect to the interstate system, which in turn would provide the eventual interstate connection for the US 83 corridor.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Perfxion on September 20, 2012, 06:31:09 AM
That southern tip of the Rio Grand Valley makes no sense, The way everything  seems to be going, 77 will be I-69E, 281 will be I-69C, US59 will be I-69W, and 83 will be I-69S. If they want to label all 4 highways as interstates, why not spurs of either 69, 37 or make a new number.  Odd thing is a Spur of 37 would be longer than the parent highway.

I know this a little fictional highways but:
Everything US59 south of Houston stays I-69.
US281 becomes I-169 or rather I-969 since they are screwing up Texarkana area.
US83 comes either I-269 or I-869 for the same reason.
US77 becomes either becomes I-569, I-137, or I-37
If US77 stays I-37, switch the old I-37 to I-137.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on October 13, 2012, 11:48:29 AM
The Alliance for I-69 Texas (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update7.26.12%20houston.html) also has a map and an article about the addition:
Quote
(http://i.imgur.com/29c4e.jpg)
... Two additional sections of US 59 in the Houston area that have long been at interstate highway standard are currently under review. The next to be added to the Interstate System is likely to be the Southwest Freeway from the I-610 Loop South down through Sugar Land and on to Rosenberg. The final Houston section is expected to be the part of US 59 inside Loop 610. Each designation requires an extensive submittal by the TxDOT and an exhaustive review by the federal FHWA to see that standards are being met.
The Texas Transportation Commission, in its revision of the 2012 Unified Transportation Program (UTP) gave approval for the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) to move forward with additional funding identified earlier this year. Several I-69 projects are included in TxDOT's Projects Selected for $2 Billion Allocation (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/tpp/utp/2012/projects_2b_allocation.pdf) list:
Quote
(US 59) Liberty County line to south of Cleveland freeway upgrade - $6 million ...

This article (http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/cleveland/news/i--coming-soon-to-cleveland/article_100242af-8cf5-5393-b3a4-f2ed7682c336.html) reports that the next I-69 project in the greater Houston area that will involve extensive construction (the two remaining I-69 signage applications for US 59 southwest of Houston and through Houston will only involve minimal construction, if any) will extend north from the current end of I-69 near the Montgomery County/ Liberty County county line to the recently completed 105 Loop near Cleveland (http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=30.297516~-95.106329&lvl=13&dir=0&sty=h&where1=Cleveland%2C%20TX&form=LMLTCC) (Bing Maps):

Quote
A portion of Hwy. 59 in Liberty County is expected to soon become I-69 according to state officials.
Cory Taylor, TxDot Liberty Area Engineer and Tucker Ferguson, district engineer for Beaumont TxDOT, addressed the Cleveland City Council on Oct. 9 to discuss upcoming projects for the area.
Ferguson discussed Hwy. 59 through Liberty County and the roadway eventually turning into I-69. The first designation was made last year in the Corpus Christi area. The next area to be developed in the Houston area is on Hwy. 59 from the border of Liberty County to the 105 Loop.
Ferguson explained that once a designer was in place, they can begin doing the preliminary engineering and environmental studies, followed by right-of-way acquisition and utility relocation. Once these items a re completed, TxDoT can then put together a bid package for the construction to bring Hwy. 59 up to interstate status.

I assume the road under construction in the above Bing Maps link is the new 105 Loop.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on October 16, 2012, 04:41:58 PM
As regards relief options in Houston... the I-69 Segment Two Committee Report and Recommendations (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg2_final.pdf)
... the Segment Two Committee.  Below is a map included in their report ... (page 21/157 of pdf; page 15 of document):
(http://i.imgur.com/1ScQV.png)
This article (http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/cleveland/news/i--coming-soon-to-cleveland/article_100242af-8cf5-5393-b3a4-f2ed7682c336.html) reports that the next I-69 project in the greater Houston area that will involve extensive construction (the two remaining I-69 signage applications for US 59 southwest of Houston and through Houston will only involve minimal construction, if any) will extend north from the current end of I-69 near the Montgomery County/ Liberty County county line to the recently completed 105 Loop near Cleveland (http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=30.297516~-95.106329&lvl=13&dir=0&sty=h&where1=Cleveland%2C%20TX&form=LMLTCC) (Bing Maps)

Looking at the above Segment Two Committee map, it appears that the Segment Two Committee may have a long-range vision of a major interchange involving I-69, SH 105, and an I-x69 section that would connect with an I-x69 overlap with the Grand Parkway/SH 99. From the Segment Two Committee report (page 20/157 of pdf; page 14 of document):

Quote
Important interchanges with other highways include ... SH 105 through Montgomery and Liberty counties. In the Houston area, the future development of the Grand Parkway/SH 99 was considered to be an important connection for I-69 by members of the committee ....
Local Relief Routes — Committee members identified potential future long-term consideration of options for Cleveland ...

Looking at the description on the map of a "New Cleveland Relief Route Under Construction", it appears that Loop 105 may be the section of SH 105 described in the Committee's Report and may one day have an overlap with I-69 and an interchange with an I-x69. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Alex on October 23, 2012, 04:16:46 PM
Jeff Royston photographed this assembly today from just north of Interstate 610.

(http://www.aaroads.com/shields/img/TX/TX19700691i1.jpg) (http://www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=TX19700691)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: txstateends on October 27, 2012, 05:18:52 PM
Jeff Royston photographed this assembly today from just north of Interstate 610.

(http://www.aaroads.com/shields/img/TX/TX19700691i1.jpg) (http://www.aaroads.com/shields/show.php?image=TX19700691)

Amazing -- a non-neutered Houston interstate shield, and a Houston interstate *with* a signed US route overlap.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on October 28, 2012, 10:00:42 AM
The Texas Transportation Commission, in its revision of the 2012 Unified Transportation Program (UTP) gave approval for the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) to move forward with additional funding identified earlier this year. Several I-69 projects are included in TxDOT's Projects Selected for $2 Billion Allocation (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/tpp/utp/2012/projects_2b_allocation.pdf) list:
Quote
(US 59) Liberty County line to south of Cleveland freeway upgrade - $6 million ...
This article (http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/cleveland/news/i--coming-soon-to-cleveland/article_100242af-8cf5-5393-b3a4-f2ed7682c336.html) reports that the next I-69 project in the greater Houston area ... will extend north from the current end of I-69 near the Montgomery County/ Liberty County county line to the recently completed 105 Loop near Cleveland (http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=30.297516~-95.106329&lvl=13&dir=0&sty=h&where1=Cleveland%2C%20TX&form=LMLTCC)

Another I-69 project from the $2 Billion Allocation List:

Quote
(US 59) Ramps, frontage roads, remove cross overs from north of SL 463 to south of US 87 - $11.62 million

This October 27 article (http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/2012/oct/27/mc_txdot_102812_192129/?business&local-business) reports that the above four-mile SL 463 to south of US 87 project in the Victoria area (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Victoria,+TX&hl=en&ll=28.805271,-97.003441&spn=0.21841,0.308647&sll=28.829636,-96.975632&sspn=0.218359,0.308647&oq=victoria+tx&t=h&hnear=Victoria,+Texas&z=12) should begin in August 2013 and will take place in existing right-of-way:

Quote
Texas Department of Transportation will have an open house Tuesday to allow residents to learn more about plans to build four miles of one-way frontage roads along U.S. Highway 59 ....
Stretched from U.S. Highway 87 to Loop 463, the project includes removing median cross-overs and connecting existing driveways to the new frontage roads.
The U.S. 59 overpass at U.S. 87 will also be replaced with a new structure. Construction is scheduled to begin in August 2013.
The proposed work would take place within existing right-of-way. No additional right-of-way would be required for this project ....
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Cam4rd98 on November 11, 2012, 11:38:10 AM
I think if Interstate 69 went outside the city of Houston along the proposed grand parkway I wouldn't think that would help traffic in the inner city  because the Grand Parkway is planned to be a loop around the Greater Houston Area and that would be too far to be interstate commute from the city but it would make more sense if I-69 were to follow directly on U.S. 59 through Houston would make convenience more precise meaning that it would be at the location where it is exactly needed because if the Grand Parkway were designated as I-69 but its too late now because I-69 is now designated from Interstate 610 to Cleveland Texas along the U.S. 59 freeway, or maybe the Grand Parkway could be designated as X69 or something like I-469 that would make sense.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on November 11, 2012, 11:42:44 AM
or maybe projects don't follow numbers or maybe people don't follow numbers or maybe you need punctuation
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Perfxion on November 11, 2012, 01:57:00 PM
I think what he is getting at, that it wouldn't make sense to make SH99 I-69 due to how outside of Houston(which is saying something) that parkway will be. Its cheaper to overlay it over US59 in greater Houston since it is already an highway to interstate standards for a large stretch. I don't think Grand Parkway will be X69 as I don't even think the whole thing will be built.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on November 11, 2012, 02:08:25 PM
I think what he is getting at, that it wouldn't make sense to make SH99 I-69 due to how outside of Houston(which is saying something) that parkway will be. Its cheaper to overlay it over US59 in greater Houston since it is already an highway to interstate standards for a large stretch. I don't think Grand Parkway will be X69 as I don't even think the whole thing will be built.

It's a moot point anyway, since US 59 from I-610 north has already been designated as I-69. The Grand Parkway should remain as SH 99.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on November 12, 2012, 01:29:33 PM
Speaking of Laredo, it is interesting (and practical) that, in the combined Segments Four and Five report (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg45_final.pdf), the Segment 5 Committee recommends that (among their top five priorities), because of ROW and congestion problems along US 59 in Laredo, instead of having I-69 end at the current southern terminus of US 59 (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Laredo,+TX&hl=en&ll=27.530803,-99.502975&spn=0.003587,0.004823&sll=32.678125,-83.178297&sspn=6.970126,9.876709&oq=laredo&hnear=Laredo,+Webb,+Texas&t=h&z=18), perhaps I-69 could be routed along Loop 20 from the Mexican border to the current Loop 20/ US 59 interchange (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Laredo,+TX&hl=en&ll=27.562461,-99.488754&spn=0.114743,0.154324&sll=32.678125,-83.178297&sspn=6.970126,9.876709&oq=laredo&hnear=Laredo,+Webb,+Texas&t=h&z=13) (page 46/165 of pdf; page 40 of document)
Definitely more practical; there are already substantial plans to "freewayize" Loop 20 with minimal relocations.

It looks like the City of Laredo and Webb County both want to incorporate Loop 20 into I-69.  On November 5, the Laredo City Council voted on a resolution to cooperate with Webb County in creating a Transportation Reinvestment Zone along sections of Loop 20 and US 59, both of which are referred to as being considered for I-69 status (http://www.ci.laredo.tx.us/city-council/council-activities/council-agendas/2012Agendas/2012-R-20.pdf) (page 8/14 of pdf):

Quote
2012-R-093 Expressing the City of Laredo’s intent and commitment to work jointly with Webb County to create a Transportation Reinvestment Zone (TRZ) or zones along Loop 20 from its intersection with I-35 to its intersection with U.S. Highway 59 and U.S. 59 from its intersection with Loop 20 east to its intersection with the Webb County line which said sections are being considered for I-69 status once they meet U.S. Interstate Highway standards.

The Webb County Commissioners Court will consider a companion resolution on Nov. 13 (http://www.webbcountytx.gov/meetings/Files/Agenda-2012-11-13-481.pdf) (page 2/12 of pdf):

Quote
Discussion and possible action to approve a Resolution expressing Webb County’s intent and commitment to work jointly with the City of Laredo to create a Transportation Reinvestment Zone (TRZ) or Zones along Loop 20 from its intersection with IH-35 to its intersection with U.S. Highway 59 and from U.S. Highway 59 from its intersection with Loop 20 East to its intersection with the Webb County line which said sections are being considered for I-69 status once they meet U.S. interstate highway standards.

Meanwhile, TxDOT's Webb County Projects Tracker (http://apps.dot.state.tx.us/apps/project_tracker/projects.htm?view=cnty&dist=Laredo&cnty=Webb) confirms a lot of current and scheduled construction activity for Loop 20.  Since Loop 20 has an interchange with I-35 (connection with the current interstate system), it could conceivably receive an I-69 designation after its upgrades are completed.

EDIT

I just noticed that a a June 28, 2012 article on the Alliance for I-69 Texas website (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update6.28.12.html) expresses in certain terms that Loop 20 will be the final leg of I-69:

Quote
Here are the other I-69 projects marked for funding by the Commission:
> WEBB COUNTY - $9 million to construct an overpass on Loop 20 at McPherson Road on the north side of Laredo, a location one mile east of Interstate 35. Loop 20 is the final leg of I-69 connecting to Interstate 35 and Webb County international border crossings.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: roadman65 on November 18, 2012, 03:22:14 PM
My latest Rand McNally atlas shows the freeway of US 77 south of I-37  to TX 44 as I-69.  Nowhere else in TX on that same edition show I-69 existing even on US 59 where it is freeway through Houston.

I think that is strange considering the next I-69 segment to be established permanently is in MS.  A long way in time and mileage for the links to be attached.

 Added I just checked Wikipedia and it states that another 35 miles of US 59 has been approved (and signed) as I-69 though not shown on Rand McNally.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: codyg1985 on November 28, 2012, 11:06:49 AM
From the Special Committee on U.S. Route Numbering Annual Meeting (http://route.transportation.org/Documents/SCOH%20Report%2011-16-2012.pdf), it looks like I-69 has gotten conditional approval for the following stretches in Texas (conditional on FHWA approval):

- From Spur 529 in Rosenburg northeast to I-610 southwest of Houston
- Raymondville to Brownsville

Also an I-69C has gotten conditional approval between McAllen and Edinburg.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on November 28, 2012, 11:30:03 AM
From the Special Committee on U.S. Route Numbering Annual Meeting (http://route.transportation.org/Documents/SCOH%20Report%2011-16-2012.pdf), it looks like I-69 has gotten conditional approval for... (conditional on FHWA approval) ... Raymondville to Brownsville
Also an I-69C has gotten conditional approval between McAllen and Edinburg.
I just noticed that a a June 28, 2012 article on the Alliance for I-69 Texas website (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update6.28.12.html) expresses in certain terms that Loop 20 will be the final leg of I-69:
Quote
Here are the other I-69 projects marked for funding by the Commission:
> WEBB COUNTY - $9 million to construct an overpass on Loop 20 at McPherson Road on the north side of Laredo, a location one mile east of Interstate 35. Loop 20 is the final leg of I-69 connecting to Interstate 35 and Webb County international border crossings.

I find it interesting that AASHTO approved the I-69 designation for US 77 from Raymondville to Brownsville, even though it is statutorily designated as I-69E.  If TxDOT makes significant progress on Loop 20 in Laredo and wants an interstate designation in the relatively near future, then it will be interesting to see how TxDOT handles the designations.

[T]he Texas Transportation Commission will also consider an interstate designation application for US 83 in the Rio Grande Valley (http://www.txdot.gov/about_us/commission/2012_meetings/documents/agendas/sept27.pdf), but a specific numerical request will apparently not be considered: (page 6/14 of pdf)

Also the US 83 application was rejected because no number had been requested:

Quote
Establishment of Interstate Route (#TBD)
Route will begin at 0.5 mile west of the U.S. 83/Showers Road junction in Palmview, TX. Route will extend 46.8 miles to the east. Existing facility is a four-lane to six-lane divided, controlled access route. Route will travel west to east. Mission, McAllen, Pharr, and Harlingen are four focal point cities. Route will extend 46.8 miles. Route will end at the junction of U.S. 77 in Harlingen, TX.
Disapproved
Application incomplete without an interstate number and Texas needs to provide a map showing that interstate routes are interconnected.

Will Texas beat Louisiana to the punch for I-6?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: vdeane on November 28, 2012, 11:48:16 AM
AASHTO has officially gone crazy.  And the interstate numbering system is now dead.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: CanesFan27 on November 28, 2012, 01:03:17 PM
AASHTO has officially gone crazy.  And the interstate numbering system is now dead.

Will you be hosting a memorial service for the Interstate Numbering System?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Alps on November 28, 2012, 09:12:38 PM
AASHTO has officially gone crazy.  And the interstate numbering system is now dead.
In that case, I want I-287 to be renumbered I-0, just so I live next to the coolest Interstate ever.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: rickmastfan67 on November 28, 2012, 09:18:35 PM
AASHTO has officially gone crazy.  And the interstate numbering system is now dead.
In that case, I want I-287 to be renumbered I-0, just so I live next to the coolest Interstate ever.

Nah, the coolest Interstate number would be I-007. ;)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Alps on November 28, 2012, 09:35:21 PM
AASHTO has officially gone crazy.  And the interstate numbering system is now dead.
In that case, I want I-287 to be renumbered I-0, just so I live next to the coolest Interstate ever.

Nah, the coolest Interstate number would be I-007. ;)
Wouldn't that have to be a motorway?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: codyg1985 on November 28, 2012, 10:12:30 PM
I want an imaginary interstate...I-i.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Alps on November 28, 2012, 10:26:35 PM
I want an imaginary interstate...I-i.
You got it, cap'n.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on November 29, 2012, 10:42:09 AM
I just noticed that a a June 28, 2012 article on the Alliance for I-69 Texas website (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update6.28.12.html) expresses in certain terms that Loop 20 will be the final leg of I-69:
Quote
Here are the other I-69 projects marked for funding by the Commission:
> WEBB COUNTY - $9 million to construct an overpass on Loop 20 at McPherson Road on the north side of Laredo, a location one mile east of Interstate 35. Loop 20 is the final leg of I-69 connecting to Interstate 35 and Webb County international border crossings.

I recently received an email update form TxDOT regarding Loop 20 which affirms a desire for Loop 20 to be part of the I-69 corridor and that current project upgrades are being built to interstate standards (emphasis in email added by me):

Quote
The ultimate goal is to build all major State Loop 20 intersections in Laredo to  interstate highway standards. In fact, on October 31, 2012, the Texas Department of Transportation Laredo District  hosted an I-69 Laredo briefing to continue their quest to bring Loop 20 from US 59 to I-35, and US 59 (I-69) to interstate highway standards. Webb County Judge Danny Valdez and City of Laredo City Manger Carlos Villarreal each stated their entities support for the project.

As decided in cooperation between TxDOT, the City of Laredo and Webb County, Loop 20 from US 59 to west of IH 35 is under consideration to become a portion of the IH 69 corridor.  The only portion of this corridor that has construction funding is the Loop 20 overpass at McPherson (which will be constructed to interstate standards). In addition, Webb County has initiated environmental and schematic studies and project design for Loop 20 interchanges at the IH 35/U-P railroad and the International Blvd. crossings.  Also, Webb County is in the consultant selection process to hire a consultant engineering company to begin work on the schematic, environmental and preliminary project design for Loop 20 from east of International Blvd. to US 59.  It is TxDOT's, the City's and County's intention that all of the design for the Loop 20 upgrades from US 59 to west of IH 35 will be to interstate standards so that this section can be included as a future portion of the IH 69 corridor without any substantial changes or improvements to the roadway itself.

Also, the City of Laredo and Webb County are cooperating in an effort to develop tax reinvestment zones (TRIZs) along some of the major highway corridors within the Laredo city limits in order to develop local sources of funding that can help to leverage additional state and/or federal monies to advance the major highway projects within Laredo (including but not necessarily limited to the Loop 20 efforts).  We don't know a firm timeline when funding will be available for the Loop 20 upgrades, the finalization of the TRIZs except for the McPherson interchange that goes to bidding this December 2012.

No surprise that funding issues exist.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: codyg1985 on November 29, 2012, 12:19:13 PM
^ I wouldn't say this (https://maps.google.com/?ll=27.527698,-99.445431&spn=0.004086,0.008256&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=27.527698,-99.445431&panoid=4pYrJxLPGhj8vvNt9tidBQ&cbp=12,6.17,,0,5.32) is quite up to interstate standards.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on December 07, 2012, 05:16:20 PM
The I-69 Advisory Committee Report and Recommendations (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/advisory_committee_report.pdf), combining information from the five segment committees (and current to November 5, 2012), has been posted on the TxDOT website.  It has several interesting maps included at the end of the report, including a map combining the priorities of the five committees (page 25/30 of pdf; page 19 of document):

(http://i.imgur.com/zMVsj.jpg)

The text on the map identifies "US 59 from the Mexico Border to East of Laredo" as an upgrade priority, but the map itself seems to identify Loop 20 from the Mexico Border to East of Laredo as a priority.

edit

Or they could pull an I-10 in west Texas and keep the at-grades. Why were those allowed to be grandfathered there but not here?

The Report indicates that they will pursue exceptions with FHWA (page 19/30 of pdf; page 13 of document):

Quote
The Advisory and Segment Committee members recommend designating existing sections of highway as I-69 when they meet Interstate standards. Committee members also encourage TxDOT to work with FHWA to gain exceptions to some Interstate standards required for portions of highways recommended for I-69 in South Texas, such as highway sections within ranch areas, where Interstate standards today may not be warranted but Interstate designation is still needed.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: AsphaltPlanet on December 09, 2012, 01:03:33 PM
I don't know if this has been posted anywhere else, but I-69 shields have been posted on BGS signs for the southern leg of US-77 South at I-37 near Corpus Christi.  I can post some pics if this is news.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: vdeane on December 09, 2012, 01:21:16 PM
I think there was a thread on it last year.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: InterstateNG on December 09, 2012, 03:49:45 PM
Posted in this very thread:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg125581#msg125581
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: lamsalfl on December 09, 2012, 10:16:16 PM
When might we expect to see those I-369 shields?
Title: Possible TX I-69 Routes Through/ Around Lufkin and Nacogdoches
Post by: Grzrd on December 12, 2012, 11:57:50 AM
This (behind paywall) article (http://www.lufkindailynews.com/news/local/article_27eb9798-4412-11e2-b3c0-001a4bcf887a.html?success=1?success=2) 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:
(http://i.imgur.com/ESjmZ.jpg)                          (http://i.imgur.com/dEaxn.jpg)

edit

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
Title: TX; US 83 Interstate Numerical Designation and I-69 Signage Updates
Post by: Grzrd on December 13, 2012, 09:55:44 AM
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) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3321.msg190337#msg190337) 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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: lamsalfl on December 13, 2012, 11:01:39 AM
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. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on December 14, 2012, 02:40:48 AM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: lordsutch on December 17, 2012, 03:27:11 AM
^ I wouldn't say this (https://maps.google.com/?ll=27.527698,-99.445431&spn=0.004086,0.008256&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=27.527698,-99.445431&panoid=4pYrJxLPGhj8vvNt9tidBQ&cbp=12,6.17,,0,5.32) 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 (https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=27.560463133519903,-99.395), 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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: agentsteel53 on December 19, 2012, 01:22:04 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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on December 19, 2012, 01:43:59 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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: lamsalfl on December 19, 2012, 01:57:34 PM
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?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on December 19, 2012, 02:08:32 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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on December 19, 2012, 03:58:34 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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on December 19, 2012, 08:09:29 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.
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
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,
(http://i.imgur.com/QA4Iv.jpg)

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).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: english si on December 19, 2012, 08:44:47 PM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: drummer_evans_aki on December 21, 2012, 02:22:38 AM
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?

Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: 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?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: agentsteel53 on December 21, 2012, 01:39:43 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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on December 21, 2012, 02:16:13 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!
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: agentsteel53 on December 21, 2012, 02:54:10 PM
when will the good people in the TXDOT engineering department rise above their political oppressors and number the routes something logical?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: english si on December 21, 2012, 03:26:04 PM
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!
And TX DOT won't upgrade Freer - Victoria for quite some time, preferring to upgrade the TX44 route to Freer.
when 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?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: TheStranger on December 21, 2012, 03:27:17 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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Alps on December 21, 2012, 04:47:11 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.)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: mcdonaat on December 23, 2012, 03:26:59 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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: longhorn on December 26, 2012, 12:14:12 PM
So what will the state highway 83 from McAllen to Brownsville be labled?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on December 26, 2012, 12:17:22 PM
So what will the state highway 83 from McAllen to Brownsville be labled?
US 83.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: longhorn on December 26, 2012, 01:24:11 PM
So what will the state highway 83 from McAllen to Brownsville be labled?
US 83.

What interstate number will it be labled?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Rover_0 on December 26, 2012, 01:29:19 PM
So what will the state highway 83 from McAllen to Brownsville be labled?
US 83.

What interstate number will it be labled?

I-169 signs were ordered for it; mentioned here (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg191601#msg191601) earlier in the thread.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on December 26, 2012, 02:34:53 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.

If that happens, then all of South Louisiana will rise up in revolt, since they already are ticked off about I-49 North being built for free from the dirt up while upgrading US 90 into I-49 South will get the toll treatment. Especially those sections of US 90 already upgraded for free.

Until TX resolves what they want to do with the Carthage/Logansport section and the LA 3132 extension issues are resolved (or they decide to build the I-49 ICC, I'd much rather they complete I-49 South through Lafayette Parish on to Morgan City first. That would solve much of the problem, and even allow I-49 shields to fly temporarily.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: longhorn on December 27, 2012, 02:45:10 PM
So what will the state highway 83 from McAllen to Brownsville be labled?
US 83.

What interstate number will it be labled?

I-169 signs were ordered for it; mentioned here (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg191601#msg191601) earlier in the thread.

Did not see that...........Thanks.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: FreewayDan on January 20, 2013, 10:49:55 AM
So what will the state highway 83 from McAllen to Brownsville be labled?
US 83.

What interstate number will it be labled?

I-169 signs were ordered for it; mentioned here (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg191601#msg191601) earlier in the thread.

Would it be easier to just have one seamless number for US 83 (McAllen to Brownsville) and US 281 (McAllen to I--69 or I-37) instead of having two different Interstates (I-169 and I-69C)?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: lordsutch on January 23, 2013, 02:42:15 AM
Would it be easier to just have one seamless number for US 83 (McAllen to Brownsville) and US 281 (McAllen to I--69 or I-37) instead of having two different Interstates (I-169 and I-69C)?

The US 83 freeway extends well west of US 281, to the edge of Las Penitas; US 281 technically intersects US 83 in Pharr, not McAllen, although it all pretty much blends together.  And in theory "I-69C" is supposed to make it to the border proper eventually at Pharr, although that's rather implausible without bulldozing downtown Pharr on the way (I'd send it west/north on US 83 to the proposed Anzalduas Highway extension, although you could also go east/south and eventually cut down to the Donna bridge on FM 493).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on January 25, 2013, 04:14:49 PM
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!
when 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?

Maybe TxDOT has heard the taunts from across the pond. This article (http://www.progresstimes.net/news/local-news/3347-i-69-becoming-a-reality.html) reports that the "Laredo prong" will be signed as I-69 W:

Quote
The Hidalgo County Commissioner’s Court heard a report from members of the I-69 Texas Department of Transportation Advisory Committee in their Tuesday, Jan. 15, meeting of the court.
Spokesperson for the three members of the I-69 Advisory Committee was Cameron County Commissioner David Garza ....
Nearly half of the length of the corridor is in Texas. In South Texas, I-69 is to have three branches. I-69-E is to run along US 77 to Harlingen. I -69-C is to run along US 281 into McAllen. I-69-W will move west to Laredo.

Having W, C, and E prongs would be more logical looking at the total I-69 system in Texas, but replacing the statute's "I-69" designation with "I-69 W" still does not seem quite right.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Perfxion on January 26, 2013, 06:37:36 AM
San Antinio to Brownsville goes as I-37 with a spur to Corpus.
Victoria to Laredo goes as I-69, thus Laredo to Houston being one highway number.

Everything else stays a US route. least confusing of this mess.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Speedway99 on January 26, 2013, 03:35:46 PM
I think it should be like this:

Mainline I-69 uses US 77 from Victoria to Corpus to Brownsville.
I-6: TX 44 from Corpus to Freer and US 59 from Freer to Laredo.
I-2: US 83 from Laredo to Harlingen.
I-37 stays as is.
I-169 goes from north of Raymondsville on 77 southwest to Edinburg, then south on 281 to connect with the Pharr Int'l Bridge
I-269: US 59 from Victoria to Freer
I-369: Texarkana spur
I-469: Grand Parkway all the way around Houston.

This eliminates the splits, makes Corpus and Laredo Tri-interstate cities, leaves 5 x69's in Texas open, and eliminates the need to have 2 long parallel interstates in the rural area of the valley. Of course, Laredo, Pharr, and Brownsville all want I-69 so the 1di's won't happen. And I don't think they'll build my 169, but that's just my 2 cents.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: InterstateNG on January 26, 2013, 04:33:59 PM
I don't see how this is confusing or a mess.  Unnecessary perhaps.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on January 26, 2013, 04:47:45 PM
This was my original idea for solving the I-69 mess:

US 59 from Houston to Laredo (via Victoria, George West, and Freer): I-69
US 77 from Corpus Christi to Brownsville: an I-37 extension; with existing I-37 from there to downtown Corpus converted to an I-x37 spur
US 281 from George West to Pharr: keep as is unless a freeway connnection is built through George West to connect w/ I-37; then I-x37
US 83 in S. TX: keep as is.
SH 44 from Freer to Robstown and US 77 through Corpus Christi to Victoria: I-469 or I-2 (Save I-6 for I-49 South in LA...heh)
US 59 from Carthage to Texarkana: I-369 (or possibly I-47)


An alternative would be to sign I-69 along US 59 to Freer, then SH 44 to Robstown, then US 77 through Corpus Christi to Victoria, and make the Freer-Victoria segment of US 59 I-269 (or leave as is until a freeway upgrade is warranted).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bugo on January 26, 2013, 07:55:58 PM
My idea:

US 59 stays US 59
US 77 stays US 77
US 281 stays US 281
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: thefro on February 07, 2013, 08:43:08 AM
FHWA has approved the 28 mile US 59 section from 610 to south of Rosenberg (looks like they haven't approved the concurrent section on 610 yet).  The TxDOT press release says it's already been designated I-69 (http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/media-room/news/statewide/006-2013.html).

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/article/Interstate-69-coming-piece-by-piece-4257896.php

Quote
The Texas Department of Transportation also announced that the newest 28-mile segment of I-69, along U.S. 59 from the 610 Loop to south of Rosenberg, recently received federal approval.

Quote
An ambitious, multibillion-dollar effort to push forward the state-spanning Interstate 69 was highlighted at the Texas Capitol Wednesday even as lawmakers struggle with transportation funding needs.
 
The Texas leg of the 1,600-mile interstate would stretch from the Lower Rio Grande Valley to Texarkana, tracking U.S. 77 and U.S. 281 in South Texas and U.S. 59 in the Houston area north.
 
State officials called the project, estimated to cost $16 billion, important to safety and economic development as goods move northward to the Midwest and Northeast. Of 1,000 miles of the proposed route in Texas, about 70 have been designated by the federal government as interstate quality so far. The goal is to complete half of the freeway in 20 years, using mostly federal and state funds, but with some local contributions possible.

Quote
The majority of the freeway will follow existing federal highways.
 
TxDOT's Williams said most of the work involved in constructing I-69 is taking those highways and bringing them to federal standards with divided lanes, separation from local streets and other safety upgrades.
 
Those efforts require engineering and construction, which TxDOT will handle as funding becomes available. Essentially, the one interstate is dozens of widening, redesign and rebuilding jobs across Texas. About 200 miles of the highways already are up to federal freeway standards, or close to it.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on February 07, 2013, 11:58:37 AM
My idea:

US 59 stays US 59
US 77 stays US 77
US 281 stays US 281

And, I suppose, they all stay 2- to 4-lane highways, right??
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: agentsteel53 on February 07, 2013, 12:29:48 PM

And, I suppose, they all stay 2- to 4-lane highways, right??

no, they get upgraded as necessary, but not given silly numbers.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on February 07, 2013, 06:29:21 PM
My idea ...
US 281 stays US 281
And, I suppose, they all stay 2- to 4-lane highways, right??
no, they get upgraded as necessary, but not given silly numbers.

TxDOT is in the process of conducting an interstate development plan for US 281 (and a small piece of US 59) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/projects/281/fact_sheet.pdf), with a final report anticipated to be completed in late 2013:

Quote
The purpose of this study is to develop a plan to bring US 281 (from US 83 to I-37) and US 59 (from US 281 to I-37) up to Interstate design standards, with the eventual goal of designating and signing these highways as part of the I-69 system .... A draft of the plan will be completed in the summer of 2013 with the final report complete in late 2013.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Speedway99 on February 07, 2013, 06:54:22 PM
That is great news that the Southwest freeway outside the loop has been approved. I'm glad to see this highway is moving along. I expect to see signs by May, based on the time between the previous section was approved and when it was signed. Also, when do you think the section of US 59 inside 610 will receive approval?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on February 07, 2013, 08:16:41 PM
regarding the redesignation of US 59 as I-69 through Houston, Committee 3 (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/notes/seg3/notes_110411.pdf) is aiming for AASHTO approval by AASHTO's May 2012 meeting [page 2/30 of pdf]:
Quote
Roger Beall answered that the request to add U.S. 59 through Houston to the interstate system was tentatively scheduled to be sent to FHWA in January. If the request is approved, the Texas Transportation Commission will consider submission of an application to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Special Committee on Route Numbering to use the I-69 route number. The next AASHTO meeting will occur in May 2012.
when do you think the section of US 59 inside 610 will receive approval?

I'm guessing they are about 1 to 1.5 years behind their above hoped-for schedule.  AASHTO's next meeting is May 3-7, and I suspect TxDOT will submit an application in time for that meeting (mid-March).  I suspect AASHTO would grant approval contingent upon FHWA's approval of the "Inside I-610" segment as satisfactorily complying with current interstate standards.  I would hope FHWA would grant its approval a few months after AASHTO's decision.  Pure speculation by me.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Road Hog on February 08, 2013, 09:12:00 AM
Quote
State officials called the project, estimated to cost $16 billion, important to safety and economic development as goods move northward to the Midwest and Northeast. Of 1,000 miles of the proposed route in Texas, about 70 have been designated by the federal government as interstate quality so far. The goal is to complete half of the freeway in 20 years, using mostly federal and state funds, but with some local contributions possible.

Whoa, 1,000 miles? That must include the spurs in the south, otherwise that'll be the longest one-state segment in the nation. How about a 4-digit exit number?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Speedway99 on February 08, 2013, 10:36:43 PM
Quote
State officials called the project, estimated to cost $16 billion, important to safety and economic development as goods move northward to the Midwest and Northeast. Of 1,000 miles of the proposed route in Texas, about 70 have been designated by the federal government as interstate quality so far. The goal is to complete half of the freeway in 20 years, using mostly federal and state funds, but with some local contributions possible.

Whoa, 1,000 miles? That must include the spurs in the south, otherwise that'll be the longest one-state segment in the nation. How about a 4-digit exit number?

The entire length of US 59 in TX is 612 miles, US 77 from Victoria to Brownsville is 231 miles, and US 281 from George West to Pharr is is 151 miles. That all adds up to 994 miles. Not to mention the bypasses that when built will add extra miles. Also, that number also doesn't include US 83, US 84, of TX 44, which will all add up past 1000 miles. I think 1000 miles refers to all the spurs in addition to the main route, which adds up past 1000. There won't be a 4 digit exit number, though.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: drummer_evans_aki on February 10, 2013, 12:24:44 AM
Quote
State officials called the project, estimated to cost $16 billion, important to safety and economic development as goods move northward to the Midwest and Northeast. Of 1,000 miles of the proposed route in Texas, about 70 have been designated by the federal government as interstate quality so far. The goal is to complete half of the freeway in 20 years, using mostly federal and state funds, but with some local contributions possible.

Whoa, 1,000 miles? That must include the spurs in the south, otherwise that'll be the longest one-state segment in the nation. How about a 4-digit exit number?

The entire length of US 59 in TX is 612 miles, US 77 from Victoria to Brownsville is 231 miles, and US 281 from George West to Pharr is is 151 miles. That all adds up to 994 miles. Not to mention the bypasses that when built will add extra miles. Also, that number also doesn't include US 83, US 84, of TX 44, which will all add up past 1000 miles. I think 1000 miles refers to all the spurs in addition to the main route, which adds up past 1000. There won't be a 4 digit exit number, though.

Crap. I'd love to see a guide sign with a four digit exit number. That would actually be interesting.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: vdeane on February 10, 2013, 01:17:04 PM
You could always make a multi-billion dollar donation to Ontario to build ON 417 all the way to Manitoba. ;)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: mgk920 on February 10, 2013, 10:07:28 PM
Quote
State officials called the project, estimated to cost $16 billion, important to safety and economic development as goods move northward to the Midwest and Northeast. Of 1,000 miles of the proposed route in Texas, about 70 have been designated by the federal government as interstate quality so far. The goal is to complete half of the freeway in 20 years, using mostly federal and state funds, but with some local contributions possible.

Whoa, 1,000 miles? That must include the spurs in the south, otherwise that'll be the longest one-state segment in the nation. How about a 4-digit exit number?

The entire length of US 59 in TX is 612 miles, US 77 from Victoria to Brownsville is 231 miles, and US 281 from George West to Pharr is is 151 miles. That all adds up to 994 miles. Not to mention the bypasses that when built will add extra miles. Also, that number also doesn't include US 83, US 84, of TX 44, which will all add up past 1000 miles. I think 1000 miles refers to all the spurs in addition to the main route, which adds up past 1000. There won't be a 4 digit exit number, though.

Crap. I'd love to see a guide sign with a four digit exit number. That would actually be interesting.

Naaahhh....

Make that donation to TxDOT so that they can repost I-10 with kms.

 :nod:

<DUCKS and RUNS!!!>

Mike
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Chris on February 13, 2013, 01:14:48 PM
Crap. I'd love to see a guide sign with a four digit exit number. That would actually be interesting.

Here you go :)

(http://i.imgur.com/Ctkwt40.jpg)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: english si on February 13, 2013, 02:24:55 PM
Have Catalunya given in now and switched to km-based exit numbers?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: vdeane on February 14, 2013, 01:13:22 PM
Actually, do you mind letter digits?  We have a few in NY, such as exit 130A on NY 17.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Speedway99 on February 14, 2013, 06:43:55 PM
Actually, do you mind letter digits?  We have a few in NY, such as exit 130A on NY 17.

If letters count as digits, then there's plenty of them, especially on I-10 in TX.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: vdeane on February 15, 2013, 11:21:03 AM
The thing with those interchanges on NY 17 is, they're fully independent, and not liked by mileage or being in the same interchange as another suffix, since we're a sequential state.  NY 17 is the only sequentially numbered road presently that has triple-digit exit numbers; the next highest I can think of is 61, on the Thruway (I-87 technically has more, but has multiple sets of exit numbers).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: InterstateNG on February 16, 2013, 06:22:32 PM
I drove some of proposed I-69's in South Texas today as part of a larger road trip.  From Corpus, south down current 69/77 to Kingsville, West on SR 141, then north on 281.

-the 77 corridor certainly had the traffic counts and the truck traffic in a heavily industrialized area to warrant a freeway, which only extends to Robstown.  Otherwise, its a typical rural Texas divided highway:  high speed limits and bypasses around towns.  There is a stoplight in Driscoll at FM665 which I'm guessing is the last one on the way to Brownsville.  If you're going to run an interstate down to the fast-growing Brownsville/McAllen/Harlingen area so it can be linked to the Interstate System, that is the route I would choose.

-traffic drops off precipitously to the west, and despite being 20 miles to the west, 281 has a small fraction of the traffic all the way up to George West.  ROW is quite narrow and there is plenty of private access onto 281 currently.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: lordsutch on February 17, 2013, 09:46:10 PM
I drove some of proposed I-69's in South Texas today as part of a larger road trip.  From Corpus, south down current 69/77 to Kingsville, West on SR 141, then north on 281.

-the 77 corridor certainly had the traffic counts and the truck traffic in a heavily industrialized area to warrant a freeway, which only extends to Robstown.  Otherwise, its a typical rural Texas divided highway:  high speed limits and bypasses around towns.  There is a stoplight in Driscoll at FM665 which I'm guessing is the last one on the way to Brownsville.  If you're going to run an interstate down to the fast-growing Brownsville/McAllen/Harlingen area so it can be linked to the Interstate System, that is the route I would choose.

-traffic drops off precipitously to the west, and despite being 20 miles to the west, 281 has a small fraction of the traffic all the way up to George West.  ROW is quite narrow and there is plenty of private access onto 281 currently.

One thing to bear in mind is that 281 serves substantially different traffic flows than 77; 281 is the route you'd take from McAllen/Edinburg/Mission/Freer etc to San Antonio and Austin, while 77 serves Brownsville and Harlingen to Corpus and Houston and other points north.  The McAllen etc traffic headed to Corpus & Houston typically cuts over to 77 either taking 83 or one of the parallel routes further north, while Brownsville etc traffic headed to SA/Austin wouldn't bother with 281 at all.

281's usage may also go up a bit once the Falfurrias toll bypass is open (if it isn't already; it was well along two years ago last time I trekked down that way), which would leave George West as the only real slowdown from US 83 to I-37.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: InterstateNG on February 17, 2013, 11:13:48 PM
I drove some of proposed I-69's in South Texas today as part of a larger road trip.  From Corpus, south down current 69/77 to Kingsville, West on SR 141, then north on 281.

-the 77 corridor certainly had the traffic counts and the truck traffic in a heavily industrialized area to warrant a freeway, which only extends to Robstown.  Otherwise, its a typical rural Texas divided highway:  high speed limits and bypasses around towns.  There is a stoplight in Driscoll at FM665 which I'm guessing is the last one on the way to Brownsville.  If you're going to run an interstate down to the fast-growing Brownsville/McAllen/Harlingen area so it can be linked to the Interstate System, that is the route I would choose.

-traffic drops off precipitously to the west, and despite being 20 miles to the west, 281 has a small fraction of the traffic all the way up to George West.  ROW is quite narrow and there is plenty of private access onto 281 currently.

One thing to bear in mind is that 281 serves substantially different traffic flows than 77; 281 is the route you'd take from McAllen/Edinburg/Mission/Freer etc to San Antonio and Austin, while 77 serves Brownsville and Harlingen to Corpus and Houston and other points north.  The McAllen etc traffic headed to Corpus & Houston typically cuts over to 77 either taking 83 or one of the parallel routes further north, while Brownsville etc traffic headed to SA/Austin wouldn't bother with 281 at all.

281's usage may also go up a bit once the Falfurrias toll bypass is open (if it isn't already; it was well along two years ago last time I trekked down that way), which would leave George West as the only real slowdown from US 83 to I-37.

None of that means 281 needs to be a full freeway, let alone an interstate.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: lordsutch on February 20, 2013, 10:28:39 PM
None of that means 281 needs to be a full freeway, let alone an interstate.

Not yet, but I'd imagine TxDOT will be able to make a similar arrangement for US 281 as they did for US 77 - get a private contractor to build the toll overpasses, interchanges, and bypasses that are needed, and upgrade the rest with the toll revenues.

As for "need": the politics demand it, so it will happen.  Brownsville can't have something McAllen doesn't get too, and vice versa.  That's Lower Rio Grande Valley Politics 101.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on February 21, 2013, 12:19:41 PM
FHWA has approved the 28 mile US 59 section from 610 to south of Rosenberg (looks like they haven't approved the concurrent section on 610 yet).  The TxDOT press release says it's already been designated I-69 (http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/media-room/news/statewide/006-2013.html).
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/article/Interstate-69-coming-piece-by-piece-4257896.php

The February 28 Agenda for the Texas Transportation Commission ("TTC") (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2013/documents/agendas/022813.pdf) indicates that on that date the TTC will provide the final agency approval needed for the I-69 designation of US 59's I-610 to Rosenberg section (page 10/16 of pdf):

Quote
Harris and Fort Bend Counties - Designate a segment of US 59 from I-610 West in Houston to north of Spur 529 in Rosenberg as I-69 (MO)
The commission will consider the designation of a segment of the state highway system as I-69, concurrent with US 59 from I-610 West in Houston to the US 59 access control approximately 0.2 mile north of SS 529 in Rosenberg, a total distance of approximately 28.4 miles. The Houston-Galveston Area Council, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, and the Federal Highway Administration have approved the designation of this segment.



Several I-69 projects are included in TxDOT's Projects Selected for $2 Billion Allocation (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/tpp/utp/2012/projects_2b_allocation.pdf) list:
Quote
...
(US 77) Design-build Driscoll to Kingsville - $60 million
...

The Feb. 28 TTC Agenda also indicates that the TTC will decide whether to approve TxDOT's recommendation for the developer of the Driscoll-to-Kingsville project (page 2/16 of pdf):

Quote
Design-Build Contract Award
Nueces and Kleberg Counties -
Approve the selection of the developer who submitted the best value proposal to design, construct, and maintain the US 77 Upgrade from Kingsville to Driscoll Project, upgrading US 77 to interstate standards from north of Kingsville in Kleberg County to south of Driscoll in Nueces County and authorize the executive director of the department to execute a Design-Build Contract and Capital Maintenance Agreement with the selected proposer (MO) (Presentation)
On September 5, 2012, the department issued a request for proposals to design, construct, and maintain the US 77 Upgrade in Nueces and Kleberg Counties. The department has completed its review and evaluation of proposals, and is presenting its best value recommendation to the commission.



I drove some of proposed I-69's in South Texas today as part of a larger road trip .... There is a stoplight in Driscoll at FM665 which I'm guessing is the last one on the way to Brownsville.
TxDOT's Public Hearing Notice (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/crp/projects/us77_upgrade/notice.pdf) notes that the Driscoll and Riviera relief routes may be tolled

The Public Hearing Notice suggests that the Driscoll stoplight issue is currently planned to be addressed by a Driscoll relief route, which would be part of a project separate from the one on which the TTC will be voting on Feb. 28:

Quote
At Driscoll and Riviera, relief routes are proposed to the east of each community. These relief routes may be tolled and would require approximately 400 feet of new right of way.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on February 24, 2013, 10:24:14 AM
This (behind paywall) article (http://www.lufkindailynews.com/news/local/article_27eb9798-4412-11e2-b3c0-001a4bcf887a.html?success=1?success=2) 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.

TxDOT now has a US 59 Scoping Study (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/drivenbytexans/us59.htm) page:

Quote
The study includes two broad options for consideration:
Upgrade the existing US 59 roadway and expand it to meet present and future needs.
Build relief routes around Nacogdoches and Lufkin and Diboll.
The final recommendation may be one option or the other or a combination of the two.

The page also includes a map of the study area:

(http://i.imgur.com/hgia44h.jpg)

edit

This Feb. 26 article (behind paywall) (http://dailysentinel.com/news/article_a8c1ff2c-8096-11e2-b98f-001a4bcf887a.html) reports that the majority of local respondents to the online survey favor upgrading US 59 over building relief routes:

Quote
After the Texas Department of Transportation launched an online survey to gauge Nacogdoches and Angelina County residents’ interest in the development of I-69, the majority of participants favor improvements to U.S. 59 over construction of a new corridor.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Speedway99 on February 25, 2013, 08:01:27 PM
Although it will be a ways off, when I-69 is connected from Corpus to Shreveport, are the control cities on the Southwest and Eastex freeways in Houston going to still stay Victoria (South) and Cleveland (North), or will they change them to the "correct" control cities of Shreveport (North) and Corpus Christi (South)? I hope they say Corpus and Shreveport.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on February 25, 2013, 08:13:50 PM
Why would they make plans for control cities this far in advance?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on February 25, 2013, 08:27:49 PM
the US 83 application was rejected because no number had been requested:
Quote
Establishment of Interstate Route (#TBD)
Disapproved
Application incomplete without an interstate number and Texas needs to provide a map showing that interstate routes are interconnected.
New shields coming to the Pharr District after the January 2013 maintenance letting (CCSJ Cameron 6252-51-001) ... I-169 (US 83)
The applications have been posted (http://route.transportation.org/Pages/CommitteeNoticesActionsandApprovals.aspx).
(bottom quote from AASHTO Committee on Route Numbering (Nov. 2012) Actions (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=8157.msg206045#msg206045) thread)

I find it interesting that TxDOT thought that AASHTO, in conjunction with the FHWA, could assign an interstate number to US 83 in the absence of a requested number from TxDOT (page 164/212 of pdf):

Quote
in accordance with the referenced FHWA regulations and criteria, TxDOT is making the request that this 46.8 mile segment of U.S. 83 be recognized as part of the Interstate System, the Interstate route number to be assigned by AASHTO.

I am curious as to why TxDOT did not request "I-169" in the application, why AASHTO did not provide a designated number, and then how and when approval of the "I-169" designation became enough of a certainty for the Pharr District signage project. Maybe time will tell.

Also, in comparing the US 83 and US 281 applications, I do not understand why the US 83 map did not sufficently show interconnected interstate routes, whereas the US 281 map did sufficently show interconnected interstate routes.

The US 83 map (page 165/212 of pdf):
(http://i.imgur.com/C5Q3MDi.jpg)

The US 281 map (page 179/212 of pdf):
(http://i.imgur.com/PK8Z3pi.jpg)

 :confused:
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: InterstateNG on February 25, 2013, 09:23:37 PM
Although it will be a ways off, when I-69 is connected from Corpus to Shreveport, are the control cities on the Southwest and Eastex freeways in Houston going to still stay Victoria (South) and Cleveland (North), or will they change them to the "correct" control cities of Shreveport (North) and Corpus Christi (South)? I hope they say Corpus and Shreveport.

Victoria is a perfectly reasonable control city.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on February 25, 2013, 10:14:58 PM
Although it will be a ways off, when I-69 is connected from Corpus to Shreveport, are the control cities on the Southwest and Eastex freeways in Houston going to still stay Victoria (South) and Cleveland (North), or will they change them to the "correct" control cities of Shreveport (North) and Corpus Christi (South)? I hope they say Corpus and Shreveport.

Victoria is a perfectly reasonable control city.

For the short term, Victoria and Cleveland are suitable enough. I'd like to see more states include both the closest AND the most significant control cities on their signs..as in: I-10 West (from Lafayette) -- Lake Charles/Houston or I-69 North (from Houston) -- Cleveland/Texarkana/Shreveport.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ShawnP on February 26, 2013, 09:10:52 PM
Congrats must go to Texas for pushing I-69. Only Texas, Indiana and Kentucky somewhat seemed interesting in I-69. Others are talking but not really building and in fact stopping.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: 3467 on February 26, 2013, 10:17:23 PM
If the others dont do anything and it sounds like TN is out...It could be routed over to 55 to 40 to 30 and then pick up in Texas. It my take some time but that route is all 4 lane.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ShawnP on February 26, 2013, 10:37:15 PM
I kinda think folks in NW Tenn banging the drum will get this project back online but it will be a slowwww slog.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on February 26, 2013, 10:49:43 PM
Good for Arkansas and Louisiana for ignoring the pork.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bugo on February 27, 2013, 12:14:48 AM
Arkansas is working on a section of I-69 near Monticello.
Title: Laredo Loop 20 (Future I-69)/McPherson Rd. Overpass Groundbreaking
Post by: Grzrd on February 27, 2013, 08:51:09 PM
^ I wouldn't say this (https://maps.google.com/?ll=27.527698,-99.445431&spn=0.004086,0.008256&t=h&z=18&layer=c&cbll=27.527698,-99.445431&panoid=4pYrJxLPGhj8vvNt9tidBQ&cbp=12,6.17,,0,5.32) is quite up to interstate standards.
That's the overpass over US 59 and probably wouldn't be part of I-69 .... 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.

This article (http://www.laredosun.us/notas.asp?id=25310) reports on the February 22 groundbreaking of the Loop 20/McPherson Road (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=loop+20+mcpherson+intersection+laredo+tx&hl=en&ll=27.609379,-99.476995&spn=0.003684,0.004801&sll=32.678125,-83.178297&sspn=7.163737,9.832764&t=h&hnear=Texas+20+Loop+%26+McPherson+Rd,+Laredo,+Webb,+Texas+78045&z=18) overpass:

Quote
On Friday, representatives from the Texas Department of Transportation Laredo District, the City of Laredo, Webb County and I-69 dignitaries broke ground marking the official start construction the Loop 20-McPherson Rd. Overpass Project.
The McPherson Interchange project is part of a larger effort between the TxDOT — Laredo District, the City of Laredo and Webb County to upgrade the northern section of Loop 20 from US 59 to the World Trade Bridge IV to Interstate standards.
This portion of Loop 20, when upgraded, would then be designated as part of the IH 69 system
.... Loop 20 is major arterial and is currently designated as a Truck Route for the city of Laredo providing north / south connectivity through the city. As a result of this signalized intersection at Loop 20 and McPherson Blvd., traffic including EMS, fire and police, regularly experience delays in getting past the backed up line of vehicles at this intersection .... The project will consist of the construction of an overpass and associated improvements at the Loop 20-McPherson Rd. intersection, which is currently an at-grade intersection with a traffic signal .... Project completion is anticipated in December 2013, weather permitting.

edit

The Alliance for I-69 Texas (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update2.23.13%20Laredo.html) also has an article about the project:

Quote
City, county and Alliance for I-69 Texas representatives broke ground this week to start construction of a diamond interchange overpass facility on Loop 20 at McPherson Avenue in the north side of Laredo.
Loop 20 is designated as the future route of Interstate 69 in Laredo. The Loop 20 freeway has already been completed from the World Trade Bridge to an interchange with Interstate 35.

(http://i.imgur.com/O5yPtQR.jpg)

Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: J N Winkler on February 27, 2013, 09:27:29 PM
281's usage may also go up a bit once the Falfurrias toll bypass is open (if it isn't already; it was well along two years ago last time I trekked down that way), which would leave George West as the only real slowdown from US 83 to I-37.

Regarding the US 281 toll bypass of Falfurrias, I am confused.  The Texas I-69 Alliance site says (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update1.html) that the Texas Transportation Commission has by minute order declared it to be both a controlled-access highway and a toll road.  My understanding, however, is that all (or nearly all) of the construction work for this bypass is being done under TxDOT CCSJ Brooks 0255-03-026, which was let in May 2009 using ARRA stimulus funds.  The plans do not include any tolling infrastructure, as far as I can tell.  So is it still to be a tollway after all?

A quick Google search on {US 281 Falfurrias bypass tolls?} turns up one hit--an article in a South Padre Island newspaper dated December 29, 2011, whose Google teaser snippet includes the phrase "likely won't be tolled after all," but clicking on the link generates a 404 error.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on February 27, 2013, 10:16:57 PM
http://www.txdot.gov/about_us/commission/2012_meetings/documents/transcripts/mar29.pdf
Quote
Agenda item 9c would remove the toll designation from a segment of US 281 in South Texas from south of FM 3066 northward through the City of Falfurrias to the Brooks County line. The main lanes of this 5.9-mile segment were originally designated as a toll project on the state highway system in 2007 in order to support the segment's improvement from an undivided four-lane road to a freeway.

In 2009, previously unanticipated federal funding became available through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and this was used to help expedite and support construction of the freeway project in Falfurrias. In October 2011, a study concluded that the cost to install and maintain an electronic toll collection system on this segment is higher than forecasted toll revenues. Staff, therefore, recommends that the toll designation be removed from the mainlanes of US 281 from 0.9 miles south of FM 3066 northward to the Brooks County line, and that the segment operate as a non-tolled freeway on the state highway system.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: J N Winkler on February 27, 2013, 10:48:10 PM
NE2--many thanks for this.  The transcript confirms that a motion to rescind the tolling plan was made and carried.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: OCGuy81 on February 27, 2013, 11:56:30 PM
Quote
Amazing -- a non-neutered Houston interstate shield, and a Houston interstate *with* a signed US route overlap.

Excellent point.  Always bugged me how US-90 disappeared in Houston.

Is I-69 signed on the BGS for any interchanges that I-69/US-59 encounter in the Houston area yet?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: burneraccount on February 28, 2013, 10:14:34 AM
Quote
Amazing -- a non-neutered Houston interstate shield, and a Houston interstate *with* a signed US route overlap.

Excellent point.  Always bugged me how US-90 disappeared in Houston.

Is I-69 signed on the BGS for any interchanges that I-69/US-59 encounter in the Houston area yet?

They're on the Sam Houston Tollway, as pictured up thread.  I've seen them in the field.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Alex on February 28, 2013, 11:07:25 AM

Is I-69 signed on the BGS for any interchanges that I-69/US-59 encounter in the Houston area yet?

Three more examples of signage that has gone up since October 2012. All photographed by Jeff R:

(http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/texas/i-069_us-059_01.jpg)

(http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/texas/i-069_us-059_02.jpg)

(http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/texas/i-069_us-059_03.jpg)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: agentsteel53 on February 28, 2013, 12:46:04 PM
Quote
Amazing -- a non-neutered Houston interstate shield, and a Houston interstate *with* a signed US route overlap.

Texas is bringing back the state name.  all new shields should be state named within a few months; any new installs which are not state named are just them using up the older stock.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on February 28, 2013, 04:03:59 PM
The February 28 Agenda for the Texas Transportation Commission ("TTC") (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2013/documents/agendas/022813.pdf) indicates that on that date the TTC will provide the final agency approval needed for the I-69 designation of US 59's I-610 to Rosenberg section (page 10/16 of pdf)

The Alliance for I-69 Texas website (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update2.28.13.html) reports that the TTC made the I-69 designation official today:

Quote
The Texas Transportation Commission has given final approval to designation of an additional 28.4 miles of US 59 as part of Interstate 69.
The existing section of US 59 from the south side of Rosenberg in Fort Bend County north to Loop 610 in southwest Houston is now part of the Interstate Highway System and will soon be signed as both I-69 and US 59.  This entire section is known locally as the Southwest Freeway, much of which is now 16 lanes wide including frontage roads and HOV lanes. 
The southern 10 miles of this section has only two travel lanes in each direction and in some areas does not have frontage roads.  Environmental clearance work has been underway for several years to expand this section in the future to match to urban section that exists through Sugar Land .... There were five design issues identified and exceptions were approved by FHWA.

(http://i.imgur.com/AcIKwwD.jpg)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: lamsalfl on February 28, 2013, 05:06:28 PM
What is the issue preventing I-69 from being signed inside the I-610 loop?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Speedway99 on February 28, 2013, 06:53:45 PM
What is the issue preventing I-69 from being signed inside the I-610 loop?

They have to designate the 75 mile Houston stretch in sections, last I heard, the section inside 610 would be last since it's "an older section". But I think it's fine, it should be approved by the end of the year.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on March 03, 2013, 09:19:43 AM
The February 28 Agenda for the Texas Transportation Commission ("TTC") (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2013/documents/agendas/022813.pdf) ....
The Feb. 28 TTC Agenda also indicates that the TTC will decide whether to approve TxDOT's recommendation for the developer of the Driscoll-to-Kingsville project (page 2/16 of pdf):
Quote
Design-Build Contract Award
Nueces and Kleberg Counties -
Approve the selection of the developer who submitted the best value proposal to design, construct, and maintain the US 77 Upgrade from Kingsville to Driscoll Project, upgrading US 77 to interstate standards from north of Kingsville in Kleberg County to south of Driscoll in Nueces County and authorize the executive director of the department to execute a Design-Build Contract and Capital Maintenance Agreement with the selected proposer (MO) (Presentation)
On September 5, 2012, the department issued a request for proposals to design, construct, and maintain the US 77 Upgrade in Nueces and Kleberg Counties. The department has completed its review and evaluation of proposals, and is presenting its best value recommendation to the commission.

This article (http://www.caller.com/news/2013/mar/02/us-highway-77-construction-speed-limit-change-in/) reports that the TTC chose a developer for the project at its Feb. 28 meeting:

Quote
U.S. Highway 77 in the Kingsville area is getting upgrades as part of the Interstate 69 development, Texas Department of Transportation officials said.
Texas Transportation Commission selected Austin Bay, JV to design and reconstruct eight miles of the highway between Driscoll and Kingsville. Austin Bay is a collaboration between Austin Bridge & Road, L.P. and Bay Limited.
The work includes bridge replacements, eliminating crossroad traffic on main lanes and expanding the roadway
as part of about 122 miles of project upgrades between Corpus Christi and Harlingen.
Nearly 70 miles of the new interstate work has been approved in areas near Robstown and Houston.
Also, following traffic studies, the 65 mph speed limit on southbound U.S. 77 will be extending to the southern Kingsville city limits, where it has been 75. The change goes into effect when new speed limit signs are installed in about a week.



Also, some US 77/Future I69E projects in Willacy County will soon resume (http://www.valleymorningstar.com/coastal_current/news/article_3c68d67a-79ed-11e2-a552-001a4bcf6878.html) after a delay caused by the bankruptcy of a contractor:

Quote
A new contractor to finish “I-69”  projects on Expressway 77 in Willacy County should be on the job by the end of March, a state transportation official said Thursday.
The new contractor will finish projects that were 60 percent complete when Ballenger Construction Co. filed for bankruptcy and stopped work in December, Texas Department of Transportation District Engineer Mario Jorge said ....
Juan Bosquez Jr., the TxDOT area engineer based in San Benito, said the projects include an underpass at Lily Road/County Road 1500 and an overpass at Spur 56, which is near Rodriguez Ford just south of Raymondville. Also, a bridge was being constructed over a drainage canal between the overpass and underpass, he said.
Also a section of roadway in the same area near Lyford is being built to carry high speed traffic between the existing lanes of the expressway, he said.
The existing lanes in the Lyford area will become the frontage road
, Bosquez said.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on March 03, 2013, 09:29:44 PM
TxDOT now has a US 59 Scoping Study (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/drivenbytexans/us59.htm) ....
This Feb. 26 article (behind paywall) (http://dailysentinel.com/news/article_a8c1ff2c-8096-11e2-b98f-001a4bcf887a.html) reports that the majority of local respondents to the online survey favor upgrading US 59 over building relief routes

An interesting observation from the above article:

Quote
“As we cross the Angelina River, it’s obvious we should stay on the 59 footprint,”  said Nacogdoches City Manager Jim Jeffers, a member of the committee. “It’s difficult to compare (the two designs) because we don’t have cost estimates. The longer we stay on the 59 footprint, the quicker the project will be built.”

A recent Editorial (http://lufkindailynews.com/opinion/editorials/article_1bf9546e-83a2-11e2-b3e2-0019bb2963f4.html?success=2) notes that the project could be completed within six to fifteen years if the current US 59 footprint is used:

Quote
... as Nacogdoches City Manager Jim Jeffers, a member of the local I-69 committee, put it, “The longer we stay on the 59 footprint, the quicker the project will be built.”
Either way, the project is going to be expensive, but it appears now that the funding is the only huge obstacle standing in the way of I-69 passing through our two counties. According to a scoping study fact sheet put together by the Texas Department of Transportation, the four steps of the construction process – planning and environmental, engineering and design, obtaining right-of-way and moving utilities, and construction – could all be done within six to 15 years if the money is there at the beginning of each step.

The Editorial finishes by encouraging individuals to complete the online survey.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: codyg1985 on March 06, 2013, 04:54:31 PM
^ Probably has to do with not having to do as much environmental work for upgrading an existing facility versus building an entirely new one.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: OCGuy81 on March 10, 2013, 01:24:14 AM
Dumb question, but is that 498 seen on the reassurance shields mileage?  Is that a milepost for US 59?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: wxfree on March 10, 2013, 04:27:20 AM
Dumb question, but is that 498 seen on the reassurance shields mileage?  Is that a milepost for US 59?

That is properly referred to as a reference marker, but is often called a mile marker.  They don't exactly measure mileage, but are generally placed every two miles, showing only even numbers.  They're often placed on alternating sides of the road, so there's one on each side every four miles.  The small number plate is placed on both sides of the sign post (on undivided roads).  They're used on non-Interstate routes, with numbers increasing west-to-east or north-to-south.  A marker is generally placed at a county line showing the next even number in the direction of increasing numbers, regardless of the distance from the previous marker, making the difference in numbers not equal to mileage across counties.  The number at the beginning of a road is based on the distance of the beginning of the road from the north end of the state for north-south routes, and at the west end of the state for west-east routes, so the numbers are larger than the actual length of the road.  Where they fall near a junction, they're placed at the proper location in addition to the usual reassurance shield.  There may be cases in which a marker is located near enough to the location for a reassurance shield that a single assembly serves both purposes.  I don't know of any.

To see the locations of (nearly) all of them, see the statewide planning map, and select "Markers" in the Map Overlays section.  Note that Interstate highways have actual mile markers placed every mile, but only even numbers are shown on the map.  http://www.txdot.gov/apps/statewide_mapping/StatewidePlanningMap.html (http://www.txdot.gov/apps/statewide_mapping/StatewidePlanningMap.html)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Brian556 on March 10, 2013, 02:42:59 PM

Quote from AgentSteele53
Quote
Texas is bringing back the state name.  all new shields should be state named within a few months; any new installs which are not state named are just them using up the older stock.

That's awsome.

TxDOT usually keeps a decent amount of stock around, so it might be a while before you start seeing these in some areas.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on March 12, 2013, 06:31:35 PM
TxDOT's Public Hearing Notice (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/crp/projects/us77_upgrade/notice.pdf) notes that the Driscoll and Riviera relief routes may be tolled.
The February 28 Agenda for the Texas Transportation Commission ("TTC") (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2013/documents/agendas/022813.pdf) ....
The Feb. 28 TTC Agenda also indicates that the TTC will decide whether to approve TxDOT's recommendation for the developer of the Driscoll-to-Kingsville project (page 2/16 of pdf):
Quote
Design-Build Contract Award
Nueces and Kleberg Counties -
Approve the selection of the developer who submitted the best value proposal to design, construct, and maintain the US 77 Upgrade from Kingsville to Driscoll Project, upgrading US 77 to interstate standards from north of Kingsville in Kleberg County to south of Driscoll in Nueces County
This article (http://www.caller.com/news/2013/mar/02/us-highway-77-construction-speed-limit-change-in/) reports that the TTC chose a developer for the project at its Feb. 28 meeting

The Transcript for the February 28 meeting (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2013/documents/transcripts/022813.pdf) indicates that the Driscoll relief route project may also be subject to a TTC decision in the near future (page 50/109 of pdf):
Quote
... the next project that we hope to have before you sometime in the not to distant future would take the construction from north of Bishop and around Driscoll, and with that project and this project, that will be a significant increase of Interstate 69, basically from I-37 to south of Kingsville.

It was also confirmed at the meeting that a section from Farm to Market Road 1898 in Kingsville southward (http://maps.google.com/maps?q=Kingsville,+TX&hl=en&ll=27.527073,-97.85059&spn=0.029494,0.038409&sll=32.678125,-83.178297&sspn=7.163737,9.832764&oq=kingsville+tx&t=h&hnear=Kingsville,+Kleberg,+Texas&z=15) is currently interstate standard (pages 49-50/109 of pdf):

Quote
MR. AUSTIN: Ed, I have a question. I'm going to back to your map, it shows on 77, when it comes into Kingsville, I remember we drove this when we had our commission meeting down in Corpus, there's a couple of bridges coming through Kingsville. Is that section going through town, is that up to interstate standards as well?
MR. PENSOCK: The section from Farm to MarketRoad 70 south -- I'm sorry -- the section from Farm to Market Road 1898 south is currently up to interstate standards. That ties back into 77 south of Kingsville. So we have a short piece that is up to interstate standards that gets us to the northern part of Kingsville, what's shown on the map as Farm to Market Road 1898
MR. AUSTIN: So when we make the application to dual designate it as I-69, we'll include that section as well?
MR. PENSOCK: With the construction of this project, in combination with that southern piece coming out of Kingsville, it would be eligible to be designated as I-69. Yes, sir.

I-37 to south of Kingsville should be good progress for I-69E.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on March 13, 2013, 01:11:23 PM
Drove through downtown Houston last night, that part is not yet 69.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: nolia_boi504 on March 13, 2013, 01:15:14 PM
Drove through downtown Houston last night, that part is not yet 69.

The portions inside of 610 are not approved to be designated as I-69 yet. The portion north/northeast of 610 (up to Cleavland) is signed as I-69 already. The portion southwest of 610 going thru Rosenberg has been approved already but is not signed.

Does anyone know when West Loop to Rosenberg portion will be signed as I-69? I thought FHWA and AAHTO approvals were given already?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Perfxion on March 13, 2013, 07:09:28 PM
By this summer, I-69 signs south of 610  and AAHTO approval for the inner loop section. Hopefully by Fall, all of it is signed in Houston, and US59 signs coming down within the Houston area to make it simpler on directions.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: codyg1985 on March 13, 2013, 07:41:54 PM
By this summer, I-69 signs south of 610  and AAHTO approval for the inner loop section. Hopefully by Fall, all of it is signed in Houston, and US59 signs coming down within the Houston area to make it simpler on directions.

The US 59 signs won't be coming down.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: OCGuy81 on March 14, 2013, 12:14:46 AM
Curious how 69 will be signed for thru traffic on US 59, as I-69 is built.  Will traffic on say SB 59 see JCT I-69 reassurance shields at the start of each segment?  Makes me think of traffic in central Wisconsin.  SB 51 suddenly has a JCT I-39 shield pop up...
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: codyg1985 on March 14, 2013, 07:36:09 AM
Curious how 69 will be signed for thru traffic on US 59, as I-69 is built.  Will traffic on say SB 59 see JCT I-69 reassurance shields at the start of each segment?  Makes me think of traffic in central Wisconsin.  SB 51 suddenly has a JCT I-39 shield pop up...

Maybe someone else who is around the area could chime in, but I expect it to be set up where I-69 shields will start popping up. I-69  may only be signed on the BGS and pull through signs, but the reassurance markers will probably still retain US 59 (as I-30/US 67 and I-35/US 77 do now).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Speedway99 on March 14, 2013, 04:39:47 PM
By this summer, I-69 signs south of 610  and AAHTO approval for the inner loop section. Hopefully by Fall, all of it is signed in Houston, and US59 signs coming down within the Houston area to make it simpler on directions.

The US 59 signs won't be coming down.

US 59 will probably stay signed for quite a while, as that number has already been well established for decades. However, given Texas's history with decommissioning US routes, it will probably be decommissioned, along with 77, 83, and 281 when I-69 is all finished. That will be a long ways off, and plenty of time for people to adjust to the number change. It will definitely take some time to adjust, but I can just see many people still calling it 59 for a long time.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on March 19, 2013, 03:31:54 PM
We went to Corpus on Sunday, I-69 is signed to the south with I-77.  No signage of a northbound 69 yet. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: J N Winkler on March 20, 2013, 01:06:48 PM
There is a possibility that TxDOT will do the necessary sign revisions for I-69 in Houston by maintenance contract, as it did with the three I-69 branches in the Rio Grande Valley and SH 130 as an IH 35 alternate.  I have been monitoring TxDOT's maintenance lettings but so far nothing has surfaced--I will post again if something does.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ssummers72 on March 20, 2013, 09:07:37 PM

J N Winkler wrote: "There is a possibility that TxDOT will do the necessary sign revisions for I-69 in Houston by maintenance contract, as it did with the three I-69 branches in the Rio Grande Valley and SH 130 as an IH 35 alternate.  I have been monitoring TxDOT's maintenance lettings but so far nothing has surfaced--I will post again if something does"

Do you by chance have copies of the maintenance contracts from the Rio Grande Valley I-69 designations? The only I was able to find was from Cameron County for all the BGS.

Thanks,

Stephen
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Speedway99 on March 20, 2013, 09:08:57 PM
There is a possibility that TxDOT will do the necessary sign revisions for I-69 in Houston by maintenance contract, as it did with the three I-69 branches in the Rio Grande Valley and SH 130 as an IH 35 alternate.  I have been monitoring TxDOT's maintenance lettings but so far nothing has surfaced--I will post again if something does.

So you're saying 59 through Houston may not be signed as I-69 mainline?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on March 20, 2013, 09:55:46 PM
There is a possibility that TxDOT will do the necessary sign revisions for I-69 in Houston by maintenance contract, as it did with the three I-69 branches in the Rio Grande Valley and SH 130 as an IH 35 alternate.  I have been monitoring TxDOT's maintenance lettings but so far nothing has surfaced--I will post again if something does.

So you're saying 59 through Houston may not be signed as I-69 mainline?

No, ultimately I-69 will be signed through US 59 eventually.  There may be some issues with specific Interstate standard segments such as the downtown viaduct or the lack of frontage roads in the depressed section S of SR 288...but I can't see the Feds not approving the remaining sections after they've already approved the others.

Once I-69 is fully completed, you could make a solid case for truncating US 59 S of Texarkana, or reversing the switch that was made where US 59 and US 96 changed routes, and have US 59 take over US 96 through Beaumont and ultimately to Port Arthur. But..that's going into Fictional territory, so I'll leave it at that.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: J N Winkler on March 20, 2013, 10:46:58 PM
Do you by chance have copies of the maintenance contracts from the Rio Grande Valley I-69 designations? The only I was able to find was from Cameron County for all the BGS.

If you have that particular contract (which I mentioned upthread and is how I first learned about I-69C), then you already have all of the I-69-related signing contracts in Texas I know about.  To the best of my knowledge, that is the only such contract so far.

So you're saying 59 through Houston may not be signed as I-69 mainline?

Not at all.  I have no information in hand that addresses that possibility.  It is just that I don't know at this point how I-69 will be handled on large sign panels (which will need overlays if they aren't replaced altogether), and there is always the possibility of a curveball I didn't anticipate, which is what I-69C was for me.
Title: I-69 Signage Being Installed on Southwest Freeway
Post by: Grzrd on April 03, 2013, 08:24:59 PM
The Alliance for I-69 Texas website (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update2.28.13.html) reports that the TTC made the I-69 designation official today:
Quote
The Texas Transportation Commission has given final approval to designation of an additional 28.4 miles of US 59 as part of Interstate 69.
The existing section of US 59 from the south side of Rosenberg in Fort Bend County north to Loop 610 in southwest Houston is now part of the Interstate Highway System and will soon be signed as both I-69 and US 59.  This entire section is known locally as the Southwest Freeway

This article (http://www.click2houston.com/news/28-miles-of-US-Hwy-59-now-Interstate-69/-/1735978/19603226/-/format/rsss_2.0/-/m7sss9/-/index.html) reports that I-69 signs are now being installed from I-610 the West Loop to Rosenberg:

Quote
Workers from the Texas Department of Transportation are installing blue Interstate 69 signs on the Southwest Freeway.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on April 08, 2013, 09:04:11 PM
TxDOT now has a US 59 Scoping Study (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/drivenbytexans/us59.htm) page

TxDOT recently posted the Materials from the March 25 and March 26 Open Houses (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/drivenbytexans/us59_meetings.htm).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Speedway99 on April 14, 2013, 02:15:20 PM
I-69C in Pharr now shows up on Google maps. I-69 was also on Google maps on the Southwest Freeway in Houston last week, but that was removed, I think. Have the signs come up in Houston (SW Freeway) or Pharr yet?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on May 02, 2013, 01:58:51 PM
This article (http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/cleveland/news/i--coming-soon-to-cleveland/article_100242af-8cf5-5393-b3a4-f2ed7682c336.html) reports that the next I-69 project in the greater Houston area ... will extend north from the current end of I-69 near the Montgomery County/ Liberty County county line to the recently completed 105 Loop near Cleveland (http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=30.297516~-95.106329&lvl=13&dir=0&sty=h&where1=Cleveland%2C%20TX&form=LMLTCC)

This May 1 article (http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/east_montgomery/news/txdot-considering-improvements-between-fostoria-rd-and-sh-bypass/article_4a1a77d6-b284-11e2-a4b7-0019bb2963f4.html) reports that an Open House will be held on May 14 to provide details about the project, which is planned to extend from Fostoria Road in Montgomery County, Texas, to the State Highway 105 South Cleveland Bypass (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Fostoria+Road,+Cleveland,+TX&hl=en&ll=30.292275,-95.120316&spn=0.073963,0.153637&sll=32.678125,-83.178297&sspn=4.61356,9.832764&oq=fostoria+road&t=h&hnear=N+Fostoria+Rd,+Cleveland,+Texas+77328&z=13):

Quote
The Texas Department of Transportation — Beaumont District (TxDOT) will conduct a public meeting on Tuesday, May 14, 2013, to discuss proposed roadway improvements along 4.281 miles of the existing alignment of US 59 extending from Fostoria Road in Montgomery County, Texas, to State Highway 105 South Cleveland Bypass in Liberty County, Texas .... This section of US 59 is proposed as a portion of I-69. Preliminary study indicates that additional right-of-way would be needed. The proposed US 59 as I-69 would be converted from a four-lane divided highway to a six-lane divided, access controlled freeway, with one-way frontage roads.
The purpose of the meeting is for the public to express their views and concerns, become informed about the proposed project and development process, and ask questions of project representatives. Project exhibits will be displayed and TxDOT staff will be available to answer questions.

Of course, Google Maps already has this segment of US 59 signed as I-69.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on May 07, 2013, 11:59:57 PM
TxDOT now has a US 59 Scoping Study (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/drivenbytexans/us59.htm) page:
Quote
The study includes two broad options for consideration:
Upgrade the existing US 59 roadway and expand it to meet present and future needs.
Build relief routes around Nacogdoches and Lufkin and Diboll.
The final recommendation may be one option or the other or a combination of the two.
TxDOT recently posted the Materials from the March 25 and March 26 Open Houses (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/drivenbytexans/us59_meetings.htm).

This TV video report (http://www.ktre.com/story/22189499/i-69-committee-deciding-next-phase-of-development) discusses TxDOT's presentation of the study to representatives of Angelina and Nacogdoches counties:

Quote
Tuesday representatives from Nacogdoches and Angelina counties met to decide the next phase of development for the I-69 region.
TxDOT presented two options that included an upgrade of the existing U.S. 59 and adding capacity, or a new location that would include building relief routes around Lufkin and Nacogdoches ....
The counties could also choose a combination both options.
Each county is expected to make recommendations on their preferred option on the route before moving the project into the next phase which is the environmental process.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on May 09, 2013, 04:00:31 PM
List of applications:
....
TX I-2 (Mission to I-69E)
TX I-69E (Raymondville south)
TX I-69E (Robstown, renumbering I-69)
(above quote from AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9416.msg220220#msg220220) thread)

The Special Committee on U.S. Route Numbering ("Special Committee") Report to the Standing Committee on Highways ("SCOH") (http://route.transportation.org/Documents/Report%20to%20SCOH%20from%20USRN%20SM2013%20May%203-May%207.pdf) indicates that the Special Committee initially disapproved the above applications, but that SCOH overruled the Special Committee and approved the above applications; finally, the AASHTO Board of Directors accepted SCOH's decision to approve the above applications (page 1/8 of pdf):

(http://i.imgur.com/LLevCEm.jpg)

Approved by AASHTO; high drama indeed!



Notable by its absence is an application for US 59 to be signed as I-69 "inside" I-610.  I assume it will eventually be signed.



New shields coming to the Pharr District after the January 2013 maintenance letting (CCSJ Cameron 6252-51-001) ... I-169 (US 83) ...

With TxDOT opting for the I-2 designation instead of I-169 for US 83, I now have an OT question: if any I-169 "Texas" shields have already been manufactured, would one be a valuable addition to a collection?  Sort of a rough coin collecting analogy: "minted, but not released"?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: agentsteel53 on May 09, 2013, 04:08:42 PM
I now have an OT question: if any I-169 "Texas" shields have already been manufactured, would one be a valuable addition to a collection?  Sort of a rough coin collecting analogy: "minted, but not released"?

probably.  I-905 shields are pretty in-demand. 

I would be surprised if any I-169 shields having been made, but I have seen stranger things... like an Oklahoma US 260 shield (later renumbered US 266).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on May 09, 2013, 07:23:35 PM
Sorry, but this is a stupid decision.

An I-2 that has less mileage than even I-12??  And...a suffixed route???

Better to make US 77 from Robstown southward an extension of I-37, and keep US 83 as is..Also, make TX 44 and the eastern corridor of US 77 from Robstown/Corpus Chirsti to Victoria I-269, and keep I-69 for the Laredo/George West/Victoria/Houston US 59 corridor, as originally intended.

Save I-2 for another day.

If you are going to do that, might as well renumber I-12 as "I-10N" and bring back the other original suffixed Interstates, too.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Molandfreak on May 09, 2013, 08:43:28 PM
Sorry, but this is a stupid decision.

An I-2 that has less mileage than even I-12??  And...a suffixed route???

Better to make US 77 from Robstown southward an extension of I-37, and keep US 83 as is..Also, make TX 44 and the eastern corridor of US 77 from Robstown/Corpus Chirsti to Victoria I-269, and keep I-69 for the Laredo/George West/Victoria/Houston US 59 corridor, as originally intended.

Save I-2 for another day.

If you are going to do that, might as well renumber I-12 as "I-10N" and bring back the other original suffixed Interstates, too.
Oh for gosh sake, where else is I-2 going to go where I-6 wouldn't work better?

For the record, I am also against the suffixes.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Alps on May 09, 2013, 10:35:40 PM
This is Texas. Instead of suffixed routes, they should just pull out I-33 and I-31. After all, they got I-27 and I-37 as in-state Interstates, and now I-2 as well.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: mrose on May 10, 2013, 12:57:47 AM
I'd run I-37 down US 77, change the spur into Corpus to I-337, run I-33 down US 281 and then 69 can have the Laredo portion.

I guess I-2 is okay since it is probably the only place in the continental US where it would actually belong that has a realistic chance of being applied anytime in the next century.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Perfxion on May 10, 2013, 06:33:53 AM
I-2, I don't have a problem with. I-69W,C,E is the dumb part. With 31 and 33 open, and spurs for 37 and 69 open, why does it all need to be a silly suffixed 2di?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on May 10, 2013, 08:32:52 AM
Sorry, but this is a stupid decision.

An I-2 that has less mileage than even I-12??  And...a suffixed route???

Better to make US 77 from Robstown southward an extension of I-37, and keep US 83 as is..Also, make TX 44 and the eastern corridor of US 77 from Robstown/Corpus Chirsti to Victoria I-269, and keep I-69 for the Laredo/George West/Victoria/Houston US 59 corridor, as originally intended.

Save I-2 for another day.

If you are going to do that, might as well renumber I-12 as "I-10N" and bring back the other original suffixed Interstates, too.

Amen
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Henry on May 10, 2013, 11:05:18 AM
Sorry, but this is a stupid decision.

An I-2 that has less mileage than even I-12??  And...a suffixed route???

Better to make US 77 from Robstown southward an extension of I-37, and keep US 83 as is..Also, make TX 44 and the eastern corridor of US 77 from Robstown/Corpus Chirsti to Victoria I-269, and keep I-69 for the Laredo/George West/Victoria/Houston US 59 corridor, as originally intended.

Save I-2 for another day.

If you are going to do that, might as well renumber I-12 as "I-10N" and bring back the other original suffixed Interstates, too.

Amen
Totally agree!!!
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: english si on May 10, 2013, 11:49:27 AM
Better to make US 77 from Robstown southward an extension of I-37, and keep US 83 as is..Also, make TX 44 and the eastern corridor of US 77 from Robstown/Corpus Chirsti to Victoria I-269, and keep I-69 for the Laredo/George West/Victoria/Houston US 59 corridor, as originally intended.
Yes, save that I'd route I-69 via Corpus Christi and TX44, with the US59 corridor that is bypassed being I-269. And give US83 a 3di (as well as US287), because they form a useful route and will be up to standards.

But, yes, what corridor can be I-2 anyway? Alligator Alley? TX44?
and it's not like they will be able to not number any of the three branches as anything other than I-69, not even a I-x69 as it would be politically unthinkable (not least as it would require a change in law - or at least a lack of enforcing certain bits of it).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Molandfreak on May 10, 2013, 01:07:26 PM
Though I hate the idea of using both I-31 and 33, I do agree with using 33 and extending 37. But my preferred option is to extend both I-37 and I-45 unless Galveston needs it for some reason.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Perfxion on May 10, 2013, 01:44:45 PM
I45 would exit itself for it to go to either Lake Jackson(288) or Victoria(US59/I69). Better served using I 37 and redoing the I-37 to US77 split interchange.

With Texas being a big state, long 3di shouldn't be a problem. There is a ton of open numbers it can use to solve these problems without needing so many 69_ routes.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: FreewayDan on May 10, 2013, 11:23:17 PM
Interstate 2 had a "brief existence" along the Glendale Freeway in Los Angeles:
(http://farm1.staticflickr.com/161/348581082_5b28a43eb1.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/atwatervillage/348581082/)
This is not the correct sign for highway 2, Glendale Freeway, since there is no such thing as Interstate 2 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/atwatervillage/348581082/) by Atwater Village Newbie (http://www.flickr.com/people/atwatervillage/), on Flickr :-D

This was from 2007 and it has since been corrected.  My comments on the page were, "I would rather see "Interstate 2" in Texas along the U.S. 83 corridor and connecting McAlllen, Bronwsville and other Rio Grande Valley cities." 

I-2 would be a good number for the U.S. 83 corridor to link Laredo with the Rio Grande Valley.  But the proposed I-2 right now from Harlingen to Mission is about 47 miles.  That's longer that I-97 in Maryland (17.62 miles) 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Speedway99 on May 10, 2013, 11:31:15 PM
Interstate 2 had a "brief existence" along the Glendale Freeway in Los Angeles:
(http://farm1.staticflickr.com/161/348581082_5b28a43eb1.jpg) (http://www.flickr.com/photos/atwatervillage/348581082/)
This is not the correct sign for highway 2, Glendale Freeway, since there is no such thing as Interstate 2 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/atwatervillage/348581082/) by Atwater Village Newbie (http://www.flickr.com/people/atwatervillage/), on Flickr :-D

This was from 2007 and it has since been corrected.  My comments on the page were, "I would rather see "Interstate 2" in Texas along the U.S. 83 corridor and connecting McAlllen, Bronwsville and other Rio Grande Valley cities." 

I-2 would be a good number for the U.S. 83 corridor to link Laredo with the Rio Grande Valley.  But the proposed I-2 right now from Harlingen to Mission is about 47 miles.  That's longer that I-97 in Maryland (17.62 miles)

And it goes through TWO counties, TWICE as many as I-97 goes through.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Revive 755 on May 10, 2013, 11:52:34 PM
This is Texas. Instead of suffixed routes, they should just pull out I-33 and I-31. After all, they got I-27 and I-37 as in-state Interstates, and now I-2 as well.

IMHO, better to duplicate I-39, I-41 and/or I-43, and leave I-31 and I-33 available for far future developments in Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, and/or Minnesota.

The branch to Laredo looks close enough to being an east-west route that it could work as I-6. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: mrose on May 11, 2013, 04:33:09 AM
I agree.... I think at least one of 31/33 should remain open.

I actually like the idea I saw on the AASHTO application thread which was to use I-6 for Victoria-Laredo and then use 37 and 69 for the other two, thus only using one new number which will probably never be used anywhere else. Of course, adding this on top of I-2 then uses up everything under I-10.... but are there conceivably any other places for them anyway?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Revive 755 on May 11, 2013, 12:45:05 PM
^ There's always the possibility some decades later a new freeway might come about along the US 57 corridor or along US 90 from San Antonio to Del Rio.

I should have said I-4 for Victoria-Laredo (since the current I-4 in Florida won't be getting extended anywhere) so I-6 is kept in reserve.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Rover_0 on May 11, 2013, 02:34:30 PM
^ There's always the possibility some decades later a new freeway might come about along the US 57 corridor or along US 90 from San Antonio to Del Rio.

I should have said I-4 for Victoria-Laredo (since the current I-4 in Florida won't be getting extended anywhere) so I-6 is kept in reserve.

You could also make US-57 or US-90 (in Texas) an eastern I-8, as again, where else would you put it? Maybe US-90 in Louisiana (which is going to become I-49)?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Speedway99 on May 11, 2013, 05:25:29 PM
I-4 can be from Laredo to Corpus, it's almost a straight line from Corpus to St Pete, I don't mind the gap in the Gulf of Mexico at all. To free up I-8, one can send I-10 to San Diego, current I-10 through Phoenix and Los Angeles can become I-30, I have plans to send that through Mesa, Roswell, and Lubbock to connect with current I-30. The US 83 corridor from Laredo to Harlingen should be built completely to I terstateIn standards, and can be I-2. I-6 and I-8 would open up, if needed.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Molandfreak on May 11, 2013, 07:54:26 PM
U.S. 57 should stay as is even in the event of a freeway upgrade. The entire logic of it having an out of place number is because it connects to MEX-57. An unsigned interstate I wouldn't mind.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: abaurgooasdusx on May 14, 2013, 07:45:54 PM
I'm going to enjoy driving on the new Interstates since they're within a day's drive from me.

Y'all can let your OCD keep you riveted to your chairs with rage.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on May 15, 2013, 08:27:20 AM
I'm going to enjoy driving on the new Interstates since they're within a day's drive from me.

Y'all can let your OCD keep you riveted to your chairs with rage.

Me too. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: formulanone on May 15, 2013, 09:22:29 AM
Y'all can let your OCD keep you riveted to your chairs with rage.

I was kind of curious what a C-suffixed Interstate Shield would look like, what with Texas opting for letters under the numerals on their state highway signs.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: agentsteel53 on May 15, 2013, 09:29:51 AM

I was kind of curious what a C-suffixed Interstate Shield would look like, what with Texas opting for letters under the numerals on their state highway signs.

probably similar to 35E and 35W.

(http://www.aaroads.com/shields/img/TX/TX19790354i1.jpg)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: formulanone on May 15, 2013, 09:38:20 AM
Yeah, that was kind of what I imagined.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on May 15, 2013, 10:21:51 AM
Yeah, that was kind of what I imagined.

I bet it's the small letter underneath.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: lordsutch on May 16, 2013, 12:44:38 AM
I bet it's the small letter underneath.

The signage plans from TxDOT that have been previously posted suggest it will be a I-35E/W style suffix, not the "tiny letter" design used for business routes.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Molandfreak on May 16, 2013, 12:51:47 AM
I bet it's the small letter underneath.

The signage plans from TxDOT that have been previously posted suggest it will be a I-35E/W style suffix, not the "tiny letter" design used for business routes.
I hope it's that way.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on May 16, 2013, 08:31:15 AM
I bet it's the small letter underneath.

The signage plans from TxDOT that have been previously posted suggest it will be a I-35E/W style suffix, not the "tiny letter" design used for business routes.

Yeah, the average plebian driver wouldn't figure that out anyway.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Henry on May 16, 2013, 10:29:55 AM
I think most of us will agree that I-69C is a dumb idea, especially when you consider the fact that most suffixed Interstate routes (of course, with the exception of the two I-35 splits in TX and MN) were renumbered over 30 years ago. I wouldn't mind duplicating an odd-numbered route, as there are currently none in the system. I-39, I-41 or even I-43 would be a good fit for the spur to McAllen/Brownsville.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on May 24, 2013, 12:26:59 PM
The final formality needs to be approval by the Texas Transportation Commission.
I would assume that they're the ones who requested it, no?
They provided the authority for TxDOT to submit the application.  Now that it has been approved, they need to rubberstamp AASHTO's decision.  It seems like an inefficient way to do things.  They have followed this procedure with prior I-69 Corridor designations.
(above quote from AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications  (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9416.msg220302#msg220302) thread)

The Texas Transportation Commission ("TTC") May 30, 2013 Agenda (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2013/documents/agendas/053013.pdf) suggests that the TTC may slightly alter their past practice and grant approval to several interstate designations that will be contingent upon later FHWA approval:

Quote
8. Transportation Planning
Various Counties - Designate various Interstate Highways concurrent with existing US Highways (MO)
The commission will consider the designation of new Interstates on the state highway system concurrent with existing US Highways. Once designated, these highways will operate as part of the Interstate System in Texas. Action is subject to approval of these designations by the Federal Highway Administration.

I'm guessing that the TTC will approve the designations for Interstates 2, 69C, 69E, and 369.  Then, it will be a matter of waiting for FHWA to approve each of these sections as meeting current interstate grade standards.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ski-man on May 25, 2013, 01:21:33 AM
Has there ever been an explanation on why they feel it is better to use the I-69C & 69E instead of another interstate number?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: lordsutch on May 25, 2013, 03:09:03 AM
Has there ever been an explanation on why they feel it is better to use the I-69C & 69E instead of another interstate number?

As I mentioned up thread, it's Rio Grande Valley politics, essentially the same reason why Dallas & Fort Worth and Minneapolis & St. Paul split I-35 between them ~60 years ago.  Or why I-81 goes between Kingsport and Johnson City, rather than going through either.

Case in point: Texas is going to build a new medical school in the Valley (assuming Gov. Perry doesn't veto the bill).  Rather than McAllen get it or Brownsville get it, instead each will get half of the med school.  This, I expect, may only work out slightly better than splitting the baby would've.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Road Hog on May 25, 2013, 05:11:32 AM
Has there ever been an explanation on why they feel it is better to use the I-69C & 69E instead of another interstate number?

As I mentioned up thread, it's Rio Grande Valley politics, essentially the same reason why Dallas & Fort Worth and Minneapolis & St. Paul split I-35 between them ~60 years ago.  Or why I-81 goes between Kingsport and Johnson City, rather than going through either.

Case in point: Texas is going to build a new medical school in the Valley (assuming Gov. Perry doesn't veto the bill).  Rather than McAllen get it or Brownsville get it, instead each will get half of the med school.  This, I expect, may only work out slightly better than splitting the baby would've.

So Harlingen gets the whole thing?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: lordsutch on May 25, 2013, 05:32:57 PM
So Harlingen gets the whole thing?

Harlingen is much closer to Brownsville than McAllen (same county).  (Literally, the doctors will spend the first two years in Hidalgo County and the final two years in Cameron County, so there will be two separate facilities.  But we're getting off-topic.)

Literally putting the med school in the middle would put it somewhere like Mercedes or Weslaco.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Sykotyk on May 25, 2013, 08:22:34 PM
Why can't we just use a few of the unused numbers: I-31 and I-33 are just ripe for this type of routing. I know it's not a continuous I-69, but it is a 2di, and I-31 would work good for what will be I-69C. It might be out of position for I-35 angling southwest, but it is a 2di that's yet to be used.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: thefro on May 30, 2013, 06:16:38 AM
FHWA has approved designating US 77 as I-69E from Raymondville to Brownsville.

http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_3baf5bf6-c8d4-11e2-bafc-0019bb30f31a.html

Quote
More big news came in the form of a surprise announcement by Victor Mendez, administrator of the Federal Highway Administration, invited to the event by U.S. Rep. Filemon Vela, D-Brownsville, as part of a tour of his district’s transportation projects.

Mendez said that the FHWA has authorized redesignating U.S. 77 from University Boulevard in Brownsville all the way to Raymondville to Interstate 69 East.

“That’s the full 53 miles,”  he said. “The importance of that from an economic development standpoint is just having an interstate shield on a highway is really important, positive thing in terms of future development.”

It’ll also mean a much safer road in light of the FHWA’s strict standards, Mendez said.

The redesignation puts the Lower Rio Grande Valley a major stride closer to being connected to the rest of the nation by an interstate route.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on May 30, 2013, 08:42:04 AM
U.S. 57 should stay as is even in the event of a freeway upgrade. The entire logic of it having an out of place number is because it connects to MEX-57. An unsigned interstate I wouldn't mind.

Now there's a road that should be a state highway
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: agentsteel53 on May 30, 2013, 01:01:04 PM
U.S. 57 should stay as is even in the event of a freeway upgrade. The entire logic of it having an out of place number is because it connects to MEX-57. An unsigned interstate I wouldn't mind.

Now there's a road that should be a state highway

you can sign it I-57 and pretend you have a coherent plan to connect it to the other I-57 by 2045.  in fact, you can sign a portion both as I-57 and US-57.  also multiplex part of it with I-56 for no discernible reason.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: CanesFan27 on May 30, 2013, 01:22:22 PM
FHWA has approved designating US 77 as I-69E from Raymondville to Brownsville.

http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_3baf5bf6-c8d4-11e2-bafc-0019bb30f31a.html

Quote
More big news came in the form of a surprise announcement by Victor Mendez, administrator of the Federal Highway Administration, invited to the event by U.S. Rep. Filemon Vela, D-Brownsville, as part of a tour of his district’s transportation projects.

Mendez said that the FHWA has authorized redesignating U.S. 77 from University Boulevard in Brownsville all the way to Raymondville to Interstate 69 East.

“That’s the full 53 miles,”  he said. “The importance of that from an economic development standpoint is just having an interstate shield on a highway is really important, positive thing in terms of future development.”

It’ll also mean a much safer road in light of the FHWA’s strict standards, Mendez said.

The redesignation puts the Lower Rio Grande Valley a major stride closer to being connected to the rest of the nation by an interstate route.

So does that mean a change is needed for the I-69/US 77 section in Chorpus?  Or does that mean 69 will cut over on TX 44 vs. a split in Victoria?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on May 30, 2013, 01:38:51 PM
List of applications:
....
TX I-69E (Robstown, renumbering I-69)
(above quote from AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9416.msg220220#msg220220) thread) ....
Approved by AASHTO
So does that mean a change is needed for the I-69/US 77 section in Chorpus?  Or does that mean 69 will cut over on TX 44 vs. a split in Victoria?

AASHTO has already approved the change to I-69E for the section near Corpus (FHWA already approved it as interstate grade for the initial I-69 signage) and the Texas Transportation Commission probably approved the change at its meeting earlier today (the transcript should be posted in a couple of days).
Since SH 44 is not part of the statutorily defined I-69 Corridor, I'm guessing it may eventually be designated as I-6, and that the I-69/I-69 E split will remain in Victoria.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: CanesFan27 on May 30, 2013, 01:45:42 PM
List of applications:
....
TX I-69E (Robstown, renumbering I-69)
(above quote from AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9416.msg220220#msg220220) thread) ....
Approved by AASHTO
So does that mean a change is needed for the I-69/US 77 section in Chorpus?  Or does that mean 69 will cut over on TX 44 vs. a split in Victoria?

AASHTO has already approved the change to I-69E for the section near Corpus (FHWA already approved it as interstate grade for the initial I-69 signage) and the Texas Transportation Commission probably approved the change at its meeting earlier today (the transcript should be posted in a couple of days).
Since SH 44 is not part of the statutorily defined I-69 Corridor, I'm guessing it may eventually be designated as I-6, and that the I-69/I-69 E split will remain in Victoria.

Great thanks, I must have overlooked the change in Corpus.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on May 30, 2013, 03:21:52 PM
I'm going down there next weekend, will look to see if the 69 has become 69e yet
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Alex on May 30, 2013, 04:24:15 PM

AASHTO has already approved the change to I-69E for the section near Corpus (FHWA already approved it as interstate grade for the initial I-69 signage) and the Texas Transportation Commission probably approved the change at its meeting earlier today (the transcript should be posted in a couple of days).
Since SH 44 is not part of the statutorily defined I-69 Corridor, I'm guessing it may eventually be designated as I-6, and that the I-69/I-69 E split will remain in Victoria.

Jeff emailed us the commission notes (http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/texas/I-69.pdf), which includes the redesignation of I-69 in Corpus Christi as I-69E. The notes also involve I-2, I-69C and I-369:
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on May 30, 2013, 04:44:38 PM
The Texas Transportation Commission ("TTC") May 30, 2013 Agenda (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2013/documents/agendas/053013.pdf) suggests that the TTC may slightly alter their past practice and grant approval to several interstate designations that will be contingent upon later FHWA approval
Jeff emailed us the commission notes (http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/texas/I-69.pdf), which includes the redesignation of I-69 in Corpus Christi as I-69E. The notes also involve I-2, I-69C and I-369:

Thanks for sharing, Alex!

If I read the commission notes correctly, FHWA has given all of the necessary approvals (no waiting for contingent approval!) and it is time to start installing some new shields:

Quote
As of May 24, 2013, AASHTO and the FHWA Administrator have issued the required approvals.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: agentsteel53 on May 30, 2013, 04:48:06 PM
so they're gonna take down all the shiny new I-69 Texas shields... figure they'll ship 'em up north to where there is no split.

Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on May 30, 2013, 05:26:38 PM
I know it would be a pain, but could someone do up a simple map of whats going on down there.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on May 30, 2013, 05:54:37 PM
I know it would be a pain, but could someone do up a simple map of whats going on down there.

In the below map, the Nov. 2011 Robstown I-69 designation is now I-69E, the US 83 designation is I-2, the US 281 designation is I-69C, and the US 77 designation is I-69E (the eventual designation is actually a bit longer; it extends from north of Raymondville southward instead of from south of Lyford southward):

The combined Segments Four and Five report (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg45_final.pdf) has .... A map showing the proposed border designations is below (page 45/165 of pdf; page 39 of document):
(http://i.imgur.com/94Tt6.png)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: O Tamandua on May 30, 2013, 06:52:11 PM
Dumb question but isn't Kenedy County pretty...er...remote, despite its size and location between CC and the LRGV?  I know there's the little county seat (Sarita) but what all needs to be done there again?  Are there a lot of old King Ranch roads crossing the highway at grade?  (1,946 sq. miles, 2011 population 437 (!) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenedy_County,_Texas))
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Speedway99 on May 30, 2013, 09:04:16 PM
I was hoping Corpus Christi would get I-69 mainline. The Freer-Victoria route should be I-269, or better yet not build it. I think a more direct Houston-Laredo route is redundant, while Corpus should have the single number to Houston. Also, shouldn't the control city signs on the Eastex and Southwest freeways in Houston be changed to say Laredo and Shreveport eventually?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on May 30, 2013, 11:24:45 PM
List of applications:
....
TX I-2 (Mission to I-69E)
TX I-69E (Raymondville south)
TX I-69E (Robstown, renumbering I-69)
(above quote from AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9416.msg220220#msg220220) thread) ....
Notable by its absence is an application for US 59 to be signed as I-69 "inside" I-610.

This article (http://www.alicetx.com/news/article_463f00d1-4572-5d83-80b3-d6fbeddf84d8.html) provides an update on the "inside I-610" section through Houston:

Quote
The 11-mile section of US 59 through downtown Houston is under engineering review by the Texas Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration. It is anticipated it will be added to I-69 within the coming year.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on May 31, 2013, 08:47:15 AM
I know it would be a pain, but could someone do up a simple map of whats going on down there.
In the below map, the Nov. 2011 Robstown I-69 designation is now I-69E, the US 83 designation is I-2, the US 281 designation is I-69C, and the US 77 designation is I-69E (the eventual designation is actually a bit longer; it extends from north of Raymondville southward instead of from south of Lyford southward):
The combined Segments Four and Five report (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg45_final.pdf) has .... A map showing the proposed border designations is below (page 45/165 of pdf; page 39 of document):

The Alliance for I-69 Texas has posted an article about the recent designations (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update5.30.13RGV1.html), which includes a more straightforward map showing Interstates 2, 69C and 69E in the Lower Rio Grande Valley:

(http://i.imgur.com/Lrnc2yg.png)



This article (http://www.alicetx.com/news/article_463f00d1-4572-5d83-80b3-d6fbeddf84d8.html) provides an update on the "inside I-610" section through Houston:
Quote
The 11-mile section of US 59 through downtown Houston is under engineering review by the Texas Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration. It is anticipated it will be added to I-69 within the coming year.

It looks like the above linked newspaper article received its information from an Alliance for I-69 Texas press release that served as a basis for the Alliance's article.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on May 31, 2013, 10:35:17 AM
I suppose it's too late to suggest that 69E become 37, and 37 into Corpus becomes x37.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: O Tamandua on May 31, 2013, 12:08:12 PM
Grzrd,

1.  Still mildly amusing that Texarkana's getting I-69 (sort of) before Shreveport does.

2.  Looking at Kenedy County on maps.google.com, it's still interesting to contemplate what will have to be done, and what won't have to be done in a 1,900+ square mile county with under 500 residents, to get that County's section of highway up to I-69 standards.  I wonder how long it will take.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: CanesFan27 on May 31, 2013, 12:45:18 PM
I suppose it's too late to suggest that 69E become 37, and 37 into Corpus becomes x37.
I suppose it's too late to suggest that 69E become 37, and 37 into Corpus becomes x37.
I suppose it's too late to suggest that 69E become 37, and 37 into Corpus becomes x37.

In this forum - and in this hobby - it's never too late
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on May 31, 2013, 12:56:05 PM
1.  Still mildly amusing that Texarkana's getting I-69 (sort of) before Shreveport does.

Not to mention that Texarkana, TX is getting I-369 before Texarkana, AR gets I-49.

2.  Looking at Kenedy County on maps.google.com, it's still interesting to contemplate what will have to be done, and what won't have to be done in a 1,900+ square mile county with under 500 residents, to get that County's section of highway up to I-69 standards.  I wonder how long it will take.

This prior post (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg161349#msg161349) discusses in part some of the plans for Kenedy County:

The Alliance for I-69 Texas also has an article about the issuance of the FONSI (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update7.13.12%20us77.html) and it discusses the method of ranch access:
Quote
An interesting element of the schematic plans included in the EA is the way ranch access is to be accomplished in the 42-mile passage through Kenedy County where there are no public roads crossing US 77. This highway passes through sections of the King Ranch, the Kenedy Ranch and the Armstrong Ranch, all of which span the highway and the adjacent Union Pacific Railroad. Brief sections of access road will be built near ranch gates to allow traffic on and off the freeway lanes. Overpasses will be built at intervals of 5 to 10 miles to allow traffic to reverse direction. Below is a simplified drawing of a ranch gate access point. This arrangement will avoid the need to build long stretches of dual frontage roads that have little transportation value.

(http://i.imgur.com/nATsg.jpg)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on May 31, 2013, 01:01:37 PM
In this forum - and in this hobby - it's never too late
I'm still annoyed over US 66 not being 60 west of Springfield.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: O Tamandua on May 31, 2013, 01:07:33 PM
Grzrd,

1.  Well, Arkansas-side Texarkanans are always complaining that the Texas side gets everything first.  :sombrero:

2.  Thanks for the Kenedy County info.  I wonder what part the total of those items are going to cost out of the $1 billion between Harlingen and CC?  (EDIT: What's also interesting is that the Interstate is now going to currently be signed to above Raymondville, Kleberg's County seat.  I think the old King ranch was in Kenedy and Kleberg Counties (both are King Ranch names).  Don't know how many public roads cross between the Kenedy border and the new Interstate access point above Raymondville, but once the Sarita-Raymondville section is finished that will be nearly one 12th of the Texas section of I-69 right there!)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on May 31, 2013, 04:07:51 PM
I wonder what part the total of those items are going to cost out of the $1 billion between Harlingen and CC?

I don't know, but you might be able to find out by looking at the various documents listed in the Index of US 77 Upgrade EA and FONSI Documents (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/crp/projects/us77_upgrade/).

edit

I took a look at the Environmental Assessment Volume 1 (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/crp/projects/us77_upgrade/ea_vol1.pdf) and ran across the following cost estimates (pages 13-14/271 of pdf):

(http://i.imgur.com/RTDYOgG.jpg)

(http://i.imgur.com/lC433TD.jpg)

Not an insignificant amount of money.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on May 31, 2013, 04:16:24 PM
I suppose it's too late to suggest that 69E become 37, and 37 into Corpus becomes x37.
I suppose it's too late to suggest that 69E become 37, and 37 into Corpus becomes x37.
I suppose it's too late to suggest that 69E become 37, and 37 into Corpus becomes x37.

In this forum - and in this hobby - it's never too late

If we all start a letter writing campaign, they might get 100 letters!!!!

Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: codyg1985 on May 31, 2013, 04:18:12 PM
I suppose it's too late to suggest that 69E become 37, and 37 into Corpus becomes x37.
I suppose it's too late to suggest that 69E become 37, and 37 into Corpus becomes x37.
I suppose it's too late to suggest that 69E become 37, and 37 into Corpus becomes x37.

In this forum - and in this hobby - it's never too late

If we all start a letter writing campaign, they might get 100 letters!!!!



Think of the difference we can make!
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Speedway99 on May 31, 2013, 08:45:05 PM
I suppose it's too late to suggest that 69E become 37, and 37 into Corpus becomes x37.
I suppose it's too late to suggest that 69E become 37, and 37 into Corpus becomes x37.
I suppose it's too late to suggest that 69E become 37, and 37 into Corpus becomes x37.

In this forum - and in this hobby - it's never too late

If we all start a letter writing campaign, they might get 100 letters!!!!



Think of the difference we can make!

Problem is that gives Cameron county 2 primary interstates (One or two digits) and Hidalgo county only one. We've already gone over how it works in the valley (An example is the med school.) I really think they should build a new Edinburg-Raymondville highway, make that I-69W, US 77 south of Raymondville I-69E, Laredo-Freer-Corpus Christi can be I-4 or I-6, and Freer-Victoria, and US 281 from Three Rivers to Edinburgh don't get upgraded, avoiding redundancies. Just my 2 cents.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Road Hog on June 01, 2013, 04:00:27 AM
Grzrd,

1.  Well, Arkansas-side Texarkanans are always complaining that the Texas side gets everything first.  :sombrero:

2.  Thanks for the Kenedy County info.  I wonder what part the total of those items are going to cost out of the $1 billion between Harlingen and CC?  (EDIT: What's also interesting is that the Interstate is now going to currently be signed to above Raymondville, Kleberg's County seat.  I think the old King ranch was in Kenedy and Kleberg Counties (both are King Ranch names).  Don't know how many public roads cross between the Kenedy border and the new Interstate access point above Raymondville, but once the Sarita-Raymondville section is finished that will be nearly one 12th of the Texas section of I-69 right there!)

Kenedy Ranch is apparently an offshoot of the original King Ranch. Historic details on Wiki are unfortunately pretty spare.

The county seat, Sarita, was named for the matriarch of the Kenedy family.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: O Tamandua on June 01, 2013, 09:38:22 AM
Grzrd,

1.  Well, Arkansas-side Texarkanans are always complaining that the Texas side gets everything first.  :sombrero:

2.  Thanks for the Kenedy County info.  I wonder what part the total of those items are going to cost out of the $1 billion between Harlingen and CC?  (EDIT: What's also interesting is that the Interstate is now going to currently be signed to above Raymondville, Kleberg's County seat.  I think the old King ranch was in Kenedy and Kleberg Counties (both are King Ranch names).  Don't know how many public roads cross between the Kenedy border and the new Interstate access point above Raymondville, but once the Sarita-Raymondville section is finished that will be nearly one 12th of the Texas section of I-69 right there!)

Kenedy Ranch is apparently an offshoot of the original King Ranch. Historic details on Wiki are unfortunately pretty spare.

The county seat, Sarita, was named for the matriarch of the Kenedy family.

(http://www.kenedy.org/Portals/39/Images/portraits/sarita_kenedy.jpg)

Sarita Kenedy East (Texas State Historical Association biography) (http://www.tshaonline.org/handbook/online/articles/fea14)

Once in charge with her brother of a 400,000 acre ranch.  Attended Incarnate Word Academy in Corpus Christi, Sophie Newcomb College (Tulane) in New Orleans, was a debutante in that city.

Now her namesake county seat is the only town in a 1,900+ square mile county with less than 500 residents, and will be (I believe) the only place in Kenedy County where future I-69 has to cross public roads.

Sorry to get OT, but the stories of real people behind these little towns are fascinating.

Back TO topic...one thing that's interesting is that according to the map Grzrd furnished above, pretty much all Kenedy County (DANG, I'd hate to get caught on that road during a hurricane) and its I-69 section appears to be in one segment, not with the Willacy County stretch, but will still be a big chunk of I-69/Texas to open up.  It will be interesting to see how fast that section is built and opened.)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on June 01, 2013, 10:58:43 AM
The county seat, Sarita, was named for the matriarch of the Kenedy family.
I keep reading this as Santa.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: thisdj78 on June 01, 2013, 11:56:57 AM

1.  Still mildly amusing that Texarkana's getting I-69 (sort of) before Shreveport does.

Even more amusing that Texarkana will have more limited-access highways leading to it then Austin and triple the Interstate designations  X-(
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on June 01, 2013, 01:07:37 PM
The Alliance for I-69 Texas has posted an article about the recent designations (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update5.30.13RGV1.html), which includes a more straightforward map showing Interstates 2, 69C and 69E in the Lower Rio Grande Valley:
(http://i.imgur.com/Lrnc2yg.png)

This TV video report (http://www.kveo.com/news/interstate-69-gains-approval-extension-lower-rio-grande-valley), in addition to having footage of US 77 in Cameron County, reports that the shields "will be up" in thirty to sixty days:

Quote
Interstate 69 is here and it's a first for the Rio Grande Valley.
The 111 mile stretch of interstate highway is being touted as the gateway to economic growth in the region.
Once completed, the I-69 system will run from border to border... Canada to Mexico.
Designated parts of 77, 281 and 83 will be re-named to reflect the interstate ....
Officials tell NewsCenter 23 the interstate signs will be up in 30 to 60 days.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bassoon1986 on June 01, 2013, 06:05:39 PM
List of applications:
....
TX I-2 (Mission to I-69E)
TX I-69E (Raymondville south)
TX I-69E (Robstown, renumbering I-69)
(above quote from AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9416.msg220220#msg220220) thread) ....
Notable by its absence is an application for US 59 to be signed as I-69 "inside" I-610.

This article (http://www.alicetx.com/news/article_463f00d1-4572-5d83-80b3-d6fbeddf84d8.html) provides an update on the "inside I-610" section through Houston:

Quote
The 11-mile section of US 59 through downtown Houston is under engineering review by the Texas Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration. It is anticipated it will be added to I-69 within the coming year.


It's nice to finally see a reference to the Texarkana section as 369 and not mainline 69 as many articles have previously said in error.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on June 02, 2013, 10:39:40 AM
FHWA has approved designating US 77 as I-69E from Raymondville to Brownsville.
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_3baf5bf6-c8d4-11e2-bafc-0019bb30f31a.html

The title of the above-linked article is S.H. 550 Ribbon-Cutting Crowd Gets Big I-69 News.  As far as I can tell, the SH 550 ribbon-cutting is I-69 Corridor news in and of itself. First the FHWA High Priority Corridors page  (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm) provides the relevant part of the statutory I-69 definition:

Quote
18. Corridor from Sarnia, Ontario, Canada ....
to the Lower Rio Grande Valley at the border between the United States and Mexico, as follows: [I-69] ....
D. In the Lower Rio Grande Valley, the Corridor shall- ....
iii. include ... FM511 from United States Route 77 to the Port of Brownsville.

The Alliance for I-69 Texas website (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/projects%20ST.html) describes ongoing SH 550 work from I-69E/US 77 to the Port of Brownsville (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Port+of+Brownsville,+Capt+Donald+L+Foust+Road,+Brownsville,+TX&hl=en&ll=25.987521,-97.464695&spn=0.119277,0.153637&sll=25.987366,-97.474308&sspn=0.119278,0.153637&oq=ort+of+Brownsville,+TX&t=h&hq=Port+of+Brownsville,+Capt+Donald+L+Foust+Road,+Brownsville,+TX&z=13) as follows:

Quote
The Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority (CCRMA) has opened the first leg of the SH 550 Toll Road leading from US 77 to the Port of Brownsville. This connector is identified in federal law as part of the I-69 corridor.

I'm guessing that, somewhere along the historical way, the SH 550 corridor replaced the FM 511 corridor as satisfying the statutory I-69 mandate.  Any historical insight into that transition would be appreciated.

At any rate, the SH 550 article reports that the ribbon-cutting was for the completion of the second of three phases of SH 550 construction:

Quote
Wednesday’s ribbon-cutting ceremony for State Highway 550 couldn't have been windier if it had taken place in a wind tunnel.
But organizers persevered and local luminaries took turns at the podium, buffeted by gale-force winds, praising the completion of the second phase of a project touted as creating a more efficient and safer link for commercial trucks between U.S. 77/83 and the Port of Brownsville.
The third phase, which will provide the connectors to U.S. 77/83, should be done in about a year
, according to David Garcia, deputy county administrator and assistant coordinator for the Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority.



I know there's the little county seat (Sarita) but what all needs to be done there again?
I took a look at the Environmental Assessment Volume 1 (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/crp/projects/us77_upgrade/ea_vol1.pdf) and ran across the following cost estimates (pages 13-14/271 of pdf): ....
(http://i.imgur.com/lC433TD.jpg)

The above-linked Alliance for I-69 Texas page also indicates that the Sarita overpass would allow Sarita School Road to pass under I-69E:

Quote
Engineering work is underway on a new overpass on US 77 at Sarita. It would allow Sarita School Road to pass under the freeway lanes. No funding has been identified for this safety project.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on June 02, 2013, 11:50:24 AM
I'm guessing that, somewhere along the historical way, the SH 550 corridor replaced the FM 511 corridor as satisfying the statutory I-69 mandate.  Any historical insight into that transition would be appreciated.
SH 550 is (mostly) toll lanes in the middle of FM 511.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on June 02, 2013, 12:56:29 PM
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_3baf5bf6-c8d4-11e2-bafc-0019bb30f31a.html
... ongoing SH 550 work from I-69E/US 77 to the Port of Brownsville (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Port+of+Brownsville,+Capt+Donald+L+Foust+Road,+Brownsville,+TX&hl=en&ll=25.987521,-97.464695&spn=0.119277,0.153637&sll=25.987366,-97.474308&sspn=0.119278,0.153637&oq=ort+of+Brownsville,+TX&t=h&hq=Port+of+Brownsville,+Capt+Donald+L+Foust+Road,+Brownsville,+TX&z=13) .... the SH 550 article reports that the ribbon-cutting was for the completion of the second of three phases of SH 550 construction:
Quote
organizers persevered and local luminaries took turns at the podium, buffeted by gale-force winds, praising the completion of the second phase of a project touted as creating a more efficient and safer link for commercial trucks between U.S. 77/83 and the Port of Brownsville.
The third phase, which will provide the connectors to U.S. 77/83, should be done in about a year.
I'm guessing that, somewhere along the historical way, the SH 550 corridor replaced the FM 511 corridor as satisfying the statutory I-69 mandate.  Any historical insight into that transition would be appreciated.
SH 550 is (mostly) toll lanes in the middle of FM 511.

Thanks, NE2! As the toll status implies, Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_State_Highway_550) confirms that it will be a limited access connector to I-69E:

Quote
State Highway 550 (SH 550) is an under construction highway that, when complete, will be a limited access toll route around the northern and eastern edges of Brownsville, Texas, partly replacing and expanding Farm to Market Road 511 (FM 511). It is to provide a new entry point for truck traffic to the Port of Brownsville ....
SH 550 is being constructed on the same routing as FM 511 from its connection with US 77 and US 83 southeastward to Farm to Market Road 3248. Separated travel lanes, intended to be the frontage roads, are the first stage of construction from US 77/83 to Farm to Market Road 3248. Flyover bridges have been constructed at Farm to Market Road 1847 and at two rail crossings. The second stage of construction will build a new divided limited-access highway, which will split from FM 511 at FM 3248 and travel southeast to a new entry point for the Port of Brownsville, and a new crossover bridge at Old Port Isabel Road. The third stage will complete the mainlanes on the Stage one portion, and construct exit ramps directly to and from US 77 and 83 at Olmito. The route is a toll route, but the second and third stages of the route are being funded with $36 million of funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 ...

I guess this will be a technical exception to the contention that I-69 will not be tolled in Texas.

edit

This TV video report (http://www.krgv.com/videos/toll-road-extended-in-cameron-county/) has some footage of the newly opened section of SH 550.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on June 02, 2013, 05:52:05 PM
As regards relief options in Houston, in both the I-69 Segment Two Committee Report and Recommendations (pages 37-38/157; pages 31-32 of document) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg2_final.pdf) and the I-69 Segment Three Committee Report and Recommendations (page 36/157; page 30 of document) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg3_final.pdf), the Segment Two and Segment Three Committees ... did not tip their hand as far as recommending a specific relief route
... 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):
(http://i.imgur.com/1ScQV.png)

This article (http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/tomball/news/cornyn-lauds-continued-work-along-i--corridor/article_42ea779e-cbb2-11e2-b612-001a4bcf887a.html) reports that five alternatives are being considered for Houston's I-69 relief route:

Quote
According to the Texas Department of Transportation, I-69 will enter the Houston area from the southwest on the current U.S. 59 (Southwest Freeway). It will also leave the area on U.S. 59 (Eastex Freeway).
In the middle, there are five alternatives that have been selected for further study:
- Following the current U.S. 59 corridor through Houston. (However, this highway is already heavily loaded with traffic; a post to misc.transport.road suggests a portion of U.S. 59 may be the busiest freeway in North America.)
- Following the western leg of the Grand Parkway.
- Following the eastern leg of the Grand Parkway.
- Following the western leg of Beltway 8/Sam Houston Tollway.
- Following the eastern leg of Beltway 8/Sam Houston Tollway.
A final routing will probably be selected in the next few years ...

I assume the eastern leg of the Grand Parkway study includes the routing suggested by the Segment Two Committee.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: wxfree on June 02, 2013, 06:44:41 PM
Quote
In the middle, there are five alternatives that have been selected for further study:
- Following the current U.S. 59 corridor through Houston. (However, this highway is already heavily loaded with traffic; a post to misc.transport.road suggests a portion of U.S. 59 may be the busiest freeway in North America.)
- Following the western leg of the Grand Parkway.
- Following the eastern leg of the Grand Parkway.
- Following the western leg of Beltway 8/Sam Houston Tollway.
- Following the eastern leg of Beltway 8/Sam Houston Tollway.
A final routing will probably be selected in the next few years ...

I assume the eastern leg of the Grand Parkway study includes the routing suggested by the Segment Two Committee.

That brings up an interesting technicality.  State highways are run by TxDOT.  I read somewhere that RMAs can also operate state highway toll roads, although I haven't found the legal background for that in the statutes.  NTTA and county toll road authority projects are not state highways, although the frontage roads may be state highways.  Obviously, I-69 couldn't run along the frontage roads.  If they wanted to run the interstate along a county toll road, such as the Sam Houston Tollway or the Grand Parkway, a portion of which might be a county toll road, I wonder how that technicality would be worked out.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on June 02, 2013, 08:39:36 PM
As regards relief options in Houston, in both the I-69 Segment Two Committee Report and Recommendations (pages 37-38/157; pages 31-32 of document) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg2_final.pdf) and the I-69 Segment Three Committee Report and Recommendations (page 36/157; page 30 of document) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg3_final.pdf), the Segment Two and Segment Three Committees ... did not tip their hand as far as recommending a specific relief route
... 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):
(http://i.imgur.com/1ScQV.png)

This article (http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/tomball/news/cornyn-lauds-continued-work-along-i--corridor/article_42ea779e-cbb2-11e2-b612-001a4bcf887a.html) reports that five alternatives are being considered for Houston's I-69 relief route:

Quote
According to the Texas Department of Transportation, I-69 will enter the Houston area from the southwest on the current U.S. 59 (Southwest Freeway). It will also leave the area on U.S. 59 (Eastex Freeway).
In the middle, there are five alternatives that have been selected for further study:
- Following the current U.S. 59 corridor through Houston. (However, this highway is already heavily loaded with traffic; a post to misc.transport.road suggests a portion of U.S. 59 may be the busiest freeway in North America.)
- Following the western leg of the Grand Parkway.
- Following the eastern leg of the Grand Parkway.
- Following the western leg of Beltway 8/Sam Houston Tollway.
- Following the eastern leg of Beltway 8/Sam Houston Tollway.
A final routing will probably be selected in the next few years ...

I assume the eastern leg of the Grand Parkway study includes the routing suggested by the Segment Two Committee.


Considering that I-610 was used as the delimiters for the newly designated segments of I-69 rather than the Sam Houston Tollway or the Grand Parkway, I'd assume that I-69 will ultimately run the length of US 59, pending analysis on how to get the middle section to meet full Interstate standards. The "I-69 relief route" is more an offshoot to provide linkage between mainline I-69 to the Port of Houston and points southward.

Most likely scenario??  They complete the Grand Parkway's eastern semicircle and the connector to US 59, and then the entire road gets an I-x-69 loop.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Perfxion on June 02, 2013, 10:26:38 PM
Seeing how slow they are at building the grand parkway(over 30 years), I could see I-69 using US59 between 610, but if they want to use a relief route, use the Beltway. Which could end up being a Federal, State, and County road all in one.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: triplemultiplex on June 03, 2013, 04:53:42 PM
The Grand Parkway will become I-69F.  Guess what the F is for.
 :eyebrow:
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Speedway99 on June 03, 2013, 05:16:59 PM
Seeing how slow they are at building the grand parkway(over 30 years), I could see I-69 using US59 between 610, but if they want to use a relief route, use the Beltway. Which could end up being a Federal, State, and County road all in one.

I really think the main I-69 should follow US 59 through Houston, it's about time that gets an interstate designation. Besides, I think the interstates should go through the big cities, and how many times does an interstate make a 200 degree turn on a beltway just to go out of its way to avoid a big city, not counting I-95 and Boston, which was due to NIMBYs. The freeway in Houston is already there, just use it.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on June 03, 2013, 05:25:26 PM
I think they should go around the cities.  Why push the major traffic into town?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: nolia_boi504 on June 03, 2013, 07:06:58 PM
I think they should go around the cities.  Why push the major traffic into town?

It makes sense to me to have the major highways go through the major cities, as their intent is to connect major cities to each other. People have the freedom to use loops or 3di's to avoid the city center if they wish in order to avoid traffic, but maybe the solution should be to use signs such as "Houston bypass" or "Houston area bypass" to encourage through traffic to get off the main highway and take the loop around.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Perfxion on June 03, 2013, 11:11:00 PM
But with the hub and spoke style of Houston highways, what is a bypass of Houston traffic when the city limits could be a full hours drive straight through it.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: rte66man on June 04, 2013, 11:34:33 AM
But with the hub and spoke style of Houston highways, what is a bypass of Houston traffic when the city limits could be a full hours drive straight through it.

As you well know, there is NO bypass of Houston traffic. It exists on all Houston freeways (and even the Sam Houston in places).

rte66man
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on June 04, 2013, 11:39:34 AM
As you well know, there is NO bypass of Houston traffic. It exists on all Houston freeways (and even the Sam Houston in places).
I-69 along US 77 and US 79!
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on June 04, 2013, 06:24:53 PM
TxDOT now has a US 59 Scoping Study (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/drivenbytexans/us59.htm) page:
The page also includes a map of the study area:
(http://i.imgur.com/hgia44h.jpg)
This Feb. 26 article (behind paywall) (http://dailysentinel.com/news/article_a8c1ff2c-8096-11e2-b98f-001a4bcf887a.html) reports that the majority of local respondents to the online survey favor upgrading US 59 over building relief routes
An interesting observation from the above article:
Quote
"As we cross the Angelina River, it’s obvious we should stay on the 59 footprint,” said Nacogdoches City Manager Jim Jeffers, a member of the committee. "It’s difficult to compare (the two designs) because we don’t have cost estimates.The longer we stay on the 59 footprint, the quicker the project will be built.”
^ Probably has to do with not having to do as much environmental work for upgrading an existing facility versus building an entirely new one.

The TxDOT I-69 Driven By Texans website has posted a May 7, 2013 Agenda (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/committees/angelina_nacogdoches/050713_materials.pdf) for the US 59 Scoping Study. A comparison of the direct route vs. the relief routes sets up an interesting choice of lower cost/longer environmental review for the relief routes vs. higher cost/shorter environmental review for the direct US 59 route (page 43/43 of pdf):

(http://i.imgur.com/Gug6O8H.png)

The comparison indicates that the environmental review process for the relief routes could take up to 3.5 years longer to complete than it would take to complete for the direct route.  The big question is how great the cost differential is between the alternatives.



I think they should go around the cities.  Why push the major traffic into town?
It makes sense to me to have the major highways go through the major cities

It's interesting to compare and contrast a major city like Houston with towns like Lufkin and Nacogdoches. In reading through the Agenda, many comments from Open House attendees indicate that a lot of people want the traffic to flow through their towns in order to keep their businesses profitable.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on June 04, 2013, 11:16:54 PM
I took a look at the Environmental Assessment Volume 1 (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/crp/projects/us77_upgrade/ea_vol1.pdf) and ran across the following cost estimates (pages 13-14/271 of pdf)

This I-69 Funding Program map (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/funded_projects_map.pdf) shows which I-69 projects are funded as of January 24, 2013, including I-69E/US 77 projects in Kenedy County.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: O Tamandua on June 04, 2013, 11:50:31 PM
I took a look at the Environmental Assessment Volume 1 (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/crp/projects/us77_upgrade/ea_vol1.pdf) and ran across the following cost estimates (pages 13-14/271 of pdf)

This I-69 Funding Program map (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/funded_projects_map.pdf) shows which I-69 projects are funded as of January 24, 2013, including I-69E/US 77 projects in Kenedy County.

The late Lewis "Grzrd" would be proud of you...my condolences if you're related (not that it's a bad thing...anything but...he just left us far too early, IMHO, but God's ways aren't my ways though I'm trying).  Seriously, thanks for the info.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: HighwayMaster on June 05, 2013, 08:48:36 PM
The Grand Parkway will become I-69F.  Guess what the F is for.
 :eyebrow:

Or I-69P.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Speedway99 on June 05, 2013, 08:54:32 PM
The Grand Parkway will become I-69F.  Guess what the F is for.
 :eyebrow:

Or I-69P.

P for Parkway. I prefer I-269 or I-469 for the Grand Parkway. I-69 goes through Houston.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on June 05, 2013, 09:25:48 PM
I-69 Offshore Rigway.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: The High Plains Traveler on June 05, 2013, 10:05:02 PM
I-69 will become the route of many suffixes. I can see I-69WCW in south Texas.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on June 06, 2013, 08:24:50 AM
I-69 will become the route of many suffixes. I can see I-69WCW in south Texas.

or I-69NWO
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Brandon on June 06, 2013, 09:47:04 AM
I-69 will become the route of many suffixes. I can see I-69WCW in south Texas.

or I-69NWO

I-69SOL.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: rte66man on June 06, 2013, 10:08:24 AM
I-69 will become the route of many suffixes. I can see I-69WCW in south Texas.

or I-69NWO

I-69SOL.

I-69AWA
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on June 06, 2013, 11:28:56 AM
Sounds to me like the Upgrade US 59 option would be the most warranted, but with retaining the Dibold bypass.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: agentsteel53 on June 06, 2013, 12:51:12 PM
I-69 will become the route of many suffixes. I can see I-69WCW in south Texas.

or I-69NWO

(https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRl079ctVb_og5fR4biSslFxeZf3lNHaZqToajh7wQdDU4OAVGt)

now that is a great song.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on June 06, 2013, 01:12:14 PM
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on June 06, 2013, 01:34:19 PM
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on June 06, 2013, 03:26:23 PM
Alex is almost as awesome as the nWo
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on June 08, 2013, 10:22:25 PM
AHTD has posted the Final Findings (http://www.arkansashighways.com/planning_research/statewide_planning/Studies/AHTD%20I-69%20Innovative%20Financing%20Study_Final%20Findings%20Report_02192013.pdf) and the Executive Summary (http://www.arkansashighways.com/planning_research/statewide_planning/Studies/AHTD%20I-69%20Innovative%20Financing%20Study_Executive%20Summary_01092013.pdf).
Texas and Kentucky (except for the Ohio River Bridge) were excluded from the analysis:
Quote
No tolled traffic and toll revenue forecasts were developed for Texas SIUs as TxDOT is not considering the use of tolling as a funding mechanism for any currently planned portion of the I‐69 route in Texas.
(above two quotes from the Multi-State I-69 Innovative Financing Study (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9001.msg217602#msg217602) thread)
the FHWA High Priority Corridors page  (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm) provides the relevant part of the statutory I-69 definition:
Quote
18. Corridor from Sarnia, Ontario, Canada ....
to the Lower Rio Grande Valley at the border between the United States and Mexico, as follows: [I-69] ....
D. In the Lower Rio Grande Valley, the Corridor shall- ....
iii. include ... FM511 from United States Route 77 to the Port of Brownsville.
I'm guessing that, somewhere along the historical way, the SH 550 corridor replaced the FM 511 corridor as satisfying the statutory I-69 mandate.  Any historical insight into that transition would be appreciated.
SH 550 is (mostly) toll lanes in the middle of FM 511.
I think Cameron County RMA runs SH 550.  I have not found and read the agreement between them and TxDOT so as to see how that works ... I have not only an interest in roads, but also in law, so these arrangements are of double interest to me.
(above quote from US route on a toll road? (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9587.msg225704#msg225704) thread)

wxfree - If you can find the SH 550 tolling agreement, then it would be interesting to look at it with an eye as to whether it is consistent with the MAP-21 Tolling Provisons (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/guidance/guidetoll.cfm) for interstates.  If it is, then I have a strong suspicion that local officials might see appeal in having an I-2 dual designation with SH 550 (along with an I-69E overlap) that would give the Port of Brownsville an I-2 E-W designation to serve as a complement to the I-69E N-S designation.  Since SH 550 is already tolled, and only road enthusiasts would care/notice that it is part of the Texas I-69 "system", then I don't think doing so would trigger alarms that the Trans-Texas Corridor is returning. Good luck in finding it!
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: wxfree on June 09, 2013, 02:18:09 PM
wxfree - If you can find the SH 550 tolling agreement, then it would be interesting to look at it with an eye as to whether it is consistent with the MAP-21 Tolling Provisons (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/map21/guidance/guidetoll.cfm) for interstates.  If it is, then I have a strong suspicion that local officials might see appeal in having an I-2 dual designation with SH 550 (along with an I-69E overlap) that would give the Port of Brownsville an I-2 E-W designation to serve as a complement to the I-69E N-S designation.  Since SH 550 is already tolled, and only road enthusiasts would care/notice that it is part of the Texas I-69 "system", then I don't think doing so would trigger alarms that the Trans-Texas Corridor is returning. Good luck in finding it!

I a bit stumped at the moment, but I'd love to see it.  Another point of interest is why they chose 550.  State highway numbers are generally assigned sequentially, except in special cases.  The consecutive (or nearly so) numbers go as high as 365, so that's a big jump.  I don't think that this is related to anything current, but the original SH 550 appears to have been designated along the current path of I-30 from US 80 west of Fort Worth to US 67/80 in Dallas.  An interesting note is included.

Quote
This is the minute order that designates the Interstate Highway System, of which SH 550 is a part.

Source: http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/sh/sh0550.htm (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/sh/sh0550.htm)

Is this a quiet message about future plans for toll roads and Interstate designations?  Or maybe it's unrelated and they chose 550 for some other reason.  And why were they designating an Interstate Highway System in 1945?  I've seen old maps on which US routes are called "US Interstate Highways," but that system already existed and wouldn't be designated then.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on June 09, 2013, 03:41:40 PM
And why were they designating an Interstate Highway System in 1945?
http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/archstories/late_roads/interstate_system.asp
Quote
The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1944 included three important steps leading to the development of an interstate highway network.

In 1945 the Wisconsin State Highway Engineer submitted tentative route designations for approval and inclusion in the interstate system.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: wxfree on June 09, 2013, 06:27:11 PM
And why were they designating an Interstate Highway System in 1945?
http://www.wisconsinhistory.org/archstories/late_roads/interstate_system.asp
Quote
The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1944 included three important steps leading to the development of an interstate highway network.

In 1945 the Wisconsin State Highway Engineer submitted tentative route designations for approval and inclusion in the interstate system.

Thanks for that information.  I didn't know they were called interstate highways that far back.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: J N Winkler on June 09, 2013, 08:54:45 PM
The source NE2 cites is less than lucid on the specific origin of the phrase "Interstate highway."  However, an article by D.W. Loutzenheiser in the 1945 edition of Proceedings of the Highway Research Board includes the following two paragraphs (p. 106):

Quote
Thus, it was proposed that steps be taken to plan and develop a system of highways so constituted as to be national in scope, but so located as to render the maximum local service possible.  The whole would be built as a modern express highway system, including portions to and through urban areas, embodying features of design and construction to provide, insofar as feasible, facilities capable of serving safely and efficiently a mixed traffic of automobiles, buses and trucks in the volumes, weights and speeds to be expected 20 years from the date of construction.

The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1944 includes provisions for the designation of "A National System of Interstate Highways" and for the expansion of the Federal-aid highway system to include the whole of such a system.  (The character and extent of the system to be designated agree identically with the recommendations of the Report on Interregional Highways; so that change in description from "Interregional" to "Interstate" is without significance.)  With the passage of this Act in December 1944 the way has been cleared for the designation and beginning of work on the system.  Other sections of the Act authorize substantial amounts for planning and post-war construction of highway projects on the Federal-aid system, in both rural and urban areas, as found necessary in the several States.

The title of Loutzenheiser's article?  "Proposed design standards for interregional highways."
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: icemandrake on June 15, 2013, 01:23:19 PM
Here is a news article from the Wharton Journal-Spectator on 116 miles being added to I-69 in Texas, its designations in South Texas and the US-83 Freeway being designated as Interstate 2.
http://www.journal-spectator.com/news/article_c095c54c-cd54-11e2-996b-001a4bcf887a.html (http://www.journal-spectator.com/news/article_c095c54c-cd54-11e2-996b-001a4bcf887a.html)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: O Tamandua on June 21, 2013, 11:25:41 PM
...and an article on I-69 in Fort Bend County, right above Wharton (and right next to Harris):  http://www.fortbendstar.com/2013/06/19/signs-of-i-69-in-fort-bend-county-more-than-placards/
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on July 08, 2013, 03:42:28 PM
TxDOT is in the process of conducting an interstate development plan for US 281 (and a small piece of US 59) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/projects/281/fact_sheet.pdf), with a final report anticipated to be completed in late 2013:
Quote
The purpose of this study is to develop a plan to bring US 281 (from US 83 to I-37) and US 59 (from US 281 to I-37) up to Interstate design standards, with the eventual goal of designating and signing these highways as part of the I-69 system .... A draft of the plan will be completed in the summer of 2013 with the final report complete in late 2013.

The Alliance for I-69 Texas (http://i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update7.4.13%20study281.html) is reporting on current US 281/I-69C construction projects and that Open Houses will be held on July 16, 17 and 24 about the corridor study:

Quote
The Texas Department of Transportation is conducting a study to determine what upgrade improvements will be necessary to bring US 281 up to interstate highway standards along the Interstate 69 Central route.
The study area begins at the intersection of US 59 and Interstate 37 in Live Oak County. It extends west on US 59 to George West and then south on US 281 to the intersection with Interstate 2/US 83 in the Lower Rio Grande Valley as shown on the adjacent illustration.
A draft Interstate Development Plan will be compiled in the coming months and a final Feasibility Study Report is scheduled for completion by the end of the year.
Projects to upgrade sections of US 281 to freeway standard are currently underway at Alice, Rachal and at the north edge of Edinburg. The Alice project includes an overpass at FM 1554, now approximately 50% complete. Work on an overpass at FM 755 in Rachal began earlier this year. The $20 million Edinburg project will deliver 2.4 miles of new freeway near the Edinburg Airport.

The adjacent illustration:

(http://i.imgur.com/TThbe0T.jpg)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: thefro on July 10, 2013, 06:47:24 AM
http://www.valleycentral.com/news/story.aspx?id=919619

Signs are officially going up on the 15th on the new I-69E & I-69C segments, according to this link.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on July 10, 2013, 08:57:15 AM
http://www.valleycentral.com/news/story.aspx?id=919619
Signs are officially going up on the 15th on the new I-69E & I-69C segments, according to this link.

I received an email from TxDOT this morning that provides a broad timetable for the signage installation and confirms that I-2 signage installation will also begin on Monday [July 15] (the timing for the Corpus "switch" is a little unclear):

Quote
The I-69C and E and I-2 signs will be installed beginning Monday in the Rio Grande Valley.  The major overhead signs at intersections will be the first to be installed and those major directional signs will be installed by the fall.  The route marker signs along the road are anticipated to be completely installed by the end of the year.  There are a big number of those signs, along a long stretch of road, so it will take a few months to complete that installation.  The I-369 signs near Texarkana will probably beginning being installed in the fall.  I'm checking in with our local office in Corpus to see when they plan to make the transition from I-69 to I-69E and will send you that information once I receive it.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Henry on July 10, 2013, 11:37:51 AM
At least I-69C will be completed sooner than the other branches, thanks to the US 281 projects going on.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on July 11, 2013, 04:44:16 PM
http://www.valleycentral.com/news/story.aspx?id=919619
Signs are officially going up on the 15th on the new I-69E & I-69C segments, according to this link.

Here's the invitation (http://www.co.cameron.tx.us/docs/Invite715.pdf) for the two "historic unveiling" ceremonies/photo ops.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: thisdj78 on July 12, 2013, 12:01:07 AM
Are they planning to bypass it around Premont or take the existing ROW through the town?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on July 12, 2013, 08:34:36 AM
Are they planning to bypass it around Premont or take the existing ROW through the town?

The TxDOT I-69 Funding Program as of January 24, 2013 map (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/funded_projects_map.pdf) lists a $41 million relief route project from North of FM 716 to South of FM 1538.

edit

This presentation (https://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/crp/projects/us281_premont/presentation_041712.pdf) indicates that they hope to have an environmental decision by Spring 2014.  Here is a depiction of the proposed interchange for the project:

(http://i.imgur.com/SsmqyaH.jpg)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: CentralCAroadgeek on July 15, 2013, 12:31:41 PM
According to TxDOT's Facebook page, I-69E and I-2 shields have been officially unveiled in Harlingen. The post:
Quote
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/972032_10151746194800874_1437003302_n.jpg)
New I-69 signs unveiled today in Harlingen symbolize more than just the first interstate in south Texas - they mean enhanced connectivity, better commerce and more economic development for our great state!!
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: txstateends on July 15, 2013, 03:38:28 PM
Dedication press conference with the 3 different shields displayed. amid much hand-shaking and back-patting.

http://www.valleycentral.com/news/story.aspx?id=921608#.UeRIpKy4WSo

So strange to actually see a C-suffixed I-shield, much less a single-digit TX I-shield.

==EDIT==

From McAllen's Twitter page, the Pharr unveiling at the I-2/US 83 - I-69C/US 281 interchange:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BPObC4eCMAMG2Hp.jpg:large

==EDIT 2==

Short video showing some BGSes in preparation before installation (one up close shows I-69E included):
http://www.krgv.com/news/state-unveiling-new-interstate-signs-in-the-rgv
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on July 15, 2013, 04:06:32 PM
Okay, taking bets on how long before those US highways are decommissioned.  Will 281 end in San Antonio or Pleasanton?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on July 15, 2013, 04:08:03 PM
Why not George West?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on July 15, 2013, 04:09:26 PM
Here are my pictures from the signing this morning.:

https://plus.google.com/photos/108314424034130737389/albums/5900933620817858929

It was some fun
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on July 15, 2013, 04:43:09 PM
I think that Interstate 69 will have to be completed in Texas before decomissioning will happen. First you will have to have the "getting used to" period in which residents will start associating the new route numbers with the old route numbers. So it may take a while, but those US highways will be decommissioned. I think US 281 will be truncated in George West, US 77 in Victoria and US 59 in Texarkana.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: agentsteel53 on July 15, 2013, 06:03:38 PM
I take it there isn't enough old alignment to justify a relocation instead of a truncation?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on July 15, 2013, 06:22:03 PM
I take it there isn't enough old alignment to justify a relocation instead of a truncation?

Unfortunately not. TxDOT stated a few years back that in order to keep costs down on both construction and ROW acquisitions, that they would do an on site upgrade to the existing uS highways. In South Texas there are not a lot of towns or other roads so that means these Us highways will be redundant.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on July 15, 2013, 06:46:37 PM
I doubt they'd keep 281 to George West since they'll want to encourage traffic to travel on 69C
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Road Hog on July 15, 2013, 06:57:35 PM
I think that Interstate 69 will have to be completed in Texas before decomissioning will happen. First you will have to have the "getting used to" period in which residents will start associating the new route numbers with the old route numbers. So it may take a while, but those US highways will be decommissioned. I think US 281 will be truncated in George West, US 77 in Victoria and US 59 in Texarkana.

If that's the case, US 59 will be truncated in Page, OK. From that point to Texarkana it's all concurrencies with US 270 and 71, and AHTD does not officially recognize the existence of US 59.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on July 15, 2013, 07:17:43 PM
I doubt they'd keep 281 to George West since they'll want to encourage traffic to travel on 69C

Agreed. But seeing how the I-69 Aliance has never considered the section of US 281 from its break from I-37 near Three Rivers to George West for interstate upgrade, I am guessing that section of US 281 will stay. Unless they say screw it and upgrade that section seeing how it is about 20 miles or so.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on July 15, 2013, 07:31:18 PM
If that's the case, US 59 will be truncated in Page, OK.
US 59 was supposed to use US 259 anyway. (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/us/us0059.htm)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: lordsutch on July 15, 2013, 11:34:40 PM
Why not George West?

There's a lot of US 281 multiplex with I-37 already. TxDOT could just assign a SH or FM number to the George West-Three Rivers highway, a loop or spur designation to US 281 between 410 and Pleasanton, and leave it at that. US 281 between Pharr and Brownsville is pretty much a local traffic corridor anyway since I-2 (née US 83) is just a few miles north.

I can't see much decommissioning though before the freeways are complete.  US 81 in South Texas lasted quite a while after I-35 was done, for example. US 77 and 281 will probably get truncated, but we're likely stuck with US 83 until I-2 gets extended to Laredo–a partial extension is probably justifiable as far west as Roma today, but beyond there the traffic really isn't present until you hit Webb County.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on July 15, 2013, 11:41:03 PM
TxDOT is in the process of conducting an interstate development plan for US 281 (and a small piece of US 59) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/projects/281/fact_sheet.pdf)
Quote
The purpose of this study is to develop a plan to bring US 281 (from US 83 to I-37) and US 59 (from US 281 to I-37) up to Interstate design standards ...
The Alliance for I-69 Texas (http://i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update7.4.13%20study281.html)
Quote
The Texas Department of Transportation is conducting a study to determine what upgrade improvements will be necessary to bring US 281 up to interstate highway standards along the Interstate 69 Central route.
The study area begins at the intersection of US 59 and Interstate 37 in Live Oak County. It extends west on US 59 to George West and then south on US 281 to the intersection with Interstate 2/US 83 in the Lower Rio Grande Valley
Will 281 end in San Antonio or Pleasanton?
Why not George West?
I doubt they'd keep 281 to George West since they'll want to encourage traffic to travel on 69C
By seeing how the I-69 Aliance has never considered the section of US 281 from its break from I-37 near Three Rivers to George West for interstate upgrade, I am guessing that section of US 281 will stay.

It's interesting to note that the Alliance for I-69 Texas slightly misreported the US 281 upgrade to I-69C study area by incorrectly indicating that the US 59 to I-37 segment of US 281 is not included in the study area. Here's a snip of the map of the actual TxDOT study area (from the TxDOT link in the top quote):

(http://i.imgur.com/uFhaqtZ.jpg)

Assuming the entire TxDOT US 281 study area is upgraded to I-69C, I'm guessing Pleasanton. I also assume that a major question to be addressed by the study is whether an upgrade to the George West to Three Rivers section of US 281 would even be necessary in light of the comparatively short US 59 "I-69" section included in the study. If it is deemed not necessary, then George West.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on July 15, 2013, 11:55:36 PM
TxDOT is in the process of conducting an interstate development plan for US 281 (and a small piece of US 59) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/projects/281/fact_sheet.pdf)
Quote
The purpose of this study is to develop a plan to bring US 281 (from US 83 to I-37) and US 59 (from US 281 to I-37) up to Interstate design standards ...
The Alliance for I-69 Texas (http://i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update7.4.13%20study281.html)
Quote
The Texas Department of Transportation is conducting a study to determine what upgrade improvements will be necessary to bring US 281 up to interstate highway standards along the Interstate 69 Central route.
The study area begins at the intersection of US 59 and Interstate 37 in Live Oak County. It extends west on US 59 to George West and then south on US 281 to the intersection with Interstate 2/US 83 in the Lower Rio Grande Valley
Will 281 end in San Antonio or Pleasanton?
Why not George West?
I doubt they'd keep 281 to George West since they'll want to encourage traffic to travel on 69C
By seeing how the I-69 Aliance has never considered the section of US 281 from its break from I-37 near Three Rivers to George West for interstate upgrade, I am guessing that section of US 281 will stay.

It's interesting to note that the Alliance for I-69 Texas slightly misreported the US 281 upgrade to I-69C study area by incorrectly indicating that the US 59 to I-37 segment of US 281 is not included in the study area. Here's a snip of the map of the actual TxDOT study area (from the TxDOT link in the top quote):

(http://i.imgur.com/uFhaqtZ.jpg)

Assuming the entire TxDOT US 281 study area is upgraded to I-69C, I'm guessing Pleasanton. I also assume that a major question to be addressed by the study is whether an upgrade to the George West to Three Rivers section of US 281 would even be necessary in light of the comparatively short US 59 "I-69" section included in the study. If it is deemed not necessary, then George West.

That makes more sense for through traffic, but interestingly enough, it would make for a weird numbering situation.  I-69C would actually become a spur of I-37.  But don't worry, the suffixes as they are now have already messed things up.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on July 16, 2013, 01:16:50 AM
I think that Interstate 69 will have to be completed in Texas before decomissioning will happen. First you will have to have the "getting used to" period in which residents will start associating the new route numbers with the old route numbers. So it may take a while, but those US highways will be decommissioned. I think US 281 will be truncated in George West, US 77 in Victoria and US 59 in Texarkana.

If that's the case, US 59 will be truncated in Page, OK. From that point to Texarkana it's all concurrencies with US 270 and 71, and AHTD does not officially recognize the existence of US 59.

Don't you mean Heavener, OK?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on July 16, 2013, 01:39:15 AM
That makes more sense for through traffic, but interestingly enough, it would make for a weird numbering situation.  I-69C would actually become a spur of I-37.
US 25E is a spur of I-75, so why not?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Road Hog on July 16, 2013, 07:02:47 AM
I think that Interstate 69 will have to be completed in Texas before decomissioning will happen. First you will have to have the "getting used to" period in which residents will start associating the new route numbers with the old route numbers. So it may take a while, but those US highways will be decommissioned. I think US 281 will be truncated in George West, US 77 in Victoria and US 59 in Texarkana.

If that's the case, US 59 will be truncated in Page, OK. From that point to Texarkana it's all concurrencies with US 270 and 71, and AHTD does not officially recognize the existence of US 59.

Don't you mean Heavener, OK?

Yeah, that's right, I didn't notice the 270 duplex started there.

If you don't want a 2dus to end at a 3dus, you can snip 59 at Sallisaw and extend 259 up.

Or more simply, you can revert the two standalone sections of 59 south of Sallisaw to a state highway and remove all the 59 duplexes south of Spiro.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: thefro on July 16, 2013, 09:37:30 AM
I'm curious to find out what they do with US-59 from Victoria to George West once that eventually gets upgraded.  I'm guessing it will end up being I-69W and I-69C will split off of that at George West, but they could make it mainline I-69 or co-sign the whole road as I-69W & I-69C.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Henry on July 16, 2013, 10:10:54 AM
Perhaps I-2 would open the door for an I-1 or I-3 in CA. I used to think those numbers could not be used because HI already has them, but now I've changed my mind, as they're H-series and not regular I-numbers (H1, H2, H3).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: exit322 on July 16, 2013, 11:04:07 AM
Perhaps I-2 would open the door for an I-1 or I-3 in CA. I used to think those numbers could not be used because HI already has them, but now I've changed my mind, as they're H-series and not regular I-numbers (H1, H2, H3).

That's correct - though even if they were regular I- numbers, 76, 84, 86, 88 are all duplicated, so I don't think even that would have in theory precluded an I-1, I-2, or I-3 on the mainland.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on July 16, 2013, 11:05:37 AM
I'm curious to find out what they do with US-59 from Victoria to George West once that eventually gets upgraded.  I'm guessing it will end up being I-69W and I-69C will split off of that at George West, but they could make it mainline I-69 or co-sign the whole road as I-69W & I-69C.

The federal legislation that numerically designates I-69 indicates that Victoria to George West will be I-69. However, this July 15 TV video report (http://www.valleycentral.com/news/story.aspx?id=921845#.UeVeub7D-M8) reports that it may be I-69W:

Quote
The more than $700 million project will eventually consist of three I-69 legs; East, West and Central as well as US 83 converting to I-2.

The article does not clarify where I-69 would end and I-69W would begin.  If the transition were to be in George West, then George West may be destined for some variant of an I-69/I-69C/I-69W/US 281 interchange.  I'm sure that would create some interesting signage.  :sombrero:
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Rover_0 on July 16, 2013, 04:26:34 PM
Perhaps I-2 would open the door for an I-1 or I-3 in CA. I used to think those numbers could not be used because HI already has them, but now I've changed my mind, as they're H-series and not regular I-numbers (H1, H2, H3).

That's correct - though even if they were regular I- numbers, 76, 84, 86, 88 are all duplicated, so I don't think even that would have in theory precluded an I-1, I-2, or I-3 on the mainland.

There's also the fact that I-2 is a spur; I can't imagine a scenario where a hypothetical I-1 or I-3 don't at least start out as spurs.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: lordsutch on July 16, 2013, 09:40:56 PM
The federal legislation that numerically designates I-69 indicates that Victoria to George West will be I-69. However, this July 15 TV video report (http://www.valleycentral.com/news/story.aspx?id=921845#.UeVeub7D-M8) reports that it may be I-69W...

Straight from the horse's mouth: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm#l18 (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm#l18)

Unlike with I-69E and I-69C, there is no legal authority requiring, or even allowing, AASHTO or FHWA to designate an "I-69 West" or any variant thereof. It seems to me that legally mainline I-69 would have to go to Laredo, unless ISTEA is modified to designate an "I-69W."

(And, frankly, now that the valley has split the baby on getting the 2di designation, I don't think they'll fuss too much about Laredo getting I-69 instead of I-69W.)

Then again there's a good chance no "I-69W" ever gets built per se. Laredo-Freer-Alice-Corpus is a much greater priority for traffic relief and connectivity than Laredo-Freer-George West-Beeville-Victoria, given the finite pot of money available.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: vdeane on July 16, 2013, 09:49:38 PM
I still don't understand why Texas is building three I-69s in the valley.  It seems clear to me that the original law gave a general corridor and the states were to build I-69 in some path within that corridor - not build up every nook and cranny in the corridor as Texas is doing.  I would have just picked whatever would give the most bang for my buck and told the other communities "screw you".
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on July 16, 2013, 10:00:22 PM
It seems clear to me that the original law gave a general corridor and the states were to build I-69 in some path within that corridor - not build up every nook and cranny in the corridor as Texas is doing.  I would have just picked whatever would give the most bang for my buck and told the other communities "screw you".
You're right about the original law (ISTEA, 1991), but it was amended by TEA-21 (1998):
Quote
(D) In the Lower Rio Grande Valley, the Corridor shall--
    (i) include United States Route 77 from the Rio Grande River to Interstate Route 37 at Corpus Christi, Texas, and then to Victoria, Texas, via U.S. Route 77;
    (ii) include United States Route 281 from the Rio Grande River to Interstate Route 37 and then to Victoria, Texas, via United States Route 59; and
    (iii) include the Corpus Christi Northside Highway and Rail Corridor from the existing intersection of United States Route 77 and Interstate Route 37 to United States Route 181, including FM511 from United States Route 77 to the Port of Brownsville.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on July 16, 2013, 10:42:28 PM
You're right about the original law (ISTEA, 1991), but it was amended by TEA-21 (1998):
Quote
(D) In the Lower Rio Grande Valley, the Corridor shall--
    (ii) include United States Route 281 from the Rio Grande River to Interstate Route 37 and then to Victoria, Texas, via United States Route 59

It's interesting that TxDOT's US 281 Planning and Feasibility Study (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/projects/281/fact_sheet.pdf) study area does not include US 281 "from the Rio Grande River" to US 83/I-2 (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Hidalgo,+TX&hl=en&ll=26.150507,-98.207817&spn=0.238839,0.307274&sll=32.678125,-83.178297&sspn=7.163737,9.832764&oq=hidalgo+tx&hnear=Hidalgo,+Texas&t=h&z=12):

Quote
Study Purpose
The purpose of this study is to develop a plan to bring US 281 (from US 83 to I-37) and US 59 (from US 281 to I-37) up to Interstate design standards

First, does Google Maps incorrectly show a TX 241/US 281 overlap into Hidalgo, and then presumably to the Rio Grande? Then, have TxDOT et al abandoned efforts to include US 281 "from the Rio Grande River" to US 83/I-2 as part of I-69C?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: lordsutch on July 16, 2013, 11:10:56 PM
First, does Google Maps incorrectly show a TX 241/US 281 overlap into Hidalgo, and then presumably to the Rio Grande?

No, that's correct. US 281 is signed with three legs. Officially I think that's Spur 241, but it's signed as US 281. Even better: like US 83 in the area, it's marked Eastbound (http://goo.gl/maps/lEy1i) and Westbound (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=brownsville,+tx&hl=en&ll=26.097276,-98.220563&spn=0.005453,0.017359&sll=32.832718,-83.644169&sspn=0.179723,0.277748&t=h&hnear=Brownsville,+Cameron,+Texas&z=16&layer=c&cbll=26.097277,-98.220555&panoid=Ohm6FEgQwM6Nc7D5_BqjAQ&cbp=11,280.72,,1,-0.06).

Quote
Then, have TxDOT et al abandoned efforts to include US 281 "from the Rio Grande River" to US 83/I-2 as part of I-69C?

Well, technically US 281 starts in Brownsville near the Rio Grande River.  You could make the argument that I-69E to I-2 fulfills that requirement even if it's not signed as I-69C along there.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on July 16, 2013, 11:20:05 PM
^ Thanks for the info.  Your I-69E to I-2 observation as satisfying the US 281 statutory purpose seems like a practical solution that is roughly analogous to Loop 20 being a practical alternative to US 59 in Laredo. It may have even been part of the justification of including I-2 as part of the I-69 "system". Problem solved.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: english si on July 17, 2013, 07:46:13 AM
Looking at this I-69 HPC stuff it is very confusing:
Quote
Corridor from Sarnia, Ontario, Canada, through Port Huron, Michigan, southwesterly along Interstate Route 69 through Indianapolis, Indiana, through Evansville, Indiana, Memphis, Tennessee, Mississippi, Arkansas, Shreveport / Bossier Louisiana, to Houston, Texas, and to the Lower Rio Grande Valley at the border between the United States and Mexico, as follows: [I-69]
Right, that makes sense. Sarnia - Port Huron - Indianapolis - Evansville - Memphis - MS - AR - Shreveport / Bossier - Houston - Lower Rio Grande Valley (unspecific where in that valley) is I-69 and I-69 is the corridor. The bit through AR is a defined future bit of the corridor, but not currently part of the corridor as it isn't I-69.

Then there's more detail, where it goes crazy:
Quote
A. In Michigan, the corridor shall be from Sarnia, Ontario, Canada, southwesterly along Interstate Route 94 to the Ambassador Bridge interchange in Detroit, Michigan.
B. In Michigan and Illinois, the corridor shall be from Windsor, Ontario, Canada, through Detroit, Michigan, westerly along Interstate Route 94 to Chicago, Illinois.
So I-94 is the route of I-69 between Sarnia and Indianapolis? Chicago wasn't mentioned in the summary above. Nor Windsor...

The language here leaves no room for I-69 to also be the corridor in MI. Really poor writing.
Quote
C. In Tennessee, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Louisiana, the Corridor shall--
 i. follow the alignment generally identified in the Corridor 18 Special Issues Study Final Report; and
 ii. include a connection between the Corridor east of Wilmar, Arkansas, and west of Monticello, Arkansas, to Pine Bluff, Arkansas
Fine, though does that mean that the I-530 extension is part of I-69?
Quote
In the Lower Rio Grande Valley, the Corridor shall-
 i. include United States Route 77 from the Rio Grande River to Interstate Route 37 at Corpus Christi, Texas, and then to Victoria, Texas, via United States Route 77; [I-69 East]
I-69 E defined in law from Victoria to the border.
Quote
ii. include United States Route 281 from the Rio Grande River to Interstate Route 37 and then to Victoria, Texas, via United States Route 59; [I-69 Central]
wait a minute. I-69C is legally defined to Victoria, and includes a three-way junction with itself at George West (or does it then, on arriving at I-37 north of Three Rivers take I-37 to US 59?)
Quote
and
 iii. include the Corpus Christi North-side Highway and Rail Corridor from the existing intersection of United States Route 77 and Interstate Route 37 to United States Route 181, including FM511 from United States Route 77 to the Port of Brownsville.
Where's Laredo? Laredo isn't explicitly defined as part of the I-69 corridor 18, and can therefore have whatever number TX DOT, AASHTO and the FHWA choose to give it. Ditto the Texarkana spur, US 83 and TX 44. However, the North-side Highway is part of I-69 (with no legally defined suffix).

And how can the Corpus Christi North-side Highway and Rail Corridor also be including FM511? Which is also I-69 with no legally defined suffix.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on July 17, 2013, 08:06:10 AM
The federal legislation that numerically designates I-69 indicates that Victoria to George West will be I-69. However, this July 15 TV video report (http://www.valleycentral.com/news/story.aspx?id=921845#.UeVeub7D-M8) reports that it may be I-69W...
Straight from the horse's mouth: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm#l18 (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm#l18)
Unlike with I-69E and I-69C, there is no legal authority requiring, or even allowing, AASHTO or FHWA to designate an "I-69 West" or any variant thereof. It seems to me that legally mainline I-69 would have to go to Laredo, unless ISTEA is modified to designate an "I-69W."

I agree that a straightforward reading of HPC 20 would require an I-69 designation along the US 59 corridor from Laredo to Houston, etc. (from above FHWA link):

Quote
20.United States Route 59 Corridor from Laredo, Texas, through Houston, Texas, to the vicinity of Texarkana, Texas. [I-69]

That said, FHWA has already created possible I-69W "wiggle room" by allowing a common sense Tenaha-to-Texarkana I-369 "spur" exception to the HPC 20 language (and thus avoiding an I-69/I-69 interchange near Tenaha). A somewhat similar argument might be made that "mainline" I-69 ends in either Victoria (where I-69E branches off) or George West (where I-69C branches off), and that the remainder of the US 59 corridor to Laredo is a "third prong spur".  Since the other two prongs are "East" and "Central", the "Laredo prong spur" could be designated "West" without running afoul of the statutory language (looking to the I-369 Texarkana spur as precedent).  It would only make sense to have "West" be part of a system that already includes "East" and "Central".

I don't support such an argument, and I suspect FHWA would not buy it, but I think TxDOT could at least make it with a straight face.

edit

Quote
In the Lower Rio Grande Valley, the Corridor shall-
ii. include United States Route 281 from the Rio Grande River to Interstate Route 37 and then to Victoria, Texas, via United States Route 59; [I-69 Central]
wait a minute. I-69C is legally defined to Victoria, and includes a three-way junction with itself at George West (or does it then, on arriving at I-37 north of Three Rivers take I-37 to US 59?)

english si's observation strengthens the case for an I-69W designation.  An argument might go as follows: Since US 59 from Victoria to George West (approximately 80 miles) is statutorily defined as I-69C in HPC 18, and Victoria is also where I-69E begins its US 77 route to Brownsville, then Congress must have intended that "mainline" I-69 end in Victoria where the Central and East prongs branch off. With that in mind, Congress surely did not intend an eighty-mile I-69/I-69C overlap and must have intended that a US 59 western spur would branch off of I-69C at the George West US 59/US 281 junction where I-69C begins its US 281 southward route toward the border.  A natural designation for the US 59 western spur would be "I-69W".


Really poor writing.

Yep.



Straight from the horse's mouth: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm#l18 (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm#l18)

Correct orifice?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: thefro on July 17, 2013, 09:48:15 AM
Yeah, I think this is a case of sloppy amendment work more than anything since originally corridors 18 & 20 were seperate.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Henry on July 17, 2013, 10:17:07 AM
Perhaps I-2 would open the door for an I-1 or I-3 in CA. I used to think those numbers could not be used because HI already has them, but now I've changed my mind, as they're H-series and not regular I-numbers (H1, H2, H3).

That's correct - though even if they were regular I- numbers, 76, 84, 86, 88 are all duplicated, so I don't think even that would have in theory precluded an I-1, I-2, or I-3 on the mainland.

There's also the fact that I-2 is a spur; I can't imagine a scenario where a hypothetical I-1 or I-3 don't at least start out as spurs.
I could see that happening too! As CA 1 is an iconic number, I-3 would be a better fit, seeing that the out-of-place highway in GA will most likely never be built.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: vdeane on July 17, 2013, 09:25:25 PM
It seems clear to me that the original law gave a general corridor and the states were to build I-69 in some path within that corridor - not build up every nook and cranny in the corridor as Texas is doing.  I would have just picked whatever would give the most bang for my buck and told the other communities "screw you".
You're right about the original law (ISTEA, 1991), but it was amended by TEA-21 (1998):
Quote
(D) In the Lower Rio Grande Valley, the Corridor shall--
    (i) include United States Route 77 from the Rio Grande River to Interstate Route 37 at Corpus Christi, Texas, and then to Victoria, Texas, via U.S. Route 77;
    (ii) include United States Route 281 from the Rio Grande River to Interstate Route 37 and then to Victoria, Texas, via United States Route 59; and
    (iii) include the Corpus Christi Northside Highway and Rail Corridor from the existing intersection of United States Route 77 and Interstate Route 37 to United States Route 181, including FM511 from United States Route 77 to the Port of Brownsville.
Wouldn't a corridor and a finished route be different things though?  I'm aware of other states (I'm looking at you, WV) that have explicitly refused to build similar interstates mandated by legislation, and they don't seem to have trouble.

Don't see numbers there either, but maybe they're define something else.  I don't consider suffixed interstates to be a part of their parent routes, which means we technically have three I-35s, for example.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: TXtoNJ on July 21, 2013, 06:41:46 PM
I still don't understand why Texas is building three I-69s in the valley.

Like every other bit of highway-related stupidity: local politicians
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: english si on July 22, 2013, 05:31:47 AM
Though Laredo is some way from the other two bits.

And hey, the other two bits are far enough apart to have a two-di that simply links them :P
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on July 22, 2013, 08:21:08 AM
69C & 2 (as one highway named...37?) would have been fine
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: roadman65 on July 23, 2013, 09:25:25 AM
I am interested in seeing the exit numbering scheme.  Being that all three routes begin I-69's southern end, they each will basically have its own numbering scheme, unlike I-35E that has a continuation of I-35's numbering with only I-35W having its own.  Does anyone know which one of the three trunks, will I-69 carry north of the confluence?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: HandsomeRob on July 23, 2013, 10:33:57 PM
I am interested in seeing the exit numbering scheme.  Being that all three routes begin I-69's southern end, they each will basically have its own numbering scheme, unlike I-35E that has a continuation of I-35's numbering with only I-35W having its own.  Does anyone know which one of the three trunks, will I-69 carry north of the confluence?
Most likely whichever one is longest (69E?) so as to avoid any duplicate exit numbers.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: roadman65 on July 24, 2013, 03:31:52 PM
I am interested in seeing the exit numbering scheme.  Being that all three routes begin I-69's southern end, they each will basically have its own numbering scheme, unlike I-35E that has a continuation of I-35's numbering with only I-35W having its own.  Does anyone know which one of the three trunks, will I-69 carry north of the confluence?
Most likely whichever one is longest (69E?) so as to avoid any duplicate exit numbers.
The funny thing is on I-35 the longer one has its own exit numbers.  I-35W is longer than I-35E and I-35E carries I-35's straight through exit numbers. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on July 24, 2013, 03:43:08 PM
I am interested in seeing the exit numbering scheme.  Being that all three routes begin I-69's southern end, they each will basically have its own numbering scheme, unlike I-35E that has a continuation of I-35's numbering with only I-35W having its own.  Does anyone know which one of the three trunks, will I-69 carry north of the confluence?
Most likely whichever one is longest (69E?) so as to avoid any duplicate exit numbers.
The funny thing is on I-35 the longer one has its own exit numbers.  I-35W is longer than I-35E and I-35E carries I-35's straight through exit numbers. 
35e is the "implied main route" though thru traffic would more likely go through Fort Worth
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: RoadWarrior56 on July 24, 2013, 04:04:49 PM
I am pretty sure there is an AASHTO mileage convention that in the case of split routes, the East (E) or north branch (N) carries the through mileage.  I believe I-35E carries the through mileage through St. Paul, MN, as well.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on July 24, 2013, 04:41:49 PM
I am interested in seeing the exit numbering scheme.  Being that all three routes begin I-69's southern end, they each will basically have its own numbering scheme, unlike I-35E that has a continuation of I-35's numbering with only I-35W having its own.  Does anyone know which one of the three trunks, will I-69 carry north of the confluence?
Most likely whichever one is longest (69E?) so as to avoid any duplicate exit numbers.
The funny thing is on I-35 the longer one has its own exit numbers.  I-35W is longer than I-35E and I-35E carries I-35's straight through exit numbers.

Negative. Interstate 35E is well known to be the longer of the two routes, and it is well know if you are south of the split (San Antonio, Austin, Waco) and you are going to points north, like Oklahoma City, the through route is the 85 mile long Interstate 35W vs. the 97 mile Interstate 35E that winds more east than the more straight 35W. Funny thing is, with their Minnesota counterparts, Interstate 35E is also the longer of the two and carries the overall Interstate 35 mileage. I don't think there is an AASHTO rule, I think in both situations they took the route with the longest miles.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Molandfreak on July 24, 2013, 04:53:35 PM
I am interested in seeing the exit numbering scheme.  Being that all three routes begin I-69's southern end, they each will basically have its own numbering scheme, unlike I-35E that has a continuation of I-35's numbering with only I-35W having its own.  Does anyone know which one of the three trunks, will I-69 carry north of the confluence?
Most likely whichever one is longest (69E?) so as to avoid any duplicate exit numbers.
The funny thing is on I-35 the longer one has its own exit numbers.  I-35W is longer than I-35E and I-35E carries I-35's straight through exit numbers.

Negative. Interstate 35E is well known to be the longer of the two routes, and it is well know if you are south of the split (San Antonio, Austin, Waco) and you are going to points north, like Oklahoma City, the through route is the 85 mile long Interstate 35W vs. the 97 mile Interstate 35E that winds more east than the more straight 35W. Funny thing is, with their Minnesota counterparts, Interstate 35E is also the longer of the two and carries the overall Interstate 35 mileage. I don't think there is an AASHTO rule, I think in both situations they took the route with the longest miles.
No. I-35W is longer than I-35E in Minnesota (39 vs. 41 miles).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on July 24, 2013, 05:07:00 PM
I am interested in seeing the exit numbering scheme.  Being that all three routes begin I-69's southern end, they each will basically have its own numbering scheme, unlike I-35E that has a continuation of I-35's numbering with only I-35W having its own.  Does anyone know which one of the three trunks, will I-69 carry north of the confluence?
Most likely whichever one is longest (69E?) so as to avoid any duplicate exit numbers.
The funny thing is on I-35 the longer one has its own exit numbers.  I-35W is longer than I-35E and I-35E carries I-35's straight through exit numbers.

Negative. Interstate 35E is well known to be the longer of the two routes, and it is well know if you are south of the split (San Antonio, Austin, Waco) and you are going to points north, like Oklahoma City, the through route is the 85 mile long Interstate 35W vs. the 97 mile Interstate 35E that winds more east than the more straight 35W. Funny thing is, with their Minnesota counterparts, Interstate 35E is also the longer of the two and carries the overall Interstate 35 mileage. I don't think there is an AASHTO rule, I think in both situations they took the route with the longest miles.
No. I-35W is longer than I-35E in Minnesota (39 vs. 41 miles).

Whoops!  My mistake.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Molandfreak on July 24, 2013, 05:11:24 PM
I am interested in seeing the exit numbering scheme.  Being that all three routes begin I-69's southern end, they each will basically have its own numbering scheme, unlike I-35E that has a continuation of I-35's numbering with only I-35W having its own.  Does anyone know which one of the three trunks, will I-69 carry north of the confluence?
Most likely whichever one is longest (69E?) so as to avoid any duplicate exit numbers.
The funny thing is on I-35 the longer one has its own exit numbers.  I-35W is longer than I-35E and I-35E carries I-35's straight through exit numbers.

Negative. Interstate 35E is well known to be the longer of the two routes, and it is well know if you are south of the split (San Antonio, Austin, Waco) and you are going to points north, like Oklahoma City, the through route is the 85 mile long Interstate 35W vs. the 97 mile Interstate 35E that winds more east than the more straight 35W. Funny thing is, with their Minnesota counterparts, Interstate 35E is also the longer of the two and carries the overall Interstate 35 mileage. I don't think there is an AASHTO rule, I think in both situations they took the route with the longest miles.
No. I-35W is longer than I-35E in Minnesota (39 vs. 41 miles).

Whoops!  My mistake.
To be fair, 35E was built later with three different routing possibilities at the time 35W was finished, so they may have had to choose one route to carry on the miles and stick with it.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: RoadWarrior56 on July 24, 2013, 07:21:29 PM
There really is a rule or convention that sets priorities on which branch continues the mileage, I saw it somewhere, I just don't remember where.  Notice that both 35E's carry the through mileage, which is consistent with it.  It would also apply to the North branch of an east-west interstate, if there were any left.  By the time Texas is through, there may eventually be an I-69N and I-69S to go along with the rest of the family.  In all seriousness, I don't think an I-69C occured to anybody in determining mileage.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: roadman65 on July 24, 2013, 10:08:36 PM
I do not know why they do not leave I-69C as mainline I-69 and the other two as suffixed routes.  Then again, why can't the I-69W be I-6 or an x69 and I-37 be an I-37 extension either, this is a precident for sure.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: CanesFan27 on July 25, 2013, 08:21:13 AM
I do not know why they do not leave I-69C as mainline I-69 and the other two as suffixed routes.  Then again, why can't the I-69W be I-6 or an x69 and I-37 be an I-37 extension either, this is a precident for sure.

Because they knew this would be a discussion topic for the next 20 years in this forum - and decided to #trollsohard
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on July 25, 2013, 10:32:03 AM
I am interested in seeing the exit numbering scheme.  Being that all three routes begin I-69's southern end, they each will basically have its own numbering scheme, unlike I-35E that has a continuation of I-35's numbering with only I-35W having its own.  Does anyone know which one of the three trunks, will I-69 carry north of the confluence?
Most likely whichever one is longest (69E?) so as to avoid any duplicate exit numbers.
The funny thing is on I-35 the longer one has its own exit numbers.  I-35W is longer than I-35E and I-35E carries I-35's straight through exit numbers.

Negative. Interstate 35E is well known to be the longer of the two routes, and it is well know if you are south of the split (San Antonio, Austin, Waco) and you are going to points north, like Oklahoma City, the through route is the 85 mile long Interstate 35W vs. the 97 mile Interstate 35E that winds more east than the more straight 35W. Funny thing is, with their Minnesota counterparts, Interstate 35E is also the longer of the two and carries the overall Interstate 35 mileage. I don't think there is an AASHTO rule, I think in both situations they took the route with the longest miles.
No. I-35W is longer than I-35E in Minnesota (39 vs. 41 miles).

But you drive 35W because 35E is the practice freeway with a 45 MPH speed limit in saint paul
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Molandfreak on July 25, 2013, 10:38:41 AM
I am interested in seeing the exit numbering scheme.  Being that all three routes begin I-69's southern end, they each will basically have its own numbering scheme, unlike I-35E that has a continuation of I-35's numbering with only I-35W having its own.  Does anyone know which one of the three trunks, will I-69 carry north of the confluence?
Most likely whichever one is longest (69E?) so as to avoid any duplicate exit numbers.
The funny thing is on I-35 the longer one has its own exit numbers.  I-35W is longer than I-35E and I-35E carries I-35's straight through exit numbers.

Negative. Interstate 35E is well known to be the longer of the two routes, and it is well know if you are south of the split (San Antonio, Austin, Waco) and you are going to points north, like Oklahoma City, the through route is the 85 mile long Interstate 35W vs. the 97 mile Interstate 35E that winds more east than the more straight 35W. Funny thing is, with their Minnesota counterparts, Interstate 35E is also the longer of the two and carries the overall Interstate 35 mileage. I don't think there is an AASHTO rule, I think in both situations they took the route with the longest miles.
No. I-35W is longer than I-35E in Minnesota (39 vs. 41 miles).

But you drive 35W because 35E is the practice freeway with a 45 MPH speed limit in saint paul
In a nutshell, yes, but when all the work at the 35W-62 ramps was taking place, your best bet was to take 35E. Has there ever been a situation like this in Texas?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on July 25, 2013, 10:46:02 AM
I am interested in seeing the exit numbering scheme.  Being that all three routes begin I-69's southern end, they each will basically have its own numbering scheme, unlike I-35E that has a continuation of I-35's numbering with only I-35W having its own.  Does anyone know which one of the three trunks, will I-69 carry north of the confluence?
Most likely whichever one is longest (69E?) so as to avoid any duplicate exit numbers.
The funny thing is on I-35 the longer one has its own exit numbers.  I-35W is longer than I-35E and I-35E carries I-35's straight through exit numbers.

Negative. Interstate 35E is well known to be the longer of the two routes, and it is well know if you are south of the split (San Antonio, Austin, Waco) and you are going to points north, like Oklahoma City, the through route is the 85 mile long Interstate 35W vs. the 97 mile Interstate 35E that winds more east than the more straight 35W. Funny thing is, with their Minnesota counterparts, Interstate 35E is also the longer of the two and carries the overall Interstate 35 mileage. I don't think there is an AASHTO rule, I think in both situations they took the route with the longest miles.
No. I-35W is longer than I-35E in Minnesota (39 vs. 41 miles).

But you drive 35W because 35E is the practice freeway with a 45 MPH speed limit in saint paul
In a nutshell, yes, but when all the work at the 35W-62 ramps was taking place, your best bet was to take 35E. Has there ever been a situation like this in Texas?

Not that I remember. It seems that all the major road work happens in Dallas.  Maybe back when Interstate 20 was being re-routed around Dallas and Ft. Worth, since they worked on it going from east to west, so when the I-20 and I-35W interchange was being worked on, it's counterpart in DeSoto was completed. Funny, I was in Dallas Sunday night and they had only the right hand lane open southbound on I-35E for repaving. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on July 25, 2013, 02:23:42 PM
We don't go to DFW often but there's ALWAYS construction somewhere on it.  ALWAYS!
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on July 25, 2013, 02:27:17 PM
Quote
Then, have TxDOT et al abandoned efforts to include US 281 "from the Rio Grande River" to US 83/I-2 as part of I-69C?
Well, technically US 281 starts in Brownsville near the Rio Grande River.  You could make the argument that I-69E to I-2 fulfills that requirement even if it's not signed as I-69C along there.

At its November 16, 2012 meeting, the AASHTO Special Committee on U.S. Route Numbering disapproved TxDOT's request for an interstate designation for US 83 (http://route.transportation.org/Documents/SCOH%20Report%2011-16-2012.pdf), in part because TxDOT had not specified a number for the designation (page 1/7 of pdf).  In looking at the Texas Transportation Commission September 27, 2012 Minutes (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2012/documents/minutes/sept27.pdf), I'm beginning to wonder if Texas did not specify a number because they may have thought that the federal legislation did not give them a choice in the matter (pp. 29-30/34 of pdf):

Quote
This minute order authorizes the department to petition the AASHTO Special Committee on US Route Numbering to recognize one or more segments of US 83 as logical additions to the Interstate System, with the condition that FHWA finds that each segment meets the criteria contained in Appendix A to Subpart A of 23 CFR Part 470 and approves the addition to the Interstate System. It is further recognized that it is the purview of the AASHTO Special Committee on US Route Numbering to assign an Interstate route number to the designated highway in coordination with FHWA.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED by the Texas Transportation Commission (commission) that the department is authorized to submit an application to the AASHTO Special Committee on US Route Numbering requesting the recognition of one or more segments of US 83 in the Rio Grande Valley as logical additions to the Interstate System.
IT IS UNDERSTOOD that following approval by the AASHTO Special Committee on US Route Numbering and FHWA, the commission will designate the segments with the assigned Interstate route number by minute order.

I wonder if Texas officials were concerned that, since the US 83 routing between US 281 and US 77 (plus US 77 to the border) is basically a substitute for US 281 from US 83 to near the border, a strict reading of the statute would have required US 83 between US 281 and US 77 to be designated as I-69C and would have also required the US 83 segment from US 281 westward to have been assigned another interstate designation? Such a concern would explain the language "one or more segments of US 83".  It would also explain the language that "it is the purview" of AASHTO to "assign an Interstate route number".  In short, Texas may have been telling FHWA/AASHTO: "You tell us what the statute requires".

I assume that, once AASHTO kicked it backed to TxDOT, TxDOT took it as a green light to go for I-2 for the entire US 83 segment at the May, 2013 AASHTO meeting.  Maybe one day the "inside story" will be revealed as to why Texas did not initially request a specific interstate number for US 83.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on July 25, 2013, 02:28:18 PM
I still think I-2 should eventually be part of an extension of I-35
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on July 25, 2013, 05:02:38 PM
Straight from the horse's mouth: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm#l18 (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm#l18)
Unlike with I-69E and I-69C, there is no legal authority requiring, or even allowing, AASHTO or FHWA to designate an "I-69 West" or any variant thereof. It seems to me that legally mainline I-69 would have to go to Laredo, unless ISTEA is modified to designate an "I-69W."
Quote
In the Lower Rio Grande Valley, the Corridor shall-
ii. include United States Route 281 from the Rio Grande River to Interstate Route 37 and then to Victoria, Texas, via United States Route 59; [I-69 Central]
wait a minute. I-69C is legally defined to Victoria, and includes a three-way junction with itself at George West (or does it then, on arriving at I-37 north of Three Rivers take I-37 to US 59?)
english si's observation strengthens the case for an I-69W designation.

I just received an email from FHWA and their current interpretation of HPC 18 and HPC 20 shoots down an I-69W notion in flames, and it allows TxDOT to choose between I-69C and I-69 for the Victoria to George West segment of US 59:

Quote
US 59 from Victoria to George West can be I-69 or I-69C, which ever Texas Department of Transportation requests.
US 59 from George West to Laredo can be I-69, but not I-69W or I-X69 (spur).  This is based on the current law.

But if TxDOT chooses I-69C for Victoria to George West .....................  :bigass:
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on July 25, 2013, 05:49:56 PM
But the current law does not allow for I-369.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on July 25, 2013, 06:07:57 PM
But the current law does not allow for I-369.

Agreed: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg233401#msg233401

The FHWA official seems to have concluded that the Tenaha-to-Texarkana segment of the I-69 Corridor is a "spur" (thus allowing I-369), whereas the George West-to-Laredo segment of the I-69 Corridor is not a "spur" (thus not allowing an I-x69).

Of course, the legislation is silent on "spur" distinctions.  Hardly worth litigation, however.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Alps on July 25, 2013, 06:55:41 PM
But if TxDOT chooses I-69C for Victoria to George West .....................  :bigass:
... for someone from 1,500 miles away - does that mean there would be a gap in 69?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on July 25, 2013, 07:03:07 PM
does that mean there would be a gap in 69?

Yes.  TxDOT now has apparent permission to create a "western" ("southern"?) I-69 and an "eastern" ("northern"?) I-69 to add to their repertoire of I-69C, I-69E, and I-369.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on July 25, 2013, 07:52:41 PM
Quote
18. Corridor from Sarnia, Ontario, Canada, through Port Huron, Michigan ....
D.In the Lower Rio Grande Valley, the Corridor shall ....
iii. include the Corpus Christi North-side Highway and Rail Corridor from the existing intersection of United States Route 77 and Interstate Route 37 to United States Route 181
I'm not sure what the reference to the "Corpus Christi North-side Highway and Rail Corridor" means.
The red road here, I think: http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=27.8373&lon=-97.4984&zoom=13&layers=M
(above quotes from AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9416.msg231246#msg231246) thread)

Not surprisingly, I just received a FHWA email confirming NE2's guess:

Quote
This is a proposed Interstate 69 connector for the existing “Joe Fulton International Trade Corridor”  that connects at US 181 on the east end and I-37 on the west end at Carbon Plant Road.  I-37 then proceeds northwest and connects to US 77 (proposed I-69 E).

This 2007 article (http://www.caller.com/news/2007/oct/17/fulton-corridor-will-open-now-land-can-be-port/) reports on the opening of the Joe Fulton International Trade Corridor:

Quote
A dream of Port of Corpus Christi commissioners more than 15 years ago will become an achievement Friday when the Joe Fulton International Trade Corridor opens to the public .... The 11.8-mile road and rail project has cost the port more than $51 million and adds an alternate route for vehicles and rail lines wanting access to the north side of the Inner Harbor, where 1,000 acres of previously inaccessible land await development.
Prior to the corridor, vehicles relied on the Harbor Bridge and the Tule Lake Lift Bridge, which also was used by railcars. Neither gave access to that 1,000 acres .... The corridor runs from U.S. Highway 181 along the north side of the Inner Harbor to Carbon Plant Road, where it connects to Interstate Highway 37.

Here is a map of the Joe Fulton International Trade Corridor from the article:

(http://i.imgur.com/HIyRdeS.jpg)

edit

Enjoy the direct connection from I-37 southbound to the Joe Fulton International Trade Corridor:

Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on August 18, 2013, 09:23:04 AM
The TxDOT I-69 Driven By Texans website has posted a May 7, 2013 Agenda (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/committees/angelina_nacogdoches/050713_materials.pdf) for the US 59 Scoping Study. A comparison of the direct route vs. the relief routes sets up an interesting choice of lower cost/longer environmental review for the relief routes vs. higher cost/shorter environmental review for the direct US 59 route (page 43/43 of pdf)
Sounds to me like the Upgrade US 59 option would be the most warranted, but with retaining the Dibold bypass.

The TxDOT I-69 Driven By Texans website has posted a August 19 Agenda (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/committees/angelina_nacogdoches/081913_materials.pdf) for the US 59 Scoping Study in which it appears that the two committees have both selected the US 59 upgrade option with "option refinements":

Angelina County (page 21/22 of pdf):
(http://i.imgur.com/9IU7rXN.jpg)

Nacogdoches County (page 22/22 of pdf):
(http://i.imgur.com/sofFDJ1.jpg)

The top priority for the Angelina County Committee is development of the Diboll relief route (page 20/22 of pdf):

Quote
The number one priority of Angelina County Committee members is advancing the development of the Diboll Relief Route. TxDOT completed the environmental process and had approved schematic design plans in 1999 for this project, but because of the elapsed time, an environmental reevaluation will be required. TxDOT is proceeding forward with preparing a reevaluation of the environmental assessment and with ROW mapping updates.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bassoon1986 on August 19, 2013, 05:37:33 PM
I'm loving how quick the US 59 upgrades seem to be happening north of Houston. I'd love to drive this soon and see what construction might be happening. I drove west across Lufkin on US 69 a few months ago and there were upgrades/realignment on the US 59 loop from US 69 south to the US 59 north exit.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on August 28, 2013, 08:55:44 AM
The TxDOT I-69 Driven By Texans website has posted a August 19 Agenda (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/committees/angelina_nacogdoches/081913_materials.pdf) for the US 59 Scoping Study in which it appears that the two committees have both selected the US 59 upgrade option with "option refinements"

The August 19 Angelina County Recommendation map (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/projects/59/angelina-county-map.pdf) and the August 19 Nacogdoches County Recommendation map (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/projects/59/nacogdoches-county-map.pdf) are now posted on the TxDOT website.



The Alliance for I-69 Texas website (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update9.5.13%20Lufkin%20Nacog.html) has posted a map combining the recommendations from the two county committees, as well as a priority list from each county:

(http://i.imgur.com/LKOovhX.jpg)

Quote
The committees recommended the following priority projects:

NACOGDOCHES COUNTY
1. Improvements at the south interchange of US 59 and Loop 224 is the top priority regardless of which route option is carried forward in the environmental process.
2. From SH 21 to just north of the US 259/US 59interchange.
3. From the Angelina County line to SH 7
4. From SH 7 to SH 21
5. From north of US 259 to Appleby

ANGELINA COUNTY
1. Diboll relief route
2. Upgrade US 59/Loop 287 from US 69 to north of SH 103
3. Section from Burke to near Lufkin High School
4. Sections of US 59 north of Loop 287 to the Angelina River
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: roadman65 on September 05, 2013, 11:05:21 AM
Will I-69E in Kenedy County have interchanges being that there are no major crossroads in the entire county?  I know that on other Texas interstates they have named interchanges with the two frontage roads with an underpass between the ramps to allow U turns and such, will they do that here?

I noticed that Kenedy County seems more like a private residence as its lack of towns roads and the fact it has a very low population.  Most of all its lack of businesses along the current US 77 that is the county's only through route and highway. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: wxfree on September 05, 2013, 11:21:48 AM
Will I-69E in Kenedy County have interchanges being that there are no major crossroads in the entire county?  I know that on other Texas interstates they have named interchanges with the two frontage roads with an underpass between the ramps to allow U turns and such, will they do that here?

I noticed that Kenedy County seems more like a private residence as its lack of towns roads and the fact it has a very low population.  Most of all its lack of businesses along the current US 77 that is the county's only through route and highway.

I wish I could remember where I saw this (it's probably linked to somewhere upthread).  As I remember, the current (unfunded) plans call for an interchange at Sarita and a few others along the length of the county.  I also remember the private ranch roads having ramps allowing access to and from only the near side of the freeway.  Unless there's a physical barrier, many will probably just make illegal crossings, but the idea is that they'd drive to the nearest interchange and turn around as needed to get to their destinations.

Edit:  A quick look back reveals this link http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update7.13.12%20us77.html (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update7.13.12%20us77.html)  At the bottom is a drawing and this quote:
Quote
Overpasses will be built at intervals of 5 to 10 miles to allow traffic to reverse direction.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: roadman65 on September 05, 2013, 11:42:19 AM
One thing that amazes me about the county is NO GAS.  It even states it on signs along US 77 entering the county that there are NO SERVICES for 50 plus miles.  You would figure for the benefit of the few that live there that they would at least have one! 

It must be awkward for them to have to drive to either Kingsville or Raymondville to gas up and buy groceries.  I cannot imagine them either driving to the nearest interchange and make a u turn after years of being able to turn out of your driveway to make a left turn.

To me our federal income taxes are being wasted here as really the current US 77 really does not create that much of an obstacle for free trade truckers as it does have interstate (or at least close to) speed limits and with the limited access it already has the truckers that the corridor is supposed to serve will not really save that much in time to warrant billions of dollars just to upgrade a simple roadway.

Why not let us here in Florida use it on roads that are already crowded or other such cities around the U.S that need the money for better roads, or even better yet get I-49 done in Arkansas including the Bella Vista Bypass.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: wxfree on September 05, 2013, 12:15:21 PM
One thing that amazes me about the county is NO GAS.  It even states it on signs along US 77 entering the county that there are NO SERVICES for 50 plus miles.  You would figure for the benefit of the few that live there that they would at least have one! 

It must be awkward for them to have to drive to either Kingsville or Raymondville to gas up and buy groceries.

There are places in west Texas and in other states with gaps of more than 100 miles between gas stations.  Living in such places is as much a lifestyle choice as a geography choice.

Quote
I cannot imagine them either driving to the nearest interchange and make a u turn after years of being able to turn out of your driveway to make a left turn.

To me our federal income taxes are being wasted here as really the current US 77 really does not create that much of an obstacle for free trade truckers as it does have interstate (or at least close to) speed limits and with the limited access it already has the truckers that the corridor is supposed to serve will not really save that much in time to warrant billions of dollars just to upgrade a simple roadway.

Why not let us here in Florida use it on roads that are already crowded or other such cities around the U.S that need the money for better roads, or even better yet get I-49 done in Arkansas including the Bella Vista Bypass.

It does seem wasteful to spend all that money, especially when the ranchers will probably drive over the median anyway.  The speed limit there, except through Sarita, is 75, which is as high as it would be after the upgrade.  Spending all that money on ramps and overpasses, and then spending more money on cable barriers to prevent illegal turns, and accomplishing nothing but making life a little harder for ranchers, seems silly to me.

A few Interstates have grade crossings due to isolation, light traffic, and the inordinate cost of providing grade separations for so small a benefit.  This road could be left as it is, other than one overpass at Sarita.  It could be another exception while in no way degrading service, and improved some day when conditions warrant.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: O Tamandua on September 05, 2013, 12:29:04 PM
Remember that in Kenedy County this future interstate closely parallels the Union Pacific railroad's Houston-Brownsville main line.  (TRAINS magazine has a boatload of maps in this month's issue, including one that shows average trains per day on American main lines.  Didn't notice what the traffic is here but I know they run unit grain trains to the Port of Brownsville so those alone will be significant.)

Reason I say this is what happens on the interstate (with ranchers) will likely happen on the rail line.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on September 05, 2013, 12:59:28 PM
]I cannot imagine them either driving to the nearest interchange and make a u turn after years of being able to turn out of your driveway to make a left turn.

To me our federal income taxes are being wasted here as really the current US 77 really does not create that much of an obstacle for free trade truckers as it does have interstate (or at least close to) speed limits and with the limited access it already has the truckers that the corridor is supposed to serve will not really save that much in time to warrant billions of dollars just to upgrade a simple roadway.

Why not let us here in Florida use it on roads that are already crowded or other such cities around the U.S that need the money for better roads, or even better yet get I-49 done in Arkansas including the Bella Vista Bypass.

It does seem wasteful to spend all that money, especially when the ranchers will probably drive over the median anyway.  The speed limit there, except through Sarita, is 75, which is as high as it would be after the upgrade.  Spending all that money on ramps and overpasses, and then spending more money on cable barriers to prevent illegal turns, and accomplishing nothing but making life a little harder for ranchers, seems silly to me.

A few Interstates have grade crossings due to isolation, light traffic, and the inordinate cost of providing grade separations for so small a benefit.  This road could be left as it is, other than one overpass at Sarita.  It could be another exception while in no way degrading service, and improved some day when conditions warrant.

I disagree...an Interstate designated highway with at-grade crossings (other than I-180) is a disaster waiting to happen. If that is the case, then it would be better to leave it as US 77 and run I-69 along US 59 to Laredo as originally planned.

Actually, if there is that much of a concern about illegal turns, the solution is to provide continuous one-way frontage roads on both sides of US 77, with intermittent grade-seperated "crossunders" to connect them and allow for cross traffic movements. I'd rather that than either the current setup of ramps or allowing at-grade crossings.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on September 05, 2013, 01:03:09 PM
I disagree...an Interstate designated highway with at-grade crossings (other than I-180) is a disaster waiting to happen.
I-10 and I-40 in west Texas have had them since they were built.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: mgk920 on September 05, 2013, 02:25:25 PM
]I cannot imagine them either driving to the nearest interchange and make a u turn after years of being able to turn out of your driveway to make a left turn.

To me our federal income taxes are being wasted here as really the current US 77 really does not create that much of an obstacle for free trade truckers as it does have interstate (or at least close to) speed limits and with the limited access it already has the truckers that the corridor is supposed to serve will not really save that much in time to warrant billions of dollars just to upgrade a simple roadway.

Why not let us here in Florida use it on roads that are already crowded or other such cities around the U.S that need the money for better roads, or even better yet get I-49 done in Arkansas including the Bella Vista Bypass.

It does seem wasteful to spend all that money, especially when the ranchers will probably drive over the median anyway.  The speed limit there, except through Sarita, is 75, which is as high as it would be after the upgrade.  Spending all that money on ramps and overpasses, and then spending more money on cable barriers to prevent illegal turns, and accomplishing nothing but making life a little harder for ranchers, seems silly to me.

A few Interstates have grade crossings due to isolation, light traffic, and the inordinate cost of providing grade separations for so small a benefit.  This road could be left as it is, other than one overpass at Sarita.  It could be another exception while in no way degrading service, and improved some day when conditions warrant.

I disagree...an Interstate designated highway with at-grade crossings (other than I-180) is a disaster waiting to happen. If that is the case, then it would be better to leave it as US 77 and run I-69 along US 59 to Laredo as originally planned.

Actually, if there is that much of a concern about illegal turns, the solution is to provide continuous one-way frontage roads on both sides of US 77, with intermittent grade-seperated "crossunders" to connect them and allow for cross traffic movements. I'd rather that than either the current setup of ramps or allowing at-grade crossings.

From what I was reading earlier, TxDOT considered doing the frontage road thing, but what they settled on was far less expensive for the needed utility - especially since there are so few separate property owners along the way.

As for services for those ranchers, I suspect that like with even farmers around here, they buy fuel in bulk and dispense it as needed from their own on-site storage tanks.  And for all but the most major repairs, they can do those by themselves, too.  These guys are pretty self-reliant.

Mike
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: roadman65 on September 06, 2013, 04:35:57 PM
I rode US 77 from Robstown all the way to the Border and there is hardly any traffic that really warrants upgrades at intersections.  Plus the speed limit then was the same as the interstates of the time which was 70 Day/  65 Night and 60 for Trucks.  If it is still going to be present 75 after the upgrades, then it's a waste of money.  It is freeway where it counts, through the Corpus Christi and Harligen/ Brownsville area and even when completed I am sure that TexDOT is going to leave the one at grade intersection just prior to the Rio Grande just as they are in Laredo with the pair of one way streets that currently create the Breezewood there now as I-69W will most likely tie in north of the City along I-35 and be co-signed with it to the end of the freeway in Downtown Laredo. 

Probably I-69C will go to the border directly as the SPUI where US 281 and US 281 Spur interchange will have to be redone as the current flyover there is the wrong way as it favors the E-W part of US 281 with the N-S portion being the signalized road. 

Another interesting thing is will the E-W portion of US 281 and US 281 Spur be renumbered as most likely US 281 will be truncated to George West or San Antonio?  I doubt TexDOT will have a long concurrency of US and Interstate as the same for US 77 which will most likely be truncated to Victoria once the I-69's take place.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Roadster on September 06, 2013, 07:45:28 PM
Recently (back in July) went to South Padre Island for a summer break and encountered highway signs showing part of I-69E? & I-69C? on the highway down there  :hmmm::


http://www.i69texasalliance.com/


Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Alex on September 06, 2013, 07:59:30 PM
Recently (back in July) went to South Padre Island for a summer break and encountered highway signs showing part of I-69E? & I-69C? on the highway down there  :hmmm::


http://www.i69texasalliance.com/

Plenty of posts about the Interstate 69 branches on the forum, use the search box up top for photos and news articles in addition to discussion.

Also both routes are covered on AARoads:
http://www.interstate-guide.com/i-069c_tx.html
http://www.interstate-guide.com/i-069e_tx.html
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Chris on September 07, 2013, 09:28:00 AM
I rode US 77 from Robstown all the way to the Border and there is hardly any traffic that really warrants upgrades at intersections.

The 2011 AADT is between 9,000 and 10,000 vehicles per day. I wonder if Kenedy County is the only county that has 25 times more vehicles passing through it than it has population.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on September 27, 2013, 10:31:49 PM
The Texas Transportation Commission has posted an I-69 in South Texas Initiatives Presentation (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2013/documents/minute_orders/0926/3a-presentation.pdf) that was presented at its September 26 meeting in McAllen. It provides updates of ongoing I-69C, I-69E, and I-2 projects.  One slide that caught my eye included an "I-69 Implementation Plan" based on stakeholder priorities, in particular the planned south-to-north progression for I-69C/US 281 (page 12/12 of pdf):

(http://i.imgur.com/oXKlqb8.jpg)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on September 28, 2013, 06:41:50 PM
Sorry this is late:

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-DL0DZG3xHOc/UkJhQhpBduI/AAAAAAAAA20/HIXFT3PPzpA/w740-h553-no/098.JPG)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on September 28, 2013, 06:44:35 PM
And more:

(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-x3acOScpM4s/UkJhRmF1BNI/AAAAAAAAA28/Ms-cl1umZ2I/w413-h553-no/099.JPG)

(https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-xJhW9Y8YLXg/UkJhTQCkOqI/AAAAAAAAA3Q/qg-R2LvKTH8/w740-h553-no/101.JPG)

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-fWsVc0NB1fk/UkJhKiZMH0I/AAAAAAAAA2I/OBDZOGibV1E/w413-h553-no/093.JPG)

(https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-STN_7t7BLno/UkJhWbZWFrI/AAAAAAAAA3o/1vthp0jcZQI/w740-h553-no/104.JPG)

 :happy:
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Molandfreak on September 28, 2013, 11:47:16 PM
Very nice photos, Ethan! Is there some contextual thing I'm missing with the I-369 LED sign in the back of the truck? That's sort of a mystery because it seems to be in the middle of nowhere.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: txstateends on September 29, 2013, 12:30:33 AM
Very nice photos, Ethan! Is there some contextual thing I'm missing with the I-369 LED sign in the back of the truck? That's sort of a mystery because it seems to be in the middle of nowhere.

I saw the VMS truck briefly in the video at
http://www.ksla.com/story/23511371/i-369-unveiled-as-new-spur-of-i-69

(the linkie was posted previously in the Texarkana/I-49/I-69 spur thread)

The way the report (and the trees also) show the VMS truck, it must have been at the unveiling, and off to the side.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Molandfreak on September 29, 2013, 12:49:41 AM
Thanks for the info!
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on September 29, 2013, 11:43:50 AM
Very nice photos, Ethan! Is there some contextual thing I'm missing with the I-369 LED sign in the back of the truck? That's sort of a mystery because it seems to be in the middle of nowhere.

The LED sign was alternating between "Welcome New" and the 369 shield.  I just forgot to upload the Welcome New one.

(https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-8CgB-ojbEyI/UkJhUBrGmxI/AAAAAAAAA3Y/0HZbnH79WOE/w740-h553-no/102.JPG)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on September 29, 2013, 12:21:55 PM
Very nice photos, Ethan! Is there some contextual thing I'm missing with the I-369 LED sign in the back of the truck? That's sort of a mystery because it seems to be in the middle of nowhere.

The truck was parked off to the side of the sign unveiling.  Thats why it looks like it is in the middle of nowhere.
Title: I-69 Shields Coming to Laredo in 2014?
Post by: Grzrd on October 12, 2013, 10:55:30 AM
Very nice photos, Ethan!

Agreed. Thanks for sharing!



I just received an email from FHWA and their current interpretation of HPC 18 and HPC 20 shoots down an I-69W notion in flames ...:
Quote
....
US 59 from George West to Laredo can be I-69, but not I-69W or I-X69 (spur).  This is based on the current law.
High Priority Corridor 20 (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm#l20) requires:
Quote
20.United States Route 59 Corridor from Laredo, Texas, through Houston, Texas, to the vicinity of Texarkana, Texas. [I-69]
If I interpret Google Maps correctly, the current US 59/Loop 20 interchange is within Laredo's city limits, which would comply with the statute (at the other end, an interchange with I-30 near the TexAmericas Center (located in New Boston, west of the Texarkana city limits) may have already been contemplated as reflected by the language "to the vicinity of Texarkana").  OTOH it looks like a new connector from Loop 20 to US 59 outside of the city limits would make sense, and by a common-sense standard would be an exception that would comply with the "United States Route 59 Corridor from Laredo" requirement.
Am I nitpicking? Probably. However, FHWA might nitpick, too.
(bottom quote from Interstate 22 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=724.msg250185#msg250185) thread)

Russell Zapalac, TxDOT's Chief Planning and Projects Officer, recently made a presentation to the Texas Transportation Commission (http://txdot.swagit.com/play/09262013-617). At about the 7:55 mark of the "Item 3 - Discussion Items" video (as of this post, the Transcript of the presentation has not been posted on the website), he comments that he is "working with the Laredo folks to develop I-69W" and that "within the next year or so" TxDOT intends to "sign Loop 20 to the World Trade Bridge as a portion of I-69".

I assume that he used "I-69W" merely as a way to distinguish that prong from I-69C and I-69E.  FHWA would probably approve the I-69 designation for that segment of Loop 20, but I can also see FHWA not being comfortable with an isolated I-69 segment west of I-35 for a long foreseeable period of time.  Congress did not specifically include Loop 20 in HPC 20; will FHWA require an interim I-x35 designation?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on October 25, 2013, 08:18:20 AM
The Alliance for I-69 Texas website (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update2.28.13.html) reports that the TTC made the I-69 designation official today:
Quote
The Texas Transportation Commission has given final approval to designation of an additional 28.4 miles of US 59 as part of Interstate 69.
The existing section of US 59 from the south side of Rosenberg in Fort Bend County north to Loop 610 in southwest Houston is now part of the Interstate Highway System and will soon be signed as both I-69 and US 59.  This entire section is known locally as the Southwest Freeway ... There were five design issues identified and exceptions were approved by FHWA.
Notable by its absence is an application for US 59 to be signed as I-69 "inside" I-610.  I assume it will eventually be signed.

I-69 "inside" I-610 was also absent from AASHTO's recent posting of its route numbering decisions (http://route.transportation.org/Documents/Report%20to%20SCOH%20USRN%20AM2013%20Oct18.pdf). I suspect FHWA has not to date granted as many design exceptions as TxDOT needs for an immediate I-69 designation of this section of US 59.  Maybe it will all be resolved in time for next Spring's AASHTO meeting......
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: The High Plains Traveler on October 28, 2013, 12:40:42 PM
Apologies if this is covered above. We drove U.S. 77 from I-37 to south of Harlingen yesterday. It is marked as I-69 from I-37 to where the freeway ends at Robtown. At that point is an "END I-69" sign. There are several interchanges under construction from there south to Harlingen and a few "Future I-69 Interstate Corridor" signs. The existing freeway at Harlingen is only posted as U.S. 77 and U.S. 83. The only I-69E signage is at the I-2/U.S. 83 interchange. No reassurance markers. No exit numbers or Interstate mileposts.

Later this week I should be able to drive I-2.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on October 28, 2013, 01:16:29 PM
I-69 "inside" I-610 was also absent from AASHTO's recent posting of its route numbering decisions (http://route.transportation.org/Documents/Report%20to%20SCOH%20USRN%20AM2013%20Oct18.pdf). I suspect FHWA has not to date granted as many design exceptions as TxDOT needs for an immediate I-69 designation of this section of US 59.  Maybe it will all be resolved in time for next Spring's AASHTO meeting......

TxDOT is now aiming for Spring 2014; here is an email update I just received:

Quote
TxDOT is continuing to study the existing US 59 to determine if it meets Interstate quality and also continuing the development of the Interstate designation request. These processes include discussions with FHWA. Although we had anticipated a Fall 2013 submittal, we are now looking at Spring 2014.

The good news is that it seems like they are working closely with FHWA in order to develop a successful submittal.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: nolia_boi504 on October 28, 2013, 01:43:32 PM
Any info on when the overhead BGS will be changed to show I-69 for Southwest Freeway outside of I-610? Will it be co-signed I-69/US-59? If so, will the US59 eventually be dropped?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: txstateends on October 28, 2013, 02:47:48 PM
Will it be co-signed I-69/US-59? If so, will the US59 eventually be dropped?

Good question.  *So far*, all the parts of US 59 with new I-69 (as well as I-369 in Texarkana) signage/shields still include US 59 signage/shields for now.  Nothing has been said officially yet as to the future status of US 59 along the corridors where I-69 and I-369 (plus I-69W and maybe I-69C later on) will overlap the US route.  It could very well be that eventually, US 59 could be mostly or completely phased out in TX.  If that were to happen, who knows where US 59's southern terminus would end up (Texarkana (but with the way US 59 gets treated in AR, maybe not)? Or somewhere in OK?)....  For now though, I don't see any US 66-scale (or US 81 Fort Worth-Laredo, or US 75 Dallas-Galveston, etc...) uprooting of US 59 anytime soon.

((The same conversation could be true about the 3 US routes (77, 83, 281) involved in the Valley's interstate additions, but again, so far, nothing has been said about any future removal/shortening of any of the 3 US designations for now.))
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on October 28, 2013, 06:15:58 PM
Will it be co-signed I-69/US-59? If so, will the US59 eventually be dropped?

The Texas Transportation Commission February 28, 2013 Minutes (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2013/documents/minutes/feb28.pdf) show that the Texas Transportation Commission ("TTC") ordered that I-69 and US 59 have a concurrent designation along the Southwest Freeway (page 45/48 of pdf; page 105 of document):

Quote
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED by the commission that I-69 is designated on the state highway system concurrent with US 59 from I-610 West in Houston to north of Spur 529 in Rosenberg

I have no idea whether TxDOT intends to ask the TTC to de-designate US 59 in the future.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on October 30, 2013, 03:22:51 PM
Is there a good map yet showing the entire proposed length of I-69, including the three splits in Texas? I've not been able to find any yet
Not quite sure how well this January 2013 map (http://www.arkansashighways.com/planning_research/statewide_planning/Studies/AHTD%20I-69%20Innovative%20Financing%20Study_Final%20Findings%20Report_02192013.pdf) will work for you. (pp. 7-8/122 of pdf):
(http://i.imgur.com/wSGwd7B.jpg)
... It's difficult to see on my snip of the map, but the tiny, easternmost "fourth prong", SIU 32, is SH 550 from the Port of Brownsville to I-69E/US 77, and can be more easily seen at the linked version of the map.
(above quote from AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9416.msg231217#msg231217) thread)
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_3baf5bf6-c8d4-11e2-bafc-0019bb30f31a.html
the SH 550 article reports that the ribbon-cutting was for the completion of the second of three phases of SH 550 construction:
Quote
The third phase, which will provide the connectors to U.S. 77/83, should be done in about a year

This article (http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_2d6a45cc-4112-11e3-81d6-001a4bcf6878.html) reports that work is beginning on the ramps that will connect SH 550 to I-69E:

Quote
With the State Highway 550 Connector project taking shape, officials say portions of the east and westbound lanes of the expressway will close to help construction.
Cameron County Administrator Pete Sepulveda Jr. said the east and westbound lanes nearest to the frontage roads on Interstate 69 East, formerly Expressway 77/83, will close Wednesday for approximately 10 months or until the completion of the connectors ....
SH 550, formerly known as FM 511, will connect to Interstate 69 East once done and facilitate traffic flow to and from the Port of Brownsville ....
Brownsville Economic Development Council .... Executive Vice President Gilberto Salinas said his office envisions an industrial corridor in the area that his office is marketing as the North Brownsville Industrial Corridor ....
Port of Brownsville Deputy Director Donna Eymard said the creation of SH 550 is tremendous for the port and its construction gave the facility access to land that it didn’t have access to before the transportation upgrades ....

Another I-69 Corridor Section of Independent Utility ("SIU") nearing completion ......  :bigass:
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on November 15, 2013, 09:33:37 PM
Laredo-Freer-Alice-Corpus is a much greater priority for traffic relief and connectivity than Laredo-Freer-George West-Beeville-Victoria, given the finite pot of money available.
The Texas Transportation Commission has posted an I-69 in South Texas Initiatives Presentation (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2013/documents/minute_orders/0926/3a-presentation.pdf) that was presented at its September 26 meeting in McAllen. It provides updates of ongoing I-69C, I-69E, and I-2 projects.  One slide that caught my eye included an "I-69 Implementation Plan" based on stakeholder priorities, in particular the planned south-to-north progression for I-69C/US 281 (page 12/12 of pdf)

TxDOT completed its US 281/US 59 Planning and Feasibility Study - Interstate (I-69C) in October (it should be posted on the TxDOT website in the relatively near future).  Basically, the goal is to complete I-69C from Edinburg to Alice by 2037, in part to allow for immediate I-69C signage for completed segments (pp. 11-12/15 of pdf; pp. 8-9 of document):

(http://i.imgur.com/td5K8Pf.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/0Bv58vb.jpg)

The Alice connection to the TX 44 corridor from the south appears to be the top priority; it will be interesting to see how soon a Planning and Feasibility study will be conducted for TX 44.

edit

TxDOT has posted the US 281/US 59 Planning and Feasibility Study - Interstate (I-69C) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/us281-us59-district.pdf).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on November 20, 2013, 01:47:32 PM
If I am interpreting this Victoria Advocate editorial (http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/2013/oct/22/vp_oilbust_editorial_102313_223042/) correctly, it looks like, one day, to begin traveling southward on I-69E from the I-69/I-69E interchange, one will begin with a northwestward journey along Loop 463 (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/SL/SL0463.htm), until it meets up with US 77 south of Victoria (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Victoria,+TX&hl=en&ll=28.806474,-96.999664&spn=0.209383,0.41851&sll=32.678125,-83.178297&sspn=6.434309,13.392334&oq=victoria+tx&t=h&hnear=Victoria,+Texas&z=12):

Quote
As previous reports have shown, Victoria has a need for more high-paying, skilled labor jobs. The city is focusing on bringing in more companies, and some future developments will help in our hometown's efforts. The proposal for I-69, which would run down U.S. Highway 59, around Loop 463 and then follow U.S. Highway 77, would attract even more companies because of the proximity to the interstate.

I wonder why they would not simply route I-69E along the former Loop 175 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Former_state_highway_loops_in_Texas)/US 59?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on November 20, 2013, 02:10:17 PM
Wouldn't that put the split at the current south end of US 59 Biz? It does make more sense to have the split at the south end of US 77 Biz and eschew Loop 463 altogether, as http://www.i69texasalliance.com/ResourcesPDFs/i69%20Progress%20Report%205.14.13.pdf shows. Maybe the entire loop is known locally as Loop 463?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: nolia_boi504 on November 20, 2013, 02:28:38 PM
Wouldn't that put the split at the current south end of US 59 Biz? It does make more sense to have the split at the south end of US 77 Biz and eschew Loop 463 altogether, as http://www.i69texasalliance.com/ResourcesPDFs/i69%20Progress%20Report%205.14.13.pdf shows. Maybe the entire loop is known locally as Loop 463?

Is there an updated version of this PDF? It says "By the end of 2013 the final 11 miles of US 59 in Houston and five miles of US 59 in Texarkana are expected to be added to I-69." -- I don't believe the portion inside of the 610 loop are ready to be designated yet, is it?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on November 20, 2013, 02:44:30 PM
I just received an email from FHWA and their current interpretation of HPC 18 and HPC 20 ... allows TxDOT to choose between I-69C and I-69 for the Victoria to George West segment of US 59:
Quote
US 59 from Victoria to George West can be I-69 or I-69C, which ever Texas Department of Transportation requests.
Wouldn't that put the split at the current south end of US 59 Biz? It does make more sense to have the split at the south end of US 77 Biz and eschew Loop 463 altogether, as http://www.i69texasalliance.com/ResourcesPDFs/i69%20Progress%20Report%205.14.13.pdf shows. Maybe the entire loop is known locally as Loop 463?

I think you're right; two possible splits look likely for the south side (assuming the northern Loop 463 route will be designated as I-69):

1. if US 59 from Victoria to US 281 is designated as I-69C, then the south end of US 59 Biz will have a three-way split with I-69, I-69C and I-69E; or

2. if US 59 from Victoria to US 281 is designated as I-69, then it will simply be the I-69/I-69E split.

Any local knowledge regarding Loop 463 is welcome, particularly if US 59 on the east side is considered part of the Loop.



Laredo-Freer-Alice-Corpus is a much greater priority for traffic relief and connectivity than Laredo-Freer-George West-Beeville-Victoria, given the finite pot of money available.

It is interesting how the Victoria Advocate editorial board does not even mention the potential I-69C (or I-69) route southwest of Victoria:

Quote
.... around Loop 463 and then follow U.S. Highway 77

Freer-George West-Beeville-Victoria may never be upgraded to an interstate.



I don't believe the portion inside of the 610 loop are ready to be designated yet, is it?

From upthread: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg256017#msg256017 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on November 25, 2013, 09:31:33 PM
TxDOT completed its US 281/US 59 Planning and Feasibility Study - Interstate (I-69C) in October (it should be posted on the TxDOT website in the relatively near future).

TxDOT has posted the US 281/US 59 Planning and Feasibility Study - Interstate (I-69C) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/us281-us59-district.pdf).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: apjung on November 26, 2013, 05:47:10 AM
TxDOT completed its US 281/US 59 Planning and Feasibility Study - Interstate (I-69C) in October (it should be posted on the TxDOT website in the relatively near future).

TxDOT has posted the US 281/US 59 Planning and Feasibility Study - Interstate (I-69C) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/us281-us59-district.pdf).

I'm pleasantly surprised that TxDOT no longer calls their Interstates as IH (ie. IH-37, IH-69C, IH-2, etc.)
I guess because people would get confused between IH-2 with the I-H2 in Hawaii.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on November 26, 2013, 07:44:45 AM
I'm pleasantly surprised that TxDOT no longer calls their Interstates as IH (ie. IH-37, IH-69C, IH-2, etc.)
They've always been inconsistent about it: http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Atxdot.gov+%22IH+69%22
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2013/documents/minute_orders/may30/8.pdf (p. 4)

I guess because people would get confused between IH-2 with the I-H2 in Hawaii.
Yeah, that's it. And they might think SH is a command to be quiet.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: yakra on November 26, 2013, 12:17:05 PM
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on January 16, 2014, 04:28:06 PM
The Texas Transportation Commission February 28, 2013 Minutes (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2013/documents/minutes/feb28.pdf) show that the Texas Transportation Commission ("TTC") ordered that I-69 and US 59 have a concurrent designation along the Southwest Freeway (page 45/48 of pdf; page 105 of document):
Quote
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED by the commission that I-69 is designated on the state highway system concurrent with US 59 from I-610 West in Houston to north of Spur 529 in Rosenberg

This article (behind paywall) (http://www.etypeservices.com/SWF/LocalUser/Fortbend1//Magazine43785/Full/index.aspx?id=43785#/1/zoomed) reports on an I-69 project from SH 99 to Spur 10, scheduled to begin in about four months.  It will extend I-69 from "north of Spur 529" to Spur 10 (Hartledge Road) (http://goo.gl/maps/3lSTt) and upgrade the section from SH 99 to "north of Spur 529":

(http://i.imgur.com/g5lGwPz.png)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on January 21, 2014, 01:32:40 PM
The Texas Official Travel Map (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/trv/maps/texas.pdf) has been updated to show I-2, I-69C, and I-69E:

(http://i.imgur.com/Ekpuokx.png)

I-369 in Texarkana is also shown on the map (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3321.msg272862#msg272862).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on January 21, 2014, 02:49:03 PM
Yay I-blank.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: nolia_boi504 on January 21, 2014, 05:22:42 PM
The Texas Official Travel Map (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/trv/maps/texas.pdf) has been updated to show I-2, I-69C, and I-69E:

I-369 in Texarkana is also shown on the map.

I wonder why they only showed half of Grand Pkwy Segment E (between I-10 and FM 529).

Also a solid white line follows FM 1093 from I-610 Westloop up to Grand Pkwy. But I think the white line should have followed Westpark Twy from Southwest Fwy and continued as FM 1093 at the Ft Bend / Harris County line.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: triplemultiplex on January 21, 2014, 06:35:26 PM
Yay I-blank.

I-blankblank7 is even better!

Ah, font errors...  I can relate.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: lordsutch on January 22, 2014, 12:02:01 AM
Any local knowledge regarding Loop 463 is welcome, particularly if US 59 on the east side is considered part of the Loop.

AFAIK US 59 between US 77 south and Loop 463 is not cosigned as Loop 463. Nor is the US 77 concurrency southwest of Victoria, according to Street View.

I suppose they could route I-69C/W/mainline around the north/west side of Victoria and I-69E around the south/east side, although the US 77/Loop 463 combo is rather seriously substandard by Interstate rules, seeming to conform with TxDOT's "urban expressway" standard (also used on much of Loop 20 in Laredo) with not much of a median and some at-grade crossings rather than the "urban freeway" standard.  The south/east US 59 roadway (except the 77 concurrency) OTOH seems up to TxDOT rural freeway standards.

Then again it's all probably moot because TxDOT will probably lose interest once I-69C connects to I-37, there's a continuous I-69/I-69E, and the Laredo-to-Corpus corridor is upgraded as I-6 or whatever. At most I'd hope for a decent Beeville bypass on "I-69W."
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: OCGuy81 on January 24, 2014, 12:37:41 AM
Great photos! And being from California, I love seeing the state name in the Interstate shields! Nicely done.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: agentsteel53 on January 24, 2014, 09:55:04 AM
I-blankblank7 is even better!
where do you see that?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Brandon on January 24, 2014, 12:54:14 PM
I-blankblank7 is even better!
where do you see that?

Look where I-2 meets I-69E.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on February 14, 2014, 08:59:52 AM
A few interesting comments:
http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FHWA-2013-0050-0003
Quote
We at ALDOT have noticed the omission of I-22 Memphis to Birmingham from the proposed network miles, and attribute this to the uncompleted section and the interchange where it ties into I-65. If there are additional sections or miles added to the network, we want to make sure I-22 is included. This could be a high volume corridor (Memphis I-22 Birmingham I-20 Atlanta) with completion of the interchange.
(above quote from Draft Highway Primary Freight Network (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=11125.msg265037#msg265037) thread)

In looking at recent Comments (http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketBrowser;rpp=25;po=0;dct=PS;D=FHWA-2013-0050;refD=FHWA-2013-0050-0001) to the Draft Highway Primary Freight Network Plan (http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/infrastructure/pfn/index.htm), it appears that the Alliance for I-69 Texas has organized a late push to include I-69 in the Plan by apparently circulating a "template" letter to its members that some have attached to somewhat individualized cover letters and then submitted as a Comment.  As an example, here is a letter from the Rio Grande Valley Partnership:

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FHWA-2013-0050-0067

The attached letter contends that (in a similar vein to the ALDOT/I-22 letter that NE2 posted above) the current plan is merely a static "snapshot" of the current system and that it does not adequately address future freight routes, in particular I-69. Two other interesting points are that the attachment letter expressly includes SH 44 as part of the I-69 system, but not US 83/I-2, and that inclusion is needed for "additional resources and strategies to advance the completion of I-69".

SH 44 snippet:

(http://i.imgur.com/uUWTCeO.jpg)

"Snapshot" snippet:

(http://i.imgur.com/marvUrg.jpg)

"Resources and Strategies" snippet:

(http://i.imgur.com/r5wullU.jpg)

Alliance for I-69 Texas organizations that have submitted a Comment include City of Nacogdoches, Bay Area Houston Transportation Partnership, Texarkana Chamber of Commerce, the Rio Grande Valley Partnership, Cameron County, Nueces County Commissioners Court, TexAmericas Center, and The City of Lufkin, Mayor Bob Brown.

Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on February 19, 2014, 04:09:54 PM
Russell Zapalac, TxDOT's Chief Planning and Projects Officer, recently made a presentation to the Texas Transportation Commission (http://txdot.swagit.com/play/09262013-617). At about the 7:55 mark of the "Item 3 - Discussion Items" video (as of this post, the Transcript of the presentation has not been posted on the website), he comments that he is "working with the Laredo folks to develop I-69W" and that "within the next year or so" TxDOT intends to "sign Loop 20 to the World Trade Bridge as a portion of I-69".

The Texas Transportation Commission's February 26, 2014 Agenda (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2014/0226/agenda.pdf) reflects that the meeting will be held in Laredo and a presentation will be made about Loop 20/I-69:

Quote
c. Regional Priority Projects
Staff will outline state and local plans for the development of Interstate 69 through upgrades to State Loop 20.

It does say "Interstate 69" instead of "Interstate 69W".
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on February 20, 2014, 08:10:04 AM
My wife was lost in Houston on US 59 last night trying to get back to Austin.  I had to bite my tongue not to ask if it had been cosigned with I-69 yet.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on February 20, 2014, 11:41:24 AM
Russell Zapalac, TxDOT's Chief Planning and Projects Officer, recently made a presentation to the Texas Transportation Commission (http://txdot.swagit.com/play/09262013-617) ....  he comments that "within the next year or so" .... TxDOT intends to "sign Loop 20 to the World Trade Bridge as a portion of I-69" ....
Congress did not specifically include Loop 20 in HPC 20; will FHWA require an interim I-x35 designation?
The Texas Transportation Commission's February 26, 2014 Agenda (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2014/0226/agenda.pdf) reflects that the meeting will be held in Laredo and a presentation will be made about Loop 20/I-69

The Texas Transportation Commission ("TTC"), in its February 27 Agenda (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2014/0227/agenda.pdf)*, indicates that it will redesignate Loop 20 as US 59 over the "I-69" portion of US 59 (thereby complying with the HPC 20 statutory "US 59" language)(page 2/13 of pdf):

Quote
Webb County - In the city of Laredo, redesignate a segment of State Loop 20 as US 59 and redesignate a segment of US 59 as Business US 59-Z (MO)
This minute order redesignates a segment of State Loop 20 as US 59 from the World Trade Bridge to the junction of State Loop 20 and US 59 in Laredo, a distance of approximately 10.9 miles and redesignates a segment of US 59 as BU 59-Z from the junction of State Loop 20 and US 59 to the  southern terminus of US 59 in Laredo, a distance of approximately 3.6 miles. This begins the process of designating US 59 concurrent with the I-69 system in Laredo.

Slick move; however, does the reference to "the I-69 system"" indicate a temporary 3di designation?

*Yes, there are two different TTC meetings in Laredo: February 26 and February 27.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on February 20, 2014, 02:35:49 PM
the FHWA High Priority Corridors page  (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm) provides the relevant part of the statutory I-69 definition:
Quote
18. Corridor from Sarnia, Ontario, Canada ....
to the Lower Rio Grande Valley at the border between the United States and Mexico, as follows: [I-69] ....
D. In the Lower Rio Grande Valley, the Corridor shall- ....
iii. include ... FM511 from United States Route 77 to the Port of Brownsville.
This article (http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_2d6a45cc-4112-11e3-81d6-001a4bcf6878.html) reports that work is beginning on the ramps that will connect SH 550 to I-69E ....
Another I-69 Corridor Section of Independent Utility ("SIU") nearing completion ......  :bigass:

This article (http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_fb1273f2-99e4-11e3-b98c-001a4bcf6878.html) reports that the SH 550 entrance to the Port of Brownsville recently opened and that the entire SH 550 project should be completed by the end of the year:

Quote
Tractor-trailer rigs were expected to start rolling in at 6 a.m. today through the Port of Brownsville’s new primary entrance: the State Highway 550 connector entry ....
SH 550, formerly known as FM 511, is an alternate route between the Port of Brownsville and Interstate 69 ....
Truckers coming from the ports of Houston or Corpus Christi can now reach the Brownsville port without ever having to leave I-69, he said.
“We do hope and anticipate increased direct access by truck traffic to the Port of Brownsville,”  he said ....
The remaining SH 550 connector could wrap up at the end of the year and would be 10 miles with four tolled, general purpose main lanes – two in each direction – and direct connectors at I-69.
“It’s my understanding that it would probably be toward the end of the year,”  Campirano said of the final piece of the project. “And when that happens, it will be a really nice connection.”
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: yakra on February 20, 2014, 08:00:12 PM
Quote
Webb County - In the city of Laredo, redesignate a segment of State Loop 20 as US 59 and redesignate a segment of US 59 as Business US 59-Z (MO)
This minute order redesignates a segment of State Loop 20 as US 59 from the World Trade Bridge to the junction of State Loop 20 and US 59 in Laredo, a distance of approximately 10.9 miles and redesignates a segment of US 59 as BU 59-Z from the junction of State Loop 20 and US 59 to the  southern terminus of US 59 in Laredo, a distance of approximately 3.6 miles. This begins the process of designating US 59 concurrent with the I-69 system in Laredo.
This means that unless US59Bus is extended past US59's current terminus (say, via I-35, and FM1472 (or not)), it'll only connect to its parent at one end. Not unprecedented for TXDOT, but what would AASHTO have to say?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: roadman65 on February 21, 2014, 10:03:00 AM
Just got away from checking out the I-2 and I-69E interchange in Harligen and noticed the brand new flyovers that make up all of its ramps.  The thing that strikes me most odd that the whole interchange was completely made over with nothing original.  I can see if lanes were added to both US 77 and US 83 straight through the interchange, but nonetheless US 77 is STILL two lanes through that fully directional facility.  Only to and from the south is it been widened.

No doubt its part of the I-69 upgrade, but I distinctly remember it all being up to interstate standards back in 1997 when I visited there.  I stayed at the old Motel 6 that was in the NW quadrent of that interchange and had a birds eye view of the original flyovers and even walked over to them from my room to seek further viewing.  All seemed fine by me at the time.  I would think that Texas has more better things to use the upgrade money on than fixing something that only needed partial fixing unless there is more there then meets the eye as I only saw it once decades ago.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on February 22, 2014, 12:27:32 AM
The Alliance for I-69 Texas (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update2.23.13%20Laredo.html) also has an article about the project:
Quote
City, county and Alliance for I-69 Texas representatives broke ground this week to start construction of a diamond interchange overpass facility on Loop 20 at McPherson Avenue in the north side of Laredo.
Loop 20 is designated as the future route of Interstate 69 in Laredo. The Loop 20 freeway has already been completed from the World Trade Bridge to an interchange with Interstate 35.
(http://i.imgur.com/O5yPtQR.jpg)
The Texas Transportation Commission's February 26, 2014 Agenda (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2014/0226/agenda.pdf) reflects that the meeting will be held in Laredo and a presentation will be made about Loop 20/I-69:
Quote
c. Regional Priority Projects
Staff will outline state and local plans for the development of Interstate 69 through upgrades to State Loop 20.

This article (http://www.lmtonline.com/articles/2014/02/21/front/news/doc5308181830856545661115.txt) reports that a ribbon-cutting was recently held for the project and that "it can be designated as part of the Interstate 69 system.":

Quote
The $14.5 million overpass at Loop 20 and McPherson opened Friday to the traveling public.
A ribbon-cutting ceremony was held in the afternoon by local and state officials to celebrate the opening of the overpass
, which will improve mobility and reduce traffic congestion.
Melissa Monteamyor, district manager for the Texas Department of Transportation in Laredo, said the project was an effort by Webb County and the City of Laredo, which worked with TxDOT to get more state and federal funding for the project. The project is part of a larger one that includes improving the northern section of Loop 20, from U.S. 59 to the World Trade Bridge.
The project began one year ago. It can be designated as part of the Interstate 69 system.

I'm sure this will be discussed at the February 26 Texas Transportation Commission meeting.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on February 22, 2014, 12:34:20 AM
Woo, I-69W southbound will curve around 1.25pi and go northeast.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on February 22, 2014, 11:42:57 AM
I don't understand, a "south" highway is heading north.  Oh the logic of I-69WCE.  Are you sure it won't head north of Lake Casa Blanca?  That would make much more sense.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on February 22, 2014, 02:40:29 PM
I don't understand, a "south" highway is heading north ... Are you sure it won't head north of Lake Casa Blanca?  That would make much more sense.

From upthread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg191190#msg191190):

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 (https://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=27.560463133519903,-99.395), 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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on February 25, 2014, 11:10:49 AM
The Texas Transportation Commission ("TTC"), in its February 27 Agenda (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2014/0227/agenda.pdf)*, indicates that it will redesignate Loop 20 as US 59 over the "I-69" portion of US 59 (thereby complying with the HPC 20 statutory "US 59" language)(page 2/13 of pdf)

The TTC has posted the proposed Minute Order (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2014/0227/5b.pdf) regarding the redesignations:

Quote
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED by the commission that:
1. A segment of SL 20 is redesignated on the state highway system as US 59 from the  entrance to the World Trade Bridge (approximately 0.6 miles west of FM 1472) to the junction of SL 20 and US 59 in Laredo, a distance of approximately 10.9 miles, as shown in Exhibit A.
2. A segment of US 59 is redesignated on the state highway system as BU 59-Z from the  junction of SL 20 and US 59 to the southern terminus of US 59 in Laredo, a distance of approximately 3.6 miles, as shown in Exhibit A.

(http://i.imgur.com/Z2VnitE.png)

I-35A?



This means that unless US59Bus is extended past US59's current terminus (say, via I-35, and FM1472 (or not)), it'll only connect to its parent at one end. Not unprecedented for TXDOT, but what would AASHTO have to say?


We should find out in May:

Quote
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the department shall forward this minute order, along with all other pertinent information, to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Special Committee on US Route Numbering for consideration.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on February 25, 2014, 12:20:30 PM
Wait a second. Isn't that bridge trucks-only?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: lordsutch on February 26, 2014, 02:49:07 AM
Wait a second. Isn't that bridge trucks-only?

Yes, although at least on the US side there is (or at least was, as of August 2011) no signage telling you that, so it's possible the trucks-only restriction is technically only US-bound. I never ventured far enough to find out what happened if you drove a car there, although surely people get lost and end up at the bridge fairly regularly given the distinct lack of giant honking warning signs. A Streetview car (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.600512,-99.526629,3a,75y,289.94h,88.92t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sQYX15Z2VBgQYkACh2R6Azw!2e0) got this far without finding any signs saying cars can't cross.

Anyway it's good news to have the McPherson overpass done; with the new high school open in the area and all the truck traffic trying to turn left on McPherson from EB Loop 20 that intersection was becoming a real mess even before I left.

A couple of tweets with pictures of sign pr0n:

https://twitter.com/TxDOTLaredo/status/437989092484067328 (https://twitter.com/TxDOTLaredo/status/437989092484067328)
https://twitter.com/TxDOTLaredo/status/437984484395200512 (https://twitter.com/TxDOTLaredo/status/437984484395200512)

What I can't understand is where they stuck the sign; it appears to be in the median of the future main lanes west of I-35, which probably is a good place for a photo op but you'd never see it from the road.

As far as the US 59 redesignation goes, like I said before there really isn't space for I-69 along Loop 20 once you get south of the airport; there was some talk of closing the golf course which might allow it to squeeze in, but even then you'd have trouble fitting in a directional interchange to get I-69 onto the US 59 corridor to the east. The development plans I've seen for Loop 20 didn't call for a full freeway since there wasn't room for any frontage roads between the airport and US 59. So I stand by my prediction that I-69 will have a more direct routing north of the lake and TAMIU.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on February 26, 2014, 01:38:41 PM
Unless there is some kind of environmentally protected area among the creek beds on the North side of Lake Casa Blanca there is a good chance I-69 would bypass the lake to the North. I-69 would leave US-59 a few miles East of Laredo and hook into Loop 20 just North of the Texas A&M International University campus. That would make the most sense in terms of avoiding commercial and residential properties.

However, lots of highway expansions into Interstate style roads have consumed lots of existing properties. It all comes down to how important that road's preferred alignment may be. US-59 could be converted into I-69 to the Loop 20 interchange by expanding the road on its North/Right side. There's not a much in the way of nice looking commercial and residential property along that stretch of US-59. The main things that would have to be bought and demolished to make way for I-69: some junky looking auto parts businesses, a yard furniture/pottery business, a National Guard Armory building and a Jack in the Box. I've seen a lot more businesses cleared away for smaller things.

Here in Lawton the city bought and cleared 10 blocks of old homes and businesses on the North side of downtown along 2nd Street, just South of the I-44 interchange. Most of the properties looked bad. A couple decades ago it was a hot spot for crime (prostitution in particular). A new Hilton Garden Inn and new shopping center is fixing to open on that land. An Interstate highway project is an arguably far bigger deal than a new hotel and shopping center.

Maybe some decision makers in SW Texas want I-69 and TX Loop 20 upgraded into full Interstate level roads to encourage improvement and new development on Laredo's East side. The sights along US-59 coming into Laredo don't look so good. It could use a "face lift."

Regarding expansion of TX Loop 20: not all superhighways need to have frontage/access roads. Loop 20 may need another overpass to leap frog a tricky spot South of Clark Blvd. That golf course looks like hell.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on March 01, 2014, 12:50:56 AM
The Texas Transportation Commission ("TTC"), in its February 27 Agenda (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2014/0227/agenda.pdf) ... indicates that it will redesignate Loop 20 as US 59 over the "I-69" portion of US 59 (thereby complying with the HPC 20 statutory "US 59" language)(page 2/13 of pdf)
The TTC has posted the proposed Minute Order (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2014/0227/5b.pdf) regarding the redesignations

The TTC has posted the video from its February 27 meeting (http://txdot.swagit.com/play/02272014-711) and in Item 5 (approximately five minutes in length), it is explained that the redesignation of Loop 20 as US 59 was "necessary" for Loop 20/US 59 to ultimately be designated as part of "the I-69 system".  The speaker appears to take great pains to use the phrase "I-69 system", which might portend a temporary interstate designation before it is ultimately signed as I-69 (simply my guess). The proposed Minute Order for the redesignation, not surprisingly, was approved.  On to AASHTO .......
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bugo on March 01, 2014, 01:07:34 PM
If Loop 20 is given an interstate number, it will probably be I-69W. 

US 59 is signed E-W through Laredo, so the fact that it turns almost due north doesn't mean it's going in the opposite direction of the signage.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on March 01, 2014, 02:22:58 PM
Quote
If Loop 20 is given an interstate number, it will probably be I-69W.

Isn't the most northern spoke of I-69 just going to be called I-69 rather than I-69W? Correct me if I'm wrong, but that was the impression I had.

The I-69 numbering would only be good on TX Loop 20 as far South as the current intersection with US-59. There's another Interstate number I'd like to see applied to the southern half of TX Loop 20: I-2.
:sombrero:
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: andy3175 on March 01, 2014, 08:14:53 PM
I-35A?

Business Loop I-35A on San Bernardo Avenue.

Regards,
Andy
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: oscar on March 02, 2014, 09:02:52 PM
A couple of tweets with pictures of sign pr0n:

https://twitter.com/TxDOTLaredo/status/437989092484067328 (https://twitter.com/TxDOTLaredo/status/437989092484067328)
https://twitter.com/TxDOTLaredo/status/437984484395200512 (https://twitter.com/TxDOTLaredo/status/437984484395200512)

What I can't understand is where they stuck the sign; it appears to be in the median of the future main lanes west of I-35, which probably is a good place for a photo op but you'd never see it from the road.

Luckily I noticed this thread on my way to Texas, so I got to Laredo a few days after the ribbon-cutting and could add Loop 20 to today's itinerary.  Timing is everything, huh?

EDIT:  The Future I-69 Corridor sign shown in the above tweets is on eastbound Loop 20 west of I-35, just east of where the main lanes end and split into two off-ramps.  The sign is placed in the median, to the left of the exit ramp onto the frontage road for traffic continuing on Loop 20 or to SB I-35, and to the right of where the main lanes go once they're extended.  That's the only Future I-69 Corridor sign posted anywhere on Loop 20 in either direction. 

This photo might help a little.  I took the photo from the median between the frontage road and the two off-ramps noted above.  The flyover in the background is for traffic to WB Loop 20, from both SB and NB I-35.

(http://www.alaskaroads.com/Fut-I69-sign-TXLp20-EB_DSC1909.jpg)

A few other notes (not reflecting all the discussion upthread, I'm just laying out my observations even if some are not new news): 

Loop 20 west of I-35 is basically a full freeway to the commercial traffic-only World Trade Bridge border crossing over to Nuevo Laredo.  There is an incomplete set of flyover ramps (SB 35 to WB 20, NB 35 to WB 20, EB 20 to NB 35 -- there's a stub end for an unbuilt connector for EB 20 to SB 35), providing freeway-to-freeway connections.  The only exit west of I-35, and the last one until the border, is with FM 1472. 

There's a minor at-grade intersection just short of the border, allowing some EB traffic to access some export facility right after clearing customs, and WB traffic a last chance to turn back before the border (which I did). Here's two photos of WB Loop 20 at the closed bridge entrance (the bridge has limited hours, especially on Sundays, but it was open the first time I stopped by that day), showing the intersection and details of the signs there:

(http://www.alaskaroads.com/TXLoop20-west-end_DSC1931.jpg)

(http://www.alaskaroads.com/TXLoop20-west-end-sign-detail_DSC1913.jpg)

The rest of Loop 20 is not yet even close to Interstate-grade.  EB Loop 20 traffic continuing east of I-35, and WB traffic heading west of i-35, has to go onto frontage roads, through two signalized intersections with I-35 ramps.  There are more to the east of the I-35 ramps.  Loop 20 between I-35 and US 59 is a mix of frontage roads with a wide median roomy enough to handle a freeway conversion (but only one overpass in the median), and divided or undivided highway with no obvious provisions to upgrade to freeway.  So it doesn't surprise me that there's no Future I-69 corridor signage east of I-35.

Nor is there any signage indicating that Loop 20 includes the future re-routing of US 59, which for now continues into downtown Laredo as before.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on March 02, 2014, 11:20:03 PM
^ Oscar, great photos! Thanks for sharing!



This article (http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_fb1273f2-99e4-11e3-b98c-001a4bcf6878.html) reports that the SH 550 entrance to the Port of Brownsville recently opened and that the entire SH 550 project should be completed by the end of the year

This article (http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_cc5b232c-a283-11e3-a9e6-001a4bcf6878.html) includes a photo of construction at the I-69E/SH 550 interchange and reports that it is hoped to be completed in September:

Quote
Officials say a direct connector that will link Interstate 69 and State Highway 550 is 55 percent completed.
The direct connector, formally known as the SH 550 Connector Project, will make it easier for motorists driving on the expressway to connect with SH 550 because the new connection will eliminate having to get off the expressway, drive underneath the expressway and then having to get onto SH 550, officials said.
“It’s coming along very well and within budget,”  Cameron County Administrator Pete Sepulveda Jr. said. “Hopefully, come September, it will be complete." ....
The project calls for 199 beams and the project is only 25 beams away from completion
, Sepulveda said, adding that the remaining beams will stretch over I-69, formerly known as Expressway 77/83, and the highway will close for that part of the project.
“That will happen at night,”  Sepulveda said, adding that he is not sure when that part of the project is scheduled ....
A little more than a week ago, the Port of Brownsville officially opened its new entrance which links up with SH 550. When the connector wraps up at the end of the year, it will be 10 miles long with four tolled, general purpose main lanes – two in each direction – with direct connectors at I-69.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on March 03, 2014, 12:02:29 PM
The TTC has posted the video from its February 27 meeting (http://txdot.swagit.com/play/02272014-711) and in Item 5 (approximately five minutes in length), it is explained that the redesignation of Loop 20 as US 59 was "necessary" for Loop 20/US 59 to ultimately be designated as part of "the I-69 system".  The speaker appears to take great pains to use the phrase "I-69 system", which might portend a temporary interstate designation before it is ultimately signed as I-69 (simply my guess). The proposed Minute Order for the redesignation, not surprisingly, was approved.  On to AASHTO .......

This Alliance for I-69 Texas article (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update%202.27.14Laredo.html) reports that FHWA and TxDOT are currently reviewing a two-mile section of Loop 20/US 59 for designation as I-69:

Quote
The 2-mile section of Loop 20/US 59 from I-35 to the border crossing was built to interstate highway standard and is now being evaluated by TxDOT and the Federal Highway Administration for addition to the Interstate Highway System as Interstate 69.

No "W" suffix!!!  No great surprise since the statute does not authorize an I-69W, but it is still nice to see confirmation.  FHWA still has to sign off on the I-69 designation, though.

The article also has several photos from the Laredo area related to the ribboncutting.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on March 03, 2014, 12:43:00 PM
Before I-69C and I-69E were added, did articles say they were planning those designations or merely I-69?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on March 20, 2014, 12:34:56 PM
I-69 "inside" I-610 was also absent from AASHTO's recent posting of its route numbering decisions (http://route.transportation.org/Documents/Report%20to%20SCOH%20USRN%20AM2013%20Oct18.pdf). I suspect FHWA has not to date granted as many design exceptions as TxDOT needs for an immediate I-69 designation of this section of US 59.  Maybe it will all be resolved in time for next Spring's AASHTO meeting......
TxDOT is now aiming for Spring 2014; here is an email update I just received:
Quote
TxDOT is continuing to study the existing US 59 to determine if it meets Interstate quality and also continuing the development of the Interstate designation request. These processes include discussions with FHWA. Although we had anticipated a Fall 2013 submittal, we are now looking at Spring 2014.
The good news is that it seems like they are working closely with FHWA in order to develop a successful submittal.

The Texas Transportation Commission ("TTC") has posted its March 27 Agenda (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2014/0327/agenda.pdf).  It is anticipated that the TTC will authorize TxDOT to submit applications (yes, plural) for segments to receive respective I-69 designations (page 6/14 of pdf; page 6 of document):

Quote
Transportation Planning
Various Counties
- Authorize the submission of applications to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) to establish segments of I-69 (MO)
In accordance with the procedures established by the Federal Highway Administration and AASHTO, this minute order authorizes the department to petition AASHTO to include various route segments in Texas as part of the Interstate Highway System as I-69.

I anticipate "inside I-610" in Houston will be one of the applications; any guesses regarding other applications?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on March 20, 2014, 01:24:01 PM
I-69 "inside" I-610 was also absent from AASHTO's recent posting of its route numbering decisions (http://route.transportation.org/Documents/Report%20to%20SCOH%20USRN%20AM2013%20Oct18.pdf). I suspect FHWA has not to date granted as many design exceptions as TxDOT needs for an immediate I-69 designation of this section of US 59.  Maybe it will all be resolved in time for next Spring's AASHTO meeting......
TxDOT is now aiming for Spring 2014; here is an email update I just received:
Quote
TxDOT is continuing to study the existing US 59 to determine if it meets Interstate quality and also continuing the development of the Interstate designation request. These processes include discussions with FHWA. Although we had anticipated a Fall 2013 submittal, we are now looking at Spring 2014.
The good news is that it seems like they are working closely with FHWA in order to develop a successful submittal.

The Texas Transportation Commission ("TTC") has posted its March 27 Agenda (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2014/0327/agenda.pdf).  It is anticipated that the TTC will authorize TxDOT to submit applications (yes, plural) for segments to receive respective I-69 designations (page 6/14 of pdf; page 6 of document):

Quote
Transportation Planning
Various Counties
- Authorize the submission of applications to the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) to establish segments of I-69 (MO)
In accordance with the procedures established by the Federal Highway Administration and AASHTO, this minute order authorizes the department to petition AASHTO to include various route segments in Texas as part of the Interstate Highway System as I-69.

I anticipate "inside I-610" in Houston will be one of the applications; any guesses regarding other applications?

My guesses would be US 281 in Falfurious  I-69C and the various sections of freeway on US 59 between Rosenberg and Victoria and around Cleveland and some points north.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on March 24, 2014, 06:42:13 PM
The Texas Transportation Commission ("TTC") has posted its March 27 Agenda (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2014/0327/agenda.pdf).  It is anticipated that the TTC will authorize TxDOT to submit applications (yes, plural) for segments to receive respective I-69 designations (page 6/14 of pdf; page 6 of document)

The TTC has posted the proposed Minute Order (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2014/0327/15c.pdf) and it does not specify specific segments for TxDOT to petition AASHTO for designations; instead, it appears to give TxDOT standing permission to petition AASHTO as segments become interstate-grade:

Quote
Texas routes currently identified as part of the future I-69 alignment include segments of US 59, US 77, US 84 and US 281.
AASHTO applications will be submitted as route segments are determined to meet current interstate design standards, connect to an existing segment of the interstate system, and be of sufficient length to provide substantial service to the traveling public. Since the AASHTO Special Committee on US Route Numbering meets only twice a year, the department is seeking approval from the commission to submit applications for those segments already identified as part of the I-69 corridor as they become eligible for inclusion on the interstate system, rather than request commission action each time an individual segment becomes eligible. This will allow the department to proceed in the most efficient manner possible and avoid delays in adding future I-69 segments to the interstate system ....
The Texas Department of Transportation (department) proposes to designate several segments of highways in Texas as INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 69 (I-69) in the next six years.
This minute order authorizes the department to petition the AASHTO Special Committee on US Route Numbering to recognize those designated segments as I-69 that comply with federal regulations and are of sufficient length to provide substantial service to the traveling public.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED by the commission that the department is authorized to submit applications to the AASHTO Special Committee on US Route Numbering requesting the recognition of I-69 along various existing routes through Texas as those route segments become eligible for inclusion on the interstate system.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that following approval of the applications by the AASHTO Special Committee on US Route Numbering, the commission will designate such route segments as I-69 by minute order.

I-369 in Texarkana may be the current shortest segment to meet the "be of sufficient length to provide substantial service to the traveling public" standard.

I suppose that it is still possible that specific applications (US 59 in Houston?) will be submitted in time for AASHTO's May meeting.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on March 24, 2014, 07:44:47 PM
The Texas Transportation Commission ("TTC") has posted its March 27 Agenda (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2014/0327/agenda.pdf).  It is anticipated that the TTC will authorize TxDOT to submit applications (yes, plural) for segments to receive respective I-69 designations (page 6/14 of pdf; page 6 of document)

The TTC has posted the proposed Minute Order (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2014/0327/15c.pdf) and it does not specify specific segments for TxDOT to petition AASHTO for designations; instead, it appears to give TxDOT standing permission to petition AASHTO as segments become interstate-grade:

Quote
Texas routes currently identified as part of the future I-69 alignment include segments of US 59, US 77, US 84 and US 281.
AASHTO applications will be submitted as route segments are determined to meet current interstate design standards, connect to an existing segment of the interstate system, and be of sufficient length to provide substantial service to the traveling public. Since the AASHTO Special Committee on US Route Numbering meets only twice a year, the department is seeking approval from the commission to submit applications for those segments already identified as part of the I-69 corridor as they become eligible for inclusion on the interstate system, rather than request commission action each time an individual segment becomes eligible. This will allow the department to proceed in the most efficient manner possible and avoid delays in adding future I-69 segments to the interstate system ....
The Texas Department of Transportation (department) proposes to designate several segments of highways in Texas as INTERSTATE HIGHWAY 69 (I-69) in the next six years.
This minute order authorizes the department to petition the AASHTO Special Committee on US Route Numbering to recognize those designated segments as I-69 that comply with federal regulations and are of sufficient length to provide substantial service to the traveling public.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED by the commission that the department is authorized to submit applications to the AASHTO Special Committee on US Route Numbering requesting the recognition of I-69 along various existing routes through Texas as those route segments become eligible for inclusion on the interstate system.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that following approval of the applications by the AASHTO Special Committee on US Route Numbering, the commission will designate such route segments as I-69 by minute order.

I-369 in Texarkana may be the current shortest segment to meet the "be of sufficient length to provide substantial service to the traveling public" standard.

I suppose that it is still possible that specific applications (US 59 in Houston?) will be submitted in time for AASHTO's May meeting.

I heard from a contact in the I-69 Alliance that there are two submitted sections of US 59.  First is the section between the 610s in Houston and the other is Loop 20 in Laredo.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on March 27, 2014, 12:44:11 PM
281's usage may also go up a bit once the Falfurrias toll bypass is open (if it isn't already; it was well along two years ago last time I trekked down that way), which would leave George West as the only real slowdown from US 83 to I-37.
http://www.txdot.gov/about_us/commission/2012_meetings/documents/transcripts/mar29.pdf
Quote
Agenda item 9c would remove the toll designation from a segment of US 281 in South Texas from south of FM 3066 northward through the City of Falfurrias to the Brooks County line. The main lanes of this 5.9-mile segment were originally designated as a toll project on the state highway system in 2007 in order to support the segment's improvement from an undivided four-lane road to a freeway.
In 2009, previously unanticipated federal funding became available through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, and this was used to help expedite and support construction of the freeway project in Falfurrias. In October 2011, a study concluded that the cost to install and maintain an electronic toll collection system on this segment is higher than forecasted toll revenues. Staff, therefore, recommends that the toll designation be removed from the mainlanes of US 281 from 0.9 miles south of FM 3066 northward to the Brooks County line, and that the segment operate as a non-tolled freeway on the state highway system.
I anticipate "inside I-610" in Houston will be one of the applications; any guesses regarding other applications?
My guesses would be US 281 in Falfurious  I-69C

I recently emailed TxDOT to ask about progress on the Falfurrias Expressway Project (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update1.html) and it should be open to traffic in approximately a month:

Quote
The US 281 Falfurrias project is scheduled to be complete next month.  It will be constructed to Interstate standards and will not be tolled.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: dariusb on March 31, 2014, 03:34:46 PM
Does anyone know how the progress of upgrading 59 to interstate standards in the Lufkn/Nacogdoches area is comin along? I've tried finding updated info online but to no avail. It's all older info.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Henry on March 31, 2014, 03:39:03 PM
Does anyone know how the progress of upgrading 59 to interstate standards in the Lufkn/Nacogdoches area is comin along? I've tried finding updated info online but to no avail. It's all older info.
Methinks they'll wait until the other upgrades from Houston south are complete.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: rickmastfan67 on March 31, 2014, 07:52:00 PM
Has anybody gotten photographs proving that the first I-69 segment in Robstown, TX has been converted to I-69E?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: yakra on April 01, 2014, 02:23:38 PM
Does anyone know how the progress of upgrading 59 to interstate standards in the Lufkn/Nacogdoches area is comin along? I've tried finding updated info online but to no avail. It's all older info.
There's some evidence of an upgrade at the US 59/69 split north of town:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/31.36981/-94.70953
http://maps.google.com/?ll=31.37064,-94.708951&t=k&z=16
No idea whether it will be part of I-69 though.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: The High Plains Traveler on April 01, 2014, 05:27:21 PM
Has anybody gotten photographs proving that the first I-69 segment in Robstown, TX has been converted to I-69E?
When was this supposed to have happened? It was I-69 at the end of last October. Kind of on the same topic, have reassurance markers for 69E and I-2 been posted? Only major interchange guide signs had the shields when we were there last fall.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: dariusb on April 01, 2014, 06:18:53 PM
Does anyone know how the progress of upgrading 59 to interstate standards in the Lufkn/Nacogdoches area is comin along? I've tried finding updated info online but to no avail. It's all older info.
There's some evidence of an upgrade at the US 59/69 split north of town:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/31.36981/-94.70953
http://maps.google.com/?ll=31.37064,-94.708951&t=k&z=16
No idea whether it will be part of I-69 though.
Thank you Yakra and Henry.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: rickmastfan67 on April 01, 2014, 07:20:15 PM
Has anybody gotten photographs proving that the first I-69 segment in Robstown, TX has been converted to I-69E?
When was this supposed to have happened? It was I-69 at the end of last October. Kind of on the same topic, have reassurance markers for 69E and I-2 been posted? Only major interchange guide signs had the shields when we were there last fall.

Well, both Google and OSM have been changed to show that segment as I-69E, that's why I'm asking.
http://goo.gl/maps/fSG7L
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: txstateends on April 01, 2014, 09:35:00 PM
Does anyone know how the progress of upgrading 59 to interstate standards in the Lufkn/Nacogdoches area is comin along? I've tried finding updated info online but to no avail. It's all older info.
There's some evidence of an upgrade at the US 59/69 split north of town:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/31.36981/-94.70953
http://maps.google.com/?ll=31.37064,-94.708951&t=k&z=16
No idea whether it will be part of I-69 though.

I think this interchange work was an interim idea, not really a pre- I-69 thing.  The intersection, historically, wasn't built right for all the patterns of traffic.  It's tight for a major interchange, plus there are at-grades and driveways right by it without much, if any, room for service roads.  I-69 really needs to pass by to the east of this spot to avoid a worst-case eminent-domain issue.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on April 16, 2014, 11:21:38 PM
In May, TxDOT will hold public meetings about their plans to upgrade US 59 to I-69 in El Campo and Wharton County (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=El+Campo,+TX&hl=en&ll=29.196527,-96.269073&spn=0.974624,1.234589&sll=29.351357,-96.134491&sspn=0.24329,0.308647&oq=el+campo,+TX&t=h&hnear=El+Campo,+Wharton+County,+Texas&z=10).

El Campo (http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/yoakum/el-campo-050614.html):

Quote
TxDOT is proposing adding frontage roads along US 59 through El Campo. The proposed project would construct frontage roads and convert the existing US 59 lanes into a controlled access road that meets interstate standards.

Wharton County (http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/yoakum/wharton-050614.html):

Quote
TxDOT proposes improving US 59 in Wharton County to interstate standards. The project would include frontage roads and divided highway with two main lanes in each direction.



Does anyone know how the progress of upgrading 59 to interstate standards in the Lufkn/Nacogdoches area is comin along? I've tried finding updated info online but to no avail. It's all older info.
There's some evidence of an upgrade at the US 59/69 split north of town:
http://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=17/31.36981/-94.70953
http://maps.google.com/?ll=31.37064,-94.708951&t=k&z=16
No idea whether it will be part of I-69 though.

This August 19, 2013 Angelina County map (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/projects/59/angelina-county-map.pdf) probably qualifies as older info, but it does include two short sections that are "under development to meet interstate standards and funded through construction":

(http://i.imgur.com/7klZzpo.jpg)

The lower short section may be the construction work that yakra identified.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: oscar on April 16, 2014, 11:43:07 PM
Has anybody gotten photographs proving that the first I-69 segment in Robstown, TX has been converted to I-69E?
When was this supposed to have happened? It was I-69 at the end of last October. Kind of on the same topic, have reassurance markers for 69E and I-2 been posted? Only major interchange guide signs had the shields when we were there last fall.

What I saw in south Texas last month:

-- AFAIK, I-69's Robstown segment was still signed as I-69, not I-69E.  Since I was focused on snagging the rather confusing US 77 business route through Robstown, I'm not sure I re-traveled the entire Robstown I-69 segment on this trip.

-- I saw no I-2, I-69C, or I-69E reassurance markers, just the shields on guide signs you saw (maybe a few more of them, including some relatively minor I-69E interchanges).  TxDOT seems content to sign those routes in the Brownsville region primarily as US 83, US 281, US 77, or US 77/83 respectively. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Brian556 on April 21, 2014, 10:45:19 PM
From The TxDOT Facebook page:

(https://scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t31.0-8/1071480_10151746298405874_1936754542_o.jpg)

(https://scontent-b-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t31.0-8/1072293_10151746298375874_1384879324_o.jpg)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: nolia_boi504 on April 26, 2014, 10:25:32 PM
Have I-69 overhead signs started to be hung on Southwest Fwy? I noticed ONE overhead sign heading northbound about a mile before the 610 (west loop) exits that said "I-69 north downtown". About half mile later it was followed with a " US-59 north downtown" overhead sign.

I know 59/69 dual signs were added to the sides of the highway and on/off ramps but wasn't aware of overheads just yet.

I know 59/69 dual signs were added to the sides of the highway and on/off ramps but wasn't aware of overheads.

Nexus 5
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: txstateends on April 26, 2014, 11:41:09 PM
From The TxDOT Facebook page:

(https://scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t31.0-8/1071480_10151746298405874_1936754542_o.jpg)

(https://scontent-b-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t31.0-8/1072293_10151746298375874_1384879324_o.jpg)

Wait, I just noticed something (why it didn't come to me before, I don't know....) -- shouldn't there be a US 83 shield under the I-69E and US 77 side of the post?  Unless they know something we don't know about which routes are designated from here south to the border bridge...
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: nolia_boi504 on April 28, 2014, 02:25:12 PM
Also noticed overhead I-69 N/S cosigned with US59 on the BW8 southbound to 69/59 interchange. I don't recall seeing that about a week ago. Glad to see the interstate shields finally showing up. Hopefully they will paint the blue shields on the roadway next.

Nexus 5

Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Henry on April 28, 2014, 03:48:42 PM
(https://scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t31.0-8/1071480_10151746298405874_1936754542_o.jpg)
That's funny, it looks more like a scene from southern FL (with the palm trees and all), which triggers an old memory of my younger self imagining I-2 being signed on the Alligator Alley, long before that road was made into an extension of I-75.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: rte66man on April 28, 2014, 08:33:53 PM
Also noticed overhead I-69 N/S cosigned with US59 on the BW8 southbound to 69/59 interchange. I don't recall seeing that about a week ago. Glad to see the interstate shields finally showing up. Hopefully they will paint the blue shields on the roadway next.

Nexus 5


Coming in and out of the Bush airport I saw that 69 is signed on the brown airport signs.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on April 30, 2014, 03:58:31 PM
As regards relief options in Houston, in both the I-69 Segment Two Committee Report and Recommendations (pages 37-38/157; pages 31-32 of document) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg2_final.pdf) and the I-69 Segment Three Committee Report and Recommendations (page 36/157; page 30 of document) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg3_final.pdf), the Segment Two and Segment Three Committees ... did not tip their hand as far as recommending a specific relief route
... 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):
(http://i.imgur.com/1ScQV.png)
This article (http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/tomball/news/cornyn-lauds-continued-work-along-i--corridor/article_42ea779e-cbb2-11e2-b612-001a4bcf887a.html) reports that five alternatives are being considered for Houston's I-69 relief route:
Quote
According to the Texas Department of Transportation, I-69 will enter the Houston area from the southwest on the current U.S. 59 (Southwest Freeway). It will also leave the area on U.S. 59 (Eastex Freeway).
In the middle, there are five alternatives that have been selected for further study:
- Following the current U.S. 59 corridor through Houston. (However, this highway is already heavily loaded with traffic; a post to misc.transport.road suggests a portion of U.S. 59 may be the busiest freeway in North America.)
- Following the western leg of the Grand Parkway.
- Following the eastern leg of the Grand Parkway.
- Following the western leg of Beltway 8/Sam Houston Tollway.
- Following the eastern leg of Beltway 8/Sam Houston Tollway.
A final routing will probably be selected in the next few years ...

This article (http://www.chron.com/neighborhood/bayarea/news/article/Growth-presents-transportation-challenges-for-the-5439353.php) reports that a Harris County judge believes that the bypass needs to go south and east in order to best serve the port:

Quote
Harris County Judge Ed Emmett addressed the importance of Interstate 69.
"It's pretty much agreed now that we need to have a bypass around the Houston area," he said. "It needs to go south and east instead of west, so it can support the port."
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on April 30, 2014, 08:32:00 PM
Since I-69 is already signed N and S of I-610, it's a no brainer to sign the remainder section of the Eastex/Southwest Freeway the same. Why not just compete the Grand Parkway as a full loop, dub it I-869/TX 99, and call it a decade??
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Perfxion on May 01, 2014, 06:32:10 AM
Eastern half will be next to impossible to finish. Too much built up stuff in sections, A, B, and I-2. Western half will be done by late Summer, early fall of 2015.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: US 41 on May 01, 2014, 11:42:27 AM
An honest question. Are the I-69W and C necessary. It's almost as short just to take I-35 and I-10 via San Antonio. I 69 C is also pretty close to the E. The E route is the only necessary routing of I-69 in Texas.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: wxfree on May 01, 2014, 12:03:15 PM
An honest question. Are the I-69W and C necessary. It's almost as short just to take I-35 and I-10 via San Antonio. I 69 C is also pretty close to the E. The E route is the only necessary routing of I-69 in Texas.

I wonder about that, too.  I'm not bothered by the suffixes (that may be because I've always lived near I-35s E and W, so it's normal to me), and I kinda like I-2 being where it is, especially if it connects to I-35.  My concern is over whether this project is being overbuilt.  I suspect it may be related to the political manner in which the plans were made.  If all of the funding were put into one road, which I agree should be the eastern alignment, might that result in the road getting completed sooner?  Maybe we're stretching too thin by trying to please everyone who wants an I-way.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on May 01, 2014, 03:33:01 PM
37 could have been extended south along 69E and 69C not really necessary.  An expressway out there where few live suffices
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on May 01, 2014, 04:40:35 PM
I suppose that it is still possible that specific applications (US 59 in Houston?) will be submitted in time for AASHTO's May meeting.
I heard from a contact in the I-69 Alliance that there are two submitted sections of US 59.  First is the section between the 610s in Houston and the other is Loop 20 in Laredo.

This TxDOT slide from the I-369 Working Group's Feb. 25 meeting (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/committees/harrison-marshall/meeting-materials.pdf) shows that part of US 77 south of Robstown is also being studied for an I-69E designation (page 4/39 of pdf):

(http://i.imgur.com/gpc1B5E.png)

I wonder if this section was also included in the AASHTO application (April 14 was the deadline for submission)?
Title: Bill Introduced to Add TX 44 to Texas I-69 System
Post by: Grzrd on May 03, 2014, 06:36:10 PM
there's a good chance no "I-69W" ever gets built per se. Laredo-Freer-Alice-Corpus is a much greater priority for traffic relief and connectivity than Laredo-Freer-George West-Beeville-Victoria, given the finite pot of money available.

This Alliance for I-69 Texas article (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update%204.30.14%20sh44bill.html) reports that a bill has been introduced to add TX 44 to the Texas I-69 system:

Quote
South Texas Congressman Blake Farenthold has introduced legislation has been that would add 73 more miles to the Interstate 69 system of routes in Texas and ultimately provide an interstate connection between Laredo and Corpus Christi ....
Congressman Farenthold’s bill applies to the section of State Highway 44 between US 59 in Freer and the SH 358 Freeway in Corpus Christi.
If enacted the legislation would designate this section of SH 44 as a High Priority Corridor on the National Highway System and designate it as a Future Interstate.  The Alliance for I-69 Texas and the statewide I-69 Advisory Committee have been instrumental in moving the legislation forward ....
SH 44 is already at interstate highway standard in Corpus Christi and is a four-lane divided highway westward to the city of San Diego.  The 23 miles from San Diego to Freer is a two-lane section passing through sparsely populated ranch land.  Upgrades recommended by the committees include relief routes around Alice, San Diego and Freer plus a new link at Robstown.
The legislation, H.R. 4523, is being referred to as the “44 to 69 Act of 2014.”

Here is the map that accompanies the article:

(http://i.imgur.com/cWQCzDz.jpg)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: oscar on May 03, 2014, 06:55:10 PM
South Texas Congressman Blake Farenthold has introduced legislation has been that would add 73 more miles to the Interstate 69 system of routes in Texas and ultimately provide an interstate connection between Laredo and Corpus Christi ....
Congressman Farenthold’s bill applies to the section of State Highway 44 between US 59 in Freer and the SH 358 Freeway in Corpus Christi.

Rather than loading up the I-69 network in south Texas -- what to use for the suffix, with W, C, and E already taken? -- they could just go for I-6.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Scott5114 on May 03, 2014, 07:15:11 PM
Given that I-369 is considered part of the "I-69 system", an I-269 designation would make sense there.

Unless they just really want I-69F or something.

SAMSUNG-SGH-I337

Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: triplemultiplex on May 05, 2014, 12:01:32 AM
Unless they just really want I-69F or something.

I can guess what the "F" is for... :lol
Definitely should be yet another suffixed I-69.  That way every business in South Texas can say they're located "just off I-69!"
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: txstateends on May 05, 2014, 08:24:19 AM
If they don't go with the odd-number I-x69, what about:

I-69A (for alternate)
or
I-69M (for middle?)

Something else I just thought of....would the east end of what has been TX 44, if interstate-named, really end at TX 358 (like TX 44 does now), or would it need to end at Robstown (at I-69E) or where TX 358's north end is, at I-37?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: O Tamandua on May 05, 2014, 10:04:06 PM
LONG article from the Victoria Advocate yesterday about small business owners in Victoria (my daughter's name  :colorful: ) who are less than enthralled by what the future I-69 will do for their retail traffic...feel for them.  I didn't know I-69 construction was so full-bore there.  There is a significant petrochemical presence in that city, too, enough that a large barge canal has been dug some time back...I'm sure there will be some happy I-69 shippers there eventually:
  http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/2014/may/03/frontage_road_mc_050414_238470/?business
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: O Tamandua on May 05, 2014, 10:06:47 PM
Article from the Victoria Advocate yesterday about small business owners in Victoria (my daughter's name  :colorful: ) who are less than enthralled by what the future I-69 will do for their retail traffic...feel for them.  I didn't know I-69 construction was so full-bore there.  There is a significant petrochemical presence in that city, too, enough that a large barge canal has been dug some time back...I'm sure there will be some happy I-69 shippers there eventually:
  http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/2014/may/03/frontage_road_mc_050414_238470/?business

Another article from yesterday...LOTS of interest in I-69...oh, if only Arkansas'/extreme southern Missouri's/Bowie County, Texas' remaining sections of I-49 will have as much cheerleading (and sooner or later they will):  http://surfky.com/index.php/communities/123-general-news-for-all-sites/48054-kentucky-among-five-states-represented-on-i-69-advocacy-trip-to-dc
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: RBBrittain on May 06, 2014, 12:14:06 AM
An honest question. Are the I-69W and C necessary. It's almost as short just to take I-35 and I-10 via San Antonio. I 69 C is also pretty close to the E. The E route is the only necessary routing of I-69 in Texas.
Laredo is not only a boomtown (from <70,000 in 1970 to pushing 250,000 today -- just the city proper, not counting suburbs, Mexico, etc.), but it's also the busiest inland port of entry in the U.S.; it needs I-69W just to relieve current I-35 truck traffic.  Maybe I-69C is overkill, but Laredo needs I-69W just as much as the Valley needs I-69E.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: O Tamandua on May 06, 2014, 03:14:10 PM
I'm going to stop adding stories here and go back to my "home" in Bella Vista  :D , but here's another story from six hours ago about how the I-69/I-369 Harrison County/Marshall, TX working group is gaining support for its part in a proposed route through that area (the largest Texas city south of Texarkana that I-369 will go through).  The fact that articles seem to be coming at a more rapid clip for this tells me that project is well on its way, no surprise given the "Panama Canal widening/Houston has supplanted New York City as the nation's premier good exporting region" stories of late:  http://www.marshallnewsmessenger.com/news/i--working-group-gains-support-for-area-route/article_0da90b4d-39ef-5478-aadf-43d10f0ffd59.html
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: kkt on May 06, 2014, 04:46:37 PM
This Alliance for I-69 Texas article (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update%204.30.14%20sh44bill.html) reports that a bill has been introduced to add TX 44 to the Texas I-69 system:

Oh no, not again.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on May 06, 2014, 04:50:11 PM
This Alliance for I-69 Texas article (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update%204.30.14%20sh44bill.html) reports that a bill has been introduced to add TX 44 to the Texas I-69 system:

Oh no, not again.


I-69Uhoh
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: RBBrittain on May 06, 2014, 09:30:58 PM
This Alliance for I-69 Texas article (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update%204.30.14%20sh44bill.html) reports that a bill has been introduced to add TX 44 to the Texas I-69 system:

Oh no, not again.


I-69Uhoh
I-6 would make sense, especially with I-2 now in the Valley.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Arkansastravelguy on May 07, 2014, 11:54:43 AM
Texas seems to want to compete with North Carolina in the "let's slap an interstate shield on every road we can find" contest. At least NC isn't using those ridiculous suffixes


iPhone
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bugo on May 07, 2014, 12:11:55 PM
Texas seems to want to compete with North Carolina in the "let's slap an interstate shield on every road we can find" contest. At least NC isn't using those ridiculous suffixes

NC is the worst.  I'm glad all states aren't doing that.  If Oklahoma did that, the BA would be I-144, US 64/412 west of Tulsa would be either part of I-144 or possibly I-344 if not a 2di.  The Muskogee and Cimarron Turnpikes are below interstate standards so it would take the grandfather clause for them to be interstates, and then there is an at-grade on 64/412 near Keystone Lake in the brief Osage County part of the road.  US 75 would also be an odd x44, and OK 11 would be I-644.  The Creek Turnpike, which is built to I-standards would be I-844 instead of secret OK 364.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Molandfreak on May 07, 2014, 12:56:45 PM
I'll give you that Texas doesn't need all the I-69 branches, but I'd rather have TXDOT apply for many more Interstate designations that actually make sense within the system (Loop 45, Sam Houston...) Why all the hate against NC? Sure, the routing of I-73/74 is stupid as it is, but a Mount Airy-Myrtle Beach Interstate does make sense. As does a Hendersonville-Wilmington Interstate.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Henry on May 07, 2014, 01:15:19 PM
Texas seems to want to compete with North Carolina in the "let's slap an interstate shield on every road we can find" contest. At least NC isn't using those ridiculous suffixes

NC is the worst.  I'm glad all states aren't doing that.  If Oklahoma did that, the BA would be I-144, US 64/412 west of Tulsa would be either part of I-144 or possibly I-344 if not a 2di.  The Muskogee and Cimarron Turnpikes are below interstate standards so it would take the grandfather clause for them to be interstates, and then there is an at-grade on 64/412 near Keystone Lake in the brief Osage County part of the road.  US 75 would also be an odd x44, and OK 11 would be I-644.  The Creek Turnpike, which is built to I-standards would be I-844 instead of secret OK 364.
I'll give you that Texas doesn't need all the I-69 branches, but I'd rather have TXDOT apply for many more Interstate designations that actually make sense within the system (Loop 45, Sam Houston...) Why all the hate against NC? Sure, the routing of I-73/74 is stupid as it is, but a Mount Airy-Myrtle Beach Interstate does make sense. As does a Hendersonville-Wilmington Interstate.
Well, given that I-74 has a missing link to Cincinnati, the current route of I-73 is entirely east of I-77 (and I-75, for that matter), and I-69 may not be built back to Indianapolis in most of our lifetimes, I will agree that all these routes are really not necessary. Sure, having a new Interstate is nice, but there is such a thing as overdoing it. Then again, this was attempted in many large cities and ended up becoming a major failure for the most part, thanks to community and/or environmental opposition.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on May 07, 2014, 01:18:59 PM
I recently emailed TxDOT to ask about progress on the Falfurrias Expressway Project (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update1.html) and it should be open to traffic in approximately a month:
Quote
The US 281 Falfurrias project is scheduled to be complete next month.  It will be constructed to Interstate standards and will not be tolled

I have not seen any media reports about it, but recent email correspondence with TxDOT indicates that the six mile US 281/Future I-69C Falfurrias Expressway Project is now open to traffic:

Quote
Q: I just wanted to check and see if the US 281 Falfurrias project is now open to traffic. I have not been able to find any information about it on the internet.

A: Yes, the project is now open to traffic.  Please let me know if you have any other questions.



TxDOT has posted the US 281/US 59 Planning and Feasibility Study - Interstate (I-69C) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/us281-us59-district.pdf).

So one current Future I-69C construction project completed and four more apparently still ongoing (pages 13-14/15 of pdf from above-quoted link):

(http://i.imgur.com/p5IW2qY.png)
(http://i.imgur.com/Sk7PSP9.png)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Molandfreak on May 07, 2014, 01:22:17 PM
Texas seems to want to compete with North Carolina in the "let's slap an interstate shield on every road we can find" contest. At least NC isn't using those ridiculous suffixes

NC is the worst.  I'm glad all states aren't doing that.  If Oklahoma did that, the BA would be I-144, US 64/412 west of Tulsa would be either part of I-144 or possibly I-344 if not a 2di.  The Muskogee and Cimarron Turnpikes are below interstate standards so it would take the grandfather clause for them to be interstates, and then there is an at-grade on 64/412 near Keystone Lake in the brief Osage County part of the road.  US 75 would also be an odd x44, and OK 11 would be I-644.  The Creek Turnpike, which is built to I-standards would be I-844 instead of secret OK 364.
I'll give you that Texas doesn't need all the I-69 branches, but I'd rather have TXDOT apply for many more Interstate designations that actually make sense within the system (Loop 45, Sam Houston...) Why all the hate against NC? Sure, the routing of I-73/74 is stupid as it is, but a Mount Airy-Myrtle Beach Interstate does make sense. As does a Hendersonville-Wilmington Interstate.
Well, given that I-74 has a missing link to Cincinnati, the current route of I-73 is entirely east of I-77 (and I-75, for that matter), and I-69 may not be built back to Indianapolis in most of our lifetimes, I will agree that all these routes are really not necessary. Sure, having a new Interstate is nice, but there is such a thing as overdoing it. Then again, this was attempted in many large cities and ended up becoming a major failure for the most part, thanks to community and/or environmental opposition.
I never said they don't overdo it. I said the eventual routes make sense in the overall system (in TX and NC, that is). And I-73 isn't too bad in the grid as it is. Not everything has to be 100% perfect.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Rover_0 on May 07, 2014, 01:25:45 PM
Texas seems to want to compete with North Carolina in the "let's slap an interstate shield on every road we can find" contest. At least NC isn't using those ridiculous suffixes

NC is the worst.  I'm glad all states aren't doing that.  If Oklahoma did that, the BA would be I-144, US 64/412 west of Tulsa would be either part of I-144 or possibly I-344 if not a 2di.  The Muskogee and Cimarron Turnpikes are below interstate standards so it would take the grandfather clause for them to be interstates, and then there is an at-grade on 64/412 near Keystone Lake in the brief Osage County part of the road.  US 75 would also be an odd x44, and OK 11 would be I-644.  The Creek Turnpike, which is built to I-standards would be I-844 instead of secret OK 364.

I'll give you that Texas doesn't need all the I-69 branches, but I'd rather have TXDOT apply for many more Interstate designations that actually make sense within the system (Loop 45, Sam Houston...) Why all the hate against NC? Sure, the routing of I-73/74 is stupid as it is, but a Mount Airy-Myrtle Beach Interstate does make sense. As does a Hendersonville-Wilmington Interstate.

To be honest, I can appreciate North Carolina being proactive, though I'll admit that they are a bit too proactive (I-74). I don't mind the suffixed I-69s, but ideally:

I-69C -> I-169 or I-33 (even if it's east of I-35)
I-69E -> I-37 reroute/extension or just I-69
US-59/TX-44 -> I-6
US-59 between Freer-George West -> I-x06 or I-x69

If suffixes have to stay, I-69C -> I-69W while I-69E remains, as does my I-6 and x06 or x69. US-59 between Freer and George West can then be an I-x69 or I-x06. But I'll hold out hope that Laredo-Corpus Christi becomes I-6.

In that vein and without going too much into detail (re: Molandfreak), Loop 289 should become an even I-x27. But enough of that tangent here.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Arkansastravelguy on May 07, 2014, 01:29:36 PM

Texas seems to want to compete with North Carolina in the "let's slap an interstate shield on every road we can find" contest. At least NC isn't using those ridiculous suffixes

NC is the worst.  I'm glad all states aren't doing that.  If Oklahoma did that, the BA would be I-144, US 64/412 west of Tulsa would be either part of I-144 or possibly I-344 if not a 2di.  The Muskogee and Cimarron Turnpikes are below interstate standards so it would take the grandfather clause for them to be interstates, and then there is an at-grade on 64/412 near Keystone Lake in the brief Osage County part of the road.  US 75 would also be an odd x44, and OK 11 would be I-644.  The Creek Turnpike, which is built to I-standards would be I-844 instead of secret OK 364.
I'll give you that Texas doesn't need all the I-69 branches, but I'd rather have TXDOT apply for many more Interstate designations that actually make sense within the system (Loop 45, Sam Houston...) Why all the hate against NC? Sure, the routing of I-73/74 is stupid as it is, but a Mount Airy-Myrtle Beach Interstate does make sense. As does a Hendersonville-Wilmington Interstate.
Well, given that I-74 has a missing link to Cincinnati, the current route of I-73 is entirely east of I-77 (and I-75, for that matter), and I-69 may not be built back to Indianapolis in most of our lifetimes, I will agree that all these routes are really not necessary. Sure, having a new Interstate is nice, but there is such a thing as overdoing it. Then again, this was attempted in many large cities and ended up becoming a major failure for the most part, thanks to community and/or environmental opposition.

I think it's overdoing it. What exactly is the point of I-2? Perhaps we are forgetting what an INTERstate is supposed to be. As for NC, it's a little out of hand when three interstates share the same roadway (40,73,85). They rerouted the rerouted 40 at least. Not to mention how many US routes share the exact same road (29,70,220, and maybe 421)


iPhone
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Arkansastravelguy on May 07, 2014, 01:41:16 PM
I lived in NC quite a few years and the road system they are developing is incredible and the state deserves praise for that. It's the numberings and renumberings that is horrible. 540 to 640 and back and the routing of Greensboro-Winston-Salem having 840 and 785 overlap and so forth. I see 785 as the interstate to nowhere (Danville is not a major city) being 29 was just fine. If they extend the route to DC that would be great. I just think we're losing sight of what an interstate is supposed to be. 


iPhone
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Molandfreak on May 07, 2014, 01:44:11 PM
What exactly is the point of I-2?
Not this again. This is about the only corridor that makes any sense for an I-2 to follow within the next century...

Yes, I get that the routing of I-73 in/north of Greensboro is stupid. I-74 is also a pie-in-the-sky dream in the long run. But both are worthy of Interstate designation in a less-elaborate form than planned.

The 3di Interstates in NC are a different story.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Arkansastravelguy on May 07, 2014, 01:58:11 PM

What exactly is the point of I-2?
Not this again. This is about the only corridor that makes any sense for an I-2 to follow within the next century...


I agree with that. But what's the real point? I don't believe it will serve an economic purpose. The roadway was already limited access. So what's the point? Because 2 isn't used yet? That's my point. There doesn't have to be a 2. We don't need to put a blue and red sign on every highway.


iPhone
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Molandfreak on May 07, 2014, 05:39:28 PM
I see now. I agree that it's not necessary, though I don't have a problem with it per se. The loops are the main addition I wish they would consider.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Arkansastravelguy on May 07, 2014, 08:54:46 PM
Maybe Texas knows road geeks like me will drive down there just to get a pic of the sign and drive the highway...


iPhone
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on May 08, 2014, 12:39:46 AM

What exactly is the point of I-2?
Not this again. This is about the only corridor that makes any sense for an I-2 to follow within the next century...


I agree with that. But what's the real point? I don't believe it will serve an economic purpose. The roadway was already limited access. So what's the point? Because 2 isn't used yet? That's my point. There doesn't have to be a 2. We don't need to put a blue and red sign on every highway.


iPhone

If they are planning to extend this to Laredo or Del Rio or even El Paso, then I-2 makes perfect sense. Otherwise, I'd rather they stuck with US 83.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on May 08, 2014, 08:05:45 AM
if y'all were around when they formed the interstate system you'd be complaining about how no one is driving out west and why would we every build I-25 & I-15?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Arkansastravelguy on May 08, 2014, 08:26:55 AM

if y'all were around when they formed the interstate system you'd be complaining about how no one is driving out west and why would we every build I-25 & I-15?

I wouldn't be. The purpose of those interstates was to move traffic and goods long distances across the country. I'm not sure how building long highways to improve connectivity is comparable to just slapping shields on an existing highway that's 40 miles long. I appreciate I69 and it's purpose of moving ported goods nationwide. The 2/69C system is redundant and adheres to the TX/NC philosophy of putting an interstate shield on anything and everything.


iPhone
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on May 08, 2014, 10:31:25 AM
I'm saying sometimes you build an interstate where "traffic flow wouldn't dictate" because it draws traffic off of other roads as well, thus saving a lot of time.  I'm sure no one drives the corridor from Houston to Laredo on US 59 but a lot of the traffic that goes through San Antonio would use it. Much like my plan to extend I-37 to Wichita Falls.  It would draw much of the traffic out of Fort Worth and relieve congestion on I-35, yet no one drives it now.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on May 09, 2014, 09:36:03 AM
The I-69 Driven By Texans website (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/drivenbytexans/us77-kingsville-driscoll.htm) recently posted a page about the US 77/Future I-69E Kingsville-Driscoll project, with construction ramping up this Spring and anticipated to have an opening date of October 2016:

Quote
This project, from Kingsville to Driscoll, is approximately eight miles in length and spans from E. Corral Avenue / Farm-to-Market Road 1898 in the northern portion of Kingsville in Kleburg County north to County Road 12/FM 3354, just south of the City of Driscoll in Nueces County. The project will consist of:
Reconstruction of and improvements to the existing road to include
Two main lanes in each direction
Discontinuous frontage roads
Construction and overlay of main lanes and frontage roads
Construction and widening of bridges, which will eliminate crossroad traffic on main lanes of travel
Construction of at-grade ramps and intersection improvements
The improvements will also include wider road shoulders and increase safety for disabled vehicles and motorists needing to pull over to the shoulders.
Construction for the project is anticipated to run April 2014 - August 2016 with a projected opening date of October 2016.
The estimated total project cost is approximately $79 million.



In May, TxDOT will hold public meetings about their plans to upgrade US 59 to I-69 in El Campo and Wharton County (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=El+Campo,+TX&hl=en&ll=29.196527,-96.269073&spn=0.974624,1.234589&sll=29.351357,-96.134491&sspn=0.24329,0.308647&oq=el+campo,+TX&t=h&hnear=El+Campo,+Wharton+County,+Texas&z=10).
El Campo (http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/yoakum/el-campo-050614.html)
Wharton County (http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/yoakum/wharton-050614.html)

The I-69 Driven By Texans website has also posted public meetings materials for the El Campo project (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/drivenbytexans/us59-el-campo.htm) and the Wharton County project (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/drivenbytexans/us59-wharton.htm).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on May 12, 2014, 03:14:49 PM
I'm saying sometimes you build an interstate where "traffic flow wouldn't dictate" because it draws traffic off of other roads as well, thus saving a lot of time.  I'm sure no one drives the corridor from Houston to Laredo on US 59 but a lot of the traffic that goes through San Antonio would use it. Much like my plan to extend I-37 to Wichita Falls.  It would draw much of the traffic out of Fort Worth and relieve congestion on I-35, yet no one drives it now.

I couldn't agree more. A lot of people look at a proposed route and say there is a lot of traffic, but not enough to justify an interstate designation because it doesn't have the traffic that existing interstates do. Well, no crap!   No road that is sub interstate status can boast the traffic numbers that an interstate does because trucks stay on the interstate.  I have a similar proposal for and interstate to go through Austin and connect to Interstate 10 on both sides (which I call Interstate 18, essentially doing the same as I -35E and I-35W do for DFW).  Everyone argues that US 290 west of Austin doesn't have the traffic for an interstate highway, but I bet every trucker going through San Antonio from Houston wishes there was a freeway from Columbus to Junction through Austin to make their trip a bit shorter mileage wise and way shorter time wise.  Field of Dreams said ,"if you build it, they will come."
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Henry on May 12, 2014, 04:07:56 PM
I'm saying sometimes you build an interstate where "traffic flow wouldn't dictate" because it draws traffic off of other roads as well, thus saving a lot of time.  I'm sure no one drives the corridor from Houston to Laredo on US 59 but a lot of the traffic that goes through San Antonio would use it. Much like my plan to extend I-37 to Wichita Falls.  It would draw much of the traffic out of Fort Worth and relieve congestion on I-35, yet no one drives it now.

I couldn't agree more. A lot of people look at a proposed route and say there is a lot of traffic, but not enough to justify an interstate designation because it doesn't have the traffic that existing interstates do. Well, no crap!   No road that is sub interstate status can boast the traffic numbers that an interstate does because trucks stay on the interstate.  I have a similar proposal for and interstate to go through Austin and connect to Interstate 10 on both sides (which I call Interstate 18, essentially doing the same as I -35E and I-35W do for DFW).  Everyone argues that US 290 west of Austin doesn't have the traffic for an interstate highway, but I bet every trucker going through San Antonio from Houston wishes there was a freeway from Columbus to Junction through Austin to make their trip a bit shorter mileage wise and way shorter time wise.  Field of Dreams said ,"if you build it, they will come."
I was thinking the same thing too! Except it would be an extension of I-12. (And the existing I-12 does a pretty good job of helping motorists avoid New Orleans altogether.)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on May 12, 2014, 04:38:48 PM
I'm saying sometimes you build an interstate where "traffic flow wouldn't dictate" because it draws traffic off of other roads as well, thus saving a lot of time.  I'm sure no one drives the corridor from Houston to Laredo on US 59 but a lot of the traffic that goes through San Antonio would use it. Much like my plan to extend I-37 to Wichita Falls.  It would draw much of the traffic out of Fort Worth and relieve congestion on I-35, yet no one drives it now.

I couldn't agree more. A lot of people look at a proposed route and say there is a lot of traffic, but not enough to justify an interstate designation because it doesn't have the traffic that existing interstates do. Well, no crap!   No road that is sub interstate status can boast the traffic numbers that an interstate does because trucks stay on the interstate.  I have a similar proposal for and interstate to go through Austin and connect to Interstate 10 on both sides (which I call Interstate 18, essentially doing the same as I -35E and I-35W do for DFW).  Everyone argues that US 290 west of Austin doesn't have the traffic for an interstate highway, but I bet every trucker going through San Antonio from Houston wishes there was a freeway from Columbus to Junction through Austin to make their trip a bit shorter mileage wise and way shorter time wise.  Field of Dreams said ,"if you build it, they will come."

Yes.  The freeway system was built to get people into downtowns when it reality through traffic needs to avoid it. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bugo on May 12, 2014, 05:22:33 PM
I'm saying sometimes you build an interstate where "traffic flow wouldn't dictate" because it draws traffic off of other roads as well, thus saving a lot of time.  I'm sure no one drives the corridor from Houston to Laredo on US 59 but a lot of the traffic that goes through San Antonio would use it. Much like my plan to extend I-37 to Wichita Falls.  It would draw much of the traffic out of Fort Worth and relieve congestion on I-35, yet no one drives it now.

I couldn't agree more. A lot of people look at a proposed route and say there is a lot of traffic, but not enough to justify an interstate designation because it doesn't have the traffic that existing interstates do. Well, no crap!   No road that is sub interstate status can boast the traffic numbers that an interstate does because trucks stay on the interstate.  I have a similar proposal for and interstate to go through Austin and connect to Interstate 10 on both sides (which I call Interstate 18, essentially doing the same as I -35E and I-35W do for DFW).  Everyone argues that US 290 west of Austin doesn't have the traffic for an interstate highway, but I bet every trucker going through San Antonio from Houston wishes there was a freeway from Columbus to Junction through Austin to make their trip a bit shorter mileage wise and way shorter time wise.  Field of Dreams said ,"if you build it, they will come."

This is very true.  When, say, I-49 is completed there will be a lot more traffic than is currently on US 71.  Vehicles that would normally go way out of the way just to stay on good roads would take the new I-49 instead of US 69 or some other north south highway.  Same with I-69 between Shreveport and Memphis.  On paper it doesn't look like it will get much traffic but it will make a great bypass of the Little Rock/North Little Rock mess and traffic will be able to avoid the awful I-40 from NLR to West Memphis.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on May 12, 2014, 08:00:02 PM
finally most of us agree on something. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Arkansastravelguy on May 13, 2014, 01:48:45 PM

finally most of us agree on something.

I agree with your philosophy, but I still don't think 2/69C applies to this....


iPhone
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on May 13, 2014, 01:56:29 PM
If the "there has to be significant traffic to upgrade to an interstate" argument was used in 1957 when they laid out the interstate highway system, Interstate 10 would not have been built between Kerrville and Junction (or Lordsburg, NM and Benson, AZ for that fact) because here wasn't a single car driving on that guy's ranch out there.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on May 13, 2014, 02:58:25 PM
If the "there has to be significant traffic to upgrade to an interstate" argument was used in 1957 when they laid out the interstate highway system, Interstate 10 would not have been built between Kerrville and Junction (or Lordsburg, NM and Benson, AZ for that fact) because here wasn't a single car driving on that guy's ranch out there.


You got that right.  Part of it is giving people an easier way to travel, part of it is funneling people off of other roads.  I-15 & I-25 would still have unbuilt stretches if we used that logic.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Perfxion on May 13, 2014, 03:01:45 PM
The problem with the theory of "build it and they will come" boils down to money and logic. It cost a lot of money to upgrade these state and US highways to interstate grade. State and Federal level have a lot of people complaining about money being spent. Less money is going into road funds, why build what isn't needed when you can't be sure that the money for needed projects is there?

If you are building 1 to the RGV, why build a second so close? Why build a highway to bypass traffic that isn't there on the western half of San Antonio/Austin? Why build an interstate all the way to Texarkana from Houston when traffic would not go that route, plus 49 would not be that far away north of the 69 diverge into LA?

If I am not mistaken from the years I lived in Texas, most traffic flows within the NBA triangle. Only one interstate is really needed beyond East and West. Only one is really needed South.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on May 13, 2014, 03:35:42 PM
I agree they didn't need 69 & 69C.  69E (as 37) would have been sufficient.  I dont hate 69 but I sure dont see the need for 69C.  Or one road could have been put in that branched further south.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: lordsutch on May 13, 2014, 09:35:06 PM
The problem with this logic (which I agreed with until I lived in South Texas and saw it for myself) is that the 69C/281 and 69E/77 corridors serve fundamentally different traffic flows.  69C serves the Hidalgo County to/from San Antonio + (with TX 44) Corpus Christi + (with US 59) Houston flows, 69E serves the Cameron County to/from San Antonio + Corpus Christi + Houston flows.  If you only had 69C or 69E, a lot of those flows would require backtracking 40+ miles in the wrong direction, and people just aren't going to go that far out of their way unless the non-freeway corridor is gridlocked. So you're still going to have more or less the same traffic on both corridors, even if one is upgraded and the other isn't.

(To put it another way, 69C and 69E are only really redundant for SW to NE or NW to SE movements, because of I-2/US 83 and I-37. They are not redundant for NW to SW and NE to SE. Nobody would take I-37 to I-69E to I-2 to get from San Antonio to McAllen or vice versa. They'd take US 281. Hence why US 281 needs to be upgraded through Falfurrias, Alice, George West, etc.)

By similar logic, you could argue that I-35 should have gone through Fort Worth, and there should be no I-35E or I-x35 through Dallas, since if you wanted to access Dallas, you could use I-20 or I-30 from Fort Worth to get there. The folks who'd be in Waxahatchie and Desoto sitting in US 77 traffic in that scenario would likely disagree.

All that leaves aside the RGV politics which dictate that Hidalgo can't have anything Cameron doesn't already have, and vice versa.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: US 41 on May 13, 2014, 09:53:22 PM
Honestly interstates probably weren't really needed out west. Multilane highways with bypasses around towns would've been enough in most places. And as long as businesses weren't allowed to build right on the highway it would've worked very well that way.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on May 13, 2014, 10:42:52 PM
I have no problem with the separate I-69C and I-69E Interstate highway corridors other than perhaps the numbering choices (pushing a number like I-69 that far West is just plain strange, but it is what it is). Population growth in the far South end of Texas is as rapid as anywhere else in the Lone Star State. There is a lot of people and traffic down there. Further, I can certainly see the validity in building I-2 and even extending it North up to Laredo. Going farther than that, I think I-27 and its Ports to Plains Corridor needs to be upgraded to Interstate level standards at some point, either in terms of a freeway or some kind of turnpike. Same goes for extending I-44 South into Texas, at least down to San Angelo and an extended I-27 corridor or down to the border at Del Rio. Just sayin'.

Of course this infrastructure building would work better with some improved trade dealing with Mexico and Canada and not having quite so much manufacturing production exporting to far away continents.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: swbrotha100 on May 14, 2014, 02:40:56 AM
If US 290 became an interstate someday, I would hope there were significant improvements to the section that shares I-35 in Austin, or a new freeway would bypass Austin altogether.

Z992

Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: US 41 on May 14, 2014, 07:58:59 AM
I have no problem with the separate I-69C and I-69E Interstate highway corridors other than perhaps the numbering choices (pushing a number like I-69 that far West is just plain strange, but it is what it is). Population growth in the far South end of Texas is as rapid as anywhere else in the Lone Star State. There is a lot of people and traffic down there. Further, I can certainly see the validity in building I-2 and even extending it North up to Laredo. Going farther than that, I think I-27 and its Ports to Plains Corridor needs to be upgraded to Interstate level standards at some point, either in terms of a freeway or some kind of turnpike. Same goes for extending I-44 South into Texas, at least down to San Angelo and an extended I-27 corridor or down to the border at Del Rio. Just sayin'.

Of course this infrastructure building would work better with some improved trade dealing with Mexico and Canada and not having quite so much manufacturing production exporting to far away continents.

...like Asia (China). I thought America didn't support communism.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on May 14, 2014, 08:29:33 AM
The problem with this logic (which I agreed with until I lived in South Texas and saw it for myself) is that the 69C/281 and 69E/77 corridors serve fundamentally different traffic flows.  69C serves the Hidalgo County to/from San Antonio + (with TX 44) Corpus Christi + (with US 59) Houston flows, 69E serves the Cameron County to/from San Antonio + Corpus Christi + Houston flows.  If you only had 69C or 69E, a lot of those flows would require backtracking 40+ miles in the wrong direction, and people just aren't going to go that far out of their way unless the non-freeway corridor is gridlocked. So you're still going to have more or less the same traffic on both corridors, even if one is upgraded and the other isn't.

(To put it another way, 69C and 69E are only really redundant for SW to NE or NW to SE movements, because of I-2/US 83 and I-37. They are not redundant for NW to SW and NE to SE. Nobody would take I-37 to I-69E to I-2 to get from San Antonio to McAllen or vice versa. They'd take US 281. Hence why US 281 needs to be upgraded through Falfurrias, Alice, George West, etc.)

By similar logic, you could argue that I-35 should have gone through Fort Worth, and there should be no I-35E or I-x35 through Dallas, since if you wanted to access Dallas, you could use I-20 or I-30 from Fort Worth to get there. The folks who'd be in Waxahatchie and Desoto sitting in US 77 traffic in that scenario would likely disagree.

All that leaves aside the RGV politics which dictate that Hidalgo can't have anything Cameron doesn't already have, and vice versa.

One thing everyone forgets is both of these were already divided highways in isolated areas anyway.  It just required building a few interchanges as opposed to entire new highways.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on May 14, 2014, 08:36:16 AM
The problem with the theory of "build it and they will come" boils down to money and logic. It cost a lot of money to upgrade these state and US highways to interstate grade. State and Federal level have a lot of people complaining about money being spent. Less money is going into road funds, why build what isn't needed when you can't be sure that the money for needed projects is there?

If you are building 1 to the RGV, why build a second so close? Why build a highway to bypass traffic that isn't there on the western half of San Antonio/Austin? Why build an interstate all the way to Texarkana from Houston when traffic would not go that route, plus 49 would not be that far away north of the 69 diverge into LA?

If I am not mistaken from the years I lived in Texas, most traffic flows within the NBA triangle. Only one interstate is really needed beyond East and West. Only one is really needed South.


 
Everyone seems to think that the “build it and they will come”  idea is a pipe dream.   Like they are building roads and praying people will use it.  No, it is more like the second this is finished it will be one of the most heavily traveled roads in America.  I hear you that you think I-69e and I-69C are redundant and on a map they sure look redundant, but their existence is quite needed.  I-69E serves two purposes: for traffic going from Corpus Christi to Houston and traffic going from Corpus Christi to the valley, no more than that.  It serves a link between 3 metro areas.  I-69C would be better if it were numbered an I-X37, because it is more of a branch of I-37.  Ask any truck driver who drives the route between San Antonio (or Austin, or Waco, or Dallas/Ft. Worth) and the valley day in and day out which way he goes to the valley from I-37: US 77 or US 281.  I bet you 10 out of 10 drivers will tell you US 281.  So if you said you were going to upgrade one of them to and interstate, they would emphatically ask for US 281, because it is straighter and more direct.  So, since I-69E is vital for the Corpus Christi connection, with truck traffic that is related to the Valley/Corpus/Houston/Shreveport  corridor, then I-69C is just as vital for the Dallas/Ft. Worth/Waco/Austin/San Antonio/Valley corridor.  I think they are much needed, and as for money, that I can’t tell you about!
 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on May 14, 2014, 10:28:41 AM
The other thing about the " build it and they will come" idea is how many people will use it now that a better road is in place.  Let's take all the hundreds of thousands of trucks that come from Tamulipas (Cuidad Victoria or Monterey) that are bound for DFW or even Houston that cross the border at Nuevo Laredo because they can get on the interstates earlier, and avoid the valley because they don't want to drive the US 77 to US 59 corridor to get to Houston. We are talking. 300 plus miles of lights, intersections, driveways and blind hills.  Like it or not, the red white and blue shield means something.  People will go out of their way to stay on interstates because the roads are faster and better. Putting an interstate alternative in the valley will increase the traffic because of the people who used to avoid the area because of the lack of an interstate will now drive it. 

To the argument that a divided highway with just a few bypasses is good enough argument: apparently you haven't traveled US 281 between Alice and George West lately. Yea it is a divided highway with 2 lanes in each direction with a 75 mile per hour speed limit, but it is full of rolling blind hills and you are lucky to have an inside shoulder for most of the trip.  I am not talking about big hills in some cases, just small quick hills with blind driveways and rough sub standard pavement. If I drove a truck between the valley and San Antonio daly, I would want a gun to shoot myself because the road is very rough even for a car, much less a fully loaded 18 wheeler. Again, the interstate shield means something.  In Texas, the thinking is make a road as cheaply as possible.  If it is not an interstate, then we will not build it to the standards.  That's why 281 has all the bumps and hills.  With an interstate designation, those poor design flaws will be eliminated. 

I used to work as a land surveyor for a company who's corporate office was in Florida. All we had were two wheel drive F150 pickups and we were beggin for heavy duty 4 wheel drive pick ups, or at least just 4 wheel drive trucks, and corporate said no.  They said we didn't need them because Austin wasn't like Florida so they deemed spending the money for a place they concidered to be dry (because I swear the whole world thinks it never rains in Texas and the whole state is one big flat rock) was a waste, even though it does rain here.   Because of that, I do get offended when people who don't live in an area tell the people of that area "you don't need that ".  In this case it's a freeway. I am sure the people in Falfurious who watch all the NAFTA trucks pounce upon their town might think differently. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on May 14, 2014, 11:56:09 AM


To the argument that a divided highway with just a few bypasses is good enough argument: apparently you haven't traveled US 281 between Alice and George West lately. Yea it is a divided highway with 2 lanes in each direction with a 75 mile per hour speed limit, but it is full of rolling blind hills and you are lucky to have an inside shoulder for most of the trip.  I am not talking about big hills in some cases, just small quick hills with blind driveways and rough sub standard pavement. If I drove a truck between the valley and San Antonio daly, I would want a gun to shoot myself because the road is very rough even for a car, much less a fully loaded 18 wheeler. Again, the interstate shield means something.  In Texas, the thinking is make a road as cheaply as possible.  If it is not an interstate, then we will not build it to the standards.  That's why 281 has all the bumps and hills.  With an interstate designation, those poor design flaws will be eliminated. 

I used to work as a land surveyor for a company who's corporate office was in Florida. All we had were two wheel drive F150 pickups and we were beggin for heavy duty 4 wheel drive pick ups, or at least just 4 wheel drive trucks, and corporate said no.  They said we didn't need them because Austin wasn't like Florida so they deemed spending the money for a place they concidered to be dry (because I swear the whole world thinks it never rains in Texas and the whole state is one big flat rock) was a waste, even though it does rain here.   Because of that, I do get offended when people who don't live in an area tell the people of that area "you don't need that ".  In this case it's a freeway. I am sure the people in Falfurious who watch all the NAFTA trucks pounce upon their town might think differently. 

What I meant was that if its already a divided highway, putting in exits is much cheaper than a whole new build.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on May 14, 2014, 12:01:59 PM


To the argument that a divided highway with just a few bypasses is good enough argument: apparently you haven't traveled US 281 between Alice and George West lately. Yea it is a divided highway with 2 lanes in each direction with a 75 mile per hour speed limit, but it is full of rolling blind hills and you are lucky to have an inside shoulder for most of the trip.  I am not talking about big hills in some cases, just small quick hills with blind driveways and rough sub standard pavement. If I drove a truck between the valley and San Antonio daly, I would want a gun to shoot myself because the road is very rough even for a car, much less a fully loaded 18 wheeler. Again, the interstate shield means something.  In Texas, the thinking is make a road as cheaply as possible.  If it is not an interstate, then we will not build it to the standards.  That's why 281 has all the bumps and hills.  With an interstate designation, those poor design flaws will be eliminated. 

I used to work as a land surveyor for a company who's corporate office was in Florida. All we had were two wheel drive F150 pickups and we were beggin for heavy duty 4 wheel drive pick ups, or at least just 4 wheel drive trucks, and corporate said no.  They said we didn't need them because Austin wasn't like Florida so they deemed spending the money for a place they concidered to be dry (because I swear the whole world thinks it never rains in Texas and the whole state is one big flat rock) was a waste, even though it does rain here.   Because of that, I do get offended when people who don't live in an area tell the people of that area "you don't need that ".  In this case it's a freeway. I am sure the people in Falfurious who watch all the NAFTA trucks pounce upon their town might think differently. 

What I meant was that if its already a divided highway, putting in exits is much cheaper than a whole new build.

Yes it would be cheaper.  But I always like the job done right , not cheaply.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bugo on May 14, 2014, 12:02:35 PM
Everyone seems to think that the “build it and they will come”  idea is a pipe dream.   Like they are building roads and praying people will use it.  No, it is more like the second this is finished it will be one of the most heavily traveled roads in America.  I hear you that you think I-69e and I-69C are redundant and on a map they sure look redundant, but their existence is quite needed.  I-69E serves two purposes: for traffic going from Corpus Christi to Houston and traffic going from Corpus Christi to the valley, no more than that.  It serves a link between 3 metro areas.  I-69C would be better if it were numbered an I-X37, because it is more of a branch of I-37.  Ask any truck driver who drives the route between San Antonio (or Austin, or Waco, or Dallas/Ft. Worth) and the valley day in and day out which way he goes to the valley from I-37: US 77 or US 281.  I bet you 10 out of 10 drivers will tell you US 281.  So if you said you were going to upgrade one of them to and interstate, they would emphatically ask for US 281, because it is straighter and more direct.  So, since I-69E is vital for the Corpus Christi connection, with truck traffic that is related to the Valley/Corpus/Houston/Shreveport  corridor, then I-69C is just as vital for the Dallas/Ft. Worth/Waco/Austin/San Antonio/Valley corridor.  I think they are much needed, and as for money, that I can’t tell you about!

A related question: Should the US 69 freeway in eastern Kansas be extended to I-44 in northeastern Oklahoma?  This highway appears to be redundant to the US 71/I-49 corridor in Missouri, but should it be extended as an alternative?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: kkt on May 14, 2014, 12:05:24 PM
With an interstate designation, those poor design flaws will be eliminated.

In Texas, maybe.  Ever driven I-880 in California through Oakland?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: oscar on May 14, 2014, 12:05:56 PM
In this case it's a freeway. I am sure the people in Falfurious who watch all the NAFTA trucks pounce upon their town might think differently. 

Now it's more "zoom past" than "pounce upon".  US 281 through Falfurrias is now a freeway, and it wouldn't surprise me if it soon becomes another I-69C segment. 

I lucked into the opening when I was in south Texas in early March.  The new freeway was open in one direction when I drove it, with the other direction scheduled to open the next day.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bugo on May 14, 2014, 12:07:12 PM
The other thing about the " build it and they will come" idea is how many people will use it now that a better road is in place.  Let's take all the hundreds of thousands of trucks that come from Tamulipas (Cuidad Victoria or Monterey) that are bound for DFW or even Houston that cross the border at Nuevo Laredo because they can get on the interstates earlier, and avoid the valley because they don't want to drive the US 77 to US 59 corridor to get to Houston. We are talking. 300 plus miles of lights, intersections, driveways and blind hills.  Like it or not, the red white and blue shield means something. 

It doesn't mean anything that a good US highway or state highway freeway doesn't.  Would, say, OK 51 suddenly become a better road if it were designated as I-144?

Quote
People will go out of their way to stay on interstates because the roads are faster and better.

That's because they are stupid.  A good freeway is a good freeway no matter what type of highway it is: a city freeway, county freeway, state or US highway freeway, or an interstate.  And interstates aren't necessarily better than non-interstate freeways.  For example: the aforementioned US 69 freeway in Kansas is a far better road than I-44 in Missouri, which is just awful.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on May 14, 2014, 12:07:46 PM
Everyone seems to think that the “build it and they will come”  idea is a pipe dream.   Like they are building roads and praying people will use it.  No, it is more like the second this is finished it will be one of the most heavily traveled roads in America.  I hear you that you think I-69e and I-69C are redundant and on a map they sure look redundant, but their existence is quite needed.  I-69E serves two purposes: for traffic going from Corpus Christi to Houston and traffic going from Corpus Christi to the valley, no more than that.  It serves a link between 3 metro areas.  I-69C would be better if it were numbered an I-X37, because it is more of a branch of I-37.  Ask any truck driver who drives the route between San Antonio (or Austin, or Waco, or Dallas/Ft. Worth) and the valley day in and day out which way he goes to the valley from I-37: US 77 or US 281.  I bet you 10 out of 10 drivers will tell you US 281.  So if you said you were going to upgrade one of them to and interstate, they would emphatically ask for US 281, because it is straighter and more direct.  So, since I-69E is vital for the Corpus Christi connection, with truck traffic that is related to the Valley/Corpus/Houston/Shreveport  corridor, then I-69C is just as vital for the Dallas/Ft. Worth/Waco/Austin/San Antonio/Valley corridor.  I think they are much needed, and as for money, that I can’t tell you about!

A related question: Should the US 69 freeway in eastern Kansas be extended to I-44 in northeastern Oklahoma?  This highway appears to be redundant to the US 71/I-49 corridor in Missouri, but should it be extended as an alternative?

I have always thought I-45 needs extending from Dallas, even though I am a Texan and love the fact we have the only intrastate main interstate in the system!   But seriously, I don't think it would be redundant, seeing how it opens up a direct route from Dallas to Tulsa and possibly Kansas City.  It will keep the trucks off I-35 and/or I-44 for the same purpose.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bugo on May 14, 2014, 12:13:14 PM
I'm not talking about the US 69 clusterfuck from Big Cabin to Colbert (except for the section between just south of Muskogee to just north of McAlester, which is a freeway but is in very bad condition), I'm talking about north of I-44.  The US 69 highway from Big Cabin to Muskogee and from McAlester to Colbert is just awful.  I don't see a reason to extend I-45 at this time.  US 69 could be I-47 if you must assign an interstate number to it, which is something I wouldn't do.  The US 69 designation works just fine for it.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on May 14, 2014, 12:15:11 PM
The other thing about the " build it and they will come" idea is how many people will use it now that a better road is in place.  Let's take all the hundreds of thousands of trucks that come from Tamulipas (Cuidad Victoria or Monterey) that are bound for DFW or even Houston that cross the border at Nuevo Laredo because they can get on the interstates earlier, and avoid the valley because they don't want to drive the US 77 to US 59 corridor to get to Houston. We are talking. 300 plus miles of lights, intersections, driveways and blind hills.  Like it or not, the red white and blue shield means something. 

It doesn't mean anything that a good US highway or state highway freeway doesn't.  Would, say, OK 51 suddenly become a better road if it were designated as I-144?

Quote
People will go out of their way to stay on interstates because the roads are faster and better.

That's because they are stupid.  A good freeway is a good freeway no matter what type of highway it is: a city freeway, county freeway, state or US highway freeway, or an interstate.  And interstates aren't necessarily better than non-interstate freeways.  For example: the aforementioned US 69 freeway in Kansas is a far better road than I-44 in Missouri, which is just awful.

I understand what you mean, but to the out of state driver (or out of country ) a US highway can be anything from a freeway to a curvy two lane road with no shoulders. The US or state highway shields can't really be trusted. At least with an interstate highway, you know at the absolute least you are garunteed a freeway. Maybe it isn't the absolute best road in the world (Bronx-Queens Expressway) but you are garunteed not to have a traffic light in every powdunk community you drive through. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bugo on May 14, 2014, 12:20:39 PM
I understand what you mean, but to the out of state driver (or out of country ) a US highway can be anything from a freeway to a curvy two lane road with no shoulders. The US or state highway shields can't really be trusted. At least with an interstate highway, you know at the absolute least you are garunteed (sic) a freeway. Maybe it isn't the absolute best road in the world (Bronx-Queens Expressway) but you are garunteed (sic) not to have a traffic light in every powdunk (sic) community you drive through. 

First, a red-white-blue shield does not guarantee a freeway.  I-180 and I-78 say hi.  Second, a good map has the same colored line for an interstate as it does for a non-interstate freeway.  If you can't look at a map and tell that a blue line means a freeway then maybe you shouldn't be driving.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on May 14, 2014, 01:29:01 PM
I understand what you mean, but to the out of state driver (or out of country ) a US highway can be anything from a freeway to a curvy two lane road with no shoulders. The US or state highway shields can't really be trusted. At least with an interstate highway, you know at the absolute least you are garunteed (sic) a freeway. Maybe it isn't the absolute best road in the world (Bronx-Queens Expressway) but you are garunteed (sic) not to have a traffic light in every powdunk (sic) community you drive through. 

First, a red-white-blue shield does not guarantee a freeway.  I-180 and I-78 say hi.  Second, a good map has the same colored line for an interstate as it does for a non-interstate freeway.  If you can't look at a map and tell that a blue line means a freeway then maybe you shouldn't be driving.

So you have given me two examples of non freeway interstates. With Interstate 180 being 1.24 miles long and the approach to the Holland Tunnel being a few blocks long, we are talking a total of maybe 2 miles out of 47,714. I don't think people really stress the fact that those little sections are not freeway so that means all interstates might break into having traffic lights and driveways right up to the main lanes. And we didn't even mention the approach to the Ben Franklin Bridge on I-676 or I-70 in Breezewood. With that added, there might be 5 miles of non freeway interstates. Again out of 47,714 miles, I say you are guaranteed a freeway when you see the shield.
 
I have know of many map publications where interstates are represented with two red lines with blue in the middle and US highways are represented with two red lines with yellow in the middle regardless if they are a freeway or not. So acording to those maps, US 75 from Dallas to Sherman looks the same as US 290 in downtown Fredricksburg with stopłights everywhere and a 30 MPH speed limit.

My point is not my ability to know a freeway or not, it is making the long distance traveler comfortable. US 1 north from Boston through Saugus shows up on Google Maps as a freeway when speaking from experience it is full of sharp curves, blind hills and is signed like any other Massachusetts state highway, which is inconsistent to the national standard to interstates. Sorry, but it is far from an interstate alternative. Texas is bad about having that same thing.  They have several non interstate freeways that couldn't pass the interstate standards test if it tried.  I hate to be like that, but I like the standards because there are no surprises because a state wanted to save a few bucks here or there and made that hill blind and that curve way too tight. Just because a road is a freeway doesn't make it "just as good as an interstate". 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Perfxion on May 14, 2014, 01:39:39 PM
Well, what happens when you have highways like US59 north of I-10 being better cleaner freeways than I-45 north of I-10. Both will get you to the beltway, but 59 will not take so much thread off your tires.

I am not saying don't build anything. I am saying build smartly when you are crying broke. Right now both C and E aren't needed. Could be handled with just one of them, done correctly. Right now 369 isn't needed. Its really currently just a X49 or X30. Save the money and use it wisely else on the network.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Arkansastravelguy on May 14, 2014, 10:34:34 PM



A related question: Should the US 69 freeway in eastern Kansas be extended to I-44 in northeastern Oklahoma?  This highway appears to be redundant to the US 71/I-49 corridor in Missouri, but should it be extended as an alternative?

Yes, I think so


iPhone
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Arkansastravelguy on May 14, 2014, 10:56:46 PM


First, a red-white-blue shield does not guarantee a freeway.  I-180 and I-78 say hi.  Second, a good map has the same colored line for an interstate as it does for a non-interstate freeway.  If you can't look at a map and tell that a blue line means a freeway then maybe you shouldn't be driving.

Don't forget I-70 in Pennsylvania


iPhone
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MaxConcrete on May 22, 2014, 06:37:09 PM
This sign has recently been installed in Sharpstown in southwest Houston. It was not there at Christmas 2013.

(http://oscarmail.net/photos/20140519_0010_i69_sign.jpg)

Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: txstateends on May 22, 2014, 08:18:24 PM
This sign has recently been installed in Sharpstown in southwest Houston. It was not there at Christmas 2013.

(http://oscarmail.net/photos/20140519_0010_i69_sign.jpg)


Will this designation just affect the Southwest Freeway, or any regional/statewide section of I-69 in TX?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: O Tamandua on May 22, 2014, 08:37:11 PM
This sign has recently been installed in Sharpstown in southwest Houston. It was not there at Christmas 2013.

(http://oscarmail.net/photos/20140519_0010_i69_sign.jpg)


Will this designation just affect the Southwest Freeway, or any regional/statewide section of I-69 in TX?

Wiki says U.S. 59 in Texas has the distinction of carrying the late senator's name.  Surprised it's not the highway that goes to Mission, which I thought was his hometown.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Arkansastravelguy on May 22, 2014, 08:53:03 PM

This sign has recently been installed in Sharpstown in southwest Houston. It was not there at Christmas 2013.

(http://oscarmail.net/photos/20140519_0010_i69_sign.jpg)

A sign you would never see in Arkansas.


iPhone
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: agentsteel53 on May 22, 2014, 09:08:47 PM

A sign you would never see in Arkansas.

or in Indianapolis
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: US71 on May 22, 2014, 09:12:11 PM
Arkansas gets this guy:
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3572/3821889656_59777dcbfa_d.jpg)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: wxfree on May 22, 2014, 10:32:45 PM
This sign has recently been installed in Sharpstown in southwest Houston. It was not there at Christmas 2013.

(http://oscarmail.net/photos/20140519_0010_i69_sign.jpg)


Will this designation just affect the Southwest Freeway, or any regional/statewide section of I-69 in TX?

Texas Transportation Code:
Sec. 225.025.  SENATOR LLOYD BENTSEN HIGHWAY.  (a)  The part of U.S. Highway 59 from its intersection with Interstate Highway 45 to its intersection with Interstate Highway 35 is the Senator Lloyd Bentsen Highway.

Edit: That whole chapter of the code is interesting.  http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/TN/htm/TN.225.htm (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/TN/htm/TN.225.htm)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: kkt on May 23, 2014, 12:52:18 AM
Arkansas gets this guy:

(John Paul Hammerschmidt)

There ought to be a law that you can't name a public highway, building, etc., after someone until they've been dead a few years.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Arkansastravelguy on May 23, 2014, 12:55:20 AM

Arkansas gets this guy:
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3572/3821889656_59777dcbfa_d.jpg)

Too bad he isn't around for the Bella Vista Bypass and Arkansas River Bridge


iPhone
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bugo on May 23, 2014, 10:08:59 AM

Arkansas gets this guy:
(https://farm4.staticflickr.com/3572/3821889656_59777dcbfa_d.jpg)

Too bad he isn't around for the Bella Vista Bypass and Arkansas River Bridge

He was born in 1922.  I was born in 1973.  I won't live to see either of those roads completed, much less somebody 50 years older than me.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on May 30, 2014, 11:56:05 AM
english si's observation strengthens the case for an I-69W designation.  An argument might go as follows: Since US 59 from Victoria to George West (approximately 80 miles) is statutorily defined as I-69C in HPC 18, and Victoria is also where I-69E begins its US 77 route to Brownsville, then Congress must have intended that "mainline" I-69 end in Victoria where the Central and East prongs branch off. With that in mind, Congress surely did not intend an eighty-mile I-69/I-69C overlap and must have intended that a US 59 western spur would branch off of I-69C at the George West US 59/US 281 junction where I-69C begins its US 281 southward route toward the border.  A natural designation for the US 59 western spur would be "I-69W".
I just received an email from FHWA and their current interpretation of HPC 18 and HPC 20 shoots down an I-69W notion in flames, and it allows TxDOT to choose between I-69C and I-69 for the Victoria to George West segment of US 59:
Quote
US 59 from Victoria to George West can be I-69 or I-69C, which ever Texas Department of Transportation requests.
US 59 from George West to Laredo can be I-69, but not I-69W or I-X69 (spur).  This is based on the current law.
Documents now up http://route.transportation.org/Pages/CommitteeNoticesActionsandApprovals.aspx
Approved if not otherwise stated, details via the document ....
TX I-69 extension (inside I-610) - conditionally approved FHWA approval needed
TX I-69C extension (Edinburg) - conditionally approved FHWA approval needed
TX I-69E extension (Robstown) - conditionally approved FHWA approval needed
TX I-69W extension (Laredo) - conditionally approved FHWA approval needed
TX US59 relocation (Laredo) - conditionally approved FHWA approval needed
TX US59 Business recognition (Laredo)
(bottom quote from AASHTO Numbering Committee Spring '14 Meeting (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=12521.msg302814#msg302814) thread)

It's good to see approval for the third Houston segment, but I find it really interesting that TxDOT sought, and received, FHWA approval to depart from the "I-69" statutory designation in favor of an "I-69W" designation for the Laredo section (pages 3-5/10 of Texas I-69W pdf):

From the TxDOT application:
Quote
...TxDOT is currently coordinating with FHWA to process a request to add this segment of U.S. 59 to the IH 69 system in Texas and to designate it as Interstate Highway 69 West (IH 69-W). The IH 69-W designation is being requested based on the following rationale:
 This segment of U.S. 59 is part of National IH 69 Section of Independent Utility (SIU) 30, U.S. 59 Laredo Connector, as established within the IH-69 (Corridor 18) Special Environmental Study - Sections of Independent Utility (1999). SIU 30 is the southernmost segment of High Priority Corridor 20, extending from Laredo to the junction of U.S. 59 and U.S. 281 in George West, Texas and is intended to function as a connecting route (e.g.,spur) to the IH 69 Corridor.
 According to the IH 69 system naming convention established in Section 1211 of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) Restoration Act (PL 105-178), which amended Sections 1105(c) and 1105(e)(5) of ISTEA, the section of U.S. 281 extending south of George West and the section of U.S. 59 extending north of George West to U.S. 77 in Victoria (SIUs 24, 25, and 26) are to be designated as IH 69-C at such time it is determined that a segment of SIUs 24, 25, and 26 meets the above-referenced legislative criteria and FHWA regulations. Likewise, U.S. 77 south of Victoria (SIUs 21, 22, and 23) is to be designated as IH 69-E.
 As such, this segment of U.S. 59 would be part of the third and most western leg of the IH 69 system, along with IH 69-C and IH 69-E, that is intended to serve the major population centers and international border crossings in South Texas. Consequently, the designation of this segment of U.S. 59 as IH 69-W would maintain continuity in the naming convention already established for the IH 69 system in South Texas with the 2013 designations of IH 69-E and IH 69-C. Also, such a designation would be intuitive thereby meeting a driver’s expectation and the already expressed expectations of the population centers in South Texas.
With the 2013 designation of a segment of U.S. 59 as IH 369 in Texarkana, it has been demonstrated that there is latitude in interpreting the intended naming convention protocols of Section 1105(e)(5) of ISTEA, as amended, when establishing a route number on the IH 69 system. The application of such latitude in designating this segment of U.S. 59 as IH 69-W would be reasonable, intuitive, and consistent with the intent of Section 1105(e)(5) of ISTEA, as amended.
TxDOT has coordinated with FHWA on its concurrence for the IH 69-W route number to be consistent with the existing two legs of the IH 69 System in South Texas (i.e., IH 69-E and IH 69-C). It is therefore proposed that this 1.4-mile segment of U.S. 59 in Laredo be recognized as IH 69-W.

From FHWA to TxDOT email:
Quote
Upon further review and discussion with Chief Counsel, FHWA is willing and able to approve a request by TxDOT for the designation of U.S. 59 as I-69 West between George West and Laredo. Thanks.

In reading the tea leaves, it seems like FHWA initially pushed back against an I-69W designation, but TxDOT eventually persuaded them to change their interpretation of the law. It does make intuitive sense that FHWA now views this section as being a "spur" that warrants the "I-69W" designation.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Brandon on May 30, 2014, 12:39:32 PM
OK, so it's not OK to have I-80S to Denver, I-15E in Idaho, I-5W through the Bay Area, but it is OK to have I-69W, I-69C, and I-69E without an I-69 south of the point I-69W, I-69C, and I-69E branch off?

So, tell me, when did we get to Alanland and let AlanlandDOT make decisions for FHWA?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: agentsteel53 on May 30, 2014, 12:51:21 PM
when did we get to Alanland

we followed a logical and continuous routing of I-74 eastward from its origin in Iowa through the Appalachians...

and then we accidentally took US-74 because we got confused.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: TheStranger on May 30, 2014, 12:52:53 PM
OK, so it's not OK to have I-80S to Denver, I-15E in Idaho, I-5W through the Bay Area, but it is OK to have I-69W, I-69C, and I-69E without an I-69 south of the point I-69W, I-69C, and I-69E branch off?

So, tell me, when did we get to Alanland and let AlanlandDOT make decisions for FHWA?

I-5W was a true loop though (including what would later be built as 505, and the new-terrain 580 between Altamont and Vernalis).

And yeah, the existence of I-69W/I-69C/I-69E as suffixed spur routes...is a complete 180 from the 1980 directive to remove all suffixed spurs from the Interstate system.  (Back then, the only suffixed Interstates grandfathered in were all loops: the I-35 pairings, and I-15E in California)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on May 30, 2014, 01:37:18 PM
OK, so it's not OK to have I-80S to Denver, I-15E in Idaho, I-5W through the Bay Area, but it is OK to have I-69W, I-69C, and I-69E without an I-69 south of the point I-69W, I-69C, and I-69E branch off?

So, tell me, when did we get to Alanland and let AlanlandDOT make decisions for FHWA?

I-5W was a true loop though (including what would later be built as 505, and the new-terrain 580 between Altamont and Vernalis).

And yeah, the existence of I-69W/I-69C/I-69E as suffixed spur routes...is a complete 180 from the 1980 directive to remove all suffixed spurs from the Interstate system.  (Back then, the only suffixed Interstates grandfathered in were all loops: the I-35 pairings, and I-15E in California)

Three digit numbers are fine.  It's not like Brownsville & Harlingen would be offended
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: O Tamandua on June 01, 2014, 06:25:34 PM
Sheesh...like a dummy I hadn't even though of how I-69 (and maybe parts of I-49 as well) will become the highway to South Padre Island.  This article tells of how they're considering a second bridge for "SPI" linkng to I-69. (http://www.valleymorningstar.com/news/local_news/article_b587e940-e86b-11e3-b12b-0017a43b2370.html)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: O Tamandua on June 01, 2014, 06:27:45 PM
Sheesh...like a dummy I hadn't even though of how I-69 (and maybe parts of I-49 as well) will become the highway to South Padre Island.  This article tells of how they're considering a second bridge for "SPI" linkng to I-69. (http://www.valleymorningstar.com/news/local_news/article_b587e940-e86b-11e3-b12b-0017a43b2370.html)

(EDIT: Sorry, Grzrd, didn't see you'd posted on this on the "Texas" thread.  :no: )
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: thefro on June 02, 2014, 11:57:55 AM
Glad they're going with the I-69W spur naming.  Makes no sense for that to be mainline I-69 considering there's a "I-69C".

That still leaves the question of what the route from George West to Victoria will be named.  I'm in favor of that being I-69W.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Pete from Boston on June 02, 2014, 12:36:50 PM
So will we be seeing an "I-169W" in the near future?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Scott5114 on June 02, 2014, 03:10:21 PM
Following the precedent in the Dallas area, the 3di wouldn't take the lettered suffix: it's I-635, not I-635E.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: TheStranger on June 02, 2014, 03:34:01 PM
Following the precedent in the Dallas area, the 3di wouldn't take the lettered suffix: it's I-635, not I-635E.

IIRC, the only ever planned suffixed 3di of a suffixed 2di was the old I-180N in Idaho, which was built as I-184.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Molandfreak on June 02, 2014, 03:37:31 PM
I hope it's I-169W if it happens. Might as well remedy the stupid numbering with something cool and unique.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: yakra on June 02, 2014, 07:00:30 PM
How come always have mucho trouble searching for the "A Modest Proposal" thread?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bugo on June 02, 2014, 11:02:41 PM
Following the precedent in the Dallas area, the 3di wouldn't take the lettered suffix: it's I-635, not I-635E.

IIRC, the only ever planned suffixed 3di of a suffixed 2di was the old I-180N in Idaho, which was built as I-184.

Wasn't there to be an I-H1A or something like that?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: oscar on June 02, 2014, 11:18:56 PM
Following the precedent in the Dallas area, the 3di wouldn't take the lettered suffix: it's I-635, not I-635E.

IIRC, the only ever planned suffixed 3di of a suffixed 2di was the old I-180N in Idaho, which was built as I-184.

Wasn't there to be an I-H1A or something like that?

That was Hawaii DOT's original proposed number (http://www.kurumi.com/roads/3di/ix01.html) for what became H-201.  The proposed suffixed number went nowhere, and was quickly replaced by a 3di number.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on June 02, 2014, 11:39:16 PM
I just received an email from FHWA and their current interpretation of HPC 18 and HPC 20 ... allows TxDOT to choose between I-69C and I-69 for the Victoria to George West segment of US 59:
Quote
US 59 from Victoria to George West can be I-69 or I-69C, which ever Texas Department of Transportation requests ... This is based on the current law.
Glad they're going with the I-69W spur naming.  Makes no sense for that to be mainline I-69 considering there's a "I-69C".
That still leaves the question of what the route from George West to Victoria will be named.  I'm in favor of that being I-69W.

I'm in favor of the George West to Victoria section of US 59 also being named I-69; that way, the East, Central, and West "spurs" would each have a direct connection to "mainline" I-69.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on June 03, 2014, 02:45:32 AM
I would assume that "I-69W" would encompass the entire Laredo to George West segment of I-69, and that the Harlingen-George West section of US 281 and the George West-Victoria segment of US-59 would become "I-69C", amirite?

Actually makes plenty sense to me, since the routes would split.

I'd still prefer US 281 to remain as is, US 77 to be a I-37 extension, and US 59 remain as I-69 proper....but I have no problem with this setup.

But...if they are going to do that, then I want I-49 shields on the freewayized sections of US 90 and the Westbank Expressway between Lafayette and New Orleans. Make it happen, LADOTD!!!
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on June 05, 2014, 02:07:23 PM
I don't mind the I-69E, I-69W & I-69C names as long as they all connect to the parent I-69 route. Any 3di route stemming from them should merely be a standard number, like I-169, I-269, etc. A four character name like I-269E would stink. The 3di shields are not designed to handle it properly, especially if the shields are neutered and have enlarged numerals. I can't stand how the characters look on those I-H201 shields.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: apjung on June 08, 2014, 02:24:53 AM
I don't mind the I-69E, I-69W & I-69C names as long as they all connect to the parent I-69 route. Any 3di route stemming from them should merely be a standard number, like I-169, I-269, etc. A four character name like I-269E would stink. The 3di shields are not designed to handle it properly, especially if the shields are neutered and have enlarged numerals. I can't stand how the characters look on those I-H201 shields.

IMHO, I-H201 should have be named as I-H4 since Hawaii's Interstates are all so short. It's slightly more than half the length of I-H2
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on June 11, 2014, 05:46:16 PM
TxDOT has posted a March 27, 2014 I-69 System Funding Program map (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/funded_projects_map.pdf) which color-codes the various I-69 projects into three categories: (1) Constructed/ Under Construction, (2) Funded Construction, and (3) Project Development.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: O Tamandua on June 11, 2014, 05:56:37 PM
TxDOT has posted a March 27, 2014 I-69 System Funding Program map (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/funded_projects_map.pdf) which color-codes the various I-69 projects into three categories: (1) Constructed/ Under Construction, (2) Funded Construction, and (3) Project Development.

Great find, Grzrd.  The vise is slowly tightening on Arkansas with the Missouri/MoDOT map on the "Bella Vista" thread...
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on June 12, 2014, 10:00:39 PM
LONG article from the Victoria Advocate yesterday about small business owners in Victoria (my daughter's name  :colorful: ) who are less than enthralled by what the future I-69 will do for their retail traffic...feel for them.  I didn't know I-69 construction was so full-bore there.  There is a significant petrochemical presence in that city, too, enough that a large barge canal has been dug some time back...I'm sure there will be some happy I-69 shippers there eventually:
http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/2014/may/03/frontage_road_mc_050414_238470/?business

This article (http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/2014/jun/12/interestate_frontage_mc_061314_241872/?business) reports that TxDOT will not allow two-way frontage roads as a temporary solution for the local businesses:

Quote
Texas Department of Transportation put the brakes on a proposed change to the future Interstate 69 corridor in Victoria.
Area business owners were rooting for TxDOT to change the flow of traffic on frontage roads, which are currently under construction, to two-way. Without two-way traffic or an overpass, customers could end up traveling an almost eight-mile loop to access some businesses along U.S. Highway 59.
However, TxDOT officials point to the state roadway design manual: any frontage road constructed as part of the state highway system will be designed and constructed for one-way traffic ....
TxDOT cannot agree to the construction of two-way frontage roads, Chairman of the Texas Transportation Commission Ted Houghton Jr. said in a letter addressed to County Judge Don Pozzi ....
"As we move to eliminate all existing two-way frontage roads to greatly improve the safety of the state highway system, it is not reasonable for us to consider creating unnecessary safety risks on other highways by adding two-way frontage roads to them," Houghton said in the letter ....
The transportation chairman said he believes other options exist to provide access to properties along the new frontage road, but business owners and the county judge are less optimistic ....
Still, John New is hopeful the state will elaborate on their options.
"The overpass is the solution, and I hope there's enough wisdom to see that needs to get done," New said. "I just hope they have the wisdom to get that overpass built in a reasonable period of time."
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: O Tamandua on June 13, 2014, 12:35:31 AM
Grzrd, reading about this article on how engineers, meeting with the public at Marshall, TX (the largest city on I-369 not named "Texarkana"), presented three different routes the other day:

http://www.marshallnewsmessenger.com/news/best-roads-highway-development-group-considers-options-at-meeting/article_ba1d78b1-c583-5a13-ba42-5b6f4f0270bb.html

...made me think: GEE, there seems to be both significant citizen input and interest in this.

Would that west Arkansas show the same for I-49, we might start seeing it built (between Greenwood and Texarkana) next year...
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on June 19, 2014, 03:34:46 PM
In reading the tea leaves, it seems like FHWA initially pushed back against an I-69W designation, but TxDOT eventually persuaded them to change their interpretation of the law. It does make intuitive sense that FHWA now views this section as being a "spur" that warrants the "I-69W" designation.

I'm sure it's a technical formality, but the June 26, 2014 Texas Transportation Commission ("TTC") Agenda (http://www.txdot.gov/content/dam/txdot/asset_collection/about_us/commission/agendas/agenda-062614.pdf) indicates that the TTC also needs to sign off on I-69W (page 2/17 of pdf):

(http://i.imgur.com/RVfagf4.png)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bugo on June 19, 2014, 05:03:04 PM
Will this make US 59 a border-to-border highway once again?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: oscar on June 19, 2014, 05:50:50 PM
Will this make US 59 a border-to-border highway once again?

Almost, technically.  Both I-69W and US 59 will stop just a little short of the Mexican border, excluding the World Trade Bridge across the Rio Grande into Mexico, the U.S. Customs facilities on the eastbound lanes, and what appears to be a toll plaza on the westbound and eastbound lanes.  No such technicality at the north end of US 59, AFAIK, with US 59 reaching the Canadian border and continuing north as MB 59 to Victoria Beach.

Since the bridge is limited to commercial traffic, and isn't even open 24/7 (the Sunday afternoon I was there, it closed for the day at 2pm), it made sense to end at least I-69W at the minor at-grade crossing just east of the World Trade Bridge.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Revive 755 on June 19, 2014, 09:36:43 PM
Since the bridge is limited to commercial traffic, and isn't even open 24/7 (the Sunday afternoon I was there, it closed for the day at 2pm), it made sense to end at least I-69W at the minor at-grade crossing just east of the World Trade Bridge.

If that bridge is really commercial vehicles only, there seems to be an extreme lack of signage warning non-commercial vehicles of this restriction.
Streetview (https://www.google.com/maps/myplaces?hl=en&ll=27.604568,-99.50886&spn=0.016619,0.033023&ctz=300&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=27.604494,-99.50902&panoid=gCPjyX5Mfr4xetC09htZcg&cbp=12,254.44,,0,1.52)
Streetview (https://www.google.com/maps/myplaces?hl=en&ll=27.600475,-99.526466&spn=0.004155,0.008256&ctz=300&t=m&z=18&layer=c&cbll=27.60051,-99.526623&panoid=QYX15Z2VBgQYkACh2R6Azw&cbp=12,278.04,,1,0.9)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: oscar on June 19, 2014, 09:59:39 PM
Since the bridge is limited to commercial traffic, and isn't even open 24/7 (the Sunday afternoon I was there, it closed for the day at 2pm), it made sense to end at least I-69W at the minor at-grade crossing just east of the World Trade Bridge.

If that bridge is really commercial vehicles only, there seems to be an extreme lack of signage warning non-commercial vehicles of this restriction.

I didn't see any either.  As noted upthread, the restriction might be enforced only eastbound; or if it's enforced westbound, non-commercial vehicles might be turned around at what looks like a toll plaza on the U.S. side (west of the gates closing the bridge when it isn't open, which is where I and the Streetview camera car turned back).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: wxfree on June 19, 2014, 10:24:04 PM
According to the City of Laredo web site, that bridge is open only to commercial traffic, and has limited hours.  Two non-commercial bridges are open at all times.  All bridges for commercial traffic have limited hours.  There probably should be signs, but I'd guess that if you want to cross the border, you're expected to know which bridge to use and at what time.
http://www.cityoflaredo.com/bridgesys/bridges.html (http://www.cityoflaredo.com/bridgesys/bridges.html)

One interesting thing is that the toll is higher for a motorcycle than for a car.
http://www.cityoflaredo.com/bridgesys/Fees/BridgeFees2.htm (http://www.cityoflaredo.com/bridgesys/Fees/BridgeFees2.htm)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: oscar on June 19, 2014, 10:49:46 PM
According to the City of Laredo web site, that bridge is open only to commercial traffic, and has limited hours.  Two non-commercial bridges are open at all times.  All bridges for commercial traffic have limited hours.  There probably should be signs, but I'd guess that if you want to cross the border, you're expected to know which bridge to use and at what time.
http://www.cityoflaredo.com/bridgesys/bridges.html (http://www.cityoflaredo.com/bridgesys/bridges.html)

Also, the World Trade Bridge (unlike the bridges open to non-commercial traffic) doesn't take cash payment for tolls, only "commercial AVI and prepaid", and tolls are collected in both directions.  So non-commercial traffic might get turned back for inability to pay the toll, never mind the commercial vehicle restriction.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on June 26, 2014, 07:39:20 PM
the June 26, 2014 Texas Transportation Commission ("TTC") Agenda (http://www.txdot.gov/content/dam/txdot/asset_collection/about_us/commission/agendas/agenda-062614.pdf) indicates that the TTC also needs to sign off on I-69W (page 2/17 of pdf)

This Alliance for I-69 Texas article (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update%206.26.14Laredo.html) reports that the TTC has given final approval to the 1.4 mile section of I-69W in Laredo:

Quote
The Texas Transportation Commission has given final approval to designation of a key 1.4-mile section of freeway in Laredo as part of the Interstate 69 system.  The Federal Highway Administration approved the designation on June 17 ....
The American Association of State Highway Officials committee that approves the numbering of federal highways voted in April to designate the Laredo highway as Interstate 69 West (I-69W).

edit

Here's the TTC's Minute Order:

http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2014/0626/7.pdf



That still leaves the question of what the route from George West to Victoria will be named.  I'm in favor of that being I-69W.

The article indicates that you will get your wish:

Quote
The 69W section will eventually run on US 59 from Laredo to Victoria.



The article also discusses the long-range plan for upgrading former Loop 20/US 59/Future I-69W:

Quote
The TxDOT Laredo District has developed a plan for upgrading Loop 20/US 59 to interstate standard from I-35 to the connection with the rural section of US 59. Phase 1 will included completion of the interchange at I-35 and development of expressway main lanes east to International Blvd., a section which includes the recently completed overpass bridges at McPherson Road.  Phase 2 will include main lanes and interchanges at Shiloh Road, Del Mar Blvd, University Blvd., Jacaman Blvd. and Airport Drive.  None of these projects are currently funded.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on July 02, 2014, 05:54:45 PM
Does anyone know how the progress of upgrading 59 to interstate standards in the Lufkn/Nacogdoches area is comin along? I've tried finding updated info online but to no avail. It's all older info.
This August 19, 2013 Angelina County map (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/projects/59/angelina-county-map.pdf) probably qualifies as older info, but it does include two short sections that are "under development to meet interstate standards and funded through construction"

This July 1 article (http://lufkindailynews.com/news/local/article_1cb81f26-00c8-11e4-abcc-0019bb2963f4.html?_dc=378171913092.95593) provides an update on the upper short section, the FM 2021 overpass, and reports that is due to be completed by December 2015:

Quote
The Texas Department of Transportation is moving forward this week with the next phase of highway construction at U.S. Highway 59 north and FM 2021 and is urging motorists to be extra careful from Loop 287 north to the Redland area.
Kathi White, TxDOT public information official, said contractors working to build an overpass at the intersection of U.S. 59 and FM 2021 could, as early as today if weather conditions allow, move FM 2021 traffic to the northbound ramp. That will keep traffic on FM 2021 from crossing the high-volume, fast-moving traffic on U.S. 59, she said.
White said excavation work at the intersection for the bridge construction has been hindered by rain, but the project is still six weeks ahead of schedule and due to be completed by December 2015 ...



In regard to the lower short section on the map, TxDOT has an Overview page (http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/lufkin/us59north-loop287/overview.html) about the project and a page with links to five January 15, 2014 aerial photos of the project (http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/lufkin/us59north-loop287.html).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on July 03, 2014, 03:13:57 PM
This article (http://www.chron.com/neighborhood/bayarea/news/article/Growth-presents-transportation-challenges-for-the-5439353.php) reports that a Harris County judge believes that the bypass needs to go south and east in order to best serve the port:
Quote
Harris County Judge Ed Emmett addressed the importance of Interstate 69.
"It's pretty much agreed now that we need to have a bypass around the Houston area," he said. "It needs to go south and east instead of west, so it can support the port."

As recently posted in another thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=879.msg309542#msg309542), the Texas Transportation Commission recently authorized the issuance of a RFQ for the development, design and construction, as well as the potential maintenance of all or part of Segments H, I-1 and I-2 of the SH 99 Grand Parkway as a design-build project.  Given Judge Emmett's comment (he is the Harris County representative on the Segment 2 Committee (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/drivenbytexans/sc2_members.htm) and the Segment 3 Committee (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/drivenbytexans/sc3_members.htm)), it is quite possible that most, if not all, of Segments H & I will one day be part of an I-x69 bypass around Houston.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on July 05, 2014, 04:45:45 PM
isn't there some controversy over upgrading US 77 in Refugio, where some folk have expressed opposition to a freeway upgrade there??

This June 26 article (http://www.mysoutex.com/view/full_story_landing/25352277/article-Refugio-urged-to-plan-for-I-69) reports on a June 23 meeting during which I-69 Corridor Advisory Board and TxDOT officials encouraged Refugio officials to become involved in planning for I-69E:

Quote
Whether Refugio gets involved in long-term planning for Interstate 69 will determine what happens in 20 to 40 years.
That was the gist of an I-69 update at City Hall Monday evening, June 23.

Presenting the update, at the request of Refugio County Community Development Foundation executive director Victor Garza, was Judy Hawley, who chairs the State I-69 Corridor Advisory Board and many other statewide transportation boards. Hawley also is a commissioner of the Port of Corpus Christi.
Joining Hawley was Roger Beal, Texas Transportation Department’s advanced project development director, and Christopher Caron, deputy district engineer of the TxDOT Corpus Christi District.
I can’t imagine a community in this day and age in our environment not wanting to be a part of I-69,”  Hawley said.
“It’s a growing thriving sustainable economy, and it behooves you to pull I-69 into your plan,”  she added.
“But if you prefer to stay the way you are, which is fine, you can. We’re talking about a 20-, 40-, 60-year growth plan. Long-term planning placed in your lap,”  she said.
Hawley and Beal agreed that infrastructure was key to a sustainable economy, and getting involved in I-69 planning would ensure the well being of the community.
“It’s one of the few variables you can control,”  Hawley said.
For example, Hawley said $32 billion was going on right now in Corpus Christi, including I-69, I-35, deep water ship channel and other freight routes and sources, including rail.
Other examples of cities that were reluctant but then became involved were given. Those included Laredo, Freer, El Campo, Sinton and Marshall, to name some of the examples.
However, early I-69 segment committees left no consensus where Refugio wanted to be in the process.
“We are looking at a relief route for this community,”  Beal said.
Hawley said the best action is to get involved in the I-69 process to plan now for the location and infrastructure
....
Refugio County Judge Rene Mascorro noted it was easy to say get involved when it isn’t TxDOT land ....
The term “relief route”  really seemed to refer to a bypass exit.
And one such relief route is on the I-69 planning map as a possible solution to Refugio.
That relief route could be close to Refugio, farther east or west of Refugio or completely out of Refugio County. Hence, that is why it is important to become part of the planning process.

Hawley suggested meeting with and getting more information from Corpus Christi District Engineer Lonnie Gregorcyk, who could inform officials who owns the rights of way and what would be the best plan going forward, as well as any financial advice ....
“Just decide you want to move forward. Solving the problems comes later,”  Hawley said.
“I-69 is going to happen whether it goes through, around or outside the county,”  Garza said.
Beal suggested to plan relief routes through downtown Refugio.
Mascorro said downtown Refugio as it is now would dry up if bypassed ....

Maybe Refugio will evolve into a kinda-sorta I-69 Breezewood.



A snip from this Segment 3 Committee map (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg3_final.pdf) describes the corridor near Refugio as an "I-69 potential program route" instead of a "committee suggested I-69 route" (page 21/157 of pdf):

(http://i.imgur.com/JlMhOmN.jpg)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: dariusb on July 07, 2014, 04:38:31 AM
isn't there some controversy over upgrading US 77 in Refugio, where some folk have expressed opposition to a freeway upgrade there??

This June 26 article (http://www.mysoutex.com/view/full_story_landing/25352277/article-Refugio-urged-to-plan-for-I-69) reports on a June 23 meeting during which I-69 Corridor Advisory Board and TxDOT officials encouraged Refugio officials to become involved in planning for I-69E:

Quote
Whether Refugio gets involved in long-term planning for Interstate 69 will determine what happens in 20 to 40 years.
That was the gist of an I-69 update at City Hall Monday evening, June 23.

Presenting the update, at the request of Refugio County Community Development Foundation executive director Victor Garza, was Judy Hawley, who chairs the State I-69 Corridor Advisory Board and many other statewide transportation boards. Hawley also is a commissioner of the Port of Corpus Christi.
Joining Hawley was Roger Beal, Texas Transportation Department’s advanced project development director, and Christopher Caron, deputy district engineer of the TxDOT Corpus Christi District.
I can’t imagine a community in this day and age in our environment not wanting to be a part of I-69,” Hawley said.
"It’s a growing thriving sustainable economy, and it behooves you to pull I-69 into your plan,” she added.
"But if you prefer to stay the way you are, which is fine, you can. We’re talking about a 20-, 40-, 60-year growth plan. Long-term planning placed in your lap,” she said.
Hawley and Beal agreed that infrastructure was key to a sustainable economy, and getting involved in I-69 planning would ensure the well being of the community.
"It’s one of the few variables you can control,” Hawley said.
For example, Hawley said $32 billion was going on right now in Corpus Christi, including I-69, I-35, deep water ship channel and other freight routes and sources, including rail.
Other examples of cities that were reluctant but then became involved were given. Those included Laredo, Freer, El Campo, Sinton and Marshall, to name some of the examples.
However, early I-69 segment committees left no consensus where Refugio wanted to be in the process.
"We are looking at a relief route for this community,” Beal said.
Hawley said the best action is to get involved in the I-69 process to plan now for the location and infrastructure
....
Refugio County Judge Rene Mascorro noted it was easy to say get involved when it isn’t TxDOT land ....
The term "relief route” really seemed to refer to a bypass exit.
And one such relief route is on the I-69 planning map as a possible solution to Refugio.
That relief route could be close to Refugio, farther east or west of Refugio or completely out of Refugio County. Hence, that is why it is important to become part of the planning process.

Hawley suggested meeting with and getting more information from Corpus Christi District Engineer Lonnie Gregorcyk, who could inform officials who owns the rights of way and what would be the best plan going forward, as well as any financial advice ....
"Just decide you want to move forward. Solving the problems comes later,” Hawley said.
"I-69 is going to happen whether it goes through, around or outside the county,” Garza said.
Beal suggested to plan relief routes through downtown Refugio.
Mascorro said downtown Refugio as it is now would dry up if bypassed ....

Maybe Refugio will evolve into a kinda-sorta I-69 Breezewood.



A snip from this Segment 3 Committee map (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg3_final.pdf) describes the corridor near Refugio as an "I-69 potential program route" instead of a "committee suggested I-69 route" (page 21/157 of pdf):

(http://i.imgur.com/JlMhOmN.jpg)

Thank you for the updates. I greatly appreciated it.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on July 23, 2014, 05:07:40 PM
This Alliance for I-69 Texas article (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update%206.26.14Laredo.html) ....  also discusses the long-range plan for upgrading former Loop 20/US 59/Future I-69W

A proposed Minute Order on the July 31, 2014 Texas Transportation Commission ("TTC") Agenda (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2014/0731/agenda.pdf) indicates that the TTC will designate Loop 20 to be concurrent with US 59/ Future I-69W so that local businesses will not have to change their addresses (page 7/14 of pdf; page 7 of document):

Quote
Webb County - Designate State Loop 20 (SL 20) on the state highway system concurrent with US 59 from the entrance to the World Trade Bridge to the junction of SL 20 and US 59 in the city of Laredo (MO)
Minute Order 113852 redesignated a portion of SL 20 as US 59 from the entrance of the World Trade Bridge to the junction of SL 20 and US 59 in Laredo, which began the process of designating applicable portions of US 59 as part of the I-69 system. However, the minute order did not reference maintaining the LP 20 signage so that addresses would not need to be changed. This minute order corrects that oversight and designates a portion of SL 20 on the state highway system, concurrent with US 59.



Thank you for the updates. I greatly appreciated it.

dariusb, you are welcome.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on July 23, 2014, 08:37:31 PM
TxDOT is beginning to conduct public meetings for a Corrigan relief route (http://txdot.gov/drivenbytexans/us-59-polk.htm); the plans do not include frontage roads for the relief route:

Quote
TxDOT is studying alignment alternatives for the US 59 Corrigan Relief Route (future I-69) on a new location. The relief route would be designed to meet interstate standards for possible future designation as I-69, which would alleviate congestion through the Polk County community of Corrigan, as well as increase safety and mobility along the US 59 corridor ....
The new location alignment would be a four-lane access controlled roadway with no frontage roads.

Here is a snip of the map of relief route alternatives:

(http://i.imgur.com/Cv5WILe.png)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MaxConcrete on July 26, 2014, 05:11:15 PM
There is a public meeting on 29-July-2014 to collect public feedback on the two remaining alignment options in Nacogdoches, one following the existing west loop and one on a new alignment just west of the west loop. http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/committees/angelina_nacogdoches/072914-display-adver.pdf (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/committees/angelina_nacogdoches/072914-display-adver.pdf)

New alignment option
http://www.txdot.gov/drivenbytexans_images/naco_new_location_full.jpg (http://www.txdot.gov/drivenbytexans_images/naco_new_location_full.jpg)

Option using the existing alignment
http://www.txdot.gov/drivenbytexans_images/naco_upgrade_full.jpg (http://www.txdot.gov/drivenbytexans_images/naco_upgrade_full.jpg)

In August 2013 the local guidance committee recommended the US 59 upgrade option, which eliminated nearly all new alignments for the corridor.
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/committees/angelina_nacogdoches/081913_materials.pdf (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/committees/angelina_nacogdoches/081913_materials.pdf)
My preference was for a new alignment bypassing the entire region on either the west of east side, but the locals want to upgrade US 59.

This shows the route in Nacogdoches from the 2013 recommendation. Based on the new map, the southmost of the two options south of Nacogdoches is eliminated.
http://www.oscarmail.net/photos/20140726_ih-69-lufkin/20140726_nacogdoches.jpg (http://www.oscarmail.net/photos/20140726_ih-69-lufkin/20140726_nacogdoches.jpg)

This shows the recommended alignment in Lufkin. The Diboll bypass and a section southeast of Lufkin is the only part on a new alignment. Based on my exposure to the area, the Diboll bypass is by far the most urgent need. A pdf is available at http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/projects/59/angelina-county-map.pdf (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/projects/59/angelina-county-map.pdf)
http://www.oscarmail.net/photos/20140726_ih-69-lufkin/20140726_lufkin.jpg (http://www.oscarmail.net/photos/20140726_ih-69-lufkin/20140726_lufkin.jpg)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: rickmastfan67 on July 26, 2014, 09:33:00 PM
MaxConcrete, I had to convert your images to links because all of them were way too tall.  The forum only allows a height of 600px on images, and yours were well over 1000px.

Next time, please resize a copy to a thumbnail size and then link to the bigger versions. ;)  Thanks. :wave:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=992.0
  • Photos and images posted in forum threads should not exceed 800 pixels in width or 600 pixels in height. Everyone is not using the same monitor. To reference larger images, just add a link from the 800x600 sized image to the larger file in question.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on August 11, 2014, 01:50:41 PM
The I-69 Driven By Texans website (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/drivenbytexans/us77-kingsville-driscoll.htm) recently posted a page about the US 77/Future I-69E Kingsville-Driscoll project, with construction ramping up this Spring and anticipated to have an opening date of October 2016

The Alliance for I-69 Texas has posted an update on current I-69E projects (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update%208.10.14.nueces.html), which includes the following map illustrating the projects:

(http://i.imgur.com/HFDDhsJ.png)

The update also includes a discussion about the future Driscoll relief route project that will be the last upgrade between I-37 and south of Kingsville:

Quote
DRISCOLL RELIEF ROUTE - A relief route around the town of Driscoll will be built in the future.  It will close a gap in highway upgrades of about six miles and will create a connected freeway from Interstate 37 at Corpus Christi south through Kingsville. The relief route will run through open farm fields and cross Petronila Creek on the east side of Driscoll.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: RoadMaster09 on August 14, 2014, 02:59:17 PM
I know we are getting back to numbering issues, but given the lack of an otherwise suitable placement, how about I-6 for the 69W route? It is mostly east-west and fits in that place on the grid. 69E should take the 69 mainline, and is 69C really necessary as a freeway? An alternative is 69 mainline on the 69C route, 37 extension of the 69E route (with 37 to Corpus Christi becoming 137).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on August 14, 2014, 03:54:37 PM
The I-69 route numbering scheme, whether one likes suffixes or not, is pretty much set in stone.

While "I-6" would make sense for the Victoria to Laredo segment of I-69W in terms of grid purity the numbering grid itself is all whacked out already with a few congressionally legislated route designations. There's also no rule saying we have to use up all the potential single and two digit route designations between 1 and 99 either. I think its better to use as few of those numbers as possible so they can be used many years or decades later as population centers and transportation corridors change.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: O Tamandua on August 14, 2014, 05:51:59 PM
Speaking of Grzrd's last post above, I wonder how the (unique, with its ranch and cattle lane construction) Kenedy County part of this is going?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: txstateends on August 15, 2014, 11:18:40 AM
Speaking of Grzrd's last post above, I wonder how the (unique, with its ranch and cattle lane construction) Kenedy County part of this is going?

The only part I've seen was on the aerial part of Google Maps, they've made the turnoff at Sarita (La Parra Ave.) into a grade-separated exit ( http://goo.gl/maps/IlXba ), while, if you try the Street View ( http://goo.gl/maps/4KDDp ), it is only the previous version that shows.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on August 15, 2014, 11:56:31 PM
The Texas Official Travel Map (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/trv/maps/texas.pdf) has been updated to show I-2, I-69C, and I-69E:
(http://i.imgur.com/Ekpuokx.png)
I-blankblank7 is even better!
where do you see that?
Look where I-2 meets I-69E.

It looks like TxDOT has corrected the map and eliminated the blank shields (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/trv/maps/texas.pdf):

(http://i.imgur.com/gdc3HBL.jpg)

There is not an I-69W shield in Laredo, though.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: nolia_boi504 on August 23, 2014, 07:39:27 PM
When are mile markers and exit numbers supposed to be signed on the completed portions of I-69? How will the south to north increasing numbers get assigned with I-69 E/C/W taking up the southern portion? I assume each leg will be numbered S-N and then I-69 will start from 0 at some point after the separate legs merge.

I looked at I-35 and I-35E/W for comparison and according to google maps the mile markers continued from I-35 coming from Austin through I-35E and onward to the north after merging with I-35W. And then I-35W started from 0 at the split south of DFW.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on August 23, 2014, 09:59:44 PM
I would almost expect the exit numbers on 69 throughout the remainder of Texas to be continuation of 69c
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: O Tamandua on August 23, 2014, 11:31:05 PM
Speaking of Grzrd's last post above, I wonder how the (unique, with its ranch and cattle lane construction) Kenedy County part of this is going?

The only part I've seen was on the aerial part of Google Maps, they've made the turnoff at Sarita (La Parra Ave.) into a grade-separated exit ( http://goo.gl/maps/IlXba ), while, if you try the Street View ( http://goo.gl/maps/4KDDp ), it is only the previous version that shows.

Thank you, txstateends.  Any other county along this corridor it would be hugely significant that the county seat highway conversion was just about finished (and it still is significant here).
Title: I-69W Shield Unveiled in Laredo
Post by: Grzrd on August 25, 2014, 07:34:07 PM
Documents now up http://route.transportation.org/Pages/CommitteeNoticesActionsandApprovals.aspx
Approved if not otherwise stated, details via the document ....
TX I-69W extension (Laredo) - conditionally approved FHWA approval needed ....
(bottom quote from AASHTO Numbering Committee Spring '14 Meeting (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=12521.msg302814#msg302814) thread)
I find it really interesting that TxDOT sought, and received, FHWA approval to depart from the "I-69" statutory designation in favor of an "I-69W" designation for the Laredo section (pages 3-5/10 of Texas I-69W pdf)

This article (http://www.kgns.tv/home/headlines/New-sign-unveiled-in-North-Laredo-272625461.html) reports that the I-69W shield was unveiled today:

(http://i.imgur.com/Ch9In8X.jpg)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MikeSantNY78 on August 26, 2014, 02:45:55 PM
The I-69 route numbering scheme, whether one likes suffixes or not, is pretty much set in stone.

While "I-6" would make sense for the Victoria to Laredo segment of I-69W in terms of grid purity the numbering grid itself is all whacked out already with a few congressionally legislated route designations. There's also no rule saying we have to use up all the potential single and two digit route designations between 1 and 99 either. I think its better to use as few of those numbers as possible so they can be used many years or decades later as population centers and transportation corridors change.
Which now answers the question: Per Wikipedia, the official split (E and W branches) will occur in Victoria, and C splits from W in George West...
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bassoon1986 on August 26, 2014, 04:12:06 PM
It's too bad that all 3 don't split from one point. I wonder if from the E-W split, 69W will also show "To I-69C" or a 69C control city (Edinburg/McAllen) or both.

By the way, I-69C shields are shown on Google Maps along US 281 all the way north to George West  :pan:
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on August 28, 2014, 12:29:55 PM
This article (http://www.kgns.tv/home/headlines/New-sign-unveiled-in-North-Laredo-272625461.html) reports that the I-69W shield was unveiled today

This August 26, 2014 Alliance for I-69 Texas article (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update%208.26.14Laredo69W.html) reports that, in addition to the large ceremonial I-69W sign, signage is currently being installed along the newly designated I-69W section, I-35, and other roadways:

Quote
The newly designated interstate section  begins near the busy World Trade Bridge on the west side of Laredo and extends east to an interchange with Interstate 35.  New Interstate 69W signs are going up on this section and on I-35 and other roadways approaching 69W. The Alliance for I-69 Texas was instrumental in working with Laredo community leaders to push for early designation of the new 69W section.



This Alliance for I-69 Texas article (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update%206.26.14Laredo.html)
That still leaves the question of what the route from George West to Victoria will be named.  I'm in favor of that being I-69W.
The article indicates that you will get your wish:
Quote
The 69W section will eventually run on US 59 from Laredo to Victoria.

The August 26, 2014 Alliance for I-69 Texas article regarding the I-69W unveiling ceremony also reports that I-69W will run from Laredo to Victoria:

Quote
The 69W section will eventually run on US 59 from Laredo to Victoria. In South Texas I69 is being created by updating US 59 (69 West), US 281 (69 Central) and US 77 (69 East).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on August 28, 2014, 03:07:13 PM
One more question, Grzz......what's going to happen with TX 44 between Freer and Robstown? That was recently added into the "I-69" system as a possible freeway upgrade in order to provide direct access between Laredo and Corpus Christi. Is it still scheduled to be included in the mix (possibly as an "I-x69")??
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on August 28, 2014, 03:23:01 PM
One more question, Grzz......what's going to happen with TX 44 between Freer and Robstown? That was recently added into the "I-69" system as a possible freeway upgrade in order to provide direct access between Laredo and Corpus Christi. Is it still scheduled to be included in the mix (possibly as an "I-x69")??

The most recent action was a May 1, 2014 referral to the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit (https://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/4523/all-actions).  Mercifully, a specific numerical designation is currently not included in the text of the bill (https://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/4523/text).  I suspect that the bill will eventually be part of the next large multi-year highway reauthorization (which will hopefully occur in May, 2015; however, I'm not holding my breath .........).  I think an I-x69 designation is a distinct possibility, with an I-6 designation as a darkhorse (which would in turn put a nail in the coffin for I-49 South to somehow be redesignated as I-6.  :-P)

Here is the current Corridor 18 statutory language (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm#l18), which will help to interpret the language in the 44-to-69 bill.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: oscar on August 29, 2014, 02:08:59 PM
This August 26, 2014 Alliance for I-69 Texas article (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update%208.26.14Laredo69W.html) reports that, in addition to the large ceremonial I-69W sign, signage is currently being installed along the newly designated I-69W section, I-35, and other roadways:

Not addressed by the Alliance article (maybe it doesn't care about lowly sub-Interstate routes), but anything on US 59 signs going up on the new I-69W segment and the northeastern part of Loop 20, and the bypassed part of US 59 being re-signed as Business US 59?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bugo on August 29, 2014, 07:55:14 PM
I think I read that 59 was going to be rerouted as well.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: oscar on August 29, 2014, 08:02:03 PM
I think I read that 59 was going to be rerouted as well.

That's in the bag.  My question is whether the signage is up, as it is (ceremonially, with real signage to follow) for I-69W.

Since part of the rerouted US 59 is concurrent with I-69W, I would hope TxDOT would put up signs for both at the same time.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MikeSantNY78 on August 29, 2014, 10:35:41 PM
Now all we need is the approval for I-69 within the I-610 loop in Houston.  Any word on when that might come down?  :hmmm:
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MikeTheActuary on August 30, 2014, 09:23:07 AM
The most recent action was a May 1, 2014 referral to the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit (https://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/4523/all-actions).  Mercifully, a specific numerical designation is currently not included in the text of the bill (https://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/4523/text).  I suspect that the bill will eventually be part of the next large multi-year highway reauthorization (which will hopefully occur in May, 2015; however, I'm not holding my breath .........).  I think an I-x69 designation is a distinct possibility, with an I-6 designation as a darkhorse (which would in turn put a nail in the coffin for I-49 South to somehow be redesignated as I-6.  :-P)

The way they're going, I'd think that I-69S would (sadly) be a possibility.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: RBBrittain on September 02, 2014, 05:19:14 AM
This shows the recommended alignment in Lufkin. The Diboll bypass and a section southeast of Lufkin is the only part on a new alignment. Based on my exposure to the area, the Diboll bypass is by far the most urgent need. A pdf is available at http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/projects/59/angelina-county-map.pdf (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/projects/59/angelina-county-map.pdf)
http://www.oscarmail.net/photos/20140726_ih-69-lufkin/20140726_lufkin.jpg (http://www.oscarmail.net/photos/20140726_ih-69-lufkin/20140726_lufkin.jpg)
If I'm reading this correctly, does this mean an I-69/US 69 concurrency in Lufkin is now almost certain (assuming TxDOT doesn't renumber US 69)?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: 25or6to4 on September 09, 2014, 02:51:27 AM
FYI, I noticed that the exit numbers have recently been painted in the exit medians on I-69E between Harlingen and Brownsville.  For example, the Price Road exit in Brownsville will be exit 3, and the Loop 499 exit in Harlingen is exit 23A.  Haven't been on I-2 recently to see if they're labeled yet.

Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on September 18, 2014, 11:20:29 AM
this January 2013 map (http://www.arkansashighways.com/planning_research/statewide_planning/Studies/AHTD%20I-69%20Innovative%20Financing%20Study_Final%20Findings%20Report_02192013.pdf) ... (pp. 7-8/122 of pdf) ....
the tiny, easternmost "fourth prong", SIU 32, is SH 550 from the Port of Brownsville to I-69E/US 77 ....
Another I-69 Corridor Section of Independent Utility ("SIU") nearing completion ......
This article (http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_fb1273f2-99e4-11e3-b98c-001a4bcf6878.html) reports that the SH 550 entrance to the Port of Brownsville recently opened and that the entire SH 550 project should be completed by the end of the year:
Quote
The remaining SH 550 connector could wrap up at the end of the year and would be 10 miles with four tolled, general purpose main lanes – two in each direction – and direct connectors at I-69.
“It’s my understanding that it would probably be toward the end of the year,”  Campirano said of the final piece of the project. “And when that happens, it will be a really nice connection.”

This article (http://www.valleymorningstar.com/premium/article_5d8f6844-3906-11e4-981d-0017a43b2370.html) reports that SH 550 is on track to be completed in early December:

Quote
The placement of massive steel girders as part of the SH 550 Direct Connector Project will entail shutting down northbound and southbound lanes of I-69 East (U.S. 77) beginning Sept. 16 and extending into October.
The affected stretch is between Rancho Viejo and the Brownsville Sports Park where SH 550 will soon link with I-69 at the old FM 511 intersection. Motorists will be forced to detour along the frontage road ....
In July, lanes of I-69 were closed for construction of the SH 550 “center bent”  between the northbound and southbound lanes. The work commencing this month will involve the placement of steel girders over the interstate, Sepulveda said.
“That’s the last segment that’s needed,”  he said. “Once we do that then all the columns will be in place.”
After it’s complete, probably in early December, the SH 550 toll way will connect I-69 to the Port of Brownsville.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on September 19, 2014, 12:34:24 PM
How will the south to north increasing numbers get assigned with I-69 E/C/W taking up the southern portion? I assume each leg will be numbered S-N and then I-69 will start from 0 at some point after the separate legs merge.

I recently received an email clarification from TxDOT:

Quote
This is where mile zero will be for the various legs of the I-69 Texas system:
I-69W in Laredo: Just east of the World Trade Bridge
I-69C in McAllen: Intersection of I-2/US 83
I-69E in Brownsville: Intersection of University Blvd/US 77, just north of the Veterans International Bridge
I-69 in Victoria: Intersection of US 59 and US 77
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Scott5114 on September 19, 2014, 07:46:12 PM
So mainline I-69 will start at zero at the merger, and not carry forward one of the legs' numbering?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: nolia_boi504 on September 19, 2014, 11:28:24 PM
Thanks for finding that!
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: codyg1985 on September 21, 2014, 01:21:09 PM
So mainline I-69 will start at zero at the merger, and not carry forward one of the legs' numbering?

Following the exit numbers from the north, you will think that you are getting close to the end when all of a sudden whichever leg you take, you are still a long way from the end. Talk about a mind bender!
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Scott5114 on September 21, 2014, 08:41:06 PM
Not only that, but you pass Exit 1 twice. I'd carry forward the numbering from whichever leg ends up being longest to avoid this problem.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: US81 on September 22, 2014, 06:06:29 AM
Not only that, but you pass Exit 1 twice. I'd carry forward the numbering from whichever leg ends up being longest to avoid this problem.

I agree. It seems like that would be somewhat similar to what was done in DFW where I-35 carries its numbering through the longer branch - I-35E - and I-35W carries its own numbering.  Granted it's not exactly analogous but it seems the most comparable situation I can think of.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: RBBrittain on October 05, 2014, 01:44:07 AM
Not only that, but you pass Exit 1 twice. I'd carry forward the numbering from whichever leg ends up being longest to avoid this problem.

I agree. It seems like that would be somewhat similar to what was done in DFW where I-35 carries its numbering through the longer branch - I-35E - and I-35W carries its own numbering.  Granted it's not exactly analogous but it seems the most comparable situation I can think of.
It's as analogous as you can get, since the two I-35 splits (DFW and Minneapolis-St. Paul) are the only other remaining interstate directional splits. But then I still wonder why I-69C is even needed at all, except to keep some RGV politician happy; I understand I-69E as RGV interstate access and I-69W as I-35 relief, but not I-69C...
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on October 05, 2014, 03:20:56 AM
It's as analogous as you can get, since the two I-35 splits (DFW and Minneapolis-St. Paul) are the only other remaining interstate directional splits. But then I still wonder why I-69C is even needed at all, except to keep some RGV politician happy; I understand I-69E as RGV interstate access and I-69W as I-35 relief, but not I-69C...
I-69C is for RGV access from San Antonio and west. I've tried but have been unable to find a way to build only one route into the RGV without significantly adding to the Houston-Brownsville or San Antonio-McAllen distance.

Of course neither US 77 nor US 281 needs to be a full freeway to the RGV. Little-used farm access roads are just quacky.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MikeSantNY78 on October 06, 2014, 03:59:35 PM
So mainline I-69 will start at zero at the merger, and not carry forward one of the legs' numbering?

Following the exit numbers from the north, you will think that you are getting close to the end when all of a sudden whichever leg you take, you are still a long way from the end. Talk about a mind bender!
That, or prefix the E/C/W legs' mileposts with the corresponding tag, so the east end of I-2 would join at milepost E-26.9 (or Exit 27) of I-69E...
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on October 11, 2014, 11:05:59 AM
The Alliance for I-69 Texas website (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update2.28.13.html) reports that the TTC made the I-69 designation official today:
Quote
The Texas Transportation Commission has given final approval to designation of an additional 28.4 miles of US 59 as part of Interstate 69.
The existing section of US 59 from the south side of Rosenberg in Fort Bend County north to Loop 610 in southwest Houston is now part of the Interstate Highway System and will soon be signed as both I-69 and US 59 .... There were five design issues identified and exceptions were approved by FHWA.
Now all we need is the approval for I-69 within the I-610 loop in Houston.  Any word on when that might come down?  :hmmm:

As far as I know, FHWA has not yet given any sort of approval for I-69 within the I-610 loop. A recent TxDOT study (data through August 31, 2014) (http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/100-congested-roadways.html?CFC__target=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dot.state.tx.us%2Fapps-cg%2Ftop_100%2Flist.htm%3Fitem%3D0) may help explain the delay: US 59 from I-610 to SH 288 and US 59 from SH 288 to I-10 (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Houston,+TX/@29.740111,-95.367045,14436m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x8640b8b4488d8501:0xca0d02def365053b) are the third and sixth most congested roadways in Texas, respectively (US 59 from I-10 to I-610 is 92nd). FHWA and TxDOT may be haggling over a proper ratio of design exceptions to TxDOT commitments to upgrade US 59 that would relieve the congestion. Simply my guess.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: KG909 on October 11, 2014, 11:13:03 AM
I'm just wondering why they wanted I-69, do they want signs stolen?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: thefro on October 11, 2014, 11:55:57 AM
I'm just wondering why they wanted I-69, do they want signs stolen?

Extending I-69 all the way down to Texas was the scheme that people in Southwest Indiana came up with to get their road from Indianapolis to Evansville, since the Federal government wasn't interested in funding an I-69 extension in just Indiana.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MikeSantNY78 on November 16, 2014, 12:16:17 PM
I'm just wondering why they wanted I-69, do they want signs stolen?

Extending I-69 all the way down to Texas was the scheme that people in Southwest Indiana came up with to get their road from Indianapolis to Evansville, since the Federal government wasn't interested in funding an I-69 extension in just Indiana.
Originally planned to go to Memphis, but the project was combined with the US 59 development in TX, so HPCs 18 & 20 (respectively) will become I-69, maybe in our children's lifetime...
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on November 17, 2014, 03:42:35 PM
The November 20, 2014 Texas Transportation Commission ("TTC") Agenda (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2014/1120/agenda.pdf) indicates that the TTC will approve a 1.6 mile addition to I-69E and a 4.5 mile addition to I-69C (pp. 3-4/13 of pdf; pp. 3-4 of document):

I-69E:

Quote
Nueces County - Designate a segment of the state highway system as I-69E, concurrent with US 77 from existing I-69E terminus in Robstown to south of FM 892 (MO) (Map)
The commission will consider the designation of a segment of the state highway system as I-69E, concurrent with US 77 from the existing I-69E terminus in Robstown to south of FM 892, a total distance of approximately 1.6 miles. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, and the Federal Highway Administration have approved the designation of this segment.

I-69C:

Quote
Hidalgo County - Designate a segment of the state highway system as I-69C, concurrent with US 281 from the junction of FM 490 to the existing I-69C terminus in Edinburg (MO) (Map)
The commission will consider the designation of a segment of the state highway system as I-69C, concurrent with US 281 from the junction of FM 490 to the existing I-69C terminus in Edinburg, a total distance of approximately 4.5 miles. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, and the Federal Highway Administration have approved the designation of this segment.

edit

Here's a map of the two additions from the Agenda (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2014/1120/11a-presentation.pdf):

(http://i.imgur.com/zzGcZ0N.jpg)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MaxConcrete on November 17, 2014, 08:19:23 PM
TxDOT has scheduled a public meeting for a 4.87-mile section of I-69C in south Texas. This will be a new-location bypass of the town of Premont along current US 281. This kind of meeting often indicates that construction could be imminent, but the announcement does not reveal the schedule, which will be available at the meeting.

http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/corpus-christi/121114.html (http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/corpus-christi/121114.html)

From the announcement (bold added by me):

The purpose of the proposed project is to upgrade US 281 at Premont to meet current interstate design standards and improve the safety of the traveling public, in a manner that is sensitive to the environment and serves the access and mobility needs of the community. To minimize overall impacts to Premont including homes and businesses, a relief route east of Premont has been identified as the preferred solution to upgrade US 281 in the Premont area. The relief route would extend from just 0.5 mile north of FM 1538 to 1 mile north of CR 431. It would include two northbound and southbound interstate quality main lanes, an interchange at S.E. 7th Street, and is 4.87 miles long. The main lanes would accommodate a 70 mph design speed, are separated by a 48-foot grassy median and the right-of-way width is approximately 500 feet.

The proposed relief route addresses the project needs while minimizing environmental, cultural, and socio-economic resource impacts and does not require the relocation of homes or businesses. The proposed relief route would be designated as US 281 and would become part of I-69 system in Texas and would specifically be designated as Interstate 69 Central (I-69C).

The proposed project would require approximately 192.8 acres of additional right of way. Information concerning services and benefits available to affected property owners and information about the tentative schedules for right-of-way acquisition and construction may be obtained at the public hearing or from the district office.

 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on November 20, 2014, 08:46:16 PM
The November 20, 2014 Texas Transportation Commission ("TTC") Agenda (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2014/1120/agenda.pdf) indicates that the TTC will approve a 1.6 mile addition to I-69E and a 4.5 mile addition to I-69C (pp. 3-4/13 of pdf; pp. 3-4 of document) ....
Here's a map of the two additions from the Agenda (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2014/1120/11a-presentation.pdf):
(http://i.imgur.com/zzGcZ0N.jpg)

The Alliance for I-69 Texas (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/) reports that the TTC, as expected, approved the two segments on November 20:

Quote
Two new sections totaling 6.1 miles have been added to Interstate 69 in South Texas. The Texas Transportation Commission voted Nov. 20th to designate 1.6 miles of newly finished freeway near Robstown in Nueces County as I-69E/US 77. A 4.5 mile section of new freeway on the north side of Edinburg in Hidalgo County was designated at I-69C/US 281. This action means 192 miles of the I-69 System route in Texas have been added to the Interstate Highway System.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: yakra on November 20, 2014, 09:08:23 PM
According to some notes I took after the results of the May 2014 AASHTO SCOH USRN meeting were published, the I-69C and I-69E extensions were to open Feb 2015 and Nov 2014 respectively. I'm unsure now what the source of my info was, as the USRN applications both (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=1179) say (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=1180) "Date facility available to traffic   Existing facility currently open to traffic".

Is this (still?) the case? Or have opening dates changed?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: wxfree on November 20, 2014, 11:43:02 PM
According to some notes I took after the results of the May 2014 AASHTO SCOH USRN meeting were published, the I-69C and I-69E extensions were to open Feb 2015 and Nov 2014 respectively. I'm unsure now what the source of my info was, as the USRN applications both (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=1179) say (http://ballot.transportation.org/FileDownload.aspx?attachmentType=Item&ID=1180) "Date facility available to traffic   Existing facility currently open to traffic".

Is this (still?) the case? Or have opening dates changed?

Today's extensions apply to sections of road that are both under construction and both open to traffic.  The existing roads are being upgraded to Interstate standards.  The designations will be effective upon FHWA approval.

http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2014/1120/11a.pdf (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2014/1120/11a.pdf)
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2014/1120/11b.pdf (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2014/1120/11b.pdf)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on December 05, 2014, 03:02:47 PM
How will the south to north increasing numbers get assigned with I-69 E/C/W taking up the southern portion? I assume each leg will be numbered S-N and then I-69 will start from 0 at some point after the separate legs merge.
I recently received an email clarification from TxDOT:
Quote
This is where mile zero will be for the various legs of the I-69 Texas system:
I-69W in Laredo: Just east of the World Trade Bridge
I-69C in McAllen: Intersection of I-2/US 83
I-69E in Brownsville: Intersection of University Blvd/US 77, just north of the Veterans International Bridge
I-69 in Victoria: Intersection of US 59 and US 77

While participating in another thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=14158.msg2025225#msg2025225), I noticed that the FHWA, in their Interstate Route Log and Finder List (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/reports/routefinder/table1.cfm), provides separate mileage totals for I-69, I-69 Central and I-69 East in Texas, which is consistent with having four separate I-69 Corridor "mile zero"s in Texas:

(http://i.imgur.com/QgZrqyP.png)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: kkt on December 05, 2014, 03:39:57 PM
four separate I-69 Corridor "mile zero"s in Texas:

 :banghead:
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on December 06, 2014, 12:57:18 PM
four separate I-69 Corridor "mile zero"s in Texas:
:banghead:

Oops, I forgot about I-369. That's five.
Then, if SH 550 (I-69 SIU 32 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg256570#msg256570)) receives a distinct interstate designation (I would prefer that it be an I-2 extension, but I am hearing strong, unconfirmed rumors that I-169 is the frontrunner), we would be up to six.
Also, SH 44 might be statutorily added to the I-69 Corridor in the relatively near future (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg2003523;topicseen#msg2003523). Lucky 7.

If you accept that I-2 is part of the Texas I-69 "system", then the "system" could potentially have eight "mile zero"s.

The more the merrier, eh?   :bigass:
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 10, 2014, 01:51:39 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if TX-44 was upgraded into a I-69 system route, but it would almost certainly be a 3-digit route, like I-469 or I-669. In the near term I would only expect the segment of TX-44 between I-69E in Robstown and TX 358 to be signed as a 3-digit I-x69 route. It could be conceivably given an odd 3-digit number if routed onto the TX 358 freeway down to its end at Padre Island.

It may be a long time before an Interstate class highway is built linking Robstown, Alice and Freer.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on December 10, 2014, 04:10:46 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if TX-44 was upgraded into a I-69 system route, but it would almost certainly be a 3-digit route, like I-469 or I-669. In the near term I would only expect the segment of TX-44 between I-69E in Robstown and TX 358 to be signed as a 3-digit I-x69 route. It could be conceivably given an odd 3-digit number if routed onto the TX 358 freeway down to its end at Padre Island.

It may be a long time before an Interstate class highway is built linking Robstown, Alice and Freer.

I-4469.  Not to be confused with I-4469S that will head to Padre Island
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on December 11, 2014, 02:31:13 PM
SH 550 (I-69 SIU 32 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg256570#msg256570))
This article (http://www.valleymorningstar.com/premium/article_5d8f6844-3906-11e4-981d-0017a43b2370.html) reports that SH 550 is on track to be completed in early December:
Quote
After it’s complete, probably in early December, the SH 550 toll way will connect I-69 to the Port of Brownsville.

This November 25 article (http://elperiodicousa.com/news/2014/nov/25/estiman-que-el-conducto-carretero-sh-550-operara-p/) reports that SH 550 is still on track to be completed in December (Google Translate English version of quotes from article):

Quote
The SH 550 corridor is already in its final stage, as stated by the director of marketing and communications Regional Mobility Authority Transport Cameron County, Michelle Lopez. Lopez said the work is in its final stage, where it is estimated that the road line is operating for the month of December under the scheduled times ....
Upon completion of the work, will be the fastest route traffic I69E the Port of Brownsville, since it estimates a running time of 10 minutes, depending on the days and hours of traffic, instead of the 30 minutes it currently performed.

Here is a photo accompanying the article that may whet the appetite for the opening:

(http://i.imgur.com/ksYZV7J.png)

Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on December 18, 2014, 12:10:50 PM
There is a public meeting on 29-July-2014 to collect public feedback on the two remaining alignment options in Nacogdoches, one following the existing west loop and one on a new alignment just west of the west loop. http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/committees/angelina_nacogdoches/072914-display-adver.pdf (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/committees/angelina_nacogdoches/072914-display-adver.pdf)
New alignment option
http://www.txdot.gov/drivenbytexans_images/naco_new_location_full.jpg (http://www.txdot.gov/drivenbytexans_images/naco_new_location_full.jpg)
Option using the existing alignment
http://www.txdot.gov/drivenbytexans_images/naco_upgrade_full.jpg (http://www.txdot.gov/drivenbytexans_images/naco_upgrade_full.jpg)
In August 2013 the local guidance committee recommended the US 59 upgrade option, which eliminated nearly all new alignments for the corridor.
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/committees/angelina_nacogdoches/081913_materials.pdf (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/committees/angelina_nacogdoches/081913_materials.pdf)
My preference was for a new alignment bypassing the entire region on either the west of east side, but the locals want to upgrade US 59.
This shows the route in Nacogdoches from the 2013 recommendation. Based on the new map, the southmost of the two options south of Nacogdoches is eliminated.
http://www.oscarmail.net/photos/20140726_ih-69-lufkin/20140726_nacogdoches.jpg (http://www.oscarmail.net/photos/20140726_ih-69-lufkin/20140726_nacogdoches.jpg)

This December 16 article (http://www.ktre.com/story/27646373/nacogdoches-officials-discuss-funding-options-for-interstate-69) reports that the Nacogdoches city council recently met to discuss the proposed route of I-69 in the Nacogdoches area, that, in order to pay the city's estimated $6 million portion of the project, consideration is being given to raising the $10/year road and bridges fee charged to residents up to $20/year, and that construction on the project could begin as early as 2017:

Quote
The proposed Interstate 69 project took center stage at the Nacogdoches City Council meeting Tuesday night.
The council discussed a proposal to agree with TXDOT on the proposed route of the project. The council said the proposed route will take the interstate from the intersection of Highway 59 and the south loop around the west loop and up to the intersection of 59 and Highway 259.
"I don't think people are going to be able to imagine the positive results because of I 69," said mayor Roger Van Horn.
The plans discussed at the meeting also included the construction of a connector ramp from 59 to the west loop.
The project's cost on Nacogdoches and the county will be large. it is estimated at $21 million, with $6 million of that being charged to the city. ....
City officials say the best way to form a new stream of income is to increase the road and bridges fee charged to residents. Right now, the fee is $10 per year. The proposal calls for an increase to $20 per year. The  change would result in an added $500,000 per year. City Manager Jim Jeffers
said the proposed rate would not go into effect until the project started and would only go until the $21 million was raised.
"It's going to have a term limit after the road is built but I don't want people to think it is going to be three years," Van Horn said.
The proposed rate change would not happen unless it passed a special election by the residents of Nacogdoches. Jeffers said the special election could not happen until the state legislature approves the plan for a special election.
"I'd say six months to a year [is what it will take]," Jeffers said. "I think it would be a full year before you actually see a vote, and that's if the legislature approves."
Jeffers told council members construction on the project could start as early as 2017 or 2018.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MaxConcrete on December 18, 2014, 09:16:24 PM
The council said the proposed route will take the interstate from the intersection of Highway 59 and the south loop around the west loop and up to the intersection of 59 and Highway 259.

The quote means that 100% of Interstate 69 through Lufkin and Nacogdoches will follow the existing U.S. 59, and none of it will be on a new alignment. The only new alignment in the area is south of Lufkin for the Diboll bypass, which is by far the most urgently needed project.

I would have liked to see a straight, new-alignment bypass of the area, preferably to the east. But for whatever reason, Lufkin-Nacogdoches did not want any of Interstate 69 on a new alignment.
 
 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on December 18, 2014, 09:29:38 PM
I bet FHWA will throw a shitfit over the recently-built one-lane flyovers at the south end of the Lufkin bypass.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on December 23, 2014, 10:58:17 AM
TxDOT has scheduled a public meeting for a 4.87-mile section of I-69C in south Texas. This will be a new-location bypass of the town of Premont along current US 281 ...
http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/corpus-christi/121114.html (http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/corpus-christi/121114.html)

TxDOT has posted the presentation from the public hearing (https://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/crp/projects/us281_premont/121114/presentation.pdf).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on December 23, 2014, 11:00:41 AM
Interesting that the overview map shows the national route of US 281, not I-69.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on December 23, 2014, 05:51:44 PM
Quote
18. Corridor from Sarnia, Ontario, Canada, through Port Huron, Michigan ....
D.In the Lower Rio Grande Valley, the Corridor shall ....
iii. include the Corpus Christi North-side Highway and Rail Corridor from the existing intersection of United States Route 77 and Interstate Route 37 to United States Route 181
(above quote from AASHTO May 5, 2013 Route Numbering Actions and Applications (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9416.msg231246#msg231246) thread)
I just received a FHWA email ...
Quote
This is a proposed Interstate 69 connector for the existing “Joe Fulton International Trade Corridor”  that connects at US 181 on the east end and I-37 on the west end at Carbon Plant Road.  I-37 then proceeds northwest and connects to US 77 (proposed I-69 E).
This 2007 article (http://www.caller.com/news/2007/oct/17/fulton-corridor-will-open-now-land-can-be-port/) reports on the opening of the Joe Fulton International Trade Corridor ... Here is a map of the Joe Fulton International Trade Corridor from the article:
(http://i.imgur.com/HIyRdeS.jpg)
SH 550 (I-69 SIU 32 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg256570#msg256570))

I recently began to wonder why SH 550 is considered Segment of Independent Utility 32 for the I-69 Corridor, but the Joe Fulton International Trade Corridor is not considered an I-69 Corridor Segment of Independent Utility.  Here is an email  Q & A I recently had with FHWA that addresses this question; basically, environmental issues precluded a freeway or interstate upgrade of the Joe Fulton International Trade Corridor:

Quote
Q:  In HPC 18(d)(iii), what is essentially the Joe Fulton International Trade Corridor in Corpus Christi and SH 550 in Brownsville are designated as part of the I-69 Corridor:
"A.    In the Lower Rio Grande Valley, the Corridor shall ....
iii    include the Corpus Christi North-side Highway and Rail Corridor from the existing intersection of United States Route 77 and Interstate Route 37 to United States Route 181, including FM511 from United States Route 77 to the Port of Brownsville."
My understanding is that SH 550 (for the most part built along FM 511) is I-69 Segment of Independent Utility 32; however, I do not believe that the Joe Fulton International Trade Corridor has been designated as an I-69 Segment of Independent Utility. If this is indeed the case, then why is it not deemed a Segment of Independent Utility?

A:  Your recent email dated December 7, 2014 regarding I-69 in Texas has been referred to the Texas Division Office of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) for a response.   
Please let me start with a brief explanation of the Federal-aid highway program.  Our working relationship with the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) is prescribed by Federal law (Title 23, United States Code-23 U.S.C. and 23 Code of Federal Regulations).  Under the Federal-aid highway program, the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) is responsible for project planning, design, construction and maintenance.  Our role is to work with the TxDOT to ensure those program actions comply with applicable Federal requirements and to provide technical advice and grant approvals at key stages of project development.
The question raised in your recent email related to a section of I-69 and Independent Utility.  The Texas Department of Transportation conducted feasibility studies on both facilities after the identification in the 1995 legislation. For the Corpus Christi Northside (Joe Fulton International Trade) Corridor, it was determined not be feasible as a freeway or interstate quality facility due to significant environmental issues. The recommendation was for a two-lane highway with a center turn lane. Since it was not feasible as an interstate quality facility, it was not identified as an I-69 Segment of Independent Utility.

I guess there's a trivia question in there somewhere ........
Title: I-169 Coming Soon to Texas
Post by: Grzrd on January 03, 2015, 12:42:26 PM
SH 550 (I-69 SIU 32 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg256570#msg256570)) receives a distinct interstate designation (I would prefer that it be an I-2 extension, but I am hearing strong, unconfirmed rumors that I-169 is the frontrunner)
This November 25 article (http://elperiodicousa.com/news/2014/nov/25/estiman-que-el-conducto-carretero-sh-550-operara-p/) reports that SH 550 is still on track to be completed in December

This article (http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_62f4b928-92f3-11e4-967c-cff11f6ba46b.html) reports that SH 550's direct connection with I-69E should be completed in January, 2015; after that, work will begin on a new section to just east of the new overpass on Old Alice Road (https://www.google.com/maps/@26.0261865,-97.5160353,3735m/data=!3m1!1e3), the completion of which will be necessary for an I-169 designation:

Quote
Pete Sepulveda Jr., Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority executive director, said work on the final phase of the $44 million 550 connector project started in March 2013 and is expected to be complete this month in terms of establishing direct connectivity between the interstate and the port.
The most recent step was the installation, nearly complete, of a “center bent”  over I-69 East between Rancho Viejo and the Brownsville Sports Park.
It was part of the third and final phase of a $44 million project to connect I-69 with the Port of Brownsville via direct toll road along the old FM 511 route.
“The next step after that is to work with TxDOT (Texas Department of Transportation) to design the portion that connects 550 with I-69 East to just east of the new overpass on Old Alice Road,”  Sepulveda said. “That will be designated as Interstate-169. It’ll be about three miles long.”
In all, two more segments of the project have to be finished before the 550 connector can be designated as interstate along its entire length, he said. That construction will start the first quarter of this month.

The purpose of the connector project is largely to create a faster, safer route for 18-wheelers between the interstate and the port, though it’s convenient for passenger vehicles as well, Sepulveda said.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Revive 755 on January 03, 2015, 01:00:38 PM
^ So I-69 will have the most spurs of any interstate in Texas?  Seems odd that state route designations are good enough for most other freeway spurs of interstates in Texas, but not I-69.

Wonder how long it will be before an I-569 is announced somewhere in Texas?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: codyg1985 on January 03, 2015, 01:11:03 PM
It might be for political reasons so that as many places as possible can be on the "I-69 System(TM)" 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on January 03, 2015, 11:32:10 PM
Quote
Wonder how long it will be before an I-569 is announced somewhere in Texas?

That developing freeway spur of TX-44 off of I-69E in Robstown going toward Corpus Christi looks like a very obvious I-569 candidate. Going one better, if TX-44 was turned into I-569 then TX-358 could conceivably get turned into I-769.

I wonder where I-969 could wind up in Texas.

Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on January 03, 2015, 11:42:20 PM
I wonder where I-969 could wind up in Texas.
SH 288 to Freeport.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: andy3175 on January 04, 2015, 02:08:40 AM
Quote
Wonder how long it will be before an I-569 is announced somewhere in Texas?

That developing freeway spur of TX-44 off of I-69E in Robstown going toward Corpus Christi looks like a very obvious I-569 candidate. Going one better, if TX-44 was turned into I-569 then TX-358 could conceivably get turned into I-769.

I wonder where I-969 could wind up in Texas.



I'd always thought that 69W should be 69, 69C should be an x69, and 69E be another x69 or a continuation of 37. Given the desire to have as many places as possible on the 69 system, it seems to me like they needed to use 69C-E-W since they might well use up all the x69 options in Texas.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on January 04, 2015, 08:58:07 AM
Personally, I'd prefer I-69 to stick with US 59, the US 77 corridor south of Corpus Christi to be an I-37 extension, US 281 remain US 281 (yet upgraded), and the combination of SH 44 between Freer and Robstown, and US 77 east of CC to Victoria, to be an even I-x69. Plus, no need really to change any of the Houston freeways, IMO.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Henry on January 07, 2015, 12:39:15 PM
Personally, I'd prefer I-69 to stick with US 59, the US 77 corridor south of Corpus Christi to be an I-37 extension, US 281 remain US 281 (yet upgraded), and the combination of SH 44 between Freer and Robstown, and US 77 east of CC to Victoria, to be an even I-x69. Plus, no need really to change any of the Houston freeways, IMO.
That's not a bad idea, but I'd do something like this:

I-69E: I-41 (or I-43)
I-69C: I-39 (or I-41)
I-69W: I-69
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: TXtoNJ on January 07, 2015, 01:51:08 PM
The more I look at the system - what exactly is the point of I-69W, specifically the route between Victoria and Freer? Is it just to save 20 minutes between Laredo and Houston?

The money would likely be much better spent triple-laning I-35 between Laredo and SA, and I-10 between I-410 and Katy.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on January 07, 2015, 02:04:40 PM
The more I look at the system - what exactly is the point of I-69W, specifically the route between Victoria and Freer? Is it just to save 20 minutes between Laredo and Houston?
It'll probably save more than that if built, but then you'll end up right in Houston. All this nafter traffic might end up taking US 77 to SH 21 or something to bypass Houston.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: TXtoNJ on January 07, 2015, 03:14:32 PM
The more I look at the system - what exactly is the point of I-69W, specifically the route between Victoria and Freer? Is it just to save 20 minutes between Laredo and Houston?
It'll probably save more than that if built, but then you'll end up right in Houston. All this nafter traffic might end up taking US 77 to SH 21 or something to bypass Houston.

This is true. If 69W doesn't get built, the Port of Houston will undoubtedly disappear overnight, but my commute on the Katy Freeway will get only half the current traffic.

Hmm, decisions...
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on January 12, 2015, 05:37:44 PM
The only new alignment in the area is south of Lufkin for the Diboll bypass, which is by far the most urgently needed project.

TxDOT will have a January 22 Open House (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/committees/angelina_nacogdoches/012215-display-adver.pdf) for the Diboll Relief Route in order to display the proposed alignment to the public and explain where TxDOT is in the project development process.  Here is a snip of the Diboll Relief Route (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/projects/59/angelina-county-map.pdf):

(http://i.imgur.com/fQzwN3X.png)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: dariusb on January 12, 2015, 10:32:02 PM
When is this project slated to start construction?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on January 13, 2015, 04:56:24 PM
TxDOT will have a January 22 Open House (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/committees/angelina_nacogdoches/012215-display-adver.pdf) for the Diboll Relief Route
When is this project slated to start construction?

Not any time soon.  The I-69 Driven by Texans website (http://www.txdot.gov/drivenbytexans/us59-angelina-nacogdoches.htm) indicates that the project is currently undergoing an environmental re-evaluation due to the passage of time and that it currently does not have any design or construction funding:

Quote
Complete the Diboll Relief Route – The number one priority of Angelina County committee members is advancing the development of the Diboll Relief Route. TxDOT completed the environmental process and had approved schematic design plans in 1999 for this project, but because of the elapsed time an environmental re-evaluation will be required. TxDOT is proceeding with preparing a re-evaluation of the environmental assessment (environmental document) and with right-of-way map updates. The Lufkin District will be hosting an upcoming public meeting on January 22, 2015 to display the proposed alignment to the public, explain where TxDOT is in the project development process, answer questions, and gather local citizen input.
It should be noted that design and construction funding has not been identified for any of the projects above.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on January 16, 2015, 11:20:56 AM
One more question, Grzz......what's going to happen with TX 44 between Freer and Robstown? That was recently added into the "I-69" system as a possible freeway upgrade in order to provide direct access between Laredo and Corpus Christi. Is it still scheduled to be included in the mix (possibly as an "I-x69")??
The most recent action was a May 1, 2014 referral to the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit (https://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/4523/all-actions).  Mercifully, a specific numerical designation is currently not included in the text of the bill (https://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/4523/text).  I suspect that the bill will eventually be part of the next large multi-year highway reauthorization (which will hopefully occur in May, 2015; however, I'm not holding my breath .........). ... Here is the current Corridor 18 statutory language (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm#l18), which will help to interpret the language in the 44-to-69 bill.

Texas Congressman Blake Farenthold's office announced in a January 14, 2015 press release (http://farentholdforms.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=398450) that Farenthold has reintroduced the "44-to-69" legislation for this year:

Quote
Yesterday, January 13, 2015, Congressman Blake Farenthold (TX-27) re-introduced legislation that would expand Interstate 69 to include Texas State Highway 44. This bill would designate State Highway 44 as a future segment of I-69, known as the “44 to 69 Act.”  Under the Congressman’s legislation, both the city of Corpus Christi and Corpus Christi International Airport would be included in the I-69 interstate highway system.
Congressman Farenthold offered the following statement on his introduction of the “44 to 69 Act” :
“The ’44 to 69 Act’ better connects Corpus Christi’s airport and port to the rest of the country. As Texas’ economy continues to grow, so does the need for surface transportation and modern infrastructure to move freight and people. Extending and completing I-69 now will better position Texas’ ports to enjoy the economic benefits coming with the expansion of the Panama Canal.  I am proud to author this piece of legislation.”
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bassoon1986 on January 16, 2015, 11:30:58 AM
I feel like I've seen plenty of maps showing the parts of the I-69 corridor. But y'all help me clear this up.

I-69 never splits into all 3 legs (69W, 69C, 69E) at once correct?

I-69 splits into 69E and 69W at Victoria. E follows the US 77 corridor all the way to Brownsville and W follows US 59 corridor from Victoria all the way to Laredo.

So I-69C's northern terminus will be at George West where US 281 meets US 59 now?

I think I was under the impression for a while that 69C would branch from 69E using TX 44
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ajlynch91 on January 16, 2015, 11:48:03 AM
I don't see the point of duplicate numbers, especially when an I-x69 designation would work perfectly fine. I'd rather have the (stupid) suffixes than duplicate numbers.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Rover_0 on January 16, 2015, 02:37:47 PM
One more question, Grzz......what's going to happen with TX 44 between Freer and Robstown? That was recently added into the "I-69" system as a possible freeway upgrade in order to provide direct access between Laredo and Corpus Christi. Is it still scheduled to be included in the mix (possibly as an "I-x69")??
The most recent action was a May 1, 2014 referral to the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit (https://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/4523/all-actions).  Mercifully, a specific numerical designation is currently not included in the text of the bill (https://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/4523/text).  I suspect that the bill will eventually be part of the next large multi-year highway reauthorization (which will hopefully occur in May, 2015; however, I'm not holding my breath .........). ... Here is the current Corridor 18 statutory language (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/national_highway_system/high_priority_corridors/hpcor.cfm#l18), which will help to interpret the language in the 44-to-69 bill.

Texas Congressman Blake Farenthold's office announced in a January 14, 2015 press release (http://farentholdforms.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=398450) that Farenthold has reintroduced the "44-to-69" legislation for this year:

Quote
Yesterday, January 13, 2015, Congressman Blake Farenthold (TX-27) re-introduced legislation that would expand Interstate 69 to include Texas State Highway 44. This bill would designate State Highway 44 as a future segment of I-69, known as the “44 to 69 Act.”  Under the Congressman’s legislation, both the city of Corpus Christi and Corpus Christi International Airport would be included in the I-69 interstate highway system.
Congressman Farenthold offered the following statement on his introduction of the “44 to 69 Act” :
“The ’44 to 69 Act’ better connects Corpus Christi’s airport and port to the rest of the country. As Texas’ economy continues to grow, so does the need for surface transportation and modern infrastructure to move freight and people. Extending and completing I-69 now will better position Texas’ ports to enjoy the economic benefits coming with the expansion of the Panama Canal.  I am proud to author this piece of legislation.”

I really hope TX-44 ends up as something other than I-69/I-69(insert suffix letter here), but I fear my hope is in vain.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on January 16, 2015, 08:26:56 PM
Why would an I-69 spur using TX-44 have a suffix in the route number? I-635 in Dallas only intersections I-35E in Dallas. It's not I-635E.

I expect the TX-44 freeway to have a normal I-x69 number, like maybe I-969 for instance.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on January 16, 2015, 09:23:25 PM
How about making the Laredo-Freer-Robstown-Corpus Christi-Victoria segments of US 59/TX 44/US 77 into I-69, and the Freer-George West-Victoria segment an I-269? Then, US 77 south of Corpus to Brownsville can become an I-37 extension, and US 281 can stay as it is. Problem solved, without any suffixes.

But, since the suffixes are now official, probably convert TX 44 into an even I-x69 or a western I-4.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: erik_ram2005 on January 17, 2015, 01:27:52 AM
How about making the Laredo-Freer-Robstown-Corpus Christi-Victoria segments of US 59/TX 44/US 77 into I-69, and the Freer-George West-Victoria segment an I-269? Then, US 77 south of Corpus to Brownsville can become an I-37 extension, and US 281 can stay as it is. Problem solved, without any suffixes.

But, since the suffixes are now official, probably convert TX 44 into an even I-x69 or a western I-4.

Actually US 281 NEEDS to be part of the interstate 69 system. 281 serves as the primary route out of the RGV for the people of Hidalgo County (about 800,000) in the RGV which has a larger population than Cameron and Willacy Counties (about 400,000 and 22,000) which US 77 serves as the primary route to out of the RGV for. People in Hidalgo County wont drive roughly 40 minutes east to I-69E (US 77) when driving up to SA, for example. I-69C (US 281) would be more direct and easier to access. I-69E, though, can be built a lot faster though and would be easier to build first.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on January 17, 2015, 02:16:56 AM
Neither route NEEDS to be built. The only reason for the overpasses in Kenedy County is FHWA anality.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on January 17, 2015, 11:08:31 AM
Neither route NEEDS to be built. The only reason for the overpasses in Kenedy County is FHWA anality.

And full control of access standards for Interstate-grade highways. Personally I'd prefer FHWA "anality" to 65 mph crashes.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bugo on January 17, 2015, 01:50:56 PM
Neither route NEEDS to be built. The only reason for the overpasses in Kenedy County is FHWA anality.

And full control of access standards for Interstate-grade highways. Personally I'd prefer FHWA "anality" to 65 mph crashes.

Do you have stats on how many crashes have happened on this road?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on January 17, 2015, 02:19:57 PM
Neither route NEEDS to be built. The only reason for the overpasses in Kenedy County is FHWA anality.

And full control of access standards for Interstate-grade highways. Personally I'd prefer FHWA "anality" to 65 mph crashes.

Do you have stats on how many crashes have happened on this road?

No...but the very definition of Interstate is full control of access (I-70 Breezwood, I-180 in WY, and a few at-grade farm roads intersecting I-10, I-20, and I-40 in TX excepted). If you are going to say that US 77 should be part of I-69 yet retain at-grades, then you should do the same for all other less-traveled Interstate highways.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on January 17, 2015, 02:20:54 PM
Texas Congressman Blake Farenthold's office announced in a January 14, 2015 press release (http://farentholdforms.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=398450) that Farenthold has reintroduced the "44-to-69" legislation for this year

If anyone cares to follow the progress of the bill, it is also known as H.R.301 – 114th Congress (2015-2016) (https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/301/text).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on January 17, 2015, 05:09:13 PM
No...but the very definition of Interstate is full control of access (I-70 Breezwood, I-180 in WY, and a few at-grade farm roads intersecting I-10, I-20, and I-40 in TX excepted). If you are going to say that US 77 should be part of I-69 yet retain at-grades, then you should do the same for all other less-traveled Interstate highways.
US 77 in Kenedy County is a few at-grade farm roads (really driveways)...
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bugo on January 17, 2015, 07:04:14 PM
Neither route NEEDS to be built. The only reason for the overpasses in Kenedy County is FHWA anality.

And full control of access standards for Interstate-grade highways. Personally I'd prefer FHWA "anality" to 65 mph crashes.

Do you have stats on how many crashes have happened on this road?

No...but the very definition of Interstate is full control of access (I-70 Breezwood, I-180 in WY, and a few at-grade farm roads intersecting I-10, I-20, and I-40 in TX excepted). If you are going to say that US 77 should be part of I-69 yet retain at-grades, then you should do the same for all other less-traveled Interstate highways.

I don't think US 77 should be a part of the I-69 clusterfuck. There is very little along the highway other than a couple of small towns that should be bypassed. A 4 lane divided highway is good enough. Converting it into a freeway (basically building new freeway lanes in the median of the current expressway) is a colossal waste of money that could be better spent elsewhere.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Perfxion on January 17, 2015, 10:02:04 PM
US77 and US281 to I-69 is more pork than a BBQ cookoff. Neither of them are needed from a traffic stand point. If they must build one, 281 over 77.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on January 17, 2015, 10:05:56 PM
Neither route NEEDS to be built. The only reason for the overpasses in Kenedy County is FHWA anality.

And full control of access standards for Interstate-grade highways. Personally I'd prefer FHWA "anality" to 65 mph crashes.

Do you have stats on how many crashes have happened on this road?

No...but the very definition of Interstate is full control of access (I-70 Breezwood, I-180 in WY, and a few at-grade farm roads intersecting I-10, I-20, and I-40 in TX excepted). If you are going to say that US 77 should be part of I-69 yet retain at-grades, then you should do the same for all other less-traveled Interstate highways.

I don't think US 77 should be a part of the I-69 clusterfuck. There is very little along the highway other than a couple of small towns that should be bypassed. A 4 lane divided highway is good enough. Converting it into a freeway (basically building new freeway lanes in the median of the current expressway) is a colossal waste of money that could be better spent elsewhere.

N A F T A
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on January 17, 2015, 10:57:01 PM
can S U C K I T

Not that there's any fucking benefit to building farm driveway overpasses in the middle of nowhere.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: dfwmapper on January 19, 2015, 04:35:19 AM
Neuces and Kleberg counties have enough development that it's probably worth full access control at some point. Kenedy, still a long way away from needing anything, just slap up some TEMPORARY or FUTURE I-69E signs and call it good enough.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on January 19, 2015, 12:52:51 PM
they could pull an I-10 in west Texas and keep the at-grades. Why were those allowed to be grandfathered there but not here?
US 77 in Kenedy County is a few at-grade farm roads (really driveways)...
Do you have stats on how many crashes have happened on this road?

The Environmental Assessment Volume 1 (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/crp/projects/us77_upgrade/ea_vol1.pdf) includes a table based on crash statistics; interestingly, Kenedy County was excluded due to lack of crash records or intersections (page 19/271 of pdf; page 11 of document):

(http://i.imgur.com/bUvJnEC.png)

If anyone is interested, more information may be found at the Index of US 77 Upgrade EA and FONSI Documents (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/crp/projects/us77_upgrade/).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on January 19, 2015, 02:12:41 PM
this I-69 Funding Program as of March 27, 2014 map (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/funded_projects_map.pdf)
(above quote from Interstate 369 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10684.msg2030138#msg2030138) thread)

The Alliance for I-69 Texas has posted an updated I-69 System Funding Program as of September 1, 2014 map (http://i69texasalliance.com/ResourcesPDFs/I69.TxDOT%20Funding%20Program%20Map.%20Nov2014.pdf), along with several other materials from a January 14, 2015 I-69 Texas Status Update Briefing (http://i69texasalliance.com/resource.html).



This article (http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_62f4b928-92f3-11e4-967c-cff11f6ba46b.html) reports that SH 550's direct connection with I-69E should be completed in January, 2015; after that, work will begin on a new section to just east of the new overpass on Old Alice Road (https://www.google.com/maps/@26.0261865,-97.5160353,3735m/data=!3m1!1e3), the completion of which will be necessary for an I-169 designation

One of the materials from the January 14 presentation is a Status of National I-69 System map (http://i69texasalliance.com/ResourcesPDFs/I69.National_Status_Map.July2014.pdf) that includes SH 550, as of July 1, 2014, as a "Potential I-69":

(http://i.imgur.com/xROz4kn.png)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: roadman65 on January 19, 2015, 05:00:01 PM
When I-69 gets finished will the US 59 shields disappear like the US 90 shields did here along I-10?
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.785532,-95.808132,3a,75y,131.84h,69.76t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1s4IUyL1vdvRi2wOSNrKu5KA!2e0
This is along US 90 EB joins I-10 to form their concurrency into Houston in Katy, Texas.  Since the US 90 and I-10 concurrency are the same  as the US 59 and I-69 in the way they both came about as US 90 was there before I-10 using the same exact alignment just as I-69 is using US 59's preexisting alignment it would only be fair to assess that the same fate will happen to the US 59 and I-69 cosigning.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bugo on January 19, 2015, 05:04:10 PM
They'll probably cut US 59 back to Texarkana or possibly as far north as Heavener.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: roadman65 on January 19, 2015, 10:59:57 PM
I would imagine that US 77 will also be cut back to Victoria as well when I-69E gets completed.

However, I am surprised that US 83 yet has not been trimmed back to where the point I-2 begins west of Pharr yet. From there till the Mexican Border US 93 83 is totally concurrent with I-2, US 77, and umm I-69E.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on January 19, 2015, 11:17:59 PM
This August 26, 2014 Alliance for I-69 Texas article (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update%208.26.14Laredo69W.html) reports that, in addition to the large ceremonial I-69W sign, signage is currently being installed along the newly designated I-69W section, I-35, and other roadways
The Alliance for I-69 Texas has posted an updated I-69 System Funding Program as of September 1, 2014 map (http://i69texasalliance.com/ResourcesPDFs/I69.TxDOT%20Funding%20Program%20Map.%20Nov2014.pdf)

The above-linked September 1, 2014 map shows a great deal of ongoing work on SL 20/Future I-69W in Laredo, including partial funding for the approximately $45 million of construction needed to upgrade SL 20 to freeway standards:

(http://i.imgur.com/uKtgiz9.jpg)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: oscar on January 19, 2015, 11:44:50 PM
I would imagine that US 77 will also be cut back to Victoria as well when I-69E gets completed.

However, I am surprised that US 83 yet has not been trimmed back to where the point I-2 begins west of Pharr yet. From there till the Mexican Border US 93 is totally concurrent with I-3, US 77, and umm I-69E.

I-69E stops short of the border, with US 77/83 continuing through one major at-grade intersection (University Blvd.) and a minor one before reaching the border.

Also, truncating US 83 would strand one of its business routes, while truncating US 77 would strand several US 77 business routes, unless they were renumbered as Interstate business routes.  Those hassles, plus the remaining gap between I-69E and the border, might be enough to discourage TxDOT from truncating either route, though it would not be too painful to truncate US 83 at I-69E and let US 77 cover the gap to the border.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: roadman65 on January 20, 2015, 12:06:59 AM
Agreed with truncating US 83 to Harligen and leaving US 77 stand alone.

However, TexDOT may not just sign either route when done like they did to US 90 in Houston along I-10.  Even where US 90 was an arterial where the Katy Freeway now stands the shields (as seen in my earlier post's link to GSV) are gone.  In other words keep it but keep it silent.

US 281 could use truncating too. Perhaps back to San Antonio when I-69C gets done and eliminate the E-W portion from near Pharr to Brownsville and that SPUR US 281 into Reynoso.   Heck, US 281 does not even make it to the border in Brownsville either.  It ends at US 77 Business and it is poorly signed anyway in Brownsville.  Dale Sanderson did a special page section on the routes in Brownsville due to little or no shields posted along its city streets covering the US 281 thing as well.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: yakra on January 20, 2015, 12:08:45 AM
Agreed. But at least cut US83 back to the I-2/69E interchange, eh?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: roadman65 on January 20, 2015, 12:16:32 AM
Agreed. But at least cut US83 back to the I-2/69E interchange, eh?
That is what I said agreeing with Oscar.  That interchange is located at Harlingen, TX.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on January 20, 2015, 12:29:24 AM
I-69E stops short of the border, with US 77/83 continuing through one major at-grade intersection (University Blvd.) and a minor one before reaching the border.
Really no different from I-35 in Laredo. US 81 was cut back and the last bit became I-35 Biz. I-69E Biz wouldn't even have to be signed.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bugo on January 20, 2015, 12:32:20 AM
I would imagine that US 77 will also be cut back to Victoria as well when I-69E gets completed.

However, I am surprised that US 83 yet has not been trimmed back to where the point I-2 begins west of Pharr yet. From there till the Mexican Border US 93 83 is totally concurrent with I-3, US 77, and umm I-69E.

That's fucking stupid. Of course they're not going to do that.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bugo on January 20, 2015, 12:38:28 AM
If you're going to truncate US 83, might as well truncate it at Minot.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on January 20, 2015, 12:58:46 AM
It'd be best to put it back on US 83 Biz. But ASSHTOLE says no.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bugo on January 20, 2015, 01:11:08 AM
It'd be best to put it back on US 83 Biz. But ASSHTOLE says no.

They let North Carolina put US 117 back on the old route. But NCDOT gets whatever they want. Every little stretch of freeway has an interstate designation.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: roadman65 on January 20, 2015, 01:14:39 AM
I would imagine that US 77 will also be cut back to Victoria as well when I-69E gets completed.

However, I am surprised that US 83 yet has not been trimmed back to where the point I-2 begins west of Pharr yet. From there till the Mexican Border US 93 83 is totally concurrent with I-3, US 77, and umm I-69E.

That's fucking stupid. Of course they're not going to do that.
What happened to US 81 may I ask?  If I remember correctly it went all the way to Laredo at one time.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on January 20, 2015, 01:15:15 AM
They didn't let NC put 117 (or 220) back. NC did it anyway.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bugo on January 20, 2015, 01:33:22 AM
I would imagine that US 77 will also be cut back to Victoria as well when I-69E gets completed.

However, I am surprised that US 83 yet has not been trimmed back to where the point I-2 begins west of Pharr yet. From there till the Mexican Border US 93 83 is totally concurrent with I-3, US 77, and umm I-69E.

That's fucking stupid. Of course they're not going to do that.
What happened to US 81 may I ask?  If I remember correctly it went all the way to Laredo at one time.

81 didn't end at the beginning of a dead end freeway. It ends at I-35W north of Fort Worth. I don't know any examples of an interstate turning into a US route without a duplex of some sort.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: roadman65 on January 20, 2015, 01:49:02 AM
All I know is that Texas is known to at least truncate some US routes.  Not as bad as California or Michigan, though the ones that would leave useless concurrences.  If US 77 was to continue a long overlap with I-69E, it would require to upkeep signs for both routes. At best US 77 would be signed like it is along I-35E as silent.

However, it would merit TexDOT to change all business routes to green shields.  Not that I agree nor suggest that they do, but it might happen knowing the way things go.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bugo on January 20, 2015, 01:59:01 AM
They might cut 77 back to perhaps Denton but they're not going to have 83 end where an interstate begins. That's just retarded.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on January 20, 2015, 02:02:04 AM
81 didn't end at the beginning of a dead end freeway. It ends at I-35W north of Fort Worth. I don't know any examples of an interstate turning into a US route without a duplex of some sort.
I-345/US 75.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bugo on January 20, 2015, 02:37:04 AM
81 didn't end at the beginning of a dead end freeway. It ends at I-35W north of Fort Worth. I don't know any examples of an interstate turning into a US route without a duplex of some sort.
I-345/US 75.

Does 75 really end at the beginning of 345? The way I understand it (and the way it's signed) 75 ends at I-30 and is duplexed with the secret 345 until it ends wherever it ends north of I-30.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on January 20, 2015, 02:44:03 AM
US 75 used to exit onto city streets at the north end of I-345. It now ends there.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bugo on January 20, 2015, 02:49:01 AM
US 75 used to exit onto city streets at the north end of I-345. It now ends there.

Evidence? I know it used to follow the Central Expressway at one time and the Good-Latimer Expressway at another, but I never heard of it being cut back to where I-345 begins. Besides. didn't 75 still end in Galveston when the 345 section was completed? Anyway, the END sign is at the I-30 interchange, so that's what I'm going by until I am proven wrong.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on January 20, 2015, 03:01:21 AM
http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/us/us0075.htm
Quote
From the Texas/Oklahoma S/L north of Denison via Denison, Sherman, McKinney, and Richardson to IH 345 in Dallas, a total approximate distance of 79.0 miles.
AASHTO's approval was for elimination between Galveston and I-30, but if TXDOT followed that US 75 would end where Good Latimer crosses over I-30. Proof that US 75 was never on I-345: http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/ss/ss0559.htm
The only reason US 75's end is signed where it is is that I-345 is not signed. And if you ignore I-345, US 75 becomes I-45.

The pattern here (and with US 81 and US 290) is that TXDOT will remove to the end of the Interstate overlap. If there's any blame for a future decision to cut back US 83 to the west end of I-2, it should go to FHWA and AASHTO for approving that end.

In the near future, US 15 may become I-99 at the NY-PA state line (I think NYSDOT already does this in their logs).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bugo on January 20, 2015, 04:30:54 AM
When was I-345 finished? When was US 75 trunked?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on January 20, 2015, 04:53:20 AM
When was I-345 finished? When was US 75 trunked?
Kurumi says it was finished in 1971. It was probably signed as US 75 north, since it was essentially a long ramp.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: codyg1985 on January 20, 2015, 07:19:25 AM
However, it would merit TexDOT to change all business routes to green shields.  Not that I agree nor suggest that they do, but it might happen knowing the way things go.

That has been done with former US 75 south of Dallas and former US 80 west of Dallas. They became Business I-45 and Business I-20, respectfully.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on January 20, 2015, 08:27:01 AM
However, it would merit TexDOT to change all business routes to green shields.  Not that I agree nor suggest that they do, but it might happen knowing the way things go.

They became Business I-45 and Business I-20, respectfully.

Respectively?  Maybe both
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on January 20, 2015, 01:34:09 PM
have TxDOT et al abandoned efforts to include US 281 "from the Rio Grande River" to US 83/I-2 as part of I-69C?
Well, technically US 281 starts in Brownsville near the Rio Grande River.  You could make the argument that I-69E to I-2 fulfills that requirement even if it's not signed as I-69C along there.
^ Thanks for the info.  Your I-69E to I-2 observation as satisfying the US 281 statutory purpose seems like a practical solution that is roughly analogous to Loop 20 being a practical alternative to US 59 in Laredo. It may have even been part of the justification of including I-2 as part of the I-69 "system". Problem solved.

The Alliance for I-69 Texas recently posted a Status of National I-69 System map (http://i69texasalliance.com/ResourcesPDFs/I69.National_Status_Map.July2014.pdf) that shows a section of I-69C heading directly south from the I-2 interchange to the Mexican border as "Potential I-69":

(http://i.imgur.com/4pVCrSD.png)

I emailed TxDOT and they basically explained that their interpretation of the statute is reflected in the map, but that they have no plans for that section:

Quote
The “Proposed I-69”  sections on that map show the Congressionally Designated I-69 route.  The I-69C route extends to the border under this designation, but at this time TxDOT doesn’t have any plans to extend I-69C south of I-2.

I prefer lordsutch's proffered interpretation of the statute.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: yakra on January 20, 2015, 03:11:38 PM
http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/us/us0075.htm
Quote
From the Texas/Oklahoma S/L north of Denison via Denison, Sherman, McKinney, and Richardson to IH 345 in Dallas, a total approximate distance of 79.0 miles.
AASHTO's approval was for elimination between Galveston and I-30, but if TXDOT followed that US 75 would end where Good Latimer crosses over I-30. Proof that US 75 was never on I-345: http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/ss/ss0559.htm
The only reason US 75's end is signed where it is is that I-345 is not signed. And if you ignore I-345, US 75 becomes I-45.
Proof? I disagree; I interpret the info differently:
Quote
STATE HIGHWAY SPUR NO. 559

Minute Order 085364, dated 01/28/1987; Adm. Ltr. 006-1987, dated 06/11/1987

Dallas Spur - In Dallas from IH 345 southeastward approximately 1.4 miles to IH 45.  (Dallas County)  New designation; mileage transferred from old location of US 75.
This only tells us where SS 559's mileage came from, that it used to be part of US 75.
As far as the US 75 designation file goes, my initial reading was also that US 75 ends where IH 345 begins. Now I'm not so sure; I see it as more of a gray area. It's possible that it ends at some other, unspecified point along IH 345. I've seen enough other errors, typos, poor descriptions and failures to update in the designation files to put just enough doubt in my mind.
The figure of 79.0 miles for US 75 is worth noting. The distance Google provides from the Oklahoma line to the middle of the IH 30 interchange 78.5 miles. (Just enough rounding error between Google's mileage calculation and TXDOT's measurements?) If I cut the mileage back to Good Latimer, I get 77.5 mi. Hmm...
WRT AASHTO's approval, I won't comment on the elimination (which I presume happened in 1987 based on the designation files); I've not seen the wording of what was approved. But per 1989 route logs, US 75 "Joins I-345" at 80 accumulated miles in state. At 81 miles, "Route ends, Jct. I-30, U.S. 67, & U.S. 80; I-45 begins & leaves; I-345 begins" (this being a bit before US 80 was truncated).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: lordsutch on January 20, 2015, 04:45:52 PM
Another option, if TxDOT really wanted to extend the I-69C designation to the border, would be to designate I-69C along FM 396 (which is being upgraded to a freeway) to the Anzalduas International Bridge, with a multiplex along I-2, or upgrading Spur 115 to a freeway; I think the former is actually feasible, although a better interchange at I-2 would be needed. In that scenario, the Interstate wouldn't even have an at-grade before the border, unlike I-2E.

As for US 77/83's block or so between the end of I-69E and the border, there is precedent: I-35 ends a few blocks north of Bridge II in Laredo, and the intervening route, which I suppose, once upon a time, was part of US 81, lacks any visible state designation south of US 83/Matamoros Street, although I presume TXDOT actually maintains the roadway rather than the city of Laredo, given the plethora of state-standard signs on it. (Someone far more bored than I could ask the Laredo field office, although I'm not sure they would even know. TXDOT may even consider it to be part of I-35 or its frontage roads for maintenance purposes.)

So truncating both US 77 and US 83 and leaving an orphaned highway would probably be fine with TxDOT. Getting rid of US 281 would be trickier, given the amount of it not shared with I-69C, although they could always extend it to the current 77/83 border crossing via the US 77/83 business route.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on January 21, 2015, 12:40:03 AM
As for US 77/83's block or so between the end of I-69E and the border, there is precedent: I-35 ends a few blocks north of Bridge II in Laredo, and the intervening route, which I suppose, once upon a time, was part of US 81, lacks any visible state designation south of US 83/Matamoros Street, although I presume TXDOT actually maintains the roadway rather than the city of Laredo, given the plethora of state-standard signs on it. (Someone far more bored than I could ask the Laredo field office, although I'm not sure they would even know. TXDOT may even consider it to be part of I-35 or its frontage roads for maintenance purposes.)
According to TXDOT GIS data, I-35 north begins at Hidalgo and San Dario, while southbound ends at Matamoros and Santa Ursula. I-35 Biz includes both San Bernardo (old US 81 Biz) and Houston/Matamoros east to Santa Ursula (old US 81).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bugo on January 21, 2015, 01:45:12 AM
As for US 77/83's block or so between the end of I-69E and the border, there is precedent: I-35 ends a few blocks north of Bridge II in Laredo, and the intervening route, which I suppose, once upon a time, was part of US 81, lacks any visible state designation south of US 83/Matamoros Street, although I presume TXDOT actually maintains the roadway rather than the city of Laredo, given the plethora of state-standard signs on it. (Someone far more bored than I could ask the Laredo field office, although I'm not sure they would even know. TXDOT may even consider it to be part of I-35 or its frontage roads for maintenance purposes.)
According to TXDOT GIS data, I-35 north begins at Hidalgo and San Dario, while southbound ends at Matamoros and Santa Ursula. I-35 Biz includes both San Bernardo (old US 81 Biz) and Houston/Matamoros east to Santa Ursula (old US 81).

So we have another non-freeway Interstate.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: oscar on January 21, 2015, 11:53:38 AM
However, I am surprised that US 83 yet has not been trimmed back to where the point I-2 begins west of Pharr yet. From there till the Mexican Border US 93 83 is totally concurrent with I-2, US 77, and umm I-69E.

You might also be surprised that, per my old Rand McNallys, US 83 has been uselessly multiplexed with US 77 south of Harlingen for at least three decades.

Maybe the US 77/83 multiplex will fade away as travelers and locals start consistently calling it I-69E instead, and the I-69E and I-2 Interstate designations catch on (or are extended) north and west of Harlingen. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bugo on January 22, 2015, 02:50:10 AM
Maybe they'll call it "77-83" or whatever they have been calling it for years. I-64 in St Louis is still known as US 40.

Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on January 22, 2015, 08:57:45 AM
However, I am surprised that US 83 yet has not been trimmed back to where the point I-2 begins west of Pharr yet. From there till the Mexican Border US 93 83 is totally concurrent with I-2, US 77, and umm I-69E.

You might also be surprised that, per my old Rand McNallys, US 83 has been uselessly multiplexed with US 77 south of Harlingen for at least three decades.

Maybe the US 77/83 multiplex will fade away as travelers and locals start consistently calling it I-69E instead, and the I-69E and I-2 Interstate designations catch on (or are extended) north and west of Harlingen. 

They love connecting roads up to the border
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: yakra on January 22, 2015, 09:22:05 AM
Or the coast. 69/96/287 annoys me. :P
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on January 22, 2015, 06:30:48 PM
Or the coast. 69/96/287 annoys me. :P

It's not like they are going into a major city, it's going into the water!
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on January 23, 2015, 01:11:26 PM
TxDOT will have a January 22 Open House (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/committees/angelina_nacogdoches/012215-display-adver.pdf) for the Diboll Relief Route in order to display the proposed alignment to the public and explain where TxDOT is in the project development process.

TxDOT has posted the Materials from the January 22 Open House (http://www.txdot.gov/drivenbytexans/us59_meetings.htm).  Among the Materials are a Schematic of the relief route (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/committees/angelina_nacogdoches/diboll-map-schematic.pdf) and the TxDOT Meeting Displays that include an overall view of the relief route (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/committees/angelina_nacogdoches/012215-mtg-display-boards.pdf) (page 5/8 of pdf):

(http://i.imgur.com/w3gev8q.png)

Also, this article (http://www.ktre.com/story/27920477/east-texas-residents-weigh-in-on-proposed-highway-relief-route) reports on the Open House:

Quote
Toward the end of the meeting, most of the residents were in favor of the proposed route.
The projected cost for the relief route is $125 million. As of now, TXDOT has six million dollars available for it. Officials say the rest of the money will have to come from the state and county.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MaxConcrete on January 23, 2015, 07:42:02 PM
Among the Materials are a Schematic of the relief route (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/committees/angelina_nacogdoches/diboll-map-schematic.pdf) and the TxDOT Meeting

I'm glad to see that the route has a 490-foot-wide right-of-way corridor. I'm somewhat surprised by the design for southbound traffic at the north end, where there is no dedicated off-ramp for traffic looking to get onto the business route (the existing highway today). Traffic must pass through the FM 2108 intersection before the exit for the existing route.
 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: yakra on January 24, 2015, 01:09:16 AM
Maybe it'll be one of those cases where the rightmost lane is segregated from the main junction and/or has a continuous green? (Isn't there a thread here on AARoads regarding those?)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: US81 on January 24, 2015, 08:15:19 AM

I'm glad to see that the route has a 490-foot-wide right-of-way corridor. I'm somewhat surprised by the design for southbound traffic at the north end, where there is no dedicated off-ramp for traffic looking to get onto the business route (the existing highway today). Traffic must pass through the FM 2108 intersection before the exit for the existing route.
 

It seems to me that there is a lot of construction in Texas that routes vehicles very deliberately onto the new construction and makes them go somewhat out of the way to get back to the old/business route. I suppose I can understand reasons for doing so - one reason that comes to mind is avoiding intersections other than at right angles. The net effect for me is usually a bit of time wasted backtracking with careful sign-reading (and sometimes scrutiny by local law enforcement) when I am trying to drive old alignments.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: dfwmapper on January 24, 2015, 09:22:41 AM
I'm glad to see that the route has a 490-foot-wide right-of-way corridor. I'm somewhat surprised by the design for southbound traffic at the north end, where there is no dedicated off-ramp for traffic looking to get onto the business route (the existing highway today). Traffic must pass through the FM 2108 intersection before the exit for the existing route.
Depending on traffic volumes, they might be able to get away with the southbound frontage road being free-flowing with a stop sign on FM 2108. Putting in a separate offramp would either require a lot of weaving in a short distance, or wasting a lot of money on a second overpass.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on January 24, 2015, 08:29:45 PM
The Alliance for I-69 Texas website (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update9.5.13%20Lufkin%20Nacog.html) has posted ... a priority list from each county:
Quote
The committees recommended the following priority projects:
NACOGDOCHES COUNTY
1. Improvements at the south interchange of US 59 and Loop 224 is the top priority regardless of which route option is carried forward in the environmental process.
The council said the proposed route will take the interstate from the intersection of Highway 59 and the south loop around the west loop and up to the intersection of 59 and Highway 259.
The quote means that 100% of Interstate 69 through Lufkin and Nacogdoches will follow the existing U.S. 59, and none of it will be on a new alignment.

In this January 23, 2015 press release (http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/media-center/local-news/lufkin/004-2015.html), TxDOT announces that it is moving forward with Phase 2 of the US 59/ Loop 224S interchange (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Nacogdoches,+TX/@31.5753402,-94.6720876,3541m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x8637895fa4158787:0x88db1616dcfba3ee) (Phase 1 began on January 5, 2015):

Quote
The Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) announces plans to move forward with Phase 2 project development for the south intersection of US 59 and Loop 224 in Nacogdoches. The project, supported by the city and county, includes building a US 59 mainlane connection designed to interstate standards for possible future designation as I-69 ....
Phase 2 includes:
 - Constructing new US 59 mainlanes to interstate standards for possible future designation as I-69
 - Constructing frontage roads for Loop 224
 - Constructing bridges crossing Spradley Street, the existing US 59, Old Lufkin Road and the proposed Loop 224 frontage roads

The project received environmental and schematic approvals in 2011 but the design that was approved does not meet current interstate standards. TxDOT is currently re-evaluating the environmental document and updating the schematic and right-of-way map to address changes with the intent to begin acquiring right of way in the near future ....
Phase 1 of the US 59/Loop 224S interchange project got underway on January 5. It includes converting the center two-way, left turn lane on US 59 to a raised median, constructing U-turns at Spradley Street and just south of Loop 224, reconfiguring the US 59/Loop 224S intersection and improving traffic signals. The contractor for this $14 million project is Webber LLC., of Houston. This phase is expected to be completed in early 2017. Both projects are designed to improve safety and mobility at the intersection.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: J N Winkler on January 29, 2015, 12:06:43 PM
I thought I'd mention that TxDOT has scheduled a maintenance contract for the February 2015 letting that calls for updating and replacement of signs on I-2, I-69C, and I-69E (495 total sheets, of which 54 are sign panel detail sheets):

ftp://planuser:txdotplans@plans.dot.state.tx.us/State-Let-Maintenance/February%2015/02%20Plans/Hidalgo%206273-50-001.exe

Caution!  Filesize is 1.7 GB
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Scott5114 on January 30, 2015, 08:05:51 PM
A Windows executable? Tacky.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: vtk on January 30, 2015, 08:21:47 PM
Use WinRAR to open it if you want to be cautious.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: J N Winkler on January 30, 2015, 08:51:28 PM
A Windows executable? Tacky.

That is how TxDOT has been packaging plans sets since well before 2002, when I started following them.  I agree it does not show good awareness of operating systems other than Windows.

Use WinRAR to open it if you want to be cautious.

WinZip will also open them as if they were ZIP files.

For construction projects (not, unfortunately, maintenance jobs such as this), TxDOT posts the contract plans in PDF format after the letting.

My big concern about TxDOT's plans sets these days is that the old 6800 x 4400 monochrome Group IV TIFF standard--which was rarely deviated from--has given way to TIFFs with a confusing panoply of compression standards and color bases, with filesizes being typically much bigger while resolution is less, often by a wide margin.  6800 x 4400 is really the plausible minimum, since TxDOT's linestyles and plan drafting standards cannot support the 3400 x 2200 that MnDOT (for example) uses, but I have been seeing plan sheets that are less than 2000 pixels on the long side.  I don't know if TxDOT is now having the districts scan plan sheets themselves (this has traditionally been done by TxDOT GSD in Austin), or if there is now a new policy that PE signatures must be seen to be in a color other than black, but regardless of the cause, there is now an urgent need for quality control.

At least the signing plans are still pattern-accurate, by and large.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on January 30, 2015, 09:21:27 PM
Not wishing to download the huge file, I'm going to ask you if there are exit numbers.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: J N Winkler on January 30, 2015, 10:35:13 PM
Yes, there are exit numbers, and in most places the work is actually retrofit of exit tabs onto signs that didn't previously have them.  The retrofit work is to be done without any legend modifications on the main sign panels (such as covering up redundant word "EXIT" and re-centering the distance legend).  New large sign panels are also to be installed with what appears to be redundant word "EXIT," often with the distance expression in mixed case ("Exit 1 Mile" instead of "EXIT 1 MILE").  (In-house guide sign design in the Pharr district has always been mildly sketchy, though it has typically been excellent whenever TEDSI, their go-to consultant that has its HQ in Houston, has done it.)

There is a key plan which shows I-2 work beginning at Showers Rd. on present US 83 and ending at the north end of the US 77/US 83 overlap (I-2/I-69E interchange); I-69E work beginning at University Blvd. and running north to Conley Rd. (all US 77, including overlap with US 83); and I-69C work starting at the present US 83/US 281 interchange and running north to FM 2812.

On I-2, Showers Road is Exit 130, the I-69C/US 281 interchange is Exits 146A-B, and the I-69E/US 77 interchange (end of route) is Exit 175.

On I-69C, the I-2 interchange is Exits 1A-B and signing continues to the FM 2812 interchange, which is Exit 12.  Suffixing in the first mile goes up to Exit 1E (Nolana Loop).

On I-69E, the first interchange northbound is SH 4 (International Blvd.) at Exit 1A, the I-2 interchange is Exit 26B, and signing continues north to the split for the US 77 Business route through Raymondville at Exit 51.

The sign layout sheets are full-color Google Earth screencaps with the mapping layer left on (one reason the aggregate filesize for this plans set is so large) and I count three examples of what appear to be surface roads crossing the Interstate on the level along the stretch of I-69E that is now receiving Interstate signing.  Three possibilities come to mind:  the mapping is not accurate, TxDOT is jumping the gun, or FHWA is allowing new lengths of Interstate to be signed without meeting Interstate standards.  The southernmost of these suspected at-grade crossings is around Exit 38.

I haven't checked milepointing; that is a green-eyeshades job.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on January 31, 2015, 08:37:55 AM
I downloaded it. All you have to do is change the extension to zip and Windows (and probably other OSes) will open it.

[edit] I-2 has more than a mile missing between sheets 31 and 32 (files 39 and 40).

[poo] exit numbers now added to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_2#Exit_list
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_69C#Exit_list
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_69E#Exit_list
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: J N Winkler on January 31, 2015, 10:47:43 AM
(edit) I-2 has more than a mile missing between sheets 31 and 32 (files 39 and 40).

I am not sure what is going on there, since that is in the general vicinity of Exits 138-141 and Exit 138 is signed for Shary Rd. (FM 494), Bentsen Rd., and Taylor Rd., which is a sequence of crossroads that covers about one mile along I-2.

In regard to the self-extracting ZIP issue, there are apparently Linux archive managers that can decompress them despite the OS not being able to run the Windows executable part of the payload.

Edit:  I have looked at the Wikipedia articles with the updated exit numbers.  This is not something that needs attention urgently, but at some point it would be a good idea to update the citations to make explicit the county and CCSJ (Hidalgo 6273-50-001) for this project, since the link provided will go dead in about five months and anyone who wants to go back to the source will have to request the plans from TxDOT.  Plans stay on the Plans Online FTP server for six months maximum (not something I agree with or particularly like but, again, part of the way TxDOT has been doing things since long before 2002).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on January 31, 2015, 10:57:02 AM
The Alliance for I-69 Texas recently posted a Status of National I-69 System map (http://i69texasalliance.com/ResourcesPDFs/I69.National_Status_Map.July2014.pdf) that shows a section of I-69C heading directly south from the I-2 interchange to the Mexican border as "Potential I-69" ...
I emailed TxDOT and they basically explained that their interpretation of the statute is reflected in the map, but that they have no plans for that section:
Quote
The “Proposed I-69”  sections on that map show the Congressionally Designated I-69 route.  The I-69C route extends to the border under this designation, but at this time TxDOT doesn’t have any plans to extend I-69C south of I-2.
I thought I'd mention that TxDOT has scheduled a maintenance contract for the February 2015 letting that calls for updating and replacement of signs on I-2, I-69C, and I-69E (495 total sheets, of which 54 are sign panel detail sheets):
ftp://planuser:txdotplans@plans.dot.state.tx.us/State-Let-Maintenance/February%2015/02%20Plans/Hidalgo%206273-50-001.exe
Caution!  Filesize is 1.7 GB
On I-2, Showers Road is Exit 130 ....
On I-69C, the I-2 interchange is Exits 1A-B
exit numbers now added to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_2#Exit_list
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_69C#Exit_list
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_69E#Exit_list

T/h to both J N Winkler and NE2 in regard to the exit numbers.  It is interesting to compare I-2's theoretical future western terminus in Laredo (which results in the Exit 130 designation for Showers Road, etc.) to I-69C's lack of a theoretical future southern terminus at the border (which results in the Exits 1A-B designations at the I-2 interchange).  Such a southern extension for I-69C must truly not even be on TxDOT's long-range radar.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: yakra on January 31, 2015, 11:38:49 AM
I'm too lazy to check upthread ATM. Any knowledge on when these will be posted?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: J N Winkler on January 31, 2015, 01:26:23 PM
I'm too lazy to check upthread ATM. Any knowledge on when these will be posted?

This job is scheduled for the February letting.  Allow one month for contract award and two months for issuance of notice to proceed, and the contractor should start deploying around May.  It's hard to say how long after that it would take for the signs actually to appear on the roads--I am not familiar enough with TxDOT's prosecution-and-progress clauses to know what latitude the contractor has in this regard.

I know we have at least one member of this forum who is based in the Brownsville/Harlingen/McAllen area.  I'd expect to hear reports of newly installed signs by this time next year.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: yakra on January 31, 2015, 02:45:19 PM
[poo] exit numbers now added to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_2#Exit_list
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_69C#Exit_list
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_69E#Exit_list
I-69E Exit 11:
OSM suggests there a relocation of FM 803 planned or under construction, but nothing is visible yet in Bing or Google aerial imagery. FM 803's designation file lists still describes the southern terminus as Olmito. BGSes shown in GMSV just say "Ramcho Viejo". Looks like listing FM 803 for this exit is premature, and FM 803 should be removed from the description. Yes?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on January 31, 2015, 03:51:47 PM
I-69E Exit 11:
OSM suggests there a relocation of FM 803 planned or under construction, but nothing is visible yet in Bing or Google aerial imagery. FM 803's designation file lists still describes the southern terminus as Olmito. BGSes shown in GMSV just say "Ramcho Viejo". Looks like listing FM 803 for this exit is premature, and FM 803 should be removed from the description. Yes?

The plans show FM 803 shields on the replacement signs. Perhaps they'll be greened out.

Edit:  I have looked at the Wikipedia articles with the updated exit numbers.  This is not something that needs attention urgently, but at some point it would be a good idea to update the citations to make explicit the county and CCSJ (Hidalgo 6273-50-001) for this project, since the link provided will go dead in about five months and anyone who wants to go back to the source will have to request the plans from TxDOT.  Plans stay on the Plans Online FTP server for six months maximum (not something I agree with or particularly like but, again, part of the way TxDOT has been doing things since long before 2002).
By that time they'll be signed, and nobody really seems to care about referencing the exit numbers. I only added the reference because otherwise people might think I made them up.

It is interesting to compare I-2's theoretical future western terminus in Laredo (which results in the Exit 130 designation for Showers Road, etc.) to I-69C's lack of a theoretical future southern terminus at the border (which results in the Exits 1A-B designations at the I-2 interchange).  Such a southern extension for I-69C must truly not even be on TxDOT's long-range radar.
Perhaps they expect that to be a spur of I-2, since a continuation straight down US 281 would phuck up Pharr. FM 396 looks like it's already planned as a freeway to the Anzalduas Bridge.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: lordsutch on January 31, 2015, 04:26:10 PM
A Windows executable? Tacky.

Since Linux's command line unzip will unzip it, I think it's just a self-extracting ZIP file.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: yakra on January 31, 2015, 05:33:59 PM
Curious as to why, on I-69C, the exit numbers for FM 162 and FM 490 were omitted.
IIRC I-69C's northward extension to FM 490 is AASHTO and TTC-approved, if possibly not open to traffic & signed yet.
The alignment and mileage are pretty much set in stone. Why no exit numbers?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: OCGuy81 on February 04, 2015, 10:29:43 AM
Curious if it's been posted already, but any idea what the highest exit number on mainline 69 will be?  In the 500s?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: roadman65 on February 04, 2015, 10:51:03 AM
First of all where is the zero going to be on I-69C or I-69W?  That would help more as the W alignment is much shorter.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on February 04, 2015, 10:54:06 AM
Curious if it's been posted already, but any idea what the highest exit number on mainline 69 will be?  In the 500s?

Since mile zero for mainline I-69 will be in Victoria (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg2007814#msg2007814), I assume that there will be an exit number east of Joaquin somewhere in the neighborhood of 315.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: OCGuy81 on February 04, 2015, 11:10:58 AM
Thanks, Grzrd.  For some reason, I thought there were more miles at play in TX, but I guess having 69 essentially end in Victoria truncates a lot of those.

If 69 ran to the Mexican border, that might make it one of the longer interstates in TX (though still lacking well behind I-10 I imagine)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on February 09, 2015, 06:50:52 PM
Thanks, Grzrd.  For some reason, I thought there were more miles at play in TX, but I guess having 69 essentially end in Victoria truncates a lot of those.

If 69 ran to the Mexican border, that might make it one of the longer interstates in TX (though still lacking well behind I-10 I imagine)

Per the AASHTOs, when you are in a suffixed interstate situation, and they are labled as E and W, the E branch gets the mainline milage. The zero milepost will not be in Victoria. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bassoon1986 on February 09, 2015, 07:37:24 PM
But is it a different situation since the E and W don't reconnect to a mainline ala DFW or Minneapolis/St Paul? 69 doesn't reconnect on the south ends of those legs
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on February 09, 2015, 08:11:56 PM
Per the AASHTOs, when you are in a suffixed interstate situation, and they are labled as E and W, the E branch gets the mainline milage.
[citation needed]
You can't generalize from two special cases.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on February 09, 2015, 09:08:26 PM
mile zero for mainline I-69 will be in Victoria (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg2007814#msg2007814)
The zero milepost will not be in Victoria.

To help put TxDOT's I-69 email answer to me in context, here is a Q & A I had with TxDOT re I-2's "mile zero" (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9935.msg316300#msg316300):

Quote
Q:
It is my understanding that mileage for east-west interstates begins at the western terminus in the state. Regarding Interstate 2, I cannot imagine it going all of the way to New Mexico.
Does TxDOT intend to keep the current US 83 mileage markers, or do you intend to install mileage markers based on the mileage on Interstate 2?  If Interstate 2, where would be the location of "mile zero"?
A:
Yes, interstate mileage markers for east and west interstates begin with 0 at the western end and build eastward. For I-2, there is the possibility of carrying it along US 83 up to Laredo, but very long term. Therefore, the “0”  mile marker for I-2 begins at the intersection of I-35 and US 83 in Laredo. The mile marker for where I-2 begins on the western end west of Mission is Mile Marker 131. The actual mile marker may not be present. As resources are made available, these will be installed.

I then later asked the same individual about "mile zero" for I-69:

Quote
Recently, you were kind enough to inform me that the I-35/US 83 interchange in Laredo will be "Mile Zero" for Interstate 2.  Similarly, where will "Mile Zero" be located for I-69: Laredo, McAllen, Brownsville, or Victoria?

Here is the complete TxDOT answer:

Quote
Yes, mile zero will be in all four of those cities because of I-69 plus the three additional legs.  This is where mile zero will be for the various legs of the I-69 Texas system:
I-69W in Laredo: Just east of the World Trade Bridge
I-69C in McAllen: Intersection of I-2/US 83
I-69E in Brownsville: Intersection of University Blvd/US 77, just north of the Veterans International Bridge
I-69 in Victoria: Intersection of US 59 and US 77

There is always the possibility that the TxDOT rep misunderstood my question in terms of what I meant by "mile zero".  Maybe FHWA will approve I-69's "inside I-610" segment in the near future and TxDOT will then install some mileage markers in Houston to provide a final answer. We can only hope. :sombrero:
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: TXtoNJ on February 10, 2015, 01:25:51 PM
There is a mile marker for mile 514 on the trenched section of the Southwest Freeway in Houston, but that's probably a state reference number, given that none of the potential mile zeroes are 514 miles away.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on February 10, 2015, 01:47:14 PM
There is a mile marker for mile 514 on the trenched section of the Southwest Freeway in Houston, but that's probably a state reference number, given that none of the potential mile zeroes are 514 miles away.
That's how Texas does mile markers: north to south, with the start defined based on lat/long. For US 59, there are actually a few exit numbers posted in Shepherd, Livingston, and Lufkin that use this mileage.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on February 10, 2015, 02:59:23 PM
mile zero for mainline I-69 will be in Victoria (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg2007814#msg2007814)
The zero milepost will not be in Victoria.

To help put TxDOT's I-69 email answer to me in context, here is a Q & A I had with TxDOT re I-2's "mile zero" (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9935.msg316300#msg316300):

Quote
Q:
It is my understanding that mileage for east-west interstates begins at the western terminus in the state. Regarding Interstate 2, I cannot imagine it going all of the way to New Mexico.
Does TxDOT intend to keep the current US 83 mileage markers, or do you intend to install mileage markers based on the mileage on Interstate 2?  If Interstate 2, where would be the location of "mile zero"?
A:
Yes, interstate mileage markers for east and west interstates begin with 0 at the western end and build eastward. For I-2, there is the possibility of carrying it along US 83 up to Laredo, but very long term. Therefore, the “0”  mile marker for I-2 begins at the intersection of I-35 and US 83 in Laredo. The mile marker for where I-2 begins on the western end west of Mission is Mile Marker 131. The actual mile marker may not be present. As resources are made available, these will be installed.

I then later asked the same individual about "mile zero" for I-69:

Quote
Recently, you were kind enough to inform me that the I-35/US 83 interchange in Laredo will be "Mile Zero" for Interstate 2.  Similarly, where will "Mile Zero" be located for I-69: Laredo, McAllen, Brownsville, or Victoria?

Here is the complete TxDOT answer:

Quote
Yes, mile zero will be in all four of those cities because of I-69 plus the three additional legs.  This is where mile zero will be for the various legs of the I-69 Texas system:
I-69W in Laredo: Just east of the World Trade Bridge
I-69C in McAllen: Intersection of I-2/US 83
I-69E in Brownsville: Intersection of University Blvd/US 77, just north of the Veterans International Bridge
I-69 in Victoria: Intersection of US 59 and US 77

There is always the possibility that the TxDOT rep misunderstood my question in terms of what I meant by "mile zero".  Maybe FHWA will approve I-69's "inside I-610" segment in the near future and TxDOT will then install some mileage markers in Houston to provide a final answer. We can only hope. :sombrero:

Well crap, I was hoping the zero milepost would not be in Victoria I should have said.  I don't like that at all.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MikeSantNY78 on February 11, 2015, 04:28:57 PM
But is it a different situation since the E and W don't reconnect to a mainline ala DFW or Minneapolis/St Paul? 69 doesn't reconnect on the south ends of those legs
I had presumed (before checking the maps) that in each case (DFW, MSP) the larger city (in population) would get the mainline mile exits: but Minneapolis (on I-35W, separate #) is larger than St. Paul (I-35E, continued #) (roughly 400K-294K).  But since, as stated by Grzrd, that I-69's (non-suffixed leg) zero milepost WILL BE IN VICTORIA, that led me to the idea of (previously posted) of prefixed mileposts for the legs (not without precedent: the section legs that branched off of the NYS Thruway mainline had similar designations: N - Niagara, NE - New England, B - Berkshire)...
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: vtk on February 11, 2015, 04:35:25 PM
I thought the I-35Es carried the mainline mileage because each is longer than its W counterpart.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on February 11, 2015, 09:24:12 PM
Regarding any possible extension of I-69C to the Mexico border, via the FM-396 freeway spur off I-2, such an extension would be pretty odd. I-69C would have to be multiplexed along I-2 for more than 8 miles to get to FM-396. And then the FM-396 freeway itself is only about 4 miles long. Basically any chance I-69C had of reaching the border ended long ago when development grew too dense along US-281 South of the I-2 interchange and current I-69C terminus.

If FM-396 is ever going to carry an Interstate designation it's more likely it would be "I-102" or maybe even "I-202."

With all the population growth taking place in the far South end of Texas it's pretty obvious TX-DOT really needs to start thinking about the long term possibility of building a South loop relief highway for I-2. Border towns like Grajeno, Hidalgo, Progreso and others along US-281 are probably going to grow.

There is already a couple or so limited access interchanges along TX-241 in Hidalgo and US-281 farther East.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: lordsutch on February 11, 2015, 11:33:30 PM
With all the population growth taking place in the far South end of Texas it's pretty obvious TX-DOT really needs to start thinking about the long term possibility of building a South loop relief highway for I-2. Border towns like Grajeno, Hidalgo, Progreso and others along US-281 are probably going to grow.

There is already a couple or so limited access interchanges along TX-241 in Hidalgo and US-281 farther East.

Here you go: http://www.hcrma.net/sh365.html
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on February 12, 2015, 02:58:23 PM
Thanks! I guess that answers that question. Seems like a "I-202" type of thing to me.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bickendan on February 12, 2015, 05:20:03 PM
I thought the I-35Es carried the mainline mileage because each is longer than its W counterpart.
MN's 35W longer than 35E by about 2 miles.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on February 12, 2015, 05:26:02 PM
Any word on when I-69E mile markers will be installed?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on February 12, 2015, 05:46:05 PM
And where will the 0 mile post be?  At E. University Blvd.?  Or if eventual plans are to make that a controlled access intersection then in the middle of the bridge into Matamoros?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on February 12, 2015, 05:54:26 PM
Probably at University or 0.1 mi north where I-69E actually begins. Otherwise 6th Street couldn't be exit 1C.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on February 18, 2015, 04:46:53 PM
This article (behind paywall) (http://www.etypeservices.com/SWF/LocalUser/Fortbend1//Magazine43785/Full/index.aspx?id=43785#/1/zoomed) reports on an I-69 project from SH 99 to Spur 10, scheduled to begin in about four months.  It will extend I-69 from "north of Spur 529" to Spur 10 (Hartledge Road) (http://goo.gl/maps/3lSTt) and upgrade the section from SH 99 to "north of Spur 529"

TxDOT has issued a Notice of Public Hearing (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/hou/notices/030515-notice.pdf) for a 10.5 mile US 59 to I-69 upgrade from Spur 10 to CR 227:

Quote
TxDOT proposes to improve an approximately 10.5-mile-long, four-lane section of US 59 from County Road (CR) 227 (Tom Taylor Road) to Spur 10 (Patton Road/State Highway (SH) 36 Bypass). The entire facility would be upgraded to interstate highway standards, and an additional main lane would be added in each direction. The facility would have 12-foot wide main lanes and frontage lanes, with 12-foot wide shoulders on the main lanes and 6-foot wide inside and 6- to 10-foot wide outside shoulders on the frontage lanes. Crossover intersections would be eliminated at Darst Road, Grunwald Road and Daily Road. Existing two-way frontage roads would be converted to one-way operation, and frontage roads would be extended where access is permitted. Grade separations within the project limits have already been constructed at Farm-to-Market (FM) 2919/Lum Road, FM 360, Isleib Road, and Spur 10. The proposed project would provide a continuous roadway between intersections, transitioning back to a four-lane facility at the east side of the San Bernard River Bridge.

Here is a snip of the Project Location Map (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/hou/notices/030515-project.pdf):

(http://i.imgur.com/sOxU5LO.png)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on February 18, 2015, 05:05:05 PM
This article (behind paywall) (http://www.etypeservices.com/SWF/LocalUser/Fortbend1//Magazine43785/Full/index.aspx?id=43785#/1/zoomed) reports on an I-69 project from SH 99 to Spur 10, scheduled to begin in about four months.  It will extend I-69 from "north of Spur 529" to Spur 10 (Hartledge Road) (http://goo.gl/maps/3lSTt) and upgrade the section from SH 99 to "north of Spur 529"

TxDOT has issued a Notice of Public Hearing (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/hou/notices/030515-notice.pdf) for a 10.5 mile US 59 to I-69 upgrade from Spur 10 to CR 227:

Quote
TxDOT proposes to improve an approximately 10.5-mile-long, four-lane section of US 59 from County Road (CR) 227 (Tom Taylor Road) to Spur 10 (Patton Road/State Highway (SH) 36 Bypass). The entire facility would be upgraded to interstate highway standards, and an additional main lane would be added in each direction. The facility would have 12-foot wide main lanes and frontage lanes, with 12-foot wide shoulders on the main lanes and 6-foot wide inside and 6- to 10-foot wide outside shoulders on the frontage lanes. Crossover intersections would be eliminated at Darst Road, Grunwald Road and Daily Road. Existing two-way frontage roads would be converted to one-way operation, and frontage roads would be extended where access is permitted. Grade separations within the project limits have already been constructed at Farm-to-Market (FM) 2919/Lum Road, FM 360, Isleib Road, and Spur 10. The proposed project would provide a continuous roadway between intersections, transitioning back to a four-lane facility at the east side of the San Bernard River Bridge.

Here is a snip of the Project Location Map (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/hou/notices/030515-project.pdf):

(http://i.imgur.com/sOxU5LO.png)

Bad form on TxDOT's part for that "Interstate 59" shield! Hahahaha
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on February 20, 2015, 10:12:22 PM
this Victoria Advocate editorial (http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/2013/oct/22/vp_oilbust_editorial_102313_223042/)
Quote
As previous reports have shown, Victoria has a need for more high-paying, skilled labor jobs. The city is focusing on bringing in more companies, and some future developments will help in our hometown's efforts. The proposal for I-69, which would run down U.S. Highway 59, around Loop 463 and then follow U.S. Highway 77, would attract even more companies because of the proximity to the interstate.
Wouldn't that put the split at the current south end of US 59 Biz? It does make more sense to have the split at the south end of US 77 Biz and eschew Loop 463 altogether, as http://www.i69texasalliance.com/ResourcesPDFs/i69%20Progress%20Report%205.14.13.pdf shows. Maybe the entire loop is known locally as Loop 463?
I suppose they could route I-69C/W/mainline around the north/west side of Victoria and I-69E around the south/east side, although the US 77/Loop 463 combo is rather seriously substandard by Interstate rules, seeming to conform with TxDOT's "urban expressway" standard (also used on much of Loop 20 in Laredo) with not much of a median and some at-grade crossings rather than the "urban freeway" standard.  The south/east US 59 roadway (except the 77 concurrency) OTOH seems up to TxDOT rural freeway standards.
I recently received an email clarification from TxDOT:
Quote
This is where mile zero will be for the various legs of the I-69 Texas system ....
I-69 in Victoria: Intersection of US 59 and US 77

Going by the November, 2013 editorial I quoted, I think this is a post about mainline I-69 that will have the distinction of being a US 77 upgrade.  I have stumbled across two similar TxDOT Notices for a March 4 public meeting about a US 77/ Loop 463 freeway upgrade in Victoria.  This Notice (http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/media-center/local-news/yoakum/006-2015.html) identifies the upgrade to be between FM 236 west of Victoria to just north of US 59 Business (Houston Highway) on the city’s east side (https://www.google.com/maps/@28.8295575,-96.975845,12z):

Quote
Upon completion of this project, scheduled for 2018, the Zac Lentz Parkway (US 77/Loop 463) will be a continuous four-lane divided freeway between FM 236 west of Victoria to just north of US 59 Business (Houston Highway) on the city’s east side.

The second Notice (http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/yoakum/030415.html) describes the project as being between US 87 and FM 1685 (which is contained within the FM 236 to just north of US 59 Biz section in the other Notice) and focuses on the construction of bridges over the Guadalupe River and its flood plain:

Quote
TxDOT is proposing adding additional lanes to US 77 between US 87 and FM 1685. The proposed project includes:
Constructing another bridge over the Guadalupe River
Constructing six additional bridges over low-lying flood-prone areas

Adding inside shoulders to existing lanes
Widening outside shoulders on existing lanes
The new bridges and road in between the bridges includes two 12-foot lanes, four-foot inside shoulders and 10-foot outside shoulders. The proposed project will enhance safety and improve mobility by reducing bottlenecks and congestion caused from the road narrowing to two lanes.[/b]
The environmental review, consultation and other actions required by applicable federal environmental laws for this project are being, or have been, carried out by TxDOT pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 327 and a Memorandum of Understanding dated Dec. 16, 2014, and executed by FHWA and TxDOT.

Above all said, neither Notice mentions either I-69 or interstate-grade construction.  Is this a post about Future I-69?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on February 21, 2015, 04:42:02 AM
Based on that Goog map, Grzz, I'd upgrade the entire loop containing US 77/Loop 463/US 59 to full Interstate freeway standards, make the northern portion of the loop (77 north/463) I-69W, and the US 59 bypass portion I-69E.

I can already see one issue right off the bat, though: the connection on the west side between US 59 and US 77 is a folded diamond interchange due to the paralleling UP railroad line next to US 59. You would need a directional interchange if you plan on converting 59 west of there to I-standards, or even a new alignment. That would also go if you wanted to shift I-69W south along current US 59 down to where 59 and 77 meet in order to make that the separation point for I-69/I-69W/I-69E (NE2's and apparently TXDOT's desired solution). And, what would you then designate the northern portion (77 North bypass/463)...I-x69??
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on February 21, 2015, 12:04:47 PM
This article (http://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/2014/jun/12/interestate_frontage_mc_061314_241872/?business) reports that TxDOT will not allow two-way frontage roads as a temporary solution for the local businesses:
Quote
Texas Department of Transportation put the brakes on a proposed change to the future Interstate 69 corridor in Victoria.
Area business owners were rooting for TxDOT to change the flow of traffic on frontage roads, which are currently under construction, to two-way. Without two-way traffic or an overpass, customers could end up traveling an almost eight-mile loop to access some businesses along U.S. Highway 59.
However, TxDOT officials point to the state roadway design manual: any frontage road constructed as part of the state highway system will be designed and constructed for one-way traffic ....
Based on that Goog map, Grzz, I'd upgrade the entire loop containing US 77/Loop 463/US 59 to full Interstate freeway standards, make the northern portion of the loop (77 north/463) I-69W, and the US 59 bypass portion I-69E.
I can already see one issue right off the bat, though: the connection on the west side between US 59 and US 77 is a folded diamond interchange due to the paralleling UP railroad line next to US 59. You would need a directional interchange if you plan on converting 59 west of there to I-standards, or even a new alignment. That would also go if you wanted to shift I-69W south along current US 59 down to where 59 and 77 meet in order to make that the separation point for I-69/I-69W/I-69E (NE2's and apparently TXDOT's desired solution). And, what would you then designate the northern portion (77 North bypass/463)...I-x69??

Anthony, I'm close to concluding that the Victoria Advocate editorial board was confused when it wrote that I-69 would follow US 77/ Loop 463 and concluding that it may one day be possible for US 77/ Loop 463 to be an I-x69 relief route, but there do not seem to be long-term plans to do so.  A July, 2012 map of the I-69 Segment Three Committee's Priorities & Recommendations (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg3_final.pdf) shows the upgrade of US 59 along the east side of Victoria as a priority, but it gives no indication of a possible US 77/ Loop 463 relief route (even though it shows potential relief routes for Beeville, Berclair, Goliad and Refugio) (page37/157 of pdf; page 31 of document):

(http://i.imgur.com/XFPNFls.png)

edit

Interestingly, this Nov. 2, 2014 Victoria Advocate article (https://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/2014/nov/02/transportation-planners-hopeful-for-proposition-1-/) reports on how the proposed overpass for US 59/ Future I-69 was in competition with the US 77 Guadalupe River bridge four-laning project for the Prop 1 funding that was eventually awarded to the US 77 project:

Quote
Proposition 1 is estimated to add $1.7 billion to the state highway fund in 2015, a portion of which would be spent in the Crossroads.
Members of Victoria Metropolitan Planning Organization are already building a priority list in hopes that voters pass the issue.
Business owners along the future Interstate 69 corridor said they should be at the top for an overpass, but several projects brought up by fatal accidents and safety concerns could trump them.
Victoria City Councilman Tom Halepaska, who is also the chairman of the Metropolitan Planning Organization's policy advisory committee, said the organization has tried to work with those business owners to come up with a solution to access their businesses.
"The chances of them getting that overpass soon are not good, but they're not terrible either," Halepaska said. "If they're determined enough, they can make it happen. My opinion is I don't think so. But never underestimate someone who is really committed."
Along with the Hanselman Road overpass, transportation planners are also considering a dozen other projects, including three brought on by fatal wrecks: an overpass at U.S. Highway 87 and Farm-to-Market Road 477, an overpass at state Highway 185 and Farm-to-Market Road 1432, and a four-lane divided highway at U.S. 77 and the Guadalupe River bridges ....
A year into construction, the one-way frontage road project, which brings U.S. Highway 59 up to interstate standards, is more than halfway complete.

"The bad thing is while we keep waiting, the road moves ever closer to being completed," Kyrish said. "The sooner the road is completed, the sooner we have to deal with the realities of lost revenue."
Initially, the project included an overpass, but when funding came in short, the overpass was nixed.
The 3.4-mile construction project is estimated to cost $15.75 million, funded as part of the $2.9 billion in Proposition 14 bonds issued in 2008 ....

second edit

The Draft Victoria 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (http://www.victoriatx.org/home/showdocument?id=5686) has the Victoria MPO's prioritization of four US 59/ Future I-69 projects, one US 77/ Future I-69E project, four US 77/ Loop 463 projects, and five other projects (p. 193/234 of pdf; p. 10-19 of document):

(http://i.imgur.com/tkJHurE.jpg)

TxDOT will probably lose interest once I-69C connects to I-37, there's a continuous I-69/I-69E, and the Laredo-to-Corpus corridor is upgraded as I-6 or whatever. At most I'd hope for a decent Beeville bypass on "I-69W."

No US 59/ Future I-69W projects are included in the Victoria MPO's 2040 plan.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on February 21, 2015, 12:52:49 PM
From what that graphic shows, Grzz, it looks like they solve the problem of US 59 meeting US 77 by realigning US 59 on new alignment to connect with US 77 just west of Victoria. That would solve the problem of using existing US 77.


I still think they should upgrade the rest of the 59/77/463 loop as an I-x69 relief route...but that can wait for later.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on February 23, 2015, 12:49:03 PM
This Alliance for I-69 Texas article (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update%206.26.14Laredo.html)  .... discusses the long-range plan for upgrading former Loop 20/US 59/Future I-69W:
Quote
The TxDOT Laredo District has developed a plan for upgrading Loop 20/US 59 to interstate standard from I-35 to the connection with the rural section of US 59. Phase 1 will included completion of the interchange at I-35 and development of expressway main lanes east to International Blvd., a section which includes the recently completed overpass bridges at McPherson Road.  Phase 2 will include main lanes and interchanges at Shiloh Road, Del Mar Blvd, University Blvd., Jacaman Blvd. and Airport Drive.  None of these projects are currently funded.

This Feb. 18, 2015 article (http://www.kgns.tv/home/headlines/Several-Laredo-transportation-projects-approved-292478681.html) reports on recent approval for several projects, which represents substantial progress on Phase 1:

Quote
City Councilmembers vote to move forward with several projects that aim to alleviate traffic times for Laredoans.
TxDot will begin construction of the Loop 20 / Clark overpass starting this August. The project will take 30 months to complete.
Also, Loop 20 flyovers at Highway I-35 and the overpass at International Blvd. have been funded.

This means you will be able to go from World Trade Bridge to Shiloh without stopping, and vice-versa.

Also, this Feb. 16, 2015 TV video (http://www.kgns.tv/home/headlines/Councilmembers-attempt-to-move-forward-with-Loop-20-Clark-overpass-292083231.html) reports on the Loop 20 Clark Boulevard overpass project; although the Clark Boulevard overpass is not part of the I-69W section of Loop 20 (I guess it could one day be part of an I-x69 or an I-x02), the report does briefly mention several future projects that will be part of the I-69W section.



in the combined Segments Four and Five report (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg45_final.pdf) .... (page 46/165 of pdf; page 40 of document):
Quote
US 59/SH 44 Relief Route at Freer — An interchange with US 59 and SH 44 and a relief route for Freer was recommended by the committee members to be incorporated into future planning. The members noted that limited right-of way along existing US 59 through Freer required consideration of a relief route around the community.

I recently noticed that the Freer website home page (http://www.ci.freer.tx.us/) (WARNING to bugo - the home page has photograph "sliders" at the top; one of the photos is of a woman enjoying the companionship of a huge rattlesnake) includes an August 31, 2012 request from the City Council to contact TxDOT and let them know that I-69 should go through Freer and not around it (map of Freer (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Freer,+TX/@27.8761452,-98.6190274,7348m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x86670f0868f8dffb:0x296ac03d5c74f2f5)):

(http://i.imgur.com/hW70Po5.png)

Doing so might be problematic for the US 59/ SH 44 interchange.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: lordsutch on February 23, 2015, 06:32:11 PM
If I-69W were to go through Freer along the US 59 alignment, there'd basically be little of Freer left.

The logical alignment is to run south of Freer, which would leave plenty of room for a Y for US 59/I-69W north to George West and SH 44/I-x69 east to Corpus.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Zeffy on February 23, 2015, 06:49:14 PM
If I-69W were to go through Freer along the US 59 alignment, there'd basically be little of Freer left.

The logical alignment is to run south of Freer, which would leave plenty of room for a Y for US 59/I-69W north to George West and SH 44/I-x69 east to Corpus.

Usually people are opposed to having Interstates run through their town. I would think the residents of such a small town like Freer would oppose it, but apparently the city council loves the idea.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: lordsutch on February 23, 2015, 06:54:56 PM
Usually people are opposed to having Interstates run through their town. I would think the residents of such a small town like Freer would oppose it, but apparently the city council loves the idea.
Most of the business, such as they are, are along US 59, so running I-69W along there would make sense... if they weren't all going to be plowed under by building I-69W.

It could run about 3 blocks north of US 59 and not really hit anything, although it would make the Laredo-Corpus route (probably the dominant traffic flow) 2-3 miles longer than it could be by running south of town.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on February 24, 2015, 04:45:01 PM
Probably at University or 0.1 mi north where I-69E actually begins. Otherwise 6th Street couldn't be exit 1C.

According to Wikipedia:

Interstate 69E (I-69E) is a south—north freeway running through South Texas. Once complete the freeway will begin at Veterans International Bridge in Brownsville and head northward before terminating near Victoria as both I-69W and I-69E intersect into Interstate 69 towards Houston. For its entire length, I-69E shares its alignment with US 77.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on February 24, 2015, 04:51:26 PM
According to Wikipedia:

Interstate 69E (I-69E) is a south—north freeway running through South Texas. Once complete the freeway will begin in Brownsville and head northward before terminating near Victoria as both I-69W and I-69E intersect into Interstate 69 towards Houston. For its entire length, I-69E shares its alignment with US 77.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Scott5114 on February 24, 2015, 05:14:00 PM
Funny how that works, innit?

Quote
2015-02-24T15:51:05‎ NE2 (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (15,440 bytes) (-201)‎ . . (no source for it beginning at the Rio Grande)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on February 24, 2015, 05:22:53 PM
Funny how that works, innit?

Quote
2015-02-24T15:51:05‎ NE2 (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (15,440 bytes) (-201)‎ . . (no source for it beginning at the Rio Grande)

True data, but I didn't edit mine.  Wikipedia is Wikipedia, but I just thought that was interesting.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on February 24, 2015, 11:03:59 PM
TxDOT has issued a Notice of Public Hearing (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/hou/notices/030515-notice.pdf) for a 10.5 mile US 59 to I-69 upgrade from Spur 10 to CR 227 ....
Here is a snip of the Project Location Map (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/hou/notices/030515-project.pdf):
(http://i.imgur.com/sOxU5LO.png)

Remarkably, this article (http://www.chron.com/neighborhood/fortbend/news/article/Three-Fort-Bend-roads-could-receive-state-6099176.php) reports that the Spur 10 to Darst Road section of this project could begin (I assume this means actual construction) this year:

Quote
The Houston-Galveston Area Council is making stops in various communities to share information on road projects that will begin this year as a result of the adoption of Proposition 1 in November.
Officials with the H-GAC hosted an open house at the Rosenberg Civic Center recently to share information on three key mobility projects that will impact portions of Fort Bend County.
Those projects include
a two-mile stretch of U.S. 90A between the Grand Parkway and Texas 6; a four-mile segment of FM 2234 between FM 521 and the Fort Bend Parkway, and Interstate 69 between Spur 10 and Darst Road.
Alan Clark, H-GAC director of transportation and planning
, said many of the projects have been on the regional transportation wish list for many years, and many of them were also a long way from being considered ....
The Interstate 69 project is among those considered high-impact, and comes with an estimated price tag of $93 million.
According to the project details, the plans call for widening I-69 from four to six lanes between Spur 10 and Darst Road as well as adding auxiliary lanes and two-lane frontage roads along that same 7.5-mile segment.
The improvements would upgrade I-69 to full interstate standards, and improve safety and mobility, Clark said.
"This was in our regional plan for 2035, so we are speeding this up 20 years," Clark said ....

Amazing what a little bit of Prop 1 money can do.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on February 26, 2015, 01:21:58 PM
The Alliance for I-69 Texas has posted an updated I-69 System Funding Program as of September 1, 2014 map (http://i69texasalliance.com/ResourcesPDFs/I69.TxDOT%20Funding%20Program%20Map.%20Nov2014.pdf)
The above-linked September 1, 2014 map shows a great deal of ongoing work on SL 20/Future I-69W in Laredo
The Draft Victoria 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (http://www.victoriatx.org/home/showdocument?id=5686) .... No US 59/ Future I-69W projects are included in the Victoria MPO's 2040 plan.

So, no planned investments through 2040 for I-69W at the "northern" end of I-69W, but, at the "southern" end of I-69W, the Draft 2015-40 Laredo MTP (http://www.ci.laredo.tx.us/city-planning/departments/mpo/files/mtp/2015-40MTPDraft.pdf) schedules an additional $392 million for the conversion of Loop 20 to I-69W by 2020 (page 295/360 of pdf; p. 12-15 of document):

(http://i.imgur.com/w2I3Gzm.png)

Also, for good measure, the Draft Laredo MTP notes that "[e]fforts have been made to push the progress" for an unfunded $156 million project to convert US-59 to I-69W from Loop 20 to the Laredo MPO boundary (p. 315/360 of pdf: p. 12-35 of document):

(http://i.imgur.com/4IhPPze.png)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on March 05, 2015, 08:37:35 AM
This article (http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_62f4b928-92f3-11e4-967c-cff11f6ba46b.html) reports that SH 550's direct connection with I-69E should be completed in January, 2015; after that, work will begin on a new section to just east of the new overpass on Old Alice Road (https://www.google.com/maps/@26.0261865,-97.5160353,3735m/data=!3m1!1e3), the completion of which will be necessary for an I-169 designation

This TV video (http://www.valleycentral.com/news/story.aspx?id=1173019#.VPhZh3zF-So) has footage of the finishing touches on construction for SH 550's direct connection to I-69E, reports that weather issues have slowed down the construction, and also reports that late March is the latest estimated completion date for the I-69E direct connection.

edit

Consistent with the anticipated I-169 designation for SH 550 (as well as its designation as I-69 SIU 32), the Alliance for I-69 Texas has included SH 550 as part of the I-69 System in its September 1, 2014 I-69 System Funding Program Map (http://i69texasalliance.com/ResourcesPDFs/I69.TxDOT%20Funding%20Program%20Map.%20Nov2014.pdf) (SH 550 had not been included in the March 27, 2014 I-69 System Funding Program Map (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/funded_projects_map.pdf)):

(http://i.imgur.com/BbPX6Af.png)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on March 06, 2015, 01:35:08 PM
This article (http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_62f4b928-92f3-11e4-967c-cff11f6ba46b.html) reports that SH 550's direct connection with I-69E should be completed in January, 2015; after that, work will begin on a new section to just east of the new overpass on Old Alice Road (https://www.google.com/maps/@26.0261865,-97.5160353,3735m/data=!3m1!1e3), the completion of which will be necessary for an I-169 designation

This TV video (http://www.valleycentral.com/news/story.aspx?id=1173019#.VPhZh3zF-So) has footage of the finishing touches on construction for SH 550's direct connection to I-69E, reports that weather issues have slowed down the construction, and also reports that late March is the latest estimated completion date for the I-69E direct connection.


Consistent with the anticipated I-169 designation for SH 550 (as well as its designation as I-69 SIU 32), the Alliance for I-69 Texas has included SH 550 as part of the I-69 System in its September 1, 2014 I-69 System Funding Program Map (http://i69texasalliance.com/ResourcesPDFs/I69.TxDOT%20Funding%20Program%20Map.%20Nov2014.pdf) (SH 550 had not been included in the March 27, 2014 I-69 System Funding Program Map (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/funded_projects_map.pdf)):


So, with a possible I-169 designation, does that mean we can still keep up the hope that one day I-2 can extend to South Padre Island, given that I-169 pulls a Northwest Arkansas like I-540 became I-49?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on March 07, 2015, 01:04:50 AM
It's pretty unlikely TX-550 (or "I-169" or "I-2") could extend all the way into South Padre Island. It wouldn't be very practical to get the superhighway looped around or pushed through Port Isabel. And then the South Padre Island bridge itself is not up to Interstate highway standards. At best that superhighway spur will probably only go as far as the intersection of TX-48 and TX-100 on the West side of Port Isabel.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on March 07, 2015, 01:07:10 AM
You're thinking too small. South Padre-Merida-Cancun-Sandino-Havana-Key West-Miami.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on March 07, 2015, 10:39:27 AM
So, with a possible I-169 designation, does that mean we can still keep up the hope that one day I-2 can extend to South Padre Island

The Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority ("CCRMA") appears to have plans for a South Padre Island 2nd Access (http://www.ccrma.org/projects/SPI2ndAccess/), and the CCRMA provides a description and possible timeline as follows:

Quote
The second access will consist of three major components; the mainland roadway, the Laguna Madre crossing bridge, and the island roadway. The route under consideration includes a four-lane road crossing across Laguna Madre with about 8 miles of tolled lanes. The total length of the second access will be about 17.6 miles. At the moment, the final environmental clearance is estimated to be approved by Fall of 2015 by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Upon approval of the environmental clearance, construction can be expected to commence in 2017 or 2018.
.

I have not read anything about a potential I-x69 designation, although I guess it is possible that they want to do so. In this post from another thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10567.msg303255#msg303255), I quoted an article which reported that a closely related project, the Outer Parkway Project, should tie in to I-69E "just north" of Harlingen.  A possible designation as an extension of I-2 seems unlikely because it would be an awkward routing.

It appears that the CCRMA has recently revamped its website.  In this post from another thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10567.msg257224#msg257224), I posted a snip of a map (I cannot find it on the new website) which shows the Outer Parkway Project and the SPI 2nd Access Project crossing alternatives:

(http://i.imgur.com/m344IeF.jpg)

The map also shows the relationship of SH 550 to the SPI 2nd Access Project.  As far as I know, there are no long term plans to make SH 550 part of an upgraded access to the Queen Isabella Memorial Bridge near Port Isabel.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: rte66man on March 16, 2015, 09:51:54 PM
You're thinking too small. South Padre-Merida-Cancun-Sandino-Havana-Key West-Miami.

As a tunnel of course (to protect against the hurricanes).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: wxfree on March 18, 2015, 10:09:09 PM
From the 3-26-15 agenda:

Harris County - Designate a segment of the state highway system as I-69, concurrent with US 59 from the existing I-69 termini at I-610 North and I-610 West in the city of Houston (MO) (Presentation)
This minute order designates a segment of the state highway system as I-69, concurrent with US 59 from the existing I-69 termini at I-610 North and I-610 West in the city of Houston, a distance of approximately 11.9 miles. This action will complete the designation of I-69 in Houston and points north to the Montgomery/Liberty county line and south to Rosenberg for a continuous 75 miles. The Houston-Galveston Area Council, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, and the Federal Highway Administration have approved the designation of this segment.

The wording is a little strange, and I hope the minute order wording is better, but the intention is clear.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on March 18, 2015, 11:51:27 PM
How is the wording strange? It runs from the north leg of I-610 to the west leg of I-610.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: wxfree on March 19, 2015, 12:14:08 AM
How is the wording strange? It runs from the north leg of I-610 to the west leg of I-610.

It runs but from two places, "from the existing... termini."  All the designations I've seen start at one place and end at another.  If I read from the description, "from the existing I-69 termini at I-610 North and I-610 West in the city of Houston, a distance of approximately 11.9 miles," I would interpret that as meaning along the northbound lanes of US 59 from the I-69 terminus at I-610 West for a distance of 11.9 miles and along the southbound lanes of US 59 from the I-69 terminus at I-610 North for a distance of 11.9 miles.

It's the wording of the minute order that really matters, and those are usually available online on Monday, but occasionally on Friday.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on March 19, 2015, 12:31:52 AM
Yeah, I guess so. But truck trarffic.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: thefro on March 19, 2015, 10:26:15 AM
TxDOT has issued a Notice of Public Hearing (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/hou/notices/030515-notice.pdf) for a 10.5 mile US 59 to I-69 upgrade from Spur 10 to CR 227 ....
Here is a snip of the Project Location Map (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/hou/notices/030515-project.pdf):
(http://i.imgur.com/sOxU5LO.png)

Remarkably, this article (http://www.chron.com/neighborhood/fortbend/news/article/Three-Fort-Bend-roads-could-receive-state-6099176.php) reports that the Spur 10 to Darst Road section of this project could begin (I assume this means actual construction) this year:

Quote
The Houston-Galveston Area Council is making stops in various communities to share information on road projects that will begin this year as a result of the adoption of Proposition 1 in November.
Officials with the H-GAC hosted an open house at the Rosenberg Civic Center recently to share information on three key mobility projects that will impact portions of Fort Bend County.
Those projects include
a two-mile stretch of U.S. 90A between the Grand Parkway and Texas 6; a four-mile segment of FM 2234 between FM 521 and the Fort Bend Parkway, and Interstate 69 between Spur 10 and Darst Road.
Alan Clark, H-GAC director of transportation and planning
, said many of the projects have been on the regional transportation wish list for many years, and many of them were also a long way from being considered ....
The Interstate 69 project is among those considered high-impact, and comes with an estimated price tag of $93 million.
According to the project details, the plans call for widening I-69 from four to six lanes between Spur 10 and Darst Road as well as adding auxiliary lanes and two-lane frontage roads along that same 7.5-mile segment.
The improvements would upgrade I-69 to full interstate standards, and improve safety and mobility, Clark said.
"This was in our regional plan for 2035, so we are speeding this up 20 years," Clark said ....

Amazing what a little bit of Prop 1 money can do.

This article says construction will start later this year and the plan is to complete it by 2018 (http://www.chron.com/neighborhood/fortbend/news/article/TxDOT-proposes-I-69-widening-south-of-Rosenberg-6139421.php)

Quote
Officials with the Texas Department of Transportation hosted a public hearing at Beasley Elementary School to discuss the planned expansion of a 10-mile stretch between County Road 227 in Wharton County and Spur 10 in Fort Bend County.

Nearly 100 residents filled seats inside the school gym on March 5, hoping to learn what effect the project could have on their community.

"The project will upgrade the current facility to freeway standards," said Patrick Gant, TxDOT project manager for the I-69 project.

The plan, which will begin later this year, calls for upgrading the roadway to interstate standards by adding an additional main lane in both directions widening the main lanes to 12 feet and adding 12-foot shoulders; crossover intersections at Darst Road, Grunwald Road and Daily Road will be eliminated, and the existing two-way feeder lanes would be converted to one-way feeder lanes.

Other proposed improvements include adding a 14-foot curbed lane at FM 2919 and FM 360 to provide a safer crossing area for bicyclists and pedestrians.

The project will require at least 2.69 acres of additional right-of-way, with no displacement of any business or resident.

"Once completed I-69 will include six main lanes - three lanes in each direction, a grassy median and concrete barriers," Gant said.

The total cost of the construction is projected at $146 million, and is expected to be completed by the fall of 2018.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Perfxion on March 19, 2015, 07:36:16 PM
From the 3-26-15 agenda:

Harris County - Designate a segment of the state highway system as I-69, concurrent with US 59 from the existing I-69 termini at I-610 North and I-610 West in the city of Houston (MO) (Presentation)
This minute order designates a segment of the state highway system as I-69, concurrent with US 59 from the existing I-69 termini at I-610 North and I-610 West in the city of Houston, a distance of approximately 11.9 miles. This action will complete the designation of I-69 in Houston and points north to the Montgomery/Liberty county line and south to Rosenberg for a continuous 75 miles. The Houston-Galveston Area Council, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, and the Federal Highway Administration have approved the designation of this segment.

The wording is a little strange, and I hope the minute order wording is better, but the intention is clear.

Reading that, I-69 will be labeled over US 59 within the I-610 loop. Makes sense because its silly having to change names when giving directions to get to the Houston Rodeo.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: nolia_boi504 on March 25, 2015, 08:30:29 AM
I-69 should finally be designated in the inner loop Thursday, 3/26


http://blog.chron.com/thehighwayman/2015/03/i-69-coming-through-houston-though-few-likely-to-notice/ (http://blog.chron.com/thehighwayman/2015/03/i-69-coming-through-houston-though-few-likely-to-notice/)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: thefro on March 25, 2015, 10:59:01 AM
Do we have an idea of what SIUs are actually under construction or scheduled in Texas?

I'd like to update the Wikipedia article on I-69, which says there's only 2 SIUs under construction nationally now.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on March 25, 2015, 11:51:19 AM
Do we have an idea of what SIUs are actually under construction or scheduled in Texas?

This map summarizing the status of Texas I-69 projects (http://i69texasalliance.com/ResourcesPDFs/I69.TxDOT%20Funding%20Program%20Map.%20Nov2014.pdf) is current as of September 1, 2014.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on March 25, 2015, 01:30:43 PM
I-69 should finally be designated in the inner loop Thursday, 3/26


http://blog.chron.com/thehighwayman/2015/03/i-69-coming-through-houston-though-few-likely-to-notice/ (http://blog.chron.com/thehighwayman/2015/03/i-69-coming-through-houston-though-few-likely-to-notice/)

The shield in that article is hideous!!!
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: nolia_boi504 on March 26, 2015, 01:36:25 PM
The 11.9 mile section of US 59 inside of Loop 610 in Houston has been added to the Interstate Highway System as Interstate 69. All of the route through Harris County is now part of I-69 and a continuous section of 75 miles of I-69 is now in place through Montgomery County, Harris County and extending to a point at the south edge of Rosenberg in Fort bend County. The Texas Transportation Commission voted March 26 to complete the designation process for the section through central Houston.

Source:
http://www.i69texasalliance.com/ (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: codyg1985 on March 26, 2015, 01:53:25 PM
I am a little confused by the process that has been used to get I-69 signed through Texas. I thought interstate signage was to be approved by AASHTO and FHWA before it can be signed? It seems like the TTC can vote to sign it, and then the signs appear, without any federal input.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on March 26, 2015, 02:08:44 PM
I am a little confused by the process that has been used to get I-69 signed through Texas. I thought interstate signage was to be approved by AASHTO and FHWA before it can be signed? It seems like the TTC can vote to sign it, and then the signs appear, without any federal input.

TTC approval is typically the final formality for the designation, as the approved Minute Order (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2015/0326/5.pdf) reflects in this situation:

Quote
This minute order designates a segment of the state highway system as I-69, concurrent with US 59 from the existing I-69 termini at I-610 North and I-610 West in the city of Houston, a distance of approximately 11.9 miles. This action will complete the designation of I-69 in Houston and points north to the Montgomery/Liberty county line and south to Rosenberg for a continuous 75 miles. The Houston-Galveston Area Council, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) have approved the designation of this segment.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: cenlaroads on March 26, 2015, 02:20:44 PM
Does anyone know whether they are planning to keep at-grade intersections for ranch access on I-69E in rural south Texas, as was done on I-10 in west Texas?  I could not find any earlier discussion on this, so I apologize if I missed it.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: nolia_boi504 on March 26, 2015, 02:39:21 PM
I am a little confused by the process that has been used to get I-69 signed through Texas. I thought interstate signage was to be approved by AASHTO and FHWA before it can be signed? It seems like the TTC can vote to sign it, and then the signs appear, without any federal input.
AASHTO and FHWA both approved this last year, I believe. The article in my post from yesterday mentions this.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: vtk on March 26, 2015, 05:45:59 PM
Does anyone know whether they are planning to keep at-grade intersections for ranch access on I-69E in rural south Texas, as was done on I-10 in west Texas?  I could not find any earlier discussion on this, so I apologize if I missed it.

I believe the plan is to build very short stretches of frontage road to serve those ranch driveways.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on March 26, 2015, 09:38:45 PM
Does anyone know whether they are planning to keep at-grade intersections for ranch access on I-69E in rural south Texas, as was done on I-10 in west Texas?  I could not find any earlier discussion on this, so I apologize if I missed it.
I believe the plan is to build very short stretches of frontage road to serve those ranch driveways.

Some vintage prior discussion can be found beginning with this post (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg161349#msg161349), which includes this link to an Alliance for I-69 Texas discussion of the frontage roads (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update7.13.12%20us77.html):

Quote
An interesting element of the schematic plans included in the EA is the way ranch access is to be accomplished in the 42-mile passage through Kenedy County where there are no public roads crossing US 77. This highway passes through sections of the King Ranch, the Kenedy Ranch and the Armstrong Ranch, all of which span the highway and the adjacent Union Pacific Railroad. Brief sections of access road will be built near ranch gates to allow traffic on and off the freeway lanes. Overpasses will be built at intervals of 5 to 10 miles to allow traffic to reverse direction. Below is a simplified drawing of a ranch gate access point. This arrangement will avoid the need to build long stretches of dual frontage roads that have little transportation value.

(http://i.imgur.com/nATsg.jpg)

Also, an even earlier brief discussion (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg132869#msg132869) took place shortly after the Draft Environmental Assessment was issued.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: cenlaroads on March 27, 2015, 09:00:00 AM
Ah, thanks.  That looks like a good way to handle access, assuming that it is necessary to make the road 100% limited-access.  It still seems like a waste of money, considering that at-grade intersections have been previously allowed in situations like this.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: vtk on March 29, 2015, 12:00:01 PM
It still seems like a waste of money, considering that at-grade intersections have been previously allowed in situations like this.

Yeah, half a century ago.  The feds are slightly less flexible these days.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: kkt on March 30, 2015, 01:47:18 PM
I understand having the exit there, but why the short length of 2-lane sandwiched in between the 1-lane sections?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on March 30, 2015, 03:21:26 PM
Maybe the 2 lane section is in case there is more than one at grade turn/entrance. Through traffic could stay left and turning traffic would slow down in the right lane.

Regarding at grade turns on I-10 in West Texas, where are any of those? There's a lot of frontage road running on one or both sides of I-10 for stretches where entrances are needed into ranches and/or oil & gas drilling property.

One Interstate highway at grade turn (a driveway actually) I pass from time to time: a residence right off I-44 in Oklahoma just before the Red River bridge. That has been there well before the highway was designated as an Interstate.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: OCGuy81 on March 30, 2015, 03:58:21 PM
I understand having the exit there, but why the short length of 2-lane sandwiched in between the 1-lane sections?


I was wondering the same thing.  A single lane ramp to frontage road to ramp would suffice, I'd imagine.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bassoon1986 on March 30, 2015, 04:31:51 PM
Maybe the 2 lane section is in case there is more than one at grade turn/entrance. Through traffic could stay left and turning traffic would slow down in the right lane.

Regarding at grade turns on I-10 in West Texas, where are any of those? There's a lot of frontage road running on one or both sides of I-10 for stretches where entrances are needed into ranches and/or oil & gas drilling property.

One Interstate highway at grade turn (a driveway actually) I pass from time to time: a residence right off I-44 in Oklahoma just before the Red River bridge. That has been there well before the highway was designated as an Interstate.

I'm looking for that on Google maps and can't find it. Is it I-44 westbound on the Oklahoma side?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on March 30, 2015, 04:52:57 PM
I like the ones in South Dakota and Wyoming.  They try their best to make them look like exits
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: dfwmapper on March 30, 2015, 06:49:14 PM
2 obvious reasons why it might be 2 lanes. First, if development ever happens there and they decide to build continuous frontage roads. Second, if they're reusing the existing pavement for the exit and laying down new pavement for the mainline, no point in tearing out the old.

The direct access to the freeway is on I-40, not I-10, e.g. http://goo.gl/maps/cOMM6.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on March 30, 2015, 09:45:47 PM
The direct access to the freeway is on I-40, not I-10, e.g. http://goo.gl/maps/cOMM6.
It's on both: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=31.189364,-105.419719&spn=0.013088,0.024784&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=31.189167,-105.418911&panoid=3XtT9AaAERLm4E4E4iKr6g&cbp=12,292.44,,0,5.61
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: codyg1985 on March 31, 2015, 10:12:17 AM
There are also some direct connection driveways on I-40 in North Carolina through the Pigeon River Gorge. https://www.google.com/maps/@35.697237,-83.045247,3a,75y,4.03h,79.17t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1scfOcWmkFu3uMmi8ANspkqA!2e0

The roads mostly serve forest roads and such.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on March 31, 2015, 12:42:45 PM
There are also some direct connection driveways on I-40 in North Carolina through the Pigeon River Gorge. https://www.google.com/maps/@35.697237,-83.045247,3a,75y,4.03h,79.17t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1scfOcWmkFu3uMmi8ANspkqA!2e0

The roads mostly serve forest roads and such.
The Texas ones are unique in that traffic is allowed to cross the median. Otherwise it's just a RIRO like on I-80 at the Delaware Water Gap.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Henry on March 31, 2015, 01:32:35 PM
I just read about the conversion of US 59 to I-69 in Houston. I knew it would be a matter of time before it happened.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on April 01, 2015, 12:03:33 PM
From the 3-26-15 agenda:
Harris County - Designate a segment of the state highway system as I-69, concurrent with US 59 from the existing I-69 termini at I-610 North and I-610 West in the city of Houston
I-69 should finally be designated in the inner loop Thursday, 3/26
http://blog.chron.com/thehighwayman/2015/03/i-69-coming-through-houston-though-few-likely-to-notice/ (http://blog.chron.com/thehighwayman/2015/03/i-69-coming-through-houston-though-few-likely-to-notice/)
the approved Minute Order (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2015/0326/5.pdf)

This March 28 blog (http://blog.chron.com/thehighwayman/2015/03/signs-signs-everywhere-59-and-69-signs/) discusses I-69 signage in the Houston area. Basically, over the next few months, I-69 shields will be placed next to US 59 shields and the I-69 shield emblem will be added to existing BGSs:

Quote
For those interested in Houston’s newest interstate, despite its existence having practically no effect on travel times, here’s some more info on the recent dedication of U.S. 59 inside Loop 610 as Interstate 69.
First, none of the U.S. 59 signs are going away. I-69 are being added, gradually, over the next couple months, said Karen Othon, spokeswoman for the Texas Department of Transportation in Houston. Crews are making the signs, and will put them where the current U.S. 59 signs are now.
Othon said the segment officials recently designated is more complicated than others in the area because there are so many signs and references to the highway. Officials estimate the new signs along the 11-mile segment will cost about $100,000.
Larger signs, such as the overhead directional signs common above downtown lanes, won’t be replaced, Othon said. In most cases, an I-69 emblem will just be added.



Also, it may be a long time before I-69 mileage markers and I-69 exit numbers appear in the greater Houston area because the exact "zero" point in Victoria has not been established yet.  Here is an email Q & A that I recently had with TxDOT:

Quote
Q:  Now that there is a roughly 75 mile stretch of I-69 in the greater Houston area, does TxDOT have firm plans to install I-69 mileage markers and I-69 exit numbers on that stretch in the near future?

A:  The “zero”  point for I-69 originating out of Victoria has not been established yet and probably will not be until US 59 has been brought up to interstate standards from the US 77/US 59 interchange in Victoria to Fort Bend County line. There may be alignment variations that would change the mileage. Therefore, the plans are to hold off until that section is designated.

It is interesting to compare this situation to I-2.  Although at least two relief route studies are underway for US 83/Future I-2 between Mission and Laredo that could alter mileage, TxDOT has approved the installation of mileage markers and exit numbers from Mission eastward.

Also, since I have a theory that I-2 will ultimately be routed along the Cuatro Vientos Road section of Loop 20 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9935.msg2046211#msg2046211), and ultimately have its "zero" point at the I-69W interchange instead of the I-35/ US 83 intersection, I find TxDOT's decision regarding the I-69 mileage markers to be somewhat ironic.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: TXtoNJ on April 01, 2015, 01:07:58 PM
Also, since I have a theory that I-2 will ultimately be routed along the Cuatro Vientos Road section of Loop 20 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9935.msg2046211#msg2046211), and ultimately have its "zero" point at the I-69W interchange instead of the I-35/ US 83 intersection, I find TxDOT's decision regarding the I-69 mileage markers to be somewhat ironic.

I think that's just part of the quirkiness of the Houston Division of TxDOT. They appear to have a tendency to be rather conservative compared to the rest of the state when it comes to signage changes, mileage numbering, etc.

Leads to another question - is it specifically prohibited in TX to have exit numbering on US or state highways? Seems odd that they're missing on 288, for example.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on April 01, 2015, 01:26:56 PM
Leads to another question - is it specifically prohibited in TX to have exit numbering on US or state highways? Seems odd that they're missing on 288, for example.
There are some on US 59, US 82, Loop 375, and several other routes. (Some older ones on US 75 too.)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on April 01, 2015, 01:46:04 PM
Leads to another question - is it specifically prohibited in TX to have exit numbering on US or state highways? Seems odd that they're missing on 288, for example.
There are some on US 59, US 82, Loop 375, and several other routes. (Some older ones on US 75 too.)

U.S. 54 (Patriot Freeway) in El Paso has had mile markers and exit numbers, and then had them changed.

Central Expressway (U.S. 75) has always had exit numbers which lead me to wonder when I was a kid why U.S. 75 was signed like it was an interstate, yet no other U.S. highway in Texas was this extensively signed.

Of course there are the odd balls out there, like U.S. 59 in Lufkin has 3 numbered exits and in Livingston has 2.

The inconsistencies are just one of those things growing up in Texas,  I think it is because we have so many districts that love to do things their own special way, so much that going into a new district feels like going into a new state.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: roadman65 on April 01, 2015, 02:02:32 PM
Florida the same way with districts doing their own thing.

FDOT D4 and FDOT D1 have a difference in signing US 98.  Along the east shore of the mighty Lake Okeechobee where US 98 runs north and south with US 441, the 4th district signs it E-W, while where US 98 runs due east and west from the City of Okeechobee to US Highway 27 in the 1st district it is signed N-S.  Considering that D2 and D 7 follow suit in signing all parts of US 98 N-S south of Perry, D4 is in its own state.

Then between FDOT D4 and D5, you have different control cities for I-95 at entrance ramps.  FDOT D5 uses Jacksonville for NB I-95 and ocassionally uses Daytona Beach at two Brevard County interchanges and Miami for SB I-95.  FDOT D4 uses Daytona Beach for NB and West Palm Beach for SB.

The Panhandle is also different from the Peninsula as far as signs go as well.  D3 which is the district for most of the Panhandle uses slotted sign posts where the rest of Florida's state maintained signs use mono tube posts.  Also County line signs along I-10 in the Panhandle use large green signs while the Peninsula districts use small signs at county borders.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: TXtoNJ on April 01, 2015, 06:05:53 PM
Leads to another question - is it specifically prohibited in TX to have exit numbering on US or state highways? Seems odd that they're missing on 288, for example.
There are some on US 59, US 82, Loop 375, and several other routes. (Some older ones on US 75 too.)

That's right. Thanks for the reminder.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on April 07, 2015, 05:53:20 PM
It looks like TxDOT has corrected the map ... :
(http://i.imgur.com/gdc3HBL.jpg)
There is not an I-69W shield in Laredo, though.

Laredo now has an I-69W shield on the updated Texas Official Travel Map (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/trv/maps/texas.pdf):

(http://i.imgur.com/25BB5lb.png)

All three suffixes are now on the map.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: yakra on April 08, 2015, 12:33:20 AM
Still nothing on the Statewide Planning Map (http://www.txdot.gov/apps/statewide_mapping/StatewidePlanningMap.html), however.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Henry on April 08, 2015, 12:37:30 PM
It looks like TxDOT has corrected the map ... :
(http://i.imgur.com/gdc3HBL.jpg)
There is not an I-69W shield in Laredo, though.

Laredo now has an I-69W shield on the updated Texas Official Travel Map (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/trv/maps/texas.pdf):

(http://i.imgur.com/25BB5lb.png)

All three suffixes are now on the map.
Let the madness begin!
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: OCGuy81 on April 09, 2015, 01:06:22 PM
Will the three suffixed routes meet at a single point? 

Looks like 69E might be the first to branch off, and I'm curious if that will be the terminus of mainline 69? 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on April 09, 2015, 04:38:57 PM
Will the three suffixed routes meet at a single point? 
Looks like 69E might be the first to branch off, and I'm curious if that will be the terminus of mainline 69?

The short answer is that the three suffixed routes will not meet at a single point and that the "zero" post for I-69 will be in Victoria, with more detailed discussion in and around this post (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg2041640;topicseen#msg2041640).



This August 26, 2014 Alliance for I-69 Texas article (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update%208.26.14Laredo69W.html) reports that, in addition to the large ceremonial I-69W sign, signage is currently being installed along the newly designated I-69W section, I-35, and other roadways:
Not addressed by the Alliance article (maybe it doesn't care about lowly sub-Interstate routes), but anything on US 59 signs going up on the new I-69W segment and the northeastern part of Loop 20, and the bypassed part of US 59 being re-signed as Business US 59?
Laredo now has an I-69W shield on the updated Texas Official Travel Map (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/trv/maps/texas.pdf):
(http://i.imgur.com/25BB5lb.png)

In addition to an I-69W shield, the Texas Official Travel Map has both a US 59 shield on Loop 20 and a BR US 59 shield along the former US 59. Do we have any confirmed sightings in the field for I-69W shields (and concurrent US 59 shields) and/or US 59 shields on the Future I-69W part of Loop 20 and/or US 59 Biz shields (assemblies?) along the former US 59?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: OCGuy81 on April 09, 2015, 04:49:27 PM
Thank you again, grzrd.  You're always a really good source of info on here!
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: rte66man on April 14, 2015, 08:17:11 PM
Maybe the 2 lane section is in case there is more than one at grade turn/entrance. Through traffic could stay left and turning traffic would slow down in the right lane.

Regarding at grade turns on I-10 in West Texas, where are any of those? There's a lot of frontage road running on one or both sides of I-10 for stretches where entrances are needed into ranches and/or oil & gas drilling property.

One Interstate highway at grade turn (a driveway actually) I pass from time to time: a residence right off I-44 in Oklahoma just before the Red River bridge. That has been there well before the highway was designated as an Interstate.

Bobby, where exactly is that?  It doesn't show up on Google or Bing.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on April 18, 2015, 06:58:15 PM
Now that I double-checked it looks like ODOT removed the driveway. The first house North of the Red River next to the Southbound (West) lanes of I-44 had a driveway there in the past.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on April 19, 2015, 02:50:41 PM
since it looks like 69W will hit the north side of Laredo I'm guessing there will also have to be 69W-S
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Henry on April 20, 2015, 01:05:26 PM
since it looks like 69W will hit the north side of Laredo I'm guessing there will also have to be 69W-S
Don't push your luck!
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 20, 2015, 05:52:27 PM
Would anyone hazard a guess on when Interstates 69C and 69W will connect with the rest of Texas's Interstate system?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on April 20, 2015, 06:16:41 PM
Would anyone hazard a guess on when Interstates 69C and 69W will connect with the rest of Texas's Interstate system?

I-69W, in much the same way as I-369 is connected to I-30, is already connected to I-35.



TxDOT completed its US 281/US 59 Planning and Feasibility Study - Interstate (I-69C) in October (it should be posted on the TxDOT website in the relatively near future).  Basically, the goal is to complete I-69C from Edinburg to Alice by 2037, in part to allow for immediate I-69C signage for completed segments (pp. 11-12/15 of pdf; pp. 8-9 of document):
(http://i.imgur.com/td5K8Pf.jpg)
(http://i.imgur.com/0Bv58vb.jpg)
The Alice connection to the TX 44 corridor from the south appears to be the top priority; it will be interesting to see how soon a Planning and Feasibility study will be conducted for TX 44 ....
TxDOT has posted the US 281/US 59 Planning and Feasibility Study - Interstate (I-69C) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/us281-us59-district.pdf).
Texas Congressman Blake Farenthold's office announced in a January 14, 2015 press release (http://farentholdforms.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=398450) that Farenthold has reintroduced the "44-to-69" legislation for this year
If anyone cares to follow the progress of the bill, it is also known as H.R.301 – 114th Congress (2015-2016) (https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/301/text).

I suspect that the completion of TX 44/Future I-x69 from Alice to Corpus Christi will be a relatively high priority after Congressional designation of TX 44 as part of the I-69 Corridor*; therefore, the scheduled completion of an I-69C direct connection to the rest of the Texas interstate system (excluding I-2) by July 1, 2037 appears to be the estimate for an I-69C direct connection.

That said, I-69C is connected to I-2, which is connected to I-69E, which in turn is expected to have a completed connection with I-37 well before July 1, 2037.  This scenario seems more likely to be completed before the "I-69C creeping northward" scenario.

edit

* TRIP's April, 2015 Texas’ Most Critical Highway Projects to Support Economic Growth and Quality of Life (http://www.tripnet.org/docs/TX_TRIP_Economic_Development_Report_April_2015.pdf) report ranks this section of TX 44/ Future I-x69 as the fourth most needed project (with an estimated price tag of $600 million) out of twenty ranked projects in "Other Texas Regions" (DFW and Houston have fifteen ranked projects apiece, and Austin and San Antonio have ten ranked projects apiece):

Quote
4. Upgrade a portion of SH 44 to Interstate standards in Nueces and Jim Wells Counties. This approximately $600 million project would upgrade a 29-mile portion of SH 44 to Interstate design standards from US 281 to US 77/I-69E, including lane widths and limited access. These improvements will enhance regional connectivity, relieve congestion, improve regional goods movement and improve safety.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: codyg1985 on April 21, 2015, 08:24:31 PM
I drove through the Houston area this weekend, and as of now no I-69 shields have been added to BGSs along I-45 and I-610 referring to the portion of US 59 inside of I-610. I didn't drive on US 59 itself so I don't know if ground-mounted shields have been installed yet or not.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: thefro on April 22, 2015, 10:00:25 AM
That said, I-69C is connected to I-2, which is connected to I-69E, which in turn is expected to have a completed connection with I-37 well before July 1, 2037.  This scenario seems more likely to be completed before the "I-69C creeping northward" scenario.

Aren't most/all of the I-69E projects to have it connect to I-37 on the docket already?  A lot of that mileage is the King Ranch in Kenedy county.  I'd probably expect that to be done by 2020, anyway.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on April 22, 2015, 11:54:41 AM
this link to an Alliance for I-69 Texas discussion of the frontage roads (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update7.13.12%20us77.html):
Quote
An interesting element of the schematic plans included in the EA is the way ranch access is to be accomplished in the 42-mile passage through Kenedy County where there are no public roads crossing US 77. This highway passes through sections of the King Ranch, the Kenedy Ranch and the Armstrong Ranch, all of which span the highway and the adjacent Union Pacific Railroad. Brief sections of access road will be built near ranch gates to allow traffic on and off the freeway lanes. Overpasses will be built at intervals of 5 to 10 miles to allow traffic to reverse direction.
Aren't most/all of the I-69E projects to have it connect to I-37 on the docket already?  A lot of that mileage is the King Ranch in Kenedy county.  I'd probably expect that to be done by 2020, anyway.

Judging by this map (http://i69texasalliance.com/ResourcesPDFs/I69.TxDOT%20Funding%20Program%20Map.%20Nov2014.pdf), I agree:

(http://i.imgur.com/Nc8NlBr.png)

If not by 2020, then by not too long thereafter.

edit

TRIP's April, 2015 Texas’ Most Critical Highway Projects to Support Economic Growth and Quality of Life (http://www.tripnet.org/docs/TX_TRIP_Economic_Development_Report_April_2015.pdf) report ranks this section of I-69E as the eighth most needed project (with an estimated cost of approximately $600 million) out of twenty projects in "Other Texas Regions" (DFW and Houston have fifteen ranked projects apiece, and Austin and San Antonio have ten ranked projects apiece):

Quote
8. Upgrade a portion of US 77 in Willacy, Kennedy [sic], Nueces and Kleberg Counties to Interstate standards. This approximately $600 million project would upgrade a 92-mile portion of SH [sic] 77  from I-69 north of Raymondville to I-69 in Robstown to Interstate design standards including lane widths and limited access. These improvements will enhance regional connectivity, relieve congestion, improve regional goods movement and improve safety.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on April 22, 2015, 06:59:16 PM
TxDOT also has a US 77 Upgrade (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/crp/projects/us77_upgrade/) page with pdfs of the Draft Environmental Assessment.
I find it fascinating how they use off ramps to handle the many ranch "gate crossings" along the route, as well as the strategic cattle crossings they would have. In Louisiana, they probably would have used frontage roads with intermediate interchanges and grade-seperated "crossunders" for that purpose.
the frontage road design is something they use in west Texas a lot.  what about the crossunders - do they have those out there?  I've never noticed.
also, in west Texas, they have the occasional at-grade crossing! 
they could pull an I-10 in west Texas and keep the at-grades. Why were those allowed to be grandfathered there but not here?

It may not be too late for them to keep the at-grades in Kenedy County. This article (http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/cleveland/news/i--supporters-urge-passage-of-federal-highway-bill/article_7ae8c02f-fe9c-5bd5-9fbb-1f7bf321994d.html) reports on a recent trip to Washington by Texas representatives urging federal officials to continue and accelerate the ongoing development of Interstate 69.  Included in their wish list is "greater flexibility in interstate designations in rural area":

Quote
More than 20 representatives of Texas communities and two members of the Texas Transportation Commission are on Capitol Hill this week urging federal officials to continue and accelerate the ongoing development of Interstate 69.
The Texas delegation is leading a larger group of representatives from states on the I-69 national route including Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennessee, Kentucky, Indiana and Michigan ....
Participants provided a state-by-state progress update to the I-69 Congressional Caucus which includes Members of Congress from all of the eight states along the I-69 corridor. During their visit the delegation is also meeting with individual members of Congress and with U.S. Department of Transportation officials ....
The I-69 delegation presented a set of priorities they would like to be considered in a new highway bill. These include protecting gains made in the last bill — called MAP-21 — such as environmental streamlining provisions and increased flexibility for states in how they allocate funding.
They are also seeking expansion of innovative financing options that are now part of the law. Priorities for Texas include providing greater flexibility in interstate designations in rural area and the designation of State Highway 44 from Freer to Corpus Christi as a future I-69 system connector.

They may be trying to save some money in Kenedy County.  I suppose greater flexibility would be useful for sections of Future I-69W, too.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Alex on April 24, 2015, 02:30:11 PM
Jeff R shared this article with me this morning touting the possibility of an branch of I-69 serving Corpus Christi.

I-69 supporters urge passage of federal highway bill (http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/cleveland/news/i--supporters-urge-passage-of-federal-highway-bill/article_7ae8c02f-fe9c-5bd5-9fbb-1f7bf321994d.html)

Quote
They are also seeking expansion of innovative financing options that are now part of the law. Priorities for Texas include providing greater flexibility in interstate designations in rural area and the designation of State Highway 44 from Freer to Corpus Christi as a future I-69 system connector.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on April 24, 2015, 08:51:11 PM
Jeff R shared this article with me this morning touting the possibility of an branch of I-69 serving Corpus Christi.

I-69 supporters urge passage of federal highway bill (http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/cleveland/news/i--supporters-urge-passage-of-federal-highway-bill/article_7ae8c02f-fe9c-5bd5-9fbb-1f7bf321994d.html)

Quote
They are also seeking expansion of innovative financing options that are now part of the law. Priorities for Texas include providing greater flexibility in interstate designations in rural area and the designation of State Highway 44 from Freer to Corpus Christi as a future I-69 system connector.

I-69E already serves Corpus Christi via US 77 and I-37. The SH 44 addition to the I-69 system is to provide a more direct connection between Laredo and Corpus, which would be bypassed originally by I-69W.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on April 24, 2015, 09:17:02 PM
Jeff R shared this article with me this morning touting the possibility of an branch of I-69 serving Corpus Christi.
I-69 supporters urge passage of federal highway bill (http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/cleveland/news/i--supporters-urge-passage-of-federal-highway-bill/article_7ae8c02f-fe9c-5bd5-9fbb-1f7bf321994d.html)
The SH 44 addition to the I-69 system is to provide a more direct connection between Laredo and Corpus, which would be bypassed originally by I-69W.

This post (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg2059301#msg2059301) provides a link to a press release from Congressman Blake Farenthold regarding how Corpus Christi, its port, and airport would benefit from passage of his bill designating SH 44 as Future I-69, a link to the text of the bill, and a link to an April, 2015 report touting the importance of upgrading SH 44 to an interstate between I-69C and I-69E.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on April 26, 2015, 08:51:14 PM
Do we have an idea of what SIUs are actually under construction or scheduled in Texas?
I'd like to update the Wikipedia article on I-69, which says there's only 2 SIUs under construction nationally now.
This map summarizing the status of Texas I-69 projects (http://i69texasalliance.com/ResourcesPDFs/I69.TxDOT%20Funding%20Program%20Map.%20Nov2014.pdf) is current as of September 1, 2014.

The Alliance for I-69 Texas has updated its Resource Center page (http://i69texasalliance.com/resource.html) to include links to an I-69 System Funding Program as of April 1, 2015 map (http://i69texasalliance.com/ResourcesPDFs/3.I-69%20Texas%20Funding%20Map%20with%20Table%204.1.15.pdf) and an April 22, 2015 Status of Texas Projects by Congressional District presentation. (http://i69texasalliance.com/ResourcesPDFs/2.Projects%20by%20Congress%20Dist%20Apr15.pdf)

Also included on the Resource Center page is an April 1, 2015 I-69 National Status map (http://i69texasalliance.com/ResourcesPDFs/3.2015-04-01%20National%20I-69%20Map.pdf).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on May 03, 2015, 09:00:16 PM
This post (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg2059301#msg2059301) provides a link to a press release from Congressman Blake Farenthold regarding how Corpus Christi, its port, and airport would benefit from passage of his bill designating SH 44 as Future I-69, a link to the text of the bill, and a link to an April, 2015 report touting the importance of upgrading SH 44 to an interstate between I-69C and I-69E.
The Alliance for I-69 Texas has updated its Resource Center page (http://i69texasalliance.com/resource.html) to include links to an I-69 System Funding Program as of April 1, 2015 map (http://i69texasalliance.com/ResourcesPDFs/3.I-69%20Texas%20Funding%20Map%20with%20Table%204.1.15.pdf)

Perhaps reflecting optimism regarding potential passage of the bill designating part of SH 44 as part of the I-69 Corridor, the above-linked I-69 System Funding Program as of April 1, 2015 map includes a Prop 1 SH 44 "Proposed as Potential I-69" overpass project at FM 3386 (McKinzie Road) (https://www.google.com/maps/place/FM+3386,+Corpus+Christi,+TX/@27.7846828,-97.5674255,1839m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x8668630bbff37605:0x2201e016cc3b55ba):

(http://i.imgur.com/QR7dUrv.jpg)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on May 06, 2015, 10:21:41 PM
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_3baf5bf6-c8d4-11e2-bafc-0019bb30f31a.html
the SH 550 article reports that the ribbon-cutting was for the completion of the second of three phases of SH 550 construction:
Quote
The third phase, which will provide the connectors to U.S. 77/83, should be done in about a year, according to David Garcia, deputy county administrator and assistant coordinator for the Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority.

This TV video (http://www.foxrio2.com/upcoming-projects-from-ccrma/) provides a SH 550 update from a Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority spokesperson, who states that the third phase, weather permitting, should be completed in two weeks.  She also refers to SH 550 as "the future I-169".

Since I-169 will not be co-designated with a U.S. highway, I'm wondering whether TxDOT will even submit an application to AASHTO for approval of the designation. I assume that they would only need FHWA approval for the numerical designation.  Something to look for in the next round of AASHTO designations ........
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Henry on May 07, 2015, 01:04:09 PM
http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_3baf5bf6-c8d4-11e2-bafc-0019bb30f31a.html
the SH 550 article reports that the ribbon-cutting was for the completion of the second of three phases of SH 550 construction:
Quote
The third phase, which will provide the connectors to U.S. 77/83, should be done in about a year, according to David Garcia, deputy county administrator and assistant coordinator for the Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority.

This TV video (http://www.foxrio2.com/upcoming-projects-from-ccrma/) provides a SH 550 update from a Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority spokesperson, who states that the third phase, weather permitting, should be completed in two weeks.  She also refers to SH 550 as "the future I-169".

Since I-169 will not be co-designated with a U.S. highway, I'm wondering whether TxDOT will even submit an application to AASHTO for approval of the designation. I assume that they would only need FHWA approval for the numerical designation.  Something to look for in the next round of AASHTO designations ........
Well, well, well...another I-x69 coming soon; I'll bet no one is surprised by that.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bugo on May 07, 2015, 04:04:24 PM
Shouldn't it be I-169E?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Molandfreak on May 07, 2015, 08:29:27 PM
Just make it a stub end of I-2
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Scott5114 on May 10, 2015, 12:52:43 PM
Shouldn't it be I-169E?

Not necessarily. The only case of this was Idaho's I-180N. Other 3dis from suffixed routes dropped the suffix letter.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on June 01, 2015, 10:32:12 AM
This article (http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_62f4b928-92f3-11e4-967c-cff11f6ba46b.html) reports that SH 550's direct connection with I-69E should be completed in January, 2015; after that, work will begin on a new section to just east of the new overpass on Old Alice Road (https://www.google.com/maps/@26.0261865,-97.5160353,3735m/data=!3m1!1e3), the completion of which will be necessary for an I-169 designation:
Quote
“The next step after that is to work with TxDOT (Texas Department of Transportation) to design the portion that connects 550 with I-69 East to just east of the new overpass on Old Alice Road,”  Sepulveda said. “That will be designated as Interstate-169. It’ll be about three miles long.”
In all, two more segments of the project have to be finished before the 550 connector can be designated as interstate along its entire length, he said. That construction will start the first quarter of this month.

AASHTO has approved the I-169 designation:

http://route.transportation.org/Documents/05%2014%202015%20Cheyenne,%20WY%20Report/SM%202015%20USRN%20SCOH%20REPORT.pdf

(http://i.imgur.com/aXqPOFt.png)

I guess TxDOT wants to install shields on the first 1.5 miles as soon as possible.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Henry on June 01, 2015, 01:13:44 PM
It was only a matter of time before I-169 would open a new chapter in the madness that is I-69 in TX! But for a state that loves to think big, 1.5 miles doesn't seem to cut it. I'd expect it to reach the port eventually, but this is definitely a start.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: triplemultiplex on June 03, 2015, 09:37:24 PM
Weird that with all the interstate-grade freeways built in Texas in recent decades, they only seem to be pursuing interstate spurs for I-69.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: english si on June 04, 2015, 07:15:31 AM
TX130 was proposed as I-35E.

The US190 freeway to Killeen was proposed at I-14.

I'm not sure what other ones there are (especially free) that aren't in the I-69 corridor.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on June 04, 2015, 08:54:06 AM
I don't know why I-169 couldn't have been an extension of I-2
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on June 04, 2015, 06:02:08 PM
I don't know why I-169 couldn't have been an extension of I-2

I think it could have been an extension of I-2, but the March 23 TxDOT designation application (http://route.transportation.org/Documents/05%2014%202015%20Cheyenne%2c%20WY%20Report/I-169%20TX.pdf) reflects their belief that an I-169 designation was more appropriate because I-169 is SIU 32 of the Congressionally designated I-69 Corridor:

(http://i.imgur.com/4dYB2ze.png)

FHWA also approved the I-169 designation on May 14 (http://route.transportation.org/Documents/05%2014%202015%20Cheyenne%2c%20WY%20Report/FHWA%20to%20AASHTO%20Interstate%20Numbering%20May%2014%202015.pdf):

(http://i.imgur.com/7YwUE46.png)

It looks like we might have a Texas Transportation Commission formality later this month.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on June 04, 2015, 08:03:33 PM
I-2 is supposed to be an "I-69 connector" so why can't it include another freeway that's part of the I-69 system?

The Arkansas I-69 Connector is SIU 28 of the I-69 Corridor and it is destined to be an extension of I-530 (if Arkansas ever builds it to interstate standards).  I don't think FHWA (or AASHTO) would have objected to an I-2 designation for SH 550.  The locals may have preferred a 2di designation, as well.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Scott5114 on June 05, 2015, 09:31:40 AM
That really isn't a good argument. I-2 is supposed to be an "I-69 connector" so why can't it include another freeway that's part of the I-69 system? If it must be a 3DI, it should have been I-169E because it has nothing to do with the rest of the spurs.

Back in the day when letter suffixed interstates were common nationwide, the suffix letter was almost always dropped on the 3dis. This is the case with the sole non-69 suffixed interstate 3di, I-635 in Dallas, which connects to I-35E. I-169 follows the established pattern.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: TheStranger on June 05, 2015, 12:06:56 PM

So? It's a stupid pattern. I-635 should be renumbered or extended to I-35W, because it suggests that it connects with both branches.

In another thread, I noted that the only suffixed 3di ever was I-180N (from I-80N in Idaho).  Certainly the non-suffixed x80 routes in Philadelphia when I-80S existed didn't suggest a connection with regular I-80 further north, but simply connecting to one of the 80 branches at the time.

Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Scott5114 on June 05, 2015, 09:00:47 PM
Why is it a stupid pattern?

Good luck fitting 4 digits in an Interstate shield, by the way. 169E might barely fit, but 635E wouldn't. H201 does it but only by horizontally stretching the sign and using Series B. Poor aesthetics of distorted graphics aside, it's much easier to read the wider fonts.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: noelbotevera on June 08, 2015, 03:35:05 PM
Why is it a stupid pattern?

Good luck fitting 4 digits in an Interstate shield, by the way. 169E might barely fit, but 635E wouldn't. H201 does it but only by horizontally stretching the sign and using Series B. Poor aesthetics of distorted graphics aside, it's much easier to read the wider fonts.
Or just make each reassurance shield be overhead signs with all text  :-D

Yeah, 4 digits is hard, but simply create a 4 digit shield rather than stretching the 3-digit one. Dimensions would be 60x48.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on June 14, 2015, 03:14:29 PM
AASHTO has approved the I-169 designation:
http://route.transportation.org/Documents/05%2014%202015%20Cheyenne,%20WY%20Report/SM%202015%20USRN%20SCOH%20REPORT.pdf
(http://i.imgur.com/aXqPOFt.png)
I guess TxDOT wants to install shields on the first 1.5 miles as soon as possible.

The 1.5 miles does not have any I-169 shields yet, but this article (http://www.valleymorningstar.com/news/local_news/article_6ecbe2b6-1238-11e5-b5a5-cb936cbc8303.html) reports that it is open to traffic and can be clinched for free through July 4:

Quote
To encourage people to try out the newly opened S.H. 550 “direct connector”  between I-69E and S.H. 48, the county is waiving tolls until July 4.
The new road opened for traffic on June 4, later than originally planned due to construction delays caused mostly by rain ....
The 550 connector makes it possible to travel the approximately seven miles from I-69E to the port without any stops.
Two segments remain to be completed before the connector is interstate-quality along the entire stretch ...
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: roadman65 on June 14, 2015, 09:15:13 PM
I was noticing that now with I-69W to terminate at the World Trade International Bridge, that US 59 has been rerouted (anyway on paper by FHWA) as AASHTO did approve the change.  They probably did that maneuver to get folks used to I-69W coming, however GSV and ushighwayends.com say that signs yet have not been installed to show the change.

Also, if I-69W is to be along Loop 20 in Laredo, will it dog leg or will TexDOT get it to cut straight east from Loop 20's Northeastern turn as the shortest distance between two points is a straight line?

Another thing I found most interesting is that from George West to Victoria that the branch of I-69 is to be I-69W even though it carries traffic as well for the I-69C branch.  To me that should remain I-69 all the way to George West then I-69 should end branching into C and W.  The I-69E would just be a spur of I-69 instead of I-69 dividing into E and W and then have W split into W and C.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: lordsutch on June 15, 2015, 01:53:29 PM
Also, if I-69W is to be along Loop 20 in Laredo, will it dog leg or will TexDOT get it to cut straight east from Loop 20's Northeastern turn as the shortest distance between two points is a straight line?

Pretty sure we already talked about this a few pages ago. The answer for now is: who knows? TxDOT hasn't done any environmental study for Laredo-to-Freer that I'm aware of.

That said an in-place upgrade of US 59 east of Loop 20 would be a pain (moreso than upgrading Loop 20 itself), so some sort of tangent routing makes sense. Laredo's long-range planning documents show an "expressway" running east from Loop 20 at International Blvd to the proposed Laredo Outer Loop, but that's all pie-in-the-sky thinking; they don't even have half of the proposed local streets built inside the loop yet, despite continuing population growth.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: roadman65 on June 15, 2015, 02:09:54 PM
Also, if I-69W is to be along Loop 20 in Laredo, will it dog leg or will TexDOT get it to cut straight east from Loop 20's Northeastern turn as the shortest distance between two points is a straight line?

Pretty sure we already talked about this a few pages ago. The answer for now is: who knows? TxDOT hasn't done any environmental study for Laredo-to-Freer that I'm aware of.

That said an in-place upgrade of US 59 east of Loop 20 would be a pain (moreso than upgrading Loop 20 itself), so some sort of tangent routing makes sense. Laredo's long-range planning documents show an "expressway" running east from Loop 20 at International Blvd to the proposed Laredo Outer Loop, but that's all pie-in-the-sky thinking; they don't even have half of the proposed local streets built inside the loop yet, despite continuing population growth.
Sorry I do not get the chance to read everything, but I just wondered if anyone heard anything that is not published.  Road departments can do strange things as we all know.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: The Ghostbuster on June 16, 2015, 02:42:22 PM
Does anyone know when we might see exit numbers on the completed sections of the 4 Interstate 69's?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Molandfreak on June 16, 2015, 03:17:03 PM
Does anyone know when we might see exit numbers on the completed sections of the 4 Interstate 69's?
Maybe when TXDOT has a better understanding of which ROW is going to be used. With all the bypasses that need to happen, there can currently be a rough estimate of the mileage I-69 will have in Texas, but that's about it.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Scott5114 on June 23, 2015, 04:23:51 PM
At-grade intersection discussion split to new thread (which is already 3 pages!): https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=15847
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on July 07, 2015, 04:30:35 PM
this Feb. 16, 2015 TV video (http://www.kgns.tv/home/headlines/Councilmembers-attempt-to-move-forward-with-Loop-20-Clark-overpass-292083231.html) reports on the Loop 20 Clark Boulevard overpass project; although the Clark Boulevard overpass is not part of the I-69W section of Loop 20 (I guess it could one day be part of an I-x69 or an I-x02) ...

This July 6 article (http://www.lmtonline.com/front-news/article_a84906ae-2435-11e5-9003-17839064fce8.html) reports that the groundbreaking for the Loop 20/ Clark Boulevard overpass (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Clark+Blvd,+Laredo,+TX/@27.5168842,-99.4508671,922m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x8661215c821fab61:0xfa01a43bcb890978) was held on July 6, and that it included the attendance of Texas Transportation Commissioner Jeff Austin III:

Quote
A groundbreaking for the $34 million overpass at Loop 20 and Clark Boulevard was held Monday morning ....
Texas Transportation Commissioner Jeff Austin III, who attended the event
, said, “TxDOT is committed to community by improving mobility across the state, and South Texas is no different.”
The new overpass project is a product of 80 percent federal and 20 percent state dollars totaling $34 million. The projects consists of construction of an overpass interchange at Spur 400 to separate Loop 20 traffic from the Spur 400 intersection traffic.
Project completion is estimated for early spring 2018 ....
Two other Loop 20 enhancement projects to be constructed in conjunction with the Spur 400 overpass project; those being the widening of the Loop 20 bridge over the Kansas City Southern railroad tracks with estimated construction costs of $9.1 million, and the adding of frontage roads over the KCS bridge and the adjoining overpass project at an estimated cost of $15.4 million.
A total estimated investment is approximately $57 million in TxDOT-spearheaded projects, all to keep Laredo moving.

Also, this July 6 TV video (http://www.kgns.tv/home/headlines/Work-soon-to-begin-on-Interstate-69-corridor-311860121.html) reports on work that is to soon begin on the Interstate 69 corridor and includes comments from Commissioner Austin, presumably from the Clark Boulevard overpass groundbreaking:

Quote
Work is set to begin soon on the I-69 corridor, which will connect Laredo to the valley as well as other parts of the nation.
We spoke with Jeff Austin the third with the Texas Transportation Commission, who explains why this is important for commerce.
"Part of our commercial priorities is to help let Interstate 69 and all spurs become part of a national freight corridor.
This also connects not just the inland ports, and crossings from Laredo, but out to sea ports. You have Brownsville, Corpus, Freeport, all into Houston and close to the Beaumont, Port Arthur area. So this is an important commerce corridor", said Austin.
Ultimately the I-69 corridor will be able to take people from Laredo all the way up to Michigan.

In trying to read the tea leaves, I guess it is possible that Commissioner Austin, and TxDOT, have a vision for the Clark Boulevard interchange non-I-69W part of Loop 20 to ultimately be part of an I-69W spur.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: CentralPAGal on July 07, 2015, 09:26:42 PM
In trying to read the tea leaves, I guess it is possible that Commissioner Austin, and TxDOT, have a vision for the Clark Boulevard interchange non-I-69W part of Loop 20 to ultimately be part of an I-69W spur.
I-69WS
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Henry on July 09, 2015, 11:29:54 AM
In trying to read the tea leaves, I guess it is possible that Commissioner Austin, and TxDOT, have a vision for the Clark Boulevard interchange non-I-69W part of Loop 20 to ultimately be part of an I-69W spur.
I-69WS
:rofl:
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on July 12, 2015, 01:20:22 PM
Texas Congressman Blake Farenthold's office announced in a January 14, 2015 press release (http://farentholdforms.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=398450) that Farenthold has reintroduced the "44-to-69" legislation for this year
If anyone cares to follow the progress of the bill, it is also known as H.R.301 – 114th Congress (2015-2016) (https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/301/text).
I skimmed the text of the [Drive Act] bill (https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1647/text)
(bottom quote from I-69 in MS (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=4783.msg2075627#msg2075627) thread)

In looking at the proposed Section 1204 High Priority Corridor amendments in the DRIVE Act bill (https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/1647/text#toc-id44fa5e16edd8483499c64790519cb977), I noticed that amendments related to I-11 and North Carolina HPCs are included in the draft, but that the proposed addition of SH 44 to the I-69 Corridor is not included (the above-quoted link to H.R. 301 indicates that no action has been taken on the "44-to-69" bill since January 14).

Is this an easily correctable oversight that can be cured if and when work begins on a final version of the DRIVE Act bill, or is Congress saying "ENOUGH" to the expansion of the I-69 Corridor in Texas?

edit

I recently noticed that SH 44 is included in Section 11204 of the companion House bill, H.R. 22 (https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/22/text#toc-id44fa5e16edd8483499c64790519cb977):

Quote
SEC. 11204. High priority corridors on the National Highway System.
Section 1105 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (105 Stat. 2031) is amended–
(1) in subsection (c) (105 Stat. 2032; 112 Stat. 190; 119 Stat. 1213)–  ....
(B) in paragraph (18)(D)– 
(i) in clause (ii), by striking “and”  at the end;
(ii) in clause (iii), by striking the period at the end and inserting “; and” ; and
(iii) by adding at the end the following:
“(iv) include Texas State Highway 44 from United States Route 59 at Freer, Texas, to Texas State Highway 358.”
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on July 13, 2015, 11:54:04 AM
In trying to read the tea leaves, I guess it is possible that Commissioner Austin, and TxDOT, have a vision for the Clark Boulevard interchange non-I-69W part of Loop 20 to ultimately be part of an I-69W spur.
I-69WS
:rofl:

In regard to the I-69W part of Loop 20, this June 15, 2015 Environmental Status of the US 59/ Loop 20/ I-69W Project overview (http://www.cityoflaredo.com/planning/MPO/files/Presentations/EnvStatus_Lp20_I69_WCCL_RMA.pdf) indicates that the next Loop 20/ I-69W project scheduled to be let will be in December, 2015 for the mainlanes overpass at International Blvd. (p. 2/9 of pdf):

(http://i.imgur.com/mEQ9Vhi.png)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: noelbotevera on July 13, 2015, 01:06:01 PM
In trying to read the tea leaves, I guess it is possible that Commissioner Austin, and TxDOT, have a vision for the Clark Boulevard interchange non-I-69W part of Loop 20 to ultimately be part of an I-69W spur.
I-69WS
:rofl:

In regard to the I-69W part of Loop 20, this June 15, 2015 Environmental Status of the US 59/ Loop 20/ I-69W Project overview (http://www.cityoflaredo.com/planning/MPO/files/Presentations/EnvStatus_Lp20_I69_WCCL_RMA.pdf) indicates that the next Loop 20/ I-69W project scheduled to be let will be in December, 2015 for the mainlanes overpass at International Blvd. (p. 2/9 of pdf):

(http://i.imgur.com/mEQ9Vhi.png)
Cheap compared to Texas' roadway projects. Texas is rich.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on July 31, 2015, 06:53:42 PM
at the "southern" end of I-69W, the Draft 2015-40 Laredo MTP (http://www.ci.laredo.tx.us/city-planning/departments/mpo/files/mtp/2015-40MTPDraft.pdf) schedules an additional $392 million for the conversion of Loop 20 to I-69W by 2020 (page 295/360 of pdf; p. 12-15 of document)

This July 28 video (http://www.kgns.tv/home/headlines/golf-319003231.html), primarily about the privatization of a restaurant at the Casa Blanca Golf Course (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Casa+Blanca+Golf+Course/@27.5345588,-99.4527218,921m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x8661213550fddf6d:0xbe6bb610d87cc8a!6m1!1e1), mentions that the golf course will lose about thirty acres to the I-69W/ Loop 20 project when ROW acquisition begins "[w]ithin the next four years":

Quote
Webb County Judge Tano Tijerina ....
the county is rethinking the golf course.
Within the next four years, TxDot will stepping in to take land, to expand loop 20.
"And so that's going to take about 30 acres away from the golf course", said Tijerina.

That's why they're looking into future plans. Maybe a nine-hole "executive course" and driving range.
The first step is the restaurant.

It looks like they are currently on schedule for the 2020 target date.

The final Laredo 2015-40 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (http://www.cityoflaredo.com/planning/mpo/files/mtp/2015-2040/MTP_2015-2040.pdf) has been posted, and it includes the same schedule for the project (p. 302/368 of pdf; p. 12-20 of document):

(http://i.imgur.com/JnbYe7M.jpg)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: roadman65 on August 02, 2015, 02:49:20 PM
I never realized this, but I-369 is going to intersect with I-20.   Because of this, the interstate should have an even number instead of the odd 3 to start it off with as it is not just a spur that connects with nothing.  Its not even one to connect to one other interstate either, but to two interstates.

However, you have I-376 in PA and I-495 in NY, and you have this extension of I-69 even longer than the other one that wastes a perfectly good one digit number further south along the Rio Grande.  So in essence why should this be any different? 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: english si on August 02, 2015, 04:00:36 PM
I never realized this, but I-369 is going to intersect with I-20.
And beyond to I-30 (which it already intersects) and I-49.
Quote
Because of this, the interstate should have an even number instead of the odd 3 to start it off with as it is not just a spur that connects with nothing.
Nope. You give the I-376 example below, but here's some more: IL I-155, IL I-355, MI I-196, NY I-390 (post hoc), MA-CT I-395, CA I-505.
Quote
Its not even one to connect to one other interstate either, but to two interstates.
Three other 2-dis (four in total) and possibly some 3dis.
Quote
wastes a perfectly good one digit number further south along the Rio Grande.
It's not a waste if there's not demand for use elsewhere!
Quote
So in essence why should this be any different?
Indeed. I guess I-369 could be I-47, but I-69 is a national corridor, and Texarkana is trying to be 'crossroads of America', which it wouldn't be able to push for if it had an intrastate as its third interstate, rather than a spur of a trans-national route.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: roadman65 on August 02, 2015, 04:05:00 PM
I-49 is indirect via TX 151.  Also I did not count I-69 itself due to the fact the point of origin is that.

Yes, the guidelines will not be followed to the T, but that is going to happen again and again.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: english si on August 02, 2015, 04:16:02 PM
I-49 is indirect via TX 151.
No, the plans abandon current I-369 and have I-369 end on I-49 north of Texarkana, via a western loop.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: roadman65 on August 02, 2015, 04:18:37 PM
I-49 is indirect via TX 151.
No, the plans abandon current I-369 and have I-369 end on I-49 north of Texarkana, via a western loop.
A lot of new strip malls and sprawl will have to go as when I was there in 2012, there was no ROW north of the I-369 and I-30 interchange.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on August 02, 2015, 07:17:59 PM
an Alliance for I-69 Texas discussion of the frontage roads (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update7.13.12%20us77.html):
Quote
Brief sections of access road will be built near ranch gates to allow traffic on and off the freeway lanes. Overpasses will be built at intervals of 5 to 10 miles to allow traffic to reverse direction.
The Texas Transportation Commission has posted a July 29 TxDOT Interstate Corridor Planning - Prioritization of Corridor Studies presentation (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2015/0729/2b.pdf) ... (p.5/13 of pdf) .... The anticipated congestion, combined with possible rebuilding of much of the system that is reaching the end of its expected service life (p. 8/13 of pdf), suggests that Texas will have to spend a lot of money over the next 25 years.
(bottom quote from Texas (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10567.msg2082666#msg2082666) thread)

I recently asked a question in another thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=15847.msg2083138#msg2083138) about how great of an expected increase in traffic flow would warrant improving the west Texas at-grade intersections when TxDOT begins rebuilding some of those sections of the interstates that are approaching the end of their respective expected life spans.  Similarly, TxDOT has to consider the expected increased traffic flows through the section of US 77/ Future I-69E containing the at-grade intersections in Kenedy County. The below snips appears to show that I-69E in Kenedy County is expected to have an increase to regular constrained flow by 2040 from the 2013 periodic constrained flow experienced by US 77 (an I-69E shield blocks the view in part of Kenedy County):

(http://i.imgur.com/cCRTgeU.jpg)2013:(http://i.imgur.com/CwY5llF.jpg)2040:(http://i.imgur.com/MBa0wX2.jpg)

Assuming the expectation is for regular constrained flow by 2040, would TxDOT find it absolutely necessary (or FHWA mandate that it is absolutely necessary) to build the short frontage roads at the at-grade intersections (as well as the associated overpasses)?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: yakra on August 03, 2015, 01:30:30 AM
(as well as the associated overpasses)?
Left exit. Left entrance. Michigan Lefts on a grand (Interstate) scale. BOOM. Done.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on August 03, 2015, 02:55:05 PM
an Alliance for I-69 Texas discussion of the frontage roads (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update7.13.12%20us77.html):
Quote
Brief sections of access road will be built near ranch gates to allow traffic on and off the freeway lanes. Overpasses will be built at intervals of 5 to 10 miles to allow traffic to reverse direction.
The Texas Transportation Commission has posted a July 29 TxDOT Interstate Corridor Planning - Prioritization of Corridor Studies presentation (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2015/0729/2b.pdf) ... (p.5/13 of pdf) .... The anticipated congestion, combined with possible rebuilding of much of the system that is reaching the end of its expected service life (p. 8/13 of pdf), suggests that Texas will have to spend a lot of money over the next 25 years.
(bottom quote from Texas (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=10567.msg2082666#msg2082666) thread)

I recently asked a question in another thread (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=15847.msg2083138#msg2083138) about how great of an expected increase in traffic flow would warrant improving the west Texas at-grade intersections when TxDOT begins rebuilding some of those sections of the interstates that are approaching the end of their respective expected life spans.  Similarly, TxDOT has to consider the expected increased traffic flows through the section of US 77/ Future I-69E containing the at-grade intersections in Kenedy County. The below snips appears to show that I-69E in Kenedy County is expected to have an increase to regular constrained flow by 2040 from the 2013 periodic constrained flow experienced by US 77 (an I-69E shield blocks the view in part of Kenedy County):

(http://i.imgur.com/cCRTgeU.jpg)2013:(http://i.imgur.com/CwY5llF.jpg)2040:(http://i.imgur.com/MBa0wX2.jpg)

Assuming the expectation is for regular constrained flow by 2040, would TxDOT find it absolutely necessary (or FHWA mandate that it is absolutely necessary) to build the short frontage roads at the at-grade intersections (as well as the associated overpasses)?

Well...technically they wouldn't be at-grades....more like RIRO's because of the way the "frontage roads" would serve as mini-access roads for these ranch roads. The intermediate overpasses would replace the "at grades".

A better question would be if traffic does increase along mainline US 77, would we begin to see full-length frontage roads to take the pressure off the mainlines?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on August 03, 2015, 03:25:53 PM
Here's a map of Laredo's pie-in-the-sky thinking (http://www.ci.laredo.tx.us/Maps/GIS_MAPS/maps/Thoroughfare.pdf), for what it's worth. If this plan was adopted, I-69W could follow the proposed expressway east and either keep going east until it intersects with US 59, or dog-leg along the outer loop a few miles.
(above quote from US 59B and I-69W in Laredo (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=15527.msg2064060#msg2064060) thread)
Also, if I-69W is to be along Loop 20 in Laredo, will it dog leg or will TexDOT get it to cut straight east from Loop 20's Northeastern turn as the shortest distance between two points is a straight line?
... who knows? TxDOT hasn't done any environmental study for Laredo-to-Freer that I'm aware of.
That said an in-place upgrade of US 59 east of Loop 20 would be a pain (moreso than upgrading Loop 20 itself), so some sort of tangent routing makes sense. Laredo's long-range planning documents show an "expressway" running east from Loop 20 at International Blvd to the proposed Laredo Outer Loop, but that's all pie-in-the-sky thinking ...
The final Laredo 2015-40 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (http://www.cityoflaredo.com/planning/mpo/files/mtp/2015-2040/MTP_2015-2040.pdf) has been posted

I recently looked at the 2015-40 Metropolitan Transportation Plan on the outside chance that it would include a tangent routing from Loop 20 to US 59. I could not find evidence of one. However, a map of their "illustrative projects" (unfunded wish list) does show the Outer Loop and an Outer Loop "spur" from the northeastern corner of Loop 20 to the Outer Loop. Elsewhere in the document, the Outer Loop is described as a four-lane arterial and the "spur" is described as a two-lane road.  Here is a snip of the "illustrative projects" map (p. 321/368 of pdf; p. 12-39 of document):

(http://i.imgur.com/KWOHCqn.png)

I do think that many drivers would choose a Loop 20-"spur"-Outer Loop- US 59 routing over a Loop 20-US 59 routing.  Maybe we will find out in about twenty years.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on August 09, 2015, 05:10:00 PM
In this January 23, 2015 press release (http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/media-center/local-news/lufkin/004-2015.html), TxDOT announces that it is moving forward with Phase 2 of the US 59/ Loop 224S interchange (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Nacogdoches,+TX/@31.5753402,-94.6720876,3541m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x8637895fa4158787:0x88db1616dcfba3ee) (Phase 1 began on January 5, 2015)

TxDOT will hold a Sept. 3 Open House about plans for Phase II (http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/lufkin/090315.html) in the Nacogdoches area:

Quote
Since Phase I is under construction, this meeting will focus on Phase II improvements which include:
Constructing new US 59 northbound and southbound main lanes that would directly connect to State Loop 224 just south of SH 7
Constructing overpasses at Spradley Street, existing US 59 and Old Lufkin Road
Constructing frontage roads for State Loop 224 between SH 7 and BU 59

Here is a snip of the Project Location Map (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/lfk/notices/090315-project-map.pdf):

(http://i.imgur.com/iMROXJs.jpg)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MaxConcrete on August 09, 2015, 08:10:43 PM
TxDOT is soliciting professional services for the PS&E (plan, specifications and estimates) for I-69 for a 4-mile section south of Cleveland (which is about 40 miles north of Houston). This is a non-freeway gap between the end of the freeway at Fostoria road and the Cleveland bypass. Plans show six main lanes and a new southbound frontage road. It looks like most of the existing northbound lanes become the northbound frontage road.

Listing (see August 11  item) http://www.txdot.gov/business/consultants/architectural-engineering-surveying/advertised-contracts.html (http://www.txdot.gov/business/consultants/architectural-engineering-surveying/advertised-contracts.html)

Links to schematics http://www.txdot.gov/business/consultants/architectural-engineering-surveying/advertised-contracts/0000000953.html (http://www.txdot.gov/business/consultants/architectural-engineering-surveying/advertised-contracts/0000000953.html)

When TxDOT initiates work on the PS&E, it usually means that construction is anticipated in the near term, i.e. within a few years.

 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 11, 2015, 07:15:51 PM
Anyone think we'll see a completed Interstate 69 between Brownsville/Pharr/Laredo, Texas and Port Huron, Michigan by, say, 2050?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: iBallasticwolf2 on August 11, 2015, 07:33:21 PM
Anyone think we'll see a completed Interstate 69 between Brownsville/Pharr/Laredo, Texas and Port Huron, Michigan by, say, 2050?
If Arkansas and Tennessee get to work on it then maybe.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: noelbotevera on August 11, 2015, 09:43:20 PM
Anyone think we'll see a completed Interstate 69 between Brownsville/Pharr/Laredo, Texas and Port Huron, Michigan by, say, 2050?
Indiana is almost done with their section (fully completed sometime in 2016), although I-69's Ohio River bridge is seeking for contractors (my prediction is planned completion by 2017 or 2018).

Kentucky, I'm unsure about.

Tennessee, I-269 has a planned completion date of 2017, and plus, I-69 already has 21 miles done. So, I'm thinking sometime around 2017 or 2018.

Mississippi's portion is far from completion, but it mostly overlaps routes - US 61 has to be upgraded to be a part of I-69 between Southaven and Rosedale. I-69 finds US 278, overlaps it, and uses the Dean Bridge into Arkansas. The Dean Bridge and US 61 have to be upgraded so maybe 2018 or 2019.

Arkansas is broke and is mostly focusing on I-49, so sometime around 2023 or 2024. Arkansas' portion of I-69 consists of 185 miles, and the Monticello Bypass is the only part of I-69 under construction, hence why the date.

Louisiana's portion means breaking away from US 79 and US 84 northeast of Carthage, heading towards Shreveport. However, I-69 dodges Sherveport and goes around it to the east. As of 2006 (news article dated February 2006 is the source - forgot the name), Louisiana is planning to build it, but is focusing more on I-49. So, 2022 or 2023.

AFAIK, TXDOT says 285 miles out of 650 miles of I-69 are done. With the construction around Houston and Laredo, I-69 could be done sometime around 2016 or 2017.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: lordsutch on August 11, 2015, 10:40:08 PM
Kentucky, I'm unsure about.

The bridge at Henderson is the big hold-up. No definitive timeline on when it happens, but it's a lesser priority than the new bridges at Louisville and Cincinnati.

Quote
Tennessee, I-269 has a planned completion date of 2017, and plus, I-69 already has 21 miles done. So, I'm thinking sometime around 2017 or 2018.

Way off. There's not even a final environmental document yet for the Millington to Dyersburg section. TDOT may get some more of the Union City/Troy bypass section done by 2018 but even that is pushing it. Realistically I see Union City/Troy (SIU 7) being done circa 2025, with south of Dyersburg to Memphis being 2035 or so.

Quote
Mississippi's portion is far from completion, but it mostly overlaps routes - US 61 has to be upgraded to be a part of I-69 between Southaven and Rosedale. I-69 finds US 278, overlaps it, and uses the Dean Bridge into Arkansas. The Dean Bridge and US 61 have to be upgraded so maybe 2018 or 2019.

There is no Dean Bridge yet. I'd say mid-2030s at best between Shreveport and Tunica County.

Quote
Arkansas is broke and is mostly focusing on I-49, so sometime around 2023 or 2024. Arkansas' portion of I-69 consists of 185 miles, and the Monticello Bypass is the only part of I-69 under construction, hence why the date.

Louisiana's portion means breaking away from US 79 and US 84 northeast of Carthage, heading towards Shreveport. However, I-69 dodges Sherveport and goes around it to the east. As of 2006 (news article dated February 2006 is the source - forgot the name), Louisiana is planning to build it, but is focusing more on I-49. So, 2022 or 2023.

AFAIK, TXDOT says 285 miles out of 650 miles of I-69 are done. With the construction around Houston and Laredo, I-69 could be done sometime around 2016 or 2017.

All of this is wildly optimistic. There might be a continuous freeway from Brownsville to Lufkin in the mid-2020s. Between Lufkin and Shreveport I think the mid-2030s is more realistic.

Now, if pork barrel spending comes back into vogue, the feds and states finally fix their revenue streams for highways, or we decide to throw a bunch of money into yet more stimulus grants, the timeline might improve. But other than that, it seems unlikely.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: thefro on August 12, 2015, 01:44:21 PM
Here's what I can remember for the non-Texas stuff:
Indiana: All new terrain I-69 will be open later this year between Evansville/Bloomington.  1st half of SR 37 upgrade to I-69 scheduled to open in 2016.  Final section is in tier 2 studies to lock in route (which should be done in 2017-2018).  Would guess 2-3 years to build after that.  Evansville is pushing for the I-69 bridge to Kentucky and the new route they suggested may be viable with tolls paying for it.  I believe there's a toll study happening.  I'd guess they get the bridge done by 2025, although that could move quickly if most of the cost can be covered by tolling.
Kentucky:  Western Kentucky Parkway is already signed I-69, Pennyrile is going to be signed I-69 later this year and I've read an article that the Purchase will be as well.  That's the whole route except for the bridge/new terrain approach in Henderson.  Kentucky Legislature will need to pass a bill allowing the Evansville/Henderson bridge to be a P3 project but that may happen next year.
Tennessee: They have plans to finish upgrading US 51 from KY State Line to Dyersburg to I-69 over the next several years, but lack of a long-term Federal Highway funding bill is slowing that.  Section from Dyersburg to Memphis is on the back burner (SIU 8).  I-269 should be done fairly soon.
Mississippi: They have the environmental studies done, but just need federal money.
Arkansas:  Not anytime soon, only Monticello Bypass is being worked on (2 lanes).
Louisiana: Believe the Red River bridge, etc should hopefully happen in the medium term.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: US 41 on August 12, 2015, 06:17:47 PM
Is the I-69W really needed? I found a hill on US 59 on GSV, and there is not one car anywhere to be seen on US 59 / Future I-69W.

https://goo.gl/maps/xWdPU
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Chris on August 13, 2015, 09:39:09 AM
These are the traffic volumes on the current road to Laredo. They are pretty low.

(http://i.imgur.com/woj6X13.png)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MikeTheActuary on August 13, 2015, 10:10:54 AM
Isn't 69W one of those "build it and they will come" arrangements, perhaps with some hand-waving to argue that it's needed to help shift future long-haul traffic growth away from 35, once the many tentacles of 69 connect up to decent routes elsewhere?

I think  you could probably find examples elsewhere in the Interstate system of portions of highways that don't seem to make sense in light of traffic counts on pre-existing roads, but that turned out to (arguably) be logical components of the overall system.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: erik_ram2005 on August 19, 2015, 06:07:52 PM
Hello there guys this is just an update on how I69 is nicely coming together in the lower Rio Grande Valley

It seems that the only thing missing on I-69C and I-2 are exit numbering. Mile markers are up, roadside shields are up, and the BGS are up all through I-69E as well.

BGS near I-2/I69-C interchange
(http://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo18/erik_ram2005/84a9defb-bb36-4935-b73a-0ac6ddf05f28_zpsy3ivknig.jpg)

Mile 1 Marker on I-69C just north of I-2 interchange. (Sorry it's a little fuzzy/blurry.)
(http://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo18/erik_ram2005/IMG_11052_zpszzweal3w.jpg)

rainy day day on I-69E in Harlingen
(http://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo18/erik_ram2005/IMG_12181_zps5lawrlxj.jpg)

(http://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo18/erik_ram2005/IMG_12191_zpssgafxtgm.jpg)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: rte66man on August 19, 2015, 10:46:38 PM
Hello there guys this is just an update on how I69 is nicely coming together in the lower Rio Grande Valley

It seems that the only thing missing on I-69C and I-2 are exit numbering. Mile markers are up, roadside shields are up, and the BGS are up all through I-69E as well.

BGS near I-2/I69-C interchange
(http://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo18/erik_ram2005/84a9defb-bb36-4935-b73a-0ac6ddf05f28_zpsy3ivknig.jpg)


I've never seen a BGS cantilevered like that.  Can't see why they chose to do it w/o a 3rd post.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: txstateends on August 20, 2015, 07:56:45 AM
Hello there guys this is just an update on how I69 is nicely coming together in the lower Rio Grande Valley

It seems that the only thing missing on I-69C and I-2 are exit numbering. Mile markers are up, roadside shields are up, and the BGS are up all through I-69E as well.

BGS near I-2/I-69C interchange
(http://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo18/erik_ram2005/84a9defb-bb36-4935-b73a-0ac6ddf05f28_zpsy3ivknig.jpg)


I've never seen a BGS cantilevered like that.  Can't see why they chose to do it w/o a 3rd post.

I think I see a spot on the ground about where a third post would go.  Either way, I've never seen TxDOT deliberately have signs put up where there aren't adequate numbers of posts, nor adequate spacing of those posts, for each sign.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: lordsutch on August 20, 2015, 11:38:23 AM
I think I see a spot on the ground about where a third post would go.  Either way, I've never seen TxDOT deliberately have signs put up where there aren't adequate numbers of posts, nor adequate spacing of those posts, for each sign.

An errant motorist on the frontage road may have taken out the post without taking down the sign (or before the sign went up).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on August 21, 2015, 04:33:58 PM
Don't forget Houston. I-69 will turn it from a cow town into an oil town.
(above quote from Texarkana; (Future I-49, I-69 Spur) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3321.msg163916#msg163916) thread)
The 11.9 mile section of US 59 inside of Loop 610 in Houston has been added to the Interstate Highway System as Interstate 69. All of the route through Harris County is now part of I-69 and a continuous section of 75 miles of I-69 is now in place through Montgomery County, Harris County and extending to a point at the south edge of Rosenberg in Fort bend County. The Texas Transportation Commission voted March 26 to complete the designation process for the section through central Houston.
Source:
http://www.i69texasalliance.com/ (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/)
This Thursday, August 20th, will be the sign unveiling for Interstate 69 inside the 610s.
(above quote from Houston Interstate 69 signing ceremony (inside the I-610s) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16258.msg2087355#msg2087355) thread)

This August 20 article (http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/spring/news/newest-segment-of-i--in-houston-area-unveiled/article_ee77d578-47a9-11e5-89cb-1b879f323f28.html) reports that the I-69 unveiling ceremony did take place on August 20:

Quote
A segment of US 59 in the Houston area was officially designated a part of the I-69 system during a sign unveiling held today. The move brings the entire corridor inside the Houston area under the interstate designation ....
“A total of 63 miles of US 59 in the greater Houston area is now Interstate 69 and today we are marking the milestone of approximately 12 more miles inside Loop 610 being added to the system,”  said Texas Transportation Commissioner Jeff Austin. “We thank our transportation partners, including the Alliance for I-69 Texas, for their efforts to get us to this point.”  ....
The Texas portion of I-69 represents nearly half of the overall length of the national Interstate as it extends from northeast and east Texas through Houston to the Texas-Mexico border. The inclusion of the I-69 segment inside IH 610 brings the total of I-69 system miles in Texas to nearly 200.

Here is a snip of a photo accompanying the article showing one of the I-69 shields being put in place:

(http://i.imgur.com/5gMINTU.jpg)

It only took about five months to start putting the shields up. Nevertheless, I guess Houston can now shed the cow town label.  :)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on August 22, 2015, 05:45:07 PM
An August 23 Houston Chronicle editorial (http://www.chron.com/opinion/editorials/article/Editorial-How-might-I-69-coexist-with-the-Grand-3811256.php) advocates that the Grand Parkway should be finished in a manner that meshes well with the purposes of I-69:
Quote
To quote an aphorism, measure twice, cut once. And by cut, we mean construct a massive highway along the outer edges of greater Houston.
As U.S. 59 becomes part of Interstate 69 .... a grass-roots committee appointed by the Texas Transportation Commission has mentioned a bypass on the city's east side.
This bypass would divert I-69 traffic away from Houston's city center while also improving necessary transportation access to our booming port areas.
But it seems like we've already got something along those lines underway with the Grand Parkway. While there's still a lot of construction remaining on the planned 180-mile third loop around Houston, some parkway segments have been completed, including one in Baytown.
Because plans are not yet set in pavement, we still have some flexibility to construct the Grand Parkway in a manner that can best serve some of the needs of I-69, particularly the influx of long-haul trucking and port commerce that is a near-inevitable part of Houston's future.
And even if we cannot build the parkway as close to the ports as would be optimal, additional investment in service roads could help this third loop both bypass and provide port access.
As regards relief options in Houston, in both the I-69 Segment Two Committee Report and Recommendations (pages 37-38/157; pages 31-32 of document) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg2_final.pdf) and the I-69 Segment Three Committee Report and Recommendations (page 36/157; page 30 of document) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg3_final.pdf), the Segment Two and Segment Three Committees ... did not tip their hand as far as recommending a specific relief route
... 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):
(http://i.imgur.com/1ScQV.png)
This article (http://www.chron.com/neighborhood/bayarea/news/article/Growth-presents-transportation-challenges-for-the-5439353.php) reports that a Harris County judge believes that the bypass needs to go south and east in order to best serve the port:
Quote
Harris County Judge Ed Emmett addressed the importance of Interstate 69.
"It's pretty much agreed now that we need to have a bypass around the Houston area," he said. "It needs to go south and east instead of west, so it can support the port."
This August 19 article (http://www.chron.com/neighborhood/spring/news/article/Grand-Parkway-segments-on-track-for-fall-6452917.php) includes photographs of the I-45/ Grand Parkway interchange construction and reports that Segments F1, F2, and G should be open to traffic in the fourth quarter of 2015, possibly as soon as October:
Quote
... the three segments are on track to be completed by the fourth quarter of 2015 ....
The Grand Parkway was a significant driver in luring Exxon Mobil to relocate their headquarters from Fairfax, Va., and move 20,000 employees and their families to a new headquarters off Interstate 45 and the Grand Parkway.
The new headquarters opened in March ....
(bottom quote from Houston: Builder selected for Grand Parkway F-G (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7768.msg2088218#msg2088218) thread)

Although Judge Emmett stated that the I-x69 bypass needs to go south and east instead of west, the western I-69-to-I-69 part of the Grand Parkway should be open to traffic by the end of this year. I wonder if ExxonMobil, having recently moved its corporate headquarters and associated 20,000 employees to the Houston metro, has "suggested" to TxDOT and political leaders that it might be nice to have red-white-and-blue I-x69 shields on the western I-69-to-I-69 part of the Grand Parkway. Doing so would involve minimal cost and would still allow the same I-x69 designation on the south and east I-69-to-I-69 part of the Grand Parkway to serve the ports if and when it is completed (as well as allow an I-x69 spur designation for the route from the Grand Parkway to Cleveland suggested by the above map).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on August 22, 2015, 07:31:36 PM

(bottom quote from Houston: Builder selected for Grand Parkway F-G (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7768.msg2088218#msg2088218) thread)

Although Judge Emmett stated that the I-x69 bypass needs to go south and east instead of west, the western I-69-to-I-69 part of the Grand Parkway should be open to traffic by the end of this year. I wonder if ExxonMobil, having recently moved its corporate headquarters and associated 20,000 employees to the Houston metro, has "suggested" to TxDOT and political leaders that it might be nice to have red-white-and-blue I-x69 shields on the western I-69-to-I-69 part of the Grand Parkway. Doing so would involve minimal cost and would still allow the same I-x69 designation on the south and east I-69-to-I-69 part of the Grand Parkway to serve the ports if and when it is completed (as well as allow an I-x69 spur designation for the route from the Grand Parkway to Cleveland suggested by the above map).

Hmmmmm....an I-469/TX 99 concurrence?? With TX99 moved to the feeders and I-469 as the mainline?

If that could happen, could you also make the Sam Houston Tollway I-445/BW8?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on August 23, 2015, 12:52:02 PM
Does anyone know whether they are planning to keep at-grade intersections for ranch access on I-69E in rural south Texas, as was done on I-10 in west Texas?  I could not find any earlier discussion on this, so I apologize if I missed it.
It may not be too late for them to keep the at-grades in Kenedy County. This article (http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/cleveland/news/i--supporters-urge-passage-of-federal-highway-bill/article_7ae8c02f-fe9c-5bd5-9fbb-1f7bf321994d.html) reports on a recent trip to Washington by Texas representatives urging federal officials to continue and accelerate the ongoing development of Interstate 69.  Included in their wish list is "greater flexibility in interstate designations in rural area":
Quote
Priorities for Texas include providing greater flexibility in interstate designations in rural area and the designation of State Highway 44 from Freer to Corpus Christi as a future I-69 system connector.

This Alliance for I-69 Texas article (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update%208.22.15.html), primarily about the recent I-69 unveiling in Houston, provides a little more detail about "greater flexibility" by quoting Congressman Blake Farenthold as saying that the Texas delegation is currently working on "dealing with access to I-69 from seldom used ranch gates in South Texas":

Quote
Congressman Blake Farenthold, a member of the U.S. House Transportation Committee ....
pointed to three measures related to I-69 that he and others have been working to see are addressed at the federal level.  These include
adding State Highway 44 west of Corpus Christi to the I-69 corridor, dealing with access to I-69 from seldom used ranch gates in South Texas and dealing with maintaining certain existing weight limits.



Hopefully our congress and house members will pass a long term federal highway bill this fall or it will be a slow go on I 49 for both states.
:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D
Remember: the opposite of PROgress is CONgress.
(above quote from I-49 in Arkansas (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3324.msg2088385#msg2088385) thread)

Farenthold also presents some bad news for those hoping that we will see a long-term reauthorization in the near future:

Quote
Congressman Farenthold provided an update on the pending federal transportation authorization bill and funding for the Highway Trust Fund.  He noted that members of the House Transportation Committee are generally in agreement on what should be in the bill but that the problem is finding the $120 to $180 billion needed to pay for the shortfall in the amount generated from motor fuels taxes.  He expects a couple of more short term extensions of highway funding before a proposed six-year bill is passed.
He noted that Ways and Means Committee Chairman Paul Ryan has said the Congress will find the funding for highways as part of a major tax reform effort.  "That means it is going to be a longer wait than a lot of us want," said Farenthold who represents a district stretching from Corpus Christi to Bay City and west to Bastrop.

Looks like cjk374 has sized it up pretty well.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Henry on August 25, 2015, 12:55:29 PM

(bottom quote from Houston: Builder selected for Grand Parkway F-G (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7768.msg2088218#msg2088218) thread)

Although Judge Emmett stated that the I-x69 bypass needs to go south and east instead of west, the western I-69-to-I-69 part of the Grand Parkway should be open to traffic by the end of this year. I wonder if ExxonMobil, having recently moved its corporate headquarters and associated 20,000 employees to the Houston metro, has "suggested" to TxDOT and political leaders that it might be nice to have red-white-and-blue I-x69 shields on the western I-69-to-I-69 part of the Grand Parkway. Doing so would involve minimal cost and would still allow the same I-x69 designation on the south and east I-69-to-I-69 part of the Grand Parkway to serve the ports if and when it is completed (as well as allow an I-x69 spur designation for the route from the Grand Parkway to Cleveland suggested by the above map).

Hmmmmm....an I-469/TX 99 concurrence?? With TX99 moved to the feeders and I-469 as the mainline?

If that could happen, could you also make the Sam Houston Tollway I-445/BW8?
Anything goes...but I could see an I-869 there!
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on August 25, 2015, 01:51:32 PM
What about Interstate 669?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on August 25, 2015, 01:51:57 PM
I think that all the focus should be on upgrading the rural part of US 59 and US 77 from Rosenberg to Corpus Christi.  All of the highway is a four lane divided highway, and almost all the small towns along the route (El Campo, Edna, Victoria, ect.) have freeway bypass routes on them.  I think that the rural divided highway can be easily upgraded so that Interstate 69 from Houston to Corpus Christi will mean more than just one of Houston’s urban freeways.  That in combination with the work going on from Interstate 37 to the valley will help move the project along.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on September 04, 2015, 11:18:32 AM
TxDOT will hold a Sept. 3 Open House about plans for Phase II (http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/lufkin/090315.html) in the Nacogdoches area

This TV video (http://www.ktre.com/story/29957397/txdot-invites-nacogdoches-to-discuss-future-i-69-project-updates) reports about the Open House that was primarily about the currently unfunded Phase II:

Quote
Nacogdoches residents and businesses gathered at the County Expo Center to catch up with big changes going on in their community.  The US 59/State Loop 224 South Interchange, part of the Interstate 69 project is well underway ....
"We are wanting to bring to the public the changes that we have made since the original schematic that we had approved since 2011," said Jennifer Adams, the I-69 Project Manager ....
Once Phase I is complete, the US 59 and Loop 224 intersection will have sidewalks, raised medians, and a widened roadway.
....
Phase II of the project, which would involve construction of new US 59 lanes, overpasses at Spradley Street, and frontage roads on State Loop 224, would ease the bumper to bumper according to TxDOT.   
"Phase II, which is what we are actually here to talk about, will be the direct connector. That should alleviate some of the congestion at business 59," Adams said.
Phase two has not yet been funded, but it is still in the works
....
"We are working on getting the reevaluation approved and the new updates to the schematic approved," Adams said.
Until then, completion of phase one is approaching.
The Phase I section of the "Future  I-69" Project should be done by Spring 2017.

Here is a 3D Animation of the project (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmjvI98hTLI&feature=youtu.be) that was shown at the Open House.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: yakra on September 07, 2015, 12:07:30 PM
Has anyone here been down to Laredo and seen shields for the US59 relocation and US59 business route?

Also, can anyone confirm signage for:
I-69C extension to FM490?
I-69E (Robstown) extension to FM892?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Guysdrive780 on September 07, 2015, 07:44:55 PM

TxDOT has shared this video looking like the bypass for Nacogdoches. This is only a segment of that route but its from the south side of the city. Looking at it you might ask the question. "Why did TXDOT bring it to the right and then back to the left?" Well the map can answer the question. If they did go to the right then they would hit some more homes. People would be forced out of there house. To the Right, according to the video and comparing it to the map, the road would hit a home selling business then the swing back to the left would hit some hotels.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on September 08, 2015, 02:26:52 PM

TxDOT has shared this video looking like the bypass for Nacogdoches. This is only a segment of that route but its from the south side of the city. Looking at it you might ask the question. "Why did TXDOT bring it to the right and then back to the left?" Well the map can answer the question. If they did go to the right then they would hit some more homes. People would be forced out of there house. To the Right, according to the video and comparing it to the map, the road would hit a home selling business then the swing back to the left would hit some hotels.

That's quite innovative how they curve the through lanes like that....much better than mere direct connectors at the 59/224 interchange, and cleaner, too.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: oscar on September 08, 2015, 10:55:56 PM
Also, can anyone confirm signage for:
I-69C extension to FM490?
I-69E (Robstown) extension to FM892?

I haven't been there lately, but when I was, signage on both routes was really sparse, to the point that I had no visual confirmation that I was on southbound I-69C until near the I-2 interchange. So even if there is no signage on the extensions, that doesn't mean the extensions aren't official. Besides, assuming you're doing this for CHM and/or Travel Mapping, even an entirely unsigned Interstate route still counts.

I suggest just going with Texas Transportation Commission orders (if any), following up on AASHTO and FHWA approvals to officially add mileage to I-69C and I-69E.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: yakra on September 09, 2015, 01:42:05 PM
Fair enough. Both extensions are listed in the designation files. I'll extend the routes in my next TX pull request.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on October 06, 2015, 04:42:36 PM
The Alliance for I-69 Texas website (http://i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update5.31.12.html) ....
Local politicos are also pushing for engineering and right-of-way funding for the Driscoll and Riviera relief routes:
Quote
The environmental assessment for the overall US 77 Upgrade calls for new relief routes at Driscoll and Riviera. The Driscoll route would connect on the north with the $35 million project planned to go to bid in 2013 and on the south with the 10-mile design-build project.
Cameron County Commissioner David Garza urged the transportation commissioners to allocate an additional $15 million for engineering and right of way for the two relief routes in order to get them ready for future construction.  He pledged that Cameron County and the Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority will assist TxDOT with planning and design necessary to move these two projects forward.
The Alliance for I-69 Texas has posted an update on current I-69E projects (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update%208.10.14.nueces.html) .... The update also includes a discussion about the future Driscoll relief route project that will be the last upgrade between I-37 and south of Kingsville:
Quote
DRISCOLL RELIEF ROUTE - A relief route around the town of Driscoll will be built in the future.  It will close a gap in highway upgrades of about six miles and will create a connected freeway from Interstate 37 at Corpus Christi south through Kingsville. The relief route will run through open farm fields and cross Petronila Creek on the east side of Driscoll.

This article (http://www.valleymorningstar.com/news/local_news/article_64d2fb20-6bd2-11e5-ad75-3f761da2bd3d.html) provides updates on the Driscoll and Riviera bypasses, reporting that ROW acquisition should begin for the Driscoll bypass in December and that it is still uncertain when ROW acquisition will begin for the Riviera bypass:

Quote
December will mark four years since the first I-69 signs went up on U.S. 77.
That was on a 6.2-mile stretch of the highway between the I-37 terminus at Corpus Christi and State Highway 44 at Robstown.
It was an initial step toward the larger goal of converting U.S. 77 to interstate all the way from Brownsville to I-37. The journey isn’t over by a long shot, and no one is sure how long it will take, though officials insist that the $600 million to $800 million project is moving forward ....
The segments of U.S. 77 that still aren’t interstate grade are at Driscoll in Nueces County and Riviera in Kleberg County, where low speed limits and traffic lights are an issue. The conversion project includes bypasses at both communities that will allow motorists – eventually – to whiz by at interstate speed.
The project itself is at a crawl, though it is moving. Right-of-way acquisition for the Driscoll bypass is scheduled to begin in December, though it’s unknown when right-of-way acquisition for the Riviera bypass will get under way, according to Cameron County Precinct 3 Commissioner David Garza.
“They’re getting ready to start that process,”  he said. “(Cameron County) is trying to help coordinate that effort to move it forward.”
Garza, a member of the Alliance for I-69 Texas, said he and Cameron County Judge Pete Sepulveda Jr. would head to Kleberg County soon to discuss the Riviera bypass with officials there. The good news is that the interstate conversion project has received environmental clearance all the way from northern Willacy County to Corpus Christi, he said.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: The Ghostbuster on October 08, 2015, 04:35:15 PM
I reckon Texas will complete its segments of Interstate 69 before most of the other states 69 will run through will have their segments completed.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on October 08, 2015, 05:27:02 PM
I reckon Texas will complete its segments of Interstate 69 before most of the other states 69 will run through will have their segments completed.
As it should be. Large portions in Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi are useless.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Henry on October 09, 2015, 12:31:48 PM
I reckon Texas will complete its segments of Interstate 69 before most of the other states 69 will run through will have their segments completed.
As it should be. Large portions in Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi are useless.
I think it's safe to say that the Evansville-Indianapolis portion (including the Ohio River bridges) will also be completed before the other states do theirs.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on October 09, 2015, 02:26:43 PM
I wonder how much traffic will actually use the Evansville to Indianapolis leg of I-69. It's a really crooked path.

The big picture scheme of I-69 doesn't look like it would save much, if any mileage at all, for long distance traffic from Mexico headed to the Northeast US or Canada. The Texas sections look okay. But once the proposed path of I-69 gets into Arkansas it's just plain crooked clear to Indianapolis.

A long haul trucker would be better off taking I-369 up to Texarkana, taking I-30 to Little Rock and then US-67 into Missouri where he could reconnect with the Interstate system. Right now a lot of the traffic runs up I-35 into the Dallas area then picks up US-75 & US-69 to Big Cabin, OK and then I-44 to St. Louis. It's a pretty straight shot even if it's not all up to Interstate standards. Sidebar: I think the US-75 & US-69 path to Big Cabin ought to be an extension of I-45.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: noelbotevera on October 09, 2015, 03:23:33 PM
I reckon Texas will complete its segments of Interstate 69 before most of the other states 69 will run through will have their segments completed.
As it should be. Large portions in Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi are useless.
Well, Arkansas has a small portion done, the Monticello Bypass, but it's 2 lanes.

Mississippi and Louisiana are studying the corridor. But Mississippi already has their game plan and is done with I-69 near Tennessee, like in areas such as Hernando and Southaven.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: english si on October 09, 2015, 04:35:47 PM
I wonder how much traffic will actually use the Evansville to Indianapolis leg of I-69. It's a really crooked path.
It's the shortest route and the route with the highest average quality: all Evansville - Indy traffic would use it, before we look at places like Bloomington that are in between.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: lordsutch on October 09, 2015, 04:49:03 PM
It's the shortest route and the route with the highest average quality: all Evansville - Indy traffic would use it, before we look at places like Bloomington that are in between.

Indeed, most of the crookedness is to avoid the Crane Naval Surface Warfare Center (a huge military reservation); the rest ensures it serves the key population centers in-between, most notably Bloomington. Access to Bloomington in particular was/is a pet cause for people in Evansville and SW Indiana.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: yakra on October 09, 2015, 08:24:10 PM
Well, Arkansas has a small portion done, the Monticello Bypass, but it's 2 lanes.
Is this open to traffic now? If so, what's its designation?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: noelbotevera on October 09, 2015, 08:54:46 PM
Well, Arkansas has a small portion done, the Monticello Bypass, but it's 2 lanes.
Is this open to traffic now? If so, what's its designation?
Nope, still under construction. No designation yet.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on October 09, 2015, 09:00:04 PM
Texas Congressman Blake Farenthold's office announced in a January 14, 2015 press release (http://farentholdforms.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=398450) that Farenthold has reintroduced the "44-to-69" legislation for this year
If anyone cares to follow the progress of the bill, it is also known as H.R.301 – 114th Congress (2015-2016) (https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/301/text).

TxDOT must be assuming that the proposed legislation will be enacted because an August, 2015 TxDOT I-69 System Planning and Environmental Progress map (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/ResourcesPDFs/Environmental_and_other_Studies_Aug%202015.pdf) includes a study about the SH 44 route through Robstown:

 (http://i.imgur.com/C1HkHcO.jpg)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on October 12, 2015, 03:11:40 PM
AASHTO has approved the I-169 designation:
http://route.transportation.org/Documents/05%2014%202015%20Cheyenne,%20WY%20Report/SM%202015%20USRN%20SCOH%20REPORT.pdf
FHWA also approved the I-169 designation on May 14 (http://route.transportation.org/Documents/05%2014%202015%20Cheyenne%2c%20WY%20Report/FHWA%20to%20AASHTO%20Interstate%20Numbering%20May%2014%202015.pdf) ....
It looks like we might have a Texas Transportation Commission formality later this month.

This September 12 article (http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/business/article_641674ee-6139-11e5-882e-67455972f271.html) indicates that, although FHWA has approved the I-169 numerical designation , TxDOT is still seeking approval from FHWA regarding SH 550/ Future I-169 meeting interstate-grade constructions standards for its two remaining sections:

Quote
... an update from the Cameron County Regional Mobility Authority for fiscal year 2015, presented at a Sept. 10 meeting of Cameron County Commissioners Court by CCRMA Chief Financial Officer Adrian Rincones.
The project furthest along and in fact nearly complete is S.H. 550, a tollway that eventually will connect the port and S.H. 48 with I-69E via interstate-grade roadway. The first phase was finished in 2011. The “direct connector,”  the segment connecting S.H. 550 with I-69E, opened in June.
Two gaps in S.H. 550 have yet to be completed. Work on the smallest, between Old Alice Road and Paredes Line Road, is scheduled to begin in April or May, Rincones said. No date has been set for starting work on the larger gap, between Paredes Line Road and Dr. Hugh Emerson Road, he said.
“One of the things that was slowing that project down was, we wanted to make sure 550 meets interstate standards as well, because in the future it will probably turn into interstate,”  Rincones said. “We had to do some redesign on those gaps and that’s what’s been slowing us down.”

He said the gap closest to I-69E was prioritized because that stretch of S.H. 550 serves RanchoVerdeElementary School, the U.S. Border Patrol Station in Brownsville and the Southmost Regional Water Authority.

Maybe TxDOT is waiting for FHWA to approve the entirety of SH 550 as interstate-grade before it asks for an I-169 designation from the Texas Transportation Commission.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on October 24, 2015, 09:38:45 AM
This August 26, 2014 Alliance for I-69 Texas article (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update%208.26.14Laredo69W.html) reports that, in addition to the large ceremonial I-69W sign, signage is currently being installed along the newly designated I-69W section, I-35, and other roadways:
Quote
The newly designated interstate section  begins near the busy World Trade Bridge on the west side of Laredo and extends east to an interchange with Interstate 35.  New Interstate 69W signs are going up on this section and on I-35 and other roadways approaching 69W.
Laredo now has an I-69W shield on the updated Texas Official Travel Map (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/trv/maps/texas.pdf):
(http://i.imgur.com/25BB5lb.png)
In addition to an I-69W shield, the Texas Official Travel Map has both a US 59 shield on Loop 20 and a BR US 59 shield along the former US 59. Do we have any confirmed sightings in the field for I-69W shields (and concurrent US 59 shields) and/or US 59 shields on the Future I-69W part of Loop 20 and/or US 59 Biz shields (assemblies?) along the former US 59?

While recently checking to see if Google Street View has been updated in the Laredo area (Dec. 2012 is the current imagery and Google Earth has December 2012 aerial imagery) in order to locate I-69W signage, I noticed that Google Maps has removed the I-69W shield (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.491307,-99.505005,11z) from its map:

(http://i.imgur.com/fKrYUqW.jpg)

Does anyone know whether, aside from the large, ceremonial I-69W shield, TxDOT ever installed I-69W signage in Laredo?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on October 27, 2015, 04:28:10 PM
This August 26, 2014 Alliance for I-69 Texas article (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update%208.26.14Laredo69W.html):
Quote
The newly designated interstate section  begins near the busy World Trade Bridge on the west side of Laredo and extends east to an interchange with Interstate 35.  New Interstate 69W signs are going up on this section and on I-35 and other roadways approaching 69W.
While recently checking to see if Google Street View has been updated in the Laredo area (Dec. 2012 is the current imagery and Google Earth has December 2012 aerial imagery) in order to locate I-69W signage, I noticed that Google Maps has removed the I-69W shield (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.491307,-99.505005,11z) from its map:
(http://i.imgur.com/fKrYUqW.jpg)

Google Maps has returned the I-69W shield to its Laredo map (what was up with that?):

(http://i.imgur.com/kD2702T.png)

However, the Google Street View imagery in the vicinity of the I-35/ I-69W interchange is still pre-2014 vintage.  Any confirmed sightings of I-69W signage in the area will be greatly appreciated.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: yakra on October 27, 2015, 06:21:24 PM
Quote
Any confirmed sightings of I-69W signage in the area will be greatly appreciated.
as would a confirmation of the new US 59 mainline @ business route.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: US 41 on October 27, 2015, 08:11:21 PM
The I-69W shield is also shown in the Laredo inset in the 2016 Rand McNally. It's too bad that Bridge 3 is for trucks only. If cars were able to use it, it would be a great bypass around Nuevo Laredo for Monterrey traffic.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: lordsutch on October 28, 2015, 02:08:58 PM
For traffic bound to Monterrey, bridge 2 is fine - you can get straight on the Colosio bypass road after crossing, and outside of paisano season there's no waiting usually (during paisano season, you're screwed no matter which way you go).

It's coming back that's a pain (thus, using bridge 4 is recommended instead).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: TXtoNJ on November 01, 2015, 07:29:57 PM
Today I was driving on the Southwest Freeway, and noticed that they had mile markers up. These are the real deal, as well - not reference mile numbers.

The West Loop will be Exit 123 or so, and the Beltway Exit 117.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 02, 2015, 04:57:54 PM
Those exit numbers seem low considering the distances from Interstate 69's terminuses in Laredo, McAllen, and Brownsville.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: noelbotevera on November 02, 2015, 05:18:38 PM
Those exit numbers seem low considering the distances from Interstate 69's terminuses in Laredo, McAllen, and Brownsville.
That's due to the split routes. The split routes were created so that TXDOT and FHWA could agree on a border crossing for I-69. When US 59 south of Houston is interstate standard, one of those three split routes will be I-69, and the others are either eliminated or demoted to US Route or State Highway.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on November 02, 2015, 05:22:32 PM
Those exit numbers seem low considering the distances from Interstate 69's terminuses in Laredo, McAllen, and Brownsville.
That's due to the split routes. The split routes were created so that TXDOT and FHWA could agree on a border crossing for I-69. When US 59 south of Houston is interstate standard, one of those three split routes will be I-69, and the others are either eliminated or demoted to US Route or State Highway.
What the fuck?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: TXtoNJ on November 02, 2015, 05:53:41 PM
Those exit numbers seem low considering the distances from Interstate 69's terminuses in Laredo, McAllen, and Brownsville.
That's due to the split routes. The split routes were created so that TXDOT and FHWA could agree on a border crossing for I-69. When US 59 south of Houston is interstate standard, one of those three split routes will be I-69, and the others are either eliminated or demoted to US Route or State Highway.

Not exactly. The zero point will be at the current split with US 77 in Victoria. 69E, 69C and 69W will have different numbering altogether.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on November 02, 2015, 07:24:20 PM
TxDOT has issued a Notice of Public Hearing (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/hou/notices/030515-notice.pdf) for a 10.5 mile US 59 to I-69 upgrade from Spur 10 to CR 227 ....
Here is a snip of the Project Location Map (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/hou/notices/030515-project.pdf):
(http://i.imgur.com/sOxU5LO.png)
this article (http://www.chron.com/neighborhood/fortbend/news/article/Three-Fort-Bend-roads-could-receive-state-6099176.php) reports that the Spur 10 to Darst Road section of this project could begin (I assume this means actual construction) this year
This article says construction will start later this year and the plan is to complete it by 2018 (http://www.chron.com/neighborhood/fortbend/news/article/TxDOT-proposes-I-69-widening-south-of-Rosenberg-6139421.php)
Today I was driving on the Southwest Freeway, and noticed that they had mile markers up. These are the real deal, as well - not reference mile numbers.
The West Loop will be Exit 123 or so, and the Beltway Exit 117.

On October 19, TxDOT issued a Finding of No Significant Impact "FONSI" (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/hou/notices/101915-fonsi.pdf) for the CR 227 to Spur 10 project.  Maybe the project will include some more mile markers on the way down to Victoria ......
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Scott5114 on November 03, 2015, 08:04:40 AM
Those exit numbers seem low considering the distances from Interstate 69's terminuses in Laredo, McAllen, and Brownsville.
That's due to the split routes. The split routes were created so that TXDOT and FHWA could agree on a border crossing for I-69. When US 59 south of Houston is interstate standard, one of those three split routes will be I-69, and the others are either eliminated or demoted to US Route or State Highway.

This is incorrect.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on November 03, 2015, 10:03:17 AM
Those exit numbers seem low considering the distances from Interstate 69's terminuses in Laredo, McAllen, and Brownsville.
That's due to the split routes. The split routes were created so that TXDOT and FHWA could agree on a border crossing for I-69. When US 59 south of Houston is interstate standard, one of those three split routes will be I-69, and the others are either eliminated or demoted to US Route or State Highway.

Ummm....no. The Milepost Zero for I-69 will be the US 59/US 77 split near Victoria. The "branches" of I-69 will remain, but have their own milestones for mileage; probably the western/southern termini for each branch.

Though personally, I still think I-69 should run all the way to Laredo via US 59 (I-69W); I-69E should be an I-37 extension, and I-69C should remain US 281. Plus, what do you do with TX 22 44 between Fleer and Robstown if that's upgraded as part of the I-69 system?


{Updated to correct for TX 44.}
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: lordsutch on November 03, 2015, 12:31:50 PM
Plus, what do you do with TX 22 between Fleer and Robstown if that's upgraded as part of the I-69 system?

I assume TX 44 from Freer to Corpus Christi would be an x37 or x69 route.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: TXtoNJ on November 03, 2015, 12:58:21 PM
Those exit numbers seem low considering the distances from Interstate 69's terminuses in Laredo, McAllen, and Brownsville.


That's due to the split routes. The split routes were created so that TXDOT and FHWA could agree on a border crossing for I-69. When US 59 south of Houston is interstate standard, one of those three split routes will be I-69, and the others are either eliminated or demoted to US Route or State Highway.

Ummm....no. The Milepost Zero for I-69 will be the US 59/US 77 split near Victoria. The "branches" of I-69 will remain, but have their own milestones for mileage; probably the western/southern termini for each branch.

Though personally, I still think I-69 should run all the way to Laredo via US 59 (I-69W); I-69E should be an I-37 extension, and I-69C should remain US 281. Plus, what do you do with TX 22 between Fleer and Robstown if that's upgraded as part of the I-69 system?

For me, it's 69 to Brownsville via current 77, I-6 from Victoria to Laredo, and 281 as the I-37 extension. Current I-37 can become I-137.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: noelbotevera on November 03, 2015, 03:30:18 PM
Must've misremembered things.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on November 04, 2015, 12:41:29 AM
Yup, my mind slipped a bit there. Original comment has now been corrected. I did mean TX 44.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: jbnv on November 04, 2015, 08:58:49 AM
Though personally, I still think I-69 should run all the way to Laredo via US 59 (I-69W); I-69E should be an I-37 extension, and I-69C should remain US 281. Plus, what do you do with TX 44 between Fleer and Robstown if that's upgraded as part of the I-69 system?

My thoughts:
US 59 to Laredo: I-69.
US 281: I-37W or I-37.
US 77: I-37E or I-39. (Sorry, purists, the precedent of disconnected 2di's is already set.)
TX 44: I-169 337 or even I-4.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: vtk on November 04, 2015, 02:00:24 PM
I don't particularly have an objection to I-69W/C/E, but I think TxDOT chose poorly regarding how to deal with the mileages.  Unsuffixed I-69's mileage should start at the greater value of the lengths of I-69W and I-69C, rather than zero.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on November 06, 2015, 11:15:34 AM
This article (http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/cleveland/news/i--coming-soon-to-cleveland/article_100242af-8cf5-5393-b3a4-f2ed7682c336.html) reports that the next I-69 project in the greater Houston area ... will extend north from the current end of I-69 near the Montgomery County/ Liberty County county line to the recently completed 105 Loop near Cleveland (http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=30.297516~-95.106329&lvl=13&dir=0&sty=h&where1=Cleveland%2C%20TX&form=LMLTCC)
This May 1 article (http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/east_montgomery/news/txdot-considering-improvements-between-fostoria-rd-and-sh-bypass/article_4a1a77d6-b284-11e2-a4b7-0019bb2963f4.html) reports that an Open House will be held on May 14 to provide details about the project, which is planned to extend from Fostoria Road in Montgomery County, Texas, to the State Highway 105 South Cleveland Bypass (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=Fostoria+Road,+Cleveland,+TX&hl=en&ll=30.292275,-95.120316&spn=0.073963,0.153637&sll=32.678125,-83.178297&sspn=4.61356,9.832764&oq=fostoria+road&t=h&hnear=N+Fostoria+Rd,+Cleveland,+Texas+77328&z=13):
Quote
The Texas Department of Transportation — Beaumont District (TxDOT) will conduct a public meeting on Tuesday, May 14, 2013, to discuss proposed roadway improvements along 4.281 miles of the existing alignment of US 59 extending from Fostoria Road in Montgomery County, Texas, to State Highway 105 South Cleveland Bypass in Liberty County, Texas .... This section of US 59 is proposed as a portion of I-69. Preliminary study indicates that additional right-of-way would be needed. The proposed US 59 as I-69 would be converted from a four-lane divided highway to a six-lane divided, access controlled freeway, with one-way frontage roads.
TxDOT is soliciting professional services for the PS&E (plan, specifications and estimates) for I-69 for a 4-mile section south of Cleveland (which is about 40 miles north of Houston). This is a non-freeway gap between the end of the freeway at Fostoria road and the Cleveland bypass. Plans show six main lanes and a new southbound frontage road. It looks like most of the existing northbound lanes become the northbound frontage road.
Listing (see August 11  item) http://www.txdot.gov/business/consultants/architectural-engineering-surveying/advertised-contracts.html (http://www.txdot.gov/business/consultants/architectural-engineering-surveying/advertised-contracts.html)
Links to schematics http://www.txdot.gov/business/consultants/architectural-engineering-surveying/advertised-contracts/0000000953.html (http://www.txdot.gov/business/consultants/architectural-engineering-surveying/advertised-contracts/0000000953.html)
When TxDOT initiates work on the PS&E, it usually means that construction is anticipated in the near term, i.e. within a few years.

TxDOT will hold an Open House for this project (http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/beaumont/111915.html) on November 19:

Quote
.... The proposed US 59 as I-69 would be converted from a four-lane divided highway to a six-lane divided, access-controlled freeway, with one-way frontage roads.
Additional changes to the project since the last open house meeting conducted on May 13, 2013 include the following:
-Modify US 59 main lanes curve at State Loop 573
-Revise the intersection at US 59 and State Loop 573; the northbound frontage road will follow the US 59 main lanes, instead of the northbound frontage road becoming State Loop 573
-Reverse the entrance and exit ramps between SH 105 and State Loop 573
-Add a right-turn lane to the southbound frontage road at the SH 105 connector

Here is a current Google Maps aerial view of the project area (https://www.google.com/maps/place/Fostoria+Rd,+Cleveland,+TX/@30.2860566,-95.1263761,6634m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m2!3m1!1s0x86475bc2947e1805:0x6d806c7e06d8b612).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MaxConcrete on November 25, 2015, 08:22:01 PM
On December 17 a public meeting is scheduled for the Corrigan Bypass, 90 miles north of downtown Houston.
http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/lufkin/121715.html (http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/lufkin/121715.html)

The announcement says that alternative W2 has been selected and is currently being refined. I'm not familiar with the area, but I'm somewhat curious to know why locals preferred W2, since alternative E2a seems to go through vacant land with very little nearby, except for a couple properties on the north end.

http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/polk/us59-polk-map.pdf (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/polk/us59-polk-map.pdf)

http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/polk/map-layout.pdf (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/polk/map-layout.pdf)
 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: lordsutch on November 25, 2015, 09:07:52 PM
AADTs on US 287 seem higher to the west and the west route options also provide overpasses over the railroad; as far as I can tell Corrigan doesn't have any railroad overpasses or underpasses at present.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on December 01, 2015, 04:47:16 PM
This September 12 article (http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/business/article_641674ee-6139-11e5-882e-67455972f271.html) indicates that, although FHWA has approved the I-169 numerical designation , TxDOT is still seeking approval from FHWA regarding SH 550/ Future I-169 meeting interstate-grade constructions standards for its two remaining sections ....
Maybe TxDOT is waiting for FHWA to approve the entirety of SH 550 as interstate-grade before it asks for an I-169 designation from the Texas Transportation Commission.

This November 9 article (http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_0ab3e9c6-8764-11e5-a7ad-db7982b16274.html) reports that "the U.S. Department of Transportation" now considers SH 550/ I-169 from I-69E to Old Alice Road as "part of the federal interstate system", that the remaining two sections should be let in the first quarter of 2016, and that the entire 10-mile stretch of SH 550 should be signed as I-169 in approximately two years:

Quote
The approximately 1 1/2-mile stretch of State Highway 550 between Interstate 69E and Old Alice Road has been officially renamed I-169 by the U.S. Department of Transportation, which now considers the segment part of the federal interstate system.
U.S. Rep. Filemon Vela, D-Brownsville, and Cameron County Judge Peter Sepulveda Jr. announced the DOT’s decision on Nov. 5.
Leading from I-69E to S.H. 48 and the Port of Brownsville, S.H. 550 is CameronCounty’s first toll road.
Sepulveda said the toll way belongs to a high-priority corridor designated years ago by DOT as future interstate, though interstate signs can only go up on segments that meet interstate standards.
Two portions have to be completed before all 10 miles of S.H. 550 can become I-169, Sepulveda said. Those two projects likely will go out to bid in the first quarter of 2016, he said.
“Hopefully in the next two years or so, once we complete those two gaps, the entire route can be signed as 1-169,”  Sepulveda said.

I still have not seen Texas Transportation Commission approval of the I-169 designation.  Maybe at their December 17 meeting ......
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MaxConcrete on December 02, 2015, 08:40:30 PM
Bid opened for 13 miles of upgrading to interstate standards southwest of Houston, with 6 main lanes and 4 frontage road lanes (2 each way.) This section is from Spur 10 to Kendleton
http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/12023001.htm (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/12023001.htm)

Estimate    $104,726,021.26    % Over/Under    Company
Bidder 1    $100,144,090.23    -4.38%            WILLIAMS BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.
Bidder 2    $114,309,891.94    +9.15%            J.D. ABRAMS, L.P.
Bidder 3    $125,699,561.31    +20.03%    ZACHRY CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION
Bidder 4    $146,473,832.56    +39.86%    WEBBER, LLC

Along with the adjacent section from Spur 10 to the Grand Parkway (currently under construction), a 20-mile section will be under construction.
 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on December 09, 2015, 07:08:57 PM
This November 9 article (http://www.brownsvilleherald.com/news/local/article_0ab3e9c6-8764-11e5-a7ad-db7982b16274.html) reports that "the U.S. Department of Transportation" now considers SH 550/ I-169 from I-69E to Old Alice Road as "part of the federal interstate system", that the remaining two sections should be let in the first quarter of 2016, and that the entire 10-mile stretch of SH 550 should be signed as I-169 in approximately two years ....
I still have not seen Texas Transportation Commission approval of the I-169 designation.  Maybe at their December 17 meeting ......

The Texas Transportation Commission's December 17 Agenda indicates that the concurrent I-169 designation for the 1.5 mile section of SH 550 from I-69E to Old Alice Road should be approved on December 17 (p. 2/12 of pdf):

ftp://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2015/1217/agenda.pdf

Quote
Highway Designation
Cameron County
- Designate a segment of the state highway system as I-169, concurrent with State Highway 550 from existing I-69E to Old Alice Road in the city of Brownsville
(MO) (Presentation)
This minute order designates a segment of the state highway system as I-169, concurrent with SH 550 from existing I-69E to Old Alice Road in the city of Brownsville, a distance of approximately 1.5 miles. The Brownsville Metropolitan Planning Organization, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, and the Federal Highway Administration have approved the designation of this segment.

Getting closer to I-169 shields in Texas!
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on December 12, 2015, 09:21:30 AM
In May, TxDOT will hold public meetings about their plans to upgrade US 59 to I-69 in El Campo and Wharton County (https://maps.google.com/maps?q=El+Campo,+TX&hl=en&ll=29.196527,-96.269073&spn=0.974624,1.234589&sll=29.351357,-96.134491&sspn=0.24329,0.308647&oq=el+campo,+TX&t=h&hnear=El+Campo,+Wharton+County,+Texas&z=10).
El Campo (http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/yoakum/el-campo-050614.html):
Quote
TxDOT is proposing adding frontage roads along US 59 through El Campo. The proposed project would construct frontage roads and convert the existing US 59 lanes into a controlled access road that meets interstate standards.

This December 10 article (http://www.sealynews.com/news/article_df88e514-9eb3-11e5-b1f6-7bac5cc3c270.html) reports that the Texas Transportation Commission approved the El Campo frontage road contract in November:

Quote
The Texas Transportation Commission approved over $26 million in construction contracts for the Yoakum district during its November meeting.
The bulk of those funds will go to the construction of frontage roads along U.S. 59 in El Campo in Wharton County. The frontage roads are upgrades for the Interstate 69 project. This funding covers frontage roads from Business 59 south of El Campo to State Highway 71.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on December 17, 2015, 07:33:44 PM
The Texas Transportation Commission has posted a December 17, 2015 I-69 Texas System Update presentation:

ftp://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2015/1217/4b-presentation.pdf

Included in the update is the current status of the remaining 847 miles needed to complete the I-69 system in Texas (p. 7/8 of pdf):

(http://i.imgur.com/GDnYMBP.jpg)

Only 192 projects to go ...... Only $14.4 billion, too.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MaxConcrete on December 17, 2015, 08:15:48 PM
On another slide of that presentation, it mentions that "847 miles left to upgrade to I-69". (Actually, you can get that number by adding the 620 and 227 miles in Grzrd's posted slide.)

(https://1968d90e831cd27d2017897e0c81e9a12852eb10.googledrive.com/host/0B4gwdXQk1LyieHZHSTBqd0VJSnc/aaroads/20151217-i69.png)


Realistically, only the 279+128=307 miles can potentially be built within the next 10 years. So it will take a long time, maybe until the 2040s, so see all of I-69 completed.

However, much of the corridor south of Houston is already quite good (freeway or divided highway) so upgrading to interstate standards will have a minimal benefit.

North of Houston is where improvements are urgently needed, especially the Diboll bypass and other small towns like Corrigan. So if TxDOT can get I-69 built in those bottleneck spots within 5-10 years, huge benefits can be achieved in the near-term.
 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on December 19, 2015, 09:17:34 PM
The Texas Transportation Commission has posted a December 17, 2015 I-69 Texas System Update presentation:
ftp://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2015/1217/4b-presentation.pdf
.... it will take a long time, maybe until the 2040s, to see all of I-69 completed.

This Alliance for I-69 Texas article (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update%2012.17.15Hawley.html), reporting on the recent I-69 implementation strategy update to the Texas Transportation Commission, states that "the current estimate for completing the 1,088 miles in the I-69 Texas System is $14.4 billion needed over the next two decades":

Quote
An implementation strategy for continuing the development of Interstate 69 is in place and is being refined by the 10 TxDOT District offices responsible for various segments of the I-69 Texas System ....
I-69 in Texas is being developed as a series of dozens of incremental projects that will eventually be tied together in a seamless system.  The implementation strategy includes a comprehensive database that will maintain and manage pertinent information and data for each I-69 project that is identified and is being tracked.  An accompanying GIS dataset is being used to graphically display projects and their TxDOT programming status ....
The current estimate for completing the 1,088 miles in the I-69 Texas System is $14.4 billion needed over the next two decades ....

Also of note are the comments of Transportation Commissioner Jeff Moseley regarding the return on investment for I-69 corridor projects:

Quote
Transportation Commissioner Jeff Moseley said that while the cost of more than $14 billion is a large number the return on that investment is also obviously very large.  He noted that the I-69 corridor serves a $1.6 trillion gross state product.
It connects to 14 international border crossings and a robust Mexican economy that economists project will be larger than Germany's within 30 years.  He also pointed in increased freight traffic that is coming with the expansion of the Panama Canal.  I-69 connects to the eight Texas deep-draft seaports that will be handling new tonnage.
"So this is very clearly a dramatic corridor," Moseley said, explaining that improvements will help address highway congestion. "It is a people moving conveyance and it also has wonderful Homeland Security and hurricane evacuation applications."

Full speed ahead ..................
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on December 20, 2015, 10:53:02 PM
Documents now up http://route.transportation.org/Pages/CommitteeNoticesActionsandApprovals.aspx
Approved if not otherwise stated, details via the document ....
TX I-69C extension (Edinburg) - conditionally approved FHWA approval needed
TX I-69E extension (Robstown) - conditionally approved FHWA approval needed
(quote from AASHTO Numbering Committee Spring '14 Meeting (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=12521.msg302814#msg302814) thread)

This Alliance for I-69 Texas article (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update%2011.30.15%20New%20sections.html) reports that FHWA recently gave final approval to the above I-69E and I-69C segments:

Quote
The Federal Highway Administration has given final approval to adding 6.1 more miles to the Interstate 69 System in South Texas.
This includes a 4.5 mile extension of Interstate 69 Central (I-69C) north to a point just past the Edinburg Airport in Hidalgo County and a 1.6 miles extension of Interstate 69 East (I-69E) on the south side of Robstown in Nueces County.  Construction on each of the sections was completed in recent months.

Here is a snip of a map accompanying the article:

(http://i.imgur.com/EMPAN8I.jpg)



The Texas Transportation Commission's December 17 Agenda indicates that the concurrent I-169 designation for the 1.5 mile section of SH 550 from I-69E to Old Alice Road should be approved on December 17 (p. 2/12 of pdf):
ftp://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2015/1217/agenda.pdf

This Alliance for I-69 Texas article (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update12.17.15%20i169.html) reports that the Texas Transportation Commission did indeed approve the above I-169 designation:

Quote
The Texas Transportation Commission has completed the process of designating 1.5 miles of State Highway 550 in Brownsville as Interstate 169 -- the latest addition to the I-69 Texas System ....
The first 1.5 miles of SH 550 east of I-69E have been added to the national Interstate Highway System.  The remaining 8.5 miles includes two sections which must be constructed to interstate highway standards before the entire roadway can be designated as Interstate 169 ....
I-169/SH 550 is a limited access toll facility.  It provides an easier, faster and safer route to points such as Port Isabel and South Padre Island and is helping alleviate traffic congestion in other areas of Cameron County.

Here is a snip of a map accompanying the article:

(http://i.imgur.com/ROIaM1S.jpg)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: US 41 on December 22, 2015, 03:14:03 PM
Is it just me or should I-169 in Brownsville be renamed I-2?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: jbnv on December 22, 2015, 03:15:47 PM
Is it just me or should I-169 in Brownsville be renamed I-2?
It's just you.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on December 22, 2015, 04:51:05 PM
Is it just me or should I-169 in Brownsville be renamed I-2?
It's just you.

Although, you could make a case that 69E from the I-2 interchange in Harlingen SE'wrd could be made an I-2 extension, and the mainlines of SH 550 become an I-x02 spur.

*ducks for cover*
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on December 22, 2015, 05:07:18 PM
Texas Congressman Blake Farenthold's office announced in a January 14, 2015 press release (http://farentholdforms.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=398450) that Farenthold has reintroduced the "44-to-69" legislation for this year
If anyone cares to follow the progress of the bill, it is also known as H.R.301 – 114th Congress (2015-2016) (https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/301/text).
TxDOT must be assuming that the proposed legislation will be enacted because an August, 2015 TxDOT I-69 System Planning and Environmental Progress map (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/ResourcesPDFs/Environmental_and_other_Studies_Aug%202015.pdf) includes a study about the SH 44 route through Robstown:
(http://i.imgur.com/C1HkHcO.jpg)
http://transportation.house.gov/uploadedfiles/fastact_xml.
Section 1416 amends the ever-changing High Priority Corridor List as follows ...:
Corridor 18 (Interstate 69) is amended to include Texas State Highway 44 from United States Route 59 at Freer, Texas, to Texas State Highway 358.
(above quote from Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act of December 2015 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16970.msg2110067#msg2110067) thread)

Building upon andy3175's post, this Alliance for I-69 Texas article (http://i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update%2012.5.2015%20sh44.html) discusses the addition of 73 miles of SH 44 to the statutory I-69 Corridor, mentions the Robstown relief route study indicated by the above map, and also mentions that approximately 5.8 miles of SH 44 in the vicinity of Corpus Christi International Airport is already at interstate highway standard:

Quote
State Highway 44 from Corpus Christi to Freer in South Texas is now part of the Congressionally Designated I-69 High Priority Corridor.
This future 73 miles of interstate
will connect the freeway system in Corpus Christi with I-69 East at Robstown, future I-69 Central at Alice and future I-69 West at Freer.  It will ultimately provide an interstate connection between the busy international port at Laredo and the deepwater port at Corpus Christi which linking all three legs of the I-69 Texas System in South Texas ....
The designation applies to the section of State Highway 44 between US 59 in Freer and the SH 358 Freeway in Corpus Christi. Approximately 5.8 miles of SH 44 in the vicinity of Corpus Christi International Airport is already at interstate highway standard.
West of I-69E in Robstown, SH 44 is a four-lane divided highway through Alice and on to the city of San Diego.  The 23 miles from San Diego to Freer is a two-lane section passing through sparsely populated ranch land.  Upgrades recommended by local community stakeholders include relief routes around Alice, San Diego and Freer plus a new highway link at Robstown. A routing study for the SH 44 relief route at Robstown was initiated by TxDOT in 2015.

I suspect there is a good chance that TxDOT will submit an application for the 5.8 mile interstate standard section in time for the May AASHTO meeting. Hmmmm....... so many choices: I-6, some other 2di designation, even first digit I-x69, odd first digit I-x69 ..............  :hmmm:

Here is a snip from a map accompanying the article:

(http://i.imgur.com/zkzBlz1.png)



http://transportation.house.gov/uploadedfiles/fastact_xml.
Section 1410 talks about weight limit exceptions for portions of future I-69 in Texas ...:
Quote
(n) OPERATION OF VEHICLES ON CERTAIN HIGHWAYS IN THE STATE OF TEXAS.–If any segment in the State of Texas of United States Route 59, United States Route 77, United States Route 281, United States Route 84, Texas State Highway 44, or another roadway is designated as Interstate Route 69, a vehicle that could operate legally on that segment before the date of the designation may continue to operate on that segment, without regard to any requirement under this section ....
(above quote from Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act of December 2015 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=16970.msg2110067#msg2110067) thread)

The Alliance article also discusses the weight limit exemptions:

Quote
The federal highway bill, officially known as the FAST Act, also includes a provision dealing with trucks operating on I-69 in Texas.  It was sponsored by Farenthold and co-sponsored by East Texas Congressman Brian Babin and Houston Congressman Gene Green.  It provides that vehicles that can legally operated on one of the I-69 designated existing highways today will be authorized to operate on that segment after it is officially designated as Interstate 69 in the future.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: The Ghostbuster on December 22, 2015, 05:14:30 PM
Personally, I'd keep the roadway numbered State Highway 44, but that's just my opinion.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: wdcrft63 on December 23, 2015, 05:33:19 PM
I-369 is a reasonable choice.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: oscar on December 23, 2015, 06:28:30 PM
I-369 is a reasonable choice.

Already taken, up in Texarkana.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: CentralPAGal on December 24, 2015, 09:49:43 AM
I-369 is a reasonable choice.

Already taken, up in Texarkana.

Then there's only one solution that makes any sense, given the I-69E/C/W crap... Multiplex I-369 down I-69, along I-69W at the first split, and along I-69C at the second split. This proceeds to TX 44. TX 44 east of I-69C is I-369E and vice versa.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: yakra on December 24, 2015, 11:48:57 AM
Texas has way too much of a boner for slapping I-x69y shields on everything it can. I-369 should really be I-x30.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Guysdrive780 on December 24, 2015, 03:03:34 PM
I-369 is a reasonable choice.

Already taken, up in Texarkana.

Then there's only one solution that makes any sense, given the I-69E/C/W crap... Multiplex I-369 down I-69, along I-69W at the first split, and along I-69C at the second split. This proceeds to TX 44. TX 44 east of I-69C is I-369E and vice versa.
How about calling 369 Interstate 6 or 4
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 24, 2015, 03:46:02 PM
Where did this "I-369" nonsense originate regarding an Interstate quality upgrade of TX-44? It's an invalid designation due to I-369 already being reserved for a pretty long 3di route from Tehana to Texarkana.

I-169 is already taken. But "I-569," "I-769," and "I-969" are all available for odd digit designations.

Since the Interstate on the TX-44 corridor would touch more than one Interstate route one could make a case for an even digit designation. "I-269," "I-469," "I-669," and "I-869" are all available. If this even digit route had to terminate at Interstate highways at both ends the East end wouldn't be difficult. Just co-sign it along the existing TX-358 freeway for the last 1.5 miles so it can end at I-37.

As to "I-6" or "I-4", I think the route would be best signed as a "I-x69" 3di route, or perhaps even a "I-x37" 3di route if it can connect with I-37 at its East terminus. OTOH, I don't know where else one could build "I-6" other than a Corpus Christi to Laredo route. Still, Corpus Christi to Freer is only about 75 miles. That's kind of short for a 2di route. I-2 is very short, but there is at least some long term potential it could be extended up to Laredo and at least be over 100 miles in length.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: jbnv on December 24, 2015, 04:07:02 PM
I don't know where else one could build "I-6" other than a Corpus Christi to Laredo route. Still, Corpus Christi to Freer is only about 75 miles. That's kind of short for a 2di route.
[/quote]

I-12 is less than 90 miles long and has virtually no chance of being extended contiguously. If you extend the TX 44 corridor to Eagle Pass, you get about 200 miles.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: wdcrft63 on December 24, 2015, 04:18:33 PM
I-369 is a reasonable choice.

Already taken, up in Texarkana.

Then there's only one solution that makes any sense, given the I-69E/C/W crap... Multiplex I-369 down I-69, along I-69W at the first split, and along I-69C at the second split. This proceeds to TX 44. TX 44 east of I-69C is I-369E and vice versa.
How about calling 369 Interstate 6 or 4

Please no I-4; we don't need that duplication. I-269 is fine.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: CentralPAGal on December 24, 2015, 04:19:33 PM
I-369 is a reasonable choice.

Already taken, up in Texarkana.

Then there's only one solution that makes any sense, given the I-69E/C/W crap... Multiplex I-369 down I-69, along I-69W at the first split, and along I-69C at the second split. This proceeds to TX 44. TX 44 east of I-69C is I-369E and vice versa.
How about calling 369 Interstate 6 or 4

In a more perfect world, it should be I-6. I'd definitely rather see that than I-1269SE or whatever
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Guysdrive780 on December 24, 2015, 07:06:11 PM
Who wants Interstate 6 on SH 44
(http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/americanroads/images/a/af/Interstate_6_.png/revision/latest?cb=20120121182314)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 24, 2015, 07:50:46 PM
Quote
In a more perfect world, it should be I-6. I'd definitely rather see that than I-1269SE or whatever

There's no chance at all of any 3di route along the I-69 corridor carrying a suffix letter, such as "I-269E" or some nonsense like that. Up in Dallas there is already a precedent: I-635. That route only connects to I-35E. But it's not named "I-635E." Likewise any 3di routes along the I-69E, I-69C and I-69W are not going to carry the suffix letters of their parent routes.

If "I-6" was to be used, I would prefer it to run along as much distance as possible. Obviously it would only start at Freer and I-69W. But it could push up past Corpus Christi and along the Gulf Coast where some freeway has been built. It could at least extend to Fulton, but it might be a bit much to ask to have the Interstate upgrade the TX-35 route (or near) to points farther like Port Lavaca, Palacios or Freeport. I-69 would be running parallel not far to the North. But if the route did run that far it would be easier to justify the "I-6" tag. With just a 75 mile length it makes more sense to give the route a 3di number rooted with I-69.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: jbnv on December 24, 2015, 08:19:02 PM
Obviously it would only start at Freer and I-69W.

Obviously it could never go west to Eagle Pass? That's just as likely to happen as your extension to Port Lavaca or Freeport.

Heck, if we're going to dream that big, extend it to Galveston. Then to Port Arthur. Then to New Iberia where it can consume most of what is currently called I-49 South.

On second thought, someone should give the Eagle Pass-Port Arthur idea to the Congressman who got I-14 designated. This just might happen, even if it takes 20 years.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: CentralPAGal on December 24, 2015, 08:49:51 PM
Quote
In a more perfect world, it should be I-6. I'd definitely rather see that than I-1269SE or whatever

There's no chance at all of any 3di route along the I-69 corridor carrying a suffix letter, such as "I-269E" or some nonsense like that.

Yeah, I wouldn't realistically expect a 3di with a suffix, I was just being facetious. I seriously would rather see I-6 used for SH 44 though than a 3di though.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: lordsutch on December 24, 2015, 09:01:10 PM
Absent upgrades on the Mexican side to MEX 57, there's really no good reason to extend the SH 44 freeway corridor west to Eagle Pass. (Heck, there's not even demand enough at present for a paved road on the US side between Laredo and Eagle Pass.)

Personally I'd extend the hypothetical I-6 designation west to Laredo; it could multiplex with I-69W on the US 59 corridor and then split off on a more direct line to meet I-35 north of the US 83/I-35 split and utilize an upgraded Toll SH 255 to the Colombia bridge.
Title: I-69 in TX
Post by: Pete from Boston on December 24, 2015, 10:01:56 PM
Who wants Interstate 6 on SH 44
(http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/americanroads/images/a/af/Interstate_6_.png/revision/latest?cb=20120121182314)

The Interstate shield is becoming the participation trophy of Texas highways.


There's no chance at all of any 3di route along the I-69 corridor carrying a suffix letter, such as "I-269E" or some nonsense like that.

Three suffixed mainline branches of one mainline Interstate was ludicrous a few years ago, too (some might say still is, but...).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on December 24, 2015, 10:23:32 PM
I-69LAT
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on December 24, 2015, 10:44:36 PM
Absent upgrades on the Mexican side to MEX 57, there's really no good reason to extend the SH 44 freeway corridor west to Eagle Pass. (Heck, there's not even demand enough at present for a paved road on the US side between Laredo and Eagle Pass.)

Personally I'd extend the hypothetical I-6 designation west to Laredo; it could multiplex with I-69W on the US 59 corridor and then split off on a more direct line to meet I-35 north of the US 83/I-35 split and utilize an upgraded Toll SH 255 to the Colombia bridge.

Personally, if you asked me, I'd start I-6 at Laredo, overlay US 59 to Freer, and then run it along SH 44 to Corpus Christi.  Truncate I-69W to begin at Freer, then work along US 59 to Victoria, where it would hook up with I-69E/US 77.

Of course, in my perfect world, there would be only one I-69 (Laredo to Houston along US 59); US 77 from Robstown south would be an extension of I-37, SH 44 and US 77 from Robstown to Victoria would be an I-x69 (or perhaps I-41), and US 281 would remain US 281, but upgraded.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on December 24, 2015, 11:01:16 PM
If you were to designate all of SH 44 as I-6, then you could begin with a western terminus at US 83/ proposed Future I-27, then proceed across I-35 at Encinal, and then across I-69W, I-69C and I-69E. Then, overlap I-6 with SH 358 to an eastern terminus at I-37.  I-6 connecting six interstates: nice symmetry.
 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 26, 2015, 10:23:44 AM
Whatever happens, I would not want "I-6" (or whatever it will be) and I-69W running concurrent with each other to Laredo. Only one of them needs to be signed.

Quote from: jbnv
Obviously it could never go west to Eagle Pass? That's just as likely to happen as your extension to Port Lavaca or Freeport.

It would be very difficult to justify building a freeway between Freer and Eagle Pass, presumably going through or skirting Carrizo Springs. That's not a major corridor. Eagle Pass is a border town but only has 25,000 residents. The only way I could see an Interstate highway getting built there would be a Southern extension of I-27 coming from Del Rio. Even that is a long shot.

Chances are very slim for an "I-6" route to get built along the coastline NE from Corpus Christi due to the cost of building some pretty big bridges. However, it would be easier to justify improving the TX-35 corridor up to Interstate standards since there is a lot more people living in that area and the improved route could serve as a more efficient hurricane evacuation route.

Right now the TX-35 partial freeway dead ends in Fulton, TX just short of the Aransas County Airport. It might be tricky extending the freeway past the airport and over to the LBJ Causeway. From there it wouldn't be as difficult to built up to Port Lavaca and Palacios. Going beyond there would be expensive for all the ship channels and swamps.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: US 41 on December 26, 2015, 11:45:25 AM
https://www.google.com/maps/@25.0732922,-98.0680954,3a,66.8y,200.14h,77.02t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1smPzhCdyryqs2glPYnkkiGA!2e0

The above street view image link tells the whole story. This interchange is where MX 101 and MX 97 come together about 70 miles south of the border. Both 69C and 69E both indirectly become these routes once they get to Mexico. Matamoros and Reynosa are both larger cities than McAllen and Brownsville. There is no need to upgrade US 77 and US 281 to the Mexican border. I'm not entirely convinced that I-69W is necessary, but at least it will indirectly connect with 85D, which is a very good route (and leads to other good routes) to get to places like Monterrey, Saltillo, Torreon, Mazatlán, San Luis Potosi, and Mexico City.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 27, 2015, 06:02:04 PM
MX-101 in that area is not really a high traffic corridor, at least not as heavy as MX-40 going to Monterrey. The Eastern coastal area of Mexico is not heavily populated. A lot of traffic bound for other cities in Mexico tends to funnel through Monterrey. My guess is the Eastern coast of Mexico is more flood prone and hurricane prone.

I-69E would at least funnel traffic to/from the MX-101 corridor toward cities like Tampico. But I-69C, I-69W and I-35 all seem to send/receive traffic to/from Monterrey via MX-85 and MX-40. Both of those routes are built up with more limited access and 4-lane function.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: US 41 on December 28, 2015, 12:17:57 PM
MX-101 in that area is not really a high traffic corridor, at least not as heavy as MX-40 going to Monterrey. The Eastern coastal area of Mexico is not heavily populated. A lot of traffic bound for other cities in Mexico tends to funnel through Monterrey. My guess is the Eastern coast of Mexico is more flood prone and hurricane prone.

I-69E would at least funnel traffic to/from the MX-101 corridor toward cities like Tampico. But I-69C, I-69W and I-35 all seem to send/receive traffic to/from Monterrey via MX-85 and MX-40. Both of those routes are built up with more limited access and 4-lane function.

MX 101 also has a reputation lately of being cartel infested, especially the town of San Fernando, which is why it is not heavily traveled. I've read many reports online of people traveling on it safely however, and I would be willing to drive on it myself. I'd like to eventually take a trip to Ciudad Victoria to see the mountains southwest of the city. https://www.google.com/maps/@23.6664116,-99.1952015,3a,66.8y,264.12h,90.18t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sg0daoxAfDdJ98g_UCRU7gw!2e0
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: lordsutch on December 28, 2015, 09:27:51 PM
Bear in mind that a lot of the demand for freight from the lower valley to the rest of the U.S. is locally-generated due to the maquiladora (manufacturing/assembly) operations in Reynosa-Matamoros, which are much bigger than up in Nuevo Laredo.

NL is more of a transshipment point for stuff from the rest of Mexico or further afield (legal and otherwise) because the infrastructure on both sides is better. There is some freight via MX-40 but a lot of it is destined for the maquiladoras themselves. And from much of eastern Mexico like Veracruz it's probably cheaper to ship to the U.S. via the Gulf than over land anyway (again, partially due to infrastructure).

All that said the need for direct freeway connections at the border is relatively low, mostly because (particularly northbound) the border crossing process is much more of a timesuck than sitting at a few traffic signals after you've crossed, particularly if you're hauling a trailer that has to be transferred from a Mexican cab to a U.S. one or vice versa. That's a major reason why Toll 255 was/is such a failure, even though the Colombia crossing is one of the faster ones.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: US 41 on December 28, 2015, 10:54:50 PM
Bear in mind that a lot of the demand for freight from the lower valley to the rest of the U.S. is locally-generated due to the maquiladora (manufacturing/assembly) operations in Reynosa-Matamoros, which are much bigger than up in Nuevo Laredo.

NL is more of a transshipment point for stuff from the rest of Mexico or further afield (legal and otherwise) because the infrastructure on both sides is better. There is some freight via MX-40 but a lot of it is destined for the maquiladoras themselves. And from much of eastern Mexico like Veracruz it's probably cheaper to ship to the U.S. via the Gulf than over land anyway (again, partially due to infrastructure).

All that said the need for direct freeway connections at the border is relatively low, mostly because (particularly northbound) the border crossing process is much more of a timesuck than sitting at a few traffic signals after you've crossed, particularly if you're hauling a trailer that has to be transferred from a Mexican cab to a U.S. one or vice versa. That's a major reason why Toll 255 was/is such a failure, even though the Colombia crossing is one of the faster ones.

I've read that most Mexican trucking companies use the "libres" rather than the "cuotas" because most companies (and/or their drivers) can't afford the high tolls, so it makes sense that they would ship products from Tampico and Veracruz to the United States.

One of the problems with TX 255 is that it goes way out of the way and is fairly expensive to use. Taking FM 1472 is a good free option and the way I'd probably go if I was driving to the Colombia Bridge. If I was ever driving from San Antonio to Monterrey in my car I would use Columbia because of the short lines. It also has a place to get permits and a tourist card. I feel like Int'l 1 or 2 would have very long lines. I try to avoid major crossings as much as possible and will drive a little out of the way for more "laid back" crossings.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: lordsutch on December 29, 2015, 12:19:35 AM
Taking FM 1472 is a good free option

Spoken like someone who hasn't actually driven out FM 1472. It's a real slog from I-69W north to FM 3338 during most of the day (at least it was circa 2011 and I can't imagine it's any better now since TxDOT hasn't improved it any). Unless you have business in Laredo to do first, there's no good reason to go 10+ miles out of your way to avoid paying $3.

TX 255 is great for what it was intended to do - get San Antonio-bound traffic to Colombia and vice versa. The problem is due to the transshipment rules (which were supposed to go away with NAFTA, but haven't) there's not a lot of demand for going directly from inland Mexico to the inland US or vice versa.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on January 16, 2016, 08:16:29 PM
TxDOT has posted a Notice Affording an Opportunity for a Public Hearing — US 59 Loop (http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/laredo/022416.html) in the Laredo area:

Quote
Purpose:   TxDOT is offering the opportunity to request a public hearing covering the social, economic and environmental effects of the proposed project on a section of US 59 (formerly known as Loop 20 and Bob Bullock Loop) in northern Laredo, Webb County. This section of US 59 is also part of the western leg of the Future I-69 system (I-69W) in south Texas ....
Description:   The proposed US 59/Loop project limits are from 0.33-mile west of I-35 (at the eastern end of the existing I-69W mainlanes) to 0.160-mile west of McPherson Road (at the western side of that overpass bridge structure).
The proposed mainlanes would include:
* Three 12-foot travel lanes in each direction
* Center concrete traffic barrier
* Inside and outside shoulders
* Appropriately placed on-off ramps
The mainlanes would be constructed between the existing loop frontage roads within the existing, approximately 300-ft. wide right-of-way.
This project would fully integrate with the existing I-69W mainlanes west of I-35 as well as the McPherson Road interchange that opened to traffic in 2014. It will also integrate with the International Boulevard interchange project that is currently under a construction contract; construction work there is scheduled to start in the near future. Upon completion of these projects, through traffic will have uninterrupted service from International Blvd. to the entrance to the World Trade International Bridge IV. All of these interrelated projects are to be constructed to urban interstate (I-69W) design standards.



Also, if I-69W is to be along Loop 20 in Laredo, will it dog leg or will TexDOT get it to cut straight east from Loop 20's Northeastern turn as the shortest distance between two points is a straight line?
... who knows? TxDOT hasn't done any environmental study for Laredo-to-Freer that I'm aware of.
That said an in-place upgrade of US 59 east of Loop 20 would be a pain (moreso than upgrading Loop 20 itself), so some sort of tangent routing makes sense. Laredo's long-range planning documents show an "expressway" running east from Loop 20 at International Blvd to the proposed Laredo Outer Loop, but that's all pie-in-the-sky thinking ...
The final Laredo 2015-40 Metropolitan Transportation Plan (http://www.cityoflaredo.com/planning/mpo/files/mtp/2015-2040/MTP_2015-2040.pdf) has been posted
I recently looked at the 2015-40 Metropolitan Transportation Plan on the outside chance that it would include a tangent routing from Loop 20 to US 59. I could not find evidence of one. However, a map of their "illustrative projects" (unfunded wish list) does show the Outer Loop and an Outer Loop "spur" from the northeastern corner of Loop 20 to the Outer Loop. Elsewhere in the document, the Outer Loop is described as a four-lane arterial and the "spur" is described as a two-lane road.  Here is a snip of the "illustrative projects" map (p. 321/368 of pdf; p. 12-39 of document)

This project map (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/lrd/notices/022416-maps.pdf), in addition to showing the project area, describes Loop 20 from International Boulevard to the completed interchange at US 59 as "Future US 59/I-69W Expressway Project":

(http://i.imgur.com/4Ju6vUc.jpg)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on February 01, 2016, 09:01:09 PM
http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/media-center/statewide-news/03-2016.html (http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/media-center/statewide-news/03-2016.html)
Full project list
http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/media-center/statewide/docs/congestionprojects.pdf (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/media-center/statewide/docs/congestionprojects.pdf) ....
Houston US 59 (IH 69) / IH 610 interchange rebuild: This project was planned for multiple phases, and now the entire project will be built in one phase. This is also an urgently needed improvement. http://txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/houston/59-610.html (http://txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/houston/59-610.html)
(above quote from TxDOT announces $1.3 billion congestion relief program (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=17348.msg2122963#msg2122963) thread)

TxDOT's January 27, 2016 Congestion Relief Initiative Update presentation to the Texas Transportation Commission (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2016/0127/2a-presentation.pdf) includes a slide indicating that the southwestern I-69/I-610 interchange rebuild could be let as soon as Summer 2017 and completed by Spring 2021 (p. 28/37 of pdf):

(http://i.imgur.com/DCAygWU.png)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on February 03, 2016, 01:14:56 PM
As regards relief options in Houston ... I-69 Segment Two Committee Report and Recommendations (pages 37-38/157; pages 31-32 of document) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg2_final.pdf)
the Segment Two Committee ...incorporate part of the Grand Parkway as a "Committee Suggested I-69 Route" (page 21/157 of pdf; page 15 of document):
(http://i.imgur.com/1ScQV.png)
An August 23 Houston Chronicle editorial (http://www.chron.com/opinion/editorials/article/Editorial-How-might-I-69-coexist-with-the-Grand-3811256.php) advocates that the Grand Parkway should be finished in a manner that meshes well with the purposes of I-69:
Quote
... This bypass would divert I-69 traffic away from Houston's city center while also improving necessary transportation access to our booming port areas.
But it seems like we've already got something along those lines underway with the Grand Parkway. While there's still a lot of construction remaining on the planned 180-mile third loop around Houston, some parkway segments have been completed, including one in Baytown.
Because plans are not yet set in pavement, we still have some flexibility to construct the Grand Parkway in a manner that can best serve some of the needs of I-69, particularly the influx of long-haul trucking and port commerce that is a near-inevitable part of Houston's future ...
This article (http://www.chron.com/neighborhood/bayarea/news/article/Growth-presents-transportation-challenges-for-the-5439353.php) reports that a Harris County judge believes that the bypass needs to go south and east in order to best serve the port:
Quote
Harris County Judge Ed Emmett addressed the importance of Interstate 69.
"It's pretty much agreed now that we need to have a bypass around the Houston area," he said. "It needs to go south and east instead of west, so it can support the port."

This article (http://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/2016/02/03/136538/judge-emmett-focuses-his-state-of-the-county-address-on-transportation-and-the-astrodome/) reports that Judge Emmett, in his State of the County address, once again spoke about the need for "the I-69 bypass" to serve the ports to the south and east and, further, that he regards the I-69 bypass as his personal priority:

Quote
Harris County Judge Ed Emmett delivered his ninth State of the County address on Tuesday at NRG Center and spoke about the county’s accomplishments and challenges.
Emmett stressed that an important factor in that future will be improving transportation.
He advocated using more the railroad system – to move both people and freight – to alleviate Houston’s congested freeways.
As he addressed the city’s heavy traffic, Emmett singled out an option he thinks is essential.
“My personal priority is the I-69 bypass. We know that U.S. 59 is being converted to Interstate 69, but we really don’t want all that traffic coming right through the middle. There needs to be a bypass and there needs to go south and east,”  said the county judge.
Emmett also noted the I-69 bypass would be an important component to handle traffic from the Port of Houston, as well as from ports in Galveston and Freeport.

The article does not indicate whether Judge Emmett considers the southern and eastern sections of the Grand Parkway as "the I-69 bypass".
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MaxConcrete on February 03, 2016, 09:55:32 PM
This article (http://www.chron.com/neighborhood/bayarea/news/article/Growth-presents-transportation-challenges-for-the-5439353.php) reports that a Harris County judge believes that the bypass needs to go south and east in order to best serve the port:

The article does not indicate whether Judge Emmett considers the southern and eastern sections of the Grand Parkway as "the I-69 bypass".

I don't like the approved alignment of section B of the Grand Parkway, between SH 288 and the Gulf Freeway, because it has a ridiculous large dip to the south. Due to modern environment study processes, we get these absurd alignments.
http://www.grandpky.com/segment-b (http://www.grandpky.com/segment-b)

One problem with a Grand Parkway alignment is that it stops at the Gulf Freeway because section A (Gulf Freeway to SH 146) has been determined to be infeasible. There are two large container ports along SH 146, and if they want to justify a south alignment to serve port traffic, it will need to connect to SH 146.

To have a continuous loop-style bypass, it will need to connect to SH 146.

The next problem is that the Grand Parkway alignment is much longer than existing routes to most Port of Houston locations and will be much more expensive for users due to tolls over the long distance. So truckers will avoid it.

Judge Emmett's objective may be to get federal funding from the new freight corridor funding in the recent federal transportation legislation. The funding could make the Grand Parkway feasible, since I'm thinking tolls along won't cover the cost.

In an ideal world, I would like to see a new alignment study which would create and efficient (i.e. mostly straight) route which connects US 59 to SH 146. 
 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: codyg1985 on February 04, 2016, 07:16:16 AM
What's in that area that necessitated the huge dip to the south?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: jbnv on February 04, 2016, 10:09:44 AM
Looks like they're trying to make use of a good part of that Tx-35 bypass around Alvin.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Chris on February 06, 2016, 04:48:19 AM
One problem with a Grand Parkway alignment is that it stops at the Gulf Freeway because section A (Gulf Freeway to SH 146) has been determined to be infeasible. There are two large container ports along SH 146, and if they want to justify a south alignment to serve port traffic, it will need to connect to SH 146.

To have a continuous loop-style bypass, it will need to connect to SH 146.   

Wouldn't it be feasible to construct it alongside SH 146 through Seabrook, Kemah and Bacliff, and then turn west to bypass Dickinson to the south and link up with Alvin? That way there isn't as much property displacement.

If I remember correctly there are already plans to extend SH 146 south as a freeway through Seabrook. There seems to be an old railroad right-of-way. But there are also power lines.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MaxConcrete on February 06, 2016, 09:56:39 AM
Yes, there are plans to upgrade that section of SH 146 to a freeway, and the Grand Parkway would follow SH 146 to complete that section of the loop. Plans for the north section of freeway have environmental clearance, and I think the process is still in progress in Galveston County.
http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/houston/sh146-red-bluff.html (http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/houston/sh146-red-bluff.html)

But a feasibility study for the section of the Grand Parkway from I-45s (Gulf Freeway) to SH 146 was completed in 2010, and the study recommended no further action on that section. I don't know why that section was deferred, although I'm thinking there must have been some local opposition.

Of course, that section, (section A) could be revived.

This screenshot is from today's Houston Chronicle
(https://1968d90e831cd27d2017897e0c81e9a12852eb10.googledrive.com/host/0B4gwdXQk1LyieHZHSTBqd0VJSnc/aaroads/99-section-a.png)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on February 09, 2016, 12:12:33 PM
When Texas is our own country again we can just use 1-100 for everything :)

1-I 35/35E
2-I 35W
3-I 10
4-I 20 through Fort Worth then I -30
5-I 20 east of Fort Worth
6-I 69/69W
7-I 45 & US 75
8-I 40
9-I 37
10-I 27
11-I 2

the smaller freeways would be 2dis :)  (69c, 69e, and the 3dis)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on February 09, 2016, 01:41:44 PM
The Section B alignment of the Grand Parkway reminds me of I-69 in Southern Indiana and some other areas: very crooked and time/distance wasting. Ugh.

Section A, between I-45 and TX-146 isn't going to work being run along the FM-646 corridor. Too much development has gone up along it near the intersection with I-45.

I think the Grand Parkway planners need to re-think the current terminus of Section B at I-45. The Grand Parkway southern interchange with I-45 really should be relocated farther South between the Hughes Rd and Holland Rd exits of I-45. It looks like plenty of space is available just South of Ranger Outlets. Section A of the Grand Parkway could be built from there, moving East and then Northeast, curving up into TX-146.

The non-freeway/tollway section of TX-146 in Kemah and Seabrook would be a very tricky challenge to upgrade. Lots of businesses are built snug against the East side of the highway. As many as four columns of electrical transmission line towers are on the West side of the highway. I don't think it's possible to relocate that power line corridor. Can high power lines such as these be buried? It is possible to encase them and incorporate them into the structure of a new superhighway? I have a feeling it will be "easier" to just bulldoze the dozens of businesses on the East side of TX-146 and create the space for the bigger road there.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: The Ghostbuster on February 09, 2016, 05:18:15 PM
Can we stop talking about the Grand Parkway, and move discussion of it onto its own thread. As far as I know, none of Interstate 69 in Texas will actually utilize the Grand Parkway.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: jbnv on February 09, 2016, 10:05:24 PM
Can we stop talking about the Grand Parkway, and move discussion of it onto its own thread. As far as I know, none of Interstate 69 in Texas will actually utilize the Grand Parkway.

I did a quick search. Didn't see an existing thread for Grand Parkway segment B. This would be a good seed for one.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Perfxion on February 10, 2016, 06:29:32 AM
Ghostbuster, they are discussing the Grand Parkway being built as a relief route/bypass of I-69 in greater Houston. Maybe to be another X69 for the state. But I think Emmett is saying this to get the unbuilt side done on federal dime versus state/toll dime. I don't think it is going to work in some areas. Also, if he was really for an X69 route of for it, March 31st will have a complete section from I-69 to I-69 on the north and west sides.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on February 10, 2016, 02:42:22 PM
As regards relief options in Houston ... I-69 Segment Two Committee Report and Recommendations (pages 37-38/157; pages 31-32 of document) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg2_final.pdf)
the Segment Two Committee ...incorporate part of the Grand Parkway as a "Committee Suggested I-69 Route" (page 21/157 of pdf; page 15 of document):
(http://i.imgur.com/1ScQV.png)
Hmmmmm....an I-469/TX 99 concurrence?? With TX99 moved to the feeders and I-469 as the mainline?
... if he was really for an X69 route of for it, March 31st will have a complete section from I-69 to I-69 on the north and west sides.

The above-linked I-69 Segment Two Committee Report and Recommendations includes language suggesting that the north and west I-69 to I-69 section of the Grand Parkway could be part of an I-x69 because, in relation to an I-x69 providing access to the ports, it would be an "additional option" for through travelers to bypass Houston (pages 37-38/157; pages 31-32 of document):

Quote
US 59 Relief Options in Houston — In the first few months of meeting, the committee discussed highways they recommend serving as I-69, highways to be part of the I-69 program and important connections to the I-69 system. In developing recommendations for the Houston area, committee members from that area met to discuss their recommended highway to serve as I-69 and also discussed the importance of providing connectivity to the Port of Houston and other ports along the Texas gulf coast. This discussion concluded with the committee recommending that US 59 through Houston serve as I-69 and that relief options within and around the Houston area be studied and considered to provide convenient, vital access to the sea ports along the coast along with additional options for through-travelers to bypass Houston, instead of having to use US 59 or other routes to travel through Houston. Such a study should include financial and technical participation from TxDOT.

The March completion of the I-69 to I-69 section of the Grand Parkway on the north and west sides provides the possibility that TxDOT may seek approval from AASHTO to designate that section as an I-x69 at AASHTO's May meeting.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on February 10, 2016, 03:24:52 PM
The North and West quadrant of the Grand Parkway can serve as a Houston bypass for I-69, but it won't do anything to serve port traffic like Judge Emmett wants.

It won't be easy getting any sort of freeway or tollway built along TX-146 thru the developed parts of Kemah and Seabrook. The study from 2012 called for widening the at-grade street and building an elevated superhighway with 2 lanes in each direction alongside the boulevard. That might be enough to handle local traffic. But it might need 3 lanes in each direction if additional long distance traffic from I-69 was routed onto it. I don't know how much political opposition is organized against this road expansion project.

The location of the Grand Parkway, Section A becomes more critical if I-69 were to use it for Houston bypass purposes, either as I-69 or a 3-digital I-x69 variant. The proposed Section A route along FM-646 was deemed unfeasible to build. TX-96 a few blocks North has a few places of freeway-wide ROW, but no easy way for Section B of the Grand Parkway to go farther North to meet TX-96 at I-45. Segment A and the terminus of Segment B would probably have to be shifted South of Dickinson in order for the entire loop to get connected in a continuous manner.

Additional freeway sections would have to be built on the far West and North ends of the bypass Judge Emmett envisions -additional to a completed Grand Parkway loop. The SW leg would start around Wharton and connect to the SW corner of the Grand Parkway loop. The NE leg would start around Cleveland and connect to the NE corner of the Grand Parkway Loop.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on February 10, 2016, 04:44:43 PM
If accessing the Baytown ports were that important, then using existing I-610 to TX 225 (the Pasadena Freeway) would suffice. There really is no need to move I-69 off the existing Southwest/Eastex Freeway corridor, and the northern/western segments of the Grand Parkway should remain TX 99 unless they are planning to de-toll those segments.

Actually, I'd rather they complete the I-10/SPUR 330 (Decker Drive) interchange with full connectors to/from the west rather than the indirect movements through the Crosby-Lynchburg Road interchange, and even finish upgrading existing TX 146 between the Chambers-Harris County Line and I-10, before they finish the Grand Parkway segment through Baytown.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: nolia_boi504 on February 10, 2016, 05:21:51 PM
If accessing the Baytown ports were that important, then using existing I-610 to TX 225 (the Pasadena Freeway) would suffice.

I'm not sure how that will help as it doesn't provide relief routes from the existing conditions. It's already horrible as it is at 59/610, and the point is to keep the traffic out and around Houston to help alleviate congestion in the core.

Nexus 5X
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on February 17, 2016, 12:17:10 PM
The Texas Transportation Commission's December 17 Agenda indicates that the concurrent I-169 designation for the 1.5 mile section of SH 550 from I-69E to Old Alice Road should be approved on December 17 (p. 2/12 of pdf):
ftp://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/commission/2015/1217/agenda.pdf
This Alliance for I-69 Texas article (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update12.17.15%20i169.html) reports that the Texas Transportation Commission did indeed approve the above I-169 designation ....
Here is a snip of a map accompanying the article:
(http://i.imgur.com/ROIaM1S.jpg)

This February 16 article (http://www.themonitor.com/news/local/portion-of-cameron-county-highway-gets-new-designation/article_b75232ac-d523-11e5-8cf8-f7e4af2e0a40.html) reports that local officials unveiled the I-169 shield on February 16:

Quote
State and local officials gathered under an overpass Tuesday for the unveiling of the first I-169 sign marking the new designation of a portion of the S.H. 550 toll road.
The U.S. Department of Transportation late last year gave the I-169 designation to a roughly 1 1/2-mile stretch of S.H. 550 between I-69E and Old Alice Road
, making it part of the federal interstate highway system.
Running 10 miles from I-69E to S.H. 48 and the Port of Brownsville, S.H. 550 is the Rio Grande Valley’s first toll road. Two short segments of the toll way still have to be brought up to interstate standards before the entire length can be designated “I-169.”
Among those in attendance at Tuesday’s brief, informal ceremony near the S.H. 550 frontage road and Baker Lane intersection were Texas Transportation Commission Chairman Tryon D. Lewis, Texas Secretary of State Carlos H. Cascos, state Sen. Eddie Lucio Jr. and state Rep. Eddie Lucio III.

Here is a snip from a photo of the shield accompanying the article:

(http://i.imgur.com/QAxzOMI.png)

Hmmmmm ..... a neutered shield. Is this the beginning of a new trend in Texas?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on February 17, 2016, 12:47:06 PM
The oversize numerals in that neutered 3-digit shield look terrible. "69" already has a rough enough time fitting in a neutered 2 digit shield. It probably wouldn't be so bad if the numerals were spaced a little better.

I'm definitely far more in favor of leaving state names in Interstate shields. The numerals may be smaller, but they fit in those curvy Interstate shields a whole lot better.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: US 81 on February 17, 2016, 12:55:45 PM
Wait a minute, Texas is neutering shields again?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: codyg1985 on February 17, 2016, 01:24:56 PM
It is already on Google Maps.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: oscar on February 17, 2016, 01:55:00 PM
Hmmmmm ..... a neutered shield. Is this the beginning of a new trend in Texas?

I think the non-standard font size is a tip-off that this is just a fake shield, thrown together for the ceremony. I hope that when real route markers go up, they'll look more normal, and might be non-neutered.

Not that I have a problem with neutered shields, at least in this location. If you haven't figured out by that point you're in Texas, you probably shouldn't be behind the wheel.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: TXtoNJ on February 17, 2016, 02:06:03 PM
Hmmmmm ..... a neutered shield. Is this the beginning of a new trend in Texas?

I think the non-standard font size is a tip-off that this is just a fake shield, thrown together for the ceremony. I hope that when real route markers go up, they'll look more normal, and might be non-neutered.

Not that I have a problem with neutered shields, at least in this location. If you haven't figured out by that point you're in Texas, you probably shouldn't be behind the wheel.

It looks like a BGS-spec sign.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: abqtraveler on February 18, 2016, 06:26:10 PM
The oversize numerals in that neutered 3-digit shield look terrible. "69" already has a rough enough time fitting in a neutered 2 digit shield. It probably wouldn't be so bad if the numerals were spaced a little better.

I'm definitely far more in favor of leaving state names in Interstate shields. The numerals may be smaller, but they fit in those curvy Interstate shields a whole lot better.

Given that the ceremony was held off the highway itself, it looks like the I-169 sign used in the unveiling was a static display and not actually used as an assurance sign on the toll road.  It'll probably take weeks to months for all of the I-169 signage to be installed on SH-550. 

On a related note, a lot of US-59 through Houston, though approved to be signed as I-69, has yet be to be signed as such, at least as of last month when I traveled through that area.  I did notice that TxDOT did install mileposts on the Southwest Freeway from I-610 to at least Sugar Land.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: txstateends on February 19, 2016, 10:13:25 PM
The oversize numerals in that neutered 3-digit shield look terrible. "69" already has a rough enough time fitting in a neutered 2 digit shield. It probably wouldn't be so bad if the numerals were spaced a little better.

I'm definitely far more in favor of leaving state names in Interstate shields. The numerals may be smaller, but they fit in those curvy Interstate shields a whole lot
The oversize numerals in that neutered 3-digit shield look terrible. "69" already has a rough enough time fitting in a neutered 2 digit shield. It probably wouldn't be so bad if the numerals were spaced a little better.

I'm definitely far more in favor of leaving state names in Interstate shields. The numerals may be smaller, but they fit in those curvy Interstate shields a whole lot better.

On a related note, a lot of US-59 through Houston, though approved to be signed as I-69, has yet be to be signed as such, at least as of last month when I traveled through that area.  I did notice that TxDOT did install mileposts on the Southwest Freeway from I-610 to at least Sugar Land.

Does seem a bit odd that the additional-naming process went through rather quickly and yet there isn't the relatively-same pace in getting signs made and put up.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on March 29, 2016, 11:00:33 AM
Quote
Any confirmed sightings of I-69W signage in the area will be greatly appreciated.
as would a confirmation of the new US 59 mainline @ business route.

Just in case anyone has missed it, the AARoads Facebook page includes a March 23 post with a photo of an I-69W/ US 59 BGS (https://www.facebook.com/aaroads/):

(http://i.imgur.com/pcrx6VF.png)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: jbnv on March 29, 2016, 11:07:32 AM
Just in case anyone has missed it, the AARoads Facebook page includes a March 23 post with a photo of an I-69W/ US 59 BGS (https://www.facebook.com/aaroads/):

(http://i.imgur.com/pcrx6VF.png)

Is that a real photo? Looks like a bad Photoshop job.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: abqtraveler on March 29, 2016, 02:55:11 PM
Just in case anyone has missed it, the AARoads Facebook page includes a March 23 post with a photo of an I-69W/ US 59 BGS (https://www.facebook.com/aaroads/):

(http://i.imgur.com/pcrx6VF.png)

Is that a real photo? Looks like a bad Photoshop job.

Looks like TxDOT installed a cover plate bearing the I-69W and US-59 shields over the old US-59 shield instead of completely replacing the sign.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on March 29, 2016, 03:30:55 PM
A proposed Minute Order on the July 31, 2014 Texas Transportation Commission ("TTC") Agenda (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/adm/2014/0731/agenda.pdf) indicates that the TTC will designate Loop 20 to be concurrent with US 59/ Future I-69W so that local businesses will not have to change their addresses (page 7/14 of pdf; page 7 of document)
Quote
Webb County - Designate State Loop 20 (SL 20) on the state highway system concurrent with US 59 from the entrance to the World Trade Bridge to the junction of SL 20 and US 59 in the city of Laredo (MO)
Minute Order 113852 redesignated a portion of SL 20 as US 59 from the entrance of the World Trade Bridge to the junction of SL 20 and US 59 in Laredo, which began the process of designating applicable portions of US 59 as part of the I-69 system. However, the minute order did not reference maintaining the LP 20 signage so that addresses would not need to be changed. This minute order corrects that oversight and designates a portion of SL 20 on the state highway system, concurrent with US 59.
Just in case anyone has missed it, the AARoads Facebook page includes a March 23 post with a photo of an I-69W/ US 59 BGS (https://www.facebook.com/aaroads/):
(http://i.imgur.com/pcrx6VF.png)
Is that a real photo? Looks like a bad Photoshop job.
Looks like TxDOT installed a cover plate bearing the I-69W and US-59 shields over the old US-59 shield instead of completely replacing the sign.

This December 2012 Google StreetView imagery (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.6039589,-99.4950381,3a,75y,5.26h,90.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUm791g04OL1oZ_8SFZSgqw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) indicates that the I-69W and US 59 shields covered a Loop 20 shield accompanied by "WEST" as the direction:

(http://i.imgur.com/WkpDshF.png)

Given the effort to correct the oversight about the Loop 20 designation, it seems strange that TxDOT did not include a Loop 20 shield on the cover plate (the TTC did approve the Minute Order).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: roadman65 on May 08, 2016, 04:39:15 PM
I just thought of how to end the I-69 split in South Texas.  Extend I-45 south from Houston to Pharr to take over the Central Spur.  Then extend I-37 over the eastern spur and keep I-69 to Laredo. 

I-45 to Galveston becomes I-145.
I-37 into Corpus Christi Becomes I-137.

Then if I-45 ever should make it to Tulsa, then I-45 would be closer to living up to the expectations of an interstate ending in 5.

I suppose this should really be in fictional though, but being its about three freeways already on the books in TexDOT its not fictional, just suggesting some better route designations.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: CobaltYoshi27 on May 08, 2016, 04:59:58 PM
I just thought of how to end the I-69 split in South Texas.  Extend I-45 south from Houston to Pharr to take over the Central Spur.  Then extend I-37 over the eastern spur and keep I-69 to Laredo. 

I-45 to Galveston becomes I-145.
I-37 into Corpus Christi Becomes I-137.

Then if I-45 ever should make it to Tulsa, then I-45 would be closer to living up to the expectations of an interstate ending in 5.

I suppose this should really be in fictional though, but being its about three freeways already on the books in TexDOT its not fictional, just suggesting some better route designations.

I'd reverse that so I-45 is the eastern spur and I-37 is the central spur. Even then, it's fine the way it is.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on May 08, 2016, 06:19:21 PM
I suppose this should really be in fictional though, but being its about three freeways already on the books in TexDOT its not fictional, just suggesting some better route designations.
what
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: CanesFan27 on May 08, 2016, 06:47:16 PM
I just thought of how to end the I-69 split in South Texas.  Extend I-45 south from Houston to Pharr to take over the Central Spur.  Then extend I-37 over the eastern spur and keep I-69 to Laredo. 

I-45 to Galveston becomes I-145.
I-37 into Corpus Christi Becomes I-137.

Then if I-45 ever should make it to Tulsa, then I-45 would be closer to living up to the expectations of an interstate ending in 5.

I suppose this should really be in fictional though, but being its about three freeways already on the books in TexDOT its not fictional, just suggesting some better route designations.

You will never give up will you?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: jbnv on May 08, 2016, 08:50:32 PM
You will never give up will you?

Visionaries don't.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: roadman65 on May 08, 2016, 09:44:51 PM
I did not suggest any of this before.  I did second others motion to have I-37 extended, but I-45 down the central spur was thought of today.  I have, though, suggested that the US 77 upgrade and part of the whole I-69 thing is useless, but that is not the same in suggesting route numbers.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on May 09, 2016, 12:04:16 PM
Extending I-45 from Houston down to Pharr would have the entire I-45 route looking like a huge backwards "L" shape with an illogical right angle being made at Houston. That's just as bad, if not actually worse, than the I-69 routes in South Texas being called "I-69." Properly designed Interstate highways should follow as direct a path as possible. But standards seem to be getting thrown out the window, especially with congressional porky people wanting 2-digit route designations applied to short little freeway stubs here and there. Make the routes crooked and not very functional and apply whatever number is desired. It's all about the pork and not about maintaining a logical highway system.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on May 09, 2016, 01:30:52 PM
I agree with Bobby.  I'd like to see 69E become 37, with the stub into Corpus being 137 for sure. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: CobaltYoshi27 on May 09, 2016, 02:37:28 PM
Extending I-45 from Houston down to Pharr would have the entire I-45 route looking like a huge backwards "L" shape with an illogical right angle being made at Houston. That's just as bad, if not actually worse, than the I-69 routes in South Texas being called "I-69." Properly designed Interstate highways should follow as direct a path as possible. But standards seem to be getting thrown out the window, especially with congressional porky people wanting 2-digit route designations applied to short little freeway stubs here and there. Make the routes crooked and not very functional and apply whatever number is desired. It's all about the pork and not about maintaining a logical highway system.

How long does an interstate have to be to not be considered a "stub"?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on May 09, 2016, 02:43:45 PM
The Alliance for I-69 Texas (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update2.23.13%20Laredo.html) also has an article about the project:
(http://i.imgur.com/O5yPtQR.jpg)
Just in case anyone has missed it, the AARoads Facebook page includes a March 23 post with a photo of an I-69W/ US 59 BGS (https://www.facebook.com/aaroads/):
(http://i.imgur.com/pcrx6VF.png)
Is that a real photo? Looks like a bad Photoshop job.
Looks like TxDOT installed a cover plate bearing the I-69W and US-59 shields over the old US-59 shield instead of completely replacing the sign.
This December 2012 Google StreetView imagery (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.6039589,-99.4950381,3a,75y,5.26h,90.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUm791g04OL1oZ_8SFZSgqw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) indicates that the I-69W and US 59 shields covered a Loop 20 shield accompanied by "WEST" as the direction:
(http://i.imgur.com/WkpDshF.png)
I also rode up Interstate 69W and it was signed the same with mileposts on the jersey rail in the center of the road.
(bottom quote from Interstate 2 (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=9935.msg2143571#msg2143571) thread)

Does TxDOT provide cardinal direction signage for I-69W? Since they covered the WEST cardinal direction on the BGS and provide no cardinal direction for I-69W/ US 59 on the covered version of the BGS, and with much of "south" on Future I-69W/ Loop 20 actually moving northward, I'm just curious as to how they have handled the cardinal directions so far.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on May 09, 2016, 03:57:31 PM
so why does US 59 have to be part of this, if it wasn't before?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: The Ghostbuster on May 09, 2016, 04:28:45 PM
If you ask me, US 59 should end at Loop 20, or still extend along its former route into Laredo.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: yakra on May 10, 2016, 12:15:29 AM
Maybe the plan is to eventually cancel US 59 once I-69W takes its place. And until then, to get people used to them being the same thing.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on May 10, 2016, 08:23:46 AM
If you ask me, US 59 should end at Loop 20, or still extend along its former route into Laredo.

Why not truncate US 59 at Texarkana, or divert it to US 96 to end in Beaumont or Port Arthur, and move US 96 to somewhere more appropriate?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: txstateends on May 10, 2016, 04:51:48 PM
Here's something about the upgrading to I-69 I didn't realize.  I'd passed though this area south of Cleveland before...

https://goo.gl/maps/8U5nCeL8Fvk

...but I'd forgotten or didn't know that there is a cemetery south of Cleveland in the center median.  Currently it has a crossover there, accompanied by a no-left-turn sign.  If this is going to be interstate quality, what could be done here to not have the crossover, yet still allow access for visitors paying respects?

The only thing I came up with is left-side/inside turnouts or frontage roads on both sides.  That way, visitors are separate from traffic while keeping anyone from using the place as a crossover.  Guard rails could be used both as barriers separating main and cemetery traffic, as well as for putting to rest any notion of crossovering.

Sorry, no way to draw it, but what do you all think?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: lordsutch on May 10, 2016, 05:10:51 PM
Here's something about the upgrading to I-69 I didn't realize.  I'd passed though this area south of Cleveland before...

https://goo.gl/maps/8U5nCeL8Fvk

...but I'd forgotten or didn't know that there is a cemetery south of Cleveland in the center median.  Currently it has a crossover there, accompanied by a no-left-turn sign.  If this is going to be interstate quality, what could be done here to not have the crossover, yet still allow access for visitors paying respects?

The only thing I came up with is left-side/inside turnouts or frontage roads on both sides.  That way, visitors are separate from traffic while keeping anyone from using the place as a crossover.  Guard rails could be used both as barriers separating main and cemetery traffic, as well as for putting to rest any notion of crossovering.

Sorry, no way to draw it, but what do you all think?

My guess is that the existing NB roadway will be converted to a frontage road and a new SB roadway will be constructed to the west.

However, looking a bit to the north, there's a very long overpass for TX 105, suggesting that perhaps the long-term plan is to shift the freeway east of the railroad in this area instead.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: paulthemapguy on May 10, 2016, 08:48:07 PM
I agree with Bobby.  I'd like to see 69E become 37, with the stub into Corpus being 137 for sure.
Yes yes yes yes, a million times yes.
I-69E should be I-37, I-69C should be I-69, and I-69W should be I-6, or at least some kind of even number.  Get your letters out of my interstate numbers!  Especially C...what the crap is that.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: CobaltYoshi27 on May 10, 2016, 09:43:33 PM
I agree with Bobby.  I'd like to see 69E become 37, with the stub into Corpus being 137 for sure.
Yes yes yes yes, a million times yes.
I-69E should be I-37, I-69C should be I-69, and I-69W should be I-6, or at least some kind of even number.  Get your letters out of my interstate numbers!  Especially C...what the crap is that.

I know. I-35W could just be I-435 or something like that.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on May 10, 2016, 11:21:52 PM
Quote from: CobaltYoshi27
How long does an interstate have to be to not be considered a "stub"?

Well, longer than that "I-14" nonsense in Killeen, TX that looks like it may get approved. I-97 in Maryland is a stupid designation. That could have been another 3di from I-95. It could have even served as an extension of I-70 (continue that on past Annapolis and farther East to the coast eventually).

I-2 is one of the few short non-3di Interstates I find tolerable, but that's only because there is long term potential for it to be extended up to Laredo.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: CobaltYoshi27 on May 11, 2016, 03:29:59 PM
Quote from: CobaltYoshi27
How long does an interstate have to be to not be considered a "stub"?

Well, longer than that "I-14" nonsense in Killeen, TX that looks like it may get approved. I-97 in Maryland is a stupid designation. That could have been another 3di from I-95. It could have even served as an extension of I-70 (continue that on past Annapolis and farther East to the coast eventually).

I-2 is one of the few short non-3di Interstates I find tolerable, but that's only because there is long term potential for it to be extended up to Laredo.

I-14 is planned to extend to near the Georgia/South Carolina border.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on May 11, 2016, 03:38:21 PM
Just in case anyone has missed it, the AARoads Facebook page includes a March 23 post with a photo of an I-69W/ US 59 BGS (https://www.facebook.com/aaroads/):
(http://i.imgur.com/pcrx6VF.png)
This December 2012 Google StreetView imagery (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.6039589,-99.4950381,3a,75y,5.26h,90.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUm791g04OL1oZ_8SFZSgqw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) indicates that the I-69W and US 59 shields covered a Loop 20 shield accompanied by "WEST" as the direction:
(http://i.imgur.com/WkpDshF.png)
Does TxDOT provide cardinal direction signage for I-69W? Since they covered the WEST cardinal direction on the BGS and provide no cardinal direction for I-69W/ US 59 on the covered version of the BGS, and with much of "south" on Future I-69W/ Loop 20 actually moving northward, I'm just curious as to how they have handled the cardinal directions so far.

This August 2015 Google StreetView imagery (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.6126286,-99.4700194,3a,37.5y,278.54h,93.03t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smz2s21KPluN9u1Cg1g8oeg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) of US 59/ Loop 20 signage suggests that TxDOT will simply keep the cardinal direction for the Loop 20 signs and not provide an independent direction for accompanying I-69W shields, although this theory raises the question of why Loop 20 (and its WEST direction) was left off of the BGS:

(http://i.imgur.com/cn8kEP1.png)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on May 15, 2016, 10:26:30 AM
This article (http://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/2016/02/03/136538/judge-emmett-focuses-his-state-of-the-county-address-on-transportation-and-the-astrodome/) reports that Judge Emmett, in his State of the County address, once again spoke about the need for "the I-69 bypass" to serve the ports to the south and east and, further, that he regards the I-69 bypass as his personal priority:
Quote
Harris County Judge Ed Emmett delivered his ninth State of the County address on Tuesday ....
“My personal priority is the I-69 bypass. We know that U.S. 59 is being converted to Interstate 69, but we really don’t want all that traffic coming right through the middle. There needs to be a bypass and there needs to go south and east,”  said the county judge.
Emmett also noted the I-69 bypass would be an important component to handle traffic from the Port of Houston, as well as from ports in Galveston and Freeport.
I don't like the approved alignment of section B of the Grand Parkway, between SH 288 and the Gulf Freeway, because it has a ridiculous large dip to the south. Due to modern environment study processes, we get these absurd alignments.
http://www.grandpky.com/segment-b (http://www.grandpky.com/segment-b)
One problem with a Grand Parkway alignment is that it stops at the Gulf Freeway because section A (Gulf Freeway to SH 146) has been determined to be infeasible. There are two large container ports along SH 146, and if they want to justify a south alignment to serve port traffic, it will need to connect to SH 146.
To have a continuous loop-style bypass, it will need to connect to SH 146.
The next problem is that the Grand Parkway alignment is much longer than existing routes to most Port of Houston locations and will be much more expensive for users due to tolls over the long distance. So truckers will avoid it.
Judge Emmett's objective may be to get federal funding from the new freight corridor funding in the recent federal transportation legislation. The funding could make the Grand Parkway feasible, since I'm thinking tolls along won't cover the cost.
In an ideal world, I would like to see a new alignment study which would create and efficient (i.e. mostly straight) route which connects US 59 to SH 146.

This May 13 article (http://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/2016/05/13/150237/emmett-highlights-i-69-bypass-as-a-crucial-transportation-project-for-harris-county/) reports that Judge Emmett continues to bang the drum for the "I-69 bypass", and quotes him as referring to it as "the most important transportation project":

Quote
Harris County Judge Ed Emmett participated in the 17th annual State of the Counties luncheon Thursday afternoon.
The event is organized by BayTran, a group that focuses on transportation and is formed by cities, businesses and trade associations based across greater Houston.
Emmett said the I-69 bypass, in East Harris County, is the most important transportation project because it will better connect the ports of Houston, Galveston and Freeport.
He also addressed the way Texas used to fund transportation projects and said the state has to come up with a permanent funding source.
The judge pointed at the current economic climate as a factor that might make Proposition 1 less effective than it was intended when it was approved in 2014.
That proposition diverts funds from revenue originated from oil and gas taxes from the Economic Stabilization Fund —commonly known as the Rainy Day Fund, which is intended to cover revenue shortfalls– to the State Highway Fund.
Emmett commented that the low price of oil could cause the Rainy Fund not to provide as much funding as it had been anticipated.
The judge also highlighted the need for transportation projects in and near the Port of Houston because “it’s the economic engine currently and it will be the economic engine going forward.”

The article does not address the issue of the potential routing for the "I-69 bypass".
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on May 15, 2016, 06:50:32 PM
By "I-69 Bypass", would he probably mean the southern half of the Grand Parkway? Or, perhaps, a more direct coastal freeway from Corpus Christi to Galveston/Baytown via Freeport?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: aboges26 on May 15, 2016, 09:58:14 PM
By "I-69 Bypass", would he probably mean the southern half of the Grand Parkway? Or, perhaps, a more direct coastal freeway from Corpus Christi to Galveston/Baytown via Freeport?

Southern (& eastern) half of the Grand Parkway for sure.  As far as I know a more direct coastal freeway from CC to the Galveston area has not been up for debate, US 59 has been the preferred routing.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on May 16, 2016, 12:33:56 PM
TxDOT has posted a 73 page March 2016 I-69 Implementation Strategy Report (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/implementation-strategy-report.pdf) that provides the current status of each I-69 project in Texas.



By "I-69 Bypass", would he probably mean the southern half of the Grand Parkway? Or, perhaps, a more direct coastal freeway from Corpus Christi to Galveston/Baytown via Freeport?
Southern (& eastern) half of the Grand Parkway for sure.  As far as I know a more direct coastal freeway from CC to the Galveston area has not been up for debate, US 59 has been the preferred routing.

I have not seen an article in which Judge Emmett discusses a proposed routing for the "I-69 bypass". Also, in briefly scanning the March 2016 I-69 Implementation Strategy Report, I did not see any plans for an "I-69 bypass" in the Houston area (maybe someone else will see something).

edit

Above said, this excerpt from the map on page 19 (page 25/30 of pdf) of the I-69 Advisory Committee Report and Recommendations (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/advisory_committee_report.pdf) demonstrates that "Relief Options for Houston" is a priority:

(http://i.imgur.com/YTyBGTp.png)

Perhaps a Working Group will be assembled in the near future to determine a recommended route for Houston's "I-69 bypass".
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: The Ghostbuster on May 16, 2016, 04:36:33 PM
They should have given one of the routes the Interstate 69 designation, and given the other two corridors different numbers. Alas, its too late now!
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: vtk on May 16, 2016, 08:55:59 PM
They should have given one of the routes the Interstate 69 designation, and given the other two corridors different numbers. Alas, its too late now!

Blame Congress.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on May 17, 2016, 01:05:58 AM
Quote from: CobaltYoshi27
I-14 is planned to extend to near the Georgia/South Carolina border.

Originally I-14 was just going to be a Deep South route for Alabama and Georgia. Now some porky politicians in Texas drafted their own I-14 idea. The assumption is both of these routes would somehow be magically attached, even though the traffic counts are just not there to justify building very much of it at all.

In the Deep South, at best, an I-14 route could be best justified as a route connecting Meridian, MS; Selma, AL; Montgomery, AL; Columbus, GA and Macon, GA. That's about it. That route would very neatly fill a logical East-West gap between Meridian and Macon, letting the horizontal line I-20 was following from Texas continue to the East coast (via I-16) on to Savannah. That's what should really be the true I-14 route.

Unfortunately we have these dopey, porky, selfish, egomaniacal politicians pushing their way into the situation, infecting it with their stupidity.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: The Ghostbuster on May 17, 2016, 06:22:41 PM
Why does it seem like most of our problems can be traced directly back to our stupid politicians?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: TXtoNJ on May 17, 2016, 08:18:58 PM
They're the ones who make the decisions?

Stupid politician = stupid constituency. Emmett's probably got someone from Dow Chemical up his backside, looking to shave 30 min off of the drive from Baytown to Freeport.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: aboges26 on May 17, 2016, 10:10:06 PM
As regards relief options in Houston, in both the I-69 Segment Two Committee Report and Recommendations (pages 37-38/157; pages 31-32 of document) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg2_final.pdf) and the I-69 Segment Three Committee Report and Recommendations (page 36/157; page 30 of document) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg3_final.pdf), the Segment Two and Segment Three Committees ... did not tip their hand as far as recommending a specific relief route
My guess is that the Grand Parkway is already a de facto relief route (although it may be a looooong time before it, too, is finished), and that the Committees are considering options beyond a through route/relief route analysis.

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):
(http://i.imgur.com/1ScQV.png)

Unfortunately, the Segment Three Committee apparently did not share the same opinion. For ease of comparison, here is the comparable Segment Three map again; the comparison shows that the Segment Three Committee does not extend the relief route suggested by the Segment Two Committee:
(http://i.imgur.com/3aTjY.jpg)

Which beltway would be the Houston loop? We have one done and one being worked on, outside of 610. And better idea, Sam Houston turns into 869 or 845 since it is always known as Beltway 8.

Another difference between the two Committee reports is that the Segment Two Committee report expressly mentions the Sam Houston Tollway as providing a similar function to the Grand Parkway (whereas the Segment Three Committee report does not) (page 20/157 of pdf; page 14 of document):

Quote
Regional Highways — ... In the Houston area, the future development of the Grand Parkway/SH 99 was considered to be an important connection for I-69 by members of the committee, as it would provide a link to the Port of Houston, the Fred Hartman ship channel bridge, SH 146 and SH 225 to the south. To the west, the proposed Grand Parkway/SH 99 would provide connections to I-10, I-45, US 290 and SH 249. Currently, committee members noted that the Beltway 8/ Sam Houston Tollway provides similar connections for traffic in the Houston area.

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, you posted this map about 4 years ago, and it appears that the blue colored route that runs most of the east and south sections of the Grand Parkway would serve to be part of the "I-69 Bypass".  We will see what time will bring us though!
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on May 19, 2016, 02:38:32 PM
TxDOT has posted a Notice Affording an Opportunity for a Public Hearing — US 59 Loop (http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/laredo/022416.html) in the Laredo area:
Quote
Description:   The proposed US 59/Loop project limits are from 0.33-mile west of I-35 (at the eastern end of the existing I-69W mainlanes) to 0.160-mile west of McPherson Road (at the western side of that overpass bridge structure) ....
This project would fully integrate with the existing I-69W mainlanes west of I-35 as well as the McPherson Road interchange that opened to traffic in 2014. It will also integrate with the International Boulevard interchange project that is currently under a construction contract; construction work there is scheduled to start in the near future. Upon completion of these projects, through traffic will have uninterrupted service from International Blvd. to the entrance to the World Trade International Bridge IV. All of these interrelated projects are to be constructed to urban interstate (I-69W) design standards.

This article (http://www.lmtonline.com/front-news/article_42c4e600-1d5d-11e6-9c75-073d32af4ea5.html) reports that construction on the International Boulevard project is scheduled to begin on May 23:

Quote
Wednesday’s cancellation of the International Boulevard overpass project groundbreaking ceremony due to inclement weather will not hold back construction, which is scheduled to begin May 23.
The $22 million project will be constructed by Anderson Columbia. It will consist of an interchange facility over International at Loop 20 ....
“This continual upgrade of Loop 20 to urban interstate design standards falls in line with the congressional legislation concerning the Interstate 69 system,”  TxDOT said.



TxDOT has posted a 73 page March 2016 I-69 Implementation Strategy Report (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/implementation-strategy-report.pdf) that provides the current status of each I-69 project in Texas.

In regard to Future I-69W/ Loop 20, the Implementation Strategy Report lists an August, 2016 estimated letting date for the $39.4 million I-35 interchange project referenced in the top above quote and an August, 2018 estimated letting date for a $124.8 million project to complete I-69W from International Boulevard to the current Loop 20/ US 59 interchange (p. 66/73 of pdf):

(http://i.imgur.com/0h3k5CX.png)
....
(http://i.imgur.com/Qbb5Xq5.png)


Also, if I-69W is to be along Loop 20 in Laredo, will it dog leg or will TexDOT get it to cut straight east from Loop 20's Northeastern turn as the shortest distance between two points is a straight line?
... who knows? TxDOT hasn't done any environmental study for Laredo-to-Freer that I'm aware of.
That said an in-place upgrade of US 59 east of Loop 20 would be a pain (moreso than upgrading Loop 20 itself), so some sort of tangent routing makes sense. Laredo's long-range planning documents show an "expressway" running east from Loop 20 at International Blvd to the proposed Laredo Outer Loop, but that's all pie-in-the-sky thinking; they don't even have half of the proposed local streets built inside the loop yet, despite continuing population growth.

Once Laredo and TxDOT have the Loop 20 upgrade securely underway as an I-69W project, the big question in my mind is whether they will then study a more direct tangent routing connecting Loop 20 and US 59 to, as lordsutch suggests, avoid the costs and disruption associated with upgrading US 59 immediately east of Loop 20.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: thefro on May 24, 2016, 08:57:51 AM
http://www.caller.com/news/local/local-leaders-go-to-washington-dc-to-speed-i-69-funding-3384a4b5-fa57-3f29-e053-0100007f3c2f-380575181.html

Quote
Nueces County Judge Loyd Neal and Congressman Blake Farenthold were among 20 representatives to urge Washington to move forward with Interstate 69.

The local representatives are part of the Alliance for I-69 Texas, a group pressing for approval of federal grants for two projects in the state that would improve freight movement on parts of the highway, according to a news release. They met with representatives from eight other states along the highway corridor at the third annual meeting to hear progress.

The Texas Department of Transportation is seeking funds under the Fastlane grant program, which was established by a five-year, $4.5 billion federal transportation plan last year. This grant would fund a project in Laredo on Interstate 35 and Interstate 69 and a portion of State Highway 99, which would connect with Interstate 69 in Houston.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: thefro on June 09, 2016, 08:27:13 AM
Mildly off-topic, but yet another *-69 is coming to S. Texas
http://www.beaumontenterprise.com/news/transportation/article/Gulf-Intracoastal-Waterway-receives-marine-7971552.php

Quote
A stretch of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, including a portion in Port Arthur, has been approved to be designated Wednesday as a marine highway, according to the Texas Department of Transportation.

Marine Highway 69 runs from Brownsville to Port Arthur, linking more than 20 Texas ports, including the Port of Port Arthur, across 379 miles.

The designation, approved by the U.S. Secretary of Transporation, allows TxDOT and the state of Texas "to develop projects along the waterway that will help relieve roadway congestion alon gthe Gulf Coast," according to a release. The designation also allows for the state to seek federal funding.

The state acknowledges the M-69 shares the same number as Interstate 69, which begins in South Texas near Rosenberg and crosses into Louisiana at Shreveport. I-69 is different from U.S. 69, which begins in Port Arthur, runs through Beaumont, Lumberton and Woodville, eventually ending in Minnesota.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Rover_0 on June 09, 2016, 11:31:39 AM
Mildly off-topic, but yet another *-69 is coming to S. Texas
http://www.beaumontenterprise.com/news/transportation/article/Gulf-Intracoastal-Waterway-receives-marine-7971552.php

Quote
A stretch of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, including a portion in Port Arthur, has been approved to be designated Wednesday as a marine highway, according to the Texas Department of Transportation.

Marine Highway 69 runs from Brownsville to Port Arthur, linking more than 20 Texas ports, including the Port of Port Arthur, across 379 miles.

The designation, approved by the U.S. Secretary of Transporation, allows TxDOT and the state of Texas "to develop projects along the waterway that will help relieve roadway congestion alon gthe Gulf Coast," according to a release. The designation also allows for the state to seek federal funding.

The state acknowledges the M-69 shares the same number as Interstate 69, which begins in South Texas near Rosenberg and crosses into Louisiana at Shreveport. I-69 is different from U.S. 69, which begins in Port Arthur, runs through Beaumont, Lumberton and Woodville, eventually ending in Minnesota.

Since AASHTO is now designating ferries as part of US Routes, why not just make this as a US 69 extension?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on June 09, 2016, 03:37:54 PM
Since AASHTO is now designating ferries as part of US Routes, why not just make this as a US 69 extension?
Uh...because it's not a ferry?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Rover_0 on June 09, 2016, 06:38:15 PM
Since AASHTO is now designating ferries as part of US Routes, why not just make this as a US 69 extension?
Uh...because it's not a ferry?

Might as well be as it comes very close to US 69 at Port Arthur and that's technically one less route numbered 69 we need to worry about. But yea, that comment's a bit more tongue-in-cheek than I had hoped.

Anyways, I get the feeling that if TxDOT were a person, it would be Kevin from The Office (US):

Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: TravelingBethelite on June 09, 2016, 07:31:46 PM
Mildly off-topic, but yet another *-69 is coming to S. Texas
http://www.beaumontenterprise.com/news/transportation/article/Gulf-Intracoastal-Waterway-receives-marine-7971552.php

Quote
A stretch of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, including a portion in Port Arthur, has been approved to be designated Wednesday as a marine highway, according to the Texas Department of Transportation.

Marine Highway 69 runs from Brownsville to Port Arthur, linking more than 20 Texas ports, including the Port of Port Arthur, across 379 miles.

The designation, approved by the U.S. Secretary of Transporation, allows TxDOT and the state of Texas "to develop projects along the waterway that will help relieve roadway congestion alon gthe Gulf Coast," according to a release. The designation also allows for the state to seek federal funding.

The state acknowledges the M-69 shares the same number as Interstate 69, which begins in South Texas near Rosenberg and crosses into Louisiana at Shreveport. I-69 is in turn different from U.S. 69, which begins in Port Arthur, runs through Beaumont, Lumberton and Woodville, eventually ending in Minnesota.

Since AASHTO is now designating ferries as part of US Routes, why not just make this as a US 69 extension?

When and where did this happen? And on what? How drunk off their ass is AASHTO now? I have a lot of questions... :confused:  :pan:   :no:  :hmmm:  :ded:

Bold is mine.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on June 09, 2016, 08:57:59 PM
Maybe you should read the link...it's USDOT, not AASHTO, that designated this "marine highway".

Here's an older thread: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3290
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: kkt on June 09, 2016, 11:57:07 PM
If Texas can have a marine highway, when is the Alaska Ferry going to be a highway?  Alaska needs the ferry a whole lot more than Texas needs the Intracoastal Waterway.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on June 10, 2016, 08:20:30 AM
If Texas can have a marine highway, when is the Alaska Ferry going to be a highway?  Alaska needs the ferry a whole lot more than Texas needs the Intracoastal Waterway.
Here's an older thread: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3290
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MaxConcrete on July 07, 2016, 08:38:47 PM
Bids were opened today on a 2.7 mile section to be upgraded to a 6-lane freeway with frontage roads in Fort Bend County, southwest of Houston. This is the last section in Fort Bend county to be upgraded, at the southwest edge of the county. With this job, about 22 miles from the Grand Parkway (SH 99) to the Fort Bend/Wharton county line will be under construction.

http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/07073001.htm (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/07073001.htm)

Estimate    $41,001,475.14    % Over/Under    Company
Bidder 1    $37,743,798.54    -7.95%    WILLIAMS BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.
Bidder 2    $42,804,539.47    +4.40%    WEBBER, LLC
Bidder 3    $45,396,001.34    +10.72%    PULICE CONSTRUCTION, INC.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: O Tamandua on August 16, 2016, 06:16:54 PM
How's the ol' Kingsville-to-Raymondville section of Texas I-69 coming along?  Seems like awhile since I'd seen anything (but I've been away, too, so that's my fault.  :pan: )
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on August 18, 2016, 07:37:01 PM
As long as we're doing a short-time bump of this thread, does anyone have any updated information regarding the Freer-Corpus Christi "leg/connector" along TX 44?  Realizing that it's pretty much a latecomer to the I-69 "family", I wouldn't expect much in the way of developmental schedule as of yet -- but does anyone have any information regarding the designation of this route -- or if any "official" suggestions, or even discussion of such, have taken place or been forwarded?  Usually the TX I-69 group are all over such things; they seem to prefer that all their "ducks are in a row" prior to releasing any concrete plans (e.g., the designation of I-369).   
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on August 19, 2016, 07:49:59 PM
As long as we're doing a short-time bump of this thread, does anyone have any updated information regarding the Freer-Corpus Christi "leg/connector" along TX 44?  Realizing that it's pretty much a latecomer to the I-69 "family", I wouldn't expect much in the way of developmental schedule as of yet -- but does anyone have any information regarding the designation of this route -- or if any "official" suggestions, or even discussion of such, have taken place or been forwarded?  Usually the TX I-69 group are all over such things; they seem to prefer that all their "ducks are in a row" prior to releasing any concrete plans (e.g., the designation of I-369).

TxDOT has posted a 73 page March 2016 I-69 Implementation Strategy Report (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/implementation-strategy-report.pdf) that provides the current status of each I-69 project in Texas.  For example, SH 44 in the Corpus Christi district is included at pp. 58-60/73 of the pdf.  They are making slow progress.

I don't think they will sign it anytime soon, because unlike its I-69 cousins, it does not have a section that meets interstate standards and connects to an existing part of the interstate system.  It will be several years before that changes, and I have not heard any chatter about the designation.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on August 21, 2016, 09:01:25 AM
Mildly off-topic, but yet another *-69 is coming to S. Texas
http://www.beaumontenterprise.com/news/transportation/article/Gulf-Intracoastal-Waterway-receives-marine-7971552.php

The Alliance for I-69 Texas website now has an article discussing M-69 (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/marine69%208.18.16.html):

Quote
Marine Highway 69 links more than 20 Texas ports and in 2014 this waterway moved nearly 86 million tons of freight.  That includes nationally ranked ship channels serving Houston-Baytown, Beaumont-Port Arthur and Corpus Christi ....
The M-69 Marine Highway route includes the Gulf of Mexico, the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway and connecting commercial navigation channels, ports and harbors within the State of Texas.  It includes 11 deepwater and 13 shallow-draft ports between Brownsville and Port Arthur. 
The Texas Department of Transportation sought the federal designation.  This designation allows TxDOT and Texas ports to develop projects along the waterway that will help relieve roadway congestion along the Gulf Coast by allowing more freight to be waterborne and clears the way for seeking federal grant funding.  TxDOT has pursued Marine Highway status for the state’s 379-mile coastline since 2014. The M-69 portion handles 67 percent of all freight moving through the entire Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, which extends to Florida.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on August 21, 2016, 05:14:34 PM
There actually is a section of freeway along TX 44, the entirety of which, east of US 59 near Freer, has been added to the definition of HPC 18/the I-69 "family".  It's not long, extending west from the TX 358 freeway west of Corpus Christi for about 4 miles.   Curiously, the portion of TX 358 north of there to I-37 (about a mile and a half), also freeway, was not included in the legislative description, although there is a directional interchange between the two facilities.  Texas (by which I mean not only TXDOT but the Alliance for I-69 Texas, from whom most initiatives regarding the corridor flow) has done more with less before (although it is likely any further development on this particular section will considerably lag that of the mainline I-69 segments, as per general consensus).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: The Ghostbuster on August 22, 2016, 05:54:59 PM
Marine 69? I didn't know waterways could get highway numbers.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on September 04, 2016, 07:44:54 PM
The I-69 Driven By Texans website has added a San Jacinto County (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/drivenbytexans/us59-san-jacinto.htm) page. An Open House (http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/lufkin/092716.html) will be held on Sept. 27:

Quote
TxDOT is hosting an open house regarding the upgrade of US 59 (future I-69) to meet interstate standards from FM 2914 south of Shepherd in San Jacinto County to the north end of the Cleveland Relief Route in Liberty County. This event is being held to display the proposed improvements, explain where TxDOT is within the project development process, answer questions and gather input....
Funding has been allocated for the preliminary development of this project which includes environmental studies, schematic design and right-of-way acquisition.  At this time, no construction funding has been identified.

A map of the project area (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/lfk/notices/092716-project-map.pdf) is included:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_04_09_16_7_31_10.jpeg)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on September 30, 2016, 07:57:45 PM
The I-69 Driven By Texans website has added a San Jacinto County (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/drivenbytexans/us59-san-jacinto.htm) page. An Open House (http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/lufkin/092716.html) will be held on Sept. 27

This article (http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/dayton/news/txdot-holds-open-meeting-to-discuss-i--project/article_978b0262-a6a1-54ae-bde8-02e16ea19c31.html) reports on the Open House, saying that ROW and mapping acquisition should begin in eighteen to twenty-four months:

Quote
Shepherd High School hosted the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) for a meeting on Sept. 27 in their cafeteria to discuss the future Interstate-69 project, which will affect both San Jacinto and Liberty counties ....
This project is looking to upgrade US 59 to interstate standards,”  said Project Coordinator Jennifer Adams ....
“This is here to just get input from the community,”  said Adams.
Adams further commented that speaking with the local residents allows TxDOT officials to get a better idea of what they may have missed in their initial observations.
“We’re going to take these comments back and we’re going to start working on developing the schematics,”  she said.
Once the comments are evaluated, TxDOT is set to schedule environmental and schematic studies, which should be completed in approximately 18 to 24 months. TxDOT will begin right-of-way and mapping acquisitions shortly afterward.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on October 28, 2016, 01:26:26 PM
TxDOT has published a four-page October 2016 U.S. 59 Loop Upgrade newsletter (http://www.laredompo.org/files/Announcements/US59LoopUpgrade.pdf) which contains a Notice of a December 1 Public Meeting.  Here is a snip from a map in the newsletter:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_28_10_16_1_24_13.png)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_28_10_16_4_56_59.jpeg)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: The Ghostbuster on October 28, 2016, 04:30:15 PM
Which stretch of the lettered Interstate 69 do any of you think will be completed first? 69E, 69C, or 69W?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: lordsutch on October 28, 2016, 05:18:41 PM
TxDOT has published a four-page October 2016 U.S. 59 Loop Upgrade newsletter (http://www.laredompo.org/files/Announcements/US59LoopUpgrade.pdf) which contains a Notice of a December 1 Public Meeting.

I'm honestly surprised TxDOT is going to try to squeeze a freeway plus frontage roads into the section from Saunders Street north to Jacaman. Regardless any upgrade of US 59 east of the loop is a non-starter with all the empty ranch land available to the north, so not all of this is likely to eventually become part of the ultimate "through" I-69C even if it gets some I-69C shields in the interim.

Which stretch of the lettered Interstate 69 do any of you think will be completed first? 69E, 69C, or 69W?

Since I don't think TxDOT will ever build I-69W between Freer and Victoria (or I-69C between George West and Victoria), in favor of a "port-to-port" freeway corridor from Laredo to Corpus Christi, I think it'll be I-69E by default.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 01, 2016, 05:11:16 PM
If that is the case, Interstate 69E should become Interstate 69, and the 69C and 69W designations should be removed. Time will tell if this prediction is accurate.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on November 01, 2016, 11:26:54 PM
It will be interesting to see how the various I-69 routes in Texas get fleshed out ultimately. I think there's little doubt I-69E will be completed between Robstown and Raymondville. About the same amount of progress has taken place on I-69C between Alice and Edinburg. But how will they ultimately connect to the parent I-69 route in Victoria? I suppose there's a fair chance I-69W might be forced to make a turn at Freer towards Alice and over to Robstown and Corpus Christi. That wouldn't be the intended I-69W/C/E design, but budget cuts could make such a thing necessary.

Quote from: lordsutch
I'm honestly surprised TxDOT is going to try to squeeze a freeway plus frontage roads into the section from Saunders Street north to Jacaman.

Converting the Bob Bullock Loop into a freeway was a foregone conclusion, but I don't see how they squeeze both freeway and frontage roads through that entire stretch, at least not without elevating a new freeway over the existing roads.

I think they'll modify the intersection with Club Lane and TX-20, perhaps making that an exit. But going Northward I think the frontage roads will have to merge into the existing lanes of TX-20. There's just no room for frontage roads there. TX-DOT can't eat into the Lake Casa Blanca levee. And the Casa Blanca Country Club golf course hugs the other side of the road. Additional problems exist North of the golf course. The freeway would have to leap frog over the state park entrance. Other properties, including what looks like some new development across the street from the string of auto dealerships, would have to be bought up for right of way. It doesn't look like everyone in the Laredo area is on the same page when it comes to development of I-69W (and even I-2).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on November 10, 2016, 07:02:53 PM
North of Houston is where improvements are urgently needed, especially the Diboll bypass and other small towns like Corrigan. So if TxDOT can get I-69 built in those bottleneck spots within 5-10 years, huge benefits can be achieved in the near-term.

This Nov. 8 article (http://www.ktre.com/story/33661138/angelina-county-commissioners-make-i69-a-top-priority) reports that Angelina County Commissioners hope that work on the Diboll bypass will start in 2019:

Quote
County Judge Wes Suiter and the Angelina County Commissioners were in agreement Tuesday morning to make the future of Interstate 69 a priority.
"The transportation committee will be meeting later this month," Suiter said. "They have prop 7 funding and federal funding so they are going to prioritize projects across the state. We want to make sure that projects we have here in Angelina, Nacogdoches and Polk Counties are put at the forefront."
In their resolution, Suiter and the commissioners pointed out several reason why the relief route that will head east of Diboll is needed. The main two concerns they have is for day to day traffic as well as emergency traffic in case of a hurricane evacuation route.
Suiter said it is obvious that a relief route is needed if you monitor Highway 59 on any given evening.
"You see in town that sometimes the first street light is backed up all the way past the Crown Colony entrance," Suiter said. "Corrigan has one red light. Diboll has three. That's a tremendous traffic back up especially on Thursday, Friday and Saturday evening when the majority of heavy truck traffic comes through."
In 2014, after several meetings, the committee that is researching the topic determine a relief route to the east of Diboll.
"We have appraisers that are on the ground now looking at right of way," Suiter said. "We have acquired a lot of it right now. We are hoping to get the rest by 2019. We are hoping the committee will get us the funding so we can have the project going by 2019. It has already been environmentally cleared."
Suiter said the project could be at least two years but could go as long as four years.
The relief of traffic would not just be for daily traffic but could also help in relief efforts.
"The highway has been designated an evacuation zone, it will expedite the evacuation of those from the Texas coast through Angelina County and further north," Suiter said.
Suiter could not give any time frame for when the county would be made aware of any funding.
Title: Re: Highway 77 does NOT need to be an interstate!
Post by: Anthony_JK on November 24, 2016, 04:36:56 AM
Mods, may I suggest this be folded into that particular thread??

I fundamentally disagree with that statement. You can debate whether the entirity of I-69 is nothing but pork, but upgrading US 77 to Interstate standards from South Texas to at least Corpus Christi, if not to Victoria to meet an upgraded US 59 to Houston, is perfectly legitimated by both trade and safety. The compromise they made to add grade separations and limited frontage road access to the Kenedy County farmland property is satisfactory to meet those standards, though, I would have preferred they go all the way with continuous frontage roads for the entire route between Brownsville and Corpus Christi. Also, as stated frequently, I would have preferred an extended I-37 rather than an suffixed I-69E for the upgrade of US 77...but, that's only me.
Title: Re: Highway 77 does NOT need to be an interstate!
Post by: Bobby5280 on November 25, 2016, 10:23:38 AM
There are over 1.3 million people living in "Rio Grande Valley" area of far South Texas. Brownsville, Harlingen, Pharr, McAllen, Edinburg and dozens of other towns have blended together to create quite an odd metropolis. There is no major center city down there. Yet more people live there than in El Paso, Amarillo, Lubbock, Lardeo, Corpus Christi or Midland-Odessa -cities all connected to the Interstate highway system.

Perhaps having 2 I-69 routes going down there might be a bit much. But the Rio Grande Valley is seeing some rapid growth that may justify the building out of those routes, as well as an extension of I-2 up to Laredo. TX DOT is putting a lot of work into loop highway projects in the Rio Grande Valley as well as work on better connections to the South Padre Island tourist zone nearby.
Title: Re: Highway 77 does NOT need to be an interstate!
Post by: compdude787 on November 25, 2016, 06:28:19 PM
There are over 1.3 million people living in "Rio Grande Valley" area of far South Texas.

That population alone more than justifies connecting the Rio Grande Valley with the rest of the Interstate Highway System.
Title: Re: Highway 77 does NOT need to be an interstate!
Post by: thefro on November 28, 2016, 11:46:18 AM
There are over 1.3 million people living in "Rio Grande Valley" area of far South Texas.

That population alone more than justifies connecting the Rio Grande Valley with the rest of the Interstate Highway System.

Yep, plus there's basically the same amount on top of that when you add in Reynosa & Matamoros metro areas on the other side of the border.  Obviously those folks aren't going to be crossing the border every day but a significant number of them do, plus semi truck traffic back and forth.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX/Highway 77 does NOT need to be an interstate!
Post by: The Ghostbuster on November 29, 2016, 07:19:27 PM
It sounds like Interstate 69E will be completed, whether or not it needs to be an interstate. 69E probably should have been mainline 69.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on November 29, 2016, 09:08:19 PM
It sounds like Interstate 69E will be completed, whether or not it needs to be an interstate. 69E probably should have been mainline 69.

69E will almost assuredly have more overall traffic than either of the other S. Texas branches; it's also likely that 69W, if & when completed, will have a greater proportion of international/commercial truck traffic in relation to overall traffic flow just because it would feed directly into and out of the mainline Mexico 85 corridor -- and would be serving as the main outlet to the eastern U.S. market (probably the rationale for planning it in the first place). 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on November 30, 2016, 01:37:55 AM
I'm not so sure I-69W from Laredo and on East would get more traffic than completed legs of I-69C and I-69E. Mexico 85 is an important NAFTA highway corridor, but it's already pushing most of its traffic onto I-35 and major destinations North. I-69W would arguably be duplicating efforts of I-35 for a lot of cities farther North. Outside of Houston and perhaps some other Deep South destinations I-69W won't have as much pull traffic wise as I-35.

Laredo and Nuevo Laredo don't have as many residents as the Rio Grande Valley region in far South Texas. Also Mexico 40 is another major highway coming up from the Monterrey area. There aren't any major shipping ports along the Gulf Coast of Northern Mexico. There is probably a good amount of port traffic traveling between Monterrey and other cities in Northern Mexico and the ports of Brownsville and Corpus Christi.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on November 30, 2016, 01:12:59 PM
I'd guess that once the Reynoso/Hidalgo border crossing at the east end of Mexico 40 was upgraded to an Interstate-grade connection to I-2 and/or I-69C (and 69E east of there) then a lot of Mexico-originating commercial traffic might shift to that corridor due to the persistent congestion at the Laredo border crossings; at that point, the combination of 69C (if built out to full standards) and 69E might be carrying more international traffic than a built 69W corridor -- particularly that heading to the Corpus Christi port.  What I was trying to get at in my prior post was that the proportion of commercial traffic on 69W vis-à-vis the overall traffic volume would likely be higher, while because of "civilian" traffic on 69E (and eventually 69C as well, as it also serves the populated portion of the Rio Grande Valley) will most likely comprise much more of those routes' overall volume due to the sheer size of the population base served.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on November 30, 2016, 04:25:51 PM
I'm wondering when TX DOT will start building some of the partial frontage road style exits for various at-grade intersections that won't get bridges built over the I-69E and I-69C highways.

The best I can tell, judging from nearly year-old Google Earth imagery, TX DOT is completing the I-69E upgrades between Robstown and Kingsville first and then moving South. They've done a couple small projects here and there, such as a new exit in Sarita. A little work has been done on future I-69C in Alice.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: lordsutch on December 01, 2016, 01:54:39 AM
As I've mentioned before, 69C (US 281) serves very different traffic flows from 69E (US 77); most 69C traffic is headed for I-35 corridor cities like San Antonio or Austin, while 69E traffic is more likely destined for Corpus Christi or Houston/Galveston/East Texas, although Brownsville-originating traffic will likely use 69E to get to I-37 for the I-35 corridor too.

Also, it's worth noting TxDOT did complete a freeway upgrade of US 281 through Falfurrias a while back, which leaves basically George West as the last significant area where an immediate freeway upgrade is important to gain better connectivity to I-37.

As for commercial traffic shifting to McAllen or Brownsville, I know Laredo/Nuevo Laredo is committed to keeping up with the competition from the lower valley; a fifth bridge south of the built-up area in Laredo is going through the permitting process, which should relieve congestion at the World Trade Bridge and Colombia.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on December 01, 2016, 02:50:49 AM
As I've mentioned before, 69C (US 281) serves very different traffic flows from 69E (US 77); most 69C traffic is headed for I-35 corridor cities like San Antonio or Austin, while 69E traffic is more likely destined for Corpus Christi or Houston/Galveston/East Texas, although Brownsville-originating traffic will likely use 69E to get to I-37 for the I-35 corridor too.

Also, it's worth noting TxDOT did complete a freeway upgrade of US 281 through Falfurrias a while back, which leaves basically George West as the last significant area where an immediate freeway upgrade is important to gain better connectivity to I-37.

As for commercial traffic shifting to McAllen or Brownsville, I know Laredo/Nuevo Laredo is committed to keeping up with the competition from the lower valley; a fifth bridge south of the built-up area in Laredo is going through the permitting process, which should relieve congestion at the World Trade Bridge and Colombia.

Wow!  Public works capitalism at its finest -- a perceived threat of traffic diversion to take advantage of the nascent facilities serving the Lower Valley prompts planning for another crossing near Laredo.  Wonder if it will also prompt advancement of the 69W corridor to disperse any new/increased cross-border traffic flow -- or at least NE to Freer before turning east toward Corpus (get that Laredo cargo to either the port or to NB 69E).  It'll be interesting to see how all this plays out in the near future -- and whether an I-2 western extension will have a significant role in the overall regional commercial traffic flow.

Also of interest: I-69C evolving into an effective I-37-to-the-border branch rather than a major part of the I-69 dispersal system.  Possibly that's what S. Texas interests had in mind from the start -- and simply used the overall I-69 political momentum as a vehicle to get the route developed. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 01, 2016, 01:13:19 PM
US-281 and I-69C is the most direct route between San Antonio (over a million people there) and the Edinburgh-McAllen-Pharr area, not to mention the large city of Reynosa across the border. In some respects it looks like more has been done on the I-69C corridor than I-69E. The segment in Edinburgh has been extended North to the FM-490 interchange, but has a little way to go to fill in the gap to Linn and TX-186. A new exit was built at FM-755. The Falfurrias project was fairly big. Some work has been done on the Western bypass of Alice.

Quote from: lordsutch
As for commercial traffic shifting to McAllen or Brownsville, I know Laredo/Nuevo Laredo is committed to keeping up with the competition from the lower valley; a fifth bridge south of the built-up area in Laredo is going through the permitting process, which should relieve congestion at the World Trade Bridge and Colombia.

A border crossing on the South side of Laredo would make sense. Are there any plans to see showing where the point of entry would be located specfically?

There is a decent sized industrial park on the South side of Nuevo Laredo and that city's airport is on that side of town as well. The Luis Donaldo Colosio road is a major route that runs up to the Rio Grande River. US-83 has enough ROW for any sort of freeway upgrade as far North of Laredo Community College. It looks like Loop 20 (and possibly Future I-2) will merge into the US-83 main line farther South.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: The Ghostbuster on December 01, 2016, 03:27:08 PM
How much traffic currently uses the corridors that are proposed to become Interstate 69C and 69W (US 281 and 59)? Is it enough to warrant Interstate upgrades to the corridors? US 281 is almost completely 4 lanes throughout and large portions of US 59 are only 2 lanes. Is that sufficient for current traffic volumes?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: lordsutch on December 01, 2016, 05:16:06 PM
A border crossing on the South side of Laredo would make sense. Are there any plans to see showing where the point of entry would be located specfically?

There is a decent sized industrial park on the South side of Nuevo Laredo and that city's airport is on that side of town as well. The Luis Donaldo Colosio road is a major route that runs up to the Rio Grande River. US-83 has enough ROW for any sort of freeway upgrade as far North of Laredo Community College. It looks like Loop 20 (and possibly Future I-2) will merge into the US-83 main line farther South.

Loop 20 is planned to be extended south to the existing interchange on US 83 at Espejo Molina Road in Rio Bravo. I don't think TxDOT ever plans on upgrading US 83 north of Espejo Molina to freeway standards.

As far as Bridge 5 goes, I don't know if they ever agreed on a specific location, but it was expected to be built somewhere between Mangana-Hein Road (the current south end of Loop 20) and in the boonies between El Cenizo and Rio Bravo, all of which would be well to the south of the Colosio loop on the Mexican side. Part of the issue is that the Colombia bridge is underutilized and Laredo would rather traffic use it than build a new bridge, but Nuevo Laredo doesn't benefit from growth at the Colombia crossing since it's actually in a different state.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: J N Winkler on December 01, 2016, 09:11:56 PM
How much traffic currently uses the corridors that are proposed to become Interstate 69C and 69W (US 281 and 59)? Is it enough to warrant Interstate upgrades to the corridors? US 281 is almost completely 4 lanes throughout and large portions of US 59 are only 2 lanes. Is that sufficient for current traffic volumes?

I've done a rough-and-ready comparison between TxDOT's Statewide Planning Map (http://www.txdot.gov/apps/statewide_mapping/StatewidePlanningMap.html) (which has an AADT layer) and Google Maps.

US 59 is four-lane divided or better all the way from Houston to Goliad, and two-lane (with intermittent passing lanes) between Goliad and Laredo.  On rural segments, traffic volume falls more or less monotonically from Houston to Laredo.  AADT drops to approximately the 10,000 VPD threshold for widening from two-lane to four-lane divided at the US 59/US 77 intersection just to the southwest of Victoria, so there are actually about 20 miles of four-lane divided road where the traffic does not meet that criterion for the existing level of provision.

However, this does not tell us about possible issues such as stoplight infestation going through small cities, which might justify at least localized freeway upgrades between Rosenberg (end of the I-69 freeway radiating southwest out of Houston) and Victoria.

In the case of US 281, we may as well ignore the length between San Antonio and Three Rivers, since this serves essentially the same corridor as I-37.  Much of the length between Three Rivers and Edinburg (start of I-69C) is just at or above the 10,000 VPD warrant for widening to four-lane divided, and already has at least two lanes in each direction in rural areas.  US 281 may need freeway bypasses at certain locations where these are not already provided, such as Three Rivers and George West, but these are not especially urgent since traffic through the towns in question is generally close to the 10,000 VPD threshold.  In the towns where it is higher, such as Falfurrias and Alice, freeway bypasses (or, in Falfurrias' case, a throughpass) are already provided.

Again, a comparison of AADT with cross-section does not tell us about local conditions (not necessarily limited to stoplight infestation) that might justify a higher level of improvement.

Another caveat to keep in mind is that these are current volumes, which are not necessarily close to the plausible design hour volumes that would be used to justify the scope and scale of an improvement.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: inkyatari on December 02, 2016, 12:56:34 PM
This has probably been brought up, but I can't seem to find it.  What's going to happen to all the 69C, 69b, 69D, whatever routes if (when)mainline  69 gets finished?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 02, 2016, 01:27:03 PM
Quote from: lordsutch
Loop 20 is planned to be extended south to the existing interchange on US 83 at Espejo Molina Road in Rio Bravo. I don't think TxDOT ever plans on upgrading US 83 north of Espejo Molina to freeway standards.

Espejo Molina Road in Rio Bravo could be a strange choice where to merge Loop 20 into US-83. It sure wouldn't be good if they wanted Loop 20 itself to go farther and act as the new point of entry for traffic coming from Mexico. Espejo Molina Road runs along the South edge of Rio Bravo. Unfortunately there are existing properties on the South side of the street where the new thoroughfare would run. One of those is Santa Rita De Casia Mission. That church is probably the nicest looking property in Rio Bravo.

So, hopefully they'll stick with the plan to build Bridge 5 a little farther North. Mangana Hein Road would be just as good a place as any. That would give a clear, short and straight shot to the border. There is plenty of space to widen Mangana Hein Road if needed. And US-83 has plenty of space for any necessary upgrades as well.

Quote from: J N Winkler
Another caveat to keep in mind is that these are current volumes, which are not necessarily close to the plausible design hour volumes that would be used to justify the scope and scale of an improvement.

Is TX DOT or anyone else making any kinds of predictions on how traffic volumes might increase on any of these I-69 segments once they are completed? Right now most commercial traffic coming from Mexico would be highly discouraged to take US-59 out of Laredo because of its current 2 lane condition. Everything is headed up I-35. That might change once enough of I-69 and I-69W are completed between Houston and Laredo.

I don't know if traffic counts will increase substantially on I-69C and I-69E once those roads are substantially built out. It might not make much of a difference to commercial traffic. OTOH, beach-goers (particularly Spring Breakers) might give South Padre Island a better look if there is a stop light-free super highway going all the way there.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: 1 on December 02, 2016, 02:49:16 PM
This has probably been brought up, but I can't seem to find it.  What's going to happen to all the 69C, 69b, 69D, whatever routes if (when)mainline  69 gets finished?

I think they will remain the way they are. There is no mainline I-35 in the 35W/35E sections. (69b and 69D, however, do not exist. C stands for "central", not C for being the third letter of the alphabet.)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on December 02, 2016, 08:11:18 PM
The I-69 Driven By Texans website (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/drivenbytexans/us77-kingsville-driscoll.htm) recently posted a page about the US 77/Future I-69E Kingsville-Driscoll project, with construction ramping up this Spring and anticipated to have an opening date of October 2016
The Alliance for I-69 Texas has posted an update on current I-69E projects (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update%208.10.14.nueces.html), which includes the following map illustrating the projects:
(http://i.imgur.com/HFDDhsJ.png)

This Dec. 1 TV video (http://www.kiiitv.com/traffic/highway-77-construction-to-be-completed-in-january/361210039) reports that the eight-mile stretch of I-69E around Bishop should open in January:

Quote
Traveling down Highway 77 through Bishop should become an easier task over the next few months. Texas Department of Transportation officials said all of the major work along the eight-mile stretch will be completed in January.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on December 19, 2016, 01:31:10 PM
As regards relief options in Houston, in both the I-69 Segment Two Committee Report and Recommendations (pages 37-38/157; pages 31-32 of document) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg2_final.pdf) and the I-69 Segment Three Committee Report and Recommendations (page 36/157; page 30 of document) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/pub_inv/committees/i69/seg3_final.pdf), the Segment Two and Segment Three Committees ... did not tip their hand as far as recommending a specific relief route
TxDOT has posted a 73 page March 2016 I-69 Implementation Strategy Report (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/implementation-strategy-report.pdf) that provides the current status of each I-69 project in Texas ....
I have not seen an article in which Judge Emmett discusses a proposed routing for the "I-69 bypass". Also, in briefly scanning the March 2016 I-69 Implementation Strategy Report, I did not see any plans for an "I-69 bypass" in the Houston area (maybe someone else will see something).
Grzrd, you posted this map about 4 years ago, and it appears that the blue colored route that runs most of the east and south sections of the Grand Parkway would serve to be part of the "I-69 Bypass".  We will see what time will bring us though!

Judge Emmett spoke at the December 2 luncheon of the Alliance for I-69 Texas (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update%2012.16.16%20Emmett%20remarks.html) 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):

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):
(http://i.imgur.com/1ScQV.png)
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 ...
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on December 22, 2016, 11:20:41 AM
TxDOT has submitted a joint FASTLANE application with Laredo (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/fed/fastlane/2017/laredo-application.pdf) to improve the I-69W/I-35  interchange. The grant application asks for $96 million of the $160 million project.  Here is a snip of the map of the project area (p. 12/28 of pdf):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_22_12_16_11_14_13.png)

Here is a TV video (http://www.kgns.tv/content/news/Local-Officials-Return-From-Washington-DC-407800325.html) of Laredo mayor Pete Saenz talking about the application.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on January 13, 2017, 10:30:28 AM
In this case it's a freeway. I am sure the people in Falfurious who watch all the NAFTA trucks pounce upon their town might think differently.
Now it's more "zoom past" than "pounce upon".  US 281 through Falfurrias is now a freeway, and it wouldn't surprise me if it soon becomes another I-69C segment. 
I lucked into the opening when I was in south Texas in early March.  The new freeway was open in one direction when I drove it, with the other direction scheduled to open the next day.

This article (http://www.yourvalleyvoice.com/news/20170111/groundbreaking-held-for-new-falfurrias-checkpoint) reports that ground has been broken for a new Border Patrol checkpoint in Falfurrias:

Quote
Driving north on Interstate 69 out of the Rio Grande Valley a sign reads Falfurrias 20, a tree line begins on the median of the highway and a mile up the highway there is a Border Patrol checkpoint.
Ten thousand vehicles pass the Falfurrias checkpoint everyday making it the busiest in the United States in the amount of seizures and apprehensions.
With some luck there is a chance to pass smoothly and not be delayed.
Beginning in the summer of 2018 the United States Border Patrol hopes to change any inconvenience for motorists when they open a new state-of-the-art, 20,000 square-foot checkpoint ....
The cost of the new checkpoint will be in the $30 million range and will feature a 8,600 square-foot main building, 4,000 square-foot storage building and a 2,000 square-foot dog kennel.
From the ingress to the egress of the checkpoint everything will be vastly improved which will include new lanes for traffic. Four lanes will be used for commercial traffic and Four lanes will be used for non-commercial traffic.
There will be a substantial increase in non-intrusive technology, x-ray technology and radiation technology.
"Instead of handheld equipment we're looking at drive-through portals that will come through the checkpoint,"
Slowinski said.
Deputy Chief Patrol Agent for the RGV Sector Raul Ortiz said there should be no delays in traffic due to the construction of the new checkpoint. The RGV Sector will keep the staffing model as is and since the new facility is being built just north of the existing checkpoint it will be business as usual at the current checkpoint.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Alex on January 14, 2017, 08:31:49 AM
In this case it's a freeway. I am sure the people in Falfurious who watch all the NAFTA trucks pounce upon their town might think differently.
Now it's more "zoom past" than "pounce upon".  US 281 through Falfurrias is now a freeway, and it wouldn't surprise me if it soon becomes another I-69C segment. 
I lucked into the opening when I was in south Texas in early March.  The new freeway was open in one direction when I drove it, with the other direction scheduled to open the next day.

This article (http://www.yourvalleyvoice.com/news/20170111/groundbreaking-held-for-new-falfurrias-checkpoint) reports that ground has been broken for a new Border Patrol checkpoint in Falfurrias:

Quote
Driving north on Interstate 69 out of the Rio Grande Valley a sign reads Falfurrias 20, a tree line begins on the median of the highway and a mile up the highway there is a Border Patrol checkpoint.
Ten thousand vehicles pass the Falfurrias checkpoint everyday making it the busiest in the United States in the amount of seizures and apprehensions.
With some luck there is a chance to pass smoothly and not be delayed.
Beginning in the summer of 2018 the United States Border Patrol hopes to change any inconvenience for motorists when they open a new state-of-the-art, 20,000 square-foot checkpoint ....
The cost of the new checkpoint will be in the $30 million range and will feature a 8,600 square-foot main building, 4,000 square-foot storage building and a 2,000 square-foot dog kennel.
From the ingress to the egress of the checkpoint everything will be vastly improved which will include new lanes for traffic. Four lanes will be used for commercial traffic and Four lanes will be used for non-commercial traffic.
There will be a substantial increase in non-intrusive technology, x-ray technology and radiation technology.
"Instead of handheld equipment we're looking at drive-through portals that will come through the checkpoint,"
Slowinski said.
Deputy Chief Patrol Agent for the RGV Sector Raul Ortiz said there should be no delays in traffic due to the construction of the new checkpoint. The RGV Sector will keep the staffing model as is and since the new facility is being built just north of the existing checkpoint it will be business as usual at the current checkpoint.

Without looking at the quoted text afterwards, I had to ponder which branch of IH 69, since the article referenced just Interstate 69. Makes me wonder how much confusion with the general public the eventual completed branches will cause with all three suffixes in use.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: vdeane on January 15, 2017, 08:43:44 PM
Falfurrias is I-69C.  Maybe if there's enough confusion we'll be able to get rid of these stupid suffixes.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: GreenLanternCorps on January 16, 2017, 12:27:25 PM
The I-69 Driven By Texans website (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/drivenbytexans/us77-kingsville-driscoll.htm) recently posted a page about the US 77/Future I-69E Kingsville-Driscoll project, with construction ramping up this Spring and anticipated to have an opening date of October 2016
The Alliance for I-69 Texas has posted an update on current I-69E projects (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update%208.10.14.nueces.html), which includes the following map illustrating the projects:
(http://i.imgur.com/HFDDhsJ.png)

This Dec. 1 TV video (http://www.kiiitv.com/traffic/highway-77-construction-to-be-completed-in-january/361210039) reports that the eight-mile stretch of I-69E around Bishop should open in January:

Quote
Traveling down Highway 77 through Bishop should become an easier task over the next few months. Texas Department of Transportation officials said all of the major work along the eight-mile stretch will be completed in January.

What about Driscoll?  Google maps shows that part of US-77 going though town.

https://www.google.com/maps/@27.6723454,-97.7496732,3a,75y,24.46h,90.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sChF2vLwFqZr4G-IKZild-g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.6723454,-97.7496732,3a,75y,24.46h,90.53t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sChF2vLwFqZr4G-IKZild-g!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

Does not look like a lot of room, so they will have to bypass Driscoll too...

Update:

Nevermind, on the original link it says the following...

"DRISCOLL RELIEF ROUTE - A relief route around the town of Driscoll will be built in the future.  It will close a gap in highway upgrades of about six miles and will create a connected freeway from Interstate 37 at Corpus Christi south through Kingsville. The relief route will run through open farm fields and cross Petronila Creek on the east side of Driscoll."
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on January 18, 2017, 08:47:01 PM
TxDOT will hold a Open House on February 9 (http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/yoakum/020917.html) regarding upgrading US 59 to I-69 in Wharton County:

Quote
Where:   Wharton Civic Center
1924 N Fulton St.
Wharton, TX 77488 (Map)
When:   Thursday, Feb. 9, 2017
5:30 p.m.- 6:30 p.m. Open House
6:30 p.m. Hearing
Purpose:   TxDOT is proposing to upgrade US 59 to Interstate Highway Standards from FM 2919 to FM 710 in Wharton County, Texas.
Description:   The proposed project would include:
A four-lane divided roadway (two 12-foot lanes in each direction) with 4-foot inside shoulders and 12-foot outside shoulders divided by a depressed grass median that varies from 34 to 62 feet in width
Continuous frontage roads (two12-foot lanes in each direction) with 10-foot outside shoulders and 4-foot inside shoulders
Total length of the proposed construction area is 39.5 miles in length.

The Draft Environmental Assessment (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/ykm/materials/us-59-wharton-county/020917-draft-environmental-assessment.pdf) contains a map of the project area (p. 57/161 of pdf), as well as many detailed segment maps:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_18_01_17_8_45_39.jpeg)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: abqtraveler on January 24, 2017, 12:14:57 AM
TxDOT will hold a Open House on February 9 (http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/yoakum/020917.html) regarding upgrading US 59 to I-69 in Wharton County:

Quote
Where:   Wharton Civic Center
1924 N Fulton St.
Wharton, TX 77488 (Map)
When:   Thursday, Feb. 9, 2017
5:30 p.m.- 6:30 p.m. Open House
6:30 p.m. Hearing
Purpose:   TxDOT is proposing to upgrade US 59 to Interstate Highway Standards from FM 2919 to FM 710 in Wharton County, Texas.
Description:   The proposed project would include:
A four-lane divided roadway (two 12-foot lanes in each direction) with 4-foot inside shoulders and 12-foot outside shoulders divided by a depressed grass median that varies from 34 to 62 feet in width
Continuous frontage roads (two12-foot lanes in each direction) with 10-foot outside shoulders and 4-foot inside shoulders
Total length of the proposed construction area is 39.5 miles in length.

The Draft Environmental Assessment (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/ykm/materials/us-59-wharton-county/020917-draft-environmental-assessment.pdf) contains a map of the project area (p. 57/161 of pdf), as well as many detailed segment maps:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_18_01_17_8_45_39.jpeg)

Fire up the bulldozers and git'er done!
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on January 24, 2017, 04:47:01 PM
When will TX DOT start extending I-69E farther north from its current end outside Raymondville? Right now the freeway stops on an at-grade crossing just North of Raymondville. It looks like a ranch entrance. There is a somewhat fancy entrance sign with "La Prieta" letters on the East side of the highway. I wonder what method they will use to handle those ranch entrances and other at grade crossings.

Obviously TX DOT is not going to build full frontage roads the entire distance between Raymondville and Kingsville. Some at grade crossings will simply be removed. Others will run into frontage roads of short length. Bridge crossings will be limited.

It seems like more actual progress has been made on the I-69C corridor North of Edinburg. I-69C now runs up to an exit with FM-490. There is a 7 mile gap between there and the freeway quality exit TX-186 in Linn. Maybe TX DOT will fill that gap and have the North end of I-69C running about parallel with the North end of I-69E before anything else happens with I-69E.

By the way, just looking at some Google Street View imagery down there I have to say most of the I-69E and I-69C shields look ugly as sin. They're neutered and have overly large numerals. The extremely crowded numeral/letter spacing totally ruins the look of those things.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on January 25, 2017, 08:59:00 PM
TxDOT must be assuming that the proposed legislation will be enacted because an August, 2015 TxDOT I-69 System Planning and Environmental Progress map (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/ResourcesPDFs/Environmental_and_other_Studies_Aug%202015.pdf) includes a study about the SH 44 route through Robstown:
(http://i.imgur.com/C1HkHcO.jpg)

TxDOT will hold a February 9 Open House (http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/corpus-christi/020917.html) about the route through Robstown, including the interchange with I-69E; here's some excerpts from the Flier for the meeting (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/crp/sh-44/materials/020917-flier.pdf):

Quote
In December 2015, a congressional law was passed that identified SH 44, from US 59 in Freer to SH 358 in Corpus Christi, to become part of the I-69 system as sections are upgraded to meet interstate standards. In response, TxDOT is undertaking a SH 44 Robstown Route Study to identify needs and route options for upgrading SH 44 to meet interstate standards in the Robstown area between Farm to Market Road (FM) 1694 and County Road (CR) 81 ....
TxDOT has already been developing projects east of Robstown to upgrade SH 44. The purpose of this study is to evaluate and identify the potential best route options for extending an upgraded SH 44 that meets interstate standards farther west in the Robstown area between FM 1694 and CR 81.
Once identified, the route options to be advanced for further detailed design and environmental study would be made available for additional public review and input. It is important to note that there is no current funding to complete the design, right-of-way acquisition and construction of this project.

Here's a snip of the map from the Flier:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_25_01_17_8_52_30.jpeg)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: longhorn on January 31, 2017, 04:35:13 PM
(http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/kdhnews.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/e/ef/eef97ca0-e43c-11e6-8b38-c33b194c4557/588ab8338b78a.image.png?resize=760%2C498)

Why is there a I-369  designation into Texarkana? I thought that was the I-69 route?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on January 31, 2017, 04:54:10 PM
(http://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/kdhnews.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/e/ef/eef97ca0-e43c-11e6-8b38-c33b194c4557/588ab8338b78a.image.png?resize=760%2C498)

Why is there a I-369  designation into Texarkana? I thought that was the I-69 route?

The I-369 routing in NE TX satisfies the HPC 20 language within the I-69 grouping (along with HPC 18, which addresses most of the rest).  The I-69/HPC 18 mainline has always been projected to cross from TX to LA north or NE of Tenaha en route to the Shreveport area, while I-369/HPC 20 was designated several years ago as the Texarkana "branch" more or less along US 59. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on February 25, 2017, 04:23:43 PM
TxDOT will hold a February 9 Open House (http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/corpus-christi/020917.html) 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 (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/crp/sh-44/020917-factsheet.pdf). 

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_25_02_17_4_01_47.jpeg)

More detailed maps are among the materials.  I'm guessing that TxDOT will not apply for an interstate designation until the interchange with I-69E is complete (I-x69?, I-6?). Unfortunately, the following slide from the Exhibit Boards (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/crp/sh-44/020917-exhibitboards.pdf) indicates that it may take a while:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_25_02_17_4_21_33.jpeg)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MikeSantNY78 on February 28, 2017, 02:05:09 PM
This has probably been brought up, but I can't seem to find it.  What's going to happen to all the 69C, 69b, 69D, whatever routes if (when)mainline  69 gets finished?

I think they will remain the way they are. There is no mainline I-35 in the 35W/35E sections. (69b and 69D, however, do not exist. C stands for "central", not C for being the third letter of the alphabet.)
The "mainline" exit numbers, though, for Texas' I-35 split, follow the E branch (Minnesota's, too)...information only.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on March 29, 2017, 09:04:10 PM
The Alliance for I-69 Texas has posted an update on current I-69E projects (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update%208.10.14.nueces.html)
Neverrmind, on the original link it says the following...
"DRISCOLL RELIEF ROUTE - A relief route around the town of Driscoll will be built in the future.  It will close a gap in highway upgrades of about six miles and will create a connected freeway from Interstate 37 at Corpus Christi south through Kingsville. The relief route will run through open farm fields and cross Petronila Creek on the east side of Driscoll."

This article (http://www.caller.com/story/news/local/texas/state-bureau/2017/03/29/txdot-approves-163-million-nueces-county-projects/99795920/) reports that the Driscoll relief route will be let in summer of 2018, completing I-69E between Corpus Christi and Kingsville:

Quote
The state has earmarked nearly $104 million to a U.S. Highway 77 relief route around the town of Driscoll roughly between County Road 28 on the north and County Road 16 to the south. The bulk of the money — $79.5 million — will be for construction. The balance will pay for things like purchasing land for the route and for engineering services.
"The U.S. 77 relief route at the city of Driscoll will complete the last section of the I-69 corridor between Corpus Christi and Kingsville,”  said Chris Caron, TxDOT’s district engineer in Corpus Christi. “Removing high-speed traffic from a low-speed urban setting enhances mobility and safety.”
There are two parts to the work planned for U.S. 77. TxDOT also plans a $37 million project to build new lanes and overpasses on the highway south of Driscoll to Farm to Market 3354.
The state will begin accepting bids for the U.S. 77 improvements in the summer of 2018.

There are also plans to improve I-37/69E:

Quote
To the north, the state plans to spend nearly $46 million to widen a 2.5-mile stretch of Interstate 37 from the overpass at Red Bird Lane to where the freeway crosses the Nueces River. The transportation department describes the section of I-37 as a “metro corridor”  that needs congestion relief.
The state already owns the land needed for the widening project, so all but about $5 million of the project’s cost will go toward construction. The bid process is expected to begin in summer 2020.
"The I-37 project involves construction of a new bridge over the Nueces River, which will improve hurricane evacuation for the Coastal Bend and the Rio Grande Valley,”  Canon said. “Also, since interstate traffic traveling on I-69 and I-37 share this stretch of roadway, the increased capacity resulting from this project is important to the interstate commerce of Texas and the nation."
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: aboges26 on March 29, 2017, 10:41:51 PM
The Alliance for I-69 Texas has posted an update on current I-69E projects (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update%208.10.14.nueces.html)
Neverrmind, on the original link it says the following...
"DRISCOLL RELIEF ROUTE - A relief route around the town of Driscoll will be built in the future.  It will close a gap in highway upgrades of about six miles and will create a connected freeway from Interstate 37 at Corpus Christi south through Kingsville. The relief route will run through open farm fields and cross Petronila Creek on the east side of Driscoll."

This article (http://www.caller.com/story/news/local/texas/state-bureau/2017/03/29/txdot-approves-163-million-nueces-county-projects/99795920/) reports that the Driscoll relief route will be let in summer of 2018, completing I-69E between Corpus Christi and Kingsville:

Quote
The state has earmarked nearly $104 million to a U.S. Highway 77 relief route around the town of Driscoll roughly between County Road 28 on the north and County Road 16 to the south. The bulk of the money — $79.5 million — will be for construction. The balance will pay for things like purchasing land for the route and for engineering services.
"The U.S. 77 relief route at the city of Driscoll will complete the last section of the I-69 corridor between Corpus Christi and Kingsville,”  said Chris Caron, TxDOT’s district engineer in Corpus Christi. “Removing high-speed traffic from a low-speed urban setting enhances mobility and safety.”
There are two parts to the work planned for U.S. 77. TxDOT also plans a $37 million project to build new lanes and overpasses on the highway south of Driscoll to Farm to Market 3354.
The state will begin accepting bids for the U.S. 77 improvements in the summer of 2018.

There are also plans to improve I-37/69E:

Quote
To the north, the state plans to spend nearly $46 million to widen a 2.5-mile stretch of Interstate 37 from the overpass at Red Bird Lane to where the freeway crosses the Nueces River. The transportation department describes the section of I-37 as a “metro corridor”  that needs congestion relief.
The state already owns the land needed for the widening project, so all but about $5 million of the project’s cost will go toward construction. The bid process is expected to begin in summer 2020.
"The I-37 project involves construction of a new bridge over the Nueces River, which will improve hurricane evacuation for the Coastal Bend and the Rio Grande Valley,”  Canon said. “Also, since interstate traffic traveling on I-69 and I-37 share this stretch of roadway, the increased capacity resulting from this project is important to the interstate commerce of Texas and the nation."

So it seems that I-69E will be finished from Corpus to RGV at the close of the '10s and get set up nicely to start the I-37 to Victoria section in the '20s!  Does that mean we should see (if status quo highway upgrading pace largely remains) the last sections link I-69 and I-69E around 2027 or 2028?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Henry on March 30, 2017, 09:19:36 AM
Hopefully we will, but you never know.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on April 26, 2017, 10:54:09 AM
TxDOT completed its US 281/US 59 Planning and Feasibility Study - Interstate (I-69C) in October (it should be posted on the TxDOT website in the relatively near future).  Basically, the goal is to complete I-69C from Edinburg to Alice by 2037, in part to allow for immediate I-69C signage for completed segments (pp. 11-12/15 of pdf; pp. 8-9 of document):
(http://i.imgur.com/td5K8Pf.jpg)
The Alice connection to the TX 44 corridor from the south appears to be the top priority .... TxDOT has posted the US 281/US 59 Planning and Feasibility Study - Interstate (I-69C) (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/us281-us59-district.pdf).

TxDOT held an Open House for US 281/Future I-69C (http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/pharr/042517.html) on April 25 for an approximate seven-mile section with three interchanges (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/phr/US281/042517-boards.pdf) (p. 4/9 of pdf)

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_26_04_17_10_45_58.png)

Construction is estimated to start Summer 2020.



At the southern end of I-69C, TxDOT has put together a video showing options for improving the I-69C/I-2 intercgange.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: jlwm on May 03, 2017, 09:43:16 PM
They've started numbering exits in the Houston District. I've noticed newly numbered exits on I-69/US 59 southbound near downtown Houston but I'm not sure if other sections have numbered exits yet. The exit to I-45 is 129B, Tuam/McGowen is 129A, and the exit to 288 is 128B.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: O Tamandua on May 04, 2017, 12:03:06 AM
I remember the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) once referred to himself during a re-election campaign as "Ol' Kennedy".

With that in mind, have we heard anything recently about the process of getting I-69E ready in "Ol' Kenedy (County)", the longest bloc of the highway in one county between Corpus Christi and Brownsville?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on May 04, 2017, 12:52:00 AM
The news on I-69E probably couldn't be all that great if they're throwing out year 2037 time tables on completing the I-69C leg of this project.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on May 04, 2017, 03:38:49 PM
The news on I-69E probably couldn't be all that great if they're throwing out year 2037 time tables on completing the I-69C leg of this project.

Reading the press release in the previous post, it looks like the 2037 date is the latest time period that can be projected in order to be able to sign interim segments of I-69C (or any disconnected Interstate segment, for that matter): 25 years after the authorizing MAP-21 passage, which changed the criteria for signage from direct Interstate system connection to a 25-year "window" in which to effect such connection.  This is the reason that I-22, I-2, and other segments not connecting to the continuous US Interstate network are allowed to sign their segments (22 has already met that criteria with the completion of the I-65 Birmingham interchange, but signage preceded that by a couple of years.)  Whether TxDOT budgets and constructs those segments well ahead of that deadline, or elects to stretch out development over that entire time frame will likely become apparent in the next decade or so.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on May 04, 2017, 08:52:39 PM
I remember the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) once referred to himself during a re-election campaign as "Ol' Kennedy".
With that in mind, have we heard anything recently about the process of getting I-69E ready in "Ol' Kenedy (County)", the longest bloc of the highway in one county between Corpus Christi and Brownsville?

The 73 page March 2016 I-69 Implementation Strategy Report (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/implementation-strategy-report.pdf) that provides the current status of each I-69 project in Texas (at least as of March, 2016) appears to target 2025 as the date (p. 71/73 of pdf):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_04_05_17_8_28_41.jpeg)

Of interest are four overpasses scheduled for 2060 (you'll be old by then!). I think these are are the "turnarounds" designed for ranch vehicles. They probably would get a waiver similar to the one Arkansas got for I-555 for interstate status until traffic counts would warrant them. I think the 2060 date for the green, 0.5 mile, Willacy/Kenedy county line is a typo.

Maybe with a bit of luck Kenedy County Will be finished in 2030.

Here's the color codes from the Implementation Report (p.69/73 of pdf):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_04_05_17_9_09_26.jpeg)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: O Tamandua on May 09, 2017, 11:07:23 AM
Thank you, Grzrd.  Interesting that there's a 1+ mile section in Kenedy around La Parra Ave. already pending review, ostensibly whether it meets interstate standards right now?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: TXtoNJ on June 16, 2017, 01:21:04 PM
They've started numbering exits in the Houston District. I've noticed newly numbered exits on I-69/US 59 southbound near downtown Houston but I'm not sure if other sections have numbered exits yet. The exit to I-45 is 129B, Tuam/McGowen is 129A, and the exit to 288 is 128B.

I noticed that they've mounted the exit number tabs to the center of advance notice BGS, rather than to the side of the exit as is standard for the rest of Texas. Contractor error, or MUTCD change (like the single gore exit signs)?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Chris on June 27, 2017, 08:05:40 AM
TxDOT has issued a FONSI for the US 59 upgrade in western Wharton County, an approximately 12 mile segment from the Jackson County line to El Campo.

http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/yoakum/062617.html
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: GreenLanternCorps on June 27, 2017, 01:34:27 PM
TxDOT has issued a FONSI for the US 59 upgrade in western Wharton County, an approximately 12 mile segment from the Jackson County line to El Campo.

http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/yoakum/062617.html

So this looks to be just a few miles south of the current southern end of I-69.

So, am I right in thinking that this segment has passed all of the environmental and planning hurdles and now just needs funding and construction?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: mwb1848 on June 27, 2017, 06:22:16 PM
This is an outrage. According to the schematic, this work will displace no fewer than two barbecue restaurants!
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: I-39 on June 27, 2017, 07:35:49 PM
This is an outrage. According to the schematic, this work will displace no fewer than two barbecue restaurants!

The horror.......  :wow: :wow: :wow: :wow: :wow:
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on June 27, 2017, 09:54:41 PM
This is an outrage. According to the schematic, this work will displace no fewer than two barbecue restaurants!

The horror.......  :wow: :wow: :wow: :wow: :wow:

But -- are they really, really good barbeque joints?  However....it's Texas, so even a so-so BBQ place is probably better than a superb restaurant elsewhere!
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on June 28, 2017, 10:46:23 AM
TxDOT held an Open House on June 27 (http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/lufkin/062717.html) For Future I-69 at Redland, north of Lufkin:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_28_06_17_10_40_13.png)

Assuming all goes to plan, money is set aside for a contract letting in Summer 2022.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on July 06, 2017, 11:20:07 AM
Still more slow, incremental progress. TxDOT has issued a Notice Affording Opportunity for Public Hearing (http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/yoakum/070317.html) for a segment of US 59/Future I-69 in Victoria:

Quote
Purpose:   TxDOT is the lead agency proposing to add frontage roads to United States (US) 59 from Farm to Market (FM) 1686 to State Loop (LP) 463 east of the City of Victoria, Victoria County, Texas.   This notice advises the public that draft environmental documents are available for public review and that TxDOT is affording an opportunity for a public hearing on the proposed project.
Description:   The project proposes to construct southbound and northbound one-way frontage roads along US 59 consisting of two 12-foot travel lanes with 10-foot outside shoulders and 4-foot inside shoulders.
The proposed frontage roads would be separated from the main lanes by a grass median.  The proposed project would also construct an overpass approximately midway through the project limits as well as construct additional entrance and exit ramps.  The purpose of the proposed project is to upgrade this section of US 59 to meet interstate standards.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on July 06, 2017, 12:25:40 PM
Still more slow, incremental progress. TxDOT has issued a Notice Affording Opportunity for Public Hearing (http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/yoakum/070317.html) for a segment of US 59/Future I-69 in Victoria:

Quote
Purpose:   TxDOT is the lead agency proposing to add frontage roads to United States (US) 59 from Farm to Market (FM) 1686 to State Loop (LP) 463 east of the City of Victoria, Victoria County, Texas.   This notice advises the public that draft environmental documents are available for public review and that TxDOT is affording an opportunity for a public hearing on the proposed project.
Description:   The project proposes to construct southbound and northbound one-way frontage roads along US 59 consisting of two 12-foot travel lanes with 10-foot outside shoulders and 4-foot inside shoulders.
The proposed frontage roads would be separated from the main lanes by a grass median.  The proposed project would also construct an overpass approximately midway through the project limits as well as construct additional entrance and exit ramps.  The purpose of the proposed project is to upgrade this section of US 59 to meet interstate standards.

Has any agency or entity (TxDOT, the Alliance for I-69/Texas, etc.) put forth plans for the exact alignment of I-69 around Victoria:  will it remain on the 59 bypass around the south side of town and use the 59/77 interchange (suitably upgraded, of course) as the "splitting" point into 69E/69W? -- or would it somehow utilize the 463/77 northern loop, splitting 69 at the present 59/463 junction?  Intuitively, I'd guess the former -- although considering the time it took all parties involved to decide to run I-69 directly through Houston rather than bypass it on TX 99, it would be difficult to count out such alternatives being at least considered.   
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on July 06, 2017, 01:05:27 PM
Has any agency or entity (TxDOT, the Alliance for I-69/Texas, etc.) put forth plans for the exact alignment of I-69 around Victoria:  will it remain on the 59 bypass around the south side of town and use the 59/77 interchange (suitably upgraded, of course) as the "splitting" point into 69E/69W? -- or would it somehow utilize the 463/77 northern loop, splitting 69 at the present 59/463 junction?  Intuitively, I'd guess the former -- although considering the time it took all parties involved to decide to run I-69 directly through Houston rather than bypass it on TX 99, it would be difficult to count out such alternatives being at least considered.

The Victoria Advocate has run an editorial suggesting the 463/77 northern loop:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg2045107#msg2045107

but the Alliance for I-69 Texas has a map showing use of the 59 bypass along the south side of town:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg2045207#msg2045207

Even though it seems the 59 bypass along the south side of town is the preference of the I-69 Committee, I suppose it is still an open question.

edit

Also, TxDOT may have tipped its hand by installing mileposts in Houston:

On a related note, a lot of US-59 through Houston, though approved to be signed as I-69, has yet be to be signed as such, at least as of last month when I traveled through that area.  I did notice that TxDOT did install mileposts on the Southwest Freeway from I-610 to at least Sugar Land.

i assume that, knowing "mile zero" is in Victoria, you could do the math and figure out which route was used as the basis for the mileposts.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: O Tamandua on July 07, 2017, 03:15:01 PM
Was this bridge in Jefferson, TX ever going to be on the future I-369 route?  It just got hit by containers off a derailed train:

http://www.ksla.com/story/35834420/hwy-59-shut-down-in-jefferson-tx-after-2-trains-collide

(http://ksla.images.worldnow.com/images/14327139_G.jpg)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: The Ghostbuster on July 07, 2017, 04:52:59 PM
If it was, it probably won't be now.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on July 09, 2017, 09:35:10 PM
Was this bridge in Jefferson, TX ever going to be on the future I-369 route?  It just got hit by containers off a derailed train:

http://www.ksla.com/story/35834420/hwy-59-shut-down-in-jefferson-tx-after-2-trains-collide

(http://ksla.images.worldnow.com/images/14327139_G.jpg)
If it was, it probably won't be now.

While this bridge is part of US 59, it's in downtown Jefferson and well away from any upgradeable divided sectionsl of that route; almost certainly a I-369 bypass of the town would be in order.  This particular bridge crosses over both the main UP line between DFW and Little Rock and the KCS line from Dallas to Shreveport; the lines cross almost under the bridge itself (this was probably the locale if not the reason for the RR collision).  Haven't read any reports about this accident (it'll probably show up next week on my weekly Trains magazine headlines section), but from the angle shown it looks as if the container train pictured was on the UP tracks.  It could be the fault of either of the train crews; it could be a signaling failure -- but either way, someone's ass will be in a sling in short order -- particularly when the bill from TxDOT shows up at the RR determined to be at fault!

BTW, that must be a really old bridge; current rail clearances are substantially higher.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: codyg1985 on July 11, 2017, 04:30:26 PM
Wow, both rail lines are curving as they cross one another at the bridge.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on July 12, 2017, 12:45:36 AM
Wow, both rail lines are curving as they cross one another at the bridge.

I'd be curious as to the weather & visibility conditions at the time of the collision; if signal visibility was questionable, then that crossing, configured as it is, was and is essentially an accident that was waiting to happen.  I've driven through this neck of the woods many times (tons of relatives within 50 miles of this place), and I've seen visibility limited to a half-block or less during downpours -- and my stopping distance, at its worst, is a microscopic percentage of that of a loaded container train!   
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: cjk374 on July 12, 2017, 06:32:59 AM
Wow, both rail lines are curving as they cross one another at the bridge.

I'd be curious as to the weather & visibility conditions at the time of the collision; if signal visibility was questionable, then that crossing, configured as it is, was and is essentially an accident that was waiting to happen.  I've driven through this neck of the woods many times (tons of relatives within 50 miles of this place), and I've seen visibility limited to a half-block or less during downpours -- and my stopping distance, at its worst, is a microscopic percentage of that of a loaded container train!   

The weather was sunny & hot. The problem was that the cars that hit the UP stack train were runaways. (according to scuttlebutt I am hearing).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on July 12, 2017, 04:08:35 PM
Wow, both rail lines are curving as they cross one another at the bridge.

I'd be curious as to the weather & visibility conditions at the time of the collision; if signal visibility was questionable, then that crossing, configured as it is, was and is essentially an accident that was waiting to happen.  I've driven through this neck of the woods many times (tons of relatives within 50 miles of this place), and I've seen visibility limited to a half-block or less during downpours -- and my stopping distance, at its worst, is a microscopic percentage of that of a loaded container train!   

The weather was sunny & hot. The problem was that the cars that hit the UP stack train were runaways. (according to scuttlebutt I am hearing).

If that proves to be the case, that would mean they were on KCS trackage.  Runaway cars -- particularly on a major railroad -- is an inexcusable occurrence; one that will likely cost KCS dearly (and someone in their Texas division their job!). 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bwana39 on July 12, 2017, 08:28:37 PM
No, this bridge would probably never have been on I369. It is in a high density area. Literally this is right in the middle of town.  I would expect that the freeway will probably loop to the west of town.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on July 24, 2017, 01:46:56 PM
This article (http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/cleveland/news/i--coming-soon-to-cleveland/article_100242af-8cf5-5393-b3a4-f2ed7682c336.html) reports that the next I-69 project in the greater Houston area ... will extend north from the current end of I-69 near the Montgomery County/ Liberty County county line to the recently completed 105 Loop near Cleveland (http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=30.297516~-95.106329&lvl=13&dir=0&sty=h&where1=Cleveland%2C%20TX&form=LMLTCC)
TxDOT will hold an Open House for this project (http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/beaumont/111915.html) on November 19:
Quote
.... The proposed US 59 as I-69 would be converted from a four-lane divided highway to a six-lane divided, access-controlled freeway, with one-way frontage roads.
Additional changes to the project since the last open house meeting conducted on May 13, 2013 include the following:
-Modify US 59 main lanes curve at State Loop 573
-Revise the intersection at US 59 and State Loop 573; the northbound frontage road will follow the US 59 main lanes, instead of the northbound frontage road becoming State Loop 573
-Reverse the entrance and exit ramps between SH 105 and State Loop 573
-Add a right-turn lane to the southbound frontage road at the SH 105 connector

TxDOT has posted a Notice of Draft Environmental Assessment and Opprtunity For Public Hearing (http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/beaumont/071917.html) For the segement of US 59/ Future I-69 from the Montgomery/Liberty county line to State Loop 573:

Quote
Purpose:   TxDOT is proposing roadway improvements along approximately 4.7 miles of the existing alignment of US 59 extending from Fostoria Road near the Montgomery/Liberty County line to State Loop 573 in Liberty County, Texas ....
Description:   The proposed project would include:
* Expanding the existing 4-lane divided highway to a 6-lane divided freeway with continuous 2-lane frontage roads in each direction
* Replacing or adding bridges at Pin Oak Road, the East Fork of the San Jacinto River, and at the connector to Loop 105
* Installing sidewalks on the outside of the proposed southbound frontage road
* Constructing 8-foot wide shared use lanes for bicycles on the northbound and southbound frontage lanes
* Improving drainage

Here is a snip of the map of the project area (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/bmt/us-59-naoph/project-location-map.pdf):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_24_07_17_1_45_36.png)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: chays on August 08, 2017, 05:21:42 PM
The I-69 Texas Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_69_in_Texas) is now showing exit numbers for most of I-69 (not the suffixed sections).  Has anyone on this board been able to ground-truth this?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: codyg1985 on August 08, 2017, 08:09:52 PM
Some of the verification can be found on Street View.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: cenlaroads on August 08, 2017, 09:35:51 PM
The I-69 Texas Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_69_in_Texas) is now showing exit numbers for most of I-69 (not the suffixed sections).  Has anyone on this board been able to ground-truth this?

I saw the numbered signs for the exits between Greenbriar Dr. and I-610 West last week on the southbound lanes, but there were no numbered signs past 610.  I may check tomorrow to see if any new signs have been posted.  If I go that way, I will try to remember to take some photos.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: GreenLanternCorps on November 06, 2017, 09:35:15 AM
As of right now, what sections of I-69 in Texas have active construction?

If memory serves, there is construction at Rosenburg at the South end of the Southwest Freeway and Construction on I-69E South of I-37.

Is there any other active construction or any construction scheduled to start in the next year on the I-69 route in Texas?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MaxConcrete on November 06, 2017, 07:49:50 PM
Is there any other active construction or any construction scheduled to start in the next year on the I-69 route in Texas?

The only major project that appears on the letting schedule for FY 2018 (which runs through August 2018) is the $110 million Driscoll bypass for US 77 (IH 69E) just south of Corpus.
http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/let/2018/nueces.htm#010216001 (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/let/2018/nueces.htm#010216001)

There is also a $18 million project to add main lanes to 3.6 miles of SH 44 near Corpus, but this section of SH 44 is not on the IH 69 system (it is east of IH 69E)
http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/let/2018/nueces.htm#010201088 (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/let/2018/nueces.htm#010201088)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on November 06, 2017, 11:13:58 PM
It seems like TX DOT would try to at least get ROW acquisition underway for some of the bypasses still needed, such as I-69C/US-281 in Premont, I-69W in Freer, the I-69C/I-69W junction in George West, I-69W in Beeville and Goliad. A bunch of the other stretches of existing US-59, US-281 and US-77 appear to have plenty of ROW. But the ROW costs in those towns will continue to rise each year the ROW isn't at least acquired, never mind when the bypasses themselves are actually built.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on November 07, 2017, 03:12:04 AM
There is also a $18 million project to add main lanes to 3.6 miles of SH 44 near Corpus, but this section of SH 44 is not on the IH 69 system (it is east of IH 69E)
http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/let/2018/nueces.htm#010201088 (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/let/2018/nueces.htm#010201088)

IIRC, 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. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: J N Winkler on November 07, 2017, 02:15:37 PM
TxDOT is currently experimenting with putting early review plans online.  One of these is a US 59 upgrade to rural freeway in Victoria County (Yoakum district), which presumably will become part of I-69 once finished.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: 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?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on November 07, 2017, 11:51:25 PM
Quote from: sparker
IIRC, 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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on November 08, 2017, 05:55:39 AM
Quote from: sparker
IIRC, 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. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: GreenLanternCorps on November 08, 2017, 08:46:45 AM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: theroadwayone on November 08, 2017, 11:08:29 AM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: 1 on November 08, 2017, 11:12:04 AM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: theroadwayone on November 09, 2017, 12:00:34 AM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: thefro on November 09, 2017, 12:46:57 PM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: GreenLanternCorps on November 09, 2017, 01:49:16 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...
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on November 09, 2017, 02:02:02 PM
A good complement to the materials provided above is the March, 2016 I-69 Implementation Strategy Report (http://ftp://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/implementation-strategy-report.pdf) (p.15/73 of pdf; p. 11 of document):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_09_11_17_1_41_24.png)

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:

Judge Emmett spoke at the December 2 luncheon of the Alliance for I-69 Texas (http://www.i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update%2012.16.16%20Emmett%20remarks.html) 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):
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):
(http://i.imgur.com/1ScQV.png)
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 ...
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on November 15, 2017, 10:53:22 AM
TxDOT has published a four-page October 2016 U.S. 59 Loop Upgrade newsletter (http://www.laredompo.org/files/Announcements/US59LoopUpgrade.pdf) which contains a Notice of a December 1 Public Meeting.  Here is a snip from a map in the newsletter:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_28_10_16_1_24_13.png)
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_28_10_16_4_56_59.jpeg)

This November 10 article (http://www.kgns.tv/content/news/International-and-Loop-20-overpass-project-complete-456724833.html) 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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on December 25, 2017, 08:58:42 PM
When the Loop 20 project is completed (current estimate about eight years (p. 6/18 of pdf) (http://www.laredompo.org/files/presentations/Loop20I69fundingplan.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 (http://www.lmtonline.com/local/politics/article/Laredo-Nuevo-Laredo-in-the-running-to-becoming-12052571.php) as recently as August
(above quote from Interstate 169 (Texas) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=21707.msg2282503#msg2282503) thread)

This Dec. 19 article (https://www.lmtonline.com/local/article/Talk-of-Webb-County-outer-loop-project-renewed-by-12441397.php) 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.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_25_12_17_8_47_38.png)

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).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on December 26, 2017, 01:13:17 AM
When the Loop 20 project is completed (current estimate about eight years (p. 6/18 of pdf) (http://www.laredompo.org/files/presentations/Loop20I69fundingplan.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 (http://www.lmtonline.com/local/politics/article/Laredo-Nuevo-Laredo-in-the-running-to-becoming-12052571.php) as recently as August
(above quote from Interstate 169 (Texas) (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=21707.msg2282503#msg2282503) thread)

This Dec. 19 article (https://www.lmtonline.com/local/article/Talk-of-Webb-County-outer-loop-project-renewed-by-12441397.php) 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.

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_25_12_17_8_47_38.png)

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. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Henry on December 26, 2017, 09:20:29 AM
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?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: 1 on December 26, 2017, 09:27:36 AM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on December 26, 2017, 04:37:51 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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on January 11, 2018, 04:47:18 PM
TxDOT will hold a February 9 Open House (http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/corpus-christi/020917.html) 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 (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/crp/sh-44/020917-factsheet.pdf). 
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_25_02_17_4_01_47.jpeg)

TxDOT will hold a January 18 Open House (http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/corpus-christi/011818.html) regarding an interstate upgrade to SH 44 just east of the SH 44/I-69E interchange project area (https://www.google.com/maps/place/FM+3386,+Corpus+Christi,+TX/@27.7907558,-97.6297161,6701m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x8668630bbff37605:0x2201e016cc3b55ba!8m2!3d27.7940224!4d-97.5721247):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_11_01_18_4_41_21.png)

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
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on January 11, 2018, 05:13:16 PM
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.

Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: 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?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: kphoger on January 18, 2018, 04:30:09 PM
↑  probably make another I-69
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: lordsutch on January 18, 2018, 04:33:49 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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: cjk374 on January 18, 2018, 05:18:54 PM
↑  probably make another I-69

 :clap: :clap: :clap: :cheers:
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: wdcrft63 on January 18, 2018, 07:10:07 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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on January 18, 2018, 07:32:49 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. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: wxfree on January 18, 2018, 08:20:32 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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: DNAguy on January 19, 2018, 01:19:41 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.

(http://www.todayifoundout.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/The-More-You-Know.jpg)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: txstateends on January 20, 2018, 02:50:32 AM
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.

It'll be a local level which-one-are-you-talking-about for probably quite some time, but no one outside east TX seems concerned.

Matador, TX has the same issue (US 70 crossing TX 70 there) but there are no big calls for the state to re-label TX 70 to something else.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Perfxion on January 21, 2018, 09:42:52 PM
In Lufkin, they will just keep calling it 59. I really don't hear people calling it I-69. Houston people either calling it 59, Southwest freeway, or traffic hell. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on January 21, 2018, 10:04:04 PM
Well, we'll see what the locals in Lufkin do after I-69 is completed through there, which might be at least 10-20 years from now, if not considerably farther off in the future.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Chris on January 24, 2018, 04:06:39 AM
The final environmental assessment for the Corrigan relief route has been published: http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/lufkin/0123180.html
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Henry on January 24, 2018, 09:31:12 AM
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.

It'll be a local level which-one-are-you-talking-about for probably quite some time, but no one outside east TX seems concerned.

Matador, TX has the same issue (US 70 crossing TX 70 there) but there are no big calls for the state to re-label TX 70 to something else.
Don't forget about I-41/US 41 in WI; while we can analyze that to death like we do I-69/US 69 and I-74/US 74, no one up there cares about it, because it'll always be Highway 41 to them, no matter what the shield is.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: AMLNet49 on February 18, 2018, 09:46:35 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 this case, since I-69C is the "center", shouldn't it count as the "mainline". And 69W before 69C branches off?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: RoadWarrior56 on February 19, 2018, 09:22:17 AM
I-69C seems like the most useless of the three I-69 branches since it parallels I-69E by barely 20 miles for over 100 miles in length.  I would had thought that I-69 could have only split up into I-69E and I-69W.  I presume the addition of I-69C was somehow related to politics. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on February 19, 2018, 10:20:26 AM
I-69C exists primarily for the benefit of traffic moving directly between the San Antonio area and the Rio Grande Valley in far South Texas. The San Antonio-New Braunfels MSA has 2.45 million people. The city of San Antonio alone has 1.3 million people, 7th highest city limits population in the US. The McAllen-Edinburg-Mission MSA has over 500,000 people and Hidalgo county had 774,769 residents as of the 2010 census. This population count does not include the other Rio Grande Valley cities like Harlingen and Brownsville (connected via I-69E) or the population of Cameron County (406,200). At first glance it would seem like overkill to upgrade both the US-281 and US-77 corridors to Interstate quality. But the Rio Grande Valley is one of the fastest growing regions in the US. Around 1.5 million people live in the South tip of Texas.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Alex on February 19, 2018, 03:29:31 PM
Potential I-69 branch routes in the Rio Grande Valley?

Rodriguez: 102-mile Hidalgo County Loop will be a toll road (http://riograndeguardian.com/rodriguez-102-mile-hidalgo-county-loop-will-be-a-toll-road/)

Quote
“This is a project being undertaken jointly by Cameron County RMA, Hidalgo County RMA, and the Texas Department of Transportation to create a connection between Interstate 69-East and Interstate 69-Central. It will also connect to a future section of the loop, State Highway 68.”

Quote
The first part of the Loop to get built will be a section near to the Texas-Mexico Border. It is officially called the 365 Tollway. Rodriguez told MEDC that the 365 Tollway will be a 12.2-mile four-way lane from the Pharr International Bridge westward to the Anzalduas International Bridge. He said it will likely take 42 months to complete.

Quote
Phase Two of the 365 Tollway, Rodriguez said, will go from Military Highway at San Juan Road, north to the south levee at Cage Boulevard in Pharr, across to 23rd Street where it will cross over floodway at Ware Road and then parallels the north floodway levee until it gets to Anzalduas.

Quote
Phase 3, Rodriguez said, will see the 365 Tollway extended from FM 396/Anzalduas Highway to FM 1016/Conway Avenue in Mission, a 12.2 mile segment. He said Phase 3 has been cleared environmentally but no right of way has been purchased.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MaxConcrete on February 19, 2018, 07:36:07 PM
Map

https://i2.wp.com/riograndeguardian.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/180217-hidalgo_county_loop.png?fit=2048%2C1365 (https://i2.wp.com/riograndeguardian.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/180217-hidalgo_county_loop.png?fit=2048%2C1365)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: GreenLanternCorps on February 20, 2018, 06:41:01 PM
Potential I-69 branch routes in the Rio Grande Valley?

Rodriguez: 102-mile Hidalgo County Loop will be a toll road (http://riograndeguardian.com/rodriguez-102-mile-hidalgo-county-loop-will-be-a-toll-road/)

Quote
“This is a project being undertaken jointly by Cameron County RMA, Hidalgo County RMA, and the Texas Department of Transportation to create a connection between Interstate 69-East and Interstate 69-Central. It will also connect to a future section of the loop, State Highway 68.”

Quote
The first part of the Loop to get built will be a section near to the Texas-Mexico Border. It is officially called the 365 Tollway. Rodriguez told MEDC that the 365 Tollway will be a 12.2-mile four-way lane from the Pharr International Bridge westward to the Anzalduas International Bridge. He said it will likely take 42 months to complete.

Quote
Phase Two of the 365 Tollway, Rodriguez said, will go from Military Highway at San Juan Road, north to the south levee at Cage Boulevard in Pharr, across to 23rd Street where it will cross over floodway at Ware Road and then parallels the north floodway levee until it gets to Anzalduas.

Quote
Phase 3, Rodriguez said, will see the 365 Tollway extended from FM 396/Anzalduas Highway to FM 1016/Conway Avenue in Mission, a 12.2 mile segment. He said Phase 3 has been cleared environmentally but no right of way has been purchased.


Future I-202?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on February 21, 2018, 04:20:25 PM
Potential I-69 branch routes in the Rio Grande Valley?

Rodriguez: 102-mile Hidalgo County Loop will be a toll road (http://riograndeguardian.com/rodriguez-102-mile-hidalgo-county-loop-will-be-a-toll-road/)

Quote
“This is a project being undertaken jointly by Cameron County RMA, Hidalgo County RMA, and the Texas Department of Transportation to create a connection between Interstate 69-East and Interstate 69-Central. It will also connect to a future section of the loop, State Highway 68.”

Quote
The first part of the Loop to get built will be a section near to the Texas-Mexico Border. It is officially called the 365 Tollway. Rodriguez told MEDC that the 365 Tollway will be a 12.2-mile four-way lane from the Pharr International Bridge westward to the Anzalduas International Bridge. He said it will likely take 42 months to complete.

Quote
Phase Two of the 365 Tollway, Rodriguez said, will go from Military Highway at San Juan Road, north to the south levee at Cage Boulevard in Pharr, across to 23rd Street where it will cross over floodway at Ware Road and then parallels the north floodway levee until it gets to Anzalduas.

Quote
Phase 3, Rodriguez said, will see the 365 Tollway extended from FM 396/Anzalduas Highway to FM 1016/Conway Avenue in Mission, a 12.2 mile segment. He said Phase 3 has been cleared environmentally but no right of way has been purchased.


Future I-202?

Not likely; TX hasn't shown any propensity to seek Interstate designations for toll facilities to date.  Otherwise, Loop 8 around Houston might have been something like I-245 by now. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Chris on February 23, 2018, 11:44:10 AM
A 'PEL' study is being initiated for I-69 / Southwest Freeway, between Spur 527 and Beltway 8 in Houston: http://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/houston/032918.html

The I-69 PEL study is a high-level, early-planning process; the goal of a PEL study is to gather feedback during planning to inform the environmental review process.

What kind of solutions do you think are feasible for the Southwest Freeway? More reversible lanes? A non-reversible express lane facility? More general purpose lanes? Something elevated or below grade? Even larger interchanges?

The Southwest Freeway has the second-highest traffic count in Houston, it maxes out at 350,000 vehicles per day near I-610 according to the TxDOT planning map.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MaxConcrete on February 23, 2018, 12:28:10 PM
What kind of solutions do you think are feasible for the Southwest Freeway?

I live in the corridor and drive it just about daily. I'm going to prepare a long list of recommendations. Hopefully the study staff will be receptive to public comments. In addition to some expansion of regular capacity, it needs 2x2 MaX lanes as described here
http://houstonstrategies.blogspot.com/2017/05/max-lanes-next-generation-strategy-for.html (http://houstonstrategies.blogspot.com/2017/05/max-lanes-next-generation-strategy-for.html)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: longhorn on April 22, 2018, 09:46:13 PM
What construction is being done at Rosenburg starting at hwy 10? The I-69 detour through the construction area is white knuckle type of driving.

https://www.google.com/maps/@29.5469224,-95.7458432,3a,75y,280.08h,83.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1szi-BfsMgHeqkzdctcvBgxQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

What is this bridge? Are are they raising the freeway? For what reason instead of going under?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MaxConcrete on April 23, 2018, 12:01:19 AM
What construction is being done at Rosenburg starting at hwy 10? The I-69 detour through the construction area is white knuckle type of driving.
The construction is the widening project. The existing freeway goes under FM 762 and the adjacent railroad, but in the new design the main lanes and frontage roads go over the highway and railroad. The bridge structures are long and wide.

I don't know the reason for going over instead of under. The only possible reason I can think of is to eliminate flooding risk, since the current underpass is excavated below ground level. The bridges surely added a lot to the project cost.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: longhorn on April 23, 2018, 11:18:40 AM
What construction is being done at Rosenburg starting at hwy 10? The I-69 detour through the construction area is white knuckle type of driving.
The construction is the widening project. The existing freeway goes under FM 762 and the adjacent railroad, but in the new design the main lanes and frontage roads go over the highway and railroad. The bridge structures are long and wide.

I don't know the reason for going over instead of under. The only possible reason I can think of is to eliminate flooding risk, since the current underpass is excavated below ground level. The bridges surely added a lot to the project cost.

Thank you, its a substantial project. Does the contruction stop at hwy 10? HWY 59/I-69 does not seem to be interstate grade past hwy 10 heading SW.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: O Tamandua on May 09, 2018, 02:03:10 PM
Lufkin, Nacogdoches furthers I-69 extensions with TxDOT meeting

(http://ktre.images.worldnow.com/images/16718762_G.jpg?auto=webp&disable=upscale&width=800&lastEditedDate=20180508193726)

The acceptance of the Texas Department of Transportation's offer to buy a piece of land in front of the Angelina County Airport came at the same time as a meeting of the I-69 advisory committee.

"They've selected about $2 billion worth of projects a little over a year ago," said Lufkin district engineer Cheryl Flood. "The committee made some recommendations, and right now we got, I think, about 27 projects along the corridor funded."

The Diboll Relief Route and the Moffett Route back to 103 are a small part of the interstate that will one day run to Missouri.

"You know, it's real positive," said advisory committee member Wes Suiter. "The next couple years, we've got a lot going on here in the Lufkin district."

The purchase of the land in front of the airport is the first step to bringing the interstate through Diboll.

"A lot going on now, a lot going on here in the next couple of years," Suiter said. "It's going to be funded; the funding's already been approved. Just finishing up the position for the right of way."

The 2021 connection to a new flyover in Nacogdoches is another project already approved for funding.

"The work that the committee has done is going to pay off in a big way," said Nacogdoches City Manager Jim Jeffers.

Jeffers said that bids for the construction will begin in spring of 2019.

"It's a $75-million project, and it is a direct connect on the south side of town, which will help to relieve congestion," Jeffers said.

Members of the advisory committee also said the extensions will benefit the area.

"Anytime you have an interstate coming through your area, that's what big industry and big business look for is an interstate connectivity, where they can get their products up and down, on rail and on freight movement," Suiter said.

The I-69 plan calls for improving segments of existing highways along US 59. Those small segments will eventually be linked to form the interstate.

Copyright 2018 KTRE. All rights reserved.

http://www.ktre.com/story/38144140/lufkin-nacogdoches-i-69-extensions  (with video)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on May 09, 2018, 05:07:24 PM
So -- there's a local TV station that thinks I-69 is going to Missouri?  I suppose if you lay a ruler down along that portion of US 59 on a map, it'll eventually extend to MO.  Nevertheless, while it's likely such mistakes are relatively common, a little basic research and a couple of phone calls could have corrected the conception.  But perhaps the consideration here -- possibly promoted by TX I-69 backers, is that, at least within the state, the primary goal is to get an Interstate-grade facility built to the Texarkana area -- despite the primary I-69 planned trunk leaving the state near US 84.  The I-369 extension north to Texarkana and, beyond that, a connection to the future I-49, is probably considered within state circles to be more vital than any part of the I-69 corridor through Shreveport and on to Memphis; that might be reflected in information supplied to the press. 

The reason the overall national I-69 project is broken up into discrete SIU's becomes apparent when things like this occur; besides being the more realistic way to "eat the elephant", so to speak, it enables sizeable chunks of the corridor to be marketed (for that's essentially what securing funds entails these days) as providing local or more constrained regional benefit.  Seeing as how TX, along with IN, was the area featuring many of the more vehement backers of the full corridor concept (and the site of the largest amount of mileage), it's not surprising that the PR surrounding the corridor emphasizes the TX benefits of the route portions within the state, including the I-369 branch -- while downplaying -- or not mentioning -- the out-of-state portions of the I-69 corridor with less perceived value to TX interests.  It's all understandable, seeing as how a corridor reaching Texarkana will also access I-30, taking advantage of its longstanding role as the major Interstate corridor heading NE from the state.  So once the I-69/369 continuum from Houston to Texarkana is completed, the in-state "Job #1" is fulfilled.   
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bugo on May 09, 2018, 08:50:09 PM
So -- there's a local TV station that thinks I-69 is going to Missouri?  I suppose if you lay a ruler down along that portion of US 59 on a map, it'll eventually extend to MO.  Nevertheless, while it's likely such mistakes are relatively common, a little basic research and a couple of phone calls could have corrected the conception.  But perhaps the consideration here -- possibly promoted by TX I-69 backers, is that, at least within the state, the primary goal is to get an Interstate-grade facility built to the Texarkana area -- despite the primary I-69 planned trunk leaving the state near US 84.  The I-369 extension north to Texarkana and, beyond that, a connection to the future I-49, is probably considered within state circles to be more vital than any part of the I-69 corridor through Shreveport and on to Memphis; that might be reflected in information supplied to the press. 

The reason the overall national I-69 project is broken up into discrete SIU's becomes apparent when things like this occur; besides being the more realistic way to "eat the elephant", so to speak, it enables sizeable chunks of the corridor to be marketed (for that's essentially what securing funds entails these days) as providing local or more constrained regional benefit.  Seeing as how TX, along with IN, was the area featuring many of the more vehement backers of the full corridor concept (and the site of the largest amount of mileage), it's not surprising that the PR surrounding the corridor emphasizes the TX benefits of the route portions within the state, including the I-369 branch -- while downplaying -- or not mentioning -- the out-of-state portions of the I-69 corridor with less perceived value to TX interests.  It's all understandable, seeing as how a corridor reaching Texarkana will also access I-30, taking advantage of its longstanding role as the major Interstate corridor heading NE from the state.  So once the I-69/369 continuum from Houston to Texarkana is completed, the in-state "Job #1" is fulfilled.   

Are you an A Perfect Circle fan?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: txstateends on May 09, 2018, 09:20:47 PM
So -- there's a local TV station that thinks I-69 is going to Missouri? 

The video says St. Louis.  It's like all the "I-49 will go all the way to Canada" stuff.  Obviously local officials and media aren't the roadfans in the room--they seem to care more that the highway through their town is an interstate, and not as much about the exact route.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: O Tamandua on May 09, 2018, 10:05:14 PM
I've been shocked at the lack of knowledge of geography we see today, but that's not the only subject many today know little about.

That being said, (though this will be easier for me to say than to see done) according to that little map they/I linked, once you leave Nacogdoches County (and the adjacent northwest tip of Shelby County) there is only a county and a half worth of Texas I-69 to be built before the Marshall area is reached, then an I-20 hop over the state line to Shreveport and Caddo Parish, LA, an I-49 skip one county northward to Miller County, AR then three jumps to Little Rock, West Memphis and St. Louis respectively on 30, 40 and 55.  Wouldn't be surprised if the Houston-to-Marshall TX I-69 section is the first one to profoundly affect upstream (northeast of Texas) interstate traffic.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on May 10, 2018, 05:07:46 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if Texas chose to build I-369 up to Texarkana before completing I-69 to the Louisiana state line.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: yakra on May 10, 2018, 11:43:48 PM
All interstates connect to Seattle, San Diego, Houlton, and Miami.
...And American Falls. ;)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: txstateends on May 11, 2018, 01:16:07 AM
I wouldn't be surprised if Texas chose to build I-369 up to Texarkana before completing I-69 to the Louisiana state line.

So far, that might be the consensus.  None of the TIICs give 2 flips as to what's going on east/NE of Timpson, yet they had to give little ol' nothin' Domino a full grade-separated exit already.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Scott5114 on May 11, 2018, 03:52:47 AM
All interstates connect to Seattle, San Diego, Houlton, and Miami.
...And American Falls. ;)

Not I-2...
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: vdeane on May 11, 2018, 01:15:57 PM
All interstates connect to Seattle, San Diego, Houlton, and Miami.
...And American Falls. ;)

Not I-2...
You mean I-86ESSESSSSESSESSW!
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on May 11, 2018, 04:11:43 PM
I wouldn't be surprised if Texas chose to build I-369 up to Texarkana before completing I-69 to the Louisiana state line.

That's probably a correct assessment -- due to the SIU segmentation of the I-69 corridor.  The I-69/369 junction also marks the endpoints of three separate SIU's; the one crossing into LA along or north of US 84 extends all the way to I-49; building that stretch will require coordination regarding both exact route alignments and scheduling between TXDOT and LADOT -- and so far, no agreement has been reached.  Seeing as how the I-369 alignment stays within TX -- and any plans for that SIU can be unilaterally determined by TXDOT, it's more than likely to receive priority treatment.  Besides, it serves 2 TX metro regions (Marshall & Texarkana) not to mention all the smaller towns arrayed along or near US 59, so it's also a politically viable corridor in that neck of the woods; corridor development will probably garner a great deal of local support -- and DOT's generally prefer "smooth sailing" for projects of this magnitude.  Put it this way -- TXDOT would rather construct a corridor fully within their own jurisdiction than have to negotiate an agreement with an outside agency -- that can come later, once their own in-state priorities have been addressed.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: cjk374 on May 12, 2018, 10:26:20 AM
Wouldn't hurt my feelings if I-69 stayed out of Louisiana altogether. That would leave more money to finish I-49 and whatever more important projects around the state.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on May 12, 2018, 11:43:23 AM
Shreveport-Bossier would raise holy hell if I-69 SIU's #14 & #15 were eliminated, because that's what they are using to both access the Port of Greater Shreveport-Bossier and to complete the Inner Loop freeway (LA 3132).


Better to just keep it on the back burner until I-49 South and the I-49 downtown ICC are completed.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on May 15, 2018, 02:44:46 AM
Shreveport-Bossier would raise holy hell if I-69 SIU's #14 & #15 were eliminated, because that's what they are using to both access the Port of Greater Shreveport-Bossier and to complete the Inner Loop freeway (LA 3132).


Better to just keep it on the back burner until I-49 South and the I-49 downtown ICC are completed.

Which is probably exactly what will happen -- except for the I-69 Red River bridge, which will likely be completed well before the rest of LA's portion of the corridor, simply because it'll connect to the 3132 extension.  Until the whole I-69 corridor is addressed, the bridge will serve local traffic -- functioning as a partial southern route around the metro area.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on June 02, 2018, 10:19:51 AM
isn't there some controversy over upgrading US 77 in Refugio, where some folk have expressed opposition to a freeway upgrade there??
This June 26 article (http://www.mysoutex.com/view/full_story_landing/25352277/article-Refugio-urged-to-plan-for-I-69) reports on a June 23 meeting during which I-69 Corridor Advisory Board and TxDOT officials encouraged Refugio officials to become involved in planning for I-69E:

The route study is progressing slowly. There will be an Open House (https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/corpus-christi/062118.html) on June 21 so that the public can view the three basic route options (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/crp/us77-woodsboro-refugio/050318-potential-routes.pdf):

Quote
The purpose of the open house is to discuss preliminary and conceptual improvements to US 77 (from south of the city of Woodsboro to north of the city of Refugio) to upgrade to a controlled access highway that meets interstate standards. The study is the initial stage of project development and public involvement will remain a vital element and will be continuous throughout all stages. 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.

From the route study page (https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/corpus-christi/us77-woodsboro-refugio-route-study.html):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_02_06_18_10_07_01.jpeg)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MaxConcrete on June 02, 2018, 11:27:26 AM
I drove from Houston to Nacogdoches last week and I realized just how much work needs to be done on this segment to get it to interstate standards. Unless there is a big infusion of money, this is going to take a long, long time and I may not see it done in my lifetime (I'm 51).

The only two projects which are imminent are main lanes south of Cleveland and a connector ramp to eliminate a signalized intersection on the south side of Nacogdoches. I'm assuming those are done within 4-5 years.
High cost is definitely a reason for a long timeline. The 4.5 miles of new main lanes south of Cleveland are estimated at $102 million, and there's nothing complicated on this section (e.g. no bridges)
http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/let/2019/liberty.htm#017703096 (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/let/2019/liberty.htm#017703096)

The connector ramp in Nacogdoches is listed at $76 million
http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/let/2019/nacogdoches.htm#017601081 (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/let/2019/nacogdoches.htm#017601081)

The Corrigan bypass is currently listed with a start date of 2022.

The Diboll bypass should (hopefully) be done within 10 years.

Moscow is another slowdown point and I don't know if anything is scheduled.

Around Lufkin and Nacogdoches there are no traffic signals (except the one on the south side of Nacogdoches) but very little meets interstate standards (i.e. not limited access). Elsewhere the highway is four-lane divided mostly posted at 70 or 75mph, but upgrading to limited-access will be costly due to right-of-way acquisition, displacements and the need to build frontage roads.

The plan of relieving the worst bottleneck and slowdown locations makes sense, and should deliver nearly all the benefits of a true interstate. But I'm thinking it will be at least 10 years before the worst slowdown points are fixed (especially Diboll).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on June 02, 2018, 03:46:17 PM
isn't there some controversy over upgrading US 77 in Refugio, where some folk have expressed opposition to a freeway upgrade there??
This June 26 article (http://www.mysoutex.com/view/full_story_landing/25352277/article-Refugio-urged-to-plan-for-I-69) reports on a June 23 meeting during which I-69 Corridor Advisory Board and TxDOT officials encouraged Refugio officials to become involved in planning for I-69E:

The route study is progressing slowly. There will be an Open House (https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/corpus-christi/062118.html) on June 21 so that the public can view the three basic route options (http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/crp/us77-woodsboro-refugio/050318-potential-routes.pdf):

Quote
The purpose of the open house is to discuss preliminary and conceptual improvements to US 77 (from south of the city of Woodsboro to north of the city of Refugio) to upgrade to a controlled access highway that meets interstate standards. The study is the initial stage of project development and public involvement will remain a vital element and will be continuous throughout all stages. 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.

From the route study page (https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/corpus-christi/us77-woodsboro-refugio-route-study.html):

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_02_06_18_10_07_01.jpeg)

From the map, it looks like if the eastern option is selected, US 183/Alternate 77 will utilize the old US 77 alignment south through the center of Refugio to reach their common terminus at I-69E/US 77, whereas the other options will require no routing change or simply a termination northwest of town. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on June 02, 2018, 10:35:15 PM
Quote from: MaxConcrete
I drove from Houston to Nacogdoches last week and I realized just how much work needs to be done on this segment to get it to interstate standards. Unless there is a big infusion of money, this is going to take a long, long time and I may not see it done in my lifetime (I'm 51).

That's kind of the story for all Interstate level projects. It's a problem compounded by numerous factors. One factor is how policy makers at the top (federal) levels have lost all sight of America's past tradition of building big things on a big, national scale. We don't do that anymore. Today the only focus for policy makers is taking care of their own friends and cutting funding out of projects championed by their enemies. That's where we are now and this nation is doomed to decline and irrelevance as long as we want to stick to that. Another factor is the out of control cost inflation of road building and maintenance. Nothing is being done to mitigate that. Then there's the legal gravy train present. Any and all road projects are subject to being dragged through the courts and providing a fantastic revenue stream for any law firms suing to block such projects. Engineering firms are going to get paid for all time spent drafting and revising plans for these projects. So it doesn't give them any heartburn if they're continually revising the plans for the same damned road project for over 20 freaking years before any actual construction starts -if any construction starts ever.

Meanwhile all these "connected types" seems utterly oblivious to how other nations (such as China for instance) are building thousands of miles worth of new superhighways every year -not to mention things we can't seem to build in the US, such as high speed rail lines. Or maybe they know but don't care and are only playing their games to get paid. They'll talk a big game waving the American flag for the public but they're not offering much of a clear future.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Plutonic Panda on June 03, 2018, 08:10:11 AM
Quote from: MaxConcrete
I drove from Houston to Nacogdoches last week and I realized just how much work needs to be done on this segment to get it to interstate standards. Unless there is a big infusion of money, this is going to take a long, long time and I may not see it done in my lifetime (I'm 51).

That's kind of the story for all Interstate level projects. It's a problem compounded by numerous factors. One factor is how policy makers at the top (federal) levels have lost all sight of America's past tradition of building big things on a big, national scale. We don't do that anymore. Today the only focus for policy makers is taking care of their own friends and cutting funding out of projects championed by their enemies. That's where we are now and this nation is doomed to decline and irrelevance as long as we want to stick to that. Another factor is the out of control cost inflation of road building and maintenance. Nothing is being done to mitigate that. Then there's the legal gravy train present. Any and all road projects are subject to being dragged through the courts and providing a fantastic revenue stream for any law firms suing to block such projects. Engineering firms are going to get paid for all time spent drafting and revising plans for these projects. So it doesn't give them any heartburn if they're continually revising the plans for the same damned road project for over 20 freaking years before any actual construction starts -if any construction starts ever.

Meanwhile all these "connected types" seems utterly oblivious to how other nations (such as China for instance) are building thousands of miles worth of new superhighways every year -not to mention things we can't seem to build in the US, such as high speed rail lines. Or maybe they know but don't care and are only playing their games to get paid. They'll talk a big game waving the American flag for the public but they're not offering much of a clear future.
This is off topic kind of but to your point about how much money they’re spending for engineering and design, LA is spending 45 million dollars on design and engineering work for a bike path project. If that isn’t a typo and I’m afraid it’s not, that is insane. I just can’t believe how much money these projects are today. The number keeps getting bigger and bigger. 30 billion for a new Bay Bridge... 55 billion for a new NYC Long Island bridge...
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on June 03, 2018, 08:15:29 PM
Yep, and meanwhile in China they can build a new, state-of-the-art suspension bridge (with Western engineering and quality materials) with the road deck at a new, world's highest height (1854 feet above a river) all for the equivalent of $144 million. That's less than 10% of the bare minimum of what the same bridge would cost to build in the United States.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Plutonic Panda on June 03, 2018, 09:39:01 PM
It’s very sad to see this and I can only hope something is done about it soon. But judging by the way the U.S. seems to do anything anymore and the lack of willpower to do anything bold and ambitious, I am bit on the pessimistic side.

We should do things because they’re hard, not easy. I’m sure everyone knows where that came from.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: thefro on June 04, 2018, 01:04:58 PM
It’s very sad to see this and I can only hope something is done about it soon. But judging by the way the U.S. seems to do anything anymore and the lack of willpower to do anything bold and ambitious, I am bit on the pessimistic side.

We should do things because they’re hard, not easy. I’m sure everyone knows where that came from.

I suspect this will be another problem that AI/automation will eventually resolve in the next 30-50 years, at the cost of a lot of human jobs.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: edwaleni on June 12, 2018, 06:36:48 PM
It’s very sad to see this and I can only hope something is done about it soon. But judging by the way the U.S. seems to do anything anymore and the lack of willpower to do anything bold and ambitious, I am bit on the pessimistic side.

We should do things because they’re hard, not easy. I’m sure everyone knows where that came from.

The public is not lacking in desire. The willpower is in lacking the dough to pay for it.

This isnt the 60's where everyone believed in what they were paying taxes for.

Today,  its about "me". Anyone can do anything they want, but dont make me change, dont make me pay for it and most of all, dont do it in my back yard.

Everyone thinks their idea is the most important and our job is to make someone else pay for it.

As long as that is the culture, then roads, bridges, tunnels, transit will always struggle to get built.

Thinking big is awesome, but only if your neighbor pays for it.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on June 12, 2018, 09:30:43 PM
Yep, and meanwhile in China they can build a new, state-of-the-art suspension bridge (with Western engineering and quality materials) with the road deck at a new, world's highest height (1854 feet above a river) all for the equivalent of $144 million. That's less than 10% of the bare minimum of what the same bridge would cost to build in the United States.

Principal differences: (a) labor cost (b) manufactured in parts and assembled on site (c) straight-up state-initiated-financed project with no one (at least on the surface) taking a piece of the action as profit.  A highly vertical structure such as the Chinese public works apparatus is normally capable of producing results at an ostensibly lower cost (but given the byzantine nature of China's bureaucracy, who knows what the actual cost structure of any give project entails).  Take any dollar figure attached to such a state project with a shaker-full rather than a grain of salt!   
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: kkt on June 12, 2018, 10:02:12 PM
Yep, and meanwhile in China they can build a new, state-of-the-art suspension bridge (with Western engineering and quality materials) with the road deck at a new, world's highest height (1854 feet above a river) all for the equivalent of $144 million. That's less than 10% of the bare minimum of what the same bridge would cost to build in the United States.

Principal differences: (a) labor cost (b) manufactured in parts and assembled on site (c) straight-up state-initiated-financed project with no one (at least on the surface) taking a piece of the action as profit.  A highly vertical structure such as the Chinese public works apparatus is normally capable of producing results at an ostensibly lower cost (but given the byzantine nature of China's bureaucracy, who knows what the actual cost structure of any give project entails).  Take any dollar figure attached to such a state project with a shaker-full rather than a grain of salt!   

Not to mention little or no cost for takings or environmental studies or mitigation.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: J N Winkler on June 12, 2018, 10:33:33 PM
Principal differences: (a) labor cost (b) manufactured in parts and assembled on site (c) straight-up state-initiated-financed project with no one (at least on the surface) taking a piece of the action as profit.  A highly vertical structure such as the Chinese public works apparatus is normally capable of producing results at an ostensibly lower cost (but given the byzantine nature of China's bureaucracy, who knows what the actual cost structure of any give project entails).  Take any dollar figure attached to such a state project with a shaker-full rather than a grain of salt!

The Chinese are in the middle of large-scale greenfield infrastructure construction, which keeps remediation and relocation costs down while creating opportunities for economies of scale.  Construction costs have been similarly lower in countries like Spain and Norway that are building big, new, and fast, and no-one seriously suggests their engineering or environmental standards are significantly lower than in the US.

China's currency is also not fully convertible and the Chinese have worked very aggressively to develop their cement manufacturing capability, which raises the question of how purchasing power parity should be calculated for purposes of translating Chinese construction costs into US dollars.

One thing I would like to do over the long term is to obtain copies of construction plans for Chinese highway projects and see if I can identify differences between them and similar documents for the US and western Europe.  I suspect any I find will be quite minor.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on June 13, 2018, 12:45:47 AM
Quote from: thefro
I suspect this will be another problem that AI/automation will eventually resolve in the next 30-50 years, at the cost of a lot of human jobs.

I think improvements in AI and automation will provide only so much help in road engineering and building. There is still a lot of subjective, human-based decision making required at many levels of the process.

Quote from: sparker
Principal differences: (a) labor cost (b) manufactured in parts and assembled on site (c) straight-up state-initiated-financed project with no one (at least on the surface) taking a piece of the action as profit.  A highly vertical structure such as the Chinese public works apparatus is normally capable of producing results at an ostensibly lower cost (but given the byzantine nature of China's bureaucracy, who knows what the actual cost structure of any give project entails).  Take any dollar figure attached to such a state project with a shaker-full rather than a grain of salt!

There are big differences. Yet a lot of European and American engineering firms are doing all sorts of advanced work in civil engineering and architecture in China and I'll bet they're not doing it for bargain basement pay either. Labor costs for grunt-level work are much lower. There's no question about that. I'm sure there's a great deal of savings taking place in materials costs and ROW acquisition.

I think lack of courtroom entanglements is one of the biggest advantages China currently enjoys. If they decide they want to build a large new bridge spanning a river or bay they can go from the first inspiration to total project completion in less than 5 years. If there's nothing fancy about the bridge they might get it built much faster. They don't have to worry about the project getting ensnared by lawsuits coming from any number of parties.

Here in the United States it is now routine, standard operating procedure for a major bridge or tunnel project to take at least 20 or more years to go from concept to completion. It's now routine for the project to get bottled up in litigation for years on end. The delays lead to a project being re-designed and revised continually. The EIS process and public comment process will get repeated numerous times. Politicians play games with the funding. There's always a circular monetary feeding frenzy going on where all the different parties involved in a highway, bridge or tunnel project price gouge the hell out of each other. Each company has someone else to blame over why they have to charge so much. But in the end the taxpayer foots the bill.

I guess this "dance" the United States does with infrastructure will just keep getting slower, more costly and more ridiculous until the music grinds to a halt. Meanwhile other nations are not going to be standing still.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Chris on June 13, 2018, 05:27:32 AM
Chinese greenfield projects are not as cheap as you would think. The plains in Eastern China are incredibly densely populated outside of the cities, with villages and small towns only 1-2 miles apart. Almost any expressway project near the Yangtze River has miles and miles of elevated highways. Think of those elevated highways in Louisiana, but on a grander scale. Most Yangtze bridges have elevated approaches for 10 miles or more.

What is interesting about Texas is their extensive use of frontage roads. Which means a four lane divided highway cannot simply be upgraded to a freeway by constructing some interchanges and closing crossover roads. The ROW is pretty wide. In other regions a four lane divided is often upgraded to a freeway without a major expansion of the ROW, slow / local traffic simply uses alternate roads. But in Texas you need to fit frontage roads as well, which makes any upgrade project such as I-69 more complex.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MaxConcrete on July 14, 2018, 06:15:28 PM
Bids were opened last week for the Driscoll Relief Route (bypass), which is just south of Corpus Christi. The winning bid is $118.3 million
http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/07113202.htm (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/07113202.htm)

Estimate   $120,620,669.87   % Over/Under   Company
Bidder 1   $118,322,898.17   -1.90%   ZACHRY CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION
Bidder 2   $123,021,320.32   +1.99%   AUSTIN BRIDGE & ROAD SERVICES, LP
Bidder 3   $124,903,767.83   +3.55%   JOHNSON BROS. CORPORATION, A SOUTHLAND COMPANY
Bidder 4   $134,736,908.89   +11.70%   ANDERSON COLUMBIA CO., INC.
Bidder 5   $143,075,075.00   +18.62%   WEBBER, LLC


I drove through the area on Wednesday. US 77 in Driscoll is currently in an urban-style configuration with a center turn lane, and there is a traffic signal in the center of the city.

However there is another traffic signal a few miles south of Kingsville in Riviera, so after the bypass is complete there will still not be an uninterrupted route to the Rio Grande Valley. While most of the route between Riviera and Raymondville does not meet interstate standards, it is an uninhabited area with no traffic signals.

(http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20180711_13-0111-1600.jpg)
Traffic signal in Driscoll

(http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20180711_13-0136-1600.jpg)
Southbound on US 77 between Riveria and Raymondville, which is an uninhabited area. Some of this section passes though a unit of the King Ranch https://king-ranch.com/about-us/maps/ (https://king-ranch.com/about-us/maps/)
dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20180711_13-0136-1600.jpg (http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20180711_13-0136-1600.jpg)

(http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20180711_13-0145-1600.jpg)
Construction of main lanes north of Raymondville
http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20180711_13-0145-1600.jpg (http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20180711_13-0145-1600.jpg)

(http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20180711_13-0152-1600.jpg)
From north of Raymondville southward it meets interstate standards and is signed as 69E
dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20180711_13-0152-1600.jpg (http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20180711_13-0152-1600.jpg)

There is a huge wind turbine installation with hundreds of windmills stretching from around Raymondville all the way to Port Isabel. I don't remember any turbines on my last visit around 10 years ago.

Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MaxConcrete on July 14, 2018, 07:37:27 PM
Construction is well underway for the main lanes of IH 69W at IH 35 in north Laredo. (See photos below) That area of Laredo, especially west of IH 35, is a huge trucking hub.

There is also a short project in progress on Loop 20 north of Highway 359, but that is not on the IH 69W alignment.

According to the TxDOT project tracker (http://apps.dot.state.tx.us/apps-cq/project_tracker/?DISTRICT_NAME=Laredo (http://apps.dot.state.tx.us/apps-cq/project_tracker/?DISTRICT_NAME=Laredo)) , IH 69W around northeast Laredo is slated to be upgraded to a freeway, but that project is going to require substantial right-of-way acquisition since the existing road is just a regular arterial street on a narrow right-of-way, much of it only 100 to 120 feet wide. Numerous locations along the route will require property clearance.

(http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20180711_13-0428-1600.jpg)

(http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20180711_13-0433-1600.jpg)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on July 25, 2018, 03:52:39 PM
Bids were opened last week for the Driscoll Relief Route (bypass), which is just south of Corpus Christi. The winning bid is $118.3 million
http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/07113202.htm (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/07113202.htm)
I drove through the area on Wednesday. US 77 in Driscoll is currently in an urban-style configuration with a center turn lane, and there is a traffic signal in the center of the city....

This TV video (http://www.kristv.com/story/38688344/6-investigates-by-passed) provides some detail about what the I-69E relief route will mean for Driscoll, as well as some local scenes. It projects a completion date of 2021.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: mvak36 on July 26, 2018, 09:38:49 AM
Sorry if this has already been posted, but here are the meeting minutes of the I-69 Advisory Commitee meeting in May. It has some updates on the progress of I-69 in each district. Also, it looks like they will be revamping the I-69 Driven by Texans (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/drivenbytexans/default.htm) website by the end of the summer (see page 18 of the pdf linked below).

http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/050818-meeting-summary.pdf
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on July 26, 2018, 09:32:12 PM
Bids were opened last week for the Driscoll Relief Route (bypass), which is just south of Corpus Christi. The winning bid is $118.3 million
http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/07113202.htm (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/07113202.htm) ... US 77 in Driscoll is currently in an urban-style configuration with a center turn lane, and there is a traffic signal in the center of the city.
However there is another traffic signal a few miles south of Kingsville in Riviera, so after the bypass is complete there will still not be an uninterrupted route to the Rio Grande Valley. While most of the route between Riviera and Raymondville does not meet interstate standards, it is an uninhabited area with no traffic signals.

The Alliance for I-69 Texas has posted an article (http://i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/driscoll.7.26.18.html) which explains that Riviera will need an approximate four-mile relief route.:

Quote
When the latest project is completed in about three years it will eliminate the traffic light at FM 665 in Driscoll, one of the two last stoplights on the 151-mile I-69E route between Corpus Christi and Brownsville. 
The other traffic light is at the key trucking intersection of US 77 and SH 285 in Riviera in southern Kleberg County, an intersection that is complicated by the railroad line adjacent to the existing highway lanes.  A 4-mile relief route is required at Riviera and right-of-way acquisition for that project has been underway for more than a year.  The project is considered under development but no schedule has yet been set for funding construction.

The article also describes how the Driscoll relief route, in conjunction with other projects, will complete a 31-mile section of I-69E interstate:

Quote
The Texas Transportation Commission has awarded a $118 million construction contract that will close a 9.5-mile gap in on the Interstate 69E route in Nueces County west of Corpus Christi.
The project will include the 4-mile US 77 relief route on the east side of Driscoll, a crossroads town between Corpus Christi and Kingsville.  It will create a continuous 31-mile interstate standard highway from Interstate 37 through Robstown, Driscoll, Bishop and Kingsville. 
The Corpus Christi to Kingsville section includes a 7-mile segment from Bishop to Kingsville completed in 2017 under a $79 million contract and a 3.2-mile segment south of Robstown that will be completed in the coming months under a $43 million contract.

Here is a map of the area:

(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/gallery/1615_26_07_18_9_27_44.jpeg)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on July 27, 2018, 01:28:12 AM
As expected, the Alliance for I-69/Texas' system map shows I-369 as the continuation of the principal corridor north of Houston; the I-69 trunk into LA is shown as an ancillary segment.  This map makes their priorities crystal clear:  an Interstate corridor designed to convey south Texas traffic to either I-30 or, eventually, I-49 in Texarkana.  The segment extending into LA will likely not even be the subject of preliminary design & engineering until I-369 is either completed or fully let.     
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: jbnv on July 27, 2018, 11:07:07 AM
I'll be surprised if the I-69 segment through Louisiana ever is built. It's simply not a priority for Louisiana.

Texas has no incentive to make it a priority. They can just route the thing to Texarkana via the I-369 route.

I fully believe that I-14 from Temple to Alexandria will happen before I-69 through Louisiana.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on July 27, 2018, 01:01:29 PM
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for I-14 to get built. I think the current, tiny little stub going into Killeen is all I-14 will be for many years. Ultimately I can see the highway skirting the College Station area on the way to Huntsville. I think there's little chance of it going East of I-45. There's probably not much chance of I-14 reaching San Angelo and Midland-Odessa anytime in the next few decades either. As far as Texas highways go, I think there's a better shot of US-281 getting turned into an I-35 relief Interstate from San Antonio on North.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: thefro on July 27, 2018, 01:27:51 PM
I'll be surprised if the I-69 segment through Louisiana ever is built. It's simply not a priority for Louisiana.

Texas has no incentive to make it a priority. They can just route the thing to Texarkana via the I-369 route.

I do think the segment going from TX I-69 to Shreveport gets built.

I am skeptical of the rest of the route between Shreveport and Memphis getting built unless there's a big pot of federal money.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: inkyatari on July 27, 2018, 02:01:38 PM


I am skeptical of the rest of the route between Shreveport and Memphis getting built unless there's a big pot of federal money.

I don't see any of that ever getting finished as well.  The route through there is, IMHO a solution waiting for a problem.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: jbnv on July 27, 2018, 02:22:42 PM
I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for I-14 to get built.

Nobody's holding their breath waiting for I-14.

I do think the segment going from TX I-69 to Shreveport gets built.

What aim does that segment serve Texas? It's not needed to get to Shreveport. And what benefit does Shreveport give to Texas anyway? (I invoke I-14 because I believe Texas does have an interest in having multiple routes to the Mississippi River and Atlantic Ocean.)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on July 27, 2018, 04:00:57 PM
Both I-69 and I-14 are predicated on the same structural concept:  a long multi-state corridor intended to serve areas where there are motivated backers of these routes willing and able to translate their wishes into political action and subsequently development, albeit with the current fiscal systems, over time.  Of course, by now we all know just who the movers & shakers are for I-69 -- the TX "Alliance" and the folks in southern Indiana -- everyone else is just along for the ride (almost certainly why KY elected to revamp existing facilities rather than construct new ones) and other states are addressing their segments at their leisure.  I-14 has a "motley crew" of folks clamoring for its development -- the Midland/Odessa contingent, San Angelo backers (likely sick & tired of waiting on the P-to-P that may or may not ever materialize), and the folks from the SA-Houston-DFW "triangle", who want an Interstate bisecting that area so they can continue to develop the interior with relative ease.  And now LA interests from the Fort Polk area have gotten in on the act -- and I have no doubt MS would just love to see a new Interstate corridor along US 84 -- but they really don't have the $$ to make it happen, so they'll live with a line on a paper for now.  But while the dynamics are similar to I-69; the actual manifestation of the plans isn't anywhere near as "set in stone" as anything along I-69.  Part of that is due to timing -- they're 20-odd years behind the "69 curve", and the usual suspects -- inflation, reprioritizations, and so forth have rendered corridor development increasingly difficult.  So I-14 may or may not get done; what form the final product will take is still way up in the air.   
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on July 27, 2018, 07:23:52 PM
I-69, at least in Texas, has some big advantages at attracting funds for its projects over I-14. The key thing is I-69 will directly connect some major population centers with Interstate quality roads. An Interstate link between Houston and Corpus Christi is justifiable. Same goes for linking the Rio Grande Valley cluster of cities in far South Texas with the rest of the Interstate system. Over 1 million people live in those cities, there are major border crossings there, an important port and South Padre Island attracts a lot of tourists.

Houston to Texarkana is a slightly harder project to sell, but there lots of towns and small cities along the US-59 corridor. Port commerce from Houston needs another North-South Interstate route. I-69 will allow port truck traffic to bypass the DFW area yet stay on Interstate quality roads on the way to points in the North and Northeast US regions.

With that being said, I-69 in Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississippi is much harder to justify when I-69/I-369 and I-30 serves the same purpose in an arguably straighter route. The I-49 and I-57 corridors will make I-369 more attractive to traffic coming from Houston.

I-14 doesn't offer the same "big picture" compliments to the larger Interstate highway system. That's probably why this is being pitched by politicians with the angle of linking military posts/bases. Most heavy military equipment gets moved by rail or by air. Not so much gets moved on the highways. And if Fort Hood really needed an Interstate link to another important Army post they would do better by upgrading US-281 to Interstate standards between Lampasas and Wichita Falls -that would provide a high speed road link between Fort Hood and Fort Sill here in Lawton. There's a lot more close activity going on between those two posts than with Fort Polk.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: tdindy88 on July 27, 2018, 08:13:01 PM
If Texas ever gets to the point where most of their stretch of I-69 is finished I wonder if it's possible to create a temporary I-69. Route I-69 up to Texarkana, truncate I-30 there and run I-69 along the current I-30 up to Little Rock and then multiplex I-69 with I-40 to Memphis (or further north on I-55 to I-155 if Tennessee's portion is not finished.) Probably a fictional highway situation but it made me wonder about the possibility. I-40 in Arkansas would likely need to be six-laned to handle the traffic I understand.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Brooks on July 27, 2018, 09:37:49 PM
I-40 in Arkansas would likely need to be six-laned to handle the traffic I understand.

This is already needed from North Little Rock to West Memphis. Truck traffic through there is insane and those two lanes fill up quickly when there’s a wreck.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: jbnv on July 28, 2018, 01:20:11 PM
With that being said, I-69 in Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississippi is much harder to justify when I-69/I-369 and I-30 serves the same purpose in an arguably straighter route. The I-49 and I-57 corridors will make I-369 more attractive to traffic coming from Houston.

I-14 doesn't offer the same "big picture" compliments to the larger Interstate highway system. That's probably why this is being pitched by politicians with the angle of linking military posts/bases. Most heavy military equipment gets moved by rail or by air. Not so much gets moved on the highways. And if Fort Hood really needed an Interstate link to another important Army post they would do better by upgrading US-281 to Interstate standards between Lampasas and Wichita Falls -that would provide a high speed road link between Fort Hood and Fort Sill here in Lawton. There's a lot more close activity going on between those two posts than with Fort Polk.

I truncated your post to stay on task, which is comparing the I-69 connector in Louisiana to I-14. I agree completely that it makes more sense to take I-69 through the I-369/I-30/I-40 route than through the new territory. The Louisiana-Arkansas routing is mostly wishful thinking and ego stroking for southern Arkansas.

As for I-14, the key question is this: Why is a link to Fort Polk and central Louisiana important to Fort Hood in particular and Texas in general? Ford Polk is a lot closer to the Gulf of Mexico than either Fort Hood or Fort Sill. We're more likely to be attacked by an enemy from without than from within. So it makes sense to have easy access to the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico.

The current best route from Fort Hood to the Gulf passes through several small towns and directly through Houston, Beaumont and Lake Charles. I-14 would bypass all of that. I-14 can go all the way to the Atlantic Ocean without passing through any major cities at all (except maybe Alexandria). It's far enough inland that it would be less threatened by an external invader. That sounds strategic to me. However, I have no experience with the military. Feel free to correct me if it's irrelevant.

I-69 exists to serve the interior. I-14 would exist to serve the exterior. As a coastal state, Louisiana is better served by focusing on projects that help the exterior. I-49 to New Orleans does that. Fixing I-10 through Baton Rouge does that. The short part of I-69 through north Louisiana would not do that.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on July 28, 2018, 07:48:08 PM
With that being said, I-69 in Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississippi is much harder to justify when I-69/I-369 and I-30 serves the same purpose in an arguably straighter route. The I-49 and I-57 corridors will make I-369 more attractive to traffic coming from Houston.

I-14 doesn't offer the same "big picture" compliments to the larger Interstate highway system. That's probably why this is being pitched by politicians with the angle of linking military posts/bases. Most heavy military equipment gets moved by rail or by air. Not so much gets moved on the highways. And if Fort Hood really needed an Interstate link to another important Army post they would do better by upgrading US-281 to Interstate standards between Lampasas and Wichita Falls -that would provide a high speed road link between Fort Hood and Fort Sill here in Lawton. There's a lot more close activity going on between those two posts than with Fort Polk.

I truncated your post to stay on task, which is comparing the I-69 connector in Louisiana to I-14. I agree completely that it makes more sense to take I-69 through the I-369/I-30/I-40 route than through the new territory. The Louisiana-Arkansas routing is mostly wishful thinking and ego stroking for southern Arkansas.

As for I-14, the key question is this: Why is a link to Fort Polk and central Louisiana important to Fort Hood in particular and Texas in general? Ford Polk is a lot closer to the Gulf of Mexico than either Fort Hood or Fort Sill. We're more likely to be attacked by an enemy from without than from within. So it makes sense to have easy access to the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico.

The current best route from Fort Hood to the Gulf passes through several small towns and directly through Houston, Beaumont and Lake Charles. I-14 would bypass all of that. I-14 can go all the way to the Atlantic Ocean without passing through any major cities at all (except maybe Alexandria). It's far enough inland that it would be less threatened by an external invader. That sounds strategic to me. However, I have no experience with the military. Feel free to correct me if it's irrelevant.

I-69 exists to serve the interior. I-14 would exist to serve the exterior. As a coastal state, Louisiana is better served by focusing on projects that help the exterior. I-49 to New Orleans does that. Fixing I-10 through Baton Rouge does that. The short part of I-69 through north Louisiana would not do that.


Here's where I disagree with you on I-69 and eliminating the Tenaha-Memphis segment.

I-30 from Texarkana to Little Rock and I-40 from NLR to Memphis already carry a huge load, even with widening to 3x3 ongoing and the AR 440 bypass around Little Rock. I don't think that you'd want to add an additional load to that with I-69 interregional traffic just to save $$$$.

Also, there's the issue of bypassing Memphis, particular if you expand this truncated route to include I-40 to I-55 North at West Memphis to I-155 at Dyersburg. How do you connect the city of Memphis to this if you completely bypass them? How do you connect I-22 to this? A new Southern Crossing through Tunica? And, what happens to I-269, which loses its connection to its parent?

I agree that TX wants to get that SoTX/Houston/Texarkana corridor finished pronto to get maximum benefit, and that the Tenaha-Shreveport-Monticello-Tunica segment of I-69 will be put on ice for a while. But, Shreveport has plenty of skin in this game to lose if they lose I-69; they lose the only Interstate access to their main port, and they lose an opportunity to complete their Inner Loop. Also, South AR would probably want the growth that the originally approved path for I-69 would bring to their region.

Yeah, there are far bigger priorities for LA right now (I-10 though BTR, I-49 South, Lafayette Connector, Shreveport ICC...and I'd add to that I-10 through Lake Charles and the Calcasieu River Bridge and 3x3'ing I-10 from the Texas line to the Atchafalaya Swamp elevated section). But putting I-69 through LA/AR/MS in cold storage for now is not the same as eliminating it altogether; it simply means doing planning and environmental studies for now and holding steady for the future when funds may become available.

I-14...I'm a "meh" on that. I still don't see the need for an expensive Interstate corridor bisecting the north, and there's still the issue of how you get that sucka through Alexandria/Pineville and Ferriday/Vidalia/Natchez. I still say that a Lake Charles-Alexandria-Monroe-Bastrop-Monticello (Super I-69 Extender) freeway would have more bang for the bucks...but, that's only me.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: jbnv on July 28, 2018, 10:08:22 PM
I-69 exists to serve the interior. I-14 would exist to serve the exterior. As a coastal state, Louisiana is better served by focusing on projects that help the exterior. I-49 to New Orleans does that. Fixing I-10 through Baton Rouge does that. The short part of I-69 through north Louisiana would not do that.

I-30 from Texarkana to Little Rock and I-40 from NLR to Memphis already carry a huge load, even with widening to 3x3 ongoing and the AR 440 bypass around Little Rock. I don't think that you'd want to add an additional load to that with I-69 interregional traffic just to save $$$$.

How much additional traffic is I-69 going to create? The traffic will be there (or not be there) whether or not I-69 routes through Little Rock or through nowhere.

Shreveport has plenty of skin in this game to lose if they lose I-69; they lose the only Interstate access to their main port, and they lose an opportunity to complete their Inner Loop. Also, South AR would probably want the growth that the originally approved path for I-69 would bring to their region.

But does Shreveport have the clout to win it in Baton Rouge? I've never lived in north Louisiana (aside from 2 school years at LSMSA) so I have no idea what the economy is like up there. A quick search suggests it's not exactly booming: industry is gone and the main draw are casinos. They need a better argument for I-69 than "I-69 is going to bring more cross-country traffic through here." I asked this question earlier: What benefit does the Louisiana-Arkansas route bring to Texas that the Little Rock route does not? If they can't argue that it brings long-term benefit beyond being a pass-through, they have little chance of winning against projects from the south at the Capitol.

I-14...I'm a "meh" on that. I still don't see the need for an expensive Interstate corridor bisecting the north, and there's still the issue of how you get that sucka through Alexandria/Pineville and Ferriday/Vidalia/Natchez. I still say that a Lake Charles-Alexandria-Monroe-Bastrop-Monticello (Super I-69 Extender) freeway would have more bang for the bucks...but, that's only me.

Funny that you should bring up that corridor. Because if I were a south Louisiana legislator, and I wanted to make friends in central and north Louisiana, I'd pitch them the US 165 corridor, not I-69. An interstate along that route (presumably an extension of I-57) would strengthen the bond between Lake Charles and Monroe, link provide an alternate route for northbound traffic from Texas, link that area to St. Louis and Chicago (I-57), and improve hurricane evacuation. I-69 provides little or none of those benefits.

The advantage of I-14 over I-69 and the US 165 corridor is that it gives Texas a reason to invest in Louisiana. Texas does not need I-69 to go through Louisiana.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: 707 on July 28, 2018, 10:29:49 PM
Satellite photographs of US 59 in El Campo seem to show the southern part of US 59 around the city under construction to Interstate standards. Can anyone tell me if the construction is finished or still ongoing?

https://binged.it/2LWQTga
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on July 28, 2018, 10:55:08 PM
I-69 exists to serve the interior. I-14 would exist to serve the exterior. As a coastal state, Louisiana is better served by focusing on projects that help the exterior. I-49 to New Orleans does that. Fixing I-10 through Baton Rouge does that. The short part of I-69 through north Louisiana would not do that.

I-30 from Texarkana to Little Rock and I-40 from NLR to Memphis already carry a huge load, even with widening to 3x3 ongoing and the AR 440 bypass around Little Rock. I don't think that you'd want to add an additional load to that with I-69 interregional traffic just to save $$$$.

How much additional traffic is I-69 going to create? The traffic will be there (or not be there) whether or not I-69 routes through Little Rock or through nowhere.

Enough to add to the corridor that's already stressed with DFW-LR-Memphis traffic. You are adding the additional traffic from heavy trucks from Texarkana NE through Little Rock, and then up I-40 which is already crammed even as it's being widened.

Plus, I-69 is a national High Priority corridor that will ease the load of traffic from SoTX/Houston northeastward. I'm guessing Arkansas, Mississippi, and Tennessee will have plenty to say about abandoning that corridor.

Quote
Shreveport has plenty of skin in this game to lose if they lose I-69; they lose the only Interstate access to their main port, and they lose an opportunity to complete their Inner Loop. Also, South AR would probably want the growth that the originally approved path for I-69 would bring to their region.

But does Shreveport have the clout to win it in Baton Rouge? I've never lived in north Louisiana (aside from 2 school years at LSMSA) so I have no idea what the economy is like up there. A quick search suggests it's not exactly booming: industry is gone and the main draw are casinos. They need a better argument for I-69 than "I-69 is going to bring more cross-country traffic through here." I asked this question earlier: What benefit does the Louisiana-Arkansas route bring to Texas that the Little Rock route does not? If they can't argue that it brings long-term benefit beyond being a pass-through, they have little chance of winning against projects from the south at the Capitol.

Maybe right now I-69 in LA should be a lower priority, but I'm talking about the future here. Texas should not be the sole mediator in determining the final route for I-69; it's already set by Congressional fiat. There is still plenty of time to develop a funding plan, since the upgrades for the I-69 system in Texas will be ongoing for quite a while.

Quote
I-14...I'm a "meh" on that. I still don't see the need for an expensive Interstate corridor bisecting the north, and there's still the issue of how you get that sucka through Alexandria/Pineville and Ferriday/Vidalia/Natchez. I still say that a Lake Charles-Alexandria-Monroe-Bastrop-Monticello (Super I-69 Extender) freeway would have more bang for the bucks...but, that's only me.

Funny that you should bring up that corridor. Because if I were a south Louisiana legislator, and I wanted to make friends in central and north Louisiana, I'd pitch them the US 165 corridor, not I-69. An interstate along that route (presumably an extension of I-57) would strengthen the bond between Lake Charles and Monroe, link provide an alternate route for northbound traffic from Texas, link that area to St. Louis and Chicago (I-57), and improve hurricane evacuation. I-69 provides little or none of those benefits.

I've been pitching a US 165/US 465 freeway upgrade for the past 10 years for local and statewide benefits (alternative hurricane evac route; adds a SW/NE tangent to the LA freeway system; could be a "Super I-69/I-530 Extender"). If it was actually built, I could agree with removing the Tenaha to Memphis segment (or truncating it to end at the "Extender"), because at least an alternative relief corridor would exist for traffic and goods from SoTX/LA to the north and east. Until that happens, though, I'd rather any corridor that adds relief.

Like I said before, Texas might not need the Tenaha to Memphis segment, but it is locked in as part of the original agreement to merge HPC Corridor #18 (the overall I-69 extension from South Texas to Indy) and HPC Corridor #20 (the US 59 upgrade from Laredo to Texarkana). All of the states involved in this corridor have input here, not just Texas; they should have as much a say over the final product.

Quote
The advantage of I-14 over I-69 and the US 165 corridor is that it gives Texas a reason to invest in Louisiana. Texas does not need I-69 to go through Louisiana.

IIRC, I-14 was originally designed as an interregional corridor to link military bases throughout the South, along with energizing the Black Belt corridor through MS, AL, and GA. Initially it was to terminate at Natchez, but when they discovered that that wasn't possible because there was no Interstate there to terminate it at, they extended it to I-49 at Alexandria. That, along with the original Trans-Texas Corridor plans for a toll route along the US 190 corridor, is more likely the spur for I-14. It's still up for grabs how TX will develop I-14; it will take years of study and acquisition before the final alignments are established and built. That's plenty of time to prioritize more needed projects.

The key element here is patience, and the willingness to allow the process to develop on its own. Rushing to pull I-69 onto I-30/I-40 (and I-55/I-155) and to build I-14 just to save money and spite LA and AR seems to me counterproductive to that consensus.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on July 28, 2018, 11:24:28 PM
As expected, the Alliance for I-69/Texas' system map shows I-369 as the continuation of the principal corridor north of Houston; the I-69 trunk into LA is shown as an ancillary segment.  This map makes their priorities crystal clear:  an Interstate corridor designed to convey south Texas traffic to either I-30 or, eventually, I-49 in Texarkana.  The segment extending into LA will likely not even be the subject of preliminary design & engineering until I-369 is either completed or fully let.     

It should be noted though:

The map is dated 2015, so I'm sure updates are in order.

That map also shows the I-69 segment into LA as an upgrade of US 84; I'm more than sure that a new terrain route will be used for this route and the connection between I-69 and I-369 near Tenaha.

LADOTD and the Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments (NLCOG, the MPO for Shreveport/Bossier) has been trying for years to get Texas to cofund an EIS/preliminary engineering for the Tenaha-Logansport-Stonewall segment of I-69 (SIU #13??), but has gotten stonewalled (pun not intended) by TXDOT. It's obvious that they also fear that if Texas is emphasizing I-369, Shreveport would get bypassed out of the benefits of that highway....and they are not too happy about that. Even with the main priority of the I-49 ICC.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on July 29, 2018, 01:00:36 AM
As expected, the Alliance for I-69/Texas' system map shows I-369 as the continuation of the principal corridor north of Houston; the I-69 trunk into LA is shown as an ancillary segment.  This map makes their priorities crystal clear:  an Interstate corridor designed to convey south Texas traffic to either I-30 or, eventually, I-49 in Texarkana.  The segment extending into LA will likely not even be the subject of preliminary design & engineering until I-369 is either completed or fully let.     

It should be noted though:

The map is dated 2015, so I'm sure updates are in order.

That map also shows the I-69 segment into LA as an upgrade of US 84; I'm more than sure that a new terrain route will be used for this route and the connection between I-69 and I-369 near Tenaha.

LADOTD and the Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments (NLCOG, the MPO for Shreveport/Bossier) has been trying for years to get Texas to cofund an EIS/preliminary engineering for the Tenaha-Logansport-Stonewall segment of I-69 (SIU #13??), but has gotten stonewalled (pun not intended) by TXDOT. It's obvious that they also fear that if Texas is emphasizing I-369, Shreveport would get bypassed out of the benefits of that highway....and they are not too happy about that. Even with the main priority of the I-49 ICC.


The Alliance's I-69/I-369 line, if anything, is even thicker now with the level of planning for the latter route through Marshall and southwest of Texarkana.   But you're right about US 84 itself not necessarily being the actual route of the I-69 path into LA; until recently, everything I've seen showed the corridor diverging from US 84 just east of Timpson and crossing US 59 again just north of Woods in order to avoid the northern reaches of Toledo Bend reservoir; that also puts it on a more direct line toward Stonewall (nice pun reference there!).  I would imagine that LADOT is doing a substantial amount of eye-rolling in regards to TXDOT's reticence on actually engaging in planning for that particular SIU -- but I'd guess that a Tenaha bypass/"shortcut" pathway is somewhere on the TX agenda if not in the very preliminary planning stages -- figuring out just where the 69/369 division point will be will affect the overall efficiency as well as the cost structure of, eventually, both corridor branches -- and it'll have to be done sooner rather than later.  That should give LADOT at least some idea as to where TXDOT's "head is at" regarding at least the trajectory of the main I-69 segment. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: thefro on July 29, 2018, 08:46:06 AM
The key element here is patience, and the willingness to allow the process to develop on its own. Rushing to pull I-69 onto I-30/I-40 (and I-55/I-155) and to build I-14 just to save money and spite LA and AR seems to me counterproductive to that consensus.

Exactly.  We're looking at the very least ~10 years before Indianapolis to Dyersburg is "complete", and I suspect the Texas side will take quite a bit longer just due to the sheer mileage of roads that need to be upgraded.

Realistically that's something that should be revisited around 2035-2040.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on July 29, 2018, 02:23:03 PM
Regarding traffic loads along I-30 and I-40 they're only going to keep increasing even without an additional induced load coming from a completed I-369/I-69 in Texas. I think it's actually possible I-57 could be finished between Little Rock and Sikeston before the I-69 segments in East Texas are built. That may provide at least some relief for the I-40 corridor between Little Rock and Memphis. Still, more widening will be needed on I-30 and I-40.

If I-69 is built through Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississippi I don't think it will draw a great deal of traffic from I-30 and I-40 in Arkansas due to its really crooked path. Funding the Great River Bridge is a critical hurdle. Without that the corridor's value is pretty useless. Considering the rate of construction cost inflation getting that bridge built across the Mississippi should have been one of the first priorities. If the plan is to slowly build I-69 toward that river crossing (from Memphis downward in MS and from West to East in AR) the bridge cost could multiply in the mean time.

Quote from: jbnv
As for I-14, the key question is this: Why is a link to Fort Polk and central Louisiana important to Fort Hood in particular and Texas in general? Ford Polk is a lot closer to the Gulf of Mexico than either Fort Hood or Fort Sill. We're more likely to be attacked by an enemy from without than from within. So it makes sense to have easy access to the Mississippi River and the Gulf of Mexico.

I can't help but scoff at the idea of a foreign power trying to conduct a ground invasion of the United States. Our Navy and Air Force would make any attempt to establish a beach-head an extremely suicidal attempt. Even if an enemy power could get out of the water and push inland it might face one heck of an insurgency from American civilians along with the dire threat from our troops.

Even if an enemy invasion was possible, relying on roads to move military equipment is an out of date concept. Our forces have been transforming to be able to project power rapidly to any part of the globe in less than 24 hours and adapting to all sorts of irregular threats (terrorism, insurgency, cyber warfare, etc). A road like I-14 doesn't really fit in with that. The road is really a pork-barrel endeavor. Its jagged, indirect path proposed thru central Texas (to include as many towns as possible into the party) makes that very clear.

Strategically a super-highway is a pretty vulnerable thing. A few well placed bombs or missiles striking key bridges or interchanges would sever the connections it provides. Super-highways are very costly and take a very long time to build. Even with an emergency situation, like the I-40 bridge collapse in Webbers Falls, OK, fast-track repair for just one river crossing would take at least a couple months.

Air and sea transport are more critical to modern conventional military strategy. An aircraft carrier task force is a very effective point to the end of our spear. Then we have to consider all sorts of other irregular threats to our elements of our nation's infrastructure. A new highway that will take decades to build out won't help with any of those needs. Highways are primarily for moving people and commerce.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on July 29, 2018, 11:54:36 PM
The military aspect of the I-14 corridor is simply a "McGuffin" -- something for segments of the public (and their like-minded representatives) to latch on to while the real reason for the deployment of such a corridor -- development of the adjacent areas -- is only tacitly acknowledged.  If such a corridor had been ever considered a real necessity, it would have been included in the initial Interstate system plans, simply because that was also the time that LBJ, then an up-and-coming Texas senator (and eventually majority leader) was able and eager  to get almost countless USAF bases deployed statewide, bringing huge $$ amounts into the state, and while a substantial amount of those were or are in and around San Antonio, there were a few along the (now) I-14 corridor, including Goodfellow near San Angelo -- for decades a mainstay for military intelligence training and operations. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MaxConcrete on September 08, 2018, 12:09:57 AM
Bids were opened today to upgrade 4.6 miles to 3x3 full freeway with frontage roads. This section is just south of Cleveland, which is about 40 miles north of downtown Houston. This section currently is a four-lane divided highway with no slowdowns, so this does not eliminate any problem areas, but does continue the program to achieve full interstate standards.

http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/09073201.htm (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/09073201.htm)

WIDEN TO 6 MAIN LANES WITH FRONTAGE ROADS
From:   SOUTH END OF CLEVELAND BYPASS   
To:   MONTGOMERY COUNTY LINE   
Estimate   $108,030,552.43   % Over/Under   Company
Bidder 1   $102,150,732.13   -5.44%   JAMES CONSTRUCTION GROUP, L.L.C.
Bidder 2   $105,991,025.38   -1.89%   WEBBER, LLC
Bidder 3   $116,821,065.25   +8.14%   ZACHRY CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION
Bidder 4   $118,609,174.31   +9.79%   JOHNSON BROS. CORPORATION, A SOUTHLAND COMPANY
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on September 08, 2018, 02:46:20 AM
This is a years overdue upgrade. Especially with Cleveland being a control city on many of the I-69 signs in the Houston area. At the very least I-69 should be full Interstate quality through Cleveland, TX.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: FreewayDan on September 08, 2018, 03:08:15 PM
This is a years overdue upgrade. Especially with Cleveland being a control city on many of the I-69 signs in the Houston area. At the very least I-69 should be full Interstate quality through Cleveland, TX.

The US 59 freeway bypass in Cleveland was completed close to 30 years ago.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on September 08, 2018, 04:17:42 PM
I wasn't talking about the bypass in Cleveland, TX itself. I was talking about the 3.5 mile long Non-Interstate quality gap on US-59 (Future I-69) between the South side of Cleveland and the actual current end of I-69 at Fostoria Road.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ITB on September 12, 2018, 10:40:36 PM

By and large, I've found this discussion of I-69 in Texas to be the most informed and useful of all sources I've uncovered on the internet. I'm wondering, however, if the current state of I-69 construction and planning in Texas could be presented more effectively in tabular/summary format. I've tried using the TXDOT Project Tracker, and while results are produced it's a laborious and confusing process.

Could one or more of you who follow the I-69 project in Texas closely put together a easy-to-understand construction/planning status summary, and then update it periodically. For instance, information could be separated into the following categories:

- Segments Completed and Signed I-69 (district, county, length, start date, completion/signed date)
- Under Construction (district, county, length, start date, projected completion date)
- Construction Scheduled – Near Future / 1-4 years (district, county, length, estimated start date, projected completion date)
- Construction Planned – Mid-range / 5-10 years (district, county, length, estimated start date, projected completion date)
- Construction Planned – Long Range / 7-12 Years (district, county, length, estimated start date, projected completion date)
- Segment/Route Approved – Not Yet Funded (district, county, length, estimated construction timeline)
- Corridor Study (district, county, length, status of study (Tier 1, Tier 2, etc.), estimated construction timeline)

If such a summary is put together, perhaps it could be placed as the first entry of the I-69 in TX discussion. Updates could then be announced periodically in the thread.

Is this something some of you might find useful? Comments? Feedback?




Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Plutonic Panda on September 13, 2018, 12:10:19 AM
As someone more interested in the actual progress of the road itself rather than the signs, I’d welcome that in most threads.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Chris on October 05, 2018, 11:24:25 AM
Public meetings are schedulded for the US 281 upgrades in Hidalgo and Brooks counties, from SH 186 at Linn to FM 3066 south of Falfurrias.

https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/pharr/102318.html

Quote
Proposed improvements include to construct, in the interim, 4 lanes divided (2 main lanes each direction) and 2-lane frontage roads. The ultimate section would add an additional 2 main lanes (1 lane each direction) to be constructed as traffic warrants in the future. The purpose of the proposed project is to enhance mobility, safety, and improve traffic operations along US 281. The goal is to construct the project within the existing right-of-way (ROW) however; additional ROW may be required to upgrade the facility based on a chosen feasible alternative alignment.

This section is a good 40 miles long. US 281 is already a four lane divided highway which runs pretty much through the middle of nowhere. Most intersections are with unpaved roads to remote farms. The only remaining major intersection with FM 755 has already been grade-separated in 2014.

Are they going to upgrade this stretch to freeway standards in the interim phase? They don't mention any further grade-separation.

A future upgrade to six main lanes seems very far away. There is nothing out there and traffic volumes are only some 15,000 vehicles per day according to the TxDOT planning map.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on January 15, 2019, 05:47:10 PM
Public meetings are schedulded for the US 281 upgrades in Hidalgo and Brooks counties, from SH 186 at Linn to FM 3066 south of Falfurrias.

https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/pharr/102318.html

Quote
Proposed improvements include to construct, in the interim, 4 lanes divided (2 main lanes each direction) and 2-lane frontage roads. The ultimate section would add an additional 2 main lanes (1 lane each direction) to be constructed as traffic warrants in the future. The purpose of the proposed project is to enhance mobility, safety, and improve traffic operations along US 281. The goal is to construct the project within the existing right-of-way (ROW) however; additional ROW may be required to upgrade the facility based on a chosen feasible alternative alignment.

This section is a good 40 miles long. US 281 is already a four lane divided highway which runs pretty much through the middle of nowhere. Most intersections are with unpaved roads to remote farms. The only remaining major intersection with FM 755 has already been grade-separated in 2014.

Are they going to upgrade this stretch to freeway standards in the interim phase? They don't mention any further grade-separation.

A future upgrade to six main lanes seems very far away. There is nothing out there and traffic volumes are only some 15,000 vehicles per day according to the TxDOT planning map.
Bumping the thread here. I must say, I don't know where this project has gone since October, but this is being phased the wrong way. All of the four-lane I-69 sections currently have a median of about 47 feet, grassy. Future expansion can happen in the middle to create 6 lanes with barrier when needed, but that's not for a while.

Why are they proposing here to construct the long-term section now, with the median being a barrier? I think they should construct the "outside" lane first, and have a 47 foot median consistently through this project, and build to the inside when necessary. Not to mention, 44 miles of rural driving to be divided by a barrier, kind of ugly IMHO, especially when it's not needed now.

My two cents.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on January 15, 2019, 07:24:34 PM
^^^^^^^^
This sort of plan is likely a response to the high volumes of truck traffic heading to & from the Hidalgo POE that are using US 281 to get to both US 59 and I-37.  The upgrade to I-69C has been a relatively slow slog compared to other portions of the corridor complex, and locals who have to get in & out of the original "frontage road" lanes preliminarily constructed per usual TXDOT practice are likely finding that truck volume problematic regarding safety and in all probability are lodging complaints regarding such.  Thus, the schedule to construct those 44 miles of freeway with a barrier appropriate for such commercial traffic volumes has been thus advanced. 

Clearly the initial expansion of US 281 to 2+2 attracted truck traffic away from parallel US 77 (I-69E); while both routes feature the long open sections favored by commercial drivers (and their dispatchers), 281 does provide a shorter and more direct route to San Antonio distribution facilities as well as points along I-35 north of there.  That feature was in all likelihood near the top of the list of reasons why both US 77 and US 281 were included in the I-69 "family".   
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on January 15, 2019, 08:37:35 PM
^^^^^^^^
This sort of plan is likely a response to the high volumes of truck traffic heading to & from the Hidalgo POE that are using US 281 to get to both US 59 and I-37.  The upgrade to I-69C has been a relatively slow slog compared to other portions of the corridor complex, and locals who have to get in & out of the original "frontage road" lanes preliminarily constructed per usual TXDOT practice are likely finding that truck volume problematic regarding safety and in all probability are lodging complaints regarding such.  Thus, the schedule to construct those 44 miles of freeway with a barrier appropriate for such commercial traffic volumes has been thus advanced.
I understand that eventually the freeway will have six lanes, with a barrier, but when constructing the initial four lanes, the "room" for future expansion should be on the inside, not the outside. Construct the initial four lanes now with a 47 foot grassy median + the two frontage roads, then fill in the grassy median with an additional lane + shoulder in each direction on the mainline when warranted. Building now to the inside, then constructing on the outside later on presents issues in the future. One of those, each outside ramp will have to be reconfigured when 6-laned to accommodate that new lane. That would present traffic issues and confusing maneuvering during a widening project. If it was built initially to the outside, additional lane widening wouldn't affect any movements off the freeway, and any ramps.

Other segments of I-69 are designed this way, including the Falfurrias freeway upgrade a years back, and the existing I-69C north of Edinburg. It has a 47 foot median, and when it does widen out to six lanes near Edinburg, it takes the median. The rest of the route north of that 6-lane segment was clearly designed to handle widening in the median, and this new section should too IMHO.

Clearly the initial expansion of US 281 to 2+2 attracted truck traffic away from parallel US 77 (I-69E); while both routes feature the long open sections favored by commercial drivers (and their dispatchers), 281 does provide a shorter and more direct route to San Antonio distribution facilities as well as points along I-35 north of there.  That feature was in all likelihood near the top of the list of reasons why both US 77 and US 281 were included in the I-69 "family".   
The I-69 family is confusing IMHO. It's all normal heading south until Victoria. I-69C & I-69W will follow U.S. 59, which who knows how that'll work. I-69C finally splits off at George West then will resume its path down U.S. 281. Most traffic I imagine will get off I-69C at I-37 to head north.

The real question is how will U.S. 59 be done to Laredo? They'll either upgrade U.S. 59 into a four-lane freeway with frontage roads, or build it all on new location. I imagine that'll be the most expensive out of all this I-69, judging by the fact U.S. 59 is a two-lane road. I think the biggest priorities should be to finish the bypasses on U.S. 77 (Refugio and Odem), then finish the rural sections of I-69E, then finish I-69C to a point just south of George West, then bare east and have an interchange with I-37. That'll bypass both George West and Three Rivers for U.S. 281 traffic. If I-69W is ever built, it'll use that short segment between U.S. 281 and I-37.

---------------------------------

On a different note, am I the only one who finds it weird the recent upgrade south of Robstown is signed solely as I-69 instead of I-69E? Is this an error, or could it possibly hint that will be the "main" I-69, while the others are "spurs"...?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on January 16, 2019, 12:58:44 AM
The chances are that I-69C and I-69E will be finished close to the same time; the former feeding into I-37 while the latter simply segues into I-69 at Victoria.  This will address the present truck traffic; the largest share of that currently being on US 281/I-69C, as well as the more populated areas along US 77 (Corpus Christi metro, Harlingen-Brownsville).  I-69W from Laredo to Victoria will likely be the last part of the cluster to be constructed.  The "joker" in this mix is the recently added "branch" from Freer on the I-69W routing along US 59 over to Corpus Christi via TX 44; it may well be constructed, along with I-69W from Laredo to Freer, prior to the Freer-Victoria I-69W segment even breaking ground.  What they'll designate that corridor as is yet TBD (some wags have mentioned I-6, as a northern counterpart to I-2), but it appears to have more local political support than the main I-69W line east of Freer.  Both the TX 44 and US 59 alignments traverse rolling plains, so construction, even despite lack of current facilities readily upgradeable, should be relatively simple.  But IMO I-69C&E will be done by 2030, the Corpus Christi branch about 5 years later, and I-69W in full about 5 years after that, if current progress continues.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 16, 2019, 04:04:57 PM
How much do you all want to bet that Texas will complete its portion of Interstate 69 and its three spurs long before any groundbreaking begins in Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississippi (excluding the existing spur south of Memphis?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: cjk374 on January 16, 2019, 05:38:46 PM
How much do you all want to bet that Texas will complete its portion of Interstate 69 and its three spurs long before any groundbreaking begins in Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississippi (excluding the existing spur south of Memphis?

This is a guarantee.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on January 16, 2019, 08:05:59 PM
How much do you all want to bet that Texas will complete its portion of Interstate 69 and its three spurs long before any groundbreaking begins in Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississippi (excluding the existing spur south of Memphis?

This is a guarantee.

The Monticello I-69 bypass (currently 2 lanes on a 2+2 ROW, signed as Bypass US 278) in southeast AR broke ground several years ago, so technically there's a piece in AR under construction; an eastern extension to US 65 is in the planning stage but not let as of yet.  But it'll be years (if not decades) until either of these projects is upgraded to full Interstate standards -- while the portion SW of there into LA is likely to lag behind the remainder of the full corridor with the possible exception of the Great River bridge.  MS just doesn't have the bucks to do anything about their portion, so don't expect anything to emerge from there in the near term.  And TX I-69 projects are promoted and "shepherded" by what can only be described as either a persistent state power player or the functional equivalent of an omnipresent nagging parent -- the Alliance for I-69/Texas, who want the in-state corridor completed sooner than later (they operate at the behest of cities and private industries arrayed along the various corridor parts).  I've had dealings with them -- and they are indeed a highly motivated and directed group of folks with an unwavering resolve to get I-69 done.  Of course, they're also behind the prioritization of the Texarkana-bound I-369 corridor over the "main line" into LA -- but as TX boosters, that was and is an inevitable byproduct of their activities and influence.  If there were an equivalent within the other jurisdictions (except for the perpetually broke MS) there may at least be more progress -- but since there isn't, it is likely that at least most of the I-69 family -- with the exception of I-69W west of I-69C and the "stub" over to the LA state line -- will be opened to traffic or under construction before another section of Interstate-grade I-69 is built between Tenaha, TX and Tunica, MS -- unless Shreveport interests can convince LADOT (who in turn need to coordinate with TXDOT) to build I-69 south of I-20 as a SIU Shreveport bypass.  But with the south I-49 and the Shreveport inner connector, LADOT has a lot on their plate right now, so I for one wouldn't expect to see much I-69 activity there for a long time. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: edwaleni on January 16, 2019, 10:17:35 PM
How much do you all want to bet that Texas will complete its portion of Interstate 69 and its three spurs long before any groundbreaking begins in Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississippi (excluding the existing spur south of Memphis?

This is a guarantee.

I am sure if those states had as much highway dollars to pump into I-69 they would.

Texas does it because they have diverse revenue sources and political clout in DC.

Mississippi will probably be the last state to complete their part as they don't generate the tax revenue and the federal dollars are in short supply.

The only thing right now that could advance I-69 funding federally is if the New Madrid decides to start dancing again.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Plutonic Panda on January 16, 2019, 11:55:55 PM
^^^^ those states should get on the ball then with finding funding.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: edwaleni on January 17, 2019, 10:36:52 AM
^^^^ those states should get on the ball then with finding funding.

Mississippi probably won't do anything until the Great River Bridge is funded by the Feds. That is a $1B project in and of itself.

As long as it reaches the gambling resorts in Tunica, they are happy.  From Tunica south, there isn't a great deal of population or industry.

Texas is pushing it due to the large influx of trucks due to trade with Mexico. While I think everyone on these boards agree to its strategic significance, as long as Texas can use the I-30 gateway via Texarkana and I-369, there is no rush to take I-69 further east.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MikieTimT on January 17, 2019, 11:00:13 AM
^^^^ those states should get on the ball then with finding funding.

Mississippi probably won't do anything until the Great River Bridge is funded by the Feds. That is a $1B project in and of itself.

As long as it reaches the gambling resorts in Tunica, they are happy.  From Tunica south, there isn't a great deal of population or industry.

Texas is pushing it due to the large influx of trucks due to trade with Mexico. While I think everyone on these boards agree to its strategic significance, as long as Texas can use the I-30 gateway via Texarkana and I-369, there is no rush to take I-69 further east.

Then Arkansas at least will have to either find a way to make it happen in state, or there will have to be additional lanes on I-30, I-440, and I-40 east of Little Rock with the even greater influx of truck traffic.  Lord help us all if at least the far left lane of that isn't restricted from trucks, though.  At least there isn't elevation changes of consequence along that stretch to make it even worse for trucks passing trucks.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on January 17, 2019, 12:49:05 PM
Where do those trucks currently go? Oh wait, the same route through Arkansas.

Also remember there's the I-57 extension to bypass Memphis.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MikieTimT on January 17, 2019, 04:51:05 PM
Where do those trucks currently go? Oh wait, the same route through Arkansas.

Also remember there's the I-57 extension to bypass Memphis.

If the upgrade of US-59 to I-69 doesn't affect traffic counts any, then what's the point of spending money on it.  Of course it will increase counts, especially freight traffic.  AKA, trucks.

I-57 is likely not to be completed before I-69/I-369 in Texas.  Texas has money.  Arkansas and Missouri do not.  Unless you know of a hidden bucket of federal money that's going to become available within the next 10 years or so.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on January 17, 2019, 07:15:16 PM
Too true; the "Alliance" and the other TX backers of the in-state corridor complex had three goals in mind at the outset: (1) secure a NE outlet from Houston toward I-20 and I-30, and (2) provide some connections to the burgeoning population in the lower Rio Grande valley, which would also enhance trade with Mexico via several POE's.  And, finally (3):  secure the maximum available 80% federal funding to do so.  Unlike many other states, they had the wherewithal to leverage the remaining 20% -- so the construction projects continue at the pace that said 20% becomes available (their congressional delegation provides the conduit for the big Fed chunk).  They're getting what they've wanted for decades; if the central portion of I-69 is delayed or even discarded, they'll shed a few "crocodile tears" -- but will, at least internally, be more than satisfied.   
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: jbnv on January 17, 2019, 08:03:25 PM
^^^^ those states should get on the ball then with finding funding.

LOL. Things Louisiana will fund before funding I-69:

* I-49 through Lafayette to the Westbank.
* I-49 through Shreveport.
* Expanding I-10 at the junction with I-110.
* A loop/bypass around Baton Rouge, with another bridge over the Mississippi.
* Interstate 14 across central Louisiana.
* Upgrading US 165 to interstate standards (once someone shows Louisiana politicians how to extend I-57 all the way to Lake Charles).

I-69  provides very little benefit to Louisiana. Shreveport is the only major city with skin in that game. We'll take care of our own cities before we work on helping truck traffic pass through our state, tearing up our roads for little economic benefit.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: vdeane on January 17, 2019, 08:11:14 PM
I'd rather see I-69 done than I-14 or even I-49 south of I-10.  I'm still scratching my head on what the point of I-14 even is.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on January 17, 2019, 09:19:50 PM
I'd rather see I-69 done than I-14 or even I-49 south of I-10.  I'm still scratching my head on what the point of I-14 even is.

Within TX, there are two (albeit internal) reasons (if not actually rationales) for I-14.  Out west (Midland/Odessa and San Angelo) local boosters were tired of waiting for the Ports-to-Plains corridor, more or less N-S, to be developed after decades of procrastination.  In the "Triangle" area anchored by Houston, San Antonio, and DFW, there's growth in certain areas: Temple/Belton/Copperas Cove and the "Texas A&M" area of Bryan and State College (a lot of this Houston "overflow").  The two groups of boosters, with the aid of several of the state congressional delegation (who saw what a concerted effort re I-69 yielded), got together and in 2016 added High Priority Corridor #84 to the list, tacked on a I-14 designation, and had a generally E-W corridor that took care of their various needs by connecting the support areas.  Now -- taking it to LA and east is a result of politicos from those areas jumping on the bandwagon and reviving the western portion of a proposal (mostly along US 84) that reared its head about the turn of the century.  Since HPC #84 ends at the TX/LA line, those folks have yet to follow legislative suit.  My guess is that they'll do so, likely designating something east as far as Laurel, MS and I-59 (seeing that AL recently wiped their slate clean of freeway proposals, going east of there isn't presently in the cards).  But whether they actually build something or simply erect "Future I-14 Corridor" signs" along the projected routing is yet to be seen.  It's likely that I-14 will eventually be done in TX as far east as I-45 or even I-69 -- but the farther east in TX it goes its support wanes.  Out west, like with I-69, the corridor has been augmented by several branches -- at least one of which mimics some of the old "Port-to-Plains" scenario (surprise, surprise).  And this has also prompted a P-to-P "mini-revival" of sorts, with a San Angelo-Lubbock extension of I-27 being reconsidered. 

The operating theory here is "if it worked there, it'll work here".  That, in a nutshell, is how Interstate corridors, regardless of warrant level, get established these days -- particularly in TX, which is big enough to accommodate disparate regional rivalries and the subsequent regional plans that emerge.  If there's a metro area over 100K in the state, they want their Interstate(s) -- and if they yell and piss and moan loud enough -- and someone is listening -- they'll get it (if the P-to-P corridor is revitalized, San Angelo may well get two for the price of one -- well, one-and-a half!). 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on January 17, 2019, 10:04:36 PM
Texas should just build its I-69 system up to Texarkana and not worry about the segments running East of it. A corridor running from South Texas up to Texarkana will at least be functional, not something leading to a dead end.

I-14 should be way down the list of priorities in Texas, especially the proposed segment of I-14 in West Texas. The only part of I-14 that makes any sense at all is the Killeen to College Station and then Huntsville section, but not in the currently proposed path (which is a jagged, way the hell out of the way "W" shape).

Around a dozen different corridors in Texas clearly rank way higher in importance than I-14. TX DOT needs to keep working on its I-69 segments, putting as much emphasis as possible on the South Texas segments. US-290 between Austin and Houston is a higher priority. TX-74 between Austin and Columbus (Jct I-10) is a bigger priority. US-287 between Amarillo and Fort Worth is an important corridor. So is US-82 from Wichita Falls to Texarkana. Then there's the neglected Ports to Plains corridor. Add to that a bunch of urban and suburban corridors that all need improvement. I-14 in West Texas is really frivolous compared to all those other corridors.

Arkansas has its own plate full with its I-49 projects and now I-57. I don't think it makes sense for them to put much effort in developing their segment of I-69 as long as Mississippi is broke and the federal government is basically AWOL. Louisiana has a similar situation with prioritizing I-49 and other projects over an I-69 leg that would likely dead-end in South Arkansas for the foreseeable future.

Tennessee can work out its segments of I-69 since it's North of I-40 and more related to the Indiana and Kentucky segments.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: mvak36 on January 17, 2019, 10:44:00 PM

Tennessee can work out its segments of I-69 since it's North of I-40 and more related to the Indiana and Kentucky segments.
IMO, I don't think TN will do anything for a while once the section from I-155 to the KY state line since the two segments will be connected by I-155 and I-55 without having to go too far out of the way.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on January 18, 2019, 12:06:27 PM
It's possible (or even likely if the folks in Nashville have their way) that I-69 in Tennessee from Memphis to Dyersburg will be put in limbo indefinitely. Nevertheless they at least have plans drawn for the section between Millington and Dyersburg, starting at the North end of I-269. The segment between North Memphis and Millington is the tough nut to crack.

I'm willing to bet the I-69 segment between Millington and Dyersburg will be under construction or even finished before anything begins on the Great River Bridge. Even I-57 between Walnut Ridge and Sikeston might be well under way or finished by that time too.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on January 18, 2019, 12:38:55 PM
Where do those trucks currently go? Oh wait, the same route through Arkansas.

Also remember there's the I-57 extension to bypass Memphis.

If the upgrade of US-59 to I-69 doesn't affect traffic counts any, then what's the point of spending money on it.  Of course it will increase counts, especially freight traffic.  AKA, trucks.
Inducing demand should never be the point of building a highway. Build it for traffic that currently exists and that is expected to exist whether or not the highway is built.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: thefro on January 18, 2019, 01:25:38 PM
One thing to keep in mind is by the time I-69 is actually done there will probably be a lot of big trucks driven by AI instead of humans.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on January 18, 2019, 05:23:38 PM
One thing to keep in mind is by the time I-69 is actually done there will probably be a lot of big trucks driven by AI instead of humans.
And many years ago, they said we'd be flying cars by 2020.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: rte66man on January 19, 2019, 06:43:33 PM
One thing to keep in mind is by the time I-69 is actually done there will probably be a lot of big trucks driven by AI instead of humans.
And many years ago, they said we'd be flying cars by 2020.

<cue music> Meet George Jetson....
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on January 19, 2019, 06:53:58 PM
One thing to keep in mind is by the time I-69 is actually done there will probably be a lot of big trucks driven by AI instead of humans.
And many years ago, they said we'd be flying cars by 2020.

<cue music> Meet George Jetson....
:-D :-D
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: edwaleni on January 24, 2019, 07:57:43 AM
Where do those trucks currently go? Oh wait, the same route through Arkansas.

Also remember there's the I-57 extension to bypass Memphis.

If the upgrade of US-59 to I-69 doesn't affect traffic counts any, then what's the point of spending money on it.  Of course it will increase counts, especially freight traffic.  AKA, trucks.
Inducing demand should never be the point of building a highway. Build it for traffic that currently exists and that is expected to exist whether or not the highway is built.

How many major interstate proposals have you seen recently that weren't based on "economic development".

Then the road gets built and the "economic development" was the addition of a truck stop, a Hardee's and a KFC/Taco Bell?

For the small town the road bypassed and built an exit for, its a tax revenue bonus as now some 200 local people are employed.  For the state, its a $150 million bill for getting the road through there.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on January 24, 2019, 09:59:33 AM
Where do those trucks currently go? Oh wait, the same route through Arkansas.

Also remember there's the I-57 extension to bypass Memphis.

If the upgrade of US-59 to I-69 doesn't affect traffic counts any, then what's the point of spending money on it.  Of course it will increase counts, especially freight traffic.  AKA, trucks.
Inducing demand should never be the point of building a highway. Build it for traffic that currently exists and that is expected to exist whether or not the highway is built.

How many major interstate proposals have you seen recently that weren't based on "economic development".

Then the road gets built and the "economic development" was the addition of a truck stop, a Hardee's and a KFC/Taco Bell?

For the small town the road bypassed and built an exit for, its a tax revenue bonus as now some 200 local people are employed.  For the state, its a $150 million bill for getting the road through there.
One could say that, but in reality a bypass or an entire freeway adds to the mobility of the entire corridor. No stop lights, 75 MPH constant speed, and a major trucking route. That’s what I-69 is and what US 281 already is. I will say though they need to focusing on completing all the bypasses on the US 77 corridor (Refurgio, Oden, Driscoll, Riviera) before upgrading the rural segments. Those are perfectly fine as is for now. Finish the bottlenecks first.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Henry on January 24, 2019, 10:03:22 AM
One thing to keep in mind is by the time I-69 is actually done there will probably be a lot of big trucks driven by AI instead of humans.
And many years ago, they said we'd be flying cars by 2020.

<cue music> Meet George Jetson....
:-D :-D
Well, it's 2019 now, and a lot of people are asking where the flying cars went.

I loved that Jetsons reference, and since I-69 goes through Houston and the family dog was named after the city's baseball team, it fits the thread well.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: GreenLanternCorps on January 24, 2019, 11:55:31 AM
On a different note, am I the only one who finds it weird the recent upgrade south of Robstown is signed solely as I-69 instead of I-69E? Is this an error, or could it possibly hint that will be the "main" I-69, while the others are "spurs"...?

Just saw that on Google Maps (Slow day at work)...

https://www.google.com/maps/@27.742841,-97.6972497,3a,15y,74.5h,87.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgUl0E0ivCKwCWXoWEjkotA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

I'm pretty sure that the signs are in error and they will need to be replaced with I-69E signs.  I think the I-69E is designated by Congress.

Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on January 24, 2019, 12:07:14 PM
On a different note, am I the only one who finds it weird the recent upgrade south of Robstown is signed solely as I-69 instead of I-69E? Is this an error, or could it possibly hint that will be the "main" I-69, while the others are "spurs"...?

Just saw that on Google Maps (Slow day at work)...

https://www.google.com/maps/@27.742841,-97.6972497,3a,15y,74.5h,87.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgUl0E0ivCKwCWXoWEjkotA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

I'm pretty sure that the signs are in error and they will need to be replaced with I-69E signs.  I think the I-69E is designated by Congress.
Yeah, that's the same thing I saw. Must be an error.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: GreenLanternCorps on January 24, 2019, 12:47:58 PM

By and large, I've found this discussion of I-69 in Texas to be the most informed and useful of all sources I've uncovered on the internet. I'm wondering, however, if the current state of I-69 construction and planning in Texas could be presented more effectively in tabular/summary format. I've tried using the TXDOT Project Tracker, and while results are produced it's a laborious and confusing process.

Could one or more of you who follow the I-69 project in Texas closely put together a easy-to-understand construction/planning status summary, and then update it periodically. For instance, information could be separated into the following categories:

- Segments Completed and Signed I-69 (district, county, length, start date, completion/signed date)
- Under Construction (district, county, length, start date, projected completion date)
- Construction Scheduled – Near Future / 1-4 years (district, county, length, estimated start date, projected completion date)
- Construction Planned – Mid-range / 5-10 years (district, county, length, estimated start date, projected completion date)
- Construction Planned – Long Range / 7-12 Years (district, county, length, estimated start date, projected completion date)
- Segment/Route Approved – Not Yet Funded (district, county, length, estimated construction timeline)
- Corridor Study (district, county, length, status of study (Tier 1, Tier 2, etc.), estimated construction timeline)

If such a summary is put together, perhaps it could be placed as the first entry of the I-69 in TX discussion. Updates could then be announced periodically in the thread.

Is this something some of you might find useful? Comments? Feedback?

This would be useful.  I've gotten better at using project tracker, but it takes time to work your way following the route of I-69 section by section,
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: edwaleni on January 24, 2019, 02:10:10 PM
One thing to keep in mind is by the time I-69 is actually done there will probably be a lot of big trucks driven by AI instead of humans.
And many years ago, they said we'd be flying cars by 2020.

<cue music> Meet George Jetson....
:-D :-D
Well, it's 2019 now, and a lot of people are asking where the flying cars went.

I loved that Jetsons reference, and since I-69 goes through Houston and the family dog was named after the city's baseball team, it fits the thread well.

Ask and you shall receive.

Boeing, Airbus and a host of others are all working on prototypes.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/23/tech/boeing-flying-car/index.html (https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/23/tech/boeing-flying-car/index.html)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: edwaleni on January 24, 2019, 02:17:33 PM
On a different note, am I the only one who finds it weird the recent upgrade south of Robstown is signed solely as I-69 instead of I-69E? Is this an error, or could it possibly hint that will be the "main" I-69, while the others are "spurs"...?

Just saw that on Google Maps (Slow day at work)...

https://www.google.com/maps/@27.742841,-97.6972497,3a,15y,74.5h,87.4t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgUl0E0ivCKwCWXoWEjkotA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

I'm pretty sure that the signs are in error and they will need to be replaced with I-69E signs.  I think the I-69E is designated by Congress.
Yeah, that's the same thing I saw. Must be an error.

Only the exit sign at I-37 shows I-69E (as well as Google), but all the of entry and exit signs going south are marked I-69.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: kphoger on January 24, 2019, 02:47:03 PM
the "economic development" was the addition of a truck stop, a Hardee's and a KFC/Taco Bell ... now some 200 local people are employed.

Holy cow, 200 people for three roadside businesses?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: jbnv on January 24, 2019, 03:19:57 PM
the "economic development" was the addition of a truck stop, a Hardee's and a KFC/Taco Bell ... now some 200 local people are employed.

Holy cow, 200 people for three roadside businesses?

Depends on the size of the truck stop. In some parts of Louisiana, that truck stop might have a casino.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: DAL764 on January 30, 2019, 03:08:12 PM
the "economic development" was the addition of a truck stop, a Hardee's and a KFC/Taco Bell ... now some 200 local people are employed.

Holy cow, 200 people for three roadside businesses?

I mean, the Iowa 80 no doubt employs that many people, but other than that one...
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Chris on January 30, 2019, 03:15:14 PM
Some of those roadside businesses are open 24/7, so they need staff in shifts plus weekends, it quickly adds up how many people work there (even part time). According to Wikipedia there are some 1.9 million people working for McDonald's worldwide, divided by 37,241 restaurants, that gives an average of 51 employees per restaurant.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: rte66man on February 01, 2019, 02:44:29 PM
One thing to keep in mind is by the time I-69 is actually done there will probably be a lot of big trucks driven by AI instead of humans.
And many years ago, they said we'd be flying cars by 2020.

<cue music> Meet George Jetson....
:-D :-D
Well, it's 2019 now, and a lot of people are asking where the flying cars went.

I loved that Jetsons reference, and since I-69 goes through Houston and the family dog was named after the city's baseball team, it fits the thread well.

Uhh, no.  The Jetsons first ran on ABC in Fall 1962.  The Houston baseball team first began play in 1962 as the Colt .45s and didn't become the Astros until they moved into the Astrodome for the 1965 season.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on February 01, 2019, 04:49:11 PM
^^^^^^^^^^
............and then the "Colt .45" monicker was applied to a really foul-tasting malt liquor in the ensuing years (one of my least memorable college memories!).  Almost as bad as "Old English 800"!!!!!
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: O Tamandua on February 02, 2019, 11:00:14 AM
Back to the future.  This article was from the Marshall, Texas news messenger a few days back - this was an "open house" event about a six-mile partial bypass around Marshall, Texas which will become part of I-369:

Quote

“The approximately six-mile roadway, designated as State Loop 390 (SL 390), would be designed to interstate standards and would eventually become part of the U.S. 59 Relief Route and the future Interstate Highway 369 (I-369), part of the I-69 system through Texas,”  TxDOT said in a press release.

“The proposed roadway would connect to the existing SL 390 at U.S. 80 to the north and would terminate south of I-20, extending the partial loop around Marshall that currently exists.”

...

And, once completed, the I-369 Marshall relief route will improve mobility, freight movement efficiency and safety, officials said.

“The Marshall relief route will be the initial keystone block in the I-69 system in the northeast Texas segment stretching from Bowie County to Nacogdoches County,”  officials said before. “Because it will link to I-20 in Harrison County, it will be eligible for addition to the Interstate Highway System as soon as it is completed.

https://www.marshallnewsmessenger.com/news/txdot-plans-loop-extension-open-house-thursday-in-marshall/article_da6a6836-2363-11e9-85ee-17922ffdbe5f.html

Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: O Tamandua on February 02, 2019, 12:48:42 PM
This was a highly-attended event in Marshall.  Looks like construction for it is scheduled for 2024.

Quote

(https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/marshallnewsmessenger.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/6/09/60948f26-25bd-11e9-b185-f373fa70475c/5c539b3318099.image.jpg?resize=1200%2C900)

“There are a lot of people here interested in that extension of the loop,”  MEDCO Executive Director Donna Maisel said, observing the large crowd.

In fact, the interest was so high that attendees started showing up 30 minutes before the event was set to begin.

“It’s been real busy here from 4:30 on,”  said Sandifer. “People were here early, and this was a solid line until about 5:30,”  he said. “Hopefully, everybody’s got their questions answered about this project.”

From 4:30 to 7 p.m. Thursday, TxDOT personnel entertained residents’ questions, explained proposed maps and collected written comments about the proposed project.

Thursday evening’s Open House was just the beginning of the process, he said. Maisel said MEDCO was particularly interested because of the economic development Marshall has on the east side.

“Marshall Economic Development is excited because that’s the east side of town, and that’s where most of our industry and our industry growth are located,”  said Maisel.

Also, “access back to the interstate is key importance to us, and how that access is going to happen in the future is something that we’re highly interested in,”  she said.

Pct. 1 County Commissioner William Hatfield attended the event to be more educated on how the proposal will impact his constituents.

“I’m commissioner in Precinct 1 and that’s south Marshall, and some of this right here is going to go right through some of my constituents’ property,”  said Hatfield. “I just want to be schooled up on it where I’ll be a little bit more versed up on what’s going on and do the best I can to be able to answer some questions.”

District 2 City Commissioner Gail Beil considered the open house a high priority because of her interest in “proper growth.”  She said she’s looking at development on the east side of the loop because the land is getting more and more valuable.

“I also really want to see, on the west side, senior citizen development, everything from high dollar zero-lot line houses to a nursing home that we desperately need that serves everything for an assistant living community,”  said Beil. “So those are my interests.”

As a member of the Harrison County Historical Commission, she’s also passionate about educating others on the importance of preserving archeological artifacts found during highway construction projects.

“I’ve talked to several people that are much aware of the artifacts around here. It does not delay the building of the roads if you find artifacts,”  Beil noted. “If they are aware of them, they need to call anybody on the Harrison County Historical Commission and say we know this is here, because then it gets mapped and left alone.”

Dr. Jim Harris, a resident on U.S. 59, hopes the extension of the loop will help ease the congestion he meets on the highway trying to leave home.

“It takes me 30 seconds to get out of my driveway now, so I’ll be happy when they get the loop built,”  said Harris. “It’ll (also) be good for downtown Marshall.”

Harris shared how impressed he was with TxDOT’s presentation of the project.

“This is very preliminary, but it’s very well done,”  said Harris. “The maps are good. They’re obviously paying a lot of attention about what the citizens want and they’re trying to be accommodating.”

https://www.marshallnewsmessenger.com/news/harrison-county-gets-first-look-at-proposed-loop-extension/article_880b4294-25bc-11e9-b0e0-139f59ec873e.html

Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: GreenLanternCorps on February 03, 2019, 12:23:41 PM
This was a highly-attended event in Marshall.  Looks like construction for it is scheduled for 2024.

Quote

(https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/marshallnewsmessenger.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/6/09/60948f26-25bd-11e9-b185-f373fa70475c/5c539b3318099.image.jpg?resize=1200%2C900)

“There are a lot of people here interested in that extension of the loop,” MEDCO Executive Director Donna Maisel said, observing the large crowd.

In fact, the interest was so high that attendees started showing up 30 minutes before the event was set to begin.

“It’s been real busy here from 4:30 on,” said Sandifer. “People were here early, and this was a solid line until about 5:30,” he said. “Hopefully, everybody’s got their questions answered about this project.”

From 4:30 to 7 p.m. Thursday, TxDOT personnel entertained residents’ questions, explained proposed maps and collected written comments about the proposed project.

Thursday evening’s Open House was just the beginning of the process, he said. Maisel said MEDCO was particularly interested because of the economic development Marshall has on the east side.

“Marshall Economic Development is excited because that’s the east side of town, and that’s where most of our industry and our industry growth are located,” said Maisel.

Also, “access back to the interstate is key importance to us, and how that access is going to happen in the future is something that we’re highly interested in,” she said.

Pct. 1 County Commissioner William Hatfield attended the event to be more educated on how the proposal will impact his constituents.

“I’m commissioner in Precinct 1 and that’s south Marshall, and some of this right here is going to go right through some of my constituents’ property,” said Hatfield. “I just want to be schooled up on it where I’ll be a little bit more versed up on what’s going on and do the best I can to be able to answer some questions.”

District 2 City Commissioner Gail Beil considered the open house a high priority because of her interest in “proper growth.” She said she’s looking at development on the east side of the loop because the land is getting more and more valuable.

“I also really want to see, on the west side, senior citizen development, everything from high dollar zero-lot line houses to a nursing home that we desperately need that serves everything for an assistant living community,” said Beil. “So those are my interests.”

As a member of the Harrison County Historical Commission, she’s also passionate about educating others on the importance of preserving archeological artifacts found during highway construction projects.

“I’ve talked to several people that are much aware of the artifacts around here. It does not delay the building of the roads if you find artifacts,” Beil noted. “If they are aware of them, they need to call anybody on the Harrison County Historical Commission and say we know this is here, because then it gets mapped and left alone.”

Dr. Jim Harris, a resident on U.S. 59, hopes the extension of the loop will help ease the congestion he meets on the highway trying to leave home.

“It takes me 30 seconds to get out of my driveway now, so I’ll be happy when they get the loop built,” said Harris. “It’ll (also) be good for downtown Marshall.”

Harris shared how impressed he was with TxDOT’s presentation of the project.

“This is very preliminary, but it’s very well done,” said Harris. “The maps are good. They’re obviously paying a lot of attention about what the citizens want and they’re trying to be accommodating.”

https://www.marshallnewsmessenger.com/news/harrison-county-gets-first-look-at-proposed-loop-extension/article_880b4294-25bc-11e9-b0e0-139f59ec873e.html


Here is a link to the official notice for the meeting with a map of the project.

http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/atl/sl390/013119-notice.pdf

If I'm reading that map right, this will build the full I-369 I-20 interchange.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on February 03, 2019, 01:20:08 PM
Here is a link to the off for the meeting with a map of the project.

http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/atl/sl390/013119-notice.pdf

If I'm reading that map right, this will build the full I-369 I-20 interchange.
Here's what it will eventually look like when I-369 is fully completed.

http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/atl/us59-harrison-county/harrison-map-best-options.pdf
The green routing.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: rte66man on February 04, 2019, 08:15:38 AM
A 4-level stack? I don't believe I've ever seen one in an essentially rural setting. I can't believe the traffic counts on I20 warrant the extra cost.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: edwaleni on February 04, 2019, 11:55:07 AM
Here is a link to the off for the meeting with a map of the project.

http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/atl/sl390/013119-notice.pdf

If I'm reading that map right, this will build the full I-369 I-20 interchange.
Here's what it will eventually look like when I-369 is fully completed.

http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/atl/us59-harrison-county/harrison-map-best-options.pdf
The green routing.

What is "Potential Toll 49" north of Marshall?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: 1 on February 04, 2019, 11:58:51 AM
Here is a link to the off for the meeting with a map of the project.

http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/atl/sl390/013119-notice.pdf

If I'm reading that map right, this will build the full I-369 I-20 interchange.
Here's what it will eventually look like when I-369 is fully completed.

http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/atl/us59-harrison-county/harrison-map-best-options.pdf
The green routing.

What is "Potential Toll 49" north of Marshall?

There's already a route numbered 49 about 20 miles north of Marshall (not to be confused with Tyler's beltway).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on February 04, 2019, 11:59:49 AM
It would be the eastern extension of the toll road around Tyler. The current terminus South of Tyler would be extended up back across I-20 and over Longview on the way to Marshall. The toll road would end at I-369. It's something nicknamed the "East Texas Hourglass."
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on February 04, 2019, 03:14:01 PM
A 4-level stack? I don't believe I've ever seen one in an essentially rural setting. I can't believe the traffic counts on I20 warrant the extra cost.

TXDOT's probably expecting that interchange to handle much of the Houston-Shreveport movement if, as is likely, I-369 is completed well in advance of I-69 around Shreveport -- and they seem to (a) be getting away from cloverleafs for Interstate junctions and (b) haven't really adopted turbines or CA-style combination direct/loop configurations with the direct ramps reflecting actual or projected high volumes. 

Here is a link to the off for the meeting with a map of the project.

http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/atl/sl390/013119-notice.pdf

If I'm reading that map right, this will build the full I-369 I-20 interchange.
Here's what it will eventually look like when I-369 is fully completed.

http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/atl/us59-harrison-county/harrison-map-best-options.pdf
The green routing.

What is "Potential Toll 49" north of Marshall?

There's already a route numbered 49 about 20 miles north of Marshall (not to be confused with Tyler's beltway).

Since when has TXDOT given a rats' ass about duplication of numbers?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: rte66man on February 05, 2019, 02:38:27 PM
A 4-level stack? I don't believe I've ever seen one in an essentially rural setting. I can't believe the traffic counts on I20 warrant the extra cost.

TXDOT's probably expecting that interchange to handle much of the Houston-Shreveport movement if, as is likely, I-369 is completed well in advance of I-69 around Shreveport -- and they seem to (a) be getting away from cloverleafs for Interstate junctions and (b) haven't really adopted turbines or CA-style combination direct/loop configurations with the direct ramps reflecting actual or projected high volumes. 

Some of the directions (East to North) would not have much if any long distance traffic as that would run up I30 to Texarkana. Same goes for North to West.  Seems extravagant.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on February 05, 2019, 05:34:23 PM
A 4-level stack? I don't believe I've ever seen one in an essentially rural setting. I can't believe the traffic counts on I20 warrant the extra cost.

TXDOT's probably expecting that interchange to handle much of the Houston-Shreveport movement if, as is likely, I-369 is completed well in advance of I-69 around Shreveport -- and they seem to (a) be getting away from cloverleafs for Interstate junctions and (b) haven't really adopted turbines or CA-style combination direct/loop configurations with the direct ramps reflecting actual or projected high volumes. 

Some of the directions (East to North) would not have much if any long distance traffic as that would run up I30 to Texarkana. Same goes for North to West.  Seems extravagant.

In reality, a simple cloverleaf, but modified with a WB>SB flyover and a larger-radius NB>EB ramp (and C/D lanes for the rest) would be more than adequate for that particular situation -- but TXDOT seems to prefer some form of stack for system interchanges these days, even out in the relative hinterlands.  Guess they're a little more spendthrift than some of us would figure for a public agency. 

At least it's not a fucking volleyball!!!!!!
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Plutonic Panda on February 05, 2019, 06:55:05 PM
Fuck cloverleafs, IMO. I would rather see stacks in the middle of nowhere than a cloverleaf. Stacks are much more convenient and fun to drive on.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MikieTimT on February 05, 2019, 07:48:54 PM
Fuck cloverleafs, IMO. I would rather see stacks in the middle of nowhere than a cloverleaf. Stacks are much more convenient and fun to drive on.

Besides, they can build 5-level stacks cheaper in Texas (Dallas High 5) than Arkansas can build 4 lanes bridges crossing rivers (Arkansas/I-49,Mississippi/I-69).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Plutonic Panda on February 05, 2019, 07:52:24 PM
Fuck cloverleafs, IMO. I would rather see stacks in the middle of nowhere than a cloverleaf. Stacks are much more convenient and fun to drive on.

Besides, they can build 5-level stacks cheaper in Texas (Dallas High 5) than Arkansas can build 4 lanes bridges crossing rivers (Arkansas/I-49,Mississippi/I-69).
Wasn't the high five around 250 million to build? OkDOT is building its first four stack at a cost of around the same price, IIRC.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MikieTimT on February 05, 2019, 09:30:53 PM
Fuck cloverleafs, IMO. I would rather see stacks in the middle of nowhere than a cloverleaf. Stacks are much more convenient and fun to drive on.

Besides, they can build 5-level stacks cheaper in Texas (Dallas High 5) than Arkansas can build 4 lanes bridges crossing rivers (Arkansas/I-49,Mississippi/I-69).
Wasn't the high five around 250 million to build? OkDOT is building its first four stack at a cost of around the same price, IIRC.

Yes, but somehow 4 lanes across the 2 big muddy creeks in Arkansas are double that price, each.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on February 06, 2019, 03:37:35 AM
Fuck cloverleafs, IMO. I would rather see stacks in the middle of nowhere than a cloverleaf. Stacks are much more convenient and fun to drive on.

Besides, they can build 5-level stacks cheaper in Texas (Dallas High 5) than Arkansas can build 4 lanes bridges crossing rivers (Arkansas/I-49,Mississippi/I-69).
Wasn't the high five around 250 million to build? OkDOT is building its first four stack at a cost of around the same price, IIRC.

Yes, but somehow 4 lanes across the 2 big muddy creeks in Arkansas are double that price, each.

Apples and oranges.  Crossing a navigable channel with a structure such as a cable-stay span, complete with approaches, will invariably cost considerably more than a bunch of short bridges with 16-foot clearances.  Besides, TXDOT probably has several existing stack designs readily available to be adapted to the surroundings -- it's not like this is anything novel for them!   
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Chris on February 06, 2019, 04:09:38 AM
I think the Dallas High Five Interchange is a little more complex / expensive than your average 4-level stack. They used much longer spans than a typical 100 ft beam.

(https://i.imgur.com/Fe2Wyp7.jpg)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MikieTimT on February 06, 2019, 10:58:55 AM
Apples and oranges.  Crossing a navigable channel with a structure such as a cable-stay span, complete with approaches, will invariably cost considerably more than a bunch of short bridges with 16-foot clearances.  Besides, TXDOT probably has several existing stack designs readily available to be adapted to the surroundings -- it's not like this is anything novel for them!

And crossing the Mississippi and Arkansas rivers aren't anything particularly novel either as Arkansas has done both a few times now.  Something like a cable stay might possibly be necessary for the I-69 crossing of the Mississippi River, but for I-49, there is nothing even remotely unusual about where that crosses.  There will be to be some build-up of approaches to go over levees and probably a fairly raised road bed through the Kibler bottoms since it's flood prone, but there's nothing unusual about that even in Arkansas as large stretches of I-40 east of Little Rock require the same.  Heck, even just a simple utilitarian bridge like the current I-540 Arkansas River crossing would get the job done.  Not pretty, but handles the traffic counts required of it over a navigable waterway just upstream a few miles where the I-49 one would go.

https://goo.gl/maps/Zg1rJbP5QVA2 (https://goo.gl/maps/Zg1rJbP5QVA2)

We seem to have this hangup these days to make everything into a work of art, but the cost growth just means that a state like Arkansas just can't afford to put a masterpiece in place when we're currently shuttling the traffic around 5+ additional miles over I-40, I-540, and a 2-lane AR-59 to connect the 2 currently built segments of I-49 in the river valley that take US-71 south of Ft. Smith or to any points on the south side of the river to the east.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on February 06, 2019, 11:06:08 AM
Quote from: Chris
I think the Dallas High Five Interchange is a little more complex / expensive than your average 4-level stack. They used much longer spans than a typical 100 ft beam.

The Dallas High Five Interchange is the only stack in Texas I can think of that uses cast-segmental bridge spans. And then that's only used on the parts of fly-over bridges that go directly over the I-635/US-75 main lanes. The rest of it is like so many stacks in Texas: made with lots and lots of straight beams. It's kind of clunky looking compared to an all cast-segmental stack interchange, such as I-10 & AZ-303 in Phoenix.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda
Wasn't the high five around 250 million to build? OkDOT is building its first four stack at a cost of around the same price, IIRC.

Where is ODOT supposedly building a 4-level stack interchange? They've been dragging their feet for well over a decade now on the I-44/I-235 interchange in Oklahoma City; that one will have two fly-over bridges and two cloverleaf loops. The same kind of crap is planned for I-35/I-240 in Oklahoma City.

Quote from: sparker
Apples and oranges. Crossing a navigable channel with a structure such as a cable-stay span, complete with approaches, will invariably cost considerably more than a bunch of short bridges with 16-foot clearances.  Besides, TXDOT probably has several existing stack designs readily available to be adapted to the surroundings -- it's not like this is anything novel for them!

Cable-stay span? Where? As best as I can tell the $400 million (and rising) I-49 project in Fort Smith going from Alma to Barling is nothing special at all. I never heard about a cable stay bridge being included in the plan. The bridge only has to provide clearance for barge traffic, not any bigger ships. That's what, maybe 30 to 40 feet? The other bridges across the Arkansas River in the Fort Smith area are not very high in clearance level at all.

The big thing making the Alma to Barling segment of I-49 expensive: it's 12 miles long and about 5 of those miles has to either be built up on a new berm above the flood plain or on long bridges. I was always under the impression the bridges would be conventional, garden variety spans. Not anything exotic or visually appealing.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on February 06, 2019, 12:32:46 PM
^^^^^^^^^
For some reason I had thought that the I-49 bridge was going to be cable-stayed; but the consensus here is that it's going to be a conventional structure with the added requirement of crossing a wide floodplain.  While that in itself will provoke a different set of plans, it does still require a certain elevation of the main span(s) to clear the towing vessels used for barge movement; that should require significantly more clearance than flyovers within an interchange.  But I do have a question (if anyone familiar with ADOT methodology can provide enlightenment): one of the cost-saving measures used elsewhere has been the use of prestressed concrete bridge elements (primarily beams), which can be fabricated elsewhere and trucked to the site, obviating the need for the building of on-site manufacturing facilities for such (bents, because they extend well below the surface of the ground, still generally require on-site creation).  Does ADOT employ this method -- or any such cost-containment measures? 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Plutonic Panda on February 06, 2019, 01:31:59 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda
Wasn't the high five around 250 million to build? OkDOT is building its first four stack at a cost of around the same price, IIRC.

Where is ODOT supposedly building a 4-level stack interchange? They've been dragging their feet for well over a decade now on the I-44/I-235 interchange in Oklahoma City; that one will have two fly-over bridges and two cloverleaf loops. The same kind of crap is planned for I-35/I-240 in Oklahoma City.

OkDOT is calling the 235/44 interchange a 4 level which by definition I think they're right.

Rendering of the final product is at the bottom of the page. https://www.ok.gov/odot/OFF_Broadway_and_I-235.html
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on February 06, 2019, 03:17:44 PM
While ODOT may be selling the I-44/I-235 interchange as "4-level" it is by no means a true stack interchange. For it to be a real stack interchange it can't have any stupid cloverleaf ramps. In this one the I-44 Westbound lanes are connected with 2 cloverleaf ramps. They say there are 7 phases to the project. They started working on this thing 10 years ago. In that span of time only 2 phases of the project have been complete. That's hardly impressive at all. At this rate it will probably take them until the year 2030 to get the whole project done. Maybe it will be around 2040 or 2050 before the modest I-35/I-240 interchange is finished.

Quote from: sparker
While that in itself will provoke a different set of plans, it does still require a certain elevation of the main span(s) to clear the towing vessels used for barge movement; that should require significantly more clearance than flyovers within an interchange.

The highest fly-over bridges in a true directional stack interchange can reach over 100' in height, particularly if the directional interchange is a 5-level stack. I almost get dizzy just driving on the fly-over ramp from Kell Freeway to I-44 in Wichita Falls. That's just a T-interchange, but does have room to upgrade into a full stack if necessary. Barge pushers aren't nearly that high. On the Arkansas River they can't have any deeper than a 9' draft.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: kphoger on February 06, 2019, 03:35:34 PM
So it's a four-level cloverstack.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on February 06, 2019, 03:39:36 PM
Given how stupidly long it's taking ODOT to build it, I'd call it a 4-level clover-clusterf***-stack.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MikieTimT on February 06, 2019, 03:47:00 PM
While ODOT may be selling the I-44/I-235 interchange as "4-level" it is by no means a true stack interchange. For it to be a real stack interchange it can't have any stupid cloverleaf ramps. In this one the I-44 Westbound lanes are connected with 2 cloverleaf ramps. They say there are 7 phases to the project. They started working on this thing 10 years ago. In that span of time only 2 phases of the project have been complete. That's hardly impressive at all. At this rate it will probably take them until the year 2030 to get the whole project done. Maybe it will be around 2040 or 2050 before the modest I-35/I-240 interchange is finished.

Quote from: sparker
While that in itself will provoke a different set of plans, it does still require a certain elevation of the main span(s) to clear the towing vessels used for barge movement; that should require significantly more clearance than flyovers within an interchange.

The highest fly-over bridges in a true directional stack interchange can reach over 100' in height, particularly if the directional interchange is a 5-level stack. I almost get dizzy just driving on the fly-over ramp from Kell Freeway to I-44 in Wichita Falls. That's just a T-interchange, but does have room to upgrade into a full stack if necessary. Barge pushers aren't nearly that high. On the Arkansas River they can't have any deeper than a 9' draft.

According to http://lrportauthority.com/intermodal-transportation/mcclellan-kerr-river-system/ (http://lrportauthority.com/intermodal-transportation/mcclellan-kerr-river-system/), bridges over the channel have a minimum vertical clearance of 52 feet 98% of the time. Actual vertical clearance above the normal level of the navigation pool is normally more than 52 feet.

It's not just barge traffic that uses the marine highway, but also the occasional sailboat.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on February 06, 2019, 07:15:02 PM
So regardless of bridge type, a fixed bridge needs to be 52+ feet above the mean river surface.  This seems to be consistent with the three Interstate bridges in and around Little Rock.   
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on February 06, 2019, 08:32:07 PM
I don't think every bridge on the Arkansas & Verdigris rivers sports a 52' vertical clearance above the water surface. Some of them, such as the 10th Street Bridge and I-540 bridge in Fort Smith, sure don't look like they're any more than 35 feet above the river, much less 50.

Even if 52' is a mandated vertical clearance regulation that clearance height doesn't have to be applied to the entire bridge. Plenty of ship and barge channel bridges do a bit of a roller coaster hill, making the waterway traffic pass under the bridge at a certain point.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: O Tamandua on February 06, 2019, 10:44:52 PM
This is only a slight bit of aside, but:

It's never easy to be #1 in any category in Texas, America's second most populous and second biggest state.

That being said, the past year Texarkana, stuck way up in the northeast corner, has earned multiple #1s, including:

- Earning the Texas 4A Division II state championship in football in December 2017 (they made it to the championship game again in December 2018, and are one of the heavy favorites to win it all next year).  Even as football-crazy as Texas is this mightn't have been a big deal, except that in doing so Texarkana became the first Texas city to have three high schools which have each won a football and a baseball state championship.  Hard for me to believe with as many schools there are in D/FW, Houston and SA, but that's what the sportswriters said.
- Architectural Digest ranked the Perot Theatre in downtown TXK as the nicest theatre in all of Texas.
- A middle school principal in the Texarkana district (TXK has 3 separate districts on the Texas side, 1 on Arkansas) was named the top secondary school principal in the Lone Star State for 2018.
- A young lady in the same district was named as president of the Texas association of student councils.

Texarkana is far from a perfect city, yet it's still a very interesting one, and is pretty much the closest city in the "Great State" to any place in the mid-South, midwest (don't know why we don't hyphenate that, or not hyphenate the previous) and northeast, as well as the resort areas of southeast Oklahoma and Arkansas.  Knowing how wall-to-wall traffic is already on I-30 to Little Rock I wonder what will happen when Texas I-69 is finished from this city all the way to Laredo/McAllen/Brownsville, as well as what will happen when Arkansas I-49 is finished.  If the aforementioned Marshall interchange is a "4-stack", a lot of those stacks' traffic will go through Bowie County, Texas and Miller County, Arkansas.

I think some fascinating things may happen in TXK's future, even by Lone Star State standards.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: jbnv on February 07, 2019, 11:12:49 AM
That's a lot of traffic that could pass through Louisiana but won't. A healthy and growing Texarkana means that Texas doesn't have to care at all what Louisiana does.

Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on February 07, 2019, 12:48:06 PM
That's a lot of traffic that could pass through Louisiana but won't. A healthy and growing Texarkana means that Texas doesn't have to care at all what Louisiana does.



Which, of course, is the raison d'etre of the TXDOT/Alliance for I-69 prioritization of I-369 over the "mainline" I-69 into LA -- the state can thus make unilateral moves to expedite access NE from Houston, which was the prime concern of the folks who cobbled up HPC #20, the portion of the I-69 corridor following US 59 throughout TX.  Getting traffic to I-30 was the goal; the interchange with I-20 at Marshall as discussed above will be, for the time being, sufficient to divert that traffic intended for Shreveport or elsewhere along I-20. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: the young texan on February 11, 2019, 12:05:04 PM
That's a lot of traffic that could pass through Louisiana but won't. A healthy and growing Texarkana means that Texas doesn't have to care at all what Louisiana does.



Which, of course, is the raison d'etre of the TXDOT/Alliance for I-69 prioritization of I-369 over the "mainline" I-69 into LA -- the state can thus make unilateral moves to expedite access NE from Houston, which was the prime concern of the folks who cobbled up HPC #20, the portion of the I-69 corridor following US 59 throughout TX.  Getting traffic to I-30 was the goal; the interchange with I-20 at Marshall as discussed above will be, for the time being, sufficient to divert that traffic intended for Shreveport or elsewhere along I-20.

I think Texas wants I-69 to be rerouted to the I-30-I-40 corridor in Arkansas. I'm not sure what they'd do with the I-69 portion in Downtown Memphis as I-69 would go into Memphis with I-40. I do think this would be best for I-69 as The Shreveport-Memphis route wouldn't be used as much as the Texarkana-Memphis route through Little Rock.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MikieTimT on February 11, 2019, 01:15:31 PM
That's a lot of traffic that could pass through Louisiana but won't. A healthy and growing Texarkana means that Texas doesn't have to care at all what Louisiana does.



Which, of course, is the raison d'etre of the TXDOT/Alliance for I-69 prioritization of I-369 over the "mainline" I-69 into LA -- the state can thus make unilateral moves to expedite access NE from Houston, which was the prime concern of the folks who cobbled up HPC #20, the portion of the I-69 corridor following US 59 throughout TX.  Getting traffic to I-30 was the goal; the interchange with I-20 at Marshall as discussed above will be, for the time being, sufficient to divert that traffic intended for Shreveport or elsewhere along I-20.

I think Texas wants I-69 to be rerouted to the I-30-I-40 corridor in Arkansas. I'm not sure what they'd do with the I-69 portion in Downtown Memphis as I-69 would go into Memphis with I-40. I do think this would be best for I-69 as The Shreveport-Memphis route wouldn't be used as much as the Texarkana-Memphis route through Little Rock.

And then it's Arkansas' problem to deal with the extra traffic.  Sure hope those 2 segments of interstate are 3x3 at minimum throughout the state.

In 2035, just 16 years from now, pretty much all of the interstate mileage in Arkansas is forecast to be "highly congested", which is stop and go during peak periods.  Not just around Memphis, Little Rock, and Texarkana, but nearly ALL of the mileage.

https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/nat_freight_stats/images/hi_res_jpg/nhsconghghvoltrk2035.jpg (https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/freight/freight_analysis/nat_freight_stats/images/hi_res_jpg/nhsconghghvoltrk2035.jpg)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: jbnv on February 11, 2019, 04:23:54 PM
I doubt Texas really cares where all that traffic goes after it leaves Texas. The point is that I'm pretty sure they'd rather it pass through their city of Texarkana, which will keep it in Texas the longest.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Plutonic Panda on February 12, 2019, 01:34:43 AM
I doubt Texas really cares where all that traffic goes after it leaves Texas. The point is that I'm pretty sure they'd rather it pass through their city of Texarkana, which will keep it in Texas the longest.
This is precisely why national corridors should NOT be planned by states and rather the federal government!
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on February 12, 2019, 04:14:57 AM
That's a lot of traffic that could pass through Louisiana but won't. A healthy and growing Texarkana means that Texas doesn't have to care at all what Louisiana does.



Which, of course, is the raison d'etre of the TXDOT/Alliance for I-69 prioritization of I-369 over the "mainline" I-69 into LA -- the state can thus make unilateral moves to expedite access NE from Houston, which was the prime concern of the folks who cobbled up HPC #20, the portion of the I-69 corridor following US 59 throughout TX.  Getting traffic to I-30 was the goal; the interchange with I-20 at Marshall as discussed above will be, for the time being, sufficient to divert that traffic intended for Shreveport or elsewhere along I-20.

I think Texas wants I-69 to be rerouted to the I-30-I-40 corridor in Arkansas. I'm not sure what they'd do with the I-69 portion in Downtown Memphis as I-69 would go into Memphis with I-40. I do think this would be best for I-69 as The Shreveport-Memphis route wouldn't be used as much as the Texarkana-Memphis route through Little Rock.

The interested TX-based parties don't particularly care what the corridor is numbered, as long as it's completed in a reasonable timeframe and does the job its creators envisioned.  The Alliance has long been the "keeper" of the "69" family; they're the ones who pushed for the I-369 designation for the NE branch along US 59  -- although I suggested the "I-47" designation to them for that corridor back in 2010 as part of a regular correspondence with that group over several years; they replied that they wanted to reference the "69" designation over all the TX corridor portions covered by the original I-69 designation of HPC's #18 & #20 in 1995 (other adjacent corridors not cited in the original legislation could be numbered outside that sphere -- e.g., I-2 in the Rio Grande Valley). 

I doubt Texas really cares where all that traffic goes after it leaves Texas. The point is that I'm pretty sure they'd rather it pass through their city of Texarkana, which will keep it in Texas the longest.
This is precisely why national corridors should NOT be planned by states and rather the federal government!

Most of the planning for "national" corridors has been done by private and/or regional interests, who tend to bypass the DOT's of the states through which the corridors run and go directly to the congressional representatives from the affected districts -- who often see such things as demonstrative of their provision of benefits to their constituents.  The state agencies are eventually brought into the picture -- often with some reticence -- with the final corridor routing and design choices.  As I've stated several times in several threads, the lack of federal impetus dates from 1973 with legislation initiated within the Nixon administration that (a) shifted funding of capital projects, including transportation, to "block grants" to be administered at the state level, and (b) correspondingly shifted the impetus for such projects to state and local levels.  But beginning in 1991 with ISTEA, Congressional action could specify certain corridors for prioritization in disbursement of funds and qualification for maximal (80%) federal "match" -- but within the normal federal yearly budgetary process -- no equivalent to the dedicated Interstate funds for "chargeable" mileage starting in 1957; project funding needed to be eked out year by year at congressional whim.  For the past 46 years there hasn't been any effort to "re-up" the concept of either national planning (anathema to many current Congresspersons) or a general return to the 90% federal funding level (although that figure has been sporadically applied to some "spot" projects).  On a national level, the political will just hasn't been there!     
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on February 12, 2019, 09:29:19 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda
This is precisely why national corridors should NOT be planned by states and rather the federal government!

When the federal government abdicates its role in planning, designing and funding national corridors, leaving most of that burden to the states then those individual states are going to build those corridors to fit their individual needs.

Individual states will even tune those corridors to specific local needs rather than any big picture view, just like what we're seeing along parts of I-69. Other states will call the corridor an unfunded mandate and just not build much of it at all. There's a billion plus dollar Mississippi river bridge that will likely never get built under the current "model" of highway planning. Then we have other laughable crap, like the giant L-shaped route I-69 takes through Kentucky. They routed I-69 on existing parkways rather than build anything new. This is what we get with the current model of federal oversight on super highways.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: jbnv on February 12, 2019, 11:29:07 AM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda
This is precisely why national corridors should NOT be planned by states and rather the federal government!
When the federal government abdicates its role in planning, designing and funding national corridors, leaving most of that burden to the states then those individual states are going to build those corridors to fit their individual needs. Individual states will even tune those corridors to specific local needs rather than any big picture view, just like what we're seeing along parts of I-69. Other states will call the corridor an unfunded mandate and just not build much of it at all. ...This is what we get with the current model of federal oversight on super highways.

Welcome to federalism. The federal government has become an oversized sloth, capable of little beyond making itself bigger and starting wars. (A lot like Louisiana has been for decades, with the ability to start wars.) Texas doesn't really need the federal government either. It's doing pretty well for itself, in fact capitalizing on its position as a leader over the several states that are imploding.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Revive 755 on February 12, 2019, 12:40:39 PM
Then we have other laughable crap, like the giant L-shaped route I-69 takes through Kentucky. They routed I-69 on existing parkways rather than build anything new.

Using Google Maps and comparing driving distance versus a direct measurement, it looks to me the most a direct routing through Kentucky would have saved would be 30 miles.  Not sure that would be worth maybe 70 miles of new construction at this time.  Maybe if Marion and Morganfield were bigger it would be.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on July 16, 2019, 06:02:04 PM
According to Google Maps Street View from May of 2018, the I-69 to I-69E signing project from the Callallen I-37 intersection south to Robstown isn't complete as of then:

https://goo.gl/maps/AjTxdpoHeGHG3XELA

Can someone from the area verify that is has been remedied.  For some reason, the last time I was there I thought I saw I-69E stand alones.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: austrini on July 17, 2019, 01:16:02 PM
I was there in June (going to Kingsville) and saw zero I-69E shields. If you go all the way down to that first BGS in Raymondville you get them though.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on July 23, 2019, 01:18:45 PM
Are there plans to upgrade this intersection to interstate standards by the Mexico/US border?

https://goo.gl/maps/LdGnBoGUU66dVwwh9

Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on July 23, 2019, 02:54:47 PM
According to Google Maps Street View from May of 2018, the I-69 to I-69E signing project from the Callallen I-37 intersection south to Robstown isn't complete as of then:

https://goo.gl/maps/AjTxdpoHeGHG3XELA

Can someone from the area verify that is has been remedied.  For some reason, the last time I was there I thought I saw I-69E stand alones.
Don't know the current status, but I will say that the newly upgraded section south of Robstown that was completed back in 2018 only had standard I-69 shields when I drove up the highway last year. It also appears on Google Street View.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MaxConcrete on July 23, 2019, 07:04:53 PM
Bids were opened last week for a section of main lanes on the south side of Nacogodoches. Looking at Google aerial views, I don't know why this strange curving alignment was selected because a direct route is mostly vacant land. But selecting inefficient alignments seems to be TxDOT's standard operating procedure these days.

County:   NACOGDOCHES   Let Date:   07/09/19
Type:   CONSTRUCT 4 LANE DIRECT CONNECTION   Seq No:   3002
Time:   523 WORKING DAYS   Project ID:   NH 1902(081)
Highway:   US 59   Contract #:   07193002
Length:   6.100   CCSJ:   0176-01-081
Limits:   
From:   SH 7   Check:   $100,000
To:   1.242 MI SOUTH OF SPRADLEY ST.   Misc Cost:   $580,000.00
Estimate   $77,867,877.57   % Over/Under   Company
Bidder 1   $86,198,369.43   +10.70%   LONGVIEW BRIDGE AND ROAD, LTD.
Bidder 2   $89,349,489.78   +14.74%   PULICE CONSTRUCTION, INC.
Bidder 3   $91,680,440.52   +17.74%   JAMES CONSTRUCTION GROUP, L.L.C.
Bidder 4   $92,301,213.56   +18.54%   EAST TEXAS BRIDGE, INC.
Bidder 5   $100,655,367.50   +29.26%   ZACHRY CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION
Bidder 6   $106,919,764.27   +37.31%   JOHNSON BROS. CORPORATION, A SOUTHLAND COMPANY


(http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20190710-i69.jpg)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: roadman65 on July 23, 2019, 11:25:58 PM
 I do not know why I-69 does not take over I-30 and replace the I-57 extension to Little Rock.  Let it use part of proposed I-57 and then a new freeway over to I-155 in MO. Then up its path into Kentucky.

Is Memphis really that important? Plus AR is not really that gung ho at the moment to built their part as I-49 is top on the list of getting done for freeways.  Even IMO I-49 is more important as right now commerce could easily use I-30 and I-40, just build I-69 from San Jacinta County up to Texarkana and you have that issue solved.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on July 24, 2019, 06:39:03 AM
Bids were opened last week for a section of main lanes on the south side of Nacogodoches. Looking at Google aerial views, I don't know why this strange curving alignment was selected because a direct route is mostly vacant land. But selecting inefficient alignments seems to be TxDOT's standard operating procedure these days.

(http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20190710-i69.jpg)
That “vacant land”  is a heavily developed area with hotels and gas stations. A good reason to avoid it. That certainly wouldn’t be cheap to buy out. That’s why it curves to the east then back to the west.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on July 24, 2019, 11:21:56 AM
According to Google Maps Street View from May of 2018, the I-69 to I-69E signing project from the Callallen I-37 intersection south to Robstown isn't complete as of then:

https://goo.gl/maps/AjTxdpoHeGHG3XELA

Can someone from the area verify that is has been remedied.  For some reason, the last time I was there I thought I saw I-69E stand alones.
Don't know the current status, but I will say that the newly upgraded section south of Robstown that was completed back in 2018 only had standard I-69 shields when I drove up the highway last year. It also appears on Google Street View.
Google Street View from May 2019 still shows I-69 shields, not I-69E.

https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7398201,-97.6997014,3a,37.5y,133.44h,70.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOAm-Y0uwzXGdm11UcPkjSg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on July 24, 2019, 11:42:20 AM
New May 2019 Street View imagery along US-77 south of Driscoll shows construction ramping up on the I-69E Driscoll Bypass, along with clearing work north of Bishop.

The current project is 10.4 miles long and will upgrade US-77 to interstate standards between the north end of the Bishop Bypass and the southern end of the 2017 completed I-69E segment, and includes a 3 mile bypass around Driscoll. The project began construction in February 2019 and will be completed by April 2022 for a total cost of $118 million. Once completed, I-69E will stretch from I-37 to south of Kingsville, a distance of approximately 32 miles.

https://www.zachryconstructioncorp.com/Projects/Transportation/US-77-Driscoll-Bypass/
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on July 24, 2019, 11:08:08 PM
Quote from: roadman65
Is Memphis really that important? Plus AR is not really that gung ho at the moment to built their part as I-49 is top on the list of getting done for freeways.  Even IMO I-49 is more important as right now commerce could easily use I-30 and I-40, just build I-69 from San Jacinta County up to Texarkana and you have that issue solved.

Memphis is a major distribution hub. FedEx HQ is there. The metro could use another Interstate corridor. It's just too bad the route is getting built so damn crooked. It would pretty much take a god with divine powers to divert I-69 away from Memphis at this point. Too many things are set in stone.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: GreenLanternCorps on July 25, 2019, 07:33:50 AM
New May 2019 Street View imagery along US-77 south of Driscoll shows construction ramping up on the I-69E Driscoll Bypass, along with clearing work north of Bishop.

The current project is 10.4 miles long and will upgrade US-77 to interstate standards between the north end of the Bishop Bypass and the southern end of the 2017 completed I-69E segment, and includes a 3 mile bypass around Driscoll. The project began construction in February 2019 and will be completed by April 2022 for a total cost of $118 million. Once completed, I-69E will stretch from I-37 to south of Kingsville, a distance of approximately 32 miles.

https://www.zachryconstructioncorp.com/Projects/Transportation/US-77-Driscoll-Bypass/

Here is a link to the North end of the Construction zone:

https://www.google.com/maps/@27.6560308,-97.7581419,3a,75y,92.68h,84.87t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sptQRZ4Y7yO-Ya-DIlNHIyw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MikieTimT on July 25, 2019, 09:57:36 AM
Quote from: roadman65
Is Memphis really that important? Plus AR is not really that gung ho at the moment to built their part as I-49 is top on the list of getting done for freeways.  Even IMO I-49 is more important as right now commerce could easily use I-30 and I-40, just build I-69 from San Jacinta County up to Texarkana and you have that issue solved.

Memphis is a major distribution hub. FedEx HQ is there. The metro could use another Interstate corridor. It's just too bad the route is getting built so damn crooked. It would pretty much take a god with divine powers to divert I-69 away from Memphis at this point. Too many things are set in stone.

I-30/I-40 can't take more trucking without at least one more lane in each direction, so an alternative that both serves northern Louisiana and southern Arkansas as well as bypasses the choke-point of Little Rock is a worthy endeavor.  I don't happen to like the routing in Arkansas, but if left to itself to fund the road as it can afford to, local needs will be served ahead of through traffic and we get the routing that we currently have.  That being said, until engineering studies are completed and ROW is purchased and set aside, it's not set in stone if there winds up being a different focus at the federal level in the future.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on July 25, 2019, 01:26:11 PM
Quote from: roadman65
Is Memphis really that important? Plus AR is not really that gung ho at the moment to built their part as I-49 is top on the list of getting done for freeways.  Even IMO I-49 is more important as right now commerce could easily use I-30 and I-40, just build I-69 from San Jacinta County up to Texarkana and you have that issue solved.

Memphis is a major distribution hub. FedEx HQ is there. The metro could use another Interstate corridor. It's just too bad the route is getting built so damn crooked. It would pretty much take a god with divine powers to divert I-69 away from Memphis at this point. Too many things are set in stone.

I-30/I-40 can't take more trucking without at least one more lane in each direction, so an alternative that both serves northern Louisiana and southern Arkansas as well as bypasses the choke-point of Little Rock is a worthy endeavor.  I don't happen to like the routing in Arkansas, but if left to itself to fund the road as it can afford to, local needs will be served ahead of through traffic and we get the routing that we currently have.  That being said, until engineering studies are completed and ROW is purchased and set aside, it's not set in stone if there winds up being a different focus at the federal level in the future.

Like I've said a few times already, including the AR 530 N-S branch to Pine Bluff -- and by I-530 extension, to LR, was something of a coup for ADOT when the I-69 authorizing legislation was passed; that "branch" is at least as important to them as the I-69 trunk -- if not more so.  If LA follows suit with an intial 2-lane expressway on their portion of the I-69 corridor north of I-20, and AR builds NE from there to the AR 530 junction, that'll probably be considered a major stepping stone in the corridor's progress -- at least by ADOT and their political handlers in LR.  Of course, that doesn't address the issue of I-40 congestion from LR east -- but it takes care, at least in an initial sense, of the state's connectivity issues vis-a-vis the "neglected" southern tier of AR.  Remember that I-69 was born as a political animal and will continue, for better or worse, to be developed in a way that addresses that truth.     
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on July 25, 2019, 01:36:24 PM
Quote from: MikieTimeT
I-30/I-40 can't take more trucking without at least one more lane in each direction, so an alternative that both serves northern Louisiana and southern Arkansas as well as bypasses the choke-point of Little Rock is a worthy endeavor.

I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis needs to be upgraded to at least 3 lanes in each direction regardless of what ever happens with the I-69 or I-57 corridors. It may be decades before either one is finished. So they really need to get to work at upgrading that stretch of I-40 ASAP. The I-40 bridge over the Mississippi into Memphis isn't getting any younger either.

I-57 has far better odds of being completed within the next 20 years since there's no $1 billion+ bridge over the Mississippi to build. I-69 is saddled with that problem along with Mississippi have little if any money to spend building its portion.

Even if both I-57 and I-69 are finished within the not so distant future I-40 is still going to be the first route of choice for a giant amount of traffic moving East-West through the South Central US. It's the most direct route for one. I-30 runs along a fairly straight diagonal path as well.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Echostatic on July 25, 2019, 02:59:11 PM
The I-40 bridge over the Mississippi into Memphis isn't getting any younger either.

The Hernando de Soto bridge is already six lanes, and it's only 46 years old. There's only three/four Lower Mississippi crossings newer than that, depending on how you count it. I don't think it needs replacing any time in the next 30 years unless disaster strikes Memphis.

I-40 absolutely needs to be three lanes from Memphis to Little Rock. I-30 could use with it as well, but it's not quite as important.

The I-57 extension, if it's ever completed, will probably just take more traffic from I-55 than any other highway. I-40 is still going to be a massive corridor heading East into Tennessee and onwards, and I-30's traffic counts probably won't much.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Verlanka on July 26, 2019, 05:18:13 AM
Even if both I-57 and I-69 are finished within the not so distant future I-40 is still going to be the first route of choice for a giant amount of traffic moving East-West through the South Central US. It's the most direct route for one. I-30 runs along a fairly straight diagonal path as well.

I totally agree.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on July 26, 2019, 11:39:18 AM
Quote
The Hernando de Soto bridge is already six lanes, and it's only 46 years old. There's only three/four Lower Mississippi crossings newer than that, depending on how you count it. I don't think it needs replacing any time in the next 30 years unless disaster strikes Memphis.

Only 46 years old? That's not exactly young. Other bridges, interchanges, etc have been built and then replaced in that time frame. But age isn't the big problem. There are two others. The first is the bridge does not comply with current Interstate standards. It may have 6 lanes, but there are no shoulders on it at all. The same goes for the I-55 Memphis Arkansas Bridge, a far more obsolete 4 lane bridge. The second problem with the Hernando de Soto Bridge is clearance. Normally the span is 108' above the river surface (which is a few feet shorter than the older I-55 bridge nearby). With all the increasingly frequent flooding the clearance is getting cut down to as little as 75', making it impossible for certain vessels to pass underneath it.

The bridge situation in Memphis makes the Great River Bridge crossing for I-69 farther South an even tougher sell, harder still if state DOTs are having to scrounge the money while the feds go AWOL.

A good case can be made for replacing both existing I-55 and I-40 Mississippi River crossings in Memphis. The I-55 bridge is an urgent case. Then there's the desire to build another connection farther North from I-269 in Millington across to Clarkedale and I-55. Finally there's the really obvious idea of a South crossing for the Tunica area. There's all the casino traffic and traffic moving between I-40 and I-22. That's four new bridges the Memphis area needs, all of which carry a staggering cost.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on July 26, 2019, 11:53:15 AM
Quote
The Hernando de Soto bridge is already six lanes, and it's only 46 years old. There's only three/four Lower Mississippi crossings newer than that, depending on how you count it. I don't think it needs replacing any time in the next 30 years unless disaster strikes Memphis.

Only 46 years old? That's not exactly young. Other bridges, interchanges, etc have been built and then replaced in that time frame. But age isn't the big problem. There are two others. The first is the bridge does not comply with Interstate standards. It may have 6 lanes, but there are no shoulders on it at all. The same goes for the I-55 Memphis Arkansas Bridge, a far more obsolete 4 lane bridge. The second problem with the Hernando de Soto Bridge is clearance. Normally the span is 108' above the river surface (which is a few feet shorter than the older I-55 bridge nearby). With all the increasingly frequent flooding the clearance is getting cut down to as little as 75', making it impossible for certain vessels to pass underneath it.

The bridge situation in Memphis makes the Great River Bridge crossing for I-69 farther South an even tougher sell, harder still if state DOTs are having to scrounge the money while the feds go AWOL.

A good case can be made for replacing both existing I-55 and I-40 Mississippi River crossings in Memphis. The I-55 bridge is an urgent case. Then there's the desire to build another connection farther North from I-269 in Millington across to Clarkedale and I-55. Finally there's the really obvious idea of a South crossing for the Tunica area. There's all the casino traffic and traffic moving between I-40 and I-22. That's four new bridges the Memphis area needs, all of which carry a staggering cost.
The I-40 bridge is not a priority IMO. While it may be aging, it's still an adequate and structurally sound bridge. And it does meet interstate standards. It has three 12 ft lanes and 4 ft shoulders in each direction. Interstate standards specifies bridges over 200 feet in length may have a reduced shoulder width of 4 ft. It's not preferred by most DOTs, but it technically meets standards.

The I-55 bridge should be far higher of a priority than replacing the I-40 bridge.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on July 26, 2019, 12:00:12 PM
The I-40 bridge over the Mississippi into Memphis isn't getting any younger either.

The Hernando de Soto bridge is already six lanes, and it's only 46 years old. There's only three/four Lower Mississippi crossings newer than that, depending on how you count it. I don't think it needs replacing any time in the next 30 years unless disaster strikes Memphis.

I-40 absolutely needs to be three lanes from Memphis to Little Rock. I-30 could use with it as well, but it's not quite as important.

The I-57 extension, if it's ever completed, will probably just take more traffic from I-55 than any other highway. I-40 is still going to be a massive corridor heading East into Tennessee and onwards, and I-30's traffic counts probably won't much.
Even if both I-57 and I-69 are finished within the not so distant future I-40 is still going to be the first route of choice for a giant amount of traffic moving East-West through the South Central US. It's the most direct route for one. I-30 runs along a fairly straight diagonal path as well.

I totally agree.

Got a question -- has ADOT actually undertaken any sort of count to determine how much of the EB traffic on I-40 between Little Rock and I-55 actually turns north at I-55 (ostensibly en route to Chicago and other Great Lakes destinations) rather than continuing east into Memphis? (and this question, of course, applies to the opposite directional movement as well).   Presumably some sort of data in this vein, even of the rudimentary variety, was available prior to the push for the complete development of the I-57 corridor.   
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on July 26, 2019, 12:40:22 PM
It's an interesting question. I'm sure a significant amount of long distance EB I-40 traffic does turn North at I-55 in West Memphis. Long distance motorists, regardless whether their vehicles are personal or commercial, are drawn to the Interstates due to the consistent higher speeds, no traffic lights, intersections, fewer speed traps, etc.

It's all but guaranteed that a completed I-57 between North Little Rock and Sikeston would pull a good amount of that long distance traffic away from Memphis, even if the mileage savings aren't all that great. Routing I-57 up to Poplar Bluff then across to Sikeston takes away some of the mileage savings. OTOH, vehicles heading for more Northerly destinations would be able to avoid the Memphis area and traffic associated with it. That might result in a good chunk of reduced drive time. And that benefit for using I-57 would relieve some of the traffic load on I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on July 26, 2019, 04:59:04 PM
It's an interesting question. I'm sure a significant amount of long distance EB I-40 traffic does turn North at I-55 in West Memphis. Long distance motorists, regardless whether their vehicles are personal or commercial, are drawn to the Interstates due to the consistent higher speeds, no traffic lights, intersections, fewer speed traps, etc.

It's all but guaranteed that a completed I-57 between North Little Rock and Sikeston would pull a good amount of that long distance traffic away from Memphis, even if the mileage savings aren't all that great. Routing I-57 up to Poplar Bluff then across to Sikeston takes away some of the mileage savings. OTOH, vehicles heading for more Northerly destinations would be able to avoid the Memphis area and traffic associated with it. That might result in a good chunk of reduced drive time. And that benefit for using I-57 would relieve some of the traffic load on I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis.

It's probably a safe bet that ADOT has calculated an estimate of the amount of commercial (read heavy truck) traffic that would be diverted from I-40 when the bi-state I-57 project was completed -- with an eye toward perhaps rolling back or postponing I-40 upgrades (except, one would hope, the more egregious/substandard sections).  Perhaps ADOT will do repairs and any necessary bridge replacement to I-40 but simply reduce the amount of 6-laning that might be in the present plans.  At this point, how they intend to prioritize these various projects remains to be seen.  On one hand, the congestion -- not to mention the wear & tear -- on I-40 is an issue that has been in the forefront for decades, OTOH, if it is calculated that a completed I-57 would remove a significant percentage of the most problematic traffic, then the question of which to prioritize might just come down to intra-state political issues & power (and how cooperative MO is on their end).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on July 26, 2019, 10:50:25 PM
It's a toss up over what should be the higher priority, finish I-57 first or do a major upgrade of I-40.

The tough thing about this is it looks like a lot of I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis is just asphalt or asphalt overlaid on top of old concrete. Very little of that road looks new. To me, it looks like ARDOT needs to do like Texas has been doing with I-35 between Austin and Dallas: do a complete tear down and re-build of the road decks (as well as the ramps, bridges, etc). It's going to be expensive as hell, but that is one of the most vital highway links in the entire Interstate system. So the Feds need to show their happy asses up to the table for this one. That stretch of road affects much of the country, not just a little portion of Arkansas.

But! In order to do a major re-build of a highway like that, it would really help if some of the traffic load could be diverted. And that gets us back to the idea of maybe finishing much or all of I-57 first. A complete I-57 might help a major re-build of I-40 to not turn into a nightmare-inducing snarl.

Even with I-57 completed there will still be a heavy (and growing) burden of traffic on that part of I-40. The road needs to be at least 3 lanes in each direction, if not 4 along some stretches. The big metros in Texas are still growing like a damn virus and that's going to pump more commerce along I-30 thru Little Rock to points farther North and East. Some rapid growth is also taking place farther East in places like the Raleigh-Durham area and Nashville. That's more commerce along I-40. I see no way avoiding widening I-40 there.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MikieTimT on July 27, 2019, 12:56:56 AM
It's an interesting question. I'm sure a significant amount of long distance EB I-40 traffic does turn North at I-55 in West Memphis. Long distance motorists, regardless whether their vehicles are personal or commercial, are drawn to the Interstates due to the consistent higher speeds, no traffic lights, intersections, fewer speed traps, etc.

It's all but guaranteed that a completed I-57 between North Little Rock and Sikeston would pull a good amount of that long distance traffic away from Memphis, even if the mileage savings aren't all that great. Routing I-57 up to Poplar Bluff then across to Sikeston takes away some of the mileage savings. OTOH, vehicles heading for more Northerly destinations would be able to avoid the Memphis area and traffic associated with it. That might result in a good chunk of reduced drive time. And that benefit for using I-57 would relieve some of the traffic load on I-40 between Little Rock and Memphis.

I don't exactly know how to do the figuring on what you're asking, but I think the answer might lie in here somewhere with some maths.

https://www.arkansashighways.com/System_Info_and_Research/traffic_info/TrafficCountyMaps/2018ADT/ADT_Crittenden_18B.pdf (https://www.arkansashighways.com/System_Info_and_Research/traffic_info/TrafficCountyMaps/2018ADT/ADT_Crittenden_18B.pdf)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: kphoger on July 27, 2019, 06:07:10 PM
… ARDOT … expensive …

I see a problem.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: yakra on July 28, 2019, 11:31:19 AM
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3524
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MikieTimT on July 29, 2019, 12:23:32 PM
The I-40 bridge over the Mississippi into Memphis isn't getting any younger either.

The Hernando de Soto bridge is already six lanes, and it's only 46 years old. There's only three/four Lower Mississippi crossings newer than that, depending on how you count it. I don't think it needs replacing any time in the next 30 years unless disaster strikes Memphis.

I-40 absolutely needs to be three lanes from Memphis to Little Rock. I-30 could use with it as well, but it's not quite as important.

The I-57 extension, if it's ever completed, will probably just take more traffic from I-55 than any other highway. I-40 is still going to be a massive corridor heading East into Tennessee and onwards, and I-30's traffic counts probably won't much.
Even if both I-57 and I-69 are finished within the not so distant future I-40 is still going to be the first route of choice for a giant amount of traffic moving East-West through the South Central US. It's the most direct route for one. I-30 runs along a fairly straight diagonal path as well.

I totally agree.

Got a question -- has ADOT actually undertaken any sort of count to determine how much of the EB traffic on I-40 between Little Rock and I-55 actually turns north at I-55 (ostensibly en route to Chicago and other Great Lakes destinations) rather than continuing east into Memphis? (and this question, of course, applies to the opposite directional movement as well).   Presumably some sort of data in this vein, even of the rudimentary variety, was available prior to the push for the complete development of the I-57 corridor.   

I just realized I quoted the wrong person with my earlier submission.

This is the latest traffic counts available for the I-40/I-55 junctions, but I confess I can't really make heads or tails of it.

https://www.arkansashighways.com/System_Info_and_Research/traffic_info/TrafficCountyMaps/2018ADT/ADT_Crittenden_18B.pdf (https://www.arkansashighways.com/System_Info_and_Research/traffic_info/TrafficCountyMaps/2018ADT/ADT_Crittenden_18B.pdf)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: wxfree on July 29, 2019, 05:18:37 PM
The I-40 bridge over the Mississippi into Memphis isn't getting any younger either.

The Hernando de Soto bridge is already six lanes, and it's only 46 years old. There's only three/four Lower Mississippi crossings newer than that, depending on how you count it. I don't think it needs replacing any time in the next 30 years unless disaster strikes Memphis.

I-40 absolutely needs to be three lanes from Memphis to Little Rock. I-30 could use with it as well, but it's not quite as important.

The I-57 extension, if it's ever completed, will probably just take more traffic from I-55 than any other highway. I-40 is still going to be a massive corridor heading East into Tennessee and onwards, and I-30's traffic counts probably won't much.
Even if both I-57 and I-69 are finished within the not so distant future I-40 is still going to be the first route of choice for a giant amount of traffic moving East-West through the South Central US. It's the most direct route for one. I-30 runs along a fairly straight diagonal path as well.

I totally agree.

Got a question -- has ADOT actually undertaken any sort of count to determine how much of the EB traffic on I-40 between Little Rock and I-55 actually turns north at I-55 (ostensibly en route to Chicago and other Great Lakes destinations) rather than continuing east into Memphis? (and this question, of course, applies to the opposite directional movement as well).   Presumably some sort of data in this vein, even of the rudimentary variety, was available prior to the push for the complete development of the I-57 corridor.   

I just realized I quoted the wrong person with my earlier submission.

This is the latest traffic counts available for the I-40/I-55 junctions, but I confess I can't really make heads or tails of it.

https://www.arkansashighways.com/System_Info_and_Research/traffic_info/TrafficCountyMaps/2018ADT/ADT_Crittenden_18B.pdf (https://www.arkansashighways.com/System_Info_and_Research/traffic_info/TrafficCountyMaps/2018ADT/ADT_Crittenden_18B.pdf)

I like the spot where the count on I-55 is 50, and then right beside it is 42,000.  I'm not sure that map has heads or tails to be made.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: kphoger on July 29, 2019, 05:28:55 PM
The I-40 bridge over the Mississippi into Memphis isn't getting any younger either.

The Hernando de Soto bridge is already six lanes, and it's only 46 years old. There's only three/four Lower Mississippi crossings newer than that, depending on how you count it. I don't think it needs replacing any time in the next 30 years unless disaster strikes Memphis.

I-40 absolutely needs to be three lanes from Memphis to Little Rock. I-30 could use with it as well, but it's not quite as important.

The I-57 extension, if it's ever completed, will probably just take more traffic from I-55 than any other highway. I-40 is still going to be a massive corridor heading East into Tennessee and onwards, and I-30's traffic counts probably won't much.
Even if both I-57 and I-69 are finished within the not so distant future I-40 is still going to be the first route of choice for a giant amount of traffic moving East-West through the South Central US. It's the most direct route for one. I-30 runs along a fairly straight diagonal path as well.

I totally agree.

Got a question -- has ADOT actually undertaken any sort of count to determine how much of the EB traffic on I-40 between Little Rock and I-55 actually turns north at I-55 (ostensibly en route to Chicago and other Great Lakes destinations) rather than continuing east into Memphis? (and this question, of course, applies to the opposite directional movement as well).   Presumably some sort of data in this vein, even of the rudimentary variety, was available prior to the push for the complete development of the I-57 corridor.   

I just realized I quoted the wrong person with my earlier submission.

This is the latest traffic counts available for the I-40/I-55 junctions, but I confess I can't really make heads or tails of it.

https://www.arkansashighways.com/System_Info_and_Research/traffic_info/TrafficCountyMaps/2018ADT/ADT_Crittenden_18B.pdf (https://www.arkansashighways.com/System_Info_and_Research/traffic_info/TrafficCountyMaps/2018ADT/ADT_Crittenden_18B.pdf)

I like the spot where the count on I-55 is 50, and then right beside it is 42,000.  I'm not sure that map has heads or tails to be made.

50 is for the service road next to I-55, a.k.a. Dacus Lake Road.  42,000 is for I-55 itself.  Here is the interactive version. (https://ardot.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=8deb09579210490bafb97bd03c3c0792)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: wxfree on July 29, 2019, 05:38:09 PM
I was wondering if there was a significance to the mark being on the side or in the middle.  Just north of the concurrency, I-55 is shown with a count of 6,000 in the middle.  That can't be right.  The interactive map shows the number along the frontage road.  I-40 is shown with a count of 36,000 on the edge, which is obviously a freeway number.  At that point, there isn't a frontage road.  That map needs to be put together better.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MikieTimT on July 30, 2019, 02:26:36 PM
Actually, the interactive map was quite helpful when zoomed into the proper area.  The theory that an I-57 would reduce the I-40E/I-55N traffic in Arkansas and Missouri by providing a shortcut doesn't look like it would go very far to me to reduce traffic on those segments.  The I-40E -> I-55N ramp has a 2018 AADT count of 6600 and the southbound ramp from I-55 north of I-40 -> I-40 westbound has a 2018 AADT of 6800, which isn't a very large amount of traffic to reduce.  Some probably small subset of those counts would be local traffic as well, so we're probably talking about at most 5000 vehicles a day both ways of through traffic that could be shunted over to a completed I-57.  Alas, it doesn't look like its completion would affect timelines for I-40 expansion between LR and Mem significantly.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on July 30, 2019, 05:38:24 PM
Actually, the interactive map was quite helpful when zoomed into the proper area.  The theory that an I-57 would reduce the I-40E/I-55N traffic in Arkansas and Missouri by providing a shortcut doesn't look like it would go very far to me to reduce traffic on those segments.  The I-40E -> I-55N ramp has a 2018 AADT count of 6600 and the southbound ramp from I-55 north of I-40 -> I-40 westbound has a 2018 AADT of 6800, which isn't a very large amount of traffic to reduce.  Some probably small subset of those counts would be local traffic as well, so we're probably talking about at most 5000 vehicles a day both ways of through traffic that could be shunted over to a completed I-57.  Alas, it doesn't look like its completion would affect timelines for I-40 expansion between LR and Mem significantly.

It would be useful if that 6.6K/6.8K count could be broken out into commercial vs. other traffic (or, even more telling, axle-weight loading figures!).  Since overall volume is only part of the issue on I-40 LR>Memphis -- and high proportions of truck traffic within that aggregate figure provide much of the wear & tear on the facility, a significant diversion of that part via the nascent I-57 would likely be welcomed within ADOT -- OTOH, it may, as surmised earlier, result in a more "leisurely" approach to I-40 upgrades -- which might simply be an act of "kicking the can down the road" in the long run.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: kphoger on July 30, 2019, 05:55:48 PM

Actually, the interactive map was quite helpful when zoomed into the proper area.  The theory that an I-57 would reduce the I-40E/I-55N traffic in Arkansas and Missouri by providing a shortcut doesn't look like it would go very far to me to reduce traffic on those segments.  The I-40E -> I-55N ramp has a 2018 AADT count of 6600 and the southbound ramp from I-55 north of I-40 -> I-40 westbound has a 2018 AADT of 6800, which isn't a very large amount of traffic to reduce.  Some probably small subset of those counts would be local traffic as well, so we're probably talking about at most 5000 vehicles a day both ways of through traffic that could be shunted over to a completed I-57.  Alas, it doesn't look like its completion would affect timelines for I-40 expansion between LR and Mem significantly.

It would be useful if that 6.6K/6.8K count could be broken out into commercial vs. other traffic (or, even more telling, axle-weight loading figures!).  Since overall volume is only part of the issue on I-40 LR>Memphis -- and high proportions of truck traffic within that aggregate figure provide much of the wear & tear on the facility, a significant diversion of that part via the nascent I-57 would likely be welcomed within ADOT -- OTOH, it may, as surmised earlier, result in a more "leisurely" approach to I-40 upgrades -- which might simply be an act of "kicking the can down the road" in the long run.

I can't find truck percentages on that ramp specifically, but I can tell you truck percentages on the mainline Interstates on all sides of that interchange (as of 2014), and the numbers are striking.

I-55 north of the interchange = 46% trucks
I-40 west of the interchange = 58% trucks
I-40 east of the interchange = 5% trucks
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on July 30, 2019, 06:45:05 PM

Actually, the interactive map was quite helpful when zoomed into the proper area.  The theory that an I-57 would reduce the I-40E/I-55N traffic in Arkansas and Missouri by providing a shortcut doesn't look like it would go very far to me to reduce traffic on those segments.  The I-40E -> I-55N ramp has a 2018 AADT count of 6600 and the southbound ramp from I-55 north of I-40 -> I-40 westbound has a 2018 AADT of 6800, which isn't a very large amount of traffic to reduce.  Some probably small subset of those counts would be local traffic as well, so we're probably talking about at most 5000 vehicles a day both ways of through traffic that could be shunted over to a completed I-57.  Alas, it doesn't look like its completion would affect timelines for I-40 expansion between LR and Mem significantly.

It would be useful if that 6.6K/6.8K count could be broken out into commercial vs. other traffic (or, even more telling, axle-weight loading figures!).  Since overall volume is only part of the issue on I-40 LR>Memphis -- and high proportions of truck traffic within that aggregate figure provide much of the wear & tear on the facility, a significant diversion of that part via the nascent I-57 would likely be welcomed within ADOT -- OTOH, it may, as surmised earlier, result in a more "leisurely" approach to I-40 upgrades -- which might simply be an act of "kicking the can down the road" in the long run.

I can't find truck percentages on that ramp specifically, but I can tell you truck percentages on the mainline Interstates on all sides of that interchange (as of 2014), and the numbers are striking.

I-55 north of the interchange = 46% trucks
I-40 west of the interchange = 58% trucks
I-40 east of the interchange = 5% trucks

Striking?...yes...Weird?....also yes!  The I-40/55 (west) interchange, besides being a traffic distributor/collector, also marks the essential western limits of the Memphis urban area, particularly the spillover into AR.  North and west of there one would normally find the high percentage of truck traffic indicated -- but dropping to only 5% east of the interchange seems highly unlikely; a volume drop of half, to somewhere around 25% (give or take) of the total would be exceptionally significant; 5% seems positively ludicrous (I've been through there several times, and the overall volume on the combined 40/55 segment, while substantial, isn't enough to make a 5% figure feasible).  My question is -- was that 5% figure derived from I-40 east of the EB split with I-55?  Since both the FedEx hub, the RR container terminals, and the airport (with its higher-than-usual freight volume) are nominally accessed via I-55 and the segue onto EB I-240, it would only make sense (and again, bolstered by personal experience) that the Harahan bridge would bear most of the commercial brunt of inbound/outbound commercial traffic crossing the river.  The I-40 crossing would be used primarily by commercial traffic intending to simply continue east from metro Memphis by staying on that route; if a EB drop of 53% would occur anywhere on that local freeway network, it would be along that stretch.     
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: kphoger on July 30, 2019, 08:53:41 PM
My question is -- was that 5% figure derived from I-40 east of the EB split with I-55? 

Nope.  See for yourself:

(https://i.imgur.com/uyplnDW.png)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: kphoger on July 30, 2019, 08:57:44 PM
The 2010 through 2013 maps didn't have a truck percentage for that in-between stretch (I didn't bother looking back further).  East of the eastern split had 28% trucks in 2013, 21% in 2012.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on July 31, 2019, 12:59:01 AM
^^^^^^^^^
There don't seem to be any reference points on I-40 between the I-55 split and the river, but some of the numbers farther SE on I-55 are considerably higher than the 5% shown immediately east of the western 40/55 interchange -- looks like the 5% is either a misprint, a misinterpretation of data -- or there's one big honking truck stop at or near that point, and trucks are getting off there and getting back on an exit down the line past the data collection point.  I'd surmise one of the first two for an explanation (I certainly don't remember such a roadside facility -- but then I was hardly looking for one!).  In any case, the numbers do indicate that a significant portion of the EB traffic peels off onto NB I-55; such would be expected by simply looking at the configuration of the Interstate network in the region, considering the fact that Chicagoland and other Great Lakes metro areas are principal destinations and originators of commercial shipments merely supports a conclusion that EB40>NB55 -- and vice-versa -- is a main commercial composite corridor, and that a completed I-57 would likely draw off more than a small bit of that traffic.   
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: rte66man on August 03, 2019, 09:02:11 AM
^^^^^^^^^
There don't seem to be any reference points on I-40 between the I-55 split and the river, but some of the numbers farther SE on I-55 are considerably higher than the 5% shown immediately east of the western 40/55 interchange -- looks like the 5% is either a misprint, a misinterpretation of data -- or there's one big honking truck stop at or near that point, and trucks are getting off there and getting back on an exit down the line past the data collection point.   

There's a Loves, Flying J, Pilot, and a Petro Stop at the MLK exit:
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.1545671,-90.1355104,1828m/data=!3m1!1e3

The truck traffic there is unreal.  I've learned to get gas at ANY other exit to avoid the snarls.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on August 03, 2019, 02:54:24 PM
^^^^^^^^^
There don't seem to be any reference points on I-40 between the I-55 split and the river, but some of the numbers farther SE on I-55 are considerably higher than the 5% shown immediately east of the western 40/55 interchange -- looks like the 5% is either a misprint, a misinterpretation of data -- or there's one big honking truck stop at or near that point, and trucks are getting off there and getting back on an exit down the line past the data collection point.   

There's a Loves, Flying J, Pilot, and a Petro Stop at the MLK exit:
https://www.google.com/maps/@35.1545671,-90.1355104,1828m/data=!3m1!1e3

The truck traffic there is unreal.  I've learned to get gas at ANY other exit to avoid the snarls.


So -- big old honking truck stop -- or series of such -- is indeed a possible explanation for the low commercial volume at a specific point.  Haven't had the opportunity nor the need to exit there on several trips through the area, so really never paid much notice.  But the location, along a multiplex of a major E-W and corresponding N-S corridor, is an obvious one from a revenue standpoint.  It would be interesting to compare the total number of transactions taking place at this collective location and compare it to the commercial traffic count just to see what portion of that driving segment actually utilizes those facilities -- or to form one of the data points for some regression analyses.   
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on August 12, 2019, 05:51:02 PM
Took a drive down US-77 / I-69E between I-37 and Kingsville this past weekend...

Most of the routing is now completed as full freeway, between south of Kingsville to north of Bishop, and north of Driscoll to I-37. The remaining gap is between north of Bishop and north of Driscoll, which is currently underway.

The segment between north of Bishop and the southern section of the Driscoll bypass is well under construction, with two new carriageways (one northbound mainline, one northbound frontage road) being built, while the segment between the existing freeway to the north and the northern section of the Driscoll bypass has not been placed under construction yet, though should begin in the next few months.

One interesting thing I noticed is signage along the freeway mainline and frontage roads between I-37 and north of Driscoll is signed as "I-69" as opposed to "I-69E". While I personally agree this should be the only I-69 and the other I-69's should have different numbers (I-4 should replace I-69W, I-x04 should replace the SH-44 spur, and I-39 or something similar for I-69C), it doesn't make sense why "I-69E" signage is not being used assuming the current three I-69's plan is being implemented.

Another thing, no exit numbers exist along any of the freeway segments between Kingsville and I-37, even the half that is signed as I-69. Are there any plans to add them, or will this become the first interstate highway in the country to lack exit numbers?

Also, this isn't directly related to this particular I-69 segment, but has TXDOT lost interest in grassy medians? Many of the new segments of I-69 proposed such as 40 miles of upgrades on US-59 between Rosenburg and Louise, 40 miles of upgrades along US-281 between Falfurrius and the existing I-69C near Edinburg, the recently completed upgrades around Bishop, the proposed Corrigan bypass, and others are being designed to have a 10-12 foot left paved shoulder and a barrier and a significant amount of grassy divider between the mainline and frontage roads, yet no grassy median. Even a 40-46 ft grassy median seen on other recent upgrades is far better than a barrier. I support upgrade to a freeway, but not the current designs being used.

Finally, why is the speed limit only 70 mph on the rural freeway segments between I-37 and Kingsville, yet the at-grade expressway segment is 75 mph? Hopefully this doesn't become a new thing, lowering the speed limit to 70 mph on each new freeway segment completed.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on August 12, 2019, 06:49:04 PM
Quote from: sprjus4
Also, this isn't directly related to this particular I-69 segment, but has TXDOT lost interest in grassy medians? Many of the new segments of I-69 proposed such as 40 miles of upgrades on US-59 between Rosenburg and Louise, 40 miles of upgrades along US-281 between Falfurrius and the existing I-69C near Edinburg, the recently completed upgrades around Bishop, the proposed Corrigan bypass, and others are being designed to have a 10-12 foot left paved shoulder and a barrier and a significant amount of grassy divider between the mainline and frontage roads, yet no grassy median. Even a 40-46 ft grassy median seen on other recent upgrades is far better than a barrier. I support upgrade to a freeway, but not the current designs being used.

I'm not a fan of narrow Interstates either, but I think it makes sense why TX DOT is choosing such designs for I-69 system routes in South Texas.

Obviously that kind of design is cheaper to build. The same amount of concrete or asphalt is being laid down for the two carriageways joined together as they would if they were separated by a wide median. However, less work is required for engineering, grading, landscape work, drainage, etc due to the lack of a grassy median. Hopefully TX DOT goes with a substantial concrete Jersey barrier for separating the opposing roadways rather than a dinky cable barrier. I-44 South of Lawton, OK has a cable barrier on it rather than a Jersey barrier. The cable barrier approach looks cheap. Plus at night drivers get to see the full glare of oncoming headlights in the opposing lanes. Jersey barriers hide at least some headlight glare.

A narrow profile Interstate can be less disruptive to property owners along the existing highway. The ROW isn't nearly as wide. TX DOT still has to incorporate limited run frontage roads along US-77 (future I-69E), US-281 (future I-69C) and US-59 (future I-69W) for farm and ranch access. A narrow profile Interstate will make it easier and cheaper to add frontage roads and slip ramps without having to acquire too much in the way of land next to the highway corridor.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on August 12, 2019, 07:35:10 PM
Quote from: sprjus4
Also, this isn't directly related to this particular I-69 segment, but has TXDOT lost interest in grassy medians? Many of the new segments of I-69 proposed such as 40 miles of upgrades on US-59 between Rosenburg and Louise, 40 miles of upgrades along US-281 between Falfurrius and the existing I-69C near Edinburg, the recently completed upgrades around Bishop, the proposed Corrigan bypass, and others are being designed to have a 10-12 foot left paved shoulder and a barrier and a significant amount of grassy divider between the mainline and frontage roads, yet no grassy median. Even a 40-46 ft grassy median seen on other recent upgrades is far better than a barrier. I support upgrade to a freeway, but not the current designs being used.

I'm not a fan of narrow Interstates either, but I think it makes sense why TX DOT is choosing such designs for I-69 system routes in South Texas.

Obviously that kind of design is cheaper to build. The same amount of concrete or asphalt is being laid down for the two carriageways joined together as they would if they were separated by a wide median. However, less work is required for engineering, grading, landscape work, drainage, etc due to the lack of a grassy median. Hopefully TX DOT goes with a substantial concrete Jersey barrier for separating the opposing roadways rather than a dinky cable barrier. I-44 South of Lawton, OK has a cable barrier on it rather than a Jersey barrier. The cable barrier approach looks cheap. Plus at night drivers get to see the full glare of oncoming headlights in the opposing lanes. Jersey barriers hide at least some headlight glare.

A narrow profile Interstate can be less disruptive to property owners along the existing highway. The ROW isn't nearly as wide. TX DOT still has to incorporate limited run frontage roads along US-77 (future I-69E), US-281 (future I-69C) and US-59 (future I-69W) for farm and ranch access. A narrow profile Interstate will make it easier and cheaper to add frontage roads and slip ramps without having to acquire too much in the way of land next to the highway corridor.
In regards to the type of divider, the segments complete use a full jersey barrier wall, not a guard rail.

As for the right of way, it’s still the same. The segments with a narrow, barrier median footprint have more separation between the frontage road and the mainline as opposed to the segments with a grassy median, where the additional space is compensated by shrinking the area between the frontage road and mainline.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Echostatic on August 12, 2019, 07:37:49 PM
When the state doesn't already own the ROW, it's almost always much cheaper and more efficient to build a single carriageway with a concrete or cable barrier. This is especially true for highways without frontage roads. Sometimes rebuilds are done the same way for less disruptive construction. Most of I-35 from Austin to DFW was rebuilt without any median, even though the ROW was already there. Same with the new-built Texas 45 SW and Loop 49.

Maybe it's just a Texas thing, like convenient U-turns and frontage roads.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on August 13, 2019, 01:56:01 PM
I like the completed, re-built portions of I-35 between Austin and Dallas. Even though the road is technically one big carriageway it doesn't seem narrow and cramped at all (unlike a lot of older turnpikes in places like Pennsylvania and here in Oklahoma). The re-built segments of I-35 are typically at least 3 lanes in each direction, plus ample left and right shoulders. It feels kind of like driving on a big city freeway, but out in the country.

Part of the Turner Turnpike (I-44) between Oklahoma City and Tulsa was recently improved. Specifically the expansion starts at about mile marker 203 and goes to about mile marker 216. The road goes from two lanes in each direction to three. But the difference you see at MM 203 is pretty huge. It's feels like an entirely different highway. Just like those parts of I-35 in Texas, this portion of I-44 seems like driving on a much more modern big city freeway. I hope the OTA can upgrade all of the Turner Turnpike in this manner. The 3-3 arrangement ends at the split with the Creek Turnpike unfortunately. I-44 goes back to the old 2-2 configuration until the merge with OK-66 at the East end of the Turner Turnpike.

Modern (wider) left and right shoulders can also make a difference. About 6 miles of the H.E. Bailey Turnpike (I-44 again) just South of OKC had its road bed completely re-built. The beefed up shoulders seem to give the main lanes on the road a little more visual breathing room.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on August 13, 2019, 02:04:11 PM
I like the completed, re-built portions of I-35 between Austin and Dallas. Even though the road is technically one big carriageway it doesn't seem narrow and cramped at all (unlike a lot of older turnpikes in places like Pennsylvania and here in Oklahoma). The re-built segments of I-35 are typically at least 3 lanes in each direction, plus ample left and right shoulders. It feels kind of like driving on a big city freeway, but out in the country.

Part of the Turner Turnpike (I-44) between Oklahoma City and Tulsa was recently improved. Specifically the expansion starts at about mile marker 203 and goes to about mile marker 216. The road goes from two lanes in each direction to three. But the difference you see at MM 203 is pretty huge. It's feels like an entirely different highway. Just like those parts of I-35 in Texas, this portion of I-44 seems like driving on a much more modern big city freeway. I hope the OTA can upgrade all of the Turner Turnpike in this manner. The 3-3 arrangement ends at the split with the Creek Turnpike unfortunately. I-44 goes back to the old 2-2 configuration until the merge with OK-66 at the East end of the Turner Turnpike.

Modern (wider) left and right shoulders can also make a difference. About 6 miles of the H.E. Bailey Turnpike (I-44 again) just South of OKC had its road bed completely re-built. The beefed up shoulders seem to give the main lanes on the road a little more visual breathing room.
I don't mind median barrier as long as there's at least 3 lanes each way (which there is on I-35). As of my recent drive down I-35, it is at least 3-lanes each way between SH-130 and the I-35W / I-35E split, and a good majority has median barrier. I'm not a big fan of median barrier when only 2 lanes each way exist, though I will agree having a full 12 foot left shoulder is better than a narrow shoulder that is acceptable when a grassy median is present. At least TxDOT is doing that properly.

I had read somewhere the design with the narrow median on I-69 projects is being done to eventually accommodate outside widening to 3 lanes each way, an ultimate design similar to I-35's 6-lane sections. I like the concept, but IMO the highway should be built with 2 lanes each way and a 46 foot grassy median from the start, and then the future widening should occur in the median as opposed to the outside. Less impacts on the ramps too. In the end, both my proposed concept and TxDOT's currently in use concept result in the same ultimate typical section - 3 lanes each way with median barrier & full left / right shoulders.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on August 13, 2019, 02:15:14 PM
Hopefully TX DOT is building up the berm for the I-69 roadway so it will have room to add a third, outboard lane in the future.

The recently completed expansion of I-44 along the Turner Turnpike looks like the roadway berm is wide enough to actually add a fourth lane in both directions. Many of the new bridges along that specific stretch have foot prints to allow 4 lanes in both directions. These new bridges over I-44 seem very heavy and massive compared to the older existing bridges elsewhere along the turnpike. One example is the S 209th W Ave bridge over I-44. It's just a little 2 lane road going over the highway, but the bridge piers and concrete girders supporting the roadway are much fatter looking than the old bridges.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: thisdj78 on August 13, 2019, 02:31:15 PM
I like the completed, re-built portions of I-35 between Austin and Dallas. Even though the road is technically one big carriageway it doesn't seem narrow and cramped at all (unlike a lot of older turnpikes in places like Pennsylvania and here in Oklahoma). The re-built segments of I-35 are typically at least 3 lanes in each direction, plus ample left and right shoulders. It feels kind of like driving on a big city freeway, but out in the country.

Part of the Turner Turnpike (I-44) between Oklahoma City and Tulsa was recently improved. Specifically the expansion starts at about mile marker 203 and goes to about mile marker 216. The road goes from two lanes in each direction to three. But the difference you see at MM 203 is pretty huge. It's feels like an entirely different highway. Just like those parts of I-35 in Texas, this portion of I-44 seems like driving on a much more modern big city freeway. I hope the OTA can upgrade all of the Turner Turnpike in this manner. The 3-3 arrangement ends at the split with the Creek Turnpike unfortunately. I-44 goes back to the old 2-2 configuration until the merge with OK-66 at the East end of the Turner Turnpike.

Modern (wider) left and right shoulders can also make a difference. About 6 miles of the H.E. Bailey Turnpike (I-44 again) just South of OKC had its road bed completely re-built. The beefed up shoulders seem to give the main lanes on the road a little more visual breathing room.
I don't mind median barrier as long as there's at least 3 lanes each way (which there is on I-35). As of my recent drive down I-35, it is at least 3-lanes each way between SH-130 and the I-35W / I-35E split, and a good majority has median barrier. I'm not a big fan of median barrier when only 2 lanes each way exist, though I will agree having a full 12 foot left shoulder is better than a narrow shoulder that is acceptable when a grassy median is present. At least TxDOT is doing that properly.

I had read somewhere the design with the narrow median on I-69 projects is being done to eventually accommodate outside widening to 3 lanes each way, an ultimate design similar to I-35's 6-lane sections. I like the concept, but IMO the highway should be built with 2 lanes each way and a 46 foot grassy median from the start, and then the future widening should occur in the median as opposed to the outside. Less impacts on the ramps too. In the end, both my proposed concept and TxDOT's currently in use concept result in the same ultimate typical section - 3 lanes each way with median barrier & full left / right shoulders.

It’s probably safer, less of a traffic disruption and more cost effective to add lanes on the outside vs in the median. They are learning that lesson with the SH130 expansion east of Austin. It’s a pain for traffic because there are constantly construction vehicles entering and exiting from the left lane.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on August 13, 2019, 03:50:56 PM
As I said earlier, it's cheaper to build the road without a median. A grassy median in the middle needs all kind of extra features to handle drainage. The highway has to be built up on two berms rather than just one. Adding new lanes on the in-board, left side to eat into that median creates more expense. The road foundation has to be built up over zones previously used for water drainage. That whole drainage system might have to be reconfigured in order to be covered up.

Compare that to the concept of building one big berm to hold both directions of traffic, yet building the berm wide enough to add an additional lane or two off to the right of the existing lanes. Seems a lot easier. The construction process to add an additional lane or two wouldn't be as disruptive.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on August 13, 2019, 03:52:40 PM
^^^^^^^^^
One of the main salient points regarding adding lanes in the median (where possible) vs. on the outside is the fact that the latter requires realigning the ramps in most instances.  Of course much of TX' freeway mileage features frontage roads onto which the ramps empty; if there's sufficient space remaining, that would be a mitigating factor for outside lane addition -- the ramp configuration would be a relatively simple fix as compared to standard diamond/parclo/etc. interchanges on most freeway facilities.  Of course all this is presuming that the design of the overcrossings and bridges was done with the accommodation of additional lanes in mind regardless of exterior or interior placement. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: jbnv on August 13, 2019, 04:37:34 PM
(I-4 should replace I-69W, I-x04 should replace the SH-44 spur, and I-39 or something similar for I-69C), it doesn't make sense why "I-69E" signage is not being used assuming the current three I-69's plan is being implemented.

Why not this arrangement: US 59 becomes I-69, US 77 becomes an extension of I-37 (with existing I-37 into Corpus Christi becoming a x37), TX 44 becomes I-x37 and US 281 becomes I-33 or something similar?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on August 13, 2019, 04:43:16 PM
A common TxDOT theme is to build bridges over freeways that barely span the freeway, so adding one lane on the outside means building a new bridge at every intersection.  Adding a lane in the median means you can keep the bridges and ramp length.  It's not TxDOT's style to, ya know, plan for the future. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Plutonic Panda on August 13, 2019, 04:47:27 PM
A common TxDOT theme is to build bridges over freeways that barely span the freeway, so adding one lane on the outside means building a new bridge at every intersection.  Adding a lane in the median means you can keep the bridges and ramp length.  It's not TxDOT's style to, ya know, plan for the future.
TxDOT sure seems to plan for the future much better than OK does LOL
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: jbnv on August 13, 2019, 04:51:32 PM
A common TxDOT theme is to build bridges over freeways that barely span the freeway, so adding one lane on the outside means building a new bridge at every intersection.  Adding a lane in the median means you can keep the bridges and ramp length.  It's not TxDOT's style to, ya know, plan for the future.
TxDOT sure seems to plan for the future much better than OK does LOL
And Louisiana for that matter.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on August 13, 2019, 06:31:58 PM
Quote from: sparker
One of the main salient points regarding adding lanes in the median (where possible) vs. on the outside is the fact that the latter requires realigning the ramps in most instances.

Rebuilding on/off ramps tends to happen anyway with any of these widening projects. Same for re-building bridges or entire interchanges. Ramp geometry requirements and bridge building standards from 20 or 30 years ago don't tend to match well to current 2010's era standards. There's all sorts of stuff that has to be brought up to current code.

Nevertheless, it's not so easy to fill in the V-shaped terrain of an existing grassy median, re-do the earth work, grading and drainage features to add an additional lane or two inside to the left.

In the past week I've seen both widening approaches (widening the Interstate inward into the median and widening outward to the right) driving on I-40 and I-44. On I-40 Near OKC from the I-240 split to the new turnpike interchange the in-progress expansion is eating up much or all of the median. On I-44 near Tulsa the road grew outward. In both cases those short stretches of Interstate are effectively being entirely re-built (new road beds, bridges, re-configured interchanges, grading, drainage, landscaping, signs, etc).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: thisdj78 on August 13, 2019, 09:23:37 PM
^^^^^^^^^
One of the main salient points regarding adding lanes in the median (where possible) vs. on the outside is the fact that the latter requires realigning the ramps in most instances.  Of course much of TX' freeway mileage features frontage roads onto which the ramps empty; if there's sufficient space remaining, that would be a mitigating factor for outside lane addition -- the ramp configuration would be a relatively simple fix as compared to standard diamond/parclo/etc. interchanges on most freeway facilities.  Of course all this is presuming that the design of the overcrossings and bridges was done with the accommodation of additional lanes in mind regardless of exterior or interior placement.

The Sam Houston Tollway South widening is a good example of widening from the outside vs median. They didn’t have to reconfigure the ramps much.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: dfwmapper on August 16, 2019, 03:15:03 AM
Expanding to the outside is easy if the road is designed for it. Take I-35E between the US 77 interchange south of Waxahachie and the Ellis/Hill county line. It was rebuilt about a decade ago to the 4 lanes with a center barrier configuration (with all bridges built to handle future expansion), then was widened in the last few years to 6 lanes. Construction was dead simple; all they had to do was put temporary barriers about halfway into the shoulders, grade 10 feet out on each side, lay down new concrete, then remove the barrier and redo the striping. It barely even impacted the flow of traffic. The original outside shoulders were 12' to begin with, so they just became the new outside lanes with no modification other than striping. The ramps were unchanged besides striping, just ending up about 150' shorter than they were previously.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: GreenLanternCorps on August 16, 2019, 07:11:10 AM
The Google Van was driving up US 59 on the future I-69 frontage road near Rosenberg and has construction photos from March of this year.

https://www.google.com/maps/@29.531704,-95.8608244,3a,75y,26.53h,93.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbrqxiEMh-1JAhClS-7eK7w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on August 16, 2019, 04:14:24 PM
Google Earth imagery in the same spot is dated April 2019.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on August 16, 2019, 04:26:00 PM
Expanding to the outside is easy if the road is designed for it. Take I-35E between the US 77 interchange south of Waxahachie and the Ellis/Hill county line. It was rebuilt about a decade ago to the 4 lanes with a center barrier configuration (with all bridges built to handle future expansion), then was widened in the last few years to 6 lanes. Construction was dead simple; all they had to do was put temporary barriers about halfway into the shoulders, grade 10 feet out on each side, lay down new concrete, then remove the barrier and redo the striping. It barely even impacted the flow of traffic. The original outside shoulders were 12' to begin with, so they just became the new outside lanes with no modification other than striping. The ramps were unchanged besides striping, just ending up about 150' shorter than they were previously.

Clearly TXDOT has over the years elected to go either way when it comes to "expandable" freeway construction; either leaving room in the median or making it easy -- via frontage road configuration -- to add to the outside.  The choice of either methodology is probably linked to the physical environment in which the freeway is situated -- more dense adjoining development, or the determined potential for such, would likely result, when the initial 4 lanes (2 + 2) were built, in a wider median intended for expansion there so as to minimize issues with egress to and from the freeway itself; a more rural environment may prompt outside expansion when deemed necessary -- or, like Ranger Hill on I-20, a complete new alignment adjacent to the original 4-lane section.

 
The Google Van was driving up US 59 on the future I-69 frontage road near Rosenberg and has construction photos from March of this year.

https://www.google.com/maps/@29.531704,-95.8608244,3a,75y,26.53h,93.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbrqxiEMh-1JAhClS-7eK7w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1

And this illustrates the validity of the TX-type developmental format whereby the frontage roads are initially constructed with the freeway "tacked on" within the median when appropriate.  Except for the occasional construction equipment merging or crossing the frontage lanes, traffic moves along largely unimpeded; TXDOT probably fields fewer complaints about that particular issue than other agencies that have to disrupt traffic flow to a greater degree in order to effect roadway expansion. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on August 16, 2019, 05:23:03 PM
Expanding to the outside is easy if the road is designed for it. Take I-35E between the US 77 interchange south of Waxahachie and the Ellis/Hill county line. It was rebuilt about a decade ago to the 4 lanes with a center barrier configuration (with all bridges built to handle future expansion), then was widened in the last few years to 6 lanes. Construction was dead simple; all they had to do was put temporary barriers about halfway into the shoulders, grade 10 feet out on each side, lay down new concrete, then remove the barrier and redo the striping. It barely even impacted the flow of traffic. The original outside shoulders were 12' to begin with, so they just became the new outside lanes with no modification other than striping. The ramps were unchanged besides striping, just ending up about 150' shorter than they were previously.

Clearly TXDOT has over the years elected to go either way when it comes to "expandable" freeway construction; either leaving room in the median or making it easy -- via frontage road configuration -- to add to the outside.  The choice of either methodology is probably linked to the physical environment in which the freeway is situated -- more dense adjoining development, or the determined potential for such, would likely result, when the initial 4 lanes (2 + 2) were built, in a wider median intended for expansion there so as to minimize issues with egress to and from the freeway itself; a more rural environment may prompt outside expansion when deemed necessary -- or, like Ranger Hill on I-20, a complete new alignment adjacent to the original 4-lane section.
It almost creates a situation opposite to the norm in most other states... median barrier in rural areas and large grassy median in urban areas.

I noticed this when driving down the recently completed section of Loop 1604 near US-90 in San Antonio... a wide 70 foot median is used. I wish they did it that way with I-69!

Usually it’s the other way around.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: yakra on August 22, 2019, 12:52:01 PM
GMSV of I-69 signage at CR 36 (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7688537,-97.6769649,3a,34.9y,130.93h,90.36t/data=!3m10!1e1!3m8!1s-2xYoYaR0SpTGVisKZKF8A!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D-2xYoYaR0SpTGVisKZKF8A%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D204.86165%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40) and south (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7662696,-97.6790517,3a,33.7y,237.51h,86.7t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1s-_-hLpCkkefOTK26jx3zzA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40)... This (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7688537,-97.6769649,3a,24.1y,260.81h,85.3t/data=!3m10!1e1!3m8!1s-2xYoYaR0SpTGVisKZKF8A!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D-2xYoYaR0SpTGVisKZKF8A%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D204.86165%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40) one (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7690035,-97.6766414,3a,15y,256.84h,80.07t/data=!3m10!1e1!3m8!1sC4DuEIionpjNw-748OPMGA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DC4DuEIionpjNw-748OPMGA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D21.02264%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40) looks like it was supposed to be one of these (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7688719,-97.6765139,3a,15y,79.86h,77.44t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sRJPlRac4ypv0Gs3NRiRNdQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DRJPlRac4ypv0Gs3NRiRNdQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D70.71428%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656), installed at the wrong angle. Signed as far south as FM 2826 (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7396979,-97.6997995,3a,15.4y,84.96h,75.83t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1skD2mjhV35kX4-L1133KlzQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: GreenLanternCorps on August 23, 2019, 07:51:08 AM
GMSV of I-69 signage at CR 36 (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7688537,-97.6769649,3a,34.9y,130.93h,90.36t/data=!3m10!1e1!3m8!1s-2xYoYaR0SpTGVisKZKF8A!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D-2xYoYaR0SpTGVisKZKF8A%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D204.86165%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40) and south (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7662696,-97.6790517,3a,33.7y,237.51h,86.7t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1s-_-hLpCkkefOTK26jx3zzA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40)... This (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7688537,-97.6769649,3a,24.1y,260.81h,85.3t/data=!3m10!1e1!3m8!1s-2xYoYaR0SpTGVisKZKF8A!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D-2xYoYaR0SpTGVisKZKF8A%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D204.86165%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40) one (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7690035,-97.6766414,3a,15y,256.84h,80.07t/data=!3m10!1e1!3m8!1sC4DuEIionpjNw-748OPMGA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DC4DuEIionpjNw-748OPMGA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D21.02264%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40) looks like it was supposed to be one of these (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7688719,-97.6765139,3a,15y,79.86h,77.44t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sRJPlRac4ypv0Gs3NRiRNdQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DRJPlRac4ypv0Gs3NRiRNdQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D70.71428%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656), installed at the wrong angle. Signed as far south as FM 2826 (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7396979,-97.6997995,3a,15.4y,84.96h,75.83t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1skD2mjhV35kX4-L1133KlzQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40).

You would think they would start putting up the correct signs given how long ago the highway was re-designated I-69E...
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on August 23, 2019, 09:58:36 AM
GMSV of I-69 signage at CR 36 (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7688537,-97.6769649,3a,34.9y,130.93h,90.36t/data=!3m10!1e1!3m8!1s-2xYoYaR0SpTGVisKZKF8A!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D-2xYoYaR0SpTGVisKZKF8A%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D204.86165%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40) and south (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7662696,-97.6790517,3a,33.7y,237.51h,86.7t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1s-_-hLpCkkefOTK26jx3zzA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40)... This (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7688537,-97.6769649,3a,24.1y,260.81h,85.3t/data=!3m10!1e1!3m8!1s-2xYoYaR0SpTGVisKZKF8A!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D-2xYoYaR0SpTGVisKZKF8A%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D204.86165%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40) one (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7690035,-97.6766414,3a,15y,256.84h,80.07t/data=!3m10!1e1!3m8!1sC4DuEIionpjNw-748OPMGA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DC4DuEIionpjNw-748OPMGA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D21.02264%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40) looks like it was supposed to be one of these (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7688719,-97.6765139,3a,15y,79.86h,77.44t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sRJPlRac4ypv0Gs3NRiRNdQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DRJPlRac4ypv0Gs3NRiRNdQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D70.71428%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656), installed at the wrong angle. Signed as far south as FM 2826 (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7396979,-97.6997995,3a,15.4y,84.96h,75.83t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1skD2mjhV35kX4-L1133KlzQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40).

You would think they would start putting up the correct signs given how long ago the highway was re-designated I-69E...

It was always designated I-69E, whether merely on paper or with field signage -- but the southernmost section (Raymondville to the southern terminus) is the only one with consistently correct signage.  The suffix-less signs in the Corpus area are inexplicable save either (a) basic ignorance within that TXDOT district or (b) that same district never had suffixed signs printed, so they're posting what's in the corporate yard as a stopgap measure.  Either way, it all seems a bit odd and decidedly unprofessional.   
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: abqtraveler on August 25, 2019, 09:14:42 AM
GMSV of I-69 signage at CR 36 (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7688537,-97.6769649,3a,34.9y,130.93h,90.36t/data=!3m10!1e1!3m8!1s-2xYoYaR0SpTGVisKZKF8A!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D-2xYoYaR0SpTGVisKZKF8A%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D204.86165%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40) and south (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7662696,-97.6790517,3a,33.7y,237.51h,86.7t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1s-_-hLpCkkefOTK26jx3zzA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40)... This (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7688537,-97.6769649,3a,24.1y,260.81h,85.3t/data=!3m10!1e1!3m8!1s-2xYoYaR0SpTGVisKZKF8A!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D-2xYoYaR0SpTGVisKZKF8A%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D204.86165%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40) one (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7690035,-97.6766414,3a,15y,256.84h,80.07t/data=!3m10!1e1!3m8!1sC4DuEIionpjNw-748OPMGA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DC4DuEIionpjNw-748OPMGA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D21.02264%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40) looks like it was supposed to be one of these (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7688719,-97.6765139,3a,15y,79.86h,77.44t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sRJPlRac4ypv0Gs3NRiRNdQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DRJPlRac4ypv0Gs3NRiRNdQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D70.71428%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656), installed at the wrong angle. Signed as far south as FM 2826 (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7396979,-97.6997995,3a,15.4y,84.96h,75.83t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1skD2mjhV35kX4-L1133KlzQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40).

You would think they would start putting up the correct signs given how long ago the highway was re-designated I-69E...

It was always designated I-69E, whether merely on paper or with field signage -- but the southernmost section (Raymondville to the southern terminus) is the only one with consistently correct signage.  The suffix-less signs in the Corpus area are inexplicable save either (a) basic ignorance within that TXDOT district or (b) that same district never had suffixed signs printed, so they're posting what's in the corporate yard as a stopgap measure.  Either way, it all seems a bit odd and decidedly unprofessional.   

A little bit of history on the Corpus Christi section of I-69E.

When AASHTO designated that section in 2012, it originally approved it to be signed as I-69, under the premise that AASHTO does not normally approve suffixed interstate routes. In 2015, when more sections of I-69E, C and W were approved, AASHTO changed the designation of the Corpus-Robstown section from I-69 to I-69E (after first rejecting TxDOT"s application for suffixed route numbers on all three branches of I-69 in South Texas, then reversing its original denial) to be consistent with the I-69 branch designations specified in federal legislation. TxDOT apparently hasn't caught up with updating signs along the Corpus-Robstown section to reflect the I-69E designation that was approved in 2015.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: abqtraveler on August 25, 2019, 09:16:21 AM
GMSV of I-69 signage at CR 36 (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7688537,-97.6769649,3a,34.9y,130.93h,90.36t/data=!3m10!1e1!3m8!1s-2xYoYaR0SpTGVisKZKF8A!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D-2xYoYaR0SpTGVisKZKF8A%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D204.86165%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40) and south (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7662696,-97.6790517,3a,33.7y,237.51h,86.7t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1s-_-hLpCkkefOTK26jx3zzA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40)... This (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7688537,-97.6769649,3a,24.1y,260.81h,85.3t/data=!3m10!1e1!3m8!1s-2xYoYaR0SpTGVisKZKF8A!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D-2xYoYaR0SpTGVisKZKF8A%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D204.86165%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40) one (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7690035,-97.6766414,3a,15y,256.84h,80.07t/data=!3m10!1e1!3m8!1sC4DuEIionpjNw-748OPMGA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DC4DuEIionpjNw-748OPMGA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D21.02264%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40) looks like it was supposed to be one of these (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7688719,-97.6765139,3a,15y,79.86h,77.44t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sRJPlRac4ypv0Gs3NRiRNdQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DRJPlRac4ypv0Gs3NRiRNdQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D70.71428%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656), installed at the wrong angle. Signed as far south as FM 2826 (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7396979,-97.6997995,3a,15.4y,84.96h,75.83t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1skD2mjhV35kX4-L1133KlzQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40).

You would think they would start putting up the correct signs given how long ago the highway was re-designated I-69E...

It was always designated I-69E, whether merely on paper or with field signage -- but the southernmost section (Raymondville to the southern terminus) is the only one with consistently correct signage.  The suffix-less signs in the Corpus area are inexplicable save either (a) basic ignorance within that TXDOT district or (b) that same district never had suffixed signs printed, so they're posting what's in the corporate yard as a stopgap measure.  Either way, it all seems a bit odd and decidedly unprofessional.   

A little bit of history on the Corpus Christi section of I-69E.

When AASHTO designated that section in 2012, it originally approved it to be signed as I-69, under the premise that AASHTO does not normally approve suffixed interstate routes, and made an assumption that the other two branches of I-69 would be given different interstate route numbers. In 2015, when more sections of I-69E, C and W were approved, AASHTO changed the designation of the Corpus-Robstown section from I-69 to I-69E (after first rejecting TxDOT"s application for suffixed route numbers on all three branches of I-69 in South Texas, then reversing its original denial) to be consistent with the I-69 branch designations specified in federal legislation. TxDOT apparently hasn't caught up with updating signs along the Corpus-Robstown section to reflect the I-69E designation that was approved in 2015.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Alex on August 25, 2019, 10:56:07 AM
The Google Van was driving up US 59 on the future I-69 frontage road near Rosenberg and has construction photos from March of this year.

https://www.google.com/maps/@29.531704,-95.8608244,3a,75y,26.53h,93.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbrqxiEMh-1JAhClS-7eK7w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e1

Rode on that stretch earlier this month. Won't be too long before US 59 is fully limited access south to the Wharton County line.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on August 25, 2019, 06:05:55 PM
GMSV of I-69 signage at CR 36 (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7688537,-97.6769649,3a,34.9y,130.93h,90.36t/data=!3m10!1e1!3m8!1s-2xYoYaR0SpTGVisKZKF8A!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D-2xYoYaR0SpTGVisKZKF8A%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D204.86165%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40) and south (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7662696,-97.6790517,3a,33.7y,237.51h,86.7t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1s-_-hLpCkkefOTK26jx3zzA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40)... This (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7688537,-97.6769649,3a,24.1y,260.81h,85.3t/data=!3m10!1e1!3m8!1s-2xYoYaR0SpTGVisKZKF8A!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D-2xYoYaR0SpTGVisKZKF8A%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D204.86165%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40) one (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7690035,-97.6766414,3a,15y,256.84h,80.07t/data=!3m10!1e1!3m8!1sC4DuEIionpjNw-748OPMGA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DC4DuEIionpjNw-748OPMGA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D21.02264%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40) looks like it was supposed to be one of these (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7688719,-97.6765139,3a,15y,79.86h,77.44t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sRJPlRac4ypv0Gs3NRiRNdQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DRJPlRac4ypv0Gs3NRiRNdQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D70.71428%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656), installed at the wrong angle. Signed as far south as FM 2826 (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7396979,-97.6997995,3a,15.4y,84.96h,75.83t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1skD2mjhV35kX4-L1133KlzQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40).

You would think they would start putting up the correct signs given how long ago the highway was re-designated I-69E...

It was always designated I-69E, whether merely on paper or with field signage -- but the southernmost section (Raymondville to the southern terminus) is the only one with consistently correct signage.  The suffix-less signs in the Corpus area are inexplicable save either (a) basic ignorance within that TXDOT district or (b) that same district never had suffixed signs printed, so they're posting what's in the corporate yard as a stopgap measure.  Either way, it all seems a bit odd and decidedly unprofessional.   

A little bit of history on the Corpus Christi section of I-69E.

When AASHTO designated that section in 2012, it originally approved it to be signed as I-69, under the premise that AASHTO does not normally approve suffixed interstate routes. In 2015, when more sections of I-69E, C and W were approved, AASHTO changed the designation of the Corpus-Robstown section from I-69 to I-69E (after first rejecting TxDOT"s application for suffixed route numbers on all three branches of I-69 in South Texas, then reversing its original denial) to be consistent with the I-69 branch designations specified in federal legislation. TxDOT apparently hasn't caught up with updating signs along the Corpus-Robstown section to reflect the I-69E designation that was approved in 2015.
The new section completed in 2017 near Driscoll also used “I-69”  signage, not “I-69E”  signage.

I’ve said it before though, they should keep that as I-69 and designate I-69C and W with different numbers.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: abqtraveler on August 25, 2019, 08:15:09 PM
GMSV of I-69 signage at CR 36 (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7688537,-97.6769649,3a,34.9y,130.93h,90.36t/data=!3m10!1e1!3m8!1s-2xYoYaR0SpTGVisKZKF8A!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D-2xYoYaR0SpTGVisKZKF8A%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D204.86165%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40) and south (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7662696,-97.6790517,3a,33.7y,237.51h,86.7t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1s-_-hLpCkkefOTK26jx3zzA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40)... This (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7688537,-97.6769649,3a,24.1y,260.81h,85.3t/data=!3m10!1e1!3m8!1s-2xYoYaR0SpTGVisKZKF8A!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3D-2xYoYaR0SpTGVisKZKF8A%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D204.86165%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40) one (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7690035,-97.6766414,3a,15y,256.84h,80.07t/data=!3m10!1e1!3m8!1sC4DuEIionpjNw-748OPMGA!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo0.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DC4DuEIionpjNw-748OPMGA%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D21.02264%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40) looks like it was supposed to be one of these (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7688719,-97.6765139,3a,15y,79.86h,77.44t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sRJPlRac4ypv0Gs3NRiRNdQ!2e0!6s%2F%2Fgeo1.ggpht.com%2Fcbk%3Fpanoid%3DRJPlRac4ypv0Gs3NRiRNdQ%26output%3Dthumbnail%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26thumb%3D2%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D70.71428%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i13312!8i6656), installed at the wrong angle. Signed as far south as FM 2826 (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7396979,-97.6997995,3a,15.4y,84.96h,75.83t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1skD2mjhV35kX4-L1133KlzQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40).

You would think they would start putting up the correct signs given how long ago the highway was re-designated I-69E...

It was always designated I-69E, whether merely on paper or with field signage -- but the southernmost section (Raymondville to the southern terminus) is the only one with consistently correct signage.  The suffix-less signs in the Corpus area are inexplicable save either (a) basic ignorance within that TXDOT district or (b) that same district never had suffixed signs printed, so they're posting what's in the corporate yard as a stopgap measure.  Either way, it all seems a bit odd and decidedly unprofessional.   

A little bit of history on the Corpus Christi section of I-69E.

When AASHTO designated that section in 2012, it originally approved it to be signed as I-69, under the premise that AASHTO does not normally approve suffixed interstate routes. In 2015, when more sections of I-69E, C and W were approved, AASHTO changed the designation of the Corpus-Robstown section from I-69 to I-69E (after first rejecting TxDOT"s application for suffixed route numbers on all three branches of I-69 in South Texas, then reversing its original denial) to be consistent with the I-69 branch designations specified in federal legislation. TxDOT apparently hasn't caught up with updating signs along the Corpus-Robstown section to reflect the I-69E designation that was approved in 2015.
The new section completed in 2017 near Driscoll also used “I-69”  signage, not “I-69E”  signage.

I’ve said it before though, they should keep that as I-69 and designate I-69C and W with different numbers.

I would agree with you, and I would probably go a step further since I don't think we'll ever see I-69 completed between Memphis and Tenaha, Texas, here's what I would do if I were king for a day:

Brownsville to Texarkana (via US-77 from Brownsville to Victoria, then US-59 from Victoria to Texarkana):  I-47
Laredo to Corpus Christi (via US-59 from Laredo to Freer and TX-44 from Freer to Corpus Christi):  I-6
San Antonio to Pharr (via I-37 to Three Rivers, then US-281 to Pharr): rerouted I-37
Victoria to Freer (via US-59): I-39 (separate from the I-39 in Illinois and Wisconsin) or I-33
Three Rivers to Corpus Christi (via current I-37 from its split with US-281 at Three Rivers): I-237 or I-206.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on August 25, 2019, 09:36:02 PM
The I-69 numbering is a done deal. But TX DOT could at least do something about all those horrible 3-digit I-69X shields with the extreme cramped kerning. Set the freaking lettering in Series C rather than Series D. Or decrease the character sizes on the shields more in keeping with older, better looking Interstate shield specs. I really really hate neutered Interstate shields. They suck.

If re-numbering existing routes was on the table I would be more in favor of routing I-37 down along what is going to become I-69E. The last few miles of I-37 going into Corpus Christi would become a 3-digit route of I-37.

I think a fictional I-33 route would be more likely as a long distance Western bypass of Austin and DFW along the US-281 corridor going North out of San Antonio and terminating with I-44 in Wichita Falls. But if re-numbering was on the table, the same I-33 route could be applied to US-281 South of San Antonio along what is now becoming I-69C.

Given the heavy volume of commercial traffic crossing the border at Laredo, which is IIRC has the most commercial truck traffic crossing the Mexican border, I think the I-69 core route should go to Laredo rather than it being called I-69W.

As for I-6, the only place in the nation that makes sense for it is Laredo to Corpus Christi. The question is whether there is enough traffic to justify such a road. OTOH, cities in South Texas are growing. So it seems like a freeway (or toll road) linking those cities would have to be built eventually.

To me, I-47 only makes sense applied to the Houston to Texarkana corridor. But I-69 and I-369 is already applied to that route.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on August 26, 2019, 01:38:59 AM
The I-69 numbering is a done deal. But TX DOT could at least do something about all those horrible 3-digit I-69X shields with the extreme cramped kerning. Set the freaking lettering in Series C rather than Series D. Or decrease the character sizes on the shields more in keeping with older, better looking Interstate shield specs. I really really hate neutered Interstate shields. They suck.

If re-numbering existing routes was on the table I would be more in favor of routing I-37 down along what is going to become I-69E. The last few miles of I-37 going into Corpus Christi would become a 3-digit route of I-37.

I think a fictional I-33 route would be more likely as a long distance Western bypass of Austin and DFW along the US-281 corridor going North out of San Antonio and terminating with I-44 in Wichita Falls. But if re-numbering was on the table, the same I-33 route could be applied to US-281 South of San Antonio along what is now becoming I-69C.

Given the heavy volume of commercial traffic crossing the border at Laredo, which is IIRC has the most commercial truck traffic crossing the Mexican border, I think the I-69 core route should go to Laredo rather than it being called I-69W.

As for I-6, the only place in the nation that makes sense for it is Laredo to Corpus Christi. The question is whether there is enough traffic to justify such a road. OTOH, cities in South Texas are growing. So it seems like a freeway (or toll road) linking those cities would have to be built eventually.

To me, I-47 only makes sense applied to the Houston to Texarkana corridor. But I-69 and I-369 is already applied to that route.
You’re missing I-37 to Victoria.

Personally, I think I-69E is the most justifiable for the I-69 core route, not I-69C or E, and I don’t think I-37 should be re-routed.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: dfwmapper on August 26, 2019, 03:08:15 AM
The AADT of US 59 between Laredo and Freer is in the 2000-2500 range, and then SH 44 is around 3000 between Freer and San Diego. It picks up to around 10000 between Alice and Robstown, then 20000 east of Robstown. There's probably justification to build a freeway bypass of Robstown with a full interchange with I-69E, and another one for Alice that ties in to US 281/future I-69C, and maybe long term look at going to full freeway to Alice, but anything west doesn't even really need passing lanes, much less a freeway. That probably includes I-69W itself.

South Texas is growing, but how much of the traffic is actually going from one city to another in the region, excluding commuter traffic within the RGV and traffic headed to/from San Antonio? There isn't really anything to draw people. If you live in McAllen, and there's something you can't get locally (sports, concerts, shopping, hospitals, whatever), then odds are nowhere else down south will have it either, and you're making the trip to San Antonio. That's historically been the case, and the current road network reflects it. Freight isn't really staying in the region either, it's heading towards San Antonio or Houston and on to the rest of the country.

I'd scrap the freeway to Laredo entirely, have I-37 run from Pharr to San Antonio, I-47 from Brownsville to Texarkana, I-137 into Corpus Christi, and I-437 along SH 44 (mostly for the Alice to Victoria/Houston traffic). The Laredo loop goes back to being Loop 20 because not everything needs to be an Interstate. The rest of I-69 south of Memphis gets cancelled and Arkansas can put their pennies towards widening I-40 instead.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Alex on August 26, 2019, 09:06:55 AM
The new section completed in 2017 near Driscoll also used “I-69”  signage, not “I-69E”  signage.

I’ve said it before though, they should keep that as I-69 and designate I-69C and W with different numbers.

Just about every stand alone shield we passed earlier this month on the portion south of IH 37 referenced the section as IH 69 instead of IH 69E. Was texting with Jeff Royston about it at the time and he passed along a photo of shields posted on the newest section of IH 69 there, long after the 69/69E change, that referenced it as just 69.

(http://www.interstate-guide.com/wp-content/uploads/routes/069/i-069e-s-at-cr-036-1.jpg)
Jeff shot this assembly in 2016, and we saw that it had been replaced since then, and yet still references IH 69E as IH 69.



As for construction of the Driscoll bypass, grading work is visible along the east side of U.S. 77 leading south from town to the freeway section through Bishop. Photos from August 3, 2019:

(https://www.aaroads.com/wp-content/uploads/blog_images/texas/us-077-s-at-fm-665.jpg) (https://www.aaroads.com/wp-content/uploads/blog_images/texas/us-077-s-at-fm-665.jpg)

US 77 south at CR 18 just outside Driscoll.

(https://www.aaroads.com/wp-content/uploads/blog_images/texas/us-077-s-at-cr-014.jpg) (https://www.aaroads.com/wp-content/uploads/blog_images/texas/us-077-s-at-cr-014.jpg)

More grading underway along side US 77 at CR 14, 1.5 miles ahead of the freeway through Bishop. Test files are in the ground further south.

From the TxDOT Project Tracker:
Driscoll Bypass
Quote
Project ID   010216001
Highway   US 77
Description   Construct Relief Route Around Driscoll
From Limit   CR 28
To Limit   CR 16
District   Corpus Christi
County   Nueces
Est. Construction Cost   $82,400,883
Project Length   5.09 (Miles)
Last Updated   8/26/2019
Est. Complete Date   4/22/2022

US 77 upgraded from Driscoll to Bishop
Quote
Project ID   010203082
Highway   US 77
Description   Construct Main Lanes And Overpasses
From Limit   CR 16
To Limit   SOUTH OF FM 3354
District   Corpus Christi
County   Nueces
Est. Construction Cost   $23,240,669
Project Length   2.89 (Miles)
Last Updated   8/26/2019
Est. Complete Date   4/22/2022
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: O Tamandua on October 05, 2019, 11:37:45 PM
Quote
NACOGDOCHES, Texas (KTRE) - By the length of the groundbreaking lineup, it appeared no one was left out of celebrating the Nacogdoches flyover startup, certainly not Senator Robert Nichols of Jacksonville, the chair of the Senate Committee on Transportation.

“There is about $400-million dollars committed by the state over the next 4-6 years along this route in this area of Texas,”  said Nichols.

The 4-lane connector from Spradley Street to Highway 7 west, several overpasses, and access roads are costing over 86 million dollars. The Interstate-69 readiness project will join the 200 miles of I-69 already opened.

"City, state dignitaries celebrate groundbreaking for Nacogdoches I-69 flyover project" (KTRE):  https://www.ktre.com/2019/10/03/city-state-dignitaries-celebrate-groundbreaking-nacogdoches-i-flyover-project/
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on October 08, 2019, 05:13:49 PM
Quote
NACOGDOCHES, Texas (KTRE) - By the length of the groundbreaking lineup, it appeared no one was left out of celebrating the Nacogdoches flyover startup, certainly not Senator Robert Nichols of Jacksonville, the chair of the Senate Committee on Transportation.

“There is about $400-million dollars committed by the state over the next 4-6 years along this route in this area of Texas,”  said Nichols.

The 4-lane connector from Spradley Street to Highway 7 west, several overpasses, and access roads are costing over 86 million dollars. The Interstate-69 readiness project will join the 200 miles of I-69 already opened.

"City, state dignitaries celebrate groundbreaking for Nacogdoches I-69 flyover project" (KTRE):  https://www.ktre.com/2019/10/03/city-state-dignitaries-celebrate-groundbreaking-nacogdoches-i-flyover-project/

And the Alliance for I-69/Texas will be breaking out a couple of bottles of domestic champagne to celebrate progress on the north-of-Houston corridor segment.  They'll save the Dom or Cristal until completion to Texarkana!
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: O Tamandua on October 08, 2019, 10:18:27 PM
Though I know $$$$$ is always the answer, I still submit that when I-49 Arkansas and I-69 Texas meet (figuratively) I-35 and I-49 south someday in TXK, there will be many who will note other KEY interstate corridors completed many decades earlier and wonder, in spite of the money, what the heck took this route so long.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on October 11, 2019, 05:26:37 PM
Though I know $$$$$ is always the answer, I still submit that when I-49 Arkansas and I-69 Texas meet (figuratively) I-35 and I-49 south someday in TXK, there will be many who will note other KEY interstate corridors completed many decades earlier and wonder, in spite of the money, what the heck took this route so long.

Probably because for much of the corridor's length within TX the DOT has been effectively starting from scratch.  True, the potentially most costly portion through Houston was already in service and needed only a bit of "polishing" to reach standards, but much of the corridor, though a succession of divided facilities when the corridor was formalized as an Interstate in 1995, most of those were simply "twinnings" of the original 2-lane roads (particularly along US 59 and US 77) with little or no access control; full freeway mileage away from Houston and the Rio Grande Valley was sporadic at best.  As a result, either in situ expansion, requiring construction of frontage roads and moving or compensating the roadside businesses or, alternately, new-terrain construction away from the existing alignment was necessary for most of the corridor.  And when that rare stretch of free-flowing rural facility was present, there were additional problems (e.g., the King Ranch section of I-69E/US 77 where ranch access needed to be provided without incurring the cost of expensive bridges or interchanges), yet to be upgraded. 

Contrast that with two corridors that were constructed or upgraded in relatively short order -- I-49 in MO and I-22 in MS; the former had been rebuilt extensively over the last 30 years; by 2000 it was either a freeway or an expressway with frontage roads and access control (no driveways!) -- minimal ROW purchases, mostly for bridge berms and ramps, had to be made to convert it to an Interstate.  And I-22 had been constructed as a full freeway -- albeit with some substandard features -- under ARC auspices since the late '70's; widening the New Albany segment and adding paved shoulders were the principal tasks prior to Interstate designation.   But I-69 and its ancillary branches are another story -- upgrading much of the present divided conventional highway is out of the question due to the need for local access and the political ramifications of not doing so.  So between protracted planning efforts and trying to fit segments of the very long corridor & branches into the yearly transportation outlay, it's a time-consuming affair (budgetary considerations notwithstanding) -- hardly a project that requires ROW acquisition goes off without a hitch today in pretty much all jurisdictions.   But TxDOT is fortunate to not have to plow through or circumvent a major urban area; most of the regions through which the I-69 "cluster" passes don't seem to have an issue with its development.  It's just that it's about 1K miles to develop; and that needs to be spread over many years -- and STIP's -- so the overall timeframe extends out for decades.       
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MikeSantNY78 on October 12, 2019, 08:32:43 PM
The I-69 numbering is a done deal. But TX DOT could at least do something about all those horrible 3-digit I-69X shields with the extreme cramped kerning. Set the freaking lettering in Series C rather than Series D. Or decrease the character sizes on the shields more in keeping with older, better looking Interstate shield specs. I really really hate neutered Interstate shields. They suck.

If re-numbering existing routes was on the table I would be more in favor of routing I-37 down along what is going to become I-69E. The last few miles of I-37 going into Corpus Christi would become a 3-digit route of I-37.

I think a fictional I-33 route would be more likely as a long distance Western bypass of Austin and DFW along the US-281 corridor going North out of San Antonio and terminating with I-44 in Wichita Falls. But if re-numbering was on the table, the same I-33 route could be applied to US-281 South of San Antonio along what is now becoming I-69C.

Given the heavy volume of commercial traffic crossing the border at Laredo, which is IIRC has the most commercial truck traffic crossing the Mexican border, I think the I-69 core route should go to Laredo rather than it being called I-69W.

As for I-6, the only place in the nation that makes sense for it is Laredo to Corpus Christi. The question is whether there is enough traffic to justify such a road. OTOH, cities in South Texas are growing. So it seems like a freeway (or toll road) linking those cities would have to be built eventually.

To me, I-47 only makes sense applied to the Houston to Texarkana corridor. But I-69 and I-369 is already applied to that route.
You’re missing I-37 to Victoria.
My guess is (on reading this post): would stay US 77, but at least be built up to IH standards. Just in case.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on October 13, 2019, 12:16:34 AM
Quote from: sprjus4
You're missing I-37 to Victoria.

I didn't get around to responding to that earlier, but since it was quoted again: I-37 to Victoria? That doesn't make any sense. I-37 begins in San Antonio, goes Southeast 142 miles to Corpus Christi. Then it's going to make a 90 degree turn, going up Northwest 80-90 miles (depending on alignment) to Victoria. That's almost a "V" shape route. It's at least a crooked check mark shape.

One possible fictional route would be a version of Interstate 6 going from Laredo to Freer to Corpus Christi and then up to Victoria. That would make more sense than a V-shaped I-37. But I-69W is already set for that Laredo to Freer segment. So I guess that could leave an I-6 route bouncing from Freer to Corpus and up to Victoria.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on October 13, 2019, 12:27:49 AM
Quote from: sprjus4
You're missing I-37 to Victoria.

I didn't get around to responding to that earlier, but since it was quoted again: I-37 to Victoria? That doesn't make any sense. I-37 begins in San Antonio, goes Southeast 142 miles to Corpus Christi. Then it's going to make a 90 degree turn, going up Northwest 80-90 miles (depending on alignment) to Victoria. That's almost a "V" shape route. It's at least a crooked check mark shape.

One possible fictional route would be a version of Interstate 6 going from Laredo to Freer to Corpus Christi and then up to Victoria. That would make more sense than a V-shaped I-37. But I-69W is already set for that Laredo to Freer segment. So I guess that could leave an I-6 route bouncing from Freer to Corpus and up to Victoria.
You're missing the segment of US-77 from I-37 to Victoria.

Ideally, I'd just change I-69E into I-69, and I-69C into I-3(9?) (yes, it's out of grid, but unavoidable), change the SH-44 spur & I-69W from Freer to Laredo to I-4, and eliminate I-69W east of Freer.

The US-59 corridor between Freer and Victoria would ideally become a 75 mph 4-lane divided highway with town bypasses, but that's about all that's necessary. An interstate highway for long-distance traffic already exists between Houston and Laredo if truly desired - I-10 and I-35 - no need to build an entire new interstate highway to serve the same endpoints and some small towns in between.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on October 13, 2019, 01:06:25 AM
Quote from: sprjus4
You're missing the segment of US-77 from I-37 to Victoria

That's still a hard 90 degree angle turn coming from San Antonio. 2 digit Interstate routes shouldn't be doing that. How do you even sign the cardinal direction on a V-shaped route like that? You'll be driving along I-37 South and then it suddenly becomes I-37 North? It doesn't matter since I-69E is already slated to be running along US-77 between Victoria and the Corpus area anyway.

Changing the I-37 designation going into Corpus Christi on its own would be incredibly disruptive to local businesses and motorists there. Switching the name of an existing route number affects a whole lot more than signs along the roadway. While I wouldn't mind seeing I-37 extended down to Brownsville, I do know it would come with plenty of consequences to businesses in the Corpus Christi area. A whole lot of marketing and administrative materials for both business and government have to be revised to change any references made to that route number.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on October 13, 2019, 01:11:44 AM
Quote from: sprjus4
You're missing the segment of US-77 from I-37 to Victoria

That's still a hard 90 degree angle turn coming from San Antonio. 2 digit Interstate routes shouldn't be doing that. How do you even sign the cardinal direction on a V-shaped route like that? You'll be driving along I-37 South and then it suddenly becomes I-37 North? It doesn't matter since I-69E is already slated to be running along US-77 between Victoria and the Corpus area anyway.

Changing the I-37 designation going into Corpus Christi on its own would be incredibly disruptive to local businesses and motorists there. Switching the name of an existing route number affects a whole lot more than signs along the roadway. While I wouldn't mind seeing I-37 extended down to Brownsville, I do know it would come with plenty of consequences to businesses in the Corpus Christi area. A whole lot of marketing and administrative materials for both business and government have to be revised to change any references made to that route number.
You’re missing an interstate designation (I.E what I-69 currently is) on the segment from I-37 to Victoria.

I think you’re misunderstanding - I’m not saying I-37 should be routed up US-77, I’m saying it’s currently I-69 under TxDOT’s plan, and the plan proposed by someone on here to re-number the I-69 branches did not include that particular segment, which is a major piece on the Houston - Brownsville corridor.

As for the fate of I-37 with this whole I-69 jumble, I think it should remain designated where it’s at, from Downtown Corpus Christi to Downtown San Antonio. The only extension / change I’d support is extending it northward from Downtown San Antonio up to the northern end of the US-281 freeway.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on October 13, 2019, 05:13:47 PM
It looked like you were suggesting I-37 should be extended to Victoria. But, like you said, I-69E is already designated to travel along that path. The other route re-numbering suggestions for the I-69 segments are kind of useless at this point. The ship has already sailed. But please, TX DOT, get rid of those AWFUL neutered shields with the series D numerals. They absolutely, horrendously SUCK. I'd have to search pretty hard to find letter spacing as crowded and hideous as it is on those shields. Get rid of them!

I don't agree with I-37 being routed West of I-35. Given the federal government's funding stance, US-281 could be upgraded from San Antonio up to Wichita Falls to Interstate quality yet still only carry a US highway designation. I doubt if TX DOT will push for an Interstate marker unless the feds want to pony up a significant amount of money to help the effort. If it carried an Interstate designation I'd prefer it to be called I-33. There's hardly any other location elsewhere in the system where I-33 can exist.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: dfwmapper on October 15, 2019, 11:23:09 PM
Not my video, just happened to stumble across it. Drone video of the work that has been done so far on the new interchange on the south side of Nacogdoches mentioned a few posts up, taken last week.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on October 16, 2019, 12:28:02 AM
Not my video, just happened to stumble across it. Drone video of the work that has been done so far on the new interchange on the south side of Nacogdoches mentioned a few posts up, taken last week.

Nice find!  Looks like the major work to be done is the "cutoff" connector from NB 59 to Loop 224; it also appears that at least the portion of the loop covered by the drone is "ready for prime time" needing little if anything to achieve Interstate standards.   At least work is underway for this portion of the corridor -- had been wondering when some definitive progress was made. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on October 16, 2019, 04:35:12 PM
The drone video shows a good start. But the Western half of TX Loop 224 is going to need a considerable amount of work to bring up to Interstate standards. The portion of the loop shown in the video (between the US-59/Loop-224 interchange and TX-7 exit) shows a whole lot of driveways emptying out onto the main lanes of the road and exit ramps. Mockinbird Lane still crosses Loop 224 at-grade. Continuous frontage roads have to be built on both sides to isolate the driveways and crossing streets from the future freeway main lanes and the on/off ramps as well.

North of the TX-7 exit Loop 224 turns into even more of a mess. Not only are there plenty of driveways built out to the main lanes of the highway, quite a few properties are hugging way too close and will have to be bought and removed. Hopefully some of that work has started to happen. I can't really tell since the Google Earth Imagery for Nacogdoches is almost 4 years old (Nov 2015). It's still not a good sign if all those residential driveways hitting the freeway main lanes are still there in that drone video.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on October 16, 2019, 04:57:50 PM
The drone video shows a good start. But the Western half of TX Loop 224 is going to need a considerable amount of work to bring up to Interstate standards. The portion of the loop shown in the video (between the US-59/Loop-224 interchange and TX-7 exit) shows a whole lot of driveways emptying out onto the main lanes of the road and exit ramps. Mockinbird Lane still crosses Loop 224 at-grade. Continuous frontage roads have to be built on both sides to isolate the driveways and crossing streets from the future freeway main lanes and the on/off ramps as well.

North of the TX-7 exit Loop 224 turns into even more of a mess. Not only are there plenty of driveways built out to the main lanes of the highway, quite a few properties are hugging way too close and will have to be bought and removed. Hopefully some of that work has started to happen. I can't really tell since the Google Earth Imagery for Nacogdoches is almost 4 years old (Nov 2015). It's still not a good sign if all those residential driveways hitting the freeway main lanes are still there in that drone video.

It does look like there's sufficient room for a frontage road to be deployed between the freeway lanes -- in archetypal TX fashion -- which would take care of the driveway access situation.  Also that SB ramp from the diamond interchange (approximately where the drone footage ended) is straight, then curves toward the main SB lanes; this appears to support the idea that a frontage road would extended from that straight section.  But it's likely that a full rebuild -- again with full frontage roads -- will be necessary north of the construction zone; most of these divided bypasses were not intended to be limited access facilities (clearly pre-I-69 efforts); purchases for additional  ROW are inevitable.   Even in the "flyover" zone at the connector to southward US 59 there remain driveways that will have to be truncated or "joisted" over to different access points.  It won't be easy or simple -- let's hope TxDOT has incorporated all these potential sticking points into their planning and construction efforts.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Stephane Dumas on October 16, 2019, 05:50:48 PM
It does look like there's sufficient room for a frontage road to be deployed between the freeway lanes -- in archetypal TX fashion -- which would take care of the driveway access situation.  Also that SB ramp from the diamond interchange (approximately where the drone footage ended) is straight, then curves toward the main SB lanes; this appears to support the idea that a frontage road would extended from that straight section.  But it's likely that a full rebuild -- again with full frontage roads -- will be necessary north of the construction zone; most of these divided bypasses were not intended to be limited access facilities (clearly pre-I-69 efforts); purchases for additional  ROW are inevitable.   Even in the "flyover" zone at the connector to southward US 59 there remain driveways that will have to be truncated or "joisted" over to different access points.  It won't be easy or simple -- let's hope TxDOT has incorporated all these potential sticking points into their planning and construction efforts.

TxDOT posted a video of this gap of US-59 from south of Spradley Street on US 59 to the intersection of SH 7 West and SL 224.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on October 17, 2019, 01:32:29 AM
The proposal looks pretty good in principal but the strange effect of the horizon line in the rendering has me thinking of old-school 1980's video game console graphics. Whatever. Style is not the point here.

Really, the problem going on is policy. Just exactly how close do you let business owners situate their buildings and parking lots next to the freaking road? The US-59/Loop 224 interchange up to TX-7 might be an easy enough nut to crack. But there are worse problems immediately North of that exit that will block I-69 progress. And it probably didn't have to be that way if some planners 20-30 or so years ago had any inkling of foresight about "future proofing" a vital highway corridor.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on October 17, 2019, 06:17:00 AM
The proposal looks pretty good in principal but the strange effect of the horizon line in the rendering has me thinking of old-school 1980's video game console graphics. Whatever. Style is not the point here.

Really, the problem going on is policy. Just exactly how close do you let business owners situate their buildings and parking lots next to the freaking road? The US-59/Loop 224 interchange up to TX-7 might be an easy enough nut to crack. But there are worse problems immediately North of that exit that will block I-69 progress. And it probably didn't have to be that way if some planners 20-30 or so years ago had any inkling of foresight about "future proofing" a vital highway corridor.
TXDOT will most likely reconstruct the mainlines to have a narrow median w/ a 10 foot left shoulder & barrier, adding additional room to squeeze frontage roads in.

That could reasonably work.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: rte66man on October 17, 2019, 01:43:51 PM
The proposal looks pretty good in principal but the strange effect of the horizon line in the rendering has me thinking of old-school 1980's video game console graphics. Whatever. Style is not the point here.

Really, the problem going on is policy. Just exactly how close do you let business owners situate their buildings and parking lots next to the freaking road? The US-59/Loop 224 interchange up to TX-7 might be an easy enough nut to crack. But there are worse problems immediately North of that exit that will block I-69 progress. And it probably didn't have to be that way if some planners 20-30 or so years ago had any inkling of foresight about "future proofing" a vital highway corridor.
TXDOT will most likely reconstruct the mainlines to have a narrow median w/ a 10 foot left shoulder & barrier, adding additional room to squeeze frontage roads in.

That could reasonably work.

If it looks like I69 south of Robstown, then I may get claustrophobia
https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7673179,-97.6778267,3a,75y,29.72h,78.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1se61zYfjE1a0mNyyYbXzX0Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on October 17, 2019, 04:12:38 PM
The proposal looks pretty good in principal but the strange effect of the horizon line in the rendering has me thinking of old-school 1980's video game console graphics. Whatever. Style is not the point here.

Really, the problem going on is policy. Just exactly how close do you let business owners situate their buildings and parking lots next to the freaking road? The US-59/Loop 224 interchange up to TX-7 might be an easy enough nut to crack. But there are worse problems immediately North of that exit that will block I-69 progress. And it probably didn't have to be that way if some planners 20-30 or so years ago had any inkling of foresight about "future proofing" a vital highway corridor.
TXDOT will most likely reconstruct the mainlines to have a narrow median w/ a 10 foot left shoulder & barrier, adding additional room to squeeze frontage roads in.

That could reasonably work.

If it looks like I69 south of Robstown, then I may get claustrophobia
https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7673179,-97.6778267,3a,75y,29.72h,78.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1se61zYfjE1a0mNyyYbXzX0Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
A lot of future I-69 segments, including 40 miles south of Falfurrius and 40 miles south of Houston are planned like that.

It’s not that bad honestly, and having the full left shoulder gives a lot of breathing room. I’ve driven that stretch near Robstown and around Bishop with that design at least a dozen times since it’s been completed, and have never felt cramped. It’s only on some of those isolated interchanges that they reduce the left shoulder to only 3-4 ft that’s it cramped.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on October 17, 2019, 06:20:46 PM
The proposal looks pretty good in principal but the strange effect of the horizon line in the rendering has me thinking of old-school 1980's video game console graphics. Whatever. Style is not the point here.

Really, the problem going on is policy. Just exactly how close do you let business owners situate their buildings and parking lots next to the freaking road? The US-59/Loop 224 interchange up to TX-7 might be an easy enough nut to crack. But there are worse problems immediately North of that exit that will block I-69 progress. And it probably didn't have to be that way if some planners 20-30 or so years ago had any inkling of foresight about "future proofing" a vital highway corridor.
TXDOT will most likely reconstruct the mainlines to have a narrow median w/ a 10 foot left shoulder & barrier, adding additional room to squeeze frontage roads in.

That could reasonably work.

If it looks like I69 south of Robstown, then I may get claustrophobia
https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7673179,-97.6778267,3a,75y,29.72h,78.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1se61zYfjE1a0mNyyYbXzX0Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
A lot of future I-69 segments, including 40 miles south of Falfurrius and 40 miles south of Houston are planned like that.

It’s not that bad honestly, and having the full left shoulder gives a lot of breathing room. I’ve driven that stretch near Robstown and around Bishop with that design at least a dozen times since it’s been completed, and have never felt cramped. It’s only on some of those isolated interchanges that they reduce the left shoulder to only 3-4 ft that’s it cramped.

The key to snaking I-69 through this area is: all of the above!  It'll probably look a lot like the pic of I-69E down by Robstown, minus the elevation for most of the run.  It probably boils down to:  K-rails, 4' inner shoulders/10' outer shoulders, and frontage roads, frontage roads, and more frontage roads.  Except for some parking lots used for trailer storage, most facilities look far enough away from the lanes to shove a frontage road through their front yards (going by the 4-year-old GE view).   The finished product won't be particularly pretty, but it'll get the job done -- hopefully in a few short years. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on October 17, 2019, 06:51:49 PM
The proposal looks pretty good in principal but the strange effect of the horizon line in the rendering has me thinking of old-school 1980's video game console graphics. Whatever. Style is not the point here.

Really, the problem going on is policy. Just exactly how close do you let business owners situate their buildings and parking lots next to the freaking road? The US-59/Loop 224 interchange up to TX-7 might be an easy enough nut to crack. But there are worse problems immediately North of that exit that will block I-69 progress. And it probably didn't have to be that way if some planners 20-30 or so years ago had any inkling of foresight about "future proofing" a vital highway corridor.
TXDOT will most likely reconstruct the mainlines to have a narrow median w/ a 10 foot left shoulder & barrier, adding additional room to squeeze frontage roads in.

That could reasonably work.

If it looks like I69 south of Robstown, then I may get claustrophobia
https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7673179,-97.6778267,3a,75y,29.72h,78.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1se61zYfjE1a0mNyyYbXzX0Q!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
A lot of future I-69 segments, including 40 miles south of Falfurrius and 40 miles south of Houston are planned like that.

It’s not that bad honestly, and having the full left shoulder gives a lot of breathing room. I’ve driven that stretch near Robstown and around Bishop with that design at least a dozen times since it’s been completed, and have never felt cramped. It’s only on some of those isolated interchanges that they reduce the left shoulder to only 3-4 ft that’s it cramped.

The key to snaking I-69 through this area is: all of the above!  It'll probably look a lot like the pic of I-69E down by Robstown, minus the elevation for most of the run.  It probably boils down to:  K-rails, 4' inner shoulders/10' outer shoulders, and frontage roads, frontage roads, and more frontage roads.  Except for some parking lots used for trailer storage, most facilities look far enough away from the lanes to shove a frontage road through their front yards (going by the 4-year-old GE view).   The finished product won't be particularly pretty, but it'll get the job done -- hopefully in a few short years.
The US-75 freeway northeast of Dallas has a long segment with this design - https://www.google.com/maps/@33.4836781,-96.6200904,3a,75y,197.55h,78.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPrJz-0sN8Pai_tN9GYDZ8g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Seems to work. IIRC, a lot of the segments with median barrier are being built with a stealth 3rd outer lane for future expansion purposes. The stretch I mentioned of US-75 originally actually had a ~40 ft grassy median plus the frontage roads & freeway design, but was rebuilt to its current design about 20 years ago with the torn-up outer lane a stealth lane for future expansion purposes.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on October 17, 2019, 10:07:18 PM
The US-75 freeway northeast of Dallas has a long segment with this design - https://www.google.com/maps/@33.4836781,-96.6200904,3a,75y,197.55h,78.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPrJz-0sN8Pai_tN9GYDZ8g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Seems to work. IIRC, a lot of the segments with median barrier are being built with a stealth 3rd outer lane for future expansion purposes. The stretch I mentioned of US-75 originally actually had a ~40 ft grassy median plus the frontage roads & freeway design, but was rebuilt to its current design about 20 years ago with the torn-up outer lane a stealth lane for future expansion purposes.

The picture sure shows that "stealth" lane in all its glory; it appears to be a full 12' wide, so another 10' of shoulder should do it down the road.  Right now it's certainly 4-lane Interstate standard -- but if the rate of growth in the area continues, 6-laning won't be all that far in the future.   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).   
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Revive 755 on October 17, 2019, 10:14:05 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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on October 18, 2019, 12:14:34 AM
The US-75 freeway northeast of Dallas has a long segment with this design - https://www.google.com/maps/@33.4836781,-96.6200904,3a,75y,197.55h,78.81t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sPrJz-0sN8Pai_tN9GYDZ8g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Seems to work. IIRC, a lot of the segments with median barrier are being built with a stealth 3rd outer lane for future expansion purposes. The stretch I mentioned of US-75 originally actually had a ~40 ft grassy median plus the frontage roads & freeway design, but was rebuilt to its current design about 20 years ago with the torn-up outer lane a stealth lane for future expansion purposes.

The picture sure shows that "stealth" lane in all its glory; it appears to be a full 12' wide, so another 10' of shoulder should do it down the road.  Right now it's certainly 4-lane Interstate standard -- but if the rate of growth in the area continues, 6-laning won't be all that far in the future.   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).   
https://www.google.com/maps/@33.5061733,-96.6180646,3a,75y,14.33h,74.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0F8dqmUhDlVLvKpsLCTZiA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656

A lot of the northbound bridges have a full lane already built over the bridges, a leftover from the original design with the grassy median, but the southbound lane does not have that wide shoulder.

A lot of I-35 between Austin and Dallas was rebuilt around 10-20 years ago removing the grassy median and filling it in and leaving the outside lane as a "stealth" lane. Here we are today, and it has all since been expanded fully to 6-lanes. A similar design exists on portions of I-10 east of Houston, and most of that is currently underway or planned to be 6-laned all the way to Louisiana.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on October 18, 2019, 04:28:16 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!
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: debragga on October 19, 2019, 12:42:26 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
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on October 19, 2019, 12:56:37 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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: aboges26 on October 20, 2019, 11:00:32 AM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: In_Correct on October 20, 2019, 05:48:14 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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on October 20, 2019, 08:52:38 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.         
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on October 20, 2019, 10:20:46 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:
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on October 21, 2019, 10:31:33 AM
Quote from: sparker
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.

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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: The Ghostbuster on October 21, 2019, 03:03:04 PM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: O Tamandua on December 15, 2019, 11:34:57 PM
"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:

Quote
The 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/
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: vdeane on December 16, 2019, 09:09:51 PM
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!".
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on December 16, 2019, 09:53:34 PM
Texans love 69!
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on December 16, 2019, 09:59:05 PM
I-2 is apart of the I-69 system?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 16, 2019, 11:51:11 PM
Quote from: ARMOURERIC
Texans love 69!

I thought most red-blooded American adults love 69.

Quote from: sprjus4
I-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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ilpt4u on December 17, 2019, 12:10:17 AM
That is unless we have an "I-6" built between Corpus Christi and Freer.
I-6?

Nah. Western I-4 sounds better
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on December 17, 2019, 02:54:24 AM
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:   
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: edwaleni on December 17, 2019, 04:59:55 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?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on December 17, 2019, 05:08:44 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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: 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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on December 18, 2019, 05:11:18 AM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on December 18, 2019, 05:56:08 AM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 18, 2019, 10:20:09 AM
Quote from: sparker
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.

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: sprjus4
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 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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: O Tamandua on December 18, 2019, 10:22:36 PM
FWIW, they're continuing to do their thing at Nacogdoches (from Monday):

Quote
First steps in major U.S. 59 flyover construction project completed, TxDOT Lufkin says (KTRE/9)

NACOGDOCHES, Texas (KTRE) - The preliminary stages of a flyover construction project in Nacogdoches have been completed, according to a Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) Lufkin District spokesperson Rhonda Oaks.

U.S. 59 motorists can look to the east at U.S. 59, just south of Loop 224, and catch a glimpse of the cleared path for the Nacogdoches direct connect.

“What motorists are seeing now is the clearing from north of Spradley to U.S. 59,”  said Oaks. “This week we have completed preparing the right of ways along this path, as well as our drainage structures."

...

Engineering on the direct connect, including a flyover, will be up to interstate standards in anticipation of I-69.

Nacogdoches City Council is also considering to adopt the Federal and State priorities of the Alliance of I-69 Texas for the year 2020. The annual adoption gives the City an opportunity to declare the Federal and State priorities are priorities of the City.

The cost of the project is a little more than $86.1-million and the project should take close to 4 years to complete.

https://www.ktre.com/2019/12/16/first-steps-major-us-flyover-construction-project-completed-txdot-lufkin-says/
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: O Tamandua on December 22, 2019, 09:43:44 PM
"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:

Quote
The 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/

This column has made the rounds.  It's now been also printed in news sources in Victoria, Longview and Texarkana this week.  The "champions" are definitely getting their message out.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on December 23, 2019, 03:33:02 AM
"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:

Quote
The 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/

This column has made the rounds.  It's now been also printed in news sources in Victoria, Longview and Texarkana this week.  The "champions" are definitely getting their message out.

Longview?  Is either the Alliance or TxDOT even considering a spur there -- especially since the Marshall I-369 plans have seemingly been nailed down and the bypass all but let (i.e., little chance of rerouting at this phase of the project).  Since it is the largest city in the area, a spur north from Nacogdoches wouldn't be out of the question somewhere down the line -- but for the present, the corridor backers should concentrate on getting what's currently planned done before tackling additional "add-ons".  But it's more than possible that they're just casting their support net a bit wider without implying service to areas not directly along the present corridor branches.   We'll undoubtedly see what this is all about in due time!
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: -- US 175 -- on December 23, 2019, 04:49:36 AM
Longview and Victoria have newspapers owned by the same company, which took over the Tyler paper a few months ago.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: O Tamandua on December 23, 2019, 12:47:44 PM
"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:

Quote
The 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/

This column has made the rounds.  It's now been also printed in news sources in Victoria, Longview and Texarkana this week.  The "champions" are definitely getting their message out.

Longview?  Is either the Alliance or TxDOT even considering a spur there -- especially since the Marshall I-369 plans have seemingly been nailed down and the bypass all but let (i.e., little chance of rerouting at this phase of the project).  Since it is the largest city in the area, a spur north from Nacogdoches wouldn't be out of the question somewhere down the line -- but for the present, the corridor backers should concentrate on getting what's currently planned done before tackling additional "add-ons".  But it's more than possible that they're just casting their support net a bit wider without implying service to areas not directly along the present corridor branches.   We'll undoubtedly see what this is all about in due time!

There are 7 counties in Texas (Bowie, Cass, Marion, Morris, Harrison, Panola, Shelby, most of those on future I-69/369) that are in the Shreveport TV market.  There's a good chunk of the city of Longview that's actually in Harrison County.  Right now, there's a bit of a "news turf" battle going on, given that the SHV stations focus heavily on city and Louisiana news even though the TV market covers 4 states.  The Longview/Tyler TV stations are working to cover at least Harrison County and probably others...they may be wanting to compete to add the counties to their market.  Guessing the newspaper is working to follow suit.

Long story short: makes sense that Longview would be included in this (citizens) editorial drop.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on December 24, 2019, 04:45:44 AM
Longview and Victoria have newspapers owned by the same company, which took over the Tyler paper a few months ago.

That makes sense -- coincidental common media ownership along the corridor and adjacent areas -- the same applies in CA, with the McClatchy organization owning several high-circulation papers throughout the state.  If a story -- or editorial comment -- makes one paper, it tends to be reiterated in the others; in this case, Longview was simply incidental rather than targeted as a possible I-69 "adjunct". 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on December 24, 2019, 12:21:07 PM
Never understood why I-20 is so far from Longview
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 24, 2019, 08:06:23 PM
My guess is they had I-20 split the difference between Tyler and Longview. Of course way back then Interstates were built on far more direct paths. If I-20 was built from scratch today it would look like a bunch of crooked pieces of elbow macaroni strung together. It would hit every town along the way to Shreveport. And probably be 100 miles longer.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on December 24, 2019, 08:49:01 PM
My guess is they had I-20 split the difference between Tyler and Longview. Of course way back then Interstates were built on far more direct paths. If I-20 was built from scratch today it would look like a bunch of crooked pieces of elbow macaroni strung together. It would hit every town along the way to Shreveport. And probably be 100 miles longer.

There was also a mileage cap on total Interstate mileage; it was up to the individual DOT's to work out the trade-offs between serving every significant community along the route versus keeping as close to a straight-line as possible to minimize overall mileage.  While I don't have the 1950 census figures (or the 1955 interim Census Bureau estimates for that matter) immediately available, it's likely neither Longview nor Tyler exceeded 50K incorporated population during that timeframe -- which was the functional criterion for potential inclusion in the system -- but of course some cities that exceeded that level even back then were bypassed by the network; notable in TX were Lubbock, San Angelo, and Port Arthur (Lubbock got its service in the '68 additions with I-27, while the other two remain without Interstate service).  Since US 80, the basic existing route within the I-20 corridor crossed East Texas on a broad arc (tracing the Texas & Pacific RR main line) with both Longview and Tyler several miles to the south, TxDOT likely planned I-20 to "straightline" its Dallas-Shreveport path as much as possible, skirting the general Longview area (Tyler was just too far out of the way to be seriously considered if mileage was to be minimized).  So it ended up where it is -- not optimal for local service but more or less a "leaner", since it did at least come close to the regional population centers.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on December 24, 2019, 10:27:49 PM
My guess is they had I-20 split the difference between Tyler and Longview. Of course way back then Interstates were built on far more direct paths. If I-20 was built from scratch today it would look like a bunch of crooked pieces of elbow macaroni strung together. It would hit every town along the way to Shreveport. And probably be 100 miles longer.

I'm surprised they weren't built more directly.  Then the US highways probably would be more prevelant.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on December 24, 2019, 10:32:05 PM
My guess is they had I-20 split the difference between Tyler and Longview. Of course way back then Interstates were built on far more direct paths. If I-20 was built from scratch today it would look like a bunch of crooked pieces of elbow macaroni strung together. It would hit every town along the way to Shreveport. And probably be 100 miles longer.
I-20 actually diverges from US-80's path to serve Tyler. If it were direct, it should be about 5 miles shorter.

In all honesty though, it really doesn't matter if it's the most direct or slightly indirect to serve some cities and towns. It wouldn't be "100 miles longer", maybe 10-15 miles longer by going in closer to Longview then heading southeast going in closer to Tyler, then heading back northwest, and it wouldn't make much of a difference at all in reality.

The point of the interstate system isn't just to strictly link metros, but to serve the towns and smaller cities along the way to provide access and open up areas for growth, at least nowadays. I don't see an issue with that, as long as it doesn't go outrageously out of the way. I'm still going to prefer the convenience of a 70 mph interstate highway over an old US / state highway that's 10-15 miles shorter.

IMO, given the state of Tyler (population 100,000) and Longview (population 80,000), it would make sense for the interstate to travel closer and better serve them if it were to be built today.

Looking at a map, even if it were to run a "zig-zag" shape to serve the towns it currently does plus closer into Longview and Tyler, it would only add roughly 5 miles to the routing. It may look "out of the way" on a map, but in reality it's not.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: -- US 175 -- on December 24, 2019, 11:53:06 PM
Never understood why I-20 is so far from Longview

Not only that, since I-20 was built, the outward growth trend in both Longview and Tyler have been in the opposite direction, instead of toward I-20.  Kind of strange, IMO, as most cities tend to embrace their proximity to an interstate.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 25, 2019, 01:48:45 PM
The town layouts of both Tyler and Longview are a bit odd and not well-controlled. Retail and residential development seems a bit scattered at random in both places. Loop 281 in Longview and Loop 323 in Tyler are really not highways at all; they're busy urban streets with lots and lots of stop lights. Neither road has any room for expansion. Too much development too close to the road and lots of driveways connecting direct to the main lanes.

Parts of downtown Tyler are kind of nice. I like the red brick streets. Those neighborhoods have street curbs and sidewalks.

The TX-49 toll road goes so far around Tyler that I don't expect it to attract much development alongside the 2 lane limited access road. It's little more than a semi-functional route for US-69 traffic needing to bypass Tyler. Perhaps if/when TX DOT extends the TX-49 toll road up and over Longview and farther East to Marshall (and I-369) it might gain higher vehicle counts. But I think it has to be expanded to a 4 lane divided facility and offer high speed limits for that to happen.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on December 25, 2019, 02:05:17 PM
if/when TX DOT extends the TX-49 toll road up and over Longview and farther East to Marshall (and I-369) it might gain higher vehicle counts.
An extension of the road eastwards of it’s current terminus would just be redundant to I-20 at that point. Building local freeways around those cities may be desired, but a toll road paralleling I-20 for 10-15 miles just to connect isn’t needed.

But I think it has to be expanded to a 4 lane divided facility and offer high speed limits for that to happen.
The speed limit on the toll road is 75 mph with a posted minimum speed of 65 mph... is that not high enough?

The road also has an alternating passing lane allowing each direction to have 2 lanes for a few miles at a time, so it’s not strictly 2-lanes.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on December 25, 2019, 02:41:44 PM
Longview and Victoria have newspapers owned by the same company, which took over the Tyler paper a few months ago.

Gannett (who used to own USA Today), or another local company?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 25, 2019, 09:05:33 PM
Quote from: sprjus4
An extension of the road eastwards of it’s current terminus would just be redundant to I-20 at that point. Building local freeways around those cities may be desired, but a toll road paralleling I-20 for 10-15 miles just to connect isn’t needed.

Yet plans are in the works for just that:
https://www.netrma.org/projects/toll-and-ethg/ (https://www.netrma.org/projects/toll-and-ethg/)

Meanwhile the newest segment of the TX-49 toll road from NW of Tyler @ I-20 on up North of Lindale opened earlier this year. It's not default visible in Google Earth. But the historical imagery layer shows an April 2019 layer featuring that completed segment. So, what I said earlier about US-69 have a partially functional bypass of Tyler was not actually correct. It's somewhat complete now, at least in 2-lane form.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on December 26, 2019, 04:45:36 PM
The town layouts of both Tyler and Longview are a bit odd and not well-controlled. Retail and residential development seems a bit scattered at random in both places. Loop 281 in Longview and Loop 323 in Tyler are really not highways at all; they're busy urban streets with lots and lots of stop lights. Neither road has any room for expansion. Too much development too close to the road and lots of driveways connecting direct to the main lanes.

Parts of downtown Tyler are kind of nice. I like the red brick streets. Those neighborhoods have street curbs and sidewalks.

The TX-49 toll road goes so far around Tyler that I don't expect it to attract much development alongside the 2 lane limited access road. It's little more than a semi-functional route for US-69 traffic needing to bypass Tyler. Perhaps if/when TX DOT extends the TX-49 toll road up and over Longview and farther East to Marshall (and I-369) it might gain higher vehicle counts. But I think it has to be expanded to a 4 lane divided facility and offer high speed limits for that to happen.

Tyler was originally founded as the Texas railhead for the Cotton Belt (St. Louis & Southwestern) railroad connecting TX with, well, St. Louis.  A local road back then (circa 1890), the "Tyler Tap", was the basis for the larger system, which extended north to Mt. Pleasant, turning NE from there to Texarkana and then east to El Dorado, AR, where it again struck out NE (basically alongside what was to become US 79 and, north of there, AR 1) through Jonesboro, finally hitting the Mississippi near Cape Girardeau, MO, crossing the river, and heading to the St. Louis area on the east side of the river.  Tyler was essentially a "company town", building itself up around the tracks, which did and still do pass through town on an S-curve.  The SLSW corporate HQ was in Tyler to both satisfy TX laws (deleted in 1960) that required railroads with mileage in TX to be incorporated in TX (other railroads established TX-based subsidiaries that owned their TX trackage), but also take advantage of the state's substantial tax breaks (although the line's funding came from St. Louis).  The yard, which is just NE of downtown, was the original main commercial activity of Tyler (not surprising for a company town), and the town built outward from that facility, which accounts for its odd configurations and "radial" streets that cross the grids that built up later.   SLSW was purchased by SP in 1932 but run as a separate entity until 1980, when it was fully merged with the parent -- and the whole works was acquired by UP in 1996.  The yard, which loaded local agricultural and lumber products going both ways (SLSW was extended SW along TX 31 to Waco by 1900) was converted by UP to a container-switching facility in the late 1990's; it remains one of Tyler's significant employers.   
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: -- US 175 -- on December 26, 2019, 11:24:06 PM
Longview and Victoria have newspapers owned by the same company, which took over the Tyler paper a few months ago.

Gannett (who used to own USA Today), or another local company?

It is a local company called M. Roberts Media.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: O Tamandua on December 29, 2019, 01:40:26 AM
Add the Rio Grande Guardian (https://riograndeguardian.com/contreras-completing-i-69-is-essential/) to the aforementioned I-69 editorial drop, along with this nifty map below (which is worth reposting again).  BTW, the Casa Morales restaurant (https://www.ktre.com/2019/12/26/casa-morales-redland-closing-after-dec-due-i-expansion/) in Redland (between Nacogdoches and Lufkin) is closing one 45-year-old location due to I-69 expansion.  Didn't know the L-N part of I-69 was getting that close to construction.:

(https://31pclt218zbm6zvsy1nxvkd8-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/I-69-Projects-Exhibit.-Nov-25-2019-663x1024.jpg)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Finrod on December 30, 2019, 10:20:32 AM
Interesting that they're including state road 44 east of US 59 as part of the I-69 system.  I wonder if it'll get an interstate number.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: -- US 175 -- on December 30, 2019, 11:02:30 AM
Interesting that they're including state road 44 east of US 59 as part of the I-69 system.  I wonder if it'll get an interstate number.

It's actually been a part of the corridor cluster for a while, but nothing has really been mentioned in detail as to how redeveloped and improved TX 44 will really become, nor has anything specific been mentioned up to now regarding any redesignation (not that there's been a lack of speculation here on the forum) of the route once anything happens to it.  By the looks of that map, TX 44 isn't getting as much I-69 -related attention as other parts of the corridors.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on December 30, 2019, 11:12:15 AM
Interesting that they're including state road 44 east of US 59 as part of the I-69 system.  I wonder if it'll get an interstate number.

It's actually been a part of the corridor cluster for a while, but nothing has really been mentioned in detail as to how redeveloped and improved TX 44 will really become, nor has anything specific been mentioned up to now regarding any redesignation (not that there's been a lack of speculation here on the forum) of the route once anything happens to it.  By the looks of that map, TX 44 isn't getting as much I-69 -related attention as other parts of the corridors.
There is certainly work ongoing on that corridor - at least between Corpus Christi and Robstown.

About half of that corridor was previously frontage roads with a wide median for a future mainline, and that mainline is now currently under construction, and will include 3 interchanges when completed.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 30, 2019, 11:53:48 AM
Yeah, TX-44 is being converted to a freeway for the full length between I-69E in Robstown and the TX-358 freeway in Corpus Christi. I don't know the Interstate number it could receive or if it will ultimately receive an Interstate number. If it was designated as an Interstate another question would arise as to where the Interstate would officially end. Would it bump up North along TX-358 to meet I-37? Or might it follow TX-358 down to North Padre Island?

Then there's the matter of the TX-44 legs to Alice and Freer. TX-44 is a (mostly) four lane route between Alice and Robstown. I can see that getting upgraded to Interstate quality not too many years after this current upgrade is finished. It may be a longer time before the road between Alice and Freer is upgraded. But it would ultimately be a Laredo-Corpus corridor. If cross-border trade between the US & Mexico is more normalized there would be significantly more traffic moving along that corridor between Northern Mexico cities like Monterrey and the ports at Brownsville and Corpus Christi. Tampico is Mexico's Northern-most port city in the Gulf of Mexico and it's way South of Monterrey and the Rio Grande Valley region.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on December 30, 2019, 12:15:53 PM
Yeah, TX-44 is being converted to a freeway for the full length between I-69E in Robstown and the TX-358 freeway in Corpus Christi.
Not all the way to I-69E on the current projects, there is still about a mile long gap that is a 5-lane road east of I-69E.

If the Robstown Bypass (https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/corpus-christi/sh-44-robstown.html) is ever built, it would bypass that 5-lane segment and tie seamlessly into the freeway segment, along with providing a full freeway-to-freeway interchange with I-69E.

I don't know the Interstate number it could receive or if it will ultimately receive an Interstate number. If it was designated as an Interstate another question would arise as to where the Interstate would officially end. Would it bump up North along TX-358 to meet I-37? Or might it follow TX-358 down to North Padre Island?
I could see it just ending at TX-358, but if it were to continue, routing it along TX-358 down to Flour Bluff would be the most beneficial and provide the main corridor through southeastern Corpus Christi with an interstate designation, along with connecting with NAS Corpus Christi.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 30, 2019, 02:17:29 PM
NAS Corpus Christi would bring up a reminder of one of the Interstate Highway System's original purposes: aiding National Defense. Just before the beginning of the JFK Memorial Causeway TX-358 actually swings to the Northeast, going directly to the Main Gate of the Naval Air Station.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Finrod on January 02, 2020, 02:38:20 PM
I don't know the Interstate number it could receive or if it will ultimately receive an Interstate number. If it was designated as an Interstate another question would arise as to where the Interstate would officially end. Would it bump up North along TX-358 to meet I-37? Or might it follow TX-358 down to North Padre Island?
I could see it just ending at TX-358, but if it were to continue, routing it along TX-358 down to Flour Bluff would be the most beneficial and provide the main corridor through southeastern Corpus Christi with an interstate designation, along with connecting with NAS Corpus Christi.

If it's routed to the south like that, and it was to get an interstate number, what would it get?  It's not long enough for a 2di, and it wouldn't touch I-37 so it wouldn't be eligible to get an x37 number.  Also, odd or even for the first digit?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on January 02, 2020, 05:35:32 PM
I don't know the Interstate number it could receive or if it will ultimately receive an Interstate number. If it was designated as an Interstate another question would arise as to where the Interstate would officially end. Would it bump up North along TX-358 to meet I-37? Or might it follow TX-358 down to North Padre Island?
I could see it just ending at TX-358, but if it were to continue, routing it along TX-358 down to Flour Bluff would be the most beneficial and provide the main corridor through southeastern Corpus Christi with an interstate designation, along with connecting with NAS Corpus Christi.

If it's routed to the south like that, and it was to get an interstate number, what would it get?  It's not long enough for a 2di, and it wouldn't touch I-37 so it wouldn't be eligible to get an x37 number.  Also, odd or even for the first digit?
I-x69...
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: kphoger on January 02, 2020, 05:49:07 PM
I-x69...

I-69X   :bigass:
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Scott5114 on January 02, 2020, 06:08:29 PM
I-x69...

I-69X   :bigass:

I-69CC for Corpus Christi! :P
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on January 02, 2020, 07:05:03 PM
^^^^^^^^^
Somehow I don't think I-69N (for Navy/Naval Base) would fly!  But seriously, the chances are that any Interstate route along TX 44, be it a trunk or 3di number, will simply shunt up to I-37 over that short stretch of TX 358.  But if, somehow, local parties get it moved to the southern CC bypass, it would be simple to just declare the short 44-to-37 stretch a "spur" (like spur I-270 at the DC Beltway) and sign the various interchanges "TO I-6 (or x69)" and "TO I-37", which would facilitate movement between the two routes.   
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on January 02, 2020, 07:20:53 PM
southern CC bypass
The proposed Regional Parkway (http://www.corpuschristi-mpo.org/04_studies_rpmcfs.html), or TX-358?

The TX-358 South Padre Island Drive is certainly not a "bypass", it's a major 6-8 lane urban freeway serving the entire eastern half of the city and a tourist road to Padre Island during peak weekends.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on January 03, 2020, 01:46:53 AM
southern CC bypass
The proposed Regional Parkway (http://www.corpuschristi-mpo.org/04_studies_rpmcfs.html), or TX-358?

The TX-358 South Padre Island Drive is certainly not a "bypass", it's a major 6-8 lane urban freeway serving the entire eastern half of the city and a tourist road to Padre Island during peak weekends.

I was referring to TX 358, which allows traffic to bypass central Corpus Christi en route to the NAS and the outer islands.   Now whether that bypass function is the primary rationale for the route is pretty moot; it could conceivably be called a long virtual spur of I-37.  Regardless of the semantics here, there would be a lot of possibilities regarding a potential Interstate designation.  Until we all know what TX 44's I-designation will be, speculation belongs more in the fictional realm.  But also it's likely that if such a designation for 358 were contemplated, it probably would have happened as a x37 well before the I-69 system entered the local picture;  spurs have been commissioned with less demonstrated value than this one. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on January 03, 2020, 11:16:52 AM
I could see TX-358 gaining an Interstate designation from the additional angle of being a major Hurricane Evacuation Route for the Corpus Christi area.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on January 03, 2020, 04:41:55 PM
^

Realistically, I could see TX-358 becoming a I-x37 between I-37 and Park Road 22. It certainly has merit, and it appears to fully meet interstate standards. The busiest stretch between Ayers St and Nile Dr is currently having its ramps reversed and being expanded, and more than likely will meet full urban interstate standards.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on January 03, 2020, 06:56:49 PM
I could see TX-358 gaining an Interstate designation from the additional angle of being a major Hurricane Evacuation Route for the Corpus Christi area.
^

Realistically, I could see TX-358 becoming a I-x37 between I-37 and Park Road 22. It certainly has merit, and it appears to fully meet interstate standards. The busiest stretch between Ayers St and Nile Dr is currently having its ramps reversed and being expanded, and more than likely will meet full urban interstate standards.


It certainly meets the "defense" criteria for such routes, serving the front gate of a NAS -- in addition to being a recreational access facility.  Hey, if the Fort Drum access road in upstate NY can get I-781 as a designation, a I-137/337/537 shouldn't be out of the question for TX 358.  But TX has a lot of Interstate-grade freeways outside the actual system -- and they don't seem in too much of a hurry to change that status.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on January 03, 2020, 07:02:01 PM
and they don't seem in too much of a hurry to change that status.
Unless it's I-69  :bigass:
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on January 03, 2020, 07:09:08 PM
and they don't seem in too much of a hurry to change that status.
Unless it's I-69  :bigass:

That is most certainly true -- but I was considering mileage outside of even the I-69 cluster (like TX 288, US 69/96/287 between Beaumont and Port Arthur, etc.) -- that's been around a while. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on January 03, 2020, 07:11:45 PM
but I was considering mileage outside of even the I-69 cluster (like TX 288, US 69/96/287 between Beaumont and Port Arthur, etc.) -- that's been around a while.
Very true. IIRC, parts of the US-69/US-96/US-287 corridor are not up to interstate standards. TX-288 appears to be for the freeway segment.

US-75 can be added to that from Dallas to Oklahoma. Easily could become an I-45 extension.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on January 03, 2020, 07:18:28 PM
but I was considering mileage outside of even the I-69 cluster (like TX 288, US 69/96/287 between Beaumont and Port Arthur, etc.) -- that's been around a while.
Very true. IIRC, parts of the US-69/US-96/US-287 corridor are not up to interstate standards. TX-288 appears to be for the freeway segment.

US-75 can be added to that from Dallas to Oklahoma. Easily could become an I-45 extension.

I would think that TxDOT would wait until ODOT committed to raising US 69/75 to I-standards at least to the nearest NHS highway interchange (US 70 near Durant) before even considering extending I-45 up US 75.  Then again, they could simply act unilaterally and apply for the designation right to the state line at the Red River crossing, effectively sending ODOT a message imitating the late Ted Knight in Caddyshack:  "Wellllll......we're WAITING!"  :-P
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on January 03, 2020, 09:10:26 PM
Such an example has at least a couple or more existing precedents. There's the New York version of I-99 ending at the PA state line. I-41 ends at the Illinois state line.

It does look like ODOT will get US-69/75 improved to Interstate quality at least up to US-70 in Durant. A completed Interstate up to that point would serve the giant WinStar Casino (the biggest in the US) more efficiently and move traffic through that area more safely. It's just too bad the lunkheads farther North in Atoka, Stringtown, etc won't get with the program. But those towns are "graying" fast and not retaining any youth. They'll be ghost towns eventually.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on January 04, 2020, 04:24:41 AM
Such an example has at least a couple or more existing precedents. There's the New York version of I-99 ending at the PA state line. I-41 ends at the Illinois state line.

It does look like ODOT will get US-69/75 improved to Interstate quality at least up to US-70 in Durant. A completed Interstate up to that point would serve the giant WinStar Casino (the biggest in the US) more efficiently and move traffic through that area more safely. It's just too bad the lunkheads farther North in Atoka, Stringtown, etc won't get with the program. But those towns are "graying" fast and not retaining any youth. They'll be ghost towns eventually.

Then, unless the historical objectors start resembling the walking dead, one of the obstacles to upgrading US 69 at least to I-40 if not beyond will be in the rear view mirror.  Then the only thing would be for ODOT to cobble up some funding for the project(s) -- which, considering their recent history, might not occur for some time.   But I suppose miracles can happen....but I for one don't plan to hold my breath! 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: -- US 175 -- on January 04, 2020, 12:16:37 PM
A completed Interstate up to that point would serve the giant WinStar Casino (the biggest in the US) more efficiently and move traffic through that area more safely.

Actually, the Choctaw Casino is the one on US 69-US 75;  while the Winstar is on I-35 (but who's counting?)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on January 04, 2020, 03:36:19 PM
Quote from: US 175
Actually, the Choctaw Casino is the one on US 69-US 75;  while the Winstar is on I-35 (but who's counting?)

Uh, yeah, DERP!!! That is correct.:-D Ugh, how embarrassing.:crazy: Still, the Choctaw Casino is a pretty big facility. It's not on the enormous scale of WinStar, but it's still a pretty big attraction to DFW residents.

Quote from: sparker
Then, unless the historical objectors start resembling the walking dead, one of the obstacles to upgrading US 69 at least to I-40 if not beyond will be in the rear view mirror. Then the only thing would be for ODOT to cobble up some funding for the project(s) -- which, considering their recent history, might not occur for some time. But I suppose miracles can happen....but I for one don't plan to hold my breath!

That's the other really difficult thing about a state losing population. The people moving South of the Red River are taking their tax dollars with them. Many of the citizens leaving are younger, more productive people. We've lost a BUNCH of teachers due to the idiots in OKC. The cursory pay raise they passed recently came out of highway funding via the first fuel tax increase in over 25 years. The right-wing jerks still despise teachers as if they're communists or something. They still think they're going to solve the "education issue" by transforming public schools into private, for-profit, fly-by-night "charter schools" that are free to turn class into Sunday School Monday-Friday. Who cares what young, working families can afford for class tuition or making their kids actually competitive in a GLOBAL marketplace?

Anyway, that rant put aside, the aging folks in Stringtown, Atoka, etc may not want some Interstate highway bypassing their towns. But I guarantee they're a lot more scared about the continued exodus of youth from those towns. They're very scared of the idea that the local K-12 school could eventually close. It's a point of debate on how a superhighway bypass can help or harm a small town. But there is no debate about the consequence of the local school closing. That will kill a small town, guaranteed.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: rte66man on January 04, 2020, 04:57:36 PM
Quote from: sparker
Then, unless the historical objectors start resembling the walking dead, one of the obstacles to upgrading US 69 at least to I-40 if not beyond will be in the rear view mirror. Then the only thing would be for ODOT to cobble up some funding for the project(s) -- which, considering their recent history, might not occur for some time. But I suppose miracles can happen....but I for one don't plan to hold my breath!

That's the other really difficult thing about a state losing population.


Not true. Early estimates for the 2020 census say there has been growth, small but positive.
http://worldpopulationreview.com/states/oklahoma-population/

Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on January 04, 2020, 09:35:19 PM
Most of Oklahoma's projected net population gains are happening within the Oklahoma City and Tulsa MSA's. The only notable exceptions to that are Love and Bryan Counties along the Red River. The WinStar and Choctaw Casinos likely have something to do with that population growth in counties that are otherwise fairly low in population.

Most of Oklahoma's rural counties are showing net population losses. It's pretty bad here in the Southwest part of the state. Some counties, like Tillman County may show losses as much as 10% compared to the 2010 Census. Even Comanche County may end up with a net loss of population. Lawton's current estimated population is down to 93,000 -about 5,000 less than a peak reached a few years ago.

Along the US-69/75 corridor the counties North of Durant are showing net losses. Both Atoka and Pittsburg Counties are losing people. The US-69 corridor doesn't move into growing counties until it reaches Wagoner County -and that county is only growing in its Western-most areas, near Tulsa.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on January 05, 2020, 02:56:06 AM
Most of Oklahoma's projected net population gains are happening within the Oklahoma City and Tulsa MSA's. The only notable exceptions to that are Love and Bryan Counties along the Red River. The WinStar and Choctaw Casinos likely have something to do with that population growth in counties that are otherwise fairly low in population.

Most of Oklahoma's rural counties are showing net population losses. It's pretty bad here in the Southwest part of the state. Some counties, like Tillman County may show losses as much as 10% compared to the 2010 Census. Even Comanche County may end up with a net loss of population. Lawton's current estimated population is down to 93,000 -about 5,000 less than a peak reached a few years ago.

Along the US-69/75 corridor the counties North of Durant are showing net losses. Both Atoka and Pittsburg Counties are losing people. The US-69 corridor doesn't move into growing counties until it reaches Wagoner County -and that county is only growing in its Western-most areas, near Tulsa.

That's to be expected; unless some sort of public-sector incentives (tax breaks, nominal-cost services, etc) are applied, the corporations and industries that tend to dominate the hiring arena stay away from smaller communities and metro areas.  And there's the "catch-22":  cities like Muskogee, McAlester, etc. can't raise the $$$ needed to offset those tax breaks, so they aren't being offered on a regular basis, while the metro areas that can financially accommodate incoming businesses do so regularly, which in relatively short order results in growth in housing -- more often than not outward as suburban/exurban -- that generally transcends county or metro lines.  So tracts and the associated commercial development are deployed -- but there's little if any connection to the remainder of whatever rural county in which they're located; both economic and commuter direction are directed toward the main metro area that prompted the development in the first place.  The relative cheapness of the previously rural land is a principal driving factor with housing developers, whose respect for jurisdictional lines only is relevant to them in terms of which politicos to schmooze to get the incentives or terms they want.  In this case, the fact that the US 69 corridor is, distance-wise, closer to the development than central Tulsa is neither here nor there; the development is still considered to be within the greater Tulsa sphere of influence.   
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on January 05, 2020, 01:10:05 PM
My point still stands that the US-69 corridor North of Durant to up past Muskogee is losing population. The forces obstructing improvements to the US-69 corridor (residents of Atoka, Stringtown, etc) are not going to live forever. Eventually there will be too few interested parties left to continue the fight to block improvements to US-69.

In all likelihood, if the exodus of youth continues I could see those communities developing a sudden about-face in their attitudes to the US-69 corridor. They could become desperate for anything that could spark economic growth locally. Having an new Interstate, such as an extension of I-45, come through the area would do more to make their towns more visible on a large, national map.

The US-69 corridor is a major trucking route, one even more busy as an Interstate route. McAlester and Muskogee might become more attractive to businesses scouting for distribution center locations if they are along a completed Interstate corridor. Both of those small cities are currently losing population, just like Lawton. It's going to take the addition of good paying jobs, improvements to public schools among other things to attract young working families to those areas or at least retain locals who grow up there. Some of that requires tax dollars to happen. Unfortunately too many in the older set see any taxes as socialism or communism. There are rural towns here where residents have voted against tax measures to help the local school despite the roof at the school leaking and the walls growing black mold. Yet the same no-tax voters get angry when their kids or grandkids move away to the big city. It's hypocrisy.

Residents of many smaller cities and towns just don't realize the uphill battle they're facing at attracting talent. The state can do only so much via tax incentives like mapping out TIF districts in sections of the town. Major employers are just not going to locate there if they feel there is not enough of a workforce there to fill all the job positions.

I think US-69 is eventually going to be converted into a limited access super highway from the Red River to Big Cabin. It's only a question of how many years or decades will pass before then. And then there is also a question as to what form such a finished super highway will take. Will it be a freeway the entire length? Or will it be a mix of long toll roads with short freeway segments (like I-44)?

If the people in Atoka and Stringtown were fighting this battle smarter they might be able to lobby ODOT to convert this corridor into a "free I-45" without toll gates. That would attract more commerce and jobs to the corridor and help prevent those towns from drying up. But if they want to stay the course and let their towns wither, that eventual I-45 (or whatever it is) will bypass their towns in the form of a turnpike with few exits. The only free sections between Durant and Big Cabin will be segments in McAlester and Muskogee.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: rte66man on January 08, 2020, 06:28:34 PM
See this thread:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=20467.175

for reasons why that won't happen IF the state has to be the driving force for improvements
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MaxConcrete on January 10, 2020, 07:08:54 PM
Bids were opened today for 8.29 miles of upgrade southwest of Houston. This is the first section in Wharton County, from the Fort Bend County Line to the north end of the city of Wharton. (Fort Bend county is the first county southwest of Houston, and work is in progress from the Grand Parkway to the Wharton/Fort Bend county line).

The existing facility is mostly 2x2 4-lane divided and generally lacks frontage roads. Frontage roads will be added for most of the length.

The bid works out to $23 million per mile. Looking at the plans, it is 3x3 with 12-foot-wide inner and outer shoulders (122 foot concrete width), built to TxDOT's standard design using a center barrier and no median.
http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/01103201.htm (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/01103201.htm)

County:   WHARTON   Let Date:   01/10/20
Type:   UPGRADE TO RURAL FREEWAY   Seq No:   3201
Time:   0 X   Project ID:   NH 2020(496)
Highway:   US 59   Contract #:   01203201
Length:   0.000   CCSJ:   0089-08-098
Limits:   
From:   FORT BEND C/L   Check:   $100,000
To:   0.83 MILES SOUTH OF SH 60   Misc Cost:   $1222527.00
Estimate   $195,525,805.90   % Over/Under   Company
Bidder 1   $191,395,295.32   -2.11%   WILLIAMS BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.
Bidder 2   $198,029,850.12   +1.28%   JAMES CONSTRUCTION GROUP, L.L.C.
Bidder 3   $205,280,801.49   +4.99%   ZACHRY CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION
Bidder 4   $210,039,775.48   +7.42%   WEBBER, LLC
Bidder 5   $230,462,130.37   +17.87%   JOHNSON BROS. CORPORATION, A SOUTHLAND COMPANY
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on January 10, 2020, 08:01:59 PM
Bids were opened today for 8.29 miles of upgrade southwest of Houston. This is the first section in Wharton County, from the Fort Bend County Line to the north end of the city of Wharton. (Fort Bend county is the first county southwest of Houston, and work is in progress from the Grand Parkway to the Wharton/Fort Bend county line).

The existing facility is mostly 2x2 4-lane divided and generally lacks frontage roads. Frontage roads will be added for most of the length.

The bid works out to $23 million per mile. Looking at the plans, it is 3x3 with 12-foot-wide inner and outer shoulders (122 foot concrete width), built to TxDOT's standard design using a center barrier and no median.
http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/01103201.htm (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/01103201.htm)

County:   WHARTON   Let Date:   01/10/20
Type:   UPGRADE TO RURAL FREEWAY   Seq No:   3201
Time:   0 X   Project ID:   NH 2020(496)
Highway:   US 59   Contract #:   01203201
Length:   0.000   CCSJ:   0089-08-098
Limits:   
From:   FORT BEND C/L   Check:   $100,000
To:   0.83 MILES SOUTH OF SH 60   Misc Cost:   $1222527.00
Estimate   $195,525,805.90   % Over/Under   Company
Bidder 1   $191,395,295.32   -2.11%   WILLIAMS BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.
Bidder 2   $198,029,850.12   +1.28%   JAMES CONSTRUCTION GROUP, L.L.C.
Bidder 3   $205,280,801.49   +4.99%   ZACHRY CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION
Bidder 4   $210,039,775.48   +7.42%   WEBBER, LLC
Bidder 5   $230,462,130.37   +17.87%   JOHNSON BROS. CORPORATION, A SOUTHLAND COMPANY

Nice to see more work continuing to progress on the Houston <-> Corpus Christi segment. Drove through the current segment down to Kendleton currently under construction this past summer, and work was coming along nicely.

I imagine the next piece will be the 14 mile segment from Wharton to the El Campo bypass, which is currently being upgraded to interstate standards. At some point between Wharton and El Campo, the freeway will reduce from 6 lanes to 4 lanes.

Once this segment to Wharton is completed, about 100 miles of continuous I-69 roadway will be completed from Wharton to Cleveland. An additional 147 mile gap will remain from Wharton to I-37 to be completed in the future, though currently exists as a 75 mph expressway without interruption, with the exception of Refugio and Odem on the southern end.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: O Tamandua on May 08, 2020, 10:58:43 PM
The Nacogdoches flyover (and other things related to it) continue to take shape:

Quote

(https://www.ktre.com/resizer/1z4b6-13ZVDcqPGLiThsLwPrdtE=/1200x600/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-raycom.s3.amazonaws.com/public/6WZSQFEI5RGRBJ3IYYXOZBNC3Q.png)

Crews rescheduled to remove overhead power lines as part of U.S. 59 flyover project

NACOGDOCHES, Texas (KTRE) - Drivers on U.S. 59 near Loop 224 in Nacogdoches County will soon experience a round of rolling stops related to the ongoing U.S. 59 flyover construction project.

Crews will remove overhead electric lines that cross U.S. 59 South and the southwest area of Loop 224. There are nine locations where lines will be removed, and delays should last about 15 minutes each time, said Rhonda Oaks, a spokesperson for Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) Lufkin.

https://www.ktre.com/2020/05/06/crews-rescheduled-remove-overhead-power-lines-part-us-flyover-project/

Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MaxConcrete on May 09, 2020, 05:13:28 PM
Bids were opened yesterday for upgrading 3 miles of US 77 (IH 69E) on the south side of Kingsville. Looking at the plans, most of the work is adding frontage roads. It looks like some of the existing main lanes will be replaced, and some will get a fresh topping of asphalt.
http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/05083202.htm (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/05083202.htm)

County:   KLEBERG   Let Date:   05/08/20
Type:   CONSTRUCT MAINLANES, FRONTAGE ROADS AND STRUCTURE   Seq No:   3202
Time:   660 WORKING DAYS   Project ID:   NH 2020(871)
Highway:   US 77   Contract #:   05203202
Length:   3.390   CCSJ:   0102-04-099
Limits:   
From:   FM 1356   Check:   $100,000
To:   CR 2130   Misc Cost:   
Estimate   $48,109,866.82   % Over/Under   Company
Bidder 1   $55,237,175.26   +14.81%   BAY LTD.
Bidder 2   $63,707,812.88   +32.42%   ANDERSON COLUMBIA CO., INC.
Bidder 3   $64,999,726.21   +35.11%   ZACHRY CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION
Bidder 4   $73,104,113.56   +51.95%   HAAS-ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION, LTD.

(http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/202005-US77-Kingsville.png)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on May 10, 2020, 12:26:29 AM
Bids were opened yesterday for upgrading 3 miles of US 77 (IH 69E) on the south side of Kingsville. Looking at the plans, most of the work is adding frontage roads. It looks like some of the existing main lanes will be replaced, and some will get a fresh topping of asphalt.
http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/05083202.htm (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/05083202.htm)

County:   KLEBERG   Let Date:   05/08/20
Type:   CONSTRUCT MAINLANES, FRONTAGE ROADS AND STRUCTURE   Seq No:   3202
Time:   660 WORKING DAYS   Project ID:   NH 2020(871)
Highway:   US 77   Contract #:   05203202
Length:   3.390   CCSJ:   0102-04-099
Limits:   
From:   FM 1356   Check:   $100,000
To:   CR 2130   Misc Cost:   
Estimate   $48,109,866.82   % Over/Under   Company
Bidder 1   $55,237,175.26   +14.81%   BAY LTD.
Bidder 2   $63,707,812.88   +32.42%   ANDERSON COLUMBIA CO., INC.
Bidder 3   $64,999,726.21   +35.11%   ZACHRY CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION
Bidder 4   $73,104,113.56   +51.95%   HAAS-ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION, LTD.
Where do you go to access project plans?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MaxConcrete on May 10, 2020, 08:37:06 AM
Where do you go to access project plans?

First you identify the county and project ID number on the monthly project lists
Main page https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/division/general-services/letting/letting-schedule.html (https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/division/general-services/letting/letting-schedule.html)
May 2020 list https://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/let/2020/letmay.htm (https://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/let/2020/letmay.htm)

Then you go to the plans online page
https://www.txdot.gov/business/letting-bids/plans-online.html (https://www.txdot.gov/business/letting-bids/plans-online.html)

Proceed through a few disclaimer screens, then drill down to the month and find the project among the list, which is by county.

Plans for larger projects are usually several hundred MB, you'll usually want to right click the link, download and open in Adobe Reader for better viewing performance.

The illustrations in plans vary, but there is usually something similar to a schematic, often with the desription "proposed section" or "horizontal alignment", which are usually at the top of the document but not always.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on May 10, 2020, 01:16:40 PM
Where do you go to access project plans?

First you identify the county and project ID number on the monthly project lists
Main page https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/division/general-services/letting/letting-schedule.html (https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/division/general-services/letting/letting-schedule.html)
May 2020 list https://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/let/2020/letmay.htm (https://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/let/2020/letmay.htm)

Then you go to the plans online page
https://www.txdot.gov/business/letting-bids/plans-online.html (https://www.txdot.gov/business/letting-bids/plans-online.html)

Proceed through a few disclaimer screens, then drill down to the month and find the project among the list, which is by county.

Plans for larger projects are usually several hundred MB, you'll usually want to right click the link, download and open in Adobe Reader for better viewing performance.

The illustrations in plans vary, but there is usually something similar to a schematic, often with the desription "proposed section" or "horizontal alignment", which are usually at the top of the document but not always.
Thank you the information! Very useful.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on May 10, 2020, 01:21:13 PM
Bids were opened yesterday for upgrading 3 miles of US 77 (IH 69E) on the south side of Kingsville. Looking at the plans, most of the work is adding frontage roads. It looks like some of the existing main lanes will be replaced, and some will get a fresh topping of asphalt.
http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/05083202.htm (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/05083202.htm)

County:   KLEBERG   Let Date:   05/08/20
Type:   CONSTRUCT MAINLANES, FRONTAGE ROADS AND STRUCTURE   Seq No:   3202
Time:   660 WORKING DAYS   Project ID:   NH 2020(871)
Highway:   US 77   Contract #:   05203202
Length:   3.390   CCSJ:   0102-04-099
Limits:   
From:   FM 1356   Check:   $100,000
To:   CR 2130   Misc Cost:   
Estimate   $48,109,866.82   % Over/Under   Company
Bidder 1   $55,237,175.26   +14.81%   BAY LTD.
Bidder 2   $63,707,812.88   +32.42%   ANDERSON COLUMBIA CO., INC.
Bidder 3   $64,999,726.21   +35.11%   ZACHRY CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION
Bidder 4   $73,104,113.56   +51.95%   HAAS-ANDERSON CONSTRUCTION, LTD.
So looking at the project plans, it appears as you said the work is mostly adding frontage roads and overpasses. The existing 74 foot median will be maintained similar to recent projects north of there up to I-37 (except near Bishop and Robstown that reduced the median to a concrete barrier).

IIRC, south of this project, future projects will reduce the concrete barrier though. Having a 10 foot shoulder certainly helps to make it less cramped on longer stretches, like near Bishop.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on May 11, 2020, 10:07:13 PM
Google Earth has new imagery (dated 1/31/2020) for the Corpus Christi area. More of the on-going progress with the Harbor Bridge project is visible. More work is happening on the TX-44 freeway West of Corpus Christi. Across the harbor in Gregory, TX there's an interchange improvement happening at the US-181/TX-35 split. Finally, more work on I-69E is visible, such as the bypasses around Driscoll and Bishop.

Once I-69E is complete down past Kingsville further upgrades should be relatively simple. A bypass is being planned for Riviera. But the rest of US-77 between Kingsville and Raymondville will be upgraded to Interstate standards along the existing ROW.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on May 11, 2020, 10:22:35 PM
More work is happening on the TX-44 freeway West of Corpus Christi.
IIRC, that project will complete the freeway from SH-358 to the point it narrows to undivided highway immediately outside Robstown.

Across the harbor in Gregory, TX there's an interchange improvement happening at the US-181/TX-35 split.
Never knew about this project... it was not under construction when I drove past the area this past summer.

http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/crp/us-181/041718-schematic.pdf

This will construct Phase 2 of the interchange project, building about 1 mile of new freeway mainlines bypassing two intersections, tying into another overpass at SH-2986. Ultimately, about 2 miles of US-181 will be freeway approaching the SH-35 interchange.

Further north on US-181, a new interchange on the southern end of the Sinton Bypass is also under construction.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on May 11, 2020, 11:13:51 PM
Does TX DOT have any plans to connect the TX-44 freeway with I-69E in the Robstown area? Currently it looks like there is a work-able path where the TX-44 could dovetail into I-69E on the South side of Robstown where I-69E bends through that curve just South of the Industrial Blvd exit.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on May 11, 2020, 11:22:02 PM
Does TX DOT have any plans to connect the TX-44 freeway with I-69E in the Robstown area? Currently it looks like there is a work-able path where the TX-44 could dovetail into I-69E on the South side of Robstown where I-69E bends through that curve just South of the Industrial Blvd exit.
TxDOT owns that southern path's right of way, however a larger study was completed in 2017 for a full SH-44 Robstown Bypass, and the preferred alternative includes a southern alignment that will connect to I-69E with a system interchange further south near SH-36.

Interestingly enough, looking at the preferred alternative map, it shows that TxDOT plans to construct both the bypass and that currently owned TxDOT R/W corridor for the northern ramps. Seems pointless rather than one system interchange - considering those northern movements carry less traffic - but who knows.

(https://i.ibb.co/19Wg2nk/Robstown-Bypass.png)
https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/corpus-christi/sh-44-robstown.html

Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on May 11, 2020, 11:35:10 PM
I think they need to take a compromise approach with that bypass. It's going to be less expensive to build that short extension of the TX-44 freeway to I-69E than the longer East half of that bypass. The shorter freeway extension will give Robstown more of a direct benefit. I'm not opposed to building the West half of that loop. A pair of T interchanges along I-69E in two different locations is probably going to be less expensive than building a full interchange between two crossing freeways (especially if the interchange is a directional stack).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on May 12, 2020, 03:18:40 AM
I think they need to take a compromise approach with that bypass. It's going to be less expensive to build that short extension of the TX-44 freeway to I-69E than the longer East half of that bypass. The shorter freeway extension will give Robstown more of a direct benefit. I'm not opposed to building the West half of that loop. A pair of T interchanges along I-69E in two different locations is probably going to be less expensive than building a full interchange between two crossing freeways (especially if the interchange is a directional stack).

Two semi-directional-T interchanges for the TX 44 (eventually I-whatever) freeway would work as long as there are slip lanes between so unnecessary merging is kept to a minimum.  And since it's so close to the I-37/69E interchange, multiple ramp lanes on the SB>EB and WB>NB connectors wouldn't be necessary at the northern junction point.   In fact, TxDOT could even configure that northern junction as a trumpet and save a few bucks in the process. 
Title: Reason for renumbering US69 in Texas
Post by: bwana39 on May 12, 2020, 11:58:15 AM
While many threads on here get intermingled, this one has lots of discussion of what amounts to US-69 (primarily in Oklahoma.) While we Texans would doubtfully confuse an INTERSTATE with as US Highway. People from other places might. People who call the interstate "Route" (often said ROOT) or Highway. In Texas it is "Interstate XX" or "Highway XX" (meaning US or SH). FM. RM, Loop, Spur etc having their unique colloquilism.

Texas doesn't renumber highways. They rarely make significant reroutes beyond a loop or a minimal straightening.  I-69 / I-369  is planned to follow US -59.  No significant deviation except loops around towns. Not even a real deviation going through Lufkin.

Renumbering US-69 is an issue.

While there some esoteric ideas like assigning part of it with a completely NEW Number or some sort of funky US-287 reroute, the concensus seems to leave it be. Convention and AASHTO standards and  precedent be damned. 

To me there are for are a handful of options that work and work well. These go from least involved to most.

1) Truncate US69 in Jacksonville TX and extend US-175 to SE Texas
2) Truncate US69 in Tyler and extend US-271 to SE Texas
3) Truncate US69 in Denison and reroute US75 along its route. (This requires renumbering US-75 to Dallas, possibly / probably as I-45). This one MIGHT be confusing to the people in Denison.
4) Truncate US69 in Jacksonville. Delete US-175. Renumber all of US175 & the current US-69 south of Jacksonville as US-75.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on May 12, 2020, 03:34:52 PM
Texas doesn't renumber highways.
Quote from: http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/sh/sh0069.htm
Adm. Auth., dated 09/14/1992; Adm. Ltr. 003-1992, dated 09/14/1992

Cancelled.  (Eastland County)  As requested by District, this mileage transferred to SH 112.  (This is due to numerous thefts of the popular SH 69 signs.)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on May 16, 2020, 03:21:11 PM
Quote from: sparker
Two semi-directional-T interchanges for the TX 44 (eventually I-whatever) freeway would work as long as there are slip lanes between so unnecessary merging is kept to a minimum.

There appears to be an adequate enough distance between the two possible T-interchange locations that criss-crossing traffic movements would not be much of a problem. The bigger challenge for the Northern TX-44/I-69E interchange option is being pretty close to the existing TX-44 interchange. Some ramp braiding may be necessary there.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on May 16, 2020, 03:29:31 PM
I would be curious to see a schematic of the proposed design.
Title: Re: Reason for renumbering US69 in Texas
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on August 06, 2020, 02:49:40 PM
While many threads on here get intermingled, this one has lots of discussion of what amounts to US-69 (primarily in Oklahoma.) While we Texans would doubtfully confuse an INTERSTATE with as US Highway. People from other places might. People who call the interstate "Route" (often said ROOT) or Highway. In Texas it is "Interstate XX" or "Highway XX" (meaning US or SH). FM. RM, Loop, Spur etc having their unique colloquilism.

Texas doesn't renumber highways. They rarely make significant reroutes beyond a loop or a minimal straightening.  I-69 / I-369  is planned to follow US -59.  No significant deviation except loops around towns. Not even a real deviation going through Lufkin.

Renumbering US-69 is an issue.

While there some esoteric ideas like assigning part of it with a completely NEW Number or some sort of funky US-287 reroute, the concensus seems to leave it be. Convention and AASHTO standards and  precedent be damned. 

To me there are for are a handful of options that work and work well. These go from least involved to most.

1) Truncate US69 in Jacksonville TX and extend US-175 to SE Texas
2) Truncate US69 in Tyler and extend US-271 to SE Texas
3) Truncate US69 in Denison and reroute US75 along its route. (This requires renumbering US-75 to Dallas, possibly / probably as I-45). This one MIGHT be confusing to the people in Denison.
4) Truncate US69 in Jacksonville. Delete US-175. Renumber all of US175 & the current US-69 south of Jacksonville as US-75.

I have the same thoughts about this as I do people wanting to renumber long stretches of highway just to make another highway conform to the grid:

Let it go.

The interstate grid is beautiful.  Like natural beauty, one of the things that make it beautiful is the few exceptions to the rules.  Do I hate that I-180 in Wyoming should be a Business Spur and not a full interstate?  Yes I do, but I am also fascinated with it being an oddity.  Renumbering hundreds of miles of US 69 just to make I-69 not violate a rule is impractical.  Changing addresses of every house, business and farm that have had that address for decades just so that I-69, an interstate that's already in violation once it gets west of Indianapolis, is just dumb.  I do like your what if scenarios, yes, but it seems a lot of people get so serious about these violations.

So no, we are not going to renumber all of I-17 to an extension of I-19, having it cosigned with I-10, just so we can number the future I-11 as I-17.  It's okay it's out of the grid. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on August 06, 2020, 02:54:44 PM
I now the I-69C subject has come up numerous times, but I don't think anyone has really analyzed this part until I was thinking about it today.  The current alignment crosses I-69W at George West, but it continues north to I-37 north of Three Rivers.  I never really thought much of it before, but shouldn't that part not be signed as I-69C.  I mean, I-69C should be spawned from I-69W if we are going to be technical about it, so shouldn't the segment from George West to the current intersection of US 281 and I-37 north of Three Rivers have a separate number?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on August 06, 2020, 05:22:43 PM
Assuming I-69W isn't actually built, the easiest thing would be to bypass George West around the southeastern side, follow US-59 to I-37, then tie into I-37 and terminate.

About 7 miles of construction saved going that way vs. following US-281 all the way up to I-37.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on August 06, 2020, 05:27:00 PM
Assuming I-69W isn't actually built, the easiest thing would be to bypass George West around the southeastern side, follow US-59 to I-37, then tie into I-37 and terminate.

About 7 miles of construction saved going that way vs. following US-281 all the way up to I-37.

As far as I can remember, all the legs have to be built. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on August 06, 2020, 05:28:16 PM
Assuming I-69W isn't actually built, the easiest thing would be to bypass George West around the southeastern side, follow US-59 to I-37, then tie into I-37 and terminate.

About 7 miles of construction saved going that way vs. following US-281 all the way up to I-37.

As far as I can remember, all the legs have to be built.
In reality, I cannot see any segments of I-69W northeast of Freer actually getting funding. Maybe in 50 years it'll be segmented together, but it's certain a low priority compared to I-69C and I-69E which are due for major construction activities in the next decade, notably completing I-69E between Corpus Christi and Brownsville, and completing I-69C between McAllen and Falfurrias. Laredo to Freer, and Freer to Corpus Christi may also be slow-paced, but might eventually happen. Nothing earmarked for I-69W.

Between Freer and Victoria, I-69W provides a shortcut to taking I-69E and "I-6", but the real question is, is shaving off 20 miles off the trip worth over a hundred miles of new construction, in today's funding environment, along a present-day 2 lane 75 mph road? This would mostly benefit long distance Houston to Laredo traffic, which is already primarily served by I-10 and I-35. Aside from that, only small traffic volumes from small towns that are already adequately served by 2-lane US-59 or can utilize the I-69E to "I-6" routing.

I'm not necessarily against that segment of I-69W, but I don't think it's a high priority. If funding can be one day found to complete all of the I-69 legs, I'm all for having that segment built. But with limited funding available, let's finish I-69E and I-69C first, then Freer to Corpus Christi, then maybe Freer to Victoria.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on August 06, 2020, 05:35:11 PM
Assuming I-69W isn't actually built, the easiest thing would be to bypass George West around the southeastern side, follow US-59 to I-37, then tie into I-37 and terminate.

About 7 miles of construction saved going that way vs. following US-281 all the way up to I-37.

As far as I can remember, all the legs have to be built.
In reality, I cannot see any segments of I-69W northeast of Freer actually getting funding. Maybe in 50 years it'll be segmented together, but it's certain a low priority compared to I-69C and I-69E which are due for major construction activities in the next decade, notably completing I-69E between Corpus Christi and Brownsville, and completing I-69C between McAllen and Falfurrias. Nothing earmarked for I-69W.

I agree it will be the slower leg, but it still will be finished per legislation.  It won't be a "on the shelf indefinitely" thing like a lot of projects become. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on August 06, 2020, 07:31:11 PM
Assuming I-69W isn't actually built, the easiest thing would be to bypass George West around the southeastern side, follow US-59 to I-37, then tie into I-37 and terminate.

About 7 miles of construction saved going that way vs. following US-281 all the way up to I-37.

As far as I can remember, all the legs have to be built.
In reality, I cannot see any segments of I-69W northeast of Freer actually getting funding. Maybe in 50 years it'll be segmented together, but it's certain a low priority compared to I-69C and I-69E which are due for major construction activities in the next decade, notably completing I-69E between Corpus Christi and Brownsville, and completing I-69C between McAllen and Falfurrias. Nothing earmarked for I-69W.

I agree it will be the slower leg, but it still will be finished per legislation.  It won't be a "on the shelf indefinitely" thing like a lot of projects become. 

It's probably safe to assume that the prioritization will be I-69E and I-69C because of the sheer present volume of commercial traffic.  Prior to the Freer-Corpus cluster addition, the sole purpose of I-69W was to take San Antonio out of the mix for Houston-bound traffic coming over the border at Laredo; in that respect, that particular branch is more of a "relief route" for the I-35/10 combination than anything else.  It makes sense when one realizes that the San Antonio-Austin corridor, besides being TX' "tech central", is also one of the major consumer-product distribution areas in the central U.S., particularly in regards to food items.  Houston, OTOH, is more geared toward large industrial and manufacturing distribution -- B-to-B stuff -- like PVC conduits and pipes (the Alvin/Lake Jackson area produces at least a plurality of the nation's supply of the stuff).  Industrial components coming through Laredo tend to head for Houston, while consumer products will for the most part stay right on I-35.  So I-69W/69 -- as a "straight shot" to the destination -- is an effective relief route for the present "arc" through SA.  And yeah, I know it's an indirect subsidy to business interests -- but what else is new? 

That being said -- I-69W will almost certainly be the last of the three legs to be developed, although in the long run it will happen; the W-C-E "trident" was specifically intended in the authorizing legislation (itself whipped up by members of TX' congressional delegation back in '91 through '95) to provide access to the three major border crossings in the lower Rio Grande Valley (I-2 connecting them all near their southern termini was a bit of an afterthought).  I'll opine that the "I-6" Freer-Corpus segment will be built quickly if Corpus' port sees significantly increased business due to the Panamax opening.  If not, it'll join the queue with the rest of the I-69 projects. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on August 07, 2020, 08:52:41 AM
I now the I-69C subject has come up numerous times, but I don't think anyone has really analyzed this part until I was thinking about it today.  The current alignment crosses I-69W at George West, but it continues north to I-37 north of Three Rivers.  I never really thought much of it before, but shouldn't that part not be signed as I-69C.  I mean, I-69C should be spawned from I-69W if we are going to be technical about it, so shouldn't the segment from George West to the current intersection of US 281 and I-37 north of Three Rivers have a separate number?

Another thing to this, since officially I-69C will usurp US 281 from the valley all the way to the intersection of I-37 and US 281 north of Three Rivers, the control cities might get interesting.  Since it is part of the I-69 triad, it should have a control city of Victoria like the other legs will, informing drivers that that is the routing of I-69, but in reality, I-69C will be constructed more like an I-X37, meaning I-37's northern terminus should be a control city too.  So it will have a BGS control set up saying Victoria San Antonio?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on August 07, 2020, 09:13:47 AM
I now the I-69C subject has come up numerous times, but I don't think anyone has really analyzed this part until I was thinking about it today.  The current alignment crosses I-69W at George West, but it continues north to I-37 north of Three Rivers.  I never really thought much of it before, but shouldn't that part not be signed as I-69C.  I mean, I-69C should be spawned from I-69W if we are going to be technical about it, so shouldn't the segment from George West to the current intersection of US 281 and I-37 north of Three Rivers have a separate number?

Another thing to this, since officially I-69C will usurp US 281 from the valley all the way to the intersection of I-37 and US 281 north of Three Rivers, the control cities might get interesting.  Since it is part of the I-69 triad, it should have a control city of Victoria like the other legs will, informing drivers that that is the routing of I-69, but in reality, I-69C will be constructed more like an I-X37, meaning I-37's northern terminus should be a control city too.  So it will have a BGS control set up saying Victoria San Antonio?

Going back to the I-69 Alliance website, the section from George West to Three Rivers is no longer highlighted.  Maybe everything I am talking about is moot?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on August 07, 2020, 04:51:33 PM
I now the I-69C subject has come up numerous times, but I don't think anyone has really analyzed this part until I was thinking about it today.  The current alignment crosses I-69W at George West, but it continues north to I-37 north of Three Rivers.  I never really thought much of it before, but shouldn't that part not be signed as I-69C.  I mean, I-69C should be spawned from I-69W if we are going to be technical about it, so shouldn't the segment from George West to the current intersection of US 281 and I-37 north of Three Rivers have a separate number?

Another thing to this, since officially I-69C will usurp US 281 from the valley all the way to the intersection of I-37 and US 281 north of Three Rivers, the control cities might get interesting.  Since it is part of the I-69 triad, it should have a control city of Victoria like the other legs will, informing drivers that that is the routing of I-69, but in reality, I-69C will be constructed more like an I-X37, meaning I-37's northern terminus should be a control city too.  So it will have a BGS control set up saying Victoria San Antonio?

Going back to the I-69 Alliance website, the section from George West to Three Rivers is no longer highlighted.  Maybe everything I am talking about is moot?

Probably so.  The Federal HPC-18 definition of I-69C only specifies the segment south of the Victoria-Laredo branch; it was always just US 281 by itself that extended north to Three Rivers.  That means that the legislated corridor didn't include that short stretch north of US 59, so any improvements there would have to source any federal share from outside the "normal" means associated with the overall corridor concept.  It was likely simply a cartographic error if the Three Rivers "spur" was highlighted by the Alliance at any point.  Of course, it could be included at some point in the future in much the same way that Freer-Corpus was added to the cluster; but since any activity in the George West area is quite a way down the line, it doesn't seem to be a priority with either the Alliance or TxDOT right now; they've got enough on their respective plates without worrying about a short stretch that won't be relevant for decades.     
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on August 07, 2020, 05:23:37 PM
I now the I-69C subject has come up numerous times, but I don't think anyone has really analyzed this part until I was thinking about it today.  The current alignment crosses I-69W at George West, but it continues north to I-37 north of Three Rivers.  I never really thought much of it before, but shouldn't that part not be signed as I-69C.  I mean, I-69C should be spawned from I-69W if we are going to be technical about it, so shouldn't the segment from George West to the current intersection of US 281 and I-37 north of Three Rivers have a separate number?

Another thing to this, since officially I-69C will usurp US 281 from the valley all the way to the intersection of I-37 and US 281 north of Three Rivers, the control cities might get interesting.  Since it is part of the I-69 triad, it should have a control city of Victoria like the other legs will, informing drivers that that is the routing of I-69, but in reality, I-69C will be constructed more like an I-X37, meaning I-37's northern terminus should be a control city too.  So it will have a BGS control set up saying Victoria San Antonio?

Going back to the I-69 Alliance website, the section from George West to Three Rivers is no longer highlighted.  Maybe everything I am talking about is moot?
I-69W between George West and I-37 will likely serve as the interstate connection, like I proposed above, as opposed to building an additional ~15 miles of US-281 to tie into I-37 near Three Rivers.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on August 07, 2020, 05:37:13 PM
I now the I-69C subject has come up numerous times, but I don't think anyone has really analyzed this part until I was thinking about it today.  The current alignment crosses I-69W at George West, but it continues north to I-37 north of Three Rivers.  I never really thought much of it before, but shouldn't that part not be signed as I-69C.  I mean, I-69C should be spawned from I-69W if we are going to be technical about it, so shouldn't the segment from George West to the current intersection of US 281 and I-37 north of Three Rivers have a separate number?

Another thing to this, since officially I-69C will usurp US 281 from the valley all the way to the intersection of I-37 and US 281 north of Three Rivers, the control cities might get interesting.  Since it is part of the I-69 triad, it should have a control city of Victoria like the other legs will, informing drivers that that is the routing of I-69, but in reality, I-69C will be constructed more like an I-X37, meaning I-37's northern terminus should be a control city too.  So it will have a BGS control set up saying Victoria San Antonio?

Going back to the I-69 Alliance website, the section from George West to Three Rivers is no longer highlighted.  Maybe everything I am talking about is moot?
I-69W between George West and I-37 will likely serve as the interstate connection, like I proposed above, as opposed to building an additional ~15 miles of US-281 to tie into I-37 near Three Rivers.

Yeah, but it just seems to unnatural a jog. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on August 07, 2020, 05:41:57 PM
I now the I-69C subject has come up numerous times, but I don't think anyone has really analyzed this part until I was thinking about it today.  The current alignment crosses I-69W at George West, but it continues north to I-37 north of Three Rivers.  I never really thought much of it before, but shouldn't that part not be signed as I-69C.  I mean, I-69C should be spawned from I-69W if we are going to be technical about it, so shouldn't the segment from George West to the current intersection of US 281 and I-37 north of Three Rivers have a separate number?

Another thing to this, since officially I-69C will usurp US 281 from the valley all the way to the intersection of I-37 and US 281 north of Three Rivers, the control cities might get interesting.  Since it is part of the I-69 triad, it should have a control city of Victoria like the other legs will, informing drivers that that is the routing of I-69, but in reality, I-69C will be constructed more like an I-X37, meaning I-37's northern terminus should be a control city too.  So it will have a BGS control set up saying Victoria San Antonio?

Going back to the I-69 Alliance website, the section from George West to Three Rivers is no longer highlighted.  Maybe everything I am talking about is moot?
I-69W between George West and I-37 will likely serve as the interstate connection, like I proposed above, as opposed to building an additional ~15 miles of US-281 to tie into I-37 near Three Rivers.

Yeah, but it just seems to unnatural a jog.
Agreed, but it would save 14 miles of construction, and likely over $100 million in funding that can go elsewhere in the corridor.

5 miles added for a trip, likely no additional minutes.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on August 07, 2020, 05:50:10 PM
I now the I-69C subject has come up numerous times, but I don't think anyone has really analyzed this part until I was thinking about it today.  The current alignment crosses I-69W at George West, but it continues north to I-37 north of Three Rivers.  I never really thought much of it before, but shouldn't that part not be signed as I-69C.  I mean, I-69C should be spawned from I-69W if we are going to be technical about it, so shouldn't the segment from George West to the current intersection of US 281 and I-37 north of Three Rivers have a separate number?

Another thing to this, since officially I-69C will usurp US 281 from the valley all the way to the intersection of I-37 and US 281 north of Three Rivers, the control cities might get interesting.  Since it is part of the I-69 triad, it should have a control city of Victoria like the other legs will, informing drivers that that is the routing of I-69, but in reality, I-69C will be constructed more like an I-X37, meaning I-37's northern terminus should be a control city too.  So it will have a BGS control set up saying Victoria San Antonio?

Going back to the I-69 Alliance website, the section from George West to Three Rivers is no longer highlighted.  Maybe everything I am talking about is moot?
I-69W between George West and I-37 will likely serve as the interstate connection, like I proposed above, as opposed to building an additional ~15 miles of US-281 to tie into I-37 near Three Rivers.

Yeah, but it just seems to unnatural a jog.
Agreed, but it would save 14 miles of construction, and likely over $100 million in funding that can go elsewhere in the corridor.

5 miles added for a trip, likely no additional minutes.

Sorry, I am not about saving a buck here or there when it comes to roads.  Take my tax dollars and buy me some awesome roads.  I would rather have that piece upgraded as well.

Aside, most of the traffic that heads south down US 281 to the valley is coming from San Antonio, so it would be natural to have that segment upgraded. 

There is this:

https://www.google.com/maps/@28.515473,-98.185253,3a,20.5y,194.05h,87.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sW3_rsOnEhJjt4imcEY8ECg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@28.515473,-98.185253,3a,20.5y,194.05h,87.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sW3_rsOnEhJjt4imcEY8ECg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

I'm not crazy after all! 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on August 08, 2020, 01:54:10 AM
I now the I-69C subject has come up numerous times, but I don't think anyone has really analyzed this part until I was thinking about it today.  The current alignment crosses I-69W at George West, but it continues north to I-37 north of Three Rivers.  I never really thought much of it before, but shouldn't that part not be signed as I-69C.  I mean, I-69C should be spawned from I-69W if we are going to be technical about it, so shouldn't the segment from George West to the current intersection of US 281 and I-37 north of Three Rivers have a separate number?

Another thing to this, since officially I-69C will usurp US 281 from the valley all the way to the intersection of I-37 and US 281 north of Three Rivers, the control cities might get interesting.  Since it is part of the I-69 triad, it should have a control city of Victoria like the other legs will, informing drivers that that is the routing of I-69, but in reality, I-69C will be constructed more like an I-X37, meaning I-37's northern terminus should be a control city too.  So it will have a BGS control set up saying Victoria San Antonio?

Going back to the I-69 Alliance website, the section from George West to Three Rivers is no longer highlighted.  Maybe everything I am talking about is moot?
I-69W between George West and I-37 will likely serve as the interstate connection, like I proposed above, as opposed to building an additional ~15 miles of US-281 to tie into I-37 near Three Rivers.

Yeah, but it just seems to unnatural a jog.
Agreed, but it would save 14 miles of construction, and likely over $100 million in funding that can go elsewhere in the corridor.

5 miles added for a trip, likely no additional minutes.

Sorry, I am not about saving a buck here or there when it comes to roads.  Take my tax dollars and buy me some awesome roads.  I would rather have that piece upgraded as well.

Aside, most of the traffic that heads south down US 281 to the valley is coming from San Antonio, so it would be natural to have that segment upgraded. 

There is this:

https://www.google.com/maps/@28.515473,-98.185253,3a,20.5y,194.05h,87.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sW3_rsOnEhJjt4imcEY8ECg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@28.515473,-98.185253,3a,20.5y,194.05h,87.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sW3_rsOnEhJjt4imcEY8ECg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

I'm not crazy after all! 

Technically, that future I-69 notification sign shouldn't be posted on that portion of US 281, since it's actually not included in the corridor's definition.  But enthusiasm being what it is, someone simply posted it there since there's not a lot of physical difference regarding 281 north vs. south of US 59.  So no one's crazy -- just looking at something that is functionally meaningless.  As said previously, if someone can make a case for including that stretch within corridor parameters down the line, it'll be done -- but as of right now, that's not the situation. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on August 08, 2020, 01:55:44 PM
The more I think about it, the more I realize I-69 is all about bypassing some cities but going right through others. It's being touted as a bypass to the congested I-40 west of Memphis, but then goes right through the Houston and Laredo metro areas. A true bypass would make its way somehow to Eagle Pass to link with Fed. 57, the best route to Mexico City. This would probably involve the US 79 or SH 21 corridor and then some sort of big bypass around the north side of San Antonio. Maybe it could even overlap bullshit I-14.

Alternately, to at least bypass Laredo, Texas and Mexico could collaborate on a new border crossing about halfway between Laredo and Brownsville. On the Texas side, it would leave I-69 near Kingsville and make its way southwest along the FM 755 corridor, or perhaps from Robstown on SH 44-SH 359-SH 16. In Mexico, an upgrade of Fed. 54 and a better interchange with 1600 (the Monterrey bypass) would take traffic to Fed. 57.

Yeah, fictional, fuck off. Victors write the history books.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on August 08, 2020, 02:51:26 PM
I now the I-69C subject has come up numerous times, but I don't think anyone has really analyzed this part until I was thinking about it today.  The current alignment crosses I-69W at George West, but it continues north to I-37 north of Three Rivers.  I never really thought much of it before, but shouldn't that part not be signed as I-69C.  I mean, I-69C should be spawned from I-69W if we are going to be technical about it, so shouldn't the segment from George West to the current intersection of US 281 and I-37 north of Three Rivers have a separate number?

Another thing to this, since officially I-69C will usurp US 281 from the valley all the way to the intersection of I-37 and US 281 north of Three Rivers, the control cities might get interesting.  Since it is part of the I-69 triad, it should have a control city of Victoria like the other legs will, informing drivers that that is the routing of I-69, but in reality, I-69C will be constructed more like an I-X37, meaning I-37's northern terminus should be a control city too.  So it will have a BGS control set up saying Victoria San Antonio?

Going back to the I-69 Alliance website, the section from George West to Three Rivers is no longer highlighted.  Maybe everything I am talking about is moot?
I-69W between George West and I-37 will likely serve as the interstate connection, like I proposed above, as opposed to building an additional ~15 miles of US-281 to tie into I-37 near Three Rivers.

Yeah, but it just seems to unnatural a jog.
Agreed, but it would save 14 miles of construction, and likely over $100 million in funding that can go elsewhere in the corridor.

5 miles added for a trip, likely no additional minutes.

Sorry, I am not about saving a buck here or there when it comes to roads.  Take my tax dollars and buy me some awesome roads.  I would rather have that piece upgraded as well.

Aside, most of the traffic that heads south down US 281 to the valley is coming from San Antonio, so it would be natural to have that segment upgraded. 

There is this:

https://www.google.com/maps/@28.515473,-98.185253,3a,20.5y,194.05h,87.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sW3_rsOnEhJjt4imcEY8ECg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@28.515473,-98.185253,3a,20.5y,194.05h,87.18t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sW3_rsOnEhJjt4imcEY8ECg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)

I'm not crazy after all! 

Technically, that future I-69 notification sign shouldn't be posted on that portion of US 281, since it's actually not included in the corridor's definition.  But enthusiasm being what it is, someone simply posted it there since there's not a lot of physical difference regarding 281 north vs. south of US 59.  So no one's crazy -- just looking at something that is functionally meaningless.  As said previously, if someone can make a case for including that stretch within corridor parameters down the line, it'll be done -- but as of right now, that's not the situation.

I think where I was going with that was I remember the map showing all of US 281 as I-69C some years ago, and that sign proves (at least in my mind) I didn’t make that up. I wish I had a copy of the older map.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on August 08, 2020, 03:17:32 PM
The more I think about it, the more I realize I-69 is all about bypassing some cities but going right through others. It's being touted as a bypass to the congested I-40 west of Memphis, but then goes right through the Houston and Laredo metro areas.
There's also internal gaps in the interstate system in Texas that I-69 would fill - a northeast connection out of Houston, and a connection between the Valley, Corpus Christi, and Houston - that have to be considered.

The current proposal bypasses existing corridors and major cities north of Texas, though once in Texas is largely its own independent corridor, and is to serve the major cities on the eastern side. I-35 acts as the major north-south highway for the central part of the state, I-69 would serve that role for the eastern part of the state, and perhaps in the future I-27 would serve the western part of the state.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on August 08, 2020, 03:39:54 PM
..... I think where I was going with that was I remember the map showing all of US 281 as I-69C some years ago, and that sign proves (at least in my mind) I didn’t make that up. I wish I had a copy of the older map.

Take a look at this post, and the link to the U.S. 281 Planning Study:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg233353#msg233353

Note that the legislation that NE2 quotes includes George West to Three Rivers. I’m pretty sure the Final Report is later in the thread, but I could not find it after a quick look.
* edit

The Final Report can be found here:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg259482#msg259482

After a quick glance, it appears they dropped the Three Rivers to George West section from consideration from the draft to the final product, even though it is included in the legislation. BUT, the map from the draft contains the Three Rivers to George West section.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on August 08, 2020, 03:55:16 PM
The more I think about it, the more I realize I-69 is all about bypassing some cities but going right through others. It's being touted as a bypass to the congested I-40 west of Memphis, but then goes right through the Houston and Laredo metro areas. A true bypass would make its way somehow to Eagle Pass to link with Fed. 57, the best route to Mexico City. This would probably involve the US 79 or SH 21 corridor and then some sort of big bypass around the north side of San Antonio. Maybe it could even overlap bullshit I-14.

Alternately, to at least bypass Laredo, Texas and Mexico could collaborate on a new border crossing about halfway between Laredo and Brownsville. On the Texas side, it would leave I-69 near Kingsville and make its way southwest along the FM 755 corridor, or perhaps from Robstown on SH 44-SH 359-SH 16. In Mexico, an upgrade of Fed. 54 and a better interchange with 1600 (the Monterrey bypass) would take traffic to Fed. 57.

Yeah, fictional, fuck off. Victors write the history books.

The fact that it shoots right through central Houston is hardly surprising considering the major backing from TX for the entire corridor concept emanated from that city; the Alliance for I-69/Texas has always maintained its HQ there.  It seems to me that the "trident" (W-C-E branches) are simply "bet hedging"; whereas historically most of the cross-border traffic has come through Laredo, particularly after the construction of I-35 down to the border and Mexico's improvement of Federal 85 coming up to meet it; it's the most convenient (and familiar to commercial border-crossing entities) of the locations.  Crossing at Hidalgo or Brownsville is about a hundred miles out of the way (and out of the pocket of independent drivers); those seem to serve as "overflow" checkpoints when Laredo is backed up.  But Mexico elected to likewise improve Federal 40 east of Monterrey partially to expedite access to those alternate crossing points, so complementing that with the likes of I-69C and I-69E was something of a given.  Also, the outsized growth of the lower Rio Grande Valley was something on the radar that required addressing -- an additional rationale to add to the pile of explanations for the I-69 split termini.  And although 20 years ago most of us were skeptical, to say the least, about the need for I-69C, commercial traffic volumes on the existing US 281 corridor these days has largely validated that deployment decision.   

NE2 may be prescient -- a 4th border crossing between McAllen and Laredo might well be considered, particularly if I-2 continues development as a dispersal corridor for that crossing.  But it would be likely that the first move would have to come from south of the border -- Mexico or one of their states would have to cobble up an efficient pathway between either Federal 40 or 85 to render such an additional crossing economically viable -- or all 3 existing major crossings would have to be experiencing consistent congested periods to warrant expedition of such a new facility (which would require re-deployment of INS, Border Patrol, and other enforcement agents to the new site).  This would be something that would likely require a great deal of hand-wringing in both countries -- and with what's on national plates these days, will probably be a project well off into the future -- I'd guesstimate 25 years at a minimum.

Closing note -- I'm surprised that US 57 isn't at least an expressway with some interchanges by now.  It was slapped into place in 1971 with little fanfare, but always seems to have been an afterthought simply to placate the Mexican developers of Federal 57 by giving them a direct 2dus path to our regional version of "main street". 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: rte66man on August 09, 2020, 04:18:00 PM
Closing note -- I'm surprised that US 57 isn't at least an expressway with some interchanges by now.  It was slapped into place in 1971 with little fanfare, but always seems to have been an afterthought simply to placate the Mexican developers of Federal 57 by giving them a direct 2dus path to our regional version of "main street". 

I thought that was a typo then I looked it up. US57??  Is that the shortest 2-digit US highway? Looks like about 100 miles long. Also, I saw this:
https://www.google.com/maps/@28.9720123,-99.2433617,3a,75y,39.01h,83.15t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sbYuRPl46wkwDgzLPctTHDg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

I've never seen an FM take precedence in an interchange with a US highway.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on August 09, 2020, 04:44:01 PM
One interesting aspect of the coronavirus is that there are now a lot of virtual meetings in which roadgeeks can participate. One such meeting is about the proposed widening of US 59/ US 77 in Victoria for the Future I-69:

https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/yoakum/082520.html

It will take place on August 25.

* edit

Thanks to rte66man for the welcome back over in the Interstate 269 thread.

Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on August 09, 2020, 07:53:13 PM
One interesting aspect of the coronavirus is that there are now a lot of virtual meetings in which roadgeeks can participate. One such meeting is about the proposed widening of US 59/ US 77 in Victoria for the Future I-69:

https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/yoakum/082520.html

It will take place on August 25.

* edit

Thanks to rte66man for the welcome back over in the Interstate 269 thread.
If I’m not mistaken, this would be the first project specifically for the I-69W corridor outside Laredo?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on August 09, 2020, 09:00:13 PM
^ I think it will actually be I-69E. I believe the US 59 section will go right up to the beginning of I-69W, but not actually be part of Future I-69W. Of course, US 77 heads in the direction of Brownsville. In other words, it will include the I-69E/ I-69W interchange location. It will be interesting to see what degree they plan for the interchange.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on August 09, 2020, 09:56:12 PM
Take a look at this post, and the link to the U.S. 281 Planning Study:
https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg233353#msg233353

The map linked in the above quote reflects that I-69C has the two northern prongs provided for in the legislation: (1) US 281 from George West to I-37 at Three Rivers and (2) US 59 from George West to I-37. US 281 from George West to I-37 disappeared from consideration for the Planning Study (and from maps). However, US 281 from George West to I-37 is still on the books as part of the I-69 Corridor.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on August 09, 2020, 11:57:18 PM
^ I think it will actually be I-69E. I believe the US 59 section will go right up to the beginning of I-69W, but not actually be part of Future I-69W. Of course, US 77 heads in the direction of Brownsville. In other words, it will include the I-69E/ I-69W interchange location. It will be interesting to see what degree they plan for the interchange.
From what I'm seeing, the project does not include any portion of the I-69E corridor, rather the western half of the Victoria loop (to be I-69W between I-69E and US-59 / US-59 Business) that's still two lanes and four lane divided approaching the I-69E corridor.

(https://i.ibb.co/c62mWgn/US77-US59-Interstate-Project.png)

The completion of this project would complete the entire loop to interstate standards (with the exception of the eastern approach to US-59 / Future I-69E), though besides the small portion of I-69W on the western end, it's not to be included in the I-69 system unless some loop route is eventually proposed. I-69E would follow the direct US-59 to US-77 South routing on the southern side of the city.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on August 10, 2020, 12:16:18 AM
^ You’re right. I stand corrected.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on August 10, 2020, 04:06:25 AM
^ I think it will actually be I-69E. I believe the US 59 section will go right up to the beginning of I-69W, but not actually be part of Future I-69W. Of course, US 77 heads in the direction of Brownsville. In other words, it will include the I-69E/ I-69W interchange location. It will be interesting to see what degree they plan for the interchange.
From what I'm seeing, the project does not include any portion of the I-69E corridor, rather the western half of the Victoria loop (to be I-69W between I-69E and US-59 / US-59 Business) that's still two lanes and four lane divided approaching the I-69E corridor.

(https://i.ibb.co/c62mWgn/US77-US59-Interstate-Project.png)

The completion of this project would complete the entire loop to interstate standards (with the exception of the eastern approach to US-59 / Future I-69E), though besides the small portion of I-69W on the western end, it's not to be included in the I-69 system unless some loop route is eventually proposed. I-69E would follow the direct US-59 to US-77 South routing on the southern side of the city.

I had always understood that the current "wye" of US 59 & 77 south of Victoria would be the division point of the I-69 "cluster".  Northeast of this point -- the southern US 59 bypass of Victoria -- would be the southernmost section signed as I-69; US 77 south of there would be I-69E, and I-69W would turn northwest at the interchange along WB US 59 and NB US 77 to a point yet TBD where I-69W would diverge parallel to US 59 toward George West and Laredo.  The northern loop wasn't included in Interstate planning (as of yet); the "split" would make use of the present ramps carrying the continuation of US 59 for I-69W -- it would be a functional "69W TOTSO", with I-69E/US 77 using the main carriageways.   Since the present US 59 bypass is not only a more direct path but currently configured in such a way as to require less in the way of upgrades to reach Interstate standards, it would seem to fit the bill regarding where the actual corridor is located.  Same with the US 59/77 segment; utilizing it for the northern end of I-69W would provide the shortest path once that segment is up for letting.  Unless local pressure is brought to bear regarding a 69W reroute around the northern loop, simple economics would dictate the extant path around the south side.   
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on August 10, 2020, 08:39:59 AM
I wonder why they don't go ahead and signs some of the bypasses between Corpus Christi and Houston as I-69 (Beasley, Kendleton, Wharton, El Campo, Edna, Inez and Victoria) now.  The others I didn't mention (like Louise and Ganado) which are currently almost freeway, albeit a few expressway grade interchanges and a gas station driveway away from full freeway, TxDOT can focus small projects of closing off driveways and bulldozing crossovers to make them interstate grade, then sign them as I-69.  I know the argument would be that these sections are a few miles apiece, but I think it would be good for route continuity.  It would get locals and travelers alike used to the fact that US 59 is pretty much going away in lieu of I-69, and give some validity to the BGSs in Houston that say I-69 goes to Victoria when in reality it goes to Rosenberg. 

I know this is a new world and just because things were done like this before doesn't mean they will be done like this again, but that's how a lot of interstates got built.  The bypasses/town freeway sections came first, then the rural freeways were built in between connecting the sections.  If you recall, the disjointed sections of the interstates were signed as the interstate on the freeway sections, then they stopped either on a crossroad, or on the road they were displacing and had "TO I-XX" trailblazers on the non freeway parts.  All this to say, I think it would help the long term transition.  People in and around Houston still call Eastex and Southwest Freeways in Houston 59 (or the cringey I-59).  They kinda need to get people used to phasing out US 59 because we all know once this project is complete, US 59 will completely not exist in Texas. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on August 10, 2020, 11:15:08 AM
Unless local pressure is brought to bear regarding a 69W reroute around the northern loop, simple economics would dictate the extant path around the south side.

I took a look at the 2045 Victoria MTP (May 2020) and I can’t tell if they have chosen the route for I-69W. Part of the loop is designated as “Future I-69”  and it goes beyond US 59, but not all of the way around on the loop. On page 162 of 169:

https://www.victoriatx.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2627/2045-MTP

Can anyone tell the route from the map?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on August 10, 2020, 01:16:30 PM
I wonder why they don't go ahead and signs some of the bypasses between Corpus Christi and Houston as I-69 (Beasley, Kendleton, Wharton, El Campo, Edna, Inez and Victoria) now.  The others I didn't mention (like Louise and Ganado) which are currently almost freeway, albeit a few expressway grade interchanges and a gas station driveway away from full freeway, TxDOT can focus small projects of closing off driveways and bulldozing crossovers to make them interstate grade, then sign them as I-69.  I know the argument would be that these sections are a few miles apiece, but I think it would be good for route continuity.  It would get locals and travelers alike used to the fact that US 59 is pretty much going away in lieu of I-69, and give some validity to the BGSs in Houston that say I-69 goes to Victoria when in reality it goes to Rosenberg. 

I know this is a new world and just because things were done like this before doesn't mean they will be done like this again, but that's how a lot of interstates got built.  The bypasses/town freeway sections came first, then the rural freeways were built in between connecting the sections.  If you recall, the disjointed sections of the interstates were signed as the interstate on the freeway sections, then they stopped either on a crossroad, or on the road they were displacing and had "TO I-XX" trailblazers on the non freeway parts.  All this to say, I think it would help the long term transition.  People in and around Houston still call Eastex and Southwest Freeways in Houston 59 (or the cringey I-59).  They kinda need to get people used to phasing out US 59 because we all know once this project is complete, US 59 will completely not exist in Texas.
In order to be signed as an interstate, the route must connect to another interstate. None of the bypasses you have mentioned do. Yes, I-2, I-69E and I-69C were all signed down in Valley for some reason, but at least they connect to each other and form a system that’s close to 100 miles long.

Construction is already underway to extend I-69 southward as a six lane interstate down to Kendleton, so that covers both Beasley and Kendleton bypasses already.

The Wharton Bypass doesn’t meet interstate standards since it has numerous intersections with just two interchanges.

The El Campo Bypass is currently being upgraded to interstate standards by constructing frontage roads along the northern half of it. Same goes with the Victoria Bypass up to the railroad overpass. These won’t be signed as interstate highways though until they connect with the rest of the system.

Projects are planned to extend I-69 south to the Wharton Bypass as a six lane interstate, then further south to Louise as a four lane interstate. Schematics I’ve seen show reconstructing the cross section completely, with a 22 foot paved median / concrete barrier, plus two one-way frontage roads, on most of the bypasses, except the El Campo Bypass since it already had a full upgrade done on the southern portion a few years ago and now currently underway on the northern portion with realigned ramps and new frontage roads.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on August 10, 2020, 01:22:07 PM
Unless local pressure is brought to bear regarding a 69W reroute around the northern loop, simple economics would dictate the extant path around the south side.

I took a look at the 2045 Victoria MTP (May 2020) and I can’t tell if they have chosen the route for I-69W. Part of the loop is designated as “Future I-69”  and it goes beyond US 59, but not all of the way around on the loop. On page 162 of 169:

https://www.victoriatx.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2627/2045-MTP

Can anyone tell the route from the map?
The highlighted portion is the current project proposal posted above, though I don’t recall it supposed to be apart of I-69W.

Under project description, it says preparing for the split of I-69 east and west.

Perhaps I-69W is slated to run along the northern loop while I-69E follows the southern route? I had always been under the impression I-69 would follow the southern route, then split with I-69E continuing south and I-69W / I-69C / I-69 (what is it supposed to be west of Victoria?) following the US-59 / US-77 overlap portion of the loop, then west on US-59.

The loop upgrade is a benefit for US-77 and providing an interstate grade loop around the city, but is not apart of the I-69 system as far as I’m aware, unless they want a I-x69.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on August 10, 2020, 01:46:39 PM
Unless local pressure is brought to bear regarding a 69W reroute around the northern loop, simple economics would dictate the extant path around the south side.

I took a look at the 2045 Victoria MTP (May 2020) and I can’t tell if they have chosen the route for I-69W. Part of the loop is designated as “Future I-69”  and it goes beyond US 59, but not all of the way around on the loop. On page 162 of 169:

https://www.victoriatx.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2627/2045-MTP

Can anyone tell the route from the map?
The highlighted portion is the current project proposal posted above, though I don’t recall it supposed to be apart of I-69W.

Under project description, it says preparing for the split of I-69 east and west.

Perhaps I-69W is slated to run along the northern loop while I-69E follows the southern route? I had always been under the impression I-69 would follow the southern route, then split with I-69E continuing south and I-69W / I-69C / I-69 (what is it supposed to be west of Victoria?) following the US-59 / US-77 overlap portion of the loop, then west on US-59.

The loop upgrade is a benefit for US-77 and providing an interstate grade loop around the city, but is not apart of the I-69 system as far as I’m aware, unless they want a I-x69.

Frankly, I don't think a path has been chosen, and what is highlighted on the map shown are simply the sections of the loop that are slated to become full freeway in any case.  Those in the NW corner of the loop -- between US 59 and the US 77 northward divergence -- would be part of the US 77 bypass and possibly part of an Interstate route.  But the segment along the current US 59/77 multiplex are also highlighted.  Taking an educated guess that I-69W will strike out west somewhere not too far from current US 59, if all the highlighted sections were to eventually be incorporated into the I-69 "family", one would have to be either a spur on the northern loop up to the US 77 interchange or part of a complete Interstate-grade upgrade to that loop.  Maybe that local pressure I mentioned in a previous post is actually part of the process, and the northern loop would be the path for I-69W, with the "split" happening SE of Victoria rather than SW -- which would mean the city would have two corridors being upgraded instead of one (possibly enhancing commercial development along both!)  This being TX, such a thing isn't out of the question.  But in the meantime, the map's illustrations and "highlighting" of the I-69 corridor segments only adds to the uncertainty regarding the actual corridors' alignments and exactly where the E/W junction will be located.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on August 10, 2020, 02:19:38 PM
I wonder why they don't go ahead and signs some of the bypasses between Corpus Christi and Houston as I-69 (Beasley, Kendleton, Wharton, El Campo, Edna, Inez and Victoria) now.  The others I didn't mention (like Louise and Ganado) which are currently almost freeway, albeit a few expressway grade interchanges and a gas station driveway away from full freeway, TxDOT can focus small projects of closing off driveways and bulldozing crossovers to make them interstate grade, then sign them as I-69.  I know the argument would be that these sections are a few miles apiece, but I think it would be good for route continuity.  It would get locals and travelers alike used to the fact that US 59 is pretty much going away in lieu of I-69, and give some validity to the BGSs in Houston that say I-69 goes to Victoria when in reality it goes to Rosenberg. 

I know this is a new world and just because things were done like this before doesn't mean they will be done like this again, but that's how a lot of interstates got built.  The bypasses/town freeway sections came first, then the rural freeways were built in between connecting the sections.  If you recall, the disjointed sections of the interstates were signed as the interstate on the freeway sections, then they stopped either on a crossroad, or on the road they were displacing and had "TO I-XX" trailblazers on the non freeway parts.  All this to say, I think it would help the long term transition.  People in and around Houston still call Eastex and Southwest Freeways in Houston 59 (or the cringey I-59).  They kinda need to get people used to phasing out US 59 because we all know once this project is complete, US 59 will completely not exist in Texas.
In order to be signed as an interstate, the route must connect to another interstate. None of the bypasses you have mentioned do. Yes, I-2, I-69E and I-69C were all signed down in Valley for some reason, but at least they connect to each other and form a system that’s close to 100 miles long.

Construction is already underway to extend I-69 southward as a six lane interstate down to Kendleton, so that covers both Beasley and Kendleton bypasses already.

The Wharton Bypass doesn’t meet interstate standards since it has numerous intersections with just two interchanges.

The El Campo Bypass is currently being upgraded to interstate standards by constructing frontage roads along the northern half of it. Same goes with the Victoria Bypass up to the railroad overpass. These won’t be signed as interstate highways though until they connect with the rest of the system.

Projects are planned to extend I-69 south to the Wharton Bypass as a six lane interstate, then further south to Louise as a four lane interstate. Schematics I’ve seen show reconstructing the cross section completely, with a 22 foot paved median / concrete barrier, plus two one-way frontage roads, on most of the bypasses, except the El Campo Bypass since it already had a full upgrade done on the southern portion a few years ago and now currently underway on the northern portion with realigned ramps and new frontage roads.

Legislation changed about 10 years ago that allows stretches of highway that are up to interstate standards that are part of a future interstate corridor to be signed as an interstate even if they do not connect to the rest of the system, with the caveat of them having to be connected in the next 20 years.  http://i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update7.1.12.html (http://i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update7.1.12.html)  This is the reason I-69E, I-69C and I-2 were signed.  Signing the sections that are up to interstate standards keeps the project "on the clock". 

With that being said, again, why don't they sign the existing interstate grade sections as I-69 now, excluding the ones I thought were complete but aren't?

Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on August 10, 2020, 02:44:22 PM
Legislation changed about 10 years ago that allows stretches of highway that are up to interstate standards that are part of a future interstate corridor to be signed as an interstate even if they do not connect to the rest of the system, with the caveat of them having to be connected in the next 20 years.  http://i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update7.1.12.html (http://i69texasalliance.com/NewsUpdates/update7.1.12.html)  This is the reason I-69E, I-69C and I-2 were signed.  Signing the sections that are up to interstate standards keeps the project "on the clock". 

With that being said, again, why don't they sign the existing interstate grade sections as I-69 now, excluding the ones I thought were complete but aren't?
Interesting... this law must have been an exception only applied for the I-69 corridor specifically, considering it's not in use anywhere else in the country. An interstate highway must connect to another one in order to be designated.

The only sections that could technically be posted in this instance would be an 8 mile portion near Victoria, a 6 mile portion near Edna, and a 7 mile portion near El Campo.

Looking further down, the Bishop to Kingsville freeway is still not signed despite being up to interstate standards, recently upgraded in fact, though once current projects to complete the freeway between Bishop and Robstown are complete in 2022, a full freeway will be in place between I-37 and Kingsville and presumably signed as I-69E throughout. On the US-281 corridor, a 5 mile segment through Falfurrias was recently upgraded though is not signed as I-69C. Throughout the next decade, projects to extend the freeway 40 miles southwards to the current I-69C segment in the Valley could lead to its signage.

Perhaps the law was only written specifically to allow the Valley to have an interstate system immediately (I-2, I-69E, and I-69C) along existing freeways that meet interstate standards with no intent to sign other, smaller segments.

One reason for not signing it could also be that Texas plans to renovate or upgrade the freeways to modern standards (such as reconstructing the mainlines to have a 22 foot paved median with concrete barrier, reversing ramps, construction of one-way two lane frontage roads, and bridge replacements) before posting signage. The segment near El Campo was recently fully upgraded with ramp reversals and one-way two lane frontage roads, so if they are going to immediately designate one portion, it would be that. Near Victoria, upgrade work has occurred in some areas, but still may need to be done in other spot areas.

In the next decade, I-69 should be fully upgraded and sign posted from Rosenberg to Louise. I can't provide specifics since I haven't driven along US-59 since last year, but the first segment of this project between the northern end of the Wharton Bypass and Kendleton was to be let in January 2020 and presumably under construction by now if on schedule. As of last year, the segment from Kendleton to Rosenberg was well under construction, numerous lane shifts, barrier walls on either side, and many bridges actively under construction. I imagine it's on target to be complete in the next couple of years if not sooner.

Project Website: https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/yoakum/us59-wharton.html
Project Map: http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/ykm/us59-wharton/location-map.pdf
Project Schematics (large file): http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/ykm/us59-wharton/032819-schematic.pdf
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on August 10, 2020, 02:54:39 PM
Unless local pressure is brought to bear regarding a 69W reroute around the northern loop, simple economics would dictate the extant path around the south side.

I took a look at the 2045 Victoria MTP (May 2020) and I can’t tell if they have chosen the route for I-69W. Part of the loop is designated as “Future I-69”  and it goes beyond US 59, but not all of the way around on the loop. On page 162 of 169:

https://www.victoriatx.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2627/2045-MTP

Can anyone tell the route from the map?
The highlighted portion is the current project proposal posted above, though I don’t recall it supposed to be apart of I-69W.

Under project description, it says preparing for the split of I-69 east and west.

Perhaps I-69W is slated to run along the northern loop while I-69E follows the southern route? I had always been under the impression I-69 would follow the southern route, then split with I-69E continuing south and I-69W / I-69C / I-69 (what is it supposed to be west of Victoria?) following the US-59 / US-77 overlap portion of the loop, then west on US-59.

The loop upgrade is a benefit for US-77 and providing an interstate grade loop around the city, but is not apart of the I-69 system as far as I’m aware, unless they want a I-x69.

Frankly, I don't think a path has been chosen, and what is highlighted on the map shown are simply the sections of the loop that are slated to become full freeway in any case.  Those in the NW corner of the loop -- between US 59 and the US 77 northward divergence -- would be part of the US 77 bypass and possibly part of an Interstate route.  But the segment along the current US 59/77 multiplex are also highlighted.  Taking an educated guess that I-69W will strike out west somewhere not too far from current US 59, if all the highlighted sections were to eventually be incorporated into the I-69 "family", one would have to be either a spur on the northern loop up to the US 77 interchange or part of a complete Interstate-grade upgrade to that loop.  Maybe that local pressure I mentioned in a previous post is actually part of the process, and the northern loop would be the path for I-69W, with the "split" happening SE of Victoria rather than SW -- which would mean the city would have two corridors being upgraded instead of one (possibly enhancing commercial development along both!)  This being TX, such a thing isn't out of the question.  But in the meantime, the map's illustrations and "highlighting" of the I-69 corridor segments only adds to the uncertainty regarding the actual corridors' alignments and exactly where the E/W junction will be located.
From the Alliance for I-69 Texas website, a project update map released in December 2019 clearly shows the I-69W corridor following the small US-77 / US-59 overlap portion of the loop, and the US-59 route along the southern part of the city, not the rest of the loop.

Nonetheless, the rest of the loop has already been upgraded to interstate standards except the small portion between US-59 Business and US-59 east of the city.

(http://www.i69texasalliance.com/images/project%20map%2012.2019.jpg)

Large PDF: http://www.i69texasalliance.com/ResourcesPDFs/i-69%20Projects%20Map%20Dec%202019.pdf
http://www.i69texasalliance.com/Projects.html
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on August 10, 2020, 03:59:41 PM

One reason for not signing it could also be that Texas plans to renovate or upgrade the freeways to modern standards (such as reconstructing the mainlines to have a 22 foot paved median with concrete barrier, reversing ramps, construction of one-way two lane frontage roads, and bridge replacements) before posting signage. The segment near El Campo was recently fully upgraded with ramp reversals and one-way two lane frontage roads, so if they are going to immediately designate one portion, it would be that. Near Victoria, upgrade work has occurred in some areas, but still may need to be done in other spot areas.-schematic.pdf

I did think this as being a possible reason.  We all know that just because a freeway is a freeway doesn't make it interstate grade, but still makes me wonder.  The reason I am fixating on this is the sections that have been signed had their signing, and then that was it (the last being 5 years ago?).  A lot of time has gone by, and I for one (an many wanting to see this move forward) are getting a bit disillusioned by, on the surface, the lack of progress.  I know it takes a lot to build an interstate, but I really think signing the sections that qualify, even if its a mile here and mile there, might boost morel.  It will give the people who are in favor of the interstate a bit to smile about.  Maybe the people that live on the corridor might not feel that way, but my grandmother lives on US 59 on the I-369 corridor and is extremely excited about the progress. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Scott5114 on August 11, 2020, 02:52:13 PM
Sure, but you also have to think about the usefulness of the I-69(C/E/W/F/Q/Æ/Ø) designation as a navigation tool. If someone hops onto a segment of I-69 thinking it will connect with another segment of I-69 they are already familiar with, and it ends after one mile instead, they could get confused/lost.

In the original Interstate era, this was handled with "Temporary" bannered routes or "To" routes. But is the expense and effort to install those worth the boost in morale of signing disparate one-mile sections of Interstate as such?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on August 11, 2020, 03:14:05 PM
Sure, but you also have to think about the usefulness of the I-69(C/E/W/F/Q/Æ/Ø) designation as a navigation tool. If someone hops onto a segment of I-69 thinking it will connect with another segment of I-69 they are already familiar with, and it ends after one mile instead, they could get confused/lost.

In the original Interstate era, this was handled with "Temporary" bannered routes or "To" routes. But is the expense and effort to install those worth the boost in morale of signing disparate one-mile sections of Interstate as such?

Short answer....Yes!

Haha.  I say that because I have seen Texas waste amazing amounts of money in resigning projects that didn't need to be resigned (let's put clearview here), signing in an area that has a construction project that will start literally in days destroying the sign that was just erected, and the coup de gras https://www.google.com/maps/@30.1872983,-97.9128173,3a,59y,43.79h,95.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKbWWb3giD8g60TxQwzIBBw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@30.1872983,-97.9128173,3a,59y,43.79h,95.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKbWWb3giD8g60TxQwzIBBw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).  This is a stubout road built when SH-45 was built here in the 90's.  Until recently there was a shield assembly here telling you the directions to turn for EAST or WEST SH-45, FACING THE WOODS!!!  I know for a fact these shields were present because I may have a bit of intel on where one of the shields is currently located.  The shields were placed there so in the advent of a road reaching that intersection, the driver would know where to go, of course.  It's been at least 25 years and there is no road.  All to say, I have seen the state waste a lot of money.  I honestly don't intend to come off like I am constantly contrary, I don't.  My point is always if it's the interest of saving a buck here or a buck there, then why didn't you save a buck here or there the other 800 times you could have easily saved a buck?  Lets take all the sections of I-69 currently signed.  Was that worth us paying for all those shields?  They didn't sign a new highway like Louisiana and Arkansas did for I-49, no, Texas just slapped a shield on an already existing freeway, back slapped each other, shook hands and took pictures and made it seem like they changed the world.  I would honestly say they wasted way more money doing the signing they already did than what I am proposing (not to mention signing mile marker for routes without a definite zero post yet, I-369).  I mean, if you are gonna waste a bunch of money over here, what's stopping you from wasting more over there?

I guess I keep asking the same questions over and over again.  The reasoning for why X road isn't an interstate, or why this road is not like that road, the answer is it's expensive to make x road an interstate.  I then turn to some multi billion dollar projects in the state and say, so I guess it was okay there, huh?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on August 11, 2020, 06:19:34 PM
Sure, but you also have to think about the usefulness of the I-69(C/E/W/F/Q/Æ/Ø) designation as a navigation tool. If someone hops onto a segment of I-69 thinking it will connect with another segment of I-69 they are already familiar with, and it ends after one mile instead, they could get confused/lost.

In the original Interstate era, this was handled with "Temporary" bannered routes or "To" routes. But is the expense and effort to install those worth the boost in morale of signing disparate one-mile sections of Interstate as such?

Short answer....Yes!

Haha.  I say that because I have seen Texas waste amazing amounts of money in resigning projects that didn't need to be resigned (let's put clearview here), signing in an area that has a construction project that will start literally in days destroying the sign that was just erected, and the coup de gras https://www.google.com/maps/@30.1872983,-97.9128173,3a,59y,43.79h,95.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKbWWb3giD8g60TxQwzIBBw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@30.1872983,-97.9128173,3a,59y,43.79h,95.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKbWWb3giD8g60TxQwzIBBw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).  This is a stubout road built when SH-45 was built here in the 90's.  Until recently there was a shield assembly here telling you the directions to turn for EAST or WEST SH-45, FACING THE WOODS!!!  I know for a fact these shields were present because I may have a bit of intel on where one of the shields is currently located.  The shields were placed there so in the advent of a road reaching that intersection, the driver would know where to go, of course.  It's been at least 25 years and there is no road.  All to say, I have seen the state waste a lot of money.  I honestly don't intend to come off like I am constantly contrary, I don't.  My point is always if it's the interest of saving a buck here or a buck there, then why didn't you save a buck here or there the other 800 times you could have easily saved a buck?  Lets take all the sections of I-69 currently signed.  Was that worth us paying for all those shields?  They didn't sign a new highway like Louisiana and Arkansas did for I-49, no, Texas just slapped a shield on an already existing freeway, back slapped each other, shook hands and took pictures and made it seem like they changed the world.  I would honestly say they wasted way more money doing the signing they already did than what I am proposing (not to mention signing mile marker for routes without a definite zero post yet, I-369).  I mean, if you are gonna waste a bunch of money over here, what's stopping you from wasting more over there?

I guess I keep asking the same questions over and over again.  The reasoning for why X road isn't an interstate, or why this road is not like that road, the answer is it's expensive to make x road an interstate.  I then turn to some multi billion dollar projects in the state and say, so I guess it was okay there, huh?

The short-form answer as to preliminary Interstate signage value, particularly on pre-existing-but-meeting-criteria freeways like US 59 through Houston, is this:  the project promoters want to get the camel's nose through the door, so to speak!  Here, it's a joint Alliance and TxDOT effort (both "all in" on the corridor concept), so the decision to deploy I-69 signage in arguably the most populated section of the entire corridor was, given the existing ready-to-go facility, a no-brainer.  Lots of Texans and commercial drivers from all over the region see that signage on a regular basis, and expectations are formed as to where I-69 is going to go and how long it's going to take to get there.  With the isolated I-69E/C/I-2 cluster in the Rio Grande Valley, it's much the same thing but with a slightly different audience -- one seeking some semblance of connectivity with the rest of the state.  It's likely I-69E will be the first to actually provide the connection to the rest of the Interstate network; when it does (and if COVID is behind us by then) it'll be accompanied by loud hoopla and a shitload of PR.  Later, with I-69C, when it reaches I-37 there will be some but likely less boisterous celebration -- but more sighs of relief from truckers. 

The first decade of Interstate deployment ('57-'67) was a lot like this -- sections were built, ribbons cut, politicos yapped, and piece by piece it came together.  But after the first ten years the novelty had largely worn off, and the ribbons/blithering became ever rarer (generally for the better!).  But with the lack of the good old federal chargeability, things move at a slower pace today -- so 25 years into the corridor's existence, it's still in its infancy south of Kentucky.  The signage on eligible completed sections is simply to keep the overall project in the public eye, particularly when funding is sought.  If portions of the public regularly clamor for more progress on the corridor, it's difficult for those holding the purse strings to repeatedly procrastinate without occasionally loosening things up and funding it a segment at a time.  Right now the emphasis is centered both north and southwest of Houston, although the King Ranch segment of I-69E is also in the design stage, along with spot projects on 69C.  So as long as something is going on at any given time, it indicates that things are progressing reasonably well.  Of course this year anything of the sort is well down the priority list as far as public perception is concerned -- but OTOH the relative lack of traffic means that projects that would certainly disrupt "normal" flow -- like in situ upgrades of existing facilities -- can be undertaken with less problems (much of the US 59 upgrades fit those parameters).  So it's possible that as we (hopefully) emerge from our sequestrations and lockdowns some of us may have a shiny new section of I-69 -- signed as such or not -- on which to travel.  And then the cycle continues -- we see positive results and wonder when the next piece of the puzzle will come our way.  And that's the likely state of affairs for the next couple of decades until at least two pieces of the South Texas "trident" are in operation, as well as the 69/369 continuum from Houston to Texarkana.  And if one wants to see a major ribbon-cutting, replete with all the regalia and BS such an event can hold, wait until the last segment between Brownsville and Texarkana opens -- the eastern half of the state (and pretty much most Houston-based CEO's) will throw one hell of a party if physically possible (hopefully we won't be up to COVID-38 by that time!).     
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on August 11, 2020, 06:44:31 PM
Sure, but you also have to think about the usefulness of the I-69(C/E/W/F/Q/Æ/Ø) designation as a navigation tool. If someone hops onto a segment of I-69 thinking it will connect with another segment of I-69 they are already familiar with, and it ends after one mile instead, they could get confused/lost.

In the original Interstate era, this was handled with "Temporary" bannered routes or "To" routes. But is the expense and effort to install those worth the boost in morale of signing disparate one-mile sections of Interstate as such?

Short answer....Yes!

Haha.  I say that because I have seen Texas waste amazing amounts of money in resigning projects that didn't need to be resigned (let's put clearview here), signing in an area that has a construction project that will start literally in days destroying the sign that was just erected, and the coup de gras https://www.google.com/maps/@30.1872983,-97.9128173,3a,59y,43.79h,95.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKbWWb3giD8g60TxQwzIBBw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@30.1872983,-97.9128173,3a,59y,43.79h,95.98t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKbWWb3giD8g60TxQwzIBBw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192).  This is a stubout road built when SH-45 was built here in the 90's.  Until recently there was a shield assembly here telling you the directions to turn for EAST or WEST SH-45, FACING THE WOODS!!!  I know for a fact these shields were present because I may have a bit of intel on where one of the shields is currently located.  The shields were placed there so in the advent of a road reaching that intersection, the driver would know where to go, of course.  It's been at least 25 years and there is no road.  All to say, I have seen the state waste a lot of money.  I honestly don't intend to come off like I am constantly contrary, I don't.  My point is always if it's the interest of saving a buck here or a buck there, then why didn't you save a buck here or there the other 800 times you could have easily saved a buck?  Lets take all the sections of I-69 currently signed.  Was that worth us paying for all those shields?  They didn't sign a new highway like Louisiana and Arkansas did for I-49, no, Texas just slapped a shield on an already existing freeway, back slapped each other, shook hands and took pictures and made it seem like they changed the world.  I would honestly say they wasted way more money doing the signing they already did than what I am proposing (not to mention signing mile marker for routes without a definite zero post yet, I-369).  I mean, if you are gonna waste a bunch of money over here, what's stopping you from wasting more over there?

I guess I keep asking the same questions over and over again.  The reasoning for why X road isn't an interstate, or why this road is not like that road, the answer is it's expensive to make x road an interstate.  I then turn to some multi billion dollar projects in the state and say, so I guess it was okay there, huh?

The short-form answer as to preliminary Interstate signage value, particularly on pre-existing-but-meeting-criteria freeways like US 59 through Houston, is this:  the project promoters want to get the camel's nose through the door, so to speak!  Here, it's a joint Alliance and TxDOT effort (both "all in" on the corridor concept), so the decision to deploy I-69 signage in arguably the most populated section of the entire corridor was, given the existing ready-to-go facility, a no-brainer.  Lots of Texans and commercial drivers from all over the region see that signage on a regular basis, and expectations are formed as to where I-69 is going to go and how long it's going to take to get there.  With the isolated I-69E/C/I-2 cluster in the Rio Grande Valley, it's much the same thing but with a slightly different audience -- one seeking some semblance of connectivity with the rest of the state.  It's likely I-69E will be the first to actually provide the connection to the rest of the Interstate network; when it does (and if COVID is behind us by then) it'll be accompanied by loud hoopla and a shitload of PR.  Later, with I-69C, when it reaches I-37 there will be some but likely less boisterous celebration -- but more sighs of relief from truckers. 

The first decade of Interstate deployment ('57-'67) was a lot like this -- sections were built, ribbons cut, politicos yapped, and piece by piece it came together.  But after the first ten years the novelty had largely worn off, and the ribbons/blithering became ever rarer (generally for the better!).  But with the lack of the good old federal chargeability, things move at a slower pace today -- so 25 years into the corridor's existence, it's still in its infancy south of Kentucky.  The signage on eligible completed sections is simply to keep the overall project in the public eye, particularly when funding is sought.  If portions of the public regularly clamor for more progress on the corridor, it's difficult for those holding the purse strings to repeatedly procrastinate without occasionally loosening things up and funding it a segment at a time.  Right now the emphasis is centered both north and southwest of Houston, although the King Ranch segment of I-69E is also in the design stage, along with spot projects on 69C.  So as long as something is going on at any given time, it indicates that things are progressing reasonably well.  Of course this year anything of the sort is well down the priority list as far as public perception is concerned -- but OTOH the relative lack of traffic means that projects that would certainly disrupt "normal" flow -- like in situ upgrades of existing facilities -- can be undertaken with less problems (much of the US 59 upgrades fit those parameters).  So it's possible that as we (hopefully) emerge from our sequestrations and lockdowns some of us may have a shiny new section of I-69 -- signed as such or not -- on which to travel.  And then the cycle continues -- we see positive results and wonder when the next piece of the puzzle will come our way.  And that's the likely state of affairs for the next couple of decades until at least two pieces of the South Texas "trident" are in operation, as well as the 69/369 continuum from Houston to Texarkana.  And if one wants to see a major ribbon-cutting, replete with all the regalia and BS such an event can hold, wait until the last segment between Brownsville and Texarkana opens -- the eastern half of the state (and pretty much most Houston-based CEO's) will throw one hell of a party if physically possible (hopefully we won't be up to COVID-38 by that time!).     

Got it, but if you really want to promote a project, keep it in the public's eye.  There is a short concurrency of I-69E and I-37 just north of where that section of I-69E ends.  let's sign that.  Keep it in everyone's face, that way everyone will be accountable for keeping the project going.  The more inquires, the more the people that are working on that project want those inquiries to go away, so they speed up the job.  Works with my job. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on August 11, 2020, 09:59:27 PM
^^^^^^^^^^
Essentially the "squeaky wheel" concept.  That works well when it's a matter of where & when to apportion available funds -- but with current public-sector expenditure routine, it becomes an issue when their political handlers are divided about whether to spend money on public projects at all.  If the negative side tends to prevail, then all the PR and public outcry in the world will hardly make a dent in the proceedings.  Fortunately for you TX folks, there's enough "connected" folks "all in" regarding not only I-69 but, to a lesser extent, the other planned corridor concepts to render them reasonably viable.  If enough of them periodically nudge TxDOT, which in turn nudges the state legislature and/or the state's congressional delegation, the corridors will advance piece by piece until reasonably complete.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: GreenLanternCorps on August 13, 2020, 09:31:02 AM
Poking around Texas on Google Maps due to another thread, I found that the Driscoll Relief Route construction on Future I-69E is now showing up in the satellite image...

https://www.google.com/maps/@27.6741635,-97.7541586,6510m/data=!3m1!1e3
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on August 13, 2020, 02:24:21 PM
The new satellite imagery is showing up in both Google Maps and Earth. There is also a good bit of fairly recent Street View imagery there too.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: GreenLanternCorps on August 13, 2020, 08:02:07 PM
I checked Apple just now on my phone, no dice.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on August 13, 2020, 08:52:03 PM
Poking around Texas on Google Maps due to another thread, I found that the Driscoll Relief Route construction on Future I-69E is now showing up in the satellite image...

https://www.google.com/maps/@27.6741635,-97.7541586,6510m/data=!3m1!1e3

That's a nice utilitarian bypass alignment -- keep it close in for town access but far enough afield so as not to take a significant amount of developed property.  Obviously sending it straight down the existing US 77 facility was a non-starter (way too much private access with which to deal).  TxDOT planners did a more than decent job here!
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on August 16, 2020, 04:37:11 PM
I now the I-69C subject has come up numerous times, but I don't think anyone has really analyzed this part until I was thinking about it today.  The current alignment crosses I-69W at George West, but it continues north to I-37 north of Three Rivers.  I never really thought much of it before, but shouldn't that part not be signed as I-69C.  I mean, I-69C should be spawned from I-69W if we are going to be technical about it, so shouldn't the segment from George West to the current intersection of US 281 and I-37 north of Three Rivers have a separate number?

i  can’t remember if it has already been posted, but here is the February 2018 I-69 Implementation Status Report:

http://168.44.251.92/pub/txdot-info/i69/implementation-strategy-report-0218.pdf

It updates the March 2016 I-69 implementation Status Report:

https://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/implementation-strategy-report.pdf

It is now a little dated and it seems about time for a new update (perhaps COVID is delaying it?) At any rate, it confirms there are no plans to upgrade US 281 from George West to Three Rivers to an I-x69. (page 56 of 78)

* edit

I took a look at the 2045 Victoria MTP (May 2020) and I can’t tell if they have chosen the route for I-69W. Part of the loop is designated as “Future I-69”  and it goes beyond US 59, but not all of the way around on the loop. On page 162 of 169:
https://www.victoriatx.gov/DocumentCenter/View/2627/2045-MTP
If I’m not mistaken, this would be the first project specifically for the I-69W corridor outside Laredo?
The loop upgrade is a benefit for US-77 and providing an interstate grade loop around the city, but is not apart of the I-69 system as far as I’m aware, unless they want a I-x69.

The Implementation Report update also shows that, as of February 2018, I-69W will begin in the southeast corner of Victoria and not travel around the loop. (P. 47 of 78)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bwana39 on August 20, 2020, 12:36:28 PM
Sure, but you also have to think about the usefulness of the I-69(C/E/W/F/Q/Æ/Ø) designation as a navigation tool. If someone hops onto a segment of I-69 thinking it will connect with another segment of I-69 they are already familiar with, and it ends after one mile instead, they could get confused/lost.

In the original Interstate era, this was handled with "Temporary" bannered routes or "To" routes. But is the expense and effort to install those worth the boost in morale of signing disparate one-mile sections of Interstate as such?

I don't think many of us choose to follow a single highway to get from point-a to point-b.  The GPS tells us where to go at most every turn.  A perfect example is from Lufkin, TX to Marshall, TX   You start out on US-59 and Finish up on US-59 but you take US-259 and SH-315.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: kphoger on August 20, 2020, 01:25:15 PM
The GPS tells us where to go at most every turn.

The what?  Don't have one of those thingamagadgets in my car.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on August 20, 2020, 01:54:31 PM
Do you use Google Maps or Waze?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: kphoger on August 20, 2020, 02:03:51 PM
Do you use Google Maps or Waze?

Only ahead of time.  And I don't automatically go with the route it first suggests.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on August 20, 2020, 09:44:39 PM
Having dealt with the GPS on my business partner's car on more than one occasion, I certainly would like to tell the designers/engineers of the system where to go -- or, more precisely, just where to stick their product. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: rte66man on August 21, 2020, 07:51:33 AM
Having dealt with the GPS on my business partner's car on more than one occasion, I certainly would like to tell the designers/engineers of the system where to go -- or, more precisely, just where to stick their product. 

I've never used GPS to navigate. I use Google Maps but plan my own route. I tried Waze but it isn't particularly helpful in my area.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: kphoger on August 21, 2020, 10:48:09 AM
I use Google Maps but plan my own route.

This summarizes what I do too.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on August 21, 2020, 11:32:02 AM
^

Usually I’ll use Google Maps to route plan, then run Waze in the background once actually driving for traffic information, and other minor yet helpful info like where vehicles are pulled over, police traps, debris in road, animals nearby (especially w/ deer in the evening), etc.

Not absolutely need info and also not 100% reliable, but helpful to have a heads up when possible.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Perfxion on August 21, 2020, 03:28:19 PM
I still don't get the usefulness of both 69C and 69E when they are so close, big chunks going through limited traffic, the US highways as currently is get to the RGV without any delays that needed the blue shields. If they wanted a blue shield to get from Texarkana to the RGV, they could have called it I-47, pick the US77 one and saved a lot of these funds for projects that need it.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Stephane Dumas on August 21, 2020, 04:26:03 PM
I still don't get the usefulness of both 69C and 69E when they are so close, big chunks going through limited traffic, the US highways as currently is get to the RGV without any delays that needed the blue shields. If they wanted a blue shield to get from Texarkana to the RGV, they could have called it I-47, pick the US77 one and saved a lot of these funds for projects that need it.

Perhaps 69C could act as a relief route in case of hurricane evacuation if 69E is blocked?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: CoreySamson on August 21, 2020, 04:49:08 PM
I still don't get the usefulness of both 69C and 69E when they are so close, big chunks going through limited traffic, the US highways as currently is get to the RGV without any delays that needed the blue shields. If they wanted a blue shield to get from Texarkana to the RGV, they could have called it I-47, pick the US77 one and saved a lot of these funds for projects that need it.

Perhaps 69C could act as a relief route in case of hurricane evacuation if 69E is blocked?

IDK I'd argue certain areas need relief hurricane evacuation routes more than the RGV. For example, if TD 14 becomes a Cat 4 monster in the Gulf in the next few days, then Galveston and Brazoria counties need a better way out than to go thru Houston, which would likely mean gridlock (that's why no one was evacuated during Harvey. Can you imagine the disaster if the freeways were flooded while people were still stuck in traffic?). At one point during Harvey, there were no ways out of my county where I lived because all the roads in flooded.

The RGV, though, already has 281, 83, and 77 to help funnel evacuees out. They're at least a few tens of miles apart to spread out the traffic.

Being completely fictional here, but what if Houston had a southern bypass to help with hurricane evacuation? I think it would be called I-469 and it could use the TX 36 corridor to the west, the FM 2004 and TX 146 corridors in the south, and a new bridge across Trinity Bay from San Leon to Smith Point which would lead to Winnie in the east. This would give residents a way out from hurricanes.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on August 21, 2020, 05:02:29 PM
Being completely fictional here, but what if Houston had a southern bypass to help with hurricane evacuation? I think it would be called I-469 and it could use the TX 36 corridor to the west, the FM 2004 and TX 146 corridors in the south, and a new bridge across Trinity Bay from San Leon to Smith Point which would lead to Winnie in the east. This would give residents a way out from hurricanes.
To some extent, once Loop 99 is complete, it will provide this southern bypass. During evacuation, tolls could be lifted.

Unless of course, planning for a fourth loop is desired...?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on August 21, 2020, 05:52:35 PM
Quote from: sprjus4
To some extent, once Loop 99 is complete, it will provide this southern bypass. During evacuation, tolls could be lifted. Unless of course, planning for a fourth loop is desired...?

I think the TX-35 corridor should be improved considerably between Corpus Christi and Galveston. That would give the Houston area another escape alternative for hurricane evacuation. Aransas Pass, Port Lavaca, Freeport and Galveston need a more efficient East-West link. I think it would help the oil businesses through there as well as tourism. The whole thing doesn't have to be a freeway. But a more straight, direct route is needed.

Quote from: Perfxion
I still don't get the usefulness of both 69C and 69E when they are so close

I had the same question at first. Corpus to Brownsville? That makes sense for an Interstate. For a long time I thought I-37 should be extended down to Brownsville. The other route between Edinburg and George West? Seems like overkill. But then I saw just how many people live down in the far South tip of Texas. There's over a million people in that cluster of small cities. And the Rio Grande Valley is continuing to grow pretty fast. There are multiple border crossings there. The crossing at Reynosa is the main RGV crossing for traffic coming up from Monterrey. It's better for that commerce traffic to get on I-69C/US-281 and go North rather than clogging up I-2 to get to I-69E/US-77. The US-77 corridor is more exposed to hurricane strikes. US-281 is a relief route for that.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Grzrd on August 21, 2020, 06:20:15 PM
.... Being completely fictional here, but what if Houston had a southern bypass to help with hurricane evacuation? I think it would be called I-469 and it could use the TX 36 corridor to the west, the FM 2004 and TX 146 corridors in the south, and a new bridge across Trinity Bay from San Leon to Smith Point which would lead to Winnie in the east. This would give residents a way out from hurricanes.

It is not a completely fictional idea. The I-69 Segment Two Planning Committee laid out a plan for a southern I-69 bypass of Houston:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg2274283#msg2274283
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on August 21, 2020, 07:30:10 PM
.... Being completely fictional here, but what if Houston had a southern bypass to help with hurricane evacuation? I think it would be called I-469 and it could use the TX 36 corridor to the west, the FM 2004 and TX 146 corridors in the south, and a new bridge across Trinity Bay from San Leon to Smith Point which would lead to Winnie in the east. This would give residents a way out from hurricanes.

It is not a completely fictional idea. The I-69 Segment Two Planning Committee laid out a plan for a southern I-69 bypass of Houston:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg2274283#msg2274283

At one point, wasn't the Grand Parkway -- or at least the west and north legs between the US 59 intersections -- considered for an alternate I-69 alignment; and after it was decided to go right through town with the main corridor, a future/potential I-669?  The south and east legs shown here, including the big bridge, could simply be considered to be either an alternate alignment or just an extension of that concept.  OTOH, one would think that with the full revamping of the downtown (I-10/45/69) freeway network, any other major Houston projects would be "back-burnered" for the time being, unless as toll facilities they would or could be addressed separately from the historical "freeway" network.   
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: abqtraveler on August 21, 2020, 10:12:11 PM
.... Being completely fictional here, but what if Houston had a southern bypass to help with hurricane evacuation? I think it would be called I-469 and it could use the TX 36 corridor to the west, the FM 2004 and TX 146 corridors in the south, and a new bridge across Trinity Bay from San Leon to Smith Point which would lead to Winnie in the east. This would give residents a way out from hurricanes.

It is not a completely fictional idea. The I-69 Segment Two Planning Committee laid out a plan for a southern I-69 bypass of Houston:

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg2274283#msg2274283

At one point, wasn't the Grand Parkway -- or at least the west and north legs between the US 59 intersections -- considered for an alternate I-69 alignment; and after it was decided to go right through town with the main corridor, a future/potential I-669?  The south and east legs shown here, including the big bridge, could simply be considered to be either an alternate alignment or just an extension of that concept.  OTOH, one would think that with the full revamping of the downtown (I-10/45/69) freeway network, any other major Houston projects would be "back-burnered" for the time being, unless as toll facilities they would or could be addressed separately from the historical "freeway" network.   

IIRC, some of the old Trans-Texas Corridor environmental studies considered using part of the Grand Parkway alignment for I-69, and there was another concept floated more recently (5-10 years ago) that would have been somewhat similar to what's being done around Memphis, Tennessee, that envisioned I-69 following the current alignment through downtown Houston, with a 3di bypass to the east of the city (probably I-269). While work has been progressing nicely on the I-69 mainline, I haven't heard anything about the eastern bypass aside from the initial proposal that was floated years ago.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bwana39 on August 22, 2020, 01:07:29 AM
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.

As strange as this sounds, I think you are right. While there are lots of ways to undo this,
Truncate US-69 in Jacksonville and extend US-175. (or renumber all of US-175 to US-75 including the Jacksonville + extension)
Truncate US-69 in Tyler and extend US-271
Truncate US-69 at the Oklahoma state line, Renumber the Current US75 inTexas to IH-45, and extend US-75 along the current US-69.

All the signs point toward them not changing US-69.



For a Texan, the venacular for Interstate is "Interstate X"  . Texans would never call an interstate "Highway X". Texans would NEVER call ANY road ROUTE (ROOT?) anything.

Generally the US Highways and State Highways are all generically called "Highway X" or Just "X"
Farm Roads are usually called "Farm to Market X" or sometimes "Farm Road X"
From a Texan point of view it would not be particularly confusing ifUS 69 remained unchanged.

On the other hand, I heard a discusion about perhaps actually sending US-59 back to its original endpoint...

THEN there are the easterners and Yankees who call em Root X or HwyX it might be  a  problem. In their venacular, it might be "which ROOT 69?"



People with opinions of why (or why not) make a change? I am talking about reasons beyon AASHTO or FHWA standards. Real world reasons.....
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: -- US 175 -- on August 22, 2020, 06:59:29 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.

As strange as this sounds, I think you are right. While there are lots of ways to undo this,
Truncate US-69 in Jacksonville and extend US-175. (or renumber all of US-175 to US-75 including the Jacksonville + extension)
Truncate US-69 in Tyler and extend US-271
Truncate US-69 at the Oklahoma state line, Renumber the Current US75 inTexas to IH-45, and extend US-75 along the current US-69.

All the signs point toward them not changing US-69.



For a Texan, the venacular for Interstate is "Interstate X"  . Texans would never call an interstate "Highway X". Texans would NEVER call ANY road ROUTE (ROOT?) anything.

Generally the US Highways and State Highways are all generically called "Highway X" or Just "X"
Farm Roads are usually called "Farm to Market X" or sometimes "Farm Road X"
From a Texan point of view it would not be particularly confusing ifUS 69 remained unchanged.

On the other hand, I heard a discusion about perhaps actually sending US-59 back to its original endpoint...

THEN there are the easterners and Yankees who call em Root X or HwyX it might be  a  problem. In their venacular, it might be "which ROOT 69?"



People with opinions of why (or why not) make a change? I am talking about reasons beyon AASHTO or FHWA standards. Real world reasons.....

And, ironically enough, that post and its potentials are being debated on the 69th page of this thread. ;-) :clap:

I've heard nothing new as to the possibilty of doing anything about the 2-69 issue.  IMO, something should be done, but it looks like, for now, it's not a very front-burner topic on TxDOT's list.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on August 24, 2020, 08:48:47 AM
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.

As strange as this sounds, I think you are right. While there are lots of ways to undo this,
Truncate US-69 in Jacksonville and extend US-175. (or renumber all of US-175 to US-75 including the Jacksonville + extension)
Truncate US-69 in Tyler and extend US-271
Truncate US-69 at the Oklahoma state line, Renumber the Current US75 inTexas to IH-45, and extend US-75 along the current US-69.

All the signs point toward them not changing US-69.



For a Texan, the venacular for Interstate is "Interstate X"  . Texans would never call an interstate "Highway X". Texans would NEVER call ANY road ROUTE (ROOT?) anything.

Generally the US Highways and State Highways are all generically called "Highway X" or Just "X"
Farm Roads are usually called "Farm to Market X" or sometimes "Farm Road X"
From a Texan point of view it would not be particularly confusing ifUS 69 remained unchanged.

On the other hand, I heard a discusion about perhaps actually sending US-59 back to its original endpoint...

THEN there are the easterners and Yankees who call em Root X or HwyX it might be  a  problem. In their venacular, it might be "which ROOT 69?"



People with opinions of why (or why not) make a change? I am talking about reasons beyon AASHTO or FHWA standards. Real world reasons.....

And, ironically enough, that post and its potentials are being debated on the 69th page of this thread. ;-) :clap:

I've heard nothing new as to the possibilty of doing anything about the 2-69 issue.  IMO, something should be done, but it looks like, for now, it's not a very front-burner topic on TxDOT's list.

I know lots of Texans, myself included, that call US highways "US Highway 69".  They may call State Highways "Highway 21", but usually differentiate.  Then other Texans just use the number like "69" or "21" for everything other than interstate, but always, no matter what, interstates come with "I" before the number.  I have heard some people call US Highways "Interstate 59" in Texas, but those people are always people who are not from Texas.  Lastly, in agreement, I have only heard people from the northeast call a road a route.  I never even heard that term until I was in my 30s, with the exception of the song "(Get Your Kicks on) Route 66" and even then, I thought it just meant the literal definition of a route, being the current way you are driving, not something people call a US Highway.

Anyway, again, I don't think this is even a subject.  The original reason the rule of flip flopping the grid to keep like numbered Interstates and US Highways out of the same state was because of the original interstate plan.  The US Highways were to supplement the interstate system.  The interstate highway system is one of those things that worked well, extremely well.  It worked way better than anyone could possibly have thought, to the point that the original reason for the system became second thought (connecting military instillations) and the secondary reason (connecting major cities and fast vacation travel times) became primary.  For this reason, the original rules and thoughts of the interstate highway system have been dropped or laxed or even forgotten.  This is the reason I feel like the US Highway system no longer supplements the interstate system.  Now they are just state highways that go into other states with the same number.  That reason is why you see Interstate 41 cosigned with US 41.  The US Highway system doesn't carry the same value it did in the late 50s.  Then, in the infancy of the interstate system, it was still the way to cross the country.  Now, they are just another set of local roads.  First step was demoting the US Highway Shield from a cutout with state name to a square shield, and a shell of it's former self. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on August 24, 2020, 05:29:57 PM
I still don't get the usefulness of both 69C and 69E when they are so close, big chunks going through limited traffic, the US highways as currently is get to the RGV without any delays that needed the blue shields. If they wanted a blue shield to get from Texarkana to the RGV, they could have called it I-47, pick the US77 one and saved a lot of these funds for projects that need it.

Two things:  US 281, as illustrated in a study of (current) non-Interstate commercial corridors' relative traffic (reproduced in this or another thread), is one of the nation's most heavily trafficked non-Interstate commercial corridors between the border and I-37; it's right up there with the perennial "champion", CA 99.  Whoever suggested it as an Interstate back in 1995 likely saw this coming due to the increasing congestion at other border crossing sites, particularly Laredo (I-35).  Whether foresight or prescience, such traffic has manifested itself in the last quarter century.  Second -- the numbering aspect of the I-69 corridor cluster has been hashed out repeatedly within this forum; the current suffixed situation boils down to TxDOT and the major corridor promoter, the Alliance for I-69/Texas electing to make any corridor authorized by the language of high priority corridors 18 & 20 refer to the main trunk number "69" in some way or form.  Most of us thought the authorizing language's reference to "east" and "central" would have been a mere referential placeholder -- but the two governing entities thought otherwise, choosing to take a very literal approach to the numbering -- hence the suffixes (I'm certain that if I-369 would have been dubbed "I-69N" it would have been accepted and formalized as well!).  I-2 was exempt from that as it wasn't a part of the original authorized corridor bundle.  At this point, with signage already posted, any suggestion regarding designation change wouldn't make it past the front desk within the official circles handling the project.   
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on August 24, 2020, 05:37:15 PM
I still don't get the usefulness of both 69C and 69E when they are so close, big chunks going through limited traffic, the US highways as currently is get to the RGV without any delays that needed the blue shields. If they wanted a blue shield to get from Texarkana to the RGV, they could have called it I-47, pick the US77 one and saved a lot of these funds for projects that need it.

Two things:  US 281, as illustrated in a study of (current) non-Interstate commercial corridors' relative traffic (reproduced in this or another thread), is one of the nation's most heavily trafficked non-Interstate commercial corridors between the border and I-37; it's right up there with the perennial "champion", CA 99.  Whoever suggested it as an Interstate back in 1995 likely saw this coming due to the increasing congestion at other border crossing sites, particularly Laredo (I-35).  Whether foresight or prescience, such traffic has manifested itself in the last quarter century.  Second -- the numbering aspect of the I-69 corridor cluster has been hashed out repeatedly within this forum; the current suffixed situation boils down to TxDOT and the major corridor promoter, the Alliance for I-69/Texas electing to make any corridor authorized by the language of high priority corridors 18 & 20 refer to the main trunk number "69" in some way or form.  Most of us thought the authorizing language's reference to "east" and "central" would have been a mere referential placeholder -- but the two governing entities thought otherwise, choosing to take a very literal approach to the numbering -- hence the suffixes (I'm certain that if I-369 would have been dubbed "I-69N" it would have been accepted and formalized as well!).  I-2 was exempt from that as it wasn't a part of the original authorized corridor bundle.  At this point, with signage already posted, any suggestion regarding designation change wouldn't make it past the front desk within the official circles handling the project.   

Agreed, with rebuttal.  I-69's first signing in Texas was the section of US-77 from I-37 to just south of Calallen.  Everyone came out, got their cameras out and smiled as they unveiled brand new I-69 shields.  Problem was it was after this that they decided the legs needed to be suffixed (and that section was part of I-69E) so the new signing had to (partially) come down in lieu of I-69E shields.  So just saying, that section has been signed and renumbered once already.

That is a little bit of a more manageable scenario, since the "opps" I-69 shields can be re-purposed somewhere else along the corridor. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on August 24, 2020, 05:48:03 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Definitely the finalization of the suffixed approach, long favored within Alliance ranks -- they thought that was the only way to keep their pet Congressfolks busy getting appropriations (i.e., don't confuse them too much with non-69-referenced segments) took place in the 2010's and not earlier.  I was in contact with those folks in 2010-11 regarding designation options; their response to me was essentially along those lines, couched in the "maintaining consistency" concept.   If I had to cobble up an explanation for the original deployment of unsuffixed I-69 shields along what would become I-69E, it would be along the old "camel's nose through the tent door" sort of dynamic -- "brand" the route with the basic number and worry about the specifics later.  And, yeah, the old now-replaced shields may well find themselves up by Nacogdoches in time!   
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on August 24, 2020, 06:13:18 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^
Definitely the finalization of the suffixed approach, long favored within Alliance ranks -- they thought that was the only way to keep their pet Congressfolks busy getting appropriations (i.e., don't confuse them too much with non-69-referenced segments) took place in the 2010's and not earlier.  I was in contact with those folks in 2010-11 regarding designation options; their response to me was essentially along those lines, couched in the "maintaining consistency" concept.   If I had to cobble up an explanation for the original deployment of unsuffixed I-69 shields along what would become I-69E, it would be along the old "camel's nose through the tent door" sort of dynamic -- "brand" the route with the basic number and worry about the specifics later.  And, yeah, the old now-replaced shields may well find themselves up by Nacogdoches in time!

Yeah, just a little fading and some dust.. Good as new!
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on August 24, 2020, 07:22:43 PM
Agreed, with rebuttal.  I-69's first signing in Texas was the section of US-77 from I-37 to just south of Calallen.  Everyone came out, got their cameras out and smiled as they unveiled brand new I-69 shields.  Problem was it was after this that they decided the legs needed to be suffixed (and that section was part of I-69E) so the new signing had to (partially) come down in lieu of I-69E shields.  So just saying, that section has been signed and renumbered once already.

That is a little bit of a more manageable scenario, since the "opps" I-69 shields can be re-purposed somewhere else along the corridor.
I-69 shields still remain for the most part on that segment, including the new segments being upgraded south of there, with only I-69E on overheads.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on August 24, 2020, 07:39:34 PM
Agreed, with rebuttal.  I-69's first signing in Texas was the section of US-77 from I-37 to just south of Calallen.  Everyone came out, got their cameras out and smiled as they unveiled brand new I-69 shields.  Problem was it was after this that they decided the legs needed to be suffixed (and that section was part of I-69E) so the new signing had to (partially) come down in lieu of I-69E shields.  So just saying, that section has been signed and renumbered once already.

That is a little bit of a more manageable scenario, since the "opps" I-69 shields can be re-purposed somewhere else along the corridor.
I-69 shields still remain for the most part on that segment, including the new segments being upgraded south of there, with only I-69E on overheads.

Yes, that would be the reason for the (partially).  Either way, they are going to come down.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on August 24, 2020, 08:15:11 PM
^

I just want to know why they put them on the Robstown to Driscoll segment, and if they will go on the Driscoll to Kingsville segment once the gap is complete.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on August 24, 2020, 09:49:29 PM
^

I just want to know why they put them on the Robstown to Driscoll segment, and if they will go on the Driscoll to Kingsville segment once the gap is complete.

Yeah, that one is a head scratcher. I thought maybe it was because that is 100% going to be the leg that connects the Valley first so it will be interim I-69 until the other legs are finished, but US-77 in the valley only has I-69E signage so you are going to have I-69 signage turn to I-69E abruptly, but the whole time it will all be I-69E?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on August 25, 2020, 05:19:53 AM
^

I just want to know why they put them on the Robstown to Driscoll segment, and if they will go on the Driscoll to Kingsville segment once the gap is complete.

Yeah, that one is a head scratcher. I thought maybe it was because that is 100% going to be the leg that connects the Valley first so it will be interim I-69 until the other legs are finished, but US-77 in the valley only has I-69E signage so you are going to have I-69 signage turn to I-69E abruptly, but the whole time it will all be I-69E?

Question for knowledgable TX posters: does TxDOT divide the state up into districts, and do those districts have some degree of autonomy regarding signage (a la Caltrans and their 12 districts, each with distinct signage practices)?  If so, that may account for the continuation of I-69 signage on what is actually designated I-69E.  Perhaps they just didn't have any 69E shields in their corporate yard!
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: rte66man on August 25, 2020, 07:45:47 AM
^

I just want to know why they put them on the Robstown to Driscoll segment, and if they will go on the Driscoll to Kingsville segment once the gap is complete.

Yeah, that one is a head scratcher. I thought maybe it was because that is 100% going to be the leg that connects the Valley first so it will be interim I-69 until the other legs are finished, but US-77 in the valley only has I-69E signage so you are going to have I-69 signage turn to I-69E abruptly, but the whole time it will all be I-69E?

Question for knowledgable TX posters: does TxDOT divide the state up into districts, and do those districts have some degree of autonomy regarding signage (a la Caltrans and their 12 districts, each with distinct signage practices)?  If so, that may account for the continuation of I-69 signage on what is actually designated I-69E.  Perhaps they just didn't have any 69E shields in their corporate yard!

Yes to Districts. You can clearly see the dividing line here:
https://www.dot.state.tx.us/drivenbytexans/maps.htm

Do not know about signage autonomy.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on August 25, 2020, 09:07:45 AM
^

I just want to know why they put them on the Robstown to Driscoll segment, and if they will go on the Driscoll to Kingsville segment once the gap is complete.

Yeah, that one is a head scratcher. I thought maybe it was because that is 100% going to be the leg that connects the Valley first so it will be interim I-69 until the other legs are finished, but US-77 in the valley only has I-69E signage so you are going to have I-69 signage turn to I-69E abruptly, but the whole time it will all be I-69E?

Question for knowledgable TX posters: does TxDOT divide the state up into districts, and do those districts have some degree of autonomy regarding signage (a la Caltrans and their 12 districts, each with distinct signage practices)?  If so, that may account for the continuation of I-69 signage on what is actually designated I-69E.  Perhaps they just didn't have any 69E shields in their corporate yard!

Yes to Districts. You can clearly see the dividing line here:
https://www.dot.state.tx.us/drivenbytexans/maps.htm

Do not know about signage autonomy.

Yes they do.  I don't know anything official about signage autonomy, but you can see it when you drive.  Like the Houston District like to place yellow diamonds on the support poles of ground mounted BGSs.  https://www.google.com/maps/@29.7771448,-95.9068856,3a,75y,103.28h,92.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8twsKmA70YH52LQ3Orl9YA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@29.7771448,-95.9068856,3a,75y,103.28h,92.96t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s8twsKmA70YH52LQ3Orl9YA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192) No one in the state does that.  The Valley (Pharr) District puts gore signs to the right of the gore, instead of to the left like the rest of the normal world.  The Corpus Christi District used to love Exit signs with 2 gore arrows, but I think they have been retired now.  The Atlanta District likes to put ground mounted BGSs for junction and directional signs at intersections with US 59 instead of stand alone shields.  https://www.google.com/maps/@32.887262,-94.3582107,3a,75y,50.01h,84.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smYLlU3OlvazD5ny430OxYQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@32.887262,-94.3582107,3a,75y,50.01h,84.9t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smYLlU3OlvazD5ny430OxYQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)  I like it but its the only place in the state I have seen it done consistently.  The Dallas District used to do a lot of things differently that I mentioned on another thread, they have since changed a lot of things.  Some districts in Texas wrap the pole on standalone shields and signs with a yellow adhesive reflector half way up the pole: https://www.google.com/maps/@28.9929404,-98.4329759,3a,46.8y,96.71h,95.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7lQVpdN7wWqkhvj4t0dmcA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@28.9929404,-98.4329759,3a,46.8y,96.71h,95.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7lQVpdN7wWqkhvj4t0dmcA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192), others don't https://www.google.com/maps/@30.7104128,-94.9141568,3a,36.9y,330.51h,84.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smM5S7colzNG4NtKvBpBpzA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 (https://www.google.com/maps/@30.7104128,-94.9141568,3a,36.9y,330.51h,84.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smM5S7colzNG4NtKvBpBpzA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)  The San Antonio District likes putting these on all the Texas U-turns. https://www.google.com/maps/@29.4968117,-98.4008325,3a,41.2y,213.3h,92.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sStXHeEa2LGMU-nL9AEcJYw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@29.4968117,-98.4008325,3a,41.2y,213.3h,92.75t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sStXHeEa2LGMU-nL9AEcJYw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)  They have showed up in other places recently, mainly the I-35 widening project, but San Antonio was the only place it was consistent.  The San Angelo District, on I-10 changed the language on BGSs from the road name, to "County Road xxx" then having another smaller BGS saying "Allison Road, Next Right"  Again, probably done in other districts, but the only place it is done constantly. 

Texas moved to Exit Gore Signs with the exit number on the gore sign about 10 years ago. https://www.google.com/maps/@31.2162899,-97.2987424,3a,28.1y,233.02h,90.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxvpoaa5_GV5dUH81TVK5QA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@31.2162899,-97.2987424,3a,28.1y,233.02h,90.05t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxvpoaa5_GV5dUH81TVK5QA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)  Some districts were well on board and had almost all their signs replaced (Dallas, Austin, San Antonio) others, it has taken them longer to switch https://www.google.com/maps/@30.9928159,-103.6565055,3a,75y,319.67h,86.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCzaJ6dJMOwc2JTUkGE2wZw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192 (https://www.google.com/maps/@30.9928159,-103.6565055,3a,75y,319.67h,86.63t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCzaJ6dJMOwc2JTUkGE2wZw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192)  This might be a sign longevity thing, but the signs on SH 130 weren't that old since the road itself isn't that old and they got replace, save a few.

There are differences in the way the roads are made/stripped too.  Some districts used to really love those circular dimple reflectors I called "McDonald's Reflectors" and used them in insane amounts.  Others never used them.  Some districts, the pavement is darker than others, some use a lot of concrete instead of asphalt.  Some districts have rumble strips in the center of the highway, some on the shoulder and some have both.  Always when you cross into another district, there is an abrupt pavement change, almost like you are going into another state. 

I could go on and on, and a lot of differences don't cross my mind until I re-visit other parts of the state. Again, I have no idea if any of these things are official or they just happen to be something a higher up in these districts love so that district does it and no other district does.  I actually love this because I remember noticing these things as far back as when I was 5.  It was part of traveling in Texas.  Not only did the scenery change, but the roads were different, and you were still in Texas!
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: J N Winkler on August 25, 2020, 12:10:41 PM
Question for knowledgable TX posters: does TxDOT divide the state up into districts, and do those districts have some degree of autonomy regarding signage (a la Caltrans and their 12 districts, each with distinct signage practices)?

Yes, and yes--there are 26 districts total and signing is typically designed at the district level, though Traffic Operations at TxDOT headquarters in Austin carries out some coordinating functions, such as keeping the TxMUTCD and SHSD up to date, ensuring that each district has access to Clearview licenses and other software resources (for example, there is a Microstation bolt-on--still available for download, I think--that was used to make conventional-road guide signs with all-uppercase Series D lettering, and I think the availability of this is one reason such signs had an uniform appearance statewide before Clearview was rolled out and SignCAD became common), and so on.  Some districts have their own traffic-related standard plan sheets; for example, the Houston district has one for shields for the HCTRA toll roads.

I don't think TxDOT does "superdistricts" like Caltrans does (e.g., in California much design activity for thinly populated Districts 1 and 2 is in fact done out of the District 3 offices).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bwana39 on August 25, 2020, 04:54:23 PM
Question for knowledgable TX posters: does TxDOT divide the state up into districts, and do those districts have some degree of autonomy regarding signage (a la Caltrans and their 12 districts, each with distinct signage practices)?

Yes, and yes--there are 26 districts total and signing is typically designed at the district level, though Traffic Operations at TxDOT headquarters in Austin carries out some coordinating functions, such as keeping the TxMUTCD and SHSD up to date, ensuring that each district has access to Clearview licenses and other software resources (for example, there is a Microstation bolt-on--still available for download, I think--that was used to make conventional-road guide signs with all-uppercase Series D lettering, and I think the availability of this is one reason such signs had an uniform appearance statewide before Clearview was rolled out and SignCAD became common), and so on.  Some districts have their own traffic-related standard plan sheets; for example, the Houston district has one for shields for the HCTRA toll roads.

I don't think TxDOT does "superdistricts" like Caltrans does (e.g., in California much design activity for thinly populated Districts 1 and 2 is in fact done out of the District 3 offices).

I think you have to realize that many signs are on vendor contracts in Texas. Some come down every year or so and they alternate signs. There surely is some sort of maintenance beyond cleaning them, but on at least one occasion, the same US-93 sign came back after a hiatus when it had correctly been TX-93. This cycle the sign was replaced with one updated for "TO I-49" so, my guess is I don't have to wonder how close is the Hoover Dam any more.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: J N Winkler on August 25, 2020, 05:43:26 PM
I think you have to realize that many signs are on vendor contracts in Texas.

What do you mean by vendor contract:  a type of fixed term, indefinite quantity contract where a contractor comes in and fabricates and installs replacement signs in response to work orders issued by the TxDOT district?

I'm familiar mainly with the signing contracts TxDOT processes through the statewide construction and (occasionally) maintenance lettings.  These typically include sign panel detail and sign elevation sheets in the plans sets made available to contractors before bid opening.  I've accumulated about 22,000 of these sheets and I've seen several examples of signs being replaced repeatedly within very short periods of time--for example, I think the signs for the SH 349 Iraan/Sheffield exit off I-10 were replaced at least three times within ten years.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bwana39 on August 26, 2020, 03:54:51 PM

^^^^^^^^^^^^
Definitely the finalization of the suffixed approach, long favored within Alliance ranks -- they thought that was the only way to keep their pet Congressfolks busy getting appropriations (i.e., don't confuse them too much with non-69-referenced segments) took place in the 2010's and not earlier.  I was in contact with those folks in 2010-11 regarding designation options; their response to me was essentially along those lines, couched in the "maintaining consistency" concept.   If I had to cobble up an explanation for the original deployment of unsuffixed I-69 shields along what would become I-69E, it would be along the old "camel's nose through the tent door" sort of dynamic -- "brand" the route with the basic number and worry about the specifics later.  And, yeah, the old now-replaced shields may well find themselves up by Nacogdoches in time!


It is more about keeping any of the three constituencies from thinking they were lesser (IE not getting the MAIN I-69) everyone gets an equivalent.Sort of like Dallas and Fort Worth or Minneapolis and Saint Paul.  Neither of them got bypassed.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bwana39 on August 26, 2020, 04:24:49 PM
Quote
from: sparker on August 25, 2020, 05:45:26 PM

... But getting back to the matter at hand -- the analysis of the rationale behind maintaining the I-69 alignment as a relief route is pretty spot on; if TX completes its I-69/369 continuum well ahead of full development of the main I-69 trunk across AR and into MS, expect to see serious consequences -- essentially "rolling congestion" along I-30, I-440, and I-40 across the state (possibly lessened once I-57 is completed) due to the present configuration of both freeways, which doesn't readily lend itself to expansion without a substantial overall rebuild.  Much freeway design of the '60's, particularly in states that employed a more frugal approach to the original design/construction effort, is that type -- not anticipating the overall traffic increases that have occurred in the last half century.  And remember that a relief route "offsite", so to speak, doesn't pose the traffic interruption issues endemic to "expand-in-place" efforts.

The Gridlock is already worse between Texarkana and Little Rock and I-69 is not anywhere near finished. Traffic on I-49 is light.  The difference between Mount Pleasant and Hope traffic volumes is already primarily from US-59.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on August 28, 2020, 02:38:55 AM
One interesting aspect of the coronavirus is that there are now a lot of virtual meetings in which roadgeeks can participate. One such meeting is about the proposed widening of US 59/ US 77 in Victoria for the Future I-69:

https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/yoakum/082520.html

It will take place on August 25.

* edit

Thanks to rte66man for the welcome back over in the Interstate 269 thread.
Meeting materials have been posted to the TxDOT project website.

The project limits are what I had predicted before - the remainder of the Victoria Beltway between FM-236 and US-77 / US-59 (Future I-69E)
(https://i.ibb.co/c62mWgn/US77-US59-Interstate-Project.png)

Similar to the existing freeway segment north of FM-236, the project would ultimately construct a 4 lane freeway with a concrete barrier median / 6 foot left paved shoulders along with two-lane one way frontage roads in each direction. Two alternatives were presented, with the largest difference being two curves on US-59 / US-77 east of the US-59 / Business US-59 interchange - Alternative 1 would increase the radius on the two curves, Alternative 2 would completely realign the highway to eliminate the two curves. Both alternatives also feature direct flyovers to/from US-59 / US-77 to US-59 (the proposed I-69W movements). The US-59 / US-77 (Future I-69E / I-69W) interchange will not be modified.

Due to budget constraints, the project will be constructed in two phases. The first phase, in typical TxDOT fashion, would construct the frontage roads with a wide median, for around $35 million. This phase is fully funded and will begin construction in Fall 2023. Even though this is not constructing the freeway portion of the project, it would still eliminate the last 2 lane section of the beltway, a major improvement over the current situation. Phase 2 would construct the mainline / freeway in the median, and likely the US-59 flyovers, and is not currently funded.

The design speed for the mainline / freeway is 60 mph and the frontage roads is 50 mph, so in typical TxDOT fashion, the speed limit will likely be 70 - 75 mph. What is the point of a low design speed when the actual speed limit will ultimately be the default 70 mph or higher 75 mph?

Project Website: https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/yoakum/082520.html
Presentation: http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/ykm/us59-us77/082520-presentation.pdf
Alternative 1: http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/ykm/us59-us77/082520-schematic-1.pdf
Alternative 2: http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/ykm/us59-us77/082520-schematic-2.pdf
Typical Sections: http://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/ykm/us59-us77/082520-typical-sections.pdf
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bluecountry on August 28, 2020, 03:25:04 PM
I do not get why I-69 has I-69, 69E, 69W, why not just have spurs?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on August 28, 2020, 06:45:21 PM
I do not get why I-69 has I-69, 69E, 69W, why not just have spurs?

To avoid unnecessary reiteration, see my replies#1711 and #1713 a bit earlier in this thread.   
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bwana39 on August 31, 2020, 03:07:47 PM
I do not get why I-69 has I-69, 69E, 69W, why not just have spurs?

If it had spurs it would need boots and chaps.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: abqtraveler on August 31, 2020, 04:44:45 PM
I do not get why I-69 has I-69, 69E, 69W, why not just have spurs?

Because the I-69E, I-69C, and I-69W designations were codified into federal law when Congress enacted the legislation that established the I-69 corridor.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on September 01, 2020, 05:27:03 AM
I do not get why I-69 has I-69, 69E, 69W, why not just have spurs?

Because the I-69E, I-69C, and I-69W designations were codified into federal law when Congress enacted the legislation that established the I-69 corridor.

The actual suffixes were not codified at that point; the legislative language specified a "east" and "central" corridor; what will become I-69W was not itself specified -- apparently the original intent was to keep that as the mainline I-69 and simply "branch" the others southward from it.   When TxDOT and the Alliance decided to simply translate the legislative language into actual suffixed designations circa 2010-11, they thought better of the original approach and subsequently modified the actual Interstate designations from the original legislation to include I-69W along with the "C" and "E" routes, effectively truncating the mainline I-69 at the E/W split near Victoria. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on September 01, 2020, 04:10:25 PM
I do not get why I-69 has I-69, 69E, 69W, why not just have spurs?

Because the I-69E, I-69C, and I-69W designations were codified into federal law when Congress enacted the legislation that established the I-69 corridor.

The actual suffixes were not codified at that point; the legislative language specified a "east" and "central" corridor; what will become I-69W was not itself specified -- apparently the original intent was to keep that as the mainline I-69 and simply "branch" the others southward from it.   When TxDOT and the Alliance decided to simply translate the legislative language into actual suffixed designations circa 2010-11, they thought better of the original approach and subsequently modified the actual Interstate designations from the original legislation to include I-69W along with the "C" and "E" routes, effectively truncating the mainline I-69 at the E/W split near Victoria.

Which I always thought was dumb.  It should take the rules of suffixed interstates into account, that the mainline mileage is derived from the E branch.  I understand this is a different situation then the last living suffixed interstates in that they don't branch from a unified interstate, then return to a unified interstate, but it's confusing to count down to Victoria just to have the mile post go back up and count down to the valley if traveling south.  Even worse to have them count up to Victoria then reset to zero and count up again. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: GreenLanternCorps on September 03, 2020, 01:42:52 PM
Found some construction images on Google Maps from last fall on I-69E (Southern section) north of Raymondville:

https://www.google.com/maps/@26.5977635,-97.7663174,3a,60y,316.77h,98.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sn-5Li3sE51DPTjgcFlQooQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on September 03, 2020, 02:49:37 PM
Found some construction images on Google Maps from last fall on I-69E (Southern section) north of Raymondville:

https://www.google.com/maps/@26.5977635,-97.7663174,3a,60y,316.77h,98.44t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sn-5Li3sE51DPTjgcFlQooQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Looks to be about 6 miles of mainline construction in the median.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: mrsman on September 09, 2020, 02:34:44 PM
I do not get why I-69 has I-69, 69E, 69W, why not just have spurs?

Because the I-69E, I-69C, and I-69W designations were codified into federal law when Congress enacted the legislation that established the I-69 corridor.

And we all think that is terrible.  Let the Congress vote to fund highways, but let the professionals decide on these criteria. 

This is also why we have an I-99 designation in PA and NY, even though it does not follow the numbering plan.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 09, 2020, 04:29:08 PM
I think former Rep. Bud Shuster gave the US 220 corridor the Interstate 99 designation because there was a streetcar connecting his hometown of Glassport with McKeesport, that was numbered 99. It's annoying, but I think Interstate 238 in the Bay Area is a worse designation. As for Interstates 69E, 69C, and 69W, I would have numbered 69E as Interstate 69, 69C as Interstate 202, and 69W as Interstate 6 (though that last number could have gone to the Interstate 49 South corridor between Lafayette and New Orleans in Louisiana).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on September 09, 2020, 05:39:29 PM
I think former Rep. Bud Shuster gave the US 220 corridor the Interstate 99 designation because there was a streetcar connecting his hometown of Glassport with McKeesport, that was numbered 99. It's annoying, but I think Interstate 238 in the Bay Area is a worse designation. As for Interstates 69E, 69C, and 69W, I would have numbered 69E as Interstate 69, 69C as Interstate 202, and 69W as Interstate 6 (though that last number could have gone to the Interstate 49 South corridor between Lafayette and New Orleans in Louisiana).

Back in 2010 in correspondence to the Alliance for I-69/Texas I suggested that the I-69 "main line" proceed down the eastern leg, the western/Laredo branch be I-6, and the central branch, at their option, could be either a southern iteration of I-41 or simply I-169 (also suggesting I-47 for the Texarkana branch).  Reply: thanks but no thanks; we're probably sticking with the descriptions transferred to suffixes, including the central branch  (which, AFAIK, is the first iteration of the "C" suffix to indicate "central" on any US or Interstate route).  Rationales given:  don't confuse the congress critters holding the purse strings by stretching their comprehension, and doubling down on the publicity already afforded the "69" label. 

But the Shuster reference is quite correct; and I-238 is a bit of an embarassment -- but at the time CA 480 was still standing (for 5 more years after the I-238 designation), and Caltrans has been loath to do any kind of numbering "swap" -- and now that 34 years have passed since the I-238 signage was erected, there's no momentum to change anything -- although CA 238 south of there is all but relinquished, so the Interstate freeway portion is no longer effectively an extension of anything! 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: kphoger on September 10, 2020, 10:30:41 AM
The I-99 and I-238 designations annoy nobody but roadgeeks and cause zero people any confusion at all.

The I-69C/E/W designations, on the other hand, have real potential to mislead drivers.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Stephane Dumas on September 10, 2020, 11:30:30 AM
I think former Rep. Bud Shuster gave the US 220 corridor the Interstate 99 designation because there was a streetcar connecting his hometown of Glassport with McKeesport, that was numbered 99. It's annoying, but I think Interstate 238 in the Bay Area is a worse designation. As for Interstates 69E, 69C, and 69W, I would have numbered 69E as Interstate 69, 69C as Interstate 202, and 69W as Interstate 6 (though that last number could have gone to the Interstate 49 South corridor between Lafayette and New Orleans in Louisiana).

Back in 2010 in correspondence to the Alliance for I-69/Texas I suggested that the I-69 "main line" proceed down the eastern leg, the western/Laredo branch be I-6, and the central branch, at their option, could be either a southern iteration of I-41 or simply I-169 (also suggesting I-47 for the Texarkana branch).  Reply: thanks but no thanks; we're probably sticking with the descriptions transferred to suffixes, including the central branch  (which, AFAIK, is the first iteration of the "C" suffix to indicate "central" on any US or Interstate route).  Rationales given:  don't confuse the congress critters holding the purse strings by stretching their comprehension, and doubling down on the publicity already afforded the "69" label. 

The "69" label.... I could hear the 69 jokes coming to my head. ;)


Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on September 10, 2020, 08:55:47 PM
I think former Rep. Bud Shuster gave the US 220 corridor the Interstate 99 designation because there was a streetcar connecting his hometown of Glassport with McKeesport, that was numbered 99. It's annoying, but I think Interstate 238 in the Bay Area is a worse designation. As for Interstates 69E, 69C, and 69W, I would have numbered 69E as Interstate 69, 69C as Interstate 202, and 69W as Interstate 6 (though that last number could have gone to the Interstate 49 South corridor between Lafayette and New Orleans in Louisiana).

Back in 2010 in correspondence to the Alliance for I-69/Texas I suggested that the I-69 "main line" proceed down the eastern leg, the western/Laredo branch be I-6, and the central branch, at their option, could be either a southern iteration of I-41 or simply I-169 (also suggesting I-47 for the Texarkana branch).  Reply: thanks but no thanks; we're probably sticking with the descriptions transferred to suffixes, including the central branch  (which, AFAIK, is the first iteration of the "C" suffix to indicate "central" on any US or Interstate route).  Rationales given:  don't confuse the congress critters holding the purse strings by stretching their comprehension, and doubling down on the publicity already afforded the "69" label. 

The "69" label.... I could hear the 69 jokes coming to my head. ;)




Taking into consideration the fate of former CA 69, consigned to history because of extensive shield theft, one only wonders what the corresponding signage theft rate is for I-69, particularly in the two states hosting the original pre-extension alignment (IN, MI) where the route has been active since the '60's.     

 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bwana39 on September 11, 2020, 11:26:47 AM
They have begun clearing trees and doing ground work for the Diboll bypass.

I was through Diboll last week. They have begun the clearing and earth moving on the south side for the bypass. Looks like it is in the very early stages, but it is going.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: TheBox on September 26, 2020, 06:05:04 PM
I wonder why they don't go ahead and signs some of the bypasses between Corpus Christi and Houston as I-69 (Beasley, Kendleton, Wharton, El Campo, Edna, Inez and Victoria) now.  The others I didn't mention (like Louise and Ganado) which are currently almost freeway, albeit a few expressway grade interchanges and a gas station driveway away from full freeway, TxDOT can focus small projects of closing off driveways and bulldozing crossovers to make them interstate grade, then sign them as I-69.  I know the argument would be that these sections are a few miles apiece, but I think it would be good for route continuity.  It would get locals and travelers alike used to the fact that US 59 is pretty much going away in lieu of I-69, and give some validity to the BGSs in Houston that say I-69 goes to Victoria when in reality it goes to Rosenberg. 

I know this is a new world and just because things were done like this before doesn't mean they will be done like this again, but that's how a lot of interstates got built.  The bypasses/town freeway sections came first, then the rural freeways were built in between connecting the sections.  If you recall, the disjointed sections of the interstates were signed as the interstate on the freeway sections, then they stopped either on a crossroad, or on the road they were displacing and had "TO I-XX" trailblazers on the non freeway parts.  All this to say, I think it would help the long term transition.  People in and around Houston still call Eastex and Southwest Freeways in Houston 59 (or the cringey I-59).  They kinda need to get people used to phasing out US 59 because we all know once this project is complete, US 59 will completely not exist in Texas.

Unless Business US-59 becomes Business I-69 (much like how Business US-75 between Houston and DFW became Business I-45), that's where US-59 may live on, much like how US-90 lives on even after I-10 was complete (although US-90 goes further into Del Rio)

or maybe not cause what i said about US-90 going further to Del Rio (and smaller places before) being the one route I-10 avoids in favor of El Paso (which is much bigger than Del Rio)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on September 26, 2020, 06:51:08 PM
I wonder why they don't go ahead and signs some of the bypasses between Corpus Christi and Houston as I-69 (Beasley, Kendleton, Wharton, El Campo, Edna, Inez and Victoria) now.  The others I didn't mention (like Louise and Ganado) which are currently almost freeway, albeit a few expressway grade interchanges and a gas station driveway away from full freeway, TxDOT can focus small projects of closing off driveways and bulldozing crossovers to make them interstate grade, then sign them as I-69.  I know the argument would be that these sections are a few miles apiece, but I think it would be good for route continuity.  It would get locals and travelers alike used to the fact that US 59 is pretty much going away in lieu of I-69, and give some validity to the BGSs in Houston that say I-69 goes to Victoria when in reality it goes to Rosenberg. 

I know this is a new world and just because things were done like this before doesn't mean they will be done like this again, but that's how a lot of interstates got built.  The bypasses/town freeway sections came first, then the rural freeways were built in between connecting the sections.  If you recall, the disjointed sections of the interstates were signed as the interstate on the freeway sections, then they stopped either on a crossroad, or on the road they were displacing and had "TO I-XX" trailblazers on the non freeway parts.  All this to say, I think it would help the long term transition.  People in and around Houston still call Eastex and Southwest Freeways in Houston 59 (or the cringey I-59).  They kinda need to get people used to phasing out US 59 because we all know once this project is complete, US 59 will completely not exist in Texas.

Unless Business US-59 becomes Business I-69 (much like how Business US-75 between Houston and DFW became Business I-45), that's where US-59 may live on, much like how US-90 lives on even after I-10 was complete (although US-90 goes further into Del Rio)

or maybe not cause what i said about US-90 going further to Del Rio (and smaller places before) being the one route I-10 avoids in favor of El Paso (which is much bigger than Del Rio)

One thing to consider when discussing signage over short disconnected completed (or as cited above, "semi-completed" in some instances) Interstate corridor segments is the actual expense of (a) "spot" fixes, such as joisting off driveways to the nearest surface street and (b) dispatching the signage crews to the upgraded section.  Remember, except for the signage itself, this is work not done by maintenance crews but by contractors paid from legislatively authorized funds.  That's why I-69 between Victoria and Houston is proceeding in let segments rather than simply locating an existing freeway section and concentrating on getting it up to standards -- it's more economically efficient to do so for 10-15 miles at a shot than a series of 1-2 mile existing freeway pieces; the interim segments will have to be done sooner or later in any case; may as well make progress in larger chunks -- and there will be greater continuity, since the upgrades and the sections connecting the former piecemeal freeway will likely look similar -- with fresh pavement, consistency of bridge abutments, improved lines of sight, etc.  In other words, it'll look like a decent amount of new Interstate-grade roadway, which in turn will assure both the pursestring-holders as well as the locals affected by the new route that substantial progress is being made toward completing the full corridor.  Having a nice new rural segment segueing into a former through-town portion that was upgraded to barely meet spec is a bit disconcerting (cf. Arbuckle, CA on I-5!); best to construct a consistent product.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on September 26, 2020, 07:50:26 PM
Having a nice new rural segment segueing into a former through-town portion that was upgraded to barely meet spec is a bit disconcerting (cf. Arbuckle, CA on I-5!)
I-27 has a couple of those... Hale Center (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0629041,-101.8470659,3026m/data=!3m1!1e3) and Albernathy (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.8305684,-101.8366085,4050m/data=!3m1!1e3).

This segment (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.002787,-101.9071201,6340m/data=!3m1!1e3) near Canyon, TX was just barely bypassed.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: rte66man on September 29, 2020, 07:16:14 PM
Having a nice new rural segment segueing into a former through-town portion that was upgraded to barely meet spec is a bit disconcerting (cf. Arbuckle, CA on I-5!)
I-27 has a couple of those... Hale Center (https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0629041,-101.8470659,3026m/data=!3m1!1e3) and Albernathy (https://www.google.com/maps/@33.8305684,-101.8366085,4050m/data=!3m1!1e3).

This segment (https://www.google.com/maps/@35.002787,-101.9071201,6340m/data=!3m1!1e3) near Canyon, TX was just barely bypassed.

That part through Hale Center is SCARY! You really have to be on your toes.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: O Tamandua on October 05, 2020, 01:46:50 PM
Never underestimate the value of an interstate:

Quote

Cleveland ISD is the fastest-growing school district in Texas, Superintendent of Schools Chris Trotter said. The district, which currently has 8,600 students, might reach as many as 15,000 by 2025, he estimates. The district has grown nearly 125% since the 2014-15 school year, when it had 3,829 students, according to a November 2019 presentation.

Trotter attributed that growth, in part, to Cleveland ISD’s location, intersected by Interstate 69 and State Highway 105 northeast of Houston.

https://www.bizjournals.com/houston/news/2020/10/01/cleveland-isd-breaks-ground-school.html

Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on October 05, 2020, 03:49:07 PM
Never underestimate the value of an interstate:

Quote

Cleveland ISD is the fastest-growing school district in Texas, Superintendent of Schools Chris Trotter said. The district, which currently has 8,600 students, might reach as many as 15,000 by 2025, he estimates. The district has grown nearly 125% since the 2014-15 school year, when it had 3,829 students, according to a November 2019 presentation.

Trotter attributed that growth, in part, to Cleveland ISD’s location, intersected by Interstate 69 and State Highway 105 northeast of Houston.

https://www.bizjournals.com/houston/news/2020/10/01/cleveland-isd-breaks-ground-school.html



I have been banging this drum forever.  An interstate makes ALL the difference t so many things, not just that you can drive non-stop.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bwana39 on October 05, 2020, 06:37:43 PM
Never underestimate the value of an interstate:

Quote

Cleveland ISD is the fastest-growing school district in Texas, Superintendent of Schools Chris Trotter said. The district, which currently has 8,600 students, might reach as many as 15,000 by 2025, he estimates. The district has grown nearly 125% since the 2014-15 school year, when it had 3,829 students, according to a November 2019 presentation.

Trotter attributed that growth, in part, to Cleveland ISD’s location, intersected by Interstate 69 and State Highway 105 northeast of Houston.

https://www.bizjournals.com/houston/news/2020/10/01/cleveland-isd-breaks-ground-school.html



I have been banging this drum forever.  An interstate makes ALL the difference t so many things, not just that you can drive non-stop.

Yes, a freeway (Interstate if you must) does drive growth. That said,  Cleveland texas is about the urban sprawl from Houston. It is about the same distance from Downtown Houston as Conroe. The biggest thing Cleveland has going for it is the housing pricing is relatively low. Crime is relatively low.

I can certainly offer you another place that has grown similarly: Princeton TX. Princeton is 15 miles from a freeway of any type.  As far as that goes, Frisco and far north Plano were also on small roads when they began their rush.  SH121 was 2 lanes at places going either east toward McKinney and west toward Grapevine.  Preston Road (which is what the growth surrounded, was a four-lane road (mostly) . While Frisco went nuts after SRT was built and DNT were extended the need for the sprawl to spread northward was necessary even without roads.

Just like Frisco  grew up around Preston Rd (SH-289) and Celina and Gunter are sprawling, Cleveland would most probably have grown up without I-69.  That said, the growth makes I-69 be needed even more than before.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on October 06, 2020, 09:50:40 AM
Never underestimate the value of an interstate:

Quote

Cleveland ISD is the fastest-growing school district in Texas, Superintendent of Schools Chris Trotter said. The district, which currently has 8,600 students, might reach as many as 15,000 by 2025, he estimates. The district has grown nearly 125% since the 2014-15 school year, when it had 3,829 students, according to a November 2019 presentation.

Trotter attributed that growth, in part, to Cleveland ISD’s location, intersected by Interstate 69 and State Highway 105 northeast of Houston.

https://www.bizjournals.com/houston/news/2020/10/01/cleveland-isd-breaks-ground-school.html



I have been banging this drum forever.  An interstate makes ALL the difference t so many things, not just that you can drive non-stop.

Yes, a freeway (Interstate if you must) does drive growth. That said,  Cleveland texas is about the urban sprawl from Houston. It is about the same distance from Downtown Houston as Conroe. The biggest thing Cleveland has going for it is the housing pricing is relatively low. Crime is relatively low.

I can certainly offer you another place that has grown similarly: Princeton TX. Princeton is 15 miles from a freeway of any type.  As far as that goes, Frisco and far north Plano were also on small roads when they began their rush.  SH121 was 2 lanes at places going either east toward McKinney and west toward Grapevine.  Preston Road (which is what the growth surrounded, was a four-lane road (mostly) . While Frisco went nuts after SRT was built and DNT were extended the need for the sprawl to spread northward was necessary even without roads.

Just like Frisco  grew up around Preston Rd (SH-289) and Celina and Gunter are sprawling, Cleveland would most probably have grown up without I-69.  That said, the growth makes I-69 be needed even more than before.

It's a combination of both.  Urban sprawl happens along freeways, because it makes a long distance not seem like such a long distance.  You can take towns out the same distance away from the core as Cleveland and Conroe is, but there isn't as much growth because there isn't a freeway (Dayton and Liberty). 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: TheBox on November 22, 2020, 10:01:38 PM
Any news on the US 59/I-69 expansion in between Richmond-Rosenburg to Beasley and maybe Kendleton?

EDIT: and any news on the US 77/I-69 Driscoll and US 59/I-69 Nacogdoches bypasses too?

Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MaxConcrete on November 22, 2020, 10:51:39 PM
EDIT: and any news on the US 77/I-69 Driscoll and US 59/I-69 Nacogdoches bypasses too?

The work on I-69 at Nachogdoches was proceeding well when I drove through on September 7. See photos below. The section to the south of the elevated connector was not as far along but all right-of-way was cleared with work in progress.

Further south at Diboll, the forest was cleared from the right-of-way. As I've mentioned before, there is a tremendous amount of work still needing to be done to upgrade the corridor to Interstate standards all the way to Houston, and the projects in progress are addressing the worst slowdown locations.

(http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20200906-07_361.jpg-1600.jpg)
Looking north along I-69, just south of Loop 224, on September 7, 2020


(http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20200906-07_359-1600.jpg)
Construction of elevated connectors on September 7, 2020
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: RoadsByArco on November 22, 2020, 11:21:33 PM
EDIT: and any news on the US 77/I-69 Driscoll and US 59/I-69 Nacogdoches bypasses too?

The work on I-69 at Nachogdoches was proceeding well when I drove through on September 7. See photos below. The section to the south of the elevated connector was not as far along but all right-of-way was cleared with work in progress.

Further south at Diboll, the forest was cleared from the right-of-way. As I've mentioned before, there is a tremendous amount of work still needing to be done to upgrade the corridor to Interstate standards all the way to Houston, and the projects in progress are addressing the worst slowdown locations.

(http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20200906-07_361.jpg-1600.jpg)
Looking north along I-69, just south of Loop 224, on September 7, 2020


(http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20200906-07_359-1600.jpg)
Construction of elevated connectors on September 7, 2020
I had no idea work on I-69 in East Texas was already started! Do you happen to have the current alignment plan?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on November 23, 2020, 05:24:13 AM
EDIT: and any news on the US 77/I-69 Driscoll and US 59/I-69 Nacogdoches bypasses too?

The work on I-69 at Nachogdoches was proceeding well when I drove through on September 7. See photos below. The section to the south of the elevated connector was not as far along but all right-of-way was cleared with work in progress.

Further south at Diboll, the forest was cleared from the right-of-way. As I've mentioned before, there is a tremendous amount of work still needing to be done to upgrade the corridor to Interstate standards all the way to Houston, and the projects in progress are addressing the worst slowdown locations.

(http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20200906-07_361.jpg-1600.jpg)
Looking north along I-69, just south of Loop 224, on September 7, 2020


(http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20200906-07_359-1600.jpg)
Construction of elevated connectors on September 7, 2020
I had no idea work on I-69 in East Texas was already started! Do you happen to have the current alignment plan?

Building the town bypasses first and following up with interim connections is always a good idea re rural freeway corridor sections, particularly when dealing with ongoing inflationary realities.  Get as much of the most expensive structures and interchange-heavy segments out of the way initially then connect them as funding allows.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: TXtoNJ on November 23, 2020, 12:44:23 PM
Building the town bypasses first and following up with interim connections is always a good idea re rural freeway corridor sections, particularly when dealing with ongoing inflationary realities.  Get as much of the most expensive structures and interchange-heavy segments out of the way initially then connect them as funding allows.

There's another Texas-specific justification here: there's no law limiting the 75 mph speed limit to specific highway types. A four-lane divided highway without controlled access is generally just as fast as a freeway so long as town centers are bypassed and major intersections are grade-separated.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: edwaleni on November 23, 2020, 05:20:12 PM
EDIT: and any news on the US 77/I-69 Driscoll and US 59/I-69 Nacogdoches bypasses too?

The work on I-69 at Nachogdoches was proceeding well when I drove through on September 7. See photos below. The section to the south of the elevated connector was not as far along but all right-of-way was cleared with work in progress.

Further south at Diboll, the forest was cleared from the right-of-way. As I've mentioned before, there is a tremendous amount of work still needing to be done to upgrade the corridor to Interstate standards all the way to Houston, and the projects in progress are addressing the worst slowdown locations.

(http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20200906-07_361.jpg-1600.jpg)
Looking north along I-69, just south of Loop 224, on September 7, 2020

(http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20200906-07_359-1600.jpg)
Construction of elevated connectors on September 7, 2020

The pictures reference this part of the project.

https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot-info/lfk/notices/090315-project-map.pdf (https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot-info/lfk/notices/090315-project-map.pdf)

The full route schematic is here.

https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot-info/i69/projects/59/approved-schematic.pdf (https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot-info/i69/projects/59/approved-schematic.pdf)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: coolkevs on November 25, 2020, 10:33:53 AM
I am unable to see the above pictures. Anybody else have that problem? Windows 10 laptop.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: 1 on November 25, 2020, 10:41:57 AM
I am unable to see the above pictures. Anybody else have that problem? Windows 10 laptop.

Google Chrome only allows HTTPS on this forum. HTTP photos won't show.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: TheBox on December 09, 2020, 12:20:36 AM
I am unable to see the above pictures. Anybody else have that problem? Windows 10 laptop.
You can also right click on the picture(s) and "open image in new tab" so you can see them
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: TheBox on January 28, 2021, 04:07:38 PM
Any news on the US 59/I-69 expansion in between Richmond-Rosenburg to Beasley and maybe Kendleton?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on January 29, 2021, 11:14:41 AM
Construction is pretty far along on the I-69 segment from Rosenberg on Southwest down to Kendleton.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on February 07, 2021, 01:57:39 AM
Hey guys, I want to upload a few photos of US 59 Construction in victoria from my Android. However, I can't figure out how to attach a file.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: wanderer2575 on February 07, 2021, 02:21:56 AM
Hey guys, I want to upload a few photos of US 59 Construction in victoria from my Android. However, I can't figure out how to attach a file.

You can't directly attach a photo to a post.  You need to post the photo on a hosting site such as Flickr or Imgur and then include the link to the photo in your post.  Click the "Quote" link on a post with photos to see the syntax to use for the link.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Life in Paradise on February 07, 2021, 03:50:45 PM
Hey guys, I want to upload a few photos of US 59 Construction in victoria from my Android. However, I can't figure out how to attach a file.

You can't directly attach a photo to a post.  You need to post the photo on a hosting site such as Flickr or Imgur and then include the link to the photo in your post.  Click the "Quote" link on a post with photos to see the syntax to use for the link.
I believe there may be a way you can.  Check the topic "Update on I-69 Extension in Indiana", and look for ITB's posts.  It appears he has a way that he has done it, since it doesn't look like he uses a link.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: 1 on February 07, 2021, 03:54:09 PM
Hey guys, I want to upload a few photos of US 59 Construction in victoria from my Android. However, I can't figure out how to attach a file.

You can't directly attach a photo to a post.  You need to post the photo on a hosting site such as Flickr or Imgur and then include the link to the photo in your post.  Click the "Quote" link on a post with photos to see the syntax to use for the link.
I believe there may be a way you can.  Check the topic "Update on I-69 Extension in Indiana", and look for ITB's posts.  It appears he has a way that he has done it, since it doesn't look like he uses a link.

There's a forum gallery, but I don't think everyone has access to it.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: rickmastfan67 on February 07, 2021, 08:55:31 PM
Hey guys, I want to upload a few photos of US 59 Construction in victoria from my Android. However, I can't figure out how to attach a file.

You can't directly attach a photo to a post.  You need to post the photo on a hosting site such as Flickr or Imgur and then include the link to the photo in your post.  Click the "Quote" link on a post with photos to see the syntax to use for the link.
I believe there may be a way you can.  Check the topic "Update on I-69 Extension in Indiana", and look for ITB's posts.  It appears he has a way that he has done it, since it doesn't look like he uses a link.

ITB uploads his pictures to Flickr.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Alex on February 07, 2021, 10:35:32 PM
Hey guys, I want to upload a few photos of US 59 Construction in victoria from my Android. However, I can't figure out how to attach a file.

You can't directly attach a photo to a post.  You need to post the photo on a hosting site such as Flickr or Imgur and then include the link to the photo in your post.  Click the "Quote" link on a post with photos to see the syntax to use for the link.
I believe there may be a way you can.  Check the topic "Update on I-69 Extension in Indiana", and look for ITB's posts.  It appears he has a way that he has done it, since it doesn't look like he uses a link.

There's a forum gallery, but I don't think everyone has access to it.

A few members requested access so they can upload photos or project graphics. Most members have places where they post their photos and hotlink from. The gallery helps with those who don't have that option, or don't want to create a new account at Flickr or whatnot just to share photos here.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: 1 on February 08, 2021, 06:43:49 AM
Hey guys, I want to upload a few photos of US 59 Construction in victoria from my Android. However, I can't figure out how to attach a file.

You can't directly attach a photo to a post.  You need to post the photo on a hosting site such as Flickr or Imgur and then include the link to the photo in your post.  Click the "Quote" link on a post with photos to see the syntax to use for the link.
I believe there may be a way you can.  Check the topic "Update on I-69 Extension in Indiana", and look for ITB's posts.  It appears he has a way that he has done it, since it doesn't look like he uses a link.

There's a forum gallery, but I don't think everyone has access to it.

A few members requested access so they can upload photos or project graphics. Most members have places where they post their photos and hotlink from. The gallery helps with those who don't have that option, or don't want to create a new account at Flickr or whatnot just to share photos here.

Then how did I get access?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: kphoger on February 08, 2021, 09:58:14 AM



Hey guys, I want to upload a few photos of US 59 Construction in victoria from my Android. However, I can't figure out how to attach a file.

You can't directly attach a photo to a post.  You need to post the photo on a hosting site such as Flickr or Imgur and then include the link to the photo in your post.  Click the "Quote" link on a post with photos to see the syntax to use for the link.

I believe there may be a way you can.  Check the topic "Update on I-69 Extension in Indiana", and look for ITB's posts.  It appears he has a way that he has done it, since it doesn't look like he uses a link.

ITB uploads his pictures to Flickr.

Yep.

I just checked his most recent post with pictures, and here is the pertinent info:

Code: [Select]
[img width=800 height=533]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50869355327_e377a55e41_k.jpg[/img]
Code: [Select]
[img width=800 height=1200]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50868541878_3a7d8eb8ba_k.jpg[/img]
Et cetera.  Those are images hosted on Flickr.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: edwaleni on February 08, 2021, 09:43:15 PM



Hey guys, I want to upload a few photos of US 59 Construction in victoria from my Android. However, I can't figure out how to attach a file.

You can't directly attach a photo to a post.  You need to post the photo on a hosting site such as Flickr or Imgur and then include the link to the photo in your post.  Click the "Quote" link on a post with photos to see the syntax to use for the link.

I believe there may be a way you can.  Check the topic "Update on I-69 Extension in Indiana", and look for ITB's posts.  It appears he has a way that he has done it, since it doesn't look like he uses a link.

ITB uploads his pictures to Flickr.

Yep.

I just checked his most recent post with pictures, and here is the pertinent info:

Code: [Select]
[img width=800 height=533]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50869355327_e377a55e41_k.jpg[/img]
Code: [Select]
[img width=800 height=1200]https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50868541878_3a7d8eb8ba_k.jpg[/img]
Et cetera.  Those are images hosted on Flickr.

When embedding images from Flickr, use the medium setting when exporting the URL.

Then only use the IMG icon above and remove the other formatting info when embedding the URL in the forum.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50868541878_3a7d8eb8ba_k.jpg

You should only see this:

 (https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/50868541878_3a7d8eb8ba_k.jpg)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: 1 on February 08, 2021, 09:46:18 PM
Height above 600 for non-SVG files is discouraged, as it takes longer for the page to load with larger files, plus more scrolling. (Width above 800 is automatically downsized unless it's an SVG, but the forum won't change height automatically.)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: debragga on February 10, 2021, 10:28:19 AM
Imgur is the easiest I've used. No account needed, just drag and drop to upload and copy the link.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Echostatic on February 10, 2021, 11:46:35 AM
I've also used imgur, for over four years now. Works like a charm although the compression is a little aggressive.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: GreenLanternCorps on February 19, 2021, 08:33:53 AM
Don't know if this has been referenced before, but while playing around on Google Maps I found some September 2019 photos of construction for Ranch access on I-69E just North of Raymondville...

https://www.google.com/maps/@26.5979191,-97.7669605,3a,75y,16.57h,79.13t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5RnSs6JQPluYTtfWWLdfww!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on February 19, 2021, 12:35:06 PM
Don't know if this has been referenced before, but while playing around on Google Maps I found some September 2019 photos of construction for Ranch access on I-69E just North of Raymondville...

https://www.google.com/maps/@26.5979191,-97.7669605,3a,75y,16.57h,79.13t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5RnSs6JQPluYTtfWWLdfww!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

From the picture shown, it appears that this is decidedly not one of their planned separated access lanes leading to a locked gate (presumably ranch employees would have keys/codes) but instead a variation of a standard diamond interchange with the current carriageways serving as ramps.  Likely a request for bidirectional access at this point was made and accommodated.  OTOH, being just north of Raymondville at the far southern end of the long ranch-bound segment, it could simply be a local intersecting road.  If anyone can obtain pictures of one of the roadside access points under construction, it certainly would be informative as to how TxDOT is addressing that issue.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: kphoger on February 19, 2021, 12:42:19 PM

Don't know if this has been referenced before, but while playing around on Google Maps I found some September 2019 photos of construction for Ranch access on I-69E just North of Raymondville...

https://www.google.com/maps/@26.5979191,-97.7669605,3a,75y,16.57h,79.13t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5RnSs6JQPluYTtfWWLdfww!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

From the picture shown, it appears that this is decidedly not one of their planned separated access lanes leading to a locked gate (presumably ranch employees would have keys/codes) but instead a variation of a standard diamond interchange with the current carriageways serving as ramps.  Likely a request for bidirectional access at this point was made and accommodated.  OTOH, being just north of Raymondville at the far southern end of the long ranch-bound segment, it could simply be a local intersecting road.  If anyone can obtain pictures of one of the roadside access points under construction, it certainly would be informative as to how TxDOT is addressing that issue.

It's no less useful than I-35's San Roman Interchange (Exit #32), Caiman Creek Interchange (Exit #48), or Elm Creek Interchange (Exit #63).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: -- US 175 -- on February 19, 2021, 05:03:55 PM
Don't know if this has been referenced before, but while playing around on Google Maps I found some September 2019 photos of construction for Ranch access on I-69E just North of Raymondville...

https://www.google.com/maps/@26.5979191,-97.7669605,3a,75y,16.57h,79.13t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5RnSs6JQPluYTtfWWLdfww!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

So, how would/might this exit be signed?  As a frontage road exit?  As a ______ Road exit (even though there's clearly no county road involved)?  Surely it won't be a lazy-cheapo like rural/farm/ranch areas in other states with just the exit number and that's it.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on February 19, 2021, 06:44:35 PM

Don't know if this has been referenced before, but while playing around on Google Maps I found some September 2019 photos of construction for Ranch access on I-69E just North of Raymondville...

https://www.google.com/maps/@26.5979191,-97.7669605,3a,75y,16.57h,79.13t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5RnSs6JQPluYTtfWWLdfww!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

From the picture shown, it appears that this is decidedly not one of their planned separated access lanes leading to a locked gate (presumably ranch employees would have keys/codes) but instead a variation of a standard diamond interchange with the current carriageways serving as ramps.  Likely a request for bidirectional access at this point was made and accommodated.  OTOH, being just north of Raymondville at the far southern end of the long ranch-bound segment, it could simply be a local intersecting road.  If anyone can obtain pictures of one of the roadside access points under construction, it certainly would be informative as to how TxDOT is addressing that issue.

It's no less useful than I-35's San Roman Interchange (Exit #32), Caiman Creek Interchange (Exit #48), or Elm Creek Interchange (Exit #63).

Actually, the interchange shown in the picture looks to be conventional -- no question about its utility.  What I was looking for was any picture of the "ranch access" accommodations planned for I-69E through the King Ranch area between Raymondville and Serita.  Additionally, it appears that the carriageways of existing US 77 are wide enough apart to accommodate a full-width freeway in the median; the bridge bents pictured are oriented to carry lanes over a E-W surface road, presumably the Thomas Ranch Road cited in the accompanying map.  It would be useful to see the actual freeway plans for this stretch -- whether it will be simple upgrades of the current facility or, like with I-69C/US 281 to the west, "filling in" a freeway within the existing facility's footprint, with the existing lanes ostensibly repurposed as frontage roads. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on February 19, 2021, 08:49:46 PM
Quote from: GreenLanternCorps
Don't know if this has been referenced before, but while playing around on Google Maps I found some September 2019 photos of construction for Ranch access on I-69E just North of Raymondville...
https://www.google.com/maps/@26.5979191,-97.7669605,3a,75y,16.57h,79.13t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5RnSs6JQPluYTtfWWLdfww!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

That Street View image is from the existing Northbound US-77 lanes. They're building the main lanes of I-69E in the median of existing US-77. That particular location is going to be a standard exit with slip ramps. The existing US-77 main lanes will effectively become frontage roads. At some point far enough North of Raymondville the existing US-77 main lanes will become the main lanes for I-69E. And those ranch access ramps will become necessary. They're much cheaper to build than continuous frontage roads.

The ranch access exits will look similar to the on/off ramps for a rest area, but on a smaller scale. The ramps will be just long enough to comply with current ramp geometry standards. They won't be like those grandfathered hard-turn ramps on I-25 in Colorado near Raton Pass. But the ramps aren't going to be all that long either. And there likely will not be any way to cross over to the opposing main lanes of the Interstate (no expensive bridge to build).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: J N Winkler on February 20, 2021, 12:16:54 AM
Actually, the interchange shown in the picture looks to be conventional -- no question about its utility.  What I was looking for was any picture of the "ranch access" accommodations planned for I-69E through the King Ranch area between Raymondville and Serita.  Additionally, it appears that the carriageways of existing US 77 are wide enough apart to accommodate a full-width freeway in the median; the bridge bents pictured are oriented to carry lanes over a E-W surface road, presumably the Thomas Ranch Road cited in the accompanying map.  It would be useful to see the actual freeway plans for this stretch -- whether it will be simple upgrades of the current facility or, like with I-69C/US 281 to the west, "filling in" a freeway within the existing facility's footprint, with the existing lanes ostensibly repurposed as frontage roads.

I dug up the plans for this project, which is CCSJ 0327-10-057 in Willacy County, let in August 2017.  They are not currently available on the TxDOT plans FTP server since indefinite archiving of advertised projects began only in 2019.  If anyone is interested in seeing them, I'll upload them to my Google Drive and post a link here.

The project is about four miles in length and runs from just north of Conley Road in Raymondville to a point about a mile south of the Kenedy County line.  TxDOT is not fitting the new I-69E mainlanes entirely within the existing US 77 carriageways.  Instead, existing southbound US 77 is becoming the southbound frontage road (generally with an asphalt overlay), new southbound I-69E mainlanes are being built in the current US 77 median, existing northbound US 77 is becoming the northbound mainlanes (generally with an asphalt overlay), and a non-continuous northbound frontage road is being built on new alignments in the vicinity of interchanges.

Two interchanges are being provided, neither with an exit number--La Esperanza and Yturria County Road.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on February 20, 2021, 01:27:56 AM
Actually, the interchange shown in the picture looks to be conventional -- no question about its utility.  What I was looking for was any picture of the "ranch access" accommodations planned for I-69E through the King Ranch area between Raymondville and Serita.  Additionally, it appears that the carriageways of existing US 77 are wide enough apart to accommodate a full-width freeway in the median; the bridge bents pictured are oriented to carry lanes over a E-W surface road, presumably the Thomas Ranch Road cited in the accompanying map.  It would be useful to see the actual freeway plans for this stretch -- whether it will be simple upgrades of the current facility or, like with I-69C/US 281 to the west, "filling in" a freeway within the existing facility's footprint, with the existing lanes ostensibly repurposed as frontage roads.

I dug up the plans for this project, which is CCSJ 0327-10-057 in Willacy County, let in August 2017.  They are not currently available on the TxDOT plans FTP server since indefinite archiving of advertised projects began only in 2019.  If anyone is interested in seeing them, I'll upload them to my Google Drive and post a link here.

The project is about four miles in length and runs from just north of Conley Road in Raymondville to a point about a mile south of the Kenedy County line.  TxDOT is not fitting the new I-69E mainlanes entirely within the existing US 77 carriageways.  Instead, existing southbound US 77 is becoming the southbound frontage road (generally with an asphalt overlay), new southbound I-69E mainlanes are being built in the current US 77 median, existing northbound US 77 is becoming the northbound mainlanes (generally with an asphalt overlay), and a non-continuous northbound frontage road is being built on new alignments in the vicinity of interchanges.

Two interchanges are being provided, neither with an exit number--La Esperanza and Yturria County Road.

Thanks for the updated info; looks like TxDOT's simply saving money by reusing the NB 77 lanes as the same for I-69E.  Since there won't be much need for double frontage roads within the private ranch lands, the one on the west side should be more than sufficient to deal with local movements without impinging on through Interstate traffic.  Still, even with Bobby's detailed description, I'd sure like to see a schematic of one of the ranch-access facilities (with an eye toward "portability" of the concept to other rural Interstates in lieu of full interchanges or the need for at-grade intersections).  Might have some utility regardiing outlying areas of the P-to-P corridor or even I-11 in AZ and NV! 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: GreenLanternCorps on February 22, 2021, 11:07:40 AM
To summarize I-69E from Corpus Christi to Brownsville...

I-37 to FM 2826  Completed to Interstate Standards signed as I-69  (not I-69E)

FM 2826 to just North of County Road 10 (Bishop, TX)  Under Construction, Driscoll Bypass.

County Road 10 to County Road E 2130 (Kingsville, TX) Completed to Interstate Standards, signed as US 77

County Road E 2130 to County Road 2340 (Riviera, TX) Divided Highway not to interstate standards, will need interchanges and probably a bypass around Riviera.

County Road 2340 to just north of Serita TX, Divided Highway

Serita Texas, Interstate Standard Frontage Road and Interchange already completed about a mile or two of interstate standard highway signed as US 77

Serita, Texas  to just North of Raymondville - approx. 40 miles of ranch land

Just North of Raymondville  4 mile of interchange Construction to Interstate standards

Raymondville to Brownsville at border with Mexico, signed as I-69E




Edit, embarrassing mistake fixed...

Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on February 22, 2021, 11:14:06 AM
To summarize I-69E from Corpus Christi to Brownsville...

I-37 to FM 2826  Completed to Interstate Standards signed as I-69  (not I-69E)

FM 2826 to just North of County Road 10 (Bishop, TX)  Under Construction, Driscoll Bypass.

County Road 10 to County Road E 2130 (Kingsville, TX) Completed to Interstate Standards, signed as US 77

County Road E 2130 to County Road 2340 (Riviera, TX) Divided Highway not to interstate standards, will need interchanges and probably a bypass around Riviera.

County Road 2340 to just north of Serita TX, Divided Highway

Serita Texas, Interstate Standard Frontage Road and Interchange already completed about a mile or two of instate standard highway signed as US 77

Serita, Texas  to just North of Raymondville - approx. 40 miles of ranch land

Just North of Raymondville  4 mile of interchange Construction to Interstate standards

Raymondville to Brownsville at border with Mexico, signed as I-69E

FTFY
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: GreenLanternCorps on February 22, 2021, 02:21:25 PM
To summarize I-69E from Corpus Christi to Brownsville...

I-37 to FM 2826  Completed to Interstate Standards signed as I-69  (not I-69E)

FM 2826 to just North of County Road 10 (Bishop, TX)  Under Construction, Driscoll Bypass.

County Road 10 to County Road E 2130 (Kingsville, TX) Completed to Interstate Standards, signed as US 77

County Road E 2130 to County Road 2340 (Riviera, TX) Divided Highway not to interstate standards, will need interchanges and probably a bypass around Riviera.

County Road 2340 to just north of Serita TX, Divided Highway

Serita Texas, Interstate Standard Frontage Road and Interchange already completed about a mile or two of instate standard highway signed as US 77

Serita, Texas  to just North of Raymondville - approx. 40 miles of ranch land

Just North of Raymondville  4 mile of interchange Construction to Interstate standards

Raymondville to Brownsville at border with Mexico, signed as I-69E

FTFY

(https://i1.wp.com/www.clixmarketing.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/homer-computer-doh.jpg)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: abqtraveler on February 22, 2021, 02:25:04 PM
To summarize I-69E from Corpus Christi to Brownsville...

I-37 to FM 2826  Completed to Interstate Standards signed as I-69  (not I-69E)

FM 2826 to just North of County Road 10 (Bishop, TX)  Under Construction, Driscoll Bypass.

County Road 10 to County Road E 2130 (Kingsville, TX) Completed to Interstate Standards, signed as US 77

County Road E 2130 to County Road 2340 (Riviera, TX) Divided Highway not to interstate standards, will need interchanges and probably a bypass around Riviera.

County Road 2340 to just north of Serita TX, Divided Highway

Serita Texas, Interstate Standard Frontage Road and Interchange already completed about a mile or two of instate standard highway signed as US 77

Serita, Texas  to just North of Raymondville - approx. 40 miles of ranch land

Just North of Raymondville  4 mile of interchange Construction to Interstate standards

Raymondville to Brownsville at border with Mexico, signed as I-69E

FTFY

(https://i1.wp.com/www.clixmarketing.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/homer-computer-doh.jpg)

So maybe by the end of this decade we might see I-69E completed between I-37 and the Mexican border at Brownsville.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: TheBox on March 18, 2021, 03:48:47 PM
Can someone give me photos of the state of I-69/US-59 construction from Richmond-Rosenburg to Beasley-Kendleton?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: edwaleni on March 20, 2021, 11:43:48 PM
HOUSTON, Texas (KTRK) -- All mainlanes of the Southwest Freeway are set to reopen Monday morning, after crews worked to tear down two old interchange ramps.

Drivers experienced major delays around the US-59/I-610 interchange in the Galleria area this weekend.

The freeway will remain shut down until 5 a.m. Monday in both directions between the West Loop and South Rice.

On Sunday evening, crews were re-striping the mainlanes of I-69.

TxDOT had opened the brand new West Loop northbound connector to US-59 Southbound, so now the old one is coming down.

Until then, take Richmond or other surface streets as an alternate route.

Drivers also experienced slowdowns on the Katy Freeway this weekend. Three lanes of I-10 were closed inbound just outside of downtown, between Studemont and Houston Avenue.

Take Memorial as an alternate route.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on March 21, 2021, 11:20:04 PM
Hey guys, I’ve been on Us 59 this past week from Ganado to i-10. In Richmond/Rosenberg, new signs with exit numbers were installed up to I believe Spur 10, I think Exit 94. Everything south is under construction. I noticed that they were reconstructing Spur 10 exit. The Spur 529 exit is complete. In Beasley/Kendelton, there was a black trash bag taped on three overhead green exit signs for either Grunwald rd or Spur 541. They’re doing some kind of bridge construction for a frontage rd north of hungerford. In el campo,the north portion of the freeeway has been detoured onto the frontage roads until after I believe fm 1163. In Victoria, they are still working between loop 463 and fm 1686, but haven’t begun on the sh 185 interchange. In Houston, they used the regular exit sign format, but they switched to the stacked version where the arrow is below the number, and in from Richmond down south, the signs read “97 exit >” . I hope this helps in getting a bigger picture. It’s my first post, btw. I’ll provide updates on us 59 from Victoria to Houston as I capture them. Thanks.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: OCGuy81 on March 21, 2021, 11:35:57 PM
Out of curiosity, are the mileage numbers reflective of US 59? If 69 is ever finished in Texas, will it use mileage from the merging of 69W, 69C, and 69E going north?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on March 22, 2021, 12:00:50 AM
Out of curiosity, are the mileage numbers reflective of US 59? If 69 is ever finished in Texas, will it use mileage from the merging of 69W, 69C, and 69E going north?
I’m not even sure how mileage marks work because on US 59/77 near Victoria it says some number, either something like 431A or 735B, although it is less than 200 mi from the border.  I can’t remember. But I assume I 69 would start at 0 in Victoria since it has started at that point.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on March 22, 2021, 12:01:59 AM
So how’s the construction going north of Raymondville and Driscoll on us 77?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Avalanchez71 on March 22, 2021, 08:38:00 AM
Quote from: GreenLanternCorps
Don't know if this has been referenced before, but while playing around on Google Maps I found some September 2019 photos of construction for Ranch access on I-69E just North of Raymondville...
https://www.google.com/maps/@26.5979191,-97.7669605,3a,75y,16.57h,79.13t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s5RnSs6JQPluYTtfWWLdfww!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

That Street View image is from the existing Northbound US-77 lanes. They're building the main lanes of I-69E in the median of existing US-77. That particular location is going to be a standard exit with slip ramps. The existing US-77 main lanes will effectively become frontage roads. At some point far enough North of Raymondville the existing US-77 main lanes will become the main lanes for I-69E. And those ranch access ramps will become necessary. They're much cheaper to build than continuous frontage roads.

The ranch access exits will look similar to the on/off ramps for a rest area, but on a smaller scale. The ramps will be just long enough to comply with current ramp geometry standards. They won't be like those grandfathered hard-turn ramps on I-25 in Colorado near Raton Pass. But the ramps aren't going to be all that long either. And there likely will not be any way to cross over to the opposing main lanes of the Interstate (no expensive bridge to build).

That just looks like a colossal waste of taxpayer money.  What is wrong with the current US 77 configuration?  Doesn't the I-40 panhandle concept also work out there as well?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on March 22, 2021, 08:43:45 AM
The current US-77 configuration is non-limited-access with private driveways and crossovers which are prohibited on controlled access interstate highways. I-40 is certainly not the norm, and shouldn’t be considered a standard that’s accepted everywhere.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on March 22, 2021, 11:20:17 AM
I think TX DOT should remedy those crossovers on I-40 in the Texas Panhandle. The crossovers need to be removed and then the hard right turns need to be replaced with limited frontage roads and ramps. If it was up to me I-40 would not be signed as an Interstate on that segment. Post signs would have a "TO" thingie stuck above I-40.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on March 22, 2021, 11:27:09 AM
I think TX DOT should remedy those crossovers on I-40 in the Texas Panhandle. The crossovers need to be removed and then the hard right turns need to be replaced with limited frontage roads and ramps. If it was up to me I-40 would not be signed as an Interstate on that segment. Post signs would have a "TO" thingie stuck above I-40.
Could be similar to I-26 in North Carolina with "Future" designation. Provides continuity for drivers but not official designated until upgrades are complete.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: CoreySamson on March 22, 2021, 12:20:08 PM
Out of curiosity, are the mileage numbers reflective of US 59? If 69 is ever finished in Texas, will it use mileage from the merging of 69W, 69C, and 69E going north?
I think Exit 94.
Thegeet already basically answered your question. I-69 will use mileage from the merging of the spurs going north. From the Spur 10 exit it's about 94 miles to the US59/77 interchange south of Victoria, where I-69W and I-69E are supposed to merge.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on March 22, 2021, 01:05:59 PM
Effectively, they're going to be separate routes with separate mileage from each other. I-69 will exist from Victoria to Louisiana, I-69E will exist from Brownsville to Victoria, I-69W will exist from Laredo to Victoria, and I-69C will exist from McAllen to Three Rivers. MM 1 will exist at the southern end of each route and increase as it moves north.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: kernals12 on March 22, 2021, 02:03:13 PM
How do they plan on keeping people from stealing the signs? :bigass:
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Avalanchez71 on March 22, 2021, 02:15:08 PM
I think TX DOT should remedy those crossovers on I-40 in the Texas Panhandle. The crossovers need to be removed and then the hard right turns need to be replaced with limited frontage roads and ramps. If it was up to me I-40 would not be signed as an Interstate on that segment. Post signs would have a "TO" thingie stuck above I-40.

Do you have statistics showing the dangers of these very slightly used turns?  The same approach could be used on US 77 in Kenedy County.  TX could save a boat load of bucks by leaving US 77 in Kenedy County nearly has in and petitioning wavering in I-69E signage.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: OCGuy81 on March 22, 2021, 02:17:39 PM
Out of curiosity, are the mileage numbers reflective of US 59? If 69 is ever finished in Texas, will it use mileage from the merging of 69W, 69C, and 69E going north?
I think Exit 94.
Thegeet already basically answered your question. I-69 will use mileage from the merging of the spurs going north. From the Spur 10 exit it's about 94 miles to the US59/77 interchange south of Victoria, where I-69W and I-69E are supposed to merge.

Thank you! It’s been a long time since I inquired and I know there’s been changes in the alignment since.

Great information
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on March 22, 2021, 07:40:42 PM
For those ranch access crossovers and roads, they should just put a “Authorized Vehicles Only”  sign.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on March 22, 2021, 11:47:53 PM
Quote from: Avalanchez71
Do you have statistics showing the dangers of these very slightly used turns?  The same approach could be used on US 77 in Kenedy County.  TX could save a boat load of bucks by leaving US 77 in Kenedy County nearly has in and petitioning wavering in I-69E signage.

I don't have any crash stats for that part of I-40. I do have a lot of driving experience in Texas, including out there in the Panhandle region. People out there drive fast and faster still on the Interstates. Even if grisly collisions aren't happening there on a frequent basis the hazard still exists.

Drivers nationwide have the expectation that an Interstate highway means limited access. No driveways. No crossovers. No at-grade left turns. Drivers are not anticipating the possibility some rancher in a pickup truck is going to suddenly whip out in front of them into the main lanes of the highway from a dead stop. God forbid if the rancher is hauling a trailer. That's even more of a sudden, dangerous road block obstacle. In a perfect world the ranchers would only be out there using those crossovers in bright daylight, perhaps early in the morning. But we don't live in a perfect world. Visibility along the highway is not always great. And many drivers aren't always paying perfect attention to the road either.

4-lane "expressways" with at-grade intersections often have dedicated acceleration and deceleration lanes at intersections. Or they at least have dedicated left turn lanes. These crossovers on I-40 don't even have any of that stuff. So they actually make that stretch of I-40 even worse than regular non-Interstate 4-lane highways.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on March 23, 2021, 07:42:36 PM
Btw, notice the signs in Houston have Clearview font exit number plaques on top of highway gothic exit info signs. They need to be updated soon.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on March 23, 2021, 08:06:56 PM
It’s because they added new exit number tabs on top of existing signage, without replacing the entire sign.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: TXtoNJ on March 24, 2021, 11:19:35 AM
Btw, notice the signs in Houston have Clearview font exit number plaques on top of highway gothic exit info signs. They need to be updated soon.

Literally the most pointless expenditure of money imaginable. Something that only a small proportion of roadgeeks would care about.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: J N Winkler on March 24, 2021, 01:02:14 PM
BTW, notice the signs in Houston have Clearview font exit number plaques on top of highway gothic exit info signs. They need to be updated soon.

On US 59, which did not become part of I-69 (with zero point fixed at Victoria) until over a decade after a massive reconstruction in the early noughties, many of these sign panels are now almost 20 years old.  I suspect they'll be replaced in the next few years due to life-expired sheeting.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: edwaleni on March 26, 2021, 08:20:23 AM
Btw, notice the signs in Houston have Clearview font exit number plaques on top of highway gothic exit info signs. They need to be updated soon.

Literally the most pointless expenditure of money imaginable. Something that only a small proportion of roadgeeks would care about.

What exactly do you think AARoads caters too?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: TXtoNJ on March 26, 2021, 11:14:49 AM
Btw, notice the signs in Houston have Clearview font exit number plaques on top of highway gothic exit info signs. They need to be updated soon.

Literally the most pointless expenditure of money imaginable. Something that only a small proportion of roadgeeks would care about.

What exactly do you think AARoads caters too?

Sometime y'all need a dose of reality
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bwana39 on March 26, 2021, 11:25:54 AM
Btw, notice the signs in Houston have Clearview font exit number plaques on top of highway gothic exit info signs. They need to be updated soon.

Literally the most pointless expenditure of money imaginable. Something that only a small proportion of roadgeeks would care about.


While I agree with the sentiment on the expenditure, I get the reason why the mismatched font chaps some people's hide. That said, it can either be like someone else's (benign) mole, IT BOTHERS YOU, but so what... or IT IS SO PATENTLY WRONG that it must go. Like the mole, it may continue to bother you, but it is primarily an aesthetic issue and spending money on rectifying it is not a great choice of how to spend the money.

The real issue here is TXDOT with rare exceptions uses Clearview exclusively. Do I think the new numbers' fonts should have matched the original sign's font? Yes I do. Here is where the rub comes in.  The options are / were 1) DO exactly what they did. Make each of the mile marker tags in Clearview without consideration to what the original font was. 2) Spend engineering time to make sure the fonts match and production costs to  make up the individual signs in the resident font.  or in an even more macabre scenario. 3) Remove the ENTIRE sign if it is not in Clearview and replace the whole thing so it will match.

As everyone here has surely noticed, I am a penny pincher. They renumbered the exit numbers in the most economical way feasible to complete the job.  I look at them and they look as awkward to me as they do to many of you.

We all have pet peeves....My big beef is the unfaded voids when they change shields on gantry signs. I want the things ripped down and shot with a quick coat of paint (not really that easy with the high performance coatings on the signs, but......)   I get the economics. In the scheme of things, if I had to choose between more miles  (or even feet) of good quality highway miles or Frankenstein signs, I would choose the roads.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on March 27, 2021, 12:37:22 AM
BTW, my phone won’t let me upload an image, but for the SH 288 interchange on southbound I-69/US-59, the sign that’s supposed to read “SOUTH 69 59 VICTORIA”  is completely messed up, it would look like a camera glitch. It reads “SOUTH VICTORIA”  with the middle having a covered up but slightly visible “SOUTH” . Now that is even worse than the exit mileage tabs. The tags can stay until there’s a budget for new signs. However, this other thing is confusing to some people.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on March 27, 2021, 02:02:20 AM
Another question: if it was decided to convert Loop 463 US-77 to US-59/BUS-59T into an auxiliary route of I-69, and it only reached I-69W would it be a spur route (I.e., I-569) or a bypass route (I.E., I-269), would it be something completely new like I-1069?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: O Tamandua on March 27, 2021, 12:39:53 PM
Not quite off-topic: it was announced this week that the Canadian Pacific and the Kansas City Southern will merge.  Fascinating how closely (save for the "bow" in the current CP lines around Davenport and the Twin Cities) the future I-49/Texas I-69 corridors parallel each other.

(https://scontent-dfw5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/164057759_4017937008250803_6996734050887366808_o.jpg?_nc_cat=104&ccb=1-3&_nc_sid=825194&_nc_ohc=uMWU_BgTkf8AX8vi0v9&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-2.xx&oh=a0dd2139bb1d21cd54da63a084854c9c&oe=6086DE4B)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Revive 755 on March 27, 2021, 01:19:22 PM
Another question: if it was decided to convert Loop 463 US-77 to US-59/BUS-59T into an auxiliary route of I-69, and it only reached I-69W would it be a spur route (I.e., I-569) or a bypass route (I.E., I-269), would it be something completely new like I-1069?

Precedent is most 3di's off a suffixed interstate behave as if the parent route was not suffixed, with former I-180N in Idaho being the lone exception.  I-635 around Dallas is the only example still in existence with the removal of I-80S in Ohio and Pennsylvania plus the cancellation of I-335 around Minneapolis.

At the moment I think there will be more anomalies/children without parents such as I-238 prior to a ten digit interstate number being used - guessing North Carolina may be the state that tests this.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: GreenLanternCorps on March 27, 2021, 02:43:47 PM
Another question: if it was decided to convert Loop 463 US-77 to US-59/BUS-59T into an auxiliary route of I-69, and it only reached I-69W would it be a spur route (I.e., I-569) or a bypass route (I.E., I-269), would it be something completely new like I-1069?

Precedent is most 3di's off a suffixed interstate behave as if the parent route was not suffixed, with former I-180N in Idaho being the lone exception.  I-635 around Dallas is the only example still in existence with the removal of I-80S in Ohio and Pennsylvania plus the cancellation of I-335 around Minneapolis.

At the moment I think there will be more anomalies/children without parents such as I-238 prior to a ten digit interstate number being used - guessing North Carolina may be the state that tests this.

“There is another.” -Yoda

I-169 branches off of I-69E

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_169_(Texas) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_169_(Texas))
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: rickmastfan67 on March 27, 2021, 04:22:30 PM
GreenLanternCorps, be careful with URLs that have a ')' at the end.  SMF's software likes to omit it and give you a broken link unless you use the 'URL' code around it.  So, I've fixed it for ya. ;)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on March 27, 2021, 06:18:00 PM
Not quite off-topic: it was announced this week that the Canadian Pacific and the Kansas City Southern will merge.  Fascinating how closely (save for the "bow" in the current CP lines around Davenport and the Twin Cities) the future I-49/Texas I-69 corridors parallel each other.

(https://scontent-dfw5-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/164057759_4017937008250803_6996734050887366808_o.jpg?_nc_cat=104&ccb=1-3&_nc_sid=825194&_nc_ohc=uMWU_BgTkf8AX8vi0v9&_nc_ht=scontent-dfw5-2.xx&oh=a0dd2139bb1d21cd54da63a084854c9c&oe=6086DE4B)

Aside from the trackage-rights situation between Chicago and Ontario, the "weak link" of the system is between KC and Chicago, which uses old Milwaukee Road (CMStP&P) rail, which is mostly single-track (their main line was Chicago-Twin Cities and then to points beyond including Seattle); the KC line received little use until CP took it over back in 1985.  Parent CP will have to sink quite a bit of upgrade money into this line if it to reach its potential (longer passing tracks, strengthened bridges, etc.).  But between the capital resources of CP and KCS, they should be able to do this without breaking the bank!  KCS's N-S tracks between KC and Port Arthur, TX have always been kept in exemplary condition -- one of the best-run RR's around!
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Revive 755 on March 27, 2021, 10:35:14 PM
^ [starts a reply about KCS fitting better with CN and having the option for two north-south lines, thinks better of it]



Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on March 28, 2021, 01:51:24 AM
^ [starts a reply about KCS fitting better with CN and having the option for two north-south lines, thinks better of it]



Didn't CN buy out Illinois Central for that very purpose (access to NOLA and the South)??
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on March 28, 2021, 02:46:22 PM
^ [starts a reply about KCS fitting better with CN and having the option for two north-south lines, thinks better of it]



Didn't CN buy out Illinois Central for that very purpose (access to NOLA and the South)??


Absolutely.  If one looks at the present CN network, the former IC line from Chicago to NOLA (and its equally important branch to the Port of Mobile) is the stem of a "funnel", fed by CN lines coming in from the NW (Winnipeg) via Duluth and central WI and from the NE via Lansing and Port Huron, MI.  It's a really efficient system, and CN owns all the tracks (so to avoid the dispatching problems that often occur with trackage-rights arrangements).  Wouldn't be surprised to see the CP/KCS combo look to purchase or lease underutilized lines north out of KC for a more direct way to reach CP' western hub in Calgary from the main KCS stem.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: GreenLanternCorps on March 28, 2021, 05:43:24 PM
GreenLanternCorps, be careful with URLs that have a ')' at the end.  SMF's software likes to omit it and give you a broken link unless you use the 'URL' code around it.  So, I've fixed it for ya. ;)

Thanks
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 28, 2021, 09:47:48 PM
Once 69/69E/69C/69W, 369, and extensions of Interstates 14 and 27 are constructed, does anyone believe Texas's "Interstate fever" will finally subside?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bwana39 on March 28, 2021, 09:54:26 PM
Once 69/69E/69C/69W, 369, and extensions of Interstates 14 and 27 are constructed, does anyone believe Texas's "Interstate fever" will finally subside?

You have to actually believe I-14 and I-27 will be built out to even get there. Frankly, I don't.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: aboges26 on March 28, 2021, 09:59:20 PM
Once 69/69E/69C/69W, 369, and extensions of Interstates 14 and 27 are constructed, does anyone believe Texas's "Interstate fever" will finally subside?

Not a chance, by that time they will need I-33 running from San Antonio to Wichita Falls to replace US 281 as a bypass of Austin and DFW, maybe I-47 running from Beaumont to DFW, I-34 to replace US 287 running from DFW to Amarillo, and possibly even I-32 running from Lubbock to Austin and possibly on to Houston.  If I-69, I-14, and I-27 extensions are signs of things to come, there will surely continue to be a need to expand the system due to all the people and jobs moving into the state.  Of course if the state turns "blue" like may people predict, that could stymie this growth akin to California, but the need appears to be there if the trajectory continues.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Revive 755 on March 28, 2021, 10:27:56 PM
Wouldn't be surprised to see the CP/KCS combo look to purchase or lease underutilized lines north out of KC for a more direct way to reach CP' western hub in Calgary from the main KCS stem.

I'm not sure there are that many underutilized lines going north from KC.  Maybe part of the BNSF line up to Council Bluffs, but I usually see a train along I-29 in Iowa.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on March 30, 2021, 10:26:37 AM
Once 69/69E/69C/69W, 369, and extensions of Interstates 14 and 27 are constructed, does anyone believe Texas's "Interstate fever" will finally subside?

Not a chance, by that time they will need I-33 running from San Antonio to Wichita Falls to replace US 281 as a bypass of Austin and DFW, maybe I-47 running from Beaumont to DFW, I-34 to replace US 287 running from DFW to Amarillo, and possibly even I-32 running from Lubbock to Austin and possibly on to Houston.  If I-69, I-14, and I-27 extensions are signs of things to come, there will surely continue to be a need to expand the system due to all the people and jobs moving into the state.  Of course if the state turns "blue" like may people predict, that could stymie this growth akin to California, but the need appears to be there if the trajectory continues.

SH-71 & US-290 from Columbus to Junction through Austin as an Interstate. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on March 30, 2021, 05:39:35 PM
Once 69/69E/69C/69W, 369, and extensions of Interstates 14 and 27 are constructed, does anyone believe Texas's "Interstate fever" will finally subside?

Not a chance, by that time they will need I-33 running from San Antonio to Wichita Falls to replace US 281 as a bypass of Austin and DFW, maybe I-47 running from Beaumont to DFW, I-34 to replace US 287 running from DFW to Amarillo, and possibly even I-32 running from Lubbock to Austin and possibly on to Houston.  If I-69, I-14, and I-27 extensions are signs of things to come, there will surely continue to be a need to expand the system due to all the people and jobs moving into the state.  Of course if the state turns "blue" like may people predict, that could stymie this growth akin to California, but the need appears to be there if the trajectory continues.

SH-71 & US-290 from Columbus to Junction through Austin as an Interstate. 

First, get some Austin folks with clout to get behind such a proposal (state legislators and county officials generally qualify in that sense), add as many local congressmen as possible to the list of backers (at least one of your senators would help!), come up with a concise brief as to what the corridor would accomplish, and get it inserted in the next USDOT round of yearly funding as a dedicated High Priority Corridor, with a "future Interstate" codicil attached.  That's how corridors get on the books these days.  That's the relatively easy part; once that's done, then you tackle funding -- which is another ball of wax altogether.  That's something that will likely be a continuous battle until the corridor is under way.   Good luck!   
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on April 01, 2021, 11:21:39 PM
Anyone know what number SH-44 will be named when it becomes an interstate?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on April 02, 2021, 03:18:05 AM
Anyone know what number SH-44 will be named when it becomes an interstate?

Bandied about so far:  I-469, I-569, even I-6 (after I-2 was designated).  Submitted to AASHTO or, alternately, added to authorizing legislation to date:  nada!  I'm guessing that this corridor branch will be addressed after I-69E is functionally completed south of I-37; that seems to be the present developmental focus -- so nobody has prioritized a decision regarding designation of that E-W branch. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: abqtraveler on April 02, 2021, 08:42:32 AM
Anyone know what number SH-44 will be named when it becomes an interstate?

Bandied about so far:  I-469, I-569, even I-6 (after I-2 was designated).  Submitted to AASHTO or, alternately, added to authorizing legislation to date:  nada!  I'm guessing that this corridor branch will be addressed after I-69E is functionally completed south of I-37; that seems to be the present developmental focus -- so nobody has prioritized a decision regarding designation of that E-W branch.

It would be a good candidate for I-6.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on April 02, 2021, 11:25:11 AM
An I-6, IMO, that should run the whole length between Laredo and Corpus Christi along both SH-44 and US-59.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on April 02, 2021, 11:57:24 AM
Heck, maybe, it could be a four digit interstate! Okay, sorry. That won’t age well.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on April 03, 2021, 04:27:11 AM
An I-6, IMO, that should run the whole length between Laredo and Corpus Christi along both SH-44 and US-59.

A decent idea, but one that would likely be short-circuited by the posting of I-69W at the north Laredo border crossing approach; having been there about three years now, there's likely an expectation that Laredo-Freer would be designated with that same number.  At the risk of sliding into fictional, a better I-6 extension might be continuing west along TX 44 to the P2P/I-27 when and if that corridor is actually developed -- providing a connection to a "real port" rather than just a series of POE's. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Scott5114 on April 03, 2021, 04:44:02 AM
I-69F! I-69F!
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on April 03, 2021, 03:36:25 PM
I-69F! I-69F!

Only extrapolating/guessing what the "F" stands for (don't think the town of Freer deserves its own suffix!); I'd posit a more apt (but ultimately just as ridiculous) I-69L for "lateral".  But I-6 is as good as anything else; that particular late-added branch wasn't included in the original HPC 18 legislative description that specified the east/central/west branches subsequently taken literally by the Alliance for I-69/Texas and their TxDOT cohorts (hence the suffixes that are posted).  No such language covers Corpus-Freer, so the designation can be a more grid-friendly number (or, alternately, something pulled directly out of someone's ass!).  Hope for the former!
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Scott5114 on April 03, 2021, 05:08:59 PM
Well, ostensibly for Freer, but probably more likely the first word of any roadgeek's thoughts on adding another I-69 suffixed route...

If you wanted to really get stupid, make it I-69CC for Corpus Christi. The I-69C/I-69CC interchange would be really emblematic of the whole mess.

Did Texas collectively fall on its head at some point and forget 3dis exist?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on April 03, 2021, 06:33:19 PM
Well, ostensibly for Freer, but probably more likely the first word of any roadgeek's thoughts on adding another I-69 suffixed route...

If you wanted to really get stupid, make it I-69CC for Corpus Christi. The I-69C/I-69CC interchange would be really emblematic of the whole mess.

Did Texas collectively fall on its head at some point and forget 3dis exist?
Well, ostensibly for Freer, but probably more likely the first word of any roadgeek's thoughts on adding another I-69 suffixed route...

If you wanted to really get stupid, make it I-69CC for Corpus Christi. The I-69C/I-69CC interchange would be really emblematic of the whole mess.

Did Texas collectively fall on its head at some point and forget 3dis exist?

And I thought I didn't like overlong 3di's! -- even I-369 (which I still think should be I-47!), which somehow got through the Alliance/TxDOT vetting.  But, even at 115 miles long, it's up in the far NE corner of the state and more or less out of non-local public view.  I don't think local backers think much of 3di's; that they don't have cachet with the developmental business community, particularly those establishing distribution/warehousing facilities (and they would be, for the most part, correct!).  So they'll designate everything they can as a trunk (like I-2), which is why I think Corpus-Freer will end up as I-6 even if it only goes as far west as that small town.  But I wonder if Loop 1604 around San Antonio will eventually be I-810 or I-835 or something similar when it is fully brought out to freeway/Interstate standards.  That'd be about the only route within TX that would be likely to be posited as a 3di at some point -- at least currently.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on April 03, 2021, 06:33:45 PM
Well, they got I-369 and I-169.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on April 03, 2021, 06:35:21 PM
But I wonder if Loop 1604 around San Antonio will eventually be I-810 or I-835 or something similar when it is fully brought out to freeway/Interstate standards.  That'd be about the only route within TX that would be likely to be posited as a 3di at some point -- at least currently.
Definitely feel an I-x10 is more warranted, the northeast leg serves as an effective bypass of the cluster that is I-10 through Downtown and the inner urban area.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on April 04, 2021, 12:59:00 PM
Well, ostensibly for Freer, but probably more likely the first word of any roadgeek's thoughts on adding another I-69 suffixed route...

If you wanted to really get stupid, make it I-69CC for Corpus Christi. The I-69C/I-69CC interchange would be really emblematic of the whole mess.

Did Texas collectively fall on its head at some point and forget 3dis exist?

I-69F and CC are hilarious. But...If Texas adds something like a I-1069 or something, I will literally laugh myself drunk.
But I wonder if Loop 1604 around San Antonio will eventually be I-810 or I-835 or something similar when it is fully brought out to freeway/Interstate standards.  That'd be about the only route within TX that would be likely to be posited as a 3di at some point -- at least currently.
Definitely feel an I-x10 is more warranted, the northeast leg serves as an effective bypass of the cluster that is I-10 through Downtown and the inner urban area.
Actually, there’s already an I-410 in San Antonio, so I personally think another I-x10 route is redundant. I think a tollway configuration like SH 99 and Sam Houston would be great.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on April 04, 2021, 02:49:26 PM
Well, ostensibly for Freer, but probably more likely the first word of any roadgeek's thoughts on adding another I-69 suffixed route...

If you wanted to really get stupid, make it I-69CC for Corpus Christi. The I-69C/I-69CC interchange would be really emblematic of the whole mess.

Did Texas collectively fall on its head at some point and forget 3dis exist?

I-69F and CC are hilarious. But...If Texas adds something like a I-1069 or something, I will literally laugh myself drunk.
But I wonder if Loop 1604 around San Antonio will eventually be I-810 or I-835 or something similar when it is fully brought out to freeway/Interstate standards.  That'd be about the only route within TX that would be likely to be posited as a 3di at some point -- at least currently.
Definitely feel an I-x10 is more warranted, the northeast leg serves as an effective bypass of the cluster that is I-10 through Downtown and the inner urban area.
Actually, there’s already an I-410 in San Antonio, so I personally think another I-x10 route is redundant. I think a tollway configuration like SH 99 and Sam Houston would be great.


Seeing as Loop 1604 has been a series of conventional highways gradually upgraded section by section into a freeway, it's unlikely that the present progression will change formats to a full-blown toll facility.  That being said, if money somehow becomes tight, just the northern arc between sections of I-10 might get the Interstate designation, with the southern sections that remain conventional roads either replaced by tollways or simply upgraded but on a much more extended schedule.  That section is going to have to duck around more recent development in any case; plopping a freeway (or toll road) down on the existing alignment may not be feasible.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on April 04, 2021, 08:01:16 PM
Although if there was a need for another interstate loop, I think they would implement I-835.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: armadillo speedbump on April 05, 2021, 03:10:45 PM
Hey guys, I’ve been on Us 59 this past week from Ganado to i-10. In Richmond/Rosenberg, new signs with exit numbers were installed up to I believe Spur 10, I think Exit 94. Everything south is under construction. I noticed that they were reconstructing Spur 10 exit. The Spur 529 exit is complete. In Beasley/Kendelton, there was a black trash bag taped on three overhead green exit signs for either Grunwald rd or Spur 541. 

Thanks for the report.

Google maps shows the I-69 mainlines now open southbound almost all the way to Spur 10 southwest of Rosenberg. Northbound they have some goofy zigzag at the new mainline bridge over Bamore Road in Rosenberg, so I'm not sure if it is open yet, or they temporarily closed the feeder road, or what.

So are the new mainlines soon to be open in both directions north of Spur 10?  What's the timeline on Kendleton to Spur 10, have they found more ways to drag that portion out?  I tried searching online, but maybe I'm a search idiot.  I assume the Kendleton-Spur 10 portion is taking forever because of funding being spread out?  Am I wrong or was that section started before Spur-10 to Reading Road further north?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on April 06, 2021, 10:15:30 AM
Hey guys, I’ve been on Us 59 this past week from Ganado to i-10. In Richmond/Rosenberg, new signs with exit numbers were installed up to I believe Spur 10, I think Exit 94. Everything south is under construction. I noticed that they were reconstructing Spur 10 exit. The Spur 529 exit is complete. In Beasley/Kendelton, there was a black trash bag taped on three overhead green exit signs for either Grunwald rd or Spur 541. 

Google maps shows the I-69 mainlines now open southbound almost all the way to Spur 10 southwest of Rosenberg. Northbound they have some goofy zigzag at the new mainline bridge over Bamore Road in Rosenberg, so I'm not sure if it is open yet, or they temporarily closed the feeder road, or what.

So are the new mainlines soon to be open in both directions north of Spur 10?  What's the timeline on Kendleton to Spur 10, have they found more ways to drag that portion out?  I tried searching online, but maybe I'm a search idiot.  I assume the Kendleton-Spur 10 portion is taking forever because of funding being spread out?  Am I wrong or was that section started before Spur-10 to Reading Road further north?
I want to say it could be done this year, but I doubt it be on hold for funding, or else the other roads wouldn’t be in construction.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on April 06, 2021, 08:11:11 PM
New set of questions, give me your honest opinion:
When do you think I-169 will be designated and finished?
When will I-69W be constructed outside of Laredo?
Why does traffic on US-59, 77, and 281 have the US customs checkpoint not on the main lanes?
Which route will be the first to full completion? (I-69 main, E, W, or C?)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 06, 2021, 09:15:15 PM
Why is the Interstate 169/TX 550 interchange with Interstate 69E a half interchange? Were traffic counts insufficient to add connections to Interstate 69E-to-Interstate 169/TX 550 East and Interstate 169/TX 550 West-to-Interstate 69E South?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on April 06, 2021, 09:31:35 PM
New set of questions, give me your honest opinion:
When do you think I-169 will be designated and finished?
When will I-69W be constructed outside of Laredo?
Why does traffic on US-59, 77, and 281 have the US customs checkpoint not on the main lanes?
Which route will be the first to full completion? (I-69 main, E, W, or C?)

I-169:  Sometime within the next 10 years; depends upon volume increases at the Port of Brownsville.
I-69W: When and if enough trucking firms entering at North Laredo whine about having to endure a 2-lane US 59 to Houston -- and that noise reaches representatives from the districts along 69W.  With the branch from Freer to Corpus, Laredo-Freer might get done prior to Freer-George West.  From G.West to Victoria -- if I-69C is at least free-flow from I-2 north to US 59, then 69W along that stretch may see commensurate development.
Customs: have no idea; never crossed the border east of Nogales.
Full completion:  Either I-69E or I-69C; probably both will be done at about the same time, given border traffic and present progress.  69C has less towns to negotiate, so if and when construction letting occurs, it'll likely be for bigger chunks at a time.  But the I-69 trunk NE from Victoria will likely be completed to the I-369 split within 20-25 years; from there to the LA line may take a lot longer, as TxDOT will likely prioritize I-369, since for Houston businessfolks (who have a lot of clout) Job #1 is a straight shot to I-30 at Texarkana; they've been waiting for that for a half-century or more.  I'm going to take an educated guesstimate and project that the 69/369 continuum, I-69E, and I-69C will be done within a 5-year envelope of each other; full completion of I-69W may lag by 5-10 years beyond the others.   
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: kphoger on April 07, 2021, 09:47:25 AM
Why does traffic on US-59, 77, and 281 have the US customs checkpoint not on the main lanes?

I don't know for sure, but my best guess is that they still want to have the main lanes available to traffic if the checkpoint is closed for any reason.  I see from Historic Aerials that those checkpoint facilities have been off to the side of the highway mainline for decades, and there must be some reason they not only haven't torn up the other pavement, but they even maintain/repave it as part of regular road construction.  If you think about it, this isn't only true of the examples you provided, but also I-35 north of the Callaghan interchange:  all traffic is directed off the mainline into the checkpoint facility.

As evidence to support this theory, I present the fact that the mainline pavement is blocked off with mere road cones.  No big concrete barriers, no fences, just orange cones that can be easily removed as needed.

As further confirmation, a quick Google search returned an article from just two years ago, describing the shutdown of inland checkpoints and including this photo of US-62/US-180:

(https://img.texasmonthly.com/2019/03/rm_ep.jpg)

Quote from: Texas Monthly – Border Patrol Inland Checkpoints Shut Down So Agents Can Help Process Asylum Seekers (23-MAR-2019)
The El Paso Border Patrol sector has temporarily closed its system of highway checkpoints as it struggles to cope with a record influx of families crossing the border and requesting asylum. The agents who usually staff the checkpoints will be redeployed to process and transport the asylum seekers ... “We were told to go ahead and close down all the checkpoints,”  one official said Saturday morning ... At a checkpoint on U.S. Highway 62/180 about 30 miles east of El Paso in Hudspeth County, orange cones that usually are used to funnel motorists off the highway and into the checkpoint had been repositioned Saturday evening to block the entrance to the checkpoint. The situation was repeated at several other checkpoints on major roadways in Far West Texas and Southern New Mexico, officials said.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: kphoger on April 07, 2021, 09:55:38 AM
South of the border, such checkpoint facilities were built over the main lanes.  They have been removed in recent years, but the scars remain and traffic still has to slow down for no good reason.

Here are the ones I'm familiar with:

Nuevo Laredo – before (https://goo.gl/maps/448PkcVVWLrqdpmT7), after (https://goo.gl/maps/7K3qonmMeUoxtAxj8)
Allende – before (https://goo.gl/maps/uZMk4HZ77tpToLcW8) / after (https://goo.gl/maps/5pzk5JKcq35UQaxt9)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on April 07, 2021, 01:17:53 PM
Why does traffic on US-59, 77, and 281 have the US customs checkpoint not on the main lanes?

I don't know for sure, but my best guess is that they still want to have the main lanes available to traffic if the checkpoint is closed for any reason.  I see from Historic Aerials that those checkpoint facilities have been off to the side of the highway mainline for decades, and there must be some reason they not only haven't torn up the other pavement, but they even maintain/repave it as part of regular road construction.  If you think about it, this isn't only true of the examples you provided, but also I-35 north of the Callaghan interchange:  all traffic is directed off the mainline into the checkpoint facility.

As evidence to support this theory, I present the fact that the mainline pavement is blocked off with mere road cones.  No big concrete barriers, no fences, just orange cones that can be easily removed as needed.

As further confirmation, a quick Google search returned an article from just two years ago, describing the shutdown of inland checkpoints and including this photo of US-62/US-180:

(https://img.texasmonthly.com/2019/03/rm_ep.jpg)

Quote from: Texas Monthly – Border Patrol Inland Checkpoints Shut Down So Agents Can Help Process Asylum Seekers (23-MAR-2019)
The El Paso Border Patrol sector has temporarily closed its system of highway checkpoints as it struggles to cope with a record influx of families crossing the border and requesting asylum. The agents who usually staff the checkpoints will be redeployed to process and transport the asylum seekers ... “We were told to go ahead and close down all the checkpoints,”  one official said Saturday morning ... At a checkpoint on U.S. Highway 62/180 about 30 miles east of El Paso in Hudspeth County, orange cones that usually are used to funnel motorists off the highway and into the checkpoint had been repositioned Saturday evening to block the entrance to the checkpoint. The situation was repeated at several other checkpoints on major roadways in Far West Texas and Southern New Mexico, officials said.
Okay. Thanks for explaining! I would rather direct traffic onto the opposite bound lane.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: kphoger on April 07, 2021, 01:24:01 PM


Why does traffic on US-59, 77, and 281 have the US customs checkpoint not on the main lanes?

I don't know for sure, but my best guess is that they still want to have the main lanes available to traffic if the checkpoint is closed for any reason.  I see from Historic Aerials that those checkpoint facilities have been off to the side of the highway mainline for decades, and there must be some reason they not only haven't torn up the other pavement, but they even maintain/repave it as part of regular road construction.  If you think about it, this isn't only true of the examples you provided, but also I-35 north of the Callaghan interchange:  all traffic is directed off the mainline into the checkpoint facility.

As evidence to support this theory, I present the fact that the mainline pavement is blocked off with mere road cones.  No big concrete barriers, no fences, just orange cones that can be easily removed as needed.

As further confirmation, a quick Google search returned an article from just two years ago, describing the shutdown of inland checkpoints and including this photo of US-62/US-180:

(https://img.texasmonthly.com/2019/03/rm_ep.jpg)

Quote from: Texas Monthly – Border Patrol Inland Checkpoints Shut Down So Agents Can Help Process Asylum Seekers (23-MAR-2019)
The El Paso Border Patrol sector has temporarily closed its system of highway checkpoints as it struggles to cope with a record influx of families crossing the border and requesting asylum. The agents who usually staff the checkpoints will be redeployed to process and transport the asylum seekers ... “We were told to go ahead and close down all the checkpoints,”  one official said Saturday morning ... At a checkpoint on U.S. Highway 62/180 about 30 miles east of El Paso in Hudspeth County, orange cones that usually are used to funnel motorists off the highway and into the checkpoint had been repositioned Saturday evening to block the entrance to the checkpoint. The situation was repeated at several other checkpoints on major roadways in Far West Texas and Southern New Mexico, officials said.


Okay. Thanks for explaining! I would rather direct traffic onto the opposite bound lane.

Why would you rather remove an opposing lane from use?

What if the checkpoint facilities are closed for a whole month?  Indefinitely?

That wouldn't work very well on two-lane highways (such as the one pictured above).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on April 07, 2021, 02:10:37 PM


Why does traffic on US-59, 77, and 281 have the US customs checkpoint not on the main lanes?

I don't know for sure, but my best guess is that they still want to have the main lanes available to traffic if the checkpoint is closed for any reason.  I see from Historic Aerials that those checkpoint facilities have been off to the side of the highway mainline for decades, and there must be some reason they not only haven't torn up the other pavement, but they even maintain/repave it as part of regular road construction.  If you think about it, this isn't only true of the examples you provided, but also I-35 north of the Callaghan interchange:  all traffic is directed off the mainline into the checkpoint facility.

As evidence to support this theory, I present the fact that the mainline pavement is blocked off with mere road cones.  No big concrete barriers, no fences, just orange cones that can be easily removed as needed.

As further confirmation, a quick Google search returned an article from just two years ago, describing the shutdown of inland checkpoints and including this photo of US-62/US-180:

(https://img.texasmonthly.com/2019/03/rm_ep.jpg)

Quote from: Texas Monthly – Border Patrol Inland Checkpoints Shut Down So Agents Can Help Process Asylum Seekers (23-MAR-2019)
The El Paso Border Patrol sector has temporarily closed its system of highway checkpoints as it struggles to cope with a record influx of families crossing the border and requesting asylum. The agents who usually staff the checkpoints will be redeployed to process and transport the asylum seekers ... “We were told to go ahead and close down all the checkpoints,”  one official said Saturday morning ... At a checkpoint on U.S. Highway 62/180 about 30 miles east of El Paso in Hudspeth County, orange cones that usually are used to funnel motorists off the highway and into the checkpoint had been repositioned Saturday evening to block the entrance to the checkpoint. The situation was repeated at several other checkpoints on major roadways in Far West Texas and Southern New Mexico, officials said.


Okay. Thanks for explaining! I would rather direct traffic onto the opposite bound lane.

Why would you rather remove an opposing lane from use?

What if the checkpoint facilities are closed for a whole month?  Indefinitely?

That wouldn't work very well on two-lane highways (such as the one pictured above).
Actually, I would prefer that there be the checkpoint on the main lanes and the exit be an alternate redirection for when the checkpoints are down. It’s just me, I think.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: zzcarp on April 07, 2021, 09:06:18 PM


Why does traffic on US-59, 77, and 281 have the US customs checkpoint not on the main lanes?

I don't know for sure, but my best guess is that they still want to have the main lanes available to traffic if the checkpoint is closed for any reason.  I see from Historic Aerials that those checkpoint facilities have been off to the side of the highway mainline for decades, and there must be some reason they not only haven't torn up the other pavement, but they even maintain/repave it as part of regular road construction.  If you think about it, this isn't only true of the examples you provided, but also I-35 north of the Callaghan interchange:  all traffic is directed off the mainline into the checkpoint facility.

As evidence to support this theory, I present the fact that the mainline pavement is blocked off with mere road cones.  No big concrete barriers, no fences, just orange cones that can be easily removed as needed.

As further confirmation, a quick Google search returned an article from just two years ago, describing the shutdown of inland checkpoints and including this photo of US-62/US-180:

(https://img.texasmonthly.com/2019/03/rm_ep.jpg)

Quote from: Texas Monthly – Border Patrol Inland Checkpoints Shut Down So Agents Can Help Process Asylum Seekers (23-MAR-2019)
The El Paso Border Patrol sector has temporarily closed its system of highway checkpoints as it struggles to cope with a record influx of families crossing the border and requesting asylum. The agents who usually staff the checkpoints will be redeployed to process and transport the asylum seekers ... “We were told to go ahead and close down all the checkpoints,”  one official said Saturday morning ... At a checkpoint on U.S. Highway 62/180 about 30 miles east of El Paso in Hudspeth County, orange cones that usually are used to funnel motorists off the highway and into the checkpoint had been repositioned Saturday evening to block the entrance to the checkpoint. The situation was repeated at several other checkpoints on major roadways in Far West Texas and Southern New Mexico, officials said.


Okay. Thanks for explaining! I would rather direct traffic onto the opposite bound lane.

Why would you rather remove an opposing lane from use?

What if the checkpoint facilities are closed for a whole month?  Indefinitely?

That wouldn't work very well on two-lane highways (such as the one pictured above).
Actually, I would prefer that there be the checkpoint on the main lanes and the exit be an alternate redirection for when the checkpoints are down. It’s just me, I think.

I would prefer that there be no interior border checkpoints. The idea of forcing all travelers to stop for "papers, please" is just abhorrent for intracountry travel in a free society, and it violates the Fourth Amendment (not withstanding judicial opinions to the contrary). Until I traveled US 77 between Brownsville and Corpus Christie, I had no clue that such things even existed.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: vdeane on April 07, 2021, 09:28:03 PM
Was it originally envisioned that those checkpoints would only be used some of the time?  The impression I get is that they're essentially used all the time, to the point where it would make sense to just send the main lanes through them and have signs saying "no inspection, proceed with caution" in the rare event they're actually closed.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on April 07, 2021, 10:10:59 PM
Was it originally envisioned that those checkpoints would only be used some of the time?  The impression I get is that they're essentially used all the time, to the point where it would make sense to just send the main lanes through them and have signs saying "no inspection, proceed with caution" in the rare event they're actually closed.

The "rear guard" checkpoints in CA on I-5 and I-15 are generally in operation 24/7(365); the facilities for those are essentially built into the freeway alignment, with a couple of bypass lanes available but normally coned off.  The ones on the secondary N-S roads:  CA 79, CA 86, CA 111 and CA 78 near Glamis, are "wide spots" in the road, with border patrol "mobile offices" parked next to the inspection lane(s).  The one on CA 86 (located immediately south of the west CA 78 junction) is rarely closed and actually has a small pass-through permanent structure (probably due to that route's 4-lane expressway status).   I've only seen that one closed once in probably two dozen passes through on that route -- but CA 111 generally stays open until about 11 pm and then shuts down until the next morning; and east toward Blythe on CA 78 as well as CA 79 near Julian are even more sporadic in operating hours -- and those are usually just a BP SUV or pickup truck parked off the pavement.  From what I know, there are a few other mobile-based setup sites, such as on County Signed S34 and S2, both just north of I-8, and the BP has been known to set up on random county highways in the Imperial Valley and in the hills around Pine Valley.  It seems that they want their presence known (and felt) by the general public using major highways -- but they want some semblance of an element of surprise as well.   
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on April 08, 2021, 12:13:49 AM


Why does traffic on US-59, 77, and 281 have the US customs checkpoint not on the main lanes?

I don't know for sure, but my best guess is that they still want to have the main lanes available to traffic if the checkpoint is closed for any reason.  I see from Historic Aerials that those checkpoint facilities have been off to the side of the highway mainline for decades, and there must be some reason they not only haven't torn up the other pavement, but they even maintain/repave it as part of regular road construction.  If you think about it, this isn't only true of the examples you provided, but also I-35 north of the Callaghan interchange:  all traffic is directed off the mainline into the checkpoint facility.

As evidence to support this theory, I present the fact that the mainline pavement is blocked off with mere road cones.  No big concrete barriers, no fences, just orange cones that can be easily removed as needed.

As further confirmation, a quick Google search returned an article from just two years ago, describing the shutdown of inland checkpoints and including this photo of US-62/US-180:

(https://img.texasmonthly.com/2019/03/rm_ep.jpg)

Quote from: Texas Monthly – Border Patrol Inland Checkpoints Shut Down So Agents Can Help Process Asylum Seekers (23-MAR-2019)
The El Paso Border Patrol sector has temporarily closed its system of highway checkpoints as it struggles to cope with a record influx of families crossing the border and requesting asylum. The agents who usually staff the checkpoints will be redeployed to process and transport the asylum seekers ... “We were told to go ahead and close down all the checkpoints,”  one official said Saturday morning ... At a checkpoint on U.S. Highway 62/180 about 30 miles east of El Paso in Hudspeth County, orange cones that usually are used to funnel motorists off the highway and into the checkpoint had been repositioned Saturday evening to block the entrance to the checkpoint. The situation was repeated at several other checkpoints on major roadways in Far West Texas and Southern New Mexico, officials said.


Okay. Thanks for explaining! I would rather direct traffic onto the opposite bound lane.

Why would you rather remove an opposing lane from use?

What if the checkpoint facilities are closed for a whole month?  Indefinitely?

That wouldn't work very well on two-lane highways (such as the one pictured above).
Actually, I would prefer that there be the checkpoint on the main lanes and the exit be an alternate redirection for when the checkpoints are down. It’s just me, I think.

I would prefer that there be no interior border checkpoints. The idea of forcing all travelers to stop for "papers, please" is just abhorrent for intracountry travel in a free society, and it violates the Fourth Amendment (not withstanding judicial opinions to the contrary). Until I traveled US 77 between Brownsville and Corpus Christie, I had no clue that such things even existed.
It’s pointless to have it to the side of the highway when people will virtually have to show their passports.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on April 08, 2021, 12:49:56 AM
This is going back more than 40 years (damn, I'm getting old), but I can remember checkpoints in Arizona and Southern California where my parents had to stop the car along Interstate 8. Officials weren't looking for illegals from Mexico. They were checking for contraband produce that could have certain bugs in it, such as fruit flies. The orange grove business was huge back then. I imagine it still is now. But I guess they have more modern pesticides and other tools to deal with vermin than they had back in the mid 1970's.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on April 08, 2021, 01:57:23 AM
This is going back more than 40 years (damn, I'm getting old), but I can remember checkpoints in Arizona and Southern California where my parents had to stop the car along Interstate 8. Officials weren't looking for illegals from Mexico. They were checking for contraband produce that could have certain bugs in it, such as fruit flies. The orange grove business was huge back then. I imagine it still is now. But I guess they have more modern pesticides and other tools to deal with vermin than they had back in the mid 1970's.

Those were not federal checkpoints but run by the California Dept. of Agriculture; they've been in operation ever since I can recall (at least 65 years, probably more!).  Arizona had their own version which ran periodically when specific pests that could target their citrus crop (which centered around the I-8 corridor) were rampant.  They were specifically active along the CA entry points from about 1981 through 1985 as a result of CA's "Medfly" infestation that peaked '81-'82 that affected both citrus and deciduous fruit growing.  But CA's program is still active, although the inbound checkpoints have cut back their times of operation in recent years, often simply shutting down at night on several major routes.   Nevertheless, some checkpoint areas have themselves expanded and relocated recently; both SB I-15 and WB I-80 had their points relocated considerably closer to the state line than in previous years; the latter due to complaints from both Lake Tahoe residents who were annoyed at having to stop every time they went "over the hill" for shopping and other activities as well as truckers -- the original checkpoint was just west of the CA 89 junction and right at the foot of the heavy westbound grade up to Donner Summit, so trucks didn't have the opportunity to use momentum to surmount the hill from a dead stop.  In the case of I-15, the original checkpoint was at Yermo, just NE of Barstow, placed there to also collect traffic coming in from CA 127; that was later deemed to be insignificant, so the checkpoint was moved to right after the state line and expanded to several lanes to handle peak weekend traffic from Las Vegas. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: kphoger on April 08, 2021, 09:48:09 AM
I would prefer that there be no interior border checkpoints. The idea of forcing all travelers to stop for "papers, please" is just abhorrent for intracountry travel in a free society, and it violates the Fourth Amendment (not withstanding judicial opinions to the contrary). Until I traveled US 77 between Brownsville and Corpus Christie, I had no clue that such things even existed.

It’s pointless to have it to the side of the highway when people will virtually have to show their passports.

US citizens are not required to show any papers at those checkpoints.

Theoretically at least, the only question the agents are entitled to ask you is what your citizenship is.  Of the ten times I've driven through them, that was the only question asked more often than not.  The remaining couple of times, the agent merely asked where we had been and what we were doing there.  I've never once been asked to show any papers.  Even when I answered "Laredo" and then the agent pointed at my Mexican windshield sticker residue and asked if I had been in Mexico before that, my apparent misleading answer caused zero trouble.  On the US-277 checkpoint north of Del Rio, the agent sometimes doesn't even step out of the shack.  US citizens?  –  Yes, sir.  –  Have a safe drive!
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on April 08, 2021, 10:13:15 AM
I would prefer that there be no interior border checkpoints. The idea of forcing all travelers to stop for "papers, please" is just abhorrent for intracountry travel in a free society, and it violates the Fourth Amendment (not withstanding judicial opinions to the contrary). Until I traveled US 77 between Brownsville and Corpus Christie, I had no clue that such things even existed.

It’s pointless to have it to the side of the highway when people will virtually have to show their passports.

US citizens are not required to show any papers at those checkpoints.

Theoretically at least, the only question the agents are entitled to ask you is what your citizenship is.  Of the ten times I've driven through them, that was the only question asked more often than not.  The remaining couple of times, the agent merely asked where we had been and what we were doing there.  I've never once been asked to show any papers.  Even when I answered "Laredo" and then the agent pointed at my Mexican windshield sticker residue and asked if I had been in Mexico before that, my apparent misleading answer caused zero trouble.  On the US-277 checkpoint north of Del Rio, the agent sometimes doesn't even step out of the shack.  US citizens?  –  Yes, sir.  –  Have a safe drive!
Okay, but I mean stop then. Every time I’ve gone through these, I’ve always had to stop. Except our school when we played in Mission, TX. But that’s about it. But now, thinking of it, my proposal doesn’t sound very cohesive.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: abqtraveler on April 08, 2021, 10:18:27 AM
I would prefer that there be no interior border checkpoints. The idea of forcing all travelers to stop for "papers, please" is just abhorrent for intracountry travel in a free society, and it violates the Fourth Amendment (not withstanding judicial opinions to the contrary). Until I traveled US 77 between Brownsville and Corpus Christie, I had no clue that such things even existed.

It’s pointless to have it to the side of the highway when people will virtually have to show their passports.

US citizens are not required to show any papers at those checkpoints.

Theoretically at least, the only question the agents are entitled to ask you is what your citizenship is.  Of the ten times I've driven through them, that was the only question asked more often than not.  The remaining couple of times, the agent merely asked where we had been and what we were doing there.  I've never once been asked to show any papers.  Even when I answered "Laredo" and then the agent pointed at my Mexican windshield sticker residue and asked if I had been in Mexico before that, my apparent misleading answer caused zero trouble.  On the US-277 checkpoint north of Del Rio, the agent sometimes doesn't even step out of the shack.  US citizens?  –  Yes, sir.  –  Have a safe drive!

While they don't have permanent checkpoints in states that border Canada, I have seen the Border Patrol set up mobile checkpoints along highways within a certain distance from the Canadian Border. Back in 2013, I was driving south on I-89 in Vermont and encountered one of the Border Patrol's mobile checkpoints south of Montpelier. Since the checkpoint was not a permanent fixture (they were diverting traffic into one of the rest areas along I-89; the agents sat in a trailer the Border Patrol brought to the rest area) , I figure the Border Patrol sets them up for a few hours (maybe a day) at one location, then move on to another spot.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Avalanchez71 on April 08, 2021, 10:29:46 AM


Why does traffic on US-59, 77, and 281 have the US customs checkpoint not on the main lanes?

I don't know for sure, but my best guess is that they still want to have the main lanes available to traffic if the checkpoint is closed for any reason.  I see from Historic Aerials that those checkpoint facilities have been off to the side of the highway mainline for decades, and there must be some reason they not only haven't torn up the other pavement, but they even maintain/repave it as part of regular road construction.  If you think about it, this isn't only true of the examples you provided, but also I-35 north of the Callaghan interchange:  all traffic is directed off the mainline into the checkpoint facility.

As evidence to support this theory, I present the fact that the mainline pavement is blocked off with mere road cones.  No big concrete barriers, no fences, just orange cones that can be easily removed as needed.

As further confirmation, a quick Google search returned an article from just two years ago, describing the shutdown of inland checkpoints and including this photo of US-62/US-180:

(https://img.texasmonthly.com/2019/03/rm_ep.jpg)

Quote from: Texas Monthly – Border Patrol Inland Checkpoints Shut Down So Agents Can Help Process Asylum Seekers (23-MAR-2019)
The El Paso Border Patrol sector has temporarily closed its system of highway checkpoints as it struggles to cope with a record influx of families crossing the border and requesting asylum. The agents who usually staff the checkpoints will be redeployed to process and transport the asylum seekers ... “We were told to go ahead and close down all the checkpoints,”  one official said Saturday morning ... At a checkpoint on U.S. Highway 62/180 about 30 miles east of El Paso in Hudspeth County, orange cones that usually are used to funnel motorists off the highway and into the checkpoint had been repositioned Saturday evening to block the entrance to the checkpoint. The situation was repeated at several other checkpoints on major roadways in Far West Texas and Southern New Mexico, officials said.


Okay. Thanks for explaining! I would rather direct traffic onto the opposite bound lane.

Why would you rather remove an opposing lane from use?

What if the checkpoint facilities are closed for a whole month?  Indefinitely?

That wouldn't work very well on two-lane highways (such as the one pictured above).
Actually, I would prefer that there be the checkpoint on the main lanes and the exit be an alternate redirection for when the checkpoints are down. It’s just me, I think.

I would prefer that there be no interior border checkpoints. The idea of forcing all travelers to stop for "papers, please" is just abhorrent for intracountry travel in a free society, and it violates the Fourth Amendment (not withstanding judicial opinions to the contrary). Until I traveled US 77 between Brownsville and Corpus Christie, I had no clue that such things even existed.

I agree with you on these papers, please checkpoints.  The SOCTUS has said otherwise.  Weird since the Fourth Amendment is easy to read and understand.

Your papers are not in order.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: kphoger on April 08, 2021, 11:12:10 AM
Okay, but I mean stop then. Every time I’ve gone through these, I’ve always had to stop. Except our school when we played in Mission, TX. But that’s about it.

So what?  You have to stop if a police officer pulls you over too.  It only invades your rights at a certain point after that, and the inland checkpoints don't get to that point.

I agree with you on these papers, please checkpoints.  The SOCTUS has said otherwise.  Weird since the Fourth Amendment is easy to read and understand.

Your papers are not in order.

What papers have you been required to show at these inland checkpoints, after telling the agent you were a US citizen?

I've never been required to show any.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bwana39 on April 08, 2021, 11:29:35 AM
I have not been in southern Texas in a couple of decades. The way it used to work is they would have a gatekeeper on the main-lanes. They would decide who needed inspection. It worked better if you held up your license as you passed the gatekeeper. He would ask "anything to declare?" If you said yes, you got diverted. 

 Still there were random checks of those who had nothing to declare, showed ID, and had no suspicious callouts.   We spent nearly a month down there. We passed through without being diverted probably close to 15 times. Once, though we were chosen for inspection.  You just pull the stuff in your trunk out and lay it on the pavement under a shed. They were matter of fact; maybe a little put out that we went too slowly to suit them. We were changing campgrounds and had everything we had with us (in a 2-door Grand Prix) There was a bunch... we actually had to replace the trunk lid after the trip because we damaged it by overstuffing it closed.

The bottom line is it isn't in the main lanes because (at least in the past) not everyone gets inspected.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: kphoger on April 08, 2021, 11:40:15 AM
I have not been in southern Texas in a couple of decades. The way it used to work is they would have a gatekeeper on the main-lanes. They would decide who needed inspection. It worked better if you held up your license as you passed the gatekeeper. He would ask "anything to declare?" If you said yes, you got diverted. 

 Still there were random checks of those who had nothing to declare, showed ID, and had no suspicious callouts.   We spent nearly a month down there. We passed through without being diverted probably close to 15 times. Once, though we were chosen for inspection.  You just pull the stuff in your trunk out and lay it on the pavement under a shed. They were matter of fact; maybe a little put out that we went too slowly to suit them. We were changing campgrounds and had everything we had with us (in a 2-door Grand Prix) There was a bunch... we actually had to replace the trunk lid after the trip because we damaged it by overstuffing it closed.

The bottom line is it isn't in the main lanes because (at least in the past) not everyone gets inspected.

Yeah, I don't think what exists now is the same thing.  I've never once been asked if I had anything to declare.  At the actual border, yes, but not an the inland checkpoints.  Same thing going south into Mexico:  at the inland checkpoints, all they've cared about was citizen/traveler status, and to make sure we had our personal and vehicle papers as non-Mexican citizens.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bwana39 on April 08, 2021, 11:53:28 AM
I have not been in southern Texas in a couple of decades. The way it used to work is they would have a gatekeeper on the main-lanes. They would decide who needed inspection. It worked better if you held up your license as you passed the gatekeeper. He would ask "anything to declare?" If you said yes, you got diverted. 

 Still there were random checks of those who had nothing to declare, showed ID, and had no suspicious callouts.   We spent nearly a month down there. We passed through without being diverted probably close to 15 times. Once, though we were chosen for inspection.  You just pull the stuff in your trunk out and lay it on the pavement under a shed. They were matter of fact; maybe a little put out that we went too slowly to suit them. We were changing campgrounds and had everything we had with us (in a 2-door Grand Prix) There was a bunch... we actually had to replace the trunk lid after the trip because we damaged it by overstuffing it closed.

The bottom line is it isn't in the main lanes because (at least in the past) not everyone gets inspected.

Yeah, I don't think what exists now is the same thing.  I've never once been asked if I had anything to declare.  At the actual border, yes, but not an the inland checkpoints.  Same thing going south into Mexico:  at the inland checkpoints, all they've cared about was citizen/traveler status, and to make sure we had our personal and vehicle papers as non-Mexican citizens.

Back then, there was quite a bit of free crossing going on. We never drove into Mexico on that trip (as far as that goes, we never crossed at an OFFICIAL  crossing. )  I agree that the primary question was about residency status. On some of the other trips through, they got our kids to answer questions. I am not sure what the threshold for English fluency was.  Mine all speak redneck.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: J N Winkler on April 08, 2021, 01:07:14 PM
Even in the recent past, I've been through Border Patrol checkpoints (e.g., I-10 near Deming in 2016) when most traffic was being waved through without inspection.

I've been asked to open my trunk for inspection on at least one occasion (US 70 just outside the White Sands in the mid-noughties).  This, of course, is not a check of the citizenship of any visible passengers.  But the Border Patrol is like other law enforcement agencies in that it will ask things and take advantage of citizens' impulse to comply with authority, just to avoid the potential hassle of being detained.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: edwaleni on April 08, 2021, 01:24:04 PM
Unfortunately YouTube is rife of citizens exercising their right to remain silent at these checkpoints and it starting the border patrol paranoia schtick. (Hey BP, "silence is not guilt")

A few end up with windows broken and being pulled out by a BP officer, some end up with a state police trooper showing up and letting them go and reminding BP about how checkpoint rights work.

One guy even hung his license, insurance and registration on a stringed baggie out the window and the BP still made him pull over for "non-compliance".

It is first and foremost a training issue. Most of these BP officers have not been properly trained on how the laws work at non-border checkpoints.

You can't expect them to be constitutional scholars, but some training about how the 4th and 5th amendments work as it relates to non-border checkpoints would help solve this.

The US Supreme Court has ruled pretty definitively on how non-border checkpoints can operate and about half of them violate it constantly.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: kphoger on April 08, 2021, 02:13:00 PM
Exactly.  The checkpoints themselves do not trample on one's rights.  But individual agents might do so, just as any police officer might.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on April 08, 2021, 05:58:56 PM
Now, regarding the highway, will there be frontage roads for I-69W, E, and C in those areas? If so, would the frontage roads curve separately from the checkpoints, or will the checkpoints be on the frontage roads?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 08, 2021, 06:11:51 PM
Are they ever going to eliminate/convert the at-grade intersections at the southernmost segment of Interstate 69E in Brownsville? Such as cul-du-sacing Courage St., removing the driveway just north of Courage St., and turning the University Blvd. intersection into a grade-separation or an interchange?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on April 08, 2021, 07:19:11 PM
Are they ever going to eliminate/convert the at-grade intersections at the southernmost segment of Interstate 69E in Brownsville? Such as cul-du-sacing Courage St., removing the driveway just north of Courage St., and turning the University Blvd. intersection into a grade-separation or an interchange?
I don’t see that as viable at this time, considering the right of way they have to acquire and the proximity of the highway to the toll plaza, and funding.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on April 08, 2021, 09:12:27 PM
Are they ever going to eliminate/convert the at-grade intersections at the southernmost segment of Interstate 69E in Brownsville? Such as cul-du-sacing Courage St., removing the driveway just north of Courage St., and turning the University Blvd. intersection into a grade-separation or an interchange?
I don’t see that as viable at this time, considering the right of way they have to acquire and the proximity of the highway to the toll plaza, and funding.

If it hasn't been done at the southern I-35 terminus at Laredo, it probably won't be done at Brownsville either.  OTOH, if one wants free-flow right to Mexican customs, there's always the north Laredo/I-69W border crossing.  IIRC, there are long range plans to send I-69C down to a border crossing rather than its present terminus at I-2 -- so there's a possibility that may be eventually be configured as a "direct feed" rather than over local streets prior to the border facililties.   
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: J N Winkler on April 08, 2021, 09:38:54 PM
Now, regarding the highway, will there be frontage roads for I-69W, E, and C in those areas? If so, would the frontage roads curve separately from the checkpoints, or will the checkpoints be on the frontage roads?

I think it is too early to tell.  Using a crowdsourced checkpoints map (https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1m3M9G1ctiulkZk3UnbDQJ2oRIaE&hl=en&ll=31.67756600000001%2C-111.063688&z=16) and the 2018 I-69 implementation strategy report (https://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot-info/i69/implementation-strategy-report-0218.pdf), I see three checkpoints are involved:

*  Sarita (I-69E/US 77):  This is covered by CCSJ 0327-03-048, which has not yet been advertised for construction.  I am not aware of any schematics that are available.

*  Falfurrias (I-69C/US 281):  This is covered by CCSJ 0255-04-096, which, as of 2018, was not scheduled for construction until 2025.

*  Freer (I-69W/US 59):  This is part of a length marked as "program status undetermined" (no CCSJ assigned) as of 2018.

I can promise, however, that any permanent infrastructure will be configured so that Border Patrol can prevent the frontage road being used to bypass a checkpoint that is in operation on the mainline.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: kphoger on April 09, 2021, 11:49:37 AM
OTOH, if one wants free-flow right to Mexican customs, there's always the north Laredo/I-69W border crossing.

(https://i.imgflip.com/5501i1.jpg)

That crossing is for commercial traffic only.  Kind of an important detail.

Crossing at the Colombia Solidarity Bridge, however, involves just three stop signs between San Antonio (I-35) and Monterrey (Carr. Fed. 85)–one at the I-35/TX-255 exit, one at the TX-255/FM-1472 intersection, and one at Carr. Fed. 2 immediately south of the border complex–and zero stoplights.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on April 09, 2021, 09:13:44 PM
OTOH, if one wants free-flow right to Mexican customs, there's always the north Laredo/I-69W border crossing.

(https://i.imgflip.com/5501i1.jpg)

That crossing is for commercial traffic only.  Kind of an important detail.

Crossing at the Colombia Solidarity Bridge, however, involves just three stop signs between San Antonio (I-35) and Monterrey (Carr. Fed. 85)–one at the I-35/TX-255 exit, one at the TX-255/FM-1472 intersection, and one at Carr. Fed. 2 immediately south of the border complex–and zero stoplights.

Did know that -- knowing truckers, they want to maintain schedule by having a direct shot at customs to avoid as much as possible any additional congestion delays beyond the expected official ones.  Other traffic with ostensibly less schedule issues (casual/recreational) is less critical in that regard and can simply head down to the end of I-35 and get in line. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on April 10, 2021, 11:55:00 AM
Any word on when construction of US-59 on SH-185 will begin?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on April 10, 2021, 11:56:35 AM
If they do decide to extend I-69C, then it won’t be anytime soon. At best, 20-30 years. The amount of right of way they need to acquire will cause business loss.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Revive 755 on April 10, 2021, 12:01:53 PM
If the World Trade Bridge is commercial vehicles only, there doesn't seem to be any signs warning of it.  There should be some sign at the FM 1472 Exit (https://goo.gl/maps/4uc4ECPeqLXP4XFJA) and another big sign at the turnoff past that exit (https://goo.gl/maps/NSLfoPHA1BpAdeqj6).  Maybe even signs on I-35 prior to the I-69W/US 59 interchange.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: J N Winkler on April 10, 2021, 01:16:07 PM
Any word on when construction of US-59 on SH-185 will begin?

It depends on what type of construction you are talking about.  TxDOT already considers US 59 to be built to Interstate standards through the intersection with SH 185 (yes, despite the vestigial shoulders on the railroad overpass).  Per the 2018 implementation report, there is a planned project to build frontage roads from US 87 to SH 185 (CCSJ 0088-05-098), but it has missed its planned let date of December 2019 and has not been advertised yet.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on April 11, 2021, 02:11:20 AM
I found this on the web: https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/i69-driven-by-texans/future-i69-tabloids.pdf

It’s a chart if I-69 status.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on April 11, 2021, 01:21:58 PM
Any word on when construction of US-59 on SH-185 will begin?

It depends on what type of construction you are talking about.  TxDOT already considers US 59 to be built to Interstate standards through the intersection with SH 185 (yes, despite the vestigial shoulders on the railroad overpass).  Per the 2018 implementation report, there is a planned project to build frontage roads from US 87 to SH 185 (CCSJ 0088-05-098), but it has missed its planned let date of December 2019 and has not been advertised yet.
It looks like the let date was changed to 2021. And people anticipated that earlier.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: J N Winkler on April 11, 2021, 02:39:25 PM
It looks like the let date was changed to 2021. And people anticipated that earlier.

As a general rule, letting dates for projects are rarely set in stone and are much more likely to be postponed than to be moved up.  Where TxDOT is concerned, I try to find the CCSJ (if one exists) for any project I am interested in, as that is the key to the kingdom.  It's assigned once the work is packaged for construction and appears in the UTP, letting lists, etc.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on April 12, 2021, 01:39:29 PM
Fun fact: I-69W/US-59 within Laredo will turn in a way that Southbound goes north and Northbound goes south.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on April 12, 2021, 03:29:18 PM
Fun fact: I-69W/US-59 within Laredo will turn in a way that Southbound goes north and Northbound goes south.

There are a few other instances of this along the Interstate system -- current and future.  Future I-49 in NOLA, in the "northbound" direction, actually will cross the Mississippi River EB before curving south through Gretna and then west toward its US 90 alignment via Morgan City.  Also, EB I-64 in Hampton Roads (VA) actually terminates heading west after a half-circle around the east side of Norfolk; VDOT in a moment of being pretty savvy, just declined to put directional banners on that segment of I-64 to avoid adding to any potential confusion.

And if one thoroughly pored over the map of US highways, there would likely be dozens of short reverse-cardinal-direction instances, particularly when negotiating in-town alignments.   
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: abqtraveler on April 12, 2021, 03:55:15 PM
Fun fact: I-69W/US-59 within Laredo will turn in a way that Southbound goes north and Northbound goes south.

There are a few other instances of this along the Interstate system -- current and future.  Future I-49 in NOLA, in the "northbound" direction, actually will cross the Mississippi River EB before curving south through Gretna and then west toward its US 90 alignment via Morgan City.  Also, EB I-64 in Hampton Roads (VA) actually terminates heading west after a half-circle around the east side of Norfolk; VDOT in a moment of being pretty savvy, just declined to put directional banners on that segment of I-64 to avoid adding to any potential confusion.

And if one thoroughly pored over the map of US highways, there would likely be dozens of short reverse-cardinal-direction instances, particularly when negotiating in-town alignments.

In New Mexico, there's I-25 that does that weird jog through the Glorieta Pass, where northbound I-25 actually heads in a southeasterly direction for about 60 miles between Santa Fe and Las Vegas. In Connecticut, the Pearl Harbor Memorial Bridge carries I-95, but crossing the bridge, the northbound lanes actually head south while the southbound lanes head north.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on April 12, 2021, 03:57:24 PM
Future I-87 (US-64) in North Carolina will head in a generally southernly direction between Rocky Mount and Williamston.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on April 12, 2021, 08:11:02 PM
It also occurs at the current US59/77 concurrency south of Victoria, although US 77 is north on NB and south on SB.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on April 12, 2021, 10:36:30 PM
Here’s construction on US-59 in Victoria between SL463 and FM1686.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/150105947@N06/?
January 2021
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 13, 2021, 09:32:56 PM
Where exactly around Victoria will Interstate 69 split into its 69E and 69W legs? Is this project going to build that interchange?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on April 13, 2021, 10:15:02 PM
Where exactly around Victoria will Interstate 69 split into its 69E and 69W legs? Is this project going to build that interchange?
I assume that it will be at the US 59/77 interchange where US 59 starts to go opposite bound (interchange near BUS-77 exit) On Google Maps, I measured the distance between that point and Reading Rd (Exit 100), and it said 102 miles.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: edwaleni on April 14, 2021, 11:31:41 AM
Where exactly around Victoria will Interstate 69 split into its 69E and 69W legs? Is this project going to build that interchange?
I assume that it will be at the US 59/77 interchange where US 59 starts to go opposite bound (interchange near BUS-77 exit) On Google Maps, I measured the distance between that point and Reading Rd (Exit 100), and it said 102 miles.

It appears I-69C will end at a future I-69W at George West and then I-69W will continue on to Victoria to meet I-69E and become I-69 to Houston.

Also they are going to connect all 3 of these by building an interstate to replace TX-44 between Corpus Christi to Freer (I-6?) This is supposed to connect the port of Corpus Christi with Laredo.

As to where 69W and 69E will come together at Victoria, according to the Yoakum District Plan, I-69W will use the co-signed US-59/US-77 South Bypass of Victoria to reach the 69E stem coming up US-77.

The plan says that they have funded a conversion to interstate standards of 1.1 miles of this bypass in prep for the future 69W.

Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: armadillo speedbump on April 14, 2021, 09:21:09 PM
Just to confirm (if Mr. Wiki isn't lying to me):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_International_Bridge

The Laredo World Trade Port of Entry was built in 2000 in an effort to relieve traffic from the congested downtown Laredo bridges.[4] All of Laredo's cross-border commercial vehicle traffic uses this Port of Entry, as the other Laredo bridges prohibit trucks. Passenger vehicles and pedestrians are not permitted to use this crossing.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 14, 2021, 09:46:15 PM
Would it have killed them to have had Interstate 35 extend all the way to the border, instead of terminating it four blocks short of it? Then again, Interstate 69E terminates just short of the Mexican border too. I don't think Interstate 69W should have been the only Interstate of the three to go directly to the border.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on April 14, 2021, 10:25:21 PM
I mean, I-35 still has space to build some overpasses south of its terminus. The trick would be the border tolls and booths.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: armadillo speedbump on April 14, 2021, 10:35:22 PM
I found this on the web: https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/i69-driven-by-texans/future-i69-tabloids.pdf

It’s a chart if I-69 status.


So that says the 59/I69 upgrade from the southwest Rosenberg curve towards Kendleton was LET in 2014 and 2015.  Not a complex project and on flat, relatively unconstrained terrain, yet 7 years later and still not complete.  Ridiculous.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on April 15, 2021, 12:28:46 AM
Wouldn’t surprise me if they finished this year.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on April 15, 2021, 12:37:11 AM
I found this on the web: https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/i69-driven-by-texans/future-i69-tabloids.pdf

It’s a chart if I-69 status.
What I really want to see is SH185 construction and Wharton Construction.
Another thing. They seem to completely ignore Jackson County.
So that says the 59/I69 upgrade from the southwest Rosenberg curve towards Kendleton was LET in 2014 and 2015.  Not a complex project and on flat, relatively unconstrained terrain, yet 7 years later and still not complete.  Ridiculous.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: kphoger on April 15, 2021, 12:32:43 PM
Just to confirm (if Mr. Wiki isn't lying to me):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_International_Bridge

The Laredo World Trade Port of Entry was built in 2000 in an effort to relieve traffic from the congested downtown Laredo bridges.[4] All of Laredo's cross-border commercial vehicle traffic uses this Port of Entry, as the other Laredo bridges prohibit trucks. Passenger vehicles and pedestrians are not permitted to use this crossing.

Mostly correct.  The Colombia Solidarity crossing was originally intended to take the cross-border commercial traffic.  That's where most of the toll money was supposed to come from on the Camino Colombia Toll Road (now TX-255):  truckers paying higher rates.  Mexico dragged its heels on constructing their part of the bypass and, by the time they were ready to start building, the state of Texas had decided to build the World Trade crossing, so Mexico connected their bypass to that instead.

It wasn't long after that the Cross Border Trucking Pilot Program was killed by fears over the safety of Mexican trucks on US roads lobbying by the Teamsters, who stood to lose union drayage jobs.  Although that backpedaling was against NAFTA stipulations, current and subsequent US administrations began caring less and less about NAFTA in general, and long-haul US-Mexico trucking doesn't hold much promise of returning–with Democrats being in the unions' pocket and Republicans being paranoid about anything that isn't 'America first'.  With the drayage system still firmly in place, and almost all the drayage yards still being located close to the city, most truckers preferred not to pay a toll in order to end up farther away from their destination.  So the Camino Colombia Toll Road went belly-up, and the state of Texas purchased the facility at auction on the courthouse steps.  Tolls were eventually removed, but that didn't solve the other problems, and it remains a relatively underused border crossing despite the World Trade Bridge frequently seeing long queues.

Currently:  Bridge I (Gateway to the Americas) is for pedestrians and passenger vehicles only;  Bridge II (Juárez—Lincoln) is for pedestrians, passenger vehicles, and buses only (e.g. Greyhound from Dallas to Monterrey);  Bridge III (Colombia Solidarity) is for all modes of traffic (maybe not buses, but I don't know of any carriers/routes that don't stop in either downtown Laredo or Nuevo Laredo, so it might be a moot point);  and Bridge IV (World Trade) is for commercial vehicles only.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on April 15, 2021, 04:14:09 PM
Now that I think, I don’t like US-59 being on Loop 20. But now it’s too late to create a standalone freeway for I-69W.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on April 15, 2021, 05:47:58 PM
Just to confirm (if Mr. Wiki isn't lying to me):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_International_Bridge

The Laredo World Trade Port of Entry was built in 2000 in an effort to relieve traffic from the congested downtown Laredo bridges.[4] All of Laredo's cross-border commercial vehicle traffic uses this Port of Entry, as the other Laredo bridges prohibit trucks. Passenger vehicles and pedestrians are not permitted to use this crossing.

Mostly correct.  The Colombia Solidarity crossing was originally intended to take the cross-border commercial traffic.  That's where most of the toll money was supposed to come from on the Camino Colombia Toll Road (now TX-255):  truckers paying higher rates.  Mexico dragged its heels on constructing their part of the bypass and, by the time they were ready to start building, the state of Texas had decided to build the World Trade crossing, so Mexico connected their bypass to that instead.

It wasn't long after that the Cross Border Trucking Pilot Program was killed by fears over the safety of Mexican trucks on US roads lobbying by the Teamsters, who stood to lose union drayage jobs.  Although that backpedaling was against NAFTA stipulations, current and subsequent US administrations began caring less and less about NAFTA in general, and long-haul US-Mexico trucking doesn't hold much promise of returning–with Democrats being in the unions' pocket and Republicans being paranoid about anything that isn't 'America first'.  With the drayage system still firmly in place, and almost all the drayage yards still being located close to the city, most truckers preferred not to pay a toll in order to end up farther away from their destination.  So the Camino Colombia Toll Road went belly-up, and the state of Texas purchased the facility at auction on the courthouse steps.  Tolls were eventually removed, but that didn't solve the other problems, and it remains a relatively underused border crossing despite the World Trade Bridge frequently seeing long queues.

Currently:  Bridge I (Gateway to the Americas) is for pedestrians and passenger vehicles only;  Bridge II (Juárez—Lincoln) is for pedestrians, passenger vehicles, and buses only (e.g. Greyhound from Dallas to Monterrey);  Bridge III (Colombia Solidarity) is for all modes of traffic (maybe not buses, but I don't know of any carriers/routes that don't stop in either downtown Laredo or Nuevo Laredo, so it might be a moot point);  and Bridge IV (World Trade) is for commercial vehicles only.

At present, this may be the sole instance where the entire traffic content from a specific Interstate route (even though it's less than a mile of I-69W*) is limited to commercial vehicles only.  If Caltrans ever gets around to fully upgrading present CA 905 to Interstate standards as I-905, there may be a second at Otay Mesa east of the I-5 Tijuana general-traffic crossing.

*This is assuming that general traffic can utilize I-69W as far west as FM 1472 as long as it exits there.  Haven't been there; don't know the specifics.

From the Laredo-area I-69W routing plan, which utilizes the northern arc of Loop 20 (apparently the upgrade construction has already been let or is even under way), it's quite obvious that the main purpose of 69W was to provide a straight but primarily commercial shot from the border crossing to Houston.  Cross-border general traffic, having to divert to another route (south on I-35 at the present junction) or continue straight through town on Business US 59, is certainly not readily accommodated by the present arrangement.  Chances are that if & when I-2 reaches Laredo, the remainder of the Bullock/Loop 20 corridor south of where I-69W will strike out eastward will be part of I-2, so unless an additional free-flow bridge and approaches is built along I-2 south of town the current arrangement will prevail, with general cross-border traffic squeezed into one of the existing downtown crossings.         
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 15, 2021, 08:37:55 PM
Maybe once more of Interstate 69W from Laredo to Victoria is constructed, they will start retracting the US 59 designation from Laredo. In fact, once 69W, 69 and 369 are completed, US 59 could be truncated all the way to Interstate 30 along the Arkansas/Texas border in Texarkana. I think the same could be said for US Highways 77, 83 and 281 when Interstates 2, 69C and 69E are completed.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on April 15, 2021, 09:57:53 PM
Maybe once more of Interstate 69W from Laredo to Victoria is constructed, they will start retracting the US 59 designation from Laredo. In fact, once 69W, 69 and 369 are completed, US 59 could be truncated all the way to Interstate 30 along the Arkansas/Texas border in Texarkana. I think the same could be said for US Highways 77, 83 and 281 when Interstates 2, 69C and 69E are completed.
I wouldn’t be surprised though if they revert the Business 59 in Laredo to main US-59.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: motorola870 on April 16, 2021, 02:46:34 AM
Maybe once more of Interstate 69W from Laredo to Victoria is constructed, they will start retracting the US 59 designation from Laredo. In fact, once 69W, 69 and 369 are completed, US 59 could be truncated all the way to Interstate 30 along the Arkansas/Texas border in Texarkana. I think the same could be said for US Highways 77, 83 and 281 when Interstates 2, 69C and 69E are completed.
I wouldn’t be surprised though if they revert the Business 59 in Laredo to main US-59.
I highly doubt it. There isn't an itch these days to end concurrencies like they did in the 1980s and 1990s. I expect like what they did in Missouri with I49 either leaving the business routes as is or renaming the business routes as the interstate route and leaving the US routes on the bypasses. I think the removal of the US highways in the 1980s and 1990s with truncation actually ruined small towns. Having the US shield come through town meant some would use them as scenic tours. I have to wonder if they regret how they killed US66 it was one thing to be bypassed but completely removing it was nail in the coffin for small towns.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: kphoger on April 16, 2021, 10:51:54 AM
From the Laredo-area I-69W routing plan, which utilizes the northern arc of Loop 20 (apparently the upgrade construction has already been let or is even under way), it's quite obvious that the main purpose of 69W was to provide a straight but primarily commercial shot from the border crossing to Houston.  Cross-border general traffic, having to divert to another route (south on I-35 at the present junction) or continue straight through town on Business US 59, is certainly not readily accommodated by the present arrangement.  Chances are that if & when I-2 reaches Laredo, the remainder of the Bullock/Loop 20 corridor south of where I-69W will strike out eastward will be part of I-2, so unless an additional free-flow bridge and approaches is built along I-2 south of town the current arrangement will prevail, with general cross-border traffic squeezed into one of the existing downtown crossings.         

Is Bridge V (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laredo_International_Bridge_5) still on the table?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on April 16, 2021, 11:28:18 AM
From the Laredo-area I-69W routing plan, which utilizes the northern arc of Loop 20 (apparently the upgrade construction has already been let or is even under way), it's quite obvious that the main purpose of 69W was to provide a straight but primarily commercial shot from the border crossing to Houston.  Cross-border general traffic, having to divert to another route (south on I-35 at the present junction) or continue straight through town on Business US 59, is certainly not readily accommodated by the present arrangement.  Chances are that if & when I-2 reaches Laredo, the remainder of the Bullock/Loop 20 corridor south of where I-69W will strike out eastward will be part of I-2, so unless an additional free-flow bridge and approaches is built along I-2 south of town the current arrangement will prevail, with general cross-border traffic squeezed into one of the existing downtown crossings.         

Is Bridge V (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laredo_International_Bridge_5) still on the table?
I’m not sure, but maybe not.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bwana39 on April 16, 2021, 05:30:46 PM
Maybe once more of Interstate 69W from Laredo to Victoria is constructed, they will start retracting the US 59 designation from Laredo. In fact, once 69W, 69 and 369 are completed, US 59 could be truncated all the way to Interstate 30 along the Arkansas/Texas border in Texarkana. I think the same could be said for US Highways 77, 83 and 281 when Interstates 2, 69C and 69E are completed.

Actually, it could be truncated to its intersection with US-270 in Heavner OK. It is concurrent with US-270 or US-71 all the way to Texarkana.

I would expect it to be truncated to Texarkana (or maybe the Red River) as soon as I-69 / I-369 is complete to Texarkana.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: CoreySamson on April 16, 2021, 05:34:05 PM
I would personally like to see US 59 rerouted down US 96 to Port Arthur instead. Makes 59 more grid-compliant, and gets rid of an out-of-grid number.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on April 16, 2021, 05:55:54 PM
Maybe once more of Interstate 69W from Laredo to Victoria is constructed, they will start retracting the US 59 designation from Laredo. In fact, once 69W, 69 and 369 are completed, US 59 could be truncated all the way to Interstate 30 along the Arkansas/Texas border in Texarkana. I think the same could be said for US Highways 77, 83 and 281 when Interstates 2, 69C and 69E are completed.

Actually, it could be truncated to its intersection with US-270 in Heavner OK. It is concurrent with US-270 or US-71 all the way to Texarkana.

I would expect it to be truncated to Texarkana (or maybe the Red River) as soon as I-69 / I-369 is complete to Texarkana.

If it were to be truncated to Heavener/US 270, it's highly likely it would just continue south by subsuming US 259, which would carry it back to Nacogdoches.  But all that is moot until such time as both I-49 and I-369 reach full fruition. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 16, 2021, 09:31:51 PM
This is in response to CoreySamson: US 59 did continue down present-day US 96 between Tenaha and Port Arthur from 1934 (when the route was first designated) to 1939. That year, US 59 was rerouted at Tenaha, and extended to Laredo (replacing the first US 96 between Rosenberg and Laredo). Old 59 between Tenaha and Port Arthur became the new US 96. I think one of two things should have happened instead: 1. Either US 96 should have been extended to Tenaha, leaving US 59 on its pre-existing route to Port Arthur; or 2. When US 59 was rerouted to Laredo, the Tenaha-to-Port-Arthur route should have been designated US 57 instead of US 96. Doing that would have made a better use of the 57 designation than the existing one between Eagle Pass and Moore (which would have made a better US 96 [II] than the existing one).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on April 17, 2021, 11:49:34 AM
This is in response to CoreySamson: US 59 did continue down present-day US 96 between Tenaha and Port Arthur from 1934 (when the route was first designated) to 1939. That year, US 59 was rerouted at Tenaha, and extended to Laredo (replacing the first US 96 between Rosenberg and Laredo). Old 59 between Tenaha and Port Arthur became the new US 96. I think one of two things should have happened instead: 1. Either US 96 should have been extended to Tenaha, leaving US 59 on its pre-existing route to Port Arthur; or 2. When US 59 was rerouted to Laredo, the Tenaha-to-Port-Arthur route should have been designated US 57 instead of US 96. Doing that would have made a better use of the 57 designation than the existing one between Eagle Pass and Moore (which would have made a better US 96 [II] than the existing one).
I think that would be great, but Houstonians will be mad about US-59 nowhere to be in Houston. I think that is they plan to go rerouting of US-59 , it will be long after I-69 is finished in Texas. Then, maybe it wouldn’t hurt them as much as far as confusion goes.

BTW: my iPhone maps app says construction of Victoria from SL 463 to FM 1686 is finished by May 2021.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: achilles765 on April 17, 2021, 01:40:47 PM
This is in response to CoreySamson: US 59 did continue down present-day US 96 between Tenaha and Port Arthur from 1934 (when the route was first designated) to 1939. That year, US 59 was rerouted at Tenaha, and extended to Laredo (replacing the first US 96 between Rosenberg and Laredo). Old 59 between Tenaha and Port Arthur became the new US 96. I think one of two things should have happened instead: 1. Either US 96 should have been extended to Tenaha, leaving US 59 on its pre-existing route to Port Arthur; or 2. When US 59 was rerouted to Laredo, the Tenaha-to-Port-Arthur route should have been designated US 57 instead of US 96. Doing that would have made a better use of the 57 designation than the existing one between Eagle Pass and Moore (which would have made a better US 96 [II] than the existing one).
I think that would be great, but Houstonians will be mad about US-59 nowhere to be in Houston. I think that is they plan to go rerouting of US-59 , it will be long after I-69 is finished in Texas. Then, maybe it wouldn’t hurt them as much as far as confusion goes.

BTW: my iPhone maps app says construction of Victoria from SL 463 to FM 1686 is finished by May 2021.

Most of us who have been here for a while still refer to it as 59. You can tell pretty easily and pretty quickly when somebody is new in town when they refer to it as interstate 69
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bwana39 on April 17, 2021, 06:54:21 PM
This is in response to CoreySamson: US 59 did continue down present-day US 96 between Tenaha and Port Arthur from 1934 (when the route was first designated) to 1939. That year, US 59 was rerouted at Tenaha, and extended to Laredo (replacing the first US 96 between Rosenberg and Laredo). Old 59 between Tenaha and Port Arthur became the new US 96. I think one of two things should have happened instead: 1. Either US 96 should have been extended to Tenaha, leaving US 59 on its pre-existing route to Port Arthur; or 2. When US 59 was rerouted to Laredo, the Tenaha-to-Port-Arthur route should have been designated US 57 instead of US 96. Doing that would have made a better use of the 57 designation than the existing one between Eagle Pass and Moore (which would have made a better US 96 [II] than the existing one).
I think that would be great, but Houstonians will be mad about US-59 nowhere to be in Houston. I think that is they plan to go rerouting of US-59 , it will be long after I-69 is finished in Texas. Then, maybe it wouldn’t hurt them as much as far as confusion goes.

BTW: my iPhone maps app says construction of Victoria from SL 463 to FM 1686 is finished by May 2021.

I don't think Houstonians will even notice. It will still be the Southwest and Eastex Freeways regardless what the numbers are.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on April 18, 2021, 12:30:58 AM
Anyone know what happened to the I-169 shield unveiled in 2016?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on April 18, 2021, 06:26:46 PM
Update on County Rd interchange in Victoria: they’re mostly done with the overpass. There are yellow rails, which will be concreted soon. Afterwards, the road will be ready to pave.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bwana39 on April 19, 2021, 08:24:05 AM
I would personally like to see US 59 rerouted down US 96 to Port Arthur instead. Makes 59 more grid-compliant, and gets rid of an out-of-grid number.

It would be more grid compliant, but in Texas this would be highly unlikely. Renumbers or even major reroutes have been almost non-existent in Texas post WWII.  The renumbering that should be on the forefront is US-69. The plan to deal with the conflict in Lufkin is pretty much leave it alone.  It appears that unless someone outside of Texas intervenes, that it will remain and Interstate-69 will cross (and likely still share mileage with)  US-69 in Lufkin.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg2527925#msg2527925

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7365.msg166645#msg166645
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 19, 2021, 01:25:07 PM
Does anyone know what the "eventual" exit number will be when Interstate 69 crosses US 69 around Lufkin?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on April 19, 2021, 01:44:24 PM
I would personally like to see US 59 rerouted down US 96 to Port Arthur instead. Makes 59 more grid-compliant, and gets rid of an out-of-grid number.

It would be more grid compliant, but in Texas this would be highly unlikely. Renumbers or even major reroutes have been almost non-existent in Texas post WWII.  The renumbering that should be on the forefront is US-69. The plan to deal with the conflict in Lufkin is pretty much leave it alone.  It appears that unless someone outside of Texas intervenes, that it will remain and Interstate-69 will cross (and likely still share mileage with)  US-69 in Lufkin.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg2527925#msg2527925

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7365.msg166645#msg166645
I think it would have to take a fine or something to force a change, but I don’t think we have these laws.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bwana39 on April 19, 2021, 03:55:34 PM
I would personally like to see US 59 rerouted down US 96 to Port Arthur instead. Makes 59 more grid-compliant, and gets rid of an out-of-grid number.

It would be more grid compliant, but in Texas this would be highly unlikely. Renumbers or even major reroutes have been almost non-existent in Texas post WWII.  The renumbering that should be on the forefront is US-69. The plan to deal with the conflict in Lufkin is pretty much leave it alone.  It appears that unless someone outside of Texas intervenes, that it will remain and Interstate-69 will cross (and likely still share mileage with)  US-69 in Lufkin.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg2527925#msg2527925

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7365.msg166645#msg166645
I think it would have to take a fine or something to force a change, but I don’t think we have these laws.

Theoretically, AASHTO could refuse to grant its' permission to sign it as interstate 69 until they fix the rule violation.  FHWA could overrule them and allow an exception (or not). The US Congress could mandate overruling AASHTO.   This is assuming that AASHTO doesn't just rubber stamp the waiver.  Don't believe for a moment that AASHTO is a non-political entity. They MAY not subscribe to PARTISAN politics, but there is political wrangling that happens.  Because of this wrangling, approval is as much situational as it is rules based.

Even if they refuse to allow it, it might be a simple wink wink nod nod thing that happens. I-69 takes a break from north of Lufkin to around the mall. In Hunt and Hopkins counties there were grade crossings on interstate 30 until the mid-eighties. Until they put up the "freeway ends" signs at division street in Greenville hardly anyone thought about it.  Then TxDOT came in and built the rest of the overpasses.  So in Lufkin. the FREEWAY (I-69) could end for a couple of miles.

The laws are there, but enforcement is uneven and avoidable if you want to bad enough....
.

Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: debragga on April 19, 2021, 06:12:59 PM
Does anyone know what the "eventual" exit number will be when Interstate 69 crosses US 69 around Lufkin?

Hopefully it's exit 69
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: abqtraveler on April 19, 2021, 06:18:59 PM
I would personally like to see US 59 rerouted down US 96 to Port Arthur instead. Makes 59 more grid-compliant, and gets rid of an out-of-grid number.

It would be more grid compliant, but in Texas this would be highly unlikely. Renumbers or even major reroutes have been almost non-existent in Texas post WWII.  The renumbering that should be on the forefront is US-69. The plan to deal with the conflict in Lufkin is pretty much leave it alone.  It appears that unless someone outside of Texas intervenes, that it will remain and Interstate-69 will cross (and likely still share mileage with)  US-69 in Lufkin.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg2527925#msg2527925

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=7365.msg166645#msg166645
I think it would have to take a fine or something to force a change, but I don’t think we have these laws.

Theoretically, AASHTO could refuse to grant its' permission to sign it as interstate 69 until they fix the rule violation.  FHWA could overrule them and allow an exception (or not). The US Congress could mandate overruling AASHTO.   This is assuming that AASHTO doesn't just rubber stamp the waiver.  Don't believe for a moment that AASHTO is a non-political entity. They MAY not subscribe to PARTISAN politics, but there is political wrangling that happens.  Because of this wrangling, approval is as much situational as it is rules based.

Even if they refuse to allow it, it might be a simple wink wink nod nod thing that happens. I-69 takes a break from north of Lufkin to around the mall. In Hunt and Hopkins counties there were grade crossings on interstate 30 until the mid-eighties. Until they put up the "freeway ends" signs at division street in Greenville hardly anyone thought about it.  Then TxDOT came in and built the rest of the overpasses.  So in Lufkin. the FREEWAY (I-69) could end for a couple of miles.

The laws are there, but enforcement is uneven and avoidable if you want to bad enough....
.

There is a lot of precedence on signing completed segments of interstate as interstates, even though they may not connect to other parts of the interstate system. When the interstate highway system was being built, many states built bypasses around towns first, then connected them by upgrading the pre-existing US or state routes to interstate standards. Interstate 40 through New Mexico was not fully completed until the mid-1980s; yet completed but not-yet-connected segments were signed as I-40. In places where I-40 had not been completed, the interstate transitioned into US-66 that was either 2 lanes or 4 lanes in some places, until one hit the next section of freeway. Then I-40 resumed again. All told, it took around 30 years to complete I-40 through New Mexico, so in that time there was plenty of going back and forth between US-66 and I-40 while driving across the state.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on April 19, 2021, 07:38:58 PM
Did they take advantage of the "Temporary" designation that some states used in the 1970s and 1980s to at least provide a continuously signed route for through traffic?

In North Carolina, 4-lane US-301 between Kenly and Rocky Mount served as "Temp I-95" until I-95 opened to the west in the late 1970s.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on April 19, 2021, 08:55:11 PM
Does anyone know what the "eventual" exit number will be when Interstate 69 crosses US 69 around Lufkin?

Hopefully it's exit 69
Imagine such a 69ish vibe. In all seriousness, exit 69 would be within Wharton county, if there is an exit at mile 69. For US 69, the exit would likely be something between 250-269.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on April 20, 2021, 03:25:40 AM
Did they take advantage of the "Temporary" designation that some states used in the 1970s and 1980s to at least provide a continuously signed route for through traffic?

In North Carolina, 4-lane US-301 between Kenly and Rocky Mount served as "Temp I-95" until I-95 opened to the west in the late 1970s.

Since the end of the chargeability era, AASHTO hasn't looked too kindly on "temporary" signage along existing routes.    For the time being, about the only indication that a route is part of a designated Interstate corridor -- even if it connects two disparate signed segments -- are green signs, big or small, clearly stating "Future I-xx Corridor". 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on April 20, 2021, 09:32:36 AM
Did they take advantage of the "Temporary" designation that some states used in the 1970s and 1980s to at least provide a continuously signed route for through traffic?

In North Carolina, 4-lane US-301 between Kenly and Rocky Mount served as "Temp I-95" until I-95 opened to the west in the late 1970s.

Since the end of the chargeability era, AASHTO hasn't looked too kindly on "temporary" signage along existing routes.    For the time being, about the only indication that a route is part of a designated Interstate corridor -- even if it connects two disparate signed segments -- are green signs, big or small, clearly stating "Future I-xx Corridor".
I was referring to I-40 across New Mexico.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: abqtraveler on April 20, 2021, 09:41:03 AM
Did they take advantage of the "Temporary" designation that some states used in the 1970s and 1980s to at least provide a continuously signed route for through traffic?

In North Carolina, 4-lane US-301 between Kenly and Rocky Mount served as "Temp I-95" until I-95 opened to the west in the late 1970s.

Nope, there were no Temporary I-40 designations for sections of US-66 that connected to the completed sections of I-40.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: vdeane on April 20, 2021, 12:43:57 PM
Did they take advantage of the "Temporary" designation that some states used in the 1970s and 1980s to at least provide a continuously signed route for through traffic?

In North Carolina, 4-lane US-301 between Kenly and Rocky Mount served as "Temp I-95" until I-95 opened to the west in the late 1970s.

Since the end of the chargeability era, AASHTO hasn't looked too kindly on "temporary" signage along existing routes.    For the time being, about the only indication that a route is part of a designated Interstate corridor -- even if it connects two disparate signed segments -- are green signs, big or small, clearly stating "Future I-xx Corridor". 
Except in North Carolina, which pervasively posts regular interstate shields that have the word "future" in the top instead of "interstate" as a way to stealth-designate a section that's not up to standards yet.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on April 20, 2021, 12:45:01 PM
Did they take advantage of the "Temporary" designation that some states used in the 1970s and 1980s to at least provide a continuously signed route for through traffic?

In North Carolina, 4-lane US-301 between Kenly and Rocky Mount served as "Temp I-95" until I-95 opened to the west in the late 1970s.

Since the end of the chargeability era, AASHTO hasn't looked too kindly on "temporary" signage along existing routes.    For the time being, about the only indication that a route is part of a designated Interstate corridor -- even if it connects two disparate signed segments -- are green signs, big or small, clearly stating "Future I-xx Corridor". 
Except in North Carolina, which pervasively posts regular interstate shields that have the word "future" in the top instead of "interstate" as a way to stealth-designate a section that's not up to standards yet.
It only exists in one place - I-26.

And it's a logical designation to provide continuity for drivers.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: vdeane on April 20, 2021, 12:56:43 PM
It also means they have no motivation to finish the road, which is probably why I-26 has languished for 20 years.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on April 20, 2021, 12:59:40 PM
It also means they have no motivation to finish the road, which is probably why I-26 has languished for 20 years.
https://www.ncdot.gov/projects/asheville-i-26-connector/Pages/default.aspx
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: The Ghostbuster on April 20, 2021, 01:08:03 PM
I think the "Temporary" designations are history. It is much better to sign new or existing roads that are planning to become Interstates as "Future".
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on April 20, 2021, 02:25:28 PM
Did they take advantage of the "Temporary" designation that some states used in the 1970s and 1980s to at least provide a continuously signed route for through traffic?

In North Carolina, 4-lane US-301 between Kenly and Rocky Mount served as "Temp I-95" until I-95 opened to the west in the late 1970s.

Since the end of the chargeability era, AASHTO hasn't looked too kindly on "temporary" signage along existing routes.    For the time being, about the only indication that a route is part of a designated Interstate corridor -- even if it connects two disparate signed segments -- are green signs, big or small, clearly stating "Future I-xx Corridor". 
Except in North Carolina, which pervasively posts regular interstate shields that have the word "future" in the top instead of "interstate" as a way to stealth-designate a section that's not up to standards yet.

Since all of the completed segments of the I-73 and/or 74 corridor are presently signed with "real" Interstate shields, it looks like the almost-to-spec-but-for-the-"Future"-indicator shields are conceptually history -- or else US 64 from Knightsdale to Williamston would have seen I-87 versions posted by now, since that designation occurred five years ago, and it's nearly 90 miles of continuous freeway -- and up to I-standards east of Tarboro.  But it looks like NCDOT is being a little bit more circumspect about such signage these days.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on April 21, 2021, 01:20:03 PM
I noticed on google maps that on US-59/Loop 20 SB in Laredo, to get on I-35, you need to use a regular exit with traffic light and the same to go from I-35 to 59/20 NB. Anyone know if they have constructed connectors or if they will?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: J N Winkler on April 21, 2021, 01:53:58 PM
I noticed on google maps that on US-59/Loop 20 SB in Laredo, to get on I-35, you need to use a regular exit with traffic light and the same to go from I-35 to 59/20 NB. Anyone know if they have constructed connectors or if they will?

If you look at the interchange in satellite view, you will see ramp stubs for:

*  US 59 NB to I-35 SB (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.6077396,-99.4972703,105m/data=!3m1!1e3) (right-turning)

*  I-35 NB to US 59 NB (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.6046996,-99.4947807,105m/data=!3m1!1e3) (right-turning)--draft signing for this movement is included in the construction plans for CCSJ 0018-06-138 and references just LP 20 SB (this was before I-69 was extended to Texas; US 59 and LP 20 have an opposite-directions overlap at this point)

*  I-35 SB to US 59 NB (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.6105516,-99.493592,125m/data=!3m1!1e3) (left-turning)

I understand that the long-term plan is for this to be a full Maltese cross stack with all movements served by free-flowing semidirectional direct connectors, but I don't at the moment recall whether the construction plans I've seen show baselines for all of the movements that are currently missing.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on April 21, 2021, 11:36:41 PM
I saw on the connector bridges that they had a little space for an unbuilt connector. Also, for the Frontage RD type exits, would they stay after the connectors are built, or would the remove/convert the into direct connectors?
Also, unrelated to Laredo:
 Would the US-87 exit (SB) in Victoria be converted into a FM 762 (NB) type exit, considering the railroad impeding a regular exit?
Also a comment: if Loop 463 was to become an interstate, it would be easier to acquire right of way for construction of the freeway. My biggest focuses would be building a new overpass at BUS-59T and a new one over lone tree Rd, and also removing intersection related objects/paths at US-59. (I bet it would be I-269, not that it will be an interstate, though)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on April 22, 2021, 01:27:47 PM
I saw on the connector bridges that they had a little space for an unbuilt connector. Also, for the Frontage RD type exits, would they stay after the connectors are built, or would the remove/convert the into direct connectors?
Also, unrelated to Laredo:
 Would the US-87 exit (SB) in Victoria be converted into a FM 762 (NB) type exit, considering the railroad impeding a regular exit?
Also a comment: if Loop 463 was to become an interstate, it would be easier to acquire right of way for construction of the freeway. My biggest focuses would be building a new overpass at BUS-59T and a new one over lone tree Rd, and also removing intersection related objects/paths at US-59. (I bet it would be I-269, not that it will be an interstate, though)

I think this has been discussed previously, but there are no current plans to bring Loop 463 around the north side of Victoria into the I-69 "family"; SB I-69 signage will terminate at the location of the southward US 77 divergence point, and I-69E will continue south from there along 77 while I-69W will "branch off" northwest along or near the US 59 connector before turning SW again to follow 59 out of town.  At this point, TxDOT's keeping the alignment pretty simple and straightforward. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on April 22, 2021, 01:37:00 PM
http://www.dot.state.tx.us/drivenbytexans/lufkin.htm

Notice that the Nacogdoches flyover is still marked as preliminary design, rather than Construction.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on April 23, 2021, 10:22:03 PM
I saw on the connector bridges that they had a little space for an unbuilt connector. Also, for the Frontage RD type exits, would they stay after the connectors are built, or would the remove/convert the into direct connectors?
Also, unrelated to Laredo:
 Would the US-87 exit (SB) in Victoria be converted into a FM 762 (NB) type exit, considering the railroad impeding a regular exit?
Also a comment: if Loop 463 was to become an interstate, it would be easier to acquire right of way for construction of the freeway. My biggest focuses would be building a new overpass at BUS-59T and a new one over lone tree Rd, and also removing intersection related objects/paths at US-59. (I bet it would be I-269, not that it will be an interstate, though)

I think this has been discussed previously, but there are no current plans to bring Loop 463 around the north side of Victoria into the I-69 "family"; SB I-69 signage will terminate at the location of the southward US 77 divergence point, and I-69E will continue south from there along 77 while I-69W will "branch off" northwest along or near the US 59 connector before turning SW again to follow 59 out of town.  At this point, TxDOT's keeping the alignment pretty simple and straightforward. 
I meant not as I-69W or I-69, but as a 3-digit auxiliary route like I-369 from Tenaha to Texarkana. Either way, it’s not yet in the plans. But it could be considered if Victoria grows larger.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on April 24, 2021, 12:33:15 AM
I saw on the connector bridges that they had a little space for an unbuilt connector. Also, for the Frontage RD type exits, would they stay after the connectors are built, or would the remove/convert the into direct connectors?
Also, unrelated to Laredo:
 Would the US-87 exit (SB) in Victoria be converted into a FM 762 (NB) type exit, considering the railroad impeding a regular exit?
Also a comment: if Loop 463 was to become an interstate, it would be easier to acquire right of way for construction of the freeway. My biggest focuses would be building a new overpass at BUS-59T and a new one over lone tree Rd, and also removing intersection related objects/paths at US-59. (I bet it would be I-269, not that it will be an interstate, though)

I think this has been discussed previously, but there are no current plans to bring Loop 463 around the north side of Victoria into the I-69 "family"; SB I-69 signage will terminate at the location of the southward US 77 divergence point, and I-69E will continue south from there along 77 while I-69W will "branch off" northwest along or near the US 59 connector before turning SW again to follow 59 out of town.  At this point, TxDOT's keeping the alignment pretty simple and straightforward. 
I meant not as I-69W or I-69, but as a 3-digit auxiliary route like I-369 from Tenaha to Texarkana. Either way, it’s not yet in the plans. But it could be considered if Victoria grows larger.

As of the last census, incorporated Victoria was around 65K population; considering the whole metro area just about doubles that.  It would have to grow to substantially more than that to warrant a 3di around the north side of town.  And TxDOT certainly hasn't seen fit to request auxiliary Interstate designations over their loop routes -- or else we'd have seen x20's in Midland/Odessa and/or Abilene.  I think it's safe to guess that Loop 463 will retain its number for the foreseeable future.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on April 24, 2021, 02:58:03 AM
Requested as a 3di or not, with the exception of the approach to the northern US-59 interchange, the loop will be upgraded to full freeway standards in the near future, in the areas it’s not already been upgraded.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on April 24, 2021, 04:14:13 AM
Requested as a 3di or not, with the exception of the approach to the northern US-59 interchange, the loop will be upgraded to full freeway standards in the near future, in the areas it’s not already been upgraded.

This may well be another in the string of TxDOT volleyball installations.  Hope the immediate surrounding area doesn't see dense development so ramps/flyovers can be placed down the line. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on April 24, 2021, 01:24:11 PM
I think it's safe to say the loop around Victoria, TX will be fully upgraded to Interstate standards. Most of the North half of the loop (Loop-463) is already a freeway. There's just a couple non-freeway gaps at the NW corner of the loop and on the East side of Victoria going down to the junction with US-59. In both cases plenty of ROW is already reserved for a future freeway.

It's really kind of surprising Loop-463 (aka Zach Lentz Parkway) is not already a full freeway on Victoria's east side. That's where most of the commercial activity is located. The connection of US-77 to Loop-463 on the NE corner of the loop is one of the busiest areas in Victoria. The junction the US-87 is immediately just West of that. With that being said, I would expect a freeway to freeway "Y" interchange between Loop-463 and current US-59/future I-69 to be built not long after the junction between I-69, I-69E and I-69W in Victoria is finished.

Another interchange of note in Victoria is the one between US-59 & US-77 on the West side of Victoria. Obviously that one has to be seriously modified if I-69W is going to be built over that junction and consume existing US-59 going West out of Victoria.

I wouldn't hold out any hope for Loop-463 to gain any kind of 3-digit Interstate 69 system designation. I think it would be okay if it was re-designated as something like "I-469" since the Southern half of the loop will be re-named I-69 and one SW chunk as I-69W. The whole loop would then have an I-69 naming scheme. It would seem more logical for motorists going through that area. Victoria is going to be one of the most important locations in Texas' I-69 system. But TX DOT just hasn't been into applying Interstate names to its home-grown loop and spur freeways. Some kind of change in philosophy would have to occur before we see any new 3-digit Interstates other than I-369 going up in Texas anytime soon. Heck, as far as I can tell TX DOT still hasn't put up I-169 shields anywhere along TX-550 toll road in Brownsville.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on April 24, 2021, 10:29:21 PM
I think it's safe to say the loop around Victoria, TX will be fully upgraded to Interstate standards. Most of the North half of the loop (Loop-463) is already a freeway. There's just a couple non-freeway gaps at the NW corner of the loop and on the East side of Victoria going down to the junction with US-59. In both cases plenty of ROW is already reserved for a future freeway.

It's really kind of surprising Loop-463 (aka Zach Lentz Parkway) is not already a full freeway on Victoria's east side. That's where most of the commercial activity is located. The connection of US-77 to Loop-463 on the NE corner of the loop is one of the busiest areas in Victoria. The junction the US-87 is immediately just West of that. With that being said, I would expect a freeway to freeway "Y" interchange between Loop-463 and current US-59/future I-69 to be built not long after the junction between I-69, I-69E and I-69W in Victoria is finished.

Another interchange of note in Victoria is the one between US-59 & US-77 on the West side of Victoria. Obviously that one has to be seriously modified if I-69W is going to be built over that junction and consume existing US-59 going West out of Victoria.

I wouldn't hold out any hope for Loop-463 to gain any kind of 3-digit Interstate 69 system designation. I think it would be okay if it was re-designated as something like "I-469" since the Southern half of the loop will be re-named I-69 and one SW chunk as I-69W. The whole loop would then have an I-69 naming scheme. It would seem more logical for motorists going through that area. Victoria is going to be one of the most important locations in Texas' I-69 system. But TX DOT just hasn't been into applying Interstate names to its home-grown loop and spur freeways. Some kind of change in philosophy would have to occur before we see any new 3-digit Interstates other than I-369 going up in Texas anytime soon. Heck, as far as I can tell TX DOT still hasn't put up I-169 shields anywhere along TX-550 toll road in Brownsville.
I have faith that Victoria will be a prime place to attract companies. The only thing I wish is that the city limits increased. (As if that was gonna do anything anyways)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on April 25, 2021, 12:12:44 AM
I think it's safe to say the loop around Victoria, TX will be fully upgraded to Interstate standards. Most of the North half of the loop (Loop-463) is already a freeway. There's just a couple non-freeway gaps at the NW corner of the loop and on the East side of Victoria going down to the junction with US-59. In both cases plenty of ROW is already reserved for a future freeway.

It's really kind of surprising Loop-463 (aka Zach Lentz Parkway) is not already a full freeway on Victoria's east side. That's where most of the commercial activity is located. The connection of US-77 to Loop-463 on the NE corner of the loop is one of the busiest areas in Victoria. The junction the US-87 is immediately just West of that. With that being said, I would expect a freeway to freeway "Y" interchange between Loop-463 and current US-59/future I-69 to be built not long after the junction between I-69, I-69E and I-69W in Victoria is finished.

Another interchange of note in Victoria is the one between US-59 & US-77 on the West side of Victoria. Obviously that one has to be seriously modified if I-69W is going to be built over that junction and consume existing US-59 going West out of Victoria.

I wouldn't hold out any hope for Loop-463 to gain any kind of 3-digit Interstate 69 system designation. I think it would be okay if it was re-designated as something like "I-469" since the Southern half of the loop will be re-named I-69 and one SW chunk as I-69W. The whole loop would then have an I-69 naming scheme. It would seem more logical for motorists going through that area. Victoria is going to be one of the most important locations in Texas' I-69 system. But TX DOT just hasn't been into applying Interstate names to its home-grown loop and spur freeways. Some kind of change in philosophy would have to occur before we see any new 3-digit Interstates other than I-369 going up in Texas anytime soon. Heck, as far as I can tell TX DOT still hasn't put up I-169 shields anywhere along TX-550 toll road in Brownsville.
I have faith that Victoria will be a prime place to attract companies. The only thing I wish is that the city limits increased. (As if that was gonna do anything anyways)

Companies tend to locate where there is not only multimodal access (a trunk Interstate + a main rail line is considered optimal) but a local jurisdiction that will afford them incentives (usually in the form of expedited permits and ongoing tax breaks/credits).  In some cases, a firm will pit a county's unincorporated area near a particular city against that city itself to cut the best deal they can -- with the county or the city.  Whether the city and county can present something of a united front depends upon their historical economic relationship (out here in CA it's often adversarial and/or competitive).  The name of the public sector game is to enhance one's tax base; enticing a corporation with "perks" -- without going into the red on the deal -- is part and parcel of localized strategy; most jurisdictions will take marginal gains over none at all just to keep the dollars churning. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on April 25, 2021, 12:44:45 AM
I think it's safe to say the loop around Victoria, TX will be fully upgraded to Interstate standards. Most of the North half of the loop (Loop-463) is already a freeway. There's just a couple non-freeway gaps at the NW corner of the loop and on the East side of Victoria going down to the junction with US-59. In both cases plenty of ROW is already reserved for a future freeway.

It's really kind of surprising Loop-463 (aka Zach Lentz Parkway) is not already a full freeway on Victoria's east side. That's where most of the commercial activity is located. The connection of US-77 to Loop-463 on the NE corner of the loop is one of the busiest areas in Victoria. The junction the US-87 is immediately just West of that. With that being said, I would expect a freeway to freeway "Y" interchange between Loop-463 and current US-59/future I-69 to be built not long after the junction between I-69, I-69E and I-69W in Victoria is finished.

Another interchange of note in Victoria is the one between US-59 & US-77 on the West side of Victoria. Obviously that one has to be seriously modified if I-69W is going to be built over that junction and consume existing US-59 going West out of Victoria.

I wouldn't hold out any hope for Loop-463 to gain any kind of 3-digit Interstate 69 system designation. I think it would be okay if it was re-designated as something like "I-469" since the Southern half of the loop will be re-named I-69 and one SW chunk as I-69W. The whole loop would then have an I-69 naming scheme. It would seem more logical for motorists going through that area. Victoria is going to be one of the most important locations in Texas' I-69 system. But TX DOT just hasn't been into applying Interstate names to its home-grown loop and spur freeways. Some kind of change in philosophy would have to occur before we see any new 3-digit Interstates other than I-369 going up in Texas anytime soon. Heck, as far as I can tell TX DOT still hasn't put up I-169 shields anywhere along TX-550 toll road in Brownsville.
I have faith that Victoria will be a prime place to attract companies. The only thing I wish is that the city limits increased. (As if that was gonna do anything anyways)

Companies tend to locate where there is not only multimodal access (a trunk Interstate + a main rail line is considered optimal) but a local jurisdiction that will afford them incentives (usually in the form of expedited permits and ongoing tax breaks/credits).  In some cases, a firm will pit a county's unincorporated area near a particular city against that city itself to cut the best deal they can -- with the county or the city.  Whether the city and county can present something of a united front depends upon their historical economic relationship (out here in CA it's often adversarial and/or competitive).  The name of the public sector game is to enhance one's tax base; enticing a corporation with "perks" -- without going into the red on the deal -- is part and parcel of localized strategy; most jurisdictions will take marginal gains over none at all just to keep the dollars churning.
Speaking of which highway: https://www.virtualbx.com/construction-preview/victoria-city-council-agrees-to-highway-project-for-new-shopping-center/
Looks like they’re making a new shopping center for Victoria. As if the mall wasn’t enough, we will now have another place to shop, albeit a plaza-ish configuration.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: armadillo speedbump on April 25, 2021, 11:08:07 PM
Man, I hope they don't waste a lot of money upgrading the Victoria loop to interstate standards.  It's already a great expressway/freeway that most cities that size would kill for.  Much better than most traffic counts would justify. 

It's not a fast growing area.  Victoria County, which extends out 10-20 miles each direction from the city center, had a population of 86,800 in 2010 and an estimated 92,100 in 2019.  Growing by less than 600 persons a year.  DFW averages +139,000 a year, San Antonio more than 40,000 a year.  Somewhat apples and oranges, except when deciding how to dole out limited transportation dollars.  (I realize that some of the forum Empire Builders think money grows on trees.)  And the Federal government's new War on Sensible and Affordable Energy isn't helping employment there anytime soon.

There's so many more important road needs in this state than redesigning well functioning off ramps, medians, etc. just to get an interstate number.  I wish we had a national expressway equivalent to the interstate highway program.  You could solve a lot more needs for the same amount of money if politicians didn't get stuck on the status symbol and alleged (and exaggerated) econ development impacts of an I-number.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on April 26, 2021, 09:52:42 AM
Quote from: armadillo speedbump
Man, I hope they don't waste a lot of money upgrading the Victoria loop to interstate standards.  It's already a great expressway/freeway that most cities that size would kill for.  Much better than most traffic counts would justify.

Most of the loop is already a freeway. I-69 and the junction between I-69E and I-69W will force the Southern half of the loop to be brought up to full Interstate standards. The process is going to take a few years. More business and activity in Victoria is along the North half of the loop, particularly in the NE corner. As Texas' I-69 system gets built out that will make it more necessary to do spot upgrades in various locations along the loop.

Victoria may not be growing as fast as other metros in Texas. But the small city happens to be in a critical location along I-69. That at least means something.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on April 26, 2021, 12:36:51 PM
Quote from: armadillo speedbump
Man, I hope they don't waste a lot of money upgrading the Victoria loop to interstate standards.  It's already a great expressway/freeway that most cities that size would kill for.  Much better than most traffic counts would justify.

Most of the loop is already a freeway. I-69 and the junction between I-69E and I-69W will force the Southern half of the loop to be brought up to full Interstate standards. The process is going to take a few years. More business and activity in Victoria is along the North half of the loop, particularly in the NE corner. As Texas' I-69 system gets built out that will make it more necessary to do spot upgrades in various locations along the loop.

Victoria may not be growing as fast as other metros in Texas. But the small city happens to be in a critical location along I-69. That at least means something.
Nothing is imminent yet. But I think it would be possible for the loop to be upgraded. If it is an interstate in the future, then it may eventually force US-77 out of the loop, decades after designation. I don’t see anything solidified yet, unless the city grows double the size or if TXDoT thinks the route can attract businesses.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on April 26, 2021, 12:56:57 PM
The only part of the loop that would need to be upgraded is a small 3 mile segment of US-77 north of US-59 South, that's still 2 lanes. That, along with the US-59 North interchange. The remainder is already freeway, or is planned to be upgraded (the US-59/US-77 segment).

The rest has already been upgraded to freeway standards in the past decade.

It's quite a reasonable and logical proposal to upgrade the gaps. Not sure if it warrants an interstate designation though.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on April 26, 2021, 01:14:52 PM
The only part of the loop that would need to be upgraded is a small 3 mile segment of US-77 north of US-59 South, that's still 2 lanes. That, along with the US-59 North interchange. The remainder is already freeway, or is planned to be upgraded (the US-59/US-77 segment).

The rest has already been upgraded to freeway standards in the past decade.

It's quite a reasonable and logical proposal to upgrade the gaps. Not sure if it warrants an interstate designation though.
That, and widen the interchange as US-59T Business and an interchange at Lone Tree Rd. What do y’all think of it potentially being a full fledged freeway, interstate or not.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on April 26, 2021, 02:37:32 PM
Quote from: Thegeet
That, and widen the interchange as US-59T Business and an interchange at Lone Tree Rd. What do y’all think of it potentially being a full fledged freeway, interstate or not.

It's a foregone conclusion the loop around Victoria (Loop-463 and US-59/77) will be all Interstate quality freeway eventually. Keep in mind this is a loop that didn't even exist in the 1990's. It has been slowly upgraded through the years, starting out as a 2-lane road and then expanded to 4-lane divided freeway in various segments. Google Earth imagery dated Jan 2017 shows one upgrade project on the North part of Loop 463 in progress.

They have enough ROW in just about all places along the loop to allow for a freeway plus frontage roads. There is one spot on the NW corner of the loop at Enterprise Drive where 3 properties are built a little too close to the highway center line. Everywhere else the upgrades would be relatively easy.

The only 2 questions up in the air are if Loop-463 gets re-named as a 3-digit Interstate (I think chances are low) and if there will ever be a freeway to freeway Interchange between I-69 and Loop-463 on the East side of Victoria. I think a "Y" interchange there would be the last upgrade project for the Victoria loop. That might come some years after all the other work on the loop is finished, maybe as the rest of I-69 in Texas gets closer to completion. The freeway to freeway interchange between US-59 & US-77 on the West side of Victoria will be a mandatory project. I-69W can't go through US-59's current configuration, a TOTSO exit onto a surface street.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on April 26, 2021, 10:54:55 PM
Quote from: Thegeet
That, and widen the interchange as US-59T Business and an interchange at Lone Tree Rd. What do y’all think of it potentially being a full fledged freeway, interstate or not.

It's a foregone conclusion the loop around Victoria (Loop-463 and US-59/77) will be all Interstate quality freeway eventually. Keep in mind this is a loop that didn't even exist in the 1990's. It has been slowly upgraded through the years, starting out as a 2-lane road and then expanded to 4-lane divided freeway in various segments. Google Earth imagery dated Jan 2017 shows one upgrade project on the North part of Loop 463 in progress.

They have enough ROW in just about all places along the loop to allow for a freeway plus frontage roads. There is one spot on the NW corner of the loop at Enterprise Drive where 3 properties are built a little too close to the highway center line. Everywhere else the upgrades would be relatively easy.

The only 2 questions up in the air are if Loop-463 gets re-named as a 3-digit Interstate (I think chances are low) and if there will ever be a freeway to freeway Interchange between I-69 and Loop-463 on the East side of Victoria. I think a "Y" interchange there would be the last upgrade project for the Victoria loop. That might come some years after all the other work on the loop is finished, maybe as the rest of I-69 in Texas gets closer to completion. The freeway to freeway interchange between US-59 & US-77 on the West side of Victoria will be a mandatory project. I-69W can't go through US-59's current configuration, a TOTSO exit onto a surface street.
According to Wikipedia, Loop 463 exists since 1968. Regardless, it is going to be interesting to see what this does for Victoria.

Yes, TOTSO is a way to say it (I assume it refers to something of the exit) and I never liked the way US-59 was contradicting the direction of US-77. I really think they could build the I-69W route in a new location. The US-77 SB exit to US-59/US-77Bus can stay as the exit for Business 77.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on April 26, 2021, 11:01:58 PM
TOTSO = turn off to stay on

Where should they build I-69W on new location?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on April 26, 2021, 11:09:27 PM
OHHHHHHHHH. Exit to stay. The equivalent of TX-238 turn left to stay.

If they have it all set up to terminate I-69 at the current 59/77 interchange, then maybe I-69W could run through a mile south from the current US-59T Business route exit (maybe sideways momentarily) (28.7510427, -97.0873984). Or if they haven’t established the future terminus as the current 59/77 interchange (likely won’t happen this way), then maybe it could terminate in between the interchange and SH-185. Sorry if I sound stupid.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on April 27, 2021, 08:37:24 PM
Quote from: Thegeet
According to Wikipedia, Loop 463 exists since 1968. Regardless, it is going to be interesting to see what this does for Victoria.

If you look at historical imagery in Google Earth for 1985 and 1995 there is no Loop 463 roadway at all going past US-87 on the North side of Victoria. Move the slider to 2005 and you'll see a mostly Super-2 route (with a couple 4-lane segments) getting built from the US-87 exit on West and then downward to the US-59/US-77 exit. The 2017 imagery shows an additional 4-lane upgrade being built over the Guadalupe River.

Quote from: sprjus4
Where should they build I-69W on new location?

That's actually a tough one to say for sure. Coleto Creek and the railroad line next to US-59 are obstacles to consider.

If a straight Interstate upgrade was performed on US-59 going West of the Victoria Loop it would involve having to buy and clear a few properties along US-59 in Raisin. That would be to make room for the freeway main lanes and frontage roads. Once US-59 gets close to Fannin it gets more upgrade-friendly.

If they were going to build a new terrain outlet for I-69W to spur off the loop the interchange would have to be built about halfway between the US-77/77B/59/TX-91 complex at the SW corner of the loop and the US-59/77/59B exit 3.5 miles to the North. That would give the most distance between either exit to limit possible traffic weaving issues. I-69W would still have to cross Coleto Creek, but it would have plenty of room to miss the properties and other stuff in Raisin. Then it could dovetail into US-59 just East of Fannin.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on April 27, 2021, 11:51:29 PM
Quote from: Thegeet
According to Wikipedia, Loop 463 exists since 1968. Regardless, it is going to be interesting to see what this does for Victoria.

If you look at historical imagery in Google Earth for 1985 and 1995 there is no Loop 463 roadway at all going past US-87 on the North side of Victoria. Move the slider to 2005 and you'll see a mostly Super-2 route (with a couple 4-lane segments) getting built from the US-87 exit on West and then downward to the US-59/US-77 exit. The 2017 imagery shows an additional 4-lane upgrade being built over the Guadalupe River.
According to an old map source, Loop 463 was a short route between US-87 and US-77 north of Victoria. The current alignment of US-59 as it is known today, was originally Loop 175.

Quote from: Bobby5280
Quote from: sprjus4
Where should they build I-69W on new location?

That's actually a tough one to say for sure. Coleto Creek and the railroad line next to US-59 are obstacles to consider.

If a straight Interstate upgrade was performed on US-59 going West of the Victoria Loop it would involve having to buy and clear a few properties along US-59 in Raisin. That would be to make room for the freeway main lanes and frontage roads. Once US-59 gets close to Fannin it gets more upgrade-friendly.

If they were going to build a new terrain outlet for I-69W to spur off the loop the interchange would have to be built about halfway between the US-77/77B/59/TX-91 complex at the SW corner of the loop and the US-59/77/59B exit 3.5 miles to the North. That would give the most distance between either exit to limit possible traffic weaving issues. I-69W would still have to cross Coleto Creek, but it would have plenty of room to miss the properties and other stuff in Raisin. Then it could dovetail into US-59 just East of Fannin.

To me at least, Coleto Creek is the least of concerns. However, the railroad brings up a good question: why were these highways built parallel to railroad tracks? Does some vehicle need to follow freight train or something? (Joking of course)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: abqtraveler on April 28, 2021, 09:32:30 AM
Quote from: Thegeet
According to Wikipedia, Loop 463 exists since 1968. Regardless, it is going to be interesting to see what this does for Victoria.

If you look at historical imagery in Google Earth for 1985 and 1995 there is no Loop 463 roadway at all going past US-87 on the North side of Victoria. Move the slider to 2005 and you'll see a mostly Super-2 route (with a couple 4-lane segments) getting built from the US-87 exit on West and then downward to the US-59/US-77 exit. The 2017 imagery shows an additional 4-lane upgrade being built over the Guadalupe River.
According to an old map source, Loop 463 was a short route between US-87 and US-77 north of Victoria. The current alignment of US-59 as it is known today, was originally Loop 175.

Quote from: Bobby5280
Quote from: sprjus4
Where should they build I-69W on new location?

That's actually a tough one to say for sure. Coleto Creek and the railroad line next to US-59 are obstacles to consider.

If a straight Interstate upgrade was performed on US-59 going West of the Victoria Loop it would involve having to buy and clear a few properties along US-59 in Raisin. That would be to make room for the freeway main lanes and frontage roads. Once US-59 gets close to Fannin it gets more upgrade-friendly.

If they were going to build a new terrain outlet for I-69W to spur off the loop the interchange would have to be built about halfway between the US-77/77B/59/TX-91 complex at the SW corner of the loop and the US-59/77/59B exit 3.5 miles to the North. That would give the most distance between either exit to limit possible traffic weaving issues. I-69W would still have to cross Coleto Creek, but it would have plenty of room to miss the properties and other stuff in Raisin. Then it could dovetail into US-59 just East of Fannin.

To me at least, Coleto Creek is the least of concerns. However, the railroad brings up a good question: why were these highways built parallel to railroad tracks? Does some vehicle need to follow freight train or something? (Joking of course)

I think it goes back to when the US highway system was being laid out. In many places you'll notice that US routes closely follow a major rail line. I suppose it was easier for the US routes to parallel the rail lines since the railroads were the transportation backbone of America until the US highway system, and later the interstate system were established.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on April 28, 2021, 09:33:50 AM
Plus usually a right of way already cleared
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: kphoger on April 28, 2021, 10:10:16 AM
And along a relatively level path.  Between two points where there's already a town.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on April 28, 2021, 08:30:28 PM
Ah. Okay.

New topic: Where would the Odem bypass route for US-77(I-69E) be built? West or East?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on April 28, 2021, 08:39:41 PM
Quote from: Thegeet
According to Wikipedia, Loop 463 exists since 1968. Regardless, it is going to be interesting to see what this does for Victoria.

If you look at historical imagery in Google Earth for 1985 and 1995 there is no Loop 463 roadway at all going past US-87 on the North side of Victoria. Move the slider to 2005 and you'll see a mostly Super-2 route (with a couple 4-lane segments) getting built from the US-87 exit on West and then downward to the US-59/US-77 exit. The 2017 imagery shows an additional 4-lane upgrade being built over the Guadalupe River.
According to an old map source, Loop 463 was a short route between US-87 and US-77 north of Victoria. The current alignment of US-59 as it is known today, was originally Loop 175.

Quote from: Bobby5280
Quote from: sprjus4
Where should they build I-69W on new location?

That's actually a tough one to say for sure. Coleto Creek and the railroad line next to US-59 are obstacles to consider.

If a straight Interstate upgrade was performed on US-59 going West of the Victoria Loop it would involve having to buy and clear a few properties along US-59 in Raisin. That would be to make room for the freeway main lanes and frontage roads. Once US-59 gets close to Fannin it gets more upgrade-friendly.

If they were going to build a new terrain outlet for I-69W to spur off the loop the interchange would have to be built about halfway between the US-77/77B/59/TX-91 complex at the SW corner of the loop and the US-59/77/59B exit 3.5 miles to the North. That would give the most distance between either exit to limit possible traffic weaving issues. I-69W would still have to cross Coleto Creek, but it would have plenty of room to miss the properties and other stuff in Raisin. Then it could dovetail into US-59 just East of Fannin.

To me at least, Coleto Creek is the least of concerns. However, the railroad brings up a good question: why were these highways built parallel to railroad tracks? Does some vehicle need to follow freight train or something? (Joking of course)

I think it goes back to when the US highway system was being laid out. In many places you'll notice that US routes closely follow a major rail line. I suppose it was easier for the US routes to parallel the rail lines since the railroads were the transportation backbone of America until the US highway system, and later the interstate system were established.


A lot of the original US and state highway alignments were laid out along the railroads' parallel service roads, many of which were essentially well-used wagon trails.  Since railroads sought out the paths of least resistance -- and gradient -- most of the major cross-country highways followed suit -- US 30 followed the original transcontinental portion of Union Pacific; much of US 10 tracked the old Northern Pacific, while US 66 west of the Rio Grande closely followed the Santa Fe.  In the case of US 59 and US 77 in south Texas, the old Missouri Pacific and Southern Pacific (more precisely, their Texas & New Orleans subsidiary) alternated as the closest parallel route to what's now becoming I-69 and 69E. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on April 28, 2021, 08:44:52 PM
Quote from: Thegeet
According to Wikipedia, Loop 463 exists since 1968. Regardless, it is going to be interesting to see what this does for Victoria.

If you look at historical imagery in Google Earth for 1985 and 1995 there is no Loop 463 roadway at all going past US-87 on the North side of Victoria. Move the slider to 2005 and you'll see a mostly Super-2 route (with a couple 4-lane segments) getting built from the US-87 exit on West and then downward to the US-59/US-77 exit. The 2017 imagery shows an additional 4-lane upgrade being built over the Guadalupe River.
According to an old map source, Loop 463 was a short route between US-87 and US-77 north of Victoria. The current alignment of US-59 as it is known today, was originally Loop 175.

Quote from: Bobby5280
Quote from: sprjus4
Where should they build I-69W on new location?

That's actually a tough one to say for sure. Coleto Creek and the railroad line next to US-59 are obstacles to consider.

If a straight Interstate upgrade was performed on US-59 going West of the Victoria Loop it would involve having to buy and clear a few properties along US-59 in Raisin. That would be to make room for the freeway main lanes and frontage roads. Once US-59 gets close to Fannin it gets more upgrade-friendly.

If they were going to build a new terrain outlet for I-69W to spur off the loop the interchange would have to be built about halfway between the US-77/77B/59/TX-91 complex at the SW corner of the loop and the US-59/77/59B exit 3.5 miles to the North. That would give the most distance between either exit to limit possible traffic weaving issues. I-69W would still have to cross Coleto Creek, but it would have plenty of room to miss the properties and other stuff in Raisin. Then it could dovetail into US-59 just East of Fannin.

To me at least, Coleto Creek is the least of concerns. However, the railroad brings up a good question: why were these highways built parallel to railroad tracks? Does some vehicle need to follow freight train or something? (Joking of course)

I think it goes back to when the US highway system was being laid out. In many places you'll notice that US routes closely follow a major rail line. I suppose it was easier for the US routes to parallel the rail lines since the railroads were the transportation backbone of America until the US highway system, and later the interstate system were established.


A lot of the original US and state highway alignments were laid out along the railroads' parallel service roads, many of which were essentially well-used wagon trails.  Since railroads sought out the paths of least resistance -- and gradient -- most of the major cross-country highways followed suit -- US 30 followed the original transcontinental portion of Union Pacific; much of US 10 tracked the old Northern Pacific, while US 66 west of the Rio Grande closely followed the Santa Fe.  In the case of US 59 and US 77 in south Texas, the old Missouri Pacific and Southern Pacific (more precisely, their Texas & New Orleans subsidiary) alternated as the closest parallel route to what's now becoming I-69 and 69E. 
Nice. I didn’t know railroads played a big role in highways. The only thing is that when a train comes, it’s frustrating for a driver to have to wait.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on April 28, 2021, 11:04:24 PM
Quote from: Thegeet
According to Wikipedia, Loop 463 exists since 1968. Regardless, it is going to be interesting to see what this does for Victoria.

If you look at historical imagery in Google Earth for 1985 and 1995 there is no Loop 463 roadway at all going past US-87 on the North side of Victoria. Move the slider to 2005 and you'll see a mostly Super-2 route (with a couple 4-lane segments) getting built from the US-87 exit on West and then downward to the US-59/US-77 exit. The 2017 imagery shows an additional 4-lane upgrade being built over the Guadalupe River.
According to an old map source, Loop 463 was a short route between US-87 and US-77 north of Victoria. The current alignment of US-59 as it is known today, was originally Loop 175.

Quote from: Bobby5280
Quote from: sprjus4
Where should they build I-69W on new location?

That's actually a tough one to say for sure. Coleto Creek and the railroad line next to US-59 are obstacles to consider.

If a straight Interstate upgrade was performed on US-59 going West of the Victoria Loop it would involve having to buy and clear a few properties along US-59 in Raisin. That would be to make room for the freeway main lanes and frontage roads. Once US-59 gets close to Fannin it gets more upgrade-friendly.

If they were going to build a new terrain outlet for I-69W to spur off the loop the interchange would have to be built about halfway between the US-77/77B/59/TX-91 complex at the SW corner of the loop and the US-59/77/59B exit 3.5 miles to the North. That would give the most distance between either exit to limit possible traffic weaving issues. I-69W would still have to cross Coleto Creek, but it would have plenty of room to miss the properties and other stuff in Raisin. Then it could dovetail into US-59 just East of Fannin.

To me at least, Coleto Creek is the least of concerns. However, the railroad brings up a good question: why were these highways built parallel to railroad tracks? Does some vehicle need to follow freight train or something? (Joking of course)

I think it goes back to when the US highway system was being laid out. In many places you'll notice that US routes closely follow a major rail line. I suppose it was easier for the US routes to parallel the rail lines since the railroads were the transportation backbone of America until the US highway system, and later the interstate system were established.


A lot of the original US and state highway alignments were laid out along the railroads' parallel service roads, many of which were essentially well-used wagon trails.  Since railroads sought out the paths of least resistance -- and gradient -- most of the major cross-country highways followed suit -- US 30 followed the original transcontinental portion of Union Pacific; much of US 10 tracked the old Northern Pacific, while US 66 west of the Rio Grande closely followed the Santa Fe.  In the case of US 59 and US 77 in south Texas, the old Missouri Pacific and Southern Pacific (more precisely, their Texas & New Orleans subsidiary) alternated as the closest parallel route to what's now becoming I-69 and 69E. 

Just a question, Sparker: This is the same T&NO that ran the SP line from Houston to New Orleans via Lafayette that is now jointly run by UP and BNSF alternatively, am I correct?

Back to the I-69 Colossus Confluence in Victoria: I'm wondering why the rush to actually build a full Victoria freeway loop, even if most of it is or will be freeway grade when I-69/I-69E will be built, when I-69W probably won't be built for quite a while yet? Are there plans to at least 4-lane US 59 between Laredo and Victoria currently as a starter?


Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on April 28, 2021, 11:19:02 PM
Quote from: Thegeet
According to Wikipedia, Loop 463 exists since 1968. Regardless, it is going to be interesting to see what this does for Victoria.

If you look at historical imagery in Google Earth for 1985 and 1995 there is no Loop 463 roadway at all going past US-87 on the North side of Victoria. Move the slider to 2005 and you'll see a mostly Super-2 route (with a couple 4-lane segments) getting built from the US-87 exit on West and then downward to the US-59/US-77 exit. The 2017 imagery shows an additional 4-lane upgrade being built over the Guadalupe River.
According to an old map source, Loop 463 was a short route between US-87 and US-77 north of Victoria. The current alignment of US-59 as it is known today, was originally Loop 175.

Quote from: Bobby5280
Quote from: sprjus4
Where should they build I-69W on new location?

That's actually a tough one to say for sure. Coleto Creek and the railroad line next to US-59 are obstacles to consider.

If a straight Interstate upgrade was performed on US-59 going West of the Victoria Loop it would involve having to buy and clear a few properties along US-59 in Raisin. That would be to make room for the freeway main lanes and frontage roads. Once US-59 gets close to Fannin it gets more upgrade-friendly.

If they were going to build a new terrain outlet for I-69W to spur off the loop the interchange would have to be built about halfway between the US-77/77B/59/TX-91 complex at the SW corner of the loop and the US-59/77/59B exit 3.5 miles to the North. That would give the most distance between either exit to limit possible traffic weaving issues. I-69W would still have to cross Coleto Creek, but it would have plenty of room to miss the properties and other stuff in Raisin. Then it could dovetail into US-59 just East of Fannin.

To me at least, Coleto Creek is the least of concerns. However, the railroad brings up a good question: why were these highways built parallel to railroad tracks? Does some vehicle need to follow freight train or something? (Joking of course)

I think it goes back to when the US highway system was being laid out. In many places you'll notice that US routes closely follow a major rail line. I suppose it was easier for the US routes to parallel the rail lines since the railroads were the transportation backbone of America until the US highway system, and later the interstate system were established.


A lot of the original US and state highway alignments were laid out along the railroads' parallel service roads, many of which were essentially well-used wagon trails.  Since railroads sought out the paths of least resistance -- and gradient -- most of the major cross-country highways followed suit -- US 30 followed the original transcontinental portion of Union Pacific; much of US 10 tracked the old Northern Pacific, while US 66 west of the Rio Grande closely followed the Santa Fe.  In the case of US 59 and US 77 in south Texas, the old Missouri Pacific and Southern Pacific (more precisely, their Texas & New Orleans subsidiary) alternated as the closest parallel route to what's now becoming I-69 and 69E. 

Just a question, Sparker: This is the same T&NO that ran the SP line from Houston to New Orleans via Lafayette that is now jointly run by UP and BNSF alternatively, am I correct?

Back to the I-69 Colossus Confluence in Victoria: I'm wondering why the rush to actually build a full Victoria freeway loop, even if most of it is or will be freeway grade when I-69/I-69E will be built, when I-69W probably won't be built for quite a while yet? Are there plans to at least 4-lane US 59 between Laredo and Victoria currently as a starter?



I’m going to guess that Victoria is highly prioritized because TxDOT feels that it is an emerging attraction for new businesses and companies, including “warehouses and redistribution centers”  (Victoria Mayor Rawley McCoy). But most importantly, they’re prioritizing the more urban areas first, which are the hardest parts. Why other places similar sizes don’t get this rush, I’m not 100% sure, but it’s an idea.

According to TXDOT’s project tracker, they’re already developing the route at the US-59T BUS interchange to widen to 4 lanes total.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on April 29, 2021, 07:06:43 AM
Quote from: Thegeet
According to Wikipedia, Loop 463 exists since 1968. Regardless, it is going to be interesting to see what this does for Victoria.

If you look at historical imagery in Google Earth for 1985 and 1995 there is no Loop 463 roadway at all going past US-87 on the North side of Victoria. Move the slider to 2005 and you'll see a mostly Super-2 route (with a couple 4-lane segments) getting built from the US-87 exit on West and then downward to the US-59/US-77 exit. The 2017 imagery shows an additional 4-lane upgrade being built over the Guadalupe River.
According to an old map source, Loop 463 was a short route between US-87 and US-77 north of Victoria. The current alignment of US-59 as it is known today, was originally Loop 175.

Quote from: Bobby5280
Quote from: sprjus4
Where should they build I-69W on new location?

That's actually a tough one to say for sure. Coleto Creek and the railroad line next to US-59 are obstacles to consider.

If a straight Interstate upgrade was performed on US-59 going West of the Victoria Loop it would involve having to buy and clear a few properties along US-59 in Raisin. That would be to make room for the freeway main lanes and frontage roads. Once US-59 gets close to Fannin it gets more upgrade-friendly.

If they were going to build a new terrain outlet for I-69W to spur off the loop the interchange would have to be built about halfway between the US-77/77B/59/TX-91 complex at the SW corner of the loop and the US-59/77/59B exit 3.5 miles to the North. That would give the most distance between either exit to limit possible traffic weaving issues. I-69W would still have to cross Coleto Creek, but it would have plenty of room to miss the properties and other stuff in Raisin. Then it could dovetail into US-59 just East of Fannin.

To me at least, Coleto Creek is the least of concerns. However, the railroad brings up a good question: why were these highways built parallel to railroad tracks? Does some vehicle need to follow freight train or something? (Joking of course)

I think it goes back to when the US highway system was being laid out. In many places you'll notice that US routes closely follow a major rail line. I suppose it was easier for the US routes to parallel the rail lines since the railroads were the transportation backbone of America until the US highway system, and later the interstate system were established.


A lot of the original US and state highway alignments were laid out along the railroads' parallel service roads, many of which were essentially well-used wagon trails.  Since railroads sought out the paths of least resistance -- and gradient -- most of the major cross-country highways followed suit -- US 30 followed the original transcontinental portion of Union Pacific; much of US 10 tracked the old Northern Pacific, while US 66 west of the Rio Grande closely followed the Santa Fe.  In the case of US 59 and US 77 in south Texas, the old Missouri Pacific and Southern Pacific (more precisely, their Texas & New Orleans subsidiary) alternated as the closest parallel route to what's now becoming I-69 and 69E. 

Just a question, Sparker: This is the same T&NO that ran the SP line from Houston to New Orleans via Lafayette that is now jointly run by UP and BNSF alternatively, am I correct?

Back to the I-69 Colossus Confluence in Victoria: I'm wondering why the rush to actually build a full Victoria freeway loop, even if most of it is or will be freeway grade when I-69/I-69E will be built, when I-69W probably won't be built for quite a while yet? Are there plans to at least 4-lane US 59 between Laredo and Victoria currently as a starter?




Absolutely correct re T&NO.  Until 1959, Texas state law required railroads with trackage within TX to be incorporated in TX.  This led to the major RR lines establishing subsidiaries to, at least on paper, be TX-based.  T&NO never had any locomotives or rolling stock (freight/passenger cars) advertising the subsidiary name; all were labeled "Southern Pacific" as with the CA-based parent company (although locomotives running on the T&NO lines had small discreet "T&NO" stencils within the specification list on their chasses.  The major T&NO line ran from El Paso east to New Orleans via Alpine, Del Rio, San Antonio, Houston (which was T&NO's "official" HQ), Lake Charles, Lafayette, Morgan City, and NO itself -- basically tracing US 90 (or Alternate US 90) in both states.  Branches were Houston-Brownsville, Houston-DFW, and Victoria-DFW, crossing the main E-W line at Flatonia.  Missouri Pacific had two subsidiary companies: Missouri Pacific of Texas, which owned and operated most of the NE-SW lines in TX, and the more famous Texas & Pacific, which ran along US 80 and/or I-20 across the entire state before dipping SE at Shreveport to serve Baton Rouge and NO.  Likewise, Santa Fe had a subsidiary that paper-owned their TX trackage, the Gulf, Colorado, and Santa Fe.  The only part of TX that was exempt from the ownership rule was the Panhandle north of the Red River, which was "grandfathered" in when the ownership rule came into effect in the 1890's.  When UP bought SP (1996),  which had "re-absorbed" its T&NO subsidiary in 1960, it deemed the section of E-W line east of Lake Charles to be superfluous and overly high-maintenance (particularly the section east of Lafayette, which featured a multitude of bridges); they sold that line to BNSF, which didn't have a NO server (UP already had the former MP line into Baton Rouge and the former T&P line from Shreveport by which to access New Orleans).  BTW, MP and SP had parallel trackage from Houston to Brownsville; after SP's UP acquisition, the latter company either sold most of the SP trackage to Kansas City Southern or, south of Corpus Christi, simply abandoned the SP line in favor of the former MP.     
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on April 29, 2021, 02:49:31 PM
Aside from the desire to attract distribution centers and other businesses to the Victoria area (and other points along the Future I-69 system in Texas) there is also the very pressing concern of I-35 needing a relief valve for re-directing at least some commercial traffic.

I-35 in Texas has very heavy levels of commercial trucking traffic, among the most the in nation. And that starts right at the border in Laredo. Combine that with the factor of the Dallas-Fort Worth and Austin-San Antonio regions adding residents faster than most other places in the nation. The substantial upgrade to I-35 built between Austin and DFW won't be enough to shoulder that burden. I-69 will be able to siphon away some of that burden. Driving through Houston can be a less-than-fun experience, but Houston is just one giant metro as opposed to San Antonio, Austin and DFW. Plus, half of the Grand Parkway is nearly complete from I-69 on the SW side of Houston to I-69 on the NE side. They just need to build the TX-99/I-69 interchange in Greatwood. I'm sure that will happen long before the rest of I-69 is completed between Houston and Laredo.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: kphoger on April 29, 2021, 03:35:39 PM
Aside from the desire to attract distribution centers and other businesses to the Victoria area (and other points along the Future I-69 system in Texas) there is also the very pressing concern of I-35 needing a relief valve for re-directing at least some commercial traffic.

I-35 in Texas has very heavy levels of commercial trucking traffic, among the most the in nation. And that starts right at the border in Laredo. Combine that with the factor of the Dallas-Fort Worth and Austin-San Antonio regions adding residents faster than most other places in the nation. The substantial upgrade to I-35 built between Austin and DFW won't be enough to shoulder that burden. I-69 will be able to siphon away some of that burden. Driving through Houston can be a less-than-fun experience, but Houston is just one giant metro as opposed to San Antonio, Austin and DFW. Plus, half of the Grand Parkway is nearly complete from I-69 on the SW side of Houston to I-69 on the NE side. They just need to build the TX-99/I-69 interchange in Greatwood. I'm sure that will happen long before the rest of I-69 is completed between Houston and Laredo.

While I do agree, I at least want to point out that the AADT just north of San Marcos is about six or seven times higher than the AADT just north of Encinal.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on April 29, 2021, 03:57:06 PM
Aside from the desire to attract distribution centers and other businesses to the Victoria area (and other points along the Future I-69 system in Texas) there is also the very pressing concern of I-35 needing a relief valve for re-directing at least some commercial traffic.

I-35 in Texas has very heavy levels of commercial trucking traffic, among the most the in nation. And that starts right at the border in Laredo. Combine that with the factor of the Dallas-Fort Worth and Austin-San Antonio regions adding residents faster than most other places in the nation. The substantial upgrade to I-35 built between Austin and DFW won't be enough to shoulder that burden. I-69 will be able to siphon away some of that burden. Driving through Houston can be a less-than-fun experience, but Houston is just one giant metro as opposed to San Antonio, Austin and DFW. Plus, half of the Grand Parkway is nearly complete from I-69 on the SW side of Houston to I-69 on the NE side. They just need to build the TX-99/I-69 interchange in Greatwood. I'm sure that will happen long before the rest of I-69 is completed between Houston and Laredo.

While I do agree, I at least want to point out that the AADT just north of San Marcos is about six or seven times higher than the AADT just north of Encinal.

While it might siphon off only a small portion of current NB I-35 traffic compared to the potential of I-69W/I-69 as a Laredo-Houston direct shot, development of the P2P (I-27) corridor, branching off with US 83 just north of metro Laredo, may help in this regard, particularly with any commercial destination west of the I-35 corridor.  But in reality there can be no comparison between any part of I-35 from San Antonio all the way north to Temple, which constitutes the area experiencing the greatest population growth in the region, with anything south toward Laredo.  North of, for instance, the southern junction of I-35 and Loop 1604 there will be regularized commuter traffic with which to contend, and this condition will likely persist to the northern outskirts of Temple, adding a magnitude of local traffic to any through traffic on I-35; from Laredo to the San Antonio outskirts, there is little in the way of development (as of yet); while there's plenty of commercial traffic, it hasn't been inundated with the levels seen in the line of metro areas to the north and the rapidly filling spaces between them.  Building out I-35 to beyond 6 lanes along that stretch may not be critical as both facility expansion and making more relief routes (besides 130!) available to disperse the increassed traffic in and north of San Antonio.       
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on April 30, 2021, 06:39:17 PM
When can we expect to see progress on future I-69W in the Corpus Christi District (i.e., Goliad, Beeville, George West, Freer)?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on May 01, 2021, 02:25:21 AM
When can we expect to see progress on future I-69W in the Corpus Christi District (i.e., Goliad, Beeville, George West, Freer)?

Probably not until I-69E is substantially completed, and I-69C has at least half of its length built out to full Interstate standards.  While Laredo is the proverbial 800-pound gorilla of border crossings in terms of sheer commercial volume, it's pretty clear that Hidalgo and Brownsville are, via the MX 40 toll road, positioned to be alternatives when (not if) the funnel spout that is Laredo reaches a point of critical mass.  Also -- 69C and 69E serve the lower Rio Grande valley, which has been growing almost exponentially for the last couple of decades.  I-69W is seen as ultimately needed -- but not desperately at present; the corridor's primary function is as a relief route rather than a connector to an expanding population center.  As such, its development can proceed at a slower pace without touching off political or public reaction.  In short, it's more of a "one trick pony" than the other two branches -- that trick being a commercial shortcut from Laredo to Houston not involving San Antonio as a chokepoint. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on May 01, 2021, 02:45:07 AM
When can we expect to see progress on future I-69W in the Corpus Christi District (i.e., Goliad, Beeville, George West, Freer)?

Probably not until I-69E is substantially completed, and I-69C has at least half of its length built out to full Interstate standards.  While Laredo is the proverbial 800-pound gorilla of border crossings in terms of sheer commercial volume, it's pretty clear that Hidalgo and Brownsville are, via the MX 40 toll road, positioned to be alternatives when (not if) the funnel spout that is Laredo reaches a point of critical mass.  Also -- 69C and 69E serve the lower Rio Grande valley, which has been growing almost exponentially for the last couple of decades.  I-69W is seen as ultimately needed -- but not desperately at present; the corridor's primary function is as a relief route rather than a connector to an expanding population center.  As such, its development can proceed at a slower pace without touching off political or public reaction.  In short, it's more of a "one trick pony" than the other two branches -- that trick being a commercial shortcut from Laredo to Houston not involving San Antonio as a chokepoint. 
Ock.
thanks.

Google maps has uploaded new satellite imagery north of Raymondville, showing new main lanes open for US-77.

Also, one more question: about how much more expensive (or highly unlikely from what I’ve heard, cheaper) would it be to construct most of I-69 in Texas over mostly existing corridors as compared to I-69 in mostly new terrain?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on May 01, 2021, 02:54:02 AM
Looking at updated aerial imagery, has construction began on upgrading US-59 between Kendleton and Wharton? It appears something is ongoing there, almost like frontage road construction.

It’s been a couple years since I’ve been through the area, but back in 2019, construction had been well underway from Kendleton north to the existing I-69 segment near Rosenberg, but not immediately south - work was also underway for rural frontage road construction on existing right of way in El Campo and Victoria which I imagine is complete now. Good to see progress pushing forward more.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on May 01, 2021, 03:18:05 AM
Looking at updated aerial imagery, has construction began on upgrading US-59 between Kendleton and Wharton? It appears something is ongoing there, almost like frontage road construction.

It’s been a couple years since I’ve been through the area, but back in 2019, construction had been well underway from Kendleton north to the existing I-69 segment near Rosenberg, but not immediately south - work was also underway for rural frontage road construction on existing right of way in El Campo and Victoria which I imagine is complete now. Good to see progress pushing forward more.
There’s definitely something going on near Hungerford, like another bridge being built, probably frontage rd? Wharton has definitely not been doing much in March except the frontage rds.
Great job on pointing that out, btw.


Also, El campo btw, has closed the main lanes for extensive (maybe exaggerating) reconstruction. Wharton county is making progress. Wharton, the city, won’t start main construction until 2023. But more importantly, Jackson county hasn’t even started.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on June 01, 2021, 10:30:44 AM
It's official!  I took a trip to Corpus Christi this Memorial Day weekend and southbound I-37 past the north U.S. 77 exit is signed as I-37 and I-69E South (Kingsville Corpus Christi).  Sorry no picture.  On the way back home I noticed it was not signed this way northbound.  It is still signed as the I-37/U.S. 77 cosign.  So I-69E has now been extended about a 2.4 miles...in one direction only!!
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on June 01, 2021, 10:54:29 AM
I-69E now overlaps I-37? Interesting they’d make a move this early with no US-77 upgrade north of I-37.

I’ll be in the area next month, I will update if anything changes.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on June 01, 2021, 10:55:37 AM
I-69E now overlaps I-37? Interesting they’d make a move this early with no US-77 upgrade north of I-37.

I’ll be in the area next month, I will update if anything changes.

Excellent.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on June 01, 2021, 11:59:33 AM
I-69E now overlaps I-37? Interesting they’d make a move this early with no US-77 upgrade north of I-37.

I’ll be in the area next month, I will update if anything changes.

Excellent.
Yes. I-69E should theoretically overlap I-37 where US 77 is concurrent with I-37.
It's official!  I took a trip to Corpus Christi this Memorial Day weekend and southbound I-37 past the north U.S. 77 exit is signed as I-37 and I-69E South (Kingsville Corpus Christi).  Sorry no picture.  On the way back home I noticed it was not signed this way northbound.  It is still signed as the I-37/U.S. 77 cosign.  So I-69E has now been extended about a 2.4 miles...in one direction only!!
Does that concurrency still use the exit numbers from I-37?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on June 01, 2021, 12:32:55 PM
I-69E now overlaps I-37? Interesting they’d make a move this early with no US-77 upgrade north of I-37.

I’ll be in the area next month, I will update if anything changes.

Excellent.
Yes. I-69E should theoretically overlap I-37 where US 77 is concurrent with I-37.
It's official!  I took a trip to Corpus Christi this Memorial Day weekend and southbound I-37 past the north U.S. 77 exit is signed as I-37 and I-69E South (Kingsville Corpus Christi).  Sorry no picture.  On the way back home I noticed it was not signed this way northbound.  It is still signed as the I-37/U.S. 77 cosign.  So I-69E has now been extended about a 2.4 miles...in one direction only!!
In that case, I should go look for the minute order. BTW, Does that concurrency still use the exit numbers from I-37?

Yes it does.  Nothing has changed other than the overhead BGS.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on June 01, 2021, 05:02:30 PM
I-69E now overlaps I-37? Interesting they’d make a move this early with no US-77 upgrade north of I-37.

I’ll be in the area next month, I will update if anything changes.

Excellent.
Yes. I-69E should theoretically overlap I-37 where US 77 is concurrent with I-37.
It's official!  I took a trip to Corpus Christi this Memorial Day weekend and southbound I-37 past the north U.S. 77 exit is signed as I-37 and I-69E South (Kingsville Corpus Christi).  Sorry no picture.  On the way back home I noticed it was not signed this way northbound.  It is still signed as the I-37/U.S. 77 cosign.  So I-69E has now been extended about a 2.4 miles...in one direction only!!
In that case, I should go look for the minute order. BTW, Does that concurrency still use the exit numbers from I-37?

Yes it does.  Nothing has changed other than the overhead BGS.

Makes sense that they'd sign it southbound; that leads directly to an existing signed I-69E portion, where the opposite direction doesn't -- and there are active projects south from there to bring US 77 up to Interstate standards.  Question: does anyone with TX connections have any idea when work will commence on the conversion of US 77 to I-69E from I-37 north to Victoria?  Looks like Odem and Refugio will require bypasses; the one around Sinton appears to be partially completed as a freeway. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on June 01, 2021, 06:00:21 PM
I-69E now overlaps I-37? Interesting they’d make a move this early with no US-77 upgrade north of I-37.

I’ll be in the area next month, I will update if anything changes.

Excellent.
Yes. I-69E should theoretically overlap I-37 where US 77 is concurrent with I-37.
It's official!  I took a trip to Corpus Christi this Memorial Day weekend and southbound I-37 past the north U.S. 77 exit is signed as I-37 and I-69E South (Kingsville Corpus Christi).  Sorry no picture.  On the way back home I noticed it was not signed this way northbound.  It is still signed as the I-37/U.S. 77 cosign.  So I-69E has now been extended about a 2.4 miles...in one direction only!!
In that case, I should go look for the minute order. BTW, Does that concurrency still use the exit numbers from I-37?

Yes it does.  Nothing has changed other than the overhead BGS.

Makes sense that they'd sign it southbound; that leads directly to an existing signed I-69E portion, where the opposite direction doesn't -- and there are active projects south from there to bring US 77 up to Interstate standards.  Question: does anyone with TX connections have any idea when work will commence on the conversion of US 77 to I-69E from I-37 north to Victoria?  Looks like Odem and Refugio will require bypasses; the one around Sinton appears to be partially completed as a freeway.
Not aware of much progress for north of I-37... projects were underway when I was in the area a couple years ago to upgrade the portion in Victoria north of Loop 463 up to the Telferner interchange, the northern portion of the El Campo bypass, and from Kendleton to Rosenburg to interstate standards, but that was it, all on US-59 north of Victoria. Nothing south.

A study (https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/corpus-christi/us77-woodsboro-refugio-route-study.html) was done a few years that evaluated a Refugio bypass and upgrade of existing US-77 south of there to Woodsboro. Nothing for construction has commenced that I'm aware of.

Obviously, there's south of I-37 where the segment from Robstown to Bishop is currently being upgraded, including a bypass around Driscoll. That will complete I-69E down to Kingsville from I-37 when those projects complete. If the upgrade from north of Driscoll to the Robstown bypass completed a few years ago is any indication, they will likely sign I-69 (oddly missing the "E" - not really complaining though (!) but I guess not technically right) on the new segment.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on June 01, 2021, 06:08:44 PM
I-69E now overlaps I-37? Interesting they’d make a move this early with no US-77 upgrade north of I-37.

I’ll be in the area next month, I will update if anything changes.

Excellent.
Yes. I-69E should theoretically overlap I-37 where US 77 is concurrent with I-37.
It's official!  I took a trip to Corpus Christi this Memorial Day weekend and southbound I-37 past the north U.S. 77 exit is signed as I-37 and I-69E South (Kingsville Corpus Christi).  Sorry no picture.  On the way back home I noticed it was not signed this way northbound.  It is still signed as the I-37/U.S. 77 cosign.  So I-69E has now been extended about a 2.4 miles...in one direction only!!
In that case, I should go look for the minute order. BTW, Does that concurrency still use the exit numbers from I-37?

Yes it does.  Nothing has changed other than the overhead BGS.

Makes sense that they'd sign it southbound; that leads directly to an existing signed I-69E portion, where the opposite direction doesn't -- and there are active projects south from there to bring US 77 up to Interstate standards.  Question: does anyone with TX connections have any idea when work will commence on the conversion of US 77 to I-69E from I-37 north to Victoria?  Looks like Odem and Refugio will require bypasses; the one around Sinton appears to be partially completed as a freeway.
Not aware of much progress for north of I-37... projects were underway when I was in the area a couple years ago to upgrade the portion in Victoria north of Loop 463 up to the Telferner interchange, the northern portion of the El Campo bypass, and from Kendleton to Rosenburg to interstate standards, but that was it, all on US-59 north of Victoria. Nothing south.

A study (https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/corpus-christi/us77-woodsboro-refugio-route-study.html) was done a few years that evaluated a Refugio bypass and upgrade of existing US-77 south of there to Woodsboro. Nothing for construction has commenced that I'm aware of.

Obviously, there's south of I-37 where the segment from Robstown to Bishop is currently being upgraded, including a bypass around Driscoll. That will complete I-69E down to Kingsville from I-37 when those projects complete. If the upgrade from north of Driscoll to the Robstown bypass completed a few years ago is any indication, they will likely sign I-69 (oddly missing the "E" - not really complaining though (!) but I guess not technically right) on the new segment.
I’m going to guess in 5 years we see Odem getting a freeway built.

Just called TxDot and found out that Loop 463 won’t become an I-x69 interstate.Also, Jackson County won’t see any construction until 15 years later.

I also checked the project tracker on txdot and they are considering building a bridge on I-69E at University Blvd.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Scott5114 on June 01, 2021, 06:27:17 PM
It's official!  I took a trip to Corpus Christi this Memorial Day weekend and southbound I-37 past the north U.S. 77 exit is signed as I-37 and I-69E South (Kingsville Corpus Christi).  Sorry no picture.  On the way back home I noticed it was not signed this way northbound.  It is still signed as the I-37/U.S. 77 cosign.  So I-69E has now been extended about a 2.4 miles...in one direction only!!

It's actually been that way since at least May 2019, as I noted the concurrency when I visited Port Aransas two years ago. I didn't mention it here because I assumed it had been that way for a while.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on June 01, 2021, 06:32:34 PM
It's official!  I took a trip to Corpus Christi this Memorial Day weekend and southbound I-37 past the north U.S. 77 exit is signed as I-37 and I-69E South (Kingsville Corpus Christi).  Sorry no picture.  On the way back home I noticed it was not signed this way northbound.  It is still signed as the I-37/U.S. 77 cosign.  So I-69E has now been extended about a 2.4 miles...in one direction only!!

It's actually been that way since at least May 2019, as I noted the concurrency when I visited Port Aransas two years ago. I didn't mention it here because I assumed it had been that way for a while.
Actually, I remember going to football games with my high school last year. (Tuloso-Midway and Alice), and I never saw I-69E being concurrent with I-37 southbound. This was in October & November 2020, mind y’all .
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on June 01, 2021, 06:38:35 PM
It's official!  I took a trip to Corpus Christi this Memorial Day weekend and southbound I-37 past the north U.S. 77 exit is signed as I-37 and I-69E South (Kingsville Corpus Christi).  Sorry no picture.  On the way back home I noticed it was not signed this way northbound.  It is still signed as the I-37/U.S. 77 cosign.  So I-69E has now been extended about a 2.4 miles...in one direction only!!

It's actually been that way since at least May 2019, as I noted the concurrency when I visited Port Aransas two years ago. I didn't mention it here because I assumed it had been that way for a while.
I was there in August 2019 and do not recall it...

Also Street View in August 2019 does not show any concurrency with I-69E.

Are you sure you're not thinking of US-77?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on June 01, 2021, 08:02:28 PM
This is a video showing US 59 in Victoria and I-37/US 77, from last month.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on June 01, 2021, 08:56:51 PM
This is a video showing US 59 in Victoria and I-37/US 77, from last month.
Is the interchange / overpass construction in Victoria a new one? I recall a similar configuration shifting to the frontage roads back in 2018, it can’t still be the same one under construction.

Doesn't appear to show any I-69E signage on I-37 itself, at least from the US-77 approach. Must’ve been recent then.

Nice to see ongoing progress of the SH-358 reconstruction project in Corpus Christi.

Unrelated to the I-69 thread, but any recent photos or video of the US-181 Harbor Bridge project?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on June 01, 2021, 09:00:51 PM
This is a video showing US 59 in Victoria and I-37/US 77, from last month.

Cool video -- reminds me of Interstate Kyle's work out West (similar format).  Really liked passing the KCS freight train with that RR's great (and classic) paint scheme; too bad it'll probably be gone once either CP or CN purchases the company. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on June 01, 2021, 09:05:20 PM
This is a video showing US 59 in Victoria and I-37/US 77, from last month.
Is the interchange / overpass construction in Victoria a new one? I recall a similar configuration shifting to the frontage roads back in 2018, it can’t still be the same one under construction.

Doesn't appear to show any I-69E signage on I-37 itself, at least from the US-77 approach. Must’ve been recent then.

Nice to see ongoing progress of the SH-358 reconstruction project in Corpus Christi.

Unrelated to the I-69 thread, but any recent photos or video of the US-181 Harbor Bridge project?
US 59: There is an interchange for Holt Rd,between SL 463 and FM 1686, which is nearing the final days  of construction. There was another interchange for a road called Hanselman Rd between US 87 and SL 463, finished in 2018-ish.
I-37: I bet it was recent, like one or two weeks ago. This is in May 8 when it was recorded. Likely around May 21, an educated guess.
US 181: Unfortunately I don’t have pictures, but i saw the bridge on Wednesday. It was still under construction, but the bridge structure is in place.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on June 01, 2021, 10:52:08 PM
I also happened to see a Snapchat story in Driscoll. Looks like they’ve started to work on the northern BU77 interchange.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on June 02, 2021, 10:21:07 AM
It's official!  I took a trip to Corpus Christi this Memorial Day weekend and southbound I-37 past the north U.S. 77 exit is signed as I-37 and I-69E South (Kingsville Corpus Christi).  Sorry no picture.  On the way back home I noticed it was not signed this way northbound.  It is still signed as the I-37/U.S. 77 cosign.  So I-69E has now been extended about a 2.4 miles...in one direction only!!

It's actually been that way since at least May 2019, as I noted the concurrency when I visited Port Aransas two years ago. I didn't mention it here because I assumed it had been that way for a while.
I was there in August 2019 and do not recall it...

Also Street View in August 2019 does not show any concurrency with I-69E.

Are you sure you're not thinking of US-77?

Nope, it was 1000000% an interstate highway shield with 69E written in it.  It was this sign (https://goo.gl/maps/PpYMdwjJdJFS6jjP9) with 69E replacing US 77.  Strangely there was no mention of US 77.  I drove to Corpus in November of 2020 and the old setup was still signed. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on June 02, 2021, 10:59:55 AM
Nope, it was 1000000% an interstate highway shield with 69E written in it.  It was this sign (https://goo.gl/maps/PpYMdwjJdJFS6jjP9) with 69E replacing US 77.  Strangely there was no mention of US 77.  I drove to Corpus in November of 2020 and the old setup was still signed.
I was questioning Scott's claim it was in May 2019, not yours. Was he seeing US-77 and thinking that's what was being discussed?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on June 02, 2021, 11:17:07 AM
Nope, it was 1000000% an interstate highway shield with 69E written in it.  It was this sign (https://goo.gl/maps/PpYMdwjJdJFS6jjP9) with 69E replacing US 77.  Strangely there was no mention of US 77.  I drove to Corpus in November of 2020 and the old setup was still signed.
I was questioning Scott's claim it was in May 2019, not yours. Was he seeing US-77 and thinking that's what was being discussed?

Roger that.  Disregard.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: edwaleni on June 02, 2021, 11:51:17 AM
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51220636798_afd580a55f_z.jpg)


(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51221205829_56a35f1e82_z.jpg)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on June 02, 2021, 11:56:52 AM
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51220636798_afd580a55f_z.jpg)
That signage is not new.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on June 02, 2021, 12:19:40 PM
Nope, it was 1000000% an interstate highway shield with 69E written in it.  It was this sign (https://goo.gl/maps/PpYMdwjJdJFS6jjP9) with 69E replacing US 77.  Strangely there was no mention of US 77.  I drove to Corpus in November of 2020 and the old setup was still signed.
I was questioning Scott's claim it was in May 2019, not yours. Was he seeing US-77 and thinking that's what was being discussed?

Roger that.  Disregard.
Did they also have the I-69E shield on a stick on I-37 SB? (Like all other highway signage not big&square)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: edwaleni on June 02, 2021, 01:46:23 PM
Nope, it was 1000000% an interstate highway shield with 69E written in it.  It was this sign (https://goo.gl/maps/PpYMdwjJdJFS6jjP9) with 69E replacing US 77.  Strangely there was no mention of US 77.  I drove to Corpus in November of 2020 and the old setup was still signed.
I was questioning Scott's claim it was in May 2019, not yours. Was he seeing US-77 and thinking that's what was being discussed?

Roger that.  Disregard.
Did they also have the I-69E shield on a stick on I-37 SB? (Like all other highway signage not big&square)

(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51221702255_31fc2edb7d_z.jpg)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on June 02, 2021, 01:59:05 PM
Nope, it was 1000000% an interstate highway shield with 69E written in it.  It was this sign (https://goo.gl/maps/PpYMdwjJdJFS6jjP9) with 69E replacing US 77.  Strangely there was no mention of US 77.  I drove to Corpus in November of 2020 and the old setup was still signed.
I was questioning Scott's claim it was in May 2019, not yours. Was he seeing US-77 and thinking that's what was being discussed?

Roger that.  Disregard.
Did they also have the I-69E shield on a stick on I-37 SB? (Like all other highway signage not big&square)

No, the only mention of the cosigning was on the overhead BGS. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on June 02, 2021, 02:04:32 PM
The overhead BGS I am referring to is this one (https://goo.gl/maps/PpYMdwjJdJFS6jjP9), of course recently replaced.  If you look closer in the streetview (the sign I believe has been replaced), the exit number tab (https://goo.gl/maps/SPYAFjmvMShg2fxW7) is button copy!!
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on June 02, 2021, 03:03:49 PM
The overhead BGS I am referring to is this one (https://goo.gl/maps/PpYMdwjJdJFS6jjP9), of course recently replaced.  If you look closer in the streetview (the sign I believe has been replaced), the exit number tab (https://goo.gl/maps/SPYAFjmvMShg2fxW7) is button copy!!
Does that mean the new BGS is in Clearview? Or did they simply plaster on a I-69E sign on the old sign? Also, since when did they abandon button tab signs? Finally, I wonder how old these signs are.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on June 02, 2021, 03:29:35 PM
The overhead BGS I am referring to is this one (https://goo.gl/maps/PpYMdwjJdJFS6jjP9), of course recently replaced.  If you look closer in the streetview (the sign I believe has been replaced), the exit number tab (https://goo.gl/maps/SPYAFjmvMShg2fxW7) is button copy!!
Does that mean the new BGS is in Clearview? Or did they simply plaster on a I-69E sign on the old sign? Also, since when did they abandon button tab signs? Finally, I wonder how old these signs are.

The new BGS is regrettably Clearview.  Those signs in the pictures have to date back to the 90s, even the button copy one.  All this talk is making me regret not taking a picture, but it was 10:00 at night and I don't think my wife would have liked me taking a picture that wouldn't come out as we drove, let alone stop for it. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: J N Winkler on June 02, 2021, 03:40:28 PM
I've had a quick look at recent Corpus Christi districtwide sign replacements (CCSJs beginning with 0916-00) and haven't found sign panel detail sheets for new signs for the southbound direction at I-37 Exit 17, though the northbound direction was done as part of CCSJ 0916-00-091 (plans approval date of February 10, 2020).  I suspect this was a one-off replacement.

Also, since when did they abandon button tab signs? Finally, I wonder how old these signs are.

TxDOT abandoned button copy in the mid- to late 1990's.  At that point it began upgrading all guide signs statewide to retroreflective sheeting, a process that took about 10 years and resulted in thousands of sign panel detail sheets just for 09XX-00 districtwide sign replacement contracts (XX = number of the TxDOT district, still used in CCSJs though TxDOT has since moved on to three-letter abbreviations of district HQ city for public-facing materials:  e.g., 04 = AMA = Amarillo, 07 = LBB = Lubbock, 15 = SAT = San Antonio).

Given that the sign at the StreetView link (which Ethanhopkin14 reports has been replaced) has what appear to be blooms of corrosion at the edges of the lettering and other foreground elements, I believe it was installed fairly early in the statewide sign sheeting upgrade.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on June 02, 2021, 03:41:16 PM
The overhead BGS I am referring to is this one (https://goo.gl/maps/PpYMdwjJdJFS6jjP9), of course recently replaced.  If you look closer in the streetview (the sign I believe has been replaced), the exit number tab (https://goo.gl/maps/SPYAFjmvMShg2fxW7) is button copy!!
Does that mean the new BGS is in Clearview? Or did they simply plaster on a I-69E sign on the old sign? Also, since when did they abandon button tab signs? Finally, I wonder how old these signs are.

The new BGS is regrettably Clearview.  Those signs in the pictures have to date back to the 90s, even the button copy one.  All this talk is making me regret not taking a picture, but it was 10:00 at night and I don't think my wife would have liked me taking a picture that wouldn't come out as we drove, let alone stop for it.
I bet it was 90’s, considering the disproportioned interstate shield. Whenever you decide to go back to Corpus, I highly recommend taking a video instead of a photo. I think that taking a photo is a high risk, and you might miss the sign. Also, did they replace the US 77 Victoria sign too?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on June 02, 2021, 03:48:40 PM
I've had a quick look at recent Corpus Christi districtwide sign replacements (CCSJs beginning with 0916-00) and haven't found sign panel detail sheets for new signs for the southbound direction at I-37 Exit 17, though the northbound direction was done as part of CCSJ 0916-00-091 (plans approval date of February 10, 2020).  I suspect this was a one-off replacement.

Also, since when did they abandon button tab signs? Finally, I wonder how old these signs are.

TxDOT abandoned button copy in the mid- to late 1990's.  At that point it began upgrading all guide signs statewide to retroreflective sheeting, a process that took about 10 years and resulted in thousands of sign panel detail sheets just for 09XX-00 districtwide sign replacement contracts (XX = number of the TxDOT district, still used in CCSJs though TxDOT has since moved on to three-letter abbreviations of district HQ city for public-facing materials:  e.g., 04 = AMA = Amarillo, 07 = LBB = Lubbock, 15 = SAT = San Antonio).

Given that the sign at the StreetView link (which Ethanhopkin14 reports has been replaced) has what appear to be blooms of corrosion at the edges of the lettering and other foreground elements, I believe it was installed fairly early in the statewide sign sheeting upgrade.
Ive seen button copy signs on I-459 east of Birmingham, AL. They look kind of washed.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on June 02, 2021, 05:49:25 PM
The overhead BGS I am referring to is this one (https://goo.gl/maps/PpYMdwjJdJFS6jjP9), of course recently replaced.  If you look closer in the streetview (the sign I believe has been replaced), the exit number tab (https://goo.gl/maps/SPYAFjmvMShg2fxW7) is button copy!!
Does that mean the new BGS is in Clearview? Or did they simply plaster on a I-69E sign on the old sign? Also, since when did they abandon button tab signs? Finally, I wonder how old these signs are.

The new BGS is regrettably Clearview.  Those signs in the pictures have to date back to the 90s, even the button copy one.  All this talk is making me regret not taking a picture, but it was 10:00 at night and I don't think my wife would have liked me taking a picture that wouldn't come out as we drove, let alone stop for it.
I bet it was 90’s, considering the disproportioned interstate shield. Whenever you decide to go back to Corpus, I highly recommend taking a video instead of a photo. I think that taking a photo is a high risk, and you might miss the sign. Also, did they replace the US 77 Victoria sign too?

If I remember correctly, the whole gantry got new BGSs.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on June 02, 2021, 05:55:16 PM
The overhead BGS I am referring to is this one (https://goo.gl/maps/PpYMdwjJdJFS6jjP9), of course recently replaced.  If you look closer in the streetview (the sign I believe has been replaced), the exit number tab (https://goo.gl/maps/SPYAFjmvMShg2fxW7) is button copy!!
Does that mean the new BGS is in Clearview? Or did they simply plaster on a I-69E sign on the old sign? Also, since when did they abandon button tab signs? Finally, I wonder how old these signs are.

The new BGS is regrettably Clearview.  Those signs in the pictures have to date back to the 90s, even the button copy one.  All this talk is making me regret not taking a picture, but it was 10:00 at night and I don't think my wife would have liked me taking a picture that wouldn't come out as we drove, let alone stop for it.
I bet it was 90’s, considering the disproportioned interstate shield. Whenever you decide to go back to Corpus, I highly recommend taking a video instead of a photo. I think that taking a photo is a high risk, and you might miss the sign. Also, did they replace the US 77 Victoria sign too?

If I remember correctly, the whole gantry got new BGSs.
Nice. All they really need to do is install exit number tabs on I-69E south of the southern I-37/I-69E/US 77 interchange.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on June 03, 2021, 01:35:11 AM
This is a video showing US 59 in Victoria and I-37/US 77, from last month.
Is the interchange / overpass construction in Victoria a new one? I recall a similar configuration shifting to the frontage roads back in 2018, it can’t still be the same one under construction.

Doesn't appear to show any I-69E signage on I-37 itself, at least from the US-77 approach. Must’ve been recent then.

Nice to see ongoing progress of the SH-358 reconstruction project in Corpus Christi.

Unrelated to the I-69 thread, but any recent photos or video of the US-181 Harbor Bridge project?
US 59: There is an interchange for Holt Rd,between SL 463 and FM 1686, which is nearing the final days  of construction. There was another interchange for a road called Hanselman Rd between US 87 and SL 463, finished in 2018-ish.
I-37: I bet it was recent, like one or two weeks ago. This is in May 8 when it was recorded. Likely around May 21, an educated guess.
US 181: Unfortunately I don’t have pictures, but i saw the bridge on Wednesday. It was still under construction, but the bridge structure is in place.
Aw, shucks! I was talking about the wrong project. I thought you were referring to the US 181/SH 35 split. But I jumped the gun. Unfortunately, we decided to go to Beevile at the last minute, so we didn’t get to see the Harbor Bridge. But I assume they’re about to install the wire supports for the south portion. What will the old alignment be turned into when it’s stripped down?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on June 03, 2021, 07:21:37 PM
How convenient... from the Harbor Bridge project team on Twitter today.
https://twitter.com/HarborBridgePrj/status/1400576295893876739
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on June 03, 2021, 07:26:56 PM
How convenient... from the Harbor Bridge project team on Twitter today.
https://twitter.com/HarborBridgePrj/status/1400576295893876739
That makes me excited as a South Texan who visits Corpus on an occasional basis. Apparently, they will use lights on here as well. They could color it like the American flag and produce fireworks (animation) for the Hooks Baseball team games. Could we see US 181 and/or SH 35 extend and replace SH 286 via this project?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on June 03, 2021, 07:33:19 PM
^

Highly unlikely. I’d say just leave SH-286 as established south of I-37, and US-181 as established north of I-37. I don’t see any real reason to change a long established designation.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on June 06, 2021, 10:57:31 PM
Just went to Houston this weekend. Notes on 69/59:

In Ganado, surprisingly, they’re paving frontage roads, well at least one on the southbound side after the first SL522 SB interchange.

In El Campo, the freeway is still closed for the FM 1162 overpass bridge construction. The bridge is taking form. They’ve got about 70% of the bridge done, and they’re starting to work on the rails on each side. They’ve put on about 75-80 % of the decorative tiles that go on the side.

In (north of Wharton &) Hungerford, there is considerable construction of the frontage roads. There is a bridge being built at BU 59/SH 60. There is also another bridge being worked on by the NB side before the CMV station.

In Kendelton & Beasley, the Doris Rd interchange is complete for use AFAIK. The SB exit is not open yet, though. Still, there are lane closures scattered around the freeway, but I believe the work within the main lanes is substantially finished.

In Rosenberg, the frontage roads are getting cleaned up.

Also passed by Victoria. Upon further observation, there are two new lanes being paved east of BU 59T. The Holt Rd overpass is still unpaved. Right now, it’s graveled, and no rails installed yet.

Also, get ready for that I-610 closure. Nothing yet for Inez, El Toro/Vanderbilt, Louise, Hillje, or central Wharton.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on July 07, 2021, 11:29:01 AM
There will be a new section of I-69E:

Quote
3.3 Miles of I-69E Added to the Interstate Highway System
 
The Transportation Commission on Wednesday gave the final approval to signing 3.3 miles of US 77 west of Corpus Christi as I-69E.  The Federal Highway Administration approved the action May 25th.  The freeway section will be signed concurrently at I-69E/US 77.
 
In remarks to commissioners, the Alliance pointed out that it is a great day when we can celebrate adding miles of the I-69 Corridor to the nation’s Interstate Highway System — this week in Nueces County and soon in Fort Bend County.  We thanked the Commission and TxDOT staffers throughout the Department who continue to plan, fund and build segments of I-69 at an accelerating pace.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: abqtraveler on July 07, 2021, 12:08:48 PM
There will be a new section of I-69E:

Quote
3.3 Miles of I-69E Added to the Interstate Highway System
 
The Transportation Commission on Wednesday gave the final approval to signing 3.3 miles of US 77 west of Corpus Christi as I-69E.  The Federal Highway Administration approved the action May 25th.  The freeway section will be signed concurrently at I-69E/US 77.
 
In remarks to commissioners, the Alliance pointed out that it is a great day when we can celebrate adding miles of the I-69 Corridor to the nation’s Interstate Highway System — this week in Nueces County and soon in Fort Bend County.  We thanked the Commission and TxDOT staffers throughout the Department who continue to plan, fund and build segments of I-69 at an accelerating pace.
So this has got to be the recently-upgraded section from Robstown to the north end of the Driscoll Bypass. Is that correct?

Fixed the quote.
- Alex
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on July 07, 2021, 12:26:49 PM
There will be a new section of I-69E:

Quote
3.3 Miles of I-69E Added to the Interstate Highway System
 
The Transportation Commission on Wednesday gave the final approval to signing 3.3 miles of US 77 west of Corpus Christi as I-69E.  The Federal Highway Administration approved the action May 25th.  The freeway section will be signed concurrently at I-69E/US 77.
 
In remarks to commissioners, the Alliance pointed out that it is a great day when we can celebrate adding miles of the I-69 Corridor to the nation’s Interstate Highway System — this week in Nueces County and soon in Fort Bend County.  We thanked the Commission and TxDOT staffers throughout the Department who continue to plan, fund and build segments of I-69 at an accelerating pace.
So this has got to be the recently-upgraded section from Robstown to the north end of the Driscoll Bypass. Is that correct?

Far as I can tell.

Fixed the quote.
- Alex
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on July 07, 2021, 12:46:28 PM
There will be a new section of I-69E:

Quote
3.3 Miles of I-69E Added to the Interstate Highway System
 
The Transportation Commission on Wednesday gave the final approval to signing 3.3 miles of US 77 west of Corpus Christi as I-69E.  The Federal Highway Administration approved the action May 25th.  The freeway section will be signed concurrently at I-69E/US 77.
 
In remarks to commissioners, the Alliance pointed out that it is a great day when we can celebrate adding miles of the I-69 Corridor to the nation’s Interstate Highway System — this week in Nueces County and soon in Fort Bend County.  We thanked the Commission and TxDOT staffers throughout the Department who continue to plan, fund and build segments of I-69 at an accelerating pace.
So this has got to be the recently-upgraded section from Robstown to the north end of the Driscoll Bypass. Is that correct?

Far as I can tell.

It won’t take long for I-69E to get extended again to Kingsville.

Fixed the quote.
- Alex
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on July 07, 2021, 01:07:05 PM
https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/commission/2021/0630/11d.pdf

It’s the segment that was completed a few years ago south of Robstown. It’s already sign posted as “I-69”  (without the E) so I’m not sure anything will change on the ground, unless they swap the “I-69”  shields with “I-69E”  (sadly).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on July 07, 2021, 01:14:17 PM
https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/commission/2021/0630/11d.pdf

It’s the segment that was completed a few years ago south of Robstown. It’s already sign posted as “I-69”  (without the E) so I’m not sure anything will change on the ground, unless they swap the “I-69”  shields with “I-69E”  (sadly).

The only thing we could look forward to is US 77 north of Raymondville (at Ytturia).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on July 07, 2021, 01:15:54 PM
https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/commission/2021/0630/11d.pdf

It’s the segment that was completed a few years ago south of Robstown. It’s already sign posted as “I-69”  (without the E) so I’m not sure anything will change on the ground, unless they swap the “I-69”  shields with “I-69E”  (sadly).

According to that press release, it will be IH 69-E.  If it is signed that way I will die laughing!

In seriousness, we are looking at the possibility of exiting south at Calallan on I-69E which is signed with individual shields as I-69, then go into the newly signed section signed as I-69E.  And we wonder how there are so many error shields.  When they do go through there to eradicate those I-69 shields, a few will get left behind and will stay all the way up until the highway is complete. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on July 07, 2021, 08:12:53 PM
https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/commission/2021/0630/11d.pdf

It’s the segment that was completed a few years ago south of Robstown. It’s already sign posted as “I-69”  (without the E) so I’m not sure anything will change on the ground, unless they swap the “I-69”  shields with “I-69E”  (sadly).

According to that press release, it will be IH 69-E.  If it is signed that way I will die laughing!

In seriousness, we are looking at the possibility of exiting south at Calallan on I-69E which is signed with individual shields as I-69, then go into the newly signed section signed as I-69E.  And we wonder how there are so many error shields.  When they do go through there to eradicate those I-69 shields, a few will get left behind and will stay all the way up until the highway is complete.

I predict that they will leave at least one non E sign up for many years, just like the washed up US 59 NB shield between Exits 129A and B.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on July 08, 2021, 05:54:02 AM
https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/commission/2021/0630/11d.pdf

It’s the segment that was completed a few years ago south of Robstown. It’s already sign posted as “I-69”  (without the E) so I’m not sure anything will change on the ground, unless they swap the “I-69”  shields with “I-69E”  (sadly).

According to that press release, it will be IH 69-E.  If it is signed that way I will die laughing!

In seriousness, we are looking at the possibility of exiting south at Calallan on I-69E which is signed with individual shields as I-69, then go into the newly signed section signed as I-69E.  And we wonder how there are so many error shields.  When they do go through there to eradicate those I-69 shields, a few will get left behind and will stay all the way up until the highway is complete.

I predict that they will leave at least one non E sign up for many years, just like the washed up US 59 NB shield between Exits 129A and B.

At least if they replace the errant non-suffixed I-69 signs, they'll have a few available to post farther north along the corridor.  Save TxDOT a few bucks in the process (marginal, of course, relative to the whole corridor project!).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on July 08, 2021, 12:00:25 PM
https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/commission/2021/0630/11d.pdf

It’s the segment that was completed a few years ago south of Robstown. It’s already sign posted as “I-69”  (without the E) so I’m not sure anything will change on the ground, unless they swap the “I-69”  shields with “I-69E”  (sadly).

According to that press release, it will be IH 69-E.  If it is signed that way I will die laughing!

In seriousness, we are looking at the possibility of exiting south at Calallan on I-69E which is signed with individual shields as I-69, then go into the newly signed section signed as I-69E.  And we wonder how there are so many error shields.  When they do go through there to eradicate those I-69 shields, a few will get left behind and will stay all the way up until the highway is complete.

I predict that they will leave at least one non E sign up for many years, just like the washed up US 59 NB shield between Exits 129A and B.

At least if they replace the errant non-suffixed I-69 signs, they'll have a few available to post farther north along the corridor.  Save TxDOT a few bucks in the process (marginal, of course, relative to the whole corridor project!).

Yes, if they ever replace the current I-69 shields on I-69E, they will be repurposed somewhere along the corridor where the interstate is only I-69.  Only thing is, it doesn't really save any money.  They still have to make new I69E shields to replace the current I-69 ones, that, had they not made the error, would have just been placed in their correct spot anyway.  In fact you might argue it is a money loser, since you paid workers to install the wrong shield, then pay them again to take them down, and install the right ones, then pay them to install them in the correct spot, instead of paying them to install shields, then paying them to install other shields somewhere else along the corridor. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on July 08, 2021, 12:06:07 PM
Considering how these highway shields are often mass produced the labor costs (traveling to/from the site and installation) are worth more than the sign panels. The existing I-69 shields have been in place for a number of years. Weather, particularly coastal weather, may have taken some effect on those shields. TX DOT could try to store them and re-use them elsewhere along the I-69 corridor. Chances are good at least some of them will have to be cleaned up and re-decorated. It might be cheaper to recycle that aluminum and start over from scratch with new, clean, routed aluminum blanks.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on July 08, 2021, 12:07:42 PM
https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/commission/2021/0630/11d.pdf

It’s the segment that was completed a few years ago south of Robstown. It’s already sign posted as “I-69”  (without the E) so I’m not sure anything will change on the ground, unless they swap the “I-69”  shields with “I-69E”  (sadly).

According to that press release, it will be IH 69-E.  If it is signed that way I will die laughing!

In seriousness, we are looking at the possibility of exiting south at Calallan on I-69E which is signed with individual shields as I-69, then go into the newly signed section signed as I-69E.  And we wonder how there are so many error shields.  When they do go through there to eradicate those I-69 shields, a few will get left behind and will stay all the way up until the highway is complete.

I predict that they will leave at least one non E sign up for many years, just like the washed up US 59 NB shield between Exits 129A and B.

At least if they replace the errant non-suffixed I-69 signs, they'll have a few available to post farther north along the corridor.  Save TxDOT a few bucks in the process (marginal, of course, relative to the whole corridor project!).

Yes, if they ever replace the current I-69 shields on I-69E, they will be repurposed somewhere along the corridor where the interstate is only I-69.  Only thing is, it doesn't really save any money.  They still have to make new I69E shields to replace the current I-69 ones, that, had they not made the error, would have just been placed in their correct spot anyway.  In fact you might argue it is a money loser, since you paid workers to install the wrong shield, then pay them again to take them down, and install the right ones, then pay them to install them in the correct spot, instead of paying them to install shields, then paying them to install other shields somewhere else along the corridor.
Exactly. They could use them for the section under construction from Kendleton to South of Rosenberg. Although it is also possible they just decide to discard those shields instead, and make new ones for the main I-69 corridor.

BTW, google maps has updated street view for US 59 from East of Ganado to Houston. It is dated April 2021.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on July 08, 2021, 11:00:59 PM
Update on Driscoll Bypass: After watching a video on a Snapchat story, the future NB lane at the future BU 77 exit south of Driscoll has the BGS installed and signed as North I-69E/US 77.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: GreenLanternCorps on July 09, 2021, 09:32:32 AM
Update on Driscoll Bypass: After watching a video on a Snapchat story, the future NB lane at the future BU 77 exit south of Driscoll has the BGS installed and signed as North I-69E/US 77.
Do you have a link to that?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: abqtraveler on July 09, 2021, 10:24:47 AM
Update on Driscoll Bypass: After watching a video on a Snapchat story, the future NB lane at the future BU 77 exit south of Driscoll has the BGS installed and signed as North I-69E/US 77.
The Driscoll Bypass is definitely starting to take shape. Latest satellite view from Google Maps: https://www.google.com/maps/@27.6824055,-97.746814,2835m/data=!3m1!1e3
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on July 09, 2021, 12:26:35 PM
Update on Driscoll Bypass: After watching a video on a Snapchat story, the future NB lane at the future BU 77 exit south of Driscoll has the BGS installed and signed as North I-69E/US 77.
Do you have a link to that?
I screened it with my phone. It’s kinda blurry though.
https://flic.kr/p/2majo25
Update on Driscoll Bypass: After watching a video on a Snapchat story, the future NB lane at the future BU 77 exit south of Driscoll has the BGS installed and signed as North I-69E/US 77.
The Driscoll Bypass is definitely starting to take shape. Latest satellite view from Google Maps: https://www.google.com/maps/@27.6824055,-97.746814,2835m/data=!3m1!1e3

That satellite imagery has been there for a couple of months. It’s likely closer to completion at this point. On Zachry Construction”˜a website, its expected finish date is August 2022.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on July 09, 2021, 01:36:33 PM
Update on Driscoll Bypass: After watching a video on a Snapchat story, the future NB lane at the future BU 77 exit south of Driscoll has the BGS installed and signed as North I-69E/US 77.
Do you have a link to that?
I screened it with my phone. It’s kinda blurry though.
https://flic.kr/p/2majo25
Update on Driscoll Bypass: After watching a video on a Snapchat story, the future NB lane at the future BU 77 exit south of Driscoll has the BGS installed and signed as North I-69E/US 77.
The Driscoll Bypass is definitely starting to take shape. Latest satellite view from Google Maps: https://www.google.com/maps/@27.6824055,-97.746814,2835m/data=!3m1!1e3

That satellite imagery has been there for a couple of months. It’s likely closer to completion at this point. On Zachry Construction”˜a website, its expected finish date is August 2022.

We all know those expected completion dates are always met.  :-D
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on July 09, 2021, 01:39:47 PM
Update on Driscoll Bypass: After watching a video on a Snapchat story, the future NB lane at the future BU 77 exit south of Driscoll has the BGS installed and signed as North I-69E/US 77.
Do you have a link to that?
I screened it with my phone. It’s kinda blurry though.
https://flic.kr/p/2majo25
Update on Driscoll Bypass: After watching a video on a Snapchat story, the future NB lane at the future BU 77 exit south of Driscoll has the BGS installed and signed as North I-69E/US 77.
The Driscoll Bypass is definitely starting to take shape. Latest satellite view from Google Maps: https://www.google.com/maps/@27.6824055,-97.746814,2835m/data=!3m1!1e3

That satellite imagery has been there for a couple of months. It’s likely closer to completion at this point. On Zachry Construction”˜a website, its expected finish date is August 2022.

We all know those expected completion dates are always met.  :-D
XD. I honestly think it could be open months earlier. And I thought they would only sign it US 77 first, then I-69E.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on July 09, 2021, 05:06:06 PM
And I thought they would only sign it US 77 first, then I-69E.

Not a chance; TxDOT and their Alliance for I-69/TX cohorts have a lot, reputation-wise, on getting those tri-color shields posted ASAP on as many miles as they can to show whatever progress has actually been made. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on July 09, 2021, 05:15:09 PM
And I thought they would only sign it US 77 first, then I-69E.

Not a chance; TxDOT and their Alliance for I-69/TX cohorts have a lot, reputation-wise, on getting those tri-color shields posted ASAP on as many miles as they can to show whatever progress has actually been made.

I hope they can get El Campo to Kendleton ready soon so we can see mainline I-69 extended even further. And if it weren’t for the “connect to Interstate”  requirements, we would see I-69 already in Victoria, Falfurrias, Edna, and other places by now, which I’m not necessarily complaining about.

BTW, have they started the bidding process for the Riviera bypass yet or will it start in 2022?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on July 09, 2021, 06:22:33 PM
And I thought they would only sign it US 77 first, then I-69E.

Not a chance; TxDOT and their Alliance for I-69/TX cohorts have a lot, reputation-wise, on getting those tri-color shields posted ASAP on as many miles as they can to show whatever progress has actually been made.

I hope they can get El Campo to Kendleton ready soon so we can see mainline I-69 extended even further. And if it weren’t for the “connect to Interstate”  requirements, we would see I-69 already in Victoria, Falfurrias, Edna, and other places by now, which I’m not necessarily complaining about.

BTW, have they started the bidding process for the Riviera bypass yet or will it start in 2022?

A bill was passed many years ago that allows parts of I-69 to be signed that are isolated from the system.  That is why I-69E, I-69C and I-2 exist.  The provision is they need to connect to the rest of the system in 20 years from their dedication. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on July 09, 2021, 07:32:30 PM
And I thought they would only sign it US 77 first, then I-69E.

Not a chance; TxDOT and their Alliance for I-69/TX cohorts have a lot, reputation-wise, on getting those tri-color shields posted ASAP on as many miles as they can to show whatever progress has actually been made.

I hope they can get El Campo to Kendleton ready soon so we can see mainline I-69 extended even further. And if it weren’t for the “connect to Interstate”  requirements, we would see I-69 already in Victoria, Falfurrias, Edna, and other places by now, which I’m not necessarily complaining about.

BTW, have they started the bidding process for the Riviera bypass yet or will it start in 2022?

A bill was passed many years ago that allows parts of I-69 to be signed that are isolated from the system.  That is why I-69E, I-69C and I-2 exist.  The provision is they need to connect to the rest of the system in 20 years from their dedication.
Does that mean I-69E from Brownsville to Kingsville shall be finished in 2031?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on July 09, 2021, 08:06:08 PM
And I thought they would only sign it US 77 first, then I-69E.

Not a chance; TxDOT and their Alliance for I-69/TX cohorts have a lot, reputation-wise, on getting those tri-color shields posted ASAP on as many miles as they can to show whatever progress has actually been made.

I hope they can get El Campo to Kendleton ready soon so we can see mainline I-69 extended even further. And if it weren’t for the “connect to Interstate”  requirements, we would see I-69 already in Victoria, Falfurrias, Edna, and other places by now, which I’m not necessarily complaining about.

BTW, have they started the bidding process for the Riviera bypass yet or will it start in 2022?

A bill was passed many years ago that allows parts of I-69 to be signed that are isolated from the system.  That is why I-69E, I-69C and I-2 exist.  The provision is they need to connect to the rest of the system in 20 years from their dedication.
Does that mean I-69E from Brownsville to Kingsville shall be finished in 2031?

Sposed to be!
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on July 09, 2021, 08:20:07 PM
And I thought they would only sign it US 77 first, then I-69E.

Not a chance; TxDOT and their Alliance for I-69/TX cohorts have a lot, reputation-wise, on getting those tri-color shields posted ASAP on as many miles as they can to show whatever progress has actually been made.

I hope they can get El Campo to Kendleton ready soon so we can see mainline I-69 extended even further. And if it weren’t for the “connect to Interstate”  requirements, we would see I-69 already in Victoria, Falfurrias, Edna, and other places by now, which I’m not necessarily complaining about.

BTW, have they started the bidding process for the Riviera bypass yet or will it start in 2022?

A bill was passed many years ago that allows parts of I-69 to be signed that are isolated from the system.  That is why I-69E, I-69C and I-2 exist.  The provision is they need to connect to the rest of the system in 20 years from their dedication.
Does that mean I-69E from Brownsville to Kingsville shall be finished in 2031?

Sposed to be!
Because according to the I-69 tabloid by TxDOT, there’s an unfounded segment set to be started in 2035. Interesting to see what happens if they don’t finish in that 20 year timeline.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: TXtoNJ on July 09, 2021, 08:29:45 PM
And I thought they would only sign it US 77 first, then I-69E.

Not a chance; TxDOT and their Alliance for I-69/TX cohorts have a lot, reputation-wise, on getting those tri-color shields posted ASAP on as many miles as they can to show whatever progress has actually been made.

I hope they can get El Campo to Kendleton ready soon so we can see mainline I-69 extended even further. And if it weren’t for the “connect to Interstate”  requirements, we would see I-69 already in Victoria, Falfurrias, Edna, and other places by now, which I’m not necessarily complaining about.

BTW, have they started the bidding process for the Riviera bypass yet or will it start in 2022?

A bill was passed many years ago that allows parts of I-69 to be signed that are isolated from the system.  That is why I-69E, I-69C and I-2 exist.  The provision is they need to connect to the rest of the system in 20 years from their dedication.
Does that mean I-69E from Brownsville to Kingsville shall be finished in 2031?

Sposed to be!
Because according to the I-69 tabloid by TxDOT, there’s an unfounded segment set to be started in 2035. Interesting to see what happens if they don’t finish in that 20 year timeline.

An extension will get tacked on as a rider to some uncontroversial bill, and nothing will subsequently change.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on July 09, 2021, 08:54:49 PM
And I thought they would only sign it US 77 first, then I-69E.

Not a chance; TxDOT and their Alliance for I-69/TX cohorts have a lot, reputation-wise, on getting those tri-color shields posted ASAP on as many miles as they can to show whatever progress has actually been made.

I hope they can get El Campo to Kendleton ready soon so we can see mainline I-69 extended even further. And if it weren’t for the “connect to Interstate”  requirements, we would see I-69 already in Victoria, Falfurrias, Edna, and other places by now, which I’m not necessarily complaining about.

BTW, have they started the bidding process for the Riviera bypass yet or will it start in 2022?

A bill was passed many years ago that allows parts of I-69 to be signed that are isolated from the system.  That is why I-69E, I-69C and I-2 exist.  The provision is they need to connect to the rest of the system in 20 years from their dedication.
Does that mean I-69E from Brownsville to Kingsville shall be finished in 2031?

Sposed to be!
Because according to the I-69 tabloid by TxDOT, there’s an unfounded segment set to be started in 2035. Interesting to see what happens if they don’t finish in that 20 year timeline.

An extension will get tacked on as a rider to some uncontroversial bill, and nothing will subsequently change.
Not bad. After all, such segment is only inside a county with one of the least populations in the country. And really, it’s just two things: unpaved roads which lead to nowhere or to other unpaved roads, and crossovers (which can be solved by placing an “Emergency Vehicles Only”  sign or a no U-Turn sign).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on July 09, 2021, 09:24:14 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Out of pure curiosity, does anyone thing that since the 69E branch has such an extended completion horizon, that 69C over to the west might over time catch up to the east branch in terms of actual miles built?  FWIW, the truck traffic on US 281 is both heavy and consistent (almost certainly the reason the branch was designated in the first place) -- but OTOH, like its eastern counterpart most of it is already divided and serving reasonably well as is -- absent any safety issues regarding at-grade cross traffic.  One thing pretty certain -- both will see substantial completion before any part of 69W not within metro Laredo and/or Victoria sees actual construction activity. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on July 09, 2021, 11:17:40 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Out of pure curiosity, does anyone thing that since the 69E branch has such an extended completion horizon, that 69C over to the west might over time catch up to the east branch in terms of actual miles built?  FWIW, the truck traffic on US 281 is both heavy and consistent (almost certainly the reason the branch was designated in the first place) -- but OTOH, like its eastern counterpart most of it is already divided and serving reasonably well as is -- absent any safety issues regarding at-grade cross traffic.  One thing pretty certain -- both will see substantial completion before any part of 69W not within metro Laredo and/or Victoria sees actual construction activity.
I think C will be fully finished first. For E to finish, 77 needs a new bypass for Riviera, Odem and Refugio and cleanup in Sinton and Woodsboro. Meanwhile for C, 281 only needs a bypass in Premont (in progress), and clean up in Alice, and then work in George West. Also, C is shorther than E. Designations depend on the progress of W.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on July 10, 2021, 01:47:32 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Out of pure curiosity, does anyone thing that since the 69E branch has such an extended completion horizon, that 69C over to the west might over time catch up to the east branch in terms of actual miles built?  FWIW, the truck traffic on US 281 is both heavy and consistent (almost certainly the reason the branch was designated in the first place) -- but OTOH, like its eastern counterpart most of it is already divided and serving reasonably well as is -- absent any safety issues regarding at-grade cross traffic.  One thing pretty certain -- both will see substantial completion before any part of 69W not within metro Laredo and/or Victoria sees actual construction activity.
I think C will be fully finished first. For E to finish, 77 needs a new bypass for Riviera, Odem and Refugio and cleanup in Sinton and Woodsboro. Meanwhile for C, 281 only needs a bypass in Premont (in progress), and clean up in Alice, and then work in George West. Also, C is shorther than E. Designations depend on the progress of W.

From the plans I've seen, I-69C is simply slated to end at I-69W/US 59 south of George West; any connection to I-37 would be accomplished by a short NE leg along 69W.  But I've also heard vague rumors that there are local politicos who want 69C extended north over US 281 as a shortcut to north I-37, even though that would mean modifying the original legislated route descriptions.  If anyone can verify that such an idea has gotten official traction, please let the rest of us know! 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on July 10, 2021, 02:51:38 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Out of pure curiosity, does anyone thing that since the 69E branch has such an extended completion horizon, that 69C over to the west might over time catch up to the east branch in terms of actual miles built?  FWIW, the truck traffic on US 281 is both heavy and consistent (almost certainly the reason the branch was designated in the first place) -- but OTOH, like its eastern counterpart most of it is already divided and serving reasonably well as is -- absent any safety issues regarding at-grade cross traffic.  One thing pretty certain -- both will see substantial completion before any part of 69W not within metro Laredo and/or Victoria sees actual construction activity.
I think C will be fully finished first. For E to finish, 77 needs a new bypass for Riviera, Odem and Refugio and cleanup in Sinton and Woodsboro. Meanwhile for C, 281 only needs a bypass in Premont (in progress), and clean up in Alice, and then work in George West. Also, C is shorther than E. Designations depend on the progress of W.

From the plans I've seen, I-69C is simply slated to end at I-69W/US 59 south of George West; any connection to I-37 would be accomplished by a short NE leg along 69W.  But I've also heard vague rumors that there are local politicos who want 69C extended north over US 281 as a shortcut to north I-37, even though that would mean modifying the original legislated route descriptions.  If anyone can verify that such an idea has gotten official traction, please let the rest of us know!
That would likely involve designating a Spur route (I-569).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: aboges26 on July 10, 2021, 11:57:32 AM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Out of pure curiosity, does anyone thing that since the 69E branch has such an extended completion horizon, that 69C over to the west might over time catch up to the east branch in terms of actual miles built?  FWIW, the truck traffic on US 281 is both heavy and consistent (almost certainly the reason the branch was designated in the first place) -- but OTOH, like its eastern counterpart most of it is already divided and serving reasonably well as is -- absent any safety issues regarding at-grade cross traffic.  One thing pretty certain -- both will see substantial completion before any part of 69W not within metro Laredo and/or Victoria sees actual construction activity.
I think C will be fully finished first. For E to finish, 77 needs a new bypass for Riviera, Odem and Refugio and cleanup in Sinton and Woodsboro. Meanwhile for C, 281 only needs a bypass in Premont (in progress), and clean up in Alice, and then work in George West. Also, C is shorther than E. Designations depend on the progress of W.

From the plans I've seen, I-69C is simply slated to end at I-69W/US 59 south of George West; any connection to I-37 would be accomplished by a short NE leg along 69W.  But I've also heard vague rumors that there are local politicos who want 69C extended north over US 281 as a shortcut to north I-37, even though that would mean modifying the original legislated route descriptions.  If anyone can verify that such an idea has gotten official traction, please let the rest of us know!
That would likely involve designating a Spur route (I-569).

I-569 sure sounds like a good number for the whole I-69C route....
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: TheBox on July 10, 2021, 12:02:27 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Out of pure curiosity, does anyone thing that since the 69E branch has such an extended completion horizon, that 69C over to the west might over time catch up to the east branch in terms of actual miles built?  FWIW, the truck traffic on US 281 is both heavy and consistent (almost certainly the reason the branch was designated in the first place) -- but OTOH, like its eastern counterpart most of it is already divided and serving reasonably well as is -- absent any safety issues regarding at-grade cross traffic.  One thing pretty certain -- both will see substantial completion before any part of 69W not within metro Laredo and/or Victoria sees actual construction activity.
I think C will be fully finished first. For E to finish, 77 needs a new bypass for Riviera, Odem and Refugio and cleanup in Sinton and Woodsboro. Meanwhile for C, 281 only needs a bypass in Premont (in progress), and clean up in Alice, and then work in George West. Also, C is shorther than E. Designations depend on the progress of W.
Meanwhile, work on I-69W/US-59 still has a long way to go. Even just between George West and Victoria, still needs upgrades and progress.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on July 10, 2021, 12:05:14 PM
I-69C just needs to be an I-x37, cut it from the I-69 system altogether.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on July 10, 2021, 12:10:23 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Out of pure curiosity, does anyone thing that since the 69E branch has such an extended completion horizon, that 69C over to the west might over time catch up to the east branch in terms of actual miles built?  FWIW, the truck traffic on US 281 is both heavy and consistent (almost certainly the reason the branch was designated in the first place) -- but OTOH, like its eastern counterpart most of it is already divided and serving reasonably well as is -- absent any safety issues regarding at-grade cross traffic.  One thing pretty certain -- both will see substantial completion before any part of 69W not within metro Laredo and/or Victoria sees actual construction activity.
I think C will be fully finished first. For E to finish, 77 needs a new bypass for Riviera, Odem and Refugio and cleanup in Sinton and Woodsboro. Meanwhile for C, 281 only needs a bypass in Premont (in progress), and clean up in Alice, and then work in George West. Also, C is shorther than E. Designations depend on the progress of W.
Meanwhile, work on I-69W/US-59 still has a long way to go. Even just between George West and Victoria, still needs upgrades and progress.
The only progress for I-69W that is about to occur is at the 59/77/BU 59T interchange, something carrying over from the US 77 freeway project, which will occur right after they finish the SH 185 project.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Revive 755 on July 10, 2021, 12:48:11 PM
I-69C just needs to be an I-x37, cut it from the I-69 system altogether.

Except the x37 would be almost the same length as its parent - that doesn't seem right to me.  IMHO better to make it mainline 37 and have the existing I-37 to Corpus Christi the x37.

Or since this area is far enough south, make it another odd 2di.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on July 10, 2021, 01:24:56 PM
I-69C just needs to be an I-x37, cut it from the I-69 system altogether.

Except the x37 would be almost the same length as its parent - that doesn't seem right to me.  IMHO better to make it mainline 37 and have the existing I-37 to Corpus Christi the x37.

Or since this area is far enough south, make it another odd 2di.
Or make US 281 from I-37 to US 59 I-x37, and US 59 to I-2 can be I-69C. If it were to reroute I-37 to Pharrell, it would likely wipeout US 281.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: GreenLanternCorps on July 10, 2021, 05:45:40 PM
Update on Driscoll Bypass: After watching a video on a Snapchat story, the future NB lane at the future BU 77 exit south of Driscoll has the BGS installed and signed as North I-69E/US 77.
Do you have a link to that?
I screened it with my phone. It’s kinda blurry though.
https://flic.kr/p/2majo25

Thanks, it is blurry, but I can make out the interstate sign on the BGS.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on July 10, 2021, 06:18:06 PM
I-69C just needs to be an I-x37, cut it from the I-69 system altogether.

Except the x37 would be almost the same length as its parent - that doesn't seem right to me.  IMHO better to make it mainline 37 and have the existing I-37 to Corpus Christi the x37.

Or since this area is far enough south, make it another odd 2di.
Or make US 281 from I-37 to US 59 I-x37, and US 59 to I-2 can be I-69C. If it were to reroute I-37 to Pharrell, it would likely wipeout US 281.

All well & good -- but TxDOT went ahead and specified the current suffixed designations back around 2004 based on the HPC #18 & 20 language within the authorizing act that was part of the 1995 NHS-establishing legislation (the first time Interstate numbers were appended to corridors; that year also produced I-73 and I-99).  The corridor branches south of Victoria were labeled "east" and "central"; originally it was assumed that plain old I-69 would head straight down US 59 to Laredo.  Rather than confuse TX's congressional delegation, who were shepherding the process through Congress, with numbers not reflecting the "69" omnibus plan.  TxDOT and the group of Houston business interests that promulgated the overall corridor, the Alliance for I-69/Texas, apparently didn't have much confidence in said delegation understanding numbering concepts that didn't correspond to the original act as legislated, so they simply transferred the descriptions to the actual route numbers, including Central, which had not been formally utilized previously.  The addition of "W" or West came about when it was decided to sign North Laredo's International Bridge as part of the I-69 "family"; since at that time (circa 2012-13) signage of both I-69E and I-69C was taking place in the lower Rio Grande Valley, it was decided to add the "W" suffix to the branch along US 59 to differentiate it from the others. 

At this point it would literally take an act of Congress to get any designations changed; that's a process unlikely to happen at least until the three branches are substantially completed -- if even a subject for consideration then.   
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on July 10, 2021, 08:49:53 PM
How long can we expect US 77 in Ytturia (N of Raymondville) to be co-signed I-69E?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on July 10, 2021, 09:38:27 PM
How long can we expect US 77 in Ytturia (N of Raymondville) to be co-signed I-69E?

If it's already signed as I-69E, hopefully forever!  If it hasn't been signed yet, it's because (a) it's not yet at Interstate standards, or (b) it's been completed, but FHWA hasn't signed off on it yet.  Now -- if the experience of US 75/I-45 and US 81/I-35 are any indication, once I-69E is completed from Victoria to its southern terminus near the border, signage for US 77 might be removed.  But the co-signage will almost certainly continue until full completion.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on July 10, 2021, 09:49:34 PM
^ Regarding US-281, if I-x37 is too lengthy, designate it I-3x or I-4x. It won’t be grid compliant (sorry sticklers) but it would be less confusing to the general public as opposed to changing I-37 for some hundred miles.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on July 10, 2021, 10:12:57 PM
How long can we expect US 77 in Ytturia (N of Raymondville) to be co-signed I-69E?

If it's already signed as I-69E, hopefully forever!  If it hasn't been signed yet, it's because (a) it's not yet at Interstate standards, or (b) it's been completed, but FHWA hasn't signed off on it yet.  Now -- if the experience of US 75/I-45 and US 81/I-35 are any indication, once I-69E is completed from Victoria to its southern terminus near the border, signage for US 77 might be removed.  But the co-signage will almost certainly continue until full completion.
Would this also apply for US 281 and US 59 once fully complete?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on July 10, 2021, 10:18:45 PM
I-69C just needs to be an I-x37, cut it from the I-69 system altogether.

Except the x37 would be almost the same length as its parent - that doesn't seem right to me.  IMHO better to make it mainline 37 and have the existing I-37 to Corpus Christi the x37.

Or since this area is far enough south, make it another odd 2di.
Or make US 281 from I-37 to US 59 I-x37, and US 59 to I-2 can be I-69C. If it were to reroute I-37 to Pharrell, it would likely wipeout US 281.

All well & good -- but TxDOT went ahead and specified the current suffixed designations back around 2004 based on the HPC #18 & 20 language within the authorizing act that was part of the 1995 NHS-establishing legislation (the first time Interstate numbers were appended to corridors; that year also produced I-73 and I-99).  The corridor branches south of Victoria were labeled "east" and "central"; originally it was assumed that plain old I-69 would head straight down US 59 to Laredo.  Rather than confuse TX's congressional delegation, who were shepherding the process through Congress, with numbers not reflecting the "69" omnibus plan.  TxDOT and the group of Houston business interests that promulgated the overall corridor, the Alliance for I-69/Texas, apparently didn't have much confidence in said delegation understanding numbering concepts that didn't correspond to the original act as legislated, so they simply transferred the descriptions to the actual route numbers, including Central, which had not been formally utilized previously.  The addition of "W" or West came about when it was decided to sign North Laredo's International Bridge as part of the I-69 "family"; since at that time (circa 2012-13) signage of both I-69E and I-69C was taking place in the lower Rio Grande Valley, it was decided to add the "W" suffix to the branch along US 59 to differentiate it from the others. 

At this point it would literally take an act of Congress to get any designations changed; that's a process unlikely to happen at least until the three branches are substantially completed -- if even a subject for consideration then.   
Besides, if AASHTO were to block I-69C, they would’ve sued already.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: vdeane on July 10, 2021, 11:40:45 PM
I-69C just needs to be an I-x37, cut it from the I-69 system altogether.

Except the x37 would be almost the same length as its parent - that doesn't seem right to me.  IMHO better to make it mainline 37 and have the existing I-37 to Corpus Christi the x37.

Or since this area is far enough south, make it another odd 2di.
Or make US 281 from I-37 to US 59 I-x37, and US 59 to I-2 can be I-69C. If it were to reroute I-37 to Pharrell, it would likely wipeout US 281.

All well & good -- but TxDOT went ahead and specified the current suffixed designations back around 2004 based on the HPC #18 & 20 language within the authorizing act that was part of the 1995 NHS-establishing legislation (the first time Interstate numbers were appended to corridors; that year also produced I-73 and I-99).  The corridor branches south of Victoria were labeled "east" and "central"; originally it was assumed that plain old I-69 would head straight down US 59 to Laredo.  Rather than confuse TX's congressional delegation, who were shepherding the process through Congress, with numbers not reflecting the "69" omnibus plan.  TxDOT and the group of Houston business interests that promulgated the overall corridor, the Alliance for I-69/Texas, apparently didn't have much confidence in said delegation understanding numbering concepts that didn't correspond to the original act as legislated, so they simply transferred the descriptions to the actual route numbers, including Central, which had not been formally utilized previously.  The addition of "W" or West came about when it was decided to sign North Laredo's International Bridge as part of the I-69 "family"; since at that time (circa 2012-13) signage of both I-69E and I-69C was taking place in the lower Rio Grande Valley, it was decided to add the "W" suffix to the branch along US 59 to differentiate it from the others. 

At this point it would literally take an act of Congress to get any designations changed; that's a process unlikely to happen at least until the three branches are substantially completed -- if even a subject for consideration then.   
Why would the congressional delegation need to understand anything?  They already did their part in creating the corridor.  Now it's up to the DOTs to actually build everything.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on July 11, 2021, 03:23:45 AM
Anyways, would the future I-69W/E interchange start construction after the BU 59T interchange is finished?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on July 11, 2021, 03:36:05 AM
I-69C just needs to be an I-x37, cut it from the I-69 system altogether.

Except the x37 would be almost the same length as its parent - that doesn't seem right to me.  IMHO better to make it mainline 37 and have the existing I-37 to Corpus Christi the x37.

Or since this area is far enough south, make it another odd 2di.
Or make US 281 from I-37 to US 59 I-x37, and US 59 to I-2 can be I-69C. If it were to reroute I-37 to Pharrell, it would likely wipeout US 281.

All well & good -- but TxDOT went ahead and specified the current suffixed designations back around 2004 based on the HPC #18 & 20 language within the authorizing act that was part of the 1995 NHS-establishing legislation (the first time Interstate numbers were appended to corridors; that year also produced I-73 and I-99).  The corridor branches south of Victoria were labeled "east" and "central"; originally it was assumed that plain old I-69 would head straight down US 59 to Laredo.  Rather than confuse TX's congressional delegation, who were shepherding the process through Congress, with numbers not reflecting the "69" omnibus plan.  TxDOT and the group of Houston business interests that promulgated the overall corridor, the Alliance for I-69/Texas, apparently didn't have much confidence in said delegation understanding numbering concepts that didn't correspond to the original act as legislated, so they simply transferred the descriptions to the actual route numbers, including Central, which had not been formally utilized previously.  The addition of "W" or West came about when it was decided to sign North Laredo's International Bridge as part of the I-69 "family"; since at that time (circa 2012-13) signage of both I-69E and I-69C was taking place in the lower Rio Grande Valley, it was decided to add the "W" suffix to the branch along US 59 to differentiate it from the others. 

At this point it would literally take an act of Congress to get any designations changed; that's a process unlikely to happen at least until the three branches are substantially completed -- if even a subject for consideration then.   
Why would the congressional delegation need to understand anything?  They already did their part in creating the corridor.  Now it's up to the DOTs to actually build everything.

Not quite that cut-and-dry, especially in TX.  Keeping the fed funds coming year after year requires the cooperation of that same delegation, whose composition may change a bit over the years, with new additions requiring being brought "up to speed" on what's expected of them and what benefits they can and will receive for their continued support.  A massive project such as this occasionally requires a modicum of "ass-kissing" as well as making it easy to maintain such support; staying "on message" by condensing corridor business to easily understandable parameters (such as, in this instance, referring to the corridor concepts receiving funding as "I-69" components) is a part of the methodology.  In this way the representatives are functioning as active ongoing partners and project "boosters" rather than simply the vehicles by which the original corridor was designated; since many of those weren't around in their present capacity back in '95, emphasizing that these folks have a vested (electoral) interest in ensuring that the project is progressing consistently is something that TxDOT and the corridor boosters engage in on a regular basis.  In TX, the recognition of the fact that building roads, particularly new facilities, is intrinsically intertwined with regional/district politics is a bit more overt than in other jurisdictions -- and care is taken that no party "drops the ball", so to speak, to the point where long-planned corridors are relegated to low priority or even shelved, as with some states' DOT's. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: yakra on July 11, 2021, 01:24:31 PM
BTW, google maps has updated street view for US 59 from East of Ganado to Houston. It is dated April 2021.
Yay, visible exit numbers!

Odd that they'd sign Spur 529 via Exit 95 (https://www.google.com/maps/@29.5323648,-95.8268349,3a,53.9y,264.6h,89.32t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sjq8kZcFfjsGgCLJAMxN8Gw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!9m2!1b1!2i40), rather than via Exit 94 (https://www.google.com/maps/@29.5349501,-95.8480401,3a,15.1y,277.95h,91.56t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sGX8qMJiGA9fC6MmM9YMU2w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!9m2!1b1!2i40) where there's more direct access.


Edit: quoted the wrong post
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on July 11, 2021, 01:35:30 PM
Update on Driscoll Bypass: After watching a video on a Snapchat story, the future NB lane at the future BU 77 exit south of Driscoll has the BGS installed and signed as North I-69E/US 77.
Yay, visible exit numbers!

Odd that they'd sign Spur 529 via Exit 95 (https://www.google.com/maps/@29.5323648,-95.8268349,3a,53.9y,264.6h,89.32t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sjq8kZcFfjsGgCLJAMxN8Gw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!9m2!1b1!2i40), rather than via Exit 94 (https://www.google.com/maps/@29.5349501,-95.8480401,3a,15.1y,277.95h,91.56t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sGX8qMJiGA9fC6MmM9YMU2w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!9m2!1b1!2i40) where there's more direct access.
Something tells me they’re moving Spur 529 onto Kroesche Rd. Or maybe it’s just me.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on July 11, 2021, 03:00:39 PM
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Out of pure curiosity, does anyone thing that since the 69E branch has such an extended completion horizon, that 69C over to the west might over time catch up to the east branch in terms of actual miles built?  FWIW, the truck traffic on US 281 is both heavy and consistent (almost certainly the reason the branch was designated in the first place) -- but OTOH, like its eastern counterpart most of it is already divided and serving reasonably well as is -- absent any safety issues regarding at-grade cross traffic.  One thing pretty certain -- both will see substantial completion before any part of 69W not within metro Laredo and/or Victoria sees actual construction activity.
I think C will be fully finished first. For E to finish, 77 needs a new bypass for Riviera, Odem and Refugio and cleanup in Sinton and Woodsboro. Meanwhile for C, 281 only needs a bypass in Premont (in progress), and clean up in Alice, and then work in George West. Also, C is shorther than E. Designations depend on the progress of W.

Not so fast.  Texas is notorious for not building a road to interstate standards if it's not an interstate.  To the point of being grossly substandard.  I am not just talking about grade crossings and turnarounds.  TxDOT builds divided highways on the cheep.  The base is very poor, the shoulders are not always present or compliant, and the road is filled with slight hills (some blind) that will need to be leveled out.  Saying U.S. 281 is a divided highway between Alice and George West so all you have to do is remove the crossovers and a few at-grade crossings is just scratching the surface.  The whole road will have to be raised and re-done. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: vdeane on July 11, 2021, 05:11:54 PM
I-69C just needs to be an I-x37, cut it from the I-69 system altogether.

Except the x37 would be almost the same length as its parent - that doesn't seem right to me.  IMHO better to make it mainline 37 and have the existing I-37 to Corpus Christi the x37.

Or since this area is far enough south, make it another odd 2di.
Or make US 281 from I-37 to US 59 I-x37, and US 59 to I-2 can be I-69C. If it were to reroute I-37 to Pharrell, it would likely wipeout US 281.

All well & good -- but TxDOT went ahead and specified the current suffixed designations back around 2004 based on the HPC #18 & 20 language within the authorizing act that was part of the 1995 NHS-establishing legislation (the first time Interstate numbers were appended to corridors; that year also produced I-73 and I-99).  The corridor branches south of Victoria were labeled "east" and "central"; originally it was assumed that plain old I-69 would head straight down US 59 to Laredo.  Rather than confuse TX's congressional delegation, who were shepherding the process through Congress, with numbers not reflecting the "69" omnibus plan.  TxDOT and the group of Houston business interests that promulgated the overall corridor, the Alliance for I-69/Texas, apparently didn't have much confidence in said delegation understanding numbering concepts that didn't correspond to the original act as legislated, so they simply transferred the descriptions to the actual route numbers, including Central, which had not been formally utilized previously.  The addition of "W" or West came about when it was decided to sign North Laredo's International Bridge as part of the I-69 "family"; since at that time (circa 2012-13) signage of both I-69E and I-69C was taking place in the lower Rio Grande Valley, it was decided to add the "W" suffix to the branch along US 59 to differentiate it from the others. 

At this point it would literally take an act of Congress to get any designations changed; that's a process unlikely to happen at least until the three branches are substantially completed -- if even a subject for consideration then.   
Why would the congressional delegation need to understand anything?  They already did their part in creating the corridor.  Now it's up to the DOTs to actually build everything.

Not quite that cut-and-dry, especially in TX.  Keeping the fed funds coming year after year requires the cooperation of that same delegation, whose composition may change a bit over the years, with new additions requiring being brought "up to speed" on what's expected of them and what benefits they can and will receive for their continued support.  A massive project such as this occasionally requires a modicum of "ass-kissing" as well as making it easy to maintain such support; staying "on message" by condensing corridor business to easily understandable parameters (such as, in this instance, referring to the corridor concepts receiving funding as "I-69" components) is a part of the methodology.  In this way the representatives are functioning as active ongoing partners and project "boosters" rather than simply the vehicles by which the original corridor was designated; since many of those weren't around in their present capacity back in '95, emphasizing that these folks have a vested (electoral) interest in ensuring that the project is progressing consistently is something that TxDOT and the corridor boosters engage in on a regular basis.  In TX, the recognition of the fact that building roads, particularly new facilities, is intrinsically intertwined with regional/district politics is a bit more overt than in other jurisdictions -- and care is taken that no party "drops the ball", so to speak, to the point where long-planned corridors are relegated to low priority or even shelved, as with some states' DOT's. 
What federal funds could they possibly need Congress for?  Earmarks haven't been around, and the funds states get (NHPP, SDF, TAP/CMAQ, etc.) are set by formula.  Normally when a state build a road, they're spending money from the same pot that funds other projects.  That's why new interstate construction takes so long these days.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: wdcrft63 on July 11, 2021, 06:11:37 PM
What federal funds could they possibly need Congress for?  Earmarks haven't been around, and the funds states get (NHPP, SDF, TAP/CMAQ, etc.) are set by formula.  Normally when a state build a road, they're spending money from the same pot that funds other projects.  That's why new interstate construction takes so long these days.
Earmarks are back:
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2021/03/17/earmarks-are-back-and-americans-should-be-glad/
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on July 11, 2021, 08:15:36 PM
What federal funds could they possibly need Congress for?  Earmarks haven't been around, and the funds states get (NHPP, SDF, TAP/CMAQ, etc.) are set by formula.  Normally when a state build a road, they're spending money from the same pot that funds other projects.  That's why new interstate construction takes so long these days.
Earmarks are back:
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2021/03/17/earmarks-are-back-and-americans-should-be-glad/

And, in reality, they have been for some time -- but not overtly.  Since there's no chargeability issues with which to contend, projects, including improvements to freeways, can and have been "back-doored" as local efficiency and safety measures (interchanges serving outlying housing developments have been doing this for years), taking advantage of multiple federal pools besides the annual USDOT outlays.  Before long, a divided highway has a handful of interchanges along its length, so when a comprehensive upgrade is slated, it's already partially completed. 

But some states seem to be more adept at directing "off-book" funds to their projects than others who take a more passive approach, letting the yearly "pool" revenues dictate the limitations and timeframes of their backlog of work.  Congresspersons who are able to "call dibs" and direct alternate revenue sources to their projects have been invaluable to those states they represent -- they're simply doing their job providing for their districts.  But now that some sanity has been restored (along with actual earmarks) in a long-impecunious legislative environment, things may actually pick up in terms of project horizons, including the I-69 "family" of facilities.  If TX' delegation is competent, that corridor could actually be completed in 20-25 years (unless more branches and spurs are added!) 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bwana39 on July 11, 2021, 11:26:44 PM
What federal funds could they possibly need Congress for?  Earmarks haven't been around, and the funds states get (NHPP, SDF, TAP/CMAQ, etc.) are set by formula.  Normally when a state build a road, they're spending money from the same pot that funds other projects.  That's why new interstate construction takes so long these days.
Earmarks are back:
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2021/03/17/earmarks-are-back-and-americans-should-be-glad/

And, in reality, they have been for some time -- but not overtly.  Since there's no chargeability issues with which to contend, projects, including improvements to freeways, can and have been "back-doored" as local efficiency and safety measures (interchanges serving outlying housing developments have been doing this for years), taking advantage of multiple federal pools besides the annual USDOT outlays.  Before long, a divided highway has a handful of interchanges along its length, so when a comprehensive upgrade is slated, it's already partially completed. 

But some states seem to be more adept at directing "off-book" funds to their projects than others who take a more passive approach, letting the yearly "pool" revenues dictate the limitations and timeframes of their backlog of work.  Congresspersons who are able to "call dibs" and direct alternate revenue sources to their projects have been invaluable to those states they represent -- they're simply doing their job providing for their districts.  But now that some sanity has been restored (along with actual earmarks) in a long-impecunious legislative environment, things may actually pick up in terms of project horizons, including the I-69 "family" of facilities.  If TX' delegation is competent, that corridor could actually be completed in 20-25 years (unless more branches and spurs are added!)

I actually think 20-25 years is a very long view if we are talking about Texas. I honestly don't see it being 15 unless we have 8 additional years of pure progressive (inner-city) political control.

  I would agree if we are discussing Mississippi, Arkansas, and Tennessee.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on July 11, 2021, 11:38:58 PM
What federal funds could they possibly need Congress for?  Earmarks haven't been around, and the funds states get (NHPP, SDF, TAP/CMAQ, etc.) are set by formula.  Normally when a state build a road, they're spending money from the same pot that funds other projects.  That's why new interstate construction takes so long these days.
Earmarks are back:
https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2021/03/17/earmarks-are-back-and-americans-should-be-glad/

And, in reality, they have been for some time -- but not overtly.  Since there's no chargeability issues with which to contend, projects, including improvements to freeways, can and have been "back-doored" as local efficiency and safety measures (interchanges serving outlying housing developments have been doing this for years), taking advantage of multiple federal pools besides the annual USDOT outlays.  Before long, a divided highway has a handful of interchanges along its length, so when a comprehensive upgrade is slated, it's already partially completed. 

But some states seem to be more adept at directing "off-book" funds to their projects than others who take a more passive approach, letting the yearly "pool" revenues dictate the limitations and timeframes of their backlog of work.  Congresspersons who are able to "call dibs" and direct alternate revenue sources to their projects have been invaluable to those states they represent -- they're simply doing their job providing for their districts.  But now that some sanity has been restored (along with actual earmarks) in a long-impecunious legislative environment, things may actually pick up in terms of project horizons, including the I-69 "family" of facilities.  If TX' delegation is competent, that corridor could actually be completed in 20-25 years (unless more branches and spurs are added!)

I actually think 20-25 years is a very long view if we are talking about Texas. I honestly don't see it being 15 unless we have 8 additional years of pure progressive (inner-city) political control.

  I would agree if we are discussing Mississippi, Arkansas, and Tennessee.
How long would you think the I-69 system would finish in its entirety?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Echostatic on July 12, 2021, 12:26:56 AM
The I-69 system will probably never be finished. The portions through Mississippi and Arkansas might need divine intervention. Those states have much bigger fish to fry and will keep having bigger fish to fry for decades.

Never is a long time. I suppose it'll be fully finished *eventually,* but I'd say at least 50 years from now.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on July 12, 2021, 03:02:24 AM
The I-69 system will probably never be finished. The portions through Mississippi and Arkansas might need divine intervention. Those states have much bigger fish to fry and will keep having bigger fish to fry for decades.

Never is a long time. I suppose it'll be fully finished *eventually,* but I'd say at least 50 years from now.
As long as it is finished from the border to Texas, or even at least Houston, I will consider it a win.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on July 12, 2021, 03:26:36 AM
The I-69 system will probably never be finished. The portions through Mississippi and Arkansas might need divine intervention. Those states have much bigger fish to fry and will keep having bigger fish to fry for decades.

Never is a long time. I suppose it'll be fully finished *eventually,* but I'd say at least 50 years from now.
As long as it is finished from the border to Texas, or even at least Houston, I will consider it a win.

The 20-25 year horizon I talked about earlier considers all three branches south and southwest of Victoria, the Corpus Christi-Freer additional connector, and I-369 up to Texarkana.  Within 15 years I'd expect all of mainline I-69 from Victoria to Tenaha, and some work on 369 (probably bypasses of Marshall and the other sizeable towns along US 59).  Also I-69E and I-69C in their entirety, plus some initial work around Corpus on the branch along TX 44.  69W will take a bit longer due to the lessened demand there; once 69C is done and is dumping most of its traffic onto I-37, there will be a push for finishing the northeast end of 69W from George West to Victoria to expedite 69C traffic directly toward Houston.  But unless there's a drastic increase in cross-border commercial traffic (both directions) right at Laredo, the rest of 69W will likely lag behind the other branches; I'd venture out toward that 20-25 year horizon.  But from Tenaha all the way to around Clarksdale in MS, the main I-69 trunk probably won't get done until 2050 at the earliest -- and prior to that, it'll exist in pieces like the Monticello bypass, the Shreveport southern loop, and something circumventing El Dorado.  Unless there's a push at the federal level, the Great River/Dean Bridge will likely be the last domino to fall.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on July 12, 2021, 03:51:28 AM
The I-69 system will probably never be finished. The portions through Mississippi and Arkansas might need divine intervention. Those states have much bigger fish to fry and will keep having bigger fish to fry for decades.

Never is a long time. I suppose it'll be fully finished *eventually,* but I'd say at least 50 years from now.
As long as it is finished from the border to Texas, or even at least Houston, I will consider it a win.

The 20-25 year horizon I talked about earlier considers all three branches south and southwest of Victoria, the Corpus Christi-Freer additional connector, and I-369 up to Texarkana.  Within 15 years I'd expect all of mainline I-69 from Victoria to Tenaha, and some work on 369 (probably bypasses of Marshall and the other sizeable towns along US 59).  Also I-69E and I-69C in their entirety, plus some initial work around Corpus on the branch along TX 44.  69W will take a bit longer due to the lessened demand there; once 69C is done and is dumping most of its traffic onto I-37, there will be a push for finishing the northeast end of 69W from George West to Victoria to expedite 69C traffic directly toward Houston.  But unless there's a drastic increase in cross-border commercial traffic (both directions) right at Laredo, the rest of 69W will likely lag behind the other branches; I'd venture out toward that 20-25 year horizon.  But from Tenaha all the way to around Clarksdale in MS, the main I-69 trunk probably won't get done until 2050 at the earliest -- and prior to that, it'll exist in pieces like the Monticello bypass, the Shreveport southern loop, and something circumventing El Dorado.  Unless there's a push at the federal level, the Great River/Dean Bridge will likely be the last domino to fall.
I believe Louisiana will be the last state to connect I-69 due to it not being in high demand.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on July 12, 2021, 04:20:15 AM
The I-69 system will probably never be finished. The portions through Mississippi and Arkansas might need divine intervention. Those states have much bigger fish to fry and will keep having bigger fish to fry for decades.

Never is a long time. I suppose it'll be fully finished *eventually,* but I'd say at least 50 years from now.
As long as it is finished from the border to Texas, or even at least Houston, I will consider it a win.

The 20-25 year horizon I talked about earlier considers all three branches south and southwest of Victoria, the Corpus Christi-Freer additional connector, and I-369 up to Texarkana.  Within 15 years I'd expect all of mainline I-69 from Victoria to Tenaha, and some work on 369 (probably bypasses of Marshall and the other sizeable towns along US 59).  Also I-69E and I-69C in their entirety, plus some initial work around Corpus on the branch along TX 44.  69W will take a bit longer due to the lessened demand there; once 69C is done and is dumping most of its traffic onto I-37, there will be a push for finishing the northeast end of 69W from George West to Victoria to expedite 69C traffic directly toward Houston.  But unless there's a drastic increase in cross-border commercial traffic (both directions) right at Laredo, the rest of 69W will likely lag behind the other branches; I'd venture out toward that 20-25 year horizon.  But from Tenaha all the way to around Clarksdale in MS, the main I-69 trunk probably won't get done until 2050 at the earliest -- and prior to that, it'll exist in pieces like the Monticello bypass, the Shreveport southern loop, and something circumventing El Dorado.  Unless there's a push at the federal level, the Great River/Dean Bridge will likely be the last domino to fall.
I believe Louisiana will be the last state to connect I-69 due to it not being in high demand.

Because of the local-service aspects of the proposed I-69 loop road around the south and east side of metro Shreveport, it's likely that I-69 will be constructed at least as far north as I-20 before much of the rural segment northeast of there including the remaining LA mileage and most of AR's pathway is completed or even underway.  With the persistent lack of available funding within MS, I'd expect the Dean bridge and its eastern approach to US 61 to be the very last corridor portion developed.   
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bwana39 on July 12, 2021, 08:16:22 AM
The I-69 system will probably never be finished. The portions through Mississippi and Arkansas might need divine intervention. Those states have much bigger fish to fry and will keep having bigger fish to fry for decades.

Never is a long time. I suppose it'll be fully finished *eventually,* but I'd say at least 50 years from now.
As long as it is finished from the border to Texas, or even at least Houston, I will consider it a win.

The 20-25 year horizon I talked about earlier considers all three branches south and southwest of Victoria, the Corpus Christi-Freer additional connector, and I-369 up to Texarkana.  Within 15 years I'd expect all of mainline I-69 from Victoria to Tenaha, and some work on 369 (probably bypasses of Marshall and the other sizeable towns along US 59).  Also I-69E and I-69C in their entirety, plus some initial work around Corpus on the branch along TX 44.  69W will take a bit longer due to the lessened demand there; once 69C is done and is dumping most of its traffic onto I-37, there will be a push for finishing the northeast end of 69W from George West to Victoria to expedite 69C traffic directly toward Houston.  But unless there's a drastic increase in cross-border commercial traffic (both directions) right at Laredo, the rest of 69W will likely lag behind the other branches; I'd venture out toward that 20-25 year horizon.  But from Tenaha all the way to around Clarksdale in MS, the main I-69 trunk probably won't get done until 2050 at the earliest -- and prior to that, it'll exist in pieces like the Monticello bypass, the Shreveport southern loop, and something circumventing El Dorado.  Unless there's a push at the federal level, the Great River/Dean Bridge will likely be the last domino to fall.
I believe Louisiana will be the last state to connect I-69 due to it not being in high demand.

Because of the local-service aspects of the proposed I-69 loop road around the south and east side of metro Shreveport, it's likely that I-69 will be constructed at least as far north as I-20 before much of the rural segment northeast of there including the remaining LA mileage and most of AR's pathway is completed or even underway.  With the persistent lack of available funding within MS, I'd expect the Dean bridge and its eastern approach to US 61 to be the very last corridor portion developed.

As much as Shreveport / Bossier would like the I-69 portion from the State Line to I-20 finished, they are struggling getting the Jimmie Davis Bridge replacement done, much less the Interstate 69 port crossing done. The part from I-49 to I-20 might get done within 15 years.

The portion from Panola  or Shelby County in Texas through Desoto Parish LA, is seemingly as far off as is the portion north of I-20. I-49 from Lafayette to NOLA , widening I-10 and perhaps I-12 across LA, and The Baton Rouge Loop (which would include at least one Mississippi River bridge) all will likely get done before Baton Rouge even starts a real priority list.

I see I-369 farther along than you do. I see it to Texarkana before I-49 is finished through western Arkansas. 15 years is a good timetable. I really don't know why the Marshall bypass was put off, but my guess is when they did the repair to the segment between SH-43 and US-59 the existent microengineering data was insufficient so the engineering costs are going to be far higher than originally thought.

I am unsure of the RGV branches, I have little or no knowledge of what is going on down there.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: abqtraveler on July 12, 2021, 09:41:19 AM
The I-69 system will probably never be finished. The portions through Mississippi and Arkansas might need divine intervention. Those states have much bigger fish to fry and will keep having bigger fish to fry for decades.

Never is a long time. I suppose it'll be fully finished *eventually,* but I'd say at least 50 years from now.
As long as it is finished from the border to Texas, or even at least Houston, I will consider it a win.

The 20-25 year horizon I talked about earlier considers all three branches south and southwest of Victoria, the Corpus Christi-Freer additional connector, and I-369 up to Texarkana.  Within 15 years I'd expect all of mainline I-69 from Victoria to Tenaha, and some work on 369 (probably bypasses of Marshall and the other sizeable towns along US 59).  Also I-69E and I-69C in their entirety, plus some initial work around Corpus on the branch along TX 44.  69W will take a bit longer due to the lessened demand there; once 69C is done and is dumping most of its traffic onto I-37, there will be a push for finishing the northeast end of 69W from George West to Victoria to expedite 69C traffic directly toward Houston.  But unless there's a drastic increase in cross-border commercial traffic (both directions) right at Laredo, the rest of 69W will likely lag behind the other branches; I'd venture out toward that 20-25 year horizon.  But from Tenaha all the way to around Clarksdale in MS, the main I-69 trunk probably won't get done until 2050 at the earliest -- and prior to that, it'll exist in pieces like the Monticello bypass, the Shreveport southern loop, and something circumventing El Dorado.  Unless there's a push at the federal level, the Great River/Dean Bridge will likely be the last domino to fall.
I believe Louisiana will be the last state to connect I-69 due to it not being in high demand.
I think Mississippi will be the last state to finish their portion of I-69, if ever.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bwana39 on July 12, 2021, 10:59:00 AM
The I-69 system will probably never be finished. The portions through Mississippi and Arkansas might need divine intervention. Those states have much bigger fish to fry and will keep having bigger fish to fry for decades.

Never is a long time. I suppose it'll be fully finished *eventually,* but I'd say at least 50 years from now.
As long as it is finished from the border to Texas, or even at least Houston, I will consider it a win.

The 20-25 year horizon I talked about earlier considers all three branches south and southwest of Victoria, the Corpus Christi-Freer additional connector, and I-369 up to Texarkana.  Within 15 years I'd expect all of mainline I-69 from Victoria to Tenaha, and some work on 369 (probably bypasses of Marshall and the other sizeable towns along US 59).  Also I-69E and I-69C in their entirety, plus some initial work around Corpus on the branch along TX 44.  69W will take a bit longer due to the lessened demand there; once 69C is done and is dumping most of its traffic onto I-37, there will be a push for finishing the northeast end of 69W from George West to Victoria to expedite 69C traffic directly toward Houston.  But unless there's a drastic increase in cross-border commercial traffic (both directions) right at Laredo, the rest of 69W will likely lag behind the other branches; I'd venture out toward that 20-25 year horizon.  But from Tenaha all the way to around Clarksdale in MS, the main I-69 trunk probably won't get done until 2050 at the earliest -- and prior to that, it'll exist in pieces like the Monticello bypass, the Shreveport southern loop, and something circumventing El Dorado.  Unless there's a push at the federal level, the Great River/Dean Bridge will likely be the last domino to fall.
I believe Louisiana will be the last state to connect I-69 due to it not being in high demand.
I think Mississippi will be the last state to finish their portion of I-69, if ever.

"If ever" is a good synopsis. I think they have little if any appetite or even need for it. The bridge from a Mississippi aspect is redundant. The road would not be a significant distance from I-55 and would be redundant as well.  There is no real value for the people of west central Mississippi for the road or the Dean bridge.

As far as that goes, Arkansas is not invested very much.  I agree that there is zero investment in Louisiana for ANY of it beyond local support for the parts south of I-20. I am not sure unless the Feds both earmark the funds and provide some sort of incentive for the in-kind funds that Louisiana would EVER build the part north of I-20.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on July 13, 2021, 12:45:25 AM
I-69E now overlaps I-37? Interesting they’d make a move this early with no US-77 upgrade north of I-37.

I’ll be in the area next month, I will update if anything changes.
Drove by the area today, managed to take a picture of the new gantry. Indeed, both I-37 and I-69E are co-signed at the northern US-77 interchange. Interestingly enough, no other I-69E shields until its southern split near Calallen, just I-37 and US-77.

(https://i.ibb.co/ydJYNWJ/I69EI37.jpg)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on July 13, 2021, 12:52:21 AM
I-69E now overlaps I-37? Interesting they’d make a move this early with no US-77 upgrade north of I-37.

I’ll be in the area next month, I will update if anything changes.
Drove by the area today, managed to take a picture of the new gantry. Indeed, both I-37 and I-69E are co-signed at the northern US-77 interchange. Interestingly enough, no other I-69E shields for I-69E until it’s southern split near Calallen, just I-37 and US-77.

(https://i.ibb.co/ydJYNWJ/I69EI37.jpg)
OMG!!!!!  Thank you so much!!!! Now I don’t have to spend money on Amazon fire stick to check for updated street view.

Jk, but seriously, this makes me so happy. Wonder when they will start developing the Odem bypass.

Also happened to pass by Houston. US 59 SB is shown by google to be incomplete at Exit 94/Spur 10, but it has since been completed.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on July 13, 2021, 01:04:54 AM
^ Odem and Refugio both need to be bypassed. They are the only things standing in the way of a free-flowing 75 mph expressway between Corpus Christi and Houston. Add the under construction Driscoll Bypass and the proposed Riviera Bypass, and you have a free-flowing expressway between the Rio Grande Valley and Houston.

I’ll try to get some pictures along US-77 between Robstown and Kingsville soon enough, I have yet to drive on that route since 2019 when construction had been in its earliest phases. Curious to see the latest progress. I’ll probably reach Houston in a couple of weeks.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on July 13, 2021, 01:40:56 AM
^ Odem and Refugio both need to be bypassed. They are the only things standing in the way of a free-flowing 75 mph expressway between Corpus Christi and Houston. Add the under construction Driscoll Bypass and the proposed Riviera Bypass, and you have a free-flowing expressway between the Rio Grande Valley and Houston.

I’ll try to get some pictures along US-77 between Robstown and Kingsville soon enough, I have yet to drive on that route since 2019 when construction had been in its earliest phases. Curious to see the latest progress. I’ll probably reach Houston in a couple of weeks.
I’ve been to Houston enough times so far, but I’m really looking forward to seeing US77 near Corpus Christi and Kingsville to see its progress. And I also want to see what they’re doing on US59 between Splendora and Cleveland, specifically at SH 105.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on July 13, 2021, 10:02:49 AM
I-69E now overlaps I-37? Interesting they’d make a move this early with no US-77 upgrade north of I-37.

I’ll be in the area next month, I will update if anything changes.
Drove by the area today, managed to take a picture of the new gantry. Indeed, both I-37 and I-69E are co-signed at the northern US-77 interchange. Interestingly enough, no other I-69E shields until its southern split near Calallen, just I-37 and US-77.

(https://i.ibb.co/ydJYNWJ/I69EI37.jpg)

Thank you so much for getting the white whale.  See everyone, I wasn't lying!!  Hahaha, but seriously thanks!
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on July 13, 2021, 11:48:50 AM
^ No problem, I was honestly surprised someone else didn’t manage to get pictures between when you posted last month and now. I just figured I would at this point since nothing had still been posted.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on July 17, 2021, 01:31:09 AM
Update: after searching on Snapchat, SH 550 has not been signed as I-169 as of July 2021.

Also, I will drive by Houston to see if the Holt Rd overpass for US 59 is completed: because on maps, there are no closures reported there. I will provide a video if I get the chance to.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: The Ghostbuster on July 17, 2021, 12:53:13 PM
They should hold off on signing Interstate 169 until the roadway is completed as a four-lane highway between TX 48 and Interstate 69E.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on July 17, 2021, 12:59:54 PM
They should hold off on signing Interstate 169 until the roadway is completed as a four-lane highway between TX 48 and Interstate 69E.
True. Technically they could sign it now, but it’s too small of a section of freeway to unveil a I-169 sign. Also, when can we expect them to construct a direct connector from I-69E NB? Or is that not possible due to funding?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: achilles765 on July 18, 2021, 02:02:17 AM
I know this is a crazy thought and will likely never happen, but I really wish they would sign slut 527 here in Houston as IH 569.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on July 18, 2021, 02:05:02 AM
I know this is a crazy thought and will likely never happen, but I really wish they would sign slut 527 here in Houston as IH 569.

It is possible. Although it isn’t likely right now, it may be in the future. And yeah, it’s crazy. Especially when you bring it out with a nice typo (sorry).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on July 19, 2021, 09:52:41 AM
I know this is a crazy thought and will likely never happen, but I really wish they would sign slut 527 here in Houston as IH 569.

It is possible. Although it isn’t likely right now, it may be in the future. And yeah, it’s crazy. Especially when you bring it out with a nice typo (sorry).

Slut 527 aside, I have wanted I-569 to go to SH-288/SH-332 from Surfside Beach to I-69 in Houston.  The interstate designation will get everyone off their butts and actually make the whole thing a legit freeway, plus it will have route connectivity to the northern part of I-69.  Slut 527 could still be I-569, and my route could be I-969. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on July 20, 2021, 11:47:23 PM
Took a drive along US-77 today to see progress on the ongoing construction between Robstown and Bishop, upgrading the existing roadway to interstate standards by constructing a new northbound mainline and frontage road on the east side, along with a new location bypass of Driscoll to the east of the town.

All pictures were taken headed northbound on US-77, unless otherwise noted.

(https://i.ibb.co/tZgGfFm/Driscoll-Bypass1.jpg)
Approaching the southern end of the construction zone, just beyond the US-77 Business overpass, future northbound frontage road can be seen to the right.

(https://i.ibb.co/TBDy1wx/Driscoll-Bypass2.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/x1tRTfD/Driscoll-Bypass10.jpg)
Approaching County Rd 12 / FM-3354 intersection, future I-69E / US-77 northbound overpass can be seen to the right.

(https://i.ibb.co/1RFYV0V/Driscoll-Bypass3.jpg)
Future I-69E / US-77 northbound overpass over County Rd 12 / FM-3354.

(https://i.ibb.co/PtfF2m9/Driscoll-Bypass4.jpg)
Sign assembly over the future northbound lanes listing I-69E / US-77 with no control city, another gantry to the right presumably for an eventual 1 mile advance sign for the US-77 Business split.

(https://i.ibb.co/Yj0XKJd/Driscoll-Bypass5.jpg)
Sign assembly over the future northbound lanes at the US-77 Business split, one sign listing I-69E / US-77, again with no control city, and the other listing US-77 Business "Exit Only".

(https://i.ibb.co/gVwCKHJ/Driscoll-Bypass6.jpg)
Another vantage point of the above signage. In the distance, you can see where the bypass splits off to the east.

(https://i.ibb.co/y40xycd/Driscoll-Bypass7.jpg)
Future I-69E / US-77 mainline bridges over the future off-ramp towards US-77 Business heading into Driscoll.

(https://i.ibb.co/tqQ5VTC/Driscoll-Bypass8.jpg)
Just beyond the future bypass split continuing onto what will eventually become US-77 Business, you can see the bypass heading off in the background, with an overpass over County Rd 18.

(https://i.ibb.co/MgkN0v0/Driscoll-Bypass9.jpg)
Taken from along County Rd 79, approaching the location of the future I-69E / FM-665 interchange.

(https://i.ibb.co/h8wTCNq/Driscoll-Bypass11.jpg)
Future I-69E / US-77 mainline bridges over FM-665 heading eastbound.

(https://i.ibb.co/Jzm4RLZ/Driscoll-Bypass13.jpg)
I-69E / FM-665 interchange - future on-ramp to I-69E South.

(https://i.ibb.co/vC9fM7R/Driscoll-Bypass12.jpg)
Another view of the I-69E / US-77 mainline bridges over FM-665 from underneath, note the large (roughly 70 ft) median being used on this segment.

(https://i.ibb.co/f8ZM76k/Driscoll-Bypass14.jpg)
I-69E / FM-665 interchange - future off-ramp from I-69E North.

(https://i.ibb.co/v3D5tSg/Driscoll-Bypass18.jpg)
Future I-69E / US-77 mainline bridges over FM-665 heading westbound.

(https://i.ibb.co/JF1QLMg/Driscoll-Bypass15.jpg)
I-69E / FM-665 interchange - future on-ramp to I-69E North.

(https://i.ibb.co/Kwm2pBF/Driscoll-Bypass16.jpg)
I-69E / FM-665 interchange - future off-ramp from I-69E South.

(https://i.ibb.co/r6Zz3D8/Driscoll-Bypass17.jpg)
Back onto US-77 Northbound, approaching the future tie-in of the new bypass onto the existing road.

(https://i.ibb.co/1JZfsyL/Driscoll-Bypass19.jpg)
Future I-69E / US-77 bridges over the future on-ramp from US-77 Business onto the mainline.

(https://i.ibb.co/PWTKTTs/Driscoll-Bypass20.jpg)
More construction north of the bypass location, upgrading the "gap" between the bypass and the existing I-69(E) - still signed as solely "I-69" - segment south of Robstown to interstate standards.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on July 21, 2021, 12:29:18 AM
^^^^
Once again, thank you! I knew they pre-signed the bypass as I-69E.

Unfortunately, I couldn’t capture the US 59 segment in construction in Victoria because I had to drive my parents (who consumed alcohol, not much, but still) and my iPhone storage is full (looks like the “Other”  is consuming my phone storage). However, the paving for the overpass has been laid. Only needs new ramps and the wireframe is set for the concrete siderail barriers things (or whatever you call the edges of the bridges). However, I have captured a few days ago, the FM 1162 overpass in El Campo.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Plutonic Panda on July 21, 2021, 02:36:13 AM
A simple ^^^^ could have sufficed
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: edwaleni on July 21, 2021, 09:36:07 AM
Once this segment is done, I assume the I-69E signage will get extended to Kingsville?

Brahma Boulevard was closed but I don't think the median is to standard here.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on July 21, 2021, 01:53:47 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda
A simple ^^^^ could have sufficed

Yeah, no kidding! Why quote a huge post (including all the images) just to add a couple of sentences? It causes all kinds of unnecessary scrolling. This isn't the only forum where I've seen participants do that.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on July 21, 2021, 01:56:45 PM
^^^^
Ock. Fixéd.
Once this segment is done, I assume the I-69E signage will get extended to Kingsville?

Brahma Boulevard was closed but I don't think the median is to standard here.
In this case, it would be interesting to see whether they shift the paving or install median barriers.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Plutonic Panda on July 21, 2021, 05:25:33 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda
A simple ^^^^ could have sufficed

Yeah, no kidding! Why quote a huge post (including all the images) just to add a couple of sentences? It causes all kinds of unnecessary scrolling. This isn't the only forum where I've seen participants do that.
I’ve seen waaaaay worse lol.

Thegeet, thank you for fixing that!
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on July 21, 2021, 06:06:49 PM
Quote from: Plutonic Panda
A simple ^^^^ could have sufficed

Yeah, no kidding! Why quote a huge post (including all the images) just to add a couple of sentences? It causes all kinds of unnecessary scrolling. This isn't the only forum where I've seen participants do that.
I’ve seen waaaaay worse lol.

Thegeet, thank you for fixing that!
You’re welcome.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: TheBox on July 25, 2021, 11:57:45 AM
Whiling the updates to I-69E/US-77 at Discroll and I-69/US-59 at FB County is nice and all, but any updates on the direct I-69/US-59 Nacogdoches intersection?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on July 25, 2021, 11:58:58 AM
Whiling the updates to I-69E/US-77 at Discroll and I-69/US-59 at FB County is nice and all, but any updates on the direct I-69/US-59 Nacogdoches intersection?
None. But, from May:
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: TheBox on July 25, 2021, 12:03:17 PM
and what about the I-69/US-59 Cleveland interstate standard upgrade?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on July 25, 2021, 12:09:24 PM
and what about the I-69/US-59 Cleveland interstate standard upgrade?
No updates either. In fact, I am unaware of the details, other than they will have new frontage roads. Are they supposed to take down the underpass at the SH 105 interchange?

Also, any word on the Diboll bypass yet?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: TheBox on July 25, 2021, 01:02:48 PM
and what about the I-69/US-59 Cleveland interstate standard upgrade?
No updates either. In fact, I am unaware of the details, other than they will have new frontage roads. Are they supposed to take down the underpass at the SH 105 interchange?

Also, any word on the Diboll bypass yet?
Nope, nothing about it either

tho there was this article from 2020
https://kicks105.com/txdot-updates-progress-on-three-major-construction-sites/
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: TheBox on July 25, 2021, 01:14:26 PM
Also, remember the Marshall Loop 390 extension/US-59/I-369 bypass project?
What happened to that? last i heard of it was 2019

https://www.marshallnewsmessenger.com/news/harrison-county-gets-first-look-at-proposed-loop-390-extension/article_880b4294-25bc-11e9-b0e0-139f59ec873e.html
(https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/marshallnewsmessenger.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/7/1d/71d9e222-25bd-11e9-b19c-4f8fe1efb429/5c539b5012197.image.jpg)
(https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/marshallnewsmessenger.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/5/ba/5bad41f0-2366-11e9-bc85-63b082252197/5c4fae8529e52.image.jpg)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on July 25, 2021, 01:43:42 PM
^
It won’t begin construction until minimum 4 years.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on July 26, 2021, 11:51:01 AM
and what about the I-69/US-59 Cleveland interstate standard upgrade?

I have been saying these little sections of freeway could be signed as I-69, leaving the non-freeways gaps between freeway sections with TO I-69 shields.  I think it would help give some route continuity to the whole route, plus get locals used to the I-69 designation before it is officially I-69, especially since I don't see US-59 existing in Texas once the I-69 project is complete.  Might as well start the conversion. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on July 26, 2021, 02:35:25 PM
Didn't they do that sort of thing (sign disconnected segments of Interstate highways as Interstates) back in the 1970's and earlier when big parts of the Interstate highway system were still under construction? I seem to remember segments of I-10 being treated in that fashion.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on July 26, 2021, 02:52:30 PM
Didn't they do that sort of thing (sign disconnected segments of Interstate highways as Interstates) back in the 1970's and earlier when big parts of the Interstate highway system were still under construction? I seem to remember segments of I-10 being treated in that fashion.

Yes they did. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on July 26, 2021, 06:45:47 PM
How long will it take upon freeway completion for I-69 to be designated on US 59:

1. From Cleveland to Splendora?
2. Spur 10 to Fort Bend/Wharton county line ?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on July 26, 2021, 06:50:24 PM
How long will it take upon freeway completion for I-69 to be designated on US 59:

1. From Cleveland to Splendora?
2. Spur 10 to Fort Bend/Wharton county line ?
My guess, with at least the second one, is that given the project is effectively extending from an existing I-69 segment, it would be signed immediately.

A similar project of this nature, the Driscoll Bypass and interstate upgrade between Bishop and Robstown, already has “I-69E”  shields on the new signage, as seen in the above pictures.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on July 26, 2021, 07:29:57 PM
How long will it take upon freeway completion for I-69 to be designated on US 59:

1. From Cleveland to Splendora?
2. Spur 10 to Fort Bend/Wharton county line ?
My guess, with at least the second one, is that given the project is effectively extending from an existing I-69 segment, it would be signed immediately.

A similar project of this nature, the Driscoll Bypass and interstate upgrade between Bishop and Robstown, already has “I-69E”  shields on the new signage, as seen in the above pictures.
In that case, US 59 in Cleveland would be signed Immediately too. And so would Bishop to Kingsville, US 77.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on July 26, 2021, 07:37:15 PM
^ Not sure how they’ll address US-77 south of the official I-69E project near Driscoll, but it could and should be singable as immediately I-69E.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: vdeane on July 26, 2021, 08:38:33 PM
^ Not sure how they’ll address US-77 south of the official I-69E project near Driscoll, but it could and should be singable as immediately I-69E.
Singable?  Like US 31W?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on July 26, 2021, 08:40:41 PM
^ Not sure how they’ll address US-77 south of the official I-69E project near Driscoll, but it could and should be singable as immediately I-69E.
Singable?  Like US 31W?
XD, yes. But the I-69 anthem would be Summer of ”˜69 by Bryan Adams, or better yet, I-69 by Roman GianArthur.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: GreenLanternCorps on July 27, 2021, 07:42:19 AM
Whiling the updates to I-69E/US-77 at Discroll and I-69/US-59 at FB County is nice and all, but any updates on the direct I-69/US-59 Nacogdoches intersection?
None. But, from May:

I was looking at that interchange location on Google maps.  They really threaded the needle on that.  It looks like very few properties along US 59 had to be removed for the Future I-69 lanes.

https://www.google.com/maps/search/sonic/@31.5749366,-94.6751594,664m/data=!3m1!1e3
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on July 27, 2021, 09:34:04 AM
^ Not sure how they’ll address US-77 south of the official I-69E project near Driscoll, but it could and should be singable as immediately I-69E.
Singable?  Like US 31W?
XD, yes. But the I-69 anthem would be Summer of ”˜69 by Bryan Adams, or better yet, I-69 by Roman GianArthur.

'Summer of 69E'
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on July 27, 2021, 04:18:10 PM
^ Not sure how they’ll address US-77 south of the official I-69E project near Driscoll, but it could and should be singable as immediately I-69E.
Singable?  Like US 31W?
XD, yes. But the I-69 anthem would be Summer of ”˜69 by Bryan Adams, or better yet, I-69 by Roman GianArthur.

'Summer of 69E'
I guess construction will last forever, forever, no!

P.S. if the infrastructure bill is passed by Congress, will it cover I-69 in any capacity?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sparker on July 27, 2021, 05:33:23 PM
^ Not sure how they’ll address US-77 south of the official I-69E project near Driscoll, but it could and should be singable as immediately I-69E.
Singable?  Like US 31W?
XD, yes. But the I-69 anthem would be Summer of ”˜69 by Bryan Adams, or better yet, I-69 by Roman GianArthur.

'Summer of 69E'
I guess construction will last forever, forever, no!

P.S. if the infrastructure bill is passed by Congress, will it cover I-69 in any capacity?

That all depends upon how much influence the rural states have over the language of the final bill.  Chances are that the bill won't cover specific projects, but parse out funds for various road projects over the specified timeframe.  That amount would determine if there's any room for new construction alongside the repairs and maintenance that prompted the legislative activity to begin with.  Once the language of the final/passed version is published, things will become somewhat more clear in this respect.  But unless there's funds specified for particular projects, it'll be business as usual, with state DOT's and the corresponding state delegation lining up to snag funding each fiscal year.  But with earmarks back in the game, enterprising representatives can often get funds directed where they want -- and TX historically hasn't been a slouch with that activity.  But whether that translates into any more activity for the less touted sections of I-69 (read in LA/AR/MS) remains to be seen; those states have generally been less active in such pursuits (or in the case of MS, just unable to come up with their share). 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on August 05, 2021, 03:20:04 PM
Update: TxDOT has announced they’re letting the US 59 frontage rd project contract (From SH 185 to US 87, in Victoria) on their live video today.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: TheBox on August 22, 2021, 03:06:25 PM
Just sayin this

the population of Brownsville (182,271), McAllen (141,968), Edinburg (95,847), and Harlingen (65,129) combined makes the RGV metroplex have about a population of 485,215+

Add in the population of Mission (83,567) and Pharr (78,073) and you get 646,855+

EDIT: Weslaco (40,464) also makes the RGV metroplex population 687,319+. In comparison Corpus Christi population is 325,780+, even when you add in Robstown (11,400) and Portland (17,025) it only goes as far as 354,205+.

EDIT: And yes, I'm making the RGV metroplex seem bigger than it actually is, like just combine DFW like everyone in their mother nowadays, maybe add in Arlington in there and they'll easily out number the Houston metroplex by a long shot. Just wanted to talk about the population of the RGV, Brownsville does have a population of nearly 200k tho.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on August 22, 2021, 03:25:33 PM
Just sayin this

the population of Brownsville (182,271), McAllen (141,968), Edinburg (95,847), and Harlingen (65,129) combined makes the RGV metroplex have about a population of 485,215+

Add in the population of Mission (83,567) and Pharr (78,073) and you get 646,855+

EDIT: Weslaco (40,464) also makes the RGV metroplex population 687,319+. In comparison Corpus Christi population is 325,780+, even when you add in Robstown (11,400) and Portland (17,025) it only goes as far as 354,205+.

EDIT: And yes, I'm making the RGV metroplex seem bigger than it actually is, like just combine DFW like everyone in their mother nowadays, maybe add in Arlington in there and they'll easily out number the Houston metroplex by a long shot. Just wanted to talk about the population of the RGV, Brownsville does have a population of nearly 200k tho.
In addition, Laredo metro is 259,172.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: TheBox on August 22, 2021, 04:48:30 PM
Tyler (104,789), Longview (81,653), and Marshall (23,080) together make 209,522

that is more than Texarkana (66,589), but Shreveport-Bossier City (260,283) still beats them, when also together
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bwana39 on September 22, 2021, 11:33:23 PM
Was this bridge in Jefferson, TX ever going to be on the future I-369 route?  It just got hit by containers off a derailed train:

http://www.ksla.com/story/35834420/hwy-59-shut-down-in-jefferson-tx-after-2-trains-collide

(http://ksla.images.worldnow.com/images/14327139_G.jpg)

They are almost finished with the final repairs four years later....
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: debragga on September 23, 2021, 02:56:48 AM
Just sayin this

the population of Brownsville (182,271), McAllen (141,968), Edinburg (95,847), and Harlingen (65,129) combined makes the RGV metroplex have about a population of 485,215+

Add in the population of Mission (83,567) and Pharr (78,073) and you get 646,855+

EDIT: Weslaco (40,464) also makes the RGV metroplex population 687,319+. In comparison Corpus Christi population is 325,780+, even when you add in Robstown (11,400) and Portland (17,025) it only goes as far as 354,205+.

EDIT: And yes, I'm making the RGV metroplex seem bigger than it actually is, like just combine DFW like everyone in their mother nowadays, maybe add in Arlington in there and they'll easily out number the Houston metroplex by a long shot. Just wanted to talk about the population of the RGV, Brownsville does have a population of nearly 200k tho.

Forget city limits, there's too many small towns in the area for that. Just combine the populations of Hidalgo/Cameron/Willacy counties and you get nearly 1.2 million.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: O Tamandua on September 23, 2021, 05:55:32 PM
Just sayin this

the population of Brownsville (182,271), McAllen (141,968), Edinburg (95,847), and Harlingen (65,129) combined makes the RGV metroplex have about a population of 485,215+

Add in the population of Mission (83,567) and Pharr (78,073) and you get 646,855+

EDIT: Weslaco (40,464) also makes the RGV metroplex population 687,319+. In comparison Corpus Christi population is 325,780+, even when you add in Robstown (11,400) and Portland (17,025) it only goes as far as 354,205+.

EDIT: And yes, I'm making the RGV metroplex seem bigger than it actually is, like just combine DFW like everyone in their mother nowadays, maybe add in Arlington in there and they'll easily out number the Houston metroplex by a long shot. Just wanted to talk about the population of the RGV, Brownsville does have a population of nearly 200k tho.

Forget city limits, there's too many small towns in the area for that. Just combine the populations of Hidalgo/Cameron/Willacy counties and you get nearly 1.2 million.

Don't forget Starr County and the cities on the other side of the river from south of Roma, TX east to the Gulf.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on September 23, 2021, 07:21:03 PM
There is a hell of a lot of American citizens living in the Rio Grande Valley area of far South Texas. Over 1.2 million people live in the cluster of cities from La Joya on the West end to Brownsville and the Padre Island/Port Isabel area on the East End. That region doesn't get a lot of attention since there is no major stand-out city in that cluster of cities and towns.

Roma, Escobares, Los Alverez, Rio Grande City and Las Lomas make up another cluster of towns. Going farther North towns like Zapata are a little bit more isolated.

Laredo has a 2019 population estimate of over 260,000 residents. Plus it is the busiest non-coastal/inland port of entry in the United States.

All of that adds up to plenty of justification to fully build-out the I-2 corridor all the way to Laredo.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on September 23, 2021, 07:59:47 PM
There is a hell of a lot of American citizens living in the Rio Grande Valley area of far South Texas. Over 1.2 million people live in the cluster of cities from La Joya on the West end to Brownsville and the Padre Island/Port Isabel area on the East End. That region doesn't get a lot of attention since there is no major stand-out city in that cluster of cities and towns.

Roma, Escobares, Los Alverez, Rio Grande City and Las Lomas make up another cluster of towns. Going farther North towns like Zapata are a little bit more isolated.

Laredo has a 2019 population estimate of over 260,000 residents. Plus it is the busiest non-coastal/inland port of entry in the United States.

All of that adds up to plenty of justification to fully build-out the I-2 corridor all the way to Laredo.
That and the I-69W corridor.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on September 23, 2021, 10:09:46 PM
Here’s a video on the new overpass on US 59 in Victoria.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: O Tamandua on October 12, 2021, 08:49:13 PM
Any word on how the Kenedy County part of I-69 upgrading is going?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: CoreySamson on October 12, 2021, 08:57:16 PM
Any word on how the Kenedy County part of I-69 upgrading is going?
Per GSV the Sarita and Thomas Ranch exits appear to be finished but it looks like no work has taken place on the ranch access roads and crossings.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on October 12, 2021, 09:37:16 PM
Any word on how the Kenedy County part of I-69 upgrading is going?
Per GSV the Sarita and Thomas Ranch exits appear to be finished but it looks like no work has taken place on the ranch access roads and crossings.
Yturria is finished I think. The rest between there and Riviera will be built by 2035.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: O Tamandua on October 13, 2021, 11:19:05 PM
Any word on how the Kenedy County part of I-69 upgrading is going?
Per GSV the Sarita and Thomas Ranch exits appear to be finished but it looks like no work has taken place on the ranch access roads and crossings.
Yturria is finished I think. The rest between there and Riviera will be built by 2035.

Thank you both!  :nod:
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on October 14, 2021, 12:31:53 AM
Victoria is now sculpting the concrete guards for the median on US 59. They’re also redoing a drainage bridge thing to replace the old one. They’ve got like 4 or 8 concrete cubes left. I’ve been driving there weekly before college. (Between LP463 and FM1686) TxDOT has authorized the construction of the new turnaround and frontage roads for US 59 between US 87 and SH185. The west 2017 retaining wall on US 87 will be removed. (What a waste!) there will be a soil nail wall built there. New ramps, a new bridge, and new traffic lights will be built.

Any updates on the CC district (US 77) btw?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: yakra on October 30, 2021, 07:12:33 PM
Trying to figure out what if anything needs to be updated for TravelMapping...

Any word on how the Kenedy County part of I-69 upgrading is going?
Per GSV the Sarita and Thomas Ranch exits appear to be finished but it looks like no work has taken place on the ranch access roads and crossings.
OK, I see Sarita. No signed exit number. Probably no part of I-69E yet, not connecting to the rest of I-69E elsewhere...
An oddity: OSM shows an interchange here (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=27.235159&lon=-97.791635&zoom=18), but it looks dubious. The ramps are way too short and way too close to the cross road. Is this legit?

Thomas Ranch, I still see U/C in Sep 2019 imagery. Oh OK, satellite imagery does show it as complete though. OSM shows too, with the NB exit ramp & frontage rd extending a lot farther south that what Google shows. (OSM more recently updated?) Has anybody field checked this, can confirm? Is there an exit number?

Yturria is finished I think. The rest between there and Riviera will be built by 2035.
Anyone seen signage? Is there an exit number, or signed road (or place) name?

OSM shows complete lanes in between the frontage roads halfway across the county (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=26.897207&lon=-97.789714&zoom=18).
Remarkable progress -- if it's to be believed. Is this anything more than an OSM editor getting too excited?

How legit is any of this stuff?
Half-interchange, with dodgy-looking geometry again. (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=26.662832&lon=-97.767924&zoom=18)
This "bridge" looks suspiciously long... (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=26.695508&lon=-97.768546&zoom=18)
Here's another one (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=26.752578&lon=-97.769802&zoom=18)
Grade separation, no ramps (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=26.786100&lon=-97.774689&zoom=18)
Ditto (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=26.836835&lon=-97.782687&zoom=18)
#3 (http://www.openstreetmap.org/?lat=26.845652&lon=-97.784012&zoom=18)

Is I-69E now signed farther north than the US77 Bus (Raymondville) exit?

Finally, on that note, is Exit 51 (https://www.google.com/maps/@26.5352488,-97.775383,3a,37.4y,189.22h,92.04t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1s7ksDVcRYhSl6ud-V1zSRyQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40) still a thing?
Same geometry + one more puzzle piece (new mainlanes) = opposite functionality; an exit becomes an entrance.
It's not the mainline behind the camera & ahead to the left with an exit straight ahead anymore --
It's the frontage road behind the camera & straight ahead, with an entrance ramp bearing off left.
I don't see any slip ramps on OSM or Google Satellite (SB, that is. NB, is this (https://www.google.com/maps/@26.5380552,-97.7745459,241m/data=!3m1!1e3) Exit 52 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_69E#Exit_list)?) until... holy cow. North of Yturria. Seriously? You gotta get off that early to take US77 Bus?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on October 30, 2021, 07:15:42 PM
No exit number for Ytturia exits. Exit 51 is gone.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: CoreySamson on October 30, 2021, 07:37:47 PM
I think OSM got wayyy too excited. I cannot confirm anything I don't see on satellite images, but I doubt that anything other than the Sarita exit and the Yturria exit (including that "exit" on the north side of Sarita you mentioned) exists at all currently. Maybe the OSM editor responsible got a hold of some sort of future plans by TxDOT and put it in on the map prematurely.

The only thing that may need changing on Travel Mapping is that I-69E is now signed (on only one sign) on the I-37/US 77 concurrency, as sprjus4 noted here:

I-69E now overlaps I-37? Interesting they’d make a move this early with no US-77 upgrade north of I-37.

I’ll be in the area next month, I will update if anything changes.
Drove by the area today, managed to take a picture of the new gantry. Indeed, both I-37 and I-69E are co-signed at the northern US-77 interchange. Interestingly enough, no other I-69E shields until its southern split near Calallen, just I-37 and US-77.

(https://i.ibb.co/ydJYNWJ/I69EI37.jpg)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: yakra on October 30, 2021, 09:28:35 PM
Thanks for the responses. Made some minor changes (https://github.com/TravelMapping/HighwayData/pull/5273/files).
We discussed sprjus4's post a while back, and decided signage was inconsistent enough to do nothing with 69E via 37 for now. It'll get there eventually. :)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: J N Winkler on October 31, 2021, 04:03:11 PM
I don't see any slip ramps on OSM or Google Satellite (SB, that is. NB, is this (https://www.google.com/maps/@26.5380552,-97.7745459,241m/data=!3m1!1e3) Exit 52 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_69E#Exit_list)?) until... holy cow. North of Yturria. Seriously? You gotta get off that early to take US77 Bus?

That is correct, per the project layout for CCSJ 0327-10-057 in Willacy County.  It's more a question of no direct connection being provided.  US 77 Business will continue to be accessible from former southbound US 77, now being repurposed as the US 77 southbound frontage road.

Finally, on that note, is Exit 51 (https://www.google.com/maps/@26.5352488,-97.775383,3a,37.4y,189.22h,92.04t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1s7ksDVcRYhSl6ud-V1zSRyQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!9m2!1b1!2i40) still a thing?

Same geometry + one more puzzle piece (new mainlanes) = opposite functionality; an exit becomes an entrance.

It's not the mainline behind the camera & ahead to the left with an exit straight ahead anymore--it's the frontage road behind the camera & straight ahead, with an entrance ramp bearing off left.

This is correct.  The overhead signbridge is to be removed, as is all southbound large-panel advance signing for US 77 Business.  (The signing for Yturria will indicate the possibility of connecting with US 77 Business via the frontage road only through a ground-mounted trailblazer--US 77 Business will not appear on the large panel signs.)

Is I-69E now signed farther north than the US77 Bus (Raymondville) exit?

It is to be, per the construction plans for CCSJ 0327-10-057 (north end of Raymondville bypass to just short of Willacy/Kenedy county line) and CCSJ 0327-10-062 (continuation north across the county line).  As no pull-through signs are to be used, I-69E shields will appear exclusively in ground-mounted trailblazer and route confirmation assemblies.

Anyone seen signage? Is there an exit number, or signed road (or place) name?

I'm not going to try to describe field conditions, interim or otherwise--others live much closer to the area than I do.  However, here are the guide sign messages from the plans:

Northbound I-69E/US 77:

*  La Esperanza (no exit number)

*  Yturria Co Rd/H Yturria/La Chata N Gate (no exit number)

*  Thomas Ranch Rd/H Yturria/Punta Del Monte (Exit 56)

Southbound I-69E/US 77:

*  Thomas Ranch Rd/H Yturria/Punta Del Monte (Exit 56)

*  Yturria Co Rd/H Yturria/La Chata N Gate (no exit number)

*  La Esperanza (no exit number)

I don't know what the "H" in "H Yturria" stands for.  However, H. Yturria Ranch is a registered business (has a DNB number and everything) and offers safari-style game hunting in separate areas called Punta del Monte, La Chata, and La Joya.  Their Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/hyturriaranch) includes a pricelist (dated August 23) with four-figure costs for native-to-Africa game animals such as impala, springbok, blesbok, beisa, and so on.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on October 31, 2021, 04:18:32 PM
H stands for Hacienda.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: yakra on November 01, 2021, 10:19:31 AM
Thanks for the replies.
Hmph. Unnumbered exits on a razzafrazzn interstate? What kinda tomfoolery is this? Mumble grumble.
Hopefully that was just not included in the plans for whatever reason, and eventually it'll show up properly in the field?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on November 01, 2021, 10:49:39 AM
Thanks for the replies.
Hmph. Unnumbered exits on a razzafrazzn interstate? What kinda tomfoolery is this? Mumble grumble.
Hopefully that was just not included in the plans for whatever reason, and eventually it'll show up properly in the field?
And instead of “Exit 1 Mile” , they read “1/2 mile”  (numbers for simulation only). And it’s already signed I-69E on the reassurance markers IIRC.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: J N Winkler on November 01, 2021, 01:15:03 PM
Hmph. Unnumbered exits on a razzafrazzn interstate? What kinda tomfoolery is this? Mumble grumble.

Hopefully that was just not included in the plans for whatever reason, and eventually it'll show up properly in the field?

Yes, it's odd.  I don't know if a change order has been or will be issued in respect of the signs that don't have exit numbers.  (Apropos of Thegeet's comment, the as-let plans show that exits with no signed number are to use "Exit 1/2 Mile" as the distance expression on the advance guide signs, while those for Exit 56 are to use "1/2 Mile.")
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on November 02, 2021, 04:15:41 PM
Instead of Exit 51, there is now a “TO Business US 77”  sign to direct BUS-77 users to use the last SB Yturria exit.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: O Tamandua on November 02, 2021, 05:58:01 PM
Thank you ALL for your answers on the Kenedy County part of I-69 E.  Psychologically, that's going to be a big boost to this whole project when complete due to the sheer length of it.

BTW, this is an article today from TRAINS magazine on the impending Canadian Pacific/Kansas City Southern merger.  Though not a perfect parallel between Omaha and Winnipeg, it's fascinating how closely this network will parallel the Laredo/Brownsville-Houston-Minneapolis and Winnipeg-New Orleans corridors which the Texas I-69 and I-49 highway network will also serve.  The CPKC's marketing team is optimistically hoping to gain freight (as always) by taking trucks off the road.  Guessing they'll want to build brand loyalty between Kansas City and Laredo/Brownsville before the highways are complete.  Sharing this on the Arkansas I-49 thread as well.:

Quote

(https://www.trains.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/TRN_CP_KCS_traffic_map.jpg)

(https://www.trains.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/TRN_CP_KCS_Logos.jpg)

CP and KCS project dramatic rise in daily train counts

The Canadian Pacific-Kansas City Southern merger application highlights projected increases in traffic on the new railroad’s north-south spine, as well as planned capacity improvements. (Trains.com, with information from CP-KCS)
WASHINGTON — Canadian Pacific and Kansas City Southern say their proposed merger will generate significant traffic growth, with daily train counts on the combined system’s north-south spine projected to more than double within three years.

The traffic details were among those included in the railways’ 4,342-page, 1-gigabyte merger application filed with U.S. regulators late Friday. The document, posted to the Surface Transportation Board website overnight Monday, includes Canadian Pacific Kansas City’s operating plans, outlines capacity expansion projects, and makes projections for traffic and job growth that would flow from the creation of the first railroad to link Canada, the U.S., and Mexico.

https://www.trains.com/trn/news-reviews/news-wire/cp-and-kcs-project-dramatic-rise-in-daily-train-counts/?fbclid=IwAR0O-VcBN4JrVVuCyd8iUsNgSw8rbYAddESBAuadLV-c5f5p4x_H8HNXfmo

Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Plutonic Panda on November 02, 2021, 08:03:57 PM
Is that part close to Arkansas/Oklahoma border in Oklahoma or Arkansas?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MikieTimT on November 02, 2021, 10:19:17 PM
Is that part close to Arkansas/Oklahoma border in Oklahoma or Arkansas?

Going south, it's in Arkansas along the AR-59 corridor until Siloam Springs, then pops over to Oklahoma and runs along the US-59 corridor until it pops back into Arkansas at Mena and runs along US-71 in Arkansas the rest of the way near the border, so it's pretty much within 5 miles of the border other than some westward swings on the OK side where US-59 swings westerly for a bit.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: chays on November 05, 2021, 05:49:33 PM
I'm trying to determing the status of the SH-44 project just east of Robstown. There is an overpass being constructed at Violet Rd, but I can't find anything with regards to a completion date. Anyone in that area have an idea?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: yakra on November 05, 2021, 06:06:27 PM
There is an overpass being constructed at Violet Rd, but I can't find anything with regards to a completion date.
OK wow. Whoever's doing the OSM editing down there is feeling a little frisky...
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on November 05, 2021, 06:20:12 PM
 
Instead of Exit 51, there is now a “TO Business US 77”  sign to direct BUS-77 users to use the last SB Yturria exit.
I’ve been waiting for google to try to implement new imagery for street view in that area, but alas, google has gone M.I.A. again.
There is an overpass being constructed at Violet Rd, but I can't find anything with regards to a completion date.
Assuming the imagery in google is taken in April 2021 (like other imagery in Texas), it should probably be already in use, or near completion (finished by December).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on November 12, 2021, 04:24:37 PM
Breaking News: Google Maps has reported a northbound closure on US 77 in Driscoll. This could be the connection in progress for the new I-69E bypass. Or maybe it was an accident. Still, it is something worth monitoring.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: thisdj78 on November 14, 2021, 08:26:31 PM
Breaking News: Google Maps has reported a northbound closure on US 77 in Driscoll. This could be the connection in progress for the new I-69E bypass. Or maybe it was an accident. Still, it is something worth monitoring.

Waze shows the Northbound lane of the bypass as being open so you’re likely right.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on November 15, 2021, 12:16:00 AM
Breaking News: Google Maps has reported a northbound closure on US 77 in Driscoll. This could be the connection in progress for the new I-69E bypass. Or maybe it was an accident. Still, it is something worth monitoring.

Waze shows the Northbound lane of the bypass as being open so you’re likely right.
I’m hoping someone on YT will let us see the new bypass. When the entire bypass opens entirely, I-69E will be signed in Bishop and Kingsville.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on December 12, 2021, 10:26:28 PM
There has been newer portions of I-69E north of Raymondville up to Yturria Ranch as indicated on Google Maps Street View from last month. I wonder if this interchange will be marked as Exit 53 or 54 in the future.

https://www.google.com/maps/@26.5682796,-97.7699849,3a,75y,7.46h,83.81t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sB2iWmgu5I26ngTdW8h-nRA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DB2iWmgu5I26ngTdW8h-nRA%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D297.65137%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on December 12, 2021, 10:29:16 PM
There has been newer portions of I-69E north of Raymondville up to Yturria Ranch as indicated on Google Maps Street View from last month

https://www.google.com/maps/@26.5682796,-97.7699849,3a,75y,7.46h,83.81t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sB2iWmgu5I26ngTdW8h-nRA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DB2iWmgu5I26ngTdW8h-nRA%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D297.65137%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192
As expected, exit 51 is removed. Also, the northbound Driscoll Bypass is open. The old north US 77 lanes are closed through Driscoll.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on December 12, 2021, 10:38:35 PM
There has been newer portions of I-69E north of Raymondville up to Yturria Ranch as indicated on Google Maps Street View from last month

https://www.google.com/maps/@26.5682796,-97.7699849,3a,75y,7.46h,83.81t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sB2iWmgu5I26ngTdW8h-nRA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DB2iWmgu5I26ngTdW8h-nRA%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D297.65137%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192
As expected, exit 51 is removed. Also, the northbound Driscoll Bypass is open. The old north US 77 lanes are closed through Driscoll.

I just noticed Exit 51 closed for southbound I-69E. I am hoping to see any media of the Driscoll Bypass as well.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on December 12, 2021, 10:48:28 PM
There has been newer portions of I-69E north of Raymondville up to Yturria Ranch as indicated on Google Maps Street View from last month

https://www.google.com/maps/@26.5682796,-97.7699849,3a,75y,7.46h,83.81t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sB2iWmgu5I26ngTdW8h-nRA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DB2iWmgu5I26ngTdW8h-nRA%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D297.65137%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192
As expected, exit 51 is removed. Also, the northbound Driscoll Bypass is open. The old north US 77 lanes are closed through Driscoll.

I just noticed Exit 51 closed for southbound I-69E. I am hoping to see any media of the Driscoll Bypass as well.
I don’t think they will cover it, considering the lack of exposure of Driscoll recently. But it’s possible.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on December 12, 2021, 11:02:44 PM
There has been newer portions of I-69E north of Raymondville up to Yturria Ranch as indicated on Google Maps Street View from last month

https://www.google.com/maps/@26.5682796,-97.7699849,3a,75y,7.46h,83.81t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sB2iWmgu5I26ngTdW8h-nRA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DB2iWmgu5I26ngTdW8h-nRA%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D297.65137%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192
As expected, exit 51 is removed. Also, the northbound Driscoll Bypass is open. The old north US 77 lanes are closed through Driscoll.

I just noticed Exit 51 closed for southbound I-69E. I am hoping to see any media of the Driscoll Bypass as well.
I don’t think they will cover it, considering the lack of exposure of Driscoll recently. But it’s possible.

True. Additionally, there was some construction north past one of the entrances of the Yturria Ranch, even a new set of bridges over the ranch entrance roads.
https://www.google.com/maps/@26.5733294,-97.7700573,122m/data=!3m1!1e3?hl=en&authuser=0
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on December 17, 2021, 05:02:42 PM
Recent update of the US 59 & TX Loop 224 interchange project as of yesterday:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2p0ybTIAxM0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2p0ybTIAxM0)

https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/lufkin/us59south-loop224.html (https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/lufkin/us59south-loop224.html)
According to TxDOT, this is supposed to be open by the summer of 2023.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: CoreySamson on December 17, 2021, 05:50:46 PM
Recent update of the US 59 & TX Loop 224 interchange project as of yesterday:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2p0ybTIAxM0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2p0ybTIAxM0)

https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/lufkin/us59south-loop224.html (https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/lufkin/us59south-loop224.html)
According to TxDOT, this is supposed to be open by the summer of 2023.
Cool, thanks for sharing! Doesn't look like there's much progress on the northern section of the project, but pleasantly surprised how much south of it is done.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: yakra on December 19, 2021, 12:41:49 AM
Nice, I-69E is clearly posted going north from Yturria.
But how far. The Google car turned around there. :(
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on December 19, 2021, 12:51:22 AM
Nice, I-69E is clearly posted going north from Yturria.
But how far. The Google car turned around there. :(

I wanted to know the same thing, but I guess we'll have to wait for Google street view to reach this part of I-69E or a video.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Scott5114 on December 19, 2021, 01:51:18 AM
I mean, if you want to know bad enough, there is a way to get a better look at the signs...
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on December 19, 2021, 01:52:30 AM
I mean, if you want to know bad enough, there is a way to get a better look at the signs...
Going there ourselves? Just an educated guess.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: yakra on December 19, 2021, 03:47:08 AM
Encourage forum members who are way closer than us to go get photos? :D
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: rickmastfan67 on December 19, 2021, 06:44:21 AM
Nah, get Scotty up in the Enterprise to teleport ya there.  :-D :bigass:
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on December 19, 2021, 10:30:32 AM
Well, I do live about 1 1/2 hour north of Driscoll. Although we never had time to go nearby.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: yakra on December 20, 2021, 07:12:00 PM
Nah, get Scotty up in the Enterprise to teleport ya there.  :-D :bigass:
(https://i.redd.it/57u98971lq371.jpg)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on December 21, 2021, 12:38:03 AM
Google Street View has been updated near Driscoll for December 2021.

Northbound traffic between Bishop and north of Driscoll is on its final configuration - the new northbound mainlines including on the new bypass - with a 70 mph posted speed limit. Southbound is still on the original roadway and going through Driscoll itself.

I-69 shields are covered and not currently posted, the new route is US-77. I imagine by the time the project is fully complete, I-69 will not only be signed on this stretch, but all the way to Kingsville.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on December 21, 2021, 12:58:42 AM
It looks like in the southern portion of the Kingsville bypass, they are adding in frontage roads down to Business US 77.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on December 21, 2021, 01:47:50 AM
It looks like in the southern portion of the Kingsville bypass, they are adding in frontage roads down to Business US 77.
Yes. Indeed they are. They will then construct a new interchange for BUS 77.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: TheBox on December 21, 2021, 01:27:49 PM
There's also the Victoria overpass over County Rd

https://www.google.com/maps/@28.8350582,-96.907669,3a,75y,36.44h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKfU7u95_QjfJVQ9oEQTB9w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=1 (northbound)

https://www.google.com/maps/@28.8362747,-96.9074138,3a,75y,218.51h,84.57t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sHN1jpBYxo6olUQc6sWFzbA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DHN1jpBYxo6olUQc6sWFzbA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D244.4355%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=1 (southbound)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on December 21, 2021, 01:30:33 PM
There's also the Victoria overpass over County Rd

https://www.google.com/maps/@28.8350582,-96.907669,3a,75y,36.44h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sKfU7u95_QjfJVQ9oEQTB9w!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=1 (northbound)

https://www.google.com/maps/@28.8362747,-96.9074138,3a,75y,218.51h,84.57t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sHN1jpBYxo6olUQc6sWFzbA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DHN1jpBYxo6olUQc6sWFzbA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D244.4355%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=1 (southbound)
I’ve asked TxDOT about this a few months ago and they said they would’ve had it opened by November. Now fast forward to today, and now they’re making a new bridge for drainage.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Alex on December 21, 2021, 06:01:56 PM
Jeff Royston was just in Driscoll on Sunday and texted us two photos:

(http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/texas/us-077-n-at-us-077b-driscoll.jpg) (http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/texas/us-077-n-at-us-077b-driscoll.jpg)

(http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/texas/ih-069-us-077-n-driscoll.jpg) (http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/texas/ih-069-us-077-n-driscoll.jpg)

He wrote
Quote
Interesting that I-69E is completed northbound only through Driscoll.  Completely leaves the southbound lanes about a half mile to the east.

Nice, I-69E is clearly posted going north from Yturria.
But how far. The Google car turned around there. :(

I wanted to know the same thing, but I guess we'll have to wait for Google street view to reach this part of I-69E or a video.

Lame dude  :thumbdown:
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on December 21, 2021, 06:25:20 PM
Jeff Royston was just in Driscoll on Sunday and texted us two photos:

(http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/texas/us-077-n-at-us-077b-driscoll.jpg) (http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/texas/us-077-n-at-us-077b-driscoll.jpg)

(http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/texas/ih-069-us-077-n-driscoll.jpg) (http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/texas/ih-069-us-077-n-driscoll.jpg)

He wrote
Quote
Interesting that I-69E is completed northbound only through Driscoll.  Completely leaves the southbound lanes about a half mile to the east.

Nice, I-69E is clearly posted going north from Yturria.
But how far. The Google car turned around there. :(

I wanted to know the same thing, but I guess we'll have to wait for Google street view to reach this part of I-69E or a video.

Lame dude  :thumbdown:

New I-69E shields by Driscoll? Sweet.

Additionally, there are plain I-69 shields up at US 77 & FM 2826
https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7398227,-97.6995736,3a,75y,133.75h,81.01t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sz1cfCZ5zRWWi8Ty-KzKIFQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&authuser=0
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on December 21, 2021, 07:32:25 PM
Highlights:
I-69E/US 77: New footage in Yturria, Driscoll NB lanes opened, fully captured by Google.
I-69C/US 281: Premont Bypass under construction, left exit to be constructed.
I-69W/US 59: I-35 interchange project construction in progress.
I-69/US 59: Victoria overpass at County Rd complete, closed for drainage bridge construction. Loop 541 interchange open in Kendleton.

List might change.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: TheBox on December 22, 2021, 12:14:03 PM
There's also work over the frontage road around the US-77 and I-37 section
or really, just work around the US-77 and I-37 sections (not just the frontage road)

Northbound - https://www.google.com/maps/@27.8765577,-97.623557,3a,75y,4.5h,79.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNDaXfBo1f9LfEP6zz0sGlA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=1

Southbound - https://www.google.com/maps/@27.9081578,-97.6275465,3a,15y,226.16h,87.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgQmbmwEtsVo5JATtbd2iDg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=1

what is all this for? and why?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on December 22, 2021, 12:16:39 PM
There's also work over the frontage road around the US-77 and I-37 section
or really, just work around the US-77 and I-37 sections (not just the frontage road)

Northbound - https://www.google.com/maps/@27.8765577,-97.623557,3a,75y,4.5h,79.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sNDaXfBo1f9LfEP6zz0sGlA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=1

Southbound - https://www.google.com/maps/@27.9081578,-97.6275465,3a,15y,226.16h,87.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgQmbmwEtsVo5JATtbd2iDg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=1

what is all this for?
https://amp.caller.com/amp/8166554002
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: yakra on December 22, 2021, 01:29:51 PM
Jeff Royston was just in Driscoll on Sunday and texted us two photos:

(http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/texas/us-077-n-at-us-077b-driscoll.jpg) (http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/texas/us-077-n-at-us-077b-driscoll.jpg)
Exit open! Compare GMSV (1 (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.6416647,-97.7655199,3a,15y,28.04h,92.73t/data=!3m10!1e1!3m8!1s6xqh321QyviClga132lm3A!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D6xqh321QyviClga132lm3A%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D78.76142%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!9m2!1b1!2i40), 2 (https://www.google.com/maps/@27.6489408,-97.7616259,3a,19.3y,33.33h,92.91t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdV9aPasp-ckZJ5S0bBb14g!2e0!7i16384!8i8192))

(http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/texas/ih-069-us-077-n-driscoll.jpg) (http://www.aaroads.com/forum_images/texas/ih-069-us-077-n-driscoll.jpg)

He wrote
Quote
Interesting that I-69E is completed northbound only through Driscoll.  Completely leaves the southbound lanes about a half mile to the east.
/me drools. Wheredis?
Notwithstanding the obvious greenout & lack of shields at the southern US77Bus split, can we now say that I-69E is signed NB from some point at or near Driscoll, continuous & unbroken up to the existing Robstown segment at FM2826?

Highlights:
I-69E/US 77: New footage in Yturria, Driscoll NB lanes opened, fully captured by Google.
I-69C/US 281: Premont Bypass under construction, left exit to be constructed.
I-69W/US 59: I-35 interchange project construction in progress.
I-69/US 59: Victoria overpass at County Rd complete, closed for drainage bridge construction. Loop 541 interchange open in Kendleton.

List might change.
There's a tiny little segment fully built out at Sarita; mainlines, frontage roads, interchange. OSM labels this as I-69E, though this is almost certainly jumping the gun; I don't expect there to be signage until it's connected to one of the existing segments.
Which may be a while. On the N side, while it appears new bridges over Los Olmos Creek at the Kenedy/Kleberg county line aren't required (https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot-info/crp/projects/us77_upgrade/ea_schematics/map_32.pdf), The Riviera relief route was on the STIP (https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/division/transportation-planning/stips.html) for FY 2026 as of the May 2019 (https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot-info/tpp/stip/2019-2022/revisions/0519/financials.pdf) quarterly revision, it was removed for Aug 2019 (https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot-info/tpp/stip/2019-2022/revisions/0819/financials.pdf). I'm sure others will have a clearer idea what this means.
To the S, looks there's quite some distance to go across Kenedy County, with whatever ranch access, frontage roads & interchanges that entails.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on December 22, 2021, 01:34:08 PM
There's a tiny little segment fully built out at Sarita; mainlines, frontage roads, interchange. OSM labels this as I-69E, though this is almost certainly jumping the gun; I don't expect there to be signage until it's connected to one of the existing segments.
That section near Sarita seems simply like an interchange with ramps and frontage roads in the immediate vicinity - not necessarily a full freeway segment. However, it’s designed to be extended both north and south.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: capt.ron on December 22, 2021, 02:25:50 PM
TXDOT need to get on the stick and get the section of US 59 upgraded from Texarkana to the existing I-69 piece around the Cleveland, TX area, especially that narrow and rather dangerous section between Teneha and Timpson.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: edwaleni on December 22, 2021, 02:39:37 PM
TXDOT need to get on the stick and get the section of US 59 upgraded from Texarkana to the existing I-69 piece around the Cleveland, TX area, especially that narrow and rather dangerous section between Teneha and Timpson.

Huh? Tenaha to Timpson is a 4 lane affair today. Are you speaking to the fact it has no median?

Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on December 22, 2021, 05:52:48 PM
On the N side, while it appears new bridges over Los Olmos Creek at the Kenedy/Kleberg county line aren't required (https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot-info/crp/projects/us77_upgrade/ea_schematics/map_32.pdf), The Riviera relief route was on the STIP (https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/division/transportation-planning/stips.html) for FY 2026 as of the May 2019 (https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot-info/tpp/stip/2019-2022/revisions/0519/financials.pdf) quarterly revision, it was removed for Aug 2019 (https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot-info/tpp/stip/2019-2022/revisions/0819/financials.pdf). I'm sure others will have a clearer idea what this means.
You’re telling me that the Riviera bypass is going to be tolled? I didn’t see this coming at all.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bassoon1986 on December 22, 2021, 06:25:37 PM
TXDOT need to get on the stick and get the section of US 59 upgraded from Texarkana to the existing I-69 piece around the Cleveland, TX area, especially that narrow and rather dangerous section between Teneha and Timpson.
Speaking of that section of US 59…surely the new I-69/I-369 won’t make such a 90 degree turn to head north towards Marshall like 59 does now?


iPhone
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 22, 2021, 10:04:01 PM
The split of I-369 going off I-69 near Tenaha will likely pretty close to a 90 degree turn.

As for the segment of US-59 between Tenaha and Timpson, I'm guessing it will be well down the list of priorities. The freeway bypasses around towns between Houston and Texarkana will probably get finished first and then the rural sections in between upgraded later.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bwana39 on December 22, 2021, 10:12:20 PM
TXDOT need to get on the stick and get the section of US 59 upgraded from Texarkana to the existing I-69 piece around the Cleveland, TX area, especially that narrow and rather dangerous section between Teneha and Timpson.

That portion is probably not going to be part of I-369 when it is built. The most recent proposed route has BOTH I-69 and I-369 going cross country from around Garrison to Woods Community and I-369 following US-59 and I-69 crossing the Sabine River all in Texas and crossing into Louisiana near Galloway. This just about halves the mileage in Louisiana to I-49 AND cuts the construction expense for the Louisiana state line to I-49 by 2/3's.

This said,  the folks in Shelby County TX and DeSoto Parish La  neither are too keen on it. It puts most of this segment into the  Atlanta TXDOT district and out of the Lufkin District.  While it is viewed as a giant snub for Shelby County, it is more aptly just a one piece loop around Garrison, Timpson, and Teneha.

Who knows where it will eventually go. Louisiana DOTD seemingly wishes it would just go away.

I agree with Bobby as to the order of business. This may just be that loop though....
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: TheBox on December 23, 2021, 12:39:09 AM
As for I-69C, after the Premont bypass, this would leave us with a bypass around George West, another bypass around Three Rivers (whiling not needed, most of the US-281/I-69C traffic comes from San Antonio), and then some upgrades for the following spots (like Alice bypass and the between La Gloria and Falfurrias)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on December 23, 2021, 12:45:59 AM
As for I-69C, after the Premont bypass, this would leave us with a bypass around George West, another bypass around Three Rivers (whiling not needed, most of the US-281/I-69C traffic comes from San Antonio), and then some upgrades for the following spots (like Alice bypass and the between La Gloria and Falfurrias)
The Alice bypass will be worked on next year. The contract will be let in June.

Also, Construction on US 59 between US 87 and SH 185 has yet to begin.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on December 23, 2021, 01:49:55 AM
Basically, I-69 south of Houston is around 40% complete whereas north of Houston is around 20% done.

If I had to place a bet on which portion will be done first, it will be I-69E, then I-69C then I-69W for the three suffixed routes of I-69 south of Victoria.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on December 23, 2021, 01:59:17 AM
Basically, I-69 south of Houston is around 40% complete whereas north of Houston is around 20% done.

If I had to place a bet on which portion will be done first, it will be I-69E, then I-69C then I-69W for the three suffixed routes of I-69 south of Victoria.
Construction in Fort Bend is done, afaik. Now it’s on to Hungerford and El Campo. Hungerford is already doing the frontage roads.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on December 23, 2021, 02:05:43 AM
Basically, I-69 south of Houston is around 40% complete whereas north of Houston is around 20% done.

If I had to place a bet on which portion will be done first, it will be I-69E, then I-69C then I-69W for the three suffixed routes of I-69 south of Victoria.
Construction in Fort Bend is done, afaik. Now it’s on to Hungerford and El Campo. Hungerford is already doing the frontage roads.

I wonder when I-69 will be extended southwards again from Rosenberg?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on December 23, 2021, 02:07:34 AM
Basically, I-69 south of Houston is around 40% complete whereas north of Houston is around 20% done.

If I had to place a bet on which portion will be done first, it will be I-69E, then I-69C then I-69W for the three suffixed routes of I-69 south of Victoria.
Construction in Fort Bend is done, afaik. Now it’s on to Hungerford and El Campo. Hungerford is already doing the frontage roads.

I wonder when I-69 will be extended southwards again from Rosenberg?
Probably when the FHWA approves the Interstate designation and concurrence, speculating early next year.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: yakra on December 23, 2021, 10:20:34 AM
it appears new bridges over Los Olmos Creek at the Kenedy/Kleberg county line aren't required (https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot-info/crp/projects/us77_upgrade/ea_schematics/map_32.pdf)
You’re telling me that the Riviera bypass is going to be tolled? I didn’t see this coming at all.
That document is dated 4/3/2012; things have likely changed since then. Didn't Texas decide to move away from new toll facilities a while back?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: TheBox on December 23, 2021, 11:13:32 AM
Basically, I-69 south of Houston is around 40% complete whereas north of Houston is around 20% done.

If I had to place a bet on which portion will be done first, it will be I-69E, then I-69C then I-69W for the three suffixed routes of I-69 south of Victoria.
It also helps that Corpus Christi (which has the beaches) and the RGV (which has the South Padre Island) are more tour-worthy than East Texas, even when not by much. Not to mention how RGV is growing

I know this may be a bit off-topic, more intercity bus services (Greyhound/Valley Transit, Tornado/El Expreso, Omnibus Express, Turimex Internacional assuming it's re-opended today, My Bus Line/Zima Real, and more) use I-69 south of Houston much more than they use I-69 north of Houston, and yes even Greyhound.
Plus, whiling a portion of the store/restaurant distribution trucks that serve Corpus Christi and RGV come from San Antonio or DFW, another portion come from Houston (McDonalds, Walgreens, CVS, Little Caesars, 99¢ Only Stores, Costco, Best Buy, and recently Domino's Pizza and Family Dollar/Dollar Tree)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: TheBox on December 23, 2021, 11:24:27 AM
Once the Driscoll bypass is soon done, this leaves us with Refugio, Odem, and Riviera as far as I-69E (and by extension I-69 south of Houston) goes, and from those remaining bypasses on, overpasses and/or upgrades to areas like FM 1196 @ US-77/I-69E in Sinton, and the Pierce and Woodsboro bypasses
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on December 23, 2021, 12:05:00 PM
it appears new bridges over Los Olmos Creek at the Kenedy/Kleberg county line aren't required (https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot-info/crp/projects/us77_upgrade/ea_schematics/map_32.pdf)
You’re telling me that the Riviera bypass is going to be tolled? I didn’t see this coming at all.
That document is dated 4/3/2012; things have likely changed since then. Didn't Texas decide to move away from new toll facilities a while back?
Oops. I forgot. The TTC project for tolls was no good and abandoned.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: capt.ron on December 23, 2021, 12:25:40 PM
TXDOT need to get on the stick and get the section of US 59 upgraded from Texarkana to the existing I-69 piece around the Cleveland, TX area, especially that narrow and rather dangerous section between Teneha and Timpson.

Huh? Tenaha to Timpson is a 4 lane affair today. Are you speaking to the fact it has no median?


And no shoulders either (except for the short sections by the bridges).
Yep, it's a rather dangerous 4 lane "poor boy" and the sooner they get rid of that section, the better... along with bypasses of both Teneha and Timpson.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on December 26, 2021, 05:03:31 PM
I have a few notable things to say in regards of the future I-69 corridor.

Firstly, more US 59 Frontage Roads are complete in Victoria up to the railroad tracks. However, the mainline US 59 bridges are fairly narrow.
https://www.google.com/maps/@28.8467005,-96.8987085,3a,75y,304.8h,78.79t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1saXEEERm7DnnypH6KJr4koA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DaXEEERm7DnnypH6KJr4koA%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D297.63773%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=0 (https://www.google.com/maps/@28.8467005,-96.8987085,3a,75y,304.8h,78.79t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1saXEEERm7DnnypH6KJr4koA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DaXEEERm7DnnypH6KJr4koA%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D297.63773%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=0)

https://www.google.com/maps/@28.8210738,-96.9219103,3a,15y,59.42h,90.23t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sZFW7WnVQeBlHe7XkXVFyKQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DZFW7WnVQeBlHe7XkXVFyKQ%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D48.115448%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=0 (https://www.google.com/maps/@28.8210738,-96.9219103,3a,15y,59.42h,90.23t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sZFW7WnVQeBlHe7XkXVFyKQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DZFW7WnVQeBlHe7XkXVFyKQ%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D48.115448%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=0)

Secondly, within the next decade, I-69C could be extended up to 4.15 miles north of TX 186, after construction starts in 10 years at most. Plus, another 16.767-mile portion of US 281 in central Brooks County is slated for Interstate designation in another 10+ years, perhaps after construction is done. The same applies to a 3.2 mile portion of US 281 in southern Brooks County. This is a total possible expansion of I-69C signage of at least 24.117 miles within the next decade for the central leg of I-69 south of Victoria.
https://www.dot.state.tx.us/drivenbytexans/pharr.htm

Thirdly, there have been some signage updates south of Robstown with both I-69E/I-69 and US 77 shields to FM 2826.
https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7427635,-97.6973184,3a,60y,45.52h,89.07t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sicLHWdkmeCVsp-a3CQ2oog!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=0
https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7372254,-97.7022414,3a,15y,223.23h,87.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s2EaCZ-pMIMWiOarcN_XZsA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=0

Lastly, I-69E could be extended down to the Kleburg-Kenedy County line by the end of freeway construction in the late 2020s.
https://www.dot.state.tx.us/drivenbytexans/corpus-christi.htm
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on December 26, 2021, 05:27:00 PM
1. The US 59 bridges east of Victoria will be replaced starting in 2023. The NB lane(s) also drops to one at the FM 1686 interchange. This is being fixed right now.
2. Interstate designation projects on US 281 are occurring in 4-5 years according to TxDOT.
3. It looks like the signage replacement process is beginning in Nueces county. Not all signs , oddly enough, have been replaced at once.
4. After the Riviera bypass is open, It May very well be extended downward. But at least the I-69E designation will be extended to the southern end of the Kingsville bypass by 2023.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: yakra on December 27, 2021, 08:59:40 PM
https://www.dot.state.tx.us/drivenbytexans/pharr.htm
I-69E construction barely makes it into Kenedy County from Willacy. Looks like just enough to cover the Thomas Ranch Rd interchange at the county line.
No upcoming construction or even corridor studies are shown for the southern half of Kenedy county, so it'd appear that whoever did the OSM editing down there got a bit carried away. :poke:
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on December 27, 2021, 10:02:10 PM
it appears new bridges over Los Olmos Creek at the Kenedy/Kleberg county line aren't required (https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot-info/crp/projects/us77_upgrade/ea_schematics/map_32.pdf)
You’re telling me that the Riviera bypass is going to be tolled? I didn’t see this coming at all.
That document is dated 4/3/2012; things have likely changed since then. Didn't Texas decide to move away from new toll facilities a while back?
Oops. I forgot. The TTC project for tolls was no good and abandoned.

There was, IIRC, some move to build the Driscoll and Riviera bypasses as toll facilities, but that was axed by TxDOT when they nixed the TTC proposal and found public funding.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on December 30, 2021, 07:00:24 PM
New imagery surfaced on Google Maps on US 59 in Hungerford (Wharton County) and Fort Bend County. The SB Loop 541 exit is open. There are additionally new BGSs. The Fort Bend stretch before Rosenberg is not designated as I-69. In Hungerford new bridges are being constructed and new frontage roads are being built. I’m not sure if the new bridge at the Wharton/Fort Bend county line will be a frontage road or not.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on December 31, 2021, 12:09:57 AM
New imagery surfaced on Google Maps on US 59 in Hungerford (Wharton County) and Fort Bend County. The SB Loop 541 exit is open. There are additionally new BGSs. The Fort Bend stretch before Rosenberg is not designated as I-69. In Hungerford new bridges are being constructed and new frontage roads are being built. I’m not sure if the new bridge at the Wharton/Fort Bend county line will be a frontage road or not.

It looks like the bridge next to the current eastbound road will be the freeway for eastbound. This is since the current roadway turns back to pre-freeway after the westbound frontage road ends in a cul-de-sac.

Additionally for US 59 upgrading I thought of a new freeway coming out of the Bob Bullock Loop and connecting with US 59 outside of Laredo. I am not sure if something like this was previously planned or not. However, one notable positive is that there will be no known displacements of residence or business. One potential downside though is probably bypassing retail traffic.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on December 31, 2021, 01:37:54 AM
New imagery surfaced on Google Maps on US 59 in Hungerford (Wharton County) and Fort Bend County. The SB Loop 541 exit is open. There are additionally new BGSs. The Fort Bend stretch before Rosenberg is not designated as I-69. In Hungerford new bridges are being constructed and new frontage roads are being built. I’m not sure if the new bridge at the Wharton/Fort Bend county line will be a frontage road or not.

It looks like the bridge next to the current eastbound road will be the freeway for eastbound. This is since the current roadway turns back to pre-freeway after the westbound frontage road ends in a cul-de-sac.

Additionally for US 59 upgrading I thought of a new freeway coming out of the Bob Bullock Loop and connecting with US 59 outside of Laredo. I am not sure if something like this was previously planned or not. However, one notable positive is that there will be no known displacements of residence or business. One potential downside though is probably bypassing retail traffic.
Not a bad plan. Yet TxDOT will route I-69W on the current US 59 routing around Laredo, with the sharp turn. One of my pet peeves. I wish TxDOT bought some land for later use to make it more direct.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: yakra on December 31, 2021, 11:11:13 AM
New imagery surfaced on Google Maps on US 59 in Hungerford (Wharton County) and Fort Bend County. The SB Loop 541 exit is open.
Link? I don't see this.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on December 31, 2021, 12:58:14 PM
New imagery surfaced on Google Maps on US 59 in Hungerford (Wharton County) and Fort Bend County. The SB Loop 541 exit is open.
Link? I don't see this.
https://goo.gl/maps/J7NvtW8WE5stYdqf7
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 31, 2021, 08:35:39 PM
The updated Street View imagery in Hungerford is available in Google Earth. When Thegeet said the imagery was new he didn't say how new. The imagery is dated from this month, December 2021.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on January 01, 2022, 02:25:21 AM
The updated Street View imagery in Hungerford is available in Google Earth. When Thegeet said the imagery was new he didn't say how new. The imagery is dated from this month, December 2021.
Surry. Btw, I am intrigued to see how they handle the lanes, and amy potential slight realignment, as seen on their schematic sheet.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on January 01, 2022, 04:06:36 AM
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
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: TheBox on January 01, 2022, 08:58:04 AM
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
I was casually checking the new street view yesterday, so how did i not noticed this?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: yakra on January 01, 2022, 11:04:53 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/J7NvtW8WE5stYdqf7
Aah, thanks. I was just checking regular imagery, not Street View. :pan:

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 (https://www.google.com/maps/@29.5293706,-95.865656,3a,15y,259.23h,90.52t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sqNJenPSbxIvBKPQGzz5uiw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!9m2!1b1!2i40?hl=en&authuser=0). LOL what a tease.
Meanwhile heading the other direction, there's a new I-69 sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@29.5346416,-95.8550902,3a,16.4y,105.91h,91.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_KuHZD8Am6EKLXW3x-51Gg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&authuser=0) 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! :D
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 (https://www.google.com/maps/@29.5273975,-95.8683937,3a,25.4y,72.03h,95.53t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1suGFWk364YlEIHN9AoOFpHQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!9m2!1b1!2i40) directions (https://www.google.com/maps/@29.5349374,-95.8481701,3a,15y,285.45h,92t/data=!3m10!1e1!3m8!1smabr6rf2UmrtYPEkwULYRQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3Dmabr6rf2UmrtYPEkwULYRQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D20.883677%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!9m2!1b1!2i40). 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...
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on January 01, 2022, 03:46:15 PM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on January 01, 2022, 06:50:30 PM
https://goo.gl/maps/J7NvtW8WE5stYdqf7
Aah, thanks. I was just checking regular imagery, not Street View. :pan:

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 (https://www.google.com/maps/@29.5293706,-95.865656,3a,15y,259.23h,90.52t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1sqNJenPSbxIvBKPQGzz5uiw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!9m2!1b1!2i40?hl=en&authuser=0). LOL what a tease.
Meanwhile heading the other direction, there's a new I-69 sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@29.5346416,-95.8550902,3a,16.4y,105.91h,91.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_KuHZD8Am6EKLXW3x-51Gg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&authuser=0) 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! :D
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 (https://www.google.com/maps/@29.5273975,-95.8683937,3a,25.4y,72.03h,95.53t/data=!3m9!1e1!3m7!1suGFWk364YlEIHN9AoOFpHQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!9m2!1b1!2i40) directions (https://www.google.com/maps/@29.5349374,-95.8481701,3a,15y,285.45h,92t/data=!3m10!1e1!3m8!1smabr6rf2UmrtYPEkwULYRQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3Dmabr6rf2UmrtYPEkwULYRQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D20.883677%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192!9m2!1b1!2i40). 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
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on January 01, 2022, 08:23:05 PM
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
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: -- US 175 -- on January 02, 2022, 11:49:33 AM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on January 02, 2022, 03:04:01 PM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: GreenLanternCorps on January 03, 2022, 08:34:08 AM
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
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on January 03, 2022, 12:08:52 PM
I’ve forgotten: is it convenient to reuse these old I-69 signs (those in good condition) for US 59 in FB county?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: The Ghostbuster on January 03, 2022, 06:29:49 PM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: edwaleni on January 03, 2022, 08:35:16 PM
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.  :-D
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on January 07, 2022, 03:18:57 PM
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?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: jlwm on January 07, 2022, 05:13:39 PM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on January 08, 2022, 05:23:46 PM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: TheBox on January 09, 2022, 06:11:58 PM
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
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on January 09, 2022, 06:32:34 PM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bwana39 on January 09, 2022, 09:52:02 PM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on January 10, 2022, 01:37:38 AM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on January 10, 2022, 01:49:14 AM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bwana39 on January 10, 2022, 08:24:45 AM
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).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on January 10, 2022, 10:54:10 PM
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.

(https://i.ibb.co/0n4TtZ9/Lufkin-Bypass-Redesign.png)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bwana39 on January 10, 2022, 11:44:29 PM
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.

(https://i.ibb.co/0n4TtZ9/Lufkin-Bypass-Redesign.png)

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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: TheBox on January 11, 2022, 09:37:15 PM
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?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on January 11, 2022, 10:23:40 PM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bwana39 on January 11, 2022, 10:43:32 PM
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.....
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on January 11, 2022, 10:44:59 PM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bwana39 on January 12, 2022, 12:05:49 AM
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.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: yakra on January 12, 2022, 03:38:24 PM
East side has a fair bit of development pretty close in to the roadway.
West side looks less constrained in terms of ROW, and there's the ongoing upgrade bwana39 noted. An interchange was recently constructed at TX315.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on January 12, 2022, 07:52:20 PM
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.
Does that mean they will undo US 59 from the East?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bwana39 on January 12, 2022, 11:11:53 PM
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.
Does that mean they will undo US 59 from the East?


Probably, maybe, ....time will tell?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on January 13, 2022, 02:25:48 PM
Public hearing regarding the US-77 bypass around Sinton to interstate standards.

https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/corpus-christi/011322.html

I'd like to see some more progress on a Refugio or Odem bypass over this type of project... US-77 already functions as a 75 mph divided highway with no traffic signals around Sinton. Those areas seem higher priority, yet we just keep getting more rural upgrade projects. Not saying all of US-77 / US-59 should not be freeway between Corpus Christi and Houston eventually... but the rural areas should be last.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on January 13, 2022, 02:31:01 PM
Public hearing regarding the US-77 bypass around Sinton to interstate standards.

https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/get-involved/about/hearings-meetings/corpus-christi/011322.html

I'd like to see some more progress on a Refugio or Odem bypass over this type of project... US-77 already functions as a 75 mph divided highway with no traffic signals around Sinton. Those areas seem higher priority, yet we just keep getting more rural upgrade projects. Not saying all of US-77 / US-59 should not be freeway between Corpus Christi and Houston eventually... but the rural areas should be last.

Interesting about the hearings, but in unrelated (but related to the area) news, a Love's Gas Station with a McDonald's opened on FM 1945:
https://www.google.com/maps/@28.0110534,-97.5305367,3a,15y,289.84h,85.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfYe2qygc2bvz7IBPIW1dBQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

Plus, there's only one intersection they would have to convert plus the frontage lanes. However, I would like to see more progress on the two bypasses you've mentioned as well.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on January 13, 2022, 02:47:30 PM
Interesting about the hearings, but in unrelated (but related to the area) news, a Love's Gas Station with a McDonald's opened on FM 1945:
https://www.google.com/maps/@28.0110534,-97.5305367,3a,15y,289.84h,85.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfYe2qygc2bvz7IBPIW1dBQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
That's been open since at least 2018.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on January 13, 2022, 02:55:01 PM
Interesting about the hearings, but in unrelated (but related to the area) news, a Love's Gas Station with a McDonald's opened on FM 1945:
https://www.google.com/maps/@28.0110534,-97.5305367,3a,15y,289.84h,85.67t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sfYe2qygc2bvz7IBPIW1dBQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
That's been open since at least 2018.

It was a recent opening though. But, bypasses around Odem should've been started alongside the Sinton bypass, since it could bring I-69E (eventually) to Odem and then Sinton, Refugio to Victoria.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on January 13, 2022, 02:57:45 PM
Woodsboro to Refugio including Refugio Bypass, along with I-37 to Odem including Odem Bypass were two projects that were studied in the past... those two should be accelerated before Sinton, IMO.

Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on January 13, 2022, 05:49:25 PM
My guess is that the Sinton bypass is cheaper than the Refugio bypass, since they only need frontage roads and one interchange.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on January 13, 2022, 08:23:37 PM
There isn't much that needs to be done in Sinton. Just the extension of frontage roads to cut off some driveways connecting directly to the US-77 main lanes. A bridge over County Road 1196 will be necessary. But it's too close to the exit for TX-188 to get one for itself (not without causing a bunch of weaving conflicts). I guess Sinton would be a piece of "low hanging fruit."

Still it would seem to make more sense for TX DOT to tackle the Odem bypass project as early as anything else. That's the first stop NE of the split with I-37. It's something that can be signed as I-69E as soon as it is completed since it would be connected to I-37.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on January 13, 2022, 08:30:29 PM
There isn't much that needs to be done in Sinton. Just the extension of frontage roads to cut off some driveways connecting directly to the US-77 main lanes. A bridge over County Road 1196 will be necessary. But it's too close to the exit for TX-188 to get one for itself (not without causing a bunch of weaving conflicts). I guess Sinton would be a piece of "low hanging fruit."

Still it would seem to make more sense for TX DOT to tackle the Odem bypass project as early as anything else. That's the first stop NE of the split with I-37. It's something that can be signed as I-69E as soon as it is completed since it would be connected to I-37.
What if they decided to make the overpass over US 77. I do realize that this practice is being replaced (see US 59 upgrade), but it’s still possible. But more than likely, it will be a dual interchange thing like US 59 in Edna. (Well that one has three roads, but still.)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on January 13, 2022, 08:37:53 PM
Quote
Still it would seem to make more sense for TX DOT to tackle the Odem bypass project as early as anything else. That's the first stop NE of the split with I-37. It's something that can be signed as I-69E as soon as it is completed since it would be connected to I-37.
That, and interstate designations aside altogether, Odem and Refugio are the last towns / slow downs between Corpus Christi and Houston, the rest of the corridor is free-flowing 75 mph divided highway with zero traffic signals. These two gaps need to be filled.

Combined with the under construction Driscoll Bypass and the upcoming Riviera Bypass, there would then be at least a free-flowing highway between Brownsville and north of Houston.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on January 13, 2022, 11:46:46 PM
Quote from: Thegeet
What if they decided to make the overpass over US 77.

Are you talking about the intersection in Sinton with County Road 1196? No, I think it would be worse to bridge that over the existing US-77 main lanes. Doing so would disrupt its direct at-grade connections with the businesses alongside existing US-77. The bridge would have to span over the current US-77 main lanes and the flanking frontage roads in order to build in a reasonable incline grade for the bridge approaches. It might possibly cost a little more, but it would be less disruptive for US-77 to leap-frog over CR-1196.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on January 13, 2022, 11:57:51 PM
Quote from: Thegeet
What if they decided to make the overpass over US 77.

Are you talking about the intersection in Sinton with County Road 1196? No, I think it would be worse to bridge that over the existing US-77 main lanes. Doing so would disrupt its direct at-grade connections with the businesses alongside existing US-77. The bridge would have to span over the current US-77 main lanes and the flanking frontage roads in order to build in a reasonable incline grade for the bridge approaches. It might possibly cost a little more, but it would be less disruptive for US-77 to leap-frog over CR-1196.
Does this mean they will have to tear down what looks like fairly recently paved on and off ramps in order to implement X-ramps?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: jgb191 on January 14, 2022, 04:01:11 AM
I have a feeling the a reroute around Refugio will be the final piece of the I-69E branch.  Refugio is a major stopping town for rest, refueling, dining, etc.  I believe they will get to Woodsboro, Odem, and Riviera before Refugio.  Riviera is also the last stopping town for drivers southbound on US-77 (they won't see anything for almost 60 miles later in Raymondville).  Until the last couple of decades, it used to be that Kingsville was that last stopover until Raymondville (72-mile stretch).  Towns like Ricardo and Woodsboro might not need a bypass around it since it's already four-lanes right through those towns; just need a couple of overpasses in each town. 

As for I-69C, a bypass around Premont would be the only thing left along US-281.  Reroutes around Alice, Falfurrias, and Encino have already been done long ago.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on January 14, 2022, 06:14:38 AM
I have a feeling the a reroute around Refugio will be the final piece of the I-69E branch.  Refugio is a major stopping town for rest, refueling, dining, etc.  I believe they will get to Woodsboro, Odem, and Riviera before Refugio.  Riviera is also the last stopping town for drivers southbound on US-77 (they won't see anything for almost 60 miles later in Raymondville).  Until the last couple of decades, it used to be that Kingsville was that last stopover until Raymondville (72-mile stretch).  Towns like Ricardo and Woodsboro might not need a bypass around it since it's already four-lanes right through those towns; just need a couple of overpasses in each town. 

As for I-69C, a bypass around Premont would be the only thing left along US-281.  Reroutes around Alice, Falfurrias, and Encino have already been done long ago.
Refugio is indeed set for 2031 construction. Therefore, we won’t expect anything except development this decade.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on January 14, 2022, 11:26:49 AM
Aside from some projects in the Victoria area it looks like TX DOT is building out I-69 between Houston and Corpus Christi in a fairly linear direction from Houston going farther Southeast.

In the near term I-69 will soon be completed down to the Wharton area. Farther down to El Campo, Louise, Ganado, Edna and Inez the existing US-59 main lanes already have a lot of grade separations and exits. Much of the freeway quality stuff is already Interstate quality. Most of the remaining upgrade work along that stretch will involve building new frontage roads and removing at-grade crossings between towns. That could actually get finished pretty quickly.

Either way, the work in Refugio could indeed end up being the last to do along the Houston-Corpus Christi stretch.

Quote from: Thegeet
Does this mean they will have to tear down what looks like fairly recently paved on and off ramps in order to implement X-ramps?

I don't think TX DOT is going to spend that kind of money there. Grade-separated, braided X ramps would be an extravagance in that location. I think they'll just hop US-77 over CR-1196 and not give it any slip ramps between the frontage roads and US-77 main lanes. The locals will have to take the frontage roads to the TX-188 intersection to get on the US-77 main lanes.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on January 14, 2022, 04:19:13 PM
Aside from some projects in the Victoria area it looks like TX DOT is building out I-69 between Houston and Corpus Christi in a fairly linear direction from Houston going farther Southeast.

In the near term I-69 is will soon be completed down to the Wharton area. Farther down to El Campo, Louise, Ganado, Edna and Inez the existing US-59 main lanes already have a lot of grade separations and exits. Much of the freeway quality stuff is already Interstate quality. Most of the remaining upgrade work along that stretch will involve building new frontage roads and removing at-grade crossings between towns. That could actually get finished pretty quickly

Either way, the work in Refugio could indeed end up being the last to do along the Houston-Corpus Christi stretch.

Quote from: Thegeet
Does this mean they will have to tear down what looks like fairly recently paved on and off ramps in order to implement X-ramps?

I don't think TX DOT is going to spend that kind of money there. Grade-separated, braided X ramps would be an extravagance in that location. I think they'll just hop CR-1196 over US-77 and not give it any slip ramps between the frontage roads and US-77 main lanes. The locals will have to take the frontage roads to the TX-188 intersection to get on the US-77 main lanes.
They also need to work on Jackson County stretch. Other than Edna, it needs new frontage roads and interchanges.(And possibly a new rest area) Txdot isn’t expected to start studies until the next decade, let alone construction.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Great Lakes Roads on January 14, 2022, 05:20:34 PM
Quote from: Thegeet
What if they decided to make the overpass over US 77.

Are you talking about the intersection in Sinton with County Road 1196? No, I think it would be worse to bridge that over the existing US-77 main lanes. Doing so would disrupt its direct at-grade connections with the businesses alongside existing US-77. The bridge would have to span over the current US-77 main lanes and the flanking frontage roads in order to build in a reasonable incline grade for the bridge approaches. It might possibly cost a little more, but it would be less disruptive for US-77 to leap-frog over CR-1196.
Does this mean they will have to tear down what looks like fairly recently paved on and off ramps in order to implement X-ramps?

No, but here are the proposed exits in Sinton once the upgrades are complete.
NB: FM 1945 West/BUSINESS 77, CR 1196, TX 188, US 181, TO US 181/TX 89, BUSINESS 77
SB: BUSINESS 77, TO US 181/TX 89, TX 188/FM 1945

Six exits northbound and three exits southbound.
Three entrance ramps northbound and six entrance ramps southbound.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: yakra on January 14, 2022, 07:12:26 PM
Refugio is indeed set for 2031 construction. Therefore, we won’t expect anything except development this decade.
Cite? A little Googling around and I came up with 2029.
Nov 2020: https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/i69-driven-by-texans/future-i69-tabloids.pdf
Nov 2021: https://apps3.txdot.gov/apps/estip/fileloader.ashx?pg_file_id=3644
Nov 2020: The map on page 2 of https://destinyhosted.com/nuecedocs/2021/CC-REG/20210120_589/13038_Alliance_I69-_Report.pdf lists the Refugio Relief Route as "UTP Funded: 2025 - 2030".
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on January 14, 2022, 07:13:26 PM
Refugio is indeed set for 2031 construction. Therefore, we won’t expect anything except development this decade.
Cite? A little Googling around and I came up with 2029.
Nov 2020: https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/i69-driven-by-texans/future-i69-tabloids.pdf
Nov 2021: https://apps3.txdot.gov/apps/estip/fileloader.ashx?pg_file_id=3644
Nov 2020: The map on page 2 of https://destinyhosted.com/nuecedocs/2021/CC-REG/20210120_589/13038_Alliance_I69-_Report.pdf lists the Refugio Relief Route as "UTP Funded: 2025 - 2030".
I was checking the status on the TxDOT project tracker. https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/project-tracker.html
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Scott5114 on January 15, 2022, 12:21:30 AM
There isn't much that needs to be done in Sinton.

While they're coming up with stuff to do in Sinton, they should really consider realigning US-181. The route it takes through town is dumb as hell. It should just stay on the bypass that is currently signed as TX-89.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: TheBox on January 15, 2022, 03:51:02 PM
Whiling i was trying to compare the traffic count of US-290 and TX-71 (both in between Houston and Austin), i found some Google Maps alternatives that also keep track of highway projects that are W.I.P.

OpenStreetMap - https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=12/27.6324/-97.7471

Mapbox - https://api.mapbox.com/styles/v1/mapbox/streets-v11.html?title=true&access_token=pk.eyJ1IjoibWFwYm94IiwiYSI6ImNpejY4M29iazA2Z2gycXA4N2pmbDZmangifQ.-g_vE53SD2WrJ6tFX7QHmA#9.47/27.6229/-97.7213

the latter even already considers the bypasses of Bishop, Kingsville and soon Driscoll to be I-69E
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: TheBox on January 15, 2022, 04:26:36 PM
I also just now learned that the Diboll bypass is already in development

https://api.mapbox.com/styles/v1/mapbox/satellite-streets-v11.html?title=true&access_token=pk.eyJ1IjoibWFwYm94IiwiYSI6ImNpejY4M29iazA2Z2gycXA4N2pmbDZmangifQ.-g_vE53SD2WrJ6tFX7QHmA#11.94/31.19018/-94.76886
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on January 15, 2022, 07:43:49 PM
The I-69 projects North of Houston appear like they're being handled a bit different than the Houston-Corpus Christi leg. Different detached segments are being built to the North away from progress connected to the Houston segment of I-69. Projects South of Houston appear to be moving in a linear directional fashion from Houston to farther SW.

A decent amount of work has been done in Lufkin with more planned to the South. Perhaps the Diboll bypass was moved up in relation to that work. Once the Diboll bypass is completed it won't take all that much work to fill in the gap between it and the Lufkin portion of I-69.

Meanwhile, the non-freeway gap South of Cleveland is finally being filled in with new freeway main lanes. The segment between Cleveland and Shepherd will be easier to fill. The Shepherd to Livingston segment appears fairly simple; not a lot of properties in the way at all.

Quote from: Scott5114
While they're coming up with stuff to do in Sinton, they should really consider realigning US-181. The route it takes through town is dumb as hell. It should just stay on the bypass that is currently signed as TX-89.

Yeah, US-181 should be signed as a business route going through the middle of Sinton. The regular US-181 route should stay on the TX-89 bypass.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: TheBox on January 16, 2022, 12:10:48 PM
Some I-69/US-59 project concept of a some upgrade at Lufkin near Moffett overpass
https://lufkindailynews.com/news/community/article_d8e68324-9253-50f9-955a-5fd9a857ec34.html
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: TheBox on January 16, 2022, 12:14:43 PM
Also meanwhile, TxDOT is also apparently planning to upgrade SH-36 between I-69/US-59 in Rosenburg and US-290 in Brenham

they're really considering upgrading SH-36 before upgrading the rest of US-290, are they
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on January 16, 2022, 12:28:42 PM
Some I-69/US-59 project concept of a some upgrade at Lufkin near Moffett overpass
https://lufkindailynews.com/news/community/article_d8e68324-9253-50f9-955a-5fd9a857ec34.html
That’s the Lufkin frontage road project between Moffett Rd. and SH 103 that’s in progress.
Also meanwhile, TxDOT is also apparently planning to upgrade SH-36 between I-69/US-59 in Rosenburg and US-290 in Brenham

they're really considering upgrading SH-36 before upgrading the rest of US-290, are they
Imagine if it took ages to upgrade US 290.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: yakra on January 16, 2022, 04:37:19 PM
Quote from: https://lufkindailynews.com/news/community/article_d8e68324-9253-50f9-955a-5fd9a857ec34.html
Interstate standards require certain lane widths, certain safety standards, eliminating any crossovers of main lanes with other roads, providing access roads and more, Oaks said.
heh



Edit: Here's an article on the Nacogdoches flyover's progress, with some neato aerial photos:
https://kicks105.com/night-work-and-new-detours-set-to-begin-for-hwy-59-in-nacogdoches/
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: TheBox on January 17, 2022, 10:23:13 AM
According to TxDOT, construction on the Riveria bypass should start in 4 years or maybe less
https://apps3.txdot.gov/apps-cq/project_tracker/
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: GreenLanternCorps on January 17, 2022, 12:47:59 PM
Because it's a slow day at work, and because I'm curious, I did a quick trip down Future I-369/69/E?C/W (Via Google maps, and consulting other websites) to get an idea of what is either finished or under construction for the entire route.

I-369

Texarkana - Complete from I-30 to just short of the US-59 interchange (which will have to be rebuilt)

Domino - Completed interchange at FM3129   

Atlanta  - Partially complete interchange at North End of bypass (will probably have to be completely rebuilt)

Marshall - Partially complete interchange on  Loop 390 near with TX 43 (Will require second lane and frontage roads)

Carthage - Loop with interchanges, but will require  extensive upgrading which ever side the route follows.


I-69


Nacogdoches - Flyover construction at South end of bypass

Redland - Interchange at FM2021 complete

Diboll - Diboll Relief route under construction

Livingston - Bypass appears complete to Interstate standards

Shepard - Bypass appears complete to interstate standards

Cleveland - Bypass complete

Cleveland South to Splendora - Under Construction

Splendora to Rosenburg (through Houston) Completed to Interstate ​standards, signed as I-69

Rosenburg to Wharton - Under constrcution

South of Wharton - Interchange at FM 961 partially complete - will need additional work

Pierce - Bypass exists, not to interstate standards

ElCampo - Bypass exists, partially built to Interstate standards

Louise - Bypass exists, not to interstate standards

Ganado - Bypass exists, partially built to Interstate standards

Edna - Bypass appears complete to Interstate standards

El Toro - Two Interchanges appear complete to Interstate standards - Gap between them

Inez - Bypass appears complete to Interstate standards

Victoria - Bypass exists, partially built to Interstate standards


I-69W

Victoria - Bypass exists, partially built to Interstate standards

Laredo - Completed to Interstate standards from International Blvd to Mexican Border, signed as I-69W from I-35 to Mexican Border

I-69C

Falfurrias - Highway complete to Interstate standards through town

Edinburg to I-2 - Complete and signed as I-69c

I-69E

Victoria - Small section patially completed - needs extensive work

TX 239 - Interchange complete, no frontage roads

Sinton - Bypass exists, partially built to Interstate standards

Interchange with I-37 - Partially Complete

Corpus Christi - I-69E  Completed or under constuction from I-37 South to Kingsville.  Signed as either I-69 or I-69E depending on the sign.

Sarita - Interchange complete to Interstate standards

Raymondville South to Mexican Border - under construction or built to Interstate standards, signed as I-69E


Am missing anything?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on January 17, 2022, 02:22:10 PM
I-69: Lufkin- Frontage Road project on US 59 from Moffett Rd to SH 103 is underway.
Shepard- Interchange N of bypass needs reconstruction.
I-69C: Premont bypass for US 281 is under construction.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bwana39 on January 17, 2022, 02:38:16 PM
Because it's a slow day at work, and because I'm curious, I did a quick trip down Future I-369/69/E?C/W (Via Google maps, and consulting other websites) to get an idea of what is either finished or under construction for the entire route.

I-369

Texarkana - Complete from I-30 to just short of the US-59 interchange (which will have to be rebuilt)

Domino - Completed interchange at FM3129   

Atlanta  - Partially complete interchange at North End of bypass (will probably have to be completely rebuilt)

Marshall - Partially complete interchange on  Loop 390 near with TX 43 (Will require second lane and frontage roads)

Carthage - Loop with interchanges, but will require  extensive upgrading which ever side the route follows.


Texarkana - Complete from I-30 to just short of the US-59 interchange (which will have to be rebuilt). This stretch of freeway was originally to be part of I-49 before Arkansas decided to build I-49 east of Town. It is 20+ years old.

Atlanta  - Partially complete interchange at North End of bypass (will probably have to be completely rebuilt) I am assuming you are talking about where US-59 and SH-43 (formerly US-59) meet? Thoughts are that a complete new bypass from around SH-77 to North of Queen City might be built. There are NO bridges whatsoever in Atlanta or Queen City.

Marshall - Partially complete interchange on  Loop 390 near with TX 43 (Will require second lane and frontage roads) This is the only separated anything in Marshall. There are another 4 or 5 minor intersections that will have to be built as well as the I-20 interchange.

Carthage - Loop with interchanges, but will require  extensive upgrading which ever side the route follows. Agreed, but Carthage is probably as far along or farther than Lufkin or especially Nacogdoches.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on January 17, 2022, 05:00:08 PM
When can we expect a flyover in Carthage?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bwana39 on January 17, 2022, 05:37:53 PM
When can we expect a flyover in Carthage?

Don't know. The north end intersection is in the process of being rebuilt as is. Afraid the two ends will be the last thing to get done to freeway standards.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: TheBox on January 17, 2022, 07:46:29 PM
I-69 overpass @ FM 2914 (just below Shepherd) - also completed
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: GreenLanternCorps on January 18, 2022, 07:13:16 AM
I-69 overpass @ FM 2914 (just below Shepherd) - also completed

I think I counted that as part of the Shepard bypass, but you are right, the Northbound frontage roads do not connect, so there is a short gap.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on January 20, 2022, 05:59:08 PM
Just drove south to Bishop. Other than Calallen (a district within the city limits of CC), new I-69E signs were posted near the entrance ramps. Nearly all I-69 signs were replaced, except a few SB n the south side of Robstown. The Business 77 NB exit for Driscoll is also open. The completed Driscoll overpasses are now painted beige and salmon. The SB bypass is about 85% paved. The reassurance markers on the main lanes still show I-69 instead of I-69E. Unfortunately, I couldn’t take enough pictures, but the new I-69E signs (sorry, no new ones on BGS) are appearing throughout the freeway. I will upload the pictures soon.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on January 20, 2022, 09:16:55 PM
Just drove south to Bishop. Other than Calallen (a district within the city limits of CC), new I-69E signs were posted near the entrance ramps. Nearly all I-69 signs were replaced, except a few SB n the south side of Robstown. The Business 77 NB exit for Driscoll is also open. The completed Driscoll overpasses are now painted beige and salmon. The SB bypass is about 85% paved. The reassurance markers on the main lanes still show I-69 instead of I-69E. Unfortunately, I couldn’t take enough pictures, but the new I-69E signs (sorry, no new ones on BGS) are appearing throughout the freeway. I will upload the pictures soon.

Pretty soon, there will be a free flowing portion of US 77 from Corpus Christi to Kingsville, later leading to the extension of I-69E.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on January 20, 2022, 10:12:00 PM
Virtually all of Brownsville to Houston is already free-flowing - only exceptions being Riviera, Odem, and Refugio now.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on January 21, 2022, 02:35:57 AM
Virtually all of Brownsville to Houston is already free-flowing - only exceptions being Riviera, Odem, and Refugio now.

Very neat. :bigass:

When do we think this portion from Brownsville to Houston will be complete?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on January 21, 2022, 02:42:14 AM
Virtually all of Brownsville to Houston is already free-flowing - only exceptions being Riviera, Odem, and Refugio now.

Very neat. :bigass:

When do we think this portion from Brownsville to Houston will be complete?
In regards to free flowing, or full interstate standards?

Free flowing, whenever those bypasses are finally constructed. Hopefully by 2030. Mainly operates with a 75 mph speed limit, though the Kingsville to I-37 segment is currently 70 mph with 65 mph through Kingsville. Most of this could and should be reasonably increased to 75 mph, especially with it soon to be full interstate standards.

Interstate standards… decades off unless upgrades are expedited on those long rural segments to add continuous frontage roads and rural overpasses every few miles. South of I-37 will likely be completed within the next decade, the segment north of I-37 is further away.

Slightly off topic, but a completed I-69E in rural areas, along with virtually the entire length of I-37 as is today, could be candidates for an 80 mph speed limit. Light traffic volumes, and relatively straight alignment throughout. Comparable to the existing 80 mph segments of I-10 and I-20.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: jgb191 on January 21, 2022, 04:58:04 AM
Virtually all of Brownsville to Houston is already free-flowing - only exceptions being Riviera, Odem, and Refugio now.

There is also a slowdown in Woodsboro and Ricardo with reduced speed at 55 MPH.  Although a bypass I don't believe is necessary there, there would probably need to be a couple of overpasses in each of those towns.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: abqtraveler on January 21, 2022, 09:12:27 AM
Virtually all of Brownsville to Houston is already free-flowing - only exceptions being Riviera, Odem, and Refugio now.

Very neat. :bigass:

When do we think this portion from Brownsville to Houston will be complete?
The rate at which they're going right now, I would say the by the end of the next decade (maybe sooner), you'll have a fully-functional interstate route from Houston to Brownsville.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: TheBox on January 21, 2022, 11:07:46 AM
Virtually all of Brownsville to Houston is already free-flowing - only exceptions being Riviera, Odem, and Refugio now.

Very neat. :bigass:

When do we think this portion from Brownsville to Houston will be complete?
The rate at which they're going right now, I would say the by the end of the next decade (maybe sooner), you'll have a fully-functional interstate route from Houston to Brownsville.
Now if only US-290 is a fully free-flow, if not functional interstate from Houston to Austin too

Yes, we already have TX-71 (which is nearly free-flow from Austin to Columbus), but that is more of a alternative in the same way TX-6 is to I-45 or US-90 Alt is to I-10 (tho TX-71 is more popular than those other two), whiling i think US-290 has more traffic..........if i'm not mistaken
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: jgb191 on January 21, 2022, 01:50:34 PM
Something aside (but related to) the topic: 

Before the current I-69 plans was initialized in Texas, my personal thoughts were to alter the course of I-37 in one of two possible ways:

Scenario 1) Keep the section from San Antonio to Calallen exit # 14 junction with US-77.  Re-route I-37 along the US-77 south of Calallen all the way to Brownsville.  Rename the current I-37 segment from Calallen to Corpus Christi as 'I-137'

Scenario 2) Keep the section from San Antonio to Three Rivers exit # 72 separation with US-281.  Reroute I-37 south of Three Rivers, along US-281 instead of the separation, all the way to McAllen.  Rename the current I-37 segment from Three Rivers to Corpus Christi as 'I-137'

In both scenarios, my idea was also to connect an interstate highway from Laredo to Corpus Christi (as either I-4 or I-6), along US-59 from Laredo to Freer, and along TX-44 from there to Corpus Christi.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on January 21, 2022, 02:05:00 PM
I think the I-69 segment between Houston and Victoria could be finished by 2030, if not earlier. Victoria to I-37 could take a good while longer. The Calallen-Robstown-Kingsville segment of I-69E will be finished soon. But there's no telling how long TX DOT will take to fill the gap between Kingsville and Yturria. They could probably build it out really fast since there is hardly anything in the way other than the bypass for Riviera. Likewise TX DOT could just as easily say, "this part of US-77 is good enough for now, see you in 30 years."

Quote from: sprjus4
Interstate standards… decades off unless upgrades are expedited on those long rural segments to add continuous frontage roads and rural overpasses every few miles. South of I-37 will likely be completed within the next decade, the segment north of I-37 is further away.

Isn't TX DOT still looking at building short frontage road segments to provide basic RIRO access for some of that at-grade intersections in rural areas? It's supposed to be a money-saving measure as opposed to building continuous frontage roads the whole length of the Interstate upgrade project.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Echostatic on January 21, 2022, 02:10:19 PM
Yes, we already have TX-71 (which is nearly free-flow from Austin to Columbus), but that is more of a alternative in the same way TX-6 is to I-45 or US-90 Alt is to I-10 (tho TX-71 is more popular than those other two), whiling i think US-290 has more traffic..........if i'm not mistaken

TX-71 had daily traffic of around 50k in Bastrop down to 12k just outside Columbus, using 2019 data for a pre-COVID baseline. US 290 had 31k in Elgin down to about 10k near Paige. Seems pretty similar, if not favoring 71.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on January 21, 2022, 02:11:05 PM
I highly think that I-69 from Victoria to Houston will be finished in about 2040. They still have to work on Jackson county, which has segments of non-freeway road, and they will want to replace every overpass over US 59. I think funding is a key part in time. They even told me that Jackson county wouldn’t begin studies until the mid 2030’s.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on January 21, 2022, 03:31:17 PM
I highly think that I-69 from Victoria to Houston will be finished in about 2040. They still have to work on Jackson county, which has segments of non-freeway road, and they will want to replace every overpass over US 59. I think funding is a key part in time. They even told me that Jackson county wouldn’t begin studies until the mid 2030’s.

I would say way earlier than that.  There are a lot of stretches already built to freeway standards.  The gaps between keep getting shorter. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: yakra on January 21, 2022, 04:22:00 PM
I don't expect Houston-Victoria to be done by 2030.
Construction progress would have to be much faster than it's been over the past 8 years.

The southern extent of I-69 has been at roughly Spur 529 since 2013, and only now does it look like the next section is getting ready to open up. That'll get us to what, Wharton or Hungerford at best, about 1/3 of the way there?
El Campo looks like it might be substantially ready, but Ganado and Edna, while mostly freeway, would want more complete one-way frontage road setups, with reconfigured ramps for more high-speed movement. Unsure about bridge clearance, but they might need to be redone anyway due to road width; the one place I peeked at GMSV the shoulders looked a bit narrow.

The Project Tracker shows a "Convert NoN-Freeway" corridor study from the N end of US59Bus (Victoria) to the Victoria/Jackson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Jackson) county line with construction in 10+years.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on January 21, 2022, 06:48:33 PM
I don't expect Houston-Victoria to be done by 2030.
Construction progress would have to be much faster than it's been over the past 8 years.

The southern extent of I-69 has been at roughly Spur 529 since 2013, and only now does it look like the next section is getting ready to open up. That'll get us to what, Wharton or Hungerford at best, about 1/3 of the way there?
El Campo looks like it might be substantially ready, but Ganado and Edna, while mostly freeway, would want more complete one-way frontage road setups, with reconfigured ramps for more high-speed movement. Unsure about bridge clearance, but they might need to be redone anyway due to road width; the one place I peeked at GMSV the shoulders looked a bit narrow.

The Project Tracker shows a "Convert NoN-Freeway" corridor study from the N end of US59Bus (Victoria) to the Victoria/Jackson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Jackson) county line with construction in 10+years.
The weird thing is they say it is a freeway, but it is still called “ Convert Non-Freeway” .
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: CoreySamson on January 21, 2022, 08:45:14 PM
I fully expect I-69E between Corpus and the RGV to be completely interstate-grade by 2030. I also believe unsuffixed I-69 in Texas will be completely free flowing up to Garrison by then, given how the Corrigan and Diboll bypasses are projected to commence shortly.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on January 21, 2022, 08:46:11 PM
Diabolical bypass and s already in construction.

Edit: Diboll bypass is already in construction.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: yakra on January 21, 2022, 11:35:51 PM
^ some typos & autocorrect fails, you've just gotta leave in for the lulz!  :-D
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bwana39 on January 22, 2022, 12:23:18 AM
I fully expect I-69E between Corpus and the RGV to be completely interstate-grade by 2030. I also believe unsuffixed I-69 in Texas will be completely free flowing up to Garrison by then, given how the Corrigan and Diboll bypasses are projected to commence shortly.

Construction is well underway around  Diboll.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on January 22, 2022, 02:05:20 AM
Anybody know when construction of the frontage Road between US 87 and SH 185 for US 59 will begin? The contract was let in August 2021, and still no progress.
^ some typos & autocorrect fails, you've just gotta leave in for the lulz!  :-D
Exactly. I wanted us to get a good laugh.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: O Tamandua on January 22, 2022, 04:16:14 PM
Forgive me for asking but...how much work for I-69 will need to be done in little Marion County and around the "Bed and breakfast capital of Texas", Jefferson?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on January 22, 2022, 04:21:46 PM
Forgive me for asking but...how much work for I-69 will need to be done in little Marion County and around the "Bed and breakfast capital of Texas", Jefferson?
Well, if they decide to build west of Jefferson, it would be three interchanges (including the Business interchanges), but if East, then four total.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bwana39 on January 22, 2022, 07:15:37 PM
When the original talk years ago, had the freeway veering left about where the new truck stop is. (across from Jefferson Street on Walcott..) This appears to be off the table now. Going west, Big Cypress is not going to be a simple cross. On the east it is a little simpler. You would cross Big Cypress and the Scenic Railway with one facility,cross FM-34, cross KCS, and then cross UPRR and SH 49 with one facility.

There are also some historic property issues to the west.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: O Tamandua on January 23, 2022, 01:33:40 PM
When the original talk years ago, had the freeway veering left about where the new truck stop is. (across from Jefferson Street on Walcott..) This appears to be off the table now. Going west, Big Cypress is not going to be a simple cross. On the east it is a little simpler. You would cross Big Cypress and the Scenic Railway with one facility,cross FM-34, cross KCS, and then cross UPRR and SH 49 with one facility.

There are also some historic property issues to the west.

I knew it would get a bit dicey working around Jimplecute-land.  Thank you, all.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on February 12, 2022, 06:10:19 PM
Looks like I-37 & US 77 interchange is finally being worked on. Hopefully it's to upgrade the interchange  :colorful:

https://www.google.com/maps/@27.9038242,-97.6304114,3a,75y,275.8h,89.24t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sDZ6pxMhDNVQnwPJbJpy69A!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DDZ6pxMhDNVQnwPJbJpy69A%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D231.48509%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&authuser=0
https://www.google.com/maps/@27.9031203,-97.631788,3a,75y,159.72h,92.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7-YoE7s9BZjRR0mfdJavNg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&authuser=0
https://www.google.com/maps/@27.9031203,-97.631788,3a,75y,159.72h,92.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7-YoE7s9BZjRR0mfdJavNg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&authuser=0
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: TheBox on February 12, 2022, 06:17:24 PM
Looks like I-37 & US 77 interchange is finally being worked on. Hopefully it's to upgrade the interchange  :colorful:

https://www.google.com/maps/@27.9038242,-97.6304114,3a,75y,275.8h,89.24t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sDZ6pxMhDNVQnwPJbJpy69A!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DDZ6pxMhDNVQnwPJbJpy69A%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D231.48509%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&authuser=0
https://www.google.com/maps/@27.9031203,-97.631788,3a,75y,159.72h,92.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7-YoE7s9BZjRR0mfdJavNg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&authuser=0
https://www.google.com/maps/@27.9031203,-97.631788,3a,75y,159.72h,92.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7-YoE7s9BZjRR0mfdJavNg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&authuser=0

Isn't that for the bridge itself and not for the interchange?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on February 12, 2022, 06:45:35 PM
Looks like I-37 & US 77 interchange is finally being worked on. Hopefully it's to upgrade the interchange  :colorful:

https://www.google.com/maps/@27.9038242,-97.6304114,3a,75y,275.8h,89.24t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sDZ6pxMhDNVQnwPJbJpy69A!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DDZ6pxMhDNVQnwPJbJpy69A%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D231.48509%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&authuser=0
https://www.google.com/maps/@27.9031203,-97.631788,3a,75y,159.72h,92.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7-YoE7s9BZjRR0mfdJavNg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&authuser=0
https://www.google.com/maps/@27.9031203,-97.631788,3a,75y,159.72h,92.64t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7-YoE7s9BZjRR0mfdJavNg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en&authuser=0

Isn't that for the bridge itself and not for the interchange?

I am assuming it is for the I-37 SB to US 77 NB ramp. One article has mentioned reconfiguration of the ramps.

https://www.caller.com/story/news/2021/08/18/txdot-starts-nueces-river-bridge-project-redbird-lane-highway-77/8166554002/
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on February 12, 2022, 08:16:17 PM
The interchange is being reconfigured as part of the project. I-69 / US-77 southbound traffic will be reconfigured to come in on the right as opposed to the left.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on February 22, 2022, 01:37:41 PM
I-69E sign spotted near SH 44 interchange: https://goo.gl/maps/a92tNST8Q5m1an7y6
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on February 22, 2022, 05:19:39 PM
^ In other news... the SH-44 main lanes east of there are finally complete.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on February 22, 2022, 07:29:44 PM
Quote from: Thegeet
I-69E sign spotted near SH 44 interchange: https://goo.gl/maps/a92tNST8Q5m1an7y6

Ugh, TX DOT really needs to be using Series C letters on those I-69E shields. Series D just doesn't fit worth a damn. And the neutered I-69E shields they have up in various places in South Texas are just freaking horrible.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on February 23, 2022, 01:15:46 AM
Quote from: Thegeet
I-69E sign spotted near SH 44 interchange: https://goo.gl/maps/a92tNST8Q5m1an7y6

Ugh, TX DOT really needs to be using Series C letters on those I-69E shields. Series D just doesn't fit worth a damn. And the neutered I-69E shields they have up in various places in South Texas are just freaking horrible.
They’re also using at least one with Series C, which is inexplicably used on US 59 in Rosenberg.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: abqtraveler on February 24, 2022, 09:24:58 AM
Just looked at Google Maps this morning and Google Street View now shows the northbound side of the Driscoll Bypass open to traffic as of December 2021. It looks like they're still working on tying in the southbound lanes into the existing US-77 at either end of the bypass. Right now, GSV shows the northbound Driscoll Bypass signed solely as US-77.

https://www.google.com/maps/@27.6747616,-97.7403975,3a,55.1y,52.2h,71.33t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s7Rjo44544AYTeIVL-IwcCw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on February 24, 2022, 11:13:26 AM
It’s been open since at least November.
Breaking News: Google Maps has reported a northbound closure on US 77 in Driscoll. This could be the connection in progress for the new I-69E bypass. Or maybe it was an accident. Still, it is something worth monitoring.

Waze shows the Northbound lane of the bypass as being open so you’re likely right.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on February 24, 2022, 08:01:00 PM
New BGSs for I-69W: https://goo.gl/maps/4UoSMeL3PjBHSmP58
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: J N Winkler on February 24, 2022, 09:07:42 PM
New BGSs for I-69W: https://goo.gl/maps/4UoSMeL3PjBHSmP58

I hope to God they fixed that sign before they hoisted it into place--that's a pretty significant error.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: formulanone on February 24, 2022, 09:13:39 PM
New BGSs for I-69W: https://goo.gl/maps/4UoSMeL3PjBHSmP58

I hope to God they fixed that sign before they hoisted it into place--that's a pretty significant error.

At least the spelling of "Laredo" and "Bridge" is correct.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Brooks on February 24, 2022, 09:38:13 PM
New BGSs for I-69W: https://goo.gl/maps/4UoSMeL3PjBHSmP58

I hope to God they fixed that sign before they hoisted it into place--that's a pretty significant error.
It’s a visual error with GSV. If you move down a frame you can see the sign is correct.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on February 24, 2022, 10:11:18 PM
XD, didn’t even notice the “grammatical error”  effect! Why is that sign chopped off on the top though.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on February 24, 2022, 10:15:57 PM
In other news, GSV on the new lanes of SH 44: https://goo.gl/maps/E4R6H8KEaNTUtMff8
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: 1 on February 24, 2022, 10:19:47 PM
I'm still not seeing the actual error that requires replacing.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on February 24, 2022, 10:22:25 PM
I'm still not seeing the actual error that requires replacing.
The link that I posted contained a glitch by Google on one of the signs, and it looked like a misspelling of “Laredo”  and “Solitary” .
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: J N Winkler on February 25, 2022, 12:11:56 AM
I'm still not seeing the actual error that requires replacing.

There is indeed a StreetView stitching error that goes away when you advance or retreat one step.  But the underlying legend is incorrect.  The sign says "Laredo Columbia Solitary Bridge"; the actual name of the facility is Laredo-Colombia Solidarity Bridge.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on February 25, 2022, 12:32:11 AM
I'm still not seeing the actual error that requires replacing.

There is indeed a StreetView stitching error that goes away when you advance or retreat one step.  But the underlying legend is incorrect.  The sign says "Laredo Columbia Solitary Bridge"; the actual name of the facility is Laredo-Colombia Solidarity Bridge.
Oops. Big Google Translate moment.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Rick Powell on February 25, 2022, 12:37:18 PM
There is indeed a StreetView stitching error that goes away when you advance or retreat one step.  But the underlying legend is incorrect.  The sign says "Laredo Columbia Solitary Bridge"; the actual name of the facility is Laredo-Colombia Solidarity Bridge.

Well, there is only one of them, amirite?

[Fixed quote attribution. -S.]
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on February 25, 2022, 10:40:37 PM
Updates on US 59 (El Campo to Fort Bend county):
El Campo: The mainlanes for US 59 at FM 1162 are open. Work is being done on the SB frontage road (which is closed), possibly the ground level of the FM 1162 interchange itself. (I couldn’t remember if I was able to see it)
Hungerford: The NB traffic is shifted onto the NB frontage road via a new exit ramp. Frontage roads are still under construction. The SB BUS-59/SH 60 exit is replaced. The future NB side of an overpass at CR 212 is under construction.
Fort Bend county: the NB exit is closed and replaced by a temporary exit ramp, shifting traffic to the unfinished future NB bridge. All exits are open except the SB Loop 540 and NB Spur 529 exits.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MaxConcrete on March 03, 2022, 11:08:04 PM
Bids were opened today for upgrading an 8-mile section of US 77 (I-69E) from south of the Kingsville bypass to south of road 628 (north of Riviera). Looking at the plans, the full length will have continuous frontage roads in both directions, and the existing 300-foot-wide right-of-way is mostly kept as-is without widening the corridor.

Unfortunately bids are well over budget (23.6%) in spite of 6 bidders. A project on I-10 in Beaumont came at $307 million, 11% over budget. I think inflation has arrived. http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/03033001.htm (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/03033001.htm)

http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/03033002.htm (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/03033002.htm)

County:   KLEBERG   Let Date:   03/03/22
Type:   CONVERT NON-FREEWAY   Seq No:   3002
Time:   1184 WORKING DAYS   Project ID:   C 102-4-97
Highway:   US 77   Contract #:   03223002
Length:   8.648   CCSJ:   0102-04-097
Limits:   
From:   CR 2130   Check:   $100,000
To:   1.5 MI. N. OF SH 285   Misc Cost:   
Estimate   $142,982,383.44   % Over/Under   Company
Bidder 1   $176,703,809.06   +23.58%   ANDERSON COLUMBIA CO., INC.
Bidder 2   $178,477,111.34   +24.82%   POSILLICO CIVIL, INC.
Bidder 3   $180,874,386.05   +26.50%   JAMES CONSTRUCTION GROUP, LLC
Bidder 4   $182,953,594.08   +27.96%   WEBBER, LLC
Bidder 5   $199,965,468.73   +39.85%   ZACHRY CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION
Bidder 6   $203,692,480.95   +42.46%   SOUTHLAND CONTRACTING, INC.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: abqtraveler on March 06, 2022, 10:54:15 AM
Bids were opened today for upgrading an 8-mile section of US 77 (I-69E) from south of the Kingsville bypass to south of road 628 (north of Riviera). Looking at the plans, the full length will have continuous frontage roads in both directions, and the existing 300-foot-wide right-of-way is mostly kept as-is without widening the corridor.

Unfortunately bids are well over budget (23.6%) in spite of 6 bidders. A project on I-10 in Beaumont came at $307 million, 11% over budget. I think inflation has arrived. http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/03033001.htm (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/03033001.htm)

http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/03033002.htm (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/03033002.htm)

County:   KLEBERG   Let Date:   03/03/22
Type:   CONVERT NON-FREEWAY   Seq No:   3002
Time:   1184 WORKING DAYS   Project ID:   C 102-4-97
Highway:   US 77   Contract #:   03223002
Length:   8.648   CCSJ:   0102-04-097
Limits:   
From:   CR 2130   Check:   $100,000
To:   1.5 MI. N. OF SH 285   Misc Cost:   
Estimate   $142,982,383.44   % Over/Under   Company
Bidder 1   $176,703,809.06   +23.58%   ANDERSON COLUMBIA CO., INC.
Bidder 2   $178,477,111.34   +24.82%   POSILLICO CIVIL, INC.
Bidder 3   $180,874,386.05   +26.50%   JAMES CONSTRUCTION GROUP, LLC
Bidder 4   $182,953,594.08   +27.96%   WEBBER, LLC
Bidder 5   $199,965,468.73   +39.85%   ZACHRY CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION
Bidder 6   $203,692,480.95   +42.46%   SOUTHLAND CONTRACTING, INC.

Is TxDOT going to award a contract based on the overpriced bids, or are they going to re-bid the project to see if they can get something lower?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on March 06, 2022, 12:00:08 PM
They'll have to invent a time machine and go back a few years if they want to get lower bid prices.

It shouldn't be surprising that many of these bids are coming in well above forecasts because the administrative process with these projects moves glacier-slow, taking years. The actual construction plans take a lot of time and effort to develop on their own. Add a mountain of legal red tape into the mix. In a traditional design-bid-build arrangement the construction plans could be years old before they're sent out to bid.

Considering current events (the war in Ukraine, the price of oil and fuel, some covid restrictions are still in place), March of 2022 would be a pretty lousy time to get an updated bid on a highway project. I work in a sign company and it's a real pain for us to price out jobs. We can't just use our estimating software as is because none of the materials prices are stable. We're having to call materials suppliers daily for price updates. And that's just for a project like a lighted street sign. A super highway project is a hell of a lot more complex and complicated to bid.

Actually, with gasoline prices spiking lately I can't help but wonder if some pending projects could be suspended temporarily.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: J N Winkler on March 06, 2022, 12:57:10 PM
Is TxDOT going to award a contract based on the overpriced bids, or are they going to re-bid the project to see if they can get something lower?

This is just speculation on my part, but I think not, because six prime bids translates into a competitive bidding process and there have been significant cost increases in underlying inputs such as labor, petroleum products, construction materials, etc.  While TxDOT could in theory re-scope the project to bring the headline cost down, like they did with I-10 just northwest of El Paso, I don't see any obvious ways to do that for this project while increasing output per dollar.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on March 12, 2022, 08:27:52 PM
Breaking News: The US 59 “County Rd/Hill St”  interchange in Victoria is complete and the overpass has opened. Happened to pass by on my way to Olive Garden.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: abqtraveler on March 13, 2022, 08:57:17 PM
Is TxDOT going to award a contract based on the overpriced bids, or are they going to re-bid the project to see if they can get something lower?

This is just speculation on my part, but I think not, because six prime bids translates into a competitive bidding process and there have been significant cost increases in underlying inputs such as labor, petroleum products, construction materials, etc.  While TxDOT could in theory re-scope the project to bring the headline cost down, like they did with I-10 just northwest of El Paso, I don't see any obvious ways to do that for this project while increasing output per dollar.
I was thinking they might reject the bids and reduce the scope of the project to fit the available funds they have in hand. Maybe break it out into multiple phases: the first phase paid for by whatever funds they have in hand now, and contracts to cover later phases of work when additional funding becomes available.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on March 20, 2022, 08:25:07 PM
Update of US 59 Victoria: https://www.victoriaadvocate.com/news/local/construction-on-u-s-59-frontage-roads-to-begin-monday/article_c5f757aa-a4a3-11ec-8051-e3f0d4169f8a.html
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on March 20, 2022, 08:26:18 PM
Is TxDOT going to award a contract based on the overpriced bids, or are they going to re-bid the project to see if they can get something lower?

This is just speculation on my part, but I think not, because six prime bids translates into a competitive bidding process and there have been significant cost increases in underlying inputs such as labor, petroleum products, construction materials, etc.  While TxDOT could in theory re-scope the project to bring the headline cost down, like they did with I-10 just northwest of El Paso, I don't see any obvious ways to do that for this project while increasing output per dollar.
I was thinking they might reject the bids and reduce the scope of the project to fit the available funds they have in hand. Maybe break it out into multiple phases: the first phase paid for by whatever funds they have in hand now, and contracts to cover later phases of work when additional funding becomes available.
Can’t they redirect funds to other projects if I-69?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: J N Winkler on March 20, 2022, 08:59:22 PM
We may have clarity as to what TxDOT proposes to do in a couple of days when an agenda appears for the March 31 Texas Transportation Commission meeting.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: J N Winkler on March 24, 2022, 02:26:39 PM
I have looked at the agenda for the Texas Transportation Commission's March 31 meeting.  The I-69 contract in Kleberg County that has come in almost 24% over engineer's estimate (CCSJ 0102-04-097) is listed among the construction contracts that are up for approval.  I think that if the Commission approves all of the construction awards on a single motion, it will be included, and thus TxDOT will effectively swallow the cost increase.  But this is only a prediction:  we will have to see what happens in a week.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on March 25, 2022, 08:29:24 PM
Actually, with gasoline prices spiking lately I can't help but wonder if some pending projects could be suspended temporarily.
Gas prices in South Texas (where I live) have dropped slightly recently.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MaxConcrete on March 31, 2022, 12:11:41 PM
Bids were opened today for upgrading an 8-mile section of US 77 (I-69E) from south of the Kingsville bypass to south of road 628 (north of Riviera). Looking at the plans, the full length will have continuous frontage roads in both directions, and the existing 300-foot-wide right-of-way is mostly kept as-is without widening the corridor.

Unfortunately bids are well over budget (23.6%) in spite of 6 bidders. A project on I-10 in Beaumont came at $307 million, 11% over budget. I think inflation has arrived. http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/03033001.htm (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/03033001.htm)

http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/03033002.htm (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/03033002.htm)


The bid for US 77 (I-69E) was approved by the commission today. The overall overrun for all bids was 12.9%. There was a discussion about inflation and TxDOT's efforts to manage it. Only two small projects had their bids rejected.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 31, 2022, 02:06:11 PM
Will any of the existing business routes be converted into Interstate 69 Business Routes? Especially if the US Highways the existing and future Interstate 69s parallel are truncated?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on March 31, 2022, 02:32:00 PM
Will any of the existing business routes be converted into Interstate 69 Business Routes? Especially if the US Highways the existing and future Interstate 69s parallel are truncated?
Either that or maybe new state “Loop”  routes are designated or brought back. (i.e., Loop 525 in El Campo, Loop 183 in Wharton and Hungerford)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on April 01, 2022, 10:48:06 AM
Will any of the existing business routes be converted into Interstate 69 Business Routes? Especially if the US Highways the existing and future Interstate 69s parallel are truncated?
Either that or maybe new state “Loop”  routes are designated or brought back. (i.e., Loop 525 in El Campo, Loop 183 in Wharton and Hungerford)

That has always fascinated me.  How Texas decides when to use a business route and when to use a loop designation to serve the same purpose.  There is zero constancy. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: roadman65 on April 01, 2022, 11:08:37 AM
If or when I-69 get completed in Texas, US 59 will be truncated altogether in the Lone Star State except on the US 71 concurrency north of Texarkana.


BTW does anyone know what highest milepost will be for I-69 and which one of the three branches will host its zero milepost?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on April 01, 2022, 11:42:49 AM
Will any of the existing business routes be converted into Interstate 69 Business Routes? Especially if the US Highways the existing and future Interstate 69s parallel are truncated?
Either that or maybe new state “Loop”  routes are designated or brought back. (i.e., Loop 525 in El Campo, Loop 183 in Wharton and Hungerford)

That has always fascinated me.  How Texas decides when to use a business route and when to use a loop designation to serve the same purpose.  There is zero constancy.
I think it has to be a certain long enough length. The Victoria El Campo and Wharton routes are long enough I believe. If anything, why was Loop 175 the designation for the southern Victoria loop?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on April 01, 2022, 12:02:29 PM
Will any of the existing business routes be converted into Interstate 69 Business Routes? Especially if the US Highways the existing and future Interstate 69s parallel are truncated?
Either that or maybe new state “Loop”  routes are designated or brought back. (i.e., Loop 525 in El Campo, Loop 183 in Wharton and Hungerford)

That has always fascinated me.  How Texas decides when to use a business route and when to use a loop designation to serve the same purpose.  There is zero constancy.
I think it has to be a certain long enough length. The Victoria El Campo and Wharton routes are long enough I believe. If anything, why was Loop 175 the designation for the southern Victoria loop?

I don't think that's it.  Why is SH-5 a state highway and not Business US 75?  It is the old alignment.  Same note, why is SH-75 not BL-45?

Closer to subject, why is the old alignment of US-290 through Ozona Loop-466, where further down I-10, the old alignment for US-290 is BL-10 through Ft. Stockton?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: kphoger on April 01, 2022, 12:18:49 PM
Interesting to note along those lines:

Quote from: Texas Department of Transportation – Transportation Planning and Programming Division
BUSINESS INTERSTATE HIGHWAY NO. 10-G

Minute Order 100223, dated 01/21/1991; DesLtr 01-1992, dated 01/30/1992

From IH 10 west of Fort Stockton, eastward to IH 10 east of Fort Stockton, a distance of approximately 4.4 miles.  (Pecos County)  New designation; this mileage transferred from US 290.

Quote from: Texas Department of Transportation – Transportation Planning and Programming Division
STATE HIGHWAY LOOP NO. 466

Minute Order 060985, dated 06/12/1968; Adm. Cir. 051-1968, dated 06/15/1968

Ozona Loop - From IH 10 west of Ozona, eastward along old location of US 290 to IH 10, east of Ozona. (Crockett County)  New designation; to be marked US 290 business route; effective when IH 10 is open to through traffic.

Quote from: Texas Department of Transportation – Transportation Planning and Programming Division
STATE HIGHWAY LOOP NO. 467

Minute Order 061007, dated 06/12/1968; Adm. Cir. 051-1968, dated 06/15/1968

Sonora Loop - From IH 10 west of Sonora, eastward along old location US 290 to IH 10 east of Sonora. (Sutton County)  New designation; to be marked US 290 business route; effective when IH 10 is open to through traffic.

Were the routes through Ozona and Sonora already old alignments when Loops 466 and 467 were designated?  The minute order for the Fort Stockton I-10-BL states that it was transferred directly from US-290 in 1991, which is when US-290 was truncated.  In contrast, the minute orders for the Ozona and Sonora loops both include the phrase "old location of US 290".
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on May 04, 2022, 01:41:55 AM
The Corrigan Bypass is about to be let on Thursday: https://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/btc/btcp_2.htm#017604056
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MaxConcrete on May 05, 2022, 06:40:51 PM
The Corrigan Bypass is about to be let on Thursday: https://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/btc/btcp_2.htm#017604056

http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/05053201.htm (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/05053201.htm)

Bid is 15% above estimate. I expect the low bid to be approved and proceed to construction. The project length on IH 69 is 6.4 miles (not 10.86 miles)

County:   POLK   Let Date:   05/05/22
Type:   HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT   Seq No:   3201
Time:   902 WORKING DAYS   Project ID:   NH 2013(222)
Highway:   US 59   Contract #:   05223201
Length:   10.860   CCSJ:   0176-04-056
Limits:   
From:   3.4 MI N OF US 287   Check:   $100,000
To:   US 287   Misc Cost:   
Estimate   $150,506,214.09   % Over/Under   Company
Bidder 1   $172,799,108.00   +14.81%   JAMES CONSTRUCTION GROUP, LLC
Bidder 2   $182,816,096.99   +21.47%   SACYR CONSTRUCTION USA LLC
Bidder 3   $187,266,075.72   +24.42%   WEBBER, LLC
Bidder 4   $197,961,185.45   +31.53%   WILLIAMS BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.
Bidder 5   $215,777,432.19   +43.37%   JOHNSON BROS. CORPORATION, A SOUTHLAND COMPANY
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: abqtraveler on May 11, 2022, 12:53:38 PM
The Corrigan Bypass is about to be let on Thursday: https://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/btc/btcp_2.htm#017604056

http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/05053201.htm (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/05053201.htm)

Bid is 15% above estimate. I expect the low bid to be approved and proceed to construction. The project length on IH 69 is 6.4 miles (not 10.86 miles)

County:   POLK   Let Date:   05/05/22
Type:   HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT   Seq No:   3201
Time:   902 WORKING DAYS   Project ID:   NH 2013(222)
Highway:   US 59   Contract #:   05223201
Length:   10.860   CCSJ:   0176-04-056
Limits:   
From:   3.4 MI N OF US 287   Check:   $100,000
To:   US 287   Misc Cost:   
Estimate   $150,506,214.09   % Over/Under   Company
Bidder 1   $172,799,108.00   +14.81%   JAMES CONSTRUCTION GROUP, LLC
Bidder 2   $182,816,096.99   +21.47%   SACYR CONSTRUCTION USA LLC
Bidder 3   $187,266,075.72   +24.42%   WEBBER, LLC
Bidder 4   $197,961,185.45   +31.53%   WILLIAMS BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.
Bidder 5   $215,777,432.19   +43.37%   JOHNSON BROS. CORPORATION, A SOUTHLAND COMPANY

Not surprising that bids are coming in significantly above the Engineer's estimate with rampant inflation, not to mention fuel costs. So from 3.4 mi N of US-287 to US-287 would only cover the northern half of the Corrigan Bypass. So what about the southern half?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: J N Winkler on May 11, 2022, 01:13:07 PM
Not surprising that bids are coming in significantly above the Engineer's estimate with rampant inflation, not to mention fuel costs. So from 3.4 mi N of US-287 to US-287 would only cover the northern half of the Corrigan Bypass. So what about the southern half?

It is not clear from the bid tabulation at the link MaxConcrete posted, but the project does include the entire Corrigan Bypass, as is evident from the construction plans.  The limits correspond to CSJ 0176-04-056, which is the one of several CSJs in the project that has been chosen as the contract CSJ (CCSJ).  The project also includes CSJ 0176-05-104 (highway improvement, covering the rest of the bypass from US 287 south to mainline US 59) and CSJ 0176-04-074 (right-of-way acquisition).  The entry in TxDOT's letting list has the breakdown. (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/let/2022/polk.htm#017604056)

Edit:  The project map on the title sheet of the plans set shows how the CSJs fit in the overall project:

(https://i.imgur.com/YZzJQqQ.png)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on May 13, 2022, 06:49:54 PM
More signage from I-69E from Yturria: https://goo.gl/maps/WL5EixusTfDh7eWX6
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on May 13, 2022, 07:56:11 PM
Once a contractor's bid is chosen how long will it be for construction to get started on the Corrigan bypass?

Corrigan is about 14 miles South of Diboll. What's the latest with the Diboll bypass? According to some online news articles the process to clear the ROW has been underway for some time. Completion was in the 2024-25 time frame (depending on the news article). Other work is in progress a little farther up the road in Lufkin. Upgrading the East half of Loop-287 to Interstate standards seems to be taking place in chunks. The area of US-59 between the Diboll bypass and Loop 287 in Lufkin could be a bit challenging.

It seems frustrating just how long it has been taking for US-59 to be upgraded on the North side of the Houston metro. The stretch of I-69 between the Grand Parkway and Cleveland still isn't finished.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bwana39 on May 13, 2022, 08:39:36 PM


Corrigan is about 14 miles South of Diboll. What's the latest with the Diboll bypass? According to some online news articles the process to clear the ROW has been underway for some time. Completion was in the 2024-25 time frame (depending on the news article).

There is bridge building going on at the south intersection. So I understand most, if not all, of the clearing is done (the clearing is also evident at the north portal.) I can see it open easily by the 2024-25 timetable.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on May 13, 2022, 10:18:22 PM
Once a contractor's bid is chosen how long will it be for construction to get started on the Corrigan bypass?

Corrigan is about 14 miles South of Diboll. What's the latest with the Diboll bypass? According to some online news articles the process to clear the ROW has been underway for some time. Completion was in the 2024-25 time frame (depending on the news article). Other work is in progress a little farther up the road in Lufkin. Upgrading the East half of Loop-287 to Interstate standards seems to be taking place in chunks. The area of US-59 between the Diboll bypass and Loop 287 in Lufkin could be a bit challenging.

It seems frustrating just how long it has been taking for US-59 to be upgraded on the North side of the Houston metro. The stretch of I-69 between the Grand Parkway and Cleveland still isn't finished.
First, the contractor has to sign a contract. Then, it has 90 days to start construction. The signing can take anywhere from a week to a year. The bid for US 59 Frontage road project between US 87 and SH 185 in Victoria was chosen in September and work didn’t start until April.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: TheBox on May 14, 2022, 08:09:56 AM
New Street view of the (nearly completed at the time) El Campo overpass, the placing of these new street views is inconsistent tho

https://www.google.com/maps/@29.2059948,-96.242757,3a,75y,202.72h,88.26t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sogXxl83_KUukPzjJPKYGIA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=1
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.2023061,-96.2445079,3a,75y,222.99h,89.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sLR3owE_xUaPvYMKRVPXnRQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=1
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.1998027,-96.2452621,3a,75y,166.87h,84.09t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBpX_cXlvGTeKnq0rk5lZTQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=1
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.1981344,-96.2453264,3a,75y,171.46h,83.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sWXuy0tcaXqLXwMdc5gWocw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=1
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.1890518,-96.2463833,3a,75y,223.32h,81.45t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxKF4Opja7FhxkJy2RLI8uQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=1
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.1882339,-96.2469216,3a,75y,213.01h,89.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sERJebGQL3pDYrNBuhTdT_A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=1
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.1867888,-96.2483109,3a,75y,156.83h,86.37t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sXv7-WG9Qd9em3C0vRLliLg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=1
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.184779,-96.2502242,3a,75y,41.39h,91.73t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1suobypMDoGyKh9nMAE3MeYA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=1
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.177871,-96.2602868,3a,75y,70.78h,91.2t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssZTSBRNhL_jJbVKPJSDQEw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=1
https://www.google.com/maps/@29.176636,-96.2653096,3a,15y,70.88h,89.62t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sJ2_fMgrdIsvL8wMGaXZE1Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=1 (just new tar, with some overpass changes)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on May 17, 2022, 12:07:15 AM
That’s the only new overpass they will build surprisingly enough. Although the other rusty old ones (from 1976? Someone confirm) will remain a pet peeve, at least the El Campo bypass is now practically a freeway.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Chris on May 17, 2022, 01:35:56 PM
How far along is the I-69 upgrade southwest of Houston? Some July 2021 imagery in Google Earth shows the freeway in use on the main lanes between Rosenberg and Kendleton. I haven't read much about these segments opening to traffic.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on May 17, 2022, 01:47:11 PM
How far along is the I-69 upgrade southwest of Houston? Some July 2021 imagery in Google Earth shows the freeway in use on the main lanes between Rosenberg and Kendleton. I haven't read much about these segments opening to traffic.
A new NB bridge is being built across the Wharton/Fort Bend county line. Additional lanes are still being constructed south of Rosenberg. NB Traffic in Hungerford has been shifted to the frontage road via the future exit ramp for Ponderosa Rd or FM 1161. NB traffic exiting to FM 2919 slights onto the unfinished future NB bridge.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on May 17, 2022, 02:15:29 PM
In other news: The I-69W exit to I-35 South in Laredo is now exit 2B.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on May 20, 2022, 10:34:50 PM
I am just suspiciously wondering what is going with US 77 south of Kingsville, because it looks like there are construction equipment within Ricardo as of March 2022 on GSV (Google Street View). Are they putting I-69E straight through Ricardo as I was thinking due the presence of equipment? :hmmm:

https://www.google.com/maps/@27.4287027,-97.8530208,3a,75y,50.32h,74.24t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1szo-n1DH3_w8LKoVpXQ92JQ!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3Dzo-n1DH3_w8LKoVpXQ92JQ%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D205.851%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192
https://www.google.com/maps/@27.4204354,-97.8505616,3a,67.1y,73.49h,83.99t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s25RHcmzpTEIh17b4hwKtug!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3D25RHcmzpTEIh17b4hwKtug%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D270.9155%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192

Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on May 20, 2022, 10:48:58 PM
I am just suspiciously wondering what is going with US 77 south of Kingsville, because it looks like there are construction equipment within Ricardo as of March 2022 on GSV (Google Street View). Are they putting I-69E straight through Ricardo as I was thinking due the presence of equipment? :hmmm:
That's the plan... there's no point to bypass the town. The existing highway is easily upgradable.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: abqtraveler on May 20, 2022, 11:24:18 PM
I am just suspiciously wondering what is going with US 77 south of Kingsville, because it looks like there are construction equipment within Ricardo as of March 2022 on GSV (Google Street View). Are they putting I-69E straight through Ricardo as I was thinking due the presence of equipment? :hmmm:
That's the plan... there's no point to bypass the town. The existing highway is easily upgradable.
From the looks of it on GSV, it appears they are working on utility relocations along US-77 from Kingsville to Riviera in anticipation of construction starting soon.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on May 21, 2022, 02:23:57 PM
Indeed. Before they construct, TxDOT performs what is called a utility coordination. They relocate power lines and drainage systems if any. It is usually performed before or on the date of letting.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: jgb191 on May 22, 2022, 04:42:45 AM
Ricardo and Woodsboro are two of the towns that don't need to go around; the interstate will go right through it.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on May 22, 2022, 05:04:18 AM
Ricardo and Woodsboro are two of the towns that don't need to go around; the interstate will go right through it.
True. There’s enough right of way to build a freeway through. This would be my ideal scenario for freeways and interstates. I don’t know why.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on May 25, 2022, 04:10:17 PM
I am just suspiciously wondering what is going with US 77 south of Kingsville, because it looks like there are construction equipment within Ricardo as of March 2022 on GSV (Google Street View). Are they putting I-69E straight through Ricardo as I was thinking due the presence of equipment? :hmmm:
That's the plan... there's no point to bypass the town. The existing highway is easily upgradable.
From the looks of it on GSV, it appears they are working on utility relocations along US-77 from Kingsville to Riviera in anticipation of construction starting soon.

Makes sense why utility vehicles were present on US 77. How long does it usually take for a stretch of freeway to be finished, 1-2 years?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on May 25, 2022, 04:16:21 PM
I am just suspiciously wondering what is going with US 77 south of Kingsville, because it looks like there are construction equipment within Ricardo as of March 2022 on GSV (Google Street View). Are they putting I-69E straight through Ricardo as I was thinking due the presence of equipment? :hmmm:
That's the plan... there's no point to bypass the town. The existing highway is easily upgradable.
From the looks of it on GSV, it appears they are working on utility relocations along US-77 from Kingsville to Riviera in anticipation of construction starting soon.

Makes sense why utility vehicles were present on US 77. How long does it usually take for a stretch of freeway to be finished, 1-2 years?
About 3-4 years for a bypass or stretch of similar length. For a new overpass, usually 1-2 years.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: abqtraveler on May 26, 2022, 10:15:33 AM
I am just suspiciously wondering what is going with US 77 south of Kingsville, because it looks like there are construction equipment within Ricardo as of March 2022 on GSV (Google Street View). Are they putting I-69E straight through Ricardo as I was thinking due the presence of equipment? :hmmm:
That's the plan... there's no point to bypass the town. The existing highway is easily upgradable.
From the looks of it on GSV, it appears they are working on utility relocations along US-77 from Kingsville to Riviera in anticipation of construction starting soon.

Makes sense why utility vehicles were present on US 77. How long does it usually take for a stretch of freeway to be finished, 1-2 years?
You can see that they've just about finished moving the power lines away from the roadway and the dirt work you're seeing is for the relocation of a natural gas pipeline that runs along the highway. There might be some water and sewer mains and underground telecom lines that need to be moved as well, before construction starts.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bwana39 on June 04, 2022, 06:47:56 PM
A couple of comments. They have the ROW cleared north of Burke and are building overpasses south of Diboll (Same bypass)

While we wait on I-69, the preferred route from Nacogdoches is still SH-315 and US-259. Here is a story about SH-315.

https://www.ksla.com/2022/06/02/texas-highway-used-shortcut-proves-be-home-many-deadly-crashes/

The reason is clearcut. It is closer and the average time for the trip AT THE SPEED LIMIT is less.

Not sure unless they do a northern loop around Teneha that the freeway will make a difference. Some local discussion suggests that it may loop north of Garrison and Timpson , then take a Greenfield route to around Woods Community on southern Panola County.  From woods to Shreveport is one of the routes TxDOT has seemed to support.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on June 04, 2022, 09:30:43 PM
^ I’ve only driven that way once, but when I did, I opted for US-59. Despite being slightly longer, I preferred it because it is at least all 4 lanes. SH-315, on the other hand, has a large amount of 2 lane.

And US-59 despite being undivided 4 lane largely, was still 75 mph.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bwana39 on June 05, 2022, 04:57:31 PM
(Nacogdoches to Carthage)

US-259 is mostly 70 mph. SH -315 is 65 and seventy. Mount Enterprise is smaller than any of the 3 towns US-59 goes through. Central Heights is getting bigger, but until the past couple of years it was negligible. 

On US-59, the rural parts are MOSTLY 75 mph, but you go through Garrison, Timpson, and in Tenaha, you actually turn to head north after you are mostly through town.

The only real issue on SH-315 is cars making left turns, especially in Clayton. They stop and get rear ended.

The real rural speed on SH-315 is about the same as on US-59. At real road speeds, the difference is even greater than at the speed limit.

I am not saying that it is for the better, I am just saying it is. The extra twenty minutes are a real difference to many.





Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on June 05, 2022, 09:11:01 PM
^

US-59 is 4 minutes (5 miles) longer, not 20 minutes.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: J N Winkler on June 05, 2022, 09:17:44 PM
After sampling the US 59 and US 259/SH 315 Nacogdoches-Carthage routings in StreetView, it seems to me that the former also has the advantage of a smaller percentage of poor-boy in its four-lane mileage.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: armadillo speedbump on June 06, 2022, 03:21:12 AM
I have always taken 315 rather than the out of the way 59 through Tenaha.  315 is faster, even taking into account that at some point there were always trucks bogging things down until a passing opportunity.  According to Google Maps just now, 6 miles shorter and 7 minutes faster than 59.

But more importantly, I wanted nothing to do with the infamously and long time corrupt Tenaha police.  Google them, they have a long, sordid history of sometimes random, sometimes targeted abuse of the asset forfeiture laws, extortion, etc.  Both racial targeting and for other reasons, going back decades.  Supposedly ended with a court settlement, but I don't trust them.  To be clear, I'm very pro-police, but not the corrupt bad apples.  Will never spend a cent in that town. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bwana39 on June 06, 2022, 08:43:10 AM
1 hr 29 min (83.9 miles)
via US-59 N
1 hr 29 min without traffic via Tenaha and US-59 only from Nacogdoches to Marshall

1 hr 20 min (78.2 miles)
via TX-315 E and US-59 N
Fastest route now due to traffic conditions Via Mount Enterprise and Carthage from Nacogdoches to Marshall.

At the speed limit in perfect conditions, 9 minutes. Like I said, nobody drives the speed limit on 315. I feel pretty comfortable with close to 20 minutes less in real world conditions most of the time. Worst case if you get behind a dozen tractors is you would break even.

I might also add, the conditions through (particularly) Garrison and Tenaha are never ideal.  Tenaha is not the same as back around 2000, but the police there still rival Diboll back in the 80's. I would still avoid Tenaha if I were a minority or carrying cash.

Yes, there is no divided highway on US-259 and SH-315. There is two lane on parts of SH-315. 

Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: CoreySamson on June 09, 2022, 06:30:45 PM
My favorite route to get from Nacogdoches to Carthage is US 259 to TX 315 (I usually head that way about once per year, so I'm experienced with this area). But if you're willing to expand your scope a bit, using US 259 to TX 43 to Loop 390 up to Marshall is a great alternate to this route (plus you get to skip the Marshall speed trap cameras!). However, the downside to both of these routes is that they are not entirely four-laned, as US 59 is between Nacogdoches and Marshall (as has already been mentioned). I've only gotten tripped up on the TX 315 route once, when they were working on building the interchange with Loop 149 and there was a massive bottleneck. Otherwise, no problems (and now that there's an interchange at Loop 149, that route is even more attractive).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bwana39 on June 10, 2022, 12:16:46 PM
But if you're willing to expand your scope a bit, using US 259 to TX 43 to Loop 390 up to Marshall is a great alternate to this route (plus you get to skip the Marshall speed trap cameras!).

The red light cameras were outlawed all over Texas 3 years ago. https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/TN/htm/TN.707.htm
The ones in Marshall were done away with almost as soon as the law was rescinded. https://www.kxan.com/news/local/austin/list-of-texas-cities-stopping-red-light-camera-enforcement-including-austin/

Marshall was a terror with them though. My DIL got over $1K in tickets there. ALL AT THE SAME INTERSECTION. (She went to college there.) They settled for less. I am not sure how much , though.

Marshall is still not a fun place to drive through. Like you said, Loop 390 (West End Blvd) is far better than US-59 (East End Blvd)




Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: kphoger on June 10, 2022, 12:20:20 PM
Also, red light cameras aren't speed trap cameras anyway.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on June 16, 2022, 03:01:01 PM
Uh oh Google Maps!!!

https://goo.gl/maps/eYhpPvY1e2fAWPeZ7 (https://goo.gl/maps/eYhpPvY1e2fAWPeZ7)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: dariusb on June 16, 2022, 11:29:38 PM
Quick question: has the freeway been built completely through Lufkin or is there still a lot of construction going on?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on June 16, 2022, 11:47:10 PM
Quick question: has the freeway been built completely through Lufkin or is there still a lot of construction going on?
The only construction going on is the Frontage rd near the Northern US 59/69 interchange. The rest needs construction which will occur in the future.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bwana39 on June 17, 2022, 03:53:03 AM
Quick question: has the freeway been built completely through Lufkin or is there still a lot of construction going on?
The only construction going on is the Frontage rd near the Northern US 59/69 interchange. The rest needs construction which will occur in the future.

Answer. The Geet describes where the construction is accurately. It is messier than he seemed to imply though. The project is near the beginning of a 10 year project group.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: CoreySamson on June 27, 2022, 11:21:50 AM
I just drove the I-69/I-69E route from Corpus Christi to Wharton and I don't have much to report. Work is proceeding at the northern I-37/US 77 interchange building a new bridge for I-37 over the SB US 77 ramp, but that I believe has been touched on. There is no mention of I-69E NB anywhere on I-37 NB, as opposed to SB, where I believe ethanhopkin14 noted I-37/I-69E concurrency signage; and it seems that the recently installed BGSs on I-37 NB have no space for I-69E shields, which has me thinking that TxDOT doesn't plan on extending I-69E north of I-37 for a while (probably because Odem and Refugio bypasses aren't coming anytime soon).

The only other construction of note was that the feeder in Victoria was being rebuilt (specifically a couple bridges over creeks). It appears that US 59 in Victoria was very recently resurfaced, however, I'm not sure if it's all the way to interstate grade yet. Nothing was being done on the south side of Wharton or in any of the towns between Wharton and Victoria. I did notice these strange US 59 mile markers (https://goo.gl/maps/FHdDyzCX3CFpdEKw7) in and around the Victoria area that were put up sometime between 2018 and 2021 per GSV. These would be the first enhanced mile markers I've seen in the entire state (SkyPesos would enjoy this), though I am extremely confused as to where the 641A MM is coming from.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on June 27, 2022, 11:27:10 AM
Looks like TxDOT has pushed back the let date for the Riviera Bypass to 2026 on the Project Tracker.
http://apps3.txdot.gov/apps-cq/project_tracker/
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: J N Winkler on June 27, 2022, 01:07:46 PM
I did notice these strange US 59 mile markers (https://goo.gl/maps/FHdDyzCX3CFpdEKw7) in and around the Victoria area that were put up sometime between 2018 and 2021 per GSV. These would be the first enhanced mile markers I've seen in the entire state (SkyPesos would enjoy this), though I am extremely confused as to where the 641A MM is coming from.

My guess:  641 is the reference marker location (the nominal distance south of an east-west parallel that overlaps the top edge of the Texas Panhandle), and A designates realigned mileage.

Did the markers count down as you went north?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: CoreySamson on June 27, 2022, 05:52:40 PM
I did notice these strange US 59 mile markers (https://goo.gl/maps/FHdDyzCX3CFpdEKw7) in and around the Victoria area that were put up sometime between 2018 and 2021 per GSV. These would be the first enhanced mile markers I've seen in the entire state (SkyPesos would enjoy this), though I am extremely confused as to where the 641A MM is coming from.

My guess:  641 is the reference marker location (the nominal distance south of an east-west parallel that overlaps the top edge of the Texas Panhandle), and A designates realigned mileage.

Did the markers count down as you went north?
Yes. It appears you may be right.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bwana39 on July 10, 2022, 12:13:10 AM
(Nacogdoches to Carthage)

US-259 is mostly 70 mph. SH -315 is 65 and seventy. Mount Enterprise is smaller than any of the 3 towns US-59 goes through. Central Heights is getting bigger, but until the past couple of years it was negligible. 

On US-59, the rural parts are MOSTLY 75 mph, but you go through Garrison, Timpson, and in Tenaha, you actually turn to head north after you are mostly through town.

The only real issue on SH-315 is cars making left turns, especially in Clayton. They stop and get rear ended.

The real rural speed on SH-315 is about the same as on US-59. At real road speeds, the difference is even greater than at the speed limit.

I am not saying that it is for the better, I am just saying it is. The extra twenty minutes are a real difference to many.

There is money for widening SH315 in the Draft UTP. It isn't new to the plan, but it is still there.

The draft UTP became available today. This is TxDOT's project funding plan for the next 10 years.
https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/division/transportation-planning/utp.html
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on July 10, 2022, 02:48:10 AM
Why doesn’t TxDOT prioritize upgrading the segment (either SH-315 or US-59 or somewhere in between) between Nacogdoches and Carthage to either a four lane divided highway or limited access highway?

And then northeast towards Louisiana as well, that is only a 3 lane road (was previously 4 lane undivided but TxDOT restriped it to have passing lanes instead.

A mix of this, along with bypassing all the towns south of Nacogdoches to Houston, would create a viable consistent 70-75 mph expressway north of Houston to I-20, similar to US-59/US-77 between Houston to Corpus Christi.

It’s not a freeway for most of the length, but it’s a continuous free-flowing 75 mph divided highway the whole way with no traffic lights or towns (except Refugio and Odem).

In the future, upgrade rural segments between and as money allows, designate new portions to I-69. But IMO, rural segments should be last. Free flow and divided should be the immediate goal.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bwana39 on July 10, 2022, 09:44:32 AM
Why doesn’t TxDOT prioritize upgrading the segment (either SH-315 or US-59 or somewhere in between) between Nacogdoches and Carthage to either a four lane divided highway or limited access highway?

And then northeast towards Louisiana as well, that is only a 3 lane road (was previously 4 lane undivided but TxDOT restriped it to have passing lanes instead.

A mix of this, along with bypassing all the towns south of Nacogdoches to Houston, would create a viable consistent 70-75 mph expressway north of Houston to I-20, similar to US-59/US-77 between Houston to Corpus Christi.

It’s not a freeway for most of the length, but it’s a continuous free-flowing 75 mph divided highway the whole way with no traffic lights or towns (except Refugio and Odem).

In the future, upgrade rural segments between and as money allows, designate new portions to I-69. But IMO, rural segments should be last. Free flow and divided should be the immediate goal.

I agree completely!
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MaxConcrete on July 10, 2022, 11:13:16 AM
Observations from a July 4 weekend trip from Houston to South Texas

Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: thisdj78 on July 10, 2022, 11:21:45 AM


  • SH 44 main lanes are open from 1.5 miles east of IH-69E Robstown all the way to Corpus. The new main lanes is relatively recent, but may not be very recent. However, the 1.5 mile non-freeway section has a narrow right-of-way and will be more difficult to upgrade.

Quick note on this. I believe SH44 will curve slightly south from that point and meet up with 69E a little further down. Looks like they already have ROW for a future interchange:

(https://i.ibb.co/sV3Lrj9/268597-DC-5-BD0-4-C0-F-B163-3-D8343-A00-C58.jpg) (https://ibb.co/9rYRjnH)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on July 10, 2022, 01:03:30 PM
^ That was the original plan, however I believe TxDOT is now looking at options to construct a bypass around Robstown entirely for SH-44, which might shift alignment this slightly south.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Chris on July 10, 2022, 05:00:22 PM
Observations from a July 4 weekend trip from Houston to South Texas

  • US 59 (IH-69) reconstruction to 3x3 freeway in west Fort Bend County is substantially complete. (Freeway is wider east of Richmond.) All main lanes are open, but there's some final work such as on frontage roads.


I'm looking at the timeline of the US 59 to I-69 upgrade in Fort Bend County. It seems like the upgrade from a four lane divided highway to a freeway was completed in 2019, but they immediately continued work to expand it to six lanes between the Wharton county line and the original beginning of the freeway near Rosenberg?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on July 10, 2022, 05:11:18 PM
I-69 is completed in Rosenberg itself, but TX DOT probably should have built I-69 in a 4x4 lanes configuration there rather than 3x3. In-progress construction work on I-69 going Southwest of the Houston area currently runs down to Hungerford. The 3x3 lanes configuration drops to 2x2 in Kendleton. Overhead Google Earth imagery is dated 3/2022 and there is Street View imagery from May of this year.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MaxConcrete on July 10, 2022, 05:28:40 PM

I'm looking at the timeline of the US 59 to I-69 upgrade in Fort Bend County. It seems like the upgrade from a four lane divided highway to a freeway was completed in 2019, but they immediately continued work to expand it to six lanes between the Wharton county line and the original beginning of the freeway near Rosenberg?

Each section was a single project to upgrade to freeway standards and widen. I don't think 2019 is correct for anything west of the Grand Parkway (SH 99). From SH99 to FM 762, which is 4-1H-1H-4 (H=HOV), I have a photos from June 2020 with it complete, and I think it was just completed when I took those photos. West of FM 762, which is 3x3, work on the main lanes has been recent, like still in progress in 2021, and frontage road work may still be in progress in certain places.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: TheBox on July 20, 2022, 10:13:45 PM
Street Views of the Diboll bypass that's W.I.P.
https://www.google.com/maps/@31.1503496,-94.8016655,3a,75y,34.44h,87.14t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sPxWwusT6Z48-GUBilVwy4w!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DPxWwusT6Z48-GUBilVwy4w%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D120.957794%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=1 (south of Diboll)

https://www.google.com/maps/@31.2306116,-94.7669851,3a,15y,150.2h,89.65t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ssb9P1Y7w0FydcGfoTpAjpQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=1 (north of Diboll)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: TheBox on July 21, 2022, 01:04:10 PM
also the most recent street view of the Nacogdoches bypass
https://www.google.com/maps/@31.548474,-94.6877123,3a,75y,35.54h,90.28t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sXNyb3Xi0vsNrxxu9Z3-Ecw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DXNyb3Xi0vsNrxxu9Z3-Ecw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D114.1156%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=1
https://www.google.com/maps/@31.5505729,-94.686601,3a,75y,24.64h,87.31t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1smFFCnf4tJoclaAy1RSyxOQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=1
https://www.google.com/maps/@31.5597253,-94.6812366,3a,15y,29.09h,88.42t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1ss5O1mauCukgY-GHLxRTV5Q!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=1
https://www.google.com/maps/@31.5629634,-94.6794839,3a,90y,29.67h,88.24t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sZYf7gBI25DY-l7i5p-2FrA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=1
https://www.google.com/maps/@31.5712668,-94.6749895,3a,15y,25.09h,89.02t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sxcldvJ11qlTzzm3CTsp6fg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=1
https://www.google.com/maps/@31.5742636,-94.6734273,3a,15y,65.03h,91.26t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sGexe2RLAPdRVgTIUM_fVLg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=1
https://www.google.com/maps/@31.5776341,-94.6740032,3a,15y,277.25h,88.13t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svn10vn_9z7o-3Fr1_AiVvw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=1
https://www.google.com/maps/@31.5780667,-94.6760188,3a,15y,142.21h,88.46t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sdNgnAAp23fiN6jIpksZvBA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?authuser=1
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Phudman on July 21, 2022, 07:26:48 PM
The most recent drone flyby of the Nacogdoches bypass.

Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on July 21, 2022, 10:06:03 PM
I-69 is complete between Kendleton and Rosenberg with 3 lanes and full shoulders in each direction, however is still only signed as US-59.

Additionally, there’s still a 55 mph work zone speed limit all the way up to SH-99, however traffic was easily moving in excess of 75 mph. It’s a pointless limit that needs to be reverted back to 65 mph. There’s zero work occurring.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: abqtraveler on July 22, 2022, 12:33:20 AM
I-69 is complete between Kendleton and Rosenberg with 3 lanes and full shoulders in each direction, however is still only signed as US-59.

Additionally, there’s still a 55 mph work zone speed limit all the way up to SH-99, however traffic was easily moving in excess of 75 mph. It’s a pointless limit that needs to be reverted back to 65 mph. There’s zero work occurring.
The signing of the upgraded sections of US-59 as I-69 is not automatic upon completion of construction. Extending the I-69 designation over sections of US-59 that have recently been upgraded to interstate standards has to be signed off by the FHWA, then AASHTO before I-69 sign can go up on those sections.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on July 23, 2022, 02:07:40 AM
I-69 is complete between Kendleton and Rosenberg with 3 lanes and full shoulders in each direction, however is still only signed as US-59.

Additionally, there’s still a 55 mph work zone speed limit all the way up to SH-99, however traffic was easily moving in excess of 75 mph. It’s a pointless limit that needs to be reverted back to 65 mph. There’s zero work occurring.
The signing of the upgraded sections of US-59 as I-69 is not automatic upon completion of construction. Extending the I-69 designation over sections of US-59 that have recently been upgraded to interstate standards has to be signed off by the FHWA, then AASHTO before I-69 sign can go up on those sections.
When do the FHWA and AASHTO meetings for approval take place this year?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: abqtraveler on July 24, 2022, 09:06:39 PM
I-69 is complete between Kendleton and Rosenberg with 3 lanes and full shoulders in each direction, however is still only signed as US-59.

Additionally, there’s still a 55 mph work zone speed limit all the way up to SH-99, however traffic was easily moving in excess of 75 mph. It’s a pointless limit that needs to be reverted back to 65 mph. There’s zero work occurring.
The signing of the upgraded sections of US-59 as I-69 is not automatic upon completion of construction. Extending the I-69 designation over sections of US-59 that have recently been upgraded to interstate standards has to be signed off by the FHWA, then AASHTO before I-69 sign can go up on those sections.
When do the FHWA and AASHTO meetings for approval take place this year?
The AASHTO has two meetings where US and interstate route number applications are considered: the Spring Meeting that is held in May, and the Annual Meeting that's held in October. I haven't seen the route numbering decisions from AASHTO's spring meeting. If someone has those decisions, please post them.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: edwaleni on July 25, 2022, 08:49:54 PM
I-69 is complete between Kendleton and Rosenberg with 3 lanes and full shoulders in each direction, however is still only signed as US-59.

Additionally, there’s still a 55 mph work zone speed limit all the way up to SH-99, however traffic was easily moving in excess of 75 mph. It’s a pointless limit that needs to be reverted back to 65 mph. There’s zero work occurring.
The signing of the upgraded sections of US-59 as I-69 is not automatic upon completion of construction. Extending the I-69 designation over sections of US-59 that have recently been upgraded to interstate standards has to be signed off by the FHWA, then AASHTO before I-69 sign can go up on those sections.
When do the FHWA and AASHTO meetings for approval take place this year?
The AASHTO has two meetings where US and interstate route number applications are considered: the Spring Meeting that is held in May, and the Annual Meeting that's held in October. I haven't seen the route numbering decisions from AASHTO's spring meeting. If someone has those decisions, please post them.

The last route change approvals are posted here:

https://route.transportation.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/50/2022/02/Final-Report-USRN-Application-Results-Fall-2021.pdf

As you can see there is significant delay between the meeting time and the posting time with a 4 month gap between them.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: TheBox on July 29, 2022, 02:13:34 PM
U.S. 77 Odem area planning study from April
https://www.txdot.gov/inside-txdot/projects/studies/corpus-christi/030422.html
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on July 29, 2022, 04:09:09 PM
Now can we finally have shift done on Jackson County for once in our lifetime.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ITB on August 19, 2022, 10:23:17 PM

Maybe this drone video of the Diboll bypass has already been posted, but I looked and didn't find it.



Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: CoolAngrybirdsrio4 on August 21, 2022, 03:10:28 AM

Maybe this drone video of the Diboll bypass has already been posted, but I looked and didn't find it.


I wonder if there is an updated video or what changed since this video had been uploaded.  :hmmm:
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: CtrlAltDel on August 21, 2022, 10:22:19 AM

Maybe this drone video of the Diboll bypass has already been posted, but I looked and didn't find it.


Does anyone know why so much of the south end of the bypass is on a viaduct?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on August 21, 2022, 12:32:10 PM
Within Google Earth there is fairly recent overhead imagery of the Diboll Bypass, dated 3/2022. It doesn't show up in the default view. It is available in the historical imagery slider. At the North end of the bypass Street View imagery is dated 6/2022.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: O Tamandua on October 28, 2022, 01:45:36 PM
From TxDOT Pharr District Twitter feed, minutes ago:
Alliance for I-69 Texas, #TxDOT & local leaders celebrate the addition of 5.6 miles of I-69E to the Interstate Highway System in Kenedy & Willacy counties. This corridor is an important lifeline for US & TX economies.  Upgrade enhances safety & improves mobility & connectivity.

Forgive me if this is old news, but does this mean I-69 is complete in Willacy County?  Good to see Kenedy getting into the system (even though it has a way to go) as well.

(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FgLGtA6XgAI50cp?format=jpg&name=4096x4096)

https://twitter.com/TxDOTPharr/status/1586050178875887618/photo/1
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ARMOURERERIC on October 28, 2022, 05:07:48 PM
Pharr out man
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on October 28, 2022, 07:16:30 PM
Quote from: O Tamandua
Forgive me if this is old news, but does this mean I-69 is complete in Willacy County?

Yeah, the North end of the I-69E freeway work in the Raymondville area ends on US-77 at the Willacy/Kenedy County line.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: splashflash on December 08, 2022, 12:27:23 PM
Once a contractor's bid is chosen how long will it be for construction to get started on the Corrigan bypass?

Corrigan is about 14 miles South of Diboll.
First, the contractor has to sign a contract. Then, it has 90 days to start construction. The signing can take anywhere from a week to a year. The bid for US 59 Frontage road project between US 87 and SH 185 in Victoria was chosen in September and work didn’t start until April.
https://www.kltv.com/2022/12/07/txdot-breaks-ground-170-million-relief-route-corrigan/
Traffic woes are caused by a single red light in town at the intersection of U.S. 59 and 289. With U.S. 59 being a major route for commuters between Lufkin and Livingston, traffic can get so out of hand that officers sometimes have to come and direct traffic according to Hudman.

“I don’t know if everybody knows this but we’re the first red light out of Houston,”  Hudman said. “It’s pretty significant.”

But TxDOT is aiming to remedy the problem with a $172.8 million Corrigan Relief Route that broke ground Dec. 5.

The seven-mile project includes an overpass that will run above Corrigan, bypassing the town and giving relief to commuters and the community from the constant traffic jams.

Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bwana39 on December 09, 2022, 11:14:31 PM
Once a contractor's bid is chosen how long will it be for construction to get started on the Corrigan bypass?

Corrigan is about 14 miles South of Diboll.
First, the contractor has to sign a contract. Then, it has 90 days to start construction. The signing can take anywhere from a week to a year. The bid for US 59 Frontage road project between US 87 and SH 185 in Victoria was chosen in September and work didn’t start until April.
https://www.kltv.com/2022/12/07/txdot-breaks-ground-170-million-relief-route-corrigan/
Traffic woes are caused by a single red light in town at the intersection of U.S. 59 and 289. With U.S. 59 being a major route for commuters between Lufkin and Livingston, traffic can get so out of hand that officers sometimes have to come and direct traffic according to Hudman.

“I don’t know if everybody knows this but we’re the first red light out of Houston,”  Hudman said. “It’s pretty significant.”

But TxDOT is aiming to remedy the problem with a $172.8 million Corrigan Relief Route that broke ground Dec. 5.

The seven-mile project includes an overpass that will run above Corrigan, bypassing the town and giving relief to commuters and the community from the constant traffic jams.

What does "ABOVE Corrigan" mean?

https://www.txdot.gov/content/txdotreimagine/us/en/home/projects/projects-studies/lufkin/us59-corrigan-relief-route-future-I69.html
https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot-info/i69/polk/us-59-corrigan-fact-sheet.pdf
https://kicks105.com/massive-170-million-highway-59-project-to-begin-near-corrigan/

The impact of the Red Light may have been purposefully exaggerated. After the real work on the bypass engineering was begun, the traffic signal was reprogrammed and the traffic flows far better (but still a far cry from optimal.)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: splashflash on December 09, 2022, 11:19:51 PM


What does "ABOVE Corrigan" mean?

I kind of wondered that myself.  Seems the townsfolk are happy enough though.

https://www.txdot.gov/content/txdotreimagine/us/en/home/projects/projects-studies/lufkin/us59-corrigan-relief-route-future-I69.html
https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot-info/i69/polk/us-59-corrigan-fact-sheet.pdf
https://kicks105.com/massive-170-million-highway-59-project-to-begin-near-corrigan/

The impact of the Red Light may have been purposefully exaggerated. After the real work on the bypass engineering was begun, the traffic signal was reprogrammed and the traffic flows far better (but still a far cry from optimal.)
[/quote]
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 10, 2022, 12:16:09 AM
A traffic light on an otherwise free-flowing highway is a freaking traffic light. Timing of the light in front of otherwise free-flowing traffic means nothing.

It still looks like the bypass around Corrigan will skirt the town to the West. Not above the town.

Did I read the news correctly that it will take TX DOT six freaking years to complete this bypass project? WTF.
 :-/
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: CtrlAltDel on December 11, 2022, 05:11:53 PM
I was flying home for Thanksgiving, when I flew right past the Diboll bypass:

(https://i.imgur.com/oVn3avK.jpg)

I have a few others of the US-59 corridor that I'll post once I can identify them.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: CoreySamson on December 12, 2022, 03:13:02 PM
Just drove US 59 between Nacogdoches and Houston. Lots of work is taking place. In Nacogdoches, the bypass that is being built looks to be 75% done or so. It just needs a ton of work on the approaches. Surprisingly, it looks like there is some I-69 work actually happening on the NE side of Lufkin! It appears feeders being constructed there in both directions. The Diboll bypass only appears to be slightly behind the Nacogdoches project, with no work done on the approaches. Finally, traffic is currently redirected onto the feeder just south of Cleveland, as a couple new interchanges are being built in the area. When that section is done, the I-69 designation looks like it could be extended to Shepherd. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Rick Powell on December 12, 2022, 03:22:58 PM
It still looks like the bypass around Corrigan will skirt the town to the West. Not above the town.

Looking at the drawings, it appears that US 59/I-69 will be elevated over US 289, so I guess one part will go "slightly" over the ground level near Corrigan, but not the whole freeway over the town proper as seems to be suggested by the article's wording.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: J N Winkler on December 12, 2022, 04:16:48 PM
It still looks like the bypass around Corrigan will skirt the town to the West. Not above the town.

Looking at the drawings, it appears that US 59/I-69 will be elevated over US 289, so I guess one part will go "slightly" over the ground level near Corrigan, but not the whole freeway over the town proper as seems to be suggested by the article's wording.

It seems to me, after reading the article and watching the video, that the bit about the bypass going over the town is a mistranscription of the video, which describes the alignment in a bit more detail.

In any event, the construction plans (linkback to previous discussion (https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3624.msg2736833;topicseen#msg2736833)) are the authoritative source, and make it very clear that the bypass does not go over the town.  Here's the title sheet:

(https://i.imgur.com/YZzJQqQ.png)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: edwaleni on December 12, 2022, 08:50:46 PM
https://easttexasnews.com/polk-county-news-2/3517-historic-day-as-work-begins-on-corrigan-relief-route (https://easttexasnews.com/polk-county-news-2/3517-historic-day-as-work-begins-on-corrigan-relief-route)

HISTORIC DAY AS WORK BEGINS ON CORRIGAN RELIEF ROUTE

By Emily Banks Wooten
editor@polkenterprise.com

Monday was a history-making day for the north end of the county, a day that many wondered if they would ever see. With a slew of dignitaries on hand to hold the shovels, ground was broken for the construction of the Corrigan Relief Route, the largest and most expensive project ever undertaken for the Texas Department of Transportation’s (TxDOT) Lufkin District.

“This is a really exciting day and has been a long time coming. It will complement Corrigan and provide a non-stop travel experience,”  Lufkin District Engineer Kelli Morris

“Change is coming, and we need to prepare for it,”  County Judge Sydney Murphy said. “I do think this project has had more stops and starts than anything in the history of the state of Texas. I know it’s been close to 40 years. I remember being a teacher at Corrigan-Camden and hearing Jasper Cockrell talk about it when I was pregnant with my son Matthew and Matthew’s 38 now. We welcome you and thank you.”

“I’m excited to see the project begin and I’m proud to be the one to lead this project,”  Livingston Area Engineer Clint Jones, who serves Polk and San Jacinto counties, said.

“This project will bring Hwy. 59 up to interstate standards and will result in goods and services being sourced in the area for years to come,”  Shawn Dunn, speaking on behalf of Sen. Robert Nichols, said.

“I know with growth there are growing pains. This is a project that has been on the books for over 25 years now. There are a lot of people that we owe a debt of gratitude to that are not in this room. We’re standing on their shoulders. This is huge. It’s monumental. I know this is going to be welcome for our traveling public and freight movement,”  Rep. Trent Ashby said.

“Getting to break ground today on the Corrigan Relief Route is very exciting. Once complete, it will serve as the hurricane evacuation route,”  TxDOT’s Director of Construction Shannon Ramos said.

The $172.8 million construction project will be built to interstate standards and will include construction of new U.S. 59 northbound and southbound lanes with controlled access.

The 6.3-mile project will be from 3.4 miles north of U.S. 287 to 3 miles south of U.S. 287. Work will include the construction of overpasses at United Pacific Railroad, U.S. 287 and Union Springs Road. Entrance and exit ramps will be added at U.S. 59 tie-ins and at the U.S. 287 overpass and will include the construction of four main lanes for travel.

James Construction Group LLC of Baton Rouge, La. will serve as contractor for the project that is scheduled to be completed in six years.

Planning for the Corrigan Relief Route began in the late 1990s when environmental studies began but were stopped due to budgetary constraints. Project development resumed in 2012 when I-69 in Polk County was considered a top priority by the I-69 Segment Two Committee. Schematics and right-of-way maps were studied and in 2014, an open house was held for the public to view the proposed path.

Further refinements to the plan were made and presented to the public in 2015, and in 2016 environmental studies and schematic reviews were performed. A public hearing was held in 2017 to gather public comments and the Texas Transportation Commission approved the revisions and funded the project.

The Corrigan Relief Route will be built to promote public safety, improve emergency evacuations and support freight transport. As the work begins, motorists should be alert to moving equipment and workers near the work zone. Reduce speed and obey all traffic control.

For more information, contact Rhonda.Oaks@txdot.gov or call (936) 633-4395.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on December 12, 2022, 09:46:41 PM
6 years?? For 6 miles of rural interstate highway construction?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on December 13, 2022, 12:25:08 AM
Gypsy. That’s all I gotta say. (It’s an expression I adopted and repurposed not unlike poggers or haiyaa/fuiyoh)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: J N Winkler on December 13, 2022, 12:43:46 AM
6 years?? For 6 miles of rural interstate highway construction?

I question whether that has been accurately reported.  It's budgeted (per the letting schedule) for 902 working days, equivalent to 3.6 years at 250 working days per year.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Scott5114 on December 13, 2022, 04:11:44 AM
Gypsy. That’s all I gotta say. (It’s an expression I adopted and repurposed not unlike poggers or haiyaa/fuiyoh)

You may not want to use it any longer–the Roma people consider it an ethnic slur directed toward them.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on December 13, 2022, 01:20:36 PM
Gypsy. That’s all I gotta say. (It’s an expression I adopted and repurposed not unlike poggers or haiyaa/fuiyoh)

You may not want to use it any longer–the Roma people consider it an ethnic slur directed toward them.
That’s why I’m planning to detoxify the word one day.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: NE2 on December 13, 2022, 05:45:32 PM
Gypsy. That’s all I gotta say. (It’s an expression I adopted and repurposed not unlike poggers or haiyaa/fuiyoh)

You may not want to use it any longer–the Roma people consider it an ethnic slur directed toward them.
That’s why I’m planning to detoxify the word one day.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on December 13, 2022, 05:50:24 PM
Gypsy. That’s all I gotta say. (It’s an expression I adopted and repurposed not unlike poggers or haiyaa/fuiyoh)

You may not want to use it any longer–the Roma people consider it an ethnic slur directed toward them.
That’s why I’m planning to detoxify the word one day.
🤣🤣🤣🤣…then how do y’all explain that song from Fleetwood Mac?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: armadillo speedbump on December 14, 2022, 09:45:21 PM
🤣🤣🤣🤣…then how do y’all explain that song from Fleetwood Mac?

She is dancing away from you now
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on December 14, 2022, 10:45:23 PM
🤣🤣🤣🤣…then how do y’all explain that song from Fleetwood Mac?

She is dancing away from you now
She was just a wish..she was just...a wish.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: yakra on December 19, 2022, 10:20:07 AM
Just don't talk trash about Travelers.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on December 19, 2022, 04:23:30 PM
Just don't talk trash about Travelers.
I promise. When I use the word, I will only use it out of casuality and not for discrimination.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: mrose on December 21, 2022, 04:45:25 AM
I think she wrote that song about herself. Also, it was 1982.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on December 21, 2022, 04:46:07 PM
I think she wrote that song about herself. Also, it was 1982.
Indeed. And that’s my favorite Fleetwood Mac song of all time.
See, guys. We don’t have to use the word as a derogatory term all the time.

But, I mean, if it takes a whole year to put up new signals in Port Lavaca on SH 35, then maybe 6 years on a bypass is justifiable.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MikieTimT on December 26, 2022, 02:48:23 PM
Infographics YouTube video on the Interstate just got posted yesterday.  Of course, most of the comments were about the number! :-D

https://youtu.be/4anVYVJvtBI (https://youtu.be/4anVYVJvtBI)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MaxConcrete on December 26, 2022, 11:47:29 PM
Infographics YouTube video on the Interstate just got posted yesterday.  Of course, most of the comments were about the number! :-D

https://youtu.be/4anVYVJvtBI (https://youtu.be/4anVYVJvtBI)

The video has some good detailed information about the history of the project. It is correct when it states that most people alive today won't live long enough to see I-69 completed, if it is ever completed.

The video does not give Texas enough credit for the amount of work in progress, which includes the Diboll bypass, Corrigan bypass, freeway upgrades north of Cleveland, major reconstruction in north Wharton County (southwest of Houston), upgrades around Kingsville, and upgrade to interstate south of Kingsville. In addition, TxDOT has an ongoing program for I-69 and is working to get environmental clearance for numerous sections.

The video fails to mention that the section in Louisiana and Arkansas is not really needed if I-69 and I-369 are built to Texarkana, and then I-30 and I-40 can provide the connection to Memphis.

That video also seems to be biased if favor of environmentalist anti-freeway efforts. The video claims that environmental impacts statements have "obviously" been bypassed, but that's total nonsense. Environmental rules cannot be bypassed, and rules are now so strict that even small projects require major studies to be able to proceed. For example
https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/fort-worth/east-west-connector-fonsi.html (https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/fort-worth/east-west-connector-fonsi.html)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: triplemultiplex on December 27, 2022, 10:34:55 AM
Not sure the link to this video needed to be posted in every single I-69 thread on the forum, but okay.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Rick Powell on December 28, 2022, 11:21:01 AM
In addition to Max Concrete's observations, the narrative stretches the truth when talking about the Ohio River crossing. It states "after getting off the I-69 and crossing into Kentucky, you would eventually find yourself back on the interstate." Cripes, it's less than 6 miles from the existing river crossing to I-69 at the south end of Henderson, it's what, a 10-minute non-interstate drive? And the progress on the ORX Crossing project, which is scheduled to be in place just past the end of the decade, seems to get short shrift here. Which is funny, because the video seems to identify the yet-unfinished section of I-69 between SR 144 and I-465 south of Indy as "done". It also hints that the I-465 section around Indy that connects the northern and southern pieces of I-69 in IN is some kind of detour, when it will actually be an integral, co-signed part of I-69 once the southern connection is made.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: abqtraveler on December 29, 2022, 03:29:04 PM
In addition to Max Concrete's observations, the narrative stretches the truth when talking about the Ohio River crossing. It states "after getting off the I-69 and crossing into Kentucky, you would eventually find yourself back on the interstate." Cripes, it's less than 6 miles from the existing river crossing to I-69 at the south end of Henderson, it's what, a 10-minute non-interstate drive? And the progress on the ORX Crossing project, which is scheduled to be in place just past the end of the decade, seems to get short shrift here. Which is funny, because the video seems to identify the yet-unfinished section of I-69 between SR 144 and I-465 south of Indy as "done". It also hints that the I-465 section around Indy that connects the northern and southern pieces of I-69 in IN is some kind of detour, when it will actually be an integral, co-signed part of I-69 once the southern connection is made.
There were a lot of inaccuracies with dates in the infographic as well. the most glaring one was that claims I-69 was finished from Indianapolis to Angola by 1956. Construction began in the Fort Wayne area in 1956, with the last sections between Indy and Angola opening in 1971. The other inaccuracy was the Lansing-Port Huron section starting construction in 1992. That's also inaccurate. The last remaining sections around Lansing were completed in 1992; prior to that motorists had to exit I-69 and follow US-27 (designated a TEMPORARY I-69) through Lansing to rejoin I-69 on the other side of town. I could go on here, but don't want to get too off-topic.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bwana39 on January 21, 2023, 02:38:09 PM
This is more of a question. I am looking for opinions. In several cases, US-59 runs adjacent to a rail line. How should the frontage roads be handled in that situation.

1) Build them as if the rail line was not there.
2) Build a 2-laned 2-way access road on the other side of the rail line. and no frontage roads along the freeway side of the tracks.
3) Force the traffic off the frontage roads and onto the freeway in these areas and build no frontage roads.


I prefer option 2, but it adds crossing the rail line into the equation, which in itself has several options.

Your thoughts?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on January 21, 2023, 02:49:13 PM
This is more of a question. I am looking for opinions. In several cases, US-59 runs adjacent to a rail line. How should the frontage roads be handled in that situation.

1) Build them as if the rail line was not there.
2) Build a 2-laned 2-way access road on the other side of the rail line. and no frontage roads along the freeway side of the tracks.
3) Force the traffic off the frontage roads and onto the freeway in these areas and build no frontage roads.


I prefer option 2, but it adds crossing the rail line into the equation, which in itself has several options.

Your thoughts?
I would build a self closing exit ramp that automatically closes when trains are approaching, and forces traffic up the overpass and onto the other exit.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: thisdj78 on January 21, 2023, 03:26:21 PM
This is more of a question. I am looking for opinions. In several cases, US-59 runs adjacent to a rail line. How should the frontage roads be handled in that situation.

1) Build them as if the rail line was not there.
2) Build a 2-laned 2-way access road on the other side of the rail line. and no frontage roads along the freeway side of the tracks.
3) Force the traffic off the frontage roads and onto the freeway in these areas and build no frontage roads.


I prefer option 2, but it adds crossing the rail line into the equation, which in itself has several options.

Your thoughts?

The ROW would just be widened on the side opposite of the rail line, which I think has been the case so far where they’ve widen sections parallel with tracks.

The current main lanes closest to the tracks typically become the location of the frontage road once they build out.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bwana39 on January 21, 2023, 03:57:15 PM
This is more of a question. I am looking for opinions. In several cases, US-59 runs adjacent to a rail line. How should the frontage roads be handled in that situation.

1) Build them as if the rail line was not there.
2) Build a 2-laned 2-way access road on the other side of the rail line. and no frontage roads along the freeway side of the tracks.
3) Force the traffic off the frontage roads and onto the freeway in these areas and build no frontage roads.


I prefer option 2, but it adds crossing the rail line into the equation, which in itself has several options.

Your thoughts?

The ROW would just be widened on the side opposite of the rail line, which I think has been the case so far where they’ve widen sections parallel with tracks.

The current main lanes closest to the tracks typically become the location of the frontage road once they build out.

That is correct. That is what the seem to do.

The point I was trying to ask is; isn't it pointless to build a through frontage road  between a limited access lane and railroad tracks?

Building the access road across the tracks seems to make better sense for a couple reasons.
1) Fewer grade railroad crossings. (in one ten-mile section, you could do away with 6 grade crossings even with a grade crossing for access on either end.)
2) Better access to the land across the railroad tracks without crossing railroad grade crossings.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: J N Winkler on January 21, 2023, 05:05:32 PM
That is correct. That is what the seem to do.

The point I was trying to ask is; isn't it pointless to build a through frontage road between a limited access lane and railroad tracks?

Building the access road across the tracks seems to make better sense for a couple reasons.

1) Fewer grade railroad crossings. (In one ten-mile section, you could do away with 6 grade crossings even with a grade crossing for access on either end.)

2) Better access to the land across the railroad tracks without crossing railroad grade crossings.

I suspect the main reason railroad lines aren't located between a freeway and its frontage road is to avoid having heavy volumes of entering and exiting traffic trying to cross the rail line at speed and on a skew.  While such crossings can be grade-separated, there is a heavy penalty to do so in terms of structure cost, especially since rail needs a minimum clearance of 17 feet.

This said, I'm surprised it's not more common to omit frontage roads when a freeway closely parallels a rail line.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bwana39 on January 21, 2023, 05:40:28 PM

I suspect the main reason railroad lines aren't located between a freeway and its frontage road is to avoid having heavy volumes of entering and exiting traffic trying to cross the rail line at speed and on a skew.  While such crossings can be grade-separated, there is a heavy penalty to do so in terms of structure cost, especially since rail needs a minimum clearance of 17 feet.

This said, I'm surprised it's not more common to omit frontage roads when a freeway closely parallels a rail line.

I agree. I don't think skewed angled crossings or 90 degree curves either one are good solutions. I think the sections I am talking about could cross at places where grade separated crossings already exist. Even then, the current traffic volumes on these frontage road sections would probably be in the less than 100 vehicles per day range. It would be two primary types of traffic.
1) People who cross the tracks on the existing (private) grade crossings.
2) Agricultural vehicles

Frankly they are areas where frontage roads really are not highly needed. A FM type road immediately across the tracks would provide a far better access as well as minimizing the numbers of grade crossings altogether. In most cases, rural frontage roads are to provide access to the properties adjacent to the freeway, not for local services to front. An FM road across the tracks would provide that less expensively and make crossing of the railroad tracks safer.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: thisdj78 on January 22, 2023, 10:58:36 AM

I suspect the main reason railroad lines aren't located between a freeway and its frontage road is to avoid having heavy volumes of entering and exiting traffic trying to cross the rail line at speed and on a skew.  While such crossings can be grade-separated, there is a heavy penalty to do so in terms of structure cost, especially since rail needs a minimum clearance of 17 feet.

This said, I'm surprised it's not more common to omit frontage roads when a freeway closely parallels a rail line.

I agree. I don't think skewed angled crossings or 90 degree curves either one are good solutions. I think the sections I am talking about could cross at places where grade separated crossings already exist. Even then, the current traffic volumes on these frontage road sections would probably be in the less than 100 vehicles per day range. It would be two primary types of traffic.
1) People who cross the tracks on the existing (private) grade crossings.
2) Agricultural vehicles

Frankly they are areas where frontage roads really are not highly needed. A FM type road immediately across the tracks would provide a far better access as well as minimizing the numbers of grade crossings altogether. In most cases, rural frontage roads are to provide access to the properties adjacent to the freeway, not for local services to front. An FM road across the tracks would provide that less expensively and make crossing of the railroad tracks safer.

Whenever they replace a major surface road with a freeway, they try to retain the same level of access with the frontage roads. Most of the locals in the area are likely used to crossing the tracks to reach US-59 at various points, so the current method of construction keeps it mostly the same (except they may not be able to cross over to the opposite lanes as easy). I don’t think they would be happy about having to get on a freeway just to get down the road (especially if they are in slower moving vehicles). Just my thoughts.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on January 22, 2023, 12:03:15 PM
The recent upgrades along US-77 south of Robstown are a good example of this.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: J N Winkler on January 22, 2023, 12:48:40 PM
I looked at US 59 in Google to see how TxDOT has handled this situation in the past.  In some cases, such as the Splendora area (https://www.google.com/maps/@30.2585789,-95.1471805,17.13z), they have built a frontage road on the rail side.  In others, such as between Shepherd and Cleveland (https://www.google.com/maps/@30.4494855,-95.0270462,18z), they have omitted it on the rail side even though the frontage road on the other side is one-way only.

The key, as I see it, is that since railroads are already severance corridors, there is typically little to no access for abutters to preserve by building a frontage road.  The main difference between the Splendora and Shepherd-Cleveland situations is that the former has more development off the side roads that cross the rail line and thus a greater need for the local mobility provided by a one-way frontage road in each direction.  (In principle the same mobility could be achieved through a single two-way frontage road, but TxDOT quite properly no longer builds these, owing to the safety impacts.)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on January 22, 2023, 01:35:04 PM
I think the difference between the two examples is that the Shepherd example does not have any development or private access that would warrant a frontage road, whereas the Splendora example has development that crosses the traffic.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: TheBox on February 23, 2023, 11:11:03 AM
any updates on either of the Diboll or Nacogdoches bypasses?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bwana39 on February 23, 2023, 11:52:31 AM
any updates on either of the Diboll or Nacogdoches bypasses?

I drive through both places. The work on both is ongoing.  The interchange in Nacogdoches seems to be moving along smartly.  As to the official timeline, I really don't know.

Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on February 23, 2023, 01:08:36 PM
Yesterday I happened to see a bunch of BGS signs on the side of the SB lanes of US 59 near Goliad. One of them read “524 441 Hillje Exit 1/2 Mile” . They were on a trailer ready to be carried out and mounted throughout the highway if needed. I was driving with my parents so I wasn’t able to photo it.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Phudman on February 23, 2023, 01:56:29 PM
any updates on either of the Diboll or Nacogdoches bypasses?


Work has also started on US 59 freeway conversion between Loop 287 at the north side of Lufkin and the FM 2021 overpass.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: edwaleni on February 23, 2023, 04:39:44 PM
any updates on either of the Diboll or Nacogdoches bypasses?

The guy who does drone work in Diboll says there really isn't enough to video compared to the one he made in 2021.

While they have cleared the trees and been pushing dirt for the landscaping, he said they are mostly working on the bridges and culverts on the north end.

The road deck has been laid from US-59 on the south end to about FM1818. Still a long way to go.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: TheBox on February 23, 2023, 08:59:43 PM
has the Corrigan Bypass been delayed (knowing the 2020 and 2021 delays, probably)

it was supposed to begin in late 2022
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on February 23, 2023, 09:14:39 PM
has the Corrigan Bypass been delayed (knowing the 2020 and 2021 delays, probably)

it was supposed to begin in late 2022
According to TxDOT Project Tracker:
Percent Time Used 6.21%
Percent Budget Used   6.36%
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: TheBox on February 24, 2023, 09:48:39 AM
W.I.P.:
EDIT (forgot this one): I-69E (US-77) Kingsville improvements
I-69E (US-77) Driscoll bypass (should be nearly done)
I-69C (US-281) Premont bypass
I-69 (US 59) Wharton improvements
I-69 (US 59) Cleveland improvements
I-69 (US 59) Diboll bypass
I-69 (US 59) Lufkin improvements
I-69 (US 59) Nacogdoches bypass

Either in Early phase or Study phase (either way, far future):
I-69W (US 59) Laredo loop - https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/laredo/archive/032817.html
I-69E (US 77) Sinton improvements - https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/corpus-christi/us-77-sinton-san-patricio.html
I-69E (US 77) Odem bypass - https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/corpus-christi/us-77-odem-area.html
I-69E (US 77) Refugio bypass - https://www.txdot.gov/projects/projects-studies/corpus-christi/us77-proposed-woodsboro-refugio.html
I-69C (US 281) Alice overpass/improvements - https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/corpus-christi/us-281-alice.html
I-69 (US 59) Corrigan bypass - https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/lufkin/archive/121715.html
I-69 (US 59) North Nacogdoches - https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/lufkin/us-59-us-259-north-nacogdoches-i-69.html
I-369 (US 59/future Loop 390) Marshall bypass - https://www.txdot.gov/projects/projects-studies/atlanta/loop390-us59-i369-harrison-county/south-section-i20-us59.html https://www.txdot.gov/projects/projects-studies/atlanta/loop390-us59-i369-harrison-county/middle-section-us80-i20.html https://www.txdot.gov/projects/projects-studies/atlanta/loop390-us59-i369-harrison-county/north-section-us59-us80.html (none of which are funded.....yet)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: abqtraveler on February 24, 2023, 09:58:23 AM
W.I.P.:
I-69E (US-77) Driscoll bypass (should be nearly done)
I-69C (US-281) Premont bypass
I-69 (US 59) Wharton improvements
I-69 (US 59) Cleveland improvements
I-69 (US 59) Diboll bypass
I-69 (US 59) Lufkin improvements
I-69 (US 59) Nacogdoches bypass

Either in Early phase or Study phase (either way, far future):
I-69W (US 59) Laredo loop - https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/laredo/archive/032817.html
I-69E (US 77) Sinton improvements - https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/corpus-christi/us-77-sinton-san-patricio.html
I-69E (US 77) Odem bypass - https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/corpus-christi/us-77-odem-area.html
I-69E (US 77) Refugio bypass - https://www.txdot.gov/projects/projects-studies/corpus-christi/us77-proposed-woodsboro-refugio.html
I-69C (US 281) Alice overpass/improvements - https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/corpus-christi/us-281-alice.html
I-69 (US 59) Corrigan bypass - https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/lufkin/archive/121715.html
I-69 (US 59) North Nacogdoches - https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/lufkin/us-59-us-259-north-nacogdoches-i-69.html
I-369 (US 59/future Loop 390) Marshall bypass - https://www.txdot.gov/projects/projects-studies/atlanta/loop390-us59-i369-harrison-county/south-section-i20-us59.html https://www.txdot.gov/projects/projects-studies/atlanta/loop390-us59-i369-harrison-county/middle-section-us80-i20.html https://www.txdot.gov/projects/projects-studies/atlanta/loop390-us59-i369-harrison-county/north-section-us59-us80.html (none of which are funded.....yet)

Any update on the US-77 bypass around Riviera. Last I saw that was supposed to start this year, but that was from a couple years ago.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: J N Winkler on February 24, 2023, 01:17:40 PM
Any update on the US-77 bypass around Riviera. Last I saw that was supposed to start this year, but that was from a couple years ago.

According to the latest information from TxDOT (current as of last February 6) (https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/statewide/interstate-69-system/020623-tabloid-i-69.pdf), the Riviera bypass is being developed under CCSJ 0327-08-002 with letting projected for sometime in 2027.  The latest project with signing I have in my files for US 77 in Riviera is CCSJ 0102-04-104, a mill-and-overlay contract let in May 2017.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: abqtraveler on February 24, 2023, 02:15:29 PM
Any update on the US-77 bypass around Riviera. Last I saw that was supposed to start this year, but that was from a couple years ago.

According to the latest information from TxDOT (current as of last February 6) (https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/statewide/interstate-69-system/020623-tabloid-i-69.pdf), the Riviera bypass is being developed under CCSJ 0327-08-002 with letting projected for sometime in 2027.  The latest project with signing I have in my files for US 77 in Riviera is CCSJ 0102-04-104, a mill-and-overlay contract let in May 2017.
From that, it looks like the Rivera Bypass has slipped to the right quite a bit from what I last saw a couple years ago. Once they get that done, there won't be much more to do to get US-77 between Rivera and Raymondville up to interstate standards. The remaining section is about 48 miles long and goes through mainly undeveloped ranchland...should be relatively easy to upgrade that to interstate standards, I would think.

As far as the bypass around Driscoll is concerned, the latest GSV image from this month shows the northbound side complete and open to traffic. The southbound side is mostly complete, except for the interchanges at its north and south ends. The north end interchange is almost finished, only needing the final layer of asphalt, guardrails and striping. It still looks like they're doing final grading at for the interchange at the southern end, with paving to follow. I would think in a few months the Driscoll Bypass will be completely done and fully open in both directions.

https://www.google.com/maps/@27.6541162,-97.7587528,3a,40y,228.95h,81.85t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sVEAMXAdFs5pnqxzfJIDeKg!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DVEAMXAdFs5pnqxzfJIDeKg%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D16.81775%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on February 24, 2023, 03:34:49 PM
^ I understand it is cheaper to upgrade the rural segments of US-77 south of Riviera to interstate standards, but why are they continuing to push off bypasses around Odem and Refugio? Those are scheduled now for after 2030, and they represent areas of significant chokepoints for long-distance traffic, having to encounter slow speed limits, traffic lights, and congestion.

The segment of US-77 between Riviera and Raymondville, on the other hand, is going to be constructed this decade, when that already exists as a four-lane divided highway with a 75 mph speed limit and no traffic signals or really any major intersections, to begin with.

I understand the whole thing will eventually need to be upgraded, but I think the priorities are wrong. Corpus Christi to Houston is an important corridor and already exists as a free-flowing 75 mph highway with no traffic signals or interruptions, with only those two exceptions. Completing bypasses around Odem and Refugio would at least complete a free-flowing uninterrupted highway between Houston and Brownsville.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: J N Winkler on February 24, 2023, 03:58:18 PM
I suspect--without having done any digging into the specifics--that the rural segments are being programmed for earlier construction because they are cheaper on a per-mile basis and present fewer headaches in terms of land acquisition and utility relocation.  While doing the town bypasses first would front-load the time savings to through traffic, I can easily see it leading to bottlenecks in terms of staffing for project development.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: abqtraveler on February 24, 2023, 04:05:16 PM
^ I understand it is cheaper to upgrade the rural segments of US-77 south of Riviera to interstate standards, but why are they continuing to push off bypasses around Odem and Refugio? Those are scheduled now for after 2030, and they represent areas of significant chokepoints for long-distance traffic, having to encounter slow speed limits, traffic lights, and congestion.

The segment of US-77 between Riviera and Raymondville, on the other hand, is going to be constructed this decade, when that already exists as a four-lane divided highway with a 75 mph speed limit and no traffic signals or really any major intersections, to begin with.

I understand the whole thing will eventually need to be upgraded, but I think the priorities are wrong. Corpus Christi to Houston is an important corridor and already exists as a free-flowing 75 mph highway with no traffic signals or interruptions, with only those two exceptions. Completing bypasses around Odem and Refugio would at least complete a free-flowing uninterrupted highway between Houston and Brownsville.
A big part of the reason TxDOT going full-court press to complete I-69E between Raymondville and I-37 near Corpus Christi is due to federal legislation that allowed the signing of I-69E, I-69C, and I-2 in the Rio Grande Valley. That legislation, signed circa 2010, stipulated that those interstate segments in the RGV have to be connected to the rest of the interstate highway system within 25 years of designation, or their interstate designations would have to be removed. From a technical perspective, the stretch of US-77 between Raymondville and I-37 was determined to be the easiest segment to upgrade to interstate standards to meet that federal requirement within the established timeframe; thus it was prioritized over the other two branches between the Mexican border and Victoria, and the stretch of I-69E from I-37 to Victoria.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on February 24, 2023, 04:14:26 PM
^ But then I also see them prioritizing upgrades to US-281 over the next decade, again, before getting to US-77 north of I-37. And not even the full rural stretches of US-77 north of I-37 need to be prioritized, just simply the two town bypasses.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on February 24, 2023, 04:17:20 PM
I suspect--without having done any digging into the specifics--that the rural segments are being programmed for earlier construction because they are cheaper on a per-mile basis and present fewer headaches in terms of land acquisition and utility relocation.  While doing the town bypasses first would front-load the time savings to through traffic, I can easily see it leading to bottlenecks in terms of staffing for project development.
It’s just surprising to me, given TxDOT virtually everywhere else has seemingly pushed for town bypasses first well before doing rural upgrades. I mean, look at US-59 north of Houston, for example. You’d think on terms of prioritization, even though they’re cheaper per mile, the rural segments would be lower priority than relief routes.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: abqtraveler on February 24, 2023, 06:00:27 PM
^ But then I also see them prioritizing upgrades to US-281 over the next decade, again, before getting to US-77 north of I-37. And not even the full rural stretches of US-77 north of I-37 need to be prioritized, just simply the two town bypasses.
That's because, from a technical perspective, US-281 from Edinburg to where it would join I-69W (US-59) at George West is probably the next easiest section to upgrade. It's 4 lane, mostly through remote ranchland, with a few towns that will require bypasses, some of which are already built or being built. If you're looking for low-hanging fruit, US-281 and US-77 (between Raymondville and I-37) would be it.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on February 24, 2023, 06:03:23 PM
^ But by that point, in terms of meeting the requirement to be connected to the system, it wouldn’t matter. Because I-69E would connect with I-37, and I-2 connects both I-69E and I-69W, so there would be no gap.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: abqtraveler on February 24, 2023, 07:31:49 PM
^ But by that point, in terms of meeting the requirement to be connected to the system, it wouldn’t matter. Because I-69E would connect with I-37, and I-2 connects both I-69E and I-69W, so there would be no gap.
I don't think upgrading 281 is about connecting the RGV interstates to the rest of the system; rather, its about TxDOT completing what they think is the next easiest segment to get done.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on February 24, 2023, 08:24:02 PM
^ True, but are they just going to use that logic to permanently keep Odem and Refugio there? If TxDOT used that easy to get done logic everywhere, then urban projects or new freeway alignments would not exist…
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on February 27, 2023, 11:01:04 AM
I drove the section of US-77 from Odem to I-37.  Yes, that needs a bypass as soon as possible.  There is way too much traffic going though that town.  I also drove I-69E in Calallen.  Sign mounted posts have now been converted from I-69 to I-69E shields.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on February 27, 2023, 11:03:34 AM
I also found this comical. (https://goo.gl/maps/BnMZcgwbqcrdynKj8)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on February 27, 2023, 12:27:56 PM
I drove the section of US-77 from Odem to I-37.  Yes, that needs a bypass as soon as possible.  There is way too much traffic going though that town.  I also drove I-69E in Calallen.  Sign mounted posts have now been converted from I-69 to I-69E shields.
I wouldn’t say the portion southwest of Odem to I-37 needs to be bypassed. Ultimately, the whole highway should be upgraded to controlled access freeway with frontage roads, however in the short term, a bypass around Odem to either the north or south needs to be built (tying into the existing US-77 between I-37 and just south of Odem) both to allow uninterrupted flow around the town, and also to provide a grade separation of the two railroad lines that pass through.

Additionally, Refugio needs to have that eastern bypass finally built, along with an interchange near Woodsboro.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: roadman65 on February 28, 2023, 05:04:30 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/2XGjbe6LH5SZRwdo7
https://goo.gl/maps/PoM3cYAMW3ri6W5N6
Why are thereI-69 shields here instead of I-69E? One error is normal but in multiple places is not coincidence.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Rothman on February 28, 2023, 07:01:54 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/2XGjbe6LH5SZRwdo7
https://goo.gl/maps/PoM3cYAMW3ri6W5N6
Why are thereI-69 shields here instead of I-69E? One error is normal but in multiple places is not coincidence.
Because a whole lot of people don't care enough about the "E" as much as roadgeeks do.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on February 28, 2023, 10:17:09 AM
https://goo.gl/maps/2XGjbe6LH5SZRwdo7
https://goo.gl/maps/PoM3cYAMW3ri6W5N6
Why are thereI-69 shields here instead of I-69E? One error is normal but in multiple places is not coincidence.

Because this segment of I-69E was originally signed I-69 until Texas came back and decided the I-69E/69W/69C/69X/69A/69B ridiculousness needed to be done.  It's just taken them a long time to replace the I-69 shields with I-69E shields.

I think I-69E will be complete from I-37 to the border and there will still be I-69 shields along it's course.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: triplemultiplex on February 28, 2023, 11:47:59 AM
I think I-69E will be complete from I-37 to the border and there will still be I-69 shields along it's course.

I'd be fine with that since in my mind, that's the "legitimate" branch in South Texas.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: TheBox on February 28, 2023, 01:54:52 PM
Looking back, Texas (who has massive balls) as well as Indiana, Kentucky, and to an lesser extent Tennessee done most of the work this past decade (or so) as far the idea of a I-69 extension concerned

Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississipi forgot they're even involved here, that or they have other plans (if any)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on February 28, 2023, 04:24:46 PM
Looking back, Texas (who has massive balls) as well as Indiana, Kentucky, and to an lesser extent Tennessee done most of the work this past decade (or so) as far the idea of a I-69 extension concerned
Tennessee has really done nothing, except a Union City bypass that has been under construction for over a decade.

Quote
Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississipi forgot they're even involved here, that or they have other plans (if any)
They didn’t forget, they just don’t have funding.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Some one on February 28, 2023, 06:59:42 PM
Looking back, Texas (who has massive balls) as well as Indiana, Kentucky, and to an lesser extent Tennessee done most of the work this past decade (or so) as far the idea of a I-69 extension concerned
Tennessee has really done nothing, except a Union City bypass that has been under construction for over a decade.

Quote
Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississipi forgot they're even involved here, that or they have other plans (if any)
They didn’t forget, they just don’t have funding.
And other priorities.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: TheBox on March 01, 2023, 12:02:06 AM
Looking back, Texas (who has massive balls) as well as Indiana, Kentucky, and to an lesser extent Tennessee done most of the work this past decade (or so) as far the idea of a I-69 extension concerned
Tennessee has really done nothing, except a Union City bypass that has been under construction for over a decade.

Quote
Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississipi forgot they're even involved here, that or they have other plans (if any)
They didn’t forget, they just don’t have funding.
And other priorities.
TN did also bothered with the I-269 outer loop in Memphis.............and that's where their progress ends

also, is the Union City Bypass cancelled in the middle of development hell? or just expensive AF?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on March 01, 2023, 12:51:01 AM
Quote from: triplemultiplex
I'd be fine with that since in my mind, that's the "legitimate" branch in South Texas.

IMHO, I-37 should have been extended down that route to Brownsville. As for I-69, with it being a so-called "NAFTA Corridor," plain I-69 should have gone to Laredo. That's the most busy inland port in the US. As for US-281, it could have just stayed as US-281 even if it was upgraded fully to Interstate standards. That kind of model seems to work elsewhere in Texas (numerous freeways and/or toll roads signed as state highways or US highways).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Rick Powell on March 01, 2023, 01:25:25 AM
also, is the Union City Bypass cancelled in the middle of development hell? or just expensive AF?
Should be open end of this year according to this TDOT spokesperson:
https://www.wbbjtv.com/2023/02/15/update-given-on-new-interstate-69-in-west-tennessee/
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on March 01, 2023, 11:17:11 AM
Looking back, Texas (who has massive balls) as well as Indiana, Kentucky, and to an lesser extent Tennessee done most of the work this past decade (or so) as far the idea of a I-69 extension concerned

Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississipi forgot they're even involved here, that or they have other plans (if any)

Mississippi did sign that one segment south of Memphis.  It was actually one of the first newly constructed segments of I-69 to be signed. 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: GreenLanternCorps on March 01, 2023, 11:57:21 AM
also, is the Union City Bypass cancelled in the middle of development hell? or just expensive AF?
Should be open end of this year according to this TDOT spokesperson:
https://www.wbbjtv.com/2023/02/15/update-given-on-new-interstate-69-in-west-tennessee/

Thanks for the link, I updated the I-69 Tennessee thread.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: wdcrft63 on March 01, 2023, 06:52:16 PM
Looking back, Texas (who has massive balls) as well as Indiana, Kentucky, and to an lesser extent Tennessee done most of the work this past decade (or so) as far the idea of a I-69 extension concerned

Louisiana, Arkansas and Mississipi forgot they're even involved here, that or they have other plans (if any)

Mississippi did sign that one segment south of Memphis.  It was actually one of the first newly constructed segments of I-69 to be signed.
Check the I-69 in MS thread for background on this, posted today
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bluecountry on March 08, 2023, 08:49:18 PM
I don't understand why they want I-69E, I-69W, and I-69, why not have spur routes?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: DNAguy on March 09, 2023, 06:54:46 AM
If 39, 41, or 43 were still available I’m sure that they would have been snatched up.

But considering the length of the segments and no available numbers that fit the grid numbering system orthodoxy, they just went with E, W, and C in a highly rural area.

Bigger numbering crimes have been commited elsewhere and politicians were just happy to suck at the government $ largess to get an interstate through.

Which considering the amount of ”˜re-shoring’ of manufacturing to Mexico and cross border trade, looks like a needed investment.

Trade and tonnage crossing the US/Mexico border is booming.

Laredo crossings are nuts.

The Valley is growing.

The added interstates are both needed functionally and symbolically for the interstate system and what it ”˜stands for’
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: abqtraveler on March 09, 2023, 08:50:08 AM
I don't understand why they want I-69E, I-69W, and I-69, why not have spur routes?
Because those route designations were written into law by Congress.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on March 09, 2023, 11:07:16 AM
In addition to the US Congress mandating the route designations it's also unusual for a 3-digit Interstate "spur" route to run for a considerably long length. Only two existing 3 digit routes run over 100 miles (I-476 in PA and I-495 in MA). The I-69E route from Victoria down to Brownsville is over 200 miles. I-69W from Victoria to Laredo is about 180 miles. I-69C is around 150 miles from George West down to the I-2 interchange in Pharr.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: edwaleni on March 09, 2023, 01:32:43 PM
Because a bunch of old men in Congress couldn't differentiate the 3 routes for the Mexico to Canada Highway in Texas.

To them it looked like they were funding 3 new "original" highways so the numbers were changed to share the 69 scheme to help them keep the story straight.

Yes, they are original new highways, but to keep the pork barrel from rolling too far and have other states also demand 3 new orginal routes as well, (becuase that is how trading pork in Congress works).

As far as I know, the only other state to roll some pork on the original I-69 bill was Arkansas for their Little Rock - Monticello highway. Texas got some additional pork on the Tenaha - Texarkana route.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: abqtraveler on March 09, 2023, 02:14:13 PM

As far as I know, the only other state to roll some pork on the original I-69 bill was Arkansas for their Little Rock - Monticello highway. Texas got some additional pork on the Tenaha - Texarkana route.

And even that's not finished. There's still a 10-mile gap in AR-530 (Future I-530 extension) between AR-11 and AR-35, and filling in that gap doesn't even show up in ArDOT's STIP that goes through FY-26.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: kphoger on March 09, 2023, 03:55:36 PM
I don't understand why they want I-69E, I-69W, and I-69, why not have spur routes?

*sigh*  Why isn't this a sticky yet?  Or is it?  I don't know.  Anyway...


I am baffled why they didn't pick one to be I-69 and make the rest 3dis of I-69

This has been explained:

Back in 2010, I (via my consulting entity) submitted a paper to the Alliance for I-69 Texas suggesting just that except for designating US 281 as I-169.  Their response was that they were inclined to follow the original "placeholder" designations of "Central" & "East" as the signed designations (a) because it followed the "letter of the law" as laid out in the HPC 18 legislative description, and (b) so as not to confuse the legislators tasked with pushing the various funding bills through Congress.  Obviously they followed suit with the "69W" designation to Laredo using the same rationale. 

My take on this is the Alliance used the "69" number as a virtual trademark -- to the extent that each aspect of the corridor was to retain some sort of reference to 69.  Frankly, I was shocked to see that they had selected I-2 for the US 83 connector; I had expected it would be I-569 or something similar.  But since no suffix was previously suggested for the Freer-Corpus added segment, I wouldn't be surprised if, when funding is sought for any activity on that segment, that it comes with a I-6 designation to match I-2 to the south as a "cross-trident" connector.

I guess the Alliance didn't trust their selected Congressional critters to do anything except walk & talk a straight line between point A (concept) and point B (funding & construction).

It took a literal interpretation of an act of Congress (the authorization of HPC 18 and the subsequent Interstate designation) to get the W-C-E 69 "trident" into the Interstate lexicon (although "West" was never legislatively specified).  I'm sure many of us thought the "east" and "central" routings within that legislation were merely placeholders and not the final definition (I certainly did) -- but TxDOT and the Alliance for I-69 Texas thought otherwise -- and had the final say.   In other words, the folks who started the dance to begin with were able to dictate what the decorations looked like!

Back circa late 2010 or early 2011 I submitted an analysis to the Alliance for I-69 Texas, in which I stated that the suffixed branches within the I-69 cluster were simply placeholders, since they were spelled out rather than stated as a single suffixed number (i.e. I-69 East vis-à-vis I-69E), and as such, could be changed quite easily by a simple alteration of the HPC 18/20 language.  I suggested that I-69 itself replace I-69 East down to the border at Brownsville; that the segment along US 59 from Laredo to Victoria should become I-6, and that I-69 Central become I-169, which would then shunt east over US 83 to the main I-69 trunk at Harlingen (no I-2 in sight for this proposal).  Also: the segment from Tenaha north to Texarkana should be I-47.  Part of the rationale I expressed to the Alliance was that the suffixed numbers violated FHWA and AASHTO guidelines -- and although the legislated aspect of the corridor designations did in fact allow them to ignore those guidelines, it might be more appropriate from a regional standpoint to consider better-fitting alternative designations. 

The response was that while my ideas had merit, the Congresspersons on board the proposal didn't want to "rock the boat" by substituting numbers that late in the game, that all their documentation referred to the branches as some form of the original "69" proposal -- besides, it had become recognized as a sort of "trademark" for the proposal in general and that the internal preference was for some iteration of "69" to be applied to all corridors covered by the original legislation (obviously that didn't apply to the I-2 corridor, as it was addressed separately and later). 

And that was the end of that!  However, when I-2 was designated a couple of years later, I was as surprised as anyone -- fully expecting US 83 to be I-169 or I-569, etc. to "keep it in the family", so to speak.  I guess the Laredo-bound ambitions of that corridor had a bit to do with the choice. 

Nevertheless, Congressfolks can and do override AASHTO and/or FHWA internal criteria; that's how the E-C-W branches of I-69 came about.  Actually, the directional references were originally simply "placeholders" within the original legislation, designed to describe the relative orientation of the branches -- but both the Alliance for I-69/Texas and their cohorts at TXDOT took a truly literalist view of the legislation, hence the field-posted suffixed shields (with more to come).   

Back in late 2010 I actually wrote a numbering proposal to the Alliance for I-69 Texas, suggesting the following:  I-69 mainline down what's now I-69E, I-6 along I-69W, and I-169 for I-69C, which would have turned east on what's now I-2 to Harlingen.  Also: I-47 for the I-369 corridor (hey, it's 115 miles long!).  Received a reply after a few weeks stating that as far as numbering, their hands were tied by the legal definitions attached to the original HPC 18 & 20 legislation.  I shot back that those appeared to be simply "placeholder" designations to delineate the three branches (and 69W wasn't even mentioned in the original language), and that any of their "pet" area congressfolks could slip in amendments to specify different numbers.  That got a quick reply essentially inferring that they didn't want to deviate one little bit from the original legislation, since the support for the project was on relatively thin ice at the time (this was around the time of the 2010 midterm elections) and that some of the newly elected conservatives from TX would have to be persuaded to support the concept and its associated expenditures -- and that selling the whole "69" package as is to the new congressional delegation was job #1 in order to maintain what progress was being made.  Thus, to them, every segment of the cluster had to reference the number "69" to avoid confusing those legislators who weren't the sharpest pencils in the box!  :sleep:

At that point I simply rolled my eyes, figuring any further comment would be pointless.  But if they were dealing with elected legislators, I could -- with some imaginative stretch -- see their POV; they'd put a lot more aggregate effort into their corridor than had I!  But I still think my ideas had some merit -- but the chances of any changes being made is ultra-slim -- now that there is nascent suffixed signage on all 3 branches (plus I-2!).

... the numbering aspect of the I-69 corridor cluster has been hashed out repeatedly within this forum; the current suffixed situation boils down to TxDOT and the major corridor promoter, the Alliance for I-69/Texas electing to make any corridor authorized by the language of high priority corridors 18 & 20 refer to the main trunk number "69" in some way or form.  Most of us thought the authorizing language's reference to "east" and "central" would have been a mere referential placeholder -- but the two governing entities thought otherwise, choosing to take a very literal approach to the numbering -- hence the suffixes (I'm certain that if I-369 would have been dubbed "I-69N" it would have been accepted and formalized as well!).  I-2 was exempt from that as it wasn't a part of the original authorized corridor bundle.  At this point, with signage already posted, any suggestion regarding designation change wouldn't make it past the front desk within the official circles handling the project.   

No the "trident" actually dates back to the late 90s and was certainly discussed on MTR though not extensively.  For example...

https://groups.google.com/g/misc.transport.road/c/AJEIdQWFToU/m/TVnXZufPRq4J

https://groups.google.com/g/misc.transport.road/c/X9Foxr3CObc/m/iuWSXPs4PnoJ

Furthermore, the MTR posts also quoted the original House bill, which stated both that "the segment identified in subsection (c)(18)(B)(ii) shall be designated as Interstate Route I-69 Central" and that "the segment identified in subsection (c)(18)(B)(i) shall be designated as Interstate Route I-69 East".  And all of the ensuing discussion happened before the creation of AARoads.

The actual Interstate designations waited until those segments were ready for and requested to be added to the Interstate system proper...this is what vdeane makes her reference to.

However, reading through the actual TEA-21 legislation (copied in the 1998 MTR post linked upthread), the legislation makes it pretty clear that I-69C and I-69E were written into Federal law in that act (much as I-99 had been previous to that), so with those two routes it was "settled" in 1998 when TEA-21 was passed.

Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on March 10, 2023, 11:31:31 AM
I don't understand why they want I-69E, I-69W, and I-69, why not have spur routes?

*sigh*  Why isn't this a sticky yet?  Or is it?  I don't know.  Anyway...


I am baffled why they didn't pick one to be I-69 and make the rest 3dis of I-69

This has been explained:

Back in 2010, I (via my consulting entity) submitted a paper to the Alliance for I-69 Texas suggesting just that except for designating US 281 as I-169.  Their response was that they were inclined to follow the original "placeholder" designations of "Central" & "East" as the signed designations (a) because it followed the "letter of the law" as laid out in the HPC 18 legislative description, and (b) so as not to confuse the legislators tasked with pushing the various funding bills through Congress.  Obviously they followed suit with the "69W" designation to Laredo using the same rationale. 

My take on this is the Alliance used the "69" number as a virtual trademark -- to the extent that each aspect of the corridor was to retain some sort of reference to 69.  Frankly, I was shocked to see that they had selected I-2 for the US 83 connector; I had expected it would be I-569 or something similar.  But since no suffix was previously suggested for the Freer-Corpus added segment, I wouldn't be surprised if, when funding is sought for any activity on that segment, that it comes with a I-6 designation to match I-2 to the south as a "cross-trident" connector.

I guess the Alliance didn't trust their selected Congressional critters to do anything except walk & talk a straight line between point A (concept) and point B (funding & construction).

It took a literal interpretation of an act of Congress (the authorization of HPC 18 and the subsequent Interstate designation) to get the W-C-E 69 "trident" into the Interstate lexicon (although "West" was never legislatively specified).  I'm sure many of us thought the "east" and "central" routings within that legislation were merely placeholders and not the final definition (I certainly did) -- but TxDOT and the Alliance for I-69 Texas thought otherwise -- and had the final say.   In other words, the folks who started the dance to begin with were able to dictate what the decorations looked like!

Back circa late 2010 or early 2011 I submitted an analysis to the Alliance for I-69 Texas, in which I stated that the suffixed branches within the I-69 cluster were simply placeholders, since they were spelled out rather than stated as a single suffixed number (i.e. I-69 East vis-à-vis I-69E), and as such, could be changed quite easily by a simple alteration of the HPC 18/20 language.  I suggested that I-69 itself replace I-69 East down to the border at Brownsville; that the segment along US 59 from Laredo to Victoria should become I-6, and that I-69 Central become I-169, which would then shunt east over US 83 to the main I-69 trunk at Harlingen (no I-2 in sight for this proposal).  Also: the segment from Tenaha north to Texarkana should be I-47.  Part of the rationale I expressed to the Alliance was that the suffixed numbers violated FHWA and AASHTO guidelines -- and although the legislated aspect of the corridor designations did in fact allow them to ignore those guidelines, it might be more appropriate from a regional standpoint to consider better-fitting alternative designations. 

The response was that while my ideas had merit, the Congresspersons on board the proposal didn't want to "rock the boat" by substituting numbers that late in the game, that all their documentation referred to the branches as some form of the original "69" proposal -- besides, it had become recognized as a sort of "trademark" for the proposal in general and that the internal preference was for some iteration of "69" to be applied to all corridors covered by the original legislation (obviously that didn't apply to the I-2 corridor, as it was addressed separately and later). 

And that was the end of that!  However, when I-2 was designated a couple of years later, I was as surprised as anyone -- fully expecting US 83 to be I-169 or I-569, etc. to "keep it in the family", so to speak.  I guess the Laredo-bound ambitions of that corridor had a bit to do with the choice. 

Nevertheless, Congressfolks can and do override AASHTO and/or FHWA internal criteria; that's how the E-C-W branches of I-69 came about.  Actually, the directional references were originally simply "placeholders" within the original legislation, designed to describe the relative orientation of the branches -- but both the Alliance for I-69/Texas and their cohorts at TXDOT took a truly literalist view of the legislation, hence the field-posted suffixed shields (with more to come).   

Back in late 2010 I actually wrote a numbering proposal to the Alliance for I-69 Texas, suggesting the following:  I-69 mainline down what's now I-69E, I-6 along I-69W, and I-169 for I-69C, which would have turned east on what's now I-2 to Harlingen.  Also: I-47 for the I-369 corridor (hey, it's 115 miles long!).  Received a reply after a few weeks stating that as far as numbering, their hands were tied by the legal definitions attached to the original HPC 18 & 20 legislation.  I shot back that those appeared to be simply "placeholder" designations to delineate the three branches (and 69W wasn't even mentioned in the original language), and that any of their "pet" area congressfolks could slip in amendments to specify different numbers.  That got a quick reply essentially inferring that they didn't want to deviate one little bit from the original legislation, since the support for the project was on relatively thin ice at the time (this was around the time of the 2010 midterm elections) and that some of the newly elected conservatives from TX would have to be persuaded to support the concept and its associated expenditures -- and that selling the whole "69" package as is to the new congressional delegation was job #1 in order to maintain what progress was being made.  Thus, to them, every segment of the cluster had to reference the number "69" to avoid confusing those legislators who weren't the sharpest pencils in the box!  :sleep:

At that point I simply rolled my eyes, figuring any further comment would be pointless.  But if they were dealing with elected legislators, I could -- with some imaginative stretch -- see their POV; they'd put a lot more aggregate effort into their corridor than had I!  But I still think my ideas had some merit -- but the chances of any changes being made is ultra-slim -- now that there is nascent suffixed signage on all 3 branches (plus I-2!).

... the numbering aspect of the I-69 corridor cluster has been hashed out repeatedly within this forum; the current suffixed situation boils down to TxDOT and the major corridor promoter, the Alliance for I-69/Texas electing to make any corridor authorized by the language of high priority corridors 18 & 20 refer to the main trunk number "69" in some way or form.  Most of us thought the authorizing language's reference to "east" and "central" would have been a mere referential placeholder -- but the two governing entities thought otherwise, choosing to take a very literal approach to the numbering -- hence the suffixes (I'm certain that if I-369 would have been dubbed "I-69N" it would have been accepted and formalized as well!).  I-2 was exempt from that as it wasn't a part of the original authorized corridor bundle.  At this point, with signage already posted, any suggestion regarding designation change wouldn't make it past the front desk within the official circles handling the project.   

No the "trident" actually dates back to the late 90s and was certainly discussed on MTR though not extensively.  For example...

https://groups.google.com/g/misc.transport.road/c/AJEIdQWFToU/m/TVnXZufPRq4J

https://groups.google.com/g/misc.transport.road/c/X9Foxr3CObc/m/iuWSXPs4PnoJ

Furthermore, the MTR posts also quoted the original House bill, which stated both that "the segment identified in subsection (c)(18)(B)(ii) shall be designated as Interstate Route I-69 Central" and that "the segment identified in subsection (c)(18)(B)(i) shall be designated as Interstate Route I-69 East".  And all of the ensuing discussion happened before the creation of AARoads.

The actual Interstate designations waited until those segments were ready for and requested to be added to the Interstate system proper...this is what vdeane makes her reference to.

However, reading through the actual TEA-21 legislation (copied in the 1998 MTR post linked upthread), the legislation makes it pretty clear that I-69C and I-69E were written into Federal law in that act (much as I-99 had been previous to that), so with those two routes it was "settled" in 1998 when TEA-21 was passed.


....but why are they I-69 E C & W?   :-D
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: CoreySamson on March 12, 2023, 05:03:44 PM
The main lanes of I-69 are now open through the TX-105 interchange in Cleveland and just south of it as of last night (meaning the I-69/US 59 corridor is now 3x3 all the way to Cleveland now). However, I did not see any I-69 shields in the area.

TxDOT also did their dumb habit of not removing the construction speed limit signs upon opening the new section. Hence, the speed limit was still 45 mph (never have I been going 15 over and getting passed by everyone!). However, a partially uncovered sign indicated that the real speed limit will be 65.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Chris on March 12, 2023, 05:32:55 PM
It seems like they opened the main lanes on February 25.


https://twitter.com/TxDOTBeaumont/status/1629151727218790404
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: asdfjkll on March 12, 2023, 09:05:41 PM
Google Streetview has been updated to last month showing the new southbound lanes open in the upgrade south of Cleveland (they probably went through there before TxDOT opened the northbound lanes shortly afterwards as the northbound lanes appeared to be complete in the updated streetview). With this section wrapping up, it looks like the next section that will start construction is between Cleveland and FM 2914/Shepherd. The project site for the Cleveland to Sheperd freeway upgrade (https://www.txdot.gov/projects/projects-studies/lufkin/us59-shepherd-cleveland.html) states that the project will be let in 2023, and the 24-month letting schedule seems to agree with that as well (on that site there is a huge spike in total estimated cost for the Lufkin district on the July 2023 letting, which has this I-69 upgrade budgeted for $70 million).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on March 13, 2023, 12:27:52 AM
The main lanes of I-69 are now open through the TX-105 interchange in Cleveland and just south of it as of last night (meaning the I-69/US 59 corridor is now 3x3 all the way to Cleveland now). However, I did not see any I-69 shields in the area.

TxDOT also did their dumb habit of not removing the construction speed limit signs upon opening the new section. Hence, the speed limit was still 45 mph (never have I been going 15 over and getting passed by everyone!). However, a partially uncovered sign indicated that the real speed limit will be 65.
US-59 is still posted at 55 mph between Sugar Land and Kendleton despite construction being completed for a couple years now and open as a six lane interstate highway with full control of access. On the much busier, wider portion north of Sugar Land, the speed limit raises to 65 mph.

Traffic moves 75+ mph and the speed limit is blatantly (and rightfully) ignored. TxDOT said last summer a speed study is underway, but why couldn’t it at least be signed as 65 mph? It has to at least be designed for that speed, if not 70 mph. A speed study would determine raising it further to 75 mph (above the 70 mph default speed limit).

https://twitter.com/txdothouston/status/1550549438627717120
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Phudman on March 13, 2023, 09:47:52 AM
I wonder how soon it would take for the Cleveland bypass to be expanded to three lanes in each direction? Also, upgrade the FM 2025 overpass as well.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bluecountry on March 18, 2023, 07:28:56 PM
Because a bunch of old men in Congress couldn't differentiate the 3 routes for the Mexico to Canada Highway in Texas.

To them it looked like they were funding 3 new "original" highways so the numbers were changed to share the 69 scheme to help them keep the story straight.

Yes, they are original new highways, but to keep the pork barrel from rolling too far and have other states also demand 3 new orginal routes as well, (becuase that is how trading pork in Congress works).

As far as I know, the only other state to roll some pork on the original I-69 bill was Arkansas for their Little Rock - Monticello highway. Texas got some additional pork on the Tenaha - Texarkana route.
That is the dumbest thing I have heard, so basically it pretty much nullifies any 3 digit spur route.
It just creates confusion within the whole interstate system.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on March 19, 2023, 12:47:52 PM
I don't think the I-69E/C/W thing is hard to follow. The three routes aren't re-connecting with each other (unlike the two I-35E/W twins in the system). The two splits in Victoria and George West are diverting to obvious destinations.

Still I think it would have been better to use other numbers. I-37 could have easily taken the I-69E route. The main I-69 route should have gone to Laredo, our nation's busiest inland "port" city. The I-69C route could have been named something else (like I-33), or just stay named as US-281. But I understand the political idea about branding and selling a project. What's done is done. Those I-69E/C/W designations are pretty much set in stone whether anyone likes it or not.

I don't understand the comment about nullifying 3-digit routes. There is a I-169 route in Brownsville, although it's not signed properly. I-369 if fully built-out will be one of the longest 3-digit routes in the Interstate system.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on March 19, 2023, 01:07:32 PM
I personally think I-369 is a waste… a routing via a complete I-69 to I-49 in Louisiana / Arkansas to Texarkana would be around 8-9 more miles, and basically the entire north-south segment of that route is already complete.

I-369 is over 100 miles of construction that would parallel an existing interstate highway that carries low traffic volumes.

Prioritize completing I-69 between Tenaha and I-49, and the entire segment between Tenaha and Texarkana is taken care of. Traffic largely stays on US-59 in Texas today because no reliable / good route exists between the US-59 corridor and Shreveport. US-79 exists but it’s mostly a two-lane road with a 65 mph speed limit in Texas, and a 55 mph speed limit in Louisiana. It was a lot of four lane undivided in Texas, but they restriped a good amount to be an alternating passing configuration. I-69 would fill that gap and likely draw more traffic onto I-49. Divert funds for building I-369 in Texas towards upgrading / building I-69 south of Tenaha towards Houston.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: mvak36 on March 19, 2023, 03:47:08 PM
I personally think I-369 is a waste… a routing via a complete I-69 to I-49 in Louisiana / Arkansas to Texarkana would be around 8-9 more miles, and basically the entire north-south segment of that route is already complete.

I-369 is over 100 miles of construction that would parallel an existing interstate highway that carries low traffic volumes.

Prioritize completing I-69 between Tenaha and I-49, and the entire segment between Tenaha and Texarkana is taken care of. Traffic largely stays on US-59 in Texas today because no reliable / good route exists between the US-59 corridor and Shreveport. US-79 exists but it’s mostly a two-lane road with a 65 mph speed limit in Texas, and a 55 mph speed limit in Louisiana. It was a lot of four lane undivided in Texas, but they restriped a good amount to be an alternating passing configuration. I-69 would fill that gap and likely draw more traffic onto I-49. Divert funds for building I-369 in Texas towards upgrading / building I-69 south of Tenaha towards Houston.
IMO, I don’t know if Texas cares about the overall routing of I-69. For them it’s a way to connect Texarkana to Houston, Corpus Christi/Laredo/Rio Grande Valley. It will be a long time before it’s all built but at least they don’t have to deal with other states and can build it piecemeal whenever they have funding.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: J N Winkler on March 19, 2023, 04:26:23 PM
There is precedent going back to the early days of Interstate construction for apparently duplicative freeway routings to be approved--the Kansas Turnpike/free I-35 between Emporia and Kansas City, or US 69 in Kansas/US 71 (now I-49) in Missouri both come to mind.

Has an origin-destination study been performed in the general area of Tenaha/Carthage/Shreveport/Texarkana to confirm that I-369 will attract little traffic from the existing US 59 routing or a conceptual US 59/US 79/I-49 alternative?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on March 19, 2023, 05:20:43 PM
IMO, I don’t know if Texas cares about the overall routing of I-69. For them it’s a way to connect Texarkana to Houston, Corpus Christi/Laredo/Rio Grande Valley. It will be a long time before it’s all built but at least they don’t have to deal with other states and can build it piecemeal whenever they have funding.
That's the thing though - besides the ~25 miles in Louisiana between the Texas state line and I-49, the routing is already fully complete in Louisiana and Arkansas. I-49 between Shreveport and Texarkana was constructed over the last decade or so. It's a largely desolate highway with low traffic volumes and has room for growth.

If they could partner with Louisiana to prioritize that segment, it would save Texas over 100 miles of redundant construction.

Even with current conditions, I've driven up from Houston to Texarkana a couple times and used US-79 to cut over to I-49, just to have the last 70 miles or so on uninterrupted freeway vs. four-lane divided with towns and traffic signals on US-59. I lost probably around 5-7 minutes dealing with the US-79 portion, but upgrading that connection into Louisiana (or building a new one - via I-69 to the south) would improve that connection, reduce travel time, and increase speeds. Arkansas recently raised their speed limit to 75 mph, and the Louisiana portion was already 75 mph, so in terms of speed, it's already the same.

If Texas wanted to fully do their own work, they could also construct a new location alignment along US-79, and cutting north to I-20 just parallel to the Louisiana border, allowing motorists to use I-20 and I-220 to connect with I-49 North.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on March 19, 2023, 05:48:16 PM
There is precedent going back to the early days of Interstate construction for apparently duplicative freeway routings to be approved--the Kansas Turnpike/free I-35 between Emporia and Kansas City, or US 69 in Kansas/US 71 (now I-49) in Missouri both come to mind.

Has an origin-destination study been performed in the general area of Tenaha/Carthage/Shreveport/Texarkana to confirm that I-369 will attract little traffic from the existing US 59 routing or a conceptual US 59/US 79/I-49 alternative?
I-369 would attract traffic from the US-59 corridor… it is slightly more direct than I-49. My point, however, is that in an effort to cut down on costs, it would not be much more out of the way to simply direct through traffic to I-49.

I-369 would be effective on attracting US-59 traffic, but would require over 100 miles of interstate to be constructed, whereas a nearby parallel interstate highway (I-49) already covers that distance and is underutilized.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 19, 2023, 05:51:38 PM
Does anyone think Interstate 369 will ever be completed? I have my doubts, and think existing 369 (and Loop 151) should have been numbered Interstate 230.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on March 19, 2023, 05:52:36 PM
Does anyone think Interstate 369 will ever be completed? I have my doubts, and think existing 369 (and Loop 151) should have been numbered Interstate 230.
Read the discussion immediately above this post.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Some one on March 19, 2023, 08:16:30 PM
Does anyone think Interstate 369 will ever be completed? I have my doubts, and think existing 369 (and Loop 151) should have been numbered Interstate 230.
I don't think I-369 is going to be completed anytime soon, if ever. The current plans for the corridor are just the Marshall bypass and a highway overpass at FM 1794. As of now, TXDOT's main priority seems to be upgrading US 59 between Houston and Victoria and US 77 between Brownsville and Corpus Christi. Not to mention the issue of extending the current highway both north and south of Texarkana.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bwana39 on March 19, 2023, 08:20:51 PM
Does anyone think Interstate 369 will ever be completed? I have my doubts, and think existing 369 (and Loop 151) should have been numbered Interstate 230.
Read the discussion immediately above this post.

Am I sure I-369 will ever be completed? I am a lot more confident of its completion than that of I-69 itself north of Nacogdoches (or More aptly past its split from US-59 whether said split is in Teneha or in rural Panola County. ) Should I-69 be a higher priority? Yes, it would take a significant load off of I-30 & I-40. As much as we want to think of the interstates as national highways, they are still just a completed construct of segments of highway built and maintained by the individual states. Mississippi has little to no interest in I-69 outside of metro Memphis. Louisiana has zero interest in the section north of I-20 and the South Louisiana controlled legislature may not even have an interest in the state line to I-49 segment. Local pressure will get something built from I-49 to US-71 at least. The rest, I am very sceptical of it being built soon if ever.

As to the labeling of the Texarkana part, that itself is a long story of two communities fighting one another. All of Loop 151 was planned on being the "NEW US-71" ... What became I-49. Texas built it out and then Arkansas got the presidency and more importantly, a Miller County resident as governor. I-49 was supposed to follow Loop 151 before that. It probably should be an even X-30 (or an odd X-49), but I doubt that Arkansas  would have played with their roughly 2 mile stretch to I-49. Things are not as bad as they were  a decade ago, but some elements are just as friendly as ex-spouses from an acrimonious divorce. The main reason that I-369 was labeled as such along loop 151 was to make sure that I-369 actually came to the Texarkana loop as opposed to going straight to I-49 north of town and missing the loop by 5 or six miles. I agree it is probably very premature.

OH, one other thing. The portion of I-69 from Cleveland to Nacogdoches, is in full swing. My estimation has the freeway completed to at least Livingston by 2026 or 2027 and to Lufkin in another 5-7 years. There will probably will be some foot dragging on details in San Jacinto and Northern Polk counties, but it will creep along. I could also  see it fully completed through all of Angelina County in the same time frame even if there is still some unimproved spots further south.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on March 19, 2023, 11:57:36 PM
I think I-369 in Texas stands a far better chance of being completed than the I-69 segment in Louisiana.

We might see some portions of the I-69 LA route completed in the Shreveport area. But Louisiana already has a ton of stuff already on its plate with the I-49 South projects and needs in the New Orleans metro area. Let's not forget the looming problem of I-10 and its really long yet over-loaded 2-lane bridges across those swamps. And there's the I-14 nonsense too. Louisiana doesn't have the population or political clout of Texas. I think they're more likely to be stuck in having to pick and choose things that are more realistic and practical to build.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on March 20, 2023, 12:07:14 AM
I think I-369 in Texas stands a far better chance of being completed than the I-69 segment in Louisiana.
I’m skeptical, that’s over 100 miles of construction that’s redundant to I-49.

What TxDOT should do, IMO, is build a freeway parallel to US-79, then turn due north and parallel the state line up to I-20.

That new highway, plus I-20 to I-220 to I-49, would complete an all-freeway routing to Texarkana, make a more direct connector between Shreveport and Texas, and save TxDOT an additional 60-70 miles of needed upgrades along US-59. Louisiana builds zero miles of new road.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: wtd67 on March 20, 2023, 02:22:54 AM
US59 will need to be upgraded to I-369 from Tenaha to Texarkana just for the truck traffic.  Most trucking companies pay drivers by the mile which means they pay for the shortest route not the fastest.  The shortest route from Houston to Texarkana is US59.  I see this in East Texas with several trucking companies sending trucks from Texarkana to Waco/Austin/San Antonio.  They send them via US59 to Linden, TX155 to Tyler, TX31 to Waco, then I-35.  It isn't the fastest route, but it is shorter by about 30 miles.  I-69 in MS, AR, LA will never have much traffic if it is ever built, too far out of the way.  Any money, if it ever becomes available, should go to widen I-30 and I-40 in Arkansas.

If going up I-49 was the best option, they would be doing it now.  US79 is straight shot as a two lane from Carthage, TX to Greenwood, LA, making it an interstate would not shorten it.  Upgrading US59 to interstate standards will not greatly increase the truck traffic since most trucks are already using this route.  The only thing that will increase traffic on this route is more trade in and out of Houston, not being an interstate.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on March 20, 2023, 08:19:17 AM
^ At the very least, upgrading US-79 would provide an interstate highway connector between I-69 and I-20 going into Shreveport.

Regardless of whatever happens with I-369, I see a number of trucks use this route to cut over to both Shreveport and those ultimately bound to I-20 East. It should at least be four lanes divided.

In terms of mileage, US-79 / I-20 / I-220 / I-49 is only 10 miles longer than US-59. Travel times are both equal or off by +/- 1 minute. Upgrading US-79 to a 75 mph (currently has a 55-65 mph posted) would shave off around 7 minutes.

It’s a better investment for TxDOT, IMO. Improves the connection to I-20 East and Shreveport, and provides an outlet to I-49 North reducing the need to upgrade US-59, saving at least 70 miles of redundant construction. If some trucks still desire to shave 10 miles and follow 100 miles of arterial roadway, that’s not enough of a reason IMO to pour the money in, unless it’s significant enough it’s still causing bottlenecks.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MikieTimT on March 20, 2023, 10:14:59 AM
^ At the very least, upgrading US-79 would provide an interstate highway connector between I-69 and I-20 going into Shreveport.

Regardless of whatever happens with I-369, I see a number of trucks use this route to cut over to both Shreveport and those ultimately bound to I-20 East. It should at least be four lanes divided.

In terms of mileage, US-79 / I-20 / I-220 / I-49 is only 10 miles longer than US-59. Travel times are both equal or off by +/- 1 minute. Upgrading US-79 to a 75 mph (currently has a 55-65 mph posted) would shave off around 7 minutes.

It’s a better investment for TxDOT, IMO. Improves the connection to I-20 East and Shreveport, and provides an outlet to I-49 North reducing the need to upgrade US-59, saving at least 70 miles of redundant construction. If some trucks still desire to shave 10 miles and follow 100 miles of arterial roadway, that’s not enough of a reason IMO to pour the money in, unless it’s significant enough it’s still causing bottlenecks.

I see Texas definitely doing I-369.  They are trying to grow Texarkana, and putting another Interstate feeder into it makes it more appealing to the warehousing and industrial types that they are seeking for the area.  They are competing with the Arkansas side for growth, and Arkansas has some cost of doing business advantages otherwise, especially since the Arkansas side also has income tax exemption like all of Texas.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: kphoger on March 20, 2023, 11:45:49 AM
It just creates confusion within the whole interstate system.

As much as I hate the 69 trident, I disagree with that assertion.  The rest of the Interstate system remains just as confusion-free as it was before.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on March 20, 2023, 12:44:27 PM
^ At the very least, upgrading US-79 would provide an interstate highway connector between I-69 and I-20 going into Shreveport.

Regardless of whatever happens with I-369, I see a number of trucks use this route to cut over to both Shreveport and those ultimately bound to I-20 East. It should at least be four lanes divided.

In terms of mileage, US-79 / I-20 / I-220 / I-49 is only 10 miles longer than US-59. Travel times are both equal or off by +/- 1 minute. Upgrading US-79 to a 75 mph (currently has a 55-65 mph posted) would shave off around 7 minutes.

It’s a better investment for TxDOT, IMO. Improves the connection to I-20 East and Shreveport, and provides an outlet to I-49 North reducing the need to upgrade US-59, saving at least 70 miles of redundant construction. If some trucks still desire to shave 10 miles and follow 100 miles of arterial roadway, that’s not enough of a reason IMO to pour the money in, unless it’s significant enough it’s still causing bottlenecks.

I see Texas definitely doing I-369.  They are trying to grow Texarkana, and putting another Interstate feeder into it makes it more appealing to the warehousing and industrial types that they are seeking for the area.  They are competing with the Arkansas side for growth, and Arkansas has some cost of doing business advantages otherwise, especially since the Arkansas side also has income tax exemption like all of Texas.
Perhaps but in terms of priorities and actual projects… I see it being decades off. Completing I-69 south of Tenaha is a much larger priority, with particular emphasis on town bypasses and removing all the traffic signals.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bwana39 on March 20, 2023, 05:39:37 PM
^ At the very least, upgrading US-79 would provide an interstate highway connector between I-69 and I-20 going into Shreveport.

Regardless of whatever happens with I-369, I see a number of trucks use this route to cut over to both Shreveport and those ultimately bound to I-20 East. It should at least be four lanes divided.

In terms of mileage, US-79 / I-20 / I-220 / I-49 is only 10 miles longer than US-59. Travel times are both equal or off by +/- 1 minute. Upgrading US-79 to a 75 mph (currently has a 55-65 mph posted) would shave off around 7 minutes.

It’s a better investment for TxDOT, IMO. Improves the connection to I-20 East and Shreveport, and provides an outlet to I-49 North reducing the need to upgrade US-59, saving at least 70 miles of redundant construction. If some trucks still desire to shave 10 miles and follow 100 miles of arterial roadway, that’s not enough of a reason IMO to pour the money in, unless it’s significant enough it’s still causing bottlenecks.

I see Texas definitely doing I-369.  They are trying to grow Texarkana, and putting another Interstate feeder into it makes it more appealing to the warehousing and industrial types that they are seeking for the area.  They are competing with the Arkansas side for growth, and Arkansas has some cost of doing business advantages otherwise, especially since the Arkansas side also has income tax exemption like all of Texas.

Back decades ago, people started buying up property in Bowie County and Miller Counties.  This "COMMERCIAL PROPERTY" has lain fallow for decades. There is plenty of vacant property all over both. People are finally starting to sell it due to the next generation not wanting to hold it forever. Part of this is may be due to Tex-Americas center having land to sell and suddenly these commercial real estate investors are not the only show.

I will be honest, I don't see this area increasing in population by over 25% which is between 15 -25 thousand people. Texarkana has the WORST of both a small town and the city.  Our kids virtually all grow up and move away. Texarkana wants to play, but property values are still high enough, that nothing is happening or going to happen.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on March 20, 2023, 10:21:25 PM
Quote from: sprjus4
I’m skeptical, that’s over 100 miles of construction that’s redundant to I-49.

I-49 going South of Texarakana into Louisiana does zero to serve interests of cities in Texas. The I-69/I-369 combo in Texas obviously will give Texarkana and other small cities along the way a faster, more efficient route to Houston. Other cities in that region, such as Longview and Tyler, will derive some benefit from it as well.

The state of Texas is far more vested in the various I-69 projects than any other states along the extended route. Texas also doesn't have to do anything to help neighboring states get their mainline segments of I-69 completed.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on March 20, 2023, 11:48:45 PM
Quote from: sprjus4
I’m skeptical, that’s over 100 miles of construction that’s redundant to I-49.

I-49 going South of Texarakana into Louisiana does zero to serve interests of cities in Texas.
It runs parallel to the proposed I-369 corridor within 15 miles to the east, for around 70 miles. I-369 could be a good redundancy, but given the traffic volumes, it’s likely adequate enough to simply tie I-69 traffic into I-49 heading to Texarkana.

Quote
The state of Texas is far more vested in the various I-69 projects than any other states along the extended route. Texas also doesn't have to do anything to help neighboring states get their mainline segments of I-69 completed.
Texas has seemed quite uninterested in any major projects along the I-69 / I-369 combo north of Houston bypass a few bypasses. A good chunk of US-59 is still a four lane undivided highway.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on March 21, 2023, 03:35:37 AM
Texas has taken more of a go slow approach to I-69/I-369, relying on upgrading sections through major cities (Lufkin/Nacogdoches, Marshall) and upgrading preexisting freeway and near-freeway segments near Shepherd and Cleveland and southwest of Houston. Given their mass of projects statewide, that's no surprise.

An Brownsville/Victoria/Houston/Texarkana freeway along US 59 has been a major goal of Texas officials almost as much as a Laredo/Houston/Texarkana corridor as part of a national I-69 corridor connecting South Texas to the Midwest. The I-69 Colossus simply combined those two distinct corridors into one system. I don't think they would take too kindly to removing Texarkana from the system by diverting US 59 traffic through Shreveport. I do think that US 59 and I-49 are far enough apart from each other and have different enough objectives to warrant them coexisting and meeting at Texarkana.

Until the ICC of I-49 is built through Shreveport, you would have a situation of traffic using I-20/LA 3132/I-220 and I-49 north (or I-49/LA 3132/I-20). Plus, Texarkana has made it clear that they want US 59 upgraded from Loop 151 southward as part of their own access to their downtown area.

Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: abqtraveler on March 21, 2023, 11:12:27 AM
Texas has taken more of a go slow approach to I-69/I-369, relying on upgrading sections through major cities (Lufkin/Nacogdoches, Marshall) and upgrading preexisting freeway and near-freeway segments near Shepherd and Cleveland and southwest of Houston. Given their mass of projects statewide, that's no surprise.

An Brownsville/Victoria/Houston/Texarkana freeway along US 59 has been a major goal of Texas officials almost as much as a Laredo/Houston/Texarkana corridor as part of a national I-69 corridor connecting South Texas to the Midwest. The I-69 Colossus simply combined those two distinct corridors into one system. I don't think they would take too kindly to removing Texarkana from the system by diverting US 59 traffic through Shreveport. I do think that US 59 and I-49 are far enough apart from each other and have different enough objectives to warrant them coexisting and meeting at Texarkana.

Until the ICC of I-49 is built through Shreveport, you would have a situation of traffic using I-20/LA 3132/I-220 and I-49 north (or I-49/LA 3132/I-20). Plus, Texarkana has made it clear that they want US 59 upgraded from Loop 151 southward as part of their own access to their downtown area.

Texas is also fortunate that, much like Kentucky, the I-69 corridor will largely following existing highways, most of which are already 4 lanes with many sections that are freeways at or close to interstate standards. Due to the shear length of highways that need to be upgraded to interstate standards will result in a hefty bill for Texas to complete its portion of I-69. But comparing that to states that will have to build their sections of I-69 on new location, I would imagine the cost per mile would be lower in Texas versus those other states building on new location.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Rick Powell on March 21, 2023, 11:46:03 AM
Texas is also fortunate that, much like Kentucky, the I-69 corridor will largely following existing highways, most of which are already 4 lanes with many sections that are freeways at or close to interstate standards. Due to the shear length of highways that need to be upgraded to interstate standards will result in a hefty bill for Texas to complete its portion of I-69. But comparing that to states that will have to build their sections of I-69 on new location, I would imagine the cost per mile would be lower in Texas versus those other states building on new location.

It depends. When trying to shoehorn a limited access highway into an existing location, the expenses range from low (like the Kentucky parkways where they are to near-interstate standards and little adjacent development) to astronomical (like an urban section where everything is tight, roadway work needs to be carefully staged, accesses need to be maintained via new frontage roads, etc.)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on March 21, 2023, 12:04:41 PM
Kentucky and Texas are not in the same situation at all.

The “existing highways”  in Texas range from four lane divided highway with no access control to many sections with 4 lanes undivided. Only very short bypass segments may meet freeway standards, and even then many of the existing bypasses have intersections.

All of that has to be upgraded. It’s not cheap.

Kentucky, on the other hand, already had hundreds of miles of limited access parkway that met interstate standards (or very close). They didn’t have private driveways, intersections, etc. that needed hundreds of millions to billions of dollars to upgrade. Comparing that to Texas already having “existing highways”  is not even close.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on March 21, 2023, 12:34:38 PM
Kentucky still had to upgrade their parkways (especially their interchanges, which still utilized the old toll booths within loop ramps) to meet Interstate design standards.

Outside of US 59 from just outside of Laredo to Victoria, which would have to be completely rebuilt from 2-lane to 4-lane AND upgraded to freeway, much of US 59 from Houston north to Nacogdoches could be upgraded quite easily with continuous frontage roads, overpasses at major intersections, and bypasses of some towns (Jefferson, Atlanta, etc.) The Diboll bypass is already under construction, as is the upgrades through Lufkin and Nacogdoches. It's not cheap, but at least it's quite doable by Texas standards, if it's crawling along incrementally. North of US 259, though, some level of new alignment will have to be built for the segment to Marshall/Texarkana and the branch off to Louisiana, whether it be located near Tenaha, or elsewhere. It may be that new alignment might be less expensive and more prudent in those cases.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on March 21, 2023, 01:17:40 PM
I do think that US 59 and I-49 are far enough apart from each other and have different enough objectives to warrant them coexisting and meeting at Texarkana.
Perhaps, but they are also close enough to be competitive with each other, at least in their current state. Like I mentioned - even today, I-49 is around the same travel time, and the route I've utilized both times heading north, to get off US-59 and onto a reliable 75 mph free-flowing interstate highway. I'm not suggesting, per se, I-369 should never be built, but we all know that in reality, it is at least a couple of decades from becoming a reality. TxDOT simply has higher priorities, and I-69 should be complete south of Tenaha, IMO, before any major upgrades begin on US-59 north of there (not counting the Marshall bypass).

In the interim, it would be valuable for TxDOT to upgrade / construct a freeway alignment near US-79 - for two reasons. One, it would provide a much more adequate connector over the existing two-lane road, for US-59 traffic (Houston) to access I-20 east (to Shreveport, Jackson, Meridian, Birmingham, Atlanta, etc.), independent of I-69 altogether. I understand that the existing I-69 proposal would already do that, with a southern bypass of Shreveport, but that too is also many decades off.

In addition to the benefits of a US-79 connector for I-20 / Shreveport connection (just west of the Texas border, on the Texas side) - it would in the interim, provide interstate traffic easier access to I-49 to Texarkana, until I-369 is finally constructed in the more long term.

Quote
Until the ICC of I-49 is built through Shreveport, you would have a situation of traffic using I-20/LA 3132/I-220 and I-49 north (or I-49/LA 3132/I-20). Plus, Texarkana has made it clear that they want US 59 upgraded from Loop 151 southward as part of their own access to their downtown area.
With the current I-69 proposal, yes, but if you upgraded US-79 to at least a four-lane divided highway, you would be using I-20 -> I-220 -> I-49 which would already be more direct than the ICC.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: abqtraveler on March 21, 2023, 01:29:31 PM
Kentucky and Texas are not in the same situation at all.

The “existing highways”  in Texas range from four lane divided highway with no access control to many sections with 4 lanes undivided. Only very short bypass segments may meet freeway standards, and even then many of the existing bypasses have intersections.

All of that has to be upgraded. It’s not cheap.

Kentucky, on the other hand, already had hundreds of miles of limited access parkway that met interstate standards (or very close). They didn’t have private driveways, intersections, etc. that needed hundreds of millions to billions of dollars to upgrade. Comparing that to Texas already having “existing highways”  is not even close.
Kentucky still had a significant amount of work to do as the existing parkways did not meet interstate standards, particularly with respect to interchange design and some low overpasses where the roadway was lowered to increase clearance. Running through the numbers in my head from memory, reconfiguring the two cloverleaf interchanges in Calvert City and Nortonville were about $60 million apiece; about $10-15 million to reconfigure each of the "bowtie" style tollbooth interchanges, about $50 million to reconfigure the old TOTSO interchange with US-45 in Mayfield, plus about $20 million for mainline modifications (e.g., lowering the roadway beneath select overpasses, cable barriers, lengthening acceleration/deceleration lanes at select interchanges, etc.) between Mayfield and I-24, and about the same amount for the WK Parkway from I-24 to the Pennyrile interchange, and along the Pennyrile from the WK to Henderson.

So for the work performed in Kentucky so far: $300 million, give or take.

That doesn't include the last remaining "bowtie" interchange at Wingo, mainline modifications from Mayfield to Fulton, or reconfiguring the interchange at the KY/TN state line. Depending on what design that Tennessee comes up with, I can see the interchange at the state line being north of $100 million, and right now no one knows how that bill will be split between Kentucky and Tennessee.

Point is, there was still significant work that had to be done on the Kentucky parkway segments that were incorporated into I-69 before interstate shields could be installed, but it was a lot less costly than building a freeway on new location.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: The Ghostbuster on March 21, 2023, 01:52:10 PM
Those "bowtie" interchanges looked awfully goofy to me. Were they designed and constructed before standard diamond interchanges became the norm? I would agree that Kentucky had it easy that the parkways already had been constructed, so building 69 was easier than it would have been in other states.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on March 21, 2023, 01:52:52 PM
Kentucky and Texas are not in the same situation at all.

The “existing highways”  in Texas range from four lane divided highway with no access control to many sections with 4 lanes undivided. Only very short bypass segments may meet freeway standards, and even then many of the existing bypasses have intersections.

All of that has to be upgraded. It’s not cheap.

Kentucky, on the other hand, already had hundreds of miles of limited access parkway that met interstate standards (or very close). They didn’t have private driveways, intersections, etc. that needed hundreds of millions to billions of dollars to upgrade. Comparing that to Texas already having “existing highways”  is not even close.
Kentucky still had a significant amount of work to do as the existing parkways did not meet interstate standards, particularly with respect to interchange design and some low overpasses where the roadway was lowered to increase clearance. Running through the numbers in my head from memory, reconfiguring the two cloverleaf interchanges in Calvert City and Nortonville were about $60 million apiece; about $10-15 million to reconfigure each of the "bowtie" style tollbooth interchanges, about $50 million to reconfigure the old TOTSO interchange with US-45 in Mayfield, plus about $20 million for mainline modifications (e.g., lowering the roadway beneath select overpasses, cable barriers, lengthening acceleration/deceleration lanes at select interchanges, etc.) between Mayfield and I-24, and about the same amount for the WK Parkway from I-24 to the Pennyrile interchange, and along the Pennyrile from the WK to Henderson.

So for the work performed in Kentucky so far: $300 million, give or take.

That doesn't include the last remaining "bowtie" interchange at Wingo, mainline modifications from Mayfield to Fulton, or reconfiguring the interchange at the KY/TN state line. Depending on what design that Tennessee comes up with, I can see the interchange at the state line being north of $100 million, and right now no one knows how that bill will be split between Kentucky and Tennessee.

Point is, there was still significant work that had to be done on the Kentucky parkway segments that were incorporated into I-69 before interstate shields could be installed, but it was a lot less costly than building a freeway on new location.
All of that work is still significantly less costly than upgrading 300+ miles of non-limited-access to interstate standards.

Kentucky already had a mainline in place, full control of access, and most overpass bridges. All the work centered around modifying a few of the bridge under crossings and modifying a few interchanges.

Texas, has to build over a hundred new bridges, control the access with hundreds of miles of frontage road, and build probably a hundred new interchanges. Plus major interchange modifications at bypass tie ins, etc.

While Kentucky had to do some work, it wasn’t nearly as much Texas will have for its entire length of I-69 along US-59. The cost of buying right of way, frontage road construction, etc. may well be similar or slightly less than a full new freeway alignment. Comparing Kentucky to Texas isn’t even close.

Perhaps, comparing the full freeway sections of US-59 in place, to the Kentucky parkways, is a better comparison. But non-limited-access is a whole lot different than full control of access.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on March 21, 2023, 01:53:40 PM
Those "bowtie" interchanges looked awfully goofy to me. Were they designed and constructed before standard diamond interchanges became the norm? I would agree that Kentucky had it easy that the parkways already had been constructed, so building 69 was easier than it would have been in other states.
The bowtie interchanges were in place because there were mainline toll plazas where they met up.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: kphoger on March 21, 2023, 02:20:47 PM

Those "bowtie" interchanges looked awfully goofy to me. Were they designed and constructed before standard diamond interchanges became the norm? I would agree that Kentucky had it easy that the parkways already had been constructed, so building 69 was easier than it would have been in other states.

The bowtie interchanges were in place because there were mainline toll plazas where they met up.

To expand on that point, they allowed all toll collection to be done at a single point, under the bridge.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MaxConcrete on April 04, 2023, 01:29:40 PM
The preliminary list of alignment options for the US 77 Odem bypass (northwest of Corpus Christi) has been narrowed to three options.

https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/crp/us-77-odem-area/041323-route-options-screening-rationale.pdf (https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/crp/us-77-odem-area/041323-route-options-screening-rationale.pdf)

Option A is obviously the most sensible, but we can't assume that the most logical and sensible option will be selected.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on April 04, 2023, 04:09:15 PM
^ They’re in the process of reconstructing the US-77 interchange to route the movements to the right side… I would hope they retain that existing connection. The further north option makes no sense.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: StogieGuy7 on April 04, 2023, 04:34:36 PM
I think we can agree that both Kentucky and Texas have it pretty easy on this project when compared with what LA and AR are faced with. Basically, no existing corridor at all so most of it will have to be built from scratch. And that will not happen quickly.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Rick Powell on April 04, 2023, 05:51:54 PM
I think we can agree that both Kentucky and Texas have it pretty easy on this project when compared with what LA and AR are faced with. Basically, no existing corridor at all so most of it will have to be built from scratch. And that will not happen quickly.
Kentucky has it easy because the existing highway is limited access and the needed changes aren't hard to carry out under traffic. However, in the case of Texas, many highway designers would argue it's just as tough, if not tougher, to convert an existing full access highway to a limited access highway, than building a new "greenfield" route.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on April 04, 2023, 06:06:31 PM
Upgrading these non-limited-access highways is certainly not as easy as using existing freeways like Kentucky is able. As far as costs, upgrading existing four lane divided highway is generally cheaper up front, however right of way can be a factor that can sometimes make upgrading more expensive than constructing a new alignment. If there’s a dense amount of houses or businesses on either side, that requires numerous right of way takes that can get expensive.

US-77 / US-59 is beneficial to Texas in many areas having a decent amount of open farmland / forest, or enough buffer, but it still costs more than Kentucky is having to deal with. Construction of frontage roads to fully control access, overpasses, bridge replacements, town bypasses, etc. can add billions of dollars over a significant distance compared to an existing freeway already being there.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on April 04, 2023, 10:39:07 PM
^ They’re in the process of reconstructing the US-77 interchange to route the movements to the right side… I would hope they retain that existing connection. The further north option makes no sense.
And if they decided otherwise, we would probably see hypothetically future former US 77 become Business I-69(E).

Also, thoughts on the central option?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on April 04, 2023, 11:02:20 PM
The A-3 option is the one that makes most logical sense to build. The "B" options are unnecessary. And the farther North "C" option is just stupid. Both the B and C options should just be cancelled out since TX DOT is pretty much re-building the existing I-37/US-77 "Y" interchange.

The A-3 option will be easier to build than the A-2 option. The A-2 option would probably require buying and removing some existing properties next to US-77 immediately SW of Sinton. TX DOT would have limited room to expand the existing 4-lane highway outward without demolishing properties since there is a railroad line on the other side of the road. The A-3 option would be on new terrain parallel to existing US-77, on the South side of the rail line.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: jgb191 on April 05, 2023, 01:23:34 AM
The preliminary list of alignment options for the US 77 Odem bypass (northwest of Corpus Christi) has been narrowed to three options.

https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/crp/us-77-odem-area/041323-route-options-screening-rationale.pdf (https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/crp/us-77-odem-area/041323-route-options-screening-rationale.pdf)

Option A is obviously the most sensible, but we can't assume that the most logical and sensible option will be selected.

A-1 and B-1 are eliminated based on logic....there is no way to build an interstate highway slicing right though Odem, heck they couldn't even build it though Driscoll.  Just upgrade the same four miles between the last Sinton interchange and the first Odem interchange, then build around Odem, and rejoin the last few miles from just south of Odem to I-37.

In Woodsboro, you just might be able to pull off an upgrade of US-77 to interstate standards without the need to build a bypass around the town as practically the whole town's development is to the east of the highway.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on April 05, 2023, 01:26:18 AM
The preliminary list of alignment options for the US 77 Odem bypass (northwest of Corpus Christi) has been narrowed to three options.

https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/crp/us-77-odem-area/041323-route-options-screening-rationale.pdf (https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/crp/us-77-odem-area/041323-route-options-screening-rationale.pdf)

Option A is obviously the most sensible, but we can't assume that the most logical and sensible option will be selected.

A-1 and B-1 are eliminated based on logic....there is no way to build an interstate highway slicing right though Odem, heck they couldn't even build it though Driscoll.  Just upgrade the same four miles between the last Sinton interchange and the first Odem interchange, then build around Odem, and rejoin the last few miles from just south of Odem to I-37.

In Woodsboro, you just might be able to pull off an upgrade of US-77 to interstate standards without the need to build a bypass around the town as practically the whole town's development is to the east of the highway.
Then how were they able to do it with US 281 in Falfurrias?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on April 05, 2023, 01:50:16 AM
I've seen this comparison to Falfurrias come up a few times... let's address it.

While it is true that US-281 was upgraded to full freeway standards along the existing alignment near Falfurrias, this is not comparable to Odem, Refugio, or Driscoll. The "existing alignment" near Falfurrias was constructed in the late 1990s / early 2000s as a bypass of what is now US-281 Business through the downtown / city core. That (US-281 Business) is the roadway that could be compared to the current US-77 through Odem, Refugio, or Driscoll. It was not feasible to upgrade that road.

The bypass built in the late 1990s / early 2000s was only a 5-lane surface road with no control of access, however it was built with a large right of way to accommodate a future freeway upgrade and frontage roads. That is why the "existing" US-281 alignment was upgraded in that particular instance.

Here are aerial images of the US-281 bypass near Falfurrias before and after the freeway upgrade.
(https://i.ibb.co/KrVydZj/Fal2009.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/QchrXbQ/Fal2016.jpg)

There was plenty of room to build a large freeway footprint with minimal disruptions. This is not the case in Odem. The existing US-77 alignment is flanked with businesses and any freeway upgrade would destroy anything along US-77 in town. Odem will be bypassed.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on April 05, 2023, 01:57:43 AM
Just upgrade the same four miles between the last Sinton interchange and the first Odem interchange
One of the issues with that is the right of way constraints on US-77 between the two towns. There are a number of properties that flank the existing US-77 highway to the west, and a railroad line to the east. Any upgrades would involve demolishing at least 20 buildings including two churches.

In this instance, it may be best to build the 3 mile portion on new location and seamlessly tie into an Odem bypass to the east. The portion to the south of Odem to I-37 on the other hand is fully upgradable with minimal disruption, and should be done without question.

Quote
In Woodsboro, you just might be able to pull off an upgrade of US-77 to interstate standards without the need to build a bypass around the town as practically the whole town's development is to the east of the highway.
TxDOT did a study on the Woodsboro-Refugio portion of the route around 5 years ago, and all the alternatives for the Refugio bypass included upgrading the existing highway near Woodsboro.

Woodsboro-Refugio Study Website: https://www.txdot.gov/projects/projects-studies/corpus-christi/us77-woodsboro-refugio.html
Refugio Bypass Routes: https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/crp/us77-woodsboro-refugio/050318-potential-routes.pdf (I believe the eastern route was the preferred alternative).
Schematic of Woodsboro upgrade: https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/crp/us77-woodsboro-refugio/050318-prosposed-route.pdf

Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on April 05, 2023, 02:01:56 AM
Just upgrade the same four miles between the last Sinton interchange and the first Odem interchange
One of the issues with that is the right of way constraints on US-77 between the two towns. There are a number of properties that flank the existing US-77 highway to the west, and a railroad line to the east. Any upgrades would involve demolishing at least 20 buildings including two churches.

In this instance, it may be best to build the 3 mile portion on new location and seamlessly tie into an Odem bypass to the east. The portion to the south of Odem to I-37 on the other hand is fully upgradable with minimal disruption, and should be done without question.

Quote
In Woodsboro, you just might be able to pull off an upgrade of US-77 to interstate standards without the need to build a bypass around the town as practically the whole town's development is to the east of the highway.
TxDOT did a study on the Woodsboro-Refugio portion of the route around 5 years ago, and all the alternatives for the Refugio bypass included upgrading the existing highway near Woodsboro.

Woodsboro-Refugio Study Website: https://www.txdot.gov/projects/projects-studies/corpus-christi/us77-woodsboro-refugio.html
Refugio Bypass Routes: https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/crp/us77-woodsboro-refugio/050318-potential-routes.pdf (I believe the eastern route was the preferred alternative).
Schematic of Woodsboro upgrade: https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/crp/us77-woodsboro-refugio/050318-prosposed-route.pdf
Why can’t we just demolish the railline and relocate it?  :-D


Just joking.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: kphoger on April 06, 2023, 03:00:27 PM
Why can’t we just demolish the railline and relocate it?  :-D

Just joking.

Not as crazy as it sounds.  It's been done before.  I'm thinking of US-12 west of Wayzata, MN.  But it's not exactly cheap or obstacle-free.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: J N Winkler on April 06, 2023, 03:43:18 PM
Why can’t we just demolish the railline and relocate it?  :-D

Just joking.

Not as crazy as it sounds.  It's been done before.  I'm thinking of US-12 west of Wayzata, MN.  But it's not exactly cheap or obstacle-free.

Another example is the K-18 freeway expansion west of Manhattan, which was done in the late 2000's/early 2010's.  It involved relocating a length of rail line (part of the Union Pacific's Salina subdivision) to the south in order to make room for a diamond interchange (https://www.google.com/maps/@39.135353,-96.670478,14.62z) at West 56th Street to serve the Manhattan Regional Airport.  The construction plans sets for one of the three major contracts included one for the rail work, with the UP's red-white-blue shield logo on the title sheet.  The length involved was about one mile.

I suspect it will come down to a comparison of the cost and difficulty of three alternatives:

*  Acquiring property (including structures) to run I-69E along the west side of the existing railroad line

*  Relocating the railroad so that I-69E can be built partially in the existing rail footprint with minimum ROW acquisition to the west

*  Building I-69E to the east of the railroad

Personally, I think the third is the most plausible, though it seems a shame to waste two lanes of highly improved roadway on the west side.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on April 06, 2023, 04:14:32 PM
^ It almost reminds me of I-27 in a lot of places… the existing highway that was bypassed was largely 4 lanes divided.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on April 07, 2023, 10:50:37 AM
One bright side to building the A-3 option: they won't have to build flanking frontage roads alongside the new freeway between Odem and Sinton. The existing US-77 highway could sort of serve that purpose.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: jgb191 on April 10, 2023, 01:12:28 AM
At this point for US-77 between Victoria and Brownsville, the only towns that need bypasses built around are Refugio, Odem, and Riviera.  I don't believe there will be a need to go around Woodsboro, Ricardo, and Sarita; those towns can use the existing US-77 to be upgraded to interstate standards.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on April 10, 2023, 08:43:41 AM
At this point for US-77 between Victoria and Brownsville, the only towns that need bypasses built around are Refugio, Odem, and Riviera.  I don't believe there will be a need to go around Woodsboro, Ricardo, and Sarita; those towns can use the existing US-77 to be upgraded to interstate standards.
Ricardo is already under construction, Woodsboro is set to be upgraded per the schematics I posted just a few posts back, and Sarita is already up to freeway standards.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on April 10, 2023, 11:25:55 PM
The I-69E upgrade thru Ricardo will be fairly easy. Sarita has one freeway exit in the middle of town, but needs more work on the North and South sides. Again, US-77 has a wide existing ROW thru there. Riviera and Refugio will require new terrain bypasses.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: abqtraveler on April 12, 2023, 09:02:17 PM
The I-69E upgrade thru Ricardo will be fairly easy. Sarita has one freeway exit in the middle of town, but needs more work on the North and South sides. Again, US-77 has a wide existing ROW thru there. Riviera and Refugio will require new terrain bypasses.
I think TxDOT is looking at letting a contract for the Riviera Bypass within the next couple of years.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: abqtraveler on April 13, 2023, 09:17:11 AM
An announcement posted by the Federal Highway Administration states that $14 million in funding has been awarded to TxDOT to replace the US Highway 59 Bridge over the San Antonio River near Goliad.  I'm curious as to whether TxDOT will simply replace this bridge with a like structure in its place, or use this as an opportunity to design the new bridge to accommodate future expansion for I-69.

https://highways.dot.gov/newsroom/biden-harris-administration-announces-nearly-300-million-9-bridge-projects-part-investing

Below is a link to a GSV of the bridge that will be replaced.

https://www.google.com/maps/@28.6501967,-97.4340298,3a,90y,72.96h,72.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sM8RJHPNP4PiophvNB_ybZQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Rick Powell on April 13, 2023, 10:56:33 AM
An announcement posted by the Federal Highway Administration states that $14 million in funding has been awarded to TxDOT to replace the US Highway 59 Bridge over the San Antonio River near Goliad.  I'm curious as to whether TxDOT will simply replace this bridge with a like structure in its place, or use this as an opportunity to design the new bridge to accommodate future expansion for I-69.

I think $14M buys you a 4-lane (or 2- 2 lane) bridges here. The apparent right of way would need to be expanded to fit an I-69 ready section, thus we'd expect a completed or in-progress environmental study to clear it if they are going for an expanded version.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on April 13, 2023, 11:04:32 AM
^ I could see them replacing it with a two-lane bridge for now… the traffic volumes do not warrant 4 lanes let alone interstate cross section. In the future, they could twin the bridge if widening is desired later.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MaxConcrete on April 19, 2023, 01:54:02 PM
I drove from Nacogdoches to Houston on Monday. Observations:

* On the south end of Nacogdoches, the main lanes look substantially complete but plenty of work still remains on the ends when the new route connects to the existing road
http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20230416-17_193-1600.jpg (http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20230416-17_193-1600.jpg)
(http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20230416-17_193-1600.jpg)

* There is some frontage road construction in progress just north of Lufkin, and on the northeast side of the existing loop (photo).
http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20230416-17_196-1600.jpg (http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20230416-17_196-1600.jpg)
(http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20230416-17_196-1600.jpg)

* Work on the Diboll bypass is proceeding well. I think it will be open in less than 2 years. This view is at FM 1818 on the east side of Diboll
http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20230416-17_200-1600.jpg (http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20230416-17_200-1600.jpg)
(http://dallasfreeways.com/dfwfreeways/AARoads/20230416-17_200-1600.jpg)

* There is no sign of any work underway on the Corrigan bypass at the ends where it connects to the existing highway. I did not go west on US 287 to look for any evidence on the west side of Corrigan.

* Between Corrigan and Cleveland there are areas where right-of-way is cleared, but no work in progress.

* The new 3x3 main lanes on the south side of Cleveland are fully open, and it looks like all construction is complete on that section. I don't know when the main lanes opened (it may not be recent), but the last time I drove through there was still a lot of work to be done.

My impression from driving this section is always there same: there is a tremendous amount of work to be done north of Cleveland to get to 100% interstate standards, and it's going to take a long time and a lot of money.

Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MaxConcrete on April 27, 2023, 08:16:04 PM
Public meeting is posted for upgrading 6 miles, from the north end of Shepherd to the Trinity River. This is 56 miles north of downtown Houston.
https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/lufkin/us59-042723.html (https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/lufkin/us59-042723.html)

Observations
* Main lanes are 2x2, including the planned new Trinity River bridge.
* Corridor is planned to be 500 feet wide, which is extra wide by usual TxDOT standards. The existing corridor is 190 feet wide, so 310 feet more is needed. The center median is 92 feet wide, and the schematic shows the potential future third lane in each direction.
* The northbound frontage road is continuous to the Trinity River, but does not cross the river. The southbound frontage road is continuous south of the river, except for a missing section on the north side of Shepherd.
* Unfortunately construction is scheduled to start in 2029.
 
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on April 28, 2023, 01:05:35 AM
For Texas, the 100 foot median with a future 6 lane still maintaining a 76 foot median is surprising… especially given their recent love for narrow cross sections. Very much appreciate the wider design here!

While I understand the mentality is upgrading north of Houston and working north one segment at a time… I wish they’d just leave these rural areas alone for now… outside the town bypasses, the divided highway functions largely adequate with no traffic signals and 75 mph.

They need to focus on the town bypasses, then north of Nacogdoches where it’s still a “poor boy”  4 lane or 5 lane section. That should be the priority, tying into the existing divided highway portions to the south. Then lastly, upgrade the divided highway to full interstate.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MaxConcrete on May 13, 2023, 03:25:04 PM
TxDOT is soliciting consultants to prepare plans for upgrading US 59 to interstate standards from Texarkana south to Queen City (16 miles)

See page 17 for map
https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/ppd/meetings/051223/presentation.pdf (https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/ppd/meetings/051223/presentation.pdf)

The document mentions that I-69 will follow the existing corridor. Soonest possible construction start is 2030.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Plutonic Panda on May 13, 2023, 03:34:20 PM
Sorry if this has already been discussed but is I-369 going to become I-69? And will I-69 be signed concurrently with I-30 for a bit? I guess I didn’t realize how much of a gap there is with I-69 between Indiana and Texas until looking at it.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MaxConcrete on May 13, 2023, 03:53:58 PM
Sorry if this has already been discussed but is I-369 going to become I-69? And will I-69 be signed concurrently with I-30 for a bit? I guess I didn’t realize how much of a gap there is with I-69 between Indiana and Texas until looking at it.

Page 17 of the document says "Once US 59 is constructed to meet interstate standards through these sections, it can be redesignated as I-369".

That sounds to me like there are no plans for I-369 to become I-69.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: edwaleni on May 13, 2023, 07:32:49 PM
Sorry if this has already been discussed but is I-369 going to become I-69? And will I-69 be signed concurrently with I-30 for a bit? I guess I didn’t realize how much of a gap there is with I-69 between Indiana and Texas until looking at it.

Page 17 of the document says "Once US 59 is constructed to meet interstate standards through these sections, it can be redesignated as I-369".

That sounds to me like there are no plans for I-369 to become I-69.

I-369 (I thought) is a Tenaha to Texarkana naming convention. I-69 will probably reach Tenaha with I-369 ramps to the north and sit with ghost ramps to the east until Louisiana decides when.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: cjk374 on May 13, 2023, 10:35:07 PM
Sorry if this has already been discussed but is I-369 going to become I-69? And will I-69 be signed concurrently with I-30 for a bit? I guess I didn’t realize how much of a gap there is with I-69 between Indiana and Texas until looking at it.

Page 17 of the document says "Once US 59 is constructed to meet interstate standards through these sections, it can be redesignated as I-369".

That sounds to me like there are no plans for I-369 to become I-69.

I-369 (I thought) is a Tenaha to Texarkana naming convention. I-69 will probably reach Tenaha with I-369 ramps to the north and sit with ghost ramps to the east until Louisiana decides when planet Earth is overtaken by our sun's supernova.

FTFY
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on May 14, 2023, 02:10:07 AM
Sorry if this has already been discussed but is I-369 going to become I-69? And will I-69 be signed concurrently with I-30 for a bit? I guess I didn’t realize how much of a gap there is with I-69 between Indiana and Texas until looking at it.
Actually, I-69 departs from US 59 at the US 84 intersection in Tenaha. It will then enter Louisiana.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bwana39 on May 14, 2023, 04:57:15 PM
Sorry if this has already been discussed but is I-369 going to become I-69? And will I-69 be signed concurrently with I-30 for a bit? I guess I didn’t realize how much of a gap there is with I-69 between Indiana and Texas until looking at it.
Actually, I-69 departs from US 59 at the US 84 intersection in Tenaha. It will then enter Louisiana.

There is still a lot of debate about exactly where this is going to happen. The consensus location right now seems to be that US 59/ I-69 would loop to the north of Timpson and Teneha and meet up with the current US-59 near Woods Community. I-369 would go north from there and I-69 would proceed into Louisiana.

This requires the fewest Louisiana miles to reach I-49. All the bridges across the Sabine River would be completely in Texas and it actually is shorter than the US-84 tracking route.

The folks in Mansfield prefer the US-84 route because it would skirt just north of Mansfield (Desoto Parish Seat). I really don't think Mansfield and DeSoto Parish have enough clout for it to really make any long-term difference.

There is absolutely nothing finalized or even firm after the northeast boundary of Nacogdoches County. (Garrison). Even on I-369 about the only thing set in stone is the Marshall bypass.  It is assumed most of the rural stretches will follow US-59, but...

As to Louisiana, I really don't see them building ANY of I-69 except perhaps the parts between I-49 and US-71 (or maybe  I-20) in the next 35 years.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: edwaleni on May 14, 2023, 05:47:48 PM
Sorry if this has already been discussed but is I-369 going to become I-69? And will I-69 be signed concurrently with I-30 for a bit? I guess I didn’t realize how much of a gap there is with I-69 between Indiana and Texas until looking at it.
Actually, I-69 departs from US 59 at the US 84 intersection in Tenaha. It will then enter Louisiana.

There is still a lot of debate about exactly where this is going to happen. The consensus location right now seems to be that US 59/ I-69 would loop to the north of Timpson and Teneha and meet up with the current US-59 near Woods Community. I-369 would go north from there and I-69 would proceed into Louisiana.

This requires the fewest Louisiana miles to reach I-49. All the bridges across the Sabine River would be completely in Texas and it actually is shorter than the US-84 tracking route.

The folks in Mansfield prefer the US-84 route because it would skirt just north of Mansfield. I really don't think Mansfield and DeSoto Parish have enough clout for it to really make any long-term difference.

There is absolutely nothing finalized or even firm after the northeast boundary of Nacogdoches County. (Garrison). Even on I-369 about the only thing set in stone is the Marshall bypass.  It is assumed most of the rural stretches will follow US-59, but...

As to Louisiana, I really don't see them building ANY of I-69 except perhaps the parts between I-49 and US-71 (or maybe  I-20) in the next 35 years.

They talked about building a "frontage road" which would essentially establish the center line as far as Stonewall in SIU 15. But thats as far as its gotten.

They have years and years of unspent earmarks stacking up in the Federal Budget, but they said SIU 14 and 15 alone would cost $2 billion and the earmarks haven't even reached half of that. (not including SIU 16)

When asked about SIU 16 they said Texas hasn't taken any action on their side, that they are stretched thin as it is. 

I figure they will cross the state line somewhere near the historical Texas-US international boundary marker from 1842.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bwana39 on May 14, 2023, 08:41:46 PM
Sorry if this has already been discussed but is I-369 going to become I-69? And will I-69 be signed concurrently with I-30 for a bit? I guess I didn’t realize how much of a gap there is with I-69 between Indiana and Texas until looking at it.
Actually, I-69 departs from US 59 at the US 84 intersection in Tenaha. It will then enter Louisiana.

There is still a lot of debate about exactly where this is going to happen. The consensus location right now seems to be that US 59/ I-69 would loop to the north of Timpson and Teneha and meet up with the current US-59 near Woods Community. I-369 would go north from there and I-69 would proceed into Louisiana.

This requires the fewest Louisiana miles to reach I-49. All the bridges across the Sabine River would be completely in Texas and it actually is shorter than the US-84 tracking route.

The folks in Mansfield prefer the US-84 route because it would skirt just north of Mansfield. I really don't think Mansfield and DeSoto Parish have enough clout for it to really make any long-term difference.

There is absolutely nothing finalized or even firm after the northeast boundary of Nacogdoches County. (Garrison). Even on I-369 about the only thing set in stone is the Marshall bypass.  It is assumed most of the rural stretches will follow US-59, but...

As to Louisiana, I really don't see them building ANY of I-69 except perhaps the parts between I-49 and US-71 (or maybe  I-20) in the next 35 years.

They talked about building a "frontage road" which would essentially establish the center line as far as Stonewall in SIU 15. But thats as far as its gotten.

They have years and years of unspent earmarks stacking up in the Federal Budget, but they said SIU 14 and 15 alone would cost $2 billion and the earmarks haven't even reached half of that. (not including SIU 16)

When asked about SIU 16 they said Texas hasn't taken any action on their side, that they are stretched thin as it is. 

I figure they will cross the state line somewhere near the historical Texas-US international boundary marker from 1842.

The "frontage road" would only extend from I-49 to the river / LA-1.  Locally, it seems to be on the radar.
There is an investment group in the planning stage to build a toll bridge across the river. It may or may not wind up being part of the I-69 facility.

I don't disagree with your assessment of where the crossing from Texas to Louisiana is likely. It might fall a couple of miles further north, but just that: 2-3 miles.  The Louisiana folks probably want it further south,but the river bottom is pretty wide just north of Haslam.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on May 15, 2023, 07:41:47 PM
Louisiana DOT just needs to copy what AR DOT did with its two (disconnected) segments of AR-530 to the South of Pine Bluff. Just build a Super 2 road with temporary at grade intersections in order to establish and preserve the right of way. That way it can be "double barreled" in the future without any difficulty. A future Interstate does not always need to be flanked by frontage roads. If the road is built on a new terrain alignment across a rural area it should be relatively simple to control or even prevent any new development along side the route ROW.

Perhaps some of the problem in Louisiana is budgetary issues. But I suspect it also has to do with some poor planning and lawmakers simply being far more interested in other priorities.

Still, I do not believe at all that the I-69 designation would be routed up thru Texarkana. Our national highway network map already has lots of odd goofs on it. A really long I-369 route and not-finished I-69 route would just be "more of the same."

Random thought: I had to do a face-palm while watching news coverage of storms in Southern Texas this weekend. They referred to I-69 in the Houston area as "I-59." Either call it US-59 or I-69. Not that other crap.
 :-/
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: abqtraveler on May 15, 2023, 07:58:15 PM
Louisiana DOT just needs to copy what AR DOT did with its two (disconnected) segments of AR-530 to the South of Pine Bluff. Just build a Super 2 road with temporary at grade intersections in order to establish and preserve the right of way. That way it can be "double barreled" in the future without any difficulty. A future Interstate does not always need to be flanked by frontage roads. If the road is built on a new terrain alignment across a rural area it should be relatively simple to control or even prevent any new development along side the route ROW.

Perhaps some of the problem in Louisiana is budgetary issues. But I suspect it also has to do with some poor planning and lawmakers simply being far more interested in other priorities.

Still, I do not believe at all that the I-69 designation would be routed up thru Texarkana. Our national highway network map already has lots of odd goofs on it. A really long I-369 route and not-finished I-69 route would just be "more of the same."

Random thought: I had to do a face-palm while watching news coverage of storms in Southern Texas this weekend. They referred to I-69 in the Houston area as "I-59." Either call it US-59 or I-69. Not that other crap.
 :-/
The problem with Louisiana is that the state's needs for the existing highway--let alone new highway construction--far outstrip the available funding. Several major projects on existing interstates are being prioritized over I-69: new I-10 bridges over the Mississippi River at Baton Rouge and further west over the Atchafalaya Swamp; reconstruction of I-20 through Bossier City, to name a few.  And then there's completing I-49 between Lafayette and New Orleans, and the Inner-City Connector through Shreveport that will come ahead of any major portion of I-69 through the state.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bwana39 on May 15, 2023, 08:26:31 PM

The problem with Louisiana is that the state's needs for the existing highway--let alone new highway construction--far outstrip the available funding. Several major projects on existing interstates are being prioritized over I-69: new I-10 bridges over the Mississippi River at Baton Rouge and further west over the Atchafalaya Swamp; reconstruction of I-20 through Bossier City, to name a few.  And then there's completing I-49 between Lafayette and New Orleans, and the Inner-City Connector through Shreveport that will come ahead of any major portion of I-69 through the state.

I agree with all of this EXCEPT the I-10 Mississippi River Bridge. While there are proposals to build additional metro Baton Rouge Bridges, The I-10 bridge being upgraded seems to be nowhere. A new bridge southeast of Baton Rouge or a New Bridge north of Port Allen are in the discussions.  But I do agree that one if not both will assuredly come ahead of I-69.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MaxConcrete on May 15, 2023, 08:53:49 PM

The problem with Louisiana is that the state's needs for the existing highway--let alone new highway construction--far outstrip the available funding. Several major projects on existing interstates are being prioritized over I-69: new I-10 bridges over the Mississippi River at Baton Rouge and further west over the Atchafalaya Swamp; reconstruction of I-20 through Bossier City, to name a few.  And then there's completing I-49 between Lafayette and New Orleans, and the Inner-City Connector through Shreveport that will come ahead of any major portion of I-69 through the state.

Also, Louisiana can't afford a new bridge for I-10 in Lake Charles, so now it is planned to be tolled. This is in spite of the fact that the new bridge has a substantially lower vertical clearance (73') than the existing bridge (135').

I'm not aware of any other toll-free interstates being tolled, although I have read reports of multiple studies in other states. The new bridge toll would be $2.88 in 2021 dollars for local traffic, and through traffic (mostly Texans) would be hit with higher tolls.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on May 15, 2023, 09:02:37 PM
I'm not aware of any other toll-free interstates being tolled, although I have read reports of multiple studies in other states. The new bridge toll would be $2.88 in 2021 dollars for local traffic, and through traffic (mostly Texans) would be hit with higher tolls.
In Virginia, the I-264 Downtown Tunnel between Norfolk and Portsmouth began tolling in 2014 after being toll-free since 1990, to help fund construction of a second Midtown Tunnel on another roadway altogether (US-58).

Not interstate, but in the same region, a standard non-controlled-access two lane road, US-17 Dominion Blvd had a draw bridge over the Elizabeth River in Chesapeake replaced by a four lane high-level fixed span bridge & upgraded to an interstate-standard freeway, and is now tolled.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: abqtraveler on May 16, 2023, 08:24:08 AM

I'm not aware of any other toll-free interstates being tolled, although I have read reports of multiple studies in other states. The new bridge toll would be $2.88 in 2021 dollars for local traffic, and through traffic (mostly Texans) would be hit with higher tolls.
The I-65 bridge over the Ohio River between Louisville, Kentucky and southern Indiana used to be toll-free.  Following its reconstruction last decade, it is now tolled. Kentucky and Ohio are looking at taking a similar approach to reconstructing the Brent Spence Bridge, also over the Ohio River, but further east.

Also last decade, the State of Rhode Island reconstructed the bridge that carried RI-24 over the Sakonnet River. The original bridge was toll-free, but the replacement bridge was initially tolled for about a year before tolling was discontinued.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on May 16, 2023, 01:05:20 PM
Kentucky and Ohio are looking at taking a similar approach to reconstructing the Brent Spence Bridge, also over the Ohio River, but further east.
I thought that bridge was not going to be tolled.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: abqtraveler on May 16, 2023, 04:27:59 PM
Kentucky and Ohio are looking at taking a similar approach to reconstructing the Brent Spence Bridge, also over the Ohio River, but further east.
I thought that bridge was not going to be tolled.
Maybe they changed their mind, but last I heard the Brent Spence will be tolled following its reconstruction.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on May 16, 2023, 06:41:36 PM
Louisiana DOT just needs to copy what AR DOT did with its two (disconnected) segments of AR-530 to the South of Pine Bluff. Just build a Super 2 road with temporary at grade intersections in order to establish and preserve the right of way. That way it can be "double barreled" in the future without any difficulty. A future Interstate does not always need to be flanked by frontage roads. If the road is built on a new terrain alignment across a rural area it should be relatively simple to control or even prevent any new development along side the route ROW.

Perhaps some of the problem in Louisiana is budgetary issues. But I suspect it also has to do with some poor planning and lawmakers simply being far more interested in other priorities.

Still, I do not believe at all that the I-69 designation would be routed up thru Texarkana. Our national highway network map already has lots of odd goofs on it. A really long I-369 route and not-finished I-69 route would just be "more of the same."

Random thought: I had to do a face-palm while watching news coverage of storms in Southern Texas this weekend. They referred to I-69 in the Houston area as "I-59." Either call it US-59 or I-69. Not that other crap.
 :-/
The problem with Louisiana is that the state's needs for the existing highway--let alone new highway construction--far outstrip the available funding. Several major projects on existing interstates are being prioritized over I-69: new I-10 bridges over the Mississippi River at Baton Rouge and further west over the Atchafalaya Swamp; reconstruction of I-20 through Bossier City, to name a few.  And then there's completing I-49 between Lafayette and New Orleans, and the Inner-City Connector through Shreveport that will come ahead of any major portion of I-69 through the state.

There are NO plans to add a twin span to the I-10 Mississippi River bridge through Baton Rouge. The current plan for widening I-10 through BTR only involve adding a lane in either direction between LA 415 and the I-10/I-12 Split (keeping the existing bridge alignment), modifying local access between the I-110 Split and Dalyrmple Drive, and removing the Perkins Road interchange.  I-49 South (including I-49 through Lafayette) and the I-10 Calcasieu River bridge in Lake Charles are the highest priorities right now. Also, there are NO plans for widening I-10 through the Atchafalaya Swamp right now. Filling the gap of I-49 through Shreveport is the next priority. I-69 through Louisiana can wait until more of I-69/I-369 through Texas is completed, and Arkansas and Mississippi make up their minds whether they want their section of I-69.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: abqtraveler on May 17, 2023, 10:02:42 AM
Louisiana DOT just needs to copy what AR DOT did with its two (disconnected) segments of AR-530 to the South of Pine Bluff. Just build a Super 2 road with temporary at grade intersections in order to establish and preserve the right of way. That way it can be "double barreled" in the future without any difficulty. A future Interstate does not always need to be flanked by frontage roads. If the road is built on a new terrain alignment across a rural area it should be relatively simple to control or even prevent any new development along side the route ROW.

Perhaps some of the problem in Louisiana is budgetary issues. But I suspect it also has to do with some poor planning and lawmakers simply being far more interested in other priorities.

Still, I do not believe at all that the I-69 designation would be routed up thru Texarkana. Our national highway network map already has lots of odd goofs on it. A really long I-369 route and not-finished I-69 route would just be "more of the same."

Random thought: I had to do a face-palm while watching news coverage of storms in Southern Texas this weekend. They referred to I-69 in the Houston area as "I-59." Either call it US-59 or I-69. Not that other crap.
 :-/
The problem with Louisiana is that the state's needs for the existing highway--let alone new highway construction--far outstrip the available funding. Several major projects on existing interstates are being prioritized over I-69: new I-10 bridges over the Mississippi River at Baton Rouge and further west over the Atchafalaya Swamp; reconstruction of I-20 through Bossier City, to name a few.  And then there's completing I-49 between Lafayette and New Orleans, and the Inner-City Connector through Shreveport that will come ahead of any major portion of I-69 through the state.

There are NO plans to add a twin span to the I-10 Mississippi River bridge through Baton Rouge. The current plan for widening I-10 through BTR only involve adding a lane in either direction between LA 415 and the I-10/I-12 Split (keeping the existing bridge alignment), modifying local access between the I-110 Split and Dalyrmple Drive, and removing the Perkins Road interchange.  I-49 South (including I-49 through Lafayette) and the I-10 Calcasieu River bridge in Lake Charles are the highest priorities right now. Also, there are NO plans for widening I-10 through the Atchafalaya Swamp right now. Filling the gap of I-49 through Shreveport is the next priority. I-69 through Louisiana can wait until more of I-69/I-369 through Texas is completed, and Arkansas and Mississippi make up their minds whether they want their section of I-69.
Arkansas is building their section of I-69, but at glacial speed. They just broke ground on another section between US-278 east of Monticello and AR-293. Next will be the section between AR-293 and US-65. After the initial 2-lane buildouts are finished for those sections, work is expected to shift to the western section of the Monticello Bypass, but that's years away. 

Mississippi is just broke and the political will is not there to raise the required revenue to maintain its existing roads and bridges, let alone build I-69. So don't hold your breath on Mississippi doing anything with I-69 any time soon.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: I-55 on May 18, 2023, 09:34:26 PM
Kentucky and Ohio are looking at taking a similar approach to reconstructing the Brent Spence Bridge, also over the Ohio River, but further east.
I thought that bridge was not going to be tolled.
Maybe they changed their mind, but last I heard the Brent Spence will be tolled following its reconstruction.
Last time I remember anyone talking about tolling on this bridge was when Matt Bevin lost his gubernatorial reelection (partly for saying the bridge would be tolled). I think the tolling decision won't be made until absolutely necessary depending on the amount of funding received. At the time it seemed like they would need tolls to fund the bridge but with the new infrastructure package who knows how much they'll need. Probably will still need a significant amount, but not as bad as before.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Henry on May 18, 2023, 10:14:21 PM
Louisiana DOT just needs to copy what AR DOT did with its two (disconnected) segments of AR-530 to the South of Pine Bluff. Just build a Super 2 road with temporary at grade intersections in order to establish and preserve the right of way. That way it can be "double barreled" in the future without any difficulty. A future Interstate does not always need to be flanked by frontage roads. If the road is built on a new terrain alignment across a rural area it should be relatively simple to control or even prevent any new development along side the route ROW.

Perhaps some of the problem in Louisiana is budgetary issues. But I suspect it also has to do with some poor planning and lawmakers simply being far more interested in other priorities.

Still, I do not believe at all that the I-69 designation would be routed up thru Texarkana. Our national highway network map already has lots of odd goofs on it. A really long I-369 route and not-finished I-69 route would just be "more of the same."

Random thought: I had to do a face-palm while watching news coverage of storms in Southern Texas this weekend. They referred to I-69 in the Houston area as "I-59." Either call it US-59 or I-69. Not that other crap.
 :-/
The problem with Louisiana is that the state's needs for the existing highway--let alone new highway construction--far outstrip the available funding. Several major projects on existing interstates are being prioritized over I-69: new I-10 bridges over the Mississippi River at Baton Rouge and further west over the Atchafalaya Swamp; reconstruction of I-20 through Bossier City, to name a few.  And then there's completing I-49 between Lafayette and New Orleans, and the Inner-City Connector through Shreveport that will come ahead of any major portion of I-69 through the state.

There are NO plans to add a twin span to the I-10 Mississippi River bridge through Baton Rouge. The current plan for widening I-10 through BTR only involve adding a lane in either direction between LA 415 and the I-10/I-12 Split (keeping the existing bridge alignment), modifying local access between the I-110 Split and Dalyrmple Drive, and removing the Perkins Road interchange.  I-49 South (including I-49 through Lafayette) and the I-10 Calcasieu River bridge in Lake Charles are the highest priorities right now. Also, there are NO plans for widening I-10 through the Atchafalaya Swamp right now. Filling the gap of I-49 through Shreveport is the next priority. I-69 through Louisiana can wait until more of I-69/I-369 through Texas is completed, and Arkansas and Mississippi make up their minds whether they want their section of I-69.
Arkansas is building their section of I-69, but at glacial speed. They just broke ground on another section between US-278 east of Monticello and AR-293. Next will be the section between AR-293 and US-65. After the initial 2-lane buildouts are finished for those sections, work is expected to shift to the western section of the Monticello Bypass, but that's years away. 

Mississippi is just broke and the political will is not there to raise the required revenue to maintain its existing roads and bridges, let alone build I-69. So don't hold your breath on Mississippi doing anything with I-69 any time soon.
TN is also doing a half-assed job in completing its sections of I-69. AFAIK, Memphis to Dyersburg has not been worked on yet, and neither has the connection to KY. At least the Union City bypass is being built, although it's taking forever to get it done.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: abqtraveler on May 19, 2023, 09:17:19 AM
Louisiana DOT just needs to copy what AR DOT did with its two (disconnected) segments of AR-530 to the South of Pine Bluff. Just build a Super 2 road with temporary at grade intersections in order to establish and preserve the right of way. That way it can be "double barreled" in the future without any difficulty. A future Interstate does not always need to be flanked by frontage roads. If the road is built on a new terrain alignment across a rural area it should be relatively simple to control or even prevent any new development along side the route ROW.

Perhaps some of the problem in Louisiana is budgetary issues. But I suspect it also has to do with some poor planning and lawmakers simply being far more interested in other priorities.

Still, I do not believe at all that the I-69 designation would be routed up thru Texarkana. Our national highway network map already has lots of odd goofs on it. A really long I-369 route and not-finished I-69 route would just be "more of the same."

Random thought: I had to do a face-palm while watching news coverage of storms in Southern Texas this weekend. They referred to I-69 in the Houston area as "I-59." Either call it US-59 or I-69. Not that other crap.
 :-/
The problem with Louisiana is that the state's needs for the existing highway--let alone new highway construction--far outstrip the available funding. Several major projects on existing interstates are being prioritized over I-69: new I-10 bridges over the Mississippi River at Baton Rouge and further west over the Atchafalaya Swamp; reconstruction of I-20 through Bossier City, to name a few.  And then there's completing I-49 between Lafayette and New Orleans, and the Inner-City Connector through Shreveport that will come ahead of any major portion of I-69 through the state.

There are NO plans to add a twin span to the I-10 Mississippi River bridge through Baton Rouge. The current plan for widening I-10 through BTR only involve adding a lane in either direction between LA 415 and the I-10/I-12 Split (keeping the existing bridge alignment), modifying local access between the I-110 Split and Dalyrmple Drive, and removing the Perkins Road interchange.  I-49 South (including I-49 through Lafayette) and the I-10 Calcasieu River bridge in Lake Charles are the highest priorities right now. Also, there are NO plans for widening I-10 through the Atchafalaya Swamp right now. Filling the gap of I-49 through Shreveport is the next priority. I-69 through Louisiana can wait until more of I-69/I-369 through Texas is completed, and Arkansas and Mississippi make up their minds whether they want their section of I-69.
Arkansas is building their section of I-69, but at glacial speed. They just broke ground on another section between US-278 east of Monticello and AR-293. Next will be the section between AR-293 and US-65. After the initial 2-lane buildouts are finished for those sections, work is expected to shift to the western section of the Monticello Bypass, but that's years away. 

Mississippi is just broke and the political will is not there to raise the required revenue to maintain its existing roads and bridges, let alone build I-69. So don't hold your breath on Mississippi doing anything with I-69 any time soon.
TN is also doing a half-assed job in completing its sections of I-69. AFAIK, Memphis to Dyersburg has not been worked on yet, and neither has the connection to KY. At least the Union City bypass is being built, although it's taking forever to get it done.
Tennessee has been waiting on Kentucky to finish their upgrades to the Purchase Parkway and completion of the bypass around Union City before they will do anything about the interchange at the state line. At least the good news is that Kentucky is now working on upgrading the final 14 miles of the Purchase Parkway to interstate standards, which includes converting the last "bowtie" interchange at Wingo to a standard diamond configuration. With that and the bypass around Union City opening in the next couple of years, I think we'll see Tennessee shift their focus to the South Fulton interchange and the bypass around Troy.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bwana39 on May 19, 2023, 11:42:48 AM
Louisiana DOT just needs to copy what AR DOT did with its two (disconnected) segments of AR-530 to the South of Pine Bluff. Just build a Super 2 road with temporary at grade intersections in order to establish and preserve the right of way. That way it can be "double barreled" in the future without any difficulty. A future Interstate does not always need to be flanked by frontage roads. If the road is built on a new terrain alignment across a rural area it should be relatively simple to control or even prevent any new development along side the route ROW.

Perhaps some of the problem in Louisiana is budgetary issues. But I suspect it also has to do with some poor planning and lawmakers simply being far more interested in other priorities.

Still, I do not believe at all that the I-69 designation would be routed up thru Texarkana. Our national highway network map already has lots of odd goofs on it. A really long I-369 route and not-finished I-69 route would just be "more of the same."

Random thought: I had to do a face-palm while watching news coverage of storms in Southern Texas this weekend. They referred to I-69 in the Houston area as "I-59." Either call it US-59 or I-69. Not that other crap.
 :-/
The problem with Louisiana is that the state's needs for the existing highway--let alone new highway construction--far outstrip the available funding. Several major projects on existing interstates are being prioritized over I-69: new I-10 bridges over the Mississippi River at Baton Rouge and further west over the Atchafalaya Swamp; reconstruction of I-20 through Bossier City, to name a few.  And then there's completing I-49 between Lafayette and New Orleans, and the Inner-City Connector through Shreveport that will come ahead of any major portion of I-69 through the state.

There are NO plans to add a twin span to the I-10 Mississippi River bridge through Baton Rouge. The current plan for widening I-10 through BTR only involve adding a lane in either direction between LA 415 and the I-10/I-12 Split (keeping the existing bridge alignment), modifying local access between the I-110 Split and Dalyrmple Drive, and removing the Perkins Road interchange.  I-49 South (including I-49 through Lafayette) and the I-10 Calcasieu River bridge in Lake Charles are the highest priorities right now. Also, there are NO plans for widening I-10 through the Atchafalaya Swamp right now. Filling the gap of I-49 through Shreveport is the next priority. I-69 through Louisiana can wait until more of I-69/I-369 through Texas is completed, and Arkansas and Mississippi make up their minds whether they want their section of I-69.
Arkansas is building their section of I-69, but at glacial speed. They just broke ground on another section between US-278 east of Monticello and AR-293. Next will be the section between AR-293 and US-65. After the initial 2-lane buildouts are finished for those sections, work is expected to shift to the western section of the Monticello Bypass, but that's years away. 

Mississippi is just broke and the political will is not there to raise the required revenue to maintain its existing roads and bridges, let alone build I-69. So don't hold your breath on Mississippi doing anything with I-69 any time soon.

I think romanticizing what Arkansas is doing as a buildup to I-69 is a little premature.  US-278 is well past needing these upgrades. US-278 is mostly 45 mph or less all the was from Hope east. (There are virtually no sustained stretches at the MAX 55 MPH speed limit)These upgrades are badly needed. Perhaps some day I -69 will subsume these parts of the road. Probably not. It would be like saying upgrading US-59 north from Humble to having shoulders and 4-lane stretches in the 1960's or 4-laning it into the 80's as readying it for I-69.  It will be like the first Palestine Texas bypass. Just city streets by the time they do anything with it. Absent dramatic federal earmarks (probably above 80%) nothing will happen in the next FORTY years.  Even then, not necessarily where (former) General Assembly President then Arkansas Highway Commission Chairman (now retired) Bob Moore wanted it.

Moore had a LOT of influence in BOTH JOBS on this. I think Senator Trent Lott (MS) liked the location because it would probably never follow US-61 but instead would Join I-55 at his hometown of Grenada.

Finally, I have said this before. I-69 is behind I-49 and I-57 in the priority list. It is probably behind I-57 SOUTH (an expanded US-425 / I-530.) That and maintaining what they already have is probably too much all ready.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on May 19, 2023, 12:01:16 PM
It would be like saying upgrading US-59 north from Humble to having shoulders and 4-lane stretches in the 1960's or 4-laning it into the 80's as readying it for I-69.  It will be like the first Palestine Texas bypass. Just city streets by the time they do anything with it.
These definitely aren’t comparable… the super-two sections of highway being built in Arkansas have limited access (no private driveways) and sufficient right of way for widening to 4 lanes along with full control of access upgrade with interchanges and overpasses. They are certainly much higher quality than those earlier Texas bypasses that had no access control.

Quote
It is probably behind I-57 SOUTH (an expanded US-425 / I-130.)
Is this even a real project? It seems to be I-69 would definitely be a higher priority, albeit still low.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bwana39 on May 19, 2023, 01:17:30 PM
It would be like saying upgrading US-59 north from Humble to having shoulders and 4-lane stretches in the 1960's or 4-laning it into the 80's as readying it for I-69.  It will be like the first Palestine Texas bypass. Just city streets by the time they do anything with it.
These definitely aren’t comparable… the super-two sections of highway being built in Arkansas have limited access (no private driveways) and sufficient right of way for widening to 4 lanes along with full control of access upgrade with interchanges and overpasses. They are certainly much higher quality than those earlier Texas bypasses that had no access control.

Quote
It is probably behind I-57 SOUTH (an expanded US-425 / I-530.)
Is this even a real project? It seems to be I-69 would definitely be a higher priority, albeit still low.
 

Is it a real project? Is I-69 a real project? 

Sure there is no access, but the problems in Texas are about Texas inability to limit access to properties.  Down the road Arkansas can open the access if I-69 falls through. It may be in some sort of preparation. It is not something that cannot be undone.  It could be kept as is as a two lane limited access for another half century waiting for a freeway to get built. Regardless of what they are building it is needed in east central Arkansas. I just don't think the freeway will ever get there.

As to the I-57 extension, it is probably as real as I-69.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: abqtraveler on May 19, 2023, 03:02:21 PM
It would be like saying upgrading US-59 north from Humble to having shoulders and 4-lane stretches in the 1960's or 4-laning it into the 80's as readying it for I-69.  It will be like the first Palestine Texas bypass. Just city streets by the time they do anything with it.
These definitely aren’t comparable… the super-two sections of highway being built in Arkansas have limited access (no private driveways) and sufficient right of way for widening to 4 lanes along with full control of access upgrade with interchanges and overpasses. They are certainly much higher quality than those earlier Texas bypasses that had no access control.

Quote
It is probably behind I-57 SOUTH (an expanded US-425 / I-530.)
Is this even a real project? It seems to be I-69 would definitely be a higher priority, albeit still low.
 

Is it a real project? Is I-69 a real project? 

Sure there is no access, but the problems in Texas are about Texas inability to limit access to properties.  Down the road Arkansas can open the access if I-69 falls through. It may be in some sort of preparation. It is not something that cannot be undone.  It could be kept as is as a two lane limited access for another half century waiting for a freeway to get built. Regardless of what they are building it is needed in east central Arkansas. I just don't think the freeway will ever get there.

As to the I-57 extension, it is probably as real as I-69.
The I-57 extension will be finished long before I-69 through Arkansas gets done. If I were to wager a guess on how Arkansas prioritizes its major highway projects, I would think it would be in this order, only the top 4 of which are actually programmed by ArDOT:

1. I-49 from I-40 to AR-22, including the new Arkansas River Bridge.
2. US-67/Future I-57 from Walnut Ridge to MO State Line
3. First 2 lanes of Future I-49 (AR-549?) from US-71 (south of Fort Smith) to Y-City
4. Western Section Monticello Bypass (US-278 Bypass/Future I-69)
5. Remaining sections of Future I-49 between Y-City and Texarkana
6. Remaining sections of Future I-69 from Monticello to Louisiana border
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bwana39 on May 19, 2023, 05:39:15 PM
It would be like saying upgrading US-59 north from Humble to having shoulders and 4-lane stretches in the 1960's or 4-laning it into the 80's as readying it for I-69.  It will be like the first Palestine Texas bypass. Just city streets by the time they do anything with it.
These definitely aren’t comparable… the super-two sections of highway being built in Arkansas have limited access (no private driveways) and sufficient right of way for widening to 4 lanes along with full control of access upgrade with interchanges and overpasses. They are certainly much higher quality than those earlier Texas bypasses that had no access control.

Quote
It is probably behind I-57 SOUTH (an expanded US-425 / I-530.)
Is this even a real project? It seems to be I-69 would definitely be a higher priority, albeit still low.
 

Is it a real project? Is I-69 a real project? 

Sure there is no access, but the problems in Texas are about Texas inability to limit access to properties.  Down the road Arkansas can open the access if I-69 falls through. It may be in some sort of preparation. It is not something that cannot be undone.  It could be kept as is as a two lane limited access for another half century waiting for a freeway to get built. Regardless of what they are building it is needed in east central Arkansas. I just don't think the freeway will ever get there.

As to the I-57 extension, it is probably as real as I-69.
The I-57 extension will be finished long before I-69 through Arkansas gets done. If I were to wager a guess on how Arkansas prioritizes its major highway projects, I would think it would be in this order, only the top 4 of which are actually programmed by ArDOT:

1. I-49 from I-40 to AR-22, including the new Arkansas River Bridge.
2. US-67/Future I-57 from Walnut Ridge to MO State Line
3. First 2 lanes of Future I-49 (AR-549?) from US-71 (south of Fort Smith) to Y-City
4. Western Section Monticello Bypass (US-278 Bypass/Future I-69)
5. Remaining sections of Future I-49 between Y-City and Texarkana
6. Remaining sections of Future I-69 from Monticello to Louisiana border

I agree fully. I fear other things will supplant I-69 and keep it at the end of any new lists after some of these items move off.  Some of those would be expanding US-412 across northern Arkansas, US-425 or US-63 from Pine Bluff to Louisiana, US-65 from Conway to Missouri, maybe even an expanded US-82 across south Arkansas. Undoubtedly there will be more projects in NW Arkansas.

If Louisiana were to build I-69 toward Arkansas, there might be an incentive, but for Louisiana, a road from Alexandria to Monroe or Ruston to points north makes more  sense evacuating South Louisiana.  So would US-425 to Ferriday and then US-61 to Baton Rouge.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on May 20, 2023, 10:32:10 PM
If Arkansas is going to have to come up with most or all of the funding they're obviously going to concentrate on highway projects that provide the most benefits to their own state residents. I-69 is more of a national project and it doesn't run through the busiest areas of Arkansas.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MikieTimT on May 21, 2023, 12:07:45 AM
If Arkansas is going to have to come up with most or all of the funding they're obviously going to concentrate on highway projects that provide the most benefits to their own state residents. I-69 is more of a national project and it doesn't run through the busiest areas of Arkansas.

True, but at least ROW has been purchased, dirt moved, and some lanes of some segments of the Dickey Split paved.  More than Louisiana can say.  And more promise of future growth of more segments than Mississippi has shown since completing I-269 to Tunica.

Texas is the only state south of Tennessee that will have any significant mileage completed in the next 25 years, likely all that I'll live to see anyway if I make it to an average life expectancy.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: abqtraveler on May 21, 2023, 10:43:37 PM

If Louisiana were to build I-69 toward Arkansas, there might be an incentive, but for Louisiana, a road from Alexandria to Monroe or Ruston to points north makes more  sense evacuating South Louisiana.  So would US-425 to Ferriday and then US-61 to Baton Rouge.

The only section of I-69 I could see Louisiana getting done in the distant, but foreseeable future may be between I-49 south of Shreveport/Bossier and I-20 to the east, with a new crossing of the Red River south of Barksdale AFB. There is some independent utility to that section that would allow for a southern relief route around Shreveport/Bossier and better access to the Port of Shreveport/Bossier. Still, I wouldn't think anything with even that stretch of I-69 would occur after the I-49 Inner-City Connector is complete, or at least under construction.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bassoon1986 on May 22, 2023, 02:20:05 PM
It would be nice for the I-69 red river bridge. Coming from the south you have to slog your way through south Shreveport to get to LA 511/Jimmie Davis Bridge to get to south Bossier. Even if there’s just a connector from I-49 east to US 71 that would be better than nothing.


I really thought 10 years ago Louisiana might have had more interest with I-69 but I agree with others above that LA simply has more pressing things on the books.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: roadman65 on May 22, 2023, 02:30:40 PM
La has more interest in I-49 over I-69 because the former benefits the state. I-49 is part of a longer route to connect Canada to the ports at NOLA. The latter is for international trade that don’t directly benefit the state.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: abqtraveler on May 22, 2023, 02:36:40 PM
La has more interest in I-49 over I-69 because the former benefits the state. I-49 is part of a longer route to connect Canada to the ports at NOLA. The latter is for international trade that don’t directly benefit the state.
That is true, save for the section between I-49 S and I-20 E just because it adds an additional crossing of the Red River and a relief route for Shreveport/Bossier and Barksdale AFB.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bwana39 on May 23, 2023, 12:17:46 AM
La has more interest in I-49 over I-69 because the former benefits the state. I-49 is part of a longer route to connect Canada to the ports at NOLA. The latter is for international trade that don’t directly benefit the state.

The building of freeways in Louisiana has virtually NOTHING to do with international trade.

It is about hurricane evacuation routes. I-69 funnels traffic into NW Louisiana not out of South Louisiana.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on May 23, 2023, 12:32:53 AM
La has more interest in I-49 over I-69 because the former benefits the state. I-49 is part of a longer route to connect Canada to the ports at NOLA. The latter is for international trade that don’t directly benefit the state.

It has virtually NOTHING to do with international trade.
I-69 or I-49? I-69 is certainly an international trade corridor, especially for trucks coming up from Mexico along I-35, US-59, and US-281 heading north and northeast out of Texas.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bwana39 on May 24, 2023, 05:17:17 PM
La has more interest in I-49 over I-69 because the former benefits the state. I-49 is part of a longer route to connect Canada to the ports at NOLA. The latter is for international trade that don’t directly benefit the state.

It has virtually NOTHING to do with international trade.
I-69 or I-49? I-69 is certainly an international trade corridor, especially for trucks coming up from Mexico along I-35, US-59, and US-281 heading north and northeast out of Texas.

The port of South Louisiana (Houma area)  clearly will benefit from I-49 BUT the freeway building has virtually nothing to do with said trade. It is about hurricane evacuation routes.

I-69 is mostly about international trade. I-69 benefits Louisiana virtually zero in trade and absolutely zero in Hurricane evacuation.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MaxConcrete on June 01, 2023, 05:57:22 PM
Bids received this month for work on I-69.

The first is US 281, future I-69C, at Alice. This upgrades the existing Alice bypass to freeway standards. I looked at the plans and there is a 1.5-mile-long bridge structure on the north side, from CR 117 southward. Looking at Google maps, I don't see any reason for the bridge. South of SH 44, this project adds main lanes at ground level in the median.

County:   JIM WELLS   Let Date:   06/01/23
Type:   CONVERT NON-FREEWAY   Seq No:   3001
Time:   937 WORKING DAYS   Project ID:   C 254-7-8
Highway:   US 281   Contract #:   06233001
Length:   10.500   CCSJ:   0254-07-008
Limits:   
From:   BU 281 R N. OF ALICE   Check:   $100,000
To:   SH 44, ETC.   Misc Cost:   
Estimate   $120,677,775.58   % Over/Under   Company
Bidder 1   $138,438,662.84   +14.72%   ANDERSON COLUMBIA CO., INC.
Bidder 2   $141,093,402.64   +16.92%   HUNTER INDUSTRIES, LTD.
Bidder 3   $147,671,271.24   +22.37%   WEBBER, LLC
Bidder 4   $157,996,115.43   +30.92%   ZACHRY CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION
Bidder 5   $162,449,802.79   +34.61%   JAMES CONSTRUCTION GROUP, LLC


The second project is US 59 (future I-369) north of Carthage at FM 1794. I looked at the plans and it has high standards, with a 460-foot-wide right-of-way and a 100-foot-wide median for the main lanes. But this is just one overpass.

County:   PANOLA   Let Date:   06/01/23
Type:   CONSTRUCT GRADE SEPARATION   Seq No:   3003
Time:   504 WORKING DAYS   Project ID:   C 63-10-15
Highway:   US 59   Contract #:   06233003
Length:   1.458   CCSJ:   0063-10-015
Limits:   
From:   AT INTERSECTION OF FM 1794   Check:   $100,000
To:   .   Misc Cost:   
Estimate   $34,951,362.52       % Over/Under   Company
Bidder 1   $36,905,848.43       +5.59%           LONGVIEW BRIDGE AND ROAD, LTD.
Bidder 2   $40,957,722.26       +17.18%   EAST TEXAS BRIDGE, INC.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: rte66man on June 02, 2023, 09:59:21 AM
Bids received this month for work on I-69.

The first is US 281, future I-69C, at Alice. This upgrades the existing Alice bypass to freeway standards. I looked at the plans and there is a 1.5-mile-long bridge structure on the north side, from CR 117 southward. Looking at Google maps, I don't see any reason for the bridge.

Looking at Street View, the road is elevated above the surrounding area, which is full of trees. This tells me there are water issues there as you only see that many trees in south TX where there is a regular source of ground water. The existing highway has a long bridge just south of 117 yet I see no evidence of a creek or stream.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: edwaleni on June 17, 2023, 05:12:33 PM
I had the honor of meeting the mayor of Logan, TX (population 40), in Panola County last week and asked him if he had been approached about any work on I-69 between Tenaha and Shreveport.

After reminding me for pronouncing Tenaha incorrectly, he said he owns a bunch of ranch land all long the Texas-Louisiana border east of Carthage and that the planned route of I-69 runs 6 miles south of his property line.

He said he hasn't heard anything in several years about any work being done for it. Said most of it is planning is between Nachodoches and Carthage.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: CtrlAltDel on June 17, 2023, 06:19:10 PM
After reminding me for pronouncing Tenaha incorrectly

Just out of idle curiosity, what is the correct pronunciation of Tenaha?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: edwaleni on June 17, 2023, 06:40:28 PM
After reminding me for pronouncing Tenaha incorrectly

Just out of idle curiosity, what is the correct pronunciation of Tenaha?

I said it Yankee style "TEN-naha"

He said it Texas style "TEENA-haw" or at least that is what it sounded like with his rural accent.

Quote
"It was founded in 1885 as a shipping point on the Houston, East and West Texas Railway, when that railroad was being constructed through the county. The community was named by members of the Hicks family for Tenehaw Municipality, the original name of Shelby County."
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: CtrlAltDel on June 17, 2023, 06:43:00 PM
After reminding me for pronouncing Tenaha incorrectly

Just out of idle curiosity, what is the correct pronunciation of Tenaha?

I said it Yankee style "TEN-naha"

He said it Texas style "TEENA-haw" or at least that is what it sounded like with his rural accent.

Quote
"It was founded in 1885 as a shipping point on the Houston, East and West Texas Railway, when that railroad was being constructed through the county. The community was named by members of the Hicks family for Tenehaw Municipality, the original name of Shelby County."

I've been pronouncing it tuh-NAY-hah, so this is good to know.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bwana39 on June 17, 2023, 08:57:42 PM
After reminding me for pronouncing Tenaha incorrectly

Just out of idle curiosity, what is the correct pronunciation of Tenaha?

I said it Yankee style "TEN-naha"

He said it Texas style "TEENA-haw" or at least that is what it sounded like with his rural accent.

Quote
"It was founded in 1885 as a shipping point on the Houston, East and West Texas Railway, when that railroad was being constructed through the county. The community was named by members of the Hicks family for Tenehaw Municipality, the original name of Shelby County."

More likely Tinn e haw
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: thisdj78 on June 17, 2023, 11:11:34 PM
Had a chance to drive on I-69E between Calallen and Brownsville this weekend. I noticed that the southbound bypass lanes around Driscoll still aren’t open. Seems like it’s been awhile since the northbound lanes opened, anyone know what the issue is with the southbound portion?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: splashflash on June 18, 2023, 01:32:03 AM
I had the honor of meeting the mayor of Logan, TX (population 40), in Panola County last week...

He said he hasn't heard anything in several years about any work being done for it. Said most of it is planning is between Nachodoches and Carthage.

Anything about new anlgnment or preferred route location between the two?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: kphoger on June 19, 2023, 10:07:05 AM


After reminding me for pronouncing Tenaha incorrectly

Just out of idle curiosity, what is the correct pronunciation of Tenaha?

I said it Yankee style "TEN-naha"

He said it Texas style "TEENA-haw" or at least that is what it sounded like with his rural accent.

According to the Texas Almanac Pronunciation Guide (https://www.texasalmanac.com/drupal-backup/images/topics/TownPronunciationGuide.pdf) (.pdf warning) from the 1940s–which is my go-to reference material for Texas town name pronunciations–and also a 2021 article in Texas Monthly (https://www.texasmonthly.com/being-texan/the-texanist-weird-texas-town-pronunciation/), it is pronounced TEN-uh-haw.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MaxConcrete on June 27, 2023, 06:56:04 PM
Bids were opened today for upgrading 6 miles north of Cleveland to interstate standards.
http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/06273402.htm (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/06273402.htm)

The plans show 2x2 main lanes with continuous frontage roads on both sides, including the side adjacent to the railroad (northbound). There is a center barrier on the main lanes, no median. It looks like $30 million a mile is the going rate these days for rural interstate upgrades.

County:   SAN JACINTO   Let Date:   06/27/23
Type:   HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT   Seq No:   3402
Time:   1309 WORKING DAYS   Project ID:   F 2023(773)
Highway:   US 59   Contract #:   06233402
Length:   6.620   CCSJ:   0177-02-057
Limits:   
From:   FM 2914   Check:   $100,000
To:   LIBERTY C/L   Misc Cost:   
Estimate   $176,543,400.31   % Over/Under   Company
Bidder 1   $189,820,653.98   +7.52%   WEBBER, LLC
Bidder 2   $192,087,573.02   +8.80%   JAMES CONSTRUCTION GROUP, LLC
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: wdcrft63 on June 27, 2023, 07:28:10 PM
Bids were opened today for upgrading 6 miles north of Cleveland to interstate standards.
http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/06273402.htm (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/06273402.htm)

The plans show 2x2 main lanes with continuous frontage roads on both sides, including the side adjacent to the railroad (northbound). There is a center barrier on the main lanes, no median. It looks like $30 million a mile is the going rate these days for rural interstate upgrades.

County:   SAN JACINTO   Let Date:   06/27/23
Type:   HIGHWAY IMPROVEMENT   Seq No:   3402
Time:   1309 WORKING DAYS   Project ID:   F 2023(773)
Highway:   US 59   Contract #:   06233402
Length:   6.620   CCSJ:   0177-02-057
Limits:   
From:   FM 2914   Check:   $100,000
To:   LIBERTY C/L   Misc Cost:   
Estimate   $176,543,400.31   % Over/Under   Company
Bidder 1   $189,820,653.98   +7.52%   WEBBER, LLC
Bidder 2   $192,087,573.02   +8.80%   JAMES CONSTRUCTION GROUP, LLC
Does this fill the gap to Shepherd, and is the Shepherd bypass at interstate standards?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MaxConcrete on June 27, 2023, 08:46:46 PM
Does this fill the gap to Shepherd, and is the Shepherd bypass at interstate standards?

The north end of this job is just south of FM 2914, which already has an overpass. The Shepherd bypass is interstate standards, and the section from FM 2914 is limited access.

So the answer is yes, this job will fill the gap to have freeway standards from Houston to the north side of Shepherd.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Chris on June 28, 2023, 05:47:29 AM
It looks like $30 million a mile is the going rate these days for rural interstate upgrades.

I wonder how this compares to states that do not have extensive frontage roads. It also makes you wonder if greenfield alignments might be cheaper than upgrades of existing highways which necessitates extensive frontage roads and a larger right-of-way footprint.

The average cost in rural Europe seems to be around $ 20 million per mile, barring any expensive tunnels or bridges.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: wdcrft63 on June 28, 2023, 05:15:02 PM
It looks like $30 million a mile is the going rate these days for rural interstate upgrades.

I wonder how this compares to states that do not have extensive frontage roads. It also makes you wonder if greenfield alignments might be cheaper than upgrades of existing highways which necessitates extensive frontage roads and a larger right-of-way footprint.

The average cost in rural Europe seems to be around $ 20 million per mile, barring any expensive tunnels or bridges.
FWIW the Rockingham Bypass in NC is 7.2 miles for $146.2M or about $20.3M/mile; it’s 4 lanes with no frontage roads. It’s a 2019 contract so it would be more today but not $30M/mile.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MaxConcrete on June 28, 2023, 05:43:18 PM
It looks like $30 million a mile is the going rate these days for rural interstate upgrades.

I wonder how this compares to states that do not have extensive frontage roads. It also makes you wonder if greenfield alignments might be cheaper than upgrades of existing highways which necessitates extensive frontage roads and a larger right-of-way footprint.

The average cost in rural Europe seems to be around $ 20 million per mile, barring any expensive tunnels or bridges.
FWIW the Rockingham Bypass in NC is 7.2 miles for $146.2M or about $20.3M/mile; it’s 4 lanes with no frontage roads. It’s a 2019 contract so it would be more today but not $30M/mile.

The plans for the I-69 work generally show a width of 94 feet for the main lanes (full inner and outer shoulders) and 36 feet on each frontage road (8 foot outer and 4 foot inner shoulder) for a total of 72 feet. So the material for the frontage roads is around 76% of the main lane material. So it is reasonable and expected that the cost per mile will be around 50% higher than a facility without frontage roads.

I don't know about North Carolina, but highway cost inflation in Texas has been extreme in the last two years, with costs up around 48% in the last two years. Inflation alone accounts for price-per-mile increase from $20 million to $30 million.
https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot-info/cst/hci-binder.pdf (https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot-info/cst/hci-binder.pdf)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: abqtraveler on June 29, 2023, 09:30:07 AM
It looks like $30 million a mile is the going rate these days for rural interstate upgrades.

I wonder how this compares to states that do not have extensive frontage roads. It also makes you wonder if greenfield alignments might be cheaper than upgrades of existing highways which necessitates extensive frontage roads and a larger right-of-way footprint.

The average cost in rural Europe seems to be around $ 20 million per mile, barring any expensive tunnels or bridges.
FWIW the Rockingham Bypass in NC is 7.2 miles for $146.2M or about $20.3M/mile; it’s 4 lanes with no frontage roads. It’s a 2019 contract so it would be more today but not $30M/mile.

The plans for the I-69 work generally show a width of 94 feet for the main lanes (full inner and outer shoulders) and 36 feet on each frontage road (8 foot outer and 4 foot inner shoulder) for a total of 72 feet. So the material for the frontage roads is around 76% of the main lane material. So it is reasonable and expected that the cost per mile will be around 50% higher than a facility without frontage roads.

I don't know about North Carolina, but highway cost inflation in Texas has been extreme in the last two years, with costs up around 48% in the last two years. Inflation alone accounts for price-per-mile increase from $20 million to $30 million.
https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot-info/cst/hci-binder.pdf (https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot-info/cst/hci-binder.pdf)
So do those figures in the linked file account for just materials or is labor included as well?  For projects that receive any federal funding have minimum wage requirements for each job position under the Davis-Bacon Act, based on the local prevailing wages at the time the contract is awarded. Due to the challenges of finding skilled labor, wages on major projects are likely much higher than those prescribed by Davis-Bacon, just to get people hired to do the work. Remember all the handouts folks were getting for COVID-19 (in some states up to $100K per year to sit at home on their couch, smoking dope).  So how do you get people to work if they can make as much, if not more, sitting on their asses and holding out their hand and getting a check from We the American Taxpayer?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: J N Winkler on June 29, 2023, 02:17:25 PM
So do those figures in the linked file account for just materials or is labor included as well?  For projects that receive any federal funding have minimum wage requirements for each job position under the Davis-Bacon Act, based on the local prevailing wages at the time the contract is awarded. Due to the challenges of finding skilled labor, wages on major projects are likely much higher than those prescribed by Davis-Bacon, just to get people hired to do the work. Remember all the handouts folks were getting for COVID-19 (in some states up to $100K per year to sit at home on their couch, smoking dope).  So how do you get people to work if they can make as much, if not more, sitting on their asses and holding out their hand and getting a check from We the American Taxpayer?

Prevailing wage schedules are updated periodically and thus should, at least in theory, account for increases in wages due to worker shortages.  Highways are generally constructed through unit cost contracts, where the quoted price per pay item includes the labor cost of furnishing and placing the estimated quantity of the material involved on the finished project, per the plans and specifications.

Per the file MaxConcrete linked to, cost indexes have been rising in all of the broad categories under consideration--earthmoving, subgrade & base, surfacing, and structures.  Labor costs can be part of that, but so can increases in material prices, which can also result from bottlenecks at cement and asphalt plants as well as steel mills.  Another large factor is the size of the work available in relation to contractors' capacity.

Since construction was largely exempt from covid-related drawdowns, but federal stimulus packages like ARPA, Build Back Better, Inflation Reduction, etc. have greatly increased the funding available, I suspect we may now be in a situation of too much work chasing too few contractors.  Labor (skilled or unskilled) is not the only constraint on contractor capacity--management resource (typically white-collar) comes into play as well, as does capital.  Financing costs are significantly higher due to increased interest rates.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MaxConcrete on June 29, 2023, 05:49:22 PM
Since construction was largely exempt from covid-related drawdowns, but federal stimulus packages like ARPA, Build Back Better, Inflation Reduction, etc. have greatly increased the funding available, I suspect we may now be in a situation of too much work chasing too few contractors.  Labor (skilled or unskilled) is not the only constraint on contractor capacity--management resource (typically white-collar) comes into play as well, as does capital.  Financing costs are significantly higher due to increased interest rates.

I agree. I think there is too much work for the available construction capacity in the industry, and contractors are so busy they don't need to win any specific job, so they raise their bid prices.

This is probably especially true in Texas, since TxDOT is awarding close to $1 billion in new jobs every month.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: splashflash on July 15, 2023, 03:41:47 PM
https://www.journal-spectator.com/news/article_e5b60886-229a-11ee-903e-77d82c126f53.html#tncms-source=article-nav-prev


A $3.6 million effort to help transform the 7.9 miles of U.S. 59 between El Campo and Wharton into I-69 was approved in a U.S. House subcommittee Thursday.

Slowly converting to interstate, southwest and northeast of Houston.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on July 15, 2023, 03:53:15 PM
https://www.journal-spectator.com/news/article_e5b60886-229a-11ee-903e-77d82c126f53.html#tncms-source=article-nav-prev


A $3.6 million effort to help transform the 7.9 miles of U.S. 59 between El Campo and Wharton into I-69 was approved in a U.S. House subcommittee Thursday.

Slowly converting to interstate, southwest and northeast of Houston.
That sends me to an article about right to farm in Texas… nothing about an interstate highway. Also, it’s paywalled.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MaxConcrete on July 15, 2023, 04:01:29 PM
https://www.journal-spectator.com/news/article_e5b60886-229a-11ee-903e-77d82c126f53.html#tncms-source=article-nav-prev


A $3.6 million effort to help transform the 7.9 miles of U.S. 59 between El Campo and Wharton into I-69 was approved in a U.S. House subcommittee Thursday.

Slowly converting to interstate, southwest and northeast of Houston.

The article is paywalled, but the map is visible. The 7.9-mile section is proposed to receive $438 million new funding in the 2024 UTP, or $55 million per mile. There is $339 million in separate work in Wharton which was previously funded. All work is listed to start in FY 2024-2027. See page 165 https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/tpp/utp/070723-draft-2024utp.pdf (https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/tpp/utp/070723-draft-2024utp.pdf)

Without the details of the article, I don't know where the $3.6 million comes from, which is obviously less than 1% of the overall cost. $55 million per mile seems high, but I'm assuming it is all-inclusive including right-of-way, utility relocation, engineering, construction, etc.  A job to rebuild and expand I-10 to 3x3 with frontage roads received a low bid for construction of $35 million per mile in June. I think this section of I-69 will have 2x2 main lanes.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: abqtraveler on July 17, 2023, 12:56:52 PM
https://www.journal-spectator.com/news/article_e5b60886-229a-11ee-903e-77d82c126f53.html#tncms-source=article-nav-prev


A $3.6 million effort to help transform the 7.9 miles of U.S. 59 between El Campo and Wharton into I-69 was approved in a U.S. House subcommittee Thursday.

Slowly converting to interstate, southwest and northeast of Houston.

The article is paywalled, but the map is visible. The 7.9-mile section is proposed to receive $438 million new funding in the 2024 UTP, or $55 million per mile. Existing work in Wharton was previously allocated $339 million. All work is listed to start in FY 2024-2027. See page 165 https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/tpp/utp/070723-draft-2024utp.pdf (https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/tpp/utp/070723-draft-2024utp.pdf)

Without the details of the article, I don't know where the $3.6 million comes from, which is obviously less than 1% of the overall cost. $55 million per mile seems high, but I'm assuming it is all-inclusive including right-of-way, utility relocation, engineering, construction, etc.  A job to rebuild and expand I-10 to 3x3 with frontage roads received a low bid for construction of $35 million per mile in June. I think this section of I-69 will have 2x2 main lanes.
Not sure what's included in the scope of work to upgrade US-59 between Wharton and El Campo, but I can see replacing the bridges that carry US-59 over the Colorado River at Wharton being a significant cost driver. There will likely be some ROW acquisition and utility relocation costs if TxDOT intends to add frontage roads to both sides of the mainline.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bwana39 on July 17, 2023, 09:53:15 PM
https://www.journal-spectator.com/news/article_e5b60886-229a-11ee-903e-77d82c126f53.html#tncms-source=article-nav-prev


A $3.6 million effort to help transform the 7.9 miles of U.S. 59 between El Campo and Wharton into I-69 was approved in a U.S. House subcommittee Thursday.

Slowly converting to interstate, southwest and northeast of Houston.

The article is paywalled, but the map is visible. The 7.9-mile section is proposed to receive $438 million new funding in the 2024 UTP, or $55 million per mile. Existing work in Wharton was previously allocated $339 million. All work is listed to start in FY 2024-2027. See page 165 https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/tpp/utp/070723-draft-2024utp.pdf (https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/tpp/utp/070723-draft-2024utp.pdf)

Without the details of the article, I don't know where the $3.6 million comes from, which is obviously less than 1% of the overall cost. $55 million per mile seems high, but I'm assuming it is all-inclusive including right-of-way, utility relocation, engineering, construction, etc.  A job to rebuild and expand I-10 to 3x3 with frontage roads received a low bid for construction of $35 million per mile in June. I think this section of I-69 will have 2x2 main lanes.
Not sure what's included in the scope of work to upgrade US-59 between Wharton and El Campo, but I can see replacing the bridges that carry US-59 over the Colorado River at Wharton being a significant cost driver. There will likely be some ROW acquisition and utility relocation costs if TxDOT intends to add frontage roads to both sides of the mainline.

They generally don't put frontage roads over major bodies of water outside of MAJOR urban areas. Those bridges may be all that is there and there to stay.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on July 17, 2023, 10:47:05 PM
$438 million seems awful high for 8 miles of new Interstate. The recently completed section going into Kendleton has 3x3 main lanes. I kind of wonder if the 3x3 configuration will continue through Wharton.

The existing US-59 bridges over the Colorado River look like they have wide enough shoulders to qualify for Interstate standards. But those bridges look pretty old. If a 3x3 configuration is in the cards then those bridges would obviously be replaced. They might get replaced anyway.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: abqtraveler on July 19, 2023, 11:11:22 AM
$438 million seems awful high for 8 miles of new Interstate. The recently completed section going into Kendleton has 3x3 main lanes. I kind of wonder if the 3x3 configuration will continue through Wharton.

The existing US-59 bridges over the Colorado River look like they have wide enough shoulders to qualify for Interstate standards. But those bridges look pretty old. If a 3x3 configuration is in the cards then those bridges would obviously be replaced. They might get replaced anyway.

At the very least the bridges over the Colorado would need extensive rehabilitation/upgrading if not complete replacement. Among other things, the guardrails that keep traffic on the bridge would have to be upgraded to concrete parapets that meet current standards.  It might make more sense to fully replace these bridges than to rehab them if you look it at it from a life expectancy point of view. You could get a new bridge (or maybe two) with a 100-year design life, versus rehabbing the existing ones and maybe get another 20-30 years out of them before they have to eventually be replaced anyway.

https://www.google.com/maps/@29.3135404,-96.1249569,3a,75y,356.02h,72.15t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sybcfhArfWcEsK0dZVYX5zw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DybcfhArfWcEsK0dZVYX5zw%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile.gps%26w%3D203%26h%3D100%26yaw%3D135.36368%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: jgb191 on July 19, 2023, 05:11:37 PM
https://www.journal-spectator.com/news/article_e5b60886-229a-11ee-903e-77d82c126f53.html#tncms-source=article-nav-prev


A $3.6 million effort to help transform the 7.9 miles of U.S. 59 between El Campo and Wharton into I-69 was approved in a U.S. House subcommittee Thursday.

Slowly converting to interstate, southwest and northeast of Houston.

The article is paywalled, but the map is visible. The 7.9-mile section is proposed to receive $438 million new funding in the 2024 UTP, or $55 million per mile. Existing work in Wharton was previously allocated $339 million. All work is listed to start in FY 2024-2027. See page 165 https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/tpp/utp/070723-draft-2024utp.pdf (https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/tpp/utp/070723-draft-2024utp.pdf)

Without the details of the article, I don't know where the $3.6 million comes from, which is obviously less than 1% of the overall cost. $55 million per mile seems high, but I'm assuming it is all-inclusive including right-of-way, utility relocation, engineering, construction, etc.  A job to rebuild and expand I-10 to 3x3 with frontage roads received a low bid for construction of $35 million per mile in June. I think this section of I-69 will have 2x2 main lanes.
Not sure what's included in the scope of work to upgrade US-59 between Wharton and El Campo, but I can see replacing the bridges that carry US-59 over the Colorado River at Wharton being a significant cost driver. There will likely be some ROW acquisition and utility relocation costs if TxDOT intends to add frontage roads to both sides of the mainline.

The tiny town of Pierce needs an overpass, maybe even another overpass at the Wharton County Airport.  The intersection at FM-102 needs to be partially revised: the exit ramp from northbound US-59 needs to be relocated ahead of the intersection and not after it (as it is having to turn a near 180-degrees back to the FM-102.

Speaking of local airports, the intersection at Jackson County Airport could also use an overpass alongside the Cordele exit.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on August 01, 2023, 05:26:38 PM
Speaking of local airports, the intersection at Jackson County Airport could also use an overpass alongside the Cordele exit.
BTW, when are we going to see Jackson County get its first taste of I-69 construction?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: jgb191 on August 01, 2023, 09:32:42 PM
Speaking of local airports, the intersection at Jackson County Airport could also use an overpass alongside the Cordele exit.
BTW, when are we going to see Jackson County get its first taste of I-69 construction?

The bypass around Edna has been up to Interstate quality for as long as I can remember, ending at the Jackson County Airport intersection, it should have been redesignated as I-69 already; not sure why the hold-up there.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Henry on August 01, 2023, 10:24:25 PM
This is a map of the corridor upgrades as depicted in the paywalled article:
(https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/journal-spectator.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/3/f3/3f3fd260-229b-11ee-bcde-c3b5c69e6682/64b1d5773cf1d.image.jpg?resize=1095%2C714)
On another note, I'm going to predict that I-69 reaches Laredo/McAllen/Brownsville before it gets to Shreveport.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on August 01, 2023, 11:10:09 PM
Speaking of local airports, the intersection at Jackson County Airport could also use an overpass alongside the Cordele exit.
BTW, when are we going to see Jackson County get its first taste of I-69 construction?

The bypass around Edna has been up to Interstate quality for as long as I can remember, ending at the Jackson County Airport intersection, it should have been redesignated as I-69 already; not sure why the hold-up there.
In order to be designated as I-69, it must both meet interstate standards and connect with an existing interstate highway segment.

This freeway portion is isolated from any other part of I-69, so it cannot be designated. Once upgrades from the north reach Edna, and I-69 is continuous from Houston to Edna, then they could designate it.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on August 01, 2023, 11:11:43 PM
On another note, I'm going to predict that I-69 reaches Laredo/McAllen/Brownsville before it gets to Shreveport.
Easily, it’s not even a question. They have been pretty aggressive with completing I-69E between I-37 and Brownsville, and could be complete by 2030.

Unless you’re referring to Houston to Brownsville, including that long I-37 to Houston portion that hasn’t been upgraded yet with the exception of spot projects.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bwana39 on August 02, 2023, 12:06:34 AM
This is a map of the corridor upgrades as depicted in the paywalled article:
(https://bloximages.chicago2.vip.townnews.com/journal-spectator.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/3/f3/3f3fd260-229b-11ee-bcde-c3b5c69e6682/64b1d5773cf1d.image.jpg?resize=1095%2C714)
On another note, I'm going to predict that I-69 reaches Laredo/McAllen/Brownsville before it gets to Shreveport.

I certainly have to agree with you on that...
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Chris on August 02, 2023, 04:54:38 AM
The bypass of Premont opened to traffic in 2022, my guess is sometime in November. It only opened for northbound traffic, because the bridges at either end for southbound traffic are not yet completed.

(https://i.imgur.com/pzjFIVl.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/es0uTKH.jpg)

It is signed as US 281 and not yet as I-69C. Maybe because it is unconnected to other freeway segments.
(https://i.imgur.com/uv1RULO.jpg)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on August 02, 2023, 10:30:55 AM
Quick question.  What would happen if the Valley interstates didn't connect to the rest of the system by 2038?  Do they lose their interstate status, or will an extension be asked for and granted to keep them isolated beyond the 25-year grace period?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: abqtraveler on August 02, 2023, 10:49:33 AM
Quick question.  What would happen if the Valley interstates didn't connect to the rest of the system by 2038?  Do they lose their interstate status, or will an extension be asked for and granted to keep them isolated beyond the 25-year grace period?
If I were a betting man, Texas would seek an extension from Congress, and likely get it. But, I think that I-69E will be finished from I-37 to the Valley before that time period expires. The main obstacle now for completing I-69E is the bypass around Riviera, which is slated to start construction in 2027. Beyond the Riviera Bypass, the remaining 50-60 miles of US-77 from Riviera to Yturria runs through mostly undeveloped areas and should be relatively easy to upgrade to interstate standards.

Speaking of Riviera, the latest GSV shows that construction is now underway on US-77 through Ricardo (just north of Riviera), so I wouldn't be surprised if TxDOT is looking for an opportunity to get the Riviera Bypass funded and started sooner than 2027.

https://www.google.com/maps/@27.3920931,-97.8422293,3a,63.6y,343.49h,90.47t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s18TawR6Zfbx-esfpYCAPCg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: ethanhopkin14 on August 02, 2023, 01:47:54 PM
should be relatively easy to upgrade to interstate standards.

You don't know TxDOT. lol
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MaxConcrete on August 02, 2023, 06:06:12 PM
Bids were opened today to upgrade 4.5 miles of US 59 in Laredo to full freeway standards, from the existing freeway at International Parkway south to Sinatra Parkway. The plans show 3x3 main lanes and 2x2 frontage roads on right-of-way width between 400 and 450 feet.

This is on the far southwest end of I-69W, and will probably be signed as such when the work is done. However, I-69W between Laredo and Victoria is in the very far future, and the full length may never be built to interstate standards. Virtually all other parts of I-69 and I-369 are (justifiably) higher priority, and those other parts will take decades to complete.

http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/08023001.htm (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/08023001.htm)

County:   WEBB   Let Date:   08/02/23
Type:   RECONSTRUCT EXISTING ROADWAY   Seq No:   3001
Time:   1318 WORKING DAYS   Project ID:   F 2022(745)
Highway:   US 59   Contract #:   08233001
Length:   16.250   CCSJ:   0086-14-075
Limits:   
From:   0.50 MI S OF DEL MAR BLVD   Check:   $100,000
To:   0.50 MI N OF DEL MAR BLVD   Misc Cost:   
Estimate   $311,492,995.71   % Over/Under   Company
Bidder 1   $344,030,534.94   +10.45%   JAMES CONSTRUCTION GROUP, LLC
Bidder 2   $366,647,955.05   +17.71%   PULICE CONSTRUCTION, INC.
Bidder 3   $395,827,719.99   +27.07%   WEBBER, LLC
Bidder 4   $506,017,011.60   +62.45%   KIEWIT INFRASTRUCTURE SOUTH CO.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bwana39 on August 02, 2023, 09:05:26 PM
After reminding me for pronouncing Tenaha incorrectly

Just out of idle curiosity, what is the correct pronunciation of Tenaha?

I said it Yankee style "TEN-naha"

He said it Texas style "TEENA-haw" or at least that is what it sounded like with his rural accent.

Quote
"It was founded in 1885 as a shipping point on the Houston, East and West Texas Railway, when that railroad was being constructed through the county. The community was named by members of the Hicks family for Tenehaw Municipality, the original name of Shelby County."

More likely Tinn e haw

(Tex Ritter... John Ritter's dad.) Tex grew up outside of Carthage.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: thisdj78 on August 03, 2023, 09:05:18 AM
Quick question.  What would happen if the Valley interstates didn't connect to the rest of the system by 2038?  Do they lose their interstate status, or will an extension be asked for and granted to keep them isolated beyond the 25-year grace period?

I didn’t realize there was a timeframe by which they had to connect to the rest of the interstate system.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on August 04, 2023, 06:12:32 PM
Quote from: MaxConcrete
Bids were opened today to upgrade 4.5 miles of US 59 in Laredo to full freeway standards, from the existing freeway at International Parkway south to Sinatra Parkway. The plans show 3x3 main lanes and 2x2 frontage roads on right-of-way width between 400 and 450 feet.

That project would build out the easier "low hanging fruit" portion of the Bob Bullock Loop to Interstate standards.

The difficult part is just South of the Sinatra Parkway intersection. The United ISD Food Production Center facility stands in the path of any further extension of the freeway Southward. Much of the National Guard's parking lot would also get "eaten" by an Interstate quality upgrade. There is a lot of wide open territory to the right of US-59 just South of those two properties.

The most difficult hurdle may be the Lake Casa Blanca International State Park on the right side of US-59 and the Casa Blanca Golf Course to the left. It's going to take some creative design work to shoot that gap and connect into the existing freeway immediately South of there.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: thisdj78 on August 04, 2023, 07:58:33 PM
Quote from: MaxConcrete
Bids were opened today to upgrade 4.5 miles of US 59 in Laredo to full freeway standards, from the existing freeway at International Parkway south to Sinatra Parkway. The plans show 3x3 main lanes and 2x2 frontage roads on right-of-way width between 400 and 450 feet.

That project would build out the easier "low hanging fruit" portion of the Bob Bullock Loop to Interstate standards.

The difficult part is just South of the Sinatra Parkway intersection. The United ISD Food Production Center facility stands in the path of any further extension of the freeway Southward. Much of the National Guard's parking lot would also get "eaten" by an Interstate quality upgrade. There is a lot of wide open territory to the right of US-59 just South of those two properties.

The most difficult hurdle may be the Lake Casa Blanca International State Park on the right side of US-59 and the Casa Blanca Golf Course to the left. It's going to take some creative design work to shoot that gap and connect into the existing freeway immediately South of there.

I wouldn’t be surprised if TXDOT already owns those two properties and just letting them stay there until it’s time to start construction. As you noted, it’s very clear there is ROW set aside north and south of there.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Duke87 on August 05, 2023, 05:46:49 PM
Bids were opened today to upgrade 4.5 miles of US 59 in Laredo to full freeway standards, from the existing freeway at International Parkway south to Sinatra Parkway. The plans show 3x3 main lanes and 2x2 frontage roads on right-of-way width between 400 and 450 feet.

This is on the far southwest end of I-69W, and will probably be signed as such when the work is done. However, I-69W between Laredo and Victoria is in the very far future, and the full length may never be built to interstate standards. Virtually all other parts of I-69 and I-369 are (justifiably) higher priority, and those other parts will take decades to complete.

Well there's also the question of do they do the intellectually lazy thing and just upgrade US 59 east of Loop 20 in place, or do they do something logical and build a cutoff instead, which would mean much of the section of Loop 20 currently slated for upgrade would not, in fact, be part of I-69W.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on August 06, 2023, 10:04:30 PM
I'm pretty sure I-69W will leave the Bob Bullock Loop and spur off to the East a few miles North of the existing US-59/Loop 20 interchange. There is too much property next to the existing US-59 path on the South side of Lake Casa Blanca. That will force I-69W to take a new terrain alignment to the North of Lake Casa Blanca and North of Texas A&M International University. There is a lot of wide open territory in that area. There's just a decent number of oil wells in that area.

The portion of the Bob Bullock Loop to the South of the I-69W split may one day be overlapped by I-2.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: splashflash on August 12, 2023, 11:31:23 PM
US 59/259 Interchange Design Refinement in Nacogdaches

https://www.dailysentinel.com/news/local/state-unveils-design-plan-for-us-59-259-project/article_c2b9ecf6-f15c-5a23-a47f-b7c785d69433.html

Expected to begin construction in 2029, the $213.3 million reconfiguration of the U.S. 59 and U.S. 259 interchange was the topic of a second public feedback meeting Thursday, as transportation officials unveiled a revised design based on input gathered since an initial May 2022 public session.

Among the biggest changes is the construction of access roads southward to Loop 224.

The next steps include an environmental study and public hearing in spring 2024. Right-of-way acquisition and relocation of utilities is set to begin in 2024 and take approximately four years.

virtual presentation about the revisions is available online at us59-us259north.com. Comments about the project can be submitted online or sent by mail to: TxDOT Lufkin District Office, 1805 North Timberland Drive, Lufkin TX 75901.

Public comment deadline is Aug. 18. For questions about the project, contact Jennifer Adams, project manager, at 936-633-4383.

Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: splashflash on August 14, 2023, 11:55:01 AM
Nacogdoches US 59 / Loop 224 Flyover July 2023 Drone Video

Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: CtrlAltDel on August 14, 2023, 12:49:57 PM
I apologize if this has been brought up before, but is the plan to take the US-59 corridor north of Nacogdoches or rather US-259 to TX-315 or perhaps some other routing? I'm not asking because I got a ticket in Garrison yesterday and am now hoping they get bypassed forever.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bwana39 on August 14, 2023, 04:51:19 PM
I apologize if this has been brought up before, but is the plan to take the US-59 corridor north of Nacogdoches or rather US-259 to TX-315 or perhaps some other routing? I'm not asking because I got a ticket in Garrison yesterday and am now hoping they get bypassed forever.

While there is minimal in the way of formal plans beyond Nacogdoches county (or more aptly the Lufkin TxDOT region) , at this point it appears that a large loop bypassing, Garrison, Timpson, and Tenaha (probably north of all three)  along the ROUGH path of US-59 is the primary plan being gossipped. Then there is discussion that it might go SOUTH of Garrison and Timpson to stay out of Rusk county (and the Tyler TxDOT region). TxDOT seems to favor a location  out near Woods in Panola County for the I-69 / I-369 split. The folks in Shelby county want the split closer to Tenaha.

So basically the plan is to continue along US-59  for both until the split. The US-259 route seems a long-shot at best. Seemingly the ONLY way it might come in play if there is an absolute cancellation of I-69 from Shelby / Panola counties to I-49.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: CtrlAltDel on August 14, 2023, 05:47:39 PM
I apologize if this has been brought up before, but is the plan to take the US-59 corridor north of Nacogdoches or rather US-259 to TX-315 or perhaps some other routing? I'm not asking because I got a ticket in Garrison yesterday and am now hoping they get bypassed forever.

While there is minimal in the way of formal plans beyond Nacogdoches county (or more aptly the Lufkin TxDOT region) , at this point it appears that a large loop bypassing, Garrison, Timpson, and Tenaha (probably north of all three)  along the ROUGH path of US-59 is the primary plan being gossipped. Then there is discussion that it might go SOUTH of Garrison and Timpson to stay out of Rusk county (and the Tyler TxDOT region). TxDOT seems to favor a location  out near Woods in Panola County for the I-69 / I-369 split. The folks in Shelby county want the split closer to Tenaha.

So basically the plan is to continue along US-59  for both until the split. The US-259 route seems a long-shot at best. Seemingly the ONLY way it might come in play if there is an absolute cancellation of I-69 from Shelby / Panola counties to I-49.

You'll get your comeuppance, Garrison! Eventually.

But past that, thanks for this.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: splashflash on August 14, 2023, 06:34:40 PM
Unfortunately US 259 north of Nacogdaches TX 204 to Rusk County line) is planned to be 5-laned, effectively jettisoning any interstate prospects for many years to come.

https://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/lfk/us259-sh204-rusk-county-line/042622-presentation.pdf
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: dariusb on September 05, 2023, 09:46:00 PM
Oh wow. How unfortunate.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: thisdj78 on September 05, 2023, 10:28:13 PM
Unfortunately US 259 north of Nacogdaches TX 204 to Rusk County line) is planned to be 5-laned, effectively jettisoning any interstate prospects for many years to come.

https://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/lfk/us259-sh204-rusk-county-line/042622-presentation.pdf

What was the original plan for I-69 in that area?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on September 06, 2023, 12:52:13 AM
Unfortunately US 259 north of Nacogdaches TX 204 to Rusk County line) is planned to be 5-laned, effectively jettisoning any interstate prospects for many years to come.

https://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/lfk/us259-sh204-rusk-county-line/042622-presentation.pdf

What was the original plan for I-69 in that area?
I don't believe I-69 was ever to follow that part of highway... north of Nacogdoches, I-69 is to follow US-59 towards Tenaha, not US-259.

The highway in question (US-259) is a four-lane undivided highway... this project will simply widen the pavement slightly enough to provide a center turn lane and full shoulders... it's not a major upgrade in any regard.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: The Ghostbuster on September 06, 2023, 11:58:31 AM
I would have been very surprised if the US 259 corridor got an Interstate upgrade. Then again, this is Texas, so anything is possible.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bwana39 on September 06, 2023, 02:32:33 PM
I would have been very surprised if the US 259 corridor got an Interstate upgrade. Then again, this is Texas, so anything is possible.

As population centers go, it should have traveled to Longview and then to Texarkana. But, no even the most ardent dreamers only thought of it going to Mt. Enterprise.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: -- US 175 -- on September 07, 2023, 09:36:23 AM
Local big-wigs have been wanting US 59 in the area to be more than it is for *decades*.  I haven't heard anything about US 259 getting any special treatment other than the bypass around Kilgore done a few years ago.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bwana39 on September 07, 2023, 01:10:54 PM
Local big-wigs have been wanting US 59 in the area to be more than it is for *decades*.  I haven't heard anything about US 259 getting any special treatment other than the bypass around Kilgore done a few years ago.

And that will be about all there is.  Longview never gets its due. 

Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: texaskdog on September 07, 2023, 09:18:19 PM
Local big-wigs have been wanting US 59 in the area to be more than it is for *decades*.  I haven't heard anything about US 259 getting any special treatment other than the bypass around Kilgore done a few years ago.

And that will be about all there is.  Longview never gets its due. 



Even I-20 missed Longview
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: thisdj78 on September 07, 2023, 09:40:07 PM
Local big-wigs have been wanting US 59 in the area to be more than it is for *decades*.  I haven't heard anything about US 259 getting any special treatment other than the bypass around Kilgore done a few years ago.

And that will be about all there is.  Longview never gets its due. 



Even I-20 missed Longview

The way I-20 goes just outside of Tyler, Longview and Marshall is the way Interstates should be, unlike I-35 that goes almost through the middle of Waco, Temple, Austin, San Marcos, New Braunfels.

Intestates should bypass cities and towns (for the most part) and have Freeway spurs that provide access to and from the city (eg. I-90 and Rochester, NY)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: -- US 175 -- on September 08, 2023, 05:50:58 PM
Local big-wigs have been wanting US 59 in the area to be more than it is for *decades*.  I haven't heard anything about US 259 getting any special treatment other than the bypass around Kilgore done a few years ago.

And that will be about all there is.  Longview never gets its due. 



Even I-20 missed Longview

The way I-20 goes just outside of Tyler, Longview and Marshall is the way Interstates should be, unlike I-35 that goes almost through the middle of Waco, Temple, Austin, San Marcos, New Braunfels.

Intestates should bypass cities and towns (for the most part) and have Freeway spurs that provide access to and from the city (eg. I-90 and Rochester, NY)

Well, it wouldn't have hurt to have had I-20 a little closer to Tyler.  Longview and Marshall have much better proximity to I-20.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: thisdj78 on September 08, 2023, 06:40:49 PM
Local big-wigs have been wanting US 59 in the area to be more than it is for *decades*.  I haven't heard anything about US 259 getting any special treatment other than the bypass around Kilgore done a few years ago.

And that will be about all there is.  Longview never gets its due. 



Even I-20 missed Longview

The way I-20 goes just outside of Tyler, Longview and Marshall is the way Interstates should be, unlike I-35 that goes almost through the middle of Waco, Temple, Austin, San Marcos, New Braunfels.

Intestates should bypass cities and towns (for the most part) and have Freeway spurs that provide access to and from the city (eg. I-90 and Rochester, NY)

Well, it wouldn't have hurt to have had I-20 a little closer to Tyler.  Longview and Marshall have much better proximity to I-20.

It’s not too far off (5 miles directly north of Tyler). Once 49 is completed on the East end to I-20,  that will help provide better access though it would have been nice to have a limited access “I-20 business route”  that followed US271 from the east and SH110 from the west.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bwana39 on September 09, 2023, 12:48:54 PM
Local big-wigs have been wanting US 59 in the area to be more than it is for *decades*.  I haven't heard anything about US 259 getting any special treatment other than the bypass around Kilgore done a few years ago.

And that will be about all there is.  Longview never gets its due. 



Even I-20 missed Longview

The way I-20 goes just outside of Tyler, Longview and Marshall is the way Interstates should be, unlike I-35 that goes almost through the middle of Waco, Temple, Austin, San Marcos, New Braunfels.

Intestates should bypass cities and towns (for the most part) and have Freeway spurs that provide access to and from the city (eg. I-90 and Rochester, NY)

Well, it wouldn't have hurt to have had I-20 a little closer to Tyler.  Longview and Marshall have much better proximity to I-20.

Yes, Downtown Tyler is about double the distance (10mi) from I-20 as either the downtowns of  Marshall or Longview (about 5 miles).  This is more a function of I-20 loosely tracking US-80 which did not go through Tyler. Both Longview and Tyler have grown predominantly on the opposite side of town from I-20 making it even more pronounced.

I-35 was a 1950's -60's construct. I-20 & I-30 were 1960's -70's model.  Ironically, we are back on the pre-1965 model of building most of the freeways either over the top or immediately adjacent to the existent US-Highway. Pretty certain that is not really a good thing.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: BJ59 on September 09, 2023, 05:57:46 PM

Yes, Downtown Tyler is about double the distance (10mi) from I-20 as either the downtowns of  Marshall or Longview (about 5 miles).  This is more a function of I-20 loosely tracking US-80 which did not go through Tyler. Both Longview and Tyler have grown predominantly on the opposite side of town from I-20 making it even more pronounced.

I-35 was a 1950's -60's construct. I-20 & I-30 were 1960's -70's model.  Ironically, we are back on the pre-1965 model of building most of the freeways either over the top or immediately adjacent to the existent US-Highway. Pretty certain that is not really a good thing.

They're probably building on top of existing highways because they won't have to acquire as much ROW as they would building a completely new stretch of highway. Even though the ROW they would have to acquire to build on an existing highway would be more expensive (removing businesses, houses, etc.) it is probably more cost effective in the long run as they already own much ROW from the existing highway. Building a completely new highway would require purchasing miles and miles of 200-300 ft wide land, which would add up pretty quickly in cost
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bwana39 on September 11, 2023, 08:03:10 AM

Yes, Downtown Tyler is about double the distance (10mi) from I-20 as either the downtowns of  Marshall or Longview (about 5 miles).  This is more a function of I-20 loosely tracking US-80 which did not go through Tyler. Both Longview and Tyler have grown predominantly on the opposite side of town from I-20 making it even more pronounced.

I-35 was a 1950's -60's construct. I-20 & I-30 were 1960's -70's model.  Ironically, we are back on the pre-1965 model of building most of the freeways either over the top or immediately adjacent to the existent US-Highway. Pretty certain that is not really a good thing.


They're probably building on top of existing highways because they won't have to acquire as much ROW as they would building a completely new stretch of highway. Even though the ROW they would have to acquire to build on an existing highway would be more expensive (removing businesses, houses, etc.) it is probably more cost effective in the long run as they already own much ROW from the existing highway. Building a completely new highway would require purchasing miles and miles of 200-300 ft wide land, which would add up pretty quickly in cost


What they figured out in the 1960's & 70's is that speculators would buy up the raw land on the greenfield routes. By the time they dealt with either prolonged negotiations or eminent domain proceedings, they were for sure over the budget they had estimated and often over the cost of using more highly developed land.  Greenfield routes were also less accommodating to gradual upgrades.

Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MaxConcrete on October 25, 2023, 09:03:00 PM
TxDOT held a meeting last week to present four alternatives for bringing I-69 into Laredo.
Meeting: https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/laredo/us59-feasibility-study-101923.html (https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/laredo/us59-feasibility-study-101923.html)

PDF with alternatives: https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/lrd/us59-feasibility-study/101923-roll-plots.pdf (https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/lrd/us59-feasibility-study/101923-roll-plots.pdf)

Slideshow, see page 6 for comparison matrix:  https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/lrd/us59-feasibility-study/101923-exhibit-boards.pdf (https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/lrd/us59-feasibility-study/101923-exhibit-boards.pdf)

The purple alternative follows the existing US 59 alignment on the south side of the lake. It requires numerous displacements including about 31 homes in a trailer park. It has the most negative ratings in the matrix on page 6. It is almost certain to be eliminated, which is good because it is the longest and least efficient alignment.

Orange, pink and green are all good alignments, and all have only three potential displacements. Orange has the best ratings in the matrix and has the lowest cost of the non-purple alternatives, so I view it as the favorite to win.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on October 25, 2023, 09:42:16 PM
Yeah, the map makes it obvious the Orange route is the most direct and probably easiest to build. I guess the Pink alternative is nearby for which property owners offer the best sale prices for ROW. The Green alternative isn't bad either.

The Purple alternative is a bad option. It's the least direct route if motorists are heading in the direction of the I-69W/I-35 interchange. It's a shorter route if motorists are headed toward the downtown area of Laredo. In addition to wiping some properties on US-59 leading up to the intersection with the Bob Bullock Loop, the Purple alternative would force the issue of upgrading the rest of the Bob Bullock Loop to Interstate standards.

The area on the Bob Bullock Loop just North of the US-59 interchange is going to be tricky to upgrade (if such a thing ever happens). The existing 4-lane not-divided road is closely flanked by a golf course and a levee for Lake Casa Blanca. Just North of there the United ISD Food Production Center is directly in the path of any freeway expansion. The Orange, Pink and Green alternative connect to the Bob Bullock Loop to the North of that location.

The rest of the Bob Bullock Loop will have to be upgraded to Interstate quality at some point. So they'll have to deal with that golf course situation sooner or later.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: lordsutch on October 26, 2023, 12:22:19 AM
As a former resident of the area, I agree that either the orange or pink alignment makes the most sense. I don't see enough future development on the existing US 59 corridor to make the purple alignment make a lot of sense, and I don't see any real advantage to joining the loop further south via the green or purple alignments.

As for future widening of Loop 20, I think the United ISD Food Production Facility is a goner; you can tell the ROW has been reserved for the widening to the north and south of there. I think it would be easy enough to build a replacement facility elsewhere.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MaxConcrete on October 27, 2023, 12:05:55 AM
There was a public meeting yesterday for the proposed alignment of the 13-mile-long Refugio bypass on I-69E. For those not familiar, Refugio is the longest urban street section of I-69E. The alignment looks good, direct and with very few curves.
https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/corpus-christi/102523.html (https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/corpus-christi/102523.html)

Map
https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/crp/us77-woodsboro-refugio/100923-newsletter-map.pdf (https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/crp/us77-woodsboro-refugio/100923-newsletter-map.pdf)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: TheBox on October 27, 2023, 11:25:08 AM
Nothing new, they just held a public meeting in more detail in Marshall Convection Center last month, but if everything goes into plan, construction would begin in 2028
(https://bloximages.newyork1.vip.townnews.com/marshallnewsmessenger.com/content/tncms/assets/v3/editorial/0/4c/04cc5df0-4cea-11ee-ac93-7b2f8cbb48a2/64f8d04828113.image.jpg?resize=750%2C525)

https://www.marshallnewsmessenger.com/news/proposed-i-369-project-detailed-in-marshall/article_eb29bc58-4ce9-11ee-a81b-4fa39b5f3ee3.html
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on October 27, 2023, 01:43:24 PM
Just in case someone hasn't mentioned it already, TX DOT is apparently at work on the next segment of I-69E from the South edge of Kingsville down to the North edge of Riviera. Google Street View imagery from 5/2023 shows grading work being done to the right of the Northbound US-77 main lines. I assume this is for new Northbound frontage road lanes.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: TheBox on October 27, 2023, 02:19:40 PM
North of Houston, there's the Diboll bypass, the Lufkin expansion between Redland underpass and north of the loop, and of course the Nacogdoches realignment (all of which Bing maps has that Google Maps doesn't)

https://www.bing.com/maps/?cp=31.193858%7E-94.79407&lvl=13.9&style=a
https://www.bing.com/maps/?cp=31.383655%7E-94.711102&lvl=13.3&style=h
https://www.bing.com/maps/?cp=31.573538%7E-94.674679&lvl=13.3&style=h

and south of Houston is further extension/expansion to interstate standards from Kendleton down to Hungerford-Wharton, the southbound lanes of the Driscoll bypass, and as you just mentioned the Kingsville frontage roads and overpasses down to north of Riviera

and within Houston is just the notorious I-69/US-59 (Southwest Fwy) @ I-610 (West Loop) interchange
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: TheBox on October 27, 2023, 02:38:53 PM
also when are they gonna begin the long-overdue Corrigan bypass?
https://landline.media/u-s-59-texas-city-bypass-project-clears-route-for-future-i-69/

(I know this article's from last year but still)
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on October 27, 2023, 03:30:34 PM
Construction on the Corrigan Bypass has been underway for some time. The project is still in early stages. Imagery is visible in Google Earth (8/10/2023). There is some Street View imagery on US-287 West of Corrigan where the bypass crosses.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: armadillo speedbump on October 28, 2023, 03:29:22 PM
Now that Corrigan is under way, once all the current projects are finished 59 will be free flow all the way from Houston to Tennison, correct?  Still some speed zones, but overall a big advance for that corridor.

It would be nice if they can ditch the pork dream of the I69 leg to Shreveport and instead run more direct from Nacogdoches to Carthage.  Put in an I20 west to 59 south direct connector at Marshall and let that be I69 (longer but far more cost effective).  But I guess Congressional designation has tied TXDOT's hands?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: splashflash on October 28, 2023, 04:50:47 PM
Another Nacogdoches relief bypass drone fly-over, from late August.

Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bwana39 on October 28, 2023, 06:59:36 PM
Now that Corrigan is under way, once all the current projects are finished 59 will be free flow all the way from Houston to Tennison, correct?  Still some speed zones, but overall a big advance for that corridor.

It would be nice if they can ditch the pork dream of the I69 leg to Shreveport and instead run more direct from Nacogdoches to Carthage.  Put in an I20 west to 59 south direct connector at Marshall and let that be I69 (longer but far more cost effective).  But I guess Congressional designation has tied TXDOT's hands?

If they build the bypass route that was the most recently discussed it will be closer. There are two possibilities. The second built to stay out of Rusk County (and the Tyler TxDOT region... less than five miles) .

The preferred route (which DOES go through Rusk county) would depart from the current US-59 west of Garrison and create a single loop around the north side of both Garrison and Timpson with a wider arc to a place on the current US-59 around Woods Community in Panola County. That point around Woods would be the I-69 / 369 Split. There would be around 20 miles from the state line to the I-49 around Frierson. The folks in DeSoto Parish HATE it. They want it to follow US-84 to Mansfield more or less.  That said, I really don't see I-69 from US-59 to I-49 being built at all unless the Speaker of the House gets some extraordinary funding for Louisiana in general and NW Louisiana specifically.

The second route would loop south of Garrison  and Timpson. and rejoin US59/84 near Bobo.From there it could either go on to Woods or along to the originally proposed short loop around Tenaha and cross the Sabine river north of Joaquin.

A greenfield route from Timpson to Carthage could take as much as 15 miles off the route if the Louisiana portion of I-69 were cancelled or it it was built from South of Carthage to Stonewall LA or Along US-79 to the LA state line.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: splashflash on October 28, 2023, 10:41:42 PM
Was the reason to keep it out of Rusk Country because Rusk County had preferred US 259 up to Mt. Enterprise and TX-315 to Carthage as the I-69 route rather than close to the state border?  Going through the south east corner or the county would not bring any benefit to them only encroachment on land and loss of land tax revenue?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bwana39 on October 29, 2023, 02:55:29 AM
Was the reason to keep it out of Rusk Country because Rusk County had preferred US 259 up to Mt. Enterprise and TX-315 to Carthage as the I-69 route rather than close to the state border?  Going through the south east corner or the county would not bring any benefit to them only encroachment on land and loss of land tax revenue?

Rusk County is in the Tyler TxDOT Region. It adds an additional layer of complication and priority setting to the mix.

As to Tax revenue, even with as few as one intersection, the overall evaluation SHOULD increase from the commercial projects at the intersections.

As to local concerns. Shelby county wants all of I-69 (but evidently not I-369). When the US-84 route was proposed the State Rep was frm Center.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Chris on November 02, 2023, 02:13:46 PM
The southbound lanes of the bypass of Premont (US 281, future I-69C) opened to traffic on October 25:

Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: TheBox on November 05, 2023, 06:59:35 PM
When are they gonna upgrade US-59 (future I-69W) anywhere between Laredo and Goliad?

It is mostly 2-lane undivided there, meaning they’ll have to go from that to a 4-lane divided expressway, and that’s before all the bypasses and any realignments
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Some one on November 05, 2023, 07:47:41 PM
When are they gonna upgrade US-59 (future I-69W) anywhere between Laredo and Goliad?

It is mostly 2-lane undivided there, meaning they’ll have to go from that to a 4-lane divided expressway, and that’s before all the bypasses and any realignments
I honestly see them completing US 77/I-69E south of I-37 before they even start on a segment of US 59/I-69W east of Laredo
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MaxConcrete on November 05, 2023, 11:10:54 PM
When are they gonna upgrade US-59 (future I-69W) anywhere between Laredo and Goliad?

It is mostly 2-lane undivided there, meaning they’ll have to go from that to a 4-lane divided expressway, and that’s before all the bypasses and any realignments
I honestly see them completing US 77/I-69E south of I-37 before they even start on a segment of US 59/I-69W east of Laredo

I expect IH 69W (Laredo to Victoria) to be the last section if the IH 69 system to be built, after IH 69E, IH 69W, I-69 (Victoria to Nacogdoches), and IH 369. So that's in the very distant future, after 2050.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on November 06, 2023, 01:23:20 AM
When are they gonna upgrade US-59 (future I-69W) anywhere between Laredo and Goliad?

It is mostly 2-lane undivided there, meaning they’ll have to go from that to a 4-lane divided expressway, and that’s before all the bypasses and any realignments
Better yet, which one will be first: I-69W from Laredo to Victoria, or I-69 in Jackson County?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on November 06, 2023, 10:34:22 AM
If TX DOT was smart about it they would get to work acquiring ROW around towns where the I-69W route will have to be built on new terrain bypasses. That means bypasses around Goliad, Beeville, George West and Freer. They could start out with modest Super 2 roadways that have at-grade intersections, but preserve enough ROW to eventually upgrade it to 4-lane divided, limited access.

If they fart around for 20 or more years before doing anything at all it could cost the taxpayers a bunch. The new terrain bypasses may have to go farther around these towns due to additional development (such as speculators deliberately building a bunch of crap in the freeway's future path).

TX DOT could take decades filling in the gaps between towns if they choose. But they need to get the more difficult stuff (town bypasses) built sooner than later. They're already kind of doing this with I-69 North of Houston. Towns like Corrigan, Diboll, Lufkin and Nacogdoches have I-69 projects in progress. TX DOT isn't simply upgrading US-59 into I-69 North out of Houston in a linear fashion.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: edwaleni on November 06, 2023, 10:39:37 AM
If TX DOT was smart about it they would get to work acquiring ROW around towns where the I-69W route will have to be built on new terrain bypasses. That means bypasses around Goliad, Beeville, George West and Freer. They could start out with modest Super 2 roadways that have at-grade intersections, but preserve enough ROW to eventually upgrade it to 4-lane divided, limited access.

If they fart around for 20 or more years before doing anything at all it could cost the taxpayers a bunch. The new terrain bypasses may have to go farther around these towns due to additional development (such as speculators deliberately building a bunch of crap in the freeway's future path).

TX DOT could take decades filling in the gaps between towns if they choose. But they need to get the more difficult stuff (town bypasses) built sooner than later. They're already kind of doing this with I-69 North of Houston. Towns like Corrigan, Diboll, Lufkin and Nacogdoches have I-69 projects in progress. TX DOT isn't simply upgrading US-59 into I-69 North out of Houston in a linear fashion.

I might disagree. These towns are in the middle of almost nowhere. The populations are growing at an aggregate of less than 2%.  The I-69 effort has been on the books for several years now and TxDOT has had no issues acquiring ROW thus far.  In this case I think the highway upgrade will bring growth after they are built, not before.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on November 06, 2023, 12:16:05 PM
A lot can happen in a 20-30 year time span. The Laredo border crossing is the busiest inland port of entry in the US for commercial traffic. Various geopolitical shifts, such as manufacturers leaving an increasingly autocratic China, could dramatically ramp up commercial traffic levels at US/Mexico border crossings in the years ahead. Mexico isn't the most ideal place to set up manufacturing facilities either, but a growing number of industries (such as our auto industry) have already been producing there for years.

Those small towns do have the deck stacked against them for future growth due to multiple factors. But if a small town is in the right location it can end up growing anyway. I think the I-69 corridor from Laredo to Houston is going to get a lot more busy in the future.

And what I'm talking about for those towns isn't grandiose. It would just be 2-lane bypasses with at-grade intersections, built with enough ROW off to the left or right to hold a future freeway. The bypasses could be designed with or without frontage roads in mind. The key thing is the bypasses don't have to cost a fortune to build. It just gets the land reserved for the future.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on November 06, 2023, 01:06:02 PM
I would agree that building super-2 bypasses would be a good start. US-59 currently does not have the traffic volumes or warrants for a freeway, let alone a divided highway, but preserving that right of way, and allowing it to be a continuous 75 mph super-2 throughout would be an improvement over those current in-town situations.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: edwaleni on November 06, 2023, 11:25:42 PM
I would agree that building super-2 bypasses would be a good start. US-59 currently does not have the traffic volumes or warrants for a freeway, let alone a divided highway, but preserving that right of way, and allowing it to be a continuous 75 mph super-2 throughout would be an improvement over those current in-town situations.

Does Texas have a history of building Super-2's in anticipation of a future freeway?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: lordsutch on November 06, 2023, 11:59:01 PM
Does Texas have a history of building Super-2's in anticipation of a future freeway?

Not really; it's more of a Arkansas thing. Toll SH 49, Loop 390, and former Toll SH 255 would seem to be the exceptions that prove the rule.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bwana39 on November 07, 2023, 02:59:38 AM
Does Texas have a history of building Super-2's in anticipation of a future freeway?

Not really; it's more of a Arkansas thing. Toll SH 49, Loop 390, and former Toll SH 255 would seem to be the exceptions that prove the rule.

Not sure how SL-390 fits here. It is not currently controlled access at any point. The other two are 2-laned controlled access. As you said, still outliers in Texas even at that.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: kphoger on November 07, 2023, 09:22:00 AM


Does Texas have a history of building Super-2's in anticipation of a future freeway?

Not really; it's more of a Arkansas thing. Toll SH 49, Loop 390, and former Toll SH 255 would seem to be the exceptions that prove the rule.

Not sure how SL-290 fits here. It is not currently controlled access at any point. The other two are 2-laned controlled access. As you said, still outliers in Texas even at that.

255 doesn't fit either, because it was built as a private toll road, and the state of Texas only gained ownership of it when it was auctioned off years later.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MikieTimT on November 07, 2023, 11:58:16 AM
There are a not insignificant number of small towns that fight bypasses due to the lost revenue that the traffic brings to whatever commercial district (or speedtrap toll road) they already have, such as a few instances along US-69 in Oklahoma, if we remember.  This might also be a case of Texas not wanting to pick a fight before its time.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: J N Winkler on November 07, 2023, 12:40:06 PM
Building two-lane with full control of access is even more of a Kansas thing than an Arkansas thing--examples include US 69 from Fort Scott to Pittsburg in the 1970's (since expanded to a full cross-section) and the just-opened K-14/K-96 Northwest Passage between Hutchinson and Lyons.  For interim construction, Texas has tended to favor frontage roads with town bypasses or poor-boys.  In light of the poor safety record of the latter, I would expect the former to be used if and when TxDOT judges there is a need for corridor preservation.

One aspect that makes facilities like Toll 49 and the former Camino Colombia Toll Road (now SH 255) exceptions that prove the rule is that neither was developed in its current configuration by TxDOT.  NET RMA owns Toll 49, while the Camino Colombia was privately built.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on November 07, 2023, 03:10:15 PM
The Super-2 bypasses I'm suggesting for Goliad, Beeville, George West, etc do not have to be built with limited access from the outset. They can start out as mere 2-lane roads with at-grade intersections. The whole point is just doing the minimum to get the ROW reserved. Bridges, exit ramps and better quality main travel lanes can be added in phases.

Quote from: edwaleni
Does Texas have a history of building Super-2's in anticipation of a future freeway?

They've done it in various places.

The re-build of US-82 going East of Sherman to Honey Grove started out as a Super-2 with some limited access exits in the 2000's. The second pair of lanes was added only a couple or so years ago. The Collin County Outer Loop to the North of McKinney and Propser is starting out as a 2-lane frontage road with 300'-400' of ROW reserved off to the side. The TX-49 toll road in Tyler is just 2 lanes, but was built so a second roadway could be added later. This approach of building up a freeway or turnpike in phases is becoming more common.

Quote from: MikieTimT
There are a not insignificant number of small towns that fight bypasses due to the lost revenue that the traffic brings to whatever commercial district (or speedtrap toll road) they already have, such as a few instances along US-69 in Oklahoma, if we remember. This might also be a case of Texas not wanting to pick a fight before its time.

The problem is these small towns (including the speed traps of Stringtown and Atoka in Oklahoma) are steadily losing population under current status-quo conditions. Some of these places could become ghost towns. At some point the residents of a small town in decline could reverse their opposition to a freeway bypass or even routing a freeway thru town as a means of trying to stop the decline.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: edwaleni on November 07, 2023, 03:31:04 PM
The Super-2 bypasses I'm suggesting for Goliad, Beeville, George West, etc do not have to be built with limited access from the outset. They can start out as mere 2-lane roads with at-grade intersections. The whole point is just doing the minimum to get the ROW reserved. Bridges, exit ramps and better quality main travel lanes can be added in phases.

Quote from: edwaleni
Does Texas have a history of building Super-2's in anticipation of a future freeway?

They've done it in various places.

The re-build of US-82 going East of Sherman to Honey Grove started out as a Super-2 with some limited access exits in the 2000's. The second pair of lanes was added only a couple or so years ago. The Collin County Outer Loop to the North of McKinney and Propser is starting out as a 2-lane frontage road with 300'-400' of ROW reserved off to the side. The TX-49 toll road in Tyler is just 2 lanes, but was built so a second roadway could be added later. This approach of building up a freeway or turnpike in phases is becoming more common.

Quote from: MikieTimT
There are a not insignificant number of small towns that fight bypasses due to the lost revenue that the traffic brings to whatever commercial district (or speedtrap toll road) they already have, such as a few instances along US-69 in Oklahoma, if we remember. This might also be a case of Texas not wanting to pick a fight before its time.

The problem is these small towns (including the speed traps of Stringtown and Atoka in Oklahoma) are steadily losing population under current status-quo conditions. Some of these places could become ghost towns. At some point the residents of a small town in decline could reverse their opposition to a freeway bypass or even routing a freeway thru town as a means of trying to stop the decline.

Interesting. Some friends of mine just moved to Atoka. They absolutely love it. They are in their late 20's and say its the most friendliest town they have ever been in. 3 kids born and they want to stay.

But it doesn't appear TxDOT does Super-2's as a strategic activity, just when necessary.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on November 07, 2023, 05:24:13 PM
Most school districts in Oklahoma outside of the big metros are struggling, especially the more rural districts. There are "rich" districts like Edmond that seem to have everything in terms of funding, resources and ability to attract and retain good teachers. Small town districts get out-gunned. And then there's the matter of so many teachers in Oklahoma leaving the state altogether because of the comparative low pay to other states and the hostile anti-teacher attitudes coming out of the state capitol.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bwana39 on November 08, 2023, 05:29:24 AM
The Super-2 bypasses I'm suggesting for Goliad, Beeville, George West, etc do not have to be built with limited access from the outset. They can start out as mere 2-lane roads with at-grade intersections. The whole point is just doing the minimum to get the ROW reserved. Bridges, exit ramps and better quality main travel lanes can be added in phases.

Quote from: edwaleni
Does Texas have a history of building Super-2's in anticipation of a future freeway?

They've done it in various places.

The re-build of US-82 going East of Sherman to Honey Grove started out as a Super-2 with some limited access exits in the 2000's. The second pair of lanes was added only a couple or so years ago. The Collin County Outer Loop to the North of McKinney and Propser is starting out as a 2-lane frontage road with 300'-400' of ROW reserved off to the side. The TX-49 toll road in Tyler is just 2 lanes, but was built so a second roadway could be added later. This approach of building up a freeway or turnpike in phases is becoming more common.

Quote from: MikieTimT
There are a not insignificant number of small towns that fight bypasses due to the lost revenue that the traffic brings to whatever commercial district (or speedtrap toll road) they already have, such as a few instances along US-69 in Oklahoma, if we remember. This might also be a case of Texas not wanting to pick a fight before its time.

The problem is these small towns (including the speed traps of Stringtown and Atoka in Oklahoma) are steadily losing population under current status-quo conditions. Some of these places could become ghost towns. At some point the residents of a small town in decline could reverse their opposition to a freeway bypass or even routing a freeway thru town as a means of trying to stop the decline.

Interesting. Some friends of mine just moved to Atoka. They absolutely love it. They are in their late 20's and say its the most friendliest town they have ever been in. 3 kids born and they want to stay.

But it doesn't appear TxDOT does Super-2's as a strategic activity, just when necessary.

Atoka is still very much a small town. Small towns either tend to quickly adopt newcomers into their society or you can live there decades and still be an outsider.

No TxDOT NEVER does super 2-s. Toll 49 was built by and is operated and maintained by NETRMA (Northeast Texas Regional Mobility Authority) a regional transportation authority. NETRMA also does busses in select NE Texas counties. As has been discussed at length, the former Camino Colombia Toll Road (now SH 255) was not developed by or for TxDOT. For what it is worth, TxDOT did NOT buy the SH-255 at the foreclosure auction. They were outbid by by an insurer. They gave 8 million dollars more for it nearly a year later.

US-82 has always had driveways east of Bells. There are select grade separations but even FM road intersections (ex: FM-1396) mostly are at grade. It does bypass all the little towns in Fannin and Grayson counties, but NOT a super 2. Nothing as to limited access has changed with the 2x2 upgrade. There is R.O.W. to later upgrade and put in frontage roads when / if warranted.

US-259 around Kilgore and the previously mentioned SL-390 at Marshall are other examples of 2-lane placeholders slated for eventual upgrade in all or part to limited access. Neither are a so-called Super-2.





Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: GreenLanternCorps on November 08, 2023, 06:56:49 AM
Getting back to I-69 in Texas, Looking at Google Maps and the Wikipedia article on I-69E.

What exactly is left to be done before I-69E can be signed from South of Kingsville to it's current terminus just South of Robstown?

The hard part, the Driscoll bypass is done, trying to figure out what is left.

As a side note, it looks like construction has started on the interchange in Ricardo, just South of Kingsville, per Google Maps


https://www.google.com/maps/@27.4214543,-97.8508558,3a,75y,24.67h,89.45t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sK0qQMz2ALkM1xUSolQMvJw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DK0qQMz2ALkM1xUSolQMvJw%26cb_client%3Dsearch.revgeo_and_fetch.gps%26w%3D96%26h%3D64%26yaw%3D115.24743%26pitch%3D0%26thumbfov%3D100!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on November 08, 2023, 02:28:49 PM
Construction projects in Kingsville and Driscoll are still not finished. Once those are done I-69E can be signed down to the South end of Kingsville.

Quote from: bwana39
US-82 has always had driveways east of Bells. There are select grade separations but even FM road intersections (ex: FM-1396) mostly are at grade. It does bypass all the little towns in Fannin and Grayson counties, but NOT a super 2.

News flash: a Super 2 roadway does not have to be 100% limited access. Not far from here the Duncan Bypass is a Super 2 facility. It does still have a couple of at-grade intersections. But it still qualifies as a Super 2. The roadway is built with Interstate quality grading. That's the main factor. And enough ROW is preserved to eventually turn it into a fully limited access freeway. It's a less expensive approach than the old Texas standard of building a divided highway with a giant median in between the two roadways.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Phudman on November 08, 2023, 05:23:47 PM
New Nacogdoches flyover
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bwana39 on November 08, 2023, 05:24:18 PM
Construction projects in Kingsville and Driscoll are still not finished. Once those are done I-69E can be signed down to the South end of Kingsville.

Quote from: bwana39
US-82 has always had driveways east of Bells. There are select grade separations but even FM road intersections (ex: FM-1396) mostly are at grade. It does bypass all the little towns in Fannin and Grayson counties, but NOT a super 2.

News flash: a Super 2 roadway does not have to be 100% limited access. Not far from here the Duncan Bypass is a Super 2 facility. It does still have a couple of at-grade intersections. But it still qualifies as a Super 2. The roadway is built with Interstate quality grading. That's the main factor. And enough ROW is preserved to eventually turn it into a fully limited access freeway. It's a less expensive approach than the old Texas standard of building a divided highway with a giant median in between the two roadways.

I moved this discussion over to a separate thread.

https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=34103.0
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MaxConcrete on November 19, 2023, 09:26:07 AM
I drove from Houston to Boca Chica (South Padre) for the rocket launch.

Status of I-69

Freeway in Fort Bend County (to Kendleton) appears to be 100% complete. 3x3 main lanes have been open for a while, more than a year, but I did not see any lingering work on the frontage roads.

Wharton County, Kendleton to north Wharton: Traffic is on the frontage roads with work proceeding on the main lanes. Main lane progress is variable, substantial progress on the north half and less on the south half. I think it is at least 2 years before completion. A $341 million project for work through Wharton is scheduled to be awarded in December.

Wharton to Victoria. Most of the highway has a recent, smooth asphalt overlay.

Corpus, multiplex with I-37: Substantial work in progress

South half of Kingsville bypass: traffic is on the frontage roads and main lanes look around 75% complete

Kingsville to Riviera: work is substantially progressed on the northbound frontage road, with most bridges in place. Minimal work on the southbound main lanes (which will be in the existing median.)

I-69C interchange at I-2 in Pharr: new ramps are either open or past 50% complete. There is substantial work on I-2 main lanes west of the interchange. I did not drive I-69C north of the interchange.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: thisdj78 on November 19, 2023, 10:36:18 AM
I drove from Houston to Boca Chica (South Padre) for the rocket launch.

Status of I-69

Freeway in Fort Bend County (to Kendleton) appears to be 100% complete. 3x3 main lanes have been open for a while, more than a year, but I did not see any lingering work on the frontage roads.

Wharton County, Kendleton to north Wharton: Traffic is on the frontage roads with work proceeding on the main lanes. Main lane progress is variable, substantial progress on the north half and less on the south half. I think it is at least 2 years before completion. A $341 project for work through Wharton is scheduled to be awarded in December.

Wharton to Victoria. Most of the highway has a recent, smooth asphalt overlay.

Corpus, multiplex with I-37: Substantial work in progress

South half of Kingsville bypass: traffic is on the frontage roads and main lanes look around 75% complete

Kingsville to Riviera: work is substantially progressed on the northbound frontage road, with most bridges in place. Minimal work on the southbound main lanes (which will be in the existing median.)

I-69C interchange at I-2 in Pharr: new ramps are either open or past 50% complete. There is substantial work on I-2 main lanes west of the interchange. I did not drive I-69C north of the interchange.

Nice! I wonder when work will start on the Odem bypass. I was looking at the aerial view and it almost appears like ROW is being cleared but maybe this is for something else, but it follows closely to the Option A and B route in this spot:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/S3YdX64N6RVRpdLe9?g_st=ic
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MaxConcrete on November 19, 2023, 10:54:38 AM

Nice! I wonder when work will start on the Odem bypass. I was looking at the aerial view and it almost appears like ROW is being cleared but maybe this is for something else, but it follows closely to the Option A and B route in this spot:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/S3YdX64N6RVRpdLe9?g_st=ic

For Odem, the environmental process is still in progress and a preferred alternative has not been identified. So I think we're at least 5 years from construction starting. The Riviera bypass is scheduled for bids in June 2027 and will probably proceed first. The Refugio bypass has its route identified and is further along in the environmental process than Odem. So it appears nothing is imminent for these bypasses. Upcoming jobs receiving bids in December include $341 million in Wharton county and $184 million in Kenedy County.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: jgb191 on November 19, 2023, 06:02:09 PM
Kingsville to Riviera: work is substantially progressed on the northbound frontage road, with most bridges in place. Minimal work on the southbound main lanes (which will be in the existing median.)

Does the progress include though (or around) Ricardo?  I believe they can (and should) be able to upgrade US-77 on its current route right through Ricardo and not need to bypass around.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: abqtraveler on November 19, 2023, 07:44:45 PM
Kingsville to Riviera: work is substantially progressed on the northbound frontage road, with most bridges in place. Minimal work on the southbound main lanes (which will be in the existing median.)

Does the progress include though (or around) Ricardo?  I believe they can (and should) be able to upgrade US-77 on its current route right through Ricardo and not need to bypass around.
From the GSV in Ricardo, it looks like that's exactly what they're doing.  Upgrading US-77 on the spot through town. The long pole in the tent to completing the remainder of I-69E between I-37 and the Mexican border is the bypass around Riviera. The latest I saw on that had construction on the Riviera Bypass starting in 2027. After the bypass around Riviera is finished, there will be about 45 miles left between Riviera and Yturria, which runs through a very sparsely populated area. I can't imagine that stretch being too hard to upgrade to interstate standards.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on November 19, 2023, 08:44:21 PM
Right now it looks like they're doing grading work on what will be a new Northbound frontage road from the South edge of Kingsville down to the North edge of Riviera. The grading work ends where the median for US-77 disappears and the highway turns into a 5 lane street going down into Riviera.

US-77 is being upgraded in place along this stretch thanks in part to the wide center median. I'd be surprised if it took until 2027 to get the Interstate upgrade work on that segment completed.

US-77 going South of Riviera doesn't have any serious obstacles. The little town of Sarita has freeway exit already. The Riviera bypass is the biggest individual project remaining on the work to do between Kingsville and Raymondville.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MaxConcrete on December 06, 2023, 06:30:53 PM
Bids were opened this week totaling $567 million for two major projects on I-69 and I-69E.

This project (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/12053028.htm) on I-69E in Kenedy county (just north of the Rio Grande Valley) will add overpasses to remove crossovers. In my opinion, most other work on I-69 is higher priority, since none of these crossovers has a traffic signal or any kind of slowdown. But it probably was "shovel ready", and other work is not.

County:   KENEDY   Let Date:   12/05/23
Type:   INTERSTATE DESIGNATION   Seq No:   3028
Time:   840 WORKING DAYS   Project ID:   F 2024(529)
Highway:   US 77   Contract #:   12233028
Length:   11.643   CCSJ:   0327-05-041
Limits:   
From:   NORIAS RD   Check:   $100,000
To:   1.34 MI N OF WILLACY/KENEDY C.L.   Misc Cost:   
Estimate   $181,963,013.52   % Over/Under   Company
Bidder 1   $190,998,296.01   +4.97%   POSILLICO CIVIL, INC.
Bidder 2   $229,719,235.18   +26.25%   PULICE CONSTRUCTION, INC.
Bidder 3   $235,230,487.56   +29.27%   ANDERSON COLUMBIA CO., INC.
Bidder 4   $240,050,877.21   +31.92%   WEBBER, LLC
Bidder 5   $246,771,391.00   +35.62%   ZACHRY CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION

The second project (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/12063201.htm) upgrades the section through Wharton to a 3x3 freeway, including a new bridge over the Colorado River, which surely is a reason for the high cost. Williams Brothers is currently building the section to the north.

County:   WHARTON   Let Date:   12/06/23
Type:   CONVERT NON-FREEWAY   Seq No:   3201
Time:   0 X   Project ID:   F 2024(436)
Highway:   US 59   Contract #:   12233201
Length:   7.779   CCSJ:   0089-07-154
Limits:   
From:   0.26 MI. NORTH OF FM 102   Check:   $100,000
To:   1 MI SOUTH OF FM 961   Misc Cost:   
Estimate   $375,500,377.07   % Over/Under   Company
Bidder 1   $376,415,384.91   +0.24%   WILLIAMS BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.
Bidder 2   $419,260,054.87   +11.65%   PULICE CONSTRUCTION, INC.
Bidder 3   $424,392,986.67   +13.02%   WEBBER, LLC
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: GreenLanternCorps on December 09, 2023, 10:34:18 AM
Bids were opened this week totaling $567 million for two major projects on I-69 and I-69E.

This project (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/12053028.htm) on I-69E in Kenedy county (just north of the Rio Grande Valley) will add overpasses to remove crossovers. In my opinion, most other work on I-69 is higher priority, since none of these crossovers has a traffic signal or any kind of slowdown. But it probably was "shovel ready", and other work is not.

County:   KENEDY   Let Date:   12/05/23
Type:   INTERSTATE DESIGNATION   Seq No:   3028
Time:   840 WORKING DAYS   Project ID:   F 2024(529)
Highway:   US 77   Contract #:   12233028
Length:   11.643   CCSJ:   0327-05-041
Limits:   
From:   NORIAS RD   Check:   $100,000
To:   1.34 MI N OF WILLACY/KENEDY C.L.   Misc Cost:   
Estimate   $181,963,013.52   % Over/Under   Company
Bidder 1   $190,998,296.01   +4.97%   POSILLICO CIVIL, INC.
Bidder 2   $229,719,235.18   +26.25%   PULICE CONSTRUCTION, INC.
Bidder 3   $235,230,487.56   +29.27%   ANDERSON COLUMBIA CO., INC.
Bidder 4   $240,050,877.21   +31.92%   WEBBER, LLC
Bidder 5   $246,771,391.00   +35.62%   ZACHRY CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION

The second project (http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/12063201.htm) upgrades the section through Wharton to a 3x3 freeway, including a new bridge over the Colorado River, which surely is a reason for the high cost. Williams Brothers is currently building the section to the north.

County:   WHARTON   Let Date:   12/06/23
Type:   CONVERT NON-FREEWAY   Seq No:   3201
Time:   0 X   Project ID:   F 2024(436)
Highway:   US 59   Contract #:   12233201
Length:   7.779   CCSJ:   0089-07-154
Limits:   
From:   0.26 MI. NORTH OF FM 102   Check:   $100,000
To:   1 MI SOUTH OF FM 961   Misc Cost:   
Estimate   $375,500,377.07   % Over/Under   Company
Bidder 1   $376,415,384.91   +0.24%   WILLIAMS BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.
Bidder 2   $419,260,054.87   +11.65%   PULICE CONSTRUCTION, INC.
Bidder 3   $424,392,986.67   +13.02%   WEBBER, LLC

Both of these are logical, Wharton is the next section moving South on I-69 from Houston, and the Kenedy County stretch takes I-69E to just South of Rivera
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 09, 2023, 11:01:25 AM
Is the bypass around Riviera funded and/or scheduled for construction?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MaxConcrete on December 09, 2023, 05:34:36 PM
Is the bypass around Riviera funded and/or scheduled for construction?

It is currently listed (https://tableau.txdot.gov/views/ProjectInformationDashboard/ProjectInformationDashboard?%3Aembed=y&%3AisGuestRedirectFromVizportal=y&%3Aorigin=card_share_link) at $178 million with bidding in June 2027.

There are multiple other large projects on US 77 going to bid before Riviera. Those other projects should be lower priority than Riviera, in my opinion, since they are on sections which don't have traffic signals. But that's the schedule.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on December 09, 2023, 06:04:37 PM
I believe this is because TxDOT is trying to push the completion of I-69E between I-37 and Brownsville entirely.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: abqtraveler on December 11, 2023, 10:37:41 AM
I believe this is because TxDOT is trying to push the completion of I-69E between I-37 and Brownsville entirely.
From what I'm seeing, it looks like the bypass around Riviera will be the last piece of the puzzle to complete I-69E from I-37 to the Mexican border. If that's the case and the Riviera Bypass starts construction as scheduled in 2027, then you'll likely see that stretch of I-69E completed by 2030.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: jgb191 on December 11, 2023, 11:26:26 AM
Yeah it makes a lot of sense that Refugio and Riviera are the two final pieces of the puzzle, could be built simultaneously.  And both towns are major stopping points for food, fuel, and rest/sleep so I imagine both towns are willing to wait as long as possible before being bypassed.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on December 11, 2023, 11:44:07 AM
I believe this is because TxDOT is trying to push the completion of I-69E between I-37 and Brownsville entirely.
From what I'm seeing, it looks like the bypass around Riviera will be the last piece of the puzzle to complete I-69E from I-37 to the Mexican border. If that's the case and the Riviera Bypass starts construction as scheduled in 2027, then you'll likely see that stretch of I-69E completed by 2030.
You still have the nearly 50 mile segment south of Riviera to Yturria that needs upgrades. Well the segment is largely desolated and operates functionally as a freeway, there’s still numerous of ranch access points that need to be closed / relocated. In Texas fashion, I imagine a number of frontage road miles, along with grade separations constructed.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: The Ghostbuster on December 11, 2023, 01:03:33 PM
Would a future Interstate 69E bypass of Riviera go to the west of the town or to the east?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on December 11, 2023, 03:04:05 PM
Would a future Interstate 69E bypass of Riviera go to the west of the town or to the east?
East.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on December 11, 2023, 03:56:45 PM
Quote from: sprjus4
You still have the nearly 50 mile segment south of Riviera to Yturria that needs upgrades. Well the segment is largely desolated and operates functionally as a freeway, there’s still numerous of ranch access points that need to be closed / relocated. In Texas fashion, I imagine a number of frontage road miles, along with grade separations constructed.

I think the stretch between Riviera and Yturria is what MaxConcrete is referring to by other projects on US-77 being ahead of the Riviera bypass. That stretch of US-77 will be an easy upgrade. Next to nothing in terms of new ROW will be required. The location is desolate. The segment may be 50 miles long but it doesn't have any serious obstacles to slow down construction. The town of Sarita already has its freeway exit built too.

I figure they'll probably just keep building on to the parts of I-69E going North of Raymondville in a linear fashion.

For the ranch access roads, there are already hints of how intersections with those will be handled via the I-69E construction going North of Raymondville. Think of a frontage road not even the length of a rest area with slip ramps on both ends.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: abqtraveler on December 11, 2023, 07:59:54 PM
I believe this is because TxDOT is trying to push the completion of I-69E between I-37 and Brownsville entirely.
From what I'm seeing, it looks like the bypass around Riviera will be the last piece of the puzzle to complete I-69E from I-37 to the Mexican border. If that's the case and the Riviera Bypass starts construction as scheduled in 2027, then you'll likely see that stretch of I-69E completed by 2030.
You still have the nearly 50 mile segment south of Riviera to Yturria that needs upgrades. Well the segment is largely desolated and operates functionally as a freeway, there’s still numerous of ranch access points that need to be closed / relocated. In Texas fashion, I imagine a number of frontage road miles, along with grade separations constructed.
True, but it appears that's being worked as well and it's starting to look like a lot of the work between Riviera and Yturria will be finished (or close to finished) by the time the Riviera Bypass opens.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: MaxConcrete on December 11, 2023, 09:55:55 PM
Would a future Interstate 69E bypass of Riviera go to the west of the town or to the east?

The 2012 environmental assessment shows it on the east side of Riviera.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: splashflash on January 27, 2024, 10:02:46 AM
Loop 224

Huge Traffic Switch Begins Jan 4 in Nacogdoches Construction Zone

Read More: Huge Traffic Switch Begins Jan 4 in Nacogdoches Construction Zone | https://kicks105.com/nacogdoches-highway-59-traffic-switch/?utm_source=tsmclip&utm_medium=referral

Unfortunately the video is prior to the traffic switch

https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=UEMonUuP3AKU4Eoe&embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fkicks105.com%2F&source_ve_path=MzY4NDIsMzY4NDIsMTY0OTksMjg2NjQsMTY0NTA2&feature=emb_share&v=kmHrBZjqmhY

https://kicks105.com/nacogdoches-highway-59-traffic-switch/
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on February 12, 2024, 09:58:03 PM
New Laredo Update! https://www.lmtonline.com/local/article/laredo-holds-groundbreaking-360m-txdot-us-59-18663037.php
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Bobby5280 on February 13, 2024, 02:17:45 PM
So, basically, this project starts where the current I-69W freeway ends: at the International Blvd exit and then extends Southward. When the article mentions "overpasses" are they really talking about freeway exits? Shiloh Road, Del Mar Boulevard, University Boulevard and Jacaman Road are significant intersections. But there are plenty of other surface streets in between those four that were mentioned. It sounds like the new frontage roads would provide access for those other streets.

If the South end of the project goes as far as East Corridor Road (main entrance to Laredo's airport) that would put the project end on the North edge of the Lake Casa Blanca State Park. It will be interesting to see what kind of designs they have to deal with the United ISD Food Production Center sitting in the freeway's expansion path. An elevated highway structure would be needed to avoid demolishing the building and/or "eating" most of its parking lot.

I'm guessing a freeway exit for the Laredo Int'l Airport entrance will happen on a later project. The Casa Blanca Golf Course would be the last obstacle standing in the way of a continuous freeway going South out of Laredo (possibly I-2).
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: TheBox on February 13, 2024, 04:54:09 PM
Finally, something being done at Laredo for the first time in years
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: sprjus4 on February 14, 2024, 01:02:03 AM
Beyond just I-69W, this looks like it will eliminate the remaining traffic signals on the entirety of Loop 20 around Laredo, allowing 60-65 mph travel between US-83 south of the city and I-35 north of the city.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Anthony_JK on February 14, 2024, 01:48:36 AM
Beyond just I-69W, this looks like it will eliminate the remaining traffic signals on the entirety of Loop 20 around Laredo, allowing 60-65 mph travel between US-83 south of the city and I-35 north of the city.

Anyone have links to any schematics for this?

Also, have they decided whether they will still use the entirety of Loop 20 north of US 59 for I-69, or will they build a cut-off for a more direct connection?
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: J N Winkler on February 14, 2024, 02:02:50 PM
Beyond just I-69W, this looks like it will eliminate the remaining traffic signals on the entirety of Loop 20 around Laredo, allowing 60-65 mph travel between US-83 south of the city and I-35 north of the city.

Anyone have links to any schematics for this?

Also, have they decided whether they will still use the entirety of Loop 20 north of US 59 for I-69, or will they build a cut-off for a more direct connection?

This project was in the August 2023 letting as CCSJ 0086-14-075 (https://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/let/2023/webb.htm) (will have to scroll down to the cost breakdown, which includes three instances of "interchange improvement" and two of "reconstruct roadway").  The construction plans are still available through TxDOT's Plans Online (https://www.txdot.gov/business/plans-online-bid-lettings.html) facility.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: TheBox on February 25, 2024, 02:43:57 PM
The first half of the Corrigan bypass is now visible on Google Maps satellite
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: The Ghostbuster on February 26, 2024, 02:10:27 PM
Here is the image of the future US 59/future Interstate 69 western bypass of Corrigan: https://www.google.com/maps/@30.9904612,-94.8325865,4797m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: bwana39 on February 26, 2024, 02:56:17 PM
The first half of the Corrigan bypass is now visible on Google Maps satellite

This bypass should at least extend to US-287 on both ends. It should run US-287 on the southeast side of Corrigan to US-59 south of Corrigan as well.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Some one on February 26, 2024, 03:35:35 PM
The first half of the Corrigan bypass is now visible on Google Maps satellite

This bypass should at least extend to US-287 on both ends. It should run US-287 on the southeast side of Corrigan to US-59 south of Corrigan as well.
With US 287 being studied for interstate feasibility, that might come sooner rather than later.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Thegeet on February 27, 2024, 03:13:01 AM
The first half of the Corrigan bypass is now visible on Google Maps satellite

This bypass should at least extend to US-287 on both ends. It should run US-287 on the southeast side of Corrigan to US-59 south of Corrigan as well.
With US 287 being studies for interstate feasibility, that might come sooner rather than later.
Now, if they could update the El Campo imagery…
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: Chris on February 27, 2024, 08:37:51 AM
Here is the image of the future US 59/future Interstate 69 western bypass of Corrigan: https://www.google.com/maps/@30.9904612,-94.8325865,4797m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu.

Google Earth provides a date of August 11, 2023 for the satellite image.
Title: Re: I-69 in TX
Post by: splashflash on March 03, 2024, 04:05:46 PM
New Nacogdoches relief route drone flyover video: