Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[ethanhopkin14]

I am starting a thread for the proposed cross section to the I-69 plan that many have guess will end up being Interstate 6.  This would be the SH-44 corridor from Corpus Christi to Freer.  Frist off, would the freeway extend into Corpus Christi more than the current terminus into SPD?  Also, is all of this way ahead of the curve because without I-69W, I-6 is also a pipe dream?

[silverback1065]

I am starting a thread for the proposed cross section to the I-69 plan that many have guess will end up being Interstate 6.  This would be the SH-44 corridor from Corpus Christi to Freer.  Frist off, would the freeway extend into Corpus Christi more than the current terminus into SPD?  Also, is all of this way ahead of the curve because without I-69W, I-6 is also a pipe dream?

have any maps of this?

[sprjus4]

I am starting a thread for the proposed cross section to the I-69 plan that many have guess will end up being Interstate 6.  This would be the SH-44 corridor from Corpus Christi to Freer.  Frist off, would the freeway extend into Corpus Christi more than the current terminus into SPD?  Also, is all of this way ahead of the curve because without I-69W, I-6 is also a pipe dream?

My opinion is that US-59 between Laredo and Freer, and SH-44 between Freer and Corpus Christi ought to be combined into one facility, such as Interstate 6 or Interstate 69W.

I still don't see the merits of a corridor along US-59 between Freer and Victoria, when I-69E between Victoria and Corpus Christi, and "I-6" between Corpus Christi and Freer would provide the same movement. Sure, the US-59 routing is about 20 miles more direct, but is it worth constructing 120 miles of additional interstate highway? A completed I-69E and "I-6" would take about the same amount of time that US-59 does today, albeit more mileage, but all 4 lane interstate highway vs. the present mostly 2 lane US-59.

As for its approach into Corpus Christi, I'd imagine they'd continue it east along SH-44 to end at SH-358 / NPID (people refer to the entire length of SH-358 as "SPID" (South Padre Island Drive), though it's only that south of Bear Ln). The remaining arterial segment between outside of Robstown and Corpus Christi currently under construction to build the main lanes with overpasses in the median of what will become the frontage road. The small segment that's undivided highway between I-69E and just outside Robstown will be covered by the future SH-44 Robstown Bypass, to create a seamless facility with a system interchange at I-69E.

[ethanhopkin14]

I am starting a thread for the proposed cross section to the I-69 plan that many have guess will end up being Interstate 6.  This would be the SH-44 corridor from Corpus Christi to Freer.  Frist off, would the freeway extend into Corpus Christi more than the current terminus into SPD?  Also, is all of this way ahead of the curve because without I-69W, I-6 is also a pipe dream?

My opinion is that US-59 between Laredo and Freer, and SH-44 between Freer and Corpus Christi ought to be combined into one facility, such as Interstate 6 or Interstate 69W.

I still don't see the merits of a corridor along US-59 between Freer and Victoria, when I-69E between Victoria and Corpus Christi, and "I-6" between Corpus Christi and Freer would provide the same movement. Sure, the US-59 routing is about 20 miles more direct, but is it worth constructing 120 miles of additional interstate highway? A completed I-69E and "I-6" would take about the same amount of time that US-59 does today, albeit more mileage, but all 4 lane interstate highway vs. the present mostly 2 lane US-59.

As for its approach into Corpus Christi, I'd imagine they'd continue it east along SH-44 to end at SH-358 / NPID (people refer to the entire length of SH-358 as "SPID" (South Padre Island Drive), though it's only that south of Bear Ln). The remaining arterial segment between outside of Robstown and Corpus Christi currently under construction to build the main lanes with overpasses in the median of what will become the frontage road. The small segment that's undivided highway between I-69E and just outside Robstown will be covered by the future SH-44 Robstown Bypass, to create a seamless facility with a system interchange at I-69E.

Or will SPID between SH-44 and I-37 be cosigned as I-6?

[Anthony_JK]

1) This belongs in Fictional Highways.

2) The Freer to Corpus Christi segment of SH 44 is already integrated into the I-69 system. An I-x69 is more suitable for that segment if it is upgraded and the rest of the I-69 system is built.

3) A simpler idea would be to just eliminate the designation for I-69W between Freer and Victoria and simply 4-lane that section as an arterial highway with freeway bypasses at certain points, transfer I-69W to SH 44 from Freer to Robstown where it would meet I-69E/US 77, and just make that section from there I-69.

Save I-6 for the renumber of I-49 South in Louisiana + a Lafayette bypass.

[cjk374]

1) This belongs in Fictional Highways.

2) The Freer to Corpus Christi segment of SH 44 is already integrated into the I-69 system. An I-x69 is more suitable for that segment if it is upgraded and the rest of the I-69 system is built.

3) A simpler idea would be to just eliminate the designation for I-69W between Freer and Victoria and simply 4-lane that section as an arterial highway with freeway bypasses at certain points, transfer I-69W to SH 44 from Freer to Robstown where it would meet I-69E/US 77, and just make that section from there I-69.

Save I-6 for the renumber of I-49 South in Louisiana + a Lafayette bypass.

I wish & hope Louisiana will number I-49 south of Lafayette to I-6. So much money would be saved not renumbering the exits on current I-49.

[sprjus4]

Or will SPID between SH-44 and I-37 be cosigned as I-6?

Perhaps, as a way to connect directly with I-37 towards Downtown.

[sprjus4]

1) This belongs in Fictional Highways.

The number may be, but since the thread is discussing that segment for interstate upgrade and it is indeed an official proposal, it's not fictional.

2) The Freer to Corpus Christi segment of SH 44 is already integrated into the I-69 system. An I-x69 is more suitable for that segment if it is upgraded and the rest of the I-69 system is built.

Perhaps, though just like I-6 it's pure speculation.

I-2 is part of the I-69 system, though did not receive an I-x69 designation, rather a new 2di.[/quote]

3) A simpler idea would be to just eliminate the designation for I-69W between Freer and Victoria and simply 4-lane that section as an arterial highway with freeway bypasses at certain points, transfer I-69W to SH 44 from Freer to Robstown where it would meet I-69E/US 77, and just make that section from there I-69.

Agreed, and I even question the need for 4 lanes in many areas. The two lanes seems adequate, and through traffic would likely divert to I-69E and a SH-44 interstate if constructed, so at that point US-59 is serving local traffic.

20 miles of US-59 west of Victoria is currently 75 mph 4 lane divided highway. The remainder west of there is 75 mph super-2.

Save I-6 for the renumber of I-49 South in Louisiana + a Lafayette bypass.

Seems fine as is with I-49.

I wish & hope Louisiana will number I-49 south of Lafayette to I-6. So much money would be saved not renumbering the exits on current I-49.

That's a minor expense. Indiana recently had to renumber I-69 exits to account for the 200 mile southern extension.

[ethanhopkin14]

1) This belongs in Fictional Highways.

The reason I called this thread I-6 is because I have seen it so many times I am starting to think when the time comes it will be I-6 (maybe?).  This isn't a fictional highway, it is part of the I-69 legislation.  It may not get a I-X69 designation because, like I-2, it's number is not written into the legislation.  It will be up to application to AASHTO just like I-2 was.  It could be an I-X69, a new mainline number, or if it connects to I-37, it could be an I-X37.  I doubt the last scenario would happen, it seems like Texas is allergic to 3di's in general, and really allergic to 3di's for intrastate interstates (I-345 included since they won't sign it).

[GreenLanternCorps]

1) This belongs in Fictional Highways.

2) The Freer to Corpus Christi segment of SH 44 is already integrated into the I-69 system. An I-x69 is more suitable for that segment if it is upgraded and the rest of the I-69 system is built.

3) A simpler idea would be to just eliminate the designation for I-69W between Freer and Victoria and simply 4-lane that section as an arterial highway with freeway bypasses at certain points, transfer I-69W to SH 44 from Freer to Robstown where it would meet I-69E/US 77, and just make that section from there I-69.

Save I-6 for the renumber of I-49 South in Louisiana + a Lafayette bypass.

That is the Eastern I-8!   

[ethanhopkin14]

1) This belongs in Fictional Highways.

2) The Freer to Corpus Christi segment of SH 44 is already integrated into the I-69 system. An I-x69 is more suitable for that segment if it is upgraded and the rest of the I-69 system is built.

3) A simpler idea would be to just eliminate the designation for I-69W between Freer and Victoria and simply 4-lane that section as an arterial highway with freeway bypasses at certain points, transfer I-69W to SH 44 from Freer to Robstown where it would meet I-69E/US 77, and just make that section from there I-69.

Save I-6 for the renumber of I-49 South in Louisiana + a Lafayette bypass.

That is the Eastern I-8!   

 

[Finrod]

1) This belongs in Fictional Highways.

2) The Freer to Corpus Christi segment of SH 44 is already integrated into the I-69 system. An I-x69 is more suitable for that segment if it is upgraded and the rest of the I-69 system is built.

3) A simpler idea would be to just eliminate the designation for I-69W between Freer and Victoria and simply 4-lane that section as an arterial highway with freeway bypasses at certain points, transfer I-69W to SH 44 from Freer to Robstown where it would meet I-69E/US 77, and just make that section from there I-69.

Save I-6 for the renumber of I-49 South in Louisiana + a Lafayette bypass.

That is the Eastern I-8!   

And here I thought it was the western I-4.  (-:

[ethanhopkin14]

1) This belongs in Fictional Highways.

2) The Freer to Corpus Christi segment of SH 44 is already integrated into the I-69 system. An I-x69 is more suitable for that segment if it is upgraded and the rest of the I-69 system is built.

3) A simpler idea would be to just eliminate the designation for I-69W between Freer and Victoria and simply 4-lane that section as an arterial highway with freeway bypasses at certain points, transfer I-69W to SH 44 from Freer to Robstown where it would meet I-69E/US 77, and just make that section from there I-69.

Save I-6 for the renumber of I-49 South in Louisiana + a Lafayette bypass.

That is the Eastern I-8!   

And here I thought it was the western I-4.  (-:

Not western I-4.  Pontoon bridge in the Gulf of Mexico for a south bypass of Houston, New Orleans, Biloxi, Mobile, Pensacola and Tallahassee on your way to Tampa and Orlando.  South Texas fast corridor to Disney World!!!

[GreenLanternCorps]

1) This belongs in Fictional Highways.

2) The Freer to Corpus Christi segment of SH 44 is already integrated into the I-69 system. An I-x69 is more suitable for that segment if it is upgraded and the rest of the I-69 system is built.

3) A simpler idea would be to just eliminate the designation for I-69W between Freer and Victoria and simply 4-lane that section as an arterial highway with freeway bypasses at certain points, transfer I-69W to SH 44 from Freer to Robstown where it would meet I-69E/US 77, and just make that section from there I-69.

Save I-6 for the renumber of I-49 South in Louisiana + a Lafayette bypass.

That is the Eastern I-8!   

And here I thought it was the western I-4.  (-:

Not western I-4.  Pontoon bridge in the Gulf of Mexico for a south bypass of Houston, New Orleans, Biloxi, Mobile, Pensacola and Tallahassee on your way to Tampa and Orlando.  South Texas fast corridor to Disney World!!!

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AwesomeButImpractical

[sturmde]

^^  Okay, now it's getting fictional!!  (Drain the Gulf and...)
.
Seriously, nothing wrong with an I-6, but an I-269 ties in with the patterns... it would be between 169 and 369, and it's a connection between branches of 69 (although perpendicular, not parallel or looping).
.
It's certainly not fictional that this freeway will be built to the same probability as the rest of the I-69 monstrosity.  (I still think it should be numbered such that 69W to 69C and 69C should be numbered I-69 proper, 69W from 69C to SR 44 should be I-669 with the SR 44 and rest of 69W being I-6, and 69E should be the southern I-71 -- which would be "suggested" by Kentucky extending 71 down I-65 and over the WK instead of using an x69 there.) 

[Bobby5280]

In the past (prior to the I-69 stuff) I thought "I-6" could be a legit designation for a freeway directly linking Laredo and Corpus Christi and Houston. Laredo is a very significant border crossing and has over 200,000 residents. Corpus Christi is a pretty significant port city. There should be no debate whether or not Corpus and Houston should be linked by an Interstate class route (they should be linked). The I-69 efforts have muddied the waters for "I-6" possibilities in Texas.

I don't think a Freer to Corpus route is long enough to justify an "I-6" designation. I-69W has started getting signed in the Laredo area. Meanwhile it would take years worth of political work to get an "I-6" in that area off the ground. Chances are good the I-69W segment between Laredo and Freer will start taking shape and getting signed as I-69W before I-6 efforts could materialize.

If anything, more improvement work needs to be done near and along the coast in the Corpus Christi region to improve access for port traffic, oil business traffic and hurricane evacuation. I think TX-35 needs to be fully upgraded into an Interstate class facility through Aransas Pass, Rockport and over Copano Bay. Then, farther East, the segment over by Port Lavaca and Point Comfort needs to be fully upgraded. A bunch of this upgrade work needs to happen regardless of the planned improvements to US-59 off to the Northwest. Ultimately over the long term a corridor could emerge going from Corpus to Galveston and linking several oil towns and isolated refineries along the way. A Freer to Galveston freeway corridor would be long enough to name as something like "I-6".

Lafayette to New Orleans is indeed another possibility for "I-6." But I think too much effort has already gone into designating it as I-49. Having one route number go all the way from New Orleans up thru Shreveport sort of sounds better in political terms. If the I-49 South effort had another route "brand name" it might have been even more difficult to get it built. 

[ethanhopkin14]

In the past (prior to the I-69 stuff) I thought "I-6" could be a legit designation for a freeway directly linking Laredo and Corpus Christi and Houston. Laredo is a very significant border crossing and has over 200,000 residents. Corpus Christi is a pretty significant port city. There should be no debate whether or not Corpus and Houston should be linked by an Interstate class route (they should be linked). The I-69 efforts have muddied the waters for "I-6" possibilities in Texas.

I don't think a Freer to Corpus route is long enough to justify an "I-6" designation. I-69W has started getting signed in the Laredo area. Meanwhile it would take years worth of political work to get an "I-6" in that area off the ground. Chances are good the I-69W segment between Laredo and Freer will start taking shape and getting signed as I-69W before I-6 efforts could materialize.

If anything, more improvement work needs to be done near and along the coast in the Corpus Christi region to improve access for port traffic, oil business traffic and hurricane evacuation. I think TX-35 needs to be fully upgraded into an Interstate class facility through Aransas Pass, Rockport and over Copano Bay. Then, farther East, the segment over by Port Lavaca and Point Comfort needs to be fully upgraded. A bunch of this upgrade work needs to happen regardless of the planned improvements to US-59 off to the Northwest. Ultimately over the long term a corridor could emerge going from Corpus to Galveston and linking several oil towns and isolated refineries along the way. A Freer to Galveston freeway corridor would be long enough to name as something like "I-6".

Lafayette to New Orleans is indeed another possibility for "I-6." But I think too much effort has already gone into designating it as I-49. Having one route number go all the way from New Orleans up thru Shreveport sort of sounds better in political terms. If the I-49 South effort had another route "brand name" it might have been even more difficult to get it built.

The I-6 (or whatever it will be called) corridor this thread is about WILL be built.  It's part of the I-69 legislation.  It's not a matter if it's feasible or not, it will happen.  It may be the last thing to happen though. 

Let me breath for a second.  Hahaha.  I have finally gotten over the three I-69 legs.  I hate them, it's stupid, but I have had to live with them since they have to be named that way.  I hate it when I read good ideas like yours that fit the system better, like now I want to see a Laredo-Freer-Corpus route as I-6, yet we are stuck with dumb suffixed routes.  They can't be renamed, and they would have been so much better used if the FHWA had their say.  UGGGGH!

[silverback1065]

In the past (prior to the I-69 stuff) I thought "I-6" could be a legit designation for a freeway directly linking Laredo and Corpus Christi and Houston. Laredo is a very significant border crossing and has over 200,000 residents. Corpus Christi is a pretty significant port city. There should be no debate whether or not Corpus and Houston should be linked by an Interstate class route (they should be linked). The I-69 efforts have muddied the waters for "I-6" possibilities in Texas.

I don't think a Freer to Corpus route is long enough to justify an "I-6" designation. I-69W has started getting signed in the Laredo area. Meanwhile it would take years worth of political work to get an "I-6" in that area off the ground. Chances are good the I-69W segment between Laredo and Freer will start taking shape and getting signed as I-69W before I-6 efforts could materialize.

If anything, more improvement work needs to be done near and along the coast in the Corpus Christi region to improve access for port traffic, oil business traffic and hurricane evacuation. I think TX-35 needs to be fully upgraded into an Interstate class facility through Aransas Pass, Rockport and over Copano Bay. Then, farther East, the segment over by Port Lavaca and Point Comfort needs to be fully upgraded. A bunch of this upgrade work needs to happen regardless of the planned improvements to US-59 off to the Northwest. Ultimately over the long term a corridor could emerge going from Corpus to Galveston and linking several oil towns and isolated refineries along the way. A Freer to Galveston freeway corridor would be long enough to name as something like "I-6".

Lafayette to New Orleans is indeed another possibility for "I-6." But I think too much effort has already gone into designating it as I-49. Having one route number go all the way from New Orleans up thru Shreveport sort of sounds better in political terms. If the I-49 South effort had another route "brand name" it might have been even more difficult to get it built.

The I-6 (or whatever it will be called) corridor this thread is about WILL be built.  It's part of the I-69 legislation.  It's not a matter if it's feasible or not, it will happen.  It may be the last thing to happen though. 

Let me breath for a second.  Hahaha.  I have finally gotten over the three I-69 legs.  I hate them, it's stupid, but I have had to live with them since they have to be named that way.  I hate it when I read good ideas like yours that fit the system better, like now I want to see a Laredo-Freer-Corpus route as I-6, yet we are stuck with dumb suffixed routes.  They can't be renamed, and they would have been so much better used if the FHWA had their say.  UGGGGH!

Texas is the only entity that thinks it should be named that, i thought the feds used those as place holders and Texas took it literally.

[ethanhopkin14]

In the past (prior to the I-69 stuff) I thought "I-6" could be a legit designation for a freeway directly linking Laredo and Corpus Christi and Houston. Laredo is a very significant border crossing and has over 200,000 residents. Corpus Christi is a pretty significant port city. There should be no debate whether or not Corpus and Houston should be linked by an Interstate class route (they should be linked). The I-69 efforts have muddied the waters for "I-6" possibilities in Texas.

I don't think a Freer to Corpus route is long enough to justify an "I-6" designation. I-69W has started getting signed in the Laredo area. Meanwhile it would take years worth of political work to get an "I-6" in that area off the ground. Chances are good the I-69W segment between Laredo and Freer will start taking shape and getting signed as I-69W before I-6 efforts could materialize.

If anything, more improvement work needs to be done near and along the coast in the Corpus Christi region to improve access for port traffic, oil business traffic and hurricane evacuation. I think TX-35 needs to be fully upgraded into an Interstate class facility through Aransas Pass, Rockport and over Copano Bay. Then, farther East, the segment over by Port Lavaca and Point Comfort needs to be fully upgraded. A bunch of this upgrade work needs to happen regardless of the planned improvements to US-59 off to the Northwest. Ultimately over the long term a corridor could emerge going from Corpus to Galveston and linking several oil towns and isolated refineries along the way. A Freer to Galveston freeway corridor would be long enough to name as something like "I-6".

Lafayette to New Orleans is indeed another possibility for "I-6." But I think too much effort has already gone into designating it as I-49. Having one route number go all the way from New Orleans up thru Shreveport sort of sounds better in political terms. If the I-49 South effort had another route "brand name" it might have been even more difficult to get it built.

The I-6 (or whatever it will be called) corridor this thread is about WILL be built.  It's part of the I-69 legislation.  It's not a matter if it's feasible or not, it will happen.  It may be the last thing to happen though. 

Let me breath for a second.  Hahaha.  I have finally gotten over the three I-69 legs.  I hate them, it's stupid, but I have had to live with them since they have to be named that way.  I hate it when I read good ideas like yours that fit the system better, like now I want to see a Laredo-Freer-Corpus route as I-6, yet we are stuck with dumb suffixed routes.  They can't be renamed, and they would have been so much better used if the FHWA had their say.  UGGGGH!

Texas is the only entity that thinks it should be named that, i thought the feds used those as place holders and Texas took it literally.

I think you may be correct, but I think it also had to do with congressional law writing.  Maybe it was written into law that the names were the placeholders, but Texas thought since they were in the law verbiage that they 100% had to be those names. 

[ethanhopkin14]

What's funny to me is the first segment to be signed as I-69 in Texas was the segment between Callalen to Robstown, and it was signed I-69.  Then after the two sections of US 59 north and south of Houston were signed as I-69, the naming changed to I-69E.  It's like someone went back to the law and re-read everything and said, woops, we made a mistake.  Like we didn't read it thoroughly enough the first time, but by god, we'll read it way more thoroughly now!!!

[sprjus4]

The new segment that recently was completed between north of Driscoll and south of Robstown uses “I-69” shields as opposed to “I-69E”.

[sturmde]

The new segment that recently was completed between north of Driscoll and south of Robstown uses “I-69” shields as opposed to “I-69E”.

Do you have pictures of that??  Or do you have a link??  Because, that's a major signing error if they have I-69 adjoining I-69E everywhere north and south of that section.

[ethanhopkin14]

The new segment that recently was completed between north of Driscoll and south of Robstown uses “I-69” shields as opposed to “I-69E”.

Do you have pictures of that??  Or do you have a link??  Because, that's a major signing error if they have I-69 adjoining I-69E everywhere north and south of that section.

There are some, but the BGSs have I-69E shields:

https://www.google.com/maps/@27.8676872,-97.6232089,3a,60y,181.68h,97.69t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sOk6g0pNaiNYQYHpy6ffNZg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

[sprjus4]

The new segment that recently was completed between north of Driscoll and south of Robstown uses “I-69” shields as opposed to “I-69E”.

Do you have pictures of that??  Or do you have a link??  Because, that's a major signing error if they have I-69 adjoining I-69E everywhere north and south of that section.

All of the ground mounted signage from Robstown to I-37 is signed as "I-69". "I-69E" signage only exists on a few BGS, as ethanhopkin14 mentioned.

The newest segment constructed a couple years from north of Driscoll to south of Robstown only has ground mounted signage, and it still only reads "I-69".

https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7428491,-97.6972893,3a,43.3y,53.34h,89.43t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0TvOJnoFhPg683WfOPotGg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

[ethanhopkin14]

The new segment that recently was completed between north of Driscoll and south of Robstown uses “I-69” shields as opposed to “I-69E”.

Do you have pictures of that??  Or do you have a link??  Because, that's a major signing error if they have I-69 adjoining I-69E everywhere north and south of that section.

All of the ground mounted signage from Robstown to I-37 is signed as "I-69". "I-69E" signage only exists on a few BGS, as ethanhopkin14 mentioned.

The newest segment constructed a couple years from north of Driscoll to south of Robstown only has ground mounted signage, and it still only reads "I-69".

https://www.google.com/maps/@27.7428491,-97.6972893,3a,43.3y,53.34h,89.43t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s0TvOJnoFhPg683WfOPotGg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192

So weird they are still like that.