I-69 in TX

[roadman65]

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.

[bugo]

They'll probably cut US 59 back to Texarkana or possibly as far north as Heavener.

[roadman65]

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.

[Grzrd]

This August 26, 2014 Alliance for I-69 Texas article 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

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:

[oscar]

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.

[roadman65]

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.

[yakra]

Agreed. But at least cut US83 back to the I-2/69E interchange, eh?

[roadman65]

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.

[NE2]

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.

[bugo]

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.

[bugo]

If you're going to truncate US 83, might as well truncate it at Minot.

[NE2]

It'd be best to put it back on US 83 Biz. But ASSHTOLE says no.

[bugo]

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.

[roadman65]

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.

[NE2]

They didn't let NC put 117 (or 220) back. NC did it anyway.

[bugo]

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.

[roadman65]

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.

[bugo]

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.

[NE2]

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.

[bugo]

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.

[NE2]

US 75 used to exit onto city streets at the north end of I-345. It now ends there.

[bugo]

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.

[NE2]

http://www.dot.state.tx.us/tpp/hwy/us/us0075.htm

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).

[bugo]

When was I-345 finished? When was US 75 trunked?

[NE2]

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.