I-69 in TX

[NE2]

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

[CanesFan27]

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?

[jbnv]

You will never give up will you?

Visionaries don't.

[roadman65]

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.

[Bobby5280]

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.

[texaskdog]

I agree with Bobby.  I'd like to see 69E become 37, with the stub into Corpus being 137 for sure. 

[CobaltYoshi27]

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"?

[Grzrd]

The Alliance for I-69 Texas also has an article about the project:

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:

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 indicates that the I-69W and US 59 shields covered a Loop 20 shield accompanied by "WEST" as the direction:

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 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.

[texaskdog]

so why does US 59 have to be part of this, if it wasn't before?

[The Ghostbuster]

If you ask me, US 59 should end at Loop 20, or still extend along its former route into Laredo.

[yakra]

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.

[Anthony_JK]

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?

[txstateends]

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?

[lordsutch]

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.

[paulthemapguy]

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.

[CobaltYoshi27]

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.

[Bobby5280]

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.

[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.

[Grzrd]

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:

This December 2012 Google StreetView imagery indicates that the I-69W and US 59 shields covered a Loop 20 shield accompanied by "WEST" as the direction:

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 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:

[Grzrd]

This article 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:

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
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 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":

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".

[Anthony_JK]

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?

[aboges26]

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.

[Grzrd]

TxDOT has posted a 73 page March 2016 I-69 Implementation Strategy Report 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 demonstrates that "Relief Options for Houston" is a priority:



Perhaps a Working Group will be assembled in the near future to determine a recommended route for Houston's "I-69 bypass".

[The Ghostbuster]

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!

[vtk]

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.