I-69 in TX

[codyg1985]

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.

[texaskdog]

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

[Grzrd]

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 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:

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.

[yakra]

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.

Proof? I disagree; I interpret the info differently:

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).

[lordsutch]

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.

[NE2]

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).

[bugo]

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.

[oscar]

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. 

[bugo]

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.

[texaskdog]

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

[yakra]

Or the coast. 69/96/287 annoys me.

[texaskdog]

Or the coast. 69/96/287 annoys me.

It's not like they are going into a major city, it's going into the water!

[Grzrd]

TxDOT will have a January 22 Open House 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.  Among the Materials are a Schematic of the relief route and the TxDOT Meeting Displays that include an overall view of the relief route (page 5/8 of pdf):



Also, this article reports on the Open House:

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.

[MaxConcrete]

Among the Materials are a Schematic of the relief route 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.

[yakra]

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?)

[US81]

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.

[dfwmapper]

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.

[Grzrd]

The Alliance for I-69 Texas website has posted ... a priority list from each county:

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, TxDOT announces that it is moving forward with Phase 2 of the US 59/ Loop 224S interchange (Phase 1 began on January 5, 2015):

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.

[J N Winkler]

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

[Scott5114]

A Windows executable? Tacky.

[vtk]

Use WinRAR to open it if you want to be cautious.

[J N Winkler]

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.

[NE2]

Not wishing to download the huge file, I'm going to ask you if there are exit numbers.

[J N Winkler]

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.

[NE2]

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