News:

Thank you for your patience during the Forum downtime while we upgraded the software. Welcome back and see this thread for some new features and other changes to the forum.

Main Menu

I-69 in TX

Started by Grzrd, October 09, 2010, 01:18:12 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

lordsutch

Quote from: Grzrd on October 28, 2016, 01:26:26 PM
TxDOT has published a four-page October 2016 U.S. 59 Loop Upgrade newsletter 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.

Quote from: 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?

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.


The Ghostbuster

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.

Bobby5280

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: lordsutchI'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).

Grzrd

Quote from: MaxConcrete on December 17, 2015, 08:15:48 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 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.

Anthony_JK

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.

Bobby5280

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.

compdude787

Quote from: 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.

That population alone more than justifies connecting the Rio Grande Valley with the rest of the Interstate Highway System.

thefro

#1207
Quote from: compdude787 on November 25, 2016, 06:28:19 PM
Quote from: 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.

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.

The Ghostbuster

It sounds like Interstate 69E will be completed, whether or not it needs to be an interstate. 69E probably should have been mainline 69.

sparker

Quote from: 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.

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). 

Bobby5280

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.

sparker

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.

Bobby5280

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.

lordsutch

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.

sparker

Quote from: 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.

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. 

Bobby5280

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: lordsutchAs 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.

The Ghostbuster

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?

lordsutch

Quote from: Bobby5280 on December 01, 2016, 01:13:19 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.

J N Winkler

Quote from: The Ghostbuster on December 01, 2016, 03:27:08 PMHow 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 (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.
"It is necessary to spend a hundred lire now to save a thousand lire later."--Piero Puricelli, explaining the need for a first-class road system to Benito Mussolini

inkyatari

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'm never wrong, just wildly inaccurate.

Bobby5280

Quote from: lordsutchLoop 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 WinklerAnother 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.

hotdogPi

Quote from: 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?

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.)
Clinched, minus I-93 (I'm missing a few miles and my file is incorrect)

Traveled, plus US 13, 44, and 50, and several state routes

I will be in Burlington VT for the eclipse.

Grzrd

#1222
Quote from: Grzrd on August 11, 2014, 01:50:41 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on May 09, 2014, 09:36:03 AM
The I-69 Driven By Texans website 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, which includes the following map illustrating the projects:

This Dec. 1 TV video 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.

Grzrd

#1223
Quote from: Grzrd on May 16, 2016, 12:33:56 PM
Quote from: Grzrd on July 30, 2012, 10:36:12 AM
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) and the I-69 Segment Three Committee Report and Recommendations (page 36/157; page 30 of document), 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 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).
Quote from: aboges26 on May 17, 2016, 10:10:06 PM
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 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):

Quote from: Grzrd on August 10, 2012, 01:11:11 PM
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):

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

TxDOT has submitted a joint FASTLANE application with Laredo 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):



Here is a TV video of Laredo mayor Pete Saenz talking about the application.



Opinions expressed here on belong solely to the poster and do not represent or reflect the opinions or beliefs of AARoads, its creators and/or associates.