I-69 in TX

[Bobby5280]

I-14 is planned to extend to near the Georgia/South Carolina border.

Originally I-14 was just going to be a Deep South route for Alabama and Georgia. Now some porky politicians in Texas drafted their own I-14 idea. The assumption is both of these routes would somehow be magically attached, even though the traffic counts are just not there to justify building very much of it at all.

In the Deep South, at best, an I-14 route could be best justified as a route connecting Meridian, MS; Selma, AL; Montgomery, AL; Columbus, GA and Macon, GA. That's about it. That route would very neatly fill a logical East-West gap between Meridian and Macon, letting the horizontal line I-20 was following from Texas continue to the East coast (via I-16) on to Savannah. That's what should really be the true I-14 route.

Unfortunately we have these dopey, porky, selfish, egomaniacal politicians pushing their way into the situation, infecting it with their stupidity.

[The Ghostbuster]

Why does it seem like most of our problems can be traced directly back to our stupid politicians?

[TXtoNJ]

They're the ones who make the decisions?

Stupid politician = stupid constituency. Emmett's probably got someone from Dow Chemical up his backside, looking to shave 30 min off of the drive from Baytown to Freeport.

[aboges26]

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

My guess is that the Grand Parkway is already a de facto relief route (although it may be a looooong time before it, too, is finished), and that the Committees are considering options beyond a through route/relief route analysis.

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):


Unfortunately, the Segment Three Committee apparently did not share the same opinion. For ease of comparison, here is the comparable Segment Three map again; the comparison shows that the Segment Three Committee does not extend the relief route suggested by the Segment Two Committee:

Which beltway would be the Houston loop? We have one done and one being worked on, outside of 610. And better idea, Sam Houston turns into 869 or 845 since it is always known as Beltway 8.

Another difference between the two Committee reports is that the Segment Two Committee report expressly mentions the Sam Houston Tollway as providing a similar function to the Grand Parkway (whereas the Segment Three Committee report does not) (page 20/157 of pdf; page 14 of document):

Regional Highways — ... In the Houston area, the future development of the Grand Parkway/SH 99 was considered to be an important connection for I-69 by members of the committee, as it would provide a link to the Port of Houston, the Fred Hartman ship channel bridge, SH 146 and SH 225 to the south. To the west, the proposed Grand Parkway/SH 99 would provide connections to I-10, I-45, US 290 and SH 249. Currently, committee members noted that the Beltway 8/ Sam Houston Tollway provides similar connections for traffic in the Houston area.

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, 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!

[Grzrd]

TxDOT has posted a Notice Affording an Opportunity for a Public Hearing — US 59 Loop in the Laredo area:

Description:   The proposed US 59/Loop project limits are from 0.33-mile west of I-35 (at the eastern end of the existing I-69W mainlanes) to 0.160-mile west of McPherson Road (at the western side of that overpass bridge structure) ....
This project would fully integrate with the existing I-69W mainlanes west of I-35 as well as the McPherson Road interchange that opened to traffic in 2014. It will also integrate with the International Boulevard interchange project that is currently under a construction contract; construction work there is scheduled to start in the near future. Upon completion of these projects, through traffic will have uninterrupted service from International Blvd. to the entrance to the World Trade International Bridge IV. All of these interrelated projects are to be constructed to urban interstate (I-69W) design standards.

This article reports that construction on the International Boulevard project is scheduled to begin on May 23:

Wednesday's cancellation of the International Boulevard overpass project groundbreaking ceremony due to inclement weather will not hold back construction, which is scheduled to begin May 23.
The $22 million project will be constructed by Anderson Columbia. It will consist of an interchange facility over International at Loop 20 ....
"This continual upgrade of Loop 20 to urban interstate design standards falls in line with the congressional legislation concerning the Interstate 69 system,"  TxDOT said.

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.

In regard to Future I-69W/ Loop 20, the Implementation Strategy Report lists an August, 2016 estimated letting date for the $39.4 million I-35 interchange project referenced in the top above quote and an August, 2018 estimated letting date for a $124.8 million project to complete I-69W from International Boulevard to the current Loop 20/ US 59 interchange (p. 66/73 of pdf):


....

Also, if I-69W is to be along Loop 20 in Laredo, will it dog leg or will TexDOT get it to cut straight east from Loop 20's Northeastern turn as the shortest distance between two points is a straight line?

... who knows? TxDOT hasn't done any environmental study for Laredo-to-Freer that I'm aware of.
That said an in-place upgrade of US 59 east of Loop 20 would be a pain (moreso than upgrading Loop 20 itself), so some sort of tangent routing makes sense. Laredo's long-range planning documents show an "expressway" running east from Loop 20 at International Blvd to the proposed Laredo Outer Loop, but that's all pie-in-the-sky thinking; they don't even have half of the proposed local streets built inside the loop yet, despite continuing population growth.

Once Laredo and TxDOT have the Loop 20 upgrade securely underway as an I-69W project, the big question in my mind is whether they will then study a more direct tangent routing connecting Loop 20 and US 59 to, as lordsutch suggests, avoid the costs and disruption associated with upgrading US 59 immediately east of Loop 20.

[thefro]

http://www.caller.com/news/local/local-leaders-go-to-washington-dc-to-speed-i-69-funding-3384a4b5-fa57-3f29-e053-0100007f3c2f-380575181.html

Nueces County Judge Loyd Neal and Congressman Blake Farenthold were among 20 representatives to urge Washington to move forward with Interstate 69.

The local representatives are part of the Alliance for I-69 Texas, a group pressing for approval of federal grants for two projects in the state that would improve freight movement on parts of the highway, according to a news release. They met with representatives from eight other states along the highway corridor at the third annual meeting to hear progress.

The Texas Department of Transportation is seeking funds under the Fastlane grant program, which was established by a five-year, $4.5 billion federal transportation plan last year. This grant would fund a project in Laredo on Interstate 35 and Interstate 69 and a portion of State Highway 99, which would connect with Interstate 69 in Houston.

[thefro]

Mildly off-topic, but yet another *-69 is coming to S. Texas
http://www.beaumontenterprise.com/news/transportation/article/Gulf-Intracoastal-Waterway-receives-marine-7971552.php

A stretch of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, including a portion in Port Arthur, has been approved to be designated Wednesday as a marine highway, according to the Texas Department of Transportation.

Marine Highway 69 runs from Brownsville to Port Arthur, linking more than 20 Texas ports, including the Port of Port Arthur, across 379 miles.

The designation, approved by the U.S. Secretary of Transporation, allows TxDOT and the state of Texas "to develop projects along the waterway that will help relieve roadway congestion alon gthe Gulf Coast," according to a release. The designation also allows for the state to seek federal funding.

The state acknowledges the M-69 shares the same number as Interstate 69, which begins in South Texas near Rosenberg and crosses into Louisiana at Shreveport. I-69 is different from U.S. 69, which begins in Port Arthur, runs through Beaumont, Lumberton and Woodville, eventually ending in Minnesota.

[Rover_0]

Mildly off-topic, but yet another *-69 is coming to S. Texas
http://www.beaumontenterprise.com/news/transportation/article/Gulf-Intracoastal-Waterway-receives-marine-7971552.php

A stretch of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, including a portion in Port Arthur, has been approved to be designated Wednesday as a marine highway, according to the Texas Department of Transportation.

Marine Highway 69 runs from Brownsville to Port Arthur, linking more than 20 Texas ports, including the Port of Port Arthur, across 379 miles.

The designation, approved by the U.S. Secretary of Transporation, allows TxDOT and the state of Texas "to develop projects along the waterway that will help relieve roadway congestion alon gthe Gulf Coast," according to a release. The designation also allows for the state to seek federal funding.

The state acknowledges the M-69 shares the same number as Interstate 69, which begins in South Texas near Rosenberg and crosses into Louisiana at Shreveport. I-69 is different from U.S. 69, which begins in Port Arthur, runs through Beaumont, Lumberton and Woodville, eventually ending in Minnesota.

Since AASHTO is now designating ferries as part of US Routes, why not just make this as a US 69 extension?

[NE2]

Since AASHTO is now designating ferries as part of US Routes, why not just make this as a US 69 extension?

Uh...because it's not a ferry?

[Rover_0]

Since AASHTO is now designating ferries as part of US Routes, why not just make this as a US 69 extension?

Uh...because it's not a ferry?

Might as well be as it comes very close to US 69 at Port Arthur and that's technically one less route numbered 69 we need to worry about. But yea, that comment's a bit more tongue-in-cheek than I had hoped.

Anyways, I get the feeling that if TxDOT were a person, it would be Kevin from The Office (US):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-tiMKCC6gY

[TravelingBethelite]

Mildly off-topic, but yet another *-69 is coming to S. Texas
http://www.beaumontenterprise.com/news/transportation/article/Gulf-Intracoastal-Waterway-receives-marine-7971552.php

A stretch of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, including a portion in Port Arthur, has been approved to be designated Wednesday as a marine highway, according to the Texas Department of Transportation.

Marine Highway 69 runs from Brownsville to Port Arthur, linking more than 20 Texas ports, including the Port of Port Arthur, across 379 miles.

The designation, approved by the U.S. Secretary of Transporation, allows TxDOT and the state of Texas "to develop projects along the waterway that will help relieve roadway congestion alon gthe Gulf Coast," according to a release. The designation also allows for the state to seek federal funding.

The state acknowledges the M-69 shares the same number as Interstate 69, which begins in South Texas near Rosenberg and crosses into Louisiana at Shreveport. I-69 is in turn different from U.S. 69, which begins in Port Arthur, runs through Beaumont, Lumberton and Woodville, eventually ending in Minnesota.

Since AASHTO is now designating ferries as part of US Routes, why not just make this as a US 69 extension?

When and where did this happen? And on what? How drunk off their ass is AASHTO now? I have a lot of questions...         

Bold is mine.

[NE2]

Maybe you should read the link...it's USDOT, not AASHTO, that designated this "marine highway".

Here's an older thread: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3290

[kkt]

If Texas can have a marine highway, when is the Alaska Ferry going to be a highway?  Alaska needs the ferry a whole lot more than Texas needs the Intracoastal Waterway.

[NE2]

If Texas can have a marine highway, when is the Alaska Ferry going to be a highway?  Alaska needs the ferry a whole lot more than Texas needs the Intracoastal Waterway.

Here's an older thread: https://www.aaroads.com/forum/index.php?topic=3290

[MaxConcrete]

Bids were opened today on a 2.7 mile section to be upgraded to a 6-lane freeway with frontage roads in Fort Bend County, southwest of Houston. This is the last section in Fort Bend county to be upgraded, at the southwest edge of the county. With this job, about 22 miles from the Grand Parkway (SH 99) to the Fort Bend/Wharton county line will be under construction.

http://www.dot.state.tx.us/insdtdot/orgchart/cmd/cserve/bidtab/07073001.htm

Estimate    $41,001,475.14    % Over/Under    Company
Bidder 1    $37,743,798.54    -7.95%    WILLIAMS BROTHERS CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.
Bidder 2    $42,804,539.47    +4.40%    WEBBER, LLC
Bidder 3    $45,396,001.34    +10.72%    PULICE CONSTRUCTION, INC.

[O Tamandua]

How's the ol' Kingsville-to-Raymondville section of Texas I-69 coming along?  Seems like awhile since I'd seen anything (but I've been away, too, so that's my fault.  )

[sparker]

As long as we're doing a short-time bump of this thread, does anyone have any updated information regarding the Freer-Corpus Christi "leg/connector" along TX 44?  Realizing that it's pretty much a latecomer to the I-69 "family", I wouldn't expect much in the way of developmental schedule as of yet -- but does anyone have any information regarding the designation of this route -- or if any "official" suggestions, or even discussion of such, have taken place or been forwarded?  Usually the TX I-69 group are all over such things; they seem to prefer that all their "ducks are in a row" prior to releasing any concrete plans (e.g., the designation of I-369).   

[Grzrd]

As long as we're doing a short-time bump of this thread, does anyone have any updated information regarding the Freer-Corpus Christi "leg/connector" along TX 44?  Realizing that it's pretty much a latecomer to the I-69 "family", I wouldn't expect much in the way of developmental schedule as of yet -- but does anyone have any information regarding the designation of this route -- or if any "official" suggestions, or even discussion of such, have taken place or been forwarded?  Usually the TX I-69 group are all over such things; they seem to prefer that all their "ducks are in a row" prior to releasing any concrete plans (e.g., the designation of I-369).

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.  For example, SH 44 in the Corpus Christi district is included at pp. 58-60/73 of the pdf.  They are making slow progress.

I don't think they will sign it anytime soon, because unlike its I-69 cousins, it does not have a section that meets interstate standards and connects to an existing part of the interstate system.  It will be several years before that changes, and I have not heard any chatter about the designation.

[Grzrd]

Mildly off-topic, but yet another *-69 is coming to S. Texas
http://www.beaumontenterprise.com/news/transportation/article/Gulf-Intracoastal-Waterway-receives-marine-7971552.php

The Alliance for I-69 Texas website now has an article discussing M-69:

Marine Highway 69 links more than 20 Texas ports and in 2014 this waterway moved nearly 86 million tons of freight.  That includes nationally ranked ship channels serving Houston-Baytown, Beaumont-Port Arthur and Corpus Christi ....
The M-69 Marine Highway route includes the Gulf of Mexico, the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway and connecting commercial navigation channels, ports and harbors within the State of Texas.  It includes 11 deepwater and 13 shallow-draft ports between Brownsville and Port Arthur. 
The Texas Department of Transportation sought the federal designation.  This designation allows TxDOT and Texas ports to develop projects along the waterway that will help relieve roadway congestion along the Gulf Coast by allowing more freight to be waterborne and clears the way for seeking federal grant funding.  TxDOT has pursued Marine Highway status for the state's 379-mile coastline since 2014. The M-69 portion handles 67 percent of all freight moving through the entire Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, which extends to Florida.

[sparker]

There actually is a section of freeway along TX 44, the entirety of which, east of US 59 near Freer, has been added to the definition of HPC 18/the I-69 "family".  It's not long, extending west from the TX 358 freeway west of Corpus Christi for about 4 miles.   Curiously, the portion of TX 358 north of there to I-37 (about a mile and a half), also freeway, was not included in the legislative description, although there is a directional interchange between the two facilities.  Texas (by which I mean not only TXDOT but the Alliance for I-69 Texas, from whom most initiatives regarding the corridor flow) has done more with less before (although it is likely any further development on this particular section will considerably lag that of the mainline I-69 segments, as per general consensus).

[The Ghostbuster]

Marine 69? I didn't know waterways could get highway numbers.

[Grzrd]

The I-69 Driven By Texans website has added a San Jacinto County page. An Open House will be held on Sept. 27:

TxDOT is hosting an open house regarding the upgrade of US 59 (future I-69) to meet interstate standards from FM 2914 south of Shepherd in San Jacinto County to the north end of the Cleveland Relief Route in Liberty County. This event is being held to display the proposed improvements, explain where TxDOT is within the project development process, answer questions and gather input....
Funding has been allocated for the preliminary development of this project which includes environmental studies, schematic design and right-of-way acquisition.  At this time, no construction funding has been identified.

A map of the project area is included:

[Grzrd]

The I-69 Driven By Texans website has added a San Jacinto County page. An Open House will be held on Sept. 27

This article reports on the Open House, saying that ROW and mapping acquisition should begin in eighteen to twenty-four months:

Shepherd High School hosted the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) for a meeting on Sept. 27 in their cafeteria to discuss the future Interstate-69 project, which will affect both San Jacinto and Liberty counties ....
This project is looking to upgrade US 59 to interstate standards,"  said Project Coordinator Jennifer Adams ....
"This is here to just get input from the community,"  said Adams.
Adams further commented that speaking with the local residents allows TxDOT officials to get a better idea of what they may have missed in their initial observations.
"We're going to take these comments back and we're going to start working on developing the schematics,"  she said.
Once the comments are evaluated, TxDOT is set to schedule environmental and schematic studies, which should be completed in approximately 18 to 24 months. TxDOT will begin right-of-way and mapping acquisitions shortly afterward.

[Grzrd]

TxDOT has published a four-page October 2016 U.S. 59 Loop Upgrade newsletter which contains a Notice of a December 1 Public Meeting.  Here is a snip from a map in the newsletter:

[The Ghostbuster]

Which stretch of the lettered Interstate 69 do any of you think will be completed first? 69E, 69C, or 69W?