I-69 in TX

[sprjus4]

Unfortunately US 259 north of Nacogdaches TX 204 to Rusk County line) is planned to be 5-laned, effectively jettisoning any interstate prospects for many years to come.

https://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/pub/txdot/get-involved/lfk/us259-sh204-rusk-county-line/042622-presentation.pdf

What was the original plan for I-69 in that area?

I don't believe I-69 was ever to follow that part of highway... north of Nacogdoches, I-69 is to follow US-59 towards Tenaha, not US-259.

The highway in question (US-259) is a four-lane undivided highway... this project will simply widen the pavement slightly enough to provide a center turn lane and full shoulders... it's not a major upgrade in any regard.

[The Ghostbuster]

I would have been very surprised if the US 259 corridor got an Interstate upgrade. Then again, this is Texas, so anything is possible.

[bwana39]

I would have been very surprised if the US 259 corridor got an Interstate upgrade. Then again, this is Texas, so anything is possible.

As population centers go, it should have traveled to Longview and then to Texarkana. But, no even the most ardent dreamers only thought of it going to Mt. Enterprise.

[-- US 175 --]

Local big-wigs have been wanting US 59 in the area to be more than it is for *decades*.  I haven't heard anything about US 259 getting any special treatment other than the bypass around Kilgore done a few years ago.

[bwana39]

Local big-wigs have been wanting US 59 in the area to be more than it is for *decades*.  I haven't heard anything about US 259 getting any special treatment other than the bypass around Kilgore done a few years ago.

And that will be about all there is.  Longview never gets its due. 

[texaskdog]

Local big-wigs have been wanting US 59 in the area to be more than it is for *decades*.  I haven't heard anything about US 259 getting any special treatment other than the bypass around Kilgore done a few years ago.

And that will be about all there is.  Longview never gets its due. 

Even I-20 missed Longview

[thisdj78]

Local big-wigs have been wanting US 59 in the area to be more than it is for *decades*.  I haven't heard anything about US 259 getting any special treatment other than the bypass around Kilgore done a few years ago.

And that will be about all there is.  Longview never gets its due. 

Even I-20 missed Longview

The way I-20 goes just outside of Tyler, Longview and Marshall is the way Interstates should be, unlike I-35 that goes almost through the middle of Waco, Temple, Austin, San Marcos, New Braunfels.

Intestates should bypass cities and towns (for the most part) and have Freeway spurs that provide access to and from the city (eg. I-90 and Rochester, NY)

[-- US 175 --]

Local big-wigs have been wanting US 59 in the area to be more than it is for *decades*.  I haven't heard anything about US 259 getting any special treatment other than the bypass around Kilgore done a few years ago.

And that will be about all there is.  Longview never gets its due. 

Even I-20 missed Longview

The way I-20 goes just outside of Tyler, Longview and Marshall is the way Interstates should be, unlike I-35 that goes almost through the middle of Waco, Temple, Austin, San Marcos, New Braunfels.

Intestates should bypass cities and towns (for the most part) and have Freeway spurs that provide access to and from the city (eg. I-90 and Rochester, NY)

Well, it wouldn't have hurt to have had I-20 a little closer to Tyler.  Longview and Marshall have much better proximity to I-20.

[thisdj78]

Local big-wigs have been wanting US 59 in the area to be more than it is for *decades*.  I haven't heard anything about US 259 getting any special treatment other than the bypass around Kilgore done a few years ago.

And that will be about all there is.  Longview never gets its due. 

Even I-20 missed Longview

The way I-20 goes just outside of Tyler, Longview and Marshall is the way Interstates should be, unlike I-35 that goes almost through the middle of Waco, Temple, Austin, San Marcos, New Braunfels.

Intestates should bypass cities and towns (for the most part) and have Freeway spurs that provide access to and from the city (eg. I-90 and Rochester, NY)

Well, it wouldn't have hurt to have had I-20 a little closer to Tyler.  Longview and Marshall have much better proximity to I-20.

It's not too far off (5 miles directly north of Tyler). Once 49 is completed on the East end to I-20,  that will help provide better access though it would have been nice to have a limited access "I-20 business route"  that followed US271 from the east and SH110 from the west.

[bwana39]

Local big-wigs have been wanting US 59 in the area to be more than it is for *decades*.  I haven't heard anything about US 259 getting any special treatment other than the bypass around Kilgore done a few years ago.

And that will be about all there is.  Longview never gets its due. 

Even I-20 missed Longview

The way I-20 goes just outside of Tyler, Longview and Marshall is the way Interstates should be, unlike I-35 that goes almost through the middle of Waco, Temple, Austin, San Marcos, New Braunfels.

Intestates should bypass cities and towns (for the most part) and have Freeway spurs that provide access to and from the city (eg. I-90 and Rochester, NY)

Well, it wouldn't have hurt to have had I-20 a little closer to Tyler.  Longview and Marshall have much better proximity to I-20.

Yes, Downtown Tyler is about double the distance (10mi) from I-20 as either the downtowns of  Marshall or Longview (about 5 miles).  This is more a function of I-20 loosely tracking US-80 which did not go through Tyler. Both Longview and Tyler have grown predominantly on the opposite side of town from I-20 making it even more pronounced.

I-35 was a 1950's -60's construct. I-20 & I-30 were 1960's -70's model.  Ironically, we are back on the pre-1965 model of building most of the freeways either over the top or immediately adjacent to the existent US-Highway. Pretty certain that is not really a good thing.

[BJ59]

Yes, Downtown Tyler is about double the distance (10mi) from I-20 as either the downtowns of  Marshall or Longview (about 5 miles).  This is more a function of I-20 loosely tracking US-80 which did not go through Tyler. Both Longview and Tyler have grown predominantly on the opposite side of town from I-20 making it even more pronounced.

I-35 was a 1950's -60's construct. I-20 & I-30 were 1960's -70's model.  Ironically, we are back on the pre-1965 model of building most of the freeways either over the top or immediately adjacent to the existent US-Highway. Pretty certain that is not really a good thing.

They're probably building on top of existing highways because they won't have to acquire as much ROW as they would building a completely new stretch of highway. Even though the ROW they would have to acquire to build on an existing highway would be more expensive (removing businesses, houses, etc.) it is probably more cost effective in the long run as they already own much ROW from the existing highway. Building a completely new highway would require purchasing miles and miles of 200-300 ft wide land, which would add up pretty quickly in cost

[bwana39]

Yes, Downtown Tyler is about double the distance (10mi) from I-20 as either the downtowns of  Marshall or Longview (about 5 miles).  This is more a function of I-20 loosely tracking US-80 which did not go through Tyler. Both Longview and Tyler have grown predominantly on the opposite side of town from I-20 making it even more pronounced.

I-35 was a 1950's -60's construct. I-20 & I-30 were 1960's -70's model.  Ironically, we are back on the pre-1965 model of building most of the freeways either over the top or immediately adjacent to the existent US-Highway. Pretty certain that is not really a good thing.

They're probably building on top of existing highways because they won't have to acquire as much ROW as they would building a completely new stretch of highway. Even though the ROW they would have to acquire to build on an existing highway would be more expensive (removing businesses, houses, etc.) it is probably more cost effective in the long run as they already own much ROW from the existing highway. Building a completely new highway would require purchasing miles and miles of 200-300 ft wide land, which would add up pretty quickly in cost

What they figured out in the 1960's & 70's is that speculators would buy up the raw land on the greenfield routes. By the time they dealt with either prolonged negotiations or eminent domain proceedings, they were for sure over the budget they had estimated and often over the cost of using more highly developed land.  Greenfield routes were also less accommodating to gradual upgrades.

[MaxConcrete]

TxDOT held a meeting last week to present four alternatives for bringing I-69 into Laredo.
Meeting: https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/laredo/us59-feasibility-study-101923.html

PDF with alternatives: https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/lrd/us59-feasibility-study/101923-roll-plots.pdf

Slideshow, see page 6 for comparison matrix:  https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/lrd/us59-feasibility-study/101923-exhibit-boards.pdf

The purple alternative follows the existing US 59 alignment on the south side of the lake. It requires numerous displacements including about 31 homes in a trailer park. It has the most negative ratings in the matrix on page 6. It is almost certain to be eliminated, which is good because it is the longest and least efficient alignment.

Orange, pink and green are all good alignments, and all have only three potential displacements. Orange has the best ratings in the matrix and has the lowest cost of the non-purple alternatives, so I view it as the favorite to win.

[Bobby5280]

Yeah, the map makes it obvious the Orange route is the most direct and probably easiest to build. I guess the Pink alternative is nearby for which property owners offer the best sale prices for ROW. The Green alternative isn't bad either.

The Purple alternative is a bad option. It's the least direct route if motorists are heading in the direction of the I-69W/I-35 interchange. It's a shorter route if motorists are headed toward the downtown area of Laredo. In addition to wiping some properties on US-59 leading up to the intersection with the Bob Bullock Loop, the Purple alternative would force the issue of upgrading the rest of the Bob Bullock Loop to Interstate standards.

The area on the Bob Bullock Loop just North of the US-59 interchange is going to be tricky to upgrade (if such a thing ever happens). The existing 4-lane not-divided road is closely flanked by a golf course and a levee for Lake Casa Blanca. Just North of there the United ISD Food Production Center is directly in the path of any freeway expansion. The Orange, Pink and Green alternative connect to the Bob Bullock Loop to the North of that location.

The rest of the Bob Bullock Loop will have to be upgraded to Interstate quality at some point. So they'll have to deal with that golf course situation sooner or later.

[lordsutch]

As a former resident of the area, I agree that either the orange or pink alignment makes the most sense. I don't see enough future development on the existing US 59 corridor to make the purple alignment make a lot of sense, and I don't see any real advantage to joining the loop further south via the green or purple alignments.

As for future widening of Loop 20, I think the United ISD Food Production Facility is a goner; you can tell the ROW has been reserved for the widening to the north and south of there. I think it would be easy enough to build a replacement facility elsewhere.

[MaxConcrete]

There was a public meeting yesterday for the proposed alignment of the 13-mile-long Refugio bypass on I-69E. For those not familiar, Refugio is the longest urban street section of I-69E. The alignment looks good, direct and with very few curves.
https://www.txdot.gov/projects/hearings-meetings/corpus-christi/102523.html

Map
https://ftp.txdot.gov/pub/txdot/get-involved/crp/us77-woodsboro-refugio/100923-newsletter-map.pdf

[TheBox]

Nothing new, they just held a public meeting in more detail in Marshall Convection Center last month, but if everything goes into plan, construction would begin in 2028


https://www.marshallnewsmessenger.com/news/proposed-i-369-project-detailed-in-marshall/article_eb29bc58-4ce9-11ee-a81b-4fa39b5f3ee3.html

[Bobby5280]

Just in case someone hasn't mentioned it already, TX DOT is apparently at work on the next segment of I-69E from the South edge of Kingsville down to the North edge of Riviera. Google Street View imagery from 5/2023 shows grading work being done to the right of the Northbound US-77 main lines. I assume this is for new Northbound frontage road lanes.

[TheBox]

North of Houston, there's the Diboll bypass, the Lufkin expansion between Redland underpass and north of the loop, and of course the Nacogdoches realignment (all of which Bing maps has that Google Maps doesn't)

https://www.bing.com/maps/?cp=31.193858%7E-94.79407&lvl=13.9&style=a
https://www.bing.com/maps/?cp=31.383655%7E-94.711102&lvl=13.3&style=h
https://www.bing.com/maps/?cp=31.573538%7E-94.674679&lvl=13.3&style=h

and south of Houston is further extension/expansion to interstate standards from Kendleton down to Hungerford-Wharton, the southbound lanes of the Driscoll bypass, and as you just mentioned the Kingsville frontage roads and overpasses down to north of Riviera

and within Houston is just the notorious I-69/US-59 (Southwest Fwy) @ I-610 (West Loop) interchange

[TheBox]

also when are they gonna begin the long-overdue Corrigan bypass?
https://landline.media/u-s-59-texas-city-bypass-project-clears-route-for-future-i-69/

(I know this article's from last year but still)

[Bobby5280]

Construction on the Corrigan Bypass has been underway for some time. The project is still in early stages. Imagery is visible in Google Earth (8/10/2023). There is some Street View imagery on US-287 West of Corrigan where the bypass crosses.

[armadillo speedbump]

Now that Corrigan is under way, once all the current projects are finished 59 will be free flow all the way from Houston to Tennison, correct?  Still some speed zones, but overall a big advance for that corridor.

It would be nice if they can ditch the pork dream of the I69 leg to Shreveport and instead run more direct from Nacogdoches to Carthage.  Put in an I20 west to 59 south direct connector at Marshall and let that be I69 (longer but far more cost effective).  But I guess Congressional designation has tied TXDOT's hands?

[splashflash]

Another Nacogdoches relief bypass drone fly-over, from late August.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_s3aD3WDUA&list=PLBsL035xQ3p1NGtExumcHz0KAQ7Fhfi8T&index=20

[bwana39]

Now that Corrigan is under way, once all the current projects are finished 59 will be free flow all the way from Houston to Tennison, correct?  Still some speed zones, but overall a big advance for that corridor.

It would be nice if they can ditch the pork dream of the I69 leg to Shreveport and instead run more direct from Nacogdoches to Carthage.  Put in an I20 west to 59 south direct connector at Marshall and let that be I69 (longer but far more cost effective).  But I guess Congressional designation has tied TXDOT's hands?

If they build the bypass route that was the most recently discussed it will be closer. There are two possibilities. The second built to stay out of Rusk County (and the Tyler TxDOT region... less than five miles) .

The preferred route (which DOES go through Rusk county) would depart from the current US-59 west of Garrison and create a single loop around the north side of both Garrison and Timpson with a wider arc to a place on the current US-59 around Woods Community in Panola County. That point around Woods would be the I-69 / 369 Split. There would be around 20 miles from the state line to the I-49 around Frierson. The folks in DeSoto Parish HATE it. They want it to follow US-84 to Mansfield more or less.  That said, I really don't see I-69 from US-59 to I-49 being built at all unless the Speaker of the House gets some extraordinary funding for Louisiana in general and NW Louisiana specifically.

The second route would loop south of Garrison  and Timpson. and rejoin US59/84 near Bobo.From there it could either go on to Woods or along to the originally proposed short loop around Tenaha and cross the Sabine river north of Joaquin.

A greenfield route from Timpson to Carthage could take as much as 15 miles off the route if the Louisiana portion of I-69 were cancelled or it it was built from South of Carthage to Stonewall LA or Along US-79 to the LA state line.

[splashflash]

Was the reason to keep it out of Rusk Country because Rusk County had preferred US 259 up to Mt. Enterprise and TX-315 to Carthage as the I-69 route rather than close to the state border?  Going through the south east corner or the county would not bring any benefit to them only encroachment on land and loss of land tax revenue?